Private Observations

PRIVATE OBSERVATIONS

(Personal and Universal)

Aphoristic Philosophy

____________

Listening to Ponty, one is made painfully conscious of the deplorable extent to which an excess of technique fails to compensate for a lack of soul.

Rock never went away, because the record shops never allowed it to....

Spectacles can do more damage to eyes than opticians or eye doctors would be prepared to admit.

Recording one's thoughts is a form of vanity, but it is not the worst kind.

Nowadays thoughts are censured more vigorously than ever before - largely because the age abhors truth.

They have made a god out of beauty and a heaven out of love, but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences!

Self-delusion is the key to populism, for the populist is one who can't or won't face up to his self.

The world thrives on self-deception and self-delusion, for it is the public face of things that counts, and he who is most removed from his self is least strange to the other.

They have divided the world between evil and good, never imagining, for a moment, that folly and wisdom are just as much a part of the overall equation.

Most people are not interested in saving their souls but only in saving their money. In fact, the more one is into saving money, the less appeal will the salvation of the soul have ...

Strictly speaking, the soul is not saved; it is achieved as a redemption of the ego, and never more so than in relation to the context of sensible, or inner, metaphysics.

But, then, the redemption of the self from ego to soul in inner metaphysics is only for those who, as a certain type of higher male, would be capable of such a metaphysical redemption anyway.

Truth is not for everybody - as the world constantly demonstrates by its refusal to acknowledge it and/or subversive arrogation of it by the Lie.

'Beauty is Truth, Truth ... Beauty' (Keats); what could be less true than that? But, then, the poet, especially in the West, has always felt entitled to play God!

As I have often said, poets and philosophers are, if genuine, like Devils and Gods towering over the men and women of fiction and drama, viz. novels and plays.

Of course, the world won't take any notice or pay much heed to what I say, because it is a lie that fights shy of truth, including the 'truth' about a variety of literary and similar cultural alternatives, in the interests of its own commercial aggrandisement.

I don't expect anything from the world, nor do I allow the world to expect very much - excepting truth - from me.

For I have judged the world, both in its phenomenal and noumenal, lower class and upper class, manifestations, and those whom I have judged would know whether they were destined for salvation or damnation in relation to the projected three-tier structure of 'Kingdom Come' and its administrative aside which characterizes my best works.

Thus in one sense Judgement has already come to pass, whilst in another sense - the actual coming of the 'Kingdom' attendant upon a democratically expressed majority mandate for religious sovereignty - it has still to come.

Some people, I know, will think me mad. But what does that prove? Great things always encounter opposition from the small-minded.

Philosophers (if genuine) deal with truth, poets, by contrast, with illusion, while playwrights and novelists respectively deal - or should deal - with fact and fiction.

Disillusioned by illusion, i.e. beauty, a certain poet gravitated towards truth but was unable, through delusion, to achieve it.

Our age revels in the beauties of illusion and the illusions of beauty, being afraid, or unwilling, to approach truth (for which one must first become disillusioned with beauty and willing to undergo any amount of delusion).

For delusion seems to stand in between illusion and truth, beauty and wisdom (of a divine order), like an amoral half-way house between the one and the other.

Disillusionment with illusion may lead to truth, but does disillusionment with fiction lead to fact? Yes, I guess you could say it does, albeit one would be going backwards from phenomenal subjectivity to phenomenal objectivity, as from lower-class male to female, instead of forwards, as it were, from noumenal objectivity to noumenal subjectivity, as from upper-class female to male.

Thus it seems that illusion and fact appertain no less to the female side of life than ...fiction and truth to its male side, and that you cannot expect to understand or comprehend the one, in either context, without due reference to the other, since what is truth without illusion or fiction without fact?

Certainly, truth and illusion, corresponding to wisdom and beauty, are upper-class alternatives germane to Gods and Devils, whereas fiction and fact, corresponding to knowledge and strength, are their lower-class counterparts, as germane to men and women.

To contrast the appearance of illusion (beauty) with the essence of truth (wisdom), as one would contrast the quantity of fact (strength) with the quality of fiction (knowledge).

Just as illusion has especially intimate connections with the will, and truth, its noumenal antithesis, no-less intimate connections with the soul, so fact has especially intimate connections with the spirit, and fiction, its phenomenal antithesis, no-less intimate connections with the ego.

The power of illusion and the contentment of truth stand noumenally above the glory of fact and the form of fiction, which is to say, the will of beauty and the soul of wisdom stand noumenally above the spirit of strength and the ego of knowledge.

In such fashion, the Devil of Hell and the God of Heaven stand above the woman of purgatory and the man of (the) earth.

Note how the above absolutes are accorded initial capitals and the relativities not, given their phenomenal rather than noumenal status. For it is normal - is it not? - to write of the Devil and God (with the aid of initial capitals) but of woman and man (in lower case), as of Hell and Heaven, but of purgatory and the earth.

Be that as it may, all such terms are equally applicable to their respective contexts and equally important, since he who dismisses the relevance of terms like God and the Devil to their respective contexts might just as well write off men and women as well. Or write off purgatory and the earth if he chooses, somewhat arbitrarily, and as the fruit of ignorance, to dismiss Heaven and Hell.

Frankly there is nothing fanciful here. All these terms have intimate associations with the Elements - the Devil and Hell with fire, God and Heaven with air, woman and purgatory with water, and man and the earth with vegetation (earth). But shallow-pates will persist in maintaining the contrary, in denying such associations, and shallow-pates there have and always will be!

The shallowest of all professional or vocational men are, of course, scientists, who are normally among the first to deny God and/or Heaven, since they generally operate under the aegis of the Devil and/or Hell.

Of course, one can be very shallow, or superficial, and uphold a shallow - and usually primitive - concept or notion of God. This, unfortunately, is all too prevalent these days, in our media-besotted age.

All higher art, by which is meant Art (with a capital A) is done not because of the People, but in spite of them!

The People care nothing for genius but tend, on account of their ignorance, to hold it against any person so inclined.

The genius, if he is to survive, has need of an ability to defy the People's opposition and/or indifference to what he signifies. He must be able to continue, willy-nilly, irrespective of any obstacles, verbal or otherwise, the People may choose to place in his way.

The artist-genius is not like the People - he is a case apart who lives according to his own rules rather than by the rules which the majority of people who live in society abide by.

This is not to say that he is a criminal or scoundrel but, rather, one who thinks for himself and lives, more often than not, by himself, since other people would be more of a hindrance than an aid to his art.

All the best work is done in solitude, never in company or with the multitude. Rather, the artist-genius is one who flees from the multitude in fear that his art should be vitiated by social custom.

In like manner, he distrusts and avoids the religions of the multitude, which are not the religions of self-belief but, rather, of self-sacrifice and other-worship. In short, of spiritual prostitution and intellectual idolatry.

Man has made a god out of himself, and the deplorable result has been the humanistic stultification of religion and its reduction to the lowest-common-denominator of prayerful superstition.

Take the 'Lord's Prayer', with its 'give us this day our daily bread' (hardly the stuff of religion, much less of God!) and 'lead us not into temptation' (as if 'the Lord' would do such a thing!), 'but deliver us from evil' (not to mention folly as well!), 'for Thine is the Kingdom, the power and the glory' (but evidently not the form and the contentment!) 'for ever and ever....'

The only part of the 'Lord's Prayer' that I really like is 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done ...' (which, however, remains to be seen) 'in Heaven as it is on earth' (which latter, alas, I am still not altogether convinced about, though I live in hope).

As for the concept of a 'living God' (not associated with the above prayer), it is incontestably the case that the only God to fit that description is 'the Father', and not so much as the Sun (which in any case is more of a Satanic parallel as 'fallen angel') as of the ears, the order of God which accords with 'supreme being', albeit in relation to folly and unholiness rather than to those aspects of godhead which accord with such being in relation to wisdom and holiness, since of the lungs and the breath as opposed to the ears and the airwaves, and therefore having reference to salvation from metaphysical sensuality to metaphysical sensibility, as from the aforementioned Father to the Son or, at any rate, to a Son commensurate with the Second Coming, and having more reference, metaphysically, to the Self than to the Not-Self.

Thus not so much lungs and breath, sensibly metaphysical will and spirit, as germane to a secondary God and Heaven, as ego and soul of, in sensibly metaphysical terms, a primary order of God and Heaven - namely, the Wise Ego of God-the-Son and the Holy Soul of Sensible Heaven.

For the Wise Will of God-the-Father and the Holy Spirit of Sensible Heaven, the lungs and the breath, are there to be utilized by the Wise Ego of God-the-Son, the sensibly metaphysical ego, in the interests of His 'resurrection', on the recoil from self-annihilation at the hands, so to speak, of the out-breath ... of the Holy Spirit of Sensible Heaven ... to and as the Holy Soul of Sensible Heaven, the redemption of a primary God in a primary Heaven, which is the raison d'être of transcendental meditation and justification of ultimate Godhead.

Thus in broad sensual/sensible metaphysical terms, one can distinguish Father from Son and Son from Father, but in specific terms both contexts can be thought of in relation to a Father and a Son, not to mention a Spirit and a Soul, except that in sensual metaphysics Godhead (whether primary or secondary) is characterized by folly, and Heaven (whether in primary or secondary terms) by unholiness, whereas in sensible metaphysics both orders of Godhead are wise and both orders of Heaven holy.

Consequently the latter are constitutive of salvation from the former, and such a salvation is germane to the Second Coming, Who is the Son, or egoistic order of Godhead (primary), Whose consciousness is attuned to the will of the lungs to breathe and Who, in meditating, effectively utilizes this will, the Wise Will of God-the-Father, to be borne-up on the out-breath wings of the Holy Spirit of Sensible Heaven, only to recoil, in self-preservation, to self more profoundly ... than would otherwise have been the case ... as the Holy Soul of Sensible Heaven, the redemptive primary Heaven of a primary God whose release from ego, no matter how temporary or intermittently, is blissful.

Thus there is a Father here (the lungs) and a Son here (the metaphysical ego), together with a Spirit (the breath) and a Soul (the innermost self), but all of this inner metaphysical reality can be subsumed under the general rubric of the Son, the Second Coming, Who in broad terms is no secondary Son to a primary Father, like the First Coming (Christ) or, in not-self terms, brain to phallus, secondary grace to primary sin, but, on the contrary, very much a primary Son to a secondary Father, as, in not-self terms, lungs to ears, primary grace to secondary sin.

Thus, with the Second Coming, grace moves to the fore as the primary aspect of things due to transcendental meditation, whereas with the First Coming - as, indeed, the Catholic Church - it is merely secondary, in prayerful contrition and/or verbal absolution, to a sinful fulcrum in the phallus (or focus of the flesh), which can be anthropomorphized as the Father per se, which is to say, a primary manifestation of this order of Godhead or, rather, man (since godliness attaches neither to the sensual nor to the sensible manifestations of physics, but only to those manifestations of metaphysics, as already discussed).

Thus Father and Son are merely manly, or of man, with the physical religion of humanism, viz. Christianity, whereas with the metaphysical religion of transcendentalism, by contrast, they are godly, or of God, and this whether on foolish or wise terms, according to whether sensuality or sensibility is the prevailing orientation.

Social Transcendentalism, as taught by me, is primarily the religion of metaphysical sensibility, and thus of wise orders of God (Father and Son) and holy orders of Heaven (Spirit and Soul). It is also the religion, lower down its pluralistic hierarchy, of wise orders of man (father and son) and holy orders of the earth (spirit and soul), as well, in relation to the bottom tier of my projected triadic Beyond, as good orders of woman (mother and daughter) and unclear orders of purgatory (spirit and soul).

It is even, in relation to the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond, a context of good orders of Devil (Mother and Daughter) and unclear orders of Hell (Spirit and Soul). For you cannot have Heaven without Hell, nor the earth without purgatory, any more than you can have God without the Devil, or man without woman.

If this is 'Kingdom Come', as I believe, then 'Kingdom Come' is very much a combination of administrative aside and triadic Beyond, with all four Elements duly accounted for and reasonably integrated.

Just as, in broad evolutionary terms, fire precedes water, and water precedes vegetation (earth), and vegetation precedes air, so the Devil precedes woman, and woman precedes man, and man precedes God.

Equivalently, one could speak of doing preceding giving, giving preceding taking, and taking preceding being, like appearance preceding quantity, quantity preceding quality, and quality preceding essence.

Which is equivalent to power preceding glory, glory preceding form, and form preceding contentment, as will precedes spirit, spirit precedes ego, and ego precedes soul - at any rate, as far as their main, or per se, manifestations are concerned.

Be that as it may, life is ever a combination, in varying degrees, of all four Elements, and such it will remain, as evil, good, folly, and wisdom stake their respective claims on life from the standpoints, in general terms, of fire, water, vegetation, and air.

Yet people are capable of sensibility, even though grounded in sensuality, and consequently of abandoning folly for wisdom, and evil for goodness, as they achieve salvation (if male) and/or damnation (if female) for as long as sensibility obtains - only to return to evil and folly as the blessed (female) and cursed (male) norms of sensuality dictate.

Wisdom without folly would be as meaningless as goodness without evil, just as grace without sin would be as meaningless as punishment without crime.

The Church regards man as sinful because it is grounded, through physics, in a primary Father and a secondary Son, the one approximating to the penis (as focus of the flesh) and the other to the brain. Such a view, however, betrays a lower-class bias which, though correct in itself, fails to do justice to the upper-class context, commensurate with metaphysics, in which sensual Godhead is secondary to sensible Godhead, say Father to Son, as ears to lungs, and consequently those who are capable of a graceful fulcrum in transcendental meditation will reject the Church's view of mankind as irrelevant to themselves, since applicable only to men, not Gods.

The Church speaks for the Many, not the Few, and consequently its view of mankind is limited by and to physical criteria which give no consolation to the metaphysically inclined. Sin is its fulcrum, and grace only an exception to the general rule.

For things to be otherwise, one needs more than prayerful contrition and/or verbal absolution; one needs transcendental meditation, but that is strictly for those who are 'up to' and capable of a metaphysical disposition, not for the broad masses.

Yet even there, sin is less relevant to women than crime and/or punishment, and so a sinful view of mankind is apt, quite apart from its lower-class or physical limitations, to do a disservice to females, both as women and, in upper-class terms, as Devils - the objective, or metachemical, counterpart to Gods.

The Father may have his fulcrum in the lower-class context of massive mass (phallus) rather than in the upper-class context of sequential time (ears), but the Mother has her fulcrum in the lower-class context of massed mass (womb) rather than in the upper-class context of repetitive time (heart).

Hence whereas a lower-class religious institution will emphasize sin as opposed to grace, a lower-class political institution, like the democratic state, will or should emphasize punishment as opposed to crime, since crime and punishment would seem to be as germane to the State as ... sin and grace to the Church, enabling one to infer a female bias to the one and a male bias to the other.

Now, contrary to the above, the Son may have his fulcrum in the upper-class context of spaced space (lungs) rather than in the lower-class context of voluminous volume (brain), but the Daughter has her fulcrum in the upper-class context of spatial space (eyes) rather than in the lower-class context of volumetric volume (tongue).

Hence whereas an upper-class religious institution, like the meritocratic context of 'Kingdom Come' or, at any rate, the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond, will emphasize grace as opposed to sin, an upper-class political institution, like the autocratic state, will emphasize crime as opposed to punishment, bearing in mind that in metachemistry crime is primary and punishment secondary, whereas in metaphysics grace is primary and sin secondary.

Either way, the State, whether autocratic or democratic, is more concerned with crime and punishment than with sin and grace, and this is because the State is a female institution that is most true to itself in metachemistry and chemistry.

More correctly, the State is most true to itself in chemistry, the context of a punishing fulcrum; more (relative to most) true to itself in metachemistry, the context of a criminal fulcrum; less (relative to least) true to itself in metaphysics, the context of a graceful fulcrum; and least true to itself in physics, the context of a sinful fulcrum.

As regards the Church, using that term in a parallel fashion to 'State', it could be said that the Church is most true to itself in metaphysics, the context of a graceful fulcrum; more (relative to most) true to itself in physics, the context of a sinful fulcrum; less (relative to least) true to itself in chemistry, the context of a punishing fulcrum; and least true to itself in metachemistry, the context of a criminal fulcrum.

Both the State and the Church can, however, be sensual or sensible; for it would be an oversimplification to suppose that states were always sensual and churches sensible. Certainly, the Anglican Church is less physically sensible than the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore more deeply mired in sin, while the so-called free, or nonconformist, churches are less sinful than criminal in their chemical sensuality, a sensuality that accords with a forked-tongue hegemony over the comparatively phallic, or bodily (Christ on the Cross), bias of the Anglican Church in the inverted triangle of so-called Protestant solidarity, as germane, by and large, to the 'heathenistic' integrity of British 'civilization'.

Hence we can speak of sensual humanism and nonconformism, those denominational divisions of the overall lower-class Church which accord with its more (relative to most) and less (relative to least) true manifestations, whereas their sensible counterparts are more usually and even traditionally to be found within the Roman Catholic Church, where brain over womb, rather than tongue over phallus, has tended to be the physical/chemical mean in strictly Christic/Marian terms.

As for fundamentalism and transcendentalism, or that which is least true and/or most true to the Church, Anglicanism embraces the one through the Blood Royal, the reigning monarch as head of the Anglican Church, and Roman Catholicism embraces the other through the Papacy, the pontifical head of the R.C. Church, as in the one case metachemical sensibility and in the other case metaphysical sensuality, secondary Mother and secondary Father, anchor both mass and volume to time, albeit with a different emphasis in each case, as befitting their fundamentalist (repetitive time) and transcendentalist (sequential time) natures.

But the 'big' or independent orders of Fundamentalism and Transcendentalism are, of course, extraneous to the Christian Church or, more correctly, Churches (whether strictly Christian or not) - like Hinduism and Mohammedanism (Islam) in relation to the sensuality and sensibility of Fundamentalism, or Judaism and Buddhism in relation to the sensuality and sensibility of Transcendentalism - the former alternatives broadly metachemical, and the latter ones no-less broadly metaphysical.

Thus that which is least true to the Church, or religion, is fundamentalist, while that which is most true to religion, as to the Church, is transcendentalist - whether in terms of sensuality or sensibility; which is to say, whether in terms of crime and punishment in the case of Fundamentalism, or of sin and grace in the case of Transcendentalism. A primary crime and a secondary punishment vis-à-vis a secondary sin and a primary grace. Absolute religious Evil and Good vis-à-vis absolute religious folly and wisdom. Absolute Daughter and Mother vis-à-vis absolute Father and Son.

Evolving life embraces, in mankind, a drive towards unity and the overcoming of divisive frictions. Such frictions - different religions, cultures, ideologies, etc. - derive in no small part from diverse environments, the sorts of climatically and topographically diverse environments which the Earth has been prone to for several millennia.

I am not alluding here to gender and class, which are pretty constant factors irrespective of environment, but to those varieties of religion and culture which remain a source of human conflict and division.

Only a more uniform environment can provide the basis for a universal civilization/culture complex, the sort of universality that, while acknowledging the lower values of strength and knowledge, does justice to the higher values of beauty and, especially, truth.

Such an environment obviously has to be artificial, and that is why the city, considered as a man-made entity, is such an important aspect of the development of civilization and culture towards a universal peak. For the city is the means whereby living environments become artificially standardized irrespective of climatic differences, and in such urban standardization lies the key to cultural universality.

But the city itself can be modified in keeping with new ideological insights, and thus transmuted from alpha to omega, so to speak, as curvilinear architecture, for example, increasingly ensues - where applicable - upon the more rectilinear styles so typifying the female bias (objective) of city development in the late-twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

Thus it is not the city as such which is bad and morally or otherwise undesirable, as from a naturalistic perspective, but rather the prevalence of certain styles of architecture which signify a beginning rather than an end, as though in heathenistic defiance of traditional or conventional Christian-type criteria.

If we judge or deem certain architectural styles to be irrelevant or undesirable from a more omega-oriented and progressive standpoint, that is not the same as condemning the city outright, as though a sin or crime against Nature (whatever, according to climatic and topographical conditioning, we may consider that to be). On the contrary, the almost infinite transmutability of the city allows for the progressive overcoming of Nature as a divisive influence in human affairs and for the possibility - indeed, almost certain inevitability - of universal ideological uniformity, not, be it noted, in relation to economics (still less politics and science) but, ultimately, in relation to religion, the ne plus ultra of things when genuine, and a religion, moreover, the likes of which the world has never seen before.

But this religion, which I equate with Social Transcendentalism, would not be so fatuous as to fly in the face of either gender or class, since two genders (male and female) and two classes (upper and lower) give us that elemental comprehensiveness which is of the essence of reality, and which permits structural stability on both upper and lower manifestations of an objective and a subjective basis, the only basis upon which justice can be done to reality and mankind be guaranteed the avoidance of utopian partisanships of the sort which, in their advocacy of this or that gender's and/or class's interests, so plagued and characterized the twentieth century.

Anyone who adopts Social Transcendentalism will not be interested in building 'castles in the air' or having 'pie in the sky', for the simple reason that he will know that all the Elements - from fire and water to vegetation (earth) and air - have their place, even if with an emphasis, necessarily in relation to civilization and culture, on sensibility as opposed to sensuality.

Thus religion, not economics, becomes the nature and guarantor of ultimate universal unity within the framework of an ideological structure which, while acknowledging gender and class distinctions, can only really be maintained on the basis of extensive and/or intensive transmutable urbanization.

Opposing global capitalism and consumerism is certainly an understandable stance for those who either feel threatened by it or left out in the cold, but it is only really valid from the standpoint of religion, and that new religion, in particular, which, through the Second Coming, does ultimate justice to truth - something which no previous or traditional religion - with the partial exception of Buddhism in certain of its manifestations - has ever done.

However, disillusionment with traditional religion does not justify, in my view, the assumption that the only solution to an economic hegemony, as signified by global capitalism, lies in politics, as though socialism - to the extent one identifies it with a political dimension - were a viable alternative to capitalism! Frankly, it is not, and no-one in their right minds would seriously espouse a socialistic alternative to capitalism in this day and age, as if a feminine approach to economics, akin to wealth being maternally dispensed to individual members of a family, were somehow intrinsically superior to its male approach, which is responsible for the initial generation of wealth through the profit system.

Neither is nature conservationism and global ecology necessarily a viable alternative to capitalism, bearing in mind that Nature is responsible, in no small degree, for the different ideologies and cultures which can be found to conform, in many respects, to the type of natural environment in which they exist, be it temperate or otherwise, and that more emphasis on Nature will only reverse progress towards universal unity.

The city is an important factor, not the sole one by any means, but nonetheless of considerable significance in ensuring the development of environmental uniformity and the overcoming, in consequence, of natural disparities, and for this reason its development should take precedence, wherever reasonably possible, over naturalistic concerns, including undue conservationist reaction to industrial and/or urban expansion.

Certainly it would be wrong to assume that economics and the city were synonymous, and that global capitalism was simply a product of city development. It may be that the development of the city goes through an economic phase, a capitalist phase, as formerly it arguably went through a political and even scientific one (as with the Industrial Revolution), but that development can itself be transmuted in relation to new criteria which, steeped in revolutionary religion, aim to supersede such an economic parallel.

For the ultimate city - the celestial city, to employ a Bunyan-like term - must be of a religious orientation, having intimate associations with 'Kingdom Come', and for such a city to arise there must first have been the economic development of the city, a development which acts as the catalyst for subsequent development of the kind in which economics, duly subordinated to religion, is effectively transcended, and religion - and therefore God - becomes the final arbiter of right and wrong, the ultimate moral standard and guide.

Such a new religion presupposes a new God, and such a new God - equivalent to a Second Coming Who provides for the possibility of a democratically-achieved empowerment of the People with religious sovereignty - would require and enable not only man but woman to be put in her rightful or, rather, righteous place - righteous, that is, in relation to sensibility and the reintroduction of civilization as the necessary servant, both on phenomenal and noumenal, lower- and upper-class terms, of culture.

At present, however, it is man who, with his economic humanism, 'calls the shots', and not altogether without the institutionalized sanction, one might almost say, of the First Coming, viz. Christ, in certain of his denominational manifestations, so to speak. But a time will come when the ultimate criterion of truth, morality, justice, culture, etc., will reside with God, as with godly humans, and then global unity and uniformity, or unity in uniformity, will take an increasingly, though not exclusively, religious turn, as germane to its consummation on the basis of the subjectively-oriented transmutation of the city, and in keeping with the will of a socially responsible transcendentalism - the will, in short, of Social Transcendentalism.

In music, as in life, sensibility is 'up-tempo' and sensuality 'laid back'.

All the best music is 'up-tempo', which is to say quick or fast.

Rhythm is the will of music, but only when music is metachemical, or fiery, is rhythm properly rhythmic.

When music is chemical, or watery, rhythm is quasi-harmonic and therefore 'once bovaryized'.

When music is physical, or vegetative, rhythm is quasi-melodic and therefore 'twice bovaryized'.

When music is metaphysical, or airy, rhythm is quasi-pitchful and therefore 'thrice bovaryized'.

Harmony is the spirit of music, but only when music is chemical, or watery, is harmony properly harmonic.

When music is metachemical, or fiery, harmony is quasi-rhythmic and therefore 'once bovaryized'.

When music is metaphysical, or airy, harmony is quasi-pitchful and therefore 'twice bovaryized'.

When music is physical, or vegetative, harmony is quasi-melodic and therefore 'thrice bovaryized'.

Melody is the ego of music, but only when music is physical, or vegetative, is melody properly melodic.

When music is metaphysical, or airy, melody is quasi-pitchful and therefore 'once bovaryized'.

When music is metachemical, or fiery, melody is quasi-rhythmic and therefore 'twice bovaryized'.

When music is chemical, or watery, melody is quasi-harmonic and therefore 'thrice bovaryized'.

Pitch is the soul of music, but only when music is metaphysical, or airy, is pitch properly pitchful.

When music is physical, or vegetative, pitch is quasi-melodic and therefore 'once bovaryized'.

When music is chemical, or watery, pitch is quasi-harmonic and therefore 'twice bovaryized'.

When music is metachemical, or fiery, pitch is quasi-rhythmic and therefore 'thrice bovaryized'.

As the art form of air rather than of vegetation (literature), water (sculpture), or fire (painting), music is most true to itself in metaphysics, more (relative to most) true to itself in physics, less (relative to least) true to itself in chemistry, and least true to itself in metachemistry.

Therefore music that is properly musical will be of the soul; music that is quasi-literary, and 'once bovaryized', will be of the ego; music that is quasi-sculptural, and 'twice bovaryized', will be of the spirit; and music that is quasi-painterly, and 'thrice bovaryized', will be of the will.

Thus the most soulful music will be essential in its concern with contentment; the more (relative to most) soulful music (egocentric, or intellectual) will be qualitative in its concern with form; the less (relative to least) soulful music (spiritual) will be quantitative in its concern with glory; and the least soulful music (wilful, or instinctual) will be apparent in its concern with power.

Rhythm, harmony, melody, and pitch - the will, spirit, ego, and soul of music, whether in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or metaphysics.

Music, to repeat, is the metaphysical art form par excellence, essentially centred in the attainment of soul.

Literature, on the other hand, is the physical art form par excellence, qualitatively centred in the form of ego.

Sculpture, by contrast, is the chemical art form par excellence, quantitatively rooted in the glory of spirit.

Painting, on the other hand, is the metachemical art form par excellence, apparently rooted in the power of will.

In general terms, it could be said that painting and sculpture stand objectively aloof, on the female side of the gender fence, from literature and music, their subjective, and therefore male, counterparts.

Music and literature overlap in song; music and sculpture overlap in dance; music and painting overlap in opera, i.e. musical theatre.

Music and meditation are antithetical modes of metaphysics. The more music the less meditation, and vice versa.

Piping is as much the sensibility of music as chanting the sensuality of meditation.

Therefore piping is a much the exception to the musical rule as chanting the exception to the meditative rule.

To contrast the fundamentalism of painting with the transcendentalism of music, and the nonconformism of sculpture with the humanism of literature.

To contrast the materialism of antipainting with the idealism of antimusic, and the realism of antisculpture with the naturalism of anti-literature.

It is easier to be an artist or a sculptor than both an artist and a sculptor, for the simple reason that it is easier or more logical to be upper class or lower class than both upper and lower class on the female side of the gender fence (objective).

It is easier to be a writer or a musician than both a writer and a musician, for the simple reason that it is easier or more logical to be lower class or upper class than both lower and upper class on the male side of the gender fence (subjective).

Nevertheless, people who are both painters and sculptors are no less possible than people who are both writers and musicians - even if more an exception to the general rule (of class partisanship).

Of course, only per se orders of painting and music can be regarded as upper class, just as only per se orders of sculpture and literature can be regarded as lower class. - A complex subject which I shall not enlarge upon here ... except to say that in literature, for instance, poetry and philosophy are quasi-upper class compared to drama and fiction, but that only a certain approach to poetry and philosophy could be properly so described, an approach, that is, involving rhymed stanzas on the one hand and spaced aphorisms on the other.

There are Western people who get no closer to meditation than piping; conversely, there are Eastern people who get no closer to music than chanting.

Art and religion - a big sensuality and a small sensibility vis-à-vis a small sensuality and a big sensibility.

Art is no substitute for religion from a male standpoint, but, then again, one could equally argue that religion is no substitute for art from a female standpoint, the standpoint, more usually, of a stronger sensual disposition.

Females have more to gain from sensuality than sensibility, and males, by contrast, more to gain from sensibility than sensuality - not least of all a hegemonic position in relation to the opposite sex.

The idea that God blesses is a fanciful delusion attendant upon the mistaken conception of a godly First Mover. In reality, it is the Devil who blesses or who is blessed (with over-plane freedom of not-self action in sensuality) and God who is cursed and/or who curses (with under-plane freedom from self in sensuality).

To be saved by a sensible God, like the Second Coming, from a sensual God, like the Father, is the male equivalent of being damned, as a female, from a sensual Devil, like the 'Risen Virgin' (Daughter), to a sensible Devil, like the, so to speak, 'Fallen Virgin' (Mother), or, in equivalent organic terms, to be saved from ears to lungs is the male equivalent of being damned, as a female, from eyes to heart.

But who is it who damns? Precisely the God who saves what can be saved from the curse of under-plane subservience, in sensuality, to the over-plane hegemony of what is blessed - namely, the sensual First Mover, or Risen Virgin (the Catholic equivalent, in effect, of King Saul, Moses, Jehovah, the Liberty Belle, etc.)

To be damned, as a metachemical female, from a sensual hegemony to a sensible subservience is the noumenal counterpart of being saved, as a metaphysical male, from a sensual subservience to a sensible hegemony - saved by a sensible God who, in consequence of His actions, indirectly damns (females) to a sensible Devil - at least all or most of those who are upper class and entitled to such an absolutist damnation as the female counterpart to an absolutist, and effectively upper-class male, salvation.

No more than one can be blessed, as a sensual female, without having a cursed 'fall guy' beneath one in lower-plane subservience ... can one be damned, as a female, without having a saved 'wise guy' above one in higher-plane hegemony, and this whether in the noumenal contexts of space and time or in the phenomenal contexts of volume and mass - the former upper class and the latter lower.

Gods need Devils and, conversely, Devils need Gods no less than men need women and, conversely, women need men, for otherwise there can be neither the one nor the other.

Gods and Devils are simply the upper-class equivalents of men and women, since germane to space and time as opposed to volume and mass, whether in relation to space-time objectivity (Devils) or time-space subjectivity (Gods), not to mention volume-mass objectivity (women) or mass-volume subjectivity (men), with sensual and sensible distinctions between each factor in any axial dichotomy.

Being objective, Devils are always primary and Gods secondary, for God is secondary, in his subjectivity, to the Devil. Likewise, women are always primary and men secondary, for man is secondary, in his subjectivity, to woman.

The idea of having God or Godliness without the Devil or Devility is as preposterous as would be the idea of having man or masculinity without woman or femininity.

God owes his existence to the Devil no less than man owes his existence to woman.

The male side of life is no less secondary to the female side of it than vegetation (earth) and air to water and fire.

Life is rooted in barbarism and philistinism, evil and folly, but it achieves something like an 'icing on the cake', a luxurious blossoming (which is, frankly, an exception to the rule) with culture and civilization, wisdom and goodness - premised, as they are, upon sensibility, which is generally less prevalent than sensuality.

In the distinction between elements and elementinos, sensual particles and sensible particles, the former tend, in whatever elemental guise, to be larger than the latter. This is replicated with human beings, and testifies to the human condition, a condition rooted in sensuality and only capable of a limited and intermittent degree - subject to climatically-conditioned ethnic variations - of sensibility.

Any standardized universal enhancement of sensibility at the expense of sensuality presupposes the artificial transmutation not only of environment, e.g. from rural to urban, but of human life also, so that ultimately it ceases to be governed by naturalistic criteria and becomes increasingly subject to synthetic transmutation - even beyond the cyborgization, as it were, of human beings to what would eventually become identifiable with a fully-fledged post-human condition (man, in Nietzsche's memorable phrase, being 'something that should be overcome').

But this could only happen following the eclipse of humanism by transcendentalism and the gradual downgrading of humanist and nonconformist criteria under the leadership of a transcendentalist hegemony, as germane to a context, akin to 'Kingdom Come', in which divine criteria were paramount, and paramount, needless to say, in relation to the ultimate religious truth of Social Transcendentalism, as taught by the Second Coming.

Such truth, it need hardly be re-emphasized, places transcendental meditation at the top of the hierarchy of religious praxis, as envisaged in the concept of a triadic Beyond duly served by an administrative aside that was as the pro-religious spur, in inner beauty, to the sensible advancement, within synthetic parameters, of strength, knowledge, and, above all, truth, as germane to woman, man, and God, or mass, volume, and space, duly constitutive of Eternity in relation to their service by Time from the standpoint of the most good, or devolved, Devil ... of sensible fundamentalism in the administrative aside to the Beyond in question.

For the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond would indeed be a context of the most good, or devolved, Devil, the Devil whose elemental-wavicle bias in sensible fundamentalism permitted of a religious priority, but who had been formally recognized as God ... the Second Coming ... by dint of His teachings and gift to mankind, should they democratically sanction it, of religious sovereignty, a sovereignty which, in offering it to them, He would be personally forfeiting and sacrificing in order that they could be delivered to the triadic Beyond, as He took upon Himself their worldly sins and/or crimes in the process of shouldering - and duly transmuting - the mundane sovereignties that they would be exchanging for the right to religious self-determination only made possible by religious sovereignty.

Thus He Who was most wise God becomes a most good Devil as He takes the mundane sovereignties from the People should they vote for religious sovereignty and deliverance, in consequence, from sins and/or crimes of the world. He who was theoretically First would become practically Last, but Last so that the religiously sovereign People, should they so elect, may be served from the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond in the totality of 'Kingdom Come'.

He Who was theoretically most wise God would have to become practically most good Devil, for only from a basis in Time can the mass, volume, and space of Eternity be served, and therefore woman, man, and God develop more sensibly towards the culmination of all such development in the omega points of the ultimate 'Kingdom', of the 'Kingdom of God' at its ultimate point of evolutionary development. But even then an administrative aside would still exist to serve the ultimate triadic Beyond, albeit one that was no less ultimate in the nature of its refined fundamentalism and transmuted Devility.

Women, or rather females (women and devils) are generally more relaxed than males (men and gods) because they are more sensual and less sensible.

Males are more inclined, on account of their greater capacity for sensibility, to be 'uptight' than females, who are comparatively 'laid back'.

It is the fact of a primary not-self and a secondary self which ensures that females, whether upper or lower class, are generally more 'laid back', or relaxed, than males.

With a primary self and a secondary not-self, males are more prone to 'uptightness', not to mention being musically 'up-tempo', than females, who know this to their cost.

Males can get so 'screwed up' that only females can 'unscrew' them.

No-one in his right mind would chose to be born male, for females, being the primary sex, have all the main advantages, including beauty and strength, not to mention a more direct - or objective - disposition.

Truth, believe it or not, is secondary to beauty, as is knowledge to strength.

Males do everything they can to compensate for a feeling of inferiority vis-à-vis females. Ultimately, however, nothing they do will convince females that they are superior.

I don't myself believe, however, that females are superior to males or males superior to females. Appearance is not superior to essence, nor is quantity superior to quality. Rather, it can be said that appearance is superior to quantity, and essence superior to quality.

Therefore while some females are superior (in terms of looks) to other females, some males are superior (in terms of insights) to other males. This is roughly commensurate with appearance being superior to quantity, as beauty to strength, and essence being superior to quality, as truth to knowledge.

In other words, the Devil is no less superior to woman than God is superior to man. Or, conversely, woman is no less inferior to the Devil than man to God. For both the Devil and God are noumenal and therefore upper class, whereas both woman and man are phenomenal, and hence lower class.

Thus while metachemistry is superior to chemistry, as a higher order of objectivity to a lower order of objectivity, metaphysics is superior to physics, as a higher order of subjectivity to a lower order of subjectivity.

In elemental terms, this would translate into fire being superior to water, and air being superior to vegetation (earth).

But air is not inferior to fire, nor vegetation to water. The secondary elements, viz. air and vegetation, are not inferior to the primary elements, viz. fire and water. They are simply subjective as opposed to objective.

Therefore God is not inferior to the Devil just because He corresponds to a higher order of subjectivity (noumenal) and the Devil to a higher order of objectivity (noumenal). He is simply subjective as opposed to objective, and thus germane to being as opposed to doing - in short, to truth as opposed to beauty.

Likewise man is not inferior to woman just because he corresponds to a lower order of subjectivity (phenomenal) and woman to a lower order of objectivity (phenomenal). He is simply subjective as opposed to objective, and thus germane to taking as opposed to giving - in short, to knowledge as opposed to strength.

Therefore no more than one can say that doing is better (superior) or worse (inferior) than being, can one logically argue that giving is better (superior) or worse (inferior) than taking. The one is simply contrary to the other in each of these class contexts, and therefore incapable of being compared on the basis of superiority or inferiority.

Only that which is alike or akin can be compared on such a basis, and that brings us back to the distinction between noumenal and phenomenal modes of objectivity on the one hand, and phenomenal and noumenal modes of subjectivity on the other hand, with the noumenal being superior to the phenomenal with which it is akin, i.e. objectively or subjectively.

The Devil, then, is no less superior to woman than God is superior to man, since both the Devil and God, corresponding to metachemical and metaphysical realities, are noumenal, whereas both man and woman, corresponding to physical and chemical realities, are phenomenal, which is to say, of mass and volume rather than of time and space.

But Devils can be evil or good, depending whether they are sensual or sensible, blessed with freedom or damned with constraints upon freedom, and women likewise, which permits us to further distinguish between what is superior and what is inferior in relation to different manifestations of the same kind of phenomenon - in this case Devils on the one hand, and women on the other.

I shall not argue, however, that damned females are superior to blessed females, but rather that, from a female standpoint, blessed females are superior to damned females, since the sensually free stand on a higher plane than the sensibly damned, as eyes in space to heart in time (noumenal) or, alternatively, as tongue in volume to womb in mass (phenomenal).

Similarly, Gods can be foolish or wise, depending whether they are sensual or sensible, cursed with freedom or saved to binding, and men likewise, which permits us to further distinguish between what is superior and what is inferior in relation, once again, to different manifestations of the same kind of phenomenon - in this case Gods on the one hand, and men on the other.

I shall, of course, argue that saved males are superior to cursed males, since the sensibly bound stand on a higher plane than the sensually free, as brain in volume to phallus in mass (phenomenal) or, alternatively, as lungs in space to ears in time (noumenal).

Hence while it is incontestably the case that blessed females are superior to damned females, it is not true that cursed males, their sensual counterparts, are superior to saved males but, rather, the other way around, so that the superiority of male salvation requires the inferiority (from a female standpoint) of female damnation.

But, contrary to morality, evil is not inferior to goodness from a female standpoint, and therefore the goodness of females is only something that can be justified in relation to male wisdom, which is that which, from a male standpoint, is superior to folly.

How, then, can a creature, be he man or god, whose moral advantage lies in sensibility, which makes him superior to his sensual fellows, sustain a situation in which women or devils are required to live on an inferior basis, in sensibility, to those of their own kind who persist in remaining sensually free.

Obviously it can be done, else we would know nothing of civilization and culture, those female and male manifestations of sensibility, but not without what some would regard as the oppression of females.

For the female will not naturally remain in a context for long which is inferior not to the male context above but to a sensual hegemony for her kind, be it feminine or diabolic.

She will return, as often as possible, to her own higher plane, thereby dragging such males who have anything to do with her back to their lower plane, whether as time under space or as mass under volume, which is equivalent to saying whether as ears under eyes or as phallus under tongue.

You cannot have a society or nation or whatever in which only moral criteria obtain, for if we identify morality with sensibility, as seems logically plausible, we are faced with the dilemma that while sensibility works to the hegemonic advantage of males, it only results in subservient disadvantage to females.

Conversely, while sensuality - and hence immorality - works to the hegemonic advantage of females it only results in subservient disadvantage to males, who are then so many fools under an evil spell being cast by free females, and the direct freedom, moreover, of the relevant female not-self.

The seeds, or genders, are (sex-change exceptions to the rule notwithstanding) immutably what they are - female (and objective) or male (and subjective), and therefore what best suits the one gender, whether on phenomenal or noumenal terms, will prove less than suitable to the other - indeed, something to revolt against in the interests of a hegemonic advantage.

Goodness may be indirectly morally desirable from the standpoint of wisdom, or the Wise, but it is not - and never has been - superior to evil. It is no less inferior to evil than wisdom is superior to folly.

Therefore goodness, conceived in its proper female context, will always succumb, sooner or later, to the superiority of evil, in which the female is directly free rather than indirectly bound.

Goodness cannot defeat evil, for evil is ever that which is more advantageous, in its higher-plane position, from a female standpoint. Evil is not defeated by goodness; it is simply marginalized and/or put on hold by the prevalence of goodness in relation to the hegemony of wisdom as a male solution (in salvation) to the inferiority of folly.

Therefore the more wisdom, the more goodness; the more goodness, the less evil; the less evil, the less folly; the less folly, the more wisdom. The more wisdom and goodness, in short, the less folly and evil.

But, as human experience and history well attest, wisdom and goodness, male and female sensibilities, are more the exception to the rule, and cannot be sustained beyond a certain limited point. Sooner or later evil and folly will come back into the frame, and the struggle of the one against the other begin afresh. For barbarism and philistinism are at the roots of civilization and culture.

But just as folly and evil struggle with each other as free agents, the one indirectly free in self and the other directly free in not-self, so goodness and wisdom are engaged in a perpetual struggle as bound agents, the one indirectly bound in not-self and the other directly bound in self, else goodness would not succumb to evil, or wisdom to folly.

Life is a perpetual struggle of the genders which results in a cyclical recurrence on both phenomenal and noumenal levels that both evolves and devolves in perpetuity. This dialectic can be transmuted and modified, but it cannot be eradicated.

God is always metaphysical, whether in the negative context of idealism or in the positive context of transcendentalism, which is to say, whether in relation to the sensuality or sensibility of inorganic primacy on the one hand, or in relation to the sensuality or sensibility of organic supremacy on the other hand.

Metaphysics has reference to the time-space axis of noumenal subjectivity, whether in relation to the Sun and Saturn in inorganic primacy or to the ears and the lungs in organic supremacy.

Folly can be negative or positive, wisdom likewise. Let us therefore distinguish the foolish God from the wise God on the following comprehensive basis: the most foolish God of an elemental-particle subatomic disposition (scientific) in metaphysical sensuality; the more (relative to most) foolish God of a molecular-particle subatomic disposition (political) in metaphysical sensuality; the less (relative to least) foolish God of a molecular-wavicle subatomic disposition (economic) in metaphysical sensuality; and the least foolish God of an elemental-wavicle subatomic disposition (religious) in metaphysical sensuality: as against the least wise God of an elemental-particle subatomic disposition (scientific) in metaphysical sensibility; the less (relative to least) wise God of a molecular-particle subatomic disposition (political) in metaphysical sensibility; the more (relative to most) wise God of a molecular-wavicle subatomic disposition (economic) in metaphysical sensibility; and the most wise God of an elemental-wavicle subatomic disposition (religious) in metaphysical sensibility.

Since metaphysical sensuality is the basis of divine folly and metaphysical sensibility, by contrast, the basis of divine wisdom, it should be evident that folly is the alpha and wisdom the omega of metaphysics, as, in general terms, with reference to metaphysical manifestations of the Father (a secondary God) and the Son (a primary God).

Thinking in subatomic terms, I happen to believe that the element of divine folly is the proton, whereas the element, or rather elementino, of divine wisdom is the protino.

For it seems to me that if the noumenal objectivity of space-time is divisible between the photon and the photino of metachemical sensuality and sensibility, then the noumenal subjectivity of time-space is divisible between the proton and the protino of metaphysical sensuality and sensibility.

Hence foolish Godhead would descend, as it were, from elemental-particle protons to elemental-wavicle protons via molecular-particle protons and molecular-wavicle protons, as from most to least via more and less foolish, whereas wise Godhead would ascend, so to speak, from elemental-particle protinos to elemental-wavicle protinos via molecular-particle protinos and molecular-wavicle protinos, as from least to most via less and more wisdom.

Be that as it may - and this is of course speculative philosophy rather than science - it needs to be re-emphasized that since metaphysics is divisible, like any other elemental context, between science, politics, economics, and religion, so it is divisible on both sensual and sensible, as well as both negative and positive, terms.

I prefer to distinguish negative metaphysics from its positive counterpart, inorganic primacy from organic supremacy, on the basis of Antigods in both sensual and sensible contexts from Gods in such contexts, with those in the negative modes of time-space having intimate associations with the Sun and Saturn, the arguably most metaphysical bodies of the Solar System, but those in the positive modes of time-space having no-less intimate associations with the ears and the lungs - the Antigods as idealists and the Gods as transcendentalists, whether foolishly or wisely so, depending on the context.

Likewise one can distinguish negative Devils from positive Devils, Antidevils from Devils, on the basis of materialism and fundamentalism, with a like-distinction between inorganic primacy and organic supremacy, cosmic and universal noumenal factors on both naturalistic and artificial, or synthetic, terms.

But one cannot speak of Devils as foolish or wise according to whether of a predominantly sensual or sensible disposition; only as evil or good on that basis, as germane to the noumenal objectivity of space-time, which is ever metachemical and therefore fiery.

If protons and protinos are the alpha and omega of metaphysics, whether inorganically (negative) or organically (positive), then photons and photinos are arguably the alpha and omega of metachemistry, with a like-distinction between the inorganic (cosmic) and organic (universal) manifestations of each.

As with Gods, one can distinguish between sensual and sensible Devils on the following comprehensive basis: the most evil Devil of an elemental-particle subatomic disposition (scientific) in metachemical sensuality; the more (relative to most) evil Devil of a molecular-particle subatomic disposition (political) in metachemical sensuality; the less (relative to least) evil Devil of a molecular-wavicle subatomic disposition (economic) in metachemical sensuality; and the least evil Devil of an elemental-wavicle subatomic disposition (religious) in metachemical sensuality: as against the least good Devil of an elemental-particle subatomic disposition (scientific) in metachemical sensibility; the less (relative to least) good Devil of a molecular-particle subatomic disposition (political) in metachemical sensibility; the more (relative to most) good Devil of a molecular-wavicle subatomic disposition (economic) in metachemical sensibility; and the most good Devil of an elemental-wavicle subatomic disposition (religious) in metachemical sensibility.

Evil Devils are always sensual and good Devils sensible, whether on the negative terms of inorganic primacy, in which case we are alluding to Antidevils, or on the positive terms of organic supremacy, in which case we are alluding to Devils proper.

A distinction, in other words, between a stellar-Venusian axis, as between the central star of the Galaxy and the planet Venus, on the one hand, and an eyes-heart axis on the other hand, the hand of positive as opposed to negative types of evil and good, which, of course, revolve around beauty and love rather than ugliness and hate.

As with metaphysics, one has to distinguish, in metachemistry, between the inorganic photons and photinos of negative Devils (Antidevils) and the organic photons and photinos of positive Devils, or those Who have intimate associations with either the eyes or the heart in pursuance, through noumenal objectivity, of some specifically metachemical design.

In the subjective/objective distinction between Gods and Devils, we may say that Gods are generally upper-class males and Devils generally upper-class females - at least where organic supremacy is concerned. But then even organic creatures are capable of succumbing, under negative pressures, to inorganic primacy, even if this is usually the exception to the rule.

Yet the distinction between materialism and fundamentalism, the negative and positive modes of metachemistry, would suggest, as much as the metaphysical distinction between idealism and transcendentalism, that an opposition between the one and the other can develop in society, as in the world at large, with some people identifiable with materialism and others more identifiable with fundamentalism, not to mention, in relation to metaphysics, with idealism or transcendentalism, as the case may be.

It is also possible - and probably preferable - to regard such a distinction in evolutionary or chronological terms, so that the one may be said to lead to the other, whether in metachemistry or in metaphysics, as in the case of a gradual progression from inorganic primacy to organic supremacy and a general amelioration of society in consequence.

But this is probably a delusion, since the contemporary growth of an organic alternative to inorganic factors owes not a little to the influence of the East on Western civilization, and would suggest that the coming together of East and West into one universal civilization entails not a complete victory by the East over the West, still less by the West over the East, but a compromise between the inorganic primacy, largely artificial, of the West and the organic supremacy of the East, so that what finally emerges is more a synthetic transmutation of the East/West dialectic than an outright victory for either inorganic primacy or organic supremacy.

And what applies to the noumenal alternatives in time and space applies no less, it seems to me, to their phenomenal counterparts in volume and mass, viz. the chemical distinction between realism and nonconformism on the one hand, and the physical distinction between naturalism and humanism on the other hand, with, in all likelihood, subatomic distinctions between electrons and electrinos in relation to volume-mass objectivity, and neutrons and neutrinos in relation to mass-volume subjectivity, whether in inorganic or organic terms.

Western history has also shown us, however, that things can lead from the positivity of organic supremacy to the negativity of inorganic primacy, as societies degenerate from personal and universal values to geologic and cosmic ones in the process of secularization.

Although environmental standardization is crucial to global ideological uniformity, steps should be taken to ensure that organic supremacy is protected and advanced through recourse to organic methodologies, including both 'garden-city' concepts and the actual interiorization of nature, i.e. trees, flowers, shrubs, etc., within buildings, so that the advantages to sensibility accruing to the environmental interiorization of life are not undermined by negative values stemming from undue artificiality.

East and West draw together to form global civilization - not as East over West or vice versa, but as a compromise between and combination of both, whereby the dynamic artificiality of the West is put to the service of the preponderant transcendentalism, and even fundamentalism, duly modified, of the East.

I say 'duly modified' because Eastern religion is premised upon a naturalistic base, and no such base can prevail - whether inorganically or especially organically - in relation to Western artificiality, i.e. industrialization, urbanization, secularization, modernization, and so on.

Social Transcendentalism takes transcendentalism, specifically with reference to meditation, and fundamentalism, specifically with reference to a metachemical basis, in Time, for Eternity, and transforms them relative to its concept of a triadic Beyond (also composed of transmuted forms of humanism and nonconformism) and an administrative aside, as properly germane to 'Kingdom Come'.

It is this combination of Western technology and Eastern religiosity which makes it virtually inevitable that, in the development of a global civilization from the coming together of East and West (not to mention, in a narrower sense, North and South), the evolutionary dynamic of the West, largely founded on artificial modes of inorganic primacy, will impact upon the religiosity of the East, with its noumenal biases for both naturalistic, or cosmic, forms of inorganic primacy and in particular naturalistic, or universal, forms of organic supremacy, and in such a way as to drive transcendentalism beyond man or mankind, and not simply in the sense of a transcendentalist hegemony over humanism and nonconformism, but with evolutionary implications that point towards a post-human culmination of life in a variety of omega points, so to speak, having their basis in cyborgization.

For no more than the extensively urbanized and industrialized West can be reduced to religious naturalism by the East, can the East be reduced to secular artificiality by the West, since both traditions are too deeply entrenched to permit of anything but the artificial service, and synthetic transmutation, of Eastern religiosity principally with regard to the noumenal alternatives of fundamentalism and transcendentalism, both of which are traditionally premised upon naturalistic forms of organic supremacy.

Eastern religious traditions could only really thrive in the West among Western peoples on the basis of a naturalistic precondition. Such a precondition, whether inorganic or organic, is however largely absent by dint of the West's cultural commitment to the artificial transmutation of life, both environmentally and technologically, which means that the West escapes simply being Easternized, as it were, and effectively subsumed into the East on a largely transcendentalist or fundamentalist basis.

Neither, by a converse token, can the East be simply subsumed into the West, even if extensively Westernized in certain key areas, including technology. But its higher religious traditions, both diabolic and divine, metachemical and metaphysical, can only be affected by Western influence, and therefore become part, whether under Social Transcendentalism or otherwise, of an evolutionary dynamic marching ever onwards towards some, as yet, unglimpsed omega point in the distant future - the culmination, in effect, of all civilization and culture.

We have seen, particularly with the Americans and the Russians, the achievement of artificial alpha points, so to speak, in space, as rocketry and space stations have blazed a trail of exploration and study. This objective approach to space effectively parallels, on an artificial basis, those sensual aspects of the Cosmos which, like the sun and stars, are directed outwards in 'once born' fashion.

We have yet to see or, rather, achieve the 'reborn' and sensible counterpart to that, as and when a parallel with those sensible manifestations of the Cosmos, like Venus and Saturn, is established, and established on a no-less artificial basis than the basis with which rocketry and research stations are currently sent out into space.

But these artificial vessels to which I allude, whatever their size and eventual scope, will be as omega points to the Cosmos, and therefore not simply parallel to the sensible cosmos but also antithetical to the alpha points of secular space endeavour, scientifically rooted, as it invariably is, in exploration and other such objective concerns.

Our projected omega points, on the other hand, will be largely if not solely subjective, concerned to enable a higher life form, avowedly post-humanist, if not post-human, to live to the maximum of its religious potential in contexts sufficiently removed from earthly gravity as to permit of unprecedented degrees not simply of transmuted transcendentalism, but of modified forms of humanism, nonconformism, and even fundamentalism, within the pluralistic totality of the ideologically uniform contexts in question.

Some people might think me poetically fanciful, but I have come to regard blue-eyed people as, in some sense, the flower of humanity, or the human race, with green-eyed people akin to the stalk and brown-eyed people akin to the soil - always more soil than stalks or flowers in any garden.

It may be that some people, whether of grey or almond eye coloration, are akin to compost in the soil of humanity. But, whatever the truth might be, they would seem not to be akin to the soil itself.

I am a kind of eye snob, for I can never bring myself to regard the brown-eyed as equal to either the green-eyed or the blue-eyed.

I do not, as a rule, sexually admire brown-eyed women. For me, brown-eyed women are an almost inevitable 'turn off'. I would not have romantic designs, were I capable of such designs, upon brown-eyed females.

I do not 'look up to' the brown-eyed. As an artist I much prefer green- or blue-eyed people.

It would appear that brown-eyed people more easily and even happily crowd together than persons with blue or green eyes. In fact, since most people have brown eyes of one degree or another, they tend to form the bulk of crowds anyway.

I have always disliked crowds, because there are so many cowardly creeps of a snide disposition hiding away in them that it becomes unpleasant and uncomfortable to have to mix with the crowd.

Even stalks to flowers or plants have to remember that they are not of the soil but above it. But the flower is above the stalk, and therefore that which is furthest removed from the soil - not least of all in the case of our human analogue.

Am I a racist? Yes, in a certain physical sense of course I am, but, then, why on earth shouldn't a person with blue eyes or even green eyes, not to mention brown or any other colour eyes, be so?

I detest racial equalitarianism! It stinks to heaven of lies and filth! It is an aspect of the levelling mediocrity and mendacity at large in the contemporary world, and should be exposed by the artist and independent-thinking individual - in short, the intellectual.

In general terms the British - especially the English - are more brown eyed than the Irish, and it is probably on that account that there are so many brown-eyed foreigners and non-white 'Britons' in England. For a people who were overly blue-eyed, or even green-eyed, would have found it unattractive to venture to the far corners of the globe and involve themselves with largely brown-eyed peoples in the course of developing a massive overseas Empire. Certainly the Gaelic Irish would not have gone out of their way, voluntarily, to involve themselves with the well-being or otherwise of brown-eyed foreigners!

Britain - and England in particular - has sunk into the mud, and the deplorable result is the democratic equalitarianism of which racial equality is but an aspect.

England is not a good place for flowers and stalks, for it constantly makes war on the artist and the intellectual from the viewpoint of the masses, reducing everything to the lowest-commonest-denominator of worldly uniformity, in which independent thought is suffocated or driven out of what is increasingly becoming a barren and godless wilderness.

Sometimes even a man of truth, a god, has beautiful thoughts, which bring him closer to the poet.

There is an ugly three-letter word which derives from what used to be the perfectly innocent 'golliwog', a black-faced doll which, since the coming of racist paranoia and sensitivity to countries like Britain, has tended to be softened and shortened to 'golly'.

One hears of 'golly', but not of 'golliwog', though the ugly three-letter word deriving from the suffix to the original name for the black-faced doll long associated with a well-known brand of marmalade, is anything but obsolescent or redundant, despite the anti-racist rhetoric of multiracial bigots and the thought-censure which sensitive or self-respecting persons - usually white - impose upon themselves in the interests of racial harmony and cultural uniformity.

But sometimes thought control of this nature is impossible or, at any rate, extremely difficult to maintain, and the ugly word pops out of the mind like a jack-in-the-golliwog-box of repressed archetypes and racial prejudices. Sometimes the would-be butt of this sad term of abuse even encourages it - knowingly or unknowingly - by doubting one's ability or inclination, as a white person, to refrain from some degree of stereotypical racial abuse.

However, even in the worst-case scenario, like the above, it is still, as a rule, merely a thought, not a spoken or, worse still, shouted word. Yet, even so, some people display a remarkable sensitivity, these days, to mere thoughts! The thought, any thought, in private is one thing; the thought in public - say in supermarkets or crowed shopping malls - quite another! The latter, one feels, is expected to be banished without a trace.

However, even if 'gollies' are more prevalent these days than 'golliwogs', there are still some of us - doubtless an unfortunate older generation in some people's estimation - old enough to remember 'golliwogs', and I myself was the proud or, rather, puzzled owner of one such black-faced doll as a young boy, exiled from his native Galway, in Aldershot who, one day, to the consternation of his mother, decided that the frizzy-haired doll in question needed a wash, and accordingly flushed him down the toilet.

Actually, he was too big to disappear, which is how my mother came upon him and, with obvious consternation and not a little disgust, felt obliged to fish him out of his waterlogged predicament in the toilet bowl and subsequently set about having him dried-out by the window or whatever. But the 'golliwog', much to my dismay, remained black, or 'dirty', and I must have felt pretty disillusioned with him thereafter and less than happy in his company.

This was also true of the black-skinned West Indian who subsequently became my stepfather when my mother remarried - though she hadn't really acquired a divorce from the Irish courts over her first husband, my father, but merely an annulment - while I was resident in a Protestant Children's Home in Carshalton Beeches, Surrey, following the demise of her mother, who, being staunchly Catholic, had evidently protected me from any such fate while still alive! She did the 'dirty' behind my back, so to speak, because I was never taken with the idea of having a black stepfather (any more than I had previously taken with the move from a Catholic upbringing in Aldershot to a Protestant one in Carshalton) and found that the use of the term 'uncle' in relation to him was, by common consent with my mother, more feasible than 'dad' or 'father' or 'sir' or anything of the kind.

'Uncle Augustine', more usually abbreviated to plain 'Gus', occasionally paid me a visit with my mother while I was in the Home, but he never said very much, nor did I say very much to him. In fact, we hardly ever spoke even in the years after I left the Home and paid occasional visits to my 'parents' flat in Finsbury Park, north London (they having, in the meantime, moved from Aldershot), even staying there for a few months - to the manifest chagrin of my stepfather - at one point, after life in the Clapham hostel, to which I had been callously dispatched from Carshalton Beeches, quickly proved less than congenial.

Be that as it may, 'Uncle Gus', as he continued to be known, was, in any case, probably because he resented my presence, fairly laconic, even taciturn, and I, for myself, was hardly the most fulsome or outgoing of conversationalists, having developed a knack, over the years, in both Aldershot and Carshalton, of keeping my thoughts - some of which only a person of Irish descent could have had - to myself. We hardly said a word to each other, and when their marriage eventually broke up, as it was bound to do sooner or later, I was more relieved than I realized at the time!

Fortunately for me, my surname had remained unaffected (not that I like it much, in any case, but that's another story, one connected with the burden of bearing the name of a man - and an Irishman at that - without ever having had the benefit of his presence or companionship as a father), throughout the painful duration of their marriage, but I did not relish the one my mother had been obliged to adopt, and sought, as far as possible, to distance myself from it and its colonial associations. Frankly, she brought shame upon me by the nature of her second marriage, and I have still not forgiven her for it to this day, even though I am aware that her life wasn't easy and that she was badly let down by my father, as, incidentally, was I.

And I am still sensitive to blacks in a way that owes more than a little to my lengthy experience of having - and silently enduring - a black stepfather who not only had culturally little in common with me, but resented my existence as a stepson and the obligations this occasionally imposed upon him. Nothing could be further from my desire than to date, never mind marry, a black woman, and this quite apart from - or maybe tied-up with - the above-mentioned negative attitude to brown eyes which characterizes my estimation of females.

Race and culture stand above nation and civilization like, I guess, fire and air above water and vegetation, or rhythm and pitch above harmony and melody, or Devils and Gods above women and men, and so on.

That is not to say, however, that Social Transcendentalism is solely about race and culture, even though they would figure prominently as the noumenal aspects of 'Kingdom Come', but rather that it recognizes the significance of both race and culture as upper-class parallels to nation and civilization, pretty much as time and space to mass and volume.

One of the great ironies of history on these islands is that the Celtic Irish, who effectively escaped the Romanization of Western Europe and its catastrophic effects upon race and culture, subsequently succumbed to Roman Catholicism and were culturally pegged, in Irish nationhood, to mass and volume, viz. Mary and Christ, womb and brain.

As Celts they traditionally related, more usually, to Celtic Christianity, with its greater emphasis on personal attainment of grace through individual effort, but as Irish nationhood developed from the combination and cross-fertilization of Celtic and Anglo-Norman traditions or factors, they gradually fell under the influence of Roman Catholicism and succumbed to nation and civilization, those phenomenal shortfalls from and oppositions to race and culture such as their less mongrelized Celtic ancestors, in particular, had escaped, albeit in a largely naturalistic and even paganistic context.

Yet race and culture are higher than nation and civilization, as percussion and wind are higher, in musical instrument terms, than keyboards and guitars and/or strings, like fire and air above water and vegetation.

Paradoxically, the classical music of Western civilization stands on a lower plane or, rather, on lower planes to the best traditional and folk music of the Celtic fringe, as, in effect, a worldly and lower-class type of music vis-à-vis an otherworldly and effectively upper-class type of music, a music not of volume and mass so much as of time and space, with more rhythm and pitch, particularly in percussion and wind or pipes, than harmony and melody, particularly in keyboards and strings.

Surprisingly, Celtic culture partly survived the Romanization of Ireland by civilized nationhood and tended to co-exist with it as a noumenal, or abstract, alternative to phenomenal, and concrete, Western norms, and pretty much on the paradoxical terms of a west/east divide on the island of Ireland as a whole.

But under the prevailing influence of Roman Catholicism it ceased to be anything but peripheral to the worldly norm, which ever tends to a mundane reduction of life, in mass and volume, to Marian and Christic, national and civilized, means.

To the civilized, the racial/cultural integrity of the Otherworldly appears as a mark of backwardness and even barbarism, whereas to the cultured, the national/civil integrity of the Worldly seems base and even philistine.

Yet, in reality, the cultured should not be judged by civilized standards, any more than the civilized should be judged by cultural ones!

The racial/cultural integrity, or noumenal dichotomy in time and space, is largely divisible between beauty and truth, whereas the national/civil integrity, or phenomenal dichotomy in volume and mass, is largely divisible between strength and knowledge.

Beauty without reference to truth is philistine, and philistine are they who emphasize race to the virtual exclusion of culture.

Strength without reference to knowledge is barbarous, and barbarous are they who emphasize nationhood without reference to civilization.

In 'Kingdom Come', however, beauty would serve not only the truth of culture but the strength of nationhood and the knowledge of civilization, since the beauty of race would be akin to the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond, and the Beyond in question would be composed of nation, civilization, and culture, viz. strength, knowledge, and truth.

Social Transcendentalism is primarily concerned with race and culture, beauty and truth, and only secondarily with nation and civilization, strength and knowledge. For the noumenal must take precedence over the phenomenal if the world is to be overcome and otherworldly values, germane to 'Kingdom Come', predominantly prevail, in keeping with the hegemonic positions of time and space over volume and mass.

Yet both race and culture, no less than nation and civilization, will be more artificial than naturalistic, as befitting the overhaul of naturalistic traditions by artificial modernity, and the almost infinite transmutability of both environment and society which such artificiality portends.

Western civilization is, by and large, already artificial, since the naturalistic forms of nation and civilization were superseded by their artificial counterparts quite some time ago. What will distinguish 'Kingdom Come' from this will be the addition of artificial manifestations of race and culture to form a superstructure in which nation and civilization will undergo further modifications in line with the general advancement of artificial criteria.

National Socialism in Hitlerian Germany did much to highlight and revive the significance of race and culture vis-à-vis nation and civilization, albeit from a largely sensual perspective in which race took precedence over culture, and to a virtually philistine degree.

Social Transcendentalism must ensure that the omega rather than the alpha of race and culture is emphasized, so that one has less of an artistic and more of a religious perspective in which culture is big, so to speak, and race small.

Likewise, civilization should be big and nation, or nationhood, small, and this contrary to the triumph of nationhood at the expense of civilization which tended to characterize those Western nations in the twentieth century which fell into barbarism, or fascism.

Mature democracies, on the other hand, tended to remain more civilized than nationalistic, the omega-oriented counterpart to those theocracies, for want of a better term, which remained more cultural than racial, if, in Roman Catholicism, with a mainly worldly emphasis.

Thus, in general terms, the mature democracies, being of the State, tended to be more of the Mother than the Daughter, while their theocratic counterparts, being of the Church, tended to emphasize the Son rather than the Father. But this wasn't so much on a noumenal as on a phenomenal, and therefore lower-class, basis, as befitting the mundane integrities of both parliamentary liberalism and Roman Catholicism.

I speak rather of a new civilization and a new culture, a new earth and a new heaven, as germane to 'Kingdom Come'.

To conceive of the plane of space - and this contrary to how I had formerly thought - as the plane of culture par excellence, and the plane of time as the plane of race par excellence.

Therefore to conceive of salvation for noumenal males (upper class) from metaphysical race to metaphysical culture, as from sequential sensuality to spaced sensibility in time-space subjectivity, and of damnation for noumenal females (upper class) from metachemical culture to metachemical race, as from spatial sensuality to repetitive sensibility in space-time objectivity.

Thus from metachemical culture over metaphysical race in the sensuality of space and time to metaphysical culture over metachemical race in the sensibility of space and time. A rise in time-space subjectivity from ears to lungs for metaphysical males, and a fall in space-time objectivity from eyes to heart for metachemical females.

To conceive of the plane of volume - and this contrary to how I had formerly thought - as the plane of civilization par excellence, and the plane of mass as the plane of nationhood par excellence.

Therefore to conceive of salvation for phenomenal males (lower class) from physical nationhood to physical civilization, as from massive sensuality to voluminous sensibility in mass-volume subjectivity, and of damnation for phenomenal females (lower class) from chemical civilization to chemical nationhood, as from volumetric sensuality to massed sensibility in volume-mass objectivity.

Thus from chemical civilization over physical nationhood in the sensuality of volume and mass to physical civilization over chemical nationhood in the sensibility of volume and mass. A rise in mass-volume subjectivity from phallus to brain for physical males, and a fall in volume-mass objectivity from tongue to womb for chemical females.

It may be that we have a distinction, then, between beautiful culture and true culture in space, but between true race and beautiful race in time, so that salvation is from true race to true culture, as from the metaphysical Father to the metaphysical Son in time-space subjectivity, whereas damnation is from beautiful culture to beautiful race, as from the metachemical Daughter to the metachemical Mother in space-time objectivity.

Likewise, we may have a distinction between strong civilization and knowledgeable civilization in volume, but between knowledgeable nationhood and strong nationhood in mass, so that salvation is from knowledgeable nationhood to knowledgeable civilization, as from the physical Father to the physical Son in mass-volume subjectivity, whereas damnation is from strong civilization to strong nationhood, as from the chemical Daughter to the chemical Mother in volume-mass objectivity.

Thus we can distinguish, on the noumenal planes of space and time, the evil culture and good race of sensual and sensible Devils in space-time objectivity from the foolish race and wise culture of sensual and sensible Gods in time-space subjectivity.

Likewise we can distinguish, on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, the evil civilization and good nationhood of sensual and sensible women in volume-mass objectivity from the foolish nationhood and wise civilization of sensual and sensible men in mass-volume subjectivity.

Hence the evil culture of the eyes vis-à-vis the wise culture of the lungs in space, but the foolish race of the ears vis-à-vis the good race of the heart in time.

Hence the evil civilization of the tongue vis-à-vis the wise civilization of the brain in volume, but the foolish nationhood of the phallus vis-à-vis the good nationhood of the womb in mass.

One could - and indeed should - substitute generation, in the sense of propagation, for nationhood, so that the plane of mass, which embraces the sensuality of the phallus (foolish) and the sensibility of the womb (good) is identified with generation and this, in turn, with nationhood - at least as an expression or consequence of generation.

However that may be, distinguishing between race and culture in the one case, and generation (nationhood) and civilization in the other case on the above basis permits us a more comprehensive flexibility in contrasting the noumenal planes of space and time with the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, so that the sensibilities of salvation remain as distinct, in culture and civilization, as Gods and men, or space and volume, while the sensibilities of damnation remain as distinct, in race and generation (nationhood), as Devils and women, or time and mass.

Thus good race would line up metachemically, in 'Kingdom Come', behind good generation, wise civilization, and wise culture, viz. heart behind womb, brain, and lungs in the mass, volume, and space of Eternity, as germane to what has been described as the triadic Beyond of chemical, physical, and metaphysical sensibilities, wherein good strength, wise knowledge, and wise truth would be served from the administrative aside, in Time, of good beauty.

Therefore whereas sensible race is of the Devil, sensible generation (nationhood) is of woman, sensible civilization of man, and sensible culture of God, with metachemical, chemical, physical, and metaphysical implications that stretch, in Elemental terms, from fire and water to vegetation (earth) and air.

Do not oppose the sensible Devil, the damned Devil of good race. Indirectly oppose, if you will, the sensual Devil, the blessed Devil of evil culture, and precisely by electing, as a metaphysical male, a cursed God of foolish race, to be saved from ears to lungs in time-space subjectivity, thereby achieving the sensible Godhead of wise culture and effectively inflicting damnation, in the process, upon metachemical females, so that they are obliged to turn, or fall, from evil to good, as from sensual culture to sensible race, descending in space-time objectivity from eyes to heart, and in the most devolved manifestation of sensible fundamentalism at that, a manifestation commensurate in its elemental wavicles, or the religious absolutism of an elemental-wavicle disposition, with 'Kingdom Come' and the administrative service, in consequence, of a triadic Beyond, embracing wise Gods, wise men and good women, the Gods of culture, the men of civilization, and the women of generation, none of whom can be served without the most good Devil(s) of race.

When East and West come together into one effectively global civilization/culture complex, the East will be less bound and the West less free, for compromise will ensue and duly necessitate that the world achieves a balance, or fulcrum, in universal centrality.

Thus the West will be less scientific and the East less religious, the one less objective and the other less subjective, but both together, as two regions joined in global unity, will achieve a fair and balanced relationship as between equal partners in a marriage of opposites.

I believe that Social Transcendentalism will have a role to play in the blending of East and West into one civilization/culture, not to mention race/generation, complex. For Social Transcendentalism is not so fantastic as to advocate sensibility to the total exclusion of sensuality, nor so immoral as to wish for a world in which sensuality was regarded as the ideal and anything deeper as an aberration.

Sensuality is important to us, but a world orientated towards wisdom and goodness will ensure that sensibility is given every encouragement to thrive and develop to its utmost feasible extent.

Of course, that may sound or seem like an Eastern religious bias and programme which would be out of place in the West, but I do not see it that way myself. Rather that the West will, in any case, achieve more sensibility and the East more sensuality as civilization and culture develop on a more global basis, even if with an emphasis, necessary for morality, on sensibility.

But we must not become too sensibly fanatic; else there will be a sensual backlash such that will undermine sensibility and drive people to a cynical dismissal of omega-oriented ideals, with their undue physical and psychological pressures.

Certainly too much sensuality, and therefore freedom, can drive people towards sensibility, and hence moral binding, if only out of self-preservation, since one pays for one's sins with pain and suffering, and is goaded towards righteousness in seeking to atone for and effectively reduce them.

But that is, frankly, a male perspective; for righteousness for a female is really quite different from what it is for a male. A male achieves righteousness in salvation from the sensuality of sin, whether physical or metaphysical, of the phallus (flesh) or of the ears, to the sensibility of grace, whether physical or metaphysical, of the brain or of the lungs.

In the one case, that of the brain, one can speak of the wise civilization of sensible knowledge; in the other case, that of the lungs, one can speak of the wise culture of sensible truth. The former, being lower class in its phenomenal subjectivity, is presided over by the First Coming (Christ), and hence Roman Catholicism; the latter, being upper class in its noumenal subjectivity, is or will be presided over by the Second Coming, and hence the possibility of Social Transcendentalism.

But a female is an altogether different 'kettle of fish' from a male, whether devil or woman, upper class or lower class, dress or skirt, and does not achieve righteousness in the damnation, following a male rise to salvation, of either the heart or the womb, the former metachemical and the latter chemical. She is brought to goodness, yes, but goodness is not commensurate with righteousness, for it is correlative neither with culture nor civilization in sensibility but, rather, with race and generation (nationhood).

A male rises, in salvation, from sensuality to sensibility, from unholiness to holiness, sin to grace, but a female falls, in damnation, from sensuality to sensibility, as from clearness to unclearness, crime to punishment, and is accordingly brought low as from a hegemonic position in sensuality to a subservient position in sensibility.

Righteousness for a female is not racial and/or generative subservience before culture and civilization, like beauty and strength before truth and knowledge, but, rather, the cultural and/or civil hegemony, in sensuality, that stands in a blessed relationship to the cursed under-plane subservience of the male forms of race and generation.

In other words, righteousness for a female is the blessed hegemony of eyes over ears in noumenal sensuality, and of tongue over phallus in phenomenal sensuality, of fire over air in the one case, and of water over vegetation in the other case, and in these hegemonic positions she is affiliated to clearness and the male, in his cursed position as 'fall guy for slag', to unholiness.

Thus culture and civilization are righteous even when, as here, they are evil, while race and generation (nationhood) are unrighteous, since unholy in their sensual folly.

Sensual evil, being clear, remains righteous, even though, judged from the standpoint of female sensibility, it is a crime, while sensual folly, being unholy, remains unrighteous and, judged from the standpoint of male sensibility, something to be saved from, as from sin to grace, and this whether in the noumenal sphere of time-space subjectivity, which has reference to Gods, or in the phenomenal sphere of mass-volume subjectivity, which has reference to men (and thus rather more, in sartorial terms, to trousers than to zippersuits).

To contrast the upper-class female righteousness of metachemical clearness, which has reference to the evil culture of the eyes, with the upper-class female unrighteousness of metachemical unclearness, which has reference to the good race of the heart.

To contrast the lower-class female righteousness of chemical clearness, which has reference to the evil civilization of the tongue, with the lower-class female unrighteousness of chemical unclearness, which has reference to the good generation (nationhood) of the womb.

Either way, whether in the noumenal context of space-time objectivity or in the phenomenal context of volume-mass objectivity, in absolutism or relativity, righteousness is clear and unrighteousness unclear, the former evil and criminal, the latter good and punishing.

So much for the paradoxical relationship of righteousness to unrighteousness with females, whether as Devils or women.

To contrast the upper-class male unrighteousness of metaphysical unholiness, which has reference to the foolish race of the ears, with the upper-class male righteousness of metaphysical holiness, which has reference to the wise culture of the lungs.

To contrast the lower-class male unrighteousness of physical unholiness, which has reference to the foolish generation of the phallus, with the lower-class male righteousness of physical holiness, which has reference to the wise civilization of the brain.

Either way, whether in the noumenal context of time-space subjectivity or in the phenomenal context of mass-volume subjectivity, absolutism or relativity, unrighteousness is unholy and righteousness holy, the former foolish and sinful, the latter wise and graceful.

There are only two perfections on any given class level - the perfection of clearness for females, whether cultural or civilized, and the perfection of holiness for males, whether cultural or civilized.

Life is a gender tug-of-war between evil righteousness, which is metachemically and/or chemically sensual, and wise righteousness, which is metaphysically and/or physically sensible.

Objectivity tends to get the better of subjectivity, especially in the West, and therefore females the better of males; for sensuality corresponds to an element and sensibility to an elementino, the former having a larger particle threshold than the latter in whatever Element, be it metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, viz. of fire, water, vegetation (earth), or air.

Females are, in any case, the primary sex and males the secondary one, whether as Devils to Gods in space and time, or as women to men in volume and mass, since objectivity corresponds to the primary elements of fire and water, and subjectivity, by contrast, to the secondary elements of vegetation and air, which, being secondary, are centred, like males, in a plenum rather than rooted, like females, in a vacuum.

Male righteousness is always 'up against it' in this world, for it is akin to swimming against the current or planing against the grain. wisdom may triumph over folly with males but, ultimately, evil will triumph over good, which is simply too punishingly unrighteous, in its sensible unclearness, to be tolerated for long by those who, as females, have been brought low to it against their grain, a grain that is both primary and objective, and more disposed, in any case, to the evil righteousness of clearness.

Unlike righteousness, which can be sensual or sensible, evil or wise, the distinction between immorality and morality, vice and virtue, adheres to the dichotomy between sensuality and sensibility, so that we can distinguish immoral righteousness from moral righteousness, the outer from the inner, on such a basis.

Therefore just as the female righteousness of cultural clearness is immoral in its metachemical sensuality (spatial), so the male righteousness of cultural holiness at the opposite end of the plane of space (spaced) is moral in its metaphysical sensibility.

Likewise, just as the female righteousness of civilized clearness is immoral in its chemical sensuality (volumetric), so the male righteousness of civilized holiness at the opposite end of the plane of volume (voluminous) is moral in its physical sensibility.

Conversely, just as the male unrighteousness of racial unholiness is immoral in its metaphysical sensuality (sequential), so the female unrighteousness of racial unclearness at the opposite end of the plane of time (repetitive) is moral in its metachemical sensibility.

And just as the male unrighteousness of generative unholiness is immoral in its physical sensuality (massive), so the female unrighteousness of generative unclearness at the opposite end of the plane of mass (massed) is moral in its chemical sensibility.

Evil and folly will always be immoral, even though the one is righteous in its cultural and/or civilized clearness and the other unrighteous in its racial and/or generative unholiness.

Wisdom and goodness will always be moral, even though the one is righteous in its cultural and/or civilized holiness and the other unrighteous in its racial and/or generative unclearness.

The evil of sensual righteousness, though immoral, is typified by cultural and/or civilized clearness, whereas the folly of sensual unrighteousness is typified by racial and/or generative unholiness.

The wisdom of sensible righteousness is typified by cultural and/or civilized holiness, whereas the goodness of sensible unrighteousness, though moral, is typified by racial and/or generative unclearness.

That which is evil or foolish is characterizable as vice, whereas that which is wise or good is characterizable as virtue, and this irrespective of the fact that evil, being clear, is righteous and good, being unclear, unrighteous.

Thus vicious righteousness, which is evil in its cultural and/or civilized clearness, stands on a higher plane than vicious unrighteousness, which is foolish in its racial and/or generative unholiness. Both the noumenal and the phenomenal modes of sensual righteousness and unrighteousness, however, are alike immoral in their external predilections, through freedom, for vice.

Conversely, virtuous righteousness, which is wise in its cultural and/or civilized holiness, stands on a higher plane than virtuous unrighteousness, which is good in its racial and/or generative unclearness. Both the noumenal and the phenomenal modes of sensible righteousness and unrighteousness, however, are alike moral in their internal predilections, through binding, for virtue.

No less than immorality is wrong for a male (who is a creature primarily of the self and secondarily of the not-self, primarily of binding and secondarily of freedom), so morality is wrong for a female (who is a creature primarily of the not-self and secondarily of the self, primarily of freedom and secondarily of binding), because both sexes fight shy of unrighteousness, even as and when this conflicts with morality and hence virtue, as it does in the case of females.

The triumph of evil is no less a female necessity than the triumph of wisdom a male one. Neither gender can have things entirely its own way, even in the best (sensible) or worst (sensual) of societies, which some may choose to equate, at this point in time, with the East and the West respectively. But struggle with each other, whether as Gods with Devils (noumenal) or as men with women (phenomenal), or vice versa, they most assuredly do, and that struggle is life.

As creatures of both sensuality and sensibility we are torn between the alpha and the omega of things and should not expect or strive to be too much the one at the expense of the other, else we shall end-up paying the price in terms of ill-health or even death.

Our division between sensuality and sensibility is further complicated by the fact that, left to their own devices, females tend to be more sensual than sensible and males, by contrast, more sensible than sensual - at any rate, in relation to the gender interests, so to speak, of each sex.

Righteousness for a male, be he man or god, may be in sensibility, but for a female, whether woman or devil, it is very much in sensuality, even though with immoral consequences.

Males can and do make a case for moral righteousness based on sensibility, but, frankly, that applies only to them, and will inevitably meet with resistance, sooner or later, from females.

Therefore the one gender continues, wittingly or unwittingly, to war on the other, and peace is only established by the temporary capitulation of the one gender to the other.

No matter how morally earnest males may happen to be, they are up against a female opposition to morality based on the disadvantages accruing to an unrighteous, or unclear, position and the desirability, in consequence, for females to return, in counter-devolutionary fashion, to a hegemonic advantage in sensuality, which, from their standpoint, is not only righteous in its clearness but blessed (with untrammelled freedom), to boot.

Thus the prospects, while gender exists, of undue sensibility for either gender are pretty slim, and even males have something to gain from returning, whether or not under female pressures, to a more sensual position and effectively relaxing from the exigencies of sensibility.

For too much sensibility tends to result in uptightness, and uptightness, like too much up-tempo music, is bad not only for the male who is uptight, but for any female who has to endure the consequences, whether she is, as it were, downtight at the time or not.

Then again, drinking to help ease the pressure of sensibility and effectively 'get loose' is a pretty drastic solution to the problem of uptightness and can lead to dangerous consequences, both for the individual and for society in general.

In this respect, the Irish experience of using drink as an antidote to sensible pressures, often fuelled by religion and climate and/or environment, should remind us that while it may be of some avail it is not the ideal way to relax, and that steps to address the cause or causes of uptightness in the first place would probably be of more benefit in the long term.

But we are still under pressure, through life, to evolve, and it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to establish, never mind maintain, a non-evolutionary stasis in life or to backtrack, as it were, from such progress, environmental or otherwise, as we have made and are still vigorously engaged in making, come what may!

Evolution will carry on as a consequence or symptom of our life struggles, even with the dichotomy between sensuality and sensibility still very much a factor to be reckoned with and actively embraced for our own good.

Doubtless, even in the hypothetically most evolved of contexts there would still be a dichotomy of sorts between sensuality and sensibility, even if with an emphasis upon the latter; for we cannot cease being sensual without paying some heavy price, and, in any case, how could we have sensibility without sensuality, or vice versa.

We are, in Fulke Greville's oft-quoted words, 'born under one law, to another bound', and such, I dare say, will remain the case even when and if we depart this planet for some more heavenly realm in space, whereupon the establishment of omega points will effectively signal the culmination of evolution and the end of all earthly striving.

But by then, should such a scenario transpire, there will doubtless be recourse to artificial senses, with corresponding inducements to sensual relaxation, and even sensibility will be correspondingly more artificial than it had ever been in the past, given the thrust of progress to superimpose upon the artificial modes of inorganic primacy, which in particular characterize secular modernity, those artificial modes of organic supremacy which will increasingly typify global futurity and the attainment, in consequence, of 'the Garden' on post- rather than pre-modern terms.

Willy-nilly, we are locked-in to an artificial and synthetic momentum, and whether our fate is to evolve or to devolve within the parameters of that momentum, advance we no doubt shall, and the consequences will be a whole lot more omega-orientated and artificial than we can, as yet, conceive.

Perfection of the objective sensualities (eyes and tongue) for females, or perfection of the subjective sensibilities (brain and lungs) for males - that is the question!

For the one option yields an absolute immoral righteousness in cultural clearness for blessed Devils and a relative immoral righteousness in civilized clearness for blessed women ... in the sensualities of space (spatial) and volume (volumetric), whereas the other option yields a relative moral righteousness in civilized holiness for saved men and an absolute moral righteousness in cultural holiness for saved Gods ... in the sensibilities of volume (voluminous) and space (spaced).

One cannot have it both ways without falling into a moral contradiction, as between heathenistic and Roman Catholic criteria in volume, and paganistic and Social Transcendentalist, or equivalent, criteria in space.

Neither should one encourage moral relativism, as though the evil righteousness of cultural clearness and of civilized clearness for sensual females was entitled to a moral status in towering over the foolish unrighteousness of racial unholiness and generative unholiness for sensual males, or males trapped in sensuality.

Logically it does not make much sense to accord a moral standing to evil, no matter how righteous it may be in its metachemical or chemical clearness, while, contrariwise, penalizing good and its chemical or metachemical unclearness as immoral, even though it is assuredly unrighteous in relation to unclearness.

Male sensibility has a difficult enough task in this world without being further hampered by ascriptions of morality to female sensuality, bearing in mind the uphill struggle of elementinos against elements, especially in the gender-based guise of male subjectivity against female objectivity.

Moral relativism, in which a theoretical equal status is accorded to both sensual culture and sensible culture on the one hand (noumenal) and to sensual civilization and sensible civilization on the other hand (phenomenal), would simply encourage people to regard Paganism as equal to, say, Buddhism in its more sensible aspects, or Heathenism as equal, in phenomenal contexts, to Christianity, assuming an upper-class distinction between Paganism and Buddhism (not to be confused with Social Transcendentalism and the class and gender pluralism it signifies, both upper and lower) on the one hand, and a lower-class distinction between Heathenism and Christianity on the other hand.

Moral relativism allows those who are especially partial to sensual beauty and/or strength to regard themselves as just as morally valid as those who are no less partial to sensible truth and/or knowledge, with disastrous consequences for the latter! For how can cultural truth and civilized knowledge flourish in a society in which cultural beauty and civilized strength are adjudged to be just as, if not more, important!

How, then, could a Christian or 'reborn' type of society be encouraged in a country where pagan or heathen criteria were paramount, as they would become in the event of a sensual hegemony and the rule of freedom as a female prerogative premised upon the clear forms of cultural and/or civilized righteousness.

Moral relativism, in which sensual righteousness is effectively judged to be just as moral as sensible righteousness, paves the way for a moral transvaluation in which, due to the basic structural advantages accruing to sensuality vis-à-vis sensibility (as element vis-à-vis elementino), not to mention the hegemonic advantages accruing to females over males, or objectivity over subjectivity, sensible righteousness effectively ceases to apply or to be accorded special significance, and society accordingly becomes reduced to pagan and/or heathen criteria, which, in modern terms, is equivalent to secularization and the dominance, in consequence, of freedom.

Those who uphold cultural truth and civilized knowledge have a moral duty, on the contrary, to ensure that such an immoral predicament either doesn't come to pass or, if it has done, that they have the courage and will to resist it and stand up for true and knowledgeable morality on the basis of cultural and/or civilized sensibility.

This is what I regard as a moral necessity, and this is why Social Transcendentalism is conceived by me as the ideology of 'Kingdom Come' and the means whereby, democratically and peaceably, the People of those countries or societies whom I have adjudged provisionally most suited to salvation and/or damnation ... may be delivered from the 'sins and/or crimes of the world' to the otherworldly graces and/or punishments in which, under religious sovereignty, not only culture and civilization, but race and generation (nationhood) would blossom anew, to grant a lead to mankind and ensure that ultimate justice lies firstly with the wisdom of God-the-Son and secondarily with the goodness of Devil-the-Mother, as germane to the noumenal planes of space and time to which a majority of Catholics would effectively already relate, complements of the triangular decadence of the Catholic religion, while mundane justice, on suitably modified terms, was accorded to those who, as (former) Protestants delivered from the inverted triangularity of volume and mass, would relate to man-the-son and woman-the-mother, as germane not to the top tier of the triadic Beyond nor to its administrative aside, but to the middle and bottom tiers of the Beyond in question, thereby guaranteeing that sensible justice, commensurate with morality, was done to everyone, be he/she high or low, noumenal or phenomenal, upper class or lower class, absolute or relative, abstract or concrete, immortal or mortal, of race and culture on the one hand (former Catholics) or of civilization and generation on the other hand (former Protestants).

Western civilization has long been subject to moral relativism, not simply in terms of Christianity having been overhauled by secular modernity, like the Church by the State (without, however, the Church, or Christianity, ceasing to exist and to play at least some role in religious affairs), but also in terms of the centuries-old schism in the Church between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, not to mention the mini-schism, as it were, within Protestantism between Anglicanism and Nonconformism, including the denominational distinction, in the latter case, between Puritanism and Presbyterianism.

But even the Bible, the scriptural 'holy book' of Western civilization, is subject to a split which, manifesting in Old and New testaments, smacks of moral relativism, as between the sensual culture and civilization, but especially culture, of the Old Testament, and the sensible civilization and culture, but especially civilization, of the New Testament, thereby signifying a scriptural dichotomy between cultural beauty and civilized knowledge, the Creator (Jehovah) and Christ, the so-called Son of God, Whose father is actually less germane to the Old Testament than to the New ... as a sort of epitome of racial unholiness, or metaphysical unrighteousness.

Thus the so-called Holy Bible is divisible between the cultural clearness of the Old Testament and the civilized holiness of the New Testament, the alpha-most and, in relative terms, omega-most extremes of this scriptural justification of and even mirror to moral relativism.

For the cultural clearness of Jehovah, as First Mover, contrasts with the civilized holiness of Christ, as paganistic beauty (though this is frankly to exaggerate the organic significance of the context in question) with Christian knowledge, and thereby pits a female cultural perfection against male civilized perfection, the former metachemically upper-class and the latter physically lower-class.

But the righteousness of female cultural perfection, being clear, is absolutely evil and therefore immoral, whereas the righteousness of male civilized perfection, being holy, is relatively wise and therefore moral.

There is no absolute wisdom, and hence morality, in the Bible by dint of the existence there of absolute evil in the righteousness of cultural clearness, which precludes the opposite - and refutation - of itself. The New Testament goes no further than the relative wisdom of the righteousness, in Christ, of civilized holiness. That is as much holiness, and wisdom, as the Old Testament, by its very existence as the greater part of the so-called Holy Bible, permits to the New.

Interestingly, the racial truth of metaphysical sensuality, or the absolute folly of the unrighteousness of racial unholiness, finds an ecclesiastical parallel in the traditional monopoly of Italians on the papacy, as though the most suitable symbol of the metaphysical Father, Who is the New Testament Creatoresque equivalent to the metachemical Jehovah (though organic parallel in the ears to Satan as 'fallen angel' from metachemical to metaphysical, as from stellar to solar), vis-à-vis the civilized holiness of the physical Son, viz. Christ.

But, of course, the metaphysical Father is only equivalent to Jehovah in the sense of Creator, not in relation to the absolute evil of cultural clearness and the female righteousness thereof. The New Testament Father is not even entitled to identification with righteousness, given His racial folly in metaphysical sensuality. That dubious privilege can only be accorded to the Risen Virgin, Who towers above the metaphysical Father, in the organic supremacy of eyes over ears, pretty much as Jehovah above Satan, the stellar above the solar, in inorganic primacy, and therefore in terms of the sensual beauty of cultural clearness.

Ironically, whereas the paganistic perfection (absolute) of the Old Testament has more relevance to the so-called New World (America), with its upper-class sensual values, as in eyes and ears, not to mention, more inorganically, of stellar and solar cosmic primacy, the Christian perfection (relative) of the New Testament would seem to have traditionally had more relevance to the so-called Old World (Europe), with its lower-class sensible values, as in womb and brain, as applying, in particular, to the Catholic Church.

However that may be, the Bible is an agent of moral relativism, and should be repudiated by all who seek the ascendancy of cultural truth (as germane to transcendental meditation) and the coming of absolute holiness to the world in the guise (top tier) of 'Kingdom Come'.

The sooner the Bible is officially consigned to the rubbish bin of religious history, the sooner will the People be delivered from moral relativism and encouraged to embrace the moral righteousness (for males) and moral unrighteousness (for females) of 'Kingdom Come', in which sensibility will blossom anew in the light (truth) of the ultimate Son, the Second Coming of male righteousness in the cultural holiness of Social Transcendentalism and its advocacy, for those who are entitled to it, of transcendental meditation.

From a cultural standpoint, whether sensual (evil) or sensible (wise), the racial are likely to appear philistine, whether as males (sensual/foolish) or as females (sensible/good).

From a civilized standpoint, whether sensual (evil) or sensible (wise), the generative are likely to seem barbarous, whether as males (sensual/foolish) or as females (sensible/good).

Thus philistinism can be viewed as the underside, so to speak, of a noumenal dichotomy between culture and race, while barbarism can likewise qualify as the underside of a phenomenal dichotomy between civilization and generation.

The cultural are no less superior to the civilized with whom they share either a sensual or a sensible bias ... than, conversely, the racial are inferior to the generative of a similar sensual or sensible disposition.

Thus just as Devils are objectively superior, in sensuality, to women, so Gods are subjectively inferior there to men.

And just as Gods are subjectively superior, in sensibility, to men, so Devils are objectively inferior there to women.

The noumenal daughter is objectively superior, in sensuality, to the phenomenal daughter, whereas the noumenal mother is objectively inferior, in sensibility, to the phenomenal mother.

This is because the noumenal daughter, corresponding to the eyes, is the per se mode of the Daughter, whereas the phenomenal daughter, corresponding to the tongue, is a secondary mode of the Daughter. Conversely, the phenomenal mother, corresponding to the womb, is the per se mode of the Mother, whereas the noumenal mother, corresponding to the heart, is a secondary mode of the Mother.

The noumenal father is subjectively inferior, in sensuality, to the phenomenal father, whereas the noumenal son is subjectively superior, in sensibility, to the phenomenal son.

This is because the noumenal father, corresponding to the ears, is a secondary mode of the Father, whereas the phenomenal father, corresponding to the phallus (flesh), is the per se mode of the Father. Conversely, the phenomenal son, corresponding to the brain, is a secondary mode of the Son, whereas the noumenal son, corresponding to the lungs, is the per se mode of the Son.

Thus while the cultural are always superior to the civilized, the racial are always inferior to the generative.

To contrast the sensual superiority of the noumenal daughter (eyes) vis-à-vis the phenomenal daughter (tongue) with the sensual inferiority of the noumenal father (ears) vis-à-vis the phenomenal father (phallus).

To contrast the sensible inferiority of the noumenal mother (heart) vis-à-vis the phenomenal mother (womb) with the sensible superiority of the noumenal son (lungs) vis-à-vis the phenomenal son (brain).

Just as there is no objective sensuality like that of the noumenal daughter, the Daughter-of-Daughters, and no subjective sensuality like that of the phenomenal father, the Father-of-Fathers, so there is no objective sensibility like that of the phenomenal mother, the Mother-of-Mothers, and no subjective sensibility like that of the noumenal son, the Son-of-Sons.

From the per se Daughter of the metachemically Blessed to the per se Son of the metaphysically Saved via the per se Father of the physically Cursed and the per se Mother of the chemically Damned.

From the Risen Virgin to the Second Coming via the Father and the Mother of Christian tradition, as from metachemical crime to metaphysical grace via physical sin and chemical punishment - from alpha to omega via the world ... of the mass-oriented masses.

Since culture takes precedence over race, as space over time, and civilization precedence over generation, as volume over mass, it follows that the noumenal daughter and son take precedence over the noumenal father and mother, while the phenomenal daughter and son likewise take precedence over the phenomenal father and mother.

Thus the per se mode of the Daughter and the per se mode of the Son, corresponding to cultural beauty and cultural truth, take precedence, in space, over the secondary mode of the Father and the secondary mode of the Mother, corresponding to racial truth and racial beauty, as germane to the plane of time.

Contrariwise, the secondary mode of the Daughter and the secondary mode of the Son, corresponding to civilized strength and civilized knowledge, take precedence, in volume, over the per se mode of the Father and the per se mode of the Mother, corresponding to generative knowledge (carnal) and generative strength, as germane to the plane of mass.

Thus while culture always takes precedence over race, and civilization precedence over generation, it is only with culture, whether of the evil or the wise variety, that the per se manifestations of the Daughter and the Son are hegemonic; with civilization, on the other hand, it is the secondary manifestations of the Daughter and the Son which are hegemonic, in volume, over per se manifestations of the Father and the Mother, Who of course correspond to the foolish and good varieties of generation, as germane to phallus and womb on the plane of mass.

Whatever the case, the existence of a per se Daughter in cultural clearness precludes the coming to pass of a per se Son in cultural holiness; for the Alpha-of-Alphas, corresponding to spatial space, precludes the possibility of the Omega-of-Omegas, corresponding to spaced space, just as, in a relative sense, the lesser alpha, so to speak, of the secondary daughter precludes the lesser omega of the secondary son so long as she is freely hegemonic over the per se Father, and no salvation for males has accordingly taken place.

Translated into religious or Biblical terminology, this means that unless males elect for salvation from Father to Son, whether in the physical context of the First Coming or in the metaphysical context of the Second Coming, whether in temporal or eternal, phenomenal or noumenal terms, they continue to be ruled by the Daughter and in no position to lead or constrain the Mother.

Hence damnation of females from Daughter to Mother is correlative with salvation of males from Father to Son, and in the case of metaphysics, wherein we are concerned with Eternity, this means that if there is to be an end to the domination of foolish race by evil culture, of the secondary father by the primary daughter, the relevant males (noumenal) must elect to rise, in salvation, from time to space, as from the ears to the lungs, in order to achieve wise culture (through transcendental meditation) in the primary son and simultaneously damn noumenal females to the good race of the secondary mother, as from eyes to heart.

Only thus can noumenal morality come to pass, and if noumenal morality can come to pass, then there is no reason why a contemporary mode (artificial) of phenomenal morality should not follow, to re-establish a sensible order of civilization and generation, as germane to the middle and bottom tiers of what I have called the triadic Beyond.

The so-called Holy Bible is rooted, clearly, in the righteous immorality of cultural clearness, in the cosmic First Mover, or Jehovahesque Creator, as applicable to the Old Testament, while the New Testament, rather more partial to organic supremacy than to inorganic primacy, provides for the upstaging of the Father, a secondary and unrighteous father of racial folly, by the Risen Virgin, Who becomes the organic equivalent, in the eyes, of the stellar Jehovah, or cosmic First Mover. Either way, though especially with regard to the Old Testament, cultural evil prevails, and a per se order of the Daughter, so to speak, is able to rule over a secondary order of the Father, viz. Satan in the Old Testament and the so-called Christian Father, or father of Christ, in the New Testament, with disastrous consequences for males!

For the male who is dominated by cultural evil is in no position to be saved from racial folly to cultural wisdom, and thus experience holiness. Even the traditional relative holiness permitted by Christ to those who have elected to follow in his footsteps and seek salvation from generative folly has seemingly been eclipsed and upstaged by both the Protestant opposition to phenomenal sensibility in the inverted triangularity of phenomenal sensuality, with its forked tongue over phallus, and the Catholic retreat from the phenomenal sensibility of brain over womb, Christ over Mary, the secondary son over the primary mother, to the pyramidal triangularity dominated by noumenal sensuality, as the eyes, aided and abetted by the Sacred Heart of the so-called Risen Christ, take precedence over the ears in the symbolic guise of Risen Virgin over Father.

But a sensual predominance is precisely that which allows for the possibility of salvation and/or damnation, depending on gender, to sensibility, and the coming to pass, in consequence, of both righteous and unrighteous modes of morality. It is this prospect which the Second Coming holds out to both Protestants and Catholics alike, and it is only in relation to a majority mandate for religious sovereignty that its fulfilment, in 'Kingdom Come', can be achieved.

Willy-nilly, deliverance from the righteous immorality of both cultural evil and civilized evil is highly desirable for those who, as males, would be capable of righteous morality in both civilized wisdom and, most especially, cultural wisdom, and the only way they can ever achieve such a deliverance is by abandoning the unrighteous immorality of both generative folly and racial folly by electing to be saved from that to their righteous counterparts in physical and metaphysical sensibility. Only thus will the Evil be brought low to their damnation in the unrighteous morality of generative goodness and racial goodness, to defer thereafter to the Wise, whether on relative (phenomenal) or absolute (noumenal) terms.

Let my will be done, and may 'Kingdom Come' actually come to pass as the solution to the reign of immorality in the contemporary so-called Christian world, especially with regard to that part of it (as outlined by me in previous texts) where both Catholics and Protestants have such need of a Social Transcendentalist deliverance from their sins and/or crimes to the graces and/or punishments of the 'Kingdom' in question, where not freedom, but binding will be the order of the day.

LONDON 2001 (Revised 2002-08)

Private Observations PREVIEW