ORANGE NOTEBOOK 3

 

My mother used to have what I understood to be an old Irish saying: “God created friends and the Devil relatives.” Well, I don't know about relatives, since, living outside my native country, I've never had that many to contend with, but I would certainly settle for neighbours in the latter context!

 

Do shepherds leave the shepherding of the flock to sheep? No, of course not! Nor do cowboys leave the herding of the herd to cattle. In a democracy, whether republican or parliamentary, both sheep and cattle equivalents can vote for the kinds of shepherd or cowboy equivalents they prefer. But they can't expect to be left without shepherd or cowboy equivalents altogether, since the absence of external controls would lead to anarchy and to a general want of democratic accountability, with extremely serious consequences.

 

Mozart's father, Leopold, was a Bavarian from Augsberg, and therefore it must be said that Wolfgang Amadeus himself was partly of German descent, even if born in Salzberg, Austria.

 

To be safe from the prying ears and penetrating eyes of women you need, short of a monastic retreat, very thick walls, very thick walls indeed!

 

In this book it could be argued that I rounded on cyclic recurrence in no uncertain terms, laying into it with a vengeance that would have astounded Nietzsche.

 

The next time you get to watch a saxophonist in action, particularly one who is swaying his saxophone around (like a sonofabitch), ask yourself if the bright shiny exterior of the instrument coupled to its dark, deep interior, the gaping hole, as it were, inside the bell, doesn't suggest something analogous to a quasar/black hole, dancing its undamned pitch in the spotlight of a starry night.

 

Even if rock had done nothing more than to take contemporary music off the 'gold standard' of jazz, it would have achieved something momentous.

 

One should be careful to distinguish between contemporary music, like rock and electronica, and contemporary anachronistic music, like so-called classical still being composed in one acoustic and/or orchestral way or another, including what passes for the avant-garde. For contemporary musicians/composers who use the most up-to-date instruments and museum-like anachronisms who are not in a position to 'jump ship', as it were, are two very different kettles of musical fish who swim in very different musical environments.

 

For me, the best type of rock is – and always will be – progressive rock (prog rock), which synthetically strains towards electronica from a position rooted, manually, in drums and bass.

 

No group has charmed and entertained me more than Tangerine Dream, who are my 'dream band', epitomizing what I regard as best in electronica, regressive electronica, and progressive rock, since they seem to have spanned a number of genres, even if, to a cynical mindset, it would seem as if they had gradually 'gone downhill' from the original keyboard-based electronic format to formats embracing guitars (both electric and acoustic), drums, percussion, and brass and/or wind instruments (including sax and flute). Nonetheless, their music remains recognizably Tangerine Dreamish, despite all the inevitable changes in instrumentation and personnel which the group has undergone over the course of several decades. Few other bands can rival them or, more correctly, Edgar Froese for staying power. For he, more than anyone else, has kept Tangerine Dream 'on the road' through all the transmutations which have taken place, and it would be no exaggeration to say that without its founder member Tangerine Dream would probably cease to exist, since he is effectively the backbone and central nervous system of the group who, like Brahms before him, has taken his music from Hamburg to Vienna, as from Germany to Austria, in the course of its development. Only his son, Jerome, it seems to me, could credibly step into his shoes and possibly take Tangerine Dream into a post-Edgar Froese future.

 

******

 

One should distinguish civilized decadence and degeneration, according to axis, from non-civilized decadence and degeneration, which is, like nature, merely cyclical in character. The doctrine of egalitarianism or equalitarianism can lead from the one type of decadence or degeneration to the other, with predictably philistine and barbarous consequences. To be sure, both philistinism and barbarism exist within the axial framework of civilization, but not, thank goodness, as its dominating or most characteristic features! On the contrary, culture generally gets the better of philistinism and civility of barbarity, which is just the opposite of what happens when axial decadence and degeneration are eclipsed by their cyclic counterparts, making for a situation in which philistinism and barbarity come to the fore through a want of culture and civility, whether in relation to Fascism or to Communism.

 

Curious that, on state-hegemonic axial terms, civility is degenerate vis-a-vis its polarity in the barbarity of regeneration, in contrast to the polarity between the pseudo-culture of pseudo-cadence and the pseudo-philistinism of pseudo-decadence, both of which need to be evaluated separately from the polarity, in church-hegemonic axial terms, between the pseudo-civility of pseudo-degeneration and the pseudo-barbarity of pseudo-regeneration, in contrast to the polarity between the culture of cadence and the philistinism of decadence.

 

Any artist who is not more than a 'mirror held up to life' is a mere philistine. In our own time, photographers are the type of the philistine artist par excellence, as are so-called Modern Realists, who strive to minutely reproduce, with near photographic exactitude, the objects of their painterly endeavour.

 

I've always had strong reservations about listening to music employing the trumpet (horn), not least in the context of modern jazz, probably because I tend to regard trumpets as the most alpha-oriented of musical instruments, even of brass instruments in general. There is also, I guess, something quintessentially Old Testament-like about trumpets, and I, for one, find it difficult to associate the instrument with anything angelic, never mind godly! No, the trumpet is definitely a kind of taboo instrument for me. In fact, so much so, that I cannot pretend to relish the prospect of hearing even so accomplished a musician as Miles Davis playing one, these days, much as I occasionally used to listen to him in my unsuspecting youth.

 

******

 

With the primary axial polarity between regeneration and degeneration, metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry on the state-hegemonic axis, we find a parallel with that between vanity and justice, so that it can be logically maintained that whereas metachemical regeneration is vain (but not necessarily 'in vain'), pseudo-chemical degeneration is just. Hence justice is no less relatively degenerate than vanity is absolutely regenerative. But why, then, do we tend to regard justice as honourable if, indeed, it is a concomitant of pseudo-chemical degeneration? There are, I believe, two answers to that question. One is that unbridled regeneration, or vanity, is undesirable and deserves to be constrained through the application of justice. The other is that the polarity between metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, though primary, is not the only polarity on the state-hegemonic axis, but one that co-exists, on the female side of the gender fence, with the secondary state-hegemonic polarity, on its male side, between pseudo-metaphysics and physics, that is, between pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness, which corresponds to pseudo-decadence and pseudo-cadence, so that pseudo-meekness is as much an absolute concomitant of pseudo-decadence as pseudo-righteousness is a relative concomitant of pseudo-cadence, the former corresponding to what is pseudo-metaphysically subordinate to metachemistry, the latter to what is physically hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry. And there, in relation to pseudo-righteousness, lies the basis of the second reason why justice is considered honourable. For it is subject to the physical hegemony of pseudo-righteousness and would not otherwise exist, being a consequence, by and large, of male hegemonic criteria. Although degenerate from a female point of view rooted in regeneration, justice is instrumental in maintaining the balance of axial forces which, by constraining regeneration, and hence excessive vanity, allows pseudo-righteousness to prevail and to prevail, within a relative framework, over degeneration. But if what is controlled by and rendered subject to a male hegemony in physics – namely pseudo-chemical justice – is honourable partly for that very reason, the axial converse of such a gender arrangement in which the male is dominant over a pseudo-female position, namely the absolute subordination of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meekness to metachemical vanity, as of pseudo-decadence to regeneration, is, from a male standpoint centred in physics, dishonourable, since the product, in no small degree, of a female hegemony, and thus of metachemical control. Now what applies to the state-hegemonic axis is also applicable, in reverse terms, to the church-hegemonic one, where pseudo-justice under righteousness, pseudo-metachemical pseudo-degeneration a plane down from metaphysical cadence, is honourable or, more correctly, pseudo-honourable from a male standpoint because of the male hegemony in metaphysics, whereas the subordination, by contrast, of meekness to pseudo-vanity, of pseudo-physical decadence to chemical pseudo-regeneration is dishonourable from such a standpoint, owing to the hegemony, in relative terms, of chemistry, a female element, over a subordinate pseudo-male in pseudo-physics. Thus whether a subordinate gender position is honourable or dishonourable would seem to be linked to the nature of the gender hegemony presiding over it, with positions following from the prevalence of a male hegemony (in physics and/or metaphysics) being deemed honourable or, more correctly from my logical standpoint, relatively honourable (in pseudo-chemistry) and absolutely pseudo-honourable (in pseudo-metachemistry), but those, by contrast, in which the male (as pseudo-male) is subject to female hegemonic control (whether in relation to metachemistry or to chemistry) being castigated as dishonourable or, more correctly from my logical standpoint, as absolutely pseudo-dishonourable (in pseudo-metaphysics) and relatively dishonourable (in pseudo-physics) – again from one or other of the male hegemonic standpoints. As for females, their hegemonic positions are not evaluated by the same kind of male-oriented moral logic, even if females have their own views on the status of what I would call pseudo-male subordinates, but tend, rather, to be grudgingly accepted or acknowledged by hegemonic type males as facts of life which, no matter how majestic or inevitable in relation to an objective disposition motivated by vacuous necessity, require to be curbed or constrained in the interests of those male virtues in either physical pseudo-righteousness or metaphysical righteousness which allow for the honourableness, from a male standpoint, of pseudo-chemical justice and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-justice respectively, while simultaneously reducing, almost as a by-product, the extents of dishonourableness attendant upon the subordination of pseudo-physical meekness to chemical pseudo-vanity on the church-hegemonic axis and of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meekness to metachemical vanity on the state-hegemonic one. Therefore it should follow that the hegemony, on state-hegemonic axial terms, of pseudo-righteousness over justice will reduce the degree to which pseudo-meekness is subordinate to vanity, while, conversely, the hegemony, on church-hegemonic terms, of righteousness over pseudo-justice will reduce the degree to which meekness is subordinate to pseudo-vanity, whether or not this actually happens in practice or for any appreciable amount of time. Some things, however, are fairly certain: degenerative justice, functioning at the behest of pseudo-cadent pseudo-righteousness, can no more defeat regenerative vanity than pseudo-decadent pseudo-meekness, functioning at the behest of regenerative vanity, can defeat pseudo-righteous pseudo-cadence on the state-hegemonic axis, while decadent meekness, functioning at the behest of pseudo-regenerative pseudo-vanity, can no more defeat cadent righteousness than pseudo-degenerative pseudo-justice, functioning at the behest of cadent righteousness, defeat pseudo-regenerative pseudo-vanity on the church-hegemonic axis. The balance of polar forces, compounded by gender differentials in both upper- and lower-class terms, remains in place as testimony to the non-cyclic stability of Western civilization, even if, through messianic intervention or some equivalence thereof, destiny may have a non-axial order of stability in store for the world which, being global, will simultaneously allow the problem, from a civilized standpoint, of cyclic recurrence to be definitively solved by making it logically possible for its various manifestations, historical as well as contemporary, to be consigned to the proverbial rubbish bin of history.

 

Nature may cycle its foliage, but, by and large, buildings and streets remain constant, fixed in unchanging moulds that transcend the seasonal variations impinging upon them.

 

To contrast the vain barbarity of regeneration with the just civility of degeneration, as one would contrast metachemistry with pseudo-chemistry as primary state-hegemonic polarity (female) vis-a-vis the secondary state-hegemonic polarity (male) which contrasts the pseudo-meek pseudo-philistinism of pseudo-decadence with the pseudo-righteous pseudo-culture of pseudo-cadence, where the contrast between pseudo-metaphysics and physics is concerned.

 

Contrariwise, to contrast the righteous culture of cadence with the meek philistinism of decadence, as one would contrast metaphysics with pseudo-physics as primary church-hegemonic polarity (male) vis-a-vis the secondary church-hegemonic polarity (female) which contrasts the pseudo-just pseudo-civility of pseudo-degeneration with the pseudo-vain pseudo-barbarity of pseudo-regeneration, where the contrast between pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry is concerned.

 

******

 

What is righteousness? Is it the same, for instance, as the pseudo-cadence of pseudo-physics? No, that, by contrast, is pseudo-righteous because, although equivocally hegemonic over the just civility of pseudo-chemistry, in overall axial terms it is subject to the domination of female criteria by dint of the axial primacy of metachemistry which, unequivocally hegemonic over pseudo-metaphysics, is polar to pseudo-chemistry, as regeneration to degeneration, or vanity to justice. Righteousness, by axial contrast, is not pseudo-cultural, like physics, but properly cultural, which is only possible in the cadence of metaphysics, and such culture, appertaining to an unequivocally hegemonic elemental position (over pseudo-metachemistry) is only possible in relation to the Self, or soul, where it is true. For, like righteousness, culture is nothing if not self-culture, and the self-righteous in self-culture are the truly righteous, being one with self as, in equivalent terms, God is One with Heaven, or Superconsciousness One with the Supersensibility of the Soul. The Righteous are joyful in their self-culture, for they have triumphed over life and need not fear death. Theirs is the grace of the Saved.

 

If the righteous man – effectively a superman – is righteous because of his commitment to self-culture, to the cultivation of the Soul within the elemental framework of metaphysics, then anyone who is not self-righteous is not righteous, even if, like the physical man of ego, he happens to be pseudo-righteous in his equivocal hegemony over the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, who is nevertheless polar to what is unequivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-male, namely the metachemical female of regenerative vanity. As for the pseudo-metaphysical themselves, they are anything but righteous, since no less pseudo-meek under a metachemically vain hegemony than the pseudo-physical are meek under a chemically pseudo-vain one, barbarity absolutely dominating pseudo-philistinism in the former case, and pseudo-barbarity relatively dominating philistinism in the latter case.

 

The metaphysical man, a superman, is alone righteous in his commitment to metaphysics on the church-hegemonic axis, and Roman Catholic priests, being vocationally celibate, have traditionally exemplified such righteousness, even with a bound-somatic shortfall, through the Crucified Christ, from free-psychic grace in metaphysics such that, at the human level or stage of metaphysics, would imply regular recourse to transcendental meditation and a disposition completely independent of anything metachemical, no matter how beautiful or loving. Therefore the Righteous are, in effect, theocratic rather than, say, plutocratic, democratic, or autocratic, and are also men who, being righteous, or self-cultivated, tend to distance themselves from women, at least from sexual relationships with a gender which is fundamentally autocratic and therefore the very antithesis of the theocratic. Baudelaire aptly described women as being both tyrannical and slavish, and we may infer from this that if the tyrant is autocratic and regenerative, then the slave is likely to be democratic and pseudo-regenerative, that is, chemical rather than metachemical, pseudo-vain rather than vain, more concerned with reproduction (or its familial consequences) than with seduction, but still given, objectively, to a somatic disposition which is ever concrete, if relatively rather than absolutely so. The unrighteous man, using that term in a general sense, does not, however, distance himself from women in this way, but sexually engages with them to varying (relative or absolute, pseudo-physical or pseudo-metaphysical) extents, either in the meek acceptance of parental responsibility (relative) or in the pseudo-meek avoidance of such responsibility (absolute) through an overriding concern with aesthetic hedonism. With the pseudo-righteous man, physically hegemonic over the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, there is also a relative sexual engagement presupposing paternal responsibility, albeit modified by his knowledge-oriented bias towards ego and likely concomitant economic interests making, via regular recourse to contraception, to reduced family commitments in, compared with his unrighteous counterparts, small family units.

 

******

 

God in Heaven as Truth in Joy or Mind in Soul, Superconsciousness in – and as the consequence of – Supersensibility. No Heaven, Joy, Soul, Supersensibility – call it by what name you like – and there could be no God, Truth, Mind, Superconsciousness. Without candle flame there would be no candlelight. Candlelight is candle flame regarded from the outside, and is therefore one and the same as that which burns within. So is God, Truth, Mind, Superconsciousness One and the Same as Heaven, Joy, Soul, Supersensibility, since the former variations on the one theme are the latter variations on it perceived from without rather than experienced from within.

 

Deny the Soul and you are left, as a male, with mind that, far from being superconscious, is merely conscious and dominated by the brain, which is called ego, or egocentric mind. And conscious, or egocentric, mind, unlike its superconscious counterpart, is not free of the Will but tends, even if indirectly, to be dominated by it, since, while it may be hegemonic over pseudo-Spirit, its axial polarity on the male side of the gender fence, viz. Pseudo-Soul, is very much subordinate to the hegemony of free will, as of the Will per se, which happens, being metachemical, to be female in character and therefore objective in disposition.

 

Having suggested a possible connection, on previous pages, between the descent into cyclic recurrence of a synthetically artificial order of Western civilization and its imperial associations with the older and more natural cyclic recurrences of pre-Western or non-Western cultures, I should not wish to leave the reader with the impression that such cultures were themselves the product of degeneration or decadence, since not only were they largely non-axial in character but, with few if any exceptions, stemmed from either regenerative or cadent preconditions that, with Judaism and Buddhism in particular, reflected the greater influence of cosmos-derived ethereal upper-class factors that were either autocratic or theocratic rather than a consequence, like the Western examples of more recent date, of democratic or plutocratic mass-movement tendencies inherently characteristic of a worldly age or society. In that respect, the ancient cyclic absolutes of pre-Western societies would appear to have been established on a basis the social opposite of their Western counterparts, even if still embracing relatively degenerate and decadent elements as a matter of cyclic course, and specifically, I believe, in relation to a kind of non-axial polarity between the regenerative nature of Judaism and the degenerate nature, knowledgeably bookish, of Islam on the one hand, and between the cadent nature of Buddhism and the decadent nature, within a sexual or bodily framework, of Hinduism on the other hand, irrespective of how much or how little such polarities count for within cycles that are either clockwise (Judaism/Hinduism) or anti-clockwise (Buddhism/Islam), and therefore mutually exclusive of their polar devolutions. And what applies to the pre-Western cultures can also be said of their Western counterparts, where I argued for a distinction between the clockwise cycling of Communism and Socialism as against the anti-clockwise cycles of Fascism and Nazism, the ghost of an axial polarity being inferred with the regenerative secular nature of Communism and the degenerative nature, from a Christian standpoint, of Nazism in the one polar case, and with the Catholic-defending cadent nature of Fascism, virtually in all Latin countries, and the decadent, or Church-independent, nature of Socialism in the other polar case, albeit such 'natures' are manifestly the product of synthetic artificiality and by no means identical to their non-Western counterparts. Incidentally, when does Western civilization really begin, not least from the standpoints of non-Western cultures? For, in a broad sense, it dates back to Graeco-Roman times, with the succession of Greece by Rome, and, more specifically to Christianity, it dates from the Middle Ages in terms of what superseded the so-called Dark Ages in relation to the medieval flowering of Roman Catholicism, not least in Italy and France, which, having succumbed to decadence in the guise of the body-affirming Renaissance, was duly, albeit only partly, eclipsed by the Reformation in much of northern Europe, so that the emergence of its regenerative axis or, rather, of the axis rooted in regeneration could be said to date from the mid-sixteenth century, a century which many people, including non-Westerners, would be inclined to equate with the inception of the modern if not contemporary form of Western civilization on account of the burgeoning imperialism which followed from the greater economic and political freedoms of the Reformation, freedoms which ultimately brought the United States of America not merely into being, but as the principal exponent, in due course, of largely Protestant-derived Western values in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Therefore when this staged framework, progressing from Greece and Rome to Protestant-derived modernity via Catholic medievalism, of what constitutes Western civilization is taken into account, even Islam, a much later religion than Christianity, could be regarded as being, in some sense, pre-Western in character, not simply non-Western. However that may be, the non-European cycles, or forms of cyclic recurrence, did not derive, like their more recent Western counterparts, from mass-movement degeneration or decadence, but came into being as a consequence of elite rule by those closer, for whatever reason, to the spirit of either regeneration or cadence within a comparatively naturalistic as opposed to artificial environmental and social context or, more correctly, number of contexts.

 

We have now come a long way from the Catholic decadence of the Renaissance (often culturally overrated by Protestant and secular thinkers) tending to the Reformation theory of the first (orange) notebook, and would know that not only was it unrighteous but dishonourable and, what's more, unreserved, that is, unreservedly heathenistic in its glorification, through art, of the naked body, the opposite of anything Christian and therefore orientated, through Christ, towards somatic binding in the interests, for males, of … psychic freedom from bodily domination, not least in respect of women, who are the natural enemies, in their vacuous vanity, of righteousness and, hence, of physical or bodily reservedness. For the Righteous are nothing if not physically reserved, since given, in their self-centred honourableness, to mental calm and the cadence whose synonym is recreation, the recreation of psychic relaxation in the beingfulness of the liberated soul. Even the pseudo-Righteous are unable, in their preoccupation with ego, to achieve more than a pseudo-honourable order of righteousness (pseudo-righteous) commensurate with knowledgeable taking, the gender antithesis not so much of doing as of giving. But that which is dishonourable in its unreservedness is manifestly unrighteous, and therefore the product of error under opposite gender pressure, whether in relation to the pseudo-meekness (pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin in secondary state-hegemonic pseudo-free soma/secondary church-subordinate pseudo-bound psyche) of pseudo-metaphysics ever subordinate to a metachemical hegemony favouring vanity (crime/evil in primary state-hegemonic free soma/primary church-subordinate bound psyche), or in relation to the meekness (sin/folly in primary church-hegemonic pseudo-bound psyche/primary state-subordinate pseudo-free soma) of pseudo-physics ever subordinate to a chemical hegemony favouring pseudo-vanity (pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime in secondary church-hegemonic bound psyche/secondary state-subordinate free soma), neither of which hegemonic elements, being female, conduce towards reservedness, or the virtue of being aloof from pseudo-male failings, of which decadence, whether pseudo (pseudo-metaphysical) or genuine (pseudo-physical) is the outward proof. Unreserved, dishonourable, unrighteous, you have need, in pseudo-physics, of deliverance from your sin (pseudo-bound psyche) and folly (pseudo-free soma) to the grace (free psyche) and wisdom (bound soma) of metaphysical salvation, as to that which reserves the moral right to remain aloof from whatever is not righteous, whether pseudo-righteous or unrighteous, since, from a male standpoint, truly honourable in its inner self-centredness at the centre of truth. The question is: Do you want to be saved and, no less importantly, do you believe it is possible to be saved in a world dominated by women? Obviously, I cannot answer that question for you, but I reserve the right to ask it and to wrestle with my own reservations in relation to it, not least with regards to the fact that the world we live in these days is far bigger than the Christian one of old, whether Catholic or Protestant or a combination of both, and no concept of Salvation, inextricably tied, as it has to be, to that of counter-Damnation, would be of any use that was stuck in a Christian mould, as though the world were only occupied by Christians, and then in its more worldly, or Western, manifestations, not least in Europe. Sorry, but that isn't the case, and one has to make allowances for that fact, as I believe I have done over the years in a variety of texts which have some relation to what I have called the ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy, and make allowances, besides, for so much else that Christianity signally fails to address and would be demonstrably incapable of providing a solution to, since rooted, through the Old Testament, in what is the very opposite of the centre of truth, of the cadent righteousness of the truly reserved. And those roots, enjoining people to 'increase and multiply', have reference to the regenerative vanity whose starting-point is unreservedly Creator-esque in its quasar/black hole-like cyclic vacuity out of which the beautiful and loving freely somatic (coupled to ugly and hateful bound psychic) enemies of the freely psychic joy and truth (coupled to the bound somatic woe and illusion) objectively diverge, to render any subjective convergence to the centre of truth, the omega point of joyful soul, a rather uphill and daunting task, but not, I maintain, as impossible as some, lacking in both logic and faith, would have us believe. And not so much in regard to 'moving mountains', which to me is a largely irrelevant concept of faith, as in 'climbing hills'. For if this hill can be climbed, then there will be no place for mountains, much less mountain-scalers and mouthpieces like Moses and Zarathustra, that mouthpiece of the Nietzschean will to power, and less and less place, correlatively, for anything in between, including decadent valleys and degenerate flatlands. Regeneration may have had the first creative say and be indicative, moreover, of what comes first as the alpha-most tendency in life, whether in ancient cyclic, schismatic axial, or modern cyclic guise, but if righteousness is to finally prevail, not least over pseudo-justice, its subordinate gender concomitant, then it will be desirable for cadence to reserve to itself the last recreational thought, and for the Y-like emblem of truth to be planted atop the hill whose centre is universal and eternally beyond the realm of cosmic necessity.

 

The Church was not built atop a mountain, like the Kehlsteinhaus or Adlerhorst (eagle's nest) of the Zarathustrian Hitler. No Nietzschean Zarathustra or Mosaic Jehovah lights our path under a blazing sun or tumultuous sky violently rent asunder by commanding thunderclaps and lightening bolts of 'the Almighty', but only the flickering inner light of metaphysical truth, the light which, as Truth, bears witness to the Joy of the heavenly soul which is the maker and breaker of godliness. Now why, as a male of philosophic tendency, should one have any reservations about that?

 

London, 2013

 

Preview RESERVATIONS IN ORANGE AND GREEN eBook