ORANGE
NOTEBOOK 2
Now I'm full of self-loathing with
a runny nose in the middle of a mid-July heatwave! As
for multiple sneezes to unblock a stuffy nose in the morning, with overburdened
tissues successively cast into a small plastic bag hanging from a nearby hook
that serves as a substitute waste-paper bin, the talk of enhanced self-esteem
through job-worthiness that some politicians go on about seems to me like a
sick joke, with no relevance to my condition whatsoever.
When I get my self-esteem back it won't
be because of job-worthiness or jobbery, still less because of the next-door
neighbours or the all-too-close proximity of workmen hammering and drilling,
but because of a string of brilliant thoughts that I shall feel duty-bound, as
a creative intellectual, to commit to writing for the benefit of posterity, as
though to capture what might otherwise disappear back into the depths of my
mind and be lost forever.
In the meantime, I must persevere
with more snot snivelling, nose blowing, sneezing, and not a few other
unpleasant symptoms of the human condition, the condition, strangely enough,
that not all would wish to see overcome.... In fact, scarcely any females,
precious few kids, and not enough males to give one grounds for any degree of Nietzschean optimism with regards to the coming Superman.
Though cautiously optimistic that man will,
one day, be overcome
I resolutely remain, if only because the human condition
can be so detestable that one would be a fool to take it for granted.
******
Fast and hot a credibly female
combination suggestive of a quasar/black hole, or of supersensuous/subconscious
metachemistry, with beauty and love spinning around
ugliness and hate, or crime, to speak more generally, spinning around evil. For
is not crime the true source of evil? Get done for speeding and you are charged
with a criminal offence. Bad mouth the charging officer and you are guilty of
being evil, that is, hot tempered. The heat is bound to the speed, as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical
free soma.
Love of the beauty of speed taken
too far can lead to hatred for the ugliness of having been charged with driving
too fast and thereby breaking the law. Evil as the corollary
of crime, not vice versa (contrary to what I used to think!).
As I customarily and, I think,
correctly equate crime and evil with metachemistry,
so I equate punishment and goodness, the polarities to crime and evil, with
pseudo-chemistry, so that we have, in overall terms, a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity between two female elements or,
more correctly, a female element (metachemistry) and
a pseudo-female pseudo-element (pseudo-chemistry). Now since I have equated
crime with metachemical free soma and evil with metachemical bound psyche, and this in accordance with the
female gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche, as
body over mind, so that the former is free (and brightly positive) but the
latter bound (and darkly negative), it now behoves me to equate punishment, the
polarity to crime, with pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma and, by contrast,
goodness, the polarity to evil, with pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche, the
pseudo-bound soma no less indicative of the state-hegemonic aspect of the axis
established by the polarity of metachemistry with
pseudo-chemistry than the pseudo-free psyche of the church-subordinate aspect
thereof. Therefore, in overall terms, the polarity between crime and
punishment, of metachemical free soma and
pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma, is no less germane to the state-hegemonic
aspect of the axis in question than the polarity between evil and goodness, metachemical bound psyche and pseudo-chemical pseudo-free
psyche, is germane to its church-subordinate aspect. Of course, as explained in
previous works by me, the pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche of
pseudo-chemistry only exist because of hegemonic pressure, a plane up at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass,
from physics, an element in which, in accordance with male gender actuality,
psyche precedes and preponderates over soma, and, being hegemonic over
pseudo-chemistry, is free to do so, thereby obliging the subordinate
pseudo-female pseudo-element to mirror such an actuality
of psyche over soma,
if on terms which, being contrary to female gender actuality, have been
described as 'pseudo', with pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche the
pseudo-chemical corollaries of physical bound soma and free psyche, the
difference being that the preponderance of psyche over soma in this (phenomenal)
male element is not reflected in the ratio of psyche to soma of its
pseudo-female corollary by dint of the predominance of soma over psyche on the
female side of the gender divide, whether in relation to a relative degree (2½:
1½), as with pseudo-chemistry and, indeed, chemistry (appertaining to a
different axis) or to an absolute degree (3:1), as in the case of metachemistry and, across the axial divide, pseudo-metachemistry, which would, of course, be subordinate to
metaphysics and polar to chemistry on what I customarily describe as secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms vis-a-vis
the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity between
metaphysics (3:1) and pseudo-physics (2½:1½), the former unequivocally
hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry (1:3) and the
latter equivocally subordinate to chemistry (1½:2½), with a primary
church-hegemonic polarity between the sin of pseudo-physical pseudo-bound
psyche (2½) and the grace of metaphysical free psyche (3), correlative with a
primary state-subordinate polarity between the folly of pseudo-physical
pseudo-free soma (1½) and the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma (1), but a
secondary church-hegemonic polarity between the pseudo-evil of chemical bound
psyche (1½) and the pseudo-goodness of pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-free psyche (1), correlative with a secondary state-subordinate polarity
between the pseudo-crime of chemical free soma (2½) and the pseudo-punishment
of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma (3). How all
this contrasts not only with the primary state-hegemonic polarity between the
crime of metachemical free soma (3) and the
punishment of pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma (2½), correlative with the
primary church-subordinate polarity between the evil of metachemical
bound psyche (1) and the goodness of pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche (1½),
but also with the secondary state-hegemonic polarity between the pseudo-folly
of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma (1) and the pseudo-wisdom of physical
bound soma (1½), correlative with the secondary church-subordinate polarity
between the pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche (3) and the
pseudo-grace of physical free psyche (2½). Either way, whatever the axis, crime
and punishment are no less germane to the state on female axial terms than evil
and good to the church on such terms, whereas sin and grace are no less germane
to the church on male axial terms than folly and wisdom to the state on such
terms, with due 'pseudo' or 'genuine' distinctions according with the axis and
who or what, in overall gender terms, actually dominates it.
Those who are too somatically and
therefore criminally free (vain) upstairs, as it were, on the state-hegemonic
axis tend to get punished downstairs with pseudo-bound soma (justice), whereas
those who are too somatically and therefore pseudo-criminally free
(pseudo-vain) downstairs on the church-hegemonic axis tend to get
pseudo-punished upstairs, as it were, with pseudo-bound soma (pseudo-justice).
Either way, one is alluding to the state aspect, whether hegemonic or
subordinate, of each axis in relation to female elements and pseudo-elements
respectively or, more accurately, of the transposition, through punishment, of
female elements into pseudo-female pseudo-elements.
In terms of its female attributes
the quickness and hotness in free soma and bound psyche of metachemistry
has to be contrasted with the slowness and coldness of chemistry in free soma
and bound psyche, while in terms of its male attributes (across the hegemonic
gender divide) the heaviness and hardness of physics in free psyche and bound
soma has to be contrasted with the lightness and softness of metaphysics in
free psyche and bound soma. In terms of the subordinate gender positions,
however, the pseudo-softness in pseudo-free soma and pseudo-lightness in
pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-male pseudo-metaphysics (a plane down from metachemistry) has to be contrasted with the
pseudo-hardness in pseudo-free soma and pseudo-heaviness in pseudo-bound psyche
of pseudo-male pseudo-physics (a plane down from chemistry). Contrariwise, the
pseudo-coldness in pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-slowness in pseudo-bound soma
of pseudo-female pseudo-chemistry (a plane down from physics) has to be
contrasted with the pseudo-hotness in pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-quickness
in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-female pseudo-metachemistry
(a plane down from metaphysics).
Thus the beauty and love in free
soma and the ugliness and hatred in bound psyche of metachemistry
is absolutely (3:1) hegemonic over the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy in
pseudo-free soma and the pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe in pseudo-bound psyche
of pseudo-metaphysics (1:3).
Likewise the strength and pride in
free soma and the weakness and humility in bound psyche of chemistry is
relatively hegemonic (2½:1½) over the pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure in
pseudo-free soma and the pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain in pseudo-bound
psyche of pseudo-physics (1½:2½).
Contrariwise, the knowledge and
pleasure in free psyche and the ignorance and pain in bound soma of physics is
relatively hegemonic (2½:1½) over the pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride in
pseudo-free psyche and the pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility in pseudo-bound
soma of pseudo-chemistry (1½:2½).
Likewise the truth and joy in free
psyche and the illusion and woe in bound soma of metaphysics is absolutely
hegemonic (3:1) over the pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love in pseudo-free psyche
and the pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-metachemistry (1:3).
******
Unless you have the ability, the
honesty, and even humility to correct yourself, to
rectify a long-standing error of logic or judgement, you will not progress and
effectively achieve philosophical, or logical, perfection. The ability to
overhaul long-standing errors of judgement is crucial to the advancement of a
philosophy to the pinnacle of logical perfection, and thus the achievement of
Truth.
There is a saying: You scratch my
back and I'll scratch yours. Well, believe it or not, I have always reserved
the right to scratch my own back.
******
The primary church-hegemonic
polarity between sin and grace in the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics and
the free psyche of metaphysics is paralleled, on secondary church-hegemonic
terms, by the polarity between pseudo-evil in the bound psyche of chemistry and
pseudo-goodness in the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-metachemistry.
Correlatively, the primary state-subordinate polarity between folly and wisdom
in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-physics and the bound soma of metaphysics is
paralleled, on secondary state-subordinate terms, by the polarity between
pseudo-crime in the free soma of chemistry and pseudo-punishment in the
pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-metachemistry.
Contrariwise, the primary
state-hegemonic polarity between crime and punishment in the free soma of metachemistry and the pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry
is paralleled, on secondary state-hegemonic terms, by the polarity between the
pseudo-folly in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-metaphysics and the pseudo-wisdom
in the bound soma of physics. Correlatively, the primary church-subordinate
polarity between evil and goodness in the bound psyche of metachemistry
and the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-chemistry is paralleled, on secondary
church-subordinate terms, by the polarity between pseudo-sin in the
pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-grace in the free psyche
of physics.
On overall primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the polarity between meekness
(sin/folly) and righteousness (grace/wisdom) is paralleled, on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, by that between pseudo-vanity
(pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime) and pseudo-justice
(pseudo-goodness/pseudo-punishment).
On overall primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, the polarity between vanity
(crime/evil) and justice (punishment/goodness) is paralleled, on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, by that between pseudo-meekness
(pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin) and pseudo-righteousness (pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace).
Thus a distinction always needs to
be made between the vanity and justice female polarity of the primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis and the pseudo-vanity and
pseudo-justice female polarity of the secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis, as, correlatively, between the meekness and righteousness male polarity
of the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and the pseudo-meekness
and pseudo-righteousness male polarity of the secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis. Otherwise confusion through over-simplification will inevitably
transpire.
Hence whereas the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis is constitutive of a polarity, on
overall hegemonic/subordinate gender terms, between pseudo-vanity/meekness and
righteousness/pseudo-justice (with reverse gender hegemonic/subordinate
implications), the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis is constitutive of
such a polarity between vanity/pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness/justice
(again with reverse gender hegemonic/subordinate implications).
Only when the Meek have been saved
to righteousness, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and the pseudo-Vain
have been counter-damned to pseudo-justice, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, will there be any prospect of the Vain being
damned to justice, as from metachemistry to
pseudo-chemistry, and the pseudo-Meek being counter-saved to
pseudo-righteousness, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pending further
developments (as already discussed in several of my previous works).
But the salvation of the Meek to
righteousness will require a full complement of metaphysics, not just the bound
soma (of the crucifixional paradigm) but also the
free psyche that can only transpire through total independence of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics 'in back' of the Catholic
tradition. For only then will the counter-damnation of the pseudo-Vain to
pseudo-justice appertain to a pseudo-metachemistry
that is deferentially subordinate to metaphysics rather than subversive of it,
not least through a triangular accommodation of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics
in traditional church-hegemonic vein. There can be no
reservations about the desirability of a stepped-up (resurrected)
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in the interests of
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical independence of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, especially since such a
stepping-up, equivalent to a revolution, would enable us to transcend the
limitations of the Catholic Church and thereby move religion towards if not
actually into 'Kingdom Come', to which end I long ago conceived of the
ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy as the means whereby the
Meek/pseudo-Vain could be delivered from their preyed-upon predicament, at the
foot of the traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, in the event
of a majority mandate for what has been termed 'religious sovereignty', the
sovereignty to end all sovereignties and liberate religion from the paradoxical
clutches of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, or, in other words, metachemistry hyped as metaphysics.
Pseudo-evil (chemical bound psyche)
is no more equivalent to sin (pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche) in
lower-order church-hegemonic terms than
pseudo-goodness (pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche) is equivalent to grace
(metaphysical free psyche) in upper-order church-hegemonic terms, where we have
a distinction not between coldness and pseudo-heaviness, as with the
lower-order dichotomy, but between pseudo-hotness and lightness.
Pseudo-sin (pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-bound psyche) is no more equivalent to evil (metachemical
bound psyche) in upper-order church-subordinate terms than
pseudo-grace
(physical free psyche) is equivalent to goodness (pseudo-chemical pseudo-free
psyche) in lower-order church-subordinate terms, where we have a distinction
not between pseudo-lightness and hotness, as with the upper-order dichotomy,
but between heaviness and pseudo-coldness.
Pseudo-crime (chemical free soma)
is no more equivalent to folly (pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma) in
lower-order state-subordinate terms than
pseudo-punishment (pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma) is equivalent to wisdom
(metaphysical bound soma) in upper-order state-subordinate terms, where we have
a distinction not between slowness and pseudo-hardness, as with the lower-order
dichotomy, but between pseudo-quickness and softness.
Pseudo-folly (pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-free soma) is no more equivalent to crime (metachemical
free soma) in upper-order state-hegemonic terms than
pseudo-wisdom (physical
bound soma) is equivalent to punishment (pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma) in
lower-order state-hegemonic terms, where we have a distinction not between
pseudo-softness and quickness, as with the upper-order dichotomy, but between
hardness and pseudo-slowness.
In terms of the overall
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity a distinction exists between
pseudo-meekness and vanity in upper-order terms vis-a-vis
pseudo-righteousness and justice in lower-order terms, while in terms of the overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity a like distinction exists
between pseudo-vanity and meekness in lower-order terms vis-a-vis
pseudo-justice and righteousness in upper-order terms.
With regards to the hegemonic/subordinate
relationship, metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics
is equivalent to vanity over pseudo-meekness in upper-order
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, while physics over pseudo-chemistry
is equivalent to pseudo-righteousness over justice in lower-order
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms.
Similarly, chemistry over
pseudo-physics is equivalent to pseudo-vanity over meekness in lower-order
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, while metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry is equivalent to righteousness over
pseudo-justice in upper-order church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.
The primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity is, of course, established on an
overall female basis, between vanity and justice, whereas the secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity is established, on overall male
terms, between pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness.
Contrariwise, the primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity is established, on overall male
terms, between meekness and righteousness, whereas the secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity is established, on overall female
terms, between pseudo-vanity and pseudo-justice.
The polarity, on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, between vanity and justice is, of
course, equivalent to crime/evil vis-a-vis
punishment/goodness, that is, quickness/hotness vis-a-vis
pseudo-slowness/pseudo-coldness, whereas the polarity, on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, between pseudo-meekness and
pseudo-righteousness is, of course, equivalent to pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin vis-a-vis pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace, that is,
pseudo-softness/pseudo-lightness vis-a-vis
heaviness/hardness.
Contrariwise, the polarity, on
primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, between meekness and
righteousness is, of course, equivalent to sin/folly vis-a-vis
grace/wisdom, that is, pseudo-heaviness/pseudo-hardness vis-a-vis
lightness/softness, whereas the polarity, on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, between pseudo-vanity and
pseudo-justice is, of course, equivalent to pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime vis-a-vis pseudo-goodness/pseudo-punishment, that is,
coldness/slowness vis-a-vis
pseudo-hotness/pseudo-quickness.
Taking this a stage further, one
can logically argue that the beauty and love proper to metachemical
free soma is polar, in primary state-hegemonic terms, to the pseudo-weakness
and pseudo-humility (if not humiliation) appertaining to pseudo-chemical
pseudo-bound soma, whereas the ugliness and hatred proper to metachemical bound psyche is polar, on primary
church-subordinate terms, to the pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride appertaining
to pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche.
Correlatively, one can logically
argue that the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy appertaining to pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-free soma is polar, on secondary
state-hegemonic terms, to the ignorance and pain proper to physical bound soma,
whereas the pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe appertaining to pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-bound psyche is polar, on secondary church-subordinate terms, to the
knowledge and pleasure proper to physical free psyche.
Contrariwise, it can be logically
argued that the pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain appertaining to
pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche is polar, on
primary church-hegemonic terms, to the truth and joy proper to metaphysical
free psyche, whereas the pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure appertaining to
pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma is polar, on primary state-subordinate terms,
to the illusion and woe proper to metaphysical bound soma.
Correlatively, it can be logically
argued that the weakness and humility proper to chemical bound psyche is polar, on secondary church-hegemonic terms, to the
pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love appertaining to pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-free psyche, whereas the strength and pride proper to chemical free soma
is polar, on secondary state-subordinate terms, to the pseudo-ugliness and
pseudo-hatred appertaining to pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-bound soma.
******
It is harder to pull the lower up
than it is to bring the higher down.
A philosopher can do no more than
to take logic to its ultimate conclusion and get everything to add up. That,
for me, is philosophical perfection.
Luther the bad, mad monk who
ended-up getting married and fathering six children by an ex-nun. What a
religious come-down!
Now any f***ing
vicar can preach the 'word of God' (sic.) from an
ungodly pulpit while his wife and kids look on.
Are historical religious scams,
like indulgences (which had a tradition going back to ancient Roman times), any
worse than the commercial scams that are an everyday part of largely
Protestant-derived secular modernity? I think not.
The Catholic Church of the
Renaissance, though deeply flawed, was not wrong to be Catholic; only wrong to
be flawed and undermined by papal and ecclesiastic abuses.
The paradox
of 'hippie squares'. You think,
as a youth, that you're being hip but, really, with things like square-covered
records (never mind the square-covered CDs that came later), checked shirts
(including so-called lumberjack shirts), and those little square 'beat poet'
books (or booklets), you are anything but hip. Simply a long-haired square,
with a fatality towards metachemistry (and therefore
all things beautiful and loving) and a tolerance, if not indulgence, of
pitch-oriented guitar jerks whose elongated solos appear to scale the infinity
of space. Idealistic youth? More like materialism in
disguise, or materialism confounded with idealism.
Of course, that isn't to say one
misspent one's youth. Youth is youth, and what one has since discovered is that
there were aspects of it which were not as hip, or round, as one may have
thought at the time.
These days, a square little Allen
Ginsberg book of poems would have no appeal to me whatsoever. As for the way
music was packaged record in sleeve/cover resembling circle in a square, or
pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry (like London
bus stops) forget it. I would have some reservations about buying even CDs,
never mind LPs, these days.
I may have played football, from
time to time, in the reserves, but more often I was in the school first team of
my year, where I played out on the wing and endeavoured to fly past defenders
before curling in a 'high ball'.
On Sundays I like to buy what I
take to be something suitably insane in Sainsbury's, like a box of Swedish
meatballs or a small packet of sausage rolls. One of these days I may even buy
some scotch eggs. But one thing's for sure: no pizza on Sundays!
Thinking to write, writing to be
read, and being read only to be talked about, and not necessarily in the most
flattering terms, least of all by those who, like women, are especially partial
to speech, which is apt, for want of knowledgeable evidence, to degenerate into
mere gossip!
One needs a heck of a lot of
resolve in reserve to be able to continue with one's vocational commitments to
literature in close proximity to the brutal noise which workers in this
environment daily inflict upon one. A heck of a lot!
A world full of levelling swine is
a world in chaos, a world headed down for the dark side or, at any rate, for
more dark than light, pretty much like the one we still live in today.
He was a sun-drenched,
pizza-chomping, loud-mouthed sonofabitch who liked to
jerk off, whenever possible, to the sequential rhythms of some sax-oriented
modern jazz from out West. He was no friend of mine.
******
To contrast Abstract Expressionism
with Abstract Impressionism, as one would contrast the noumenal
objectivity of metachemical space (spatial) with the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical time (repetitive), or
absolute outsanity with absolute insanity, further
contrasting what might be called Abstract pseudo-Impressionism with Abstract
pseudo-Expressionism, as one would contrast the noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-time (sequential) with the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-space (spaced), or absolute pseudo-insanity with absolute pseudo-outsanity.
Thus no less than metachemistry is hegemonic over pseudo-metaphysics and, by
contrast, metaphysics hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry,
so, in parallel vein, would Abstract Expressionism be hegemonic over Abstract
pseudo-Impressionism and, by contrast, Abstract Impressionism hegemonic over
Abstract pseudo-Expressionism.
Hence a contrast between space and
pseudo-time, noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity on the one hand, that of
Abstract Expressionism and Abstract pseudo-Impressionism, but one between time
and pseudo-space, noumenal subjectivity and noumenal pseudo-objectivity on the other hand, that of
Abstract Impressionism and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism.
A simple distinction between the
alpha/pseudo-omega and the omega/pseudo-alpha of abstraction would be of art
that was frameless in the hegemonic case and surrounded by a frame in the
subordinate case, namely that of the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of the
abstract, which, in relation to the above theory, would be pseudo-Impressionism
and pseudo-Expressionism, given that the ratio of pseudo-free soma to
pseudo-bound psyche in the former case and of pseudo-free psyche to
pseudo-bound soma in the latter case should be 1:3, the reverse, in other
words, of the 3:1 ratio of freedom to binding characterizing each of the
hegemonic elements, be it metachemical (ohjectively expressionist in free soma/bound psyche) or
metaphysical (subjectively impressionist in free psyche/bound soma).
Of course, in conceiving of such
theories (independently, it may well be, of any literal correspondence with
historical reality or painterly evidence), one has taken the existing
terminology of Abstract Expressionism and Abstract Impressionism and simply
enlarged upon it, making, with the addition of Abstract pseudo-Impressionism
and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism, for a more comprehensive perspective and,
indeed, antithesis, in keeping with the tendency of my philosophy to have a
subordinate gender position under one plane down a hegemonic one, as in
pseudo-omega under alpha or, conversely, pseudo-alpha under omega.
My philosophy would not, however,
solely identify the abstract with what is noumenal,
since anyone familiar with it, from earlier works, would know that, for me, the
abstract is secondary to the concrete, as male to female, on both noumenal (ethereal) and phenomenal (corporeal) planes, and
can therefore, like the concrete itself, be either absolute or relative, that
is, elemental or molecular, with an absolute concrete/abstract antithesis
existing between elemental particles and elemental wavicles,
as between will and soul, but a relative concrete/abstract antithesis existing
between molecular particles and molecular wavicles,
as between spirit and ego, the former, in each antithetical case, objective
(female) and the latter subjective (male).
Therefore, in relation to my
philosophy, the position assigned to Abstract Expressionism would accord with
the absolute concrete and that assigned to Abstract Impressionism with the
absolute abstract, while the distinction drawn, subordinately, between Abstract
pseudo-Impressionism and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism would accord with the
absolute pseudo-abstract and the absolute pseudo-concrete respectively.
Therefore while I may have logical
reservations about equating the term 'abstract' only with what is noumenal or ethereal, irrespective of gender, I can have no
reservations whatsoever about limiting it to the male side of life in both
phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal
terms, as in relation to whatever corresponds with molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles,
physics and metaphysics, ego and soul. Certainly, Abstract Expressionism
(which, being expressionistic, is objective) could
have no place here, while Abstract Impressionism (which, being impressionistic,
is subjective) would only apply to the noumenal, or
ethereal, plane of abstraction, as an approximation to metaphysics.
Expressionism and Impressionism,
coupled, for argument's sake, to pseudo-Impressionism and pseudo-Expressionism
respectively, would, of course, correspond to phenomenal, or corporeal,
manifestations (molecular) of the concrete and abstract, together with their
pseudo-abstract and pseudo-concrete subordinates in what should be a
volume/pseudo-mass and mass/pseudo-volume pairing antithesis having more
relevance to spirit/pseudo-ego and ego/pseudo-spirit than to any absolute
distinctions between will/pseudo-soul and soul/pseudo-will in space/pseudo-time
and time/pseudo-space respectively. But that is not a subject I need enlarge
upon, least of all on a purely or largely theoretical and speculative basis!
******
Equality
between the genders? The
'sacred cow' of a soulless civilization rooted in some degree of constitutional
barbarity.
It is not whether you are educated
or not, but how and to what ends.
It is more impressive to be
self-educated than to have been educated by others.
It is one of the great ironies of
Western history that, even with its Marian shortcomings, the real protest
against 'the world' happens to be Catholic, not Protestant, and that
Protestantism, lacking otherworldly pretensions, leads to a position of
world-acceptance and even world-exploitation. Of course, Catholicism could be
accused, by its opponents, of sanctifying 'the world' in the persons, or world
personifications, of the 'Mother and Child', which strongly suggest a
concession if not commitment to 'family values', at loggerheads not only with
otherworldly aspirations but also with Christ as a vehicle of salvation,
traditionally, from 'the world', including, not least, its family values and
whatever appertains to the female side of life.
Fortunately the Catholic Church had
and continues to have the perfect foil to the mainstream female-dominated
world, in the guise of a celibate clergy. For a celibate priest is the only type
of priest worthy of respect from a standpoint closer to the otherworldly
criteria of Christ, in whom one has a personification of the Ideal in relation
to males. However, in the case of females, short of the neutralization that
would keep them pseudo-metachemically subordinate to
a male hegemony in metaphysics, virginity is no Ideal but a consequence of that
metachemically-sanctioned vacuum which leads to
objectivity and the struggle to acquire, via a male willing (contrary to his
actual gender interests) to 'play ball', a surrogate plenum in the guise of
offspring.
Hence the 'Mother and Child'
resolution of such a struggle, aided and abetted by beauty and love, that makes
for mainstream worldliness and the relative sanctification of 'family values'.
Yet this worldliness, though inescapable, is not an end-in-itself, at least for
the male, but, if not exactly the means to a higher end then, at any rate, that
which is axially polar to the world-renouncing celibacy of metaphysical wisdom
in respect of, among others, priests and saints. The other axis, being
heretical from a church-hegemonic standpoint, does not and cannot endorse
celibacy, because its apex is rooted, autocratically, in the royal need
certainly in Britain and not a few other European countries of an heir or
heirs to the throne, and its polarity, while equivocally characterized by the
dominance of male criteria, is only able to pursue its own largely plutocratic
interests at the expense of unconstrained autocracy and therefore as a guarantor
of constitutionality in the metachemical context
officially ruling over it. In neither case is celibacy of much relevance, and
even the parliamentary/puritan type of worldliness is not, in England, an
end-in-itself but, much as it may formerly have existed in fear of Communism
(as of a worker-oriented descent into a sub-humanist hell), rather a context in
which many if not most of its members live partly in hope of deliverance, via
various types of honours, from their lowly estate as commoners to some kind of netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly promotion that may
culminate, for those so honoured, in a major change of class status.
Thus whereas the directionality of
the church-hegemonic axis is towards otherworldly (metaphysical) deliverance
from a female-dominated type of worldliness (chemistry over pseudo-physics),
the directionality of the state-hegemonic axis is towards netherworldly
(metachemical) deliverance from a male-dominated type
of worldliness (physics over pseudo-chemistry), and I fancy that, just as the
former kind of deliverance favours the interests of males (as from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics), so the latter kind, whatever appearances to the
contrary may suggest, favours the interests of females (as from
pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry) who, in the event
of class promotion, would move from a pseudo-chemical subordinate position, as
pseudo-females, under physical males to a metachemically
hegemonic position, as upper-class females, over pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-males, the type of 'male' especially susceptible to the enticements of
sensuality and as far removed from the priestly ideal of celibacy as it is
humanly possible to be.
All in all, despite its
shortcomings and limitations, I still respect the Catholic Church for the
nature of its axial directionality under the guidance of a celibate clergy. But
it will still have to be overhauled, by the coming 'resurrection' of the
church-hegemonic axis, if 'Kingdom Come', or its nearest equivalence, is
eventually to transpire in relation to a full complement of metaphysics, free
psyche as well as bound soma (the crucifixional
paradigm) and, correlative with this, a subordinate and properly deferential
pseudo-metachemistry for pseudo-females, an
eventuality, were it to transpire, requiring complete independence from all
modes, contemporary as well as historic, of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics,
and thus from the traditional subsuming of such pseudo-metachemistry
(coupled to a 'done-down' truncated metaphysics) into the age-old triangularity that, like the sharp pediments which are its
cultural or architectural corollary, attest to metachemical
dominion.
******
I guess the fulcrum or focus of
rock 'n' roll is, was, and probably always will be sex, which is what both
energizes it and renders a majority of its productions fairly predictable
within a popular context, with excursions elsewhere, as into the more serious
kinds of progressive rock, pretty much the exception to the general rule,
notwithstanding the fact that some of which excursions fall flat for want of
moral credibility or religious sincerity under pressure, it may well be, of
obedience to the dread hand of commercial requirement, expectation, and actual
control. Rock is, to be sure, a 'broad church', but its mainstream course tends
to be pretty narrow in its sex-oriented gender relativity. And that narrowness,
which is not exempt from repetitious banality and brain-washing reiteration,
more usually bores and depresses me.
Most people would not accept their
circumstances were they not obliged to live the way they do.
As a rule, night grants you a
peaceful reprieve from the day's warfare, as from everything 'under the sun',
including unruly neighbours.
It could be argued that most people
only experience real peace when asleep.
People would not love animals so
much did they not detest one another.
Aphoristic philosophy, or true
philosophy, is the one literary genre that follows from what is thought rather than from what is
read, written, or spoken, like all the others, including, most especially,
fiction, poetry, and drama.
If you hate what you do, don't do
it!
All societies are comprised of two
sides: the lawful dog-eat-dog on the one hand, and the
unlawful dog-eat-dog on the other.
The Rich always have something in
reserve; the Poor don't.
Most people use their brains only
in the service of their bodies, not of their minds.
The brain may rule the body,
especially in the case of females, but the (male) mind can transcend it, by
leading the brain.
The majority of people are neither scientific
brains nor religious minds, but either political or economic bodies, with a
correspondingly feminine or masculine bias.
One could argue that whereas the
autocrat will normally be a brain and the theocrat a mind, the democratic and
plutocratic masses will generally correspond to opposite types of bodies.
Being a mind is no small
distinction in a world characterized by bodies, including those of children,
and dominated by brains.
It has been said that great minds
think alike, and, if so, that would have to be because they subjectively
converge upon a religious omega point that of God in Heaven.
Those who deliver sermons tend to
reproduce something old. Those who deliver papers, by contrast, tend to
introduce something new, even if it is most likely to be concrete as opposed to
abstract.
The thoughts of theologians should
be distinguished from the speeches of scientists, as the readings of economists
from the writings of politicians.
The thoughts of philosophers differ
from those of theologians by being, in some sense, a chip off the scientific
block, such that will most likely, in correlating hitherto isolated fields of
research in the interests of a more comprehensive and possibly truer
perspective, introduce something new from a standpoint most likely to be
abstract as opposed to concrete.
Hence neither a psychological nor a
physiological partisanship, as with scientific specialists, but a combination
of both psychology and physiology to arrive at a more credible perspective such
that does proper justice, given the requirements of ratio differentiation, to
the element or subject as a whole. With me, there can be no subconscious
without a supersensuous precondition in metachemistry. Nor, conversely, can there be any subsensuous in metaphysics without a superconscious
precondition such that, as with metachemistry, stands
to its extrapolative corollary in a most vis-a-vis
least (3:1) ratio commensurate with absolute, or noumenal,
criteria, as germane to what is ethereal. As for the unconscious, which should
be distinguished from the subconscious, that, to me, would be meaningless were
it not conceived as the extrapolative corollary of the sensuous in chemistry,
the converse of the unsensuous in physics as the
extrapolative corollary of consciousness which, like the sensuous in chemistry,
would stand in a more vis-a-vis less (2½:1½) ratio
commensurate with relative, or phenomenal, criteria, as germane to what is
corporeal.
******
I would have serious reservations
about entering any building crowned by an angular pediment, whether or not the
said pediment incorporated a roundel within its triangular dominance.
Naturally, I tend to avoid buildings whose faηades sport what I habitually
think of as a rectilinear as opposed to curvilinear pediment, Alexandra
Palace, which I can see from my bedroom, being a case in point, and I would
certainly have definite reservations about entering it!
One might suppose that the proper
place or environment for buildings with an angular pediment would be atop a
mountain, not a hill. By contrast, a church with a cupola-dominated pediment,
whether or not the actual pediment itself was curvilinear, should ideally by
sited on the brow of a hill, overlooking the town from a vantage-point arguably
closer to heaven, but not so far removed from the town or townsfolk as to be
inaccessible. For unlike castles, churches were designed to invite people in,
not to keep them out.
Eventually, the Reichstag got its dome, but not in
the neo-classical manner that Adolf Hitler had envisaged. Rather, in a pleasingly modernist style compliments of a British
architect named Norman Foster.
There can be few centres of
politics, never mind government, in the world that would put the Reichstag
in the proverbial shade. The Houses of Parliament in
******
The 'Dragon' that has to be
neutralized if the Saint is to be victorious (and gain hegemonic peace of mind)
will not be defeated by his 'turning the other cheek'. It must first of all be
fought.
I resent nothing more than
intrusions into my privacy, including my freedom to think, by noisy or
censorious neighbours, especially when they also happen to be foreigners with,
to judge by experience, a marked sensitivity if not antipathy to thought.
Needless to say, I would be loathe to let such
intrusions go unpunished.
Generally speaking, the masses
resist education, so egalitarian efforts to impose it upon them are doomed to
failure. Education is the privilege of a select few who don't have to live with
the masses and are not subject, in consequence, to their censorious or hostile
attitude to thought, as to thinking and intellectual endeavour generally, all
of which goes against their outgoing, largely female-dominated natures.
Egalitarian rhetoric, especially
that involving education, by vote-hungry politicians should be seen for what it
is worth and contemptuously dismissed.
Only an egalitarian fool would
strive to educate the ineducable.
Dominated by females, children, and
animals, the masses resist thought and hold it against the thinker as one who
subjectively goes against the grain of their family-oriented objectivity, their
somatically-dominated clear-mindedness and, for want of a better word, 'outsanity', such that brands intellectual activity with the
derogatory epithet 'mental'.
Anyone who lives on a higher plane
than the masses, the people, one's neighbours, etc., is their enemy, whether he
be speaker or thinker, and however he may regard his
relationship with them.
God is as much an enemy of the
people in one way as the Devil is their enemy in another, albeit they are the
enemies of different even opposite gender-conditioned manifestations of the
people.
The closer my physical proximity to
people, neighbours and nearby workmen not least, the more have I striven to
mentally distance myself from them and to resist their endeavours to physically
thwart me in the pursuit of my intellectual labours.
My philosophy was only possible in
spite of people, not because of them.
******
Some things fall from above to
below. Other things rise from below to above, albeit from a different below to
a different above. Like water falling from fire and air rising (at least in
part) from vegetation, though whatever falls from above is likely to be of the
opposite gender to whatever rises from below. Hence the
distinction, not to mention struggle, between devolution and evolution.
There can be no 'Risen Virgin',
only a counter-fall (counter-damnation) of that which is chemical (of the
Mother) to what is pseudo-metachemical (of the
pseudo-Virgin) as the necessary corollary, for females, of the rise (salvation)
of that which is pseudo-physical (of the pseudo-Son) to what is metaphysical
(of the Father).
But what falls from the Virgin, as
it were, to the Mother necessarily drags down with it the pseudo-Father to the
pseudo-Son, just as, by complete contrast, what rises from the Son to the
Father necessarily drags up with it the pseudo-Mother to the pseudo-Virgin at
least in terms of a simple logical antithesis between falling/pseudo-rising and
rising/pseudo-falling which has nothing whatsoever to do with axial
differentiation between rises/counter-falls and falls/counter-rises, as already
described.
The female may fall from metachemistry (the Virgin) to chemistry (the Mother), but
the pseudo-male can only pseudo-rise from pseudo-metaphysics (the
pseudo-Father) to pseudo-physics (the pseudo-Son). Contrariwise, the male may
rise from physics (the Son) to metaphysics (the Father), but the pseudo-female
can only pseudo-fall from pseudo-chemistry (the pseudo-Mother) to pseudo-metachemistry (the pseudo-Virgin). However, all this
somewhat contrasts with the axial rise of the pseudo-Son to the Father, as from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and the axial counter-fall of the Mother to the
pseudo-Virgin, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry,
whereby the lower-order pseudo-male becomes, through salvation, upper-order
male, and the lower-order female becomes, through counter-damnation,
upper-order pseudo-female. Contrariwise, the axial rise (salvation) of the
pseudo-Son and counter-fall (counter-damnation) of the Mother should lead to
the axial fall (damnation) of the Virgin to the pseudo-Mother, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, and the axial
counter-rise (counter-salvation) of the pseudo-Father to the Son, as from
pseudo-metaphysics to physics, whereby the upper-order female becomes, through
damnation, lower-order pseudo-female and the upper-order pseudo-male becomes,
through counter-salvation, lower-order male.
What the above distinctions tend to
prove is that what happens in nature, with parallel higher and lower
gender-divisible positions which tend to rotate in opposite directions,
depending on which gender is hegemonic, is not characteristic of what happens
or can happen in civilization, where the upper and lower gender-divisible
positions are diagonally contrary (rather than vertically parallel) and tend to
the reversal, in consequence, of who is constitutive of the hegemonic gender,
depending on whether a rise (coupled to a counter-fall) or a fall (coupled to a
counter-rise) is the axial outcome. Only civilization can put an end to the
opposing gyrations of nature, as of that which stems from the galactic world
order in the centrifugal or centripetal, objective or subjective cyclic
spiralling of a recurrence that, whether infinite and finite (female) or
temporal and eternal (male), characterized by the dominance of a vacuum
(female) or of a plenum (male), can never cease to spin in opposite directions
with little hope of peace or rest. It is by combining upper and lower
diagonally contrary gender positions that civilization achieves a stability
which defies the cyclic recurrence of nature and makes deliverance from it
possible, though less in relation to itself than to what may one day transcend
civilization in the eternity and pseudo-infinity, the metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry of 'Kingdom Come', the structure of which,
served by an administrative aside to the Centre proper, should be completely
beyond the sway of nature in both of its recurrences, since antithetical to the
Galaxy in its cultural universality and achievement of a non-polar stability, a
stability beyond even axial relativity in the absolutism of its structured centro-complexification.
You can have doubts about
civilization, especially since it divides, over and above gender polarity, into
separate axes that tend to be at loggerheads, but the solution is not, however,
a 'return to nature', with its clockwise and anti-clockwise spinning or
cycling, its opposite types of noumenal and
phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal recurrence. The solution, rather, is
evolutionary progress towards that which we can have absolutely no reservations
about because transcending both axial and polar relativity in the absolutism of
its non-axial, non-polar gender-divisible structure strictly commensurate with
Culture writ large. That is, with not only a civilized check on nature which
co-exists with it but, more importantly, the antithesis to nature which is the
outcome of civilization as it advances beyond 'the world' towards an
otherworldly goal that will be its own centre, not, like a quasar/black hole, the
centre of the Galaxy, as of any galaxy, but central to itself
and with whatever chooses to identify with it in the quest for true
universality, antithetical, in every respect, to the false universality which
engendered, largely on a devolutionary basis, the myriad galaxies of which our
galaxy, the so-called 'Milky Way', is but a single and possibly exceptional
example. The Centre to come, commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', will not
encourage divergence but convergence, not contraction but expansion, not beauty
but truth, not doing (rooted in the vacuous necessity of will) but being
(centred in the soulful core of the psychic self), not freedom but liberation
from freedom and attainment, in consequence, of the peace that is only possible
once the war of conflicting opposites is no more and the Dragon has been slain,
neutralized for all pseudo-Infinity, by the triumphant Saint whose peaceful
reign will be eternal, as His airy wings hover, in metaphysics, above the
constrained fiery wings, in pseudo-metachemistry, of
His defeated enemy, held down and in check for evermore.
More comprehensively than the
above, the objective freely somatic virtues (coupled to objective unfreely psychic vices) and pseudo-subjective pseudo-freely
somatic pseudo-virtues (coupled to pseudo-subjective pseudo-unfreely
psychic pseudo-vices) of the mainstream and subordinate clockwise cycles of
female-dominated nature/pseudo-nurture on both noumenal
and phenomenal planes vis-a-vis the subjective freely
psychic virtues (coupled to subjective unfreely
somatic vices) and pseudo-objective pseudo-freely psychic pseudo-virtues
(coupled to pseudo-objective pseudo-unfreely somatic
pseudo-vices) of the mainstream and subordinate anti-clockwise cycles of
male-dominated nurture/pseudo-nature on both phenomenal and noumenal
planes, neither of which are constitutive of civilization, still less of what
transcends it in non-axial, non-polar terms.
Christianity differs from
heathenism as civilization from nature, and Christianity is largely identifiable
with Western civilization, the only civilization that, taking its stand on the
religion of the Cross, is non-cyclical in its identification with bisecting
axes, not least on a diagonal Catholic/Protestant basis. Other so-called 'world
religions' tend to favour the cyclic, whether on a clockwise basis like,
arguably, Judaism and Hinduism, or on an anti-clockwise basis like, I would
argue, Islam and Buddhism, which, however one chooses to interpret the
respective orientations of these religions in terms of either a bias towards noumenal absolutism like, arguably, Judaism and Buddhism in
their opposite ways, or a bias towards phenomenal relativity like, arguably,
Hinduism and Islam in their opposite ways, suggests to this author a closer
relationship with nature that, whether characterized by female- or
male-hegemonic criteria, not only distinguishes them from Christianity, as the
religion of Western civilization par
excellence, but rather indicates a heathenistic
shortfall from the non-cyclical disposition, through its axial integrity, of
the religion of Christ which, with the inevitable resurrection of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, would have the capability to become
effectively Superchristian, and therefore the means
whereby evolutionary progress beyond the axial differentiation of Christianity
could be achieved
in the interests of the ultimate Centre, antithetical, in
every respect, to the incessant cycles of nature and hence of that which stems,
on an extrapolative and necessarily attenuated basis, from the galactic world
order which the Christian civilization was able to check but not, alas,
transcend. Only through Western-dominated globalization will it be possible for
the heathenistic Infidel, the unbeliever in the
religion of the Cross, with its axial implications, not only to be curbed but,
more significantly, liberated from his cyclic recurrence in the name of the
still centre of universal peace.
One could argue that Western
civilization in Europe was saved from its own degeneration in the twentieth
century largely by and through the United States of America, whose intervention
against and/or opposition to both Communism and Fascism, the female-dominated
clockwise cycling of the one and the male-dominated reactionary anti-clockwise cycling
of the other, eventually extricated Europe from the secular grip of its own
unchristian degeneration and infused new blood, new life into its creaking
carcass, thereby enabling it to join with America in the ongoing struggle
against anti-Western cyclic threats to the Christian civilization generally,
most of which, unlike their Western communist and fascist counterparts of more
recent times, are still rooted in a cosmos-dominated natural/nurtural past.
******
For most people life simply mirrors
the alternation between day and night, sun and moon, soma and psyche, state and
church, with war between people during the day and peace with oneself at night,
even war between men during the day and peace with women at night, presuming
upon a kind of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (protestant) polarity in the
one case, and a kind of state-subordinate/church-hegemonic (catholic) polarity
in the other case, though that would, of course, be largely speculative, since
I am not convinced that it could be logically proved.
When does
expression become explosion and when, by contrast, does impression become
implosion? I guess the obvious answer must be: beyond the point of retention,
when the centrifugal becomes overly divergent (and therefore no longer
expressive) and the centripetal overly convergent (and therefore no longer
impressive), with catastrophic results.
One hears a lot about the
space-time continuum and other such clichιs of modern science, but I, being
self-taught and suspicious of authority, have long preferred to make a
distinction between space (as spatial) and pseudo-time (as sequential) on the
one hand, and time (as repetitive) and pseudo-space (as spaced) on the other
hand, neither of which would be compatible with the other, since significant of
two different types of space and two different kinds of time. As for the
distinction I also make and have long made between volume (as volumetric)
and pseudo-mass (as massed) on the one hand, and mass (as massive) and
pseudo-volume (as voluminous) on the other hand, here, too, there is no
connection or continuum between what are, in effect, opposite types of volume
and opposite kinds of mass, neither of which could possibly be compatible,
never mind identical, with the other.
