Preview THE CENTRE OF TRUTH eBook
Op.
131
THE
CENTRE
OF
TRUTH
A
collection
of
revised
and reformatted weblogs
by
John
O'Loughlin
Copyright
©
2011
John
O’Loughlin
__________________
CONTENTS
Concerning
Centretruths
Social
Theocratic
Pluralism
Saints
of
the
Examining
Resurrections
The
Axial
Relativity
of
Fact, Fiction, Falsity,
and Truth
Of
Whores,
Demons,
Saints,
and Angels
Rating
Soul
and
Pseudo-Soul
Rating
Ego
and
Pseudo-Ego
Rating
Spirit
and
Pseudo-Spirit
Rating
Will
and
Pseudo-Will
Overall
Rates
of
the
Elements and
Pseudo-Elements
Being,
Giving,
Taking,
and
Doing
Ratios
of
Soma
to
Psyche and of Psyche to Soma
Christmas
and
Easter
in
Axial Perspective
Divergence
and
Converge
in
Genuine and Pseudo
Modes
Innocence
and
Guilt
as
Correlative Factors
A
New
Light
on
Old Terms
From
X
to
Y
Open
and
Enclosed
as
Free and Bound
Aspects
of
Female
Hype
Devolution
and
Evolution
in
Positive and
Negative Modes
Anachronistic
nature
of
the
Fallacy
of
the
Alpha
Male
Noumenal
and
Phenomenal
Salutes
in Axial
Perspective
Two
Specific
Kinds
of
Saluting
The
Gender
Implications
of
Brollies and Hoods
The
Essence
of
Salvation
Bovaryizations
of
Salvation
Of
Poets
and
Dramatists
On
God
and
Godliness
The
True
End
of
Religion
What
is
a
Yippie?
The
True
Centre
of
Truth
Collectivism
and
Individualism
The
Alpha
and
Omega
of Life
________________
CONCERNING
CENTRETRUTHS
Centretruths
is
the
name
of my domain, but it is
also the name I give to a vast collection of philosophical writings by
me which
are what I would call 'true to the centre' and aimed, chronologically,
at 'the
centre of truth', which, as people may or may not know, is a godly
order of ego
associated with metaphysics and thus with the airy element par
excellence and, the way I figure it,
subatomically with photons rather than, say, protons, electrons, or
neutrons.
Thus
it
is
about
light, but not the light that
is 'freaked out' by heat, as in the case of sunlight, but the light
that is
internal and self-perpetuating and, in any ultimate sense, heavenly in
its
joyful beatitude.
Metaphysics
is
also
the
element that is more
about Heaven than about God, more about soul, one could say, than ego,
and
therefore it is only definitive and truly itself when it exists in a
kind of
least ego (or god) to most soul (or heaven) ratio, something, I have
argued in
certain of my books, which it has not done hitherto but will only do,
if it is
to do so at all, in the future, when metaphysics 'comes out' in its
true
colours and proclaims its entitlement to lead life beyond not only
previous
levels or manifestations of metaphysics, but every other elemental
alternative
to itself as well, the antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical
corollary of
itself duly excepted.
I
look
forward
to
such a 'coming out' of
metaphysics, and have done my best, in a succession of philosophical
works, to
make that possible.
SOCIAL
THEOCRATIC
PLURALISM
Social
Theocratic
pluralism
is
inextricably
linked to my concept of the Triadic Beyond, suitable, with due gender
segregation, to what should be, following a majority mandate for
religious
sovereignty out of the paradoxical utilization of the democratic
process in
certain countries with, like Eire, a church-hegemonic tradition,
peoples of
ex-catholic (top tier), ex-puritan (middle tier), and ex-Anglican
(bottom tier)
descent, with further provisions for peoples of ex-Buddhist (top tier),
ex-Moslem (middle tier), and ex-Judaic and/or Hindu (bottom tier)
descent. Thus
everybody would have his/her place in this triadic Beyond of the Social
Theocratic Centre, which stood for the overcoming of ethnic pluralism
in an
ethnic universality (Social Theocratic and/or Transcendentalist) which
was
inherently pluralistic.
The
institutional
edifice
(of
the Social
Theocratic Centre) would be constructed on a towering curvilinear basis
with a
centripetal structure, reminiscent (though not identical to) the
curvilinear
towers of early-Christian Celtic tradition. Thus
at the top,
a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical tier subdivisible between
supermasculine and
pseudo-superfeminine gender elements; in the middle, a
physical/pseudo-chemical
tier subdivisible between masculine and pseudo-feminine gender elements
deferential
(unlike their state-hegemonic axial predecessors of before) to
metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry; and at the bottom. a
chemical/pseudo-physical tier
subdivisible between feminine and pseudo-masculine gender elements
deferential
(unlike their metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical counterparts of before)
to
physics and pseudo-chemistry, with the long-term possibility for both
bottom-
and middle-tier peoples of further progress towards
metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry as evolutionary and
counter-devolutionary
pressures make for enhanced centro-complexification in the interests of
a
totalitarian - but still gender divisible - consummation earmarked for
space-centre apotheosis.
SAINTS
OF
THE
Since
I
customarily
think
in terms of what I
call the intercardinal axial compass stretching, on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, from southwest to northeast
and, on
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, from northwest to southeast,
I am
inclined to place a British Isles saint at each point of this compass,
rather
than to treat them all as identical (as one would suppose saints should
be
treated) and therefore positioned at the northeast point, where
metaphysics
rules supreme over pseudo-metachemistry.
For
it
seems
to
me that the only saint fully
commensurate with this position (composed, as noted, of two elements)
would be
St George, although not in relation to English Anglicanism but, rather,
to the
Catholic tradition that preceded the Reformation and subsequent
schismatic
activities of those deriving from Henry VIII’s
[VIII’s]apostasy. But if St George
with his foot on a prone or neutralized dragon, akin to
pseudo-metachemistry
under metaphysics, is the ideal candidate for the northeast point of
our intercardinal
axial compass, and this irrespective of England's departure from that
position
several centuries ago in favour of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria
rooted, metachemically, at the northwest point of the said compass,
then it
would seem feasible to position St Patrick, the vanquisher of snakes,
at the
southwest, in typically mass Irish Catholic vein (snakes don’t fly,
unlike
dragons), and allow Saints David and Andrew, the national saints of
Wales and
Scotland respectively, to stand at the northwest and southeast poles of
what
would be the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, as though in a
kind of
metachemical-to-physical polarity suggestive of a distinction between
fire and
earth rather than, say, water and air, a distinction that, politically,
would
have autocratic-to-democratic implications and, religiously,
Methodist-to-Puritan ones; though, in point of fact, I don't see that
axis in
terms of such a religious polarity but, rather, in relation to an
Anglican-to-Puritan one such that would have more applicability to
England than
to either Wales or Scotland, even granted the puritan or protestant
traditions
of these latter countries.
Nevertheless
that,
ironically,
is
how I view
the various saints of the British Isles, not all in one basket, as one
would
expect, but with one truly saintly individual, the metaphysical St
George with
his foot on a pseudo-metachemical dragon, and three 'bovaryized' saints
-
namely the watery or chemical/pseudo-physical St Patrick, the fiery or
metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical
St David, and the earthy or physical/pseudo-chemical St Andrew, all of
whom one
would expect to symbolize their respective countries in a way that
distinguished them from the English saint.
EXAMINING
RESURRECTIONS
Resurrection
of
the
'Son
of God' (sic) from the
'Pseudo-Son-of-Pseudo-Man'; Counter-Resurrection of the 'Son of Man'
from the
'Pseudo-Son-of-Pseudo-God'.
Therefore a free-somatic pseudo-physical precondition of
bound-somatic metaphysics (both happen to be primary as opposed to
secondary
state subordinate) is paralleled by a free-somatic pseudo-metaphysical
precondition of bound-somatic physics (both happen to be secondary
state
hegemonic). Logically - and ecclesiastically - all this leaves so much
to be
desired ... that it is a mystery how anyone could ever have taken
either
outcome seriously - least of all from a religious standpoint!
Resurrection of 'God the Father' (!) from
'Pseudo-Man-the-Pseudo-Father';
Counter-Resurrection of 'Man of Father' from
'Pseudo-God-the-Pseudo-Father'.
Therefore a bound-psychic pseudo-metaphysical precondition of
free-psychic
metaphysics (both happen to be primary as opposed to secondary church
hegemonic) is paralleled by a bound-psychic pseudo-metaphysical
precondition of
free-psychic physics (both happen to be secondary church subordinate). And these are the aspects of their respective
elements and/or pseudo-elements that are never mentioned, much less
considered,
by apologists of Christianity - namely the church aspects, whether
hegemonic
(catholic) or subordinate (protestant), notwithstanding the omission of
the
female elements and/or pseudo-elements from such a resurrectional
and/or
counter-resurrectional scenario.
Were the Christian civilization more than merely an extrapolation from
a kind
of Middle East anchor Judaically in back of itself, there would be no
place for
resurrectional theories at all. But precisely because it is - or was -
merely
extrapolative, as 'Son' from so-called 'Father' (in reality Devil the
Mother
hyped as God the Father, the ‘best of a bad job’ starting-point of
civilization), you end-up with a paradoxical logic that actually defies
logic
because that which is postulated as arising, in resurrection, is merely
the
somatic aspect of a totality of factors in which psyche, whether in
'Pseudo-Man-the-pseudo-Father' pseudo-physically or in 'God the Father'
metaphysically is necessarily absent.
And
the
same
of
course applies to the counter-resurrectional
position, scarcely acknowledged by Protestants, of the 'Son of Man'
from
'Pseudo-God-the-Pseudo-Son', a descent from northwest to southeast
points of
the intercardinal axial compass that leaves the church, and therefore
psychic
aspects (albeit secondary vis-à-vis anything metachemical to
pseudo-chemical),
entirely out of the theological frame.
THE
AXIAL
RELATIVITY
OF
FACT, FICTION, FALSITY,
AND TRUTH
To
contrast
the
fact
of metachemistry with the fiction of
pseudo-chemistry on the female (primary) side of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest
to the
southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, as one would
contrast
vanity with justice, or barbarity with civility, or clearness with
unclearness,
or, indeed, drama (wilfully active theatre) with fictitious literature
(novelistic long prose).
To contrast the pseudo-falsity of pseudo-metaphysics with the
pseudo-truth of
physics on the male (secondary) side of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis stretching, as above, from the northwest to the southeast points
of the
intercardinal axial compass, as one would contrast pseudo-meekness with
pseudo-righteousness, or pseudo-philistinism with pseudo-culture, or
pseudo-unholiness with pseudo-holiness or, indeed, pseudo-poetry
(stanza
divisible verse) with pseudo-philosophy (essayistic in its
long-prose-like
prolixity).
Hence the co-existence on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
of fact
with pseudo-falsity (metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest) and of
pseudo-truth with fiction (physical/pseudo-chemical southeast) - fact
and
fiction no less polar on the female side of this axis than
pseudo-falsity and
pseudo-truth are such on its male, or secondary, side.
Contrariwise, to contrast the truth of metaphysics with the falsity of
pseudo-physics on the male (primary) side of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the northeast
to the
southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass, as one would
contrast
righteousness with meekness, or culture with philistinism, or holiness
with
unholiness or, indeed, philosophy (aphoristic in its noumenal
concision) with
poetry (indivisible block-like verse).
To contrast the pseudo-fiction of pseudo-metachemistry with the
pseudo-fact of
chemistry on the female side (secondary) of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching, as above, from the
northeast to the southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass,
as one
would contrast pseudo-justice with pseudo-vanity, or pseudo-civility
with
pseudo-barbarity, or pseudo-unclearness with pseudo-clearness or,
indeed,
pseudo-literature (fictitious short prose) with pseudo-drama
(speech-oriented
theatre that is accordingly more spirit than will).
Hence the co-existence on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
of truth
with pseudo-fiction (metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast) and of
pseudo-fact with falsity (chemical/pseudo-physical southwest) - truth
and
falsity no less polar on the male side of this axis than pseudo-fiction
and
pseudo-fact on its female, or secondary, side.
Fact and truth are the alpha and omega of things hegemonically
noumenal;
pseudo-falsity and pseudo-fiction the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of
things
subordinately noumenal, as in relation to pseudo-metaphysics under
metachemistry and pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics.
Pseudo-fact and pseudo-truth are the alpha and omega of things
hegemonically
phenomenal; falsity and fiction the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of
things
subordinately phenomenal, as in relation to pseudo-physics under
chemistry and
pseudo-chemistry under physics.
Hence the absolute distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics in
relation to the alpha and omega of the hegemonic noumenal positions has
to be
contrasted with the pseudo-absolute distinction between
pseudo-metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry in relation to the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha
of the
subordinate noumenal positions.
Hence, too, the relative distinction between chemistry and physics in
relation
to the alpha and omega of the hegemonic phenomenal positions has to be
contrasted with the pseudo-relative distinction between pseudo-physics
and
pseudo-chemistry in relation to the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of
the
subordinate phenomenal positions.
In terms of axial polarity, the clearness of space in the space of
clearness
vis-à-vis the unclearness of pseudo-volume in the pseudo-volume of
unclearness
has to be contrasted with the pseudo-unholiness of pseudo-time in the
pseudo-time of pseudo-unholiness vis-à-vis the pseudo-holiness of mass
in the
mass of pseudo-holiness on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the
intercardinal
axial compass.
Again, in terms of axial polarity, the holiness of time in the time of
holiness
vis-à-vis the unholiness of pseudo-mass in the pseudo-mass of
unholiness has to
be contrasted with the pseudo-unclearness of pseudo-space in the
pseudo-space
of pseudo-unclearness vis-à-vis the pseudo-clearness of volume in the
volume of
pseudo-clearness on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
stretching from
the northeast to the southwest points of the intercardinal axial
compass.
OF
WHORES,
DEMONS,
SAINTS,
AND ANGELS
Just
as
the
vain
are unequivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-meek
at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so it could
be said
that the former correspond to whores and the latter to pseudo-demons,
in
keeping with a metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical distinction analogous
to that
between drama and pseudo-poetry or fact and pseudo-falsity.
Just as the pseudo-righteous are equivocally hegemonic over the just at
the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, so it could be said
that
the former correspond to pseudo-saints and the latter to angels, in
keeping
with a physical/pseudo-chemical distinction analogous to that between
pseudo-philosophy and novelistic literature or pseudo-truth and fiction.
Thus whores and angels would be in polarity on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, with pseudo-demons and
pseudo-saints their polar counterparts on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, as germane, to males.
Conversely, just as the righteous are unequivocally hegemonic over the
pseudo-just at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass,
so it
could be said that the former correspond to saints and the latter to
pseudo-angels, in keeping with a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical
distinction
analogous to that between philosophy and pseudo-literature or truth and
pseudo-fiction.
Just as the pseudo-vain are equivocally hegemonic over the meek at the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so it could be said
that
the former correspond to pseudo-whores and the latter to demons, in
keeping
with a chemical/pseudo-physical distinction analogous to that between
pseudo-drama and poetry or pseudo-fact and falsity.
Thus saints and demons would be in polarity on primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, with pseudo-angels and
pseudo-whores their polar counterparts on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, as germane to females.
The demonic 'last' shall be saintly 'first' in the salvation of the
meek to
righteousness, as from phenomenal underplane pseudo-physics to noumenal
overplane metaphysics.
Conversely, the pseudo-whorish 'first' shall be pseudo-angelic 'last'
in the
counter-damnation of the pseudo-vain to pseudo-justice, as from
phenomenal
overplane chemistry to noumenal underplane pseudo-metachemistry.
The whorish 'first' shall be angelic 'last' in the damnation of the
vain to
justice, as from noumenal overplane metachemistry to phenomenal
underplane
pseudo-chemistry.
Conversely, the pseudo-demonic 'last' shall be pseudo-saintly 'first'
in the
counter-salvation of the pseudo-meek to pseudo-righteousness, as from
noumenal
underplane pseudo-metaphysics to phenomenal overplane physics.
Be that as it may, this should be only a temporary situation pending, I
shall
contend, the axial transference of the original physical and
pseudo-chemical,
pseudo-righteous and just, to the middle tier of my projected triadic
Beyond
under the metaphysical righteous and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-just,
but over
the last-to-be-transferred neo-chemical and neo-pseudo-physical (those
who had
been metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical), who will take up bottom
tier positions
in the overall ethnic pluralism of the said Beyond ... of what should
be a
'resurrected' church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis earmarked for
gradual
upwards-tending centro-complexification as and when 'the Centre', or
overall
arrangement of triadic Beyond and administrative aside, gravitates from
earth
to space in space-centre apotheosis - a point in Eternity and
pseudo-Infinity
when only metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, righteousness and
pseudo-justice, saints and pseudo-angels, would have any relevance,
given the
time/pseudo-space heights of the context in question.
All such eschatological speculation may seem a little farfetched at
present,
but I can see the logic of it and am convinced of its moral
desirability ... if
undesirable alternatives are to be systematically avoided. If this is a
kind of
blueprint for 'Kingdom Come', or a society characterized by the
dominance of an
ultimate evolutionary stage (cyborgistic) of metaphysics ... in which
what in
the past I have called 'religious sovereignty' will be the general
rule, then
such a blueprint, based in sound sustainable logic, should be possible
both to
implement and bring to practical fruition for the sake of those who
would
otherwise continue to fall victim to whores and pseudo-demons whose
polarities
merely co-exist with them in an axial partnership aimed at the
financial
exploitation and cultural degradation of the pseudo-whorish pseudo-vain
and
demonic meek, the latter of whom may have inherited a pseudo-earth
under
purgatory, but will not inherit a heaven over pseudo-hell until they
have been
saved to righteousness and their female counterparts counter-damned to
pseudo-justice, neither of which can - nor ever should - exist
independently of
the other.
RATING
SOUL
AND
PSEUDO-SOUL
To
distinguish
the
first-rate
soul of joy in
metaphysical free psyche from the first-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-love
in
pseudo-metachemical free psyche, as one would distinguish Heaven the
Holy Soul
from the Unclear Soul of Pseudo-Hell.
To
distinguish
the
second-rate
soul of pleasure
in physical free psyche from the second-rate pseudo-soul of
pseudo-pride in
pseudo-chemical free psyche, as one would distinguish Earth the Holy
Soul from
the Unclear Soul of Pseudo-Purgatory.
To
distinguish
the
third-rate
soul of humility
in chemical bound psyche from the third-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-pain
in
pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the Clear Soul
of
Purgatory from Pseudo-Earth the Unholy Soul.
To
distinguish
the
fourth-rate
soul of hatred in
metachemical bound psyche from the fourth-rate pseudo-soul of
pseudo-woe in
pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the Clear
Soul of
Hell from Pseudo-Heaven the Unholy Soul.
Thus
first-rate
soul,
being
metaphysically
free, is joyful; second-rate soul, being physically free, is
pleasurable;
third-rate soul, being chemically bound, is humble; and fourth-rate
soul, being
metachemically bound, is hateful – the former alternatives positively
male
(holy) and the latter alternatives negatively female (clear).
Thus
first-rate
pseudo-soul,
being
pseudo-metachemically
free, is pseudo-loving; second-rate pseudo-soul,
being
pseudo-chemically free, is pseudo-proud; third-rate pseudo-soul, being
pseudo-physically bound, is pseudo-painful; and fourth-rate
pseudo-soul, being
pseudo-metaphysically bound, is pseudo-woeful – the former alternatives
positively pseudo-female (unclear) and the latter alternatives
negatively
pseudo-male (unholy).
From
the
most
soulful
omega of joy to the least
soulful omega of hate via the more (relative to most) soulful omega of
pleasure
and the less (relative to least) soulful omega of humility is
significant of a
descending scale of soul from positive male to negative female.
From
the
most
pseudo-soulful
omega of pseudo-love
to the least pseudo-soulful omega of pseudo-woe via the more (relative
to most)
pseudo-soulful omega of pseudo-pride and the less (relative to least)
pseudo-soulful omega of pseudo-pain is significant of a descending
scale of
pseudo-soul from positive pseudo-female to negative pseudo-male.
I
shall
say
nothing,
here, of ego, spirit, and
will, all of which could be subjected to similar categorizations as the
above
(soul).
RATING
EGO
AND
PSEUDO-EGO
To
distinguish
the
first-rate
ego of knowledge
in physical free psyche from the first-rate pseudo-ego of
pseudo-strength in
pseudo-chemical free psyche, as one would distinguish Man the Father
from the
Pseudo-Daughter of Pseudo-Woman.
To
distinguish
the
second-rate
ego of truth in
metaphysical free psyche from the second-rate pseudo-ego of
pseudo-beauty in
pseudo-metachemical free psyche, as one would distinguish God the
Father from
the Pseudo-Daughter of the Pseudo-Devil.
To
distinguish
the
third-rate
ego of ugliness
in metachemical bound psyche from the third-rate pseudo-ego of
pseudo-illusion
in pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the
Daughter of
the Devil from Pseudo-God the Pseudo-Father.
To
distinguish
the
fourth-rate
ego of weakness in
chemical bound psyche from the fourth-rate pseudo-ego of
pseudo-ignorance in
pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the Daughter of
Woman
from Pseudo-Man the Pseudo-Father.
Thus
first-rate
ego,
being
physically free, is
knowledgeable; second-rate ego, being metaphysically free, is truthful;
third-rate ego, being metachemically bound, is ugly; and fourth-rate
ego, being
chemically bound, is weak – the former alternatives positively male
(fatherly)
and the latter alternatives negatively female (daughterly).
Thus
first-rate
pseudo-ego,
being
pseudo-chemically
free, is pseudo-strong; second-rate pseudo-ego, being
pseudo-metachemically free, is pseudo-beautiful; third-rate pseudo-ego,
being
pseudo-metaphysically bound, is pseudo-illusory; and fourth-rate
pseudo-ego,
being pseudo-physically bound, is pseudo-ignorant – the former
alternatives
positively pseudo-female (pseudo-daughterly) and the latter
alternatives
negatively pseudo-male (pseudo-fatherly).
From
the
most
egoistic
omega of knowledge to
the least egoistic omega of weakness via the more (relative to most)
egoistic
omega of truth and the less (relative to least) egoistic omega of
ugliness is
significant of a descending scale of ego from positive male to negative
female.
From
the
most
pseudo-egoistic
omega of
pseudo-strength to the least pseudo-egoistic omega of pseudo-ignorance
via the
more (relative to most) pseudo-egoistic omega of pseudo-beauty and the
less
(relative to least) pseudo-egoistic omega of pseudo-illusion is
significant of
a descending scale of pseudo-ego from positive pseudo-female to
negative
pseudo-male.
I
shall
say
nothing,
here, of spirit and will,
both of which, like soul before and ego above, could be subjected to
similar
categorizations.
RATING
SPIRIT
AND
PSEUDO-SPIRIT
To
distinguish
the
first-rate
spirit of pride
in chemical free soma from the first-rate pseudo-spirit of
pseudo-pleasure in
pseudo-physical free soma, as one would distinguish Purgatory the Clear
Spirit
from the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Earth.
To
distinguish
the
second-rate
spirit of love
in metachemical free soma from the second-rate pseudo-spirit of
pseudo-joy in
pseudo-metaphysical free soma, as one would distinguish Hell the Clear
Spirit
from the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Heaven.
To
distinguish
the
third-rate
spirit of woe in
metaphysical bound soma from the third-rate pseudo-spirit of
pseudo-hatred in
pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Holy
Spirit of
Heaven from Pseudo-Hell the Unclear Spirit.
To
distinguish
the
fourth-rate
spirit of pain
in physical bound soma from the fourth-rate pseudo-spirit of
pseudo-humility in
pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Holy Spirit of
Earth
from Pseudo-Purgatory the Unclear Spirit.
Thus
first-rate
spirit,
being
chemically free,
is proud; second-rate spirit, being metachemically free, is loving;
third-rate
spirit, being metaphysically bound, is woeful; and fourth-rate spirit,
being
physically bound, is painful – the former alternatives positively
female
(clear) and the latter alternatives negatively male (holy).
Thus
first-rate
pseudo-spirit,
being
pseudo-physically
free, is pseudo-pleasurable; second-rate
pseudo-spirit, being
pseudo-metaphysically free, is pseudo-joyful; third-rate pseudo-spirit,
being
pseudo-metachemically bound, is pseudo-hateful; and fourth-rate
pseudo-spirit,
being pseudo-chemically bound, is pseudo-humble – the former
alternatives
positively pseudo-male (unholy) and the latter alternatives negatively
pseudo-female (unclear).
From
the
most
spiritual
alpha of pride to the
least spiritual alpha of pain via the more (relative to most) spiritual
alpha
of love and the less (relative to least) spiritual alpha of woe is
significant
of a descending scale of spirit from positive female to negative male.
From
the
most
pseudo-spiritual
alpha of
pseudo-pleasure to the least pseudo-spiritual alpha of pseudo-humility
via the
more (relative to most) pseudo-spiritual alpha of pseudo-joy and the
less
(relative to least) pseudo-spiritual alpha of pseudo-hatred is
significant of a
descending scale of pseudo-spirit from positive pseudo-male to negative
pseudo-female.
I
shall
say
nothing,
here, of will, which, like
soul and ego before and spirit above, could be subjected to similar
categorizations.
RATING
WILL
AND
PSEUDO-WILL
To
distinguish
the
first-rate
will of beauty in
metachemical free soma from the first-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-truth
in
pseudo-metaphysical free soma, as one would distinguish Devil the
Mother from
the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-God.
To
distinguish
the
second-rate
will of strength
in chemical free soma from the second-rate pseudo-will of
pseudo-knowledge in
pseudo-physical free soma, as one would distinguish Woman the Mother
from the
Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-Man.
To
distinguish
the
third-rate
will of ignorance
in physical bound soma from the third-rate pseudo-will of
pseudo-weakness in
pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Son of Man
from
Pseudo-Woman the Pseudo-Mother.
To
distinguish
the
fourth-rate
will of illusion
in metaphysical bound soma from the fourth-rate pseudo-will of
pseudo-ugliness
in pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Son of
God from
Pseudo-Devil the Pseudo-Mother.
Thus
first-rate
will,
being
metachemically
free, is beautiful; second-rate will, being chemically free, is strong;
third-rate will, being physically bound, is ignorant; and fourth-rate
will,
being metaphysically bound, is illusory – the former alternatives
positively
female (motherly) and the latter alternatives negatively male
(pseudo-sonful).
Thus
first-rate
pseudo-will,
being
pseudo-metaphysically
free, is pseudo-truthful; second-rate
pseudo-will, being
pseudo-physically free, is pseudo-knowledgeable; third-rate
pseudo-will, being
pseudo-chemically bound, is pseudo-weak; and fourth-rate pseudo-will,
being
pseudo-metachemically bound, is pseudo-ugly – the former alternatives
positively pseudo-male (pseudo-sonful) and the latter alternatives
negatively
pseudo-female (pseudo-motherly).
From
the
most
wilful
alpha of beauty to the
least wilful alpha of illusion via the more (relative to most) wilful
alpha of
strength and the less (relative to least) wilful alpha of ignorance is
significant of a descending scale of will from positive female to
negative
male.
From
the
most
pseudo-wilful
alpha of
pseudo-truth to the least pseudo-wilful alpha of pseudo-ugliness via
the more
(relative to most) pseudo-wilful alpha of pseudo-knowledge and the less
(relative to least) pseudo-wilful alpha of pseudo-weakness is
significant of a
descending scale of pseudo-will from positive pseudo-male to negative
pseudo-female.
I
have
now
dealt
with all the positions, from
soul and ego to spirit and will, pseudo-soul and pseudo-ego to
pseudo-spirit
and pseudo-will, that could be categorized in such
fashions,
thereby bringing this series of weblogs to a successful conclusion.
OVERALL
RATES
OF
THE
ELEMENTS AND
PSEUDO-ELEMENTS
Metaphysics
combines
the
first-rate
soul of joy
(Heaven the Holy Soul) with the second-rate ego of truth (God the
Father), the
third-rate spirit of woe (the Holy Spirit of Heaven), and the
fourth-rate will
of illusion (the Son of God), all of which are subordinately
accompanied, in
pseudo-metachemistry, by the first-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-love (the
Unclear
Soul of Pseudo-Hell), the second-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-beauty (the
Pseudo-Daughter of Pseudo-Devil), the third-rate pseudo-spirit of
pseudo-hatred
(Pseudo-Hell the Unclear Spirit), and the fourth-rate pseudo-will of
pseudo-ugliness (Pseudo-Devil the Pseudo-Mother), albeit in terms of a
1:3 as
opposed to 3:1 ratio of psyche (soul and ego) to soma (spirit and will)
as
germane to pseudo-space under time, or noumenal pseudo-objectivity
under
noumenal subjectivity at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass.
Physics
combines
the
first-rate
ego of
knowledge (Man the Father) with the second-rate soul of pleasure (Earth
the
Holy Soul), the third-rate will of ignorance (the Son of Man), and the
fourth-rate spirit of pain (the Holy Spirit of Earth), all of which are
subordinately accompanied, in pseudo-chemistry, by the first-rate
pseudo-ego of pseudo-strength (the
Pseudo-Daughter of Pseudo-Woman), the second-rate pseudo-soul of
pseudo-pride
(the Unclear Soul of Pseudo-Purgatory), the third-rate pseudo-will of
pseudo-weakness (Pseudo-Woman the Pseudo-Mother), and the fourth-rate
pseudo-spirit of pseudo-humility (Pseudo-Purgatory the Unclear Spirit),
albeit
in terms of a 1½:2½ as opposed to 2½:1½ ratio of psyche (ego and soul)
to soma
(will and spirit) as germane to pseudo-volume under mass, or phenomenal
pseudo-objectivity under phenomenal subjectivity at the southeast point
of the
intercardinal axial compass.
Chemistry
combines
the
first-rate
spirit of
pride (Purgatory the Clear Spirit) with the second-rate will of
strength (Woman
the Mother), the third-rate soul of humility (the Clear Soul of
Purgatory), and
the fourth-rate ego of weakness (the Daughter of Woman), all of which
are
subordinately accompanied, in pseudo-physics, by the first-rate
pseudo-spirit
of pseudo-pleasure (the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Earth), the second-rate
will of
pseudo-knowledge (the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-Man), the third-rate
pseudo-soul of
pseudo-pain (Pseudo-Earth the Unholy Soul), and the fourth-rate ego of
pseudo-ignorance (Pseudo-Man the Pseudo-Father), albeit in terms of a
1½:2½ as
opposed to 2½:1½ ratio of soma (spirit and will) to psyche (soul and
ego) as
germane to pseudo-mass under volume, or phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity
under
phenomenal objectivity at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass.
Metachemistry
combines
the
first-rate
will of
beauty (Devil the Mother) with the second-rate spirit of love (Hell the
Clear
Spirit), the third-rate ego of ugliness (the Daughter of
Devil-the-Mother), and
the fourth-rate soul of hatred (the Clear Soul of Hell), all of which
are
subordinately accompanied, in pseudo-metaphysics, by the first-rate
pseudo-will
of pseudo-truth (the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-God), the second-rate
pseudo-spirit
of pseudo-joy (the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Heaven), the third-rate
pseudo-ego
of pseudo-illusion (Pseudo-God the Pseudo-Father), and the fourth-rate
pseudo-soul of pseudo-woe (Pseudo-Heaven the Unholy Soul), albeit in
terms of a
1:3 as opposed to 3:1 ratio of soma (will and spirit) to psyche (ego
and soul)
as germane to pseudo-time under space, or noumenal pseudo-subjectivity
under
noumenal objectivity at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass.
BEING,
TAKING,
GIVING,
AND
DOING
The
Being
of
Soul,
which is metaphysically
joyful, is positively blessed with the Soul of Being, which is
psychically
free; the Taking of Soul, which is metaphysically truthful, is
positively
blessed with the Soul of Taking, which is psychically free; the Giving
of Soul,
which is metaphysically woeful, is negatively blessed with the Soul of
Giving,
which is somatically bound; the Doing of Soul, which is metaphysically
illusory, is negatively blessed with the Soul of Doing, which is
somatically
bound.
The
Taking
of
Ego,
which is physically knowing,
is positively counter-blessed with the Ego of Taking, which is
psychically
free; the Being of Ego, which is physically pleasurable, is positively
counter-blessed with the Ego of Being, which is psychically free; the
Doing of
Ego, which is physically ignorant, is negatively counter-blessed with
the Ego
of Doing, which is somatically bound; the Giving of Ego, which is
physically
painful, is negatively counter-blessed with the Ego of Giving, which is
somatically bound.
The
Giving
of
Spirit,
which is chemically
proud, is positively counter-uncursed with the Spirit of Giving, which
is
somatically free; the Doing of Spirit, which is chemically strong, is
positively counter-uncursed with the Spirit of Doing, which is
somatically
free; the Being of Spirit, which is chemically humble, is negatively
counter-uncursed with the Spirit of Being, which is psychically bound;
the
Taking of Spirit, which is chemically weak, is negatively
counter-uncursed with
the Spirit of Taking, which is psychically bound.
The
Doing
of
Will,
which is metachemically
beautiful, is positively uncursed with the Will of Doing, which is
somatically
free; the Giving of Will, which is metachemically loving, is positively
uncursed with the Will of Giving, which is somatically free; the Taking
of
Will, which is metachemically ugly, is negatively uncursed with the
Will of
Taking, which is psychically bound; the Being of Will, which is
metachemically
hateful, is negatively uncursed with the Will of Being, which is
psychically
bound.
The
Pseudo-Being
of
Pseudo-Soul,
which is
pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-woeful, is negatively counter-unblessed
with the
Pseudo-Soul of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically bound; the
Pseudo-Taking of
Pseudo-Soul, which is pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-illusory, is
negatively
counter-unblessed with the Pseudo-Soul of Pseudo-Taking, which is
psychically
bound; the Pseudo-Giving of Pseudo-Soul, which is pseudo-metaphysically
pseudo-joyful, is positively counter-unblessed with the Pseudo-Soul of
Pseudo-Giving, which is somatically free; the Pseudo-Doing of
Pseudo-Soul,
which is pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-truthful, is positively
counter-unblessed
with the Pseudo-Soul of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically free.
The
Pseudo-Taking
of
Pseudo-Ego,
which is pseudo-physically
pseudo-ignorant, is negatively unblessed with the Pseudo-Ego of
Pseudo-Taking,
which is psychically bound; the Pseudo-Being of Pseudo-Ego, which is
pseudo-physically pseudo-painful, is negatively unblessed with the
Pseudo-Ego
of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically bound; the Pseudo-Doing of
Pseudo-Ego,
which is pseudo-physically pseudo-knowing, is positively unblessed with
the
Pseudo-Ego of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically free; the
Pseudo-Giving of
Pseudo-Ego, which is pseudo-physically pseudo-pleasurable, is
positively
unblessed with the Pseudo-Ego of Pseudo-Giving, which is somatically
free.
The
Pseudo-Giving
of
Pseudo-Spirit,
which is
pseudo-chemically pseudo-humble, is negatively cursed with the
Pseudo-Spirit of
Pseudo-Giving, which is somatically bound; the Pseudo-Doing of
Pseudo-Spirit,
which is pseudo-chemically pseudo-weak, is negatively cursed with the
Pseudo-Spirit of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically bound; the
Pseudo-Being of
Pseudo-Spirit, which is pseudo-chemically pseudo-proud, is positively
cursed
with the Pseudo-Spirit of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically free; the
Pseudo-Taking of Pseudo-Spirit, which is pseudo-chemically
pseudo-strong, is
positively cursed with the Pseudo-Spirit of Pseudo-Taking, which is
psychically
free.
The
Pseudo-Doing
of
Pseudo-Will,
which is
pseudo-metachemically pseudo-ugly, is negatively counter-cursed with
the
Pseudo-Will of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically bound; the
Pseudo-Giving of
Pseudo-Will, which is pseudo-metachemically pseudo-hateful, is
negatively
counter-cursed with the Pseudo-Will of Pseudo-Giving, which is
somatically
bound; the Pseudo-Taking of Pseudo-Will, which is pseudo-metachemically
pseudo-beautiful, is positively counter-cursed with the Pseudo-Will of
Pseudo-Taking, which is psychically free; the Pseudo-Being of
Pseudo-Will,
which is pseudo-metachemically pseudo-loving, is positively
counter-cursed with
the Pseudo-Will of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically free.
RATIOS
OF
SOMA
TO
PSYCHE AND OF PSYCHE TO SOMA
The
3:1
ratio
of
free soma (body) to bound
psyche (mind) in metachemistry, a noumenally objective element
(protonic),
could be described in terms of the super-predominance (superdominance)
of free
soma over the sub-preponderance (subponderance) of bound psyche,
corresponding
to a superfeminine/submasculine dichotomy which, on other occasions, I
have
identified with a distinction between supersensuousness and
subconsciousness,
or superheathenism and subchristianity, or even supernaturalism (evil)
and
subnurturalism (crime).
By
contrast,
the
3:1
ratio of free psyche to
bound soma in metaphysics, a noumenally subjective element (photonic),
could be
described in terms of the super-preponderance (superponderance) of free
psyche
over the sub-predominance (subdominance) of bound soma, corresponding
to a
supermasculine/subfeminine dichotomy which, on other occasions, I have
identified with a distinction between superconsciousness and
subsensuousness,
or superchristianity and subheathenism, or even supernurturalism
(grace) and subnaturalism
(wisdom).
On
the
other
hand,
the 2½: 1½ ratio of free
soma to bound psyche in chemistry, a phenomenally objective element
(electronic), could be described in terms of the predominance of free
soma over
the un-preponderance (unponderance) of bound psyche, corresponding to a
feminine/unmasculine dichotomy which, on other occasions, I have
identified
with a distinction between sensuousness and unconsciousness, or
heathenism and
unchristianity, or even naturalism (pseudo-evil) and unnurturalism
(pseudo-crime).
By
contrast,
the
2½:
1½ ratio of free psyche to
bound soma in physics, a phenomenally subjective element (neutronic),
could be
described in terms of the preponderance of free psyche over the
un-predominance
(undominance) of bound soma, corresponding to a masculine/unfeminine
dichotomy
which, on other occasions, I have identified with a distinction between
consciousness and unsensuousness, or christianity and unheathenism, or
even
nurturalism (pseudo-grace) and unnaturalism (pseudo-.wisdom).
Passing
from
the
elements
to the
pseudo-elements, the 3:1 ratio of bound soma to free psyche in
pseudo-metachemistry, a noumenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element
(pseudo-protonic) conditioned by the noumenally subjective hegemony of
metaphysics, could be described in terms of the super-predominance
(superdominance) of bound soma over the sub-preponderance
(subponderance) of
free psyche, corresponding to a
pseudo-superfeminine/pseudo-submasculine
dichotomy which I would identify with a distinction between
pseudo-supersensuousness
and pseudo-subconsciousness, or pseudo-superheathenism and
pseudo-subchristianity, or even pseudo-supernaturalism
(pseudo-goodness) and
pseudo-subnurturalism (pseudo-punishingness).
By
contrast,
the
3:1
ratio of bound psyche to
free soma in pseudo-metaphysics, a noumenally pseudo-subjective
pseudo-element
(pseudo-photonic) conditioned by the noumenally objective hegemony of
metachemistry, could be described in terms of the super-preponderance
(superponderance) of bound psyche over the sub-predominance
(subdominance) of
free soma, corresponding to a pseudo-supermasculine/pseudo-subfeminine
dichotomy which I would identify with a distinction between
pseudo-superconsciousness and pseudo-subsensuousness, or
pseudo-superchristianity and pseudo-subheathenism, or even
pseudo-supernurturalism (pseudo-sin) and pseudo-subnaturalism
(pseudo-foolishness).
On
the
other
hand,
the 2½:1½ ratio of bound
soma to free psyche in pseudo-chemistry, a phenomenally
pseudo-objective
pseudo-element (pseudo-electronic) conditioned by the phenomenally
subjective
hegemony of physics, could be described in terms of the predominance of
bound
soma over the un-preponderance (unponderance) of free psyche,
corresponding to
a pseudo-feminine/pseudo-unmasculine dichotomy which I would identify
with a
distinction between pseudo-unsensuousness and pseudo-consciousness, or
pseudo-unheathenism and pseudo-christianity, or even
pseudo-unnaturalism
(goodness) and pseudo-nurturalism (punishingness).
Finally,
the
2½:
1½
ratio of bound psyche to
free soma in pseudo-physics, a phenomenally pseudo-subjective
pseudo-element
(pseudo-neutronic) conditioned by the phenomenally objective hegemony
of
chemistry, could be described in terms of the preponderance of bound
psyche
over the un-predominance (undominance) of free soma, corresponding to a
pseudo-masculine/pseudo-unfeminine dichotomy which I would identify
with a
distinction between pseudo-unconsciousness and pseudo-sensuousness, or
pseudo-unchristianity and pseudo-heathenism, or even
pseudo-unnurturalism (sin)
and pseudo-naturalism (foolishness).
CHRISTMAS
AND
EASTER
IN
AXIAL PERSPECTIVE
The
polarity
of
Christianity
between Christmas
and Easter exists, I maintain, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial terms
… in relation to the nativity heathenism, so to speak, of the southwest
point
of the intercardinal axial compass and the resurrectional or, rather,
crucifixional Christianity of its northeast point, these points
constitutive of
a polarity between female-dominated and male-dominated contexts, the
chemical/pseudo-physical southwest point and the
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point, both of which adhere,
in
Catholic vein, to church-hegemonic axial criteria, as noted above.
Now
if
the
Christ
child on his mother’s knee,
shall we say, is no better than an antichrist or, rather, the
Pseudo-Son of
Pseudo-Man, it has to be said that the elemental/pseudo-elemental
contexts of
chemistry and pseudo-physics, corresponding to purgatory and
pseudo-earth, also
embrace, besides free somatic aspects, bound psychic ones, which ought
really
to be described in terms of the Daughter of Woman (chemistry) and
Pseudo-Man
the Pseudo-Father (pseudo-physics), neither of which would strictly
adhere to
the ‘Mother/Son’ focus of the Christmas, or nativity-like, setting of
the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, if only because
Christianity cannot afford to be too complex or even too logical,
notwithstanding the curtailments and fudges imposed upon it as a mere
extrapolative religion – and culture – from Middle Eastern precedent.
Be
that
as
it
may, the Easter polarity to this
heathenistic relativity of ‘mother and child’ (son) is rather more
male-hegemonic, as befitting what appertains to the northeast point of
the
intercardinal axial compass, and in any crucifixional scene in which a
prone
‘Mother of God’ (sic), or Mary, the mother of Jesus, is distraughtly at
the
foot of the Cross … upon which her son is raised up to virtual Y-like
independence … we have a relationship seemingly the reverse of the
nativity-type one, a relationship, I mean, which seems to parallel that
of St
George and the Dragon, of a male hegemony, in metaphysics, over a
pseudo-female
subordination, in pseudo-metachemistry, the latter of which, duly
neutralized,
is effectively pseudo-dragon, akin to a pseudo-jet (jump jet) under a
chopper,
or pseudo-space under time.
Thus
with
a
prone,
distraught Virgin Mary, one
has the equivalent, it seems to me, of the pseudo-dragon who or which
has been
neutralized by hegemonic male criteria, which towers over her in much
the same
way that the crucified Christ towers over the Virgin, who can only weep
at her
predicament … of no longer being a dominating mother-like figure but a
distinctly subordinate one in the overall crucifixional context, in
which
Christ is by far the dominant figure.
But
such
a
figure
limply hanging on the Cross
of course has a Y-like form emblematic, it seems to me, of male
chromosomal
selfhood, of a return to psychic self and indeed of independence of the
female. It is for this reason that one
would tend to identify the Catholic crucifixional figure, whose arms
are
stretched Y-like towards the heavens while his body sags under its own
weight,
with the ‘true cross’, since without a Y-like intimation of male
selfhood in
metaphysics there is simply the thing, rectilinear and materialist,
upon which
Christ was crucified, and that is of little intrinsic religious, i.e.
metaphysical, significance, being, if anything, opposed to such
significance.
It
is
for
this
reason that both the ornate
(Anglican) and plain (Puritan) crosses are mere abstractions from the
concrete
Y-intimating essence of the ‘true cross’, a religious and symbolic
degeneration
that would seem to parallel the ‘Star of David’ (a kind of cross,
though that
is not a concept or reality which would appeal to many Jews, given the
number
of Jews who were barbarously crucified upon crosses during Roman times)
abstraction of two interlocking triangles from the more concrete
representations
of gender interlocking that characterized such older religious
traditions as
the Hindu and even Babylonian.
An
abstraction
from
a
concrete embodiment of
self-affirmation, whether natural or human, pagan or christian,
is always a degeneration or decadence which effectively symbolizes the
rejection, puritanically, of natural (sexual) or human (spiritual)
aspirations. And, to be sure, the Cross
is itself a kind of extrapolation from the interlocking triangles of
the
so-called ‘Star of David’ emblem, a further attenuation, as it were, of
the
gender interlocking between male (below) and female (above) organs,
with the
vertical beam analogous to the one and the horizontal beam to the other.
Hence
both
Judaism
and
Protestantism are
parallel repudiations of concrete embodiments of natural and human
aspirations,
repudiations that lead nowhere but simply remain opposed to what
preceded them
in the older traditions from which they derive their almost puritanical
fear of
self, whether natural or human, sexual or (to use a conventional if
misleading
term) spiritual.
But
we
who
stretch
beyond humanity in our
yearning for cyborgistic apotheosis and Y-like definitiveness in the
most
perfect and evolved metaphysics, we cannot be persuaded by such
degenerate repudiations
of self, even if we are not particularly enamoured of the more concrete
traditions which precede them. We must
build away from the contemporary abstractions, which include cinema,
towards a
new concretism, a new reality, which will transcend human aspirations
as they
achieve a god-like or, rather, cyborgistic character in which heavenly
experience will be the metaphysical rule rather than the puritanical
exception,
notwithstanding the necessary part that will have to be played by
pseudo-metachemistry in pseudo-dragon-like vein if females are to be
brought to
a neutralized subordination analogous to the Easter relationship of the
prone
figure at the foot of the Cross to the limp Y-intimating body hanging
upon it.
There
can
be
no
Heaven where there is not
pseudo-Hell, and therefore no free male, risen Y-like ‘on high’,
without the
inescapable corollary of a bound and gagged (metaphorically speaking)
female,
whom we deem pseudo-female, and consider akin to a jump jet under a
chopper.
Counter-damnation
of
females
from
chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry is the inevitable corollary of the salvation of
males or,
rather, pseudo-males from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and in
‘Kingdom Come’,
the context or society I have long defined in relation to the
prevalence
(democratically mandated) of religious sovereignty,
those who are now pseudo-physically low (and
phenomenally meek) will be raised up to metaphysical highness (noumenal
righteousness), while those who are now chemically high (and
phenomenally pseudo-vain)
will be cast down to pseudo-metachemical lowness (noumenal
pseudo-justice), as
the gender positions are axially reversed in favour of the male and his
Y-like
freedom from XX-chromosomal persecution through seduction, a seduction,
going
all the way back to Eve, that allows the free female to abandon the
hell of
metachemical vacuity for the purgatory of a chemical surrogate plenum,
the
child that Christmas celebrates through the Nativity in effectively
heathenistic (female-dominated) vein, but which Easter opposes from the
standpoint of the fully Christian, even proto-Superchristian,
independent male,
whose heavenly resurrection (to self) would be inconceivable without a
Y-like
crucifixional affirmation of psychic self, the true, or soulful, self
that the
‘true cross’ cannot but symbolize through the concrete embodiment of
the
transfixed male.
DIVERGENCE
AND
CONVERGENCE
IN
GENUINE AND
PSEUDO MODES
To
contrast
the
noumenal
objectivity, and
therefore absolute divergence, of metachemistry with the noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity, and therefore absolute pseudo-convergence, of
pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast spatial space with sequential
time
(pseudo-time), or elemental particles with elemental pseudo-wavicles.
To
contrast
the
noumenal
subjectivity, and
therefore absolute convergence, of metaphysics with the noumenal
pseudo-objectivity, and therefore absolute pseudo-divergence, of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast repetitive time with spaced
space
(pseudo-space), or elemental wavicles with elemental pseudo-particles.
To
contrast
the
phenomenal
objectivity, and
therefore relative divergence, of chemistry with the phenomenal
pseudo-subjectivity, and therefore relative pseudo-convergence, of
pseudo-physics, as one would contrast volumetric volume with massed
mass
(pseudo-mass), or molecular particles with molecular pseudo-wavicles.
To
contrast
the
phenomenal
subjectivity, and
therefore relative convergence, of physics with the phenomenal
pseudo-objectivity, and therefore relative pseudo-divergence, of
pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast massive mass with voluminous
volume
(pseudo-volume), or molecular wavicles with molecular pseudo-particles.
Objectivity
diverges
in
straight
lines, whether
absolutely or relatively, from free squares or rectangles, whereas
pseudo-subjectivity pseudo-converges in curved lines, whether
absolutely or
relatively, from bound circles or ellipses (ovals), all of which,
conditioned
by a hegemonic vacuum, are ringful, or ring-like, in character.
Subjectivity
converges
in
curved
lines, whether
absolutely or relatively, from free circles or ellipses, whereas
pseudo-objectivity pseudo-diverges in straight lines, whether
absolutely or
relatively, from bound squares or rectangles, all of which, conditioned
by a hegemonic
plenum, are badgeful, or badge-like, in character.
That
said,
the
free
elements are no more
completely free than the bound ones (pseudo-elements) completely bound,
not
even in relation to absolute (noumenal) divergence or converge,
pseudo-convergence or pseudo-divergence.
The
objective
free
elements
are either
absolutely predominant (3:1 ratio of free soma to bound psyche in
metachemistry) or relatively predominant (2½:1½ ratio of free soma to
bound
psyche in chemistry), whereas the subjective free elements are either
absolutely preponderant (3:1 ratio of free psyche to bound soma in
metaphysics)
or relatively preponderant (2½:1½ ratio of free psyche to bound soma in
physics).
Correlatively,
the
pseudo-subjective
bound
pseudo-elements
are either absolutely pseudo-preponderant (3:1 ratio of
bound
psyche to free soma in pseudo-metaphysics) or relatively
pseudo-preponderant
(2½:1½ ratio of bound psyche to free soma in pseudo-physics), whereas
the
pseudo-objective bound pseudo-elements are either absolutely
pseudo-predominant
(3:1 ratio of bound soma to free psyche in pseudo-metachemistry) or
relatively
pseudo-predominant (2½:1½ ratio of bound soma to free psyche in
pseudo-chemistry).
Thus
the
gender
dichotomy
between female
objectivity and male subjectivity, pseudo-female pseudo-objectivity and
pseudo-male pseudo-subjectivity, is never total, since all elements and
pseudo-elements are combinations, to greater or lesser extends, of male
and
female aspects.
Nevertheless,
it
can
be
logically demonstrated
that objectivity is broadly female (in noumenal or phenomenal ratio
terms) and
pseudo-objectivity broadly pseudo-female (in noumenal or phenomenal
ratio
terms), whereas subjectivity is broadly male (in noumenal or phenomenal
ratio
terms) and pseudo-subjectivity broadly pseudo-male (in noumenal or
phenomenal
ratio terms).
Hence
the
absolutely
predominant
female
character, with(out) noumenal objectivity, of metachemistry as against
the
relatively predominant female character, with(out) phenomenal
objectivity, of
chemistry, both of which would correlatively contrast with the
absolutely
pseudo-preponderant pseudo-male character, with(in) noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity, of pseudo-metaphysics and the relatively
pseudo-preponderant pseudo-male character, with(in) phenomenal
pseudo-subjectivity, of pseudo-physics.
Hence
the
absolutely
preponderant
male
character, with(in) noumenal subjectivity,
of
metaphysics as against the relatively preponderant male character,
with(in)
phenomenal subjectivity, of physics, both of which would correlatively
contrast
with the absolutely pseudo-predominant pseudo-female character,
with(out)
noumenal pseudo-objectivity, of pseudo-metachemistry and the relatively
pseudo-predominant pseudo-female character, with(out) phenomenal
pseudo-objectivity, of pseudo-chemistry.
INNOCENCE
AND
GUILT
AS
CORRELATIVE FACTORS
Innocence
and
guilt
‘hang
together’, like two
sides of the same coin, whether that metaphorical coin happens to be
metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, not to mention, in
subordinate contexts, pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical,
pseudo-chemical, or
pseudo-metachemical.
Hence
there
is,
besides
the obvious distinction
between ‘being innocent’ or ‘being guilty’ of, say, a crime or even a
sin, a
more complex distinction which amounts, in any element or
pseudo-element, to
the equivalence of being free or being bound, that is, in effect,
equivalent to
freedom and binding or, for that matter, virtue and vice, brightness
and
shadow, positivity and negativity.
Therefore one is both innocent and guilty, just as one is free
and
bound, positive and negative, virtuous and vicious, etc., etc.
But
metachemical
innocence
and
guilt is not the
same as chemical innocence and guilt, even if, being of a female
character, it
shares with its lesser sister certain features in common.
For the innocence of metachemistry is evil
(beautiful and loving) and the guilt of metachemistry criminal (ugly
and
hateful), whereas the innocence of chemistry is pseudo-evil (strong and
proud)
and the guilt of chemistry pseudo-criminal (weak and humble), the ratio
of
innocence to guilt in metachemistry, a noumenal or ethereal element,
differing
from its chemical, or phenomenal and corporeal, counterpart in the
absolute
terms of 3:1 as against the relative terms of 2½:1½.
Yet innocence still predominates over guilt
in either element.
Likewise,
physical
innocence
and
guilt is not
the same as metaphysical innocence and guilt, even if, being of a male
character, it shares with its greater brother certain factors in common. For the innocence of physics is
pseudo-graceful (knowledgeable and pleasurable) and the guilt of
physics
pseudo-wise (ignorant and painful), whereas the innocence of
metaphysics is
graceful (truthful and joyful) and the guilt of metaphysics wise
(illusory and
woeful), the ratio of innocence to guilt in physics, a phenomenal or
corporeal
element, differing from its metaphysical, or noumenal and ethereal,
counterpart
in the relative terms of 2½:1½ as against the absolute terms of 3:1. Yet innocence still preponderates over guilt
in either element.
Therefore
the
innocence
of
evil and the guilt
of crime not only differs from the innocence of pseudo-evil and the
guilt of
pseudo-crime, but stands in gender opposition to the innocence of grace
and the
guilt of wisdom, not to mention the innocence of pseudo-grace and the
guilt of
pseudo-wisdom, as incompatible gender ideals that can only suffer a
catastrophic negation if subjected to the hegemonic sway of the
opposite
gender, whereof, in the female case, evil will be negated by good and
crime by
punishment, whilst, in the male case, grace will be negated by sin and
wisdom
by folly.
For
if
the
innocence
of evil and the guilt of
crime are negated, by a pseudo-chemical subordination to a physical
hegemony,
then the damned outcome can only be the pseudo-guilt of goodness
(pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility) and the pseudo-innocence of
punishment
(pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride), in consequence of a fall from free
soma
metachemically to bound soma pseudo-chemically (evil to good) and from
bound
psyche metachemically to free psyche pseudo-chemically (crime to
punishment0,
neither of which could be desirable from a metachemical standpoint,
where the
female is hegemonic, but rather eventualities to faithlessly fear, just
as,
from the converse standpoint, the pseudo-chemical damned could be
inferred to
live in faithless hope of a return to metachemical innocence and guilt.
Similarly,
if
the
innocence
of pseudo-evil and
the guilt of pseudo-crime are negated, by a pseudo-metachemical
subordination
to a metaphysical hegemony, then the counter-damned (pseudo-damned)
outcome can
only be the pseudo-guilt of pseudo-goodness (pseudo-ugliness and
pseudo-hatred)
and the pseudo-innocence of pseudo-punishment (pseudo-beauty and
pseudo-love),
in consequence of a counter-fall (pseudo-fall) from free soma
chemically to
bound soma pseudo-metachemically (pseudo-evil to pseudo-good) and from
bound
psyche chemically to free psyche pseudo-metachemically (pseudo-crime to
pseudo-punishment), neither of which could be desirable from a chemical
standpoint, where the female is hegemonic, but rather eventualities to
pseudo-faithlesslessly fear, just as, from the converse standpoint, the
pseudo-metachemical counter-damned (pseudo-damned) could be inferred to
live in
pseudo-faithless hope of a return to chemical innocence and guilt.
For
no
female,
whether
pseudo-chemical or
pseudo-metachemical, is going to be at ease with a situation which
negates her
authentic sense of innocence and guilt, freedom and binding, under male
hegemonic pressures, such that, in the metaphysical case, favour
genuine grace
and wisdom at the expense of pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime coupled, on
its own side
of the gender fence, to sin and folly, or, in the physical case, favour
pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom at the expense of evil and crime
coupled, on its
own side of the gender fence, to pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly, and
consequently
the pseudo-metachemical will no more be resigned to pseudo-goodness and
pseudo-punishment than their pseudo-chemical counterparts to goodness
and
punishment.
Which
is
a
test
for males and the very
existence of culture or pseudo-culture, as the class/axial case may be,
not merely
in polar rejection of philistinism or pseudo-philistinism, but in
opposition to
pseudo-barbarity and barbarity in the interests, for pseudo-females, of
civility and pseudo-civility.
For
just
as
the
pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-female corollary of culture is pseudo-civility, so the
pseudo-chemical
pseudo-female corollary of pseudo-culture is civility, and neither can
be
sustained (by males) where culture or pseudo-culture is not. Only a reversion, pseudo-faithlessly or
faithlessly hoped for by the pseudo-civil and civil, to
pseudo-barbarity or
barbarity, as the axial/class case may be, with the restoration, in
consequence, of a female hegemonic sway over philistines and
pseudo-philistines.
For
males,
on
the
other hand, the importance of
remaining in control of their hegemonic positions cannot be
underestimated,
least of all in metaphysics, since the negation of grace and wisdom by
sin and
folly in the church-hegemonic axial case is something to faithfully
fear … as
the righteous, hegemonic over the pseudo-just, must faithfully fear the
meek,
subordinate to the pseudo-vain. The
negation of pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom by pseudo-sin and
pseudo-folly in
the state-hegemonic axial case is likewise something to
pseudo-faithfully fear
… as the pseudo-righteous, hegemonic over the just, must
pseudo-faithfully fear
the pseudo-meek, subordinate to the vain.
Those,
on
the
other
hand, who live in sin and
folly, pseudo-physical guilt and innocence, could be inferred to live
in faithful
hope of deliverance through salvation to the greater innocence of grace
and the
lesser guilt of wisdom in righteousness, while their pseudo-sinful and
pseudo-foolish pseudo-metaphysical counterparts could be inferred to
live in
pseudo-faithful hope of counter-deliverance through counter-salvation
(pseudo-salvation) to the greater innocence of pseudo-grace and the
lesser
guilt of pseudo-wisdom in pseudo-righteousness, neither of which,
however,
would have anything to do with metaphysics and therefore with God and,
more
significantly, Heaven, but, equating with man and the earth, leave much
to be
desired from a truly religious, or church-hegemonic, axial standpoint.
It
is
for
this
reason that ‘Kingdom Come’ will
not be a physical but a metaphysical destiny primarily intended for the
pseudo-physical, whose deliverance from meekness will bring about the
counter-damnation (pseudo-damnation) of the pseudo-vain to
pseudo-justice,
subordinate, for ever more, to the hegemonic triumph of righteousness.
A
NEW
LIGHT
ON
OLD TERMS
In
‘Kingdom
Come’
–
which I equate with the
introduction, through democracy, of Social Theocracy – the
church-hegemonic
lower last will become church-hegemonic higher first in a switch from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics, while the state-subordinate lower first
will
become state-subordinate higher last in a switch from chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry. In other words,
the pseudo-physical meek will become the metaphysical righteous, while
the chemical
pseudo-vain will become the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-just.
In
consequence
of
which,
the state-hegemonic
higher first will become state-hegemonic lower last in a switch from
metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, while the church-subordinate higher
last
will become church-subordinate lower first in a switch from
pseudo-metaphysics
to physics. In other words, the
metachemical vain will become the pseudo-chemical just, while the
pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meek will become the physical
pseudo-righteous ...
until such time as circumstances, relative to my concept of the triadic
Beyond,
may decide otherwise, i.e. until such time as an accommodation with
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, stretching from
southwest to
northeast on the intercardinal axial compass, becomes universal.
To
contrast,
on
polar
church-hegemonic axial
terms, the faithful fear of the righteous cultured for the meek
philistine and,
conversely, the faithful hope of the meek philistine for the righteous
cultured, while also contrasting, on rather more state-subordinate
axial terms,
the pseudo-faithless hope of the pseudo-just pseudo-civil for the
pseudo-vain
pseudo-barbarous and, conversely, the pseudo-faithless fear of the
pseudo-vain
pseudo-barbarous for the pseudo-just pseudo-civil.
To
contrast,
on
polar
state-hegemonic axial
terms, the faithless fear of the vain barbarous for the just civil and,
conversely, the faithless hope of the just civil for the vain
barbarous, while
also contrasting, on rather more church-subordinate axial terms, the
pseudo-faithful hope of the pseudo-meek pseudo-philistine for the
pseudo-righteous pseudo-cultured and, conversely, the pseudo-faithful
fear of
the pseudo-righteous pseudo-cultured for the pseudo-meek
pseudo-philistine.
FROM
X
TO
Y
When
one
takes
a
good long look at the Nazi
swastika, it becomes impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is
more X
than Y about it, and that it could be said to reflect a further
degeneration
from the Iron Cross-type freaked-out departure, along with figureless
straight
crosses in general, from the ‘true cross’ … of a Y-like figure with
upstretched
arms whose very existence intimates of divine, or metaphysical,
possibility, of
an eternity of Y-chromosomal fidelity to self, psychically speaking,
for the
liberated male, the male who is neither a child of his mother nor a
victim,
later on, of female XX-chromosomal encroachment, with the end of a
worldly
resolution in the surrogate plenum of maternity in mind or, rather,
body.
Thus
the
free
male
is Y-like in his
‘philosopher king’-like studied aloofness from the world and commitment
to
psychic self, his true self which the ‘true cross’ of Roman Catholic
tradition
intimates of, and which the Y-like ‘supercross’, that upended CND-like
emblem
with male and female symbols attached, of Social Theocratic futurity
will help
bring to fruition even for the broad mass of ‘lapsed catholic’
pseudo-males …
in the interests of their deliverance from pseudo-earthly worldly
subjection to
the purgatorial female whose somatic freedom, in maternity, exists at
their
psychic expense.
As,
it
could
be
argued, did the Nazi swastika,
with its X-like disregard for individual, i.e. male, liberty and
ruthless
predatory pursuit of ends that, national socialistically speaking,
could only
prove enslaving to males while, correlatively, allowing females to feel
more
predatorily and/or maternally free – indeed, rewarding such people with
a
special state-recognized status! To say
that Hitler was a ‘sonofabitch’ would almost certainly be an
understatement,
given the Nazi propensity for the X-like swastika and X-like war upon
the male
psyche. One can be all the more grateful
to countries like Britain and America, despite their own WASPish
shortcomings,
for having stood up to this X-like threat to male freedom, including
freedom of
the press, and, together with the Soviet Union, put her to the sword of
military defeat (this metaphor is not, I realize, in the best of taste,
but
nonetheless …) and effective consignment to the proverbial ‘rubbish bin
of
history’.
We
should
also
be
grateful that Britain and
America, together with their Western allies, subsequently stood up to
the
Soviet Union during the Cold War, bringing this false kind of
Communism, which
I have long identified with radical Social Democracy, down … for want
of
economic and political credibility.
Social Theocracy, which I like to equate with the ‘true
communism’ of a
dope-motivated communal cyborgization, in ‘Kingdom Come’, of the
religiously
sovereign, whether male or pseudo-female, in the event of a majority
mandate
for religious sovereignty having come democratically to pass within
church-hegemonic societies, has nothing to do with this economic
falsehood,
which can be regarded as an extrapolation from liberal democracy and
bourgeois
humanism, a proletarian form of humanism that one would identify with
social
democratic totalitarianism and consider totally unworthy of respect for
its
total want of ‘God-building’ and atheistic repudiation of religion, a
repudiation that is only to be expected from the secular absolutist
offshoot of
state-hegemonic protestant humanism and anti-catholic secularity.
For
those,
on
the
other hand, who clung,
church-hegemonically, to the ‘true cross’ of Roman Catholic tradition,
there
could be no truck with social democratic totalitarianism, much less
Nazism, nor
any encouragement to the destabilization and debasement of
church-hegemonic
axial criteria through radical republicanism, which derives less from
Marx and
the British Library Reading Room than from the French Revolution and
opposition, within Catholic countries, to the Church for its monarchic
ties and
even to the principles of a church-hegemonic society, whether or not
this is
understood – which is arguably unlikely – in strict axial terms.
Such
secular-oriented
departures
from
state
deference to the ‘true church’ tend to reap a fascist-like retort,
which is not
to be confused with nazi-to-militarist retorts to radical social
democracy on
state-hegemonic-to-state-absolutist axial terms. And
fascistic
retorts
to
radical
republicanism do not generally result in failure, least of all in
countries
with a strong Catholic tradition. In the
end, even radical republicanism has to toe the ethnic line and realize
that a
completely secular alternative to church-hegemonic traditions, no
matter how
liberalized, is simply not on, since likely to lead back to the
protestant-inspired secularities of the state-hegemonic axial
traditions so
characteristic of countries like Britain and America, and in Eire, for
one
country, no such direction, fifth-columnist exceptions to the rule
notwithstanding, is axially feasible.
So
they
simply
have
to hang-on, these catholic
countries, in some kind of loosely church-hegemonic axial vein that,
allowing
for certain secular freedoms, is still axially at variance with the
state-hegemonic traditions and will continue so to be until such time
as the
‘resurrection’ of church-hegemonic axial criteria, social
theocratically, makes
possible their own overhaul in terms of a more capable, permanent,
radical
deliverance of both the pseudo-male and the female from ‘the world’ to
the
otherworldly and, for pseudo-females, pseudo-netherworldly contexts of
‘Kingdom
Come’, in which the liberated male will rise, Y-like, over the enslaved
or
neutralized pseudo-female whose XX-chromosomal dispositions will no
longer be
encouraged or even permitted to operate freely, as in the heathenistic
past,
but be put out of commission, so to speak, in the interests of male
holiness in
grace and wisdom, free psyche and bound soma, metaphysically.
Therefore
the
only
thing
that overhauls the
‘true cross’ of Catholic tradition is the ‘supercross’ of social
theocratic
communism, and in the course of time this upended CND-like emblem will
become
more purely and freely Y-like, as though in a departure, on
evolutionary terms,
from superchristian to supra-christian criteria commensurate with the
supersession of psychic ego by psychic soul, of visionary relativity by
unitive
absolutism, for metaphysical males, whose pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-female
counterparts will likewise proceed, on counter-devolutionary terms -
and under
a contiguously-encircled absolute star emblem equally badgeful, or
badge-like,
in character -, from relative somatic binding to absolute somatic
binding,
bound spirit to bound will, the pseudo-female corollary, long-term, of
free
soul.
Therefore
not
one
emblem,
as in Christianity,
for both genders but two emblems, one for each gender, as civilization
emerges
from out the androgynous shadow of ‘the world’ into the
gender-differentiated
structure of ‘Kingdom Come’, to a condition in which the male rises
Y-like
above the prone pseudo-female in perfect liberation from pseudo-earthly
submission. His destiny is Heaven, hers
… pseudo-Hell, and in the achievement of this, global universality will
have
come properly to pass or, at least, have brought itself to the
threshold of
space-centre apotheosis and complete transcendence of the world.
How
far
one
will
then be from the imperial
eagle and XX-like predatory exploitation of the Nazis and their
accursed
swastika! We are no idiots, we Social
Theocrats, but Yidiots, it could be said, whose affirmation of all
things
Y-like and transcendent brings us closer to the spirit, nay, the soul
of Ysrael
when it comes into the fullness of its universal destiny and
spiritually
presides over a world in which God and Heaven, though especially
Heaven, are
universally triumphant, with a pseudo-Devil and pseudo-Hell under His
metaphorical heel for all eternity, like the prone dragon
(pseudo-dragon) that
the legendary English saint remains master of in the name of Eternal
Peace, the
imperial eagle vanquished from the face of the earth for ever more.
OPEN
AND
ENCLOSED
AS
FREE AND BOUND
The
Skull
&
Crossbones,
being X-shaped, is
every bit as bad, if not worse, than the nazi swastika.
Blackbeard = Hitler.
Schopenhauer
was
wrong
about
females being
number two of the human kind. Males are.
The
Union
Jack,
national
flag of
The
Scottish
flag,
the
so-called Cross of St
Andrew, is X-like in its bisecting diagonals and therefore reminiscent
of the
diagonal clash of swords that one would identify with battle and
strife, as
though an abstraction thereof.
In
relation
to
females,
open-toed high heels go
with a flounced dress as a metachemical mean; open-toed low heels go
with a
flounced skirt as a chemical mean; enclosed-toe low heels go with a
tight skirt
as a pseudo-chemical mean; and enclosed-toe high heels go with a tight
dress as
a pseudo-metachemical mean.
High
heels,
whether
open
or enclosed, alpha or
omega, sensual or sensible, summery or wintry, are upper order, or
noumenal,
ethereal, absolute; low heels, whether open or enclosed, alpha or
omega, etc.,
are lower order, or phenomenal, corporeal, relative.
One
fancies
that
large-breasted
females have
more of a right to high heels than their small-breasted counterparts. As also to dresses as opposed to skirts.
Open
societies,
like
open-toed
heels, are
alpha, heathenistic, female-dominated, sensual; enclosed societies,
like
enclosed-toe heels, are omega, christianistic, male-dominated, sensible.
This
is
not,
however,
a distinction between
‘left’ and ‘right’, which is rather more axial in character. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are not in overall axial
polarity in relation to the hegemonic factors; they pertain, above all,
to
opposite axes.
Extreme
Right
=
Upper
Class; Moderate Right =
Middle Class; Moderate Left = Lower Class; Extreme Left = Classless.
Hence
an
upper-class/middle-class
polarity,
characterizing
the hegemonic axial positions, between
metachemistry
and physics, science and economics, noumenal female and phenomenal male.
But a
lower-class/classless polarity, again characteristic of the
hegemonic axial positions, between chemistry and metaphysics, politics
and
religion, phenomenal female and noumenal male.
The
church-hegemonic
axis
stretching
from the
southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass,
being
hegemonically political and religious, is
illustrative
of a polarity between moderate and extreme left-wing positions.
The
state-hegemonic
axis
stretching
from the
northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass,
being
hegemonically scientific and economic, is
illustrative
of a polarity between extreme and moderate right-wing positions.
In
overall
axial
terms,
left-wing societies are
more psyche than soma, mind than body; right-wing ones … more soma than
psyche,
body than mind. This is because females,
whether hegemonically or subversively, dominate state-hegemonic and
males, by
contrast, church-hegemonic societies.
In
overall
hegemonic
terms,
the state-hegemonic
polarity between science and economics is equivalent to an Extreme
Right/Moderate Right polarity between autocracy and plutocracy, with,
in
subordinate terms, pseudo-religion and pseudo-politics indicative of a
pseudo-Extreme Left/pseudo-Moderate Left polarity between
pseudo-theocracy
(aristocracy) and pseudo-democracy (meritocracy).
In
overall
hegemonic
terms,
the
church-hegemonic polarity between politics and religion is equivalent
to a
Moderate Left/Extreme Left polarity between democracy and theocracy,
with, in
subordinate terms, pseudo-economics and pseudo-science indicative of a
pseudo-Moderate Right/pseudo-Extreme Right polarity between
pseudo-plutocracy
(bureaucracy) and pseudo-autocracy (technocracy).
The
polarity
between
autocratic
science and
plutocratic economics is indirect, i.e. of a female/male character, as
is that
between pseudo-theocratic pseudo-religion (pseudo-male) and
pseudo-democratic
pseudo-politics (pseudo-female), whereas the polarity between
autocratic
science and pseudo-democratic pseudo-politics is direct, i.e. of a
female/pseudo-female character, as is that between pseudo-theocratic
pseudo-religion (pseudo-male) and plutocratic economics (male).
The
polarity
between
democratic
politics and
theocratic religion is indirect, i.e. of a female/male character, as is
that
between pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics (pseudo-male) and
pseudo-autocratic
pseudo-science (pseudo-female), whereas the polarity between democratic
politics and pseudo-autocratic pseudo-science is direct, i.e. of a
female/pseudo-female
character, as is that between pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics
(pseudo-male)
and theocratic religion (male).
The
primary
state-hegemonic
polarity,
being
female, is between autocratic science, the Extreme Right, and
pseudo-democratic
pseudo-politics, the pseudo-Moderate Left, whereas the secondary
state-hegemonic polarity, being male, is between pseudo-theocratic
pseudo-religion, the pseudo-Extreme Left, and plutocratic economics,
the
Moderate Right.
The
primary
church-hegemonic
polarity,
being male,
is between pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics, the pseudo-Moderate
Right, and
theocratic religion, the Extreme Left, whereas the secondary
church-hegemonic
polarity, being female, is between democratic politics, the Moderate
Left, and
pseudo-autocratic pseudo-science, the pseudo-Extreme Right.
Science,
being
metachemical,
is
more about
Doing than Being; religion, being metaphysical, more about Being than
Doing;
politics, being chemical, is more about Giving than Taking; economics,
being
physical, more about Taking than Giving.
Pseudo-science,
being
pseudo-metachemical,
is
more
about Pseudo-Doing than Pseudo-Being; pseudo-religion, being
pseudo-metaphysical, more about pseudo-Being than pseudo-Doing;
pseudo-politics, being pseudo-chemical, is more about pseudo-Giving
than
pseudo-Taking; pseudo-economics, being pseudo-physical, more about
pseudo-Taking than pseudo-Giving.
Doing
prevails
over
pseudo-Being
as
metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics, science over pseudo-religion,
autocracy
over pseudo-theocracy, at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass, where females, being unequivocally hegemonic, dominate
pseudo-males in
primary state-hegemonic terms.
Taking
prevails
over
pseudo-Giving
as physics
over pseudo-chemistry, economics over pseudo-politics, plutocracy over
pseudo-democracy, at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
where males are equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-females but are
effectively
subverted by pseudo-females to somatic emphasis at the behest of
metachemical
females in secondary state-hegemonic terms.
Giving
prevails
over
pseudo-Taking
as chemistry
over pseudo-physics, politics over pseudo-economics, democracy over
pseudo-plutocracy, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
where females are equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-males but are
effectively
subverted by pseudo-males to psychic emphasis at the behest of
metaphysical
males in secondary church-hegemonic terms.
Being
prevails
over
pseudo-Doing
as metaphysics
over pseudo-metachemistry, religion over pseudo-science, theocracy over
pseudo-autocracy, at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
where males, being unequivocally hegemonic, dominate pseudo-females in
primary
church-hegemonic terms.
Open
and
enclosed
are
correlative factors at
all points of the intercardinal axial compass, though the openness can
be
somatic (female) or psychic (male) and the enclosedness psychic (male)
or
female (somatic), depending on the elemental/pseudo-elemental positions.
Hence
the
somatic
openness
of noumenal
objectivity in metachemistry has to be seen in relation to the psychic
enclosedness of noumenal pseudo-subjectivity in pseudo-metaphysics,
where bound
psyche prevails over free soma in the ratio of 3:1, the converse of the
metachemical
position.
Hence
the
somatic
openness
of phenomenal
objectivity in chemistry has to be seen in relation to the psychic
enclosedness
of phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity in pseudo-physics, where bound psyche
prevails over free soma in the ratio of
Hence
the
psychic
openness
of phenomenal
subjectivity in physics has to be seen in relation to the somatic
enclosedness
of phenomenal pseudo-objectivity in pseudo-chemistry, where bound soma
prevails
over free psyche in the ratio of
Hence,
finally,
the
psychic
openness of
noumenal subjectivity in metaphysics has to be seen in relation to the
somatic
enclosedness of noumenal pseudo-objectivity in pseudo-metachemistry,
where
bound soma prevails over free psyche in the ratio of 3:1, the converse
of the
metaphysical position.
Just
as
autocracy
unequivocally
holds dominion
over pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), so the equivocally hegemonic
dominance of
pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) by plutocracy is subverted to a
secondary
state-hegemonic position in relation to the primary state-hegemonic
polarity
between autocratic science and pseudo-democratic pseudo-politics on the
female
side of the gender divide, as between metachemistry and
pseudo-chemistry.
Just
as
theocracy
unequivocally
holds dominion
over pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), so the equivocally hegemonic
dominance of
pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) by democracy is subverted to a
secondary
church-hegemonic position in relation to the primary church-hegemonic
polarity
between theocratic religion and pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics on
the male
side of the gender divide, as between metaphysics and pseudo-physics.
ASPECTS
OF
FEMALE
HYPE
Do
females
have
a
Y-chromosome? No, they
don’t. Then why should they have or be
given names
that begin with a Y, like Yancy or Yogini or Yulia or Yasmin or Yoni or
Yoko,
or whatever. To me, it is on a par with
what I call hair-hype, as and when females have their hair brushed or
combed
back in patent denial of a fringe. One
would think they were subjective, introspective, and so thoughtful that
anything remotely objective-looking like a fringe, never mind a
youthful
pudding-basin style of hair, could only be psychologically irrelevant! More could be done to discourage females from
playing God, especially since it saves males from having to exert
themselves on
that account – though that is probably the way most of them like it.
As
for
me,
I
could never take any interest in a
female who had her hair combed back, even if she didn’t also have a
forename
that began with Y or constantly dressed in jeans or pants in a blatant
rejection of her gender. Neither could I
accept one whose name was Grace, or even Joy, even if she didn’t also
consider
herself blessed and worthy of Heaven.
Either males have been largely ignorant of the true nature of
females or
they have covertly if not overtly encouraged them to give themselves
divine
airs and graces in order not to have to face up to their own
responsibilities
in that regard and/or in order to have a better opinion of women than
the facts
– if they were known – would warrant.
Doubtless
the
back-to-front
religious
traditions
that place God – as Creator – at the beginning and are
paradoxically
rooted in the delusion of Devil-the-Mother hyped as God-the-Father, or
metachemistry hyped as metaphysics, or cosmos hyped as universe, are
partly if
not largely responsible for this self-deceiving state-of-affairs. Yet anyone with an ounce of original
intelligence
and male self-respect – and I don’t just mean great exceptional men
like
Baudelaire – would hesitate to worship as God a creator who not only
makes men
in his own image but also made women, and made them after men moreover!
The
trouble
with
simplistic
unitary creative
explanations of life, including not least the human, is that while they
may
work on and even be needed by children, once having adopted such a
course you
are stuck with it for ever – certainly long after your rational mind
might have
told you that a Being responsible for both sexes was singularly
unworthy of the
slightest respect, since ‘He’ or ‘It’ can only be a moral contradiction
in
terms, partial to holiness on the one hand and open to clearness on the
other,
given to grace one moment and partial to evil the next, capable of
wisdom in
the service of grace and also of crime in the service of evil, and both
blessed
with salvation and uncursed by damnation!
Even if it were not entirely diabolical, such a creator would be
considerably less than divine!
Bah,
enough
of
this! Let us rather look forward
to the day when
all such unitary and creator gods, unworthy of the slightest credence,
are
systematically consigned, along with their bibles and symbols, to the
‘rubbish
heap of history’, in order that what is truly divine, and I might add
pseudo-diabolic, can be cultivated independently of all such
traditional
obstacles to religious progress and inherent moral contradictions, such
‘best
of a bad job’ starting-points of civilization and infantile explanatory
cop-outs.
But,
of
course,
the
divine will have to be
cultivated by metaphysical males and the pseudo-diabolic, in contrast,
by
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-females, and not as ends-in-themselves but,
more
correctly, as godly and pseudo-devilish starting-points for heavenly
and
pseudo-hellish ends, the joy and pseudo-love of primary (male) and
secondary
(pseudo-female) church-hegemonic free psyche, coupled, be it not
forgotten, to
the woe and pseudo-hatred of their state-subordinate bound somatic
counterparts, which will issue as much from the illusion and
pseudo-ugliness of
the bound will of each gender … as the joy and pseudo-love from the
truth and
pseudo-beauty of each gender’s free ego.
Yamen!
DEVOLUTION
AND
EVOLUTION
IN
NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE
MODES
The
state-hegemonic
axis
is
ruled at the
metachemical northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass by
devolutionary positivity and led at the pseudo-chemical southeast point
of the
said compass by devolutionary negativity, both of which, compared with
anything
pseudo-metaphysical and physical, are primary state-hegemonic, which is
to say,
characterized by a female/pseudo-female polarity between free will and
bound
spirit, evil and good, as also in relation to free spirit and bound
will, if to
a less representative metachemical/pseudo-chemical extent.
The
church-hegemonic
axis
is
led at the
metaphysical northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass by
evolutionary
positivity and ruled at the pseudo-physical southwest point of the said
compass
by evolutionary negativity, both of which, compared with anything
pseudo-metachemical and chemical, are primary church-hegemonic, which
is to
say, characterized by a male/pseudo-male polarity between free soul and
bound
ego, as also in relation to free ego and bound soul, if to a less
representative metaphysical/pseudo-physical extent.
Hence
a
polarity
between,
in general terms,
free will and bound spirit on the one axis, contrasted to which we
shall find a
polarity, likewise, between free soul and bound ego on the other axis.
Even
with
a
pseudo-metaphysical/physical
polarity
between bound soul and free ego on the one axis, and a
pseudo-metachemical/chemical polarity between bound will and free
spirit on the
other axis, such secondary state- or church-hegemonic polarities
detract little
from the fact that each axis is primarily characterized by a
positive/negative
devolutionary polarity in the one case, that of
metachemical/pseudo-chemical
state-hegemonic criteria, and by a positive/negative evolutionary
polarity in
the other case, that of metaphysical/pseudo-physical church-hegemonic
criteria,
with distinctions, in consequence, between evil and good, free will and
bound
spirit, on the one hand, and grace and sin, free soul and bound ego, on
the other
hand.
I
am,
and
always
shall be, in favour of
evolutionary positivity, which, being metaphysical, is subjectively
convergent,
albeit to a degree that globally and universally transcends anything
Western or
Eastern, Catholic or Buddhist, since ideologically germane to the ‘true
communism’ of Social Theocracy and thus to the politico-religious
realization
of ‘Kingdom Come’ conceived as the post-historical (eternal) destiny of
church-hegemonic axial criteria.
ANACHRONISTIC
NATURE
OF
THE
The
concept
of
‘the
British Isles’, as a term
so dear to contemporary cartographers and geographers, is anachronistic
and has
been so for a considerable number of years, not least since the birth,
in 1949
of the Irish Republic and, before that, the foundation of the Irish
Free State
in 1921, when Ireland was granted Dominion status within the British
Empire and
effectively broke away from the United Kingdom of what had been Britain
and
Ireland but was destined, in 1922, to become Britain and Northern
Ireland
(meaning the six counties which are two-thirds of the Province of
Ulster).
Nowadays
the
so-called
FALLACY
OF
THE
ALPHA
MALE
In
my
philosophy,
which
is highly logical,
there are no ‘alpha males’, a much-vaunted term for those contemporary
males
perceived, rightly or wrongly, as womanizing competitors, who may or
may not
also be macho and athletic, not to say glamorous and aesthetic.
Such
males,
it
has
to be said, are hardly
christian and sensible, but then, anachronistic exceptions to the
general rule notwithstanding,
this is not an omega-oriented age but one that is still – as has been
the case
for a number of decades - alpha-stemming in its female-hegemonic,
film-besotted
sensuality.
Even
if
such
so-called
alpha males were
quasi-alpha, or quasi-bitches, they would be exceptions to the rule in
exceptional – and rather unattractive – circumstances.
To put it bluntly, the typical contemporary
male is a kind of pseudo-omega ‘sonofabitch’, or subordinate
pseudo-male to a
female hegemony, whether the latter be metachemical and noumenal or
chemical
and phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal.
He is either a pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-male living under
metachemical
hegemonic pressures or a pseudo-physical pseudo-male living under
chemical
hegemonic pressures, both of which kinds of pressure would correspond
to
alpha-female objectivity.
For,
in
overall
gender
terms, the female is
most decidedly alpha, or rooted XX-wise in
a vacuous
objectivity, and the male omega, or centred XY-wise in a plenumous, so
to
speak, subjectivity, despite appearances to the contrary which may or
may not
be – but usually are – societally conditioned.
This
so-called
alpha
male
is really either
pseudo-omega or, more exceptionally, quasi-alpha, which would be the
morally
less acceptable ‘male’ position, since patently immoral rather than, in
more
standard ‘sonofabitch’ pseudo-omega vein, unmoral, the victim of a
female
hegemony whose morality will, in general terms, be either superheathen
in its
metachemical somatic (bodily) freedom or heathen in its chemical
somatic
(bodily) freedom, neither of which kinds of morality would be condoned
by a
christian/superchristian male disposition, which will fight shy of the
unholiness associated with an unmoral ‘fall guy’ and/or ‘sonofabitch’
pseudo-subjective (pseudo-omega) status, the all-too-contemporary
‘male’
predicament, given the persistence, under alpha-stemming criteria, of
female
hegemonies.
I,
for
one,
do
not condone the pseudo-omega
pseudo-male, still less his departure, via antimetaphysics or
antiphysics, from
a subordinate ‘locked-in’ position to a quasi-metachemical or
quasi-chemical,
depending on the class and/or elemental context, quasi-alpha sell-out
to ‘free
bitch’ criteria, such that usually results in the worst of all possible
metachemical
or chemical worlds, so to speak, whose ratio is the converse (of free
soma to
bound psyche) of anything obtaining in the properly – and female –
hegemonic
contexts.
The
only
solution
to
this predicament, which, no
matter how seemingly ‘locked-in’, will remain vulnerable to a
quasi-alpha
departure, via anti-omega anti-subjectivity, from the pseudo-omega
under-plane
unmoral position (and usually as a consequence of amoral pressure, i.e.
of a
quasi-pseudo-omega descent from above), is his deliverance, via
salvation (in
the case of the pseudo-physical pseudo-male), from his subordinate
status to
one that was unequivocally hegemonic over a pseudo-female (and
therefore
pseudo-alpha) position at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial
compass in relation to a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
polarity with
his own lowly pseudo-physical pseudo-omega position, thereby elevating
him to a
metaphysical subjectivity in a genuine omega that spelt the end of
subjection
to female dominion in what, with perfect
sync with the male gender prerogative of free psyche and bound
soma,
free mind and bound body, would amount to the blessedness of moral
holiness in
grace and wisdom.
Such
‘saved’
pseudo-males,
now
fully and properly
male, would be at peace with themselves (their self, or psyche) and
free from
the guilt of sin and folly, bound psyche and free soma under chemical
hegemonic
pressures, the upended male (pseudo-omega) gender predicament that
follows from
a female hegemony in which, contrary to male criteria, the objectivity
of
alpha-stemming criteria, rooted in a sensual vacuum, rules a free
somatic/bound
psychic roost, to the detriment of male gender innocence and
self-respect,
given that the male ratio of soma to psyche, even in the corporeal
depths of
phenomenal relativity, will be the converse of the female ratio and
thus more
bound than free, more sinful than foolish, and thus, in pseudo terms,
more
ignorantly painful than knowledgeably pleasurable.
Only
the
salvation
of
the pseudo-physical to
metaphysics will lead to the correlative counter-damnation of the
chemical to
pseudo-metachemistry, the ‘first’ (equivocally hegemonic) becoming
‘last’
(gender subordinate), and thus to the overcoming of the world (at least
in its
chemical/pseudo-physical manifestations) in the interests of
otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly deliverance.
As
to
the
subsequent
damnation of the
metachemical to pseudo-chemistry and correlative counter-salvation of
the
pseudo-metaphysical to physics, that is a matter for
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial societies, and not therefore
immediately germane to the fate, or respective fates, of those whose
worldliness is traditionally characterized by
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, wherein alpha
phenomenality
has the hegemonic advantage over pseudo-omega phenomenality, alpha
corporeal
females (feminine) over pseudo-omega corporeal pseudo-males
(pseudo-masculine),
to the detriment, as noted above, of the latter, whose sinful/foolish
predicament requires divine intervention from a metaphysical standpoint
if it
is to be superseded by the blessedness of grace and wisdom in the
holiness of
inner peace. Yamen.
NOUMENAL
AND
PHENOMENAL
SALUTES
IN AXIAL
PERSPECTIVE
Saluting,
about
which
subject
I have often
theorized in the past (and sometimes incorrectly), can be divergent
(and
female) or convergent (and male), open-handed or clenched-fisted. Yet
one
should also distinguish not only the noumenal (ethereal, absolute) from
the
phenomenal (corporeal, relative) modes of saluting, but the hegemonic
(and
genuine) from the subordinate (and pseudo) gender positions, right
across the
axial board, so to speak, of what I call the intercardinal axial
compass … of
intersecting, inter-class diagonals.
Hence
metachemistry
over
pseudo-metaphysics
at
the northwest point of the said compass, where metachemistry would be
unequivocally dominant within a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial
framework, would have a saluting contrast between the noumenal
divergence of
the open-hand raised-arm salute and the noumenal pseudo-convergence
(pseudo-subjective) of the clenched-fist bent arm salute, as though
symptomatic, in the latter case, of a contiguously encircled (bound)
supercross, a pseudo-supercross (kind of CND-like), under a free
absolute star,
or superstar (equal number of points).
Polar
to
the
above
at the southeast point of
the intercardinal axial compass, where physics is equivocally hegemonic
over
pseudo-chemistry on what would still be
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial terms, we shall find a saluting contrast between the phenomenal
convergence of a clenched fist held to head salute and the phenomenal
pseudo-divergence (pseudo-objective) of an open-hand held to head
salute
(conventional military salute), as though symptomatic, in the latter
case, of a
contiguously encircled (bound) star, a pseudo-star, under a free cross,
the
latter of which would not only be without contiguous encirclement (in
the
Celtic and arguably mass Catholic manner), but would be figureless in
relation
to the abstractionism, as it were, of a male hegemonic position, a
position
that, subatomically, could be described as molecular wavicle as opposed
to
either molecular particle or, up above, elemental particle or wavicle,
depending on the elemental case.
Be
that
as
it
may, back and across from the
above at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where
chemistry is equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-physics on what would be
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, we will find a saluting
contrast between the phenomenal divergence of an open hand held to
chest salute
and the phenomenal pseudo-convergence (pseudo-subjective) of a clenched
fist
held to chest salute, as though symptomatic, in the latter case, of a
contiguously encircled (bound) cross, a pseudo-cross, under a free
relative
star (unequal number of points), which just happens to be the typically
modern
or contemporary form of the emblematic star.
Polar
to
the
above
at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass, where metaphysics is unequivocally
hegemonic over
pseudo-metachemistry on what would still be
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial terms, we shall find a saluting contrast between the noumenal
convergence
of a clenched-fist raised-arm salute and the noumenal pseudo-divergence
(pseudo-objective) of an open-hand bent arm salute, as though
symptomatic, in
the latter case, of a contiguously encircled (bound) superstar, a
pseudo-superstar (pseudo-absolute),
under a free supercross, a Y-like non-contiguously encircled absolute
cross
whose metaphysical significance, devoid of female-derived somatic
‘thingfulness’, will dominate the context in question to the lasting
advantage
of males, and with the long-term possibility of a Y-like purism
properly
germane to supra-christian rather than to simply superchristian
criteria that
will signify the achievement of a properly global or universal
totalitarianism
within a more evolved metaphysical framework capable of taking both
metaphysics
and a more counter-devolved pseudo-metachemistry into space.
TWO
SPECIFIC
KINDS
OF
SALUTING
In
relation
to
the
types of saluting germane to
metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, the respective gender positions
at the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (with which I
ideologically
identify), the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics requires a
raised-arm
clenched-fist salute, as described in the preceding weblog (see
‘Noumenal and
Phenomenal Salutes in Axial Perspective’), that is slightly curved and
fairly
flexible, with a kind of inwards-turned fist that may well oscillate,
or be
oscillated, in a slow and graceful curvilinear manner (kind of
Mandela-like),
whereas the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemistry, the
pseudo-female position a plane down (pseudo-space under time) from
metaphysical
subjectivity at the northeast point of the said compass, requires that
the bent
arm open-hand salute referred to in the aforementioned weblog form a
fairly
rigid right angle with itself (horizontal upper arm, vertical lower
arm) in
relation to the vertical displacement of the open hand, palm outwards,
which
should be held still and remain straight, thereby contrasting, as
contiguously-encircled absolute star (pseudo-superstar) to the free absolute cross (supercross), with the
almost curvilinear flexibility of the raised-arm clenched-fist salute,
as
germane to metaphysical males.
Thus
a
contrast,
in
overall terms,
between the morality of the hegemonic gender position and the
unmorality (unclear
under holy) of the subordinate gender position, as in other analogous
elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts.
What
one
doesn’t
want,
from a metaphysical
standpoint, is an amoral descent from the noumenal subjectivity of the
hegemonic position towards, in gender-bender terms, the unmorality of
the
subordinate position, since any subjective imposition upon the
pseudo-objective
position, in this case the right-angled open hand salute, that could be
described, in its subjective modification of the said position, as
quasi-pseudo-objective, probably in relation to a kind of
inwards-turned open
hand with slightly curved fingers on a more flexible bent arm, could be
logically inferred to create a quasi-subjective backlash as though in
response
to pressure from above (metaphysics) on the unmoral position, in this
case
pseudo-metachemical, and such a backlash, resulting in a more rigid
raised-arm
clenched-fist salute the latter part of which would be parallel with
the arm in
an upwards and outwards-tending direction, could only be bad for the
subjectivity of the metaphysical salute proper, serving to detract from
its
subjectivity, quite apart from the fact that such a quasi-subjective
salute
would, coming from a pseudo-objective, pseudo-female position, be
immoral, and
therefore bad not only for metaphysics, or the reputation of
metaphysics, but
for the unmorality of the pseudo-metachemical position itself, which
would
cease to have the significance proper to it.
In
short,
a
descent
from above (metaphysics)
would be no better in this context, that of noumenal subjectivity
paired with
noumenal pseudo-objectivity, than the one I believe I described some
time ago
in my book The Best of All Possible
Worlds (2008), where I used the analogy of a sartorial contrast
between
zipper-suit and dress, contrasting the tapering zipper-suit of
metaphysics with
the straight dress proper to pseudo-metachemistry, and then logically
demonstrating how an amoral descent from above, namely metaphysics, in
terms of
a tapering dress, could be inferred to result in an immoral backlash
from
below, namely pseudo-metachemistry, in the form of a straight
zipper-suit, the
pseudo-objective basis of which would, within a quasi-subjective
gender-bender
role, somewhat detract from the subjectivity proper to the tapering
zipper-suit
and thereby undermine its moral right to dominate, hegemonically, the
context
in question, that of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast
point of
the intercardinal axial compass.
Therefore
here,
as
in
other instances, an
amoral descent from above (the hegemonic or moral position) should be
discouraged, since the only result will be an immoral ascent from below
(the
subordinate or unmoral position), and such an ascent can only detract
from the
subjective standing of metaphysics.
Hence,
as
in
other
analogous contexts, it is
right to remain ‘stuck up’ in the interests of the morality to which
one
subscribes and in order to keep the subordinate gender position firmly
in its
unmoral place, kind of neutralized dragon-like (pseudo-dragon) under a
saintly
heel in the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical context in question. Failure to do so can only result in defeat
and the undermining and even, paradoxically, eclipse of the hegemonic
position,
with long-term reductionist implications that would have what aesthetes
call an
art-for-art’s sake air about them.
Therefore
beware
of
raised-arm
clenched-fist
salutes that are too straight or rigid.
They do no emanate from metaphysics.
They can have no place in a properly run, structurally
differentiated
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical society … such that fully accords with
divine/pseudo-diabolic criteria, as germane to what tradition would
term
‘Kingdom Come’. The supercross and the
pseudo-superstar must remain in an uncompromised, properly
differentiated
moral/unmoral (holy/unclear) relationship, with no place, in
consequence, for
amoral and immoral gender-bender intrusions whose effect, whether
coming down
from above (amoral) or up from below (immoral), can only be subversive
of the
relationship in question.
THE
GENDER
IMPLICATIONS
OF
BROLLIES AND HOODS
When
brought
into
use,
brollies (umbrellas) are
divergent (opening outwards), hoods convergent (closing inwards). Hence the former are fundamentally female in
character and the latter essentially male – despite appearances to the
contrary.
Further
to
this
basic
distinction, one should
distinguish the sensuality of ‘outer’ brollies and hoods from the
sensibility
of ‘inner’ brollies and hoods, as between non-collapsible and
collapsible
brollies – arguably metachemical and pseudo-chemical or, depending on
the axis,
chemical and pseudo-metachemical, and non-folding hoods – arguably
pseudo-physical and metaphysical or, depending on the axis,
pseudo-metaphysical
and physical; though correlative distinctions between the female and
pseudo-male and/or male and pseudo-female alternatives could, I
contend, be
made, if only to distinguish the metachemical from the
pseudo-metaphysical
(noumenal divergence from noumenal pseudo-convergence) kinds of brolly
and
hood; the chemical from the pseudo-physical (phenomenal divergence from
phenomenal pseudo-convergence) kinds of brolly and hood; the physical
from the
pseudo-chemical (phenomenal convergence from phenomenal
pseudo-divergence)
kinds of hood and brolly; and, finally, the metaphysical from the
pseudo-metachemical (noumenal convergence from noumenal
pseudo-divergence)
kinds of hood and brolly.
From
the
sensual,
or
‘outer’, standpoint the
objectivity of brollies will condition the pseudo-subjectivity of hoods
or,
more correctly, pseudo-hoods in metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and
chemistry/pseudo-physics at the northwest and southwest points,
respectively,
of the intercardinal axial compass of bisecting inter-class diagonals;
whereas
from the sensible, or ‘inner’, standpoint the subjectivity of hoods
will
condition the pseudo-objectivity of brollies or, more correctly,
pseudo-brollies in physics/pseudo-chemistry and
metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry at the southeast and northeast points,
respectively,
of the said compass of bisecting inter-class diagonals, with the usual
sensual/pseudo-sensible female-dominated or sensible/pseudo-sensual
male-dominated implications, the concrete interpretations of which I
would
rather leave to the reader’s discretion, even though brollies will
always be
female and/or pseudo-female and hoods, by contrast, pseudo-male and/or
male,
depending on the elemental/pseudo-elemental context.
THE
ESSENCE
OF
SALVATION
Salvation,
about
which
subject
I have theorized
at some length over the years, is essentially a metaphysical
deliverance of the
pseudo-physical from the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass to
its northeast point on what I have customarily described as the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, as germane, in traditional
terms, to
Irish Catholicism and, indeed, to Catholicism generally.
Salvation
presupposes
some
degree
of ‘Messianic
intervention’ by a Christ-like ‘philosopher king’ germane to the
metaphysical
northeast point of the aforementioned intercardinal axial compass, who
regards
it as his mission to deliver the pseudo-physical pseudo-males from the
hegemonic domination of chemical females, whose influence is such as to
cause
the pseudo-physical to mirror, on a converse ratio basis to themselves
(kind of
1½:2½ as opposed to 2½:1½), free soma and bound psyche, contrary to
male gender
reality, in the phenomenal relativity of physics, of a relatively
preponderating ratio of free psyche to bound soma (2½:1½).
Hence
upended
males,
or
pseudo-males, under
chemical female hegemonic pressure at the southwest point of the
intercardinal
axial compass, the pseudo-physical ‘meek’, who are both sinful (bound
psychic)
and foolish (free somatic), deserve, in the Messianic estimation, to be
delivered
from their paradoxical predicament to a situation that, in metaphysics,
would
be comprised of free psyche and bound soma, in sync with male gender
reality,
except that, unlike with the phenomenal relativity of physics (which
the
pseudo-physical also correspond to), the ratio of psyche to soma
obtaining in
metaphysics would be in the order of 3:1, in keeping with the noumenal
absolutism of the elemental position in question.
Hence
a
deliverance
from
the unsaved
predicament, under chemical female hegemonic pressure, of a relatively
preponderating (2½:1½) ratio of bound psyche (sin) over free soma
(folly) to an
absolutely preponderating (3:1) ratio of free psyche (grace) over bound
soma
(wisdom) in metaphysics, the latter of which would be unequivocally
hegemonic –
and this is the important point – over pseudo-metachemistry, the
pseudo-female
equivalent of pseudo-physics, except that, being noumenal, it would
have an
absolute ratio, under metaphysical male hegemonic pressure, of free
psyche to
bound soma, not, of course, in terms of 3:1 free psyche to bound soma
(which
would be male and metaphysical) but, rather, in terms of 1:3 free
psyche to
bound soma, the converse of the male position and correlative destiny,
in
counter-damnation, of chemical females, whose ratio of free soma to
bound
psyche, being relatively predominant, derives from their hegemonic
position
over the pseudo-physical pseudo-males, a ratio of 2½:1½ free soma
(pseudo-evil)
to bound psyche (pseudo-crime) that, with counter-damnation to
pseudo-metachemistry,
would be replaced by the aforementioned absolute ratio (1:3) of free
psyche
(pseudo-justice) to bound soma (pseudo-goodness) in consequence of
metaphysical
male hegemonic pressure.
Of
course,
the
counter-damnation
of chemical
females to pseudo-metachemistry is not – and could not be – the
responsibility
of the godly Saviour, who would have his hands full, so to speak, with
saving
the pseudo-physical to metaphysics, but of a correlative ‘shadow
figure’, a
kind of pseudo-devil, or pseudo-devilish Counter-Damner, whose
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female status was appropriate to the
position and,
hence, to the destiny of chemical females.
Being
hegemonic,
if
equivocally
so, over
pseudo-physical pseudo-males at the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial
compass at the base of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the
chemical females are akin to the ‘first’ who, with counter-damnation,
would
end-up ‘last’ in pseudo-metachemistry, but only because the
pseudo-physical
‘last’ under them had become, through salvation, the metaphysical
‘first’
unequivocally hegemonic, in the noumenal absolutism of the context in
question,
over them, and more akin, in consequence, to the legendary Saint
(George) whose
heel keeps a prone, or neutralized, dragon (pseudo-dragon) in its lowly
‘under-foot’ place, a plane down (pseudo-space) from the metaphysical
eternity
(of time) at the northeast point of the axial compass in question, the
summit,
as it were, of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (free psyche/bound
soma)
axial criteria.
Thus
the
salvation
of
the pseudo-physical
‘meek’ presupposes the correlative counter-damnation of the chemical
‘pseudo-vain’, the former, under divine auspices, to metaphysics, the
latter,
under pseudo-diabolic auspices, to pseudo-metachemistry, neither of
which can
succeed, much less obtain, without the co-existence of the other.
For
salvation
is
for
pseudo-physical
pseudo-males to become metaphysically male, while counter-damnation is
the fate
correlatively reserved for chemical females, who would become
pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-female, kind of prone virgin-like at the
foot of
the ‘true cross’ upon which the Saviour is raised up, with
Y-chromosome-intimating upstretched arms, towards metaphysical
blessedness.
We
who
endorse
Social
Theocracy go beyond such
traditional intimations of salvation and counter-damnation even
emblematically;
for a truly developed context of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry
can only
transpire on the global basis, as germane to post-Western terms, of
‘Kingdom
Come’, so to speak, from a position that rejects metachemistry hyped as
metaphysics, or Devil-the-Mother hyped as God-the-Father, and thereby
allows
for the full complement, independent of Creatoresque fundamentalism, of
metaphysics in free psyche and bound soma, ‘father’ and ‘son’, and,
more
importantly, ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’, the holiness of which will be due, in
no
small measure, to the perfect gender sync characterizing the male who
is fully
and completely metaphysical, not only true in free psyche and illusory
(not
false) in bound soma, but, more importantly, joyful in free psyche and
woeful
in bound soma, the absolute ratio (3:1) of psyche to soma more than
satisfying
the requirements of perfect self-righteousness.
Heaven,
my
friends,
is
for metaphysical males,
and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and a simpleton and, in all
probability, an apologist of the androgynous liberalism of worldly
relativity
that degenerates towards feminism.
BOVARYIZATIONS
OF
SALVATION
Besides
salvation-proper,
about
which
I
theorized in the previous article (see ‘The Essence of Salvation’),
there are
what could be described as ‘bovaryized’ concepts or interpretations of
salvation that, frankly, accrue to other parts of the intercardinal
axial
compass than to the metaphysical northeast.
Such
religious
‘bovaryizations’,
wherein
a
religious concept or position is compromised – and vitiated – by some
other
controlling element than the metaphysical – could be described as
physical,
pseudo-physical (which is a pseudo-element dominated by chemistry), and
pseudo-metaphysical (a pseudo-element dominated by metachemistry), and
they
would have little or nothing in common with the metaphysical ethos,
subject to
a messianic twist, of delivering ‘the meek’ (meaning the
pseudo-physical) from
‘the world’ … of their pseudo-earthly subjection to a purgatorial
hegemony
having to do (in Marian fashion) with chemical females a plane up from
them (in
volume over pseudo-mass) at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass.
Starting
with
the
physical
interpretation of
salvation, which I regard as ‘once bovaryized’ (seeing as it is on the
same
hegemonic side of the gender fence as the metaphysical), I would
describe it as
having to do, quite apart from personal notions of salvation which are
religiously neither here nor there, with savings gathering interest in
the bank
and therefore of an economic character in keeping with the ‘Son of Man’
focus
or fulcrum of physics.
Hence
physical
salvation
is
anything but
deliverance from ‘the world’, conceived as the abode of sin, but,
rather, an
endorsement of ‘the world’ or, in this case, a particular form and mode
of
worldliness, from an economically-motivated standpoint that tends to
regard financial
enrichment as an ideal and to enhance its wellbeing through
interest-generating
savings, all of which is rather more germane to the southeast point of
the
aforementioned intercardinal axial compass, as befitting a physical
hegemony
over pseudo-chemistry, its pseudo-female counterpart.
Across
from
that
at
the southwest point of the
said compass, we shall describe the chemically-dominated
pseudo-physical ‘twice
bovaryized’ concept of salvation as taking a politically-motivated
pseudo-economic turn that usually implies some kind of socialistic
equalitarianism, whether under Marian auspices or, increasingly these
days,
independently of conventional religion, whereupon the notion of
salvation tends
to have Hollywood-like implications of saving the world from alien
invaders or
monsters or machines – a kind of demonization of traditional Catholic
interpretations of salvation (through Christ the ‘Risen Lord’) which
are a
consequence, in large part, of secular rejection of traditional
religious
values.
Finally,
back
and
up
from the pseudo-physical
subordination to chemistry at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass we shall find the pseudo-metaphysical subjection to
metachemistry at
its northwest point, which rules the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis,
and hence for both the pseudo-metaphysical and, to an obviously lesser
extent,
the physical, it is the notion of preservation, ‘long to reign over us’
(or
‘them’) that characterizes what I shall describe, in relation to the
previous
interpretation of salvation, as ‘thrice bovaryized’, since the notion
of
salvation as preserving the metachemical status quo, namely the ruling
monarch
in UK terms, is as far removed from salvation per
se as it is axially possible to get and has
nothing whatsoever to do with ‘world overcoming’ and deliverance of the
‘meek’
(the pseudo-physical) from subjection to a chemical hegemony at the
southwest
point of our axial compass.
This
preservative
‘bovaryization’
of
salvation,
of saving, is, as intimated above, more Anglican than Puritan in
character and
is fundamentally scientific where mass catholic, or lapsed catholic,
and
puritan-inspired ‘bovaryizations’ are largely political and economic
respectively, and therefore stands at axial variance with the religious
concept
of salvation as deliverance from ‘the world’, meaning the mass
Catholic, or
lapsed Catholic, southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to
its
polar northeast, where, on no less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
terms,
metaphysics is – or should be – hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry.
In
fact,
an
Anglican
monarch cannot be saved in
this true, or religious, sense of salvation; for not only is he/she on
the
wrong (state-hegemonic) axis for salvation to have any religious
relevance, but
he/she is not interested in ‘world overcoming’ but only in
state-hegemonic
polar partnership with the physical/pseudo-chemical southwest point of
the
intercardinal axial compass with a view to keeping ‘the meek’ (not to
mention
the chemical ‘pseudo-vain’) in their lowly exploited place - something
also
often levelled at the Church hierarchy in countries like Ireland but
wrongly,
in my opinion, since, despite appearances to the contrary, the Church
continues, albeit increasingly lamely and ineffectually in this day and
age, to
offer its followers the benefit of a kind of surrogate salvation,
through
Christ, in the form of verbal absolutism
for penitential contrition, even though, ultimately, this is
insufficient for
‘world overcoming’ and deliverance to a higher realm.
Be
that
as
it
may, the idea of God Saving the
ruling British monarch, other than in a preservative sense that
endorses the
metachemical status quo – a thing, incidentally, not of God, or
godliness (a
state of mind rather than an all-powerful manifestation of free soma),
but of
Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in time-honoured ‘best of a
bad job’
Middle-East derived starting point of civilization fashion – is a
contradiction
in terms, since salvation from ‘the world’ is entirely irrelevant to an
entity
that, in axial terms, directly rules over if not its Irish Catholic
manifestation at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass
then
most assuredly its mass/pseudo-voluminous puritan manifestation at the
southeast point of the said compass, which is precisely the point in
state-hegemonic polar opposition to the Anglican descendants of the
excommunicated Henry VIII’s [VIII’s] apostasy
and
Protestant
revolution
which transferred the seat of
power in England from a kind of pseudo-metachemical deference to popish
metaphysics at the church-hegemonic northeast point of the
intercardinal axial
compass to an overt metachemical rule over pseudo-metaphysics (the
Anglican
pseudo-males) at its northwest point, and therefore ceased to have any
transcendentalist
bias but became, under state-hegemonic scientific endorsement,
fundamentally
committed to the defence and enlargement of materialism, including,
eventually,
the acquisition and exploitation of an immense overseas Empire. This is not worldly, no, but neither is it
even crudely otherworldly. It remains a
humanistic manifestation of netherworldly control, and the
netherworldly cannot
be saved, like a certain type of the worldly, to otherworldly
transcendence. They can only continue to
relate to the
‘thrice bovaryized’ concept of salvation and hope that their
preservation, long
to rule over state-hegemonic axial criteria, will prevail even unto the
‘end of
the world’ and ‘last judgement’.
OF
POETS
AND
DRAMATISTS
A
‘sonofabitch’
(pseudo-prick)
is
not a ‘cunt’;
he is either a poet rather than a
pseudo-dramatist
(pseudo-physics/chemistry) or a pseudo-poet rather than a dramatist
(pseudo-metaphysics/metachemistry). He
has a clenched fist rather than an open hand, but it is an aggressive,
pseudo-convergent
fist that is the product, in no small measure, of the divergent hand that either ‘sucks’ (chemistry) or ‘jerks’
(metachemistry) him off.
I
don’t
much
like
‘male’ poets, genuine or
pseudo, but I categorically despise so-called ‘male’ dramatists for
being
quasi-bitchful ‘cunts’ who have abandoned their nominal gender position
for
hegemonic advantage over it (and hence over poets of one sort or
another). To me, they are literary
criminals; for when
one ‘jumps upstairs’ from pseudo-physics to chemistry or from
pseudo-metaphysics to metachemistry one takes one’s pseudo-male gender
ratio
with one, a ratio that, whether relative (2½:1½) or absolute (3:1),
phenomenal
or noumenal, will normally if not invariably be the converse of the
gender
ratio proper to the ‘upstairs’ position, be it chemical (and feminine,
volumetric) and metachemical (and superfeminine, spatial), to speak in
general
terms, and therefore one is almost bound to demonstrate more negativity
than
positivity, more bound psyche (pseudo-physical sinfulness
pseudo-criminally
transmuted in quasi-chemistry or pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-sinfulness
criminally transmuted in quasi-metachemistry) than free soma
(pseudo-physical
folly pseudo-evilly transmuted in quasi-chemistry or
pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-folly evilly transmuted in quasi-metachemistry), in contrast to
the
hegemonic positions proper which, being female, will be illustrative of
more
positivity than negativity, more free soma (pseudo-evilly in chemistry
or
evilly in metachemistry) than bound psyche (pseudo-criminally in
chemistry or
criminally in metachemistry), depending on the elemental case.
Frankly,
it
makes
more
sense, from the resident
unmoral standpoint, to remain meekly unholy (pseudo-physical) or
pseudo-meekly
pseudo-unholy (pseudo-metaphysical) than to immorally aspire, after the
fashion
of that which is responsible for one’s meekness in the first place, to
either
pseudo-vane pseudo-clearness (chemistry) or vane clearness
(metachemistry);
though, logically, I have to concede that there would be much less
immoral
‘coming up from below’ (pseudo-physics or pseudo-metaphysics) if there
was, or
had been, no amoral ‘going down from above’ (chemistry or
metachemistry) which,
to my way of thinking, is the chief reason why the unmoral, whether
genuine
(pseudo-physical) or spurious (pseudo-metaphysical), become goaded into
such an
immoral departure from their respective types of ‘meekness’ in the
first place.
Now
‘coming
up
from
below’, a plane down in each
class case, is not really in the hegemonic gender’s moral interests
either,
since it will tend to detract from their own moral position,
undermining it
through the pseudo-convergent proximity of pseudo-subjectivity
intruding upon a
context, whether chemical or metachemical,
that should be – and in the normal hegemonic course of events
patently
is – objective, given in divergent vein, to centrifugal tendencies
characterized, unlike what ‘comes up from below’, by more somatic
positivity
than psychic negativity.
Therefore
the
‘quasi-bitchful
cunt’,
as one may
call those who depart their ‘sonofabitch (pseudo-bastard) pseudo-prick’
subordinate gender status, is worse than the ‘bitch’ who, unlike her
gender-bender immoral counterpart, will normally remain less criminal
than
evil, less bound psychic than freely somatic, as befitting her gender. Poets are normally fools or sinners,
(genuinely or spuriously, depending on the elemental or, rather,
pseudo-elemental context, as outlined above), but so-called ‘male’
dramatists,
whether ‘coming up from below’ or, strange to say and harder to
believe,
plunging straight into drama as though nothing else, including poetry,
mattered, are the worst of the worst in literary terms, and deserve no
respect,
least of all from the sensibly-minded, for their criminally-biased
undertakings
or productions.
If
there
is
one
thing worse, speaking generally
in terms that defer to the predominant or preponderant somatic/psychic
ratio
factor, than heathen pseudo-morality (chemistry) or superheathen
morality
(metachemistry), it can only be quasi-unchristian immorality (a
quasi-chemical
departure from pseudo-physics) and quasi-subchristian pseudo-immorality
(a
quasi-metachemical departure from pseudo-metaphysics), the former
issuing from
genuine unmorality and the latter from pseudo-unmorality, as from
demons and
pseudo-demons anxious to become – or remain – pseudo-whores or whores
in
pseudo-dramatic (quasi-chemical) or dramatic (quasi-metachemical)
fashion, and
to become them on the worst possible, i.e. negative, terms!
Let
us
leave
this
sorry subject with the
conclusion that none of this would happen did not chemistry exist
hegemonically
over pseudo-physics, as volume (volumetric) over pseudo-mass (massed)
and
metachemistry hegemonically over pseudo-metaphysics, as space (spatial)
over
pseudo-time (sequential). Until such
time as the pseudo-physical are delivered (saved) to metaphysics and
the
chemical delivered (counter-damned) to pseudo-metachemistry on
appropriately
global terms commensurate with a universal resolve, there is no way
that things
could be otherwise than how they now are; for what subsequently
transpires on
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (stretching from the
southwest to
the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass) will determine
the
ensuing fate, long-term, of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate one
(stretching, by contrast, from the northwest to the southeast points of
the
said compass), and thus of the respective fates (in damnation to
pseudo-chemistry
and counter-salvation to physics) of metachemistry and
pseudo-metaphysics, the
noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of which are
currently
responsible for seducing the phenomenally objective and phenomenally
pseudo-subjective from their pseudo-diabolic and divine, noumenally
pseudo-objective and noumenally subjective, destinies in ‘Kingdom
Come’, where
only pseudo-metachemistry and, more importantly, metaphysics will
obtain and
therefore not pseudo-dramatists and poets but pseudo-prosodists (or
short-story
writers) and philosophers, the latter of whom will be aphoristically
metaphysical and thus given to the elucidation or consolidation of
Truth.
ON
GOD
AND
GODLINESS
Can
you
have
godliness,
or be godly, without
God? Some people would like to think so,
but, frankly, I don’t see how you can.
After all, godliness is inseparable from God, even if to be
godly
doesn’t necessarily imply that one is God but, rather, one who is
capable of
understanding what God is, as, I believe, is the case with me.
So
what,
then,
is God?
God, or godliness, is a state of mind, more specifically it is a
metaphysical ego, and metaphysical ego is not, unlike physical ego,
egocentric,
making an end out of knowledge, but, on the contrary, egoistic; that is
to say,
it knows itself to be true and it strives to vindicate its truth by
self-transcending, via bound will and spirit (antiwill and antispirit)
itself
through joy, which is to metaphysical soul what truth is to
metaphysical ego,
its heavenly reward and justification, through metaphysical being, for
metaphysical taking, the condition of divine, or metaphysical, ego.
The
metaphysical
ego
of
God the Father takes,
not least of the metaphysical antiwill of the Son of God and the
metaphysical
antispirit of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, in order, through
self-transcendence,
to attain to the metaphysical being of Heaven the Holy Soul, which is
even more
profoundly of the universal self than the divine taking of metaphysical
ego.
So
an
ego
that
wants to lose itself in soul or,
rather, to lose itself in antiwill and antispirit in order to re-emerge
in
soul, an ego that, being godly, has only one objective in mind – namely
the
attainment of Heaven or, as I phrased it above, Heaven the Holy Soul,
the goal
and characteristic attribute of metaphysics.
For
only
in
Heaven
is God, or godliness,
justified and vindicated; only in joy is the value of truth revealed. Therefore there is nothing wrong with the
term ‘God’, provided one knows how to qualify it – an absolute
necessity - in relation to metaphysical
ego, and these
days not so much in terms of metaphysical ego in the Cosmos (the least
evolved
stage or manifestation of metaphysics with arguably most god and least
heaven),
nor even of metaphysical ego in nature (the less – relative to least –
evolved
stage or manifestation of metaphysics with arguably more god and less
heaven),
still less of metaphysical ego in mankind (the more – relative to most
–
evolved stage or manifestation of metaphysics with, arguably, less god
and more
heaven), but, theoretically at least, in terms of metaphysical ego in
cyborgkind (the most – and therefore definitive – stage or
manifestation of
metaphysics with, arguably, least god and most heaven), as a
theoretical
postulate that, hopefully, will see the light of day, so to speak, in
‘Kingdom
Come’, about which subject, as indeed about the different and
successive stages
of metaphysics, I have theorized often enough in the past not to wish
to
further elaborate on it here.
Clearly,
I
am
not
an atheist, or someone who
doesn’t believe in the existence or possibility of God, but neither am
I one to
acquiesce in anachronistic stages or manifestations of God, or
godliness, from
a global standpoint, deeming anything short of or anterior to the
coming cyborg
stage of metaphysics irrelevant to my concept of God, Buddhistic
transcendental
meditation not excepted.
But
atheists
aren’t
usually
people – let’s say
males – who have limited patience with cosmic or natural or human
metaphysics. Rather are they people who
tend, for one reason or another, to lack a metaphysical dimension,
often in
consequence of some ethnic associations with a ‘religious
bovaryization’, like
fundamentalism or pantheism or humanism, with which, over a period of
time,
they have become disillusioned, turning against its characteristic
concept of
notion of God without the benefit of having seen thoroughly through it
and
moved on to ‘higher pastures’ of religious understanding.
They
may,
for
instance,
have turned against ‘Creatorism’,
the Jehovah-esque God of the Old Testament, from disillusionment with
the world
and God’s ostensible role as its creator (nominally), without realizing
that
the fundamentalist God was never actually God in the first place but,
among
other things, Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, or the
principal aspect
of metachemical free soma, which is free will, hyped as what to one of
my sort
would be the egoistic aspect of metaphysical free psyche, as already
described
above.
Hence,
quite
apart
from
the other three aspects
– free spirit, bound ego and bound soul (anti-ego and antisoul) - of
metachemistry, they have become disillusioned with Beauty hyped as
Truth
without realizing that there was or is a hype of that nature there in
the first
place.
But
a
man
who
turns his back, as it were, on
Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the ‘best of a bad job’
starting
point of civilization, not least in its Judaic and Christian
manifestations,
has not really turned his back on God even if he thinks, through
rejecting ‘the
Creator’, that he has, any more than would one who had turned his back
on Woman
the Mother hyped if not exactly as God then, more usually, as Mother of
God
under the mistaken assumption that God was a kind of female pantheistic
figure
one could identify, like woman, with nature.
God,
however,
is
neither
metachemical and
fundamentalist nor chemical and pantheist, beautiful nor proud, given
that the
most characteristic or representative aspect of chemistry, the Marian
element
(water), is spirit, and therefore maternal pride, not the strength of
chemical
free will which, though indubitably concomitant with spiritual pride,
is no
more chiefly representative, Woman the Mother-wise, of the element in
question
than would be spiritual love vis-à-vis wilful beauty in metachemistry.
Be
that
as
it
may, disillusionment with the
chemical ‘bovaryization’ of religion would be no more a manifestation
of
disillusionment with God than with its metachemical counterpart, Devil
the
Mother, and in the chemical case the principal aspect or component
thereof is,
in any case, less Woman the Mother than what I have habitually called
Purgatory
the Clear Spirit, ‘clearness’ and not ‘holiness’ being a property of a
hegemonic female element (objective) like chemistry.
Then
there
is
the
physical ‘bovaryization’ of
religion which is less pantheistic than humanistic, tending, in the
popular
fancy, to revolve around the concept Son of Man, though, like Woman the
Mother,
that would be less representative of the physical fulcrum, as it were,
than
something associated with ego egocentrically, like Man the Father, or
physical
free ego for which knowledge is the principal - one might say the
sovereign -
factor.
Hah!
So
disillusionment
with
will, spirit, or
ego hyped, variously and successively, as God is, I guess, quite
understandable, and even if a person thought himself an atheist on that
account, or any of those accounts, it would hardly qualify for
disillusionment
with God, or godliness, from the standpoint of metaphysics, quite apart
from
the various stages of metaphysics and thus of the ratio of God to
Heaven. As I say, there are large numbers
of persons
who, for one ethnic reason or another, haven’t a clue what metaphysics
is, and
don’t even care to find out. If they
think they are atheists simply because the Old Testament Creator or the
New
Testament Creations aren’t to their liking, they are a long way from
convincing
me that God doesn’t exist – at least as a metaphysical postulate, a
state of
mind which is true and capable of vindicating itself through joy,
thereby
transcending ego in soul and, hence, godliness in heavenliness,
progressing
from the one aspect of free metaphysical psyche to the other, even if
via some
degree of bound metaphysical soma, but never as a ‘thingful’
extrapolation from
some free somatic religious ‘bovaryization’ whose female disposition is
both
powerful and glorious, wilful and spiritual, and therefore popularly
associated
with a whole lotta ‘thingful’ almightiness.
Yet
this
much
I
will concede: that God, in the
aforementioned metaphysical sense, doesn’t now exist cyborgistically in
relation to the universal unfolding of global civilization. He is still only a theory in a philosophic
mind, a mind that sees itself as the ‘godfather’ of Social Theocracy
and/or
Social Transcendentalism, conceived by him as the ideological
prerequisites of
‘Kingdom Come’ as a context or life-stage characterized not by
political
sovereignty, like the democratic present, nor even by economic
interests
capable of taking precedence over politics, but by religious
sovereignty,
something the people of (initially) certain countries would have to
vote for if
they wanted to become God (universally and globally) or, in the case of
females, had no choice but to accept the pseudo-Devil, the
pseudo-metachemical
counterpart of God as the righteous destiny of metaphysical males.
For,
ultimately,
it
is
the People who must
decide if they want to become God and/or the pseudo-Devil or not, since
the
self-appointed ‘Godfather of Kingdom Come’, the ‘inventor’ of religious
sovereignty and ‘architect’ of Social Theocracy/Transcendentalism, is
simply
its theoretical precondition, not someone to be worshipped for himself,
or his
achievement, but used as a springboard to the practical implementation
of
Social Transcendentalism (religious praxis/church) through Social
Theocracy
(political front/state), whether or not he has any direct involvement
in the
process. For, like Marx before him in
relation to Social Democracy, the ‘false communism’ of an economic
mean, he can
only do so much, being deeply theoretical, and may have to leave the
practicalities of developing Social Theocracy to others who come after
him and,
like Lenin and Trotsky, make inroads into the political arena with a
view to
bringing the ‘true communism’ of Social Transcendentalism
democratically to
pass.
One
thing
is
certain:
a religiously sovereign
proletariat or people will not come to pass of its own volition. It will require a degree of messianic
intervention, if only to deliver them from their lowly mass or lapsed
Catholic
estates, and this in turn will require the politico-religious
exploitation of
the democratic framework in certain countries deemed axially ripe for
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate upgrading in the near or not too
distant
future, if the dream of ‘Kingdom Come’ is to be turned into reality and
bear
all the hallmarks of a religiously-liberated populace, a populace for
whom all
the ‘old gods’ are truly ‘dead’ because they were never godly enough,
but more
usually God-defying ‘bovaryizations’ of religion that metaphysics had
to live
with simply because it could not, at that time or in relation to those
other
systems, ‘come out’ and proclaim itself and its right not only to exist
but to
supersede everything else, including chemistry and physics or, rather,
pseudo-physics in the interests of a metaphysical hegemony over
pseudo-metachemistry, godliness over pseudo-devilishness, heaven over
pseudo-hell, eternity over pseudo-infinity and, ultimately, celestial
city over
pseudo-vanity fair without mortal end.
THE
TRUE
END
OF
RELIGION
So
much
is
the
elemental wavicle context of
metaphysics characterized by soul, and thus heavenly joy, that it could
reasonably be said that ego, being egoistic rather than egocentric
here, is
complementary to or affiliated with soul to such an extent that it does
not
have an independent existence but is consciously or, rather,
superconsciously
disposed to subsume itself into soul as its proper goal and resolution.
It
is
not
as
though we are dealing with ego per
se, a molecular wavicle entity associated,
neutronically, with physics, which, being egocentric, would regard
itself as an
end-in-itself. On the contrary, the
‘bovaryized’ ego of metaphysics, which can be termed godly or even,
with due
qualification, God, is the child or consequence of an elemental wavicle
subatomicity dominated by photons, and therefore only exists in
relation to
soul, as though soul, which is inner feeling (emotion) had permitted a
consciousness
to exist superconsciously whose sole raison d’être was
to understand and develop, through what is called metaphysical
truth, the knowledge necessary to the achievement, for itself or, more
correctly, for that to which it is affiliated, the maximum degree and
extent of
soul.
Thus
truth
in
this
higher sense is not only the
godchild of joy, as God of Heaven, but it is the means that soul
requires in
order for it, against all the odds and alternative distractions or even
impositions, to attain to its maximum self-realization, truth
vindicated by joy
as godliness by heavenliness.
If,
then,
God
or
godliness, viz. metaphysical
ego, is of less significance than Heaven or heavenliness, viz.
metaphysical
soul, why is it that, almost without exception, traditional and
conventional
religions have stressed God at the expense of Heaven and thus, by
implication,
ego at the expense of soul?
Obviously,
early
or
formative
metaphysics,
which I equate with cosmic and natural environments or, at any rate,
with the
metaphysical aspect of such environments, would have acknowledged and
actually
represented more God than Heaven, more ego than soul, more form than
contentment, but that would owe something if not everything to the more
representative cosmic and natural bodies that, leading to ‘bovaryized
religions’, had less to do with ego or soul than with will and spirit,
contexts
dominated, I mean, by metachemistry (fire) and chemistry (water) to the
detriment of physics (vegetation and/or earth) and metaphysics (gas
and/or air).
Even
mankind
conceived,
humanistically,
as a
particular environment or life-stage, would, in physics, be a context
dominated
not by soul but by ego, and so much so that, proto-cyborgistic
intimations of
soul through disciplines like transcendental meditation
notwithstanding,
religions centred around ego must indubitably grant pride of place to
knowledge, not only in terms of Bible-study or scriptural exegesis but,
through
intellect (the vegetative essence of egocentric mankind) prayer,
whether learned
or improvised, recited or personal.
But
even
ego,
though
manifestly inferior to
soul from a religious standpoint, is beyond will and spirit, the
representative
cosmic and natural approaches to religion which are in effect the least
religious because the most scientific or political, as the case may be,
as
also, of course, the most female in character, with elemental particle
(will)
and molecular particle (spirit) subatomic implications tending to
favour
protons and electrons over neutrons and photons.
But
when
religion
is
associated, in
fundamentalist and pantheist terms, with will and spirit, power and
glory, one
gets an emphasis on God as a ‘thingfulness’ that derives from the
somatic, or
bodily, basis of female-dominated elemental contexts like metachemistry
and
chemistry, and such an ascription of ‘thingfulness’ to God, even unto
the
extent of ‘the Almighty’, precludes the term from being interpreted in
a
physical, much less metaphysical, light, whereby, in relation to the
male side
of things, psyche takes precedence over soma, as mind over body, and
form and
contentment, corresponding to ego and soul, are accordingly the
focal-points of
‘divine’ reference.
Yet,
as
we
have
seen, ego is less godly when
physical than manly, less egoistic than egocentric, with humanist
rather than
transcendentalist implications, and therefore only another stage of
‘religious
bovaryization’. By the time one gets to
metaphysics, and particularly to a metaphysics unhampered or simply not
compromised by metachemical, chemical, or physical, i.e.
fundamentalist,
pantheist, or humanist impositions or influences tending towards
metaphysical
vitiation, but, rather, a properly universal metaphysics germane to a
cyborgistic stage of life beyond, potentially if not actually, all of
the other
stages, it should be evident that ego counts for much less than soul,
and that
even if and when we use the term ‘God’ in relation to metaphysical ego
we are
aware that it has absolutely no somatic correlations whatsoever, that
it is a
‘no-thing’ (but not on that account ‘nothing’) in relation to the
successive
orders of ‘thingfulness’ especially characterizing metachemical and
chemical
approaches to religion, and that, as a state of mind, a state less of
supreme
beingfulness, by the way, than of a supreme-beingfully-oriented form of
supreme
taking, it has no other business than to bring about, through
superconsciousness of what needs to be done or rather taken account of,
the
maxim extent of supreme beingfulness to which such ego can aspire,
thereby transcending
itself in the achievement of that supreme kind of being which is of the
metaphysical soul and a condition less of God than of Heaven, less of
truth
than of joy, less of form than of contentment, and therefore at the
furthest
possible remove from anything powerfully supreme in the elemental
particle
subatomicity (protonic) of metachemical free will, viz. of what has
traditionally been identified, as the Creator, the Father, the
Almighty,
Jehovah, etc. with God!
Although
conventionally
identified
with
a
Supreme Being, such a ‘bovaryized’ religious entity is less joyfully
beingful
than beautifully doingful, a kind of Supreme Doing, and therefore the
Devil-the-Mother alpha beginning of things as opposed, with
metaphysical free
soul, to their Heaven-the-Holy-Soul omega ending of things through a
god-transcending ‘thinglessness’ that, being joyfully supreme, is the
true end
or goal of religious evolution.
And
by
‘true
end’
of religious evolution I
allude less to the successive stages of ‘bovaryized religion’, i.e.
metachemical, chemical, and physical, than of the successive stages of
metaphysics, from cosmic and natural to human and, to anticipate the
coming
‘kingdom’, cyborg, in which the ratios of God to Heaven, as of ego to
soul,
would have continued to evolve from most god and least heaven
cosmically to,
hypothetically, most heaven and least god cyborgistically via the
intermediate,
or natural and human, stages of more (relative to most) god and less
(relative
to least) heaven vis-à-vis less (relative to least) god and more
(relative to
most) heaven, all but the cyborg stage of which no longer have any
metaphysical
credibility in what is, by any accounts, an age of global advancement
towards
the maximum universality in the utmost metaphysical
centro-complexification.
WHAT
IS
A
YIPPIE?
I
like
to
think
of myself as a yippie, perhaps
the first of my kind, since I am increasingly drawn towards words
associated,
actually or potentially, with the Y-chromosome, which happens, as most
adults
will know, to be germane to males, as, androgynous exceptions to the
rule
notwithstanding, a genetic inheritance from one’s male ancestry. Thus a
yippie
is in some sense a self-conscious or Y-conscious male who strongly
identifies
with his male inheritance.
One
thing,
however,
a
yippie is not is a
transmuted or transformed yuppie. He
does not regard life from the perspective of wealth-generation, and
therefore
has not gone out of his way to become rich or to identify himself with
money-making schemes, the likes of which clutter up the Internet with
brazen
promises of wealth. On the contrary,
money for him is a kind of by-product of other things, not an
end-in-itself,
and certainly anything but the basis of a business career.
He does not believe in financial greed, least
of all in a time when such greed has led to recessionary problems the
likes of
which few if any of us are unaffected by.
For him, money is a means to a higher end, one in the service of
his
religious and ideological beliefs, and in this respect he resembles the
hippies
of the late ‘60s who, as often as not, didn’t care about money at all.
But
even
if
he
would consider himself closer on
that account to hippies than to yuppies, he would have nothing in
common with their
ethos of free love and dope-fuelled sexual promiscuity, nor would he be
partial
to Eastern spirituality and the kind of mindless identification with
cosmic
mysticism, of which the Clear Light of the Void would constitute a
salient
aspect so dear to the likes of Huxley and other renegade Anglicans. To him, all that matters in religious terms
is transcendentalism, and he knows that transcendentalism is the
opposite of
fundamentalism and no friend of pantheism or humanism either. Transcendentalism is the free-psychic or
church-hegemonic aspect of metaphysics, and metaphysics for him is
unequivocally universal, which is to say, as far removed from anything
cosmic
(hyped as universe and/or universal) as it is possible to be – a
universality
of global civilization destined for a sensibly cyborgistic apotheosis
or
culmination in the not-so-distant future.
Therefore
his
view
of
life is intensely
artificial, which would again suggest a marked contrast with hippie
indulgence
of nature and things natural, including sex.
Even his hair would not be long, like theirs, but more usually
as short
as possible, as though significant of his artificial transcendence of
natural
phenomena and the possibility if not actuality of being a kind of
‘sonofabitch’.
But
if
the
yippie
as I define him is intensely,
or synthetically, artificial, even in his drug preferences for or
projections
into a ‘millennial future’, he is yet, like the hippie, unconventional
by
majority standards, and thus closer in spirit to the hippie social
nonconformism
(though not in terms of communal promiscuity) than to the yuppie
professional
conformism, since for him what really counts in life is culture and,
hence, his
metaphysical ideology, which I have variously identified with Social
Theocracy
(political/state) and Social Transcendentalism (religious/church).
The
yippie
is
in
some sense a reborn and
transmuted hippie, and thus a refutation, even if from a vocational
standpoint,
of the careerist professionalism of his yuppie predecessors. He doesn’t want to ‘do his own thing’
independently of the world (of straights and squares, bitches and
‘sonsofbitches’) but, on the contrary, to triumph over the world, and
for this
he requires a politico-religious ideology capable of assuming power and
delivering religion from the clutches of the state.
Therefore
the
yippie
has
to be himself to others in
order to influence them and make them
aware of the alternatives to the worldly status quo.
World-overcoming, to use a Nietzschean
phrase, is high on his list of ideological priorities, and therefore he
will
engage with the world with a view to its Social
Theocratic overcoming.
Finally,
the
yippie
is,
not unlike the yuppie
of the ‘80s, a ‘yes man’, but a ‘yes man’ for whom the positivity of
what could
be called the ‘Yo-factor’ is incontrovertibly sacrosanct, since
reflecting his
own Y-chromosomal essence. For this
reason he is a transvaluator rather than a devaluator, and will always
side
with the Y against the X, especially against the XX of Eve-like female
seductive
persuasion, which was the undoing of Adam and cause of the male ‘fall’
from
grace and innocence into worldly bondage, the very same bondage (to
female
persuasion) in which the majority of non-yippie males still exist and
will
continue to exist until the end of the world through Social Theocratic
overcoming, when they will be restored to godliness and, more
importantly, to
the heavenly innocence of the ultimate ‘Garden’ – the Social
Theocratic/Transcendentalist Centre.
I
am
a
yippie.
I am for the ‘Yo-factor’. I am
also enamoured of first names (surnames can also count) beginning with
Y – at
least for males. And I am inevitably for
Israel or, rather, Ysrael in its struggle to survive and eventually
thrive from
the standpoint of an enhanced Y, a Y for which the myth of Eden is no
longer
relevant because the attainment to a new metaphysical paradise will put
an end
to worldly suffering and allow the transfigured to ascend into the
heavenly
bliss of metaphysical grace (coupled state-subordinately to wisdom on a
lesser
ratio basis) or into the pseudo-hellish torment of pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-punishment (coupled state-subordinately to pseudo-goodness on a
greater
ratio basis), depending on gender.
For
the
opposite
of
a Y brought low by an XX is
an XX kept down by a triumphant Y. This
is ultimately what really distinguishes a yippie from a hippie.
THE
TRUE
CENTRE
OF
TRUTH
There
is
no
‘God
the Supreme Being’, only
‘Heaven the Supreme Being’, or ‘Heaven the Holy Soul’; for being is a
condition
of soul, not of ego, spirit, or will, and being is only supreme, call
it
joyfully or blissfully so, when it is the condition of metaphysical
soul, as of
soul per se, which is the chief if not only aspect or attribute of
metaphysics.
If
Heaven
the
Holy
Soul’s condition of supreme
beingfulness has a consciousness, it is like the light surrounding the
inner
flame of the soul’s burning, and, in metaphysics, such a light, or
consciousness, is apt to be superconscious.
Such
superconsciousness
is
aware,
to a
metaphysical degree, of the soul’s being, and is effectively one with
the joy
of perfect self-harmony. You can call
this metaphysical type of consciousness God or godly, but it is so much
an
aspect of the soul as to be inseparable from it insofar as it is the
soul’s conscious
self-awareness of itself and not an independent entity like ego, spirit
or
will, which far from pertaining to the elemental wavicle context in
question is
either at a molecular wavicle, molecular particle, or elemental
particle remove
from it, like, in subatomic terms, neutrons, electrons, and protons
from
photons.
Such
a
consciousness
of
the soul’s beingful
condition would not exist without the soul, since it is the soul which
gives
rise to it and not vice versa. God or
godliness does not exist, to repeat, independently of Heaven or
heavenliness
but as its conscious self-realization, and therefore any concept of God
that
fails to address the soul as, in effect, its Maker … is delusory or
just plain
wrong, a kind of non-metaphysical misnomer.
There
is
no
God
independent of Heaven, no
superconsciousness except in relation to the superfeeling of soulful
joy or,
rather, joyful soul. Therefore God does
not exist in will, spirit, or ego, which is to say, metachemically,
chemically,
or physically, but only Devil (the Mother), woman (the mother), or man
(the
son) hyped as God – as in all or most traditional religions, which tend
to
worship God as a kind of wilful or spiritual or intellectual
thing-in-itself
independently of the emotional thinglessness which is heavenly soul
and, more
particularly in this context, the superconscious self-awareness of that
soul’s
condition of supreme being.
For
supreme
being,
to
repeat, attaches to
Heaven, the condition of metaphysical soul, and is not an attribute of
the
consciousness of that being, even though you cannot have a knowledge of
such
beingful supremacy without a godly consciousness, which we have termed
superconscious and deem to be the self-reflecting aspect of joyful
soul, the
faculty of such a soul that is conscious of itself as joy or bliss or
heaven
and has no existence outside of that consciousness.
Thus
‘God
in
Heaven’
is no understatement, even
if the concept of God applied to contexts independent of soulful
self-awareness
happens to be an overstatement, as and when the concept becomes
associated,
through ‘bovaryized religions’, with metachemical doing or chemical
giving or
physical taking to the detriment if not exclusion of metaphysical
being, to
which it properly attaches as the aforementioned superconscious
self-awareness
of the condition of supreme being.
It
is
for
this
reason that, although it rejects
all erroneous concepts of God and therefore all the ‘bovaryized
religions’,
Social Theocracy, the ideological front of Social Transcendentalism, is
not
atheist; for a disbelief in God per
se, in the metaphysical consciousness of soul, would
necessarily preclude
one’s acceptance of Heaven, and it would be a strange religion indeed
that
believed in neither God nor Heaven, truth nor joy, superconsciousness
nor
superfeeling, or, worse, thought that you could have Heaven without
God, much
as if one could be expected to know what soul was without the
consciousness
proper to it, which both confirms and experiences the essential
condition.
Therefore
the
true
centre
of truth is indeed
joy, and the conscious recognition or realization of joy is truth,
which is
thereby vindicated not as a separate entity but as an integral aspect
of
metaphysics and, hence, soul.
Heaven
without
God
would
be akin to a flame
without a light, and although it often transpires that ‘the blind lead
the
blind’, as people’s demagogues over ignorant masses, it cannot be said
that
they will lead them to Heaven if they persist in denying God, but only
to a hell,
purgatory, or earth of their own devising.
The
God,
or
modes
of so-called god, I deny was
never God in the first place, but a wilful, spiritual, or intellectual
substitute for God and, more importantly, Heaven attendant upon a want
of
religious direction and insight proportionate to the extent to which
science,
politics, or economics took precedence over religion, resulting in the
false,
or ‘bovaryized’, religions to which we have become only too accustomed,
including fundamentalist, pantheist, and humanist manifestations
thereof.
It
is
to
be
hoped that in the more enlightened
and properly religious future, such falsehoods will be done away with,
consigned, as we say, to ‘the rubbish bin of history’, but only in the
event of
a majority mandate for religious sovereignty resulting from the
paradoxical
utilization – preferably with church backing - of the political process
in
countries with the right kind of (church-hegemonic) axial preconditions
for any
such eventuality, such as Eire and, hopefully, France and other
traditionally
or predominantly Catholic nations.
Social
Theocracy,
the
ideological
front of
Social Transcendentalism, will have to establish itself in all such
countries
as the movement standing for true religious progress, even the
resurrection of
church-hegemonic values (duly transformed), and hence the possibility
of a
genuinely radical alternative to the democratic and largely
capitalistic status
quo. It must engage with society as a
politico-religious ideology with specific objectives, principally the
achievement of the necessary majority mandate from the electorate
without which
it will be unable to fully ‘set up shop and do business’ as business
needs to
be done if the current types of secular society are to be overhauled by
one
which, characterized by religious sovereignty, will be akin, even in
its
inceptive manifestation, to ‘Kingdom Come’, a kingdom not of this world
but
headed, in its otherworldly values, for a much superior world in which,
with
due superhuman and/or suprahuman social engineering, the realization of
supreme
being will be the leading aspiration, the raison
d’être of all that is best in the movement, whilst
all that is worst in it – and there will necessarily have to be a
pseudo-metachemical corollary of metaphysics – is reserved for those
earmarked,
largely through gender, for a species of supreme or, rather, primal
pseudo-doing, the bound somatic corollary, in pseudo-metachemistry, of
the free
psychic supremacy of the metaphysical.
Be
not
deceived!
A
society resembling ‘Kingdom
Come’ cannot come to pass unless there is a sharply-defined distinction
between
‘the Saved’ and the ‘Counter-Damned’, the male metaphysical and the
pseudo-female pseudo-metachemical, the former delivered from
pseudo-physics and
the latter from chemistry at the ‘mass catholic’ southwest point of
what I am
wont to term the intercardinal axial compass, wherein feminine females
are
equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-masculine males, like water over
pseudo-vegetation, or purgatory over pseudo-earth, or even volume over
pseudo-mass, in what is one of the two principal manifestations of the
world
(the other, of course, being axially irrelevant in physics over
pseudo-chemistry).
Lest
I
become
too
technical, it is the
pseudo-physical ‘last’ who will become
metaphysical
‘first’ and the chemical ‘first’ whose correlative destiny is to become
pseudo-metachemical ‘last’. For that is
the only way that ‘Kingdom Come’ can succeed, that is, by having a full
complement of metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical factors at the
northeast
point of the intercardinal axial compass on properly church-hegemonic
terms in
a structure which is non-reductionist and non-utopian in character but,
for
that reason, very much a viable concern.
Now,
ultimately,
when
it
gets properly up and
running along what I have in the past described, with good reason, as
substance-motivated communally cyborgistic lines, it will be the true
communism
of Social Theocracy which, pledged to the service of Social
Transcendentalism,
will expose the communism of Social Democracy for the economic and
class-reductionist falsehood that it patently is and always was.
There
is
no
proletarian
humanism about Social
Theocracy but, rather, an unequivocal endorsement of ‘man overcoming’
in
conjunction with ‘world overcoming’ such that will lead not to a new
kind of
man but to the superman and, for the religiously sovereign, the
suprahuman
cyborgistic communes whose raison
d’être, at any rate in relation to the metaphysical, will
be the truthful
realization of joy, as of the supreme being to the exclusion, barring
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-hatred of free soma, of all else.
Only
thus
will
Paradise
truly reign, as of the
godly heavenliness over the pseudo-devilish pseudo-hell for all
Eternity and Pseudo-Infinity,
and ultimately not on earth but in the space-centre apotheosis of true
evolutionary progress and counter-devolutionary counter-regression
that, with
the avoidance of utopian reductionism, will truly signify the
culmination of
‘Kingdom Come’ in the gender-differentiated two-tier structure of ‘the
Celestial City’ wherein a place for the pseudo-Vanity Fair of the
pseudo-metachemical will continue to exist a plane down, as it were,
from the
metaphysical and their divine entitlement to heavenly bliss.
COLLECTIVISM
AND
INDIVIDUALISM
The
tendency
of
female
objectivity, rooted in
the divergent vacuum of an elemental and molecular particle free soma,
is
towards collectivism and, hence, unity of social groupings or
relations, of
which the family unit is the bedrock; the tendency, by contrast, of
male
subjectivity, centred in the convergent plenum of a molecular and
elemental
wavicle free psyche is, by contrast, towards individualism and, hence,
unity of
moral purpose, of which religious conscience is the essence.
Unity
of
social
purpose,
which addresses
society from a somatic standpoint, rests on the State; unity of moral
purpose,
which addresses society from a psychic standpoint, rests on the Church.
To
contrast
the
noumenal
collectivism (supercollectivism)
of metachemical females with the noumenal pseudo-individualism
(pseudo-superindividualism) of pseudo-metaphysical males at the
northwest point
of the intercardinal axial compass, which is the
apex of the
state-hegemonic axis.
To
contrast
the
phenomenal
individualism or,
rather, individuality (relative as against absolute) of physical males
with the
phenomenal pseudo-collectivity of pseudo-chemical females at the
southeast
point of the intercardinal axial compass, which is
the base
of the state-hegemonic axis.
To
contrast
the
phenomenal
collectivism or,
rather, collectivity (relative as against absolute) of chemical females
with
the phenomenal pseudo-individuality of pseudo-physical males at the
southwest
point of the intercardinal axial compass, which is
the base
of the church-hegemonic axis.
To
contrast
the
noumenal
individualism
(superindividualism) of metaphysical males with the noumenal
pseudo-collectivism (pseudo-supercollectivism) of pseudo-metachemical
females
at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, which
is the apex of the church-hegemonic axis.
The
noumenal
collectivism
of
metachemical
females is in direct opposition to the phenomenal pseudo-collectivity
of
pseudo-chemical females, whilst the noumenal pseudo-individualism of
pseudo-metaphysical males is in direct opposition to the phenomenal
individuality of physical males on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
stretching from northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal
axial
compass.
The
phenomenal
collectivity
of
chemical females
is in direct opposition to the noumenal pseudo-collectivism of
pseudo-metachemical females, whilst the phenomenal pseudo-individuality
of
pseudo-physical males is in direct opposition to the noumenal
individualism of
metaphysical males on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
stretching
from southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.
A
country
dominated,
in
overall axial terms, by
females, like
A
country
dominated,
in
overall axial terms, by
males, like
The
test
of
a
true or genuine male is not whether
and how he conforms to society, which all men must do to greater or
lesser
extents, but to what extent he can develop, to speak in general terms,
a
Christ-like individuality, even at the risk of Golgotha- or
Calvary-like
consequences from his endorsement of a psychic as opposed to somatic
‘take’ on
society.
My
ideal
society,
combining
a hegemonic
noumenal individualism (superindividualism) with a subordinate noumenal
pseudo-collectivism (supercollectivism), would be of the nature of
‘Kingdom
Come’ in its juxtaposition of metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical
elements, of
an elemental-wavicle psychic individualism (God in Heaven) and a
pseudo-elemental-particle somatic pseudo-collectivism (the pseudo-Hell
of the
pseudo-Devil).
Even
if
substance-motivated
communal
cyborgization
were to apply to both elemental contexts, it would not
apply to
them on anything like the same terms, but on terms reflecting the
gender
distinction between a psychic-oriented individualism and a
somatic-oriented
pseudo-collectivism, the plenumous convergence and pseudo-vacuous
pseudo-divergence of a subjective/pseudo-objective noumenal dichotomy.
Ultimately,
God
is
the
superindividuality (of
superconscious self-awareness) accruing to a heavenly
superindividualism, the
truthful acknowledgement of joy, whereas his pseudo-female counterpart,
the
pseudo-metachemical subordinate of a metaphysical hegemony, is the
pseudo-supercollectivity (of supersensuous self-denial) accruing to a
pseudo-diabolic pseudo-supercollectivism, the pseudo-hateful corollary
of
pseudo-ugliness.
THE
ALPHA
AND
OMEGA
OF LIFE
To
contrast
Hell
in
the Devil (the
Mother) with God (the Father) in Heaven. That is, to contrast Hell
the Clear Spirit in Devil the Mother with God the Father in Heaven the
Holy
Soul.
One
could
say
that
whereas Hell the Clear
Spirit is nothing without Devil the Mother, God the Father would be
nothing
without Heaven the Holy Soul.
Both
Devil the Mother
and Hell the Clear Spirit are positive, that is, associated, in beauty
and
love, with metachemical free soma.
Both
Heaven
the
Holy
Soul and God the Father
are positive, that is, associated, in joy and truth, with metaphysical
free
psyche.
Metachemical
free
soma
predominates
on an
absolute (3:1) basis over metachemical bound psyche, the ugliness of
the
Daughter of the Devil and hatred of the Clear Soul of Hell, both of
which are
negative modes of Devil and Hell, so to speak.
Metaphysical
free
psyche
preponderates
on an
absolute (3:1) basis over metaphysical bound soma, the illusion of the
Son of
God and woe of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, both of which are negative
modes of
God and Heaven, so to speak.
The
absolute
beginning
(alpha)
of life in
beauty and love contrasts with the absolute ending (omega) of it in joy
and
truth, as Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit with Heaven the
Holy Soul
and God the Father.
Because
in
the
Judeo-Christian
tradition Devil
the Mother has been identified with and effectively hyped as God the
Father, the
concept of God as be-all-and-end-all of everything, including religion,
has
falsely obtained, with a consequence that varying degrees of
thingfulness
accrue to the divine concept.
There
is
no
greater
lie, nor older tyranny,
than that of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, pretty much as
beauty as
truth.
And
yet,
while
beauty
is the principal aspect
or attribute of metachemistry, which is will, truth, as we have seen,
is not
the principal aspect of metaphysics but, in its graceful freedom, joy,
which
accords with Heaven the Holy Soul.
Heaven
the
Holy
Soul
is the one true attribute
of metaphysics, and hence of religion which, when genuine, is about the
cultivation and sustenance of soul or, in equivalent terms, male
noumenal
self-respect, since soul is the self from a metaphysical (subjectively
noumenal) standpoint.
The
corollary
of
noumenal
self-respect in the
metaphysical male is noumenal self-sacrifice in the metachemical or,
rather,
pseudo-metachemical female, which involves a predominating commitment
to the
pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred of bound metachemical
(pseudo-metachemical)
soma.
Such
a
predominant
binding
to soma in
pseudo-metachemistry only follows from a male hegemony in metaphysics,
and is
akin, on converse ratio terms, to a mirror image, in free psyche and
bound
soma, of metaphysics, contrary to the female’s natural grain.
I
deem
the
pseudo-metachemical
position under
metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass
to be
akin to the subordination of pseudo-science to religion, as, in other
terms, of
the pseudo-Devil (of pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother) to Heaven the Holy
Soul,
since the representative attributes in each case, being absolute, are
bound
will (antiwill) and free soul.
The
bound
spirit
(antispirit)
of pseudo-Hell
the Unclear Spirit (pseudo-spirit) and the free ego of God the Father
are much
less representative of the pseudo-metachemical and metaphysical
contexts or
positions, since comparatively relative, like pseudo-hatred and truth.
Only
pseudo-ugliness
and
joy
are fully
representative of the pseudo-metachemical and metaphysical positions,
with
absolute contrasts between pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother (whose
spirit, being
pseudo, is unclear) and Heaven the Holy Soul.
Those
who
are
truly
religious are much less for
God than Heaven, since such ego as metaphysically obtains with them
compliments
of the soul is merely the superconscious self-realization of
supersensible joy,
akin to the light surrounding a candle flame, the halo surrounding a
saintly
head, and the rings surrounding Saturn.
God,
to
repeat,
would
not exist without Heaven,
whereas Hell could not exist without the Devil.
Hell is as much a loving consequence of devilish beauty as godly
truth
of heavenly joy.
You
could
say
that
it is time for humanity to
face the Truth and turn away from beauty and love in the interests of
joy and
truth – time, in other words, for Eternity.
But humanity is a general term, and life, as we all know, is a
struggle between
female and male criteria.
Therefore
if
joy
and
truth are to
metaphysically triumph it would be at the expense, ultimately, of
beauty and
love, and in consequence, in all likelihood, of a protracted struggle
by the
believers in true religion to topple science from its diabolic throne
and
render it pseudo-metachemically accountable to a metaphysical hegemony.
I
have
outlined,
in
previous texts, the means
whereby this can be achieved, and the term ‘world overcoming’ with
regard to
the pseudo-physical meek (who are not blessed) and the chemical
pseudo-vain
(who are not, as things stand, counter-cursed).
It
has
been
said
that means determine ends,
but, with us, the genuinely religious or metaphysical, ends determine
means,
because one knows that ego, duly bovaryized in metaphysics, is only a
means for
the true end of life in soul.
Heaven
the
Holy
Soul
is both the omega point of
life and the true centre of truth, without which there could be no
truth
because no joy for it (superconsciousness) to bear divine witness to.
Let
metaphysics
reign! And may the triumph of
free soul bring about
the death of free will and thus an end to all tyranny, theocracy
completely
victorious over autocracy as the male over the female, Heaven without
mortal
End. For the Life Eternal can only come
fully into being when Infinite Life, rooted vacuously in space, has
been
definitively consigned to the proverbial rubbish bin of history. To this end, Social Theocracy must be totally
committed, since it is, or has the capacity to become, the true, or
religious,
communism of ‘Kingdom Come’.
LONDON
2009
(Revised
2011)
