Op. 78
BRINGING THE JUDGEMENT
(With Social Transcendentalism)
Cyclic Philosophy
Copyright © 2013 John O'Loughlin
_____________
CONTENTS
1.
Cycles 1–25
2.
Appendix
____________
CYCLE ONE
1. Whereas the Irish are socially extrovert and culturally
introvert, the British - and in particular the English - are socially introvert
and culturally extrovert.
2. Hard to escape the impression that the
expression 'go to hell' is all too applicable to what one does when one turns
on the television.
3. Except for stanza-divisible poetry and
aphoristic philosophy, all other literary genres - including free verse and
essays - are lower class, i.e. phenomenal.
4. Drama and fiction stand in between poetry and
philosophy like water and vegetation (earth) in between fire and air.
5. In such fashion they are akin to strength and
knowledge in between beauty and truth.
6. One can divide the day, which, as everyone
will know, is composed of twenty-four hours, into four distinct periods,
corresponding to the elements, of six hours, viz. from midnight till six
o'clock, the fiery period of beauty; from six o'clock till noon, the watery
period of strength; from noon till six o'clock in the evening, the vegetative
period of knowledge; and from six o'clock till midnight, the airy period of
truth.
7. Since I conceive of fire and water as
corresponding, on account of their objectivity, to the female side of life, and
of vegetation and air, their subjective counterparts, as corresponding to its
male side, it behoves me to consider the first half of the day, viz. from
midnight till noon as in some sense female, and the second half of the day,
viz. from noon till midnight, as in some sense male, since it is then that not
beauty and strength but knowledge and truth are more in their element, or so it
seems to me.
CYCLE TWO
1. What is truth? Such a question has been raised before, and
few if any persons have answered it truthfully.
Here, to be best of my knowledge, is my
answer. Truth is metaphysical knowledge,
and metaphysical knowledge is knowledge about God and the means whereby God can
be redeemed and/or resurrected in relation to what has been called Heaven.
2. Truth can be sensual (and 'once born') or
sensible (and 'reborn'), outer or inner, but the best, most definitive truth
will be sensible, standing as metaphysical salvation (from sensuality to
sensibility). Inner metaphysical truth,
as we shall call the sensible variety, centres on the ego that is aware of the
importance of the breath - and particularly the out-breath - in enabling it to
transcend itself in relation to the soul, specifically the inner metaphysical
soul, which is its redemption. Such an
ego, the ego, I have argued in the past, of a primary deity - call it 'the Son'
for convenience's sake - must needs utilize the will of the relevant not-self,
in this case inner metaphysical, in order not only to identify with the breath,
self with selflessness, but to be borne out by it in due process of so
identifying. Therefore the relevant
not-self (to the inner metaphysical context) being the lungs, the ego-self of
the primary deity plunges its awareness into the wilful, or will-based,
not-self of the lungs - the secondary deity whom, again for convenience's sake,
we shall call 'the Father' - and allows this awareness to be transported on the
wings, so to speak, of the breath, the secondary heaven of the Holy
Spirit. But at some point in its
outward-tending transportation the ego-self must recoil from the threat of
self-destruction which the selflessness of the Holy Spirit, issuing from the
not-self, poses to it, and in such recoil, as from one extreme to another, it
achieves a profounder experience of self than would otherwise have been
possible. This profounder experience we
call the soul, and in the elemental context in question, that of metaphysical
sensibility, it becomes the holy soul of a primary heaven, the redemption - and
resurrection - of the primary God, viz. the ego-self.
3. Thus truth teaches us that not only is God
someone to be redeemed in something, namely Heaven, but that 'the Son', being
primary, can only be redeemed via the secondary God and Heaven of 'the Father'
and the 'Holy Spirit'. For without
recoil from the out-flowing breath which issues from the lungs, there can be no
profounder experience of self, as soul, for the ego in question. Such is the logic of inner metaphysical
truth, and it is this knowledge which paves the way for religious praxis, as
self returns to ego, its fulcrum, and plunges anew into inner metaphysical
spirit via the relevant will, thereby sustaining a cyclical procedure for the
duration of what can be called transcendental meditation.
4. Thus the man of truth, a philosopher, will
know that truth is of no consequence until it is redeemed in joy, and that the
redemption of truth in joy is the raison d'être of truth, as of
philosophy, without which there could be no metaphysical joy. Philosophy theorizes,
religion, if true, puts the theory into practice, so that what results is
surely God and Heaven, the practical fulfilment or realization of truth and
joy. How few religions there are, or
have been, which do as much justice to God and Heaven! Most remain lamentably moored to some
primitive concept of God and Heaven which is not even truthful in an outer and
sensual sense but merely illusory, having reference to cosmic Creation. They mistake the primal for the supreme, the
negative for the positive, the inorganic for the organic, and science for
religion, in consequence of which people come to regard religion as something
pertaining to the beginning of things rather than to their end or most evolved
manifestation! They remain tied to the
Cosmos as to the apron strings of a grandmother long after they should have
grown up to full independence of such craven servility! Yet full independence can only come through
such truth as I have outlined in this text, not via some intermediate avatar,
some half-way house, so to speak, who, besides not knowing what truth is, has
been all too often identified with a guide to falling in line with the Creator,
or Cosmos, rather than as a bridge to some higher, more advanced devotion still
to come. Small wonder that intelligent
people find little or nothing to console them in the Church that bears the name
of Christ!
5. Christianity speaks of the 'Three in One',
the three 'Persons' of the Trinity, but really there are only two, since the
Holy Spirit is not a God but a state of Heaven, a secondary mode of Heaven
which stands to the primary mode, the Holy Soul, as the breath to the soul,
metaphysical selflessness to the essence of metaphysical self. Thus the concept of Gods the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit is deeply flawed, as, in a sense, is the identification of
the components of the so-called Blessed Trinity with 'Persons'. For, quite apart from the fact that Heaven is
not God but the redemption of God, the resurrection of God in the primary
context, God is not personal, or of the person, but universal, which is to say,
noumenal rather than phenomenal, of space and/or time
as opposed to volume and/or mass. Which does not preclude, however, the
identification of God, whether in primary or in secondary terms, with a higher
kind of man - necessarily upper-class and ... metaphysical. For ‘universal’ is not synonymous with
'cosmic', as though germane to the Universe.
On the contrary, it is that which stands to the cosmic as supremacy to
primacy, positivity to negativity, and the organic to
the inorganic.
6. Ultimately, God depends on Heaven for his
redemption. Without Heaven, God would be
pointless. Hence only the Holy Soul (of
Heaven) redeems God the Son, viz. the metaphysical ego, just as only the Holy
Spirit (of Heaven) redeems God the Father, viz. the metaphysical will. Lungs would be pointless without the breath. Just so, the metaphysical knowledge (truth)
of the primary god would be pointless without the metaphysical happiness (joy)
of the primary heaven. In fact,
metaphysical soul is the resurrection of metaphysical ego, the resurrection, in
other words, of ‘the Son'.
7. Christianity is a religion of the People, a
religion that would seem to be expressly designed for the lower classes, who
can have just so much religion, according to what the Church allows, but no
more! It is as if, being lower class, the
People don't need genuine religion, since it would be largely irrelevant to
them. What interest can the People
possibly have in religious truth, the truth-of-truths, when their lives
revolve, for the most part, around strength and knowledge?
8. Only a certain type of higher man, a godly subman, who is deeper (and higher) than the People, will
have any interest in metaphysical truth.
Such a man will tend to be 'his own man', self-possessed and, to a large
extent, self-motivated. He will not be
accustomed to obeying others, to having a boss to tell him what to do, and
consequently he can take the concept and, indeed, actuality (within certain
devotional circumstances) of 'God within the self' seriously.
9. When, on the contrary, one is comparatively selfless,
dependent on external authority, then it stands to reason that the nature of
one's lifestyle, necessarily working class, will determine to a greater or
lesser extent one's susceptibility to 'external gods', to gods corresponding,
in no small degree, to the managers or governors who rule over one. This suffices to explain the People's
susceptibility to state religion.
CYCLE THREE
1. The ego exists in
all four elemental contexts, where it is commensurate with form and thus
knowledge. That ego which is metachemical will have knowledge of the Devil, which is
beauty.
2. That ego which is chemical will have
knowledge of woman, which is strength.
3. That ego which is physical will have
knowledge of man, which is knowledge per se.
4. That ego which is metaphysical will have
knowledge of God, which is truth.
5. Contrary to the
above, that ego which is negatively metachemical will
have ignorance of the Devil, which is ugliness.
6. That ego which is negatively chemical will
have ignorance of woman, which is weakness.
7. That ego which is negatively physical will
have ignorance of man, which is ignorance per se.
8. That ego which is negatively metaphysical
will have ignorance of God, which is falsity (illusion).
9. Alternatively, one could differentiate
between the ignorance of the Antidevil, antiwoman, antiman, and the Antigod, and the knowledge of the Devil, woman, man, and
God.
10. It is important to understand that God and the
Devil (or the Antigod and the Antidevil)
are higher types of persons, upper-class persons, and not completely distinct
from mankind. For mankind are divisible
between the lower-class commonality of men and women, and the upper-class
nobility of devils and gods.
11. Just so, the generality of people are divisible
between strength and knowledge (and/or weakness and ignorance), while a smaller
number of persons, corresponding to an elite, are
divisible between beauty and truth (and/or ugliness and falsity).
12. Generally speaking, beauty and strength are
female attributes, knowledge and truth male ones, since the female side of
life, rooted in a vacuum, is ever objective, whereas its male side, centred in
a plenum, is ever subjective, and therefore the division in question is between
appearance and quantity on the one hand, and quality and essence on the other
hand.
13. The female side of
life, being objective, is primary, like fire and water, whereas the male side
of it, being subjective, is secondary, like vegetation (earth) and air.
14. That which is objective diverges (in
sensuality) and/or converges (in sensibility) on a direct, or straight-line,
basis.
15. That which is subjective diverges (in
sensuality) and/or converges (in sensibility) on an indirect, or curved-line,
basis.
16. The female side of life,
being primary, is more aggressive than its male side, just as fire and water
are more aggressive than vegetation and air.
17. An aggressive country or people will have a
female bias, in which heathenistic criteria, properly
appertaining to sensuality, will be paramount.
18. An unaggressive
country or people will have a male bias, in which Christian or Christian-type
criteria, properly appertaining to sensibility, will be paramount.
CYCLE FOUR
1. Theory of smoking loosely based on the
elements, viz. the noumenal objectivity of pipe
smoking as that mode of smoking which most correlates with fire; the phenomenal
objectivity of roll-up smoking as that mode of smoking which most correlates
with water; the phenomenal subjectivity of cigarette smoking as that mode of
smoking which most correlates with vegetation; the noumenal
subjectivity of cigar smoking as that mode of smoking which most correlates
with air.
2. Hence a distinction between a female approach
to smoking, in which a certain objective looseness is demonstrable, and a male
approach to smoking in which, by contrast, subjective binding is chiefly
characteristic. Pipes
and roll-ups vis-à-vis cigarettes and cigars.
3. It may also be possible to distinguish,
comparatively speaking, between sensuality and sensibility in every elemental
context, with, say, straight pipes and drop-bowl pipes characterizing what may
be called the metachemical approach to smoking; plain
roll-ups and 'joints' typifying the chemical approach to smoking; untipped cigarettes
and filter cigarettes characterizing the physical approach to smoking; squat
cigars and thin cigars typifying the metaphysical approach to smoking, and
other such variations on a common theme.
4. One would, as a smoker, be saved from
sensuality to sensibility in the case of cigarettes and cigars, but damned from
sensuality to sensibility in the case of pipes and roll-ups, since the male
side of life tends to exemplify a sensible salvation (from the curse of
subjective sensuality), while the female side of life tends to confirm a
sensible damnation (from the blessing of objective sensuality), the male side
rising diagonally through two contiguous planes and the female side falling
diagonally through two such planes, albeit the planes in question be objective
rather than subjective.
5. All this is of course relative to the context
of smoking, which, no matter how sensible, or what the approximate elemental
correlation, remains fundamentally metachemical and,
hence, fiery, not truly watery, vegetative, or airy.
6. Making such comparative distinctions, it
would be feasible - if not particularly tasteful - to distinguish pipe-smoking
'jerks' from roll-up-smoking 'cunts' on the female,
or objective, side of the smoking divide, and to further distinguish these
looser individuals from their male-oriented counterparts, whose subjective
binding induces one to rather slangfully
differentiate between cigarette-smoking 'pricks' and cigar-smoking 'bums'.
7. Hence an overall distinction between
pipe-smoking 'jerks'/roll-up-smoking 'cunts' and
cigarette-smoking 'pricks'/cigar-smoking 'bums', as between noumenal
and phenomenal objectivity/phenomenal and noumenal
subjectivity.
8. An approximate sartorial parallel to the
above would be dresses and skirts vis-à-vis trousers and zippersuits,
the objective looseness of the female attire contrasting with the subjective
binding of the male attire.
CYCLE FIVE
1. All the elements kill when they go on the
rampage. Fire kills in the form not least
of all of volcanic eruptions, spewing out molten lava from the turbulent bowels
of the earth. Water kills not least of
all in the form of floods, overflowing banks and carrying away whatever stands
in its path. Earth
(vegetation) kills not least of all in the form of earthquakes, bringing
civilization to its knees as it shatters the foundations of buildings and rips
infrastructures apart. Air kills
not least of all in the form of tornadoes or hurricanes, leaving a trail of
havoc in the wake of its devastating advance.
2. Nature kills
indiscriminately when the world is rocked by volcanic eruptions, floods,
earthquakes, and tornadoes.
The violence of nature knows no bounds and no-one is ever entirely safe
from the threat or actuality of natural violence. We live, believe it or not, on a very
dangerous planet, a planet which turns, from time to time, upon both mankind
and the animal kind with the full ferocity of its pent-up forces.
3. Yet still there are idiots and fools whose
basic concept of God is one derived from the Old Testament or equivalent
sources in which God is conceived, in typically primitive vein, as 'Creator',
and not just as Creator of this planet and all life on it but, more
preposterously, as Creator of the Universe, meaning
the Cosmos in general! How much longer
will we have to endure the primitivity of these
simple folk or, more insidiously, of the priests who rule over them!
4. All that is cosmic, and therefore basic, is
grossly inferior to even the least of human beings. That which is organic has grown out of the
inorganic, whether on a devolved basis due to objectivity or, alternatively, on
an evolved basis due to subjectivity. Whereas the cosmic/geologic foundation is
primal in its negativity, the personal/universal offshoot is supreme in its positivity. Hence the impossibility of attributing supremacy to the Cosmos.
5. One can certainly attribute primal being to
that aspect of the Cosmos corresponding to a subjective orientation, like the
Sun and the planet Saturn, but anything corresponding, by contrast, to an
objective orientation would, in its female bias, equate with primal doing,
whether in terms of stellar sensuality or Venusian
sensibility.
6. And it is the objective-oriented cosmic noumena which precede the subjective-oriented noumena, primal doing preceding primal being, not vice
versa, so that, strictly speaking, it is a sort of primitive, or negative,
devil preceding an equally primitive god, the female mode of cosmic noumena preceding its male mode.
7. In neither context would there be anything
supreme, and therefore all references to a so-called 'Supreme Being' behind
cosmic Creation are delusory and deserve to be both exposed and, more
importantly, rejected as unworthy of enlightened minds. Such references are in fact the fruit of
ignorance.
8. Even Voltaire, that in many ways truly
insightful philosopher, was a simple Creator-slavering deist or, more
correctly, theist whose woefully primitivistic and
hyped notion of God as Creator and Supreme Being could hardly ingratiate him to
those of us who identify with a post-Christian rather than a pre-Christian
interpretation of deity. In that
respect, he was little different from Hitler!
9. Sartre would not have been impressed with
Voltaire's deity, and although he didn't go particularly far in developing a
higher and truer concept of deity, he paved the way for those, such as I, who
were able to view his humanistic atheism as a springboard to better things.
10. Out of existentialist humanism I have
developed Social Transcendentalism, which takes man to God or, rather, brings
the concept of God to the level of the higher man, the man capable of
meditating and so of identifying his ego with metaphysics, becoming, in the
process, 'the Son', the primary deity whose redemption lies in the primary
heaven of the Holy Soul. I call this man
a subman, for he is beyond man in the mass and/or
volume of vegetative physics.
CYCLE SIX
1. Before there can be metaphysical
being, the being-of-beings or soul-of-souls, there must firstly be metaphysical
taking, the second-rate taking of the subhuman ego, the primary deity, in
short, of 'the Son'. For
Heaven is dependent upon God for its existence, no less than God is dependent
upon Heaven for His redemption and, in some sense, resurrection. One can't have one without the other.
2. Nor can metaphysical taking get to
metaphysical being without the assistance of both metaphysical doing and
metaphysical giving, the fourth-rate doing of the subnatural
will, the secondary deity, in short, of 'the Father', and the third-rate giving
of the subastral spirit, the secondary heaven, in
other words, of 'the Holy Spirit'. For
the metaphysical taking that is not stretched out on a kind of psychic limb by
metaphysical giving will not recoil to self more profoundly, and before such a
taking can be stretched out it must first pass through the metaphysical doing
of that whose respiratory will powers the breath in the first place.
3. Thus metaphysical taking achieves
metaphysical being for itself, whether in sensuality or sensibility, via the
assistance, consciously entered into, of both metaphysical doing and
metaphysical giving, and such metaphysical being is a first-rate order of soul,
the soul in its per se manifestation which is the goal and fulfilment of the
genuinely religious quest, as pursued by those higher men who are identifiable
with a primary order of divinity.
Supreme being exists as soulful experience in
all positive elemental contexts, but only in the metaphysical context will it
be first-rate and therefore joyful.
4. In the physical context, the supreme being of
the soul will be second-rate and therefore pleasurable, while, across the other
side of the gender fence, the supreme being of the chemical context will be
third-rate and therefore proud, and the supreme being of the metachemical context above and behind this will be
fourth-rate and therefore loving, the soul of love as opposed to the souls of
pride, of pleasure, and of joy.
5. Likewise if the supreme taking of the
metaphysical context is second-rate, then the supreme taking, in ego, of the
physical context is first-rate, the supreme taking of the chemical context
fourth-rate, and the supreme taking of the metachemical
context third-rate.
6. Conversely if the supreme giving of the
metaphysical context is third-rate, then the supreme giving, in spirit, of the
physical context is fourth-rate, the supreme giving of the chemical context
first-rate, and the supreme giving of the metachemical
context second-rate.
7. Finally if the supreme doing of the
metaphysical context is fourth-rate, then the supreme doing, in will, of the
physical context is third-rate, the supreme doing of the chemical context
second-rate, and the supreme doing of the metachemical
context first-rate.
8. Hence it transpires that, in metaphysics, the
achievement of first-rate being is only possible on the basis of second-rate
taking, third-rate giving, and fourth-rate doing; that, in physics, the
achievement or, rather, maintenance of first-rate taking is only possible on
the basis of second-rate being, third-rate doing, and fourth-rate giving; that,
in chemistry, the maintenance of first-rate giving is only possible on the
basis of second-rate doing, third-rate being, and fourth-rate taking; that, in metachemistry, the maintenance of first-rate doing is only
possible on the basis of second-rate giving, third-rate taking, and fourth-rate
being.
9. Only in metaphysics is being, and therefore
soul, an end. In physics, by comparison,
taking, and therefore ego, is an end or, rather, a mean (for the ego is not a
genuine end), while in chemistry, by contrast, giving, and therefore spirit, is
a mean, and in metachemistry doing, and therefore
will, is a mean, the latter of which, like spirit and particularly ego, tends
to be turned into a false end by dint of being falsely identified with an end.
10. A disciplinary parallel to the above would be
making science an end rather than a means to a political (yet still
comparatively false) end. Likewise
politics can become an end (necessarily false from a male standpoint) by dint
of the female criteria attaching to chemistry as a solution to the problem of metachemistry and the extent to which, particularly in the
West traditionally, spirituality has been religiously hyped and virtually
identified with the religious mean.
11. Economics, too, can be falsely turned into an
end rather than used as a means to a religious end, particularly when religion
is falsely sealed off at the level of vegetative physics in what amounts to a
too Christ-centred orientation, and economic gain becomes virtually synonymous
with religious probity. But the physical
ego is a mean, not an end, and efforts to perpetuate it as an end only result
in the stunting and limiting of human potential to the level of taking, thereby
precluding the subhuman maturation, so to speak, of the human being.
12. Only religion can allow for the subhuman
maturation of the human being, who, when truly religious and therefore
metaphysical, becomes synonymous with deity, specifically the primary deity of
'the Son', whose privilege it is to transcend his ego-self via the wilful
not-self and the spiritual not-self in the interests of enhanced selfhood,
which is called the soul. Thus does the
primary God pass to primary Heaven, ego duly eclipsed by soul which, unlike the
ego, corresponds to a genuine end in the first-rate being of holy joy.
13. Therefore only in that context where the soul,
and hence being, is properly an end and subject to being recognized as such,
can the ego, the will, and the spirit be subordinated to that end rather than
maintained as ends, necessarily false, in themselves. Such a context, avowedly metaphysical, is
alone compatible with genuine religion.
14. The souls, or modes
of being, that are not ultimate but second-rate (pleasurable), third-rate
(proud), or fourth-rate (loving) will always be subordinated to the first-rate
manifestation of the element to which they are affiliated, be it physical (and
economic), chemical (and political), or metachemical
(and scientific). For the soul cannot
function as an end when it is of an order that is subordinate to a prevailing
mean which is either egocentric (physical), spirtualistic
(chemical), or wilful (metachemical).
15. Only in the metaphysical context does the ego,
the will, and the spirit function as a means to an end or, more correctly, does
the ego function as a means to a soulful end, and the will function as a means
to a spiritual end of which the latter is inclusively utilized by the ego as
part of its means to the soulful end we have identified with a primary heaven.
16. Thus God is a means to the end of Heaven in
both primary (self) and secondary (not-self) contexts of metaphysics. How unlike the ego which falsely becomes an
end-in-itself, due to its first-rate status within the humanistic context of
physics!
CYCLE SEVEN
1. Philosophy treats of truth and joy, religion
of God and Heaven. For religion is in
many respects the practical fulfilment of a theoretical precondition. One does not live by philosophy: one thinks
by it. In the metaphysical context, what
one primarily lives by is religion. For
transcendental meditation, the praxis of metaphysical religion in its sensible manifestation, is not a philosophy but the practical
vindication of a philosophy, which understands the nature, as it were, of truth
and joy.
2. Being God and Heaven is obviously different
from theorizing about God and Heaven from the standpoint of truth and joy. One could say that being graceful and holy is
equally distinct from theorizing about grace and holiness from the standpoint
of calmness and peace. For calmness and
peace are arguably preconditions of grace and holiness, just as truth and joy
presuppose the possibility, through religious praxis, of God and Heaven or,
alternatively, of godliness and heavenliness.
3. Such pedantic distinctions notwithstanding,
it is certainly true that the metaphysical will is centred on calmness and the
metaphysical spirit on peace; for calmness delivers peace no less than the
lungs deliver the breath. Whether that
calmness is going to be transformed into grace and that peace into holiness,
however, will depend whether religious praxis takes over from philosophical
theory, whether, that is, an insight surrounding the nature of the metaphysical
context is turned into a consciously-determined principle of religious
praxis. If so, then one is not just calm
and peaceful; one becomes graceful and holy.
4. For he who passes beyond the natural
metaphysical condition of calmness and peace through a philosophical theory of
truth and joy soon finds himself in the position of actually experiencing grace
and holiness through becoming God and Heaven.
He can move forward from metaphysical nature to philosophy (the
transcendent theory), from philosophy to religion (the meditative praxis), and
finally from religion to sublimity (which some have
called theosophy, meaning actual experience of godliness and heavenliness).
5. Hence a path of ascent, within metaphysical
nature, from subnature to subconsciousness
via subhumanism and subastralism,
as from will to soul via ego and spirit, as, in general terms, from calmness
and peace to grace and holiness via truth and joy and God and Heaven.
6. Subnature is the
base metal, so to speak, that has to be transmuted into the refined gold of
actual subconscious fulfilment. For this
purpose it is necessary to have become subhuman in one's metaphysical philosophising,
and to have given oneself over to the subastral
commitment of religious praxis.
7. For the subhuman becomes subconscious via the
subastral having once appreciated the significance
and utilized to a sublimated end the subnatural, 'the
Son' becoming 'the Holy Soul of Heaven' via 'the Father' and 'the Holy Spirit
of Heaven', ego duly transmuted into soul via will and spirit.
8. Thus the taking of the metaphysical ego is
transcended by the being of the metaphysical soul as the God-Self achieves
self-transcendence in the Heaven-Self, and all because it partook of the doing
of the metaphysical will and the giving of the metaphysical spirit, the godly
not-self and the heavenly not-self of, for example, the lungs and the breath,
identifying with the out-breath only so far, which is to say, until
self-preservation induces the self in question to recoil from the threat of
self-annihilation posed by the heavenly not-self and rebound to selfhood more
profoundly (as soul) than would otherwise have been the case.
9. The God-Self, being primary, has been
identified with 'the Son' and the Heaven-Self with 'the Holy Soul', while the
godly not-self, or God-Not-Self, being secondary, has been identified with 'the
Father' and the heavenly not-self, or Heaven-Not-Self, with 'the Holy Spirit'.
10. There is no other raison
d'être to religion than the achievement of self-transcendence by the
metaphysical ego in the metaphysical soul, 'the Holy Soul of Heaven', which is
at the core of the self in question.
Anything that falls short of this is indicative of 'bovaryized'
religion, which is to say, of non-metaphysical religion, be it physical,
chemical, or metachemical. And 'bovaryized'
religion is pretty much everywhere the rule rather than the exception!
11. Whereas genuine religion is alone
transcendentalist, manifesting self-transcendence in relation to the
metaphysical soul, false religion either glorifies the physical self, the
ego-of-egos, or else, over on the female side of the gender fence, subordinates
the self, in due objective fashion, to one or other of the not-selves, with a
result that either the spirituality of the chemical not-self or the instinctuality of the metachemical
not-self becomes hegemonic.
12. Hence whereas what may be called humanist
religion glorifies the self in its per se manifestation in relation
to physics, nonconformist religion denies the self (which is not commensurate
with self-transcendence) in the interests of a spiritual per se in
relation to chemistry, and fundamentalist religion denies the self in the
interests of an instinctual per se in relation to metachemistry,
with, in consequence, a bias for will rather than spirit or, in the physical
context, ego.
13. For you cannot
achieve self-transcendence in a context where the self is either the mean, as
in the vegetative realm of physics, or fated to be subordinated to one or other
of the not-selves in typically chemical or metachemical
fashion. All that is achieved
is a religion that is earmarked either to play second-fiddle, so to speak, to
economics (humanism), third-fiddle to politics (nonconformism),
or fourth-fiddle to science (fundamentalism).
14. Obviously, to judge by the world in general,
false religion suits the majority of people, for economics and politics are
more characteristically of the world, and science tends to hold a ruling, if
not dominating, position in relation to it.
Only world-denial sets one on course for the metaphysical
transcendentalism of genuine religion, and world-denial, as the world
adequately confirms, tends to be the exception to the rule!
15. Thus the Transcendentalist, as we may call the
devotee of genuine religion, is very much an elitist outsider in a world where
not religion but economics, politics, or science is destined to be hegemonic. Many are called but few are chosen ... by
religion, as, indeed, by that other elitist discipline, science.
16. Therefore religion can only be of genuine
interest to the subjective Few, who, when being metaphysical, know themselves
as gods in pursuit of heavenly redemption, whether in sensuality or, more
profoundly, in sensibility.
17. As I have argued in the past, metaphysical
sensibility is the salvation of metaphysical sensuality; for the latter,
centred around ears and airwaves, tends to be surbordinate,
in typically 'once-born' or sensual fashion, to the optical first-mover of
things, as music to art, whereas the former stands a plane above its metachemical counterpart in what amounts to an ascendant
position.
18. It is precisely the
ascendant position of metaphysical sensibility that constitutes metaphysical
salvation, as from ears to lungs, airwaves to the breath, music to meditation,
sequential time to spaced space. For salvation is a male
prerogative solely germane to the subjective axes of time-space (as here) and
of mass-volume, and constitutes deliverance from the under-plane curse, in
sensual contexts, of being 'fall guy for slag' and other-dependent, meaning
subordinate to the female aspect of things, and hence to females.
19. Being saved from time to
space, as from ears to lungs, is the noumenal and, in
some sense, upper-class equivalent of being phenomenally saved from mass to
volume, as from phallus to brain. It is the salvation of gods as distinct from
the salvation of men, and would only appeal to those who were avowedly
metaphysical in the first place.
20. Hence metaphysical salvation is the
salvation-of-salvations, the ultimate 'kingdom within' that exposes the Christian
'kingdom within' as penultimate and therefore as something germane to a 'First
Coming' as distinct from a 'Second Coming', the coming of an ultimate Messiah
whose destiny is to complete, in upper-class terms, what Christ started or, at
any rate, what the Church has continued to the effective exclusion of
metaphysical sensibility.
CYCLE EIGHT
1. To distinguish the tragic from the comic on
the basis of an objective/subjective dichotomy between that which, appertaining
to the female side of life, is rooted in a vacuum, and that which, appertaining
to its male side, is centred in a plenum.
2. Thus to distinguish the tragic from the comic
on a gender-conditioned basis in which that which is rooted in a vacuum stands
tragically aloof from whatever is centred in a plenum.
3. If the female side of life is tragic and its
male side comic, then tragedy is divisible, on a noumenal/phenomenal
basis, between evil and good, while comedy, by contrast, is divisible, on a
phenomenal/noumenal basis, between folly and wisdom.
4. Evil and good would therefore qualify as
tragic attributes of a female, or objective, disposition (with straight-line
divergence and/or convergence), whereas folly and wisdom would qualify as comic
attributes of a male, or subjective, disposition (in which divergence and/or
convergence was curved).
5. Hence the tragedy, relative to evil and good,
of crime and punishment, as against the comedy, relative to folly and wisdom,
of sin and grace.
6. Generally speaking, women seek deliverance from
evil in good, crime in punishment, whereas men seek
deliverance from folly in wisdom, sin in grace.
7. Either way, tragedy is a woman's lot and
comedy a man's, pretty much as if women were fated for
work and men for play.
8. Neither can one escape
the correlation between work and the State on the one hand, and play and the
Church on the other hand, since the one is arguably female and the other male.
9. In literary terms,
poetry and drama correspond, when most genuine, to the tragic side of life,
while fiction and philosophy, their subjective counterparts, correspond to its
comic side when most genuine.
10. Just as the most genuine poetry will always be
tragic in relation to beauty and the most genuine drama tragic in relation to strength,
so the most genuine fiction will always be comic in relation to knowledge and
the most genuine philosophy comic in relation to truth.
11. Just as the Devil and woman share a tragic
disposition with regard to objectivity, which hails from a vacuum, so man and
God share a comic disposition with regard to subjectivity, which issues from a
plenum.
12. Likewise both science and politics are tragic
disciplines, whereas economics and religion are comparatively comic, as of
course are economists and priests in relation to
scientists and politicians.
13. As an expression of
comedy, laughing is essentially a male prerogative; just as crying is basically
a female one!
14. One could distinguish, in addition to the
above, between the smiling of gods in relation to wisdom and the laughing of
men in relation to folly, thereby distinguishing the noumenal
from the phenomenal, grace from sin, on the basis of an upper-class/lower-class
male dichotomy.
15. Similarly, if conversely, one could
distinguish the scowling of devils in relation to evil from the crying of women
in relation to good, thereby distinguishing the noumenal
from the phenomenal, crime from punishment, on the basis of an
upper-class/lower-class female dichotomy.
16. Be that as it may, both smiling and laughing
are comic attributes, whereas scowling and crying are demonstrably tragic ones.
17. Just as smiling confirms wisdom and laughing
confirms folly, so scowling confirms evil and crying confirms good.
18. As inconceivable to conceive of a wise man who
doesn't smile as to conceive of a fool who doesn't laugh!
19. As inconceivable to conceive of an evil woman
who doesn't scowl as to conceive of a good one who doesn't cry!
20. No less than the wise man is a philosophic god
whose smile epitomises grace, so the evil woman is a poetic devil whose scowl
epitomises crime, the generality of men and women, however, approximating to
fiction and drama in their respective fixations upon folly and goodness, sin
and punishment.
CYCLE NINE
1. As the subjective stands in a secondary
relationship to the objective, as that which, in some sense, derives from it,
we may hold that fire and water are primary elements but vegetation and air
secondary ones, since the former are objective and the latter subjective.
2. Likewise the female aspect of life is primary
but the male aspect secondary, since men not only derive from women but
demonstrate a dependence on them, especially with regard to those objective
factors which it might be thought demeaning or somehow irrelevant for someone
with a subjective disposition to broach.
3. This is certainly true of the generality of
men or, rather, males, though independence of women has also been demonstrated
by a comparatively small number of higher males who, as gods, tend to function
beyond the confines of strict dependency.
4. Nevertheless even
gods are secondary to devils, since of a subjective disposition, and without
the Devil it is doubtful there would be God.
5. Of course what applies in sensuality has less
applicability to sensibility, since sensibility offers to the male side of
life, whether phenomenal or noumenal, the possibility
of a higher degree of independence of its female side than would characterize
sensuality, where, in cursed vein, males are under-plane subordinate to
females.
6. For females are
blessed with a hegemonic position both in relation to spatial space and
volumetric volume, eyes and tongue, and both the corresponding male organs,
viz. ears and penis, are fated to remain under the shadow, so to speak, of an
objective control.
7. Only deliverance from sensuality to
sensibility, which is called salvation, can release the male side of life from
such a subordinate position, making for a diagonal rise from ears to lungs, or
sequential time to spaced space in noumenal
subjectivity, and from penis to brain, or massive mass to voluminous volume in
phenomenal subjectivity.
8. Then, and only then, is the female side of
life damned (from the hegemonic blessing in sensuality) to the under-plane positions
of repetitive time in noumenal objectivity, as from
eyes to heart, and massed mass in phenomenal objectivity, as from tongue to
womb. But even then the male side of
life is still secondary, if not now subordinate, to the female side.
9. Obviously in a situation where there is both
sensuality and sensibility, the human situation, as it were, it is impossible
to cultivate one thing to the total exclusion of the other. Nor should one try. For too much emphasis on the one thing will
sooner or later result in a return to its opposite, be it in sensuality or in
sensibility.
10. However, a preponderating ratio favouring
sensuality or sensibility will tend to be reflective of both the individual's
personal and/or universal disposition and the nature of the society in which
he/she lives, be it one that emphasises objectivity, and hence freedom, or one,
on the contrary, for which subjectivity, and hence binding, is primarily
characteristic.
11. It would seem that the striking of a sort of
balance between sensuality and sensibility is also possible and indeed
characteristic of those societies, not to mention individuals, for whom both
freedom and binding have to be kept within moderate limits.
12. I call such societies,
and the individuals of which they are consciously composed, liberal and
worldly, and they differ from both the free societies of a pre- or
nether-worldly disposition and the bound societies of a post- or other-worldly
disposition.
13. Such more extreme societies are less liberal, or
a balanced mixture, so far as possible, of libertarianism and conservatism,
than either ultra-libertarian in the free case or ultra-conservative in the
bound case, thereby approximating less to the world than to that which, as Hell
in the one case and Heaven in other, may be said to flank it above.
14. For the world is a combination, to varying
extents, of purgatory and the earth, water and vegetation, relative freedom and
relative binding, whereas that which stands in a sort of anterior position to
the world is absolutely free in its fiery hellishness, while that which stands
in a kind of posterior position to the world is absolutely bound in its airy
heavenliness.
15. Yet even extreme societies must grapple with
the problem and to some extent allow for the actuality of life as a
combination, in varying degrees, of sensuality and sensibility, not just one or
the other.
16. Know that in the world, which has a lot to do
with the planet Earth, liberalism is much more applicable than either
ultra-libertarianism or ultra-conservatism, but that extremes will nevertheless
persist in existing, especially in relation to those geographical extremities
which have been characterised as
17. We can no more build a world solely on the
basis of ultra-libertarianism than solely on the basis of ultra-conservatism;
for the world defies both extremes as it liberally perpetuates itself in
relation to both libertarianism and conservatism - the former female (and
primary) and the latter male (and secondary).
18. But we can certainly allow for the existence
of extremism, and if we are wise - and geographically favoured - we will prefer
ultra-conservatism to ultra-libertarianism, thereby offering mankind, the bulk
of whom will still prefer some kind of liberalism, i.e. libertarianism and/or
conservatism, the leadership of Heaven as against the rulership
of Hell.
19. Ultra-libertarianism is sartorially akin to a
dress and libertarianism to a skirt, whether in sensuality or sensibility
(flounced or tapering), whereas conservatism is sartorially akin to trousers
and ultra-conservatism to zippersuits.
20. Hence a female distinction, elementally
conditioned, between the noumenal objectivity of
ultra-libertarianism, i.e. dresses, and the phenomenal objectivity of
libertarianism, i.e. skirts, as against a male distinction between the
phenomenal subjectivity of conservatism, i.e. trousers, and the noumenal subjectivity of ultra-conservatism, i.e. zippersuits, whereof not fire and water but vegetation and
air are the corresponding elements.
21. As illogical, on the
female side of life, for a libertarian person, a woman, to be dressed in a
dress as for an ultra-libertarian person, a devil, to be dressed in a skirt.
22. As illogical, on the
male side of life, for a conservative person, a man, to be dressed in a zippersuit as for an ultra-conservative person, a god, to
be dressed in pair of trousers and/or jeans.
23. Life does not, of course, preclude people from
dressing in a manner incompatible with their ideological bent, whether in terms
of up- or down-dressing on one's own side of the gender fence or even, in the
more paradoxical cases, of cross-dressing, whereby females wear subjective
attire and males attire which, in its skirt- or dress-like cylindrical
looseness, is manifestly objective.
24. Personally, I find pants and/or zippersuits on females as illogically objectionable as
skirts and/or dresses on males.
25. Anything beyond a constrained objectivity, and
hence freedom, for females is symptomatic of sartorial hype and prolific of
gender subversion. One ends up with the
paradoxical situations of females either playing at being men or, in the more
extreme cases, playing at being gods!
26. This is as much the case with an overly
subjective hairstyle, hair brushed or combed back from the brow, as with the
wearing of male-oriented attire by females.
All honest and genuine women, by contrast, wear some kind or degree of
fringe. The rest, with few exceptions,
are hyped subversives.
CYCLE TEN
1. In the broadest terms Nature is divisible
between four elements - the fiery unnature of
space-time devolution, which is noumenally objective;
the watery supernature of volume-mass devolution,
which is phenomenally objective; the vegetative nature of mass-volume
evolution, which is phenomenally subjective, and the airy subnature
of time-space evolution, which is noumenally
subjective.
2. Hence Nature is divisible between an apparent
element par excellence which, as fire, can be identified with metachemistry; a quantitative element par excellence
which, as water, can be identified with chemistry; a qualitative element par
excellence which, as vegetation (earth) can be identified with physics; and
an essential element par excellence which, as air, can be identified
with metaphysics.
3. Vegetation is the per se
manifestation of Nature, but Nature also demonstrates 'bovaryized'
manifestations of itself which are less natural than barbarous (fire),
civilized (water), or cultural (air).
4. Of the four
elements, fire is the only one in which one cannot live and in which, in
consequence, life is not to be found.
Hence in identifying fire with unnature, or
the unnatural manifestation of Nature, one is distinguishing that which
effectively lies behind Nature or, rather, behind the life-enveloping kinds of
Nature from that which actually envelops life, whether in the guise of fish, of
animals, or of birds, and which can accordingly be identified with supernature (water), nature (vegetation), and subnature (air).
5. The unnatural
element of fire, which is metachemical in its noumenal objectivity and space-time devolution, is not,
however, on that account anti-natural.
On the contrary, it is simply the unnatural manifestation of Nature.
6. Or, to be more precise, one can say that the
positive, or organic, manifestations of Nature differ from their negative and
inorganic counterparts as Nature from Antinature, the
former having a supreme correlation and the latter a primal one.
7. Hence that which is against Nature, being
negative and inorganic, is to be identified with the Antinatural,
and, like its Natural counterpart, the Antinatural
can be unnatural, supernatural, natural, or subnatural,
which is to say negatively metachemical, chemical,
physical, or metaphysical.
8. Because the Antinatural
is primal and the Natural supreme, it follows that the former is everywhere the
precondition of the latter, being the effective blueprint, so to speak, for all
that has been raised on the back of an Antinatural
base.
9. Therefore before we can speak of an
eyes-to-heart axis of organic metachemistry, we must
allow for the prior existence of a stellar-to-Venusian
axis of inorganic metachemistry, which will be the
primal manifestation of noumenal objectivity (fire)
in space-time devolution.
10. Likewise before we can speak of a
tongue-to-womb axis of organic chemistry, we must allow for the prior existence
of a lunar-to-oceanic axis of inorganic chemistry, which will be the primal manifestation
of phenomenal objectivity (water) in volume-mass devolution.
11. Similarly, if conversely, before we can speak
of a penis-to-brain axis of organic physics, we must allow for the prior existence
of a terrestrial-to-Martian axis of inorganic physics, which will be the primal
manifestation of phenomenal subjectivity (vegetation) in mass-volume evolution.
12. Finally before we can speak of an
ears-to-lungs axis of organic metaphysics, we must allow for the prior
existence of a solar-to-Saturnalian axis of inorganic
metaphysics, which will be the primal manifestation of noumenal
subjectivity (air) in time-space evolution.
13. In all cases, the inorganic preconditions of
an organic offshoot, no matter how modified, are Antinatural,
which is to say, contrary to that which, being organic, is Natural, be it metachemically so in unnature,
chemically so in supernature, physically so in
nature, or metaphysically so in subnature.
14. We are therefore entitled to distinguish
between metachemical anti-unnature
and metachemical unnature,
as between primal and supreme manifestations of noumenal
objectivity; between chemical anti-supernature and
chemical supernature, as between primal and supreme
manifestations of phenomenal objectivity; between physical antinature
and physical nature, as between primal and supreme manifestations of phenomenal
subjectivity; and between metaphysical anti-subnature
and metaphysical subnature, as between primal and
supreme manifestations of noumenal subjectivity.
15. Just as we have distinguished Antinatural from Natural on the basis of a primal/supreme
dichotomy, so we may further distinguish the noumenal
from the phenomenal manifestations of Antinature and
Nature on the basis of a cosmic/universal dichotomy for the noumenal
and of a geologic/personal dichotomy for the phenomenal.
16. For that which is
cosmic and/or geologic, being primal, is negative in its inorganic actuality,
whereas whatever is universal and/or personal, being supreme, is positive in
its organic actuality.
17. Thus we may distinguish the cosmic noumenal from the universal noumenal
on the basis of an objective dichotomy between the stellar-to-Venusian axis and the eyes-to-heart axis of space-time
devolution, and of a subjective dichotomy between the solar-to-Saturnalian axis and the ears-to-lungs axis of time-space
evolution.
18. Thus we may distinguish the geologic
phenomenal from the personal phenomenal on the basis of an objective dichotomy
between the lunar-to-oceanic axis and the tongue-to-womb axis of volume-mass
devolution, and of a subjective dichotomy between the terrestrial-to-Martian
axis and the penis-to-brain axis of mass-volume evolution.
19. That which falls, or diagonally descends,
through two planes does so from spatial space to repetitive time in space-time
devolution and from volumetric volume to massed mass in volume-mass devolution.
20. That which rises, or diagonally ascends,
through two planes does so from massive mass to voluminous volume in
mass-volume evolution and from sequential time to spaced space in time-space
evolution.
21. One may distinguish the descent of devils in
space-time devolution from the descent of women in volume-mass devolution, as
between noumenal and phenomenal manifestations of
objectivity.
22. One may distinguish the ascent of men in
mass-volume evolution from the ascent of gods in time-space evolution, as
between phenomenal and noumenal manifestations of
subjectivity.
CYCLE ELEVEN
1. Evil is the noumenal
objectivity of space-time devolution and it is divisible between the primal
evil, in anti-unnature, of ugliness and hatred and
the supreme evil, in unnature, of beauty and love.
2. Good is the phenomenal objectivity of
volume-mass devolution and it is divisible between the primal good, in anti-supernature, of weakness and humility and the supreme good,
in supernature, of strength and pride.
3. Folly is the phenomenal subjectivity of
mass-volume evolution and it is divisible between the primal folly, in antinature, of ignorance and pain and the supreme folly, in
nature, of knowledge and pleasure.
4. Wisdom is the noumenal
subjectivity of time-space evolution and it is divisible between the primal
wisdom, in anti-subnature, of falsity and woe and the
supreme wisdom, in subnature, of truth and joy.
5. Evil and good attach primarily to the female,
or objective, side of life and only secondarily to its male side, whereas folly
and wisdom attach primarily to the male, or subjective, side of life and only
secondarily to its female side.
6. One can only get beyond good and evil in
relation to either folly or wisdom.
7. In the female
contexts of noumenal objectivity and phenomenal
objectivity, the attributes of evil and good, whether primal or supreme, attach
primarily to the not-self and secondarily to the self.
8. In the male contexts
of phenomenal subjectivity and noumenal subjectivity,
the attributes of folly and wisdom, whether primal or supreme, attach primarily
to the self and secondarily to the not-self.
9. This is because objectivity is always more
not-self-oriented than self-oriented, whereas subjectivity is always more
self-oriented than not-self-oriented.
10. Thus, taking the supreme manifestation of evil
alone, beauty and love are primary in the not-self and secondary in the self,
since will and spirit take precedence, in metachemistry,
over ego and soul.
11. Taking the supreme manifestation of good
alone, strength and pride are primary in the not-self and secondary in the
self, since will and spirit take precedence, in chemistry, over ego and soul.
12. Taking the supreme manifestation of folly
alone, knowledge and pleasure are primary in the self and secondary in the
not-self, since ego and soul take precedence, in physics, over will and spirit.
13. Taking the supreme manifestation of wisdom
alone, truth and joy are primary in the self and secondary in the not-self,
since ego and soul take precedence, in metaphysics, over will and spirit.
14. Since beauty and love are synonymous, in supreme
metachemistry, with the Devil and Hell, it follows
that the Devil and Hell are primary in the metachemical
not-self and secondary in the metachemical self,
enabling us to symbolically distinguish the Mother and the Unclear Spirit of
Hell from the Daughter and the Unclear Soul of Hell.
15. Since strength and pride are synonymous, in
supreme chemistry, with woman and purgatory, it follows that woman and
purgatory are primary in the chemical not-self and secondary in the chemical
self, enabling us to symbolically distinguish the mother and the clear spirit
of purgatory from the daughter and the clear soul of purgatory.
16. Since knowledge and pleasure are synonymous,
in supreme physics, with man and the earth, it follows that man and the earth
are primary in the physical self and secondary in the physical not-self,
enabling us to symbolically distinguish the son and the unholy soul of the
earth from the father and the unholy spirit of the earth.
17. Since truth and joy are synonymous, in supreme
metaphysics, with God and Heaven, it follows that God and Heaven are primary in
the metaphysical self and secondary in the metaphysical not-self, enabling us
to symbolically distinguish the Son and the Holy Soul of Heaven from the Father
and the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
18. The self always
attaches, in any elemental context, to the brain stem and central nervous
system, whereas the not-self always attaches to whatever organ, in sensuality
or sensibility, with which the self happens to be actively engaged.
19. Just as the self can be transmuted from ego to
soul during the process of its engagement of the not-self, so the not-self
passes from will to spirit as it performs its duties.
20. Spirit is no less a redemption in the not-self
of the will than soul is a redemption in the self of the ego.
21. Whether the context is primary or secondary,
the Devil is redeemed in Hell (fire), woman is redeemed in purgatory (water),
man is redeemed in the earth (vegetation), and God is redeemed in Heaven (air).
CYCLE TWELVE
1. At bottom mankind are evil, for life is
rooted in metachemistry, but some are more evil than
others, even on a gender basis, and none are more evil than those who most
approximate to a metachemical lifestyle and/or status
in space-time devolution, whereby the evil of noumenal
objectivity is the mean, and things are accordingly orientated towards a per se
order of will.
2. But if mankind are at bottom evil, they are
also capable of and variously given to goodness, folly, and wisdom, since life is
not just a matter of metachemistry but also of
chemistry, physics, and metaphysics, as it devolves away from the Devil in
woman, and evolves away from man in God.
3. Generally speaking, goodness is no less the
desired alternative to evil on the objective, or female, side of life than
wisdom the desired alternative to folly on its subjective, or male, side,
wherein wisdom is normally associated with an avoidance of folly and, hence, an
undue emphasis on the physical aspect of things.
4. Yet there will always be people who are
demonstrably more or most of one thing rather than another, and usually this
follows from a predetermined orientation in the self, the central nervous
system, towards one element as opposed to another, whether on not on the basis of
gender or class (which latter has intimate associations with build, i.e.
height, weight, and so on).
5. Certainly I do not agree with Nietzsche that
woman is at bottom base while man is only evil, or something to that effect,
for life tends to demonstrate the opposite - namely that man is at bottom base,
or physical (and hence foolish), while woman is fundamentally evil, or metachemical (and hence cruel), even though the genders are
capable of elemental cross-overs, so to speak, to a
comparatively limited degree.
6. There is much more gender immutability to
life than mutability, and gender is only one factor in an equation that needs
to consider class before one can reasonably distinguish 'the evil' and 'the
good' from 'the foolish' and 'the wise'.
7. Just as metachemistry
and chemistry are germane to the female, or objective, side of life, so physics
and metaphysics are germane to its male, or subjective, side, irrespective of
the paradoxical extents to which females strive to be physical or metaphysical
and males, by contrast, to be chemical or metachemical.
8. For fire and water,
the primary elements, are objectively distinct from the secondary elements of
vegetation and air, and it is as inconceivable that the primary elements could
be male as that the secondary elements, with their subjective bias, could be
female. Males are very definitely the
second sex, whether as men in relation to women or, up above in the noumenal realms of space and time, as gods in relation to
devils.
9. In an age when sensuality rules the roost in
'once-born' and therefore outer terms, it follows that females will have the
upper hand over males, that the primary sex will take precedence over the
secondary sex, in what amounts to a heathenistic norm
of objective domination, whether negatively or positively.
10. The modern age, stemming from the nineteenth
and even, to some extent, the eighteenth century, clearly demonstrates the
hegemony of the female side of life over its male side, whether phenomenally in
relation to the hegemonic standing of volumetric volume over massive mass, or noumenally in relation to the hegemonic standing of spatial
space over sequential time - the former tending to be symbolized by 'Britannia'
and the latter by 'the Liberty Belle'.
11. Such an age is clearly one in which chemistry
and metachemistry, water and fire, are hegemonic over
physics and metaphysics, vegetation and air, and it is also demonstrably the
case that the mode of this objective hegemony is less religious (and supreme)
than secular (and primal), so that negativity tends to overshadow positivity in the gradual drift, or degeneration, of
society from the organic to the inorganic, as from (in objective terms) nonconformism and fundamentalism to realism and
materialism.
12. Hence what could be identified, in broad
terms, with Anglo-American civilization, that dominant feature of the modern
West, has passed from an organic phase in which the hegemony of objectivity was
avowedly, if falsely, religious, to one in which, with the rapid increase of
technology and urbanization, the hegemony of objectivity, ever characteristic
of a female orientation, is in its inorganic phase, and the prevailing criteria
of sensual existence are accordingly primal rather than supreme.
13. It is as if the nonconformist domination of
humanism in the phenomenal case and the fundamentalist domination of
transcendentalism in the noumenal case have been
eclipsed by the realist domination of naturalism on the one hand and the
materialist domination of idealism on the other, making for a situation in
which the personal and the universal modes of sensuality stand in the more
overly heathenistic shadow, so to speak, of its
geologic and cosmic modes.
14. Hence modern life, with its rampant
technological and urban expansion, signifies the sensual hegemony not so much,
in phenomenal terms, of strength and pride over knowledge and pleasure as of
weakness and humility (if not humiliation) over ignorance and pain, where this
gradual eclipse of heathenistic supremacy by heathenistic primacy is concerned, the personal inexorably
losing ground to the geologic.
15. Likewise, in the noumenal
context above the phenomenal one, which is more characteristic of America than,
for instance, of Britain, one finds that the sensual hegemony is not so much of
beauty and love over truth and joy as of ugliness and hatred over falsity
(illusion) and woe, as the eclipse of heathenistic
supremacy by heathenistic primacy runs its cosmic -
and in some sense cosmic-slavering - course, to the detriment of universality.
16. It is obvious that no mode of objective
hegemony, not even supreme, is conducive to a sensibly-run society, and that
Protestantism, as we may call the supreme manifestation of such a hegemony, merely
paved the way, in an ever-more technology- and urban-oriented fashion, for the
wholesale primacy which characterises the contemporary West, whereof realism
and materialism are the respective rulers of a secular roost.
17. I cannot myself endorse a society in which
negative values are paramount, and even the dominance of positive values is
objectionable to me when they so clearly manifest the hegemony, in female
fashion, of either chemistry over physics or, worse again, of metachemistry over metaphysics. For such hegemony is frankly anti-Christian
and thus symptomatic of organic secularity, no matter how much it may hide
behind a mask of religion.
18. And whatever is anti-Christian is bad for the
male side of life, flies in the face of that sensible teaching which decrees a
male salvation from sensuality to sensibility as the only guarantor of release
from the curse of male subjection to female domination, whether in relation to
physics or, more wisely, to metaphysics.
19. Thus objectivity stands against subjectivity
as freedom against binding, freedom for the female side of life to be
objectively hegemonic over its male side, and to bear witness, in ever more
primacy-oriented terms, to the domination of realism over naturalism and of
materialism over idealism, of water, in simple elemental terms, over
vegetation, and of fire over air.
20. Such a domination does not come about without
the necessary technological and environmental preconditions, and once they are
there it is difficult, to the point of inconceivable, to imagine a return to
supremacy even on secular terms, Protestantism itself having succumbed to the
negative goodness and negative evil which geologically and cosmically
orientated societies so obviously demonstrate.
CYCLE THIRTEEN
1. As against those sensually supreme societies
which have gradually gone to the dogs of primacy, are to be found societies
which still retain a fair degree of sensible supremacy, either because they are
predominantly Catholic or because of some Buddhist-like commitment to
metaphysical sensibility. The former are
mostly to be found in the West, i.e. in countries like
2. Indeed, Ireland is as good a Western example
as you are likely to find of a country which is still predominantly disposed to
physical sensibility despite the ubiquitous influence of Anglo-American
civilization, since in a Catholic country it is not volumetric volume over
massive mass so much as voluminous volume over massed mass which chiefly
characterizes the social disposition of the People, making for a situation in
which vegetative sensibility stands a plane above watery sensibility, as brain
above womb.
3. Hence a country which is sensibly supreme
will have either brain above womb or, if noumenal,
lungs above heart, since salvation for males is ever reflective of deliverance
from the under-plane position of sensuality to the over-plane position of
sensibility, bringing damnation to females as they fall diagonally from the
over-plane position of sensuality to the under-plane position of sensibility.
4. Hence a vegetative rise, in physics, from
penis to brain will engender a corresponding watery fall, in chemistry, from
tongue to womb, while an airy rise, in metaphysics, from ears to lungs will
engender a corresponding fiery fall, in metachemistry,
from eyes to heart.
5. Catholicism upholds the Christic
rise, in physics, from penis to brain, as from vegetative sensuality to
vegetative sensibility, and the Marian fall, in chemistry, from tongue to womb,
as from watery sensuality to watery sensibility, and is thus symptomatic of a
phenomenal commitment to supremacy, whereby mass and volume are the principal
planes. It is therefore a religion of
the lower classes which, in its physical shortfall from metaphysical
sensibility, the respiratory sensibility of the ultimate 'kingdom within',
remains anchored, so to speak, to metaphysical sensuality, the aural
sensuality, so often manifesting in music, which remains the more genuinely
religious aspect of Catholicism even though it leaves something to be desired
from the standpoint, ever germane to a Second Coming, of metaphysical
sensibility.
6. For metaphysical sensibility is the salvation
from metaphysical sensuality, as lungs from ears, and until such a salvation
comes officially to pass, physical sensibility will be vulnerable not only to
the contrary disposition, in 'once-born' terms, of metaphysical sensuality, but
to the theological sleight-of-hand which, especially in relation to Old
Testament usage, tends to substitute metachemical
sensuality for metaphysical sensuality, as Jehovah for the Father or, in more
concrete terms, the eyes for the ears, if not, in the cosmic-oriented nature of
Creator-based scripture, the stellar plane for the solar one, thereby
subverting supremacy via the Christian backdoor of Old Testament primacy.
7. No, the Catholic position is far from a final
one in religious terms, and it is as the architect of a higher and more
definitive order of religion that I have advanced, within the ideological scope
of Social Transcendentalism, the concept of a triadic Beyond, as germane, so I
teach, to 'Kingdom Come'.
8. I am, if you will, the philosophical creator
of Social Transcendentalism and all it teaches, and I know that justice will
not be done to religion, and thus to the truth, until Social Transcendentalism
has its way with the People and they accordingly come to vote for religious
sovereignty not only as the means of deliverance from 'sins and/or punishments
of the world', meaning political sovereignty and its concomitants, but also
deliverance from the kind of cosmic-based religious primitivity
which even now, in the guise of some Old Testament 'Creator', bedevils the
development of supremacy to the level of metaphysical sensibility.
9. In fact, it would be truer to say that while
the New Testament 'Father' bedevils the development of supremacy to the level
of metaphysical sensibility simply by symbolizing metaphysical sensuality
standing behind physical sensibility, the sensibility, in effect, of ‘the Son',
the Old Testament Jehovah subverts supremacy through the cosmic-oriented
emphasis upon primacy which inevitably comes to light whenever the concept of
Creator turns, more retrogressively, upon cosmic Creation.
10. Either way, there can be no respiratory
sensibility, and hence no ultimate 'kingdom within', until the People
democratically opt, under Messianic auspices, for religious sovereignty and the
rights that such an ultimate sovereignty would confer.
11. Such rights would include meditation for those
who were most suited to it, whether in the transcendentalist per se
of the top tier of my projected triadic Beyond or in the
pseudo-transcendentalist 'bovaryizations' of
transcendentalism that would characterize (the top subsection of) each of its
lower tiers.
12. Such rights would also include cogitation for
those who were most suited to it, whether in the humanist per se
of the middle tier of my projected triadic Beyond or in the pseudo-humanist 'bovaryizations' of humanism that would characterize (the
middle subsection of) each of its flanking tiers.
13. Such rights would also include contemplation
for those who were most suited to it, whether in the nonconformist per se
of the bottom tier of my projected triadic Beyond or in the
pseudo-nonconformist 'bovaryizations' of nonconformism that would characterize (the bottom
subsection of) each of its higher tiers
14. Thus would the religiously sovereign People, upper
class and lower class alike, be empowered to meditate, to cogitate, and to
contemplate, after their several fashions; for meditation is alone
transcendentalist, while cogitation is humanist, and contemplation
nonconformist.
15. To meditate at one of three levels, depending
on one's denominational entitlement and elemental affinity, be it chemical,
physical, or metaphysical; that is to say watery, vegetative, or airy.
16. Likewise to cogitate at one of three levels,
whether in the chemical vein of the bottom tier, the physical vein of the
middle tier, or the metaphysical vein of the top tier.
17. Similarly to contemplate at one of three
levels, whether in the chemical vein of what, at the bottom, would be a watery
tier of massed mass overall; in the physical vein of what, in the middle, would
be a vegetative tier of voluminous volume overall; or in the metaphysical vein
of what, at the top, would be an airy tier of spaced space overall.
18. Contemplation is lower, on any tier, than
cogitation, while cogitation is lower, on any tier, than meditation, for things
proceed, on a gender basis, from chemical to physical, and thence, within the
male options, from physical to metaphysical.
19. A chemical lower tier, suitable to persons of
Puritan descent, would have a nonconformist per se in contemplation,
and 'bovaryized' orders of cogitation and meditation.
20. A physical middle tier, suitable to persons of
Anglican descent, would have a humanist per se in cogitation, and 'bovaryized' orders of contemplation and meditation.
21. A metaphysical upper tier, suitable to persons
of Roman Catholic descent, would have a transcendentalist per se
in meditation, and 'bovaryized' orders of
contemplation and cogitation.
22. Meditation is 'bovaryized'
when it is either chemical, and watery, or physical, and vegetative, i.e. of an
aerobic or a yogic orientation. For only
metaphysical meditation accords with a transcendentalist per se,
and in sensibility this implies the breath.
Sweat-producing meditation (chemical) is a quasi-nonconformist mode of
transcendentalism, while body-oriented meditation (physical) is a
quasi-humanist mode of transcendentalism, both of which are accordingly
pseudo-transcendentalist.
23. Cogitation is 'bovaryized'
when it is either metaphysical, and airy, or chemical, and watery, i.e. of an
aural or a spoken orientation. For only
physical cogitation accords with a humanist per se, and in
sensibility this implies thought and/or prayer in the brain. Airwaves-oriented cogitation (metaphysical),
having to do with something you listen to, is a quasi-transcendentalist mode of
humanism, while tongue-oriented cogitation (chemical), having to do with
speech, is a quasi-nonconformist mode of
humanism, both of which are accordingly pseudo-humanist.
24. Contemplation is 'bovaryized'
when it is either physical, and vegetative, or metaphysical, and airy, i.e.
established as the result of a mouth-ingested or a sniffed (snorted)
drug-related orientation. For only
chemical contemplation accords with a nonconformist per se,
and in sensibility this implies - or would imply in the dead-resurrecting,
'inner-light' context of 'Kingdom Come' - the injection of
contemplation-enhancing drugs.
Contemplation as a result of swallowing drugs (physical) is a
quasi-humanist mode of nonconformism, while
contemplation as the result of sniffing drugs (metaphysical) is a
quasi-transcendentalist mode of nonconformism, both
of which are accordingly pseudo-nonconformist.
25. In general terms, I have tended, in the past,
to identify injected drugs like heroin with a chemical per se
status, ingested drugs like LSD or so-called 'magic mushrooms' with a
quasi-physical chemical status, and inhaled drugs like cocaine with a
quasi-metaphysical chemical status. But
all drugs, whatever their assumed elemental correlation or most typical method
of consumption, have been equated with the chemical overall, and thus with a
female bias that would make them especially applicable to women within the
hypothetical context, germane to 'Kingdom Come', of the triadic Beyond,
following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty.
26. To sum up,
transcendentalism, which has to do with meditation, can be chemical, physical,
or metaphysical, but is only genuine when metaphysical. Consequently metaphysical transcendentalism is
the per se mode of transcendentalism, and hence of meditation.
27. Humanism, which has to do with cogitation, can
be chemical, physical, or metaphysical, but is only genuine when physical. Consequently physical humanism is the per se
mode of humanism, and hence of cogitation.
28. Nonconformism, which
has to do with contemplation, can be chemical, physical, or metaphysical, but
is only genuine when chemical.
Consequently chemical nonconformism is the per se
mode of nonconformism, and hence of contemplation.
29. Fundamentalism, which has to do with
worshipful devotion, would not be applicable to the traidic
Beyond, least of all in its genuinely fundamentalist
manifestation, which happens to be metachemical, and
hence fiery.
30. Even metachemical
transcendentalism, whether in the form of jogging or boxing or some related
meditative activity of a fiery disposition, would not be applicable to
religious praxis in the triadic Beyond.
CYCLE FOURTEEN
1. For me, 'Kingdom Come' is not a mere
abstraction but a politico-religious or ideological aspiration which I have
sought to concretise in relation to what, in previous texts, has been called a
Gaelic federation ... of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
2. Therefore 'Kingdom Come' will not have come
to pass on these islands until the Gaels democratically enter into a Social
Transcendentalist federation of their respective countries in the interests not
only of Irish unity on the island of Ireland but, even more importantly, of
independence from England in what would amount, under Social Transcendentalism,
to a new religion in which, through religious sovereignty, the People were
empowered to develop their respective meditative, cogitative, and contemplative
interests in what has been called a triadic Beyond.
3. In such a 'Kingdom', presided over by a
'God-King', or Messianic figurehead who also happened to be no mean
philosopher, there would be no Christianity, and therefore no deference to the
sort of Creator Worship which, in one degree or another, has always
characterized and even compromised Christianity, to the detriment of inner
development.
4. In such a 'Kingdom', the People would be
their own gods or men or women more sensibly and radically than ever before,
and even those who were not destined for godliness would know more about the
truth than persons of their masculine or feminine disposition had ever known in
the past.
5. They would also know, however, that knowing
more about the truth and actually living or being it were two entirely
different things, and that no-one need fear the imposition of criteria from
above that were too religiously demanding or exacting for mere mortals to
take. For the triadic Beyond would
ensure that only those who were 'up to' the truth would be expected or
encouraged to live it.
6. Class hierarchies are not unfair on the lower
orders so much as fair to the lower orders when they take into account the
differences between people and allot responsibilities or privileges according
to their deserts.
7. What would be unfair would be trying
to squeeze everybody, irrespective of class or gender, into the one mould, be
it upper class and metaphysical, or lower class and physical and/or
chemical. For then you are simply flying
in the face of reality and either trying to uniformly upgrade life to the
highest common denominator or, worse again, uniformly degrade life to the
lowest common denominator, to the detriment of those who have to live it.
8. In reality there are
uncommon denominators and common denominators, and while the former are upper
class, whether metachemical or metaphysical, the
latter are demonstrably lower class, and therefore chemical or physical.
9. Accepting hierarchical differences and
distinctions is being fair to life and thus to the people who have to live it,
whether 'on high' or 'down below'. You
avoid utopian chimeras and end-up with a viable plant-like entity which, with
roots, stalk, and blossom, can grow to its full capacity, provided it is being
adequately served from a sun-like aside.
10. Such a sun-like aside I have customarily
identified with the administrative aspect of 'Kingdom Come', viz. the
politico-economic structure of our hypothetical Gaelic Federation, and it would
come to pass - and in the nature of things could only come to pass - in
consequence of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and the correlative
bearing of the old sovereignties, not least of all political, by the Messianic
advocate of 'Kingdom Come' in what would amount to a Christ-like sacrifice on
his part through which the People duly found deliverance, via religious
sovereignty, from 'sins and/or punishments of the world'.
11. Thus delivered from the bog of worldly sin
and/or punishment in which the People, whether republican or parliamentary, had
been sunk, they would be able to leave the political administration of 'Kingdom
Come' to the Messianic Saviour and, more practically, his closest followers,
while they concentrated their principal energies on religious self-development
(or, in the case of women, constrained not-self development) within the
framework of the triadic Beyond.
12. Simultaneously delivered from the old
theocratic religion, with its autocratic sleight-of-hand that substituted Old
Testament for New Testament, the People would never again have to defer to
primitive Godheads, whether cosmic or universal, and need not fear the
substitution of Messiah Worship, in what would amount to a 'cult-of-the-leader'
fundamentalism, when they had a structure in place, guaranteed by religious
sovereignty, which empowered them to get-on with the nonconformist and humanist
and transcendentalist modes of contemplation, cogitation, and meditation, to
the exclusion of worshipful devotion to an idol, be that idol living or dead
13. Certainly the Messianic Leader, or Second
Coming equivalent, would stand to them as the Creator of 'Kingdom Come', with
its triadic Beyond, and thus in a sense the foremost manifestation of the type 'Creator',
who, in the event of the People's endorsement, would have supplanted all
previous 'Creators', including the most basic and cosmic-oriented one. But he would differ from those autocratic and
theocratic 'Creators' as one who was not there to be worshipped, but to
encourage the People to develop their respective sensible selves or, in the
case of women, sensible chemical not-self more profoundly than would otherwise
be the case.
14. For only then will the People be truly free of
tyranny and able to determine the scope and pace of their respective levels and
kinds of religious development to a point which will be completely beyond
religion as it has hitherto been understood, that is to say, at its topmost
level a truly religious religion which owed little or nothing to cosmic
science.
15. I desire nothing less than the liberation of
the People from their autocratic and theocratic and even democratic
attachments, that they may become all the more bound, in the case of males, to
their deepest self-interests and correspondingly less free, in the case of
females, to exploit not-self at the expense of self, particularly, it has to be
said, male self.
16. For an authentically religious society, which
is after all what 'Kingdom Come' would essentially be at its topmost level, is
one in which males are freer than ever before of enslavement to females and
more bound, in consequence, to their deeper self, be that self metaphysical or
physical, than would otherwise be possible, with beneficial consequences for sensible
knowledge and sensible truth.
17. For just as strength militates against
knowledge, so beauty militates against truth, and in either case it is not the
male side but the female side of life which is uppermost in due chemical or metachemical fashions, to the detriment of man and God.
18. I happen to believe that the Gaels are
sufficiently subjective, when male, to want a society in which the male side of
life is hegemonic or ascendant over its female side, so that not science and
politics but economics and, especially, religion are uppermost, nature and
culture supplanting barbarism and civilization, and I also happen to believe
that only with a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales will a
united Ireland finally come to pass, since that should satisfy the requirements
of the majority of loyalists and nationalists alike.
19. Thus it is as a revolutionary Unionist that I
have put forward the concept of a Gaelic Federation, and I have no doubt that
such a union would be in the best interests of the great majority of Gaels both
in Ireland, north and south, and in Scotland, Wales, and even the Isle of Man.
20. For it would deliver them from the
Catholic/Protestant schism which is perhaps the second greatest failure of
Christianity after the Old Testament, and thus make possible, for the first
time in centuries, a new sense of nationhood, necessarily pan-Gaelic, via the
new religion of Social Transcendentalism.
CYCLE FIFTEEN
1. One can do negatively or positively,
competitively or co-operatively, and those who do negatively do such on
the basis of materialism in metachemical primacy,
whereas those who do positively do such on the basis of fundamentalism
in metachemical supremacy.
2. One can give
negatively or positively, competitively or co-operatively, and those who give
negatively do such on the basis of realism in chemical primacy, whereas
those who give positively do such on the basis of nonconformism
in chemical supremacy.
3. One can take negatively
or positively, competitively or co-operatively, and those who take
negatively do such on the basis of naturalism in physical primacy, whereas
those who take positively do such on the basis of humanism in physical
supremacy.
4. One can be
negatively or positively, competitively or co-operatively, and those who tend
to be negatively are such on the basis of idealism in metaphysical
primacy, whereas those who tend to be positively are such on the basis
of transcendentalism in metaphysical supremacy.
5. An age or society in which primacy has
eclipsed supremacy as the prevailing mean will be one in which competition,
founded upon negative values, takes precedence over co-operation, and success
is judged on the basis of competitive ascendancy, especially in relation to
materialism and realism.
6. Even before the slide from sensual supremacy
to sensual primacy, and the corresponding hegemony of materialism over idealism
and of realism over naturalism, societies in which sensible primacy had become
the mean would have demonstrated, in contrary terms, a competitive bias,
whether with regard to idealism over materialism or, down below in the
phenomenal realm, to naturalism over realism.
7. It is not inconceivable, but indeed all too
plausible, that the degeneration of sensibly-biased societies from supremacy to
primacy played a part in the Protestant Reformation and consequent entrenchment
of sensual supremacy.
8. Be that as it may, the contemporary emphasis,
in the Anglo-American West, on sensual primacy is
indicative of a society in which competition will be rather more objective than
subjective, with corresponding materialist and realist hegemonies.
9. Competitiveness thrives on negative values
like hatred, humility, pain, and woe, and these are precisely the most
characteristic values of societies in which primacy has eclipsed supremacy in
consequence of the ongoing entrenchment of inorganic factors at the organic's expense.
10. Hence competition is something to regret from
an organic and therefore supreme standpoint which, due to its positive nature,
will prefer co-operation. No supreme
taking, much less supreme being, can be cultivated in societies which are in
the grip of primacy, whether in sensibility or, worse again from a male
point-of-view, in sensuality.
11. Even primal being, that characteristic of
inorganic godliness, will be subject to a subordinate position to primal doing
in sensual contexts, while primal taking will likewise be subordinate to primal
giving in those societies which are characterized by a sensual bias overall.
12. Hence the rule of metachemical
primacy over metaphysical primacy in the noumenal
case of sensual competitiveness, and the rule, or rather governance, of
chemical primacy over physical primacy in the phenomenal case of sensual
competitiveness.
13. Which is equivalent
to the rule of ugliness and hatred over falsity and woe in the one case, and of
weakness and humility over ignorance and pain in the other case.
14. Societies in which sensible primacy had
eclipsed sensible supremacy would more signify the lead of ugliness and hatred
by falsity and woe in the noumenal case, and the lead
or, rather, representation of weakness and humility by ignorance and pain in
the phenomenal case.
15. Either way, we would not be able to speak of
the hegemony of positive values, neither objectively in sensuality, where
beauty and love would rule over truth and joy and, down below, strength and
pride have the upper hand over knowledge and pleasure, nor subjectively in
sensibility, where truth and joy would have the upper hand over beauty and
love, and knowledge and pleasure likewise have the upper hand over strength and
pride.
16. Societies which have 'gone to the dogs' of
primacy are ill-equipped to foster positive values, whether in relation to
doing, giving, taking, or to being. Only negative values thrive in them,
whether in relation to materialism, realism, naturalism, or to idealism. Everything fundamentalist, nonconformist,
humanist, and transcendentalist will be subject to ridicule from the standpoint
of a competitive edge.
CYCLE SIXTEEN
1. Materialism is the anti-unnatural mode of
primacy, which stands to the unnatural mode of supremacy, viz. fundamentalism,
as negative metachemistry to positive metachemistry.
2. Realism is the anti-supernatural mode of
primacy, which stands to the supernatural mode of supremacy, viz. nonconformism, as negative chemistry to positive chemistry.
3. Naturalism is the antinatural
mode of primacy, which stands to the natural mode of supremacy, viz. humanism,
as negative physics to positive physics.
4. Idealism is the anti-subnatural
mode of primacy, which stands to the subnatural mode
of supremacy, viz. transcendentalism, as negative metaphysics to positive
metaphysics.
5. One could speak of
the materialism of the Antidevil and/or Antihell as against the fundamentalism of the Devil and/or
Hell, whether in relation to primary or to secondary orders of the same.
6. One could speak of
the realism of the antiwoman and/or antipurgatory as against the nonconformism
of woman and/or purgatory, whether in relation to primary or to secondary
orders of the same.
7. One could speak of
the naturalism of the antiman and/or anti-earth as
against the humanism of man and/or the earth, whether in relation to primary or
to secondary orders of the same.
8. One could speak of
the idealism of the Antigod and/or Antiheaven as against the transcendentalism of God and/or
Heaven, whether in relation to primary or to secondary orders of the same.
9. Either way, primacy attaches to the inorganic
as a manifestation of Antinature, whereas supremacy
attaches to the organic as a manifestation of Nature, whether in terms of metachemical unnature, which is
fiery; of chemical supernature, which is watery; of
physical nature, which is vegetative; or of metaphysical subnature,
which is airy.
10. All that is primal, whether cosmic or
geologic, noumenal or phenomenal, signifies in human
life not merely a divided self but that which is against the
self, as though symptomatic of iron in the soul. If the self is positive in its organic
supremacy, then what may be called the antiself is
negative in its inorganic primacy, and it is the eclipse of the self by the antiself which causes negative values to prevail at the
expense of their positive counterparts
11. If the self is organic and the antiself inorganic, then the antiself
is not so much a part or aspect of the self as something that runs contrary to
it, like the cosmic to the universal or the geologic to the personal. We do not have divided selves in the sense of
self being naturally both negative and positive. On the contrary, the self is structured in
such a way as to be positive, whether in objective or in subjective terms, depending
by and large on gender.
12. When the self is eclipsed by antiself negativity, it is as if the self were overcome by
cosmic and/or geologic influences which temporarily take possession of the self
and render its behaviour contrary to what it is normally, whether metachemically, chemically, physically, or metaphysically.
13. One might say that the antiself
is the self acting under duress of inorganic factors which temporarily cripple
its nature and turn it upside down or inside out, shutting down positive
tendencies as negative ones take their place.
14. Thus whereas fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism are
expressions of the self or of different types of self being loyal to itself,
materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism are the result of undue
inorganic intrusions into the self which take the place, no matter how
temporarily, of what the self would normally be about
15. It is as though not the organic self as such,
but that same self under duress of inorganic pressures ceased being loyal to
itself and became quasi-inorganic in reflection of materialism, realism,
naturalism, or idealism, thereby behaving in a materialist, a realist, a
naturalist, or an idealist manner, to the detriment of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism.
16. Thus a self that would normally, in the course
of natural organic events, have been loving or proud or pleasurable or joyful
becomes, all of a sudden, hateful or humble or pained or sad, and all because
it had been turned against itself by one or a number of inorganic intrusions
from without.
17. When such inorganic intrusions are so frequent
and powerful as to cause a lasting if not almost permanent eclipse of organic
selfhood by quasi-inorganic behaviour, whether because of a ubiquitous negative
environmental and/or technological influence, then whole societies become
deranged and subject to competitive urges as a matter of primal course.
18. The modern
over-urbanized and industrialized world is symptomatic of just such a primal
derangement, making for wholesale self-dissatisfactions as the self continues
to be turned inorganically against itself to the detriment of self-esteem and
the peace, on any level, that such esteem brings.
19. Instead of being loyal and/or of encouraged to
be loyal to self, whichever self, depending on the individual, that may happen
to be, people are constantly bombarded with a plethora of inorganic
distractions stemming from materialism or realism or naturalism or idealism,
and induced to seek satisfaction outside the self.
20. No such satisfaction is ultimately possible,
because the self that is at loggerheads with itself in consequence of the
ubiquitous influence of inorganic intrusions is bound to remain dissatisfied
with both itself and, correlatively, the society in which it has to live, since
that society, despite its brazen boasts to the contrary, cannot provide the
satisfaction that the self craves, but only perpetuates self-division in the
pursuit of its materialistic or realistic or naturalistic or idealistic delusions.
21. A self that is permanently at war with itself,
trapped in a stressful predicament of self-division, cannot expect to achieve,
much less maintain, any degree of harmony and peace. On the contrary, it will continue to toss and
turn in a fitful pursuit of self-deceiving goals with which the negativity of
inorganic primacy has seduced it.
22. Only the rejection of such a society can lead
to inner harmony, either by the individual opting out of it or by whole
communities of people who happen to be favoured with less competitive societies
continuing to remain loyal to organic supremacy and its co-operative rewards.
CYCLE SEVENTEEN
1. Being in harmony with self in organic supremacy,
whether the self be objective and female or subjective and male, requires that
one be steeped in a lifestyle that respects the organic and is not overly
distracted from what is in the self's best interests by inorganic primacy.
2. Whether the not-self be in the self's best
interests, as in the case of females, or the self be in the self's best
interests, as in the case of males, the important thing is to stay in touch
with the organic, so that positive supremacy is one's due reward.
3. Thus whether in terms of co-operation with
others or in terms of co-operation with oneself, whether in terms of supreme
doing and giving on the one hand or of supreme taking and being on the other,
organic supremacy is the only means of avoiding the competitive pitfalls
presented by inorganic primacy.
4. For competition is
negative, and the competitive individual or society does not have the self's
best interests at heart, neither in relation to oneself nor to others. On the contrary, the competitive individual or
society is ranged against self-esteem from the standpoint, ever primal,
of self-negation, so that selfhood is something to be overcome.
5. Whence arises the competitive urge to
overcome selfhood and destroy inner harmony and peace, maintaining a situation
in which self-negation is ever prevalent and people are judged not according to
what they are, but according to what they are not.
6. This self-negation of inorganic primacy has
nothing to do with self-denial as a consequence of self-realization, as in the
case of those divine individuals who first of all understand who they are, in
relation to where they are metaphysically at, and then set about transcending
it in the interests of self-redemption.
7. On the contrary, self-negation rules out the
possibility of self-redemption, for it works against the self rather than
through it, and substitutes a false notion of success, based on competition,
for what is truly in the self's interests.
Instead of perpetuating fundamentalism or nonconformism
or humanism or, above all, transcendentalism, it perpetuates materialism or
realism or naturalism or idealism, to the detriment of self.
8. But the individual for whom self is neither
something to be denied in the interests of not-self nor something to be
perpetuated for its own sake but, rather, something to be transcended in the
interests of self-redemption is beyond even the utmost level of self-negation
in what amounts to the apex of self-realization. He is more than a doing-oriented
Fundamentalist, a giving-oriented Nonconformist, or a taking-oriented
Humanist. He is a being-oriented
Transcendentalist, and only in connection with such an individual do we have
the right to speak of first-rate supreme being.
9. For first-rate supreme being adheres to the
metaphysical Transcendentalist when he reaches an accommodation with his soul
via the will and spirit of his metaphysical not-selves and is able to transcend
his ego in the process. It is not
something characteristic of a 'Creator of the Universe' or anything so primal
and primitive. On the contrary, it is
purely characteristic of the subman, the godly
individual, when he achieves a heavenly redemption, in soul, of his self, and
ceases for the moment to be God.
10. First-rate supreme being is the condition of heaven
that the self feels when it is of a metaphysical disposition and accordingly
joyful, whereas second-rate supreme being is the pleasurable being of the
redeemed physical self, third-rate supreme being the proud being of the
redeemed chemical self, and fourth-rate supreme being the loving being of the
redeemed metachemical self.
11. Were the chemical and metachemical
selves concerned primarily with self, they wouldn't have third- and fourth-rate
orders of being respectively, but something more akin to the second- and
first-rate orders of being that accrue to the physical and metaphysical selves
respectively of those people, usually male, for whom either ego or soul is
paramount.
12. When the not-self is paramount, however,
whether as will or spirit, then of course the order of self will be
correspondingly subordinate, as is usually the case for the ego and soul of
females, which, when not fourth-rate, are never more than third-rate.
13. But that which is most of the self, that self which
is most essential, the soul, will only be most soulful in the airy context of
metaphysics, and never more so than in sensibility, where one is dealing with
the metaphysics of the breath as against the metaphysics of the airwaves, and
is accordingly attuned to the lungs as opposed to the ears.
14. For this first-rate order of soul a certain
metaphysical disposition is required, without which one would be false to one's
'true' self, be that self metachemical, chemical, or
physical, were one to persist in pursuing a metaphysical course on the basis of
transcendentalism.
15. Pursuing it on the basis of either humanism or
nonconformism, on the other hand, is certainly
feasible for those individuals who, whether for physical or chemical reasons,
would be more suited to the metaphysics of the ego or the spirit than of the
soul, and who would, as already outlined, constitute gender-divided
alternatives to the top subsection of what I have elsewhere described as the
highest tier of the triadic Beyond, as germane, so I teach, to 'Kingdom Come'.
16. Even though not identical with first-rate
supreme being in the metaphysical soul, such orders of supreme taking and
supreme giving would be conditioned by metaphysical criteria to a degree that
would distinguish them from properly physical and chemical orders of supreme
taking and supreme giving respectively, as germane, so I teach, to the per se
subsections of the lower tiers of the triadic Beyond.
17. For the metaphysical context is ever one that
panders to being, whether directly in transcendentalism or indirectly in
humanism and nonconformism, whereas the physical
context will inevitably pander to taking and the chemical context to giving,
even when indirect approaches to taking or giving, germane to subsectional 'bovaryizations',
happen to apply, as would be the case for the physical and chemical tiers of
our projected triadic Beyond.
18. Now being of a first-rate supreme order is
what follows from a metaphysical commitment, whether directly or, to slightly
lesser degrees, indirectly, in consequence of a subsectional
'bovaryization', whereof both giving and taking are
of a distinctly being-oriented order - indeed are inseparable from a beingful approach, paradoxically, to giving and taking.
CYCLE EIGHTEEN
1. Being 'true' to one's self in the sense of
knowing what kind of a self one has and adhering to it as much as possible,
whether in terms of metachemical objectivity,
chemical objectivity, physical subjectivity, or metaphysical subjectivity.
2. Thus knowing oneself not only in relation to
gender but also, and no less significantly, in relation to class, so that one
ceases to live either above or beneath oneself but lives in accordance with
one's nature, be that nature metachemically
unnatural, chemically supernatural, physically natural, or metaphysically subnatural.
3. That person who is 'untrue' to his/her self
will become false to others, who will be misled as to his true nature. But even devils have a right to existence and
to recognition as such, whether or not we share their disposition.
4. One can no more eliminate one or more of the
different types of self than eliminate one or more of the different types of
element. Life is a combination of all
elements in greater or lesser degrees, and one must find one's place in life as
the elements find theirs.
5. When once one has found one's rightful place
in life, no matter how often one may deviate from it in the course of diurnal
events, one will know oneself as a person of a given elemental disposition, be that disposition metachemical
and fiery, chemical and watery, physical and vegetative, or metaphysical and
airy.
6. One will know, in sum, whether one is a
devil, a woman, a man, or a god, and can live one's life accordingly. For many people think that they are simply
men or women without realizing that mankind are divisible between devils and
women on the one hand, and between men and gods on the other hand - devils and
gods being the noumenal counterparts to women and
men.
7. I have maintained that, in sartorial terms,
the distinction between devils and women is of dresses and skirts, those
objective modes of attire, whereas the distinction between men and gods is of
trousers (or pants, jeans, etc.) and zippersuits,
those subjective modes of attire.
8. Hence an 'upper-class' distinction (noumenal) between dresses and zippersuits,
and a 'lower-class' distinction (phenomenal) between skirts and trousers.
9. People who do not understand this are simply
guilty of ignorance, and ignorance is more often the fruit of inorganic primacy
than of organic supremacy, being rooted in the competitive negativity of
geologic naturalism.
10. It is more logical to
hold ignorance against a man than against a woman, because ignorance attaches
to the physical as the primal equivalent of knowledge.
11. Conversely, it is more logical to hold
weakness against a woman than against a man, because weakness attaches to the
chemical as the primal equivalent of strength.
12. From the standpoint
of the noumenal options however, it would be more
logical to hold falsity against a god than against a devil, because falsity
attaches to the metaphysical as the primal equivalent of truth.
13. Conversely, it would be more logical to hold
ugliness against a devil than against a god, because ugliness attaches to the metachemical as the primal equivalent of beauty.
14. Few of us would logically esteem ignorance,
weakness, falsity, or ugliness, and yet most of us live in societies in which
precisely those primal values, those negative consequences of inorganic
primacy, are paramount, thanks to the ubiquitous spread of naturalism, realism,
idealism, and materialism.
15. Of course, ignorance may pass itself off as
knowledge, weakness as strength, falsity as truth, and ugliness as beauty, but
that would not pass muster in contexts, necessarily characterized by organic
supremacy, where genuine knowledge, strength, truth, and beauty were paramount,
and one knew, in consequence, that these attributes of the various elements
were of a co-operative rather than a competitive disposition.
16. Yet even now, in this seemingly 'godless',
meaning secular, age, genuine knowledge, strength, truth, and beauty are
possible and can be discovered to exist, both in individuals and the wider
community in general. We cannot help
being organic creatures even when we are under pressure of inorganic factors to
such an extent that we twist and turn in a fitful revolt against that which is
contrary to our nature and which causes us, in turning us against ourselves, so
much pain, humility, (if not humiliation), woe, and hatred.
17. Despite the manifestly competitive conditions
in which most people have to live these days, I remain quietly optimistic that
things can be reversed and that a better age is possible, that 'Kingdom
Come' can come to pass, and that we should build on the sure foundations
of organic supremacy, which we carry within ourselves, a much less competitive
and more co-operative society, a society in which the individuals who
constitute it are in touch with their selves and know the peace that comes from
inner harmony.
18. Then and only then will godliness come back
into the picture, then and only then will the secular values of modernity,
rooted in inorganic primacy, be overthrown and 'the dead' accordingly be
'resurrected' to their respective organic capacities in what I have called the
triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come', meaning, initially, a Gaelic federation of
Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, should a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty - the only guarantee, ultimately, of organic supremacy in its most
sensible modes - duly come to pass with the coming of 'Judgement', or the
People's decision whether or not to progress, democratically and officially,
from political sovereignty to religious sovereignty, thereby abandoning 'sins
and/or punishments of the world' for that which lies beyond it.
CYCLE NINETEEN
1. Fiery metachemistry,
being apparent, is the element of doing par excellence, wherein doing is
alone - of the doing, giving, taking, being options - in its per se
manifestation.
2. Watery chemistry, being quantitative, is the
element of giving par excellence, wherein giving is alone - of the doing, giving,
taking, being options - in its per se manifestation.
3. Vegetative physics, being qualitative, is the
element of taking par excellence, wherein taking is alone - of the doing, giving,
taking, being options - in its per se manifestation.
4. Airy metaphysics, being essential, is the
element of being par excellence, wherein being is alone - of the doing, giving,
taking, being options - in its per se manifestation.
5. To contrast the
apparent doing of metachemistry with the
quasi-quantitative doing of chemistry, the quasi-qualitative doing of physics,
and the quasi-essential doing of metaphysics.
6. To contrast the quantitative giving of
chemistry with the quasi-apparent giving of metachemistry,
the quasi-essential giving of metaphysics, and the quasi-qualitative giving of
physics.
7. To contrast the qualitative taking of physics
with the quasi-essential taking of metaphysics, the quasi-apparent taking of metachemistry, and the quasi-quantitative taking of
chemistry.
8. To contrast the essential being of
metaphysics with the quasi-qualitative being of physics, the quasi-quantitative
being of chemistry, and the quasi-apparent being of metachemistry.
9. To contrast the
apparent doing of metachemistry with the essential
being of metaphysics, as one would contrast the most scientific with the most
religious.
10. To contrast the
quantitative giving of chemistry with the qualitative taking of physics, as one
would contrast the most political with the most economic.
11. The fact that, in metachemistry, giving, taking and being are quasi-apparent does
not preclude them from being pseudo-quantitative, pseudo-qualitative, and
pseudo-essential, respectively, in relation to the genuinely apparent standing
of metachemical doing.
12. The fact that, in
chemistry, doing, taking and being are quasi-quantitative does not preclude
them from being pseudo-apparent, pseudo-qualitative, and pseudo-essential,
respectively, in relation to the genuinely quantitative standing of chemical
giving.
13. The fact that, in
physics, doing, giving and being are quasi-qualitative does not preclude them
from being pseudo-apparent, pseudo-quantitative, and pseudo-essential,
respectively, in relation to the genuinely qualitative standing of physical
taking.
14. The fact that, in
metaphysics, doing, giving and taking are quasi-essential does not preclude
them from being pseudo-apparent, pseudo-quantitative, and pseudo-qualitative,
respectively, in relation to the genuinely essential standing of metaphysical
being.
15. Nothing can ever change the fact that fire is
the apparent element par excellence, water the quantitative element par
excellence, vegetation the qualitative element par excellence, and
air the essential element par excellence, with respective
correspondences to will, spirit, ego, and soul or, rather, in strictly elemental
terms, to power, glory, form, and contentment.
16. For will, spirit,
ego, and soul tend to be the organic manifestations of what, more basically,
are power, glory, form, and contentment.
17. From the metachemical
power of will in its per se
manifestation to the metaphysical contentment of soul in its per se
manifestation via the chemical glory of spirit in its per se
manifestation and the physical form of ego in its per se manifestation.
18. From the metachemical
power of first-rate will to the metachemical
contentment of fourth-rate soul via the metachemical
glory of second-rate spirit and the metachemical form
of third-rate ego, all of which are either apparent or quasi-apparent in
relation to a doing per se.
19. From the chemical power of second-rate will to
the chemical contentment of third-rate soul via the chemical glory of
first-rate spirit and the chemical form of fourth-rate ego, all of which are
either quantitative or quasi-quantitative in relation to a giving per se.
20. From the physical power of third-rate will to
the physical contentment of second-rate soul via the physical glory of
fourth-rate spirit and the physical form of first-rate ego, all of which are
either qualitative or quasi-qualitative in relation to a taking per se.
21. From the metaphysical power of fourth-rate
will to the metaphysical contentment of first-rate soul via the metaphysical
glory of third-rate spirit and the metaphysical form of second-rate ego, all of
which are either essential or quasi-essential in relation to a being per se.
CYCLE TWENTY
1. Is there such a thing as a goddess? Yes, I guess you could say that the
metaphysical female is a goddess, because the metaphysical male is a god.
2. But she is not identical
to the metaphysical male, who is transcendentalist. On the contrary, she is the nonconformist
approach to metaphysics that follows from a chemical bias, and would, in the
event of 'Kingdom Come' actually coming to pass, be eligible for metaphysics
chemically, that is to say, through nasal recourse to cocaine or some such
powdered drug that is sniffed (snorted).
3. For females, being fundamentally metachemical, cannot be expected to embrace metaphysics
transcendentally, in proper metaphysical terms, nor should one take seriously
any female who does - or appears to do so - but, rather, regard her as a
liberal aberration and subversive intrusion into a realm reserved for gods,
i.e. male metaphysicians, for whom respiratory sensibility would be properly
metaphysical.
4. Thus the goddess does not meditate, at least
not in terms of transcendental meditation, but, rather, contemplates such
visionary experience as her chemical approach to metaphysics makes
possible. She stands on the lowest rung
of the top tier, so to speak, of the triadic Beyond,
being metaphysically inferior to both the cogitator and the meditator,
those humanist and transcendentalist approaches, on the male side of the gender
divide, to metaphysics.
5. Thus we can distinguish contemplative
goddesses from both cogitative gods and meditative gods, the latter of whom
would be the per se manifestation of divinity within the top tier of our
projected triadic Beyond.
6. Elsewhere, in the lower two tiers, there
would be neither gods nor goddesses but only men and women, whether physical or
chemical, in relation to volume and mass.
7. To save Catholic gods and goddesses up, from
time to space, within time-space subjectivity, as from ears to lungs, and
Anglican men and women up, from mass to volume, within mass-volume
subjectivity, as from penis (or the flesh) to brain, but to damn Puritan men
and women down, from volume to mass, within volume-mass objectivity, as from
tongue to womb, thereby achieving sensibility in mass, volume, and space for
all three tiers of the triadic Beyond.
8. Thus to save from sensuality or to damn to
sensibility those who, at present, are avowedly more sensual than sensible in
their overall religious stance as either Catholics (metaphysical) or
Protestants (both physical and chemical).
9. For Catholic degeneration into metaphysical
sensuality tends to parallel the Protestant adherence to both physical
sensuality (Anglicans) and chemical sensuality (Puritans).
10. Either way, there is scope for movement into
sensibility, whether up or down, such that the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come'
would encourage, though only, of course, in response to a majority mandate for
religious sovereignty, come 'Judgement', or a paradoxical election which
embraced the possibility of religious sovereignty.
CYCLE TWENTY-ONE
1. That which is negative and primal is also, by
definition, malevolent, since it functions in relation to the inorganic on the
basis of competition.
2. That which is positive and supreme is also, by
definition, benevolent, since it functions in relation to the organic on the
basis of co-operation.
3. Competition is both extrinsically (objective)
and intrinsically (subjective) malevolent, since it works against the self from
the standpoint of the antiself, which is the self
that has been eclipsed by inorganic pressures to such an extent that it
functions in relation to primacy.
4. Co-operation is both extrinsically
(objective) and intrinsically (subjective) benevolent, since it works in
harmony with the self (whichever self that may happen to be) from the
standpoint of organic supremacy.
5. One can - and, I believe, should -
distinguish the malevolence of primal metachemistry
from the benevolence of supreme metachemistry, as one
would distinguish ugliness and hatred from beauty and love in both primary and
secondary contexts.
6. One can - and, I
believe, should - distinguish the malevolence of primal chemistry from the
benevolence of supreme chemistry, as one would distinguish weakness and
humility from strength and pride in both primary and secondary contexts.
7. One can - and, I
believe, should - distinguish the malevolence of primal physics from the
benevolence of supreme physics, as one would distinguish ignorance and pain
from knowledge and pleasure in both primary and secondary contexts.
8. One can - and, I
believe, should - distinguish the malevolence of primal metaphysics from the
benevolence of supreme metaphysics, as one would distinguish falsity and woe
from truth and joy in both primary and secondary contexts.
9. Malevolence and benevolence are equally
applicable to both sensuality and sensibility in all the above elemental
contexts, since either can be 'once born' and outer or 'reborn' and inner.
10. Primacy is always malignant in its inorganic
negativity, whether with regard to metachemical
materialism, chemical realism, physical naturalism, or to metaphysical
idealism.
11. Supremacy is always benign in its organic positivity, whether with regard to metachemical
fundamentalism, chemical nonconformism, physical
humanism, or to metaphysical transcendentalism.
12. The organic is benign
to itself in relation to the positivity of
co-operative supremacy, whereas the inorganic is malignant to the organic in
relation to the negativity of its competitive primacy.
13. The inorganic is not
malign to itself, for it has no self to be malign towards, but tends, as iron
in the soul, to undermine the benignity of the organic.
14. That self which is benign towards itself
tends, by extrapolation, to be benevolent towards others, whether directly,
through extrinsic supremacy, or indirectly, through intrinsic supremacy.
15. That antiself, on
the contrary, which is malign towards the self tends, by extrapolation, to be malevolent
towards others, whether directly, through extrinsic primacy, or indirectly,
through intrinsic primacy.
CYCLE TWENTY-TWO
1. Most people would, in general terms, tend to
identify primacy with evil and supremacy with good, but that is really an over-simplification
of what is, in fact, a more comprehensive picture in which not simply evil and
good, but folly and wisdom are also to be found, and found, be it remembered,
as male complements, in subjectivity, to a female dichotomy between the aforementioned
objective terms.
2. In reality, primacy
is no more evil than supremacy is good.
Primacy is simply malevolent in both the objective contexts of negative metachemical evil and chemical good, and the subjective
contexts of negative physical folly and metaphysical wisdom.
3. Likewise supremacy is no more
good than primacy is evil.
Supremacy is simply benevolent in both the positive objective contexts
of metachemical evil and chemical good, and the
positive subjective contexts of physical folly and metaphysical wisdom.
4. Thus there is negative evil (malevolent) and
positive evil (benevolent), negative good and positive good, negative folly and
positive folly, and negative wisdom and positive wisdom, with the negative
options ever attaching to primacy and the positive options to supremacy.
5. The principal differentiating factor between
primacy and supremacy is therefore not evil and good, still less folly and
wisdom, but negativity and positivity, either of
which can be evil (metachemical) or good (chemical),
not to mention foolish (physical) or wise (metaphysical) in relation to
competitive malevolence or co-operative benevolence, depending on the context.
6. Thus we arrive at the seemingly paradoxical
but in actuality logically incontrovertible conclusion that evil can be
malevolent or benevolent, apparent in an inorganic or an organic manifestation
according to how the will does, and the metachemical
will most especially.
7. Likewise we arrive at the conclusion that
good can be malevolent or benevolent, quantitative in an inorganic or an
organic manifestation according to how the spirit gives, and the
chemical spirit most especially.
8. Similarly we arrive at the conclusion that
folly can be malevolent or benevolent, qualitative in an inorganic or an
organic manifestation according to how the ego takes, and the physical
ego most especially.
9. Finally we arrive at the conclusion that
wisdom can be malevolent or benevolent, essential in an inorganic or an organic
manifestation according to how the soul is, and the metaphysical soul
most especially
10. It should not be
forgotten, however, that the doing of will is always evil, whether in
the per se context of metachemistry or in
the pseudo-evil contexts of chemistry (quasi-good), physics (quasi-foolish), or
metaphysics (quasi-wise).
11. Nor should it be
forgotten that the giving of spirit is always good, whether in the per se
context of chemistry or in the pseudo-good contexts of metachemistry
(quasi-evil), metaphysics (quasi-wise), or physics (quasi-foolish).
12. Similarly the taking of ego is always
foolish, whether in the per se context of physics or in the
pseudo-foolish contexts of metaphysics (quasi-wise), metachemistry
(quasi-evil), or chemistry (quasi-good).
13. Likewise the being
of soul is always wise, whether in the per se context of metaphysics or
in the pseudo-wise contexts of physics (quasi-foolish), chemistry (quasi-good),
or metachemistry (quasi-evil).
14. Thus whereas the doing of evil is
always apparent (genuine) or pseudo-apparent (non-metachemical
'bovaryizations' of will), the giving of good
is always quantitative (genuine) or pseudo-quantitative (non-chemical 'bovarizations' of spirit).
15. Thus whereas the taking of folly is
always qualitative (genuine) or pseudo-qualitative (non-physical 'bovaryizations' of ego), the being of wisdom is
always essential (genuine) or pseudo-essential (non-metaphysical 'bovaryizations' of soul).
CYCLE TWENTY-THREE
1. Just as the metachemical
person, a devil, is primarily a doer and the chemical person, a woman,
primarily a giver, so the physical person, a man, is primarily a taker and the
metaphysical person, a god, primarily a be-er.
2. The apparent nature (unnature)
of doing contrasts with the essential nature (subnature)
of being, no less than the quantitative nature (supernature)
of giving contrasts with the qualitative nature (nature per se)
of taking.
3. What applies to Nature in general is also
applicable to its Antinatural antagonist, wherein
doing is less fundamentalist than materialist, giving is less nonconformist
than realist, taking less humanist than naturalist, and being less
transcendentalist than idealist.
4. Materialism could also be described as
anti-fundamentalism, realism as anti-nonconformism,
naturalism as anti-humanism, and idealism as anti-transcendentalism, since the Antinatural is everywhere contrary to the Natural in its
inorganic, and therefore primal, constitution.
5. People will think it odd that I have described
naturalism and idealism as antinatural, but, in
actuality, the Naturalist and the Idealist are as much antinatural,
in the inorganic sense implied, as the Materialist and the Realist, since they
subscribe to conditions which owe more to primacy than to supremacy, whether in
the noumenal contexts of cosmic malevolence
(materialist and idealist) or in the phenomenal contexts of geologic
malevolence (realist and naturalist).
6. In this respect naturalism is not to be confounded
or equated with Nature, meaning the generality of organic options, but applies
solely to a physical manifestation of the Antinatural
which has an inorganic as opposed to an organic correlation.
7. Nature in general terms is of course organic,
but it is organic on the basis of fundamentalism, nonconformism,
humanism, and transcendentalism, with humanism being its physical manifestation
and therefore that which organically parallels naturalism.
8. Life struggles away from naturalism in plant,
animal, and especially human terms, but naturalism itself remains rooted in the
core of the earth, which is inorganic in its geologic formations.
9. Like idealism, its
fellow subjective mode of primacy, naturalism is more competitive, and hence
malevolent, than co-operative, if on a phenomenal rather than a noumenal basis.
10. If idealism equates with
antibeing and naturalism with antitaking,
then materialism equates with antidoing and realism
with antigiving, the negative modes of being, taking,
doing, and giving.
11. Whereas materialism is rooted in the antiwill and realism in the antispirit,
naturalism is rooted or, rather, centred in the anti-ego and idealism in the antisoul.
12. Hence the negative modes
of metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics,
to which we have given the names of materialism, realism, naturalism, and
idealism.
13. Primacy, based in the inorganic, makes
malevolent competitors out of people who were organically intended to be
benevolently co-operative, turning the self against itself, and thus against
other selves, in what has been described as the antiself.
14. Not simply a doing devil of beauty and love, a
giving woman of strength and pride, a taking man of knowledge and pleasure, or
a being god of truth and joy, but an antidoing antidevil of ugliness and hatred, an antigiving
antiwoman of weakness and humility, an antitaking antiman of ignorance
and pain, or an antibeing antigod
of falsity and woe.
15. Which is to say, not simply a Fundamentalist,
a Nonconformist, a Humanist, or a Transcendentalist, but a Materialist, a
Realist, a Naturalist, or an Idealist, all the latter of whom take their cue
from inorganic primacy and live the death-life, the life-killing death of
competitive malevolence.
16. Truly, if 'the dead' are to be resurrected,
much will have to be done to overcome primacy and institute a new and superior
order of supremacy ... as germane to 'Kingdom Come', that people may live to
the maximum of their respective organic capacities. Then and only then will co-operative
benevolence become the rule!
CYCLE TWENTY-FOUR
1. The competitive 'nature' of Antinature is such that competition obtains on every basis,
from the noumenal objectivity of metachemical
anti-unnature to the noumenal
subjectivity of metaphysical anti-subnature via the
phenomenal objectivity of chemical anti-supernature
and the phenomenal subjectivity of physical antinature.
2. Thus competition is the inorganic norm, or
organic abnormality, from the space-time devolution of materialism to the
time-space evolution of idealism via the volume-mass devolution of realism and
the mass-volume evolution of naturalism.
3. Contrariwise, the co-operative 'nature' of
Nature is such that co-operation obtains on every basis, from the noumenal objectivity of metachemical
unnature to the noumenal
subjectivity of metaphysical subnature via the
phenomenal objectivity of chemical supernature and
the phenomenal subjectivity of physical nature.
4. Thus co-operation is the organic norm from
the space-time devolution of fundamentalism to the time-space evolution of
transcendentalism via the volume-mass devolution of nonconformism
and the mass-volume evolution of humanism.
5. No more than we can categorically maintain
that primacy is evil and supremacy good, can it be maintained that competition
is evil and co-operation good. Good and
evil are not applicable except in relation to the metachemical
and chemical modes of competition and co-operation, where we can distinguish
competitive evil and good from co-operative evil and good, and further
distinguish each of these objective orders of competition and co-operation from
their subjective counterparts, which have less to do with evil and good than
with folly and wisdom, whether negatively, as in the case of primacy, or
positively, as in the case of supremacy.
6. Hence even where organic supremacy is
concerned, we need to distinguish co-operative evil from good, and each of
these from the co-operative modes of folly and wisdom.
7. Thus one will avoid the error of assuming
that because competition is malevolent and co-operation benevolent, all
competition is evil and all co-operation good.
There is evil malevolence (anti-unnatural) and good malevolence (anti-supernatural),
evil benevolence (unnatural) and good benevolence (supernatural).
8. There is also, on
the other (subjective and male) side of the gender fence, foolish malevolence (antinatural) and wise malevolence (anti-subnatural),
foolish benevolence (natural) and wise benevolence (subnatural).
9. Of course, it is better to be good than evil
in both malevolent and benevolent, primal and supreme contexts, just as it is
better to be wise than foolish in both malevolent and benevolent contexts,
since whereas in the former case goodness is a rejection of evil, in the latter
case wisdom is a rejection or, more correctly, a transcendence of folly.
10. Yet it is still better to be benevolent than
malevolent, and thus organically co-operative rather than inorganically
competitive, whether or not one is co-operative on evil, good, foolish, or wise
terms.
11. Certainly it is better to be chemically
co-operative than metachemically co-operative,
organically good than organically evil, just as it is better to be
metaphysically co-operative than physically co-operative, organically wise than
organically foolish.
12. But these distinctions are still subject to
innate factors of class and gender to such an extent that there will always be
people whose principal lifestyle is evil rather than good or foolish rather
than wise, whether in relation to competition or to co-operation.
13. Drawing logical distinctions in philosophy is
not the same as expecting people to rigorously adhere to them. I know what is logically best in a given situation,
but I would not make the mistake of advising everyone to adopt such a
position. On the contrary, good and
folly will always be for the mass/volume Many, evil and wisdom for the
time/space Few - albeit, in each case, for antithetical types of Many and Few.
14. But even with such distinctions, it is still
the case that primacy will exist at the expense of supremacy in those
individuals or societies which have 'gone to the dogs' of materialism (negative
evil), realism (negative good), naturalism (negative folly), and idealism
(negative wisdom), thereby indulging in competitive malevolence within a
broadly Antinatural (inorganic) framework.
CYCLE TWENTY-FIVE
1. To contrast the individualism of the Few with
the collectivism of the Many, as one would contrast the noumenal
with the phenomenal, the abstract, or non-representational, with the concrete,
or representational, whether in terms of metachemistry
vis-à-vis chemistry or of metaphysics vis-à-vis physics.
2. The individualism of the metachemical
Few is always apparent, since based in an elemental-particle equation, with
especial reference to photons in sensuality and to photinos
in sensibility.
3. The collectivism of the chemical Many is
always quantitative, since based in a molecular-particle equation, with
especial reference to electrons in sensuality and to electrinos
in sensibility.
4. The collectivism of the physical Many is
always qualitative, since centred in a molecular-wavicle
equation, with especial reference to neutrons in sensuality and to neutrinos in
sensibility.
5. The individualism of
the metaphysical Few is always essential, since centred in an elemental-wavicle equation, with especial reference to protons in
sensuality and to protinos in sensibility.
6. Thus individualism can be evil or wise, metachemical or metaphysical, of a scientific persuasion in
the noumenal objectivity of space-time devolution or
of a religious persuasion in the noumenal
subjectivity of time-space evolution.
7. Thus collectivism can be good or foolish,
chemical or physical, of a political persuasion in the phenomenal objectivity
of volume-mass devolution or of an economic persuasion in the phenomenal
subjectivity of mass-volume evolution.
8. Both the objective modes of individualism (metachemical) and collectivism (chemical) are female,
having reference to the primary side of life, whereas both the subjective modes
of individualism (metaphysical) and collectivism (physical) are male, having
reference to the secondary side of life.
9. Hence female-biased societies will be
characterised by either evil individualism or good collectivism, if not a
combination, to varying extents, of both.
10. Hence male-biased societies will be
characterised by either wise individualism or foolish collectivism, if not a
combination, to varying extents, of both.
11. This applies as much to
primal contexts as to supreme ones, since both individualism and collectivism
can be inorganic or organic, and thus either competitively malevolent or
co-operatively benevolent.
12. In a society led by wisdom rather than ruled
by evil, the individualism of gods will take precedence over the collectivism
of both men and women, who will be less vulnerable to the individualism of
devils than would otherwise be the case
13. A society led by religion rather than ruled by
science would be one in which godly truth had superseded manly knowledge and
delivered both men and women (given to strength) from the domination of beauty
- thereby extending essence at the expense of appearance.
14. The primal or inorganic equivalent of such a
supreme society would be one in which antigodly
falsity had superseded antimanly ignorance and
delivered both antimen and antiwomen
(given to weakness) from the domination of ugliness - thereby extending
anti-essence at the expense of anti-appearance.
15. I do not advocate such a society but one, on
the contrary, in which organic factors are hegemonic, and truth can accordingly
lead knowledge and strength away from the truth-excluding or, at any rate,
belittling rule of beauty, whereof scientific appearances are sovereign.
16. Obviously the kind of organic society that I
advocate in relation to 'Kingdom Come' can only come to pass in those countries
within the British Isles which are not so far gone in primacy as to be
incapable of taking supremacy seriously.
I allude, in particular, to
17. It was with these countries in mind that I
first conceived the notion of a Gaelic Federation presided over by a
'God-King', a Second-Coming equivalence and Messianic Redeemer who would
deliver such peoples from worldly sin and/or punishment, were they to vote on a
majority basis for religious sovereignty and the rights that would accrue to
such an ultimate sovereignty in relation to the triadic Beyond.
18. It is for the peoples of these countries to
judge for themselves whether or not they would be better off, culturally and
morally speaking, in 'Kingdom Come' than in the worldly societies in which,
whether as parliamentarians or republicans, Protestants or Catholics, unionists
or nationalists, they currently exist, to the detriment, more often than not,
of their souls.
19. I also happen to believe that a united Ireland
could come to pass within the framework of a Gaelic Federation, since there
would be a new basis for compromise between unionists and nationalists which
ensured that both sides got what they deserved, providing they were prepared to
break with tradition, both political and, above all, religious.
20. I bring the judgement, but it is for others to
judge me and determine whether or not they wish to be delivered from sensuality
to sensibility within the triadic structures of 'Kingdom Come', and achieve
salvation or damnation according to their gender-oriented deserts.
APPENDIX
1. Few things are more paradoxical but
nonetheless incontrovertible than the co-existence, within any given individual
or type of society, of a predominant sensuality with a subordinate sensibility
or, conversely, of a predominant sensibility with a subordinate sensuality.
2. Let me attempt to clarify. There are, be it remembered, four planes,
viz. the plane of mass, volume, time, and space, with the planes of mass and
volume standing in an inferior position to those of time and space, pretty much
as phenomenal to noumenal, lower class to upper
class.
3. Movement between planes tends to be
diagonally up or down, depending on the gender, from phenomenal to phenomenal,
as from mass to volume or volume to mass, or from noumenal
to noumenal, as from time to space or space to time.
4. Let us therefore distinguish the upper-class
diagonal descent from space to time from the upper-class diagonal ascent from
time to space, as one would distinguish the noumenal
objectivity of metachemical absolutism, corresponding
to fiery abstractionism, from the noumenal
subjectivity of metaphysical absolutism, corresponding to airy abstractionism,
and further distinguish the lower-class diagonal descent from volume to mass
from the lower-class diagonal ascent from mass to volume, as one would
distinguish the phenomenal objectivity of chemical relativity, corresponding to
watery concretism, from the phenomenal subjectivity
of physical relativity, corresponding to vegetative concretism.
5. Thus a distinction, in gender terms, between
the noumenal descent of metachemical
absolutism from spatial space to repetitive time, as in organic terms from eyes
to heart, and the noumenal ascent of metaphysical
absolutism from sequential time to spaced space, as from ears to lungs, with a
further distinction 'down below' between the phenomenal descent of chemical
relativity from volumetric volume to massed mass, as in organic terms from
tongue to womb, and the phenomenal ascent of physical relativity from massive
mass to voluminous volume, as from penis (focus of the flesh) to brain.
6. None of this is new to my philosophy, so the
reader (if there is one) should have no difficulty in recognising well-trodden
paths of logical direction, being mindful of the fact that fire and water,
corresponding to the metachemical and the chemical,
are 'female' elements in their diagonal descent from sensuality to sensibility,
whereas vegetation (earth, more conventionally) and air, corresponding to the
physical and the metaphysical, are 'male' elements in their diagonal ascent
from sensuality to sensibility.
7. What is new is this: that a predominant
phenomenal sensuality tends to co-exist in people with a subordinate noumenal sensibility, and vice versa, while a predominant
phenomenal sensibility tends to co-exist with a subordinate noumenal
sensuality, and vice versa.
8. In other words, there is a kind of 'shadow'
to the prevailing sensuality or sensibility, whether phenomenal or noumenal, which is the paradoxical corollary of that
sensuality's or sensibility's prominent status, and this 'shadow' is always
sensual when the predominant factor is sensible and, conversely, sensible when
the predominant factor is sensual.
9. Thus a predominant sensuality in volumetric
volume, which is chemical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensibility in
repetitive time, which is metachemical, as in the
case of those lower-class people - typically blessed women - whose principal
not-self, the tongue, tends to encourage an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise
of the heart, while, conversely, a predominant sensibility in repetitive time
will co-exist with a subordinate sensuality in volumetric volume, as in the
case of those upper-class people - typically damned devils - whose principal
not-self, the heart, tends to encourage a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of
the tongue.
10. Thus a predominant sensibility in voluminous
volume, which is physical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensuality in
sequential time, which is metaphysical, as in the case of those lower-class
people - typically saved men - whose principal not-self, the brain, tends to
encourage an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise of the ears, while, conversely,
a predominant sensuality in sequential time will co-exist with a subordinate
sensibility in voluminous volume, as in the case of those upper-class people -
typically cursed gods - whose principal not-self, the ears, tends to encourage
a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of the brain.
11. Having dealt with the two intermediate planes,
the planes of volume and time, let us now turn to the top and bottom planes -
the planes, namely, of mass and space - and see how this paradox of 'shadow' noumenal to predominant phenomenal or, conversely, of
'shadow' phenomenal to predominant noumenal works out
there.
12. Clearly a predominant sensuality in massive
mass, which is physical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensibility in spaced
space, which is metaphysical, as in the case of those lower-class people -
typically cursed men - whose principal not-self, the penis, tends to encourage
an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise of the lungs, while, conversely, a
predominant sensibility in spaced space will co-exist with a subordinate
sensuality in massive mass, as in the case of those upper-class people -
typically saved gods - whose principal not-self, the lungs, tends to encourage
a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of the penis.
13. Likewise a predominant sensibility in massed
mass, which is chemical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensuality in spatial
space, which is metachemical, as in the case of those
lower-class people - typically damned women - whose principal not-self, the womb,
tends to encourage an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise of the eyes, while,
conversely, a predominant sensuality in spatial space will co-exist with a
subordinate sensibility in massed mass, as in the case of those upper-class
people - typically blessed devils - whose principal not-self, the eyes, tends
to encourage a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of the womb.
14. Thus just as the lower-class person, given to
a phenomenal mean, tends to have his/her upper-class 'shadow', sensible if
sensual or sensual if sensible, within the parameters of his/her gender bias,
so the upper-class person, given to a noumenal mean,
tends to have his/her lower-class 'shadow', sensual if sensible or sensible if
sensual, within those same gender-oriented parameters.
15. The sensual woman gets to be a sensible devil
and the sensible devil a sensual woman on a subordinate basis, while the
sensual man gets to be a sensible god and the sensible god a sensual man on a
subordinate basis.
16. Conversely, the sensible woman gets to be a
sensual devil and the sensual devil a sensible woman on a subordinate basis,
while the sensible man gets to be a sensual god and the sensual god a sensible
man on a subordinate basis.
17. Such are the sensual/sensible paradoxes of
life, whether in the individual or in particular types of society, and it just
goes to prove that one is never wholly one thing or another, neither in
phenomenal and lower-class terms, nor in noumenal and
upper-class terms, but a paradoxical alternation between mean and 'shadow'.
18. Were all men equal there would not be a
distinction, often socially institutionalized, between sensuality and
sensibility, as between, say, phallic Heathens and cerebral Christians
(Catholics), and what applies to men in the vegetative context of mass-volume
physics applies no less to women in the watery context of volume-mass
chemistry, where the distinction between sensuality and sensibility is rather
more of the tongue and the womb than of the penis and the brain.
19. Were all gods equal there would not be a
distinction, often socially institutionalized, between sensuality and
sensibility, as between, say, aural Judaists and respiratory Buddhists, and
what applies to gods in the airy context of time-space metaphysics applies no
less to devils in the fiery context of space-time metachemistry,
where the distinction between sensuality and sensibility is rather more of the
eyes and the heart than of the ears and the lungs.
20. None of this precludes the possibility, for
males, of salvation from sensuality to sensibility or, in the case of females,
of damnation from sensuality to sensibility on either a phenomenal or a noumenal basis, depending on their class, though it is
still incontrovertibly the case that 'shadows' will persist in existing on a
sensual basis where sensibility is the mean and that, notwithstanding this,
there are still people and even, in some sense, peoples for whom sensuality
must be accounted the predominant mean and sensibility the subordinate
'shadow'.
LONDON 2000 (Revised 2012)
