Op. 48
PHILOSOPHICAL TRUTH
Supernotational Philosophy
Copyright © 2013 John
O'Loughlin
_____________
CONTENTS
Aphs. 1–118
____________
1. Perceptual
and conceptual, appearances and essences, extrovert and introvert, imagination and
intuition, protons and electrons, alpha and omega, external and internal,
centrifugal and centripetal, dreams and thoughts, films and meditations, etc.,
etc. A duality that applies as much to
the new brain as to the old one. For the
brain is of course divisible into 'new' (cerebrum) and 'old' (cerebellum), and
it is my belief that whereas everything naturalistic appertains to the old
brain, that which is supernatualistic, or artificial,
appertains to the new brain. Thus we can
speak of an alpha/omega dichotomy in both the old and the new brains, with, for
example, dreams and thoughts appertaining to the former but films and
meditations to the latter. Furthermore,
it seems to me that if alpha is perceptual and omega conceptual, then alpha is
immoral and omega moral, since the one is apparent and the other essential, as
relative to protons and electrons, imagination and intuition, centrifugal and
centripetal, etc. Whether alpha is
absolutely immoral or relatively immoral will depend on the brain to which it
pertains, i.e. 'old' or 'new', and we may believe that it will be absolutely
immoral (alpha) in the former case, but relatively immoral (alpha-in-the-omega)
in the latter case. Likewise, whether
omega is relatively moral or absolutely moral will depend on the brain to which
it pertains, i.e. 'old' or 'new', and again we may believe that it will be
relatively immoral in the former case (omega-in-the-alpha), but absolutely
moral in the latter case (omega). Now if
dreams, appertaining to the old brain, are absolutely immoral (perceptual) in
relation to films, which, so I argue, appertain to the new brain, then
thoughts, appertaining to the old brain, will be relatively moral (conceptual) in relation to
meditation, which, so I contend, appertains to the new brain. But in between dreams and thoughts we shall
find the relatively negative and positive amoral equivalents
(protons/electrons) ... of fantasies and books, whereas in between films and
meditation we shall find the relatively negative and positive amoral
equivalents (protons/electrons) of videos and word processors. However, in between fantasies and books (or
the reading thereof) we shall find the absolutely negative and positive amoral
equivalents (dynamic neutrons) of seeing and speaking, whereas in between
videos and word processors (or the reading thereof via VDU) we shall find the
absolutely negative and positive amoral equivalents (dynamic neutrons) of
cameras and talking computers. Finally,
in between seeing and speaking we shall find the absolute amoral equivalent
(static neutrons) of natural visionary experience, whereas in between cameras
and talking computers we shall find the absolute amoral equivalent (static
neutrons) of trips, or artificial visionary experience. Thus in the naturalistic context of the old
brain we shall find the following: dreams - fantasies - seeing - visions -
talking - book reading - thinking, with dreams and thinking immoral alpha and
moral omega, but fantasies and reading, seeing and talking, and visions pertaining
to different degrees and kinds of old-brain amorality. Likewise in the supernatural context of the
new brain we shall find the following: films - videos - cameras - trips -
speaking computers - WP reading - meditation, with films and meditation immoral
alpha and moral omega, but videos and WP reading, cameras and speaking
computers, and trips pertaining to different degrees and kinds of new-brain
amorality. The old brain context is
naturalistic, the new brain context supernaturalistic
(artificial). Alpha is perceptual, omega
conceptual. The perceptual precedes the
conceptual. The VDU screen leads to
meditation just as surely as the Bible (books) leads to prayer (a religious
form of thought). But before the
conceptual can arise on either level (or in either brain), the perceptual must
have its day, with videos superseding cinema films just as surely as fantasies
supersede dreams.
2. Where,
formerly, I was disposed to regarding Fascism and Communism in terms of a new-brain
alpha/omega dichotomy, I can now (and I believe correctly) perceive Fascism -
and especially Nazism - in terms of an old-brain omega, but Communism in terms
of a new-brain alpha, which is to say, as natural conceptual verses artificial
perceptual, the book verses the film, the 'broken cross' (for Nazism was, after
all, an extreme form of conceptual ideology) verses the star, 'the bourgeoisie
in arms' verses the proletariat, a warped 'good' (omega) verses a straight
'bad' (alpha), and for that very reason a doomed cause, insofar as the 'March
of History' demands that the new-brain alpha supersedes the old-brain
omega. However, if Fascism could never
ultimately triumph over Communism, the probability of Social Transcendentalism
doing so, or at any rate triumphing over Communism's democratic successor
(about which more in due course), can only be much greater, insofar as I
envisage this as the ultimate conceptual ideology, the ultimate ideology, and
thus one that, appertaining to the new-brain omega, is as much beyond Communism
as Fascism was before it, the supercross verses the
star, the computer disc verses the film, the civilized proletariat verses the
barbarous proletariat, a supergood verses a
super-evil, conceptual morality verses perceptual immorality, the goal of all
historical striving. No, Fascism was not
alpha but very much a 'bent' omega, a petty-bourgeois
extremism which reacted against the political barbarism of the star, a
star-like cross which overlapped with Socialism while remaining fundamentally
capitalist. For Capitalism is a
bourgeois (naturalistic) omega, a relatively moral, because centralized and
individualized, mode of economics, whereas Socialism, particularly in its
mass-participatory manifestation of literal worker ownership of the means of
production, is a proletarian (artificial) alpha, a relatively immoral, because
decentralized and collectivized, mode of economics.
3. Whereas
we used to think that Socialism automatically led to Communism, we now know
that while Communism is beyond democratic socialism, the 'theocratic' socialism
of a social democracy lies beyond Communism.
Socialism is democratic, Communism totalitarian, and while democratic
socialism can only exist within the liberal framework of a capitalist
democracy, 'theocratic' socialism, its proletarian equivalent, will only exist
within the socialist framework of a social democracy, or a democracy in which a
variety of proletarian parties are in socialistic contention beyond the
totalitarian bounds of Communism or, more correctly, Bolshevism. Thus a social democracy can only be
socialist, whereas a liberal democracy will be capitalist - the difference, in
short, between bourgeois and proletarian forms of pluralism. It is good that autocratic Bolshevism
(Stalinism) should, as a new-brain alpha, have been superseded by social
democracy. But such supersession
can only be sustained on the basis of socialist economics, not by any
compromise with Capitalism which, by contrast, would signify a regression from
'Communism' rather than a progression beyond it. However, if democratic socialism, pertaining
to a bourgeois democracy, is anterior to totalitarian communism, and social
democracy, pertaining to a proletarian democracy, posterior to it, then the
only thing that lies beyond social democracy is ... social theocracy, or the
democratic acceptance by the proletariat of religious sovereignty, the ultimate
mode of sovereignty, which will bring about the 'Kingdom of Heaven' and thus
salvation from 'the World', i.e. democratic sovereignty and its judicial and
economic concomitants. Such religious
sovereignty will effectively mean that the proletariat have rights appertaining
to their spiritual self-realization, the right to artificial visionary
experience and regular meditation in specially-built meditation centres not
least among them, and these religious rights would have taken the place of such
political rights as appertained to democratic republicanism. For all such political rights, not to mention
their judicial and economic concomitants, would have to devolve upon the Social
Transcendentalist Centre through its Messianic figurehead, in order that the
proletariat could be saved from them ('sins of the world') and be all the more
credibly divine (as ultimate Godhead) in consequence. Only the political Centre, through its chief
figurehead, would then be politically sovereign, and it would be the duty of
this political Centre to serve the religious sovereignty of the proletariat,
like Moses outside the Promised Land or Christ bearing 'sins of the world', in
their spiritual interests. Hence an
ultimate totalitarianism which will be the logical successor to republican
democracy, a sort of supertheocratic dictatorship
designed to lead and encourage the People out of the 'darkness' of the world
and into the 'light' of Heaven.
4. Speaking
atomically, one could say that, within the old-brain context, dreams correspond
to proton wavicles, thoughts to electron wavicles; fantasies correspond to proton particles, book
reading to electron particles; seeing corresponds to proton-biased neutron
particles, talking to electron-biased neutron particles; visions correspond to
neutron wavicles.
Likewise, within the new-brain context, it could be said that films
correspond to proton wavicles, meditation to electron
wavicles; videos correspond to proton particles,
VDU-reading to electron particles; cameras correspond to proton-biased neutron
particles, voice computers to electron-biased neutron particles; LSD trips
correspond to neutron wavicles. Hence, within the contexts of both the old
and new brains, we find devolution, on the one hand, from proton wavicles to neutrons via proton particles and proton-biased
neutron particles, and an evolution, on the other hand, from neutrons to
electron wavicles via electron-biased neutron
particles and electron particles. A
devolution from negative divine immorality, whether absolute or relative
(depending on the brain context in question) to worldly amorality via negative
diabolic immorality and negative purgatorial amorality on the one hand, and an
evolution from worldly amorality to positive divine morality via positive
purgatorial amorality and positive diabolic immorality on the other hand.
5. Rather
than 'In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God', it should be said
that 'In the End was the Word and the Word was Truth (the Idea). For 'in the beginning' was the Dream, and the
Dream was God or, depending on your point of view, Strength (the Almighty).
6. Music
is the most conceptual of the Arts, which is to say, the most idealistic,
whereas painting is the most perceptual of the Arts, which is to say, the most
naturalistic. In between these
naturalistic and idealistic extremes, corresponding to alpha and omega, one
finds the realistic and materialistic arts of literature and sculpture
respectively - the former conceptual and the latter perceptual. Put theologically, one could say that music
is the divine art, painting the diabolic art, sculpture the purgatorial art,
and literature the worldly art, given their correspondences to idealism,
naturalism, materialism, and realism respectively, or, in elemental terms, to
air, fire, water, and earth. Thus music
and literature would be as far apart as earth and air, or the world and heaven,
whereas painting and sculpture would be akin to fire and water, or hell and
purgatory, and therefore come in-between the other two arts when considered in
terms of a vertical, or elemental, hierarchy.
In Spenglerian parlance, painting would
correspond to 'Historyless Chaos', literature to 'the
Culture', sculpture to 'the Civilization', and music to 'Second Religiousness',
assuming a chronologically historical progression, as it were, from naturalism
to idealism via realism and materialism.
Thus music is not only the most idealistic art form, it is the ultimate
and final art form, towards which history would seem to tend. And music is never more idealistic than when
highly or even absolutely conceptual, which is to say, when rhythm triumphs
over pitch to a degree which puts it beyond any melodic/harmonic compromise ...
in an intensely rhythmic purism. For in
music, pitch corresponds to the perceptual (is perceptible as notes on scores),
whereas rhythm corresponds to the conceptual (the duration of notes), and the more
conceptual and, hence, essential the society, the less pitch and the more
rhythm will there be. The most evolved
music, which can only be of the Holy Spirit, will be the most rhythmic (though
not necessarily the most percussive), and thus of a degree of centripetal
idealism which is positively divine. In
the twentieth-century cleavage between rhythm and pitch, which typified the
retreat from 'liberal' melodic/harmonic civilization, rhythm was of the omega
and pitch of the alpha, the one effectively centripetal and thus of the Saved,
while the other was effectively centrifugal and thus of the Damned - a cleavage
between theocracy and autocracy, electrons and protons, introvert and
extrovert, conceptual and perceptual, idealism and naturalism, the Holy Spirit
and the Father, profound and superficial, etc., etc. Melody, corresponding to materialism, and
harmony, corresponding to realism, are akin to Christ and the Blessed Virgin
within the vertical axis of 'liberal', or Western, civilization, and thus will
be flanked by the naturalism of pitch and the idealism of rhythm, as Christ is
flanked by the Father and the Holy Spirit within the Blessed Trinity. Thus whereas pitch is a
proton equivalent and rhythm, by contrast, an electron equivalent, melody
reflects a proton/electron compromise, while harmony is a neutron equivalent. In fact, harmony is inherently feminine and
therefore supportive, traditionally, of masculine melody ... as the Blessed
Virgin was (and remains) supportive of Christ.
Only pitch and rhythm, corresponding to the horizontal axis, as it were,
of a sort of Judeo-Eastern civilization (see diagram),
PITCH/MELODY/RHYTHM
(naturalism)(materialism)(idealism)
|
|
|
|
|
|
HARMONY
(realism)
are mutually exclusive or, depending on your point
of view, absolutely antagonistic. For
the more
of the one the less there can be of the other,
and in the end rhythm must triumph over pitch if music is to attain to an
ultimate salvation in the most divine idealism.
Verily, the omega supercross (of rhythm) must
triumph over the alpha star (of pitch) and transcend both the purgatorial cross
(of melody) and the worldly star (of harmony), if the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is to
come to pass in musical no less than all other terms!
7. Anyone
familiar with both alpha and omega music, or pitch-oriented and rhythmic
alternatives, will know that whereas the former constrains one to idolatrous
worship and reverential self-transcendence, the latter, by contrast, sets one
free to realize the self in some degree or kind of 'groovy'
self-indulgence. Thus whereas the one is
autocratic, the other can only be theocratic, and there will be all the
difference in the world, or perhaps I should say above it, between these two
kinds of music. Whether one transcends
the self through idolatrous worship of some great pitch-oriented composition,
or realizes the self through 'groovy' response to some great rhythmic
composition, will depend upon whether one is disposed to alpha or to omega,
autocracy or theocracy, the Father or the Holy Ghost, and is thus of the
naturalistic centrifugal or of the idealistic centripetal. Evolution is on the latter's side, but the
former still exists in all 'open societies', where the worship of
pitch-oriented compositions will have especial appeal to those who, as
autocrats, are accustomed to selflessly imposing themselves upon others, and
who can only relate to self-transcendence in consequence.
8. Autocratic
pitch-oriented virtuoso at a grand piano in, say, some concerto or jazz
context. Democratic
melodic/harmonic pianist at an upright piano in, say, some pop or rock context. Theocratic rhythmic pianist
at an electric piano in, say, some soul or funk context. Perceptual-perceptual/conceptual-conceptual
distinctions which range right across the musical spectrum. Additionally, one could argue that a harmonic
pianist at a baby grand in some folk or pop context would correspond to a
Catholic equivalent, and that the upright piano should be confined to rock or
punk contexts in which melody predominates over harmony in typically Protestant
fashion (see diagram 1).
1.
GRAND
PIANO/UPRIGHT/ELECTRIC PIANO
(Father)(Christ)(Holy
Spirit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
BABY
GRAND
(Virgin Mary)
Thus whereas the harmonic
pianist would be realistic and the melodic pianist materialistic, the
pitch-oriented pianist would be naturalistic and the rhythmic pianist
idealistic. An inharmonious type of 'harmonic' playing on
the baby grand would be liberal as opposed to Catholic, whereas an unmelodic
type of 'melodic' playing on an upright piano would be republican as opposed to
Protestant. In the former case, pop as
opposed to folk. In
the latter case, punk as opposed to rock. Likewise it could be argued that when
pitch-oriented virtuoso playing is less regularly scalar (and thus perceptual)
than in concerto playing, it is jazz, which is a sort of decadent 'classical',
whereas when rhythmic playing is less soulful (and thus conceptual) than in
soul, it is funk, which is a kind of decadent soul music, a rhythmic music that
has lost its soul and become soulless (see diagram 2).
2.
CONCERTO/JAZZ(ROCK/PUNK)SOUL/FUNK
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOLK/POP
In this respect, funk stands to soul as word
processing to teletext, which is to say, as a kind of
particle rather than wavicle omega equivalent within the
artificial terms of their respective contexts.
Now what applies to funk in relation to soul applies just as much to
each of the other pairs, viz. jazz in relation to classical, punk in relation
to rock, and pop in relation to folk, which are likewise particle 'falls' from
the wavicle ideal.
In terms of the cross and the star, it should follow that whereas the
full-sized grand piano and classical/jazz will correspond to the superstar
(alpha), the baby grand and folk/pop will correspond to the star (alpha-in-the-omega),
the upright piano and rock/punk to the cross (omega-in-the-alpha), and the
electric piano and soul/funk to the supercross
(omega), as in diagram 3.
3.
SUPERSTAR/CROSS/SUPERCROSS
(Classical)(Rock)(Soul)
|
|
|
|
|
|
STAR
(Folk)
Although, strictly speaking, religious
references should be confined to classical, folk, rock, and soul, considering
that jazz, pop, punk, and funk correspond to particle falls as opposed to wavicle ideals, and are thus effectively secular and
political, as applying to Communism, Liberalism, Republicanism, and Fascism
respectively (see diagram 4):-
4.
COMMUNISM/REPUBLICANISM/FASCISM
(jazz)(punk)(funk)
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIBERALISM
(pop)
in contrast to the religious alternatives of
Marxism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Nietzscheanism
(see diagram 5):-
5.
MARXISM/PROTESTANTISM/NIETZSCHEANISM
(concerto)(rock)(soul)
|
|
|
|
|
|
CATHOLICISM
(folk)
with their musical correspondences, as described
above.
9. Socialism
is of the star, whereas Capitalism, by contrast, is of the cross, insofar as
the former is public and decentralized vis-à-vis the collective, but the latter
is private and centralized vis-à-vis the individual. Socialism is alpha
but Capitalism omega, and whereas both Communism and Liberalism are
socialistic, Republicanism and Fascism are capitalistic. Superstar (alpha) and star
(alpha-in-the-omega) on the one hand, cross (omega-in-the-alpha) and supercross (omega) on the other hand. Or, rather, super-antistar
and antistar on the one hand, (for here we are
dealing with the political, and hence secular, falls from religion), anticross and super-anticross on
the other hand. For,
in reality, Marxism (a paternalistic religious creed) is of the superstar and Catholicism
(centred in the Virgin Mary) of the star. Protestantism is of the cross (centred in
Christ) and Social Transcendentalism of the supercross
(centred in the Holy Spirit).
10. Impossible
not to see a connection between pro-filmic literature, by which I mean novels
or other prose works of a strongly narrative bent, and trad
jazz, conceiving of the latter as in some sense pro-electronic ... to the
extent that it reflects a strongly rhythmic bias within a largely acoustic, and
hence traditional, musical framework.
Thus a direct parallel between jazz and the popular novel, as, on higher
terms, between, say, rock and film.
11. Realistic law, materialistic economics, naturalistic politics, and
idealistic religion. Earth, water, fire, and
air equivalents, with worldly, purgatorial, diabolic, and divine connotations
respectively. No less than religion is a
thing of God ... it can be said that politics is a thing of the Devil. Law and economics, by contrast, are of the
world and purgatory respectively, having feminine and masculine connotations
along a sort of Catholic/Protestant or, more correctly, Liberal/Republican axis
... such that, in terms of our T-like framework, would accord with the vertical
rather than the horizontal bar, as follows:-
POLITICS/ECONOMICS/RELIGION
|
|
|
|
|
|
LAW
with politics and religion more alpha and omega
than anything else. Thus whereas law is
dark (earth) and economics cold (water), politics is hot (fire) and religion
light (air). In terms of their relationship
to the arts, law and literature would be no less hand-in-glove than economics
and sculpture, whereas politics and painting would be no less hand-in-glove
than religion and music. For literature
is the realistic art form par
excellence, sculpture the materialistic art form par excellence,
painting the naturalistic art form par excellence, and music the
idealistic art form par excellence.
12. Now
that the autocratic star is crumbling towards worldly or, rather, superworldly democracy ... in a majority of those countries
formerly under its centrifugal sway, the ground will soon be ripe for the
planting of the supercross, in order that the People
may be led towards the divine blossoming of a religious sovereignty, and thus
achieve Superchristic salvation (from the world/superworld) in the interests of their spiritual betterment.
13. The
sign of the Messiah is the supercross (Y), which is
intended to eclipse the star. The
political or, rather, politico-religious ideology of the supercross
is Social Transcendentalism - a supra-national ideology which derives its
inspiration from Nietzsche's idea that 'man is something that should be
overcome' ... in the interests of 'the Superman' ... 'the meaning of the
earth', etc., and points towards the possibility of a post-Human
Millennium. It is as a champion of the
notion of religious sovereignty in the masses ... that Social Transcendentalism
stakes and, in my view, justifies its claim to be the true religion of 'Kingdom
Come', a religion so intensely ideological and omega orientated ... as to be in
an idealistic class of its own. Only
through Social Transcendentalism can the People achieve salvation - a condition
of religious sovereignty in a '
14. Speaking
is realistic, writing materialistic, reading naturalistic, and thinking
idealistic - an elemental progression, as it were, from earth to air via water
and fire. It could be said that one
talks in order to write, one writes in order to be read, and one reads in order
to think. Speaking, being bodily in
relation to writing, is of the will; writing, being of the brain in relation to
reading, is of the intellect; reading, being of the mind in relation to
thinking, is of the soul; and thinking, being of the mind in relation to
itself, is of the spirit. Although all
four activities are effectively of the cross instead of the star, since on the
omega-oriented side of life, each of them pertains to the old brain and is
accordingly naturalistic, forming positive amoral and moral conceptual
contrasts to seeing, hallucinating, fantasizing, and dreaming
respectively. For just as seeing and
talking are antithetical on a perceptual/conceptual basis, so are hallucinating
and writing, fantasizing and reading, dreaming and thinking, with worldly,
purgatorial, diabolic, and divine implications.
Treating each context in the T-like framework to which we have grown
accustomed, we shall find the following:-
READING/WRITING/THINKING
|
|
|
|
|
|
TALKING
FANTASIZING/HALLUCINATING/DREAMING
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEEING
with seeing and talking antithetical in their
equivalent realistic (earth) positions, hallucinating and writing antithetical
in their equivalent materialistic (water) positions, fantasizing and reading
antithetical in their equivalent naturalistic (fire) positions, and dreaming
and thinking antithetical in their equivalent idealistic (air) positions, as
between alpha (perceptual) and omega (conceptual) manifestations of the world,
purgatory, hell, and heaven. Realism is
statically amoral (neutron), materialism is dynamically amoral
(proton/electron), naturalism is immoral, both negatively and positively, and
idealism is moral, both negatively and positively, which is to say, in relation
to alpha and to omega.
15. Marxist
idealism, Communist naturalism, Socialist materialism, and Liberal realism - an
alpha-stemming devolutionary regression from the divine to the worldly (superworldly in the context of social democracy) via the
diabolic and the purgatorial, as from religion (theocracy) and politics
(autocracy) to economics (bureaucracy) and law (democracy). Conversely, Capital Democratic realism,
Capitalist materialism, Fascist naturalism, and Nietzschean
idealism - an omega-oriented evolutionary progression from the worldly (superworldly in the context of capitalist democracy) to the
divine via the purgatorial and the diabolic, as from law (democracy) and
economics (bureaucracy) to politics (autocracy) and ideology (theocracy). Hence:-
COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM/MARXISM
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOCIAL
DEMOCRACY
FASCISM/CAPITALISM/NIETZSCHEANISM
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITAL
DEMOCRACY
with perceptual (alpha) and conceptual (omega)
implications between the two contexts, divisible, as they are, into the fourfold
antitheses of Social Democracy and Capital Democracy, Socialism and Capitalism,
Communism and Fascism, and Marxism and Nietzscheanism,
in accordance with realistic, materialistic, naturalistic, and idealistic
alternatives broadly within the context of the new brain. Thus a particle/wavicle distinction between the perceptual, which is
public, and the conceptual, which is private - collectivism and individualism
in alpha/omega confrontation.
Actually the divine dichotomy is rather more within the context of an
old-brain/new-brain distinction, with omega and alpha implications. For while Capital Democracy, Capitalism,
Fascism and Nietzcheanism may all be conceptual, and
thus pertain to the wavicle aspect of a continuum
which is both private and individualistic, they are decidedly naturalistic, and
therefore of the old brain in a kind of anterior rather than posterior moral
relation to Social Democracy, Socialism, Communism, and Marxism, which, by
contrast, are effectively super-alpha.
The super-omega alternative to the latter has still to come, but when it
does it will have a superconceptual status pertaining
to the supercross, and will ascend from a superworldly basis in Social Democracy to a superdivine culmination in Loughlinism
via superpurgatorial Centrist and superdiabolic
Social Transcendentalist stages, as in the following diagram:-
SOCIAL
TRANSCENDENTALISM/CENTRISM/LOUGHLINISM
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOCIAL
DEMOCRACY
where Social Democracy is the pluralist context
which permits the politically sovereign People to vote for religious
sovereignty (and thus effectively put an end to democracy), Centrism is the
economic framework whereby the means of production are transferred, by the
sovereign People, to the trusteeship of the Centre, Social Transcendentalism is
the politico-religious manifestation of the ideology of 'Kingdom Come', and Loughlinism is the ideological inspiration and fount from
which Social Transcendentalism draws its justification as the means through which
the People may be lead to salvation from the world ... of Social Democracy, the
democracy in which Social Transcendentalism was permitted to exist and appeal
to the People, in the name of the Second Coming, to vote for religious
sovereignty and thus, by implication, put an end to the democratic pluralism of
Social Democracy in the interests of the supertheocratic
totalitarianism of Social Transcendentalism and the coming to pass of the
'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth.
16. Where,
formerly, I was inclined to see rhythm and pitch in alpha/omega terms, or even
in omega/alpha terms (if my most recent thoughts on the subject of music are
anything to judge by), I now see them as both alpha and omega or, depending on
your standpoint, as neither alpha nor omega specifically, but parallel
quantities which can be either alpha or omega, immoral or moral, depending on
the context, which is to say on whether the rhythm/pitch is outer and
centrifugal or inner and centripetal, apparent or essential. If outer, then we are talking of reactive
musical techniques and instruments. If
inner, we are talking, by contrast, of attractive musical techniques and
instruments. In the
former case, for example, drums and guitars; in the latter case, electronic
percussion and keyboards.... Though here, as elsewhere, a distinction
between old- and new-brain alpha/omega divisions has to be borne in mind, so
that the outer/inner dichotomy is perceived as being either absolute or
relative, depending on the musical context.
Clearly, while drums are of the new brain, hand percussion, being more
naturalistic, is their old-brain counterpart, an absolute outer which forms an
alpha pole to music boxes, in which rhythm and pitch are inner to the extent
and in the sense that they stem from the internal workings of the music box and
are relatively essential, not perceptible to the eyes, like the manipulation of
hand percussion, but contained in and surrounded by the music box, which is to
the old brain what drum machines are to the new one - an inner alternative to
the outer, and thus effectively a moral pole to it which, certainly in the case
of drum machines, indicates an absolutely inner, or moral, mode of percussive
instrumentation suitable to a centripetal, and hence attractive, musical bias commensurate with
theocratic as opposed to autocratic criteria.
For in this distinction between the 'outer' and the 'inner' we have an
autocratic/theocratic dichotomy, germane to alpha and omega, which pertains to
opposite types of music - the former reactive and the latter attractive, the
former centrifugal and the latter centripetal, as, for example, between jazz
and soul. Only when outer and inner
instruments/music are combined in the same musical
group/format, can we speak of a sort of democratic cross between the two
extremes. For democracy is effectively a
middle ground in between autocratic and theocratic extremes - a pluralistic
relativity in between totalitarian absolutes, and when, for example, drums and
drum machines, or guitars and violins, or xylophones and pianos, or even
saxophones and electronic wind instruments are found together in the same band,
it seems to me that one has a democratic state-of-affairs existing in-between
the above-mentioned extremes which, while morally and ideologically preferable
to the autocratic, is inferior, as the world vis-à-vis heaven, to the
theocratic, i.e. to a context in which only the inner instruments/musical
techniques exist on both rhythmic and pitch-oriented terms, in deference to a
more enlightened, and hence moral, age - an age of centripetal
attractiveness. Thus while bands that
embrace keyboards, drum machines, violins, etc., in addition to reactive
instruments, will be ideologically
preferable to those which are rooted in an effectively autocratic format of
guitars, drums, vocals, with perhaps an alpha-stemming wind instrument like the
saxophone or an alpha-stemming keyboard instrument like the xylophone thrown in
for good measure, they can only be ideologically inferior to bands which
exclude the reactive instruments altogether, in fidelity to an omega-oriented
centripetal absolute which avails itself of violins, keyboards, drum machines,
synthesized wind instruments, in pursuit of a more attractive and interiorized
kind of music. Such music, it has to be
said, was rather the exception to the rule in the late-twentieth century, but
it is the only way forwards from democratic compromise, and should eventually
come into its own as theocratic criteria begin to supersede both democratic and
autocratic norms in the interests of heavenly salvation. It will also have to come into its own on
increasingly idealistic and divine-oriented terms, which will slough off the
lower attractive instrument families, including violins and keyboards, in
favour of synthesizers, synthesized wind instruments, and other such higher
attractive instruments germane to a moral-biased naturalistic and/or idealistic
(though preferably idealistic) society.
Doubtless, drum machines will have a significant role to play in this
ultimate music, the funky soul of the future.
But (contrary to what I wrote earlier) rhythm is arguably more
naturalistic than idealistic, and in a truly idealistic society the emphasis
could only be on pitch, since pitch is a wavicle
equivalent commensurate with individualism, and in a society stressing
spiritual self-realization, pitch could only take precedence, for ideological
purposes, over rhythm, especially when percussive, that particle equivalent
more suited to political collectivism, and hence diabolic naturalism, than to
divine idealism. Again, one is made
conscious of a sort of Social Transcendentalist/Loughlinist
distinction between the political and religious sides of the ultimate ideology,
which contrasts absolutely with Marxism/Communism, the religious and political
sides of the alpha-stemming ideology, whose music, whether pitch- or
rhythm-orientated, could only be reactive and centrifugal, as befitting its
autocratic essence. But the star,
fortunately, is being eclipsed by superworldly
democracy, and one day even that will be superseded by the supercross,
as supertheocracy lays claim to the World in the name
of divine salvation and the establishment, thereby, of the omega 'Kingdom of
Heaven', wherein only the attractive will prevail.
17. An
autocratic band, a band under the star, will be one in which bass, guitar, and
drums hold sway to the accompaniment, more usually, of vocals. A theocratic band, a band of the supercross, will be one in which drum machines,
synthesizers, and electric wind instruments of a centripetal design hold sway
to the accompaniment, it may be, of synthesized vocals. A democratic band, or a band in between the
star and the supercross, will be one in which a
combination of reactive and attractive, or autocratic and theocratic,
instruments holds sway to the accompaniment, more usually, of vocals, whether
straight or synthesized. Alpha - world - omega, with outer - outer/inner - inner
rhythmic/pitch implications respectively. Additionally, one must allow for the
bureaucratic possibility of 'harmonic' instrumentals involving a variety of
'bodily' instruments, including guitars and violins, in a context which is a
kind of worldly inner of folk/pop instrumentation in which
finger-picking/string-plucking, rather than strumming/bowing, is the technical
norm. Again, in terms of our T-like
design, we would have something as follows:-
AUTOCRATIC/DEMOCRATIC/THEOCRATIC
(jazz)(rock)(soul)
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUREAUCRATIC
(pop)
which, in theological terms, amounts to:-
FATHER/SON/HOLY
GHOST
(protons)(protons/electrons)(electrons)
|
|
|
|
|
|
VIRGIN
MARY
(neutrons)
though this is, of course, a generalization which
currently overlooks particle/wavicle distinctions
between one type of music and another within any given ideological
context. It also tends to concentrate on
the new brain and, by implication, electric instruments rather than on the old
brain and its acoustic instrumental parallels.
18. Like rhythm and pitch, collectivism and individualism are
less alpha and omega polarities than parallel alternatives which can be either
alpha or omega, centrifugal or centripetal.
Royalism is a naturalistic outer form of
collectivism, Fascism a naturalistic inner form of collectivism - alpha and
omega of the old brain. Communism is an
artificial outer form of collectivism, Social Transcendentalism an artificial
inner form of collectivism - alpha and omega of the new brain. Paganism is a naturalistic outer form of
individualism, Christianity a naturalistic inner form of individualism - alpha
and omega of the old brain. Marxism is
an artificial outer form of individualism, Loughlinism
an artificial inner form of individualism - alpha and omega of the new
brain. Individualism is no less superior
to collectivism than religion to politics or, put metaphysically, wavicles to particles, and this is so whether we are
referring to alpha or omega (in whatever brain) or, indeed, to some
'democratic' cross between the two. Royalism and Paganism are alike
tribal, Fascism and Christianity alike nationalist; Marxism and Communism are
alike internationalist, Loughlinism and Social
Transcendentalism alike supra-nationalist.
However, it could also be said that terms like tribalism, nationalism,
internationalism and supra-nationalism are essentially collectivist and
accordingly have more applicability to the collectivity
than to the individual, since they concern society and the nature, whether
outer or inner, of society, which in turn conditions the individualism of its
individual members. For one can no more
completely separate the individual from society than society from the
individual. Societies are composed of
individuals, but individuals are also the products of the society in which they
live, and their individualism is coloured thereby. As unlikely that prayerful individualism
could flourish in a pagan society as meditative individualism in a Marxist
one. Only the outer individualism of
dreams and films respectively, in accordance with the perceptual criteria of
the outer, could be expected to flourish there.
Likewise collectives will be perceptual or conceptual depending on
whether the alpha or omega type of collectivism prevails - perceptual in
Royalist and Communist contexts, conceptual in Fascist and Social Transcendentalist
contexts ... where the word will take precedence over the visual image in the
preservation of collective cohesion. Thus from art to the printed word (book) in the old-brain context
of Royalism/Fascism, and from photography to the VDU
word (computer disc) in the new-brain context of Communism/Social
Transcendentalism. Through such
media the collective psyche of society is forged, but the collective psyche of
society will be of little avail unless supplemented by the individualized
psyche of the individual, and wavicles accordingly eclipse
particles in the achievement of culture: self-transcendently in the outer
contexts of dreams and films, self-realizingly in the
inner contexts of prayer and meditation - alpha barbarism and omega
civilization of the old and the new brains respectively.
19. If
nationalism is bourgeois and internationalism proletarian, then
supra-nationalism is proletarian in a civilized, and hence centripetal, rather
than a barbarous, and hence centrifugal, way - the way of unity between
proletarian peoples of different ethnic or cultural traditions. It is for this reason that nationalist
struggles by peoples who reject the federal unity of the broadly proletarian
states against which they are in revolt constitute a reactionary tendency
compatible with bourgeois criteria.
Proletarian progress cannot come from reactionary nationalist
backslidings, but only from greater regional autonomy within the federal
framework of the supra-national State.
Thus it is with a view to granting as much regional autonomy as is
commensurate with the maintenance of the supra-national integrity of the
proletarian State that the prevailing governments should dedicate themselves -
difficult though this may be in the face of countervailing reactionary currents
which, in the guise of bourgeois nationalism, threaten the integrity in
question. A difficult balancing act, but
one that must succeed if the worst is not to come to the worst and proletarian
progress be rendered impossible.
20. Socialism
is collective ownership of the means of production by the People (or persons of
any given factory, office, shop, etc.) rather than individual ownership in the
interests of the individual capitalist, who makes private profits in
consequence. A mixed economy between the
private and the public would fall as short of Socialism as a mixed political
pluralism between capitalist and socialist parties inevitably falls short of
Social Democracy. Like Social Democracy,
Socialism has to do with the proletariat, who own the means of production. If at first this was done, in the name of the
proletariat, through state bureaucracy, which effectively functioned as an
autocracy, it must subsequently be done through the proletariat themselves in
accordance with a progression from 'Bolshevik vanguardism'
and state control to Social Democracy and the assumption of economic
responsibility by the proletariat. For
in taking economic, together with political and judicial, power upon themselves
the proletariat are then in a position whereby they, and they alone, can opt to
fob off such 'sins of the world' upon the Messiah (or his chosen
representatives) in return for religious sovereignty, and hence salvation from
their 'sins'. Unless they acquire power
in all contexts, the proletariat will simply not
be in a position to make the historic move from democracy to theocracy, when
the possibility of such a move finally presents itself. They will be under the heel of 'vanguard
autocracy', and while that autocracy may have been historically necessary and
beneficial to the proletariat in the struggle against bourgeois and
aristocratic precedent, its perpetuation could only be an obstacle to the
achievement, by the proletariat themselves, of the democratic power which is
the precondition of theocratic salvation.
For while there is no contiguity between alpha autocracy and omega
theocracy, there is certainly contiguity, and thus the possibility of progress,
between worldly democracy and omega theocracy, the latter of which can only
emerge from the former once the proletariat decide to vote for it, and thus
achieve salvation.
21. Will
Socialism, within the Social Democratic context outlined above, really
work? No, I don't think so. Nor do I think it would ultimately be
desirable, since the proletariat would then bog down, as it were, within the
bodily darkness of a superworldly context, and
probably be unwilling to make the move towards theocratic salvation. Yet, as a short-term expedience, its value is
incontrovertible, and the achievement of Social Democracy is of the utmost
historical importance. Only, we should
perhaps see it more in terms of a transition (from new-brain autocracy) than as
an end-in-itself. For
if it could work, it would most certainly be an end-in-itself and not, as I
believe, a means to a greater end - the end, namely, of Social
Transcendentalism and the concomitant assumption, by the proletariat, of
religious sovereignty.
22. There
are people who foolishly divide the brain into left and right hemispheres and leave
it at that, as though there was nothing more to it than logic and
sentience. There are others who just as
foolishly divide it into backbrain and forebrain, as
though it was simply torn between dreams and awareness. Both are equally wrong. For in reality the brain is divisible into
both the former and the latter, being akin to the fourfold
divisions of the elements, as indeed of the many other divisions we have
already investigated (see, for example, the Critique of Post-Dialectical Idealism) with the help, by any
large, of our T-like framework - a framework which serves just as well in this
context, viz:-
BACKBRAIN/LEFT
BRAIN/FOREBRAIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIGHT
BRAIN
where we have a vertical axis of left- and
right-brain hemispheres, contrasted to which we find a horizontal axis of backbrain and forebrain hemispheres, the former axis
relative, by and large, to Western, though in particular Anglo-Saxon,
civilization, and the latter axis relative to non-Western, though in particular
Third World, countries, which are rather more disposed to alpha/omega
distinctions than to worldly and purgatorial ones corresponding, in theological
terms, to the Blessed Virgin and to Christ.
Thus if the right brain can be equated, in such terms, with the Blessed
Virgin, and the left brain with Christ, then it behoves us to equate the backbrain with the Father (Creator) and the forebrain with
the Holy Spirit, thereby affirming an allegiance both anterior and posterior to
the left-brain/right-brain divisions.
Treated diagrammatically, we shall find the following:-
THE
FATHER/THE SON/THE HOLY SPIRIT
(backbrain)(left brain)(forebrain)
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE
BLESSED VIRGIN
(right
brain)
with, broadly, naturalistic, materialistic, idealistic,
and realistic implications, as we proceed through the Trinity on the one hand,
and then down to the Blessed Virgin on the other. Actually, history proceeds rather more on the
basis of naturalism (the Father) to realism (the Blessed Virgin) on the one
hand, and from materialism (Christ) to idealism (the Holy Spirit) on the other,
so that we start with a backbrain emphasis and
proceed to a right-brain one. After
which time, corresponding to the rise of Protestantism at the expense of
Catholicism, we have a left-brain emphasis which is destined to be eclipsed or,
at any rate, superseded by the forebrain, as the Holy Spirit eclipses Christ,
and 'Civilization', in Spenglerian parlance, gives
way to 'Second Religiousness', to the meditative self-realization which is no
mere identification with nature (contrary to the almost Buddhist sentience of
right-brain realism) but a supra-natural transcendence of the world which is
its own goal and justification. Thus whereas
the right brain is integral to the world, the forebrain has the capacity to
lift one beyond it in the interests of spiritual salvation. For it is the forebrain which is commensurate
with the utmost superconsciousness, just as, in
contrast to the left brain, the backbrain is
commensurate with the utmost subconsciousness and,
hence, dreamy immanence. The right
brain, by contrast, is less subconscious than conscious in a subconscious
manner, i.e. sensual and sentient, whereas the left brain is less superconscious than conscious in a superconscious
manner, which is to say, logical and rational, a profoundly intellectual part
of the brain which contrasts, as Christ to the Virgin, with the wilful
sentience of the right brain. Of course,
what applies in this religious context applies no less in the secular, or political one underneath, where we are concerned
with the 'anti' manifestations of each of the four divisions, and which
accordingly take a particle rather than a wavicle
manifestation commensurate with the secular (the collective). For there is an Antichristic
left brain no less than a Christic one, and while the
latter is commensurate with love and goodness, the former, by contrast, will be
commensurate with hate and evil, as befitting a sort of Protestant/Republican
cleavage in the left, or logical, brain between wavicle
and particle, positive and negative poles.
Now what applies to the left brain also applies to the right one, with
the religious/secular cleavage in question taking a Catholic/Liberal guise, as
befitting a distinction between beauty and pleasure on the one hand (the
Blessed Virgin) and ugliness and pain on the other hand (the Antivirgin). Thus
whereas goodness and love/evil and hate appertain to the left brain, beauty and
pleasure/ugliness and pain just as surely appertain to the right brain, albeit
on the basis of a positive/negative, wavicle/particle
division. Similarly, whereas the backbrain is divisible between strength and pride on the wavicle side, that of the Creator as it were, its particle
side takes the form of a division between weakness and humiliation, as
befitting the Antifather (read: Satan). Now whereas the forebrain is divisible
between truth and joy on the wavicle side, that of
the Holy Spirit, its particle side takes the form of a division between falsity
and woe, as befitting the Antispirit (read:
Marx). Thus strength and pride/weakness
and humiliation appertain to the backbrain no less
than truth and joy/falsity and woe to the forebrain. For each component of the overall brain has
its own positive and negative extremes, and can be known accordingly. Were this not so, how could we distinguish
between good and evil, right and wrong, or have any sense of moral direction or
ideological distinctions? We can no more
heap all the quantitative and qualitative attributes
of the brain together in one place ... than accord the Father, Christ, the Holy
Spirit, and the Blessed Virgin an equal status.
What may be relevant to a given people at one point in time may become
quite irrelevant to them at another point. We change to live, and live to evolve. Thus whereas strength and pride/weakness and
humiliation are of the backbrain, they are
naturalistic attributes ever pertinent to the alpha. Whereas beauty and pleasure/ugliness and pain
are of the right brain, they are realistic attributes ever pertinent to the
worldly. Whereas goodness and love/evil
and hatred are of the left brain, they are materialistic attributes ever
pertinent to the purgatorial. And
whereas truth and joy/falsity and woe are of the forebrain, they are idealistic
attributes ever pertinent to the omega.
The only difference is that in the one case, that of the positive
attributes, we are dealing with religious wavicles,
whereas in the other case, that of the negative attributes, we are dealing with
secular particles.
23. It
seems to me that whereas trad jazz is essentially nazistic in its acoustic introversion, modern jazz is
fundamentally communistic in its electric extroversion. A distinction, if you will, between joy/truth
in the one context, and pride/strength in the other - the former a naturalistic
omega, the latter an artificial alpha. Trad jazz avails itself of traditional acoustic
instruments, including string basses, and plays them in a decadent or
particle-biased (plucking) manner. Modern jazz avails, by contrast, of
contemporary electric instruments, including guitars, and plays them in a
particle-biased manner. Thus we have a
distinction, it seems to me, between bourgeois decadence (the broken cross) and
proletarian barbarism (the modern star); between, for example, the plucking or
pizzicato playing of acoustic instruments and the plucking of electric ones -
the technique, in each case, reactive and hence centrifugal, albeit in the
acoustic case stemming from a centripetal (bowing) tradition. A sexual parallel to the above Nazi/Communist
distinction would, I believe, involve oral sex on the one hand and masturbation
on the other, since the one is essentially extreme centripetal whereas the other
is extreme centrifugal, with the suggestion of a naturalistic/artificial
distinction between couples and films, or the use thereof.
24. Where
formerly I would have thought of the aggressive proletarian slang-words 'cunt' and 'prick', so often used in books/films and on the
street these days, in a sort of alpha/omega sense, I now find that I am
disposed to regarding them in relation to the vertical axis, as it were, of the
world/purgatory, the Blessed Virgin/Christ, realism/materialism, earth/water,
etc., so that the word 'cunt' conveys a worldly
connotation and 'prick', by contrast, a lunar one, as between, say, Liberals
and Republicans. Both are applicable, it
seems, to Anglo-American civilization, and whereas a person described in regard
to the former term of abuse tends to have a parting in his hair, those defined
in regard to the latter don't, since their hair is brushed back from the
forehead. Thus 'cunts'
and 'pricks' are confined more to the Christian West than to either what
preceded it in the pagan past or to what may succeed it in the transcendental
future. It should also be noted that 'cunts' and 'pricks' are terms of abuse with rather more
reference to bourgeois, or middle-class, elements within this civilization than
to its proletarian, or working-class, elements, who are more usually derided in
terms of 'arseholes' (the American word 'asshole' is of course an equivalent
term of abuse) and 'sods' respectively - the former worldly and the latter
lunar (purgatorial). In this respect, it
could be argued that 'arseholes' and 'sods' appertain rather more to Liberalism
and Republicanism respectively than to, say, Catholicism and Protestantism,
given the more decadent and particle-biased nature of the former phenomena and
their correspondence to the sexuality in question, which is less bourgeois than
proletarian, less biased towards the wavicle than
towards the particle, and less religious than secular. The only apparent difference between a 'cunt' and an 'arsehole', given their similarly-parted
hairstyles, would be in regard to the wearing of a collar shirt without tie in
the one case, that of the 'cunt', and a T-shirt
hanging loosely in the other case, that of the 'arsehole', whereas the
'prick'/'sod' distinction above would be no less sartorially apparent on the
basis, given their non-parted combed-back hair, of a tie-and-collar/tucked-in
T-shirt dichotomy. Thus
whereas the 'cunt'/'prick' is a shirt man, the
'arsehole'/'sod' is a T-shirt man.
25. While
on the subject of hair, it should be possible for us to distinguish, further to
the above parted/non-parted styles, a sort of alpha/omega, or horizontal,
dichotomy between non-parted hair that is centrifugal, and hence worn in a kind
of pudding-basin style, and non-parted hair that is centripetal, and hence tied
back in a ponytail. Both these latter
kinds of hairstyle are outside the official pale of Anglo-American
civilization, since they are neither Catholic/Liberal nor Protestant/Republican
in character, but pertain, in their antithetically absolutist ways, to
autocratic and theocratic options which, depending on their length, will be
either anterior or posterior to its essentially democratic essence - anterior
if very long, posterior if relatively short, and hence of the new brain rather
than the old one.
26. For
me, the terms 'old brain' and 'new brain' have long signified an alpha/omega
dichotomy in each case between alpha/omega-in-the-alpha on the one hand, and
alpha-in-the-omega/omega on the other hand, and therefore I have no hesitation
in dovetailing such terms as backbrain/forebrain and
left brain/right brain into these long-standing terms in such a way as to
correspond to the above subdivision.
Hence alpha backbrain and omega-in-the-alpha
left brain in relation to the old brain, and alpha-in-the-omega right brain and
omega forebrain in relation to the new brain.
Full-star dream immorality and half-cross intellectual morality are the
alpha/omega poles of the old brain, whereas half-star filmic immorality and
full-cross meditative morality are the alpha/omega poles of the new brain, with
naturalistic and artificial distinctions between each brain. Hence superstar alpha vis-à-vis cross omega-in-the-alpha for the backbrain/left-brain
polarity of the old brain, in contrast to star alpha-in-the-omega vis-à-vis supercross omega for the right-brain/forebrain polarity of
the new brain.
27. Returning
to the trad jazz/modern jazz distinction which I was
thinking about several entries (and indeed days) ago, it seems to me that, on
deeper and subsequent reflection, modern jazz is less Communist than
Transcendentalist, to the extent that we are concerned with jazz on an
artificial (and hence electric) as opposed to a naturalistic (and hence
acoustic) basis, and therefore it parallels trad jazz
on new-brain omega terms, terms which emphasize joy and truth as opposed, for
instance, to pride and strength. Hence
if trad jazz and modern jazz exist on parallel omega
terms, it seems that the new-brain alpha position would have to be reserved for
soul music, so that soul and jazz are perceived to be antithetical not, as I
had formerly supposed, on a sort of jazz/soul basis, corresponding to alpha and
omega, but on a soul/jazz basis, with a soul/spirit dichotomy as between fire
and light or, more literally, emotion and awareness, the Father and the Holy
Spirit. Thus, in contrast to our
previous estimation, soul and jazz would constitute the alpha and omega of
new-brain music, with rock and pop constituting lunar and worldly
(mundane/terrestrial) poles as before (see diagram 1).
1.
SOUL/ROCK/JAZZ
(alpha/solar)(lunar)(omega/stellar)
|
|
|
|
|
|
POP
(worldly)
However, if these four contemporary types of
music are of a wavicle bias, and hence essentially
religious on their respective alpha/omega and lunar/worldly terms, then it seems
to me that the four particle-biased, and hence secular, types of contemporary
music which parallel them will be rap in the case of soul, punk in the case of
rock, funk in the case of pop, and blues in the case of jazz (see diagram 2):-
2.
RAP/PUNK/BLUES
(anti-alpha)(anti-lunar)(anti-omega)
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUNK
(anti-worldy)
and that these alternative types of
contemporary music, no less relative to the new brain, will be 'anti'-music in
relation to the wavicle-biased types of music above them,
as it were, in the religious contexts corresponding to the Father - the Son -
the Holy Ghost - and to the Blessed Virgin, the Father and the Holy Ghost no
less antithetical on an alpha/omega basis than the Son and the Blessed Virgin
on a lunar/mundane one. Thus if soul
corresponds to the Father (Creator), then rap, by contrast, corresponds to the
Devil (Satan). If jazz corresponds to
the Holy Spirit, then blues corresponds to the Antispirit. If rock corresponds to Christ, then punk
corresponds to the Antichrist. And if
pop corresponds to the Blessed Virgin, then funk corresponds to the Antivirgin. Or, put
another way, if soul corresponds to pride and strength, then rap corresponds to
humiliation and weakness. If jazz
corresponds to joy and truth, then blues corresponds to woe and illusion. If rock corresponds to love and goodness,
then punk corresponds to hate and evil.
And if pop corresponds to pleasure and beauty, then funk corresponds to
pain and ugliness. Thus whereas rock is
Protestant and pop Catholic, punk is Republican and funk Liberal. And whereas soul is Marxist and jazz
Transcendentalist, rap is Communist and blues Fascist or, at any rate, Social
Transcendentalist (bearing in mind the old-brain/new-brain distinction between
acoustic and electric blues). Thus punk
is to funk what rock is to pop - the lunar/worldly poles of a
materialistic/realistic axis. Likewise,
soul is to jazz what rap is to blues - the alpha/omega poles of a
naturalistic/idealistic axis. Speaking
in elemental terms, one could contend that whereas soul is wavicle
fire and jazz wavicle light, rap is particle fire and
blues particle light. Similarly, one
could contend that whereas rock is wavicle water and
pop wavicle earth, punk is particle water and funk
particle earth. Again this would
correspond to religious and secular, or divine and diabolic, distinctions. Of course, I didn't get to this position
all-in-one-go, and the reader may recall that formerly I regarded folk and pop
as constituting a wavicle/particle dichotomy with
regard to the worldly religious and secular positions. Yet, on deeper reflection, it does seem to me
that funk is the most likely and credible candidate for a particle-worldly
(liberal) status, bearing in mind its highly rhythmic essence. It also seems to me that the fact of folk's
acoustic constitution precludes one from equating it with a new-brain standing
or position, insofar as that brain correlates with the artificial (and hence
electric) rather than with the naturalistic (and hence acoustic), thereby
confining one's choice to electric music, which, of course, both pop and funk
usually are. As good a definition of pop
as any would be dance music or, at any rate, electric music one can dance to,
and if this applies on a wavicle basis to pop, then
it must surely apply on a particle basis to funk, which is more intensely and
even unambiguously rhythmic. Funk is no
less a fall from pop than ... punk a fall from rock, wherein the terms of our wavicle/particle dichotomy are less wilful than
intellectual, given the cerebral as opposed to bodily parallel of the lunar, or
purgatorial, option, corresponding to Protestantism and Republicanism
respectively, and thus to Christ and Antichrist. If both pop and funk are the music of
'bodies', or worldly types, then rock and punk, by contrast, are the music of
'heads', albeit on intellectual/anti-intellectual rather than either
soulful/anti-soulful or spiritual/anti-spiritual terms, and the 'head',
conceived in regard to the cranial, corresponds to the moon, which hangs over
the earth like Christ over the Blessed Virgin, or, for that matter, Britain
over Ireland. However that may be, soul
and rap are of the alpha, on divine and diabolic terms, and are thus more the
music of the subconscious psyche in its wavicle and
particle subatomic manifestations than of the brain as such, just as jazz and
blues, corresponding to the omega on both divine and diabolic terms, are
musical forms of the superconscious psyche in its wavicle and particle supra-atomic manifestations, and are
thus as much beyond the brain (intellect) as soul and rap would seem to be
before or behind it. If soul/rap is the
music of the emotional Damned (no matter how seemingly positive that emotion
may be), then jazz/blues is the music of the spiritually Saved, who are never
more saved than when woe and illusion give way to joy and truth, and the Holy
Spirit accordingly prevails, through jazz, over the Antispirit. Whereas alpha is outer and selfless, omega is
inner and selfish; whereas alpha is centrifugal and apparent, omega is
centripetal and essential. Soul may be
proud and strong, but it is still alpha-like in relation to jazz, which is the
music that inspires joy and confirms truth.
If rap is weakness and humiliation, that is because it tends to be
politically aggressive, like Communism, and thus a particle fall, paralleling
the sun vis-à-vis the central star of the Galaxy, from wavicle
(soulful) grace. Rap is musical hell,
and all musical hell is let loose wherever rap prevails. Blues, too, is musical hell, but it is an
inner hell of woe and illusion, and thus morally preferable to, and superior
than, the outer hell which burns, in Satanic humiliation and weakness, against
the light. Blues can lead to jazz,
whereas rap is doomed to burn in fallen isolation from soul, as Satan from the
Father, and to rage, in particle declamation, until it burns itself up and can
rage no more. In this respect, it
resembles comic opera, which stands to grand opera as proton particles to wavicles, the sun to the central star of the Galaxy, albeit
within the context of the old brain as opposed to the new one. For, of course, the acoustic and, hence,
naturalistic forms of music are no less intelligible in terms of our basic
fourfold wavicle/particle divisions, with, so I
contend, opera as the old-brain equivalent of soul and concerto music as the
old-brain equivalent of jazz, symphonies and ballet coming in-between on a
basis paralleling rock and pop (see diagram 3):-
3.
OPERA/SYMPHONIES/CONCERTOS
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALLET
so that soul, intellect, spirit, and will are all
granted musical representation, as in the new brain, and can be known
accordingly. As, of course, can their
'anti', or secular, manifestations which, if I am not mistaken, will take the
forms of comic opera, symphonic poems, concerto grosso,
and light dance music (see diagram 4)
4.
COMIC
OPERA/SYMPHONIC POEMS/CONCERTO GROSSO
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIGHT
DANCE
(Ballroom dancing)
in the more naturalistic criteria of old-brain culture,
which is rather more bourgeois than proletarian, though subject to similar
divisions, both politically and religiously.
Yet if soul is more intense in the old brain than in the new one on
account of that brain's closer extrapolation from cosmic parallels, spirit is
less intense there than in the new brain, and accordingly wavicle
grand opera corresponds to alpha and soul to alpha-in-the-omega, concerto music
corresponds to omega-in-the-alpha and jazz to omega. One might say that although the backbrain figures in both opera and soul, the backbrain of the opera singer is more connected to a
naturalistic environment, whereas the backbrain of
the soul singer is rather more habituated to an urban environment, and is
accordingly proletarian rather than bourgeois.
Conversely, the forebrain of the concerto performer is less spiritually
advanced than the forebrain of the jazz musician because he is accustomed to a
provincial or even rural rather than to an urban milieu, and has a less-well
developed forebrain in consequence. His
morality is relative, whereas the jazz musician's morality is capable of
opening towards the absolute. As to the
left brain of the symphonic composer and the rock musician respectively,
similar environmental distinctions can be drawn, though whereas the former
corresponds to purgatory-in-the-world, the latter corresponds to purgatory per se, being so much more materialistic and
intellectually extreme in consequence of his urban background. Likewise, whereas the right brain figures
prominently in both ballet and pop, it figures more prominently in ballet than
in pop on account of the environmental distinctions between proletarian and
bourgeois culture, which makes ballet correspond to the world but pop to
the-world-in-purgatory on account of its less wilful constitution. More intellect in the urban left brain than
in the provincial left brain, though less will in the urban right brain than in
the provincial right brain, given the urban correspondence to purgatory (the
moon) and the provincial/rural correspondence to the world (the earth). Hence more will in the provincial old brain
than in the urban new brain, but less intellect in the provincial old brain
than in the urban new brain. Hence, too,
more soul in the provincial old brain than in the urban new brain, but less
spirit in the provincial old brain than in the urban new brain. For whereas soul and will
are devolutionary, corresponding to the star, intellect and spirit are
evolutionary, and thereby correspond to the cross. Now what applies to each of the wavicle types of music, in relation to our more basic
fourfold divisions of the human brain, applies no less to the particle types of
music which form a secular counterpart to their religious essence.
28. It
would seem that my concept of an old-brain/new-brain dichotomy is less a matter
of cerebral division into two brains than an acknowledgement of the effects of
different environments on the fourfold division of the overall brain, viz. backbrain/forebrain along a horizontal axis, and left
brain/right brain along a vertical one.
Hence while the backbrain, for example, will
be effected in a naturalistic way by a rural environment and thus pertain to
the old brain, it will be effected in an artificial way by an urban environment
and thus pertain to the new brain. For
this naturalistic/artificial division, conditioned in large part by
environment, is at the root of the distinction I have drawn between the old
brain (with its fourfold cerebral divisions) and the
new brain (also with fourfold cerebral divisions). Furthermore, it seems to me that I have
opted, hitherto, for a sort of bourgeois/proletarian dichotomy between the old
brain and the new brain, and thus settled for fourfold divisions
along roughly naturalistic and artificial lines on the basis of such a class
distinction. However, while this is
expedient in terms of the contemporary world and its capitalist/socialist
dichotomy, it is less than objectively correct.
For, in reality, the bourgeois category is less naturalistic than a sort
of cross, or compromise, between naturalistic and artificial antitheses, a
compromise corresponding, in environmental terms, to a provincial and/or
suburban milieu as opposed to either a rural or an urban one, and stands
approximately in between the purely naturalistic and artificial antitheses of,
on the one hand, a feudal peasant society and, on the other hand, a socialistic
proletarian society, much the way that the ego stands in between the
subconscious and the superconscious, or democracy in
between autocracy and theocracy. Hence
the real naturalistic category, corresponding to the old brain, is a feudal
peasant one, and it is in this rural context that naturalism has its true
voice, one musically expressed in terms, for example, of folk music, gigs,
reels, and other traditional modes of acoustic music which may be said to have
preceded the bourgeois contexts of classical music, and which stand in an
antithetical relationship to the contemporary forms of electric music, as
discussed above. I do not feel qualified
to speculate on the individual standings of traditional music in relation to
our fourfold division of the brain and its T-like diagrams, for I am
effectively a creature of the city rather than of the country, and have little
experience of such traditional acoustic music.
But it is clear that it pertains to the old brain as a purely
naturalistic phenomenon relative to a peasant society, wherein we are dealing
with a rural as opposed to a suburban or an urban influence, and that it is
accordingly autocratic rather than democratic, like bourgeois music, or
theocratic, like proletarian music, with a corresponding correlation with the
first part of the Trinity - the autocratic part par excellence. Its backbrain
musical equivalent would be much more soulful than both the bourgeois and
proletarian forms of backbrain music, viz. opera and
soul, and accordingly be the most naturalistic mode of alpha music, whereas its
forebrain musical equivalent, by contrast, would be much less spiritual than
both the bourgeois and proletarian forms of forebrain music, viz. concertos and
jazz, and accordingly be the least idealistic mode of omega music. Conversely, its right-brain musical
equivalent would be much more wilful, or will-based, than both the bourgeois
and proletarian forms of right-brain music, viz. ballet and pop, and
accordingly be the most realistic mode of worldly music, whereas its left-brain
musical equivalent would be much less intellectual than both the bourgeois and
proletarian forms of left-brain music, viz. symphonies and rock, and
accordingly be the least materialistic mode of purgatorial music. Obviously, the alpha and worldly contexts of
this peasant music will involve singing and dancing respectively, whereas the
purgatorial and omega contexts will involve instrumentals of an intellectual
and a spiritual order respectively, with collective and individual
distinctions. Now what applies to the wavicle modes of this naturalistic music will also apply to
its particle modes, where we are conscious of different kinds of antimusic which signify a fall, in moral terms, from the
religious plane to that of the secular, or political, one - a fall which both
necessitates and implies a cruder approach to any given mode of traditional
acoustic music.
29. Barbarism
is always collectivistic, civilization individualistic. A man is innocent until proven guilty in a
civilized society, but guilty until proven innocent in a barbarous one, the
reason being that moral innocence, or rectitude, and individualism are
commensurate, as, on barbarous terms, are moral guilt and collectivism. A collectivistic society is alpha, an
individualistic society omega, the difference between the star and the cross. For the one is external
whereas the other is internal, the one autocratic and the other theocratic. In between comes the democratic compromise
between collectivism, embodied in the People as electorate, and the individual,
embodied in the People's representative, who is elected to govern on behalf of
the People and thus, by implication, to maintain an individualistic bias
commensurate with civilization. Too much
democracy in the People and we would not have civilization but barbarism, the
collective chaos of a People's democracy (conceiving of that term on a purely
collectivistic basis). The great
artist/philosopher is profoundly moral because he has the duty to uphold
private individualism in the face of public collectivism, and thus keep the
torch of civilization shining as a beacon and guide to the less-enlightened
masses. The ultimate artist/philosopher
is the Second Coming, who leads from above on the basis of his divine
individualism and the truth it signifies.
30. The British flag, the so-called Union Jack, can be perceived
as predominantly either a cross or a star, depending how it is hung. Hung vertically, and
one has a predominating cross. Hung horizontally, and one has a predominating star. The British, being relative, can thus show
either a bourgeois or a proletarian face to their flag, depending, in large
measure, upon the nature of the context in which it is being displayed. Co-operative and moral (relatively) and one
is likely to see the Union Jack hanging vertically. Competitive and immoral (relatively) and one
will see it hanging horizontally. In the
former context, the Union Jack is bourgeois and capitalistic; in the latter
context, by contrast, it will be proletarian and socialistic. Private and public
alternatives, as reflecting the relative (atomic) nature of British civilization. Previously, I had seen the Union Jack as
either a star or a cross. Now I am able
to synthesize my view according to the context, which is indicative, after all,
of how the struggle for truth, objectivity, and perspective progresses - by
degrees!
31. If
one were to generalize in terms of the most characteristic contemporary form of
music for each of the four countries which make up the British Isles, I think
the result would be: Welsh soul, English rock, Scotch jazz, and Irish pop, as
follows:-
WELSH
SOUL/ENGLISH ROCK/SCOTCH JAZZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRISH
POP
with, broadly, alpha-purgatorial-omega-and worldly
distinctions, as regards the Trinity above and the Blessed Virgin below. Likewise, it should also be possible to generalize
on an identical basis where the fallen, or secular, types of contemporary music
are concerned, so that one could speak, for instance, of Welsh rap, English
punk, Scotch blues, and Irish funk, with negative, or particle-biased,
implications respectively. However that
may be, it would seem that, by and large, the Welsh are naturalistic, and hence
fiery; the English materialistic, and hence watery; the Scotch idealistic, and
hence airy; and the Irish realistic, and hence earthy. Welsh fire, English water, Scotch air, and
Irish earth, corresponding to heat, coldness, light, and darkness, or soul,
intellect, spirit, and will respectively, as applicable, so I would argue, to
each of the above-mentioned musical forms and, within negative terms, to their
secular, or fallen, counterparts. The red of
32. If
one were to accord each of the four major arts, viz. sculpture, literature,
music, and painting a specific ideal, both quantitatively and qualitatively, my
choice of ideals would be as follows: strength and pride for sculpture;
goodness and love for music; truth and joy for literature; and beauty and
pleasure for painting. Thus each of the
four major branches of the arts could be ascribed a generalized position within
the T-like framework of Truth, viz:-
SCULPTURE/MUSIC/LITERATURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
PAINTING
which would suggest that sculpture is the
naturalistic art par excellence,
painting the realistic art par excellence, music the materialistic art par
excellence, and literature the idealistic art par excellence, with
alpha, worldly, purgatorial, and omega correspondences respectively - sculpture
and literature, or strength (pride) and truth (joy) no less antithetical than
... painting and music, or beauty (pleasure) and goodness (love). Thus it could be said that, in their positive
manifestations (wavicle), sculpture is of the Father,
painting of the Blessed Virgin, music of the Son, and literature of the Holy
Ghost. The genuine sculptor strives to
convey pride through strength, the genuine painter to convey pleasure through
beauty, the genuine musician to convey love through goodness, and, finally, the
genuine writer to convey joy through truth.
33. Nationalism, corresponding to democracy, is a neutron equivalent in
between the proton equivalent of internationalism, corresponding to autocracy,
and the electron equivalent of supra-nationalism, corresponding to theocracy.
Democracy being a kind of proton/electron compromise or balance within
the neutron equivalent of the Nation State, it follows that a State must first
of all achieve independence from autocratic internationalism before democracy
can come to pass and the People accordingly be in a position to achieve a
long-term theocratic supra-nationalism.
For nationalism is not an end-in-itself but a means to a supra-national
end. Nationalism, like democracy, is
decentralized, because it signifies freedom from the centralized control of
autocratic internationalism, the imperialistic imposition on weaker
countries/peoples by a stronger power.
Yet when the peoples of such national states are given the opportunity
to vote for religious sovereignty, and thus achieve salvation from the world (of
political, judicial, and economic sovereignties), there will be a return to
centralized control on the basis of a Christ-like sacrifice of bearing 'sins of
the world' (those lesser sovereignties in relation to religious sovereignty) by
the followers of the Second Coming, in order that the People may be saved from
them. Yet such centralized control will
be localized, i.e. exist within the national framework, and thus be quite
distinct from the autocratic centrality of international imperialism, which cuts
across state boundaries. The religiously
sovereign peoples will have their own economic/political centres, and their
supra-nationalism will be religious and cultural - the unity, voluntarily
entered into, of the Saved.
34. Communist
autocracy melts towards Social Democracy as the hard-line proton equivalent is
superseded by a soft-line proton equivalent which will co-exist with the
soft-line electron equivalent of what may well be an embryonic Social
Transcendentalist Party in the neutron equivalent of democratic nationalism. The soft line is middle ground, and hence
democratic, whereas the hard line is extreme, whether autocratic, as in the
case of the Communist Party, or theocratic, following the democratic
achievement of religious sovereignty by the People, and the consequent bearing
of 'sins of the world' by a Social Transcendentalist administration in a
regional centralized aside to the ultimate mass sovereignty. Once such a theocratic sovereignty comes to
pass, as ultimately it must, the supercross will have
effectively eclipsed the star, and there will no longer be need of a democratic
compromise between the two. Conceived in
terms of our T-like framework, it would seem that the neutron equivalent of the
national State is rather more bureaucratic, and feminine, than democratic, if
by 'democracy' we mean a compromise, or balance, between protons and electrons,
social democracy and social theocracy, the soft Right and the soft Left:-
PROTON(PROTON/ELECTRON)ELECTRON
(autocracy)(democracy)(theocracy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEUTRON
(bureaucracy)
with, of course, the possibility of a truly liberal
compromise party coming in-between the soft proton and electron positions,
thereby constituting a Christic trinity of democratic
options. However, the relativity of a
social democracy should not, as with a capital democracy, be economically
conditioned, since there can be no scope for capitalist exploitation of the
People by a plutocratic elite, but would effectively be with regard to the
degree to which the People should be economically sovereign on the one hand,
primarily that of social democracy, and to the emergence of a social theocratic
alternative on the other hand, which would have the religious sovereignty of
the People as its long-term goal and be working towards the democratic
establishment of religious sovereignty and, by implication, the supersession of democratic relativity in due course. My belief is that considerations of socialist
economics, and its corollary of collectivism vis-à-vis state ownership of the
means of production, will be paramount in the early stages of Social Democracy,
until such time as Social Transcendentalism acquires greater definition and
religious considerations accordingly predominate, leading, eventually, to a
full-blown social theocracy in which there is neither state ownership nor
collective ownership of the means of production but Centre trusteeship of those
means - less materialist than cultural - in the interests of the religiously
sovereign People.
35. Impossible
to conceive of a free and genuine transvaluation, in
regard to the acceptance of religious sovereignty by the People, without the
concomitant necessity of nature being extensively undermined and transcended,
so that the People will not be exposed to the open-society acceptance of and
acquiescence in nature which keeps them tied to the alpha and in no position to
accept the omega - at least not fully, and hence to a completely transvaluated extent.
An acknowledgement of the Holy Spirit is, of course, possible in an
open-society context. But there is a great
deal of difference between acknowledging and actually being it ...
compliments of a democratic acceptance of religious sovereignty through the
Second Coming. Only after nature has
been effectively eclipsed by historical progress ... can a genuine transvaluation be embraced; one that is more than in name
only, but essentially a matter of life-and-death for its recipients. For it is either nature or the Holy Spirit,
not both! The People must choose and be
aware of the consequences of their choice.
And they must have the means to survive above and beyond nature once
that choice has been made, since being able to transcend nature positively as
well as negatively, constructively as well as destructively, is a precondition
of such a choice, without which it cannot reasonably be entertained.
36. Antinaturalism is a precondition of supernaturalism. Unless one is first against nature, one
cannot be for supernature. For supernature
cannot thrive while nature is extant, but only after it has been overcome.
37. Literature, when true to itself, is as superior to music as truth
to goodness, or joy to love. Superior, that is to say
as the Holy Spirit to Christ, the pursuit of joy through truth to the
achievement of love through goodness.
But only he who is true will pursue literature truthfully.
38. When
autocracy crumbles (as in the
39. Sculpture
is fundamentally a pagan art form, an art of the alpha star, and is never
'truer' to itself than when strength and pride are its chief concerns.
40. If
sculpture, when most 'true' to itself, corresponds to the Father and music to
the Son, then painting, when most 'true' to itself, corresponds to the Blessed
Virgin and literature ... to the Holy Spirit.
A naturalistic society will have a sculptural bias, in contrast (as
alpha vis-à-vis omega) to the literary bias of an idealistic society. Conversely, a realistic society will have a
painterly bias, in contrast (as purgatory vis-à-vis the world) to the musical
bias of a materialistic society.
Contemporary Western society, being materialistic, is a predominantly
musical society, with love, the essence of music, being its principal
concern. In this moon-struck society the
other arts are, to varying extents, marginalized and/or 'bovaryized',
in accordance with the prevailing materialism.
Painting is no less subordinate to music than Catholicism to Protestantism,
or the Blessed Virgin to Christ - the converse of what used to be the case in
the Catholic Middle Ages, when realism and, hence, painting was the principal
art form.
41. Authoritarian
monarchism is the autocracy of the Father; feudal democracy (or constitutional
monarchy) the democracy of the Father; Catholicism the theocracy of the
Father. Cromwellian
dictatorship is the autocracy of Christ; parliamentary democracy the democracy
of Christ; Protestantism the theocracy of Christ. Soviet Communism is the autocracy of the Holy
Ghost; Social Democracy the democracy of the Holy Ghost; Social
Transcendentalism the theocracy of the Holy Ghost. It is my belief that whereas autocracy starts
out strongly in the context of the Father, it becomes progressively weaker as
we move via the autocracy of Christ to the autocracy of the Holy Spirit,
whereas, from the converse standpoint, theocracy starts out weakly in the
theocracy of the Father and becomes progressively stronger as we move via the
theocracy of Christ to the theocracy of the Holy Spirit. Hence one could speak of a strong autocracy
of the Father (authoritarian monarchy), a medium-strong autocracy of Christ (Cromwellian dictatorship), and a weak autocracy of the Holy
Ghost (communism). In contrast to which
we would find a weak theocracy of the Father (Roman Catholicism), a
medium-strong theocracy of Christ (Protestantism), and a strong theocracy of
the Holy Spirit (social transcendentalism).
The democratic positions of the Father (feudalism), the Son (parliamentarianism),
and the Holy Spirit (social democracy) would be relatively medium strong in
each case, as befitting a middle-ground context.
42. However,
although the Trinitarian divisions listed above pertain to Western
civilization, and thus to the 'modern world', beginning in Feudalism,
progressing to Capitalism, and culminating in Socialism, they have no real
relevance to the East, neither Near nor Far. In fact, it is precisely because Western
civilization is a transvaluated one, beginning in
autocracy and progressing via democracy to theocracy, that it is the
'modern world', and hence evolutionary.
For Eastern civilization had no such transvaluation,
but was rooted in theocracy, the theocracy, more specifically, of the Creator
(Jehovah, Allah, etc.) from which, to a limited extent, democratic and
autocratic alternatives stemmed in due devolutionary fashion. Thus while the West was evolutionary, the
'ancient world', as we may call the East, remained largely devolutionary and,
as regards Islam and Judaism, continues to remain so to this day, being rooted
in Creator-theocracy and having no evolutionary momentum or dynamic, neither in
regard to the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, as outlined above in the
successive progressions of Western civilization from Feudalism to Socialism via
Capitalism. Where the devolutionary
regression from theocracy to autocracy via democracy applies, as in the Islamic
world, we are effectively dealing with ancient-world primitivism, with a
naturalism that, being untransvaluated, remains
diametrically opposed to the evolutionary realism, materialism, and idealism of
the successive stages, or manifestations, of Western civilization. Certainly no transvaluation
can be expected where this ancient-world mentality prevails, as throughout the
Islamic world, and it is my belief that it will not be possible for the
evolutionary dynamic of Western civilization to attain to its peak in the
theocracy of the Holy Spirit, the theocracy of theocracies and omega-of-omegas,
until and unless those peoples still enslaved to the theocracy of the Creator,
the alpha-of-alphas, have been freed from their enslavement and encouraged to
join the evolutionary march of the free spirit towards its omega destination in
total salvation. Then and only then will
the triumph of the West be complete, and its evolutionary dynamism fully
vindicated!
43. Sculpture,
being naturalistic, is the oldest of the arts, the one most pertinent to the
'ancient world', with its untransvaluated binding to
alpha theocracy. Then comes painting,
which is essentially a Western art form, and one
especially pertinent to the feudal and medieval manifestations of the 'modern
world', with its worldly realism. After
which we find music which, in its lunar materialism, is the art form most
relevant to the capitalist and liberal manifestations of the modern world, the
contemporary age par excellence. Finally we have literature, the youngest and
most idealistic of the arts, which should reach full maturity in the socialist and
transcendentalist manifestations of the 'modern world', the age which, though
inevitable, will not fully materialize until the 'ancient world' is finally
defeated and civilization progresses to an unequivocal identification with
omega theocracy. Then and only then will
idealism have reached a civilized peak and literature, preferably on computer
disc, along with it, a literature which is so truth orientated as to be
effectively superconceptual, the prelude to pure
meditation.
44. Alpha
and omega are incommensurable, and until alpha is
discredited and overthrown, omega will lack credibility and true moral
standing. It will remain more a dream
than an actuality. Hence
not only the defeat of the 'ancient world', but of nature, autocracy, strength.
45. Though
literary tapes, or cassettes of the spoken word, have a right to existence and
are of an unquestionable benefit to society, they are as inferior to computer
discs, for purposes of literary dissemination, as ... the oral transmission of
literature to the printed word, the reason being that the audible, being
naturalistic, is inferior to the optical, which, in its idealism, stands to the
former as light to heat, or omega to alpha.
If literary dissemination begins orally, it ends optically, whether through
the printed word or, increasingly in the future, through the electronic word on
the Visual Display Unit (VDU) of computers.
If the oral transmission of the word is populist,
then its optical transmission can only be classical, an omega flowering from an
alpha soil. Thus as the oral
transmission of the word through the medium of cassettes is alpha, and hence
pertinent to an autocratic stage of People's civilization (the civilization of
the Holy Ghost), it should follow that this autocratic populism will, in due
course, be superseded by a democratic balance, as it were, between literary
cassettes and literary discs, or computer discs used for literary purposes,
which should in turn be superseded by a theocratic classicism in which,
compliments of the acceptance of religious sovereignty by the People and its
concomitance of salvation in the light, literary discs become the presiding
norm, a norm paving the way, through the word as light, for the spiritual
light-of-lights in the contemplative purism of ultimate essence, the
full-flowering of the superconceptual in
transcendental meditation.
46. Race
is to the devolutionary ancient world what class, profession, and ideology (in
that order) are to the evolutionary modern one, that is to say, the principal
social characteristic of the age of naturalism, no less than class is the
principal social characteristic of the age of realism, profession the principal
social characteristic of the age of materialism, and ideology the principal
social characteristic of the age of idealism.
Using Spenglerian epochal distinctions, one
might argue that race corresponds to 'Historyless
Chaos', class to 'the Culture', profession to 'the Civilization', and ideology
to 'Second Religiousness' - in that chronological order of historical periods
stretching from the alpha to the omega of human civilization. Thus one might define the twentieth century
as the age of the profession par excellence, since it corresponded to the age of
materialism, 'the Civilization' in Spenglerian
parlance, and thus to the Christic period of Western
civilization, with particular reference to its political and economic
manifestations in Liberalism and Capitalism.
The coming age of idealism, on the other hand, can only be ideological,
as befitting its spiritual essence as the evolutionary period corresponding to
the Holy Ghost, and such an ideological integrity can only be in opposition to
racism, as, superseding both class and profession, it strives to extend its
omega bias at the expense of outmoded alpha naturalism, of which race is, as
already remarked, the chief social characteristic. Now just as class, being realistic, is
wilful, and profession, being materialistic, intellectual, as pertaining to the
world and purgatory respectively, so race, being naturalistic, is soulful, and
ideology, being idealistic, spiritual, as pertaining to alpha and omega, or
paganism and transcendentalism respectively.
Now, no less than profession eclipsed class in the former context, so
ideology must eclipse race in the latter one - and eclipse it not merely
relatively, as in the former context, but absolutely, as befitting the
incommensurability, within their extreme contexts, of alpha and omega, the
ancient world and the furthest reach of the modern one.
47. No
less than autocracy, democracy, and theocracy constitute a sort of Blessed
Trinity of masculine options stretching from alpha to omega, so do science,
politics, and religion ... in that order.
For science is to autocracy what politics is to democracy and religion to
theocracy, which is to say, its practical essence, and no less than autocracy
is scientific, so democracy is political and theocracy religious. In the West, or 'modern world', science is
objective and religion subjective, as reflecting the centrifugal and
centripetal natures of alpha and omega, with their corollary of collectivism
and individualism, society and selfhood respectively. In the East, or 'ancient world', science
is/was subjective and religion objective, given the fact that, in contrast to
the West, Eastern civilization was rooted in theocracy and thus, by
implication, in a centrifugal and collective religion which had an objective
essence vis-à-vis the Creator and His worship/propitiation thereof, whereas
science, appertaining to the autocratic, could only be centripetal and
individual, as befitting the subjective.
Hence the science of astrology, or the 'influence' of the 'heavenly
bodies' on the individual, which followed from a subjective premise, and which
existed in antithetical complement to the religious objectivity of
astronomy. To us Westerners, astrology
is occult and astronomy science, but that is only because, unlike the ancient
East, we are transvaluated, and thus disposed to
regard the objective scientifically and the subjective religiously, albeit our
own religious subjectivity is quite distinct from the scientific subjectivity
of astrology, in consequence of which we are not disposed to regarding
astrology in genuinely religious terms.
Our God is not the Creator, viz. Jehovah, Allah, etc., but the Father -
Son - and Holy Ghost of the Blessed Trinity in progressively more
omega-oriented subjective terms.
48. The Pilgrimage to Mecca, which is so crucial to the Islamic
world, is a reflection of the collectivism of alpha-oriented objectivity, and
is thus something totally alien to and inconceivable within the framework of
Western society. To us, the crowd is a
refutation of God, i.e. omega-oriented subjectivity, and thus not something
that we can interpret in religious terms, since more congenial, in its
alpha-oriented objectivity, to modern science, wherein the centrifugal takes
precedence over the centripetal, and the individual is accordingly subordinated
to the collective. No less than we
reject collectivism with regard to religion, the East rejects individualism
with regard to it, considering that alpha and omega are antithetical, and that
which pertains to the one is effectively a threat to and refutation of the
other. The lone figure of Christ,
suffering by Himself in the
49. Jehovah
Witnesses are perhaps the most paradoxical of all Christian sects, the reason
being that they endeavour to reconcile Christ with Jehovah, the 'modern world'
with the 'ancient one', and to speak of the former through the latter. But in practice this is a contradiction in
terms, since Christ appertains to the Western world, with particular reference
to its bourgeois manifestation, whereas Jehovah, like Allah, appertains to the
Eastern one, the world rooted in Creator theocracy and enslaved by it. Jehovah is the alpha and Christ to some
extent the omega, at any rate to the extent of affirming the 'Kingdom of
Heaven' within the self, and thus effectively pointing in the direction
of the Holy Spirit, the omega-of-omegas which is diametrically antithetical to
the alpha-of-alphas, viz. Jehovah. Those
who uphold belief in Jehovah are simply the slaves of objective theocracy. For Jehovah is alone sovereign. Those, on the other hand, who believe in the
'
50. The autocracy of drinking wine, beer, or cola from a
bottle. The theocracy
of drinking wine, beer, or cola from a can. The democracy of drinking wine, beer, or cola
from either a bottle into a glass on the Right or a can into a glass on the
Left, with the possibility of a liberal, centrist compromise between the two in
the guise, more probably, of barrel into glass.
Now since, in my view, wine corresponds to the Father, beer to the Son,
and cola to the Holy Ghost, it will follow that wine drunk from a bottle, a
glass, or a can corresponds to the autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the
Father; beer drunk from a bottle, a glass, or a can corresponds to the
autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of Christ; and cola drunk from a bottle, a
glass, or a can corresponds to the autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the
Holy Spirit. If there is or could be
such a thing as the bureaucracy of drinking wine, beer, or cola, as relative to
the Blessed Virgin, and hence by worldly implication to a bodily neutrality in
between proton and electron extremes, it would probably take the form of
barrels, kegs, containers, etc., though I, for one, rather doubt the
applicability of such mind-altering drinks to a bureaucratic and hence feminine
mean, preferring to speculate in terms of the applicability of milk and fruit
juices to it within a bottle - glass - can/carton triad stretching from fruit
juices in the context of the Father, or the bureaucracy thereof, to flavoured
milk and/or milk shakes in the context of the Holy Ghost via plain milk in the
context of Christ, milk having to do with the Mother (Blessed Virgin) and thus
being closer to the Son than, say, fruit juices, which are rather more
naturalistic in their derivation from nature (fruit) and vitamin-providing
essence. To me, fruit juices are the
bureaucratic complement to wine, no less than milk to beer and milk shakes to
cola.
51. Although
Western societies tend to be rooted in autocracy, not all countries share the
same bias. For it is clear that while
some, like Britain, have an autocratic bias, others, like Ireland, a theocratic
bias, and still others, like France, profess to a bias for democracy. This means that while
52. If I
were asked to define sexuality in relation to the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, or the historical periods thereof, I would have no hesitation in
ascribing a horizontal bias to sexuality within the context of the Father,
whether autocratically, democratically, or theocratically;
a seated bias to sexuality within the context of the Son, whether
autocratically, democratically, or theocratically;
and a vertical bias to sexuality within the context of the Holy Ghost, whether
autocratically, democratically, or theocratically. Since the autocratic tends to be masturbatory
and the theocratic voyeuristic, the democratic may be ascribed a coital status
within a broadly heterosexual framework, in contrast to the coital status of
bureaucratic sex, or sex within basically worldly terms, which is homosexual on
both feminine (lesbian) and masculine (gay) terms, albeit the former tends to
predominate within the bureaucracy of the Father and the latter within the
bureaucracy of the Holy Ghost, whereas the bureaucracy of Christ would
indicate, in its bourgeois relativity, the likelihood of a balance between
lesbian and gay modes of homosexuality.
Now since my interest is more with the democratic modes of coital sex
than with the bureaucratic in this entry, I shall concentrate on
heterosexuality to the exclusion of homosexuality, and draw distinctions, over
and above the horizontal, seated, and vertical ones to which I have already
alluded, between the different approaches to coital heterosexuality. To begin with, there is what I would call the
right-wing approach to copulation between a man and a woman in which the man
inserts his penis into the woman's vagina from behind, the man being the
sexually active, or aggressive, partner. Contrasted to which we shall find the
left-wing approach to heterosexual copulation in which the woman takes sexual
control of the man's penis with her back turned on him. In between these extreme democratic positions
we shall find the liberal, or centrist, positions of face-to-face
heterosexuality, with the man active in the right-liberal context but the woman
active in the left-liberal context, the possibility of simultaneous or
alternate sexual activity being reserved a centre-liberal status, as befitting
its balanced integrity. Hence from the
extreme right to the extreme left via a liberal compromise in between, heterosexuality
will be masculine-dominated on the Right, feminine-dominated on the Left, and
androgynous in the Centre. However,
whether these different approaches to heterosexuality are conducted on a
horizontal, a seated, or a vertical basis should depend, in my view, on the
type of democracy to which their participants relate and the degree of their
fidelity, consciously or unconsciously, to a class-conscious identity; though I
have no doubt that most people do not consciously draw parallels between their
sexual preferences and their politics.
However that may be, it is my duty, as a self-taught philosopher, to
attempt to draw such parallels, if only to clarify the matter in my own eyes
and bring order to the possible chaos of choices and options which, if not
understood metaphysically, will remain merely physical, without deeper meaning
or significance. Since we are men and
not animals, it behoves us to ascribe meaning to our acts and thus to lift them
above the merely physical realm in which they would otherwise languish, like
soulless automata, to a realm where they may be morally evaluated. Clearly then, since horizontal
heterosexuality appertains to the democracy of the Father, we have no logical
alternative but to ascribe a Conservative peer significance to horizontal
right-wing heterosexuality, a Labour peer significance to horizontal left-wing
heterosexuality, and a Liberal and/or Liberal-Democratic peer significance to
horizontal centrist heterosexuality, so that anyone who has intercourse with
the opposite sex in a horizontal position is effectively having sex that finds
its political parallel in the House of Lords and is accordingly
aristocratic. Compared to which we shall
find that, as seated heterosexuality appertains to the democracy of Christ, we
have no alternative but to ascribe a Conservative significance to seated
right-wing heterosexuality, a Labour significance to seated left-wing
heterosexuality, and a Liberal Democratic significance to seated centrist
heterosexuality, so that anyone who regularly has intercourse in a seated
position is effectively having sex that finds its political parallel in the
House of Commons, and is accordingly bourgeois.
After which we shall find that, since vertical heterosexuality
appertains to the democracy of the Holy Ghost, we have no alternative but to
ascribe a Social Democratic significance to vertical right-wing
heterosexuality, a Social Radical significance to vertical left-wing
heterosexuality, and a 'Social Liberal' significance to vertical centrist
heterosexuality, so that anyone who regularly has heterosexual intercourse in a
vertical position is effectively having sex that finds its political parallel
in the 'Social Democratic' parliaments of the former East-European Communist
countries, and is accordingly proletarian.
In fact, treating our aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian
distinctions economically, one could say that the heterosexuality of the Father
is effectively feudal, the heterosexuality of the Son effectively capitalist,
and the heterosexuality of the Holy Ghost effectively socialist, as relative to
the different class societies corresponding to each of the aforementioned
stages of civilized evolution. Therefore
it ought to be logically possible to infer that a person who considers himself
socialistic should prefer vertical heterosexuality to either of the other
kinds, whereas a capitalist ought logically to find seated heterosexuality more
congenial, etc. Once again, I would have
to doubt that total consistency between one's sexuality and politics was a
matter of principle for most people, who are less godlike than animalistic in
their comparative thoughtlessness. Only
a select few within each class or stage of Western civilization would strive
after such consistency, which is, after all, the mark of true civilization.
53. In
reference to the above, I should like to draw attention to the fact that, for
women, dresses and skirts can be either flounced, straight, or tapered, and
that a correlation can indeed be inferred to exist between flounced
dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Father; straight
dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Son; and tapered
dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Holy Ghost, so that what a
woman wears will inevitably tell one something about her class/civilized allegiance
and the type of heterosexuality to which she should relate and/or be
subjected. For the flounce, being
centrifugal, conveys a proton-biased significance commensurate with the
civilization/class of the Father, whereas the taper, being centripetal, conveys
an electron-biased significance commensurate with the civilization/class of the
Holy Ghost, and the straight, being neither centrifugal nor centripetal but
neutral, conveys a neutron significance commensurate
with the civilization/class of the Son.
Hence the nature of a woman's dress/skirt will reveal to the interested
male more than simply meets the eye, and she can be known accordingly. To my way of thinking, dresses are right wing
and skirts left wing, so that a woman who habitually dresses in one or the
other can be known in relation to either right- or left-wing politics and
should be treated accordingly, i.e. approached from either a right- or a
left-wing point of view. On the other
hand, a woman who regularly alternates between dresses and skirts is
effectively liberal, and should be regarded/sexually approached from a centrist
point of view, the exact approach depending on the nature of her clothing at
any given time. Hence the use of a dress
would entitle the male to take face-to-face sexual initiative, whereas the use
of a skirt would entitle the female to take such initiative within the
face-to-face parameters of liberal heterosexuality, irrespective of the class
stage to which the partners ordinarily relate.
A tapering dress and one is in the context of Social Democracy. A tapering skirt and one is in the context of
Social Radicalism. Some women will tend
to be one or the other, and should be treated accordingly, whereas others will
prefer to alternate between such dresses and skirts in response to a Social
Liberal persuasion which would indicate a preference for face-to-face
heterosexuality within the vertical context of the democracy of the Holy
Ghost. I needn't list the other class
stages or allegiances here, since what applies in this tapered context applies
no less in the flounced and straight contexts which precede it and are just as
subject to right- and left-wing options, as well as to a compromise between the
two. On the other hand, a woman is more
likely to transcend her gender in the electron-biased context of the Holy Ghost
than in the proton-biased context of the Father or in the proton/electron
oscillation of Christ, given the evolutionary pressures towards liberation
which particularly affect proletarian women these days.... Though
that is not to say that bourgeois and aristocratic women can't also seek
liberation from their gender in a theocratic alternative which will take the
form of trousers or jeans rather than, say, tights. For it should be apparent that flared, straight,
and tapered trousers, jeans, etc., will correspond no less to the centrifugal,
neutral, and centripetal alternatives of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost than in the case of dresses and skirts, and that a woman in tapered jeans
and/or tights can be said to have transcended her gender in a much more
radically centripetal, and hence theocratic, way than one who wears flared
pants or straight jeans, and thus corresponds to a theocratic complement to the
Father or to the Son, as the case may be.
The 'woman' in tapered jeans is effectively proletarian and corresponds
to the theocracy of the Holy Ghost, which, being the ultimate theocracy, is
beyond gender, masculine as well as feminine, and thus transcendental through
and through. However, much as there are
women who have transcended their gender on a more or less
permanent basis, most women are as yet neither so liberated nor so radical as
to prefer pants of one description or another all of the time, and thus be
effectively above and beyond heterosexuality in a private voyeuristic sexuality
of their own. The majority still cling,
if intermittently, to skirts, if not to dresses as well, and are consequently
open, in worldly femininity, to heterosexual imposition by men.
54. Further
to my entry on drinks, both trinitarian and
bureaucratic, I should like to add a contention that water and spirits
correspond to the civilization/class of Jehovah, which is to say, the
alpha-of-alphas, with, for example, whisky corresponding to the theocracy,
democracy, and autocracy (in that devolutionary order) of Jehovah, but water
corresponding to the bureaucracy of Jehovah.
Thus, unlike wine, beer, and cola, whisky would correspond to the untransvaluated 'ancient world', as would water in relation
to fruit juices, milk, and milk shakes ... in that ascending, or evolutionary
order. Since the untransvaluated
civilization begins in theocracy and proceeds via a type of royalist democracy
to autocracy, it would seem feasible to contend that whisky in a box and/or jar
corresponds to the theocratic, whereas whisky in a bottle corresponds to the
autocratic, and whisky in a glass to the democratic ... so that we proceed from
a sort of can equivalent to bottles via glasses. Thus a small bottle of whisky in, say, a
cardboard box would correspond to the alpha theocratic ... which, unlike the
omega theocratic correspondence of, say, a can of cola, is fundamentally
centrifugal (and, hence, relative to bottles as opposed to cans), even if
appearances would suggest the contrary, as with the addition of a cardboard
box. For, of course, in relating alpha
theocracy to the Cosmos, we are obliged to accept that the central star of the
Galaxy, from which monotheistic alpha divinity would seem to have been
extrapolated, is still a star, despite its central position, and therefore
subject, like the other alpha stars of the Galaxy, to proton-proton
reactions. As to the bureaucracy of
Jehovah, the feminine drink of the world, water can be consumed via bottles or
cans, from a left- or a right-wing standpoint, as well as from the more
middle-ground position of glasses, except that the can will be closer to the
right-wing theocratic and the bottle closer to the left-wing autocratic, as
germane to the untransvaluated standing of Eastern
civilization. For whereas theocracy is
Left in the West, it is Right in the East, or 'ancient world', since theocracy
is everywhere the root condition. As
regards water, I include, besides ordinary drinking water, mineral and soda
water, as well as, to a lesser extent, cream soda.
55. Since
theocracy is Right in the 'ancient world', of which Islam is the most
conspicuous contemporary example, autocracy is comparatively Left, particularly
when, as in the case [formerly] of Sadam Hussein's
Iraq, it tends to liberalize Islamic society along relatively secular lines, a
tendency which can only be anathema to the hard-line clerical Right. In fact, the war between President Sadam's
56. Probably
the term 'Holy Ghost' is inadequate to define divinity on the level of the
omega-of-omegas, given its Christian relativity as the 'Third Person' of the
Blessed Trinity. If, as I have
contended, Jehovah/Allah and the Father are not really one-and-the-same but
indicative of an ancient/modern distinction between that which, as
Jehovah/Allah, was effectively extrapolated from the central star of the
Galaxy, and that which, as the Father, was partly extrapolated from the sun and
partly from pagan phallic precedent, so that we have a divine/diabolic -
worldly distinction relative to devolutionary and (at least in part)
evolutionary positions, the former wholly devolutionary and the latter
devolutionary in regard to the sun (diabolic alpha) but evolutionary in regard
to the phallus (worldly omega), then one would have no logical justification in
believing that the Holy Ghost was truly commensurate with superconscious
mind and thus effectively equivalent to the omega-of-omegas. On the contrary, it would appear to be the
nearest Western model to such a possibility and therefore inadequate for a
truly global civilization which, as the term suggests, will be neither Eastern
nor Western but beyond both the ancient East and the modern West in an omega
futurity of superconscious divinity, a divinity as
much omega as Jehovah/Allah is alpha.
This ultimate divinity, corresponding to superconscious
mind, could be described as pure spirit, superconsciousness,
or indeed the omega-of-omegas, and probably such a description would be closer
to Teilhard de Chardin's
'Omega Point' than the term 'Holy Ghost'.
For it seems to me that the Holy Ghost is less superconscious
mind per se than mind, including
thoughts and fantasies, and is therefore no less a Western definition of omega
divinity than the Father is, at any rate partly, a Western definition of alpha
divinity - assuming the terms 'alpha' and 'omega' really do have any
applicability here and we are not, rather, dealing with equally humanistic
definitions which, together with Christ, pertain to a co-existential 'Three in
One', the Father having bodily implications (with especial reference to the
phallus), the Son soulful implications (with especial reference to the heart),
and the Holy Ghost spiritual implications (with especial reference to the
mind), so that body, soul, and mind are equally acknowledged, within the
parameters of this Western civilization, on a co-existentially humanistic basis,
a basis which inevitably falls short or, depending on your standpoint, fights
shy of alpha and omega divine extremes, as relative to Jehovah/Allah on the one
hand, that of the ancient cosmic-oriented civilizations, and to some
as-yet-unarticulated superconscious divinity on the
other hand, that of the coming global civilization which will be completely
beyond both alpha and worldly alternatives ... in its own unequivocally
omega-oriented integrity. Clearly, trinitarian terminology would be no less irrelevant to this
future global civilization than Jehovah or Allah is irrelevant to the Christian
civilization of humanistic modernity.
This future global civilization will be as posterior to humanism as the
civilizations of the 'ancient world', and the
57. It
would seem that, in relation to the mind as described above, the subconscious
is no less anterior to the Holy Ghost than the superconscious
posterior to it. And yet, if the Father
is not solely a phallic extrapolation but was also extrapolated from the sun,
then we can argue in terms of an alpha definition to the extent that a solar
extrapolation is being inferred, which would suggest, contrary to the above,
that the Father can pertain to the subconscious to a degree - namely to the
degree of ordinary dreams as opposed to pure subconsciousness. Now if the Father can pertain to the
subconscious to a degree, then it seems not unlikely that the Holy Ghost can
pertain to the superconscious to a degree, and thus
be relatively omega orientated on lines, antithetical to dreams, which
approximate to the artificial visionary experience of, say, an LSD trip. Yet such a relative omega orientation would
fall no less short of pure superconsciousness, and
hence omega purism, than the relative alpha-oriented subconsciousness
of dreams falls short of pure subconsciousness, and
hence alpha purism, as germane to Allah/Jehovah, which may embrace those dreams
of exceptional clarity and significance.
Logically, I have of course been inconsistent to speak of the Father as
extrapolated from the sun on the one hand and from the phallus of pagan
precedent on the other; for the sun and the phallus are no more in parallel
alignment than would be the subconscious and the fiery core of the earth. It would be more consistently logical to
speak in terms of the Father either as an extrapolation from the sun and the
fiery core of the earth or as an extrapolation from the subconscious and the
phallus, since the former terms are no less cosmic than the latter are
humanistic, and one should aim for consistency in these matters if one is not
to be at cross-purposes with oneself.
Clearly, either the cosmic or the humanistic correlations will suffice
for such a theological extrapolation as the Father, though I fancy that the
latter will have more relevance to a specifically humanistic age and civilization
than the former, if only because they are indicative of a more evolved
viewpoint. Of course, some people would
question whether the Father, as indeed Christ and the Holy Ghost, need be
extrapolated from anywhere. But such
scepticism would fail to take cognizance of the fact that without some anterior
source from which to extrapolate theological postulates, such postulates would
lack both credibility and substance. In
fact, they would be no more than mere figments of the imagination, and you
cannot base a religion or religious observance on insubstantial figments! Unless there is a real correspondence to
cosmic and/or natural precedent, such postulates would be meaningless.
58. If
there is a parallel between the male orgasm and an active volcano, then we can
believe that that aspect of the Father which is a phallic extrapolation (from
pagan precedent) would have more relevance to the core of the earth than to
nature generally, and so much so that, diabolic asides notwithstanding, one
would have difficulty not associating the Mother (Blessed Virgin) with the
latter in view of its comparatively superficial, and hence apparent, standing
in relation to the masculine core - a standing which parallels that of the
vagina to the penis in heterosexual relations.
Hence 'Mother Nature' would indeed be confined to nature and not to the
rather more cosmic core of the earth, which, in its fiery essence, would seem
to have masculine connotations which make it logical to infer a phallic and, in
particular, scrotal extrapolation in regard to the male pudenda. Thus fiery core vis-à-vis nature as a
blueprint for scrotal phallus vis-à-vis vagina, and we may well believe that
where the phallus is in harmony with the heart in a loving partnership between
the two, its relationship to the vagina will be akin to that of the Father
towards the Son in a loving relationship with the Mother. Conversely, the absence of love from the
heart will reduce sexual relations between the phallus and the vagina, and thus
by implication men and women, to one of lust, and thereby signify a diabolic
rather than a divine situation in which, effectively, the Devil (rather than
the Father) is imposing upon the world, the fiery core upon nature ... without
reference to the moon and, hence, the loving Christ. Hence while the loving heart grants to the
scrotal phallus a subworldly divine standing in
relation to the Father, a sexually active phallus untempered
by love is simply subworldly on a diabolic basis -
the Devil as opposed to the Father, since lust, being cold-hearted, has no
connection with love and therefore no relationship of Father to Son, alias the
earth's core to the moon.
59. Just
as I discussed drinks in relation to the Trinity/Virgin and then returned to
the subject at a later juncture in order to fill-in the drinks relative, as I
saw it, to Jehovah and thus, by implication, the 'ancient world', viz. spirits
in relation to theocratic, democratic, and autocratic alternatives, but water
in relation to the bureaucratic position underneath, so I will now return to
the subject of sex and fill-in the sexuality relative to that world, with
particular reference to its 'democratic' manifestations on account of their
heterosexual nature. But before I do so
I must point out that the sartorial norm for women in the context in question
is of a wrap-around mode of attire akin to saris. Hence not only will the attire be ring-like
... to the extent that it is wrapped around the woman's body, but so too, I
contend, will the approach to heterosexuality, by which is meant that one or
both partner's legs will be wrapped around the other's body in a ring-like
manner, reflective of the centrifugal nature of alpha-stemming, fundamentalist
civilization. Hence for the right-wing
'democratic' approach to heterosexuality, the man will insert himself into the
woman from behind while holding her by the thighs in a roughly horizontal
position, the greater length of her legs thereby extending beyond his waist in
a loose ring-like formation. In the case
of the right-wing liberal position, however, the couple will be horizontally
face-to-face with the man on top but the legs of the woman wrapped around his
back, thereby establishing a ring-like impression. In the case of the left-wing liberal
position, by contrast, the woman will be on top and the man's legs will be
wrapped around her back. Finally, in the
left-wing 'democratic' approach to heterosexuality, the woman will have her
back turned on the man while his legs are wrapped around her stomach or even
the underside of her thighs if she has her legs drawn up and, as in the
left-liberal position, she will be the dominant partner. In all cases, however, the ring-like
connotation of legs wrapped around one's partner will indicate the
fundamentalist nature of this sexuality, which, so I contend, pertains to the
centrifugal civilization of the 'ancient world' and not to any of the stages -
Father, Son, or Holy Ghost - of Western civilization. As to theocratic and autocratic alternatives
to the 'democratic' sexuality discussed above, I would argue that wet dreams
pertain to the theocratic as the most alpha mode of voyeuristic sexuality,
whereas masturbatory stimulation of the penis by a woman's hand would
correspond to the devolutionary autocracy of oriental civilization, given the
autocratic nature of masturbatory sexuality and the probability of a woman's
involvement in view of the comparatively left-wing standing of autocracy in the
ancient Islamic and oriental world, a standing in marked contrast to the
right-wing theocracy, for example, of Islamic fundamentalism and its
alpha-oriented conservatism. Hence
involvement of the female in this autocratic mode of sexuality would confirm,
it seems to me, the leftwards drift of sexuality from female-dominated
intercourse to female-dominated masturbation.
In contrast, it should be noted, to Western masturbatory sexual
practices which, pertaining to an autocracy which is fundamentally alpha
instead of omega (and therefore right wing instead of left), will be solely a
male preserve, i.e. something indulged in by the male himself.
60. Broadly,
thus far, I have argued as follows: that heterosexuality is essentially a
democratic mode of sexuality which is flanked, as it were, by masturbatory and
voyeuristic extremes - the former autocratic and the latter theocratic, whilst
under this 'trinity' of sexual alternatives will be found the bureaucratic
sexuality of lesbians and/or gays, pretty much as the Virgin under the Trinity
- at least as far as lesbians are concerned.
Though with gays I would argue that the rather more liberal (than
Catholic) parallel of an Antivirgin under an Antitrinity would be the more relevant description, since
one is dealing less with the religious than with the secular, less with wavicles than with particles, and therefore less with love
than lust. Hence, for example, both the Antichristic and the Antivirginal
modes of heterosexuality and homosexuality, respectively, would be
comparatively diabolic because uninformed by love. Which is not to say that gays are invariably
loveless, any more than lesbians invariably love each other, but that
homosexuality is more often an expression of self-love than of love for another
person, the fiery core turned back upon itself in
defiance or rejection of nature. Yet both
the Virginal and Antivirginal manifestations of
homosexuality remain worldly or, rather, worldly in the case of lesbians
(nature) but subworldly in the case of gays (fiery
core), and hence modes of sexuality more appropriate to 'bodies' than to
'heads', which is to say to feminine bureaucrats rather than to masculine
autocrats, democrats, or theocrats. Now
in the case of the latter it will usually be found that voyeurism takes an oral
turn, since oral sex is the most voyeuristic mode of sexuality, whether the
vagina or the penis or, indeed, both at once be the focus of attention. As I see it, cunnilingus is relative to the
theocracy of the Father (the theocracy of Jehovah having more intimate
connections with wet dreams, as already discussed), and fellatio to both the
theocracy of the Son and the Holy Ghost, depending on the context. In the case of cunnilingus, it is as though
the sun rather than the core of the earth were imposing upon nature, a
voyeuristic imposition upon the Mother by a transcendent Father, whereas in the
case of fellatio it is as though the fiery core was being voyeuristically
imposed upon by a flaming nature, a voyeuristic imposition upon the subworldly Father by a transcendent Mother. However, in the case of homosexual fellatio
we are rather more in the context of the Holy Ghost, with a transcendent Father
voyeuristically imposing upon the fiery core of the earth. Yet lesbian and gay oral sex is less
theocratic than personally bureaucratic, or bureaucratic in a theocratic way,
and should not be equated with genuinely theocratic sex. And even fellatio is less radically
theocratic when indulged in by couples of the same race than when mixed-race
couples are involved. For whereas the
one pertains to the Son, the other pertains to the theocracy of the Holy Ghost
and is therefore the most radical mode of fellatio, a mode which contrasts with
the ring-like voyeurism of a cunnilingus/fellatio balance, as relative, so I
contend, to the less extreme form of alpha theocracy within the context of
Eastern civilization. But no less than a
balanced ring-like oral indulgence is less extreme than wet dreams, so
mixed-race fellatio is less extreme than gadget and/or video-induced phallic
stimulation, which may or may not result in orgasm. This is the omega-of-omegas in theocratic
sexual terms, the antithesis to wet dreams, and something which is effectively
beyond reference to Western theocracy (of the Holy Ghost) in a context of
sexual omega.
61. If
masturbation is broadly autocratic in relation to coitus on the one hand and to
oral sex on the other, then we still have to clarify the different class stages
of masturbation (no less than of coitus and oral sex formerly) ... on the basis
of a horizontal position for both ancient and modern aristocratic autocracies
(the former with female assistance and the latter without), a seated position
for bourgeois autocracy, and a standing position for proletarian autocracy,
bearing in mind the contentions already put forward in relation to both coitus
and oral sex. A man who masturbates
himself while lying down would suggest, irrespective of his perceived class, a
sexual affinity with the autocracy of the Father and thus, by implication, Royalism. A man who
masturbates himself while seated in a chair and/or kneeling down would suggest
a sexual affinity with the autocracy of Christ and thus, by implication,
Parliamentarianism (Cromwell). A man who
masturbates himself while standing up would suggest a sexual affinity with the
autocracy of the Holy Ghost and thus, by implication, Communism. In each case, however, the centrifugal nature
of his sexuality would confirm an autocratic bias, though it is more likely
that the stimulus employed would differ as we progressed, as it were, from
aristocratic naturalism to proletarian idealism via bourgeois materialism, the
erotic stimulus becoming more artificial the higher the class stage of
masturbation, so that whereas the man who prefers to masturbate while lying
down would probably rely on fantasy to stimulate his masturbation, the man who
habitually masturbates while standing up will more than likely rely on
pornographic images of the sort to be found in men's magazines. Whether the man in between, the seated and/or
kneeling one, would prefer to avail himself of the assistance
of pornographic writings and/or drawings in books ... is perhaps a moot
point. Though it does seem the most
likely alternative, in view of the bourgeois status of seated masturbation and
the inevitable corollary with books that leaps to mind whenever bourgeois
criteria are under discussion. However
that may be, we need not doubt that the masturbator is more a creature of
orgasmic heat than of voyeuristic light, and that, no matter what the
superficial stimulus may happen to be, his primary motivation for masturbating
is to experience the thrill of orgasm within the fiery context of an autocratic
bent. In this respect, he is the
antithesis of the voyeur, whose principal motivation for having oral sex is the
voyeuristic thrill of looking at his partner's face and/or scrutinizing her sex
at close range, as the case may be. Yet
more extreme than either the orgasmic masturbator or the oral voyeur is the
theocratic contemplative who, whether in the naturalistic context of erotic
dreams or in the artificial context of erotic videos, allows himself to be
stimulated by the erotic spectacle alone, without reference to masturbatory or
oral means. Such men, relative to the
alpha and omega of theocratic sexuality, are above the body, and thus relate to
the mind, whether anterior or posterior to the flesh.
62. It
should be possible to distinguish between American-style baseball caps with
emblem and those with logo on the front on the basis of a perceptual/conceptual
dichotomy, and to accord to the former a Social Democratic status while
reserving for the latter a Social Radical one, since it seems to me that these
peaked caps are broadly democratic in terms of the democracy of the Holy Ghost,
i.e. Social Democracy, and therefore correspond to a proletarian middle-ground
in between 'autocratic' collapsibles and 'theocratic'
hoods, the former communistic on account of their centrifugal construction and
the latter transcendentalist on account of their centripetal construction - at
least within the recognizably proletarian context of waist-length zipper
jackets. Yet if emblematic baseball caps
are right wing and logo-sporting ones left wing within broadly democratic
terms, then it seems to me that those peaked caps which have neither emblem nor
logo on the front are centrist and thus effectively Social Liberal. Hence one can distinguish between Social
Democratic, Social Liberal, and Social Radical caps, which are rivalled by
collapsible umbrellas and fold-in hoods ... on the autocratic and theocratic
flanks of proletarian civilization, the civilization, I need hardly stress, of
the Holy Ghost. Beneath this 'trinity',
however, we shall find the bureaucracy of the Holy Ghost, and that those who
relate more to bureaucracy than to autocracy, democracy, or theocracy will
generally prefer not to wear headgear and/or protect their heads from the rain,
being, by nature, more bodily than of the head.
63. A
generic definition of Communism would be Social Autocracy, thereby bringing it
into line with notions of Social Democracy and Social Theocracy in the
autocracy, democracy, and theocracy, respectively, of the Holy Ghost. In contrast to which we of course have the
liberal, or capitalist, autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the Son, viz.,
in England, Cromwellian autocracy, parliamentary
democracy, and Puritan theocracy, not to mention the royalist, or feudal,
autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the Father, viz., in England, monarchic
autocracy, peerist democracy (the House of Lords
being the focal-point of this democracy), and Anglican/Catholic theocracy. Hence three stages of Western society with
their trinitarian subdivisions - stages which can be
regarded from a variety of angles, such as, for example, feudal, capitalist,
and socialist (economic); aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian (social
class); royalist, liberal, and communist (political); the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost (religious); body, soul, and mind (physical/metaphysical);
protons, neutrons, and electrons (elemental); realism, materialism, and idealism
(ideological); beauty, goodness, and truth (moral). Such definitions, however, exclude the
theocracy-democracy-autocracy divisions of traditional oriental civilization,
which are rather more naturalistic, and hence cosmic orientated, than worldly or
humanistic.
64. There seems to be a sense in which each decade aspires to
reflecting a different ideological tendency, be it naturalistic, realistic,
materialistic, or idealistic. Thus, for example, the idealistic 1950s (time of anti-Communist
witch hunts and sci-fi films), but the naturalistic 1960s (time of hippy
paganism and left-wing subversion).
Contrasted to which the 1970s (with their grim strikes and class
struggles) may well appear realistic, and the 1980s (time of Thatcherite enterprise culture) comparatively
materialistic. In which case, we need
not doubt that, like the '50s, the 1990s were an idealistic decade (the decade
of the collapse of Communism and affirmation of spiritual values). In fact, if decades do follow a sort of
naturalistic-realistic-materialistic-idealistic progression, then we could draw
up a list stretching back into the nineteenth century and forwards into the
twenty-first century, as follows: naturalistic 1880s, realistic 1890s,
materialistic 1900s, idealistic 1910s; naturalistic 1920s, realistic 1930s,
materialistic 1940s, idealistic 1950s; naturalistic 1960s, realistic 1970s,
materialistic 1980s, idealistic 1990s; naturalistic 2000s, realistic 2010s,
materialistic 2020s, idealistic 2030s, and so on.
65. The philosopher, the ultimate type of writer because the
most idealistic, can only be 'king', in Plato's legendary sense, when society
itself is ready to make an accommodation with idealism, and hence
philosophy. So long as society is more
given to either naturalism, realism, or materialism, the dramatist, poet, and
novelist respectively will be 'king', in accordance with autocratic,
bureaucratic, and democratic criteria, which necessarily exclude or marginalize
the theocratic. For, ultimately, the
philosopher is theocratic, and if he is excluded in an age of drama, he will be
marginalized in an age of poetry or fiction.
Conversely, it is the dramatist who will be excluded in an age of
philosophy, and the poet and novelist marginalized, since idealism excludes
naturalism no less than naturalism excludes idealism, and therefore truth will
eclipse strength as literature, the most idealistic of the arts, comes properly
into its own on the most idealistic and hence philosophical terms. But if truth must ultimately eclipse
strength, neither beauty nor goodness can expect the same recognition or
standing as would have been theirs in a less idealistic age, an age, as we have
seen, of realism and materialism.
Philosophy is assuredly as much 'beyond good and evil' as the Holy Spirit
is beyond Christ. But it is also above
beauty and ugliness, and consequently antithetical to strength and
weakness. Alpha and omega cannot
co-exist, unlike, to some extent, the world and purgatory, poetry and
fiction. Omega must triumph utterly over
alpha if the philosopher is truly to become 'king', and thus the most respected
and beloved of writers. Literally the leader and teacher of the ultimate society.
66. When
true to itself literature has no other business than the pursuit of truth, the meaning
and purpose of life, and that literature which pursues the True most truly and
comprehensively is the ultimate literature - the philosophy of philosophies,
beyond which it is impossible to progress.
That literature which, in novels, is more concerned with the Good than
the True, with love than joy, is inferior to this ultimate literature, as, to a
greater extent, is that literature which, in poetry, is more concerned with
beauty, and hence pleasure, or that literature which, in drama, is more concerned
with strength, and hence pride - the least truth-oriented literature and
therefore the least moral and idealistic form of literary endeavour. No less than poetry and fiction are polar on a realistic/materialistic basis, so drama and
philosophy would seem to be polar on a naturalistic/idealistic basis - the
former polarity equivalent to earth and water, the latter polarity to fire and
air. Now in a society which is omega
orientated, the less drama and the more philosophy there will be ... in
contrast to alpha-stemming societies, in which drama takes precedence over
philosophy, and therefore strength over truth.
The writer who affirms both drama and philosophy is neither fish nor
fowl but a kind of amoral paradox who seemingly swings between alpha and omega
extremes, and probably in such a fashion as to do justice neither to the one
nor to the other. Similarly the man who
swings between fictional and poetic extremes, purgatorial materialism and
worldly realism, is neither fish nor fowl, Protestant nor Catholic, but a kind
of paradoxical combination of the two, who may well be less of a poet or more
of a novelist than he imagines himself to be.
For one can no more serve goodness and beauty, love and pleasure, equally
than ... serve strength and truth, pride and joy. Ethics is a Protestant concern, aesthetics a
Catholic one, and in this polarity lies all the
difference between Christ and the Blessed Virgin. Of course, fiction and poetry can also deal
primarily with evil and ugliness, just as drama and philosophy can be primarily
concerned with weakness and illusion, though these negative forms of the
literary arts will be less literary than anti-literary and, hence, decadent
and/or bogus, as relative to those who pertain not to the wavicle
but to the particle aspect of any given atomicity, and may thus be identified,
in theological parlance, with a fall from (wavicle)
grace. Such 'antiliterature'
is rather more characteristic of a secular than of a religious age, of 'the
Civilization' as opposed to 'the Culture', to revert to Spengler
again, and will therefore be more at home within the particle confines of
journalistic media, including newspapers and magazines, than within the wavicle confines of literary media, such as paperbacks and
hardbacks, irrespective of the fact that books are often subverted by material
of an anti-literary nature, which, in relation to journalistic media, would
seem to indicate an intrinsic as opposed to an extrinsic form of decadence, the
subversion of 'the Culture' rather than the outright philistinism of 'the
Civilization', which, contrary to what
that term may suggest, is rather more barbarous than civilized, given its
particle bias.
67. It is
not that realism is biased towards the particle and materialism biased towards
the wavicle, since both realism and materialism can
be either religious or secular, Catholic/Protestant or Liberal/Republican, as,
of course, can naturalism and idealism, paganism and transcendentalism, alpha
and omega of pre- and post-Western civilizations. Beauty and goodness, appertaining to realism
and to materialism respectively, are biased towards the wavicle,
whereas ugliness and evil, their negative concomitants, are biased towards the
particle. Therefore while pleasure is
the essence of Catholicism and love the essence of Protestantism, ugliness is
the appearance of Liberalism and evil the appearance of Republicanism. For no more do wavicles
have a primary appearance than particles a primary essence, and it would be no
less contradictory to speak of the will of Liberalism than ... the body of
Catholicism or the soul of Republicanism than ... the heart of Puritanism. With wavicles the
essence is primary and the appearance secondary - pleasure before beauty, love
before goodness, whereas with particles the appearance is primary and the
essence secondary - ugliness before pain, evil before hate. We can no more judge
a book (essential) by its cover (appearance) than a magazine (appearance) by
its contents (essence). In the case of wavicle realism, the essence takes precedence over the
appearance - say, pleasure over beauty in a volume of poetry (not antipoetry). In the
case of particle realism, however, the appearance takes precedence over the
essence - say, ugliness over pain in a liberal magazine. We read for pleasure (or love, pride,
joy). We look for ugliness (or evil,
weakness, illusion). Hence
pleasure before beauty, but ugliness before pain; love before goodness, but
evil before hate; pride before strength, but weakness before humiliation; joy
before truth, but illusion before woe.
68. The
essence of wavicles conditions their appearance. The appearance of particles conditions their
essence. Wavicles
- and, by extrapolation, wavicle-biased people - have
the grace of the Elect. Particles - and,
by extrapolation, particle-biased people - have the shame of the Fallen. The former, within their respective contexts,
are saved, the latter ... damned. The
most saved are the joyful and the least saved the proud. The most damned are the weak and the least
damned the illusory. The others are
saved and damned somewhere in between.
69. If
strength/pride is the characteristic expression of rock music, particularly
hard rock, then it would seem that rock is alpha, and hence autocratic. If truth/joy is the characteristic expression
of jazz music, particularly modern jazz, then it would seem that jazz is omega,
and hence theocratic. If goodness/love
is the characteristic expression of soul music, then it would seem that soul is
lunar, and hence democratic. If
beauty/pleasure is the characteristic expression of pop music, then it would
seem that pop is worldly, and hence bureaucratic. Put theologically, one could argue that rock
is of the Father, soul of the Son, jazz of the Holy Ghost, and pop of the Virgin
Mary. One could also argue that,
instrumentally speaking, rock music is typified by drums, soul by keyboards,
jazz by wind, and pop by guitars, since drums correspond to fire, keyboards to
water, wind to air, and guitars to earth, and fire, water, air, and earth are
the respective elements of alpha, purgatory, omega, and the world, or, put more
bluntly and sweepingly, of the diabolic, the purgatorial, the divine, and the
mundane, always bearing in mind, however, that wavicle/particle
distinctions do exist within each category which are more symptomatic of
positive and negative alternatives. Thus
it could be argued that punk is more literally particle orientated, and hence
diabolic, than rock, just as rap is more particle orientated than soul, blues
more particle orientated than jazz, and funk more particle orientated than pop,
so that we have anti-manifestations of their respective contexts which testify
to a fallen status analogous to, though not necessarily commensurate with, the
secular and diabolic. Of course, we also
have in-between contexts, like soft rock in between hard rock and soul, rhythm
'n' blues in between soul and jazz, heavy metal in between punk and rap, house
in between rap and blues, reggae in between pop and soul, hip-hop in between
funk and rap, which somewhat complexify the issue and
suggest that whether the spectrum be wavicle or
particle, the axis vertical or horizontal, intermediate musical forms also have
to be taken into account and accorded their ideological or moral dues. Yet it would seem that, broadly, rock is
strength orientated, and therefore autocratic; soul goodness orientated, and
therefore democratic; jazz truth orientated, and therefore theocratic; and pop
beauty orientated, and therefore bureaucratic.
Put in diagrammatic form, this would indicate, contrary to my previous
speculations, that rock was alpha and soul purgatorial, with pop and jazz
staying in their respective worldly and omega positions, as follows:-
ROCK/SOUL/JAZZ
(strength/pride)(goodness/love)(truth/joy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
POP
(beauty/pleasure)
with the particle (as opposed to wavicle) complementary forms listed in similar fashion, viz:-
PUNK/RAP/BLUES
(weakness/humiliation)(evil/hate)(illusion/woe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUNK
(ugliness/pain)
Should I be nearer the truth now, with regard
to this particular subject, it could be that I can at last lay it to rest and
conclude by saying that soul and pop are no less antithetical on a vertical
axis than rock and jazz on a horizontal one, with soul being every bit as
superior to pop as love to pleasure, or goodness to beauty, and jazz being
every bit as superior to rock as joy to pride, or truth to strength.
70. From
the external apparent (the Father, naturalism, 'Historyless
Chaos') to the external essential (the Blessed Virgin, realism, 'the Culture')
on the one hand, and from the internal apparent (Christ, materialism, 'the
Civilization') to the internal essential (the Holy Spirit, idealism, 'Second
Religiousness') on the other hand. Such,
it would seem, is the course of evolution, which progresses from strength to
beauty on the one hand (that of the external apparent and essential), and from
goodness to truth on the other hand (that of the internal apparent and
essential), with emblematic implications of the superstar and star in the cases
of strength and beauty, but of the cross and supercross
in the cases of goodness and truth. Put
in terms of literary genres, it would seem that this evolution reflects a
progression from drama to poetry on the one side (that of the superstar and
star), but from narrative literature (fiction) to philosophy on the other side
(that of the cross and supercross), so that drama and
philosophy are polarized along an axis with the Father as its alpha and the
Holy Spirit as its omega - strength and truth, the superstar and the supercross.
71. If
the sixteenth century was an age of drama par excellence (Shakespeare), then it would seem logical to
describe the seventeenth century as an age of poetry (Milton), the eighteenth
century as an age of fiction (Swift), and the nineteenth century as an age of
philosophy (Marx). For the twentieth
century was most emphatically an age of film, and hence celluloid drama, and
thereby resembled the sixteenth century - the first Elizabethan age. Probably the twelfth century was also,
comparatively speaking, an age of drama ... as regards the enactment of
medieval masks, nativity plays, etc., with the thirteenth century being an age
of poetry (Chaucer), the fourteenth century an age of narrative literature (Boccaccio), and the fifteenth century an age of philosophy
(Medieval scholasticism). Would it be
stretching the imagination too far, I wonder, to contend that, the twentieth
century being an age of film and hence artificial drama, the twenty-first
century will be an age of poetry, the twenty-second century an age of fiction,
and the twenty-third century an age of philosophy, albeit on equally
artificial, or synthetic, terms? Only
time will tell!
72. To
speak of theism, deism, and atheism in a trinitarian
light, viz. theism of the Father, deism of the Son, and atheism of the Holy
Spirit, so that the Father is identified with Creation, the Son with a
personalized non-revelationary deity, and the Holy
Spirit with an atheistic rejection of theism and deism in the name of
self-realization - internal essence at the expense of (the worship of) external
and internal appearances, superstar and cross.
73. Rock
being the alpha and jazz the omega of contemporary music (supermusic),
one can logically speak of rock superstars, pop stars, soul crosses, and jazz supercrosses (not of soul stars and jazz stars), with an
absolutist implication to both rock and jazz, but a relativistic implication to
pop and soul, which are rather more worldly and lunar respectively. Likewise, one could also speak, if rather slangfully, of rock 'supercunts',
pop 'cunts', soul 'pricks', and jazz 'superpricks',
though the use of the prefixes in relation to the alpha and omega of
contemporary music carries an ideological (autocratic/theocratic) implication
rather than a sexual one, having less to do with a distinction between (good)
males and (beautiful) females than between centrifugal and centripetal
antitheses (strength and truth). In a
sense, this reflects the head/body dichotomy relative to the 'super' and
'worldly' alternatives.
74. Just
as there is a perceptual/conceptual distinction in literature between oral and
literate traditions, the former uncivilized and the latter civilized, so this distinction
can be found in music, with 'civilized' music being read from scores and
'uncivilized' music simply made up and played by ear - the former conceptual
and the latter perceptual. For until and unless music is conceptualized through symbolic representation,
it is not civilized but ... popular, populist, uncivilized. Traditionally, conceptual music, otherwise
definable as 'classical', is on a par with literary books, whereas perceptual
music, otherwise definable as 'pop', is on a par with films, so that one has a
kind of bourgeois/proletarian distinction.
Increasingly, in the future, conceptual music will be on a par with
computer discs used for literary purposes, since its conceptualization will
take the form of computers rather than music scores, and it will have grown out
of and overhauled pop music (just as classical music grew out of folk
music). Hence a sort
of civilized proletarian music with 'superclassical'
implications ... reminiscent of Jean-Michel Jarre in
the late-twentieth century.
75. The conceptualization of music not only has the effect of
centralizing it in symbolic representation, but also of elevating it from the
aural to the optical, as from heat to light, alpha to omega, and thus rendering
it truly civilized. It is in and through
conceptualization that, like literature, music is 'divinized', i.e. elevated
above the diabolic alpha of a purely aural heat. Not only is it given a centripetal focus, it
is simultaneously eternalized through a symbolic representation which is optically
accessible to all or, at any rate, to those who can read music. If folk music is uncivilized because purely
aural, then classical is civilized because elevated to the optical. If pop is uncivilized because purely aural,
then what may be termed superclassical is civilized
because elevated to the optical. In
fact, music availing itself of computerized scores would be 'supercivilized', in view of the connection between
computers and electricity, a sort of artificial rather than naturalistic
conceptualization which manifests through the medium of computer light. Hence while pop is artificial, or electric,
in relation to folk, superclassical will be
artificial, or electronic, in relation to classical, and we may hold that while
folk and classical appertain to Christic naturalism,
pop and superclassical appertain to transcendental
supernaturalism, effectively being aligned with the Holy Spirit, whether
autocratically (as in pop), democratically (as in pop/superclassical),
or theocratically (as in superclassical),
in which third context it is at an optical-light remove from aural heat and,
hence, truly civilized or, what amounts to the same thing, saved. Probably the music of Jean-Michel Jarre pertains more to the democratic pop/superclassical compromise than to theocratic superclassicism, given its accommodation of drums, bass
guitar, occasional electric guitar, etc. which are the sort of instruments more
prevalent in pop (using that term in its widest, most generalized sense). A truly theocratic superclassicism
would, one feels, be beyond any such compromise with alpha-stemming reactive
instruments, i.e. instruments that are plucked, banged, etc., and to such an
extent of being wholly synthesized and computerized, with percussion and rhythm
electronically generated, in civilized autonomy.
76. Slaves
live to work, whereas freemen work to live.
In the twentieth century, the working class broadly pertained to the
former category, while the middle class broadly pertained to the latter one. There is also a sense in which living to play
is characteristic of the professional class (sportsmen, artists, etc.), while
playing to live is characteristic of the leisure, or upper class - the former superslaves and the latter superfreemen. Hence work/play distinctions between, on the
one hand, the working and middle classes, and, on the other hand, the
professional and leisure classes - the former given to work (for whatever
reasons), and the latter given to play (for whatever reasons). In fact, this work/play dichotomy is
essentially one between naturalism and realism on the one hand (that of the
working and middle classes), and between materialism and idealism on the other
hand (that of the professional and leisure classes), so that we have a kind of
progression from alpha naturalism to worldly realism (as from autocracy to
bureaucracy) in the former case, and a progression from purgatorial materialism
to omega idealism (as from democracy to theocracy) in the latter case, as in
the following diagram:-
WORKING
CLASS/PROFESSIONAL CLASS/LEISURE CLASS
(autocracy)(democracy)(theocracy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIDDLE
CLASS
(bureaucracy)
with all the usual elemental implications. Stars and crosses, whether super or straight,
on both wavicle and particle levels through
successive class stages, viz. aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian, within
broadly trinitarian categories.
77. Socialism
stands to Communism as an economic system to an ideological one, which is to
say in a bureaucratic context vis-à-vis autocratic, democratic, and theocratic
alternatives above ... in the masculine contexts of trinitarian
transcendentalism. Thus Socialism, being
economic, is feminine and, in a narrow sense, 'worldly', with 'bodily' as
opposed to 'head' implications ... such that accrue to science, politics, and
religion, the autocratic, democratic, and theocratic norms. Likewise, Capitalism is feminine in relation
to Liberalism ... in each of its ideological manifestations, and so is
Feudalism in relation to Royalism, whether
autocratic, democratic, or theocratic, since, like Socialism, Capitalism and
Feudalism are overwhelmingly economic definitions, and can only be properly
understood within a largely bureaucratic context.... This is equally true of
Agrarianism, except that, unlike Feudalism, it pertains to the alpha-stemming
civilization of the ‘ancient world’ and thus stands in an economic relationship
to ideological Fundamentalism, whether theocratic, democratic, or
autocratic. Hence one might speak of a
devolutionary regression from Agrarianism/Fundamentalism to Feudalism/Royalism on the one hand, and of an evolutionary
progression from Capitalism/Liberalism to Socialism/Communism on the other
hand, a regression from naturalistic economic and ideological collectivism to
naturalistic economic and ideological individualism in the one case, and a
progression from artificial economic and ideological individualism to
artificial economic and ideological collectivism in the other case, as from
naturalism to realism, and from materialism to idealism. Which is equivalent, in Spenglerian
terms, to saying a regression from 'Historyless
Chaos' to 'the Culture' on the one hand, and a progression from 'the
Civilization' to 'Second Religiousness' on the other, as, indeed, from fire to
earth, and from water (the Age of Aquarius) to air ... in the rather more basic
elemental terms to which I have dedicated a not inconsiderable portion of my
mature philosophical quest. Thus
Agrarianism/Fundamentalism and Socialism/Communism are
alike collectivist, whereas both Feudalism/Royalism
and Capitalism/Liberalism are individualist - a distinction between unity and
diversity, co-operation and competition, the One and the Many. For, paradoxically, it is collectivism which,
in its aspirations towards unity, appertains to the One, whereas individualism,
with its competitive emphasis, relates to the Many. And so we can justly contend that the
naturalistic distinction between, for instance, agrarian collectivism and
feudal individualism is indeed commensurate with a devolutionary regression
from the One to the Many, just as the ensuing artificial distinction between,
for instance, capitalist individualism and socialist collectivism is no less
commensurate with an evolutionary progression from the Many to the One, from
economic competition between capitalistic individuals to economic co-operation
between socialistic collectives. Hence
whereas alpha and omega, whether economic (as above) or ideological, alike
pertain to the One, the realistic and materialistic contexts in between are of
the Many, and we can safely say that the return (evolution-wise) to the One can
only be achieved on the basis of proletarian collectivism, whether economically
or ideologically, and that this Oneness, in being omega rather than alpha, is
the goal and resolution of all historical unfolding, the ultimate unity of the
Holy Ghost which will put the apparent unity of the Creator considerably in the
economic/ideological shade.
78. It
could be argued that the naturalistic contexts of Agrarianism/Fundamentalism
and Feudalism/Royalism are barbarous or uncivilized
in relation to the artificial contexts of Capitalism/Liberalism and
Socialism/Communism, since we are dealing with a devolutionary regression on
the one hand, but with an evolutionary progression on the other hand. Yet it could also be argued - and with far
greater justification - that the contexts which pertain to the One, and hence
to collectivism rather than to individualism, are civilized in their
antithetical ways, whereas only the individualistic contexts of the Many,
whether Feudal/Royalist or Capitalist/Liberal, are uncivilized or barbarous,
given their competitive rather than co-operative essence. Hence one could not speak of a progression
from alpha barbarism to omega civilization, as if barbarism was inherently
naturalistic and civilization inherently artificial, but would have to
acknowledge that, like barbarism, civilization could be either natural or
artificial, and that the real criterion to apply here is the moral nature of
the society/age in question, i.e. whether primarily concerned with
collectivism, and hence co-operation, or with individualism, and hence
competition - the former making for unity and the latter for strife, that is to
say, for disunity, oppression, class war, inequality, etc. Therefore, if civilization is commensurate
with unity and, by contrast, barbarism with disunity, then it must be that the
Agrarian/Fundamentalist societies, for instance, of the ancient East were
civilized, and that the ensuing Feudal/Royalist and Capitalist/Liberal
societies of the modern West were comparatively barbarous, the former in
natural terms and the latter artificially (industrially) so. Hence the return to civilization can only be
pursued on the basis of proletarian collectivism, and thus Socialism/Communism,
so that unity and co-operation once again prevail in the world and it
accordingly attains to salvation in the Oneness of the ultimate civilization,
one as intensely artificial as Agrarian/Fundamentalist civilization was - and
still remains - naturalistic, but no less collective in its moral essence.
79. It
could be said that ancient civilization was snuffed out by modern barbarism,
and that this barbarism, now well-advanced in its artificial phase, corresponds
to what is broadly regarded as Western 'civilization', a 'civilization' rooted
in Feudalism/Royalism and having a Capitalist/Liberal
offshoot which has since dominated, both economically and ideologically, the
greater part of the world. Only since
the rise of Socialism/Communism has this so-called civilization regarded itself as being under threat, and accordingly done
everything in its not inconsiderable powers to defend its
competitive/individualistic integrity from co-operative/collective
alternatives. Yet a time must surely come
when the 'darkness' of Western barbarism will be eclipsed by the light of
ultimate civilization, and the world go forward in collective unity to its
divine destination in the Holy Spirit.
If the ancient light was outer, the ultimate
light is inner, and it will shine for ever.
80. Whereas
the collectivity of civilization liberates the
individual from his phenomenal individualism, the individuality of barbarism
enslaves him to it, and thus makes him a tool or component of the competitive
will. He is no longer free from his
phenomenal self in the interests of a noumenal
salvation. On the contrary, he is bound
to his phenomenal self as the slave of an individual employer or company. It is thus that barbarism, as we have here
defined it in relation to competitive individualism, is by nature imperialist,
and that we cannot conceive of a barbarous society being other than
imperialistic vis-à-vis civilized societies, the oldest and most naturalistic
of which will be its natural prey. For
the phenomenality of barbarism, its physical darkness, cannot be reconciled with the noumenality
of civilization, and it will seek to snuff out the metaphysical light of
civilization in the name of its own material interests. Hence Western so-called civilization, in both
its Feudal/Royalist and Capitalist/Liberal phases, could only be imperialist
vis-à-vis the natural civilizations of the Agrarian/Fundamentalist world,
including, be it noted, the agrarian collectivism of ancient Ireland, as first
it invaded and then subjugated natural civilization to its own barbarous will,
the Feudal/Royalist barbarism subsequently superseded by the more artificial
Capitalist/Liberal barbarism, as materialism came to replace realism in the
course of phenomenal time. In Ireland,
one might distinguish, in this respect, between the early English imperialism,
which was feudal, and the subsequent Cromwellian
invasion, which was capitalist or, at any rate, which paved the way for the
Capitalist/Liberal phase of barbarism to follow. Hence while barbarism is profoundly
imperialistic, civilization is self-contained, self-sufficient, and selfless to
the degree that the phenomenal self is subordinated to the noumenal
one, which is universal and therefore only possible in the collective. In fact, civilization is both anterior and
posterior to imperialism, and it has to be said that in the formative phase of
its artificial manifestation it is anti-imperialist, which is to say, ranged
against imperialism as against a foe which has to be fought and vanquished, if
the world is to become safe for civilization and, indeed, become universally
civilized. For only through a return to
co-operative collectivism can the light of civilization once more shine in the
world, to illuminate the spirit in its quest for noumenal
resolution.
81. It
should be noted that whereas Roman Catholicism is matriarchal in its devotion
to and dependence on the Blessed Virgin, Eastern Orthodoxy is patriarchal and,
hence, more rooted in the Father, as a paternalistic deity who rules over the
world in his capacity as a sort of compromise between oriental Fundamentalism
and occidental Christianity. In fact,
Orthodoxy is the nearest thing to a Western fundamentalism, albeit one rooted,
as already noted, in the Father and thus, effectively, in a partly transvaluated creator deity who is far from being
commensurate with, say, Allah or Jehovah or any other manifestation of oriental
Fundamentalism. For whilst oriental
Fundamentalism pertains to the alpha, the divine source of cosmic strength,
Eastern Orthodoxy, in acknowledging Christ as the 'Son of God', is no less
susceptible to a fall from monotheistic objectivity than Roman Catholicism, and
is accordingly partly evolutionary in its accommodation of Christ, the Father
being partly derived from the earth's core/phallus of pagan precedent and
therefore not entirely centred in the Cosmos or, more specifically, in a solar
fall from stellar objectivity. Yet it is
this bias towards the Father, as opposed to the Blessed Virgin, or Mother,
which makes Eastern Orthodoxy more tolerant of priestly carnality than its
Catholic counterpart, which, focusing on the Blessed Virgin, puts a greater
emphasis on clerical celibacy. In this
respect, Eastern Orthodoxy resembles Protestantism in that, both the Father and
Son being masculine, if in different ways, there is less emphasis upon
virginity and consequently on the desirability of clerical celibacy than in
Roman Catholicism, which is the only Christianity of the world and thus the
only mode of Christianity with a feminine essence. Put ideologically, one could argue that
whereas Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are respectively 'autocratic' and
'democratic', Catholicism is 'bureaucratic', with Transcendentalism alone being
truly 'theocratic' on account of its unequivocal identification with the Holy
Spirit, as in the following diagram:-
'AUTOCRATIC'/'DEMOCRATIC'/'THEOCRATIC'
EASTERN
ORTHODOXY/PROTESTANTISM/TRANSCENDENTALISM
(the
Father)(the Son)(the Holy
Ghost)
|
|
|
|
|
|
'BUREAUCRATIC'
CATHOLICISM
(the
Blessed Virgin)
where we move from the outer to the inner via
intermediate stages of worldly and purgatorial Christianity, and all within the
broadly dynamic framework of Western civilization, a civilization at an
evolutionary remove from oriental Fundamentalism and its cosmic objectivity in
regard to a monotheistic Creator, viz. Allah, Jehovah, etc. Hence whereas Eastern Orthodoxy is
fundamentalist in its bias towards the Father, it is far from being
fundamentalist in an oriental sense, and consequently appertains to the
patriarchal as opposed to matriarchal stage of a civilization which has evolved
from the Father to the Son via the Mother, and which should be capable of
evolving from the Son to the Holy Spirit, as from filial to transcendental
stages in due course, passing, as Social Theocracy becomes ever more
transcendentalist, to a position diametrically antithetical to that of oriental
Fundamentalism, in which it will be obliged to affirm its universality and seek
the globalization of Transcendentalism in the interests of a world civilization
which transcends both Eastern and Western, oriental and occidental,
definition. Only when this ultimate
civilization is global will it be universal and thus neither Eastern nor Western,
devolutionary nor evolutionary, but transcendent.
82. In
the sense that we have characterized Eastern Orthodoxy as 'autocratic' on
account of its bias towards the Father, Catholicism as 'bureaucratic' on
account of its bias towards the Virgin Mary (the Mother), Protestantism as
'democratic' on account of its bias towards Christ (the Son), and
Transcendentalism or, as we could alternatively call it, Western Unorthodoxy as
'theocratic' on account of its bias towards the Holy Spirit, so nationalism, it
seems to me, can be divided into autocratic, bureaucratic, democratic, and
theocratic alternatives, with nationalism in the autocratic context broadly
classifiable as supernationalism, nationalism in the
bureaucratic context broadly classifiable as nationalism, nationalism in the
democratic context broadly classifiable as internationalism, and nationalism in
the theocratic context broadly classifiable as supra-nationalism, as in the
following diagram:-
AUTOCRATIC/DEMOCRATIC/THEOCRATIC
SUPERNATIONALISM/INTERNATIONALISM/SUPRA-NATIONALISM
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUREAUCRATIC
NATIONALISM
For it seems to me that whereas bureaucracy is
nationalist and democracy internationalist, autocracy is supernationalist
and theocracy supra-nationalist - the former pair worldly and purgatorial, the
latter pair alpha and omega, contractive and expansive, divergent and
convergent. Hence whether we are dealing
with National Socialism or 'Socialism in One Country', Nazism or Stalinism, we
have supernationalist positions rooted in autocracy,
and such positions can only be at an alpha remove from supra-national unity
between omega-oriented theocratic societies, which will be
transcendentalist. In between comes the
nationalism and internationalism of bureaucratic and democratic societies, the
former generally Catholic (as in
83. The autocratic emphasis is strength, the bureaucratic
emphasis beauty, the democratic emphasis goodness, and the theocratic emphasis
truth. Hence while supernationalism
and Eastern Orthodoxy will emphasize strength, supra-nationalism and
Transcendentalism will emphasize truth.
Whilst, in between the alpha and omega extremes, nationalism and Catholicism
will emphasize beauty, whereas internationalism and Protestantism will
emphasize goodness, as befitting their respective bureaucratic and democratic
essences. May I be so bold as to suggest
that while supernationalism is fascist (including the
'Red Fascism' of Stalinism), supra-nationalism is
communist (in the true ideological sense of that word)? Likewise, I find it difficult not to believe
that whereas nationalism is conservative, internationalism is liberal,
Liberalism being to democracy what Conservatism is to bureaucracy, using the
terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' in a loosely political sense. Hence from Fascism to Conservatism on the one
hand, and from Liberalism to Communism on the other, a political parallel to
the progression from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism on the one hand, and from
Protestantism to Transcendentalism (Western Unorthodoxy) on the other hand -
the former under the star and the latter under the cross.
84. Aristocracy is the essence of autocracy, technocracy the essence of
bureaucracy, plutocracy the essence of democracy, and meritocracy the essence
of theocracy. Which is to say that whilst, for example,
autocracy is the phenomenal appearance, aristocracy is
the noumenal essence, a wavicle
as opposed to a particle attribute. Thus
it could be argued that autocracy is aristocratic, bureaucracy technocratic,
democracy plutocratic, and theocracy meritocratic,
and that whereas essence conditions appearance in the cases of autocracy and
theocracy, appearance conditions essence in the cases of bureaucracy and
democracy, which are more intrinsically phenomenal.
85. Scientific
Communism (Social Autocracy) is dead; long live political Communism (Social
Democracy)! Such a slogan would undoubtedly
appeal to anyone not acquainted with the concept of religious Communism (Social
Theocracy), a concept which might well condition the formation of a slogan to
the effect of: may Social Democracy lead to the birth of Social Theocracy in
due communistic course, so that the Holy Ghost can come into its own on the
most unequivocally theocratic terms, and the 'Kingdom of Heaven' accordingly
come properly to pass!
86. The
only real difference between so-called Communists (Social Autocrats) and Social
Democrats ... is that whereas the former believe absolutely in State Socialism,
the latter have a relative belief in it which they are prepared to put on the
line of democratic compromise with those who, whether absolutely or relatively,
believe in popular Socialism and its concomitance of greater working-class
control of the means of production.
Hence, unlike their Stalinist counterparts, Social Democrats accept
democratic alternatives to the management of Socialism, alternatives which can
be either Radical or Liberal, populist or centrist, wholeheartedly in favour of
working-class ownership or in favour of a balance between the State and the
People. Socialism, in this democratic
plurality, is not at issue. For the only alternative to Socialism is Capitalism, and that would
be retrogressive. What is at issue is the way in which Socialism is run. However, from a Social Theocratic standpoint
it is important that the People should achieve the maximum political, economic,
and judicial power commensurate with the avoidance of social chaos, since it is
the People who will eventually have to decide whether they want salvation from
this power, and thus from 'sins of the world', in the form of religious
sovereignty, a decision which they will not be entitled to make unless they are
sufficiently mired in 'worldly sins' to begin with, and thus in a position,
democratically, to fob them off upon the Second Coming in return for religious
salvation. Hence Social Theocracy, with its
extreme left-wing, or theocratic, bias, can only look with favour upon the
progress of radicalism within Social Democracy, since the democratic left are
the means of ensuring that the People assume greater political and economic
responsibility. Ultimately, Social
Theocracy is dependent on the leftwards drift of Social Democracy and cannot
expect to supersede Social Democracy until Radical tendencies are
preponderant. However, the assumption of
economic and political responsibility ('sins of the world') in a Christ-like
sacrifice by the ideological leadership of Social Theocracy would automatically
create a new centre of power contiguous with religious sovereignty and pledged
to its service. Such a centre, at both
regional and supra-national levels, would render the old (Social Autocratic) centre
redundant, and so be obliged to assume responsibility for matters formerly in
its power, including the military. In
such fashion the military would acquire a moral standing, through the defence
of religious sovereignty, that it could only have
lacked in the old context of Social Autocracy.
It would also acquire, if and when thought necessary, a moral directive.
87. The
principal enemy for the Transcendentalist forever will be, both within and
without himself, the Fundamentalist, and he must defeat this shadow self if he
is truly to live in the Light.
88. The masculine is characterized by an autocratic tendency to
be reactively destructive, a theocratic tendency to be actively constructive,
and a democratic tendency to balance, whether inclusively or exclusively, both
destructive and constructive elements.
The feminine, traditionally, is characterized by a bureaucratic tendency
to be passively and/or attractively instructive. Hence woman's instructiveness has had to
co-exist, in the world, with masculine destructiveness and constructiveness
ranging, so to speak, above it in contrary ideological tendencies of negative
and positive will. Have we not here a
confirmation of Schopenhauer's conception of the world as 'Will and
Representation', with the former broadly masculine and the latter
feminine? Whether or
not we agree with his contention that we inherit will from our male progenitor
and intellect from our female one, there can be little question that the will
is destructive and/or constructive, and the intellect instructive.
89. Destructiveness
is naturalistic, constructiveness idealistic, a destructive/constructive
compromise materialistic, and instructiveness realistic. Now since, within the British Isles, it would
be credible to contend that the Welsh are fundamentally naturalistic, the Scots
idealistic, the English materialistic, and the Irish realistic, we should have
no difficulty in equating destructiveness with the Welsh, constructiveness with
the Scotch, destructive/constructive compromises with the English, and
instructiveness with the Irish who, alone of the four peoples, appertain,
through Catholicism, to the feminine, and hence to the harp as opposed to the
lion in each of its 'trinitarian' guises, viz.
horizontal and individual in the case of the fiery Welsh, vertical and
individual in the case of the airy Scots, and horizontal and collective (three
lions one above the other) in the case of the watery English. For whereas
90. Because
the Scots are predominantly an idealistic people, for whom the spirit takes
precedence over the soul, it need not surprise us if the best philosophers in
the British Isles tend to be Scottish or, at any rate, of Scotch extraction, in
contrast to the best dramatists and actors being Welsh. Even Shakespeare, who was born in
91. I
repress myself but am oppressed by others.
I express myself but am impressed by others. I compress myself but am depressed by
others. Repression, expression, and
compression are subjective and therefore largely self-inflicted. Oppression, impression, and depression are
objective and therefore a consequence of what others have inflicted upon
one. We no more oppress, impress, or
depress ourselves than we are repressed, expressed, or compressed by
others. I repress myself, but he
oppresses me. I express myself (as
here), but she impresses me. I compress
myself, but they depress me. Others can
suppress me, but only I can press myself, as with regard to a pressing
engagement which it is imperative for me to keep.
92. The
aggressive selflessness of naturalistic Paganism (the Father); the serving
selflessness of realistic Catholicism (the Virgin Mary); the self-serving
selfishness of materialistic Protestantism (the Son); the self-transcending
selfishness of idealistic Transcendentalism (the Holy Spirit). Hence from the superstar
and star of naturalistic and realistic selflessness to the cross and supercross of materialistic and idealistic selfishness. From noumenal
selfless alpha to noumenal selfish omega via
phenomenal selflessness and selfishness of a worldly and purgatorial relativity. The path to ultimate salvation lies in
transcending the phenomenal self in the interests of spiritual
self-realization. It is, in Spengler's terms, to abandon 'the Civilization' for 'Second
Religiousness', to abandon materialism in the name of an ultimate idealism the
subjective realization of which will usher in the '
93. Democracy
resembles the ego, inasmuch as it is a composite of selves that jostle one
another in a confrontation between objective and subjective reality. In fact, we could argue that democracy is
egocentric, whereas autocracy is rather a thing of the objective subconscious,
and theocracy ... a thing of the subjective superconscious. Hence, whereas science strives to illuminate
the subconscious, and by implication both internal and (especially) external
nature, religion strives to advance the illumination of the superconscious,
and by implication external and (especially) internal supernature. Politics, on the other hand, strives to
bolster the ego, of which it is the ideological corollary.
94. Male
sexuality vis-à-vis women is only possible on the basis of noumenal
selflessness, and is thus a mode of aggressive or, as I could alternatively
describe it, reactive destructiveness.
Female sexuality, on the other hand, traditionally follows from
phenomenal selflessness, which is a comparatively passive thing which offers
itself to male aggression. Hence whereas
male sexuality is essentially rooted in ill-will towards women, female
sexuality is a predominantly sentient passivity which allows itself to be
imposed upon in the interests, primarily, of procreation. There is nothing selfish about sexuality,
neither in its masculine nor its feminine manifestations, and for this reason
it can never be a moral thing but is rooted, as Christianity relates, in
'Original Sin', which is to say, in the aggressive naturalism of noumenal selflessness.
In this respect it is the opposite of noumenal
selfishness, which follows from a self-realizing idealism, whether indirectly ...
through art, or directly ... through self-contemplation, and is accordingly a
thing of good-will ... directly towards the spiritual self, but indirectly
towards mankind. As
Baudelaire put it: 'The more a man cultivates the arts, the less he fornicates. A more and more apparent cleavage occurs
between the spirit and the brute'.
Elsewhere in his Intimate
Journals he writes: 'To fornicate is to aspire to enter into another; the
artist never emerges from himself'. It
is this knowledge of how completely contrary the two wills are, the ill-will of
noumenal selflessness and the good-will of noumenal selfishness, that makes it impossible for the
great artist, the genius saint, ever to be a lecher or, conversely, for the
lecher ever to be a great artist. For
alpha and omega are incommensurable, like strength and truth. On the other hand, the phenomenal selfishness
of the highly acquisitive or pedantically intellectual person, whilst it is
arguably better than noumenal selflessness and,
within certain limits, can serve as a means to a higher (spiritual) end, may
well prove no less an obstacle to the attainment of true enlightenment and
moral salvation, if pursued too far, than its selfless counterpart in the
phenomenal realm. For existential
goodness can all-too-easily become an end-in-itself, shutting out the light of
the spirit, the spirit of good-will, towards which all noumenally-minded
people aspire. It is a poor sort of
morality, this phenomenal selfishness, since it enslaves one to materialism and
thus to the amassing of riches at the expense of spiritual freedom. It turns the world into a lunar purgatory
which, though arguably preferable to a worldly hell of phenomenal selflessness
or a solar hell of noumenal selflessness, is a far
cry from the otherworldly heaven to which men of good-will aspire. Better a spiritual selfishness that lifts one
out of the world than a material selfishness which keeps one enchained, no
matter how existentially, to it!
95. Friendship
is a thing corresponding, in its phenomenal selflessness, to a worldly
folly. The worldly fool may have friends
and the hellish fool enemies, but the truly wise man will be as much above and
beyond friendship as is compatible with his spiritual selfishness. Even the relatively wise selfishness of the
materialist should put him above friendship in the usual selfless sense, since
he will be too busy making money and/or profiting from his acquisitions to have
either much time or inclination to spend on the rather feminine art of
cultivating friends.
96. Helping others is not the prerogative of the true man, nor
even the good man, but of the beautiful and pleasure-giving woman. The man who can't
help himself, whether materially or (preferably) spiritually, is not really
wise at all but either an evil fool (assuming he prefers to hinder others) or a
worldly fool who may well be a woman at heart.
Certainly it is better to help oneself than to help others, but if one
cannot help oneself, it is better to help others than to hinder them (and by
'hinder' I include to have aggressive sex with them). For the man who hinders others necessarily
prevents them from helping themselves.
He perpetuates their tendency to help others through selfless
subservience, and in all helping others there is a loss to self.
97. He
who is most spiritually selfish is the most divine - in a word, God. He, on the contrary, who is most brutally
selfless is the most diabolic - in a word, the Devil. The Devil is a lecher but God a
celibate. We are 'born under one law
(but) to another bound'. Born under nature but bound, if civilized, to the supernatural
idealism of God. Or, more
correctly, born from the brutal selflessness of the procreative act, but
baptized into Christ and a spiritual rebirth.
Born from ill-will but bound, through the Saviour, to good-will, with
being and existence, beauty and goodness, coming in-between the alpha of
strength and the omega of truth - a worldly given (passive instruction) and a
purgatorial becoming (active instruction) in between the negative doing
(reactive destruction) of ill-will and the positive doing (attractive
construction) of good-will. Born, therefore, of the Father but bound, through the Son (and his
'
98. From
the immorality of noumenal selflessness to the morality
of noumenal selfishness via the negative amorality of
phenomenal selflessness and the positive amorality of phenomenal selfishness; a
devolution, in effect, from the Father to the Mother, and an evolution from the
Son to the Holy Spirit. From outer
essence to outer appearance, and from inner appearance to inner essence (as
from 'Historyless Chaos' to 'the Culture' on the one
hand, and from 'the Civilization' to 'Second Religiousness' on the other), a
superstar/star naturalism, but a cross/supercross
supernaturalism - such is the historical distinction between that which stems
from the diabolic alpha and that which aspires towards the divine omega,
whether directly or indirectly, absolutely or relatively, noumenally
or phenomenally.
99. In music
one might speak, in relation to the above, of an opera/ballet naturalism on the
one hand, but of a symphony/concerto supernaturalism on the other hand - opera
corresponding to outer essence and ballet to outer appearance, the symphony
corresponding to inner appearance and the concerto to inner essence. Likewise (notwithstanding the soul/pop,
rock/jazz supermusical parallels to the above), we
could speak, where literature is concerned, of a poetry/drama naturalism on the
one hand, but of a fiction/philosophy supernaturalism on the other hand - the
former pair perceptual and the latter pair conceptual, alpha and omega,
beginning and end, outer and inner, devil and god. From declaimer to actor,
and from writer to thinker - poetry being no less of the Father (and hence noumenal selflessness) than drama is of the Mother (and
hence phenomenal selflessness); novels being no less of the Son (and hence
phenomenal selfishness) than philosophy is of the Holy Ghost (and hence noumenal selfishness).
From literary immorality to literary morality via negative (drama) and
positive (fiction) amorality, a devolutionary/evolutionary dichotomy between
that which stems, like poetry and to a lesser extent drama, from the diabolic
alpha, and that which aspires, like philosophy and to a lesser extent narrative
literature, towards the divine omega.
From absolutely bad to relatively bad, and from relatively good to
absolutely good, which is the utmost truth. The Devil may be a strong poet, but God is a
true philosopher, and in his truth he is revealed!
100. It
would seem that since (contrary to my previous evaluations) poetry is the alpha
and philosophy the omega of literature, poetry is an autocratic art form and
philosophy, by contrast, theocratic, whereas novel-writing, coming in-between
the 'evil' and 'good' extremes, is a democratic art form, whether right wing
(poetic), left wing (philosophic), or centrist (balanced between poetic and
philosophic alternatives), and drama, corresponding to the Blessed Virgin at
the foot of the Cross, is bureaucratic, requiring, amongst other things, a
theatre in which the actors can act out their phenomenally selfless roles. Thus whereas poetry should appeal to
enslavers, philosophy, by contrast, is the devotion of the saviours, or those who
would free men from the tyranny of the selfless ... in order that they may come
to know themselves or, rather, their selves, and accordingly realize their
spiritual potential to the full, becoming one with that self which is truly
divine and in which resides heaven, the end and resolution of all
striving. Verily, the day of the true
theocrat is nigh, and when his triumph is complete there will be neither
autocrats nor bureaucrats, nor even democrats, but only the theocratic
inheritors of an omega salvation.
Rejoice, for the day of theocratic deliverance is at hand!
101. No
less than we can morally distinguish between different types of literature, so
a like-distinction can be drawn between different approaches to the word,
ranging from the alpha of noumenal selflessness
(outer essence) to the omega of noumenal selfishness
(inner essence) via the phenomenal selflessness (outer appearance) and
phenomenal selfishness (inner appearance) of the feminine/masculine world. Hence distinctions, on the one hand, between
the spoken word as noumenal selflessness and the
written word as phenomenal selflessness, outer essence and outer appearance,
but distinctions, on the other hand, between the read word as phenomenal
selfishness and the thought word as noumenal selfishness,
inner appearance and inner essence, with all due moral and ideological
implications. For no less than the
spoken word, corresponding to outer essence, is immoral in relation to the
negative amorality of the written word, so the thought word, corresponding to
inner essence, is moral in relation to the positive amorality of the read word,
speech and thought thereby corresponding to a sort of autocratic/theocratic
antithesis flanking the rather more democratic (above) and bureaucratic (below)
antithesis between the read word and the written word, which, in their phenomenality, pertain rather more to the world than to
either the alpha or omega extremes such that, logically, are both anterior and
posterior to it. Thus, in the
diagrammatic traditions of this work, we may sum up as follows:-
SPOKEN
WORD/READ WORD/THOUGHT WORD
(the
Father)(the Son)(the Holy
Ghost)
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITTEN
WORD
(the
Blessed Virgin)
reserving to the spoken word a connotation with fiery naturalism,
to the written word a connotation with earthy realism, to the read word a
connotation with watery materialism, and to the thought word, the word of
words, a connotation with airy idealism.
Verily, 'T' is for Truth, and Truth is never as true as when thought or,
better still, meditated upon! For a writer is neither a saint nor a scholar, but someone who
falls morally short of each.
102. I do
not write for the mere sake of writing; only a fool or a scoundrel would do
that! I write to be read, and, in being
read, my writing is redeemed, much as a woman's sexuality is redeemed through
the act of procreation, of bringing forth children. Writing-for-writing's-sake would be no better
than sex-for-sex's-sake, a sort of negative amorality with no real positive
consequences.
103. Musically,
the People have not yet achieved Social Democracy; for Social Democracy is
tied-up with musical literacy, and for the most part the People are still
musically illiterate, living in the inner darkness of a memorized and
improvised music which, whether ass rock or jazz, soul or dance, conforms to a
sort of Social Autocratic (communistic) barbarism ... symptomatic of pop music
in general. Only when groups begin to
use computerized scores and show themselves to be locked into an optical
redemption (through musical light) ... will the darkness of pop music be
eclipsed by the light of a superclassicism heralding
the age of proletarian civilization. Yet
musical Social Democracy is not the end but the beginning of People's
civilization, a secular precondition of a religious culmination which, issuing
in Social Theocracy, will consign to musical oblivion not only all instruments
- guitars, drums, xylophones, etc. - requiring reactive playing techniques, but
the whole declamatory tradition of vocals, which, rooted in the poetic alpha,
can have no place in the philosophic omega, in which only the airy essence of a
noumenal selfishness will figure. Thus will the Social Autocratic tradition of
vocal music be consigned to the rubbish heap of musical history as, growing
even beyond Social Democratic compromises between reactive and attractive
instrumentation (whether relatively in regard to a centrist balance or
absolutely in regard to right- and left-wing distinctions), as well as to the
continuing recourse to vocals, the ultimate People's music converges to a
musical omega in which a synth-based instrumentation
will be put to the service of the Holy Spirit and accordingly defer to the
computerized score as a sort of musical manifestation of the inner light. Naturally, by then, and even to a certain
extent before that, i.e. in the Social Democratic middle ground, the outer
lights of the 'heathen' light shows would no longer obtain. For outer light is no less correlative with
inner darkness than outer darkness (relatively) correlates with inner light,
and the full attainment of the latter must logically exclude the former,
rendering the need for extensive stage lighting superfluous to the point of an
immoral irrelevance.
104. Of course,
what I have said above, concerning the perceptual/ conceptual dichotomy in
music between pop on the one hand and the envisaged 'superclassicism'
of a more civilized age on the other hand, is no less applicable to the other
arts, where we may note a like-dichotomy, potential if not latent, between the
barbarous perceptual, germane to the autocratic alpha, and the civilized
conceptual, germane to the theocratic omega, with all due gradations of
compromise coming in-between. Thus, in
art, we may note a distinction between photography and/or light art on the one
hand and computer art on the other; in literature, between film on the one hand
and computer literature, read via VDU, on the other; and, in sculpture, between
light sculpture and/or holography on the one hand and computer sculpture on the
other hand. Clearly, the computer is the
medium through which the conceptual can be made manifest, and especially is
this true of literature, the most conceptual of all the arts. For literature touches the spirit like no
other art, and it is towards the spirit that all
religious idealism tends, an idealism which transcends both the soul and the
senses ... as light transcends fire and flesh.
Only the spirit itself transcends literature, but the highest, most philosophic
literature will ever be in the service of the spirit, as it strives to bring
conceptual truth to the door of Heaven itself.
105. In
relation to our T-like design, we had broadly established - at any rate prior
to an experimental re-evaluation - that soul is of the Father, dance music of
the Mother, rock of the Son, and jazz of the Holy Ghost, considering that soul
is naturalistic, dance realistic, rock materialistic, and jazz idealistic. We have yet to establish that, like Christ,
rock can approximate to the 'Three in One', to the extent that it is divisible,
either side of pure rock, into soul-rock and jazz-rock alternatives, the former
right wing and the latter left, while soul extends, via rock-soul, towards
soul-rock, and jazz extends, via rock-jazz, towards jazz-rock, as the Father
and the Holy Ghost respectively approach the Son (see diagram).
SOUL/ROCK-SOUL/(SOUL-R/ROCK/JAZZ-R)/ROCK-JAZZ/JAZZ
(the
Father)(the Son)(the Holy
Spirit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANCE
(the
Mother)
Hence rock-soul is still of the Father and
rock-jazz still of the Holy Ghost, the only difference with soul and jazz being
that they are relative rather than absolute, and are thus contiguous with the
Son. Put politically, this means that
both rock-soul and rock-jazz are on the fringes of democracy and may even desire a compromise with democracy which brings
them into contact with soul-rock and jazz-rock within a broadly Social
Democratic framework. For
while soul is communistic and jazz transcendentalist, rock is decidedly
centrist and thus susceptible to pluralistic distinctions. One might argue that rock-soul would be
theoretically in favour of Social Democracy and rock-jazz likewise, though
neither of them is strictly of the Son.
In fact, while rock-soul and soul-rock will liaise between the
autocratic left and the democratic right, rock-jazz and jazz-rock will be in
liaison between the theocratic right and the democratic left, rock-jazz using
the democratic platform in the interests of jazz, and hence the assumption of
pure theocracy in the extreme-left context of Transcendentalism. For although there is a
radical side (jazz-rock) to Social Democracy, Social Theocracy must prevail on
the People (through rock-jazz) to achieve Transcendentalism (jazz) and thus
come fully into line with the Holy Ghost. The interests of the left democratic
(jazz-rock) are sufficient unto the needs of the Son and not directly connected
with those of the Holy Ghost. Thus to
sum up, we may speak of an absolute antithesis, paralleling
Communism/Transcendentalism, between soul and jazz; a relative antithesis,
paralleling Social Autocracy/Social Theocracy, between rock-soul and rock-jazz;
and an antithesis, within a broadly Social Democratic framework, between
soul-rock and jazz-rock; pure rock being a centrist middle-ground in between
the democratically right-wing (conservative) and left-wing (radical)
alternatives. However, before I abandon
this subject, I should like to remind the reader that all the above-listed
types of modern music, not to mention their less-elevated derivatives (like
rap, punk, funk, hip-hop) pertain to the age, culture, society, and class of
the Holy Ghost, so that soul is never as musically of the Father as, for
example, opera or plainsong, any more than rock is as musically of the Son as,
say, classical symphonies. Soul is
simply of the Father in relation to the autocracy of the Holy Ghost, the
patriarchal manifestation of the Holy Ghost which is at the opposite extreme to
its musically truer, and therefore theocratic, manifestation in jazz.
106. The
transcendent mind does not stare at others or think about others in consequence
of perceiving them. On the contrary, the
transcendent mind is preoccupied with its own thoughts, which may or may not
serve as a springboard to inner perceptions, whether in terms of visionary
experience or pure contemplation. For
spirit is not a concept so much as an inner perception, the spiritual
perception of the higher self, and if the world begins with outer perceptions,
the sensuous perceptions of phenomena, it must end with the inner perceptions
of spiritual noumena, the goal and essence of the
Holy Spirit. Thoughts about external
phenomena may be said to conform to an outer conceptual; thoughts about
internal noumena, by contrast, will conform to an
inner conceptual; and thoughts about thought ... to a neutral conceptual,
neither of the subconscious nor the superconscious
but of the egocentric conscious alone.
Of course, the phenomenal can be external or internal, apparent or
essential, and whereas it is external in the Blessed Virgin (outer appearance),
it will be internal in Christ (inner appearance). Likewise, the noumenal,
as we have seen, can be external or internal, apparent or essential, and
whereas it is external in the Father (outer essence), it will be internal in
the Holy Ghost (inner essence). Hence
there is what one might call a devolution from the noumenal
to the phenomenal on the one hand (that of the Father and the Mother), but an
evolution from the superphenomenal to the supernoumenal on the other hand (that of the Son and the
Holy Ghost). Thoughts relating to the noumenal and to the phenomenal appertain to the outer
conceptual; thoughts relating to the superphenomenal
(inner appearance) and to the supernoumenal (inner
essence) appertain to the inner conceptual.
The former appertain to the old brain and the latter to the new
brain. Or, more correctly, thoughts
relating to the noumenal appertain to the backbrain and thoughts relating to the phenomenal appertain
to the right brain; whereas thoughts relating to the superphenomenal
appertain to the left brain and thoughts relating to the supernoumenal
appertain to the forebrain. The backbrain is the subconscious of the old brain and the
forebrain the superconscious of the new brain. The right brain and the left brain are both
conscious, the one in relation to external phenomena and the other in relation
to internal phenomena - the Blessed Virgin (Catholicism) and the Son (Protestantism)
of a phenomenal axis germane to the World.
107. Whether
the individual exists for society or society for the individual ... will depend
on whether one is in a civilized or a barbarous age, insofar as the individual
corresponds to phenomenal divisibility and society to noumenal
indivisibility. Hence the individual
will exist for society and/or God (to refine upon) in a civilized age, but
society will exist for the individual (to exploit) in a barbarous age, like,
for example, the feudal and capitalist phases of Western so-called
civilization, when exploitation of the collective by a capitalist elite is
rather more the prevailing tendency than service of the collective by the
individual and/or a particular class of individuals. Of course, the distinction between society and
God is a valid one, and in primitive civilizations of the
Agrarian/Fundamentalist type it is rather more to serve God (the Creator) than
society at large that the individual exists, whereas in the inceptive phase of
Socialist/Transcendentalist civilization the individual exists rather more for
society (which, in its extreme humanism, is officially atheist vis-à-vis the
Creator) than for God. Which isn't to
say that God (the Holy Ghost) can't eventually come back into the frame when
the People are ready to assume deification, in the interests of full noumenal salvation, through the intermediary vehicle of the
Second Coming. But, by then, the
exceptional individuals will be serving society rather less than the People as
God (the Holy Spirit); for in this service of the Many by the Few, society will
have been absorbed into God, its eclipse by God no less certain than the much
earlier eclipse of the competitive individual by co-operative society, the
divisible phenomenon by the indivisible noumenon, in
the interests of true civilization.
108. Where
women are concerned, the ponytail corresponds to the noumenal
indivisibility of alpha-oriented Fundamentalism and is therefore effectively a
pre-Western allegiance, especially germane to the traditional Orient. Where men are concerned, on the other hand,
the ponytail corresponds to the noumenal
indivisibility of an omega-oriented Transcendentalism; although distinctions
relative to the Trinity can, I believe, also be drawn between one ponytail and
another on the basis of length, a long ponytail being more symptomatic, it
seems to me, of the Father than of the Holy Ghost, which, by contrast, would
require recourse to a short one, the Christic omega
... of Protestant theocracy coming somewhere in-between. Now if my contention relating to the
respective symbolism of ponytails on men and women is correct, i.e. corresponds
to reality, then it stands to reason that women with ponytails will be 'beneath
the pale' of men with ponytails, since alpha and omega are incommensurate and
the one necessarily excludes the other, fundamentalism and transcendentalism
being absolutely antithetical. Hence as
soon as a man evolves into a ponytail, particularly as applying to the Holy
Ghost, he will be affirming an antithetical orientation to women in ponytails
and can logically have no truck with such women, there being no point of
contact between two contrary extremes.
Only a man whose hairstyle is 'square', i.e.
hanging straight or in curls, can logically have relations, whether sexually or
socially, with women whose hairstyle signifies a fundamentalist allegiance.
109. Whilst
on the subject of ponytails on men, it should be noted that a partial ponytail
co-existing with hair which is predominantly straight (as defined above), will
indicate a Social Radical allegiance, and thus be germane to Social
Democracy. Only a complete ponytail
hairstyle will correspond, if relatively short, to a Social Theocratic
allegiance, i.e. to that which mediates between communistic Transcendentalism
and Social Democracy, since such a hairstyle will signify a centripetally
curvilinear norm ... symptomatic of a radically omega-oriented theocracy. Where the communistic Transcendentalism of
the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is concerned, as germane to the assumption of religious
sovereignty by the masses in a properly Centrist context, the ponytail would
probably undergo a more radically transcendental transvaluation,
issuing, in splendid isolation, from the crown of a head that had otherwise
been completely shaven and was thus more intrinsically centripetal than in the
preceding ... Social Theocratic context.
110. A
pudding-basin hairstyle on women, while centrifugal, is less alpha
orientated than alpha stemming. By which
I mean that it corresponds, as on men, to an autocratic absolutism largely
germane to Western civilization, and is thus rather more heathen than
fundamentalist. In fact, such a
centrifugal openness is precisely what oriental fundamentalism strives to
avoid, insofar as theocratic fundamentalism is quasi-centripetal in character
(in relation, in all probability, to the central star of the Galaxy), for which
the ponytail on women is far more relevant, since it corresponds to a
quasi-centripetal alignment and is thus theocratic rather than, as with the pudding-basin
hairstyle so often found in the West, autocratic. Hence my distinction between the ponytail as
alpha orientated and the pudding-basin hairstyle as alpha stemming. Now, in regard to the latter, it could be
maintained that, as in the case of ponytails on men within the omega-oriented
contexts of Western civilization, the length of the hair in this centrifugal
style is of crucial significance in any attempt to determine whether a
royalist, a parliamentary, or an extreme republican allegiance was being
signified, the longest corresponding to a royalist, or monarchic, allegiance,
the shortest ... to an extreme republican, or 'communist', allegiance, and
anything in between which could be described as medium length corresponding to
a parliamentary, or 'Cromwellian' allegiance. Hence whilst a long-length pudding-basin
hairstyle would suggest autocratic royalism, a
medium-length one autocratic liberalism, and a shorter-length one autocratic
communism, it could be argued, with no less justification, that a long-length
ponytail on men is suggestive of theocratic royalism
(catholicism), a medium-length one of theocratic liberalism (protestantism), and a short-length one of theocratic
communism (transcendentalism), and that these extreme Western styles flank, as
alpha and omega, the rather more conventional hairstyles which, whether parted
or unparted, suggest an allegiance to democratic
and/or bureaucratic plurality - an allegiance no less subject to manifold
evaluation on the basis of length.
Naturally, such phenomenal hairstyles will be rectilinear (and 'square')
rather than curvilinear (and 'hip'), and in women such phenomenality
will usually take the form of hair hanging loosely down their back in what is,
I guess, a broadly worldly form of the phenomenal, a form rather more
selflessly centrifugal than (as in the democratic context above) selfishly
centripetal.
111. From
the external light of noumenal selflessness to the
external darkness of phenomenal selflessness (as from the superstar to the
star, the Father to the Blessed Virgin), and from the internal darkness of
phenomenal selfishness to the internal light of noumenal
selfishness (as from the cross to the supercross,
Christ to the Holy Spirit). The external
light is apt to be autocratic and the external darkness bureaucratic. Conversely, the internal darkness is apt to
be democratic and the internal light theocratic. The light of the Father, being external, is
centrifugal; the light of the Holy Spirit, being internal, is centripetal. Alpha and omega flanking
the external darkness of the world and the internal darkness of its purgatorial
antithesis, the former pertaining to the Virgin Mary and the latter to her
lunar Son. Hence
noumenal naturalism and idealism flanking phenomenal
realism and materialism. Fire is
the element of the Father; earth the element of the Blessed Virgin. Water is the element of Christ; air the
element of the Holy Spirit.
112. To
distinguish between cinema and television on the basis of a Jehovah/Father
dichotomy, with cinema (especially in its pre-talkies black-and-white guise) a
modern parallel to Jehovah, and television a modern parallel to the
Father. As to a parallel with the
Mother, one need look no further than radio, which corresponds to an external
darkness, whereas in the distinction between video tapes and audio tapes, one
has the basis, it seems to me, for a parallel with the Son, Who comes
in-between the external light of the Father and the internal light of the Holy
Ghost, and precisely as an internal darkness, the darkness, most especially, of
audio tapes (when used musically).
However, beyond the internal darkness of Christ there can only be the
internal light of the Holy Spirit, and for the modern parallel to the Holy
Spirit one need look no further than computers.
Yet no less than we distinguished between cinema and television on the
basis of a Jehovah/Father dichotomy, so a distinction can be drawn between
computers and hallucinogenic drugs on the basis of a Holy-Ghost/Inner-Light
dichotomy, since contemplation of the superconscious
mind signifies a superior degree of noumenal
selfishness than can be achieved vis-à-vis the rather more materialistic realm
of personal computers, even when they are being utilized in a more perceptual,
and hence noumenal, way, as regards games and,
especially, graphics. In fact, even an
LSD trip is less than purely noumenal, given its
partly aural and colourful properties, and one is obliged to admit that,
although of the Inner Light, it is less truly of the Inner Light than
meditation, and therefore stands to meditation as colour talkies to the
pre-talkie black-and-white films of the early cinema, which approximate more
closely to a parallel with Jehovah, i.e. the alpha divine. Hence while both LSD trips and meditation are of the omega divine, meditation is more truly
and completely of it, and therefore the closest parallel of all to the Inner
Light.
113. Of
course, one could also draw distinctions in relation to the above media in
terms of political as opposed to religious parallels, contending, for example,
that cinema and television are autocratic, and hence Marxist, media, whereas
radio is bureaucratic, and hence socialistic; video and audio tapes democratic,
and hence Social Democratic; and computers and LSD trips theocratic, and hence
Transcendentalist (in the Social Theocratic and properly communistic
sense). But while this is doubtless no
less valid than the religious parallels, such distinctions could only be drawn
in relation to particle as opposed to wavicle contexts,
i.e. with regard to the content of, particularly, films and trips being less
self-transcending than self-asserting, less musical than verbal, and therefore
of a relatively secular nature such that more usually connotes with the
political than the religious. It is not
the media so much as how they are utilized that enables us to project material
or spiritual parallels; for that which parallels the Father one moment can
parallel a Marxist tyrant the next. And,
conversely, that which parallels the Son one moment can become, if utilized in
a less self-transcending way, a Liberal demagogue the next, depending on the
content, in this context, of the audio and/or video tape. Broadly speaking, music, the most idealistic
of the arts, will maintain a wavicle, and hence
spiritual, bias; the spoken word, on the other hand, is more likely, on account
of the particle nature of speech, to maintain a secular bias, especially when
used in a non-narrative, journalistic or factual sort of way. The ratio of the one to the other will
determine, as a rule, the nature of the context in question, and accordingly
allow us to draw either religious or political, spiritual or material parallels
in regard to the medium being used and its particular mode of utilization. Hence a film with a lot of music will more
easily lend itself to a religious parallel than one which is predominantly or
entirely verbal. Music tapes will
likewise lend themselves to a religious parallel, as will computer games and
graphics, whereas spoken tapes and verbal compact discs will more easily
connote with the secular, even when employed in a religious context, since the
word has a particle connotation when spoken but a wavicle
one when sung, or used in conjunction with music. Soul may be religious but rap, its spoken
counterpart, is predominantly secular, and hence political. Both are alike alpha, albeit of the Father
and the 'Leader' (Ruler) respectively.
Religion transcends politics, but very often it depends upon politics
for support and adversity. We cannot
live entirely in either realm, although we should seek, if wise, to subordinate
the particle to the wavicle in pursuit of an
idealistic goal. For, ultimately, it is
the wavicle which leads to salvation - salvation,
above all, from the World and its political undertakings.
114i. Music
is the most idealistic of the arts and thus the art which, especially in jazz,
best approximates to the Holy Ghost. For
it uses air (breath) in the service of internal light (noumenal
selfishness).
ii. Art is the most
naturalistic of the arts and thus the art which, especially in painting, best
approximates to the Father. For it uses
fire (paint) in the service of external light (noumenal
selflessness).
iii. Sculpture is the
most realistic of the arts and thus the art which, especially in stone, best
approximates to the Blessed Virgin. For
it uses earth (clay) in the service of external darkness (phenomenal
selflessness).
iv. Literature is the
most materialistic of the arts and thus the art which, especially in novels,
best approximates to the Son. For it
uses water (ink) in the service of internal darkness (phenomenal selfishness).
115i. Music
is the art form of the spirit.
ii. Art is the art form of the soul.
iii. Sculpture is the art form of the will.
iv. Literature is the art form of the intellect.
116i. Music
can and does intimate of Heaven.
ii. Art can and does depict Hell.
iii. Sculpture can and does embody the World.
iv. Literature can and does define Purgatory.
117. Each
major branch of the arts is of course subdivisible
according to our fourfold categories, with approximations to one or other of
the competing alternatives. But,
strictly speaking, each art is defined and limited by its original nature,
literature being unable, even in philosophy (the most idealistic and hence
metaphysical branch of literature), to transcend the intellect for the spirit
to the extent that the best, most idealistic music can. Whereas literature can only speak of or for
the spirit indirectly, through the intellect, and hence at a purgatorial remove
from Heaven, music can make the spirit directly known through itself, thereby
bringing us into closer contact with Heaven, which would be a condition of
permanent inner music, the 'music of the (divine) spheres'. If art plunges us back towards the Devil
(painting being the art of the soul), music lifts us towards God, and in music
alone do we find cultural salvation.
118. If we
are damned by art but saved by music, we are half-damned (to the world) by
sculpture and half-saved (in purgatory) by literature, since both sculpture and
literature are of the phenomenal - the former outwardly (as will) and the
latter inwardly (as intellect). Indeed,
to be damned is to be confined to the outer noumenal
(soul), whereas to be saved is to be admitted to the inner noumenal
(spirit), since Hell and Heaven are noumenal extremes
of soulful particles and spiritual wavicles, the
alpha and omega of noumenal mind. Such mind is perceptual rather than
conceptual, for perceptions pertain to the noumenal
light, whether external or internal, whereas conceptions pertain, in their
worldly relativity, to the phenomenal darkness, whether as will (body) or
intellect (brain), externally or internally.
The focal-point of the 'Will to Life' is indeed the penis, as
Schopenhauer well knew, and in coitus life is conceived (rather than
perceived). If sex begins with a
perception (of another's beauty), it ends with a conception (of offspring),
passing from the realm of soul (focus of the original - and sinful -
perception) to that of the will (focus of the coital conception). Such a vicious circle - for it is indeed
vicious on account of the immoral and negatively amoral natures of the soul and
the will, corresponding, in symbolical terms, to superstar and star - can only
be broken out of, or transcended, if the intellect is utilized in the service
of the spirit, so that, through inner conceptions, the path may be prepared for
inner perceptions (insights), and the possibility of full enlightenment (as the
positive amorality of the intellect establishes a virtuous circle with the
morality of the spirit), pending the eventual 'eclipse' of the former by the
latter in a wholly noumenal salvation of spiritual
truth. The cross is a precondition of
the supercross, but Christ must eventually be
transcended if the Holy Spirit is to come fully to pass, and the virtuous
circle of inner conceptions and inner perceptions give way to the omega point
of absolute truth, the inner perception of which is the condition of Heaven.
