Op. 141
RESERVATIONS IN
Aphoristic Philosophy
John O'Loughlin
Copyright ©
2013 John O'Loughlin
___________
CONTENTS
Orange
Notebook 1
Green
Notebook 1
Orange
Notebook 2
Green
Notebook 2
Orange
Notebook 3
--------------------
ORANGE
NOTEBOOK 1
How much of a part did the
Renaissance contribute to the Reformation? For was not the Renaissance
something of a Catholic decadence? If Catholicism underwent its own decadence
with the Renaissance, as the evidence for papal debauchery and such like would
suggest, then that, no doubt, had a considerable influence upon the
Reformation, at least in Germany, and upon the Protestant rejection, through
Luther (who had been to Rome and seen corruption at first hand), of all things
Catholic.
I suppose, when it comes down to
it, the offspring of parents take the male surname in order that the father be
further bound, beyond marriage, to the mother. That didn't work, however, in my
father's case and, ever since, I have been burdened with the surname of a man I
didn't know and who, to judge by his absence from the family, didn't want to
know me, either.
I guess human swine will always eat
pig's flesh, after their swinish natures. You can always tell a swine by the
fact that he eats pig's flesh, or pork.
******
The sun melted into the ocean, like butter
descending from above.
Hatred of most things British, love
of most things German and/or Germanic the emotional poles of my existence
(subject to occasional modification).
I'd rather be shown up in public
than show off in public.
Those who love hate,
hate to love.
The British can be reserved, but
they can also be unspeakably vulgar. Some Britons are more reserved than
unspeakably vulgar, others more unspeakably vulgar than reserved. Even the
reserved can, on occasion, be unspeakably vulgar, just as the unspeakably
vulgar can, on occasion, be reserved. The British are both reserved and
unspeakably vulgar, and perhaps, in some cases, reserved because unspeakably vulgar.
When you've acted in films like Run Lola Run, Anatomy, The Princess and the Warrior, and Atomised, as Franka Potente has, you'd
probably feel you had a right to consider yourself the finest actress of your
day, having played leading roles in four of the very best films of your time. I
think my order of preference of the above films would be:-
1. The Princess and the Warrior (Der
Krieger und die Kaiserin);
2. Atomised (Elementarteilchen);
3. Run Lola Run (Lola Rennt);
4. Anatomy (Anatomie).
******
Whether a
man knows his mind as well as a woman knows her body
must remain a moot
point.
British
urban terraced housing, up close and up tight! A convergence to
some kind of worldly omega point that nonetheless stops short of anything
arguably social democratic, like rectilinear tower blocs on sprawling estates.
With me,
content precedes form, so that not just what but how I think
conditions the way I write, the 'form' of my writings.
The damned
androgynous liberal, paving the way, through equalitarianism, for the liberated
bitch, unhampered by conservatism, to strut her liberated stuff with
socialistic importunity. What a disgrace!
They are
mistaken who think that by removing discrimination in one context it doesn't
have a knock-on effect and undermine one's ability to discriminate in others.
These days 'discrimination' has become a dirty word, especially with the
'politically correct', but it wasn't always so. In fact, the ability to
discriminate meant the difference between 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and
'wrong', 'high' and 'low', and was regarded, correctly, as a prime attribute of
the cultured, i.e. 'the discriminating' or 'the discerning' or those, generally,
who could distinguish between 'right' and 'wrong', etc. In a
non-discriminatory, egalitarian system 'anything goes' and the capacity to
discriminate is not only undermined, but regarded as undesirable because
'elitist'. Somehow I can't help but think that all this want of discrimination
stems from Protestant opposition to Catholicism and the gradual secular
levelling which has since ensued, in consequence. In spite of that, however,
people do still discriminate,
because it is necessary to both human dignity and survivability.
******
These days,
literature is beset by too many conventional slaves who deprive it of original
artists. Commercialization has so bedevilled literature that no self-respecting
artist could possibly allow his work to be published commercially, much less
expect it to be published by the book-oriented publishing establishment! Which
is really just as well, since the prospects of his work surviving unscathed at
the hands of editors and printers and others on the production side of publishing
could only be slight, if the appalling evidence of most books is anything to
judge by!
Politicians
in
I have
employed a species of cultural fascism to hit back, time and again, at
communistic workmen whose exploitation of somatic licence goes too far for my
liking. In fact, they've only got what they deserved, that is, some form of
retributive punishment. Which, on second thoughts, is
probably less than they deserved.
The British
form of global success, the imperial acquisitions of Empire, and so on, are
fundamentally ant-like in character, and therefore only admirable from the
standpoint of those who admire ants.
The weather
goes from bad to worse, and there is nothing you can do about it, nobody you
can specifically hold to account and blame for it. So helpless!
Much of the
time we don't actually listen to music; we hear it and are tormented by it.
How could
they bomb Monte
Keeping up
appearances is to put down essences. Keeping up (sticking to) essences is to
put down appearances.
Drumming is
the essence of rock music, one might almost say the
godly element par excellence.
Most kinds of music either don't have an essence or, like jazz, tend to have
only a pseudo-essence in the guise of an approach to drumming (or percussion)
that is more sequential than repetitive and therefore germane not to time
(metaphysics) but to pseudo-time (pseudo-metaphysics), which, of course, exists
under the spatial space, or space per
se, of metachemistry, as under jazz vocals
and/or brass, with particular reference, I should imagine, to use of a trumpet.
Born in
Raiding, just south of Furchtenstein in
Brunau-am-Inn's
most infamous son any guesses?
He was a
tormented genius tormented by other people!
Uneducated
proletarians are simply people who are incapable exceptions to the rule notwithstanding
of being educated. Only a fool or a madman would throw pearls before swine,
not least those who, lacking the requisite capacity, don't want to be educated
in the first place.
The
incompetence of the British, inextricably bound, as it tends to be, to a degree
of leg-pulling and even foul play, sometimes even Paddy-bashing as a foil for
their want of competence, invariably makes for discontent. They are too much
will and too little soul, but also, and conversely, too little spirit and too much
ego.
Living in
Living in
When
countries, or the people of a given country, are growing, they tend towards
nationhood, or the achievement of a uniform culture within civilized bounds.
When, however, countries are falling apart or disintegrating, they tend towards
internationalism, or the break-up of nationhood under the twin pressures of
barbarity and philistinism. As Yeats wrote: 'Things fall apart, the centre
cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world'
or, more specifically,
upon what was once a nation. But a nation, one could argue, that undermined
itself through foreign conquests and the absorption or integration of foreign
elements, becoming, in the process, less male and more female in character.
It is
ironic that while
Nationhood
is the only thing worth holding on to; it is what defines a country. Without
it, you are nothing. Internationalism leads not forwards but backwards
to alphaville, as to a polytheistic plethora of competing
cultures whose incompatibility makes for barbarous strife and a want of
certainty or conviction, a confusion of mind that allows the body to sensuously
triumph.
Latterly,
the wretched workmen next-door have added sawing to their ungodly repertoire of
hammering, drilling, and scraping. Whatever next?
A more
fitting name for the British would, in my opinion, be the Brutish. For,
accustomed to the strife of imperialism and the acquisition by force of empire,
the British masses are nothing if not brutal, with few if any exceptions.
Getting on with it without reasoning or even knowing why seems to be their
fatality, one deriving, in no small part, from the English Reformation, which
left them bereft of religious sensibility or otherworldly idealism, without
even the benefit of a Lutheran protest.
Too many people, too little space. What could be worse?
Prisoners
of war and concentration camps usually go 'hand-in-glove'. You cannot really
have the one without the other, not when vast numbers of POWs are involved.
A modern
militarily successful nation will have an awful lot of concentration camps.
To turn
Europe into a single, if federated, supernation would
seem to be the coming task of historical progress in
******
Only
'arseholes' drink beer straight from cans, whether in terms of pale ale and
lager on the one hand (colloquially identifiable with 'piss' and
'pseudo-shit'), which I have tended to identify with chemistry and
pseudo-physics, or stout and brown ale on the other hand (colloquially
identifiable with 'shit' and 'pseudo-piss'), which I have tended to identify
with physics and pseudo-chemistry, with a strong suggestion of the applicability
of such tastes to either a paedophile or a homosexual disposition. Either way, a degeneration from bottles, as from either female- or
male-dominated kinds of heterosexuality.
I will
always be a thoughtful thorn-in-the-side of the thoughtless majority, who make
a virtue of their incapacity or unwillingness to think, and especially to think
honestly or credibly or boldly.
For some,
the 'golden mean' in between Hell and Heaven is Purgatory; for others it is
Earth. In neither case does one rise above the corporeal equivalent of beer.
She don't half waste money on flashy clothes; she completely
wastes it!
When, in
the past, I saw people almost invariably males drinking from cans in the
He had
reservations about visiting 'the Reservation', but once there he overcame his
customary reserve and reserved a table for two, reserving the right to eat in
the company of his alter ego.
Another
wet, windy day with a heavy-leaden sullen sky that causes one to feel truly
contemptuous of the weather and all the more prone to world rejection, as one
struggles with oneself in the face of such persistent, almost predictable inclemencies and simply turns within, like a tortoise
withdrawing back into its shell on what may appear to be a damage-limitation
exercise. Sad.
******
I eat
because I have to, not because I particularly want to.
It is not
my consciousness that exhibits a considerable thirst when I drink when thirsty,
nor is it my consciousness that reveals how much of an appetite I have when I
eat when hungry, but my body which speaks for itself in the degree to which it
thirstily or hungrily devours whatever fluids or solids happen to be available,
whilst I, as consciousness, though able to consciously moderate my intake,
observe and rationally conclude that I must have been thirsty or hungry. By
itself, consciousness has little to do with this, since its principal function
is to enable one to locate the sources of liquid or solid nourishment that
one's body desires. Fundamentally consciousness is little more than a tool, or means,
for enabling one, as body, to survive, since ego, the seat of consciousness, is
subject to the Will, which expresses the body's needs and desires. I am, in a
sense, driven by the Will to drink and eat, but the actual source of what is
drunk or eaten has to be located, or chosen, by consciousness, as ego acting in
the service of the Will. As for spirit acting in the service of the Soul, that
is another matter, if one that is secondary to the above. For spirit cannot
serve the Soul unless ego has served the Will and the body can accordingly
relax its grip, as it were, upon consciousness, freeing spirit for what is superconscious and therefore transcendental, that is,
transcendent of the fundamental needs of the body.
Religion is
a luxury, not a necessity, like science. Some would describe it as icing on the
cake of life or, more credibly, as candles on the icing (spirit) that decorates
the actual cake (will), with its fruit or other fillings (ego). The candles
would, of course, correspond to the Soul at least when lit. For only when the
cake has candles is the Soul acknowledged.
One could
argue that the most likely equivalence, in the Galaxy, to what is monotheistically regarded, in conventional religion
(alpha-stemming), as 'the Creator', 'the Almighty', 'the All-Powerful', and
other variations on the theme of what I tend to equate with Devil the Mother
and/or Virgin hyped as God
would be a so-called Black Hole, especially one
that existed in proximity to a Quasar that was busily consuming vast quantities
of gaseous matter or nearby degenerative stars and, in consequence, was
emitting astronomical amounts and degrees of radioactive material the
brightness of which far outshone the brightest of the circling stars, thereby
signalling a status quite at variance with the generality of stellar bodies,
not least in respect of its central location in the Galaxy as a whole.
Ironically, science would appear to have confirmed, by default, the existence
of this Creator equivalence which conventional religion would equate with God,
even if the vast numbers of galaxies in the so-called Universe (cosmos) would
suggest the existence of a comparable number of Black Holes/Quasars more in
keeping with a polytheistic than a monotheistic parallel. Actually, I have long
maintained, in my writings, that monotheism accords with the 'central star'
(black hole and/or quasar) of this galaxy as opposed to those of galaxies in
general, the individual Black Holes/Quasars of which would amount, polytheistically, to a comparable number of 'Creators', 'Almighties', etc., in the Cosmos as a whole. Apparently, if
science is to be believed, the Black Hole at the centre of the Milky Way, our
own galaxy, is not also a Quasar (though how a Black Hole can be expected to
exist without a Quasar, I don't honestly know), since not burning ferociously
with the consumption of other stars and/or gaseous clusters, which, if true, is
probably just as well for us! Assuming it was formerly host to a Quasar, it
would now appear to be the equivalent, as a Black Hole, of a 'dead God', a 'god
that died', to use a Nietzschean expression, and
therefore no longer capable of creating anything, least of all new stars.
Which, if true (and we have a right, for want of conclusive data, to uphold a
degree of scepticism), would make Christianity seem all the more
understandable, traditionally, in terms of a shift away from the old 'Creator'
concept of God towards a humanistic concept, in Christ, that offered one the
prospect of Eternal Life following his own death on the Cross, the worship of
which exemplifies dying to 'the world', as to 'the flesh', in order to be
reborn into the otherworldly life of the spirit or, better, the Soul, the full
realization of which can only happen in Eternity, especially with the prospect,
following Messianic intervention, of 'Kingdom Come'. All of which rather
suggests the likelihood, with the return of some Christ-like Saviour in the
guise of a 'Second Coming', of a kind of Superchristianity
suited to man's logical successor, the Superman, and thus to what I have
identified, in various of my later writings, with Social Theocracy and/or
Social Transcendentalism, with a return, in consequence, to 'the Centre',
albeit not, to be sure, to the centre of the Galaxy!
******
When, the
other day, I saw two degenerate-looking characters milling around outside
Finsbury Park underground station with cans of beer in their hands, I smiled to
myself and thought: 'That figures, doesn't it?'
I am the
most reserved of people, who rarely speaks to anyone, least of all women,
except when I have to, or am spoken to.
I have
never reserved a table in a restaurant, since I have no interest in eating
alone in what would most likely be a middle-class milieu. In fact, I have
always avoided worldly contexts like restaurants, theatres, and concert halls,
with their middle-class connotations. But that doesn't mean to say I've
endorsed working-class contexts like pubs, clubs, football grounds, circuses,
etc. instead. On the contrary, I have generally kept away from all public
buildings of a communal or social nature, partly, I suspect, for financial
reasons and partly from a distaste, as someone of Irish descent, of being seen
in public in Britain or, at any rate, in London, the vast scale and compressed
urban nature of which has always intimidated and, frankly, disgusted me ... to
the point where I prefer to live as a recluse. As though, in fact, I wasn't
really there, like a ghost.
---------------------
GREEN
NOTEBOOK 1
A cultured
life tends not to be influenced by the weather but, come rain or shine, gets on
with what it does indoors irrespective of what is going on without.
I believe,
as a kind of bohemian intellectual and artist-philosopher, that I am one of
those upper-order classless people who fits in
nowhere, since a congenital outsider who prefers, when not thinking about
himself or his philosophy, to observe the world from a private distance.
I visit my
ageing mother with a certain trepidation, since her
facial ugliness and physical decrepitude are such that, in spite of every
effort to be polite and concerned, I am positively disgusted, revolted, and
filled with all manner of social reservations. The description 'old hag' would
not, I fear, be inappropriate, although she still has the rudiments of a 'kind
heart', even if it happens to be laced, on occasion, with sarcastic asides and
cynical innuendos. But, really, I should be grateful, at sixty, that my mother
is still alive and that I have at least one contact in
People are
so glib about calling 'bums' those whom they know little or nothing about and
would probably be unable to comprehend or understand even if they were of a
mind to, which is unlikely, to say the least, given that the world only goes
around, as Baudelaire sarcastically reminded us, by misunderstanding and, if I
may say so, the incomprehension of people for one another which, bad enough
within ethnically homogeneous national bounds, becomes even more pronounced in
an age of international cosmopolitanism.
Women are
like Black Holes, sucking in weak or deluded males and then raging, with
Quasar-like intensity, before spitting out the light of reproductive heat in
the throes of motherhood. This may be 'Creator-esque',
but it has nothing whatsoever to do with God, or with what is godly. On the
contrary, it is the metachemical antithesis of
metaphysics, as Devil the Mother of God the Father, or Hell the Clear Spirit of
Heaven the Holy Soul. Like it or not, life for most people is simply a mirror
image, on the microcosmic scale, of the Galaxy, reflecting on a more natural or
corporeal basis what tends to occur supernaturally, in the alpha-based ethereal
heights of galactic subatomic fusion and/or fission.
Females
preside over what is devolutionary, in atomic reflection of subatomic activity,
rather than, like some males, over what is evolutionary and therefore tending
towards either metaphysical independence of the metachemical
or, in the corporeal realm, physical independence of the chemical. In both
cases, it is the psyche which, whether in ego (corporeal) or soul (ethereal),
physics or metaphysics, constitutes an evolutionary opposition to the
predominantly devolutionary nature of soma, whether in will (ethereal) or
spirit (corporeal), metachemistry or chemistry, since
whereas soma, being more closely associated with the body, is objective, psyche
is subjective and therefore the necessary precondition, through mind, of
evolutionary progress, in contrast to the devolutionary regression of soma.
Baudelaire
was right about 'true progress' being inner, since it is that alone which
constitutes an antithesis, whether phenomenal or (more genuinely) noumenal, to the regressive nature (outer) of devolution
and of all things female. However, I would be the last person to settle for a
simple devolutionary/evolutionary antithesis. For where there is devolution,
whether noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or
corporeal, there will also be pseudo-evolution, pseudo-subjectivity to
objectivity. And where, conversely, there is evolution, again whether
phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal, there
will be pseudo-devolution, pseudo-objectivity to subjectivity. In either case,
the 'pseudo' is gender subordinate to the genuine, as a pseudo-element to an
element, existing on an immediately lower plane to the hegemonic factor, be it
objective or subjective, female or male. Hence pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry, as pseudo-time a plane down from space, and
pseudo-physics under chemistry, as pseudo-mass a plane down from volume, where
the alternative (noumenal or phenomenal) forms of
devolution and pseudo-evolution are concerned. And hence pseudo-chemistry under
physics, as pseudo-volume a plane down from mass, and pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, as pseudo-space a plane
down from time, where the alternative (phenomenal and noumenal)
forms of evolution and pseudo-devolution are concerned.
Whereas the
objective female is somatically free, the pseudo-subjective male, a
pseudo-male, will be pseudo-psychically bound (in his preponderating ratio
factor of psyche to soma). And whereas the subjective male is psychically free,
the pseudo-objective female, a pseudo-female, will be pseudo-somatically bound
(in her predominating ratio factor of soma to psyche), pseudo-binding being, in
either case, the product of hegemonic pressure from the free element, that is,
the gender existing a plane up from its correlative pseudo-gender in the
pseudo-element, whether in terms of absolute (3:1) or relative (2½:1½) ratio
distinctions of soma to psyche or, conversely, of psyche to soma.
******
William
Burroughs that dope-fiend faggot with an obscure style of convoluted writing
that came to a head in 'novels' like The Naked Lunch and The Soft Machine, both of which I laboured over as an
author-besotted youth without making any appreciable progress. Certainly Junkie was comparatively more accessible,
though still quite obscure and even esoteric in places. Burroughs was never an
author I could warm to, being, in any case, so technically and socially cold.
Allen
Ginsberg, though also obscure and a faggot, even an unapologetic 'arsehole',
was nonetheless of considerably more interest to me than Burroughs. But one
would have to be Jewish, I believe, to really have any prospect of penetrating
the obscurities and complexities of his mature poetry, whether with regards to
publications like Howl, Kaddish, Reality Sandwiches, or Planet News, all of which I laboured over in my youth. His
early work, like Empty Mirror, was
certainly more accessible and even intelligible. But as he matured, his style
became correspondingly more prolix and its content at
times extremely difficult to fathom. Some of it was, frankly, revolting in the
degree and nature of its obscenity, and I never did have the same respect for
Ginsberg as transpired with the likes of Gregory Corso
in Gasoline or Lawrence Ferlingetti
in Pictures
of the Gone World, both of
whom were lyrically effusive and full of a metaphorical mastery that seemed
positively magical against the backdrop of an expansive formal structure quite
unique to poetry.
Another
American author I didn't much like was Norman Mailer, who struck me as somewhat
akin to Ernest Hemingway in his alpha-male persona as a boxer and sports
enthusiast, the sort of persona I detest in a writer, even one as sophisticated
as Ezra Pound, and deem to be at loggerheads with true literature and genuine
artistry, whereby the writer distances himself, as an intellectual type of
artist, from all things athletic and merely physically competitive. Norman
Mailer, like Hemingway before him, was fundamentally a philistine who simply
subverted literature from a standpoint owing more to journalism than to art,
with little one could consider worthy of lasting literary respect. Though I quite admired his second novel,
The same
could not be said, however, of Henry Miller who, although given to the
subversion of literature as narrative fiction, was no philistine but at heart a
real artist who aspired to being a writer with a capital 'W' like,
in his deferential estimation, the great Irish Writer, James Joyce. Although
most of Miller's best work was arguably done in Paris, especially with Tropic of Cancer and Black Spring, he continued, even with his more
America-oriented books like Tropic of Capricorn and,
subsequently, The Rosy Crucifixion Trilogy ('Sexus', 'Plexus' and 'Nexus'), to be at or near the cutting-edge of
American literature, a writer worth reading if only because he turned
literature on its head, as it were, and made of himself, his personal history
and experiences, the principal protagonist of virtually all his major writings,
with the possible exceptions of The Colossus of Maroussi and A Devil in Paradise, which portrayed, in fairly narrative vein,
a Greek (George Katsimbalis) and a Frenchman (Conrad Moricand) from two very different, even contrasting
viewpoints. Now given that Miller was essentially an artist, with a discerning
aesthetic temperament, and not, like Hemingway or Mailer, a philistine
journalist in literary disguise, one can forgive him for writing the way he did,
and even find inspiration and encouragement for writing in a similar, albeit
inevitably independent, vein oneself. Henry Miller means more to me than any
other American writer of the twentieth century, and whilst writers like Henry
James and Aldous Huxley will always be of literary
significance, if only as chroniclers of bourgeois decadence, both socially and
spiritually, it is to Miller one must turn if one wishes to have a subjective
portrait of mid-twentieth-century civilization in both Europe and America that
is laced with much autobiographical reminiscence and not a little poetic
inspiration and literary or cultural criticism, as well as topped off with an
arresting degree of what could be called religious or metaphysical speculation
concerning the future.
Jack
Kerouac, whom many would regard as Miller's literary successor, wrote such
novels as On the Road and The Dharma Bums on the wing, as it were, without undue
hesitation or reflection, as though life were a train ride through the world
which had to be documented en passant
and therefore as spontaneously as possible with what little time the pursuit of
other pleasures left to one who, as an American, was always in a hurry and
incapable of or indisposed to leisurely reflections, grammatical niceties or,
indeed, the slightest regard for literary convention. Kerouac rushes you along
at breakneck speed, if not exactly breathtaking pace, and you either ride with
him on this never-ending freight-train journey across the vast expanses of the
American plains or you fall off and are left to pick up your wounded pride and
develop reservations about reading such writers, whose novels take the term
'avant-garde' to a whole new level, beyond even the most subconscious
spontaneity of Andrι Breton and his Surrealist followers or imitators. Kerouac
is smart, make no mistake about that, but he is also a bum and a fag moreover,
so think twice before climbing onto the bandwagon of twentieth-century literary
degeneration and its downhill rush towards literary oblivion such that leaves
you feeling cheated and somehow debased, cheapened, coarsened by these
sophisticated cowboys of the so-called 'beat generation'. This is not classic
literature; it is effectively pop literature, the equivalent of Pop Art,
beneath even the bourgeois decadence of Henry James or the petty-bourgeois
philistinism of Norman Mailer. A kind of proletarian barbarism that assaults
literary taste and makes you pine, paradoxically, for some kind of filmic or
cinematic release.
Were one to
describe the poet Kenneth Rexroth as the 'father', through his poetic
obscurantism, of the 'beat generation', or poets like Allen Ginsberg and
Gregory Corso, then I think it only fair to describe
Ezra Pound as the 'grandfather' or even 'godfather' of that generation, since
his Cantos, the late-period economically-charged rambling verses
of a 'Tower-of-Babel'-like lingual complexity teetering on the brink of
madness, arguably paved the way for the 'babbling towers' that, principally in
the guises of Rexroth and Ginsberg, were to advance the degenerative process of
American poetry towards a homosexual dead-end (fag-end?) from which, even now,
it hasn't really recovered, except in respect of the unashamedly heterosexual
musings of 'rock poets' like Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison, surely the only
credible antidote to what preceded it in the turgid informality of the 'beat
poets', whose jazz-inspired poems rarely danced to the regular beat of rhythmic
percussion the way the poetry of the 'rock poets' does, thereby switching the
axis to one that can only lead inwards and upwards when given sufficient
encouragement from a messianic standpoint.
******
The last
major war in
The Centre,
which I associate with Social Theocracy, should not be thought of as the
synthetically artificial equivalent of a Black Hole or Quasar but, rather, as
the antithesis to such an elusive entity, tending towards the centripetal and
all that contrasts, in evolutionary convergence and expansion, or expansion
through convergence, with whatever contracts and diverges, or contracts from
divergence, in devolutionary vein. The 'Celestial City' equivalence of the
ultimate Space Centre, the future successor to the contemporary Space Station,
will doubtless expand through the convergence upon it of the various centres
throughout the world, which would have to be accommodated in such fashion that
they did not circle the principal or initial Centre, like so many stars or
planets circling a Black Hole/Quasar, but were somehow assigned to it as an
expansion, through convergence, of the central axis, the true Omega Point to
which all smaller centres should be drawn, having been provided with devices
that enabled them to 'lock on' and thereby become part of the ever-expanding
Universal Centre. This, truly, would be the antithesis of a Black Hole, since
manifesting, through centro-complexification (Teilhard de Chardin), the
attainment, by degrees, of centripetal subjectivity, as far removed from
centrifugal objectivity as anything could ever possibly be.
You get sucked-in
to a human 'black hole' (woman) only to be shredded and spat out in transmuted
guise, when it comes time for the 'black hole' to transform itself into a
quasar-like body emitting light as the basis of a new star (child). I dunno, but one senses a blueprint of sorts for what goes on
down here, on Earth, on a kind of extrapolative or attenuated basis.
Oh, that
beautiful Quasar, so lit up and so different from the 'dark side' in back, the
ugly Black Hole that appears to stand in a subconscious relationship to the supersensual effulgence or luminosity of the light-emitting
Quasar! Her soma is beautiful alright, and probably loving to boot, but her
psyche, corresponding to a Black Hole, is dark and ugly, even hateful, and you
have to be weary of getting sucked-in to it or of the possible consequences of
reacting against it!
He didn't
like them 'coming on' to him with reproductive intent, but remained unusually
reserved in his demeanour, always ready to 'hose down' a potential threat to
his peace of mind.
Could it be
that Quasars precede Black Holes rather than emerge from them? Or give rise to
a situation in which Black Holes form as a kind of psychic dustbin for all that
is in supersensual rotation about a fixed point and
cannot but suck-in surrounding gases or stellar clusters? At any rate, I have
long maintained that, on the female side of the gender divide, soma precedes
psyche, not least in metachemistry, the fiery element
par excellence, where one would
have, with noumenal absolutism, a 3:1 ratio of soma
to psyche in the form of supersensuous to
subconscious, or supernatural to subnurtural, so to
speak. It is not, in that instance, a case of light out of darkness, light
emerging from darkness, but rather a case of light giving rise to, or
engendering, a certain kind of darkness which is both independent of and
distinct from mere nothingness, the empty void of inter-galactic space. By
itself, space is neither dark nor light, black nor bright,
but only becomes recognizably dark in relation to the light of stars and, most
especially it would appear, of quasars. You cannot have darkness before light,
or the bound before the free. Only the light of freedom establishes the
darkness of binding, whether in soma (female) or in psyche (male), with
correlative types of bound psyche (female) and bound soma (male). So, if this
theory is correct, why should not Quasars precede Black Holes, making for a
special kind of darkness distinct from the nothingness of space? I rest my
case.
I have long
believed that Sigmund Freud's emphasis upon the subconscious at the expense of
nay, to the exclusion of what I call the supersensuous
to be philosophically (though not necessarily psychologically) erroneous,
because too partial
to do justice to the totality of (metachemical)
factors in which one can, to be sure, posit the existence of subconsciousness, but only, in philosophical terms, as an
adjunct to physiological supersensuousness, the
factor that, with respect to the female or objective nature of metachemistry, precedes, as free soma, a bound psychic
concomitant in the guise of the subconscious, with a correspondingly absolute
(3:1) ratio of the one to the other, as of the 'super' to the 'sub'.
******
Cigs, cans,
fags an unholy trinity of Social Democratic degeneration.
Music is
our defence against noise, the heads side of the coin of what is often
chaotically loosed upon the airwaves.
Weak noise
might sometimes approximate to music, but weak music invariably approximates to
noise.
Living in a
twisted society where the Dream had been betrayed must surely be worse than
living in one which never had a Dream at all (but is/was crassly materialistic
and realistic). Strange that it is the latter type of society which caused me
to dream the Ideal principally for those who are sick of living in a twisted
society, the result, in most respects, of alien interference and the legacy of
imperial imposition.
There are
no posters, paintings, sculptures, flags, icons, idols, etc., more hateful to
me than those espousing the cause of hammer-brandishing workers.
Secularity
has divested the term 'idol' of any moral opprobrium, making it natural and
even admirable to idolize someone or, worse, something, like a pop star or a
football team.
Those
heathens are only too ready to bow to the ungodly designs of the wilful scum
who rule over them from a standpoint based in somatic licence.
One can see
where the want of religion and respect for the soul actually leads. Certainly
not forwards.
Many want
to be liberated from worldly bondage and netherworldly
tyranny, but few are willing to pay the otherworldly price and make the
necessary sacrifices.
I watch so
little television it always amazes me that I continue to pay the licence fee,
which I tend to do by quarterly direct debit. In fact, it scandalizes me that I
should continue to pay it when I rarely watch anything, preferring to watch and
re-watch (any number of times) my favourite DVDs, most of which are quality
German-language films, Austrian and Swiss included.
Unlike
Communism Soviet Communism in particular Nazism (not to mention Fascism in
general) never went in for iconographic or sculptural monuments. There were no
huge iconic reproductions or statues of Hitler, the way the 'great leaders' of
the Communist world were idolized and monumentally reproduced for the dubious
benefit of the slavish masses, which, to my mind, is just as well. Most of
these idols, including the ones of Lenin and Saddam Hussein, have since been
consigned to the 'rubbish bin of history', as fitting testimony to the folly of
communist or socialist idolatry and the transience of tyrannical control.
******
Women are a
restless lot, constantly plotting and scheming how to get or extend power over
men. For me, they give the terms 'agitation' and/or 'agitator' not least in
respect of so-called agents provocateurs or agit prop a bad name, as something or somebody to despise
for constantly stirring-up trouble like women!
No man who
is really a man, or properly male, should ever be an agitator. Rather is it a
condition to be associated with long-haired youths, and then only in certain
circumstances or as the unsavoury corollary of a collegiate lifestyle in which
egotistical leaders emerge from the 'herd' to direct and guide it on some
ostensibly revolutionary path.
I always
despised political agitators, finding in them little that was
truly or recognizably male.
Males who
want to be like women are they not the most despicable from a male
standpoint?
Not letting
you be but
needling you to what purpose? Put simply, power.
To gain power over you in the hope of making you an adjunct to their
reproductive needs which, sad to say, is the basic meaning of life (for women),
with anything deeper a male conceit or wish.
******
Christianity
inherited wine from the Romans and turned it to religious account or, at any
rate (for the Romans were not adverse to identifying
the consumption of wine with religious rites), to what one would identify,
through the Mass, with Christian usage. And the result, even when this usage
has been attenuated or modified to suit other alcoholic tastes, has been a
civilization fixated on alcohol and prone to alcoholism and other related forms
of self-abuse. Christ himself cannot be exonerated from being in some degree
responsible for this sorry state-of-affairs, which will doubtless continue so
long as Christianity, in some form or other, continues to exist, as it does
even in these so-called global times. Like it or not, alcohol does more harm
than good, and anybody who thinks otherwise must be either mad or stupid, and
almost certainly sick.
How can a peasant read the 'Word of God', or what passes for
such? Few peasants in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, when the
Reformation was in full swing, would have been able to read anyway but, even
supposing some could, what right would they have had to stand on equal terms
with God, presuming, for the sake of argument, that a degree of metaphysics had
been invested in this term and it wasn't wholly metachemical
(like Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father) or partly chemical (like the
so-called Mother of God) or partly physical (like the so-called Son of Man)?
Strictly speaking, God and man are unequal entities, as, on opposite terms, are
the Devil and woman, and you cannot have equality between what is unequal. What
you can have is the debasement
of terms like God to the level of man (Son of Man, God as Man, etc.), and then
you don't really have religion, whether in fundamentalist falsity or
transcendentalist truth, but merely some degree of humanism or, in the case of
woman, some form of pantheism, with worldly implications that soon lead to
irreligious practices of an economic or a political order. Which
is precisely where we find ourselves today, except that economics has joined
forces with science to combat and exploit politics. And the rule of
science, as of fundamentalist falsity, means that there is little room, as
things stand, for religion, and hence the prospect of transcendentalist truth,
a factor crucial to the extrication of politics from the predatory grips of
science and economics, and for the possibility, under Social Theocracy, of
'Kingdom Come'.
******
I tried to
enjoy myself, but there was always too much crap around, pulling my soul down
into the mud of their democratic or plutocratic licence, where the
lowest-common-denominator of promiscuous filth prevails.
If I were
to attempt a definition of how a homosexual drinks, I would imagine him as
drinking straight from a can of stout or perhaps even brown ale, without
recourse to a glass. If, on the other hand, I were to attempt to define how a
paedophile drinks, I would imagine him as drinking straight from a can of lager
or perhaps even pale ale, without recourse to a glass. Either way, I would
conceive of these degenerates in relation to extra-parliamentary social
democracy on the one hand, that of the homosexual, and extra-parliamentary
democratic socialism (republican socialism) on the other hand, that of the
paedophile, with an axial distinction between degenerative Protestant (Puritan)
and degenerative Catholic (Marian) types of degeneration which would correspond
to the respective nadirs of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, as in the case of a
British/Irish ethnic divide, and this contrary to what are usually perceived as
being representative of this distinction, as when Britons are identified with a
predilection for lager and the Irish with a predilection for stout. Be that as
it may, logic suggests otherwise, and I firmly believe that a connotation can
be posited between canned stout and homosexuality on the one hand, and canned
lager and paedophilia on the other hand, as though in a distinction between
sodomy and pederasty, with the usual four-letter connotations that would merely
confirm what I am contending, especially when paedophilia is conceived as
implying illicit sexual relations between male adults and juvenile girls.
Degenerative
modes of consuming alcohol (for that is what drinking from a can actually
amounts to) could be construed as being indicative of a degenerate sexual
predilection, whether licit (homosexual) or illicit (paedophile), in the
persons concerned, though it would, of course, be another thing to prove it!
But if a parallel does in fact exist, then such modes of consuming alcohol
would be no better than their corresponding modes of sexual degeneracy, and
should accordingly be viewed with contempt by those who neither approve of nor practise either sodomy or pederasty. For drinking
straight from the can is the mark of an 'arsehole' or, as the Germans say, ein arschloch.
Even if your sexual persuasion is
not to bugger the shit out of another man or to fuck the piss out of a little
girl, which I would guess is pretty much what homosexuals and paedophiles tend
to do, you are little better than that if it is your habit to drink straight
from a can of stout or, alternatively, a can of lager. Either
way, you are an 'arsehole', and your behaviour is despicable from the
standpoints of the bottle-fearing, heterosexual majority, who oppose degeneracy
in sexual as in other matters, including, not least, radical forms of social
democracy and democratic socialism. And so they should!
Of course, you might add drinking
beer directly from a bottle to the above, though whether, depending on the type
of drink, that would make for a higher class of homosexual and/or paedophile is
a moot point. One could argue that this is less significant of somebody who is
an 'arsehole' than of somebody who is a 'prick', given that bottles cannot be
equated with a female sexual receptacle, like glasses, into which the drink is
poured, and may well suggest, in the context alluded to, an active rather than
passive sexual disposition. There may also be a sense in which bottles more
approximate to a psychic correlation than to a somatic one, making them not
only correspondingly more male but also relative to a church rather than to a
state bias. However that may be, the liberal heterosexual will normally pour
from the bottle into a glass in the presence, most especially, of women,
thereby replicating or intimating of coitus, not drink straight from the bottle
like a 'prick', who may or may not be a sodomite or pederast, though could well
be one who engages his female partner in anal sex. Which leaves, I suppose, the
possibility of bisexuality in connection with a tendency to drink straight from
both bottles and cans (though obviously not at the same time), like somebody
who is into acoustic bass one moment and electric bass the next, or whatever. A
not untypical aspect, presumably, of what Jung would call 'civilization in
transition', though I would be less generous.
******
Men can live perfectly happily, in
a manner of speaking, without a relationship. Women, on the other hand, cannot.
That is the problem.
One thing I have never done is to
write for money. Writing for money is to turn your back on Truth, or the
possibility of enlightenment through metaphysical knowledge, which is also the
possibility of meaningful work. It is to 'sell out', and in all 'selling out'
(to commerce) there is a loss of soul (the price to be paid for 'selling out')
and therefore a want of nay, an incapacity for Truth, that is, of
metaphysical self-knowledge and its joyful reward (heaven). The abuse of soul
through religious corruption is one thing; the abandonment of soul through
economic greed is much worse, since it leaves one with no hope of a better
world, but only with a different stake in this one, ruled, as it is, by will.
Great minds are as abhorrent to the
small-minded as small minds to the Great, albeit from entirely different points
of view.
People in general live for the
body, not the mind, which is held against anyone who happens to be one, as
though he were a sexual deviant or some kind of 'nut'. After all, is not
'mental' a term of abuse to those who are physical and who take their
physicality for granted? In other words, the great majority.
To be sure, the term 'mental' is up against it from a physical standpoint, as
are males from the standpoint of females and, these days more than ever, the
church from the standpoint of the state, which seeks freedom from church
interference or regulation in the interests of unrestricted physical, or
somatic, licence, the crux, if I am not mistaken, of what the term 'free world'
implies, a 'world' that is overwhelmingly secular in its plutocratic opposition
to autocratic excesses and indifference, if not hostility (deriving from a
largely Protestant tradition), to theocratic ideals, which exploits the
democratic masses, and indeed the concept of democracy itself, to maximize the
freedom of the rich.
Religion is the consolation of
losers, including those who are too self-respecting to 'win', that is, to
succeed on worldly or netherworldly terms,
sacrificing soul for the benefit of material gain.
Do you really think the tables can
be turned on women, the primary sex, whose will and spirit, hailing from a
vacuum, objectively dominates life? Even I, as someone who has drawn up a
blueprint for 'Kingdom Come', even I have certain reservations!
Take a look at the world around you
and tell me what you see. Would it not suggest that most men are only too ready
to serve a woman's reproductive needs?
They say faith can move mountains,
and it would certainly take a lot of faith to move the mountain of female
status in society from a position of domination to one of gender subordination
to the hill of male liberation. Meanwhile, most males are resigned to being
slaves to female dominion, working to finance their romantic prospects or, in
the event of matrimonial commitments, to support their family.
Marriage is designed to secure a
stable future for any prospective offspring, tying the male surname not just to
his wife but also to his children and thus ensuring, if not guaranteeing, the
latter a degree of parental responsibility which so-called 'free love' would
most likely fail to provide, with the male 'taking off' at the first whiff of
being 'tied down' and rendered financially and paternally accountable. Which is
precisely what marriage is designed to do except in the case of my father,
who 'took off' even though he had married my mother and officially bequeathed
his surname to me, something for which I have never been particularly grateful,
not least for having been brought from the Republic of Ireland to Great
Britain, with the return of my mother to England, and subsequently having had
to grow up and live in England with a very Irish surname ever subject to
mispronunciation by non-Irish people, and not just Britons! That sonofabitch O'Loughlin would have
a lot to answer for! Unfortunately for me, however, he died back in
******
Visited the park with three ponds
and one lake a lake for sailing toy boats that has the look, in its
shallowness, of a gigantic puddle surrounded, on all sides, by at least nine
weeping willows and sundry other species of deferential tree. But what matter,
even though you rarely see any toy boats on its lake, Broomfield Park in
Palmer's Green, London N13, is pleasant enough as parks go, and one is glad, on
a warm day, of the cool breezes which waft across the watery expanses of, in
particular, two of the rustic-looking ponds that pay host to a plethora of
ducks and geese!
In Britain, to paraphrase Stendhal,
the hammerer 'walks proud', compliments, I dare say, of the democratic
levelling that the nonconformist (puritan) types of Protestantism led to in
opposition, it would seem, to the kingly Anglicanism that, as the original type
of English Protestantism, was not motivated, as in Germany, by a
Luther-inspired grass-roots opposition to papal excesses, but simply followed
from kingly expediency, and remained aloof, in consequence, from populist
tendencies.
The renaissance decadence of the
papacy certainly played a part in the development of the so-called Reformation
in Germany as a protest against papal excesses and the age-old practice of
indulgences, but once you are committed to the Protestant cause you have to
carry on protesting against Catholicism even after the Church had begun to
'clean up its act' with the Counter-Reformation. All that pseudo-pagan excess
of the Renaissance, including the Old Testament predilections of Pope Julius II
and his gifted protιgι Michelangelo, all that pseudo-return (well before
fascism) to the apparent glories of ancient Rome, the eagle raised predatorially and imperially 'on high', the naked statuary
of the 'body beautiful', the 'body muscular', all that anti-Christian, anti-Crucifixional decadent filth might be in the process of
being censored, doctored, modified, even repudiated, but still there is no
going back to the 'one true church', given the enormities of what had
transpired and the fact that there could be no guarantee, even after Pope John
IV and Loyola, that something similar would not return, with aristocratic
insouciance, to tarnish the standing of Catholicism once again. Once the cat of
Protestant protest had been let out of the proverbial bag, there could be no
getting it back into the bag again, the bag of Catholic acquiescence, since far
too much had happened in the meantime, too many lives had been blighted or lost
in the struggle against corruption for a return to the pre-schismatic position
to be possible. Protestantism must continue to protest even when the
anti-Christ epithet applied, with no little justification, to various
Renaissance popes could not, with equal justification, be applied to most of
the popes who followed the Counter-Reformation and continued to live austere,
ascetic, celibate lives. Therefore the protest becomes more
hollow or, in the event of the 'Vicar of Christ' being credibly Christian,
simply irrelevant, and Protestants, rather than protesting against Catholicism,
act, to all intents and purposes, as though Catholicism didn't exist and was,
in any case, irrelevant to their religious beliefs. Which may well be the case,
only Protestantism will continue to exist so long as Catholicism exists and has
not, democratically and responsibly, been consigned to the rubbish bin of
religious history. For only when it has
been superseded (as by Social Theocracy) will there be any prospect of bringing
Protestantism to an end, thereby enabling what, in religious terms, really
leads nowhere because rooted in a protest against the abuse of what does
actually tend, axially speaking, in the right direction for any prospect of
otherworldly criteria, centred in metaphysics, to transpire, only not, by any
means, far enough and therefore with a metaphysical shortfall (done down
pseudo-metachemically as a false ne plus ultra) by dint of an Old
Testament allegiance to the beauty and love of metachemistry
in back of the Christian both Catholic and Protestant manifestations of
Western civilization, like a Judaic anchor to the ship of Christianity floating
on a Judeo-Christian tide within the parameters of 'the world'. It takes more
than a protest against Catholicism to set men free of such an anchor and to
construct the spaceship that will ultimately enable them to leave 'the world'
behind for truly otherworldly climes which will be so far beyond the worldly
status quo as to have no allegiance whatsoever to the quasar/black hole-like
entity that apparently rules over it from a position owing nothing whatsoever
to metaphysics and everything, by contrast, to metachemistry,
to whatever pertains to Hell in the Devil, to both love in beauty (free soma)
and hate in ugliness (bound psyche), with the latter subordinate to the former,
like a black hole of subconsciousness to a supersensuous quasar whose frantic swirling cosmic dance
lures not only weaker stars, but also weaker men away from the prospect of
Eternal Life towards certain psychic death upon the somatic flames of female
seduction. That, more than anything, is what is most anti-Christ, precisely because it is of Devil the
Mother/Virgin, the Creator-esque 'Almighty' behind
heathen/pagan life, behind the sucking in and spitting out, through
reproduction, of more of the same, generation after generation, world without
sexual end.
All this can and, I believe, should
be countered, in the name of God in Heaven, not just illusion in woe (bound
soma) but also, and more importantly, truth in joy (free psyche), with the
former subordinate to the latter as subsensuousness
to superconsciousness. But only the 'resurrection' of
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will enable the process of
countering it, as germane to the inceptive phase of 'Kingdom Come', to begin in
earnest, and to preclude, moreover, anything so despicably anti-Christian as
the decadence of renaissance papacy from ever occurring again, much as what has
since stemmed, in secular licence, from the Protestant schism is arguably far
worse, if the current ungodly state of the Western world is anything to judge
by! For 'free enterprise', while it might be independent of Catholicism and
religion generally, is by no means independent of that embodiment of free will
which rules over 'the world', as over the Galaxy, from a standpoint with no
otherworldly pretensions whatsoever, since the epitome of everything netherworldly, of fast doing as opposed, in metaphysics, to
light being, of Devil the Mother as opposed to Heaven the Holy Soul.
******
The quickness of the supersensuous vis-a-vis the
hotness of the subconscious in metachemistry;
The slowness of the sensuous vis-a-vis the coldness of the unconscious in chemistry;
The heaviness of the conscious vis-a-vis the hardness of the unsensuous
in physics;
The
lightness of the superconscious vis-a-vis
the softness of the subsensuous in metaphysics.
The masses don't and can't
understand genius. They have to take it on trust, through faith. It would also
be fair to say that, generally speaking, the masses don't like genius, not only
because they cannot understand it, but also because it suggests privilege and,
what's worse, some kind of creative or moral or intellectual or cultural
superiority, which is virtually anathema to those who are inferior in such
respects.
Whether the top of the hierarchy
happens to be king or pope, metachemical or
metaphysical, of Hell in the Devil or of God in Heaven, autocratic or
theocratic, alpha or omega, scientific or religious, of the State or of the
Church, objective or subjective, a hierarchy is crucial to dealing with what's
high, since it cannot be comprehended from below, that is, from the standpoints
of the masses. Only that which is closer to either Hell in the Devil or God in
Heaven can act as a link or conduit to metachemistry
or metaphysics, as the case may be. For there is no way a lowly creature like
an artisan or a peasant, much less an industrial worker, could commune with
what is 'On High', any more than he could be expected to commune with kings or
popes. Only in an overly worldly age or society does the justification of
autocratic or theocratic hierarchies cease to have any meaning or relevance,
and we get republics of one kind or another that signify a levelling down or,
more correctly, an exclusion, as far as possible, of hierarchy in the interests
of an egalitarian reduction to the lowest-common-denominator of democratic
and/or plutocratic criteria designed to preclude a return to social
inequalities. But sooner or later such plebeian or proletarian societies have
to allow for a new order of social inequality if they or, rather, things in
general are not to bog down in equalitarianism and simply stagnate. For a
worldly society, based in the masses and excluding, as far as possible, Hell in
the Devil or God in Heaven, love in beauty or truth in joy, will necessarily be
limited to the mundane criteria of men and women, of what could be called Woman
in Purgatory and Earth in Man, strength in pride and pleasure in knowledge,
neither of which are of much use to the other, but have need, like vegetation
and water, to be either ruled by fire or led by air, ruled by love in beauty or
led by truth in joy, else there is no hope of either promotion or salvation, no
prospect of a 'better deal' such that would release them, one way or the other,
from worldly bondage (posing as freedom) to a life of either infinite freedom
or eternal peace, somatic action or psychic being. Verily, when life is
reduced, with republics, to the domination of chemistry or physics, it can be
only a matter of time before the desire for metaphysics or metachemistry,
depending on the context, becomes so pressing that the lid of worldly
repression is blown off by popular demand, following a referendum or major
shift in voting practices. Ironically, it is equality that, when all's said and
done, is the People's worst enemy, not those who would rule or lead them from
higher, if incompatible, standpoints. For you cannot have both Hell in the
Devil and God in Heaven, metachemistry and
metaphysics. Which is why axial differentiation between two
types of 'High' and two types of 'low' becomes inevitable, quite apart from the
gender differentiation characterizing each.
Any attempt to bring God down to
man is doomed to failure, because you end-up with man (humanism) and not God
(transcendentalism). Conversely, any attempt, through some messianic
equivalence, to bring man up to God would be doomed to failure Catholic
hierarchies notwithstanding were man not earmarked, under some kind of
messianic auspices, for transmutation (transfiguration) through 'man
overcoming' (transcendentalism coupled, for females, to pseudo-fundamentalism
or, more representatively, to pseudo-materialism) in relation to alternative
kinds of cyborgization intended to 'turn the tables'
on the objectively-dominated outer world in the interests of a
subjectively-oriented inner one.
Fundamental to the more chemical
woman is the most chemical (metachemical) woman, whom
we can call Superwoman. Transcendental to the more physical man is the most
physical (metaphysical) man, whom we call Superman. Superwoman and Superman are
as incompatible as metachemistry and metaphysics, supernature and, for want of a better term, supernurture, as that which is above chemistry (water) in
its fieriness and, by contrast, that which is above physics (vegetation) in its
airiness. In either case, a differentiation between female soma and male psyche
in both relative and absolute, phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal contexts.
The metachemical
expresses itself through the exercise of willpower,
the metaphysical impresses itself, by absolute contrast, through the exercise
of soulful contentment. Such noumenal absolutes,
which are 'meta' or 'super', have to be differentiated from their phenomenal
counterparts whose relativity either expresses itself, in the case of
chemistry, through the exercise of spiritual glory or impresses itself, in the
case of physics, through the exercise of egocentric form.
******
A thinker needs an 'ivory tower' in
which to think his thoughts in environmental detachment from those who would
oppose and thwart his penchant for thought, thereby reducing his capacity to think.
Only a privileged existence allows
for any degree of meaningful or profound thought, an existence not at the mercy
of other people, especially unintellectual or
unintelligent people who, in any case, resent intellectuality.
All great thinkers, who are
independent solitary individuals, defy the heathenistic
basis of life in the 'central star' of the Galaxy, the quasar/black hole around
which other stars revolve, like gyrating male pigeons, and sometimes get
sucked-in to, as men can get sucked-in to women. Rather do they strive towards
an alternative centre, which is not of this world but not of the Galaxy either,
an otherworldly centre, by contrast, which is truly universal in its
centripetal totalitarianism and therefore antithetical to the false
universality of the Cosmos hyped as universe, to that congeries or countless
multitude of galaxies with their own quasars/black holes which occasionally
spit forth new stars.
W.B. Yeats had a square, or
rectangular, tower at Thoor Ballylee
in
A thinker lives for his thoughts,
nothing else. For him, ideas are precious and of more value than money can buy.
They are, in a sense, priceless.
Looking down on the world of poets
and novelists and, across the axial divide, at the netherworld of dramatists
is something that can only be done from the otherworldly perspective of
philosophers, provided they are metaphysically genuine and not, like so many of
the so-called 'professors of philosophy', given to the subversion of
metaphysics through metachemistry, with its empirical
disregard for the thoughts of the soul, its pragmatic slavery to concrete
facts, its fundamental indifference, if not hostility, to Truth that owes much,
if not everything, to a love of Beauty.
******
I have never reserved a restaurant
table, but I reserve the right to write and publish the best of my thoughts in
the interests of Truth and the possibility of an enhanced appetite for
spiritual food.
In
If 'God' did make man in His own
image (to play with the myth for the sake of argument), it could only be a
certain higher type (metaphysical) of man who could conceivably commune with
Him, that is, on a largely metaphysical basis, not men in general who, for the
most part, are signally incapable of being metaphysical, especially those who,
deferring to all things metachemical, dress in
triangular garb. As for woman
I can always tell an enemy of
metaphysics by the way he dresses. Of course, there are direct and indirect
enemies of metaphysics, absolute (pseudo-metaphysical) and relative (physical)
distinctions that also have to be distinguished from shortfalls from
metaphysics which are at least deferential to it, if (from a pseudo-physical
standpoint in sin) imperfectly so.
What a pity that Luther, having
piously opposed what he saw as ungodly or unchristian practices in the Roman
Church, should subsequently succumb to an ex-nun and father six children! There
is nothing Christian, much less metaphysical, about that!
The rebirth of interest in Graeco-Roman antiquity, with its body-worshipping paganism,
so at variance with the crucifixional paradigm of
metaphysical bound soma, brought about the downfall of the reputation of the
Catholic Church and the consequent uprising of the Reformation which not even the Counter-Reformation was able to reverse. For by
then the horse had bolted from its stable, so to speak, and left much of
Christendom schismatically divided and torn asunder by bloody conflict, with
echoes that still reverberate down to our own time. But a 'true church' that
goes to the dogs (of Renaissance pseudo-paganism) is still preferable, once
cleansed and restored to some semblance of religious (metaphysical) health, to
a patently false church whose clergy can marry and beget children, thereby
reflecting what might be called the galactic world order of quasar-seduced
stars which revolve, like families, around the free female equivalence at its
core, whose somatic spinning of wilful antics engenders a psychic 'black hole'
out of which only ugliness and hatred (as of external attempts to constrain
somatic licence) can emerge, as the inevitable corollary, tails side to heads,
of the loving Beauty whose wilful actions suck-in whatever is vulnerable, for
want of a quasar-rejecting disposition, to being sucked-in, shredded, and spat
back out, following gestation, in the guise of a new-born star, or child
equivalence, dependent, thereafter, upon its maternal creator for protection
against the clamorous, upended falling stars whose psyches, or nuclear cores,
become paradoxically bound to the quasar's somatic gyrating as it spins on a
light-emitting axis of tremendous heat in an apparently never-ending cosmic
dance. A clergy that defies both this and any natural or human extrapolations
from it which mirror, on a devolved basis, what tends to take place more
fundamentally within the Galaxy as a whole are alone worthy of respect from a
religious, that is, reborn, transvaluated,
metaphysical standpoint, and have been honoured accordingly.
To be susceptible to the rule of
the galactic world order, as the majority of men (the masses) are, but to have
enough religious deference to be capable of regarding it as sinful
is the
mark of a true Christian, a Catholic, whose confession of sin to a priest, that
necessarily celibate individual closer to what is properly metaphysical, keeps
him in touch, no matter how imperfectly or intermittently, with the possibility
of godly redemption by and through a post-resurrectional
metaphysical Christ 'On High', whose return to the world in the guise of a
Second Coming will allow, in due course, for 'Kingdom Come' and the salvation,
in consequence, of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics coupled, it should be
added, to the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry,
so that one would end-up with a distinction, to speak in generalities, between
the Saved (in metaphysical free psyche) and the counter-Damned (in pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma), with, in overall
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical terms, a gender distinction
between Righteousness and pseudo-Justice, the Saint and (neutralized)
Dragon-like mainstream structure of 'Kingdom Come'.
******
I think Irish Catholics favour
stout over other beers because of the lightness and softness, those
metaphysical attributes, suggested by the foamy head and dark, blacked-out
body, a paradigm of free psyche and bound soma as male gender reality or, at
any rate, of what is properly male when hegemonic over females or independent
of female subversion. Moreover, fermenting at the top, stout ties-in with the
Catholic propensity for confession and some correlative priestly absolution,
symbolized, it would seem, by the foaming head on top of the pint.
Wine that's all body and no head doesn't make it for me. It bores me flat.
'Why can't I be God?' asks Alice
Cooper somewhat rhetorically in one of my favourite songs on his seminal album DragonTown.
Well, if you want an answer, it's this: It don't work
that way, man. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Bringing Tangerine Dream to Virgin
was, for me, the best thing Richard Branson ever did while still boss at the
label, since, unlike most bands, Tangerine Dream have gone from strength to
strength over the decades and are still, at the time of writing (2013), going
strong, producing music that is not only unique but truly contemporary from the
standpoint of a kind of cutting-edge superclassicism
compared to which the traditional acoustic instrumentation of so-called
avant-garde classicism is a kind of anachronistic joke reminiscent of some
dotard's senility.
Rolling with the f***ing Stones is no easy ride, especially since it begs the
question: Will rock 'n' roll survive the Rolling Stones when, eventually, they
cease to roll?
When the roll is left out of rock
you get a decadent if not degenerate music suggestive of other than
heterosexual predilections.
When blues joins forces with rock,
as it does with musicians like John Mayall and Eric
Clapton, it becomes decidedly less blue and correspondingly more green, that
is, upbeat and positive, with greater commercial potential within a
contemporary mainstream musical format.
******
Communistic atheism is perfectly
intelligible within the urban context of the industrial if not industrious
proletariat of hammering workmen and such-like labouring creatures who would
probably not have any contact or relationship with what is properly god-like in
relation to heavenly metaphysics. As the degenerative nadir of
Protestant-derived state-hegemonic axial criteria, there can be no place for
'God building' (Lenin) in a society built around the industrial proletariat.
Only subservience, one might say, to a new kind of Devil, images of whom are
displayed in public to remind the atheistic masses of just who or, rather, what
is really in charge of their godless destinies under communism.
All great music, great rock music
not least, is largely a means of expression by males for males, since most
females signally lack a capacity to either appreciate or understand it. The
female who really 'gets into' the feeling of a rock groove and soars with the
guitar or keyboard or whatever solo to heights of instrumental exultation, with
some appreciation of the technical complexities involved where is she? Do you
know one? Have you met one? And if you had, would she not be a particular
exception to the general rule? And if she could play guitar, acoustic or
electric, with real feeling and a sense of inner groove, of rhythmic impulse,
would that not be even rarer? Being into great music is, by and large, the
prerogative of males, one might say a man's thing, not because women are
systematically excluded or discriminated against, but because, with some
discretion in this matter, they tend to exclude themselves, having little
capacity, in their reproduction-striving restlessness, for soulful reverie or
lyrical abandon. Rather does their talent lie in wilfully subverting it from a
vacuously-conditioned objective standpoint, as also in a spirited subversion of
ego, or the capacity to deeply reflect and thus think.
.
I doubt if I would be so anti-XX
('XX-chromosomal cosh' being a habitual term of mine) had I not been subject to
a life-long double exile (as from country and class) which leaves me with a
feeling that life is to be found elsewhere and merely endured where I am, stuck
in a sort of stateless, classless mire akin to a kind of limbo.
Usually I'm American during the day
(internet/rock music) and German at night (DVDs/grammar and/or travel books).
******
Beauty is just as virtuous as
Truth; only it appertains to a different order of virtue. Strength is just as
virtuous as Knowledge; only it appertains to a different order of virtue.
Strength is not as virtuous as Beauty, nor Knowledge
as virtuous as Truth. Beauty is the higher female virtue, Truth the higher male
virtue. Therefore while one can logically argue that Beauty is more virtuous
than Strength, and Truth, by contrast, more virtuous than Knowledge, one cannot
logically argue that Truth is more virtuous than Beauty, or Knowledge more
virtuous than Strength. Truth and Knowledge simply appertain to different
orders of male virtue. Now such orders of male virtue, going against the grain
of the natural world order, tend to be overshadowed by Beauty and Strength,
their female counterparts.
Summer is that dangerous time of
year (from a male standpoint) when women are more outgoing, and, as a man, you
could lose your head to a woman if you weren't especially careful and mindful
of your true interests.
Transcendentalism/idealism does not
directly triumph over materialism/fundamentalism but only indirectly, via the
salvation of pseudo-humanism/pseudo-realism to itself and the correlative
counter-damnation of naturalism/pantheism to
pseudo-materialism/pseudo-fundamentalism, in consequence of which
materialism/fundamentalism would be damned to
pseudo-naturalism/pseudo-pantheism, and
pseudo-transcendentalism/pseudo-idealism counter-saved to humanism/realism,
pending further developments.
I once purchased online a DVD,
which I had supposed to be a film but turned out to be a seminar, entitled Evolve Your Brain, in which the speaker contended, after a few
preliminary statements about the brain's structure, that the female brain was
likely superior to the male one because it was all the time going backwards and
forwards in a more open or flexible manner. What? Did he not know, from
comparing the relative head sizes of men and women, that women had smaller
brains than men? And is it not men who 'lose their head' to a woman's body? As,
presumably, the speaker, a Dr Joe Dispenza, had done
at some point in his life. Certainly, women are clever at what they do, namely
to seduce and reproduce, but that, apart from knitting and sowing and cooking
and other things of a female nature, is all they have ever done really, so why
shouldn't they be? But when it comes to certain other types of cleverness,
including wisdom, vergiss es! Only
a fool would equate an onslaught of wilful action or spirited speech with
cleverness.
Not to succumb to the gravity of
somatic reaction but to carry on, willy-nilly, with one's psychic vocation as a
writer/thinker that is the daily challenge to which one must rise and
effectively slay the fire-breathing dragon all over again, reducing her to
impotence.
He who can defeat the people,
slaying the dragon of their somatic reaction, is alone worthy of being their
master and leader.
Either you
slay the dragon on a regular, if not daily and hourly, basis, or the dragon slays you.
------------------
ORANGE
NOTEBOOK 2
Now I'm full of self-loathing with
a runny nose in the middle of a mid-July heatwave! As
for multiple sneezes to unblock a stuffy nose in the morning, with overburdened
tissues successively cast into a small plastic bag hanging from a nearby hook
that serves as a substitute waste-paper bin, the talk of enhanced self-esteem
through job-worthiness that some politicians go on about seems to me like a
sick joke, with no relevance to my condition whatsoever.
When I get my self-esteem back it
won't be because of job-worthiness or jobbery, still less because of the
next-door neighbours or the all-too-close proximity of workmen hammering and
drilling, but because of a string of brilliant thoughts that I shall feel
duty-bound, as a creative intellectual, to commit to writing for the benefit of
posterity, as though to capture what might otherwise disappear back into the
depths of my mind and be lost forever.
In the meantime, I must persevere
with more snot snivelling, nose blowing, sneezing, and not a few other
unpleasant symptoms of the human condition, the condition, strangely enough,
that not all would wish to see overcome.... In fact, scarcely any females,
precious few kids, and not enough males to give one grounds for any degree of Nietzschean optimism with regards to the coming Superman.
Though cautiously optimistic that man will,
one day, be overcome
I resolutely remain, if only because the human condition
can be so detestable that one would be a fool to take it for granted.
******
Fast and hot a credibly female
combination suggestive of a quasar/black hole, or of supersensuous/subconscious
metachemistry, with beauty and love spinning around
ugliness and hate, or crime, to speak more generally, spinning around evil. For
is not crime the true source of evil? Get done for speeding and you are charged
with a criminal offence. Bad mouth the charging officer and you are guilty of
being evil, that is, hot tempered. The heat is bound to the speed, as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical
free soma.
Love of the beauty of speed taken
too far can lead to hatred for the ugliness of having been charged with driving
too fast and thereby breaking the law. Evil as the corollary
of crime, not vice versa (contrary to what I used to think!).
As I customarily and, I think,
correctly equate crime and evil with metachemistry,
so I equate punishment and goodness, the polarities to crime and evil, with
pseudo-chemistry, so that we have, in overall terms, a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity between two female elements or,
more correctly, a female element (metachemistry) and
a pseudo-female pseudo-element (pseudo-chemistry). Now since I have equated
crime with metachemical free soma and evil with metachemical bound psyche, and this in accordance with the
female gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche, as
body over mind, so that the former is free (and brightly positive) but the
latter bound (and darkly negative), it now behoves me to equate punishment, the
polarity to crime, with pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma and, by contrast,
goodness, the polarity to evil, with pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche, the
pseudo-bound soma no less indicative of the state-hegemonic aspect of the axis
established by the polarity of metachemistry with
pseudo-chemistry than the pseudo-free psyche of the church-subordinate aspect
thereof. Therefore, in overall terms, the polarity between crime and
punishment, of metachemical free soma and
pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma, is no less germane to the state-hegemonic
aspect of the axis in question than the polarity between evil and goodness, metachemical bound psyche and pseudo-chemical pseudo-free
psyche, is germane to its church-subordinate aspect. Of course, as explained in
previous works by me, the pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche of
pseudo-chemistry only exist because of hegemonic pressure, a plane up at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass,
from physics, an element in which, in accordance with male gender actuality,
psyche precedes and preponderates over soma, and, being hegemonic over
pseudo-chemistry, is free to do so, thereby obliging the subordinate
pseudo-female pseudo-element to mirror such an actuality
of psyche over soma,
if on terms which, being contrary to female gender actuality, have been
described as 'pseudo', with pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche the
pseudo-chemical corollaries of physical bound soma and free psyche, the
difference being that the preponderance of psyche over soma in this
(phenomenal) male element is not reflected in the ratio of psyche to soma of
its pseudo-female corollary by dint of the predominance of soma over psyche on
the female side of the gender divide, whether in relation to a relative degree
(2½: 1½), as with pseudo-chemistry and, indeed, chemistry (appertaining to a
different axis) or to an absolute degree (3:1), as in the case of metachemistry and, across the axial divide, pseudo-metachemistry, which would, of course, be subordinate to
metaphysics and polar to chemistry on what I customarily describe as secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms vis-a-vis
the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity between
metaphysics (3:1) and pseudo-physics (2½:1½), the former unequivocally
hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry (1:3) and the
latter equivocally subordinate to chemistry (1½:2½), with a primary
church-hegemonic polarity between the sin of pseudo-physical pseudo-bound
psyche (2½) and the grace of metaphysical free psyche (3), correlative with a
primary state-subordinate polarity between the folly of pseudo-physical pseudo-free
soma (1½) and the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma (1), but a secondary
church-hegemonic polarity between the pseudo-evil of chemical bound psyche (1½)
and the pseudo-goodness of pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-free psyche (1), correlative with a secondary state-subordinate polarity
between the pseudo-crime of chemical free soma (2½) and the pseudo-punishment
of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma (3). How all
this contrasts not only with the primary state-hegemonic polarity between the
crime of metachemical free soma (3) and the
punishment of pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma (2½), correlative with the
primary church-subordinate polarity between the evil of metachemical
bound psyche (1) and the goodness of pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche (1½),
but also with the secondary state-hegemonic polarity between the pseudo-folly
of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma (1) and the pseudo-wisdom of physical
bound soma (1½), correlative with the secondary church-subordinate polarity
between the pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche (3) and the
pseudo-grace of physical free psyche (2½). Either way, whatever the axis, crime
and punishment are no less germane to the state on female axial terms than evil
and good to the church on such terms, whereas sin and grace are no less germane
to the church on male axial terms than folly and wisdom to the state on such
terms, with due 'pseudo' or 'genuine' distinctions according with the axis and
who or what, in overall gender terms, actually dominates it.
Those who are too somatically and
therefore criminally free (vain) upstairs, as it were, on the state-hegemonic
axis tend to get punished downstairs with pseudo-bound soma (justice), whereas
those who are too somatically and therefore pseudo-criminally free (pseudo-vain)
downstairs on the church-hegemonic axis tend to get pseudo-punished upstairs,
as it were, with pseudo-bound soma (pseudo-justice). Either way, one is
alluding to the state aspect, whether hegemonic or subordinate, of each axis in
relation to female elements and pseudo-elements respectively or, more
accurately, of the transposition, through punishment, of female elements into
pseudo-female pseudo-elements.
In terms of its female attributes
the quickness and hotness in free soma and bound psyche of metachemistry
has to be contrasted with the slowness and coldness of chemistry in free soma
and bound psyche, while in terms of its male attributes (across the hegemonic
gender divide) the heaviness and hardness of physics in free psyche and bound
soma has to be contrasted with the lightness and softness of metaphysics in
free psyche and bound soma. In terms of the subordinate gender positions,
however, the pseudo-softness in pseudo-free soma and pseudo-lightness in
pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-male pseudo-metaphysics (a plane down from metachemistry) has to be contrasted with the
pseudo-hardness in pseudo-free soma and pseudo-heaviness in pseudo-bound psyche
of pseudo-male pseudo-physics (a plane down from chemistry). Contrariwise, the
pseudo-coldness in pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-slowness in pseudo-bound soma
of pseudo-female pseudo-chemistry (a plane down from physics) has to be
contrasted with the pseudo-hotness in pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-quickness
in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-female pseudo-metachemistry
(a plane down from metaphysics).
Thus the beauty and love in free
soma and the ugliness and hatred in bound psyche of metachemistry
is absolutely (3:1) hegemonic over the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy in
pseudo-free soma and the pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe in pseudo-bound psyche
of pseudo-metaphysics (1:3).
Likewise the strength and pride in
free soma and the weakness and humility in bound psyche of chemistry is
relatively hegemonic (2½:1½) over the pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure in
pseudo-free soma and the pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain in pseudo-bound
psyche of pseudo-physics (1½:2½).
Contrariwise, the knowledge and
pleasure in free psyche and the ignorance and pain in bound soma of physics is
relatively hegemonic (2½:1½) over the pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride in
pseudo-free psyche and the pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility in pseudo-bound
soma of pseudo-chemistry (1½:2½).
Likewise the truth and joy in free
psyche and the illusion and woe in bound soma of metaphysics is absolutely
hegemonic (3:1) over the pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love in pseudo-free psyche
and the pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-metachemistry (1:3).
******
Unless you have the ability, the
honesty, and even humility to correct yourself, to
rectify a long-standing error of logic or judgement, you will not progress and
effectively achieve philosophical, or logical, perfection. The ability to
overhaul long-standing errors of judgement is crucial to the advancement of a
philosophy to the pinnacle of logical perfection, and thus the achievement of
Truth.
There is a saying: You scratch my
back and I'll scratch yours. Well, believe it or not, I have always reserved
the right to scratch my own back.
******
The primary church-hegemonic
polarity between sin and grace in the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics and
the free psyche of metaphysics is paralleled, on secondary church-hegemonic
terms, by the polarity between pseudo-evil in the bound psyche of chemistry and
pseudo-goodness in the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-metachemistry.
Correlatively, the primary state-subordinate polarity between folly and wisdom
in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-physics and the bound soma of metaphysics is
paralleled, on secondary state-subordinate terms, by the polarity between
pseudo-crime in the free soma of chemistry and pseudo-punishment in the
pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-metachemistry.
Contrariwise, the primary
state-hegemonic polarity between crime and punishment in the free soma of metachemistry and the pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry
is paralleled, on secondary state-hegemonic terms, by the polarity between the
pseudo-folly in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-metaphysics and the
pseudo-wisdom in the bound soma of physics. Correlatively, the primary
church-subordinate polarity between evil and goodness in the bound psyche of metachemistry and the pseudo-free psyche of
pseudo-chemistry is paralleled, on secondary church-subordinate terms, by the
polarity between pseudo-sin in the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-metaphysics
and pseudo-grace in the free psyche of physics.
On overall primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the polarity between meekness
(sin/folly) and righteousness (grace/wisdom) is paralleled, on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, by that between pseudo-vanity
(pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime) and pseudo-justice
(pseudo-goodness/pseudo-punishment).
On overall primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, the polarity between vanity
(crime/evil) and justice (punishment/goodness) is paralleled, on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, by that between pseudo-meekness
(pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin) and pseudo-righteousness
(pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace).
Thus a distinction always needs to
be made between the vanity and justice female polarity of the primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis and the pseudo-vanity and
pseudo-justice female polarity of the secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, as, correlatively, between the meekness
and righteousness male polarity of the primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and the pseudo-meekness and
pseudo-righteousness male polarity of the secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis. Otherwise confusion through
over-simplification will inevitably transpire.
Hence whereas the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis is constitutive of a polarity, on
overall hegemonic/subordinate gender terms, between pseudo-vanity/meekness and
righteousness/pseudo-justice (with reverse gender hegemonic/subordinate
implications), the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis is constitutive of
such a polarity between vanity/pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness/justice
(again with reverse gender hegemonic/subordinate implications).
Only when the Meek have been saved
to righteousness, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and the pseudo-Vain
have been counter-damned to pseudo-justice, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, will there be any prospect of the Vain being
damned to justice, as from metachemistry to
pseudo-chemistry, and the pseudo-Meek being counter-saved to
pseudo-righteousness, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pending further
developments (as already discussed in several of my previous works).
But the salvation of the Meek to
righteousness will require a full complement of metaphysics, not just the bound
soma (of the crucifixional paradigm) but also the
free psyche that can only transpire through total independence of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics 'in back' of the Catholic tradition.
For only then will the counter-damnation of the pseudo-Vain to pseudo-justice
appertain to a pseudo-metachemistry that is
deferentially subordinate to metaphysics rather than subversive of it, not
least through a triangular accommodation of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics
in traditional church-hegemonic vein. There can be no
reservations about the desirability of a stepped-up (resurrected)
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in the interests of
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical independence of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, especially since such a
stepping-up, equivalent to a revolution, would enable us to transcend the
limitations of the Catholic Church and thereby move religion towards if not
actually into 'Kingdom Come', to which end I long ago conceived of the
ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy as the means whereby the
Meek/pseudo-Vain could be delivered from their preyed-upon predicament, at the
foot of the traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, in the event
of a majority mandate for what has been termed 'religious sovereignty', the
sovereignty to end all sovereignties and liberate religion from the paradoxical
clutches of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, or, in other words, metachemistry hyped as metaphysics.
Pseudo-evil (chemical bound psyche)
is no more equivalent to sin (pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche) in
lower-order church-hegemonic terms than
pseudo-goodness (pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche) is equivalent to grace
(metaphysical free psyche) in upper-order church-hegemonic terms, where we have
a distinction not between coldness and pseudo-heaviness, as with the
lower-order dichotomy, but between pseudo-hotness and lightness.
Pseudo-sin (pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-bound psyche) is no more equivalent to evil (metachemical
bound psyche) in upper-order church-subordinate terms than
pseudo-grace
(physical free psyche) is equivalent to goodness (pseudo-chemical pseudo-free
psyche) in lower-order church-subordinate terms, where we have a distinction
not between pseudo-lightness and hotness, as with the upper-order dichotomy,
but between heaviness and pseudo-coldness.
Pseudo-crime (chemical free soma)
is no more equivalent to folly (pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma) in
lower-order state-subordinate terms than
pseudo-punishment (pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma) is equivalent to wisdom
(metaphysical bound soma) in upper-order state-subordinate terms, where we have
a distinction not between slowness and pseudo-hardness, as with the lower-order
dichotomy, but between pseudo-quickness and softness.
Pseudo-folly (pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-free soma) is no more equivalent to crime (metachemical
free soma) in upper-order state-hegemonic terms than
pseudo-wisdom (physical
bound soma) is equivalent to punishment (pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma) in
lower-order state-hegemonic terms, where we have a distinction not between
pseudo-softness and quickness, as with the upper-order dichotomy, but between
hardness and pseudo-slowness.
In terms of the overall
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity a distinction exists between
pseudo-meekness and vanity in upper-order terms vis-a-vis
pseudo-righteousness and justice in lower-order terms, while in terms of the overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity a like distinction exists
between pseudo-vanity and meekness in lower-order terms vis-a-vis
pseudo-justice and righteousness in upper-order terms.
With regards to the
hegemonic/subordinate relationship, metachemistry
over pseudo-metaphysics is equivalent to vanity over pseudo-meekness in
upper-order state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, while physics over
pseudo-chemistry is equivalent to pseudo-righteousness over justice in
lower-order state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms.
Similarly, chemistry over
pseudo-physics is equivalent to pseudo-vanity over meekness in lower-order
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, while metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry is equivalent to righteousness over
pseudo-justice in upper-order church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.
The primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity is, of course, established on an
overall female basis, between vanity and justice, whereas the secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity is established, on overall male
terms, between pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness.
Contrariwise, the primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity is established, on overall male
terms, between meekness and righteousness, whereas the secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity is established, on overall female
terms, between pseudo-vanity and pseudo-justice.
The polarity, on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, between vanity and justice is, of
course, equivalent to crime/evil vis-a-vis punishment/goodness,
that is, quickness/hotness vis-a-vis
pseudo-slowness/pseudo-coldness, whereas the polarity, on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, between pseudo-meekness and
pseudo-righteousness is, of course, equivalent to pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin vis-a-vis pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace, that is,
pseudo-softness/pseudo-lightness vis-a-vis
heaviness/hardness.
Contrariwise, the polarity, on
primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, between meekness and
righteousness is, of course, equivalent to sin/folly vis-a-vis
grace/wisdom, that is, pseudo-heaviness/pseudo-hardness vis-a-vis
lightness/softness, whereas the polarity, on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, between pseudo-vanity and
pseudo-justice is, of course, equivalent to pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime vis-a-vis pseudo-goodness/pseudo-punishment, that is,
coldness/slowness vis-a-vis
pseudo-hotness/pseudo-quickness.
Taking this a stage further, one
can logically argue that the beauty and love proper to metachemical
free soma is polar, in primary state-hegemonic terms, to the pseudo-weakness
and pseudo-humility (if not humiliation) appertaining to pseudo-chemical
pseudo-bound soma, whereas the ugliness and hatred proper to metachemical bound psyche is polar, on primary church-subordinate
terms, to the pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride appertaining to pseudo-chemical
pseudo-free psyche.
Correlatively, one can logically
argue that the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy appertaining to pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-free soma is polar, on secondary
state-hegemonic terms, to the ignorance and pain proper to physical bound soma,
whereas the pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe appertaining to pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-bound psyche is polar, on secondary church-subordinate terms, to the
knowledge and pleasure proper to physical free psyche.
Contrariwise, it can be logically
argued that the pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain appertaining to
pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche is polar, on
primary church-hegemonic terms, to the truth and joy proper to metaphysical
free psyche, whereas the pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure appertaining to
pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma is polar, on primary state-subordinate terms,
to the illusion and woe proper to metaphysical bound soma.
Correlatively, it can be logically
argued that the weakness and humility proper to chemical bound psyche is polar, on secondary church-hegemonic terms, to the
pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love appertaining to pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-free psyche, whereas the strength and pride proper to chemical free soma
is polar, on secondary state-subordinate terms, to the pseudo-ugliness and
pseudo-hatred appertaining to pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-bound soma.
******
It is harder to pull the lower up
than it is to bring the higher down.
A philosopher can do no more than
to take logic to its ultimate conclusion and get everything to add up. That,
for me, is philosophical perfection.
Luther the bad, mad monk who
ended-up getting married and fathering six children by an ex-nun. What a
religious come-down!
Now any f***ing
vicar can preach the 'word of God' (sic.) from an
ungodly pulpit while his wife and kids look on.
Are historical religious scams,
like indulgences (which had a tradition going back to ancient Roman times), any
worse than the commercial scams that are an everyday part of largely
Protestant-derived secular modernity? I think not.
The Catholic Church of the
Renaissance, though deeply flawed, was not wrong to be Catholic; only wrong to
be flawed and undermined by papal and ecclesiastic abuses.
The paradox
of 'hippie squares'. You think,
as a youth, that you're being hip but, really, with things like square-covered
records (never mind the square-covered CDs that came later), checked shirts
(including so-called lumberjack shirts), and those little square 'beat poet'
books (or booklets), you are anything but hip. Simply a long-haired square,
with a fatality towards metachemistry (and therefore
all things beautiful and loving) and a tolerance, if not indulgence, of
pitch-oriented guitar jerks whose elongated solos appear to scale the infinity
of space. Idealistic youth? More like materialism in
disguise, or materialism confounded with idealism.
Of course, that isn't to say one
misspent one's youth. Youth is youth, and what one has since discovered is that
there were aspects of it which were not as hip, or round, as one may have
thought at the time.
These days, a square little Allen
Ginsberg book of poems would have no appeal to me whatsoever. As for the way
music was packaged record in sleeve/cover resembling circle in a square, or
pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry (like London
bus stops) forget it. I would have some reservations about buying even CDs,
never mind LPs, these days.
I may have played football, from
time to time, in the reserves, but more often I was in the school first team of
my year, where I played out on the wing and endeavoured to fly past defenders
before curling in a 'high ball'.
On Sundays I like to buy what I
take to be something suitably insane in Sainsbury's, like a box of Swedish
meatballs or a small packet of sausage rolls. One of these days I may even buy
some scotch eggs. But one thing's for sure: no pizza on Sundays!
Thinking to write, writing to be
read, and being read only to be talked about, and not necessarily in the most
flattering terms, least of all by those who, like women, are especially partial
to speech, which is apt, for want of knowledgeable evidence, to degenerate into
mere gossip!
One needs a heck of a lot of
resolve in reserve to be able to continue with one's vocational commitments to
literature in close proximity to the brutal noise which workers in this
environment daily inflict upon one. A heck of a lot!
A world full of levelling swine is
a world in chaos, a world headed down for the dark side or, at any rate, for
more dark than light, pretty much like the one we still live in today.
He was a sun-drenched,
pizza-chomping, loud-mouthed sonofabitch who liked to
jerk off, whenever possible, to the sequential rhythms of some sax-oriented
modern jazz from out West. He was no friend of mine.
******
To contrast Abstract Expressionism
with Abstract Impressionism, as one would contrast the noumenal
objectivity of metachemical space (spatial) with the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical time (repetitive), or
absolute outsanity with absolute insanity, further
contrasting what might be called Abstract pseudo-Impressionism with Abstract
pseudo-Expressionism, as one would contrast the noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-time (sequential) with the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-space (spaced), or absolute pseudo-insanity with absolute pseudo-outsanity.
Thus no less than metachemistry is hegemonic over pseudo-metaphysics and, by
contrast, metaphysics hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry,
so, in parallel vein, would Abstract Expressionism be hegemonic over Abstract
pseudo-Impressionism and, by contrast, Abstract Impressionism hegemonic over
Abstract pseudo-Expressionism.
Hence a contrast between space and
pseudo-time, noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity on the one hand, that of
Abstract Expressionism and Abstract pseudo-Impressionism, but one between time
and pseudo-space, noumenal subjectivity and noumenal pseudo-objectivity on the other hand, that of
Abstract Impressionism and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism.
A simple distinction between the
alpha/pseudo-omega and the omega/pseudo-alpha of abstraction would be of art
that was frameless in the hegemonic case and surrounded by a frame in the
subordinate case, namely that of the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of the
abstract, which, in relation to the above theory, would be pseudo-Impressionism
and pseudo-Expressionism, given that the ratio of pseudo-free soma to
pseudo-bound psyche in the former case and of pseudo-free psyche to
pseudo-bound soma in the latter case should be 1:3, the reverse, in other
words, of the 3:1 ratio of freedom to binding characterizing each of the
hegemonic elements, be it metachemical (ohjectively expressionist in free soma/bound psyche) or
metaphysical (subjectively impressionist in free psyche/bound soma).
Of course, in conceiving of such
theories (independently, it may well be, of any literal correspondence with
historical reality or painterly evidence), one has taken the existing
terminology of Abstract Expressionism and Abstract Impressionism and simply
enlarged upon it, making, with the addition of Abstract pseudo-Impressionism
and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism, for a more comprehensive perspective and,
indeed, antithesis, in keeping with the tendency of my philosophy to have a
subordinate gender position under one plane down a hegemonic one, as in
pseudo-omega under alpha or, conversely, pseudo-alpha under omega.
My philosophy would not, however,
solely identify the abstract with what is noumenal,
since anyone familiar with it, from earlier works, would know that, for me, the
abstract is secondary to the concrete, as male to female, on both noumenal (ethereal) and phenomenal (corporeal) planes, and
can therefore, like the concrete itself, be either absolute or relative, that
is, elemental or molecular, with an absolute concrete/abstract antithesis
existing between elemental particles and elemental wavicles,
as between will and soul, but a relative concrete/abstract antithesis existing
between molecular particles and molecular wavicles,
as between spirit and ego, the former, in each antithetical case, objective
(female) and the latter subjective (male).
Therefore, in relation to my
philosophy, the position assigned to Abstract Expressionism would accord with
the absolute concrete and that assigned to Abstract Impressionism with the
absolute abstract, while the distinction drawn, subordinately, between Abstract
pseudo-Impressionism and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism would accord with the
absolute pseudo-abstract and the absolute pseudo-concrete respectively.
Therefore while I may have logical
reservations about equating the term 'abstract' only with what is noumenal or ethereal, irrespective of gender, I can have no
reservations whatsoever about limiting it to the male side of life in both
phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal
terms, as in relation to whatever corresponds with molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles,
physics and metaphysics, ego and soul. Certainly, Abstract Expressionism
(which, being expressionistic, is objective) could
have no place here, while Abstract Impressionism (which, being impressionistic,
is subjective) would only apply to the noumenal, or
ethereal, plane of abstraction, as an approximation to metaphysics.
Expressionism and Impressionism,
coupled, for argument's sake, to pseudo-Impressionism and pseudo-Expressionism
respectively, would, of course, correspond to phenomenal, or corporeal,
manifestations (molecular) of the concrete and abstract, together with their
pseudo-abstract and pseudo-concrete subordinates in what should be a
volume/pseudo-mass and mass/pseudo-volume pairing antithesis having more
relevance to spirit/pseudo-ego and ego/pseudo-spirit than to any absolute
distinctions between will/pseudo-soul and soul/pseudo-will in space/pseudo-time
and time/pseudo-space respectively. But that is not a subject I need enlarge
upon, least of all on a purely or largely theoretical and speculative basis!
******
Equality
between the genders? The
'sacred cow' of a soulless civilization rooted in some degree of constitutional
barbarity.
It is not whether you are educated
or not, but how and to what ends.
It is more impressive to be
self-educated than to have been educated by others.
It is one of the great ironies of
Western history that, even with its Marian shortcomings, the real protest
against 'the world' happens to be Catholic, not Protestant, and that
Protestantism, lacking otherworldly pretensions, leads to a position of
world-acceptance and even world-exploitation. Of course, Catholicism could be
accused, by its opponents, of sanctifying 'the world' in the persons, or world
personifications, of the 'Mother and Child', which strongly suggest a
concession if not commitment to 'family values', at loggerheads not only with
otherworldly aspirations but also with Christ as a vehicle of salvation,
traditionally, from 'the world', including, not least, its family values and
whatever appertains to the female side of life.
Fortunately the Catholic Church had
and continues to have the perfect foil to the mainstream female-dominated
world, in the guise of a celibate clergy. For a celibate priest is the only
type of priest worthy of respect from a standpoint closer to the otherworldly
criteria of Christ, in whom one has a personification of the Ideal in relation
to males. However, in the case of females, short of the neutralization that
would keep them pseudo-metachemically subordinate to
a male hegemony in metaphysics, virginity is no Ideal but a consequence of that
metachemically-sanctioned vacuum which leads to
objectivity and the struggle to acquire, via a male willing (contrary to his
actual gender interests) to 'play ball', a surrogate plenum in the guise of
offspring.
Hence the 'Mother and Child'
resolution of such a struggle, aided and abetted by beauty and love, that makes
for mainstream worldliness and the relative sanctification of 'family values'.
Yet this worldliness, though inescapable, is not an end-in-itself, at least for
the male, but, if not exactly the means to a higher end then, at any rate, that
which is axially polar to the world-renouncing celibacy of metaphysical wisdom
in respect of, among others, priests and saints. The other axis, being
heretical from a church-hegemonic standpoint, does not and cannot endorse
celibacy, because its apex is rooted, autocratically, in the royal need
certainly in Britain and not a few other European countries of an heir or
heirs to the throne, and its polarity, while equivocally characterized by the
dominance of male criteria, is only able to pursue its own largely plutocratic
interests at the expense of unconstrained autocracy and therefore as a
guarantor of constitutionality in the metachemical
context officially ruling over it. In neither case is celibacy of much
relevance, and even the parliamentary/puritan type of worldliness is not, in
England, an end-in-itself but, much as it may formerly have existed in fear of
Communism (as of a worker-oriented descent into a sub-humanist hell), rather a
context in which many if not most of its members live partly in hope of
deliverance, via various types of honours, from their lowly estate as commoners
to some kind of netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly
promotion that may culminate, for those so honoured, in a major change of class
status.
Thus whereas the directionality of
the church-hegemonic axis is towards otherworldly (metaphysical) deliverance
from a female-dominated type of worldliness (chemistry over pseudo-physics),
the directionality of the state-hegemonic axis is towards netherworldly
(metachemical) deliverance from a male-dominated type
of worldliness (physics over pseudo-chemistry), and I fancy that, just as the
former kind of deliverance favours the interests of males (as from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics), so the latter kind, whatever appearances to the
contrary may suggest, favours the interests of females (as from
pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry) who, in the event
of class promotion, would move from a pseudo-chemical subordinate position, as
pseudo-females, under physical males to a metachemically
hegemonic position, as upper-class females, over pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-males, the type of 'male' especially susceptible to the enticements of
sensuality and as far removed from the priestly ideal of celibacy as it is
humanly possible to be.
All in all, despite its
shortcomings and limitations, I still respect the Catholic Church for the
nature of its axial directionality under the guidance of a celibate clergy. But
it will still have to be overhauled, by the coming 'resurrection' of the
church-hegemonic axis, if 'Kingdom Come', or its nearest equivalence, is
eventually to transpire in relation to a full complement of metaphysics, free
psyche as well as bound soma (the crucifixional
paradigm) and, correlative with this, a subordinate and properly deferential
pseudo-metachemistry for pseudo-females, an
eventuality, were it to transpire, requiring complete independence from all
modes, contemporary as well as historic, of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics,
and thus from the traditional subsuming of such pseudo-metachemistry
(coupled to a 'done-down' truncated metaphysics) into the age-old triangularity that, like the sharp pediments which are its
cultural or architectural corollary, attest to metachemical
dominion.
******
I guess the fulcrum or focus of
rock 'n' roll is, was, and probably always will be sex, which is what both
energizes it and renders a majority of its productions fairly predictable
within a popular context, with excursions elsewhere, as into the more serious
kinds of progressive rock, pretty much the exception to the general rule,
notwithstanding the fact that some of which excursions fall flat for want of
moral credibility or religious sincerity under pressure, it may well be, of
obedience to the dread hand of commercial requirement, expectation, and actual
control. Rock is, to be sure, a 'broad church', but its mainstream course tends
to be pretty narrow in its sex-oriented gender relativity. And that narrowness,
which is not exempt from repetitious banality and brain-washing reiteration,
more usually bores and depresses me.
Most people would not accept their
circumstances were they not obliged to live the way they do.
As a rule, night grants you a peaceful
reprieve from the day's warfare, as from everything 'under the sun', including
unruly neighbours.
It could be argued that most people
only experience real peace when asleep.
People would not love animals so
much did they not detest one another.
Aphoristic philosophy, or true
philosophy, is the one literary genre that follows from what is thought rather than from what is
read, written, or spoken, like all the others, including, most especially,
fiction, poetry, and drama.
If you hate what you do, don't do
it!
All societies are comprised of two
sides: the lawful dog-eat-dog on the one hand, and the
unlawful dog-eat-dog on the other.
The Rich always have something in
reserve; the Poor don't.
Most people use their brains only
in the service of their bodies, not of their minds.
The brain may rule the body,
especially in the case of females, but the (male) mind can transcend it, by
leading the brain.
The majority of people are neither
scientific brains nor religious minds, but either political or economic bodies,
with a correspondingly feminine or masculine bias.
One could argue that whereas the
autocrat will normally be a brain and the theocrat a mind, the democratic and
plutocratic masses will generally correspond to opposite types of bodies.
Being a mind is no small
distinction in a world characterized by bodies, including those of children,
and dominated by brains.
It has been said that great minds
think alike, and, if so, that would have to be because they subjectively
converge upon a religious omega point that of God in Heaven.
Those who deliver sermons tend to
reproduce something old. Those who deliver papers, by contrast, tend to
introduce something new, even if it is most likely to be concrete as opposed to
abstract.
The thoughts of theologians should
be distinguished from the speeches of scientists, as the readings of economists
from the writings of politicians.
The thoughts of philosophers differ
from those of theologians by being, in some sense, a chip off the scientific
block, such that will most likely, in correlating hitherto isolated fields of
research in the interests of a more comprehensive and possibly truer
perspective, introduce something new from a standpoint most likely to be
abstract as opposed to concrete.
Hence neither a psychological nor a
physiological partisanship, as with scientific specialists, but a combination
of both psychology and physiology to arrive at a more credible perspective such
that does proper justice, given the requirements of ratio differentiation, to
the element or subject as a whole. With me, there can be no subconscious
without a supersensuous precondition in metachemistry. Nor, conversely, can there be any subsensuous in metaphysics without a superconscious
precondition such that, as with metachemistry, stands
to its extrapolative corollary in a most vis-a-vis
least (3:1) ratio commensurate with absolute, or noumenal,
criteria, as germane to what is ethereal. As for the unconscious, which should
be distinguished from the subconscious, that, to me, would be meaningless were
it not conceived as the extrapolative corollary of the sensuous in chemistry,
the converse of the unsensuous in physics as the
extrapolative corollary of consciousness which, like the sensuous in chemistry,
would stand in a more vis-a-vis less (2½:1½) ratio
commensurate with relative, or phenomenal, criteria, as germane to what is
corporeal.
******
I would have serious reservations
about entering any building crowned by an angular pediment, whether or not the
said pediment incorporated a roundel within its triangular dominance.
Naturally, I tend to avoid buildings whose faηades sport what I habitually
think of as a rectilinear as opposed to curvilinear pediment, Alexandra
Palace, which I can see from my bedroom, being a case in point, and I would
certainly have definite reservations about entering it!
One might suppose that the proper
place or environment for buildings with an angular pediment would be atop a
mountain, not a hill. By contrast, a church with a cupola-dominated pediment,
whether or not the actual pediment itself was curvilinear, should ideally by
sited on the brow of a hill, overlooking the town from a vantage-point arguably
closer to heaven, but not so far removed from the town or townsfolk as to be
inaccessible. For unlike castles, churches were designed to invite people in,
not to keep them out.
Eventually, the Reichstag got its dome, but not in
the neo-classical manner that Adolf Hitler had envisaged. Rather, in a pleasingly modernist style compliments of a British
architect named Norman Foster.
There can be few centres of
politics, never mind government, in the world that would put the Reichstag
in the proverbial shade. The Houses of Parliament in
******
The 'Dragon' that has to be
neutralized if the Saint is to be victorious (and gain hegemonic peace of mind)
will not be defeated by his 'turning the other cheek'. It must first of all be
fought.
I resent nothing more than
intrusions into my privacy, including my freedom to think, by noisy or
censorious neighbours, especially when they also happen to be foreigners with,
to judge by experience, a marked sensitivity if not antipathy to thought.
Needless to say, I would be loathe to let such
intrusions go unpunished.
Generally speaking, the masses
resist education, so egalitarian efforts to impose it upon them are doomed to
failure. Education is the privilege of a select few who don't have to live with
the masses and are not subject, in consequence, to their censorious or hostile
attitude to thought, as to thinking and intellectual endeavour generally, all
of which goes against their outgoing, largely female-dominated natures.
Egalitarian rhetoric, especially
that involving education, by vote-hungry politicians should be seen for what it
is worth and contemptuously dismissed.
Only an egalitarian fool would
strive to educate the ineducable.
Dominated by females, children, and
animals, the masses resist thought and hold it against the thinker as one who
subjectively goes against the grain of their family-oriented objectivity, their
somatically-dominated clear-mindedness and, for want of a better word, 'outsanity', such that brands intellectual activity with the
derogatory epithet 'mental'.
Anyone who lives on a higher plane
than the masses, the people, one's neighbours, etc., is their enemy, whether he
be speaker or thinker, and however he may regard his
relationship with them.
God is as much an enemy of the
people in one way as the Devil is their enemy in another, albeit they are the
enemies of different even opposite gender-conditioned manifestations of the
people.
The closer my physical proximity to
people, neighbours and nearby workmen not least, the more have I striven to
mentally distance myself from them and to resist their endeavours to physically
thwart me in the pursuit of my intellectual labours.
My philosophy was only possible in
spite of people, not because of them.
******
Some things fall from above to
below. Other things rise from below to above, albeit from a different below to
a different above. Like water falling from fire and air rising (at least in
part) from vegetation, though whatever falls from above is likely to be of the
opposite gender to whatever rises from below. Hence the
distinction, not to mention struggle, between devolution and evolution.
There can be no 'Risen Virgin',
only a counter-fall (counter-damnation) of that which is chemical (of the
Mother) to what is pseudo-metachemical (of the
pseudo-Virgin) as the necessary corollary, for females, of the rise (salvation)
of that which is pseudo-physical (of the pseudo-Son) to what is metaphysical
(of the Father).
But what falls from the Virgin, as
it were, to the Mother necessarily drags down with it the pseudo-Father to the
pseudo-Son, just as, by complete contrast, what rises from the Son to the
Father necessarily drags up with it the pseudo-Mother to the pseudo-Virgin at
least in terms of a simple logical antithesis between falling/pseudo-rising and
rising/pseudo-falling which has nothing whatsoever to do with axial
differentiation between rises/counter-falls and falls/counter-rises, as already
described.
The female may fall from metachemistry (the Virgin) to chemistry (the Mother), but
the pseudo-male can only pseudo-rise from pseudo-metaphysics (the
pseudo-Father) to pseudo-physics (the pseudo-Son). Contrariwise, the male may
rise from physics (the Son) to metaphysics (the Father), but the pseudo-female
can only pseudo-fall from pseudo-chemistry (the pseudo-Mother) to pseudo-metachemistry (the pseudo-Virgin). However, all this
somewhat contrasts with the axial rise of the pseudo-Son to the Father, as from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and the axial counter-fall of the Mother to the
pseudo-Virgin, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry,
whereby the lower-order pseudo-male becomes, through salvation, upper-order
male, and the lower-order female becomes, through counter-damnation,
upper-order pseudo-female. Contrariwise, the axial rise (salvation) of the
pseudo-Son and counter-fall (counter-damnation) of the Mother should lead to
the axial fall (damnation) of the Virgin to the pseudo-Mother, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, and the axial
counter-rise (counter-salvation) of the pseudo-Father to the Son, as from
pseudo-metaphysics to physics, whereby the upper-order female becomes, through
damnation, lower-order pseudo-female and the upper-order pseudo-male becomes,
through counter-salvation, lower-order male.
What the above distinctions tend to
prove is that what happens in nature, with parallel higher and lower
gender-divisible positions which tend to rotate in opposite directions,
depending on which gender is hegemonic, is not characteristic of what happens
or can happen in civilization, where the upper and lower gender-divisible
positions are diagonally contrary (rather than vertically parallel) and tend to
the reversal, in consequence, of who is constitutive of the hegemonic gender,
depending on whether a rise (coupled to a counter-fall) or a fall (coupled to a
counter-rise) is the axial outcome. Only civilization can put an end to the
opposing gyrations of nature, as of that which stems from the galactic world order
in the centrifugal or centripetal, objective or subjective cyclic spiralling of
a recurrence that, whether infinite and finite (female) or temporal and eternal
(male), characterized by the dominance of a vacuum (female) or of a plenum
(male), can never cease to spin in opposite directions with little hope of
peace or rest. It is by combining upper and lower diagonally contrary gender
positions that civilization achieves a stability which defies the cyclic
recurrence of nature and makes deliverance from it possible, though less in
relation to itself than to what may one day transcend civilization in the
eternity and pseudo-infinity, the metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry
of 'Kingdom Come', the structure of which, served by an administrative aside to
the Centre proper, should be completely beyond the sway of nature in both of
its recurrences, since antithetical to the Galaxy in its cultural universality
and achievement of a non-polar stability, a stability beyond even axial
relativity in the absolutism of its structured centro-complexification.
You can have doubts about
civilization, especially since it divides, over and above gender polarity, into
separate axes that tend to be at loggerheads, but the solution is not, however,
a 'return to nature', with its clockwise and anti-clockwise spinning or
cycling, its opposite types of noumenal and
phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal recurrence. The solution, rather, is
evolutionary progress towards that which we can have absolutely no reservations
about because transcending both axial and polar relativity in the absolutism of
its non-axial, non-polar gender-divisible structure strictly commensurate with
Culture writ large. That is, with not only a civilized check on nature which
co-exists with it but, more importantly, the antithesis to nature which is the
outcome of civilization as it advances beyond 'the world' towards an
otherworldly goal that will be its own centre, not, like a quasar/black hole,
the centre of the Galaxy, as of any galaxy, but central to itself and
with whatever chooses to identify with it in the quest for true universality,
antithetical, in every respect, to the false universality which engendered,
largely on a devolutionary basis, the myriad galaxies of which our galaxy, the
so-called 'Milky Way', is but a single and possibly exceptional example.
The Centre to come, commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', will not encourage
divergence but convergence, not contraction but expansion, not beauty but
truth, not doing (rooted in the vacuous necessity of will) but being (centred
in the soulful core of the psychic self), not freedom but liberation from
freedom and attainment, in consequence, of the peace that is only possible once
the war of conflicting opposites is no more and the Dragon has been slain, neutralized
for all pseudo-Infinity, by the triumphant Saint whose peaceful reign will be
eternal, as His airy wings hover, in metaphysics, above the constrained fiery
wings, in pseudo-metachemistry, of His defeated
enemy, held down and in check for evermore.
More comprehensively than the
above, the objective freely somatic virtues (coupled to objective unfreely psychic vices) and pseudo-subjective pseudo-freely
somatic pseudo-virtues (coupled to pseudo-subjective pseudo-unfreely
psychic pseudo-vices) of the mainstream and subordinate clockwise cycles of
female-dominated nature/pseudo-nurture on both noumenal
and phenomenal planes vis-a-vis the subjective freely
psychic virtues (coupled to subjective unfreely
somatic vices) and pseudo-objective pseudo-freely psychic pseudo-virtues
(coupled to pseudo-objective pseudo-unfreely somatic
pseudo-vices) of the mainstream and subordinate anti-clockwise cycles of
male-dominated nurture/pseudo-nature on both phenomenal and noumenal
planes, neither of which are constitutive of civilization, still less of what
transcends it in non-axial, non-polar terms.
Christianity differs from
heathenism as civilization from nature, and Christianity is largely
identifiable with Western civilization, the only civilization that, taking its
stand on the religion of the Cross, is non-cyclical in its identification with
bisecting axes, not least on a diagonal Catholic/Protestant basis. Other
so-called 'world religions' tend to favour the cyclic, whether on a clockwise
basis like, arguably, Judaism and Hinduism, or on an anti-clockwise basis like,
I would argue, Islam and Buddhism, which, however one chooses to interpret the
respective orientations of these religions in terms of either a bias towards noumenal absolutism like, arguably, Judaism and Buddhism in
their opposite ways, or a bias towards phenomenal relativity like, arguably,
Hinduism and Islam in their opposite ways, suggests to this author a closer
relationship with nature that, whether characterized by female- or
male-hegemonic criteria, not only distinguishes them from Christianity, as the
religion of Western civilization par
excellence, but rather indicates a heathenistic
shortfall from the non-cyclical disposition, through its axial integrity, of
the religion of Christ which, with the inevitable resurrection of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, would have the capability to become
effectively Superchristian, and therefore the means
whereby evolutionary progress beyond the axial differentiation of Christianity
could be achieved
in the interests of the ultimate Centre, antithetical, in
every respect, to the incessant cycles of nature and hence of that which stems,
on an extrapolative and necessarily attenuated basis, from the galactic world
order which the Christian civilization was able to check but not, alas,
transcend. Only through Western-dominated globalization will it be possible for
the heathenistic Infidel, the unbeliever in the
religion of the Cross, with its axial implications, not only to be curbed but,
more significantly, liberated from his cyclic recurrence in the name of the
still centre of universal peace.
One could argue that Western
civilization in Europe was saved from its own degeneration in the twentieth
century largely by and through the United States of America, whose intervention
against and/or opposition to both Communism and Fascism, the female-dominated
clockwise cycling of the one and the male-dominated reactionary anti-clockwise
cycling of the other, eventually extricated Europe from the secular grip of its
own unchristian degeneration and infused new blood, new life into its creaking
carcass, thereby enabling it to join with America in the ongoing struggle
against anti-Western cyclic threats to the Christian civilization generally,
most of which, unlike their Western communist and fascist counterparts of more
recent times, are still rooted in a cosmos-dominated natural/nurtural past.
******
For most people life simply mirrors
the alternation between day and night, sun and moon, soma and psyche, state and
church, with war between people during the day and peace with oneself at night,
even war between men during the day and peace with women at night, presuming
upon a kind of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (protestant) polarity in the
one case, and a kind of state-subordinate/church-hegemonic (catholic) polarity
in the other case, though that would, of course, be largely speculative, since
I am not convinced that it could be logically proved.
When does
expression become explosion and when, by contrast, does impression become
implosion? I guess the obvious answer must be: beyond the point of retention,
when the centrifugal becomes overly divergent (and therefore no longer
expressive) and the centripetal overly convergent (and therefore no longer impressive),
with catastrophic results.
One hears a lot about the
space-time continuum and other such clichιs of modern science, but I, being
self-taught and suspicious of authority, have long preferred to make a
distinction between space (as spatial) and pseudo-time (as sequential) on the
one hand, and time (as repetitive) and pseudo-space (as spaced) on the other
hand, neither of which would be compatible with the other, since significant of
two different types of space and two different kinds of time. As for the
distinction I also make and have long made between volume (as volumetric)
and pseudo-mass (as massed) on the one hand, and mass (as massive) and
pseudo-volume (as voluminous) on the other hand, here, too, there is no
connection or continuum between what are, in effect, opposite types of volume
and opposite kinds of mass, neither of which could possibly be compatible,
never mind identical, with the other.
----------------------
GREEN
NOTEBOOK 2
The most I can say about the small,
antiquated, dysfunctional computers at my local library in the borough of north
I cannot conceive of a dignified
life that is not independent of other people, especially of unruly neighbours
and noisy workmen.
The State rules by day, but the
Church at night, rather like the Sun and the Moon.
I have kept my best work in reserve
for last.
As foreigners, they often lack the
skills, social as well as occupational, to integrate with the indigenous, so
they simply breed and are obliged to claim benefit while marking time, time for
integration in the next generation? Or is integration not possible in some
cases? Not even desirable? Even I
have reservations about how far I am prepared to integrate into a society whose
criteria are not always ethnically compatible with my own, especially since, as
an Irishman, I feel acutely embarrassed by so much of what passes for the norm
in a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society, and am correspondingly
reluctant to engage with it.
Man is far more considerate of
which foreign species are introduced into a natural habitat than he is of which
foreigners are allowed into his native land. Or, rather, some men are. Namely
the ones responsible for making such decisions in the first place!
Are we not all the victims of other
men, who make decisions for us or independently of us or even against us? I
believe so. And that is one of the contributory factors to why society can be
such a problematic thing, with a dual-sided nature that both
protects and exploits, encourages and undermines, advances and retards.
'Anything goes' only because and
when people are ignorant of what should or shouldn't 'go', and why. A
civilization in terminal decline and disintegration plays host to much that is
not characteristic of its past, but rather symptomatic of outside influence and
interference. These days the West looks to
Not a day passes by but one feels
one is being made war upon by foreigners or people of foreign origin, many of
whom are indifferent if not hostile to Christianity. Such is life in the
hideously cosmopolitan metropolis of London, where nothing one holds dear or
sacred can be taken for granted, and where burly fools rush in or, more
correctly, muscle in where angels would fear to tread, were it not a city
hostile to the angelic and long given to some demonic protest that
paradoxically culminates underground. Surely this is an Irishman's nightmare?
The other day, while I was
attending to some obligation in Wood Green, I overheard a self-professed young
Irishman saying to another man, with whom he was evidently in conversation:
The number of foreigners in
At last, after some six months or
more the workmen next-door have dismantled and removed the scaffolding from
front and back, the latter of which was particularly annoying in that not only
did it overlap with part of my accommodation, partially passing under my window
and resting on the roof to my downstairs landing, but the tarpaulin loosely
hanging from the main scaffold tended to break loose from its moorings in the
wind and take periodic swipes at my slanting roof and back wall, at night more
so than during the day, so that there was no escaping from it and certainly no
reprieve. Even earplugs were only of partial use, so fierce, at times, was the
thwack of the pegs dangling on uncertain strings from the tarpaulin proper,
which would recoil under pressure from the wind only to launch a fresh assault
on my bedroom with what sounded like redoubled gusto. Frankly, this recurring
rat-a-tat-tat of the dangling pegs, which should have fastened the tarpaulin to
the scaffolding, was a kind of torture, from which I have emerged with some
additional psychological scarring to that caused by the persistent manual work
with which the house next-door has been plagued for several months, and still
continues, despite the removal of scaffolding, to be intermittently plagued.
******
I have just completed another
literary trip through Germany, one of several in recent months, compliments of
an 'Eyewitness Travel' guide that I borrowed from one of the Haringey
libraries, and, as usual, I am mentally exhausted and not a little privately
disgusted by the alarming number of printing errors apparently overlooked
and/or committed at various stages of the editing and/or printing process for
what is described as a 2008 reprint (with revisions) of a 2001 publication, and
one, moreover, that had already undergone at least five prior reprints! The
fact that this publication had been farmed out to a Chinese printing company (South
China Printing Company Ltd) may well have had some bearing on the result,
commendable though it is that a Chinese company should be able to print in
English. But it is a sad fact, nevertheless, that publications of this nature,
which are in other respects quite excellent and nobly intentioned, should be
flawed by so many typographical mistakes. These books surely deserve better,
as, I might add, do the public, especially those who, unlike myself,
actually buy them!
Buy virtually any of my eBooks if
you dare and you'll probably find far fewer typographical blunders. In fact,
you will probably be able to read without living in fearful anticipation of the
next printing or spelling error. But, unfortunately for me, most people will
continue to buy books. Which is ironic, really, though not, I
dare say, without axial or social implications at variance with my own!
German is such a fantastically
complex language that you can only admire Germans for being able to speak it.
Even the lowliest German must be privy to grammatical complexities which
non-German speakers would be entirely ignorant of and unable, for the most
part, to broach or risk being confronted by, for fear of having their ignorance
and anti-German pretensions exposed. Learning German is, indeed, a humbling
experience, and doubtless one that those who are too proud to wish to learn
would not relish.
It must be difficult enough for a
German to speak Deutsch, never mind a foreigner. And then there are the
various dialects within any given German-speaking country, not to mention the
difficulties which arise when borders are crossed and Germans, Austrians, and
Swiss Germans endeavour to make sense of one another!
******
Those who buy surfing credits in
bulk from Traffic Exchanges squeeze out the non-buying users, in consequence of
which one tends to see too many adverts of the same kind and quickly becomes
bored, if not seriously disillusioned, with the nature of what happens on any
given Traffic Generating site especially susceptible to such users. Frankly,
for all the good they do in terms of generating revenue for the non-paying
customer (and probably for not a few of the paying customers to boot), you
might as well avoid Traffic Exchanges and simply concentrate on submitting such
sites as you have to Social Networks and the occasional Internet Directory.
In my experience, the mentally
defective are usually physically effective (fit, strong, active, healthy, etc.) and the mentally effective, by contrast,
somewhat prone to physical defects or, at any rate, to a defective physique.
You can, I suppose, have it both ways, but never to any great extent.
What do you think about that? is
a common enough expression, and most people, if asked, would provide some kind
of answer. But have they really thought about the subject in question, whatever
it may be? No, the actual process of thinking
about anything is so frowned upon by a majority of people, especially in
public, that it almost goes without saying that an opinion about something
doesn't necessarily require any conscious thought!
Egalitarianism is always popular
with the masses, who are naturally suspicious if not
envious of elites and of anyone culturally distinguished.
With physical writings novels,
essays, etc. - form determines content, if not the level of contentment. With
metaphysical writings aphorisms, maxims, etc. contentment, if not content,
determines form. It is not the ego but the soul that is the fulcrum of the
latter kind of writings, not knowledge or, more correctly, knowledge as the
basis of pleasure, but truth or, more correctly, joy as the basis of truth.
The Sun was so thickly veiled
behind a dense mound of shifting cloud that it looked more like the Moon, and
it seemed as though, with no shadows, my surroundings had been turned into a
premature night without the benefit, however, of peace and quiet because still
restless in its daytime pretensions. One was adrift, as it were, in a kind of
limbo that refused to release the semblance of night from daytime clutches,
leaving one marooned and not a little disoriented, as one waited patiently for
a non-approaching train.
Catholicism invented cathedrals. In
fact, cathedrals are not a Protestant phenomenon, though so-called
Anglo-Catholicism, otherwise known as Anglicanism, has its fair share of
cathedrals, including the magnificent
******
Most people in
I would be suspicious of artists,
never mind thinkers, who weren't tulip-like, that is, inward-turning and
capable of introspection and more, in consequence, than a slavish adherence to
nature.
They sweep the dirt of the past
under the rug of history and then hoover if not
hover over it with the smugness of modernity, confident that some prophet of
futurity will conveniently overlook it in his obsession with a shiny bright
future.
History is a bitch desperately
striving to become a bastard.
The truly mature tend to see
themselves as being beyond nature
in some cultural realm closer to the
ultimate nurture.
The merely nurtural
tend to bow via the pseudo-natural to Supernature,
whereas the natural, when not impeded and led astray by external forces, tend
to aspire towards Supernurture at least when male
or, rather, pseudo-male and therefore under the sway of nature but
characterized, all the same, by the pseudo-nurture of sin.
A decadent civilization does not
encourage the natural/pseudo-nurtural to aspire
towards Supernurture/pseudo-Supernature, as towards
Superman/pseudo-Superwoman, but renders them more vulnerable, through some
secular alternative to Marianism like republican
socialism, to the predations of the pseudo-nature/nurture-financed
Supernatural/pseudo-Supernurtural.
Man is no more capable of anything
than is God. Both operate within different kinds of limitations specific to
masculine and divine parameters. The same could be said, within other (if
contrary) parameters, of woman and the Devil.
The human can be masculine or
feminine (not to mention pseudo-feminine or pseudo-masculine in gender
subordination to a hegemonic masculinity or femininity), the Superhuman
supermasculine or superfeminine
(not to mention pseudo-superfeminine or pseudo-supermasculine in gender subordination to a hegemonic supermasculinity or superfemininity).
Positivity and negativity attach to
both the human and the superhuman, albeit in contrary gender ways and with
opposite ratios in both the relativity of the phenomenal (2½:1½) and the
absolutism of the noumenal (3:1), quite apart from
the effects of class and gender differentiation upon the subordinate position
(pseudo-element) to any given hegemonic position (element).
******
The Sun stubbornly poked its face
through a hole in the cloud, as if to spy on me before disappearing again under
cover of a shifting bunch of denser clouds whose intervention, scarcely
providential, appeared somewhat premature.
Since my previous project, my last
eBook, the word 'reluctance' has become curiously taboo, and I tend, in
consequence, to avoid using it.
A street preacher shouting
salvation above the indifferent crowd, the noise of traffic, and whatever else,
including a nearby busker, was going-on in the vicinity of where he stood, a
solitary figure preaching the 'Word of God' in a manner at variance with the
godly but nonetheless desperately at loggerheads with 'the world'.
It would seem the overgrown boys in
shorts are back on the football pitch and busily engaged in running their
proverbial socks off. Just the start of another football
season during the course of which a fair number of goals will be scored with
the head, whether or not with the use of the head. For there are
obviously different ways of using your head, though the so-called 'people's
game' (also popularly called the 'beautiful game', which is odd really, since
not a term one would readily associate with 'the people', having more in
common, I would argue, with Rugby Union as traditionally more germane to the
'upper class') would appear to favour using it physically as opposed to
mentally.
Like most modern cults, the cult of
National Socialism went from worship of the Leader (Hitler) to sacrifice of the
worshippers (people), culminating in death and disaster of a magnitude which no
Wagnerian opera could have foreseen, let alone realized!
Better the 'Spiritual Beggars' than
what could be called the Material Buggers, the mere carnality
(non-reproductive) of a material age, an age dominated and characterized by
materialism.
******
I would regard any female in a
straight skirt or dress as being either relatively or absolutely reserved in
regard to spirit (relative) or will (absolute). Any female in a tapering skirt
or dress, however, I would regard as being either relatively or absolutely mad,
as though subject to a gender aberration which is less pseudo-chemical
(relative) or pseudo-metachemical (absolute) than
quasi-pseudo-chemical (from the standpoint of physics) or quasi-pseudo-metachemical (from the standpoint of metaphysics), neither
of which forms of amoral degeneration (from the hegemonic male moralities of
physics and metaphysics respectively) could possibly be any good for either
pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, let alone,
following an immoral backlash, for the hegemonic elements themselves.
I would have real reservations, as
a male, about amorally descending, from a hegemonically
moral standpoint, be it relative (physics) or absolute (metaphysics), onto the
subordinate gender positions of pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry,
since it would be equivalent, in sartorial terms, to abandoning either tapering
trousers (physical) or a tapering zipper-suit (metaphysical) for a tapering
skirt (quasi-pseudo-chemical) or a tapering dress (quasi-pseudo-metachemical), and neither could possibly be desirable from
a male standpoint, quite apart from the immoral backlash which is likely to
occur when what is unmorally subordinate, in pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, becomes pressurized into either a
quasi-physical or a quasi-metaphysical (depending on the context) immoral
ascent, bringing her pseudo-objective criteria (in straight skirt and/or dress)
to bear on what is hegemonically subjective (and
therefore characterized, as noted above, by either tapering trousers or a
tapering zipper-suit), which could only be morally undermined, if not
diminished, by competition coming up from below. Were this to happen in other
contexts than the sartorial example given above, it would not be a jot better
or any the less alarming, whatever appearances to the contrary or common usage
might suggest!
Without the Sun there would be no
life on this planet, not even Christian life, which tends, when genuine, to go
against the natural grain. In fact, there would not even be a planet, never
mind an aspiration towards some otherworldly goal or alternative to 'the
world'.
Everything sensible mirrors
gravity; everything sensual mirrors nuclear fusion, which resists gravity by
continuously pushing outwards, objectively striving beyond itself.
Unlike extroverts, introverts tend
to be grave and reserved, not given to outward show or impulsive action.
Some people contain others, some
people have to be contained, which is to say, restrained and inhibited in their
sensual pursuits. Which also applies to whole peoples, whose
social conditioning tends to favour either sensuality or sensibility, not both
at once.
******
As one who 'falls between two
stools', Irish and British, I am accustomed to not fitting-in anywhere, but to
being a classic outsider, who is neither 'fish nor fowl' because a paradoxical
cross, through birth and upbringing, between the two who, in his latter years,
has gravitated towards all things German, as though in search of a new centre.
I have dedicated my life to
philosophy, and what a philosophy! Never before have so many factors been got
to add up in so comprehensively exacting a manner. In fact, I believe I am
philosophically unique, the last link in the chain of philosophical evolution,
as it were.
Neither decadent modernity nor
cyclic antiquity, but the evolution of Western civilization on its
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (catholic) towards 'Kingdom Come',
hopefully via Social Theocracy, the ideological face of my philosophy.
Life survives on worldly terms in
consequence of the beautiful tyranny of females, who normally get their way and
vindicate both their need and capacity for reproduction.
Defeating such tyranny, which is
reinforced by the emotional cement of love, that freely somatic concomitant of
beauty, was never going to be easy, even before decadent modernity paved the
way for cyclic degeneration and the concomitant accommodation, one way or the
other, of the different manifestations of cyclic antiquity.
In the end, the evolution of
Western civilization from Roman times through Roman Catholicism and, hopefully
via Social Theocracy, into the Social Transcendentalism of 'Kingdom Come'
will defeat and subsume everything else, anything contrary to or lesser than
itself, in the interests of true universality.
Although the decadence of Western
civilization can be identified, primarily I believe, with the Renaissance, what
subsequently ensued, in the actual falling away from the 'one true church', led
to a regeneration of religion through the Protestant Reformation and, not least
in England, an effective switch of axis from church-hegemonic (catholic) to state-hegemonic
(protestant) that paved the way, in due course, for the degenerative processes
which culminated, in the twentieth century, with Communism/Socialism and
Fascism/Nazism as contrary manifestations of cyclic recurrence within a modern,
or synthetically artificial, framework, the kind of framework deriving from the
non-cyclic artificiality of Western civilization in relation to divergent axes,
with particular reference, as noted above, to its state-hegemonic
manifestation. Such a degeneration from the original regeneration of Western
civilization into cyclic recurrence of a synthetically artificial nature
overlapped with the development of globalization in consequence of the effects
on the world in general of Western imperialism, such that brought the West into
direct contact with older and more naturally cyclic cultures which may well
have contributed to the Western degeneration into recurring cycles of a
comparatively artificial order, an order only partly deriving from Western
civilization yet still distinct from non-Western cultures, even though one
fancies, in the division of such cultures between clockwise (Judaic/Hindu) and
anti-clockwise (Islamic/Buddhist) cycling, Communism/Socialism would have a
certain appeal to Jews and Hindus, or persons of Judaic or Hindu descent, and
Nazism/Fascism, by contrast, greater appeal to persons of Islamic or Buddhist
descent, if not to Moslems and Buddhists generally. However that may be, the
defeat of both Communism and Fascism (to revert to general terminology), at
least in Europe and even, in some instances, farther afield, has left the West
with the global legacy of its imperial past under the domination, by and large,
of state-hegemonic countries fronted by America and, to lesser extents, the
leading European imperial powers like Britain, France, and even Russia, but
without a universal possibility such that could only derive from the
resurrection of church-hegemonic axial criteria pending a revolutionary
overhaul of the Western tradition which was both global in its contemporary
relevance and synthetically artificial, paving the way, with 'Kingdom Come' (as
that is what I am intimating of) for true universality and, hence, the end to
cyclic division and any concomitant ethnic rivalry, including, not least, the centuries-old
Catholic/Protestant dichotomy within Western civilization itself.
Clockwise cyclic recurrence, being
closer to nature, is fundamentally a reflection of female domination, both
wilfully and spiritually, and while anti-clockwise cycling may not be entirely
free of female influence, it is more likely, in relation to the greater
exercise of intellectual and emotional factors, to favour the male, as in the
case of fascist reaction to Communism in Europe being partly if not largely in
defence of Western civilization, with its non-cyclical axial polarities
deriving, in no small measure, from Christian values.
******
Life often seems to be a case of
one evolutionary step forward by males, two devolutionary steps backward under
female pressure, not least in respect of a variety of social and familial
obligations which males perforce undertake in relation to females.
Sentimentalists like to think that
the weather is there for our benefit, to enable us to survive and even thrive,
but, in reality, like most other aspects of nature, it simply is what it is,
irrespective of human preferences, and we profit or suffer accordingly.
Some people, in their seeming
incapacity for reflection, their outgoing, extrovert dispositions, resemble
sunflowers, not least when, at any rate in the case of males, they have wiry
hair sticking out everywhichway on face and head! I
have always disliked sunflowers, and people who resemble them rarely curry
favour with me.
From the kind of introverted
standpoint of a tulip, even a rose would be bad enough. But a sunflower!
Strange how certain rock stars come to mind.
To go out with a whimper, not a bang, would seem to befit a philosophical disposition. You
can leave bangs to the scientific.
Freedom through wax earplugs, which
grant a sense of independence from close neighbours such that enables one to
move around cross the floor, open and close doors, etc. - without hearing the
noise one makes in the process. Therefore as though undetected by others and
relatively unaffected by their
noise which, as experience has taught, can be both distracting and annoying,
even humiliating and the source, paradoxically, of a kind of self-defeating
inhibitory reservation which conditions one to act more circumspectly or
cautiously than one would otherwise do, with a corresponding sense of
constraint that, frankly, reduces self-esteem and makes for a sense of shame,
frustration even, that one is not free to be true to oneself and behave, within
reason, as one thinks fit or according to one's nature. The caged bird is not a
happy creature. Only the free bird really sings. Yet the struggle to become
truly free is not what motivates the greater percentage of human behaviour in
our time. Rather are most people taken up with resisting the unfreedoms that those who are really free tend to impose
upon them in defence of their own freedoms of action, freedoms that, by their
very objective nature, cannot be the property of all, but must remain the
preserve of the rich and powerful.
I have never reserved a ticket for
any concert, whatever the kind of music, and I dare say I never shall. Nor have
I ever reserved a ticket for anything else, bar the occasional coach journey or
flight.
I am a person entirely without
curiosity about others, who goes about his business without paying the
slightest attention to anybody, with the possible exception of the occasional
woman (I saw a beautiful long-haired blonde walking along the platform in a
tight-fitting black dress amongst a sea of dark faces while waiting for a train
today). In fact, I pride myself on minding my own business, as though to
contrast myself with the average British male, many of whom can't lay eyes on
anything, oneself included, without having to think or mumble something stupid
or vulgar. My motto is: Don't let that poison get too close, least of all under
your skin. Keep it at arm's reach. So, of course, I tend to mind my own
business.
Those who work for a living don't
normally live for their work. I do.
There are people without talent who
are lauded to the skies. There are people with talent who are simply ignored.
It just depends on who or what you are.
Birds of prey can have no place in
a theocracy, whose symbolic ideal is the dove. And yet, I have heard and read
of high-ranking clergy bishops, archbishops, cardinals described as
resembling eagles, hawks, falcons, and other such birds of prey! What could be
more hypocritically at variance with the true spirit of the Christian religion?
Birds of prey have more in common with an aristocracy or autocracy than ever
they do with a theocracy, distinctions of rank notwithstanding.
Theocrats are not aristocrats, but
the danger of aristocrats being taken for theocrats is always very real in a
civilization that hypes Devil the Mother as God the Father
out of expedience.
Theocrats may have their various ranks, but that is still quite separate and
distinct from the ranks applying to the aristocracy.
An aesthete is somebody indisposed
to truth.
It's not how many books or eBooks
you sell, but who you sell them to
that really matters.
Likewise, it's not how many people
read you, but who reads you (and for what reason) that actually counts.
Writing for others, with others
constantly in mind, is the mark of a slave, not a free man.
You cannot make sense of what, like
so much of the contemporary world, is fundamentally senseless, even if, as a
philosopher, you have the capacity to distinguish sense from senselessness.
It is not enough to 'change the
world'; one must strive, rather, to overcome it. Marxists may endeavour to
'change the world', but that is about all they do, lacking a capacity for 'God
building' or, in non-Leninist terms, otherworldly aspirations.
Even now, in the twenty-first
century, it is probably fair to say that there is more nature than civilization
in the world.
The majority of people, now and at
all times, endeavour to live 'in harmony' with nature. Only a relatively small
number of men more usually men of genius struggle against it in the
interests of nurtural or even supernurtural
progress, the latter of which would be antithetical not to nature but to supernature, as to all things 'supernatural', including, in
all probability, quasars/black holes and other such manifestations of cosmic
existence.
Conservationists and 'nature
lovers' are not on the side of progress, which tends to favour the artificial,
not least in respect of the Arts, which should, if true or genuine, be amongst
the most artificial of creations, defying natural limitations in their
aspirations toward a perfect alternative to nature.
Decriminalize one type of activity
and another type soon takes its place, like paedophilia the homosexuality of
yesteryear which, if ever decriminalized and one sincerely hopes it never
will be could lead to a focus on incest between siblings or even bestiality
or something else that is not focused upon, much less subjected to criminal
prosecution, these days.
******
Just as cadence goes downhill, as
it were, to decadence, so, by contrast, regeneration goes downhill to degeneration,
like the Reformation going to the dogs of deformation, religious reform sliding
down to atheistic state-absolutist deformity.
Parallel with the primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity between cadence and decadence
on the male side of the gender fence is what may be called the secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity (female) between
pseudo-degeneration and pseudo-regeneration, with cadence and
pseudo-degeneration standing to each another as metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, but decadence and pseudo-regeneration
standing to one another as pseudo-physics and chemistry.
Therefore while the axial polarity
of cadence to decadence is of the unequivocally hegemonic (metaphysics) to the
equivocally subordinate (pseudo-physics), the axial polarity of
pseudo-degeneration to pseudo-regeneration is of the unequivocally subordinate
(pseudo-metachemistry) to the equivocally hegemonic
(chemistry).
Parallel with the primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity between regeneration and
degeneration on the female side of the gender fence is what may be called the
secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity (male) between
pseudo-decadence and pseudo-cadence, with regeneration and pseudo-decadence
standing to each other as metachemistry and
pseudo-metaphysics, but degeneration and pseudo-cadence standing to one another
as pseudo-chemistry and physics.
Therefore while the axial polarity
of regeneration to degeneration is of the unequivocally hegemonic (metachemistry) to the equivocally subordinate
(pseudo-chemistry), the axial polarity of pseudo-decadence to pseudo-cadence is
of the unequivocally subordinate (pseudo-metaphysics) to the equivocally
hegemonic (physics).
Just as cadence is only possible in
relation to a male hegemony over females (as pseudo-females), so decadence
transpires from a male subordination (as pseudo-males) to a female hegemony.
And just as regeneration is only
possible in relation to a female hegemony over males (as pseudo-males), so
degeneration transpires from a female subordination (as pseudo-females) to a
male hegemony.
It seems that degeneration is not
only cyclic and absolute, especially in terms of clockwise cycling, as my
initial theories seemed to imply, but can also be axial and relative, as with
the polarity noted above between regeneration and degeneration on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, so that the axis in question is
as much characterized by a regenerative/degenerative primary polarity (female)
as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis by a cadent/decadent primary
polarity (male), no less in relation to its own relativity than in terms of
socialistic absolutism, whereby it would be logical to infer a renunciation of
the Catholic Church and thus of any church/state relativity, the kind of polar
relativity that would also be renounced, across the axial divide, from a
standpoint less republican socialist than Marxist, or radically social
democratic, with predictably state-absolutist consequences. And yet, much as
this would be the likely cyclical outcome of axial degeneration on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a suspicion remains that, on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis by contrast, decadence should imply a kind
of church absolutism in axial contrast to any state-absolutist degeneration of
the Marxist variety. Alas, republican socialism does not, in my experience,
lend itself to logically convenient analogies with church absolutism but,
striving after greater independence of the State from church interference or
control, makes it appear less decadent than degenerate or, rather, of a twisted
kind of decadence with pseudo-regenerative properties of the sort readily
identifiable with iconic landmarks like 'Liberty Leading the People'
(Delacroix), the opposite of degeneration with pseudo-cadent properties, as
strongly suggested by the state-capitalist overtones of Marxism-Leninism. Be
that as it may, decadence and degeneration are not only cyclically absolute but
also axially relative, as I trust the above theoretical modifications should
serve to illustrate, and every endeavour to establish cadence results, sooner
or later, in a decadent backlash as surely as the regenerative aspirations of
the Reformation certainly in England under Henry VIII eventually had to
contend with a degenerative backlash or polarity in the nonconformist community
which no Anglo-Catholic of the sixteenth-century could have foreseen, let alone
willingly encouraged!
Christian art became so decadent
with the Renaissance, that it is small wonder that Protestantism preferred to
exclude it, as far as possible, from its religious reforms. Better no art at
all than the anti-Christian 'body beautiful', 'body muscular', 'body nude', and
other such Michelangelo-inspired aberrations that dragged art down and away
from the New Testament focus of Christianity towards the pagan past via Old
Testament Judaism.
******
Does cyclic degeneration derive
from axial degeneration? The foregoing theories would suggest it does. But
since there is more than one type of cycling one must also ask the question:
Does cyclic decadence derive from axial decadence? And the answer would seem to
be: Yes, it most assuredly does. So that gives us our two types of cycling; one
effectively degenerate, or deriving from axial degeneration, and the other
effectively decadent, or deriving from axial decadence. Now just as axial
degeneration is the breaking away of pseudo-chemistry from physical control, so
axial decadence is the breaking away of pseudo-physics from chemical control,
with, in each case, a degree of unprecedented freedom for the breakaway gender
that is quickly exploited by the freedoms (or bindings) proper to their
respective polarities in metachemistry and metaphysics,
which bind them anew to one or the other modes of cycling clockwise in the
case of female-dominated degenerative cycling, but anti-clockwise in the case
of male-dominated decadent cycling, making, in contemporary terms
(synthetically artificial), for a communistic/fascistic distinction which
cannot but be at loggerheads with itself or, more correctly, with the opposite
mode of cycling. For the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female informed by metachemistry will tend, under female influence, to cycle
in clockwise fashion, whereas the pseudo-physical pseudo-male informed by
metaphysics (even by the truncated metaphysics bound soma of the crucifixional paradigm typifying Catholic axial
tradition) will tend, under male influence, to cycle in an anti-clockwise manner,
thereby being at gender loggerheads with his clockwise counterpart on both
phenomenal (corporeal) and noumenal (ethereal)
planes, since in the one case metachemistry has been
brought to bear on pseudo-chemistry, while in the other case metaphysics has
come to bear on pseudo-physics, conditioning the cyclic directionality
accordingly. No longer, as with axial control, is there a gender compromise
but, rather, a clash of gender realities brought about by their release,
through somatic degeneration on the one hand and psychic decadence on the
other, from axial compromise. Even so, males accustomed, through metachemistry, to state-hegemonic female domination will
shadow their female counterparts in what I like to term dotted-line cyclic
fashion, while females accustomed, through metaphysics, to church-hegemonic
male domination will shadow their male counterparts in similar dotted-line
cyclic fashion, the former effectively degenerate and the latter no-less
effectively decadent, albeit on secondary terms compared to their gender
counterparts in the primary modes of degenerative (female) or decadent (male)
cycling. Nor should we forget, finally, that some pseudo-cadent overtones
deriving from physics will accrue to pseudo-chemical degeneration and, by contrast,
some pseudo-regenerative overtones deriving from chemistry accrue to
pseudo-physical decadence, even before metachemistry
and metaphysics necessarily 'get in' on the act and bring their gender parallel
polarities to bear on the respective types of corporeal decline.
I am persuaded, by a study of
ancient history, that Greece was more state-hegemonic than church-hegemonic, as
it were, whereas Rome was or became more church-hegemonic than
state-hegemonic, thereby enabling one to infer the axial parallelism of Roman
Catholic church-hegemonic tradition with that of ancient Rome, in contrast to
the axial parallelism of Protestant state-hegemonic tradition with that of
ancient Greece, so that as the one tradition derived, in no small measure, from
its Roman counterpart or blueprint, so the other tradition, as it developed
independently of Catholicism, fell back on ancient Greece, as upon its nearest
historical counterpart, and was more inclined, in consequence, to identify
with, if not slavishly worship, all things Greek. The position, on the other
hand, of ancient
Casually thinking about the 'Garden
of Eden' concept of
The lower you sink in society, as
in religion, the worse things get.
It is always somewhat disconcerting
to be surrounded by neighbours who do their undamndest
to oppose, with a variety of thumping noises, the slightest suspicion of
intellectual or computer-related activity on one's part. One gets a sense of
how the world really is in the main, and of how determined one has to be not to
let average or sub-average people especially females and kids get the
better of one and effectively put an end to one's cultural endeavours, to drive
one out of one's self-made paradise under pretext of being inconvenienced by
what little disturbance one makes during the process of using a computer or
strangest of all exercising one's brain in the formation of thought! For then
the thumping bimbos really 'come out' in all their alarming sensitivity to the
activation of thought by a solitary intellectual. Oh for a monastic-like
retreat where one could get on with one's thinking or writing or whatever
independently of the 'many-too-many', the lumpen
proletariat, the foreign bimbo, the class enemy of culture, the born enemy of
religious or philosophical truth! For that, in my experience, is what a
majority of people and of women in particular actually are, as men like
Schopenhauer, Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and other exceptional geniuses of the past
well knew!
I've heard females described,
apparently by some old-school British politician, as all antennae and no
brains, which is a phrase that stuck in my mind, since it somehow rings true
and causes me to reflect, today, whether my own position as an adult male of
intellectual persuasion is not akin to all brains and no antennae? Not
intellectually reserved, but certainly socially reserved. With, I think, good
reason!
Heads rolled during the French
Revolution and, subsequently, bodies fought bodies in the bloody, brutal
Napoleonic Wars that inevitably ensued. That scoundrel Bonaparte may not have
begun the French Revolution but, as time progressed, he certainly knew how to
finish it off.
Has the 'Age of the People', dating
from approximately the late-eighteenth century, finally come to an inglorious
end with or since the collapse of Communism in
Whether regeneration devolves to
degeneration or cadence devolves to decadence, the results tend to be pretty
much the same: war and perpetual strife, as that which is low (degenerate or
decadent) paradoxically comes to the fore, turning the world upside down and
inside out.
There is no such thing as 'divine
decadence', that illogical notion of certain feminists and shallow
intellectuals gunning for some degree of radical notoriety. Decadence is no
more 'divine' than degeneration is 'diabolic'. Rather is it their respective
polarities, cadence and regeneration, which are divine and diabolic, that is,
significant of either soulful being or wilful doing, of psychic subjectivity or
somatic objectivity, according to whether metaphysical or metachemical
criteria are chiefly in evidence at any particular time. The repudiation of
diabolic regeneration the 'increase and multiply' injunction of the Old
Testament is what alone makes for the possibility of divine cadence, unlike
the degenerative polarity to regeneration on the one axial hand, and the
decadent victim of regenerative/degenerative predation on the other axial hand.
******
I have blown through philosophy
like a divine wind and shaken it to the very depths of its foundations,
consigning the cobwebs of outmoded thought to the rubbish bin of philosophical
history where, one day, they will not merely rot but go up in flames or, at any
rate, be vaporized.
Those philosophy-denying fools are
probably correct, in their self-satisfied smugness, to maintain that philosophy
has no applicability to the modern world, but they are severely deluded if they
think it cannot point to a better one, beyond the scope of the modern
preference for drama, fiction and, to a lesser extent, poetry.
Both drama and fiction (that
internalized mode of drama) rip off poetry and hence the poet while
avoiding, as far as possible, all contact with philosophy.
Outgrowing poetry I dabbled in
fiction, but soon found its philosophical subversion was not enough
if one seriously
wanted to pursue Truth and climb the hill of metaphysical insight that leads to
salvation.
Philosophy is only true to itself
in metaphysics. With physics, chemistry, and metachemistry
it becomes regressively more 'bovaryized', that is,
undermined and even vitiated by economics, politics, and science, in that
regressive order.
If anything it is those 'bovaryized' kinds of philosophy that have some relevance,
in varying degrees, to the modern world, a world dominated by science and
economics under which the political 'bovaryization'
of philosophy labours in vain towards a 'better world'.
A majority of people, being
relatively simple, still behave as though the atom had never been split and
that there was only one type of sanity, namely the female-dominated outer
sanity ('outsanity') of the marketplace. They
couldn't be more wrong!
To say that somebody is uneducated
presupposes that he/she can be educated. But that is not invariably the case.
On the contrary, it is more often a symptom of egalitarian rhetoric which
conveniently overlooks the incapacity of most people to be educated beyond a
certain level, as well as the actual irrelevance of what has been called
'higher education' to them.
There is nothing more objectionable
to the average person than thought and, worse, the ability of the exceptional
individual, a philosopher, to think for himself and demolish, if necessary,
centuries of presumed wisdom.
Every day I think in the face of
hostile opposition from neighbours and workmen in short, from the 'common
herd', as it were, of thoughtless cretins, and value my thinking, or my ability
to think, all the more!
Civilization only advances because
of exceptional individuals, not because of the masses, who tend, rather, to
reduce everything to the lowest-common-denominator of a nature-affirming
sex-oriented opposition to civilization and its raison d'κtre, culture. In this
respect, D.H. Lawrence, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau before him, was a forceful
spokesman for the masses who was fundamentally against civilization.
There can be no true culture
without civilization and, within the framework of civilization, a variety of
constraints upon females. For civility on their part is not the same as
culture, and the prospects for culture, as the apotheosis of male nurture,
would be very bleak indeed if there was no accompanying civility, no
constraints placed upon soma in the interests of psychic flourishing in the
form, generally speaking, of artistic revelation.
Philosophy and music that is, in
the main, metaphysical will always be at the peak of culture.
It is not the philosopher's fault
if people in general find him unreadable. In fact, it is rather more to his
credit that unthinking individuals cannot profit from his thought, since it is
not his business to enlighten fools.
You do not read philosophy to be
entertained, nor even to be educated or informed, still less to be emotionally
titillated, but rather to be enlightened. Philosophy has no other business,
essentially, than to enlighten, to bring the reader to a greater understanding
of metaphysics and metaphysical issues generally. But that presupposes a reader
capable of metaphysical understanding and genuinely interested in pursuing
metaphysical truth, because inherently wise. In short, the psychic exception to
the somatic rule!
******
Those who
are always testing others, who put others 'to the test', tend to do so from
lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. It is as though they can only believe in their own worth, such as
it is, by exposing, where possible, the foibles or weaknesses of others,
thereby reassuring themselves that it is not they who are at fault, or lacking
in virtue, but those whom they set out to test.
None of my writing has ever been
done outdoors. On the contrary, it is the product of an indoor, sedentary
lifestyle that would not, I feel confident, be compatible with the outside
world, still less identifiable with those who write outdoors or, more
correctly, with writings conducted outdoors by persons who like to be 'close to
Nature' and to soak up what they perceive as its natural beauty, all the while
sucking up to the Sun, like so many neo-pagans. By contrast, I have always had
strong reservations about conducting my philosophical pursuits in public, never
mind outdoors! However, this has never precluded me from writing indoors about
certain outdoor experiences or events, comparatively rare as that may be.
Saw a church or what was
described as such while in a nearby borough this afternoon which was so
astonishingly mundane-looking in its four-square modernity as to make one
wonder how-on-earth anything approaching God, never mind the so-called 'Word of
God', could possibly be worshipped or taken seriously in such a place. Frankly,
it beggars belief to what extents of architectural degeneracy nonconformist
churches can sink!
I write what I think and think
about what I write, thereby closing the circle.
As a thinker I am unreservedly
forthright and determined to be as honest with myself as possible, no matter
what the outcome. For what is the point of being intellectually dishonest, or
of knowing one thing and saying another? That would be a mark, surely, of
intellectual cowardice.
******
In terms of the number and audacity
of his conquests, one would have to say that Hitler, as Commander-in-Chief of
the German Armed Forces during the Second World War, was the greatest military
leader, or conqueror, since Napoleon. Like Napoleon before him, Hitler came to
grief in
When the Germans occupied
Hitler was, in many respects, the
reverse of Napoleon, that is, a statesman who became a warlord as opposed to a
warlord, or general, who became a statesman.
Metternich, though born in Germany,
became the Austrian Chancellor; Hitler, though born in Austria, became the
German Chancellor. Another case of history repeating itself,
albeit on antithetical terms.
It would be no exaggeration to say
that the wars Napoleon waged have been considerably overshadowed, in the
twentieth-century, by the wars waged by Hitler against the rest of Europe,
Stalin, though obviously a great
statesman and warlord, does not compare with either Napoleon or Hitler, who
both waged aggressive wars of external conquest.
Stalin merely reacted to invasion and was eventually able to repulse it and
expand the Soviet Empire into
The Germans liberated a lot of
Russian and/or Russian-dominated territory, like the
To undo the remnants of the
discredited Versailles Treaty with regards to the return of Danzig and the establishment
of a Corridor linking East Prussia to the rest of the Reich, Nazi Germany,
having failed on the diplomatic front to appease an Anglo-French-backed Polish
military regime, had to go to war with Poland, and we all know where that led,
although the Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin signed just before the invasion
was a masterstroke that, by speeding up the conquest of Poland by limiting the
German sphere of influence, effectively neutralized the Anglo-French allies and
led, in the winter of 1939-40, to the so-called Phoney War, when a stalemate
ensued in the West and no-one seemed anxious to invade Germany, least of all
the architects of the Maginot Line.
Eamonn de Valera who, more than any man, was
responsible for the Irish Civil War, eventually came in from the intransigent
republican cold, as it were, by accepting political reality and becoming Taoiseach (prime minister) of the 26
counties in 1932. After several spells in office in this role, he went on to
become President of the 26 counties in 1959. But when he died in 1975
Keeping Eire neutral during the
Second World War was a brave and sensible strategy on de Valera's part,
especially with British threats of intervention into key Irish ports, since
there was no justification for siding with the traditional imperial oppressor
of Ireland and certainly no sense in siding with Nazi Germany at the risk of
British opposition and possible invasion. But signing the Book of Condolences
upon news of Hitler's death, as de Valera did, was a courageous and, to my
mind, magnanimous gesture, since Hitler was no enemy of Ireland (Eire) and,
besides, it would have looked like a pro-British stance had he not done so,
putting him on a more or less equal footing with Churchill and those who had
systematically warred upon Nazi Germany. For that I have more respect for 'Dev'
than for his intransigent republicanism in the face of loyalist reaction, given
the virtual inevitability of partition and the desirability, at the time, of
It was a tenet of Nazi ideology,
not least with Hitler, that
We always hear about Obersalzberg in connection with the Nazis, particularly
Hitler, who could overlook his homeland in the province of Salzberg,
but nothing at all about Untersalzberg, which is
closer to Berchtesgarden, probably because it held
less interest for Hitler and might even have connoted with the kind of mensch that Hitler and his followers were determined
to subjugate, if not exterminate, from a standpoint closer to the Nietzschean άbermensch.
Nevertheless, as a region Untersalzberg would be no
less spectacular than its better-known counterpart further south thanks or no
thanks to Hitler and the Nazis.
******
Don't let the bitches, anxious to
capitalize on their assets, make you feel guilty. Be a bastard and feel
innocent.
What, you may wonder, is the chief
cause of axial decadence on the one hand and axial degeneration on the other,
that is, of the falling away of both decadence and degeneration from their
respective axes into cyclic recurrence whether of a clockwise (degenerate) or
an anti-clockwise (decadent) nature, bearing in mind what has already been said
on previous pages about the roles of gender in determining these
antithetical outcomes. Is it that the chemical hegemony over pseudo-physics, of
pseudo-regeneration over decadence, and the physical hegemony over pseudo-chemistry,
of pseudo-cadence over degeneration, lose their controlling influence on the
subordinate gender positions, pseudo-masculine in the one case and
pseudo-feminine in the other, or does the decline into cyclic decadence owe
more to a loss of faith in metaphysics and the decline into cyclic degeneration
more to a weakening of loyalty to metachemistry, so
that the polarities to both pseudo-physical decadence and pseudo-chemical
degeneration are less attractive than before and unable, in consequence, to
command the same degree of respect such that would keep both decadence and
degeneration within the axial framework as opposed to allowing them to break
away, for want of control, into the opposite types of cyclic recurrence? I
suspect, too, that if chemistry and physics are less influential than before,
it could have something to do with a diminishing respect for their respective polarities in
pseudo-metachemistry (under metaphysics) and
pseudo-metaphysics (under metachemistry), albeit
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-degeneration would never
have the same appeal to chemical pseudo-regeneration as metaphysical cadence to
pseudo-physical decadence. Nor, I suspect, would pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-decadence have the same appeal to physical pseudo-cadence as metachemical regeneration to pseudo-chemical degeneration.
Be that as it may, the decline of both decadence and degeneration from being
complementary, on subordinate terms, to pseudo-regeneration and pseudo-cadence
respectively ... to actually becoming cyclically independent of them can and
does happen, for whatever reasons, and the consequences are predictably worse
for society as a whole than when decadence was held fast to pseudo-regeneration
and degeneration held fast to pseudo-cadence, even if only because of the polar
attractions of both cadence (metaphysics) and regeneration (metachemistry)
upon them. Either way, one has a devolutionary descent from stability under the
alternative ruling principles or elements of axial civilization into
instability and even anarchic chaos independently of such principles in a
situation closer to nature even when it takes a synthetically artificial, or
contemporary, guise, as in the cases, we have argued, of Communism and Fascism,
the one clockwise and dominated by female criteria, the other anti-clockwise
and dominated by male criteria. But both decadence and degeneration can and do
exist within the bipolar framework of axial civilization, if respectively
subordinate to pseudo-regeneration and pseudo-cadence, so that one cannot
regard them as typifying what exists in the corporeal realms of phenomenal
relativity. On the contrary, they will normally be obliged to play a secondary
role, in effect, to the hegemonic gender position there, be it
pseudo-regenerative in chemistry or pseudo-cadent in physics, which,
traditionally within the Western framework, will suggest the primacy of Marianism over the pseudo-Christianity of the 'Christ
Child' on the one axis, that of the effective dominance of 'Mother Church'
within the church-hegemonic axial tradition (catholic), and the primacy, by
contrast, of the Conservative Right over the Liberal and/or Socialist Left on
the other axis, that of Parliamentary Democracy within the state-hegemonic
axial tradition (protestant). Such is the antithetical nature of 'the world'
and, even without the threats of the antithetical types of cyclic recurrence,
it cannot be regarded as an end-in-itself, but only as a temporal arrangement
pending the possibility of eternal life in 'Kingdom Come' and the eventual
triumph, in consequence, of otherworldly values, about which I have hitherto
written at some length and without any reservations whatsoever, bearing in mind
that they are inseparable from the subjugation, neutralized dragon-like, of
what has been termed pseudo-netherworldly values, the
constrained values of pseudo-metachemistry under
metaphysics at the apex of revolutionary church-hegemonic criteria.
------------------
ORANGE
NOTEBOOK 3
My mother used to have what I
understood to be an old Irish saying: God created friends and the Devil
relatives. Well, I don't know about relatives, since, living outside my native
country, I've never had that many to contend with, but I would certainly settle
for neighbours in the latter context!
Do shepherds leave the shepherding
of the flock to sheep? No, of course not! Nor do cowboys leave the herding of
the herd to cattle. In a democracy, whether republican or parliamentary, both
sheep and cattle equivalents can vote for the kinds of shepherd or cowboy
equivalents they prefer. But they can't expect to be left without shepherd or
cowboy equivalents altogether, since the absence of external controls would
lead to anarchy and to a general want of democratic accountability, with
extremely serious consequences.
Mozart's
father, Leopold, was a Bavarian from Augsberg, and
therefore it must be said that Wolfgang Amadeus himself was partly of German
descent, even if born in Salzberg,
To be safe from the prying ears and
penetrating eyes of women you need, short of a monastic retreat, very thick
walls, very thick walls indeed!
In this book it could be argued
that I rounded on cyclic recurrence in no uncertain terms, laying into it with
a vengeance that would have astounded Nietzsche.
The next time you get to watch a
saxophonist in action, particularly one who is swaying his saxophone around
(like a sonofabitch), ask yourself if the bright
shiny exterior of the instrument coupled to its dark, deep interior, the gaping
hole, as it were, inside the bell, doesn't suggest something analogous to a
quasar/black hole, dancing its undamned pitch in the
spotlight of a starry night.
Even if rock had done nothing more
than to take contemporary music off the 'gold standard' of jazz, it would have
achieved something momentous.
One should be careful to
distinguish between contemporary music, like rock and electronica,
and contemporary anachronistic music, like so-called classical still being
composed in one acoustic and/or orchestral way or another, including what
passes for the avant-garde. For contemporary musicians/composers who use the
most up-to-date instruments and museum-like anachronisms who are not in a
position to 'jump ship', as it were, are two very different kettles of musical
fish who swim in very different musical environments.
For me, the best type of rock is
and always will be progressive rock (prog rock),
which synthetically strains towards electronica from
a position rooted, manually, in drums and bass.
No group has charmed and
entertained me more than Tangerine Dream, who are my 'dream band', epitomizing
what I regard as best in electronica, regressive electronica, and progressive rock, since they seem to have
spanned a number of genres, even if, to a cynical mindset, it would seem as if
they had gradually 'gone downhill' from the original keyboard-based electronic
format to formats embracing guitars (both electric and acoustic), drums,
percussion, and brass and/or wind instruments (including sax and flute).
Nonetheless, their music remains recognizably Tangerine Dreamish,
despite all the inevitable changes in instrumentation and personnel which the
group has undergone over the course of several decades. Few other bands can
rival them or, more correctly, Edgar Froese for
staying power. For he, more than anyone else, has kept Tangerine Dream 'on the
road' through all the transmutations which have taken place, and it would be no
exaggeration to say that without its founder member Tangerine Dream would
probably cease to exist, since he is effectively the backbone and central
nervous system of the group who, like Brahms before him, has taken his music
from Hamburg to Vienna, as from Germany to Austria, in the course of its
development. Only his son, Jerome, it seems to me, could credibly step into his
shoes and possibly take Tangerine Dream into a post-Edgar Froese
future.
******
One should distinguish civilized
decadence and degeneration, according to axis, from non-civilized decadence and
degeneration, which is, like nature, merely cyclical in character. The doctrine
of egalitarianism or equalitarianism can lead from the one type of decadence or
degeneration to the other, with predictably philistine and barbarous
consequences. To be sure, both philistinism and barbarism exist within the
axial framework of civilization, but not, thank goodness, as its dominating or
most characteristic features! On the contrary, culture generally gets the
better of philistinism and civility of barbarity, which is just the opposite of
what happens when axial decadence and degeneration are eclipsed by their cyclic
counterparts, making for a situation in which philistinism and barbarity come
to the fore through a want of culture and civility, whether in relation to
Fascism or to Communism.
Curious that, on state-hegemonic
axial terms, civility is degenerate vis-a-vis its
polarity in the barbarity of regeneration, in contrast to the polarity between
the pseudo-culture of pseudo-cadence and the pseudo-philistinism of
pseudo-decadence, both of which need to be evaluated separately from the
polarity, in church-hegemonic axial terms, between the pseudo-civility of
pseudo-degeneration and the pseudo-barbarity of pseudo-regeneration, in
contrast to the polarity between the culture of cadence and the philistinism of
decadence.
Any artist who is not more than a
'mirror held up to life' is a mere philistine. In our own time, photographers
are the type of the philistine artist par
excellence, as are so-called Modern Realists, who strive to minutely
reproduce, with near photographic exactitude, the objects of their painterly
endeavour.
I've always had strong reservations
about listening to music employing the trumpet (horn), not least in the context
of modern jazz, probably because I tend to regard trumpets as the most
alpha-oriented of musical instruments, even of brass instruments in general.
There is also, I guess, something quintessentially Old Testament-like about
trumpets, and I, for one, find it difficult to associate the instrument with
anything angelic, never mind godly! No, the trumpet is definitely a kind of
taboo instrument for me. In fact, so much so, that I cannot pretend to relish
the prospect of hearing even so accomplished a musician as Miles Davis playing
one, these days, much as I occasionally used to listen to him in my unsuspecting
youth.
******
With the primary axial polarity
between regeneration and degeneration, metachemistry
and pseudo-chemistry on the state-hegemonic axis, we find a parallel with that
between vanity and justice, so that it can be logically maintained that whereas
metachemical regeneration is vain (but not
necessarily 'in vain'), pseudo-chemical degeneration is just. Hence justice is
no less relatively degenerate than vanity is absolutely regenerative. But why,
then, do we tend to regard justice as honourable if, indeed, it is a
concomitant of pseudo-chemical degeneration? There are, I believe, two answers
to that question. One is that unbridled regeneration, or vanity, is undesirable
and deserves to be constrained through the application of justice. The other is
that the polarity between metachemistry and
pseudo-chemistry, though primary, is not the only polarity on the
state-hegemonic axis, but one that co-exists, on the female side of the gender
fence, with the secondary state-hegemonic polarity, on its male side, between
pseudo-metaphysics and physics, that is, between pseudo-meekness and
pseudo-righteousness, which corresponds to pseudo-decadence and pseudo-cadence,
so that pseudo-meekness is as much an absolute concomitant of pseudo-decadence
as pseudo-righteousness is a relative concomitant of pseudo-cadence, the former
corresponding to what is pseudo-metaphysically subordinate to metachemistry, the latter to what is physically hegemonic
over pseudo-chemistry. And there, in relation to pseudo-righteousness, lies the
basis of the second reason why justice is considered honourable. For it is
subject to the physical hegemony of pseudo-righteousness and would not
otherwise exist, being a consequence, by and large, of male hegemonic criteria.
Although degenerate from a female point of view rooted in regeneration, justice
is instrumental in maintaining the balance of axial forces which, by
constraining regeneration, and hence excessive vanity, allows
pseudo-righteousness to prevail and to prevail, within a relative framework,
over degeneration. But if what is controlled by and rendered subject to a male
hegemony in physics namely pseudo-chemical justice is honourable partly for
that very reason, the axial converse of such a gender arrangement in which the
male is dominant over a pseudo-female position, namely the absolute
subordination of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meekness to metachemical
vanity, as of pseudo-decadence to regeneration, is, from a male standpoint
centred in physics, dishonourable, since the product, in no small degree, of a
female hegemony, and thus of metachemical control.
Now what applies to the state-hegemonic axis is also applicable, in reverse
terms, to the church-hegemonic one, where pseudo-justice under righteousness,
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-degeneration a plane down
from metaphysical cadence, is honourable or, more correctly, pseudo-honourable
from a male standpoint because of the male hegemony in metaphysics, whereas the
subordination, by contrast, of meekness to pseudo-vanity, of pseudo-physical
decadence to chemical pseudo-regeneration is dishonourable from such a
standpoint, owing to the hegemony, in relative terms, of chemistry, a female
element, over a subordinate pseudo-male in pseudo-physics. Thus whether a
subordinate gender position is honourable or dishonourable would seem to be
linked to the nature of the gender hegemony presiding over it, with positions
following from the prevalence of a male hegemony (in physics and/or
metaphysics) being deemed honourable or, more correctly from my logical
standpoint, relatively honourable (in pseudo-chemistry) and absolutely
pseudo-honourable (in pseudo-metachemistry), but
those, by contrast, in which the male (as pseudo-male) is subject to female
hegemonic control (whether in relation to metachemistry
or to chemistry) being castigated as dishonourable or, more correctly from my
logical standpoint, as absolutely pseudo-dishonourable (in pseudo-metaphysics)
and relatively dishonourable (in pseudo-physics) again from one or other of
the male hegemonic standpoints. As for females, their hegemonic positions are
not evaluated by the same kind of male-oriented moral logic, even if females
have their own views on the status of what I would call pseudo-male
subordinates, but tend, rather, to be grudgingly accepted or acknowledged by
hegemonic type males as facts of life which, no matter how majestic or
inevitable in relation to an objective disposition motivated by vacuous
necessity, require to be curbed or constrained in the interests of those male virtues
in either physical pseudo-righteousness or metaphysical righteousness which
allow for the honourableness, from a male standpoint, of pseudo-chemical
justice and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-justice
respectively, while simultaneously reducing, almost as a by-product, the
extents of dishonourableness attendant upon the subordination of
pseudo-physical meekness to chemical pseudo-vanity on the church-hegemonic axis
and of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meekness to metachemical
vanity on the state-hegemonic one. Therefore it should follow that the
hegemony, on state-hegemonic axial terms, of pseudo-righteousness over justice
will reduce the degree to which pseudo-meekness is subordinate to vanity,
while, conversely, the hegemony, on church-hegemonic terms, of righteousness
over pseudo-justice will reduce the degree to which meekness is subordinate to
pseudo-vanity, whether or not this actually happens in practice or for any
appreciable amount of time. Some things, however, are fairly certain:
degenerative justice, functioning at the behest of pseudo-cadent
pseudo-righteousness, can no more defeat regenerative vanity than
pseudo-decadent pseudo-meekness, functioning at the behest of regenerative
vanity, can defeat pseudo-righteous pseudo-cadence on the state-hegemonic axis,
while decadent meekness, functioning at the behest of pseudo-regenerative
pseudo-vanity, can no more defeat cadent righteousness than pseudo-degenerative
pseudo-justice, functioning at the behest of cadent righteousness, defeat
pseudo-regenerative pseudo-vanity on the church-hegemonic axis. The balance of
polar forces, compounded by gender differentials in both upper- and lower-class
terms, remains in place as testimony to the non-cyclic stability of Western
civilization, even if, through messianic intervention or some equivalence
thereof, destiny may have a non-axial order of stability in store for the world
which, being global, will simultaneously allow the problem, from a civilized
standpoint, of cyclic recurrence to be definitively solved by making it
logically possible for its various manifestations, historical as well as
contemporary, to be consigned to the proverbial rubbish bin of history.
Nature may cycle its foliage, but,
by and large, buildings and streets remain constant, fixed in unchanging moulds
that transcend the seasonal variations impinging upon them.
To contrast
the vain barbarity of regeneration with the just civility of degeneration, as
one would contrast metachemistry with
pseudo-chemistry as primary state-hegemonic polarity (female) vis-a-vis the secondary state-hegemonic polarity (male)
which contrasts the pseudo-meek pseudo-philistinism of pseudo-decadence with
the pseudo-righteous pseudo-culture of pseudo-cadence, where the contrast
between pseudo-metaphysics and physics is concerned.
Contrariwise,
to contrast the righteous culture of cadence with the meek philistinism of
decadence, as one would contrast metaphysics with pseudo-physics as primary
church-hegemonic polarity (male) vis-a-vis the
secondary church-hegemonic polarity (female) which contrasts the pseudo-just
pseudo-civility of pseudo-degeneration with the pseudo-vain pseudo-barbarity of
pseudo-regeneration, where the contrast between pseudo-metachemistry
and chemistry is concerned.
******
What is righteousness? Is it the
same, for instance, as the pseudo-cadence of pseudo-physics? No, that, by
contrast, is pseudo-righteous because, although equivocally hegemonic over the
just civility of pseudo-chemistry, in overall axial terms it is subject to the
domination of female criteria by dint of the axial primacy of metachemistry which, unequivocally hegemonic over
pseudo-metaphysics, is polar to pseudo-chemistry, as regeneration to
degeneration, or vanity to justice. Righteousness, by axial contrast, is not
pseudo-cultural, like physics, but properly cultural, which is only possible in
the cadence of metaphysics, and such culture, appertaining to an unequivocally
hegemonic elemental position (over pseudo-metachemistry)
is only possible in relation to the Self, or soul, where it is true. For, like
righteousness, culture is nothing if not self-culture, and the self-righteous
in self-culture are the truly righteous, being one with self as, in equivalent
terms, God is One with Heaven, or Superconsciousness
One with the Supersensibility of the Soul. The
Righteous are joyful in their self-culture, for they have triumphed over life
and need not fear death. Theirs is the grace of the Saved.
If the righteous man effectively
a superman is righteous because of his commitment to self-culture, to the
cultivation of the Soul within the elemental framework of metaphysics, then
anyone who is not self-righteous is not righteous, even if, like the physical
man of ego, he happens to be pseudo-righteous in his equivocal hegemony over the
pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, who is nevertheless polar to what is
unequivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-male, namely the metachemical female of regenerative vanity. As for the
pseudo-metaphysical themselves, they are anything but righteous, since no less
pseudo-meek under a metachemically vain hegemony than
the pseudo-physical are meek under a chemically pseudo-vain one, barbarity
absolutely dominating pseudo-philistinism in the former case, and
pseudo-barbarity relatively dominating philistinism in the latter case.
The metaphysical man, a superman,
is alone righteous in his commitment to metaphysics on the church-hegemonic
axis, and Roman Catholic priests, being vocationally celibate, have
traditionally exemplified such righteousness, even with a bound-somatic
shortfall, through the Crucified Christ, from free-psychic grace in metaphysics
such that, at the human level or stage of metaphysics, would imply regular
recourse to transcendental meditation and a disposition completely independent
of anything metachemical, no matter how beautiful or
loving. Therefore the Righteous are, in effect, theocratic rather than, say,
plutocratic, democratic, or autocratic, and are also men who, being righteous,
or self-cultivated, tend to distance themselves from women, at least from
sexual relationships with a gender which is fundamentally autocratic and
therefore the very antithesis of the theocratic. Baudelaire aptly described
women as being both tyrannical and slavish, and we may infer from this that if
the tyrant is autocratic and regenerative, then the slave is likely to be
democratic and pseudo-regenerative, that is, chemical rather than metachemical, pseudo-vain rather than vain, more concerned
with reproduction (or its familial consequences) than with seduction, but still
given, objectively, to a somatic disposition which is ever concrete, if
relatively rather than absolutely so. The unrighteous man, using that term in a
general sense, does not, however, distance himself from women in this way, but
sexually engages with them to varying (relative or absolute, pseudo-physical or
pseudo-metaphysical) extents, either in the meek acceptance of parental
responsibility (relative) or in the pseudo-meek avoidance of such
responsibility (absolute) through an overriding concern with aesthetic
hedonism. With the pseudo-righteous man, physically hegemonic over the
pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, there is also a relative sexual engagement
presupposing paternal responsibility, albeit modified by his knowledge-oriented
bias towards ego and likely concomitant economic interests making, via regular
recourse to contraception, to reduced family commitments in, compared with his
unrighteous counterparts, small family units.
******
God in
Heaven as Truth in Joy or Mind in Soul, Superconsciousness
in and as the consequence of Supersensibility. No Heaven, Joy, Soul, Supersensibility
call it by what name you like and there could be no God, Truth, Mind, Superconsciousness. Without candle flame there would be no
candlelight. Candlelight is candle flame regarded from the outside, and is
therefore one and the same as that which burns within. So is God, Truth, Mind, Superconsciousness One and the Same as Heaven, Joy, Soul, Supersensibility, since the former variations on the one
theme are the latter variations on it perceived from without rather than
experienced from within.
Deny the Soul and you are left, as
a male, with mind that, far from being superconscious,
is merely conscious and dominated by the brain, which is called ego, or
egocentric mind. And conscious, or egocentric, mind, unlike its superconscious counterpart, is not free of the Will but
tends, even if indirectly, to be dominated by it, since, while it may be
hegemonic over pseudo-Spirit, its axial polarity on the male side of the gender
fence, viz. Pseudo-Soul, is very much subordinate to the hegemony of free will,
as of the Will per se, which happens, being metachemical,
to be female in character and therefore objective in disposition.
Having suggested a possible
connection, on previous pages, between the descent into cyclic recurrence of a
synthetically artificial order of Western civilization and its imperial
associations with the older and more natural cyclic recurrences of pre-Western
or non-Western cultures, I should not wish to leave the reader with the
impression that such cultures were themselves the product of degeneration or
decadence, since not only were they largely non-axial in character but, with
few if any exceptions, stemmed from either regenerative or cadent preconditions
that, with Judaism and Buddhism in particular, reflected the greater influence
of cosmos-derived ethereal upper-class factors that were either autocratic or
theocratic rather than a consequence, like the Western examples of more recent
date, of democratic or plutocratic mass-movement tendencies inherently
characteristic of a worldly age or society. In that respect, the ancient cyclic
absolutes of pre-Western societies would appear to have been established on a
basis the social opposite of their Western counterparts, even if still
embracing relatively degenerate and decadent elements as a matter of cyclic
course, and specifically, I believe, in relation to a kind of non-axial
polarity between the regenerative nature of Judaism and the degenerate nature,
knowledgeably bookish, of Islam on the one hand, and between the cadent nature
of Buddhism and the decadent nature, within a sexual or bodily framework, of
Hinduism on the other hand, irrespective of how much or how little such polarities
count for within cycles that are either clockwise (Judaism/Hinduism) or
anti-clockwise (Buddhism/Islam), and therefore mutually exclusive of their
polar devolutions. And what applies to the pre-Western cultures can also be
said of their Western counterparts, where I argued for a distinction between
the clockwise cycling of Communism and Socialism as against the anti-clockwise
cycles of Fascism and Nazism, the ghost of an axial polarity being inferred
with the regenerative secular nature of Communism and the degenerative nature,
from a Christian standpoint, of Nazism in the one polar case, and with the
Catholic-defending cadent nature of Fascism, virtually in all Latin countries,
and the decadent, or Church-independent, nature of Socialism in the other polar
case, albeit such 'natures' are manifestly the product of synthetic
artificiality and by no means identical to their non-Western counterparts.
Incidentally, when does Western civilization really begin, not least from the
standpoints of non-Western cultures? For, in a broad sense, it dates back to Graeco-Roman times, with the succession of Greece by Rome,
and, more specifically to Christianity, it dates from the Middle Ages in terms
of what superseded the so-called Dark Ages in relation to the medieval
flowering of Roman Catholicism, not least in Italy and France, which, having
succumbed to decadence in the guise of the body-affirming Renaissance, was
duly, albeit only partly, eclipsed by the Reformation in much of northern
Europe, so that the emergence of its regenerative axis or, rather, of the axis
rooted in regeneration could be said to date from the mid-sixteenth century, a
century which many people, including non-Westerners, would be inclined to
equate with the inception of the modern if not contemporary form of Western
civilization on account of the burgeoning imperialism which followed from the
greater economic and political freedoms of the Reformation, freedoms which
ultimately brought the United States of America not merely into being, but as
the principal exponent, in due course, of largely Protestant-derived Western
values in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Therefore when this staged
framework, progressing from Greece and Rome to Protestant-derived modernity via
Catholic medievalism, of what constitutes Western civilization is taken into
account, even Islam, a much later religion than Christianity, could be regarded
as being, in some sense, pre-Western in character, not simply non-Western.
However that may be, the non-European cycles, or forms of cyclic recurrence,
did not derive, like their more recent Western counterparts, from mass-movement
degeneration or decadence, but came into being as a consequence of elite rule
by those closer, for whatever reason, to the spirit of either regeneration or
cadence within a comparatively naturalistic as opposed to artificial
environmental and social context or, more correctly, number of contexts.
We have now come a long way from
the Catholic decadence of the Renaissance (often culturally overrated by
Protestant and secular thinkers) tending to the Reformation theory of the first
(orange) notebook, and would know that not only was it unrighteous but
dishonourable and, what's more, unreserved, that is, unreservedly heathenistic in its glorification, through art, of the
naked body, the opposite of anything Christian and therefore orientated,
through Christ, towards somatic binding in the interests, for males, of
psychic freedom from bodily domination, not least in respect of women, who are
the natural enemies, in their vacuous vanity, of righteousness and, hence, of
physical or bodily reservedness. For the Righteous
are nothing if not physically reserved, since given, in their self-centred
honourableness, to mental calm and the cadence whose synonym is recreation, the
recreation of psychic relaxation in the beingfulness
of the liberated soul. Even the pseudo-Righteous are unable, in their
preoccupation with ego, to achieve more than a pseudo-honourable order of
righteousness (pseudo-righteous) commensurate with knowledgeable taking, the
gender antithesis not so much of doing as of giving. But that which is
dishonourable in its unreservedness is manifestly unrighteous, and therefore
the product of error under opposite gender pressure, whether in relation to the
pseudo-meekness (pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin in secondary state-hegemonic
pseudo-free soma/secondary church-subordinate pseudo-bound psyche) of
pseudo-metaphysics ever subordinate to a metachemical
hegemony favouring vanity (crime/evil in primary state-hegemonic free
soma/primary church-subordinate bound psyche), or in relation to the meekness
(sin/folly in primary church-hegemonic pseudo-bound psyche/primary
state-subordinate pseudo-free soma) of pseudo-physics ever subordinate to a
chemical hegemony favouring pseudo-vanity (pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime in
secondary church-hegemonic bound psyche/secondary state-subordinate free soma),
neither of which hegemonic elements, being female, conduce towards reservedness, or the virtue of being aloof from pseudo-male
failings, of which decadence, whether pseudo (pseudo-metaphysical) or genuine
(pseudo-physical) is the outward proof. Unreserved, dishonourable, unrighteous,
you have need, in pseudo-physics, of deliverance from your sin (pseudo-bound
psyche) and folly (pseudo-free soma) to the grace (free psyche) and wisdom
(bound soma) of metaphysical salvation, as to that which reserves the moral
right to remain aloof from whatever is not righteous, whether pseudo-righteous
or unrighteous, since, from a male standpoint, truly honourable in its inner
self-centredness at the centre of truth. The question is: Do you want to be
saved and, no less importantly, do you believe it is possible to be saved in a
world dominated by women? Obviously, I cannot answer that question for you, but
I reserve the right to ask it and to wrestle with my own reservations in
relation to it, not least with regards to the fact that the world we live in
these days is far bigger than the Christian one of old, whether Catholic or
Protestant or a combination of both, and no concept of Salvation, inextricably
tied, as it has to be, to that of counter-Damnation, would be of any use that
was stuck in a Christian mould, as though the world were only occupied by
Christians, and then in its more worldly, or Western, manifestations, not least
in Europe. Sorry, but that isn't the case, and one has to make allowances for
that fact, as I believe I have done over the years in a variety of texts which
have some relation to what I have called the ideological philosophy of Social
Theocracy, and make allowances, besides, for so much else that Christianity
signally fails to address and would be demonstrably incapable of providing a
solution to, since rooted, through the Old Testament, in what is the very opposite of the centre of truth, of
the cadent righteousness of the truly reserved. And those roots, enjoining
people to 'increase and multiply', have reference to the regenerative vanity
whose starting-point is unreservedly Creator-esque in
its quasar/black hole-like cyclic vacuity out of which the beautiful and loving
freely somatic (coupled to ugly and hateful bound psychic) enemies of the
freely psychic joy and truth (coupled to the bound somatic woe and illusion)
objectively diverge, to render any subjective convergence to the centre of
truth, the omega point of joyful soul, a rather uphill and daunting task, but
not, I maintain, as impossible as some, lacking in both logic and faith, would
have us believe. And not so much in regard to 'moving mountains', which to me
is a largely irrelevant concept of faith, as in 'climbing hills'. For if this
hill can be climbed, then there
will be no place for mountains, much less mountain-scalers
and mouthpieces like Moses and Zarathustra, that mouthpiece of the Nietzschean will to power, and less and less place,
correlatively, for anything in between, including decadent valleys and
degenerate flatlands. Regeneration may have had the first creative say and be
indicative, moreover, of what comes first as the alpha-most tendency in life,
whether in ancient cyclic, schismatic axial, or modern cyclic guise, but if
righteousness is to finally prevail, not least over pseudo-justice, its
subordinate gender concomitant, then it will be desirable for cadence to
reserve to itself the last recreational thought, and for the Y-like emblem of
truth to be planted atop the hill whose centre is universal and eternally
beyond the realm of cosmic necessity.
The Church was not built atop a
mountain, like the Kehlsteinhaus or Adlerhorst (eagle's nest) of the Zarathustrian
Hitler. No Nietzschean Zarathustra or Mosaic Jehovah
lights our path under a blazing sun or tumultuous sky violently rent asunder by
commanding thunderclaps and lightening bolts of 'the Almighty', but only the
flickering inner light of metaphysical truth, the light which, as Truth, bears
witness to the Joy of the heavenly soul which is the maker and breaker of
godliness. Now why, as a male of philosophic tendency, should one have any
reservations about that?
