AN OVERVIEW OF LIFE

 

1.   In the sequence Cosmos-Nature-Man-Cyborg outlined above, we have a division, not necessarily neat, between the female objectivity of the Cosmos and Nature on the one hand, and the male subjectivity of Man and Cyborg on the other hand, as between devolution from the One to the Many, cosmic individualism to natural collectivism, and evolution from the Many to the One, manly competitiveness to godly co-operativeness.

 

2.   Life devolves out of the 'Big Bang', or equivalent cosmic inception, in de-centralized plurality of stars, and continues to devolve through the fall into Nature in such fashion that innumerable species of one kind or another are to be found throughout the planet, testifying, one would imagine, to an even greater de-centralized diversity of life than in the cosmic bodies as such, given the interactivity between plants, fish, animals, birds, insects, reptiles, and even prehistoric or primitive man, meaning that which, though avowedly human, had yet to come into a knowledgeable self-awareness.

 

3.   But there comes a time when, with the rise to self-knowledge of Man, as symbolized in the mythical illustration of Adam tasting of the forbidden fruit (from a natural standpoint based in strength) of the 'tree of knowledge' in the Garden of Eden, indubitably an idealized conception of Nature, the way is set for a revolt against this devolutionary condition and the beginnings of an evolutionary alternative to Nature gets under way with Man, the champion of civilization par excellence, even though this cannot be said of all men, and we note in human, as opposed to natural, history a subsequent struggle not only between pre-masculine 'men' more characterized, in paganistic fashion, by beauty or strength than by knowledge, but between Man proper and those men who, for environmental or ideological reasons, remained beholden to beauty and/or strength to a degree which precluded their siding with knowledge in civilized revolt against Nature.

 

4.   Therefore although a distinction can be said to exist between devolution from the One to the Many and evolution from the Many towards the One, towards an Omega Point owing more to a Cyborg outcome of evolution, I have contended, than to Man himself, it is by no means fine but subject to historical rivalries deriving from the unequal development of men in different locations and climates which gave rise to general distinctions between 'the barbarous' and 'the civilized' or, on a higher level, 'the philistine' and 'the cultured'.

 

5.   Nevertheless a pattern does seem to be discernible in history between resistance to progressive change as a symptom of devolutionary regression on the objective and largely female side of life, and commitment to progressive change as a symptom of evolutionary progression on the subjective and largely male side of life, as between beauty and strength on the one hand, and knowledge and truth on the other, each of which more neatly harmonizes, when authentic, with one of the fourfold categories already named, viz. the Cosmos, Nature, Man, and the Cyborg.

 

6.   Therefore the evolutionary thrust of Man in knowledge against the devolutionary regressions of a strength-slavering Nature should lead, in due course, to a struggle up towards the One in which not individualism, as with the Alpha Point(s), so to speak, of the Cosmos, but co-operation is the leading attribute and characteristic of what becomes, with the Cyborg, an Omega Point, an evolutionary culmination in a context no less led and conditioned by God (the Second Coming) than its cosmic antithesis could be said to have been - and in some sense still be - ruled and conditioned by the Devil, viz. the noumenal manifestation of devolution which takes an absolutely analytic as opposed to synthetic guise.

 

7.   For what devolved from the One, from centrifugal revolution, must be illustrative of a convolutional tendency to fall in outward spirals towards the Many, to analytically come apart from the One, individualism towards collectivism, whereas what evolves, or should evolve, towards the One, in centripetal revolution, must be illustrative of an involutional tendency to spiral inwardly in ever-increasing degrees of centro-complexification such that confirms a rise from out the Many in synthetic aspiration towards Oneness, competitiveness towards co-operation.

 

8.   We even speak of periods of social or historic upheaval as constitutive of a revolution, but it is evident that there are, so to speak, 'revolutions and revolutions', some of which are merely devolutionary, like that which reduced kingly power and granted more power to the nobles, the barons, with the Magna Carter; others evolutionary, like the French and American Revolutions, which sought to do away with monarchy altogether and were accordingly republican in character; yet others, like the post-Cromwellian English Revolution, a cross between devolution and evolution, which resulted in a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. 

 

9.   But it seems to me that these historical revolutions, though immensely significant in themselves, are as shadows to or pale reflections of the cosmic and cyborg revolutions which, though the latter is still hypothetical, could be said to characterize both the alpha and omega extremes - the tending away from a particle-based centrifugal revolution through devolutionary convolutions, and the tending towards - and hopefully eventual achievement of - a wavicle-centred centripetal revolution through evolutionary involutions, which will be as antithetical, in its essential bias, to the merely apparent Oneness of the Alpha Point as it is possible for things to get, given the near absolutist particle/wavicle distinctions between these two extreme contexts.

 

10.  For what began as a reflection of wilful appearances must surely end, having passed through spiritual quantities (the 'essence' of Nature) and intellectual qualities (the 'essence' of Man) in the natural/human world, in an affirmation of soulful essences, as life devolves, in broad terms, from elemental particles to molecular particles, and evolves, no less broadly, from molecular wavicles to elemental wavicles, devolves analytically from will to spirit on its female side and evolves synthetically from ego to soul on its male side, the side not of philistinism and barbarism par excellence, beauty and strength, but of civilization and culture par excellence, knowledge and truth, with due distinctions between the Cosmos and Nature on the one hand, and Man and the Cyborg on the other.

 

11.  But devolution and evolution are not just of historical scope, with female objectivity more vacuously characteristic, in the nothingness of particle hegemonies, of the former and male subjectivity especially characteristic, in the somethingness of wavicle hegemonies, that is, in relation to a plenum (as opposed to a vacuum), of the latter; for we can note - and have noted in my philosophy - a sort of devolutionary/evolutionary dichotomy, or falling/rising distinction, within the elements themselves, even subatomically, as between particles and wavicles on both molecular and elemental, relative and absolute terms in any given context, be it metachemical and photonic, chemical and electronic, physical and neutronic, or metaphysical and protonic, with due negative/positive distinctions between the female elements and their male counterparts, devolutionary vacuums and evolutionary plenums. 

 

12.  No regular subatomic element, least of all those which have reference to the Elements in general, is exclusively particle or wavicle, but a combination, in varying degrees, of both particles and wavicles, with the devolution of particles from most to least via more (relative to most) and less (relative to least) being co-existent with the evolution of wavicles from least to most via less (relative to least) and more (relative to most), so that every predominant particle has its subordinate wavicle and every preponderant wavicle, to speak in contrary terms, its subordinate particle.

 

13.  Now with this structural variation it should be evident that the particle will only be predominantly paramount in its most- and more-particle modes, while, conversely, the wavicle will only be preponderantly paramount in its more- and most-wavicle modes, the wavicle being subordinate to the particle in least- and less-wavicle modes and the particle subordinate to the wavicle in less- and least-particle modes.  So much for the underlying particle/wavicle ratios of the subatomic!

 

14.  If we translate this into a dichotomy between profane and sacred, practical and theoretical, as between most and more particles over least and less wavicles on the one hand, and more and most wavicles over less and least particles on the other hand, we shall find that it should be possible to distinguish, in any given element, between its profane and sacred components on this basis, with, broadly, a metachemical distinction, in fire, between materialism and fundamentalism; a chemical distinction, in water, between realism and nonconformism; a physical distinction, in vegetation (earth), between naturalism and humanism; and a metaphysical distinction, in air, between idealism and transcendentalism; so that whether a thing is to be adjudged profane or sacred, of soma or of psyche, state or church, will depend on its status as something either characterized by a particle hegemony or, conversely, by a wavicle hegemony, with the sort of distinctions I have drawn above.

 

15.  Take the metachemical element of fire, with its negatively-charged photons in sensuality and photinos in sensibility - is there not a distinction here between the hegemonic materialism of most and more particles and the hegemonic fundamentalism of more and most wavicles, with fundamentalism being subordinate to materialism in least and less wavicles, but materialism being subordinate to fundamentalism in less and least particles? 

 

16.  In other words, is not the distinction, in metachemistry, between materialism and fundamentalism simply between particles on the one hand and wavicles on the other, with the former only being predominantly paramount in most- and more-particle modes, but the latter only preponderantly paramount in more- and most-wavicle modes, so that we have, to all intents and purposes, a distinction between the profanity of metachemical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony, and the sacredness of metachemical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle hegemony, the former pair characterized by the practicality, to all intents and purposes, of ugliness and hatred, the latter pair by the theoreticality, so to speak, of beauty and love. 

 

17.  For can things fall apart from the centre, from the One, on the basis of beauty and love, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of ugliness and hatred?  Certainly the absence of beauty is ugliness in a metachemical context, whether sensual or sensible, just as the absence of love in such a context tends to make for hatred, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have - and are always liable to have - more to do with particles than wavicles, and never more so than in any element which, like the photonic fieriness of metachemistry, is beholden to a vacuum rather than to a plenum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a particle precondition in due primary noumenal vein.

 

18.  Now what applies to metachemistry must surely also apply to the chemical element of water, with its negatively-charged electrons in sensuality and electrinos in sensibility, where we may note a distinction between the hegemonic realism of most and more particles and the hegemonic nonconformism of more and most wavicles, with nonconformism being subordinate to realism in least and less wavicles, but realism being subordinate to nonconformism in less and least particles, with a distinction, once again, between the profanity of chemical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of chemical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one - the former pair characterized by weakness and humility, the latter pair by strength and pride. 

 

19.  For can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of strength and pride, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of weakness and humility?  Certainly the absence of strength spells weakness in a chemical context, just as the absence of pride in such a context, whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for humility, if not humiliation, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with particles than wavicles, and never more so than in any element which, like the electronic wateriness of chemistry, is beholden to a vacuum rather than to a plenum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a particle precondition in due primary phenomenal vein.

 

20.  Now what applies to chemistry must surely also apply to the physical  element of vegetation (earth), with, I shall argue, its capacity for a positively-biased neutrality of neutrons in sensuality and neutrinos in sensibility (not to mention positively-charged deuterons and deuterinos), where we may note a distinction between the hegemonic naturalism of most and more particles and the hegemonic humanism of more and most wavicles, with humanism being subordinate to naturalism in least and less wavicles, but naturalism being subordinate to humanism in less and least particles, with a distinction, once again, between the profanity of physical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of physical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one - the former pair characterized by ignorance and pain, the latter pair by knowledge and pleasure. 

 

21.  For can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of knowledge and pleasure, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of ignorance and pain?  Certainly the absence of knowledge spells ignorance in a physical context, just as the absence of pleasure in such a context, whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for pain, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with particles than with wavicles, if less so in any element which, like the neutronic vegetativeness of physics, is beholden to a plenum rather than to a vacuum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a wavicle precondition in due secondary phenomenal vein.

 

22.  Finally what applies to physics must surely also apply to the metaphysical element of air, with its positively-charged protons in sensuality and protinos in sensibility, where we may note a distinction between the hegemonic idealism of most and more particles and the hegemonic transcendentalism of more and most wavicles, with transcendentalism being subordinate to idealism in least and less wavicles but idealism subordinate to transcendentalism in less and least particles, with a distinction, once again, between the profanity of metaphysical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of metaphysical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one - the former pair characterized by falsity and woe, the latter pair by truth and joy. 

 

23.  For can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of truth and joy, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of falsity and woe?  Certainly the absence of truth spells falsity in a metaphysical context, just as the absence of joy in such a context, whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for woe, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with particles than wavicles, if less so in any element which, like the protonic airiness of metaphysics, is beholden to a plenum rather than to a vacuum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a wavicle precondition in due secondary noumenal vein.

 

24.  However that may be, and whatever one may think of my equation of specific subatomic elements with a correlative Element, be it fiery, watery, vegetative, or airy, it should be evident that things will degenerate from the positive to the negative or from a plenumous tendency towards a vacuous one in any context where the particle tends to prevail over the wavicle, and that this analytical negativity, or want of synthetic cohesiveness, is what makes for a profane as opposed to a sacred disposition, for secular as opposed to ecclesiastic values, be it in relation to the concrete practicality of materialism, realism, naturalism, or idealism, and therefore for the negation of beauty/love, strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, or truth/joy, as maintained, in synthetic contrast, by the theoretic abstractions of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism, and never more so than in relation to humanism and transcendentalism which, being male and subjective, are more characterized by the synthetic virtues of ego and soul, of wavicle hegemonies in which, in the one case, a molecular relativity centred on economics and, in the other case, an elemental absolutism centred on religion are the prevailing norms.

 

25.  For even with 'everything in everything', as I think I phrased it near the beginning of this text, the male elements of physics and metaphysics, with their subatomic corollaries (not altogether divorced, I contend, from a positivistic XY chromosomal integrity) of neutrons/neutrinos and protons/protinos, are those in which economics and religion, form and contentment, knowledge/pleasure and truth/joy, are the prevailing disciplines, whereas the female elements of metachemistry and chemistry, with their subatomic corollaries (not altogether divorced from a negativistic XX chromosomal integrity) in photons/photinos and electrons/electrinos, are those in which science and politics, power and glory, ugliness/hatred and weakness/humility, are the prevailing disciplines, with such beauty/love and strength/pride as accrues to the metachemical and chemical modes of religion and economics being no less secondary, as a secondary order of positivity characterized by psychic determinism, to the prevailing negativities in which the natural, or somatic, freedom of objective science and politics is primary ... than such ignorance/pain and falsity/woe as accrues to the physical and metaphysical modes of politics and science is secondary, as a secondary order of negativity characterized by natural determinism, to the prevailing positivities in which the psychic freedom of subjective economics and religion is primary.

 

26.  For science and politics are no more positive disciplines than economics and religion negative ones.  Metachemistry and chemistry have their positivities, but they are ever subordinate, in secondary psychic vein, to the prevailing particle-conditioned negativities, while, conversely, the political and scientific negativities of physics and metaphysics are just as subordinate, in secondary somatic vein, to their prevailing wavicle-conditioned positivities in economics and religion. 

 

27.  And economics and religion should be thought of primarily in terms of the sacred, the synthetically theoretical, whether in the primary modes of physics and metaphysics or in the secondary modes of metachemistry and chemistry, where they tend to play second fiddle, as it were, to materialism and realism, whereas science and politics should be thought of primarily in terms of the profane, of the analytically practical, whether in the primary modes of metachemistry and chemistry or in the secondary modes of physics and metaphysics where, by contrast, they tend to play second fiddle to humanism and transcendentalism. 

 

28.  Thus the positivity of psychic freedom implies an economic and a religious outlook, and the more such an outlook develops at the expense of the natural or somatic freedom, in particle hegemonies, of science and politics in their per se manifestations, the more positive things become, since they attest not to the Cosmos and Nature but to Man and, hopefully in the future, the Cyborg - the overcoming of Man in terms of a religiously-biased resolve, as upheld by the Church, to evolve life towards a godly consummation in the Omega Point of the utmost involutional centro-complexification.

 

29.  For Man, to paraphrase Nietzsche, is something that 'should be overcome' ... if we wish life to evolve beyond an economic hegemony and attain to the Cyborg heights of religious perfection, wherein truth and joy will peak as never before even with a continuation, on duly modified terms, of knowledge/pleasure and strength/pride, together, in the administrative aside to our hypothetical triadic Beyond (of 'Kingdom Come'), with beauty/love, the sort of beauty and love that would of course owe more to fundamentalism than to materialism, and have the service, in sensibility, of new manifestations of nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism in mind, as the free  manifestations of realism (female primary), naturalism (male secondary), and idealism (male secondary), together with materialism (female primary), were duly consigned, in judgemental rejection of free nature, of particle hegemonies in somatic freedom, to the rubbish bin of state-oriented scientific and political history, and life duly stepped beyond the analytical shadows of negativity, of devolutionary convolution, into the synthetic light of an involutional positivity centred on the sacredness of psychic freedom such that, with its free nurture, would more than vindicate Man's revolt against the Fall, as evolving life proceeded to evolve out of the world into the otherworldly rise of a Life Eternal such that only the Cyborg could be expected to live, in sensible pursuit of that ultimate revolution which lies beingfully within ... in the soulful essence of the self.

 

30.  But if Man's ultimate destiny lies in God, in the Cyborg, then a distinction must necessarily continue to exist between the profane and the sacred, practicality and theoreticality, will/spirit on the one hand, and ego/soul on the other, as between the not-self and the self, soma and psyche, nature and nurture, phenomenal and noumenal, and so continue that, whether this distinction exists in metaphysics, as between idealism and transcendentalism, in physics, as between naturalism and humanism, or, indeed, on the opposite side of the gender fence, in chemistry, as between realism and nonconformism, or in metachemistry, as between materialism and fundamentalism, there will be a particle/wavicle dichotomy between the one and the other, with the self alone sacred, whether in male grace (both primarily divine and masculine, given the subjective bias for self of males proper) or in female punishment (both secondarily diabolic and feminine, given the objective bias for not-self of females proper), and the not-self inevitably profane, whether in male sin (both secondarily divine and masculine, given the subjective bias for self of males) or in female crime (both primarily diabolic and feminine, given the objective bias for not-self of females).

 

31.  The grace of God-the-Wise-Son and of Heaven-the-Holy-Soul implies a psychic corollary in truth and joy, in inner metaphysical ego and soul, whereas the sin of God-the-Wise-Father and Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit implies a somatic corollary in falsity and woe, in inner metaphysical will (of the lungs to breathe) and spirit (of the breath), since the grace of truth and joy is only sustainable in forgiving relation to the sinfulness of falsity and woe, both God and Heaven being strictly of the self rather than of the not-self, and therefore inevitably false and woeful in relation to the sinfulness of nature, in this case the inner subnatural soma of respiratory metaphysics wherein God-the-Wise-Father and Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit have their profane throne in the lungs and the breath.

 

32.  And what applies to God and Heaven in metaphysics applies no less to Man and the Earth in physics, whereby the inner natural soma of cogitative physics, wherein Man-the-Wise-Father and Earth-the-Holy-Spirit have their profane throne in the brain and its capacity for thought (though not the ordering of thoughts), is inevitably sinful in its somatic negativity, its particle-hegemonic practicality of physical will and spirit, ignorance and pain, and only the inner psychic context of ego and soul, knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to Man-the-Wise-Son and Earth-the-Holy-Soul, can be accounted graceful, and precisely in sacred opposition to, though necessary forgiveness of, the somatic profanity of the not-self in its sensibly physical manifestation.

 

33.  Obviously what applies to sensibility also applies to sensuality, except that we will be dealing less with wise and holy orders of nature and nurture, soma and psyche, than with their foolish and unholy counterparts.... While, on the opposite side of the gender fence, this sensual/sensible dichotomy is, of course, less between folly/unholiness in the one context and wisdom/holiness in the other, as relative to alternative types of sin and grace, than between evil/clearness and goodness/unclearness in relation to alternative types of crime and punishment, the will and spirit of soma always characterized by the one and the ego and soul of psyche by the other, so that crime is always negative, whether in ugliness/hatred or weakness/humility, and punishment alone positive, whether in beauty/love or strength/pride in both sensual and sensible contexts.

 

34.  But, whatever the gender, somatic nature is always bad or wrong or  profane or particle-hegemonic or practical, whether in male sin or in female crime, in secondary (subjective) or primary (objective) terms, and psychic nurture alone good or right or sacred or wavicle-hegemonic or theoretical, since the not-self is ever dominated by the negativity of its phenomenal attributes and the self alone capable of sustained positivity, whether primarily in grace for males or secondarily in punishment for females, on the basis of its noumenal character, a character which enables it to transcend the limitations of time in respect of Eternity.

 

35.  For only when we are rid of the not-self, the body, the various organs of the various Elements, with death ... does the self escape from the clutches of nature and enter into full self-realization of itself in either soulful heaven for gods (divine males) or soulful earth for men (masculine males) or, on the opposite side of the gender fence, soulful purgatory for women (feminine females) or soulful hell for devils (diabolic females) - viz. joy, pleasure, pride, and love, such that are not corrupted by or conditional upon their negative opposites in woe, pain, humility, and hatred.

 

36.  That is why, in generations to come, we need to transcend the body and enter more fully into communion with the soul, the objectivity of whose inorganic, or psychic, primacy for females and the subjectivity of whose inorganic, or psychic, supremacy for males, premised upon a noumenal as opposed to a phenomenal disposition in each case, will put the organic primacy of female objective soma and the organic supremacy of male subjective soma firmly in the shade of time-worn suffering; for everything organic is subject to decay and death, while the inorganic, conceived in relation to psyche, is alone capable of timeless bliss - whether in love, pride, pleasure, or joy, according to one's elemental disposition in gender and class. 

 

37.  Release from the body is blissful, but we shouldn't have to wait until death to experience such a release, nor resign ourselves to an afterlife limited and to some extent even conditioned, I would say, by the body's decomposing mortality.  If we have the will, then the self can find a more fitting and lasting not-self, a more dependable profanity, not subject to the sufferings and decayings of Man, to not merely assist it into Eternity, like the natural body, but to assist it eternally, in Truth-respecting defiance of the strength/knowledge world and moral antithesis to cosmic beauty, as to the Cosmos in general.  Then and only then will God have come fully to pass; for, in truth, God is not the beginning but the end of all things, and therefore ultimately premised upon the Cyborg, who will be the moral vindication and evolutionary outcome of the civilized earth.

 

38.  This is what I have to teach, and only now could it be said that, with the utmost centro-complexification of what has all along been a most progressive and exactingly comprehensive philosophy, my theoretical goal has effectively been reached; for I have brought to ideological summation a moral doctrine and historical perspective which should stand the test of time - and, beyond time, of Eternity - for generations to come. 

 

39.  Rome, it has been said, was not built in a day, and neither was it ever likely that so comprehensively deep and far-reaching a philosophy, subject to so many rethinks and revisions, as that to which I have dedicated a not-inconsiderable portion of my adult life, would achieve its Omega Point much before now, when I have at last brought all the strands together in the closest possible way, in fitting testimony to the centro-complexifying gradualism of an evolutionary involution winding its way, in Pilgrim-like fashion, towards that centripetal revolution which will be the Oneness not of not-self individualism in free soma, but of self-cooperation, co-operation with the self, in free psyche - the freedom-of-freedoms for those who, as males, are most fittingly entitled to it. 

 

40.  I may be the first Social Transcendentalist but, if human history is to be vindicated, hopefully not the last!  For this ideological philosophy embraces the People, meaning city persons most especially, irrespective of their gender or class.  For it is only from the lead of the earthly city that the 'Celestial City' will at length emerge victorious in the omega point of cultural truth, and life at last achieve divine unity.

    

                             

LONDON 2002 (Revised 2012)

 

Preview THE OMEGA POINT OF CULTURAL TRUTH eBook