1. Just as, formerly, right-thinking people opposed slavery and serfdom, so their latter-day counterparts should oppose work. For work is no less evil in relation to the contemporary world than slavery and serfdom were evils in relation to the past. Work divides and degrades people, sets up artificial barriers between them which are no less an obstacle to universal harmony than the natural barriers of race and class which formerly divided them and which, to a certain extent, still do so today. Where man was formerly divided by race and class, he is now divided by profession. Only when work is also consigned to the 'rubbish heap of history' will man be truly free - free from division and free for unity. Such unity, it need hardly be said, can only be achieved through play, albeit play of the most spiritual order - the order making for universal joy.

2. Decadence is to civilization what cancer is to the flesh: a degeneration which must be eliminated by the scalpel of revolutionary change.

3. It is only when and because men generally symbolize goodness that they look-up to women, as to the Beautiful, from a worldly point-of-view, propagating truth in the guise of children.

4. Why did Christ say: You must become as little children in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Doubtless because children symbolize innocence, since playful, contemplative, trusting, loving, etc. And yet, there are men - saints, artists, priests - who get above goodness and become truth, thereby putting themselves above beauty and, hence, women. From their divine vantage-point, they look down upon both diabolic beauty and worldly goodness alike. Such men are more likely to remain celibate than to become lovers, fathers, and husbands.

5. Better to suffer for Heaven than to seek pleasure in the world.

6. To distinguish between small paving stones as People's democratic and medium-to-large paving stones as bourgeois democratic, with macadamized 'pavements' corresponding to a People's theocratic equivalent by dint of their construction within the idealistic context of a wavicle continuum. Thus, on the one hand, the particle materialism of paving stones while, on the other hand, the wavicle idealism of macadamized sidewalks, so-named after their Irish inventor, MacAdam.

7. Stereo speakers as worldly in relation to stereo headphones, whether of the larger particle-suggesting variety, more suited to rock, or of the smaller wavicle-suggesting variety, better suited to jazz. Conventional and micro, Communist and Fascist equivalents beyond 'democratic' speakers, as especially suited to classical and pop. Certainly, headphones connote with the head in contrast to the body, with theocracy as opposed to democracy, and can be distinguished, on the above-mentioned basis of type, as brain from mind, particles from wavicles.

8. But if we ascribe Communist and Fascist equivalents to stereo headphones, depending on their type, e.g. conventional or micro, then it seems not unreasonable to ascribe an Ecological equivalence to radio headphones, so that we regard them as ideologically situated in between the alternative kinds of stereo headphones, much as trikes can be regarded as being ideologically situated in between Communist motorbikes on the one hand and Fascist scooters on the other ... in a uniquely middle-ground theocratic position, as befitting Ecological equivalents in general. Certainly radio headphones are as distinct, given their individual construction and purpose, from stereo headphones as trikes from motorbikes or scooters, and while they may come in a variety of shapes and sizes, it would seem that an Ecological equivalent is much the most likely and plausible description. Thus whether radio headphones are designed on a uniquely middle-ground basis or in such a way as to suggest a leaning towards either of the flanking extremes, it will suit our ideological purposes if we regard them in the aforementioned light, as a kind of trike-like extrapolation from or extension beyond small streamlined transistors with microlight headphones, which, by contrast, suggest a radical Liberal Democratic equivalent.

9. Concerning stereo headphones, we should distinguish, I believe, not only between Communist conventionals and Fascist micros, but (to the extent that more radical ideological equivalents can be derived from these) also between Transcendental Socialist and Social Transcendentalist stereo headphones, and on the following basis: namely that while Communist conventionals will be of a chunky construction with ring- or doughnut-like ear pads, Transcendental Socialist conventionals will be of a slender construction with correspondingly more streamlined ear pads, possibly of a centralized foam design; and that while Fascist micros will be very lightweight and all-of-a-piece, Social Transcendentalist micros will be of the collapsible or fold-up variety, with larger centralized ear pads and a stronger overall construction. Such larger micros, together with the smaller conventionals (in relation to Communist headphones) will, I contend, stand to one another as plain scooters to streamlined motorbikes, both of which may be said to form a closer parallel that not only overhauls and transcends the more absolute and wider parallel of Fascist micros and Communist conventionals, but overhauls and transcends radio headphones as well, just as plain scooters and streamlined motorbikes overhaul and transcend trikes, on the basis of a post-superworldly relativity.

10. Clearly ring-padded radio headphones will be of an Ecological status with a bias towards Communist conventionals; streamlined centre-padded radio headphones will be of an Ecological status with a bias towards Fascist micros; streamlined ring-padded radio headphones will be of a uniquely middle-ground Ecological status. Parallels may be drawn with rock-blues, jazz-blues, and blues-blues respectively, not to mention with comparable kinds of trikes.

11. To me, Social Theocracy and Social Transcendentalism are interchangeable terms for the ideology of what is potentially, if not actually at this point in time, a true world religion, a religion capable of genuinely global aspirations. I personally prefer to think of the first term in connection with political equivalents, since it is closer in appearance and sound to Social Democracy, and the second term in connection with religious equivalents, since it better expresses the freedom from alpha-stemming orientations and correlative freedom for omega-aspiring orientations. For, despite my transcendental use of the word, 'theocracy' too easily connotes with quasi-autocratic subservience to alpha-stemming deities, whereas 'transcendentalism' more readily expresses the freedom that an omega-aspiring religion entails. Thus one can conceive of a Social Theocratic Party or Movement, but the actual religious realization of the ideology in question would be better served by the term Social Transcendentalism, which, in any case, is the term I tend to prefer.

12. Public ownership of the land in relation to public ownership of industry - a natural/artificial distinction which finds a parallel between hand-played percussion on the one hand and drums on the other, as befitting alpha and omega manifestations of decentralization. Thus primitive Communism and contemporary Communism, each of which are unacceptable from a truly civilized, and therefore centralized, standpoint. Better than public ownership of the means of production, whether natural or artificial, agricultural or industrial, is Centrist trusteeship of those means for the People-become-Holy-Ghost. Otherwise the People can never become Holy Ghost, but will remain enslaved to materialism and be no better than proletarian. A truly free people are free for the spirit. Those who elect, under Messianic auspices, to serve the People in this ultimate freedom must bear the 'sinful' materialisms of the world for them in a Christ-like sacrifice ... in order that they may go free of such 'sins' for all time. But trusteeship is not ownership! Trusteeship is social, not Socialism. Ownership is a dirty concept from a divine standpoint.

13. Purely as a matter of general interest, can there be ownership of the land, as of anything else, without prior purchase? Is not ownership dependent upon one's buying what is offered for sale? So can there be true ownership where no purchase was involved, as in primitive communal societies which knew nothing about money and would not have cared for financial transactions had they done so? No, it seems to me that no ownership could have existed in those primitive communities, least of all where land was concerned. Rather did people, whether as individual clans or tribes, occupy and make use of land for the benefit of the community, as in ancient Ireland. But such occupation was not ownership! One must first buy land before one can be said to own it, and even those who deprived the Irish of the land they were occupying and using were not so much owners as usurpers - certainly until they or their descendants sought to legalize their usurpation through royal or other purchase, which is to say, by first claiming the seized land in the name of the king or some high feudal lord and then buying it back from him at whatever price was demanded (doubtless a reasonable one for the vast amount of land involved). So there is a distinct difference between occupying and owning, and once ownership supplants occupation, as with the feudal system, then those who were formerly occupants become serfs, in the pay of the owners. From being free in the community, they become bound to the individual.

14. A modern example of occupying but now owning is afforded by squatters, who take over deserted or derelict property and make use of it for themselves. For to own one must first buy. No ownership can be said to exist where a purchase has not been made. The Irish were once beneath ownership, but hopefully one day they will be beyond it, even in the collective sense advocated by Socialists. Yet while public ownership may be preferable to, because more evolved than, private ownership, it is still ownership, and thus rather more on the diabolic than the divine side of life. It can only truly exist where the State, acting on behalf of the community, buys out the private owners of their land, industry, or whatever, which is then nationalized. Thus the State, having first bought in the collective interest, owns what it has bought. Yet such ownership can only exist in a Liberal State, or one in which a Socialist administration nationalizes certain industries, having first bought them from private ownership. It cannot be equated with a Communist State, or one where Capitalists are not so much bought out as ... liquidated and/or expropriated. For it cannot be assumed that Capitalists will willingly agree to sell their land, industry, etc., in the general interest. Where Socialism wholly triumphs, then the Capitalists or Feudalists are expropriated, and the result is less ownership than trusteeship by the State for the People, since no purchase was or can be made. Now, obviously, such trusteeship can be called ownership, and ownership of the means of production by the People through the Communist State is the usual description of Socialist policy in states where Socialism is wholly triumphant - a description that owes more than a little to Capitalist precedent and which can be regarded as an extrapolation from it, in accordance with the naturalistic criteria of a People's democracy, which makes no claims to spiritual salvation. Only, however, in a Social Transcendentalist Centre, where the People were religiously sovereign, would the term 'public ownership' fall into disrepute, as Centrist trusteeship of the means of production became the accepted norm, a norm transcending state ownership in the interests of a totally free society, as much beyond ownership as early communal societies were beneath it. Clearly, the more industry is nationalized in liberal republics like the Irish one, the less would a Social Transcendentalist Centre be obliged to indulge in the expropriation of private ownership. What was owned by the State in the name of the People (who pay the taxes from which governments draw their purchasing power) would pass to the trusteeship of the Centre. Wavicles superseding particles on a free-electron basis.

15. Transcendental Socialism is one-party Socialism, in which the proletariat own the means of production through the State. Social Transcendentalism is one-party trusteeship of the means of production for the People through the Centre. Hence whereas the former implies ownership, the latter implies trusteeship.

16. Revaluation (in relation to evaluations carried out in, for example, From Materialism to Idealism) of different types of People's discs in relation to ideological equivalents: Democratic Socialist long-playing album; pure Socialist large single; Communist small single; Transcendental Socialist compact disc. Thus from the democratically large-scale disc to the theocratically small-scale disc.

17. No-one who is familiar with contemporary modes of motorized transportation will have failed to notice a distinction between cars on the one hand, and motorbikes and scooters on the other, which can be inferred to parallel the distinction I have already drawn between the body and head, as regarding worldly democracy and otherworldly theocracy, the latter divisible into brain and mind, with particular reference (in relation to motorbikes and scooters) to the new brain and the superconscious mind. By which I mean that whereas cars connote, on account of their extensive bodywork, with the body and thus may be ascribed a democratic significance, motorbikes connote, on account of their engine bias, with the brain or, more accurately, the new brain, while scooters connote, on account of their preponderant panelling, with the superconscious, i.e. mind of a post-worldly and hence transcendent order. Consequently a dichotomy in the first place between body-oriented cars and head-oriented motorbikes/scooters, with a further dichotomy between brain-oriented motorbikes and mind-oriented scooters. World-Devil-God distinctions on democratic and transcendent terms.

18. Certainly we need not doubt that cars will appeal more to worldly, democratic people than to those of a post-worldly or otherworldly disposition, who will doubtless prefer motorbikes or scooters, as befitting 'heads'. But in a democratic society such more ideologically-advanced individuals are rather the exception to the rule, as can be confirmed by the preponderance of four-wheel over two-wheel motor vehicles on today's roads. Of course, distinctions between Fascist streamlined scooters and Social Transcendentalist plain scooters do not alter the fact that scooters are essentially mind orientated, any more than streamlined motorbikes cease to be brain orientated in relation to plain, or conventional, motorbikes just because they signify a Transcendental Socialist extrapolation from Communist purism. Certainly a latter-day plain scooter will be less idealistic and mind orientated than a streamlined scooter, but it will still be more a phenomenon of the superconscious than of the new brain. Similarly a latter-day streamlined motorbike will be less materialistic and brain orientated than a plain motorbike, yet still be more a phenomenon of the new brain than of the superconscious. For scooters are ever scooters, no less than motorbikes remain motorbikes whatever modifications are introduced. They pertain to separate ideological spectra.

19. However, it is my unshakeable conviction that scooters and motorbikes are more relevant to post-worldly intellectuals than ever cars would be, given their inherently bodily construction. Cars for the democratic masses, scooters and motorbikes for the transcendental elites, whether divine or diabolic, fascistic or communistic. For it is incontestable that two-wheeled motor vehicles are as much beyond the world ... of the democratic masses ... as ponies and horses may be said to have preceded it, with scooters as a kind of antithetical equivalent to ponies and motorbikes as a kind of antithetical equivalent to horses - a difference, in part, of scale and, in part, of design. Certainly ponies are smaller and slower than horses, and the same is generally true of scooters in relation to motorbikes; shorter legs in the case of ponies and smaller wheels in the case of scooters, making for a slower overall performance. Doubtless the type of person who would have preferred a pony to a horse in the pre-worldly age of pagan antiquity will have his antithetical equivalent in the type of person who, in this incipiently post-worldly age of transcendent futurity, prefers a scooter to a motorbike - the difference, in other words, between alpha-stemming idealism (the Father) and omega-oriented idealism (the Holy Ghost). And doubtless, too, the type of person who, in an alpha-stemming age, would have preferred a horse to a pony has his antithetical equivalent in the typical motorcyclist for whom scooters are inadequate or unacceptable, as the case may be.

20. But what of those who come in-between each of the extreme choices? For we can no more ignore the reality of a mid-position in between scooters and motorbikes than in between ponies and horses, and if the former has to do with trikes, then it seems not unreasonable to contend that the latter had to do with donkeys, quadrupeds which were no less distinct from (and slower than) ponies and horses than trikes (are) from scooters and motorbikes. Thus if we are to consider trikes as the antithetical equivalent to donkeys, it will be partly on account of the slow pace at which each mode of transportation moves, neither of them a match for their immediate rivals. Yet just as trikes are rather more a scaling-down of the body than truly correlative with the head, so we may believe that donkeys were less suitable modes of conveyance for 'heads', or head types, prior to the world (of carriages and cars) than for 'bodies', or mass types, in that pre-dualistic context, thereby rating lower in the alpha-stemming estimation of pagans than either ponies or horses. Just as, in the omega-oriented estimation of post-dualistic transcendentalists, trikes rate lower than either scooters or motorbikes, being no less bodily or populist, in relation to these latter modes of conveyance, than donkeys were in relation to the former modes.

21. So from natural modes of conveyance to artificial modes via carriages and cars, which is to say, from alpha-stemming God/Devil dichotomies (excluding the subworldly donkey) to omega-oriented God/Devil dichotomies (excluding the supra-worldly trike) via the world. Certainly, the head is making a comeback, but on diametrically antithetical terms to its first appearance, when subconscious and old brain were predominant. We may be some way from a society in which scooters and motorbikes, not to mention trikes, are the rule rather than the exception, but if the world is not to last for ever, then such a society must surely arise ... whether with a bias for scooters over motorbikes, or vice versa.

22. Possibility of tanks as the antithetical equivalent of chariots, particularly those of the martial variety. For are not tanks designed both to protect their occupants from enemy fire and enable them to train projectiles on an enemy - the very things which chariots were intended to do, albeit from a relatively naturalistic point-of-view? Tanks may have displaced cavalry in the evolution of warfare, but their role is more akin to that of chariots, which were evidently displaced by cavalry.

23. Evolutionary theory of lettering from autocratic Block Capitals to centrist lower-case writing via theocratic mixed-case writing, democratic mixed-case printing, socialist lower-case printing, and transcendental socialist lower-case italics. Consequently, lettering may be assumed to evolve from a materialistic inception in BLOCK CAPITALS to an idealistic culmination in lower-case writing via writerly and printerly compromises in between. From the separate to the joined, as from the large to the small, strength to truth, the particular to the general. Or, put in nuclear terms, from proton particles to wavicles, atomic particles to wavicles, and electron particles to wavicles - pre-worldly, worldly, and post-worldly alternatives, with diabolic/divine implications on the extreme levels, which, however you regard them, tend to be mutually exclusive. Thus lower-case printing excludes both the autocratic possibility of upper-case printing and the transcendental possibility of lower-case writing; lower-case writing excludes both the theocratic possibility of mixed-case writing and the socialist possibility of lower-case printing. Spectra remain distinct, and alpha and omega manifestations thereof cancel out the possibility of an antithetical option. Unfortunately the age of lower-case writing is still some way off, though we are seeing more lower-case printing these days, particularly where consciously socialist or proletarian publications are concerned. (Supplementary to the above distinctions, I should like to add the theory that mixed-case italics correspond to a Nazi equivalent, in contrast to lower-case italics.)

24. I have never been particularly happy with Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, and now, for the first time, I realize exactly why. It is as though it were the philosophical equivalent of the United Kingdom, as signifying a compromise between constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, with the former indicative of 'Will' and the latter of 'Representation', i.e. of aristocratic and bourgeois, autocratic and democratic, options. There is nothing in it that connotes with or intimates of a properly People's equivalent. Rather, it is an entirely alpha-stemming work, with reactionary attitudes towards revolutionary opposition to such a reality. No, The World as Will and Representation doesn't go far enough for my taste, since its author has no desire to acknowledge the possibility of anything beyond such 'Will and Representation', and accordingly is not only reactionary but ... inherently pessimistic, as befitting a man of aristocratic disposition, a man whom I recently overheard a Hornsey librarian bluntly describe as 'that old cunt', with all its alpha-stemming, or proton, implications! There is need, it seems to me, for a counterbalance to Schopenhauer, for a 'Superworld as Superwill and Super-representation', so to speak, if omega-oriented criteria, more reminiscent of Hegel or Nietzsche, are to be granted philosophical credibility! A 'Superworld' of artificial representations and artificial or, rather, supernatural will. For why should subnatural will (the 'noumenon' in Schopenhauer's terminology) and nature be the ne plus ultra of evolutionary possibility? Surely an artificial world composed of synthetic phenomena presupposes a radically different order of atomic constitution from the natural or, indeed, bourgeois artificial world? And surely the supernatural will of proletarian humanity within the urban context of that artificial world is of a diametrically antithetical nature to the subnatural will which, according to Schopenhauer, is the primal energy behind all phenomena and their activities thereof - a will, I mean, which has relevance to the artificial as opposed to the natural, and is therefore centred in electrons rather than protons? Certainly there is no doubt in my mind that such a will exists and that it is no less behind the fashioning of the synthetically-transcendental world in which a majority of latter-day people live ... than the primal will was behind the fashioning of the natural world of which man used, traditionally, to be a part. For these two types of will work on a diametrically antithetical basis and cannot, therefore, be traced to a single source. Indeed, it could no more be said that they are identical or that there is only one ... than that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost are identical, or that only the former has any reality. If the primal will precedes mind, then the superwill succeeds it, the mind itself having passed from an alpha-stemming to an omega-oriented phase in the meantime.

25. But if we can distinguish between an alpha-stemming and an omega-oriented will on the above basis, with latitudinal implications, one should also be careful to distinguish longitudinally, as it were, between divine, diabolic, and worldly types of will on each of the extreme positions, and to a certain extent Schopenhauer did in fact do so - at any rate, with regard to the alpha-stemming types of will. For he fully admitted to a distinction between conscious will, or will of which the subject is fully conscious, and unconscious or subliminal will, which rises up of its own accord from the instinctual depths of the organism, a testimony to the automotive. Clearly this distinction is between diabolic will in the case of the conscious, and worldly will in the case of the unconscious; for the former would seem to owe more to the old brain than to the subconscious, about which Schopenhauer had relatively little to say, and may therefore be accorded a diabolic origin, in contrast not only to worldly instinctual will but to divine will, which, on the alpha-stemming level, manifests itself in imagination, whether as dreams or consciously-willed fantasies, images, and so on, that do not impinge on or lead to bodily actions. For the essence of divine will is unconnected with bodily actions, which depend on conscious or subliminal types of will, and is accordingly complete in itself. Whether in dreams or fantasies or the even rarer instance of natural visions, divine will pertains to the subconscious as a kind of psychic extrapolation from the central star of the Galaxy, which corresponds to the Creator by dint of its centralized uniqueness and almost transcendent aloofness from planetary revolutions, a star seemingly wrapped-up in itself rather than directly responsible for the motions of planets, in contrast to the myriad suns which circle around it (as monarchs around a pope) in the rest of the Galaxy, of which our sun is but a minute component. And yet, if dreams can be regarded, in some basic metaphysical sense, as extrapolations from the central star of the Galaxy, then we need not hesitate in ascribing to consciously-willed activity an extrapolation from the sun, as though it corresponded to the influence of the sun on the earth's motions, while reserving to the unconscious or instinctual will a parallel with the influence of the earth's molten core on the planet itself, as though that, too, were but an extrapolation from some more fundamental principle acting upon the cosmic head. Consequently while the central star of the Galaxy would connote with mind, being a kind of cosmic foreshadowing of the subconscious, the sun would assume, in this context, a connotation with the brain, being a kind of cosmic foreshadowing of the old brain, from which all conscious willing proceeds, leaving the planet itself to foreshadow the instinctual, subliminal manifestation of will in the body. Needless to say, each kind of will is to be found in everyone, although not, I shall argue, to the same extent, since we can generalize people into divine, diabolic, and worldly dispositions, according to both racial and class factors, about which the reader will already be familiar from earlier sections of my work.

26. So we have three levels or types of will in the sense of action - one primarily mental, one arising in the mind but intended to activate the body, and one primarily physical, residing in the body. All three types of will discussed above pertain to an alpha-stemming orientation, which is to say, they are of a naturalistic, proton-based constitution. Schopenhauer, as we have seen, was particularly mindful of two of them, viz. the diabolic, or conscious, will, and the worldly, or subliminal, will, and so far as he was concerned no alternative will existed, nor could ever exist, these two types of will being extrapolated from a single primal source and returning to it, in the context of noumenon, once their phenomenal manifestations had passed away. Yet, as I have already argued, an omega orientation is also possible and presupposes a different order of will, as well as parallel types or levels of will within that omega-oriented context. In other words, just as there are divine, diabolic, and worldly types of alpha-stemming will, so there must be divine, diabolic, and worldly types of omega-aspiring will, which constitute antithetical equivalents to the former. Such omega-aspiring types of will should be of an electron-based supernaturalistic constitution and may alternatively be regarded as levels of superwill. Consequently the antithetical equivalent of imaginative will on the plane of dreams or fantasies or visions, as the case may be, will be imaginative superwill, which should take the forms, in an ascending order of importance, of film-viewing, video-making, and LSD-tripping. Similarly, the antithetical equivalent of conscious will on the plane of bodily actions will be conscious superwill, which should have to do not with natural actions in relation to nature but with artificial actions in relation to artificial phenomena such as machines, computers, synthesizers, motorized vehicles, and so on. Finally, the antithetical equivalent of subliminal or instinctual will with regard to bodily functions will be instinctual superwill which, as in the case of the higher levels of omega-oriented will, should have to do with an instinctual response to external artificial stimuli, whether in the guise of music or sport or any other artificial inducements. Thus in complete contrast to the alpha-stemming types of will, whether on the divine or diabolic or worldly planes, the omega-aspiring types of will are dependent upon and stimulated by artificial phenomena, without which they would cease to exist. Rather than being behind all natural phenomena, like Schopenhauer's noumenon, artificial phenomena are, in a very real sense, behind all supernoumena, a precondition for the emergence of whichever type of superwill. It is the disco that creates the dance, not vice versa. And, by a like-token, it is the machine which conditions the response of conscious superwill, no less than LSD which creates the trip. The former is a precondition of the latter.

27. Thus in complete contrast to Schopenhauer, we have a will which is the effect of artificial causes rather than the cause of natural effects, a will which, far from being the means to a higher end, namely the creation of phenomena, is an end-in-itself, and therefore the transcendence of all phenomena through self-realization, or realization of the superwill. Such self-realization can be bodily or intellectual or spiritual, although the long-term goal of evolutionary progress must be the utmost divine type of superwill, in spiritual transcendence, and not the utmost worldly or diabolic types of superwill in connection with, and hence enslavement to, artificial phenomena. Even if the latter are preferable to the different types of alpha-stemming will, they are inherently inferior to the highest omega-aspiring type of superwill and must eventually be eclipsed by it, as spirit triumphs over both brain and body in the attainment not only of salvation from the world but, more importantly, of heavenly bliss. Such a heavenly culmination to evolution may not have been envisaged by Schopenhauer but it was by Nietzsche, whose 'great noontide' would seem to correspond with the ultimate fulfilment of Christian aspirations in the heavenly Beyond - a Beyond which is no mere return to the pre-worldly noumenon but an advancement beyond the world to Paradise. If Schopenhauer was the culmination of one philosophical tradition, then Nietzsche can at least in part be regarded as the inception of another. It is my belief that I am the culmination of that alternative tradition, necessarily antithetical to the first.

28. Can one have been noumenon, in the sense of will as expounded by Schopenhauer, before birth in the phenomenal world as a particular individual, and, if so, is one destined to become noumenon again, following death? I do not believe so! Such a noumenon is equivalent to cosmic energy or force ... in the context of suns and stars, and it seems rather unlikely that before birth one was a star or component thereof, since one's entry into the world came via one's parents and is inconceivable on any other basis than parental procreation. Similarly, after death one will simply cease to exist as a person and become nothing, particularly if, instead of being exposed to the organic cycle through burial, one's corpse is incinerated and thereby reduced to a few pounds of common ash. One is no more likely to become pure will after death than to have been it before birth. Such will is solely cosmic, existing on primitive divine, diabolic, and worldly levels, which is to say, in the central star of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy); in the circling stars of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy); and in the circling planets of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy), where molten cores may be presumed to exist. In such alpha-stemming contexts we have a gradual scaling-down or reduction of proton energy from the comparatively pure level of the central star of the Galaxy to the cruder level of the earth's core, as the noumenon descends towards the phenomenal world. Beyond it there is nothing or, rather, only the possibility of supernoumenal electron-electron attractions. Yet such pure spirit would not have emerged from man, and hence the world, but from a more evolved life form, corresponding to a new-brain collectivization, elsewhere in the Universe - it being assumed, for the sake of argument, that the Universe does in fact contain such a life form.

29. Concerning will on the alpha-stemming worldly and omega-aspiring worldly levels, it seems to me that dance is to sex what sport is to war - namely a kind of antithetical equivalent wherein electron-biased criteria, as germane to worldly superwill, are preponderant. Thus from sex on the wavicle level of proton-biased atomic will to dance on the wavicle level of electron-biased atomic will; and from war on the particle level of proton-biased atomic will to sport on the particle level of electron-biased atomic will. In a primitive, or pagan, society it follows that sex and war preponderate over dance and sport, whereas in an advanced, or transcendental, society ... dance and sport will be preponderant over sex and war, and possibly to the complete exclusion of the latter. Only in a worldly, or Christian, society will a balance exist between sex and war on the one hand and dance and sport on the other, as befitting atomic criteria. Thus from sex and war at one end of the evolutionary scale to dance and sport at the other end, the former presupposing alpha-stemming atomic will and the latter, by contrast, presupposing omega-aspiring atomic will. Wavicle construction (self-indulgence) and particle destruction (self-sacrifice) on the proton-biased levels; wavicle co-operation (self-transcendence) and particle competition (self-assertion) on the electron-biased levels, with all due gradations and compromises coming in-between.

30. Certainly, contemporary society testifies to a preponderance of dance and sport over sex and war, and I venture to suggest that disco-dancing, wherein people dance freely in the collective, is the antithetical equivalent of the pagan orgy, wherein people copulated freely in the collective, choosing whomsoever they pleased. Of course, orgiastic behaviour was not unheard of in the late-twentieth century, but it was more an expression of bourgeois decadence within a pseudo-modern context than a reflection of truly contemporary trends. The genuinely modern man, a proletarian, will rather be found free-dancing in a disco than free-fucking at an orgy. And what applies to the male sex applies no less to the female, whose commitment to the dance should leave one in no doubt that what is happening isn't so much sexual as an antithetical equivalent of sex with superior moral implications - certainly when judged in relation to orgiastic behaviour! For it is the consequence of a different kind of will, one dependent on artificial, though in this case musical, motivation. Transcendent rather than mundane.

31. Consequently we may distinguish not merely dance from sex, but collective sex at one end of the wavicle-atomic spectrum from collective dance at the other end, with alpha and omega, proton and electron, implications ... as pertaining to the noumenal within a worldly, and hence bodily, context. For the noumenal, as pure will, is characterized by its indivisibility, and such indivisibility manifests itself within the collective, whether on the alpha-stemming levels of a proton-biased atomicity or on the omega-oriented levels of an electron-biased atomicity, that is to say whether as noumenon or supernoumenon. It is only in the phenomenal as such, which comes in between these antithetical kinds of noumena as a manifestation of worldly individualism, that individualized sex and dance have their rightful place and are properly intelligible, with individualized sex, or sex between man and wife, succeeding orgiastic sex as atomic wavicles succeed proton-biased atomic wavicles, while, from the converse viewpoint, individualized dancing, or dancing between couples, precedes the more collectivized free-dancing one would associate with the disco. Thus from pre-worldly sexual noumenon to worldly sexual phenomenon, and from worldly dancing phenomenon to post-worldly dancing noumenon.

32. Likewise, we can distinguish between the particle equivalents of sex and dance, namely war and sport, on alpha and omega worldly levels, reserving a collective (noumenal) status for tribal war, or warfare between various tribes, clans, etc., and an individualized (phenomenal) status for national war, or warfare between two rival rulers, a kind of war which may be regarded as having succeeded the tribal kind to the degree and in the sense that individualized sex succeeded orgiastic sex. Conversely, we should reserve an individualized (phenomenal) status for national sports, or sporting contexts involving two competitors or teams, and a collectivized (noumenal) status for international sports, or sporting contexts which involve a number of competitors or teams from a variety of countries ... such as cycling, motor racing, motorcycle racing, speedboat racing, and so on, which are not only more transcendental in relation to national sports but, as a rule, more artificial as well. Indeed, a distinction should be drawn between these truly modern or artificial sports on the one hand, and athletics on the other which, although fulfilling some of the criteria we have laid down for international sports, presupposes strong naturalistic bodily exertions suggestive of a form of neo-pagan behaviour. Could it be that athletics, despite its unquestioned contemporary significance and popularity, is less truly modern than pseudo-modern, standing to cycling as sunbathing to solariums or hand percussion to drums?

33. However that may be, we have before us an atomic-particle spectrum stretching from pre-worldly martial noumenon to worldly martial phenomenon, and from worldly sporting phenomenon to post-worldly sporting noumenon, a spectrum which can be seen to parallel the sex/dance one outlined above. Such relativity is germane to the world, and not only implies two opposite kinds of noumenon or will, viz. alpha-stemming noumenon on the sex/war levels and omega-aspiring noumenon on the sport/dance levels, but two opposite manifestations of each kind of will, viz. the will to survive on the war and sport spectrum, and the will to live on the sex and dance spectrum. For is it not the case that war and sport call forth the will to survive, to vanquish opposition, whereas sex and dance entail the will to live, to enjoy and fulfil oneself? No mean distinction, and the co-existence of each type of will at both ends of the worldly spectra is, it seems to me, an indisputable fact, even if one or other of the opposite types of will tends to preponderate in any given individual, making for a sports bias or a dance bias, as the case may be. Certainly such opposite types of will correspond to the particle/wavicle dichotomy, which is a characteristic of atomic structures ... whether pre-worldly and of a proton bias, worldly and atomically balanced between protons and electrons, or post-worldly and of an electron bias, and this dichotomy is to be found not only within the bodily, or worldly, context but is originally and even more characteristic of the head, or divine/diabolic, context, since germane to the basic distinction between the Devil and God, whether on the traditional proton levels of the alpha duality between old brain and subconscious, which finds its cosmic analogue in the distinction between the central star of the Galaxy and the sun, or on the contemporary electron levels of the omega duality between new brain and superconscious, the latter of which should lead to the transcendental culmination of evolution. Consequently we may characterize the will to survive as a particle-biased, and therefore diabolical, atomic disposition, in contrast to the will to live, which pertains to the wavicle side of the atom and is accordingly of a divine bias. War and sport are alike of a diabolic bias, since expressions of the will to survive, whereas sex and dance are of a divine bias, since expressions of the will to live. In the cases of war and sex, we have an alpha-stemming proton-biased dichotomy within the worldly context. In the cases of sport and dance, by contrast, an omega-oriented electron-biased worldly dichotomy. Self-sacrifice and self-indulgence on the one hand, self-assertion and self-transcendence on the other hand. Two diametrically opposite kinds of will manifesting on two diametrically opposite planes.

34. But if the bodily, or mass, level of will is subject to such divisions, then so too, as already intimated, is the head, or elite, level, with similar divisions on both alpha/omega and wavicle/particle terms. Taking the alpha-stemming old brain and subconscious first, we can attribute a divine bias to self-indulgent dreaming and/or fantasizing, while reserving a diabolic bias for self-sacrificing consciously-determined actions, of which the most purely diabolical would be suicide, since that takes effect with regard to the self and is accordingly not diluted, as it were, through worldly relativity in the form of war. Conversely, we should attribute a divine bias to self-transcending tripping and/or the viewing of films, videos, etc., and a diabolic bias to self-assertive consciously-determined actions, of which cultural commitments in the form of playing a musical instrument or typing a book or painting a picture will be more representative than anything connected with the body and directly involving other people, like competitive sport. These latter options will of course pertain to the superconscious and new brain in an omega-oriented context, and therefore be morally antithetical to the former, or self-transcending, options.

35. However, now that I have written all this, I can imagine a number of objections, not least of all concerning the simple division of will - far more though it is than anything Schopenhauer or Nietzsche ever contemplated - into 'will to survive' on the one hand and 'will to live' on the other. How, for instance, can one categorize suicide or a particularly reckless and virtually self-destructive act of war under the rubric 'will to survive'? Is it not rather the case that such acts follow from a will to die and that we must accordingly allow for such a will in our overall calculations, mindful of Freud's distinction between Thanatos and Eros, or death-urge and life-urge, which are clearly antithetical postulates either side of an alpha/omega division, much as Freud equated them with the id and the superego respectively, which is to say with the old brain and the superconscious. How, then, can we settle for an alpha-stemming will to survive on the one hand and a no-less alpha-stemming will to live on the other, reserving the notion of self-sacrifice for the former and self-indulgence for the latter? Can the will to survive co-exist with the will to live? Doubtless it can on the omega-oriented level, where we have distinguished between sport and dance. But one must reserve some doubts about such a co-existence on the alpha-stemming level of war and sex. In fact, I incline to think that the will to die and the will to love would be more applicable to that distinction, thereby adding not one but two extra types of alpha-stemming will to our overall picture.... Or, alternatively, it could transpire that the will to survive is a kind of half-way house between the will to die and the will to live, and that we should accordingly be thinking in tripartite terms, with, say, the will to die corresponding to a proton-biased particle atomicity, the will to survive corresponding to a proton-biased particle/wavicle atomicity, and the will to live corresponding to a proton-biased wavicle atomicity.

36. Obviously what applies with regard to the alpha-stemming noumenal levels would also have to apply to the omega-oriented noumenal levels, with similar tripartite distinctions. But then death, in the electron-biased particle atomicity, would be rather different from and certainly less lethal than its alpha-stemming counterpart. More like wishing to lose in a sports competition or purposely throwing away one's chances of survival. A sort of self-willed defeat that, by no stretch of the imagination, could be equated with the will to survive! However, we can be under no doubt that limiting will to either survival or living, as both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer did (though with greater reference to survival), is totally inadequate for explaining the complexity of will, as is the no-less one-sided limitation of the noumenon to an alpha-stemming status, even when such a primal noumenon is occasionally invested with attributes more correctly belonging to what I have called the supernoumenon, which is, in reality, radically antithetical to it. Indeed, I doubt that the use of the singular is really correct; for whilst I will not argue with the professed indivisibility of will, as employed in the aforementioned sense, I most certainly believe that distinctions between divine, diabolic, and worldly levels of will, whether at the alpha or omega poles of their respective spectra, justify one in speaking of noumena, and that use of the plural more accords with an objectively valid recognition of such distinctions than would the singular, it being remembered that wavicle, particle, and atomic distinctions are the ones primarily at stake, as between the central star of the Galaxy, the sun, and the earth. And yet, irrespective of whether or not one prefers to be pedantically exacting, the indivisibility of will on the alpha levels is neither the same nor as pure as its indivisibility on the omega levels. For the indivisibility of the former is merely apparent, as pertaining to proton-proton reactions, whereas the indivisibility of the latter is essential, as pertaining to electron-electron attractions, and therefore is much more truly indivisible, as befitting the Holy Ghost. Proton-proton reactions may be indivisible to the extent that we are concerned with a subatomic absolute, but such an indivisibility is really very frictional in character, calling to mind the difference between an orgy and a disco dance, self-indulgence and self-transcendence or, alternatively, between tribal war and international sport, self-sacrifice and self-assertion. There can be no question that indivisibility is not being truly manifested on the alpha plane but is merely apparent, as between conflicting protons.

37. Which leads us to another contention about the alpha noumenon, namely that it is perceptible. By which I mean that the basic pre-phenomenal 'thing-in-itself' can be seen or known by dint of its frictional constitution, which is nothing less than the proton-proton reactions of solar fission and all fiery manifestations thereof. Yes, the stars are the alpha noumenon or, as I should say ... to distinguish between the central star of any galaxy and sun-like revolving stars, noumena, which not only precede worldly phenomena, including the earth, but are a precondition of the phenomenal, since atomic cohesion derives from solar cooling and the consequent formation of core and crust which, certainly in the case of the core, are more noumenal than properly phenomenal. It is only with the organic that the phenomenal is truly born, whether in nature, animals, or man, and this is because only in the organic do we get a proton-electron fusion to a degree which transcends the noumenal absolutism of the stars. In other words, nature is more than solidified protons; it is fully atomic and no more can be described as the objectification of the will, or alpha noumenon, than the sun can be described as organic. There is more to it than proton-proton reactions! And yet, the fact that stars can be seen, i.e. are perceptible, does not preclude them from being noumenal. For the alpha noumenon is, like flame, apparent, and does not become phenomenal on that account. All I have to do to perceive the noumenon of or in a piece of wood is to set fire to it, with spectacular if diabolical results! And what applies to a piece of wood applies no less to a chair or a table or a cupboard made from wood, the atomic constitution of which is well stocked with protons!

38. Why, then, did philosophers like Hume and Kant stress the unknowability of the thing-in-itself, or noumenon? Surely because they made the mistake of investing it with attributes better reserved for the omega noumenon, the supernoumenal thing-in-itself which is the end-product of evolution rather than its precondition, while simultaneously regarding stars, and by implication flame, as phenomenal because of their apparent nature, so that there was nothing to fall back on except some hypothetical rudimentary noumenon behind all appearances. Alas, the truth is more complex than that! The noumenon they were alluding to most certainly can be known as well as experienced, if one is unfortunate enough to get burnt alive and so drop, as it were, from the phenomenal plane of the organic to the noumenal plane of proton-proton reactions. We can both feel and see (and therefore have knowledge of) the alpha noumenon ... to the extent that we are brought into contact with flame. What we cannot see (though feeling and knowledge cannot be ruled out, the latter dependent on the former) is the omega noumenon, which is a spiritual antithesis to the alpha noumenon, essential rather than apparent, blissful as opposed to agonized, centripetal as opposed to centrifugal, and only embryonic in human life to the extent that we cultivate pure spirit in the superconscious mind and accordingly aspire towards the supernoumenal culmination of evolution. Such a culmination will of course be Heaven, a condition of perfect essence, in complete contrast to the perfect appearance of the stars. With the phenomenal, whether in nature, animals, or man, both appearance and essence are imperfect ... by dint of the fact that the one has fallen away from proton absolutism into an atomic relativity, whereas the other, trapped in such relativity, is somewhat short of the electron absolutism which is commensurate with the Holy Ghost. Now obviously, no-one who values Christian teachings and the notion of evolutionary progress is going to want perfect appearances or wish to resurrect a proton-biased idealism, as if the 'fall' from proton purism into worldly atomicity was a cause for regret! Only a madman or a neo-pagan barbarian could possibly want a world governed by fire and equivalent to Hell! But neither is turning away from the alpha noumenon sufficient for salvation, since it merely entails a worldly stasis or death-in-life which falls woefully short of a heavenly aspiration. Only through the cultivation of pure spirit can man begin to change the imperfect essence of his intellectually-polluted spirit into the perfect essence of transcendent spirit, and so aspire towards and eventually achieve salvation from the world, not just the world of imperfect appearances but, no less importantly, the world of imperfect essences, which is thought. Doubtless there are degrees and stages of evolving towards this supernoumenal perfection, both within and beyond the human context, as well as different means of cultivating pure spirit, both visionary and post-visionary. But whether the means employed is the relatively humble ones of television or the more advanced ones of artificially-induced internal visionary experience or, indeed, something in between ... like video, the outcome can only be a diminution of impure essence and an expansion of pure essence towards an omega culmination in undifferentiated spirit, which is ultimate divinity. Oh, how different that omega noumenon beyond the phenomenal would be from the alpha noumenon behind it! All the difference, in a word, between Heaven and Hell, electron-electron attractions on the one hand and proton-proton reactions on the other, irrespective of the quality of these reactions, i.e. wavicle, particle, or a planetary compromise between the two.

39. Consequently we have an evolutionary progression, as it were, which stretches from the alpha noumenon in perfect appearance to the phenomenal world and from the artificial superphenomenal world (a precondition of anything higher) to the supernoumenal culmination of evolution in perfect essence. From the central star of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy) to the natural world via suns and planets, and from the synthetic world of progressive humanity to the ultimate globe of pure spirit via intermediate transcendences. In relation to man, such transcendences are still a long way into the future. Yet we who relate not to the phenomenal world but to supernoumenal aspirations raised on the back, so to speak, of superphenomenalism ... are in the chain of progress that leads in their direction. We can have no truck with any alpha-stemming chain, which finds its culmination in the world. Bourgeois criteria are beneath us!

40. As regards Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, it could be argued that, in seeing through and spurning the alpha noumenon, Schopenhauer was a wise fool, or a man who was wise enough not to advocate its furtherance in life but too foolish to perceive the possibility of an alternative noumenon which pertained not to Hell but to an omega Heaven lying in the distant future. In this respect he was certainly superior to Nietzsche, who foolishly affirmed the very will that Schopenhauer spurned and so prepared the way for the worst excesses of neo-paganism which were to follow in the twentieth century. To coin a Jungian distinction, Nietzsche was less modern than pseudo-modern, and consequently he fell woefully short of genuine transcendentalism. We cannot entirely blame such philosophers for their failings, since they were as much victims of their times as of their class and, in all probability, their race. For it does seem that, no less than class and time, race has to be taken into account when we assess a philosopher's work, the better to understand it, and on the basis of the God-Devil-world divisions which find approximate European parallels in the Celtic-Slavic-Nordic distinctions touched upon elsewhere in my work. Clearly, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were not just philosophers; they were Germanic philosophers, and this fact should not be ignored when we assess their work in relation to the truth. Neither can we appraise it in isolation from the civilization to which they belonged, nor in isolation from the age in which it was written and the nature of their social class. There is much difference between alpha-stemming philosophy and the omega-oriented philosophy or, rather, superphilosophy to which I relate - all the difference, in effect, between a pony and a scooter.

41. Dresses pertain to the alpha noumenal in and of the world, which is to say, they reflect proton absolutism on the bodily level, whether with a wavicle bias, a particle bias, or something in between ... according to the texture and quality of the fabric employed. Beyond the noumenal dress we find, in the context of worldly phenomena, skirts on the one hand and trousers on the other, each of which reflects an atomic heterosexual compromise between protons and electrons, female and male. Suits, whether feminine or masculine, are quintessentially phenomenal ... in the sense of a worldly atomicity, and beyond trouser suits we find jeans of one description or another which, whether worn independently of short matching jackets or in conjunction with them, suggest a superphenomenalism, a socialistic post-worldly norm pending supernoumenal leathers and/or PVCs, particularly in terms of one-piece zipper suits. Such zipper suits will become the supernoumenal norm of the future, an antithetical equivalent to dresses. Thus from an apparent, centrifugal noumenal absolutism to an essential, centripetal noumenal absolutism via worldly phenomenalism and superphenomenalism. A sartorial progression from alpha to omega within a bodily context. For it should not be forgotten that what covers the body is one thing, what also covers the head quite another, so that shroud-like dresses or hooded gowns stand to dresses as God or the Devil to the world, which is to say symbolic of a divine and/or diabolic alpha-noumenal absolutism, depending on the texture and quality of the hooded garment. Smooth or silky and we have a proton-wavicle equivalent; coarse or thick and we have a proton-particle equivalent. Alpha God and Devil as distinct from and superior to the alpha-biased world ... of hoodless dresses. Conversely, an omega-oriented distinction should also be drawn between hoodless one-piece zipper suits and hooded one-piece zipper suits, with a superdivine and/or superdiabolic implication beyond - and above - superworldly equivalents, depending whether the one-piece zipper suits in question be made from leather or PVC, the former thicker and coarser than the latter, and therefore standing to them in an inferior moral relationship - as, for example, electron particles to wavicles. Such hooded one-piece zipper suits should not be confounded, however, with hooded anoraks or waist-length zipper jackets, which pertain rather more to the superphenomenal than to the supernoumenal, apart, in any case, from being primarily intended for protection against rain. Yet the state of the weather would no more condition the wearing of one-piece hooded zipper suits in the future ... than it did the wearing of hooded dresses or gowns in the past. Moral considerations alone would obtain, and doubtless some people(s) would have a moral advantage over others in this regard - certainly in the short term!

42. Strictly speaking, one should distinguish between alpha devolution and omega evolution, since there is no overall evolution from alpha to omega but, rather, a gradual devolution from the Alpha Absolute accompanied, at an approximately midway point in phenomenal time, by a gradual evolution towards the Omega Absolute. Evolution therefore begins where devolution ends: within the phenomenal context of worldly dualism. Dresses to skirts signify proton devolution; trousers to one-piece zipper suits signify electron evolution. However, skirts and trousers are alike atomic, so that we are dealing not so much with the noumenal as with the phenomenal, which is both more and less than the noumenal extremes; more than the alpha and less than the omega. A strictly noumenal devolution from the Alpha Absolute in regard to clothing would be evinced by the distinction between long dresses and minidresses. Conversely, a strictly noumenal evolution towards the Omega Absolute would be evinced by the distinction between, say, PVC pants and PVC one-piece zipper suits. In the one case, contraction; in the other case, expansion. Skirts and trousers form a phenomenal balance in between these two extremes, though skirts can also be regarded as devolving from full-length phenomenalism in a radically proton-biased atomicity to mini-length phenomenalism in a moderately proton-biased atomicity. Conversely, trousers can be regarded as having evolved, within the phenomenal context of worldly dualism, from a knee-length moderately electron-biased atomicity (breeches) to an ankle-length radically electron-biased atomicity. Jeans, whether worn separately or with a matching jean-jacket, are rather less an electron-biased atomicity than an electron atomicity, superworldly rather than worldly, and a precondition of free-electron supernoumenal pants, whether in the electron-particle guise of leathers or in the electron-wavicle guise of PVCs - superdiabolic and superdivine distinctions beyond the superworld.

43. Shorts are socialistic and/or communistic, depending on the type. Rather as I have elsewhere distinguished between socialist chips and communist chips, with Democratic Socialist, pure Socialist, Communist, and Transcendental Socialist distinctions, I shall here divide shorts into similar categories, contending that cotton shorts with turn-ups are Democratic Socialist; cotton shorts without turn-ups pure Socialist; nylon shorts Communist; and nylon shorts with sown-in underpants Transcendental Socialist. Furthermore, I should like to distinguish between socialistic Nazi shorts and fascistic Nazi shorts on the basis of a denim/cord dichotomy, reserving a possible liberal status for knee-length shorts, such as are often worn by elderly or academic-looking males.

44. My reason for regarding shorts as broadly socialist is that they suggest a particle bias ... by dint of being so short and compact, and are therefore materialistic rather than idealistic. Being masculine, or of a phallic connotation, they are obviously on the electron side of the atom and may accordingly be regarded in an electron-particle light, as suitable for sports. As a rule, Democratic Socialist shorts will be longer than pure Socialist shorts, while Communist shorts will be shorter than Transcendental Socialist shorts. Made from cotton, Socialist shorts, whether democratic or pure, may be described as superworldly, since connected with the natural (cotton) and therefore retaining a superphenomenal status - as, incidentally, do Nazi shorts. By contrast, Communist and Transcendental Socialist shorts, being fashioned from nylon, which is synthetic, appertain to the artificial, and are accordingly of a supernoumenal status.

45. Objects presuppose subjects. There can be no objects unless there is first a subject who perceives them. My table does not exist for me until I look at it. And yet, that is not to say that until I look at my table it does not exist. On the contrary, my table exists whether or not I or anyone else is there to look at it, though not as an object but as a phenomenal thing-in-itself, which is to say, as a nondescript 'thing', neither more nor less. Obviously one can argue that if I am not present to perceive my table the table still exists, and certainly it would for me by dint of my recollection of what a table is and that I happen to possess one in my room, etc. But if I were to die tomorrow, then that would not apply. For in death I would have no recollection of tables, whether in general or in particular, as applying to myself. Now if no-one else connected with me in life knew that I had such-and-such a table in such-and-such a room, then that table would not exist as a table but solely as a phenomenal thing-in-itself. For there would be no consciousness of it as table. I and others like me (fellow human beings) create the category 'table', just as I create objects by being their subject, the mind that perceives them. Take away all perceiving subjects and not only would all perceived objects cease to exist, but their function and status along with them. Only phenomenal things-in-themselves would remain, and they would differ from noumenal things-in-themselves as matter differs from flame. Absence of mind, whether literally or through madness, is the precondition for objects being reduced from intelligible phenomena to unintelligible phenomena, which is thing-in-itself. Berkeley's argument no longer passes muster, since we no longer believe in an all-seeing and all-knowing God. (Probably the nearest cosmic equivalent to such a theological postulate is the sun, and yet the sun does not literally see, since it has no eyes. Neither is it strictly divine!)

46. Both Hume's and Kant's admission of the unknowability of the thing-in-itself has to do with the noumenal thing-in-itself rather than with the phenomenal one which I have just been discussing, and is true up to a point, that is to say, when applied to objects considered as phenomena. As I have already argued, however, it ceases to apply to a flammable object, like a wooden chair or table, once that object has been set alight and is burning extensively. For the resulting flame would be as close to the noumenal thing-in-itself as one could get ... short of setting oneself alight and thereby subjectively experiencing noumenal thing-in-itself in the guise of fire, which is nothing less than the creation of proton-proton reactions out of atomic cohesion. But there is another reason why these and other such philosophers, including Schopenhauer, denied the possibility of direct knowledge of the noumenal thing-in-itself, which is that the society and age in which they lived was too phenomenal to permit of identification with the noumenal. In short, we have the seeds of modern atheism in the eighteenth century, which gave birth, after all, to the Age of Enlightenment, and in an age when God, in the primitive sense of Creator, was being denied, it is virtually inconceivable that philosophy could have acknowledged the knowability of the noumenal thing-in-itself. We are so used to regarding the Cosmos from a phenomenal point-of-view - as stars, suns, planets, etc., - that the concept of a noumenal Cosmos composed of gods and devils is totally alien to us and explains, in some degree, why both Hume and Kant were indisposed to crediting man with an ability to directly know and experience the noumenal thing-in-itself, which is nothing less, after all, than stellar and/or solar flame. The ancients of course had a different view, living at a time when stars were gods and the noumenal view of the Cosmos, as of life in general, accordingly prevailed. But Hume and Kant lived in a more evolved, albeit worldly society and, being Protestant, neither of them could be expected to give the alpha noumenal its papal due. Once again, one is made conscious of the degree to which a particular philosopher's thinking is conditioned not only by the age and society in which he lives, but by his race and class. If the truth is graspable, as I happen to believe, then it is more likely to be grasped by someone of idealistic racial disposition living in an age conducive to its realization ... than by a Germanic philosopher living in the thick of worldly phenomenalism and regarding everything, including the Cosmos, in a phenomenal light!

47. However, one has to admit that if, from a relatively evolved viewpoint, the alpha noumenal is not directly accessible to human knowledge or is not regarded as being directly knowable, then the resulting materialism and phenomenalism will nonetheless be tinged with a quasi-noumenal significance, and a kind of false mysticism of the phenomenal, as upheld by the aforementioned philosophers (though criticized by Schopenhauer), will prevail in which, for example, a discrepancy between object and subject, on the basis of the former's being inherently different from how the latter sees it, will be postulated at the expense of an exact correlation between the two. Such worldly mysticism is rather more Protestant than Catholic, and its subsequent rejection by more evolved, or superphenomenal, philosophers is a precondition of advancement towards an admission of the possibility of direct experience of a thing-in-itself which is not so much noumenal as supernoumenal, and consequently of an omega orientation. Such an admission is in fact made by me, and made, I should add, less in defiance of anti-philosophy than from the truly revolutionary standpoint of theosophy, which stands to philosophy as omega to alpha, completely beyond all phenomenal middle-grounds. Direct knowledge of the omega thing-in-itself, which is pure spirit, comes through transcendental meditation, and that is the path to God ... the Holy Spirit. Here we are beyond not only Hume and Kant, but the entire civilization to which they belonged, with its worldly phenomenalism. We are beyond both philosophy and anti-philosophy alike, the Father and the Son, love of the external and love of the phenomenal self. We love only the eternal, which is internal and therefore psychic.

48. One should distinguish not only between philosophy and theosophy on an alpha/omega basis, as regarding the centrifugal and the centripetal, but also between anti-philosophy and proto-theosophy, which pertain to the phenomenal middle-ground in between noumenal and supernoumenal extremes. Indeed, the strictly phenomenal mode of idealistic writing is both anti-philosophical and proto-theosophical at once, and therefore uniquely Christian in a worldly, or Protestant, sense. Yet because of this it is neither properly philosophical nor theosophical, but a cross between the two. Only proto-theosophical writings prepare the ground for theosophy as such.

49. Similarly, if the above distinctions apply to a divine spectrum stretching from alpha to omega, as from the subconscious to the superconscious, then we need not doubt that their diabolic counterparts, which may be regarded as applicable to a spectrum stretching from the old brain to the new brain, will be theology on the one hand and psychology on the other, so that knowledge of God ... the Father in the one case and of the psyche in the other ... constitute the extreme poles of a spectrum rather more naturalistic than idealistic in character. For the brain stands in a diabolic relation to the mind, and in using the former to study the latter one is looking-in at it from outside, not so much as subject to object as ... object to subject, particle naturalism to wavicle idealism, whether at the alpha or omega pole of the brain, with reference to the subconscious or to the superconscious, to the Father or to the Holy Ghost. Hence, on the one hand, philosophy and theology, with the former standing in a superior relation to the latter, and, on the other hand, theosophy and psychology, the former of which likewise stands in a superior relation to the latter - love to knowledge, direct experience to analytical observation.

50. But if both philosophy and theosophy treat of how best to live life from a divine standpoint, whether of the Father in the one case or of the Holy Ghost in the other, and, by contrast, both theology and psychology treat of understanding either the Father or the psychical Holy Ghost from a diabolic, because external, standpoint, then sexology and sociology are the twin disciplines which treat of man from a physical and, hence, worldly standpoint, having reference to man as a reproductive animal on the one hand and as a social animal on the other, with alpha and omega implications within a mass, or bodily, context. Of course, such a standpoint is not rooted in the body but in the brain, and so we should distinguish between brain activity which looks down to the body, as in the cases of sexology and sociology, and brain activity which looks up to the mind, as in the cases of theology and psychology, reserving a superior status for the latter than the former, as though a higher part of the brain, or old-brain/new-brain symbiosis, was being exercised in each case. Doubtless a theologian is a morally superior kind of man to a sexologist, and what applies on the alpha-stemming level of the old brain ... must also apply on the omega-oriented level of the new one, so that we may regard a psychologist as a morally superior kind of man to a sociologist - diabolic rather than worldly, looking up towards the mind as opposed to down towards the body.