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).
