76. Slaves
live to work, whereas freemen work to live.
In the twentieth century, the working class broadly pertained to the
former category, while the middle class broadly pertained to the latter one. There is also a sense in which living to play
is characteristic of the professional class (sportsmen, artists, etc.), while
playing to live is characteristic of the leisure, or upper class - the former superslaves and the latter superfreemen. Hence work/play distinctions between, on the
one hand, the working and middle classes, and, on the other hand, the
professional and leisure classes - the former given to work (for whatever
reasons), and the latter given to play (for whatever reasons). In fact, this work/play dichotomy is essentially
one between naturalism and realism on the one hand (that of the working and
middle classes), and between materialism and idealism on the other hand (that
of the professional and leisure classes), so that we have a kind of progression
from alpha naturalism to worldly realism (as from autocracy to bureaucracy) in
the former case, and a progression from purgatorial materialism to omega
idealism (as from democracy to theocracy) in the latter case, as in the
following diagram:-
WORKING
CLASS/PROFESSIONAL CLASS/LEISURE CLASS
(autocracy)(democracy)(theocracy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIDDLE
CLASS
(bureaucracy)
with all the usual elemental
implications. Stars and crosses, whether
super or straight, on both wavicle and particle
levels through successive class stages, viz. aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian,
within broadly trinitarian categories.
77. Socialism
stands to Communism as an economic system to an ideological one, which is to
say in a bureaucratic context vis-à-vis autocratic, democratic, and theocratic
alternatives above ... in the masculine contexts of trinitarian
transcendentalism. Thus Socialism, being
economic, is feminine and, in a narrow sense, 'worldly', with 'bodily' as
opposed to 'head' implications ... such that accrue to science, politics, and
religion, the autocratic, democratic, and theocratic norms. Likewise, Capitalism is feminine in relation
to Liberalism ... in each of its ideological manifestations, and so is
Feudalism in relation to Royalism, whether
autocratic, democratic, or theocratic, since, like Socialism, Capitalism and
Feudalism are overwhelmingly economic definitions, and can only be properly
understood within a largely bureaucratic context.... This is equally true of
Agrarianism, except that, unlike Feudalism, it pertains to the alpha-stemming
civilization of the ‘ancient world’ and thus stands in an economic relationship
to ideological Fundamentalism, whether theocratic, democratic, or
autocratic. Hence one might speak of a
devolutionary regression from Agrarianism/Fundamentalism to Feudalism/Royalism on the one hand, and of an evolutionary
progression from Capitalism/Liberalism to Socialism/Communism on the other
hand, a regression from naturalistic economic and ideological collectivism to
naturalistic economic and ideological individualism in the one case, and a
progression from artificial economic and ideological individualism to
artificial economic and ideological collectivism in the other case, as from
naturalism to realism, and from materialism to idealism. Which is equivalent, in Spenglerian
terms, to saying a regression from 'Historyless
Chaos' to 'the Culture' on the one hand, and a progression from 'the
Civilization' to 'Second Religiousness' on the other, as, indeed, from fire to
earth, and from water (the Age of Aquarius) to air ... in the rather more basic
elemental terms to which I have dedicated a not inconsiderable portion of my
mature philosophical quest. Thus
Agrarianism/Fundamentalism and Socialism/Communism are alike collectivist,
whereas both Feudalism/Royalism and
Capitalism/Liberalism are individualist - a distinction between unity and
diversity, co-operation and competition, the One and the Many. For, paradoxically, it is collectivism which,
in its aspirations towards unity, appertains to the One, whereas individualism,
with its competitive emphasis, relates to the Many. And so we can justly contend that the
naturalistic distinction between, for instance, agrarian collectivism and
feudal individualism is indeed commensurate with a devolutionary regression
from the One to the Many, just as the ensuing artificial distinction between,
for instance, capitalist individualism and socialist collectivism is no less
commensurate with an evolutionary progression from the Many to the One, from
economic competition between capitalistic individuals to economic co-operation
between socialistic collectives. Hence
whereas alpha and omega, whether economic (as above) or ideological, alike
pertain to the One, the realistic and materialistic contexts in between are of
the Many, and we can safely say that the return (evolution-wise) to the One can
only be achieved on the basis of proletarian collectivism, whether economically
or ideologically, and that this Oneness, in being omega rather than alpha, is
the goal and resolution of all historical unfolding, the ultimate unity of the
Holy Ghost which will put the apparent unity of the Creator considerably in the
economic/ideological shade.
78. It
could be argued that the naturalistic contexts of Agrarianism/Fundamentalism
and Feudalism/Royalism are barbarous or uncivilized
in relation to the artificial contexts of Capitalism/Liberalism and
Socialism/Communism, since we are dealing with a devolutionary regression on
the one hand, but with an evolutionary progression on the other hand. Yet it could also be argued - and with far
greater justification - that the contexts which pertain to the One, and hence
to collectivism rather than to individualism, are civilized in their
antithetical ways, whereas only the individualistic contexts of the Many, whether
Feudal/Royalist or Capitalist/Liberal, are uncivilized or barbarous, given
their competitive rather than co-operative essence. Hence one could not speak of a progression
from alpha barbarism to omega civilization, as if barbarism was inherently
naturalistic and civilization inherently artificial, but would have to
acknowledge that, like barbarism, civilization could be either natural or
artificial, and that the real criterion to apply here is the moral nature of
the society/age in question, i.e. whether primarily concerned with
collectivism, and hence co-operation, or with individualism, and hence
competition - the former making for unity and the latter for strife, that is to
say, for disunity, oppression, class war, inequality, etc. Therefore, if civilization is commensurate
with unity and, by contrast, barbarism with disunity, then it must be that the
Agrarian/Fundamentalist societies, for instance, of the ancient East were
civilized, and that the ensuing Feudal/Royalist and Capitalist/Liberal societies
of the modern West were comparatively barbarous, the former in natural terms
and the latter artificially (industrially) so.
Hence the return to civilization can only be pursued on the basis of
proletarian collectivism, and thus Socialism/Communism, so that unity and
co-operation once again prevail in the world and it accordingly attains to
salvation in the Oneness of the ultimate civilization, one as intensely
artificial as Agrarian/ Fundamentalist civilization was - and still remains -
naturalistic, but no less collective in its moral essence.
79. It
could be said that ancient civilization was snuffed out by modern barbarism,
and that this barbarism, now well-advanced in its artificial phase, corresponds
to what is broadly regarded as Western 'civilization', a 'civilization' rooted
in Feudalism/Royalism and having a Capitalist/Liberal
offshoot which has since dominated, both economically and ideologically, the
greater part of the world. Only since
the rise of Socialism/Communism has this so-called civilization regarded itself as being under threat, and accordingly done
everything in its not inconsiderable powers to defend its
competitive/individualistic integrity from co-operative/collective
alternatives. Yet a time must surely
come when the 'darkness' of Western barbarism will be eclipsed by the light of
ultimate civilization, and the world go forward in collective unity to its
divine destination in the Holy Spirit.
If the ancient light was outer, the ultimate
light is inner, and it will shine for ever.
80. Whereas
the collectivity of civilization liberates the
individual from his phenomenal individualism, the individuality of barbarism
enslaves him to it, and thus makes him a tool or component of the competitive
will. He is no longer free from his phenomenal
self in the interests of a noumenal salvation.
On the contrary, he is bound to his phenomenal self as the slave of an
individual employer or company. It is
thus that barbarism, as we have here defined it in relation to competitive
individualism, is by nature imperialist, and that we cannot conceive of a
barbarous society being other than imperialistic vis-à-vis civilized societies,
the oldest and most naturalistic of which will be its natural prey. For the phenomenality
of barbarism, its physical darkness, cannot be
reconciled with the noumenality of civilization, and
it will seek to snuff out the metaphysical light of civilization in the name of
its own material interests. Hence
Western so-called civilization, in both its Feudal/Royalist and Capitalist/Liberal
phases, could only be imperialist vis-à-vis the natural civilizations of the
Agrarian/Fundamentalist world, including, be it noted, the agrarian
collectivism of ancient Ireland, as first it invaded and then subjugated
natural civilization to its own barbarous will, the Feudal/Royalist barbarism
subsequently superseded by the more artificial Capitalist/Liberal barbarism, as
materialism came to replace realism in the course of phenomenal time. In Ireland, one might distinguish, in this
respect, between the early English imperialism, which was feudal, and the
subsequent Cromwellian invasion, which was capitalist
or, at any rate, which paved the way for the Capitalist/Liberal phase of
barbarism to follow. Hence while
barbarism is profoundly imperialistic, civilization is self-contained,
self-sufficient, and selfless to the degree that the phenomenal self is
subordinated to the noumenal one, which is universal and therefore only
possible in the collective. In fact,
civilization is both anterior and posterior to imperialism, and it has to be
said that in the formative phase of its artificial manifestation it is
anti-imperialist, which is to say, ranged against imperialism as against a foe
which has to be fought and vanquished, if the world is to become safe for
civilization and, indeed, become universally civilized. For only through a return to co-operative
collectivism can the light of civilization once more shine in the world, to
illuminate the spirit in its quest for noumenal resolution.
81. It
should be noted that whereas Roman Catholicism is matriarchal in its devotion
to and dependence on the Blessed Virgin, Eastern Orthodoxy is patriarchal and,
hence, more rooted in the Father, as a paternalistic deity who rules over the
world in his capacity as a sort of compromise between oriental Fundamentalism
and occidental Christianity. In fact,
Orthodoxy is the nearest thing to a Western fundamentalism, albeit one rooted,
as already noted, in the Father and thus, effectively, in a partly transvaluated creator deity who is far from being
commensurate with, say, Allah or Jehovah or any other manifestation of oriental
Fundamentalism. For whilst oriental
Fundamentalism pertains to the alpha, the divine source of cosmic strength,
Eastern Orthodoxy, in acknowledging Christ as the 'Son of God', is no less
susceptible to a fall from monotheistic objectivity than Roman Catholicism, and
is accordingly partly evolutionary in its accommodation of Christ, the Father
being partly derived from the earth's core/phallus of pagan precedent and
therefore not entirely centred in the Cosmos or, more specifically, in a solar
fall from stellar objectivity. Yet it is
this bias towards the Father, as opposed to the Blessed Virgin, or Mother,
which makes Eastern Orthodoxy more tolerant of priestly carnality than its
Catholic counterpart, which, focusing on the Blessed Virgin, puts a greater
emphasis on clerical celibacy. In this
respect, Eastern Orthodoxy resembles Protestantism in that, both the Father and
Son being masculine, if in different ways, there is less emphasis upon
virginity and consequently on the desirability of clerical celibacy than in
Roman Catholicism, which is the only Christianity of the world and thus the
only mode of Christianity with a feminine essence. Put ideologically, one could argue that
whereas Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are respectively 'autocratic' and
'democratic', Catholicism is 'bureaucratic', with Transcendentalism alone being
truly 'theocratic' on account of its unequivocal identification with the Holy
Spirit, as in the following diagram:-
'AUTOCRATIC'
EASTERN ORTHODOXY/'DEMOCRATIC' PROTESTANTISM/'THEOCRATIC' TRANSCENDENTALISM
(the Father)(the Son)(the Holy Ghost)
|
|
|
|
|
|
'BUREAUCRATIC'
CATHOLICISM
(the
Blessed Virgin)
where we move from the outer to the inner
via intermediate stages of worldly and purgatorial Christianity, and all within
the broadly dynamic framework of Western civilization, a civilization at an
evolutionary remove from oriental Fundamentalism and its cosmic objectivity in
regard to a monotheistic Creator, viz. Allah, Jehovah, etc. Hence whereas Eastern Orthodoxy is
fundamentalist in its bias towards the Father, it is far from being
fundamentalist in an oriental sense, and consequently appertains to the patriarchal
as opposed to matriarchal stage of a civilization which has evolved from the
Father to the Son via the Mother, and which should be capable of evolving from
the Son to the Holy Spirit, as from filial to transcendental stages in due
course, passing, as Social Theocracy becomes ever more transcendentalist, to a
position diametrically antithetical to that of oriental Fundamentalism, in
which it will be obliged to affirm its universality and seek the globalization
of Transcendentalism in the interests of a world civilization which transcends
both Eastern and Western, oriental and occidental, definition. Only when this ultimate civilization is
global will it be universal and thus neither Eastern nor Western, devolutionary
nor evolutionary, but transcendent.
82. In
the sense that we have characterized Eastern Orthodoxy as 'autocratic' on
account of its bias towards the Father, Catholicism as 'bureaucratic' on
account of its bias towards the Virgin Mary (the Mother), Protestantism as
'democratic' on account of its bias towards Christ (the Son), and
Transcendentalism or, as we could alternatively call it, Western Unorthodoxy as
'theocratic' on account of its bias towards the Holy Spirit, so nationalism, it
seems to me, can be divided into autocratic, bureaucratic, democratic, and
theocratic alternatives, with nationalism in the autocratic context broadly
classifiable as supernationalism, nationalism in the
bureaucratic context broadly classifiable as nationalism, nationalism in the
democratic context broadly classifiable as internationalism, and nationalism in
the theocratic context broadly classifiable as supra-nationalism, as in the
following diagram:-
AUTOCRATIC
SUPERNATIONALISM/DEMOCRATIC INTERNATIONALISM/THEOCRATIC SUPRA-NATIONALISM
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUREAUCRATIC
NATIONALISM
For it seems to me that whereas
bureaucracy is nationalist and democracy internationalist, autocracy is supernationalist and theocracy supra-nationalist - the
former pair worldly and purgatorial, the latter pair alpha and omega, contractive
and expansive, divergent and convergent.
Hence whether we are dealing with National Socialism or 'Socialism in
One Country', Nazism or Stalinism, we have supernationalist
positions rooted in autocracy, and such positions can only be at an alpha
remove from supra-national unity between omega-oriented theocratic societies,
which will be transcendentalist. In
between comes the nationalism and internationalism of bureaucratic and
democratic societies, the former generally Catholic (as in
83. The autocratic emphasis is strength, the bureaucratic
emphasis beauty, the democratic emphasis goodness, and the theocratic emphasis truth. Hence while supernationalism
and Eastern Orthodoxy will emphasize strength, supra-nationalism and
Transcendentalism will emphasize truth.
Whilst, in between the alpha and omega extremes, nationalism and
Catholicism will emphasize beauty, whereas internationalism and Protestantism
will emphasize goodness, as befitting their respective bureaucratic and
democratic essences. May I be so bold as
to suggest that while supernationalism is fascist
(including the 'Red Fascism' of Stalinism),
supra-nationalism is communist (in the true ideological sense of that
word)? Likewise, I find it difficult not
to believe that whereas nationalism is conservative, internationalism is
liberal, Liberalism being to democracy what Conservatism is to bureaucracy,
using the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' in a loosely political sense. Hence from Fascism to Conservatism on the one
hand, and from Liberalism to Communism on the other, a political parallel to
the progression from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism on the one hand, and from
Protestantism to Transcendentalism (Western Unorthodoxy) on the other hand -
the former under the star and the latter under the cross.
84. Aristocracy is the essence of autocracy,
technocracy the essence of bureaucracy, plutocracy the essence of democracy,
and meritocracy the essence of theocracy.
Which is to say that whilst, for example, autocracy is the phenomenal
appearance, aristocracy is the noumenal essence, a wavicle as opposed to a particle attribute. Thus it could be argued that autocracy is
aristocratic, bureaucracy technocratic, democracy plutocratic, and theocracy meritocratic, and that whereas essence conditions
appearance in the cases of autocracy and theocracy, appearance conditions
essence in the cases of bureaucracy and democracy, which are more intrinsically
phenomenal.
85. Scientific
Communism (Social Autocracy) is dead; long live political Communism (Social
Democracy)! Such a slogan would
undoubtedly appeal to anyone not acquainted with the concept of religious
Communism (Social Theocracy), a concept which might well condition the
formation of a slogan to the effect of: may Social Democracy lead to the birth
of Social Theocracy in due communistic course, so that the Holy Ghost can come
into its own on the most unequivocally theocratic terms, and the 'Kingdom of
Heaven' accordingly come properly to pass!
86. The
only real difference between so-called Communists (Social Autocrats) and Social
Democrats ... is that whereas the former believe absolutely in State Socialism,
the latter have a relative belief in it which they are prepared to put on the
line of democratic compromise with those who, whether absolutely or relatively,
believe in popular Socialism and its concomitance of greater working-class
control of the means of production.
Hence, unlike their Stalinist counterparts, Social Democrats accept
democratic alternatives to the management of Socialism, alternatives which can
be either Radical or Liberal, populist or centrist, wholeheartedly in favour of
working-class ownership or in favour of a balance between the State and the
People. Socialism, in this democratic
plurality, is not at issue. For the only alternative to Socialism is Capitalism, and that would
be retrogressive. What is at issue is the way in which Socialism is run. However, from a Social Theocratic standpoint
it is important that the People should achieve the maximum political, economic,
and judicial power commensurate with the avoidance of social chaos, since it is
the People who will eventually have to decide whether they want salvation from
this power, and thus from 'sins of the world', in the form of religious
sovereignty, a decision which they will not be entitled to make unless they are
sufficiently mired in 'worldly sins' to begin with, and thus in a position,
democratically, to fob them off upon the Second Coming in return for religious
salvation. Hence Social Theocracy, with
its extreme left-wing, or theocratic, bias, can only look with favour upon the
progress of radicalism within Social Democracy, since the democratic left are
the means of ensuring that the People assume greater political and economic
responsibility. Ultimately, Social
Theocracy is dependent on the leftwards drift of Social Democracy and cannot
expect to supersede Social Democracy until Radical tendencies are
preponderant. However, the assumption of
economic and political responsibility ('sins of the world') in a Christ-like
sacrifice by the ideological leadership of Social Theocracy would automatically
create a new centre of power contiguous with religious sovereignty and pledged
to its service. Such a centre, at both
regional and supra-national levels, would render the old (Social Autocratic)
centre redundant, and so be obliged to assume responsibility for matters
formerly in its power, including the military.
In such fashion the military would acquire a moral standing, through the
defence of religious sovereignty, that it could only
have lacked in the old context of Social Autocracy. It would also acquire, if and when thought
necessary, a moral directive.
87. The
principal enemy for the Transcendentalist forever will be, both within and
without himself, the Fundamentalist, and he must defeat this shadow self if he
is truly to live in the Light.
88. The masculine is characterized by an autocratic tendency to
be reactively destructive, a theocratic tendency to be actively constructive,
and a democratic tendency to balance, whether inclusively or exclusively, both
destructive and constructive elements.
The feminine, traditionally, is characterized by a bureaucratic tendency
to be passively and/or attractively instructive. Hence woman's instructiveness has had to
co-exist, in the world, with masculine destructiveness and constructiveness
ranging, so to speak, above it in contrary ideological tendencies of negative
and positive will. Have we not here a
confirmation of Schopenhauer's conception of the world as 'Will and
Representation', with the former broadly masculine and the latter
feminine? Whether or
not we agree with his contention that we inherit will from our male progenitor
and intellect from our female one, there can be little question that the will
is destructive and/or constructive, and the intellect instructive.
89. Destructiveness
is naturalistic, constructiveness idealistic, a destructive/constructive
compromise materialistic, and instructiveness realistic. Now since, within the British Isles, it would
be credible to contend that the Welsh are fundamentally naturalistic, the Scots
idealistic, the English materialistic, and the Irish realistic, we should have
no difficulty in equating destructiveness with the Welsh, constructiveness with
the Scotch, destructive/constructive compromises with the English, and
instructiveness with the Irish who, alone of the four peoples, appertain,
through Catholicism, to the feminine, and hence to the harp as opposed to the
lion in each of its 'trinitarian' guises, viz.
horizontal and individual in the case of the fiery Welsh, vertical and
individual in the case of the airy Scots, and horizontal and collective (three
lions one above the other) in the case of the watery English. For whereas
90. Because
the Scots are predominantly an idealistic people, for whom the spirit takes
precedence over the soul, it need not surprise us if the best philosophers in
the British Isles tend to be Scottish or, at any rate, of Scotch extraction, in
contrast to the best dramatists and actors being Welsh. Even Shakespeare, who was born in
91. I
repress myself but am oppressed by others.
I express myself but am impressed by others. I compress myself but am depressed by
others. Repression, expression, and
compression are subjective and therefore largely self-inflicted. Oppression, impression, and depression are objective
and therefore a consequence of what others have inflicted upon one. We no more oppress, impress, or depress
ourselves than we are repressed, expressed, or compressed by others. I repress myself, but he oppresses me. I express myself (as here), but she impresses
me. I compress myself, but they depress
me. Others can suppress me, but only I
can press myself, as with regard to a pressing engagement which it is
imperative for me to keep.
92. The
aggressive selflessness of naturalistic Paganism (the Father); the serving
selflessness of realistic Catholicism (the Virgin Mary); the self-serving
selfishness of materialistic Protestantism (the Son); the self-transcending
selfishness of idealistic Transcendentalism (the Holy Spirit). Hence from the superstar
and star of naturalistic and realistic selflessness to the cross and supercross of materialistic and idealistic selfishness. From noumenal selfless
alpha to noumenal selfish omega via phenomenal selflessness and selfishness of
a worldly and purgatorial relativity.
The path to ultimate salvation lies in transcending the phenomenal self
in the interests of spiritual self-realization.
It is, in Spengler's terms, to abandon 'the
Civilization' for 'Second Religiousness', to abandon materialism in the name of
an ultimate idealism the subjective realization of which will usher in the '
93. Democracy
resembles the ego, inasmuch as it is a composite of selves that jostle one
another in a confrontation between objective and subjective reality. In fact, we could argue that democracy is
egocentric, whereas autocracy is rather a thing of the objective subconscious,
and theocracy ... a thing of the subjective superconscious. Hence, whereas science strives to illuminate
the subconscious, and by implication both internal and (especially) external
nature, religion strives to advance the illumination of the superconscious,
and by implication external and (especially) internal supernature. Politics, on the other hand, strives to
bolster the ego, of which it is the ideological corollary.
94. Male
sexuality vis-à-vis women is only possible on the basis of noumenal
selflessness, and is thus a mode of aggressive or, as I could alternatively
describe it, reactive destructiveness.
Female sexuality, on the other hand, traditionally follows from
phenomenal selflessness, which is a comparatively passive thing which offers
itself to male aggression. Hence whereas
male sexuality is essentially rooted in ill-will towards women, female
sexuality is a predominantly sentient passivity which allows itself to be
imposed upon in the interests, primarily, of procreation. There is nothing selfish about sexuality,
neither in its masculine nor its feminine manifestations, and for this reason
it can never be a moral thing but is rooted, as Christianity relates, in
'Original Sin', which is to say, in the aggressive naturalism of noumenal
selflessness. In this respect it is the
opposite of noumenal selfishness, which follows from a self-realizing idealism,
whether indirectly ... through art, or directly ... through self-contemplation,
and is accordingly a thing of good-will ... directly towards the spiritual
self, but indirectly towards mankind. As Baudelaire put it: 'The more a man cultivates the arts, the less
he fornicates. A more and more
apparent cleavage occurs between the spirit and the brute'. Elsewhere in his Intimate Journals he writes: 'To
fornicate is to aspire to enter into another; the artist never emerges from
himself'. It is this knowledge of how
completely contrary the two wills are, the ill-will of noumenal selflessness
and the good-will of noumenal selfishness, that makes it impossible for the
great artist, the genius saint, ever to be a lecher or, conversely, for the
lecher ever to be a great artist. For
alpha and omega are incommensurable, like strength and truth. On the other hand, the phenomenal selfishness
of the highly acquisitive or pedantically intellectual person, whilst it is
arguably better than noumenal selflessness and, within certain limits, can
serve as a means to a higher (spiritual) end, may well prove no less an
obstacle to the attainment of true enlightenment and moral salvation, if
pursued too far, than its selfless counterpart in the phenomenal realm. For existential goodness can all-too-easily
become an end-in-itself, shutting out the light of the spirit, the spirit of
good-will, towards which all noumenally-minded people
aspire. It is a poor sort of morality,
this phenomenal selfishness, since it enslaves one to materialism and thus to
the amassing of riches at the expense of spiritual freedom. It turns the world into a lunar purgatory
which, though arguably preferable to a worldly hell of phenomenal selflessness
or a solar hell of noumenal selflessness, is a far cry from the otherworldly
heaven to which men of good-will aspire.
Better a spiritual selfishness that lifts one out of the world than a
material selfishness which keeps one enchained, no matter how existentially, to
it!
95. Friendship
is a thing corresponding, in its phenomenal selflessness, to a worldly
folly. The worldly fool may have friends
and the hellish fool enemies, but the truly wise man will be as much above and
beyond friendship as is compatible with his spiritual selfishness. Even the relatively wise selfishness of the
materialist should put him above friendship in the usual selfless sense, since
he will be too busy making money and/or profiting from his acquisitions to have
either much time or inclination to spend on the rather feminine art of
cultivating friends.
96. Helping others is not the prerogative of the true man, nor
even the good man, but of the beautiful and pleasure-giving woman. The man who can't
help himself, whether materially or (preferably) spiritually, is not really
wise at all but either an evil fool (assuming he prefers to hinder others) or a
worldly fool who may well be a woman at heart.
Certainly it is better to help oneself than to help others, but if one
cannot help oneself, it is better to help others than to hinder them (and by
'hinder' I include to have aggressive sex with them). For the man who hinders others necessarily
prevents them from helping themselves.
He perpetuates their tendency to help others through selfless
subservience, and in all helping others there is a loss to self.
97. He
who is most spiritually selfish is the most divine - in a word, God. He, on the contrary, who is most brutally
selfless is the most diabolic - in a word, the Devil. The Devil is a lecher but God a celibate. We are 'born under one law (but) to another
bound'. Born under
nature but bound, if civilized, to the supernatural idealism of God. Or, more correctly, born from the brutal
selflessness of the procreative act, but baptized into Christ and a spiritual
rebirth. Born from ill-will but bound,
through the Saviour, to good-will, with being and existence, beauty and
goodness, coming in-between the alpha of strength and the omega of truth - a
worldly given (passive instruction) and a purgatorial becoming (active
instruction) in between the negative doing (reactive destruction) of ill-will
and the positive doing (attractive construction) of good-will. Born, therefore, of the
Father but bound, through the Son (and his '
98. From
the immorality of noumenal selflessness to the morality of noumenal selfishness
via the negative amorality of phenomenal selflessness and the positive
amorality of phenomenal selfishness; a devolution, in effect, from the Father
to the Mother, and an evolution from the Son to the Holy Spirit. From outer essence to outer appearance, and
from inner appearance to inner essence (as from 'Historyless
Chaos' to 'the Culture' on the one hand, and from 'the Civilization' to 'Second
Religiousness' on the other), a superstar/star naturalism, but a cross/supercross supernaturalism - such is the historical
distinction between that which stems from the diabolic alpha and that which
aspires towards the divine omega, whether directly or indirectly, absolutely or
relatively, noumenally or phenomenally.
99. In
music one might speak, in relation to the above, of an opera/ballet naturalism
on the one hand, but of a symphony/concerto supernaturalism on the other hand -
opera corresponding to outer essence and ballet to outer appearance, the
symphony corresponding to inner appearance and the concerto to inner essence. Likewise (notwithstanding the soul/pop,
rock/jazz supermusical parallels to the above), we
could speak, where literature is concerned, of a poetry/drama naturalism on the
one hand, but of a fiction/philosophy supernaturalism on the other hand - the
former pair perceptual and the latter pair conceptual, alpha and omega,
beginning and end, outer and inner, devil and god. From declaimer to actor,
and from writer to thinker - poetry being no less of the Father (and hence
noumenal selflessness) than drama is of the Mother (and hence phenomenal
selflessness); novels being no less of the Son (and hence phenomenal
selfishness) than philosophy is of the Holy Ghost (and hence noumenal
selfishness). From literary immorality
to literary morality via negative (drama) and positive (fiction) amorality, a
devolutionary/evolutionary dichotomy between that which stems, like poetry and
to a lesser extent drama, from the diabolic alpha, and that which aspires, like
philosophy and to a lesser extent narrative literature, towards the divine omega. From absolutely bad to relatively bad, and
from relatively good to absolutely good, which is the utmost
truth. The Devil may be a strong
poet, but God is a true philosopher, and in his truth he is revealed!
100. It
would seem that since (contrary to my previous evaluations) poetry is the alpha
and philosophy the omega of literature, poetry is an autocratic art form and
philosophy, by contrast, theocratic, whereas novel-writing, coming in-between
the 'evil' and 'good' extremes, is a democratic art form, whether right wing
(poetic), left wing (philosophic), or centrist (balanced between poetic and
philosophic alternatives), and drama, corresponding to the Blessed Virgin at
the foot of the Cross, is bureaucratic, requiring, amongst other things, a
theatre in which the actors can act out their phenomenally selfless roles. Thus whereas poetry should appeal to
enslavers, philosophy, by contrast, is the devotion of the saviours, or those
who would free men from the tyranny of the selfless ... in order that they may
come to know themselves or, rather, their selves, and accordingly realize their
spiritual potential to the full, becoming one with that self which is truly
divine and in which resides heaven, the end and resolution of all striving. Verily, the day of the true theocrat is nigh,
and when his triumph is complete there will be neither autocrats nor
bureaucrats, nor even democrats, but only the theocratic inheritors of an omega
salvation. Rejoice, for the day of theocratic
deliverance is at hand!
