CHRISTMAS
AND EASTER IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE
The polarity of Christianity between Christmas
and Easter exists, I maintain, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
terms … in relation to the nativity heathenism, so to speak, of the southwest
point of the intercardinal axial compass and the resurrectional or, rather, crucifixional
Christianity of its northeast point, these points constitutive of a polarity
between female-dominated and male-dominated contexts, the
chemical/pseudo-physical southwest point and the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point, both of which adhere, in
Catholic vein, to church-hegemonic axial criteria, as noted above.
Now if the Christ child on his mother’s knee,
shall we say, is no better than an antichrist or, rather, the Pseudo-Son of
Pseudo-Man, it has to be said that the elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts of
chemistry and pseudo-physics, corresponding to purgatory and pseudo-earth, also
embrace, besides free somatic aspects, bound psychic ones, which ought really
to be described in terms of the Daughter of Woman (chemistry) and Pseudo-Man
the Pseudo-Father (pseudo-physics), neither of which would strictly adhere to
the ‘Mother/Son’ focus of the Christmas, or nativity-like, setting of the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass,
if only because Christianity cannot afford to be too complex or even too
logical, notwithstanding the curtailments and fudges imposed upon it as a mere
extrapolative religion – and culture – from Middle Eastern precedent.
Be that as it may, the Easter polarity to this heathenistic relativity of ‘mother and child’ (son) is
rather more male-hegemonic, as befitting what appertains to the northeast point
of the intercardinal axial compass, and in any crucifixional scene in which a prone ‘Mother of God’ (sic),
or Mary, the mother of Jesus, is distraughtly at the foot of the Cross … upon
which her son is raised up to virtual Y-like independence … we have a
relationship seemingly the reverse of the nativity-type one, a relationship, I
mean, which seems to parallel that of St George and the Dragon, of a male
hegemony, in metaphysics, over a pseudo-female subordination, in pseudo-metachemistry, the latter of which, duly neutralized, is
effectively pseudo-dragon, akin to a pseudo-jet (jump jet) under a chopper, or
pseudo-space under time.
Thus with a prone, distraught Virgin Mary, one
has the equivalent, it seems to me, of the pseudo-dragon who or which has been
neutralized by hegemonic male criteria, which towers over her in much the same
way that the crucified Christ towers over the Virgin, who can only weep at her
predicament … of no longer being a dominating mother-like figure but a
distinctly subordinate one in the overall crucifixional
context, in which Christ is by far the dominant figure.
But such a figure limply hanging on the Cross
of course has a Y-like form emblematic, it seems to me, of male chromosomal
selfhood, of a return to psychic self and indeed of independence of the
female. It is for this reason that one
would tend to identify the Catholic crucifixional
figure, whose arms are stretched Y-like towards the heavens while his body sags
under its own weight, with the ‘true cross’, since without a Y-like intimation
of male selfhood in metaphysics there is simply the thing, rectilinear and
materialist, upon which Christ was crucified, and that is of little intrinsic
religious, i.e. metaphysical, significance, being, if anything, opposed to such
significance.
It is for this reason that both the ornate
(Anglican) and plain (Puritan) crosses are mere abstractions from the concrete
Y-intimating essence of the ‘true cross’, a religious and symbolic degeneration
that would seem to parallel the ‘Star of David’ (a kind of cross, though that
is not a concept or reality which would appeal to many Jews, given the number
of Jews who were barbarously crucified upon crosses during Roman times)
abstraction of two interlocking triangles from the more concrete
representations of gender interlocking that characterized such older religious
traditions as the Hindu and even Babylonian.
An abstraction from a concrete embodiment of
self-affirmation, whether natural or human, pagan or christian,
is always a degeneration or decadence which effectively symbolizes the
rejection, puritanically, of natural (sexual) or human (spiritual)
aspirations. And, to be sure, the Cross
is itself a kind of extrapolation from the interlocking triangles of the
so-called ‘Star of David’ emblem, a further attenuation, as it were, of the
gender interlocking between male (below) and female (above) organs, with the
vertical beam analogous to the one and the horizontal beam to the other.
Hence both Judaism and Protestantism are
parallel repudiations of concrete embodiments of natural and human aspirations,
repudiations that lead nowhere but simply remain opposed to what preceded them
in the older traditions from which they derive their almost puritanical fear of
self, whether natural or human, sexual or (to use a conventional if misleading
term) spiritual.
But we who stretch beyond humanity in our
yearning for cyborgistic apotheosis and Y-like
definitiveness in the most perfect and evolved metaphysics, we cannot be
persuaded by such degenerate repudiations of self, even if we are not particularly
enamoured of the more concrete traditions which precede them. We must build away from the contemporary
abstractions, which include cinema, towards a new concretism,
a new reality, which will transcend human aspirations as they achieve a
god-like or, rather, cyborgistic character in which
heavenly experience will be the metaphysical rule rather than the puritanical
exception, notwithstanding the necessary part that will have to be played by
pseudo-metachemistry in pseudo-dragon-like vein if
females are to be brought to a neutralized subordination analogous to the
Easter relationship of the prone figure at the foot of the Cross to the limp
Y-intimating body hanging upon it.
There can be no Heaven where there is not
pseudo-Hell, and therefore no free male, risen Y-like ‘on high’, without the
inescapable corollary of a bound and gagged (metaphorically speaking) female,
whom we deem pseudo-female, and consider akin to a jump jet under a chopper.
Counter-damnation of females from chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry is the inevitable corollary of
the salvation of males or, rather, pseudo-males from pseudo-physics to
metaphysics, and in ‘Kingdom Come’, the context or society I have long defined
in relation to the prevalence (democratically mandated) of religious
sovereignty, those who are now
pseudo-physically low (and phenomenally meek) will be raised up to metaphysical
highness (noumenal righteousness), while those who
are now chemically high (and phenomenally pseudo-vain) will be cast down to
pseudo-metachemical lowness (noumenal
pseudo-justice), as the gender positions are axially reversed in favour of the
male and his Y-like freedom from XX-chromosomal persecution through seduction,
a seduction, going all the way back to Eve, that allows the free female to
abandon the hell of metachemical vacuity for the
purgatory of a chemical surrogate plenum, the child that Christmas celebrates
through the Nativity in effectively heathenistic
(female-dominated) vein, but which Easter opposes from the standpoint of the fully
Christian, even proto-Superchristian, independent
male, whose heavenly resurrection (to self) would be inconceivable without a
Y-like crucifixional affirmation of psychic self, the
true, or soulful, self that the ‘true cross’ cannot but symbolize through the
concrete embodiment of the transfixed male.