Contrasting Heat with Light in Sensuality and Sensibility. Aldous Huxley would write of being beyond time in timeless bliss, and one thought he was on to truth but, in reality, nothing could have been further from the case!  For eternity is the context of time par excellence, and therefore in metaphysics, as in godliness, one is beyond space in the timefulness of eternal bliss.  With space, on the other hand, it is more a case of being behind time in timeless bliss or, more correctly, love, which, like beauty, owes nothing to God and everything to the Devil, which is to say, to Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father), pretty much like the Cosmos hyped as Universal or, in elemental terms, metachemistry hyped as metaphysics.  Huxley was simply an Anglican Englishman who 'went to the dogs', as they say, of netherworldly fundamentalism and materialism, specifically with regard to a kind of Hindu (rather than Judaic) take on such Eastern things.  For he also wrote of the Clear Light of the Void as though it were commensurate with God or, at any rate, godliness, the 'Ground' behind all appearances, etc.  But is there really any such thing as the Clear Light?  I don't think so.  What one has, in stellar metachemistry, is the Clear Heat of the Void, and therefore such a term as Clear Heat would be commensurate not with God but with Devil the Mother hyped as God in metachemical back of everything ... antimetaphysical and, hence, to be associated with antilight, the Unholy Light, of our proverbial 'fall guy' for diabolic denigration who, in antitruth, is less devilish than antigodly.  Hence what hangs together at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass are metachemistry and antimetaphysics, viz. the Devil and the Antigod or, in other words, the Clear Heat and the Unholy Light, the former absolutely female and the latter absolutely antimale.  But this is the noumenal sensuality and noumenal antisensibility of Vanity Fair and the Anti-Celestial City.  It has no bearing on the converse of itself in anything approximating to the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair at the northeast point of the said compass.  On the contrary, such positions would correspond to God and the Antidevil, being metaphysical and antimetachemical, and one would have a right to equate them with the Holy Light and the antiheat of what can be called the Unclear Heat, the former absolutely male in its noumenal sensibility and the latter no less absolutely antifemale in its noumenal antisensuality, a sort of secondary sensibility which is less subjective than anti-objective in character.  So far from the Clear Light having anything to do with God or godliness or metaphysics, it is not even antigodly, but a misnomer which has no bearing on anything whatsoever!  For that which is of the Light is either unholy in antilight subjection to the clear heat of metachemical primacy or, across the axial divide, holy in the metaphysical supremacy of a noumenal sensibility that prevails over - and at the expense of - the antiprimacy, as it were, of the Unclear Heat, the antiheat of antimetachemistry.  The Unholy Light is anti-eternal in its subjection to the clear-heat infinity of spatial space, being, by definition, the antitime of sequential time.  By complete noumenal contrast, the Unclear Heat is anti-infinite in its subjection to the holy-light eternity of repetitive time, being, by definition, the antispace of spaced space.  For where Space and Time are concerned, nothing could be more categorically indicative of a distinction between the Devil and God, alpha and omega, than Heat and Light, Fire and Air.  And that is a distinction, on overall noumenal terms, between the Clear Heat and the Unholy Light with regard to metachemistry and antimetaphysics, Spatial Space and Sequential Time, and between the Holy Spirit and the Unclear Heat with regard to metaphysics and antimetachemistry, Repetitive Time and Spaced Space.  Either Heat gets the better of Antilight, as the Devil of Antigod, or Light gets the better of Antiheat, as God of the Antidevil.  Similar criteria apply, on a phenomenal basis, to motion and force within the framework of volume and mass, but that is another subject and one which need not concern us here except in passing.  Suffice it to say that as in 'the above' so, to a moderate extent, in 'the below', where the generality of men and women are concerned, clearness and unholiness on the one hand and holiness and unclearness on the other being relative rather than absolute and therefore always to be thought of within the phenomenal contexts of the southwest or southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass where either volume prevails over antimass, as clear motion over unholy force (antiforce) or, in sensible contrast, mass prevails over antivolume, as holy force over unclear motion (antimotion), each equivocal hegemonic position subject as before, however, to emphatic subversion from either soma to psyche or psyche to soma at the hands of its subordinate gender counterpart in polar relation to the unequivocal hegemonic position of the noumenal 'above', be it metaphysical (over antimetachemical) in the case of antiphysics (under chemistry) or metachemical (over antimetaphysical) in the case of antichemistry (under physics), as described elsewhere.

LONDON 2006 (Revised 2012)

Preview OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM eBook