CYCLE THREE
1. To rise diagonally, as a male, from folly to wisdom,
unholiness to holiness, unrighteousness to
righteousness, physical and/or metaphysical sensuality to physical and/or
metaphysical sensibility, sin to grace, whether on the relative terms of
phenomenal subjectivity, as germane to mass-volume, or on the absolute terms of
noumenal subjectivity, as germane to time-space,
thereby being saved from generative knowledge to civilized knowledge and/or
from racial truth to cultural truth.
2. To fall diagonally, as a female, from evil to
good, clearness to unclearness, righteousness to unrighteousness, chemical
and/or metachemical sensuality to chemical and/or metachemical sensibility, crime to punishment, whether on
the relative terms of phenomenal objectivity, as germane to volume-mass, or on
the absolute terms of noumenal objectivity, as
germane to space-time, thereby being damned from civilized strength to
generative strength and/or from cultural beauty to racial beauty.
3. That which rises diagonally in salvation does
so from the curse of under-plane subservience of a secondary order of freedom
(from self) to a primary order of freedom (in not-self), whereas that which
falls diagonally in damnation does so from the blessing of over-plane hegemony
to under-plane subservience of a secondary order of binding (in not-self) to a
primary order of binding (to self).
4. Thus that which, on the male side of the
gender divide, had been secondarily free in sensuality becomes primarily bound
in sensibility, while that which, on the female side of the said divide, had been
primarily free in sensuality becomes secondarily bound in sensibility.
5. For the female is ever a creature in which
not-self takes precedence over self, the organs of, in particular, chemistry
and metachemistry over the spinal column and brain
stem, whereas the male, by contrast, is ever a creature in which self takes
precedence over not-self, the spinal column and brain stem over the organs of,
in particular, physics and metaphysics.
6. This is because while the female is rooted,
through objectivity, in a vacuum, the male is centred, through subjectivity, in
a plenum. Or, to reverse this, one could
say that it is precisely the fact of the female's being rooted in a vacuum
which makes for objectivity, or a tendency to diverge (sensuality) and/or converge
(sensibility) in straight-line fashion, while it is equally the fact of the
male's being centred in a plenum which makes for subjectivity, or a tendency to
diverge (sensuality) and/or converge (sensibility) in curved-line fashion.
7. Hence freedom associated with a vacuum is
always primary, while freedom associated with a plenum remains secondary; the
one having especial connections with the not-self and the other with the self.
8. Contrariwise, binding associated with a plenum
is always primary, while binding associated with a vacuum remains secondary;
the one having especial connections with the self and the other with the
not-self.
9. Thus the female form of freedom is ever
primary and the male form merely secondary, while, conversely, the male form of
binding is ever primary and the female form merely secondary.
10. Females achieve perfection in primary freedom,
which is immoral in its sensuality, whereas males only achieve perfection in
primary binding, which is moral in its sensibility. The one appertains to the righteousness of
clearness, which is ever evil; the other to the righteousness of holiness,
which is ever wise. Secondarily to each
of these, the unrighteousness of unholiness is ever
foolish, and the unrighteousness of unclearness ... ever good.
11. Good, therefore, can
only be secondary to evil for a female, whether in the relative context of
volume-mass or in the absolute context of space-time. For evil is a manifestation of civilized
and/or cultural clearness, and is accordingly blessed with direct freedom (for
the not-self), whereas good(ness) is a manifestation
of generative and/or racial unclearness, and is accordingly afflicted with
indirect binding (of the not-self).
12. Conversely, folly can only be secondary to
wisdom for a male, whether in the relative context of mass-volume or in the
absolute context of time-space. For folly is a manifestation of generative and/or racial unholiness, and is accordingly cursed with secondary
freedom (from the self), whereas wisdom is a manifestation of civilized and/or
cultural holiness, and is accordingly sanctified by primary binding (to the
self).
13. Stable civilization and culture complexes do
not ordinarily oscillate too perceptibly between alpha and omega, sensuality
and sensibility, but tend, notwithstanding minor and incidental oscillations,
to uphold civilization or culture on a given gender-biased platform, be it female, and sensual, or male, and sensible.
14. Hence the prevalence of civilized and/or cultured
righteousness in relation to clearness tends to preclude the contrary
prevalence of civilized and/or cultured righteousness in relation to
holiness. Either the female has her way
at the expense, by and large, of the male, as in the West traditionally, or the
male has his way at the expense, by and large, of the female, as in the East
traditionally. Regional exceptions to
the rule notwithstanding, stable civilizations and cultures are either clear or holy, not both at once or, rather, by turns.
15. The existence of cultural clearness, or
beauty, in the West has long tended to preclude the contrary existence,
certainly on anything like an official or institutional level, of cultural
holiness, or truth; for the West, like much of the East, particularly the
Middle East, is rooted in both Graeco-Roman and
Judaic traditions, and therefore upholds the Biblical concept of a cosmic First
Mover (Jehovah), as germane to the Old Testament.
16. Ironically, the New Testament parallel to this
is not the Father, but the Risen Virgin, whereby one is more concerned with
organic supremacy, and hence eyes over ears, than with inorganic primacy, and
hence stellar over solar bodies in the Cosmos.
Be that as it may, cultural beauty still precludes the official coming to
pass of cultural truth, and ensures that such truth as does exist or is
affirmed remains 'beyond the pale' of theocratic or theological requirement.
17. For the believer in
and devotee of cultural truth, which tends to manifest in the practice,
intermittent or otherwise, of transcendental meditation, has no time for
theocracy, theology, theosophy, or any other religious tradition rooted in
theism. He is atheist, or against
theism, to the extent that what he upholds is alien to a world in which
cultural criteria are rooted in theocracy, with its organic beauty (Risen
Virgin) or inorganic ugliness (Jehovah), and in righteous clearness via either
the eyes or the stellar plane. For him
God or, rather, godliness is not theistic but deistic, not external but internal,
not rooted in the Cosmos but centred in the self, and, in any case, not metachemical, like 'first movers' tend to be, but
metaphysical, and therefore germane to air rather than to fire. He is the Western outsider par
excellence, for this doctrine of atheism vis-à-vis cosmic and even universal
(organic) theism has long been known and upheld in the East, even if only by a noumenal elite.
18. Not altogether surprisingly, the nations which
are most characteristic of the West tend, like Britain and America, to be the
most free, whether in terms of civilization (
19. Both countries are typified by righteous
clearness, in which female criteria are hegemonic over male criteria, as
symbolically confirmed by the association of Britannia, 'ruler of the waves',
with parliamentary Britain, and the Statue of Liberty, whether or not dubbed
'Liberty Belle', with America, which, though republican, tends to be more
cultural than civilized in the extent to which freedom is equated with fire
rather than water, as with regard to the camera-besotted media of film and the
press rather than the voice-besotted media of radio and theatre.
20. Be that as it may, one could believe that
freedom of speech was more characteristic of civilized Britain, and freedom of
image, or the camera-besotted press, more characteristic of cultural America,
but, whatever the case, neither country would strike one as championing the
male forms of civilization and culture to any great extent, which is why they
are bastions of secular freedom and the reign, in consequence, of females.
21. But if the West is largely characterized by
freedom, and the East by binding, whether or not on ecclesiastical terms, is
there not something almost geographically and even geopolitically inevitable
about this, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a time when
either universal freedom or universal binding will obtain in the world.
22. For if the West is
the opposite of the East, then different they will always remain, even if the
influence of the one on the other is inescapable, whether in favour of the West,
as at present, or in favour of the East, should that ever transpire. Certainly one cannot reasonably conceive of a
world in which only freedom or only binding obtain, because neither term nor
reality would make much sense if divorced from the other.
23. Freedom without binding,
or vice versa, is as implausible a concept as left without right, or day
without night, or female without male. It is unlikely, barring global catastrophe,
that the world will ever be any one thing to the total exclusion of its
opposite. All that is likely to happen,
in the event of increased globalization, is that the West will become less free
and the East less bound; for the West cannot cease to be the West any more than
the East can cease being itself. The
division between East and West predisposes one to an acceptance of a gender
struggle between binding and freedom, male and female life principles; for
sensibility and sensuality would seem fated to continue the battle of life as
long as life itself continues in recognizably human form.
