THE OMEGA POINT OF CULTURAL TRUTH
Cyclic Philosophy
Copyright © 2002–12 John O'Loughlin
___________
CONTENTS
1. Thinking in Fours
2. What is the Cosmos?
3. What is Nature?
4. What is Man?
5. What is the Cyborg?
6. An Overview of Life
____________
THINKING IN FOURS
1. I often think in terms of
fours, for example in terms of four basic Elements - fire, water, vegetation
(earth), and air; in terms of four devotional ideals - beauty, strength,
knowledge, and truth; in terms of four emotional ideals - love, pride,
pleasure, and joy; in terms of four musical ingredients - rhythm, harmony,
melody, and pitch; in terms of four types of literature - poetry, drama,
fiction, and philosophy; in terms of four types of human being - devil, woman,
man, and god; in terms of four religious conditions and/or places - hell,
purgatory, earth, and heaven; in terms of four subatomic elements - photons,
electrons, neutrons, and protons; in terms of four major disciplinary
categories - science, politics, economics, and religion; in terms of four modes
of ideological negativity - materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism; in
terms of four modes of ideological positivity -
fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and
transcendentalism; in terms of four elemental conditions - metachemistry,
chemistry, physics, and metaphysics; in terms of four fine arts - art,
sculpture, literature, and music; in terms of four planes of existence - space,
time, volume, and mass; in terms of four somatic/psychic faculties - will,
spirit, ego, and soul; and so on and so forth.
2. There are, of course,
other ways of thinking, and I also often find myself thinking in terms of one
or another of them - for example, gods the Wise Son and the Wise Father, and
heavens the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit; or men the Wise Son and the Wise
Father, and earths the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit; or women the Good
Daughter and the Good Mother, and purgatories the Unclear Soul and the Unclear
Spirit; or devils the Good Daughter and the Good Mother, and hells the Unclear
Soul and the Unclear Spirit; not to mention clear and unholy orders of both
soul and spirit, and evil and foolish orders of both ego and will, as germane
to females and males in sensuality as opposed to sensibility. Even these ways of thinking can be turned
into quadruplicities of sorts, albeit with a
dualistic balance and requirement.
3. I am, as you will have
guessed, a thinker, a philosopher, albeit very much self-taught and therefore
self-respecting, and therefore I make it my business, my concern, to think
logically and comprehensively, and even doggedly and boldly, not to say
cautiously and sceptically, about a large variety of issues and contexts, some
of which are more philosophical than others, but all of which, whether strictly
metaphysical or not, contribute to the overall perspective in which this fits
here and that fits there, and without a prior knowledge of the status of this
as against the status of that, no certain or, at any rate, sustainable
estimation of both relative and absolute values, premised upon a sense of what belongs
where and why, would be possible.
4. So much for
introductions! The thing I would now
like to emphasize is a new way of looking at history or, rather, at a totality,
if you will, of possible or actual circumstances which, whether or not strictly
historical, would owe quite a lot to this tendency of mine to think in terms of
four, as, for example, in terms of four ages or, better, conditions of
life. After all, others, including the
great John Bunyan, have done likewise, if with a different perspective and from
a different standpoint. There are, for
example, with Spengler four ages or phases of life -
what he called 'Historyless Chaos', 'Culture',
'Civilization', and 'Second Religiousness'.
This is not the place to discuss his theories of history, but my own
latent theorizing would owe something to such a fourfold classification, though
I flatter myself to say little or nothing to Spengler!
5. I shall start by laying
my cards on the table, so to speak, and then proceed to discuss each one of them
in some detail thereafter, striving, as far as possible, to justify my
position, and making some effort, in the process, to analyse and define each of
the major categories in the game. These,
in more or less the following order, are Cosmos, Nature, Man, and Cyborg.
6. In other words, I am
going to elaborate upon a theory of life which embraces four main categories of
existence, each with its own characteristics and integrities, some of which
overlap with others, but all of which add up, if my theories are credible, to a
new way of conceiving of both the Universe, as it were, and Man's place in
it.
7. Therefore, to repeat,
things are conceived of as proceeding, in very broad terms, from the Cosmos to
the Cyborg via Nature and Man, as though, in general
terms, from fire to air via water and vegetation or, alternatively, from doing
to being via giving and taking.
8. Now in order to proceed
any further we shall need to ask: What is the Cosmos? And what is Nature? And
what is Man? And what is the Cyborg? - I shall
attempt an answer for each category, not definitive of course or even
necessarily standard, but such that will lend support to our theory of a sort
of chronological progression from alpha to omega via 'the world', and thereby
clarify the distinctions between the four main components of life as we are
conceiving of it. For life does not
begin with Man, and neither, I contend, should it end with him, even if he
happens to be a pretty significant player in the overall game.
WHAT IS THE COSMOS?
1. We all know that the
Cosmos is largely composed of starry bodies, together with such planets and/or
moons as may circle, in Solar System-like vein, around certain of them, as in
the case of our sun. Starry bodies in
space, together with their satellites and a whole lot of debris which has built
up over the millennia, constitute our general concept of the Cosmos.
2. Some have contended that
the Universe, to give it its alternative name, is meaningless, since devoid of
God in the conventional or traditional sense of Creator, like Jehovah, and that
we accordingly live in a meaningless Universe, since we, too, are part of the
overall picture. I won't go into the
Existentialist pros and cons - mostly cons - of this argument, because it is
not relevant to our text. But I will
contend that if the Universe was truly meaningless it would not be the sort of
place in which one could live but, rather, closer to what it probably was like
before galaxies and solar systems and such-like cosmic units were formed out of
the cooling of smaller stars and the gradual coming to pass, in contrast one
fancies to the everywhichway chaos of primal cosmic
matter, of magnetic reciprocities and tensions such that, together with other
factors, eventually led to the development of galaxies and related orders
which, in the manner of our solar system, display a variety of orbital
patterns, whether in relation to space itself (allegedly curved, if Einstein
and such physicists are to believed) or, more probably, in consequence of the various
bodies attracting and repelling one another in a kaleidoscope-like array of
interdependent movements that owe more to basic gravitational forces in
relation to different volumes and masses than to any 'cultural' interpretation
of orbits as such which, while intellectually attractive, doesn't really do all
that much justice to the rather more primitivistic
relationships characterizing such primal bodies as stars at various stages of
cosmic devolution.
3. Now it seems unlikely
that galaxies and solar systems were ready-formed, as it were, out of the
so-called Big Bang at the roots of the Universe - always rather suspiciously
suggestive of a secular parallel to monotheism - but, rather, that they took an
immense time to come into being, more time than we could reasonably comprehend,
and that wherever they did form, which
may not have been everywhere, the Cosmos ceased to be meaningless, or anarchic,
and became meaningful, and ordered - even, in some limited sense,
civilized. For we should not confine civilization
just to Man, even though he may be the paragon of it, but should allow for
something equivalent to civilization, even if on a much lesser or 'bovaryized' basis, in relation to the Universe
generally.
4. Now the Universe
achieved, in galaxies and solar systems, whether or not other solar systems
exist outside this particular galaxy, a meaning which would otherwise be
lacking. It became in some rudimentary
way civilized, whereas in its original manifestation as starry bodies
presumably flying everywhichway in primal chaos it
would have been not merely barbarous but infernally philistine, if we take
'philistine' to mean the opposite of cultured, and therefore that which most
accords with the absolute beginning of things rather than their absolute end,
with appearance rather than essence, with will rather than soul, with doing
rather than being, with the Devil rather than God, with outer rather than
inner, with light rather than lightness, with speed rather than calmness, with
individualism rather than co-operation, and so on and so forth.
5. Even now I think it safe
or, at any rate, reasonable to contend that the Universe or Cosmos, whatever
one prefers to call it (and it may be that Multiverse
or even Polyverse is the more appropriate description
of something so vast as potentially to be composed of countless galaxies and/or
solar systems, as well as the possibility of anarchic stars or bodies that even
now would defy meaning), is primarily philistine, or apparent, or manifesting
the most basic id-like will, and therefore that which stands at the inception
of life as the precondition for anything else, whether lower or contrary.
6. But I do not believe
that one can or indeed should limit the Cosmos to just a
philistine status, even if that may happen to be its most characteristic
attribute and therefore one that would necessarily have to take precedence over
all the others, including barbarism, civilization, and - dare I say it? - rudimentary manifestations of culture, as though in crudely
supernatural, natural, and subnatural departures from
a quintessentially unnatural inception and basis.
7. For the 'everything
within everything', the fourfold of things even within the Cosmos, never mind
Nature, Man, and Cyborg, is surely a credible argument
and interpretation of reality, and I would not be the first to espouse it. Anaxagoras believed such a thing in the fifth
century B.C., at around the same time that Empedocles did justice to the
fourfold classification of the Elements which has inspired so many
philosophers, including myself, right down to modern times.
8. However that may be, the
Cosmos, I shall maintain, is primarily a philistine reality which, despite the
chaos from out of which it must have emerged, achieved, in part or in whole, a
degree of order which we have since been able to testify to and interpret in
terms of galaxies, solar systems, and so on.
In fact, without such an order we would not have come to pass in the
first place, any more than the subject of my next question, Nature.
WHAT IS NATURE?
1. Generally one thinks of
Nature in terms of everything natural, whether cosmic, terrestrial, oceanic,
planetary, animal, vegetable, mineral, human, or what have you, and that which
is not Nature as being in some sense man-made and therefore artificial or
synthetic. I do not, myself, wish to
take such a comprehensive view of Nature, though I admit that there is more to
it than simply the vegetative or terrestrial aspect of things - not least of
all the vast watery volumes that constitute the greater proportion of natural
matter on Earth.
2. I think it helps if we
distinguish Nature from the Cosmos, as I have effectively already done, by
limiting it to that which is both mundane and not man-made, even if this can
still contain unnatural, supernatural, natural, and subnatural
elements within itself, as in relation to fire, water, vegetation, and air, but
especially, I shall argue, water and vegetation (earth), and with more
reference to water than to vegetation, so that 'Mother Nature' is largely,
though not exclusively, oceanic, or of the seas and lakes and other waterways
and watery contexts that predominate over its strictly vegetative
manifestations, the growth of which still requires water.
3. But even here we need to
distinguish between that which is wild and what has been modified or created by
man, since there are aspects of the natural world which are really a part of
civilization and therefore partake of the man-made, even with a largely
non-human ingredient. I refer, for
instance, to farms, not to mention zoos and parks, tree-lined streets, gardens,
and other modifications of Nature such that, duly domesticated, are adjuncts to
or aspects of civilization proper.
4. But Nature in general,
nature in the raw, is anything but an adjunct to or lesser aspect of
civilization, but if not its enemy then something which we can regard, most
unequivocally, as signifying a fall, in the biblical sense, from the Cosmos, as
from appearance to quantity, beauty to strength (or more probably weakness
initially), the light to the darkness, 'the heavens' to 'the world'.
5. Even the metaphor of the
Garden of Eden, the Edenic myth in Genesis, is
symptomatic to me of a fall, nay the fall of
life from the noumenal heights of the starry Cosmos
to the phenomenal depths of mundane Nature. It was a fall, in effect, from the Devil to
woman, from love to pride (or more probably humility, if not humiliation,
initially), from hotness to coldness, from a context with a philistine fulcrum
to one with a barbarous fulcrum or mean, not excluding degrees and lesser
manifestations, relative to itself, of philistinism, civilization, and culture.
6. But, in the main,
barbarism, which of course was something that Man rebelled against, not as an
animalistic aspect of 'the fallen' but, ultimately, as that Adamic
upheaval that, egged on by the developing pride of Eve and tasting of the
forbidden tree - from Nature's barbarous standpoint - of knowledge, knew good
from evil or, more correctly, came into the first realization of his own
essence as a creature capable of crawling out of Nature and opposing it from an
antithetical standpoint. I propose to
discuss that standpoint in the next chapter, one dealing with the question of
Man.
7. Before
I do, a word or two more about Nature.
Despite whatever beauty, knowledge, and truth, or their converse, Nature
may entail, it seems to us primarily about strength, and the will of the
stronger to exploit the weaker, as predator upon prey, and dominate the weaker
from the more barbarous standpoint of greater strength. It is also inherently barbarous in the extent
to which natural upheavals wreak havoc over both Nature and Man in the forms of
volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, landslides,
avalanches, raging fires, violent storms, and so on and so forth. There is great violence in Nature, as well as
a sort of logic for balance and renewal, for ecological interdependence, for
growth and decay. Nature is mighty, and
we underestimate it at our peril!
8. So much for the
paradoxical barbarism of Nature! One
must also admit of its philistinism, its beauty, all too apparent in certain
scenic landscapes, waterscapes, snowscapes, and so
on, as well as of its civilization and even culture, the former knowledgeable
of survival techniques and the latter more innately discernible in its feeling
for itself, for its well-being, its heightened sense of satisfaction in what it
is as opposed to what it does, gives, or takes, even though what it gives is
arguably more representative of Nature than anything else, bearing in mind its
reproductive and assertive tendencies, its spirit, which rages against
both the light and the heaviness from dark springs bubbling deeply below the
surface.
9. Yet Nature, too, attains
to meaningfulness and even an order which testifies to a degree of
civilization, of routine and design, of intention. Ant nests and bee hives were not born in a
day, and the purposes to which they were intended doubtless evolved over many
millennia until they reached a perfection which we can only marvel at, as we
contemplate the results and come to the conclusion that Nature is far from
being exclusively barbarous but also, in some sense, civilized and
knowledgeable, able to achieve an order from out the primal chaos which fans
the inclemencies and destructive abominations at the
roots of its existence.
10. Nature, however, is
still stronger than
WHAT IS MAN?
1. As
intimated above, Man, as we know him, is decidedly not of 'the Fall', but a
rebel against it and thus against Nature.
He is in part a creature of Nature, begotten but not made, dependent
upon the flesh, but he can also transcend Nature and create a world of his own,
unique unto himself, and in a variety of environments and climates. Man is more universal than any other species,
more adaptable and capable of surviving in a great variety of conditions,
though largely because he creates a stable environment for himself which is
able to prevail against the Elements.
2. Man is, in essence, a
civilizing being, for he responds to his ego in such a way as to project his
sense of form onto the surrounding world and, in doing so, has developed
civilization in a way and to an extent unrivalled by either the Cosmos or
Nature. Civilization is not tangential
to Man, as it arguably is to what precedes him, but what most characterizes
him; for he is one who builds, on the basis of self-knowledge, against the
strengths and beauties, not to mention weaknesses and uglinesses,
of Nature and the Universe.
3. Man harmonizes with
Nature only as and when it suits him.
When it doesn't, he knows better than any other species how to go
against it in pursuit of his own interests.
He has taken this knowledgeable tendency based in self further than
ants, bees, bats, swallows, owls, wolves, dolphins, and other such
creatures. For it is only when
civilization steps out of Nature that it is properly and recognizably
civilized, even though it will continue to co-exist with it, as with an
opposite.
4. But there are degrees
and types of civilization, some more advanced than others, some more sensible
than sensual, others the converse of this, whether on a higher or a lower
basis, and dichotomies have arisen, or been perceived to have arisen, between
'the civilized' and 'the barbarous', as between those who would claim to
represent civilization in the face of barbarous opponents whose closeness to
Nature rendered them conspicuously uncivilized.
5. In reality, all men,
without exception, are drawn, in self-knowledge, towards civilization, towards
an order built around the man-made, with utilitarian and non-utilitarian
artefacts, but not all men can be said to be as self-consciously aware of this
as those who have developed civilization to a greater extent and have a formal
self-image of themselves as champions or defenders of civilization against
barbarism, meaning, in effect, of Man against Nature, knowledge against
strength.
6. For if Man is not a
creature of Nature but a being-apart from Nature who only comes into his
humanizing own at that point when he becomes self-consciously aware of his
knowledgeable essence, then those who were lacking or perceived as lacking in
such awareness would appear barbaric, and their societies as being more
beholden to strength than to knowledge - in short, as being more feminine than masculine
in the degree to which they continued to identify with and even to worship
Nature, or some aspect thereof, not to mention the cosmic preconditions of
Nature in the noumenal Behind, that antithesis, we
shall argue, of the noumenal Beyond.
7. It is only when he
categorically turns against Nature, ceases to worship or identify with it, that
Man can be said to have come into his human own as a being for whom knowledge
takes precedence over strength, and female criteria, whether applying in the
feminine to strength or in diabolism to beauty, are accordingly subordinated to
male criteria. For
until strength is subordinated to knowledge, it cannot be said that
civilization, much less Man, has come properly to pass.
8. Therefore the real
distinguishing characteristic between 'the barbarous' and 'the civilized' is
the importance which they respectively attach to strength and knowledge, and no
society or people that calls itself civilized can possibly be one in which
strength takes precedence over knowledge, even if a sort of civilized
manifestation of strength, not to mention beauty in the noumenal
alpha and truth in the noumenal omega, indubitably
co-exists, in the fourfold comprehensiveness of things, with knowledge, meaning
the civilized knowledge of that which is mental rather than carnal, and
accordingly finds its environmental parallel in the town.
9. For certainly the town
is the context par excellence of civilized knowledge, of the phenomenal wisdom
of a sensible environmental relativity, and until such a context comes
significantly to pass, it is hard to imagine much progress being made in the
way of a knowledgeable hegemony over both strength and beauty, both of which
tend to be more prevalent in contexts, even civilized contexts such as villages
and farms, owing more to sensuality than to sensibility.
10. But a knowledgeable
hegemony in civilization per se is one thing, a truthful hegemony in
culture per se quite another, and this is unlikely to happen in relation
to Man, the creature, par excellence, of knowledge, whose commitment to
civilized truth, to a 'bovaryization' of truth owing
more to knowledge than to that which transcends it, tends to fall as far short
of cultural truth as the natural knowledge of, say, bees or ants falls short of
the civilized knowledge which belongs exclusively to Man.
11. Therefore if something
more than knowledge is to emerge into life with an authenticity that causes
knowledgeable truth to pale into relative insignificance, something more than
Man will be required, and that something is the subject of my next chapter -
namely, the Cyborg.
WHAT IS THE CYBORG?
1. Nietzsche insisted that
man was something that should be overcome, meaning superseded, and in his teachings,
not least Thus Spoke Zarathustra, this was to
be achieved by what he called the Superman.
But such a term was derived, in no small measure, from the traditional
Western notion of thinking of the ne plus ultra of
things in terms of the supernatural, of supernature,
when in point of fact the supernatural is closer, in feminine strength, to what
precedes nature in its vegetative aspect, so that any
identification of life with the supernatural is bound to lead back towards
strength and, hence, the barbarism of Nature as we have defined it in terms of
a watery predominance.
2. Certainly vegetative
nature is still Nature, but it is nevertheless what lies beyond both the unnatural and
supernatural, fiery and watery aspects of Nature as something closer, in
effect, to the subnatural, meaning that which is
deeper than the vegetative and more akin, in consequence, to air than to earth,
to the soul than to the ego, to metaphysics than to physics, to God than to
Man, to contentment than to form, to culture than to civilization - in short,
to being than to taking.
3. Nietzsche disbelieved in
God, as also, somewhat cynically, in Man, especially in his Christian
manifestation, the manifestation of civilized knowledge par
excellence, and thus of that which, hitherto, has been morally most advanced
in Western civilization. But he wasn't
able to see through and defeat the Western convention of a supernatural ne plus ultra, with its spiritual hyperbole, and so
blandly conceived of the Superman, the 'meaning of the earth', etc., who would
replace Man as the epitome of all that was noble and self-overcoming.
4. And the Superman was
centred, as supernatural things tend to be, not in truth but in strength, which
is precisely the barbarous attribute of Nature, and especially of the per se
manifestation of Nature which takes a supernatural, and therefore watery, turn
more congenial to feminine females than to masculine males, viz. to women than
to men.
5. It is as if, with the
Superman, we consider the going backwards from knowledge into strength as
somehow constitutive of progress, when, in point of fact, nothing could be more
regressive from a male standpoint than to end-up playing second fiddle, as it
were, to the more authentic strength of watery females in a fresh outbreak of
barbarism, the 'fair sex' always fundamentally more barbarous and less
civilized and/or more philistine and less cultured than the male sex, for
reasons already described.
6. Obviously, Nietzchean paradoxes are the last thing we need if we are
truly to progress and develop an alternative not merely to Nature but to Man
and his town and city-like town mentality.
For, in truth, the city that is proper is no town-like patchwork of
suburban and urban areas, a congeries of villages and farms, but a more
unequivocally urban context that lends itself to an analogue with a sensible
form of environmental absolutism, the absolutism in which Truth, with a capital
T, can develop and be upheld in the interests of a cultural hegemony such as
the West has never before experienced, given its town-conditioned Christian
predilection for civilized knowledge.
7. Before
I discuss such Truth, a word or two more about
8. Man, in short, is the
precondition of God, for God is that which is culturally absolutist in relation
to Truth, and ultimately God and the Cyborg are virtually
synonymous, antithetical, in every respect, to the beautiful Lie of the Cosmos,
which is the arena in which the Devil, duly hyped as God in terms of 'First
Mover', has His or, rather, Her throne, and never more so than in relation to
the stellar aspect thereof, which is arguably not only its primal but its predominating
aspect, in noumenal objectivity. Man climbs to God via the Cyborg,
for the Cyborg is, or should be, the outcome of the
earth, conceived in civilized terms, as that context of life wherein sensible
knowledge is enthroned.
9. But
the Cyborg is not to be thought of in terms of robots
or robotic devices, as some people are only too keen to imagine! Rather is it to be thought of in terms of the
gradual stepping up of the interface between Man and technology to a point, or
series of points, where virtually everything that formerly served the self, the
brain stem and spinal cord, in conventional bodily terms has been superseded by
artificial and synthetic mechanisms which will enable Man to overcome the
mortality of the flesh, so to speak, and thus live if not for ever initially,
then certainly for a considerably longer period of time than would otherwise be
possible.
10. In short, Man's innate
evolutionary drive should have the effect of advancing him towards Eternity,
towards a context antithetical to the Cosmos, and more in terms of sensibility
than of sensuality, through recourse to technological stratagems and devices
which interface with him to such an extent that he ceases to be recognizably
human and becomes more-than-human, becomes godly in the Cyborg.
11. Now the Cyborg will enable human life to survive beyond death or,
rather, overcome the mortal inevitability of death and live immortally for
ever, live on a higher plane of existence in which afterlife-type experiences
and even certain in-life experiences can be sustained artificially and
synthetically for as long as desirable, and partly to enable such Cyborg life to avoid the fate of death and either the
temporal 'eternity' in the grave of a Christian-type afterlife for the self or,
more prevalently as time goes by, the afterlife-denying hell of cremation, as
the remains of the deceased are handed over to the raging furnace in the belief
that there is no survival of death by the self and no possibility or
likelihood, in consequence, of its being 'alive', in self-consuming soulful
illumination, to suffer the excruciating agony of fiery encroachment and,
ultimately, obliteration.
12. Societies based around
the cathode-ray-tube and other vacuous media owing more to a female hegemony
than to a male one, may be conditioned towards that belief, as indeed towards
disbelief in the self generally, but I believe it to be a false one; that, on
the contrary, the self continues to survive the mortality of the flesh until
such time as it has nervously consumed itself and fades into nothingness and
that darkness which, to judge from medieval eschatological paintings, some
would interpret in terms of hell, but which is really just the final cessation
of afterlife experience co-existent with ongoing decomposition, whether
extensively or otherwise, of the bodily remains.
13. They say that to inspire
men towards God you need to put the fear of the Devil into them, and it may be
that what I have said above and in previous texts, concerning crematoria, could
be interpreted in that way. Certainly I
do not just envisage the synthetic afterlife of the Cyborg
as being exclusively motivated by fear of the Devil, viz. the crematorial philistinism and/or barbarism of secular
modernity; for there would surely be enough grounds for a more positive and
self-serving attitude to develop in the course of time or, rather,
eternity.
14. But for the present,
which has not yet officially crossed the threshold between Man and Cyborg, or the world in its civilized form and the
otherworldly cultural contentment of 'Kingdom Come', mankind may need some such
inducement and wake-up call to help kick-start the engine of its evolutionary
advance beyond humanism into a society in which transcendentalism, in its
sensible manifestation, is if not the sole goal then certainly the focus of
cultural and moral enlightenment, and those who are properly of the city - in
other words, the great majority of people - witness a new dawn in which cities
are not only encouraged to develop along more unequivocally urban lines, with
due structural and institutional refinements, but can come into their religious
own as the contexts most according with a sensible environmental absolutism and
therefore with the possibility and, indeed, justification of cultural truth, of
Truth with a capital T, such that would deliver people from a lot more,
eventually, than just the hideously agonizing prospect of crematorial
annihilation.
15. But if Man is fated to
rise, in knowledgeable self-overcoming, towards the Cyborg,
in self-affirmation of Truth as the precondition of self-transcendence in Joy,
of God in Heaven, and to do so via the sort of paradoxical election which I
have customarily equated, in my writings, with Judgement, with the possibility
of a vote for religious sovereignty and the fobbing off of 'sins and/or crimes
of the world', meaning conventional political sovereignties and concomitants,
onto the Saviour and his closest followers in the event of a majority mandate
for the said sovereignty, then the ensuing context of 'Kingdom Come' would
indeed be a pluralistic one divisible between a triadic Beyond and its
administrative aside, as described in previous texts, and not a monistic or
totalitarian absolutism in which nothing but Godliness and Truth existed.
16. Not all men would be
entitled to such cultural truth, for there will also be contexts in the triadic
Beyond of civilized knowledge and generative strength, as well, with the
administrative aside, as a context, duly transmuted, of racial beauty, so that
all the elements will be acknowledged and done sensible justice to, after their
various tier fashions, together with the threefold subdivisions, two male and
one female, of each tier, as already described in previous texts.
17. Therefore even if not
all progressive mankind, all mankind that would want 'Kingdom Come', can or
ever could be entitled to godliness, for transcendental meditation on the top
tier (top subsection) of our triadic Beyond, still they would all be entitled,
sooner or later, to cyborgization, so to speak, for
advancement, at the various tier or elemental levels, towards that goal of
Man's overcoming in the Cyborg, and of a rise, in
consequence, towards an antithesis to the Cosmos such that will enable culture
to flourish as never before, but also, in lesser and 'bovaryized'
manners to how things would have been in the pre-Cyborg
past, civilization, barbarism, and philistinism, or knowledge, strength, and
beauty as well, albeit subordinated to and conditioned by that overriding Truth
which we have identified with genuine Godliness and the best of what 'Kingdom
Come' would have to offer.
18. Therefore pluralism even
within the Cyborg phase of evolution, but a pluralism
harmonized to the lead of Truth, and therefore one which can advance, on a
fourfold elemental basis, towards the utmost stage of evolutionary
sophistication in the space-centre Omega Point(s) of a more closely-knit
accommodation with the godly, and hence Truth, than would otherwise be
possible, while still respecting, for structural purposes, the various tier
entitlements of the respective post-human components, not all of whom, as
argued in previous texts, would have had or still be having the same type of self,
and therefore not one of which could or ever should be forced into a uniformly
transcendental manifestation of life from a uniform structural base.
19. Each tier context of our
projected triadic Beyond will not only have a self peculiar to itself, to class
and gender, but a cyborg structure peculiar to itself
moreover, since the structure relevant to one type of eternity would be quite
irrelevant, and possibly harmful, to another, and a cyborg
structural absolutism is not and never could be the goal of evolution, whose
cultural contentment in the utmost manifestation of truth demands the support
not only of the relevant form of knowledge but, on the other side of the gender
fence, the relevant glory of strength and power of beauty as well.
AN OVERVIEW OF LIFE
1. In the sequence
Cosmos-Nature-Man-Cyborg outlined above, we have a
division, not necessarily neat, between the female objectivity of the Cosmos
and Nature on the one hand, and the male subjectivity of Man and Cyborg on the other hand, as between devolution from the
One to the Many, cosmic individualism to natural collectivism, and evolution
from the Many to the One, manly competitiveness to godly co-operativeness.
2. Life devolves out of the
'Big Bang', or equivalent cosmic inception, in de-centralized plurality of
stars, and continues to devolve through the fall into Nature in such fashion
that innumerable species of one kind or another are to be found throughout the
planet, testifying, one would imagine, to an even greater de-centralized
diversity of life than in the cosmic bodies as such, given the interactivity
between plants, fish, animals, birds, insects, reptiles, and even prehistoric
or primitive man, meaning that which, though avowedly human, had yet to come into
a knowledgeable self-awareness.
3. But there comes a time
when, with the rise to self-knowledge of Man, as symbolized in the mythical
illustration of Adam tasting of the forbidden fruit (from a natural standpoint
based in strength) of the 'tree of knowledge' in the Garden of Eden,
indubitably an idealized conception of Nature, the way is set for a revolt
against this devolutionary condition and the beginnings of an evolutionary
alternative to Nature gets under way with Man, the champion of civilization par
excellence, even though this cannot be said of all men,
and we note in human, as opposed to natural, history a subsequent struggle not
only between pre-masculine 'men' more characterized, in paganistic
fashion, by beauty or strength than by knowledge, but between Man proper and
those men who, for environmental or ideological reasons, remained beholden to
beauty and/or strength to a degree which precluded their siding with knowledge
in civilized revolt against Nature.
4. Therefore although a
distinction can be said to exist between devolution from the One to the Many
and evolution from the Many towards the One, towards an Omega Point owing more
to a Cyborg outcome of evolution, I have contended,
than to Man himself, it is by no means fine but subject to historical rivalries
deriving from the unequal development of men in different locations and
climates which gave rise to general distinctions between 'the barbarous' and
'the civilized' or, on a higher level, 'the philistine' and 'the cultured'.
5. Nevertheless a pattern
does seem to be discernible in history between resistance to progressive change
as a symptom of devolutionary regression on the objective and largely female
side of life, and commitment to progressive change as a symptom of evolutionary
progression on the subjective and largely male side of life, as between beauty
and strength on the one hand, and knowledge and truth on the other, each of
which more neatly harmonizes, when authentic, with one of the fourfold
categories already named, viz. the Cosmos, Nature, Man, and the Cyborg.
6. Therefore the
evolutionary thrust of Man in knowledge against the devolutionary regressions
of a strength-slavering Nature should lead, in due course, to a struggle up
towards the One in which not individualism, as with the Alpha Point(s), so to
speak, of the Cosmos, but co-operation is the leading attribute and
characteristic of what becomes, with the Cyborg, an
Omega Point, an evolutionary culmination in a context no less led and
conditioned by God (the Second Coming) than its cosmic antithesis could be said
to have been - and in some sense still be - ruled and conditioned by the Devil,
viz. the noumenal manifestation of devolution which
takes an absolutely analytic as opposed to synthetic guise.
7. For what devolved from
the One, from centrifugal revolution, must be illustrative of a convolutional tendency to fall in outward spirals towards
the Many, to analytically come apart from the One, individualism towards
collectivism, whereas what evolves, or should evolve, towards the One, in
centripetal revolution, must be illustrative of an involutional
tendency to spiral inwardly in ever-increasing degrees of centro-complexification
such that confirms a rise from out the Many in synthetic aspiration towards
Oneness, competitiveness towards co-operation.
8. We even speak of periods
of social or historic upheaval as constitutive of a revolution, but it is
evident that there are, so to speak, 'revolutions and revolutions', some of
which are merely devolutionary, like that which reduced kingly power and
granted more power to the nobles, the barons, with the Magna Carter; others
evolutionary, like the French and American Revolutions, which sought to do away
with monarchy altogether and were accordingly republican in character; yet
others, like the post-Cromwellian English Revolution,
a cross between devolution and evolution, which resulted in a constitutional
monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
9. But it seems to me that
these historical revolutions, though immensely significant in themselves, are
as shadows to or pale reflections of the cosmic and cyborg
revolutions which, though the latter is still hypothetical, could be said to
characterize both the alpha and omega extremes - the tending away from a
particle-based centrifugal revolution through devolutionary convolutions, and
the tending towards - and hopefully eventual achievement of - a wavicle-centred centripetal revolution through evolutionary
involutions, which will be as antithetical, in its essential bias, to the
merely apparent Oneness of the Alpha Point as it is possible for things to get,
given the near absolutist particle/wavicle
distinctions between these two extreme contexts.
10. For what began as a
reflection of wilful appearances must surely end, having passed through
spiritual quantities (the 'essence' of Nature) and intellectual qualities (the
'essence' of Man) in the natural/human world, in an affirmation of soulful
essences, as life devolves, in broad terms, from elemental particles to
molecular particles, and evolves, no less broadly, from molecular wavicles to elemental wavicles,
devolves analytically from will to spirit on its female side and evolves
synthetically from ego to soul on its male side, the side not of philistinism
and barbarism par excellence, beauty and strength, but of civilization and
culture par excellence, knowledge and truth, with due distinctions
between the Cosmos and Nature on the one hand, and Man and the Cyborg on the other.
11. But devolution and
evolution are not just of historical scope, with female objectivity more
vacuously characteristic, in the nothingness of particle hegemonies, of
the former and male subjectivity especially characteristic, in the somethingness of wavicle
hegemonies, that is, in relation to a plenum (as opposed to a vacuum), of the
latter; for we can note - and have noted in my philosophy - a sort of
devolutionary/evolutionary dichotomy, or falling/rising distinction, within the
elements themselves, even subatomically, as between
particles and wavicles on both molecular and
elemental, relative and absolute terms in any given context, be it metachemical and photonic, chemical and electronic,
physical and neutronic, or metaphysical and protonic, with due negative/positive distinctions between
the female elements and their male counterparts, devolutionary vacuums and
evolutionary plenums.
12. No regular subatomic
element, least of all those which have reference to the Elements in general, is
exclusively particle or wavicle, but a combination, in
varying degrees, of both particles and wavicles,
with the devolution of particles from most to least via more (relative to most)
and less (relative to least) being co-existent with the evolution of wavicles from least to most via less (relative to least)
and more (relative to most), so that every predominant particle has its
subordinate wavicle and every preponderant wavicle, to speak in contrary terms, its subordinate
particle.
13. Now with this structural
variation it should be evident that the particle will only be predominantly
paramount in its most- and more-particle modes, while, conversely, the wavicle will only be preponderantly paramount in its more-
and most-wavicle modes, the wavicle
being subordinate to the particle in least- and less-wavicle
modes and the particle subordinate to the wavicle in
less- and least-particle modes. So much
for the underlying particle/wavicle ratios of the
subatomic!
14. If we translate this
into a dichotomy between profane and sacred, practical and theoretical, as
between most and more particles over least and less wavicles
on the one hand, and more and most wavicles over less
and least particles on the other hand, we shall find that it should be possible
to distinguish, in any given element, between its profane and sacred components
on this basis, with, broadly, a metachemical
distinction, in fire, between materialism and fundamentalism; a chemical
distinction, in water, between realism and nonconformism;
a physical distinction, in vegetation (earth), between naturalism and humanism;
and a metaphysical distinction, in air, between idealism and transcendentalism;
so that whether a thing is to be adjudged profane or sacred, of soma or of
psyche, state or church, will depend on its status as something either characterized
by a particle hegemony or, conversely, by a wavicle
hegemony, with the sort of distinctions I have drawn above.
15. Take the metachemical element of fire, with its negatively-charged
photons in sensuality and photinos in sensibility -
is there not a distinction here between the hegemonic materialism of most and
more particles and the hegemonic fundamentalism of more and most wavicles, with fundamentalism being subordinate to
materialism in least and less wavicles, but
materialism being subordinate to fundamentalism in less and least
particles?
16. In other words, is not
the distinction, in metachemistry, between
materialism and fundamentalism simply between particles on the one hand and wavicles on the other, with the former only being
predominantly paramount in most- and more-particle modes, but the latter only
preponderantly paramount in more- and most-wavicle
modes, so that we have, to all intents and purposes, a distinction between the
profanity of metachemical science and politics in
relation to a particle hegemony, and the sacredness of metachemical
economics and religion in relation to a wavicle
hegemony, the former pair characterized by the practicality, to all intents and
purposes, of ugliness and hatred, the latter pair by the theoreticality,
so to speak, of beauty and love.
17. For
can things fall apart from the centre, from the One, on the basis of beauty and
love, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of ugliness and hatred? Certainly the absence of beauty is ugliness
in a metachemical context, whether sensual or
sensible, just as the absence of love in such a context tends to make for
hatred, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components,
have - and are always liable to have - more to do with particles than wavicles, and never more so than in any element which, like
the photonic fieriness of metachemistry, is beholden
to a vacuum rather than to a plenum, and therefore stems, in a manner of
speaking, from a particle precondition in due primary noumenal
vein.
18. Now what applies to metachemistry must surely also apply to the chemical
element of water, with its negatively-charged electrons in sensuality and electrinos in sensibility, where we may note a distinction
between the hegemonic realism of most and more particles and the hegemonic nonconformism of more and most wavicles,
with nonconformism being subordinate to realism in
least and less wavicles, but realism being
subordinate to nonconformism in less and least
particles, with a distinction, once again, between the profanity of chemical
science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of
chemical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle
one - the former pair characterized by weakness and humility, the latter pair
by strength and pride.
19. For
can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of strength and pride, or
draw closer to a centre on the basis of weakness and humility? Certainly the absence of strength spells
weakness in a chemical context, just as the absence of pride in such a context,
whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for humility, if not humiliation,
but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have
more to do with particles than wavicles, and never
more so than in any element which, like the electronic wateriness of chemistry,
is beholden to a vacuum rather than to a plenum, and therefore stems, in a
manner of speaking, from a particle precondition in due primary phenomenal
vein.
20. Now what applies to
chemistry must surely also apply to the physical element of vegetation (earth), with, I shall
argue, its capacity for a positively-biased neutrality of neutrons in
sensuality and neutrinos in sensibility (not to mention positively-charged
deuterons and deuterinos), where we may note a
distinction between the hegemonic naturalism of most and more particles and the
hegemonic humanism of more and most wavicles, with
humanism being subordinate to naturalism in least and less wavicles,
but naturalism being subordinate to humanism in less and least particles, with
a distinction, once again, between the profanity of physical science and
politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of physical
economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one -
the former pair characterized by ignorance and pain, the latter pair by
knowledge and pleasure.
21. For
can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of knowledge and pleasure,
or draw closer to a centre on the basis of ignorance and pain? Certainly the absence of knowledge spells
ignorance in a physical context, just as the absence of pleasure in such a
context, whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for pain, but in either
case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with
particles than with wavicles, if less so in any
element which, like the neutronic vegetativeness
of physics, is beholden to a plenum rather than to a vacuum, and therefore
stems, in a manner of speaking, from a wavicle
precondition in due secondary phenomenal vein.
22. Finally what applies to
physics must surely also apply to the metaphysical element of air, with its
positively-charged protons in sensuality and protinos
in sensibility, where we may note a distinction between the hegemonic idealism
of most and more particles and the hegemonic transcendentalism of more and most
wavicles, with transcendentalism being subordinate to
idealism in least and less wavicles but idealism
subordinate to transcendentalism in less and least particles, with a
distinction, once again, between the profanity of metaphysical science and
politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of metaphysical
economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one -
the former pair characterized by falsity and woe, the latter pair by truth and
joy.
23. For
can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of truth and joy, or draw
closer to a centre on the basis of falsity and woe? Certainly the absence of truth spells falsity
in a metaphysical context, just as the absence of joy in such a context,
whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for woe, but in either case the
negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with particles
than wavicles, if less so in any element which, like
the protonic airiness of metaphysics, is beholden to
a plenum rather than to a vacuum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking,
from a wavicle precondition in due secondary noumenal vein.
24. However that may be, and
whatever one may think of my equation of specific subatomic elements with a
correlative Element, be it fiery, watery, vegetative, or airy, it should be
evident that things will degenerate from the positive to the negative or from a
plenumous tendency towards a vacuous one in any
context where the particle tends to prevail over the wavicle,
and that this analytical negativity, or want of synthetic cohesiveness, is what
makes for a profane as opposed to a sacred disposition, for secular as opposed
to ecclesiastic values, be it in relation to the concrete practicality of materialism,
realism, naturalism, or idealism, and therefore for the negation of
beauty/love, strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, or truth/joy, as maintained,
in synthetic contrast, by the theoretic abstractions of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism, and never
more so than in relation to humanism and transcendentalism which, being male
and subjective, are more characterized by the synthetic virtues of ego and
soul, of wavicle hegemonies in which, in the one
case, a molecular relativity centred on economics and, in the other case, an
elemental absolutism centred on religion are the prevailing norms.
25. For even with
'everything in everything', as I think I phrased it near the beginning of this text,
the male elements of physics and metaphysics, with their subatomic corollaries
(not altogether divorced, I contend, from a positivistic XY chromosomal
integrity) of neutrons/neutrinos and protons/protinos,
are those in which economics and religion, form and contentment,
knowledge/pleasure and truth/joy, are the prevailing disciplines, whereas the
female elements of metachemistry and chemistry, with
their subatomic corollaries (not altogether divorced from a negativistic XX
chromosomal integrity) in photons/photinos and
electrons/electrinos, are those in which science and politics, power and glory,
ugliness/hatred and weakness/humility, are the prevailing disciplines, with
such beauty/love and strength/pride as accrues to the metachemical
and chemical modes of religion and economics being no less secondary, as a
secondary order of positivity characterized by
psychic determinism, to the prevailing negativities in which the natural, or
somatic, freedom of objective science and politics is primary ... than such
ignorance/pain and falsity/woe as accrues to the physical and metaphysical
modes of politics and science is secondary, as a secondary order of negativity
characterized by natural determinism, to the prevailing positivities
in which the psychic freedom of subjective economics and religion is primary.
26. For science and politics
are no more positive disciplines than economics and religion negative
ones. Metachemistry
and chemistry have their positivities, but they are
ever subordinate, in secondary psychic vein, to the prevailing
particle-conditioned negativities, while, conversely, the political and
scientific negativities of physics and metaphysics are just as subordinate, in
secondary somatic vein, to their prevailing wavicle-conditioned
positivities in economics and religion.
27. And economics and
religion should be thought of primarily in terms of the sacred, the
synthetically theoretical, whether in the primary modes of physics and
metaphysics or in the secondary modes of metachemistry
and chemistry, where they tend to play second fiddle, as it were, to
materialism and realism, whereas science and politics should be thought of
primarily in terms of the profane, of the analytically practical, whether in
the primary modes of metachemistry and chemistry or
in the secondary modes of physics and metaphysics where, by contrast, they tend
to play second fiddle to humanism and transcendentalism.
28. Thus the positivity of psychic freedom implies an economic and a
religious outlook, and the more such an outlook develops at the expense of the
natural or somatic freedom, in particle hegemonies, of science and politics in
their per se manifestations, the more positive things become, since
they attest not to the Cosmos and Nature but to Man and, hopefully in the
future, the Cyborg - the overcoming of Man in terms
of a religiously-biased resolve, as upheld by the Church, to evolve life
towards a godly consummation in the Omega Point of the utmost involutional centro-complexification.
29. For Man, to paraphrase
Nietzsche, is something that 'should be overcome' ... if we wish life to evolve
beyond an economic hegemony and attain to the Cyborg
heights of religious perfection, wherein truth and joy will peak as never
before even with a continuation, on duly modified terms, of knowledge/pleasure
and strength/pride, together, in the administrative aside to our hypothetical
triadic Beyond (of 'Kingdom Come'), with beauty/love, the sort of beauty and
love that would of course owe more to fundamentalism than to materialism, and
have the service, in sensibility, of new manifestations of nonconformism,
humanism, and transcendentalism in mind, as the free manifestations of realism (female primary),
naturalism (male secondary), and idealism (male secondary), together with materialism
(female primary), were duly consigned, in judgemental rejection of free nature,
of particle hegemonies in somatic freedom, to the rubbish bin of state-oriented
scientific and political history, and life duly stepped beyond the analytical
shadows of negativity, of devolutionary convolution, into the synthetic light
of an involutional positivity
centred on the sacredness of psychic freedom such that, with its free nurture,
would more than vindicate Man's revolt against the Fall, as evolving life proceeded
to evolve out of the world into the otherworldly rise of a Life Eternal such
that only the Cyborg could be expected to live, in
sensible pursuit of that ultimate revolution which lies beingfully
within ... in the soulful essence of the self.
30. But if Man's ultimate
destiny lies in God, in the Cyborg, then a
distinction must necessarily continue to exist between the profane and the
sacred, practicality and theoreticality, will/spirit
on the one hand, and ego/soul on the other, as between the not-self and the
self, soma and psyche, nature and nurture, phenomenal and noumenal,
and so continue that, whether this distinction exists in metaphysics, as
between idealism and transcendentalism, in physics, as between naturalism and
humanism, or, indeed, on the opposite side of the gender fence, in chemistry,
as between realism and nonconformism, or in metachemistry, as between materialism and fundamentalism,
there will be a particle/wavicle dichotomy between
the one and the other, with the self alone sacred, whether in male grace (both
primarily divine and masculine, given the subjective bias for self of males
proper) or in female punishment (both secondarily diabolic and feminine, given
the objective bias for not-self of females proper), and the not-self inevitably
profane, whether in male sin (both secondarily divine and masculine, given the
subjective bias for self of males) or in female crime (both primarily diabolic
and feminine, given the objective bias for not-self of females).
31. The grace of God-the-Wise-Son
and of Heaven-the-Holy-Soul implies a psychic corollary in truth and joy, in
inner metaphysical ego and soul, whereas the sin of God-the-Wise-Father and
Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit implies a somatic corollary in falsity and woe, in inner
metaphysical will (of the lungs to breathe) and spirit (of the breath), since
the grace of truth and joy is only sustainable in forgiving relation to the
sinfulness of falsity and woe, both God and Heaven being strictly of the self
rather than of the not-self, and therefore inevitably false and woeful in
relation to the sinfulness of nature, in this case the inner subnatural soma of respiratory metaphysics wherein
God-the-Wise-Father and Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit have their profane throne in the
lungs and the breath.
32. And what applies to God
and Heaven in metaphysics applies no less to Man and the Earth in physics,
whereby the inner natural soma of cogitative physics, wherein
Man-the-Wise-Father and Earth-the-Holy-Spirit have their profane throne in the
brain and its capacity for thought (though not the ordering of thoughts), is
inevitably sinful in its somatic negativity, its particle-hegemonic
practicality of physical will and spirit, ignorance and pain, and only the
inner psychic context of ego and soul, knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to
Man-the-Wise-Son and Earth-the-Holy-Soul, can be accounted graceful, and
precisely in sacred opposition to, though necessary forgiveness of, the somatic
profanity of the not-self in its sensibly physical manifestation.
33. Obviously what applies
to sensibility also applies to sensuality, except that we will be dealing less
with wise and holy orders of nature and nurture, soma and psyche, than with
their foolish and unholy counterparts.... While, on the opposite side of the gender
fence, this sensual/sensible dichotomy is, of course, less between folly/unholiness in the one context and wisdom/holiness in the
other, as relative to alternative types of sin and grace, than between
evil/clearness and goodness/unclearness in relation to alternative types of
crime and punishment, the will and spirit of soma always characterized by the
one and the ego and soul of psyche by the other, so that crime is always
negative, whether in ugliness/hatred or weakness/humility, and punishment alone
positive, whether in beauty/love or strength/pride in both sensual and sensible
contexts.
34. But, whatever the
gender, somatic nature is always bad or wrong or profane or particle-hegemonic or practical,
whether in male sin or in female crime, in secondary (subjective) or primary
(objective) terms, and psychic nurture alone good or right or sacred or wavicle-hegemonic or theoretical, since the not-self is
ever dominated by the negativity of its phenomenal attributes and the self
alone capable of sustained positivity, whether
primarily in grace for males or secondarily in punishment for females, on the
basis of its noumenal character, a character which
enables it to transcend the limitations of time in respect of Eternity.
35. For only when we are rid
of the not-self, the body, the various organs of the various Elements, with
death ... does the self escape from the clutches of nature and enter into full
self-realization of itself in either soulful heaven for gods (divine males) or
soulful earth for men (masculine males) or, on the opposite side of the gender
fence, soulful purgatory for women (feminine females) or soulful hell for
devils (diabolic females) - viz. joy, pleasure, pride, and love, such that are
not corrupted by or conditional upon their negative opposites in woe, pain,
humility, and hatred.
36. That is why, in
generations to come, we need to transcend the body and enter more fully into
communion with the soul, the objectivity of whose inorganic, or psychic,
primacy for females and the subjectivity of whose inorganic, or psychic,
supremacy for males, premised upon a noumenal as
opposed to a phenomenal disposition in each case, will put the organic primacy
of female objective soma and the organic supremacy of male subjective soma
firmly in the shade of time-worn suffering; for everything organic is subject
to decay and death, while the inorganic, conceived in relation to psyche, is
alone capable of timeless bliss - whether in love, pride, pleasure, or joy,
according to one's elemental disposition in gender and class.
37. Release from the body is
blissful, but we shouldn't have to wait until death to experience such a
release, nor resign ourselves to an afterlife limited and to some extent even
conditioned, I would say, by the body's decomposing mortality. If we have the will, then the self can find a
more fitting and lasting not-self, a more dependable profanity, not subject to
the sufferings and decayings of Man, to not merely
assist it into Eternity, like the natural body, but to assist it eternally,
in Truth-respecting defiance of the strength/knowledge world and moral
antithesis to cosmic beauty, as to the Cosmos in general. Then and only then will God have come fully
to pass; for, in truth, God is not the beginning but the end of all things, and
therefore ultimately premised upon the Cyborg, who
will be the moral vindication and evolutionary outcome of the civilized earth.
38. This is what I have to
teach, and only now could it be said that, with the utmost centro-complexification
of what has all along been a most progressive and exactingly comprehensive
philosophy, my theoretical goal has effectively been reached; for I have
brought to ideological summation a moral doctrine and historical perspective
which should stand the test of time - and, beyond time, of Eternity - for
generations to come.
39. Rome, it has been said,
was not built in a day, and neither was it ever likely that so comprehensively
deep and far-reaching a philosophy, subject to so many rethinks and revisions,
as that to which I have dedicated a not-inconsiderable portion of my adult
life, would achieve its Omega Point much before now, when I have at last
brought all the strands together in the closest possible way, in fitting
testimony to the centro-complexifying gradualism of
an evolutionary involution winding its way, in Pilgrim-like fashion, towards
that centripetal revolution which will be the Oneness not of not-self
individualism in free soma, but of self-cooperation, co-operation with the
self, in free psyche - the freedom-of-freedoms for those who, as males, are
most fittingly entitled to it.
40. I may be the first
Social Transcendentalist but, if human history is to be vindicated, hopefully
not the last! For this ideological
philosophy embraces the People, meaning city persons most especially,
irrespective of their gender or class.
For it is only from the lead of the earthly city that the 'Celestial
City' will at length emerge victorious in the omega point of cultural truth,
and life at last achieve divine unity.
LONDON 2002 (Revised 2012)
Preview THE OMEGA POINT OF CULTURAL TRUTH eBook
