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,
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?
