THE SUBNATURE OF GOD

1. Since the context of God, as of Heaven, appertains to metaphysics, and does so in both primary (formal) and secondary (powerful) terms, we can be sure that the 'humanity' of the one is subhuman and the 'nature' of the other subnatural, and that the godly individual is accordingly a kind of subman, whether in aural sensuality or, more definitively, in respiratory sensibility.

2. Thus whether aural or respiratory metaphysics is at issue, the subhumanity of 'God the Son', so to speak, and the subnaturalism of 'God the Father' would indicate the inevitability of a subman, since one cannot be anything less than the deepest and highest of persons to be identifiable with God or, at any rate, with what is godly in its redemptive drive, in both ego and will, towards the universality of Heaven.

3. Clearly, the average man is not godly in his physical mean, but human and natural, one might almost say, paraphrasing Nietzsche, human-all-too-human and natural-all-too-natural, which, admittedly, is the next-best-thing to godliness, but emphatically no more identical with God than, say, vegetation with air, or sin with grace, or unholiness with holiness, or the earth with Heaven, or travail with peace.

4. Thus although most men are intermittently capable of subhuman tendencies and not a few submen, by contrast, no less intermittently capable of human ones, a distinction nevertheless persists, in general terms, between the lower-class phenomenality, as it were, of mass-volume subjectivity and the noumenality, comparatively upper class, of time-space subjectivity, as between men and submen, the physical collectivity and the metaphysical individual who, in his graceful aloofness from the sinful, is akin to God.

5. But if man is not commensurate, in average masculine terms, with God, then what about those men who approximate, in their bias towards strength, to women, albeit from a vegetative (and therefore muscular) as opposed to a watery (and thus properly feminine) point of view?

6. Clearly, such 'men' are even further removed from the possibility of godliness than the generality of humanistic/naturalistic men, since strength is not closer to truth than knowledge, the masculine mean, but closer, in its objectivity, to beauty, that great antithesis of truth.

7. Therefore 'men' who are 'bovaryized', or bent, away from their own gender in arguably superhuman/supernatural terms, the sort of terms in which strength has its watery - and womanly - throne, are less men than effective 'supermen', and therefore a perverse kind of women, employing the latter term strictly in relation to volume-mass objectivity, and therefore not to its upper-class counterpart in space-time objectivity.

8. Thus the term 'superman' is really somewhat paradoxical, since it would seem to be women who, in their superhumanity/supernaturalism, more credibly approximate to a 'super' role - certainly in relation, as mothers, to their families.

9. One could almost identify the term 'superwoman' with the feminine, as we have identified 'subman' with the divine and 'man' with the masculine, but it seems to me that 'superfeminine' is a more appropriate identification with the objectivity of volume-mass devolution, and that 'feminine' may well, in the paradoxical nature of these things, lend itself to a womanly 'bovaryization' having more to do with knowledge than with strength, as though the female counterpart to 'supermasculine'.

10. Be that as it may, we are left with the possibility of identifying 'unwoman' or the 'unfeminine' with the diabolic, since that which is into, say, beauty in space-time objectivity is less superhuman than unhuman (inhuman), and correspondingly less supernatural than unnatural, appearance taking precedence over quantity in what amounts to a fixation on doing at the expense of giving.

11. Thus just as the male (subjective) side of life provides us with human and subhuman options, corresponding to man and God, so its female side (objective) offers us proof of superhuman and unhuman options, corresponding to woman and the Devil.

12. One could distinguish a per se unhumanism in the unfeminine from a 'bovaryized' unhumanism in the unmasculine, since the Devil is never more genuine than when upper-class female.

13. Likewise one could distinguish a per se superhumanism in the superfeminine from a 'bovaryized' superhumanism in the supermasculine, since woman is never more genuine than when lower-class female.

14. Similarly, one could distinguish a per se humanism in the masculine from a 'bovaryized' humanism in the feminine, since man is never more genuine than when lower-class male.

15. Finally, one could distinguish a per se subhumanism in the submasculine from a 'bovaryized' subhumanism in the subfeminine, since God is never more genuine than when upper-class male.

16. In this respect, one might speak of the pseudo-evil of the unmasculine as against the genuine evil of the unfeminine, in connection with the noumenal objectivity of unhumanism/unnature.

17. In such fashion, one might speak of the pseudo-goodness of the supermasculine as against the genuine goodness of the superfeminine, in connection with the phenomenal objectivity of superhumanism/supernature.

18. In like manner, one might speak of the pseudo-folly (foolishness) of the feminine as against the genuine folly of the masculine, in connection with the phenomenal subjectivity of humanism/nature.

19. In similar vein, one might speak of the pseudo-wisdom of the subfeminine as against the genuine wisdom of the submasculine, in connection with the noumenal subjectivity of subhumanism/subnature.

20. Whereas the humanism of man is attracted by the unhumanism of the Devil, the superhumanism of woman drives man towards the subhumanism of God; for co-option of the male mean by one extreme tends to result in its transmutation towards the opposite extreme by the resulting female mean which ensues with the superhuman.

21. This of course applies to men in general, not to those higher men, the submen, whom we have identified as gods, and who tend, in any case, to avoid compromising with women in the interests of a more genuine and lasting experience of the godly.

22. For whereas nature is drawn towards unnature, subnature tends away from it, as though from the threat of metaphysical annihilation.

23. For that which is against 'nature', being unnatural, is more against nature in its vegetative mean than against either supernature behind (anterior to) such a mean or subnature beyond (posterior to) it; for nature is the one element it can really dominate.

24. Subnature cannot be dominated by unnature because it has too much wisdom, in its metaphysical depths, to fall for evil.

25. Only folly can fall for evil, which can only be vanquished by goodness, thereby driving that which was foolish towards wisdom.

26. In such fashion most men are driven towards wisdom, not by evil as such, but by the goodness that results from the transmutation of evil by folly.

27. Were it not for folly it is debatable whether goodness would exist at all, since goodness arises out of evil no less than wisdom out of folly.

28. In fact, folly can be justified on the basis of the transmutation of evil towards good, even though the coming of goodness proves problematic for fools.

29. But the wisdom they are driven towards is not commensurate with wisdom per se, but is achieved rather more vicariously than directly, whether in sensuality or in sensibility.

30. For true wisdom, to repeat, is germane to one who, as a subhuman/subnatural subman, lives metaphysics from the inside, not from the physical standpoint of those who, as men, find themselves increasingly driven towards the vicarious experience of metaphysics, whether in terms of music or yoga or whatever.

31. Men remain, at bottom, somewhat sceptical towards and even fearful of the genuinely godly; for they do not want to sacrifice their worldly commitments, and, in any case, the masculine and the submasculine are not interchangeable but pertain to different elements, as, indeed, to two distinct classes - lower and upper - which fact is usually underlined by distinctive genetic and ethnic differences.

32. In sum, the majority of people are fated to remain as they are by nature, whether their natures be metachemical (and evil), chemical (and good), physical (and foolish), or metaphysical (and wise); for class is no less unalterable, as a rule, than gender.

33. The genuine unwoman is as uncharacteristic, in her way, of the world as the genuine subman, albeit from a contrary point of view - that of the metachemical Behind, as opposed to the metaphysical Beyond.

34. Yet whereas the genuine unwoman is about competition behind the co-operative aspect (purgatorial) of the world, the genuine subman is about individualism beyond the collectivistic aspect (earthly) of the world.

35. For while competition is the evil of the Devil, individualism is the wisdom of God, the former noumenally aloof from the goodness of co-operation, and the latter noumenally aloof from the folly of collectivism.

36. Thus do the genuinely Beautiful stand at the farthest possible remove from the genuinely True, a comparative Few at a noumenal elevation (in space and time) over the worldly phenomenality (in volume and mass) of 'the strong' and 'the knowledgeable', who correspond, in their respective gender-based ways, to the Many.

37. But just as beauty is fundamentally anterior to strength, as fire to water, so truth is transcendentally posterior to knowledge, as air to vegetation, and the distinction between the competitive evil of the one and the individualistic wisdom of the other is nothing less than the alpha (of metachemistry) and the omega (of metaphysics), appearance and essence.

38. In literary terms, it is the poet who corresponds, in 'his' obsession with beauty, to the alpha and the philosopher, with his concern for truth, to the omega, while the dramatist and the novelist, the playwright and the writer, take intermediate positions, relative to the world, in which, in the one case, strength and, in the other case, knowledge (whether carnally or otherwise) are the principal concerns.

39. Thus do 'the good' and 'the foolish' stand apart from 'the evil' and 'the wise', as women and men from devils and gods, chemistry and physics from metachemistry and metaphysics, co-operation and collectivism from competitiveness and individuality.

40. And what applies to positive, or supreme, manifestations of the poet, the dramatist, the novelist, and the philosopher ... applies no less to their negative, or primal, counterparts, for whom, whether in sensuality or sensibility, not beauty but ugliness, not strength but weakness, not knowledge but ignorance, and not truth but falsity (illusion) are the principal concerns.

41. Thus do negative devils, women, men, and gods exist in the cosmic (noumenal) and/or geologic (phenomenal) shadow of their positive counterparts, like the inorganic behind the organic, primal manifestations of evil, goodness, folly, and wisdom behind those supreme manifestations thereof which are more usually associated with 'high culture' or, at any rate, with a 'fine' rather than 'crude' approach to literature - as, indeed, to the Arts in general.

42. For, in more general terms, the artist (painter) is vocationally more the type of the unhuman than the poet, while the sculptor is vocationally more the type of the human than the novelist, and the musician vocationally more the type of the subhuman (in sensuality) than the philosopher - only the dramatist, of all the literary options, corresponding to the type of the superhuman per se.

43. However, even the musician leaves something to be desired from the standpoint of metaphysics, and that is the respiratory sensibility of the meditator, the transcendental meditation of the ultimate subman, the deepest god whose 'kingdom within' is salvation for submen from the 'kingdom without', based in aural sensuality, of the musician.

44. There is nothing higher or more profound than the meditative subman, the God-of-Gods, and it is towards him that musical submen will have to turn if they desire metaphysical salvation, the salvation-of-salvations that makes possible for the God-of-Gods the redemption-of-redemptions in the Heaven-of-Heavens, the sensible metaphysical being, in inner joy, of the truly peaceful soul.