SELF VIS-À-VIS NOT-SELF
71. The self, as we have seen, is that which is conscious,
whether instinctually, emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually, and is thus
that which exists in relation to the not-self of organic will.
72. But the self can become both more than and
less than itself through utilization of the not-self for purposes of
identifying, as far as possible, with that which selflessly emanates from the
not-self as organic spirit.
73. Thus the self is transported, via the
not-self, to superself, from which spiritual
extension of itself in relation to selflessness it is obliged to rebound to the
opposite extreme ... of subself, wherein the
achievement of a profounder experience of itself is made possible, before a
return to the middle-ground, so to speak, of ordinary self occurs, as a
psychological necessity.
74. Thus the self is stretched first in one
direction, that of superconscious selflessness, and
then in a contrary direction, that of subconscious selfhood, before returning
to its egocentric norm, wherein the process of escaping from self in order to
achieve a deeper experience of self begins afresh.
75. But this could not happen without the
assistance of both the not-self, whether metachemical,
chemical, physical, or metaphysical, whose organic will enables the self to be
transported, and selflessness, which is the spirit, whether metachemical,
chemical, physical, or metaphysical, upon which it is transported.
76. Hence there is always a connection between the
self, in whatever guise, and both the not-self and a correlative order of
selfless spirit emanating from that not-self which the self can embrace only up
to a certain point, the point of superconscious
extremism, from which it must rebound to the subconscious extreme in due
psychic course.
77. Now this distinction between self and
transported self on the one hand, and not-self and selflessness on the other
... is between egocentric personality and psychocentric
impersonality in the one case, and not-egocentric will and egoless spirit in
the other case, which is also a distinction between form and content on the one
hand, that of the self and transported self, and between power and glory on the
other hand, that of the not-self and selflessness.
78. Thus the egocentric personality of the self is
fated, through utilization of both the not-self and selflessness, to become psychocentrically impersonal in the superconscious
extreme, before becoming psychocentrically personal
in the subconscious extreme, from which it must return to egocentric
consciousness as before, and so on.
79. Hence there is a progression, for the self,
from form to content, as from egocentric personality to psychocentric
impersonality, and then, unable to live with the superconscious
extreme for long, a rebound to psychocentric
personality occurs, as from content to contentment, in which the subconscious
is experienced, prior to a return to egocentric consciousness.
80. The 'Three-in-One' of the self is thus a self
of egocentric personality, a superself of psychocentric impersonality, and a subself
of psychocentric personality, as form is superseded,
thanks to selflessness, by content, and content is in turn superseded, thanks
to selfishness, by contentment, the contentment which follows from a profounder
experience of the self than would otherwise have been possible, and from which
one must again return to egocentric selfhood in the process of re-establishing
one's psychological equilibrium.
81. But just as the form of the egocentric self
can be either metachemical, chemical, physical, or
metaphysical in both sensuality and sensibility, so the contentment of the psychocentric self will be either metachemical,
chemical, physical, or metaphysical, depending on the prevailing element in the
relationship of self to not-self and of selflessness to superself/subself
at any particular time.
82. Hence to contrast, within fiery metachemistry, the beautiful form of the metachemical egocentric self in relation to the metachemical not-self of the eyes in sensuality and the
heart in sensibility ... with the loving contentment of the metachemical
psychocentric self in relation to the metachemical selflessness of the light in sensuality and
the blood in sensibility, whose content conditions the metachemical
egocentric self towards psychocentric
impersonality/personality.
83. Hence to contrast, within watery chemistry,
the strong form of the chemical egocentric self in relation to the chemical
not-self of the tongue in sensuality and the womb in sensibility ... with the
proud contentment of the chemical psychocentric self
in relation to the chemical selflessness of verbal salivation in sensuality and
pregnancy in sensibility, whose content conditions the chemical egocentric self
towards psychocentric impersonality/personality.
84. Hence to contrast, within vegetative physics,
the knowledgeable form of the physical egocentric self in relation to the
physical not-self of the phallus in sensuality and the brain in sensibility ...
with the pleasurable contentment of the physical psychocentric
self in relation to the physical selflessness of the orgasm in sensuality and
(prayerful) thought in sensibility, whose content conditions the physical
egocentric self towards psychocentric
impersonality/personality.
85. Hence to contrast, within airy metaphysics,
the truthful form of the metaphysical egocentric self in relation to the
metaphysical not-self of the ears in sensuality and the lungs in sensibility
... with the joyful contentment of the metaphysical psychocentric
self in relation to the metaphysical selflessness of the airwaves in sensuality
and the breath in sensibility, whose content conditions the metaphysical
egocentric self towards psychocentric
impersonality/personality.
86. Of course one could and really should
distinguish more pedantically between the personality of the phenomenal planes
of volume and mass, and the universality of the noumenal
planes of time and space, since that which is noumenal
is less personal than universal, and therefore of a standing that obliges one
to distinguish between universal orders of egocentric self and psychocentric self in relation to metachemical
and metaphysical elements, and to contrast each of these with their impersonal
equivalents in what may be described as psychocentric
un-universality, and hence 'versality' or, more
correctly, polyversality.
87. Be that as it may, I have persisted in using
the terms 'personal' and 'impersonal' for convenience's sake, since such terms
make generalizing easier and, besides, one can still distinguish the noumenal from the phenomenal on the basis of metachemical from chemical on the one hand, that of fire
and water, and of metaphysical from physical on the other hand, that of air and
vegetation.
88. Thus not only can the self be personal in one
context and impersonal in another, where, by contrast, it becomes psychocentric, but it can be either personal on the
phenomenal planes of volume and mass or universal on the noumenal
planes of time and space, with due modifications of psychocentricity,
as before.
89. But if the conscious self equals ego on any
plane, in both external and internal, sensual and sensible contexts, then the superconscious self and/or subconscious self equals mind,
or psyche, not the not-self or selflessness, but transported and transmuted
self that becomes first psychocentrically impersonal
and/or polyversal (depending on the plane) and then psychocentrically personal and/or universal, as it rebounds
from superconscious mind to subconscious mind, before
returning to egocentric selfhood afresh.
90. Hence just as ego can be metachemical,
chemical, physical, or metaphysical, depending on the element, so mind, the
psychic extrapolation from egocentric psychology, can be likewise, due to the
influence, in no small part, of spirit, such that selflessly emanates from the
will of the not-self on either metachemical, chemical,
physical, or metaphysical terms, depending, once again, on the elemental
context.
91. Thus we have to distinguish one type of
psyche, or mind, from another not only in terms of superconscious
impersonality and/or polyversality vis-à-vis
subconscious personality and/or universality, but also in terms of each of the
elements, so that there is no one overall psyche, but different kinds of psyche
in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and
metaphysics.
92. Hence there can be four kinds of psyche both
in sensuality and sensibility, as well as their respective subdivisions,
according to whether selflessness or enhanced selfhood is prevalent at any
particular time.
93. Thus psyche can be both spiritual and
emotional in all four elements, albeit in different ways according to whether
fire, water, vegetation, or air is the prevailing element, while the ego will
always be intellectual in one of four different ways, and the not-self or
not-ego always wilful, or characterized by will, and hence power.
94. For will it is that powers the glory of
spirit, whichever spirit that may happen to be, and spirit it is which adds
content to egocentric form and makes it possible for content to psychocentrically achieve contentment for itself on the
rebound from superconscious mind to subconscious
mind, thereby acquiring a profounder experience of itself through emotional
fulfilment.
95. But no sooner has mind acquired such a
profounder experience than, duly universal and/or personal (depending on the
plane), the ego re-asserts itself in the interests of psychological equilibrium
and consciously plunges into the not-self again, so that the self may be
transported anew towards selflessness by that which is selfless and from which
it must react, in due superconscious course, in the
interests not only of enhanced self-realization but, more fundamentally, of
self-preservation.
96. For the self is not only what comes first, as
form; it is also what comes last, as contentment, and both the powerful will of
the not-self and the glorious spirit of selflessness are but means for it to a psychocentric end in spiritual content and, most
especially, emotional contentment.
97. Just as there are four kinds of form and
content(ment) in both sensuality and sensibility, so
there are four kinds of power and glory in each context, which correspond to metachemical, chemical, physical, and metaphysical options.
98. We can grade these four kinds of power and
glory from 1-4, starting with the first-rate power and glory of metachemistry which, in its noumenal
objectivity, is expressive, and continuing with the second-rate power and glory
of chemistry which, in its phenomenal objectivity, is compressive; continuing
again with the third-rate power and glory of physics, which, in its phenomenal
subjectivity, is depressive, and ending with the fourth-rate power and glory of
metaphysics which, in its noumenal subjectivity, is
impressive.
99. Hence power and glory descends from that which
is most powerful and glorious in metachemical
expression to that which is least powerful and glorious in metaphysical
impression via that which is more (relative to most) powerful and glorious in
chemical compression and that which is less (relative to least) powerful and
glorious in physical depression.
100. Considering that power and glory descends
from first- to fourth-rate, it seems to me logically correlative that form and
content(ment) should ascend from fourth- to
first-rate, since it is inconceivable that one could have a first-rate form and
content(ment) in connection with a first-rate power
and glory or, conversely, a fourth-rate form and content(ment)
in connection with a fourth-rate power and glory.
101. That which, as power and glory, has its per se
manifestation in expression would be too disruptive of form and content(ment) to allow for anything other than a fourth-rate
manifestation of the latter, while, conversely, that which, as power and glory,
was most 'bovaryized' through impression would be
least disruptive of form and content(ment), and thus
most inclined to allow for a first-rate, or per se, manifestation of the
latter.
102. Hence if form and content(ment)
ascend from that which is least formal and content through metachemical
expression to that which is most formal and content through metaphysical
impression via that which is less (relative to least) formal and content
through chemical compression and that which is more (relative to most) formal
and content through physical depression, we may categorically maintain that form
and content(ment) will be fourth-rate in connection
with the first-rate power and glory of metachemical
expression, third-rate in connection with the second-rate power and glory of
chemical compression, second-rate in connection with the third-rate power and
glory of physical depression, and first-rate in connection with the fourth-rate
power and glory of metaphysical impression.
103. Reversing this, one may contend that a
first-rate power and glory will engender a fourth-rate form and content(ment), a second-rate power and glory engender a third-rate
form and content(ment), a third-rate power and glory engender a
second-rate form and content(ment), and a fourth-rate
power and glory engender a first-rate form and content(ment).
104. Thus whereas power and glory are only in
their per se manifestations in expression, they are 'once bovaryized' in compression, 'twice bovaryized'
in depression, and 'thrice bovaryized' in
impression. Conversely, whereas form and
content(ment) are only in their per se
manifestations in impression, they are 'once bovaryized'
in depression, 'twice bovaryized' in compression, and
'thrice bovaryized' in expression.
105. Beauty is the fourth-rate, or expressive,
form that exists in relation to the first-rate power of metachemical
will (the eyes in sensuality and the heart in sensibility), while love is the
fourth-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to
the first-rate glory of metachemical spirit
(sight-light in sensuality and the blood in sensibility).
106. Strength is the third-rate, or compressive,
form that exists in relation to the second-rate power of chemical will (the
tongue in sensuality and the womb in sensibility), while pride is the
third-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to
the second-rate glory of chemical spirit (verbal salivation in sensuality and
amniotic fluid in sensibility).
107. Knowledge is the second-rate, or depressive,
form that exists in relation to the third-rate power of physical will (the
phallus in sensuality and the brain in sensibility), while pleasure is the
second-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to
the third-rate glory of physical spirit (sperm in sensuality and thought in
sensibility).
108. Truth is the first-rate, or impressive, form that
exists in relation to the fourth-rate power of metaphysical will (the ears in
sensuality and the lungs in sensibility), while joy is the first-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to the fourth-rate glory of
metaphysical spirit (the airwaves in sensuality and the breath in sensibility).
109. Hence the ascension of form and content(ment) from beauty and love to truth and joy via strength
and pride and knowledge and pleasure ... is accompanied by the descension, so to speak, of power and glory from metachemical will and spirit (Devil and Hell) to
metaphysical will and spirit (God and Heaven) via chemical will and spirit
(woman and purgatory) and physical will and spirit (man and earth).
110. The metachemical
self is a fourth-rate self that exists (in universal egocentric and polyversal/universal psychocentric
manifestations) in relation both to a first-rate not-self (eyes and/or heart)
and to first-rate selflessness (sight-light and/or blood), while the chemical
self is a third-rate self that exists (in personal egocentric and
impersonal/personal psychocentric manifestations) in
relation both to a second-rate not-self (tongue and/or womb) and to second-rate
selflessness (verbal salivation and/or amniotic fluid).
111. The physical self is a second-rate self that
exists (in personal egocentric and impersonal/personal psychocentric
manifestations) in relation both to a third-rate not-self (phallus and/or
brain) and to third-rate selflessness (spermatic orgasm and/or prayerful
thought), while the metaphysical self is a first-rate self that exists (in
universal egocentric and polyversal/universal psychocentric manifestations) in relation both to a
fourth-rate not-self (ears and/or lungs) and to fourth-rate selflessness
(airwaves and/or the breath).
112. Where there is most power and glory, as in metachemical expression, there will be least form and
content(ment), while, conversely, where there is most
form and content(ment), as in metaphysical
impression, there will be least power and glory.
113. Where there is more (relative to most) power
and glory, as in chemical compression, there will be less (relative to least)
form and content(ment), while, conversely, where
there is more (relative to most) form and content(ment),
as in physical depression, there will be less (relative to least) power and
glory.
114. Just as expression is synonymous with doing,
the appearance-based attribute of noumenal
objectivity, so impression is synonymous with being, the essence-centred
attribute of noumenal subjectivity.
115. Just as compression is synonymous with
giving, the quantitative attribute of phenomenal objectivity, so depression is
synonymous with taking, the qualitative attribute of phenomenal subjectivity.
116. Hence we may plot an overall progression from
the doing of metachemical expression to the being of
metaphysical impression via the giving of chemical compression and the taking
of physical depression - as from fire to air via water and vegetation.
117. Whereas both doing and giving are
devolutionary with regard to their respective orders (noumenal/phenomenal)
of objectivity, both taking and being are evolutionary with regard to their
respective orders (phenomenal/noumenal) of
subjectivity.
118. To descend from the most doing of the metachemical will to the least doing of the metaphysical
will via the more (relative to most) doing of the chemical will and the less
(relative to least) doing of the physical will.
119. To descend from the most giving of the
chemical spirit to the least giving of the physical spirit via the more
(relative to most) giving of the metachemical spirit
and the less (relative to least) giving of the metaphysical spirit.
120. To ascend from the least taking of the
chemical ego to the most taking of the physical ego via the less (relative to
least) taking of the metachemical ego and the more
(relative to most) taking of the metaphysical ego.
121. To ascend from the least being of the metachemical soul to the most being of the metaphysical soul
via the less (relative to least) being of the chemical soul and the more
(relative to most) being of the physical soul.
122. The will is of course synonymous with the
instinctual not-self, the spirit with emanational
selflessness, the ego with the intellectual self, and the soul with the
emotional self, or that which is subconscious as opposed to conscious or (in
connection with the spirit) superconscious.
123. The will, or not-self, corresponds to power,
and power can be evil, good, foolish, or wise, depending whether it has
associations with metachemical expression (doing),
chemical compression (giving), physical depression (taking), or metaphysical
impression (being).
124. The spirit, or selflessness, corresponds to
glory, and glory can be barbarous, civilized, natural, or cultural, depending
whether it has associations with fire, water, vegetation, or air.
125. The ego, or conscious self, corresponds to
form, and form can be criminal, punishing, sinful, or graceful, depending
whether it has associations with beauty, strength, knowledge, or truth.
126. The soul, or subconscious self, corresponds
to content(ment), and content(ment)
can be cruel, clever, stupid, or kind, depending whether it has associations
with love, pride, pleasure, or joy.
127. Things thus proceed, within metachemistry, from the criminality of the beautiful ego to
the cruelty (possessiveness) of the loving soul via the evil of the expressive
will and the barbarity of the fiery spirit.
128. Things thus proceed, within chemistry, from
the punishment of the strong ego to the cleverness (adroitness) of the proud
soul via the goodness of the compressive will and the civility of the watery
spirit.
129. Things thus proceed, within physics, from the
sinfulness of the knowledgeable ego to the stupidity (gravitas) of the
pleasurable soul via the folly of the depressive will and the naturalness of
the vegetative spirit.
130. Things thus proceed, within metaphysics, from
the gracefulness of the truthful ego to the kindness (light-heartedness) of the
joyful soul via the wisdom of the impressive will and the culture of the airy
spirit.
131. It is as if things proceeded, within a noumenally objective trinity, from the daughter of
universal metachemical ego to the daughter of polyversal/universal metachemical
psyche via the mother of diabolic will and the unclear spirit of Hell.
132. As if things proceeded, within a phenomenally
objective trinity, from the daughter of personal chemical ego to the daughter
of impersonal/personal chemical psyche via the mother of feminine will and the
clear spirit of purgatory.
133. As if things proceeded, within a phenomenally
subjective trinity, from the son of personal physical ego to the son of
impersonal/personal physical psyche via the father of masculine will and the
unholy spirit of earth.
134. As if things proceeded, within a noumenally subjective trinity, from the son of universal
metaphysical ego to the son of polyversal/universal metaphysical
psyche via the father of divine will and the holy spirit of Heaven.
135. Thus the only context in which the so-called
'Holy Trinity' has any relevance is the metaphysical one of noumenal
subjectivity, wherein we can speak of Son - Father - Holy Spirit, both in
relation to the 'once-born' metaphysics of the theocratic 'kingdom without'
and, more profoundly, in relation to the 'reborn' metaphysics of the meritocratic 'kingdom within', which has less to do, in
sensuality, with the airwaves than, in sensibility, with the breath.
136. Therefore only in relation to air, whether
sensually with regard to the ears or sensibly with regard to the lungs, is
there any possibility of holy spirit, the airy spirit of metaphysical
subjectivity. The holy spirit of Heaven
only comes upon those who are either listening (preferably to music) or
meditating (upon the breath), and it comes upon the latter more profoundly,
through sensibility, than upon the former.
137. Both of the vegetative contexts of phenomenal
subjectivity, corresponding to phallus and to brain, have reference to a
trinity in which spirit is unholy, since such selflessness issues from physical
and therefore foolish organs of not-self, and is accordingly natural rather
than cultural, the earthly spirit of a masculine father.
138. Even the physicality of subjectivity in the
plutocratic 'kingdom within' can only be described in terms, necessarily
phenomenal, of Son - Father - Unholy Spirit, since the Son, corresponding to
self, is less graceful here than sinful, the Father less wise here than
foolish, and the Unholy Spirit less airy here than vegetative in its cogitative
or prayerful nature, with a consequence that the soul (which reacts from such a
spirit) is less kind than stupid, less gay than grave, less light than heavy.
139. Yet if the phenomenal trinity of vegetative
physics implies an unholy shortfall from the noumenal
trinity of airy metaphysics, then that which is neither phenomenally subjective
nor noumenally subjective but objective in either noumenal or phenomenal terms ... cannot be described in
relation to an Unholy Spirit, much less the Holy Spirit, but only, as I have
maintained, in relation to an Unclear Spirit (if noumenal)
or to a Clear Spirit (if phenomenal), both of which stand apart from anything
male, since concerned with a female relationship between Daughter and Mother,
self and not-self, together with its selfless complement, in due objective
terms.
140. Thus we cannot entertain notions of Son -
Father - Holy Spirit or of Son - Father - Unholy Spirit with metachemistry or chemistry, fire or water, but only notions
of Daughter - Mother - Unclear Spirit in the metachemical
context or of Daughter - Mother - Clear Spirit in the chemical one.
141. If the concept of Son - Father - Unholy
Spirit is unconventional in relation to the more conventional notion of Son -
Father - Holy Spirit (though even here my philosophically-conditioned order of
symbols differs from that of conventional religious practice), then how much
more unconventional are the notions of Daughter - Mother - Unclear Spirit for
the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry
on the one hand, and of Daughter - Mother - Clear Spirit for the phenomenal
objectivity of chemistry on the other hand!
142. If those who imagine that the conventional
trinity of Son - Father - Holy Spirit suffices for the Christian realm of
vegetative 'rebirth' are mistaken, how much more mistaken would be those who
conceive of such a trinity in relation to watery or to fiery orders of
'rebirth', never mind the more prevalent 'once-born' contexts, affirming
sensuality, of metachemistry and chemistry,
corresponding, in organic terms, to the eyes and to the tongue.
143. No, neither the eyes nor the heart, nor even
the tongue or the womb, corresponding to noumenal and
to phenomenal levels of objective sensuality and sensibility respectively, have
anything to do with holiness, and those who persist in imagining the contrary
not only deceive themselves, but are guilty of subverting and corrupting
religion.
144. As, up to a point, are those who would
conceive of holiness in relation to the phallus or to the brain in vegetative
sensuality and sensibility, and are therefore guilty of hyping their phenomenal
limitations (in mass and volume) to a degree which marginalizes, if not
effectively excludes, genuine holiness.
145. Even those who, in their theocratic
fundamentalism, uphold holiness in 'once-born' terms, as auditory sensuality
through sequential time, leave something to be desired, and that something is the
'reborn' holiness that, corresponding to the metaphysical 'kingdom within',
requires transcendental meditation to ensure that respiratory sensibility
through spaced space has the final say.
146. For nothing short of meritocratic
transcendentalism can save people, effectively theocrats, from the 'once-born'
metaphysics of the 'kingdom without' to the 'reborn' metaphysics of the
'kingdom within', and such a salvation will only be possible in 'Kingdom Come',
the pseudo-Kingdom and genuine Centre which the Second Coming (and effective Superchrist) wishes to establish not only at the expense of
the metaphysical 'kingdom without' (of the theocratic Father), but also at the
expense of the physical 'kingdom within' (of the plutocratic Son), in order
that the metaphysical 'kingdom within' (of the meritocratic
Holy Spirit of Heaven) may come officially and universally to pass in the top
tier of what I have elsewhere - see, for instance, Deistic Deliverance
and Ultranotes from Beyond - described
as the triadic Beyond.
147. Before I proceed any further, I should
emphasize that, not for the first time in this text, I have been guilty of
using a convenient generalization to advance a fresh perspective in connection with
more immediately significant material, and that, much as this may have been
strategically justified at the time, philosophical conscience now compels me to
do justice to the truth by also allowing for a more precisely comprehensive
perspective.
148. Thus since the per se
of power is in metachemistry (as metachemical
expression) and the per se of glory is in chemistry (as clear spirit),
so that we have a distinction between not-self and selflessness, it stands to
reason that generalizations to the effect that power and glory will be
first-rate in metachemistry do not square with such a
distinction, since glory is hardly in its per se manifestation there
but, rather, is 'once bovaryized' and thus duly
second-rate.
149. Hence, in metachemistry,
we should distinguish between the first-rate power of the metachemically
universal not-self and the second-rate glory of metachemical
universal selflessness on the one hand, and contrast each of these with the
third-rate form of the metachemically egocentric self
and the fourth-rate content(ment) of the metachemically psychocentric
self.
150. For where power is first-rate, as in metachemical expression, content(ment) will be fourth-rate,
form third-rate, and glory second-rate, as the ratios of things proceed from most
power to least content(ment) via more (relative to
most) glory and less (relative to least) form.
151. Likewise, in chemistry, one should
distinguish between the second-rate power of the chemically personal not-self
and the first-rate glory of chemically personal selflessness on the one hand,
and contrast each of these with the third-rate content(ment)
of the chemically psychocentric self and the
fourth-rate form of the chemically egocentric self.
152. For where glory is first-rate, as in clear
spirit, power will be second-rate, content(ment)
third-rate, and form fourth-rate, as the ratios of things proceed from more
(relative to most) power to less (relative to least) content(ment) via most glory and least form.
153. Similarly, in physics, one should distinguish
between the third-rate power of the physically personal not-self and the
fourth-rate glory of physically personal selflessness on the one hand, and
contrast each of these with the second-rate content(ment)
of the physically psychocentric self and the
first-rate form of the physically egocentric self.
154. For where form is first-rate, as in
egocentric sinfulness, content(ment) will be
second-rate, power third-rate, and glory fourth-rate, as the ratios of things
proceed from less (relative to least) power to more (relative to most) content(ment) via least glory and most form.
155. Finally, in metaphysics, one should
distinguish between the fourth-rate power of the metaphysically universal
not-self and the third-rate glory of metaphysically universal selflessness on
the one hand, and contrast each of these with the second-rate form of the
metaphysical egocentric self and the first-rate content(ment)
of the metaphysical psychocentric self on the other
hand.
156. For where content(ment)
is first-rate, as in psychocentric kindness, form
will be second-rate, glory third-rate, and power fourth-rate, as the ratios of
things proceed from least power to most content(ment)
via less (relative to least) glory and more (relative to most) form.
157. Of course, things don't literally proceed
from power to content(ment) via glory and form, since
this is simply with regard to the structural ratios of the various components,
but, rather, from form to content(ment) via power and
glory, as from egocentric self to psychocentric self
via somatic not-self and what I should like to call psychesomatic
selflessness (the spiritual emanation from the not-self).
158. And, proceeding thus, we know that form is
only in its per se manifestation in physics, content(ment)
only in its per se manifestation in metaphysics, power only in its per
se manifestation in metachemistry, and glory only
in its per se manifestation in chemistry.
159. Knowing which, there can be no doubt that the
ego, corresponding to form, is only in its per se manifestation in
vegetation; that the soul, corresponding to content(ment),
is only in its per se manifestation in air; that the will, corresponding
to power, is only in its per se manifestation in fire; and that the
spirit, corresponding to glory, is only in its per se manifestation in
water.
160. A society that wants perfect power will
accordingly be built around fire in due metachemically
expressive fashion; a society that wants perfect glory will accordingly be built
around water in due chemically clear fashion; while a society, by (gender)
contrast, that wants perfect form will accordingly be built around vegetation
in due physically sinful vein; and, last but hardly least, a society that wants
perfect content(ment) will accordingly be built
around air in due metaphysically lighthearted vein.
161. The powerful society will affirm will through
fire, the glorious society affirm spirit through water, and both alike will be
predominantly objective, and hence female, in their respective ways. Conversely, the formal society will affirm
ego through vegetation, the content(ment) society
affirm soul through air, and both alike will be preponderantly subjective, and
hence male, in their respective ways.
162. Science rules in the powerful society,
politics governs in the glorious society; economics represents in the formal
society, and religion leads in the content(ment)
society.
163. Regarded from the perspective of science, a
religious society will be scientifically fourth-rate, an economic society
scientifically third-rate, and a political society scientifically second-rate,
since only in metachemistry is science first-rate.
164. Regarded from the perspective of politics, an
economic society will be politically fourth-rate, a religious society
politically third-rate, and a scientific society politically second-rate, since
only in chemistry is politics first-rate.
165. Regarded from the perspective of economics, a
political society will be economically fourth-rate, a scientific society
economically third-rate, and a religious society economically second-rate,
since only in physics is economics first-rate.
166. Regarded from the perspective of religion, a
scientific society will be religiously fourth-rate, a political society
religiously third-rate, and an economic society religiously second-rate, since
only in metaphysics is religion first-rate.
167. Of course, what applies to society, which is
a conglomeration of individuals sharing common ideals, ethics, nationality, etc.,
also applies to the individuals who constitute it, insofar as individuals are
divisible into those for whom the will, and hence power, is paramount; those
for whom the spirit, and hence glory, is paramount; those for whom the ego, and
hence form, is paramount; and those for whom the soul, and hence content(ment), is paramount.
168. To some extent this is also attributable to
the individual's gender, insofar as females tend to have a bias, in their
predominantly objective dispositions (which diverge in sensuality and/or
converge in sensibility in a straight line due to a vacuous precondition),
towards will and spirit, whereas males tend, by contrast, to have a bias
towards ego and soul, after the manner of their preponderantly subjective
dispositions (which diverge in sensuality and/or converge in sensibility in a
curved line due to a plenumous precondition).
169. Just as fire is the element of the will par
excellence, so air, its noumenal antithesis, is
the element of the soul par excellence, the heavenly element that is
essential where fire is apparent.
170. Just as water is the element of the spirit par
excellence, so vegetation (earth), its phenomenal antithesis, is the element
of the ego par excellence, the mundane element that is qualitative where
water is quantitative.
171. The elements thus proceed from appearance to
essence via quantity and quality, as from will to soul via spirit and ego, or
power to content(ment) via glory and form.
172. If power is first-rate in fire, where it is
expressive in its noumenal objectivity, then it is
second-rate in the phenomenally objective compressiveness
of water, third-rate in the phenomenally subjective depressiveness of
vegetation, and fourth-rate in the noumenally
subjective impressiveness of air.
173. If glory is first-rate in water, where it is
clear in its chemical spirituality, then it is second-rate in the metachemical unclearness of fire, third-rate in the
metaphysical holiness of air, and fourth-rate in the physical unholiness of vegetation.
174. If form is first-rate in vegetation, where it
is sinful in its knowledgeable egocentricity, then it is second-rate in the
graceful egocentricity of air, third-rate in the criminal egocentricity of
fire, and fourth-rate in the punishing egocentricity of water, as we descend
from truth and beauty to strength.
175. If content(ment) is
first-rate in air, where it is kind in its joyful psychocentricity,
then it is second-rate in the stupid psychocentricity
of vegetation, third-rate in the clever psychocentricity
of water, and fourth-rate in the cruel psychocentricity
of fire, as we descend from pleasure and pride to love.
176. Power accordingly descends from expression to
impression via compression and depression, as from fire to air via water and
vegetation in will.
177. Glory accordingly descends from clear to
unholy via unclear and holy, as from water to vegetation via fire and air in
spirit.
178. Form accordingly ascends from strength to
truth via beauty and knowledge, as from water to air via fire and vegetation in
ego.
179. Content(ment)
accordingly ascends from love to joy via pride and pleasure, as from fire to
air via water and vegetation in soul.
180. If will is most apparent in fire, it is more
(relative to most) apparent in water, less (relative to least) apparent in
vegetation, and least apparent in air.
181. If spirit is most quantitative in water, it
is more (relative to most) quantitative in fire, less (relative to least)
quantitative in air, and least quantitative in vegetation.
182. If ego is most qualitative in vegetation, it
is more (relative to most) qualitative in air, less (relative to least)
qualitative in fire, and least qualitative in water.
183. If soul is most essential in air, it is more
(relative to most) essential in vegetation, less (relative to least) essential
in water, and least essential in fire.
184. The self, as has been argued, is a composite
of three factors, viz. the conscious mind, or intellectualized ego; the superconscious mind, or spiritualized ego; and the subconscious
mind, or emotionalized ego. It is thus,
in general terms, divisible between ego, mind, and soul, as between intellect,
spirit, and emotion.
185. There is a sort of cause-and-effect
relationship between the ego and the soul, in whatever element in both
sensuality and sensibility, but it is not a direct relationship. Rather is it an indirect relationship in
which the self, as cause, achieves soulful redemption for itself via the
not-self and selflessness.
186. Hence ego does not directly but only indirectly
causes soul, via the intermediate co-operation of the not-self and its selfless
complement, the latter of which, as spirit, transmutes ego into mind and
directly causes it to rebound from such a transmutation towards the emotional
depths of the self, which is its soul.
187. Thus the ego is the effective cause of the
will, the will is the direct cause of the spirit, the spirit is the direct
effect of the will, and the mind is the causative effect of the spirit, an
effect from which, in rejecting, the self rebounds to its soulful kernel before
regaining its psychological equilibrium in the ego.
188. Thus whereas there is a direct
cause-and-effect relationship between will and spirit, power and glory, there
is no such relationship between ego and soul since, together with the mind,
they are different manifestations of the same thing - namely the self, which is
neither its own cause nor its own effect but, rather, the effective cause and
causative effect of both the not-self and selflessness.
189. Thus self is truly 'Three-in-One', and this
'One', corresponding to ego/mind/soul, stands apart from the causal not-self of
the will and the effective selflessness of the spirit as 'Son' from 'Father'
and 'Holy Ghost'.
190. At least this is so of the metaphysical
context of noumenal subjectivity in both sensuality
and sensibility, but not, as has been argued, of physical, chemical, and metachemical contexts, where 'ghosts' or 'spirits' which
are unholy, clear, and unclear have ever to be reckoned with!
