A SUGGESTED SOLUTION TO THE CONTEMPORARY DILEMMA

1. That which is organic is positive in its supremacy; that, on the contrary, which is inorganic is negative in its primacy. The inorganic, whether 'natural' or artificial, can never be positive; therefore it can never be beautiful, strong, knowledgeable, or true, but only ugly, weak, ignorant, or false.

2. An unduly positive attitude to things that are inorganic makes for insanity, which stems from the anti-natural tendency to project an organic disposition, duly twisted, upon inorganic matters or products, so that one comes to value them above the organic.

3. It is still possible, even in this day and age, to project a positive attitude onto organic matters or products and, conversely, a negative one onto the inorganic, so that the love of beauty, say, is not twisted away from that in Nature which is beautiful, namely manifestations of metachemical supremacy, and one is able, in consequence, to evaluate manifestations of metachemical primacy, which are ugly, as they deserve.

4. Thus sanity is still possible even in the midst of an ever-more extensive and/or intensive development, by society in general, of inorganic primacy, but it is increasingly difficult to remain sane under threat from the artificial manifestations of inorganic primacy which characterize both urban and technological growth. The sane man is pretty much an outsider in a society which prides itself, perversely, upon the production and worship of artificial constructs whose essence, to the limited extent that one can use such a term here, is negative.

5. What type of society is it that puts inorganic constructs above organic life-forms in its estimation of value - in short, which puts things above people, animals, plants, etc., in its obsession with urban and technological growth? The answer can only be - a capitalist society.

6. For a capitalist society is one in which capital can be accumulated by those who have the will to produce or sell products and/or services, but especially products, so that the more products and/or services sold, the bigger the capital gain. Hence a capitalist society must not only keep on producing products, it must keep on selling them as well!

7. Which ultimately means that organic life-forms, and people not least of all, suffer as inorganic produce, the products and services of the marketplace, take priority over them in response to the greed for capital gain of the producers.

8. And they suffer not least of all in terms of the mounting environment of inorganic produce which builds up, both externally in the outside world and internally in their domestic lives, with less and less room, seemingly, for organic concerns and life forms in the increasingly product-cluttered environments of the technologically dominated world around them.

9. Reacting against capitalism in terms of socialism, which aims to put people first, is not, as history has shown, the solution to the problem of inorganic imbalance, since people rather than products or people above products is all very well in theory but apt to prove unworkable in practice, particularly when there is not enough access to certain inorganic products and various kinds of organic produce in a context where population growth is likely to rise more dramatically in consequence of the socialistic bias which putting people first tends to encourage.

10. Socialism as opposed to capitalism only creates a people-related pattern of problems where formerly, or elsewhere, there had been a product-related pattern of problems, not least of all in terms of the impact of products upon people. The impact of people upon people, or of people upon dwindling natural resources, on the other hand, can be just as, if not more, devastating, as many countries traditionally boasting a socialistic disposition have shown.

11. Neither capitalism nor socialism is therefore a solution to the dilemma man finds himself in when wealth becomes the standard criterion, the principal goal whether in relation to the capitalistic Few or to the socialistic Many.

12. Economics is not ultimate but, rather, penultimate, beyond science and politics, yes, but beneath religion, and therefore a society built around wealth whether inorganically or organically, with reference principally to products or to people, leaves something to be desired, not least of all in terms of the soul. It may gratify the ego, and enable the ego to continue deferring, in heathenistic vein, to the spirit and to the will, but it will do little or nothing for the soul, which is of the essence of life, particularly Divine Life.

13. Therefore we must move beyond economics to religion, beyond capitalism and socialism into what, in previous texts, has been called Social Transcendentalism, which aims to combine or, rather, reconcile economics to religion, so that instead of being independent of religion in relation to political and scientific factors, the economic well-being of the people is subsumed into religion, not identified with religion but made to become an aspect of religious devotion or praxis.

14. I do not speak here of welfare, which is intended to reconcile people to the capitalist system which continues to abuse and misuse them, but rather of deliverance from welfare, of saying farewell to welfare and welcome to coming well, to well-being. For well-being can only arise in relation to religion, to the care of the soul, and anyone who is prepared to take care of his soul or, failing that, at least of his intellect in relation to soul or of his or, rather, her spirit in relation to soul should be provided with the necessary economic support and sustenance that will enable him to fully live according to his deserts.

15. But only with regard to Social Transcendentalism in 'Kingdom Come', should the People vote, at the opportune time, for religious sovereignty and the rights, including the right to divinely inspired life, that would be its logical corollary. For if religion is to take upon itself the mantle of the ultimate organic concern, then it must have the means to ensure that economic matters are addressed from a religious perspective, and that such state-like responsibility as accrues to the administrative aspects of 'Kingdom Come' should primarily be pursued with regard to the development of religion and not to the enhancement of economics, still less to the enhancement of politics or science!

16. For all these disciplines must take a subordinate place to religion if 'Kingdom Come' is to become a reality and not remain a wishful dream slumbering on the periphery of a world besotted with wealth, power, and fame, to the detriment of that which is the ultimate guarantor of health - namely the well-being of the soul.