Preview THE FOURFOLD COMPOSITION OF ELEMENTS AND PSEUDO-ELEMENTS IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE eBook
Op. 143
THE FOURFOLD COMPOSITION OF ELEMENTS AND
PSEUDO-ELEMENTS IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE
Aphoristic Philosophy
John OLoughlin
Copyright © 2014 John OLoughlin
__________________
PART ONE
Is life worth living? Yes for the alpha
bitches, and no for the pseudo-omega sons-of-bitches; no for the pseudo-alpha
daughters-of-bastards, as it were, and yes for the omega bastards on both
noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal, upper- and lower-class planes.
It's really as simple as that. Life is only worth living for the hegemonic
gender, whether in the alpha (female) or in the omega (male), not for the
subordinate gender, whether as pseudo-omega (pseudo-male) or as pseudo-alpha
(pseudo-female). So there is a sense in which the 'once born' or sensual life
of the heathen is worth living from a female point of view, and the 'reborn' or
sensible life of the Christian worth living from a male standpoint. There it
is.
The British and the English in particular
have often been praised, usually by themselves or by people akin to them, for
their moderation, exemplified, not least, by parliamentary compromise and a
refusal to entertain extremism, whether of the left or the right, but this, I
am confident, has a lot to do, over and above historical experience, with the
non-gender nature of the English language which, fighting shy of female and
male alternatives either side of a neutral (or neuter) middle-ground, tends to
condition an almost androgynous perspective which can result in the
much-vaunted liberal moderation upon which the British would seem to pride
themselves. It is almost inconceivable that the situation that arose in Germany
in the 1920s and '30s, when society was torn asunder by communist (female) and
nazi (male) antagonism, could have happened in Britain, where Communists and
Fascists would have been more likely, in the long-term, to come to some kind of
parliamentary arrangement, comparatively few and far between as their numbers
were, whether because of genuine female/male ideological opposition or, more
likely, because political extremism, like other forms of extremism, simply
wasn't germane to a mindset conditioned, over several generations, by the
gender-neutral nature of the English language. The well-documented incapacity
of the British and the English in particular for ideology or, more
accurately, for ideological idealism and transcendentalism, which even
Nietzsche was aware of and drew attention to, must owe something if not
everything to the want or, if you prefer, absence of gender from the English
language, the androgynous relativity of which, deeply atomic in character,
precludes a truly male aspiration and orientation towards ideological
radicalism from transpiring, in consequence of which the concept of 'fighting
the good fight'
of male idealism against female materialism
is either
non-existent or reinterpreted to suit a more gender neutral disposition partial
to parliamentary democracy and, more specifically, to a right-wing orientation
favouring private enterprise at the expense of all forms of socialism,
including the non-Marxist (republican socialist) variety, as well as to any
threat to that parliamentary bias posed by either unrestricted autocracy or
papal theocracy, neither of which would be acceptable to a mindset whose
concept of what is 'good' and constitutive, moreover, of 'the good fight' never
strays very far from the benefits accruing to private enterprise within a
polity, characterizable as parliamentary, more partial to that than to anything
else. This, however, is not my concept of 'the good fight', and whilst I am no
advocate of papal theocracy, with its claim to infallibility, I most certainly
regard such a fight in relation to religion and, most especially, to what I
term Social Theocracy (as the means to Social Transcendentalism), to which, as
the reader may know, I have dedicated a not-inconsiderable proportion of my
writings for several decades past.
What is more important work or health? Health,
of course. No health, no work.
What is more important play or health? Play,
of course. No play, no health. There is unquestionably a gender distinction of
sorts between work and play, but only in the sense that one conceives of work somatically,
or in relation to soma (body), and conceives of play, by contrast, psychically,
or in relation to psyche (mind). Then a gender distinction can be said to
exist, though one also has to allow for play of a workful nature, so to speak,
and for work of a playful nature, the former pseudo-somatic and the latter
pseudo-psychic, as if intended for and/or reflective of gender subordinate
positions conditioned as such positions tend to be by the hegemonic
gender's bias, be that bias somatic (and properly workful) or psychic (and
properly playful), with female and male gender implications that point to
pseudo-male (workful play) and pseudo-female (playful work) corollaries,
including, no doubt, physical sports like football in the one case and mental tasks
like bookkeeping or shorthand typing in the other case, as between footballers
and secretaries, the great majority of whom, in each case, will be what I have
described as pseudo-male and pseudo-female respectively.
Some would argue that both fusion music, or
jazz-rock and/or blues-rock, and rock classical are subversive of rock proper,
meaning rock 'n' roll-derived subgenres, as it were, like hard rock, soft rock,
progressive rock, punk rock, heavy metal, and, to be sure, there may be some
truth in such an argument. But the fact remains that, axially considered,
jazz-rock is no less axially preferable to jazz than rock classical to
so-called classical music from a rock 'n' roll point-of-view, since not really
identifiable with the upper and lower polarities of state-hegemonic axial
criteria (northwest to southeast poles of the intercardinal axial compass) but,
rather, peripheral to the lower pole, in lapsed Catholic/republican socialist
vein, of the church-hegemonic axis (southwest to northeast poles of the
intercardinal axial compass) whose upper pole can only be some form of
superclassicism like electronica. Therefore to have what can be inferred to be
the Protestant, or lapsed Protestant, proletariats 'on board', as it were, of a
type of music more readily identifiable with a proletariat of Catholic descent,
no matter how subversive of the latter the former may appear in each of their
effectively antithetical manifestations, is surely preferable to not having
them 'on board' at all, but to being confronted, instead, by a jazz/classical
polarity which is not so much axially subversive as diametrically inimical to
rock 'n' roll. It is to be expected that in the future event of a collapse of
state-hegemonic axial criteria (presumably brought about by a radical
modification of church-hegemonic axial criteria), the proletariats who have
rejected jazz in favour of jazz-rock (fusion) and classical music in favour of
rock classical, whom I have theoretically contended to be of Protestant
descent, would be more likely to serve justice, or to support the serving of
justice, on the prime movers up and down the state-hegemonic axis than would
anybody more closely and therefore axially aligned with such movers,
whether in relation to jazz or to classical or, indeed, to anything else
recognizably state hegemonic, and to serve or support the serving of such
justice in the interests of their own subsequent middle- and lower-tier
amalgamation, as ex-Nonconformists and ex-Anglicans, with the upper-tier
ex-Catholics, so to speak, on what would be a 'stepped up', or resurrected,
church-hegemonic axis commensurate with 'Kingdom Come' and, more specifically,
to what has previously been described, in certain earlier books, as the Triadic
Beyond, a largely self-explanatory term for what lies beyond the present
structures of society. Such justice, brought to bear on the prime movers of
state-hegemonic somatic licence and the profiteering from the financing of said
licence by their polar counterparts, would be a precondition of their
subsequent entitlement, these ex-Protestants, to church-hegemonic status,
whether on the middle tier under the saved (and for females counter-damned)
from rock proper, as presumably for people who had been chiefly instrumental in
the production of rock classical, or on the bottom tier, as presumably for
people who had been chiefly instrumental in the production of jazz-rock
(including blues-rock), whom I would incline to suspect were more Anglican than
Nonconformist in what had been their Protestant allegiances, and therefore
traditionally closer to mainstream jazz than to mainstream classical. Be that
as it may, all this is of course merely speculation about a hypothetical
scenario and should not be taken as gospel, even though I believe it corresponds
to the overall ethnic reality of how things actually are, or should be
logically inferred as being, irrespective of exceptions to the rule or
illogical associations on the part of various individuals whose cultural
preferences, for one reason or another, do not necessarily follow from an
ethnic precondition. One thing I will say for sure is that if any one type of
music could be said to have been really subversive of rock 'n' roll, not least
in its hard rock and progressive rock permutations, it would surely have been
punk rock, which was not merely peripheral to rock proper but, rather, a direct
assault on it, as though from persons of a hard-line republican tendency who
simply spat on the remaining vestiges of Catholic sensibility or ethnicity in
mainstream rock in the interests of a descent into the musical equivalent of
socialist anarchy, with an unbridled instrumental and vocal energy that
reflected the youthful ardour of a generation at loggerheads with the rock
norms of their parents.
What can be said of a man coming along the
street in pleated trousers? All sorts of stupid things, of course, but more
insightfully and even obviously: that he would not appear to be somebody who
has been down on his hands and knees hammering or drilling or plastering or
scrubbing or whatever. There is a good chance that he may even be a gentleman,
nurturally if not naturally averse to any kind of manual labour. Which would
indicate that he was less working class than middle class, would it not?
Generally speaking, 'the bad' die young
of
unnatural causes, and 'the good' die old
of natural causes. And this contrary
to the 'accepted wisdom'
of fools.
My books have always emphasized content over
form, for the are essentially books of ideas that strive toward contentment, or
psychic self-satisfaction, through truth, the subjectivistic 'objective', as it
were, of philosophy. If I feel I have 'got it right', or accurately described
and/or defined something, be it ever so intangible and requiring whatever
modifications of existing terminology, I am happy, that is to say,
intellectually and morally content. But such contentment only comes in relation
to the type of books I write, and would not be true of writers whose
'objectives' were less subjective.
When I was a youth, back in the late 1960s,
guys with short cropped hair (and Doc Martin boots, turned-up denims, braces,
etc.) were normally regarded as skinheads. Now, in the second decade of the
twenty-first century, guys with short cropped hair wouldn't 'cut it' as skinheads
(except perhaps in the conventional or traditional sense) because many guys
choose to shave their head (in addition to their face and possibly even body
hair), and such shaven heads, strange to say, are not regarded as the mark of
skinheads, since distinct from the culture that sprang up in the late 'sixties
and was the antithesis to the long-haired culture of 'freaks' or 'hippies', and
a kind of counterpart to that between mods and rockers of the mid-sixties which
had automotive motivations in the distinction between scooters and motorbikes,
a factor less relevant to the skinhead phenomenon, with its closer association
with football hooliganism, neo-nazism, and a general yobbism that, in some
respects, presaged the punks of the late '70s. But even if a contemporary
shaven head is literally more 'skinhead'-like in the physical sense than were
most of the so-called skinheads of the late '60s, with their closely-cropped
hair, it is still a distinct category and even culture in its own right, and
should not be confounded with either cropped hair or baldness, since whereas
the former is traditionally the preserve of the so-called skinheads, even if
less culturally identifiable with them these days than before, the latter is
due to hair loss, usually though not invariably through the process of ageing,
and a guy who shaves his head, whilst he may look bald to others, is not
necessarily somebody suffering from hair-loss but may well be and in the more
youthful instances almost certainly is somebody given to an overzealous
attitude to shaving which may well reflect a masculine or even macho contempt
for hair and, especially in the case of long hair, for the effeminacy or
cultural irrelevance, going back to the late '60s, often associated with it.
Obviously, the commercial availability, these days, of home shaving kits,
complete with clippers, trimmers, scissors, and all the rest of it, has
contributed enormously to the trend for shaven heads, as has the ready
availability of well-lined hoods on zipper jackets of one type of another, and
I can see no reason why this should not continue to be the case well into the
future, since inventions cannot be undone, and once they come into common usage
the trend is set on an irreversible course that will appeal to those for whom
hair is either a nuisance or an anachronistic irrelevance having a variety,
depending on the style, of undesirable connotations, if not both.
You cannot have all predators and no prey or
all prey and no predators, for then the predators would be no more predatory
than the prey
prey, or objects for predation. Likewise you cannot have all
advantaged and no disadvantaged or all disadvantaged and no advantaged, for
then the advantaged would be no more advantaged than the disadvantaged
disadvantaged. You always have a combination of both, with more disadvantaged
than advantaged, more prey than predators. Otherwise there can be neither. Such
is the distinction between 'the Few' and 'the Many' the predatory or
advantaged upper class and the preyed-upon or disadvantaged lower class, the
latter necessarily being far more numerous, as masses, than the former, as
elites. The masses are not morally superior to the elites. On the contrary, it
is the elites who hold the high ground, both literally and metaphorically. Such
moral superiority as does exist is rather more between one type of elite and
another or one type of mass and another, with the sensibility of inner values
counting for more than the sensuality of outer ones in the moral estimation of
those who hold to some form of sensibility under what normally transpires to
being a male hegemony, whether ethereal or corporeal, noumenal or phenomenal,
theocratic or plutocratic, metaphysical or physical.
They say the exception proves the rule, but it
is also the case that the rule necessitates the exception, like the artist,
philosopher, seer, etc. Otherwise what a boring and predictable
state-of-affairs! Don't trust triangles! The triangular, in whatever walk of
life, is in a pact with the Devil, that is, with all aspects of metachemistry,
including the objective beauty of free will, whose criminal nature or, more
correctly, supernature, in metachemical free soma, is intentional. Some regard
mainstream life, that euphemism for what has been co-opted (one way or another)
to the triangular, as sacrosanct. I don't. Greatness has always stood out from
the crowd, feared and worshipped by the Many as the prerogative of the Few.
Intentionality wars upon intellectuality as
instinctuality upon emotionality, albeit on axially polar as opposed to
inter-axial terms. One could call this a direct albeit gender differentiated
as opposed to an indirect kind of warfare. In overall axial terms,
intentionality indirectly combats intellectuality through a subordinate
pseudo-emotionality, whereas instinctuality indirectly combats emotionality
through a subordinate pseudo-intellectuality. Conversely, from the standpoint
of the sensibly 'inner' as opposed to sensually 'outer' values, intellectuality
indirectly combats intentionality through a subordinate pseudo-instinctuality,
whereas emotionality indirectly combats instinctuality through a subordinate
pseudo-intentionality. The polarity between intentionality/pseudo-emotionality
and intellectuality/pseudo-instinctuality can be logically associated with
state-hegemonic axial criteria stretching from the northwest to the southeast
points of the intercardinal axial compass, whereas the polarity between
instinctuality/pseudo-intellectuality and emotionality/pseudo-intentionality
can be logically associated with church-hegemonice axial criteria stretching
from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass,
to begin, in each axial case, with the alpha-west and conclude with the
omega-east. Therefore a direct gender polarity only exists between
intentionality and pseudo-instinctuality (overall female) and
pseudo-emotionality and intellectuality (overall male) in the case of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but between instinctuality and
pseudo-intentionality (overall female) and pseudo-intellectuality and
emotionality (overall male) in the case of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
1.
In relation
to its specifically hegemonic elements, the polarity between intentionality and
pseudo-instinctuality, the former hegemonically noumenal and the latter
subordinately phenomenal, is primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
(overall female), whereas that between intellectuality and pseudo-emotionality,
the former hegemonically phenomenal and the latter subordinately noumenal, is
secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (overall male).
2.
Contrariwise,
the polarity between emotionality and pseudo-intellectuality, the former
hegemonically noumenal and the latter subordinately phenomenal, is primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (overall male), whereas that between
instinctuality and pseudo-intentionality, the former hegemonically phenomenal
and the latter subordinately noumenal, is secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (overall female).
All our lives long we are engaged in a gender
war compounded by other factors, like class, ethnicity, occupation, etc., which
can only be won by males on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, not
on those of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, where the female is
noumenally hegemonic and therefore sovereign on primary terms. But it can only
be definitively won, this gender war, if the pseudo-intellectually sinful are
saved to graceful emotionality (joy), so that the instinctual (who are less sinful
than pseudo-evil and even, in freely somatic state-subordinate terms,
pseudo-criminal) are deprived of subordinate allies and prey and duly
condemned to counter-damnation in the form of pseudo-intentionality as the
subordinate corollary of that tempered emotionality that makes for sanctity,
pseudo-metachemistry for ever under the sway of metaphysics, like the
proverbial neutralized dragon under the saintly heel. The 'want' of emotional
sensibility in females is endemic to the gender and is not an anomalous
characteristic of this or that female. Even intellectual sensibility is usually
beyond their capacities, which will normally allow for no more than a
pseudo-intentional deference to the emotional sensibility of joy in the case of
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, and a pseudo-instinctual deference
to the intellectual sensibility of knowledge in the case of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a pseudo-sensual deference, in each
case, that would not obtain without the institutionalized continuity of
hegemonic pressure from the male gender, since it is by no means natural to
females but, rather, a product of their pseudo-female subordination to male
hegemonic criteria in one or another degree, depending on the plane, of free
psyche/bound soma or, in their case, of pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma,
with ratio implications that are the pseudo-sensual converse of their male
counterparts in both phenomenal and noumenal sensibility.
Are you stressed out (by love) or blessed in (through
joy) by the music you listen to. If the former, then it is obviously no good.
If the latter, then at least you know it is headed in the right direction from
a male standpoint. Whitesnake is the band I love to hate the most because they
are so, so given to sex, love, women, romance, etc. that I have to turn to a
band like Iron Maiden (!) which I hate to love but do because, to me, they are
the perfect antidote to Whitesnake and to the more prominent rock 'n' roll
sons-of-bitches generally. In fact, to my way of thinking Whitesnake and Iron
Maiden are the alpha and omega of British rock music, rather like the dunces
and the clever, the foolish and the wise, the romantic and the esoteric. No
wonder most relatively sane males who know anything about hard rock/heavy metal
prefer Iron Maiden; for, despite the manifestly unattractive nature of that
name, you would have to be kind of mad (or madly in love and/or on a
gender-bender trip) to be overly enthusiastic about bands like Whitesnake, the
narrow focus of whose lyrics makes even singers like Ian Gillan and Glynn
Hughes, never mind Mick Jagger and Christ Farlowe, appear comparatively
broad-minded.
By way of contrasting Association Football with
Gaelic Football, the free psyche and bound soma of physics over (a plane up at
the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) the pseudo-free psyche
and pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry would suggest that, in the case of
Association Football (which I believe should be correlated with this male-dominated
element/pseudo-element pairing), the free psyche of physics and the pseudo-free
psyche of pseudo-chemistry could be regarded as correlating with the
entitlement to head the ball (one way or another, viz physically high or
pseudo-chemically low, climbing or diving), and the bound soma of the one and
pseudo-bound soma of the other with the penalization of ball handling, as of
the ball being wilfully or accidentally handled, which can, however, be kicked
(one way or another, viz physically high or pseudo-chemically low, on the
volley or along the ground), whereas the free soma and bound psyche of
chemistry over (a plane up at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass) the pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics would
suggest that, in the case of Gaelic Football (which I believe should be
correlated with this female-dominated element/pseudo-element pairing) the free
soma of chemistry and pseudo-free soma of pseudo-physics could be regarded as
correlating with the entitlement to handle the ball (one way or another, viz
chemically high or pseudo-physically low, whether in the air or on the bounce),
and the bound psyche of the one and pseudo-bound psyche of the other with a
taboo on heading the ball, which can nevertheless be kicked (one way or
another, viz over the bar between the extended uprights or into the net of the
goal below, whether or not this implies a chemical/pseudo-physical
state-subordinate distinction as opposed to a chemical/pseudo-physical
church-hegemonic one in which hands or fists have been used in the scoring
process). Therefore it would appear that the opposite natures of Gaelic
Football and Association Football derive, in no small part, from the elements
and pseudo-elements, corresponding to a hegemonic gender and subordinate
pseudo-gender parallel, with which they can and, I believe, should be
correlated largely, I have to say, with ethnic associations in mind which
distinguish what appertains, in mass Irish Catholic vein, to the foot of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis from what appertains, in mass British
Protestant (nonconformist) vein, to the foot of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis namely our aforementioned distinction
between chemistry and pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass and, across the axial divide, physics and
pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point thereof, the former polar to the
northeast point of the said compass, as in sports terms to Hurling, and the
latter polar to the northwest point of it, as to Rugby, and not least, I would
guess, in relation to Rugby Union. The above-mentioned planes are of course
volume over pseudo-mass, the former volumetric and the latter massed, in the
case of chemistry/pseudo-physics, and mass over pseudo-volume, the former
massive and the latter voluminous, in the case of physics/pseudo-chemistry,
both of which would stand as phenomenal (corporeal) counterparts to the
noumenal (ethereal) planes of space and time, whether with regard to space over
pseudo-time, the former spatial and the latter sequential, in the case of
metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics (at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass), or to time over pseudo-space, the former repetitive and the
latter spaced, in the case of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry (at the
northeast point of the said compass), where not Gaelic Football and Association
Football but, as noted above, Rugby and Hurling would seem to be the most
credible candidates, within the overall context of the British Isles, for two
such antithetical sports.
When the average man abandons 'the world' for
'God in Heaven', as for a (fully) metaphysical approach to life, monkeys will
have turned into monks.
Does a late Picasso look like an early Picasso?
Does a late Dali look like an early Dali? Does a late Braque look like an early
Braque? Or, for that matter, an elderly Picasso like a young Picasso, an
elderly Dali like a young Dali, an elderly Braque like a young Braque? No, of
course not! Then why should my
late writings, the products of an elderly John O'Loughlin, be like the early
ones, the novels and short stories, dialogues and essays, of a youthful John
O'Loughlin? If I hadn't evolved my writing style or approach to writing over
the course of several decades, passing through a corresponding number of
phases, there would surely be something wrong with me as a writer and no less
as a person. Believe it or not, it actually takes courage and no little
determination to sit down at one's desk and systematically 'do one's own thing'
independently of literary convention and the commercial appetite for fiction or
drama or some other mass-market predilection. In truth, not many people have
the ability to be true to themselves, know what they are doing is uncommercial
and unconventional, yet still press on with it regardless because they happen
to believe in it and consider it to be inherently necessary or justified. That,
to my mind, is the mark of a true artist, whose originality, uniqueness, and
determination to be true to himself, to what he believes is true, irrespective
of what other people or even artists may think, manifests his creative
genius. So don't expect anything resembling conventional literature from me
nothing resembling a 'book', with a beginning, a middle, and an end, other than
in the sense that no form of protracted literary composition can avoid having a
beginning, a middle, and an end in relation to itself, its very existence as a
piece of writing. Little by little the bricks of my philosophic logic have stacked
up into an edifice that is both strong and true, tall and round, with a
capacity to withstand the tests of time and the gusts of criticism which will
probably blow around it in years to come.
They hide their mediocrity behind a veil of
silence, whose inscrutable obstinacy threatens to stifle one's creative
impulses. But struggle on regardless one must, if one's freedom of mind isn't
to be unduly undermined by the cynical void that resentfully surrounds it on
all sides from what are more usually the antichrist champions of bodily
freedom. Sometimes silence is as demoralizing as noise, though when the one
technique fails there is always the other for the enemies of thought and
philosophical endeavour to fall back on, countering freedom of mind with freedom
of body, or the mental with the physical.
How could anyone who purports to be Christian
possibly be a dancer?
Only an androgynous liberal would contend that
mental freedom depends upon bodily freedom and should never be pursued for its
own sake. But even he has to be distinguished from those who oppose mental
freedom from the standpoint of bodily freedom. Those who seek a compromise
between bodily freedom and mental freedom are always somewhere in between the
champions of bodily freedom on the one hand and the practitioners of mental
freedom on the other, like a liberal between left- and right-wing alternatives,
or a businessman between sportsmen and artists. Actually, the endeavour to
maintain a balance between body and mind, whilst it may appear liberal, is
nonetheless a fair approach to the upbringing of children and youths, since it
is not the business of mainstream education to instil a bias one way or the
other but to pursue a more or less neutral path that, appertaining to the
middle-ground, does not strive to prejudice this way or that at the expense of
the individual student's innate disposition, which, in any case, time alone
will reveal to be either suited to a compromise stance or more fitted for a
bodily or mental bias, as the case may be. Once the individual understands who
or what he is, then it is up to him to pursue the course best suited to
himself, whether that results in a bodily bias, a bias towards the body within
a liberal framework, a bias towards the mind within a liberal framework, or,
indeed, a mental bias such that, in transcending liberal options, effectively
repudiates the life of bodily freedom, as of manual labour and physical sport.
Certainly the greatest philosophers and thinkers do not become such through
bodily compromise! Rather they are creatures of the mind, and no-one who was
less than that could hope to excel in the world of ideas and stand, ultimately,
in the front rank of philosophical endeavour. Conversely, no great sportsman,
shall we say, became pre-eminent in his field of competitive physicality by
studying Schopenhauer or Nietzsche every day.
Those who can't think for themselves end up
advising others (as well as being advised by others of a like persuasion).
The only thing worse than a thoughtless woman
is a thoughtless child.
They run from their own company into the
company of others, as into the clutches of wolves.
Christianity has always been torn between the
Judaic Jehovah of the Old Testament (or Talmudic equivalent) and the Father of
the Son (Christ) of the New Testament; for, in truth, Jehovah and the Father
are not the same but as separate and different as the Old and New
Testaments. Jehovah does not have a Son, least of all a 'Son of God', like the
so-called Father who only really figures and this to a limited extent in
relation to the New Testament
of what is properly Christian, owing more, if
memory serves, to Greeks and Romans than ever the Hebraic Old Testament does.
The Father is, in a sense, a diluted Jehovah, even an attenuated Creator, a
Creator-God for Christians, whose religious fulcrum lies elsewhere (the
Son). From a Social Theocratic standpoint, however, both the Old and the New
Testaments of the so-called Christian Bible are irrelevant, since no more than
obstacles to that truth which is independent of Creator Gods of whatever
provenance. We, on the contrary, look towards the creation of an Ultimate God,
Who resides in Heaven
the Holy Soul, which dwells within. For, in truth,
God/Heaven (which are essentially one and the same) is the last or omega-most
of entities, not the first or alpha-most. Even on an Elemental level, fire and
water precede vegetation (earth) and air, and, in that sense, John Cowper Powys
was correct to regard women or females as an 'older race' than men, since more
germane, in overall gender terms, to fire and water than to vegetation and air,
and consequently standing closer to those aspects of Nature which are objective
rather than subjective. But this, I have long contended, makes them primary
rather than secondary in gender terms, with a disposition that tends to
dominate their male counterparts for purposes of reproduction.
Iron Maiden (dreadful name!) always drive me to
my notebook, where I scribble furiously in an attempt to escape from their, at
times, overblown music, with its grating repetitions of chorus or riff.
At one time 'God' was the name they gave to
cosmic processes, including the creation of stars and planets. At another it
was what went on in Nature, less ethereal than corporeal, since largely
involved with the creation of plants and animals. At yet another time they
conceived 'God' to be human and more instrumental to the processes by which man
came properly into his own as a kind of creature beyond Nature who, through
Salvation, could look forward to a life not subject to death. We have yet to
move beyond the human into the Superhuman antithesis to cosmic Supernature and
a form of life which is truly the realization of Eternity, conceived from a
cyborgistic standpoint, that would be as far beyond mankind as cosmic
Supernature was and is behind Nature. If Nurture is the corporeal
antithesis of Nature, then I call the ethereal antithesis of Supernature by the
name of Supernurture, and equate it with all things cyborgistic and capable not
merely of an individually superhuman but of a collectively supra-human
apotheosis in which God truly finds His place in Heaven
the Holy Soul, like super-intellectuality in
super-emotionality, truth in joy.
Living in a consumer society he consumed so much
that he became consumptive and died of consumption.
The heavier the music, the further removed it
is from the lightness of true being and, hence, the sanctity of grace. To
search for 'the truth' through a medium like Heavy Metal amounts to a contradiction
in terms, with the paradoxical result that only a limited concept of truth if
that is ever likely to emerge. Even Iron Maiden have their lighter, quieter
moments, when the music turns reflective and softly transcendent, if not
reproachful of the inherent limitations of the soul-destroying heaviness and
hardness which is the hallmark of Heavy Metal, that derivative of and, in a
very real sense, degeneration from Hard Rock.
Highly mechanized units ranged against the
bearers of humanistic civilization in a cyborgistic transcendence of mankind.
This is the struggle for global universality, an ongoing struggle with
humanistic reaction that should culminate, if successful, in 'Kingdom Come' as
the fulfilment of 'man overcoming' (Nietzsche) in the interests of divine (and
pseudo-diabolic) criteria, according to gender.
Humanists are the Christian enemy of the
heathenistic naturalism of Pantheists and all those who would affirm Nature
above Man because more susceptible to female control in rural or other
environments of a less than urban character. In Elemental terms, this amounts
to a kind of hegemonic antithesis between vegetation and water, or physics and
chemistry, with subordinate pseudo-watery and pseudo-vegetative,
pseudo-chemical and pseudo-physical, pseudo-Elemental corollaries also in the
overall frame one identifiable with this or that manifestation of
worldliness, depending on whether we are alluding to physics/pseudo-chemistry
or to chemistry/pseudo-physics, the former pairing with a hegemonic humanism
and a subordinate pseudo-pantheism, the latter pairing with a hegemonic
pantheism and a subordinate pseudo-humanism.
Those who have the intelligence to read and
understand me but, through prejudice or malice, prefer not to
don't deserve
that intelligence in the first place, since they have allowed it to be eclipsed
by baser considerations, or by considerations having no bearing on the pursuit
of truth.
Writing 'books of ideas' is the abstraction, or
abstract art, of literature, a kind of abstraction that, being philosophical,
or geared towards the pursuit of metaphysical knowledge (truth), focuses upon
the essence of things, as of life. And it is best served, this ontological
abstraction, by a non-physical type of book, viz. an eBook. This is the type of
'book' most suited, I believe, to eBook publication on or via the Internet,
since it exists at a kind of Platonic remove from the corporeal realm of 'real'
books, and never more so than in the type of eScroll presentation that I also favour,
and favour more, if anything, than the eBook, since I have conceived of it in
terms that, utilizing noumenally subjective means, including textual
presentation, are more inherently metaphysical. But, either way, I have
distilled the quintessence of literature, viz. thoughtful ideas and subjective
musings, from what, in my comparative youth, had been a slightly more
conventional approach to literature involving characters and plot, as well as a
degree of narrative description all things I am happy to have ditched or,
more correctly, transcended
in the interests of metaphysical knowledge, which
is, above all, self-knowledge, the door to enlightenment and, hence, male
emancipation from worldly bondage.
'Big Girls Don't Cry', or, in German, Grosse
Mδdchen Weinen Nicht, despite its teenage focus, has long been one
of my all-time favourite German films, with attractive characters, great
acting, a thoughtful and credible plot, delightful music, etc. But if there is
one criticism above all, amounting to a moral flaw, that can be levelled at it,
not least in the context of the current anti-smoking climate, it must surely be
that es gibt zu viel rauchen, and that, alas, is no small matter
when considering the overall character of the film and the likelihood of a bad
influence on teenagers! But, hell, didn't I smoke cigarettes as a teenager?
Didn't we all? Or most of us? Like it or not, teenagers do, and, in that
respect, this film could be said to offer a realistic portrayal of vulnerable
youth, especially in relation to its two main protagonists who happen, in the
characters of Kati and Steffi, to smoke the most, almost as though they were in
competition to outdo each other! Perhaps boys made these girls so nervous that
they had to smoke in order to calm their nerves.
As the night sky was rent asunder by the
lightning and the thunder, it seemed that all hell had broken loose to do its
undamndest worst to send the earth to the brink of annihilation. I cursed this
frantic tyranny with all the righteous indignation I could muster, as
storm-tossed clouds sent my soul into a fluster. And yet, on rational
consideration, one would have to say it was all local, and the bolts that tore
through the sky were not specifically aimed at this or that but, were generated
in what appeared to be a random fashion that usually fell well-short of the
ground and whatever stood upon it. There were no premeditated targets for this
storm, which raged on oblivious of the world below and those of us who bothered
to contemplate it from a safe distance.
An occasional DVD purchase aside, I only use
the computer for the sake of my eScrolls/eBooks, not because I have any
fondness for computers or the stress to which one is subjected by constant
interference, hold ups, pop ups, crashes, freezes, and the hundred-and-one
other things that make computing a virtual nightmare. For me, the computer is a
means to a publishing end, that's all.
Every creative and publishing step forward I
take is achieved in spite of neighbour and especially female opposition to
my work, so I know well enough that one must struggle anew every day not so
much with oneself though that also happens as with others, particularly
those whose only real business in life is reproduction, which implies the same
thing over and over again, generation after generation, world without apparent
end.
There are different types of Antichrist, like,
for instance, those who are especially athletic and those who are obese, the
former effectively corresponding to a higher class of Antichrist, as it were,
than the latter. Both alike, however, would be male, at least nominally so,
since females should be evaluated in relation to other than strictly Christian
criteria, like Marian criteria, for example, or criteria having some bearing on
the objective 'First Cause' of things, neither of which would have much to do
with sin and folly, whether of the genuine or 'pseudo' varieties, but a lot to
do with crime and evil, with free soma and bound psyche in relation to
metachemistry and chemistry, the former genuinely criminal and evil, the latter
so on a 'pseudo' basis by dint of its secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate status vis-a-vis the pseudo-physically
sinful (in pseudo-bound psyche) and foolish (in pseudo-free soma) who exist, on
pseudo-masculine terms, a plane down from their feminine counterparts, like
pseudo-mass under volume, massed mass under the volumetric, which tends,
naturally enough, to be watery (in chemistry) rather than pseudo-vegetative (in
pseudo-physics).
I've always found the idea of a female with a
crucifix around her neck to be as paradoxically improbable and even
unconvincing as a male with a star-shaped pendant around his. Both would appear
to be at cross-purposes with their actual gender.
The mixed congregations of the Christian
churches reflect a kind of androgynous liberalism or atomicity peculiar to and
even typical of 'the world' which, in practical and ethnic terms, has tended to
imply the West as a whole but Western Europe in particular. The true philosopher,
a man of truth, is not to be found in a Christian congregation, but at a kind
of Platonic remove from any reflection or even celebration of family values.
Schopenhauer would have been sardonically amused by the mass of people in this
or that congregation, piled up in heaps or whatever his exact expression was.
If your internet security is compromised,
banners can appear on your site(s) that you didn't put there, subverting the
overall integrity of the page. It is simply extraordinary to what lengths internet
criminals will go to achieve their ends!
These days it would seem that St George tends
to take the form of anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware, anti-malware, pop-up
blockers, and other manifestations of internet security designed to lance the
Dragon of intrusive adverts, banners, pop-ups, viruses, and other thoroughly
undesirable, unwarranted attacks upon one's computer. As for the intruders,
with their fiery assaults upon one's computing activities Scum!
Those antichrist fools, shaking their hips and
wriggling their behinds, mouthing off, and generally acting like young women,
have it 'all to do' from a properly male standpoint, the standpoint of
sensibility and wisdom. They exist, these sons-of-free-somatic-bitches, as
so-called 'alpha males', in a fool's paradise, and of course they tend, when
political, to have left-wing sympathies if not inclinations.
Not for the first time in my history of
computer downloads an installation has stalled, and I am left wondering whether
it will ever restart.
If the First World War was the 'death throes'
of the old European order, governed by autocracy, then it could be said that
the Second World War was the 'birth pangs' of a new European order, the legacy
of which we are still living with today.
The wise man ensures that his fantasy world
doesn't coincide with reality.
Those who write for money invariably produce
shit.
Those who publish for money spurn truth.
No-one who writes or thinks with a kind of
Anglican fatality towards materialism/fundamentalism (metachemistry) can
possibly be of any use or relevance to the Catholic and more than Catholic
purveyor of transcendentalism/idealism (metaphysics), who would simply be
'beyond the pale' of the mindset based, as though rooted, in metachemistry
(doubtless hyped as metaphysics, as in the Cosmos hyped as the Universe, or
Devil the Mother/Virgin hyped as God the Father, etc). For such people beauty is truth, and there is consequently
no place, in their triangular set-up, for truth itself, as for a metaphysics
completely independent of metachemical subversion.
They have no idea how genius operates simply
because they have no ideas in their head in the first place. Period. To equate
genius with something broader or wider than just excellence or outstanding
ability in one field or discipline is to misunderstand it, which is what most
people, entirely lacking in if not opposed to a specific focus, tend to do,
since there is nothing more objectionable to those rooted in alpha divergence
than a persistent focus amounting to a kind of omega convergence, as upon
truth, or metaphysical knowledge.
Nothing to say, nothing to write; I must be
making some kind of moral progress. Something to read, something to think;
seems like I'm back to my old (male-biased) ways again.
Sounds like another 'Catholic' night torn
between the rain and the wind, with little evidence of anything else.
Let those who wish to return to Nature live
outside the bounds of civilization, without the benefit of modern conveniences
within a secure structure.
The rain is so fierce and frequent, so
prolonged and intense, that one feels not only under siege but somehow
hemmed-in and as though oppressed by it. One wonders how much more of this certain
other aspects or manifestations of nature, never mind civilization in general,
can take.
Malfunctioning computing is a nightmare from
which one longs to escape
into the dream of a properly functioning and
responsive computer. Some hope!
Sometimes you have to take the bull by the
horns, as they say, and take the fight to your neighbours, refusing to be cowed
by them into some kind of meek submission that would endanger if not undermine
one's vocational activities these being, in my case, of an intensely literary
nature.
Equalitarianism is a disease that cripples the
body politic and, eventually, brings the entire social organism into disrepute,
since it ceases to function as a coherent whole but becomes subject to a
partisan imbalance.
Writers have always sought escape from the
social constraints imposed by neighbours and such like by fleeing abroad or at
least to some more congenial hideaway where they can work in peace without fear
of resentful intrusions or cynical antagonisms from philistine opponents of any
sort of literary vocation. When one cannot live with kindred spirits, it is
better to live by oneself than to continue enduring the indifference if not
animosity of spirits who are anything but kindred!
Listening to Mendelssohn, one always feels in
the presence of the noblest music.
I take a look around me on the crowded streets
of various north London 'towns' and ask myself how many of these people even
know what 'the good fight' is, never mind live in the daily process of fighting
it, that is, struggling against female opposition to truth by living a life
removed from female domination and the power of beauty.
Coming to terms with 'the world' is one thing
and, for most people, it is probably fair to say the only thing. But 'the
world' doesn't lead anywhere itself, least of all to the otherworldly pastures
of Heaven or, more correctly, 'Kingdom Come', which has to be conceived as
implying more than just a Christian type of posthumous life in the grave
(something which cremation, as a manifestation of antichristian or secular
practise, in any case repudiates, as though from the standpoint of science),
not to mention the necessary gender division between heavenly and
pseudo-hellish (pseudo-devilish) criteria which Christianity would seem not to
acknowledge, since rather more androgynous in its overall mixed
congregation-like accommodation of worldly norms. But, of course, the Afterlife
that I have in mind would be cyborgistic in character, and therefore akin to a
sort of superchristian dispensation capable of sharply differentiating between
metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, male saint and pseudo-female neutralized
dragon. Christianity even has female saints!
You are predestined for this or that not only
according to gender, but also according to class, race, and ethnicity which,
taken together with occupation, constitute a quadruplicity of realities that
overlay gender and can be applicable to either gender in consequence.
The other day I realized, quite categorically,
that pleated slacks and macadamised sidewalks don't correlate, any more than
jeans and paved sidewalks, or pavements proper. Either you wear pleated
slacks/trousers for pavements or jeans for sidewalks, even though circumstances
may and indeed do oblige somebody in slacks to walk on sidewalks and
somebody in jeans to walk on pavements from time to time. Having long despised
the 'squareness' of paving stones, and hence pavements, I find the wearing of
jeans or jean-like non-pleated attire in relation to a preference for
macadamised sidewalks (usually more wheely-bag friendly than their paved
counterparts).a no-brainer. And even if reality doesn't always match or even
match-up to my preference, the bias is there and has long been so, with few
deviations from it (though occasional deviations there certainly have been and,
depending on circumstances, will probably continue to be).
The 'good fight' against overbearing female
domination and worldly consequences has never been particularly popular, and
not just with the ladies. The Christian exception proves the heathen rule, and
it may well be that the crux of the distinction between popular and classical
music, or populism and classicism in general, is precisely one hinging upon the
contrast between female-dominated heathenism and male-hegemonic Christianity, a
distinction no less applicable, I contend, to superheathen and superchristian
criteria, which would be less worldly in antithetical terms than antithetical
in terms of netherworldly and otherworldly criteria, metachemistry and
metaphysics, with their subordinate gender corollaries of pseudo-metaphysics
and pseudo-metachemistry respectively.
Science may interpret the world but only
religion can change it or, more correctly, enable males to transcend it in
pursuit of an otherworldly alternative. Even Marx's contention that it is not
enough to interpret the world; rather one should strive, as a philosopher, to
change it
had some religious implications, if, in relation to social
democracy and proletarian humanism, demonstrably false ones. Yet that still
contrasts with the Darwinian concept of evolution and its profoundly scientific
implications which contribute nothing to religion, since historically factual
rather than based in some myth that, conceiving of the origins of the world in
relation to original sin, allows for and actually encourages a gender-based
perspective on life and morality that could conceivably lead to a very
different outcome to, never mind conception of, evolution than that postulated
by science.
He (not me) was one of those many-too-many
sons-of-bitches who was so pretty bitched up that he had little or no
inclination towards cultural creativity left in him meek plaything of a
natural will.
While she was busy looking for 'Mr Right', he
was busy escaping from 'Miss Wrong'.
There is nothing women hate so much as
thoughtful self-absorption in men.
PART TWO
Some maintain that music isn't a necessity,
like food and drink, but a luxury, and I have to say that I believe such people
to be body-over-mind types who fail to understand that for certain others,
usually those of a mind-over-body disposition, music is necessary and therefore a necessity because, quite apart from
the possibility of professional or vocational commitments, the soul requires to
be fed since man, particularly in the case of males, does not live by bread
alone. Starved of cultural nourishment, not least in respect of music, the soul
of those who are mind-over-body would succumb to depression and lethargy to an
extent that could well lead to a loss of appetite and, hence, pose a danger to
life and limb. Music is not simply a luxury for those who, more usually as
males, are mind-over-body, as it may well be for those, on the contrary, who
are body-over-mind, the great majority of whom I would suppose to be female.
Rather it is a cultural necessity that helps keep the soul alive and well, that
is, capable of responsive feeling in consequence of a more positive attitude to
life. Starved of music the soul would die and, with it, the body would cease to
be soulfully animated but become a mere self-perpetuating automaton, bereft of
sensibility and the possibility of higher feeling. But that would still
contrast with those whose healthy bodies, bolstered by carnal appetites, are
not incompatible with dead minds, the sort of people who, being body-over-mind,
don't really need music because their sense of life derives from the body and
its sensual nourishment. And so much so that the absence of music, at least in
any recognizably soul-oriented mode, would not necessarily impair their bodily
well-being.
To claim that all people are the same,
irrespective of gender and its vacuous/plenemous, objective/subjective,
somatic/psychic, individual/collective, competitive/cooperative, particle/wavicle
distinctions, broadly speaking, between females and males, would be grossly
mistaken, since any androgynous approach to mankind, such as is evidenced by
the exponents of unisexual liberalism, with its gender neutrality, can only do
a disservice to gender and, hence, to life conceived in terms of a gender
struggle, or struggle between the genders. Quite apart from the
gender-extrapolative distinctions of class, race, ethnicity (culture &
religion), and occupation, mankind is subject to a constant struggle of
opposing forces that can never be reconciled because whatever common ground
there is between them is undermined by their antithetical natures as female and
male, making it as though peripheral to their respective inclinations. I
believe the attempt to achieve a common ground between people irrespective of
their gender, to emphasize their common humanity, as it were, derives from a
liberal perspective on life which is quintessentially worldly and, hence,
atomic, with androgynous predilections that fight shy of gender differences
from a kind of neutral standpoint designed to accommodate both genders, as far
as possible, to a middle-ground position in which, paradoxically, gender
ceases, in almost unisexual vein, to be an issue. One can see how the English
language, in avoiding gender in its treatment of nouns, adjectives, adverbs,
and so on, facilitates this tendency through a process of gender neutralization
congenial to a liberal view of life and the avoidance thereby of certain moral
issues, not least those presented by religion from the standpoint of a type of
gender discrimination going back to the concept of 'original sin' and on
towards Christ's advice to male followers of his to leave females of one sort
or another behind in order to 'take up the Cross', as it were, and climb the
hill towards salvation from female domination, and hence heathen values
generally, that leads to paradise or, in eschatological terminology, to the
gender-based divisions of 'Kingdom Come' in which metaphysical values would be
hegemonic over pseudo-metachemical ones in a structural paradigm of saint and
neutralized dragon, or lamb and neutralized wolf.
The dominance of females over males is aided
and abetted by science and politics, the dominance of males over females
by
economics and religion. If religion is undermined by science or economics by
politics, then the only consequence, whether with a noumenal (scientific) or a
phenomenal (political) bias, will be the dominance of males by females and a
form of civilization characterized by outer and sensual values in relation to a
predatory impulse. Just as science is the enemy of religion and politics the
enemy of economics, so there are philosophers who, espousing science over
religion or politics over economics, are the enemies of economic or religious
philosophers, serving only to advocate superficial approaches to civilization
characterized by female dominion which effectively subvert philosophy from
standpoints contrary to a love of wisdom and the pursuit, thereby, of truth. If
scientific philosophers are the most false and political philosophers the more
(relative to most) false type of philosopher, then economic philosophers are
the more (relative to most) true and religious philosophers the most true type
of philosopher. In fact, the religious philosopher, being most true, is alone
he for whom metaphysics takes positive precedence over physics and chemistry
negative precedence over metachemistry, the element of the scientific
philosopher par excellence. For metaphysics and chemistry, being elementally
hegemonic, are axially polar (on opposite gender terms), and therefore both
separate from and contrary to the axial polarity established (likewise on
opposite gender terms) between metachemistry and physics, which are also
elementally hegemonic.
1. Just as metachemistry over
pseudo-metaphysics is axially polar, on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
terms, to physics over pseudo-chemistry, with a same gender polarity between
metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry on the one hand (overall female) and
pseudo-metaphysics and physics on the other hand (overall male), the former
primary and the latter secondary, so a like polarity exists, in overall axial
terms, between autocracy over aristocracy and plutocracy over meritocracy, with
autocracy and meritocracy polar on overall female terms (primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) and aristocracy and plutocracy polar on
overall male terms (secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate).
2. Similarly, just as metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry
is axially polar, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, to chemistry
over pseudo-physics, with a same gender polarity between metaphysics and
pseudo-physics on the one hand (overall male) and pseudo-metachemistry and
chemistry on the other hand (overall female), the former primary and the latter
secondary, so a like polarity exists, in overall axial terms, between theocracy
over technocracy and democracy over bureaucracy, with theocracy and bureaucracy
polar on overall male terms (primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate) and
technocracy and democracy polar on overall female terms (secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate).
Therefore the overall polarity between
autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy, corresponding to
metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and physics/pseudo-chemistry, necessarily
excludes that between theocracy/technocracy and democracy/bureaucracy,
corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry/pseudo-physics,
since the more of the one type of polarity the less of the other, and vice
versa.
1.
The more
autocracy/aristocracy the less, on similar albeit lower-order gender structural
terms, democracy/bureaucracy, and, correlatively, the more
plutocracy/meritocracy the less, on similar albeit higher-order gender
structural terms, theocracy/technocracy, since the one type of structure
necessarily excludes the other.
2.
Similarly
if conversely, the more theocracy/technocracy the less, on similar albeit
lower-order gender structural terms, plutocracy/meritocracy, and,
correlatively, the more democracy/bureaucracy the less, on similar albeit
higher-order gender structural terms, autocracy/aristocracy, since the one type
of structure necessarily excludes the other.
3.
Hence it is
logical that metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics should form an axial polarity
with physics/pseudo-chemistry, in order to guarantee for both
autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy as little interference or
competition as possible from their respective lower- or higher-order structural
counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental parallels happen, in the
one case, to be female over pseudo-male or, in the other case, male over
pseudo-female.
4.
Likewise it
is logical that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry should form an axial polarity
with chemistry/pseudo-physics, in order to guarantee for both
theocracy/technocracy and democracy/plutocracy as little interference or
competition as possible from their respective lower- or higher-order structural
counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental parallels happen, in the
one case, to be male over pseudo-female or, in the other case, female over
pseudo-male.
1.
In the past
I have tended to equate aristocracy with pseudo-theocracy and technocracy with
pseudo-autocracy, so that we have had an antithesis between
autocracy/pseudo-theocracy and theocracy/pseudo-autocracy, which would
correspond to the above distinctions between autocracy/aristocracy and
theocracy/technocracy.
2.
Similarly I
have tended, in the past, to equate bureaucracy with pseudo-plutocracy and
meritocracy with pseudo-democracy, with a cross-axial antithesis between
democracy/pseudo-plutocracy and plutocracy/pseudo-democracy corresponding to
the above distinctions between democracy/bureaucracy and plutocracy/meritocracy.
3.
Another way
of making such distinctions would be to equate autocracy with science and
aristocracy with pseudo-religion on the one hand, and theocracy with religion
and technocracy with pseudo-science on the other hand, which would neatly
tie-in with our long-established antithesis between
metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry.
4.
Likewise
one could equate democracy with politics and bureaucracy with pseudo-economics
on the one hand, and plutocracy with economics and meritocracy with
pseudo-politics on the other hand, which would just as neatly tie-in with the
long-established antithesis between chemistry/pseudo-physics and
physics/pseudo-chemistry.
Be that as it may, I have no doubt that just as
the hegemonic elements on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal
axial compass are democracy and theocracy, or politics and religion, with
subordinate corollaries in bureaucracy and technocracy, or pseudo-economics and
pseudo-science, so the hegemonic elements on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the
southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are autocracy and
plutocracy, or science and economics, with subordinate corollaries in
aristocracy and meritocracy, or pseudo-religion and pseudo-politics. For if you
have genuine science in one context (metachemistry), it can only be pseudo in
another (pseudo-metachemical); if you have genuine politics in one context
(chemistry), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-chemical); if you have
genuine economics in one context (physics), it can only be pseudo in another
(pseudo-physical); and if you have genuine religion in one context
(metaphysics), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-metaphysical). That, it
seems to me, is logically incontrovertible and subject to proof by example of
the way in which each axis operates according to which gender is hegemonic in
any given context, be it noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal,
absolute or relative.
1.
Hence
autocracy is only genuine in a metachemical context characterized by scientific
freedom, not in a pseudo-metachemical context characterized by the binding of
science pseudo-scientifically, or technocratically, to religious freedom in
metaphysics. Or put the other way around, theocracy is only genuine in a
metaphysical context characterized by religious freedom, not in a
pseudo-metaphysical context characterized by the binding of religion pseudo-religiously,
or aristocratically, to scientific freedom in metachemistry.
2.
Likewise
democracy is only genuine in a chemical context characterized by political
freedom, not in a pseudo-chemical context characterized by the binding of
politics pseudo-politically, or meritocratically, to economic freedom in
physics. Or put the other way around, plutocracy is only genuine in a physical
context characterized by economic freedom, not in a pseudo-physical context
characterized by the binding of economics pseudo-economically, or
bureaucratically, to political freedom in chemistry.
So just as the distinction between genuine
science and pseudo-science is an autocratic/technocratic one, so the
distinction between genuine religion and pseudo-religion is a theocratic/aristocratic
one; and just as the distinction between genuine politics and pseudo-politics
is a democratic/meritocratic one, so the distinction between genuine economics
and pseudo-economics is a plutocratic/bureaucratic one, with
autocracy/aristocracy polar to plutocracy/meritocracy on
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, and theocracy/technocracy polar
to democracy/bureaucracy on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the
former polarity or, more correctly, polarities effectively excluding, on all
but a kind of dotted-line peripheral axial basis, the latter ones from the
mainstream functioning of representative state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria, and the latter polarities likewise effectively excluding, on all but
a kind of dotted-line peripheral axial basis, the former ones from the
mainstream functioning of representative church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria. Which is a credible enough explanation of the distinctions between
Britain and Ireland or, more pedantically at this point in time, of the United
Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, even without axially unrepresentative
trends or tendencies at large in each case.
1.
Metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics,
corresponding to autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), is a pairing
characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to
science over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-religion.
2.
Metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry,
corresponding to theocracy//pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), is a pairing
characterized by the dominance of cooperative collectivism in relation to
religion over pseudo-competitive individualism in relation to pseudo-science.
3.
Chemistry/pseudo-physics,
corresponding to democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), is a pairing
characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to
politics over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-economics.
4.
Physics/pseudo-chemistry,
corresponding to plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), is a pairing
characterized by the dominance of cooperative collectivism in relation to
economics over pseudo-competitive individualism in relation to pseudo-politics.
1.
In
analogous terms, spatial space, or space per se, over sequential time, or pseudo-time,
is equivalent to science over pseudo-religion, which is in turn equivalent to
autocracy over pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), and that is of course equivalent
to metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics.
2.
Conversely
repetitive time, or time per se, over spaced space, or pseudo-space, is
equivalent to religion over pseudo-science, which is in turn equivalent to
theocracy over pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and that is of course equivalent
to metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.
3.
Similarly,
volumetric volume, or volume per se, over massed mass, or pseudo-mass, is
equivalent to politics over pseudo-economics, which is in turn equivalent to
democracy over pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), and that is of course
equivalent to chemistry over pseudo-physics.
4.
Conversely
massive mass, or mass per se, over voluminous volume, or pseudo-volume, is
equivalent to economics over pseudo-politics, which is in turn equivalent to
plutocracy over pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), and that is of course
equivalent to physics over pseudo-chemistry.
One fancies that just as
theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) would look askance, back across the
upper-order axial divide, at autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), so
plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) would look askance, back across the
lower-order axial divide, at democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), since
sensibility over pseudo-sensuality must regard itself as being in some sense
morally superior to sensuality over pseudo-sensibility, whether with regard to
noumenal (ethereal) or phenomenal (corporeal) antitheses. Yet, in overall axial
terms, theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) is prepared to exist in
polarity with democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), as noumenal
sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity with phenomenal
sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue interference or
parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of phenomenal cooperative
collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from plutocracy/pseudo-democracy
(meritocracy), while, likewise, plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is
prepared to exist in polarity with autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), as
phenomenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity with noumenal
sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue interference or
parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of noumenal cooperative
collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from
theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy). Hence both the ideologies of the
celestial city and the terrestrial city are prepared and even perforce obliged
to accommodate polarities with not parallel but opposites types of nature, viz.
the terrestrial nature, as it were, of democracy/pseudo-plutocracy
(bureaucracy) in the case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and the
celestial nature, or supernature, of autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy)
in the case of plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), so that competition
from their parallel types of nature, viz. autocracy/pseudo-theocracy
(aristocracy) in the case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and
democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) in the case of
plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is minimized if not effectively
excluded.
1.
Logically,
I can find no reason to contest the contention that the competitive
individualism of science and the cooperative collectivism of religion are
noumenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as space per se and time
per se, the former spatial and the latter repetitive.
2.
Likewise I
can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the
pseudo-cooperative collectivism of pseudo-religion and the pseudo-competitive
individualism of pseudo-science, the former subordinate to science and the
latter to religion, are pseudo-noumenally incompatible, as incompatible, in
effect, as pseudo-time and pseudo-space, the former sequential and the latter
spaced.
3.
Similarly,
there is no logical reason to contest the contention that the competitive
individualism of politics and the cooperative collectivism of economics are
phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as volume per se and
mass per se, the former volumetric and the latter massive.
4.
Likewise I
can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the pseudo-cooperative
collectivism of pseudo-economics and the pseudo-competitive individualism of
pseudo-politics, the former subordinate to politics and the latter to
economics, are pseudo-phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as
pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume, the former massed and the latter voluminous.
As noted above, competitive individualism is
chiefly characteristic of the female side of life, as in general terms of
females, who have to compete on an individual basis for males, while cooperative
collectivism is chiefly characteristic of the male side of life, as in general
terms of males, who profit more from cooperating on a collective basis than
from competing on such a basis, never mind on an individual basis, though of
course what I have termed pseudo-cooperative collectivism can be interpreted as
implying a degree of competitiveness under pressure from competitive
individualism, whether noumenal or phenomenal, the converse of
pseudo-competitive individualism implying a degree of cooperation under
pressure from cooperative collectivism, again whether in relation to the
noumenal or the phenomenal planes.
Democracy, which is republican, will tend to
favour proportional representation, in contrast to the 'first past the post'
preference of pseudo-democracy which, being meritocratic, favours the retention
of a parliamentary oligarchy in the interests of plutocratic continuity under
the hegemony of economics over pseudo-politics, or physics over
pseudo-chemistry. That is why, in Britain, proportional representation, like
its pseudo-economic corollary, socialism, is effectively a 'dead letter', the
product of delusion or naivety on the part of certain politicians, since the
hegemony of economics over politics ensures that only a pseudo-political
outcome is possible, the converse of the pseudo-economic subordination to
politics more characteristic of countries, like the Republic of Ireland, which
favour some degree of socialism in relation to proportional representation
within a republican context, a context governed by the hegemony of democracy
over bureaucratic pseudo-plutocracy in reflection of a chemical/pseudo-physical
pairing traditionally standing at the foot of the metaphysically- and
pseudo-metachemically-dominated church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. Yet
this, in contrast to Britain, is also the tradition, extending into religion on
the mass Catholic level, of competitive individualism being hegemonic over
pseudo-cooperative collectivism, as volumetric volume over massed mass, which
tends to favour the politically competitive individual at the expense of the
pseudo-economically pseudo-cooperative collective, so that political
republicanism is more prominent, in its hegemonic sway, than socialism or any
analogous form of pseudo-economic subservience. Small wonder that the
plutocratic/meritocratic British look askance, across the lower-order axial
divide, at the democratic/bureaucratic Irish! Which is only, after all, the
phenomenal parallel to the theocratic/technocratic Irish looking askance at the
autocratic/aristocratic British where noumenal, or upper-order, axial
antitheses are concerned. For neither people are, or ever could be, simply
phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal. And, as noted above, axial
polarity across the noumenal-phenomenal divide ensures that both the British
and the Irish are compromised by their respective noumenal or phenomenal
opposites. The phenomenal British may look askance at the democracy/bureaucracy
of the phenomenal Irish, but their own plutocracy/meritocracy is compromised by
axial co-existence with the autocracy/aristocracy of the noumenal British,
thereby ensuring a minimum of interference from the axially subversive threats
posed by theocracy/technocracy. And no matter how morally contemptuous of
autocracy/aristocracy the noumenal Irish may be, their own
theocracy/technocracy is compromised by axial co-existence with the
democracy/bureaucracy of the phenomenal Irish, thereby ensuring a minimum of
interference from the axially subversive threats posed by
plutocracy/meritocracy. What could be more paradoxical? And yet that is how the
British/Irish divide traditionally stacks up, and there is no reason, short of
a major revolution in ethnicity, to anticipate any change.
PART THREE
In the Beginning there was just hydrogen, then,
following gravitational compression, there emerged helium, to start a process
which led to everything else, including the mineral-rich Earth, so that we have
a cosmic scenario, corresponding to conventional religion, in which God
precedes the Devil, or Heaven precedes Hell (helium?), followed, millions of
years later, by the 'Fall of Man' and 'the World', or something to that
Biblical effect. But, of course, 'God' and 'the Devil' would exist, as 'Heaven'
and 'Hell', or hydrogen and helium, in the same star, as would the building
blocks of everything else, including what became, out of the Earth generally,
'the World' to which 'Adam and Eve' were banished from 'the Garden of Eden'.
Which is not a particularly convincing interpretation of all those religious
concepts, not all of which would correspond to my use of religious terminology
in which God, for example, is a corollary of Heaven in a transcendent context
having absolutely nothing to do with stars and everything to do with an
ultimate level or stage of metaphysics beyond even human metaphysics and
antithetical to cosmic metaphysics that may well be the summation of
evolutionary progress when and if evolving life gets to such a summation,
presumably cyborgistic in character, in the distant future. Interestingly,
while the term 'Cosmos' is very much a scientific term, factual and without
religious connotations of the sort alluded to above, the term 'Universe' has
become associated with religion to a degree that makes it more congenial to
theologians and religious thinkers generally. And yet so many people and not
just those who go to university to study the cosmos alternate, perhaps
unconsciously, between scientific and religious usage without necessarily
realizing there is a contradiction involved. But precisely because 'Universe'
is a religious term, not unconnected, in my opinion, with monotheistic
traditions, it can have evolutionary implications that stretch beyond science
and its observational predilections in relation to the Cosmos, as when the term
'Universal' is taken to mean applying everywhere on the planet or throughout
the world in a global sense rather than in the narrowly religious, and
specifically Judeo-Christian, sense of a worldly age or lifestyle having
morally opprobrious implications, so that what, in this higher sense, is
universal is also, by definition, global and capable of being expanded, through
centro-complexification, into space to exist, in Celestial City-like vein, at
an antithetical remove from the Cosmos, like true religion at an antithetical
remove from beautiful science the factual Alpha and truthful Omega of what
exists or could conceivably one day exist in such an antithetical fashion.
He said: Do you go to church?
I said: No.
He said: I do.
I said: Really?
He said: But it has to be a certain type of
church.
I said: Naturally, this or that denomination.
He said: No, a church on a hill.
I simply smiled and thought him a little odd,
though I suspected he had a Catholic Cathedral in mind.
A wicked wind tore into the building and
threatened to tear it apart. Whipped on by this ferocious wind, the rain lashed
down against the roof and windows of my civilized abode with what seemed like
malicious intent, as though determined to avenge itself upon civilization and
if possible undo the gains of man, the manifest opposition of man to such
barbarous manifestations of Nature. In spite of all this, I continued to sit
still and to thoughtfully ponder this experience from the comfort of my chair, grateful
to have a secure refuge from the inclement moods of our common enemy which
relentlessly assailed my dwelling and caused the external TV aerial to rattle
and creak incessantly for hours on end, something with which I was by now
all-too-familiar but, sadly, powerless to do anything about. All I could do was
wait patiently for this wicked wind to abate.
Have just finished R.L. Dinardo's Germany's
Panzer Arm in WWII, a Stackpole Book first published in paperback
2006, and, after some cautious optimism at the beginning, my attitude
progressively deteriorated after the first fifty or so pages to a position
where I couldn't wait to get to the end of what, like so many other paperbacks
to have come my way from one or other of the local libraries in recent months,
was a less than comfortable read, given the number of typographical,
grammatical, and other blunders which, regrettably, marred what might otherwise
have been an engrossing if not enjoyable book. Why can't somebody sit down with
these people and actually comb through the text before publication, to ensure
that unnecessary and, frankly, counter-productive errors of text are ironed
out? After all, who wants a book that is so technically flawed that they cannot
respect it? Admittedly, Professor Dinardo is not a literary man, still less an
artist, but even so
even historians are entitled to more editorial care and
correction than this title evidently received. From now on I shall have to
avoid such books, because they rarely escape the curse of technical
incompetence, whether because of the author, the editor, the printer, or a
combination of all or more. It were better to leave such books on the shelf!
Still the rain falls and the wind blows,
heavily and fiercely, on yet another wet and windy day when the weather is,
frankly, obscene. How helpless one feels in the teeth of this monstrosity! And
yet this is the world we live in! Not one of our choosing, but a Given. It
could also be said that the world is too big and too full of people you don't
like the look or sound of. Toll!
Surely people who worship some Creator God have
sunny weather or come from climates where the weather is more tolerable, if not
consistently enjoyable, than do those of us habituated, over long centuries of
ancestral perseverance, to northern European weather conditions, including, no
least, those characteristic of the British Isles. Europe and northern Europe
in particular abandoned Creator-ism for Christ several centuries ago, but it
was only with the Reformation that, in the sixteenth century, northern Europe
finally succeeded in prizing itself apart from the religious clutches of
southern Europe in favour of a religious stance more in harmony with the sort
of inclement conditions generally prevailing there, which are not only wet and
windy but frosty and sleety, icy and snowy, damp and so much else to boot. This
religious stance was further removed from Creator-ism, as from 'the Father' and
by extrapolation 'fathers', through the humanistic person of Christ, albeit a
Christ largely independent of His Mother. For it was only following the
Reformation that northern Europe came into its own independently of the Marian
shackles of Roman Catholicism, not to mention an undue emphasis upon the Father
at the expense of the Son, and of the 'Son of Man' in particular. But even the
Son was not to be overly worshipped, least of all as a figure, since worship of
an individual removes one, as a male, from the prospect and moral desirability
of cooperative collectivism, by making one subject to some metachemical or
chemical hegemony at variance with physical and metaphysical predilections, of
which the Book collectivism of the Bible, and in particular of the New
Testament conceived as the truly Christian aspect thereof on the one hand, and
some approximation to if not attainment of the 'heavenly host' in relation (it
could be said) to the Holy Ghost on the other hand
would be chiefly
characteristic, albeit in terms of the sensibility of two contrasting axes, as
far removed from each other as ego and soul, or knowledge and truth, and
therefore tending to be mutually exclusive as exclusive, in fact, as the
competing individualisms, for worship, of whatever corresponded to
metachemistry and chemistry, as to the scientific and political embodiments of
objective concretion underpinning if not undermining the phenomenal and
noumenal modes of subjective abstraction that require a cooperatively
collective precondition if they are to emerge in anything like a recognizably
economic or religious, that is, properly economic or religious guise.
Coming second with the Second Coming, who, like
Adolf Hitler, wouldn't be of much use to non-Christians, or the greater
percentage of the globe's population, which could only be properly served by a
messiah of global character who transcended the narrow confines of any given
so-called world religion from a standpoint that, whilst not ignorant of viable
religious preconditions in any given tradition, was sufficiently unique as to
be globally relevant, and not just another partisan manifestation of what could
be called religious imperialism, whereby Christians strive to overcome Moslems,
and Moslems strive to overcome Jews, and so on, without any appreciable
progress towards an ultimate world religion that was more than the sum of any
particular tradition.
She was subject to periodic aberrations which
messed with her head and rendered her somewhat unstable and even erratic at
such times, so much was her mind in the grip of bodily functions stemming from
a natural diktat that overruled the mind and rendered her unsuitable for purely
mental tasks.
Equalitarianism from the people's standpoint
(as opposed to that of certain intellectuals and so-called philosophers removed
from 'the common herd' by at least a middle-class extent): tit-for-tat, or some
convenient variation on the unchristian doctrine of an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth which, stemming from the Old Testament, considerably
pre-dates any injunction to 'turn the other cheek'.
Anything to do with fathers is a taboo subject
for me, since my own was a no-show, and I have never felt comfortable thinking
about him, much less striving to emulate him.
The mind is the repository of thought and the
page or screen the repository of symbols that must be read in order to be
turned into words and re-interpreted as thought in the virtuous circle linking
author and reader in a psychic relationship.
During the week I do quite a lot of traffic
generating for various of my eScroll and eBook websites, so I am something of a
surf slave manually engaged in the time-consuming process of amassing a certain
number of credits with which to promote them by ascribing a specific number,
rarely more than ten, to each of them or, at any rate, to those sites which I
happen to be specifically engaged upon promoting at the time.
Moses apparently went up a mountain though I
doubt he climbed it in the sense that we would understand these days to get
away from his people and produce the tablets of what became the Mosaic Law, or
Ten Commandments, and was therefore at quite a topographical remove from what
subsequently transpired with Christ on his hill of Calvary, who died not only
because of worldly sin, so to speak, but also because of whatever stood in back
of it as its ruling principle. Some would claim this to be a distinction
between the Father and the Son, but I think it more akin to one between Jehovah
and the Son (whose Father could not be Jehovah but a kind of attenuated Creator,
as previously argued) or, in equivalent terms, between the Old and the New
Testaments, with Jehovah pertaining, in Judaic vein, to the one and both Christ
and His Father appertaining, in Christian vein, to the other. Be that as it
may, the idea of going up a mountain to reach or attain to God has never
appealed to me since, to my mind, mountains and godliness are incompatible,
like autocracy and hills. I, for one, wouldn't look for God on a mountain, even
if it took me closer to the sky, nor would I visit a church that was built on
one. Temples may be built there, but Christian churches? He who doesn't find
God and, more relevantly from a metaphysical standpoint, Heaven within himself,
his inner self, will find something less than if not contrary to Heaven (and
God) outside it, like Man, Woman, and the Devil, or the Earth, Purgatory, and
Hell.
When Christians pray they are usually still.
When Jews pray, not least at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, they are moving or
swaying (scarcely nodding) their head and upper torso backwards and forwards in
a manner that, to a Christian, would suggest an element of showiness, as though
germane to a more superficial order of praying that presumably emerged from and
pertains to climatic conditions peculiar to the Middle East and to the Judaic
parts of it in particular. For there is evidently and, I think
incontrovertibly, a link between culture and environment, even with the
north/south divide in
So long as Christian churches continue in
existence Christianity is not dead and, as it were, on the rubbish heap of
history, no more than Judaism with its synagogues, or Islam with its mosques,
or Hinduism with its temples, and so on. All the old, traditional religions
still exist at this point in time (the early 21st century), and will
doubtless continue to do so until 'Kingdom Come', presuming upon the
eventuality of a concept which I interpret in terms of religious sovereignty
and the electorates of various countries with the right kind of axial
preconditions (church-hegemonic/state-subordinate) being in a position to opt,
via utilization of the democratic process, for religious sovereignty and the
rights accruing to actually being
religiously sovereign, including freedom from the 'old gods', as Nietzsche
would say, and encouragement to develop and realize Heaven (for males) within
in terms that, being pertinent to a further development of global civilization,
would have the capacity to overhaul contemporary modes of global civilization
and the degrees and types of synthetic artificiality accruing to it from a more
evolved standpoint, one favouring the inner at the expense of the outer, and
therefore sensibility of a certain order at the expense of sensuality of
whatever order. Therefore if there is to be just the one true religion for the
entire globe, it would have to be in consequence of the people's express wish,
and not something imposed upon them from without. That, for me, underlies the
significance of democracy in countries where it is genuine, not as an
end-in-itself but as a means or stepping stone to a new and ultimately higher
end commensurate, in its theocratic fullness, with 'Kingdom Come'. So with
'Kingdom Come' as a context characterized and defined by religious sovereignty,
we have the sovereignty that, primarily appertaining to Heaven/God and, to a
lesser extent, to the pseudo-Devil/pseudo-Hell, is beyond all lesser or contrary
sovereignties, including those of Man, Woman, and the Devil, which are less
theocratic (though they have their theocratic 'bovaryizations' deferring to
plutocratic, democratic, and autocratic norms) than plutocratic, democratic,
and autocratic, in that regressive hegemonic order. For the context we are
alluding to is one of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast
point of the intercardinal axial compass on a stepped-up, or 'resurrected',
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, and that of course presupposes, with
its soulful fulcrum, the hegemony of Heaven/God over the
pseudo-Devil/pseudo-Hell of what, with a pseudo-fulcrum in pseudo-bound will,
would be forever equivalent to the wolf and/or lion that, through
neutralization, 'lies down', in pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, with
the 'lamb of God' or, more correctly, the grace of Heaven/God.
To be a 'mind' in a world where the great
majority are 'bodies'
is no small achievement, especially when its activities
are conducted in the face of those who, taking physical matters for granted,
tend to interpret the term 'mental' in a denigrative fashion, and would
therefore brand as 'mental' one's ability to think and/or proclivity for
thought, further demonstrating their opposition to such mental processes by
emphasizing their sensitivity to it whenever, by thinking or even writing, one
gives them the opportunity to censor it with some physical disturbance or
other.
It is odd that I still live, after some forty
years' removal from Surrey, in the cesspit of north London and, more
especially, in the vicinity of Crouch End, from the overcrowded dinginess of
which I despair of ever getting away. For I have never got over the depression
that first assailed me shortly after moving or, more accurately, having had to
move at someone else's bequest from the leafy part of Surrey I lived in to
north London, where there are always so many cynically-domineering foreigners
and lumpen proletarians that one feels as though isolated from any prospect of
meaningful relationships, so outnumbered is one by what is alien and, frankly,
often repulsive.
They know how to breed, but they don't care to
read, still less to think! You know to whom I am alluding, and I have never
liked such people, including some of my nearest neighbours, who seem to know
when I am reading or thinking, and make what I would describe as periodic
efforts, with timely thumps and even ironic ahems, to thwart or hinder me,
especially when I am stuck in the midst of reflection or puzzlement or some
other hiatus in the intellectual process that, somehow aware of but totally
incapable of understanding or sympathizing with, induces them to redouble their
efforts to complicate in the aforementioned manner. But they are not going to
succeed! Got back at them all yesterday evening with the aid of Deep Purple,
Spiritual Beggars, Michael Schenker Group (MSG), and Tangerine Dream. Perfect!
For three whole hours, thanks to a cheap bottle of red wine, no-one could
put-in on me and effectively make a mockery of my life and life's work by
striving to thwart or undermine it. I had them all on the back foot, so to
speak, and was determined to press home my advantage with a vengeance!
Anyone who, having listened to and watched
Michael Schenker perform on tracks like 'Rock Bottom' on his World Tour 2004
DVD, doesn't think he is one of the technically greatest if not the
greatest and most electrifying all-time practitioner of the electric guitar
would have to be an idiot. No-one else with the possible exception of
Bernhard Beibl of Tangerine Dream comes even close, though Jimi Hendrix was
of course intensely electrifying if, at times, somewhat over-the-top, like a
John Coltrane of the electric guitar who had a personal and/or social axe to
grind, as they say, and did so with a vengeance. What spoilt Hendrix for me was
his over-use of the word 'baby' in so many of his songs, especially on live
recordings, and the feeling one had, as a male, of being excluded from if not
irritated by them in consequence.
Don't go quietly into the dark night. Punish
the swine! They're the reason one is alone.
God gets peace (of soul-mind) from the Devil
only because He doesn't have anything to do with Her. If you're less than godly
and absolutely isolated from the Devil you don't get peace (of soul-mind), but
either the half-peace (of ego-mind) in the case of Man, man proper, or the
half-war (of spirit-body) in the case of Woman, woman proper, who will be
closer to if not occasionally eclipsed by Devil the Virgin and Her shortfall, morally
speaking, from Woman the Mother, whose half-war on the half-peace of Man the
Son usually precludes him from attaining to the full peace, as it were, of God
the Father, Who is beyond, in Heaven the Holy Soul, all knowledge of Hell the
Clear Spirit in Devil the Virgin, like truth in joy beyond love in beauty, the
beautiful free will that, burning up with love, is the criminal root of all
evil
in ugliness and hate, the bound psychic corollary of somatic freedom of
a metachemical order.
I have gone beyond philosophy as hitherto
understood in the West by introducing a theosophical element into my
metaphysics which ensures that it is fully metaphysical and, hence, effectively
super-philosophical, the product, one could say, of messianic insight in relation
to a degree of genius that is philosophically unsurpassed.
For some reason, probably not unconnected with
religious tradition, my mind becomes more philosophical and, hence,
metaphysical on Sundays than on other days of the week, and I write
accordingly, attaining heights of metaphysical insight that few men, even among
the philosophers, have been privileged enough to attain to, from where 'the
world', torn between physical and chemical adversaries ruled over by
metachemistry, appears very small indeed!
Whilst other people are letting themselves go,
I am gathering myself in, by taking cognizance of my being as a thinking
mind that also feels, and feels deeply enough about certain issues as to write
about them and preserve a record for myself and who knows? - maybe even
elements of posterity, should there be a small number of sufficiently
intelligent people around to appreciate it.
One thing that can be said about long hair is
that it sucks. Thanks to a home hair-cutting kit which I purchased a couple of
years ago, I don't have a problem with hair, since I can trim it on a regular
basis and keep it very short. But there was a time when my hair sucked, so long
was it, and I must have looked like a long-haired sucker to others or, at any
rate, to people with very short hair. Ah well.
One of the reasons that common people don't
read books, quite apart from the fact that they might regard physical books as
too middle class and even 'old hat' (compared, say, to film), is that they are
afraid of being confronted by the author's low opinion of them as proletarians,
lumpen proletariat, mob, uneducated yobs, violent boors, etc., and would rather
keep their distance, in consequence, from the likely criticism of
intellectuals, artists, nobs, philosophers, and such like 'class enemies' of
ordinary folk. For writers who are any good do tend to 'do their thing'
independently of the common people and their want of cultural acumen, and so
these people have every reason, it seems to me, to fear the worst and cynically
dismiss 'mind improvement' through literature as a bourgeois con.
Writers that are any good tend to write for
other writers, if not consciously then unconsciously, rather than for the
female-dominated masses of common humanity. Short of being forced, virtually at
gunpoint, to write (or paint or compose or whatever) for the masses, as by a
socialist dictatorship of some sort, and thereby 'sell out', in a manner of
speaking, to what, as a species of anti-art, is intended to praise the shit our
of philistines and their barbarous fascinations, they prefer, these artists, to
go their own way and explore their truth, and therefore they have a certain
appeal, willy-nilly, to others of a like persuasion, who may be anxious to
discover if they have succeeded or whether there are areas of common ground in
their mutual pursuit of similar ends, ends which necessarily transcend the
narrow parameters of those driven by utilitarian motives in their artistic or
creative concern with 'higher values', like truth and, from the standpoint of
truth, pseudo-beauty rather than some beautiful lie coupled to a pseudo-truth
whose sole purpose is to suck-up to it from an inferior class position. Those
kinds of 'higher values' are something the true artist, the progressive writer
and philosopher, has a moral duty to do without, and therefore he can never be
understood, much less worshipped, by the common herd of those for whom the
dominance of beauty, as of all that is most superficial and effectively
barbarous, over their world is a sine qua non. Heaven protect us from an
indiscriminate commitment to 'higher values'!
Surrounded by bitches and the loud-mouthed
excitable offspring of bitches, all with their various knives into
culture....Which I, as a sensible writer, am doing my best to defend, if not,
cautiously and wearily, to advance.
With state religion, they always substitute
magic for truth, falling back on miracles and mystical delusions and so-called
'supernatural' events which can be expected to appeal to the masses and not
unduly antagonize women.
Hermann Hesse, that most poetic of prose
writers who stands closer to Henry Miller than to, say, Jean-Paul Sartre or
Aldous Huxley, with their more philosophically-detached attitudes to life
which, of course, mark them out as literary beings of a higher order.
Working offline is, for me, nearer heaven than
hell, since the Internet usually bugs the hell out of me.
Do not all human beings breathe the same air
more or less? Without the air that the planet manufactures, and that the
weather stirs up and refreshes, we would soon be dead. As simple as that. And
yet, with what seeming insouciance and blatant disregard people go about
polluting it on a daily basis! Are we not sickened by pollution and diminished
as human beings? Incontrovertibly! But the heyday, as it were, of being human
is long over. We are now increasingly superhuman, but not on the terms of
being, alas, but under the female domination of doing and, let's face it,
giving.
A concise definition of true religion, which is
to say, metaphysical truth: absolute insanity. A concise definition of false
religion, which is to say, metachemical hype: absolute outsanity. Worldly
religion lies somewhere in between the alpha of scientific religion and the
omega of religious religion, or religion per se, the false and the true, like
politics and economics, from which they take their respective religious cues in
relation to the relativity of either sanity with an outer bias or sanity with
an inner bias, the former arguably Marian and the latter usually Nonconformist.
I only like architecture with rounded corners
and curvilinear structures in its overall design, because that alone, being
truly modern, is jeans/jogger and T-shirt/vest friendly, and should ideally be sited
in proximity to tarmac sidewalks or macadamized surfaces in general, with
pavements being increasingly reserved, it would appear, for shop-front
rectilinearity.
Love is an emotional poison that enters into
one's bloodstream and affects one's mental equilibrium in such fashion and to
such an extent that one becomes besotted with the object of one's desire to the
detriment of one's self and, by implication, one's own moral wellbeing. There
is no more dangerous passion than that engendered by the poison of love.
Females know how to distil this poison and when to inject it into the male of
their choice. For beauty and love are correlative.
I was too long a single tenant in a live-in
landlord's house to be greatly enamoured of spiders and their webs, not least
in view of the extent to which I felt squeezed and somehow sucked-dry by a
variety of predatory encroachments on what was left of my liberty in what could
only be a fairly lifeless existence.
Glynn Hughes' autobiography is an object lesson
in the destructive power of drug addiction, as well as a moving testimony to
the recuperative powers of the human soul, which enabled this major rock singer
and musician to rise above his addiction and achieve freedom from dependency.
Despite the 2-3 years both Glynn Hughes and David Coverdale spent in the band,
Ian Gillan will always be the voice of Deep Purple, in the same way that Ozzy
Osbourne will always be the voice of Black Sabbath, despite stints by Ronnie
James Dio and others. Likewise, Bruce Dickenson will always be the voice of
Iron Maiden, despite the fact that, like Deep Purple's Ian Gillan, whom he both
admires and even occasionally resembles as a vocalist, he wasn't their original
singer and subsequently left to be replaced by Blaze Bayley, before eventually
rejoining and continuing to front the group, which has since gone from strength
to strength both as a live band and in the studio.
One of my pet hates: those three-chord bands
with their triangular limitations making for a three-chord bash from the
Devil's tail upon the body and sometimes even the head of musical
sensibility. Though they might deny it, their music somehow correlates with the
triangular limitations and implications of conventional suits, ties,
collared-shirts, etc. One of the things I like most about Tangerine Dream, on
the other hand, is their joyful if not blissful independence of the Blues and
other kinds of music rooted in triangular limitations, even if, ironically,
their sartorial appearance sometimes leaves something to be desired in that
regard.
I've often wondered how people can keep small
animals and birds in cages, depriving them of freedom of movement. I could not
look at a caged bird, for instance, without feeling sorry for it, since a
creature with wings is intended to fly and cages surely deny it that ability,
making for a stunted life.
The wilful enemy of soul and the spirited enemy
of ego are alike female, whether literally or in character, and can be regarded
as the concrete embodiments of power and glory, which ever war upon the
peaceable abstractions of form and contentment power upon contentment in the
one case and glory upon form in the other, as though in relation to a
noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between the absolute and the relative.
Power-mongers never like contentment in others, especially a higher class of
male, and do their utmost to thwart and undermine it. To the average woman,
contentment in a male, or self-satisfaction, is nothing short of anathema or,
at any rate, is so unacceptable as to be the subject of subversion and mockery.
PART FOUR
Peace does not come, as deluded males like to
think, through compromise with females, but from being true to yourself, as a
male, in relation to either the half-peace (phenomenal) of ego or the full
peace (noumenal) of soul, neither of which can survive unscathed the onslaughts
of the half-war (phenomenal) of spirit or the full war (noumenal) of will as
waged by the gender enemies of ego and soul. When art is concrete, or
figurative, it bears the hallmarks of female dominion through either if not
both will and spirit. When, by contrast, art is abstract, or non-figurative,
one gets the impression of male independence, via ego and/or soul, from the
dominance of will and/or spirit and, hence, of female values generally.
Hitherto, concrete art has tended to predominate over its abstract antithesis.
For males, even as artists, are generally dominated by females, whether or not
they realize the fact. Art that is in any degree credibly metaphysical, and hence
truly religious, could only be abstract, never concrete! You do not
figuratively represent God in Heaven, even if art, to be meaningful, must at
least strive to represent such concepts or even actualities through abstract
means. For abstraction, by contrast, that was an end-in-itself would not be art
but decoration, whether in relation to craft or to some architectural
structure. Art is not decoration because, unlike craft (say pottery) or, for
that matter, architecture, it is non-utilitarian in character and therefore
must be meaningful in its own right by signifying, whether through concrete or
abstract means, some concept or actuality lying beyond the boundaries of mere
craft. Now for this to truly succeed, it is better that art should be abstract
or, at worst, pseudo-concrete, with impressive or pseudo-expressive attributes
which are likely to do most justice to either the metaphysical or, in the case
of pseudo-concretion, the pseudo-metachemical which, being pseudo-female rather
than male, should not rise above the pseudo-expressive. Compared to music,
however, art is the art form least likely, even when impressively abstract, to
do most artistic justice to metaphysics, even if the justice or, more
correctly, pseudo-justice done to pseudo-metachemistry (by pseudo-expressive
pseudo-concretion) is likely to be more successful and somehow credible than
could be achieved from its musical counterpart, given that music must be at a
disadvantage to art when it comes to delineating or representing pseudo-space.
Art and sculpture are the outer, or female, arts; literature and music the
inner, or male, arts an objective/subjective distinction which the
bovaryization, or attenuated transmutation, of any given art form towards some
other art form may obscure but which, in relation to the representative
manifestation or actual fulcrum of any given art form, is nevertheless
effectively the case.
1.
In basic
terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of
a gender hegemonic polarity between art and literature, as between
metachemistry and physics (corresponding, in simple elemental terms, to fire
and vegetation), with a gender subordinate polarity between pseudo-music and
pseudo-sculpture, pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to
pseudo-air and pseudo-water, or air subverted by a fiery hegemony and water
subverted by a vegetative one).
2.
Contrariwise
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of a
gender hegemonic polarity between sculpture and music, chemistry and
metaphysics (corresponding, in simple elemental terms, to water and air), with
a gender subordinate polarity between pseudo-literature and pseudo-art,
pseudo-physics and pseudo-metachemistry (corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and
pseudo-fire, or vegetation subverted by a watery hegemony and fire subverted by
an airy one).
3.
In the case
of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, this gives us a primary
(overall female) polarity between art and pseudo-sculpture, metachemistry and
pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to fire and pseudo-water), with a secondary
(overall male) polarity between pseudo-music and literature, pseudo-metaphysics
and physics (corresponding to pseudo-air and vegetation).
4.
In the case
of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, on the other hand, we have a
primary (overall male) polarity between pseudo-literature and music,
pseudo-physics and metaphysics (corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and air),
with a secondary (overall female) polarity between sculpture and pseudo-art,
chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry (corresponding to water and pseudo-fire).
When true to themselves, so to speak, as
against being bovaryized towards one or another of the alternative
elements/pseudo-elements, art and music are noumenal, or ethereal, art forms
having upper-class connotations, while sculpture and literature, likewise when
true to themselves, are phenomenal, or corporeal, art forms having lower-class
connotations, bovaryized exceptions to the general rule in the case of both the
former and latter art forms notwithstanding. But, in representatively gender
terms, art and sculpture are, like will and spirit, power and glory,
fundamentally on the female side of the gender divide due to their concrete absolute
(elemental) and concrete relative (molecular) objectivity, whereas literature
and music, like ego and soul, form and contentment, essentially appertain to
the male side of the gender divide due to their abstract relative (molecular)
and abstract absolute (elemental) subjectivity. No less than the concrete arts,
like painting and sculpture, are objective because particular, or
stemming from a particle bias normally to be associated with competitive
individualism, as in relation to portraiture (painting) and figurative
monuments (sculpture), so the abstract arts, like literature and music, are
subjective because wavicular, or stemming from a
wavicle bias normally to be associated with cooperative collectivism, as in
relation to chapters (literature) and movements (music). No less than
particles, being female, are rooted in a vacuum, so wavicles, being male, are
centred in a plenum, a kind of negative/positive or, better,
objective/subjective distinction which informs the Arts as much as it informs
and characterizes life itself.
1.
Art begins
in metachemistry, to which, as a noumenally objective art form, it properly
pertains, and is once bovaryized in chemistry, twice bovaryized in phyiscs, and
thrice bovaryized in metaphysics, regressing from the absolute concrete to the
absolute abstract via the relative concrete and relative abstract.
2.
Sculpture
begins in chemistry, to which, as a phenomenally objective art form, it
properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in metachemistry, twice bovaryized in
metaphysics, and thrice bovaryized in physics, regressing from the relative
concrete to the relative abstract via the absolute concrete and absolute
abstract.
3.
Literature
begins in physics, to which, as a phenomenally subjective art form, it properly
pertains, and is once bovaryized in metaphysics, twice bovaryized in
metachemistry, and thrice bovaryized in chemistry, regressing from the relative
abstract to the relative concrete via the absolute abstract and absolute
concrete.
4.
Music
begins in metaphysics, to which, as a noumenally subjective art form, it
properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in physics, twice bovaryized in
chemistry and thrice bovaryized in metachemistry, regressing from the absolute
abstract to the absolute concrete via the relative abstract and relative
concrete.
The anti-forms of art, sculpture, literature,
and music tend to begin in the 'pseudo' manifestation (under a hegemonic
antithetical art form) of their proper element, be it pseudo-metaphysics
vis-a-vis metaphysics in the case of music, pseudo-physics vis-a-vis physics in
the case of literature, pseudo-chemistry vis-a-vis chemistry in the case of
sculpture, or pseudo-metachemistry vis-a-vis metachemistry in the case of art,
and regress to the same gender or, rather, pseudo-gender pseudo-elemental
position before crossing the gender fence, as it were, in relation to the
opposite pseudo-elemental positions, whether initially noumenal or phenomenal,
depending on the point of axial departure. Therefore in relation to
pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-metaphysics would constitute the most (thrice)
bovaryized approach to pseudo-art; in relation to pseudo-chemistry,
pseudo-physics would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to
pseudo-sculpture; in relation to pseudo-physics, pseudo-chemistry would
constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-literature; and in
relation to pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-metachemistry would constitute the most
(thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-music, with 'less' and 'more' bovaryized
approaches to any given pseudo-art form coming in between what could be
described as the least bovaryized, or pseudo-representative mode of pseudo-art,
and its most bovaryized mode. Do I need to explain all this in
non-philosophical language, drawing attention to the respective concrete and
abstract approaches (noumenal or phenomenal) to both the Arts and the
Anti-Arts? No, I don't believe so, although there is nothing to stop other
people attempting it. However, I will give you a clue as to what I mean and of
the complexity of the overall task. Take music, for instance, which gives us a
concrete/abstract dichotomy, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes, between
pitch and melody on the one hand, and harmony and rhythm on the other, as
between space and volume in the case of the concrete options, and mass and time
in that of the abstract ones. In simple parlance, pitch is no less noumenally
antithetical to rhythm than melody phenomenally antithetical to harmony. But
there are also the 'pseudo' manifestations of musical characteristics to bear
in mind, whether in terms of pseudo-rhythm under pitch, pseudo-harmony under
melody, pseudo-melody under harmony, or pseudo-pitch under rhythm, a plane down
from the hegemonic element in each pseudo-elemental and effectively subordinate
case, like pseudo-time under space, pseudo-mass under volume, pseudo-volume
under mass, and pseudo-space under time. Now, as I've argued before, if space
is spatial (which on account of the elemental particles of its noumenally
objective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-space is spaced; if volume is
volumetric (which on account of the molecular particles of its phenomenally
objective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-volume is voluminous; if mass
is massive (which on account of the molecular wavicles of its phenomenally
subjective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-mass is massed; and if time is
repetitive (which on account of the elemental wavicles of its noumenally
subjective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-time is sequential. Hence the
sequential nature or, rather, pseudo-nature of pseudo-time under space (which
is spatial) is musically commensurate with pseudo-rhythm under pitch; hence the
massed pseudo-nature of pseudo-mass under volume (which is volumetric) is
musically commensurate with pseudo-harmony under melody; hence the voluminous
pseudo-nature of pseudo-volume under mass (which is massive) is musically
commensurate with pseudo-melody under harmony; and hence the spaced
pseudo-nature of pseudo-space under time (which is repetitive) is musically
commensurate with pseudo-pitch under rhythm.
Is architecture a high art form, a kind of fine
art? Some would contend that, in certain instances, like the Taj Mahal or the
The primary sex are usually if not invariably
early and the secondary sex usually if not invariably late, as in getting up
early and going to bed early in the case of adult females, and getting up late
and going to bed late in the case of adult males. How often have I heard women
grumbling about the difficulty of getting their husbands out of bed in the
early morning! And yet, to their wives' annoyance, most husbands are no less
reluctant to go to bed early and sacrifice the evening's late-night
entertainment on the television or whatever. Following on from the above, when
the First shall be last and the Last first, then the primary gender will be subordinate
to the hegemonic sway of the secondary gender who, as free males, will have the
peace that surpasses the half-peace of egocentric understanding (knowledge)
and, hence, of a phenomenal hegemony axially beholden to the domination, or
sovereignty, of noumenal primacy in the guise of the somatic licence
appertaining to and characteristic of metachemistry. Would you expect original
knowledge from a female, meaning somebody of the gender that embodies the
primacy of beauty and strength (more correctly of pride in relation to the
spirit fulcrum of chemistry)? That is, from a gender that receives much if not
most of its knowledge second-hand, via the male it happens to have battened-on
to for purposes of reproduction? Normally one wouldn't, because original
knowledge, that product of egocentric deliberation within a free mind, is not
germane to the female equation, and even such knowledge as they acquire via the
male of their choosing is likely, sooner or later, to be subverted and twisted
out of all recognition, not least to suit the utilitarian designs of beauty and
strength (pride). Female liberation, or the liberation of females from male
hegemonic (chauvinistic?) influence and, to varying extents, control,
inevitably implies the subversion if not abandonment of knowledge and truth (to
speak in parallel terms that overlooks the actual fulcrum of the metaphysical
element) for strength (again using parallel terms at the expense of the actual
fulcrum of the chemical element) and beauty, society thereby regressing from
male hegemonic control to the dominance, in hegemonic vein, of females in terms
of both beauty axially at the expense of knowledge and strength axially at the
expense of truth, beauty excluding truth across the noumenal (ethereal) axial
divide, and strength excluding knowledge across the phenomenal (corporeal)
axial divide, so that pseudo-truth and pseudo-knowledge tend to be the
concomitant metachemically-subverted and chemically-subverted subordinate
gender complements, respectively, of beauty and strength.
With regards to literature, one should contrast
the literary per se, as it were, of narrative prose, usually in the form of
novels, with the once-bovaryized literature of philosophy, the twice-bovaryized
literature of drama, and the thrice-bovaryized literature of poetry, the
literary genre furthest removed from literature proper, as one regresses from
prose to poetry (the 'sculpture' of literature) via philosophy and drama, as
from physics to chemistry via metaphysics and metachemistry, whilst not
overlooking the roles played by pseudo-prose, pseudo-drama, pseudo-philosophy,
and pseudo-poetry, those anti-literature genres which would appear to regress
from pseudo-physics to pseudo-chemistry via pseudo-metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry, as from pseudo-prose to pseudo-poetry via
pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-drama. Hence, in overall terms, from the pairing
of prose and pseudo-poetry to the pairing of poetry and pseudo-prose via the
pairing of philosophy and pseudo-drama and the pairing of drama and
pseudo-philosophy, as from physics/pseudo-chemistry to chemistry/pseudo-physics
via metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, with
the latter pseudo-elemental and/or pseudo-literary contexts in all paired cases
conditioned by the hegemonic influence of the former elemental and/or literary
contexts in such pairings. Unlike music, whose fulcrum is the soul, literature
has its fulcrum in the ego, as in narrative prose, and is invariably bovaryized
the further it departs from the ego, as in relation to philosophic soul,
dramatic will, and poetic spirit, regressing from the masculine (prosodic) to
the supermasculine (philosophic) before crossing the gender (and axial) divide
with superfeminine (dramatic) and feminine (poetic) bovarizations of
literature. How unlike music, its fellow subjective art-form, which has its
fulcrum in the soul, and regresses to ego, spirit, and will, in that order, as
though from rhythm (soul) to pitch (will) via harmony (ego) and melody
(spirit), only true to itself in the rhythms of soul, but regressively
bovaryized by the harmonies of ego, the melodies of spirit, and the pitch, or
pitches, of will. In narrowly classical terms, this could be interpreted as a
regression from ballet to the concerto via the symphony and opera, though in a
supra-classical sense one might characterize such a regression as being from
electronica/dance to jazz/blues via classical/romantic and pop/rock, with
electronica/dance alone corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry;
classical/romantic corresponding to physics/pseudo-chemistry; pop/rock
corresponding to chemistry/pseudo-physics, and jazz/blues corresponding to
metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, music being in its soulful/pseudo-wilful
paired fulcrum, as it were, with electronica/dance, but becoming regressively
more bovaryized with the ego/pseudo-spirit pairing of classical/romantic, the
spirit/pseudo-ego pairing of pop/rock, and the will/pseudo-soul pairing of
jazz/blues, or something to that overall effect. Not forgetting, of course,
what has already been said about the 'anti' forms of music that, appertaining
to the subordinate gender positions, would seem to have more in common with
dance, romantic, rock, and blues, regressing from blues to dance via rock and romantic,
as from pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-metachemistry via pseudo-physics and
pseudo-chemistry, which of course would contrast with the regression from
metaphysics to metachemistry via physics and chemistry of the hegemonic genres
of electronica, classical, pop, and jazz. Therefore, quite logically, the
soulful per se, or musically representative genre which, in a sense, is also
the least bovaryized genre of electronica is complemented by the
most-bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) anti-genre of dance; the less (compared to
least) bovaryized (once bovaryized) genre of classical is complemented by the
more (compared to most) bovaryized (twice bovaryized) anti-genre of romantic;
the more (compared to most) bovaryized (twice bovaryized) genre of pop is
complemented by the less (compared to least) bovaryized (once bovaryized)
anti-genre of rock; and the most bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) genre of jazz
is complemented by the least bovaryized, or pseudo-soulful per se, anti-genre
of blues.
1.
Put
differently, soul can only be hegemonic over pseudo-will, the weakest
(contrasted with will per se) manifestation of will; as in the case of
electronica over dance, metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.
2.
Likewise
ego can only be hegemonic over pseudo-spirit, the weakest (contrasted with
spirit per se) manifestations of spirit, as in classical over romantic, physics
over pseudo-chemistry.
3.
Similarly
spirit can only be hegemonic over pseudo-ego, the weakest (contrasted with ego
per se) manifestation of ego, as in pop over rock, chemistry over
pseudo-physics.
4.
Finally
will can only be hegemonic over pseudo-soul, the weakest (contrasted with soul
per se) manifestation of soul, as in jazz over blues, metachemistry over
pseudo-metaphysics.
There is thus no way that will can be hegemonic
over soul, the devil over god, or vice versa, since they are mutually
exclusive, like jazz and electronica, to an absolute degree. Likewise, there is
no way that spirit can be hegemonic over ego, woman over man, or vice versa,
since they are mutually exclusive, like pop and classical, to a relative
degree. Now the same of course applies to the absolute and relative, noumenal
and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal modes of anti-music, viz. blues and
dance in the one case (absolutely exclusive), and rock and romantic in the
other case (relatively exclusive). But if this is true to a limited extent of
music, how much more so will it be the case when we contrast art with music on
the one hand, and sculpture with literature on the other, where in their most
representative (non-bovaryized) genres or forms we really do have a mutually
exclusive antithesis between will and soul in the one case (noumenal), and
spirit and ego in the other case (phenomenal), because of the absolute/relative
distinctions between the former and the latter antithesis, making it logical to
contend that the metachemical per se of art will be even more incompatible with
the metaphysical per se of music than the chemical per se of sculpture with the
physical per se of literature, whatever this and I have given some hints
already may actually turn out to be in practice, bearing in mind the
incompatibility of noumenal objectivity with noumenal subjectivity on the one
hand, and of phenomenal objectivity with phenomenal subjectivity on the other,
an incompatibility having as much to do with gender as with class.
As also maintained by me in the past, the
'anti' manifestation of anything including the overblown concept of
Anti-Christ is only a starting-point for the lock-in position under the
hegemonic sway of the prevailing element, be it female or male, noumenal or
phenomenal in either, and is therefore transmutable into what I call (and how I
mostly tend to define) the 'pseudo' manifestation of any given element or, more
correctly, anti-element. Therefore anti-music, as described above, lends
itself, as a matter of course, to the definition of pseudo-music, as that
manifestation of anti-music which is gender subordinate to the prevailing
manifestation of music which, being hegemonic, takes precedence over it,
whether or not the prevailing hegemony happens to accord with the
representative genre or with some bovaryized manifestation of music.
1.
In overall
axial terms, one can therefore contrast the pairing, on a hegemonic/subordinate
basis, of jazz and blues with the pairing, on a like basis, of classical and
romantic on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the
northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, with jazz
and romantic corresponding to the primary (overall female) state-hegemonic
polarity of metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, but blues and classical
corresponding to the secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic polarity of
pseudo-metaphysics and physics, metachemistry of course being hegemonic over
pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand, and physics hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry
on the other.
2.
By axial
contrast, the pairing of pop and rock at the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass with the pairing of electronica (trance) and dance
at the northeast point thereof on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
affords us a primary (overall male) polarity between rock and electronica,
corresponding to pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall
female) polarity between pop and dance, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry,
chemistry of course being hegemonic over pseudo-physics on the one hand, and
metaphysics hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry on the other.
In that respect, the First (chemical) would
indeed become last (pseudo-metachemical) and the Last (pseudo-physical) become
first (metaphysical)
in the event of the salvation to metaphysics of those
identifiable with pseudo-physics and the correlative counter-damnation to
pseudo-metachemistry of those identifiable with chemistry, since chemistry is
no less equivocally hegemonic, in its phenomenal relativity, over
pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass than
metaphysics (is) unequivocally hegemonic, in its noumenal absolutism, over
pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point thereof, the point that, in the
event of a Social Theocratic overhaul of conventional
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, would be constitutive of the
true apex, in free psyche as well as bound soma, of the church-hegemonic axis,
with, in musical terms, an electronica/dance-like pairing that would somewhat
contrast, in otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly vein, with the pop/rock pairing
already alluded to in connection with what I hold to be mainstream worldliness,
which is effectively divisible, unlike its physical/pseudo-chemical
counterpart, between purgatorial and pseudo-earthly criteria appertaining to
the chemical/pseudo-physical complementarity. Of course, when I subordinately
associate dance with electronica, I am not referring to dance per se, as to the
somatically-unrestrained spatial licence of, say, jazz dancing, with the
likelihood of flouncy dresses as the most appropriate sartorial adjunct to a
metachemical disposition favouring female freedom on noumenal terms. On the
contrary, such dance as is properly and even unequivocally subordinate, in its
noumenal absolutism, to electronica of a trance-like order would be of a
constrained, hemmed-in, almost straight-dress character that warrants
identification with pseudo-space under time, the spaced space of the one a
consequence, in no small part, of the repetitive time, or time per se, of the
other, which therefore hegemonically obliges it to take on the character of
what should really be termed pseudo-dance, as subordinate, from a pseudo-female
standpoint, to the regular rhythms of trance-like electronica as, in contrary
vein, the by and large pseudo-male pseudo-music of the blues would be
subordinate and to a well-nigh absolute degree to the spatial and
altogether pitchful liberties of jazz in the hegemonic position at the
northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be a
state-hegemonic pairing of metachemistry with pseudo-metaphysics or, in simple
musical terms, jazz with the blues. Obviously I am not going to recommend such
an unequivocal subordination as is evinced by the pseudo-male
(sonofabitch-like) pseudo-music of the blues. But I do believe that those who,
in their pseudo-harmonic broken chords, are equivocally subordinate to the
melodies of pop, can and should, as purveyors of the usually more
instrumentally-oriented bias of rock, be in the kind of pseudo-musical position
from which deliverance to the regular rhythms of electronica, with its
synthetically artificial approach to soul, can be engineered, with effect to
saving them from the (chemical) domination of spirit, as of vocal melody, that
the latter may be counter-damned to the pseudo-space of pseudo-will in gender
subordination, for ever more, to a metaphysical hegemony over
pseudo-metachemistry, the musical equivalent of the time-honoured saint and
(neutralized) dragon paradigm or, for that matter, of the lamb and
(neutralized) wolf and/or lion metaphor for intimating of such a
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical pairing, corresponding to electronica and
dance, which is to say, to the cyborgistic and therefore globally universal
most representative form of music, or music per se, and the most bovaryized
(thrice bovaryized) pseudo-form of pseudo-music, the weakest manifestation of
pseudo-music (out of anti-music) that would be no less pseudo-expressive of
pseudo-will than its hegemonic partner, in the electronica/dance pairing, would
be impressive of soul, the impressive rhythms of metaphysical subjectivity
which it will be the prerogative of a certain type of higher male, effectively
supermasculine, to produce, and to do so using the most synthetically
artificial means in the artful utilization of synthesizers to a rhythmic end,
transcending the externalized rhythmic bovaryizations of manual percussion
instruments, including drum kits.
If I have focused on music at the expense of
literature, it is because, notwithstanding my own philosophical bovaryization
of literature towards eternity, music is or has the capacity to be the most
metaphysical art form, one that, when true to itself, will be rhythmically
metaphysical, and therefore significant of the noumenal subjectivity of
repetitive time, or time per se the only form of time commensurate with eternity,
the eternity that must needs rule over the pseudo-infinity of pseudo-space, and
therefore of that which, as so-called dance, will remain forever subordinate to
the trance-like pulse of so-called electronica, which may well, in the
not-too-distant future, be re-evaluated in terms of its essentially protonic
significance vis-a-vis the pseudo-photonic subordination of pseudo-space to
time.
As with music, literature can be axially
divided between state-hegemonic and church-hegemonic alternatives:-
1.
In the case
of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis one would have a primary
(overall female) state-hegemonic polarity between drama and pseudo-poetry,
metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, but a secondary (overall male)
state-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-philosophy and prose,
pseudo-metaphysics and physics, so that one could contrast the pairing of drama
and pseudo-philosophy, metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, with that of prose
and pseudo-poetry, physics and pseudo-chemistry pseudo-philosophy being as
much subject to the hegemonic influence of drama as pseudo-poetry to the
hegemonic influence of prose.
2.
In the case
of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, one would have a primary (overall
male) church-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-prose and philosophy,
pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall female)
church-hegemonic polarity between poetry and pseudo-drama, chemistry and
pseudo-metachemistry, so that one could contrast the pairing of poetry and
pseudo-prose, chemistry and pseudo-physics, with that of philosophy and
pseudo-drama, metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry pseudo-prose being as much
subject to the hegemonic influence of poetry as pseudo-drama to the hegemonic
influence of philosophy.
In terms of the First becoming last and the
Last
first, this would effectively correspond to those given to pseudo-prose
under poetry being in line, axially speaking, for deliverance to philosophy
over pseudo-drama, with those earmarked for counter-damnation to pseudo-drama
thereby being delivered from an equivocally hegemonic position (in chemistry
over pseudo-physics) to an unequivocally subordinate one (in
pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics), as counter-damnation followed in the
wake of salvation in terms of deliverance from the phenomenal to the noumenal,
corporeal relativity to ethereal absolutism, with those who had been
equivocally first in the former context inevitably becoming unequivocally last
in the latter one. That, at any rate, would be the literary parallel, I
believe, to the music fates already outlined above, with that which was
'pseudo' becoming 'genuine' and that, conversely, which was 'genuine' becoming
'pseudo'. What then happens to the state-hegemonic genres literary, musical,
or anything else will be contingent upon the extents to which
salvation/counter-damnation transpires on the church-hegemonic axis. But,
again, it is obvious that the 'genuine' would become 'pseudo', as in the case
of the damnation of drama to pseudo-poetry, and the 'pseudo' become 'genuine',
as in the case of the counter-salvation of pseudo-philosophy to prose, neither
of which would then be viable alternatives to drama/pseudo-philosophy in view
of the absence of polarity consequent upon a collapse of the said axis for want
of poetic/pseudo-prosodic prey, so to speak, and its inevitable slide,
following damnation/counter-salvation, towards some kind of radical Social
Democracy (Bolshevism-like) in the event of no alternative, in the guise of
Social Theocracy, being available to it or, rather, to those who had not been
instrumental in the production of either drama/pseudo-philosophy above or
prose/pseudo-poetry below but, finding common cause with the church-hegemonic
masses (of lapsed Catholics, republican socialists, etc), preferred to opt,
following a kind of judgement, for lower-tier positions, successively, under
the Saved and Counter-Damned on what would be a stepped-up, or 'resurrected',
church-hegemonic axis. But they would need to acquire the moral entitlement,
the ethnic credibility, as it were, by being instrumental in judging both the
prime movers in somatic licence 'upstairs' and the profiteers from the
financing of said licence 'downstairs', on what had been the state-hegemonic
axis, as they deserved, in order to prove worthy of joining, on the
aforementioned basis, with those who were already subject to 'resurrected'
church-hegemonic criteria, and subject to it, moreover, in terms of salvation
and counter-damnation, according to gender. For the triumph of philosophy over
pseudo-drama cannot ultimately transpire if others are still clinging, in
drama/pseudo-philosophy, to their converse, any more than the ongoing
acceptance of prose over pseudo-poetry has anything to do with the prospect of
being delivered from poetry/pseudo-prose to that very
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical apotheosis, as it were, of the literary
pairing, in effect, of philosophy with pseudo-drama in what would be a
literary/pseudo-literary equivalence of the musical/pseudo-musical pairing of
electronica (trance) with dance. As for art and sculpture, I do not feel
qualified, not least gender-wise, to outline their various genres and
pseudo-genres (out of anti-genres); though there would undoubtedly be types and
degrees of bovaryization away from representative portraiture in the one case
and figurative representation in the other that accorded, like music and
literature (in that order), with some kind of metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical
pairing, with the art parallels to such radical bovaryizations ranking beneath
their sculptural counterparts in terms of thrice bovaryized to twice bovaryized
under, in the case of literature, a once-bovaryized manifestation of literary
production. Yet all these scenarios, or possible eventualities, would be
contingent, needless to say, upon the 'will of the people' and could only
transpire, if at all, following the express wish of the electorates of
countries with a church-hegemonic disposition or tradition to exchange
political sovereignty together with its judicial and/or economic concomitant
for religious sovereignty, and thus elect for the possibility, under Social
Theocracy, of deliverance from 'the world' of their lowly
chemical/pseudo-physical phenomenal estates to the salvation/counter-damnation
of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry noumenally 'On High', thereby acceding to
the rights that would characterize such an ultimate sovereignty in a context
equivalent, in a manner of speaking, to 'Kingdom Come'. Everything else would
follow from this, including an end to the secular domination of state-hegemonic
axial criteria and the push towards a more genuinely global universality
capable of culminating in some 'Celestial City'-like arrangement as the goal of
evolution or, more correctly and comprehensively, of evolution coupled to the
utmost counter-devolution, of eternity in partnership, in other words, with
pseudo-infinity, the pseudo-space that 'lies down' with the time of eternity
because, like the proverbial lion, wolf, or dragon, it is not, following
neutralization, in a position to do anything else. Just, as we have argued,
like pseudo-drama under philosophy or, in relation to music, pseudo-dance under
the trance of an electronica that, in truth, could well be closer to some kind
of protonica, so to speak, of the true centre, to which this pseudo-photonica
would be forever subordinate.
In general subatomic terms, it could be said
that the pairing of protons with pseudo-photons is polar to that of electrons
with pseudo-neutrons on the church-hegemonic axis, with salvation being from
pseudo-neutrons to protons, and counter-damnation being from electrons to
pseudo-photons, the equivocally hegemonic electronic First becoming the
unequivocally subordinate pseudo-photonic last, and the equivocally subordinate
pseudo-neutronic last becoming, by contrast, the unequivocally hegemonic
protonic First, or something to that overall subatomic effect. And all this in
contrast to the state-hegemonic polarity between photons/pseudo-protons and
neutrons/pseudo-electrons, photons no less polar to pseudo-electrons on primary
(overall female) state-hegemonic terms than pseudo-protons to neutrons on
secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic terms, thereby enabling us to infer a
cross-axial antithesis between photons/pseudo-protons and
protons/pseudo-photons in the case of the ethereal absolutism of the noumenal,
but such an antithesis between electrons/pseudo-neutrons and
neutrons/pseudo-electrons in the case of the corporeal relativity of the
phenomenal, the kind of relativity that is less elemental than molecular, with
a closer relationship between electrons and pseudo-neutrons on the one hand,
and neutrons and pseudo-electrons on the other hand, than could ever be
inferred to exist between their noumenal counterparts, photons/pseudo-protons
and protons/pseudo-photons, where the relationship of particles to wavicles, of
soma to psyche, or of wavicles to particles, of psyche to soma, will be 3:1 as
against 2½:1½, and therefore somewhere in the region of most particle to least
wavicle or, by axial contrast, most wavicle to least particle, as opposed, with
phenomenal relativity, to more (compared to most) particle and less (compared
to least) wavicle or, in axially antithetical terms, more (compared to most)
wavicle and less (compared to least) particle, as the subatomic case may be.
1.
Logically,
I like to think that the photon is most particle and least wavicle,
corresponding to most soma, as it were, and least psyche, whereas the proton,
by contrast, I would conceive to be most wavicle and least particle,
corresponding to most psyche and least soma, since such an elemental dichotomy
would underpin the noumenal objective/subjective antithesis between
metachemistry and metaphysics, or absolute vacuum and absolute plenum,
corresponding, on a more evolved basis, not just to the respective absolute
ratio distinctions between soma and psyche, as noted above, but to the
aforementioned distinctions between the representative, or non-bovaryized, forms
of art and music, space and time, commensurate, at any stage of
devolution/evolution, with what is most alpha on the one hand and most omega on
the other.
2.
Descending
from the elemental to the molecular, I would argue that the electron was more
(compared to most) particle and less (compared to least) wavicle, corresponding
to more soma and less psyche, but that the neutron, by contrast, was more
(compared to most) wavicle and less (compared to least) particle, corresponding
to more psyche and less soma, since such a molecular dichotomy would underpin
the phenomenal objective/subjective antithesis between chemistry and physics,
or relative vacuum and relative plenum, corresponding, on a more evolved basis,
not just to the respective relative ratio distinctions between soma and psyche,
as noted above, but to the aforementioned distinctions between the
representative, or non-bovaryized, forms of sculpture and literature, volume
and mass, commensurate, at any stage of devolution/evolution, with what is more
(compared to most) alpha on the one hand and more (compared to most) omega on
the other.
Therefore in the case of the art/music
antithesis, the alpha and omega of the noumenal planes of space and time, one
would have a distinction between that form of art which most accorded with
spatial space and that form of music most according with repetitive time,
whether in ancient, modern, or indeed intermediate (worldly) formal
manifestations, whereas in the case of the sculpture/literature antithesis, the
alpha and omega of the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, one has a
distinction between that form of sculpture most according with volumetric
volume and that form of literature that most accorded with massive mass, again
in relation to ancient, modern, or intermediate formal manifestations, given
the need for and logical justification of alpha/omega qualification in relation
to this or that age or type of civilization, bearing in mind the immense
distinctions which indubitably do exist between what could be called the
natural and the artificial, not to mention super-artificial and synthetic
approaches to any given art form, be it painterly, sculptural, literary, or
musical, with considerable differences, even in the latter context, between,
say, acoustic and electric and/or electronic approaches to musical composition
or performance. One simply cannot overemphasize the complexity of this matter,
since one man's alpha meat is another's alpha poison, one man's omega meat
another's omega poison, and so on, through a variety of permutations that
derive, in no small part, from specific epochal and ethnic predilections.
Clearly, an alpha/omega antithesis that was only natural, or conceived within
natural boundaries, would hardly suffice to delineate such an antithesis within
artificial boundaries deriving from nature, never mind, at the opposite extreme
from nature, within synthetic boundaries either deriving from the artificial
(super-artificial) or even purely synthetic in character such that more readily
lend themselves to a post-modern if not futuristic concept of how the
alpha/omega antithesis plays out in the Arts and may one day even be
transcended in favour of an omega-dominated pairing. Nor should one overlook,
in relation to the above, the 'pseudo' forms or, more correctly, anti-forms of
creativity which complement, on subordinate gender terms, the hegemonic art
forms, as pseudo-omega to alpha or, by contrast, pseudo-alpha to omega, on both
noumenal and phenomenal planes. For they are just as important in enabling us to
understand how elements and pseudo-elements (out of anti-elements) pair off and
form polarities in one direction or another with axial implications, be they
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate or, in an age dominated by devolution at the
expense of evolution, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate. Probably the ultimate
alpha and omega, noumenal or phenomenal, would be across not merely an
artificial or synthetic divide, but rather across a natural/synthetic divide
that, in the case of the natural alpha, preceded worldly relativity and, in the
case of the synthetic omega, succeeded such relativity, thereby taking the
overall antithesis in relation to the respective representative (not
bovaryized) forms of art and music in the case of the noumenal, and sculpture and
literature in that of the phenomenal, to their utmost pre- and post-historical
manifestations, whereby one is logically entitled to speculate, even without
existing or easily discoverable proof, that the alpha of the one context will
do, or have done, the most justice, as it were, to spatial space, and the omega
of the other and possibly coming context most justice to repetitive time,
with other degrees of either devolutionary or evolutionary justice coming
somewhere in-between.
The male is protonically self-centred, but can
and usually does become seduced by photonic distractions which result in
his 'fall from grace' to a pseudo-protonic deference to beauty and its loving
wiles, a deference that, under counter-pressures, sometimes leads to the angry
externalization of soul when that which is not of the Self but decidedly 'other
oriented' places demands on the pseudo-protonic position which, emanating from
the predominantly free somatic standpoint of a photon hegemony, are contrary to
male self-interest. Nevertheless, barring a 'prodigal son'-like return to grace
(and thus to protonic self-centredness), the pseudo-protonic pseudo-male risks
being dragged down, in a further and more drastic fall, into a pseudo-neutronic
subordination to an electron hegemony, from which position any return to grace,
being further away, is even more problematic, albeit axially polar, in
metaphysics, to his pseudo-physical predicament and therefore within the scope
of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate influence. The main danger here, however,
is not the remoteness of protonic renewal, nor even the pseudo-masculine
deference to a feminine hegemony in chemistry, but the equally corporeal
alternative of a neutronic pseudo-salvation across the lower-order axial
divide, as it were, which will compound his fall by making him one with man to the exclusion,
totally and utterly, of godly aspiration, as he settles for some degree of
egocentric self-centredness at the expense of the soul and therefore of any
possibility of metaphysical redemption. Man, by being egocentrically
self-centred, is the real enemy of God, as of godliness, since one who is
neutronically open, via pseudo-protonic polarity, to photonic domination and,
hence, to the reign of beauty over both pseudo-protonic pseudo-truth and
neutronic knowledge via its own polarity with pseudo-electronic
pseudo-strength, to speak in parallel terms for ease of overall comprehension.
The more neutronic a male becomes, the less pseudo-neutronic vis-a-vis an
electronic hegemony, and therefore the more will he be shut out from the
possibility of protonic salvation in metaphysics, which requires, barring the
'prodigal son'-like return from pseudo-protonic deference to photonic beauty, a
pseudo-neutronic polarity which, understandably in view of its paradoxical
predicament, does not and should not take itself for granted, but will remain
open, in the pseudo-egotistical fashion typifying the sinfulness of pseudo-man,
to the possibility of some degree of metaphysical redemption, if it is not to
succumb, as hinted at above, to the pseudo-salvation, across the axial divide,
of neutron egocentricity. For the half-salvation, as one could also term it,
though obviously attractive from a pseudo-neutronic point-of-view, is no
compensation for salvation proper, that is, for the salvation (from
pseudo-neutronic subordination to an electronic hegemony) of the soul in
protonic self-centredness, the return to the Centre which is the source of all
grace and guarantor of wisdom for males, a free psychic grace and bound somatic
wisdom unlikely to succumb, ever again, to the blandishments of photonic will
as it goes about its worldly designs which, if successful, will culminate in an
electronic resolution through the surrogate plenum of maternity, a resolution
requiring the concomitant 'fall of man' from godliness to a status that, at
least initially, is not even neutronic but, as described above, demonstrably
pseudo-neutronic and therefore pseudo-egocentric, with a pseudo-free somatic,
pseudo-knowledgeable predilection towards 'carnal knowledge', which is ever the
folly correlative with the pseudo-bound psychic preponderance (2½:1½
pseudo-bound psyche to pseudo-free soma) of sin
in the pseudo-ignorance
thereof, forever needful of deliverance, in truth, to the joyful grace of
heavenly soul, which is alone free of pseudo-earthly deference (to purgatory)
and able, in consequence, to be true to itself in perfect self-unity, as he who
repents of sin is entitled to grace in the free psyche of metaphysical self, with
the bound soma of metaphysical not-self a wise deliverance from that folly
which makes a carnal mockery of knowledge even as knowledge itself is no
guarantor of truth but, rather, its main rival in the male sense of self which,
having nothing to do with God or godliness, derives from the 'fall of man' to
pseudo-man as he perceives what I have described as a half-rise, a
half-salvation, in the egocentric possibilities that lie across the lower-order
axial divide and accordingly settles for some degree of neutronic release from
his pseudo-neutronic, pseudo-physical predicament under electronic pressure
from chemical females. In which case he may well become physically hegemonic
over a pseudo-electronic, pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, but metaphysically hegemonic
over a pseudo-photonic, pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female from a protonic
standpoint he will never be! Even if neutronic egocentricity, the physical
form of subjectivity, does not exactly correspond to 'the forbidden tree of
knowledge' of Biblical reference, if only because we can logically presume that
the latter would have more to do with the less predominant (1½) pseudo-free
somatic ratio of carnal knowledge vis-a-vis its pseudo-bound psychic
counterpart than with the more preponderant (2½) free psychic ratio of
intellectual knowledge vis-a-vis its
bound somatic counterpart, the pseudo-righteousness of physical free psyche is
still a phenomenal (corporeal) shortfall from genuine righteousness which,
being noumenal (ethereal), can only be metaphysical. But there is a certain
class of male persons for whom the sensibility of metaphysics would be too
psychologically if not physiologically elevated for their liking and who, in
consequence of a more down-to-earth disposition, are resigned to egocentric
selfhood and would not be happy with anything other than an intellectual
approach to religion which, being religiously once-bovaryized, is not
incompatible with an economic per se, such that usually takes the form of
private enterprise or, in a word, capitalism. Such persons normally oppose
socialism, but those who, for similar reasons, espouse socialism as the
alternative to capitalism are still well short of the requirements for a
metaphysical predilection or aspiration which, being religious, take their
primary cue from a sense of sin and of a desire for repentance on the part,
more especially, of the pseudo-physical pseudo-males whose guilt-ridden
yearning for redemption, especially within the confines of the Church, is their
saving grace and guarantor, long term, of hope in the possibility of a more
complete and permanent redemption such that could only transpire within the
supra-church context of what has been termed 'Kingdom Come', with its enhanced
sense of 'the Centre'.
I could never believe, even as a youth, in a
god that created woman, who, when superfeminine, is the metachemical opposite
of anything metaphysically godly and, when feminine, the chemical opposite of
anything physically manly. That, for me, was the start of my repudiation of the
Bible and of its account of Creation, never mind the ascription of the fulcra
of each of those elemental contexts, viz. power and glory respectively deriving
from will and spirit, to God in the so-called 'Lord's Prayer' attributes that
are in the one case absolutely and in the other relatively incompatible with
godliness, and with godliness, moreover, as a super-intellectual concomitant of
heavenly contentment in the metaphysical soul that, in comparison with the
physical ego, could never amount to other than a once-bovaryized order of form
in relation to that definitive emotional contentment which is the joyful
fulcrum of metaphysics.
Gender equality is a secular ideal that has no
place in religion, least of all in any religion which purports to be true and
therefore orientated, no matter how imperfectly or partially, towards
metaphysics and its gender-subordinate corollary in pseudo-metachemistry, the
necessary corollary of a metaphysical supremacy favouring males.
The underlying difference between adult males
and females, or in common parlance men and women, is that whereas the former
tend to be minds that also have bodies, the latter are more usually bodies that
also have minds. No small difference! Particularly when each gender is being
'true to itself' in either free mind and bound body (male), corresponding to my
habitual reference to free psyche/bound soma, or free body and bound mind
(female), corresponding to my habitual reference to free soma/bound psyche.
The alarming sensitivity of women to thought is
proof enough of just how different and therefore unequal the genders
actually are.
The secular decadence of gender equalitarianism
always leads, in any case, to female domination almost as a matter of course, since
women are by nature vacuously objectivistic, or outgoing, with little time or
inclination for reflection.
A reproductive need will always be at variance
if not loggerheads with a productive desire.
Heretical denominations compound their falsity
by allowing women to become so-called priests and take over the pulpit, to the
detriment of truth. Not that, if defined metaphysically, there would have been
that much of a predilection towards truth from such denominations anyway, since
their hegemonic polarities tend to be beauty and knowledge.
But even Catholic churches are host to
mixed-gender congregations, and therefore fail to meet the
gender-discriminatory requirements of true religion, which aims and by
definition can only aim at the liberation of males from female domination
through the practice, in religious contexts, of gender segregation. Catholicism
may be closer, in view of its axial predilections, to the truth than its
Protestant counterparts, but notwithstanding the fact that the masses tend to
remain bogged down in the Marian worship of strength, it is still some way from
actually being true, which seems to me to be the prerogative of 'Kingdom Come'
and a shift of focus, if not fulcrum, from the below to the above.
The 'fallen' neutronic male may be at the
centre of family life, with wife and children taking his surname and deferring
to his judgement in certain matters, but no truly protonic male could ever be
the centre of anything but himself, that is, his soul,
the sanctity of which he will be vigilant in guarding against external
encroachments.
That which is most evolved towards noumenal
subjectivity as opposed to least devolved from noumenal objectivity corresponds
to what is godly, and it can only, by going against the grain of female
objectivity, be male. Put another way, that which is most centred in the
absolute badgefulness (curvilinear), as it were, of noumenal subjectivity, as
opposed to least removed from the absolute ringfulness (rectilinear) of
noumenal objectivty, would correspond to what is godly, and the godly, which is
one with heaven, or centred in metaphysical self, can only be omega, never
alpha! It is not the First Doing (of will), but the Last Being (of soul). And
never will metaphysical heavenliness/godliness be more itself than when
antithetical to such cosmic manifestations of it as may exist in a coming
cyborgistic manifestation as much beyond , or posterior to, human
manifestations of godliness/heavenliness as the cosmic variety was behind, or
anterior to, its natural manifestations, as outlined by me in certain earlier
works.
A wavicle preponderance, such as characterizes
the proton and/or neutron bias of representative males (as opposed to the
unrepresentative pseudo-particle emphasis under female hegemonic pressure of
pseudo-males) ensures degrees of subjectivity, whether absolute (protonic) or
relative (neutronic), that cannot but be at the centre of objective attention,
such that derives from precisely the opposite tendency, namely a particle
predominance characteristic, by contrast, of the photon and/or electron bias of
representative females (as opposed to the unrepresentative pseudo-wavicle
emphasis under male hegemonic pressure of pseudo-females), who will dominate
and bind male subjectivity to a subordination to hegemonic female criteria
favouring particle objectivity or, failing that, risk being dominated and bound
by it in terms of pseudo-female subordination to hegemonic male criteria, be
those wavicle-oriented criteria religious or secular, ethereal or corporeal,
depending on the degree and type of wavicle subjectivity obtaining in the male
or males to which, somewhat like filings to a magnet, they become paradoxically
attracted. Attraction is, of course, a two-way thing. But, barring the
paradoxical attraction of mentally weak males (pseudo-males) to females and,
hence, to the dominion of bodily criteria, it seems to be a law of nature that
the attraction of particles to wavicles is greater than that of wavicles to
particles in view of the extent to which the one bias is objective and the
other subjective, so that it is the gender with the subjective bias that
becomes, by and by, the focus of much if not at least for a pre-maternal time
most female attraction, the centre drawing-in the periphery, as it were, as
that which, in one way or another (ego or soul) and to one degree or another
(relatively or absolutely), is self-centred, becomes, not least through
worship, the focus of other-oriented attraction. The man of truth, a
philosopher shall we say, is not disposed to being or becoming the man of
power, like a politician or ruler. For power and contentment, domination of
others and self-determination, are as alpha and omega, and it would be wrong,
morally and ethically wrong, for a champion of metaphysical truth, a
philosopher, to seek, through politics or science, power over others. Christ's
claim to have brought a sword
to cleave the faithless from the faithful, the
chaff from the wheat, as it were, doesn't sit well with metaphysical truth, and
we may believe that such a claim, if actually made, was simply rhetorical and
not expressive of a desire for political, much less martial, glory or, worse,
power. A certain type of power is all very well in the right hands, but the
best form of power, from a religious standpoint, will be that which, as
pseudo-power, is subordinate to contentment, as pseudo-science to religion or,
in narrowly parallel terms, pseudo-beauty to truth, the pseudo-free psychic
aspect (together with pseudo-love) of pseudo-metachemistry subordinated to the
free psychic aspect (together with joy) of metaphysics, in a 3:1
primary/secondary church-hegemonic psychic differential the corollary of the
1:3 secondary/primary (to correct past errors of parallel judgement)
state-subordinate somatic differential in which the actual representative
fulcra are pseudo-ugliness and joy, pseudo-bound will and free soul in a 3:3
somatic/psychic differential between pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother and Heaven
the Holy Soul, akin, in a manner of speaking, to the (neutralized) dragon and
hegemonic saint, a plane up from the former in time over pseudo-space, of
proverbial metaphorical usage. With pseudo-truth subordinate to beauty, on the
other hand, you have a situation where pseudo-religion is (understandably)
subordinate to science and, hence, the dominion of objectivity, not least
empirically, will accordingly be taken for granted in relation to the rule of
autocracy in what will be a society fundamentally so materialist as to be
without an idealist, never mind transcendentalist, dimension. In short, the
most basic form of civilization that, with a scientific/pseudo-religious basis,
will rule over an economic/pseudo-political polarity on patently
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms. From a philosophical
standpoint, true to metaphysics, I cannot endorse, much less identify with,
such a society, which is fundamentally opposed to metaphysics and, hence, to
the lead of a transcendentalist/idealist integrity commensurate with the
triumph of religious truth and of the hegemony of religion over what may be
called the pseudo-fundamentalism/pseudo-materialism of pseudo-science,
pseudo-power bowing before the throne of contentment, as before the leadership
of truth. Hitherto this religious/pseudo-scientific pairing has had to live in
a kind of uneasy co-existence with a political/pseudo-economic polarity that,
like the economic/pseudo-political one characterizing the state-hegemonic axis,
is of 'the world' in one of its two principal axial manifestations, as opposed
to being either netherworldly or otherworldly, metachemical or metaphysical.
But the time is surely approaching when the salvation of the pseudo-economic to
religion, the pseudo-physical to metaphysics, and the counter-damnation,
correlatively, of the political to pseudo-science, the chemical to
pseudo-metachemistry, will be conducted as never before
when 'the world'
mostly held and had every corporeal right to hold the balance of power if
not, exactly, the moral 'high ground' and notwithstanding the plutocratic
opposition to autocracy of the state-hegemonic axis the
religious/pseudo-scientific aspects of life were accordingly fated to remain
largely peripheral to it in consequence of their
otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly status. Should this situation ever be
modified by post-worldly criteria, then it is not inconceivable that 'world
overcoming', to use a Nietzschean expression, will not only be possible but
morally and ethnically desirable, with consequences that point to the
possibility of 'Kingdom Come' and thus of a society much more orientated
towards otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly criteria in religion and
pseudo-science, in theocracy and technocracy, as it were, than had ever been
possible or indeed feasible in the past, not excepting the medieval past of
the Roman Catholic Middle Ages (which was the high point of Western
civilization, the point preceding the switch of axis to state-hegemonic
criteria following the Reformation and its gradual slide towards secular
decadence and worse). If so, then contentment hegemonic over pseudo-power will
no longer be the prerogative of the Few (in monk/nun-like vein) but will become
the right of the Many, whether through salvation (from pseudo-physics to
metaphysics) or through counter-damnation (from chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry) on what would necessarily have to be a stepped-up, or
'resurrected', church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis under the aegis of
messianic enlightenment if not, at the end of the day, some form or degree of
messianic intervention such that will enable contentment to triumph over power
or, more correctly, the pseudo-power of the deferential and altogether
pseudo-scientifically subordinate caryatid-like supporters of true religion a
plane down, in pseudo-metachemistry, from the metaphysical hegemony
characterizing life at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
If there's one thing worse than an idiot, who
is bound to be human, it's a malfunctioning machine, like a computer, which
doesn't even know it is doing wrong or being a nuisance.
Let it not be said of him that he was too godly
for his own good lest, in his quest for inner sanity, he be judged insane by
the profane.
PART FIVE
Light, heat, motion, and force, corresponding
to the photon, the proton, the electron, and the neutron, with implications of
space, time, volume, and mass that contrast space with time in relation to the
noumenal antithesis between metachemical light and metaphysical heat on the one
hand, and volume with mass in relation to the phenomenal antithesis between
chemical motion and physical force on the other hand, notwithstanding the
'pseudo' forms of light, heat, motion, and force that take subordinate
positions as pseudo-elements to elements, with:-
1.
pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-heat unequivocally subordinate to metachemical light, as pseudo-time to
space;
2.
pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-light unequivocally subordinate to metaphysical heat, as pseudo-space to
time;
3.
pseudo-physical
pseudo-force equivocally subordinate to chemical motion, as pseudo-mass to
volume;
4.
pseudo-chemical
pseudo-motion equivocally subordinate to physical force, as pseudo-volume to
mass.
Equivalent to the above, to cite only the
fulcrum and pseudo-fulcrum of each context, would be:-
1.
The
unequivocal subordination of pseudo-soul to will at the northwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass on the apex of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
2.
The
unequivocal subordination of pseudo-will to soul at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass on the apex of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
3.
The
equivocal subordination of pseudo-ego to spirit at the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass on the base of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis.
4.
The
equivocal subordination of pseudo-spirit to ego at the southeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass on the base of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
1.
The power
of photons to create a spatial light; the contentment of protons to recreate a
repetitive heat; the glory of electrons to create a volumetric motion; the form
of neutrons to recreate a massive force.
2.
Conversely,
the pseudo-power of pseudo-photons to pseudo-create a spaced pseudo-light; to
pseudo-contentment of pseudo-protons to pseudo-recreate a sequential
pseudo-heat; the pseudo-glory of pseudo-electrons to pseudo-create a voluminous
pseudo-motion; the pseudo-form of pseudo-neutrons to pseudo-recreate a massed
pseudo-force.
1.
The power
of photons is hegemonic over the pseudo-contentment of pseudo-protons, as
spatial light over sequential pseudo-heat.
2.
The
contentment of protons is hegemonic over the pseudo-power of pseudo-photons as
repetitive time over spaced pseudo-light.
3.
The glory of
electrons is hegemonic over the pseudo-form of pseudo-neutrons, as volumetric
motion over massed pseudo-force.
4.
The force
of neutrons is hegemonic over the pseudo-glory of pseudo-electrons, as massive
force over voluminous pseudo-motion.
Power, contentment, glory, and form = space,
time, volume, and mass = light, heat, motion, and force = will, soul, spirit,
and ego = intention, emotion, instinct, and intellect = photons, protons,
electrons, and neutrons = devil, god, woman, and man = hell, heaven, purgatory,
and earth = doing, being, giving, and taking. The 'pseudo' out of 'anti' modes,
appertaining to pseudo-elements subordinate to elements, are as described
above; though it should not be forgotten that both elements (hegemonic) and
pseudo-elements (subordinate) are divisible between somatic and psychic,
particle and wavicle, sensual and sensible aspects on both noumenal and
phenomenal, absolute and relative terms, with a positive/negative distinction
between the free and the bound, whether soma or psyche (depending on gender)
and, correlatively, a pseudo-positive and pseudo-negative distinction between
the pseudo-free and the pseudo-bound, again whether in relation to soma or
psyche (according to gender). For the free is ever positive and bright, but the
bound ever negative and dark, or in shadow, on both genuine (hegemonic) and
'pseudo' (subordinate) gender terms.
It is not where you are born, but who you were
born from
that dictates not only your genetic make-up, but also your racial
or ethnic composition.
The Virgin and Child or, more accurately,
Mother and Child scenario of Christianity signifies a fait accompli of
chemistry over pseudo-physics, corresponding to electrons over pseudo-neutrons,
whereby spirit is hegemonic over pseudo-ego and the former is free to address
the latter in terms of speech, cooing, caressing, even recourse to tears, while
the child remains dependent on its mother for protection and sustenance. What
this does not reveal is the stage of female experience intermediate between
seduction and maternity that can only be identified with pregnancy, which has
nothing to do with chemical spirit but is, rather, symptomatic of a kind of
damnation from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry (on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis) that suggests and, indeed, confirms
varying degrees (coinciding with the stages of pregnancy) of pseudo-natural
neutralization of the female as pseudo-female under a temporary male hegemony
in physics, whose transformation from pseudo-metaphysical lover to physical
father-to-be would suggest a counter-salvation analogous to a counter-rise as
male corollary of the female's fall (in damnation) from metachemistry to
pseudo-chemistry. But such a pseudo-natural order of neutralization vis-a-vis a
realistic hegemony in bound soma conditioned by a humanistic preponderance of
free psyche in physics is, alas for the physical male, all too temporary, since
confined to the later stages of pregnancy, and it will not be long before,
following birth, the pseudo-chemical pseudo-spirituality of the pseudo-female
under a physically egocentric hegemony on the male's part, analogous to
voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) a plane down from massive mass (or mass per
se), is superseded, with cross-axial transference, by the aforementioned
chemical hegemony over the pseudo-physical dependency of the pseudo-egocentric
child upon the spirited mother who, operating through maternal instinct on the
plane of volumetric volume (or volume per se) over massed mass (pseudo-mass),
is then and only then in the mainstream worldly position to which the
Christian iconography of Mother and Child alludes, a position at once
purgatorial and pseudo-earthly in terms of the respective gender, or familial,
standings. Of course, such a slide from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry,
seduction to pregnancy, and then, following childbirth, a cross-axial
transference to chemistry might be the lot of the average female, but it would
not and did not appeal to theologians to ascribe such a fate to Mary, the so-called
'Mother of God', and therefore the fait accompli, as I described it, of the
Virgin and Child having no prior relationship with the female poles of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, viz. metachemistry and
pseudo-chemistry, seduction and pregnancy, is a taken-for-granted aspect of
Catholic theology, which necessarily has to ascribe miraculous powers to Mary,
notwithstanding providential intervention on the part of the so-called Father
or attenuated Creator, commensurate with the 'Virgin birth', that ensure she
remains recognizably church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, and on hegemonic
terms, moreover, vis-a-vis the so-called Christ Child. Consequently, in
relation to this, the notion of 'Mother Church' is not without theological
significance, even if it still leaves something to be desired from the
standpoint of salvation from 'the world' (of chemistry/pseudo-physics) to the
otherworldly benefits of metaphysics, as traditionally represented by a Christ
'On High', whose mother, far from now being hegemonic over him, is then prone
if not prostate at the foot of the 'True Cross' (meaning non-materialistically
the one upon which, in Roman Catholic vein, the arms of the Crucified stretch
upward towards what I hold to be a Y-chromosomal intimation of male psychic
freedom) in a manner suggestive of a pseudo-metachemical subordination to a
metaphysical (no matter how limited to and by the bound soma of the
crucifixional paradigm) hegemony and, hence, to the 'Son of God'. Whereas the
fate of any chemical hegemony over pseudo-physics, whether Marian or otherwise,
can only be counter-damnation (up the axis on a southwest-to-northeast tangent)
to pseudo-metachemistry, as to the Easter-time prone Virgin at the foot of the
Cross, with a reversal of gender positions which ensures that the feminine
female hegemony over pseudo-male pseudo-masculinity below will be superseded by
a supermasculine or, more correctly (in relation to the limitations of bound
metaphysical soma), a subfeminine nominally male hegemony over pseudo-female
pseudo-superfemininity above, corresponding less to a 'Risen Virgin' than to a
counter-fallen (counter-damned) pseudo-Virgin whose actual status is akin to
pseudo-Devil-the-pseudo-Mother (of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma) under
a 'Son of God' (of metaphysical bound soma) in a kind of double darkness
symbolic of the Christian tragedy. For there can be no brightness here, neither
in the one context nor in the other, because the absence of metaphysical free
psyche primarily commensurate with the super-emotionality of Heaven the Holy
Soul (and only secondarily with the once-bovaryized ego, or super-intellectual
mind, of God the Father-proper) ensures that the bright side of metaphysics,
corresponding to superconscious supermasculinity, remains above and beyond the
Christian pale by dint of the extent to which the Judaic roots of Christianity
in Devil the Mother hyped as God the Creator (whether one calls this Jehovah or
the Father, depending on one's ethnic bias) precludes all but a truncated
metaphysics from existing, simultaneously ensuring that the sub-intentional
'Son of God' coupled, in secondary bound somatic vein, to the sub-instinctual
'Holy Spirit of Heaven' remain as far as things go metaphysically, with a
consequence that pseudo-metachemistry is itself compromised by a want of
pseudo-submasculine pseudo-free psyche in relation to the supermasculine
absence of metaphysical free psyche, so that it is, in a sense, doubly 'pseudo'
and, with a pseudo-bound somatic emphasis upon the pseudo-superfemininity of
pseudo-Devil-the-pseudo-Mother coupled (in secondary pseudo-bound somatic vein)
to pseudo-Hell-the-Unclear-Spirit, is no more than a pseudo-ugly/pseudo-hateful
corollary of the illusion/woe typifying metaphysical bound soma in each of its
(bound sub-will and bound sub-spirit) subfeminine manifestations, with the
properly church-hegemonic attributes of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love
(corresponding to pseudo-free sub-ego and pseudo-free sub-soul) in
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche, and truth and joy (corresponding to
free super-ego and free super-soul) in metaphysical free psyche lying somewhere
beyond the pale of what Catholic Christianity is in a position to allow, given
the continuing and effectively dominating parts being played by the beauty and
love (in free super-will and free super-spirit) of metachemical free soma on
the one hand and, subordinately, the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy (in
pseudo-free sub-will and pseudo-free sub-spirit) of pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-free soma on the other hand - the former attributes effectively
superfeminine and the latter pseudo-subfeminine. That is why, from the
standpoint of metaphysics, Catholicism is a failure and why, if a full
complement of metaphysics and a properly deferential pseudo-metachemistry (no
longer susceptible to subsuming the subfeminine bound soma of metaphysics into
its own pseudo-superfeminine pseudo-bound soma 'Sacred Heart'-wise, with intent
to deferring, in trianglular vein, to the rule of metachemistry over
pseudo-metaphysics in back) is to be forthcoming or at all possible, both
metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics will have to be repudiated, and not simply
on a personal, individual basis but officially, as though by society in general
following what I would advocate as the utilization of the democratic process in
certain countries (especially those with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial traditions) to a religiously sovereign end, an end commensurate with
liberation from traditional religious adherence to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics,
and with a repudiation, in consequence, of all things Christian, including, not
least, the Church itself for historically having had to go along with the
best-of-a-bad-jobism, so to speak, of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father
and accordingly precluded, in Judeo-Christian vein, the possibility of
metaphysical, coupled to pseudo-metachemical, independence such that, at a
broadly humanistic stage of religious evolution above but not beyond
Catholicism, takes or can take the form of transcendental meditation and/or
yoga, but at the superhumanistic and even cyborgistic stage to which we are
alluding would require synthetically artificial means for achieving a fully
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical end. For as long as conventional religion,
state religion in the profoundest and most obvious sense, persists in existing,
metaphysics will continue, in merely straining on a kind of church-hegemonic
leash, to be short-changed, as it were, and the power of metachemistry above
and the glory of chemistry below will, in alpha-stemming fashion, continue to
hog the religious limelight at the expense not just of the form of physics,
which does and can still exist to a certain extent, if in axial polarity to
metachemical power, but, most especially, of the contentment of metaphysics, as
of that which, lying beyond the bound somatic limitations of the crucifixional
paradigm, is truly heavenly and godly in the super-emotionality and
super-intellectuality of metaphysical free psyche, since beyond the pale of a
world dominated by the super-intentionality and super-instinctuality of
metachemical free soma or, in my religious terminology, Devil the Mother and
Hell the Clear Spirit, corresponding to beauty and love, with no place, in
consequence, for Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father proper, corresponding
to the aforementioned joy and truth of metaphysical free psyche. Now how
religiously false is that?
There is a sense in which painters are the
Devil's artists, and never more so than when portraying metachemical power via
the aesthetics of beauty. Traditionally, the Arts have been dominated,
certainly in the West, by art (from which the term derives), as society has
been dominated by the powerful, whose 'God', having to do with a Creator-esque
'First Mover', is omnipotent and, hence, 'almighty', in stark contrast to the
powerless 'God' (which some, deferring to the Father, would only regard as the
'Son of God') nailed to the Cross, whom artists have often depicted from a
bovaryized artistic standpoint likely closer to pseudo-metachemistry than to
metachemistry, and hence, fittingly I believe, with a degree of ugliness
eclipsing the beauty proper to art
as the Devil's art form par excellence.
But if art, not least in relation to Western painting, approximates, when
metachemically genuine, to beauty, as to 'the Beautiful', then it must be said
that sculpture approximates, when chemically genuine, to strength, if not to
the chemical fulcrum of pride, and is therefore less superfeminine than
feminine in character, since the art form of woman as opposed to the Devil, and
therefore at axial variance, even to an antithetical extent, with literature as
the art form par excellence of man, given less, especially in prose (its
representative manifestation), to the glory of strength than to the form of
knowledge, in which the ego is granted free rein to massively prevail, by
taking cognizance of rightful man's place in the world. But much as I prefer
literature to sculpture, it does not and cannot achieve the contentment of
truth, which is joy, and which only the finest, most representative music can
conjure, as if from the air, and in the right compositional hands bring us
closer to the composure of heaven. For if painters tend to be the Devil's
artists, expressing spatial light, then composers and musicians, when true, are
surely God's artists, to utilize parallel if antithetical terms, with a
commitment, one might say, to repetitive heat. Now although, like art, music
can be bovaryized, even to a quasi-metachemical extent, the best of it, by
which I mean that which most closely approximates to metaphysics, and hence to
an impression of repetitive heat, will stand closest to truth and thus provide
the only convincingly reliable guide, notwithstanding the role of philosophy as
a mode of literary bovaryization, to what is true and exactly why it is so. Not
simply because it reflects godliness, but because godliness is itself a
reflection of Heaven, and there is no Heaven outside the joy of metaphysical
soul, of soul per se, which music has the ability to conjure, on occasion, from
the depths, the centre, of the Self.
PART SIX
1.
The
physical ego of the intellectual mind, the once-bovaryized metaphysical ego of
the superintellectual mind, the twice-bovaryized metachemical ego of the
subintellectual mind, and the thrice-bovaryized chemical ego of the
unintellectual mind, as we regress from free intellectual psyche in phenomenal
and noumenal subjectivity (intellectual conscious and intellectual
superconscious) to bound intellectual psyche in noumenal and phenomenal
objectivity (intellectual subconscious and intellectual unconscious).
2.
The
metaphysical soul of the superemotional mind, the once-bovaryized physical soul
of the emotional mind, the twice-bovaryized chemical soul of the unemotional
mind, the thrice-bovaryized metachemical soul of the subemotional mind, as we
regress from free emotional psyche in noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity
(emotional superconscious and emotional conscious) to bound emotional mind in
phenomenal and noumenal objectivity (emotional unconscious and emotional
subconscious).
3.
The
chemical spirit of the instinctual body, the once-bovaryized metachemical
spirit of the superinstinctual body, the twice-bovaryized metaphysical spirit
of the subinstinctual body, the thrice-bovaryized physical spirit of the
uninstinctual body, as we regress from free instinctual soma in phenomenal and
noumenal objectivity (instinctual sensuous and instinctual supersensuous) to
bound instinctual soma in noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity (instinctual
subsensuous and instinctual unsensuous).
4.
The
metachemical will of the superintentional body, the chemical will of the
intentional body, the physical will of the unintentional body, the metaphysical
will of the subintentional body, as we regress from free intentional soma in
noumenal and phenomenal objectivity (intentional supersensuous and intentional
sensuous) to the bound intentional soma in phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity
(intentional unsensuous and intentional subsensuous).
1.
To regress
from the knowledge of the intellectual ego to the weakness of the
unintellectual ego via the truth of the superintellectual ego and the ugliness
of the subintellectual ego, as from the free psyche in primary consciousness
and secondary superconsciousness of physics and metaphysics to the bound psyche
in primary subconsciousness and secondary unconsciousness of metachemistry and
chemistry.
2.
To regress
from the joy of the superemotional soul to the hate of the subemotional soul
via the pleasure of the emotional soul and the humility (if not humiliation) of
the unemotional soul, as from the free psyche in primary superconsciousness and
secondary consciousness of metaphysics and physics to the bound psyche in
primary unconsciousness and secondary subconsciousness of chemistry and
metachemistry.
3.
To regress
from the pride of the instinctual spirit to the pain of the uninstinctual
spirit via the love of the superinstinctual spirit and the woe of the
subinstinctual spirit, as from the free soma in primary sensuousness and
secondary supersensuousness of chemistry and metachemistry to the bound soma in
primary subsensuousness and secondary unsensuousness of metaphysics and
physics.
4.
To regress
from the beauty of the superintentional will to the illusion of the
subintentional will via the strength of the intentional will and the ignorance
of the unintentional will, as from the free soma in primary supersensuousness
and secondary sensuousness of metachemistry and chemistry to the bound soma in
primary unsensuousness and secondary subsensuousness of physics and
metaphysics.
Will and spirit are always free (in primary
soma) on the female side of the gender divide and bound (in secondary soma) on
its male side, whereas ego and soul are always free (in primary psyche) on the
male side of the gender divide but bound (in secondary psyche) on its female
side at least in terms of the hegemonic elements of metachemistry and
chemistry on the one hand, and physics and metaphysics on the other. The
pseudo-elemental positions, ever subordinate to the hegemonic elements, tend to
reflect the elemental hegemonies on reverse ratio terms within pseudo-free and
pseudo-bound contexts in which the attributes, being 'pseudo', exist in
contrary positions to their exact elemental counterparts in the sense that what
is positive in free soma becomes pseudo-positive in pseudo-free psyche and,
conversely, what is negative in bound psyche becomes pseudo-negative in
pseudo-bound soma where the transpositions from metachemistry and chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry are concerned, in contrast to what is
positive in free psyche becoming pseudo-positive in pseudo-free soma and,
conversely, what is negative in bound soma becoming pseudo-negative in
pseudo-bound psyche where the transpositions from physics and metaphysics to
pseudo-physics and pseudo-metaphysics are concerned.
1.
Hence the
pairing of metachemical free soma and bound psyche in supersensuousness and
subconsciousness with pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound
psyche in pseudo-subsensuousness and pseudo-superconsciousness in a 3:1 free
primary body to bound secondary mind vis-a-vis a 1:3 pseudo-free secondary body
to pseudo-bound primary mind ratio differential between the hegemonic photonic
element and the subordinate pseudo-protonic pseudo-element.
2.
Hence the
pairing of chemical free soma and bound psyche in sensuousness and
unconsciousness with pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche
in pseudo-unsensuousness and pseudo-consciousness in a 2½:1½ free primary body
to bound secondary mind vis-a-vis a 1½:2½ pseudo-free secondary body to
pseudo-bound primary mind ratio differential between the hegemonic electronic
element and the subordinate pseudo-neutronic pseudo-element.
3.
Hence the
pairing of physical free psyche and bound soma in consciousness and
unsensuousness with pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound soma in
pseudo-unconsciousness and pseudo-sensuousness in a 2½:1½ free primary mind to
bound secondary body vis-a-vis a 1½:2½ pseudo-free secondary mind to
pseudo-bound primary body ratio differential between the hegemonic neutronic
element and the subordinate pseudo-eletronic pseudo-element.
4.
Hence the
pairing of metaphysical free psyche and bound soma in superconsciousness and
subsensuousness with pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound
soma in pseudo-subconsciousness and pseudo-supersensuousness in a 3:1 free
primary mind to bound secondary body via-a-vis a 1:3 pseudo-free secondary mind
to pseudo-bound primary body ratio differential between the hegemonic protonic
element and the subordinate pseudo-photonic pseudo-element.
1.
The pairing
of photonic elements with pseudo-protonic pseudo-elements is equivalent to the
hegemony of space over pseudo-time, or spatial space over sequential time at
the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the apex of
the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
2.
The pairing
of electronic elements with pseudo-neutronic pseudo-elements is equivalent to
the hegemony of volume over pseudo-mass, or volumetric volume over massed mass
at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the base
of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
3.
The pairing
of neutronic elements with pseudo-electronic pseudo-elements is equivalent to
the hegemony of mass over pseudo-volume, or massive mass over voluminous volume
at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the base
of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
4.
The pairing
of protonic elements with pseudo-photonic pseudo-elements is equivalent to the
hegemony of time over pseudo-space, or repetitive time over spaced space at the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the apex of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
1.
Hence the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis affords us a primary polarity between
photonic space and pseudo-electronic pseudo-volume coupled to a secondary
polarity between pseudo-protonic pseudo-time and neutronic mass the former
polarity of overall female character in relation to the primary concrete
particles and secondary abstract wavicles of noumenal objectivity and
phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, and the latter polarity of overall male character
in relation to the primary abstract wavicles and secondary concrete particles
of noumenal pseudo-subjectivity and phenomenal subjectivity.
2.
Hence the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis affords us a primary polarity between
protonic time and pseudo-neutronic pseudo-mass coupled to a secondary polarity
between pseudo-photonic pseudo-space and electronic volume the former
polarity of male character in relation to the primary abstract wavicles and
secondary concrete particles of noumenal subjectivity and phenomenal
pseudo-subjectivity, and the latter polarity of overall female character in
relation to the primary concrete particles and secondary abstract wavicles of
noumenal pseudo-objectivity and phenomenal objectivity.
1.
Just as I
distinguish between the supersensuous and the subconscious in metachemistry,
with a 3:1 ratio differential of free soma to bound psyche, so one could
alternatively regard such a distinction as being between supersensuality and
subsensibility, since this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio
bias of soma to psyche but would also suggest a parallel with superfemininity
vis-a-vis submasculinity, the superparticle supernaturalism of a superconcrete
freedom in state-hegemonic materialism via-a-vis what could be termed the
subwavicle subnurturalism of a subabstract binding in church-subordinate
fundamentalism, the former primary and the latter secondary.
2.
Likewise,
if on contrary noumenal axial terms, just as I distinguish between the
superconscious and the subsensuous in metaphysics, with a 3:1 ratio
differential of free psyche to bound soma, so one could alternatively regard
such a distinction as being between supersensibility and subsensuality, since
this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of psyche to soma
but would also suggest a parallel with supermasculinity vis-a-vis
subfemininity, the superwavicle supernurturalism of a superabstract freedom in
church-hegemonic transcendentalism vis-a-vis what could be termed the
subparticle subnaturalism of a subconcrete binding in state-subordinate
idealism, the former primary and the latter secondary.
3.
Dropping
from the noumenal planes of space and time in metachemistry and metaphysics to
the phenomenal planes of volume and mass in chemistry and physics, as from
ethereal absolutism to corporeal relativity, it could be argued that just as I
distinguish between the sensuous and the unconscious in chemistry, with a 2½:1½
ratio differential of free soma to bound psyche, so one could alternatively
regard such a distinction as being between sensuality and unsensibility, since
this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of soma to psyche
but would also suggest a parallel with femininity vis-a-vis unmasculinity, the
particle naturalism of a concrete freedom in state-subordinate naturalism
vis-a-vis what could be termed the unwavicle unnurturalism of an unabstract
binding in church-hegemonic pantheism, the former primary and the latter
secondary.
4.
Similarly,
if on contrary phenomenal axial terms, just as I distinguish between the
conscious and the unsensuous in physics, with a 2½:1½ ratio differential of
free psyche to bound soma, so one could alternatively regard such a distinction
as being between sensibility and unsensuality, since this would not only accord
with the aforementioned ratio bias of psyche to soma but would also suggest a
parallel with masculinity vis-a-vis unfemininity, the wavicle nurturalism of an
abstract freedom in church-subordinate humanism vis-a-vis what could be termed
the unparticle unnaturalism of a unconcrete binding in state-hegemonic realism,
the former primary and the latter secondary.
1.
As for the
pseudo-elements a plane down, in each class case (pseudo-noumenal and/or
pseudo-phenomenal) from the hegemonic elements, one should distinguish between
the pseudo-subsensuous and the pseudo-superconscious of pseudo-metaphysics,
with a 1:3 ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche, which
could alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-subsensuality
and pseudo-supersensibility, thereby suggesting a parallel with
pseudo-subfemininity and pseudo-supermasculinity, the pseudo-subparticle
pseudo-subnaturalism of a pseudo-subconcrete pseudo-freedom in state-hegemonic
pseudo-idealism juxtaposed with what could be termed the pseudo-superwavicle
pseudo-supernurturalism of a pseudo-superabstract pseudo-binding in
church-subordinate pseudo-transcendentalism, the former secondary and the
latter primary.
2.
Likewise,
if on contrary pseudo-noumenal axial terms, one could distinguish between the
pseudo-subconscious and the pseudo-supersensuous, with a 1:3 axial differential
of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma, which could alternatively be
regarded as a distinction between pseudo-subsensibility and pseudo-supersensuality,
the pseudo-subwavicle pseudo-subnurturalism of a pseudo-subabstract
pseudo-freedom in church-hegemonic pseudo-fundamentalism juxtaposed with what
could be termed the pseudo-superparticle pseudo-supernaturalism of a
pseudo-superconcrete pseudo-binding in state-subordinate pseudo-materialism,
the former secondary and the latter primary.
3.
Dropping
from the pseudo-noumenal planes of pseudo-time and pseudo-space in
pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry to the pseudo-phenomenal planes of
pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume in pseudo-physics and pseudo-chemistry, one
should distinguish between the pseudo-unsensuous and the pseudo-conscious in
pseudo-physics, with a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to
pseudo-bound psyche, which could alternatively be regarded as a distinction
between pseudo-unsensuality and pseudo-sensibility, the pseudo-unparticle
pseudo-unnaturalism of a pseudo-unconcrete pseudo-freedom in state-subordinate
pseudo-realism juxtaposed with what could be termed the pseudo-wavicle
pseudo-nurtualism of a pseudo-abstract pseudo-binding in church-hegemonic
pseudo-humanism, the former secondary and the latter primary.
4.
Similarly,
on contrary pseudo-phenomenal axial terms, one should distinguish between the
pseudo-unconscious and pseudo-sensuous in pseudo-chemistry, with a 1½:2½ ratio
differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma, which could
alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-unsensibility and
pseudo-sensuality, the pseudo-unwavicle pseudo-unnurturalism of a
pseudo-unabstract pseudo-freedom in church-subordinate pseudo-pantheism
juxtaposed with what could be termed the pseudo-particle pseudo-naturalism of a
pseudo-concrete pseudo-binding in state-hegemonic pseudo-naturalism, the former
secondary and the latter primary.
PART SEVEN
The primary mind, to change the subject, is no
more attracted to the primary body than the primary body to the primary mind,
since that would amount to a contradiction in terms. What happens is that the
secondary body (bound) is attracted by the primary body (free) when the primary
mind (free) is insufficiently developed as to serve as an attractive
proposition for the secondary mind (bound). But if it is, then the secondary
mind (bound) will be drawn towards the primary mind (free) and you will have a
situation whereby, in effect, females will be subordinate to males as
pseudo-females in either pseudo-chemistry to physics or pseudo-metachemistry to
metaphysics, as the class and/or axial case may be. Otherwise you will get the
converse of this situation in which, through the attraction of secondary bodies
(bound) to primary bodies (free), males will become subordinate to females as
pseudo-males in either pseudo-physics to chemistry or pseudo-metaphysics to
metachemistry, depending on the class and/or axial case. But neither situation
is necessarily permanent, least of all the lower-order axial contexts of
phenomenal relativity, where the subordination of pseudo-males to females in
one context will be superseded by the subordination of pseudo-females to males
in another, as the genders exchange roles to greater or lesser extents,
depending on the individuals and their actual circumstances at the time,
divided, as they usually are, between professional and leisure engagements.
However, in the upper-order axial contexts of noumenal absolutism, a primary
mind (free) will not usually be attracted by a primary body (free), since the
one kind of freedom tends to exclude the other, like the Devil excluding God or
God excluding the Devil. This explains why certain great minds, especially when
philosophical or religious, tend to lead celibate if not solitary lives, since
too wrapped up in their own mental primacy to be much disposed to the bodily
primacy of those who would seduce them from it for purposes at variance, even
to an antithetical degree, with their own.
Sleep is doubtless the mind's most potent drug,
since it acts like a sedative and causes parts of the mind to behave in a
well-nigh hallucinatory manner through dreams and nightmares and even visionary
experience. Did we not spend so much time asleep it is doubtful that we would
be as indifferent if not hostile to narcotic drugs as we generally are; though
I fancy that some substance-based chemical alternative to sleep would more
appeal to insomniacs than to regular sleepers, who have probably had their fill
of visionary if not hallucinatory experience by the time they wake up and leave
the world of dreams behind them for the greater part of each day.
1.
Metaphysics,
that noumenally subjective element of representative soul, once-bovaryized ego,
twice-bovaryized spirit, and thrice-bovaryized will, regressing from
superemotionality to subintentionality via superintellectuality and
subinstinctuality, as from the superbeing and supertaking of superconscious
free psyche to the subgiving and subdoing of subsensuous bound soma.
2.
Metachemistry,
that noumenally objective element of representative will, once-bovaryized
spirit, twice-bovaryized ego, and thrice-bovaryized soul, regressing from
superintentionality to subemotionality via superinstinctuality and
subintellectuality, as from the superdoing and supergiving of supersensuous
free soma to the subtaking and sub-being of subsensuous bound psyche.
3.
Chemistry,
that phenomenally objective element of representative spirit, once-bovaryized
will, twice-bovaryized soul, and thrice-bovaryized ego, regressing from
instinctuality to unintellectuality via intentionality and unemotionality, as
from the giving and doing of sensuous free soma to the untaking and unbeing of
unconscious bound psyche.
4.
Physics,
that phenomenally objective element of representative ego, once-bovaryized
soul, twice-bovaryized will, and thrice-bovaryized spirit, regressing from
intellectuality to uninstinctuality via emotionality and unintentionality, as
from the taking and being of conscious free psyche to the undoing and ungiving
of unsensuous bound soma.
1.
Pseudo-metaphysics,
that pseudo-noumenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-element of pseudo-representative
pseudo-soul, once-bovaryized pseudo-ego, twice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit, and
thrice-bovaryized pseudo-will, pseudo-regressing from pseudo-superemotionality
to pseudo-superintentionality via pseudo-superintellectuality and
pseudo-superinstinctuality, as from the pseudo-superbeing and
pseudo-supertaking of pseudo-superconscious pseudo-bound psyche to the
pseudo-subgiving and pseudo-subdoing of pseudo-subsensuous pseudo-free soma.
2.
Pseudo-metachemistry,
that pseudo-noumenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element of pseudo-representative
pseudo-superwill, once-bovaryized pseudo-superspirit, twice-bovaryized
pseudo-subego and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-subsoul, pseudo-regressing from
pseudo-superintentionality to pseudo-subemotionality via
pseudo-superinstinctuality and pseudo-subintellectuality, as from the
pseudo-superdoing and pseudo-supergiving of pseudo-supersensuous pseudo-bound
soma to the pseudo-subintellectuality and pseudo-subemotionality of
pseudo-subconscious pseudo-free psyche.
3.
Pseudo-chemistry,
that pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element of
pseudo-representative pseudo-spirit, once-bovaryized pseudo-will,
twice-bovaryized pseudo-soul, and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-ego, regressing from
pseudo-uninstinctuality to pseudo-intellectuality via pseudo-unintentionality
and pseudo-emotionality, as from the pseudo-ungiving and pseudo-undoing of
pseudo-unsensuous pseudo-bound soma to the pseudo-being and pseudo-taking of
pseudo-conscious pseudo-free psyche.
4.
Pseudo-physics,
that pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-element of
pseudo-representative pseudo-ego, once-bovaryized pseudo-soul, twice-bovaryized
pseudo-will and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit, regressing from
pseudo-unintellectuality to pseudo-instinctuality via pseudo-unemotionality and
pseudo-intentionality, as from the pseudo-untaking and pseudo-unbeing of
pseudo-unconscious pseudo-bound psyche to the pseudo-doing and pseudo-giving of
pseudo-sensuous pseudo-free soma.
Of course, it would be mistaken to suppose or
conclude from the above that elements and pseudo-elements exist in some kind of
splendid isolation from other elements and pseudo-elements, because they are
only the starting point for atoms and molecules and the constituents of matter,
including what goes into the making of human beings, in general. In all the
above examples, the bovaryized attributes of the prevailing elements or
pseudo-elements imply some other elemental or pseudo-elemental bovaryization
that, together, combine to form the atom or pseudo-atom which has the
properties described.
1.
Therefore
one should conceive of a metaphysical atom as being comprised of a protonic
soul, but a once-bovaryized neutronic ego, a twice-bovaryized electronic
spirit, and a thrice-bovaryized photonic will which would be replicated in
molecules adding up to something approximating a metaphysical bias for free
psyche and bound soma in any given noumenally subjective male, whom one can
only presume partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most protons, more
(compared to most) neutrons, less (compared to least) electrons, and least
photons, the subatomic preconditions of joy and truth on the positive side and
woe and illusion on the negative side of what is customarily described as a 3:1
ratio differential of free psyche to bound soma in respect, most especially, of
the absolute elements of protons and photons.
2.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a metachemical atom as being comprised of a photonic
will, but a once-bovaryized electronic spirit, a twice-bovaryized neutronic
ego, and a thrice-bovaryized protonic soul which would be replicated in
molecules adding up to something approximating a metachemical bias for free
soma and bound psyche in any given noumenally objective female, whom one can
only presume partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most photons, more
(compared to most) electrons, less (compared to least) neutrons, and least
protons, the subatomic preconditions of beauty and love on the positive side
and ugliness and hatred on the negative side of what is customarily described
as a 3:1 ratio differential of free soma to bound psyche in respect, most
especially, of the absolute elements of photons and protons.
3.
Similarly,
in dropping from noumenal to phenomenal planes, one should conceive of a chemical
atom as being comprised of an electronic spirit, but a once-bovaryized photonic
will, a twice-bovaryized protonic soul, and a thrice-bovaryized neutronic ego
which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something approximating a
chemical bias for free soma and bound psyche in any given phenomenally
objective female, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic integrity
comprised of most electrons, more (compared to most) photons, less (compared to
least) protons, and least neutrons, the subatomic preconditions of pride and
strength on the positive side and humility and weakness on the negative side of
what is customarily described as a 2½:1½ ratio differential of free soma to
bound psyche in respect, more especially, of the relative elements of electrons
and neutrons.
4.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a physical atom as being comprised of a neutronic ego,
but a once-bovaryized protonic soul, a twice-bovaryized photonic will, and a
thrice-bovaryized electronic spirit which would be replicated in molecules
adding up to something approximating a physical bias for free psyche and bound
soma in any given phenomenally subjective male, whom one can only presume
partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most neutrons, more (compared to
most) protons, less (compared to least) photons, and least electrons, the
subatomic preconditions of knowledge and pleasure on the positive side and
ignorance and pain on the negative side of what is customarily described as a
2½:1½ ratio differential of free psyche to bound soma in respect, more
especially, of the relative elements of neutrons and electrons.
1.
Turning to
the pseudo-elements, which are subordinate to the elements, one should conceive
of a pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a pseudo-protonic
pseudo-soul, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, a
twice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, and a thrice-bovaryized
pseudo-photonic pseudo-will which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules
adding up to something approximating a pseudo-metaphysical bias for
pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma in any given pseudo-noumenally
pseudo-subjective pseudo-male, whom one can only presume partial to a
pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-protons, more (compared to most)
pseudo-neutrons, less (compared to least) pseudo-electrons, and least
pseudo-photons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-joy and
pseudo-truth on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-woe and pseudo-illusion on
the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1:3 ratio
differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche in respect, most
especially, of the absolute pseudo-elements of pseudo-photons and
pseudo-protons existing under metachemical hegemonic pressure.
2.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom as being comprised of
a pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-electronic
pseudo-spirit, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, and a
thrice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul which would be replicated in
pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a pseudo-metachemical
bias for pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche in any given
pseudo-noumenally pseudo-objective pseudo-female, whom one can only presume
partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-photons, more
(compared to most) pseudo-electrons, less (compared to least) pseudo-neutrons,
and least pseudo-protons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-beauty
and pseudo-love on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-ugliness and
pseudo-hatred on the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1:3
ratio differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma in respect, most
especially, of the absolute pseudo-elements of pseudo-protons and
pseudo-photons existing under metaphysical hegemonic pressure.
3.
Similarly,
in dropping from pseudo-noumenal to pseudo-phenomenal planes, one should
conceive of a pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a
pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-photonic
pseudo-will, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, and a
thrice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego which would be replicated in
pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a pseudo-chemical bias
for pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche in any given pseudo-phenomenally
pseudo-objective pseudo-female, whom one can only presume partial to a
pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-electrons, more (compared to
most) pseudo-photons, less (compared to least) pseudo-protons, and least
pseudo-neutrons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-pride and
pseudo-strength on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-humility and
pseudo-weakness on the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1½:2½
ratio differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma in respect, more
especially, of the relative pseudo-elements of pseudo-neutrons and
pseudo-electrons existing under physical hegemonic pressure.
4.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a pseudo-physical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a
pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul,
a twice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, and a thrice-bovaryized
pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules
adding up to something approximating a pseudo-physical bias for pseudo-bound
psyche and pseudo-free soma in any given pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-subjective
pseudo-male, whom one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity comprised
of most pseudo-neutrons, more (compared to most) pseudo-protons, less (compared
to least) pseudo-photons, and least pseudo-electrons, the pseudo-subatomic
preconditions of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure on the pseudo-positive
side and pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain on the pseudo-negative side of what
has to be described as a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to
pseudo-bound psyche in respect, more especially, of the relative
pseudo-elements of pseudo-electrons and pseudo-neutrons existing under chemical
hegemonic pressure.
PART EIGHT
1.
In overall
subatomic terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis offers us a
polarity between representative photons and pseudo-representative
pseudo-electrons, in metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, on its female side,
and one between pseudo-representative pseudo-protons and representative
neutrons, in pseudo-metaphysics and physics, on its male side.
2.
By axial
contrast, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis offers us a polarity
between representative protons and pseudo-representative neutrons, in
metaphysics and pseudo-physics, on its male side, and one between
pseudo-representative pseudo-photons and representative electrons, in
pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry, on its female side.
1.
The
polarity between metachemical photons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons is
primary and that between pseudo-metaphsyical pseudo-protons and physical
neutrons secondary in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
2.
The
polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons is
primary and that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-photons and chemical
electrons secondary on overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.
3.
More
specifically, the polarity between metachemical photons and pseudo-chemical
pseudo-electrons is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic, whereas that
between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-protons and physical neutrons is
pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate.
4.
Likewise
the polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons
is primary and pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-photons and chemical electrons is pseudo-primary and
primary state subordinate.
1.
In terms of
the once-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between
metachemical electrons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-photons is primary and
pseudo-primary state hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-neutrons and physical protons is pseudo-primary and primary church
subordinate.
2.
Likewise
the once-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between
metaphysical neutrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-protons is primary and
pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-electrons and chemical photons is pseudo-primary and primary state
subordinate.
1.
In terms of
the twice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between
metachemical neutrons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-protons is secondary and pseudo-secondary
church subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-electrons
and physical photons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state-hegemonic.
2.
Likewise,
the twice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between
metaphysical electrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-photons is secondary and
pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-neutrons and chemical protons is pseudo-secondary and secondary church
hegemonic.
1.
In terms of
the thrice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between
metachemical protons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-neutrons is secondary and
pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-photons and physical electrons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state
hegemonic.
2.
Likewise,
the thrice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between
metaphysical photons and pseudo-physical pseudo-electrons is secondary and
pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-protons and chemical neutrons is pseudo-secondary and secondary church
hegemonic.
In overall axial terms, one finds that the
primary and pseudo-primary polarities are positive and pseudo-positive, whereas
their secondary and pseudo-secondary counterparts are negative and
pseudo-negative, which is to say, bound and pseudo-bound as opposed to free or
pseudo-free, whether in relation to the state or to the church.
1.
On the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the
southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, the overall female
(divisible between hegemonic noumenal objective and subordinate
pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objective) side of the gender divide is primary and
pseudo-primary state hegemonic but secondary and pseudo-secondary church
subordinate, whereas the overall male (divisible between subordinate
pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjective and hegemonic phenomenal subjective) side of
this divide is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate but
pseudo-secondary and secondary state hegemonic.
2.
On the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the
northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, the overall male
(divisible between subordinate pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-subjective and
hegemonic noumenal subjective) side of the gender divide is pseudo-primary and
primary church hegemonic but pseudo-secondary and secondary church subordinate,
whereas the overall female (divisible between hegemonic phenomenal objective
and subordinate pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objective) side of this divide is
primary and pseudo-primary state subordinate but secondary and pseudo-secondary
church hegemonic.
In such fashion is the fourfold composition of
elements and pseudo-elements put into axial perspective, and this is the sum of
philosophical truth which also embraces, as a specific elemental bias within
the overall atomic framework, metaphysical truth as the transcendent ideal of
all philosophical endeavour.
1.
What can be
established with a fair degree of certainty is that each hegemonic element,
whether photon, electron, neutron, or proton, has a primary and a secondary
aspect, the former free and the latter bound, whether in soma or psyche,
depending on gender or, in these elemental contexts, the effective
preconditions of gender.
2.
Conversely,
each subordinate pseudo-element, whether pseudo-proton, pseudo-neutron,
pseudo-electron, or pseudo-photon, has a pseudo-primary and a pseudo-secondary
aspect or, more correctly, pseudo-aspect, the former pseudo-bound and the
latter pseudo-free, whether in pseudo-psyche or pseudo-soma, depending, once
again, on gender or the effective elemental preconditions thereof.
3.
Therefore whereas
the free aspect of an element, whether somatically predominant or psychically
preponderant on absolute (3) or relative (2½) terms, is positive and, hence,
bright, the bound aspect, whether psychically postponderant or somatically
postdominant on absolute (1) or relative (1½) terms, is negative and, hence,
dark, or in shadow.
4.
Likewise,
whereas the pseudo-bound pseudo-aspect of a pseudo-element, whether
pseudo-psychically pseudo-preponderant or pseudo-somatically pseudo-predominant
on pseudo-absolute (3) or pseudo-relative (2½) terms, is pseudo-negative and,
hence, pseudo-dark, the pseudo-free pseudo-aspect, whether pseudo-somatically
postdominant or pseudo-psychically postponderant on pseudo-absolute (1) or
pseudo-relative (1½) terms, is pseudo-positive and, hence, pseudo-bright.
In what could be called majoritarian ratio
terms, whether elementally predominant and preponderant or pseudo-elementally
pseudo-preponderant and pseudo-predominant, the hegemonic element is bright and
the subordinate pseudo-element pseudo-dark, but such pseudo-darkness is the
pseudo-primary corollary of the primary brightness to which it is
pseudo-elementally subordinate on either pseudo-preponderant to predominant
(pseudo-male to female) or pseudo-predominant to preponderant (pseudo-female to
male) parallel ratio terms.
Another thing one can be confident about is the
association between photons and metachemistry, electrons and chemistry,
neutrons and physics, and protons and metaphysics, to take just the four
principal subatomic elements. But it is only a terminological association, not
an exact correlation, because each of the elements described, whilst they may
constitute the fulcrum of the discipline to which they have been ascribed, do
not constitute the atomic basis of that discipline, much less the nuclear
superstructure, which, besides requiring human application, is also comprised
of the bovaryized elements that supplement the representative elements on the
terms outlined in previous pages. Now what applies to the elements is also
applicable to the pseudo-elements, which require the addition of bovaryized
pseudo-elements to the pseudo-element most representative of the
pseudo-discipline to which it appertains as its pseudo-subatomic precondition,
be that pseudo-discipline pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical,
pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical. Hence we can no more equate
pseudo-metaphysics with pseudo-protons alone than ,,,, pseudo-metachemistry
with pseudo-photons alone, even though such pseudo-elements play the main
pseudo-subatomic role in the overall pseudo-atomic composition of any given
pseudo-disciplinary bias. But when it comes to why some people are this way and
others that way, why this atomic bias and not that, we enter the determining
realms of gender and class, with gender taking precedence over class as the
primary determinant of a class extrapolation that even when it shares the same
gender does so to a different extent, making for an absolute/relative dichotomy
between the photonic bias, for instance, of upper-class females (metachemical)
and the electronic bias of lower-class females (chemical) in gender antithesis
to the neutronic bias of lower-class males (physical) and the protonic bias of
upper-class males (metaphysical, not forgetting the pseudo-gender subordination
that stems from the superior pressure of what becomes the hegemonic gender upon
their inferior counterparts and leads, in due course, to pseudo-class
distinctions, on a pseudo-absolute/pseudo-relative basis, between the
pseudo-protonic bias of what can be termed pseudo-upper class pseudo-males
(pseudo-metaphysical) and the pseudo-neutronic bias of pseudo-lower class
pseudo-males (pseudo-physical) in pseudo-gender antithesis to the
pseudo-electronic bias of pseudo-lower class pseudo-females (pseudo-chemical)
and the pseudo-photonic bias of pseudo-upper class pseudo-females
(pseudo-metachemical), none of whom would exist as such but for their upper- or
lower-class gender counterparts or, more accurately, opposites.
If much of what has been written on this and
previous pages sounds like the 'Visible Matter/Invisible Matter' or, following
on from the above, 'Bright Matter/Dark Matter' theories of contemporary
scientists and more especially of physicists, then don't be surprised: it does.
But that doesn't mean to say science has caught up with my philosophy. On the
contrary, any system based in empirical observation will never 'catch up' with
one whose logic remains centred in insightful feelings, or truth. Science may
have a beautiful will, but it has no soul or only, at best, a thrice-bovaryized
intensely sceptical one, and that is why philosophy of this nature is so
necessary, and why the resurrection of truth, in the truly metaphysical sense
that has nothing to do with fact hyped as truth, absolutely depends on it, if
civilization is to return, on more radical terms than ever existed in the
(medieval) past, to the leadership of religion, which has nothing to do with
fundamentally understanding the world for purposes of material exploitation, but
everything to do with ideally transcending it in the interests of soulful
liberation, since at the opposite gender remove from the dominance of will and
the enslavement of 'the world' to that domination, both directly, in polar
axial terms, and indirectly, where its lapsed Catholic/republican socialist
manifestation is concerned and one finds a proletariat in dire need of
precisely the kind of liberation, deliverance, salvation call it by what name
one likes alluded to above, which the Catholic Church, compromised by ongoing
deference to free will in the guise of 'the Creator', 'the Almighty', 'the
All-Powerful', and other variations on a freely-somatic metachemical theme, is
no less signally incapable of providing now than ever it was in the Judeo-Christian
past. Only Social Theocracy, it seems to me, can open the door to religious
freedom and, hence, to the hegemony of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry,
of true religion over pseudo-science.
LONDON 2014
