Op.
124
OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM VOL.2 –
Incompatibility
of the Intercardinal Axes
Aphoristic
Philosophy
Copyright ©
2013 John O’Loughlin
____________
CONTENTS
01. Debunking
‘Motherfucking’
02. The
Typical Manifestations of Each Intercardinal Point
03. The
Representative Somatic and Psychic
04.
Examining the Relationships between Nature and Genetics and Nurture and Culture
05. Primacy
and Supremacy Revaluated
06. An
Investigation of Positivity and Negativity in relation to ‘Pro’ and ‘Anti’
Elements
07. The
Struggle against Moral Relativism
08. How
‘the First’ will be Last and ‘the Last’ First
09.
Revaluating Gaelic Football and Hurling
10. The
Natural and Cultural Alternatives of Sensuality and Sensibility
11.
Antitheses Exclude, Polarities Attract
12.
Contrasting Left- and Right-wing Values
13. Why
Beauty is not Truth and Truth not Beauty
14. Heat
and Motion vis-à-vis Light and Force
15. The
Incompatibility of Beauty and Truth
16. A Deeper
Analysis of the Relationship between Beauty and Truth
17. An
Analysis of the Relationship between Strength and Knowledge
18. A More
Comprehensive Assessment of Heat, Light, Motion and Force
19.
Contrasting Heat with Light in Sensuality and Sensibility
________________
DEBUNKING ‘MOTHERFUCKING’
Just as the expression 'sonofabitch' is
somewhat logically dubious (as already explained in a previous entry), so is
the expression 'motherfucker' likewise; although used in the sense of someone
who 'fucks' a 'mother', whoever she may be, it undoubtedly makes perfect
sense. But in terms of a position on the intercardinal axial compass -
forget it! Having already identified the position of 'mothers' with
metachemistry in noumenal objectivity and chemistry in phenomenal objectivity,
I can safely say that 'motherfucking' would not be verbally relevant to either,
even if one could, in slang jargon, resort to expressions like
'motherfrigging', and hence 'motherfrigger' in the one case, that of
metachemistry, and 'mothersucking', and hence 'mothersucker', in the other
case, that of chemistry. For 'frigging' and 'sucking' are no less germane
to noumenal and phenomenal objectivity than 'snogging' and 'fucking' to their
sensible counterparts in noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity, where we are
concerned with metaphysics and physics, those male hegemonic realities
identifiable with 'fathers' and 'sons' rather than with 'mothers' or
'daughters'. Obviously one could argue in favour of anti-positions, as it
were, for any hegemonic position, be it sensual or sensible in noumenal or
phenomenal class terms, but even then 'antimothers', for example, would have to
be equated with either 'antifrigging' or 'antisucking', their antimale
counterparts with either 'antisnogging' or 'antifucking'. So, other than
in terms of someone who 'fucks' a 'mother', the expression 'motherfucker' is as
inept as its verbal transmutation, and in no sense to be taken literally.
THE TYPICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF EACH
INTERCARDINAL POINT
Although all four points of our intercardinal
axial compass, viz. northwest, southeast, northeast and southwest, are
divisible between soma and psyche (body and mind) on either a mother/daughter
(coupled to antison/antifather) or a father/son (coupled to antidaugher/antimother)
basis, in practice each point is chiefly characterized by just two such
metaphorical illustrations of soma or psyche, whether free or bound, in
consequence of the prevailing influence, whether unequivocally or equivocally
hegemonic, of the conditioning gender. Hence in the case of metachemistry
over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass
we find a context typified, in primary and secondary vein, by a mother/antison
manifestation of state-hegemonic criteria; in the case of physics and
antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass we find a context
typified, in secondary and primary vein, by a son/antimother manifestation of
state-hegemonic criteria - the overall axial polarity of mother to antimother constitutive
of primary and antison to son secondary state-hegemonic criteria. In the
case of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass, however, we find a context typified, in primary
and secondary vein, by a father/antidaughter manifestation of church-hegemonic
criteria; in the case of chemistry and antiphysics at the southwest point of
the said compass we find a context typified, in secondary and primary vein, by
a daughter/antifather manifestation of church-hegemonic criteria - the overall
axial polarity of father to antifather constitutive of primary and antidaughter
to daughter secondary church-hegemonic criteria (at least in traditional
terms). Hence in overall general terms, mother and antison line up
against antimother and son on the state-hegemonic (but also church-subordinate)
axis, whereas father and antidaughter line up against antifather and daughter
on the church-hegemonic (but also state-subordinate) axis.
THE REPRESENTATIVE SOMATIC AND PSYCHIC
Just as, in the previous entry, we selected the
most representative factor at each point of our intercardinal axis to
exemplify, in general terms, how the four main positions and corresponding
subpositions (of the upended gender) differ from one another, so, on a
like-basis, one can distinguish what could be called the triumph of the will at
the northwest point from the triumph, paradoxically, of antispirit at the
southeast point, and each of these primary state-hegemonic factors from what
could be called the triumph of the soul at the northeast point from the
triumph, paradoxically, of anti-ego at the southwest point, both of which would
accord, in contrast to the above, with primary church-hegemonic factors.
I say 'paradoxically' in relation to the phenomenal points at the southeast and
southwest of our intercardinal axis only because without a corresponding gender
input from the noumenal points forming either a state-hegemonic or a
church-hegemonic antithesis with them at the northwest and northeast points of
the said axis respectively, the equivocally hegemonic factors in the phenomenal
'below' of ego in the case of physics and spirit in the case of chemistry would
have their emphatic way at the expense of the planar underdog, viz.
antichemistry in the case of physics and antiphysics in the case of chemistry,
and neither antispirit in the one case nor anti-ego in the other would be able
to paradoxically establish a primary antithesis with the prevailing
unequivocally hegemonic factor 'on high', in the noumenal 'above', be it will
in the case of metachemistry or soul in the case of metaphysics. But,
traditionally at any rate, such a paradoxical inversion of gender ascendancy
does characterize each of the phenomenal positions only by dint of either state-hegemonic or church-hegemonic axial continuity and
consistency with their respective noumenal counterparts - metachemistry in the
case of antichemistry and metaphysics in the case of antiphysics. Thus
the triumph, at the northwest point of the intercardinal axis, of will is only
sustainable in relation to the paradoxical triumph, at the southeast point of
the said axis, of antispirit, which ensures that upper-class female criteria
take precedence over anything lower class in respect, for example, of
spirit. Conversely, the triumph of soul, at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axis, is only sustainable in relation to the paradoxical triumph,
at the southwest point of the said axis, of anti-ego, which ensures that classless
male criteria take precedence over anything middle class in respect, for
example, of ego. For no less than spirit is the female alternative, in
chemistry, to metachemical will, so ego is the male alternative, in physics, to
metaphysical soul, and neither will nor soul can continue triumphant if spirit
in the one case and ego in the other is able to demonstrably challenge them and
detract from their respective hegemonic claims. Hence upper-class female
criteria triumph at the expense of lower-class female criteria by dint of the
axial link, in polarity, with what could be called anti-lower class criteria,
the antispirit that enables will to unequivocally rule over the state-hegemonic
axis in question. Hence, too, classless male criteria only triumph at the
expense of middle-class male criteria by dint of the axial link, in polarity,
with what could be called anti-middle class criteria, the anti-ego that enables
soul to unequivocally lead the church-hegemonic axis in question.
Although ego in the case of physics and spirit in the case of chemistry are
equivocally hegemonic over their respective subpositions, antispirit in the
case of antichemistry and anti-ego in the case of antiphysics, their hegemony
ceases to effectively apply in relation to axial subversion by antichemistry at
the behest of metachemistry in the case of the state-hegemonic axis and by
antiphysics at the behest of metaphysics in the case of the church-hegemonic
axis. Thus rather than a simple contrast between will and ego on the
state-hegemonic axis, we find that, in axial practice, will and antispirit are
the primary manifestations of state-hegemonic criteria in respect of
metachemistry and antichemistry, their secondary (male) counterparts being in
respect of antimetaphysics and physics, both of which have to be differentiated
from anything church subordinate in parallel relation to antisoul and ego,
whether primary (female) or secondary (male). Likewise, rather than a
simple contrast between soul and spirit on the church-hegemonic axis, we find
that, in axial practice, soul and anti-ego are the primary manifestations of
church-hegemonic criteria in respect of metaphysics and antiphysics, their
secondary (female) counterparts being in respect of antimetachemistry and
chemistry, both of which have to be differentiated from anything state
subordinate in parallel relation to antiwill and spirit, whether primary (male)
or secondary (female). Of course, the inputs into the church-subordinate
or state-subordinate factors on each axis may work out differently in gender
practice from what the parallelism of gender extrapolation from the hegemonic
factors would suggest; but that is incidental to the requirements of logic,
which encourage a parallelism in state and church or church and state, depending
on the axis.
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NATURE AND
GENETICS AND NURTURE AND CULTURE
Today I want to say a few words about the
relationships between nature and genetics on the one hand, and nurture and
culture on the other. For it seems to me that while nature and nurture
are common to all, genetics and culture are more particular or individualistic,
pretty much as the male - as opposed to female - input into both soma and
psyche. Anyway, let us say that while nature is the basis of genetic
modifications, all arms being pretty much alike but each person's arms being
unique to that person alone, so nurture, to move from soma to psyche, is the
basis of culture, since while you can lead a horse to water you can't make him
drink, as the saying goes, and no amount of instruction in reading and writing
will inevitably turn a man, shall we say, into a writer, who is culturally more
than the sum of his nurtured parts, so to speak. But if nature and
nurture are more general than particular, more objective than subjective, then
genetics and culture must owe more, as suggested above, to the male side of
life than to its female side, in view of the extents to which they reflect the
particular subjectively, being the product of individualism. My arm is
not the same as your arm, even though all arms, as products of nature, are
pretty much alike, and the reason for that is genetic inheritance.
Likewise, my thinking is not the same as your thinking, even though all
thoughts, as products of nurture, are pretty similar in their cerebral
fundamentals. Yet the distinction between nature and genetics on the one
hand and nurture and culture on the other would indicate that females have an
input into psyche no less than males into soma, even if on opposite terms such
that we have identified with the general and the particular, nature and nurture
in the case of females and genetics and culture in the case of males, the
former options objectively general, and therefore collective; the latter ones
subjectively particular, and therefore individual, a particle/wavicle dichotomy
between determinism and freedom (which is genetic and/or cultural freedom from
determinism and therefore from nature and/or nurture, according as to whether
somatic or psychic factors are paramount).
PRIMACY AND SUPREMACY REVALUATED
Just as we distinguish between sensual and
sensible, alpha and omega, outer and inner, so we should distinguish between
primal and supreme on a like basis, but with a further distinction between antisupremacy
and antiprimacy, as in antisupremacy under primacy and antiprimacy under
supremacy, the former germane to either noumenal or phenomenal sensuality, the
latter to their sensible counterparts. Hence not only primacy and
supremacy as alpha and omega, but antisupremacy as anti-omega and antiprimacy
as anti-alpha, with something like doing and antibeing lining up in noumenal
sensuality and antisensibility against taking and antigiving in phenomenal
sensibility and antisensuality where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
criteria in respect of a polar antithesis between the northwest and the
southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are concerned, and,
conversely, giving and antitaking lining up in phenomenal sensuality and
antisensibility against being and antidoing in noumenal sensibility and
antisensuality where church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria in
respect of a polar antithesis between the southwest and northeast points of the
intercardinal axial compass are concerned. Hence doing
over antibeing as noumenal primacy over noumenal antisupremacy at the
space/antitime northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, but taking
over antigiving as phenomenal supremacy over phenomenal antiprimacy at the
mass/antivolume southeast point of the said compass. Hence, too,
giving over antitaking as phenomenal primacy over phenomenal antisupremacy at
the volume/antimass southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, but
being over antidoing as noumenal supremacy over noumenal antiprimacy at the
time/antispace northeast point of the said compass. Therefore
metachemical primacy, in noumenally objective doing, over antimetaphysical
antisupremacy, in noumenally antisubjective antibeing, will contrast with
physical supremacy, in phenomenally subjective taking, over antichemical
antiprimacy, in phenomenally anti-objective antigiving, where the
northwest-southeast antithesis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
criteria is concerned, whereas chemical primacy, in phenomenally objective
giving, over antiphysical antisupremacy, in phenomenally antisubjective
antitaking, will contrast with metaphysical supremacy, in noumenally subjective
being, over antimetachemical antiprimacy, in noumenally anti-objective
antidoing, where the southwest-northeast antithesis of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria is concerned. Today the
latter axis is, thanks to the post-worldly prevalence of the former one, much
less prevalent than previously; but its revolutionary overhaul and 'resurrection'
is just a matter of time, and one will then witness a growing trend towards
metaphysical supremacy and antimetachemical antiprimacy as the antiphysical
antisupreme are saved and the chemical primal counter-damned to their
respective gender destinies at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass, leaving their lowly fates at the southwest point of what, under the
influence of contrary axial pressures in post-worldly society, was less
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate than quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate
far behind them.
AN INVESTIGATION OF POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY
IN RELATION TO ‘PRO’ AND ‘ANTI’ ELEMENTS
Formerly, when I wrote about metachemistry over
antimetaphysics vis-à-vis metaphysics over antimetachemistry on the one hand
and, 'down below', chemistry over antiphysics vis-à-vis physics over
antichemistry on the other hand, it was on a basis that was often overly
partial to the inner at the expense of the outer forms of both the sensual and
sensible antitheses. One might have got the impression that beauty and
truth 'hung together' the way that God and the Antidevil were found to do in
metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial compass or, antithetically, that ugliness and illusion did likewise in
respect of the Devil and Antigod at its northwest point. But that would,
I now believe, have been far from the case! For is not metachemistry over
antimetaphysics symptomatic of a plus over a minus, so to speak, with metaphysics
over antimetachemistry likewise exemplifying, as in the contrast between God
and the Antidevil, such a dichotomy? But when we speak of pluses and
minuses we must beware of making a simple positive/negative dichotomy, as
though metachemistry or metaphysics were always positive and their upended
gender counterparts negative. It seems to me that each element, whether
hegemonic or subordinate, as well as whether noumenal (as in the
above-mentioned examples) or phenomenal, is divisible into a positive and a negative,
whether in soma or psyche, and that we should therefore distinguish between
what could be called pro-positive and pro-negative options in the hegemonic
cases from anti-positive and anti-negative options in the cases of the
subordinate elements or, more correctly, anti-elements, as though one were
distinguishing between pro-metachemistry and anti-metaphysics, pro-metaphysics
and anti-metachemistry, as well as, in the phenomenal contexts, between
pro-chemistry and anti-physics, pro-physics and anti-chemistry. For then
one has two approaches, as before, to each element/anti-element, corresponding,
again as before, to soma or psyche, but with a different emphasis depending on
the gender orientation of the element/anti-element concerned. For is not
this distinction between positivity and negativity really one of freedom and
binding? Is not that which is free, whether somatically in sensuality or
psychically in sensibility, positive, compared or, rather, contrasted to
whatever is bound, whether psychically in sensuality or somatically in
sensibility, which then becomes its negative corollary? Let us
investigate this hypothesis today, since I have spent most of the preceding
evening and even much of the night mulling over this problem and have now convinced
myself of its solution. Metachemistry or, better, pro-metachemistry over
anti-metaphysics is the context of free soma and bound psyche on the noumenal
planes of space and anti-time, and therefore we should speak of beauty and love
in connection with pro-metachemical free soma and ugliness and hatred in
connection with pro-metachemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction
between outer and inner sensual modes of pro-metachemical positivity and
negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate
anti-element of anti-illusion and anti-woe in connection with anti-metaphysical
free soma and anti-truth and anti-joy in connection with anti-metaphysical
bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner sensual modes
of anti-metaphysical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of
which may well be quasi-beautiful and quasi-loving while the latter pair are
pseudo-ugly and pseudo-hateful. Be that as it may, metaphysics or,
better, pro-metaphysics over anti-metachemistry is the context of free psyche
and bound soma on the noumenal planes of time and anti-space, and therefore we
should speak of truth and joy in connection with pro-metaphysical free psyche
and illusion and woe in connection with pro-metaphysical bound soma, as though
in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of pro-metaphysical
positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the
subordinate anti-element of anti-ugliness and anti-hate in connection with
anti-metachemical free psyche and anti-beauty and anti-love in connection with
anti-metachemical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and
outer sensible modes of anti-metachemical anti-negativity and anti-positivity,
the former pair of which may well be quasi-truthful and quasi-joyful while the
latter pair are pseudo-illusory and pseudo-woeful. However that may be,
let us briefly turn from the noumenal planes to their phenomenal counterparts,
beginning with chemistry or, better, pro-chemistry over anti-physics in the
context of free soma and bound psyche on the phenomenal planes of volume and
anti-mass, which should lead us to speak of strength and pride in connection
with pro-chemical free soma and weakness and humility in connection with
pro-chemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner
modes of pro-chemical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this
hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-ignorance and
anti-pain in connection with anti-physical free soma and anti-knowledge and
anti-pleasure in connection with anti-physical bound psyche, as though in a
distinction between outer and inner modes of anti-physical anti-negativity and
anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-strong and
quasi-proud while the latter pair are pseudo-weak and pseudo-humble. Be that as
it may, physics or, better, pro-physics over anti-chemistry is the context of
free psyche and bound soma on the phenomenal planes of mass and anti-volume,
and therefore we should speak of knowledge and pleasure in connection with
pro-physical free psyche and ignorance and woe in connection with pro-physical
bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer modes of
pro-physical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic
element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-weakness and anti-humility in
connection with anti-chemical free psyche and anti-strength and anti-pride in
connection with anti-chemical bound soma, as though in a distinction between
inner and outer sensible modes of anti-chemical anti-negativity and
anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-knowledgeable and
quasi-pleasurable while the latter pair are pseudo-ignorant and
pseudo-painful. Consequently we now have distinctions between
pro-positive soma and pro-negative psyche on the one hand and anti-negative
soma and anti-positive psyche on the other in sensuality, whether on the
noumenal or phenomenal planes, which contrast with the distinctions between
pro-positive psyche and pro-negative soma on the one hand and anti-negative
psyche and anti-positive soma on the other in sensibility, again whether on the
noumenal or phenomenal planes. If pro-metachemistry is primarily
pro-positive in relation to the beauty and love of its somatic freedom, it is
also pro-negative in relation to the ugliness and hatred of its psychic
binding; if, correlatively, anti-metaphysics is, under pro-metachemical
pressures, primarily anti-negative in relation to the anti-illusion and anti-woe
of its somatic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-truth
and anti-joy of its psychic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender
subordinate standpoint, one might say an anti-standpoint, the hegemonic point
of view of pro-metachemical
freedom and binding. Conversely, if pro-metaphysics is primarily
pro-positive in relation to the truth and joy of its psychic freedom, it is
also pro-negative in relation to the illusion and woe of its somatic binding;
if, correlatively, anti-metachemistry is primarily, under pro-metaphysical
pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-ugliness and anti-hatred of
its psychic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-beauty
and anti-love of its somatic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender
subordinate anti-point of view, the hegemonic standpoint of
pro-metaphysical freedom and binding. Similarly, if pro-chemistry is
primarily pro-positive in relation to the strength and pride of its somatic
freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the weakness and humility of
its psychic binding; if, correlatively, anti-physics is primarily, under
pro-chemical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-ignorance and
anti-pain of its somatic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the
anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure of its psychic binding, for it inversely
mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-standpoint, the hegemonic point
of view of pro-chemical freedom and binding. Conversely, if
pro-physics is primarily pro-positive in relation to the knowledge and pleasure
of its psychic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the ignorance
and pain of its somatic binding; if, correlatively, anti-chemistry is
primarily, under pro-physical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the
anti-weakness and anti-humility of its psychic freedom, it is also
anti-positive in relation to the anti-strength and anti-pride of its somatic
binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-point
of view, the hegemonic standpoint of pro-physical
freedom and binding. However, being equivocal, the phenomenal hegemonic
positions, as explained often enough by me in the past, are subject to
subversion at the hands of their subordinate counterparts when axial factors
linking the northwest to the southeast or, conversely, the northeast to the
southwest are taken into account; for the switch of emphasis from soma to
psyche in the case of the southwest and from psyche to soma in the case of the
southeast also has to be born in mind, since this is what makes for either
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
continuity and consistency, as determined by the unequivocally hegemonic
elements 'on high'.
THE STRUGGLE AGAINST MORAL RELATIVISM
When I wrote, yesterday, about 'pro' approaches
to positivity and negativity, it soon became evident that each positive
'virtue', if you will, had an attendant 'vice' that was its negative shadow,
and that the division of positivity/negativity into sensual and sensible
hegemonies on either noumenal or phenomenal planes quickly became identified
with a gender distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, appearance and
quantity, so to speak, vis-à-vis quality and essence, as beauty and
love/ugliness and hatred together with strength and pride/weakness and humility
'squared up', as it were, against knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain
together with truth and joy/illusion and woe. Such hegemonic positions,
along with their subordinate 'anti' approaches to positivity and negativity,
meant that there would always be a conflict between sensual, or 'once born',
virtue and sensible, or 'reborn', virtue, as though in a heathen/Christian
struggle between free soma/bound psyche on the one hand and free psyche/bound
soma on the other. Relativity in these matters can be - and often is -
upheld. But those who are more or most committed to 'Christian' criteria
will tend to spurn heathen 'virtue' and, in their fixation on either knowledge
and pleasure/ignorance and pain or truth and joy/illusion and woe, regard the
'once born' alternatives as vicious and therefore as unworthy of Christian
endorsement. Beauty and love/ugliness and hatred are not acceptable from
the standpoint of truth and joy/illusion and woe, since alpha tends to exclude
omega and vice versa on the noumenal planes of space and time, and therefore
the devotees of truth and joy/illusion and woe, who are metaphysical, will tend
to spurn everything associated with beauty and love/ugliness and hate in their
determination to live a godly life, one that, in complete contrast to
metachemical devility, requires an antidevilish corollary in the 'anti'
approaches to positivity and negativity that have been identified with
antimetachemistry and, hence, with anti-beauty and anti-love/anti-ugliness and
anti-hatred such that reflect a noumenal antifemale rejection of noumenal
female criteria and the possibility, in consequence, of deference to noumenal
male hegemonic criteria in metaphysics. Likewise strength and pride/weakness
and humility are not acceptable from the standpoint of knowledge and
pleasure/ignorance and pain, since alpha tends to exclude omega and vice versa
on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, and therefore the devotees of
knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain, who are physical, will tend to spurn
everything associated with strength and pride/weakness and humility in their
determination to live a manly life, one that, in complete contrast to chemical
femininity, requires an antifeminine corollary in the 'anti' approaches to
positivity and negativity that have been identified with antichemistry and,
hence, with anti-strength and anti-pride/anti-weakness and anti-humility such
that reflect a phenomenal antifemale rejection of phenomenal female criteria
and the possibility, in consequence, of deference to phenomenal male hegemonic
criteria in physics. Frankly, beauty and love/ugliness and hatred,
together with their antimetaphysical subordinates, are vicious from a
metaphysical and, by extrapolation, antimetachemical standpoint, since they
heathenistically fly in the face of the sort of noumenally sensible 'reborn'
criteria with which metaphysics in particular is concerned. One might say
that noumenal objectivity and its anti-subjective counterpart is superheathenly
unacceptable from what effectively amounts to a superchristian standpoint and
therefore something to be repudiated and, if possible, defeated.
Similarly strength and pride/weakness and humility, together with their
antiphysical subordinates, are vicious from a physical and, by extrapolation,
antichemical standpoint, since they heathenistically fly in the face of the
sort of phenomenally sensible 'reborn' criteria with which physics in
particular is concerned. One might say that phenomenal objectivity and its
anti-subjective counterpart is heathenly unacceptable from what amounts to a
Christian (puritan) standpoint and therefore something to be repudiated and, if
possible, defeated or, at the very least, avoided, since that which, in Catholicism,
is pegged to its lowly southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass by
some degree, if pseudo, of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at its northeast
point is in no position to repudiate itself except insofar as it accepts a
degree of grace and, for females, punishment through verbal absolution for
confession of its sinful and, for females, pseudo-criminal shortcomings.
However, much as Catholicism would not be able to make such logical
distinctions as I have noted (and not just here but over several years of
writing), it upholds an axial integrity which is at complete variance with the
puritanism of the southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, and even
Christianity, in that puritan sense, has to compete with and acknowledge its axial
polarity at the Anglican northwest point of the said compass which, unlike
Catholicism, is less affiliated to metaphysics and antimetachemistry than -
dare I say it - to their opposites in view of its subordination to
state-hegemonic criteria in relation, more specifically, to the monarchy which,
in Britain, is anything but Roman Catholic in nature! Yet a sensual
phenomenalism to a sensible noumenalism in the case of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria and a sensual noumenalism to a sensible
phenomenalism in the case of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria do not
permit of an unequivocal endorsement of sensible, or 'reborn', criteria, and
therefore there is always a degree of moral relativity at large in Christianity
and, by definition, Western civilization which bedevils any attempt to
establish, at least on Western terms, an entirely Christian, much less
superchristian, moral dispensation. Even the Bible, the so-called
Christian Bible, is torn between Old and New Testaments in response to a degree
of moral relativity which pits the sensual against the sensible, heathen
against Christian criteria, in such fashion that, no matter how much some
people may uphold either knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain or truth and
joy/illusion and woe in sensible defiance of heathen virtue, there will be
others only too ready to uphold their sensual opposites and to do so, moreover,
with Biblical, and particularly Old Testament, sanction. For beauty and
love/ugliness and hate together with strength and pride/weakness and humility
are very much germane to the power and glory, will and spirit, of Old
Testament-based Biblical criteria which, as in the so-called Lord's Prayer,
tends to exclude the form and contentment, ego and soul, of that which makes
for what is fully and properly Christian and even more than Christian in
repudiation of heathen values. Verily, a civilization that is more
worldly than pre-worldly (netherworldly) or post-worldly (otherworldly) can
only uphold moral relativism; for the meat of the female is the poison of the
male and vice versa. Even these days, in what is by all accounts an
American-dominated post-worldly age, it could be said that materialistic and
realistic secularity is less about moral relativism than about an almost
unequivocal endorsement, in the gullible wake of 'feminism', of heathenistic
virtue in the guise if not always of beauty and love/ugliness and weakness,
together with their 'fall guy' antimetaphysical subordinates in anti-truth and
anti-joy/anti-illusion and anti-woe, then of strength and pride/weakness and
humility, together with their 'fall guy' antiphysical subordinates in
anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure/anti-ignorance and anti-pain, such that
antichristically fly in the face of ego and soul as they defer to their
respective mothers whose hegemonic will and spirit, in sensual secularity,
seemingly knows no objective bounds. Hopefully that will not always be the
case, since males (unlike females) cannot live by bread (or circuses) alone,
and a time will surely come when the attempt to establish a morally more
absolutist dispensation will resurrect sensible, if not necessarily Christian,
values and bring to the earth or, more correctly, the antiphysical anti-earthly
and chemical purgatorial the possibility of heavenly and antihellish
deliverance from their lowly plight to the metaphysical and antimetachemical
heights of 'Kingdom Come', wherein truth and joy/illusion and woe, coupled to
the anti-primacy of anti-beauty and anti-love/anti-ugliness and anti-hate, will
reign supreme for ever more, putting a 'Celestial City' coupled to 'Anti-Vanity
Fair' end to all that is ungodly and, more to the point, vainly devilish and
pseudo-meekly antigodly. For the omega, remember, excludes the alpha, and
the triumph of God will ultimately entail the defeat of the Devil and all that
metachemically pertains to beauty and love/ugliness and hatred, not to mention
their antigodly concomitants.
HOW ‘THE FIRST’ WILL BE LAST AND ‘THE LAST’
FIRST
When we take into account our new findings with
regard to the respective points and positions of the intercardinal axial
compass, it soon becomes evident that salvation is from an 'anti' approach to
negativity and positivity to a 'pro' approach to positivity and negativity such
that entails the deliverance of anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure/anti-ignorance
and anti-pain from antiphysics to the truth and joy/illusion and woe of
metaphysics, as from antiphysical bound psyche/free soma (negative/positive) to
metaphysical free psyche/bound soma (positive/negative) in
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms. Correlatively, it soon becomes
evident that counter-damnation is from a 'pro' approach to negativity and
positivity to an 'anti' approach to positivity and negativity such that entails
the deliverance of weakness and humility/strength and pride from chemistry to
the anti-ugliness and anti-hate/anti-beauty and anti-love of antimetachemistry,
as from chemical bound psyche/free soma (negative/positive) to antimetachemical
free psyche/bound soma (positive/negative) in
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms. Therefore there is a very real
sense in which 'the first' in chemistry shall be 'last' in antimetachemistry,
and 'the last' in antiphysics 'first' in metaphysics. For while males are
transposed or transfigured from an 'anti' approach to bound psyche/free soma in
consequence of having been upended under feminine female hegemonic pressure at
the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to a 'pro' approach to
free psyche/bound soma in sync with male gender actuality (of psyche preceding
and preponderating over soma) at the metaphysical northeast point of the said
compass, their female counterparts will be transposed or transfigured from a
'pro' approach to bound psyche/free soma in consequence of an equivocal
hegemony in chemistry subject, however, to subversion at the hands of
antiphysics linked, in polar vein, to some degree of metaphysics at the
northeast point of the said compass to an 'anti' approach to free psyche/bound
soma at cross-purposes with female gender actuality (of soma preceding and
predominating over psyche) in consequence of divine male hegemonic pressure in
metaphysics. It is not that the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass is overly heathen in its want of gender subversion; for somatic
emphasis at the expense of psychic emphasis is not encouraged by a link, no
matter how polar, with the northeast point of the said compass; rather, when
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria are properly in motion (as they are
not, incidentally, in the quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate secularized
present of deference to contrary axial pressures) somatic freedom is
subordinated, paradoxically, to psychic binding (which appertains to the
church) and the latter is very decidedly the precondition, for males, of
salvation to free psyche in the aforementioned metaphysical heights, as though
from sin to grace and, on somatic and therefore state-subordinate terms, from
folly to wisdom, the overall deliverance being from meekness to
righteousness. Not so, however, for females, whose counter-damnation is
from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment in psyche (bound to free) and from
pseudo-evil to pseudo-goodness in soma (free to bound), the overall deliverance
being from pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice, bearing in mind that the vain and
the just converse of anything pseudo and, by a like token, pseudo-meek and
pseudo-righteous converse of anything genuine (or approximately so) appertains
to the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, where we only have a right to
speak of damnation from vanity to punishment and of counter-salvation from
pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness, and then only on condition that the
salvation of the meek and counter-damnation of the pseudo-vain is so radically
permanent ... that the vain and pseudo-meek are effectively put out of
predatory business for want of pseudo-vain and meek prey down at the southwest
point of the intercardinal axial compass. All this has been described by
me, in some detail, before, so I shall not belabour the point again. What
ultimately matters from the standpoint of godliness and what could be called
the anti-point of view of antidevilishness at the northeast point of our axial
compass is that the antimanly and womanly are saved and counter-damned from
their lowly positions, in subverted heathenism, at the southwest point to
something approaching divine and antidiabolic superchristianity at its
northeast point, without which no end to their exploitation at the hands of the
predatory superheathen can be envisaged and no collapse, in consequence, of the
secular fruit of schismatic heresy from northwest to southeast, as though into
the hands of the subverted Christian who, in judging the damned and
counter-saved according to their own just and pseudo-righteous criteria, will
subsequently have the benefit of axial transference and the long-term
possibility of salvation and counter-damnation in due course.
REVALUATING GAELIC FOOTBALL AND HURLING
For years I thought Gaelic football superior to
hurling as though it were the higher of the two Irish sports and the one that
stood at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as against the
southwest in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms. But
subsequent reflection led me to revaluate this assumption and to perceive that
while both games allowed for a point over the bar, hurling was more
consistently the game in which the player was expected to keep the ball or,
rather, sliothar off the ground with the use of his hurley, the hockey- if not
club-like stick, and therefore, when other factors had been taken into account,
including the hurley itself, I came to believe that hurling stood in axial
polarity to Gaelic football in reverse terms to how I had supposed in the
past. But that does not make me pro-hurling. On the contrary, I
perceive in the hurley a parallel with Devil the Mother hyped as God which has
the idealism, as it were, of a transcendent point over the bar 'by the balls'
in the sense that such a point stems from a materialistic precondition in the
hurley itself. Therefore there seems to me to be something
quintessentially Catholic in the noumenal context of the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass which, despite rhetoric to the contrary, is still
subject to the metachemical fundamentalism and, more to the point, materialism
of its northwest point in typically alpha-stemming, Old-Testament deferring,
extrapolative fashion. I am suspicious of this hurley materialism, and I
feel that it could not be endorsed in a context led by a more complete and
genuine order of metaphysics that sought to dispose of everything metachemical
(not to mention antimetaphysical) as it enhanced the northeast point of our
intercardinal axial compass in the interests of a more complete and permanent
gender-based salvation and counter-damnation of those at its southwest point,
who, in the relativity of these things, may well be more given to Gaelic
football than to hurling. An aspect of raising the lowly up to a position
of paramount metaphysics (and for females antimetachemistry) would be the
indoor interiorization of sport, not least in respect of Gaelic football, and I
feel that while Gaelic could be interiorized with benefit to all who both play
and watch it, hurling, corresponding to the Roman Catholic noumenal status quo,
would be less suited to such a transfiguration in view of the much greater
noise that would surely result from the utilization of hurleys in an indoor
context. But if Gaelic football was raised up in such fashion, then it
would not be long before everything traditionally
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate in Ireland was adversely affected to a
degree whereby rugby, the higher, or noumenal, British sport was brought
crashing down to association football and football itself was deemed eligible
for axial transposition and subsequent elevation in the wake of Gaelic
football. In the end, only something approximating to football, and then
to Gaelic football, duly transmuted, would exist, as though in parallel with
the triumph of everything godly and antidevilish at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass. Now such a hypothesis may seem wildly
fanciful and even a little crazy, but it only follows the general inter-axial
schema of salvation and counter-damnation, damnation and counter-salvation
already outlined in my writings and therefore parallels, in some degree, that
more politically- and religiously-oriented sequence of events which I equate
with moral and cultural progress. It may be that, in the event of a
credible approximation to 'Kingdom Come' ever coming to pass,
no sport will be given all that much encouragement. But that sounds
somewhat idealistic and, as it were, too dismissive of reality and the slowness
and difficulty with which significantly meaningful change can be
engineered. If some accommodation with the sporting status quo has to be
made, then what I have outlined above may not, after all, be that far off the
provisional mark, even if, long term, the prospects for any physical sport
surviving could not be too great. If the lowly are to be raised up, as
from southwest to northeast of the intercardinal axial compass, then those who
are already representative of the noumenal heights will have to be if not cast
down then, at the very least, removed and invalidated, since you can no more
establish an ideology like Social Theocracy without getting rid, in due course,
of everything Catholic than bring the Gaelic footballers to indoor salvation/counter-damnation
without getting rid of that which is so obviously rooted in materialism and,
hence, an outdoor allegiance which apparently goes all the way back, on
sublimated terms, to Old Testament fundamentalism. Gaelic football and
hurling, like rugby and association football in Britain, have their respective
political and religious adherents in Ireland, and it would come as no surprise
to me to discover that, when push comes to shove, a blue shirt stands behind
every hurler that would be quick to pounce, in defence of hierarchical values,
on radical republicanism. I am not, of course, a radical republican in
that obviously Sinn Fein sense, but I do subscribe to an overhaul or, rather,
to the supersession of Catholic tradition on my own rather more elevated
metaphysical and antimetachemical terms, for which a democratic mandate of the
concept of religious sovereignty would be required. For unless a
paradoxical election or utilization of the democratic process in Eire does
transpire at some future date, there can be no deliverance of the people not
just from Catholic tradition but from that which has effectively consigned such
a tradition to an obsolescent status in the background of contemporary
American-inspired materialism, making them less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
than deferentially quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-state-subordinate in a
paradoxical limbo from which they can only be delivered via the successful
prosecution of a contrary order of paradox such that, in the event of a
majority mandate, would signify the dawn of a new order of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria commensurate, in Social
Theocracy, with 'Kingdom Come', and thus with the restitution of salvation and
counter-damnation on terms which, being synthetically artificial, owed nothing
to Catholicism and everything to its globally universal successor.
THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL ALTERNATIVES OF
SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY
Just as the distinction between the noumenal
and the phenomenal is one of space/time vis-à-vis volume/mass, and therefore of
the ethereal vis-à-vis the corporeal, whether in sensuality or in sensibility,
so we have made distinctions between metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the
northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, between metaphysics and
antimetachemistry at its northeast point, between chemistry and antiphysics at
its southwest point and between physics and antichemistry at its southeast
point, this overall framework further divided into two distinct axes,
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate from southwest to northeast, and
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate from northwest to southeast. Another
way of defining these noumenal and phenomenal distinctions is to differentiate
the noumenal from the phenomenal on the basis of 'super' from 'non-super'
(standard), with the sensual differentiated from the sensible on a
heathen/Christian-like basis which is commensurate with a distinction between
nature and culture, 'once born' and 'reborn' criteria. Hence at the
sensual northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass we shall find that
metachemistry is both superheathen and supernatural in its female-based
noumenally objective hegemony (unequivocal), whereas antimetaphysics, its
subordinate antimale counterpart, is effectively anti-superchristian and
anti-supercultural in its noumenal anti-subjectivity. Down from noumenal
sensuality, the sensuality of chemistry at the southwest point of the said
compass will be both heathen and natural in its female-based phenomenally
objective hegemony (equivocal), whereas antiphysics, its subordinate antimale
counterpart, will be anti-Christian and anti-cultural in its phenomenal
anti-subjectivity. Across the axial divide to the sensibility of the
southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, it soon becomes evident
that physics will be both Christian and cultural in its phenomenally subjective
male-centred hegemony (equivocal), whereas antichemistry, its subordinate
antifemale counterpart, will be anti-heathen and anti-natural in its phenomenal
anti-objectivity. Finally, the sensibility of metaphysics at the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass will be both superchristian
and supercultural in its male-centred noumenally subjective hegemony
(unequivocal), whereas antimetachemistry, its subordinate antifemale
counterpart, will be anti-superheathen and anti-supernatural in its noumenal
anti-objectivity. Hence a noumenal antithesis, across
the axial divide, between metachemistry and metaphysics, supernatural
superheathenism and supercultural superchristianity, with their subordinate
counterparts antimetaphysics and antimetachemistry constitutive of an
antithesis between anti-supercultural anti-superchristianity and
anti-supernatural anti-superheathenism. Hence, too, a phenomenal antithesis,
across the axial divide, between chemistry and physics, natural heathenism and
cultural Christianity, with their subordinate counterparts antiphysics and
antichemistry constitutive of an antithesis between anti-cultural
anti-Christianity and anti-natural anti-heathenism. Of course, the
existence, at least traditionally, of inter-class polarity between the noumenal
and phenomenal manifestations of either axis is enough to ensure that neither
the heathen or anti-Christian on the one hand nor the Christian or anti-heathen
on the other hand have it entirely their own way, since the anti-Christian
antiphysical can be saved, as we have seen, to superchristian metaphysics and,
correlatively, the heathen chemical counter-damned to anti-superheathen
antimetachemistry. Likewise, if conversely, the superheathen metachemical
can be damned, in the event of the other axis getting its act thoroughly
together, to anti-heathen antichemistry and, correlatively, the
anti-superchristian antimetaphysical counter-saved to Christian physics.
But that is to project into a potentially post-axial future, and does not take
into account the influence of contemporary secularity on each axis, not least
the traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate one, which is in want of
the possibility of substantive salvation and counter-damnation in view of the
obsolescence of Catholic tradition vis-à-vis the burgeoning plethora of
exemplifications of somatic licence of a synthetically artificial nature which
seduce the chemical and antiphysical from their axial traditions into
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference to the prevailing
ethos. Yet somatic freedom and its corollary of psychic binding are only
germane to the female-dominated sensual points of the intercardinal axial
compass, namely metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest and
chemistry over antiphysics at the southwest, and will always be in opposition
to that which strives to establish a cultural and christianly alternative to
heathenistic naturalism, be it 'super' in the noumenal 'above' or 'non-super'
(standard) in the phenomenal 'below'. The male-led struggle for psychic
freedom and its corollary of somatic binding can not now be Christian but only
superchristian, since it is only from the vantage-point of an unequivocal male
hegemony (over antimetachemistry) in sensibility that meaningful deliverance of
the antiphysical and chemical from their lowly positions at the southwest point
of the intercardinal axial compass can ultimately be effected, and for that to
transpire nothing short of a democratically-mandated Social Theocratic
revolution in certain countries, including Eire, will suffice, since the
restoration of the people to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria
cannot be established on anything short of a basis capable of levelling with
and eventually countering everything that now rains down upon them, in
contemporary synthetically artificial terms, from the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vantage-point of the northwest point of the
said compass. If their paradoxical predicament of
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference is to be countered it
will take the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to do so, and
that will spell the end not only of heathenism in either of its principal class
manifestations, but of everything that falls short of the superchristian
requirement for the hegemonic establishment, on a Social Theocratic basis, of
superculture and, subordinately to this, of an anti-superheathenism which will
be the anti-supernatural corollary, in antidevilish antimetachemistry, of the
triumph of metaphysics and, thus, of God.
ANTITHESES EXCLUDE, POLARITIES ATTRACT
Appearance excludes essence and vice versa to
what, on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace, amounts to
something like an absolute degree, viz. 3:1, since either beauty and love
(coupled to ugliness and hatred) triumph over anti-illusion and anti-woe
(coupled to anti-truth and anti-joy) in the unequivocal hegemony of
metachemistry over antimetaphysics or, across the sensual/sensible noumenal
divide, truth and joy (coupled to illusion and woe) triumph over anti-ugliness
and anti-hatred (coupled to anti-beauty and anti-love) in the unequivocal
hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry. Similarly quantity
excludes quality and vice versa to what, on the phenomenal planes of
volume/antimass and mass/antivolume, amounts to something like a relative
degree, viz. 2½:1½, since either strength and pride (coupled to weakness and
humility) triumph over anti-ignorance and anti-pain (coupled to anti-knowledge
and anti-pleasure) in the equivocal hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics or,
across the sensual/sensible phenomenal divide, knowledge and pleasure (coupled
to ignorance and pain) triumph over anti-weakness and anti-humility (coupled to
anti-strength and anti-pride) in the equivocal hegemony of physics over
antichemistry. Hence no more than metachemistry is acceptable from a
metaphysical standpoint ... can chemistry be acceptable from a physical
standpoint. The one gender's hegemony necessarily excludes the other's. However, the modification of the phenomenal
positions attendant upon a polar link with the noumenal ones germane to a given
axis ensures that, at any rate traditionally, the equivocal triumphs of
chemistry over antiphysics and of physics over antichemistry are subverted in
favour of psychic emphasis in the one case and somatic emphasis in the other,
thereby resulting in a paradoxical upending of hegemonic priorities in favour
of the underplane position, be it antimale in the case of antiphysics or
antifemale in the case of antichemistry. For on this basis - and this
basis alone - is axial continuity and consistency guaranteed, whether with
regard to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria or, in complete contrast,
to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Hence the polarity of
metachemistry and antichemistry is one of beauty and love (coupled to ugliness
and hatred) vis-à-vis anti-strength and anti-pride (coupled to anti-weakness
and anti-humility) on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with
the polarity between antimetaphysics and physics being one of anti-illusion and
anti-woe (coupled to anti-truth and anti-joy) vis-à-vis ignorance and pain
(coupled to knowledge and pleasure) on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms. Hence, across the axial divide,
the polarity of metaphysics and antiphysics is one of truth and joy (coupled to
illusion and woe) vis-à-vis anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure (coupled to
anti-ignorance and anti-pain) on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
terms, with the polarity between antimetachemistry and chemistry being one of
anti-ugliness and anti-hatred (coupled to anti-beauty and anti-love) vis-à-vis
weakness and humility (coupled to strength and pride) on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms. Noumenal free soma (coupled to
noumenal bound psyche) excludes noumenal free psyche (coupled to noumenal bound
soma) and vice versa, but noumenal free soma vis-à-vis phenomenal bound soma
constitutes state-hegemonic criteria and noumenal bound psyche vis-à-vis
phenomenal free psyche church-subordinate criteria, whether on primary or
secondary, female or male, terms. Conversely, phenomenal free soma
(coupled to phenomenal bound psyche) excludes phenomenal free psyche (coupled
to phenomenal bound soma) and vice versa, but noumenal free psyche vis-à-vis
phenomenal bound psyche constitutes church-hegemonic criteria and noumenal
bound soma vis-à-vis phenomenal free soma state-subordinate criteria, whether
on primary or secondary, male or female, terms.
CONTRASTING LEFT- AND RIGHT-WING VALUES
Having categorically established a
sensual/sensible antithesis between heathen and Christian values, whether
noumenal and 'super' or phenomenal and 'standard', I should like to politicize
the issue, so to speak, by making what seems a commonsense distinction between
the left-wing nature of everything heathen and the right-wing nature of
everything Christian, so that the dichotomy between, for instance, superheathen
and superchristian on the noumenal planes and between heathen and christian on
the phenomenal planes assumes a left/right distinction which will be either
'extreme' or 'moderate', depending on the plane. Hence the extreme
left-wing nature of metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass has to be contrasted with the extreme right-wing nature of
metaphysics at its northeast point. Hence, too, the moderate left-wing
nature of chemistry at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass
has to be contrasted with the moderate right-wing nature of physics at its
southeast point. So far so good! The heathen side of things is, in
general terms, sensual and the Christian side of them sensible, which boils down to an objective/subjective distinction between
left- and right-wing criteria. The heathen is also, be it not forgotten,
of a female and therefore naturalistic character, whether supernaturally so in
metachemistry or naturally so in chemistry, pretty much like fire and water,
and thus contrasts with whatever is of a cultural character, whether culturally
so in physics or superculturally so in metaphysics, as germane to
male-dominated Christian criteria having more to do with vegetation (earth) and
air than with their elemental opposites. But, as we have seen before,
things are not just equivocally or unequivocally hegemonic at the main points
of the intercardinal axial compass, with 'pro' approaches to positivity and negativity,
freedom and binding (as discussed in a previous blog). There are also
subordinate points germane to the upended gender to be considered, and those
points, whether antimetaphysical at the northwest, antiphysical at the
southwest, antichemical at the southeast, or antimetachemical at the northeast,
also require to be addressed in terms that do ample justice to their 'anti'
approaches to positivity and negativity, freedom and binding (as also discussed
in a previous blog). For that which is antimetaphysical is less
supernatural than anti-supercultural and therefore we have a duty to regard it
less as a manifestation of the Extreme Left than as one of what could be called
the Extreme Anti-Right, as though in a distinction between noumenal objectivity
in metachemistry and noumenal anti-subjectivity in antimetaphysics.
Likewise that which is antiphysical is less natural than anti-cultural and
therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the moderate
left than as one of what could be called the moderate anti-right, as though in
a distinction between phenomenal objectivity in chemistry and phenomenal
anti-subjectivity in antiphysics. Across the sensual/sensible axial
divide, that which is antichemical is less cultural than anti-natural and
therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the moderate
right than as one of what could be called the moderate anti-left, as though in
a distinction between phenomenal subjectivity in physics and phenomenal
anti-objectivity in antichemistry. Finally that which is antimetachemical
is less supercultural than anti-supernatural and therefore we have a duty to
regard it less as a manifestation of the Extreme Right than as one of what
could be called the Extreme Anti-Left, as though in a distinction between
noumenal subjectivity in metaphysics and noumenal anti-objectivity in
antimetachemistry. Hence no less than superheathen and
anti-superchristian values hang together in devilish and antigodly vein at the
northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so does that which is
Extreme Left and Extreme Anti-Right. Hence no less than heathen and
anti-christian values hang together in womanly and antimanly vein at the
southwest point of the said compass, so does that which is moderate left and
moderate anti-right. Conversely, no less than Christian (puritan) and
anti-heathen values hang together in manly and antiwomanly vein at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, so does that which is
moderate right and moderate anti-left. Finally, no less than
superchristian and anti-superheathen values hang together in godly and
antidevilish vein at the northeast point of the said compass, so does that
which is Extreme Right and Extreme Anti-Left. There is no point on this
intercardinal compass which is only this or that, in noumenal extreme or
phenomenal moderate terms. The genders always hang together at the
various points of the said compass, but always in terms of the upending of the
one gender under the hegemonic pressures of the other gender, be it female in
sensuality or male in sensibility, so that both positions at any given point of
the compass have to be considered and granted due articulation. In
general terms, the Left would no more be capable of remaining in hegemonic
positions without the complicity of the Anti-Right than the Right without the
complicity of the Anti-Left. Therefore I have no doubt that the
complicity of the Extreme Anti-Left is crucial to the hegemonic sway of the
Extreme Right, since that which is godly in its superchristian and
supercultural resolve cannot prevail unless all that is devilish has been
antimetachemically repudiated in an anti-superheathen and anti-supernatural
complementarity which is the antidevilish accomplice of godliness and, hence,
of the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass. Without such a hegemony,
however, antimetachemistry is inconceivable.
WHY BEAUTY IS NOT TRUTH AND TRUTH NOT BEAUTY
Since nothing is more alpha and omega than
beauty and truth, it stands to reason that beauty is no more equivalent to
truth than truth to beauty. But there will still be people who
paradoxically prefer to regard beauty in terms of outer truth and truth in
terms of inner beauty. Are they wrong? I mean, does the concept of
'outer essence' make any more sense than 'inner appearance'? For
appearance and essence are certainly commensurate with alpha and omega on the
noumenal planes of space and time. Why, then, do certain people persist
in regarding beauty and truth in such paradoxical terms? I think part, if
not all, of the answer to that question must be: they are endeavouring to
compensate for the absence of authentic truth and/or beauty from their lives or
social experiences. And that suggests that the principal kind of people
who indulge in such paradoxical estimations of beauty and truth are more likely
to be of the upended gender in relation to each antithetical position than of
the hegemonic gender. In other words, they are more likely to be
antimales in the case of beauty and antifemales in the case of truth, the
former antimetaphysically subordinate to a metachemical hegemony favouring
beauty, the latter antimetachemically subordinate to a metaphysical hegemony
favouring truth. Hence those who, in antimetaphysics, are anti-truth
(among other related things, including joy) may well prefer to regard beauty as
outer truth if not, in plain terms, truth. Those, on the other hand, who,
in antimetachemistry, are anti-beauty (among other related things, including
love) may well prefer to regard truth as inner beauty if not, in plain terms,
beauty. For each type of upended position is lacking in either truth
proper or beauty proper, neither of which owes anything to beauty or truth.
In fact, beauty is so much outer heat that it is completely incompatible with
inner light, which is truth. Outer light may be a kind of outer truth in
the absence of truth proper and inner heat a kind of inner beauty in the
absence of beauty proper, but it is as illogical to identify outer heat with
the one as inner light with the other, especially since the emphasis will fall
somatically on what could, with reservations, be called the outer form of
illusion in the one case and psychically on what, with equal reservations,
could be called the inner form of ugliness in the other case, the former under
hegemonic female pressures in metachemistry and the latter under hegemonic male
pressures in metaphysics. That said, it is
precisely the absence of truth from antimetaphysics that makes the hegemonic
rule of beauty possible and, conversely, the absence of beauty from
antimetachemistry that makes the hegemonic lead of truth possible. The
hegemonic meat of the one gender is the subordinate poison of the other.
HEAT AND MOTION VIS-À-VIS LIGHT AND FORCE
Females, corresponding to the element of fire,
are more heat than light and males, corresponding to the element of air, more
light than heat, whether in outer or inner, sensual or sensible terms.
But that is only on the noumenal planes of, to speak generally, space and
time. It does not apply to the phenomenal planes of volume and mass
where, by contrast, females, corresponding to the element of water, are more
motion than force and males, corresponding to the element of vegetation
(earth), more force than motion, whether in outer or inner, sensual or sensible
terms. Hence a class distinction - never absolute however - between those
more given, in space and time, to heat and light and, down below, those more
given, in volume and mass, to motion and force, as though in a further
distinction between will and soul on the noumenal planes and spirit and ego on
the phenomenal ones. But if, in overall terms, females are more heat and
motion, will and spirit, fire and water, than males and males, by contrast,
more light and force, soul and ego, air and vegetation (earth) than females,
then the genders are forever at loggerheads in a confrontation between heat and
light on the one hand and motion and force on the other hand, neither of which
are complementary. For, in sensuality, heat will get
the better of light as metachemistry of antimetaphysics while, down below on
the phenomenal planes, motion will get the better of force as chemistry of
antiphysics. Conversely, in sensibility, force will get the better
of motion as physics of antichemistry, while, up above on the noumenal planes,
light will get the better of heat as metaphysics of antimetachemistry.
But while this is unequivocally so on the noumenal planes it tends, with axial
interrelativity, to be only equivocally so on the phenomenal ones, where the
hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics can be subverted to psychic emphasis at
the behest of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on the one hand
and, across the axial divide, the hegemony of physics over antichemistry can be
subverted to somatic emphasis at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over
antimetaphysics on the other hand, as explained in previous entries and,
indeed, in the pre-blog philosophy, as it were, of Opera D'Oeuvre.
However that may be, the broad distinction between heat and motion as
representatively female and light and force as representatively male continues
to hold true, and whether females get the better of males or males of females
will determine the nature of society and the kinds of ideals or virtues which
tend to prevail. Outer heat over outer light will make for a situation in
which beauty (to stress the somatic virtue alone), with metachemistry, is
unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of truth proper with
antimetaphysics, appearance triumphant over what could be called
anti-essence. Inner light over inner heat, on the other hand, will make
for a situation in which truth (to stress the psychic virtue alone), with metaphysics,
is unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of beauty proper with
antimetachemistry, essence triumphant over what could be called
anti-appearance. Down below, on the phenomenal planes, outer motion over
outer force will make for a situation in which strength (to stress the somatic
virtue alone), with chemistry, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of
knowledge proper with antiphysics, quantity triumphant over what could be
called anti-quality. Inner force over inner motion, on the other hand,
will make for a situation in which knowledge (to stress the psychic virtue
alone), with physics, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of strength
proper with antichemistry, quality triumphant over what could be called
anti-quantity. But, in overall class terms, heat and motion are no less
incommensurate on the female side of the gender divide than force and light on
its male side. Metachemistry excludes chemistry and vice versa, while, in
sensibility, physics excludes metaphysics and vice versa. While it could
be said that there is something of everything in everyone, it cannot be
maintained that everyone has the same degree of everything in them, and
therefore class and ethnic distinctions persist which harden into both axial
polarities and, across the axial divide, antipathies and antagonisms which
foster axial exclusivity and mutual incompatibility.
THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF BEAUTY AND TRUTH
Some say that beauty is truth and truth beauty,
but they couldn't be more wrong. Beauty and love, which hang together like will
and spirit in metachemistry, are a product of noumenally objective appearances,
whereas truth and joy, which hang together like ego and soul in metaphysics,
are the product of noumenally subjective essences. Thus there is all the
difference between alpha and omega, appearance and essence, between beauty and
truth, love and joy, and incompatible they remain. Either you defer to the
outer heat of metachemical free soma or, in rejecting it,
you cultivate the inner light of metaphysical free psyche. The one is
absolutely female, the other absolutely male. Outer heat is as incompatible
with inner light as spatial space with repetitive time, for space and time are
absolutely antithetical, like alpha and omega. But outer heat can rule the
outer mode of time, which I call antitime, and equate with an antimetaphysical
subjection to the spatial space of metachemistry which takes the form of
sequential time. Contrariwise, inner light can rule ('lead' would probably be
too soft a term here, at least in relation to gender differentials) the inner
mode of space, which I call antispace, and equate with an antimetachemical
subjection to the repetitive time of metaphysics which takes the form of spaced
space. Either females get the better of males, who
become antimale, or males the better of females, who become antifemale. Yet to
the truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well seem
like truth, for it is what rules him and keeps him in subjection to its
metachemical appearance. Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, truth
may well seem like beauty to the beauty-rejecting female, the antimetachemical
antifemale, since it is what rules over her and keeps her in subjection to its
metaphysical essence. Lacking truth proper, which is inner, the
antimetaphysical antimale may well project his sense of truth onto beauty and
convince himself that beauty is truth. Lacking beauty
proper, which is outer, the antimetachemical antifemale may well project her
sense of beauty onto truth and convince herself that truth is beauty. Neither
one of them is correct. There is no more any such thing as outer truth than
there is inner beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer. The worship of beauty is only possible because of the
absence of truth, while, conversely, the worship of truth is only possible
because of the absence of beauty. It is the absence of truth from the
antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical beauty
possible to them and the absence of beauty from the antimetachemical
antifemales, conversely, that makes the worship of metaphysical truth possible
to them, albeit in both cases
the worship of the ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not to be equated with that
factor as such, but is only a symptom of subjection. Beauty does not worship
itself but projects itself objectively as a metachemical expression of spatial
space, which is the appearance of outer heat. Neither does truth worship itself
because, being intensely subjective, it is a metaphysical impression of
repetitive time, which is the essence of inner light. Space and time are as
incompatible as appearance and essence, and therefore beauty is never truth nor truth ever beauty. Beauty rules over the antitruth want
of truth as space over antitime, spatial appearance over sequential
anti-essence, while, conversely, truth rules over the antibeauty want of beauty
as time over antispace, repetitive essence over spaced anti-appearance. Either
the noumenally objective heat of metachemistry rules over the noumenally
antisubjective antilight of antimetaphysics as Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial
City or, across the upper-order planes of what is an axial divide, the
noumenally subjective light of metaphysics rules over the noumenally
anti-objective antiheat of antimetachemistry as the Celestial City over
Anti-Vanity Fair. You can't have it both ways, for you cannot be simultaneously
superheathen and/or anti-superchristian and superchristian and/or anti-superheathen.
Yet the latter is much harder, much more difficult, of attainment than the
former, which is everywhere the alpha rather than the omega of civilization and
therefore that which is most basic and, at certain epochs (of which the present
is a case in point), by far the more prevalent. In fact, so much is this
now the case that one might well consider truth (as a precondition of joy) to
be 'beyond the pale' and, to all intents and purposes, extraneous to
contemporary civilization. For it is beauty and the worship of beauty
which rules the roost, as it were, and keeps people in subjection to
appearances and, hence, to the female domination of society. The struggle
for truth is there to be waged, but it will be a long and complicated struggle
which only a select few, identifying with metaphysics, will be able to
wage. For the enemy, for them, is not strength principally, nor even
knowledge, but beauty, and therefore all that, being apparent, is most contrary
to essence. Hitherto this has been equated with God but, in truth, it is
the very devil, the devil not of Satan or any other equivalent antigodly 'fall
guy' for sanctimonious denigration from the spatial 'on high', but of that
metachemical 'first mover' which is Devil the Mother hyped as God and the
ruler, in consequence, of those antigodly antisons - and hence antichrists -
whose want of metaphysical truth keeps them as much in somatic subjection to
the twin evils of beauty and love as their antifatherly counterparts in psychic
subjection to the twin crimes of ugliness and hate, crimes which issue from the
psychic binding of the Daughter of the Devil to the somatic freedom of Devil
the Mother, as of a noumenally subordinate church to a noumenally hegemonic
state, the former of which negatively acquiesces, through fundamentalism, in
the materialistic liberties of the latter, whose positivity is bounded only by
the limits of its own somatic licence.
A DEEPER ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
BEAUTY AND TRUTH
Carrying on from yesterday and the previous
entries, I can say for sure that the relationship between, for instance, beauty
and truth is more complex than might at first seem to be the case. For it
cannot be denied that the mutual exclusivity of these two ideals, the one
superheathen and the other superchristian, ensures that their hegemonic rule is
always at the expense of each other, not in partnership. Yet, even so, it
is plausible to suppose that the absence of truth in the context of
metaphysical sensuality, or antimetaphysics, with specific regard to bound
psyche, is compensated by a sense of outer truth, which is somatically
deferential to beauty, while, conversely, the absence of beauty in the context
of metachemical sensibility, or antimetachemistry, with specific regard to
bound soma, is compensated by a sense of inner beauty, which is psychically
deferential to truth. Put another way, if antimetaphysics is antitruth in
bound psyche and anti-illusion in free soma, it will have the capacity, as
though by paradoxical compensation, for outer truth in free soma and inner
illusion in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly
appertains to metaphysics, where, by contrast, truth is inner in free psyche
and illusion outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner aspects of antimetaphysics
are sensual and the inner and outer aspects of metaphysics sensible.
Similarly, if antimetachemistry is antibeauty in bound soma and anti-ugliness
in free psyche, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical
compensation, for inner beauty in free psyche and outer ugliness in bound soma,
the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to metachemistry,
where, by contrast, beauty is outer in free soma and ugliness inner in bound
psyche, albeit the inner and outer aspects of antimetachemistry are
sensible and the outer and inner aspects of metachemistry sensual.
If all this is so, then being outer and inner, somatically free and psychically
bound, is the sensual norm and being inner and outer, psychically free and somatically
bound, the sensible one, the former ruled by soma and the latter led by
psyche. Metachemistry is both outer and inner in free soma and bound
psyche, beauty and ugliness, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over
antimetaphysics, which is again outer in free soma and inner in bound psyche,
the anti-illusion of the former fostering a capacity for outer truth and the
antitruth of the latter a capacity for inner illusion. Conversely,
metaphysics is both inner and outer in free psyche and bound soma, truth and illusion,
and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antimetachemistry, which is again
inner in free psyche and outer in bound soma, the anti-ugliness of the former
fostering a capacity for inner beauty and the antibeauty of the latter a
capacity for outer ugliness. Thus, in overall metachemical terms, what is
sensually beautiful in free soma is sensibly ugly in bound soma, while what is
sensually ugly in bound psyche is sensibly beautiful in free psyche.
Likewise, in overall metaphysical terms, what is sensibly true in free psyche
is sensually illusory in bound psyche, while what is sensibly illusory in bound
soma is sensually true in free soma. But inner beauty is no more genuine
beauty from the standpoint of somatic sensuality than outer truth genuine truth
from the standpoint of psychic sensibility. Nor, by extrapolation, would
outer ugliness be genuine ugliness from the standpoint of psychic sensuality
any more than inner illusion genuine illusion from the standpoint of somatic
sensibility. Somatic beauty and psychic ugliness hang together in
sensuality no less than psychic truth and somatic illusion in sensibility, but
they do so as the genuine articles, not as their pseudo counterparts in
antimetachemistry and antimetaphysics where, in the one case, psychic beauty
and somatic ugliness sensibly hang together while, in the other case, somatic
truth and psychic illusion sensually hang together. For where genuine
beauty is somatic genuine ugliness will be its psychic shadow, not, as in
sensibility, a somatic shadow to a psychic perversion of beauty attendant upon
the metaphysical hegemony of truth and illusion. Conversely, where
genuine truth is psychic genuine illusion will be its somatic shadow, not, as
in sensuality, a psychic shadow to a somatic perversion of truth attendant upon
the metachemical hegemony of beauty and ugliness. As to the relationship
of all this to heat and light, that is another question, albeit I fancy one
that affords an equally complex, because comprehensively exacting, solution.
Metachemistry is certainly heat, primarily in relation to free soma, but I can
well believe that its bound psychic corollary, being subordinate, is a species
of light which would accord with an ugly counterpart to beauty proper. In
contrast, metaphysics is certainly light, primarily in relation to free psyche,
but I can well believe that its bound somatic corollary, being subordinate, is
a species of heat which would accord with an illusory counterpart to truth
proper. Hence whereas beauty proper is outer heat of a sensual
disposition, truth proper is inner light of a sensible one, the sensual inner
light of ugliness proper and the sensible outer heat of illusion proper
standing in subordinate relationships to the prevailing ideal, be it
superheathenistically beautiful or superchristianly true. But all this
changes with the upended under-plane gender positions of antimetaphysics and
antimetachemistry. For it would seem that if truth proper is inner light
of a sensible disposition, then pseudo-truth, as we may call its outer
counterpart, is outer light of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic
pseudo-illusory corollary of which will be inner heat of a sensual
disposition. Likewise, if beauty proper is outer heat of a sensual
disposition, then pseudo-beauty, as we may call its inner counterpart, can only
be inner heat of a sensible disposition, the bound-somatic pseudo-ugly
corollary of which will be outer light of a sensible disposition. Thus do
the genders remain in contrary relationships even as they approximate a
complementarity on the basis of either hegemonic sensuality or hegemonic sensibility.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
STRENGTH AND KNOWLEDGE
Carrying on from yesterday, I can say for sure
that the relationship between strength and knowledge is, like that between
beauty and truth above, more complex than might at first seem to be the
case. For it cannot be denied that the mutual exclusivity of these two
ideals, the one heathen and the other Christian, ensures that their hegemonic rule,
no matter how equivocal, is always at the expense of each other, not in
partnership. Yet, even so, it is plausible to suppose that the absence of
knowledge in the context of physical sensuality, or antiphysics, with specific
regard to bound psyche, is compensated by a sense of outer knowledge (carnal),
which is somatically deferential to strength, while, conversely, the absence of
strength in the context of chemical sensibility, or antichemistry, with
specific regard to bound soma, is compensated by a sense of inner strength,
which is psychically deferential to knowledge. Put another way, if
antiphysics is antiknowledge in bound psyche and anti-ignorance in free soma,
it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for outer knowledge
in free soma and inner ignorance in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of
whatever properly appertains to physics, where, by contrast, knowledge is inner
in free psyche and ignorance outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner
aspects of antiphysics are sensual and the inner and outer aspects of physics
sensible. Similarly, if antichemistry is antistrength in bound soma and
antiweakness in free psyche, it will have the capacity, as though by
paradoxical compensation, for inner strength in free psyche and outer weakness
in bound soma, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to
chemistry, where, by contrast, strength is outer in free soma and weakness
inner in bound psyche, albeit the inner and outer aspects of antichemistry are
sensible and the outer and inner aspects of chemistry sensual. If
all this is so, then being outer and inner, somatically free and psychically
bound, is the sensual norm and being inner and outer, psychically free and
somatically bound, the sensible one, the former ruled by soma and the latter
led by psyche. Chemistry is both outer and inner in free soma and bound
psyche, strength and weakness, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over
antiphysics, which, with gender inversion, is again outer in free soma and
inner in bound psyche, the anti-ignorance of the former fostering a capacity
for outer knowledge and the antiknowledge of the latter a capacity for inner
ignorance. Conversely, physics is both inner and outer in free psyche and
bound soma, knowledge and ignorance, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over
antichemistry, which, with gender inversion, is again inner in free psyche and
outer in bound soma, the anti-weakness of the former fostering a capacity for
inner strength and the antistrength of the latter a capacity for outer
weakness. Thus, in overall chemical terms, what is sensually strong in
free soma is sensibly weak in bound soma, while what is sensually weak in bound
psyche is sensibly strong in free psyche. Likewise, in overall physical
terms, what is sensibly knowledgeable in free psyche is sensually ignorant in
bound psyche, while what is sensibly ignorant in bound soma is sensually
knowledgeable in free soma. But inner strength is no more genuine
strength from the standpoint of somatic sensuality than outer knowledge genuine
knowledge from the standpoint of psychic sensibility. Nor, by
extrapolation, would outer weakness be genuine weakness from the standpoint of
psychic sensuality any more than inner ignorance genuine ignorance from the standpoint
of somatic sensibility. Somatic strength and psychic weakness hang
together in sensuality no less than psychic knowledge and somatic ignorance in
sensibility, but they do so as the genuine articles, not as their pseudo
counterparts in antichemistry and antiphysics where, in the one case, psychic
strength and somatic weakness sensibly hang together while, in the other case,
somatic knowledge and psychic ignorance sensually hang together. For
where genuine strength is somatic, genuine weakness will be its psychic shadow,
not, as in sensibility, a somatic shadow to a psychic perversion of strength
attendant upon the physical hegemony of knowledge and ignorance.
Conversely, where genuine knowledge is psychic, genuine ignorance will be its
somatic shadow, not, as in sensuality, a psychic shadow to a somatic perversion
of knowledge attendant upon the chemical hegemony of strength and
weakness. As to the relationship of all this to motion and force (the
phenomenal equivalents of heat and light), that is another question, albeit I
fancy one that affords an equally complex, because comprehensively exacting,
solution. Chemistry is certainly motion, primarily in relation to free
soma, but I can well believe that its bound psychic corollary, being subordinate,
is a species of force which would accord with a weak counterpart to strength
proper. In contrast, physics is certainly force, primarily in relation to
free psyche, but I can well believe that its bound somatic corollary, being
subordinate, is a species of motion which would accord with an ignorant
counterpart to knowledge proper. Hence whereas strength proper is outer
motion of a sensual disposition, knowledge proper is inner force of a sensible
one, the sensual inner force of weakness proper and the sensible outer motion
of ignorance proper standing in subordinate relationships to the prevailing
ideal, be it heathenistically strong or christianly knowledgeable. But
all this changes with the upended under-plane gender positions of antiphysics
and antichemistry. For it would seem that if knowledge proper is inner
force of a sensible disposition, then pseudo-knowledge, as we may call its
outer counterpart, is outer force of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic
pseudo-ignorant corollary of which will be inner motion of a sensual disposition.
Likewise, if strength proper is outer motion of a sensual disposition, then
pseudo-strength, as we may call its inner counterpart, can only be inner motion
of a sensible disposition, the bound-somatic pseudo-weak corollary of which
will be outer force of a sensible disposition. Thus do the genders remain
in contrary relationships even as they approximate a complementarity on the
basis of either hegemonic sensuality or hegemonic sensibility, neither of which,
on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, is unequivocal and therefore,
unlike their noumenal counterparts in space and time, subject to emphatic
subversion at the hands of their respective under-plane complements at the
behest of the overall controlling element in the noumenal above, be it
state-hegemonically/church-subordinately metachemical over antimetaphysical
vis-à-vis antichemical under physical or, in traditional
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, metaphysical over
antimetachemical vis-à-vis antiphysical under chemical.
A MORE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF HEAT, LIGHT,
MOTION AND FORCE
If we allow for a distinction between space and
antitime, metachemistry and antimetaphysics, it seems only logically consistent
to allow for one between heat and antilight, beauty and antitruth. Likewise, if we allow for a distinction
between time and antispace, metaphysics and antimetachemistry, it seems only
logically consistent to allow for one between light and antiheat, truth and
antibeauty. Similarly, if we allow for a
distinction between volume and antimass, chemistry and antiphysics, it seems
only logically consistent to allow for one between motion and antiforce,
strength and antiknowledge. Finally, if
we allow for a distinction between mass and antivolume, physics and
antichemistry, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between
force and antimotion, knowledge and antistrength. Therefore just as heat proper, appertaining
to metachemistry, would be sensual rather than sensible or, in broad terms,
outer rather than inner, so, by metaphysical contrast, light proper would be
sensible rather than sensual, inner rather than outer. And just as motion proper, appertaining to chemistry, would be sensual rather than sensible or, in
broad terms, outer rather than inner, so, by physical contrast, force proper
would be sensible rather than sensual, inner rather than outer. For heat and light are, in
this regard, as much the alpha and omega of things noumenal, in space
and time, as motion and force the alpha and omega of things phenomenal, in
volume and mass. But, in overall gender
terms, heat and motion would be hegemonically female and force and light
hegemonically male. For females are more
will and spirit than males, whose correspondence must be to ego and soul. Females are, in simple elemental terms, more
fire and water and males, by contrast, more vegetation (earth) and air, which
means that the former are primary in the objectivity of fire and water,
metachemistry and chemistry, will and spirit, heat and motion, whereas the
latter are secondary in the subjectivity of vegetation and air, physics and
metaphysics, ego and soul, force and light.
But just as metachemistry, corresponding to fire,
gets the better of antimetaphysics, corresponding to anti-air, in
space/antitime, so metaphysics, corresponding to air, can get the better of
antimetachemistry, corresponding to antifire, in time/antispace. And just as chemistry, corresponding to water, gets the better of antiphysics, corresponding to anti-vegetation,
in volume/antimass, so physics, corresponding to vegetation, can get the better
of antichemistry, corresponding to antiwater, in mass/antivolume. For in sensibility it is the male positions
which are hegemonic and the female ones technically subordinate, antichemistry
under physics as antivolume under mass, and antimetachemistry under metaphysics
as antispace under time. Nevertheless,
despite gender and class differentials, I think it can be safely said that
no-one and nobody is entirely any one thing, be it fire, water, vegetation
(earth), or air, and that people are accordingly a combination, in varying
degrees (dependent by and large on gender and class), of all of the elements
and their respective concomitants.
Certainly some females will be more heat than motion and others, lower-
rather than upper-class, more motion than heat, but even the former will be
capable of motion and the latter of heat.
Likewise, quite apart from characteristics appertaining to the opposite
gender, some males will be more force than light and others, classless rather
than middle class, more light than force, but even the
former will be capable of light and the latter of force. And both genders can be modified, as logic
would confirm, by ‘anti’ positions on either the noumenal or phenomenal planes,
when they become subject to the hegemonic control of the opposite gender. Hence the antimale attributes of antilight in
antimetaphysics under metachemical heat and of antiforce in antiphysics under
chemical motion have to be contrasted with the antifemale attributes of
antimotion in antichemistry under physical force and of antiheat in
antimetachemistry under metaphysical light.
Therefore there may be more ‘anti’ than ‘pro’ about males and females
when they find themselves, as so often, under the hegemonic control of their
noumenal or phenomenal gender counterparts, even with axial subversion of the
equivocal hegemonies at the behest of the overall controlling element whose
unequivocal hegemony in the noumenal ‘above’ ensures that axial continuity and
consistency is maintained on the basis of a polar connection, so to speak, with
its upended gender counterpart, metaphysics linking with antiphysics no less
certainly than metachemistry with antichemistry on what become diametrically
antithetical axes in which the emphasis is either on psyche or on soma, as
germane to a church-hegemonic/state-hegemonic dichotomy. Therefore the connection between light and
antiforce is crucial to the prospect of salvation of the latter and
counter-damnation of those who would correspond, in secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate vein, to the connection between
antimetachemistry and chemistry.
Contrariwise, the connection between heat and antimotion is crucial to
the maintenance of undamnation of the former and counter-unsalvation of those
who would correspond, in secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vein, to
the connection between antimetaphysics and physics. Only the radical and more or less permanent
salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and correlative counter-damnation
of the chemical to antimetachemistry can so affect the overall axial balance
that the metachemical will be damned to antichemistry and the antimetaphysical
counter-saved to physics. For nothing short
of the permanent removal (deliverance) of the antiphysical and chemical to
metaphysics and antimetachemistry can bring the metachemical and
antimetaphysical down for want of prey at what in previous entries has been
described as the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Until then, their exemplifications of somatic
licence will continue to bemuse and bedazzle the chemical and antiphysical into
quasi-state-hegemonic deference to the prevailing modes of objectivity and
antisubjectivity, rendering the prospect of salvation and counter-damnation on
traditional terms not only anachronistic but patently ineffectual and
inadequate. Only the revolutionary
overhaul of the corrupted church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis can return
the peoples concerned to God and the Antidevil and hold out to them the
prospect of lasting salvation and counter-damnation, according to elemental
gender, to the metaphysical and antimetachemical heights of the northeast point of our
intercardinal axial compass. But for
this nothing short of the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to
a religiously sovereign end will suffice, and for that one will have need of
Social Theocracy and its determination to establish Heaven at the expense of
anti-earth and Antihell at the expense of purgatory, bringing light to those
paradoxically trapped in an antilight-deferring antiforce and antiheat to those
paradoxically trapped in a heat-deferring motion. For only when light and antiheat are
metaphysically and antimetachemically triumphant over the world … of the
antiphysical and chemical … will what has traditionally been regarded as
‘Kingdom Come’ actually have transpired, and divine and antidiabolic vengeance
be wreaked on those whose heat-besotted diabolic and antilight-besotted
antidivine defiance of divine light and antidiabolic antiheat continues, at
this point in time, to rule the world and keep it from heavenly salvation and
antihellish counter-damnation in the time of noumenal subjectivity and the
antispace of noumenal anti-objectivity, the Eternity of the Celestial City and
the Anti-Infinity of Anti-Vanity Fair.
CONTRASTING HEAT WITH LIGHT IN SENSUALITY AND
SENSIBILITY
Aldous Huxley would write of being beyond time
in timeless bliss, and one thought he was on to truth but, in reality, nothing
could have been further from the case! For eternity is the context of
time par excellence, and therefore in metaphysics, as in
godliness, one is beyond space in the timefulness of eternal bliss. With
space, on the other hand, it is more a case of being behind time in timeless
bliss or, more correctly, love, which, like beauty, owes nothing to God and
everything to the Devil, which is to say, to Devil the Mother hyped as God (the
Father), pretty much like the Cosmos hyped as Universal or, in elemental terms,
metachemistry hyped as metaphysics. Huxley was simply an Anglican
Englishman who 'went to the dogs', as they say, of netherworldly fundamentalism
and materialism, specifically with regard to a kind of Hindu (rather than Judaic)
take on such Eastern things. For he also wrote of the Clear Light of the
Void as though it were commensurate with God or, at any rate, godliness, the
'Ground' behind all appearances, etc. But is there really any such thing
as the Clear Light? I don't think so. What one has, in stellar
metachemistry, is the Clear Heat of the Void, and therefore such a term as
Clear Heat would be commensurate not with God but with Devil the Mother hyped
as God in metachemical back of everything ... antimetaphysical and, hence, to
be associated with antilight, the Unholy Light, of our proverbial 'fall guy'
for diabolic denigration who, in antitruth, is less devilish than
antigodly. Hence what hangs together at the northwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass are metachemistry and antimetaphysics, viz. the
Devil and the Antigod or, in other words, the Clear Heat and the Unholy Light,
the former absolutely female and the latter absolutely antimale. But this
is the noumenal sensuality and noumenal antisensibility of Vanity Fair and the
LONDON 2006 (Revised 2012)
