Op.
125
PHILOSOPHICAL
RUMINATIONS
On a Variety of Subjects having Axial Implications
Aphoristic Philosophy
Copyright ©
2013 John O’Loughlin
______________
CONTENTS:-
1. Growing Old with Young Musicians
2. Distinguishing
‘ology’ from ‘osophy’ in Knowledge and Truth
3. The
Real Truth about Being
4. Distinguishing
Beauty from Truth and Truth from Beauty
5. Distinguishing
Culture from Civility on Genuine and Pseudo Axial Terms
6. Examining
the Sensible Rejection of Sensuality from the Standpoint of Elites
7. The
Instinctive Irrational Reductionism of Popular Expletives
8. Freedom
and Determinism
9. The Development
of Civilization against Nature on both Phenomenal and Noumenal Terms
10.
The
Correspondence between Psychology and the Elements
11.
An Analysis of the Basic Musical Divisions in
Psychological Relation to the Elements
12.
Incompatible Gender Ideals
13.
An Analysis of the
Church-hegemonic/State-subordinate Sporting Dichotomy in
14.
A Revaluation of Hoods vis-à-vis Umbrellas
15.
Probable Parallel of Singers and Hoods
16.
Utilizing the Democratic Process to a
Revolutionary Theocratic End
17.
I am not in the Humanists’ Economic Pocket
18.
Concerning a Distinction between the
Administrative Few and the Religiously Sovereign One
19.
Never Simply Black and White
20.
A Brief Examination of the Moral Distinctions
between Play and Work
21.
Synthetic and Non-Synthetic Antitheses
22.
Superbarbarism and Superphilistinism to
Superculture and Supercivility
23.
Metachemical and Metaphysical Antitheses
24.
Antimetachemical and Antimetaphysical
Antitheses
25.
Chemical and Physical Antitheses
26.
Antiphysical and Antichemical Antitheses
27.
The One and the Anti-Not-One
28.
Victors and
Victims
_______________
GROWING OLD
WITH YOUNG MUSICIANS
They say that people outgrow music or, at
least, certain musical tastes, and that is doubtless true. For I no longer take
much interest in classical or jazz, which used to preoccupy me a great deal
more than ever it does at present. I was always keen on rock music,
particularly what is called progressive rock, but even that changes and one
finds oneself listening to what is called heavy metal and, by contrast,
electronica, meaning Tangerine Dream-like stuff which is likely to be
synthesizer-based instrumental. Not that one listens to a great deal of it or
all that often. There are other things besides music; but, all the same, if I
had to describe my predominating tastes at present it would be heavy metal and
electronica, and would include such bands as Motorhead, Iron Maiden, the
Spiritual Beggars, Black Label Society (BLS), Michael Schenker Group (MSG),
King Crimson, the aforementioned Tangerine Dream, and - yes - Arch Enemy. I
don't know what it is about them, maybe a combination of factors including
Michael Amott (also of Spiritual Beggars), but their music and lyrics impress
me sufficiently for me to want to rate them as high if not higher than all the
rest. And I'm fifty-four, for christs sake! Anyway, it
seems to me that age is not really - thank god! - a problem in regard to taste
and that, when push comes to shove, one would rather listen to good
contemporary music, with a 2000+ date, than simply regurgitate the past or,
worse, dwell on the past as though nothing else mattered. Certainly it is good
to keep the faith with some of one's old favourites, and it sure as hell makes
one feel better to be buying and/or listening to someone approximately one's
own age who, like Alice Cooper or Ozzy Osbourne or even Deep Purple, is still,
to all appearances, 'going strong' and sounding hip. But I couldn't do that
exclusively, and I thank my lucky stars, or whatever it is, that I am flexible
enough to change with the times and grow new tastebuds with the passing of
time.
DISTINGUISHING ‘OLOGY’ FROM ‘OSOPHY’ IN
KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH
I've often thought that philosophy is a hyped
term which is generally used to describe a love of truth when, in point of
fact, it is only a love of knowledge, which is something of a (physical)
shortfall from the metaphysical nature (sic) of truth. Besides, if philosophy
is a love of knowledge then surely philology would be a more suitable term for
the pursuit of knowledge, something analogous to theology having to do with the
pursuit of truth and not the love of truth, which I should imagine would be
theosophical in character, using that term, like the aforementioned one, in a
wholly novel and more metaphysically pertinent way than is usually the case. Thus
theology would stand to theosophy as philology to philosophy - as an egoistic
alternative to anything psychoistic, and therefore having more to do with truth
than joy, not to mention, where philology and philosophy are concerned, with
knowledge than pleasure. Yet even the expression 'love of' is problematic in
this context, love being irrelevant to both metaphysics and physics. Rather
could it be said that there is pleasure in knowledge and joy in truth; though
knowledge can also lead to pleasure and truth to joy, which, if experienced for
their own sake, would transcend both a 'love of knowledge' and a 'love of
truth', being arguably more than either philosophical or theosophical. For ego and soul are both aspects of psyche,
the difference between the two (male) contexts normally being that soul tends
to revolve around ego in the case of physics and ego around soul in the case of
metaphysics, where theology should lead beyond theosophy, or a 'love of truth’ and, hence,
God, to something approximating a heavenly redemption of ego in pure soul,
which would truly be the joyful transcendence of both theology and
theosophy.
THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT BEING
As a self-taught philosopher, or thinker, I
have long maintained that being,
metaphysical being, is inconceivable without the assistance, in
antimetachemistry, of antidoing, its female or, more correctly, antifemale
corollary. For unless doing is 'brought low', as from metachemistry
to antimetachemistry, space to antispace, there can be no 'rising up' of being,
as from antimetaphysics to metaphysics, antitime to
time, and hence the repudiation of what can be called antibeing under doing.
Being requires antidoing no less, across the axial divide, than doing, its
metachemical antithesis, the antimetaphysical corollary of antibeing, since
neither can be unequivocally hegemonic unless their respective gender
complements are 'upended' and effectively subordinated to their control. Now
what applies unequivocally on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and
time/antispace applies to an equivocal degree, with due axial subversion having
to be borne in mind, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and
mass/antivolume, where the equivocal hegemony of physical taking requires the
'upended' subordination of antichemical antigiving, its 'antifemale'
complement, in relative contrast to the subordination of antiphysical
antitaking under an equivocally hegemonic chemical giving. For unless giving is
'brought low', as from chemistry to antichemistry, volume to antivolume, there
can be no 'rising up' of taking, as from antiphysics
to physics, antimass to mass, and hence the repudiation of what has been called
antitaking under giving. But this is not universally established or encouraged,
since these phenomenal positions are also subject, as intimated above, to axial
interplay with their sensual or sensible (depending on the axis) noumenal
counterparts, and this is what paradoxically precludes a simple switch from
phenomenal sensuality/antisensibility to phenomenal
sensibility/antisensuality on the part of those who,
under Catholic guidance traditionally, would more relate to the possibility of
some degree of being and/or antidoing as the solution to their lowly
predicament in giving and/or antitaking than a straightforward switch, across
the axial divide, from that to taking and/or antigiving, as the gender case may
be. For the Catholic Church, relative to Western civilization, is the 'one
true' church, the one that offers a degree of being and/or antidoing to those
who have not 'sold out', usually via some degree of puritanical rejection of
Anglicanism, to taking and/or antigiving, but such a Church, being Western, is
still a far cry from global universality, which transcends both the West and
the East alike, and therefore its 'take' on being and/or antidoing is less than
what could be and, hopefully, will be independently of such a church when once
the march of global civilization reaches its sensible/antisensual destiny in
the light of a metaphysics that is unequivocally hegemonic over
antimetachemistry and not subject, as is Catholic Christianity and indeed
Christianity in general, to the subversion of metaphysics by metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in time-honoured,
alpha-stemming, Old Testament fashion, with Devil the Mother hyped as God (the
Father) always precluding anything but a Son-like fulcrum in relation to itself
which, even in the Catholic postulate of a resurrected Saviour, persists as a
sort of paradoxical extrapolation to the detriment of metaphysical independence
and, hence, freedom. For there can be no such independence in the 'Son', only
in relation to a 'Father' who precedes 'His Son', as psyche precedes soma in
male actuality, independently of metachemical subversion and therefore on the
basis of metaphysical freedom and the repudiation, democratically and
peaceably, of Devil the Mother hyped as God, without which there can be no
authentic metaphysical being, much less beingful approach to antidoing, in
metaphysical bound soma, of the Son, and therefore no authentic and fully
universal truth. Catholicism may appertain to the 'one true church', but such a
church, being Christian, i.e. centred in the 'Son', still falls short of global
universality and, hence, the transcendence of everything rooted in Old
Testament Creatorism, with its hype of Devil the Mother as God. We advocates of global universality, whom I
have in the past identified with and continue to identify with Social
Theocracy, can no more endorse the West than the East where religion is
concerned. We are beyond both traditions in our revolutionary advocacy of the
one true centre. And yet we are the profoundest theocrats. For Devil
the Mother hyped as God the Father was never truly theocratic but autocracy in
disguise, the sugar coating, as it were, of the bitter pill of metachemical
autocracy, the 'best of a bad job', to speak colloquially, and we repudiate all
autocracy and everything that pays tribute, in aediculated architectural vein,
to Creatorism. If we refuse to regard
ourselves as 'atheist' it is because that would be to pay too much credit to
what was never properly theocratic to begin with, but effectively
antitheocratic in its autocratic roots. There is nothing atheist about Social
Theocracy, and for that reason it can only encourage true being and not the
subversion of being by doing and, hence, the vitiation of being in relation to
what fundamentally remains contrary to it. The real truth about being is that
it has never really come to pass because doing has been hyped as being pretty
much as the cosmos as universal and the first-mover She
as He. We absolutely reject this fundamental lie from the standpoint of truth.
DISTINGUISHING BEAUTY FROM TRUTH AND TRUTH FROM
BEAUTY
Some say that beauty is truth and truth beauty,
but they couldn't be more wrong so far as I'm concerned. 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 for what
amounts to a gender distinction) 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. Hence either females get the better of males, who become antimale, or
males get the better of females, who become antifemale. Yet to the
truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well seem like
truth, since 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, strictly speaking, any such thing as outer truth than there is inner
beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer, essence and appearance.
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
antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical beauty
possible for them and, conversely, the absence of beauty from antimetachemical
antifemales that makes the worship of metaphysical truth possible for them, albeit in both cases the worship of the
ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not equivalent to 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 antitruthful want of truth as space over antitime,
spatial appearance over sequential anti-essence, while, conversely, truth rules
over the antibeautiful 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, alpha and/or anti-omega or omega and/or anti-alpha. But the
latter is much harder, much more difficult, of attainment than the former,
which is in general terms 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, and not just
- though certainly more so - among juveniles!
DISTINGUISHING CULTURE FROM CIVILITY ON GENUINE
AND PSEUDO AXIAL TERMS
One has to distinguish, whether one likes it or
not, between genuine culture and pseudo-civility, the respective attributes of
metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of what I like to
think of as the intercardinal axial compass, and
pseudo-culture and genuine civility, the respective attributes of physics and
antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass. For not only are
these pairings distinct from each other, but they appertain to two
diametrically antithetical axes, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
that also embraces, at its southwest point, chemistry and antiphysics,
or pseudo-barbarity and genuine philistinism, and the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis that also embraces, at its northwest
point, metachemistry and antimetaphysics,
barbarity and pseudo-philistinism. That said, it should be evident that a
polarity between philistinism and culture on the one hand and pseudo-barbarity
and pseudo-civility on the other ... should not be confounded with the polarity
between barbarity and civility on the one hand and pseudo-philistinism and
pseudo-culture on the other.... The polarities of each axis are as distinct as
their respective components, and that is why they rarely or
never see eye-to-eye, as it were, across the axial divide, but remain
symptomatic of ethnic incompatibility and rivalry. But pseudo-culture and
civility (the genuine article) are no less guilty of hyping the pseudo-cultural
element to the standing of genuine culture than they are of hyping Man to the
standing of God. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your standpoint,
there is all the axial difference in the world - and even above it - between
these two superficially parallel but diametrically incompatible elements!
Pseudo-culture is not and never has been or ever
will be genuinely cultural, but the worldly opponent of such culture that puts
commercial considerations above the truth or, at the very least, the artist's
endeavour to be as sincere and honest in his pursuance of self-enlightenment,
of self-discovery, as he possibly can be. No one who has been published in book
form on the basis of commercial expedience or in relation to commercial sense
is or ever can be a genuine artist, a purveyor of genuine culture. Books are
illustrative of pseudo-culture in the pocket of civility and are axially
beholden to pseudo-philistinism in the pocket (hegemonically speaking) of
barbarity. They are no more expressive of genuine culture (coupled to
pseudo-civility) than Man is expressive of God. And by 'God' I do not mean
Devil the Mother hyped as God (in metachemistry), but
the genuine metaphysical article, which is God the Father in metaphysical free
psyche and the Son of God in metaphysical bound soma, psyche preceding soma as
'father' preceding 'son' in male actuality. The Son of Man, which is the more
prevalent take on humanism, is not even on the physically free-psychic level of
Man the Father, an almost unheard of term. But he is still hyped nonetheless,
like the bullshit that passes for truth or, in colloquial terms, for bullgas.
EXAMINING THE SENSIBLE REJECTION OF SENSUALITY
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ELITES
The general rule on either a noumenal or a
phenomenal, an ethereal or a corporeal, basis, is that the male comes properly
to pass in sensibility in consequence of having rejected the antimale whose
subordination to the female in sensuality precluded his moral enlightenment and
kept him more or less in the position of an Antichrist. For antigods, whether
as bound psychic antifathers or free somatic antisons, only exist by dint of
the hegemony of devils, whether as free somatic mothers or bound psychic
daughters, as antimetaphysics under metachemistry or, in terms of plane, antitime under space.
Likewise antimen, whether as bound psychic antifathers or free somatic
antisons, only exist by dint of the hegemony of women, whether as free somatic
mothers or bound psychic daughters, as antiphysics
under chemistry or, in terms of plane, antimass under volume.
For gods and men to respectively come properly to pass, there must be a
sensible rejection of antigods and antimen, the former, whether as free psychic
fathers or bound somatic sons, constraining the noumenal
female-become-antifemale to the subordinate status of antidevils, whether as
bound somatic antimothers or free psyche antidaughters, as antimetachemistry
under metaphysics or, in terms of plane, antispace under time, and the latter,
whether as free psychic fathers or bound somatic sons, constraining the
phenomenal female-become-antifemale to the subordinate status of antiwomen,
whether as bound somatic antimothers or free psychic antidaughters, as
antichemistry under physics or, in terms of plane, antivolume under mass. Hence no antidevils in antimetachemical antispace without gods in
metaphysical time, and no antiwomen in antichemical antivolume without men in
physical mass. But the rejection of antimetaphysics
by the metaphysical is from pseudo-meekness to righteousness and brings in its
train the eclipse of vanity by pseudo-justice as metachemistry
is abandoned for antimetachemistry by noumenal females-become-antifemales,
whereas the rejection of antiphysics by the physical
is from meekness to pseudo-righteousness and brings in its train the eclipse of
pseudo-vanity by justice as chemistry is abandoned for antichemistry by
phenomenal females-become-antifemales. For the unequivocal hegemony of
metaphysics over antimetachemistry is not subject, like its physical
counterpart, to axial subversion at the hands of its female complement, but is
free to maintain a psychic emphasis at the expense of bound soma. With physics,
as with the physical, by contrast, the equivocal hegemony finds itself subject
to antichemical subversion to bound somatic emphasis in consequence of the
gender-based axial polarity that antichemistry establishes with metachemistry or, rather, that metachemistry,
ever somatically free, establishes with antichemistry to the detriment of
psychic freedom. The pseudo-righteous are subject to somatic emphasis at the
expense of free psyche, whereas the righteous-proper are in an axial position,
unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and axially antithetical to antiphysics, to maintain a free psychic emphasis and to
constrain the antiphysical, their gender counterparts, to bound psychic
emphasis at the expense of free soma, thereby precluding what would otherwise
be a heathenistic emphasis, under the chemical hegemonic pressures of free
females, on free soma. Such are the paradoxes of axial polarity, whether the
axis be church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, as in the
metaphysical-antiphysical and antimetachemical-chemical case, or
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate, as in the metachemical-antichemical and
antimetaphysical-physical case. But, contrary to this, are the respective class
rejections of sensuality by sensible males which broadly establish the
representative elites on either a righteous or a pseudo-righteous basis, with
antifemale pseudo-justice or genuine justice their respective subordinate
corollaries. The salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and the
counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry is a quite separate and
more paradoxically problematic matter that has not yet achieved its final,
because maximum, solution. Contrariwise, the damnation of the metachemical to
antichemistry and the counter-salvation of the antimetaphysical to physics will
only ensue to anything like a conclusive extent in the wake of the achievement
of class-elevated salvation and counter-damnation, the class-elevated as
opposed to class-modified options hitherto being very much, despite appearances
to the contrary, the exception to the general rule, since it is easier to
transfer from sensuality to sensibility on either a noumenal or a phenomenal
basis than to be transformed from the phenomenal to the noumenal or from the
noumenal to the phenomenal on a sensual/sensible basis, as the class case may
be. Yet even so, there are sound traditional reasons why the transference from
sensuality to sensibility, to speak in general terms, on the phenomenal planes
has not been encouraged and why, in consequence of axial intransigence,
phenomenal sensibility was achieved more in relation to a puritanical rejection
of Anglican interference than as a consequence of mass Catholic transfers from
the alpha to omega, as it were, of worldly alternatives.
THE INSTINCTIVE IRRATIONAL REDUCTIONISM OF
POPULAR EXPLETIVES
Just as the phrase 'sonofabitch' is logically
incorrect, insofar as one can only be an 'antison' of a 'bitch' in the sense of
that which antichristically lines up either as antimetaphysics
under metachemistry or as antiphysics
under chemistry, the hegemonic position of somatic freedom being in each case
female and, hence a 'mother', so such terribly populist terms-of-abuse as
'motherfucking' and 'motherfucker' are completely illogical as far as their
relevance to the contexts - metachemical or chemical - of 'mothers' is
concerned. In fact, such expressions simply mirror the instinctive or
instinctual nature of expletives generally. For, in reality, both the
metachemical and chemical positions should be identified with the specifically
female attributes, in noumenal objectivity and phenomenal objectivity, of
somatic licence, which are 'frigging' in the one case and 'sucking' in the
other. Hence the phrase 'motherfrigging' for metachemical objectivity and
'mothersucking' for chemical objectivity would be logically more sustainable
than the populist - albeit aggressively generalized - term, 'motherfucking'.
But just as a somatically free 'antison' (not to mention psychically bound
'antifather') lines up under a somatically free 'mother' (not to mention
psychically bound 'daughter') in both noumenal and phenomenal modes of
sensuality, and more gender representatively in terms of antisensibility
than of sensuality, so one could - though not necessarily should - speak of an
'antisnogging-antison' in the case of antimetaphysical antisubjectivity and an
'antifucking-antison' in the case of antiphysical antisubjectivity, the
antimale free-somatic converse, in each case, of a hegemonic 'snogging-son' in
metaphysical sensibility and a hegemonic 'fucking-son' in physical sensibility,
not to mention of a 'snogging-father' and a 'fucking-father' where the free
psychic aspects of such metaphysical and physical hegemonies are concerned. For free psyche is simply the concomitant of bound soma, which both
the metaphysical and physical 'sons' are illustrative of. However that
may be, the corollary, from an antifemale standpoint, of metaphysics is
antimetachemistry and hence what could vis-à-vis the 'son'
be called an 'antifrigging-antimother', whereas the corollary of physics is
antichemistry and hence what could vis-à-vis the 'son' be called an
'antisucking-antimother'. Thus, even without reference to 'antidaughter'
positions in both antimetachemistry and antichemistry, both of which would have
more to do, under male-hegemonic pressures, with free psyche than bound soma,
the overall perspective on such terms is far more complex than a simple
generalized - and fundamentally irrational - instinctive reductionism would
have us believe. Just as 'sons-of-bitches' only exist in the imagination of
those who resort to such language, so such complementary terminology as 'motherfucking'
and 'motherfucker' fail to stand up to logical scrutiny. Yet, in the heat of
the moment, such instinctive populism as passes muster will always curry favour
with the broad masses at the expense of that which only flows, after all, from
a considered analysis by a mind at an intellectual remove from expletive
instinct, and therefore determined not only to apply more apposite terminology
- no matter how unpleasant such terms may be - but to broaden out the
perspective until every factor is embraced and one can see why such and such a
term has specific applicability to only one point or position on the overall
compass, so to speak, of alternative options.
FREEDOM AND
DETERMINISM
What if the much-vaunted dichotomy between determinism
and free will is really a fallacy? For can't free will
be a product of determinism? I mean, nature flourishes on both free will and
free spirit, and therefore can it not be said that both are determined by the
underlining drive to either wilful (instinctual) or spiritual freedom of
nature? Certainly there is, as I have sought to logically demonstrate in the
past, a distinction between somatic freedom as a product of natural determinism
and psychic freedom as a product of, well, a certain supernatural or cultural
determinism, with metachemistry and chemistry lining
up on the side of free will and free spirit, but physics and metaphysics lining
up on the side of free ego and free soul, the former pair effectively female
and the latter pair more usually male. Now if this much-vaunted dichotomy
between free will and determinism is, as I happen to think, a fallacy, then it
could be maintained that not only is freedom a product of determinism, but that
determinism works towards freedom, if in opposite gender ways. There is the
determinism of free soma, both instinctually and spiritually, on the one hand,
and the determinism of free psyche, both intellectually and emotionally, on the
other hand. For if females are fundamentally soma preceding and predominating
over psyche and males, by contrast, essentially psyche preceding and
preponderating over soma, then each gender's freedom is determined by contrary
factors which are not only incompatible but fated to war on one another until
the victory of one or the other is assured, whether intermittently or
permanently. Life is oriented towards freedom, but such freedom is determined
by gender and by the underlining interests of nature. Female freedom is more
metachemical (fiery) and chemical (watery) than either physical (vegetative) or
metaphysical (airy), and therefore females have certain metachemical and
chemical predilections, including the ugly periodic bleeding of menstruation
and a weak tendency towards tearfulness, really quite alien to males. But, by a
similar token, they are less physically and metaphysically free, or
knowledgeable, than males, whose bodies are more suited to strenuous physical
and intellectual behaviour. The somatic freedom of females in will and spirit
does not imply a suppleness of movement for the simple reason that their
physiological disposition hampers the kind of overall flexibility to which the
male, unaccustomed to pendulous breasts and amply protruding buttocks arching
over fleshy seductive thighs, is predisposed with his leaner overall frame. And
such a more uniform frame is no less the precondition of a degree of
intellectual freedom to which the female, except in rare - and usually
physiologically untypical - instances, is completely unsuited and, frankly,
indisposed.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION AGAINST NATURE
ON BOTH PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL TERMS
The wonder about this world is that
civilization has advanced as far as it has - admittedly not everywhere and not
in the same ways - in spite of what males are up against vis-à-vis females. For
females are programmed, by nature, to get the better of males and more often
than not they do, with depressingly predictable consequences! Yet males are
still able to carry on the struggle for civilization, meaning principally
culture and civility, which is no small achievement in the circumstances, since
civilization only develops at the expense of nature and all that is behind it
in the Cosmos, pretty much as man at the expense of woman and the Devil. But
ultimately civilization only develops to its cultural maximum in God, Who is
beyond man, and therefore even man must eventually submit to the will of God if
not merely woman but the Devil is to be defeated. And by 'the Devil' I do not
mean Satan or any other false conception of evil rooted in an antimetaphysical
'fall guy' for diabolic denigration from 'on high', but the metachemical 'first
mover' whom I have consistently identified, in my writings, with Devil the
Mother (hyped as God), whether in the Cosmos, in nature, in mankind, or, from a
contemporary camera-besotted standpoint, in Cyborgkind, where one could say
that She is least rather than less (in relation to least), more (in relation to
most) or most somatically free, as She assuredly is in Her cosmic
manifestation. But this hype of Devil the Mother as God is what bedevils
conventional religion and ensures that what properly appertains to godliness,
in metaphysics, is given a raw and usually somewhat partial deal, a deal unable
to transcend bound metaphysical soma for want of free metaphysical psyche relative
to itself. Only the repudiation of the false Father of Devil the
Mother hyped as God can lead to the full complement of godliness, as it were,
in metaphysics, and then only for males, since metaphysical free psyche and
bound soma is a profoundly male actuality that requires a subordinate - and
necessarily upended femaleness - in the guise of antimetachemistry, the Antidevilish complement of true godliness which, in truth,
is less female than antifemale in character and therefore the opposite of
everything somatically free and psychically bound. Thus if God and the Devil
are antithetical, they are so on an alpha/omega basis, not on what could be
called an alpha/anti-omega basis for metachemistry
and antimetaphysics, still less on an
omega/anti-alpha basis commensurate with metaphysics and antimetachemistry.
What 'hangs together' in either sensuality or sensibility, the outer
somatically-dominated context of space/anti-time or the inner
psychically-dominated context of time/anti-space, is Devil and Antigod in the
one case, that of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, and God and the Antidevil
in the other case, that of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, and each pairing
is mutually exclusive of its antithesis. Therefore in a 'world' where God is
hegemonically triumphant over the Antidevil, there
can be no Antigod subordinate to a hegemonic Devil ... the Mother. Such metachemistry and antimetaphysics
will simply cease to theologically exist or to be acknowledged. They will have
been consigned, along with everything else that stands in the way of godliness
and antidevilishness, to the 'rubbish heap' of history. And this will happen,
when it happens, democratically, by dint of a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty in paradoxical elections designed to deliver the people from every
last manifestation of the Devil and Antigod and empower them with rights in
relation to God and the Antidevil, both of which will
only fully or properly materialize when the people are in a position to live
either a godly or, in the antifemale case, an antidevilish
kind of existence, as explained in more detail in various of my mature
philosophical works. See, for instance, Opera
D’Oeuvre and, more specifically, Metaphysical
Megatruth.
THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGY AND THE
ELEMENTS
Just as
fire and water line up on the female, or objective, side of life against
vegetation (earth) and air, their male, or subjective, counterparts, which have
more to do with a convergent plenum than with a divergent vacuum, as in the
distinction between phallus and vagina or, if you will, 'balls' and 'cunt', so
it could be said that the unconscious and the subconscious line up on a like
basis against consciousness and superconsciousness, with a noumenal antithesis
between the unconscious and the superconscious, will and soul, on the ethereal
planes of space and time, but a phenomenal antithesis between the subconscious
and the conscious, spirit and ego, on the corporeal planes of volume and mass.
Hence fire and air are the alpha and omega of the noumenal planes, water and
vegetation (earth) the alpha and omega of the phenomenal ones. But, in
practice, either the alpha gets the better of the omega, establishing a
sensual/antisensible correspondence between will and antisoul, the unconscious
and the anti-superconscious, on the planes of space and antitime, and between
spirit and anti-ego, the subconscious and the anticonscious, on the planes of
volume and antimass, or, alternatively, the omega, premised upon an urban rather
than a natural precondition, gets the better of the alpha, establishing a
sensible/antisensual correspondence between soul and antiwill, the
superconscious and the anti-unconscious, on the planes of time and antispace,
and between ego and antispirit, the conscious and the anti-subconscious, on the
planes of mass and antivolume. For the one gender can only be hegemonically
ascendant at the expense of the other, which means that either females
sensually triumph over antimales, whether unequivocally in space or equivocally
in volume, or, by sensible contrast, males triumph over antifemales, whether
equivocally in mass or unequivocally in time. Thus what has been called
anticonsciousness in the one case (phenomenal) and anti-superconsciousness in
the other case (noumenal) are products of female domination through either the
subconscious (phenomenal) or the unconscious (noumenal), anti-ego
antiphysically subordinate to the chemical hegemony of spirit, and antisoul
antimetaphysically subordinate to the metachemical hegemony of will. By
contrast, what has been called anti-unconsciousness in the one case (noumenal)
and anti-subconsciousness in the other case (phenomenal) are products of male
domination through either the superconscious (noumenal) or the conscious (phenomenal),
antiwill antimetachemically subordinate to the metaphysical hegemony of soul,
and antispirit antichemically subordinate to the physical hegemony of ego.
However, only the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry
permits mind to truly flourish in superconscious freedom of
anti-unconsciousness, its antifemale counterpart. The equivocal hegemony of
physics over antichemistry, on the other hand, tends to fall victim to axial
subversion at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, and therefore such egocentric
consciousness as obtains is usually vitiated by anti-subconsciousness to the
greater glory or, rather, power of the unconscious. For where the unconscious
is sovereign, even consciousness must toe an anti-subconscious line.
AN ANALYSIS
OF THE BASIC MUSICAL DIVISIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RELATION TO THE ELEMENTS
If the
unconscious and the subconscious line up, objectively, against their subjective
– and male – counterparts, the conscious and the superconscious, as contended
in my previous entry, then this may not only be equivalent to fire and water on
the female side of life vis-à-vis vegetation (earth) and air on its male side
but, in musical terms, to rhythm and harmony vis-à-vis melody and pitch, the
former pair equivalent to fire and water, the unconscious and the subconscious,
but the latter pair equivalent, by contrast, to vegetation and air, the
conscious and the superconscious. Thus
not only would rhythm and harmony appertain to the objective, or female, side
of life, but they would correspond to will and spirit, power and glory, whereas
melody and pitch, their subjective, or male, counterparts, would correspond to
ego and soul, as though in association with form and content(ment). And in broad musical terms I can think of no
better genre distinctions for each of these contrasting attributes of the
musical totality than ballet and opera vis-à-vis the symphony and the concerto,
taking the former pair as largely synonymous with rhythm and harmony, power and
glory, but the latter pair as largely synonymous with melody and pitch, form
and content(ment).
Doubtless other musical genres, such as jazz and pop vis-à-vis rock and
electronica, could also be cited in this respect, but the fundamental
distinction between rhythm and harmony on the one hand, and melody and pitch on
the other would seem to confirm a gender dichotomy between the unconscious and
the subconscious, fire and water, on the female side of things, and between the
conscious and the superconscious, vegetation and air, on its male side. In terms of contrasting axes, however, it
could be contended that rhythm and melody would stand hegemonically apart from
what may be called antipitch and antiharmony where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria are concerned, rhythm and antipitch lining up as metachemistry
over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and melody and antiharmony
lining up as physics over antichemistry at its southeast point. By axial contrast, it could be contended that
pitch and harmony would stand hegemonically apart from what might be called
antirhythm and antimelody where church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria
were concerned, pitch and antirhythm lining up as metaphysics over
antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial compass, and harmony and antimelody lining up as chemistry over antiphysics at its southwest point. But that is another story, and it suffices
here if we limit our criteria to the fundamental distinctions between
unconscious rhythm and subconscious harmony where noumenal and phenomenal
objectivity are concerned, and between conscious melody and superconscious
pitch where phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity are concerned, thereby
establishing the likelihood of a noumenal antithesis between unconscious rhythm
and superconscious pitch, fire and air, power and content(ment), will and soul,
but of a phenomenal antithesis between subconscious harmony and conscious
melody, water and vegetation, glory and form, spirit and ego. And if this is not commensurate, in classical
terms, with an antithesis between ballet and the concerto on the one hand and
opera and the symphony on the other hand, then I should be the first to concede
to being the most surprised individual on earth!
INCOMPATIBLE GENDER IDEALS
From the
standpoint of soul, which is metaphysical, will is something to avoid, pretty
much as contentment is only possible if one steers clear (the word is not exactly
apposite, but never mind!) of power or, at any rate, an unduly rigorous
commitment to the pursuit of power. Likewise, from the standpoint of the ego,
which is physical, spirit is something to avoid, pretty much as form is only
possible if one steers clear of glory or, at any rate, an unduly rigorous
commitment to the pursuit of glory. For spirit and ego are no less phenomenally
incompatible, in relation to the planes of volume and mass, than will and soul,
their noumenal counterparts in relation to the planes of space and time, and
therefore any commitment to either soul or ego on the part of males, in
particular, presupposes a rejection of will or spirit, depending on the
class/plane context, and the correlative acceptance, in gender subordination, of
antiwill or antispirit, as the antifemale case may be. For if that which
appertains to air or vegetation (earth) is to be hegemonically triumphant,
whatever pertains to fire or water must be brought low and effectively upended,
functioning in effect as either antifire vis-à-vis air or antiwater vis-à-vis
vegetation. Now the converse of course applies to female hegemonies in
sensuality, where either antisoul or anti-ego will be the subordinate corollary
of will or spirit, as the class/plane case may be. But this is still to think
independently of axial subversion of the phenomenal hegemonic factors via a
contrary link, sensual to sensible or sensible to sensual, with their noumenal
counterparts 'on high', which has the effect of switching the phenomenal emphasis
either from soma to psyche or from psyche to soma, depending on whether
metaphysics over antimetachemistry has control of antiphysics
under chemistry on a northeast-to-southwest axis compatible with
church-hegemonic (and state-subordinate) criteria or whether, on the contrary, metachemistry over antimetaphysics
has control of antichemistry under physics on a northwest-to-southeast axis
compatible with state-hegemonic (and church-subordinate) criteria. For the
subversion of spirit by anti-ego at the behest of soul over antiwill is what
makes salvation from anti-ego to soul psychically possible to antiphysical
males, whereas the subversion of ego by antispirit at the behest of will over
antisoul is what somatically precludes the damnation from will to antispirit of
metachemical females, the axially correlative modes of counter-damnation of
females and counter-salvation of males notwithstanding. Therefore, in the end,
it is only the unequivocally hegemonic factors, whether wilfully metachemical
or soulfully metaphysical, which rule or lead, as the axial case may be. And,
because of this, they remain mutually exclusive and incompatible, which brings
us back to our starting point and to the age-old knowledge that will is
something to avoid from the standpoint of soul - as Schopenhauer himself well
knew, albeit on somewhat pinched metaphysical terms.
AN ANALYSIS
OF THE CHURCH-HEGEMONIC/STATE-SUBORDINATE SPORTING DICHOTOMY IN
In what I
like to think of as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial distinction -
southwest to northeast - between Gaelic football and hurling, the former would
seem symptomatic of all that, rock 'n' roll-like, is sensually loose or
centrifugal or extrovert, and the latter of all that, in the best traditions of
Irish folk music, is sensibly tight or centripetal or introvert ... or is it?
Well, yes, up to a point, I guess you could say it is. But even if hurling is morally superior to Gaelic football, it is
merely symptomatic of the Irish Catholic status quo, with priests and bibles
and churches and all the rest of it. It is good but - and here's the rub from a
Social Theocratic standpoint - not good enough to pass muster in supra-Western
- and therefore properly global - terms. There is a strong suggestion of the
point over the bar having its idealism vitiated by the materialism of the
hurley, as though the all-too-extrapolative Christian paradigm of bound
metaphysical soma in the Crucified, postulated as resurrected to the northeast
point of the intercardinal axial compass, were being
held in check by some free metachemical agent at its northwest, akin to what I
have in the past called Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) in typically
paradoxical Catholic fashion. In other words, such subjectivity as transpires,
wine or even stout-like, in the idealistic point between the uprights over the
crossbar is compromised by a whiskey-like factor in back of everything
Christian that precludes its ever attaining to anything like true transcendence
(for which, in any case, a metaphysically free psychic repudiation of all
metachemical free soma is a prerequisite) and ensures that hurling, for all its
idealistic pretensions at the northeast point of our intercardinal
axial compass, remains firmly in the grip of northwest materialism as the
rugby, so to speak, of Irish sport, with implications rather more Christian
than heathen, to be sure, but nonetheless characteristic of what is un- in not
anti-people. Frankly, I have little time for this! I am neither in favour of
the RC elite, who represent the paradoxes of traditional values, nor of what
they would call the sinful Catholic masses whose passion is for Gaelic
football. What I do favour, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, is the
salvation and counter-damnation (according to gender) of the latter to a
position akin to that of the former, the RC elite, except that it would not be
in relation to hurling but to an indoor transmutation of Gaelic which would
enable 'the last' to be 'first', and in a completely new way such that the RC
tradition was never able to achieve. Such is the logic of revolution, and I
firmly believe in the desirability of a democratically-engineered Social
Theocratic revolution such that takes noumenal sensibility to altogether new
heights of idealism - heights that are actually open to transcendentalism and
precisely because transcendentalism is the lead string in what would amount to
a true Father whose 'Son' was in no degree a mere extrapolation from Devil the
Mother hyped as God but, transcending Western criteria, the logical corollary,
in metaphysical bound soma, of a freely psychic metaphysical precondition, the
state-subordinate idealism to a church-hegemonic transcendentalism which would
be free, for ever more, of all fundamentalist and materialist subversion or vitiation,
and therefore properly universal within a global framework, as alluded to
above.
A REVALUATION OF HOODS VIS-À-VIS UMBRELLAS
It took me
a long while to get around to seeing a parallel between hoods and stars and/or
triangles on the one hand, and brollies and crosses on the other, whether on
the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace or, down below, on the
phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume, to divide each
between, in general terms, its sensual and sensible alternatives. Previously I
had tended to think of hoods as male and brollies as female, since there
appeared to be a centripetal/centrifugal distinction between them, but then I
began to realize that a sensual/sensible distinction could be discerned which was
akin to the distinction between stars and crosses. The hood-wearer was in some
sense heathenistic in his subordination, if male, to female criteria, to the
female-like symbolism or implication of the hood which, in a manner of
speaking, prevailed over him in metachemical (noumenal) or chemical
(phenomenal) fashion, depending on the class standpoint, whereas the person
utilizing an umbrella was more christianistic, as it were, in his holding aloft
of a cross-like structure which, while shielding him from the rain, suggested a
male symbolism in its phallic-like tubularity and erectness that connoted
rather more with physical (phenomenal) or metaphysical (noumenal) criteria,
again according to class. But of course there are two axes, one stretching from
northwest to southeast and the other from southwest to northeast, on the intercardinal axial compass which I use to illustrate the
distinction between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria on the one
hand, and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on the other hand, and
while the one is characterized by the dominance of female criteria in free to
bound somatic and bound to free psychic fashion, the other is characterized by
the dominance of male criteria in bound to free psychic and free to bound somatic
fashion, as in a kind of British/Irish cultural and ethnic divide. For me, this
means that both the sensuality of the northwest and sensibility of the
southeast of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis will be dominated by
objective criteria in unreflexive vein, whereas both the sensuality of the
southwest and sensibility of the northeast of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will be dominated by subjective
criteria in reflexive vein. In other words, a distinction
between uncollapsibles in the one case and collapsibles in the other, whether
with regard to hoods or umbrellas. Hence a descent from the
uncollapsible hood of the northwest to the uncollapsible brolly of the
southeast in the case of the female-dominated state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis, but an ascent, by contrast, from the collapsible (or fold-in) hood of the
southwest to the collapsible brolly of the northeast on the male-dominated
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. A descent, in the one case, from the
noumenal sensuality of metachemistry and the noumenal
antisensibility of antimetaphysics
to the phenomenal antisensuality of antichemistry and the phenomenal sensibility of physics,
but an ascent, in the other case, from the phenomenal antisensibility
of antiphysics and the phenomenal sensuality of
chemistry to the noumenal sensibility of metaphysics and the noumenal antisensuality of antimetachemistry. Those dominated, in
autocratic fashion, by the noumenal objectivity of metachemical sensuality will
be unreflexive and thus given to uncollapsibles of one sort or another. Those
dominated, in theocratic fashion, by the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical
sensibility will be reflexive and thus given to collapsibles of one sort or
another. The uncollapsible hood will find its antithesis, within an axis
characterized by the dominance of objectivity, in the uncollapsible brolly; the
collapsible hood ... its antithesis, within an axis characterized by the
dominance of subjectivity, in the collapsible brolly. Therefore hoods are no
more necessarily low than brollies high. Hoods, as argued above, can be high
(and noumenal) or low (and phenomenal), pretty much like drama and poetry. Just
so, across the sensual/sensible divide, brollies can be low (and phenomenal) or
high (and noumenal), pretty much like fiction and philosophy. But a star and/or
triangle vis-à-vis cross-like distinction between the two approaches to weather
protection will continue, I believe, to prevail, as though in a contrast
between left-wing (whether extreme or moderate, noumenal or phenomenal) and
right-wing (whether moderate or extreme, phenomenal or noumenal) criteria,
thereby suggesting that hoods are less christianistic than heathenistic and
umbrellas, by contrast, more christianistic than heathenistic, despite
appearances to the contrary.
PROBABLE PARALLEL OF SINGERS AND HOODS
While on
the subject of hoods and brollies (see previous entry), I should like to make a
distinction between the free-standing singer of, say, a rock group and the one
who also plays an instrument, particularly a guitar, on the basis of the
distinction already drawn (see previous entry) between uncollapsible
objectivistic hoods and collapsible subjectivistic hoods, as though the former
were on the level of the free-standing singer and the latter parallel with the
guitar-playing singer, whose disposition is arguably less unequivocally
objective than equivocally subjective. Either way, singing, particularly in a
rock-band context, is indicative, it seems to me, of a fiery or a watery female
dominance of the male (as antimale), as with hoods, and therefore the 'male'
singer appears to be one who is either antimetaphysically subordinate to metachemistry (free-standing singer) or antiphysically
subordinate to chemistry (piano-playing singer), in hood-like vein. Naturally,
there are female singers as well, but they tend to be either
metachemical (and fiery) or chemical (and watery), with the piano
arguably more applicable than the guitar in the latter context, as alluded to
above.
UTILIZING THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO A
REVOLUTIONARY THEOCRATIC END
I have always maintained that Social Theocracy
should only strive for a position of ideological influence through the
democratic process, albeit in relation to countries where, like Eire, a majority
Catholic tradition would make the prospect of a return to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria feasible, if only because the
people concerned have been accustomed to such an axial reality and, in some
cases, remain acquainted with it even in the face of a
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate lapsed Catholic decadence
commensurate with Anglo-American - and particularly American - secular
influence. But such a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
criteria could only be Social Theocratic and therefore strictly revolutionary
in character, extending the axis in relation to a post-worldly and therefore
effectively global age. The paradoxical utilization of the democratic process
to counter the contemporary paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate
deference by those at the southwest to those at the northwest of the intercardinal axial compass would be intended to foster a
desire, in the people, for a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
criteria on the basis of a Social Theocratic revolution such that could only
transpire in the event - however unlikely at present - of a majority mandate
for religious sovereignty, which I have been advocating for several years as
the desirable alternative to political sovereignty and its worldly concomitants
and implications. Therefore I am no advocate of republicanism, neither on the
liberal basis of the Irish Republic nor on the radical basis of a more
totalitarian approach to politics such that would lead to a socialistic/fascistic
polarity in Eire analogous to that which prevailed, in the inter-war years,
between Sinn Fein and the Blue Shirts. For me, the Republic is something that,
in Nietzsche's memorable phrase, 'should be overcome', and the only way that this
can happen is if a majority mandate for religious sovereignty were to transpire
from a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process with a view to 'world
overcoming' in relation to the prospect of 'otherworldly' criteria taking
precedence over anything else. Then what I have called the Social Theocratic
Centre would be born, and it would be akin, in my judgement, to 'Kingdom Come',
insofar as it would be designed to accommodate the rights of a religiously
sovereign people, including the right to be free from religious superstition
and tyranny, with its basis in netherworldly
tradition. For until the people are
religiously sovereign they will not be free from the last bastion of tyranny,
which is that of Jehovahesque Creatorism in respect of Old Testament criteria
and the notion - no matter how nonsensical or infantile - of a cosmic Creator
Who, in metaphorical parlance, was or remains responsible for everything that
followed. But free from is not, as
Nietzsche would doubtless agree, the same as free for,
and more important than being free from religious superstition and tradition
would be being free for religious self-realization through self-transcendence
of a synthetically artificial character, the sort of character that would be
necessary not only to global civilization as a synthetic actuality in the
process of development, but to the defeat, through potent alternatives, of
contemporary American-dominated synthetic artificiality such that more often
than not takes a celluloid form in its associations with the film industry and
camera-based media in general. But of course this could not transpire without
recourse to a correlative process of what I have in the past called
'cyborgization' such that would enable the religiously sovereign people
(earmarked for supra-human transmutation) to have recourse to enlightenment of
a synthetically artificial character without fear of natural repercussions such
that are only too prevalent on the human plane. For 'man is something that
should be overcome' from the standpoint of godliness, call it superman or
superbeing if you will, since godliness, when properly understood, could only
be dangerous to man and we wouldn't want man to suffer from trying to play God
without actually undergoing the necessary transformations that would render
him, or his evolutionary successor, godly and thus capable of living on a
properly or fully godly plane with virtual impunity. However, I am merely
scratching the surface of the overall complexity of the problem in this
essayistic aphorism - which is not a substitute for my works in general (see,
for example, Opera D’Oeuvre) - and
therefore I have not mentioned the antimetachemical corollary of metaphysical godliness
which, as an antifemale reality, would be antidevilishness, and therefore
something that needs to be addressed as a quite separate category germane less
to the Celestial City, to use Bunyanesque terms, than to what I have tended, in
the past, to equate with Anti-Vanity Fair. Unfortunately, conventional Western
thinking is too inclined to subsume the sexes into one another rather than to
differentiate between them in such fashion that criteria applying to the one
sex are not applied to the other. All this will have to change in the more
fully developed global future, once universality gets properly under way on a
basis that requires an anti-polyversal corollary if it is not to be
subversively undermined.
I AM NOT IN THE HUMANISTS’ ECONOMIC POCKET
One thing
the godly individual, who is metaphysical, can't be, and that is culturally or
creatively in the liberal democrat's or the social democrat's economic pocket.
I have not sought publication for my writings in book form because, quite apart
from my lack of commercial appeal as a truth-oriented writer of Irish stock, I
would only end up in the bourgeois humanist's or the proletarian humanist's
economic pocket, and that is no place for the godly individual to be! Books, whether hardback or softback, liberally relativistic or
socially absolutist, have no professional or commercial appeal for me. I
despise them and their humanistic dupes and perpetrators! The book has no place
in the sphere of godliness, and that includes the so-called Book of Books, the
Bible which, as (I was going to say 'we all know', but that is evidently not
necessarily the case) I have long maintained, is rooted in God's opposite, the
Devil, meaning - contrary to popular if not populist presumption - Devil the
Mother hyped as God the Father, and extends, New Testament-wise, only as far as
an extrapolation from such a Devil which is better known as the Son, though
doubtfully of God! since this Son is unable to
transcend himself (something, in any case, the Son is in no position to do),
but is both the mark and the end of the Western road in religious terms.
Frankly, this netherworldly alpha to worldly omega of
things religious is not enough! Even the Catholic postulate of otherworldly
omega in the Resurrected is a Son, and therefore significant of metaphysical
bound soma rather than of free psyche which, in the West, has never existed
independently of metachemistry (or Devil the Mother
hyped as God), as, by elitist contrast, it has in parts of the TM-oriented
East, where nothing like Jehovah has existed in the religious tradition to hold
metaphysical ego back from expressing itself in the interests of soul. But all
this is rather beside the initial point; which was about the incompatibility of
books with godliness and the irrelevance of both liberal democratic and social
democratic criteria to the sphere of metaphysics, which is rather to be thought
of as social theocratic, even if it may have to pass through a comparatively
liberal phase in which a degree of pluralism exists prior to a long-term
centro-complexification which may well be more totalitarian in character. We
shall just have to wait and see! But the godly individual will continue to take
books with a considerable pinch of salt as he pursues his internet-oriented
e-book or, rather, e-scroll vocation independently of book publication and,
hence, of market forces and/or commercial pressures. The Truth - or that which
is properly germane to metaphysics, particularly to metaphysics of a
synthetically artificial and therefore properly or definitively universal order
- is not to be found in books, and those who are looking for it there are
going, later if not sooner, to be sorely disappointed!
CONCERNING
A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS FEW AND THE RELIGIOUSLY SOVEREIGN ONE
I like to
distinguish between the Few and the One at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass that I am always citing these
days, and principally in terms of the Leaders and the Led or, more to the
future point, the Served, who would appertain to the Saved and the
Counter-Damned in a framework characterized by religious sovereignty. Hence the
Servants of the People are more of the Few than of the One, since they would
remain outside the sphere of religiously sovereign centro-complexification as so
many personally cyborgized individuals whose duty it was to serve those
earmarked, as religiously sovereign, for cyborg universality, that is, for
transmutation from what they had been at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the Many, into what
they were destined to become at its northeast point in relation to
revolutionary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria - namely, the
aforementioned One. For centro-complexification will require that the saved
(male) and counter-damned (antifemale) masses be transformed, by degrees, into
supra-human communes in which any given artificially supported and sustained
individual will be germane to the One, however many brains or new brains or
brain-stem/spinal-chord aspects of a given brain may happen to be
simultaneously 'housed' in the supra-human commune of what, in the past, I have
tended to term a superbeing, meaning the communal entity in general, including
its support and sustain features. Such a superbeing would be germane to universal
oneness even as its servants, in the administrative aside to the Centre proper
of supra-human experience, continued to operate as, in effect, the Few. For, as
intimated above, they would be personally cyborgized, not communally or
universally cyborgized, and would always be at an administrative and protective
remove from the focus of supra-human advancement, rather like shepherds tending
their flock and overseeing its 'spiritual' grazing, so to speak. But such a
superbeing entity, constitutive of a kind of communal unity of religious
purpose, would still be germane to universal oneness even as it co-existed, on
the earth and perhaps even in the same city and/or country, with other such
superbeingful entities, who would also have their respective administrators and
protectors. 'Heaven on earth', in this particular ideological context which I
like to think of as being the most credible projection of evolutionary progress
for the future, would always be relative, never absolute; for there would
almost certainly be a number of superbeing communes in existence on different
parts of the earth that only had the potential for definitive universality in a
Oneness Supreme such that, by definition, could not emerge on the earth but
only beyond it ... in space ... as the destiny of all earthly communes.
Consequently while 'heaven on earth' is a precondition of Heaven per se, which can only be
set in space in space centres or, more desirably, a definitive Space Centre, it
is not something that can be regarded as an end-in-itself, but only as a means
to a higher end such that earth centres can be transformed into over the course
of eternity, being transported, via shuttle-like arrangements, to outer space
where the possibility of their further centro-complexification can be fully
realized in relation to an ultimate Space Centre the sum-product of all earth
centres, which will be more absolutely representative of universal oneness and
therefore be capable of sustaining and supporting a beingfulness in the
metaphysically free which will be nothing short of ultimate and more properly
germane, in consequence, to what could be termed ultrabeings, their
antimetachemical antifemale counterparts less super-antidoings by then than
ultra-antidoings in correlative bound somatic deference to the free psyche
metaphysically obtaining above them on the plane not of antispace so much as of
time, which will be less germane to Anti-Vanity Fair than to the Celestial
City, and therefore constitute the higher aspect of that Oneness which will be
led by theocracy though also embrace a degree of anti-aristocracy in its
antimetachemical elements. Yet a core of what may be called the
ultra-technocratic Few will continue, on an enhanced cyborg basis, to serve the
interests of the theocratic/anti-aristocratic One - in complete contrast to the
rule of the aristocratic/antitheocratic – if not, in free soma,
autocratic/antitechnocratic - Few by the ultra-autocratic One of
metachemical/antimetaphysical tradition on the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
NEVER
SIMPLY BLACK AND WHITE
It is
always tempting to see things in black and white or, shall we say, bright and
dark, but, unfortunately, things are rarely that simple. For a start, there are
two axes, one dominated by free soma in female fashion and the other led by
free psyche in male fashion, and therefore there are fundamentally two kinds of
bright and dark, or light and shade, even without class complications. Take metachemistry over antimetaphysics
at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass. Free soma, the female ideal, is a brightness,
whilst its bound psychic counterpart is somewhat of a dark shadow, trailing
behind the leading string, as it were. Therefore a somatic brightness has to be
contrasted, in each gender case, antimetaphysical as well as metachemical, with
a psychic darkness. The same is true of chemistry over antiphysics
at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass, free soma being bright and bound psyche dark. But on the sensible side
of the moral divide things are quite otherwise. There free psyche is bright and
bound soma dark, whether in terms of physics over antichemistry at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass
or, up above, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at its northeast point. The
bright side of a male hegemonic coupling, being free, is certainly psychic,
whilst its dark side, corresponding to the bound, is somatic. This has some
interesting, if quite unconventional, moral ramifications, but I don't wish to
enlarge upon that now. Suffice it to say that things are never simply black and
white, least of all in terms of evil being somehow
dark and good bright (the reverse is actually the case, bearing in mind the
distinction between free metachemical soma and bound antichemical soma on
primary state-hegemonic terms). To be sure, a distinction between the dark and
the bright most certainly exists, and at all points of the intercardinal
axial compass, but it is not simply in terms of soma being dark and psyche
bright, or vice versa. That is why, with both the female ideal of free soma and
the male ideal of free psyche corresponding to the bright side of things, one
has a moral incompatibility between them which is no mere black/white dichotomy
but a competition between alternative kinds of brightness that is likely to
lead, in axial differentiation, to different types of society, depending on
which kind of freedom is officially encouraged and regarded as alone right, and
to keep those who believe in the one kind quite separate from those who believe
in the other, both within and without their particular society. For mutually
incompatible, as free females and free males, they respectively remain.
A BRIEF
EXAMINATION OF THE MORAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PLAY AND WORK
If it is
not possible to categorically maintain that soma is invariably dark or black or
shaded vis-à-vis psyche, and for the simple reason that brightness is
determined by freedom, whether somatic or psychic, and darkness by binding,
likewise irrespective of the faculty, then it should
be possible to maintain that
whatever is bound is dark and whatever is free, by contrast, is bright.
Therefore brightness can be associated with either soma or psyche and darkness
likewise, the chief determinant being the distinction between freedom and
binding. But this distinction can be applied quite categorically to the
dichotomy between play and work, since play is invariably free, or associated
with freedom, whereas work is contractually obligated and is therefore a manifestation
of binding. Since soma can be free or bound, so it can have associations with
either play or work. The same holds true of psyche, which is only to be
associated with play when free, not when bound. Therefore we can plot a
distinction between play and work on the basis of freedom and binding, whether
in relation to soma or psyche. Since metachemistry is
the element of free soma and bound psyche par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism, we can
maintain that metachemistry exemplifies somatic play
and psychic work, its antimetaphysical corollary likewise, if on secondary
terms, exemplifying somatic play and psychic work. Similarly, since chemistry
is the element of free soma and bound psyche on phenomenally relative terms, we
can maintain that chemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its
antiphysical corollary likewise, if on primary terms in relation,
traditionally, to the subversion of chemistry to bound psychic emphasis at the
behest, axially considered, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, at any
rate, of some degree of metaphysics, whether hyped or not, over
antimetachemistry. Be that as it may, it should be possible to contend, for
sensibility in contrast to sensuality, that since physics is the element of
free psyche and bound soma on phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that
physics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antichemical corollary
likewise, if on primary terms, traditionally, in relation to the subversion of
physics to bound somatic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics
or, at any rate, of some degree of metachemistry over
antimetaphysics. Finally, since metaphysics is the
element of free psyche and bound soma par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism, we can
maintain that metaphysics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its
antimetachemical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms, exemplifying
psychic play and somatic work. Hence the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis which stretches from northwest to southeast of the intercardinal
axial compass would indicate a primary state-hegemonic polarity between the
brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the
female contrast between metachemistry and antichemistry is concerned, but a secondary state-hegemonic
polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic
work as far as the male contrast between antimetaphysics
and physics is concerned, the contrast between the darkness of psychic work and
the brightness of psychic play being primarily church subordinate in relation
to metachemistry and antichemistry, but secondarily
church-subordinate in relation to antimetaphysics and
physics. By complete contrast, however, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis which stretches from the southwest to the northeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a primary
church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the
brightness of psychic play as far as the male contrast between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, but a secondary
church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the
brightness of psychic play as far as the female contrast between chemistry and
antimetachemistry is concerned, the contrast between the brightness of somatic
play and the darkness of somatic work being primarily state-subordinate in
relation to antiphysics and metaphysics, but
secondarily state-subordinate in relation to chemistry and antimetachemistry.
Hence play-brightness has a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms and
work-darkness a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms on the former
axis, irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms, while
work-darkness has a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms and
play-brightness a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms on the latter
axis, again irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms. Therefore in
terms of metachemistry to antichemistry, evil is
bright and goodness dark, for evil corresponds to somatic freedom of metachemistry and goodness to somatic binding of
antichemistry, whereas crime is dark and punishment bright, since crime
corresponds to psychic binding of metachemistry and
punishment to psychic freedom of antichemistry. Likewise, in terms of antimetaphysics to physics, pseudo-folly is bright and
pseudo-wisdom dark, for pseudo-folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antimetaphysics and pseudo-wisdom to somatic binding of
physics, whereas pseudo-sin is dark and pseudo-grace bright, since pseudo-sin
corresponds to psychic binding of antimetaphysics and
pseudo-grace to psychic freedom of physics. In terms, by axial contrast, of antiphysics to metaphysics, sin is dark and grace bright,
for sin corresponds to psychic binding of antiphysics
and grace to psychic freedom of metaphysics, whereas folly is bright and wisdom
dark, since folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antiphysics
and wisdom to somatic binding of metaphysics. Likewise, in terms of chemistry
to antimetachemistry, pseudo-crime is dark and pseudo-punishment bright, for
pseudo-crime corresponds to psychic binding of chemistry and pseudo-punishment
to psychic freedom of antimetachemistry, whereas pseudo-evil is bright and
pseudo-goodness dark, since pseudo-evil corresponds to somatic freedom of
chemistry and pseudo-goodness to somatic binding of antimetachemistry. Strange,
but it is so.
SYNTHETIC
AND NON-SYNTHETIC ANTITHESES
Speaking in
axial terms, one might note a fall, on the one hand, from synthetic naturalism
(supernaturalism) to non-synthetic artificiality, as, in general terms, from metachemistry to physics, but a rise, on the other hand,
from non-synthetic naturalism to synthetic artificiality (super-artificiality),
as, in general terms, from chemistry to metaphysics. For the four main points,
effectively hegemonic, of the intercardinal axial
compass would seem to connote with synthetic naturalism at the northwest,
non-synthetic naturalism at the southwest, non-synthetic artificiality at the
southeast, and synthetic artificiality at the northeast, the axes, of course,
being determined according to a polarity between the northwest and the
southeast on the one hand, and between the southwest and the northeast on the
other hand, even with other - and subordinate - factors to consider in each
case. However that may be, I have little doubt that the noumenal antitheses, in
space and time, are equally synthetic, if in relation to supernature and
super-artificiality respectively, which amounts to a distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics, superheathen objectivity and
superchristian subjectivity, absolute alpha and absolute omega, whereas the
phenomenal antitheses, in volume and mass, are equally non-synthetic, if in
relation to nature and artificiality respectively, which amounts to a
distinction between chemistry and physics, heathen objectivity and Christian
subjectivity, relative alpha and relative omega. The pairings of metachemistry with antimetaphysics,
of chemistry with antiphysics, of physics with
antichemistry, and of metaphysics with antimetachemistry do not substantially
alter this conclusion, although they modify the respective axial realities of
what, in total, are state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate mutually exclusive traditions.
SUPERBARBARISM
AND SUPERPHILISTINISM TO SUPERCULTURE AND SUPERCIVILITY
If the
distinction - excluding for the moment the paradoxical emphases of axial
subversion - between chemistry and physics in the sensuality and sensibility of
phenomenal relativity is one of barbarism and philistinism in free soma and
bound psyche vis-à-vis culture and civility in free psyche and bound soma, then
the distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics
in the sensuality and sensibility of noumenal absolutism could be described as
one of superbarbarism and superphilistinism in free soma and bound psyche
vis-à-vis superculture and supercivility in free psyche and bound soma.
Clearly, if barbarism appertains to chemical free soma and philistinism to chemical
bound psyche, then civility must appertain to physical bound soma and culture
to physical free psyche, civility being the bound-somatic antithesis of
barbarism no less than culture the free-psychic antithesis of philistinism.
Likewise, if superbarbarism appertains to metachemical free soma and
superphilistinism to metachemical bound psyche, then supercivility must
appertain to metaphysical bound soma and superculture to metaphysical free
psyche, supercivility being the bound-somatic antithesis of superbarbarism no
less than superculture the free-psychic antithesis of superphilistinism. So far
so good! But we also have underplane, or secondary,
positions to bear in mind where each point of the intercardinal
axial compass is concerned, namely antimetaphysics
under metachemistry at the noumenal northwest, antiphysics under chemistry at the phenomenal southwest,
antichemistry under physics at the phenomenal southeast, and antimetachemistry
under metaphysics at the noumenal northeast, the actual state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial differentials being established on
a northwest to southeast basis on the one hand, and on a northeast to southwest
basis on the other hand, with the noumenal heights more or less dictating the
terms of the phenomenal positions below. So much for that! What we have now to
establish is that the secondary or 'anti' positions are less equivalent to the
primary or 'pro' positions directly hegemonic over them than contrary to their
corresponding primary or 'pro' positions in sensuality or sensibility, as the
gender case may be. Hence it makes logical sense to regard antimetaphysics
as anti-supercivil and anti-supercultural rather
than, like metachemistry, as superbarbarous
and superphilistine, since metachemistry is superheathenly supernatural and antimetaphysics
anti-superchristianly anti-superartificial, after the
respective fashions of noumenal objectivity and noumenal anti-subjectivity.
Similarly it makes logical sense to regard antiphysics
as anti-cultural and anti-civil rather than, like chemistry, philistine and
barbarous, since chemistry is heathenly natural and antiphysics
anti-christianly anti-artificial, after the
respective fashions of phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal anti-subjectivity.
Crossing to the sensible side of the phenomenal axial divide, it makes logical
sense to regard antichemistry as anti-barbarous and anti-philistine rather
than, like physics, as civil and cultural, since physics is christianly
artificial and antichemistry anti-heathenly anti-natural, after the respective
fashions of phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal anti-objectivity. Similarly
it makes logical sense to regard antimetachemistry as anti-superphilistine and
anti-superbarbarous rather than, like metaphysics, supercultural and
supercivil, since metaphysics is superchristianly super-artificial and
antimetachemistry anti-superheathenly anti-supernatural, after the respective
fashions of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity. Thus, in
overall axial terms, metachemistry and antimetaphysics form a gender-conditioned polarity with
antichemistry and physics on the basis of somatic opposition between
superbarbarism and anti-barbarism on primary state-hegemonic terms (free
somatic metachemistry to bound somatic antichemistry)
and anti-supercivility and civility on secondary state-hegemonic terms (free
somatic antimetaphysics to bound somatic physics),
with a corresponding psychic opposition between superphilistinism and
anti-philistinism on primary church-subordinate terms (bound psychic metachemistry to free psychic antichemistry) and
anti-superculture and culture on secondary church-subordinate terms (bound
psychic antimetaphysics to free psychic physics).
Contrariwise, metaphysics and antimetachemistry form a gender-conditioned
polarity with antiphysics and chemistry on the basis
of psychic opposition between superculture and anti-culture on primary
church-hegemonic terms (free psychic metaphysics to bound psychic antiphysics) and anti-superphilistinism
and philistinism on secondary church-hegemonic terms (free psychic
antimetachemistry to bound psychic chemistry), with a corresponding somatic
opposition between supercivility and anti-civility on primary state-subordinate
terms (bound somatic metaphysics to free somatic antiphysics)
and anti-superbarbarism and barbarism on secondary
state-subordinate terms (bound somatic antimetachemistry to free somatic
chemistry). Superculture is the salvation of anti-culture no less than
supercivility the salvation of anti-civility for those who, as antiphysical,
are neither cultural nor civil in physical fashion and therefore are in with
the prospect of their noumenal counterparts. But if metaphysics is the
salvation, in church and state, of antiphysics,
then antimetachemistry is most assuredly the
counter-damnation (a counter fall from hegemonic ascendancy in relative gender
sync to antimetachemical underplane subservience in
absolute gender upendedness) of chemistry, since anti-superphilistinism is the
counter-damnation of philistinism no less than anti-superbarbarism the
counter-damnation of barbarism for those who, having been philistine and
barbarous in the phenomenal relativity of an equivocal hegemony, will be denied
their noumenal counterparts in the absolutism of an unequivocal subjection to
the metaphysical ascendancy of superculture and supercivility, the 'father' and
'son' of the super-artificial superchristianity of the truly blessed (with
complete gender sync).
METACHEMICAL
AND METAPHYSICAL ANTITHESES
To contrast
the superbarbarism (noumenal barbarism) of metachemical free soma and the
superphilistinism (noumenal philistinism) of metachemical bound psyche with the
superculture (noumenal culture) of metaphysical free psyche and the
supercivility (noumenal civility) of metaphysical bound soma, as one would
contrast the supernatural (noumenal natural) with the super-artificial
(noumenal artificial) across the absolute gender divide - female and male - of
the hegemonic positions of the northwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass. Therefore to contrast the
beauty and love of metachemical free soma and the ugliness and hatred of
metachemical bound psyche with the truth and joy of metaphysical free psyche
and the illusion and woe of metaphysical bound soma, as one would contrast evil
and crime with grace and wisdom, the former pairing appertaining to Devil the
Mother/Hell the Clear Spirit and the Daughter of the Devil/the Clear Soul of
Hell; the latter pairing to God the Father/Heaven the Holy Soul and the Son of
God/the Holy Spirit of Heaven. In brief, both the evil of metachemical free
soma and the grace of metaphysical free psyche are bright, that is to say, they
appertain to contrary types of freedom, whereas both the crime of metachemical
bound psyche and the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma are dark, which is to
say, they appertain to contrary types of binding. The former antitheses
correspond to contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play, whereas the
latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of
work. And, being noumenal, they are absolutely exclusive, appertaining, as
noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the hegemonic
factors - metachemistry over antimetaphysics
as space over antitime and metaphysics over antimetachemistry as time over
antispace.
ANTIMETACHEMICAL
AND ANTIMETAPHYSICAL ANTITHESES
To contrast
the anti-supercivility (noumenal anticivility) of antimetaphysical free soma
and the anti-superculture (noumenal anticulture) of antimetaphysical bound
psyche with the anti-superphilistinism (noumenal antiphilistinism) of
antimetachemical free psyche and the anti-superbarbarism (noumenal
antibarbarism) of antimetachemical bound soma, as one would contrast the
anti-superchristian (noumenal antichristian) with the anti-superheathen
(noumenal antiheathen) across the absolute gender divide - antimale and
antifemale - of the subservient positions of the northwest and northeast points
of the intercardinal axial compass. Therefore to
contrast the anti-illusion and antiwoe of antimetaphysical free soma and the
antitruth and antijoy of antimetaphysical bound psyche with the anti-ugliness
and antihatred of antimetachemical free psyche and the antibeauty and antilove
of antimetachemical bound soma, as one would contrast pseudo-folly and
pseudo-sin with pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness, the former pairing
appertaining to the Antison of Antigod/the Unholy Spirit of Antiheaven and
Antigod the Antifather/Antiheaven the Unholy Soul; the latter pairing to the
Antidaughter of the Antidevil/the Unclear Soul of Antihell and Antidevil the
Antimother/Antihell the Unclear Spirit. In brief, both the pseudo-folly of
antimetaphysical free soma and the pseudo-punishment of antimetachemical free
psyche are bright, that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom,
whereas both the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical bound psyche and the
pseudo-goodness of antimetachemical bound soma are dark, which is to say, they
appertain to contrary types of binding. The former antitheses correspond to
contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play, whereas the latter antitheses
correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of work. And, being
noumenal, they are absolutely exclusive, appertaining, as noted above, to
contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the subservient factors - antimetaphysics under metachemistry
as antitime under space, antimetachemistry under metaphysics as antispace under
time.
CHEMICAL
AND PHYSICAL ANTITHESES
To contrast
the philistinism of chemical bound psyche and the barbarism of chemical free
soma with the civility of physical bound soma and the culture of physical free
psyche, as one would contrast the natural with the artificial across the
relative gender divide - female and male - of the hegemonic positions (duly
subverted to uncharacteristic gender emphasis by inclusive axial factors) of
the southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal
axial compass. Therefore to contrast the weakness and humility of chemical
bound psyche and the strength and pride of chemical free soma with the
ignorance and pain of physical bound soma and the knowledge and pleasure of
physical free psyche, as one would contrast pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil with
pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace, the former pairing appertaining to the Daughter
of Woman/the Clear Soul of Purgatory and Woman the Mother/Purgatory the Clear
Spirit; the latter pairing to the Son of Man/the Holy Spirit of Earth and Man
the Father/Earth the Holy Soul. In brief, both the pseudo-crime of chemical
bound psyche and the pseudo-wisdom of physical bound soma are dark, that is to
say, they appertain to contrary types of binding, whereas both the pseudo-evil
of chemical free soma and the pseudo-grace of physical free psyche are bright,
which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom. The former
antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of work,
whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - somatic and
psychic - of play. And, being phenomenal, they are relatively exclusive,
appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they
are the subverted hegemonic factors - chemistry over antiphysics
as volume over antimass and physics over antichemistry as mass over antivolume.
ANTIPHYSICAL
AND ANTICHEMICAL ANTITHESES
To contrast
the anticulture of antiphysical bound psyche and the anticivility of
antiphysical free soma with the antibarbarism of antichemical bound soma and
the antiphilistinism of antichemical free psyche, as one would contrast the
anti-artificial with the antinatural across the relative gender divide -
antimale and antifemale - of the subservient positions (duly subversive of the
hegemonic ones under pressure from noumenally inclusive axial factors) of the
southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal
axial compass. Therefore to contrast the antiknowledge and antipleasure of
antiphysical bound psyche and the anti-ignorance and antipain of antiphysical
free soma with the antistrength and antipride of antichemical bound soma and
the antiweakness and antiwoe of antichemical free psyche, as one would contrast
sin and folly with goodness and punishment, the former pairing appertaining to
Antiman the Antifather/Anti-earth the Unholy Soul and the Antison of
Antiman/the Unholy Spirit of Anti-earth; the latter pairing to Antiwoman the
Antimother/Antipurgatory the Unclear Spirit and the Antidaughter of
Antiwoman/the Unclear Soul of Antipurgatory. In brief, both the sinfulness of
antiphysical bound psyche and the goodness of antichemical bound soma are dark,
that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of binding, whereas both the
folly of antiphysical free soma and the punishment of antichemical free psyche
are bright, which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom. The
former antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of
work, whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - somatic and
psychic - of play. And, being phenomenal, they are relatively exclusive,
appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they
are the subverting subservient factors - antiphysics
under chemistry (at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry) as
antimass under volume, and antichemistry under physics (at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics)
as antivolume under mass.
THE ONE AND
THE ANTI-NOT-ONE
Not so long
ago, in an aphoristic entry entitled 'Concerning a Distinction between the
Religious Few and the Religiously Sovereign One', I made the mistake, unusual
for me, of subsuming the antifemale position in antimetachemistry into the
concept of Oneness in relation to the male hegemonic position in metaphysics,
and this in spite of customary differentials between the two supra-human
contexts, such as time and antispace or, indeed, the Celestial City and
Anti-Vanity Fair. Doubtless part of the reason for this was the existence of
the concept Few in relation to the serving elite, who would constitute an
administrative aside, so to speak, to the religious rights and experiences of
the religiously sovereign supra-human entities of the Centre-proper; but
another reason was that I just hadn't formulated an adequate distinction, at
the time, between the two supra-human contexts that would have done justice to
it in terms of what properly appertained to the One, namely the metaphysical,
and what was correlative of it in relation to the antimetachemical. Since then,
however, I have had plenty of time in which to revaluate the situation and,
true to my long-standing methodology, I have come up with the ingenious concept
of the Anti-Not-One as the most appropriate description of that which,
appertaining to the upended female in antimetachemistry (the noumenal
antifemale) should be regarded as complementing the One of those for whom
metaphysical self-realization is the name of the church-hegemonic game.
Therefore not just a distinction, at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, between the Few and the One,
the serving and the served, but a further distinction between the One and the
Anti-Not-One, the latter of whom, being antimetachemical, will be contrary to
Not-Oneness, as typifying that which appertains to metachemistry
in relation to free soma. Therefore the metaphysical/antimetachemical
complementariness of noumenal male and noumenal antifemale elements at the
northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass is
most assuredly more and less than just the One: it is to be thought of in terms
of metaphysical oneness and antimetachemical anti-not-oneness, the latter of
which is contrary, in bound soma, to all that is freely somatic at the
northwest point of the said compass, with specific reference to the
unequivocally hegemonic position of metachemistry, as
appertaining to noumenal females. If Oneness has to do with the Self, with
psyche, then Not-Oneness is most assuredly its somatic antithesis which, in the
past, I have identified with the concept Not-Self. Hence the Not-Self is not
only that which cannot be identified with the Self; it is contrary to it in
relation to soma and therefore originates on a female-hegemonic basis in metachemistry in which soma takes precedence over psyche as
Not-Self over Self, the former free and the latter bound to it in what,
elsewhere, I have described as church-subordinate fashion. For the Not-Self is
the root of all that is if not state absolutist then, at the very least, state
hegemonic. But the Anti-Not-Self, having to do with bound soma and, by
extrapolation, free psyche, can only materialize in relation to the hegemonic
triumph of the Self and, hence, of metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and where the triumph of the
Self is primarily about free psyche, the vanquishing of the Not-Self in terms
of the Anti-Not-Self can only be primarily, if not rhetorically, about bound
soma, since the unequivocal hegemony of noumenal male criteria in metaphysics
is only possible on the basis of the constraining of females to noumenal
antifemale criteria in antimetachemistry, thereby not only upending them in
relation to bound soma and free psyche (or the church-hegemonic rhetoric of
free psyche and bound soma), but opposing them to whatever is contrary to that
in metachemistry. Thus the overall context of the
religiously sovereign would be divisible between the One and the Anti-Not-One,
between free psyche (with a concomitant degree of bound soma) for noumenal
males and bound soma (with a degree of spin-off free psyche) for noumenal
antifemales, the cultivation of the Self to ever-greater degrees of universal
Onenesss requiring the correlative curtailment, in antifemales, of the Not-Self
to ever-greater degrees of what could be termed antipolyversal
Anti-Not-Oneness. For whereas cultivation of the Self makes for increased unity
in undifferentiated subjectivity of a wavicle cohesiveness, the curtailment of
the Not-Self ensures that soma is not in a metachemical position to foster
polyversal differentiation on the basis of particle disjunctiveness attendant
upon a vacuous objectivity at its spatial roots. And whereas with metachemistry and antimetaphysics
at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass one has a situation whereby the Not-One and what could be called, for
the noumenal antimale, the Anti-One rule over the Few, or those whose
aristocratic allegiance is to the prevailing royalty, with metaphysics and
antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the said compass, by contrast, one
has - or will have - a situation in which the Few, or those whose technocratic
allegiance is to the religiously sovereign, serve under the One and the
Anti-Not-One, pledged to protect and advance their religiously sovereign rights
for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity, for all time and antispace, until such time
as the metaphysical oneness of superbeing transcendence achieves its
space-centre apotheosis, as it were, in an ultrabeingful universality of
definitive Oneness, the ultimate godly individualism, and the antimetachemical
anti-not-oneness of anti-superdoing antimaterialism likewise attains, in the
slipstream of what properly obtains in metaphysics, an anti-ultradoingful
antipolyversality of definitive Not-Oneness, the ultimate antidevilish
anti-collectivism, as the Celestial City achieves the maximum of evolutionary
being in the utmost psychic freedom and the Anti-Vanity Fair is correlatively
brought to the maximum of counter-devolutionary antidoing in the utmost somatic
binding. Then and only then will one have the Omega Point and the Anti-Alpha
Point as the culmination of things Superchristian and Anti-Superheathen.
VICTORS AND
VICTIMS
Whether in
relation to metachemistry over antimetaphysics
at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass, to chemistry over antiphysics at the
southwest point of the said compass, to physics over antichemistry at its
southeast point, or to metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast,
each point is divisible between a hegemonic gender position and a subservient,
upended gender position in such fashion that we can distinguish between victors
and victims, the hegemonic victors and the subservient victims. For life would seem to be divisible between these two options, even
though there are a number of different permutations in which they materialize
or operate. Either soma gets the better of psyche in sensuality,
and we have a distinction between the Not-One and the Anti-One at both noumenal
and phenomenal points of the intercardinal axial
compass, or psyche gets the better of soma in sensibility, and we have a
distinction between the One and the Anti-Not-One at both phenomenal and
noumenal points of the said compass, the former divisible between the
sensuality of the Not-One and the antisensibility of
the Anti-One; the latter between the sensibility of the One and the antisensuality of the Anti-Not-One. Therefore
victors, corresponding to the hegemonic positions, will be either metachemical,
chemical, physical, or metaphysical, while their victims, corresponding to the underplane subservient positions, will be either
antimetaphysical, antiphysical, antichemical, or antimetachemical, depending on
the exact point of the intercardinal axial
compass. The victory of free soma over bound psyche is a victory for
heathen values, whether noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, at the
expense of antichristian values, whereas the victory of free psyche over bound
soma is a victory for Christian values, whether phenomenal or noumenal,
corporeal or ethereal, at the expense of antiheathen values. Our age is
one in which, thanks to medial like television and film, heathen values tend to
prevail at the expense of antichristian ones, but a time must surely come when
this situation will be reversed and Christian values, duly resurrected in a
superchristian mould, will get the better of their antiheathen counterparts,
obliging bound soma to defer to free psyche in the interests of all, including
culture and civility, that is best in civilization. Then, as now,
something of the hegemonic position will rub off onto the subservient, upended
position, but the two positions will remain, as now, quite distinct according
to gender. The Antimetachemical may not be as partial to truth and joy as
the Metaphysical, but their opposition to beauty and love, not to mention
ugliness and hatred, will ensure a deference to truth and joy, not to mention
illusion and woe, that would not otherwise materialize or be possible.
The Anti-Not-One will lie down with the One, as Anti-Vanity Fair with the
Celestial City, and thus defer to the victor's triumph as an honourable victim,
one who though not godly will be so far from anything devilish as to be
effectively antidevilish in her antifemale subjection
to male hegemonic criteria. The triumph of metaphysics over
antimetachemistry will signify the triumph of the ultimate victor over the
ultimate victim and, eventually, it will be the sole victor over the sole
victim as God and the Antidevil supersede all that is
not only axially polar to themselves in post-worldly manifestations of woman in
chemistry (duly subverted to psychic emphasis) and antiman
in antiphysics, but contrary and opposed to them on
the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of the Devil and Antigod in metachemistry over antimetaphysics
and man and antiwoman in physics (duly subverted to
somatic emphasis) and antichemistry. For the end of the world in relation
to the triumph of Heaven and Antihell will also put
an end to the netherworldly rule of Hell and
Antiheaven over the world, both directly, in axial relation to physics and
antichemistry, and indirectly, in inter-axial exploitative relation to
chemistry and antiphysics, whose worldly standing -
excluding axial subversion - is less omega and anti-alpha than alpha and
anti-omega and is therefore directly capable of being overcome once the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis gets its act together so conclusively
as to provide a lasting salvation and counter-damnation to all who,
identifiable with the phenomenal not-one and the phenomenal anti-one, can be
delivered from their lowly plight at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to the divine and antidiabolic heights of its northeast point as a matter of
moral and eschatological necessity. Then the victimized 'last' of
antiphysical anti-self will be metaphysically 'first' in noumenal self, while
the victorious 'first' of chemical not-self will be antimetachemically 'last'
in noumenal anti-not-self, the psychically bound becoming psychically free and
the somatically free somatically bound. So be it!
LONDON
2006–7 (Revised 2012)
