Op.
130
THE
QUEST FOR TRUTH
And the Meaning of Life
Aphoristic Philosophy
Copyright © 2013 John O’Loughlin
_________________
CONTENTS
1. The
Quest for Truth and the Meaning of Life
2. The
Human Condition
3. Perspectives
on Class in Modern Society
4. Attempting
to Define God
5. What
is Religion and what is it all about?
6. Should the Bible continue to be used in
Swearing-in Ceremonies and in Courtrooms?
7. Reflections: My Father
8. The Pros and Cons of having a Y chromosome
9. The Concept of Good and Evil, Positive and
Negative
10. Discussing the concept of Moral Truth
11. Comparative Ethics: A Historical View
12. Recognizing the Big Picture when Contemplating
Life
13. What does Freedom mean to you, and does
Absolute Freedom exist?
14. Why Moral Relativism is wrong
15. The Role of Philosophy in Religion
16. Who is Virtuous?
_____________________
THE QUEST FOR TRUTH AND THE MEANING OF LIFE
The quest for truth as the meaning of life is
only one of a number of quests or meanings which life vouchsafes its human
beings. I personally – or perhaps one should say ‘universally’ – have made the
quest for truth and, I believe, achievement of it the meaning or purpose of my
existence, thereby enriching my life. But those with a metaphysical bent, who
are more likely to be divinely male and classless, are always up against the
other types that life throws-up from out the pluralistic chaos and manifoldness
of her will.
There are people who get their purpose from
knowledge and are arguably physical and more likely to be male on masculine
rather than divine terms; others who get it from strength and are more likely
to be chemical and female on feminine as opposed to diabolic (superfeminine) terms;
yet others whose raison d’être would appear to be the pursuit of beauty from a
metachemical disposition the opposite of their chemical counterparts, whom I
would describe, despite appearances to the contrary, as diabolical.
Truth is airy, knowledge vegetative, strength
watery, and beauty fiery. I say nothing of their respective upended gender
counterparts, who will be more against the corresponding gender virtue, or
freedom, in sensuality or sensibility, depending on the case, than strictly of
the virtue, whether heathen or christian, superheathen or superchristian, that
reigns over them.
But the Beautiful and the True are
incompatible, as, to a lesser extent, are the Strong and the Knowledgeable. If
life were only one thing, say meaning achieved through Truth, it would be a lot
different from how it is, and doubtless anyone who seriously entertains the
prospect of or hope for ‘Kingdom Come’, as a society governed by godly
criteria, would approve of a life governed by Truth. But then not only the Strong, but the
Beautiful and the Knowledgeable would have to have been defeated and consigned
to the proverbial rubbish heap of history. Some task!
I fear that gender and class rivalry, with
conflicting meanings and virtues, will persist in the world for some time yet,
and the world will continue, in consequence, to be a place which defies a
single meaning because it is by nature heterogeneous and more disposed, if
truth be told, to phenomenal virtues like strength and knowledge than to their
noumenal counterparts.
Otherworldly virtues like Truth, whose raison d’être, as a
godly thing, is Joy, its heavenly reward, have always been against ‘the world’,
and can only emerge to any appreciable extent at the expense not only of ‘the
world’, but of those netherworldly forces, like beauty and love, which normally
prevail over it.
THE HUMAN CONDITION
You cannot understand the human condition, torn
as it is between gender conflict, without understanding psychology and
physiology, and you can’t understand psychology without physiology or
physiology without psychology, since the two aspects of the totality of factors
somatic and psychic ‘hang together’, though with different ratios, depending on
gender and class.
Females, I have long believed, are more
physiology than psychology, males, by contrast, more psychology than
physiology, since in the one case soma precedes psyche (and literally
predominates over it), whereas in the other case, that of males, psyche
precedes soma, (and consequently tends to preponderate over it), thereby
indicating that the genders are in effect opposites, with correspondingly opposite
concepts of self.
Self for the female is basically somatic, for
the male it is essentially psychic. Therein lie the
roots of the gender friction and so-called ‘war of the sexes’. Self is whatever
is free and the female, if left to her own sensuous devices, will opt for
somatic freedom and psychic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self,
whether as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma or as chemical
bound psyche to chemical free soma. By contrast, the male, if left to his
own devices, will more than likely opt for psychic freedom and somatic binding,
the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as physical bound soma to
physical free psyche or as metaphysical bound soma to metaphysical free psyche.
Therefore self for the male is the opposite of
what it is for the female, psyche taking precedence over soma as psychology or
physiology in one of two class/elemental ways: either relatively (2½:1½) as
more (relative to most) psyche/less (relative to least) soma, or absolutely (3:1)
as most psyche/least soma, the former corresponding to a conscious/unsensuous
(nurtural/unnatural) disposition in physics, the latter to a
superconscious/subsensuous (supernurtural/subnatural) disposition in metaphysics.
With the female, on the other hand, soma takes
precedence over psyche as physiology over psychology in one of two class/elemental
ways: either absolutely (3:1) as most soma/least psyche, or relatively (2½:1½)
as more (relative to most) soma/less (relative to least) psyche, the former
corresponding to a supersensuous/subconscious (supernatural/subnurtural)
disposition in metachemistry, the latter to a sensuous/unconscious
(natural/unnurtural) disposition in chemistry.
Of course, there are more than four elemental
positions at stake when it comes to axial polarities of either a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
order, since the hegemonic triumph or prevalence of the one gender presupposes
and necessitates the upending and subordination of the other, whether as
antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass (state-hegemonically polar to the southeast point of it), as
antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass
(church-hegemonically polar to the northeast point of it), as antichemistry
under physics at the southeast point of the said compass (state-hegemonically
polar to the northwest point of it), or as antimetachemistry under metaphysics
at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (church-hegemonically
polar to the southwest point of it).
But even the ‘antipositions’ under the
hegemonic ones, whether noumenally unequivocal or phenomenally equivocal,
absolute or relative, reflect ratios of soma to psyche or of psyche to soma,
depending on the upended gender, corresponding to their class/elemental
positions, and are therefore distinct from the controlling gender a plane above
them in each class/elemental instance.
Antimetaphysics is not a context, like
metachemistry, of a supersensuous/subconscious integrity but, rather, one
which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subsensuous and
anti-superconscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to
supersensuousness/subconsciousness to obtain from within a position that would
never be capable of such an integrity itself.
Conversely antimetachemistry, across the
noumenal axial divide, is not a context, like metaphysics, of a superconscious/subsensuous
integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be
anti-subconscious and anti-supersensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical
deference to superconsciousness/subsensuousness to obtain from a position that
would never be capable of such an integrity itself.
And what applies to the noumenal positions
applies no less to their phenomenal counterparts, antiphysics not being a
context, like chemistry, of a sensuous/unconscious integrity but, rather, one
which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unsensuous and
anti-conscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to
sensusousness/unconsciousness to obtain from a position that would never be
capable of such an integrity itself.
Conversely antichemistry, across the phenomenal
axial divide, is not a context, like physics, of a conscious/unsensuous
integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be
anti-unconscious and anti-sensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to
consciousness/unsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never be
capable of such an integrity itself.
But, of course, subversion of the equivocally
hegemonic positions by their upended subordinate counterparts at the behest of
the axially polar unequivocally hegemonic positions results in a switch of
emphasis from soma to psyche in the chemical/antiphysical case and from psyche
to soma in the physical/antichemical case, in order that either
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metaphysics
over antimetachemistry or, by contrast, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria stemming from a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics can be
axially established and duly maintained, to the advantage of axial stability
and continuity.
For the Catholic southwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass is no more heathenistic in somatic emphasis than
the Puritan southeast point of it is overly Christianistic, so to speak, in
psychic emphasis. Free psyche to bound psyche in the one axial case, free soma
to bound soma in the other, would seem to be the guarantors of either
church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic criteria, for both genders.
But that is another subject and one I have said
much about in the past and could say a lot more about in the present, were I
not minded of the principal topic of this article, which is of the ratios
between psyche and soma or soma and psyche, according to gender and class. We
do not understand female psychology unless we are aware of the physiology which
conditions it, making for subconsciousness in relation to supersensuousness in
metachemistry and for unconsciousness in relation to sensuousness in chemistry.
Likewise, we shall not understand male physiology unless we are aware of the
psychology which conditions it, making for unsensuousness in relation to
consciousness in physics and for subsensuousness in relation to
superconsciousness in metaphysics.
Needless to say, both these class positions are
incompatible, since you cannot, as a male, be conscious/unsensuous and
superconscious/subsensuous at the same time, any more than females could
transcend their class distinctions and be both supersensuous/subconscious and
sensuous/unconscious at the same time. But, then, compatibility is not an issue
from an axial standpoint, which ensures that either antichemistry is polar to
metachemistry and physics polar to antimetaphysics or, across the axial divide,
that antiphysics is polar to metaphysics and chemistry polar to
antimetachemistry. The physical and the metaphysical are not ethnically
aligned. Nor are their chemical and metachemical
counterparts.
PERSPECTIVES ON CLASS IN MODERN SOCIETY
Class comes in different shapes and sizes, but
is always either noumenal or phenomenal, that is, of an ethereal or a corporeal
nature. There are ‘upper class’ types in the former, and ‘lower class’ types in
the latter, but it is not simply a matter of upper and lower. Each of these is
divisible between what could be called the alpha and the omega of class,
whether in terms of upper-class types vis-à-vis
classless types on the noumenal planes of space and time, or in terms of
lower-class types vis-à-vis middle-class types on the phenomenal planes of
volume and mass.
But that would only apply to the hegemonic
gender, not to their ‘upended’ antigender counterparts who make the hegemonic
sway of the free gender, be it female (and upper-class/lower-class) or male
(and classless/middle-class) possible and viable. Without anti-classless
antimales in antimetaphysics, there would be few if any upper-class females in
metachemistry at the northwest point of what I like to think of as the
intercardinal axial compass. Similarly, without anti-upperclass antifemales in
antimetachemistry, there would be few if any classless males in metaphysics at
the northeast point of the said compass.
Down below, in the phenomenal and/or corporeal
realms of volume and mass, it is equally fair to say that without
anti-middleclass antimales in antiphysics (the mass ‘male’ catholic position), there would be few if any lower-class females in chemistry
at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Similarly, without
anti-lowerclass antifemales in antichemistry, there would be few if any
middle-class males in physics at the southeast point of the said compass.
For just as, in the noumenal realms of space
and time (duly divisible between space and anti-time on the one hand, and time
and anti-space on the other), the anti-classless preclude classless competition
for the upper class and, conversely, the anti-upperclass preclude upper-class
competition for the classless, so, in the phenomenal realms of volume and mass
(duly divisible between volume and anti-mass on the one hand, and mass and
anti-volume on the other hand), the anti-middleclass preclude middle-class
competition for the lower class while, conversely, the anti-lowerclass preclude
lower-class competition for the middle-class.
Therefore a polarity axially exists between an
upper-class/anti-classless reality and a middle-class/anti-lowerclass reality
on the one hand, and between a lower-class/anti-middleclass reality and a
classless/anti-upperclass reality on the other hand, the former polarities
(subject to modification in terms of strict gender polarity that undermines the
phenomenal hegemonic position) constitutive of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, the latter polarities (again
subject to modification in terms of strict gender polarity that undermines the
phenomenal hegemonic position) constitutive of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, with, in consequence, a kind
of British/Irish dichotomy between the two axes.
Such, in a nutshell, is how I understand class,
and it is as likely as not that I have the most logically consistent insight
into class as is humanly or, rather, superhumanly possible.
ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE GOD
People speak too much about God and not enough
about metaphysics, the religious context or element par excellence. Such a
context, which is rather more airy than fiery, watery, or earthy (vegetative),
is the element of soul par excellence, and therefore although ego figures as the
other aspect of self which has to be addressed, it is less important and
significant of metaphysics than soul, which corresponds not to God but to
Heaven. God’s raison d’être is to attain to Heaven, ego into soul, via
bound will and bound spirit, for in metaphysics, a male context, self is free
and determines the binding of not-self, as soma to psyche.
But the ratio of ego to soul in free self, as
of God to Heaven, changes from metaphysical context to context, beginning, I
shall contend, with most ego and least soul in cosmic metaphysics, progressing
to more (relative to most) ego and less (relative to least) soul in natural
metaphysics, progressing from less (relative to least) ego and more (relative
to most) soul in human metaphysics, and culminating, to anticipate the future,
in least ego and most soul in cyborg metaphysics, the definitive because truly
universal, or global, stage of metaphysics.
Therefore the religious context par excellence of
metaphysics – excluding the all-too-prevalent metachemical, chemical, and
physical ‘bovaryizations’ of religion typifying most so-called religious
traditions – is ultimately less about God than about Heaven, and the attainment
of Heaven is, to repeat, God’s raison d’être.
Unfortunately, when people speak about God or
theorize about God it is usually within one or other of the ‘bovaryized’
contexts of religion that owe less to metaphysics than to metachemistry,
chemistry, or physics, viz. fire, water, or earth (vegetation), as the case may
be, and thus to the diabolic, the feminine, or the masculine rather than to the
divine as such which, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding, has
tended to be marginalized if not excluded from Western and indeed most Eastern
traditions.
However that may be, God exists in relation to
metaphysical ego, whether vis-à-vis the Cosmos, nature, man, or cyborg
universality, and will be more or less prevalent depending on the stage or type
of metaphysics and its relation to Heaven. In the definitive metaphysics there
will be most Heaven and least God, most soul and least ego, as noted above, and
therefore religion will have come clean, detached itself not only from lesser
stages of metaphysics, but from everything which is either contrary to or
beneath metaphysics, including the starting point of most religion in Devil the
Mother hyped as God the Father which is less metaphysical than metachemical and
therefore more about Beauty (and Love … in Hell the Clear Spirit) than Truth
(and Joy in Heaven the Holy Soul), less, in other words, about free psyche than
about its gender opposite, free soma, which is ever fiery and fundamentally to
do with free will rather than the true being of free soul.
WHAT IS RELIGION AND WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
Religion is about God and God’s raison d’être. God is
truth and truth is a kind of knowledge germane to metaphysical ego. Therefore
metaphysical ego, as an expression of truth, is God, and God’s raison d’être is nothing
else than to achieve Heaven and thus get from ego to soul, wherein truth is
eclipsed, as it were, by joy. Because metaphysics is the sphere of soul par excellence, it is
also the context of Heaven par excellence.
There are different stages and manifestations
of metaphysics, just as there are different stages and manifestations of God
and Heaven, beginning in metaphysical cosmos with a metaphysics that is least
evolved and therefore one in which there is most God and least Heaven;
progressing in metaphysical nature with a metaphysics that is less (compared to
least) evolved and therefore one in which there is more (relative to most) God
and less (relative to least) Heaven; progressing in metaphysical mankind with a
metaphysics that is more (compared to most) evolved and therefore one in which
there is less (relative to least) God and more (relative to most) Heaven; and
culminating in metaphysical cyborgkind (to come) with a metaphysics that is
most evolved and therefore one in which there is least God and most Heaven –
the definitive or per se manifestation of
metaphysics.
Therefore definitive metaphysics is still
something for the future, since we haven’t got beyond mankind as yet and then
only some parts of the world have demonstrated an aptitude for metaphysics to
any genuine extent. Most religious traditions are based or centred on something
less, including the Western, which is basically chemical/antiphysical and/or
physical/antichemical, with a metachemical/antimetaphysical anchor derived from
the Middle East.
Even Roman Catholicism falls short of
metaphysics to the degree that it subsumes such metaphysics as is postulated in the concept
of ‘Risen Saviour’ into antimetachemistry, ‘doing down’ what should, in the
crucifixional paradigm of bound metaphysical soma, approximate to lungs and
breath from fear that the TM cat, so to speak, might get out of the bag of ‘sacred
lungs’ at the expense not only of the masses, but of Devil the Mother hyped as
God the Father metachemically in back of both phenomenal and noumenal, physical
and metaphysical, orders of sensibility.
Therefore the metaphysical factor is subsumed
into antimetachemistry ‘sacred heart’-wise, and that in turn subordinated to
metachemistry over antimetaphysics in back, where Old Testament criteria going
all the way back to the Middle East invariably obtain. The result – a mankind
mode of perpendicular triangularity that can be so easily eclipsed, when push
comes to shove, by natural and cosmic unequivocal modes of such triangularity,
to the detriment of religious freedom.
For metaphysics over antimetachemistry spells
the end of perpendicular triangularity of whatever sort, including the
contemporary ‘cyborgistic’ mode of it dominated by cameras and, hence, film.
But then metaphysics, as a male element, over antimetachemistry, its upended,
or antifemale, corollary could only exist at the expense of metachemistry over
antimetaphysics, with its female and antimale implications, and that is
something Western traditions, superheathenistically rooted in the Middle East,
have never seriously countenanced, since it would imply a repudiation of Devil
the Mother hyped as God the Father (or metachemistry hyped as metaphysics, or
the polyversal cosmos hyped as universal) and a more elitist approach to
religion reminiscent of the Buddhist Far East.
However, even transcendental meditation, as an
expression of divine ego utilizing lungs and breath to achieve heavenly
perfection in the soul, is of mankind, and therefore an Eastern shortfall from
global requirement, which will require the transcendence of mankind in and by
cyborgkind if a more or less permanent accommodation of soulfulness,
spinal-cord deep, is to be achieved, and achieved not, needless to say, by
anything so naturalistic and elitist as TM, but through recourse to
synthetically artificial substances commensurate with global requirement which
cyborgization will render viable (kind of Huxley rather than Jung).
However, that is still some way off, so we must
remain content with knowledge as to what God is and what He is about.
Metaphysical ego and soul have come a long way from their cosmic manifestations
in the realm of planets like Saturn, to which certain kinds of natural
visionary experiences and a deeper or more sensible approach to astrology would
probably be the nearest human approach; from their natural manifestations in
the realm of winged seedpods on certain trees, to which sexual yoga as
practised by various Eastern adepts of a Hindu cast would evidently be the
nearest human equivalence; from their human manifestations in the realm of
transcendental meditation, to which breath-based meditation techniques designed
to allow the self to recoil in self-preservation from the out-breath to self
more profoundly (spinal-cord deep) as practised by various Eastern adepts of a
Buddhist cast would doubtless be the optimum realization.
But all that is still short of a definitive
metaphysics, and in such metaphysics, commensurate with communal cyborgization
motivated by synthetically artificial self-enlightenment, there will ultimately
be least God and most Heaven.
SHOULD THE BIBLE CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR
SWEARING-IN CEREMONIES AND IN COURTROOMS?
They say the Bible is the word of God, but it
is a poor type of god whose word is printerly, i.e. in print, and not of an
italic writerly character whose ethereal subjectivity would be properly
commensurate with a metaphysical disposition and/or dispensation – at least
when monochrome, and preferably of a white-on-black rather than black-on-white
nature, as though emphasizing psyche at the expense of soma, the Church at the
expense, in other words, of the State.
I don’t believe the Bible as the word of God
for the simple reason that God has never figured in Western civilization, only
Devil the Mother hyped as God (the ‘best of a bad job’ sugar-coating of the
bitter pill of overwhelming female dominance of cosmic and even natural
realities and effective starting-point, in consequence, of civilization) and
something extrapolated out from that which has been called ‘the Son of God’ but
is really the son of something else, whether of Devil the Mother (an antigodly ‘Antichrist’),
of Woman the Mother (an antimanly ‘Antichrist’) or, indirectly (in
sensibility), as Son of Man (‘Man the Father’ corresponding to ‘God the Father’
being a virtually unheard of concept, though germane to psyche rather than to
soma and, hence, to the church as opposed to the state) or Son of God (sic),
since Devil the Mother has even the postulate of resurrection (a nonsense from
any genuinely metaphysical standpoint in which the bound-somatic son is already
correlatively in situ under a free-psychic father) ‘by the balls’, so
to speak, and he has never amounted to anything independent of Her, like a TM
so-called atheist doing his own thing independently of creatoresque or cosmic
constraints.
Anyhow, I wouldn’t want to swear on the Bible;
I’d be more inclined to swear at what, to me, is an obstacle to true godliness
which, at the mankind level (beyond cosmos and nature) is most approximated to
in transcendental meditation, where the godly ego utilizing lungs and breath to
recoil to self from the out-breath more profoundly, bypassing its
starting-point to hit the soul spinal-cord deep for a second or two,
corresponds to ‘God the Father’, the end-product of self-aggrandisement to ‘Heaven
the Holy Soul’, the raison d’être of godliness, and the lungs and the breath to ‘the
Son of God’ and ‘the Holy Spirit of Heaven’ respectively.
But that would still be godliness in mankind, as
a penultimate and not ultimate, or definitive, manifestation of godliness or,
more correctly, heavenliness, which will require an altogether different
platform of self-realization if it is to succeed in bringing metaphysics to
anything like its maximum soulfulness, so to speak – one dependent, in all
likelihood, on synthetically artificial substances and coupled to cyborgization
of a communal order.
That said (and this is quite another subject),
the Bible is a book, and no book is worthy of a metaphysical otherworldly
status, being a kind of rectilinear worldly thing corresponding, when
monochromatic, to the physical/antichemical southeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass in what I normally describe as something
corresponding to a phenomenal mode of sensibility. Only scrolls, and these days
e-scrolls (if italic writerly on white-on-black monochromatic terms) are worthy
to be taken seriously as the ‘word of God’, and on that, especially in relation
to my own more thematically-elevated examples which tend, in their literary
collectivization, towards the communal, I would be more than prepared to swear.
As for the Bible, forget it! One day it will be consigned to the rubbish heap
of history, along with all those other religious and cultural anachronisms from
the West or the East which fall well short of global requirement.
REFLECTIONS: MY FATHER
I have never celebrated Father’s Day for the
simple reason that I never knew or saw my father. To me he is the Irishman from
Galway who drunkenly made the mistake of getting involved with a woman whose
mother had wanted to return to Ireland from Aldershot in England when her soldierly
husband (originally from the North of Ireland) whom she had originally met
while serving in Ireland died, but whose daughter had no such desires.
Unfortunately ‘Mary Aldershot’, as my father’s
family apparently called my mother, soon proved incompatible with their Shamus,
who got cold feet and ran out on his marriage, returning to his mother as a
sort of proverbial Irish Catholic SOB.
So I grew up (until I was taken away to
When Shamus subsequently died of pneumonia,
probably from over-drinking and over-smoking or at least partly in consequence
of that, I was in Aldershot, where my mother and grandmother had been obliged
to return when their pub license fell through or they could no longer manage to
run the pub, as the case may be. But there was no mention of Shamus ever having
married or produced a son, back in
Not that I make a point of going back there and
risk being singled out by some knowing folks and smartarses as Shamus’s effective
bastard, or anything of the kind. I keep my distance, since I despise
everything those sort of people stand for, not least
religious bigotry and social hypocrisy. If I had a father he was one in name
only, without parental substance. He remains for me a nonentity, and I rarely
waste any time thinking about him or what he might have been like.
I don’t dote on my mother either, since, born
and bred in Aldershot, she didn’t really want to go to Ireland with her mother
in the first place, and when the mother died and was returned, post-mortem, to
Ireland for burial, she lost little time in packing me off to a Protestant children’s
home and effectively washing her hands of the whole sorry affair.
When you don’t have a father to protect you,
when you have only a mother and grandmother whom you saw too much of as a child
and didn’t like much of what you saw, when you’re not in your rightful country
but in one that has traditionally always been at variance with it if not its
avowed ethnic enemy, there is no reason to suppose that your mother is going to
be greatly thrilled to have the burden of bringing you up without the benefit
of a husband or that she will greatly relish having you there in the first
place, other things considered. The
death and repatriation of her mother cleared the way for her to address that
problem and address it she did, even though I ceased to attend a Catholic
school and became a reluctant Protestant in the institution (Baptist) and schools
(Anglican) to which I was sent in Carshalton,
Parents? I detest them! They screwed one another over
and up and they screwed me over and up, leaving me with nothing to inherit, not
even a low-earning business from a father who apparently wasn’t smart enough to
own one. I don’t have any interest in either of them, and I have not become one
myself. How could I? I never had the benefit of a father to play with or teach
me anything, and, growing up solitary and sedentary, I certainly couldn’t play
father to anyone else without having had such a benefit personally. It would be
asking too much of me, be too much of an imposition and unreasonable
responsibility.
So I am an outsider (in
As for the Irish ... forget it. To me,
who is as it were reluctantly and in spite of himself Irish if only because of
his father’s genes, which I can do little or nothing about, they are guilty
until proven innocent and, because of their sin-wallowing traditions, innocent
they very rarely are, especially of narrow-mindedness.
THE PROS AND CONS OF HAVING A Y CHROMOSOME
The XY
chromosomal integrity of the male, so paradoxically combining the physical with
the metaphysical, has always meant that his Achilles heel, so to speak, is the
X of physical departure from and, in an underlining sense, support for the Y
which, no matter how inevitable and even humanly desirable, always leaves him
vulnerable to female predation from the opposing chromosomal standpoints of the
metachemical and chemical XX’s, with especial immediate, or short-term,
reference to the former, the fiery nature (supernature) of which is
commensurate with beauty and love, both of which conspire to exploit the
physical vulnerability (old adam) of the male in the (ungodly) interests of
reproduction (the ‘increasing and multiplying’ of Old Testament sanction), so
that he becomes the plaything and, to some extent, devotee of female beauty
(and love), deferring, artist-like, to the whorish freedom a plane above him at
the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where metachemistry
reigns over pseudo-metaphysics, and ceases, in consequence, to live in and for
his Y at the northeast point of the said compass, much as Adam fell from his
Edenic innocence once he had allowed Eve to seduce him (with the apple of
forbidden knowledge, i.e. carnal knowledge) and ceased to be true to his self
(his metaphysical self), with consequences with which we are only too familiar!
For it was
from the tree of forbidden knowledge, corresponding to the physical X, that the
apple was plucked, and it was thanks to its appeal to the ‘old Adam’ in him,
his baser or lower self, that he was seduced and duly found himself, all too
inevitably, cast out of the Edenic paradise of perfect self-harmony in
metaphysical acknowledgement of and loyalty to the Y of his deeper and higher
self.
Thus from
the curse of Adam, the self-divisions of physical X and metaphysical Y, came
the ‘fall of man’ from his godly image or likeness, a fall at first not
self-evident if only because the offering of an XX-chromosomal seduction by the
female has its roots in the metachemical self of beauty and love, thereby
providing something higher than – and axially contrary to – the physical X of
his lower self.
But this
metachemical X, rooted in somatic freedom, is only a means for the female to a
lower end, the end, once the male Y has been twisted to a loving admiration,
artist-like, of female beauty at the expense of joyful self-awareness, of the
chemical X in the surrogate plenum (for someone rooted, as females are, in a
vacuum) of maternal resolution, the X of strength and pride that has little or
no time (or inclination) for the placating of physical knowledge and pleasure,
duly carnally debased, through beauty and love because it has other – and
better – things to do or to concern itself with, things that will increasingly
marginalize the X of the male even as it was formerly held in an XX-chromosomal
grip and unable to be true to its Y, something which in the XX-X context (or
predicament) of worldly subjection is even more remote, and to the point where
the justification for faith (by the Y-severed male, or pseudo-male) in
messianic intervention in order to return him, duly transfigured, to the Y of his
youthful idealism and almost Edenic innocence, through the process of
deliverance known as salvation, is virtually inevitable.
For
salvation (from the world of his self-denying predicament at the hands of
maternal resolution of the female) is for the male, more specifically the
pseudo-masculine male of pseudo-physics, and involves his restoration to the
godly heights of perfect self-transcendence in Y-chromosomal truth to
metaphysical self, which is of the Soul. His rise, should it transpire,
and restoration to an Edenic-like innocence, presupposes the concomitant
counter-fall, or counter-damnation, of the chemical female, the feminine
female, to the pseudo-devilish or pseudo-diabolic counter-depths of
pseudo-metachemical binding, wherein the free somatic X of metachemical
selfhood, duly severed from the free somatic X of chemical selfhood, will be
neutralized, so that never again will beauty and love be able to seduce
knowledge and pleasure in the interests of strength and pride to the detriment –
and exclusion – of truth and joy. Never again, in other words, will the
free will of metachemistry, rooted in free soma, be able to seduce the free ego
of physics from its support of the free soul, centred in free psyche, of
metaphysics in the name of the free spirit of chemistry, rooted, below, in the
somatic freedom of maternity.
In a world –
necessarily otherworldly in its metaphysical aspects – characterized, on the
other hand, by free soul, there could be no place for free ego, much less free
spirit or free will. Therefore the binding of will shall accompany, in
pseudo-metachemistry, the freeing of soul through metaphysics, as the Lord Y
(more than Yahweh, Yoni, Yogi, etc, and effectively the Yohalin precondition of
perfect Y-ness for the religiously sovereign [a subject I have gone into
elsewhere]) reigns over the neutralized X of the vanquished female, the
avenging angel, when necessary, of the Lord Y whose paradise will be for ever,
lasting, in other words, for all Eternity in the cyborg-oriented metaphysical
structure of a St George and the (prone or neutralized or slain) Dragon-like
parallelism, a parallelism which, for all eternity, will signify the dragon, or
lion, that, duly neutralized, ‘lies down’ ... in pseudo-metachemical subjection
... with the lamb of God, whose metaphysical joy in perfect Y-contentedness
will be all the sweeter.
THE CONCEPT
OF GOOD AND EVIL, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
People tend, erroneously, to think of evil and good as equivalent
to black and white, or bright and dark, or light and shade, as though they were
two sides of the same elemental coin, say the beauty and love of metachemical free soma
vis-à-vis the ugliness and hate of metachemical bound
psyche, the absolute (noumenal) female
actuality of metachemistry
(corresponding elementally to fire), so that the positive aspect of the duality
is identified with good, and the negative aspect thereof with evil. Wrong!
Applied to the airy element of metaphysics, truth and joy,
corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to God the Father and Heaven the
Holy Soul, would equate with good, and
illusion and woe, corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to the Son of
God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, would equate, by contrast, with evil.
But would Christians accept as gospel that they have a tradition
of worshipping evil … in the form of the Son of God and the Holy
Spirit of Heaven, i.e., the bound soma of metaphysics which in simple black and
white terms would equate with the latter, i.e., with what is dark, negative,
vicious, etc. I
rather doubt it! Even if the other elements,
like chemistry and physics, corresponding to water and earth (vegetation), didn’t also
expose, when analyzed in such fashion, the absurdity of such a theory or
approach to good and evil, metaphysics and even metachemistry
should suffice to do so; though in the latter case the discrepancy would be
somewhat less obvious if only because traditional or conventional religion is
less disposed to dealing with terms equivalent to the above (God the Father,
etc.) like Devil and Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit, never mind the Daughter
of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell.
For the idea that beauty and love, being positive, must be good
would be difficult for an average person to disprove even if he or she were not
also of the opinion that ugliness and hate, the other side of the metachemical coin, were
patently evil. In reality, however, ugliness and hate are not evil but
that which, appertaining to metachemical bound psyche, corresponds to crime as something
conditioned by the evil of free metachemical soma, i.e. beauty and love, as the negative converse of a
positive precondition, soma preceding and predominating over psyche on a 3:1 basis in the noumenal absolutism of this particular female element.
Therefore evil precedes and predominates, in metachemistry, over
crime, as beauty and love over ugliness and hate on the aforementioned ratio
basis which ensures that, come what may, evil corresponds to the brightness of
free soma and crime to the darkness of bound psyche, with goodness and its
corollary punishment having nothing whatsoever to do with such a dichotomy
because axially polar, in pseudo-chemistry, to metachemistry as
physically-conditioned bound soma to free psyche, the physical, or
masculine-male element, equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry in the
phenomenal relativity of the context in question (at the southeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass) in such fashion that the
pseudo-feminine pseudo-element is disposed to exist on a basis contrary to
female nature to the extent that its soma remains bound (and good) while its
psyche becomes free (and punishing … from a
female standpoint naturally intended, be it not forgotten, for free soma and
bound psyche), and therefore establishes an axial polarity
with metachemistry in terms of the goodness of bound pseudo-chemical soma
vis-à-vis the evil of free metachemical soma
on the one hand, that of primary state-hegemonic criteria, and the punishment
(or punishingness) of free pseudo-chemical psyche vis-à-vis the crime
of bound metachemical psyche on the other hand, that of primary
church-subordinate criteria, the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-divine male
position pseudo-elementally subordinate to metachemistry and
the physical masculine-male position equivocally hegemonic over
pseudo-chemistry constitutive, by contrast, of secondary state-hegemonic (soma)
and church-subordinate (psyche) criteria on an axis that, stretching from the
northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial
compass, is ever contrary to (and in schismatic opposition with) the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of chemistry over pseudo-physics and
metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry that stretches from the southwest to the northeast points
of the said compass virtually as an Irish Catholic alternative to British
Protestant criteria.
Be that as it may, evil and good are not, like virtue and vice or
negativity and positivity, two sides of the same (elemental) coin, but, as
argued above, are axially polar, and then, where their pristine (or female)
manifestations are concerned, on unequal moral terms, the terms of moral evil
and crime (3:1) vis-à-vis unmoral good and punishment (2½:1½) which
contrasts not only with their amoral and immoral counterparts (a different
subject), but with the unmoral pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of
pseudo-metaphysics, and the moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom of physics,
the moral positions always hegemonic and the unmoral ones gender-subordinate,
while amorality corresponds to a descent from above (the moral elemental
positions) and immorality to an ascent from below (the unmoral elemental or,
rather, pseudo-elemental positions), about which I have theorized at some
length elsewhere and will not further elaborate on here in consequence.
But just
imagine the consequences of applying the erroneous notions of bright-good and
dark-evil to pseudo-chemistry! The punishing factor, corresponding to
free psyche, would be regarded as good, and the good factor, corresponding to
bound soma, as evil! This is, of course, a contradiction in terms.
For goodness is bound, negative, vicious, and dark here, whereas punishment is
free, positive, virtuous, and bright, if only on a 1½ as opposed to a 2½ ratio
basis (given the phenomenal female gender actuality of 2½-soma:1½-psyche), and
then only because of masculine-male, i.e. physical, hegemonic pressure, wherein
the ratio of free psyche to bound soma is 2½:1½, and less in relation to
psychic punishment and somatic goodness than to (in contrast with the
genuineness of metaphysics) pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, the knowledge and
pleasure of physical free psyche and the ignorance and pain of physical bound
soma, both of which, corresponding to an equivocally hegemonic element, are
moral, if with virtuous and vicious, bright and dark, implications.
Pseudo-chemistry, of course, is not about the free psyche of
knowledge and pleasure, and the bound soma of ignorance and pain, but about
pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (bound soma) and pseudo-strength and
pseudo-pride (free psyche), the former pseudo-chemical pairing corresponding to
primary phenomenal state-hegemonic criteria and the latter to primary
phenomenal church-subordinate criteria at the southeast point of the axis in
question, polar, be it not forgotten, to evil and crime, and thus to the
primary noumenal
state-hegemonic actualities of beauty and love on the one hand, and the primary
noumenal church-subordinate actualities of ugliness and
hate on the other hand, the latter owing more, in all probability, to the Old
Testament than ever they do to the New, not least in respect, traditionally, of
a King James biblical opposition to and/or contrast with the Gideon New
Testament pretensions to religious independence of the Puritans.
DISCUSSING
THE CONCEPT OF MORAL TRUTH
Although I
have written recently of distinctions at all points of the intercardinal axial
compass between morality, amorality, unmorality and immorality, with morality
and unmorality the standard distinctions compared to amoral and immoral
departures from above or below, as the gender-specific case may be, I should
emphasize that I was generalizing rather than allowing, more categorically, for
further distinctions between the genuine forms of morality, amorality,
unmorality, and immorality, and their ‘pseudo’ counterparts. For, categorically
speaking, such further distinctions indubitably exist, and they do so with
regard to the absolute standings of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the
relative standings of amorality and unmorality.
Now since
the intercardinal axial compass is divisible between noumenal and phenomenal
positions, corresponding to ethereal and corporeal class distinctions, it
should be logically feasible to contend that only in the noumenal positions,
whether in terms of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest point of the
said compass or, contrariwise, in terms of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical
northeast point of it, will both morality and immorality be genuine, since such
positions, being noumenal, are absolute, as, in their opposite ways, are
morality and immorality, with a 3:1 ratio of soma to psyche (female) or of
psyche to soma (male).
The amoral
and unmoral positions, by contrast, will be ‘pseudo’, since existing or
transpiring within the absolute parameters of the noumenal. Hence not only will pseudo-metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry be symptomatic of ‘pseudo’ manifestations of unmorality,
but quasi-pseudo-metaphysical departures from metachemistry in the one case,
and quasi-pseudo-metachemical departures from metaphysics in the other case
will also be symptomatic of the ‘pseudo’ modes of amorality.
All this,
however, ceases to apply with the southwest and southeast points of the
intercardinal axial compass, wherein the phenomenal relativity (2½:1½) of
chemistry over pseudo-physics and, across the axial divide, of physics over
pseudo-chemistry will present the opposite case to anything noumenal – namely,
a fundamental distinction between the ‘pseudo’ standings of morality and
immorality vis-à-vis the genuine standings of amorality and unmorality, whether
in terms of a 2½:1½ ratio of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to soma
(male).
Hence both
chemistry and physics exemplify pseudo-morality within the paradoxical
standings of their phenomenal relativity, even though amoral departures from
either chemistry to pseudo-physics in terms of quasi-pseudo-physics or from
physics to pseudo-chemistry in terms of quasi-pseudo-chemistry will be anything
but ‘pseudo’ in their accordance with relative criteria.
Just so,
both pseudo-physical and pseudo-chemical modes of unmorality will be genuine in
their relativity, but not the immoral departures from pseudo-physics (or, more
correctly, antiphysics) of a quasi-chemical nature or from pseudo-chemistry
(more correctly, antichemistry) of a quasi-physical nature, given the absolute
requirements of immorality.
Thus while the noumenal positions provide logical evidence of a
contrast between genuine morality and genuine immorality, whether
metachemical/quasi-metachemical or, across the axial divide, metaphysical/quasi-metaphysical,
their phenomenal counterparts, being relative, will logically attest to a
contrast between pseudo-morality and pseudo-immorality, whether
chemical/quasi-chemical or physical/quasi-physical.
Conversely, while the phenomenal positions provide logical
evidence of a contrast between genuine amorality and genuine unmorality,
whether quasi-pseudo-physical/pseudo-physical or, across the axial divide,
quasi-pseudo-chemical/pseudo-chemical, their noumenal counterparts, being
absolute, will logically attest to a contrast between pseudo-amorality and
pseudo-unmorality, whether quasi-pseudo-metaphysical/pseudo-metaphysical or
quasi-pseudo-metachemical/pseudo-metachemical.
In each
class and/or gender context, however, there will be a balance, theoretically
speaking, between the genuine and ‘pseudo’ elements, the noumenal exemplifying
the genuineness of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the pseudo-ness, so to
speak, of amorality and unmorality; the phenomenal, by contrast, exemplifying
the genuineness of amorality and unmorality vis-à-vis the pseudo-ness of
morality and immorality.
In sum, the
lower orders, whether chemical/pseudo-physical at the southwest or
physical/pseudo-chemical at the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass,
are neither as moral nor as immoral as their upper-order counterparts, while
the latter, whether metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical at the northwest or
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical at the northeast points of the said compass, will
be neither as amoral nor as unmoral as the lower orders. For morality and
immorality, when genuine, are absolute (3:1), whereas both amorality and
unmorality, to be genuine, can only be relative (
Everything
exists or has the capacity to exist everywhere, but not in the same terms or to
a similar extent. The persistence of
morality, amorality, unmorality, and immorality at all points of the
intercardinal axial compass will continue to reflect opposing approaches to the
genuine and the ‘pseudo’ even if, ultimately, it can only be a point of
philosophical principle approximating to divine judgement that
metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry should triumph over everything else, and that
genuine godly/heavenly morality should avoid any pseudo-amoral departure from
itself (in quasi-pseudo-metachemical terms) in order to keep the
pseudo-unmorality, corresponding to the pseudo-devilish/pseudo-hellish nature
of pseudo-metachemistry, in its gender-subordinate place, the better to avoid
the probability of an immoral quasi-metaphysical backlash from
pseudo-metachemistry (or, more correctly, from antimetachemistry, its anti-diabolic
starting point) that would be extremely bad for metaphysics proper, a context,
be it not forgotten, with a 3:1 ratio (noumenal) of free psyche (in truth and
joy) to bound soma (in illusion or woe) that could only suffer, possibly
fatally, from a 3:1 ratio of bound soma (quasi-illusion and quasi-woe) to free
psyche (quasi-truth and quasi-joy) coming up, via antimetachemistry, from the
pseudo-metachemical ‘below’, where, a plane down at the northeast point of our
intercardinal axial compass, the pseudo-female absolutism of 3:1 bound soma to
free psyche would normally or habitually take the form of pseudo-ugliness and
pseudo-hatred to pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love – something pseudo-diabolically
acceptable from a truly divine standpoint in metaphysics.
So as long
as pseudo-metachemistry is not encouraged (pseudo-amorally) to depart from
itself in the aforementioned immoral manner, all will be well for metaphysics,
the proverbial St George with his foot firmly planted on the neutralized dragon
… of noumenal pseudo-femaleness, the pseudo-lion that not so much lies down
with as under the heel of the genuine lamb, the lamb of God whose moral raison
d’être, in truth, is the joy of heavenly peace in total self-unity.
COMPARATIVE
ETHICS: A HISTORICAL VIEW
Metachemistry,
the element of evil and crime par
excellence, is also, by definition,
the element of barbarity, which is vain.
Chemistry,
the element of pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime par
excellence, is also, by definition,
the element of pseudo-barbarity, which is pseudo-vain.
Metaphysics,
the element of grace and wisdom par
excellence, is also, by definition,
the element of culture, which is righteous.
Physics,
the element of pseudo-grace and pseudo-crime par
excellence, is also, by definition,
the element of pseudo-culture, which is pseudo-righteous.
* * *
Pseudo-metachemistry,
the pseudo-element of pseudo-goodness and pseudo-punishment par excellence, is also,
by definition, the pseudo-element of pseudo-civility, which is pseudo-just.
Pseudo-chemistry,
the pseudo-element of goodness and punishment par excellence, is also,
by definition, the pseudo-element of civility, which is just.
Pseudo-metaphysics,
the pseudo-element of pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly par excellence, is also, by definition, the pseudo-element of
pseudo-philistinism, which is pseudo-meek.
Pseudo-physics,
the pseudo-element of sin and folly par
excellence, is
also, by definition, the pseudo-element of philistinism, which is meek.
* * *
Metachemistry
and pseudo-chemistry are polar elemental positions on
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, like barbarity and civility,
vanity and justice.
Pseudo-metaphysics
and physics are also polar elemental positions on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial terms, like pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture, pseudo-meekness and
pseudo-righteousness.
Metaphysics
and pseudo-physics are polar elemental positions on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, like culture and philistinism,
righteousness and meekness.
Pseudo-metachemistry
and chemistry are also polar elemental positions on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, like pseudo-civility and
pseudo-barbarity, pseudo-justice and pseudo-vanity.
* * *
Hence, in
overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, barbarity and civility,
corresponding to metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, have to be contrasted with
pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture, which correspond to pseudo-metaphysics
and physics, the former polarity primarily and the latter secondarily
characteristic of the axis in question, which is female-dominated, i.e. rooted
metachemically in free soma.
Hence, in
overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, culture and
philistinism, corresponding to metaphysics and pseudo-physics, have to be
contrasted with pseudo-civility and pseudo-barbarity, which correspond to
pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry, the former polarity primarily and the
latter secondarily characteristic of the axis in question, which is
male-dominated, i.e. centred metaphysically in free psyche.
Such, in a
nutshell, is the gender distinction, ethnically speaking, between British
(English-dominated Protestant) and Irish (Catholic) axial relativity, a
relativity torn between barbarity and civility in the one case (British) and
culture and philistinism in the other (Irish).
* * *
As regards
the distinction between soma and psyche, state and church, whether primary or
secondary or, indeed, genuine or pseudo, we should allow for positive and
negative modes of barbarity, civility, culture, and philistinism, according as
to whether our focus is on the free or the bound aspect of any given element,
since that which is free, whether somatic or psychic, will exemplify positive
(and virtuous) forms of barbarity, civility, culture, and philistinism, whereas
whatever is bound, whether psychic or somatic, can only exemplify the negative
(and vicious) counterparts of the above.
Thus, on
the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, the positive barbarity (virtuous)
of beauty and love, corresponding to the evil of metachemical free soma, has to
be contrasted with the negative barbarity (vicious) of ugliness and hatred,
which corresponds to the crime of metachemical bound psyche, with the former
standing to the latter on the 3:1 absolute ratio basis of this noumenally
objective element.
Thus the
positive civility (virtuous) of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride, corresponding
to the punishingness of pseudo-chemical free psyche, has to be contrasted with
the negative civility (vicious) of pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility, which
corresponds to the goodness of pseudo-chemical bound soma, with the former
standing to the latter on the
Likewise,
if from the opposite gender standpoint to anything female, the positive
pseudo-philistinism (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy,
corresponding to the pseudo-folly of pseudo-metaphysical free soma, has to be
contrasted with the negative pseudo-philistinism (pseudo-vicious) of
pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe, which corresponds to the pseudo-sin of
pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, with the former standing to the latter on the
1:3 inverted absolute ratio basis of this noumenally pseudo-subjective element
(pseudo-element)
Likewise,
again from a male gender standpoint, the positive pseudo-culture
(pseudo-virtuous) of knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to the pseudo-grace
of physical free psyche, has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-culture
(pseudo-vicious) of ignorance and pain, which corresponds to the pseudo-wisdom
of physical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter on the 2½:1½
relative ratio basis of this phenomenally subjective element.
* * *
Thus, on
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the positive culture (virtuous) of
truth and joy, corresponding to the grace of metaphysical free psyche, has to
be contrasted with the negative culture (vicious) of illusion and woe, which
corresponds to the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma, with the former standing
to the latter on the 3:1 absolute ratio basis of this noumenally subjective
element.
Thus the
positive philistinism (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-knowledge and
pseudo-pleasure, corresponding to the folly of pseudo-physical free soma, has
to be contrasted with the negative philistinism (pseudo-vicious) of
pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain, which corresponds to the sinfulness of
pseudo-physical bound psyche, with the former standing to the latter on the
Likewise,
if from the opposite gender standpoint to anything male, the positive
pseudo-civility (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love,
corresponding to the pseudo-punishingness of pseudo-metachemical free psyche,
has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-civility (pseudo-vicious) of
pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred, which corresponds to the pseudo-goodness of
pseudo-metachemical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter on the
1:3 inverted absolute ratio basis of this noumenally pseudo-objective element
(pseudo-element).
Likewise,
again from a female gender standpoint, the positive pseudo-barbarity
(pseudo-virtuous) of strength and pride, corresponding to the pseudo-evil of
chemical free soma, has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-barbarity
(pseudo-vicious) of weakness and humility (if not humiliation), which
corresponds to the pseudo-criminality of chemical bound psyche, with the former
standing to the latter on the 2½:1½ relative ratio basis of this phenomenally
objective element.
* * *
Metachemistry
= vanity = barbarity = noumenal objectivity (clearness);
Pseudo-metaphysics
= pseudo-meekness = pseudo-philistinism = noumenal pseudo-subjectivity
(pseudo-unholiness);
Chemistry =
pseudo-vanity = pseudo-barbarity = phenomenal objectivity (pseudo-clearness);
Pseudo-physics = meekness =
philistinism = phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity (unholiness);
Physics =
pseudo-righteousness = pseudo-culture = phenomenal subjectivity
(pseudo-holiness);
Pseudo-chemistry
= justice = civility = phenomenal pseudo-objectivity (unclearness);
Metaphysics
= righteousness = culture = noumenal subjectivity (holiness);
Pseudo-metachemistry
= pseudo-justice = pseudo-civility = noumenal pseudo-objectivity (pseudo-unclearness).
RECOGNIZING
THE BIG PICTURE WHEN CONTEMPLATING LIFE
To contrast the science and pseudo-religion of
the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass … with the religion and
pseudo-science of the northeast point of the said compass, as one would
contrast metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics with metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry.
To contrast the politics and pseudo-economics
of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass … with the economics
and pseudo-politics of the southeast point of the said compass, as one would
contrast chemistry and pseudo-physics with physics and pseudo-chemistry.
To contrast the evil and crime of metachemistry
and the pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysics … with the grace and
wisdom of metaphysics and the pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast barbarity and pseudo-philistinism
with culture and pseudo-civility.
To contrast the pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime of
chemistry and the folly and sin of pseudo-physics … with the pseudo-grace and
pseudo-wisdom of physics and the punishment and goodness of pseudo-chemistry,
as one would contrast pseudo-barbarity and philistinism with pseudo-culture and
civility.
To contrast the superfemininity and
submasculinity of metachemistry and the pseudo-subfemininity and
pseudo-supermasculinity of pseudo-metaphysics … with the supermasculinity and
subfemininity of metaphysics and the pseudo-submasculinity and
pseudo-superfemininity of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast
materialism/fundamentalism and pseudo-idealism/pseudo-transcendentalism with
transcendentalism/idealism and pseudo-fundamentalism/pseudo-materialism.
To contrast the femininity and unmasculinity of
chemistry and the pseudo-masculinity and pseudo-unfemininity of pseudo-physics
… with the masculinity and unfemininity of physics and the pseudo-femininity
and pseudo-unmasculinity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast
naturalism/pantheism and pseudo-realism/pseudo-humanism with humanism/realism
and pseudo-pantheism/pseudo-naturalism.
To contrast the superheathenism and
subchristianity of metachemistry and the pseudo-subheathenism and
pseudo-superchristianity of pseudo-metaphysics … with the superchristianity and
subheathenism of metaphysics and the pseudo-subchristianity and
pseudo-superheathenism of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast vanity
and pseudo-meekness with righteousness and pseudo-justice.
To contrast the heathenism and unchristianity
of chemistry and the pseudo-christianity and pseudo-unheathenism of
pseudo-physics … with the Christianity and unheathenism of physics and the
pseudo-heathenism and pseudo-unchristianity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would
contrast pseudo-vanity and meekness with pseudo-righteousness and justice.
To contrast the supersensuousness and
subconsciousness of metachemistry and the pseudo-subsensuousness and
pseudo-superconsciousness of pseudo-metaphysics … with the superconsciousness
and subsensuousness of metaphysics and the pseudo-subconsciousness and
pseudo-supersensuousness of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast free
will and bound soul with free soul and bound will.
To contrast the sensuousness and
unconsciousness of chemistry and the pseudo-consciousness and
pseudo-unsensuousness of pseudo-physics … with the consciousness and
unsensuousness of physics and the pseudo-sensuousness and
pseudo-unconsciousness of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast free spirit
and bound ego with free ego and bound spirit.
To contrast the supernaturalism and subnurturalism
of metachemistry and the pseudo-subnaturalism and pseudo-supernurturalism of
pseudo-metaphysics … with the supernurturalism and subnaturalism of metaphysics
and the pseudo-subnurturalism and pseudo-supernaturalism of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast protons and pseudo-photons with
photons and pseudo-protons.
To contrast the naturalism and unnurturalism of
chemistry and the pseudo-naturalism and pseudo-unnurturalism of pseudo-physics
… with the nurturalism and unnaturalism of physics and the pseudo-naturalism
and pseudo-unnurturalism of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast electrons
and pseudo-neutrons with neutrons and pseudo-electrons.
To contrast the virtuously (free) and viciously
(bound) clear morality of metachemistry and the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free)
and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-unholy pseudo-unmorality of
pseudo-metaphysics … with the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound) holy
morality of metaphysics and the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and
pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-unclear pseudo-unmorality of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast space and pseudo-time with time and
pseudo-space.
To contrast the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free)
and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-clear pseudo-morality of chemistry
and the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound) unholy unmorality of
pseudo-physics … with the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and pseudo-viciously
(pseudo-bound) pseudo-holy pseudo-morality of physics and the virtuously (free)
and viciously (bound) unclear unmorality of pseudo-chemistry, as one would
contrast volume and pseudo-mass with mass and pseudo-volume.
Although both metachemistry and
pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand and metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry on
the other reflect parallel distinctions between the genuine and pseudo
elements, as regards an unequivocally hegemonic and an unequivocally
subordinate gender position, the same cannot be said of chemistry and pseudo-physics
on the one hand and of physics and pseudo-chemistry on the other, since in each
case the hegemonic position is merely equivocal and the subordinate position
likewise, if subject to primary (as against secondary) polar interplay with its
corresponding gender element in the unequivocally hegemonic position to which
it is axially polar, which element, whether metachemical or metaphysical, indirectly
causes a subversive switch of emphasis on the subordinate position from soma to
psyche or from psyche to soma, as the gender case may be, in consequence of
which the equivocally hegemonic element, be it chemical or physical, is forced
into a secondary (as against primary) polar relationship with its corresponding
gender polarity in the unequivocally subordinate position contrary to it,
making for either secondary (as against primary)
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate or state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
relativity vis-à-vis its primary counterpart on the opposite side of the gender
fence, be that male or female.
Hence the secondary standing of chemistry and
pseudo-metachemistry to pseudo-physics and metaphysics on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from southwest to northeast
points of the intercardinal axial compass, and hence, too, the secondary
standing of physics and pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-chemistry and
metachemistry on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which stretches,
by contrast, from the southeast to the northwest points of the said compass.
But even without overall axial relativity, or
interaction between the noumenal and phenomenal like-gender positions,
chemistry would be pseudo-clear vis-à-vis the clearness of metachemistry, while
pseudo-physics would be unholy vis-à-vis the pseudo-unholiness of pseudo-metaphysics,
if only because two genuine or, for that matter, pseudo positions cannot
co-exist as noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, absolute or relative
pairings.
And the same, of course, applies to the
pseudo-holiness of physics vis-à-vis the holiness of metaphysics on the one
hand, and the unclearness of pseudo-chemistry vis-à-vis the pseudo-unclearness
of pseudo-metachemistry on the other hand.
The clearness of metachemistry is vain, whereas
the pseudo-holiness of pseudo-metaphysics is pseudo-meek. Hence the viable co-existence of vanity with
pseudo-meekness, like space with pseudo-time, devilishness/hellishness with
pseudo-godliness/pseudo-heavenliness, elemental particles with elemental
pseudo-wavicles.
Conversely, the holiness of metaphysics is
righteous, whereas the pseudo-unclearness of pseudo-metachemistry is
pseudo-just. Hence the viable
co-existence of righteousness with pseudo-justice, like time with pseudo-space,
godliness/heavenliness with pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness, elemental
wavicles with elemental pseudo-particles.
Likewise, the pseudo-clearness of chemistry is
pseudo-vain, whereas the unholiness of pseudo-physics is meek. Hence the viable co-existence of
pseudo-vanity with meekness, like volume with pseudo-mass, womanliness/purgatory
with pseudo-manliness/pseudo-earthiness, molecular particles with molecular
pseudo-wavicles.
Conversely, the pseudo-holiness of physics is
pseudo-righteous, whereas the unclearness of pseudo-chemistry is just. Hence the viable co-existence of
pseudo-righteousness with justice, like mass with pseudo-volume,
manliness/earthiness with pseudo-womanliness/pseudo-purgatory, molecular
wavicles with molecular pseudo-particles.
Thus the primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity of metachemical vanity and
pseudo-chemical justice, with the axial polarity of pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-meekness and physical pseudo-righteousness secondarily
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate.
One can be damned from vanity to justice and
counter-saved from pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness.
Likewise, the primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity of metaphysical righteousness
and pseudo-physical meekness, with the axial polarity of pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-justice and chemical pseudo-vanity secondarily
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate.
One can be saved from meekness to righteousness
and counter-damned from pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice. For, in ‘Kingdom Come’, the chemical ‘first’
(equivocally hegemonic at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass) will be pseudo-metachemically ‘last’ (unequivocally subordinate at the
northeast point of the said compass), whereas the pseudo-physical ‘last’
(equivocally subordinate at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass) will be metaphysically ‘first’ (unequivocally hegemonic at the
northeast point of the said compass), as though in the final triumph (global)
of St George over a prone (neutralized by counter-damnation) dragon, a
pseudo-dragon of absolute pseudo-metachemical subordination to the metaphysical
triumph of our proverbial saint.
WHAT DOES FREEDOM MEAN TO YOU, AND DOES
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM EXIST?
To contrast the doing of
metachemistry with the pseudo-being of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would
contrast power with pseudo-contentment.
To contrast the being of
metaphysics with the pseudo-doing of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would
contrast contentment with pseudo-power.
To contrast the giving of chemistry
with the pseudo-taking of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast glory with
pseudo-form.
To contrast the taking of physics
with the pseudo-giving of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast form with pseudo-glory.
To contrast the devility of
metachemistry with the pseudo-divinity of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would
contrast hell with pseudo-heaven.
To contrast the divinity of
metaphysics with the pseudo-devility of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast
heaven with pseudo-hell.
To contrast the femininity of
chemistry with the pseudo-masculinity of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast
purgatory with pseudo-earth.
To contrast the masculinity of
physics with the pseudo-femininity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast
earth with pseudo-purgatory.
To contrast the positive absolute somatic
predominance (over psyche) of metachemistry with the negative absolute psychic
preponderance (over soma) of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast elemental
particle protons with elemental wavicle pseudo-photons.
To contrast the positive absolute psychic
preponderance (over soma) of metaphysics with the negative absolute somatic
predominance (over psyche) of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast
elemental wavicle photons with elemental particle pseudo-protons.
To contrast the positive relative somatic
predominance (over psyche) of chemistry with the negative relative psychic
preponderance (over soma) of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast molecular
particle electrons with molecular wavicle pseudo-neutrons.
To contrast the positive relative psychic
preponderance (over soma) of physics with the negative relative somatic
predominance (over psyche) of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast molecular
wavicle neutrons with molecular particle pseudo-electrons.
To contrast the evil (as against crime) of
metachemistry with the pseudo-sin (as against pseudo-folly) of pseudo-metaphysics,
as one would contrast beauty and love (as against ugliness and hate) with
pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe (as against pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy).
To contrast the grace (as against
wisdom) of metaphysics with the pseudo-crime (as against pseudo-evil) of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast truth and joy (as against illusion
and woe) with pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hate (as against pseudo-beauty and
pseudo-love).
To contrast the pseudo-evil (as
against pseudo-crime) of chemistry with the sin (as against folly) of
pseudo-physics, as one would contrast strength and pride (as against weakness
and humility) with pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain (as against
pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure).
To contrast the pseudo-grace (as
against pseudo-wisdom) of physics with the goodness (as against punishment) of
pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast knowledge and pleasure (as against
ignorance and pain) with pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (as against
pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride).
To contrast the absolute explosiveness of
metachemistry with the absolute pseudo-implosiveness of pseudo-metaphysics, as
one would contrast noumenal objectivity with noumenal pseudo-subjectivity.
To contrast the absolute implosiveness of
metaphysics with the absolute pseudo-explosiveness of pseudo-metachemistry, as
one would contrast noumenal subjectivity with noumenal pseudo-objectivity.
To contrast the relative explosiveness of
chemistry with the relative pseudo-implosiveness of pseudo-physics, as one
would contrast phenomenal objectivity with phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity.
To contrast the relative implosiveness of
physics with the relative pseudo-explosiveness of pseudo-chemistry, as one
would contrast phenomenal subjectivity with phenomenal pseudo-objectivity.
The absolute is always a three-to-one ratio in
favour, depending on the element, of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to
soma (male), whereas the relative is always a two-and-a-half-to-one-and-a-half
ratio, depending on the element, of psyche to soma (male) or of soma to psyche
(female), thereby enabling us to categorically distinguish between the noumenal
and the phenomenal, as between ethereal and corporeal alternatives on both
particle and wavicle, female and male terms, with respect to both soma and
psyche.
WHY MORAL RELATIVISM IS WRONG
Since I often write about what is called the
intercardinal axial compass stretching from southwest to northeast and from
northwest to southeast on a crossed diagonal basis of inter-class and
inter-gender polarity, I may as well add some new thoughts to the corpus of
axis-inspired ideas which enable one to distinguish
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (southwest to northeast) from
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (northwest to southeast) axial criteria.
What I am especially interested in establishing
is that neither axis is corrupt – although the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate one is the secular fruit of schismatic
heresy and is therefore open to allegations of religious corruption – and that
both axes are corrupt, though not, assuredly, in the same way.
In fact, they are corrupt and not corrupt in
opposite ways – the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis in terms of male
corruption in relation to an overall female dominance, and the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate one in terms of female corruption in
relation to an overall male dominance.
But there are two ways of being corrupt, as of
course of not being corrupt, and we can define them as absolute and relative, corresponding
to noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal axial polarities.
Let us take the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis first, where male corruption is
absolute in pseudo-metaphysics (from out of antimetaphysics) under the female
unequivocal hegemony of metachemistry at the northwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass, and relative in physics over the female
subordination of pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry) at the southeast
point of the said compass, the former order of corruption implying free soma
and bound psyche under metachemical pressure and the latter … bound-somatic
emphasis at the expense of free psyche in relation to pseudo-chemical
subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance of metachemistry -
metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry constitutive of primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, pseudo-metaphysics and
physics their secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate counterparts.
Thus male corruption is absolute in
pseudo-metaphysics and relative in physics, females not corrupted (uncorrupted)
in metachemistry where, being unequivocally hegemonic, they are free to be
absolutely true to their selves – free soma and bound psyche existing on a
three-to-one basis of mother-to-daughter-like state/church relativity, and only
partially corrupted in pseudo-chemistry, since free psyche and bound soma, even
with somatic emphasis, only follow from the equivocal hegemony of physics, a
male element.
As regards the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, we have the converse situation of
relative female corruption in chemistry over the male subordination of
pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics) at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass, and absolute female corruption in pseudo-metachemistry (from out
of antimetachemistry) under the male unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics at the
northeast point of the compass in question, the former order of corruption
implying bound psychic emphasis at the expense of free soma in relation to
pseudo-physical subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance of
metaphysics, and the latter … free psyche and bound soma under metaphysical
pressure - pseudo-physics and metaphysics constitutive of primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, chemistry and
pseudo-metachemistry their secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
counterparts.
Thus female corruption is relative in chemistry
and absolute in pseudo-metachemistry, males only partially corrupted in
pseudo-physics, since free soma and bound psyche, even with psychic emphasis,
only follow from the equivocal hegemony of chemistry, a female element, and not
at all corrupted in metaphysics where, being unequivocally hegemonic, they are
free to be absolutely true to their selves – free psyche and bound soma
existing on a three-to-one basis of father-to-son-like church/state relativity.
Of course, males are relatively corrupted in
pseudo-physics and females in pseudo-chemistry, but in overall axial terms it
is still males in the one context and females in the other who are the dominant
gender, and this is the distinguishing differentiation between
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
criteria.
Speaking as a male, I can only contend that is
it preferable to live in a society in which the female is corrupted, since male
dominance makes for the possibility, in metaphysics, of religious truth and joy
and, hence, for godliness and heavenliness.
Neither of those factors are germane to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies, which, dominated by females, are
less religious and more scientific, rooted, it could be argued, in empirical
objectivity.
Yet they are also likely to be more economic
and less political, which is not female and male respectively but a
consequence, by contrast, of equivocal male and female hegemonies in physics
(over pseudo-chemistry) and chemistry (over pseudo-physics), economics polar to
science or, more correctly, to pseudo-religion … as physics to
pseudo-metaphysics, and politics polar to religion or, more correctly, to
pseudo-science … as chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry.
But the polarity on the one axis of economics
to pseudo-religion is correlative, on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with the primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity of pseudo-politics to science … as
of pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry, whereas the polarity on the other axis of
politics to pseudo-science … as of chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, is
correlative, on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, with the
primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity of pseudo-economics to
religion … as of pseudo-physics to metaphysics.
Therefore genuine science and economics only
exist in polar relation to pseudo-politics and pseudo-religion respectively,
whereas genuine religion and politics likewise only exist in polar relation to
pseudo-economics and pseudo-science.
On the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis,
one can be saved, as a male, from pseudo-economics to religion, as from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics, meekness to righteousness, poetry to philosophy,
and counter-damned, as a female, from politics to pseudo-science, chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice, pseudo-drama to
pseudo-prose.
Conversely, on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis one can be damned, as a female, from
science to pseudo-politics, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, vanity
to justice, drama to prose, and counter-saved, as a male, from pseudo-religion
to economics, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pseudo-meekness to
pseudo-righteousness, pseudo-poetry to pseudo-philosophy.
But the latter eventualities, corresponding
with state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, are only likely to
transpire in the event of salvation and counter-damnation taking place to an
unprecedented extent on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, not
independently of it, and for that to happen something more than the Catholic
tradition would be required, as I have often contended from a radically
theocratic standpoint – the standpoint of Social Theocracy, about which I have
theorized at some length in a variety of blogs and texts elsewhere.
THE ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY IN RELIGION
To contrast the barbarism of the
Vain with the pseudo-philistinism of the pseudo-Meek, as one would contrast
metachemistry with pseudo-metaphysics at the northwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass.
To contrast the pseudo-barbarism of
the pseudo-Vain with the philistinism of the Meek, as one would contrast
chemistry with pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass.
To contrast the pseudo-culture of the
pseudo-Righteous with the civility of the Just, as one would contrast physics
with pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass.
To contrast the culture of the Righteous with
the pseudo-civility of the pseudo-Just, as one would contrast metaphysics with
pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
To contrast, on a strictly female polar basis,
the barbarism of the Vain with the civility of the Just, as one would contrast
metachemistry with pseudo-chemistry on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast, on a strictly male polar basis,
the pseudo-philistinism of the pseudo-Meek with the pseudo-culture of the
pseudo-Righteous, as one would contrast pseudo-metaphysics with physics on
secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast, on a strictly male polar basis,
the philistinism of the Meek with the culture of the Righteous, as one would
contrast pseudo-physics with metaphysics on primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast, on a strictly female polar basis,
the pseudo-barbarism of the pseudo-Vain with the pseudo-civility of the
pseudo-Just, as one would contrast chemistry with pseudo-metachemistry on
secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast the positive barbarism of
metachemical free soma with the negative barbarism of metachemical bound
psyche, as one would contrast the superheathen moral virtue of beauty and love
with the subchristian moral vice of ugliness and hatred.
To contrast the positive pseudo-philistinism of
pseudo-metaphysical free soma with the negative pseudo-philistinism of
pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-subheathen
unmoral virtue of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy with the pseudo-superchristian
unmoral vice of pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe.
To contrast the positive pseudo-barbarism of
chemical free soma with the negative pseudo-barbarism of chemical bound psyche,
as one would contrast the heathen moral virtue of strength and pride with the
unchristian moral vice of weakness and humility.
To contrast the positive philistinism of
pseudo-physical free soma with the negative philistinism of pseudo-physical
bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-heathen unmoral virtue of
pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure with the pseudo-unchristian unmoral vice
of pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain.
To contrast the positive pseudo-culture of
physical free psyche with the negative pseudo-culture of physical bound soma,
as one would contrast the christian moral virtue of knowledge and pleasure with
the unheathen moral vice of ignorance and pain.
To contrast the positive civility of
pseudo-chemical free psyche with the negative civility of pseudo-chemical bound
soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-christian unmoral virtue of
pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride with the pseudo-unheathen unmoral vice of
pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility.
To contrast the positive culture of
metaphysical free psyche with the negative culture of metaphysical bound soma, as
one would contrast the superchristian moral virtue of truth and joy with the
subheathen moral vice of illusion and woe.
To contrast the positive pseudo-civility of
pseudo-metachemical free psyche with the negative pseudo-civility of
pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-subchristian
unmoral virtue of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love with the pseudo-superheathen
unmoral vice of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred.
In overall metachemical terms, superheathen =
supernatural = supersensuous = superfeminine; subchristian = subnurtural =
subconscious = submasculine.
In overall pseudo-metaphysical terms,
pseudo-subheathen = pseudo-subnatural = pseudo-subsensuous =
pseudo-subfeminine; pseudo-superchristian = pseudo-supernurtural = pseudo-superconscious
– pseudo-supermasculine.
In overall chemical terms, heathen = natural =
sensuous = feminine; unchristian = unnurtural = unconscious = unmasculine.
In overall pseudo-physical terms, pseudo-heathen
= pseudo-natural = pseudo-sensuous = pseudo-feminine; pseudo-unchristian =
pseudo-unnurtural = pseudo-unconscious = pseudo-unmasculine.
In overall physical terms, christian
= nurtural = conscious = masculine; unheathen = unnatural = unsensuous =
unfeminine.
In overall pseudo-chemical terms, pseudo-christian
= pseudo-nurtural = pseudo-conscious = pseudo-masculine; pseudo-unheathen =
pseudo-unnatural = pseudo-unsensuous = pseudo-unfeminine.
In overall metaphysical terms, superchristian =
supernurtural = superconscious = supermasculine; subheathen = subnatural =
subsensuous = subfeminine.
In overall pseudo-metachemical terms,
pseudo-subchristian = pseudo-subnurtural = pseudo-subconscious =
pseudo-submasculine; pseudo-superheathen = pseudo-supernatural =
pseudo-supersensuous = pseudo-superfeminine.
WHO IS VIRTUOUS?
To contrast the smart noumenal bitches
(females) of metachemical free soma with the stupid noumenal bitches of
metachemical bound psyche, as one would contrast the evil of beauty and love
with the crime of ugliness and hatred, the former standing to the latter on a
3:1 ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) objective criteria.
To contrast the smart noumenal pseudo-bastards
(pseudo-males) of pseudo-metaphysical free soma with the stupid noumenal
pseudo-bastards of pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would contrast the
pseudo-folly of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy with the pseudo-sin of pseudo-illusion
and pseudo-woe, the former standing to the latter on a 1:3 ratio basis commensurate
with absolute (noumenal) pseudo-subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal bitches
(females) of chemical free soma with the stupid phenomenal bitches of chemical
bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-evil of strength and pride with
the pseudo-crime of weakness and humility, the former standing to the latter on
a 2½:1½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) objective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal
pseudo-bastards (pseudo-males) of pseudo-physical free soma with the stupid
phenomenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one would
contrast the folly of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure with the sin of pseudo-ignorance
and pseudo-pain, the former standing to the latter on a 1½:2½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal)
pseudo-subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal bastards
(males) of physical free psyche with the stupid phenomenal bastards of physical
bound soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-grace of knowledge and pleasure
with the pseudo-wisdom of ignorance and pain, the former standing to the latter
on a 2½:1½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal pseudo-bitches
(pseudo-females) of pseudo-chemical free psyche with the stupid phenomenal
pseudo-bitches of pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would contrast the
punishingness of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride with the goodness of
pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (if not humiliation), the former standing
to the latter on a 1½:2½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) pseudo-objective
criteria.
To contrast the smart noumenal bastards (male)
of metaphysical free psyche with the stupid noumenal bastards of metaphysical
bound soma, as one would contrast the grace of truth and joy with the wisdom of
illusion and woe, the former standing to the latter on a 3:1 ratio basis commensurate
with absolute (noumenal) subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart noumenal pseudo-bitches
(pseudo-females) of pseudo-metachemical free psyche with the stupid noumenal
pseudo-bitches of pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would contrast the
pseudo-punishingness of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love with the pseudo-goodness
of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred, the former standing to the latter on a 1:3
ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) pseudo-objective criteria.
Besides bitches and bastards on both noumenal
(ethereal) and phenomenal (corporeal) class and/or elemental planes, one has to
allow for their ‘pseudo’ counterparts likewise, since bitches are only
hegemonic over pseudo-bastards and bastards only hegemonic over pseudo-bitches,
the hegemonic gender requiring the upending and effective undoing of the
subordinate gender if it is to remain hegemonic and therefore clear over unholy
or holy over unclear, as the gender case, on both noumenal and phenomenal
planes, may be.
The significant theological notion that the
‘first’ will be ‘last’ and the ‘last’ be ‘first’ in ‘Kingdom Come’ applies not
only across the axial divide between female-dominated and male-dominated
societies, but also across the gender divide of either axis, as well as across
the same gender distinction, noted above, between ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ types of
bitches and bastards, pseudo-bitches and pseudo-bastards.
In the salvation (rising deliverance from
southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass) of the
pseudo-physical to metaphysics and the correlative counter-damnation
(counter-falling deliverance from southwest to northeast points of the said
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) of the chemical to
pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-physical ‘last’ will wind up metaphysical
‘first’ and the chemical ‘first’ wind up pseudo-metachemical ‘last’; but even
the ‘smart’ phenomenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-physical free soma will end up
‘last’ in metaphysical bound soma as the ‘stupid’ phenomenal pseudo-bastards of
pseudo-physical bound psyche become ‘first’ in metaphysical free psyche. Correlatively, the ‘smart’ phenomenal bitches
of chemical free soma will end up ‘last’ in pseudo-metachemical bound soma as
the ‘stupid’ phenomenal bitches of chemical bound psyche become ‘first’ in
pseudo-metachemical free psyche.
Therefore not only absolute ‘firsts’ and
‘lasts’ between the genders, but relative ‘firsts’ and ‘lasts’ within each
gender, notwithstanding the fact that either gender, in phenomenal or noumenal
contexts, can be both ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ by turns or in relation to the
overall relativity of their gender (somatic vis-à-vis psyche or psychic
vis-à-vis somatic) make-up, this in turn varying according, as noted above, to
class and/or elemental circumstances.
Nevertheless, distinctions between churchmen
and statesmen, for example, are often reflected in individual predilections
towards either freedom or binding in soma or psyche, making for differentials
in behaviour and psychology which reflect our above-mentioned distinctions
between ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’, irrespective of the ratio factors within any
given gender.
LONDON 2008–09 (Revised 2012)
