The
Incompatibility of Beauty and Truth. Some say that beauty is
truth and truth beauty, but they couldn't be more wrong. Beauty and love, which
hang together like will and spirit in metachemistry,
are a product of noumenally objective appearances,
whereas truth and joy, which hang together like ego and soul in metaphysics,
are the product of noumenally subjective essences.
Thus there is all the difference between alpha and omega, appearance and
essence, between beauty and truth, love and joy, and incompatible they remain.
Either you defer to the outer heat of metachemical
free soma or, in rejecting it, you cultivate the inner light of metaphysical
free psyche. The one is absolutely female, the other absolutely male. Outer
heat is as incompatible with inner light as spatial space with repetitive time,
for space and time are absolutely antithetical, like alpha and omega. But outer
heat can rule the outer mode of time, which I call antitime,
and equate with an antimetaphysical subjection to the
spatial space of metachemistry which takes the form
of sequential time. Contrariwise, inner light can rule ('lead' would probably
be too soft a term here, at least in relation to gender differentials) the
inner mode of space, which I call antispace, and
equate with an antimetachemical subjection to the
repetitive time of metaphysics which takes the form of spaced space. Either
females get the better of males, who become antimale,
or males the better of females, who become antifemale.
Yet to the truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical
antimale, beauty may well seem like truth, for it is
what rules him and keeps him in subjection to its metachemical
appearance. Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, truth may well seem
like beauty to the beauty-rejecting female, the antimetachemical
antifemale, since it is what rules over her and keeps
her in subjection to its metaphysical essence. Lacking truth proper, which is
inner, the antimetaphysical antimale
may well project his sense of truth onto beauty and convince himself that
beauty is truth. Lacking beauty proper, which is outer, the antimetachemical
antifemale may well project her sense of beauty onto
truth and convince herself that truth is beauty. Neither one of them is
correct. There is no more any such thing as outer truth than there is inner
beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer. The worship of beauty is
only possible because of the absence of truth, while, conversely, the worship
of truth is only possible because of the absence of beauty. It is the absence
of truth from the antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical
beauty possible to them and the absence of beauty from the antimetachemical
antifemales, conversely, that makes the worship of
metaphysical truth possible to them,
albeit in both cases the worship of the ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not to
be equated with that factor as such, but is only a symptom of subjection.
Beauty does not worship itself but projects itself objectively as a metachemical expression of spatial space, which is the
appearance of outer heat. Neither does truth worship itself because, being
intensely subjective, it is a metaphysical impression of repetitive time, which
is the essence of inner light. Space and time are as incompatible as appearance
and essence, and therefore beauty is never truth nor truth ever beauty. Beauty
rules over the antitruth want of truth as space over antitime, spatial appearance over sequential anti-essence,
while, conversely, truth rules over the antibeauty
want of beauty as time over antispace, repetitive
essence over spaced anti-appearance. Either the noumenally
objective heat of metachemistry rules over the noumenally antisubjective antilight of antimetaphysics as
Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial City or, across the upper-order planes of what
is an axial divide, the noumenally subjective light
of metaphysics rules over the noumenally
anti-objective antiheat of antimetachemistry
as the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair. You can't have it both ways, for
you cannot be simultaneously superheathen and/or
anti-superchristian and superchristian
and/or anti-superheathen. Yet the latter is much
harder, much more difficult, of attainment than the former, which is everywhere
the alpha rather than the omega of civilization and therefore that which is
most basic and, at certain epochs (of which the present is a case in point), by
far the more prevalent. In fact, so much is this now the case that one
might well consider truth (as a precondition of joy) to be 'beyond the pale'
and, to all intents and purposes, extraneous to contemporary
civilization. For it is beauty and the worship of beauty which rules the
roost, as it were, and keeps people in subjection to appearances and, hence, to
the female domination of society. The struggle for truth is there to be
waged, but it will be a long and complicated struggle which only a select few,
identifying with metaphysics, will be able to wage. For the enemy, for
them, is not strength principally, nor even knowledge, but beauty, and therefore
all that, being apparent, is most contrary to essence. Hitherto this has
been equated with God but, in truth, it is the very devil, the devil not of
Satan or any other equivalent antigodly 'fall guy'
for sanctimonious denigration from the spatial 'on high', but of that metachemical 'first mover' which is Devil the Mother hyped
as God and the ruler, in consequence, of those antigodly
antisons - and hence antichrists - whose want of
metaphysical truth keeps them as much in somatic subjection to the twin evils
of beauty and love as their antifatherly counterparts
in psychic subjection to the twin crimes of ugliness and hate, crimes which
issue from the psychic binding of the Daughter of the Devil to the somatic
freedom of Devil the Mother, as of a noumenally
subordinate church to a noumenally hegemonic state,
the former of which negatively acquiesces, through fundamentalism, in the
materialistic liberties of the latter, whose positivity
is bounded only by the limits of its own somatic licence.
