THE TRUE END OF RELIGION
So much is the elemental wavicle
context of metaphysics characterized by soul, and thus heavenly joy, that it
could reasonably be said that ego, being egoistic rather than egocentric here,
is complementary to or affiliated with soul to such an extent that it does not
have an independent existence but is consciously or, rather, superconsciously disposed to subsume itself into soul as
its proper goal and resolution.
It is not as though we are dealing with ego per se, a molecular wavicle
entity associated, neutronically, with physics,
which, being egocentric, would regard itself as an end-in-itself. On the contrary, the ‘bovaryized’
ego of metaphysics, which can be termed godly or even, with due qualification,
God, is the child or consequence of an elemental wavicle
subatomicity dominated by photons, and therefore only
exists in relation to soul, as though soul, which is inner feeling (emotion)
had permitted a consciousness to exist superconsciously
whose sole raison d’ętre was to
understand and develop, through what is called metaphysical truth, the
knowledge necessary to the achievement, for itself or, more correctly, for that
to which it is affiliated, the maximum degree and extent of soul.
Thus truth in this higher sense is not only the
godchild of joy, as God of Heaven, but it is the means that soul requires in
order for it, against all the odds and alternative distractions or even
impositions, to attain to its maximum self-realization, truth vindicated by joy
as godliness by heavenliness.
If, then, God or godliness, viz. metaphysical
ego, is of less significance than Heaven or heavenliness, viz. metaphysical
soul, why is it that, almost without exception, traditional and conventional
religions have stressed God at the expense of Heaven and thus, by implication,
ego at the expense of soul?
Obviously, early or formative metaphysics,
which I equate with cosmic and natural environments or, at any rate, with the
metaphysical aspect of such environments, would have acknowledged and actually
represented more God than Heaven, more ego than soul, more form than
contentment, but that would owe something if not everything to the more
representative cosmic and natural bodies that, leading to ‘bovaryized
religions’, had less to do with ego or soul than with will and spirit, contexts
dominated, I mean, by metachemistry (fire) and
chemistry (water) to the detriment of physics (vegetation and/or earth) and
metaphysics (gas and/or air).
Even mankind conceived, humanistically,
as a particular environment or life-stage, would, in physics, be a context
dominated not by soul but by ego, and so much so that, proto-cyborgistic intimations of soul through disciplines like
transcendental meditation notwithstanding, religions centred around ego must
indubitably grant pride of place to knowledge, not only in terms of Bible-study
or scriptural exegesis but, through intellect (the vegetative essence of
egocentric mankind) prayer, whether learned or improvised, recited or personal.
But even ego, though manifestly inferior to
soul from a religious standpoint, is beyond will and spirit, the representative
cosmic and natural approaches to religion which are in effect the least
religious because the most scientific or political, as the case may be, as
also, of course, the most female in character, with elemental particle (will)
and molecular particle (spirit) subatomic implications tending to favour
protons and electrons over neutrons and photons.
But when religion is associated, in
fundamentalist and pantheist terms, with will and spirit, power and glory, one
gets an emphasis on God as a ‘thingfulness’ that
derives from the somatic, or bodily, basis of female-dominated elemental
contexts like metachemistry and chemistry, and such
an ascription of ‘thingfulness’ to God, even unto the
extent of ‘the Almighty’, precludes the term from being interpreted in a
physical, much less metaphysical, light, whereby, in relation to the male side
of things, psyche takes precedence over soma, as mind over body, and form and
contentment, corresponding to ego and soul, are accordingly the focal-points of
‘divine’ reference.
Yet, as we have seen, ego is less godly when
physical than manly, less egoistic than egocentric, with humanist rather than
transcendentalist implications, and therefore only another stage of ‘religious bovaryization’. By
the time one gets to metaphysics, and particularly to a metaphysics unhampered
or simply not compromised by metachemical, chemical,
or physical, i.e. fundamentalist, pantheist, or humanist impositions or
influences tending towards metaphysical vitiation, but, rather, a properly
universal metaphysics germane to a cyborgistic stage
of life beyond, potentially if not actually, all of the other stages, it should
be evident that ego counts for much less than soul, and that even if and when
we use the term ‘God’ in relation to metaphysical ego we are aware that it has
absolutely no somatic correlations whatsoever, that it is a ‘no-thing’ (but not
on that account ‘nothing’) in relation to the successive orders of ‘thingfulness’ especially characterizing metachemical
and chemical approaches to religion, and that, as a state of mind, a state less
of supreme beingfulness, by the way, than of a
supreme-beingfully-oriented form of supreme taking,
it has no other business than to bring about, through superconsciousness
of what needs to be done or rather taken account of, the maxim extent of
supreme beingfulness to which such ego can aspire,
thereby transcending itself in the achievement of that supreme kind of being
which is of the metaphysical soul and a condition less of God than of Heaven,
less of truth than of joy, less of form than of contentment, and therefore at
the furthest possible remove from anything powerfully supreme in the elemental
particle subatomicity (protonic)
of metachemical free will, viz. of what has
traditionally been identified, as the Creator, the Father, the Almighty,
Jehovah, etc. with God!
Although conventionally identified with a
Supreme Being, such a ‘bovaryized’ religious entity
is less joyfully beingful than beautifully doingful, a kind of Supreme Doing, and therefore the
Devil-the-Mother alpha beginning of things as opposed, with metaphysical free
soul, to their Heaven-the-Holy-Soul omega ending of things through a
god-transcending ‘thinglessness’ that, being joyfully
supreme, is the true end or goal of religious evolution.
And by ‘true end’ of religious evolution I
allude less to the successive stages of ‘bovaryized
religion’, i.e. metachemical, chemical, and physical,
than of the successive stages of metaphysics, from cosmic and natural to human
and, to anticipate the coming ‘kingdom’, cyborg, in
which the ratios of God to Heaven, as of ego to soul, would have continued to
evolve from most god and least heaven cosmically to, hypothetically, most
heaven and least god cyborgistically via the
intermediate, or natural and human, stages of more (relative to most) god and
less (relative to least) heaven vis-ŕ-vis less (relative to least) god and more
(relative to most) heaven, all but the cyborg stage
of which no longer have any metaphysical credibility in what is, by any
accounts, an age of global advancement towards the maximum universality in the
utmost metaphysical centro-complexification.