HOW TO BE

1. The question, in religion, is not whether to be or not to be, for religion is inseparable from being, but, rather, how to be?

2. For there are as many kinds of being (not to mention antibeing) as there are elements, and as many kinds of religion in consequence!

3. The question, then, is whether to be metachemically, through love, or chemically, through pride - the former a fourth-rate, or fundamentalist, order of being and the latter its third-rate, or nonconformist, counterpart.

4. Or, alternatively, whether to be physically, through pleasure, or metaphysically, through joy - the former a second-rate, or humanist, order of being and the latter its first-rate, or transcendentalist, counterpart.

5. Such questions are answered in accordance with both gender and class, gender implying an objective/subjective dichotomy, and class a noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy.

6. Thus one can be either objectively, in metachemistry and chemistry, or subjectively, in physics and metaphysics, as well as either noumenally, in love and joy, or phenomenally, in pride and pleasure.

7. Broadly, fundamentalists opt to be metachemically and transcendentalists to be metaphysically, while 'down below', in the phenomenal realm, nonconformists opt to be chemically and humanists to be physically.

8. Thus whereas fundamentalists are especially partial to love through beauty, transcendentalists, by contrast, are especially partial to joy through truth.

9. And whereas nonconformists are especially partial to pride through strength, humanists, by contrast, are especially partial to pleasure through knowledge.

10. Yet, strictly speaking, being - and hence religion - is only in its per se, or genuine, manifestation in metaphysics, where it takes a specifically transcendentalist, and therefore joyful, turn. In physics, by comparison, it is 'once bovaryized' through pleasure; in chemistry, by (relative) contrast, it is 'twice bovaryized' through pride; and in metachemistry, by (absolute) contrast, it is 'thrice bovaryized' through love.

11. Hence when being is less than metaphysical, it is not the being-of-being, so to speak, but the being-of-taking (physical), the being-of-giving (chemical), or the being-of-doing (metachemical).

12. The being that is less than metaphysical is not, like the being-of-being, the being of Heaven (joy), but either the being of the earth (pleasure), the being of purgatory (pride), or the being of Hell (love), none of which are ends-in-themselves but either asides to an alternative mean or means to a different end, as in the case of love.

13. The being that is an end-in-itself is the being of Heaven (joy), and such a being is metaphysical, and thus associated not with vegetation (physical), still less with water (chemical) or fire (metachemical), but solely with air.

14. For air is not only the metaphysical element par excellence, but the one through association with which it is possible to be joyfully, and hence in properly religious terms.

15. Such a consummate order of being is not for everyone, neither on a gender nor a class basis, since it requires the upper-class male capacity for noumenal subjectivity, which no-one but a subman (in sensuality) or a superman (in sensibility) would have - at least not to any appreciable, and therefore authentic, extent.

16. Whereas the first-rate order of being is a joyful end-in-itself, the second-rate order of being, which is pleasurable, is subordinate to an egocentric, and hence economic, mean; the third-rate order of being, which is proud, is subordinate to a spiritual, and hence political, mean; and the fourth-rate order of being, which is loving, is subordinate to a wilful, and hence scientific, mean.

17. Hence whereas religion is alone religious (soulful) through joy, it is economic (egocentric) through pleasure, political (spiritual) through pride, and scientific (wilful) through love.

18. The religion that is alone religious (soulful) through joy is transcendentalist, and hence metaphysical, since associated with air.

19. The religion that is economic (egocentric) through pleasure is humanist, and hence physical, since associated with vegetation (earth).

20. The religion that is political (spiritual) through pride is nonconformist, and hence chemical, since associated with water.

21. The religion that is scientific (wilful) through love is fundamentalist, and hence metachemical, since associated with fire.

22. Only in joy is the being of soul fully soulful, and hence the soul (or kernel) of being. In pleasure, the being of soul is 'once bovaryized'; in pride it is 'twice bovaryized'; and in love it is 'thrice bovaryized'.

23. Hence the being of soul descends, in metachemical and chemical contexts, from the love of appearance to the pride of quantity, and ascends, in physical and metaphysical contexts, from the pleasure of quality to the joy of essence.

24. A descension, on the female side of life, from fundamentalism to nonconformism, Hell to purgatory, and an ascension, on its male side, from humanism to transcendentalism, earth to Heaven.

25. Soul is always essential, but only in metaphysics is it genuinely essential and hence authentically religious (soulful). For joy, the soul of being, is alone heavenly, not earthly, purgatorial, or hellish from a pleasurable, a proud, or a loving alternative.