Op.
129
THE BEST OF
ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS
Aphoristic Philosophy
Copyright © 2013 John O’Loughlin
____________
PREFACE
I wrote the greater part of this volume of
aphoristic philosophy during the better part of a wet and windy week in
John O'Loughlin, London 2008
_______________
CYCLE 1
The intercardinal axis
stretches from the northwest to the southeast on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and from the southwest to the
northeast on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
Therefore it bisects two diametrically opposite
class positions on the state-hegemonic axis, namely the upper-class position of
the metachemical northwest and the middle-class
position of the physical southeast, the former female (diabolic or superfeminine) and the latter male (masculine).
Likewise it bisects two diametrically opposite
class positions on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, namely the
lower-class position of the chemical southwest and the classless position of
the metaphysical northeast, the former female (feminine) and the latter male
(divine or supermasculine).
Coupled, however, to each hegemonic position
are subordinate positions relative to the upended gender, and these under-plane
positions, as I have on occasion called them, correspond in pseudo-supermasculine male vein to pseudo-metaphysics (from out of
antimetaphysics) at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, which exists under metachemistry as sequential time (pseudo-time) under
spatial space; in pseudo-feminine vein to pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry) at the southeast point of the said compass,
which exists under physics as voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) under massive
mass; in pseudo-masculine vein to
pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics) at the
southwest point of the said compass, which exists under chemistry as massed
mass (pseudo-mass) under volumetric volume; and in pseudo-superfeminine
vein to pseudo-metachemistry (from out of antimetachemistry) at the northeast point of the said
compass, which exists under metaphysics as spaced space (pseudo-space) under
repetitive time.
Therefore metachemistry
coupled, at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass, to pseudo-metaphysics is polar to physics or, more correctly in
relation to the same gender, pseudo-chemistry coupled, at the southeast point
of the said compass, to physics, while across the overall axial divide
chemistry or, more correctly in relation to the same gender, pseudo-physics
coupled, at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass, to chemistry is polar to metaphysics coupled, at the northeast
point of the said compass, to pseudo-metachemistry.
One can also have – and sometimes finds –
quasi-metachemistry (from out of antimetaphysics),
quasi-physics (from out of antichemistry),
quasi-chemistry (from out of antiphysics), and
quasi-metaphysics (from out of antimetachemistry),
but these ‘quasi’ positions tend to be the immoral exception to the unmoral
(‘pseudo’) rule, as are the amoral ‘bovaryizations’,
so to speak, of the hegemonic positions coming down from above, a plane up in
each class case, in defiance of their moral
advantages in relation to the normally unmoral subordinate gender
position.
For morality, whether metachemical,
physical, chemical, or metaphysical, exists over unmorality,
as the clear in relation to the unholy where female-dominated gender pairings
are concerned, and as the holy in relation to the unclear where their
male-dominated – and sensible – counterparts are concerned.
Therefore anything amoral, coming down from
above (a plane up) will be as morally undesirable from the hegemonic gender’s
standpoint as anything immoral coming up from below (a plane down) from the
standpoint of the subordinate gender, which will normally be that of
pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry and of
pseudo-chemistry under physics on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis,
and of pseudo-physics under chemistry and of pseudo-metachemistry
under metaphysics on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
Examples, in literature, of literary
immorality, coming up from below, include drama (of which there is a
considerable amount) written by males and of philosophy (of which there is
comparatively little) written by females, whereas examples of literary
amorality (coming down from above) include poetry (of which there is comparatively
little) written by females and of fiction (of which there is a great deal)
written by males.
For fiction is no less pseudo-female than
poetry is male or, rather, pseudo-male, while drama is no less female than
philosophy is male, which, transposed to our respective axes on the intercardinal axial compass, will give us drama over
pseudo-poetry vis-à-vis pseudo-philosophy over fiction on the state-hegemonic
axis, but pseudo-drama over poetry vis-à-vis philosophy over pseudo-fiction on
the church-hegemonic axis.
The difference between the metachemical
and chemical forms of drama, however, is that whereas the former, corresponding
to absolute (noumenal) criteria is ‘short’, the
latter, corresponding to relative (phenomenal) criteria, will be ‘long’ – the
difference, in a word, between elemental particles and molecular particles, the
concrete ethereal and the concrete corporeal.
Likewise, the subordinate gender positions, or
literary genres, will reflect these absolute/relative distinctions, being, in
poetic terms, either ‘short’ or ‘long’, though less in relation to will and
spirit than to pseudo-soul and pseudo-ego, their gender-representative
attributes.
Similarly, the difference between the physical and
metaphysical forms of philosophy is that whereas the former, corresponding to
relative (phenomenal) criteria, will be ‘long’, the latter, corresponding to
absolute (noumenal) criteria, will be ‘short’ – the
difference, in a word, between molecular wavicles and
elemental wavicles, the abstract corporeal and the
abstract ethereal.
Likewise, the subordinate gender positions, or
literary genres, will reflect these relative/absolute distinctions, being, in
prosaic terms, either ‘long’ or ‘short’, though less in relation to ego and
soul than to pseudo-spirit and pseudo-will, their gender-representative
attributes.
For no less than pseudo-soul and pseudo-ego in
the pseudo-metaphysical and pseudo-physical forms of poetry will be germane,
under female hegemonic pressures, to bound psyche, pseudo-spirit and
pseudo-will in the pseudo-chemical and pseudo-metachemical
forms of fiction will be germane, under male hegemonic pressures, to bound
soma.
Males, if left to their own devices, will no
more opt for bound psyche (coupled to free soma) than females for bound soma
(coupled to free psyche). In either
case, all such gender paradoxes, which we have equated with the ‘pseudo’, are a
consequence of hegemonic pressure from the opposite gender, whose existence, a
plane up from their subordinate complements, ensures the paradoxical outcome
described, an outcome which, despite a superficial emphasis on soma in the
female-dominated cases and on psyche in the male-dominated ones, cannot change
the basic gender ratio of the subordinate gender, whether in relation to male
psyche or to female soma, and whether with an absolute (3:1) or a relative
(2½:1½) bias.
Thus although the subordinate gender can be
obliged to emphasize free soma (if pseudo-male) or free psyche (if pseudo-female),
their respective gender bias towards either psyche or soma will persist and
effectively continue to characterize them, come what may.
For females and males remain gender opposites,
despite seeming complementary appearances to the contrary.
CYCLE 2
Just as the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, characterized by metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, is a combination of noumenal objectivity and noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity, akin to a sartorial distinction between flounced dresses and
flared boiler-suits and/or zipper-suits, so the southeast point of the said
compass, characterized by physics and pseudo-chemistry, is a combination of
phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, akin to a sartorial
distinction between tapering pants and tight skirts.
Thus an overall polar distinction between noumenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity on
the female side of the gender divide, as between noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity and phenomenal subjectivity on its male side, confirming
the axial integrity of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society.
Now just as the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, characterized by chemistry and
pseudo-physics, is a combination of phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity,
akin to a sartorial distinction between flounced skirts and flared pants, so
the northeast point of the said compass, characterized by metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry, is a combination of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal
pseudo-objectivity, akin to a sartorial distinction between tapering
zipper-suits and tight dresses.
Thus an overall polar distinction between noumenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity on
the male side of the gender divide, as between noumenal
pseudo-objectivity and phenomenal objectivity on its female side, confirming
the axial integrity of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society.
Obviously the deliverance of the phenomenal
pseudo-subjective to noumenal subjectivity, as of
pseudo-physics to metaphysics, would be constitutive of salvation, whereas the
deliverance of the phenomenal objective to noumenal
pseudo-objectivity, as of chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry,
would constitute counter-damnation, the ‘first’ (chemical) becoming ‘last’
(pseudo-metachemical) and the ‘last’ (pseudo-physics)
becoming ‘first’ (metaphysical).
Such, in a nutshell, is the procedure or
methodology of salvation, which cannot proceed without the correlative
counter-damnation of females. For
salvation is strictly a male destiny, the destiny of those who have fallen from
XY self-division into an XX-X worldly compromise in mortal isolation, whose
gender situation is subject to female hegemonic criteria insofar as they exist
in terms of free soma and bound psyche (contrary to male norms) under chemical
female (feminine) pressures.
Therefore if they are to be returned to free
psyche and bound soma, the Y-oriented original starting-point for post-pubic
males from which they were picked off by an XX-chromosomal seduction to arrive
at the aforementioned beauty-deferring XY-chromosomal self-division, they must
be saved from their upended subordinate gender predicament (as pseudo-mass
under volume) and granted the benefit of gender sync in metaphysics, so that,
contrary to before, it would be male criteria that called the proverbial shots
in relation to the determination of free psyche and bound soma (contrary to
gender actuality) for females, become, in the counter-fall of
counter-damnation, pseudo-females whose noumenal
pseudo-objectivity in pseudo-metachemistry will be
the gender complement to the noumenal subjectivity of
metaphysics, existing or, rather, being a plane up at the northeast point of
the intercardinal axial compass in time (repetitive)
over pseudo-space (spaced), like the proverbial St. George whose triumphant
foot is firmly planted upon the prostrate form of the slain dragon, analogous
not only to the sartorial paradigm of tapering zipper-suits over tight dresses
mentioned above, but to all that most typifies the triumph of
godliness/heavenliness over pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness in and with
‘Kingdom Come’.
Obviously, if this process is taken far enough,
and the deliverance of both the pseudo-physical and the chemical to metaphysics (salvation) and pseudo-metachemistry (counter-damnation) goes ahead to a
significant and even conclusive degree, then there will be a kind of knock-on
effect on the opposite axis, the axis not of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
… but of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, and it will be logically
sustainable for us to postulate the damnation of the metachemical
to pseudo-chemistry, as though from flounced dresses to tight skirts, on the
female side of the gender divide, and the correlative counter-salvation of the
pseudo-metaphysical to physics, as though from flared zipper- or boiler-suits
to tapering pants, on the male side of such a divide, thereby effectively
collapsing the axis in question, which, I have long maintained, is now more
than ever the secular fruit of schismatic heresy.
For without prey to avail of at the southwest
point of the intercardinal axial compass, the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical will quickly discover
that their exemplification of somatic license, of free soma coupled to bound
psyche, is in vain, in consequence of which they will simply be put out of
commission, so to speak, and those who have financed them in what some would
call a Faustian pact will be obliged to cut their physical/pseudo-chemical
losses and deal with the damned and counter-saved, judging them as they see fit
as preconditions of their own entitlement to axial transposition and subsequent
make-over in something approximating the pseudo-physical and chemical
preconditions of metaphysical salvation and pseudo-metachemical
counter-damnation, if they, too, are to be saved and counter-damned, and thus
join with those who have already experienced the blessings or pseudo-cursings of deliverance from their pseudo-omega and alpha
world, to signal the end of axial relativity and of all exploitation, not least
that which originally stemmed from the noumenal
objectivity of metachemistry in terms of free soma
and bound psyche and is accordingly characteristic of free will (and spirit),
as germane to female XX-chromosomal freedom of seductive exploitation, whether
or not as a precondition of reproductive resolution in the surrogate plenum of
maternity.
This, then, is how the world is overcome. It is not, initially, the entire world, since
we are focusing our deliverance on the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (identified in the aphorism
above with the chemical alpha and the pseudo-physical pseudo-omega), where the
generality of catholics, whether traditional or
lapsed, are to be found and, being of a nature that is more self-effacing than
self-affirming, more sinfully self-conscious, one might say, than
stiff-upper-lip smug (in the parliamentary/puritan manner), are of that which
can be overcome and accordingly delivered in the aforementioned gender-bipolar
terms.
And not just, as traditionally, to some
accommodation with Christ, which is always a temporary matter having its axial
polarity in the dual traditions of Catholic Mass and Confession (wherein verbal
absolution for penitential contrition is the surrogate grace and substitute for
the want of genuine grace and wisdom achievable, for mankind, on a
transcendental meditation-like basis), but, as time marches on, permanently,
through a substance-motivated cyborgization that will
have to become increasingly communal in structure if enough people are to be
elevated to a properly supra-human status commensurate with godliness and
pseudo-devilishness at the ultimate metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical
levels, which can be characterized as cyborgistic, as
properly germane to global civilization marching towards the prospect of
genuine universality, an outcome that has less to do with the Cosmos than with
that which is its noumenal antithesis in some kind of
space-centre apotheosis.
For just as mankind are antithetical to nature,
and never more so than when the fulcrum of what is representative of man is
understood as existing humanistically at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass,
with the generality of Catholics appearing, by contrast, closer to nature, so cyborgkind, as we may call that which lies beyond mankind,
are antithetical to the Cosmos, and will have a right to the aforementioned
space-centre apotheosis as the definitive manifestation of all that is most
metaphysically evolved and pseudo-metachemically
counter-devolved, all that corresponds, in general terms, to the celestial city
of space-oriented urbanization.
On the other hand, man, as a quintessentially
parliamentary/puritan humanistic phenomenon, committed to the terrestrial city
of earthly urbanization, does not have any such celestial ambitions, nor is he
in any kind of line for that which must be overcome, at least directly, if
salvation and counter-damnation are to be achieved.
Hence ‘world overcoming’ is a term which has to
be understood, as intimated above, only in relation to the southwest point of
the intercardinal axial compass, where the
pseudo-physical and chemical of the worldly pseudo-omega and alpha can be
delivered to otherworldly metaphysical and pseudo-netherworldly
pseudo-metachemical criteria, thereby respectively
attaining to salvation and counter-damnation at the noumenal
expense of their previous phenomenal limitations.
With the gathering momentum of this process in
all or most Catholic or Catholic-equivalent countries, the netherworldly
metachemical and pseudo-otherworldly
pseudo-metaphysical will be ‘put out of business’ to the extent that there will
no longer be a large pool of lapsed Catholics and others of a similar ilk upon
whom to impose their exemplifications of somatic license, and their days will
accordingly be numbered, falling and counter-rising to the damnation (for metachemistry) of pseudo-chemistry and to the
counter-salvation (for pseudo-metaphysics) of physics, wherein they will be
judged and subjected to humanistic justice, the justice whose traditional
raison d’être, stemming from the pseudo-righteousness of physics (with its
paradoxical emphasis on bound soma under female-dominated pressures), would
have been to protect the integrity of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
criteria from subversion by its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate rival, in
the interests of axial stability and continuity.
For only by keeping the flounced skirt in check
can the flounced dress continue to reign over both flared zipper-suit and
straight skirt/tapering pants alike. And
who or what better to serve the flounced dress than the straight or tight skirt
of pseudo-chemistry, the pseudo-objective phenomenal counterpart to the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry,
with its somatic freedom and psychic binding, its moral evil and moral crime
(ever germane to the ‘increase and multiply’ ethos of Old Testament sanction),
which rules the state-hegemonic roost as undisputed, albeit constitutional,
sovereign factor.
They have called this moral evil and moral
crime of metachemistry God (the Father), but we know
it to be Devil the Mother/Hell the Clear Spirit and, for the bound-psychic
corollary of free soma, the Daughter of the Devil/the Clear Soul of Hell, the
former pairing commensurate with the beauty and love of free will and free
spirit in metachemistry, the latter pairing
commensurate with the ugliness and hatred of bound psyche metachemically,
the absolute (noumenal, 3:1) ratio of the former to
the latter very considerably in the former’s favour,
which is why there is usually three times as much beauty and love as ugliness
and hate with this elemental position, three times as much positive supersensuousness as negative subconsciousness,
three times as much positive supernature as negative subnurture, three times as much positive superheathenism as negative subchristianity,
and so on, with considerably more somatic brightness than psychic darkness in noumenally objective consequence.
Therefore this has always been the anchor of
civilization and effective starting-point from which to extrapolate, in worldly
vein, civilizations like that of the Christian West which remain beholden to
the Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father expedience even as they flaunt an
extrapolative deity as representatively characteristic of their own more
worldly position, whether with effect to woman in Mother of God-like vein or,
across the axial divide that must inevitably arise out of the Reformation,
Puritanism following Anglicanism, in Son of Man-like vein, this latter of which
would more accord with a Puritan than a Catholic or even an Anglican
position.
For more exclusively Catholic, at least on noumenal terms, is the ‘Son of God’ concept of deity, which
owes much, if not everything, to the Catholic postulate of the Resurrection.
But this is also a phoney god, a god that fails
and has manifestly failed to deliver anything approximating a universal
requirement, insofar as the anchor for any such extrapolation is strictly Devil
the Mother hyped as God the Father, the necessary beginnings of civilization,
and one cannot really or reasonably believe in a Son of God when in truth there
never was anything in back of Him who actually corresponded to God the Father.
Neither can one reasonably believe in the
Marian deity, another falsehood, as the Mother of God when, in fact, the Christ
was no more than a Son of God or, rather, of Devil the Mother hyped as God the
Father, in which case His actual logical status is more problematic, obliging
us to postulate less flattering epithets to describe his effective status.
But even the Son of Man comes out of an
analysis of these pseudo-gods, these false deities, in pretty poor shape; for
‘Son of Man’, much as it may parallel ‘Son of God’, is a meaningless term
unless associated with Man the Father, the free psychic equivalent of God the
Father, so that its status, as something germane to bound soma as opposed to
free psyche, is understood as constituting a state – and in this axial instance
a state-hegemonic – parallel that owes little or nothing to church – not even
church-subordinate – criteria.
Certainly the conception ‘Son of God’ is less
than of the Church in its bound-somatic crucifixion paradigm, which would
correspond to the dark side as opposed to the bright side where metaphysics is
concerned, as, incidentally, would the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
But, priestly surrogates aside, there never was
a bright side to Catholic metaphysics, only the illogical postulating of the
resurrection of the crucifixional paradigm of bound
soma from below, at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass, to the above, where, in due Romanized north-eastern vein, He
would represent the ‘sins of the world’ to the Father.
Yet this ‘father’ is no Father in the true
sense of metaphysical godliness, whose free ego is truthful, but Devil the
Mother hyped as God the Father antithetically in back of metaphysics, what we
have termed metachemistry and know to be commensurate
with beauty and (for Hell the Clear Spirit) love in free soma and (for The
Daughter of the Devil) ugliness and (for The Clear Soul of Hell) hatred in
bound psyche, and thus with everything that stands contrary to whatever can be
properly associated with truth and joy in metaphysical free psyche (God the
Father/Heaven the Holy Soul) and with illusion and woe in metaphysical bound
soma (the Son of God/the Holy Spirit of Heaven), the latter of which, in each
and every one of its metaphysical permutations, shouldn’t have any relationship
or connection with metachemistry in each of its
fourfold permutations, since metaphysics and metachemistry
are, as intimated above, completely irreconcilable and hence incompatible, as
incompatible as the noumenal modes of alpha and
omega, objectivity and subjectivity, space and time.
So the ‘Son of God’ postulate is a total fraud
when it comes to representing ‘sins of the world’, which He could only have
taken upon himself down at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass, to the so-called Father, the Father who doesn’t exist above Him,
in metaphysical free psyche over metaphysical bound soma, because there is no
room for such a divine father in a civilization that is merely an extrapolation
from Middle-Eastern civilization, more specifically from Judaism, and
consequently remains beholden to Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father as
the proverbial ‘best of a bad job’ and effective sugar-coating of the bitter
pill of overwhelming female dominion characterizing both Cosmic (as here) and
(down below) natural criteria.
Strangely, the Christian West, as an
extrapolative civilization, never has had any connection, least of all
officially, with metaphysical godliness, since any move in a Buddhist
direction, implying recourse to transcendental meditation and hence lungs and
breath, can only be discouraged and denigrated as ‘atheist’ from a standpoint
rooted in the free will of Devil the Mother and beholden to the free spirit of
Hell the Clear Spirit – in other words, to both beauty and love.
These beautiful and loving aspects of metachemical soma necessarily, by their very existence,
rule out the possibility of metaphysical psyche, which is the starting-point of
metaphysics as a male element reflecting male criteria of psyche preceding and
preponderating over soma, to which the metaphor of Father preceding Son can be
applied, as, of course, to its physical counterpart ‘down below’, at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass,
where, as we have seen, the precedence of bound soma by free psyche can – and
should – be metaphorically interpreted in terms of Man the Father and Son of
Man, this latter the more state-hegemonically
representative term within a ratio that would be more 2½:1½ than 3:1.
Be that as it may, neither the Son of Man nor
the so-called Son of God actually amounts to anything genuinely divine; for to
be that you must be properly aligned with metaphysical criteria, being the
free-ego Father that precedes the bound-will Son as psyche preceding soma in
male gender actuality.
But, in transcendental meditation, the free-ego
Father, who is truth, utilizes the bound-will Son, who is illusion, in order to
temporarily identify with the bound-spirit Holy Spirit of Heaven, which is woe,
so that he may recoil, in self-preservation, from the out-breath of lung
projection to self more profoundly, bypassing his starting-point in the free
ego to achieve a temporary (alas!) accommodation with the free soul of Heaven
the Holy Soul, which is joy, the joy (bliss) of perfect self-harmony, of
maximum self-togetherness, which, unfortunately, has to be abandoned in order
that the god-self, which is true to metaphysical ego, may psychologically
plunge anew, projecting itself down, into the lungs and breath of metaphysical
not-self, the bound soma of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven,
abandoning truth for illusion and woe in the name of joy, and thus
re-experience, over and over, the benefit of recoiling, in self-preservation,
to self more profoundly.
One might call that, in fairly Nietzschean vein, an ‘eternal recurrence’, since it is
necessarily repetitive in character, like time per se, and appertains to
metaphysics. But it is
still only human or, at any rate, of godly men; it is still affiliated with
mankind, even if more peripherally than is the context, puritan-like, of prayer
or, for that matter, bible-reading intellectuality.
Therefore it is not constitutive of metaphysics
per se, which will be cyborgistically global, but of
a penultimate mode of metaphysics that is uniquely Far Eastern in character,
being antithetical to the naturalistic metaphysics, so to speak, of yogic sex
pretty much as puritan humanism would consider itself antithetical, ‘down
below’ in the phenomenal realms of mass and volume, to the mass catholic
position that pays homage to Marianism as the
embodiment of female perfection in maternal resolution, another ‘naturalism’
which civilization, this time with an emphasis on bound soma rather than free
psyche, and hence upon civility as opposed to culture, categorically rejects,
as an obsolescent or otherwise undesirable sensuality vis-à-vis its own
stiff-upper-lip sensible pretensions, not least to New Testament independence
of the Old.
Being antithetical to nature, however, is only
what characterizes mankind, whether humanistically as
with Puritanism, or with an effective superhuman orientation, as with Buddhism
and, to a lesser extent, upper-order Catholicism, whose ‘Son of God’
pretensions not only put the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse, but
effectively exclude the relevant horse … of metaphysical free psyche … in the
extrapolative deference of this Son to Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father
metachemically in back of itself, thereby excluding
God the Father proper from the overall frame in the interests of Old Testament
Creationism and, more pertinently, what could be called Creatorism,
with an emphasis less of what has been created than on the creative source
itself, about which conventional theology is usually reluctant to theorize,
bearing in mind its anything but divine nature.
So Western civilization, like its Middle
Eastern anchor, is so morally and elementally limited, falling well short of
metaphysics proper, as to have no place whatsoever even for transcendental meditation,
and therefore we cannot accord it eternal validity, only a certain temporal
longevity commensurate with ‘the world’ whose days, if the burgeoning of
globalization is any evidence, are already numbered, having been overtaken by
the march of global progress largely though not exclusively at the behest of
the United States of America, or at least by whatever is culturally best and
most technologically progressive about America as a radically multiracial
society that furthers the global dimension willy-nilly, even when it is not
consciously aware of doing so, and all because there is so much about this
multiracial society which is non-Western in character.
It was America above all that profited from the
Second World War as it found itself intervening, post-Perl Harbour, on the side
of the humanist powers, whether liberal or social democratic, at the expense of
the ‘machine kultur’ cyborgistic
fascism of Nazi Germany, which was, so far as I am concerned, the actual
starting-point, not least of all film-wise, of the cyborg
age, the beginning, in a way, of globalization which, based in cameras and
mechanistic technology generally, sought dominion if not over the entire world
(a highly ambitious notion!), at least over its European neighbours including,
most especially, the Soviet Union.
But the USSR (the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics) was, as I have argued in other texts, more an extrapolation from the
West, meaning liberal humanism, that a catalyst for cyborgistic
globalization premised upon ‘machine kultur’, and
consequently it was never anything more than the politico-economic omega point,
so to speak, of the West, the logical stage, whether progressive or, more
likely, regressive, beyond bourgeois humanism and liberal democracy that has to
be identified, willy-nilly, with proletarian humanism and social democracy.
Now if this absolutist humanistic extrapolation
from the West gives itself global airs, as some would allege (though we must
credit Stalin with less fanciful ambitions than Trotsky), then there is every
likelihood of a fascist backlash, of a refusal, on the part of peoples more
accustomed to a catholic tradition, to take such a prospect for granted but,
rather, to strive to oppose it by equally totalitarian means – fostered as much
by the need for a resolute opposition as by the necessary exclusion of
communistic elements from the overall polity – in order that the Church may be
protected from those who would overthrow it without reference to Messianic
intervention but solely on a secular
basis, one fuelled by the dialectical materialism of this aforementioned
state-absolutist extrapolation from state-hegemonic axial criteria that we have
identified with proletarian humanism and, correlatively, with a totalitarian
form of social democracy.
So oppose it they did, though in Hitler’s case,
a nominal Austrian Catholic who later acquired German citizenship, the
‘fascism’ of the original movement was steadily eroded by militarist
considerations even before the sell-out to the Prussian Junkers, insofar as the
Brown Shirt repudiation of the Versailles Treaty and its crippling implications
for Germany in the post-War era was anything but fascistically concerned, as in
Latin countries and to a lesser extent in the fledgling Irish Free State, with
the defence of the Catholic Church from ‘atheistic’ barbarians, some of whom
were not even Marxist, still less Bolshevik, so much as socialist republicans
of a radical stamp whose ancestral derivation from the French Revolution would
always put them at polar loggerheads with the Catholic Church, though not
necessarily at axial loggerheads with it!
For if it is one thing to be in favour of more
secular freedom in relation to traditional church strictures that often fall
short of contemporary societal requirements, including technological and
environmental transformations, it is quite another to be entirely hostile, on a
Marxist basis, to all religion, ‘the opium of the people’, because one’s
ideological orientation derives from bourgeois liberal thinking in what, like
Britain, would be state-hegemonic countries, and has only the wish to overcome
everything that is not social democratically orientated towards the urban
proletariat, including besides bourgeois humanism the liberal and other
churches.
Doubtless there were so-called ‘fifth
columnists’ from both types of revolutionary body at work in the same society
or country, but sooner or later a distinction will emerge between those who are
socialist republicans in relation, by and large, to catholic societies, and
those who are Marxist if not Bolshevik and essentially socialistic in relation
to non-catholic societies or to societies whose Catholicism is less prevalent
or ethnically representative, as arguably in Russia (predominantly Eastern
Orthodox) and much of the former Soviet Union.
Consequently, correlative with this, the
reaction to it will be axially representative, whether in terms of latin fascism or, in a much less uniformly catholic country
like Germany, teutonic Nazism, whose ethos was always
less church-defensive than state-aggressive, coupled, as it had to be, with
that cyborgistic ‘machine kultur’
ethos which few countries outside Germany and the United States, with the
possible exceptions of Britain and Japan, had anything analogous to, least of
all on an ideologically systematic basis.
They say your enemy’s enemy is your friend, and
that paradoxical adage may have some truth to it insofar as whatever is
militantly against, even polar to, social democratic totalitarianism on the
state-absolutist axis can actually be of benefit to that which has no interest
in social democracy or Marxism or Sovietism
whatsoever, if only because its catholic traditions appertain to an alternative
axis that not only has to be defended from internal sabotage at the hands of
socialist republicans and ethnically-unrepresentative Marxist ‘fifth
columnists’, but advanced, eventually, towards a completely new and
revolutionary level of church-hegemonic axial criteria, a level which I have in
other texts described as Social Theocratic and tend to identify with true
communism (or communalism) as against the false (or Marxist-Leninist) communism
of social democracy.
In other words, something profoundly religious
and able, with the technology and knowledge at its disposal, to deliver the
people of its axis from their lowly pseudo-physical and chemical gender
situations to what will be an unprecedented manifestation and degree of
metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, thereby
effectively bringing ‘Kingdom Come’ to pass as that which can be characterized
by religious sovereignty, conceived as the ultimate sovereignty, one not only
beyond but axially contrary to the political sovereignty of the so-called
bourgeois or liberal democracies, insofar as it will apply to peoples whose democratic
orientation is less liberal humanist, in the parliamentary/puritan manner, than
social republican in character, and, in the case of the catholic Irish of Eire,
to a people whose assumption of political sovereignty was not unconnected with
the need to rid themselves of external interference at the hands of an
ethnically incompatible people (the Protestant British), and cannot be
dissociated, in consequence, from some degree of catholic traditionalism within
the framework of church-hegemonic axial criteria. Otherwise, why bother?
So, in effect, a kind of necessary evil and
relatively short-term expedience, not democracy in any representative
state-hegemonic sense, as in Britain, but the means whereby a traditionally
church-hegemonic people may achieve a degree of axial stability that is
intrinsic to their social and cultural norms or traditions.
But, of course, one can argue that these norms,
notwithstanding the part played by tradition, are not frozen in aspic or
crystal or rock or anything of the sort, but can be taken to a whole new level
of society and culture, which I have identified with Social Theocracy in what
would be the effective resurrection of the axis in question, stretching, be it
not forgotten, from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, and to an accommodation, in
consequence of this resurrection, with someone standing and stretching beyond
Christ as the long-awaited Messianic figurehead and effective Godfather of
‘Kingdom Come’, whose metaphysics will not be merely confined to a crucifixional paradigm of bound soma and, in some sense,
proto-cyborgistic transmutation, as in the Catholic
past, but will have the benefit of anterior free psyche as that which properly
appertains to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, the truth and joy that
is only possible to a definitive degree within the context of cyborgistic universality, wherein the substance-motivated
communal cyborgization of the religiously sovereign
masses under Social Theocracy will gradually, over many decades if not
centuries, come more fully to pass, eclipsing mankind as the ultimate stage of
evolving life which will only find its apotheosis, so to speak, in the space
centre turned celestial city of true universality.
Some might think my concept of ‘world
overcoming’, and hence the overcoming of a significant proportion of mankind,
too Nietzschean – man, in his words, being something
that should be overcome … in favour of the Superman – and even fanciful in its
transcendent ambitions. Others might
prefer to level anti-humanist or anti-human rights rhetoric at me in their
partisan approach to life from the standpoint of democratic humanism. Few Catholics, I suspect, would take their
human situation for granted, particularly as they have been taught all along
that man is sinful and in need of redemption, not least through divine
intervention.
Certainly I have never tired of emphasizing the
redemptive nature of Social Theocracy, as of the world- or man-overcoming that
would redeem those whom we have described as pseudo-physical or chemical, i.e.
pseudo-men whose phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity (flared pants-like) stems from
the chemical hegemony of feminine females, and, in terms of the latter, women
whose phenomenal objectivity places them on the side of whatever pertains to
the achievement of a surrogate plenum through maternity, whether in relation to
the strength and pride of free soma or to the weakness and humility of bound
psyche.
But such a resolution, while it may be justified
on one level – and that rather more heathenistic than
christianistic, so to speak – can only be achieved at
the expense of males, and therefore contrary to their psychic integrity and
even interests, insofar as the hegemony of feminine females in chemistry over
pseudo-physical males or, more correctly, pseudo-masculine males, equivalent to
volume over pseudo-mass (massive mass) results in the male becoming ‘feminized’
to the extent that free soma and bound psyche is then (contrary to his actual gender
estate as that for whom psyche precedes and preponderates over soma) his
effective mean, irrespective of how much it may clash with his natural or, more
to the point, nurtural instincts, to coin a term
owing more to psyche than to soma and hence to the church as opposed to the
state.
Therefore religion is needed to save him from
this upended gender predicament and return him, duly transmuted, to his proper
high estate, which, in free psyche and bound soma, is akin to a godly image or
parallel, with ‘father’ preceding ‘son’.
However, pseudo-physical males cannot be saved
from their lowly pseudo-masculine gender meekness under chemical pressures
except if feminine females (not diabolic or superfeminine
ones) are simultaneously counter-damned to an even more upended gender
predicament under metaphysical males in pseudo-metachemistry;
for which a pseudo-devilish agent is required in order to do for females what
the godly will do for their pseudo-male counterparts, delivering both not only
from each other, but from those who would continue to avail of their meekness
and, in the female case, pseudo-vanity from the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical
vantage-points of vanity and pseudo-meekness, through the aforementioned
exemplification of somatic license, or free soma coupled to bound psyche, a
free soma that is less a manifestation of ‘original sin’ than of what could be
called ‘original evil’, since sin is ever affiliated to the pseudo-physical as
the bound psychic corollary, for pseudo-masculine males, of the folly of free
soma, which is only ‘free’ because soma has been subjected, under chemistry, to
feminine pressures, since contrary to the male gender estate (of free
psyche/bound soma) deriving from anterior metaphysics.
Therefore it is not as if the pseudo-masculine
male has no prior understanding of or commitment to metaphysics. Rather, he has been so detached from it, bit
by bit, by female whiles and seductive ploys rooted in free will, that he has
lost his sense of being grounded or centred in it, and therefore would be
unable to return to it – and on higher, more synthetically systematic terms –
without external intervention from those males who have remained true to
themselves, to their psychic self-precedence, call them godly saints or
philosopher kings, and would wish, for reasons not entirely connected with the
people or, more accurately, the pseudo-physical, i.e. their pseudo-masculine
counterparts, but partly if not largely motivated by a determination to bring
down both the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical,
thereby effectively destroying the other axis, so that they, the saviours and
counter-damners, so to speak, will have the long-term
benefit of what the Bible would call divine vengeance on the elemental
positions in question, but what we, more exactingly logical and rigorous, shall
call divine vengeance on the pseudo-divinely pseudo-metaphysical and
pseudo-diabolic vengeance on the diabolically metachemical,
allowing, it would seem, for gender parallelism between the opposite noumenal positions.
Therefore both the pseudo-physical and the
chemical are pawns in the noumenal game of indirectly
bringing down the metachemical and
pseudo-metaphysical, damning the former to pseudo-chemical phenomenality,
while likewise being partly responsible for the counter-salvation of the
pseudo-metaphysical to physical phenomenality,
wherein they will hegemonically exist in relation to
what had been pseudo-righteousness rather than, as with the pseudo-feminine
females, justice.
But neither pseudo-righteousness nor justice,
roughly commensurate with the physical and pseudo-chemical elemental positions,
are of much use to themselves or indeed to what they had traditionally served,
namely the ruling interests of the metachemical and
pseudo-metaphysical, with their free soma and bound psyche, if these latter
positions, formerly polar to themselves, no longer exist, having fallen and
counter-risen, according to gender, following the removal, on a systematically
comprehensive basis, of their prey base at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and therefore it is likely
that the existing or ensuing physical and pseudo-chemical elements will opt for
axial transference to where the pseudo-physical/chemical lapsed catholic
generality had been rather than remain in an untenable position, neither able
to profit from those whom they would previously have financed nor gravitate,
social democratically, to the justice-absolutism (sic.) nadir of their axis,
which is less state-hegemonic than state-totalitarian.
Granted that a bankrupt ideology like
Marxism-Leninism gives little comfort to anyone who may previously have
preferred to finance somatic license than seek its economic penalization, we
can only suppose that the more reasonable elements (I employ that term in a
non-philosophic sense) of the southeast point of the intercardinal
axial compass will, as it were, cut their losses and opt, as soon as was
politically or socially expedient, for axial transference, even if this did
mean that what was physical would have to become somewhat pseudo-physical and
what, by contrast, pseudo-chemical comparatively chemical in the ethnic
interests of some kind of acceptable precondition of salvation from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics and, for the chemical, counter-damnation to
pseudo-metachemistry.
Such a final deliverance of the remaining
elements to their divine and pseudo-diabolic resolutions would be way beyond
divine and/or pseudo-diabolic vengeance, being, if anything, the summation,
barring further refinements, of righteousness and pseudo-justice, since those
who, in physics, had been pseudo-righteous would have the benefit, following
axial transformation, of the genuine article, while their just counterparts,
ever in primary state-hegemonic polarity to the metachemical
Vain, would no longer be in such a somatically subversive (of masculine psyche)
position but, rather, in one that was in every respect pseudo-justly
subordinate to the unequivocally righteous hegemony of metaphysics.
What, then, can bring all this to pass,
assuming it is possible to do so? Since
a thinker, and therefore a philosopher, has to partly repeat himself
with virtually every new project, I shall say here what I have said in the past
and will doubtless continue to say in the future. There must be a movement for Social
Theocracy, the true communism of ‘Kingdom Come’, and that movement must
organize itself on a party-like basis, using, where possible, the Nazi Party as
a rough guide as to how something fundamentally different from both the traditional
and existing state apparatus can, with determination and meticulous planning,
manoeuvre itself into a position whereby it can utilize the existing democratic
machinery of state to a profoundly non-democratic or, in our case, theocratic
end, one characterized by the prevalence, in the masses, of religious
sovereignty as the final form of mass sovereignty, a sovereignty that can only
have the long-term effect of transmuting the masses towards that which
transcends, in time and pseudo-space, them as more genuinely supra-human, or
godly and pseudo-devilish, criteria ensue.
Therefore it will be necessary to achieve a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty, before any prospect of the supersession of both the religious traditions and the
existing political structure can be envisaged, much less systematically
undertaken by those who, as Social Theocratic elite, had opted to take the
‘sins of the world’ onto their Christ-like shoulders and, in delivering the
people from their political and concomitant burdens, be in a position to secure
their religious sovereignty by every and all means at their disposal.
Obviously the building and staffing of centres
wherein the religiously sovereign can congregate to have the benefit of Social
Theocratic or, more correctly, Social Transcendentalist self-enhancement and
not-self curtailment for the metaphysical, i.e. free psyche and bound soma,
coupled, for the pseudo-metachemical, to
self-curtailment and not-self enhancement, i.e. bound soma and free psyche,
will be of paramount importance, and for this purpose it will be not merely
necessary to procure and/or manufacture the relevant synthetically artificial
substances, but, as a necessary corollary of all that, to oversee the gradual
development of the kind of communal cyborgization
that, irrespective of gender, will ensure that such specific substances can be
taken or ingested with relative impunity, and simply because those who, through
religious sovereignty, were entitled to them would not be subject to the sorts
of human limitations that, other factors notwithstanding, bedevil the use of
drug consumption today, as in the past, but would have the benefit, as a right,
of an increasingly supra-human framework commensurate with definitive
godliness/heavenliness and, for the pseudo-diabolic females,
pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness, in which to lavish their attention on
the expansion of mind and/or the contraction of body, as the gender case may
be.
Today, however, you play with substances more
befitting metaphysical gods or pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-devils at your own peril, in a pre-‘Kingdom Come’ situation that, when
it doesn’t result in sordid death or paranoid addiction, leads to prosecution
and even incarceration in consequence of its criminalization at the hands of a
law that is there to protect the world and not to advance otherworldly and/or
pseudo-netherworldly criteria.
One cannot really argue with that. But we can – and should – begin to think in
terms of alternative scenarios, of which the official coming to pass of what,
in religious sovereignty, would properly correspond to ‘Kingdom Come’, is
granted verbal articulation and even theoretical endorsement.
For that is what the religious tradition
actually points towards, and it would be untrue to itself and even guilty of
criminal negligence if it failed, for reasons best known to itself, to endorse
or even recognize a credible and viable concept of ‘Kingdom Come’ that was not
only properly metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical,
but logically sustainable in its non-reductionist,
fudge-transcending, gender structuralism.
Do I seriously think the Church will recognize
and endorse Social Theocracy as the most credible blueprint for and even implementation,
given a majority mandate, of what we may continue to identify, for convenience
or common usage’s sake, with ‘Kingdom Come’ …? No, to be perfectly frank I
don’t remotely expect high-ranking vested interests in the Catholic Church to
effectively cut their own throats by recognizing and endorsing Social
Theocracy. At the end of the proverbial
day, a revolutionary ideology or movement, even when compatible with a
church-hegemonic axial destiny, cannot reasonably expect more than a handful of
low-ranking priests to come out in favour of it at the expense of their
traditional prerogatives and duties.
The Catholic Church, put bluntly, is simply a
manifestation of Western civilization, and Western civilization is not global
civilization, nor even Middle Eastern or Far Eastern civilization. Western civilization, particularly in its
pristine or catholic manifestation, is simply an anachronism that must be given
the ‘coup de grace’ at the earliest convenient opportunity, and for that there
will be need of special Social Theocratic authorities who will have the
knowledge and means to bring the clean-up process of consigning to the rubbish
bin of history all those obstacles to the implementation and development of
religious sovereignty in the people - including,
besides reactionary churchmen, defeated democratic parties and their no-longer
relevant politicians - sensibly to pass.
For when you move beyond the world in terms of
the assumption of religious sovereignty, democratically mandated from out the paradoxical
utilization of the democratic process to a religiously sovereign end, you no
longer have need of political parties, who would simply be irrelevant.
Hence they must be disposed of, as must the
millions of bibles and prayer-books and hymnals that would continue to stand in
the way of Social Theocratic progress if they, too, were not consigned to the
historical rubbish heap, presumably via special facilities whose incinerators,
working around the clock, would be more than capable of consuming the vast
quantities of obsolete material involved, though always proceeding in an
orderly and well-logged manner, so that a record is maintained of the numbers
dealt with in any given zone and, correlatively, some knowledge is available of
the possible numbers still to be confiscated and disposed of in both that and
other zones farther afield.
In this way, the process will proceed in an
orderly and methodical manner, with a systematic thoroughness that will leave
little scope for error or oversight.
Eventually, Ireland and other kindred countries where Social Theocracy
can be democratically introduced or achieved will be ‘bible free’, ‘prayer-book
free’, ‘hymnbook free’, etc., as though delivered from a curse analogous to
that which formerly afflicted the country in the days before St. Patrick
allegedly banished the snakes en masse – presumably to hell!
Thus with both political and religious
anachronisms out of the way, the progress of Social Theocracy and therefore of
the Social Theocratization of Ireland and other such
countries will proceed largely unimpeded, and it will be down to the ingenuity
of the serving elite to bring the benefits of Social Theocratic liberation to
the religiously sovereign people … in the guise of Social Transcendentalism,
the ‘church’ as opposed to the ‘state’ aspect of the Centre in which the
people’s rights will be practically even more than theoretically upheld and
advanced, delivering them over to their respective forms of self-enhancement
(psychically) and self-curtailment (somatically), according to gender.
For the genders, remember, are opposites, and
opposite they will remain even in ‘Kingdom Come’, with the metaphor of St.
George and the prone dragon very much symbolic of the kind of
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical structure that will
obtain for all Eternity and pseudo-Infinity, Time and pseudo-Space without end.
Thus if you want Eternity, as properly germane
to metaphysics, you think cyborgistically, you don’t
think humanistically, still less naturalistically or
cosmically. And with the
substance-motivated development of cyborgization will
come not only deliverance from the world of meek pseudo-physics and pseudo-vain
chemistry, of femininity and pseudo-masculinity, but the nemesis of all who
would, with vain disregard for pseudo-devilishness and pseudo-meek disregard
for godliness, prey upon the meek and the pseudo-vain from a desire for wealth,
power, and fame, a desire that all too often translates into immense wealth and
fame, not to mention power and pseudo-contentment.
These people, who are scarcely human, will not
be defeated until the meek have been saved and the pseudo-vain
counter-damned. And for that to happen, there will be need of considerably more than
penitential contrition and verbal absolution!
I have neither exaggerated the situation nor
have I underestimated it. The Social
Theocratic revolution, if it is to transpire, will be an immense
world-shattering revolution, as was the National Socialist revolution in
I do not like this republic, not only for the
above reasons, but because every time I look at the tricolour, as I did
recently in Galway and again in Dublin, I see the Anglo-Irish subterfuge of
continuing, by other means, perfidious Albion’s traditional ‘divide and rule’
policy in Ireland, an Anglican – or Church of Ireland – division of Catholics
from Puritans (dissenters) which is the source not only of so much historical
rivalry and suspicion, but also of the ongoing division of the greater part of
the island of Ireland from the six counties of the North East, the greater part
of the province of Ulster in the statelet of
so-called Northern Ireland, wherein the gaels or celts remain divided and ruled.
Only when the Anglo-Irish infamy of this
tricolour – this colonial trick and Tonean trickery –
has been democratically consigned to the rubbish bin of Irish history … will
there be any prospect of gaelic unification and thus
of a united Ireland, an Ireland not of Catholics and Protestants, but of Social
Theocrats whose destiny in Social Transcendentalism will bring them all the
self-enhancing benefits of true communism.
CYCLE 3
One thing philosophy can do is to help one make
sense of a variety of seemingly unrelated contexts and to perceive links or
correlations between them. Take knives
and handguns.
I have already distinguished the southwest from
the southeast points of the intercardinal axial
compass in terms of chemistry over pseudo-physics vis-à-vis physics over
pseudo-chemistry, the former pairing commensurate with phenomenal objectivity
and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, the latter with phenomenal subjectivity and
phenomenal pseudo-objectivity.
So can knives and handguns be distinguished
from one another, with conventional knives over straight-handled handguns on
the one hand, and curve-handled handguns over retractable knives,
or knives with a retractable blade, on the other hand.
Therefore a distinction between the phenomenal
objectivity of straight knives, which have to be thrust forward into their
object, and the phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of straight-handled handguns,
which would parallel flared pants under flounced skirts or, for that matter,
canned lager under bottled light ale, with the feminine-female pressures of
phenomenal objectivity bearing down on the pseudo-physical in such fashion that
some of these pressures, ever chemically objective, rub off onto them in the
pseudo-subjective manner described.
Now if that is how things work out at the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass,
which one would normally associate with a mass or lapsed catholic position,
then they can only work out on a contrary basis across the axial – and ethnic –
divide, at the southeast point of the said compass, where we would expect to
find varying degrees of parliamentary/puritan criteria.
Hence we would find a distinction between the
phenomenal subjectivity of curve-handled handguns and the phenomenal
pseudo-objectivity of retractable knives, the blade of which is folded or
hidden away in such fashion that it has to be released prior to being used,
thereby paralleling tight skirts under tapering pants or, for that matter,
bottled brown ale under canned stout, with the masculine-male pressures of
phenomenal subjectivity bearing down on the pseudo-chemical in such fashion
that some of these pressures, ever physically subjective, kind of rub off onto
them in the pseudo-objective manner described above.
So, in overall terms, the phenomenal
objectivity of knife thrusting, whether chemical or pseudo-chemical, has to be
contrasted with the phenomenal subjectivity of trigger drawing, as the
forefinger is wrapped around the trigger of the handgun and used to pull the
latter towards the holder of the gun, whether physical or pseudo-physical,
curved or straight.
As with literature and, I guess, ale and beer,
gender-bender behaviour is not uncommon, especially among youths, and one finds
male youths with knives and even a few females, from time to time, with
handguns; which, in comparative terms, is probably more excusable if still far
from acceptable from a gender representative point of view.
But if the pseudo-masculine male with a
straight-handled knife is equivalent to the pseudo-masculine male dramatist in
the immoral context of a quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physics (unmoral)
and, hence, from straight-handled handguns and, analogously, free-verse poetry,
then the feminine female with a straight-handled handgun would be equivalent to
the pseudo-masculine male poet in the amoral context of a quasi pseudo-physical
departure from chemistry (moral) and, hence, from straight-handled,
non-retractable knives and, analogously, free-verse drama.
Conversely, if the pseudo-feminine female with
the curve-handled handgun is equivalent to the masculine male philosopher in
the immoral context of a quasi-physical departure from pseudo-chemistry
(unmoral) and, hence, from retractable knives and, analogously, long-prose
fiction (novels), then the masculine male with a retractable knife would be
equivalent to the pseudo-feminine female novelist in the amoral context of a
quasi pseudo-chemical departure from physics (moral) and, hence, from
curve-handled handguns and, analogously, essayistic philosophy.
Hence whilst it is immoral for a
pseudo-masculine male to carry a non-retractable knife in quasi-feminine female
fashion, it would be only amoral for a feminine female to carry a
straight-handled – and presumably straight-triggered – handgun, since that
which is hegemonically moral, in this case heathenistically so, can only become amoral in descent,
whereas whatever was unmoral in its unholy subordination to clearness will
invariably become immoral once it steps over the gender line in relation to
straight-handled knives, given the fact that it will be taking a 2½:1½ ratio of
bound psyche to free soma into an elemental context, viz. chemistry, whose
ratio of free soma to bound psyche is 2½:1½, viz. strength and pride to
weakness and humility.
Hence with the gender likelihood of more
weakness and humility (if not humiliation) in bound psyche than strength and
pride in free soma, it is immorally undesirable for any pseudo-masculine male
to step over the pseudo-physical/chemical line through a knife-carrying, if not
wielding, proclivity.
Conversely, while it is immoral for a
pseudo-feminine female to carry a curve-handled handgun in quasi-masculine male
fashion, it will be only amoral for a masculine male to carry a retractable
knife, since that which is hegemonically moral, in
this case christianistically so, can only become
amoral in descent, whereas whatever was unmoral, in its unclear subordination
to holiness, will invariably become immoral once it steps over the gender line
in relation to curve-handled handguns, given the fact that it will be taking a
2½:1½ ratio of bound soma to free psyche into an elemental context, viz.
physics, whose ratio of free psyche to bound soma is 2½:1½, viz. knowledge and
pleasure to ignorance and pain.
Hence with the gender likelihood of more
ignorance and pain than knowledge and pleasure, it is immorally undesirable for
any pseudo-feminine female to step over the pseudo-chemical/physical line
through a handgun carrying, if not using, proclivity.
Of course, neither kinds of amorality, coming
down from the opposite types of moral positions above, a plane up in each
phenomenal case, would be greatly desirable either, since the want of adherence
to either a chemical (if female) or a physical (if male) position only
encourages the gender underdog to become immorally overreaching in an attempt
to escape, under encroaching pressures, from his/her unmoral position, be that
unholy in pseudo-physics or unclear in pseudo-chemistry, this latter of course
the pseudo-feminine as opposed to pseudo-masculine position.
Naturally, what has been said about knives and
handguns as phenomenal weapons could be said of their noumenal
counterparts, swords and rifles, though with even more categorical assurance as
to the undesirability of amoral or immoral gender cross-overs,
given the 3:1 ratio which characterizes both metachemistry
and metaphysics in their opposite ways, three times as much soma as psyche to metachemistry, three times as much psyche as soma to
metaphysics, and therefore with similar criteria applying to pseudo-metaphysics
under metachemistry as to pseudo-metachemistry
under metaphysics at the northwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.
As regards retractable swords, I guess one
cannot rule out the likelihood of bayonets as the most representative form of
pseudo-metachemical complement to the metaphysical
rifle, meaning one with a curved magazine if not handle which can fire several
rounds a minute and will probably have telescopic sighting.
Such sophisticated rifles/submachine guns will
have the metaphysical jump, so to speak, on retractable swords, or bayonets,
pretty much as sophisticated modern helicopters, or choppers, on jump jets,
both of which would conform to a kind of St. George and the Dragon parallel
insofar as you imagine the Saint with his foot on a prone dragon, a slain
objectivity which is then akin to an angel (not to mention, to switch
metaphors, the proverbial lion that lays down with the lamb … of God) in a
tight or straight dress, a pseudo-objective female, or pseudo-diabolic female,
whose unclearness is the unmoral complement to the moral holiness standing
triumphantly above her in the form of the blessed Saint, time with its
repetitive foot on the spaced-out pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-space at the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
In such fashion do latter-day choppers, as I
prefer to call them, stand triumphantly above jump jets, conceived as a kind of
pseudo-jet which has been subjected to repetitive pressures, that can hover in
the manner of a chopper and whose technology thus effectively defers, in spaced
fashion, to the hegemonic factor, like an avenging angel of the Lord, who just
happens to be a godly saint.
Of course, one could argue, on the basis of my
‘short’/’long’ distinction between the noumenal and
the phenomenal, the ethereal and the corporeal, that knives and handguns
correspond to the former while swords and rifles correspond to the latter, as
though indicative of a fall from noumenal ethereality
into phenomenal corporeality, from the elemental to the molecular, whether on
particle-dominated (chemical/pseudo-physical) or wavicle-dominated
(physical/pseudo-chemical) general terms.
In which case knives and handguns
would be metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical or
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical, and, by contrast, swords and rifles
chemical/pseudo-physical or physical/pseudo-chemical, depending on the axis and
therefore the gender orientation in each case.
But although there appears to be a logical
symmetry to such a theory, I don’t personally believe in it, if only because
swords and rifles seem to be much more elevated types of weapons than knives
and handguns, having upper-order associations that one would hesitate to
identify with the masses.
Evidently the ‘short’/’long’ theory, which I
initially cited in connection with the literary divisions of drama, poetry,
prose and philosophy, only applies in certain contexts, not everywhere. In which case, the existing theory of knives
and handguns vis-à-vis swords and rifles would stand, irrespective of its
incompatibility with the ‘short’/’long’ theory cited above.
I shall continue to keep an open mind, however,
in view of the conflict that often arises between common usage and
philosophical logic, not to mention my categorical knowledge that elemental
particles and elemental wavicles are ‘short’ and
hence noumenal, whereas molecular particles and
molecular wavicles are ‘long’ and hence phenomenal,
the particle subatomic positions corresponding to the concrete, whether noumenal or phenomenal, and the wavicle
subatomic positions to the abstract, again whether phenomenal or noumenal.
Swords and rifles, to return to our thesis, are
incontestably ‘long’ vis-à-vis knives and handguns, like dresses and
zipper-suits vis-à-vis skirts and pants, and yet the latter do not suggest – at
least to me – a noumenal standing analogous to
elemental particles and wavicles respectively. Perhaps that owes something to the fact that
the relationship between beers and wines, normally identifiable with a
lower-order/upper-order class dichotomy, is one in which the former are
normally ‘short’ and the latter ‘long’, which is to say, are stored in tall as
opposed to squat bottles so that, notwithstanding the parts played by kegs and
cans, one can infer a parallel with swords and rifles in the case of wine
bottles and possibly kegs, leaving to bottled ale a parallel with knives and to
canned lager and/or stout a parallel with handguns, as already intimated.
One could also say, in returning to the start
of this project, that the world sometimes defies philosophy’s attempt to
understand it, or obliges philosophy to, as it were, wrap itself around it
rather than subsume it into itself in the manner of an overarching ideology.
Sometimes the subsuming of the world can only
be taken so far, others factors notwithstanding, because there remains a distinction
between what can be understood of the world and what actually transcends it in
terms of an overarching or transcendent ideology, whose viewpoint may sometimes
be in conflict with the world and often simply lie beyond it.
Such is the case with Social Theocracy, which
makes no claim to worldly approval, still less knowledge, but has only the
overcoming of the world conceived in terms of the mass catholic position,
traditional or lapsed, at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass as its raison d’être, a world-overcoming that would deliver the
aforementioned pseudo-physical/chemical people from their lowly estates to the
otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly heights of the
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical Beyond, thereby
saving and counter-damning them, according to gender, not only from themselves
but from those who avail of their pseudo-masculine meekness and feminine
pseudo-vanity to prey upon them from the vantage-point of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where somatic license is
sovereign, one might even say ‘queen’ (as in England and the UK generally), and
with the end in mind of bringing this predatory axis – the secular fruit of
schismatic heresy – down for want of prey.
For only when the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis has been deprived of prey will it be
brought down, as the modern-day version of Jehovah’s unequivocal reign over
Satan, to face its judgement at the hands of those at the southeast point of
the intercardinal axial compass for whom the Son of
Man’s reign over what could be called Antiwoman the Antimother or, more representatively, pseudo-Woman the
pseudo-Mother is the christianistic norm, with
physical and pseudo-chemical implications for pseudo-righteousness and justice.
Thus will the damned and pseudo-saved, the
fallen and counter-risen, be judged, and thus will the physical and
pseudo-chemical earn the right to axial transference to the southwest point of
the said intercardinal compass, where, duly made over
in pseudo-physical and chemical terms, their salvation and counter-damnation to
metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry will follow as a
matter of course, enabling them to join with those who had already been
delivered in such fashion and to give the process of metaphysical evolution and
pseudo-metachemical counter-devolution a spur in the
directions of increased purism or purity, whether with respect to the supersession of visionary substances like LSD (lysergic
acid diethylamide, or ‘acid’) by unitive substances
like cocaine (‘coke’) in the case of psychic expansion from ego to soul,
godliness to heavenliness, truth to joy, brain stem to spinal cord, in
metaphysics or, correlatively, with respect to the supersession
of tranquillizers like morphine by narcotics like heroin (‘smack’) in the case
of somatic contraction from pseudo-spirit to pseudo-will, pseudo-devilishness
to pseudo-hellishness, ugliness to hatred (of somatic self, not least free
soma), blood to heart, in pseudo-metachemistry.
Thus from out of the kind of ‘supercatholic’ ego/pseudo-spirit dichotomy will emerge the
soul/pseudo-will dichotomy of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry
writ large, so to speak, as the Centre (analogous to ‘Kingdom Come’) progresses
and counter-regresses towards its totalitarian apotheosis, abandoning the
relativity, one might even say the pluralism, of its Social Theocratic
inception for the absolutism, still respectful of gender, of its Social
Transcendentalist resolution and evolutionary/counter-devolutionary
consummation in the utmost soul/pseudo-will of Heaven and pseudo-Hell.
Such will be the true Communism that emerges
out of the socialistic theocracy as the culmination of the Centre, and it will
require both the utmost communal cyborgization of the
religiously sovereign and the utmost space-centre development in order that the
Social Transcendentalist apotheosis may come to pass as the antithesis of
everything cosmic.
For the Cosmos is rooted in whores and demons,
stars and suns, or, more critically, superstars and pseudo-supercrosses
(upended ‘supercrosses’ like the CND emblem), heat
and pseudo-light, and this ultimate manifestation of ‘Kingdom Come’ will be
centred, by contrast, in saints and angels, supercrosses
and pseudo-superstars (contiguously encircled ‘superstars’), light and
pseudo-heat, as though an ultimate manifestation of St. George and the Dragon,
albeit a narcotically slain dragon that is only
angelic, tight dress-wise, because of the extent to which it has been rendered
senseless and thereby is unable to threaten the peace in grace and wisdom of
the holy elect of metaphysical self-awareness, all those supra-human saints in
the heavenliness of spinal-cord soul, for whom the persistence of perfect
self-harmony in self-togetherness is the ultimate joy.
Thus one might well have a kind of ‘coked
up’/’smacked down’ dichotomy between the metaphysically saved and the pseudo-metachemically counter-damned, the former delivered from
their bound-psychic sin to the utmost expanded psychic self in soulful
self-affirmation, the latter delivered from their free-somatic pseudo-evil to
the utmost contracted somatic self in pseudo-wilful self-denial, a contrast not
only between grace and pseudo-goodness, holiness and unclearness or, more correctly,
pseudo-unclearness, but between blessedness and pseudo-cursedness
(counter-cursedness), the blessedness of holy self-affirmation and the
pseudo-cursedness of pseudo-unclear self-denial, since the freedom of the
psychic self of males demands the enslavement of the somatic self of
pseudo-females, without which there is no hegemonic triumph of holiness for St.
George over his pseudo-metachemical counterpart in
the eternity of metaphysical perfection, and therefore no ‘lying down’ of the
neutralized ‘lion’ with the elevated ‘lamb’.
Thus the metaphysical perfection, in blessed
holiness, of Eternity requires the pseudo-metachemical
imperfection, in counter-cursed pseudo-unclearness, of pseudo-Infinity, whose
pseudo-objectivity, constrained beyond all previously known bounds to the
utmost pseudo-spiritual pseudo-giving and, ultimately, pseudo-wilful
pseudo-doing, will enable the noumenal subjectivity
of metaphysics first of all to take and then, ultimately, to be as never
before.
It is not as if one is robbing Peter to pay
Paul. Rather, it is Pauline who is being
deprived of her somatic freedom in order that Peter may be all the psychically
freer, may know the bliss of perfect self-harmony for all Eternity.
And know it cyborgistically,
not humanly or naturally or even cosmically (the latter two subjected to
analytical vitiation at the hands of more prevalent objectivities), as in the
pre-centrist past, but within the synthetically artificial context of that
substance-oriented communal cyborgization that will
be his religiously sovereign right.
If one may cite a distinction between the
superhuman and the supra-human, it will not only be within the cyborg communes as the progression and counter-regression,
according to gender, from relativity to absolutism, pluralism to monism,
ego/pseudo-spirit ‘liberalism’ to soul/pseudo-will ‘totalitarianism’, but, more
generally, in relation to the ongoing dichotomy between the administrative
aside to the Centre-proper and all those who had voted for religious sovereignty
and were entitled to superhuman service in the interests of their supra-human
godliness/heavenliness and pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness, entitled to
be protected and advanced in their rights by those whose cyborgization
would be less than communal, indeed intensely personal or individual, that they
might better serve those whose communal cyborgization
will be of the Centre-proper, meaning the ‘church’ rather than ‘state’ aspect
of ‘Kingdom Come’, which we can increasingly identify with Social Transcendentalism
at the expense of Social Theocracy (and a gradual Y-like supra-cross purism at
the expense of the supercross), even though,
initially, there will be more Social Theocracy than Social Transcendentalism,
if only because revolutionary change is a difficult and protracted process that
will have much to concern itself with outside the immediate confines of the
Centre, not least in terms of the eradication of traditional political and
religious obstacles to the advancement of political and religious or, more
correctly, politico-religious progress, as defined by the coming to power of
Social Theocracy and the furtherance of its Social Transcendentalist ambitions.
Yet Social Theocracy, the ‘state’ aspect of the
Centre, will not come to power without a struggle with the political and
religious status quo, which it must democratically vanquish by not only
securing the right to operate within the political arena but, in so operating,
to achieve from the electorate a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, in
order that it may begin the process of removing anachronistic obstacles to the
people’s religiously sovereign will the better to consolidate and develop, out
of Social Theocratic revolution, what is properly Social Transcendentalist and,
hence, quintessentially germane to the ‘church’ aspect of the Centre, which, as
noted above, will appertain to the Centre-proper.
CYCLE 4
I have said it before and I will say it again:
one can know little or nothing about the subconscious until one has accepted the
supersensuous as its somatic precondition. For in metachemistry,
the elemental position in question, soma precedes and predominates over psyche
in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the spatial-space absolutism of noumenal objectivity.
Hence one has to allow, with this diabolic (or superfeminine) female element, for the precedence of subconsciousness by supersensuousness
in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between supernaturalism
and subnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, superheathenism and subchristianity,
the supersensuous/subconscious dichotomy itself
indicative of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal
absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle mode of what transpires to be a protonic
subatomicity given, through beauty and love at the
expense of ugliness and hatred, to positive heat.
Contrariwise, in metaphysics, psyche precedes
and preponderates over soma in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the
repetitive-time absolutism of noumenal
subjectivity.
Hence one has to allow, within this divine (or supermasculine) male element, for the precedence of subsensuousness by superconsciousness
in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between, as it were, supernurturalism and subnaturalism
or, in equivalent terminology, superchristianity and subheathenism, the superconscious/subsensuous
dichotomy itself indicative, as noted above, of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the wavicle at the expense of the particle mode of what
transpires to be a photonic subatomicity given,
through truth and joy at the expense of illusion and woe, to positive light.
Dropping from metachemistry
and metaphysics, the alpha and omega of space and time, to chemistry and
physics, the alpha and omega of volume and mass, one will find that, with
chemistry, soma precedes and predominates over psyche in the ratio of 2½:1½, a
consequence of the volumetric-volume relativity of phenomenal objectivity.
Hence one has to allow, with this feminine
female element, for the precedence of unconsciousness by sensuousness in the
manner described, which gives one a distinction between naturalism and unnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, heathenism and
unchristianity, the sensuous/unconscious dichotomy
itself indicative of a 2½:1½ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity,
albeit favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle
mode of what transpires to be an electronic subatomicity
given, through strength and pride at the expense of weakness and humility, to
positive motion.
Contrariwise in physics, psyche precedes and
preponderates over soma in the ratio of
Hence one has to allow, with this masculine
male element, for the precedence of unsensuousness by
consciousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between nurturalism, so to speak, and unnaturalism
or, in equivalent terminology, Christianity and unheathenism,
the conscious/unsensuous dichotomy itself indicative,
as noted above, of a 2½:1½ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity,
albeit favouring the wavicle at the expense of the
particle mode of what transpires to be a neutronic subatomicity given, through knowledge and pleasure at the
expense of ignorance and pain, to positive force.
Therefore no more than subconsciousness
can be properly understood except in relation to supersensuousness
… can unconsciousness be understood except in relation to sensuousness, where
the noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between metachemistry and chemistry is concerned.
Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint,
no more than subsensuousness can be understood except
in relation to superconsciousness … can unsensuousness be understood except in relation to
consciousness, where the noumenal/phenomenal class
distinction between metaphysics and physics is concerned.
Now what applies to each of the hegemonic
elements, viz. metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and
metaphysics, on the intercardinal axial compass
applies no less to their subordinate gender complements, viz.
pseudo-metaphysics in the case of metachemistry,
pseudo-physics in the case of chemistry, pseudo-chemistry in the case of
physics, and pseudo-metachemistry in the case of
metaphysics.
Under metachemical
pressures, the superconsciousness/subsensuousness of
metaphysics becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subsensuousness
pseudo-superconsciousness of pseudo-metaphysics, with a 1:3 ratio of free soma to bound psyche, pseudo-truth/joy to
pseudo-illusion/woe in the reversal of metaphysical attributes from psyche and
soma and soma to psyche.
Similarly under chemical pressures, the
consciousness/unsensuousness of physics becomes, with
inversion, the pseudo-unsensuousness/pseudo-consciousness
of pseudo-physics, with a
Likewise, under physical pressures, the
sensuousness/unconsciousness of chemistry becomes, with inversion, the
pseudo-unconsciousness/pseudo-sensuousness of pseudo-chemistry, with a 1½:2½
ratio of free psyche to bound soma, pseudo-strength/pride to pseudo-weakness/humility
(if not humiliation) in the reversal of chemical attributes from soma to psyche
and psyche to soma.
Finally, under metaphysical pressures, the supersensuousness/subconsciousness of metachemistry
becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subconsciousness/pseudo-supersensuousness
of pseudo-metachemistry, with a 1:3 ratio of free psyche to
bound soma, pseudo-beauty/love to pseudo-ugliness/hate in the reversal of metachemical attributes from soma to psyche and psyche to
soma.
Hence whatever the elemental (hegemonic gender)
or pseudo-elemental (upended gender) context, the positive attributes will
always accrue to freedom and the negatives ones to binding, with freedom
corresponding to the bright side and binding to whatever is in the shadow of such
brightness, be the latter superheathen (and metachemical), heathen (and chemical), Christian (and
physical) or superchristian (and metaphysical).
Where the hegemonic elements are concerned, one
could – and should – distinguish subatomically
between the heat of metachemical protons, the motion
of chemical electrons, the force of physical neutrons, and the light of
metaphysical photons, but we shall find that the free/bound dichotomy
corresponds to the virtue and vice of a moral situation in which positivity either predominates (somatically) or
preponderates (psychically) over negativity.
Where, on the other hand, the subordinate or
pseudo-elements are concerned, one can – and should – distinguish subatomically between the pseudo-light of
pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-photons, the pseudo-force of pseudo-physical
pseudo-neutrons, the pseudo-motion of pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons, and the
pseudo-heat of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-protons,
but we shall still find that the free/bound dichotomy corresponds to the
pseudo-virtue and pseudo-vice of an unmoral situation in which positivity does not predominate (somatically) or
preponderate (psychically) over negativity.
Yet in all four ‘pseudo’ cases, the emphasis
will fall, under pressures from the hegemonic element, on the free factor,
notwithstanding axial subversion of the polar phenomenal positions at the
behest of the overall controlling element, be it metachemical
in the case of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies or metaphysical (at
least to a degree) in the case of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate ones.
But if morality is hegemonic and unmorality, corresponding to unholiness
(whether pseudo or genuine) in the pseudo-male cases and to unclearness
(whether genuine or pseudo) in the pseudo-female cases, subordinate,
corresponding, in a sense, to the upended gender a plane down, in each class
context, from the hegemonic gender, then immorality is always and everywhere a
quasi-metachemical, quasi-chemical, quasi-physical,
or quasi-metaphysical departure from pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-physics,
pseudo-chemistry, or pseudo-metachemistry, as the
case may be, which simply results in the upended gender ratio, be it 1:3 or
1½:2½, inversely noumenal or phenomenal, impinging
upon the hegemonic position in a way that emphasizes the negative (and bound)
at the expense of the positive (and free), with predictably vicious
consequences.
Thus instead of three times as much beauty and
love as ugliness and hatred in metachemistry,
quasi-metachemistry, departing from pseudo-metaphysics via antimetaphysics,
presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of three times as much
ugliness and hatred as beauty and love, and therefore of three times as much
crime as evil.
Likewise, instead of 2½ times as much strength
and pride as weakness and humility in chemistry, quasi-chemistry, departing
from pseudo-physics via antiphysics, presents us with
the immorally undesirable outcome of 2½ times as much weakness and humility (if
not humiliation) as strength and pride, and therefore 2½ times as much
pseudo-crime as pseudo-evil.
Similarly, instead of 2½ times as much
knowledge and pleasure as ignorance and pain in physics, quasi-physics,
departing from pseudo-chemistry via antichemistry,
presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of 2½ times as much
ignorance and pain as knowledge and pleasure, and therefore 2½ times as much
pseudo-wisdom as pseudo-grace.
Finally, instead of three times as much truth
and joy as illusion and woe in metaphysics, quasi-metaphysics, departing from
pseudo-metachemistry via antimetachemistry,
presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of
three times as much illusion and woe as truth and joy, and therefore three
times as much wisdom as grace.
Clearly, you don’t have to be a genius to realize
that none of these ‘quasi’ positions are good for the reputations of the
corresponding hegemonic positions, whatever their kind of morality, since in
all four gender-bender cases one will have an unfavourable emphasis upon that
which is bound, and hence viciously dark, and therefore absolutely or
relatively, depending on the elemental context, immoral.
Even the amorality of those coming down from
above, as from the hegemonic elemental position, much as it may result in a
greater emphasis on the positive than on the negative attribute, should be
discouraged, insofar as all attempts to approximate the pseudo-metaphysical,
pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-elements in such fashion will only encourage a correlative coming up, on
the part of pseudo-males or pseudo-females, from below, as from their upended
gender positions a plane down in each class context, with consequences
described above.
It is not the duty of the hegemonic, least of
all when noumenally subjective (metaphysical), to
play at the subordinate gender’s game with an inverse ratio of somatic and/or
psychic factors to what obtains with them, so that we can speak of amorality
instead of unmorality, but to remain loyal to who or
what they are, so that little or no encouragement is given to anyone below to
‘get above themselves’ in the various ‘quasi’ manners described above.
For the end result will always be immoral, and
any degree of immorality proportionate to or consequent upon an amoral departure
from morality on the part of the hegemonic gender, who should have known
better, is logically unsustainable and, what’s more, socially and morally
wrong.
If the worst of all possible worlds is to be
precluded from transpiring, it can only be by the hegemonically
moral remaining where they are and playing their own game, like our proverbial
St. George with his foot firmly planted on the prostrate dragon, keeping the
beast down as much for her own sake as for his.
As I have already remarked elsewhere with
regard to a sartorial metaphor, tapering zipper-suits and straight dresses are
not interchangeable. You know your
gender place and you keep to it. For
that is what makes for the best of all possible worlds, and never more so than
in the case of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry,
in which supermasculine males have the right, morally
and socially, to keep pseudo-superfeminine females in
their noumenally pseudo-objective, straight
dress-like places a plane down, in pseudo-space under time, from their own noumenally subjective tapering zippersuit-like
absolutism at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial compass in what, under a Social Theocratic politico-religious
dispensation favouring religious sovereignty, would be ‘Kingdom Come’ writ large,
the otherworldly best and pseudo-netherworldly
pseudo-worst of all possible worlds.
__________________
APPENDIX I
When the most righteous of ‘Philosopher Kings’,
the aphoristic philosophy king, and the most pseudo-just of ‘Fiction Queens’,
the short-prose fiction queen, join forces, then will the meek and pseudo-vain
of the pseudo-omega/alpha world be saved and counter-damned from their lowly
positions to ultimate righteousness and pseudo-justice, holiness and
pseudo-unclearness, blessedness and pseudo-cursedness.
To contrast the drama of metachemical
objectivity (will) with the pseudo-drama of chemical objectivity (spirit), as
one would contrast speaking with pseudo-speaking, or doing with giving.
To contrast the poetry of pseudo-physical
subjectivity (pseudo-ego) with the pseudo-poetry of pseudo-metaphysical
subjectivity (pseudo-soul), as one would contrast reading with pseudo-reading,
or pseudo-taking with pseudo-being.
To contrast the prose of pseudo-chemical
objectivity (pseudo-spirit) with the pseudo-prose of pseudo-metachemical
objectivity (pseudo-will), as one would contrast writing with pseudo-writing,
or pseudo-giving with pseudo-doing.
To contrast the philosophy of metaphysical
subjectivity (soul) with the pseudo-philosophy of physical subjectivity (ego),
as one would contrast thinking with pseudo-thinking, or being with taking.
Drama, corresponding to metachemistry,
is the literature of the speaking Vain, pseudo-poetry, corresponding to pseudo-metaphysics,
is that of the pseudo-reading pseudo-Meek.
Pseudo-drama, corresponding to chemistry, is
the literature of the pseudo-speaking pseudo-Vain, poetry, corresponding to
pseudo-physics, is that of the reading Meek.
Pseudo-philosophy, corresponding to physics, is
the literature of the pseudo-thinking pseudo-Righteous, prose, corresponding to
pseudo-chemistry, is that of the writing Just.
Philosophy, corresponding to metaphysics, is
the literature of the thinking Righteous, pseudo-prose, corresponding to
pseudo-metachemistry, is that of the pseudo-writing
pseudo-Just.
The righteousness of the true philosopher king
is established on the basis of the aphoristic brevity, and fidelity to truth,
of his philosophy. His thoughts fly on wings of thoughtful insight towards the
pinnacle of truth.
The pseudo-justice of the pseudo-beautiful
fiction queen is established on the basis of the pseudo-prosaic brevity, and
fidelity to pseudo-beauty, of her fiction.
Her stories intuitively flit from subject to subject without ceasing to
be pseudo-prosaic.
In the future, literature must be ruled by the
aphoristic righteousness of the Philosopher King and by the pseudo-prosaic
pseudo-justice of the Fiction Queen.
There can be no place for anything that is either less than
philosophically true or pseudo-prosaically fictitious (pseudo-beautiful).
The salvation of poetic falsity to philosophic
truth and the correlative counter-damnation of pseudo-dramatic facticity to pseudo-prosaic fiction will pave the way for
the damnation of dramatic fact to prosaic fiction (long prose, or novels) and
the correlative counter-salvation of pseudo-poetic falsity to
pseudo-philosophic truth (knowledge).
Only thereafter can pseudo-philosophic truth be
axially converted to poetic falsity as a precondition of salvation to
philosophic truth, while prosaic fiction undergoes a conversion to
pseudo-dramatic fact as a precondition of counter-damnation to pseudo-prosaic
fiction, the pseudo-just complement to the righteousness of philosophic truth.
Thus everything will disappear but philosophic
truth and pseudo-prosaic fiction, which are the ultimate forms, according to
gender, of literature.
The real enemy of philosophic truth is not
dramatic fact (though that necessarily excludes truth) but pseudo-philosophic
truth, which essayistically poses as truth from the
standpoint of humanistic knowledge.
Divine knowledge, which is aphoristic, cannot
prevail while the essayistic prolixity of pseudo-philosophy continues to pose
as truth.
Only when pseudo-philosophy has been eclipsed
by poetry and prose by pseudo-drama, following the eventual collapse of
state-hegemonic axial criteria, will there be any prospect of a universal
acknowledgement of genuine philosophy coupled, in pseudo-metachemistry,
to pseudo-prose.
That will be the age when the Philosopher King
and pseudo-Prose Queen truly reign, aphoristic philosophy and short-prose
fiction having triumphed over everything else in divine and pseudo-diabolic
partnership akin to St George and the (neutralized) Dragon, which is also, be
it not forgotten, the bound lion that lies down with the free lamb of God,
‘lying down’ in pseudo-metachemistry under
metaphysics as the avenging angel of the Lord, for whom any hint of free soma
and bound psyche is anathema.
But even then, the hegemony of true philosophy
over pseudo-prose will be akin to choppers and jump jets, to tapering
zipper-suits and straight dresses, to curved-handled rifles and sheathed
swords, to an ultimate literary righteousness and pseudo-justice which will
reign in ‘Kingdom Come’ for ever and anon as the best of all possible literary
worlds.
APPENDIX II
Since we have described the moral ramifications
of a descent from above (amoral) vis-à-vis an ascent from below (immoral) in
relation to knives and handguns, whether with respect to the southwest or the
southeast points of our intercardinal axial compass,
we may as well conclude by giving the ale and beer equivalents of such
descending and ascending behaviour, though not before reminding ourselves that
light ale was adjudged to be morally hegemonic over lager at the southwest
point of the said compass, specifically in terms of bottles over cans, while
stout was adjudged to be the hegemonic beer vis-à-vis brown ale across the
axial divide at what transpired to being the southeast point, and specifically
in terms of cans over bottles.
Thus bottled light ale over canner lager at the
southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass
was adjudged to be equivalent to chemical morality (heathen) over
pseudo-physical unmorality (unchristian) in relation
to feminine and pseudo-masculine criteria, the former elementally akin to water
and the latter to pseudo-earth (pseudo-vegetation).
However, if one were to have an amoral descent
from above (chemistry) it would be in terms of canned light ale, and such a
descent would logically correlate with the possibility – indeed likelihood – of
an ascent from below (pseudo-physics) that would, in this particular elemental
context, take the form of bottled lager, the immoral counterpart to canned
light ale, insofar as we would have the logical right to infer a
pseudo-masculine ratio of 1½: 2½ free soma to bound psyche, as germane to a
quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physics which, by analogy, could be
inferred as likely to give bottled light ale a bad name or, more correctly, to
cast immoral aspersions upon chemistry.
Thus as with the quasi-chemical departure from
pseudo-physical handguns (straight handled) to straight knife-wielding on the
part of pseudo-masculine males, any departure, whether motivated by amoral
pressure from above or otherwise, from canned lager to bottled lager by such
males will be of equivalent significance, being, in a sense, no less immoral.
Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint,
canned stout over bottled brown ale at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass was adjudged to be equivalent
to physical morality (christian) over pseudo-chemical
unmorality (unheathen) in
relation to masculine and pseudo-feminine criteria, the former elementally akin
to earth (vegetation) and the latter to pseudo-water.
But if we were to have an amoral descent from
above (physics) it would be in terms of bottled stout, and such a descent would
logically correlate with the possibility – indeed likelihood – of an ascent
from below (pseudo-chemistry) that would, in this particular elemental context,
take the form of canned brown ale, the immoral counterpart to canned stout,
insofar as we would have the logical right infer a pseudo-feminine ratio of
2½:1½ bound soma to free psyche, as germane to a quasi-physical departure from
pseudo-chemistry which, by analogy, could be inferred as likely to give canned
stout a bad name or, more correctly, to cast immoral aspersions upon physics.
Thus as with the quasi-physical departure from
pseudo-chemical retractable knives to curve-handled handguns on the part of
pseudo-feminine females, any departure, whether motivated by amoral pressure
from above or otherwise, from bottled brown ale to canned brown ale by such
females will be of equivalent significance, being, in a sense, no less immoral.
Thus, in overall phenomenal axial terms, any
amoral departure from the hegemonic positions that is likely to encourage or
result in an immoral backlash, whether in terms of canned light ale vis-à-vis
bottled lager or in terms, axially contrary to that, of bottled stout vis-à-vis
canned brown ale, can only be bad for the hegemonic positions, whose moral
advantage, whether heathen or christian, is likely to
be undermined if not dissipated by its immoral counterpart, and should
accordingly, here as in other analogous contexts, be systematically avoided.
Clearly the reputation of bottled light ale,
although heathenistically moral in view of its
chemical parallelism, would stand in better stead if not confronted by bottled
lager, just as the reputation of canned stout, with its physical parallelism to
christian morality, can only stand if not confronted
by canned brown ale, neither of which confrontational departures from below, we
can logically contend, would be anything like as likely if not sparked off by
an amoral descent - in the antithetical terms of canned light ale and bottled
stout – from above.
As for glasses, glasses are a way of moving
from can over bottle or, depending on the axial context, bottle over can to a
common ground somewhere in between, but they also come in different shapes and
sizes, which is a topic outside the scope of this supplementary appendix.
APPENDIX
III
Since we have expanded our moral/amoral
vis-à-vis unmoral/immoral theories from the realm of knives and handguns into
that of ale and beer, there would seem to be a case for expanding them into the
sartorial realm, already outlined in the main text, of pants and skirts, which,
as the reader may recall, we divided between flounced skirts over flared pants
at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass and tapering pants over straight skirts at its southeast point, a
division which, though logically sound, failed to address the possibility –
indeed probability – of amoral departures from the moral (hegemonic) positions
and, conversely, of immoral departures from the unmoral (subordinate) ones.
This we shall now attempt to do, though not
without first of all attempting to correct what now seems to be the error
(vis-à-vis the tapering pants/straight skirt dichotomy at the southeast point
of our intercardinal axial compass) of conceiving of
the southwest as signifying a dichotomy between flounced skirts and flared
pants. For surely a straight skirt under
tapering pants dichotomy in the one context would suggest the likelihood, if
not inevitability, of a straight pants (if with turn-ups) under flounced skirt
dichotomy in the other?
I apologize for the logical inconsistency
which, to be sure, wasn’t at all apparent to me over the few days of frantic
scribble when I originally drafted the main body of the text. But straight pants (with turn-ups) under
flounced skirts now seems to me, on calmer reflection, an adequate counterpart
to straight skirts (without turn-ups) under tapering pants, especially since
one could just as logically equate the former with phenomenal
pseudo-subjectivity under phenomenal objectivity as one equated the latter with
phenomenal pseudo-objectivity under phenomenal subjectivity.
But what, then, are the respective amoral and
immoral, descending and ascending, corollaries of these moral and unmoral
positions, corresponding to specific modes of sartorial attire?
Let us start with the more familiar southeast
point of our intercardinal axial compass, by
contending that an amoral descent from tapering pants in the physically
hegemonic position to a quasi-pseudochemical
accommodation with straight skirts below (in the pseudo-chemical position)
would take the form of tapering skirts, analogous to a descent from the canned
stout of the preceding appendix to bottled stout, thereby connoting with a
2½:1½ free psyche to bound soma advantage (amoral) over the resident
under-plane unmorality of 1½: 2½ free psyche to bound
soma that, being pseudo-chemical, one would have a logical right to equate with
straight skirts.
But if the concept and indeed reality of
tapering skirts derives its justification from an amoral descent from above
(physics), then the reactionary concept of straight pants (without turn-ups)
can only derive its justification from an immoral ascent from below
(pseudo-chemistry) in the quasi-physical terms of a departure, on the part of
pseudo-feminine females, from bottled brown ale to canned brown ale, and with
similar undesirable implications vis-à-vis the hegemonic gender and, indeed,
position generally.
For straight pants can only cast a shadow,
metaphorically speaking, over tapering pants, just as we have argued that
canned brown ale would in a sense be bad for the reputation of canned stout, if
only because, coming up from below, it signified a phenomenally relative ratio
that, being the converse of the hegemonic position, favoured bound soma at the
expense of free psyche, and therefore that which could more logically be
associated with the dark rather than the bright side of the context in
question.
Be that as it may, let us now turn our critical
attention away from the southeast towards the southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass, and contend that an amoral
descent from flounced skirts in the chemically hegemonic position to a quasi-pseudophysical accommodation with straight pants (with
turn-ups) would take the form of flared pants, analogous to a descent from the
bottled light ale of the preceding appendix to canned light ale, thereby
connoting with a 2½:1½ free soma to bound psyche advantage (amoral) over the
resident under-plane unmorality of 1½: 2½ free soma
to bound psyche that, being pseudo-physical, one would have a logical right to
equate with straight pants (with turn-ups).
But if the concept of flared pants derives its
justification and indeed reality from an amoral descent from above (chemistry),
then the reactionary concept of straight skirts (with pleats) can only derive
its justification from an immoral ascent from below (pseudo-physics) in the
quasi-chemical terms of a departure, on the part of pseudo-masculine males,
from canned lager to bottled lager, and with similar undesirable implications
vis-à-vis the hegemonic gender and, indeed, position generally.
For straight skirts (with pleats) can only cast
a shadow, metaphorically speaking, over flounced ones, just as we have argued that
bottled lager would be bad for the reputation of bottled light ale, if only,
once again, because, coming up from below, it would signify a phenomenally
relative ratio that, being the converse of the hegemonic position, favoured
bound psyche at the expense of free soma, and therefore that which could more
logically be associated with the dark side (symbolized by the pleats of the
skirt) rather than the bright.
Therefore straight skirts (with pleats),
deriving their justification from below, are no less immoral vis-à-vis flounced
skirts than, across the axial divide, straight pants (without turn-ups) are
such vis-à-vis tapering pants, and precisely because, in each case, they are
the product of an inverse ratio of phenomenal relativity to that which hegemonically obtains in relation to one kind or another
(heathen or christian) of preponderating freedom.
But just as these immoral equivalents, straight
skirts (with pleats) and straight pants (without turn-ups) are undesirable from
the antithetical standpoints of flounced skirts and tapering pants in the
respective hegemonic positions of phenomenal relativity (2½: 1½), so we could
logically argue that their existences would be less prevalent if not sparked
off, so to speak, by an amoral coming down from above, in each axial case, of
flared pants and tapering skirts, since here, as in other analogous contexts,
one has the logical right to infer that the subordinate gender positions would
be much less disposed to an immoral ascent from below if not pressurized by an
amoral descent from above on the part of the hegemonic gender, whose moral
adherence to flounced skirts (if chemical) or to tapering pants (if physical),
as the axial case may be, would otherwise preclude such an undesirable upshot
and allow them the satisfaction of keeping the unmoral in their straight pants
(with turn-ups) or straight skirts (without pleats but with the possibility of
a slit) subordinate gender place.
Ah well, is it any wonder that only
philosophers – and then only the greatest – understand the world? I think I have proved my point and shall
accordingly terminate this further supplementary appendix without drawing
attention to the noumenal, and therefore 3:1 absolute
ratio, parallels to the aforementioned phenomenal positions, where dresses and
zipper-suits of one sort or another would, I believe, be subject to similar
moral/amoral vis-à-vis unmoral/immoral possibilities, albeit rather more in
relation to netherworldly and/or otherworldly
criteria having to do with a distinction between ‘super’ and ‘sub’ factors in
soma or psyche than to anything merely worldly and, hence, phenomenally
relative along the lines of a ‘standard’/‘unstandard’
dichotomy of the sort that, reflecting a 2½: 1½ ratio, results in distinctions
between sensuous and unconscious or conscious and unsensuous
to the exclusion of absolute criteria.
APPENDIX IV
To contrast the fast hotness of metachemistry with the light softness of
pseudo-metaphysics; the slow coldness of chemistry with the heavy hardness of
pseudo-physics; the hard heaviness of physics with the cold slowness of
pseudo-chemistry; and the soft lightness of metaphysics with the hot fastness
of pseudo-metachemistry.
The positively qualitative (free psychic)
lightness of grace (truth/joy) vis-à-vis the negatively quantitative (bound
somatic) softness of wisdom (illusion/woe) in metaphysics; the positively
qualitative (free psychic) heaviness of pseudo-grace (knowledge/pleasure)
vis-à-vis the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) hardness of pseudo-wisdom
(ignorance/pain) in physics; the positively quantitative (free somatic) hotness
of evil (beauty/love) vis-à-vis the negatively qualitative (bound psychic)
fastness of crime (ugliness/hate) in metachemistry;
the positively quantitative (free somatic) coldness of pseudo-evil
(strength/pride) vis-à-vis the negatively qualitative (bound psychic) slowness
of pseudo-crime (weakness/humility, if not humiliation) in chemistry.
The negatively qualitative (bound
psychic) pseudo-lightness of pseudo-sin (pseudo-illusion/pseudo-woe) vis-à-vis
the positively quantitative (free somatic) pseudo-softness of pseudo-folly
(pseudo-truth/pseudo-joy) in pseudo-metaphysics; the negatively qualitative
(bound psychic) pseudo-heaviness of sin (pseudo-ignorance/pseudo-pain) vis-à-vis
the positively quantitative (free somatic) pseudo-hardness of folly
(pseudo-knowledge/pseudo-pleasure) in pseudo-physics.
The negatively quantitative (bound
somatic) pseudo-hotness of pseudo-goodness (pseudo-ugliness/pseudo-hate)
vis-à-vis the positively qualitative (free psychic) pseudo-fastness of
pseudo-punishment (pseudo-beauty/pseudo-love) in pseudo-metachemistry;
the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) pseudo-coldness of goodness
(pseudo-weakness/pseudo-humility) vis-à-vis the positively qualitative (free
psychic) pseudo-slowness of punishment (pseudo-strength/pseudo-pride) in
pseudo-chemistry.
The gender attributes of the subordinate gender
are inverted or, better, subverted under pressure from the hegemonic gender,
i.e. from lightness in psyche and softness in soma metaphysically to
pseudo-softness in soma and pseudo-lightness in psyche pseudo-metaphysically
under metachemical pressure, as from hotness in soma
and fastness in psyche metachemically to
pseudo-fastness in psyche and pseudo-hotness in soma pseudo-metachemically
under metaphysical pressure.
Likewise from heaviness in psyche and hardness
in soma physically to pseudo-hardness in soma and pseudo-heaviness in psyche
pseudo-physically under chemical pressure, as from coldness in soma and
slowness in psyche chemically to pseudo-slowness in psyche and pseudo-coldness
in soma pseudo-chemically under physical pressure.
Nothing comes out of nothing. Therefore something does not come out of
nothing. Something comes out of
something, like man coming out of woman, but on a much more rudimentary,
pre-life level where the origins of the Cosmos are concerned.
For the Void is nothing, and
therefore not the source of those ‘somethings’ which
we now identify with stars, or stellar bodies. Nothing
was created by the Void. That which
emerged within the nothingness of the Void was self-creating, as, in various
ways and to varying extents, is all life, which simply exploits its
environment, or a series of preconditions within a given environment, to
develop itself, both independently of and dependent on its environment, since
without those preconditions it could not exist.
Therefore life is both self-creating and
self-perpetuating, re-creating itself over and over through a series of
developmental leaps, both devolutionary and evolutionary. For in rejecting one template it opts for
another, electing to set forth on a fresh developmental path - the path, it may
be, that leads to Eternity.
Devolutionary convolutions should be contrasted
with evolutionary involutions, for that which diverges is not identical with
what converges, any more than that which falls without is identical with what
rises within. To some extent this
explains the antagonisms between females and males, even in the face of an
apparent or seeming complementarity.
Yet females and males are only opposites within
the same species, sharing gender variations on many characteristics, including
limbs and organs, in common. They are
not completely opposite, like fire and air, or even water and earth. Yet they are still more than relatively
opposite, being capable of an absolute opposition within comparative, or
species specific, terms, the sort of opposition less of spirit and ego
(corresponding to water and earth), though that indubitably exists, than of
will and soul (corresponding to fire and air).
They say that darkness precedes light, that
light came out of darkness, as out of the Void, but the Void is neither dark
nor light, dim nor bright, but devoid of attributes, a mere Nothingness against
which, as was noted above, a variety of Somethings
that we now recognize as stars, suns, planets, moons, comets, etc. gradually
and successively came to pass.
But life, as we have discovered, is a
combination of darkness and brightness, of shade and light, and in those Somethings which have life it is usually if not invariably
the case that brightness precedes darkness, that darkness is in fact determined
by brightness as bound psyche by free soma in the case of female entities,
whether feminine or diabolic (superfeminine) and,
conversely, as bound soma by free psyche in the case of male entities, whether
masculine or divine (supermasculine), with specific
ratios according to the elemental correspondence to class on either absolute
(3:1) or relative (2½:1½) terms.
For life is not – and could not survive, much
less thrive – on a basis that was more negative (and vicious) than positive
(and virtuous), immoral gender-bender exceptions to the rule notwithstanding,
and therefore we find for both genders in all elements that the bright positivity of freedom precedes and somatically predominates
and/or psychically preponderates over the dark negativity of binding.
Thus because darkness or ‘the dark side’ is
conditioned by brightness, it could more logically be maintained that darkness
is the bound concomitant of a bright freedom, whether that freedom be female or
male, heathen or christian, superheathen
or superchristian, according as somatic or psychic
criteria are uppermost in any given society and/or individual in connection
with specific elemental attributes.
To say, on the other hand, that darkness came
out of brightness would not be as logically credible or correct as might at
first seem to be the case, but, rather, a reversal of the light out of darkness
fallacy. The dark attribute,
corresponding to some form of vicious negativity, does not succeed the bright
attribute but co-exists with it as its concomitant shadow, deferring, except in
gender-bender instances, to the hegemonic sway of that which, being virtuously
positive, is destined to remain the predominating (in soma) or preponderating
(in psyche) elemental factor, whether absolutely in the noumenal
spheres of metachemistry and metaphysics or
relatively in the phenomenal spheres of chemistry and physics.
If there is a moral world order, as Kant for
one maintained, it is not one based in Christian, much less superchristian,
values, but more usually in superheathen and heathen
values corresponding to female hegemonic criteria in metachemistry
and chemistry, fire and water, the fast hotness of noumenal
objectivity in spatial space and the slow coldness of phenomenal objectivity in
volumetric volume, under which, as pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry
and as pseudo-physics under chemistry, we shall find, in pseudo-male terms, the
light pseudo-softness of noumenal pseudo-subjectivity
in sequential time (pseudo-time) and the heavy pseudo-hardness of phenomenal
pseudo-subjectivity in massed mass (pseudo-mass).
As regards the Christian and superchristian alternatives and, in effect, supplements to
these traditionally more prevalent kinds of morality that reflect female
elemental dominance, we shall find male hegemonic criteria in physics and
metaphysics, earth (vegetation) and air, the hard heaviness of phenomenal
subjectivity in massive mass and the soft lightness of noumenal
subjectivity in repetitive time, under which, as pseudo-chemistry under physics
and pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, we shall
find, in pseudo-female terms, the cold pseudo-slowness of phenomenal
pseudo-objectivity in voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) and the hot
pseudo-fastness of noumenal pseudo-objectivity in
spaced space (pseudo-space).
Therefore when, to speak in generalities, superheathen morality is metachemically
triumphant over pseudo-superchristian unmorality, we find fast hotness hegemonic over light
pseudo-softness – the converse of the metaphysically hegemonic triumph of superchristian morality over the pseudo-superheathen
unmorality of pseudo-metachemistry
which manifests as soft lightness over hot pseudo-fastness.
Likewise when heathen morality is chemically
hegemonic over pseudo-christian unmorality,
we find slow coldness triumphant over heavy pseudo-hardness – the converse of
the physically hegemonic triumph of Christian morality over the pseudo-heathen unmorality of pseudo-chemistry, which manifests as hard
heaviness over cold pseudo-slowness.
In all four subordinate gender cases, the principal
attributes, whether as a reflection of soma preceding psyche (female) or of
psyche preceding soma (male) are reversed, so that the soft lightness of
metaphysics, with a psychic emphasis upon lightness, becomes the light
pseudo-softness of pseudo-metaphysics, whose paradoxical emphasis under metachemical hegemonic pressure is somatic; the hard
heaviness of physics, with a psychic emphasis upon heaviness, becomes the heavy
pseudo-hardness of pseudo-physics, whose paradoxical emphasis under chemical hegemonic
pressure is somatic; the slow coldness of chemistry, with a somatic emphasis
upon coldness, becomes the cold pseudo-slowness of pseudo-chemistry, whose
paradoxical emphasis under physical hegemonic pressure is psychic; and the fast
hotness of metachemistry, with a somatic emphasis
upon hotness, becomes the hot pseudo-fastness of pseudo-metachemistry,
whose paradoxical emphasis under metaphysical hegemonic pressure is psychic,
the pseudo-objectivity of which is confined to a subordinate gender status in
spaced space by the psychic triumph in repetitive time of a metaphysics whose
hegemonic freedom, epitomized by St. George, holds the prone dragon of defeated
metachemistry to bound soma, its predominating
attribute, from which it can never depart
save as the Lord’s pseudo-ugly/pseudo-hateful avenging angel whose
hotness will burn His anti-metaphysical enemies in the flames of pseudo-Hell.
None of the above is intended to refute the
claims already put forth in my writings regarding the somatic subversion of
physics by pseudo-chemistry at the behest of metachemistry
over pseudo-metaphysics in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
terms (northwest to southeast on the intercardinal
axial compass), as regarding the psychic subversion of chemistry by
pseudo-physics at the behest of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry
in overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms (southwest to
northeast on the intercardinal axial compass), since
what applies to either of the phenomenal positions independently, as described
above, is compromised by inter-axial polarity with their noumenal
counterparts, which establish the aforesaid axial dichotomy between
state-hegemonic and church-hegemonic societies already addressed by me in
earlier texts, thereby guaranteeing that the lot of the masses, short of
deliverance from their lowly estates, will always paradoxically reflect the
greater prevalence of binding over freedom, whether somatically in
state-hegemonic societies or psychically in church-hegemonic ones.
It is in relation to the latter, of course,
that deliverance takes on a religious character properly commensurate with
salvation and counter-damnation, the salvation of the pseudo-physical to
metaphysics and the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, the latter of whom will be cursed with male
hegemonic pressure in the forms of free psyche (secondary church hegemonic) and
bound soma (secondary state subordinate) as the males achieve the blessings of
gender sync in connection with free psyche (primary church hegemonic) and bound
soma (primary state subordinate) in the heaven of three times as much truth and
joy as illusion and woe, or the noumenally absolute
ratio (3:1) of transcendentalism to
idealism which favours not the Son of God or the Holy Spirit of Heaven but God
the Father and, most especially, Heaven the Holy Soul … for all Eternity.
LONDON 2008 (Revised 2012)
The Best of All Possible Worlds
