CONTRASTING TYPES OF KINGDOM

1. Of course, both the State and the Church are more relativistic than absolutist anyway, since, in the normal course of events, the one tends to exist in relation to the other rather than at its expense.

2. There are also distinctions that have to be borne in mind between State-biased peoples, who are broadly female, and Church-biased peoples who, by contrast, are broadly male, as when objectivity, on the one hand, and subjectivity, on the other hand, tend to be the prevailing norms.

3. The tendency of State-biased peoples to favour either least devolution or less (relative to least) devolution in broadly autocratic (noumenal) or democratic (phenomenal) manifestations of the State ... is balanced by the tendency of Church-biased peoples to favour either more (relative to most) evolution or most evolution in broadly plutocratic (phenomenal) or theocratic (noumenal) manifestations of the Church.

4. Where there is either least devolution or less devolution, there will be less evolution and/or more counter-evolution or least evolution and/or most counter-evolution, as the case may be, whereas the existence of either more evolution or most evolution will tend to encourage more devolution and/or most devolution, depending on the context.

5. Hence that State which is rooted in least devolution, being authoritarian, will tend to have a shadow Church which is least evolved, or fundamentalist, while that State which is rooted in less (relative to least) devolution, being parliamentary, will tend to have a shadow Church which is less evolved, or nonconformist.

6. Conversely, that Church which is centred in more (relative to most) evolution, being humanist, will tend to have a shadow State which is more devolved, or republican, while that Church which is centred in most evolution, being transcendentalist, will tend to have a shadow State which is most devolved, or totalitarian.

7. Nonetheless, one still hesitates to allow the terms 'State' and 'Church' to have the last say; for both are alike broadly collectivistic entities which owe more to worldly relativity than to netherworldly and/or otherworldly absolutism.

8. That which really transcends state/church relativity, whether comparatively upper class or genuinely lower class, is the Kingdom, and kingdoms can be either anterior to such a relativity, as in the Hell-based context of a netherworldly Behind, or posterior to such a relativity, as in the Heaven-centred context of an otherworldly Beyond, the former owing most to the Devil and least to God, most to science (cosmology) and least to religion (fundamentalism), but the latter owing most to God and least to the Devil, most to religion (transcendentalism) and least to science (ontology).

9. I like to distinguish the one type of Kingdom from the other, the alpha from the omega, on the basis of Superpaganism from Superchristianity, the superfeminine id from the supermasculine soul, and to conceive of the former in relation to 'Kingdom Gone' and the latter in relation to 'Kingdom Come', the Kingdom in which Heaven has its throne not only to the detriment of Hell, but in the truly sensible terms which transcend the sensual metaphysics to which the theocratic church was able to rise, complements of the Father, in the individualistic mode to which it historically subscribed and, to a lesser extent, still subscribes wherever transcendental criteria prevail.

10. Thus if the Western Church was theocratic, the Universal Kingdom, which I tend to identify with the omega-oriented concept of 'the Centre', must be meritocratic, and therefore an exponent of metaphysical salvation from sensuality to sensibility, the airwaves to the breath, the ears to the lungs, outer wisdom to inner wisdom.

11. And, in that respect, it will be the complete opposite of the cosmic kingdoms of pagan antiquity, which were apt to defer to the stars (polytheism) and/or to a single star (monotheism) in their Superpagan fixation upon 'heavenly bodies', as stellar blueprints for the primitive id, and the female id above all.

12. To the extent that both the Superpagan id and the Superchristian soul are affiliated to 'Kingdoms', it would seem that 'as in the Beginning, so in the End'. But, in actuality, the end is so far removed from the beginning ... as to be its universal refutation and noumenal antithesis.

13. That which began in the self returns to the self, but on as antithetical a basis as it is possible to conceive of, the basis not of metachemical evil in the superfeminine id, but of metaphysical wisdom in the supermasculine soul, a wisdom that, in its Superchristianity, transcends the wisdom of the papal church (Subchristian) to the extent that the evil of the Superpagan Kingdom was fundamental to the evil of the Monarchic State (Subpagan), which derived some of its netherworldly absolutism from it.

14. For if, in the Beginning, there was most evil and least wisdom, most Devil/Hell and least God/Heaven, then in the End, by contrast, there can only be most wisdom and least evil, most God/Heaven and least Devil/Hell.

15. And the End will be as much beyond, i.e. posterior to, the broadly Western parameters of the State/Church, both absolutist and relativistic, as the Beginning was behind, i.e. anterior to, such parameters, parameters that, even when most evil and least wise or, conversely, most wise and least evil, are both narrower than and distinct from the alpha and omega of civilization in the Kingdoms, both cosmic and universal, of 'Kingdom Gone' and of 'Kingdom Come', the Kingdoms of the Devil/Hell on the one hand, and of God/Heaven on the other hand, the one based, through light, in the superfeminine id of spatial space, and the other centred, through spirit, in the supermasculine soul of spaced space.

16. Thus whereas the 'Kingdom of the Beginning' was most apparent in its magical affiliation with the Superpagan self, the 'Kingdom of the End' will be most essential in its mystical affiliation with the Superchristian self.

17. In between, except where the 'Kingdom State' of the Subpagan self and the 'Kingdom Church' of the Subchristian self were concerned, the world is more an illustration of not-self and selflessness, with only a limited allegiance to or concept of the self, the peripheral and/or central nervous system in which the id and the soul have their antithetical places, in consequence.

18. For the self is what distinguishes the 'Kingdom', both magical and mystical, cosmic and universal, from the self-division of the state/church relativity in which, due to worldly pressures, the not-self and selflessness were granted maximum prominence.

19. Thus did the will and the spirit ensue upon the id-self, as the self found a new definition in the ego, and aspired, no matter how indirectly or intermittently, towards the hope of redemption in the soul-self, the Christian faith of a 'better world to come'.

20. Such a 'better world' is now on the horizon of the world's advance, and it is nothing less than the overcoming and rejection of the world ... of state/church relativity ... in favour of the heavenly Other World of 'Kingdom Come'.