ELEMENTAL SPECTRA
Supernotational Philosophy
Copyright © 1988–2012 John O'Loughlin
_______________
1. Idealistic sadness/falsity on the negative
divine pole, and joy/truth on the positive divine pole. Naturalistic hate/ugliness on the negative
diabolic pole, and love/beauty on the positive diabolic pole. Materialistic humility/weakness on the
negative worldly-alpha pole, and pride/strength on the positive worldly-omega
pole. Realistic evil/pain on the
negative alpha-worldly pole, and good/pleasure on the positive omega-worldly
pole. Negative down and positive up, but
negative and positive in both naturalistic and artificial manifestations of
each spectrum, with the noumenon preceding the phenomenon in the one case, but
the superphenomenon preceding the supernoumenon in the other case - qualities
and quantities, superquantities and superqualities.
2. From the Cartesian mind/brain dichotomy to
a brain absolutism via a mind-brain symbiosis - the declining path of Western
civilization from bourgeois dualism to proletarian monism via a petty-bourgeois
dualistic monism. Or, alternatively,
from relativity to absolutism via a relativistic absolutism. In contrast to the theocratic civilization
beyond, with its superbrain absolutism a precondition, via a brain-mind
relativistic absolutism, of supermind absolutism - the supermind of the Holy
Spirit.
3. Transcendental Socialist being-doing in
space-time. Social Transcendentalist
doing-being in time-space. Space-time is
equivalent to supertime; time-space to superspace.
4. Transcendental Socialist light-heat in
mind-brain. Social Transcendentalist
heat-light in brain-mind. Mind-brain is
equivalent to superbrain; brain-mind to supermind. Supermindful God and superbrainy Devil beyond
the bodily/superbodily world.
5. Particle-suggesting status of records on
account of their round, materialistic construction; wavicle-suggesting status of
tapes on account of their elongated, idealistic construction. Devil and God?
6. Possibility, indeed probability, of
conventional tapes as a Social-Democratic ideological equivalent in relation to
Democratic Socialist long-playing albums, with microtapes a Social
Transcendentalist equivalent in relation to Transcendental Socialist compact
discs. In both of these latter cases, a
reduction in scale commensurate with theocratic centro-complexification.
7. Earth - air - fire - water: those
time-honoured basic elements which, in relation to my philosophy, can be listed
as follows: idealistic air, naturalistic fire, materialistic water, and
realistic earth, with air and earth forming one pair of opposites, fire and
water another - the former moral and amoral, both of the latter immoral. Hence, evaluating each element within a
naturalistic framework, we may speak of divine air, diabolic fire,
worldly-alpha water, and alpha-worldly earth, reserving, in each case, the possibility
of a negative/positive option, as between negative air (wind) and positive air
(oxygen); negative fire (raging flames) and positive fire (gentle flames);
negative water (storm) and positive water (calm); negative earth (landslide,
earthquake) and positive earth (soil).
Moreover, I should like to draw attention to the connection between air
and light, fire and heat, water and coldness, and earth and darkness, so that
we can speak of an air/light vis-à-vis earth/darkness polarity on the one hand
and of a fire/heat vis-à-vis water/coldness polarity on the other hand. Clearly, just as light and darkness are
antithetical, so, by a like token, are heat and coldness. They are also adversaries locked-in to an
age-old combat, with victory - as a rule temporary - going to the side with the
highest ratio of whichever quantity/quality complement - whether air/light over
earth/darkness or vice versa, and fire/heat over water/coldness or vice
versa. Whether fire turns water to steam
or water quenches fire will obviously depend upon the ratio of the one to the
other, since these immoral polarities are, above all, the active adversaries,
in contrast to the relatively more passive adversaries of air and earth, light
and darkness, which passively oppose each other in their respective moral and
amoral integrities.
8. In regard to artificial energy, however,
the production of electricity may be regarded as paralleling our
earth-water-fire-air distinctions according to whether it is produced via coal
(conventional electricity), water (hydro-electricity), atomic fission (nuclear
electricity), or air (turbo-electricity), with realistic, materialistic,
naturalistic, and idealistic implications respectively. Thus the production of electricity through
coal corresponds to worldly amorality; the production of electricity through
water corresponds to worldly immorality; the production of electricity through
atomic fission corresponds to diabolic immorality; and, finally, the production
of electricity through air or gas corresponds to divine morality. Consequently a realistic country like
9. As to the connection between air and
light, which is not at first so apparent as the one between fire and heat, we
have the experience of daylight to draw upon, since such light is only
perceptible because of the air it travels through, which has the effect of 'highlighting'
it. For without the atmosphere
surrounding the earth, sunlight would no more be perceptible here than it is in
interstellar space or, for that matter, on the surface of the moon, where the
sun is just another star shining in the distance. It is because of this intimate connection
between air and light that traditional meditation techniques like those
associated with the Tao
te Ching have stressed the importance of preliminary deep-breathing
exercises; for an increased intake of oxygen into the blood will lead to an
increase of consciousness, or spiritual light, in the mind, which is the raison
d'être of meditation. On the other
hand, such latter-day forms of meditation as eschew preliminary breathing
exercises are simply indicative of spiritual decadence, being, in effect,
wordless prayer rather than a dynamic meditational commitment, and may
therefore be regarded as symptomatic of a Beckettian void, a Sartrean neant,
a Schopenhaurian will-less passivity which finds its artistic parallel in much
abstract art of the twentieth century.... Not that I am here implying that the
West should adopt Taoism at the expense of Christianity or its decadent
successor; for that would be a vain attempt to reverse time and seek to
accommodate itself to oriental tradition.
But I am convinced that when meditation is resurrected on a properly
transcendentalist basis in the future, it will be far more dynamic than
passive, if on artificial rather than naturalistic terms, as relative to the
use of industrially-produced oxygen, breathing masks, etc.
10. To distinguish between smiling with lips
closed as positive Divine and smiling with lips parted as positive Diabolic,
i.e. as Christic and Antichristic equivalents, by dint of the wavicle
connotation of closed lips and the particle connotation of parted lips or, more
specifically, the teeth which are exposed in consequence of a slightly open
mouth, each tooth, whether upper or lower, implying a particle status. Thus an electron-wavicle equivalent in the
former case and an electron-particle equivalent in the latter one. Divine and diabolic because of the head
nature, or confinement to the face, of smiling, which, unlike laughing, doesn't
involve the body. But if smiling is
divisible in this way, then so is its opposite - namely, the condition of being
'down in the mouth', which is usually termed scowling, whether gloomily or
angrily, depending on whether the lips are closed or parted, making a wavicle
impression or creating a particle impression (through exposed teeth). In the one case a negative divine status
commensurate with a proton-wavicle equivalent, in the other case a negative
diabolic status commensurate with a proton-particle equivalent. Fatheristic and Satanic equivalents vis-à-vis
the Christic and Antichristic equivalents discussed above.
11. With the world, however, the body is more
involved and therefore worldly equivalents are less mental than bodily in
character, whether in terms of crying or laughing. For crying is to laughing what scowling is to
smiling - the alpha-stemming antithesis of an omega-oriented norm, a minus in
contrast to a plus. Whether we then
divide crying and laughing into materialistic and realistic alternatives, as
between, say, loud crying and/or laughing on the one hand, and quiet crying
and/or laughing on the other hand (with correspondingly disparate physical
pressures on one or another part of the body, viz. neck or lungs, ribs or
stomach), the fact nevertheless remains that crying corresponds to an
alpha-stemming worldly equivalent and laughing to an omega-oriented one, in
contrast to both scowling and smiling, whether diabolic or divine. Thus whereas these latter alternatives are
inherently elitist, or the prerogative of 'heads', crying and laughing are
inherently populist, and therefore more characteristic of 'bodies', or the mass
man, with alpha and omega implications.
Indeed, it could be argued that women are more partial to crying than
men, since of a comparatively alpha-stemming disposition. However that may be, neither worldly
equivalent will be found, as a rule, among men of intellectual or spiritual
distinction (Christ Himself is reputed never to have laughed), since, as
'heads', they relate more to either God or the Devil rather than to the world,
which is generally beneath their pale. A
laughing saint would be as incongruous as a smiling 'man of the world'
(sinner), whether or not the latter parted his lips.
12. To conclude: let us therefore distinguish
between: a) idealistic scowling and/or smiling (lips closed); b) naturalistic
scowling and/or smiling (lips parted); c) materialistic crying and/or laughing
(loud/heavy); d) realistic crying and/or laughing (soft/light); with the first
and fourth moral and amoral respectively, but the second and third immoral, as
in the sense that we formerly distinguished between divine morality, both
negative (alpha stemming) and positive (omega orientated); diabolic immorality,
both negative and positive; worldly-alpha and worldly-omega immorality;
alpha-worldly and omega-worldly amorality.
Although some men are fairly balanced between one or another of these
three basic extremes, it cannot be said of all men; for evolutionary pressures
are increasingly making for an omega-oriented one-sidedness, in which either
laughing or smiling, depending on the type of man, is the preponderating norm -
a norm which attests to an electron bias.
13. The Camusian contention that man is in the
world but not of it can hardly be said to apply to the great majority of men
who, particularly in the democratic West, conform to a bodily and, hence,
worldly disposition. Rather, it has
especial applicability, give and take the inevitable relativity of human
experience, to those men who may be described as predominantly either diabolic
or divine, and who are accordingly less 'bodies' than 'heads'. With the intellectual and spiritual elites,
it can certainly be said that, although they have their existence in the world, they are
above and beyond it in their essential selves, be those selves diabolic or
divine, and thus more conscious than the average man of not being of the world. Indeed, it is this consciousness which,
according to Camus, makes for the feeling of absurdity, and, to be sure, it
often transpires that a man of God, or mind-biased 'head', will feel the
absurdity of God in the world by dint of the world's indifference if not
downright opposition to what he represents.
Outsiders are rarely or never 'men of the (bodily) people' but, rather,
talented idealists for whom the worldly realism of average humanity is more a
fact to be regretted than rejoiced in!
Now what applies to outsiders in relation to average people, or
insiders, also in some degree applies to outsiders in relation to themselves,
since the Divine and the Diabolic seldom if ever agree - except, that is, in
regard to their mutual antipathy towards the world. However, if it can scarcely be said of men in
general that, in relation to outsiders, they are in the world but not of it, we must
nevertheless concede that, in relation to women, most men are less of the world than in it. For it would appear that, traditionally, the
majority of women are both in the world and of it, and act
accordingly, striving both to serve and to mollify the male sex. It is for this reason that they are usually
shielded from that sense of absurdity which can descend on men when they become
conscious, particularly to an existential degree, of the disparity between
their physical presence in the world and their spiritual and/or soulful
aspirations beyond it.
14. Despite possible appearances to the
contrary, a 'head' can never be a 'cunt' or a 'prick', to cite popular lingo;
for such denigratory proletarian epithets have reference to bodies - indeed,
are projections of a bodily, or mass, type onto others who are perceived,
rightly or wrongly, as meriting one or other of these strong terms of
abuse. Whatever a 'head' may think of
them (and I for one strongly repudiate their use) such terms focus attention
upon the sexual organs and accordingly posit a worldly, or bodily, disposition
in the person so abused. Broadly, one
may distinguish 'cunts' from 'pricks' on the basis of an autocratic/democratic
division, with those on the one side falling into a feminine category and those
on the other side falling into a masculine one, though both categories are
inherently worldly and therefore irrelevant, so I contend, to the
diabolic/divine distinctions which tower above the world, whether on an alpha
or an omega basis. Yet subdivisions of
these worldly categories do, however, exist, and are to be heard among those
bodily proletarians especially partial to their use, who may well regard them
as constituting a more accurate description of the person under fire, so to
speak - be he a 'cunt' or a 'prick'.
Thus, in the one case, a distinction between 'sodd*** cunts' and
'fuck*** cunts', whilst in the other case a distinction between 'fuck***
pricks' and 'sodd*** pricks'. Hence, in
effect, an overall distinction between materialism and realism, with 'sodd***
cunts' and 'sodd*** pricks' at antithetical materialistic points, but 'fuck***
cunts' and 'fuck*** pricks' at antithetical realistic points in a spectrum
stretching from 'sodd*** cunts' to 'sodd*** pricks', that is to say, from
'cunts' who sodomize to 'pricks' who sodomize, with the less extreme and more
heterosexual 'cunts' who fornicate or practise coitus and 'pricks' who do
likewise coming in-between.
15. And yet, while the great majority of people
who use or reap such unpleasant expressions are undoubtedly bodily, there is
scope, in a sense, for their extension beyond the world to the diabolic,
whether on an alpha or an omega basis, so that a naturalistic equivalent may be
inferred which, though less abusive than either of the worldly terms by dint of
its inherent sexlessness, would suggest, contrary to my initial contention, the
possibility of diabolic 'heads' being subject to denigratory abuse either as
'frigg*** cunts' or 'frigg*** pricks', depending on the perceived class or ideological
status of the 'head' in question.
However that may be (and I have to confess to never having heard use of
either term in all my long experience of proletarian terms of abuse), there can
be no doubt that such expressions will be far less relevant to 'heads' than to
'bodies' by dint of their inherently sexual nature. To suppose, in the light of the above
possibility, that an absolutist use of either term, viz. 'cunt' or 'prick', as
in 'that cunt' or 'this prick', entails a denigration of divine 'heads', i.e.
minds rather than brains, would be both illogical and absurd; for a divine
'head' is even less of a body than a diabolic one and, especially with regard
to omega-oriented divinity, should be above reproach. In sum, such terms, whether or not used in
conjunction with sexually active references, are only really relevant in and to
the world. It is for this reason that a
divine society, based on Social Transcendentalist criteria, would discourage
and eliminate, so far as was humanly possible, all reference to 'cunts' or
'pricks' among the People. Indeed, it is
questionable whether such terms would be in regular use in that kind of
society; for we cannot ignore the racial and social factors which contribute
towards their regular employment and accordingly render them especially
prevalent in countries like Great Britain, which is both autocratic and
democratic. Even the
16. Further to the above I find, on reflection,
that one must theoretically allow for the possibility of a denigration of
divine 'heads' from a worldly and/or diabolic (more likely) point of view, and
on the basis of a 'snogg*** cunt/snogg*** prick' dichotomy, such as will
logically flesh out, so to speak, our previous contentions on both
alpha-stemming and omega-oriented levels, thus completing the full gamut of
denigratory possibilities from idealism to realism or, alternatively, from
realism to idealism, depending on whether we take an alpha-stemming
(devolutionary) or an omega-oriented (evolutionary) point of view. Thus: idealistic 'snogg*** cunts' and/or
'snogg*** pricks'; naturalistic 'frigg*** cunts' and/or 'frigg*** pricks';
materialistic 'sodd*** cunts' and/or 'sodd*** pricks'; realistic 'fuck***
cunts' and/or 'fuck*** pricks' - all of which denigratory phrases can be
diagrammatically accounted for as follows:-
ALPHA OMEGA
1. idealistic 'snogg*** cunts' 8. superidealistic 'snogg*** pricks'
2.
naturalistic 'frigg*** cunts' 7.
supernaturalistic 'frigg***
pricks'
3.
materialistic 'sodd*** cunts' 6. supermaterialistic 'sodd*** pricks'
4.
realistic 'fuck*** cunts' 5. super-realistic 'fuck*** pricks'
with a progression or,
rather, devolutionary regression from (1) to (4) on the one hand, and an
evolutionary progression from (5) to (8) on the other hand.
17. Of snobs, nobs, yobs, and slobs in relation
to idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism - in that order.
18. A novelette should be more than just a short
novel; it should be as distinct from a novel as a cigarette from a cigar or a
two-seater car from a four-seater one.
In other words, a novelette is a different genre than a novel, more
petty bourgeois than bourgeois, and there is no reason why anyone who writes
novelettes should also want to write novels.
Nor is there any valid argument against such a person being called a
'novelettist'.
19. In regard to the parallel cited above
between novelettes and two-seater cars, I can see no reason why such cars
should not be called 'carettes', thereby standing to cars as cigarettes to
cigars or, as I have contended, novelettes to novels.
20. Better to be alienated from others than
alienated from the self.
21. Zoos will doubtless increasingly become a
kind of Noah's Ark for the survival and protection of certain animals long
after animals in general cease to exist in the wild, and largely because there
will be no wild in the world of the future in which such animals could exist. Thus the zoo, considered as an institution,
will keep a minimum number of each species in existence as a kind of zoological
record of species traditionally found in the world - much as a museum keeps a
minimum number of objects of historical importance as a curatorial record of
their antiquity. From being a place
where wild animals are kept in captivity for the benefit of public curiosity,
the zoo will become the only place where animals can still be found, thereby
transferring the reality of animal existence from the wilds to civilization,
from the outside to the inside, from freedom to captivity, from the private
domain to the public domain. One could
speak of the zoo that is the last refuge of animals as a superzoo, though
eventually even that will cease to exist, as evolution also leaves man behind
in its quest for the absolute.
22. Although I regard the institution of
marriage as inherently incompatible with the Social Transcendentalist 'Kingdom
of Heaven' to come, since indicative of an alpha-stemming period of time, I
would regard it as a revolutionary transformation for the better within the
marriage ceremony if instead of the groom placing a wedding ring on the ring
finger of his bride, the bride pinned a wedding badge on the chest, e.g. lapel,
of the groom, in response to a sexual transvaluation whereby the woman had to
prove her willingness for the man, rather than vice versa. Thus instead of: 'Do you take this woman to
be your lawful wedded wife?' we would have something to the effect of: 'Do you
take this man to be your lawful wedded husband?' followed by the pinning of a
small, curvilinear badge on the man's chest.
For it seems to me that men have deferred to women long enough and that,
particularly within the context of civil marriage, women ought henceforth,
during the remaining duration of the marital custom, to defer to men. After all, placing a ring on the fourth
finger of a bride entails a concession, on the man's part, to alpha-stemming
'cuntesque' criteria (the ring being of vaginal and centrifugal connotation in
contrast to the phallic and centripetal connotation of a badge) which few
enlightened 'men of the people' would surely wish to make? It amounts to an atomic compromise between
man and woman which, the more evolved the man, can only prove
unacceptable. In fact, the truly
enlightened, free-electron man or, rather, superman ... will scorn marriage
anyway, deeming it too bourgeois. He
would find both the placing and wearing of rings unacceptable - the mark of a
'cunt'. He looks forward to an age when
only curvilinear badges will obtain, and not necessarily in connection with
marriage either!
23. Possibility of distinguishing between:
journals and/or periodicals, serious newspapers, tabloids, and magazines on the
basis of a spectrum that stretches from realism to idealism via materialism and
naturalism. Hence realistic journals,
materialistic newspapers, naturalistic tabloids, and idealistic magazines, with
(broadly) worldly amoral, worldly immoral, diabolic immoral, and divine moral
implications - depending, to a greater or lesser extent, on the type of
journal, newspaper, tabloid, or magazine in question.
24. From ladders to lifts via stairs - a kind of
trinitarian progression from the Father to the Holy Spirit via the Son; though,
given the fact that ladders, stairs, and lifts come in different shapes and
sizes, not to mention materials, we should further distinguish between divine,
diabolic, and worldly parallels in each case, with tripartite options
respectively.
25. The fact that the assertion of a successive
Trinity was adjudged heretical in one age does not automatically render it so
in another. To speak of three
divinities, one succeeding another on an evolutionary basis, may be judged
heretical in a naturalistic alpha-stemming age, when the Father, as the nearest
Western equivalent of the alpha absolute, will have more theological importance
than the Holy Spirit, and when Christ, as the true focal-point of Christianity,
will be regarded as signifying the 'Three-in-One'. But it would be a poor sort of Churchman who
regarded it as heretical in an age which is sufficiently evolved to have an
omega orientation, in which only the Holy Spirit will count for anything in the
divine reckoning, and then only on the basis that it resides in the Second
Coming and can be transferred to the People ... should they democratically
elect to opt for it at the expense of their worldly, i.e. political, judicial,
and economic, sovereignties which, thereafter, would pass to the Second Coming
who, through his political Centre, took such 'sins of the World' upon his
shoulders, as it were, in a spirit of Christ-like sacrifice ... in order that
the People could go free of them and be all the more credibly saved in
consequence. Yes, I do believe in a
successive Trinity, with the Father (alpha) leading to the Son (Christ) and the
Son in turn leading to the Holy Spirit (omega), which will be the ultimate
divinity, a divinity emerging via the People and the post-human life forms
engineered out of them or, rather, their cyborg successors ... as positive pure
spirit, the wavicle electron-electron attractions which should contrast
absolutely with the wavicle proton-proton reactions of the central star of the
Galaxy from which, in my view, the theological postulate of the Creator was
consciously or unconsciously extrapolated.
To some extent it could be claimed that the Father is an autocrat's
divinity, the Holy Spirit a theocrat's divinity, and Christ a democratic
compromise, appropriate to the world, coming in-between. Certainly, I never speak in the name of the
Father, like Christ, but always from an omega standpoint, symptomatic of the
Holy Spirit. And I claim transcendent
sovereignty for myself on the basis not only of my supertruth, commensurate
with messianic revelations concerning the human and post-human path to Heaven,
but also of my virginal celibacy - a no-less important factor in establishing
and maintaining a messianic credibility!
Should the People desire such sovereignty for themselves or, rather,
their selves, they will have to vote accordingly, when the Social Transcendentalist
option is put before them. Only thus can
they become Holy Spirit and enter the '
26. Consequently, all men must come to me if
they wish to be saved; for I am the Superway, the Supertruth, and the
Superlife, and no man can enter the (Social Transcendentalist) 'Kingdom of
Heaven' unless he votes for such a kingdom, and a majority of the votes so cast
permit of its establishment - an establishment whereby political, judicial, and
economic sovereignty would be transferred to the Saviour in return for the
ultimate sovereignty - the religious sovereignty of the Holy Ghost. Only such peoples as the Second Coming has
chosen would be entitled to this ultimate sovereignty, should they so decide. The true, or Catholic, Irish people of the
27. It could be said of Christ that he took the
external 'sins of the world' upon his shoulders at the Crucifixion, whereas it
would seem to be the destiny of the Second Coming (who is not literally Christ)
to take the internal 'sins of the world' upon his shoulders, once he assumes
dictatorial power in the name of the saved People. An historical distinction between a proton
outer and an electron inner - alpha and omega orders of 'worldly sin'. Death and life.
28. Devolution of divinities, or the concept of
God, from the Creator to Christ via the Blessed Virgin, and evolution of
divinities, or the concept of God, from Christ to the Holy Spirit via the
Second Coming. In contemporary terms it
could be said that 'God' has reached the evolutionary level of the Second
Coming, and that the Second Coming will accordingly signify God in the world
until such time as the People collectively become Holy Spirit, when God will
attain, albeit crudely, to its ultimate manifestation prior to eventual
transcendence, that is to say, when the concept of God will depart from both
the Creator and Christ and become focused on the 'Third Person' of the Blessed
Trinity. Such a People's God, or God of
the People, will gradually develop in and beyond the People, i.e. through the
succeeding post-human life forms (superbeings and supra-beings) engineered out
of them or, rather, the (transitional) cyborgs ... by qualified technicians,
towards a definitive realization in positive transcendent spirit - pure and
blissful, the unified culmination of all evolution.
29. To a certain extent the State is always an
oppressor of the People, since the State levies taxes (unlike the Church which,
through its divine mission, seeks to alleviate the sufferings of the People by
bringing them closer to Christ). In the
age-old struggle between the State and the Church, which is equivalent to the
Dark and the Light, the latter is destined to triumph, though not before the
Centre has come to pass and all remaining State responsibility been dovetailed
into the Centre, which will reshape and redefine such responsibility in
accordance with its overriding religious essence, thereby subordinating it to
an inferior place in the overall hierarchy of Centrist priorities. In Ireland the struggle, traditionally,
between State and Church has been particularly acute by dint of the former being
an instrument of British imperialism and the latter being, in its true
manifestation, the representative and chief consolation of the indigenous
people. Thus the struggle between the
Dark and the Light has taken on, until comparatively recent times, a
British/Irish division which, while largely extinct in the South, still obtains
in the North (British
30. Being and doing translated into play and
work, with devolutionary and evolutionary implications: alpha divine
playing-against-self, alpha diabolic working-against-self, worldly alpha
working-against-others, alpha worldly playing-against-others; omega worldly
playing-for-others, worldly omega working-for-others, omega diabolic
working-for-self, omega divine playing-for-self. As a rule, it will be found that divine and
diabolic modes of play and work are psychical, in contrast to the physical
nature of worldly modes of play and work.
Therefore we may further qualify our basic devolutionary/evolutionary
distinctions as follows:-
DEVOLUTION EVOLUTION
1. alpha-divine
psychical playing-against-self 8.
divine-omega psychical playing-for-self
2. alpha-diabolic psychical working-against-self 7. diabolic-omega psychical working-for-self
3. worldly-alpha
physical working-against-others 6.
worldly-omega physical working-for-others
4. alpha-worldly
physical playing-against-others 5.
omega-worldly physical playing-for-others
with (1) and (8) idealistic,
(2) and (7) naturalistic, (3) and (6) materialistic, and (4) and (5) realistic
- always bearing in mind our devolutionary and evolutionary distinctions, which
render each antithetical equivalent somewhat mutually exclusive. Thus the more a man plays for himself, the
less he will play against himself; the more a man works for himself, the less
he will work against himself; and so on.
It also follows that the more a man plays for himself, the less he will be
disposed to work for himself, and vice versa, although no man is ever
exclusively any one thing, neither with regard to the Divine and/or the
Diabolic nor with regard to each of the worldly options, whether alpha or
omega. We are composites with a specific
bias one way or another, even when we most approximate, say, to an omega
orientation as opposed to an alpha-stemming one. To be predominantly divine or diabolic or
worldly is nothing exceptional in a world where absolutes are goals rather than
established facts. But to be divine,
diabolic, or worldly in equal measure would be as impossible as to be only
divine or diabolic or worldly. It would
be equivalent to being an idealist, a naturalist, a materialist, and a realist
all rolled into one, and thus nothing at all.
For equal attributes would simply cancel one another out, making for an
abstract void which, theoretically speaking, would be morally nothing where the
absolute was everything - assuming its eventual realization in the omega
Divine. No, a man is, for example, an
idealist only by dint of being predominantly idealistic. And what applies to the divine attribute
applies no less to the diabolic one and to each of the worldly attributes as
well. A balance between all four would
be practically as well as morally impossible.
Life is a struggle between the divine, the diabolic, and the worldly,
not a rapprochement
between incommensurables. On the
alpha-stemming (proton) side of the atom, a devolutionary struggle between
different negative orders of playing and working. On the omega-aspiring (electron) side of the
atom, an evolutionary struggle between different positive orders of playing and
working. Atomic overlappings will of
course occur in the world. But as life
draws closer, in evolutionary terms, to the omega absolute, so playing and
working can only become correspondingly more absolutist in character and, no
less importantly, psychical as opposed to physical. Eventually even psychical work will be
eclipsed and accordingly left behind by psychical play, which, as I conceive it,
is commensurate with spiritual self-realization.
31. There are, it seems to me, four grades of
superman - namely, particle-biased atomic electron, wavicle-biased atomic
electron, electron particle, and electron wavicle, which, translated into
concrete terms, would be equivalent to: a) muscular supermen; b) fleshy
supermen; c) brainy supermen; and d) spiritual supermen. Or, more simply, supermen of the muscles, the
flesh, the new brain, and the superconscious mind, with muscle and flesh
supermen polar opposites in the world, but new-brain and superconscious
supermen polar opposites appertaining to the Devil/God dichotomy beyond
it. Thus whereas muscular and fleshy
supermen are inherently bodily, brainy and spiritual supermen are of the
omega-oriented head - the former more characteristic of the Nordic and, in
particular, American West, the latter ... of the Slavic and Third World
East. For there is indeed an ascending
hierarchy of supermen from First to Third World via Second World status, which
parallels our basic tripartite distinctions between world, Devil, and God, or,
alternatively, body, brain, and mind.
Not that the West, for example, is devoid of brain- and mind-biased
supermen - any more than the East is without muscular or fleshy supermen. It is just that the former will generally be
more characteristic of the diabolic and divine parts of the globe, whereas the
latter will typify its inherently worldly parts, which include the greater part
of the Germanic West - that predominantly Caucasian civilization
traditionally. For in our tripartite
geographical and economic divisions of the globe into First, Second and Third
Worlds, we find, broadly speaking, caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid racial
distinctions - distinctions which, no matter how generalized, are not without
some relevance in the formation and overall existence of body-brain-mind
options. In the twentieth century the
most representative categories of supermen were of the muscular and fleshy types,
which largely pertained to the West, whereas the brain type had a fringe
standing (in relation to the truly contemporary) in the Communist East and has
yet to come fully into his own - a fact which applies even more to the mind
type of superman who, particularly in the Third World, is more a potentiality
than an actuality at present. His time
has also still to come. Indeed, speaking
of supermen, or those who are class-consciously 'turned on' at one or another
points of an electron-biased orientation, we can grade then from 1-4 in terms
of realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism, with the fleshy bias, i.e.
good-looks, womanizing disposition, etc., being symptomatic of realism; the
muscular bias being symptomatic of materialism; the new-brain bias (with its
rational implications) being symptomatic of naturalism; and, finally, the
superconscious bias (with its transcendental implications) being symptomatic of
idealism - all biases existing, needless to say, on 'super' levels of their
respective spectra.
32. There is no single relation between mind and
brain, since people are not classifiable on an identical basis. Take, for example, the age-old dichotomy
between art and science. Artists are
clearly a different category of human beings from scientists - a category that,
when true to itself, is predominantly of the mind rather than of the
brain. The artist is one for whom mind,
and hence subjective imagination, is uppermost, whereas the scientist is one
for whom the brain, and hence objective inquiry, is uppermost. It is a wavicle/particle dichotomy, and
although the artist has a brain, we can safely believe that it is subordinate
to his mind and thus acts in the service of imagination - in contrast to the
scientist, for whom, as already noted, the brain predominates, and thus
subordinates mind to its objective inquiry.
33. To expand this dichotomy: one could argue
that the artist's brain is an aside to his mind, or wavicle bias, whereas the
scientist's mind is an aside to his brain, or particle bias. The artist's head - at any rate when judged
in a traditional imaginative light - is a kind of extrapolation from the
central star of the Galaxy, which in its wavicle purism corresponds to the
Creator, whereas the scientist's head - again judged in alpha-stemming terms -
is a kind of extrapolation from the sun, which, in its particle crudeness,
corresponds to the Devil. The former is
predominantly and inherently light ... with a heat aside; the latter
predominantly and inherently heat ... with a light aside, so that while mind,
corresponding to light, is the essence of the one, brain, corresponding to
heat, will be the essence of the other.
Therefore an artist is akin to God in the world, a scientist akin to the
Devil there - two completely separate, independent beings whose ratio of mind
to brain or vice versa is indicative, in its dichotomous nature, of two
essentially antithetical destinies. Any
attempt to judge them according to identical criteria, as though there was a
single mind-brain relationship, can only lead to error.
34. Now what applies to 'heads', of both this
and other descriptions, also applies, if to a lesser extent, to 'bodies', where
different ratios of nominal mind to brain or, conversely, of nominal brain to
mind can be found, depending on the type of worldly person in question, be he
of a particle or a wavicle bias, disposed to fact or disposed, on the contrary,
to fantasy ... in accordance with whether he is regarded as being, in a manner
of speaking, largely extrapolated from the earth's crust or, alternatively,
from its core - in greater or lesser degrees.
The brain-biased 'body', who may well be bony or nervous or muscular,
tends to look-in, as it were, at fact, scientific or otherwise, from the
outside, i.e. as an interested spectator, whereas the mind-biased 'body', who
may well be hot-blooded or vascular or fleshy, tends to look-in at fantasy, be
it fictional or otherwise, from an interested spectator's, and hence passive,
point of view. Neither of them will be
actively intellectual or imaginative, as a rule. Now what applies to alpha-stemming 'bodies'
applies no less to omega-oriented ones, who will be rather more democratic than
autocratic, whether on muscular or fleshy terms. A similar particle/wavicle dichotomy cuts
across the bodily working class, with (muscular) blue-collar workers broadly in
the particle category and (fleshy) white-collar workers broadly in the wavicle
one. 'Heads' of an omega-oriented
disposition, whether of the new brain or the superconscious mind, will of
course reflect a similar particle/wavicle dichotomy, with Super-antichristic
and Superchristic implications, depending on whether we are considering artists
or scientists, religious leaders or economists, Communists or
Transcendentalists, etc., etc. In the
electron-particle case, a superbrainy integrity; in the electron-wavicle case,
a supermindful integrity - the ratio of brain to mind, or vice versa, depending
on the type of omega-oriented 'head' in question. The supreme artist, or Second Coming, is
effectively a manifestation of Holy Spirit in the world, being the farthermost
imaginative stretch of a spectrum tending from the Father through Christ to
himself or, put in psychological terms, from the subconscious to the
superconscious via intermediate consciousness.
35. One of the things which our quartet of
'isms' ... from realism to idealism via materialism and naturalism ... tends to
highlight, from an omega-oriented standpoint, is the narrow and rather limited
value of dialectical materialism in explaining the historical process. For were history nothing more than a series
of materialist frictions within a materialistic context, such a view as is
expressed by dialectical materialism would be largely if not totally
valid. But given the fact that, besides
materialism, history also embraces realism, naturalism, and idealism, both in
terms of devolution and evolution, it stands to reason that the materialist
interpretation of history is only very partially valid, having a validity whose
partiality mainly pertains to a materialistic phase of history, with particular
reference to the anarcho-syndicalist struggles of the particle-biased
blue-collar proletariat within the confrontational framework of a dialectic the
envisaged outcome of which is the demolition of bourgeois capitalist power and
the correlative achievement of a workers' republic. Thus we can see that, as an expression of the
workers' struggle, dialectical materialism is an inherently Western phenomenon;
for the dialectic, being relative, is essentially worldly, and where materialism
prevails over realism, as it often does in the more advanced Western countries,
then the dialectical struggle between workers and capitalists will take a
materialistic form, i.e. have as its objective the total eradication of
capitalist exploitation in the interests of a socialist absolutism which
transcends liberal relativity. Let there
be no doubt here: dialectical materialism is but one expression of the
historical process, an expression largely confined to the West, or First World,
in its materialistic (late) phase, which co-exists, as a rule, with dialectical
realism, or the parliamentary struggle between the Left and the Right conceived
as an end-in-itself, rather than a means to a proletarian end. Thus where dialectical realism and, hence,
liberalism (in the broad sense of that term) is inherently relative,
dialectical materialism strives towards the complete dethronement of the
bourgeoisie in the name of worker management, ownership, and overall control of
the means of production. Where dialectical
realism is syndicalist, it is anarcho-syndicalist. Where dialectical realism is centralist, it
is decentralist. Where dialectical
realism is amoral, it is immoral. And,
changing to a sexual metaphor, one could argue that where dialectical realism
is heterosexual and/or bisexual, it is homosexual. The proletariat are regarded, in the schema
of dialectical materialism, as agents of their own socialist salvation, rather
than simply as tools or bargaining counters in the hands of union
representatives. Anarcho-syndicalism is
far more worker orientated than union orientated. It is essentially a grassroots phenomenon.
36. However, if the dialectical process, whether
realist or materialist, is inherently worldly, and thus largely Western, there
can be no question that above and beyond the world in the, as it were, diabolic
and divine parts of the globe, no such interpretation or mode of historical
change will strictly apply; for where the Second and Third Worlds are
concerned, we are not dealing with worldly relativity, as germane to the body,
but with diabolic and/or divine absolutism, as germane to the head in each of
its omega-oriented manifestations.
Therefore we are concerned not with dialectical realism or materialism
but, on the contrary, with what I shall describe as post-dialectical naturalism
in the one case, that of the diabolic, and post-dialectical idealism in the
other, that of the divine. Thus the
(former)
37. However that may be, both post-dialectical
naturalism and post-dialectical idealism are no-less valid explanations of
history and modes of historical change for the 'head' peoples to whom they
especially apply than ... dialectical realism and dialectical materialism for
the 'bodily', or Germanic, peoples of the contemporary West. To imagine that dialectical materialism is
the sole or even chief vehicle of historical change, as does Sartre in his Critique of Dialectical
Reason, is simply to leave the head out of account. Now if that is respectable among so-called
progressive thinkers in the democratic West, it can only be frowned upon in the
theocratic East, where Leninist and/or Maoist criteria tend to take precedence
over Marxism. The time is fast
approaching when even the West will find the dialectical explanation of history
unconvincing on any but a very partial basis.
For if post-dialectical trends are to prevail in the world at large, both
dialectical realism and its rather more intransigent counterpart will have to
be consigned to the rubbish heap of history, there to rot in sordid isolation
from the ongoing process of world-historical change.
38. In relation to the physical States of
bourgeois and/or republican democracies, the (former) Soviet State was
metaphysical, which is to say, one primarily constituted on the basis of the
People rather than, as in Western contexts, the basis of either the government,
as in Britain, or states collectively envisaged as part of some vast
inter-state nation, such as the United States of America. In fact, taking parliamentary democracy
first, we may characterize the governmental State as realist, the inter-state
State as materialist, and the People's State as naturalist, with worldly
amoral, worldly immoral, and diabolically immoral distinctions respectively,
given that the governmental State exists, in effect, as a sovereign individual,
i.e. parliament, whereas both the inter-state State and the People's State are
inherently collectivistic. Indeed, if we
seek alpha-stemming correlations for each of these omega-oriented, or
evolutionary modes of the State, we find (working from the top down) that the
People's State has its antithetical parallel in a diabolic autocracy with one
sovereign ruler; the inter-state State has its antithetical parallel in the
city states and/or early nation states of a worldly alpha autocracy, or
tyranny; and, finally, the governmental State has its antithetical parallel in
the aristocratic oligarchies of ensuing democratic autocracies, of which the
House of Lords affords us the best existing example, since it co-exists with
the House of Commons in a Janus-like State which is both autocratic and democratic at the same
time - autocratic as regards the Lords, but democratic with regard to the
Commons. Now whereas alpha-stemming
antiquity affords us plentiful examples of political separatism and
isolationism, omega-oriented modernity has, by contrast, a more cohesive and
unified face - at any rate, as regards the constitutions of the different kinds
of States, whether or not they overlap with the traditional forms of the State
or, indeed, with one another. For no
State is ever entirely one thing, the People's State not excepted, since it has
a physical as well as a metaphysical dimension, the former expressed in the
various republics of the union. And yet,
if the People's State is predominantly metaphysical, it is not on that account
spiritual. For we should distinguish
between the metaphysical and the spiritual as between People's democracies and
the envisaged People's theocracies which I equate with the coming Centre. Thus whereas the diabolic, or new-brain level
of the State is metaphysical as opposed to physical, like the worldly or bodily
levels of the State (whether governmental or inter-state), the Centre will be
predominantly spiritual to the extent that it equates with a divine, or
superconscious, order of society above and beyond all statism - diabolic as
well as worldly. For the Centre is not
another form of the State but, on the contrary, a manifestation of the '
39. Strictly speaking, the State is any mode of
political organization within certain broadly accepted geographical
boundaries. It is not a country or land
mass, since Ireland is a country with, at the time of writing, two States, one
republican and the other a part of the United Kingdom, and land, at any rate,
ice masses like the North Pole and Antarctica have never been States, since
no-one has seen fit to live on them and set up some form of political
administration. Thus the State and the
geographical boundaries of a country are not necessarily synonymous, although
as a rule we do find State and country overlapping, as it were, in mutual
identification. Certainly, there cannot
be a State if there is not a country, or a densely populated area of land
traditionally inhabited by peoples of neighbouring or kindred tribes. Peoples make countries, and countries make
States. Before the white man came, the
Australasian continent was not a country, still less a State or collection of
States, but simply a sparsely inhabited land of no national determination. The white colonists created
40. Although I admire Arthur Koestler as a
writer, I find his desire for a reconciliation, on the basis of a
chemically-induced balance, between the old brain and the new brain, the former
conceived by Koestler as predominantly emotional and the latter as
predominantly intellectual, is less a solution to the alleged problem of man's
'divided house', to use his phrase, than a retreat from transcendental progress
towards a balanced dualism reminiscent of Harry Haller's redemption in The Steppenwolf,
that Jekyll and Hyde novel by Hermann Hesse, in which the warring divisions
between 'beast' and 'god' in its split-personality protagonist are finally
overcome through a conversion process which results in Haller's accepting his
human wholeness. Something analogous to
that is essentially what Koestler wants to see come about, though, in fairness
to him, he regards the emotional old brain (cerebellum) as traditionally and
inherently more powerful than the intellectual new brain (cerebrum), and
therefore as something that has to be controlled, if necessary via chemical means,
in the interests of a psychic balance.
However, such a balanced solution to the alleged imbalance which
Koestler perceives in (amongst other publications) Janus - A Summing Up
as the root cause of man's historical and social dilemma ... is no less bourgeois
than Harry Haller's conversion to dualistic integration in The Steppenwolf,
since it leaves humanity where we find it today - torn between old and new
brains, beast and god.
41. No, a perpetual relativity is hardly the
solution to man's dualistic predicament!
Evolutionary progress demands a higher solution, and if in the course of
such progress man is overcome (to use a Nietzschean turn-of-phrase), then the
resulting life forms engineered out of him will be less disposed to relativity
and correspondingly more disposed to aspirations towards a projected divine
culmination of evolution in the ultimate absolutism - the absolutism, I need
scarcely add, of the Holy Spirit.
Certainly a new-brain collectivization would have no such dualistic
divisions (or imbalances) as man, and while brain collectivizations may have to
precede new-brain ones, we need not doubt that even they would be capable of a
greater degree of integrated spirituality and omega orientation than man, and
so stand closer, in evolutionary terms, to that new-brain absolutism which must
come if evolution is to transcend a perpetual humanism ... such that could only
appeal to a worldly and, in effect, bourgeois mentality. Besides, quite apart from moral and spiritual
motivations (which are always uppermost in any idealistic mind), there is the
population factor to consider, a factor to which Koestler draws more than
passing attention in The
Ghost in the Machine, and obviously in the spirit of someone deeply fearful
of the consequences, both demographically and socially, of unchecked population
growth. Yet, even with the inevitability
of wars for some time to come, it is highly probable that the immense
population increases which the twentieth century spawned will continue to rise
at an ever-increasing rate, thereby making it virtually inevitable that, sooner
or later, man will be obliged to transcend his species and become post-human,
achieve, through artificial mutation engineered by various qualified
technicians, the status of artificially-supported and no-less
artificially-sustained brain collectivizations, which will have the distinct
advantage of being able to 'house' far more lives in a given environment, or in
the dwindling space available on this planet, than could reasonably be 'housed'
in the human context, where bodies and bodily needs necessarily take up and
require more space. Not only would the
standard of life be considerably improved, i.e. rendered more consistently
spiritual, through brains being artificially supported and sustained in
collectivized contexts but, no less significantly, such contexts would be the
only way in which the vastly greater populations of the future could
reasonably be accommodated, with ever-increasing degrees of
centro-complexification ... as when new-brain collectivizations supersede, via
artificial mutation, brain collectivizations, and a life form antithetical, in
evolutionary terms, to trees rather than, as with the preceding stage, to apes
on trees ... ultimately comes to pass, a life form which I have elsewhere
termed a Supra-being (to distinguish it from the preceding Superbeings, or
brain collectivizations). Such an
ultimate life form would take-up even less room than the penultimate one and,
in any case, would find its proper environment in space centres where, at a
relatively safe remove from the earth's gravity, the hypermeditative process
which should lead to transcendence, and thus to the attainment of
electron-electron attractions, would receive the maximum environmental
encouragement. However, if Supra-beings
are too far into the future to be worth seriously contemplating at present, the
same, I believe, cannot be said of Superbeings, or brain collectivizations,
which, in their hypertripping capacity, would logically follow-on from the cyborg
stage of evolution here on earth, and in numbers greatly in excess of the
current human population of the globe.
42. As to the cyborg stage of evolution, which I
equate with a transition coming in-between transcendental man and the first of the
post-human life forms, I would not want to give too exclusively an impression
of robot-like beings who strut about the earth like knights in shining armour,
since any such eventuality could prove more violent and competitive, in its
unfolding, than that to which we are accustomed in terms of human life,
particularly if the said robotic cyborgs felt they were invincible and
ultrapowerful, scarcely accountable to governmental and/or social control! Heaven forbid that anything remotely
resembling the sci-fi productions of star-wars type scenarios involving
clashing metallic 'men' should ever materialize in reality! My hope is that if extensive transplantations
or transmutations of human organs eventually lead to men becoming more
artificial than natural, the men in question will be more disposed to peace and
social integration than to war and gangsterism, being, to all intents and
purposes, an improvement upon Les hommes moyen naturels/sensuels. Perhaps the term 'cyborg', with its robotic
connotations, is too strong, or should be confined to only a comparatively
small minority of future 'men' - like, for example, the police, who may well
become the most artificial category of persons or, at any rate, have recourse
to a kind or level of cyborg transmutation denied to the masses in general,
with, maybe, metallic rather than plastic parts (inner or outer) for purposes
of social expedience. But of course the
police, or superpolice (as they might well have become by then), would be
accountable to the leadership, and therefore pledged to behave in a manner
guaranteed to uphold the peace, whether or not this sometimes resulted in a
certain degree of intimidatory or corrective discipline.
43. Whatever the form it actually takes, it does
seem that a transitional stage from late man to the first of the post-human
life forms will have to be evolved through, and I dare say that life in that
period will be more artificial for the great majority of people than
natural. After all, man was not made in
a day but, if we adopt a non-mythical approach to his origins, gradually
emerged from the ape, or a certain species of ape. Now what applies to the emergence of man must
surely apply to the emergence, in due course, of the Superbeing, that
antithesis, as I conceive it, to the ape, and first of our envisaged two
manifestations of post-human life - the other of course being the
supra-beingful new-brain collectivizations which, in their greater uniformity
and increased centro-complexification, would be as far beyond or posterior to
man, in evolutionary terms, as trees were before or anterior to him, bearing in
mind that trees preceded apes in the overall evolution or, as I prefer to
regard it, devolution of life on earth ... from the starry cosmos. Ah, it is with the ultimate post-human life
form that the dawn of a new cosmos will be in sight - a supercosmos, as it
were, of the omega heavens converging and expanding in electron-electron
attractions.
44. To distinguish between negative
individualism, whether divine or worldly, which is alpha stemming, and positive
individualism, whether divine or worldly, which is omega orientated, in regard
to both negative spiritual and negative physical self-transcendence on the one
hand, and to both positive spiritual and positive physical self-transcendence
on the other hand. Likewise to
distinguish between negative collectivism, whether diabolic or worldly, which
is alpha stemming, and positive collectivism, whether diabolic or worldly,
which is omega orientated, in regard to both negative soulful and negative
physical self-assertion on the one hand, and to both positive soulful and
positive physical self-assertion on the other hand. Taking negative individualism and negative
collectivism first, we are distinguishing between proton-wavicle self-transcendence,
proton-particle self-assertion, atomic-proton self-assertion, and proton-atomic
self-transcendence, with alpha divine, alpha diabolic, worldly alpha, and alpha
worldly overtones. By contrast, positive
individualism and positive collectivism may be described, starting from the
bottom up, in terms of electron-atomic self-transcendence, atomic-electron
self-assertion, electron-particle self-assertion, and electron-wavicle
self-transcendence, with omega worldly, worldly omega, omega diabolic, and
omega divine overtones respectively.
45. Competition and co-operation are terms we
can exchange for negative and positive, with alpha-stemming modes of
individualism and collectivism competitive, but omega-oriented modes of
individualism and collectivism co-operative.
In the one case, competitive either vis-à-vis oneself or others, and, in
the other case, co-operative either vis-à-vis oneself or others, bearing in
mind that the 'self' differs between spiritual and physical according to
whether we are referring to the divine or to the middle worldly, that 'others'
differ between physical and soulful according to whether we are referring to
the extreme worldly or to the diabolic, at whichever poles of their respective
spectra. The divine is always wavicle
centred, the diabolic particle centred, whether on a subatomic or a
supra-atomic basis, whereas the worldly options are biased towards particles or
wavicles within an atomic framework.
Individualism is accordingly a wavicle integrity, noumenal in the case
of the divine, whether alpha or omega, phenomenal in the case of the middle
worldly antithesis, whereas collectivism is a particle integrity, noumenal in
the case of the diabolic, whether alpha or omega, phenomenal in the case of the
extreme worldly antithesis, i.e. worldly alpha and omega. You can only have collectivism between
particles, which come together in groups while yet retaining their basic unit
differentials. A wave, or wavicle, is an
individual entity, not a collection of separate parts.
46. Concerning the distinction we have drawn
between alpha-stemming competitive and omega-oriented co-operative antitheses,
we find ourselves with the paradoxical integrities, for example, of competitive
self-transcendence in the cases of the alpha divine and alpha worldly options,
but co-operative self-assertion in the cases of the worldly omega and omega
diabolic options. This is because
competition is inherently reactive, and the proton aspect of the atom is nothing
if not reactive, whereas co-operation is inherently attractive, as are
electrons within the electron aspect of the atom. Just as proton-proton reactions precede
worldly atomicity, so electron-electron attractions succeed it. Hence we should distinguish between
competitive self-transcendence and co-operative self-transcendence on both
spiritual (divine) and physical (worldly) levels, with an analogous distinction
between competitive self-assertion and co-operative self-assertion on both
soulful (diabolic) and physical (worldly) levels. War is basically competitive self-assertion
within the collective context, whereas sport, by contrast, is predominantly
co-operative self-assertion (team work, mutual respect, shared skills, etc.)
within the collective context. Sex is
basically competitive self-transcendence within the individual context, whereas
dance is predominantly co-operative self-transcendence within the individual
context. Both pairs of antitheses are
inherently worldly, if on different terms - the first pair materialistic, and
hence extreme worldly, but the second pair realistic, and hence middle
worldly. Of course, competitive elements
enter into the co-operative integrities and vice versa; for just as war has a
co-operative side - at any rate, between members of the same army - so sport
has a competitive one, now more, now less, according to the contextual
circumstances. (The average football match contains more passes than tackles, a
fact which testifies to its predominantly co-operative essence.) Likewise, sex and dance are partly
interchangeable so far as the basic ratios of competition to co-operation are
concerned, though, as a rule, there will be more competition in sex than in
dance and, conversely, more co-operation in dance than in sex, always bearing
in mind our fundamental distinction between the reactive and the attractive,
negativity and positivity, which corresponds to the terms under discussion.
47. Now what applies to the worldly dichotomies
applies just as much to the diabolic and divine dichotomies above, where self-transcendence
and self-assertion are both competitive and co-operative, depending on the
level and type of divine or diabolic equations, whether alpha or omega. The equation of competitive, or negative,
self-transcendence with the Father would be no less valid than the equation of
co-operative, or positive, self-transcendence with the Holy Spirit. Taking the subconscious and the
superconscious as our psychic parallels to the divine poles, we may
characterize dreaming as a manifestation of competitive self-transcendence ...
in contrast to, say, LSD tripping as a manifestation of co-operative
self-transcendence. Similarly, the
equation of competitive self-assertion with Satan would be no less valid than
the equation of co-operative self-assertion with the Antichrist. And if we extrapolate old-brain and new-brain
options as parallels to the diabolic poles, we may characterize old-brain
activity, whether emotional or wilful, as a manifestation of competitive
self-assertion ... in contrast to new-brain activity, whether intellectual or
wilful, as a manifestation of co-operative self-assertion. Both are of course soulful rather than
spiritual, which is to say heat rather than light.
48. However, it would be wrong to suppose, in
too Koestlerian a fashion, that the old brain is entirely emotional and the new
brain entirely intellectual; for in point of fact emotions stretch from the one
to the other, as of course does the intellect.
It is rather that old-brain emotions will generally be more negative,
and therefore aggressive, than those of the new brain ... on account of the
greater preponderance of protons over electrons in that brain, whereas
new-brain emotions will generally be more positive, or integrative, on account
of the preponderating electron bias in the overall atomicity of the new brain,
a brain which stands in a kind of atomically antithetical relationship to the
old one - the lower, or alpha-stemming, brain.
Thus whereas old-brain emotions are likely to be competitive, new-brain
emotions will be co-operative, even though equally self-assertive. Taking awareness, emotions, and intellect as
the three major factors or experiences of the psyche, we should ascribe a
wavicle status to awareness, a particle status to emotions, and a kind of
atomic status to intellect, which comes somewhere in between - almost as a
cross, or compromise, between awareness and emotion. Yet we must not forget that just as emotions
and intellect stretch from the old brain to the new brain, so does awareness,
since we can distinguish between subconscious alpha-stemming awareness, as in
dreams, and superconscious omega-oriented awareness, as in meditation. Whether the awareness in question be truly
divine or a by-product of the diabolic ... will depend on the type of brain any
given person has. For we have already
established that not all brains are equal, and that while some are akin to
extrapolations from the central star of the Galaxy, others seem to have been
predominantly extrapolated from the sun, being to all intents and purposes more
emotional than mindful or, which amounts
to the same thing, more heat than light.
An omega transvaluation within the framework of evolutionary progress
does not alter the relativity of this basic polarity; for divine and diabolic
spectra are just as distinct on a superconscious/new-brain basis as on a
subconscious/old-brain one. Spirit and
soul remain parallel despite relative fusings or overlappings, the 'mind'
person and the 'brain' person are not interchangeable but two opposite types -
artist and scientist, divine and diabolic, wavicle and particle, whether
negatively or positively, competitively or co-operatively, biased towards
protons or towards electrons.
49. And yet, if Koestler is wrong to divide the
old and new brains too glibly between emotion and intellect, it could be
claimed that my own division between divine mind and diabolic brain is less
than wholly right. Since we have agreed
that awareness and emotions are the twin poles of the head conceived on a sort
of vertical rather than horizontal basis, and that intellect comes somewhere in
between, it seems somehow better to distinguish between mindful and emotional
people on a divine/diabolic basis, and to conceive of intellectual, or brainy,
people as worldly or, at any rate, an amalgam of the two. I say this because my long familiarity with
Koestler's fascinating tripartite distinctions between humour, science, and art
has suddenly thrust itself upon me, making me freshly conscious of a parallel
between humour and emotions, science and intellect, and art and awareness, with
electron-particle, atomic-electron, and electron-wavicle overtones - at least
in relation to an omega orientation (seeing that alpha-stemming 'humour' would
be rather black and possibly more aligned with a scowl-producing phenomenon
than with one inducing smiles!).
50. Koestler distinguishes in a variety of
books, not least The
Act of Creation, between what he calls the 'Haha!' reaction, the 'Aha!'
reaction, and the 'Ah ...' reaction, alleging connections with humour, science,
and art respectively. Now if we examine
these reactions in the light of my own atomic parallels, we shall find that the
'Haha!' reaction, being absolutist and particle suggesting, connotes with an
electron-particle absolutism; the 'Aha!' reaction, being relative and therefore
atomic suggesting, connotes with an atomic-electron relativity; and the 'Ah
...' reaction, being absolutist and wavicle suggesting, connotes with an
electron-wavicle absolutism. Thus
instead of having a horizontal progression, as in Koestler, from 'Haha!' to 'Ah
...' via 'Aha!', the latter of which is manifestly a combination of the other
two, we would have a vertical arrangement with 'Ah ...' at the top, 'Aha!' in
the middle, and 'Haha!' at the bottom - the 'Ah ...' reaction co-operatively
self-transcending, the 'Aha!' reaction both self-transcending and
self-assertive on co-operative terms, and, finally, the 'Haha!' reaction
co-operatively self-assertive. Thus
whereas the 'Ah ...' reaction would pertain to the superconscious region of the
psyche as the awareness aspect of the new brain and be inherently subjective,
the 'Haha!' reaction would correspond, by contrast, to the emotional aspect of
the new brain and be inherently objective.
The 'Aha!' reaction, on the other hand, would correspond to the
intellectual aspect of the new brain and be both subjective and objective in
possibly equal measure.
51. Taking cosmic parallels to the above, one
could argue that awareness is an extrapolation from the central star of the
Galaxy, emotion an extrapolation from the sun, and intellect an extrapolation
from the moon, since, like intellect, the moon is rather more atomic than
absolute on either a wavicle or a particle basis. But, of course, direct extrapolations would
only have effect with regard to the subconscious, that is to say with regard to
negative awareness, emotion, and intellect respectively, since positive
awareness, emotion, and intellect are predominantly factors of the
superconscious, situated, as it is, within the new brain, a brain far less
alpha stemming, on whichever level, than the old one which, as Koestler rightly
maintains, considerably precedes it in chronological time. Unlike him, however, I would argue that the
old brain is a manifestation of organic devolution from central star, sun, and
moon, whereas only the new brain is truly evolutionary, having potentials for
positive awareness, emotion, and intellect which stretch way beyond the worldly
plane towards a reality, or series of realities, at once superdivine,
superdiabolic, and superpurgatorial (if we may be permitted to equate purgatory
with a cross between Heaven and Hell, i.e. as a sort of superlunar compromise
between superstellar and supersolar intimations). However that may be, it is to positive
self-transcending awareness that I attach the greater importance, since only
that is truly divine. The other aspects
of the omega-oriented psyche will have to be transcended in the course of time;
for better than both the 'Haha!' and the 'Aha!' is the 'Ah ...' of blessed
enlightenment.
52. Self-transcendence has its true pole not in
self-assertion, as Koestler contends, but in self-consciousness, which is an
atomic, or egocentric, psychic experience standing to self-transcendence as the
phenomenal to the noumenal - at any rate on an alpha-stemming basis of, as it
were, negative self-transcendence (dreams) to negative self-consciousness
(embarrassment). For antithetical to the
alpha-stemming duality is the omega-oriented dualism of positive self-consciousness
(pride) and positive self-transcendence (LSD trips), with superphenomenal and
supernoumenal implications respectively, each of which exists on a wavicle
basis. Thus while self-transcendence
represents the alpha and omega divine poles, self-consciousness signifies a
kind of worldly divine antithesis to each pole - an egocentric middle-ground
standing in-between subconscious and superconscious awareness extremes. Likewise, antithetical in such a way to negative
self-assertion is negative self-denial (mortification of the flesh), which
stands to the former in a phenomenal light.
But if the noumenal precedes the phenomenal, then the superphenomenal
precedes the supernoumenal, and we find positive self-denial (fasting,
celibacy) antithetical to positive self-assertion - a duality no less
particle-centred than its alpha-stemming counterpart. While self-assertion represents the alpha and
omega diabolic poles, self-denial stands, in both its negative and positive
manifestations, as a kind of worldly diabolic antithesis to each pole - an
egocentric middle-ground in between subconscious and superconscious emotional
extremes. Thus where we are in effect
speaking, with regard to the divine spectrum, of Fatheristic and Christic
distinctions on an alpha-stemming basis, but of Superchristic and
Superfatheristic distinctions on an omega-oriented one, the diabolic spectrum
affords us parallel distinctions between the Satanic and the Antichristic on an
alpha-stemming basis, with, in the omega-oriented case, Super-antichristic and
Supersatanic implications. Proton
wavicles - atomic wavicles (negative and positive) - electron wavicles ... in
the one case; proton particles - atomic particles (negative and positive) -
electron particles ... in the other case.
Light and heat, whether negative or positive.
53. Consequently, we may conclude by saying that
whereas self-transcendence and self-assertion are parallel poles of parallel
spectra, i.e. divine and diabolic, self-consciousness is the antithetical pole
to the former and self-denial the antithetical pole to the latter, and this
whether we are treating of an alpha-stemming or an omega-oriented duality. Self-transcendence and self-assertion are
simply the outermost poles of truly divine and diabolic equivalents. Indeed, just as Koestler distinguishes
between 'Ah ...' - 'Aha!' - and 'Haha!' reactions, which are all positive, so,
for the sake of a more comprehensive perspective, we should admit of their
negative antitheses, which can be defined in terms of 'Oh ...' - 'Oho!' - and
'Ohoh!', the first self-transcending, the third self-assertive, and the second
an intellectual cross between each of the others. In fact, we would have, in these old-brain
experiences, the nearest thing to direct extrapolations from the central star
of the Galaxy (the alpha divine), the moon (the alpha purgatorial), and the sun
(the alpha diabolic), given their spiritual, intellectual, and emotional
distinctions. Probably myth, the occult,
and tragedy would be the most approximate disciplinary parallels to the art -
science - humour (comedy) trinity advanced by Koestler in connection with the
omega-oriented 'Ah ...' - 'Aha!' - 'Haha!' reactions, the negative
self-transcending tendency of the 'Oh ...' reaction, so to speak, being
associated with myth, the negative self-transcending/self-assertive compromise
of the 'Oho!' reaction being associated with the occult (a sort of primitive
science), and the negative self-assertive tendency of the 'Ohoh!' reaction
being associated with tragedy and, hence, tears. Competitive where the Koestlerian trinity is
co-operative, this alpha-stemming trinity would be the negative aspect of a
Janus-faced entity which, in the totality of its psychic dimensions, stretches
from the old brain to the new one.
Doubtless, the more balanced the psyche between subconscious and
superconscious, whether consciously, intellectually, or emotionally, the
greater the likelihood that neither negative nor positive self-transcending and
self-assertive tendencies will apply, but only a humanistic dualism in between
self-consciousness and self-denial, with but a comparatively weak peripheral
response either side, depending on the type of worldly person in question. For whereas divinely-biased people are
largely self-transcending and diabolically-biased people largely
self-assertive, worldly people, coming in-between, are either self-conscious or
self-denying, as befitting the phenomenal middle-ground in between noumenal
extremes. In the one case a worldly
divine analogue and, in the other case, a worldly diabolic analogue, whether
negative or positive, phenomenal or superphenomenal.
54. It seems indisputable to me that grammatical
contractions of the order of 'I'm' for 'I am', 'don't' for 'do not', and 'he'd'
for 'he had' or even 'he would' are requisite, whenever possible, to paperback
writing, since a paperback is an absolute form of book (no sharp distinction
between cover and pages, both being made from paper) which calls for a
correspondingly absolutist, or superphenomenal, writerly technique. Not so a hardback, where we have a relativity
between the hard cover and the paper pages which smacks of bourgeois
phenomenalism and calls for an equally relativistic writerly technique, as with
'I am', 'do not', 'he had', etc., used virtually without fail. To write for hardback publication in a
superphenomenal, or contracted, manner would seem as illogical and incongruous
to me as ... to write in a phenomenal, or relativistic, manner for paperbacks. The one format is essentially bourgeois, the
other proletarian, and the method of writing should reflect this class
distinction if anomalous, paradoxical productions are not to occur - as, sadly,
all too frequently happens! Even works
that were originally written in a relativistic fashion for hardback publication
should, where feasible, be rewritten or, at any rate, reprinted in an
absolutist manner, in the event of subsequent paperback publication. As a rule, the relativistic technique is left
as originally written, and the result is the paradoxical phenomenon of a
petty-bourgeois paperback, or perhaps I should say softback, which is neither
fish nor fowl, but effectively a wolf in sheep's clothing.
55. One of the things which most distinguishes
the truly modern, omega-oriented philosophical book (if philosophy is really
the word) from traditional, alpha-stemming works of philosophy is the absence
or reduction of apparent divisions - divisions between volumes, books, parts,
and chapters. Indeed, the more alpha
stemming the work of philosophy, the more likely it is to be divided into a
number of subsidiary books and/or parts, which testifies, it seems to me, to
the divisive, competitive, and superficial nature of life in an autocratic age
or society, a nature which to some extent extends into a democratic age or
society, although rather more on the basis of parts and chapters than of
volumes and books. Certainly, I have
always eschewed, in my own writings, the kinds of apparent divisions which are
so ubiquitous in traditional philosophy, even up to and including Sartre, whose
Critique
of Dialectical Reason, originally intended to extend over two volumes,
embraces book, part, and chapter divisions in the manner of the most hidebound
autocrats, not excepting Schopenhauer himself, whose The World as Will and
Representation comes in two volumes with four books in each! Nor should we overlook the fact that the
Bible is also guilty of alpha-stemming divisions, being in effect two volumes,
each of which comprises a number of books divided into chapters, the chapters
in turn divisible into verses, so that there is a four-way division along
patently autocratic lines. Frankly, no
such divisions could be countenanced in an omega-oriented age or society, where
only the most evolved type of 'book', one largely if not entirely indivisible
as to chapters, parts, books, etc., would do justice to and adequately reflect
the transcendental aspirations of the People towards divine unity. My own foremost writings, which are rather
more theosophical than philosophical, aim at just such a literary
indivisibility - the indivisibility of supernotational centro-complexification
within a strictly omega-oriented, or essential, framework. The other, more traditional works - usually
published in book form - should be consigned to the rubbish heap of
alpha-stemming antiquity, where they can return to dust.
56. Emotion and awareness are to the psyche what
intellect is to the brain: namely its essence.
Now we have already argued that the psyche stretches from subconscious
origins to a superconscious culmination, or high-point, and that emotions and
awareness accrue in the main negatively to the subconscious but positively to
the superconscious, making for alpha-stemming and omega-oriented
distinctions. The emotional psyche,
whether subconscious, superconscious, or a combination of both, should be
termed the soul ... to distinguish it from the conscious psyche which, at both
subconscious and superconscious extremes as well as in the strictly conscious
middle-ground, we may call the spirit.
Soul and spirit can be either negative or positive, according to whether
we are concerned with the subconscious or the superconscious or, indeed, with a
cross between the two ... when we have a dualistic soul and spirit
respectively: half-negative and half-positive.
On the other hand, intellect, which we have just contended to be the
essence of the brain, is neither soulful nor spiritual but, for want of a
better term, wilful, i.e. full of will, since it does not arise of its own
volition, so to speak, but has to be created and maintained through conscious
effort, in accordance with the essentially phenomenal nature of the intellect -
a sort of cross between wavicles and particles, awareness and emotions,
meanings and words, which corresponds to brain atomicity, whether we are
alluding to the negative intellectuality of the old brain or to the positive
intellectuality of the new one or, indeed, to a compromise between the two
brains. For unlike the soulful psyche,
which on its negative side may be regarded as in some sense an extrapolation
from the sun, i.e. a proton-particle absolutism, and equally unlike the
spiritual psyche, which on its negative side may be regarded as in some sense
an extrapolation from the central star of the Galaxy, i.e. a proton-wavicle
absolutism, the negative intellect, like the old brain of which it is the
essence, can be regarded as in some sense an extrapolation from the moon, with,
correspondingly, an atomic-proton integrity which is rather more materialistic
than either idealistic (as in the case of awareness) or naturalistic (as in the
case of emotions). Such intellectual
materialism renders the intellect comparatively mundane in relation to both the
soul and the spirit, and for this reason it is more fitting to equate it with
purgatory than with either Heaven or Hell - a kind of negative purgatory in
relation to the old brain, though a rather more positive purgatory in relation
to the new one. Now since the intellect
is inherently purgatorial, it is not surprising that it stands closer to the
worldly nature of the physical body by dint of being used more often than not -
certainly by the great majority of people - in the body's service.
57. Thus Schopenhauer was fundamentally correct
to regard the brain as an offshoot of the body to the extent that we are
concerned with the use of intellect, whether negatively or positively, in its
service rather than as a quasi-transcendent noumenal reality which, like the
psyche in both its emotional and conscious manifestations, exists independently
of the body on divine and diabolic terms - indeed, as extrapolations from much
older cosmic sources than the earth or even the moon. Where Schopenhauer was at fault - and this
may well owe something to his Germanic antecedents - was by including the
psyche in his definition of brain, so that both emotion and awareness, of
whichever kinds, are implicitly denied extraterrestrial origin and relegated,
willy-nilly, to the mundane status of world-serving intellect, with its lunar
overtones. Granted that a worldly people
will perceive the brain and, by implication, the psyche in this material light,
we cannot exonerate even so untypical an intellect as Schopenhauer's from
accusations of an unduly worldly emphasis in his explanation of the brain's
origin and justification. Certainly the
blossom and fruit on trees susceptible to such growths would not confirm the
alleged utilitarian origins of the brain or, rather, its psychic concomitants,
since blossom and fruit are to the tree what the head is to the body - entities
derived, in all their essentials, from earlier and, therefore, cosmic
sources. Should one prefer, as seems to
me quite reasonable, to extrapolate subconscious awareness from blossom and
subconscious emotion from fruit or, at any rate, the fruit on fruit-bearing
trees, there could be no obstacle to one's extrapolating subconscious intellect
from nuts on nut-bearing trees, since nuts stand to fruit in a comparatively
materialistic light, a light which may well owe its origin more to the moon
than to the sun, given the materialistic nature of the former (as already
discussed) in relation to the comparatively naturalistic, and therefore
inherently more diabolic, nature of the latter.
Thus whereas blossom and fruit would accord with a kind of organic
blueprint, in nature, for the subconscious psyche, having divine and diabolic
overtones by dint of the wavicle-suggesting status of the one and the
particle-suggesting status of the other, nuts on nut-bearing trees could be
regarded in terms of a kind of organic blueprint, in nature, for the brain,
with particular reference to the old brain, of which negative intellect is the
lunar essence. I concede that this is
highly speculative, yet it has to be admitted that, like the brain, nuts are
rather more atomic than either fruit, with its particle (seed) essence, or
blossom, with its wavicle (petal) essence - both of which suggest psychic
correlations.
58. Now just as some trees are rather more
blossom- than fruit-orientated, some rather more fruit- than
blossom-orientated, and others rather more nut-orientated than either blossom-
or fruit-orientated, so people differ in terms of their predominating psychic
or intellectual dispositions, many being neither particularly psychic nor
intellectual but inherently bodily, like those trees which are bereft of or
comparatively scarce in blossom, fruit and/or nuts, and may accordingly be
regarded as being predominantly worldly.
However that may be, it would seem that the psyche is less a function of
the brain than a subatomic substratum ranging through it (both old and new)
from alpha to omega, which co-exists with it on both wavicle and particle
terms, self-sufficient and inherently independent of the intellect as such
which, whether alpha stemming or omega orientated, is the brain's true
function, and one, moreover, having intimate connections with the body - just
as, to revert to our cosmic parallel, the moon has intimate connections with
the earth, whereas both the sun and the central star of the Galaxy,
corresponding to subconscious emotion and awareness respectively, are somewhat
less intimate, if not altogether aloof.
59. Consequently, we must free the psyche from
the brain, or from too close an association with the brain, and more in terms
of the superconscious than the subconscious which, in any case, is anterior
rather than posterior to it. But by
freeing the psyche from the brain I do not intend to suggest that it should be
more widely identified with the physical body, as has happened in the
(Germanic) West in recent decades; for while that is undoubtedly a step beyond
worldly identifications of psyche and brain, it is more symptomatic of
superworldly materialism than of either superdiabolic naturalism (positive
emotions) or superdivine idealism (positive awareness), and thereby reduces the
psyche to the flesh/muscle body instead of elevating or, rather, expanding it
towards wavicle and particle alternatives of the superconscious head, as
pertinent to God/Devil noumenal absolutisms beyond both the bodily world and,
no less importantly, the purgatorial intellect.
Where the democratic and largely Germanic peoples of the West are concerned,
the post-worldly identification of psyche with the flesh/muscle body is only to
be expected, and is symptomatic, it seems to me, of a socialistic equivalent
indicative, in large measure, of Western decadence. By contrast, the identification of psyche
with the soulful, or emotional, superconscious is communistic and comparatively
Slavic, as befitting an electron-particle absolutism. Such a positive diabolic identification can
only be opposed and superseded by the positive divine identification of psyche
with the spiritual, or awareness, superconscious, which in my estimation is
transcendent, as appropriate to an electron-wavicle absolutism. It is this highest manifestation of the omega
psyche, commensurate with positive light rather than positive heat, that must
eventually prevail in the world, bringing humanity to the Holy Spirit ... as
the omega '
60. Whilst on the subject of light and heat
distinctions, we should remember that whereas in the everyday world of
artificial energy like electric light and electric fire, light is the essence
of the one and heat the essence of the other, the heat which accrues to light,
as its aside, is apparent, as is the light which accrues, as an aside, to heat. Thus there is a sharp distinction between
light-heat in the case of electric light and heat-light in the case of electric
fire, both of which are subsidiary to the overall, or essential, manifestation
of each mode of artificial energy.
Broadly speaking, electric light, with its apparent heat, corresponds to
the spiritual superconscious, or an electron-wavicle equivalent, whereas
electric fire, with its apparent light, corresponds to the soulful
superconscious, or an electron-particle equivalent, conscious and emotional
parallels in artificial light and heat which point up the moral distinction I
was making earlier between spirit and soul, or Heaven and Hell. So long as emotion, or heat, remains the
principal factor, there can be only a subsidiary awareness, or light. Conversely, so long as awareness, or light,
remains the principal factor, there can be only a subsidiary emotional level,
or heat. Spirit and soul are no more
identical or interchangeable than electric lights and electric fires or, for
that matter, jazz and rock, scooters and motorbikes, Fascism and Communism,
Heaven and Hell. Positive emotion is no
less germane to an omega hell than positive awareness to an omega heaven. Superconscious love (positive heat) and
superconscious truth (positive light), with aesthetic (heat-light) and joyful
(light-heat) asides respectively. For as
beauty is the light of love, so joy is the heat of truth. Love and truth are no less incommensurate
than beauty and joy. Either one pursues
beauty through love or, alternatively, one pursues joy through truth. For love and truth are the principal options
at stake.
61. Strictly speaking, art is to awareness what
music is to emotion - the creative means whereby each spectrum of the psyche
may be articulated and granted a phenomenal mould. Art is no less the eye of the spiritual
psyche than music the ear of the soulful psyche, whereas literature is the
voice of the intellectual brain - at any rate, on its highest levels. Thus, broadly speaking, literature stands
between art and music as the art form of the intellect, being conveyed neither
in images nor sounds but solely through words, or verbal symbols, and thereby
assuming a comparatively atomic status in between wavicle and particle
extremes. Indeed, taking each of the arts
in turn, we may categorically maintain that art, corresponding to awareness, is
the highest, with music, corresponding to emotion, next, and literature,
corresponding to intellect, third - a third which places it in a position
analogous to the moon vis-à-vis solar and stellar precedents.
62. Yet just as the moon is closer to the earth
than are either the sun or the central star of the Galaxy, so literature, the
art form of the brain, is closer to architecture than either art or music are,
the reason being that architecture is inherently a bodily art form and
therefore more mundane than lunar or solar.
It is precisely because architecture is bodily in character that
literature stands closest of all the arts to it, given the connection (already
touched upon) between the brain and the body, as between the moon and the
earth. Rare indeed is the novel which
doesn't have reference to some architectural context or other, be it in city,
town, or village. But there is no reason
why literature should be too deeply concerned with music or art - unless, of
course, we are dealing with those rather hybrid novels which, whether
philosophic or poetic, seek to accommodate truth or love, joy or beauty. Naturally, philosophy and poetry would be
more suited to such purposes than either philosophical or poetical literature,
though both are still tied to the intellect to the extent that they are
conceived in verbal form and aim, rather more exclusively, at wavicle and
particle extremes, whether negatively (and alpha stemming) or positively (and
omega orientated). Now although
literature is not specifically worldly, still less divine or diabolic, it has a
greater affiliation, in its intellectual essence, with the world than with
either God or the Devil, and may accordingly be described as comparatively
purgatorial - a purgatorial middle-ground in between heavenly awareness and
hellish emotion, whether negative or positive, which is nothing less than
intellectual.
63. Thus when true to itself - though it has to
be admitted that the arts are almost infinitely adaptable - art will be
idealistically spiritual, music naturalistically emotional, literature
materialistically intellectual, and architecture realistically physical - with
all due variations and gradations, depending on the type of art, music,
literature, or architecture in question, whether alpha stemming or omega
orientated, negative or positive, natural or artificial. The highest form of each art or, rather,
superart, viz. light art, electric music, avant-garde literature,
transcendental architecture, will be most representative of the arts in an
omega-oriented age or society, though the highest art of all, viz. light art,
will best represent the omega aspirations of a transcendental civilization
towards spiritual perfection in the omega absolute. A divinely-biased society can only encourage
such art at the expense not merely of traditional art, viz. drawing, painting,
sculpture, ceramics, mosaics, and stained glass, the latter three of which are
more closely alpha stemming, but even to some extent at the expense of each of
the other arts, in whichever guise, as well.
For in a divinely-biased society it is positive awareness, rather than
positive emotions or intellect or even physicality, which counts for most and
which should accordingly be given special emphasis. Soul, intellect, and the body should
progressively count for less, eventually counting for little or nothing at
all. For they are obstacles to the light
of the spirit as it expands on free-electron terms towards the maximum
realization of truth - a truth that will incorporate its own joy, a light with
its own heat, beyond even the highest art which man, in his thirst for
salvation, can achieve.
64. Hence, to sum up diagrammatically, one can
distinguish the naturalistic alpha-stemming arts from the transcendental
(supernaturalistic) omega-oriented ones as follows:-
ALPHA OMEGA
1. art (idealism) 8. superart (superidealism)
2. music (naturalism) 7. supermusic
(supernaturalism)
3. literature (materialism) 6. superliterature
(supermaterialism)
4. architecture (realism) 5. super-architecture
(super-realism)
with (1) and (8) having
spiritual implications, the former negative and the latter positive, proton and
electron wavicles respectively; (2) and (7) having soulful implications, both
negative and positive, proton and electron particles; (3) and (6) having
intellectual implications, again negative and positive, atomic proton and
atomic electron; and (4) and (5) having physical implications, likewise
negative and positive, proton atomic and electron atomic respectively.
65. Of course, what can be said of the arts in
general can, to a certain extent, just as easily be said of each art form in
particular, since divisions along the fourfold lines outlined above are also to
be found in each of them taken separately, which would suggest a relatively
divine, diabolic, purgatorial, or worldly status, commensurate with idealism,
naturalism, materialism, and realism, subordinate to the absolute status of the
art form in question. Thus art, for
example, can be divided into drawing, painting, and sculpture, with a
relatively divine and/or diabolic status accruing to drawing (inherently
idealistic if graphic but naturalistic if emotional); a relatively purgatorial
status accruing to painting (inherently materialistic if three-dimensional);
and a relatively worldly status accruing to sculpture (inherently realistic if
representational), bearing in mind our correlative distinctions between
awareness, emotion, intellect, and the physical body. Likewise, music can be divided into singing,
instrumental, and dancing, with singing divisible between divine and diabolic
options (inherently idealistic if centred in awareness but naturalistic if
overly emotional); instrumentals having purgatorial implications (inherently
materialistic both on account of their intellectual and instrumental
dimensions); and dancing assuming a worldly significance (inherently realistic
on account of its physical nature).
Similarly, literature will be divisible into poetry, whether divine or
diabolic (inherently idealistic if awareness centred but naturalistic if
emotional); novels, which assume a purgatorial status (inherently materialistic
because intellectual); and theatre, which can be described as worldly
(inherently realistic on account of the bodily nature of acting - with
characters in the flesh of worldly time).
Finally, what applies to the third art form applies just as much to the
fourth, namely architecture, which is likewise divisible into religious,
monumental, and civic manifestations, the religious itself divisible along
divine/diabolic lines, as in the cases of poetry, singing, and drawing, whether
in terms of cultural or ethnic priorities (inherently idealistic if governed by
spiritual considerations but naturalistic if ruled by the passions); the
monumental assuming a purgatorial status (inherently materialistic if motivated
by gratification of the intellectual will); and the civic reflecting a worldly
status (inherently realistic by dint of its utilitarian purpose in the service
of everyday bodily living).
66. Thus just as each art form has an overall,
or general, status vis-à-vis its rivals, so one can impute a specific, or
particular, status to the branches of any given art form considered
independently, which will be subordinate to the general status of the art form
as a whole. Therefore art will remain
idealistic in relation to music on a general basis, whereas sculpture will be
realistic in relation to painting, painting materialistic in relation to
drawing, drawing naturalistic and/or idealistic in relation to painting or
sculpture, and so on ... with other possible permutations within the relatively
bourgeois framework I have just described.
For light art is, in a manner of speaking, the drawing of a
transcendental age or society, photography its painting, and holography its
sculpture, with all due ideological distinctions between the various types, or
branches, of superart - as, naturally, of supermusic (rock, jazz, and pop
distinctions), superliterature (with avant-garde poetry, film, and
television-play distinctions), and super-architecture (with tower, block, and
estate distinctions). For to limit
ourselves just to drawing, painting, and sculpture would be to take a
too-narrowly atomic view - one omitting both alpha and omega extremes. Now while such a view is doubtless compatible
with art per se (as opposed to, say, superart), it can never do proper justice
to the whole truth, which necessarily aims at the widest and most comprehensive
perspective. Even the possibility of
subart, as appropriate to an alpha-stemming age or society, has to be allowed
for, and if divisions along the lines of stained glass, mosaics, and ceramics
approximate to the mind - brain - body distinctions we have already drawn, then
it should be apparent that the omega-oriented antitheses of such divisions will
not be drawing, painting, or sculpture, but light art, photography, and
holography, with light art antithetical to stained glass, photography
antithetical to mosaics, and holography antithetical to ceramics, so that a
tripartite arrangement roughly commensurate with the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost can be posited, which will read as follows:-
1.
stained glass drawing light art
2. mosaics painting photography
3. ceramics sculpture holography
with those in the first
column alpha stemming, those in the second column atomic, and those in the third
column omega orientated - the top trio divisible between divine and diabolic
options, depending upon whether awareness or emotion is the principal factor in
any given work; the middle trio having purgatorial implications on the basis of
a comparatively intellectual persuasion; and the bottom trio being worldly to
the extent that we have a correlation neither with the psyche nor the brain,
but with the body considered in terms of a dimension of physicality.
67. Doubtless what applies to art, regarded in
this comprehensive manner, must also in some degree apply to music, literature,
and architecture, since if we can distinguish between alpha, atomic, and omega
options with regard to art, there is no reason why each of the other arts
should not also be subject to such tripartite distinctions, making for pagan,
Christian, and transcendental divisions which accord with the full-gamut, so to
speak, of devolutionary and evolutionary possibilities. Consequently primitive music, divisible into
vocal, instrumental, and dance categories, will have its omega antithesis in
contemporary electric music like rock, jazz, and pop, rather than in the classical types of music
which, to a greater or lesser extent, are dependent on orchestral ensembles and
thereby reflect an atomic middle-ground in between pre- and post-atomic
extremes, particularly in regard to the use of acoustic means and their
relation to music scores on the one hand and to conductors on the other. Therefore electric music or, rather,
supermusic will parallel the superart we have just discussed, with, so I
contend, an especially close parallel between rock and light art, jazz and
photography, and pop and holography, given the idealistic and/or naturalistic
character of rock, depending on whether it is keyboards based and 'soft' or
guitar based and 'hard'; the materialistic character of jazz, particularly
modern jazz, which is essentially an intellectual rather than either a
spiritual or an emotional form of supermusic; and the realistic character of pop
which, like holography, is fundamentally bodily, or physical, and thus dance
orientated - a mode of supermusic less purgatorial than worldly, and so
standing in an ideologically inferior relationship to both jazz and rock,
which, when true to their respective forms, are of the new brain and
superconscious respectively. For whereas
jazz is predominantly if not exclusively instrumental and therefore
intellectual, rock, being largely a vocal supermusic, is either spiritual or
soulful, of the awareness superconscious or of the emotional superconscious,
depending on whether it is 'soft' or 'hard', wavicle centred or particle
centred - in a word, divine or diabolic.
Thus rock is essentially the ultimate music, having both Transcendental
and Communist implications which transcend both Ecological jazz and Socialist
pop, whether the latter be 'soft' or 'hard', rhythm 'n' blues or rock 'n'
roll. Spirit and soul are alike best
served through vocals, while the intellect is granted musical articulation
through instrumentality, and the body through dance. 'Heads' will inevitably prefer rock or jazz
to pop, which is the mode of supermusic most designed to cater for 'bodies',
i.e. the broad proletarian masses. In
this respect, it parallels holography and television plays on the corresponding
bodily levels of superart and superliterature respectively, while civic and, in
particular, domestic architecture of a rectilinear design will be its
super-architectural parallel - one more intrinsically bodily than either of the
others, given the overall worldly nature of architecture vis-à-vis both
literature and art, not to mention music or, in this context, supermusic.
68. Consequently, distinctions between the
'conventional' and 'super' are crucial to an understanding of the differences
between bourgeois and proletarian arts - the former atomic and the latter
post-atomic and/or free-electron. A
transcendental society ('alternative' within the framework of bourgeois
civilization) is a society of superart, supermusic, superliterature, and
super-architecture, all of which are inherently different from and
ideologically superior to the conventional, or bourgeois, modes of art, music,
literature, and architecture. But if
they are superior to the atomic arts, they are antithetical to the pre-atomic
and/or bound-proton arts which stand to them as alpha to omega, whether the
alpha be divine, diabolic, purgatorial, or worldly in general or in particular
terms, depending on the kind of 'subart' in question. However, that is not a subject I particularly
wish to enlarge upon, since my own orientation is towards the omega, with
especial reference to the most idealistic modes of each superart, viz. slender
neon light art, soft pitch-oriented rock, ordered abstract poetry, and
centripetal architecture of a suitably curvilinear design.
69. Idealism, naturalism, materialism, and
realism: the four ideological options which correspond to air, fire, water, and
earth, taking the four principal elements in order of merit, rather than in the
conventional sequence of earth-air-fire-water.
Now supposing that air idealism, fire naturalism, water materialism, and
earth realism are correlated with methods of taking drugs, from sniffing
(snorting) to smoking, and from drinking and/or injecting to eating and/or
swallowing, then we would have to categorize sniffing as an idealistic approach
to drug consumption, smoking as a naturalistic approach, drinking and/or
injecting as a materialistic approach, and, finally, eating and/or swallowing
as a realistic approach, with correspondingly divine, diabolic, purgatorial,
and worldly implications, depending on the kind of drug in question, be it
alpha stemming or omega orientated or, indeed, an atomic compromise lying
somewhere in between the two extremes.
Thus we could contend that sniffing corresponds to air, smoking to fire,
drinking and/or injecting to water, and eating and/or swallowing to earth,
since these are the principal methods of drug consumption, and such methods
would seem to correspond to our basic fourfold elemental divisions - divisions
which, as I have elsewhere argued, can be approximately correlated with moral
evaluations of the kind listed above, i.e. divine, diabolic, etc. What is particularly apparent about these
methodological distinctions is that both the idealistic and naturalistic
categories, viz. sniffing and smoking, are absolute, whereas both the
materialistic and realistic categories, corresponding to purgatorial and to
worldly evaluations, are relative, as in regard to drinking and/or injecting on
the one hand, and to eating and/or swallowing on the other hand. For are not the divine and the diabolic
likewise absolute in relation to the purgatorial and the worldly, as elsewhere
described with regard to wavicle mind (spirit) and particle mind (soul)
vis-à-vis the brain (intellect) and the physical body (will), or,
alternatively, with regard to the central star of the Galaxy and the sun
vis-à-vis the moon and the earth, both of which are inherently atomic and
therefore relative.
70. However, if materialism and realism are
relative in relation to naturalism and idealism, they are alike divisible along
parallel spectra into tripartite options corresponding to pagan, Christian, and
transcendental distinctions, with alpha-stemming, atomic, and omega-oriented
implications ... as before. In other
words, we should be able to distinguish horizontally as well as vertically
between drugs and their method of consumption, thereby arriving at a more
comprehensive perspective which stretches from naturalistic origins to an
artificial, or synthetic, culmination on each of our elemental spectra, with
drugs of an atomic nature situated in between.
Here, as an example of what I mean, is a table listing the main
categories of drugs in this way, beginning with idealistic sniffing and
proceeding via naturalistic smoking and materialistic drinking and/or injecting
to realistic eating and/or swallowing:-
1. opium incense/snuff cocaine
2. cannabis
tobacco hashish
3. morphine
alcohol heroin
4. magic
mushrooms confectionery LSD
with those in the first
column alpha stemming, those in the second column atomic, and those in the
third column omega orientated. Of
course, both needles for injecting drugs and capsules and/or tablets for
swallowing them are comparatively recent inventions, scarcely entitled to an
alpha-stemming status, but inherently contemporary methods of drug
consumption. Therefore whilst it is
obvious that heroin will be injected rather than drunk like alcohol, we must
assume a drinking mode of drug consumption for the alpha category of liquid
drugs, whether in terms of strong spirits or some vegetable extract like sake,
to which morphine may or may not have been added. Similarly, whilst it is obvious that LSD will
be swallowed rather than eaten, we must assume that magic mushrooms are chewed
before being swallowed, as in the case of chocolate liqueurs which, strange
though it may seem, adequately fill a middle-ground worldly position in between
alpha and omega worldly, or realistic, extremes. Of course, I do not wish to imply that
because LSD can come in capsule or tablet form it is inherently worldly,
corresponding to earth as opposed to air, fire, or water, since that would
surely invalidate my long-standing theories concerning LSD as an idealistic
drug suitable for a transcendental society.
I simply wish to point out the correlation that exists, as I see it,
between tablet swallowing and earth, both of which can be regarded as solids in
relation to air, fire, water, and their respective correlations in sniffing,
smoking, and injecting. However, the
mode of drug consumption must have some bearing on the nature of the drug being
consumed, which could indicate that perhaps LSD is not as biased towards the divine
as I have hitherto believed but, rather, is comparatively superworldly on
account of its solid presentation in either capsule or tablet form?
71. Since every philosopher will have some kind
of view of himself in relation both to the philosophical tradition and to
contemporary philosophy, not to mention in relation to himself as a
philosopher, I should like to put forward my own view which, no matter how
seemingly presumptuous or conceited it may at first appear for a self-taught
thinker (particularly to those so-called professional philosophers who are
really 'professors of philosophy'), strikes me as being highly credible. To begin with, I should like to establish my
credentials as an idealist rather than a realist or materialist or naturalist,
since it should be clear to my readers by now that I have always pursued and
advocated the most idealistic course at the expense of what I perceive to be
lesser courses - courses corresponding to the worldly or the purgatorial or the
diabolic, as the case may be.
72. Thus my own idealistic bias obliges me to
regard my work in a divine light and to set myself at the apex of an
evolutionary hierarchy of contemporary philosophy which stretches from Bertrand
Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre to Arthur Koestler, having as its alpha-stemming
antithesis a devolutionary hierarchy comprised of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates,
and Plutarch - in that order. Hence, if
I may resort to my customary diagrammatic mode of distinguishing between
alpha-stemming devolutionary and omega-oriented evolutionary levels of the
mainstream ideological positions, we will find this distinction conceived on
the basis of a fourfold division between the four greatest philosophers of
classical antiquity and the four, including myself, whom I regard as the
greatest of the moderns, which will read as follows:-
1. Plato 8. O'Loughlin
2. Aristotle 7. Koestler
3. Socrates 6. Sartre
4. Plutarch 5. Russell
with Plato and myself
significant of antithetical forms of idealism, Aristotle and Koestler significant
of antithetical forms of naturalism, Socrates and Sartre significant of
antithetical forms of materialism, and Plutarch and Russell significant of
antithetical forms of realism.
Certainly, Plato was the greatest of the ancients, since by far the most
idealistic, whereas Aristotle, Socrates, and Plutarch signify a philosophical
descent, irrespective of historical chronology, from naturalism to realism via
materialism. Conversely, Bertrand
Russell, being a modern philosopher of strongly liberal persuasion, may be
regarded as the leading representative of philosophical realism who,
ideologically speaking, stands at the base of a hierarchy stretching via Sartre
and Koestler, the former materialistic and the latter naturalistic, towards an
idealistic summit of which my own Social Transcendentalism may be regarded as
the ideological apex. For where Sartre
is socialistic and Koestler communistic (in spite of his disillusionments), I
am transcendentalist, in the idealistic and specifically theocratic sense to
which I normally apply that term, and thus stand at the furthest possible
ideological remove from Russell, which is to say, as Irish air/light from
British earth/darkness. To me, Russell
is the principal philosophical voice of the omega world, Sartre the principal
philosophical voice of the omega purgatory, Koestler the principal
philosophical voice of the Omega Hell, and I the principal philosophical voice
of the Omega Heaven - the Heaven horizontally antithetical to Plato's, with its
abstract Ideas. Furthermore, whereas
idealism is identifiable with religion and naturalism with science, materialism
is identifiable with economics and realism with politics. Certainly, Sartre was more disposed to
economics than to science, in contrast to Koestler, whose biological bias or,
rather, bias towards biology confirms a naturalistic status, albeit one
antithetical, in so many regards, to Aristotle's. Then, too, Sartre was a rather ugly little
man, as - if Nietzsche is to be trusted - was Socrates, his alpha antithesis.
73. Speaking of Nietzsche, it is only fair to
add that if modern German philosophers are to be categorized in the fourfold
manner outlined above, then Nietzsche should take the idealistic position above
Schopenhauer who, with his scientific bent, is more naturalistic, while Marx
should be placed in the materialistic category and Hegel in the realistic one,
so that, working upwards, Hegel would parallel Russell, as much for political
as for historical reasons, Marx would parallel Sartre, Schopenhauer would
parallel Koestler, and, finally, Nietzsche would parallel myself, as below.
8. Nietzsche (idealism)
7.
Schopenhauer (naturalism)
6. Marx (materialism)
5.
Hegel (realism)
However, I firmly believe that these
nineteenth-century Germans are a poor second to the ensuing philosophers of the
twentieth and (in my case) twenty-first century, and consequently do not
deserve to be given pride of philosophical place in any comparison,
antithetical or otherwise, with classical antiquity.
74. Speaking of distinctions between
philosophical realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism, which broadly
correspond to political, economic, scientific, and religious persuasions, each
of which can be further correlated with a given moral spectrum, be it worldly,
purgatorial, diabolic, or divine, it should be possible for us to equate
realism with the will, materialism with the intellect, naturalism with the
soul, and idealism with the spirit, so that, taking each of our most
representative modern philosophers in turn, we can equate Bertrand Russell with
the triumph, though Liberalism, of bodily will; Jean-Paul Sartre with the
triumph, through Socialism, of new-brain intellect; Arthur Koestler with the
triumph, through Communism, of superconscious soul; and myself with the
triumph, through Transcendentalism, of superconscious spirit. For omega will is of the liberal body, omega
intellect of the socialistic brain, omega soul of the communistic
superconscious, and omega spirit of the transcendental superconscious - will
worldly, intellect purgatorial, soul diabolic, and spirit divine, as befitting
the respective natures of Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, and
Transcendentalism as they ascend from realism to idealism via materialism and
naturalism, in conjunction with an omega-oriented politics, economics, science,
and religion. Hence, with regard to the
aforementioned German philosophers, Hegel represents will, Marx intellect,
Schopenhauer soul, and Nietzsche spirit - Hegel and Nietzsche as far apart as
earth and air, with Marx and Schopenhauer equivalent, in philosophical terms,
to water and fire or, what amounts to the same, economics and science, those
contiguous disciplines flanked by politics and religion. For if politics is the lowest discipline,
since correlative with the world, then religion is very definitely the highest,
having to do with man's self-transcending quest for the heavenly Beyond. In between come purgatorial economics and
diabolic science with their intellectual and soulful correspondences - the
former materialistic and the latter naturalistic, water and fire trapped
between earth and air extremes.
Certainly, Russell and I are just as far apart as Hegel and Nietzsche,
the philosophical nadir and apex of nineteenth-century German philosophy.
75. As regards twentieth-century German
philosophy, Spengler, Hussurl, Jaspers, and Heidegger would probably suffice as
the most representative philosophers with which to posit (see below) a similar
quartet of ascending 'isms',
8. Heidegger (idealism)
7. Jaspers (naturalism)
6.
Hussurl (materialism)
5.
Spengler (realism)
whether or not one
considers them superior - as noumenal vis-à-vis phenomenal - to their
nineteenth-century predecessors.
Certainly, I regard them as inferior to the quartet beginning with
Russell and culminating in myself!
76. We have already established an order of rank
in the arts, with art at the top, music second, literature third, and
architecture at the bottom, and to this was added an order, or probable order,
of drugs based on their mode of consumption, which placed sniffed drugs at the
top, smoked drugs in second place, drunk and/or injected drugs in third place,
and eaten and/or swallowed drugs in fourth, with, so I contended, air - fire -
water - earth correlations. Such being
the case, it should follow that there will be a connection between art and
sniffed drugs, music and smoked drugs, literature and drunk and/or injected
drugs, and, finally, architecture and eaten and/or swallowed drugs, bearing in
mind our distinctions between three stages of each art form, viz. 'sub',
'middle ground', and 'super', and the corresponding stage of any correlative
drug, be it alpha stemming, atomic, or omega orientated. Therefore whilst a strictly middle-ground/atomic
correlation between art and snuff may be assumed, superart, viz. light art,
would suggest the likelihood of cocaine or some such omega-oriented drug being
used in the interests of greater appreciation, since drugs and art, on
whichever evolutionary plane and of whichever kind, normally go hand-in-glove,
so to speak. Now doubtless while most
people would admit to a connection between literature and alcohol, particularly
where novelists are concerned, the more radical connection between heroin and film
would also have to be accounted for, if one is to do adequate justice to the
contention that film is a mode of superliterature and heroin a mode of
superdrug, both of which correspond to the omega pole of the third, or water,
spectrum in each context, whether of the arts or drugs, and should accordingly
prove correlative.
77. Obviously, a bourgeois middle-ground society
will be more indulgent of a literature/alcohol correspondence than of a
film/heroin one, because literature and alcohol have long been partners in
crime - as, for that matter, have tobacco and music, with particular reference
to classical music; although the rather more omega-oriented connection between
supermusic, viz. rock, and hashish would hardly come as a shock to most people,
whether or not they had anything to do with either. For hashish is the superdrug most suitable,
by dint of its correlative diabolic (smoking) essence, for use with supermusic,
itself a diabolic art in relation to divine superart, purgatorial
superliterature, and worldly super-architecture, the latter of which would
probably be best served by LSD, given its architectonic properties, as in the
case of visions of an architectural order.
78. Now, obviously, strict correlations between
any given art form and the drug most paralleling it will be more the practical
exception, I shall argue, than the rule, given the vast amounts of ignorance
and muddle-headedness which usually obtain in life. But I do believe such correlations are
possible, and that even when any given art form is subdivided - as in the case,
say, of superart being subdivided into light art, photography, and holography -
the same drug or, in this instance, superdrug would be most applicable, the
only difference being its mode of consumption, which should level, where
possible, with the subdivision in question.
Hence if cocaine, the superdrug correlative with superart, is most
applicable snorted where light art is concerned, it would be more applicable
injected in relation to photography, and swallowed, presumably in capsule form,
in relation to holography, the reason being that while light art and snorted
cocaine correspond to idealistic modes of superart and superdrug respectively
(although the naturalistic possibility of smoking cocaine in relation to light
art of a less idealistic and possibly more sculptural type has also to be
allowed for), photography and injected cocaine would correspond to their
materialistic modes, and holography and swallowed cocaine to their realistic
modes respectively, given the correlation between transcendental light
art/snorted cocaine and air, sculptural light art/smoked cocaine and fire,
photography/injected cocaine and water, and holography/swallowed cocaine and
earth - the four principal elements, which correspond to idealism, naturalism,
materialism, and realism (in that order).
79. Obviously, what goes for superart and its
equivalent drug would also go, in like manner, for supermusic, superliterature,
super-architecture, and their correlative superdrugs, not to mention for
conventional, or bourgeois, art, music, literature, architecture, and their correlative drugs,
like snuff, tobacco, alcohol, and confectionery, as well as for alpha-stemming
subart, submusic, subliterature, and subarchitecture and the (sub)drugs most
correlative with them, like opium, cannabis, morphine, and magic
mushrooms. Interestingly, I have placed
cannabis and hashish in an alpha/omega antithetical relationship because of the
naturalistic constitution ('grass') of cannabis in contrast to the artificial,
or synthetic, constitution ('shit') of hashish - a distinction which could also
be said to apply to tea in relation to coffee, given the more naturalistic
constitution (leaves) of tea which suggests - at any rate to this writer - an
alpha-stemming status commensurate with cannabis, opium, morphine, etc., albeit
of a much less potent order.
80. Of course, I am not here advocating the use
of drugs with the arts, merely pointing out the connection which I believe to
exist between them, granted the intrinsically religious nature of drugs and
their mind-altering properties - properties which art, as the 'handmaiden of
religion', has long been aware of and had no scruples in confirming. Indeed, it would be scant exaggeration to say
that drugs are inseparable from religion, and that without them there would be
no religion in the higher, mystical sense - as, in fact, is the case where
moralizing, worldly Protestantism is concerned, which, as every Catholic will
know, is as far removed from true religion as the body from the mind. In fact, it is largely because of its
Germanic, bodily nature that Protestantism forbade the use of incense in
church, since incense is something one sniffs, and a sniffing idealism would hardly
be compatible with bodily realism, which, wherever possible, contrives to leave
the head out of account and to concentrate, in a manner of speaking, on its own
puritanical replacements. But, of
course, Puritanism is the religion of a bodily people, and should that people
become decadent ... promiscuity takes its place - a promiscuity which is the
secular, or tails, side of a coin with Puritanism as its religious head. Doubtless drunkenness is the secular fall of
a head people who, in their decadence, are no longer capable of that temperance
which the Church would have expected of them during the heyday, so to speak, of
Catholic civilization, and on the perfectly plausible grounds that alcoholic
self-indulgence is a thing less spiritual than worldly or, at any rate,
purgatorial. Hence something to
avoid. For while some drugs increase
consciousness, others, like alcohol, decrease it, and no true spirituality can
be pursued on the basis of diminished consciousness! The test of a drug's validity is whether, in
conjunction with art, it makes for an expansion of consciousness. Only drugs with an idealistic, synthetic bias
will be found to pass this test as a rule, since most drugs - as the term
suggests - have the effect of reducing consciousness, and accordingly fly in
the face of spiritual evolution.
81. But whether or not a drug is used in
conjunction with a particular art form, religion is more than either and must
ultimately transcend both art and drugs as the spirit expands, of its own
inherent volition, towards Eternity. The
ultimate religion must be as far above drugs as worldly religion was beneath
them, even if, during its initial phase, recourse to certain appropriate drugs
will be had ... as much to break the hold of traditional drugs, like alcohol
and tobacco, as to assist in the development of a transcendent
consciousness. Certainly, drugs will be
around for some time to come, and it would be highly unreasonable, not to say
unrealistic, of one to suppose that mankind could do without them in the
meantime, especially when conditions are harsh and no alternative means of
escape or, rather, escapism can be found.
Yet drugs are more than just pain-killers or means of escapism; they can
also, as we have argued, expand consciousness and thereby improve the quality
of life for those who habitually use them.
It would certainly be an improvement on today's state-of-affairs if the
only drugs being used in this respect were of the artificial, or
omega-oriented, variety, and preferably only the safest and most transcendental
ones at that! For as long as ambiguity
and muddle-headedness prevail, alpha-stemming, worldly, and omega-oriented
alternatives will continue to jostle for supremacy in a world which is neither
fish nor fowl but more like a crazy animal driven everywhichway by the conflicting
currents of open-society chaos. Such an
unstable animal is both sick and dangerous, like the society of which it is a
part.
82. Accordingly, let there be judgement against
both alpha and worldly drugs, and then may each type of omega-oriented society
keep to the drug most appropriate to itself, whether realistic, materialistic,
naturalistic, or idealistic, until such time as, one by one, the lower
orientations are eclipsed by the higher ones and, finally, even the ultimate
omega-oriented society, idealistic to the core, transcends its principal drug
in the name of pure spirituality, beyond even the highest mode of superart to
which the highest mode of superdrug can relate.
83. Having already emphasized the connection
between religion and art, it behoves me to add that similar connections exist -
and have long existed - between science and music, economics and literature,
and politics and architecture. For we
have established that the arts form a hierarchy which stretches from
architecture at the bottom to art at the top, and to this was added a similar
hierarchy stretching from politics and economics to science and religion,
whether on the analogous basis of realism, materialism, naturalism, and
idealism, or of the world, purgatory, Hell, and Heaven, or, indeed, of earth,
water, fire, and air - in that ascending order.
Consequently, when one takes this hierarchy into account, one finds that
politics and architecture are in parallel positions, as are economics and
literature, science and music, and religion and art, thereby confirming the
hypothesis of a connection between each pair, however we would like to
interpret such a connection.
84. I shall not attempt to be unduly methodical
here but, clearly, the connection between politics and architecture must be
attributable to the down-to-earth nature of each or, at any rate, to worldly
politics and architecture. On the other
hand, the connection between literature and economics is less straightforward,
although each discipline has a certain volatility which contrasts with the
stability and even stolidity of the realistic pair, thereby suggesting a bias
rather more fluid than solid. As to
science and music, both of which correspond to fiery naturalism, the heat factor
has to be taken into account, a factor which, corresponding to experiment in
the one case and to emotion in the other, paves the way for the conquest of
nature, whether organic or human. Above
heat, however, comes light, and it is their idealistic commitment to spiritual
light which distinguishes religion and art from each of the lesser pairs, even
when, as is often the case, mutual overlappings of content and discipline
occur.
85. Thus darkness-coldness-heat-light is a
parallel hierarchical quartet (in this case noumenal) corresponding to earth-water-fire-air,
and their more complex disciplinary offshoots.
As much distance between religion and politics as between art and
architecture or, for that matter, air/light and earth/darkness, and whereas the
former is true, the latter is good (at any rate, on the omega plane). Similarly, as much distance - albeit lesser
in relation to the above-mentioned pair - between science and economics as
between music and literature or, for that matter, fire/heat and water/coldness,
and whereas the former is beautiful, the latter is strong. For strength is no less above goodness than
beauty is beneath truth (just as weakness is no less above evil than ugliness
is beneath falsity), and while goodness and strength form an omega earth/water
pair corresponding to the world and purgatory, truth and beauty form an omega
air/fire pair corresponding to Heaven and Hell.
Darkness and coldness on the one hand, heat and light on the other -
darkness and light (pleasure and joy) no less antithetical than coldness and
heat (pride and love).
86. However, just as we may distinguish between
quantities as primary and qualities as secondary, with earth-water-fire-air in
the primary category and darkness-coldness-heat-light in the secondary
category, so a like-distinction can be drawn between quantitative disciplines
like politics, economics, science, and religion (in ascending order), and
qualitative disciplines like history, mathematics, philosophy, and art, with
the former quartet equivalent to primary elemental quantities and the latter
quartet to their secondary qualities, and so much so that politics and history,
economics and mathematics, science and philosophy, and religion and art should
appear no less complementary to each other than earth and darkness, water and
coldness, fire and heat, and air and light, bearing in mind their analogous
standings. For is not history a
consequence of politics, no less than darkness a consequence of earth? And is not mathematics a consequence of
economics, no less than coldness a consequence of water? And is not philosophy a consequence of
science, no less than heat a consequence of fire? And is not art a consequence of religion, no
less than light a consequence of air?
87. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that
each of the qualitative disciplines is not only a consequence of the
corresponding quantitative one, but its logical complement, as inextricably
bound to it as the tails side of a coin to the head side of which it forms the
(noumenal) obverse. Now where the head
side of a coin is formal and the tails side informal, so we find that the
quantitative, or primary, disciplines noted above are formal in relation to the
qualitative, or secondary, disciplines which complement them so informally in
the overall expression of their unfolding.
Politics is formal, whereas history is informal. Economics is formal, whereas mathematics is
informal. Science is formal, whereas philosophy
is informal. Likewise, religion is
formal, whereas art is informal. Is this
not equivalent to saying that whereas those on the one side are phenomenal,
those on the other side are noumenal - essence as opposed to appearance?
88. I believe it is, and for this reason we
cannot categorically assert that the phenomenal always precedes, or is a
precondition of, the noumenal; for I have previously argued, in collaboration
with Schopenhauer, that the noumenal precedes the phenomenal on the natural
plane, and therefore must concede that where the contrary obtains, we are
dealing not with the natural but with the artificial or, what amounts to the
same, with an omega orientation rather than with an alpha-stemming one. Thus where the latter is concerned it may
well be truer to say (as I have elsewhere maintained) that politics precedes,
or is a precondition of, history. But
where alpha-stemming naturalistic politics and history are concerned, we would
have to contend that history is a precondition of politics or, put as before,
that politics is a consequence of history, not vice versa. Just as, in returning to the corresponding
element, it would have to be agreed that darkness is a precondition of earth on
the alpha-stemming plane, which is equivalent to saying earth is a consequence
of darkness, whether or not that noumenal quality derives from the gradual
cooling of the earth's molten core.
Similarly water would be a consequence of coldness (the Ice Age) no less
than economics a consequence of mathematics (Babylonian calculus). Fire would be a consequence of heat (hot
gases, friction) no less than science a consequence of philosophy (ancient
Greek). Finally, air would be a
consequence of light (which causes oxygen-producing plants to grow) no less
than religion a consequence of art (cave drawings, carved stone). For on the alpha-stemming naturalistic part
of any given spectrum, be it worldly, purgatorial, diabolic, or divine, the
noumenal precedes the phenomenal, and if light is noumenal in relation to air,
then light precedes air, just as art precedes religion - the former noumenally
informal and the latter phenomenally formal.
Such it is on the divine spectrum, and such it must be on the diabolic
spectrum of heat/fire and philosophy/science; the purgatorial spectrum of
coldness/water and mathematics/economics; and the worldly spectrum of
darkness/earth and history/politics.
Only with the artificial or omega-oriented part of each spectrum will
this not apply, and simply because, in complementing Schopenhauer on an
antithetical basis, I have consistently argued that the superphenomenal
precedes the supernoumenal as its quantitative precondition.
89. Hence art or, more specifically, superart is
as much a consequence of super-religion (transcendentalism) as superlight is a
consequence of superair (meditation techniques involving deep breathing). Now what applies to the divine option applies
no less to each of the other options, where superscience precedes
superphilosophy, super-economics precedes supermathematics, and superpolitics
precedes superhistory, at both negative and positive poles of their respective
artificial or omega-oriented spectra. I
shall not overtax the reader's patience by adding the artificial elemental
equivalents, but he can rest assured that the same principle obtains, and with
as much justification on the negative pole, for example, of electric light as
on the positive pole of spiritual superlight.
90. Before there can be superlight there must be
superair, which is equivalent to saying that before self-contemplation of
superconscious mind can be properly achieved through a dynamic meditation technique,
there must firstly be a period of intense breathing exercises (in the future
using artificially-produced oxygen) which increase the amount of oxygen in the
blood and thereby 'stoke up' the fires of spiritual illumination. No pure air, no pure light! Similarly before there can be superart, there
must first of all be a super-religious sense which underlies it and provides
the thematic motive for its unfolding.
Behind Mondrian's art - which is only relatively 'super' in view of its
painterly nature - there was theosophy.
Doubtless, behind most light art there will be some mode of
transcendentalism which is both a guide to and an inspiration for the
subsequent superartistic unfolding. True
art is not created in a void but reflects a religious stance. It is the superphenomenal preceding the
supernoumenal - superair preceding superlight.
91. Tory rugby union, Liberal rugby league,
Labour football league. Rugby union is a
gentleman's rugby, on the whole less physically competitive than rugby league,
which stands, it seems to me, between naturalistic rugby union and
materialistic football league as a sort of realistic middle-ground sport. Gaelic (so-called) football would be
superidealistic and therefore comparatively nazi - at any rate, when played indoors. For it is more likely that the outdoor
variety is less superidealistic than supernaturalistic and, hence, republican.
92. Race war - sex war - class war: three stages
of generalized social warfare with, so I contend, alpha, worldly, and omega implications
respectively. Thus race war and class
war are antithetical, the former preceding worldly sex war and the latter
succeeding it. We live in an age of
class war, even though both sex and, alas, race wars are still extant.
93. Modern music, by which I mean supermusic,
has tended, as a rule, to favour an instrumental combination of bass, drums,
guitar, and keyboards, a basic quartet which corresponds to our fourfold
elemental divisions between earth, water, fire, and air - in that order. For the bass is fundamentally a realistic
(bodily) instrument corresponding in its phenomenal manifestation to earth and
in its noumenal or musical manifestation to darkness; drums are fundamentally
materialistic (intellectual) instruments corresponding in their phenomenal
manifestation to water and in their noumenal manifestation to coldness; the
guitar is essentially a naturalistic (soulful) instrument corresponding in its
phenomenal manifestation to fire and in its noumenal manifestation to heat;
keyboards, especially synthesizers, are essentially idealistic (spiritual)
instruments corresponding in their phenomenal manifestation to air and in their
noumenal manifestation to light. Thus a
hierarchy may be said to exist which stretches from the bass to keyboards, as
from earth to air, with drums and guitars situated in-between: the former
equivalent to water and the latter to fire.
Consequently just as air and earth are diametrically antithetical, like
light and darkness, so are keyboards and bass.
Now just as fire and water form a closer, more contiguous diametrical
antithesis, like heat and coldness, so a similar antithesis may be inferred to
exist between guitars and drums. In the
one case all the difference, musically speaking, between Heaven and the
world. In the other case the less
radical difference, again musically speaking, between Hell and purgatory. For keyboards are no less divine in relation
to the worldly bass than guitars are diabolic in relation to the purgatorial
drums. It is the difference between
idealism and realism on the one hand, but between naturalism and materialism on
the other, with all the same moral implications.
94. Similar fourfold distinctions should be
drawn between arpeggio chording, whether on guitars or keyboards, and rhythmic
chording; for whereas the former is realistic on account of its relative and
individualized nature, the latter is materialistic on account of its relative
and collectivized nature. Yet both are
lower than, and thus musically inferior to, the absolute collectivized nature
of scalic single-note playing, which is naturalistic, and the absolute
individualized nature of sustained single-note playing, which is
idealistic. For these techniques
correspond to the world and purgatory vis-à-vis Hell and Heaven or, what
amounts to the same, darkness and coldness vis-à-vis heat and light. Thus whereas finger-picked arpeggio chords on
guitar are realistically mundane, sustained single notes on guitar would be
idealistically divine. And whereas
strummed chords on guitar are materialistically purgatorial, single-note scales
('runs') on guitar would be naturalistically diabolic. For the different modes of playing correspond
to the moral concomitants of our four basic elements, viz.
earth-water-fire-air, with earth and air forming the major diametrical
antithesis, as between realism and idealism, but water and fire forming the
minor diametrical antithesis, as between materialism and naturalism. A relative wavicle equivalent vis-à-vis an
absolute wavicle equivalent on the one hand, and a relative particle equivalent
vis-à-vis an absolute particle equivalent on the other hand.
95. Of course, each of our four principal
instruments, viz. bass, drums, guitar, and keyboards, is capable of being
played in any of the aforementioned ways and often is, too. But I should like to put forward the
contention that each instrument will be played in the way most appropriate to
itself when there is an exact correlation between its phenomenal status in the
omega-oriented hierarchy described above and the noumenal sound which is drawn
from it, i.e. when both instrument and technique are fully co-ordinated. Now because I perceive the bass as realist,
and therefore at the foot of the instrumental hierarchy, it seems to me that
finger-picking arpeggio chording will be the most relevant technique, given its
realistic status vis-à-vis block chording.
Similarly, for drums it would appear that block chording or, at any
rate, the simultaneous striking of two or more drums (including bass drums and symbols)
in order to achieve a regular beat is the most relevant drum technique, given
the comparatively materialistic standing of both drums and block chording in
relation to their respective hierarchies.
Likewise, fast single-note playing would seem to be the technique most
relevant to the electric guitar, since both are comparatively naturalistic,
whereas sustained single-note playing is the technique I would most associate
with 'conventional' keyboard and, in particular, synthesizer playing, to the extent
that both instrument and technique are identifiable with idealism, which, in
contrast to naturalism and materialism (though not to realism) strives to
achieve a wavicle equivalent, and on an absolute individualized basis. Fast-note scalic playing would seem, by
contrast, to indicate a particle equivalent on account of the rapid succession
of notes which form an absolute collectivity commensurate with naturalism and,
hence, the diabolic, soul, hell, etc. On
the other hand, the simultaneous striking of several notes in block chording
would be comparatively materialistic, and thereby indicative of a relative
collectivity commensurate with the purgatorial, as pertinent to an intellectual
persuasion. Certainly all these
instruments are usually played in a variety of ways, whether above or below the
most appropriate technique, but that detracts nothing from the theory
propounded here, which posits an optimum correspondence between instrument and
technique, irregardless of whether or not such a correspondence is to
everyone's taste.
96. Undoubtedly the synthesizer is gradually
displacing and eclipsing instruments like the bass, drums, and guitars, in
consequence of which I would argue that realistic, materialistic, and
naturalistic techniques, corresponding to the instruments in question, are in
some degree redeemed through absorption into the overall synthesizer system,
thereby becoming less genuinely worldly, purgatorial, or diabolic, as the case
may be. Probably absorption is a prelude
to and precondition of subsequent transmutation, leading, eventually, to the
complete eclipse of subidealistic techniques.
97. Whilst on the subject of supermusic, I of
course acknowledge that other instruments, such as violins, saxophones, flutes,
etc., are often used in conjunction with or as alternatives to one or other of
the lead instruments already described, and that the voice is no mean
contributor to musical idealism or naturalism, either. Probably the electric violin is the stringed
instrument most suited to the idealistic role by dint of its wavicle-sustain
properties, which of course depend upon bowing, whereas the saxophone is the
wind or, at any rate, brass instrument most suited to the naturalistic role by
dint of its facility for fast-note, particle-biased playing. Thus the violin (not to mention flute) can be
regarded as an alternative to electric keyboards, and the saxophone (not to
mention viola) as an alternative to electric guitars, ideologically inferior as
any acoustic instrument will be in relation to electric ones. Yet all instrumental combinations are
possible in an open society; it is only in a closed one that such 'freedoms'
would be eclipsed.
98. I should like to put forward the theory that
while theocrats, aristocrats, plutocrats, and autocrats are alpha-stemming
grades of ruling elite, democrats, bureaucrats, technocrats, and
meritocrats are omega-oriented grades of leading elite, with religious,
scientific, economic, and political distinctions - distinctions which
correspond, as elsewhere maintained, to the four principal elements. Thus to explain my theory with the aid of a
diagram, we shall find the following alpha/omega divisions:-
ALPHA OMEGA
1. theocrats (religion) 8.
meritocrats (religion)
2. aristocrats (science) 7.
technocrats (science)
3. plutocrats (economics) 6. bureaucrats
(economics)
4. autocrats (politics) 5.
democrats (politics)
with, so I contend, a relatively antithetical
standing between theocrats and meritocrats, aristocrats and technocrats,
plutocrats and bureaucrats, and autocrats and democrats, but a diametrically
antithetical standing, firstly in major terms, between theocrats and autocrats
on the one hand and democrats and meritocrats on the other, and, secondly in
minor terms, between aristocrats and plutocrats on the one hand and bureaucrats
and technocrats on the other - the former corresponding to an air/earth
antithesis and the latter to a fire/water antithesis. For we need not doubt that theocrats and
autocrats signify as radical a diametrical antithesis on the alpha-stemming
side as ... democrats and meritocrats on the omega-oriented side - all the
difference, in fact, between religion and politics; whereas aristocrats and
plutocrats signify a less-radical diametrical antithesis equivalent to the
distinction between science and economics, an antithesis no less minor on the
omega side where, as we have seen, it takes the form of bureaucrats and
technocrats. By contrast, the antithesis
horizontally established between meritocrats and theocrats, technocrats and
aristocrats, etc., has to do with opposite poles of the same spectrum in each
case, thereby indicating a series of antithetical equivalents, as between
meritocrats and theocrats (the Holy Spirit and the Father) or technocrats and
aristocrats (Antichrist and Satan).
99. Consequently we have an alpha and an omega
divine status on the religious spectrum, an alpha and an omega diabolic status
on the science spectrum, an alpha and an omega purgatorial status on the
economic spectrum, and, finally, an alpha and an omega worldly status on the
political spectrum, with antithetical equivalents established between
bureaucrats and plutocrats (the Second Coming and the Virgin Mary) in the one
case, and democrats and autocrats (Protestant Christ and Catholic Christ) in
the other case. Admittedly, it may seem
odd to distinguish between autocrats and aristocrats, since most people have
been conditioned to regard aristocrats as cutting across occupational
boundaries rather than as a class, or category, no less distinct from autocrats
than, in my view, technocrats from democrats, and thereby limited, in their
occupational status, to a specific elemental category - in this instance, that
of traditional science. Yet many aristocrats are, and have been, men of science
(as opposed to men of religion, economics, or politics), and I would argue that
they are as distinct an elemental category as, say, theocrats or plutocrats - a
thing which applies just as much, albeit on antithetical terms, to technocrats
in relation to meritocrats above and to bureaucrats below. Doubtless most people would accept without
demur the distinction between autocrats and democrats, since it corresponds to
opposite poles of the political spectrum, and the world, particularly in its
British manifestation (where it takes the form of a division between the House
of Lords and the House of Commons), has far more experience of such an
antithesis than of the higher, more radical antitheses which accrue to the
economic, scientific, and religious spectra above, the omega poles of which are
either comparatively recent developments, as in the cases of bureaucrats and
technocrats, or have yet to come properly to pass - something which undoubtedly
applies to any meritocratic religious leadership which, much the way that
bureaucracy and technocracy have supplanted plutocracy and aristocracy in the
communist East, would not co-exist with alpha-stemming theocracy but strive to
completely supplant it as the sole embodiment of religious idealism. For, unlike an atomic society, a
free-electron society will endeavour to realize an omega exclusiveness in which
only meritocrats, technocrats, and bureaucrats exist, since such a society is
commensurate with a proletarian absolutism above and beyond bourgeois
relativity.
100. Politicians are always talking about personal
responsibility (individual self-assertion), and while this may be a formula for
worldly success - of which Britain has always been a keen friend - it is as far
removed from divine wisdom as earth from air or darkness from light, the reason
being that, unlike worldly folly, divine wisdom has reference to transpersonal
absorption (self-transcendence) in spiritual unity - a procedure which the
Catholic Irish have always shown more aptitude for - albeit on a tangential
basis - than the Protestant British.
However, in between the extremes of worldly folly and divine wisdom we find
impersonal responsibility (corporate self-assertion) on the one hand, and
impersonal absorption (collective self-transcendence) on the other hand, and
while the former is purgatorial, the latter is diabolic - water and fire,
stupidity and cleverness, as germane to an American/Russian dichotomy. For if the British are fundamentally foolish
and the Irish essentially wise, then the Americans are fundamentally stupid and
the Russians essentially clever, since stupidity and cleverness form a
water/fire diametrical antithesis in between the earth/air antithesis of folly
and wisdom. It is the difference between
cold and heat, rather than darkness and light.
101. The positive wisdom of truth/joy; the
positive cleverness of beauty/love; the positive stupidity of strength/pride;
the positive folly of goodness/pleasure.
Conversely, we can speak of the negative wisdom of sorrow/falsity; the
negative cleverness of hate/ugliness; the negative stupidity of
humiliation/weakness; the negative folly of pain/evil. Consequently we have a distinction between alpha
and omega manifestations of idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism.
102. Private enterprise inevitably leads to the
perpetuation of divisions between rich and poor, since those who are capable of
or disposed to amassing private wealth through the success of their enterprise
will continue to do so. Fundamentally,
it makes no difference whether or not they are taxed more stringently since,
even after higher taxation, they remain rich in relation to those whom they
exploit, and accordingly a worldly society remains in place. Only on either the Transcendental Socialist
basis of State ownership or on the Social Transcendentalist basis (as
propounded by me) of Centre trusteeship ... can such worldly divisions be
transcended. For public ownership and/or
trusteeship permits of a more even distribution of wealth (from the centre) and
can therefore maintain an absolute society which is neither rich nor poor but
either Communist or Transcendentalist, depending on the emphasis of that
distribution, i.e. whether social and bureaucratic, as in the case of State
ownership, or religious and meritocratic, as should transpire in the case of
Centre trusteeship. Such post-worldly
absolute societies would be 'beyond good and evil' in the worldly sense of
relative class divisions between the poor and the rich, being, by contrast,
either beautiful or true.
103. Just as mineral formations precede plant life
in the overall evolution or, rather, devolution of life (from the alpha
absolute) on this planet, so we should allow for the possibility of a life form
or stage of life antithetical to minerals, which would precede transcendence
and, hence, the attainment of electron-electron attractions to the
transcendental Beyond. Such a stage of
life would emerge, I contend, from supra-being new-brain collectivizations as
the final phase of their development, a phase in all probability pending
transcendence, or the possibility thereof, when Supra-beings would assume an
intensely luminous appearance in consequence of sustained hypermeditation,
becoming what we may term Ultrabeings.
This luminosity, indicative of spiritual expansion, would suggest an
antithetical equivalent to the luminous quality or capacity of certain mineral
deposits, such as diamonds, and it would be in the interests of those
responsible, as technicians, leaders, etc., for the servicing of these
new-brain collectivizations to have them boosted into space within the context
of space centres, in order to avoid the potentially disastrous consequences of
radioactive contamination both during and following the transcendental process.
104. Thus to extend my previous theories, one
should allow for three stages of post-human life, with Ultrabeings constituting
the third - a life form effectively antithetical to mineral deposits. With three stages of cosmic devolution ...
from the central star of any particular galaxy to planets via stars in general
(including the sun), it seems only logical to allow for three stages of natural
devolution ... from minerals to animals via plants. Likewise, we should have three stages of
supernatural evolution, beginning with Superbeings (brain collectivizations)
and progressing via Supra-beings to Ultrabeings, as well as three succeeding
stages of supercosmic evolution, beginning with planetary spiritual globes and
progressing via galactic spiritual globes to a grand culmination in the
universal spiritual globe, viz. the Omega Point. Hence six stages of devolution beneath man
and six stages of evolution beyond him, with human life itself divisible into
three basic stages, viz. pagan, Christian, and transcendental, each of which is
subdivisible into two phases, beginning, in paganism, with stoicism and
hedonism, continuing, in Christianity, with Catholicism and Protestantism, and
culminating, in transcendentalism, with contemplation (of artificially-induced
visionary experience) and meditation.
Perhaps the fact that Christ had twelve apostles is not without some
metaphysical significance in light of these theories?
105. Liberal cinema film; Socialist television
film; Communist video film; Transcendentalist trip. Four ascending stages of artificial visionary
experience, corresponding to realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism?
106. It seems to me that the threefold division of
meals which generally obtains in the West, viz. breakfast, dinner, and tea,
corresponds to the Holy Trinity, with breakfast correlating with the Father,
dinner with the Son, and tea (or supper) with the Holy Spirit, so that the
average open-society type of person will be equally disposed to all three
meals, the hard-line Christian type of person be more disposed to dinner, while
those whose religious bias is for one or other of the extremes will tend to
place greater store by the corresponding meal, be it breakfast or tea. I, myself, have consistently eschewed
breakfast for many years, have eaten only a comparatively small dinner, but
never failed to have both tea and supper, which, given my bias for the Holy
Spirit, may not be without some ideological significance. Indeed, I have known people who eat only one
meal a day ... in the evening, and such people were more transcendental than
Christian. By contrast, an aunt of mine
with a distinctly alpha-stemming disposition regards breakfast as the most
important meal of the day, which only goes to prove that there is probably more
to our eating habits than at first meets the eye! A person who eschewed breakfast on ideological
grounds would be more enlightened, it seems to me, than one who insisted on its
importance. It would be a closed-society
attitude commensurate with an antithesis to the Father, which is to say God as
Creator.
107. Hands out of pockets and by one's side when
walking along the pavement is an alpha-stemming autocratic parallel. Hands in trouser or jean pockets when out
walking is a worldly democratic parallel.
Hands in short zipper-jacket pockets when out walking is an
omega-oriented theocratic parallel. A
man can be judged according to where his hands are when walking along the
pavement. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
options. A child can be trained
accordingly.
108. The countryside is an autocratic environment par excellence. Everywhere one sees the horizontally
centrifugal tendency of nature, which sharply contrasts with the urban tendency
towards the vertically centripetal. It
is only too inevitable that bungalow-type dwellings will be found in abundance
in rural or provincial areas. For such
dwellings betray, in their horizontal structures, a centrifugal orientation
which accords with country life - at any rate, as far as nature in the raw is
concerned. Bungalows and cottages (their
historical precursors) are not only the lowest types of dwellings physically;
they are the lowest types ideologically - inferior to both two-storey houses
and multi-storey flats. It is as though
one proceeds from the autocratic countryside to the theocratic city via the
democratic town; for with environmental distinctions of this kind come
corresponding ideological distinctions, even when such distinctions are not
consciously registered or publicly proclaimed.
No-one who is at home in the big city, with its towering buildings,
could possibly be complacent about or happy in the country. They are antithetical worlds, incommensurable
and irreconcilable. Alpha and omega of
earthly life.
109. I believe shoulder bags can be ideologically
distinguished, one from another, according to whether they are rectilinear,
curvilinear, or a sort of amalgam of the two, and it is my view that whereas
the rectilinear variety are Socialist and the curvilinear variety
Transcendentalist, the variety which suggests an amalgamation of the two are
Communist, since a combination of both democratic (rectilinear) and theocratic
(curvilinear) elements, as befitting a naturalistic equivalent. As to duffel bags, which are curvilinear but
open at the top, we have, it seems to me, a Nazi parallel, since their
idealism, unlike that of curvilinear shoulder bags, is rather more centrifugal
than centripetal, and thus somewhat neo-alpha in character.
110. Just as we have distinguished between
Socialist, Communist, and Transcendentalist types of shoulder bag on the basis
of rectilinear and curvilinear designs, so similar tripartite distinctions can
be drawn in regard to T-shirts as Socialist, muscle shirts as Communist, and
vests as Transcendentalist, with an ascending ideological importance as we
proceed from the rectilinear to the curvilinear via a sort of cross between the
two. Strictly speaking, a conventional
T-shirt should only be worn by those whose ideological persuasion is Socialist
(in the bodily democratic sense), whereas a muscle shirt, which in its
sleeveless design is closer to a vest, should only be worn by those of Communist
persuasion (in the soulfully theocratic sense), and a string vest by
Transcendentalists (or people whose ideological persuasion is theocratic in the
ultimate spiritual sense). A strict
correlation between each of these People's shirts and/or vests and the
equivalent type of shoulder bag should also be established; for ideological
togetherness is perfection, whether your perfection is bodily, soulful, or
spiritual.
111. Centrifugal and centripetal: extrovert and
introvert; selfless and selfish. Since
we are distinguishing between alpha-stemming and omega-oriented tendencies, it
should be possible to maintain that whereas the alpha-stemming person will
display centrifugal tendencies, including extroversion and selflessness, his
omega-oriented counterpart, by contrast, will display centripetal tendencies,
including introversion and selfishness.
Indeed, whereas the former will be fundamentally autocratic, the latter
will be essentially theocratic and therefore quite antithetical, in every
respect, to the alpha-stemming person.
Of course, there are people - perhaps in Western societies the great
majority - who are more balanced between alpha and omega, autocracy and
theocracy, than lopsided either way, and they would accordingly be democratic,
which is to say, neither particularly centrifugal nor centripetal, but an
approximately equal combination of each.
Such people are also a more-or-less balanced combination of extroversion
and introversion, selflessness and selfishness.
For extroversion and selflessness are, of course, centrifugal
tendencies, whereas introversion and selfishness are alike centripetal. The former pair are aligned with the proton
component of the atom, the latter pair with its electron component, and while
there is nothing unusual, least of all in a worldly society, about dualistic
combinations in an atomic framework, it should not be forgotten that extremes
are also possible, both before and after the strictly atomic middle-ground, of
which extroversion and selflessness are expressions of the former, but
introversion and selfishness expressions of the latter. Paradoxical though it may seem, a selfish
person, i.e. one who is regarded as being predominantly selfish, rather than
either predominantly selfless or balanced between the two poles, is likely to
be more evolved than an ordinarily half-selfish/half-selfless person, given the
correlation between selfishness and the centripetal.
112. However, there are degrees and kinds of
selfishness, corresponding to the four spectra I have described elsewhere, and
while selfishness on a realistic, or bodily, basis may (understandably) appear
low to a person accustomed to a more elevated kind of selflessness - say,
adherence, through autocratic idealism, to some primitive Godhead, it
nevertheless has to be said that even 'low' selfishness is preferable to 'low'
selflessness, such as would be expressed by bodily adherence to autocratic
realism. For the omega aspect of things
is always preferable, from an evolutionary standpoint, to their alpha aspect -
at any rate, in regard to antitheses which accrue to the same spectrum. Inevitably, selflessness of an idealistic
order will be eclipsed, following the Resurrection (through Social
Transcendentalism), by idealistic selfishness ... in Holy Spirit, and it is
very doubtful that people or peoples who wallow in realistic selfishness would
ever be qualified to embrace the idealistic variety, through meditation, in due
course. The fact is that, ethnically
speaking, progression along a given spectrum is more the general norm within
stable societies than a stepwise ascent or descent between disparate and, in
the main, irreconcilable spectra.
113. Since life embraces both devolution and
evolution, we should speak of devolution from the One to the Many in regard to
alpha-stemming antiquity, but of evolution from the Many to the One in regard
to omega-oriented futurity (modernity would be an understatement). Indeed, just as we find a devolutionary
regression from autocratic theocracy to democratic autocracy via theocratic
autocracy and autocratic autocracy, so there is (and must increasingly be) an
evolutionary progression from autocratic democracy to democratic theocracy via
democratic democracy and theocratic democracy, and in both cases the divine
apex is One and the worldly nadir Many.
Theocracy is concerned with the One, whether that be the Father, the
Holy Spirit, or even Christ, whereas democracy and, to a lesser extent,
autocracy is a reflection of the Many.
Democratic autocracies and autocratic democracies are phenomena of the
Many. But whereas the former is the
nadir of alpha-stemming devolution, the latter is the inception of
omega-oriented evolution, which should lead, via democratic democracies and
theocratic democracies, to the apex of theocratic unity in the democratic
theocracy of the Social Transcendentalist Centre, as far removed from the
Oneness of autocratic theocracy as it is possible for any theocratic Oneness to
be. Alpha and omega - beginning and end of
the One. Therefore to distinguish between
a convergence from the Many to the One, as from the democratic superworld to
the theocratic superheaven (via intermediate stages of ideological evolution),
and a divergence from the One to the Many, as from the theocratic Creator
(central star of the Galaxy) to the autocratic world (via intermediate stages
of ideological devolution).
114. It is not being selfish that is wrong but how
you are selfish, i.e. whether on a bodily or a spiritual plane or on some
intermediate intellectual or soulful one.
Similarly, selflessness is not necessarily right or moral just because
it is selfless. There are bodily and
intellectual types of selflessness which, judged from a soulful or a spiritual
standpoint, are less than wholly desirable.
Yet, regarded objectively, being spiritually selfless (through worship)
is inferior to being spiritually selfish (through self-realization) - that is
to say, inferior to the extent that it signifies an alpha-stemming idealism in
contrast to the more evolved, and infinitely more desirable, omega-oriented
idealism of the Holy Spirit. Just as the
spiritually selfless stand on a higher level than the soulfully selfless, so
the spiritually selfish stand on a higher level than the soulfully selfish, and
the soulfully selfish on a higher level than the intellectually selfish, who in
turn stand above the bodily selfish. For
just as body (will) is inferior to brain (intellect), so soul (emotion) is
inferior to spirit (consciousness), the former pair appertaining to the world
and to purgatory, the latter pair appertaining to Hell and to Heaven, whether
on an alpha or an omega basis, with regard to protons or to electrons,
negativity or positivity. As I have
elsewhere argued, there is a cosmic precedent for each spectrum, with which
such religious terms may be identified - at any rate, in relation to
alpha-stemming Heaven, Hell, purgatory, and world. For the omega-oriented positive parallels are
rather more evolved than devolved, and for that reason I have usually attached
the prefix 'super' to each of them, beginning with superworld and progressing,
via superpurgatory and Superhell, to Superheaven - the ultimate selfishness of
transcendental self-realization.
115. I sometimes wonder whether distinctions
between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost don't simply boil down, in
common Christian usage, to parallel distinctions between the male sexual organ,
the heart, and the conscious mind, so that the Father is really quite different
from and inferior to the Creator-God (Jehovah) extrapolated from the central
star of the Galaxy, since merely extrapolated from the penis. As to the Virgin Mary, whose name (like the
Father's) speaks for itself, a parallel with the female sexual organ can
obviously be inferred, since the emphasis is on her virginity. Thus an ascension from the Father/Virgin Mary
to the Holy Ghost via Christ, which is to say, from the sex organs, male and
female, to the conscious mind via the heart - pagan, Christian, and
transcendental distinctions, both concurrently and successively. But if the Father is different from and less
radically theocratic than, say, Jehovah (conceived as Creator-God in the true
cosmic sense of that term), then the Holy Ghost must likewise be different from
and less radically theocratic than, say, the Omega Point ... of transcendent
futurity. In other words, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost would have to be seen in a purely Western and, in particular,
Germanic light, which must needs fall short, at each pole, of true theocratic
absolutism, not just in the strictly Christian middle-ground of the Son, where
'God' assumes a quintessentially worldly status flanked - dare I say it? - by
subworldly and superworldly 'gods'.
116. Undoubtedly the hardness, or desired
hardness, of men (particularly in the West) derives from the phallic roots of
life in the erection, whereas the softness, or desired softness, of women
no-less undoubtedly derives from the vaginal roots of life in sexual
submission. Thus as a penis must be hard
in order to penetrate a vagina, so, correlatively, men should be hard and women
soft - at any rate, while sexual commerce is a societal norm. For we are heading towards an age and
civilization when hardness will be no less inapplicable to men than softness to
women, and largely because, in transcending traditional sexual customs, men and
women will blend into a post-sexist superhuman identity wherein distinctions of
'hard' and 'soft' would be equally irrelevant because equally false. The future superperson will be neither hard
nor soft but either soft-hard (males) or hard-soft (females), and the lion will
accordingly have lain down with the lamb in a transcendent synthesis.
117. It seems to me that whereas paperback
publications approximate, when original, to a Socialist equivalent or ideological
parallel, the joint publication of paperbacks and tapes in plastic cases
suggests a Communist equivalent, whereas independent tape publications
approximate to a Transcendentalist equivalent by dint of their curvilinear
standing in relation to (rectilinear) books.
Thus whereas paperbacks, being rectilinear, parallel conventional
T-shirts, it would seem that tapes, being curvilinear, parallel vests, the
coming together into joint formats of tapes and paperbacks paralleling muscle
shirts, with, as in previous instances, socialist, communist, and
transcendentalist distinctions.
118. Unlike a bottle of beer, a can of beer is
rather akin to a frameless work of art, whereas a can of cola is more akin to a
poster or even to a photograph, both of which are no less beyond the pale of
oil paintings than cola is beyond the pale of alcoholic drinks. Which is another way of saying that whereas
frameless paintings and canned alcohol are petty-bourgeois norms, posters and/or
photos and cola are alike proletarian norms.
119. Heavenly spirit from the awareness
subconscious to the awareness superconscious.
Hellish soul from the emotional subconscious to the emotional
superconscious. Purgatorial intellect
from the old brain to the new brain.
Worldly will from the blood/bone body to the flesh/muscle body. Thus spirit, soul, intellect, and will are
not only separate, they are eternally co-existent in man, though not always to
the same extent or with equal force or on identical terms, since, in relation
to the latter point, we must distinguish between alpha and omega, negative and
positive, with regard to both the age and the type of individual. Yet whether alpha-stemming negativity or
omega-oriented positivity is uppermost in any given individual, all men are fourfold
composites of spirit, soul, intellect, and will, and so they must remain until
man is transcended in the Superbeing and a wholly post-human life form comes to
pass. Just as the highest men are those
in whom spirit is uppermost, so the lowest are those in whom will
predominates. The soulful and the
intellectual types come in-between, like Hell and purgatory vis-à-vis Heaven on
the one hand and the world on the other hand.
120i. Whether your Heaven be alpha or omega, you
are one for whom a wavicle bias preponderates over both particle and atomic
biases.
ii. Whether your Hell be
alpha or omega, you are one for whom a particle bias preponderates over both
wavicle and atomic biases.
iii. Whether your purgatory
be alpha or omega, you are one for whom an absolute atomic bias preponderates
over both wavicle and particle biases.
iv. Whether your world be
alpha or omega, you are one for whom a relative atomic bias preponderates over
both wavicle and particle biases.
121i. Thus the proton-wavicle bias of Alpha Heaven,
but the electron-wavicle bias of Omega Heaven.
ii. Thus
the proton-particle bias of Alpha Hell, but the electron-particle bias of Omega
Hell.
iii. Thus
the atomic-proton bias of alpha purgatory, but the atomic-electron bias of
omega purgatory.
iv. Thus
the proton-atomic bias of alpha world, but the electron-atomic bias of omega
world.
122i. The essence of negative spirit is sadness,
whereas the essence of positive spirit is joy.
ii. The
essence of negative soul is hatred, whereas the essence of positive soul is
love.
iii. The
essence of negative intellect is humiliation, whereas the essence of positive
intellect is pride.
iv. The
essence of negative will is pain, whereas the essence of positive will is
pleasure.
123i. The appearance of negative spirit is
illusion, whereas the appearance of positive spirit is truth.
ii. The
appearance of negative soul is ugliness, whereas the appearance of positive
soul is beauty.
iii. The
appearance of negative intellect is weakness, whereas the appearance of
positive intellect is strength.
iv. The
appearance of negative will is evil, whereas the appearance of positive will is
goodness.
124. One could argue that where the 'apparent'
corresponds to the phenomenal, the 'essential' corresponds to the noumenal.
125. With the alpha of things, the noumenal
precedes the phenomenal, whereas with the omega, by contrast, the phenomenal
precedes the noumenal. The phenomenal
corresponds to an atomic middle-ground in between subatomic (noumenal) and
supra-atomic (noumenal) extremes. Hence
Christ is a phenomenal divinity (atomic man) in between the noumenal Creator
(wavicle proton-proton reactions) and the noumenal ultimate Creation (wavicle
electron-electron attractions); a relativity (of the 'Three in One') in between
two absolutes.
126. Only the absolute is strictly divine, though
the omega absolute will be more truly divine than the alpha absolute because a
divinity of bliss as opposed to a divinity of great sorrow - all the
difference, in effect, between the envisaged supra-atomic electron-electron
attractions of the ultimate absolute and the subatomic proton-proton reactions
of the primary absolute, which corresponds to the central star of the Galaxy (a
wavicle star in contrast to the particle stars which revolve around it), as,
indeed, to the central stars of galaxies in general.
127i. Truth is apparent, like air or, rather, the
sky, but the essential realization of truth leads to joy, which is a
corresponding light. No joy without
truth, since the one is a precondition of the other and they form two sides of
the same coin - the coin of Omega Heaven.
ii. Beauty is apparent,
like fire, but the essential realization of beauty leads to love, which is a
corresponding heat. No love without
beauty, since the one is a precondition of the other and they form two sides of
the same coin - the coin of Omega Hell.
iii. Strength is apparent,
like water, but the essential realization of strength leads to pride, which is
a corresponding coldness. No pride
without strength, since the one is a precondition of the other and they form
two sides of the same coin - the coin of omega purgatory.
iv. Goodness is apparent,
like earth, but the essential realization of goodness leads to pleasure, which
is a corresponding darkness. No pleasure
without goodness, since the one is a precondition of the other and they form
two sides of the same coin - the coin of omega world.
128. Since goodness, strength, beauty, and truth
signify an ascending order of (phenomenal) ideals effectively germane to four
different omega-oriented civilizations, so pleasure, pride, love, and joy
likewise signify an ascending order of (noumenal) ideals germane to their
aforementioned counterparts.
129i. The lowest or worldly omega-oriented civilization
(realist) will place a moral emphasis on goodness and its reward - pleasure.
ii. The second lowest or
purgatorial omega-oriented civilization (materialist) will place a moral
emphasis on strength and its reward - pride.
iii. The second highest or
hellish omega-oriented civilization (naturalist) will place a moral emphasis on
beauty and its reward - love.
iv. The highest or
heavenly omega-oriented civilization (idealist) will place a moral emphasis on
truth and its reward - joy.
130. Since man is a composite of all four moral
spectra, so likewise is each civilization, except that, like individual men,
they will have a particular bias for one or another of the moral
alternatives. Strictly speaking, only
the highest civilization is or can be truly moral. For, judged from the standpoint of truth and
joy, both beauty and love are comparatively immoral, as are strength and pride,
while goodness and pleasure are amoral, since neither hellish nor purgatorial
but worldly, and hence relative.
Returning to elemental distinctions on these omega (positive) levels, we
find that truth and joy correspond to an electron-wavicle absolute, beauty and
love to an electron-particle absolute, strength and pride to an atomic-electron
'absolute', and, finally, goodness and pleasure to an electron-atomic
relativity.
131i. Air/light, fire/heat, water/coldness, and
earth/darkness. Thus in relation to the
elements and their (noumenal) concomitants, truth is akin to air and joy to
light, beauty is akin to fire and love to heat, strength is akin to water and
pride to coldness, goodness is akin to earth and pleasure to darkness.
ii. Just as air and earth
form a phenomenal antithesis, with light and darkness their respective noumenal
concomitants, so truth and goodness form a phenomenal antithesis, with joy and
pleasure their respective noumenal concomitants.
iii. Now just as fire and
water form a phenomenal antithesis, with heat and coldness their respective
noumenal concomitants, so beauty and strength form a phenomenal antithesis,
with love and pride their respective noumenal concomitants.
iv. Air/light idealism
standing above fire/heat naturalism; fire/heat naturalism standing above
water/coldness materialism; water/coldness materialism standing above
goodness/pleasure realism. Heaven - Hell
- purgatory - world ... at the omega poles of their respective spectra.
132i. The omega-oriented writer who goes to life
(will) for his inspiration is a realist, and corresponds to the earth/darkness,
goodness/pleasure worldly spectrum.
ii. The omega-oriented
writer who goes to books (intellect) for his inspiration is a materialist, and
corresponds to the water/coldness, strength/pride purgatorial spectrum.
iii. The omega-oriented
writer who goes to emotions (soul) for his inspiration is a naturalist, and
corresponds to the fire/heat, beauty/love diabolic spectrum.
iv. The omega-oriented
writer who goes to awareness (spirit) for his inspiration is an idealist, and
corresponds to the air/light, truth/joy divine spectrum.
133. Of course, no writer is ever entirely one
thing, but all writers can be evaluated according to a bias for one or another
of the above spectra. And such spectra
indicate a hierarchy of writers, beginning, at the bottom, with realism, and
proceeding, via materialism and naturalism, to an idealistic peak. Strictly speaking, it is from this idealistic
peak of Truth-seeking spirit that all first-rate writing stems. By comparison to the idealistic writer, the
naturalistic writer is second-rate, the materialistic writer third-rate, and
the realistic writer fourth-rate. And
what applies to the omega pole of each spectrum applies no less to its alpha
antithesis, where negative quantities and qualities obtain, as well as to any
middle-ground (bourgeois) cross between the antithetical poles. In my opinion, the omega-oriented idealistic
(truth/joy) writer is as superior, from a truly divine standpoint, to the
alpha-stemming idealistic (illusion/sadness) writer as ... the Holy Spirit to
the Creator. And what applies to the
divine spectrum applies just as much to each of the lesser spectra, where
alpha/omega distinctions can also be found.
134i. Where evil, and hence pain, is the alpha
worldly norm, goodness, and hence pleasure, is the omega worldly norm.
ii. Where weakness, and
hence humiliation, is the alpha purgatorial norm, strength, and hence pride, is
the omega purgatorial norm.
iii. Where ugliness, and
hence hatred, is the alpha diabolic norm, beauty, and hence love, is the omega
diabolic norm.
iv. Where illusion, and
hence sadness, is the alpha divine norm, truth, and hence joy, is the omega
divine norm.
135. Will - intellect - soul - spirit; body -
brain - emotional mind - conscious mind; world - purgatory - Hell - Heaven, on
both alpha and omega terms. Earth -
water - fire - air; darkness - coldness - heat - light; world - purgatory -
Hell - Heaven, on both alpha and omega terms.
136. Just as air and earth form a major
diametrical antithesis in relation to fire and water, which I have elsewhere
described as minor, so wisdom and folly form such an antithesis, with
cleverness and stupidity taking the minor position in between. Wisdom and folly are not antithetical in the
manner of illusion and truth, which is to say, as poles of the same spectrum;
for there is negative wisdom and positive wisdom, the former pertaining to
illusion and the latter to its polar antithesis, truth. Likewise, there is negative folly and
positive folly, and while the former pertains to evil, with particular
reference to pain, the latter pertains to goodness and its (noumenal)
concomitance, pleasure. Thus whereas the
divine spectrum of illusion-to-truth has to do with wisdom, both negative and
positive, the worldly spectrum of evil-to-good has to do with folly, both
negative and positive. Consequently we
may speak of the negative (painful) folly of evil, but the positive
(pleasurable) folly of good; the negative (sad) wisdom of illusion, but the
positive (joyful) wisdom of truth.
137. Similarly, in regard to the minor antithesis between
fire and water, or Hell and purgatory, we shall find that cleverness and
stupidity are the relevant terms of reference, with negative cleverness
accruing to ugliness (the negative diabolic pole) and positive cleverness
accruing to beauty (the positive diabolic pole); with negative stupidity
accruing to weakness (the negative purgatorial pole) and positive stupidity
accruing to strength (the positive purgatorial pole), so that cleverness and
stupidity are no less diametrical, in their less radical way, than wisdom and
folly. Therefore we can speak of the
negative (humble) stupidity of weakness, but the positive (proud) stupidity of
strength; the negative (hateful) cleverness of ugliness, but the positive
(loving) cleverness of beauty. One could
even say, at the risk of seeming unduly metaphorical, that whereas earth is
foolish (dark) and air wise (light), fire is clever (hot) and water stupid
(cold). But we have to distinguish
between negative and positive earth, air, water, and fire, bearing in mind the
alpha/omega distinctions between the natural and the artificial, the old and
the new, theocratic/autocratic and democratic/theocratic, which removes us from
the metaphorical to the historical plane.
138. Hence the negative folly of alpha realism (democratic
autocracy) in contrast to the positive folly of omega realism (autocratic
democracy); the negative stupidity of alpha materialism (autocratic autocracy)
in contrast to the positive stupidity of omega materialism (democratic
democracy); the negative cleverness of alpha naturalism (theocratic autocracy)
in contrast to the positive cleverness of omega naturalism (theocratic
democracy); the negative wisdom of alpha idealism (autocratic theocracy) in
contract to the positive wisdom of omega idealism (democratic theocracy).
139i. From the painfully foolish (the evil) to the
pleasurably foolish (the good).
ii. From the humbly stupid
(the weak) to the proudly stupid (the strong).
iii. From the hatefully
clever (the ugly) to the lovingly clever (the beautiful).
iv. From the sadly wise
(the false) to the joyfully wise (the true).
140. Alpha and omega positions in an ascending
hierarchy of elemental spectra, viz. realism (earth), materialism (water),
naturalism (fire), idealism (air).
141. Broadly speaking, the fulcrum of British
society is along the realistic axis of a painfully foolish (Lords
autocratic)/pleasurably foolish (Commons democratic) divide. The fulcrum of American society is along the
materialistic axis of a humbly stupid (Quakerish)/proudly stupid (Republican)
divide. The fulcrum of Russian society
is along the naturalistic axis of a hatefully clever (Czarist
autocratic)/lovingly clever (Socialist bureaucratic) divide. The fulcrum of Irish society is - or, as far
as the omega option applies, hopefully will be - along the idealistic axis of a
sadly wise (Roman Catholic)/joyfully wise (Social Transcendentalist)
divide. For each kind of society, be it
realist, materialist, naturalist, or idealist, must have a representative axis
if it is to retain a specific cultural and/or ideological integrity and not
become a mishmash of conflicting and mutually destructive elements - a
situation which, judged from an historical point of view, may be for the better
or worse, depending on the type of society in question.
142. In relations between the sexes, it is
traditionally the male who loves the more passionately and the female who, by
contrast, derives the greater pleasure from sex. This is because, as a rule, men are more of
the head than of the body, whereas women are more of the body than of the head,
and the sexes accordingly relate to each other in terms of a kind of
diabolic/worldly divide, which is nothing less than the love/pleasure
distinctions described above. In
relation to propagation, copulation is a comparatively centripetal activity, by
which I mean that the penis is inserted into the vagina, where it functions on
an inward-tending basis towards its goal of orgasmic discharge into the
womb. It is the male who inserts himself
into the female while, with pregnancy, the female must be delivered of her
baby, which accordingly slides out of her in due centrifugal fashion. Thus whereas the one sex puts something in,
the other gives something out, and this is relative to the atomic natures of the
respective sexes - men generally of an electron bias and therefore centripetal,
women generally of a proton bias and therefore centrifugal. A man is in luck when he has a woman
sexually, whereas a woman is in luck not when she is being sexually had by a
man but, on the contrary, when she gives her baby to the world - at any rate,
this is how it has traditionally been between the sexes and, in a majority of
cases, continues so to be to this day.
Men take but women give, the former being omega orientated and the
latter alpha stemming; centripetal and centrifugal, after the manner of
electrons and protons in feminine and masculine distinctions. In fact, what I have just said explains why,
as Schopenhauer well-remarked, the average woman would die of shame from being
caught in the act of being made love to by another man, whereas she will carry
her pregnancy with pride - the pride of prospective motherhood. For as Schopenhauer also remarked, copulation
is a man's business, propagation a woman's - centripetal and centrifugal, male
and female respectively.
143. Reading stands to writing as thought to
speech - indeed, as a kind of artificial thought vis-à-vis a kind of artificial
speech, and if thought and speech are noumenal, and therefore relatively alpha
stemming, then reading and writing are comparatively phenomenal, and thus of an
omega-oriented status - at any rate, as relative to a worldly, or Christian,
integrity. For the phenomenal is still
to a degree naturalistic, not wholly artificial, and therefore more the omega
pole of a naturalistic spectrum than of an artificial one, which, by contrast,
must begin in superphenomenal artificiality and progress towards a
supernoumenal culmination in due course.
Thus if thinking and reading are alpha and omega of an essential
naturalistic spectrum, the nature of which is internal, and hence of a wavicle
bias, but speaking and writing are alpha and omega of an apparent naturalistic
spectrum, the nature of which is external, and hence of a particle bias, it
should follow that whereas thinking and speaking are noumenal, reading and
writing are phenomenal - the former pair largely preceding the latter in
historical time.
144. Yet if, as I teach, the superphenomenal
precedes the supernoumenal in the ensuing historical period of artificial
spectra, then we must begin with an artificial type of reading in the one case
and with an artificial type of writing in the other, thereafter progressing
from each of the superphenomenal poles to supernoumenal poles of, on the one hand,
an artificial type of thinking and, on the other hand, an artificial type of
speaking, both of which will stand to the former as superomega to
superalpha. Clearly, artificial writing
and reading will pertain to typewriters, printing presses, etc., and to printed
material (as opposed to hand-written material), including books, magazines,
newspapers, etc., whereas artificial thinking and speaking will pertain to
computers, especially to those which can be programmed to compute both
internally, as 'thinking machines', and externally, as 'speaking machines' -
the former a precondition of the latter (just as we must first be able to think
before we can speak). Indeed, artificial
writing, via typewriters, printing presses, etc., is as much a precondition of artificial
reading, or the reading of artificial print, as natural writing is a
precondition of natural reading, or the reading of hand-written material like
letters; for the apparent (writing) precedes the essential (reading) when we
are dealing with the phenomenal, whereas the essential (thought) precedes the
apparent (speech) when we are dealing with the noumenal, and what applies to
the naturalistic spectra (both wavicle and particle) applies no less to the
artificial spectra which follow, so to speak, in historical time. Thus before there can be superphenomenal
reading (of books, magazines, etc.), there must firstly be superphenomenal
writing (through typewriters, printing presses, etc.); and before there can be supernoumenal
speaking (through an artificial voice), there must firstly be supernoumenal
thinking (by computation) - the apparent preceding the essential in the one
case but succeeding it in the other, the former a 'rise' and the latter a
'fall'.
145. Yet, within the same spectrum, we see a progression
from essential to essential or apparent to apparent, as the case may be, since
reading and thinking, whether natural or artificial, are alike essential,
whereas writing and speaking, whether natural or artificial, are alike apparent
- the former pair having a wavicle bias and the latter pair a particle
bias. However, we are not dealing with
two completely separate spectra here, so much as with two sides or aspects of
the same spectrum, that being intellectual and therefore of a materialistic atomic
integrity, whether in regard to alpha-stemming intellect (atomic-proton
materialism) or, conversely, in regard to omega-oriented intellect
(atomic-electron materialism), the one naturalistic and the other artificial,
as relative to an old-brain/new-brain distinction. We are dealing here with a sort of
purgatorial rather than hellish or heavenly spectrum, and that is why neither
emotions nor visions are the experiences at stake, but solely words and the way
they are handled, combined, analysed, etc.
As discussed elsewhere, visions are of the spiritual spectrum, which is
idealistic, whether we are referring to natural or to artificial visionary
experience, whilst emotions are of the soulful spectrum, which is naturalistic
(in the ideological rather than historical sense), whether we are referring to
alpha-stemming natural emotions or to omega-oriented artificial (civilized)
emotions. That is why neither television
nor radio is applicable to the intellectual spectrum under discussion, since
its omega unfolding is a computer, and whether that computer thinks or speaks
will determine which side of the spectrum in question is being utilized, and
for what purposes.
146. Obviously, essential intellect (thought) is
closer to spiritual idealism (visions) than would be the apparent intellect
(speech). But it is nevertheless quite
distinct from such idealism, as is apparent intellect from the soulful
naturalism (emotion) which flanks it below, irrespective of overlappings in
practice between each of the three spectra.
Since, in artificial omega terms, radio is the medium par excellence of
emotions and television, by contrast, the medium par excellence of
awareness, this means that the medium par excellence of artificial
intelligence, namely the computer, will be closer to radio when apparent
(speaking) but to television when essential (thinking); for radio, despite
appearances to the contrary, is an inherently soulful medium, especially suited
to music, and therefore one which is of a particle bias, whether for good or
bad, positively or negatively; whereas television, despite appearances to the
contrary, is an inherently spiritual medium, especially suited to art, and
therefore one which is of a wavicle bias, whether for good or bad, positively
or negatively. Emotional and visionary
media flanking, on a particle/wavicle basis, the intellectual medium of
computers - just as Hell and Heaven may be said to flank purgatory.
147. Philosophical awareness, poetical emotion,
fictional description, and theatrical
action, with spiritual, soulful, intellectual, and wilful distinctions
respectively, corresponding to idealism (air), naturalism (fire), materialism
(water), and realism (earth), or, as one could alternatively put it, to Heaven,
Hell, purgatory, and the world. Thus
from philosophy at the top, which is par excellence a discipline of the mind, to
drama at the bottom, which is inherently a discipline of the will, we have a
descending hierarchy of disciplines which should, if properly pursued, differ
from one another as much as, say, the elements, with air corresponding to
philosophy, which is nothing less than the pursuit of joy through truth; fire
corresponding to poetry, which is nothing more than the pursuit of love through
beauty; water corresponding to fiction, which is nothing more than the pursuit
of pride through strength (generally measured in terms of the length of any
given novel); and earth corresponding to drama, which is nothing less than the
pursuit of pleasure through goodness or, rather, the good act.... Unless,
however, we are primarily concerned with negative and hence alpha-stemming
philosophy, poetry, fiction, and drama, in which case the pursuit of illusion
through sadness; the pursuit of ugliness through hate; the pursuit of weakness
through humiliation; and last and least the pursuit of evil through
pain. This is perhaps the main
distinction between the ancients and the moderns (allowing for exceptions),
bearing in mind that whereas the phenomenal precedes the noumenal within an
omega orientation, it is the noumenal which precedes the phenomenal within an
alpha orientation, whether on naturalistic or artificial terms.
148. It is not altogether surprising that the
English regard Shakespeare as their finest writer; for, as a realistic people,
it is only to be expected that they should hold a mere playwright in such high
regard. Yet theatre, being naturalistic
in terms of its recourse to actual physical presences on stage, is more
autocratic than democratic, a bodily realism which contrasts, rather like the
Lords vis-à-vis the Commons, with the more sublimated and artificial realism of
television plays - the democratic realism par excellence of an omega-oriented
worldliness, of which Dennis Potter is perhaps the best-known and most
widely-acclaimed exponent, a sort of democratic Shakespeare and yet, for all
his considerable dramatic ability, still no more, when considered in relation
to literature, poetry, and philosophy (in that ascending order), than a
fourth-rate writer, like Shakespeare.
Certainly I would regard Bacon as his writerly peer - by no less than
three rates!
149. Concerning philosophy, it should be noted
that while the alpha-stemming naturalistic philosophers like Socrates, Plato,
etc., were more likely to be found lecturing in the open air or (later) in a
lecture theatre, their latter-day artificial counterparts will prefer, as a
rule, to be found lecturing in a television studio on the benefits of a more
evolved philosophy, such as may well portend a genuine omega orientation.
150. Hitherto I have broadly spoken of
alpha-stemming (naturalistic) and omega-oriented (artificial) distinctions
between those - be they philosophers, poets, novelists, or playwrights - at
opposite poles of their respective spectra.
But, from a more correct standpoint, the fact nevertheless remains that
the naturalistic and artificial parts or divisions of each spectrum are both
alpha stemming and omega orientated, which is to say, negative and
positive. Thus there is the strongly
alpha-stemming (Fatheristic) negativity of sadness (noumenal) in relation to
falsity (phenomenal) within the naturalistic part of the divine (idealistic)
spectrum, in contrast to the comparatively omega-oriented (Christic) positivity
of truth (phenomenal) in relation to joy (noumenal) also within the
naturalistic part of the same spectrum.
Similarly, with the artificial part of the divine spectrum, the
supersadness (supernoumenal) preceding superfalsity (superphenomenal) is, in
its negativity, comparatively alpha stemming or, more correctly, superalpha
stemming, in relation to the strongly omega-oriented (Superchristic) positivity
of supertruth (superphenomenal) as a precondition of superjoy
(supernoumenal). For the negative
(noumenal-to-phenomenal) correlations are always alpha stemming in relation to
the positive (phenomenal-to-noumenal) correlations of omega-oriented
attributes, whether we are alluding to those on the heavenly, hellish,
purgatorial, or worldly spectra, as corresponding to idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism
at both 'naturalistic' and 'artificial' poles.
Thus an alpha-omega naturalism superseded by a superalpha-superomega
artificiality or, as one could alternatively term it, supernaturalism.
151. I did, I believe, make this point before, but
it is a tricky one and well worth illustrating by examples of what I call
omega-in-the-alpha on the one hand and alpha-in-the-omega on the other, i.e.
positivity in the naturalistic part of any given spectrum and negativity in its
artificial part - the former largely centrifugal and the latter mainly
centripetal. Now the illustration I have
in mind pertains to umbrellas on the one hand and to hooded zippers on the
other - two modes of protection against rain which co-exist as alpha and omega
in both naturalistic and artificial contexts, by which I mean within each part
of their particular spectrum, be it idealistic, naturalistic, or materialistic,
depending on the type of brolly or hooded zipper in question. However that may be, a full-length brolly
will be strongly alpha stemming because inherently centrifugal, whereas a
knee-length or even a thigh-length hooded zipper will be comparatively omega
orientated, since centripetal, albeit of a length which, in its evident
femininity, precludes a truly masculine implication and therefore suggests
omega-in-the-alpha, which is nothing less than a kind of Christian
middle-ground vis-à-vis the alpha absolute ... as pertaining to a naturalistic
omega orientation. Contrasted to which,
we shall discover the alternatives, on the one hand, of a collapsible umbrella,
complete with phallic-like sheath (suggestive of a masculine compromise), and,
on the other hand, of a short or waist-length hooded zipper, which is closer to
a genuine omega or, rather, superomega orientation on account of its highly
masculine connotations, and which thereby contrasts not only with hooded
zippers of a partly feminine character (knee/thigh-length establishing a
skirt-like centrifugal compromise), but with the collapsible umbrella - that
alpha-in-the-omega which is nothing more than a kind of superalpha equivalent
commensurate with the negative pole, or part, of the artificial spectrum to
which (depending on the type) it belongs, the supernegative pole to
superpositive waist-length hooded zippers.
152. Thus from long brollies and hooded zippers
within the largely centrifugal alpha-stemming naturalistic part of any given
spectrum ... to the short brollies (collapsibles) and hooded zippers within the
largely centripetal omega-oriented artificial part of any given spectrum - the
contrast, on the one hand, between omega-(long hooded zippers)in-the-alpha
(long umbrellas) and, on the other hand, alpha-(collapsibles)in-the-omega
(short hooded zippers). A small
positivity within a large negativity in the one case, and a small negativity
within a large positivity in the other, of which dozens of comparable examples
could be given, including towns within the country and parks within the
city. For there is as exact a
correlation between, say, thigh-length hooded zippers and country towns as
between collapsibles and city parks. The
thigh-length hooded zipper is, strictly speaking, a phenomenon-noumenon of
country towns, just as the collapsible umbrella is a noumenon-phenomenon of
city parks or, if that seems overly rigid, is aligned with the park vis-à-vis
the (hooded) city - as, for that matter, are miniskirts.
153. Since alpha proceeds from noumenal to
phenomenal and omega, by contrast, from phenomenal to noumenal, we can speak,
as I have just done, of hooded zippers as phenomenal-noumenal in contrast to
umbrellas as noumenal-phenomenal, reading the former from the bottom up, which
is to say from body to hood, and the latter from the top down, which is to say
from umbrella hood to body stem, including the handle. The alpha noumenal is centrifugal whereas the
omega noumenal is centripetal.
Appearance and essence, protons and electrons, negative and positive.
154. Since alpha and omega are polar opposites
within any given spectrum, in both naturalistic (overall alpha-stemming) and
artificial (overall omega-oriented) manifestations thereof, it follows that
drama will be tragic when appertaining, in negativity, to the alpha pole of the
realistic spectrum, but comic when appertaining, in positivity, to its omega
pole, and this whether we are considering the traditional, naturalistic
manifestation of this spectrum or its more contemporary and, hence, artificial
counterpart - in short, whether we are referring to autocratic realism or to
democratic realism, the former tending to materialize on stage and the latter
on film, though particularly within the context of television drama. For films are not invariably dramatic, or
written on an original and quasi-theatrical basis, but are more often, these
days, adaptations from novels, in consequence of which they can be regarded as
appertaining to the artificial manifestations of a fictional, or materialistic,
spectrum, on both negative and positive terms, which is to say as alpha and
omega of artificial materialism. And
even original film scripts usually tend to the narrative rather than to the
dramatic and are therefore as distinct from plays as novels, the best of them
being art films, or films recognized for their narrative and/or aesthetic
worth. Really, it is television plays
which are the dramatic counterpart of stage plays; for plays and films are two
quite distinct visual media, the one realistic and the other materialistic,
which, on balance, is equivalent to a kind of British/American dichotomy - the
former worldly and the latter purgatorial.
Will and intellect, body and brain, making for dramatic and narrative
distinctions.
155. How much is ethnically conditioned and how
much sheer rebellion, I don't pretend to know; but I have always avoided either
writing or reading plays, which I now perceive as a quintessentially English
art-form, and, instead, have concentrated most of my creative energies on
philosophy - the discipline at the furthest possible remove from drama, like
air from earth or Heaven from the world.
Conversely, it has not escaped my attention that Irish dramatists are
usually Anglo-Irish, particularly the world-famous ones like Sheridan, Wilde,
Shaw, Yeats, Beckett, Synge, who may well have felt as disposed to rebel,
consciously or unconsciously, against Irish theology and philosophy as I have
rebelled against British drama, scorning Shakespeare like the plague. The consequences either way are that the
Irish in England become more idealistic than they might otherwise have been,
while the English in Ireland become, as Anglo-Irish, more realistic than might
otherwise have been the case, as the two peoples react against each other and
become more adamantly themselves than before.
It was my destiny to bring philosophy to an all-time idealistic peak - a
fact all the more remarkable for having taken place in
156. It makes a lot of difference whether one's
starting point is Socialism or Transcendentalism; for if Socialism is the
thesis and Transcendentalism the antithesis, as was the case with Lenin, then
the synthetic result is Transcendental Socialism, whereas if Transcendentalism
is the thesis and Socialism the antithesis, as is the case with me, then the
synthetic result is Social Transcendentalism, which stands to Transcendental Socialism
as God to the Devil or, what amounts to the same, light to heat.
157. A recently-acquired insight that waist-length
hooded zippers the hood of which zips into the neck are of a wavicle bias, in
contrast to the particle bias suggested by waist-length hooded zippers with a
free-standing hood. Thus a Social
Transcendentalist/Transcendental Socialist distinction, with unhooded zippers,
whether leather or cloth, having an inferior because bodily status commensurate
with Socialism and Liberalism. Only hoods,
it seems, truly confirm a 'head' status, whether Communist or
Transcendentalist. However, it also has
to be admitted that crash helmets worn in conjunction with leather jackets, as
in the context of motorcycle riding, confer a kind of 'head' status which may
well be more socialist (and therefore intellectual) than communist (and
soulful) or transcendentalist (and spiritual), by dint of the materialistic as
opposed to naturalistic or idealistic construction of crash helmets, which are
metallic.
158. There doubtless exists a strong connection
between matriarchies and polytheistic societies on the one hand, and between
patriarchies and monotheistic societies on the other, given that the former are
centrifugal, and hence feminine, whereas the latter are centripetal, and hence
masculine. Consequently it is virtually
inconceivable that a patriarchy could be polytheistic or a matriarchy
monotheistic, bearing in mind the contradictory nature of the two contexts. The ancient Hebrews were certainly once polytheistic
and matriarchal, but became, under Mosaic guidance, monotheistic and
patriarchal, thereby abandoning paganism for Judaism, with its Jehovah God,
prototype of the Christian Father. Thus
they achieved civilization on an alpha-oriented basis. For the centrifugal is always comparatively
barbarous in relation to the centripetal - the barbarism of cosmic and/or
natural polytheism.
159. Frankly, it is my belief that modern
pluralist societies, with their democratic relativity, are the secular equivalents
of the ancient polytheistic societies, since where formerly there were many
gods, there are now many parties and, as often as not, such pluralism brings a
sort of democratic matriarchy in its train - witness the Thatcher phenomenon in
Britain, not to mention the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II, the longest
reigning British monarch since Queen Victoria - which somehow ties-in with the
generally centrifugal nature of pluralist societies.
160. Contrasted to which, we may posit as the
modern secular equivalent of traditional monotheistic societies those countries
which have adopted one-party government, especially within the socialist
context, and whose mode of society is consequently rather more patriarchal - as
befitting a centripetal orientation, the intrinsic masculine nature of which
will logically preclude undue political interference from and leadership by
women. Here, in contrast to pluralist
societies, it is the totalitarian ones which reflect the greater degree of
civilization, in that they have achieved a degree of centro-complexification
commensurate with a more highly-evolved state of political affairs, the modern
equivalent, as I say, to the coming of monotheism to the ancient world. Indeed, it could well transpire that, in
relation to this totalitarian absolutism, it is the pluralist societies which
are comparatively barbarous - the barbarism of liberal democracy, with its
matriarchal naturalism. Could it be, I
wonder, that what Moses was to the ancient Hebrews, Lenin is to the modern
Russians? For he, more than any other,
eclipsed the darkness of pluralism by the light or, rather, heat of Bolshevik
communism, thereby creating the world's first totalitarian State, a State which
may well have been - certainly up until the collapse of the Soviet Union - to
the modern world what Israelite monotheism was to the ancient one - a beacon of
civilization flaming in the darkness of democratic pluralism. Democratic 'Judaism' as opposed to democratic
'paganism'.
161. Yet while, to return to the ancient world,
Israelite monotheism signified a more advanced state-of-affairs than pagan
polytheism, it was not, like Christianity, an omega-oriented phenomenon so much
as a more exclusive alpha orientation - focusing on the 'One God', regarded as
the true God, rather than embracing numerous gods. Or, what approximately amounts to the same
thing, focusing on one star (effectively the central star of the Galaxy),
rather than embracing numerous stars throughout the Galaxy, not to mention the
Universe as a whole. There is no
question of Jehovah and Christ being equivalent, since Jehovah is a Creator
divinity, is God conceived as Creator, whereas Christ is a Saviour divinity, or
God conceived in human terms Who offers mankind salvation (from the world) if
only they follow His example and cultivate the 'Kingdom of Heaven' within
the self. Jehovah, like the Father, is a
divinity to be worshipped and placated, whereas Christ is essentially a
divinity to be followed and therefore emulated.
Jehovah is alpha, but Christ omega.
Consequently, Israelite monotheism, with its focus on one Creator, viz.
Jehovah, was a very different and in some sense inferior proposition to the
later Christian monotheism which primarily focused on Christ, while reserving a
lesser, more traditional focus for the Father - that Christian equivalent, so
to speak, of Jehovah. Israelite
monotheism was therefore more closely linked to pagan polytheism than ever
Christian monotheism could be. Or
whereas, put another way, Israelite monotheism signified a rebellion against
pagan polytheism which, nevertheless, maintained an alpha-oriented divine
focus, Christian monotheism was more a rebellion, through Christ, against Old
Testament monotheism in the name of a new monotheism - the omega-oriented monotheism
of the New Testament, which cannot but contrast with the alpha-oriented
monotheism of Israelite tradition.
162. In just such a fashion, it is my firm belief
that whereas Communism embodies, in its totalitarian centrality, a rebellion
against democratic pluralism (the 'polytheism' of the modern world),
Transcendentalism signifies a rebellion against Communism in the name of a
truly omega-oriented ideology which will be the future equivalent of
Christianity, or of what Christianity was to the ancient world - namely, an
altogether new order of monotheism. Thus
it is as a new and superior order of totalitarianism that Transcendentalism
should be seen - one less democratic than theocratic in essence and therefore
as distinct from Communism as (was) Christianity from Judaism, or the New
Testament from the Old Testament. It is
this theocratic totalitarianism which is truly civilized; for it rises above
democratic sovereignty in the name of an ultimate sovereignty, a sovereignty of
the People as Holy Spirit, or ultimate Godhead, through the establishment,
under Messianic auspices, of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth (Social
Transcendentalist Centre) in an unequivocally omega-oriented integrity. Such a theocratic totalitarianism transcends
democratic totalitarianism as Heaven transcends Hell, since it is the light of
lights rather than the heat of heats, and long after the latter has burnt
itself out it will shine-on in the world and eventually transcend it, becoming,
in due process of convergence, the omega absolute. Transcendental Socialism may be a beautiful
world religion or no religion at all, but Social Transcendentalism will be the
true world religion, of which all other, earlier religions are but faint shadows.
163. Not for the first time in my work, I should
like to point up the parallel with Spengler, that great philosopher of history,
which the above theories call to mind.
For just as he distinguished between four succeeding periods of time in
terms of a) 'Historyless Chaos'; b) 'Culture'; c) 'Civilization'; and d)
'Second Religiousness', so the distinctions I have just drawn between
polytheism and monotheism on the one hand and pluralism and totalitarianism on
the other fit nicely into the Spenglerian categories, with polytheism
symptomatic of 'Historyless Chaos'; monotheism symptomatic of 'Culture';
pluralism symptomatic of 'Civilization' (in reality a kind of modern or second
barbarism); and, finally, totalitarianism symptomatic of 'Second Religiousness'
(particularly when it is of an unequivocally theocratic nature). Similarly, these four distinct periods of
time could be defined - and already have been by me - in terms of a)
materialism; b) naturalism; c) realism; and d) idealism, with 'Historyless Chaos'
thereby further defined in terms of polytheistic materialism; 'Culture' in
terms of monotheistic naturalism; 'Civilization' in terms of pluralistic
realism; and 'Second Religiousness' in terms of totalitarian idealism - a slow
and painful ascent from the centrifugal depths of alpha-stemming paganism to
the centripetal heights of omega-oriented transcendentalism via the worldly
middle-grounds of centripetal Christianity ('Culture') and centrifugal
Liberalism ('Civilization'), with feminine and masculine distinctions between
the centrifugal and the centripetal, as, in effect, with regard to Temple and
Church on the one hand, and to State and (with the Second Coming) Centre on the
other, bearing in mind our alpha/omega polarity. Yes, the liberal State is a sort of
superfeminine entity, a second centrifugal reality which, in its inherent
pluralism, signifies an historical fall from the centripetal masculinity of the
Church, particularly the one true Church ... of Roman Catholic
Christianity. But just as the Church
rose above both the pagan and Judaic temples of theocratic precedent, so the
Centre will rise above both the pluralist and totalitarian states of democratic
precedent, in order to establish, among the 'chosen peoples', the
supertheocratic culmination of human evolution, which is nothing less than the
omega 'Kingdom of Heaven' - antithetical in every respect to the alpha ones.
164. Just as Christian monotheism would not have
been possible without a Judaic monotheistic precedent, so Centrist
totalitarianism would be impossible to conceive of without a Communist
totalitarian precedent. For Marx (or
Lenin) stands to me as Moses to Christ, and while, from an omega standpoint,
Communism is as inferior to Transcendentalism as Judaism to Christianity, nevertheless
the one is a precondition of the other, since without a centripetal revolt
against centrifugal precedent, whether polytheistic or pluralistic, there can
be no true omega orientation thereafter and, consequently, no essential
transcendentalism to contrast with the apparent transcendentalism which
precedes it. Without Judaism, no
Christianity. Likewise, without
Communism - the modern equivalent par excellence of Judaism - there can be no
Transcendentalism in the Social Transcendentalist sense, as advocated by me,
and therefore nothing approximating to a Second Coming and True World Religion.
165. Yet if Communism, like Judaism before it, is
not truly or essentially omega orientated, it is nevertheless far from being
alpha stemming in the pluralistic tradition, even though, again like Judaism,
it makes use of the given - namely the State - and transmutes it in a
centripetal and, hence, totalitarian way.
For taking the given and transmuting it, through selection, towards a
transcendental, omega-oriented objective is a necessary historical precondition
of subsequent ideological progress, even if, in the paradoxical nature of what
has been transmuted, it can never be genuinely transcendental, but must always
remain tied to its alpha-stemming, fundamentalist roots. Thus, in the final analysis, Communism, no
less than Judaism before it, remains an end-in-itself, incapable of subsequent
transmutation into the Centre, which, by contrast, stands in opposition to the
concept and reality of the State in the interests of spiritual liberation.
166. Hence, just as Judaism and Christianity
remained separate ... as two independent religious entities, the one apparently
centripetal (Jehovah) and the other essentially centripetal (Christ), so, in
the future, Transcendental Socialism and Social Transcendentalism will remain separate ... as two independent
ideological entities, the former apparently centripetal - for even the
centralized totalitarian State is still a State and therefore something that
has been extrapolated from a given precedent - and the latter essentially so,
since primarily concerned with a spiritual convergence to the omega goal of
evolution, without which there could be no withering of the State (through the
Centre) and therefore no true 'Kingdom of Heaven', but only a perpetual State, after
the Communist example. For the
totalitarian Centre differs as much from the totalitarian State of Communist
precedent as the monotheistic Church from the monotheistic Temple of Judaic
precedent, being a wavicle (essential) fulfilment of a particle (apparent)
precondition - in the one case artificial and in the other case natural, as
pertaining to parallel points in historical time.
167. Thus, taking the natural options first and
then proceeding to the artificial (or supernatural) options, we find that there
is a sort of overall historical progression, on the one hand, from the
polytheistic Temple to the monotheistic Church via the monotheistic Temple,
followed by a further progression, on the other hand, from the pluralist State
to the totalitarian Centre via the totalitarian State. Again, to revert to Spengler's fourfold
divisions of historical unfolding, which effectively alternate between becoming
and being, we should be justified in drawing a direct parallel between pagan
polytheism and 'Historyless Chaos', Judaic monotheism and 'Culture' or, rather,
pseudo-Culture (for the monotheism in question is not genuinely omega
orientated), Christian monotheism and 'Culture', Liberal pluralism and
'Civilization', Communist totalitarianism and 'Second Religiousness' or,
rather, pseudo-Second Religiousness (for the totalitarianism in question is not
genuinely omega orientated), and, finally, Centrist totalitarianism and 'Second
Religiousness', with pagan polytheism corresponding to a materialistic period
of historical time, Judaic monotheism corresponding to a
materialistic-naturalistic period of such time, Christian monotheism
corresponding to a naturalistic period, Liberal pluralism to a realistic
period, Communist totalitarianism to a realistic-idealistic period, and,
finally, Centrist totalitarianism to an idealistic period - the ultimate period
of historical time prior to the post-Human Millennium and, thus, man's final
overcoming. Needless to say, we have not
yet attained to the idealistic period of time commensurate with the birth of a
genuine Second Religiousness.
Nevertheless we are tending towards it and should be able to date it, in
the future, from the coming of Social Transcendentalism, with the correlative democratic
establishment of the Centre - a fate reserved, in my estimation, for certain
chosen countries that, hopefully, will lead the historical way in this regard.
168. Turning from the general to the particular,
and thus from a sequential progression of materialist to idealist via naturalist
and realist stages of historical time, in the above context, to an hierarchical
order of elemental spectra with, from an artificial omega-oriented standpoint,
realism at the bottom, idealism at the top, and materialism and naturalism in
between (as in the context of
ideological distinctions more recently explored in my work), it seems to me
that a kind of alpha/omega distinction can be drawn between, for example, the
political parties or ideologies of the Right on the one hand, and those of the
Left on the other, with the former inherently centrifugal and the latter
inherently centripetal, as follows:-
Idealistic Alpha Air Idealistic Omega
Fascism Heaven Transcendentalism
Naturalistic Alpha Fire Naturalistic Omega
Anarchism Hell Communism
Materialistic Alpha Water Materialistic Omega
Nazism Purgatory Socialism
Realistic Alpha Earth Realistic Omega
Conservatism World Liberalism
with a kind of
negative/positive polarity between Conservatism and Liberalism (including Liberal
Democracy) on the realistic spectrum, between Nazism and Socialism on the
materialistic spectrum, between Anarchism and Communism on the naturalistic
spectrum, and between Fascism (in the Latin sense) and Transcendentalism on the
idealistic spectrum, which, as I understand it, signifies an ideological zenith
between right- and left-wing options - in short, a divine spectrum with
Superfatheristic tendencies
(fundamentalist) at the alpha pole and Superchristic tendencies
(transcendentalist) at the omega pole, each of which rather contrast with the
Supersatanic (anarchist) and Super-antichristic (communist) polarities of the
diabolic spectrum immediately beneath, the one centrifugal and the other
centripetal - Stateless chaos and State centrality, in accordance with
antithetical forms of naturalistic ideology.
169. Consequently, one could speak of Fascism as
right-wing idealism, but of Transcendentalism as left-wing idealism; of
Anarchism as right-wing naturalism (although these days it is more usually the
Greens who, in their environmental conservatism and conservancy, slot into such
a right-wing position), but of Communism as left-wing naturalism; of Nazism as
right-wing materialism, but of Socialism (especially in the more militant
sense) as left-wing materialism; and of Conservatism as right-wing realism, but
of Liberalism (whether Liberal Democratic or Democratic Socialist) as left-wing
realism. Inevitably a sort of
ideological tug-of-war or even state-of-war will normally exist between the
respective polarities which, as one ascends away from worldly relativity
towards the various supraworldly absolutes, becomes increasingly exclusive and,
hence, totalitarian. For there can no
more be a true co-existence between Nazism and Socialism on the materialistic
spectrum than ... between the more obviously totalitarian ideologies above,
even though, in most Western societies, fringe rivalries of the above-mentioned
kinds will continue to exist outside the official rivalry (in dialectical
realism) of the parliamentary pale and, needless to say, overlapping with a
variety of other contending parties or movements in a sort of
centrifugal/centripetal dichotomy.
170. In my view, there can be no doubt that
victory ultimately goes to the omega of things, particularly in the communist
and (hopefully) transcendentalist contexts, but even then the shadow of
anarchist or fascist reaction will continue to linger long after the Left have
institutionalized their triumph and established the ultimate totalitarian
societies. For alpha cannot be entirely
vanquished while man is still human and not yet divine - even in the self
where, most bitter irony of all, its various political manifestations lie in
wait to ambush or sabotage every omega-oriented resolve. Even when no insititutionalized opposition is
apparent, there is a Nazi in the breast of every Socialist, an Anarchist in the
breast of every Communist, and a Fascist in the breast of every
Transcendentalist, like a dark alter ego, or shadow-self, waiting to
dethrone light from its precarious human perch.
Indeed, it is precisely in totalitarian societies that such a
shadow-self is most insidious and must accordingly be all the more carefully
guarded against, if the ideological purity of those societies is to be
maintained. For the enemy you can't see
is more dangerous than the one you can!
171. It may not have escaped the reader's
attention, during the course of his life, that whereas, in proletarian circles,
some English-speaking countries, like Britain and Australia, regularly have
recourse to words like 'mate' and 'bloke', others, like America and Canada,
prefer words like 'man' and 'guy', which are roughly equivalent - the former as
a term of address and the latter as a mode of description, as in 'that bloke'
or 'this guy'. My own interpretation of
why, for instance, Americans prefer 'man' to 'mate' ... is that 'man' is more
masculine than 'mate' (which suggests a feminine or partly feminine derivation)
and therefore has both greater appeal and more applicability to a country
which, unlike Britain, prides itself on being macho. Hence the unequivocal 'man', in preference to
the rather ambiguous 'mate'. As regards
'guy' and 'bloke', it is doubtful that any such gender-based distinction exists
here, although I can't help feeling that 'guy' is much the more positive term,
underlining the American optimism with respect to a man's masculine or turned-on
credibility. A 'bloke', on the other
hand, is almost someone to be pitied; for he has to be weighed not only against
dubious gender but, more concretely, the oppressive realities of life in a
constitutional monarchy.
172. It ought to be noted that whereas
Fascist-style saluting with open hand suggests a centrifugal bias, the
closed-fist saluting of, for example, black-power and Communist-type Movements
suggests, by contrasts, a centripetal bias, which is nothing less than a
feminine/masculine distinction in accordance with their respective
alpha-stemming and omega-oriented integrities.
Thus whereas Fascism will favour, in its alpha-stemming integrity, the
open-hand raised arm salute, Social Transcendentalist Centrism should favour a
closed-fist raised arm salute, in conformity with its omega-oriented integrity
... as the most centripetal of all masculine ideologies.
173. The Social Transcendentalist flag should be
of centripetal design, with what I have customarily rather colloquially
described as the Holy-Y emblem contiguously surrounded by, say, a black
circular band, reminiscent of the CND design (which strikes me as a kind of
upside-down approach to the right sort of emblem). Whether the Social Transcendentalist flag
will then have a specific colour surround, say purple, outside this band or
regional colour variations, depending on the Centre in question, remains to be
seen; although a black band, if applicable, would tend to preclude any
additional surrounding colour and thereby maintain an overall impression of
colourless light ... upon which, or in which, the 'Holy-Y' would have its
emblematic place. Whatever the case,
there can be no question of a centrifugal impression being created; for that is
alpha stemming and whatever is alpha is antithetical to omega, whether in terms
of the nazi swastika or the British Union Jack which, with its vertical,
horizontal, and diagonal stripes, strikes me as constituting a centrifugal
design appropriate to an inherently alpha-stemming people. Indeed, I have more than once found myself
thinking of the Union Jack as grossly centrifugal and therefore inherently
feminine, the sort of flag that could only be acceptable in and applicable to a
parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy at its head.
174. The paradoxical thing about Jean-Paul Sartre
is that he is, or appears to be, both a playwright and a philosopher when, in reality,
drama and philosophy are as mutually exclusive as realism and idealism or earth
and air, since pertaining to diametrically antithetical spectra - the one
worldly and the other divine.
Consequently we can have no hesitation in concluding either that Sartre
is not a genuine dramatist or, alternatively, is less than a genuine
philosopher; for it is inconceivable that one can be both, i.e. a wilful
realist on the one hand and a spiritual idealist on the other, since exclusive
extremes tend to cancel one another out.
So what, then, is Sartre?
Certainly not a genuine philosopher, since an enemy of philosophical
idealism and self-proclaimed materialist whose so-called philosophy embraces a
phenomenological existentialism in which action, or the way a person acts,
becomes the yardstick by which to judge him, while providing the actor with an
antidote to the existentialist nightmare of his own contingency! In short, salvation through purposeful
action, especially when political, is the key that unlocks the door of
self-imprisonment and temporarily frees one from the apparent futility of one's
existence. But what is this if
not a dramatist's solution to the problem of existence, a solution which
affirms the will as a way out of the dilemma of human contingency in a
seemingly meaningless universe? To be
sure, while Sartre may be a pseudo-philosopher who has rebelled against
bourgeois idealism in the name of existentialist materialism, he is by no means
a pseudo-dramatist but, if plays like Altona, Nekrassov, and Kean (all of
which I read as a youth) are anything to judge by, a very genuine dramatist
with a flair for dramatic action based on sound if not always purposeful
affirmations of the will, whether in the context of the will to power, to
self-destruction, to romantic self-assertion, or whatever.
175. Hence it is as a genuine dramatist that
Sartre should be regarded; for there can be no doubt about his dramatic
credentials, no matter whether or not we approve of them! And yet, the pseudo-philosopher is
unquestionably more famous than the genuine dramatist, is really the Sartre one
first thinks of in connection with the age - an age when the genuine
philosopher is if not improbable then, at any rate, implausible in view of the
overriding materialism which characterizes it, to the detriment not only of
bourgeois idealism (which had to be debunked anyway), but to the struggle by
post-Marxian idealists like myself to introduce a new, superior idealism with a
view to establishing, on the basis of Social Transcendentalism, a future
'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth which, as the post-Human Millennium, will lead
mankind out of the materialistic darkness of 'Civilization' (Spengler) into the
spiritualistic light of 'Second Religiousness' - the millennial culmination of
which will be an unequivocally post-human superconscious absolutism orientated
towards omega transcendence, the sort of absolutism which Sartre was unable or
unwilling to contemplate, in view of his obsession with the ego and concomitant
relativity of human, though particularly bourgeois, consciousness. As a materialist, Sartre is at least two
removes from the possibility of genuine philosophy (which is always idealistic)
and thus no more than a reflection of late twentieth-century materialism in the
West, a dialectical materialist for whom post-dialectical naturalism and/or
idealism were alike beyond his, and by implication the West's,
pseudo-philosophical pale - omega Devil and God outside and above the orbit of
worldly and anti-worldly (purgatorial?) civilization, which is inherently
hostile to philosophy - as, indeed, to anything genuinely divine. Rest assured, however, that the civilization
to come, with its theosophical superphilosophy, will be no less hostile to
anything worldly, including drama, which will cease to be either written or
performed, as the will is rejected in deference to universal spirituality - the
salvation from the body which is intrinsic to the Social Transcendentalist
'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth.
176. Having already described Sartre as a genuine
dramatist but a pseudo-philosopher, I should now like to describe his great
contemporary and in many ways intellectual adversary, Albert Camus, as a
pseudo-dramatist but genuine or, at any rate, quasi-genuine philosopher,
insofar as two of his four plays were adaptations from novels and accordingly
more narrative than dramatic, whereas his philosophy, little though there is of
it, tends towards idealism in its almost Burkean revolt against dialectical
materialism, or the political implications thereof. In fact, though coming from a working-class
background, Camus was far more interested in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche than in
Hegel or Marx, and towards the end of his short life he broke with Communism
and gravitated towards the Church without, however, actually embracing
Christianity. He remained to the end a
rebel and outsider, inferior to Sartre as a dramatist but in some ways quite
superior to him as a philosopher. Even
the Notebooks
suggest as much, despite their relative brevity. For Camus was more spiritual and lyrical than
intellectual and logical, and thus a sort of philosophical poet in prose. Nevertheless, he must remain less important
than Sartre as a philosopher; for his idealism was essentially conventional and
traditional, whereas Sartre's materialism was highly contemporary and thus, in
the rather paradoxical nature of these things, more relevant to the age. It is the contemporary pseudo-philosopher who
comes off best, in Western eyes, in relation to the quasi-genuine traditional
philosopher.
177. Whereas Lenin was a political
transcendentalist who appropriated Marxian socialism to his transcendentalism
and thereby created Soviet Communism, i.e. Transcendental Socialism, I am
essentially a religious socialist who appropriated Nietzschean
transcendentalism to my socialism and thereby created Social
Transcendentalism. Thus the
Transcendental Socialist/Social Transcendentalist distinction is nothing less
than Marxism-Leninism on the one hand and Nietzsche-Loughlinism, if you will,
on the other - two parallel ideological positions which approach freedom from
opposite directions. Certainly,
Nietzsche is every bit as important from a transcendentalist point of view as
Marx from a socialist one, and while my socialism is no more Marxist than
Lenin's transcendentalism was Nietzschean, I realize that without Nietzsche I
could no more have arrived at Social Transcendentalism ... than Lenin could
have arrived at Soviet Communism without Marx.
178. Liberalism-Socialism-Communism-Transcendentalism:
these four ascending ideologies of the Left could also be conceived as, in some
sense, falling into two pairs; namely Democratic Socialism and Socialism on the
one hand, and Democratic Communism (Soviet Communism) and Communism on the
other - taking Socialism as a totalitarian alternative to Democratic Socialism,
and Communism as a transcendental alternative to Democratic Communism, or
Communism with a one-party democratic face.
Thus Democratic Socialism - Socialism - Democratic Communism - Communism,
with the latter alone truly indicative of a society in which, thanks to the
Social Transcendentalist Centre, the State had 'withered' or, at the very
least, was in the process of 'withering'.
179. But what about the ideologies of the Right,
viz. Conservatism-Nazism-Anarchism-Fascism?
Are not Conservatism and Anarchism (or, for that matter, the Greens)
alike democratic, in contrast to the authoritarian or dictatorial nature of
Nazism and Fascism respectively? Thus a
similar sort of pairing can be conceived of as existing on the Right, with
Conservatism leading to Authoritarian Conservatism, i.e. Nazism and/or a
military dictatorship, and Democratic Anarchism leading to Dictatorial
Anarchism, i.e. Fascism. Thus:
Democratic Conservatism - Authoritarian Conservatism - Democratic Anarchism -
Dictatorial Anarchism, which may be regarded as directly paralleling Democratic
Socialism - Totalitarian Socialism - Democratic Communism - Transcendental
Communism, or, as I usually prefer to write it, Liberalism-Socialism-Communism-Transcendentalism.
180. Where the Right rule, the Left lead. For the Right, remember, are centrifugal,
whereas the Left are centripetal. Ruling
is a centrifugal equivalent; leading a centripetal one. It is for this reason that I have
distinguished the authoritarian and dictatorial on the Right from the
totalitarian and transcendental on the Left, since the former terms are
appropriate to centrifugal rule, while the latter ones convey a left-wing
connotation applicable to centripetal leadership. Now if we make a diagram of the
above-mentioned ideological distinctions, as follows:-
ALPHA OMEGA
I. Dictatorial
Anarchism I. Transcendental Communism
N. Democratic Anarchism N. Democratic Communism
M. Authoritarian
Conservatism M. Totalitarian Socialism
R. Democratic Conservatism R. Democratic Socialism
we shall see that
Anarchism and Communism, of whatever sort, are polar in relation to Conservatism
and Socialism, again of whatever sort, and that the democratic alternates with
the non-democratic as we proceed from the bottom up or, more specifically, from
realism (R) to idealism (I) via materialism (M) and naturalism (N). It could almost be said that Socialism is
anarchic in relation to Conservatism, with Communism conservative in relation
to Anarchism, but that would be a somewhat fanciful or, at best, an oblique
suggestion deriving from the antithetical natures of the polar opposites,
which, however, remain fundamentally centrifugal on the one hand and
centripetal on the other, as between negative and positive poles of a magnet.
181. What I believe these elemental divisions do
indicate, however, is a body/mind distinction, with Conservatism and Socialism
on both realistic and materialistic spectra paralleling the body (including the
brain), but Anarchism and Communism on both naturalistic and idealistic spectra
paralleling the mind (in terms of soulful and spiritual distinctions between
the democratic and non-democratic options).
Moreover, if we take an atomic breakdown of each of the eight
ideological poles, as follows:-
ALPHA OMEGA
N. proton-particle
absolute N. electron-particle absolute
M. atomic-proton
'absolute' M .
atomic-electron 'absolute'
R. proton-atomic
relativity R. electron-atomic
relativity
it would appear that
our sense of two halves or divisions in each case is reinforced, insofar as the
lower spectra (R and M) are relatively atomic and therefore 'bodily' (as
between will and intellect, whether negative or positive, alpha or omega),
whereas the higher spectra (N and I) are either particle or wavicle absolutes
and therefore 'psychic' (as between soul and spirit, whether negative or
positive, alpha or omega). Thus the fact
that we can speak of proton distinctions on the negative naturalistic and
idealistic poles confirms the fundamental correctness of one ideological term,
viz. Anarchism, for their political manifestations, just as the electron
distinctions on the positive naturalistic and idealistic poles would appear to
justify the singular term Communism for each of these, even though we have
necessarily divided them into democratic and transcendental manifestations, in
accordance with particle and wavicle distinctions. Similarly, the proton-atomic and
atomic-proton distinctions of the negative realistic and materialistic poles
confirm the fundamental correctness of one term, viz. Conservatism, for each of
their political manifestations, as does the electron-atomic and atomic-electron
distinctions of the positive realistic and materialistic poles, where Socialism
transpires to being the appropriate political term for each pole. Consequently a similar atomic structure calls
forth and justifies a similar political description, whether or not we then
divide, as here, that description into, say, democratic and totalitarian.
182. However, now that I have written the above,
it seems to me that an alternative logical structure with regard to the
right-wing positions is possible and may even be nearer the truth than the
Conservative/Anarchist divide to which I have been adhering. Yet, that said, I could not have arrived at
this alternative structure without having initially adhered to the preceding
one, since it is in the nature of these writings (with their evaluations and
re-evaluations) for one thing to lead to or make possible another, irrespective
of how initially frustrating or seemingly contradictory this may at first
appear! Thus it now occurs to me that
while the fundamental division between democratic and authoritarian
Conservatism is highly plausible, the authoritarian position ought rather to be
reserved exclusively for a military dictatorship, which is doubtless more
authoritarian than Nazism, and should therefore be regarded as right-wing
materialism. So having got beyond the
military dictatorship and/or Nazi option formerly suggested for the negative
pole of the materialistic spectrum, we are left with the task of placing Nazism
on a separate spectrum, and are accordingly put in the logical situation of
either affirming a Fascist identity between Nazism and dictatorial anarchism,
i.e. Fascism-proper, or, more plausibly, of reversing our previous contention
concerning the nature of right-wing naturalism, by opting to distinguish
between Nazism as democratic fascism and Fascism-proper as dictatorial fascism,
so that instead of an anarchist divide we have a fascist divide, placing Nazism
in the position hitherto reserved for Democratic Anarchism. And this would be because, unlike Fascism,
Nazism had been voted into power and duly upheld the principle of periodic
referenda and the possibility of regular, four-yearly elections to confirm its
power-base in the People.
183. Hence Nazism seems entitled to the
description of Democratic Fascism, which would stand, at the negative
naturalistic pole, in an antithetical relationship to Democratic Communism,
viz. Soviet Communism, in what can be best described as an alpha-stemming,
centrifugal mode of naturalism, the sworn enemy of everything centripetal and
omega orientated. Thus, quite apart from
the parallel of red flags, it would seem that a sort of Satanic/Antichristic
antithesis may be inferred to exist, or to have existed, between Democratic
Fascism and Democratic Communism, in contrast to the Fatheristic/Holy-Ghostian
antithesis which may be posited as existing (if only in theory at present)
between Dictatorial Fascism and Transcendental Communism, which pertains to
alpha and omega of the idealistic, or divine, spectrum above - one, so I
believe, which will only achieve an omega manifestation with the Second Coming
and correlative true world religion of Social Transcendentalism. For what Mussolini was to the idealistic
alpha, the Second Coming will be to the idealistic omega, and if his will is
done the People will become divine, thereby bringing Transcendental Communism
to pass.
184. Thus we should distinguish between two types of
Conservatism and two types of Fascism (as opposed to anarchism), with the
former antithetical to our Socialist options, and the latter antithetical to
our Communist ones, as follows:-
ALPHA OMEGA
I. Dictatorial
Fascism (Fascism proper)
N. Democratic
Fascism (Nazism) N. Democratic Communism (Sovietism)
M. Authoritarian
Conservatism (militarism) M. Totalitarian Socialism (militant
socialism)
R. Democratic
Conservatism (Toryism) R. Democratic Socialism (Labour)
Such spectra, besides
being distinguishable from one another on the above ideological basis of
realism (R), materialism (M), naturalism (N), and idealism (I), can also, of
course, be distinguished from one another on the fundamentally more elemental
basis of (from the bottom up) earth, water, fire, and air, which should
underline the inherent character of each of the four or, rather, eight
ideological positions, corresponding to the world, purgatory, Hell, and Heaven
respectively, with appropriate negative and positive distinctions between alpha
and omega - centrifugal and centripetal antitheses.
185. To distinguish jackets with conventional
fold-over collars from those with straight collars ... on the basis of a
centrifugal/centripetal divide. For is
not a conventional folding collar centrifugal in design and therefore
inherently antithetical to the straight collars which feature on the more
contemporary or advanced types of jacket?
Doubtless this is so, and because we know that the centrifugal is alpha
and the centripetal omega, we are entitled to speak of the former as alpha
stemming and the latter as omega orientated, drawing due political conclusions
accordingly. Jackets, then, will
(depending on their design) connote with one or other of the alternative
political positions, whether right wing and centrifugal or left wing and
centripetal. Interestingly, centrifugal
jackets (as one might term those with fold-over collars, or lapels) are not,
like their opposite numbers, taken-in at cuffs or waist, but retain a
quasi-centrifugal status commensurate with an alpha-stemming integrity. Only with straight-collared jackets does one
find both cuffs and waist taken-in, and this confirms their centripetal standing
as truly omega orientated, and therefore suitable for use by left-wing
people. Hopefully, there will be a lot
more centripetal jackets being worn in the future ... as the Left gains in
ascendancy over the Right and life becomes increasingly omega orientated.
186. Of course, what applies to jackets applies
just as much to shirts, where we can distinguish between conventional
V-collared shirts as centrifugal and T-shirts as centripetal, with correlative
alpha-stemming and omega-oriented implications.
That is why conventional shirts go with open-collared jackets, while
T-shirts go with close-collared jackets - the former bourgeois and the latter
proletarian.
187. Recently I have become uncomfortably aware of
the extent to which brass instruments like trumpets, trombones, saxophones, and
even flutes suggest a centrifugal bias by dint of their open-ended designs,
which are arguably more alpha stemming than omega orientated. Even the quite large sound-hole in the belly
of an old acoustic guitar of mine looks uncomfortably centrifugal, although I
incline to the belief that, unlike brass instruments, acoustic guitars are
essentially centripetal, if rather more in terms of omega-in-the-alpha than
genuinely omega, like, for example, the radically centripetal types of electric
guitar. But I have no hesitation in
regarding brass instruments as alpha-in-the-omega, and because of their
high-profile use by jazz musicians I am obliged to regard jazz, particularly
when acoustic, as a sort of modern alpha music, given to strongly centrifugal
tendencies, and in some sense right wing in relation to rock. In fact, regarding jazz in this light
suggests to me a sort of musical parallel with Fascism, since I am convinced
that if jazz and rock are antithetical, the one generally centrifugal (witness
the 'all-over', or sequential drumming) and the other comparatively centripetal
(where the drum beat is simpler and more focused), then we have an alpha/omega
distinction analogous to that between Fascism and Communism.
188. Indeed, can we not divide modern music into
four general categories, as with politics, so that jazz and rock are seen to
tower above the more down-to-earth, or bodily, antithesis between, say,
classical and pop, with the former corresponding to Conservatism and the latter
to Socialism? For if there are four main
political options, each of which can be subdivided, surely it is not fanciful
to speak in terms of four main musical options, allowing for similar subdivisions
in each category ... depending on the type of classical or pop, jazz or rock in
question. Thus classical would stand to
jazz as Conservatism to Fascism on the alpha-stemming centrifugal side, while
pop would stand to rock as Socialism to Communism on the omega-oriented
centripetal side. There would be two
main subdivisions in each case, and doubtless they would parallel the political
subdivisions already touched upon, so that a kind of democratic/authoritarian
distinction could be inferred to exist between, say, symphonic and concerto
compositions in the case of classical, with the former corresponding to
Democratic Conservatism (the Tories) and the latter to Authoritarian
Conservatism (a military dictatorship), given the much greater emphasis
concertos place on one instrument, which towers above the orchestra like an
autocratic dictator.
189. However that may be, a similar subdivision
would have to apply to pop, where we are effectively distinguishing between the
democratic and the totalitarian, and again I strongly suspect that whereas 'democratic'
pop would be group orientated and musically moderate, the 'totalitarian'
variety would have a solo emphasis, whether within the context of a group or,
alternatively, with regard to a superstar solo artist performing, in the lead
role, in conjunction with other musicians.
Certainly, this kind of pop would be musically more radical and
instrumental than the 'democratic' variety, since (if my theory is valid)
paralleling the concerto, or authoritarian, form of classical.
190. Likewise, we would have to distinguish
'democratic' jazz from 'dictatorial' jazz on the basis of a Fascist divide, as
well as 'democratic' rock from 'transcendental' rock on the basis of a
Communist divide, reserving for those in the 'democratic' categories a more
group-oriented and possibly romantic status, but for those in the
'dictatorial/transcendental' categories a solo-oriented and comparatively
spiritual status, with a correspondingly greater emphasis on instrumental
brilliance. Naturally, a
centrifugal/centripetal contrast would exist between each of the 'fascistic'
and 'communistic' kinds of music, in accordance with the underlying dichotomy
which distinguishes alpha from omega, or vice versa. Judged from an omega standpoint, rock is no
less ideologically and morally superior to jazz, of whatever variety, than pop
to classical in each of its main manifestations. Now if jazz is superior to classical, because
a more evolved and head-biased music, then rock is no less superior to pop, and
for the same reasons. In fact, rock is
the ultimate kind of modern music, just as Communism is the ultimate kind of
modern politics, with transcendental rock just as much the ultimate kind of
rock as Transcendental Communism (or Social Transcendentalism) is the ultimate
kind of Communism.
191. From a rock purist's standpoint, any
compromise with jazz would be both ideologically and morally unacceptable, just
as a jazz purist would prefer not to compromise with rock. Yet there are and have been fusions between
rock and jazz, as also between pop and classical, which suggest a middle-ground
situation. Perhaps this kind of 'fusion
music' is analogous, in ideological terms, to Anarchism or Ecological politics
with regard to the former, but to Liberalism or Social Democracy with regard to
the latter, so that instead of an alpha/omega dichotomy one has a sort of
worldly, or atomic, cross between the two extremes? If so, then we would have no justification in
regarding fusion music, of whatever sort, as reflecting progress over purist
music (except, perhaps, in the cases of jazz and classical), but would have to
acknowledge the musical, not to mention ideological, superiority of the rock or
pop purist, whose omega orientation could only stand in the vanguard of musical
progress, like Socialism and Communism standing, on their respective levels, in
the vanguard of political progress. For
if rock is superior to jazz, as omega to alpha, then it can only be superior to
jazz-rock and to rock-jazz as well.
Similarly, if pop is superior to classical, as omega to alpha, then it
can only be superior to classical pop and to pop classical as well. Translated into political terms, this means
that any cross between Communism and Fascism, be it anarchic or ecological, will
be inferior to Communism (even if superior to Fascism), while any cross between
Conservatism and Socialism, be it liberal or social democratic, will be
inferior to Socialism (even if superior to Conservatism).
192. In an alpha/omega distinction, the alpha,
being centrifugal, will always be both ideologically and morally inferior to
the omega, which is centripetal, and thus any compromise between alpha and
omega, while arguably superior to the alpha alone (as, say, Christ to the
Father), will be inferior to the omega (as, say, Christ to the Holy
Ghost). For history tends, willy-nilly,
from alpha to omega, from the centrifugal to the centripetal, and ultimate
moral judgements can only be made on the basis of the latter, never the former,
which, by contrast, is comparatively immoral.
Morality only arises after the alpha has been found out and judged
wanting. It is the omega which is alone
moral, and until the omega of things comes to pass, on whatever elemental
level, no moral judgement vis-à-vis the alpha is possible. Even the in-between, or fusion, reality is
less moral than amoral, and thus an extrapolation from the alpha rather than
its transvaluated antithesis. Thus in
politics, Capitalism is not immoral until Socialism comes to pass as its moral
antithesis and judges it accordingly. In
music, jazz is not immoral until rock comes to pass and, attaining to maturity
in total independence of jazz, points up a centripetal and, hence, moral
antithesis to the centrifugal bias of jazz.
Fusion music, like Liberalism in politics, is merely amoral, since not
antithetically ranged against the alpha but stemming from it in diluted
compromise, untransvaluated and partly acquiescent in the alpha precedent,
unable to judge it immoral and thus morally in the dark compared to the omega.
193. Therefore just as Liberalism is not socialist
but capitalist in a different, less overtly aggressive way than Conservatism,
so pop classical is not popular but classical in a different, less overtly
aggressive or centrifugal way. In fact,
taking pop classical as the realistic middle-ground form of fusion music in
between classical and pop, and Liberalism as the realistic middle-ground form
of democratic politics in between Conservatism and Socialism (at least in their
democratic manifestations), we should be able to establish musical and
political correlations, as we ascend to higher spectra, between classical pop
and Social Democracy in the case of the materialistic middle-ground (in between
solo classical/authoritarian Conservatism and solo pop/totalitarian Socialism),
rock-jazz and Ecology in the case of the naturalistic middle-ground (in between
trad jazz/Democratic Fascism and hard rock/Democratic Communism), and, finally,
jazz-rock and Anarchism in the case of the idealistic middle-ground (in between
modern jazz/Dictatorial Fascism and soft rock/Transcendental Communism),
zigzagging, it would appear, from a right-wing middle-ground bias with pop
classical and Liberalism to a left-wing middle-ground bias with classical pop
and Social Democracy; and from a right-wing middle-ground bias with rock-jazz
and Ecology to a left-wing middle-ground bias with jazz-rock and Anarchism,
bearing in mind the alternations between alpha and omega which, for example,
pop classical (essentially classical and therefore fundamentally conservative)
and classical pop (essentially Pop and therefore socialistic) would seem to
indicate - as, on a higher level, do rock-jazz (essentially jazz and therefore
fundamentally fascistic) and jazz-rock (essentially rock and therefore
communistic).
194. Yet, that said, the middle-ground, or fusion,
positions remain untransvaluated, no matter how left wing the apparent bias,
and thus fundamentally amoral. For
unless one transcends the alpha of things altogether or, at any rate, as far as
is reasonably possible, no true omega orientation is possible and, hence, no
true morality. The middle-ground
positions remain atomic and thus, in a sense, middle class as opposed to either
upper class in the alpha or working class in the omega. Thus whether we are concerned with Anarchism
or jazz-rock, Ecology or rock-jazz, Social Democracy or classical pop, or
Liberalism (latterly Liberal Democracy in England) or pop classical, the result
is amoral in every case, and such an amoral atomicity stands in-between alpha immorality
and omega morality, just as the middle class stand in-between the upper class
and the working class or, as I prefer to put it, the older class and the newer
class - centrifugal and centripetal, appearance and essence.
195. Thus if we are to tabulate our findings for
the benefit of enhanced clarification, we shall have, as before, the four
spectra ranged as follows:-
IMMORAL AMORAL MORAL
I. Dictatorial
Fascism Anarchism Transcendental Communism
N. Democratic
Fascism Ecology Democratic Communism
M. Autocratic
Conservatism Social Democracy Totalitarian Socialism
R. Democratic
Conservatism Liberalism Democratic Socialism
with,
for the musical parallels, the following:-
IMMORAL AMORAL MORAL
I. Modern Jazz Jazz-Rock Soft Rock
N. Trad Jazz Rock-Jazz Hard Rock
M. Concerto Classical Classical Pop Solo
Pop
R. Symphonic Classical Pop Classical Group
Pop
always allowing for subordinate
or alternative labels such as funk, punk, blues, soul, etc., which will, I
trust, be a variant, traditional or contemporary, on one or another of the
above-named musical forms. (Thus, for
example, blues for trad jazz, funk for soft rock, punk for hard rock, soul for
pop, and so on.)
196. Admittedly, I haven't dealt with the
'naturalistic' alpha/omega antitheses, neither in politics nor music, but only
with the 'artificial' alpha/omega antitheses, as especially relevant to the
modern age. I am fairly convinced,
however, that older types of music, like folk, chamber, Elizabethan, opera,
etc., can also be categorized in a parallel way to the above, as can older
types of politics and religion, including royalism and Catholicism. My chief interest, all along, has been with
the modern, in the main late-twentieth-century manifestations of an alpha/omega
antithesis, and I am confident that my findings match-up to contemporary
reality and go some way towards explaining or, rather, solving the dilemmas and
contradictions of the age.
197. Now at last it is possible to distinguish
alpha from omega, whether in politics, music, or any number of other subjects,
on the basis of a centrifugal/centripetal dichotomy, with proton immoral and
electron moral implications respectively, while reserving for the middle ground
an amoral status commensurate with an atomic cross between each of the
elemental absolutes. The jazz-rocker may
prefer a leather zipper to a button-up leather jacket, but it will more than
likely be one with a centrifugal collar than with the centripetal collars
ordinarily associated with an omega orientation. For the jazz-rocker, like the Anarchist, is
an amoral person in between immoral and moral extremes, and the amoral is
nothing if not inherently contradictory.
Only with the soft-rocker or, more usually these days, funkster ... can
one expect to see a centripetal collar; for he, if true to his music and
sufficiently together to know how to dress, will have no hesitation in
appearing moral. Neither, on a lower
omega-oriented level, will the hard-rocker, or punkster, whose more aggressive
centripetal rhythms stand to the soft-rocker/funkster as Democratic Communism
to Transcendental Communism, or the Antichrist to the Second Coming, or, in atomic
terms, electron particles to electron wavicles.
Such moral musicians will instinctively be in revolt against the musical
immorality of the parallel alpha positions, which is to say, modern and trad
jazz respectively, but they won't be too keen on the amoral middle-ground
positions either, since jazz-rock (or funk-jazz) and rock-jazz (or punk-jazz)
are less than transvaluated, and will therefore appear morally suspect to
anyone with an unequivocally omega orientation, whether towards Heaven or Hell
or, indeed, lower down in the purgatorial and worldly omega orientations of
pop, for which the parallel middle-ground positions are less jazz-rock or
rock-jazz than ... classical pop or pop classical, depending on the spectrum in
question. The true proletarian will
always have an omega orientation, and thus despise and loathe everything else -
loathing the immoral musical or political antithesis, but despising the amoral
middle-ground in between. For the
struggle to bring about a better world, one that is truly moral, depends upon
those with an omega orientation, who must take full responsibility, both
politically and socially, for their morality.
Only thus can the eventual defeat of both the immoral and the amoral be
guaranteed.
198. In relation to the centrifugal collar, the
clerical collar, or so-called 'dog collar', of the clergy is centripetal and
thus omega orientated, albeit within a Christian rather than radically
transcendental context, commensurate with the Holy Spirit. If the average centrifugal collar-and-tie
combination is applicable to 'Civilization' (in the Spenglerian sense of that
term), then the clerical collar may effectively be said to pre-date it in the
context of 'Culture', or the naturalistic omega-oriented period of time and
context historically preceding the fall into a second centrifugal age - the
democratically secular age we are currently living through. There is accordingly a sense in which the
clerical collar is both morally and historically superior to the centrifugal
shirt collar of contemporary bourgeois, capitalist society.
199. Yet if 'Culture' precedes 'Civilization' in
its full flowering, then 'Second Religiousness' succeeds it, and does so in
terms of T-shirts, muscle shirts, sweat shirts, etc., all of which tend to the
centripetal in defiance of centrifugal precedent, and may consequently be
described as omega orientated and proletarian.
However, worse from a moral standpoint than the centrifugal
collar-and-tie combination of bourgeois 'Civilization' is what appears to be
the much grosser centrifugal collar of bourgeois decadence and a return,
effectively, to 'Historyless Chaos' (Spengler) with open-necks, the more
radically centrifugal nature of which can only indicate a correspondingly more
immoral status commensurate with an unequivocally alpha-stemming context. In fact, compared to the open-neck
centrifugal collar, the collar that is buttoned-up at the neck suggests a
centripetal tendency which is arguably an amoral middle-ground in relation to
open-neck collars on the one hand and to, say, T-shirts on the other,
conceiving of the former as immoral and the latter as truly moral, given their
centripetal implications. Thus it could
be contended that if the centrifugal (fold-back) collar is Liberal Democratic
when done-up, it is Conservative when left undone, since the impression created
is then more expansively centrifugal.
Now, doubtless, we should distinguish between a more expansively
centrifugal impression created in conjunction with a cravat and one created
independently of such an item; for if the former is relative, then the latter
is comparatively absolute and, to my mind, that suggests a Democratic
Conservative/ Authoritarian Conservative distinction - unless, however, one is
to interpret an open-neck collar minus cravat in terms of bourgeois or
Conservative decadence.
200. However that may be, a similar distinction
would have to be drawn between a centrifugal collar done-up at the neck and
worn in conjunction with a tie, and one done-up but worn without a tie, since
what applies to the immoral alpha must also apply to the amoral middle-ground,
in consequence of which we could speak of a Liberal/Social Democratic
distinction between the two, treating the former as indicative of a relatively
right-wing bias and the latter as indicating a relatively left-wing and more
absolute bias, while still being inherently middle-ground in relation to, say,
T-shirts.
201. Certainly I have been discussing centrifugal
shirts more in terms of long-sleeved than of short-sleeved varieties ... as
pertaining, I would argue, to the realistic (relative) and materialistic
('absolute') 'bodily' spectra in question.
Yet if the naturalistic (particle absolute) and idealistic (wavicle
absolute) 'head' spectra are also to be considered, as applying to Fascist
alpha positions and to Ecologist and Anarchist middle-ground positions, then
whether or not a short-sleeved shirt is worn in conjunction with a cravat (if
undone at the neck) or a tie (if done-up at the neck) will determine the
ideological status of the shirt (or person) in question, be it Democratic
Fascist (with cravat) or Dictatorial Fascist (without one); Ecologist (with
tie) or Anarchist (without one), and all in relation to the muscle shirts and
vests of the Communist and, hence, moral Left.
202. As a sort of footnote to the above, it should
be possible to distinguish T-shirts with long sleeves from the short-sleeved
variety on the basis of a kind of Democratic Socialist/Totalitarian Socialist
division, reserving for muscle shirts and vests (at any rate those of a
manifestly centripetal order) a sort of Democratic Communist/Transcendental
Communist distinction on the basis that such a division is rather more
curvilinear than rectilinear (unlike the Socialist one) and therefore appropriate
to a 'head' as opposed to a 'bodily' ideological integrity. Thus short-sleeved T-shirts are still
'bodily' and, hence, Socialist because rectilinear, whereas muscle shirts and
vests suggest, in their comparatively curvilinear design, a 'head' or, more
specifically, psychic connotation applicable to communist persuasions.
203. Either one is for some form of centralized
regulation of the economy or one is against it, whether absolutely, like a
Conservative, or partly, like a Liberal, in the interests of private
enterprise. One is either for a
centripetal, centralized, and therefore moral society, in which the State or
some equivalent institution regulates things, or one is for a centrifugal,
decentralized, and consequently immoral society in which, in some degree or
another (depending on the prevailing capitalist ideology), private enterprise
is encouraged to flourish. To want the
best of both worlds, private enterprise and State regulation, is to
be amoral, like a Liberal. To want only
private enterprise is, from an omega centripetal standpoint, to be immoral - in
short, an overt capitalist. Only he who
wants a centralized regulation of the economy is truly moral and therefore
Socialist or Communist, depending on the degree of his morality and the type of
society in question, be it 'bodily' or of the 'head'.
204. Yet to want centralized control in only one
context is not enough, since it is no use agreeing to centralized regulation of
some things but not of others, agreeing, say, to State regulation of the
economy but rejecting any notion of centralized interference in the arts,
sciences, sexual morality, religion, or whatever. He who is in favour of a moral order, in
which centripetal criteria obtain, must be in favour of it all along the line,
if he is not to be an hypocritical amoralist for whom some things are better
left decentralized and, hence, private.
Thus the artist, musician, writer - all those who pursue a creative
vocation - should submit to centralized regulation of what they may or may not
create ... if moral progress is to become manifest in every sphere of life, not
just in some. He who is for a socialist
economy but against socialist literature ... is not a moral Socialist but an
amoral hypocrite pursuing his own brand of private enterprise, and is thus no
better, in effect, than a Liberal. And
what applies to a socialist economy should apply even more to a communist one,
particularly to a transcendental communist one, where not the State but the
Centre would regulate society in the name of Social Transcendentalist salvation
and the divine integrity of the People as Holy Spirit. A free enterprise in literature or art or
music or science or whatever that ran contrary to the will of the Second Coming
would be incompatible with the most moral society, which would have a God-given
duty to uphold the ultimate morality in the interests of the People's spiritual
salvation, thereby safeguarding the omega 'Kingdom of Heaven' from the threat
of worldly or other kinds of reaction.
ALPHA OMEGA
1. // 2. ()
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
3. || 4. ()
| |
____| _____|
205. The above diagrams show the distinctions in
saluting between the centrifugal (open hand) idealistic Right and the
centripetal (clenched fist) idealistic Left in the one case (1 & 2), and
the centrifugal (open hand) naturalistic Right and the centripetal (clenched
fist) naturalistic Left in the other case (3 & 4), with feminine and
masculine implications, as pertaining to an alpha/omega dichotomy
respectively. It should be remembered
that although Hitler, for instance, adopted the wavicle-biased raised arm
salute (1) from Mussolini, he also, and rather frequently, resorted to the bent
arm salute (3) which, so I contend, indicates a particle equivalent
commensurate with the more democratic kind of fascism (nazism). Thus if the antithetical types of idealistic
saluting are effectively Creatoresque and Holy Ghostian in their
centrifugal/centripetal contrast, then the antithetical types of naturalistic
saluting are Satanic and Antichristic respectively.
206. It is perhaps quite logical that Mussolini's
Fascism should have preceded Hitler's Nazism in its coming to power; for did
not the Creator precede Satan?
207. The hand that slaps a face is centrifugal,
whereas the hand that, clenched into a fist, punches a face is
centripetal. Alpha and omega of
(feminine) gentlemen and (masculine) men.
208. If it is moral to drink from a can, as I
believe it to be in view of its phallic and therefore centripetal connotations,
then it can only be immoral to drink from a bottle (vaginal and, hence, of a
centrifugal connotation), and amoral to drink from a glass (which is to a
bottle what a skirt is to a dress). The
bottle is alpha, the glass worldly, and the can omega. Thus whereas it would be logical - indeed
desirable - for a Conservative or a Fascist to drink from a bottle, it would be
illogical and nothing short of absurd for a Socialist or a Communist to do
so. Socialists and Communists should
stick to cans and thus confirm their moral bias. Similarly, Socialists and Communists should
stick to cigarettes (assuming they smoke at all) and leave cigars to the amoral
and pipes to the immoral, since cigars and pipes are to smoking what glasses
and bottles are to drinking, and should accordingly be left to those who are more
politically qualified to smoke them. A
Socialist with a pipe in his mouth would be a contradiction in terms, as would
a Conservative or a Fascist with a cigarette.
Pipes are no less centrifugal and, hence, feminine than bottles, whereas
cigarettes are centripetal and therefore masculine - as, up to a point, are
cigars.
209. In relation to chips, jacket potatoes are
immoral and baked and/or boiled potatoes amoral. This is because chips are centripetal and
'phallic', whereas jacket potatoes, particularly when open and stuffed with
cheese, onions, a sausage, etc., are centrifugal and, hence, 'vaginal', baked
and/or boiled potatoes being a kind of compromise coming in-between the two
extremes - the one moral and the other immoral.
Thus whereas the moral man will prefer a diet of chips, the immoral man
will be content with a jacket potato and the amoral man with baked and/or
boiled potatoes. One could argue that
while, politically speaking, chips are socialist and/or communist (depending on
the type), jacket potatoes are fascist and baked and/or boiled potatoes liberal
- using that term in a broadly middle-ground sense. Indeed, we can exactly correlate potato
categories with the drinking and smoking categories discussed above, proceeding
from the immoral alpha-stemming category to the moral omega-oriented category
via the worldly amoral category, as follows:-
IMMORAL AMORAL MORAL
bottles glasses cans
pipes cigars cigarettes
jacket potatoes baked potatoes chips
Thus, strictly
speaking, the man who drinks from a bottle and smokes a pipe should prefer
jacket potatoes to other potato formats; the man who drinks from a glass and
smokes cigars should prefer baked and/or boiled potatoes to the alternative
potato formats; and, last but in no way morally least, the man who drinks from
a can and smokes cigarettes should prefer chips to either of the alternative
potato formats.
210. In such fashion it will be possible for us to
distinguish people across the broad spectrum of alpha-stemming (immoral) and
omega-oriented (moral) alternatives. For
the truly integrated man will be morally together in his habits, and the more
enlightened he is, the more morally together will he be. Thus the enlightened chip eater would find
potatoes and jacket potatoes no less beneath his moral pale than ... drinks in
glasses and bottles would be beneath the moral pale of the can drinker (not
necessarily alcohol), or cigars and pipes ... beneath the moral pale of the
cigarette smoker (not necessarily tobacco), and would eat, drink, and smoke on
the level of chips, cans, and cigarettes.
The test of a moral society is whether it acknowledges such a moral
disparity or whether, in open-society fashion, it strives to block notions of
moral hierarchy which run contrary to the traditional norms.
211. The man who is atomic and an integral part of
dualistic civilization will be more or less balanced between the 'I' of the
personal self and the 'I' of the impersonal, or transcendent, self - in short,
between person and persona. The fact of
his two 'I's' means that he will often confound the one with the other and
speak of each as if they were interchangeable or even identical. In writing, such a man will mix autobiography
with art; for his 'ego' is both personal and transcendent (albeit to a limited
extent), and he cannot conceive of the one without sooner or later conceiving
of the other in identical terms, i.e. as 'I'.
212. However, with the man who is not an integral
part of dualistic civilization but potentially or actually more attuned to a
transcendental civilization, no such ambiguity normally exists; for such a man
will relate more to his impersonal 'I' than to the personal one, and to such an
extent, in the more evolved cases, that the latter will have been transmuted
into a 'he', having become all but eclipsed by the former, so that instead of
'I' standing for both person and persona, or private and professional selves,
it will stand for the persona alone, which will tend ever more radically
towards the goal of self-transcending awareness in the ultimate 'I' of
God. In fact, one has not started on the
path to self-transcendence unless the personal 'I' has become 'he' and,
therefore, clearly distinguishable from the impersonal 'I' of the
superconscious persona.
213. Conversely, the man whose impersonal ego, or
superconscious mind, stands to him (his personal 'I') as a 'he' ... is as far
removed from the possibility of such salvation as it is humanly possible to be;
for he is centred in the personal 'I' and regards that which is not personal as
outside himself and effectively as 'he'.
The painter
214. Only when the impersonal self is uppermost,
and to the extent that the personal self becomes 'he', can it be said of a man that
he is moral and, hence, transcendental.
The man balanced between person and persona is simply amoral,
oscillating between the 'I' of the subconscious and the 'I' of the
superconscious in an egocentric compromise which is akin to Christianity and
its doctrine of the 'Three in One'. Such
a man may understand the world, but he will never understand the Holy
Spirit. If he is superior to the immoral
man, he is decidedly inferior to the moral one, in whom persona has eclipsed
the person to an extent which makes him truly 'born again', or transvaluated
(to use a Nietzschean equivalent).
215. What particularly distinguishes mankind from
the animal kind is its capacity for self-transcendence, its ability to escape
from the personal self in an absorption in something perceived as superior to
and greater than itself. A man can lose
himself in a painting, but a dog never!
Unlike human beings, dogs are tied to the natural world, and hence to
the personal self, to an extent which precludes even an indirect self-transcendence:
the sort of transcendence afforded man by art.
216. Yet if man is superior to dogs and, by
implication, all other animals in this way, he cannot know true
self-transcendence while he remains rooted in the personal self, in other words
while the impersonal self (the persona) of the artist or professional is
effectively a 'he' outside the personal self, or even, albeit to a lesser
extent, when the individual is balanced between his two 'I's' in a kind of
bourgeois compromise. For indirect self-transcendence
keeps one chained to appearances and is only acceptable and intelligible on the
basis that such a self-transcendence, be it through art, literature, music,
drama, or whatever, will be the norm so long as the personal self prevails and
man has not yet evolved to a transvaluated state, in which such a self has been
eclipsed by the transcendent, or impersonal, self.
217. All art is thus spiritually false, because
conceived on a materialistic basis in response to this basic limitation of
untransvaluated humanity. I am the
personal self and therefore the impersonal self is outside me ... as art or
music or literature, a 'he' or an 'it' distinct from the personal me, and
consequently I can only get lost in this other self on an external basis ...
through art, which, if genuine, is a reflection of something greater than
myself rather than a reflection of myself, i.e. the personal self. Such a reflection would no more be genuine
art than the reflection of my face in the mirror, since art must transcend the
personal self if it is to be fine and not bogus or decadent, like so much
contemporary so-called art.
218. However, what of the man who has transcended the
personal self and is rooted or, rather, centred in the impersonal self of the
persona? Clearly, such a man no longer
relates to art, since it is a crutch for those rooted in the personal self and
only a mode of indirect self-transcendence in consequence. This liberated man has no need of such
crutches; for he is capable of walking free of them in the interests of a
direct self-transcendence achieved through absorption in the impersonal self of
the superconscious, whether through mind-expanding drugs like LSD or, more
directly, through transcendental meditation.
For him, by contrast, the personal self is outside his true self, a 'he'
which must be eclipsed by the impersonal self, the ultimate 'I', if salvation
is to come genuinely to pass, no matter how humbly, initially, in relation to a
definitive heavenly condition. This man
despises art because he is the freest and most enlightened of men. His self-transcendence, or transcendence of
the personal self, is directly through his spirit rather than indirectly
through the materialistic medium of some art form external to himself. For him, art is bourgeois and therefore
unworthy of his attention. Art, too,
must be consigned to the rubbish heap of history, since it is irrelevant to
true self-transcendence. And too often
it is not even an indirect reflection of the higher self but a direct reflection
of the lower self, and thus doubly irrelevant!
A man is not liberated from the personal self until he is above art.
219. We should distinguish between a strictly
amoral integrity, which is middle ground, and an oscillation between immoral
and moral extremes; for whereas the former corresponds to neutron neutrality,
the latter corresponds, by contrast, to proton and electron alternations, and
therefore is only loosely amoral. In
fact, compared with neutron amorality, the proton/electron amorality is dynamic
rather than static, a positive, or active, amorality as opposed to a negative,
or passive, amorality - a mode of amorality one would more closely associate
with contemporary America than with Britain, and certainly more with
Catholicism than Protestantism. Indeed,
whereas the Protestant Christ is rather neutral in terms of His amoral stance
before the world, the Catholic Christ tends to oscillate between immoral
(Father) and moral (Holy Spirit) extremes.
For it cannot be denied that our immoral - amoral - moral triad extends
to the Trinity, and that, in relation to the Holy Spirit, the Father is immoral
and the Son amoral, as pertaining to their respective atomicities
(proton-proton reactions, proton/electron compromise, electron-electron attractions).
220. Thus while Christ is dynamically amoral in
Catholic Christianity, He is statically amoral in Protestant Christianity; the
difference, in effect, between romantic and classic, or pre- and post-worldly
extremes vis-à-vis a worldly mean.
Doubtless racial factors enter into this distinction, since
Protestantism is largely Nordic, whereas Catholicism is mainly Celtic (Latin)
and, to a lesser extent, Slavic. The
body is less disposed to a proton/electron oscillation than the head; indeed,
it corresponds to the nucleus of the world, and finds its political embodiment
in Liberalism, using that word in a loosely pluralistic sense. On the other hand, within liberal, or
parliamentary, politics, it is clear that there are two kinds of amorality, and
especially is this so of British politics: namely, the middle-ground 'neutron'
amorality of Liberalism in the strict party-political sense (whether called
Liberals, Liberal Democrats, or anything else), and the oscillatory
'proton/electron' amorality between capitalist Conservatism on the one hand and
socialist Labourism (Fabianism) on the other - hitherto the chief
twentieth-century mode of political amorality in Britain. Only in a socialist society can such
amorality be transcended. For as soon as
one does away with capitalism, there is no need of two or more parties, since
pluralism is largely a consequence of economic disparities and could not exist
where only moral economics, and therefore a moral political order, held sway. Where you have a free-electron order, there
can be no question of amoral compromises with proton equivalents, still less
with a 'neutron' middle-ground in between centrifugal (decentralized) and
centripetal (centralized) extremes. The
atom is transcended in the political nuclear fission which makes for a
free-electron society, and, lo and behold! morality comes absolutely to pass.
221. Books are relatively centrifugal phenomena
which open-out in a fan-like way, and consequently they are less moral than
immoral or, at best, amoral ... on account of their peculiar construction. The longest and therefore biggest books are
obviously the most immoral, whereas the shortest, smallest books are the least
immoral. Doubtless tapes are the most
moral (because centripetal) means of conveying verbal information to people,
and any writer who values morality will sooner or later want his work
transposed to tape. But, of course, only
short works can be fully transposed to tape without there being too many tapes
involved, and consequently it is unlikely that the writer of long books would
get his work on tape, which is probably just as well, since, morally speaking,
it would be illogical for one 'so far gone' in book immorality to seek
redemption in such a centripetal fashion.
Only the writer of short books is morally entitled, it seems to me, to
have his work transposed to tape and thus morally upgraded for the benefit, in
decades to come, of a morally more sensitive and demanding public. In short, a petty-bourgeois/proletarian
overlap as opposed to a grand-bourgeois kind of large book isolation in
irredeemable bookishness, the product of a deeply centrifugal mentality, like
that of John Cowper Powys - author of some of the longest novels in the English
language.
222. A white man is only truly above racism on the
day he discovers that he would be prepared to take a black or a coloured woman
to bed.
223. The trouble with woman is that, in
consequence of her comparative (in relation to men) physical weakness, she is
more disposed to hit a man when he is down than when he is up!
224. Yin and Yang, feminine and masculine,
appearance and essence, protons and electrons, centrifugal and centripetal,
nature and civilization, illusion and truth, fact and fiction - a whole range
of polar dichotomies which are in constant friction as the world devolves from
the alpha absolute and evolves towards the omega absolute in the unfolding of
its destiny. Comparatively speaking,
woman is an illusory fact and man a truthful fiction, since the one is a given
and the other a becoming, like nature and civilization. The given devolves from cosmic doing
(proton-proton reactions), whereas the becoming evolves towards supercosmic
being (electron-electron attractions), and the world is the
devolutionary/evolutionary atomic stage upon which the tragicomedy of human
struggle is played out. Of course, women
can and do take part in the becoming and men, by contrast, in the given, but
that is rather the exception to the rule within strictly worldly
parameters. Most women, now as before,
are more of the given than of the becoming, just as most men are more of the
becoming than of the given, and so it will continue until the world comes to an
end and all the given gives way to doing in the 'Kingdom of Hell', and all
becoming, in turn, makes way for being in the 'Kingdom of Heaven'. For with the triumph of the masculine ideal,
everything feminine will pass from the world and only doing and being remain, a
soulful doing and a spiritual being, as germane to Democratic Communism and to
Transcendental Communism respectively - fire and light of post-worldly
absolutes.
225. Just as the best literature is ever
fictitious, so the worst literature is ever factual; for fiction pertains to
the masculine becoming whereas facts are rooted in the feminine given. Yet fact and fiction are more a dichotomy of
the world, i.e. a relative dichotomy, than a dichotomy outside the world, i.e.
an absolute dichotomy, as between that which, as doing, precedes the given and
that which, as being, succeeds the becoming - in other words, illusion and
truth. Therefore the absolutely worst
writing will be illusory, whereas the absolutely best writing will be truthful,
so that illusion and truth may be said to flank fact and fiction as alpha and
omega flank the world. Generally
speaking, factual writing is realistic and tends to educate; fictional writing
is materialistic and tends to entertain; illusory writing is naturalistic and
tends to mystify; and truthful writing is idealistic and tends to
enlighten. Of the literary arts, one
might say that drama is comparatively factual, literature (novels and short
stories) comparatively fictional, poetry absolutely illusory, and philosophy
absolutely truthful. Though this is by
no means always the case in practice!
226. However, it would seem that a major elemental
antithesis (vertical) can be said to exist between realistic fact (the given)
and idealistic truth (being), whereas a minor elemental antithesis (vertical)
may be said to exist between materialistic fiction (the becoming) and
naturalistic illusion (doing). Poetry,
particularly in its oral manifestation, is the earliest of the literary arts
and leads to drama, as doing to the given.
Philosophy, particularly in its theosophical manifestation, is the most
recent of the literary arts and stems from literature, as being from the
becoming. Poetry - drama/literature -
philosophy: a devolutionary/ evolutionary equation between poetry and drama on
the one side (doing - the given), and literature and philosophy on the other
side (the becoming - being). Illusion -
fact/fiction - Truth.
227. Thus it can be said that one devolves from
illusion to fact, but evolves from fiction to truth. Devolves from poetry to drama, but evolves
from literature to philosophy. The
alpha-stemming devolutionary types will prefer poetry and drama to literature
and philosophy, whereas the omega-oriented evolutionary types will prefer
literature and philosophy to drama and poetry.
Because poetry is, to all intents and purposes, the oldest of the
literary arts and philosophy the youngest, drama and literature come
in-between, as relevant to a more relative and therefore worldly age. And this according to an alpha-to-omega, or
horizontal, perspective, as opposed to an elemental, or vertical, one, wherein
we proceed upwards, as it were, from drama to philosophy via literature and
poetry, and therefore can speak of drama as the lowest and philosophy as the
highest of the literary arts.
228. The very contemporary phenomenon of
'factitious' novel-writing, or novels based on fact rather than conceived in a
properly fictional vein, suggests to me a literary decadence wherein true
fiction is rendered impossible by dint of the author's overdependence upon
fact, whether autobiographical or otherwise.
Instead of progressing towards truth, as the best fictional writing
should, such 'factitious' writing indicates a regression to fact, to the given,
and often becomes overdramatic. Instead of finding an increasingly masculine
emphasis, one finds in these overly realistic novels a strongly feminine
element which, whether or not because they are more usually written by women,
drags literature back and down towards drama and other kinds of factual
writings. The best and most progressive
novels, by contrast, will tend upwards and forwards from fiction to truth, and
it would be scant exaggeration to say that, at their most evolved level, they
are scarcely distinguishable from philosophy, since more concerned to enlighten
than simply to entertain or, worse still, to instruct.
229. Between the poet who mystifies and the
philosopher who enlightens, there is all the difference in the world between
the alpha of illusion and the omega of truth.
But strictly between them is the dramatist who seeks to instruct and the
novelist who seeks to entertain.
230. Using Spenglerian distinctions in regard to
historical epochs, viz. 'Historyless Chaos' (naturalism), 'Culture' (realism),
'Civilization' (materialism), and 'Second Religiousness' (idealism), it could
be argued that the poet is par excellence the writer or, at any rate, literary
artist of 'Historyless Chaos'; the dramatist
par excellence the writer of 'Culture'; the novelist par
excellence the writer of 'Civilization'; and the philosopher par
excellence the writer of 'Second Religiousness', even when, as is often the
case, poets, dramatists, novelists, and philosophers write out-of-epoch, as it
were, albeit within terms roughly corresponding to their rightful epoch - as to
a certain extent did the poets Yeats and Pound, who were great mystifiers in an
age of entertainment, i.e. fiction.
231. Poets and playwrights are often in league
together, as, for that matter, are novelists and philosophers. Indeed, it often transpires that, when the
playwright and poet is not one and the same person, the playwright looks up to
the poet as to a superior type of writer, just as, when they are not one and
the same, the novelist looks up to the philosopher in such fashion. Yet to look up to an omega-oriented
philosopher is one thing; to look up to an alpha-stemming poet quite
another! For in the former instance one
must be transvaluated to a degree, whereas in the latter instance one can only
be untransvaluated and thus fundamentally alpha stemming oneself, albeit on a
more devolved basis.
232. In the context of English civilization, the
progression or, more correctly, regression/progression from Chaucer to
Shakespeare and from Dickens to Russell (Bertrand) is one, corresponding to the
Spenglerian epochs, from the most outstanding poet to the most outstanding
playwright, and from the most outstanding novelist to the most outstanding
philosopher. For, in its unbroken
continuity, English civilization tends to embrace the four epochs in question,
viz. 'Historyless Chaos', 'Culture', 'Civilization', and 'Second Religiousness'
- from the early Middle Ages through the Elizabethan period to the Victorian
era and, with the twentieth century, to the age of Socialism and, consequently,
an inceptive or rudimentary mode of 'Second Religiousness'. (Arguably Communism, and in particular the
Transcendental Communism I have described elsewhere, is the more evolved and,
hence, truer manifestation of 'Second Religiousness'.) Thus Chaucer and Shakespeare on the one hand,
and Dickens and Russell on the other, with Chaucer and Russell alpha illusion
and omega truth respectively of this particular civilization, but Shakespeare
and Dickens the 'factual' and fictional worldly giants coming in-between. Poetic doing, the dramatic given, novelistic
becoming, and philosophic being.
233. In ancient Greek civilization we have the
poetic alpha of Homer and the philosophic omega of Plato, but no real worldly
antithesis in between - largely because there were no novelists in ancient
Greece, though plenty of dramatists, of whom Sophocles and Aeschylus are among
the better known.
234. No less than doing extends into the given,
being can be found in the becoming. As
doing devolves into the given, so being evolves out of the becoming. When doing is most itself and alpha stemming,
it manifests in speech, that is to say in the oral transmission of poetry; for
poetry was spoken long before it was ever written or read, and such speech
corresponds, particularly when most passionate, to a strictly alpha-stemming
integrity commensurate with cosmic as opposed to worldly parallels, insofar as
speech is a thing of the head rather than of the body, and the head - at any
rate in its old-brain/subconscious manifestations - corresponds to the cosmos
as opposed to the world, i.e. the planet earth.
However, with drama, even when poetic, we have a devolution of doing
from the absolute to the relative and its subsequent absorption by the given;
for dramatic acting corresponds to the body and thus to the world, and even
poetic drama - undoubtedly the highest kind of drama - will be less a thing of
the head than poetry-proper, and therefore a diluted or corrupted form of
'poetry' which exists, in relative doing, within the bodily context of the
given. Now the more factual the drama the
less poetic it will be and consequently the more purely dramatic, with doing
firmly subordinated to the given, which manifests through physical gestures as
bodily will. Poetic drama is thus an
accommodation of doing to the world, and the more worldly the drama, i.e. the
more it approximates to the given, the less speech there will be and the
greater, in consequence, the degree of physical action. Or, alternatively, the more speech will be
subordinated to bodily action, serving merely to explain or justify it.
235. Conversely, the being of literary becoming
will be firmly subordinated to the becoming, i.e. the narrative, when
literature is most true to itself and thus predominantly fictional. But the more truthful, and hence philosophical,
literature becomes, the less subordinate being will be to the becoming until,
at the utmost level of philosophical literature, it threatens to break away, as
from the relative to the absolute, and so attain to an outright philosophical
independence of becoming, which is to say the narrative unfolding of
fiction. Yet even philosophical
literature is predominantly literary and thus essentially a manifestation of
the becoming rather than a vehicle for being, just as, to take an opposite
case, poetic drama (the highest kind of drama) is essentially dramatic and thus
a manifestation of the given rather than a vehicle for doing. Literature cannot transcend the becoming
without ceasing to be literary, and so if being is to become manifest in the
world it must take an overtly philosophical form, where Truth can be developed
to the utmost limits of its intellectual realization, and this being-oriented
philosophy will be as much above and beyond philosophical literature as ...
doing-oriented poetry was above and before poetic drama.
236. Therefore as we pass from fiction to truth
with being-in-the-becoming, so we pass beyond fiction to Truth with the
become-of-being, which requires a philosophical presentation. In the philosopher, being attains to its
fruition, and he is both the ultimate writer and the end of writing. Beyond him there can be only the fuller
realized being of pure spirit through meditation. The philosopher is the omega writer, and the
ultimate philosopher, or ontological theosophist, most especially so. His Truth stands in sharp contrast to the
Illusion of alpha poets, as being to doing, or the Holy Spirit to the
Father. The omega philosopher is all
essence and the alpha poets are all appearance.
He is thought and they are speech.
He is centripetal and they are centrifugal. He is moral and they are immoral. He is the End and they are the
Beginning. By contrast, novelists are
the-beginning-of-the-end and dramatists the-end-of-the-beginning, bearing in
mind the evolutionary and devolutionary distinctions which exist between
them. Now if alpha poets are immoral and
omega philosophers moral, then (worldly) dramatists and novelists are alike
amoral - the former more usually in a negative (tragic) sense and the latter
more often in a positive (comic) sense.
Thus a cosmic immorality to a feminine worldly amorality on the
devolutionary side (of poets and dramatists), analogous to the distinction
between dresses and skirts, but a masculine worldly amorality to a supercosmic
morality on the evolutionary side (of novelists and philosophers), analogous to
the distinction between trousers and one-piece zipper suits.
237. Poetic naturalism to dramatic realism;
novelistic materialism to philosophic idealism.
For naturalism and realism are no less the poetic and dramatic norms ...
than materialism and idealism the novelistic and philosophic norms. The most poetic poetry will be naturalistic
and the most dramatic drama realistic.
The most novelistic (narrative) fiction will be materialistic and the
most philosophic philosophy idealistic.
The further poetry is from naturalism the less genuinely poetical will
it be, whilst, at the opposite extreme, the further philosophy is from idealism
the less genuinely philosophical will it be.
In a relatively alpha-stemming (poetic) age, philosophy will be
comparatively illusory and thus a sham by any strictly philosophical
criterion. Conversely, in a relatively
omega-oriented (philosophic) age, poetry will be comparatively truthful (in the
metaphysical sense) and thus a sham by any strictly poetical criterion. Drama and literature (novels) are only
possible in a worldly age or civilization.
For realism and materialism cannot flourish in either naturalistic or
idealistic ages, as pertaining to alpha-stemming and omega-oriented extremes.
238. To see realism as a revolt against naturalism
and idealism as a revolt against materialism, insofar as we are dealing with
four broad periods of historical time which correspond to the Spenglerian
distinctions between 'Historyless Chaos' and 'Culture' on the one hand, and ...
'Civilization' and 'Second Religiousness' on the other hand. Clearly the first period is naturalistic
because pagan, cosmic, pantheistic, animistic, etc., whereas the second period
signifies a humanistic, and hence realistic, revolt against naturalism which
takes the form of Christianity and its anthropomorphic associations. Such a revolt is more marked in Protestantism
than in Catholicism, and one could describe Protestantism as an anti-realist
realism, in view of its traditional hostility to the Catholic Church. Certainly it is true that Protestantism
indirectly paved the way for the liberal, capitalist materialism to follow,
with the development of 'Civilization' (in the Spenglerian sense of that term),
and if capitalism is the alpha of this third historical period, then Socialism
must assuredly be its omega, a kind of anti-materialist materialism which sets
itself up against capitalism much as Protestantism set itself up against
Catholicism, and which can only have the effect (so I firmly believe) of
indirectly paving the way for the Social Transcendentalist idealism to come -
an idealism which will usher in the fourth period, corresponding to 'Second
Religiousness', on an appropriately Transcendental Communist note. Our age is on the verge, it seems to me, of
such an idealistic breakthrough, and while Democratic Communism may be more
socialist than transcendentalist, nevertheless a truly transcendental type of
Communism is in the making and will one day lay claim to its rightful place in
the world, in order to usher in the 'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth and the
'reign' of the Second Coming. Such
idealism will be as superior to realism as materialism to naturalism. For truth is no less superior to fact than
fiction to illusion, or, in Spenglerian terms, 'Second Religiousness' is no
less superior to 'Culture' than 'Civilization' to 'Historyless Chaos'. For whilst a parallel certainly exists
between being and the given on the one hand and the becoming and doing on the
other, being is no less superior to the given than the becoming to doing. Better the idealistic being which evolves out
of the materialistic becoming, than the realistic given which devolves from
naturalistic doing.
239. With that said, however, all that remains for
me to do is to correlate each of the above categories with its corresponding
element, i.e. earth, water, fire, air, in order for our elemental spectra to be
complete in both a vertical and, as here, an horizontal sense. Thus as naturalistic doing precedes the
realistic given, it should follow that doing correlates with fire and the given
with earth, since fire connotes with naturalism and earth with realism. Similarly we may hold that, as the
materialistic becoming precedes idealistic being, the becoming correlates with
water and being with air, since water has a materialistic connotation and air
an idealistic one. Hence, to compare the
two, we may argue that fire, earth, water, and air is the order of elements
corresponding to doing, the given, the becoming, and being, and that, whilst
each element co-exists in the world with the others, there is still an overall
historical sense in which we have a regression from fire to earth and a
progression from water to air, which corresponds to the evolutionary/devolutionary
distinction between doing and the given on the one hand, and the becoming and
being on the other hand. Which is no
less a regression from heat to darkness in the one context (devolutionary) and
a progression from coldness to light in the other context (evolutionary), since
heat is to fire and darkness to earth what coldness is to water and light to
air - the qualitative aspect of an elemental quantity.
240. Therefore whereas naturalistic doing is hot
and the realistic given dark, like fire and earth respectively, the
materialistic becoming is cold and idealistic being light, like water and air
respectively. Considered in a horizontal
sense, heat and light are the qualitative antipodes of life, with darkness and
coldness coming in-between. Heat is
illusion and darkness fact. Coldness is
fiction and light truth. Or, rather,
fire is illusion and earth fact. Water
is fiction and air truth. For heat is
agony and darkness fear. Coldness is
hope and light joy. Quantities connote
with quantities and qualities with qualities, and the two should never be
confounded!
241. Fire is the element of poets, whose doing is
illusory. Earth is the element of
playwrights, whose given is factual.
Water is the element of novelists, whose becoming is fictional. Air is the element of philosophers, whose
being is truthful.
242. It is ridiculous to equate Socialism with
internationalism, as though only Socialism were internationalist. Countries have been international for centuries
... almost since the beginning of nation-state time, since it is impossible for
nations to exist in 'splendid isolation' from one another as so many
independent units. The only difference
between now and then was that in the past the relationship between countries
was more competitive and violent than it generally tends to be these days, and
although wars and other forms of international violence have not ceased to
occur, nonetheless we live in an age when international exchanges are normally
conducted on a more co-operative and peaceful basis than was formerly the case,
with a result that the world is slowly becoming positively as opposed to
negatively internationalist, which is to say internationalist in a co-operative
or socialist fashion. Yet competitiveness
still exists and will doubtless continue to do so for as long as capitalism and
other forms of alpha-stemming immorality prevail, which will probably continue
to be the case for some time to come, bearing in mind the relative nature of the
world and, indeed, of all human life.
Which is not to say that we can't ever get to a stage when only
co-operation prevails (since that would be to rule out all possibility of moral
progress), but, rather, that the struggle against centrifugal immorality can
only be long and hard, given the facts of atomic existence. Probably there will always be some degree of
capitalism even in the best of (socialist) worlds, though more in the form of
low-key private enterprise on or off the 'black market' than in the form of
widespread capitalist freedoms in countries as a whole. For as long as capitalist countries continue
to exist, there will be no true co-operative internationalism but only
competitive internationalism or, at best, a compromise between co-operative and
competitive economics.
243. Colour television can only have the effect,
after a while, of breaking down and counteracting our dependence on print. For the more one watches colour television,
the less one will want to read a book (with its black characters on a white
page). Only a black-and-white television
can be expected to psychologically harmonize with print, and, to reverse the
argument, one could maintain that for compulsive bookworms who yet have some time
for TV, a black-and-white television is probably a better idea than a colour
one - provided one wishes to retain a respect for print!
244. However that may be, if it is doubtful that
colour television and print go together, there can be no doubt that colour
books, i.e. books with colour reproductions, will harmonize with colour
television, and probably be the favourite if not the only reading matter of
people habituated to watching it. And,
doubtless, such books are as superior to conventional books with black print on
white paper as colour television to its black-and-white counterpart. Doubtless, too, we should associate colour
magazines with video, regarding them as a kind of extrapolation from colour
books and a suitable form of reading matter for people who prefer video to
television.
245. I find it difficult not to believe that a
man's sexual ego is primarily conditioned by the size of his penis, so that the
bigger the penis the bigger the sexual ego and, conversely, the smaller the
penis the smaller the sexual ego, with due gradations of what may be termed
average sexual ego coming in-between.
Similarly, it seems just as credible to believe that a woman's sexual
ego will depend to a quite significant extent on the size of her breasts, so
that small breasts will make for a comparatively small sexual ego and large
breasts, by contrast, for a comparatively large one. Doubtless men with small sexual egos will
generally prefer the company of women with small sexual egos and, conversely,
men with large sexual egos the company of women whose sexual egos are large,
since like is attracted to like and it is rather unlikely that a man with a
small penis would wish to impose himself upon a woman with large breasts or,
alternatively, that a man with a large penis would turn a blind eye to a woman
with large breasts in preference for one whose breasts were scarcely
perceptible. Yet, exceptions
notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that sexual egos are physically
conditioned, since sex is itself physical and like begets like. Neither need we suppose that a small sexual
ego is necessarily a misfortune or that a large one is inevitably
fortunate. The person with a small
sexual ego is more likely to have a large intellectual or spiritual one, and to
look down upon the sexually egocentric person as a sort of semi-beast incapable
of true intellectual or spiritual accomplishment; for it cannot be denied that
men with small penises and women with small breasts are usually endowed with
big heads, metaphorically speaking, and pride themselves less on being physical
than spiritual. One could even go so far
as to say that unless a man has a small penis or a woman small breasts, there
is relatively little prospect of his/her achieving anything much in the way of
intellectual, cultural, religious, or artistic endeavour, since these things of
the spirit presuppose a spiritual predilection, which in turn presupposes a
comparatively small sexual ego - else where or how would one find the time or
inclination to dedicate oneself to them?
Truly, the highest men are not born to fornicate but to avoid
fornication, and, as Baudelaire aptly says: 'The more a man cultivates the arts
the less he fornicates'. Yet, for my
part, I say: that man will better cultivate the arts who, for physical reasons,
has a small sexual ego to begin with!
246. Work stems from doing; play aspires towards
being. Work, as a rule, is centrifugal
and objective; play, by contrast, centripetal and subjective. Work is a curse that has to be escaped from
... through play. For only in play does
one come to know the '
247. Since I have equated work with doing and play
with being, I should now like to distinguish between natural work and
artificial work on the one hand and natural play and artificial play on the
other, reserving for natural work the equation with doing and for artificial
play the equation with being, but introducing two new equations in the form of
natural play with the given and artificial work with the becoming, so that,
from a simple doing/being antithesis between work and play, we progress to the
more comprehensive antitheses between doing and the given on the one hand, and
the becoming and being on the other, with natural work and play appertaining to
the former antithesis, but artificial work and play to the latter one. Therefore if natural work is alone equated
with doing and, hence, an inherently alpha-stemming naturalistic age or
society, commensurate with Spengler's 'Historyless Chaos', only artificial play
should be equated with being and thus an inherently omega-oriented idealistic
age or society such as will correspond to Spengler's (period of) 'Second
Religiousness'. By contrast, natural
play should only be equated with the given and, hence, with a realistic age or
society corresponding to Spengler's 'Culture', whereas artificial work should
be equated with the becoming and therefore with a materialistic age or society
commensurate with Spengler's 'Civilization' - the modern age par excellence, in
which artificial work is the work and the industrial worker the
representative figure.
248. Although natural work (manual labour, farm
labour, etc.) and natural play (sex, sport, etc.) still of course exist, we
live in an increasingly artificial age which has its fulcrum, so to speak, in
artificial work (mechanical, industrial, technological, commercial), in
accordance with materialistic criteria.
Such an age is akin to a second alpha in that it reflects, on higher
terms, the first alpha age (of natural work), and stands in opposition to the
first omega age (of natural play) as a kind of historical fall from the given
to the becoming or, what amounts to the same, from realism to materialism. If a second omega age is to emerge it can
only do so at the expense of this second alpha age, and in terms of the most
artificial play such that being attains to full maturity as idealism supersedes
materialism in the interests of universal salvation. Such artificial play, commensurate, amongst
other things, with synthetically-induced visionary experience, will be as
superior to the materialistically-compromised artificial play of television and
video as essence to appearance or, in natural terms, visions to dreams, and
lead towards the ultimate being of a truly divine play, such that no compromise
with work of any description would be either desirable or, indeed,
possible. For work is ever immoral in
relation to play, which, at its most being-oriented heights, attains to the
true morality of God.
249. Burial of the dead stands between the
alpha-stemming funeral pyre and the omega-oriented cremation as a kind of
worldly norm suitable to a bodily (as opposed to a head) people and/or
age. There are two types of burial: on
land and at sea, and whereas the former is realistic, the latter is
materialistic. In fact, burial on land,
i.e. in the earth, stands to the funeral pyre as realism to naturalism or, in
Spenglerian parlance, as 'Culture' to 'Historyless Chaos', while burial at sea
stands to cremation as materialism to idealism, or 'Civilization' to 'Second
Religiousness'. Therefore realism and
materialism are flanked, here as elsewhere, by naturalism and idealism
respectively - doing and being as alpha and omega extremes either side of the
given and the becoming, or, in concrete terms, burial on land and burial at
sea. Ours is an age when all kinds of
waste, human and non-human, is dumped into the sea - people being, for the most
part, either buried on land, i.e. in cemeteries, or cremated. Doubtless as land becomes increasingly
expensive and more sought-after for other purposes, not to mention in shorter
supply as the population continues to increase, burial will be totally eclipsed
by cremation, and especially would this be the case in a post-worldly and
therefore omega-oriented age, when all forms of burial, including the dumping
of non-human waste at sea, would be frowned upon as incompatible with the moral
requirements of such an idealistic time - a time when waste is for the most
part incinerated rather than buried or dumped, and the becoming duly gives way
to being.
250i. And they asked him: What is evil? And he
replied: That which, as the negative given, engenders or is engendered by pain.
ii. So they asked him:
What, then, is good? And he replied: That which, as the positive given,
engenders or is engendered by pleasure.
iii. And they asked him:
What is weakness? And he replied: That which, as the negative becoming,
engenders or is engendered by humiliation.
iv. So they asked him:
What, then, is strength? And he replied: That which, as the positive becoming,
engenders or is engendered by pride.
251i. And they asked him: What is ugly? And he
replied: That which, as negative doing, engenders or is engendered by hate.
ii. So they asked him:
What, then, is beauty? And he replied: That which, as positive doing, engenders
or is engendered by love.
iii. And they asked him:
What is illusion? And he replied: That which, as negative being, engenders or
is engendered by sorrow.
iv. So they asked him:
What, then, is truth? And he replied: That which, as positive being, engenders
or is engendered by joy.
252i. Truth is the appearance of joy; joy the
essence of truth.
ii. Beauty is the
appearance of love; love the essence of beauty.
iii. Strength is the
appearance of pride; pride the essence of strength.
iv. Goodness is the
appearance of pleasure; pleasure the essence of goodness.
253i. Conversely, evil is the appearance of pain;
pain the essence of evil.
ii. Weakness is the appearance
of humiliation; humiliation the essence of weakness.
iii. Ugliness is the
appearance of hate; hate the essence of ugliness.
iv. Illusion is the
appearance of sorrow; sorrow the essence of illusion.
254. If we do not literally see the world as it is,
that is only because the mind superimposes a layer of psychic conditioning upon
what we do see, so that it is intelligible in the context of prior
understanding. I see a dictionary on my
table because I know, from experience, what a dictionary is and where it
stands, practically speaking, in relation to the table. Were I to see it purely, without prior
conditioning, I wouldn't know what to make of it, any more than a cat or a dog
would know what to make of something of which it had no prior understanding. Seeing objects within the world purely, that
is to say, without reference to prior knowledge of what they are, would be akin
to how an animal generally sees things, would in fact be to lose one's mind and
thus be baffled or even horrified by what one saw, simply because one had no
idea of its meaning or purpose. Now if
an animal can live with such a state-of-affairs, that is only because it is
relatively unintelligent and not unduly curious about man-made objects. For us, on the other hand, pure seeing is,
short of madness, virtually impossible because we have too much mind and could
not live in the world without projecting onto what we see our knowledge of
it. Certainly, knowledge does not come
to us from objects, but is applied by us to the objects which constitute our
daily world. My pen is only a 'pen'
because I know what a pen is and recognize what I am holding in my hand as
such. The subject conditions the object,
not vice versa.
255. Everything that is alpha stemming and natural
is comparatively easy; it is the artificial and omega-oriented tendencies which
require some effort, an effort which we define in terms of civilization, with
its rules of conduct. Thus it is easy to
hate; any fool can hate because hate is an alpha-stemming tendency. But to love takes culture and civilization,
because love is an omega-oriented tendency which is more the product of
evolutionary effort than of natural disposition. It is harder to 'turn the other cheek' than
to strike back, and yet how superior is the person who can do that, in relation
to the one who behaves in a natural alpha-stemming, and hence heathen, way!
256. The old division, well-known to philosophy,
between the deniers of life and the affirmers of life should be settled, once
and for all, on the basis of an alpha-stemming/omega-oriented dichotomy. For denial, being negative, is alpha stemming
and thus of a proton bias, whereas affirmation, being positive, is omega
orientated and thus of an electron bias.
The alpha-stemming person is therefore as likely to deny life, whether
in the philosophic spirit of Schopenhaurian resignation or in some other cruder
way, as the omega-oriented person to affirm it, whether in the philosophic
spirit of a Nietzschean amor fati or in some other cruder
way. There can be no question, to judge
from a transvaluated standpoint, of life affirmation being folly or immoral or
in some way contrary to spiritual wellbeing, although there are certainly
different ways of affirming it, not all of which would be guaranteed to appeal
to an enlightened person! In fact, the
more enlightened the person, the less likelihood there is of his affirming life
in terms, say, of 'worldly' pleasure or 'purgatorial' pride or even of
'diabolic' love, since he will prefer the idealistic option of 'divine' joy,
achieved or furthered through the agency of truth.
257. For here, as elsewhere, there are four main
spectra of life affirmation, corresponding to the elements and stretching from realism
at the bottom to idealism at the top (with materialism and naturalism lying
in-between), and whether one primarily affirms the lowest or the highest or,
indeed, either of the intermediate spectra, will depend, to a significant
extent, upon the type of person one is and the nature of the age or society in
which one happens to live. Certainly the
twentieth century was more an age, particularly in the West, of life
affirmation through pleasure and pride than through love or joy, although these
higher modes of its affirmation were nevertheless endorsed by a more
enlightened minority in the face of majority pressures, even if, in the
circumstances, their endorsement necessarily fell short of maximum realization,
such as could only materialize in a higher and better age - one more communist
than liberal. Yet not to affirm life in
this day and age would be a moral failing, though one could be forgiven for
choosing to deny the baser manifestations of life affirmation in favour of a
superior, if currently untypical, manifestation of its affirmation, even at the
risk of being misunderstood by or ostracized from a society largely dedicated,
when not denying life through overwork, to the pursuit of worldly pleasures.
258. One such worldly pleasure is undoubtedly sex,
and if one chooses, in one's wisdom, to deny sex a central or important role in
one's life it is probably because one prefers to affirm some higher ideal than
pleasure, rather than because one is a denier of life as such and thus somewhat
morally disreputable, i.e. more alpha stemming than omega orientated, and
therefore more negative (of a proton bias) than positive (of an electron
bias). I prefer, at any rate, to regard
myself as the affirmer of a higher ideal than pleasure, which doubtless owes not
a little to the fact that I am more of a truthful man, or man of the truth,
than a good man, or man of the good act, on account of my being less a body
than a head. Certainly I am not of the
world, in the sense of being a bodily pleasure-seeking insider in such a
typically worldly country as Britain, but, like Christ, am more a man of Heaven
or God beyond and above the world, who knows that before Heaven can become a
fact of the Beyond it must first become a fact of life on earth, and thus
eventually supersede or eclipse the world, i.e. the bodily way of life.
259. Yet Heaven is quite a long way from coming to
earth at present, which is why people like me, who prefer joy to pleasure, and
therefore truth to goodness, can only be outsiders in the kind of society they
happen to inhabit - secret or open opponents of worldly life as they find it
all around them. For such a society puts
a premium on pleasure, which, like it or not, is the lowest form of life
affirmation, a form incapable of expansion towards the Infinite by dint of its
bodily limitations and/or essence. Take
sexual pleasure, for instance. However a
man may achieve this - and masturbation is avowedly no less a method than
copulation - the end result is equally finite; the pleasure is transitory and
brings in its train hours if not days of pain - the pain, more usually, of sore
pudenda or, speaking more bluntly, achy balls.
Ejaculation engenders a kind of uncomfortable hotness in the testicles
which is the physical price one pays for the metaphysical pleasure of
ejaculating, and, on balance, it will be found that the ratio of pleasure to
pain is not such as to warrant too regular a recourse to ejaculation since,
quite apart from the obvious physical impossibility of ejaculating too
frequently, the degree of pleasure is comparatively less than the amount of
pain, discomfort, etc., resulting from the act.
Now this is primarily because the atomicity of the testicles, as of the
flesh generally, is constituted in such a way that the capacity for pain will
always be greater than the capacity for pleasure since, in its alpha-stemming
(naturalistic) constitution, such an atomicity will be more biased towards
protons than electrons, and thus disposed to the negative to a greater extent
than to the positive, i.e. to pain to a greater extent than to pleasure, which,
by contrast, requires an electron preponderance. Such a preponderance, it need hardly be said,
can only be achieved in the brain, particularly the new brain, and more in
consequence of psychic conditioning than from any innate disposition of
electrons over protons, so that creating a capacity for greater pleasure or,
rather, joy ... is largely an individual matter, dependent upon our ability to
develop and expand consciousness to greater heights as we evolve.
260. Thus whereas the atomicity of the body is
static, the atomicity of the brain can be modified and transmuted towards an
electron preponderance which, the more evolved the psyche, will permit of a
degree of positivity far in excess of the degree accruing, as pleasure, to the
body and, in this particular case, the pleasure obtainable from
ejaculation. Such pleasure is finite,
but the joy which can be achieved through careful mental nurturing intimates of
the Infinite - indeed, is a foretaste of the heavenly condition, and one,
moreover, which will not bring a greater degree of sadness in its wake, since
the capacity for negativity is less in the new brain than the capacity for
positivity on account of the reduced proton content accruing to that brain and
thus, by implication, to superconscious mind.
The old brain may not be so favourably disposed to a positive bias - and
rare indeed are dreams which, by dint of a strong positive content, make for
happiness - but the new brain is an entirely different proposition, and the
more we cultivate the superconscious at the expense not only of the
subconscious but of the body in general, the greater becomes its capacity for
joy. At the risk of seeming too futuristic,
it could be said that only when the new brain is rendered physically
independent of both the body and the old brain in what I like to think of as
the second phase of the post-Human Millennium, will the capacity for positivity
be increased to a near absolute point - one presaging transcendence and thus
the attainment of pure electron spirit to perfect bliss in the heavenly Beyond,
where only electron-electron attractions would
exist ... in blessed independence of proton sorrow for all Eternity.
261. Of course, all this takes us rather a long
way from the present, and thus from the discussion of relative positivities
which we have embarked upon. But,
relative creatures though we are, we still aspire towards the absolute and
thereby seek salvation from the negative on a variety of levels, some of which,
as already remarked, are rather less satisfying than others on account of their
dependence on the flesh and its unchanging atomicity. Certainly, Schopenhauer was right to belittle
pleasure in relation to pain, since pain is much stronger than pleasure, and we
can even regress to a negative absolute in the event of being burnt to
death. Yet we would not be furthering
evolutionary progress and serving ourselves were we to draw the sort of
pessimistic conclusions from that fact which Schopenhauer, in his
alpha-stemming bias, saw fit to do, and thereby resigned ourselves to defeatism
in the face of a preponderating negativity.
For the flesh is not everything, and while we may still have a long way
to go before we can completely transcend it, the mind beckons us towards that
joyful wisdom which Nietzsche glimpsed in his moments of optimistic
enlightenment, when light banished darkness, and happiness came flooding
through like an intimation of eternal bliss.
There is no higher positive than the joyful positive, and one day all
humanity will come to it as, one by one, the lower positives are eclipsed, and
all negativity is accordingly banished.
262. The reader will note that I made mention of
joyful positive in relation to lower positives rather than of joyful wisdom in
relation to lower wisdoms, and this was because, while joy is certainly a
wisdom, indeed the highest wisdom, love and pride and less wisdoms than
follies, and pleasure is only a worldly wisdom.
In fact, if we remember that wisdom can be both negative and
positive, not to mention folly as well, then we won't hesitate to distinguish
between the joyful wisdom of a divine omega orientation in relation to the
sorrowful wisdom of a divine alpha orientation, equating the former with an electron-wavicle
bias and the latter with a proton-wavicle one, as befitting divine
idealism. In this respect both Nietzsche
and Schopenhauer were wise philosophers - the only difference being that
whereas Schopenhauer was wise in a negative, life-denying way, Nietzsche's
wisdom (at least up until he went insane) took a positive, life-affirming
stance, so that whereas the former was alpha stemming, the latter was omega
orientated.
263. Such a polar distinction as accrues to the
idealistic spectrum of heavenly wisdom will also accrue to each of the lower
spectra, from the naturalistic and materialistic to the realistic, except that
the distinction in regard to naturalism and materialism will be between
different kinds of folly, while the distinction in regard to realism will be
between two kinds of worldly wisdom, broadly definable in terms of stoicism and
hedonism respectively, as pertaining to pain at the negative pole and to
pleasure at the positive one. If the
idealistic spectrum affords us two kinds of pure wisdom on account of the
wavicle absolutism which equally pertains to its proton and electron poles,
then the realistic spectrum presents us with two kinds of impure, or worldly,
wisdom on account of the atomic relativity accruing to the wavicle bias of both
its proton-atomic and electron-atomic poles, i.e. wavicle-biased proton-atomic
relativity in the case of the negative, or alpha-stemming, realistic pole;
wavicle-biased electron-atomic relativity in the case of the positive, or
omega-oriented, realistic pole - the former connoting with pain and the latter
with pleasure. Thus idealism and realism
afford us the clash of two modes of wisdom, whether negative or positive,
rather than, say, of wisdom on the one hand (idealism) and folly on the other
(realism) - the wisdom, one might argue, of air and earth respectively or,
translated into political terms, of Ireland and Britain, Catholicism and
Liberalism. For wisdom can only be
deduced from a wavicle bias, such as both idealism and realism have in common.
264. Where a particle bias is concerned, however,
we are in the realm of folly, whether in terms of the pure folly of a particle
absolutism, such as accrues to naturalism, or the impure, or purgatorial, folly
of a particle-biased atomic relativity, as in the case of materialism. Thus hate and love are antithetical
manifestations of pure folly, the former negative, as pertaining to a
proton-particle absolutism, and the latter positive, as pertaining to an
electron-particle absolutism within the overall context of a naturalistic
(diabolic) spectrum. Likewise,
humiliation and pride are antithetical manifestations of impure folly, the
former negative, since accruing to a particle-biased atomic-proton relativity,
but the latter positive, since accruing to a particle-biased atomic-electron
relativity, each of which pertain, as alpha and omega, to a materialistic
spectrum. Consequently naturalism and
materialism afford us the clash of two modes of folly, whether negative or
positive, rather than, say, of wisdom on the one hand and folly on the other,
the folly, one could argue, of fire and water respectively or, translated into
contemporary political terms, the former Soviet Union and the United States -
the one state socialist and the other corporate capitalist.
265. Now whereas pure folly is diabolic, whether
in negative (Satanic) or positive (Antichristic) terms, impure folly is
purgatorial, whether in negative or positive terms, and consequently apt to be
more intellectual than soulful. By
contrast, pure wisdom is divine and impure wisdom worldly, the one flanking
pure folly above and the other flanking impure folly beneath, as air and earth
may be said to flank fire and water respectively. Now whereas divine wisdom is spiritual,
worldly wisdom is wilful, using that term in the sense of focusing on bodily
will. Hence we should distinguish not
only between the worldly wisdom, say, of the British in relation to the divine
wisdom of Catholic Ireland, but also between the lunar folly of the Americans
in relation to the diabolic folly of the Russians. For neither can be described as wise
societies, in view of their materialistic and naturalistic bents. If the Americans conquered the moon, it could
well be the Russians who eventually conquer the sun or, at any rate, the planet
Venus. However that may be, the
distinction between wisdom and folly derives from a wavicle/particle dichotomy
and therefore is not polar, in the sense that alpha and omega are polar. On the contrary, we can only distinguish
between negative wisdom and positive wisdom on a polar basis, as regarding
alpha and omega divine or worldly antitheses.
And the same of course applies to folly, albeit with regard to alpha and
omega diabolic or purgatorial antitheses, as described above.
266. When we come to the distinction between
virtue and vice, however, we can and must distinguish the one from the other on
a polar basis, because here we are dealing with terms which, having to do with
moral and immoral conduct, can be deduced from or equated with a
centrifugal/centripetal dichotomy, and this is the alpha and omega of each of
our elemental spectra. Consequently, no
less than there is such a thing as vicious pure wisdom in relation to virtuous
pure wisdom, or alpha sorrow in relation to omega joy, there is virtuous pure
folly in relation to vicious pure folly, or omega love in relation to alpha
hate - the first pair of opposites divine and the second pair diabolic, as
germane to idealism and naturalism respectively. Likewise, no less than there is such a thing
as vicious impure wisdom in relation to virtuous impure wisdom, or alpha pain
(stoicism) in relation to omega pleasure (hedonism), there is virtuous impure
folly in relation to vicious impure folly, or omega pride in relation to alpha
humiliation - the third pair of opposites worldly and the fourth pair
purgatorial, as germane to realism and materialism respectively. The vicious is alpha stemming and, hence,
centrifugal, whereas the virtuous is omega orientated and, hence,
centripetal. Sorrow and joy, hate and
love, humiliation and pride, pain and pleasure - each of these alpha and omega
options can be regarded in a vicious/virtuous light, although the degree to
which vice or virtue may be attributed to the relevant pole of any given pair
of opposites will depend on whether we are considering that pole in terms of
natural or artificial alternatives, i.e. whether we are dealing with, say,
alpha (natural spectrum) or alpha-in-the-omega (artificial spectrum), or,
conversely, with omega (artificial spectrum) or omega-in-the-alpha (natural
spectrum). For whereas the alpha will be
unequivocally centrifugal and thus absolutely immoral, alpha-in-the-omega will
be compromised by the centripetal bias of the omega or, more correctly, the
artificial spectrum in relation to omega, and therefore be only relatively
immoral. Likewise, whereas the omega
will be unequivocally centripetal and thus absolutely moral, omega-in-the-alpha
will be compromised by the centrifugal bias of the natural spectrum in relation
to alpha, and therefore be only relatively moral.
267. Thus if sorrow corresponds to the negative
(vicious) divine pole in contrast to joy at the positive (virtuous) divine
pole, then sorrow is immoral and joy moral.
But as immorality and morality can be absolute or relative, one would
have to distinguish between sorrow-for-others and sorrow-for-oneself
(self-pity) on the basis of an alpha/alpha-in-the-omega division, with the
former mode of sorrow being absolutely immoral because unequivocally centrifugal
('others' being an objective focus of one's sorrow), but the latter mode
relatively immoral because compromised by the centripetal bias of the
artificial spectrum in relation to omega ('oneself' being a subjective focus of
one's sorrow), and this would enable us to perceive not only the
natural/artificial distinction between sorrow-for-others and
sorrow-for-oneself, but, more importantly, that self-pity was a more evolved
and therefore less immoral form of negative divine emotion than pity directed
toward others. Conversely, we would have
to distinguish between joy-for-others and joy-for-oneself on the basis of an
omega-in-the-alpha/omega divide, with the former being relatively moral because
compromised by the centrifugal bias of the natural spectrum in relation to
alpha ('others' being an objective focus of one's joy), but the latter
absolutely moral because unequivocally centripetal ('oneself' being a
subjective focus of one's joy) - a distinction which, as with sorrow, enables
us to equate the one kind of joy with the natural spectrum and the other kind
with the artificial spectrum, and to perceive self-joy as an altogether more
purely moral spiritual ideal than joy for others.
268. Naturally, what applies to the alpha and
omega poles of the divine, or idealistic, spectrum in both its natural and
artificial (supernatural) manifestations, applies just as much to each of the
other three elemental spectra in like-fashion, since they are also susceptible
to an immoral/moral polarity which will be either absolutely or relatively the
case, depending on the pole in question.
Thus hatred-for/of-others contrasts as diabolic (naturalistic) alpha
with love-of/for-others as diabolic (naturalistic) omega-in-the-alpha of the natural
diabolic spectrum, the former absolutely immoral and the latter relatively
moral, whereas self-hatred contrasts as diabolic alpha-in-the-omega with
self-love as diabolic omega of the artificial diabolic spectrum, the former
relatively immoral and the latter absolutely moral. Both of these poles correspond, as we have
seen, to folly rather than to wisdom, but they do so on antithetical terms,
with vicious (negative) and virtuous (positive) distinctions respectively. So do the purgatorial (materialistic) poles
of humiliation and pride - humiliation-towards-others contrasting as alpha
purgatorial with pride-of-others as omega-in-the-alpha of the natural
purgatorial spectrum, while self-humiliation contrasts as alpha-in-the-omega
with self-pride as omega of the artificial purgatorial spectrum. But the worldly poles of pain and pleasure
are of course wise, to the extent that we are dealing with a wavicle bias in
connection with this (realistic) spectrum, and whilst inflicting pain on others
is absolutely immoral on account of its identification with worldly alpha,
causing-oneself-pain is relatively immoral on account of its identification
with alpha-in-the-omega. By contrast,
causing-others-pleasure is only relatively moral in relation to self-pleasure,
insofar as the one has to do with omega-in-the-(worldly)-alpha while the other
has to do with the worldly omega as such - the former compromised by the
centrifugal bias of the natural realistic spectrum in relation to alpha, the
latter unequivocally moral on account of the centripetal bias of the artificial
realistic spectrum in relation to omega.
And, in every case, the omega position of positive self-indulgence is
morally superior to the omega-in-the-alpha position of positively indulging
others, whereas the alpha-in-the-omega position of negative self-indulgence is
less immoral than the alpha position of negatively indulging others. Morality is subjective, immorality
objective. Whether we call the one
positive, virtuous, or centripetal, and the other negative, vicious, or
centrifugal, the situation remains the same, as between essential and apparent
antagonists.
269. Having dealt with the immoral and moral poles
of each of the elemental spectra, I should briefly like to turn my attention to
the comparatively amoral positions in between, and to contend that similar
negative and positive distinctions will apply to them in view of their
antithetical constitutions either side of a proton/electron divide,
constitutions which owe something, though not everything, to the wider polar
antitheses which flank them.
270. Thus, taking the divine (idealistic) spectrum
first, we shall find that guilt and innocence are the two principal amoral
positions in between sorrow on the one hand and joy on the other, and that no
less than guilt is a consequence of sorrow, innocence is a precondition of joy
(Christ's injunction to become as little children), both of which feelings can
be either more or less amoral depending on whether they take place within the
naturalistic context of being-towards-others, i.e. guilty towards
others/innocent towards others, or, alternatively, within the artificial
context of being self-centred, i.e. self-guilt/self-innocence, so that we are
distinguishing, once again, between absolutely and relatively amoral positions. Of course, this applies no less to the
distinction between contempt and respect in relation to hate and love,
respectively, on the diabolic (naturalistic) spectrum, as to that between, say,
doubt and confidence in relation to humiliation and pride on the purgatorial
(materialistic) spectrum, not to mention fear and hope in relation to pain and
pleasure on the worldly (realistic) spectrum.
For these intermediate types of feelings are just as susceptible to a
dualistic others/self manifestation as their immoral and moral counterparts,
and we can gauge the degree and type of amorality involved according to whether
objective or subjective reference-points are at issue in any given context,
negative amoral feelings like guilt, contempt, doubt, and fear being either
absolute or relative, depending on whether they take place vis-à-vis others or
oneself; and the same of course applying to positive amoral feelings such as
innocence, respect, confidence, and hope.
Not only are such feelings either post- or pre-conditions of their
respective immoral and moral poles; they are to some extent also attenuations
of and alternatives to them, and therefore more the psychic norm for people
whose feeling spectrum is less extreme than middle ground, or moderate.
271. Only a muddled thinker like Dame Vera Alder
would make an antithesis, as she does in her book Secrets of the Atomic
Age, between involution and evolution, deeming the one commensurate with a
fall from God into the cruder atoms of the material world, and the other
commensurate with a return to God (not incidentally an advancement to the Holy
Spirit so much as a return to the Creator), as man refines upon the atoms of
his mind. Not only is she wrong to use
the word 'involution' in relation to evolution in this way, she fails to see
that involution and evolution go together as two aspects of the same
progressive tendency. For evolution is
involutional to the extent that progress manifests a centro-complexifying
tendency in loyalty to its centripetal essence.
You can no more speak of involution and evolution as antithetical ...
than of devolution and convolution as such.
For devolution is no less convolutional than evolution is involutional,
and consequently the only valid antithesis to involution is convolution. Had she spoken of a
devolutionary/evolutionary antithesis or even of a convolutional/involutional
one, all would have been well, logically speaking. Unfortunately, Vera Alder's 'antithesis' was
as paradoxically improbable as it is possible to be ... short of settling for
convolution and devolution instead!
272. But devolution from the alpha is one thing,
evolution towards the omega quite another, and no more resembles a return to
the alpha than devolution could possibly resemble a progression towards the
omega. We evolve, as I have elsewhere
shown, towards a level of divinity, or supreme condition of being, which is as
far removed from the primal level of divinity, in the Creator, as it is
possible to be - a level which, as electron-electron attractions, contrasts
absolutely with the proton-proton reactions at the roots of the Universe ...
from which the majority of stars and all of the planets derive.
273. Whereas the proton content of the old brain
corresponds to alpha, the electron content of the old brain corresponds to
omega-in-the-alpha. And whereas the
electron content of the new brain corresponds to omega, the proton content of
the new brain corresponds to alpha-in-the-omega. In the old brain a preponderating proton
content and a subordinate electron content.
In the new brain, by contrast, a preponderating electron content and a
subordinate proton content. Thus the
subconscious, which is a psychic substratum of the old brain, can be both
negative and positive, biased towards protons or electrons, but, as a rule, it
will be more negative than positive, particularly in a young and therefore
relatively less-evolved head. Likewise
the superconscious, which is a psychic substratum of the new brain, can be both
negative and positive, biased towards protons or electrons, but, as a rule, it
will be more positive than negative, particularly in an older and therefore
relatively more-evolved head. Negative
subconscious is alpha, positive subconscious omega-in-the-alpha. Positive superconscious is omega, negative
superconscious alpha-in-the-omega.
Negative subconscious is pagan, positive subconscious Christian. Positive superconscious is communist
(transcendental), negative superconscious fascist (neo-pagan). The Second Coming operates on both negative
and positive terms or, more precisely, there is a negative Second Coming
(fascist) and a positive Second Coming (communist), and whereas the one is
false, the other is true.
274. The trouble with smoking is that it obliges
one to accept fire as one lights one's cigarette, and thereby compromises one
with alpha to the extent that a match or wick has been lit. There is a kind of open-society,
alpha-stemming accommodation of flame involved with smoking which could only
prove morally unacceptable to those whose ideological integrity is essentially
closed society and omega orientated - in other words, to those who regard flame
as beneath their moral pale. That alone
would be a good enough reason why not to smoke, quite apart from considerations
of expense, health, social standing, etc.
Yet even if recourse to flame can never be truly moral, we can still
distinguish, relatively speaking, between four different modes or levels of
striking flame for purposes of smoking, and accord them a separate status either
as alpha, omega-in-the-alpha, alpha-in-the-omega, or omega, depending on the
means employed. In other words, we shall
have to distinguish between lighting, say, a cigarette with the aid of matches
and lighting one with the aid of a lighter, and then further distinguish
between a box of matches as alpha (on account of its convolutional construction
- the box being effectively a somewhat horizontal, centrifugal phenomenon) and
a strip of matches as alpha-in-the-omega (on account of the involutional compromise
imposed upon the matches by the strip which, in contrast to a box, is
effectively a kind of vertical, centripetal phenomenon), next proceeding to
contrast each of these with a distinction between horizontally-biased (usually
metallic) lighters as omega-in-the-alpha (on account of the convolutional
compromise suggested by their horizontal bias) and vertically-biased (usually
plastic) lighters as omega (on account of the involutional connotation of their
vertical bias). Thus if the alpha is
immoral and the omega moral, then alpha-in-the-omega and omega-in-the-alpha are
each, in this context, comparatively amoral, the one negatively and the other
positively, as between centrifugal and centripetal attributes. Use of a box of matches would therefore be comparatively
immoral in relation to use of a strip of matches, which, as alpha-in-the-omega,
corresponds to negative amorality, whereas use of a vertically-biased plastic
lighter would be comparatively moral in relation to use of a
horizontally-biased metallic lighter, which, as omega-in-the-alpha, corresponds
to positive amorality.
275. Man may broadly be defined as the bad
(negative) appearance and the good (positive) essence, whereas woman may
likewise broadly be defined as the good (positive) appearance and the bad
(negative) essence. For the masculine is
positively essential and the feminine positively apparent, and when a man is
true to himself rather than effeminate or 'bovaryized', he will be more good
essence than bad appearance, just as a woman, when true to herself, will be
more good appearance than bad essence.
The modern age, however, seems to be one, particularly in the West, when
the traditional roles of the sexes have been reversed, so that women are becoming
more negatively essential and men, by contrast, more negatively apparent,
though this is hopefully only a temporary situation and not an indication of
things to come! For positive essence
will eventually eclipse negative essence to such an extent that the feminine
will all but cease to exist ... as we enter an age of unisexual one-sidedness
in anticipation of millennial salvation.
276. Negative appearance: naturalism or doing;
positive appearance: realism or the given; negative essence: materialism or the
becoming; positive essence: idealism or being.
277. If we accept that the alpha is immoral and
the omega alone moral, then it will be logical for us to define (as, in fact,
we already have done) alpha-in-the-omega as negatively amoral and
omega-in-the-alpha as positively amoral, so that we have, say, realistic and
materialistic positions in-between naturalistic immorality on the one hand and
idealistic morality on the other hand.
To revert to our Spenglerian categories of historical epoch, we can
equate 'Historyless Chaos' with (naturalistic) immorality, 'Culture' with
(realistic) amorality, 'Civilization' with (materialistic) amorality, and,
finally, 'Second Religiousness' with (idealistic) morality. 'Culture' and 'Civilization' afford us examples
of two kinds of amorality, the former positive (the given), and the latter
negative (the becoming) - the one corresponding to the paradoxical relativity
of positive appearance, or omega-in-the-alpha, and the other corresponding to
the no-less paradoxical relativity of negative essence, or alpha-in-the-omega. Only the coming epoch of 'Second
Religiousness' can be truly moral and, hence, centripetal (in being), and it
will contrast absolutely with the centrifugal (doing-oriented) immorality of
the epoch of 'Historyless Chaos'.
278i. Dreaming corresponds to the soulful
subconscious and can be either negative or positive, biased towards the proton
or towards the electron.
ii. Fantasizing
corresponds to the intellectual old brain and can be either negative or
positive, biased towards the proton or towards the electron.
iii. Visionary experience
corresponds to the spiritual subconscious and can be either negative or
positive, biased towards the proton or towards the electron.
iv. Film viewing
corresponds to the soulful superconscious and can be either negative or
positive, biased towards the proton or towards the electron.
v. Video making
corresponds to the intellectual new brain and can be either negative or
positive, biased towards the proton or towards the electron.
vi. Tripping corresponds
to the spiritual superconscious and can be either negative or positive, biased
towards the proton or towards the electron.
279. Thus we have alpha and omega polarities in both
the old and the new brains, not to mention in both types of subconscious and
superconscious, with soulful, intellectual, and spiritual distinctions
corresponding to particle, atomic, and wavicle spectra - the alpha of the old
brain and subconscious minds more powerful than the omega-in-the-alpha there,
but the omega of the new brain and superconscious minds more powerful than the
alpha-in-the-omega there, given the contrasting atomic structures of each
brain/pair of minds and their effects or influences upon soulful, intellectual,
and spiritual life. To take a single
example, in this case spiritual, the visionary subconscious will traditionally
have been more biased towards the possibility of bad visions than good visions
(for protons predominate over electrons in the atomic structure of the old
brain), whereas - at the risk of anticipating the future - the visionary
superconscious will, as a rule, be more biased towards the possibility of good
trips, i.e. synthetically-induced visionary experience, than bad ones (since
electrons predominate over protons in the atomic structure of the new
brain). Alternatively, one could argue
that bad visions would have been stronger than good visions in the visionary
subconscious, bearing in mind that the former correspond to alpha and the
latter to omega-in-the-alpha of the natural idealistic spectrum, whereas good
trips will be stronger or more vivid than bad ones in the visionary
superconscious, because the former correspond to omega and the latter to
alpha-in-the-omega of the artificial idealistic spectrum. Moreover, whereas good visions and bad trips
are alike amoral, the one positively and the other negatively, bad visions are
immoral and good trips moral. Indeed,
whereas good visions correspond to the given and bad trips to the becoming, bad
visions correspond to doing and good trips to being.
280. Now what applies to the polar opposites of
the spiritual psyche, whether subconscious (and natural) or superconscious (and
artificial), applies just as much to those of the soulful psyche in both its
subconscious and superconscious manifestations, as well as to those of the
intellectual brain in both its old and new manifestations. (Bad dreams, or
nightmares, are immoral; good dreams ... positively amoral. Bad films, or horror movies, are negatively
amoral; good films ... moral.)
281i. Fire, corresponding to doing, is the immoral
element par
excellence.
ii. Air, corresponding to
being, is the moral element par excellence.
iii. Earth, corresponding
to the given, is the positively amoral element par excellence.
iv. Water, corresponding
to the becoming, is the negatively amoral element par excellence.
v. Likewise it stands to
reason that whereas Heaven is moral and Hell immoral, granted that the former
is the abode of light (spirit) and the latter the abode of heat (soul), both
purgatory and the world are amoral, since the former is the abode of coldness
(intellect), while the latter is an abode of darkness (will).
282. Man endeavours to mitigate the pain and humiliation
of death through the concept of a blissful afterlife. Take away such a concept and there is nothing
but the pain and humiliation of death.
But since there is no afterlife and it becomes less easy for people to
believe in such a concept, so it is logical that we should strive, instead, to
prolong life as much as possible and thus push the pain and humiliation of
death - nowadays usually somewhat less intense than formerly, owing to the
availability of a variety of analgesics, anaesthetics, etc., which render
compensatory concepts of posthumous bliss unnecessary - further into the
future. Now at last we have the right
attitude, born of evolutionary progress.
We no longer look forward to death as the gateway to a better life but,
in dismissing such an assumption, prefer to devise stratagems for prolonging
and enriching life, stratagems which at least have the merit of setting us on
course for the eventual possibility of eternal life. For eternal life can only evolve out of
existing life, not be attained to following death. But, in the meantime, we must learn to live
with the emptiness of modern death and die in comparatively painless fashion,
without recourse to afterlife compensations!
283. Just as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche form
negative and positive philosophic poles, so, it seems to me, do Bergson and
Sartre, albeit the other way around, since Sartre was rather more pessimistic
and life-denying than optimistic and life-affirming, quite unlike his great
compatriot, and accordingly qualifies, in my estimation, for comparison with
Schopenhauer - as, I would argue, does Arthur Koestler, whose pessimism
concerning the future of mankind and near pathological insistence on man's
being a biological mistake will hardly serve to ingratiate him to those of us
who pursue a more optimistic long-term view of human evolution and of man's
eventual salvation through self-overcoming.
Indeed, it could well be that I am to Koestler what Nietzsche was to
Schopenhauer - that is to say the positive pole of a philosophical dichotomy
which began in pessimism and can only end optimistically.
284. However, even if I see myself as a kind of
positive antithesis to Koestler, I have to admit my indebtedness to him as a
formative influence on my philosophy (as of course was Schopenhauer on
Nietzsche's), since it was from books like The Act of Creation and Janus - A
Summing Up that I first acquired knowledge of an old-brain/new-brain
dichotomy ('old brain' and 'new brain' being the exact terms Koestler favoured,
in preference to terms like lower brain and higher brain, or cerebellum and
cerebrum), and the reader familiar with my work will doubtless be aware that I
have since made ample use of such a distinction, using it in addition to such
psychological terms as subconscious and superconscious - indeed, equating the
former with the old brain or, more correctly, a location in the old brain, and
the latter with a location in the new brain ... in the interests of a more
comprehensive and, so I believe, truer perspective.
285. To be sure, there are many ways in which I
have profited from Koestler's philosophy over the years, including my recourse
to diagrams - a not-infrequent explanatory factor in his works - and it would
be both dishonest and unfair of me to pretend otherwise. But, on balance, I do not think he has made a
particularly positive contribution to modern philosophy, even if his influence
on me has been greater than that of virtually any other modern philosopher ...
including Sartre, whose work I find too obscure and whom Koestler regarded,
quite rightly in my opinion, as philosophically inferior to himself, since
Sartre was largely a materialist whereas Koestler was essentially a naturalist
and therefore closer, as heat to light, to myself. In fact, one could argue that Koestler to
some extent derives from Sartre, as Bergson from Nietzsche, except that whereas
Bergson and Nietzsche were both optimists, Koestler was fundamentally
pessimistic, like Sartre, and thus more alpha stemming than omega orientated. It seems that only I am truly omega
orientated and hence somewhat closer in spirit to Nietzsche and Bergson, not to
mention Teilhard de Chardin, who, if not quite a philosopher, was nevertheless
of considerable importance in shaping and influencing my own omega-oriented
philosophy - perhaps the most important single influence after Nietzsche and
... Spengler, whose monumental tome The Decline of the West taught me more about
history and the scope and destiny of civilizations than any other book I
know. Therefore it is only fitting if,
at the termination point of this particular philosophical excursion, I draw
attention to such men as these, without whose guiding influence little if any
of this would have been possible.
Preview ELEMENTAL SPECTRA eBook
