Op. 143
THE FOURFOLD COMPOSITION OF ELEMENTS AND PSEUDO-ELEMENTS IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE
Aphoristic Philosophy
John OLoughlin
Copyright © 2014 John OLoughlin
__________________
PART ONE
Is life worth living? Yes for the alpha
bitches, and no for the pseudo-omega sons-of-bitches; no for the pseudo-alpha
daughters-of-bastards, as it were, and yes for the omega bastards on both noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal, upper- and
lower-class planes. It's really as simple as that. Life is only worth living
for the hegemonic gender, whether in the alpha (female) or in the omega (male),
not for the subordinate gender, whether as pseudo-omega (pseudo-male) or as
pseudo-alpha (pseudo-female). So there is a sense in which the 'once born' or
sensual life of the heathen is worth living from a female point of view, and
the 'reborn' or sensible life of the Christian worth living from a male
standpoint. There it is.
The British and the English in particular
have often been praised, usually by themselves or by people akin to them, for
their moderation, exemplified, not least, by parliamentary compromise and a
refusal to entertain extremism, whether of the left or the right, but this, I
am confident, has a lot to do, over and above historical experience, with the
non-gender nature of the English language which, fighting shy of female and
male alternatives either side of a neutral (or neuter) middle-ground, tends to
condition an almost androgynous perspective which can result in the
much-vaunted liberal moderation upon which the British would seem to pride
themselves. It is almost inconceivable that the situation that arose in Germany
in the 1920s and '30s, when society was torn asunder by communist (female) and nazi (male) antagonism, could have happened in Britain,
where Communists and Fascists would have been more likely, in the long-term, to
come to some kind of parliamentary arrangement, comparatively few and far
between as their numbers were, whether because of genuine female/male
ideological opposition or, more likely, because political extremism, like other
forms of extremism, simply wasn't germane to a mindset conditioned, over
several generations, by the gender-neutral nature of the English language. The
well-documented incapacity of the British and the English in particular for
ideology or, more accurately, for ideological idealism and transcendentalism, which
even Nietzsche was aware of and drew attention to, must owe something if not
everything to the want or, if you prefer, absence of gender from the English
language, the androgynous relativity of which, deeply atomic in character,
precludes a truly male aspiration and orientation towards ideological
radicalism from transpiring, in consequence of which the concept of 'fighting
the good fight'
of male idealism against female materialism
is either
non-existent or reinterpreted to suit a more gender neutral disposition partial
to parliamentary democracy and, more specifically, to a right-wing orientation
favouring private enterprise at the expense of all forms of socialism,
including the non-Marxist (republican socialist) variety, as well as to any
threat to that parliamentary bias posed by either unrestricted autocracy or
papal theocracy, neither of which would be acceptable to a mindset whose
concept of what is 'good' and constitutive, moreover, of 'the good fight' never
strays very far from the benefits accruing to private enterprise within a
polity, characterizable as parliamentary, more
partial to that than to anything else. This, however, is not my concept of 'the
good fight', and whilst I am no advocate of papal theocracy, with its claim to
infallibility, I most certainly regard such a fight in relation to religion
and, most especially, to what I term Social Theocracy (as the means to Social
Transcendentalism), to which, as the reader may know, I have dedicated a
not-inconsiderable proportion of my writings for several decades past.
What is more important work or health? Health, of course. No health, no work.
What is more important play or health? Play,
of course. No play, no health. There is unquestionably a gender distinction of
sorts between work and play, but only in the sense that one conceives of work
somatically, or in relation to soma (body), and conceives of play, by contrast,
psychically, or in relation to psyche (mind). Then a gender distinction can be
said to exist, though one also has to allow for play of a workful
nature, so to speak, and for work of a playful nature, the former
pseudo-somatic and the latter pseudo-psychic, as if intended for and/or
reflective of gender subordinate positions conditioned as such positions tend
to be by the hegemonic gender's bias, be that bias somatic (and properly workful) or psychic (and properly playful), with female and
male gender implications that point to pseudo-male (workful
play) and pseudo-female (playful work) corollaries, including, no doubt,
physical sports like football in the one case and mental tasks like bookkeeping
or shorthand typing in the other case, as between footballers and secretaries,
the great majority of whom, in each case, will be what I have described as
pseudo-male and pseudo-female respectively.
Some would argue that both
fusion music, or jazz-rock and/or blues-rock, and rock classical are
subversive of rock proper, meaning rock 'n' roll-derived subgenres, as it were,
like hard rock, soft rock, progressive rock, punk rock, heavy metal, and, to be
sure, there may be some truth in such an argument. But the fact remains that,
axially considered, jazz-rock is no less axially preferable to jazz than rock
classical to so-called classical music from a rock 'n' roll point-of-view,
since not really identifiable with the upper and lower polarities of
state-hegemonic axial criteria (northwest to southeast poles of the intercardinal axial compass) but, rather, peripheral to the
lower pole, in lapsed Catholic/republican socialist vein, of the
church-hegemonic axis (southwest to northeast poles of the intercardinal
axial compass) whose upper pole can only be some form of superclassicism
like electronica. Therefore to have what can be
inferred to be the Protestant, or lapsed Protestant, proletariats 'on board',
as it were, of a type of music more readily identifiable with a proletariat of
Catholic descent, no matter how subversive of the latter the former may appear
in each of their effectively antithetical manifestations, is surely preferable
to not having them 'on board' at all, but to being confronted, instead, by a
jazz/classical polarity which is not so much axially subversive as
diametrically inimical to rock 'n' roll. It is to be expected that in the
future event of a collapse of state-hegemonic axial criteria (presumably
brought about by a radical modification of church-hegemonic axial criteria),
the proletariats who have rejected jazz in favour of jazz-rock (fusion) and
classical music in favour of rock classical, whom I have theoretically
contended to be of Protestant descent, would be more likely to serve justice,
or to support the serving of justice, on the prime movers up and down the
state-hegemonic axis than would anybody more closely and therefore axially
aligned with such movers, whether in relation to jazz or to classical or,
indeed, to anything else recognizably state hegemonic, and to serve or support
the serving of such justice in the interests of their own subsequent middle-
and lower-tier amalgamation, as ex-Nonconformists and ex-Anglicans, with the
upper-tier ex-Catholics, so to speak, on what would be a 'stepped up', or
resurrected, church-hegemonic axis commensurate with 'Kingdom Come' and, more
specifically, to what has previously been described, in certain earlier books,
as the Triadic Beyond, a largely self-explanatory term for what lies beyond the
present structures of society. Such justice, brought to bear on the prime
movers of state-hegemonic somatic licence and the profiteering from the
financing of said licence by their polar counterparts, would be a precondition
of their subsequent entitlement, these ex-Protestants, to church-hegemonic
status, whether on the middle tier under the saved (and for females
counter-damned) from rock proper, as presumably for people who had been chiefly
instrumental in the production of rock classical, or on the bottom tier, as
presumably for people who had been chiefly instrumental in the production of
jazz-rock (including blues-rock), whom I would incline to suspect were more Anglican
than Nonconformist in what had been their Protestant allegiances, and therefore
traditionally closer to mainstream jazz than to mainstream classical. Be that
as it may, all this is of course merely speculation about a hypothetical
scenario and should not be taken as gospel, even though I believe it
corresponds to the overall ethnic reality of how things actually are, or should
be logically inferred as being, irrespective of exceptions to the rule or
illogical associations on the part of various individuals whose cultural
preferences, for one reason or another, do not necessarily follow from an
ethnic precondition. One thing I will say for sure is that if any one type of
music could be said to have been really subversive of rock 'n' roll, not least
in its hard rock and progressive rock permutations, it would surely have been
punk rock, which was not merely peripheral to rock proper but, rather, a direct
assault on it, as though from persons of a hard-line republican tendency who
simply spat on the remaining vestiges of Catholic sensibility or ethnicity in
mainstream rock in the interests of a descent into the musical equivalent of
socialist anarchy, with an unbridled instrumental and vocal energy that
reflected the youthful ardour of a generation at loggerheads with the rock
norms of their parents.
What can be said of a man coming along the
street in pleated trousers? All sorts of stupid things, of course, but more
insightfully and even obviously: that he would not appear to be somebody who has
been down on his hands and knees hammering or drilling or plastering or
scrubbing or whatever. There is a good chance that he may even be a gentleman, nurturally if not naturally averse to any kind of manual
labour. Which would indicate that he was less working class than middle class,
would it not?
Generally speaking, 'the bad' die young
of
unnatural causes, and 'the good' die old
of natural causes. And this contrary to the 'accepted wisdom'
of fools.
My books have always emphasized content over
form, for the are essentially books of ideas that strive toward contentment, or
psychic self-satisfaction, through truth, the subjectivistic
'objective', as it were, of philosophy. If I feel I have 'got it right', or
accurately described and/or defined something, be it ever so intangible and
requiring whatever modifications of existing terminology, I am happy, that is
to say, intellectually and morally content. But such contentment only comes in
relation to the type of books I write, and would not be true of writers whose
'objectives' were less subjective.
When I was a youth, back in the late 1960s,
guys with short cropped hair (and Doc Martin boots, turned-up denims, braces,
etc.) were normally regarded as skinheads. Now, in the second decade of the
twenty-first century, guys with short cropped hair wouldn't 'cut it' as
skinheads (except perhaps in the conventional or traditional sense) because
many guys choose to shave their head (in addition to their face and possibly
even body hair), and such shaven heads, strange to say, are not regarded as the
mark of skinheads, since distinct from the culture that sprang up in the late
'sixties and was the antithesis to the long-haired culture of 'freaks' or
'hippies', and a kind of counterpart to that between mods
and rockers of the mid-sixties which had automotive motivations in the
distinction between scooters and motorbikes, a factor less relevant to the
skinhead phenomenon, with its closer association with football hooliganism,
neo-nazism, and a general yobbism
that, in some respects, presaged the punks of the late '70s. But even if a
contemporary shaven head is literally more 'skinhead'-like in the physical
sense than were most of the so-called skinheads of the late '60s, with their
closely-cropped hair, it is still a distinct category and even culture in its
own right, and should not be confounded with either cropped hair or baldness,
since whereas the former is traditionally the preserve of the so-called
skinheads, even if less culturally identifiable with them these days than
before, the latter is due to hair loss, usually though not invariably through
the process of ageing, and a guy who shaves his head, whilst he may look bald
to others, is not necessarily somebody suffering from hair-loss but may well be
and in the more youthful instances almost certainly is somebody given to an
overzealous attitude to shaving which may well reflect a masculine or even
macho contempt for hair and, especially in the case of long hair, for the
effeminacy or cultural irrelevance, going back to the late '60s, often
associated with it. Obviously, the commercial availability, these days, of home
shaving kits, complete with clippers, trimmers, scissors, and all the rest of
it, has contributed enormously to the trend for shaven heads, as has the ready
availability of well-lined hoods on zipper jackets of one type of another, and
I can see no reason why this should not continue to be the case well into the
future, since inventions cannot be undone, and once they come into common usage
the trend is set on an irreversible course that will appeal to those for whom
hair is either a nuisance or an anachronistic irrelevance having a variety,
depending on the style, of undesirable connotations, if not both.
You cannot have all predators and no prey or
all prey and no predators, for then the predators would be no more predatory
than the prey
prey, or objects for predation. Likewise you cannot have all
advantaged and no disadvantaged or all disadvantaged and no advantaged, for
then the advantaged would be no more advantaged than the disadvantaged
disadvantaged. You always have a combination of both, with more disadvantaged
than advantaged, more prey than predators. Otherwise there can be neither. Such
is the distinction between 'the Few' and 'the Many' the predatory or
advantaged upper class and the preyed-upon or disadvantaged lower class, the
latter necessarily being far more numerous, as masses, than the former, as
elites. The masses are not morally superior to the elites. On the contrary, it
is the elites who hold the high ground, both literally and metaphorically. Such
moral superiority as does exist is rather more between one type of elite and
another or one type of mass and another, with the sensibility of inner values
counting for more than the sensuality of outer ones in the moral estimation of
those who hold to some form of sensibility under what normally transpires to
being a male hegemony, whether ethereal or corporeal, noumenal
or phenomenal, theocratic or plutocratic, metaphysical or physical.
They say the exception proves the rule, but it
is also the case that the rule necessitates the exception, like the artist,
philosopher, seer, etc. Otherwise what a boring and predictable
state-of-affairs! Don't trust triangles! The triangular, in whatever walk of
life, is in a pact with the Devil, that is, with all aspects of metachemistry, including the objective beauty of free will,
whose criminal nature or, more correctly, supernature,
in metachemical free soma, is intentional. Some regard
mainstream life, that euphemism for what has been co-opted (one way or another)
to the triangular, as sacrosanct. I don't. Greatness has always stood out from
the crowd, feared and worshipped by the Many as the prerogative of the Few.
Intentionality wars upon intellectuality as instinctuality upon emotionality, albeit on axially polar
as opposed to inter-axial terms. One could call this a direct albeit gender
differentiated as opposed to an indirect kind of warfare. In overall axial
terms, intentionality indirectly combats intellectuality through a subordinate
pseudo-emotionality, whereas instinctuality
indirectly combats emotionality through a subordinate pseudo-intellectuality.
Conversely, from the standpoint of the sensibly 'inner' as opposed to sensually
'outer' values, intellectuality indirectly combats intentionality through a
subordinate pseudo-instinctuality, whereas
emotionality indirectly combats instinctuality
through a subordinate pseudo-intentionality. The polarity between
intentionality/pseudo-emotionality and intellectuality/pseudo-instinctuality can be logically associated with
state-hegemonic axial criteria stretching from the northwest to the southeast
points of the intercardinal axial compass, whereas
the polarity between instinctuality/pseudo-intellectuality
and emotionality/pseudo-intentionality can be logically associated with church-hegemonice axial criteria stretching from the southwest to
the northeast points of the intercardinal axial
compass, to begin, in each axial case, with the alpha-west and conclude with
the omega-east. Therefore a direct gender polarity only exists between
intentionality and pseudo-instinctuality (overall
female) and pseudo-emotionality and intellectuality (overall male) in the case
of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but between instinctuality
and pseudo-intentionality (overall female) and pseudo-intellectuality and
emotionality (overall male) in the case of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
1.
In relation
to its specifically hegemonic elements, the polarity between intentionality and
pseudo-instinctuality, the former hegemonically
noumenal and the latter subordinately phenomenal, is
primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (overall female), whereas that
between intellectuality and pseudo-emotionality, the former hegemonically
phenomenal and the latter subordinately noumenal, is
secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (overall male).
2.
Contrariwise,
the polarity between emotionality and pseudo-intellectuality, the former hegemonically noumenal and the
latter subordinately phenomenal, is primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
(overall male), whereas that between instinctuality
and pseudo-intentionality, the former hegemonically
phenomenal and the latter subordinately noumenal, is
secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (overall female).
All our lives long we are engaged in a gender
war compounded by other factors, like class, ethnicity, occupation, etc., which
can only be won by males on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, not
on those of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, where the female is noumenally hegemonic and therefore sovereign on primary
terms. But it can only be definitively won, this gender war, if the
pseudo-intellectually sinful are saved to graceful emotionality (joy), so that
the instinctual (who are less sinful than pseudo-evil and even, in freely
somatic state-subordinate terms, pseudo-criminal) are deprived of subordinate
allies and prey and duly condemned to counter-damnation in the form of
pseudo-intentionality as the subordinate corollary of that tempered
emotionality that makes for sanctity, pseudo-metachemistry
for ever under the sway of metaphysics, like the proverbial neutralized dragon
under the saintly heel. The 'want' of emotional sensibility in females is
endemic to the gender and is not an anomalous characteristic of this or that
female. Even intellectual sensibility is usually beyond their capacities, which
will normally allow for no more than a pseudo-intentional deference to the
emotional sensibility of joy in the case of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, and a pseudo-instinctual deference to
the intellectual sensibility of knowledge in the case of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a pseudo-sensual deference, in each
case, that would not obtain without the institutionalized continuity of
hegemonic pressure from the male gender, since it is by no means natural to
females but, rather, a product of their pseudo-female subordination to male
hegemonic criteria in one or another degree, depending on the plane, of free
psyche/bound soma or, in their case, of pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma,
with ratio implications that are the pseudo-sensual converse of their male
counterparts in both phenomenal and noumenal
sensibility.
Are you stressed out (by love) or blessed in
(through joy) by the music you listen to. If the former, then
it is obviously no good. If the latter, then at least you know it is
headed in the right direction from a male standpoint. Whitesnake
is the band I love to hate the most because they are so, so given to sex, love,
women, romance, etc. that I have to turn to a band like Iron Maiden (!) which I
hate to love but do because, to me, they are the perfect antidote to Whitesnake and to the more prominent rock 'n' roll
sons-of-bitches generally. In fact, to my way of thinking Whitesnake
and Iron Maiden are the alpha and omega of British rock music, rather like the
dunces and the clever, the foolish and the wise, the romantic and the esoteric.
No wonder most relatively sane males who know anything about hard rock/heavy
metal prefer Iron Maiden; for, despite the manifestly unattractive nature of
that name, you would have to be kind of mad (or madly in love and/or on a
gender-bender trip) to be overly enthusiastic about bands like Whitesnake, the narrow focus of whose lyrics makes even
singers like Ian Gillan and Glynn Hughes, never mind
Mick Jagger and Christ Farlowe,
appear comparatively broad-minded.
By way of contrasting Association Football with
Gaelic Football, the free psyche and bound soma of physics over (a plane up at
the southeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass) the pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry would
suggest that, in the case of Association Football (which I believe should be
correlated with this male-dominated element/pseudo-element pairing), the free
psyche of physics and the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-chemistry could be
regarded as correlating with the entitlement to head the ball (one way or
another, viz physically high or pseudo-chemically
low, climbing or diving), and the bound soma of the one and pseudo-bound soma
of the other with the penalization of ball handling, as of the ball being
wilfully or accidentally handled, which can, however, be kicked (one way or
another, viz physically high or pseudo-chemically
low, on the volley or along the ground), whereas the free soma and bound psyche
of chemistry over (a plane up at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial compass) the pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics
would suggest that, in the case of Gaelic Football (which I believe should be
correlated with this female-dominated element/pseudo-element pairing) the free
soma of chemistry and pseudo-free soma of pseudo-physics could be regarded as
correlating with the entitlement to handle the ball (one way or another, viz chemically high or pseudo-physically low, whether in
the air or on the bounce), and the bound psyche of the one and pseudo-bound
psyche of the other with a taboo on heading the ball, which can nevertheless be
kicked (one way or another, viz over the bar between
the extended uprights or into the net of the goal below, whether or not this
implies a chemical/pseudo-physical state-subordinate distinction as opposed to
a chemical/pseudo-physical church-hegemonic one in which hands or fists have
been used in the scoring process). Therefore it would appear that the opposite
natures of Gaelic Football and Association Football derive, in no small part,
from the elements and pseudo-elements, corresponding to a hegemonic gender and
subordinate pseudo-gender parallel, with which they can and, I believe, should
be correlated largely, I have to say, with ethnic associations in mind which
distinguish what appertains, in mass Irish Catholic vein, to the foot of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis from what appertains, in mass British
Protestant (nonconformist) vein, to the foot of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis namely our aforementioned distinction
between chemistry and pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and, across the axial divide,
physics and pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point thereof, the former polar
to the northeast point of the said compass, as in sports terms to Hurling, and
the latter polar to the northwest point of it, as to Rugby, and not least, I
would guess, in relation to Rugby Union. The above-mentioned planes are of
course volume over pseudo-mass, the former volumetric and the latter massed, in
the case of chemistry/pseudo-physics, and mass over pseudo-volume, the former
massive and the latter voluminous, in the case of physics/pseudo-chemistry,
both of which would stand as phenomenal (corporeal) counterparts to the noumenal (ethereal) planes of space and time, whether with
regard to space over pseudo-time, the former spatial and the latter sequential,
in the case of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics (at
the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass), or to time over pseudo-space, the former repetitive and the latter
spaced, in the case of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry
(at the northeast point of the said compass), where not Gaelic Football and
Association Football but, as noted above, Rugby and Hurling would seem to be
the most credible candidates, within the overall context of the British Isles,
for two such antithetical sports.
When the average man abandons 'the world' for
'God in Heaven', as for a (fully) metaphysical approach to life, monkeys will
have turned into monks.
Does a late Picasso look like an early Picasso?
Does a late Dali look like an early Dali? Does a late Braque look like an early
Braque? Or, for that matter, an elderly Picasso like a young Picasso, an
elderly Dali like a young Dali, an elderly Braque like a young Braque? No, of
course not! Then why should my
late writings, the products of an elderly John O'Loughlin,
be like the early ones, the novels and short stories, dialogues and essays, of
a youthful John O'Loughlin? If I hadn't evolved my
writing style or approach to writing over the course of several decades,
passing through a corresponding number of phases, there would surely be
something wrong with me as a writer and no less as a person. Believe it or not,
it actually takes courage and no little determination to sit down at one's desk
and systematically 'do one's own thing' independently of literary convention
and the commercial appetite for fiction or drama or some other mass-market
predilection. In truth, not many people have the ability to be true to
themselves, know what they are doing is uncommercial
and unconventional, yet still press on with it regardless because they happen
to believe in it and consider it to be inherently necessary or justified. That,
to my mind, is the mark of a true artist, whose originality, uniqueness, and
determination to be true to himself, to what he believes is true, irrespective
of what other people or even artists may think, manifests his creative
genius. So don't expect anything resembling conventional literature from me
nothing resembling a 'book', with a beginning, a middle, and an end, other than
in the sense that no form of protracted literary composition can avoid having a
beginning, a middle, and an end in relation to itself, its very existence as a
piece of writing. Little by little the bricks of my philosophic logic have
stacked up into an edifice that is both strong and
true, tall and round, with a capacity to withstand the tests of time and the
gusts of criticism which will probably blow around it in years to come.
They hide their mediocrity behind a veil of
silence, whose inscrutable obstinacy threatens to stifle one's creative
impulses. But struggle on regardless one must, if one's freedom of mind isn't
to be unduly undermined by the cynical void that resentfully surrounds it on
all sides from what are more usually the antichrist champions of bodily
freedom. Sometimes silence is as demoralizing as noise, though when the one
technique fails there is always the other for the enemies of thought and philosophical
endeavour to fall back on, countering freedom of mind with freedom of body, or
the mental with the physical.
How could anyone who purports to be Christian
possibly be a dancer?
Only an androgynous liberal would contend that
mental freedom depends upon bodily freedom and should never be pursued for its
own sake. But even he has to be distinguished from those who oppose mental
freedom from the standpoint of bodily freedom. Those who seek a compromise
between bodily freedom and mental freedom are always somewhere in between the
champions of bodily freedom on the one hand and the practitioners of mental
freedom on the other, like a liberal between left- and right-wing alternatives,
or a businessman between sportsmen and artists. Actually, the endeavour to
maintain a balance between body and mind, whilst it may appear liberal, is
nonetheless a fair approach to the upbringing of children and youths, since it
is not the business of mainstream education to instil a bias one way or the
other but to pursue a more or less neutral path that, appertaining to the
middle-ground, does not strive to prejudice this way or that at the expense of
the individual student's innate disposition, which, in any case, time alone
will reveal to be either suited to a compromise stance or more fitted for a
bodily or mental bias, as the case may be. Once the individual understands who
or what he is, then it is up to him to pursue the course best suited to
himself, whether that results in a bodily bias, a bias towards the body within
a liberal framework, a bias towards the mind within a liberal framework, or,
indeed, a mental bias such that, in transcending liberal options, effectively
repudiates the life of bodily freedom, as of manual labour and physical sport.
Certainly the greatest philosophers and thinkers do not become such through
bodily compromise! Rather they are creatures of the mind, and no-one who was
less than that could hope to excel in the world of ideas and stand, ultimately,
in the front rank of philosophical endeavour. Conversely, no great sportsman,
shall we say, became pre-eminent in his field of competitive physicality by
studying Schopenhauer or Nietzsche every day.
Those who can't think for themselves end up
advising others (as well as being advised by others of a like persuasion).
The only thing worse than a
thoughtless woman is a thoughtless child.
They run from their own company into the
company of others, as into the clutches of wolves.
Christianity has always been torn between the
Judaic Jehovah of the Old Testament (or Talmudic equivalent) and the Father of
the Son (Christ) of the New Testament; for, in truth, Jehovah and the Father
are not the same but as separate and different as the Old and New
Testaments. Jehovah does not have a Son, least of all a 'Son of God', like the
so-called Father who only really figures and this to a limited extent in
relation to the New Testament
of what is properly Christian, owing more, if
memory serves, to Greeks and Romans than ever the Hebraic Old Testament does.
The Father is, in a sense, a diluted Jehovah, even an attenuated Creator, a Creator-God for Christians, whose religious
fulcrum lies elsewhere (the Son). From a Social Theocratic standpoint, however,
both the Old and the New Testaments of the so-called Christian Bible are
irrelevant, since no more than obstacles to that truth which is independent of
Creator Gods of whatever provenance. We, on the contrary, look towards the
creation of an Ultimate God, Who resides in Heaven
the Holy Soul, which
dwells within. For, in truth, God/Heaven (which are
essentially one and the same) is the last or omega-most of entities, not the
first or alpha-most. Even on an Elemental level, fire and water precede
vegetation (earth) and air, and, in that sense, John Cowper Powys was correct
to regard women or females as an 'older race' than men, since more germane, in
overall gender terms, to fire and water than to vegetation and air, and
consequently standing closer to those aspects of Nature which are objective
rather than subjective. But this, I have long contended, makes them primary
rather than secondary in gender terms, with a disposition that tends to
dominate their male counterparts for purposes of reproduction.
Iron Maiden (dreadful name!) always drive me to
my notebook, where I scribble furiously in an attempt to escape from their, at
times, overblown music, with its grating repetitions of chorus or riff.
At one time 'God' was the name they gave to
cosmic processes, including the creation of stars and planets. At another it
was what went on in Nature, less ethereal than corporeal, since largely
involved with the creation of plants and animals. At yet another time they
conceived 'God' to be human and more instrumental to the processes by which man
came properly into his own as a kind of creature beyond Nature who, through
Salvation, could look forward to a life not subject to death. We have yet to
move beyond the human into the Superhuman antithesis to cosmic Supernature and a form of life which is truly the
realization of Eternity, conceived from a cyborgistic
standpoint, that would be as far beyond mankind as cosmic Supernature
was and is behind Nature. If Nurture is the corporeal antithesis of Nature,
then I call the ethereal antithesis of Supernature by
the name of Supernurture, and equate it with all
things cyborgistic and capable not merely of an
individually superhuman but of a collectively supra-human apotheosis in which
God truly finds His place in
Heaven
the Holy Soul, like super-intellectuality in super-emotionality, truth
in joy.
Living in a consumer society he consumed so
much that he became consumptive and died of consumption.
The heavier the music, the further removed it
is from the lightness of true being and, hence, the sanctity of grace. To
search for 'the truth' through a medium like Heavy Metal amounts to a
contradiction in terms, with the paradoxical result that only a limited concept
of truth if that is ever likely to emerge. Even Iron Maiden have their
lighter, quieter moments, when the music turns reflective and softly
transcendent, if not reproachful of the inherent limitations of the
soul-destroying heaviness and hardness which is the hallmark of Heavy Metal,
that derivative of and, in a very real sense, degeneration from Hard Rock.
Highly mechanized units ranged against the
bearers of humanistic civilization in a cyborgistic
transcendence of mankind. This is the struggle for global universality, an
ongoing struggle with humanistic reaction that should culminate, if successful,
in 'Kingdom Come' as the fulfilment of 'man overcoming' (Nietzsche) in the
interests of divine (and pseudo-diabolic) criteria, according to gender.
Humanists are the Christian enemy of the heathenistic naturalism of Pantheists and all those who
would affirm Nature above Man because more susceptible to female control in
rural or other environments of a less than urban character. In Elemental terms,
this amounts to a kind of hegemonic antithesis between vegetation and water, or
physics and chemistry, with subordinate pseudo-watery and pseudo-vegetative,
pseudo-chemical and pseudo-physical, pseudo-Elemental corollaries also in the
overall frame one identifiable with this or that manifestation of
worldliness, depending on whether we are alluding to physics/pseudo-chemistry
or to chemistry/pseudo-physics, the former pairing with a hegemonic humanism
and a subordinate pseudo-pantheism, the latter pairing with a hegemonic
pantheism and a subordinate pseudo-humanism.
Those who have the intelligence to read and
understand me but, through prejudice or malice, prefer not to
don't deserve
that intelligence in the first place, since they have allowed it to be eclipsed
by baser considerations, or by considerations having no bearing on the pursuit
of truth.
Writing 'books of ideas' is the abstraction, or
abstract art, of literature, a kind of abstraction that, being philosophical,
or geared towards the pursuit of metaphysical knowledge (truth), focuses upon
the essence of things, as of life. And it is best served, this ontological
abstraction, by a non-physical type of book, viz. an eBook.
This is the type of 'book' most suited, I believe, to eBook
publication on or via the Internet, since it exists at a kind of Platonic
remove from the corporeal realm of 'real' books, and never more so than in the
type of eScroll presentation that I also favour, and
favour more, if anything, than the eBook, since I
have conceived of it in terms that, utilizing noumenally
subjective means, including textual presentation, are more inherently metaphysical.
But, either way, I have distilled the quintessence of literature, viz.
thoughtful ideas and subjective musings, from what, in my comparative youth,
had been a slightly more conventional approach to literature involving
characters and plot, as well as a degree of narrative description all things
I am happy to have ditched or, more correctly, transcended
in the interests
of metaphysical knowledge, which is, above all, self-knowledge, the door to
enlightenment and, hence, male emancipation from worldly bondage.
'Big Girls Don't Cry', or, in German, Grosse
Mδdchen Weinen Nicht, despite its teenage focus, has long been
one of my all-time favourite German films, with attractive characters, great
acting, a thoughtful and credible plot, delightful music, etc. But if there is
one criticism above all, amounting to a moral flaw, that can be levelled at it,
not least in the context of the current anti-smoking climate, it must surely be
that es gibt
zu viel rauchen,
and that, alas, is no small matter when considering the overall character of
the film and the likelihood of a bad influence on teenagers! But, hell, didn't
I smoke cigarettes as a teenager? Didn't we all? Or most of
us? Like it or not, teenagers do, and, in that respect, this film could
be said to offer a realistic portrayal of vulnerable youth, especially in
relation to its two main protagonists who happen, in the characters of Kati and
Steffi, to smoke the most, almost as though they were
in competition to outdo each other! Perhaps boys made these girls so nervous
that they had to smoke in order to calm their nerves.
As the night sky was rent asunder by the
lightning and the thunder, it seemed that all hell had broken loose to do its undamndest worst to send the earth to the brink of
annihilation. I cursed this frantic tyranny with all the righteous indignation
I could muster, as storm-tossed clouds sent my soul into a fluster. And yet, on
rational consideration, one would have to say it was all local, and the bolts
that tore through the sky were not specifically aimed at this or that but, were
generated in what appeared to be a random fashion that usually fell well-short
of the ground and whatever stood upon it. There were no premeditated targets
for this storm, which raged on oblivious of the world below and those of us who
bothered to contemplate it from a safe distance.
An occasional DVD purchase aside, I only use
the computer for the sake of my eScrolls/eBooks, not
because I have any fondness for computers or the stress to which one is
subjected by constant interference, hold ups, pop ups, crashes, freezes, and
the hundred-and-one other things that make computing a virtual nightmare. For
me, the computer is a means to a publishing end, that's all.
Every creative and publishing step forward I take
is achieved in spite of neighbour and especially female opposition to my
work, so I know well enough that one must struggle anew every day not so much
with oneself though that also happens as with others, particularly those
whose only real business in life is reproduction, which implies the same thing
over and over again, generation after generation, world without apparent end.
There are different types of Antichrist, like,
for instance, those who are especially athletic and those who are obese, the
former effectively corresponding to a higher class of Antichrist, as it were,
than the latter. Both alike, however, would be male, at least nominally so,
since females should be evaluated in relation to other than strictly Christian
criteria, like Marian criteria, for example, or criteria having some bearing on
the objective 'First Cause' of things, neither of which would have much to do
with sin and folly, whether of the genuine or 'pseudo' varieties, but a lot to
do with crime and evil, with free soma and bound psyche in relation to metachemistry and chemistry, the former genuinely criminal
and evil, the latter so on a 'pseudo' basis by dint of its secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate status vis-a-vis
the pseudo-physically sinful (in pseudo-bound psyche) and foolish (in
pseudo-free soma) who exist, on pseudo-masculine terms, a plane down from their
feminine counterparts, like pseudo-mass under volume, massed mass under the
volumetric, which tends, naturally enough, to be watery (in chemistry) rather
than pseudo-vegetative (in pseudo-physics).
I've always found the idea of a female with a
crucifix around her neck to be as paradoxically improbable and even
unconvincing as a male with a star-shaped pendant around his. Both would appear
to be at cross-purposes with their actual gender.
The mixed congregations of the Christian
churches reflect a kind of androgynous liberalism or atomicity peculiar to and
even typical of 'the world' which, in practical and ethnic terms, has tended to
imply the West as a whole but Western Europe in particular. The true
philosopher, a man of truth, is not to be found in a Christian congregation,
but at a kind of Platonic remove from any reflection or even celebration of
family values. Schopenhauer would have been sardonically amused by the mass of
people in this or that congregation, piled up in heaps or whatever his exact
expression was.
If your internet security is compromised,
banners can appear on your site(s) that you didn't put there, subverting the
overall integrity of the page. It is simply extraordinary to what lengths
internet criminals will go to achieve their ends!
These days it would seem that St George tends
to take the form of anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware,
anti-malware, pop-up blockers, and other manifestations
of internet security designed to lance the Dragon of intrusive adverts,
banners, pop-ups, viruses, and other thoroughly undesirable, unwarranted
attacks upon one's computer. As for the intruders, with their fiery assaults
upon one's computing activities Scum!
Those antichrist fools, shaking their hips and
wriggling their behinds, mouthing off, and generally acting like young women,
have it 'all to do' from a properly male standpoint, the standpoint of
sensibility and wisdom. They exist, these sons-of-free-somatic-bitches, as
so-called 'alpha males', in a fool's paradise, and of course they tend, when
political, to have left-wing sympathies if not inclinations.
Not for the first time in my history of
computer downloads an installation has stalled, and I am left wondering whether
it will ever restart.
If the First World War was the 'death throes'
of the old European order, governed by autocracy, then it could be said that the
Second World War was the 'birth pangs' of a new European order, the legacy of
which we are still living with today.
The wise man ensures that his fantasy world
doesn't coincide with reality.
Those who write for money invariably produce
shit.
Those who publish for money spurn truth.
No-one who writes or thinks with a kind of
Anglican fatality towards materialism/fundamentalism (metachemistry)
can possibly be of any use or relevance to the Catholic and more than Catholic
purveyor of transcendentalism/idealism (metaphysics), who would simply be
'beyond the pale' of the mindset based, as though rooted, in metachemistry (doubtless hyped as metaphysics, as in the
Cosmos hyped as the Universe, or Devil the Mother/Virgin hyped as God the
Father, etc). For such people beauty is
truth, and there is consequently no place, in their triangular set-up, for
truth itself, as for a metaphysics completely
independent of metachemical subversion.
They have no idea how genius operates simply
because they have no ideas in their head in the first place. Period.
To equate genius with something broader or wider than just excellence or
outstanding ability in one field or discipline is to misunderstand it, which is
what most people, entirely lacking in if not opposed to a specific focus, tend
to do, since there is nothing more objectionable to those rooted in alpha
divergence than a persistent focus amounting to a kind of omega convergence, as
upon truth, or metaphysical knowledge.
Nothing to say, nothing to write; I must be making
some kind of moral progress. Something to read, something to think; seems like
I'm back to my old (male-biased) ways again.
Sounds like another 'Catholic' night torn
between the rain and the wind, with little evidence of anything else.
Let those who wish to return to Nature live
outside the bounds of civilization, without the benefit of modern conveniences
within a secure structure.
The rain is so fierce and frequent, so
prolonged and intense, that one feels not only under siege but somehow hemmed-in
and as though oppressed by it. One wonders how much more of this certain other
aspects or manifestations of nature, never mind civilization in general, can
take.
Malfunctioning computing is a nightmare from
which one longs to escape
into the dream of a properly functioning and
responsive computer. Some hope!
Sometimes you have to take the bull by the
horns, as they say, and take the fight to your neighbours, refusing to be cowed
by them into some kind of meek submission that would endanger if not undermine
one's vocational activities these being, in my case, of an intensely literary
nature.
Equalitarianism is a disease that cripples the
body politic and, eventually, brings the entire social organism into disrepute,
since it ceases to function as a coherent whole but becomes subject to a
partisan imbalance.
Writers have always sought escape from the
social constraints imposed by neighbours and such like by fleeing abroad or at least
to some more congenial hideaway where they can work in peace without fear of
resentful intrusions or cynical antagonisms from philistine opponents of any
sort of literary vocation. When one cannot live with kindred spirits, it is
better to live by oneself than to continue enduring the indifference if not
animosity of spirits who are anything but kindred!
Listening to Mendelssohn, one always feels in
the presence of the noblest music.
I take a look around me on the crowded streets
of various north London 'towns' and ask myself how many of these people even
know what 'the good fight' is, never mind live in the daily process of fighting
it, that is, struggling against female opposition to truth by living a life
removed from female domination and the power of beauty.
Coming to terms with 'the world' is one thing
and, for most people, it is probably fair to say the only thing. But 'the
world' doesn't lead anywhere itself, least of all to the otherworldly pastures
of Heaven or, more correctly, 'Kingdom Come', which has to be conceived as
implying more than just a Christian type of posthumous life in the grave
(something which cremation, as a manifestation of antichristian or secular
practise, in any case repudiates, as though from the standpoint of science),
not to mention the necessary gender division between heavenly and
pseudo-hellish (pseudo-devilish) criteria which Christianity would seem not to
acknowledge, since rather more androgynous in its overall mixed
congregation-like accommodation of worldly norms. But, of course, the Afterlife
that I have in mind would be cyborgistic in
character, and therefore akin to a sort of superchristian
dispensation capable of sharply differentiating between metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, male saint and pseudo-female neutralized
dragon. Christianity even has female saints!
You are predestined for this or that not only
according to gender, but also according to class, race, and ethnicity which,
taken together with occupation, constitute a quadruplicity
of realities that overlay gender and can be applicable to either gender in
consequence.
The other day I realized, quite categorically,
that pleated slacks and macadamised sidewalks don't correlate, any more than
jeans and paved sidewalks, or pavements proper. Either you wear pleated
slacks/trousers for pavements or jeans for sidewalks, even though circumstances
may and indeed do oblige somebody in slacks to walk on sidewalks and
somebody in jeans to walk on pavements from time to time. Having long despised
the 'squareness' of paving stones, and hence
pavements, I find the wearing of jeans or jean-like non-pleated attire in
relation to a preference for macadamised sidewalks (usually more wheely-bag friendly than their paved counterparts).a
no-brainer. And even if reality doesn't always match or even match-up to my
preference, the bias is there and has long been so, with few deviations from it
(though occasional deviations there certainly have been and, depending on
circumstances, will probably continue to be).
The 'good fight' against overbearing female
domination and worldly consequences has never been particularly popular, and
not just with the ladies. The Christian exception proves the heathen rule, and
it may well be that the crux of the distinction between popular and classical
music, or populism and classicism in general, is precisely one hinging upon the
contrast between female-dominated heathenism and male-hegemonic Christianity, a
distinction no less applicable, I contend, to superheathen
and superchristian criteria, which would be less
worldly in antithetical terms than antithetical in terms of netherworldly
and otherworldly criteria, metachemistry and
metaphysics, with their subordinate gender corollaries of pseudo-metaphysics
and pseudo-metachemistry respectively.
Science may interpret the world but only
religion can change it or, more correctly, enable
males to transcend it in pursuit of an otherworldly alternative. Even Marx's
contention that it is not enough to interpret the world; rather one should strive,
as a philosopher, to change it
had some religious implications, if, in
relation to social democracy and proletarian humanism, demonstrably false ones.
Yet that still contrasts with the Darwinian concept of evolution and its
profoundly scientific implications which contribute nothing to religion, since
historically factual rather than based in some myth that, conceiving of the
origins of the world in relation to original sin, allows for and actually
encourages a gender-based perspective on life and morality that could
conceivably lead to a very different outcome to, never mind conception of,
evolution than that postulated by science.
He (not me) was one of those many-too-many
sons-of-bitches who was so pretty bitched up that he
had little or no inclination towards cultural creativity left in him meek
plaything of a natural will.
While she was busy looking for 'Mr Right', he
was busy escaping from 'Miss Wrong'.
There is nothing women hate so much as
thoughtful self-absorption in men.
PART TWO
Some maintain that music isn't a necessity,
like food and drink, but a luxury, and I have to say that I believe such people
to be body-over-mind types who fail to understand that for certain others,
usually those of a mind-over-body disposition, music is necessary and therefore a necessity because, quite apart from
the possibility of professional or vocational commitments, the soul requires to
be fed since man, particularly in the case of males, does not live by bread
alone. Starved of cultural nourishment, not least in respect of music, the soul
of those who are mind-over-body would succumb to depression and lethargy to an
extent that could well lead to a loss of appetite and, hence, pose a danger to
life and limb. Music is not simply a luxury for those who, more usually as
males, are mind-over-body, as it may well be for those, on the contrary, who
are body-over-mind, the great majority of whom I would suppose to be female.
Rather it is a cultural necessity that helps keep the soul alive and well, that
is, capable of responsive feeling in consequence of a more positive attitude to
life. Starved of music the soul would die and, with it, the body would cease to
be soulfully animated but become a mere self-perpetuating automaton, bereft of
sensibility and the possibility of higher feeling. But that would still
contrast with those whose healthy bodies, bolstered by carnal appetites, are
not incompatible with dead minds, the sort of people who, being body-over-mind,
don't really need music because their sense of life derives from the body and
its sensual nourishment. And so much so that the absence of
music, at least in any recognizably soul-oriented mode, would not necessarily
impair their bodily well-being.
To claim that all people are the same, irrespective
of gender and its vacuous/plenemous,
objective/subjective, somatic/psychic, individual/collective,
competitive/cooperative, particle/wavicle
distinctions, broadly speaking, between females and males, would be grossly
mistaken, since any androgynous approach to mankind, such as is evidenced by
the exponents of unisexual liberalism, with its gender neutrality, can only do
a disservice to gender and, hence, to life conceived in terms of a gender
struggle, or struggle between the genders. Quite apart from the
gender-extrapolative distinctions of class, race, ethnicity (culture &
religion), and occupation, mankind is subject to a constant struggle of
opposing forces that can never be reconciled because whatever common ground
there is between them is undermined by their antithetical natures as female and
male, making it as though peripheral to their respective inclinations. I
believe the attempt to achieve a common ground between people irrespective of
their gender, to emphasize their common humanity, as it were, derives from a
liberal perspective on life which is quintessentially worldly and, hence,
atomic, with androgynous predilections that fight shy of gender differences
from a kind of neutral standpoint designed to accommodate both genders, as far as
possible, to a middle-ground position in which, paradoxically, gender ceases,
in almost unisexual vein, to be an issue. One can see how the English language,
in avoiding gender in its treatment of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and so on,
facilitates this tendency through a process of gender neutralization congenial
to a liberal view of life and the avoidance thereby of certain moral issues,
not least those presented by religion from the standpoint of a type of gender
discrimination going back to the concept of 'original sin' and on towards
Christ's advice to male followers of his to leave females of one sort or
another behind in order to 'take up the Cross', as it were, and climb the hill
towards salvation from female domination, and hence heathen values generally,
that leads to paradise or, in eschatological terminology, to the gender-based
divisions of 'Kingdom Come' in which metaphysical values would be hegemonic
over pseudo-metachemical ones in a structural
paradigm of saint and neutralized dragon, or lamb and neutralized wolf.
The dominance of females over males is aided
and abetted by science and politics, the dominance of males over females
by
economics and religion. If religion is undermined by science or economics by
politics, then the only consequence, whether with a noumenal
(scientific) or a phenomenal (political) bias, will be the dominance of males
by females and a form of civilization characterized by outer and sensual values
in relation to a predatory impulse. Just as science is the enemy of religion
and politics the enemy of economics, so there are philosophers who, espousing
science over religion or politics over economics, are the enemies of economic
or religious philosophers, serving only to advocate superficial approaches to
civilization characterized by female dominion which effectively subvert
philosophy from standpoints contrary to a love of wisdom and the pursuit,
thereby, of truth. If scientific philosophers are the most false and political
philosophers the more (relative to most) false type of philosopher, then
economic philosophers are the more (relative to most) true and religious
philosophers the most true type of philosopher. In fact, the religious
philosopher, being most true, is alone he for whom metaphysics takes positive
precedence over physics and chemistry negative precedence over metachemistry, the element of the scientific philosopher
par excellence. For metaphysics and chemistry, being elementally hegemonic, are
axially polar (on opposite gender terms), and therefore both separate from and
contrary to the axial polarity established (likewise on opposite gender terms)
between metachemistry and physics, which are also
elementally hegemonic.
1. Just as metachemistry
over pseudo-metaphysics is axially polar, on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
terms, to physics over pseudo-chemistry, with a same gender polarity between metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry on the one hand (overall
female) and pseudo-metaphysics and physics on the other hand (overall male),
the former primary and the latter secondary, so a like polarity exists, in
overall axial terms, between autocracy over aristocracy and plutocracy over
meritocracy, with autocracy and meritocracy polar on overall female terms
(primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) and aristocracy and plutocracy
polar on overall male terms (secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate).
2. Similarly, just as metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry is axially polar, on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, to chemistry over pseudo-physics,
with a same gender polarity between metaphysics and pseudo-physics on the one
hand (overall male) and pseudo-metachemistry and
chemistry on the other hand (overall female), the former primary and the latter
secondary, so a like polarity exists, in overall axial terms, between theocracy
over technocracy and democracy over bureaucracy, with theocracy and bureaucracy
polar on overall male terms (primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate) and
technocracy and democracy polar on overall female terms (secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate).
Therefore the overall polarity between
autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy, corresponding to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and
physics/pseudo-chemistry, necessarily excludes that between theocracy/technocracy
and democracy/bureaucracy, corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry/pseudo-physics, since the more
of the one type of polarity the less of the other, and vice versa.
1.
The more
autocracy/aristocracy the less, on similar albeit lower-order gender structural
terms, democracy/bureaucracy, and, correlatively, the more
plutocracy/meritocracy the less, on similar albeit higher-order gender
structural terms, theocracy/technocracy, since the one type of structure
necessarily excludes the other.
2.
Similarly
if conversely, the more theocracy/technocracy the less, on similar albeit
lower-order gender structural terms, plutocracy/meritocracy, and,
correlatively, the more democracy/bureaucracy the less, on similar albeit
higher-order gender structural terms, autocracy/aristocracy, since the one type
of structure necessarily excludes the other.
3.
Hence it is
logical that metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics should
form an axial polarity with physics/pseudo-chemistry, in order to guarantee for
both autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy as little interference or
competition as possible from their respective lower- or higher-order structural
counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental parallels happen, in the
one case, to be female over pseudo-male or, in the other case, male over
pseudo-female.
4.
Likewise it
is logical that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry
should form an axial polarity with chemistry/pseudo-physics, in order to
guarantee for both theocracy/technocracy and democracy/plutocracy as little
interference or competition as possible from their respective lower- or
higher-order structural counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental
parallels happen, in the one case, to be male over pseudo-female or, in the
other case, female over pseudo-male.
1.
In the past
I have tended to equate aristocracy with pseudo-theocracy and technocracy with
pseudo-autocracy, so that we have had an antithesis between
autocracy/pseudo-theocracy and theocracy/pseudo-autocracy, which would
correspond to the above distinctions between autocracy/aristocracy and
theocracy/technocracy.
2.
Similarly I
have tended, in the past, to equate bureaucracy with pseudo-plutocracy and
meritocracy with pseudo-democracy, with a cross-axial antithesis between democracy/pseudo-plutocracy
and plutocracy/pseudo-democracy corresponding to the above distinctions between
democracy/bureaucracy and plutocracy/meritocracy.
3.
Another way
of making such distinctions would be to equate autocracy with science and
aristocracy with pseudo-religion on the one hand, and theocracy with religion
and technocracy with pseudo-science on the other hand, which would neatly
tie-in with our long-established antithesis between metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics
and metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry.
4.
Likewise
one could equate democracy with politics and bureaucracy with pseudo-economics
on the one hand, and plutocracy with economics and meritocracy with
pseudo-politics on the other hand, which would just as neatly tie-in with the
long-established antithesis between chemistry/pseudo-physics and
physics/pseudo-chemistry.
Be that as it may, I have no doubt that just as
the hegemonic elements on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are democracy and theocracy, or
politics and religion, with subordinate corollaries in bureaucracy and
technocracy, or pseudo-economics and pseudo-science, so the hegemonic elements
on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to
the southeast points of the intercardinal axial
compass are autocracy and plutocracy, or science and economics, with
subordinate corollaries in aristocracy and meritocracy, or pseudo-religion and
pseudo-politics. For if you have genuine science in one context (metachemistry), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-metachemical); if you have genuine politics in one context
(chemistry), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-chemical); if you have
genuine economics in one context (physics), it can only be pseudo in another
(pseudo-physical); and if you have genuine religion in one context
(metaphysics), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-metaphysical). That, it
seems to me, is logically incontrovertible and subject to proof by example of
the way in which each axis operates according to which gender is hegemonic in
any given context, be it noumenal or phenomenal,
ethereal or corporeal, absolute or relative.
1.
Hence
autocracy is only genuine in a metachemical context
characterized by scientific freedom, not in a pseudo-metachemical
context characterized by the binding of science pseudo-scientifically, or technocratically, to religious freedom in metaphysics. Or
put the other way around, theocracy is only genuine in a metaphysical context
characterized by religious freedom, not in a pseudo-metaphysical context
characterized by the binding of religion pseudo-religiously, or
aristocratically, to scientific freedom in metachemistry.
2.
Likewise
democracy is only genuine in a chemical context characterized by political
freedom, not in a pseudo-chemical context characterized by the binding of
politics pseudo-politically, or meritocratically, to
economic freedom in physics. Or put the other way around, plutocracy is only
genuine in a physical context characterized by economic freedom, not in a
pseudo-physical context characterized by the binding of economics
pseudo-economically, or bureaucratically, to political freedom in chemistry.
So just as the distinction between genuine
science and pseudo-science is an autocratic/technocratic one, so the
distinction between genuine religion and pseudo-religion is a
theocratic/aristocratic one; and just as the distinction between genuine
politics and pseudo-politics is a democratic/meritocratic
one, so the distinction between genuine economics and pseudo-economics is a
plutocratic/bureaucratic one, with autocracy/aristocracy polar to
plutocracy/meritocracy on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, and
theocracy/technocracy polar to democracy/bureaucracy on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the former polarity or, more
correctly, polarities effectively excluding, on all but a kind of dotted-line
peripheral axial basis, the latter ones from the mainstream functioning of
representative state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, and the latter
polarities likewise effectively excluding, on all but a kind of dotted-line
peripheral axial basis, the former ones from the mainstream functioning of
representative church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Which is a credible
enough explanation of the distinctions between Britain and Ireland or, more
pedantically at this point in time, of the United Kingdom and the Republic of
Ireland, even without axially unrepresentative trends or tendencies at large in
each case.
1.
Metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics,
corresponding to autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), is a pairing
characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to
science over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-religion.
2.
Metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, corresponding to theocracy//pseudo-autocracy
(technocracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of cooperative
collectivism in relation to religion over pseudo-competitive individualism in
relation to pseudo-science.
3.
Chemistry/pseudo-physics,
corresponding to democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), is a pairing
characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to
politics over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-economics.
4.
Physics/pseudo-chemistry,
corresponding to plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), is a pairing
characterized by the dominance of cooperative collectivism in relation to
economics over pseudo-competitive individualism in relation to pseudo-politics.
1.
In
analogous terms, spatial space, or space per se, over sequential time, or
pseudo-time, is equivalent to science over pseudo-religion, which is in turn equivalent
to autocracy over pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), and that is of course
equivalent to metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics.
2.
Conversely
repetitive time, or time per se, over spaced space, or
pseudo-space, is equivalent to religion over pseudo-science, which is in turn
equivalent to theocracy over pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and that is of
course equivalent to metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.
3.
Similarly,
volumetric volume, or volume per se, over massed mass, or pseudo-mass, is
equivalent to politics over pseudo-economics, which is in turn equivalent to
democracy over pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), and that is of course
equivalent to chemistry over pseudo-physics.
4.
Conversely
massive mass, or mass per se, over voluminous volume,
or pseudo-volume, is equivalent to economics over pseudo-politics, which is in
turn equivalent to plutocracy over pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), and that is
of course equivalent to physics over pseudo-chemistry.
One fancies that just as
theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) would look askance, back across the
upper-order axial divide, at autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), so
plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) would look askance, back across the
lower-order axial divide, at democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), since
sensibility over pseudo-sensuality must regard itself as being in some sense
morally superior to sensuality over pseudo-sensibility, whether with regard to noumenal (ethereal) or phenomenal (corporeal) antitheses.
Yet, in overall axial terms, theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) is
prepared to exist in polarity with democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy),
as noumenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity
with phenomenal sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue
interference or parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of phenomenal
cooperative collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from
plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), while, likewise,
plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is prepared to exist in polarity with
autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), as phenomenal
sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity with noumenal
sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue interference or
parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of noumenal
cooperative collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from
theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy). Hence both the ideologies of the
celestial city and the terrestrial city are prepared and even perforce obliged
to accommodate polarities with not parallel but opposites types of nature, viz.
the terrestrial nature, as it were, of democracy/pseudo-plutocracy
(bureaucracy) in the case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and the
celestial nature, or supernature, of
autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy) in the case of
plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), so that competition from their
parallel types of nature, viz. autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy) in the
case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and
democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) in the case of
plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is minimized if not effectively
excluded.
1.
Logically,
I can find no reason to contest the contention that the competitive
individualism of science and the cooperative collectivism of religion are noumenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as
space per se and time per se, the former spatial and the latter repetitive.
2.
Likewise I
can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the
pseudo-cooperative collectivism of pseudo-religion and the pseudo-competitive
individualism of pseudo-science, the former subordinate to science and the
latter to religion, are pseudo-noumenally
incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as pseudo-time and pseudo-space, the
former sequential and the latter spaced.
3.
Similarly,
there is no logical reason to contest the contention that the competitive
individualism of politics and the cooperative collectivism of economics are
phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as volume per se and
mass per se, the former volumetric and the latter massive.
4.
Likewise I
can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the
pseudo-cooperative collectivism of pseudo-economics and the pseudo-competitive
individualism of pseudo-politics, the former subordinate to politics and the
latter to economics, are pseudo-phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in
effect, as pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume, the former massed and the latter
voluminous.
As noted above, competitive individualism is
chiefly characteristic of the female side of life, as in general terms of
females, who have to compete on an individual basis for males, while
cooperative collectivism is chiefly characteristic of the male side of life, as
in general terms of males, who profit more from cooperating on a collective
basis than from competing on such a basis, never mind on an individual basis,
though of course what I have termed pseudo-cooperative collectivism can be
interpreted as implying a degree of competitiveness under pressure from
competitive individualism, whether noumenal or
phenomenal, the converse of pseudo-competitive individualism implying a degree
of cooperation under pressure from cooperative collectivism, again whether in
relation to the noumenal or the phenomenal planes.
Democracy, which is republican, will tend to
favour proportional representation, in contrast to the 'first past the post'
preference of pseudo-democracy which, being meritocratic,
favours the retention of a parliamentary oligarchy in the interests of
plutocratic continuity under the hegemony of economics over pseudo-politics, or
physics over pseudo-chemistry. That is why, in Britain, proportional
representation, like its pseudo-economic corollary, socialism, is effectively a
'dead letter', the product of delusion or naivety on the part of certain
politicians, since the hegemony of economics over politics ensures that only a
pseudo-political outcome is possible, the converse of the pseudo-economic
subordination to politics more characteristic of countries, like the Republic
of Ireland, which favour some degree of socialism in relation to proportional
representation within a republican context, a context governed by the hegemony
of democracy over bureaucratic pseudo-plutocracy in reflection of a
chemical/pseudo-physical pairing traditionally standing at the foot of the
metaphysically- and pseudo-metachemically-dominated
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. Yet this, in contrast to Britain, is
also the tradition, extending into religion on the mass Catholic level, of
competitive individualism being hegemonic over pseudo-cooperative collectivism,
as volumetric volume over massed mass, which tends to favour the politically
competitive individual at the expense of the pseudo-economically
pseudo-cooperative collective, so that political republicanism is more
prominent, in its hegemonic sway, than socialism or any analogous form of
pseudo-economic subservience. Small wonder that the plutocratic/meritocratic British look askance, across the lower-order
axial divide, at the democratic/bureaucratic Irish! Which is only, after all,
the phenomenal parallel to the theocratic/technocratic Irish looking askance at
the autocratic/aristocratic British where noumenal,
or upper-order, axial antitheses are concerned. For neither people are, or ever
could be, simply phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or
ethereal. And, as noted above, axial polarity across the noumenal-phenomenal divide ensures that both the British
and the Irish are compromised by their respective noumenal
or phenomenal opposites. The phenomenal British may look askance at the
democracy/bureaucracy of the phenomenal Irish, but their own
plutocracy/meritocracy is compromised by axial co-existence with the
autocracy/aristocracy of the noumenal British,
thereby ensuring a minimum of interference from the axially subversive threats
posed by theocracy/technocracy. And no matter how morally contemptuous of
autocracy/aristocracy the noumenal Irish may be,
their own theocracy/technocracy is compromised by axial co-existence with the
democracy/bureaucracy of the phenomenal Irish, thereby ensuring a minimum of
interference from the axially subversive threats posed by
plutocracy/meritocracy. What could be more paradoxical? And yet that is how the
British/Irish divide traditionally stacks up, and there is no reason, short of
a major revolution in ethnicity, to anticipate any change.
PART THREE
In the Beginning there was just hydrogen, then,
following gravitational compression, there emerged helium, to start a process
which led to everything else, including the mineral-rich Earth, so that we have
a cosmic scenario, corresponding to conventional religion, in which God
precedes the Devil, or Heaven precedes Hell (helium?), followed, millions of
years later, by the 'Fall of Man' and 'the World', or something to that
Biblical effect. But, of course, 'God' and 'the Devil' would exist, as 'Heaven'
and 'Hell', or hydrogen and helium, in the same star, as would the building
blocks of everything else, including what became, out of the Earth generally,
'the World' to which 'Adam and Eve' were banished from 'the Garden of Eden'.
Which is not a particularly convincing interpretation of all those religious concepts,
not all of which would correspond to my use of religious terminology in which
God, for example, is a corollary of Heaven in a transcendent context having
absolutely nothing to do with stars and everything to do with an ultimate level
or stage of metaphysics beyond even human metaphysics and antithetical to
cosmic metaphysics that may well be the summation of evolutionary progress when
and if evolving life gets to such a summation, presumably cyborgistic
in character, in the distant future. Interestingly, while the term 'Cosmos' is
very much a scientific term, factual and without religious connotations of the
sort alluded to above, the term 'Universe' has become
associated with religion to a degree that makes it more congenial to
theologians and religious thinkers generally. And yet so many people and not
just those who go to university to study the cosmos alternate, perhaps
unconsciously, between scientific and religious usage without necessarily
realizing there is a contradiction involved. But precisely because 'Universe'
is a religious term, not unconnected, in my opinion, with monotheistic
traditions, it can have evolutionary implications that stretch beyond science
and its observational predilections in relation to the Cosmos, as when the term
'Universal' is taken to mean applying everywhere on the planet or throughout
the world in a global sense rather than in the narrowly religious, and
specifically Judeo-Christian, sense of a worldly age or lifestyle having
morally opprobrious implications, so that what, in this higher sense, is
universal is also, by definition, global and capable of being expanded, through
centro-complexification, into space to exist, in
Celestial City-like vein, at an antithetical remove from the Cosmos, like true
religion at an antithetical remove from beautiful science the factual Alpha
and truthful Omega of what exists or could conceivably one day exist in such an
antithetical fashion.
He said: Do you go to church?
I said: No.
He said: I do.
I said: Really?
He said: But it has to be a certain type of
church.
I said: Naturally, this or that denomination.
He said: No, a church on a hill.
I simply smiled and thought him a little odd,
though I suspected he had a Catholic Cathedral in mind.
A wicked wind tore into the building and
threatened to tear it apart. Whipped on by this ferocious wind, the rain lashed
down against the roof and windows of my civilized abode with what seemed like
malicious intent, as though determined to avenge itself upon civilization and
if possible undo the gains of man, the manifest opposition of man to such
barbarous manifestations of Nature. In spite of all this, I continued to sit
still and to thoughtfully ponder this experience from the comfort of my chair,
grateful to have a secure refuge from the inclement moods of our common enemy
which relentlessly assailed my dwelling and caused the external TV aerial to
rattle and creak incessantly for hours on end, something with which I was by
now all-too-familiar but, sadly, powerless to do anything about. All I could do
was wait patiently for this wicked wind to abate.
Have just finished R.L. Dinardo's
Germany's
Panzer Arm in WWII, a Stackpole Book first
published in paperback 2006, and, after some cautious optimism at the
beginning, my attitude progressively deteriorated after the first fifty or so
pages to a position where I couldn't wait to get to the end of what, like so
many other paperbacks to have come my way from one or other of the local
libraries in recent months, was a less than comfortable read, given the number
of typographical, grammatical, and other blunders which, regrettably, marred
what might otherwise have been an engrossing if not enjoyable book. Why can't somebody sit down with these people and actually comb
through the text before publication, to ensure that unnecessary and, frankly,
counter-productive errors of text are ironed out? After all, who wants a book
that is so technically flawed that they cannot respect it? Admittedly,
Professor Dinardo is not a literary man, still less
an artist, but even so
even historians are entitled to more editorial care
and correction than this title evidently received. From now on I shall have to
avoid such books, because they rarely escape the curse of technical
incompetence, whether because of the author, the editor, the printer, or a
combination of all or more. It were better to leave
such books on the shelf!
Still the rain falls and the wind blows,
heavily and fiercely, on yet another wet and windy day when the weather is,
frankly, obscene. How helpless one feels in the teeth of this monstrosity! And
yet this is the world we live in! Not one of our choosing, but a Given. It could also be said that the world is too big and
too full of people you don't like the look or sound of. Toll!
Surely people who worship some Creator God have
sunny weather or come from climates where the weather is more tolerable, if not
consistently enjoyable, than do those of us habituated, over long centuries of
ancestral perseverance, to northern European weather conditions, including, no
least, those characteristic of the British Isles. Europe and northern Europe
in particular abandoned Creator-ism for Christ several centuries ago, but it
was only with the Reformation that, in the sixteenth century, northern Europe finally
succeeded in prizing itself apart from the religious clutches of southern
Europe in favour of a religious stance more in harmony with the sort of
inclement conditions generally prevailing there, which are not only wet and
windy but frosty and sleety, icy and snowy, damp and so much else to boot. This
religious stance was further removed from Creator-ism, as from 'the Father' and
by extrapolation 'fathers', through the humanistic person of Christ, albeit a
Christ largely independent of His Mother. For it was only following the
Reformation that northern Europe came into its own independently of the Marian
shackles of Roman Catholicism, not to mention an undue emphasis upon the Father
at the expense of the Son, and of the 'Son of Man' in particular. But even the
Son was not to be overly worshipped, least of all as a figure, since worship of
an individual removes one, as a male, from the prospect and moral desirability
of cooperative collectivism, by making one subject to some metachemical
or chemical hegemony at variance with physical and metaphysical predilections,
of which the Book collectivism of the Bible, and in particular of the New
Testament conceived as the truly Christian aspect thereof on the one hand, and
some approximation to if not attainment of the 'heavenly host' in relation (it
could be said) to the Holy Ghost on the other hand
would be chiefly
characteristic, albeit in terms of the sensibility of two contrasting axes, as
far removed from each other as ego and soul, or knowledge and truth, and
therefore tending to be mutually exclusive as exclusive, in fact, as the
competing individualisms, for worship, of whatever corresponded to metachemistry and chemistry, as to the scientific and
political embodiments of objective concretion underpinning if not undermining
the phenomenal and noumenal modes of subjective
abstraction that require a cooperatively collective precondition if they are to
emerge in anything like a recognizably economic or religious, that is, properly
economic or religious guise.
Coming second with the Second Coming, who, like
Adolf Hitler, wouldn't be of much use to
non-Christians, or the greater percentage of the globe's population, which
could only be properly served by a messiah of global character who transcended
the narrow confines of any given so-called world religion from a standpoint
that, whilst not ignorant of viable religious preconditions in any given
tradition, was sufficiently unique as to be globally relevant, and not just
another partisan manifestation of what could be called religious imperialism,
whereby Christians strive to overcome Moslems, and Moslems strive to overcome
Jews, and so on, without any appreciable progress towards an ultimate world
religion that was more than the sum of any particular tradition.
She was subject to periodic aberrations which
messed with her head and rendered her somewhat unstable and even erratic at
such times, so much was her mind in the grip of bodily functions stemming from
a natural diktat that overruled the mind and rendered her unsuitable for purely
mental tasks.
Equalitarianism from the people's standpoint
(as opposed to that of certain intellectuals and so-called philosophers removed
from 'the common herd' by at least a middle-class extent): tit-for-tat, or some
convenient variation on the unchristian doctrine of an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth which, stemming from the Old Testament, considerably
pre-dates any injunction to 'turn the other cheek'.
Anything to do with fathers is a taboo subject for
me, since my own was a no-show, and I have never felt comfortable thinking
about him, much less striving to emulate him.
The mind is the repository of
thought and the page or screen the repository of symbols that must be
read in order to be turned into words and re-interpreted as thought in the
virtuous circle linking author and reader in a psychic relationship.
During the week I do quite a lot of traffic
generating for various of my eScroll and eBook websites, so I am something of a surf slave manually
engaged in the time-consuming process of amassing a certain number of credits
with which to promote them by ascribing a specific number, rarely more than
ten, to each of them or, at any rate, to those sites which I happen to be
specifically engaged upon promoting at the time.
Moses apparently went up a mountain though I
doubt he climbed it in the sense that we would understand these days to get
away from his people and produce the tablets of what became the Mosaic Law, or
Ten Commandments, and was therefore at quite a topographical remove from what
subsequently transpired with Christ on his hill of Calvary, who died not only
because of worldly sin, so to speak, but also because of whatever stood in back
of it as its ruling principle. Some would claim this to be a distinction
between the Father and the Son, but I think it more akin to one between Jehovah
and the Son (whose Father could not be Jehovah but a kind of attenuated
Creator, as previously argued) or, in equivalent terms, between the Old and the
New Testaments, with Jehovah pertaining, in Judaic vein, to the one and both
Christ and His Father appertaining, in Christian vein, to the other. Be that as
it may, the idea of going up a mountain to reach or attain to God has never
appealed to me since, to my mind, mountains and godliness are
incompatible, like autocracy and hills. I, for one, wouldn't look for God on a
mountain, even if it took me closer to the sky, nor would I visit a church that
was built on one. Temples may be built there, but Christian churches? He who
doesn't find God and, more relevantly from a metaphysical standpoint, Heaven
within himself, his inner self, will find something less than if not contrary
to Heaven (and God) outside it, like Man, Woman, and the Devil, or the Earth, Purgatory,
and Hell.
When Christians pray they are usually still.
When Jews pray, not least at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, they are moving or
swaying (scarcely nodding) their head and upper torso backwards and forwards in
a manner that, to a Christian, would suggest an element of showiness, as though
germane to a more superficial order of praying that presumably emerged from and
pertains to climatic conditions peculiar to the Middle East and to the Judaic
parts of it in particular. For there is evidently and, I think
incontrovertibly, a link between culture and environment, even with the
north/south divide in
So long as Christian churches continue in
existence Christianity is not dead and, as it were, on the rubbish heap of
history, no more than Judaism with its synagogues, or Islam with its mosques,
or Hinduism with its temples, and so on. All the old, traditional religions
still exist at this point in time (the early 21st century), and will
doubtless continue to do so until 'Kingdom Come', presuming upon the
eventuality of a concept which I interpret in terms of religious sovereignty
and the electorates of various countries with the right kind of axial
preconditions (church-hegemonic/state-subordinate) being in a position to opt,
via utilization of the democratic process, for religious sovereignty and the
rights accruing to actually being
religiously sovereign, including freedom from the 'old gods', as Nietzsche
would say, and encouragement to develop and realize Heaven (for males) within
in terms that, being pertinent to a further development of global civilization,
would have the capacity to overhaul contemporary modes of global civilization
and the degrees and types of synthetic artificiality accruing to it from a more
evolved standpoint, one favouring the inner at the expense of the outer, and
therefore sensibility of a certain order at the expense of sensuality of
whatever order. Therefore if there is to be just the one true religion for the
entire globe, it would have to be in consequence of the people's express wish,
and not something imposed upon them from without. That, for me, underlies the
significance of democracy in countries where it is genuine, not as an
end-in-itself but as a means or stepping stone to a new and ultimately higher
end commensurate, in its theocratic fullness, with 'Kingdom Come'. So with
'Kingdom Come' as a context characterized and defined by religious sovereignty,
we have the sovereignty that, primarily appertaining to Heaven/God and, to a
lesser extent, to the pseudo-Devil/pseudo-Hell, is beyond all lesser or
contrary sovereignties, including those of Man, Woman, and the Devil, which are
less theocratic (though they have their theocratic 'bovaryizations'
deferring to plutocratic, democratic, and autocratic norms) than plutocratic,
democratic, and autocratic, in that regressive hegemonic order. For the context
we are alluding to is one of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry
at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass on a stepped-up, or 'resurrected', church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis, and that of course presupposes, with its soulful fulcrum, the hegemony of
Heaven/God over the pseudo-Devil/pseudo-Hell of what, with a pseudo-fulcrum in
pseudo-bound will, would be forever equivalent to the wolf and/or lion that,
through neutralization, 'lies down', in pseudo-metachemistry
under metaphysics, with the 'lamb of God' or, more correctly, the grace of
Heaven/God.
To be a 'mind' in a world where the great
majority are 'bodies'
is no small achievement, especially when its activities
are conducted in the face of those who, taking physical matters for granted,
tend to interpret the term 'mental' in a denigrative
fashion, and would therefore brand as 'mental' one's ability to think and/or
proclivity for thought, further demonstrating their opposition to such mental
processes by emphasizing their sensitivity to it whenever, by thinking or even
writing, one gives them the opportunity to censor it with some physical
disturbance or other.
It is odd that I still live, after some forty
years' removal from Surrey, in the cesspit of north London and, more
especially, in the vicinity of Crouch End, from the overcrowded dinginess of
which I despair of ever getting away. For I have never got over the depression
that first assailed me shortly after moving or, more accurately, having had to
move at someone else's bequest from the leafy part of Surrey I lived in to
north London, where there are always so many cynically-domineering foreigners
and lumpen proletarians that one feels as though
isolated from any prospect of meaningful relationships, so outnumbered is one
by what is alien and, frankly, often repulsive.
They know how to breed, but they don't care to
read, still less to think! You know to whom I am alluding, and I have never
liked such people, including some of my nearest neighbours, who seem to know
when I am reading or thinking, and make what I would describe as periodic
efforts, with timely thumps and even ironic ahems, to
thwart or hinder me, especially when I am stuck in the midst of reflection or
puzzlement or some other hiatus in the intellectual process that, somehow aware
of but totally incapable of understanding or sympathizing with, induces them to
redouble their efforts to complicate in the aforementioned manner. But they are
not going to succeed! Got back at them all yesterday evening
with the aid of Deep Purple, Spiritual Beggars, Michael Schenker
Group (MSG), and Tangerine Dream. Perfect! For three whole hours, thanks
to a cheap bottle of red wine, no-one could put-in on me and effectively make a
mockery of my life and life's work by striving to thwart or undermine it. I had
them all on the back foot, so to speak, and was determined to press home my
advantage with a vengeance!
Anyone who, having listened to and watched
Michael Schenker perform on tracks like 'Rock Bottom'
on his World Tour 2004 DVD, doesn't think he is one of the technically greatest
if not the greatest and most electrifying all-time practitioner of
the electric guitar would have to be an idiot. No-one else with the possible
exception of Bernhard Beibl of Tangerine Dream
comes even close, though Jimi Hendrix was of course
intensely electrifying if, at times, somewhat over-the-top, like a John
Coltrane of the electric guitar who had a personal and/or social axe to grind,
as they say, and did so with a vengeance. What spoilt Hendrix for me was his
over-use of the word 'baby' in so many of his songs, especially on live
recordings, and the feeling one had, as a male, of being excluded from if not
irritated by them in consequence.
Don't go quietly into the dark night. Punish
the swine! They're the reason one is alone.
God gets peace (of soul-mind) from the Devil
only because He doesn't have anything to do with Her.
If you're less than godly and absolutely isolated from the Devil you don't get
peace (of soul-mind), but either the half-peace (of ego-mind) in the case of
Man, man proper, or the half-war (of spirit-body) in the case of Woman, woman
proper, who will be closer to if not occasionally eclipsed by Devil the Virgin
and Her shortfall, morally speaking, from Woman the Mother, whose half-war on
the half-peace of Man the Son usually precludes him from attaining to the full
peace, as it were, of God the Father, Who is beyond, in Heaven the Holy Soul,
all knowledge of Hell the Clear Spirit in Devil the Virgin, like truth in joy
beyond love in beauty, the beautiful free will that, burning up with love, is the
criminal root of all evil
in ugliness and hate, the bound psychic corollary
of somatic freedom of a metachemical order.
I have gone beyond philosophy as hitherto
understood in the West by introducing a theosophical element into my
metaphysics which ensures that it is fully metaphysical and, hence, effectively
super-philosophical, the product, one could say, of messianic insight in
relation to a degree of genius that is philosophically unsurpassed.
For some reason, probably not unconnected with
religious tradition, my mind becomes more philosophical and, hence,
metaphysical on Sundays than on other days of the week, and I write
accordingly, attaining heights of metaphysical insight that few men, even among
the philosophers, have been privileged enough to attain to, from where 'the
world', torn between physical and chemical adversaries ruled over by metachemistry, appears very small indeed!
Whilst other people are letting themselves go,
I am gathering myself in, by taking cognizance of my being as a thinking
mind that also feels, and feels deeply enough about certain issues as to write
about them and preserve a record for myself and who knows? - maybe even elements of posterity, should there be a small
number of sufficiently intelligent people around to appreciate it.
One thing that can be said about long hair is
that it sucks. Thanks to a home hair-cutting kit which I purchased a couple of
years ago, I don't have a problem with hair, since I can trim it on a regular
basis and keep it very short. But there was a time when my hair sucked, so long
was it, and I must have looked like a long-haired sucker to others or, at any
rate, to people with very short hair. Ah well.
One of the reasons that common people don't
read books, quite apart from the fact that they might regard physical books as
too middle class and even 'old hat' (compared, say, to film), is that they are
afraid of being confronted by the author's low opinion of them as proletarians,
lumpen proletariat, mob, uneducated yobs, violent boors,
etc., and would rather keep their distance, in consequence, from the likely
criticism of intellectuals, artists, nobs,
philosophers, and such like 'class enemies' of ordinary folk. For writers who
are any good do tend to 'do their thing' independently of the common people and
their want of cultural acumen, and so these people have every reason, it seems
to me, to fear the worst and cynically dismiss 'mind improvement' through
literature as a bourgeois con.
Writers that are any good tend to write for other
writers, if not consciously then unconsciously, rather than for the
female-dominated masses of common humanity. Short of being forced, virtually at
gunpoint, to write (or paint or compose or whatever) for the masses, as by a
socialist dictatorship of some sort, and thereby 'sell out', in a manner of
speaking, to what, as a species of anti-art, is intended to praise the shit our
of philistines and their barbarous fascinations, they prefer, these artists, to
go their own way and explore their truth, and therefore they have a certain
appeal, willy-nilly, to others of a like persuasion, who may be anxious to
discover if they have succeeded or whether there are areas of common ground in
their mutual pursuit of similar ends, ends which necessarily transcend the
narrow parameters of those driven by utilitarian motives in their artistic or
creative concern with 'higher values', like truth and, from the standpoint of
truth, pseudo-beauty rather than some beautiful lie coupled to a pseudo-truth
whose sole purpose is to suck-up to it from an inferior class position. Those
kinds of 'higher values' are something the true artist, the progressive writer
and philosopher, has a moral duty to do without, and therefore he can never be
understood, much less worshipped, by the common herd of those for whom the
dominance of beauty, as of all that is most superficial and effectively
barbarous, over their world is a sine qua non. Heaven protect us from an
indiscriminate commitment to 'higher values'!
Surrounded by bitches and the loud-mouthed
excitable offspring of bitches, all with their various knives into
culture....Which I, as a sensible writer, am doing my best to defend, if not,
cautiously and wearily, to advance.
With state religion, they always substitute
magic for truth, falling back on miracles and mystical delusions and so-called
'supernatural' events which can be expected to appeal to the masses and not
unduly antagonize women.
Hermann Hesse, that
most poetic of prose writers who stands closer to Henry Miller than to, say,
Jean-Paul Sartre or Aldous Huxley, with their more
philosophically-detached attitudes to life which, of course, mark them out as
literary beings of a higher order.
Working offline is, for me, nearer heaven than
hell, since the Internet usually bugs the hell out of me.
Do not all human beings breathe the same air
more or less? Without the air that the planet manufactures, and that the
weather stirs up and refreshes, we would soon be dead. As
simple as that. And yet, with what seeming insouciance and blatant
disregard people go about polluting it on a daily basis! Are we not sickened by
pollution and diminished as human beings? Incontrovertibly! But the heyday, as
it were, of being human is long over. We are now increasingly superhuman, but
not on the terms of being, alas, but under the female domination of doing and,
let's face it, giving.
A concise definition of true religion, which is
to say, metaphysical truth: absolute insanity. A concise definition of false
religion, which is to say, metachemical hype:
absolute outsanity. Worldly religion lies somewhere
in between the alpha of scientific religion and the omega of religious
religion, or religion per se, the false and the true, like politics and
economics, from which they take their respective religious cues in relation to
the relativity of either sanity with an outer bias or sanity with an inner
bias, the former arguably Marian and the latter usually Nonconformist.
I only like architecture with rounded corners
and curvilinear structures in its overall design, because that alone, being
truly modern, is jeans/jogger and T-shirt/vest friendly, and should ideally be
sited in proximity to tarmac sidewalks or macadamized surfaces in general, with
pavements being increasingly reserved, it would appear, for shop-front rectilinearity.
Love is an emotional poison that enters into
one's bloodstream and affects one's mental equilibrium in such fashion and to
such an extent that one becomes besotted with the object of one's desire to the
detriment of one's self and, by implication, one's own moral wellbeing. There
is no more dangerous passion than that engendered by the poison of love.
Females know how to distil this poison and when to inject it into the male of
their choice. For beauty and love are correlative.
I was too long a single tenant in a live-in
landlord's house to be greatly enamoured of spiders and their webs, not least
in view of the extent to which I felt squeezed and somehow sucked-dry by a
variety of predatory encroachments on what was left of my liberty in what could
only be a fairly lifeless existence.
Glynn Hughes' autobiography is an object lesson
in the destructive power of drug addiction, as well as a moving testimony to the
recuperative powers of the human soul, which enabled this major rock singer and
musician to rise above his addiction and achieve freedom from dependency.
Despite the 2-3 years both Glynn Hughes and David Coverdale
spent in the band, Ian Gillan will always be the
voice of Deep Purple, in the same way that Ozzy Osbourne will always be the voice of Black Sabbath, despite
stints by Ronnie James Dio and others. Likewise,
Bruce Dickenson will always be the voice of Iron Maiden, despite the fact that,
like Deep Purple's Ian Gillan, whom he both admires
and even occasionally resembles as a vocalist, he wasn't their original singer
and subsequently left to be replaced by Blaze Bayley,
before eventually rejoining and continuing to front the group, which has since gone
from strength to strength both as a live band and in the studio.
One of my pet hates: those three-chord bands
with their triangular limitations making for a three-chord bash from the
Devil's tail upon the body and sometimes even the head of musical
sensibility. Though they might deny it, their music somehow correlates with the
triangular limitations and implications of conventional suits, ties,
collared-shirts, etc. One of the things I like most about Tangerine Dream, on
the other hand, is their joyful if not blissful independence of the Blues and
other kinds of music rooted in triangular limitations, even if, ironically,
their sartorial appearance sometimes leaves something to be desired in that
regard.
I've often wondered how people can keep small
animals and birds in cages, depriving them of freedom of movement. I could not
look at a caged bird, for instance, without feeling sorry for it, since a
creature with wings is intended to fly and cages surely deny it that ability,
making for a stunted life.
The wilful enemy of soul and the spirited enemy
of ego are alike female, whether literally or in character, and can be regarded
as the concrete embodiments of power and glory, which ever war upon the
peaceable abstractions of form and contentment power upon contentment in the
one case and glory upon form in the other, as though in relation to a noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between the absolute
and the relative. Power-mongers never like contentment in others, especially a
higher class of male, and do their utmost to thwart and undermine it. To the
average woman, contentment in a male, or self-satisfaction, is nothing short of
anathema or, at any rate, is so unacceptable as to be the subject of subversion
and mockery.
PART FOUR
Peace does not come, as deluded males like to
think, through compromise with females, but from being true to yourself, as a
male, in relation to either the half-peace (phenomenal) of ego or the full
peace (noumenal) of soul, neither of which can
survive unscathed the onslaughts of the half-war (phenomenal) of spirit or the
full war (noumenal) of will as waged by the gender
enemies of ego and soul. When art is concrete, or figurative, it bears the
hallmarks of female dominion through either if not both will
and spirit. When, by contrast, art is abstract, or non-figurative, one
gets the impression of male independence, via ego and/or soul, from the
dominance of will and/or spirit and, hence, of female values generally.
Hitherto, concrete art has tended to predominate over its abstract antithesis.
For males, even as artists, are generally dominated by
females, whether or not they realize the fact. Art that is in any degree
credibly metaphysical, and hence truly religious, could only be abstract, never
concrete! You do not figuratively represent God in Heaven, even if art, to be
meaningful, must at least strive to represent such concepts or even actualities
through abstract means. For abstraction, by contrast, that was an end-in-itself
would not be art but decoration, whether in relation to craft or to some
architectural structure. Art is not decoration because, unlike craft (say
pottery) or, for that matter, architecture, it is non-utilitarian in character
and therefore must be meaningful in its own right by signifying, whether
through concrete or abstract means, some concept or actuality lying beyond the
boundaries of mere craft. Now for this to truly succeed, it is better that art
should be abstract or, at worst, pseudo-concrete, with impressive or
pseudo-expressive attributes which are likely to do most justice to either the
metaphysical or, in the case of pseudo-concretion, the pseudo-metachemical which, being pseudo-female rather than male,
should not rise above the pseudo-expressive. Compared to music, however, art is
the art form least likely, even when impressively abstract, to do most artistic
justice to metaphysics, even if the justice or, more correctly, pseudo-justice
done to pseudo-metachemistry (by pseudo-expressive
pseudo-concretion) is likely to be more successful and somehow credible than
could be achieved from its musical counterpart, given that music must be at a
disadvantage to art when it comes to delineating or representing pseudo-space.
Art and sculpture are the outer, or female, arts; literature and music the
inner, or male, arts an objective/subjective distinction which the bovaryization, or attenuated transmutation, of any given
art form towards some other art form may obscure but which, in relation to the
representative manifestation or actual fulcrum of any given art form, is
nevertheless effectively the case.
1.
In basic
terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of
a gender hegemonic polarity between art and literature, as between metachemistry and physics (corresponding, in simple
elemental terms, to fire and vegetation), with a gender subordinate polarity
between pseudo-music and pseudo-sculpture, pseudo-metaphysics and
pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to pseudo-air and pseudo-water, or air
subverted by a fiery hegemony and water subverted by a vegetative one).
2.
Contrariwise
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of a
gender hegemonic polarity between sculpture and music, chemistry and
metaphysics (corresponding, in simple elemental terms, to water and air), with
a gender subordinate polarity between pseudo-literature and pseudo-art,
pseudo-physics and pseudo-metachemistry
(corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and pseudo-fire, or vegetation subverted by
a watery hegemony and fire subverted by an airy one).
3.
In the case
of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, this gives us a primary
(overall female) polarity between art and pseudo-sculpture, metachemistry
and pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to fire and pseudo-water), with a secondary
(overall male) polarity between pseudo-music and literature, pseudo-metaphysics
and physics (corresponding to pseudo-air and vegetation).
4.
In the case
of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, on the other hand, we have a
primary (overall male) polarity between pseudo-literature and music,
pseudo-physics and metaphysics (corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and air),
with a secondary (overall female) polarity between sculpture and pseudo-art,
chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry (corresponding to
water and pseudo-fire).
When true to themselves, so to speak, as
against being bovaryized towards one or another of
the alternative elements/pseudo-elements, art and music are noumenal,
or ethereal, art forms having upper-class connotations, while sculpture and literature,
likewise when true to themselves, are phenomenal, or corporeal, art forms
having lower-class connotations, bovaryized
exceptions to the general rule in the case of both the former and latter art
forms notwithstanding. But, in representatively gender terms, art and sculpture
are, like will and spirit, power and glory, fundamentally on the female side of
the gender divide due to their concrete absolute (elemental) and concrete
relative (molecular) objectivity, whereas literature and music, like ego and
soul, form and contentment, essentially appertain to the male side of the
gender divide due to their abstract relative (molecular) and abstract absolute
(elemental) subjectivity. No less than the concrete arts, like painting and
sculpture, are objective because particular, or stemming from a
particle bias normally to be associated with competitive individualism, as in
relation to portraiture (painting) and figurative monuments (sculpture), so the
abstract arts, like literature and music, are subjective because wavicular, or stemming from a wavicle
bias normally to be associated with cooperative collectivism, as in relation to
chapters (literature) and movements (music). No less than particles, being
female, are rooted in a vacuum, so wavicles, being
male, are centred in a plenum, a kind of negative/positive or, better,
objective/subjective distinction which informs the Arts as much as it informs
and characterizes life itself.
1.
Art begins
in metachemistry, to which, as a noumenally
objective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized
in chemistry, twice bovaryized in phyiscs,
and thrice bovaryized in metaphysics, regressing from
the absolute concrete to the absolute abstract via the relative concrete and
relative abstract.
2.
Sculpture begins
in chemistry, to which, as a phenomenally objective art form, it properly
pertains, and is once bovaryized in metachemistry, twice bovaryized
in metaphysics, and thrice bovaryized in physics,
regressing from the relative concrete to the relative abstract via the absolute
concrete and absolute abstract.
3.
Literature
begins in physics, to which, as a phenomenally subjective art form, it properly
pertains, and is once bovaryized in metaphysics,
twice bovaryized in metachemistry,
and thrice bovaryized in chemistry, regressing from
the relative abstract to the relative concrete via the absolute abstract and
absolute concrete.
4.
Music
begins in metaphysics, to which, as a noumenally
subjective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized
in physics, twice bovaryized in chemistry and thrice bovaryized in metachemistry,
regressing from the absolute abstract to the absolute concrete via the relative
abstract and relative concrete.
The anti-forms of art, sculpture, literature,
and music tend to begin in the 'pseudo' manifestation (under a hegemonic
antithetical art form) of their proper element, be it pseudo-metaphysics vis-a-vis metaphysics in the case of music, pseudo-physics vis-a-vis physics in the case of literature,
pseudo-chemistry vis-a-vis chemistry in the case of
sculpture, or pseudo-metachemistry vis-a-vis metachemistry in the
case of art, and regress to the same gender or, rather, pseudo-gender
pseudo-elemental position before crossing the gender fence, as it were, in
relation to the opposite pseudo-elemental positions, whether initially noumenal or phenomenal, depending on the point of axial
departure. Therefore in relation to pseudo-metachemistry,
pseudo-metaphysics would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized
approach to pseudo-art; in relation to pseudo-chemistry, pseudo-physics would
constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to
pseudo-sculpture; in relation to pseudo-physics, pseudo-chemistry would
constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to
pseudo-literature; and in relation to pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-metachemistry would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-music, with 'less' and 'more'
bovaryized approaches to any given pseudo-art form
coming in between what could be described as the least bovaryized,
or pseudo-representative mode of pseudo-art, and its most bovaryized
mode. Do I need to explain all this in non-philosophical language, drawing
attention to the respective concrete and abstract approaches (noumenal or phenomenal) to both the Arts and the Anti-Arts?
No, I don't believe so, although there is nothing to stop other people
attempting it. However, I will give you a clue as to what I mean and of the
complexity of the overall task. Take music, for instance, which gives us a
concrete/abstract dichotomy, on both noumenal and
phenomenal planes, between pitch and melody on the one hand, and harmony and
rhythm on the other, as between space and volume in the case of the concrete
options, and mass and time in that of the abstract ones. In simple parlance,
pitch is no less noumenally antithetical to rhythm
than melody phenomenally antithetical to harmony. But there are also the
'pseudo' manifestations of musical characteristics to bear in mind, whether in
terms of pseudo-rhythm under pitch, pseudo-harmony under melody, pseudo-melody
under harmony, or pseudo-pitch under rhythm, a plane down from the hegemonic
element in each pseudo-elemental and effectively subordinate case, like
pseudo-time under space, pseudo-mass under volume, pseudo-volume under mass, and
pseudo-space under time. Now, as I've argued before, if space is spatial (which
on account of the elemental particles of its noumenally
objective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-space is spaced; if volume is
volumetric (which on account of the molecular particles of its phenomenally
objective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-volume is voluminous; if mass
is massive (which on account of the molecular wavicles
of its phenomenally subjective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-mass is
massed; and if time is repetitive (which on account of the elemental wavicles of its noumenally
subjective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-time is sequential. Hence the
sequential nature or, rather, pseudo-nature of pseudo-time under space (which
is spatial) is musically commensurate with pseudo-rhythm under pitch; hence the
massed pseudo-nature of pseudo-mass under volume (which is volumetric) is
musically commensurate with pseudo-harmony under melody; hence the voluminous
pseudo-nature of pseudo-volume under mass (which is massive) is musically
commensurate with pseudo-melody under harmony; and hence the spaced
pseudo-nature of pseudo-space under time (which is repetitive) is musically
commensurate with pseudo-pitch under rhythm.
Is architecture a high art form, a kind of fine
art? Some would contend that, in certain instances, like the Taj Mahal or the
The primary sex are usually if not invariably
early and the secondary sex usually if not invariably late, as in getting up
early and going to bed early in the case of adult females, and getting up late
and going to bed late in the case of adult males. How often have I heard women
grumbling about the difficulty of getting their husbands out of bed in the
early morning! And yet, to their wives' annoyance, most husbands are no less
reluctant to go to bed early and sacrifice the evening's late-night
entertainment on the television or whatever. Following on from the above, when
the First shall be last and the Last first, then the primary gender will be
subordinate to the hegemonic sway of the secondary gender who, as free males,
will have the peace that surpasses the half-peace of egocentric understanding
(knowledge) and, hence, of a phenomenal hegemony axially beholden to the
domination, or sovereignty, of noumenal primacy in
the guise of the somatic licence appertaining to and characteristic of metachemistry. Would you expect original knowledge from a
female, meaning somebody of the gender that embodies the primacy of beauty and
strength (more correctly of pride in relation to the spirit fulcrum of
chemistry)? That is, from a gender that receives much if not most of its
knowledge second-hand, via the male it happens to have battened-on to for
purposes of reproduction? Normally one wouldn't, because original knowledge,
that product of egocentric deliberation within a free mind, is not germane to the
female equation, and even such knowledge as they acquire via the male of their
choosing is likely, sooner or later, to be subverted and twisted out of all
recognition, not least to suit the utilitarian designs of beauty and strength
(pride). Female liberation, or the liberation of females from male hegemonic
(chauvinistic?) influence and, to varying extents, control, inevitably implies
the subversion if not abandonment of knowledge and truth (to speak in parallel
terms that overlooks the actual fulcrum of the metaphysical element) for
strength (again using parallel terms at the expense of the actual fulcrum of
the chemical element) and beauty, society thereby regressing from male
hegemonic control to the dominance, in hegemonic vein, of females in terms of both
beauty axially at the expense of knowledge and strength axially at the expense
of truth, beauty excluding truth across the noumenal
(ethereal) axial divide, and strength excluding knowledge across the phenomenal
(corporeal) axial divide, so that pseudo-truth and pseudo-knowledge tend to be
the concomitant metachemically-subverted and
chemically-subverted subordinate gender complements, respectively, of beauty
and strength.
With regards to literature, one should contrast
the literary per se, as it were, of narrative prose, usually in the form of
novels, with the once-bovaryized literature of
philosophy, the twice-bovaryized literature of drama,
and the thrice-bovaryized literature of poetry, the
literary genre furthest removed from literature proper, as one regresses from
prose to poetry (the 'sculpture' of literature) via philosophy and drama, as
from physics to chemistry via metaphysics and metachemistry,
whilst not overlooking the roles played by pseudo-prose, pseudo-drama,
pseudo-philosophy, and pseudo-poetry, those anti-literature genres which would
appear to regress from pseudo-physics to pseudo-chemistry via
pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, as from
pseudo-prose to pseudo-poetry via pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-drama. Hence, in
overall terms, from the pairing of prose and pseudo-poetry to the pairing of
poetry and pseudo-prose via the pairing of philosophy and pseudo-drama and the
pairing of drama and pseudo-philosophy, as from physics/pseudo-chemistry to
chemistry/pseudo-physics via metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry
and metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, with the latter
pseudo-elemental and/or pseudo-literary contexts in all paired cases
conditioned by the hegemonic influence of the former elemental and/or literary
contexts in such pairings. Unlike music, whose fulcrum is the soul, literature
has its fulcrum in the ego, as in narrative prose, and is invariably bovaryized the further it departs from the ego, as in
relation to philosophic soul, dramatic will, and poetic spirit, regressing from
the masculine (prosodic) to the supermasculine
(philosophic) before crossing the gender (and axial) divide with superfeminine (dramatic) and feminine (poetic) bovarizations of literature. How unlike music, its fellow
subjective art-form, which has its fulcrum in the soul, and regresses to ego,
spirit, and will, in that order, as though from rhythm (soul) to pitch (will)
via harmony (ego) and melody (spirit), only true to itself in the rhythms of
soul, but regressively bovaryized by the harmonies of
ego, the melodies of spirit, and the pitch, or pitches, of will. In narrowly
classical terms, this could be interpreted as a regression from ballet to the
concerto via the symphony and opera, though in a supra-classical sense one
might characterize such a regression as being from electronica/dance
to jazz/blues via classical/romantic and pop/rock, with electronica/dance
alone corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry;
classical/romantic corresponding to physics/pseudo-chemistry; pop/rock
corresponding to chemistry/pseudo-physics, and jazz/blues corresponding to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, music being in its
soulful/pseudo-wilful paired fulcrum, as it were, with electronica/dance,
but becoming regressively more bovaryized with the
ego/pseudo-spirit pairing of classical/romantic, the spirit/pseudo-ego pairing
of pop/rock, and the will/pseudo-soul pairing of jazz/blues, or something to
that overall effect. Not forgetting, of course, what has already been said
about the 'anti' forms of music that, appertaining to the subordinate gender
positions, would seem to have more in common with dance, romantic, rock, and
blues, regressing from blues to dance via rock and romantic, as from
pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-metachemistry via
pseudo-physics and pseudo-chemistry, which of course would contrast with the
regression from metaphysics to metachemistry via
physics and chemistry of the hegemonic genres of electronica,
classical, pop, and jazz. Therefore, quite logically, the soulful per se, or
musically representative genre which, in a sense, is also the least bovaryized genre of electronica
is complemented by the most-bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) anti-genre of dance; the less (compared to
least) bovaryized (once bovaryized)
genre of classical is complemented by the more (compared to most) bovaryized (twice bovaryized)
anti-genre of romantic; the more (compared to most) bovaryized
(twice bovaryized) genre of pop is complemented by
the less (compared to least) bovaryized (once bovaryized) anti-genre of rock; and the most bovaryized (thrice bovaryized)
genre of jazz is complemented by the least bovaryized,
or pseudo-soulful per se, anti-genre of blues.
1.
Put
differently, soul can only be hegemonic over pseudo-will,
the weakest (contrasted with will per se) manifestation of will; as in the case
of electronica over dance, metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.
2.
Likewise
ego can only be hegemonic over pseudo-spirit, the
weakest (contrasted with spirit per se) manifestations of spirit, as in
classical over romantic, physics over pseudo-chemistry.
3.
Similarly
spirit can only be hegemonic over pseudo-ego, the
weakest (contrasted with ego per se) manifestation of ego, as in pop over rock,
chemistry over pseudo-physics.
4.
Finally will can only be hegemonic over pseudo-soul, the weakest
(contrasted with soul per se) manifestation of soul, as in jazz over blues, metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics.
There is thus no way that will
can be hegemonic over soul, the devil over god, or vice versa, since
they are mutually exclusive, like jazz and electronica,
to an absolute degree. Likewise, there is no way that spirit can be hegemonic
over ego, woman over man, or vice versa, since they are mutually exclusive,
like pop and classical, to a relative degree. Now the same of course applies to
the absolute and relative, noumenal and phenomenal,
ethereal and corporeal modes of anti-music, viz. blues and dance in the one
case (absolutely exclusive), and rock and romantic in the other case
(relatively exclusive). But if this is true to a limited extent of music, how
much more so will it be the case when we contrast art with music on the one
hand, and sculpture with literature on the other, where in their most
representative (non-bovaryized) genres or forms we
really do have a mutually exclusive antithesis between will and soul in the one
case (noumenal), and spirit and ego in the other case
(phenomenal), because of the absolute/relative distinctions between the former
and the latter antithesis, making it logical to contend that the metachemical per se of art will be even more incompatible
with the metaphysical per se of music than the chemical per se of sculpture
with the physical per se of literature, whatever this and I have given some
hints already may actually turn out to be in practice, bearing in mind the
incompatibility of noumenal objectivity with noumenal subjectivity on the one hand, and of phenomenal
objectivity with phenomenal subjectivity on the other, an incompatibility
having as much to do with gender as with class.
As also maintained by me in the past, the
'anti' manifestation of anything including the overblown concept of
Anti-Christ is only a starting-point for the lock-in position under the
hegemonic sway of the prevailing element, be it female or male, noumenal or phenomenal in either, and is therefore
transmutable into what I call (and how I mostly tend to define) the 'pseudo'
manifestation of any given element or, more correctly, anti-element. Therefore
anti-music, as described above, lends itself, as a matter of course, to the definition
of pseudo-music, as that manifestation of anti-music which is gender
subordinate to the prevailing manifestation of music which, being hegemonic,
takes precedence over it, whether or not the prevailing hegemony happens to
accord with the representative genre or with some bovaryized
manifestation of music.
1.
In overall
axial terms, one can therefore contrast the pairing, on a hegemonic/subordinate
basis, of jazz and blues with the pairing, on a like basis, of classical and romantic
on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to
the southeast points of the intercardinal axial
compass, with jazz and romantic corresponding to the primary (overall female)
state-hegemonic polarity of metachemistry and
pseudo-chemistry, but blues and classical corresponding to the secondary
(overall male) state-hegemonic polarity of pseudo-metaphysics and physics, metachemistry of course being hegemonic over
pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand, and physics hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry
on the other.
2.
By axial
contrast, the pairing of pop and rock at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass with the pairing of electronica (trance) and dance at the northeast point
thereof on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis affords us a primary
(overall male) polarity between rock and electronica,
corresponding to pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall
female) polarity between pop and dance, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry, chemistry of course being hegemonic over
pseudo-physics on the one hand, and metaphysics hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry on the other.
In that respect, the First (chemical) would
indeed become last (pseudo-metachemical) and the Last
(pseudo-physical) become first (metaphysical)
in the event of the salvation
to metaphysics of those identifiable with pseudo-physics and the correlative
counter-damnation to pseudo-metachemistry of those
identifiable with chemistry, since chemistry is no less equivocally hegemonic,
in its phenomenal relativity, over pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass than metaphysics (is)
unequivocally hegemonic, in its noumenal absolutism,
over pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point
thereof, the point that, in the event of a Social Theocratic overhaul of
conventional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, would be
constitutive of the true apex, in free psyche as well as bound soma, of the
church-hegemonic axis, with, in musical terms, an electronica/dance-like
pairing that would somewhat contrast, in otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly vein, with the pop/rock pairing already
alluded to in connection with what I hold to be mainstream worldliness, which
is effectively divisible, unlike its physical/pseudo-chemical counterpart,
between purgatorial and pseudo-earthly criteria appertaining to the
chemical/pseudo-physical complementarity. Of course,
when I subordinately associate dance with electronica,
I am not referring to dance per se, as to the somatically-unrestrained spatial
licence of, say, jazz dancing, with the likelihood of flouncy
dresses as the most appropriate sartorial adjunct to a metachemical
disposition favouring female freedom on noumenal
terms. On the contrary, such dance as is properly and even unequivocally
subordinate, in its noumenal absolutism, to electronica of a trance-like order would be of a
constrained, hemmed-in, almost straight-dress character that warrants
identification with pseudo-space under time, the spaced space of the one a consequence,
in no small part, of the repetitive time, or time per se, of the other, which
therefore hegemonically obliges it to take on the
character of what should really be termed pseudo-dance, as subordinate, from a
pseudo-female standpoint, to the regular rhythms of trance-like electronica as, in contrary vein, the by and large
pseudo-male pseudo-music of the blues would be subordinate and to a well-nigh
absolute degree to the spatial and altogether pitchful
liberties of jazz in the hegemonic position at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be a
state-hegemonic pairing of metachemistry with
pseudo-metaphysics or, in simple musical terms, jazz with the blues. Obviously
I am not going to recommend such an unequivocal subordination as is evinced by
the pseudo-male (sonofabitch-like) pseudo-music of
the blues. But I do believe that those who, in their pseudo-harmonic broken
chords, are equivocally subordinate to the melodies of pop, can and should, as
purveyors of the usually more instrumentally-oriented bias of rock, be in the
kind of pseudo-musical position from which deliverance to the regular rhythms
of electronica, with its synthetically artificial
approach to soul, can be engineered, with effect to saving them from the (chemical)
domination of spirit, as of vocal melody, that the latter may be counter-damned
to the pseudo-space of pseudo-will in gender subordination, for ever more, to a
metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry, the
musical equivalent of the time-honoured saint and (neutralized) dragon paradigm
or, for that matter, of the lamb and (neutralized) wolf and/or lion metaphor
for intimating of such a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical
pairing, corresponding to electronica and dance,
which is to say, to the cyborgistic and therefore
globally universal most representative form of music, or music per se, and
the most bovaryized (thrice bovaryized)
pseudo-form of pseudo-music, the weakest manifestation of pseudo-music (out of
anti-music) that would be no less pseudo-expressive of pseudo-will than its
hegemonic partner, in the electronica/dance pairing,
would be impressive of soul, the impressive rhythms of metaphysical
subjectivity which it will be the prerogative of a certain type of higher male,
effectively supermasculine, to produce, and to do so
using the most synthetically artificial means in the artful utilization of
synthesizers to a rhythmic end, transcending the externalized rhythmic bovaryizations of manual percussion instruments, including
drum kits.
If I have focused on music at the expense of
literature, it is because, notwithstanding my own philosophical bovaryization of literature towards eternity, music is or
has the capacity to be the most metaphysical art form, one that, when true to
itself, will be rhythmically metaphysical, and therefore significant of the noumenal subjectivity of repetitive time, or time per se
the only form of time commensurate with eternity, the eternity that must needs
rule over the pseudo-infinity of pseudo-space, and therefore of that which, as
so-called dance, will remain forever subordinate to the trance-like pulse of
so-called electronica, which may well, in the
not-too-distant future, be re-evaluated in terms of its essentially protonic significance vis-a-vis the
pseudo-photonic subordination of pseudo-space to time.
As with music, literature can be axially
divided between state-hegemonic and church-hegemonic alternatives:-
1.
In the case
of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis one would have a primary (overall
female) state-hegemonic polarity between drama and pseudo-poetry, metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, but a secondary
(overall male) state-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-philosophy and prose,
pseudo-metaphysics and physics, so that one could contrast the pairing of drama
and pseudo-philosophy, metachemistry and
pseudo-metaphysics, with that of prose and pseudo-poetry, physics and
pseudo-chemistry pseudo-philosophy being as much subject to the hegemonic
influence of drama as pseudo-poetry to the hegemonic influence of prose.
2.
In the case
of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, one would have a primary
(overall male) church-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-prose and philosophy,
pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall female)
church-hegemonic polarity between poetry and pseudo-drama, chemistry and
pseudo-metachemistry, so that one could contrast the
pairing of poetry and pseudo-prose, chemistry and pseudo-physics, with that of
philosophy and pseudo-drama, metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry
pseudo-prose being as much subject to the hegemonic influence of poetry as
pseudo-drama to the hegemonic influence of philosophy.
In terms of the First becoming last and the
Last
first, this would effectively correspond to those given to pseudo-prose
under poetry being in line, axially speaking, for deliverance to philosophy
over pseudo-drama, with those earmarked for counter-damnation to pseudo-drama
thereby being delivered from an equivocally hegemonic position (in chemistry
over pseudo-physics) to an unequivocally subordinate one (in pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics), as counter-damnation
followed in the wake of salvation in terms of deliverance from the phenomenal
to the noumenal, corporeal relativity to ethereal
absolutism, with those who had been equivocally first in the former context
inevitably becoming unequivocally last in the latter one. That, at any rate,
would be the literary parallel, I believe, to the music fates already outlined
above, with that which was 'pseudo' becoming 'genuine' and that, conversely,
which was 'genuine' becoming 'pseudo'. What then happens to the state-hegemonic
genres literary, musical, or anything else will be contingent upon the
extents to which salvation/counter-damnation transpires on the church-hegemonic
axis. But, again, it is obvious that the 'genuine' would become 'pseudo', as in
the case of the damnation of drama to pseudo-poetry, and the 'pseudo' become
'genuine', as in the case of the counter-salvation of pseudo-philosophy to prose,
neither of which would then be viable alternatives to drama/pseudo-philosophy
in view of the absence of polarity consequent upon a collapse of the said axis
for want of poetic/pseudo-prosodic prey, so to speak, and its inevitable slide,
following damnation/counter-salvation, towards some kind of radical Social
Democracy (Bolshevism-like) in the event of no alternative, in the guise of
Social Theocracy, being available to it or, rather, to those who had not been
instrumental in the production of either drama/pseudo-philosophy above or
prose/pseudo-poetry below but, finding common cause with the church-hegemonic
masses (of lapsed Catholics, republican socialists, etc), preferred to opt,
following a kind of judgement, for lower-tier positions, successively, under
the Saved and Counter-Damned on what would be a stepped-up, or 'resurrected',
church-hegemonic axis. But they would need to acquire the moral entitlement,
the ethnic credibility, as it were, by being instrumental in judging both the
prime movers in somatic licence 'upstairs' and the profiteers from the
financing of said licence 'downstairs', on what had been the state-hegemonic
axis, as they deserved, in order to prove worthy of joining, on the
aforementioned basis, with those who were already subject to 'resurrected'
church-hegemonic criteria, and subject to it, moreover, in terms of salvation
and counter-damnation, according to gender. For the triumph of philosophy over
pseudo-drama cannot ultimately transpire if others are still clinging, in
drama/pseudo-philosophy, to their converse, any more than the ongoing
acceptance of prose over pseudo-poetry has anything to do with the prospect of
being delivered from poetry/pseudo-prose to that very metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical apotheosis, as it were, of the literary
pairing, in effect, of philosophy with pseudo-drama in what would be a
literary/pseudo-literary equivalence of the musical/pseudo-musical pairing of electronica (trance) with dance. As for art and sculpture,
I do not feel qualified, not least gender-wise, to outline their various genres
and pseudo-genres (out of anti-genres); though there would undoubtedly be types
and degrees of bovaryization away from representative
portraiture in the one case and figurative representation in the other that accorded,
like music and literature (in that order), with some kind of
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical pairing, with the
art parallels to such radical bovaryizations ranking
beneath their sculptural counterparts in terms of thrice bovaryized
to twice bovaryized under, in the case of literature,
a once-bovaryized manifestation of literary
production. Yet all these scenarios, or possible eventualities, would be
contingent, needless to say, upon the 'will of the people' and could only
transpire, if at all, following the express wish of the electorates of
countries with a church-hegemonic disposition or tradition to exchange
political sovereignty together with its judicial and/or economic concomitant
for religious sovereignty, and thus elect for the possibility, under Social
Theocracy, of deliverance from 'the world' of their lowly
chemical/pseudo-physical phenomenal estates to the salvation/counter-damnation
of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry noumenally 'On High', thereby acceding to the rights that
would characterize such an ultimate sovereignty in a context equivalent, in a
manner of speaking, to 'Kingdom Come'. Everything else would follow from this,
including an end to the secular domination of state-hegemonic axial criteria
and the push towards a more genuinely global universality capable of
culminating in some 'Celestial City'-like arrangement as the goal of evolution
or, more correctly and comprehensively, of evolution coupled to the utmost
counter-devolution, of eternity in partnership, in other words, with
pseudo-infinity, the pseudo-space that 'lies down' with the time of eternity
because, like the proverbial lion, wolf, or dragon, it is not, following
neutralization, in a position to do anything else. Just, as we have argued,
like pseudo-drama under philosophy or, in relation to music, pseudo-dance under
the trance of an electronica that, in truth, could
well be closer to some kind of protonica, so to
speak, of the true centre, to which this pseudo-photonica
would be forever subordinate.
In general subatomic terms, it could be said
that the pairing of protons with pseudo-photons is polar to that of electrons
with pseudo-neutrons on the church-hegemonic axis, with salvation being from
pseudo-neutrons to protons, and counter-damnation being from electrons to
pseudo-photons, the equivocally hegemonic electronic First becoming the
unequivocally subordinate pseudo-photonic last, and the equivocally subordinate
pseudo-neutronic last becoming, by contrast, the
unequivocally hegemonic protonic First, or something
to that overall subatomic effect. And all this in contrast to the
state-hegemonic polarity between photons/pseudo-protons and
neutrons/pseudo-electrons, photons no less polar to pseudo-electrons on primary
(overall female) state-hegemonic terms than pseudo-protons to neutrons on
secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic terms, thereby enabling us to infer a
cross-axial antithesis between photons/pseudo-protons and
protons/pseudo-photons in the case of the ethereal absolutism of the noumenal, but such an antithesis between
electrons/pseudo-neutrons and neutrons/pseudo-electrons in the case of the
corporeal relativity of the phenomenal, the kind of relativity that is less
elemental than molecular, with a closer relationship between electrons and
pseudo-neutrons on the one hand, and neutrons and pseudo-electrons on the other
hand, than could ever be inferred to exist between their noumenal
counterparts, photons/pseudo-protons and protons/pseudo-photons, where the
relationship of particles to wavicles, of soma to
psyche, or of wavicles to particles, of psyche to
soma, will be 3:1 as against 2½:1½, and therefore somewhere in the region of
most particle to least wavicle or, by axial contrast,
most wavicle to least particle, as opposed, with
phenomenal relativity, to more (compared to most) particle and less (compared
to least) wavicle or, in axially antithetical terms,
more (compared to most) wavicle and less (compared to
least) particle, as the subatomic case may be.
1.
Logically,
I like to think that the photon is most particle and least wavicle,
corresponding to most soma, as it were, and least psyche, whereas the proton,
by contrast, I would conceive to be most wavicle and
least particle, corresponding to most psyche and least soma, since such an
elemental dichotomy would underpin the noumenal
objective/subjective antithesis between metachemistry
and metaphysics, or absolute vacuum and absolute plenum, corresponding, on a
more evolved basis, not just to the respective absolute ratio distinctions
between soma and psyche, as noted above, but to the aforementioned distinctions
between the representative, or non-bovaryized, forms
of art and music, space and time, commensurate, at any stage of
devolution/evolution, with what is most alpha on the one hand and most omega on
the other.
2.
Descending
from the elemental to the molecular, I would argue that the electron was more
(compared to most) particle and less (compared to least) wavicle,
corresponding to more soma and less psyche, but that the neutron, by contrast,
was more (compared to most) wavicle and less
(compared to least) particle, corresponding to more psyche and less soma, since
such a molecular dichotomy would underpin the phenomenal objective/subjective
antithesis between chemistry and physics, or relative vacuum and relative
plenum, corresponding, on a more evolved basis, not just to the respective
relative ratio distinctions between soma and psyche, as noted above, but to the
aforementioned distinctions between the representative, or non-bovaryized, forms of sculpture and literature, volume and
mass, commensurate, at any stage of devolution/evolution, with what is more
(compared to most) alpha on the one hand and more (compared to most) omega on
the other.
Therefore in the case of the art/music antithesis,
the alpha and omega of the noumenal planes of space
and time, one would have a distinction between that form of art which most
accorded with spatial space and that form of music most according with
repetitive time, whether in ancient, modern, or indeed intermediate (worldly)
formal manifestations, whereas in the case of the sculpture/literature
antithesis, the alpha and omega of the phenomenal planes of volume and mass,
one has a distinction between that form of sculpture most according with volumetric
volume and that form of literature that most accorded with massive mass, again
in relation to ancient, modern, or intermediate formal manifestations, given
the need for and logical justification of alpha/omega qualification in relation
to this or that age or type of civilization, bearing in mind the immense
distinctions which indubitably do exist between what could be called the
natural and the artificial, not to mention super-artificial and synthetic
approaches to any given art form, be it painterly, sculptural, literary, or
musical, with considerable differences, even in the latter context, between,
say, acoustic and electric and/or electronic approaches to musical composition
or performance. One simply cannot overemphasize the complexity of this matter,
since one man's alpha meat is another's alpha poison, one man's omega meat
another's omega poison, and so on, through a variety of permutations that
derive, in no small part, from specific epochal and ethnic predilections.
Clearly, an alpha/omega antithesis that was only natural, or conceived within
natural boundaries, would hardly suffice to delineate such an antithesis within
artificial boundaries deriving from nature, never mind, at the opposite extreme
from nature, within synthetic boundaries either deriving from the artificial
(super-artificial) or even purely synthetic in character such that more readily
lend themselves to a post-modern if not futuristic concept of how the
alpha/omega antithesis plays out in the Arts and may one day even be transcended
in favour of an omega-dominated pairing. Nor should one overlook, in relation
to the above, the 'pseudo' forms or, more correctly, anti-forms of creativity
which complement, on subordinate gender terms, the hegemonic art forms, as
pseudo-omega to alpha or, by contrast, pseudo-alpha to omega, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes. For they are just as
important in enabling us to understand how elements and pseudo-elements (out of
anti-elements) pair off and form polarities in one direction or another with
axial implications, be they church-hegemonic/state-subordinate or, in an age
dominated by devolution at the expense of evolution,
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate. Probably the ultimate alpha and omega, noumenal or phenomenal, would be across not merely an
artificial or synthetic divide, but rather across a natural/synthetic divide
that, in the case of the natural alpha, preceded worldly relativity and, in the
case of the synthetic omega, succeeded such relativity, thereby taking the
overall antithesis in relation to the respective representative (not bovaryized) forms of art and music in the case of the noumenal, and sculpture and literature in that of the
phenomenal, to their utmost pre- and post-historical manifestations, whereby
one is logically entitled to speculate, even without existing or easily
discoverable proof, that the alpha of the one context will do, or have done,
the most justice, as it were, to spatial space, and the omega of the other
and possibly coming context most justice to repetitive time, with other
degrees of either devolutionary or evolutionary justice coming somewhere
in-between.
The male is protonically
self-centred, but can and usually does become seduced by photonic
distractions which result in his 'fall from grace' to a pseudo-protonic deference to beauty and its loving wiles, a
deference that, under counter-pressures, sometimes leads to the angry
externalization of soul when that which is not of the Self but decidedly 'other
oriented' places demands on the pseudo-protonic
position which, emanating from the predominantly free somatic standpoint of a
photon hegemony, are contrary to male self-interest. Nevertheless, barring a
'prodigal son'-like return to grace (and thus to protonic
self-centredness), the pseudo-protonic pseudo-male
risks being dragged down, in a further and more drastic fall, into a pseudo-neutronic subordination to an electron hegemony, from which
position any return to grace, being further away, is even more problematic,
albeit axially polar, in metaphysics, to his pseudo-physical predicament and
therefore within the scope of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate influence. The
main danger here, however, is not the remoteness of protonic
renewal, nor even the pseudo-masculine deference to a feminine hegemony in
chemistry, but the equally corporeal alternative of a neutronic
pseudo-salvation across the lower-order axial divide, as it were, which will
compound his fall by making him one
with man to the exclusion, totally and utterly, of godly aspiration, as
he settles for some degree of egocentric self-centredness at the expense of the
soul and therefore of any possibility of metaphysical redemption. Man, by being
egocentrically self-centred, is the real enemy of God, as of godliness, since
one who is neutronically open, via pseudo-protonic polarity, to photonic domination and, hence, to
the reign of beauty over both pseudo-protonic
pseudo-truth and neutronic knowledge via its own
polarity with pseudo-electronic pseudo-strength, to speak in parallel terms for
ease of overall comprehension. The more neutronic a
male becomes, the less pseudo-neutronic vis-a-vis an electronic hegemony, and therefore the more
will he be shut out from the possibility of protonic
salvation in metaphysics, which requires, barring the 'prodigal son'-like
return from pseudo-protonic deference to photonic
beauty, a pseudo-neutronic polarity which,
understandably in view of its paradoxical predicament, does not and should not
take itself for granted, but will remain open, in the pseudo-egotistical
fashion typifying the sinfulness of pseudo-man, to the possibility of some
degree of metaphysical redemption, if it is not to succumb, as hinted at above,
to the pseudo-salvation, across the axial divide, of neutron egocentricity. For
the half-salvation, as one could also term it, though obviously attractive from
a pseudo-neutronic point-of-view, is no compensation
for salvation proper, that is, for the salvation (from pseudo-neutronic subordination to an electronic hegemony) of the
soul in protonic self-centredness, the return to the
Centre which is the source of all grace and guarantor of wisdom for males, a
free psychic grace and bound somatic wisdom unlikely to succumb, ever again, to
the blandishments of photonic will as it goes about its worldly designs which,
if successful, will culminate in an electronic resolution through the surrogate
plenum of maternity, a resolution requiring the concomitant 'fall of man' from
godliness to a status that, at least initially, is not even neutronic
but, as described above, demonstrably pseudo-neutronic
and therefore pseudo-egocentric, with a pseudo-free somatic,
pseudo-knowledgeable predilection towards 'carnal knowledge', which is ever the
folly correlative with the pseudo-bound psychic preponderance (2½:1½
pseudo-bound psyche to pseudo-free soma) of sin
in the pseudo-ignorance
thereof, forever needful of deliverance, in truth, to the joyful grace of
heavenly soul, which is alone free of pseudo-earthly deference (to purgatory)
and able, in consequence, to be true to itself in perfect self-unity, as he who
repents of sin is entitled to grace in the free psyche of metaphysical self,
with the bound soma of metaphysical not-self a wise deliverance from that folly
which makes a carnal mockery of knowledge even as knowledge itself is no
guarantor of truth but, rather, its main rival in the male sense of self which,
having nothing to do with God or godliness, derives from the 'fall of man' to
pseudo-man as he perceives what I have described as a half-rise, a half-salvation,
in the egocentric possibilities that lie across the lower-order axial divide
and accordingly settles for some degree of neutronic
release from his pseudo-neutronic, pseudo-physical
predicament under electronic pressure from chemical females. In which case he
may well become physically hegemonic over a pseudo-electronic, pseudo-chemical
pseudo-female, but metaphysically hegemonic over a pseudo-photonic, pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female from a protonic
standpoint he will never be! Even if neutronic
egocentricity, the physical form of subjectivity, does not exactly correspond
to 'the forbidden tree of knowledge' of Biblical reference, if only because we
can logically presume that the latter would have more to do with the less
predominant (1½) pseudo-free somatic ratio of carnal knowledge vis-a-vis its pseudo-bound psychic counterpart than with
the more preponderant (2½) free psychic ratio of intellectual knowledge vis-a-vis its
bound somatic counterpart, the pseudo-righteousness of physical free psyche is
still a phenomenal (corporeal) shortfall from genuine righteousness which,
being noumenal (ethereal), can only be metaphysical.
But there is a certain class of male persons for whom the sensibility of
metaphysics would be too psychologically if not physiologically elevated for
their liking and who, in consequence of a more down-to-earth disposition, are
resigned to egocentric selfhood and would not be happy with anything other than
an intellectual approach to religion which, being religiously once-bovaryized, is not incompatible with an economic per se,
such that usually takes the form of private enterprise or, in a word,
capitalism. Such persons normally oppose socialism, but those who, for similar
reasons, espouse socialism as the alternative to capitalism are still well
short of the requirements for a metaphysical predilection or aspiration which,
being religious, take their primary cue from a sense of sin and of a desire for
repentance on the part, more especially, of the pseudo-physical pseudo-males
whose guilt-ridden yearning for redemption, especially within the confines of
the Church, is their saving grace and guarantor, long term, of hope in the
possibility of a more complete and permanent redemption such that could only
transpire within the supra-church context of what has been termed 'Kingdom
Come', with its enhanced sense of 'the Centre'.
I could never believe, even as a youth, in a
god that created woman, who, when superfeminine, is
the metachemical opposite of anything metaphysically
godly and, when feminine, the chemical opposite of anything physically manly.
That, for me, was the start of my repudiation of the Bible and of its account
of Creation, never mind the ascription of the fulcra of each of those elemental
contexts, viz. power and glory respectively deriving from will and spirit, to
God in the so-called 'Lord's Prayer' attributes that are in the one case
absolutely and in the other relatively incompatible with godliness, and with
godliness, moreover, as a super-intellectual concomitant of heavenly
contentment in the metaphysical soul that, in comparison with the physical ego,
could never amount to other than a once-bovaryized
order of form in relation to that definitive emotional contentment which is the
joyful fulcrum of metaphysics.
Gender equality is a secular ideal that has no
place in religion, least of all in any religion which purports to be true and
therefore orientated, no matter how imperfectly or partially, towards
metaphysics and its gender-subordinate corollary in pseudo-metachemistry,
the necessary corollary of a metaphysical supremacy favouring males.
The underlying difference between adult males
and females, or in common parlance men and women, is that whereas the former
tend to be minds that also have bodies, the latter are more usually bodies that
also have minds. No small difference! Particularly when each gender is being
'true to itself' in either free mind and bound body (male), corresponding to my
habitual reference to free psyche/bound soma, or free body and bound mind
(female), corresponding to my habitual reference to free soma/bound psyche.
The alarming sensitivity of women to thought is
proof enough of just how different and therefore unequal the genders
actually are.
The secular decadence of gender equalitarianism
always leads, in any case, to female domination almost as a matter of course,
since women are by nature vacuously objectivistic, or outgoing, with little
time or inclination for reflection.
A reproductive need will always be at variance
if not loggerheads with a productive desire.
Heretical denominations compound their falsity
by allowing women to become so-called priests and take over the pulpit, to the
detriment of truth. Not that, if defined metaphysically, there would have been
that much of a predilection towards truth from such denominations anyway, since
their hegemonic polarities tend to be beauty and knowledge.
But even Catholic churches are host to
mixed-gender congregations, and therefore fail to meet the
gender-discriminatory requirements of true religion, which aims and by
definition can only aim at the liberation of males from female domination
through the practice, in religious contexts, of gender segregation. Catholicism
may be closer, in view of its axial predilections, to the truth than its
Protestant counterparts, but notwithstanding the fact that the masses tend to
remain bogged down in the Marian worship of strength, it is still some way from
actually being true, which seems to me to be the prerogative of 'Kingdom Come'
and a shift of focus, if not fulcrum, from the below to the above.
The 'fallen' neutronic
male may be at the centre of family life, with wife and children taking his
surname and deferring to his judgement in certain matters, but no truly protonic male could ever be the centre of anything but himself, that is, his soul, the sanctity of which he will be
vigilant in guarding against external encroachments.
That which is most evolved towards noumenal subjectivity as opposed to least devolved from noumenal objectivity corresponds to what is godly, and it
can only, by going against the grain of female objectivity, be male. Put
another way, that which is most centred in the absolute badgefulness
(curvilinear), as it were, of noumenal subjectivity,
as opposed to least removed from the absolute ringfulness
(rectilinear) of noumenal objectivty,
would correspond to what is godly, and the godly, which is one with heaven, or
centred in metaphysical self, can only be omega, never alpha! It is not the
First Doing (of will), but the Last Being (of soul). And never will
metaphysical heavenliness/godliness be more itself than when antithetical to
such cosmic manifestations of it as may exist in a coming cyborgistic
manifestation as much beyond , or posterior to, human manifestations of
godliness/heavenliness as the cosmic variety was behind, or anterior to, its
natural manifestations, as outlined by me in certain earlier works.
A wavicle
preponderance, such as characterizes the proton and/or neutron bias of
representative males (as opposed to the unrepresentative pseudo-particle
emphasis under female hegemonic pressure of pseudo-males) ensures degrees of
subjectivity, whether absolute (protonic) or relative
(neutronic), that cannot but be at the centre of
objective attention, such that derives from precisely the opposite tendency,
namely a particle predominance characteristic, by contrast, of the photon
and/or electron bias of representative females (as opposed to the unrepresentative
pseudo-wavicle emphasis under male hegemonic pressure
of pseudo-females), who will dominate and bind male subjectivity to a
subordination to hegemonic female criteria favouring particle objectivity or,
failing that, risk being dominated and bound by it in terms of pseudo-female
subordination to hegemonic male criteria, be those wavicle-oriented
criteria religious or secular, ethereal or corporeal, depending on the degree
and type of wavicle subjectivity obtaining in the
male or males to which, somewhat like filings to a magnet, they become
paradoxically attracted. Attraction is, of course, a two-way thing. But,
barring the paradoxical attraction of mentally weak males (pseudo-males) to
females and, hence, to the dominion of bodily criteria, it seems to be a law of
nature that the attraction of particles to wavicles
is greater than that of wavicles to particles in view
of the extent to which the one bias is objective and the other subjective, so
that it is the gender with the subjective bias that becomes, by and by, the
focus of much if not at least for a pre-maternal time most female
attraction, the centre drawing-in the periphery, as it were, as that which, in
one way or another (ego or soul) and to one degree or another (relatively or
absolutely), is self-centred, becomes, not least through worship, the focus of
other-oriented attraction. The man of truth, a philosopher shall we say, is not
disposed to being or becoming the man of power, like a politician or ruler. For
power and contentment, domination of others and self-determination, are as
alpha and omega, and it would be wrong, morally and ethically wrong, for a
champion of metaphysical truth, a philosopher, to seek, through politics or
science, power over others. Christ's claim to have brought a sword
to cleave
the faithless from the faithful, the chaff from the wheat, as it were, doesn't
sit well with metaphysical truth, and we may believe that such a claim, if
actually made, was simply rhetorical and not expressive of a desire for political,
much less martial, glory or, worse, power. A certain type of power is all very
well in the right hands, but the best form of power, from a religious
standpoint, will be that which, as pseudo-power, is subordinate to contentment,
as pseudo-science to religion or, in narrowly parallel terms, pseudo-beauty to
truth, the pseudo-free psychic aspect (together with pseudo-love) of pseudo-metachemistry subordinated to the free psychic aspect
(together with joy) of metaphysics, in a 3:1 primary/secondary church-hegemonic
psychic differential the corollary of the 1:3 secondary/primary (to correct
past errors of parallel judgement) state-subordinate somatic differential in
which the actual representative fulcra are pseudo-ugliness and joy,
pseudo-bound will and free soul in a 3:3 somatic/psychic differential between
pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother and Heaven the Holy Soul, akin, in a manner of
speaking, to the (neutralized) dragon and hegemonic saint, a plane up from the
former in time over pseudo-space, of proverbial metaphorical usage. With
pseudo-truth subordinate to beauty, on the other hand, you have a situation
where pseudo-religion is (understandably) subordinate to science and, hence,
the dominion of objectivity, not least empirically, will accordingly be taken
for granted in relation to the rule of autocracy in what will be a society
fundamentally so materialist as to be without an idealist, never mind
transcendentalist, dimension. In short, the most basic form of civilization
that, with a scientific/pseudo-religious basis, will rule over an
economic/pseudo-political polarity on patently
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms. From a philosophical
standpoint, true to metaphysics, I cannot endorse, much less identify with,
such a society, which is fundamentally opposed to metaphysics and, hence, to
the lead of a transcendentalist/idealist integrity commensurate with the
triumph of religious truth and of the hegemony of religion over what may be
called the pseudo-fundamentalism/pseudo-materialism of pseudo-science,
pseudo-power bowing before the throne of contentment, as before the leadership
of truth. Hitherto this religious/pseudo-scientific pairing has had to live in
a kind of uneasy co-existence with a political/pseudo-economic polarity that,
like the economic/pseudo-political one characterizing the state-hegemonic axis,
is of 'the world' in one of its two principal axial manifestations, as opposed
to being either netherworldly or otherworldly, metachemical or metaphysical. But the time is surely
approaching when the salvation of the pseudo-economic to religion, the
pseudo-physical to metaphysics, and the counter-damnation, correlatively, of
the political to pseudo-science, the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry,
will be conducted as never before
when 'the world' mostly held and had
every corporeal right to hold the balance of power if not, exactly, the moral
'high ground' and notwithstanding the plutocratic opposition to autocracy of
the state-hegemonic axis the religious/pseudo-scientific aspects of life were
accordingly fated to remain largely peripheral to it in consequence of their
otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly status. Should this
situation ever be modified by post-worldly criteria, then it is not
inconceivable that 'world overcoming', to use a Nietzschean
expression, will not only be possible but morally and ethnically desirable,
with consequences that point to the possibility of 'Kingdom Come' and thus of a
society much more orientated towards otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly
criteria in religion and pseudo-science, in theocracy and technocracy, as it
were, than had ever been possible or indeed feasible in the past, not
excepting the medieval past of the Roman Catholic Middle Ages (which was the
high point of Western civilization, the point preceding the switch of axis to
state-hegemonic criteria following the Reformation and its gradual slide
towards secular decadence and worse). If so, then contentment hegemonic over
pseudo-power will no longer be the prerogative of the Few (in monk/nun-like
vein) but will become the right of the Many, whether through salvation (from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics) or through counter-damnation (from chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry) on what would necessarily have
to be a stepped-up, or 'resurrected', church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
under the aegis of messianic enlightenment if not, at the end of the day, some
form or degree of messianic intervention such that will enable contentment to
triumph over power or, more correctly, the pseudo-power of the deferential and
altogether pseudo-scientifically subordinate caryatid-like supporters of true
religion a plane down, in pseudo-metachemistry, from
the metaphysical hegemony characterizing life at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
If there's one thing worse than an idiot, who
is bound to be human, it's a malfunctioning machine, like a computer, which
doesn't even know it is doing wrong or being a nuisance.
Let it not be said of him that he was too godly
for his own good lest, in his quest for inner sanity, he be judged insane by
the profane.
PART FIVE
Light, heat, motion, and force, corresponding
to the photon, the proton, the electron, and the neutron, with implications of
space, time, volume, and mass that contrast space with time in relation to the noumenal antithesis between metachemical
light and metaphysical heat on the one hand, and volume with mass in relation
to the phenomenal antithesis between chemical motion and physical force on the
other hand, notwithstanding the 'pseudo' forms of light, heat, motion, and
force that take subordinate positions as pseudo-elements to elements, with:-
1.
pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-heat unequivocally subordinate to metachemical
light, as pseudo-time to space;
2.
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-light unequivocally subordinate to
metaphysical heat, as pseudo-space to time;
3.
pseudo-physical
pseudo-force equivocally subordinate to chemical motion, as pseudo-mass to
volume;
4.
pseudo-chemical pseudo-motion equivocally subordinate to physical force, as
pseudo-volume to mass.
Equivalent to the above, to cite only the
fulcrum and pseudo-fulcrum of each context, would be:-
1.
The
unequivocal subordination of pseudo-soul to will at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on the apex of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis.
2.
The
unequivocal subordination of pseudo-will to soul at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on the apex of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
3.
The equivocal
subordination of pseudo-ego to spirit at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on the base of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
4.
The
equivocal subordination of pseudo-spirit to ego at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on the base of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
1.
The power
of photons to create a spatial light; the contentment of protons to recreate a
repetitive heat; the glory of electrons to create a volumetric motion; the form
of neutrons to recreate a massive force.
2.
Conversely,
the pseudo-power of pseudo-photons to pseudo-create a spaced pseudo-light; to
pseudo-contentment of pseudo-protons to pseudo-recreate a sequential
pseudo-heat; the pseudo-glory of pseudo-electrons to pseudo-create a voluminous
pseudo-motion; the pseudo-form of pseudo-neutrons to pseudo-recreate a massed
pseudo-force.
1.
The power
of photons is hegemonic over the pseudo-contentment of pseudo-protons, as
spatial light over sequential pseudo-heat.
2.
The
contentment of protons is hegemonic over the pseudo-power of pseudo-photons as
repetitive time over spaced pseudo-light.
3.
The glory
of electrons is hegemonic over the pseudo-form of pseudo-neutrons, as
volumetric motion over massed pseudo-force.
4.
The force
of neutrons is hegemonic over the pseudo-glory of pseudo-electrons, as massive
force over voluminous pseudo-motion.
Power, contentment, glory, and form = space,
time, volume, and mass = light, heat, motion, and force = will, soul, spirit,
and ego = intention, emotion, instinct, and intellect = photons, protons,
electrons, and neutrons = devil, god, woman, and man = hell, heaven, purgatory,
and earth = doing, being, giving, and taking. The 'pseudo' out of 'anti' modes,
appertaining to pseudo-elements subordinate to elements, are as described
above; though it should not be forgotten that both elements (hegemonic) and
pseudo-elements (subordinate) are divisible between somatic and psychic,
particle and wavicle, sensual and sensible aspects on
both noumenal and phenomenal, absolute and relative
terms, with a positive/negative distinction between the free and the bound,
whether soma or psyche (depending on gender) and, correlatively, a
pseudo-positive and pseudo-negative distinction between the pseudo-free and the
pseudo-bound, again whether in relation to soma or psyche (according to
gender). For the free is ever positive and bright, but the
bound ever negative and dark, or in shadow, on both genuine (hegemonic) and
'pseudo' (subordinate) gender terms.
It is not where you are born, but who you were
born from
that dictates not only your genetic make-up, but also your racial
or ethnic composition.
The Virgin and Child or, more accurately,
Mother and Child scenario of Christianity signifies a fait accompli of chemistry
over pseudo-physics, corresponding to electrons over pseudo-neutrons, whereby
spirit is hegemonic over pseudo-ego and the former is free to address the
latter in terms of speech, cooing, caressing, even recourse to tears, while the
child remains dependent on its mother for protection and sustenance. What this
does not reveal is the stage of female experience intermediate between
seduction and maternity that can only be identified with pregnancy, which has
nothing to do with chemical spirit but is, rather, symptomatic of a kind of
damnation from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry (on
the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis) that suggests and, indeed,
confirms varying degrees (coinciding with the stages of pregnancy) of
pseudo-natural neutralization of the female as pseudo-female under a temporary
male hegemony in physics, whose transformation from pseudo-metaphysical lover
to physical father-to-be would suggest a counter-salvation analogous to a
counter-rise as male corollary of the female's fall (in damnation) from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry. But such a
pseudo-natural order of neutralization vis-a-vis a
realistic hegemony in bound soma conditioned by a humanistic preponderance of
free psyche in physics is, alas for the physical male, all too temporary, since
confined to the later stages of pregnancy, and it will not be long before,
following birth, the pseudo-chemical pseudo-spirituality of the pseudo-female
under a physically egocentric hegemony on the male's part, analogous to
voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) a plane down from massive mass (or mass per
se), is superseded, with cross-axial transference, by the aforementioned
chemical hegemony over the pseudo-physical dependency of the pseudo-egocentric
child upon the spirited mother who, operating through maternal instinct on the
plane of volumetric volume (or volume per se) over massed mass (pseudo-mass),
is then and only then in the mainstream worldly position to which the
Christian iconography of Mother and Child alludes, a position at once
purgatorial and pseudo-earthly in terms of the respective gender, or familial,
standings. Of course, such a slide from metachemistry
to pseudo-chemistry, seduction to pregnancy, and then, following childbirth, a
cross-axial transference to chemistry might be the lot of the average female,
but it would not and did not appeal to theologians to ascribe such a fate
to Mary, the so-called 'Mother of God', and therefore the fait accompli, as I
described it, of the Virgin and Child having no prior relationship with the
female poles of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, viz. metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, seduction and
pregnancy, is a taken-for-granted aspect of Catholic theology, which
necessarily has to ascribe miraculous powers to Mary, notwithstanding
providential intervention on the part of the so-called Father or attenuated
Creator, commensurate with the 'Virgin birth', that ensure she remains
recognizably church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, and on hegemonic terms,
moreover, vis-a-vis the so-called Christ Child.
Consequently, in relation to this, the notion of 'Mother Church' is not without
theological significance, even if it still leaves something to be desired from
the standpoint of salvation from 'the world' (of chemistry/pseudo-physics) to
the otherworldly benefits of metaphysics, as traditionally represented by a
Christ 'On High', whose mother, far from now being hegemonic over him, is then
prone if not prostate at the foot of the 'True Cross' (meaning
non-materialistically the one upon which, in Roman Catholic vein, the arms of
the Crucified stretch upward towards what I hold to be a Y-chromosomal
intimation of male psychic freedom) in a manner suggestive of a pseudo-metachemical subordination to a metaphysical (no matter how
limited to and by the bound soma of the crucifixional
paradigm) hegemony and, hence, to the 'Son of God'. Whereas the fate of any
chemical hegemony over pseudo-physics, whether Marian or otherwise, can only be
counter-damnation (up the axis on a southwest-to-northeast tangent) to pseudo-metachemistry, as to the Easter-time prone Virgin at the
foot of the Cross, with a reversal of gender positions which ensures that the
feminine female hegemony over pseudo-male pseudo-masculinity below will be
superseded by a supermasculine or, more correctly (in
relation to the limitations of bound metaphysical soma), a subfeminine
nominally male hegemony over pseudo-female pseudo-superfemininity
above, corresponding less to a 'Risen Virgin' than to a counter-fallen
(counter-damned) pseudo-Virgin whose actual status is akin to
pseudo-Devil-the-pseudo-Mother (of pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-bound soma) under a 'Son of God' (of metaphysical bound soma) in a kind
of double darkness symbolic of the Christian tragedy. For there can be no
brightness here, neither in the one context nor in the other, because the
absence of metaphysical free psyche primarily commensurate with the
super-emotionality of Heaven the Holy Soul (and only secondarily with the once-bovaryized ego, or super-intellectual mind, of God the
Father-proper) ensures that the bright side of metaphysics, corresponding to superconscious supermasculinity,
remains above and beyond the Christian pale by dint of the extent to which the
Judaic roots of Christianity in Devil the Mother hyped as God the Creator
(whether one calls this Jehovah or the Father, depending on one's ethnic bias)
precludes all but a truncated metaphysics from existing, simultaneously
ensuring that the sub-intentional 'Son of God' coupled, in secondary bound somatic
vein, to the sub-instinctual 'Holy Spirit of Heaven' remain as far as things go
metaphysically, with a consequence that pseudo-metachemistry
is itself compromised by a want of pseudo-submasculine
pseudo-free psyche in relation to the supermasculine
absence of metaphysical free psyche, so that it is, in a sense, doubly 'pseudo'
and, with a pseudo-bound somatic emphasis upon the pseudo-superfemininity
of pseudo-Devil-the-pseudo-Mother coupled (in secondary pseudo-bound somatic
vein) to pseudo-Hell-the-Unclear-Spirit, is no more than a
pseudo-ugly/pseudo-hateful corollary of the illusion/woe typifying metaphysical
bound soma in each of its (bound sub-will and bound sub-spirit) subfeminine manifestations, with the properly
church-hegemonic attributes of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love (corresponding to
pseudo-free sub-ego and pseudo-free sub-soul) in pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-free psyche, and truth and joy (corresponding to free super-ego and free
super-soul) in metaphysical free psyche lying somewhere beyond the pale of what
Catholic Christianity is in a position to allow, given the continuing and
effectively dominating parts being played by the beauty and love (in free
super-will and free super-spirit) of metachemical
free soma on the one hand and, subordinately, the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy
(in pseudo-free sub-will and pseudo-free sub-spirit) of pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-free soma on the other hand - the former attributes effectively superfeminine and the latter pseudo-subfeminine.
That is why, from the standpoint of metaphysics, Catholicism is a failure and
why, if a full complement of metaphysics and a properly deferential pseudo-metachemistry (no longer susceptible to subsuming the subfeminine bound soma of metaphysics into its own pseudo-superfeminine pseudo-bound soma 'Sacred Heart'-wise, with
intent to deferring, in trianglular vein, to the rule
of metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics in back) is
to be forthcoming or at all possible, both metachemistry
and pseudo-metaphysics will have to be repudiated, and not simply on a
personal, individual basis but officially, as though by society in general
following what I would advocate as the utilization of the democratic process in
certain countries (especially those with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
traditions) to a religiously sovereign end, an end commensurate with liberation
from traditional religious adherence to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics,
and with a repudiation, in consequence, of all things Christian, including, not
least, the Church itself for historically having had to go along with the
best-of-a-bad-jobism, so to speak, of Devil the
Mother hyped as God the Father and accordingly precluded, in Judeo-Christian
vein, the possibility of metaphysical, coupled to pseudo-metachemical,
independence such that, at a broadly humanistic stage of religious evolution
above but not beyond Catholicism, takes or can take the form of transcendental
meditation and/or yoga, but at the superhumanistic
and even cyborgistic stage to which we are alluding
would require synthetically artificial means for achieving a fully
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical end. For as long as
conventional religion, state religion in the profoundest and most obvious
sense, persists in existing, metaphysics will continue, in merely straining on
a kind of church-hegemonic leash, to be short-changed, as it were, and the
power of metachemistry above and the glory of
chemistry below will, in alpha-stemming fashion, continue to hog the religious
limelight at the expense not just of the form of physics, which does and can
still exist to a certain extent, if in axial polarity to metachemical
power, but, most especially, of the contentment of metaphysics, as of that
which, lying beyond the bound somatic limitations of the crucifixional
paradigm, is truly heavenly and godly in the super-emotionality and
super-intellectuality of metaphysical free psyche, since beyond the pale of a
world dominated by the super-intentionality and super-instinctuality
of metachemical free soma or, in my religious
terminology, Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit, corresponding to
beauty and love, with no place, in consequence, for Heaven the Holy Soul and
God the Father proper, corresponding to the aforementioned joy and truth of
metaphysical free psyche. Now how religiously false is that?
There is a sense in which painters are the
Devil's artists, and never more so than when portraying metachemical
power via the aesthetics of beauty. Traditionally, the Arts have been
dominated, certainly in the West, by art (from which the term derives), as
society has been dominated by the powerful, whose 'God', having to do with a
Creator-esque 'First Mover', is omnipotent and,
hence, 'almighty', in stark contrast to the powerless 'God' (which some,
deferring to the Father, would only regard as the 'Son of God') nailed to the
Cross, whom artists have often depicted from a bovaryized
artistic standpoint likely closer to pseudo-metachemistry
than to metachemistry, and hence, fittingly I
believe, with a degree of ugliness eclipsing the beauty proper to art
as the
Devil's art form par excellence. But if art, not least in relation to Western
painting, approximates, when metachemically genuine,
to beauty, as to 'the Beautiful', then it must be said that sculpture
approximates, when chemically genuine, to strength, if not to the chemical
fulcrum of pride, and is therefore less superfeminine
than feminine in character, since the art form of woman as opposed to the
Devil, and therefore at axial variance, even to an antithetical extent, with
literature as the art form par excellence of man, given less, especially in
prose (its representative manifestation), to the glory of strength than to the
form of knowledge, in which the ego is granted free rein to massively prevail,
by taking cognizance of rightful man's place in the world. But much as I prefer
literature to sculpture, it does not and cannot achieve the contentment of
truth, which is joy, and which only the finest, most representative music can
conjure, as if from the air, and in the right compositional hands bring us
closer to the composure of heaven. For if painters tend to be the Devil's
artists, expressing spatial light, then composers and musicians, when true, are
surely God's artists, to utilize parallel if antithetical terms, with a
commitment, one might say, to repetitive heat. Now although, like art, music
can be bovaryized, even to a quasi-metachemical extent, the best of it, by which I mean that
which most closely approximates to metaphysics, and hence to an impression of
repetitive heat, will stand closest to truth and thus provide the only
convincingly reliable guide, notwithstanding the role of philosophy as a mode
of literary bovaryization, to what is true and
exactly why it is so. Not simply because it reflects godliness, but because
godliness is itself a reflection of Heaven, and there is no Heaven outside the
joy of metaphysical soul, of soul per se, which music has the ability to
conjure, on occasion, from the depths, the centre, of the Self.
PART SIX
1.
The physical
ego of the intellectual mind, the once-bovaryized
metaphysical ego of the superintellectual mind, the
twice-bovaryized metachemical
ego of the subintellectual mind, and the thrice-bovaryized chemical ego of the unintellectual
mind, as we regress from free intellectual psyche in phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity (intellectual conscious and
intellectual superconscious) to bound intellectual
psyche in noumenal and phenomenal objectivity
(intellectual subconscious and intellectual unconscious).
2.
The metaphysical
soul of the superemotional mind, the once-bovaryized physical soul of the emotional mind, the twice-bovaryized chemical soul of the unemotional mind, the
thrice-bovaryized metachemical
soul of the subemotional mind, as we regress from
free emotional psyche in noumenal and phenomenal
subjectivity (emotional superconscious and emotional
conscious) to bound emotional mind in phenomenal and noumenal
objectivity (emotional unconscious and emotional subconscious).
3.
The
chemical spirit of the instinctual body, the once-bovaryized
metachemical spirit of the superinstinctual
body, the twice-bovaryized metaphysical spirit of the
subinstinctual body, the thrice-bovaryized
physical spirit of the uninstinctual body, as we
regress from free instinctual soma in phenomenal and noumenal
objectivity (instinctual sensuous and instinctual supersensuous)
to bound instinctual soma in noumenal and phenomenal
subjectivity (instinctual subsensuous and instinctual
unsensuous).
4.
The metachemical will of the superintentional
body, the chemical will of the intentional body, the physical will of the
unintentional body, the metaphysical will of the subintentional
body, as we regress from free intentional soma in noumenal
and phenomenal objectivity (intentional supersensuous
and intentional sensuous) to the bound intentional soma in phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity (intentional unsensuous
and intentional subsensuous).
1.
To regress
from the knowledge of the intellectual ego to the weakness of the unintellectual ego via the truth of the superintellectual
ego and the ugliness of the subintellectual ego, as
from the free psyche in primary consciousness and secondary superconsciousness
of physics and metaphysics to the bound psyche in primary subconsciousness
and secondary unconsciousness of metachemistry and
chemistry.
2.
To regress
from the joy of the superemotional soul to the hate
of the subemotional soul via the pleasure of the
emotional soul and the humility (if not humiliation) of the unemotional soul,
as from the free psyche in primary superconsciousness
and secondary consciousness of metaphysics and physics to the bound psyche in
primary unconsciousness and secondary subconsciousness
of chemistry and metachemistry.
3.
To regress
from the pride of the instinctual spirit to the pain of the uninstinctual
spirit via the love of the superinstinctual spirit
and the woe of the subinstinctual spirit, as from the
free soma in primary sensuousness and secondary supersensuousness
of chemistry and metachemistry to the bound soma in
primary subsensuousness and secondary unsensuousness of metaphysics and physics.
4.
To regress
from the beauty of the superintentional will to the
illusion of the subintentional will via the strength
of the intentional will and the ignorance of the unintentional will, as from
the free soma in primary supersensuousness and
secondary sensuousness of metachemistry and chemistry
to the bound soma in primary unsensuousness and
secondary subsensuousness of physics and metaphysics.
Will and spirit are always free (in primary
soma) on the female side of the gender divide and bound (in secondary soma) on
its male side, whereas ego and soul are always free (in primary psyche) on the
male side of the gender divide but bound (in secondary psyche) on its female
side at least in terms of the hegemonic elements of metachemistry
and chemistry on the one hand, and physics and metaphysics on the other. The
pseudo-elemental positions, ever subordinate to the hegemonic elements, tend to
reflect the elemental hegemonies on reverse ratio terms within pseudo-free and
pseudo-bound contexts in which the attributes, being 'pseudo', exist in
contrary positions to their exact elemental counterparts in the sense that what
is positive in free soma becomes pseudo-positive in pseudo-free psyche and,
conversely, what is negative in bound psyche becomes pseudo-negative in
pseudo-bound soma where the transpositions from metachemistry
and chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry and
pseudo-chemistry are concerned, in contrast to what is positive in free psyche
becoming pseudo-positive in pseudo-free soma and, conversely, what is negative
in bound soma becoming pseudo-negative in pseudo-bound psyche where the
transpositions from physics and metaphysics to pseudo-physics and pseudo-metaphysics
are concerned.
1.
Hence the
pairing of metachemical free soma and bound psyche in
supersensuousness and subconsciousness
with pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche in pseudo-subsensuousness and pseudo-superconsciousness
in a 3:1 free primary body to bound secondary mind vis-a-vis
a 1:3 pseudo-free secondary body to pseudo-bound primary mind ratio
differential between the hegemonic photonic element and the subordinate pseudo-protonic pseudo-element.
2.
Hence the
pairing of chemical free soma and bound psyche in sensuousness and
unconsciousness with pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche
in pseudo-unsensuousness and pseudo-consciousness in
a 2½:1½ free primary body to bound secondary mind vis-a-vis
a 1½:2½ pseudo-free secondary body to pseudo-bound primary mind ratio
differential between the hegemonic electronic element and the subordinate
pseudo-neutronic pseudo-element.
3.
Hence the
pairing of physical free psyche and bound soma in consciousness and unsensuousness with pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche and
pseudo-bound soma in pseudo-unconsciousness and pseudo-sensuousness in a 2½:1½
free primary mind to bound secondary body vis-a-vis a
1½:2½ pseudo-free secondary mind to pseudo-bound primary body ratio
differential between the hegemonic neutronic element
and the subordinate pseudo-eletronic pseudo-element.
4.
Hence the
pairing of metaphysical free psyche and bound soma in superconsciousness
and subsensuousness with pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound soma in pseudo-subconsciousness
and pseudo-supersensuousness in a 3:1 free primary
mind to bound secondary body via-a-vis a 1:3
pseudo-free secondary mind to pseudo-bound primary body ratio differential
between the hegemonic protonic element and the
subordinate pseudo-photonic pseudo-element.
1.
The pairing
of photonic elements with pseudo-protonic
pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of space over pseudo-time, or
spatial space over sequential time at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the apex of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
2.
The pairing
of electronic elements with pseudo-neutronic
pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of volume over pseudo-mass, or
volumetric volume over massed mass at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the base of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
3.
The pairing
of neutronic elements with pseudo-electronic
pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of mass over pseudo-volume, or
massive mass over voluminous volume at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the base of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
4.
The pairing
of protonic elements with pseudo-photonic
pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of time over pseudo-space, or
repetitive time over spaced space at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the apex of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
1.
Hence the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis affords us a primary polarity between
photonic space and pseudo-electronic pseudo-volume coupled to a secondary
polarity between pseudo-protonic pseudo-time and neutronic mass the former polarity of overall female
character in relation to the primary concrete particles and secondary abstract wavicles of noumenal objectivity
and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, and the latter polarity of overall male
character in relation to the primary abstract wavicles
and secondary concrete particles of noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity and phenomenal subjectivity.
2.
Hence the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis affords us a primary polarity between protonic time and pseudo-neutronic
pseudo-mass coupled to a secondary polarity between pseudo-photonic
pseudo-space and electronic volume the former polarity of male character in
relation to the primary abstract wavicles and
secondary concrete particles of noumenal subjectivity
and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, and the latter polarity of overall female
character in relation to the primary concrete particles and secondary abstract wavicles of noumenal
pseudo-objectivity and phenomenal objectivity.
1.
Just as I
distinguish between the supersensuous and the
subconscious in metachemistry, with a 3:1 ratio
differential of free soma to bound psyche, so one could alternatively regard
such a distinction as being between supersensuality
and subsensibility, since this would not only accord
with the aforementioned ratio bias of soma to psyche but would also suggest a
parallel with superfemininity vis-a-vis
submasculinity, the superparticle
supernaturalism of a superconcrete freedom in
state-hegemonic materialism via-a-vis what could be
termed the subwavicle subnurturalism
of a subabstract binding in church-subordinate
fundamentalism, the former primary and the latter secondary.
2.
Likewise,
if on contrary noumenal axial terms, just as I
distinguish between the superconscious and the subsensuous in metaphysics, with a 3:1 ratio differential
of free psyche to bound soma, so one could alternatively regard such a
distinction as being between supersensibility and subsensuality, since this would not only accord with the
aforementioned ratio bias of psyche to soma but would also suggest a parallel
with supermasculinity vis-a-vis
subfemininity, the superwavicle
supernurturalism of a superabstract
freedom in church-hegemonic transcendentalism vis-a-vis
what could be termed the subparticle subnaturalism of a subconcrete
binding in state-subordinate idealism, the former primary and the latter
secondary.
3.
Dropping
from the noumenal planes of space and time in metachemistry and metaphysics to the phenomenal planes of
volume and mass in chemistry and physics, as from ethereal absolutism to
corporeal relativity, it could be argued that just as I distinguish between the
sensuous and the unconscious in chemistry, with a 2½:1½ ratio differential of
free soma to bound psyche, so one could alternatively regard such a distinction
as being between sensuality and unsensibility, since
this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of soma to psyche
but would also suggest a parallel with femininity vis-a-vis
unmasculinity, the particle naturalism of a concrete
freedom in state-subordinate naturalism vis-a-vis
what could be termed the unwavicle unnurturalism of an unabstract
binding in church-hegemonic pantheism, the former primary and the latter
secondary.
4.
Similarly,
if on contrary phenomenal axial terms, just as I distinguish between the
conscious and the unsensuous in physics, with a 2½:1½
ratio differential of free psyche to bound soma, so one could alternatively
regard such a distinction as being between sensibility and unsensuality,
since this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of psyche
to soma but would also suggest a parallel with masculinity vis-a-vis
unfemininity, the wavicle nurturalism of an abstract freedom in church-subordinate
humanism vis-a-vis what could be termed the unparticle unnaturalism of a unconcrete binding in state-hegemonic realism, the former
primary and the latter secondary.
1.
As for the pseudo-elements
a plane down, in each class case (pseudo-noumenal
and/or pseudo-phenomenal) from the hegemonic elements, one should distinguish
between the pseudo-subsensuous and the pseudo-superconscious of pseudo-metaphysics, with a 1:3 ratio
differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche, which could
alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-subsensuality
and pseudo-supersensibility, thereby suggesting a
parallel with pseudo-subfemininity and pseudo-supermasculinity, the pseudo-subparticle
pseudo-subnaturalism of a pseudo-subconcrete
pseudo-freedom in state-hegemonic pseudo-idealism juxtaposed with what could be
termed the pseudo-superwavicle pseudo-supernurturalism of a pseudo-superabstract
pseudo-binding in church-subordinate pseudo-transcendentalism, the former
secondary and the latter primary.
2.
Likewise,
if on contrary pseudo-noumenal axial terms, one could
distinguish between the pseudo-subconscious and the pseudo-supersensuous,
with a 1:3 axial differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma, which
could alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-subsensibility and pseudo-supersensuality,
the pseudo-subwavicle pseudo-subnurturalism
of a pseudo-subabstract pseudo-freedom in
church-hegemonic pseudo-fundamentalism juxtaposed with what could be termed the
pseudo-superparticle pseudo-supernaturalism of a
pseudo-superconcrete pseudo-binding in
state-subordinate pseudo-materialism, the former secondary and the latter
primary.
3.
Dropping
from the pseudo-noumenal planes of pseudo-time and
pseudo-space in pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry
to the pseudo-phenomenal planes of pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume in
pseudo-physics and pseudo-chemistry, one should distinguish between the pseudo-unsensuous and the pseudo-conscious in pseudo-physics, with
a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche, which
could alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-unsensuality and pseudo-sensibility, the pseudo-unparticle pseudo-unnaturalism of
a pseudo-unconcrete pseudo-freedom in
state-subordinate pseudo-realism juxtaposed with what could be termed the
pseudo-wavicle pseudo-nurtualism
of a pseudo-abstract pseudo-binding in church-hegemonic pseudo-humanism, the
former secondary and the latter primary.
4.
Similarly,
on contrary pseudo-phenomenal axial terms, one should distinguish between the
pseudo-unconscious and pseudo-sensuous in pseudo-chemistry, with a 1½:2½ ratio
differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma, which could
alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-unsensibility
and pseudo-sensuality, the pseudo-unwavicle pseudo-unnurturalism of a pseudo-unabstract
pseudo-freedom in church-subordinate pseudo-pantheism juxtaposed with what
could be termed the pseudo-particle pseudo-naturalism of a pseudo-concrete
pseudo-binding in state-hegemonic pseudo-naturalism, the former secondary and
the latter primary.
PART SEVEN
The primary mind, to change the subject, is no more
attracted to the primary body than the primary body to the primary mind, since
that would amount to a contradiction in terms. What happens is that the
secondary body (bound) is attracted by the primary body (free) when the primary
mind (free) is insufficiently developed as to serve as an attractive
proposition for the secondary mind (bound). But if it is, then the secondary
mind (bound) will be drawn towards the primary mind (free) and you will have a
situation whereby, in effect, females will be subordinate to males as
pseudo-females in either pseudo-chemistry to physics or pseudo-metachemistry to metaphysics, as the class and/or axial
case may be. Otherwise you will get the converse of this situation in which,
through the attraction of secondary bodies (bound) to primary bodies (free),
males will become subordinate to females as pseudo-males in either
pseudo-physics to chemistry or pseudo-metaphysics to metachemistry,
depending on the class and/or axial case. But neither situation is necessarily
permanent, least of all the lower-order axial contexts of phenomenal
relativity, where the subordination of pseudo-males to females in one context
will be superseded by the subordination of pseudo-females to males in another,
as the genders exchange roles to greater or lesser extents, depending on the
individuals and their actual circumstances at the time, divided, as they
usually are, between professional and leisure engagements. However, in the
upper-order axial contexts of noumenal absolutism, a
primary mind (free) will not usually be attracted by a primary body (free),
since the one kind of freedom tends to exclude the other, like the Devil
excluding God or God excluding the Devil. This explains why certain great
minds, especially when philosophical or religious, tend to lead celibate if not
solitary lives, since too wrapped up in their own mental primacy to be much
disposed to the bodily primacy of those who would seduce them from it for
purposes at variance, even to an antithetical degree, with their own.
Sleep is doubtless the mind's most potent drug,
since it acts like a sedative and causes parts of the mind to behave in a
well-nigh hallucinatory manner through dreams and nightmares and even visionary
experience. Did we not spend so much time asleep it is doubtful that we would
be as indifferent if not hostile to narcotic drugs as we generally are; though
I fancy that some substance-based chemical alternative to sleep would more
appeal to insomniacs than to regular sleepers, who have probably had their fill
of visionary if not hallucinatory experience by the time they wake up and leave
the world of dreams behind them for the greater part of each day.
1.
Metaphysics,
that noumenally subjective element of representative
soul, once-bovaryized ego, twice-bovaryized
spirit, and thrice-bovaryized will, regressing from superemotionality to subintentionality
via superintellectuality and subinstinctuality,
as from the superbeing and supertaking
of superconscious free psyche to the subgiving and subdoing of subsensuous bound soma.
2.
Metachemistry, that noumenally objective element of representative will, once-bovaryized spirit, twice-bovaryized
ego, and thrice-bovaryized soul, regressing from superintentionality to subemotionality
via superinstinctuality and subintellectuality,
as from the superdoing and supergiving
of supersensuous free soma to the subtaking
and sub-being of subsensuous bound psyche.
3.
Chemistry,
that phenomenally objective element of representative spirit, once-bovaryized will, twice-bovaryized
soul, and thrice-bovaryized ego, regressing from instinctuality to unintellectuality
via intentionality and unemotionality, as from the
giving and doing of sensuous free soma to the untaking
and unbeing of unconscious bound psyche.
4.
Physics,
that phenomenally objective element of representative ego, once-bovaryized soul, twice-bovaryized
will, and thrice-bovaryized spirit, regressing from
intellectuality to uninstinctuality via emotionality
and unintentionality, as from the taking and being of
conscious free psyche to the undoing and ungiving of unsensuous bound soma.
1.
Pseudo-metaphysics,
that pseudo-noumenally pseudo-subjective
pseudo-element of pseudo-representative pseudo-soul, once-bovaryized
pseudo-ego, twice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit, and
thrice-bovaryized pseudo-will, pseudo-regressing from
pseudo-superemotionality to pseudo-superintentionality via pseudo-superintellectuality
and pseudo-superinstinctuality, as from the pseudo-superbeing and pseudo-supertaking
of pseudo-superconscious pseudo-bound psyche to the
pseudo-subgiving and pseudo-subdoing
of pseudo-subsensuous pseudo-free soma.
2.
Pseudo-metachemistry, that pseudo-noumenally
pseudo-objective pseudo-element of pseudo-representative pseudo-superwill, once-bovaryized
pseudo-superspirit, twice-bovaryized
pseudo-subego and thrice-bovaryized
pseudo-subsoul, pseudo-regressing from pseudo-superintentionality to pseudo-subemotionality
via pseudo-superinstinctuality and pseudo-subintellectuality, as from the pseudo-superdoing
and pseudo-supergiving of pseudo-supersensuous
pseudo-bound soma to the pseudo-subintellectuality
and pseudo-subemotionality of pseudo-subconscious
pseudo-free psyche.
3.
Pseudo-chemistry,
that pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element of
pseudo-representative pseudo-spirit, once-bovaryized
pseudo-will, twice-bovaryized pseudo-soul, and
thrice-bovaryized pseudo-ego, regressing from pseudo-uninstinctuality to pseudo-intellectuality via pseudo-unintentionality and pseudo-emotionality, as from the
pseudo-ungiving and pseudo-undoing of pseudo-unsensuous pseudo-bound soma to the pseudo-being and
pseudo-taking of pseudo-conscious pseudo-free psyche.
4.
Pseudo-physics,
that pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-element of
pseudo-representative pseudo-ego, once-bovaryized
pseudo-soul, twice-bovaryized pseudo-will and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit, regressing from pseudo-unintellectuality to pseudo-instinctuality
via pseudo-unemotionality and pseudo-intentionality,
as from the pseudo-untaking and pseudo-unbeing of pseudo-unconscious pseudo-bound psyche to the
pseudo-doing and pseudo-giving of pseudo-sensuous pseudo-free soma.
Of course, it would be mistaken to suppose or
conclude from the above that elements and pseudo-elements exist in some kind of
splendid isolation from other elements and pseudo-elements, because they are
only the starting point for atoms and molecules and the constituents of matter,
including what goes into the making of human beings, in general. In all the
above examples, the bovaryized attributes of the
prevailing elements or pseudo-elements imply some other elemental or
pseudo-elemental bovaryization that, together,
combine to form the atom or pseudo-atom which has the properties described.
1.
Therefore
one should conceive of a metaphysical atom as being comprised of a protonic soul, but a once-bovaryized
neutronic ego, a twice-bovaryized
electronic spirit, and a thrice-bovaryized photonic
will which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something
approximating a metaphysical bias for free psyche and bound soma in any given noumenally subjective male, whom one can only presume
partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most protons, more (compared to
most) neutrons, less (compared to least) electrons, and least photons, the
subatomic preconditions of joy and truth on the positive side and woe and
illusion on the negative side of what is customarily described as a 3:1 ratio
differential of free psyche to bound soma in respect, most especially, of the
absolute elements of protons and photons.
2.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a metachemical atom as being
comprised of a photonic will, but a once-bovaryized
electronic spirit, a twice-bovaryized neutronic ego, and a thrice-bovaryized
protonic soul which would be replicated in molecules
adding up to something approximating a metachemical
bias for free soma and bound psyche in any given noumenally
objective female, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic integrity
comprised of most photons, more (compared to most) electrons, less (compared to
least) neutrons, and least protons, the subatomic preconditions of beauty and
love on the positive side and ugliness and hatred on the negative side of what
is customarily described as a 3:1 ratio differential of free soma to bound
psyche in respect, most especially, of the absolute elements of photons and
protons.
3.
Similarly,
in dropping from noumenal to phenomenal planes, one
should conceive of a chemical atom as being comprised of an electronic spirit,
but a once-bovaryized photonic will, a twice-bovaryized protonic soul, and a
thrice-bovaryized neutronic
ego which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something approximating
a chemical bias for free soma and bound psyche in any given phenomenally
objective female, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic integrity
comprised of most electrons, more (compared to most) photons, less (compared to
least) protons, and least neutrons, the subatomic preconditions of pride and
strength on the positive side and humility and weakness on the negative side of
what is customarily described as a 2½:1½ ratio differential of free soma to
bound psyche in respect, more especially, of the relative elements of electrons
and neutrons.
4.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a physical atom as being comprised of a neutronic ego, but a once-bovaryized
protonic soul, a twice-bovaryized
photonic will, and a thrice-bovaryized electronic
spirit which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something
approximating a physical bias for free psyche and bound soma in any given
phenomenally subjective male, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic
integrity comprised of most neutrons, more (compared to most) protons, less
(compared to least) photons, and least electrons, the subatomic preconditions
of knowledge and pleasure on the positive side and ignorance and pain on the
negative side of what is customarily described as a 2½:1½ ratio differential of
free psyche to bound soma in respect, more especially, of the relative elements
of neutrons and electrons.
1.
Turning to
the pseudo-elements, which are subordinate to the elements, one should conceive
of a pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, but a once-bovaryized
pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will which would be
replicated in pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a
pseudo-metaphysical bias for pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma in any
given pseudo-noumenally pseudo-subjective
pseudo-male, whom one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity
comprised of most pseudo-protons, more (compared to most) pseudo-neutrons, less
(compared to least) pseudo-electrons, and least pseudo-photons, the
pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-joy and pseudo-truth on the
pseudo-positive side and pseudo-woe and pseudo-illusion on the pseudo-negative
side of what has to be described as a 1:3 ratio differential of pseudo-free
soma to pseudo-bound psyche in respect, most especially, of the absolute
pseudo-elements of pseudo-photons and pseudo-protons existing under metachemical hegemonic pressure.
2.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-atom as being comprised of a pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic
pseudo-ego, and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul which would be replicated in
pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a pseudo-metachemical bias for pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free
psyche in any given pseudo-noumenally
pseudo-objective pseudo-female, whom one can only presume partial to a
pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-photons, more (compared to
most) pseudo-electrons, less (compared to least) pseudo-neutrons, and least
pseudo-protons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-beauty and
pseudo-love on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred
on the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1:3 ratio
differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma in respect, most
especially, of the absolute pseudo-elements of pseudo-protons and
pseudo-photons existing under metaphysical hegemonic pressure.
3.
Similarly,
in dropping from pseudo-noumenal to pseudo-phenomenal
planes, one should conceive of a pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom as being comprised
of a pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, but a once-bovaryized
pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, a twice-bovaryized
pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic
pseudo-ego which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules adding up to something
approximating a pseudo-chemical bias for pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free
psyche in any given pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-objective pseudo-female, whom
one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most
pseudo-electrons, more (compared to most) pseudo-photons, less (compared to
least) pseudo-protons, and least pseudo-neutrons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions
of pseudo-pride and pseudo-strength on the pseudo-positive side and
pseudo-humility and pseudo-weakness on the pseudo-negative side of what has to
be described as a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free psyche to
pseudo-bound soma in respect, more especially, of the relative pseudo-elements
of pseudo-neutrons and pseudo-electrons existing under physical hegemonic
pressure.
4.
Contrariwise,
one should conceive of a pseudo-physical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a
pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-protonic
pseudo-soul, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic
pseudo-will, and a thrice-bovaryized
pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules
adding up to something approximating a pseudo-physical bias for pseudo-bound
psyche and pseudo-free soma in any given pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-subjective
pseudo-male, whom one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity
comprised of most pseudo-neutrons, more (compared to most) pseudo-protons, less
(compared to least) pseudo-photons, and least pseudo-electrons, the
pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure on the
pseudo-positive side and pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain on the
pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1½:2½ ratio differential
of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche in respect, more especially, of the
relative pseudo-elements of pseudo-electrons and pseudo-neutrons existing under
chemical hegemonic pressure.
PART EIGHT
1.
In overall
subatomic terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis offers us a
polarity between representative photons and pseudo-representative
pseudo-electrons, in metachemistry and
pseudo-chemistry, on its female side, and one between pseudo-representative
pseudo-protons and representative neutrons, in pseudo-metaphysics and physics,
on its male side.
2.
By axial
contrast, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis offers us a polarity
between representative protons and pseudo-representative neutrons, in
metaphysics and pseudo-physics, on its male side, and one between
pseudo-representative pseudo-photons and representative electrons, in pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry, on its female side.
1.
The polarity
between metachemical photons and pseudo-chemical
pseudo-electrons is primary and that between pseudo-metaphsyical
pseudo-protons and physical neutrons secondary in overall
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
2.
The
polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons is
primary and that between pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-photons and chemical electrons secondary on overall
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.
3.
More
specifically, the polarity between metachemical photons
and pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons is primary and pseudo-primary state
hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-protons and physical
neutrons is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate.
4.
Likewise
the polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons
is primary and pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-photons and chemical electrons is
pseudo-primary and primary state subordinate.
1.
In terms of
the once-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the
polarity between metachemical electrons and
pseudo-chemical pseudo-photons is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic,
whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-neutrons and physical protons
is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate.
2.
Likewise
the once-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental
polarity between metaphysical neutrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-protons is
primary and pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-electrons and chemical photons is
pseudo-primary and primary state subordinate.
1.
In terms of
the twice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements,
the polarity between metachemical neutrons and
pseudo-chemical pseudo-protons is secondary and pseudo-secondary church
subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-electrons and
physical photons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state-hegemonic.
2.
Likewise,
the twice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental
polarity between metaphysical electrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-photons is
secondary and pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-neutrons and chemical protons is
pseudo-secondary and secondary church hegemonic.
1.
In terms of
the thrice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements,
the polarity between metachemical protons and
pseudo-chemical pseudo-neutrons is secondary and pseudo-secondary church
subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-photons and
physical electrons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state hegemonic.
2.
Likewise,
the thrice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental
polarity between metaphysical photons and pseudo-physical pseudo-electrons is
secondary and pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-protons and chemical neutrons is
pseudo-secondary and secondary church hegemonic.
In overall axial terms, one finds that the
primary and pseudo-primary polarities are positive and pseudo-positive, whereas
their secondary and pseudo-secondary counterparts are negative and
pseudo-negative, which is to say, bound and pseudo-bound as opposed to free or
pseudo-free, whether in relation to the state or to the church.
1.
On the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the
southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass,
the overall female (divisible between hegemonic noumenal
objective and subordinate pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objective) side of the
gender divide is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic but secondary and
pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas the overall male (divisible
between subordinate pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjective
and hegemonic phenomenal subjective) side of this divide is pseudo-primary and
primary church subordinate but pseudo-secondary and secondary state hegemonic.
2.
On the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the
northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass,
the overall male (divisible between subordinate pseudo-phenomenal
pseudo-subjective and hegemonic noumenal subjective)
side of the gender divide is pseudo-primary and primary church hegemonic but
pseudo-secondary and secondary church subordinate, whereas the overall female
(divisible between hegemonic phenomenal objective and subordinate pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objective) side of this divide is primary
and pseudo-primary state subordinate but secondary and pseudo-secondary church
hegemonic.
In such fashion is the fourfold composition of
elements and pseudo-elements put into axial perspective, and this is the sum of
philosophical truth which also embraces, as a specific elemental bias within
the overall atomic framework, metaphysical truth as the transcendent ideal of
all philosophical endeavour.
1.
What can be
established with a fair degree of certainty is that each hegemonic element,
whether photon, electron, neutron, or proton, has a primary and a secondary
aspect, the former free and the latter bound, whether in soma or psyche,
depending on gender or, in these elemental contexts, the effective
preconditions of gender.
2.
Conversely,
each subordinate pseudo-element, whether pseudo-proton, pseudo-neutron,
pseudo-electron, or pseudo-photon, has a pseudo-primary and a pseudo-secondary
aspect or, more correctly, pseudo-aspect, the former pseudo-bound and the
latter pseudo-free, whether in pseudo-psyche or pseudo-soma, depending, once
again, on gender or the effective elemental preconditions thereof.
3.
Therefore
whereas the free aspect of an element, whether somatically predominant or
psychically preponderant on absolute (3) or relative (2½) terms, is positive
and, hence, bright, the bound aspect, whether psychically postponderant
or somatically postdominant on absolute (1) or
relative (1½) terms, is negative and, hence, dark, or in shadow.
4.
Likewise,
whereas the pseudo-bound pseudo-aspect of a pseudo-element, whether
pseudo-psychically pseudo-preponderant or pseudo-somatically pseudo-predominant
on pseudo-absolute (3) or pseudo-relative (2½) terms, is pseudo-negative and,
hence, pseudo-dark, the pseudo-free pseudo-aspect, whether pseudo-somatically postdominant or pseudo-psychically postponderant
on pseudo-absolute (1) or pseudo-relative (1½) terms, is pseudo-positive and,
hence, pseudo-bright.
In what could be called majoritarian
ratio terms, whether elementally predominant and preponderant or
pseudo-elementally pseudo-preponderant and pseudo-predominant, the hegemonic
element is bright and the subordinate pseudo-element pseudo-dark, but such
pseudo-darkness is the pseudo-primary corollary of the primary brightness to
which it is pseudo-elementally subordinate on either pseudo-preponderant to
predominant (pseudo-male to female) or pseudo-predominant to preponderant
(pseudo-female to male) parallel ratio terms.
Another thing one can be confident about is the
association between photons and metachemistry,
electrons and chemistry, neutrons and physics, and protons and metaphysics, to
take just the four principal subatomic elements. But it is only a
terminological association, not an exact correlation, because each of the
elements described, whilst they may constitute the fulcrum of the discipline to
which they have been ascribed, do not constitute the atomic basis of that
discipline, much less the nuclear superstructure, which, besides requiring
human application, is also comprised of the bovaryized
elements that supplement the representative elements on the terms outlined in
previous pages. Now what applies to the elements is also applicable to the
pseudo-elements, which require the addition of bovaryized
pseudo-elements to the pseudo-element most representative of the
pseudo-discipline to which it appertains as its pseudo-subatomic precondition,
be that pseudo-discipline pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical,
or pseudo-metachemical. Hence we can no more equate
pseudo-metaphysics with pseudo-protons alone than ,,,,
pseudo-metachemistry with pseudo-photons alone, even
though such pseudo-elements play the main pseudo-subatomic role in the overall
pseudo-atomic composition of any given pseudo-disciplinary bias. But when it
comes to why some people are this way and others that way, why this atomic bias
and not that, we enter the determining realms of gender and class, with gender
taking precedence over class as the primary determinant of a class
extrapolation that even when it shares the same gender does so to a different
extent, making for an absolute/relative dichotomy between the photonic bias,
for instance, of upper-class females (metachemical)
and the electronic bias of lower-class females (chemical) in gender antithesis
to the neutronic bias of lower-class males (physical)
and the protonic bias of upper-class males
(metaphysical, not forgetting the pseudo-gender subordination that stems from
the superior pressure of what becomes the hegemonic gender upon their inferior
counterparts and leads, in due course, to pseudo-class distinctions, on a
pseudo-absolute/pseudo-relative basis, between the pseudo-protonic
bias of what can be termed pseudo-upper class pseudo-males
(pseudo-metaphysical) and the pseudo-neutronic bias
of pseudo-lower class pseudo-males (pseudo-physical) in pseudo-gender
antithesis to the pseudo-electronic bias of pseudo-lower class pseudo-females
(pseudo-chemical) and the pseudo-photonic bias of pseudo-upper class
pseudo-females (pseudo-metachemical), none of whom
would exist as such but for their upper- or lower-class gender counterparts or,
more accurately, opposites.
If much of what has been written on this and
previous pages sounds like the 'Visible Matter/Invisible Matter' or, following
on from the above, 'Bright Matter/Dark Matter' theories of contemporary
scientists and more especially of physicists, then don't be surprised: it does.
But that doesn't mean to say science has caught up with my philosophy. On the
contrary, any system based in empirical observation will never 'catch up' with
one whose logic remains centred in insightful feelings, or truth. Science may
have a beautiful will, but it has no soul or only, at best, a thrice-bovaryized intensely sceptical one, and that is why
philosophy of this nature is so necessary, and why the resurrection of truth,
in the truly metaphysical sense that has nothing to do with fact hyped as
truth, absolutely depends on it, if civilization is to return, on more radical
terms than ever existed in the (medieval) past, to the leadership of religion,
which has nothing to do with fundamentally understanding the world for purposes
of material exploitation, but everything to do with ideally transcending it in
the interests of soulful liberation, since at the opposite gender remove from
the dominance of will and the enslavement of 'the world' to that domination,
both directly, in polar axial terms, and indirectly, where its lapsed
Catholic/republican socialist manifestation is concerned and one finds a
proletariat in dire need of precisely the kind of liberation, deliverance,
salvation call it by what name one likes alluded to above, which the
Catholic Church, compromised by ongoing deference to free will in the guise of
'the Creator', 'the Almighty', 'the All-Powerful', and other variations on a
freely-somatic metachemical theme, is no less
signally incapable of providing now than ever it was in the Judeo-Christian
past. Only Social Theocracy, it seems to me, can open the door to religious
freedom and, hence, to the hegemony of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, of true religion over pseudo-science.
LONDON 2014
The Fourfold
Composition of Elements and pseudo-Elements in Axial Perspective
