201. Just so, the 'unholy' is ever inferior, in
subjective terms, to the 'holy', since the explicit 'outer' standings of the
political positions do not reflect a superior status to the implicit 'inner'
standings of the religious positions.
202. One should not imagine that my use of the term
or, rather, prefix 'anti', as in 'antispirit' or 'antivirtue', implies that which is against the noun being
qualified - say, spirit or virtue, as in 'anti-spirit' or 'anti-virtue'. On the contrary, such a prefix is indicative
of the negative mode of spirit, virtue, goodness, etc., as relevant to a
scientific and/or economic position.
Hence my description of the Clear Light ... as 'antigood'
does not signify that the Clear Light ... is against goodness and therefore
evil. It simply indicates the negative
mode of goodness, as germane to the least perfect inner form.
203. Virtue/antivirtue is
always perfect, from least to most via less and more, whereas vice/antivice is always imperfect, from most to least via more
and less. This is because perfection,
like virtue, has to do with form, whereas imperfection, like vice, is a
manifestation of content - the former subjective and the latter objective. The Devil, like man, is imperfect in his
content, while God, like woman, is perfect in his form. And this irrespective of whether we are
considering the negative or positive modes of devility
and divinity, in relation, as already discussed, to science and religion. It is also of course applicable to the
economic and political positions in between.
204. The moral imperfections of the Father and the
Son contrast with the moral perfections of the Mother and the Holy Spirit ...
as content with form, particles with wavicles,
objectivity with subjectivity, evil with good, vice with virtue, folly with
wisdom, and other such equivalent distinctions.
205. The conceptual content (internal) of the Son contrasts,
relatively, with the perceptual form (external) of the Mother, while the
perceptual content (external) of the Father contrasts, absolutely, with the
conceptual form (internal) of the Holy Spirit.
Internal imperfection is vis-à-vis external perfection, and external
imperfection is vis-à-vis internal perfection.
206. The internal
manifestation of external perfection, or beauty, is confidence. Conversely, the external manifestation of
internal perfection, or truth, is calmness.
207. The external
manifestation of internal imperfection, or knowledge, is sobriety. Conversely, the internal manifestation of
external imperfection, or strength, is pride.
208. The conceptual anticontent
of the Antison contrasts, relatively, with the
perceptual antiform of the Antimother,
while the perceptual anticontent of the Antifather contrasts, absolutely, with the conceptual antiform of the Antispirit. Inner anti-imperfection
vis-à-vis outer antiperfection and outer
anti-imperfection vis-à-vis inner antiperfection.
209. The internal
manifestation of external antiperfection, or
ugliness, is shyness. Conversely, the
external manifestation of internal antiperfection, or
illusion, is agitation (brightness).
210. The external
manifestation of internal anti-imperfection, or ignorance, is insobriety. Conversely, the internal manifestation of
external anti-imperfection, or weakness, is humiliation.
211. Such distinctions, here applicable to religion
and to science respectively, also apply, albeit more relatively, to the
economic and political positions in between, where we are conscious of explicit
'inner negative' and 'outer positive' options, viz. inner Antison
and outer Son in regard to (inner) ignorance and (outer) knowledge. And so on.
212. Because form is qualitative and content
quantitative, the former appertaining to wavicle
perfection and the latter to particle imperfection, it is not possible to
evaluate the one from the standpoint of the other - say, beauty from the
standpoint of knowledge, or truth from the standpoint of strength. That is why any attempt to quantify a
qualitative attribute like beauty is bound to fail, since beauty must forever
remain unquantifiable in view of its subjective quality. Worse, such a procedure, as in the case of
so-called 'beauty contests', is an insult to the subject of quantification, in
this case woman, since an effective subversion of the qualitative from a
masculine, and therefore quantitative, point of view. In attempting to quantify beauty, man shows
disrespect for the qualitative, which is but a
reflection of the subservience in which woman, and hence the World, has
traditionally been held.
213. It would be no less absurd for the Devil to
judge God from his quantitative point of view ... than (it is) for man to judge
woman on such a basis, overlooking or ignoring the threat to her self-respect
which such a paradoxical procedure implies.
Doubtless women are far less inclined to judge each other on
quantitative terms ... where beauty is concerned!
214. The genuine aesthete is one for whom form takes considerable precedence over content in the
execution of his/her art. In fact, the
more form and the less content ... the greater the artist.
215. Art, and therefore beauty, ends where religion,
and hence truth, begins - in the most perfect inner form. Beauty is no more truth ... than art is
religion or woman ... God. Beauty, like
art, will have to be vanquished by truth, if Heaven is to replace the World and
religion come into its own on the most perfect
internal terms.
216. The philosopher is the
only writer, or literary figure, who stands beyond the World ... like God
beyond woman or religion beyond art, transcending beauty in his commitment to
truth. Whereas the poet is an artist,
the literary artist par excellence, the philosopher is a
deist, a believer in his own inner divinity and consequent right to enlighten.
217. Just as only the masculinity of phenomenal
objectivity can be damned to the Devil, the diabolic realm of noumenal objectivity, so only the femininity of phenomenal
subjectivity can be saved to God, the divine realm of noumenal
subjectivity. Hence whilst it would not
be true to say that man is the Devil or woman ... God, nonetheless it is much
more likely that man will be damned to the Devil and woman saved to God than
vice versa, since the masculine generally predominates in men and the feminine
in women.
218. An androgynous balance between masculinity and
femininity notwithstanding, man is by definition that which is more masculine
than feminine, and woman, by contrast, that which is more feminine than
masculine. In the one case, the relative
imperfection of internal content preponderates over the relative perfection of
external form; in the other case, the relative perfection of external form
preponderates over the relative imperfection of internal content. Woman is indeed man's 'better half', though
her perfection, being external, is of sin in the 'will to fame/fulfilment'
through beauty, rather than, like man, the imperfection of crime in the 'will
to wealth' through knowledge, which, being internal, panders to the masculine
delusion of moral superiority - a delusion institutionalized by the Christian
Church, particularly in its nonconformist manifestation, through the person of
Christ, the Man-God whose defiance of woman, and hence the World, leads back
towards the Father and the punishing Fundamentalism of a 'will to power'
through strength. In other words, to
that which, as the religious Devil, is the furthest removed from the graceful
Transcendentalism of the 'will to glory' through truth, the absolute salvation
in the most perfect inner form of religious God, which I have termed and
maintain to be the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
219. Those who have said: 'No man comes to the Father
except through the Son' spoke rightly; for, indeed, the Father is where the Son
can and does lead to, as Purgatory is eclipsed by Hell. What I say, however, is this: 'No woman comes
to the Holy Spirit ... except through the Mother, as the World is transcended
by Heaven.' I do not say 'man'; for that
would be a contradiction in terms and could also be taken to imply that Heaven
can be achieved via the World, i.e. through sex, which is anything but the
case, since sex is of the World. No, I
say 'woman', or those for whom the feminine takes precedence over the
masculine, phenomenal subjectivity over phenomenal objectivity, perfect
external form over imperfect internal content.
To approach the noumenal subjectivity of God
... one must first of all be phenomenally subjective. For only then can one be saved from the
sinfulness of one's worldly status to the grace of the heavenly Beyond, becoming divine.
And this can only happen via the Second Coming, not via the Son or any
other manifestation of purgatorial aloofness all too capable of degenerating
towards the Father. For wherever the
Father is, salvation is not to be found.
Only damnation ... in the Fundamentalism of the heart's passion!
220. When the Church claims that 'Christ saves', one
has good reason to be sceptical if not deeply cynical. For where the Church is, there, too, stands
the Father, and where the Father is ... there can be no salvation but only
damnation, the damnation of Purgatory to Hell, of the intellect to the soul,
the brain to the heart, the Son to the Father.
Hence anyone who accepts Christ through the Church also accepts, later
if not sooner, His Father, and is accordingly damned to the Fundamentalism of
the 'will to power' through strength.
The Church is a lie, and anyone who accepts this lie, the lie that
'Christ saves', will never know the truth, but continue
to flounder in the moral evil of Father-dominated religion.
221. Of course, the
original Christ and the 'Church Christ' are not identical, nor could they ever
be so! The original Christ said that
anyone who wished to follow him into the 'Kingdom Within' would have to abandon
father, mother, sister, brother, etc., and live only for and in the self. The 'Church Christ', by contrast, is
surrounded and even dominated by the Father and/or Mother, depending on His
denomination. Consequently, He does not
stand out as a particularly good example of spiritual freedom.
222. But what of the Second
Coming, or he who regards himself in such a Messianic light, without making the
silly mistake of imagining that he is literally Christ, or that Christ will
literally return to the World? Such a
man likes to think that the historical Christ was 'forsaken' by the Father for
having effectively turned against the Father (or was it the Creator/Jehovah?)
in his advocacy of the 'Kingdom Within', and thus his resurrection - which of
course this man regards in metaphorical terms - was accordingly not back to the
Father but on towards the Holy Spirit in what could (again metaphorically) be regarded
as a clean break with everything cosmic or fundamentalist or
Creator-based. Now if this Christ were
literally to return to the World as the Second Coming, he would come not in the
Father's name, as he originally came, but in the name of the Holy Spirit, from
whence he had returned to the World with the express purpose of saving it to
the Heaven which he had known, and known, moreover, in defiance of and
opposition to the Father.
223. Now, naturally, such a literal Christ will not
and cannot return; for metaphors and factual reality are two entirely different
things. But - and this is the crucial
point! - he who loosely corresponds to a Second Coming knows himself, with good
reason, to be unequivocally affirmative of the Holy Spirit, and thus akin to
one who has dallied long in a realm which is as far removed from the Father ...
as it is possible to be. Such a man
says: 'One cannot achieve salvation except through me, since I lead you not
back to the Father but on ... from the Mother ... to the Holy Spirit of Heaven,
the definitive divinity of a being supreme.
No 'Church Christ' can do this, which is precisely why you have need of
a Second Coming if you are to be saved to the heavenly Beyond.
224. Ironically, Christianity, or the Church
Fathers, had need of the Father as a platform from which to launch Christ into
the world, since He would not have stood out from men as a deity had He not
been 'blessed' with providential sanction.
But, in reality, the historical Christ was a 'naughty boy' who effectively
rejected His Father in pursuance of the 'Kingdom Within', the '
225. So there is, or rather was, a certain logic to
the concept of the Crucified Christ being 'forsaken' by the Father, since he
had effectively broken with the 'Kingdom Without' and thus could not expect to
return to it. That is why Christ was significant. Such a man offers one hope of a better world,
a world owing nothing to the cosmic heavens of divine precedence, particularly
since such a precedence is less germane to the Father (a Christian invention
relative to Christ and having its throne, so to speak, in the heart) than to
the Creator (of the Universe), i.e. a scientific divinity of which Jehovah is
the Judaic manifestation and the Clear Light of the Void the Hindu
manifestation, the former a more devolved, and thus anthropomorphic, divinity
than the latter.
226. Of course, the original Christ would have
related to Jehovah, not the Father, since the latter is unique to Christianity
as a fundamentalist modification of idealistic precedence. It is only the 'Church Christ' who relates to
the Father, and He does so much less as a rebel against an earlier divinity
than as the dutiful Son of a kindly Father, thereby perpetuating the lie of the
Church, to the detriment of true salvation.
Instead of leading away from Jehovah, the 'Church Christ' leads back to
the Father, the real power behind the Christian throne!
227. The eclipse of Christ
by the Father, of Nonconformism by Fundamentalism, is
the real tragedy of (in particular) Protestantism, since knowledge leads to
strength as surely as wealth to power, or man to the Devil. Conversely, the eclipse or, rather,
transcendence of the Mother by the Holy Spirit, of Humanism by
Transcendentalism, is the hope of Catholicism, since beauty can lead to truth
as surely as fame to glory, or woman to God.
And yet, even Catholicism is saddled with, and therefore compromised by,
the Father, whose grip on the Trinity ensures that Fundamentalism continues to
be the dominant factor in religious affairs, a factor which, due to its
autocratic nature, cannot be regarded as of insignificant influence on the
Church.
228. No more, for that matter, than can the even
more subversive element, from a religious standpoint, of scientific idealism,
as relevant to Jehovah, and hence the Old Testament, with which religion
returns, via Fundamentalism, to the crass authoritarianism of Creatorism and, hence, Creationism. At which point the hope of salvation ... from
the Mother to the Holy Spirit ... must remain very remote indeed!
229. It is worth noting that the nature of the
Trinity will differ according to whether autocratic or democratic criteria,
relative to the type of society in existence, are
preponderant. By which I mean that
whereas the Holy Trinity will be regarded as reflecting the power of the Father
in and by an autocratic society, with the Son and the Holy Spirit stemming from
the Father and returning to Him ... in a union of the 'Three in One', or of the
Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father, the preferred conception in a
democratic society, by contrast, will be one that affirms, in pluralistic
fashion, the equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father in a
Trinity loosely centred in the Son, the 'One' with whom the other parts of it
are co-existent on an independent rather than an inclusive basis.
230. Hence whereas an autocratic society will affirm
the dominance of the Father ... in due authoritarian fashion, a democratic
society will favour a more pluralistic concept of the Trinity which places
Christ on an equal footing with the Father.
It is from such a standpoint that notions relating to the greater
desirability and moral superiority of the Holy Spirit can be developed, albeit
with due regard to the Mother, without whom the reculer pour mieux sauter would not be
possible. For a society that stressed
the moral superiority of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son,
making the Father and Son consanguineous with the Holy Spirit, would simply be
the converse of an autocratic one, call it theocratic or Pentecostalist,
and such a situation, whilst it might be preferable to the other two, would not
be commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', or the Transcendentalism, in other words,
of that society which, thanks in no small part to the Mother, would be beyond
the Trinity altogether, in what I have termed the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
231. Such a transcendental society cannot come to
pass except through the Second Coming, the Messianic means whereby the Holy
Spirit may be liberated from the Trinity and elevated to the definitive status
of a divinity supreme. Yet such a
supreme divinity cannot come to pass unless the People democratically will it;
for it is ultimately the People who become the Holy Spirit of Heaven. The Second Coming is simply its prophet and
provisional embodiment.
232. There is only one afterlife which is true and eternal,
or truly eternal, and that is the afterlife of the Holy Spirit of Heaven,
wherein consciousness is enhanced in proportion to its identification with the
inner air upon which it is focused and by which it is lifted aloft in a joyful
transcendence of the World. Such a
transcendence is of the heavenly Beyond, and ultimately it will take place on
the eternal plane of divine Transcendentalism, achieving its peak in the ultrabeingful contexts of space centres, wherein even
earthly gravity would have no place. But
there would undoubtedly be a number of stages en route
to that ultrabeingful culmination, of which the
post-Human Millennium would be among them.
(A subject I have gone into often enough elsewhere in my oeuvre
without wishing or needing to enlarge upon it here.) Suffice it to say that, from a transcendental
standpoint, Man is simply a stepping-stone to something higher, rather than, as
in the humanist contexts, an end-in-himself.
233. Neither the bourgeois humanism of Parliamentary
Democracy nor the proletarian humanism of Social Democracy are greatly
conducive towards the notion that Man is but a stage on the road to something
higher, since Humanism regards Man as an end-in-himself rather than as a
stepping-stone to God. In fact,
democratic humanism is the enemy of God, since it is Man who becomes the
measure of all things, and all things, including religion, must be tailored to
suit him. The Beyond is not something
that has any real meaning or relevance to a democratic Humanist, for whom the
World and/or Overworld (bourgeois Purgatory) is all
that really matters and, not least of all, his stake in it. Once the democratic Humanist has achieved
what he wants in material or real terms, he has no further ambitions. As far as he is concerned, God was something
in the past, not something still to come.
God died so that Man could live.
234. And, in a sense, the
death of Christ on the Cross was the death of God and the birth of Humanism,
which proclaimed the triumph of
235. Hitherto I would have said that there is only
one afterlife, namely the ongoing salvation of the Holy Spirit of Heaven in the
coming post-Human Millennium. Now I know
better, and it pleases me to state that there are two if not three afterlives,
of which the one I subscribe to is by far the best, since the only one that is
both true and eternal. Yet contrary to
this transcendental afterlife is what may be called the pagan afterlife of ...
the Clear Light ... in some primal Beyond or, more correctly, Behind, whilst in
between these two extremes comes what is effectively a Christian afterlife,
having relevance to the Holy Trinity in its autocratic-democratic-theocratic
options, options which one must be careful to distinguish from the idealist and
transcendentalist alternatives, which are less middle-ground than alpha and
omega.
236. To be light diverging
from a vacuum, as opposed to spirit converging upon a plenum - such is the
nature of the pagan afterlife, which one can only suppose to be relevant to
people who, through over-use of their senses, particularly their eyes and ears,
have led a largely vacuous existence.
Such people may well have spent too much time in front of their
televisions or, more likely, gazing at cinema screens. Whatever the individual case, the pagan
afterlife (of which Aldous Huxley was acutely aware)
would entail a sense of one's being en route, as light, to the
cosmos, presumably towards a star or stars with which some kind of merging
could be anticipated. However, given the
fact that light diverges from stars and travels through space, the chances of
one's being overtaken by such powerful light and effectively repulsed and even
diverted by it ... could only be greater than the converse possibility ... of
one's little quota of light actually making it through to union with the
nearest or biggest stars....Which sad fact obliges one to concede that the
probability of one's being returned to the World by incoming light ... adds a
certain piquancy to the Hindu notion of reincarnation, albeit solely with
reference to the likelihood of one's not making it through to the Clear Light,
but having to settle, as light, for a deflection back through space to the
World again. Ah, what a disappointment
such a fate must be to anyone who had hoped for better things! Clearly, the pagan afterlife has the odds
stacked against it!
237. But so, too, in a way
does the Christian afterlife, the afterlife, I mean, of a certain subliminal
consciousness of emotions, thoughts, or visions brought about by chemical
changes in the brain following bodily death.
Doubtless, the cessation of air to the brain does indeed cause the
latter to undergo chemical changes, and the chances of some kind or degree of
awareness of the effects of such changes can only be pretty high, in view of
the susceptibility of brain chemistry to generate mind, as in sleep. Now whether, in the event of some subliminal
awareness of these changes, one's mind was brought into contact with emotional,
intellectual, or visionary stimuli ... would depend, I guess, upon the nature
of one's brain and the sort of lifestyle one had led whilst alive, and even up
to and including one's death. Would it
be the soul of the Father in emotions, or the intellect of the Son in thoughts,
or possibly even the spirit of the Holy Ghost in visions? In other words, would this subliminal
awareness of chemical changes in the brain be exposed to a purgatorial Hell, a
purgatorial Purgatory, or a purgatorial Heaven, or even to all three together
or successively? That is obviously not a
question for me, or indeed anyone living, to attempt answering, but it does
suggest to me, at any rate, the likelihood of one or more of these options for
anyone who had led a relatively purgatorial, or Christian, life whilst alive,
and who could therefore be expected to experience some form of cerebral
afterlife when dead. But only, it has to
be said, while the brain was not yet in a state of advanced decomposition or
impending disintegration! Thus only for
a comparatively short period of time - a matter of weeks or, at most, a few
months ... before total disintegration dissolved the possibility of even the
faintest subliminal consciousness of chemical metamorphoses. And shorter still for anyone who had opted
for cremation, moving from an emotional purgatory, shall we say, to a fiery
eclipse in a matter of hours or days, Christ or the Father overtaken by Satan
even before one had grown properly acclimatized to Purgatory! Ugh!
What folly! How morally ignorant
such people must have been - whilst alive!
238. Yet it now occurs to me that there is,
possibly, an alternative afterlife of the phenomenal sort, one associated not
with Purgatory but the World, not with Christ, or the Trinity, but the Mother
... in what could, I suppose, be a dream-like recollection of past events and
memories of one's life, an afterlife of an altogether more subjective
character, broadly pleasant in the down-to-earth range and nature of its
revelations, a subliminal consciousness, it may be, of the sort one would more
associate with the left midbrain than with the right midbrain, an afterlife
arguably more Catholic than Protestant or, at any rate, more humanist than
nonconformist. Yet it may well be that
those who have lived more in the body than in the brain will experience, on
some subliminal level, a sensual metamorphosis more conducive to personal
recollections than to impersonal events.
Again, however, this worldly Heaven would only last until such time as
extensive decomposition had set-in, eradicating the brain's capacity for self-consciousness. Thus even an earthly burial would not
guarantee the mundane corpse a greatly extended afterlife, its memory-teeming
brain soon fated for earthly transmutations.
Judged by truly divine criteria, this humanist afterlife is little
better than the nonconformist one, albeit preferable, all to same, to a cosmic
eclipse!
239. So I return to my starting point, in regard to
the afterlife, and maintain that only the transcendental path can offer one the
possibility of Eternal Life, a life lived in and for the spirit in the most
complete identification with inner air, and that only in relation to
Transcendentalism will there be any prospect of a lasting afterlife or, rather,
of life evolving towards a spiritual consummation from a basis, in Social
Transcendentalism, which would be beyond life as we know it today. For the ultimate afterlife begins not in
death but in a new life, and such a post-worldly life can only be stepped up
and refined upon in the course of its future unfolding. Eventually, following decades if not
centuries of extensive social engineering, there will be no death as we know
it, and therefore no pagan, Christian, or mundane afterlives, but simply a more
intensive stretch of self-realization culminating, it is to be hoped, in the
most complete manifestation of the Holy Spirit of Heaven. That which is experiencing Eternal Life will
have no need of such afterlives as I have briefly documented here. He or, rather, it will be their refutation.
240. In a sense, one could say that whereas the
writer closest in spirit to the pagan, or cosmic, afterlife is the dramatist,
the philosopher, when true, is the writer for whom the transcendental afterlife
has most significance, while the Christian and mundane afterlives in between
those alpha and omega extremes would have relevance to novelists and poets
respectively, the former, given through knowledge, to the brain, and the latter
given, through beauty, to the body.
241. One could also argue that whereas the afterlife
of cosmic idealism is essentially upper class, the afterlife of Christian
purgatory is essentially middle class, the afterlife of mundane worldliness
essentially working class, and the afterlife of airy transcendentalism
essentially classless - this latter alone according with what is truly divine,
and hence eternal.
242. More generally, the
cosmic afterlife is of musicians, the Christian afterlife of writers, the
mundane afterlife of dancers, and the transcendental afterlife of artists.
243. Again, speaking
generally, one could argue that the cosmic afterlife is for scientists, the
Christian afterlife for economists, the mundane afterlife for politicians, and
the transcendental afterlife for priests.
244. It would also seem that whereas the cosmic
afterlife is of the backbrain/subconscious, the
Christian afterlife is of the right midbrain/conscious, the mundane afterlife
of the left midbrain/unconscious, and the transcendental afterlife of the
forebrain/superconscious.
245. From the cosmic afterlife of the Devil to the
transcendental afterlife of God via the Christian afterlife of man and the
mundane afterlife of woman, as from Hell to Heaven via Purgatory and the World.
246. If in natural life nightmares are the nearest
thing to the cosmic afterlife, then dreams are the nearest thing to the mundane
afterlife, visions the nearest thing to the Christian afterlife, and meditation
the nearest thing to the transcendental afterlife.
247. Nightmares stand to dreams as Hell to the World
or the subconscious to the unconscious, the former objective and the latter
subjective. One might say that
nightmares are 'big bad dreams' which, in contrast to 'good little dreams', are
more akin to the sun than to the earth.
248. A similar objective/subjective distinction can
be noted between crime and sin. For
whereas crime is generally objective, i.e. committed against someone/something,
sin is no less generally subjective, i.e. committed against oneself. That is why murder, for example, is a crime,
whereas suicide is a sin. Likewise theft
is a crime, but gluttony a sin.
249. Television stands to cinema pretty much as the
Father to Satan, which is to say, as the alpha-most point of a fundamentally
Christian medium vis-à-vis the alpha-most point of a basically Judaic one. Whereas cinema approximates to the 'Kingdom
Without', TV, by contrast, approximates to the 'Kingdom Within', albeit as the
fundamentalist antithesis to computers, and strictly within the artificial
parameters of a technological civilization.
250. Just as Jehovah predates Satan, being anterior
to the Satanic Fall, so silent cinema predates sound cinema, the latter akin to
a Satanic fall from the primal 'divinity' which, in due idealistic fashion,
ushered in the age of scientific culture.
251. Television was, one could argue, the
'Christian' retort to 'Judaic' cinema, the alpha-most part of an artificial
'Inner Kingdom' which is composed of radio (roughly approximating to Christ),
video (approximating to the Mother), and, latterly, computers (approximating to
the Holy Ghost).
252. For everything natural
there is eventually something artificial which both complements and eclipses
it, pretty much on the basis of an old brain/new brain dichotomy. For big dreams, or nightmares, there is
cinema, while for little dreams, or pleasingly subjective dreams, there is
video. For emotional fantasies there is
television, for thoughts there is radio, and for visionary hallucinations there
is computing, including Virtual Reality, not to mention hallucinogens like LSD. There may even one day be artificial
meditation for natural meditation, which would presumably involve recourse to
artificial oxygen and breathing masks, with or without the aid of special body
harnesses to lift one clear of the ground in a levitation-like defiance of
gravity.
253. It was doubtless inevitable that, in rejecting
Jehovah through Christ, the Christians should come to accept the Father
instead, and so gravitate to the 'Kingdom Within' at its alpha-most and
therefore fundamentalist point, thereby settling for a religious Devil as
opposed, like Jehovah, to a scientific God.
Or, in bodily terms, for the heart as opposed to the eyes (including, at
the back of Judaic anthropomorphism, the rather more primal Hindu idealism of
the Clear Light ... with its 'Third Eye' situated in the pineal gland). Doubtless, Jewish reluctance to embrace Christ
or, rather, Christianity ... derived, in no small measure, from the distaste
with which a people long accustomed to scientific divinity felt, consciously or
unconsciously, for religious fundamentalism, the Father being, in effect, the
religious equivalent of the scientific Devil, or Satan. For how can one reject Satan and embrace his
religious equivalence, trading scientific idealism for religious
fundamentalism? Even Christ, the
historical rebel against Jehovah, would not have embraced the Father
instead. His 'Kingdom Within' was rather
closer to the lungs than to the heart, and thus would have had effect to the
Holy Spirit, since one does not naturally embrace the heart if one has been
accustomed to an idealistic tradition.
Such fundamentalism ties-in, as I have intimated, with naturalism, and
thus presupposes a pagan tradition, the sort of tradition which, rooted in the
sun (the Judaic Satan), finds its 'inner' counterpart not in the lungs but in
the heart, i.e. the Father, and thus at a vampire-like remove from solar
flame. Christ would not have advocated
some fundamentalist equivalent of Count Dracula as the religious antidote to
the sun. On the contrary, his salvation
was of the spirit within, which is the religious antidote to the light
without. It was for denying the
tradition which, in Judaism, clung to that light, however, that Christ was
killed or, at any rate, rejected by the Jews.
254. From the eccentricity of the cosmic afterlife
(of the Clear Light of the Void) to the psychocentricity
of the transcendental afterlife (of the Holy Spirit of Heaven) via the
egocentricity of the Christian afterlife (of the Father-Son-Holy Ghost) and the
concentricity of the mundane afterlife (of the Mother).
255. From the eccentric backbrain/subconscious to the psychocentric
forebrain/superconscious via the egocentric right
midbrain/conscious and the concentric left midbrain/unconscious.
256. 'Christ in Judgement' is indeed an apt
reflection of the 'Christian afterlife', in which chemical changes in the brain
following death may centre in thoughts (Christ) or cause one to be damned
(relatively) to emotions (the Father) or saved (relatively) to visions (the
Holy Ghost), depending which way, if any, the judgmental balance (of
purgatorial egocentricity) tips. Either
way, the result would not be Hell per se or Heaven per se,
but purgatorial Hell (the Father) and/or purgatorial Heaven (the Holy Ghost),
with the thoughtful middle-ground of Purgatory per se doubtless capable
of a bias (depending on the nature of the thoughts) towards what could be
called hellish Purgatory (negative Christ) or heavenly Purgatory (positive
Christ) ... on the borderline, as it were, with the more radical purgatorial
extremes.
257. In a way, the 'Christian afterlife' is akin to
classical music, the intellectualized music of a purgatorial disposition, which
is roughly divisible, on a trinitarian basis, between
operas, symphonies, and concertos - operas being emotional, and therefore
closer to the Father; symphonies intellectual, and therefore closer to the Son;
and concertos visionary, and therefore closer to the Holy Ghost. But such 'classical music' finds itself
flanked by the more extreme musical forms of Jazz and Folk, the former
reflective of a mystical idealism, and the latter reflective (at its uilleann-pipes best) of a gnostical
transcendentalism, both of which stand outside the Christian tradition as, in
some sense, the alpha and omega of music.
258. Notice how Jazz works up a rhythmic frenzy in
what, to Christian ears, may seem like excessive percussion ... in order to
launch, as though from a particle base, the musical light which issues, in
centrifugal divergence, from brass instruments ... as 'brass-light' flees the vacuous
particles so barbarously engineered by a variety of percussion
instruments. Jazz is virtually the
musical corollary of cosmic mysticism and thus of a senses-based lifestyle
which portends, if pursued vigorously enough, the possibility of a mystical afterlife
in which, inevitably, light is the prevailing element.
259. Remember that light stands to spirit as
illusion to truth, and that those who, through moral primitivity,
pursue a light-oriented lifestyle do so as adherents of scientific idealism (if
not naturalism) as opposed to religious transcendentalism. Theirs is the mystical Hell which, in the
cosmos, stands at the farthest possible remove from the gnostical
Heaven, the true heaven of the airy lightness of a joy supreme. Theirs is the Jazz of 'brass-light', rather
than the Folk of 'pipe-air'.
260. One could argue that if a Jazz person is more
or less predestined for the cosmic afterlife, then a Rock person is in some
sense predestined for the mundane afterlife, the afterlife we characterized as
having a correlation with memory, since Rock is no less a music of the World
... than Jazz a netherworldly form of music. And so we can safely assume that Rock people,
being more given to the darkness of worldly heaviness than to the speed of
cosmic light, will be disposed, if consistently heavy, to what we characterized
as the mundane (as opposed to purgatorial) afterlife, the more subjective
afterlife which, though also following from chemical changes in the brain of
the recently deceased, would tend to root subliminal consciousness in the
phenomenal self and its bodily experiences and/or memories. Such a mundane afterlife would be closer, in
effect, to the transcendental afterlife of post-human futurity ... than to the
properly Christian afterlife above ... in the more objective realm of
Trinitarian cerebration, given its subjective nature. Beauty, after all, is closer to truth than
knowledge which, in due purgatorial fashion, intimates of possibilities having
a basis in strength, and hence the Father.
In fact, the purgatorial Christ, though separate from the Father, is
likely to incline more towards the strength of the Father than towards the
'visionary truth' of the Holy Ghost, given the fatal attraction which strength,
or almighty power, exerts on knowledge, and thus of emotion on the
intellect. The scales of purgatorial
Judgement are tipped against the Holy Ghost within the Trinitarian
framework. And so much so, that the
Christian afterlife is likely to be much less satisfactory than the mundane one
which, through the left midbrain, should remain rooted in the subjectivity of
the Mother, not veer off towards the greater objectivity (noumenal)
of the Father, following a brief dalliance of posthumous consciousness with the
phenomenal objectivity, in thought, of Christ - knowledge leading to strength
no less surely than ... beauty to truth.
261. But true truth, being
of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, can only follow from a post-worldly basis, the
basis of 'Kingdom Come' established at the Mother's, and therefore the World's,
expense ... in due transcendental fashion.
For this, the World has need of the Second Coming, without whom no salvation from the World to the heavenly Beyond of a
transcendental afterlife is possible.
For this afterlife does not follow death in the usual posthumous sense,
but presupposes a new life established by the Second Coming which will
ultimately prevent death and therefore the possibility of any of the
traditional afterlives ever happening again.
Such a transcendental afterlife is only possible on the basis of Eternal
Life, which should follow, needless to say, from an acceptance, by the People,
of the teachings of he who corresponds to a Second Coming. Only when his philosophy has been accepted
... will the way be clear for a Life Everlasting ... lived by life forms that
will not die but live in the joyful lightness of the Holy Spirit of Heaven,
being without end.
262. Now that I have had a chance to reflect upon
the above, it strikes me that, in contrast to traditional notions concerning
the Holy Trinity and salvation and/or damnation through Christ, a person who
was destined for the mundane afterlife of the Mother, being of a worldly
disposition, would stand a better chance of passing from the phenomenal
subjectivity of dream-like memories to the noumenal
subjectivity of purgatorial Heaven (in which, we may suppose, visionary
experience would be paramount) ... than one who, encountering the Christian
afterlife, went straight to Purgatory.
For in the latter instance the pull of the Father, as from thoughts to
emotions, would be stronger than the possibility of visionary salvation in the
Holy Ghost, and, as such, one can only conclude the likelihood of one's passing
from the phenomenal objectivity of the Son to the noumenal
objectivity of the Father, as from Purgatory per se to purgatorial
Hell, to be greater. That being the
case, purgatorial Heaven could only be embraced, it seems to me, via the
Mother, which is to say via the mundane realm of phenomenal subjectivity, and
thus via what I have termed the mundane afterlife.
263. Consequently we can have no confidence with the
sort of paradoxical logic which would suggest, in traditional eschatological
fashion, that one could pass from the phenomenal objectivity of a 'Christ in Judgement'
to the noumenal subjectivity of the Holy Ghost. The chances of that happening must be pretty
remote; indeed, as remote as it would be to pass from the phenomenal
subjectivity of the Mother to the noumenal
objectivity of the Father, as though from the World to Hell or, at any rate,
the purgatorial hell of an emotional self-conflagration. For Hell per se is, as I have
already argued, more a realm of cosmic mysticism than of emotional
fundamentalism. Just as Heaven per
se is more a realm of spiritual gnosticism
than of visionary transcendentalism.
Alas, even if one does pass from the Mother to the Holy Ghost with
death, progressing from beauty to truth, such a purgatorial Heaven is no more
eternal ... in the sense of lasting for ever ... than would be the purgatorial
Hell which stems, in all probability, from the thoughtful Son, like strength
from knowledge. It would only last as
long as the brain does when, due to death, it passes through a series of chemical
changes en route to final decomposition.
It may be the 'best of a bad job' rather than the 'worst of a good one',
so to speak, but it is still far from being the 'best of a good job' in the
eternity of true Heaven which, beyond the sphere of cerebral metamorphoses,
lies in the transmutation of mankind towards the post-human realm of millennial
futurity and the establishment, under Messianic auspices, of the Holy Spirit of
Heaven in ever more perfect manifestations of its heavenly unfolding. A purgatorial salvation in the Holy Ghost may
be better than a purgatorial damnation in the Father, but it must pale to
insignificance beside the heavenly salvation which only the Second Coming can
offer ... as he sets out his will in the name of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, or
that which, as the truth, is antithetical to the Clear Light of the Void, and
hence to all mystical illusions. Only
the truth liberates, and it liberates, above all, from the World and its
beautiful lie.
264. 'Beautiful people' are capable of grasping the
Truth, but generally they prefer the lie of their own phenomenal subjectivity
to the truth of the noumenal subjectivity which lies
beyond them in the transcendental realm of supreme being. Especially is this so in relation to the
pressures of knowledge and strength which can be brought to bear upon them,
chaining them to their phenomenal selves.
265. Probably it would be mistaken to presume that
beauty is happy to live with knowledge and strength, even though most of the
time it of course does so. The truth or,
rather, fact of the matter is that beauty is compelled to live with
knowledge and strength, just as ugliness is compelled to live with
ignorance and weakness. Remove knowledge
and strength from beauty ... and beauty would be obliged to re-evaluate itself
in relation to truth. For there is no
reason why beauty should be overconcerned with truth
whilst it is yet subject to the twin pressures of knowledge and strength,
neither of which, in practical terms, are even remotely concerned with
truth. Truth will only appeal to beauty
when it is no longer compelled to bow down before knowledge and strength. Only then will beauty be able to deny itself
and, in denying the World, be resurrected to the eternal life of heavenly
Truth.
266. Unlike beauty, which is capable of understanding
truth but generally prefers or, more correctly, is obliged by circumstances
outside its control to deny truth, thus propagating the famous lie of its own
divinity, neither knowledge nor strength are capable of understanding or
leading to truth, although this fact does not prevent either of these objective
accomplishments from regarding what they stand for as truth, as when both
religious nonconformism and fundamentalism claim to
represent the Truth. Nothing, however,
could be further from the truth, but then that is only something the Truth
could know, just as it would know, through its divine mediator, that falsity is
the name given by truth to the spurious claims of knowledge and strength that
they are in fact one and the same as truth.
Unlike the lie which, as we have seen, is germane to beauty, neither
knowledge nor strength is capable of denying the truth because they are
incapable of grasping it to begin with!
All they can do is claim to be the truth, and in that they are
false. When such falsity parades itself
as truth we get bigotry; for the bigot is one who claims to be what he is
not. He claims to represent the truth,
but in actuality he is representing knowledge or strength, as the case may be,
and those who are one with the truth can immediately see through him to the
falsehood of his claim. Even the
habitual liar, bogged down in her own beauty, can see through him to the
falsehood beneath. The chances are,
however, that, unlike the truthful ones, she will not endeavour to expose this
falsity but will accommodate herself to it as best she can, if only to protect
the lie of her beauty from the threat of truth or, more likely, wrath of
knowledge and strength.
267. Whereas falsity is that which poses as what it
is not and the lie is that which rejects what it knows to be the truth,
illusion is neither false nor lying but simply incapable of the truth, since
too far removed from it in the alpha of a mystical light. Illusion does not pose as the truth; for it
knows nothing of the truth or of the fact that such a thing, accomplishment, or
whatever could ever exist (unlike knowledge and strength which, despite their
constitutional inability to comprehend it, at least know that somewhere or
other, compliments of the Trinity, there is such a value). No, illusion is not falsity, but that which
projects itself onto the World, calling the World after its own illusory nature
(Maya). Illusion sees only illusion, but
it mistakes what it sees for the illusion when, in actuality, it is itself
illusory and incapable, in consequence, of self-reflection. It shoots out from the particle-inspired
vacuums at the roots of idealistic space, spreading its light wherever it goes
and blinding itself to the reality of the World. It sees only light, and in the light it is
consumed by illusion.
268. Illusory is the God (Jehovah) that stems from
the light of cosmic space, but false are the Gods (the Father/the Son) that
appertain to strength and knowledge, and claim truth for themselves or, more
correctly, their not-selves through soul and mind, while mendacious is the God(dess) who appertains to beauty
and, through love of the flesh, rejects truth in the interests of the Son. I speak, naturally, of the Mother.
269. If beauty, to repeat, co-exists with knowledge
and strength, it is less because it wants to than because it has to, and the
same, of course, applies to ugliness in relation to ignorance and weakness.
270. A musical paradigm of beauty co-existing with
knowledge and strength ... would be of a group comprising of violin, organ, and
hand percussion. Conversely, a musical
or, more correctly, antimusical paradigm of ugliness
co-existing with ignorance and weakness ... would be of a group comprised of
guitar, piano, and drums.
271. Just as the violin is a beautiful instrument on
account of its attractive (bowing) technique, so the guitar is an ugly
instrument by dint of its reliance on a reactive (strumming/picking)
technique. One could see this as a
humanist/realist dichotomy, as between (electron) wavicles
and particles in relation to the World.
272. Just as the organ is an attractive instrument
on account of its attractive (sustain) technique, so the piano is a reactive
(percussive) instrument by dint of its use of wire-striking hammers. One could see this as a deist/materialist
dichotomy, as between (neutron) wavicles and
particles in relation to the purgatorial Overworld.
273. Just as hand percussion implies recourse to an
attractive technique, in which the palms and fingers of the percussionist's hands
gently strike the skin of his percussion instruments, so drums imply a reactive
technique by dint of their reliance on drumsticks. One could see this as a
fundamentalist/naturalist dichotomy, as between (proton) wavicles
and particles in relation to the diabolic Netherworld.
274. The beauty of the flesh vis-à-vis the knowledge
of the brain and the strength of the heart ... in the case of the Mother
vis-à-vis the Son and the Father, or violins vis-à-vis organs and hand
percussion. Conversely,
the ugliness of the earth vis-à-vis the ignorance of the moon and the weakness
of the sun ... in the case of what we may call the Antimother
vis-à-vis the Antison and the Antifather,
or guitars vis-à-vis pianos and drums.
275. No less than beauty, knowledge, strength, and
truth can be inner or outer, religious or political, so ugliness, ignorance,
weakness, and illusion can be inner or outer, economic or scientific.
276. As illogical to speak of beauty, knowledge,
strength, and truth in relation to economics or science ... as to speak of
ugliness, ignorance, weakness, and illusion in relation to religion or
politics.
277. Generally speaking, men are relatively evil and
women, by contrast, relatively good, which is to say, objective and subjective
on phenomenal terms, whereas the Devil is absolutely evil and God, by contrast,
absolutely good, which is to say, objective and subjective on noumenal terms. One
cannot argue, ignoring gender, that 'human nature' is this or that, i.e. good
or evil. Nature, in the mundane sense,
is generally good, because reflecting the subjectivity of the World, but human
beings are divisible between those who are closer to nature and those who
reject nature in the interests, more usually, of civilization. In other words, between
good, more usually recognizable as feminine, and evil, more usually
recognizable as masculine. Thus
either there is no one 'human nature' or, if there is, it is a nature that
should be identified with the feminine, and hence woman, rather than with the
masculine.
278. Considering that boys are generally brought up
to play at being soldiers, with toy guns, and girls generally raised, by
contrast, to play at being mothers, with dolls, one would not have to be an
alien from outer space to perceive that the one gender was basically evil and
the other gender good. And so it
remains, by and large, throughout life.
Men, with few exceptions, remain evil and women ... good - the former
objective and the latter subjective.
Such is the rule of gender, which reflects a distinction between
civilization and nature.
279. When taken to its noumenal
extremes, i.e. when hellish and heavenly criteria are at issue, then it follows
that the distinction is between barbarism and culture, the former diabolic and
the latter divine, in keeping with the more radical manifestations of
objectivity and subjectivity which accrue to the Devil and God.
280. The distinction between free will and natural
determinism ... is likewise a distinction between evil and good, whether
relatively or absolutely, with regard, that is, to phenomenal or to noumenal options. I
am not free to be good or evil; on the contrary, I am bound, if close to nature
and the feminine ideal of phenomenal subjectivity, to be good; for that is what
accords with natural determinism. If I
am free to be anything, it is the freedom to be or, rather, do evil. Freedom is not a moral choice; it is a
compulsion to do evil. The choice lies
in whether one wishes to be good, and thus remain bound to natural determinism,
or to do evil, and thus express one's freedom.
Also, in a more relative and phenomenal sense, between
giving goodness and taking evil.
For, in truth, the distinction between being good and doing evil is of
God and the Devil, whereas the distinction between giving goodness and taking
evil is of woman and man. In religious
terms, this means that one can only be good, which is to say, absolutely
subjective, through the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit of Heaven); only do evil,
in absolute objectivity, through the Father (the Holy Soul of Hell); only give
goodness, in relative subjectivity, through the Mother (the Holy Will of the
World); only take evil, in relative objectivity, through the Son (the Holy Mind
of Purgatory). In political terms it
means pretty much the same thing on an outer, or external, basis. In scientific terms, however, it means that
one can only be antigood, or absolutely subjective,
through the Antispirit (the Clear Light of the Void);
only do anti-evil, in absolute objectivity, through the Antifather
(the Clear Fire of Time); only give antigoodness, in
relative subjectivity, through the Antimother (the
Clear Soil of Mass); only take anti-evil, in relative objectivity, through the Antison (the Clear Water of Volume). In economic terms it means pretty much the
same thing on an inner, or internal, basis.
281. He/she who is most bound to subjectivity is the
most good. Conversely, he/she who is
most free in objectivity is the most evil.
Goodness begins in the World and ends in Heaven. Evil begins in the purgatorial Overworld and ends in Hell.
From the Mother to the Holy Spirit ... on the one
hand, and from the Son to the Father on the other hand. Not to mention, negatively, from the Antimother to the Antispirit on
the one hand, and from the Antichrist to the Antifather
(Satan) on the other hand.
282. To contrast the negative phenomenal self of the
Antimother (whether externally or internally, in
relation to realist science or to socialist economics) with the positive
phenomenal self of the Mother (whether externally or internally, in relation to
republican politics or to humanist religion).
283. Likewise to contrast the negative noumenal self of the Antispirit
(whether externally or internally, in relation to idealist science or to
corporate economics) with the positive noumenal self
of the Holy Spirit (whether externally or internally, in relation to
totalitarian politics or to transcendentalist religion).
284. Conversely, to contrast the negative noumenal not-self of the Antifather
(whether externally or internally, in relation to naturalist science or to
communist economics) with the positive noumenal
not-self of the Father (whether externally or internally, in relation to
authoritarian politics or to fundamentalist religion).
285. Likewise to contrast the negative phenomenal
not-self of the Antison (whether externally or
internally, in relation to materialist science or to capitalist economics) with
the positive phenomenal not-self of the Son (whether externally or internally,
in relation to parliamentary politics or to nonconformist religion).
286. Civilization is a manifestation of free will,
as, to a greater extent, is barbarism.
Nature, by contrast, is a manifestation of natural determinism, as, to a
greater extent, is culture.
287. Christ presides over civilization and the
Father over barbarism, while the Mother presides over nature and the Holy
Spirit ... over culture.
288. Conversely, it could be argued that the
Antichrist presides over anticivilization and the Antifather over antibarbarism,
while the Antimother presides over antinature and the Antispirit
over anticulture.
289. The civilization over
which Christ presides, in both outer and inner manifestations, is parliamentary
(politics) and nonconformist (religion), and is thus symptomatic of relative
free will (phenomenal). By contrast, the
barbarism over which the Father presides, both outer and inner, is
authoritarian (politics) and fundamentalist (religion), and is thus symptomatic
of absolute free will (noumenal).
290. The nature over which
the Mother presides, in both outer and inner manifestations, is republican
(politics) and humanist (religion), and is thus symptomatic of relative natural
determinism (phenomenal). By contrast,
the culture over which the Holy Spirit presides, both outer and inner, is
totalitarian (politics) and transcendentalist (religion), and is thus
symptomatic of absolute natural determinism (noumenal).
291. Conversely, the anticulture
over which the Antispirit presides, in both outer and
inner manifestations, is idealistic (science) and corporate (economics), and is
thus symptomatic of absolute antinatural determinism
(noumenal). By
contrast, the antinature over which the Antimother presides, both outer and inner, is realistic
(science) and socialistic (economics), and is thus symptomatic of relative antinatural determinism (phenomenal).
292. The antibarbarism over which the Antifather
presides, in both outer and inner manifestations, is naturalistic (science) and
communistic (economics), and is thus symptomatic of absolute free antiwill (noumenal). By contrast, the anticivilization
over which the Antichrist presides, both outer and inner, is materialistic
(science) and capitalistic (economics), and is thus symptomatic of relative
free antiwill (phenomenal).
293. Both civilization and anticivilization,
whether outer or inner, are germane to the phenomenal not-self, which is
responsible for (the masculine essence of) relative free will. By contrast, both barbarism and antibarbarism, whether outer or inner, are germane to the noumenal not-self, which is responsible for (the diabolical
essence of) absolute free will.
294. Both nature and antinature, whether outer or inner, are germane to the
phenomenal self, which is responsible for (the feminine essence of) relative
natural determinism.
By contrast, both culture and anticulture,
whether outer or inner, are germane to the noumenal
self, which is responsible for (the divine essence of) absolute natural
determinism.
295. The element of relative free will is the
neutron, both particle and wavicle, with civilization
appertaining to neutron wavicles on a molecular basis
in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation to
the inner (religion), but anticivilization
appertaining to neutron particles on an elemental basis in relation to the
outer (science) and on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
296. The element of absolute free will is the
proton, both particle and wavicle, with barbarism
appertaining to proton wavicles on a molecular basis
in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation to
the inner (religion), but antibarbarism appertaining
to proton particles on an elemental basis in relation to the outer (science)
and on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
297. The element of relative natural determinism is
the electron, both particle and wavicle, with nature
appertaining to electron wavicles on a molecular
basis in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation
to the inner (religion), but antinature appertaining
to electron particles on an elemental basis in relation to the outer (science)
and on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
298. The element of absolute natural determinism is
the photon, both particle and wavicle, with culture
appertaining to photon wavicles on a molecular basis
in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation to
the inner (religion), but anticulture appertaining to
photon particles on an elemental basis in relation to the outer (science) and
on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
299. From the absolute free will of the Devil
(Father) to the absolute natural determinism of God (Holy Spirit) via the relative
free will of man (Christ) and the relative natural determinism of woman
(Mother).
300. From the absolute free antiwill
of the Antidevil (Satan) to the absolute antinatural determinism of Antigod
(Jehovah) via the relative free antiwill of antiman (Antichrist) and the relative antinatural
determinism of antiwoman (Antimother).
