51. Although
Western societies tend to be rooted in autocracy, not all countries share the
same bias. For it is clear that while
some, like Britain, have an autocratic bias, others, like Ireland, a theocratic
bias, and still others, like France, profess to a bias for democracy. This means that while
52. If
I were asked to define sexuality in relation to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, or the historical periods thereof, I would have no hesitation in
ascribing a horizontal bias to sexuality within the context of the Father,
whether autocratically, democratically, or theocratically;
a seated bias to sexuality within the context of the Son, whether autocratically,
democratically, or theocratically; and a vertical
bias to sexuality within the context of the Holy Ghost, whether autocratically,
democratically, or theocratically. Since the autocratic tends to be masturbatory
and the theocratic voyeuristic, the democratic may be ascribed a coital status
within a broadly heterosexual framework, in contrast to the coital status of
bureaucratic sex, or sex within basically worldly terms, which is homosexual on
both feminine (lesbian) and masculine (gay) terms, albeit the former tends to
predominate within the bureaucracy of the Father and the latter within the
bureaucracy of the Holy Ghost, whereas the bureaucracy of Christ would
indicate, in its bourgeois relativity, the likelihood of a balance between
lesbian and gay modes of homosexuality.
Now since my interest is more with the democratic modes of coital sex
than with the bureaucratic in this entry, I shall concentrate on
heterosexuality to the exclusion of homosexuality, and draw distinctions, over
and above the horizontal, seated, and vertical ones to which I have already
alluded, between the different approaches to coital heterosexuality. To begin with, there is what I would call the
right-wing approach to copulation between a man and a woman in which the man inserts
his penis into the woman's vagina from behind, the man being the sexually active, or aggressive, partner. Contrasted to which we shall find the
left-wing approach to heterosexual copulation in which the woman takes sexual
control of the man's penis with her back turned on him. In between these extreme democratic positions
we shall find the liberal, or centrist, positions of face-to-face
heterosexuality, with the man active in the right-liberal context but the woman
active in the left-liberal context, the possibility of simultaneous or
alternate sexual activity being reserved a centre-liberal status, as befitting
its balanced integrity. Hence from the
extreme right to the extreme left via a liberal compromise in between,
heterosexuality will be masculine-dominated on the Right, feminine-dominated on
the Left, and androgynous in the Centre.
However, whether these different approaches to heterosexuality are
conducted on a horizontal, a seated, or a vertical basis should depend, in my
view, on the type of democracy to which their participants relate and the
degree of their fidelity, consciously or unconsciously, to a class-conscious
identity; though I have no doubt that most people do not consciously draw
parallels between their sexual preferences and their politics. However that may be, it is my duty, as a
self-taught philosopher, to attempt to draw such parallels, if only to clarify
the matter in my own eyes and bring order to the possible chaos of choices and
options which, if not understood metaphysically, will remain merely physical,
without deeper meaning or significance.
Since we are men and not animals, it behoves us to ascribe meaning to
our acts and thus to lift them above the merely physical realm in which they
would otherwise languish, like soulless automata, to a realm where they may be
morally evaluated. Clearly then, since
horizontal heterosexuality appertains to the democracy of the Father, we have
no logical alternative but to ascribe a Conservative peer significance to
horizontal right-wing heterosexuality, a Labour peer significance to horizontal
left-wing heterosexuality, and a Liberal and/or Liberal-Democratic peer
significance to horizontal centrist heterosexuality, so that anyone who has
intercourse with the opposite sex in a horizontal position is effectively
having sex that finds its political parallel in the House of Lords and is
accordingly aristocratic. Compared to
which we shall find that, as seated heterosexuality appertains to the democracy
of Christ, we have no alternative but to ascribe a Conservative significance to
seated right-wing heterosexuality, a Labour significance to seated left-wing
heterosexuality, and a Liberal Democratic significance to seated centrist
heterosexuality, so that anyone who regularly has intercourse in a seated
position is effectively having sex that finds its political parallel in the
House of Commons, and is accordingly bourgeois.
After which we shall find that, since vertical heterosexuality
appertains to the democracy of the Holy Ghost, we have no alternative but to
ascribe a Social Democratic significance to vertical right-wing
heterosexuality, a Social Radical significance to vertical left-wing
heterosexuality, and a 'Social Liberal' significance to vertical centrist
heterosexuality, so that anyone who regularly has heterosexual intercourse in a
vertical position is effectively having sex that finds its political parallel
in the 'Social Democratic' parliaments of the former East-European Communist
countries, and is accordingly proletarian.
In fact, treating our aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian
distinctions economically, one could say that the heterosexuality of the Father
is effectively feudal, the heterosexuality of the Son effectively capitalist,
and the heterosexuality of the Holy Ghost effectively socialist, as relative to
the different class societies corresponding to each of the aforementioned
stages of civilized evolution. Therefore
it ought to be logically possible to infer that a person who considers himself
socialistic should prefer vertical heterosexuality to either of the other
kinds, whereas a capitalist ought logically to find seated heterosexuality more
congenial, etc. Once again, I would have
to doubt that total consistency between one's sexuality and politics was a matter
of principle for most people, who are less godlike than animalistic in their
comparative thoughtlessness. Only a
select few within each class or stage of Western civilization would strive
after such consistency, which is, after all, the mark of true civilization.
53. In
reference to the above, I should like to draw attention to the fact that, for
women, dresses and skirts can be either flounced, straight, or tapered, and
that a correlation can indeed be inferred to exist between flounced
dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Father; straight
dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Son; and tapered
dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Holy Ghost, so that what a
woman wears will inevitably tell one something about her class/civilized
allegiance and the type of heterosexuality to which she should relate and/or be
subjected. For the flounce, being
centrifugal, conveys a proton-biased significance commensurate with the
civilization/class of the Father, whereas the taper, being centripetal, conveys
an electron-biased significance commensurate with the civilization/class of the
Holy Ghost, and the straight, being neither centrifugal nor centripetal but
neutral, conveys a neutron significance commensurate
with the civilization/class of the Son.
Hence the nature of a woman's dress/skirt will reveal to the interested
male more than simply meets the eye, and she can be known accordingly. To my way of thinking, dresses are right wing
and skirts left wing, so that a woman who habitually dresses in one or the
other can be known in relation to either right- or left-wing politics and
should be treated accordingly, i.e. approached from either a right- or a
left-wing point of view. On the other
hand, a woman who regularly alternates between dresses and skirts is
effectively liberal, and should be regarded/sexually approached from a centrist
point of view, the exact approach depending on the nature of her clothing at
any given time. Hence the use of a dress
would entitle the male to take face-to-face sexual initiative, whereas the use
of a skirt would entitle the female to take such initiative within the
face-to-face parameters of liberal heterosexuality, irrespective of the class
stage to which the partners ordinarily relate.
A tapering dress and one is in the context of Social Democracy. A tapering skirt and one is in the context of
Social Radicalism. Some women will tend
to be one or the other, and should be treated accordingly, whereas others will
prefer to alternate between such dresses and skirts in response to a Social
Liberal persuasion which would indicate a preference for face-to-face
heterosexuality within the vertical context of the democracy of the Holy
Ghost. I needn't list the other class
stages or allegiances here, since what applies in this tapered context applies
no less in the flounced and straight contexts which precede it and are just as
subject to right- and left-wing options, as well as to a compromise between the
two. On the other hand, a woman is more
likely to transcend her gender in the electron-biased context of the Holy Ghost
than in the proton-biased context of the Father or in the proton/electron
oscillation of Christ, given the evolutionary pressures towards liberation
which particularly affect proletarian women these days.... Though
that is not to say that bourgeois and aristocratic women can't also seek
liberation from their gender in a theocratic alternative which will take the
form of trousers or jeans rather than, say, tights. For it should be apparent that flared,
straight, and tapered trousers, jeans, etc., will correspond no less to the
centrifugal, neutral, and centripetal alternatives of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost than in the case of dresses and skirts, and that a woman in
tapered jeans and/or tights can be said to have transcended her gender in a
much more radically centripetal, and hence theocratic, way than one who wears
flared pants or straight jeans, and thus corresponds to a theocratic complement
to the Father or to the Son, as the case may be. The 'woman' in tapered jeans is effectively
proletarian and corresponds to the theocracy of the Holy Ghost, which, being
the ultimate theocracy, is beyond gender, masculine as well as feminine, and
thus transcendental through and through.
However, much as there are women who have transcended their gender on a more or less permanent
basis, most women are as yet neither so liberated nor so radical as to prefer
pants of one description or another all of the time, and thus be effectively
above and beyond heterosexuality in a private voyeuristic sexuality of their
own. The majority still cling, if
intermittently, to skirts, if not to dresses as well, and are consequently
open, in worldly femininity, to heterosexual imposition by men.
54. Further
to my entry on drinks, both trinitarian and
bureaucratic, I should like to add a contention that water and spirits
correspond to the civilization/class of Jehovah, which is to say, the
alpha-of-alphas, with, for example, whisky corresponding to the theocracy,
democracy, and autocracy (in that devolutionary order) of Jehovah, but water
corresponding to the bureaucracy of Jehovah.
Thus, unlike wine, beer, and cola, whisky would correspond to the untransvaluated 'ancient world', as would water in relation
to fruit juices, milk, and milk shakes ... in that ascending, or evolutionary
order. Since the untransvaluated
civilization begins in theocracy and proceeds via a type of royalist democracy
to autocracy, it would seem feasible to contend that whisky in a box and/or jar
corresponds to the theocratic, whereas whisky in a bottle corresponds to the
autocratic, and whisky in a glass to the democratic ... so that we proceed from
a sort of can equivalent to bottles via glasses. Thus a small bottle of whisky in, say, a
cardboard box would correspond to the alpha theocratic ... which, unlike the
omega theocratic correspondence of, say, a can of cola, is fundamentally
centrifugal (and, hence, relative to bottles as opposed to cans), even if
appearances would suggest the contrary, as with the addition of a cardboard
box. For, of course, in relating alpha
theocracy to the Cosmos, we are obliged to accept that the central star of the
Galaxy, from which monotheistic alpha divinity would seem to have been
extrapolated, is still a star, despite its central position, and therefore
subject, like the other alpha stars of the Galaxy, to proton-proton
reactions. As to the bureaucracy of
Jehovah, the feminine drink of the world, water can be consumed via bottles or
cans, from a left- or a right-wing standpoint, as well as from the more
middle-ground position of glasses, except that the can will be closer to the
right-wing theocratic and the bottle closer to the left-wing autocratic, as
germane to the untransvaluated standing of Eastern
civilization. For whereas theocracy is
Left in the West, it is Right in the East, or 'ancient world', since theocracy
is everywhere the root condition. As
regards water, I include, besides ordinary drinking water, mineral and soda
water, as well as, to a lesser extent, cream soda.
55. Since
theocracy is Right in the 'ancient world', of which Islam is the most
conspicuous contemporary example, autocracy is comparatively Left, particularly
when, as in the case [formerly] of Sadam Hussein's
Iraq, it tends to liberalize Islamic society along relatively secular lines, a
tendency which can only be anathema to the hard-line clerical Right. In fact, the war between President Sadam's
56. Probably
the term 'Holy Ghost' is inadequate to define divinity on the level of the
omega-of-omegas, given its Christian relativity as the 'Third Person' of the
Blessed Trinity. If, as I have
contended, Jehovah/Allah and the Father are not really one-and-the-same but
indicative of an ancient/modern distinction between that which, as
Jehovah/Allah, was effectively extrapolated from the central star of the
Galaxy, and that which, as the Father, was partly extrapolated from the sun and
partly from pagan phallic precedent, so that we have a divine/diabolic -
worldly distinction relative to devolutionary and (at least in part)
evolutionary positions, the former wholly devolutionary and the latter
devolutionary in regard to the sun (diabolic alpha) but evolutionary in regard
to the phallus (worldly omega), then one would have no logical justification in
believing that the Holy Ghost was truly commensurate with superconscious
mind and thus effectively equivalent to the omega-of-omegas. On the contrary, it would appear to be the
nearest Western model to such a possibility and therefore inadequate for a
truly global civilization which, as the term suggests, will be neither Eastern
nor Western but beyond both the ancient East and the modern West in an omega
futurity of superconscious divinity, a divinity as
much omega as Jehovah/Allah is alpha.
This ultimate divinity, corresponding to superconscious
mind, could be described as pure spirit, superconsciousness,
or indeed the omega-of-omegas, and probably such a description would be closer
to Teilhard de Chardin's
'Omega Point' than the term 'Holy Ghost'.
For it seems to me that the Holy Ghost is less superconscious
mind per se than mind,
including thoughts and fantasies, and is therefore no less a Western definition
of omega divinity than the Father is, at any rate partly, a Western definition
of alpha divinity - assuming the terms 'alpha' and 'omega' really do have any
applicability here and we are not, rather, dealing with equally humanistic
definitions which, together with Christ, pertain to a co-existential 'Three in
One', the Father having bodily implications (with especial reference to the
phallus), the Son soulful implications (with especial reference to the heart),
and the Holy Ghost spiritual implications (with especial reference to the
mind), so that body, soul, and mind are equally acknowledged, within the
parameters of this Western civilization, on a co-existentially humanistic
basis, a basis which inevitably falls short or, depending on your standpoint,
fights shy of alpha and omega divine extremes, as relative to Jehovah/Allah on
the one hand, that of the ancient cosmic-oriented civilizations, and to some
as-yet-unarticulated superconscious divinity on the
other hand, that of the coming global civilization which will be completely
beyond both alpha and worldly alternatives ... in its own unequivocally
omega-oriented integrity. Clearly, trinitarian terminology would be no less irrelevant to this
future global civilization than Jehovah or Allah is irrelevant to the Christian
civilization of humanistic modernity.
This future global civilization will be as posterior to humanism as the
civilizations of the 'ancient world', and the
57. It
would seem that, in relation to the mind as described above, the subconscious
is no less anterior to the Holy Ghost than the superconscious
posterior to it. And yet, if the Father
is not solely a phallic extrapolation but was also extrapolated from the sun,
then we can argue in terms of an alpha definition to the extent that a solar
extrapolation is being inferred, which would suggest, contrary to the above,
that the Father can pertain to the subconscious to a degree - namely to the
degree of ordinary dreams as opposed to pure subconsciousness. Now if the Father can pertain to the
subconscious to a degree, then it seems not unlikely that the Holy Ghost can
pertain to the superconscious to a degree, and thus
be relatively omega orientated on lines, antithetical to dreams, which approximate
to the artificial visionary experience of, say, an LSD trip. Yet such a relative omega orientation would
fall no less short of pure superconsciousness, and
hence omega purism, than the relative alpha-oriented subconsciousness
of dreams falls short of pure subconsciousness, and
hence alpha purism, as germane to Allah/Jehovah, which may embrace those dreams
of exceptional clarity and significance.
Logically, I have of course been inconsistent to speak of the Father as
extrapolated from the sun on the one hand and from the phallus of pagan
precedent on the other; for the sun and the phallus are no more in parallel
alignment than would be the subconscious and the fiery core of the earth. It would be more consistently logical to
speak in terms of the Father either as an extrapolation from the sun and the
fiery core of the earth or as an extrapolation from the subconscious and the
phallus, since the former terms are no less cosmic than the latter are
humanistic, and one should aim for consistency in these matters if one is not
to be at cross-purposes with oneself.
Clearly, either the cosmic or the humanistic correlations will suffice
for such a theological extrapolation as the Father, though I fancy that the latter
will have more relevance to a specifically humanistic age and civilization than
the former, if only because they are indicative of a more evolved
viewpoint. Of course, some people would
question whether the Father, as indeed Christ and the Holy Ghost, need be
extrapolated from anywhere. But such
scepticism would fail to take cognizance of the fact that without some anterior
source from which to extrapolate theological postulates, such postulates would
lack both credibility and substance. In
fact, they would be no more than mere figments of the imagination, and you
cannot base a religion or religious observance on insubstantial figments! Unless there is a real correspondence to
cosmic and/or natural precedent, such postulates would be meaningless.
58. If
there is a parallel between the male orgasm and an active volcano, then we can
believe that that aspect of the Father which is a phallic extrapolation (from
pagan precedent) would have more relevance to the core of the earth than to
nature generally, and so much so that, diabolic asides notwithstanding, one
would have difficulty not associating the Mother (Blessed Virgin) with the
latter in view of its comparatively superficial, and hence apparent, standing
in relation to the masculine core - a standing which parallels that of the
vagina to the penis in heterosexual relations.
Hence 'Mother Nature' would indeed be confined to nature and not to the
rather more cosmic core of the earth, which, in its fiery essence, would seem
to have masculine connotations which make it logical to infer a phallic and, in
particular, scrotal extrapolation in regard to the male pudenda. Thus fiery core vis-à-vis nature as a
blueprint for scrotal phallus vis-à-vis vagina, and we may well believe that
where the phallus is in harmony with the heart in a loving partnership between
the two, its relationship to the vagina will be akin to that of the Father
towards the Son in a loving relationship with the Mother. Conversely, the absence of love from the
heart will reduce sexual relations between the phallus and the vagina, and thus
by implication men and women, to one of lust, and thereby signify a diabolic
rather than a divine situation in which, effectively, the Devil (rather than
the Father) is imposing upon the world, the fiery core upon nature ... without
reference to the moon and, hence, the loving Christ. Hence while the loving heart grants to the
scrotal phallus a subworldly divine standing in
relation to the Father, a sexually active phallus untempered
by love is simply subworldly on a diabolic basis -
the Devil as opposed to the Father, since lust, being cold-hearted, has no
connection with love and therefore no relationship of Father to Son, alias the
earth's core to the moon.
59. Just
as I discussed drinks in relation to the Trinity/Virgin and then returned to
the subject at a later juncture in order to fill-in the drinks relative, as I
saw it, to Jehovah and thus, by implication, the 'ancient world', viz. spirits
in relation to theocratic, democratic, and autocratic alternatives, but water
in relation to the bureaucratic position underneath, so I will now return to
the subject of sex and fill-in the sexuality relative to that world, with
particular reference to its 'democratic' manifestations on account of their
heterosexual nature. But before I do so
I must point out that the sartorial norm for women in the context in question
is of a wrap-around mode of attire akin to saris. Hence not only will the attire be ring-like
... to the extent that it is wrapped around the woman's body, but so too, I
contend, will the approach to heterosexuality, by which is meant that one or
both partner's legs will be wrapped around the other's body in a ring-like
manner, reflective of the centrifugal nature of alpha-stemming, fundamentalist
civilization. Hence for the right-wing
'democratic' approach to heterosexuality, the man will insert himself into the
woman from behind while holding her by the thighs in a roughly horizontal
position, the greater length of her legs thereby extending beyond his waist in
a loose ring-like formation. In the case
of the right-wing liberal position, however, the couple will be horizontally
face-to-face with the man on top but the legs of the woman wrapped around his
back, thereby establishing a ring-like impression. In the case of the left-wing liberal
position, by contrast, the woman will be on top and the man's legs will be
wrapped around her back. Finally, in the
left-wing 'democratic' approach to heterosexuality, the woman will have her
back turned on the man while his legs are wrapped around her stomach or even
the underside of her thighs if she has her legs drawn up and, as in the
left-liberal position, she will be the dominant partner. In all cases, however, the ring-like
connotation of legs wrapped around one's partner will indicate the
fundamentalist nature of this sexuality, which, so I contend, pertains to the
centrifugal civilization of the 'ancient world' and not to any of the stages -
Father, Son, or Holy Ghost - of Western civilization. As to theocratic and autocratic alternatives
to the 'democratic' sexuality discussed above, I would argue that wet dreams
pertain to the theocratic as the most alpha mode of voyeuristic sexuality,
whereas masturbatory stimulation of the penis by a woman's hand would
correspond to the devolutionary autocracy of oriental civilization, given the
autocratic nature of masturbatory sexuality and the probability of a woman's
involvement in view of the comparatively left-wing standing of autocracy in the
ancient Islamic and oriental world, a standing in marked contrast to the
right-wing theocracy, for example, of Islamic fundamentalism and its
alpha-oriented conservatism. Hence
involvement of the female in this autocratic mode of sexuality would confirm,
it seems to me, the leftwards drift of sexuality from female-dominated
intercourse to female-dominated masturbation.
In contrast, it should be noted, to Western masturbatory sexual
practices which, pertaining to an autocracy which is fundamentally alpha
instead of omega (and therefore right wing instead of left), will be solely a
male preserve, i.e. something indulged in by the male himself.
60. Broadly,
thus far, I have argued as follows: that heterosexuality is essentially a
democratic mode of sexuality which is flanked, as it were, by masturbatory and
voyeuristic extremes - the former autocratic and the latter theocratic, whilst
under this 'trinity' of sexual alternatives will be found the bureaucratic
sexuality of lesbians and/or gays, pretty much as the Virgin under the Trinity
- at least as far as lesbians are concerned.
Though with gays I would argue that the rather more liberal (than
Catholic) parallel of an Antivirgin under an Antitrinity would be the more relevant description, since
one is dealing less with the religious than with the secular, less with wavicles than with particles, and therefore less with love
than lust. Hence, for example, both the Antichristic and the Antivirginal
modes of heterosexuality and homosexuality, respectively, would be
comparatively diabolic because uninformed by love. Which is not to say that gays are invariably
loveless, any more than lesbians invariably love each other, but that
homosexuality is more often an expression of self-love than of love for another
person, the fiery core turned back upon itself in
defiance or rejection of nature. Yet
both the Virginal and Antivirginal manifestations of
homosexuality remain worldly or, rather, worldly in the case of lesbians
(nature) but subworldly in the case of gays (fiery
core), and hence modes of sexuality more appropriate to 'bodies' than to
'heads', which is to say to feminine bureaucrats rather than to masculine
autocrats, democrats, or theocrats. Now
in the case of the latter it will usually be found that voyeurism takes an oral
turn, since oral sex is the most voyeuristic mode of sexuality, whether the
vagina or the penis or, indeed, both at once be the focus of attention. As I see it, cunnilingus is relative to the
theocracy of the Father (the theocracy of Jehovah having more intimate
connections with wet dreams, as already discussed), and fellatio to both the
theocracy of the Son and the Holy Ghost, depending on the context. In the case of cunnilingus, it is as though
the sun rather than the core of the earth were imposing upon nature, a
voyeuristic imposition upon the Mother by a transcendent Father, whereas in the
case of fellatio it is as though the fiery core was being voyeuristically
imposed upon by a flaming nature, a voyeuristic imposition upon the subworldly Father by a transcendent Mother. However, in the case of homosexual fellatio
we are rather more in the context of the Holy Ghost, with a transcendent Father
voyeuristically imposing upon the fiery core of the earth. Yet lesbian and gay oral sex is less theocratic
than personally bureaucratic, or bureaucratic in a theocratic way, and should
not be equated with genuinely theocratic sex.
And even fellatio is less radically theocratic when indulged in by
couples of the same race than when mixed-race couples are involved. For whereas the one pertains to the Son, the
other pertains to the theocracy of the Holy Ghost and is therefore the most
radical mode of fellatio, a mode which contrasts with the ring-like voyeurism
of a cunnilingus/fellatio balance, as relative, so I contend, to the less
extreme form of alpha theocracy within the context of Eastern
civilization. But no less than a
balanced ring-like oral indulgence is less extreme than wet dreams, so
mixed-race fellatio is less extreme than gadget and/or video-induced phallic
stimulation, which may or may not result in orgasm. This is the omega-of-omegas in theocratic
sexual terms, the antithesis to wet dreams, and something which is effectively
beyond reference to Western theocracy (of the Holy Ghost) in a context of
sexual omega.
61. If
masturbation is broadly autocratic in relation to coitus on the one hand and to
oral sex on the other, then we still have to clarify the different class stages
of masturbation (no less than of coitus and oral sex formerly) ... on the basis
of a horizontal position for both ancient and modern aristocratic autocracies
(the former with female assistance and the latter without), a seated position
for bourgeois autocracy, and a standing position for proletarian autocracy,
bearing in mind the contentions already put forward in relation to both coitus
and oral sex. A man who masturbates
himself while lying down would suggest, irrespective of his perceived class, a
sexual affinity with the autocracy of the Father and thus, by implication, Royalism. A man who
masturbates himself while seated in a chair and/or kneeling down would suggest
a sexual affinity with the autocracy of Christ and thus, by implication,
Parliamentarianism (Cromwell). A man who
masturbates himself while standing up would suggest a sexual affinity with the
autocracy of the Holy Ghost and thus, by implication, Communism. In each case, however, the centrifugal nature
of his sexuality would confirm an autocratic bias, though it is more likely
that the stimulus employed would differ as we progressed, as it were, from
aristocratic naturalism to proletarian idealism via bourgeois materialism, the
erotic stimulus becoming more artificial the higher the class stage of
masturbation, so that whereas the man who prefers to masturbate while lying
down would probably rely on fantasy to stimulate his masturbation, the man who
habitually masturbates while standing up will more than likely rely on
pornographic images of the sort to be found in men's magazines. Whether the man in between, the seated and/or
kneeling one, would prefer to avail himself of the
assistance of pornographic writings and/or drawings in books ... is perhaps a
moot point. Though it does seem the most
likely alternative, in view of the bourgeois status of seated masturbation and
the inevitable corollary with books that leaps to mind whenever bourgeois
criteria are under discussion. However
that may be, we need not doubt that the masturbator is more a creature of
orgasmic heat than of voyeuristic light, and that, no matter what the
superficial stimulus may happen to be, his primary motivation for masturbating
is to experience the thrill of orgasm within the fiery context of an autocratic
bent. In this respect, he is the
antithesis of the voyeur, whose principal motivation for having oral sex is the
voyeuristic thrill of looking at his partner's face and/or scrutinizing her sex
at close range, as the case may be. Yet
more extreme than either the orgasmic masturbator or the oral voyeur is the
theocratic contemplative who, whether in the naturalistic context of erotic
dreams or in the artificial context of erotic videos, allows himself to be
stimulated by the erotic spectacle alone, without reference to masturbatory or
oral means. Such men, relative to the
alpha and omega of theocratic sexuality, are above the body, and thus relate to
the mind, whether anterior or posterior to the flesh.
62. It
should be possible to distinguish between American-style baseball caps with
emblem and those with logo on the front on the basis of a perceptual/conceptual
dichotomy, and to accord to the former a Social Democratic status while
reserving for the latter a Social Radical one, since it seems to me that these
peaked caps are broadly democratic in terms of the democracy of the Holy Ghost,
i.e. Social Democracy, and therefore correspond to a proletarian middle-ground
in between 'autocratic' collapsibles and 'theocratic'
hoods, the former communistic on account of their centrifugal construction and
the latter transcendentalist on account of their centripetal construction - at least
within the recognizably proletarian context of waist-length zipper
jackets. Yet if emblematic baseball caps
are right wing and logo-sporting ones left wing within broadly democratic
terms, then it seems to me that those peaked caps which have neither emblem nor
logo on the front are centrist and thus effectively Social Liberal. Hence one can distinguish between Social
Democratic, Social Liberal, and Social Radical caps, which are rivalled by
collapsible umbrellas and fold-in hoods ... on the autocratic and theocratic
flanks of proletarian civilization, the civilization, I need hardly stress, of
the Holy Ghost. Beneath this 'trinity',
however, we shall find the bureaucracy of the Holy Ghost, and that those who relate
more to bureaucracy than to autocracy, democracy, or theocracy will generally
prefer not to wear headgear and/or protect their heads from the rain, being, by
nature, more bodily than of the head.
63. A
generic definition of Communism would be Social Autocracy, thereby bringing it
into line with notions of Social Democracy and Social Theocracy in the
autocracy, democracy, and theocracy, respectively, of the Holy Ghost. In contrast to which we of course have the
liberal, or capitalist, autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the Son, viz., in
England, Cromwellian autocracy, parliamentary
democracy, and Puritan theocracy, not to mention the royalist, or feudal,
autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the Father, viz., in England, monarchic
autocracy, peerist democracy (the House of Lords
being the focal-point of this democracy), and Anglican/Catholic theocracy. Hence three stages of Western society with
their trinitarian subdivisions - stages which can be
regarded from a variety of angles, such as, for example, feudal, capitalist,
and socialist (economic); aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian (social
class); royalist, liberal, and communist (political); the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost (religious); body, soul, and mind (physical/metaphysical);
protons, neutrons, and electrons (elemental); realism, materialism, and
idealism (ideological); beauty, goodness, and truth (moral). Such definitions, however, exclude the
theocracy-democracy-autocracy divisions of traditional oriental civilization,
which are rather more naturalistic, and hence cosmic orientated, than worldly
or humanistic.
64. There seems to be a sense in which each decade aspires to
reflecting a different ideological tendency, be it naturalistic, realistic,
materialistic, or idealistic. Thus, for example, the idealistic 1950s (time of anti-Communist
witch hunts and sci-fi films), but the naturalistic 1960s (time of hippy
paganism and left-wing subversion).
Contrasted to which the 1970s (with their grim strikes and class
struggles) may well appear realistic, and the 1980s (time of Thatcherite enterprise culture) comparatively
materialistic. In which case, we need
not doubt that, like the '50s, the 1990s were an idealistic decade (the decade
of the collapse of Communism and affirmation of spiritual values). In fact, if decades do follow a sort of
naturalistic-realistic-materialistic-idealistic progression, then we could draw
up a list stretching back into the nineteenth century and forwards into the
twenty-first century, as follows: naturalistic 1880s, realistic 1890s, materialistic
1900s, idealistic 1910s; naturalistic 1920s, realistic 1930s, materialistic
1940s, idealistic 1950s; naturalistic 1960s, realistic 1970s, materialistic
1980s, idealistic 1990s; naturalistic 2000s, realistic 2010s, materialistic
2020s, idealistic 2030s, and so on.
65. The philosopher, the ultimate type of writer because the
most idealistic, can only be 'king', in Plato's legendary sense, when society
itself is ready to make an accommodation with idealism, and hence
philosophy. So long as society is more
given to either naturalism, realism, or materialism, the dramatist, poet, and
novelist respectively will be 'king', in accordance with autocratic,
bureaucratic, and democratic criteria, which necessarily exclude or marginalize
the theocratic. For, ultimately, the
philosopher is theocratic, and if he is excluded in an age of drama, he will be
marginalized in an age of poetry or fiction.
Conversely, it is the dramatist who will be excluded in an age of
philosophy, and the poet and novelist marginalized, since idealism excludes
naturalism no less than naturalism excludes idealism, and therefore truth will
eclipse strength as literature, the most idealistic of the arts, comes properly
into its own on the most idealistic and hence philosophical terms. But if truth must ultimately eclipse
strength, neither beauty nor goodness can expect the same recognition or
standing as would have been theirs in a less idealistic age, an age, as we have
seen, of realism and materialism.
Philosophy is assuredly as much 'beyond good and evil' as the Holy
Spirit is beyond Christ. But it is also
above beauty and ugliness, and consequently antithetical to strength and
weakness. Alpha and omega cannot
co-exist, unlike, to some extent, the world and purgatory, poetry and fiction. Omega must triumph utterly over alpha if the
philosopher is truly to become 'king', and thus the most respected and beloved
of writers. Literally
the leader and teacher of the ultimate society.
66. When
true to itself literature has no other business than the pursuit of truth, the
meaning and purpose of life, and that literature which pursues the True most
truly and comprehensively is the ultimate literature - the philosophy of
philosophies, beyond which it is impossible to progress. That literature which, in novels, is more
concerned with the Good than the True, with love than joy, is inferior to this
ultimate literature, as, to a greater extent, is that literature which, in
poetry, is more concerned with beauty, and hence pleasure, or that literature
which, in drama, is more concerned with strength, and hence pride - the least
truth-oriented literature and therefore the least moral and idealistic form of
literary endeavour. No less than poetry
and fiction are polar on a realistic/materialistic
basis, so drama and philosophy would seem to be polar on a
naturalistic/idealistic basis - the former polarity equivalent to earth and
water, the latter polarity to fire and air.
Now in a society which is omega orientated, the less drama and the more
philosophy there will be ... in contrast to alpha-stemming societies, in which
drama takes precedence over philosophy, and therefore strength over truth. The writer who affirms both drama and
philosophy is neither fish nor fowl but a kind of amoral paradox who seemingly
swings between alpha and omega extremes, and probably in such a fashion as to
do justice neither to the one nor to the other.
Similarly the man who swings between fictional and poetic extremes,
purgatorial materialism and worldly realism, is neither fish nor fowl,
Protestant nor Catholic, but a kind of paradoxical combination of the two, who
may well be less of a poet or more of a novelist than he imagines himself to
be. For one can no more serve goodness
and beauty, love and pleasure, equally than ... serve strength and truth, pride
and joy. Ethics is a Protestant concern,
aesthetics a Catholic one, and in this polarity lies
all the difference between Christ and the Blessed Virgin. Of course, fiction and poetry can also deal
primarily with evil and ugliness, just as drama and philosophy can be primarily
concerned with weakness and illusion, though these negative forms of the
literary arts will be less literary than anti-literary and, hence, decadent
and/or bogus, as relative to those who pertain not to the wavicle
but to the particle aspect of any given atomicity, and may thus be identified,
in theological parlance, with a fall from (wavicle)
grace. Such 'antiliterature'
is rather more characteristic of a secular than of a religious age, of 'the Civilization'
as opposed to 'the Culture', to revert to Spengler
again, and will therefore be more at home within the particle confines of
journalistic media, including newspapers and magazines, than within the wavicle confines of literary media, such as paperbacks and
hardbacks, irrespective of the fact that books are often subverted by material
of an anti-literary nature, which, in relation to journalistic media, would
seem to indicate an intrinsic as opposed to an extrinsic form of decadence, the
subversion of 'the Culture' rather than the outright philistinism of 'the
Civilization', which, contrary to what
that term may suggest, is rather more barbarous than civilized, given its
particle bias.
67. It
is not that realism is biased towards the particle and materialism biased
towards the wavicle, since both realism and
materialism can be either religious or secular, Catholic/ Protestant or
Liberal/Republican, as, of course, can naturalism and idealism, paganism and
transcendentalism, alpha and omega of pre- and post-Western civilizations. Beauty and goodness, appertaining to realism
and to materialism respectively, are biased towards the wavicle,
whereas ugliness and evil, their negative concomitants, are biased towards the
particle. Therefore while pleasure is
the essence of Catholicism and love the essence of Protestantism, ugliness is
the appearance of Liberalism and evil the appearance of Republicanism. For no more do wavicles
have a primary appearance than particles a primary essence, and it would be no
less contradictory to speak of the will of Liberalism than ... the body of
Catholicism or the soul of Republicanism than ... the heart of Puritanism. With wavicles the
essence is primary and the appearance secondary - pleasure before beauty, love
before goodness, whereas with particles the appearance is primary and the
essence secondary - ugliness before pain, evil before hate. We can no more judge
a book (essential) by its cover (appearance) than a magazine (appearance) by
its contents (essence). In the case of wavicle realism, the essence takes precedence over the
appearance - say, pleasure over beauty in a volume of poetry (not antipoetry). In the
case of particle realism, however, the appearance takes precedence over the
essence - say, ugliness over pain in a liberal magazine. We read for pleasure (or love, pride,
joy). We look for ugliness (or evil,
weakness, illusion). Hence
pleasure before beauty, but ugliness before pain; love before goodness, but
evil before hate; pride before strength, but weakness before humiliation; joy
before truth, but illusion before woe.
68. The
essence of wavicles conditions their appearance. The appearance of particles conditions their
essence. Wavicles
- and, by extrapolation, wavicle-biased people - have
the grace of the Elect. Particles - and,
by extrapolation, particle-biased people - have the shame of the Fallen. The former, within their respective contexts,
are saved, the latter ... damned. The
most saved are the joyful and the least saved the proud. The most damned are the weak and the least
damned the illusory. The others are
saved and damned somewhere in between.
69. If
strength/pride is the characteristic expression of rock music, particularly
hard rock, then it would seem that rock is alpha, and hence autocratic. If truth/joy is the characteristic expression
of jazz music, particularly modern jazz, then it would seem that jazz is omega,
and hence theocratic. If goodness/love
is the characteristic expression of soul music, then it would seem that soul is
lunar, and hence democratic. If
beauty/pleasure is the characteristic expression of pop music, then it would
seem that pop is worldly, and hence bureaucratic. Put theologically, one could argue that rock
is of the Father, soul of the Son, jazz of the Holy Ghost, and pop of the
Virgin Mary. One could also argue that,
instrumentally speaking, rock music is typified by drums, soul by keyboards,
jazz by wind, and pop by guitars, since drums correspond to fire, keyboards to
water, wind to air, and guitars to earth, and fire, water, air, and earth are
the respective elements of alpha, purgatory, omega, and the world, or, put more
bluntly and sweepingly, of the diabolic, the purgatorial, the divine, and the
mundane, always bearing in mind, however, that wavicle/particle
distinctions do exist within each category which are more symptomatic of
positive and negative alternatives. Thus
it could be argued that punk is more literally particle orientated, and hence
diabolic, than rock, just as rap is more particle orientated than soul, blues
more particle orientated than jazz, and funk more particle orientated than pop,
so that we have anti-manifestations of their respective contexts which testify
to a fallen status analogous to, though not necessarily commensurate with, the
secular and diabolic. Of course, we also
have in-between contexts, like soft rock in between hard rock and soul, rhythm
'n' blues in between soul and jazz, heavy metal in between punk and rap, house
in between rap and blues, reggae in between pop and soul, hip-hop in between
funk and rap, which somewhat complexify the issue and
suggest that whether the spectrum be wavicle or
particle, the axis vertical or horizontal, intermediate musical forms also have
to be taken into account and accorded their ideological or moral dues. Yet it would seem that, broadly, rock is
strength orientated, and therefore autocratic; soul goodness orientated, and
therefore democratic; jazz truth orientated, and therefore theocratic; and pop
beauty orientated, and therefore bureaucratic.
Put in diagrammatic form, this would indicate, contrary to my previous
speculations, that rock was alpha and soul purgatorial, with pop and jazz
staying in their respective worldly and omega positions, as follows:-
ROCK/SOUL/JAZZ
(strength/pride)(goodness/love)(truth/joy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
POP
(beauty/pleasure)
with the particle (as opposed to wavicle) complementary forms listed in similar fashion, viz:-
PUNK/RAP/BLUES
(weakness/humiliation)(evil/hate)(illusion/woe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUNK
(ugliness/pain)
Should I be nearer the truth now, with
regard to this particular subject, it could be that I can at last lay it to
rest and conclude by saying that soul and pop are no less antithetical on a
vertical axis than rock and jazz on a horizontal one, with soul being every bit
as superior to pop as love to pleasure, or goodness to beauty, and jazz being
every bit as superior to rock as joy to pride, or truth to strength.
70. From
the external apparent (the Father, naturalism, 'Historyless
Chaos') to the external essential (the Blessed Virgin, realism, 'the Culture')
on the one hand, and from the internal apparent (Christ, materialism, 'the
Civilization') to the internal essential (the Holy Spirit, idealism, 'Second
Religiousness') on the other hand. Such,
it would seem, is the course of evolution, which progresses from strength to
beauty on the one hand (that of the external apparent and essential), and from
goodness to truth on the other hand (that of the internal apparent and
essential), with emblematic implications of the superstar and star in the cases
of strength and beauty, but of the cross and supercross
in the cases of goodness and truth. Put
in terms of literary genres, it would seem that this evolution reflects a
progression from drama to poetry on the one side (that of the superstar and
star), but from narrative literature (fiction) to philosophy on the other side
(that of the cross and supercross), so that drama and
philosophy are polarized along an axis with the Father as its alpha and the
Holy Spirit as its omega - strength and truth, the superstar and the supercross.
71. If
the sixteenth century was an age of drama par excellence (Shakespeare), then it would seem logical
to describe the seventeenth century as an age of poetry (Milton), the
eighteenth century as an age of fiction (Swift), and the nineteenth century as
an age of philosophy (Marx). For the
twentieth century was most emphatically an age of film, and hence celluloid
drama, and thereby resembled the sixteenth century - the first Elizabethan
age. Probably the twelfth century was
also, comparatively speaking, an age of drama ... as regards the enactment of
medieval masks, nativity plays, etc., with the thirteenth century being an age of
poetry (Chaucer), the fourteenth century an age of narrative literature (Boccaccio), and the fifteenth century an age of philosophy
(Medieval scholasticism). Would it be
stretching the imagination too far, I wonder, to contend that, the twentieth
century being an age of film and hence artificial drama, the twenty-first
century will be an age of poetry, the twenty-second century an age of fiction,
and the twenty-third century an age of philosophy, albeit on equally
artificial, or synthetic, terms? Only time
will tell!
72. To
speak of theism, deism, and atheism in a trinitarian
light, viz. theism of the Father, deism of the Son, and atheism of the Holy
Spirit, so that the Father is identified with Creation, the Son with a
personalized non-revelationary deity, and the Holy
Spirit with an atheistic rejection of theism and deism in the name of
self-realization - internal essence at the expense of (the worship of) external
and internal appearances, superstar and cross.
73. Rock
being the alpha and jazz the omega of contemporary music (supermusic),
one can logically speak of rock superstars, pop stars, soul crosses, and jazz supercrosses (not of soul stars and jazz stars), with an
absolutist implication to both rock and jazz, but a relativistic implication to
pop and soul, which are rather more worldly and lunar respectively. Likewise, one could also speak, if rather slangfully, of rock 'supercunts',
pop 'cunts', soul 'pricks', and jazz 'superpricks', though the use of the prefixes in relation to
the alpha and omega of contemporary music carries an ideological
(autocratic/theocratic) implication rather than a sexual one, having less to do
with a distinction between (good) males and (beautiful) females than between
centrifugal and centripetal antitheses (strength and truth). In a sense, this reflects the head/body
dichotomy relative to the 'super' and 'worldly' alternatives.
74. Just
as there is a perceptual/conceptual distinction in literature between oral and
literate traditions, the former uncivilized and the latter civilized, so this
distinction can be found in music, with 'civilized' music being read from
scores and 'uncivilized' music simply made up and played by ear - the former
conceptual and the latter perceptual. For until and unless music is conceptualized through symbolic
representation, it is not civilized but ... popular, populist, uncivilized. Traditionally, conceptual music, otherwise
definable as 'classical', is on a par with literary books, whereas perceptual
music, otherwise definable as 'pop', is on a par with films, so that one has a
kind of bourgeois/proletarian distinction.
Increasingly, in the future, conceptual music will be on a par with
computer discs used for literary purposes, since its conceptualization will
take the form of computers rather than music scores, and it will have grown out
of and overhauled pop music (just as classical music grew out of folk
music). Hence a sort
of civilized proletarian music with 'superclassical'
implications ... reminiscent of Jean-Michel Jarre in
the late-twentieth century.
75. The conceptualization of music not only has the effect of
centralizing it in symbolic representation, but also of elevating it from the
aural to the optical, as from heat to light, alpha to omega, and thus rendering
it truly civilized. It is in and through
conceptualization that, like literature, music is 'divinized', i.e. elevated
above the diabolic alpha of a purely aural heat. Not only is it given a centripetal focus, it
is simultaneously eternalized through a symbolic representation which is
optically accessible to all or, at any rate, to those who can read music. If folk music is uncivilized because purely
aural, then classical is civilized because elevated to the optical. If pop is uncivilized because purely aural,
then what may be termed superclassical is civilized
because elevated to the optical. In
fact, music availing itself of computerized scores would be 'supercivilized', in view of the connection between
computers and electricity, a sort of artificial rather than naturalistic
conceptualization which manifests through the medium of computer light. Hence while pop is artificial, or electric,
in relation to folk, superclassical will be
artificial, or electronic, in relation to classical, and we may hold that while
folk and classical appertain to Christic naturalism,
pop and superclassical appertain to transcendental
supernaturalism, effectively being aligned with the Holy Spirit, whether
autocratically (as in pop), democratically (as in pop/superclassical),
or theocratically (as in superclassical),
in which third context it is at an optical-light remove from aural heat and,
hence, truly civilized or, what amounts to the same thing, saved. Probably the music of Jean-Michel Jarre pertains more to the democratic pop/superclassical compromise than to theocratic superclassicism, given its accommodation of drums, bass
guitar, occasional electric guitar, etc. which are the sort of instruments more
prevalent in pop (using that term in its widest, most generalized sense). A truly theocratic superclassicism
would, one feels, be beyond any such compromise with alpha-stemming reactive
instruments, i.e. instruments that are plucked, banged, etc., and to such an
extent of being wholly synthesized and computerized, with percussion and rhythm
electronically generated, in civilized autonomy.
