101. Having spoken of the senses of sight and
hearing, of eyes and ears in relation to superficially divine and diabolic
parallels, I should now like to expatiate on the senses of smell and taste, of nose
and tongue in relation to the world, since, in contrast to the aforementioned
ones, these senses overlap with the body - indeed, are connected to bodily
organs in the form of the lungs and the stomach respectively. Whereas sight and hearing solely have
reference to the head and are therefore comparatively transcendent senses,
indirectly connected via eyes and ears to the Divine and to the Diabolic (which
find their true parallels in mind and brain), smell and taste, although
situated in the head, have reference to the body, since whatever is smelled as
scent or perfume soon passes, if inhaled, into the lungs with air, while
whatever is tasted as food or drink soon passes, if swallowed, into the stomach
with saliva. Thus although the senses of
smell and taste only have effect with regard to the nose and the tongue
respectively, these latter organs lead, via bronchial tubes and throat, to the
lungs and the stomach, and thereby compromise the senses in question, rendering
them less transcendental than mundane, and hence comparatively worldly. Indeed, just as sight may be identified with
sadness and happiness, depending on the nature of what is seen, and hearing
likewise be identified with hate and love, depending on the nature of what is
heard, so smell and taste can be ascribed a qualitative dichotomy on the basis
of what is smelt or tasted, whether negative or positive. Now if humiliation and pride are the twin
poles around which the former revolves, then we shall have to ascribe to the
latter the poles of disgust and pleasure, as befitting such a worldly and,
indeed, democratic sense as taste. A
sweet scent causes one to feel pride; no less than a savoury meal gives one
pleasure. Conversely, a bad smell, like
B.O. or halitosis, will cause its perpetrator humiliation, no less than rotten
or stale food will bring him disgust.
Disgust at other people's bad smells is the converse of humiliation at
one's own, and to disgust with bad food can be added humiliation at the
prospect of having to eat it! Nevertheless,
whilst emotional reactions do overlap, depending on the context and the
relation of subject to object or vice versa, it seems feasible to attribute an
autocratic axis to smell and a democratic axis to taste, so that the one is
perceived as worldly with a diabolic bias, whether negative (humiliation) or
positive (pride), whereas the other is perceived as worldly with a divine bias,
whether negative (disgust) or positive (pleasure).
102. However, in between we shall find the uniquely
worldly, and hence middle-ground, sense of touch, which pertains to the body
and, in particular, to the hands, that focal-point of the will to touch. Now if a qualitative dichotomy is to be
reserved for this last and most basic sense, then I can think of none better
than fear on the one hand and hope on the other, the latter of which may also
embrace trust and mutual goodwill, as between one handshaker
and another. Touch, then, is not so much
autocratic or democratic as plutocratic, one might even say parliamentarian, taking
that term to signify something coming in-between authoritarianism and
republicanism, and I define the quantitative attributes of this sense in terms
of war and peace, which strike me as constituting a quintessentially worldly
dichotomy - the phenomenal consequences of fear and hope respectively.
103. Anyone who is conscious of a distinction
between the body and the head, who doesn't treat the head as a part of the body
but perceives it in relation to divine and diabolic realities above the world,
of which the body is a microcosm, will have noticed that whereas the body is
basically rectilinear in shape, the head, by contrast, is usually of a
curvilinear design, and that this is relative to the fundamental distinction
between the world on the one hand, and the Divine and/or Diabolic on the other
hand. Thus even when caste and racial
exceptions have been taken into account, the fundamental dichotomy between body
and head is generally based on a rectilinear/curvilinear distinction. We see this distinction clearly enough when
comparing stereo speakers with headphones, whether of the ring-like
conventional design or of the centralized micro design. For speakers are
rectilinear and therefore bodily, whereas headphones are curvilinear and thus
of the head ... in more than an obvious sense. I have discussed this subject elsewhere, so
will now proceed to analogous distinctions between cars, which are usually
rectilinear in design (the old-style, or 'Beetle', Volkswagen being a
paradoxical exception to the rule), and motorbikes and/or scooters, where we
are conscious of a predominantly curvilinear impression which is partly
attributable to the wheels and partly to the engine and/or panelling. Likewise between paintings
in the rectilinear case and light art, whether relatively materialistic or
spiritualistic, in that of the curvilinear. And, most especially, between modern
rectilinear architecture on the one hand and modern curvilinear architecture on
the other - a conspicuous instance of our basic body/head dichotomy, and no
small indication as to the nature of any given contemporary society - the
rectilinear variety preponderating in the democratic West where, not
surprisingly, bodily criteria take precedence over those of the head,
especially in cities like New York and Chicago, which abound in rectilinear
skyscrapers of a superworldly order, a blatant
testimony to the body's rule even when, as often transpires, the architecture
concerned is so towering and stylistically indivisible as to appear highly
idealistic in character. Such a
paradoxical idealism of the body is particularly characteristic of
104. However that may be, ring-like curvilinear
architecture is, by contrast, communistic and therefore comparatively naturalistic
in character; though we should take pains to distinguish between the relatively
low, pure Communist architecture and the higher, less naturalistic architecture
which, while still of a ring-like design, may be described as Transcendental
Socialist. For the reader will be aware
that such a Communist/Transcendental Socialist distinction has been encountered
in my work before, and has its divine counterpart in the Fascist/Social
Transcendentalist one which, in architecture, takes the form of tall, highly
centralized, and hence idealistic, curvilinear buildings on the one hand, and
of less tall and highly centralized, though still idealistic, curvilinear
buildings on the other hand, this latter option directly paralleling the
taller, less ring-like, and therefore naturalistic, curvilinear buildings of a
Transcendental Socialist design.
Consequently, with 'head' architecture our basic distinction, already
noted with regard to motorbikes and scooters, not to mention conventional and
micro headphones, between a ring-like and a centralized design also holds true,
and is precisely that which distinguishes the Diabolic from the Divine, or
curvilinear naturalism from its idealistic counterpart. Doubtless in the future, most if not all
buildings will be curvilinear, since the head alone will count ... as the body,
and hence the world, is overcome. But it
is to be hoped that, ultimately, the centralized variety of curvilinear
architecture will preponderate over the ring-like variety, as divine criteria
displace the diabolic in a world tending ever more closely towards the heavenly
Beyond. We may not yet have seen the
last of the rectilinear mode of architecture, but the future belongs to the
curvilinear - of that there can be little doubt!
105. Smoking, which involves the sense of smell and
possibility of inhalation into the lungs, corresponds to the
diabolic-in-the-world and is therefore a relatively autocratic habit, having
strong overtones with both weakness and strength, humiliation and pride,
depending on the smoker and his mode of smoking, viz. pipe, cigar, or
cigarette, with class and even evolutionary implications between them. By contrast, drinking, which involves the
sense of taste and necessarily has reference to the stomach, corresponds to the
divine-in-the-world and is therefore a relatively democratic habit, having
strong overtones with both evil and good, pain and pleasure, depending, once
again, on the drinker and his mode of drinking, viz. bottle, glass, or can,
with class and evolutionary implications between them, as before. Generally speaking, the pipe is to the bottle
what the cigar is to the glass, and we may regard them as constituting a
negative/positive dichotomy on the basis of noumenal
and phenomenal distinctions. Thus pipe
to cigar on the one hand, and bottle to glass on the other - at any rate, such
is the case with regard to the natural part of each spectrum. For when it comes to the artificial, or
supernatural, part ... we have a dichotomy between small cigars (cheroots) and
cigarettes on the one hand, and between small glasses (half-pints) and cans on
the other hand, which constitutes a superphenomenal/supernoumenal
distinction, albeit within a strictly worldly framework. For it should be emphasized that smoking and
drinking are essentially bodily habits, and that 'heads', whether divine or
diabolic, will either smoke or drink only in moderation or, more usually, not
smoke or drink at all. Those, on the
other hand, who both drink and smoke regularly … are worldly on both democratic
and autocratic terms, whether or not they are also disposed to the sense of
touch and therefore highly sensual. Considered politically, if bottles and pipes
correspond to the autocratic and cans and cigarettes to the democratic, then
glasses and cigars should correspond to the plutocratic, and so be more
strictly of the world. One might say,
using a perceptual-conceptual axis, that whereas bottles and pipes, together
with cans and cigarettes, are perceptual and therefore noumenal,
albeit in diametrically opposite ways, glasses and cigars are conceptual, and
therefore relatively phenomenal. From worldly alpha to worldly omega via the world.
106. A similar tripartite distinction to the above
is to be found in the progression from umbrellas to hooded jackets via
raincoats, with umbrellas corresponding to pipes and bottles, hooded jackets to
cigarettes and cans, and raincoats to cigars and glasses. Head - body - head.
107. Since we have ascertained that, in relation to
eyes, cameras are an artificial mode of optical perception and that, in
relation to ears, microphones are an artificial mode of aural perception, both
of which stand as artificial senses to the natural senses of seeing and
hearing, we should now take our investigation a stage further and contend that,
in relation to internal visionary perception, i.e. dreams, televisions are an
artificial mode of visionary perception and therefore antithetical to natural
dreams, whereas in relation to internal auditory perception, i.e. audible
hallucinations, radios are an artificial mode of auditory perception and
therefore antithetical to natural thoughts, or thoughts which occur on an
hallucinatory or dream-like basis, as though spontaneously generated. In other words, televisions and radios are to
the psyche what cameras and microphones are to the senses - their antithetical
equivalents, which lead an autonomous, or quasi-autonomous, existence of their
own and, in a certain sense, take the place of natural autonomous psychic
experience. Thus televisions are
dreaming artificial brains, just as radios are artificial brains that render
the auditory equivalent of visionary dreaming, which is a kind of artificial
audible hallucination - an audible dreaming.
Not that I wish to imply this is all radios and televisions
amount to - since there is obviously a great deal more to them than that! - but
simply that when they are employed in a literary or a dramatic way, as with the
transmission of plays, stories, serials, etc., their function is rather more
analogous to dreaming than to thinking, to fantasy than to fact. Thus if they are the artificial equivalents
of internal modes of perception, whether visionary or auditory, and cameras and
microphones are the artificial equivalents of external modes of perception, both
optical and aural, then computers are the artificial equivalent of conceptual
thinking, which stands in between the sensory external and the psychic internal
modes of perception as a bridge and link from the one to the other. Hence for the full complement to the natural
head, with its senses and psyche, it is necessary to be in possession not only
of camera and microphone but of computer, radio, and television as well, all of
which, taken together, constitute an artificial head whose parts function on an
equivalent, if antithetical, basis to what we are all, or at any rate most of
us, endowed with by nature. Add to
fantasies and natural visions the artificial fantasies of video, particularly
of the home-made variety, and the artificial visions, or artificially-induced
visionary experience, of hallucinogens like LSD, and one has an even fuller
antithetical complement to the natural psyche - a complement stretching into
the truly divine realms of the supertrue.
108. 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word
was God'. - Such a claim is not so much pagan as proto-Christian or simply
Judaic. For it places God in the
conceptual and therefore attests to a relatively worldly approach to divinity
which finds its Christian complement in the New Testament. But before the conceptual there was the
perceptual, and after the conceptual there is, or will be, the perceptual
again, albeit on artificial rather than naturalistic terms. Hence a more comprehensive account of divinity,
which would in some measure correspond to the Blessed Trinity of divinities ...
from the Father to the Holy Ghost via Christ, would read as follows: In the
beginning was the Star and the Star was God; in the beginning was the Word and
the Word was God; in the beginning was the Film and the Film was God (at any
rate, on a somewhat rudimentary basis). Thus pagan - Judeo-Christian - transcendental. However, for the modern post-Christian age,
God's origin can neither be traced to the Star nor to the Word but simply to
the Film, Video, Trip, etc., in increasing degrees of spiritual
refinement. To the extent that we watch
the Film or, rather, films ... we partake of and become God (Superfather). Such a
crude level and manifestation of divinity will gradually be transmuted into
higher and more genuine levels (Superchristic) as the
contemplating head progresses, over the decades, from films to trips via
videos, and so draws ever closer to the ultimate level of divinity (Supertranscendent) in pure contemplation achieved through
dynamic meditation. In the meantime,
film stars (as opposed to cosmic ones) will be the Superfatheristic
norm for most contemplating heads. The Superchristic can only come later, as the Son followed the
Father and truth eclipsed falsity. Those
of us who prefer the positive Divine to the negative Divine, and hence truth to
falsity, will welcome the inevitable eclipse of the mechanical, external, superfalse divinity by the chemical, internal, supertrue divinity, and thus the real coming of the
'Kingdom of Heaven' under Social Transcendentalist auspices. For the Superpagan
must be superseded by the Superchristian, if
salvation is truly to be achieved.
To the extent that video paves the way for the Superchristic
... it should be encouraged, even though it pertains, as film, to the Superfather and, hence, to superfalsity.
109. To the extent that a wavicle/particle
and, hence, divine/diabolic distinction can be drawn, on the level of what may
be called theocratic smoking, between cannabis and hashish ('grass' and
'shit'), we should also distinguish between capsule vision-engendering LSD and
tablet audio-engendering LSD on a similar basis, which, taken in conjunction
with 'dope', will furnish us with the basis of a working dichotomy between
Social Transcendentalism and Transcendental Socialism. Thus in the one case a cannabis/capsule LSD
integrity, with cannabis corresponding to the 'Social' and capsule LSD to the
'Transcendentalism', whilst, in the other case, a tablet LSD/hashish integrity,
with tablet LSD corresponding to the 'Transcendental' and hashish to the
'Socialism'. In the case of Social
Transcendentalism, the emphasis would be on capsule LSD; in the case of
Transcendental Socialism, by contrast, the emphasis would be on hashish. That follows, needless to say, from the
divine/diabolic distinction between the two ideologies which, though not
absolutely divisible, yet maintain a relative bias one way or the other,
depending on the ideology in question.
Thus a lesser emphasis on cannabis and a greater one on capsule LSD would
be juxtaposed with a lesser emphasis on tablet LSD and a greater one on
hashish. Accordingly, capsule LSD and
hashish are the two main adversaries or, as I should say, parallel
alternatives, with cannabis and tablet LSD constituting subordinate options
within the overall framework of each ideology.
Yet if cannabis is subordinate to capsule LSD within the Social
Transcendentalist context, and to the extent, I wager, of being confined to
particular rather than general use, then tablet LSD should be no less
subordinate to hashish within the Transcendental Socialist context, and to the
extent, once again, of being confined to particular rather than general
use. Should time or circumstances prove
me wrong, then so be it! But as the
principal architect of Social Transcendentalism, I reserve the right to define
ideological priorities as I see fit. For
how else can a divine/diabolic distinction be maintained? Transcendental Socialist tendencies may be
unquestionably bad, or immoral, in relation to Social Transcendentalist ones,
though this fact would not render the latter ideology perfect - least of all
where the subordinate possibility of cannabis was concerned. Were men capable of only the divine, we could
ban or eliminate the 'dope' element outright.
But even where and when they have a divine bias, the capacity for the
diabolic will still exist, albeit in a transmuted and relatively innocuous
guise. And yet, if cannabis is
paradoxically preferable to hashish from a moral, or divine, standpoint, it can
hardly be deemed superior to tablet LSD.
Certainly it is better to be an 'acid head' than a 'shit head'; but if a
'shit head' is all one can be, there will at least be the consolation, within a
Transcendental Socialist context, that one is not a tobacco head or, rather,
body, insofar as tobacco is arguably to the body what hashish and cannabis are
to the head - the relatively diabolic, or smoking, side of a worldly dichotomy
which finds its relatively divine, or drinking, side in alcohol.
110. Of course the world opposes what threatens its
own tobacco/alcohol integrity, whether such a threat comes from beyond ... in
the forms of 'dope' and 'acid', or from behind ... in the neo-pagan forms of
hard drugs like heroin, opium, morphine, etc., which, whether smoked or
injected, threaten to resurrect the alpha-stemming (old-brain/subconscious)
head at the expense not only of the body but, from an omega-oriented
standpoint, the (new-brain/superconscious) head as
well. For in a transitional age, when
body civilization is in decline but the ultimate head civilization hasn't yet
officially arisen, it is all too easy for neo-pagan tendencies associated with
the old-brain/subconscious mind to come out of hibernation, as it were, and
seek to gain a footing at the expense of traditional worldly norms, including
alcohol and tobacco. Such traditional
hard drugs correspond, in their own context, to neo-royalism
in politics, and will be vigorously opposed - and rightly - by those bent on
defending the worldly status quo. Whether,
however, such people have as much justification in opposing post-worldly drugs
like LSD ... is another thing - at any rate, from a new-brain/superconscious standpoint, though they doubtless act
correctly from a worldly standpoint and, hence, in opposition not only to the
Super-antichristic diabolic, but to the Superchristic divine as well, i.e. with reference to both
Transcendental Socialism and Social Transcendentalism, not forgetting their
respective 'dope' and 'acid' concomitants.
Thus the body has to defend itself against a fourfold encroachment upon
its democratic integrity by both divine and diabolic alpha-stemming and
omega-oriented head alternatives.
Ultimately both the body and the alpha-stemming (old-brain/subconscious)
head should lose, though not before the omega-oriented head, in both its
diabolic and divine aspects, proves worthy of global victory, thereby
initiating an age of exclusively new-brain and superconscious
drugs. For salvation
is not only at the expense of the world, and therefore of tobacco and alcohol,
but of everything pertaining to the pre-worldly divine and diabolic options as
well. Now from a Social
Transcendentalist and hence truly divine standpoint, it is from the possibility
of post-worldly drugs like hashish and tablet LSD too, since what pertains to
Transcendental Socialism must, of necessity, be irrelevant to Social
Transcendentalism.
111. If cocaine is relevant to some kind of superworldly ideological bias, then that, too, would prove irrelevant
from both divine and diabolic standpoints.
Broadly speaking, if the cannabis/capsule LSD equation pertains to
rock-jazz (a Social Transcendentalist equivalent), and the tablet LSD/hashish
equation ... to jazz-rock (a Transcendental Socialist equivalent), then cocaine
should pertain to electric blues, that middle-ground theocratic musical form
(whose political analogue is Ecology) in between centristic
jazz and communistic rock. So if the
future turns out anything like I imagine, which is not inconceivable, then
cocaine will go the way of all the other drugs not strictly relevant to either
of the two main ideological alternatives under discussion.
112. As a sort of footnote
to the above, I should like to draw attention to the superphenomenal
nature of 'dope', whether cannabis or hashish, as opposed to the supernoumenal nature of 'acid', whether capsule or
tablet. Cocaine is also superphenomenal, though from a different standpoint than
either cannabis or hashish, whereas untipped
cigarettes and/or roll-ups on the one hand, and fizzy beer on the other hand
are superphenomenal from a strictly worldly and,
hence, bodily standpoint. Musically
speaking, they stand to the head drugs in the manner of pop and/or soul to
rock, jazz, and blues. Both rhythm 'n' blues and rock 'n' roll pertain to a
mid-point in between pop and soul - the former with a bias towards soul and the
latter with a bias towards pop. Such a
mid-point corresponds, as already noted, to a moderately worldly integrity as
characterized by touch, that uniquely worldly sense, and finds its chief drug
neither in alcohol nor tobacco, but simply and purely in sex. For sex is to touch what alcohol is to taste
and tobacco to smell.
113. Writing or, more specifically, the technique of
writing will correspond to phenomenal, superphenomenal,
or to supernoumenal categories according to whether
it is divisibly relative, divisibly absolute, or indivisibly absolute. In the first case, we are dealing with word
pairs, for example pronouns and verbs like 'I am', 'you are', 'they are', as
well as with negative verbs like 'do not', 'will not', 'shall not', 'cannot'. In the
second case, we are dealing with the contraction of such word pairs into one
word divided by an apostrophe, as in 'I'm', 'you're', 'they're', 'don't',
'won't', 'shan't', 'can't'. In the third
case, however, we are dealing with the further contraction (centro-complexification)
of such words by elimination of the apostrophe, as in 'Im',
'youre', 'theyre', 'dont',
'wont', 'shant', 'cant'. Thus we have an overall progression from
worldly relativity, which is bourgeois, to divine absolutism, which is
classless, via diabolic absolutism, which is proletarian. A progression, in other words, from divisible
relativity to indivisible absolutism via divisible absolutism, which
corresponds, so I maintain, to phenomenal, superphenomenal,
and supernoumenal distinctions. In a bourgeois society, the phenomenal mode
of writing will be the accepted norm, while superphenomenal
contractions will accord with a proletarian alternative or opposition to
it. There will be scarcely any writing
conceived on a supernoumenal basis, since that
presupposes a classless society and, hence, the supersession
of State divisibility by Centrist indivisibility - in a word, the transcendence
of bourgeois/proletarian or, in the case of liberal republics, white- and
blue-collar distinctions ... through a social homogeneity aimed at the creation
of a truly divine society, one which is neither plutocratic nor democratic but
theocratic and therefore socially indivisible.
In such a society, where the great majority of people are programmed for
spiritual transcendence by a politico-religious elite assisted by special
police, supernoumenal writing would become the
accepted norm, and consequently something approximating to what G.B. Shaw
pioneered would take the place of all phenomenal and superphenomenal
modes of writing in the name of absolutist indivisibility. For in writing, no less than everything else,
centro-complexification is both a mark and a standard
of evolutionary progress. 'I have' -
'I've' - 'Ive', or 'do not' - 'don't' - 'dont' ... attest to just such a centro-complexification,
and any writer worthy of the claim 'progressive' will doubtless be more
disposed to one or other of the two absolutist technical approaches to writing
than to conventional relativity. But a
radical technique is of little use or justification if it does not serve an
equally radical subject-matter, the thematic treatment of which should be no
less radical. One cannot and should not
marry superphenomenal contractions to a worldly, or
democratic, subject-matter, and neither should a post-worldly, or
transcendental, subject-matter, treated positively and with sincerity, be
married to phenomenal relativity.
Getting sorted out in this regard and remaining both technically and
thematically congruous ... is the test of a great writer. It is also the mark of one!
114. Other examples of phenomenal vis-à-vis superphenomenal vis-à-vis supernoumenal
distinctions are afforded us by time and money.
In the case of time, we are speaking of a progression, as it were, from
conventional alphanumeric relativity to noumenal
absolutism, whether this latter be divisible, as between a.m. and p.m., or
indivisible, and hence 24 hrs. Thus
'five past six' or 'two minutes to eight' or 'half-past twelve' will accord
with phenomenal relativity by dint of the compromise between numerals and
words, even when, as in the examples cited, numerals are written as words (for,
in reality, they are read as numbers from conventional wind-up watches). However, superphenomenal
time-reading will only entail numbers, as from a twelve-hour digital watch, and
it is the division of such time into a.m. and p.m. which makes for a divisible
absolutism. With a 24 hr. digital, on
the other hand, no such division exists, and therefore the indivisible
absolutism which results from a 24 hr. mode accords with a supernoumenal
status - the ultimate mode of time-reading, especially pertinent to a Social Transcendentalist
society and ideological bias.
115. As to money, a similar progression from the
phenomenal to the supernoumenal via the superphenomenal can be inferred with regard to the
distinctions between traditional pounds/shillings/ pence counting and decimal
counting which either divides pounds from pence, as in superphenomenal
usage, or counts in pence alone, as with the supernoumenal
alternative. Thus whereas '£5 - 2s - 6p'
accords with phenomenal relativity by dint of its fulcrum, so to speak, being
shillings rather than pounds or pence, and therefore having a worldly and,
indeed, atomic significance in between larger and smaller units (not to mention
entailing a compromise, as with phenomenal time-reading, between words and
numbers), '£6 - 50p' accords with a superphenomenal,
or divisible, absolutism by dint of being pounds and fractions of pounds, i.e.
pence, in contrast to the indivisible absolutism of '650p' which accords with a
supernoumenal counting by dint of its exclusive
emphasis on pence - a more idealistic emphasis, given the indivisible character
of pence in relation to pounds. Of
course, in speaking of pounds, I am alluding to pound pieces rather than to
notes. For the superphenomenal
can only be established on the basis of a coin absolutism, and would not be
possible with notes and old-style (large) pennies, both of which accord with
the phenomenal in its extreme manifestations.
It is just that with the superphenomenal this
coin absolutism is divisible, as between pounds and pence. With the supernoumenal,
by contrast, it is only in pence and therefore indivisible.
116. Similarly, in respect of length measurement,
yards, feet, and inches accord with the phenomenal, feet standing in between
the two extremes in the way that shillings may be said to stand in between
pounds and pence or, for that matter, minutes in between hours and
seconds. With metres and centimetres,
however, one enters the realm of superphenomenal
length measurement, the metric absolutism divisible between metres and centimetres,
which can be transcended only on the supernoumenal
basis of centimetre indivisibility.
Nowadays we deal in metric units rather than imperial ones and
accordingly measure on a superphenomenal basis. The same is true of weighing (grams, kilograms),
solid volume (cubic metres, cubic centimetres), and so on ... through all the
possible metric modes of quantification, and to that extent it is fair to say
that phenomenal, i.e. imperial, standards of quantification no longer have any
relevance. In my view, telling the time
on a conventional alphanumeric basis is no less obsolete than imperial
measurements. The man for whom the time
is 'half-past twelve' (instead of 12.30) or 'five to six' (instead of 5.55) is
living on the level of imperial measurements and is accordingly lagging behind
the times. Even the superphenomenal
will one day be eclipsed as indivisible absolutism puts divisible absolutism in
the shadow of its supernoumenal light.
117. Devolution from autocratic theocracy (the
Father) to theocratic autocracy (Satan), with further devolution from
autocratic autocracy (worldly alpha) to democratic autocracy (alpha
world). Evolution from
autocratic democracy (omega world) to democratic democracy (worldly omega),
with further evolution from theocratic democracy (the Antichrist) to democratic
theocracy (the Holy Ghost). Thus
a 'fall', on the one hand, from alpha theocracy to the worldly alpha/alpha
world via diabolic autocracy, and a 'rise', on the other hand, from the omega
world/worldly omega to omega theocracy via diabolic democracy. God - Devil - world; world - Devil - God,
with the head, on both subconscious and old-brain terms, eclipsed by the
worldly body on both autocratic and democratic terms, prior to the possibility
of the head being resurrected, on both new-brain and superconscious
terms, with the return of Devil and God on an omega basis.
118. Similarly, one could speak of a regression from
alpha idealism to worldly realism via alpha naturalism and worldly materialism
on the one hand, but of a progression from worldly superrealism
to omega superidealism via worldly supermaterialism and omega supernaturalism on the other
hand. Thus from
(idealistic) autocratic theocracy to (realistic) democratic autocracy via
(naturalistic) theocratic autocracy and (materialistic) autocratic autocracy. And thus from (superrealistic) autocratic democracy to (superidealistic) democratic theocracy via (supermaterialistic) democratic democracy and (supernaturalistic) theocratic democracy. On the one hand, noumenal to subphenomenal
regressions; on the other hand, phenomenal to supernoumenal
progressions. Devolution
from the noumenal head to the subphenomenal
body in the case of the regressive distinctions. Evolution from the
phenomenal body to the supernoumenal head in the case
of the progressive distinctions.
Treated graphically, this will read as follows:-
ALPHA DEVOLUTION OMEGA EVOLUTION
1. autocratic
theocracy (noumenal)
8. democratic theocracy
(supernoumenal)
2. theocratic autocracy
(noumenal-subphenomenal) 7. theocratic democracy (superphenomenal-supernoumenal)
3. autocratic
autocracy (subphenomenal) 6. democratic democracy (superphenomenal)
4. democratic
autocracy (phenomenal-subphenomenal) 5.
autocratic democracy (subphenomenal-phenomenal)
Such a procedure is
rather more complex and, I trust, accurate than would be the use of
comparatively simple noumenal/phenomenal or superphenomenal/supernoumenal distinctions, given the necessary
gradations of alpha devolution on the one hand and of omega evolution on the
other hand which, considered with regard to the head in each of its dual
extremities, flank worldly phenomenalism in regard to
the body.
119. Thus we can pinpoint antithetical equivalents
between idealistic autocratic theocracy, which is noumenal,
and superidealistic democratic theocracy, which is supernoumenal; between naturalistic theocratic autocracy,
which is noumenal-subphenomenal, and supernaturalistic theocratic democracy, which is superphenomenal-supernoumenal; between materialistic
autocratic autocracy, which is subphenomenal, and supermaterialistic democratic democracy, which is superphenomenal; and between realistic democratic
autocracy, which is phenomenal-subphenomenal, and superrealistic autocratic democracy, which is subphenomenal-phenomenal.
On the one hand, a devolutionary regression, as we have seen, from
idealism to realism via naturalism and materialism; on the other hand, an
evolutionary progression from superrealism to superidealism via supermaterialism
and supernaturalism, with antithetical correlations between alpha idealism and
omega superidealism, alpha naturalism and omega
supernaturalism, alpha-worldly materialism and omega-worldly supermaterialism, worldly realism and worldly superrealism. Thus
the realistic body is flanked by the materialistic body, while the naturalistic
head is flanked by the idealistic head. Worldly relativity and worldly absolutism; diabolic relativity and
divine absolutism.
120. Defining each historical distinction
separately, we have in autocratic theocracy the subconsciously-dominated,
Creator-oriented societies of pagan antiquity, including the Egyptian and early
Irish, which may be defined as proto-papal by dint of their cosmic religious
essence, an essence shared, though on a less elevated plane, by the succeeding
theocratic autocracies which, again like the Egyptian and Irish, were rather
more disposed to god-kings than to kingly gods ... to the extent that the latter
lost power in proportion to the increase in power of the former, who thus ruled
on the basis of diabolic and, hence, old-brain autocracy. Contrasted to which we shall find the
autocratic autocracies of alpha-worldly societies like the ancient Greek and
Roman, whose chief characteristic is a secular ruling elite of kings and
tyrants - an autocracy of the body as opposed to the head. This is also true of the succeeding
democratic autocracies, including the late Roman and early English, except that
in their case the tyrant or monarch is accountable to his nobles through some
agreement such as the Magna Carta, which effectively
curbs his autocratic power. One might
say that autocratic devolution has gone as far as it is possible to go at this
point without ceasing to be autocracy, and that such an autocratic nadir is a
precondition of subsequent democratic transformation, following a Cromwell-type
parliamentary revolution which shifts the balance of power from the monarch and
his nobles to the People or, at any rate, the bourgeoisie in what I have termed
an autocratic democracy - the parliamentary democracy upon which Britain built
its greatness as a world power of the first rank, a democracy in which not the
People but parliament is sovereign, an essential representational sovereignty
which contrasts with, though exists in the service of, the apparent sovereignty
of the reigning monarch within the constitutional framework of a United
Kingdom.
121. And yet, if a parliamentary democracy is, by
definition, bourgeois on account of its semi-autocratic nature, then the
succeeding republican democracies of, for example, France and the United States
may be regarded (somewhat contrary to accepted opinion) as proletarian
democracies within a Western, or Germanic, context, which is necessarily bodily
rather than of the head (in its new-brain aspect) and therefore inherently
relative or, as we usually say, pluralistic.
For the body is politically divisible not just in the autocratic and
democratic parts, as between blood and bone on the one hand and muscle and
flesh on the other, but - as just indicated - in both its autocratic and its democratic
aspects. Now if this is not to push the
metaphor too far, then I would say that in between such a division we can posit
a bodily parallel to parliamentary democracy on the basis of a vein/nerve
compromise, which is relatively middle-ground in relation to autocratic blood
and bone on the one hand and to democratic muscle and flesh on the other, and
therefore suitable to something which, strictly speaking, is neither of the one
nor of the other but ... a sort of half-way house in between the two. Thus if we are to equate blood with royalty,
and hence a secular or bodily monarchy, while reserving for the nobility in
general a connection with bones, both of which accord with an alpha-worldly
autocracy, then the antithetical equivalent to this, namely an omega-worldly
democracy, should be conceived in terms of the equation of bodily muscles with
one part of the democratic democracy and flesh with the other, so that a kind
of antagonism between muscles and flesh is envisaged, which, so I contend,
would typify a Western-style People's democracy.
122. Taking the American democracy as our model, it
seems feasible to equate muscles with the Democrats and flesh with the
Republicans, which gives us a kind of pain/pleasure distinction between workers
and players or, in popular parlance, the poor and the rich, the have-nots and
the haves. In a parliamentary democracy,
on the other hand, no such political distinction really exists, because we are
speaking rather more on the level of veins in the one case and of nerves in the
other, neither of which has any real connection with proletarian extremes
within a bodily context. Indeed, such a
division, being relative to an autocratic democracy, is somewhat more bourgeois
than proletarian, as between plutocratic conservatism on the one side and
laissez-faire liberalism on the other, and, so far as the British example of
parliamentary democracy is concerned, no longer exists in its traditional mould
but has been superseded by a kind of vein/muscle dichotomy between Low Toryism and Democratic Socialism (Labour), a dichotomy
between disjunctive adversaries which is neither bourgeois nor proletarian but
effectively grand bourgeois in the Tory case and petty bourgeois in that of the
Democratic Socialists, so that each side pulls in obliquely opposite directions
rather than, as with republican democracies, at approximately parallel points
to each other. The only way anything
approximating to the American type of democracy could arise in Britain would be
if the Labour Party, as the party correlative with muscles, found itself in
opposition to a Liberal and/or Social Democratic party which, correlating with
the flesh, sought to stay in government or to become the government at Labour's
expense. In other words, if the only two
main contenders for political power in Britain were the Democratic Socialists
and the Liberal Democrats - the former broadly representative of blue-collar
interests and the latter of white-collar interests, neither of them much
interested in either bourgeois or grand-bourgeois interests.
123. Yet such a dichotomy between alternative
working-class parties is hardly likely to arise in a parliamentary democracy
like Britain's where, one way or another, the Tories will always be a major, if
not the main, contender for
office, given British plutocratic traditions, and only one 'working-class'
party can ever hope to seriously rival them as an effective alternative. Two 'working-class' parties in competition
for the majority vote may be a fact of life in republican democracies, but it
certainly doesn't and can't have any reality in a parliamentary democracy, where
one of the contending parties will always be bourgeois or, more correctly,
grand bourgeois, and therefore constitute a direct link with the aristocracy
and monarchy, the Lords and the reigning sovereign. It is for this reason that any party to the right
of the Conservatives will be not so much fascist, in the accepted latin sense, as neo-royalist, since blue blood in
Conservative veins can be replaced, if necessary, by a transfusion of red blood
in the event of the monarchy being seriously called into question or put under
threat from the Extreme Left, no matter how unlikely such a prospect may seem
in reality. For just as the Extreme
Right in a parliamentary democracy like Britain's can only be of the body, and
hence a resurrection of royalist blood, so the Extreme Left will also be merely
bodily, and hence muscular. In both
cases, the head is beyond the pale, as it must be in any parliamentary
democracy, where either neo-royalism or socialist
anarchism will be the alternative extremes, never genuine Fascism or Communism,
which pertain to the head, but only something bodily.
124. And yet in a republican democracy, which is
rather more extreme than a parliamentary one, head alternatives to the bodily
rule will
encroach
upon the democratic status quo from time to time and threaten to destabilize
it, as in France, where communistic opposition to democracy is not unheard of,
even if such opposition hasn't had any appreciable effect in undermining or
supplanting it. For even the French
remain by and large democratic in a Western mould, which, being bodily, is
inherently superphenomenal and therefore
relative. Like their American
counterparts, they fall short of the head and, consequently, France is not on
that account a bourgeois democracy like Britain or Holland, even if it is less
of a proletarian democracy, in the Western mould, than the United States of
America, which is far more Germanic and accordingly more bodily and
materialistic than France. If France is
ideologically contiguous with the lesser East European states like Poland and
Hungary, then America is ideologically contiguous with the Commonwealth of
Independent States (formerly the Soviet Union), that great supra-national
entity which signifies a full-blown theocratic democracy, a democracy not of
the body but the head and, needless to say, in terms of the new brain, which,
in contrast to the democratic body, is indivisible and accordingly aligned with
absolute political criteria, as congenial to the Slavic race. For the Slav is less bodily in proportion as
he is more brainy, using the word in an ideological sense. Consequently he leads the ideological field
and will continue to do so until the superconscious
has its ideology and democratic theocracy, in the form of Social
Transcendentalism, stakes its claim on a variety of, for the most part, Third
World peoples in the name of a divine alternative to Transcendental Socialism.
125. Such an alternative, no less supra-national,
would not be Fascist but, as I define it, Centrist, and therefore no mere
resurrection of the subconscious or collective unconscious such as Nazism and,
to a lesser extent, Italian Fascism tended to be. These latter ideologies are no more identical
to Social Transcendentalism than a military dictatorship is identical to
Transcendental Socialism. For whereas Fascism
resurrects the subconscious, military dictatorships to some extent resurrect
the old brain, and accordingly stand to Communism as Fascism to Centrism or,
for that matter, bodily neo-royalism to socialism -
mere rehashes of the alpha-stemming past rather than genuinely omega-oriented
proletarian ideologies. Now, obviously,
for a head people like the Italians, the resurrection of subconscious idealism
is no closer to true progress than the resurrection of Mosleyite
neo-royalism for a bodily people like the
British. Either way - and with regard to
neo-autocratic militarism as well - we are not seeing anything new but, rather,
a kind of archreactionary obstacle to transcendental
progress. As history
dealt with neo-royalism, so it has dealt with Fascism
and military dictatorships.
126. Which leaves three contemporary alternatives,
viz. Socialism, Communism, and Centrism, approximately paralleling the omega
world, the omega Devil, and the omega God, whether or not subdivisions can be adduced
in the case of the world, as between muscular Democratic Socialism and fleshy
Liberal Democracy in Britain, or the muscular Democrats and the fleshy
Republicans in the United States, or, indeed, any other Western equivalents of
a two-party proletarian option which suggests if not an alternative approach to
Socialism then certainly an alternative approach to Capitalism - one either
State Capitalist, as in the British Labour movement traditionally, or
Corporate, as in the American system, where Socialism in any strict sense of
the word, i.e. with reference to public ownership of the (artificial) means of
production, is strictly taboo. For it
does seem that Socialism in the West is interpreted far more with regard to a
wider distribution of wealth on a capitalistic basis than in terms of a
Socialist economy as such, which, within the bodily context relative to the germanic democracies of the West, could all too easily be
interpreted too literally and materialistically, as in the case of fringe
Socialist parties in which ownership is conceived on the basis of worker
collectivism, or literal ownership by workers of the means of production at
their factory, rather than in the more elevated, and hence idealistic, sense of
public ownership through the State.
127. And yet ownership of the means of production by
the People through the State should not be confused with State ownership as
such. For whereas the former is
Socialism on a theocratic and therefore head (new-brain) basis, the latter is
State Capitalism, and it is this rather than State Socialism which obtains in
the West, particularly in countries like
128. Now this is no less true of those Western
societies where Corporatism tends to prevail over State Capitalism and
consequently provides the main alternative to Private Capitalism, that is to
say, to Capitalism pursued on an individualistic or traditional basis. One could argue that whereas Private
Capitalism is Republican and therefore aligned with the flesh, Corporate
Capitalism is Democratic and accordingly more aligned with the muscles. In each case, we have a post-parliamentary
democratic antagonism between Private and Corporate Capitalism, which is not so
much horizontal as vertical, and therefore constitutive of a proletarian
polarity rather than of a grand-bourgeois/petty-bourgeois antagonism on the
parliamentary model, as in
129. Yet such an approach paves the way for State
Capitalism which, masquerading as Socialism, seeks under Labour, traditionally,
to supplant private-owned industry by nationalized industry whenever possible -
at any rate, provided the Labour Party is being true to its petty-bourgeois
colours and is not playing either the grand-bourgeois tariff capitalists' or
the middle-bourgeois laissez-faire
capitalists' games. Should either of the
latter subsequently change their tune slightly - the Tory capitalist becoming
less obstructive of foreign imports and the Liberal capitalist partial to a
degree of nationalized industry, services, etc., then that is no reason for
Labour to sell-out to the private sector, but, rather, all the more reason for
it to remain State Capitalist until such time, if ever, as politicians of a
genuinely Socialist stamp begin to infiltrate the Labour movement and - dare I
say it? - introduce notions of public ownership of the means of production on a
Western and, hence, literal basis, the very basis that would undermine
democratic centrality and threaten Labour's elected status as a parliamentary
party. For one cannot advocate
decentralist economic policies without calling into question the entire future
of State Capitalism, and to advocate such policies from a centralist, i.e.
parliamentary, point of view, is both hypocritical and illogical, particularly
when there cannot be the slightest chance of their implementation, least of all
in terms of the basis in question!
Therefore, much as some people in the Labour Party may traditionally
have entertained genuine ideals with regard to Socialist economics, there is no
way those ideals could bear practical fruit without that party becoming torn
apart and effectively committing political suicide. For such ideals undermine
the very basis on which the parliamentary Labour Party is elected, since they
run contrary to its centralized grain.
Consequently the Labour Party, true to its state-capitalist colours, has
no option but to oppose all those who would take power away from the centre in
pursuance of Socialist economics. For
such people are wittingly or unwittingly a socialist 'fifth column' within the
Labour movement and, like the Trojan Horse, their decentralist
predilections can only lead to Labour's downfall!
130. However, despite militant-type infiltration, it
has to be admitted that most decentralist economic thinking takes place outside the Labour Movement by
Socialist parties that bitterly oppose what Labour stands for and see
themselves as the vanguard or, at any rate, focal-point of Socialist opposition
to Capitalism, both private and state.
Such parties are not interested in political centrality, with its
socialistic politics of distributing wealth as widely and fairly as possible on
the basis of State Capitalism, but represent economic decentralization and are
accordingly economically Socialist (on the Western bodily model) where Labour
is politically Socialist. Thus they
signify a 'fall' from political centrality to the economic fringes where,
invariably, they languish in verbal opposition to the Capitalist status
quo. Frankly, there is scant chance of
any hard-line extra-parliamentary party influencing the course of British
political or economic thinking, and I wager that if, at some future time, the
East became responsible for the political and economic direction of the West
(as to some extent it already has done in regard to Japan), it would oppose the
kind of economic thinking that advocates literal worker ownership of the means
of production and introduce its own theory and, indeed, practice of a sort of
sublimated ownership of those means by the workers through the State, so that
State Socialism rather than Utopian Socialism became the economic norm, and the
head, in its new-brain manifestation, accordingly prevailed over the body,
whether as flesh or muscle. For it is
most unlikely that a highly centralized people like, for example, the Chinese
would encourage decentralization, particularly in view of the fact that what
they upheld, as State Socialism, was superior - as superior as the head to the
body, and therefore not a materialistic but an idealistic approach to Socialist
economics.
131. And yet State
Socialism is not the ultimate form of economic management, no more than the new
brain is the ultimate form of the head.
If it is superior to Utopian Socialism, it is distinctly inferior to
theocratic Centrism, or trusteeship of the means of production by the Centre
for the People, which pertains not to the Transcendental Socialist stage of
evolution or mode of democracy, but to the Social Transcendentalist stage of
evolution and mode of theocracy beyond, whether or not co-existence between the
two becomes a temporary fact of life. For
just as what I have described as theocratic democracy, analogous to
Transcendental Socialism, comes after democratic democracy in evolutionary
terms, so democratic theocracy comes after theocratic democracy ... to usher in
not the kingdom of superhell but the kingdom of superheaven, the Social Transcendentalist heaven in which
trusteeship of the means of production by the Centre relieves the People of
responsibility in respect of public ownership, and thereby renders them,
through Superchristic auspices, all the more credible
as collective, albeit rudimentary, Holy Ghost.
For one cannot own the means of production and be saved to the Holy
Spirit at the same time, and if the People are to be saved (from the
State and, hence, the materialistic worldly responsibilities which accrue to a
republican status), then they must be freed from public ownership and elevated
to the divine status of so many units of potential transcendence. This can only happen by and through the
Centre, which is my principal contribution to ideological evolution, and thus
on the basis of a Social Transcendentalist revolution, democratically achieved,
in those countries where the establishment of 'Kingdom Come' would be both
logical and just.
132. For other countries - and I have gone into this
subject often enough elsewhere in my writings without wishing to repeat myself
here - Transcendental Socialism, with its state-socialist control of the means
of production, would continue to be valid for quite some time, if only because
the superdiabolic destiny is required if the world is
to be overcome and all forms of Capitalism be consigned to the rubbish heap of
history. Doubtless the head in both its
new brain and superconscious aspects will work
together to this end, since such aspects have more in common and are closer to
each other than to the body against which they must struggle, if the world is
eventually to be overcome. For the goal
of history is not the perpetual co-existence of the world (with its autocracies
and democracies), the Devil, and God, but the overcoming of the world by the
Devil (theocratic democracy), and, finally, the overcoming of the Devil by God
(democratic theocracy), in order that only the Divine may ultimately prevail
and the 'Kingdom of Heaven' be globally established as the necessary
precondition of post-millennial transcendence.
Thus if State Socialism corresponds to a superphenomenal-supernoumenal
integrity commensurate with theocratic democracy, then Centre trusteeship
corresponds to a supernoumenal integrity commensurate
with democratic theocracy, that ultimate ideological standpoint which must
eventually eclipse the penultimate ... if divine justice is to be done. Verily, we have come a long way from the age
of autocratic theocracy, both in terms of devolution and evolution, but
haven't yet arrived at the age of democratic theocracy. Only when we do, will 'heaven on earth' be
more than just a dream or hope of the pious millions!
133. Strictly speaking, we should speak of the
devolution of ape to pagan man, and then of the evolution of Christian man, and
Christian-equivalent men in other (so-called) world religions, from pagan
man. For the necessary corollary of
evolution towards the Omega Absolute is devolution from the Alpha Absolute, and
in Christian man devolution and evolution balance out between the Devil on the
one hand and Christ on the other, that is to say, between Hell and Heaven in
relative terms. The evolution of
transcendental man from Christian man, however, takes man beyond such
relativity into an aspiration towards the absolute Heaven of pure spirit, i.e.
the Holy Ghost. Transcendental man is
thus wholly evolutionary and therefore antithetical to the devolutionary
integrity of pagan man. If the former
can be described as superhuman, then the latter may be regarded as
subhuman. Only Christian, or relative,
man was purely human, and thus balanced between devolutionary and evolutionary
extremes in a kind of worldly purgatory of bodily humanism. One might say that with this stage of life
there is neither a dress absolutism nor a zipper suit absolutism, as between
alpha and omega sartorial extremes, but a sort of compromise in the form of
skirts on the one hand and trousers on the other hand. Transvaluated
devolution and untransvaluated evolution (since
trousers are usually worn in conjunction with an overlapping jacket - a
phenomenon rather more feminine than masculine).
134. Thus we should think in terms of devolution
from planets and trees to animals, including apes, and early man, who himself
underwent a further series of devolutions from autocratic theocracy and
theocratic autocracy to autocratic autocracy and democratic autocracy, as
already described. The fact that early
man tended to look-up to certain animals and even to worship trees can only be
fully comprehended on the basis that he felt himself to be at a further remove
from the noumenal than those animals or trees and
consequently, in a very real sense, their inferior, so untransvaluated,
and hence merely devolutionary, was his point of view. Therefore it need not surprise us that women
and children also held - and to some extent still hold - a special place in the
estimation of men by dint of being closer to nature and accordingly more alpha-orientated
in themselves.
The disparity in status between women and men was amply reflected in
their respective modes of attire - the women garbed, as a rule, in full-length
dresses ... suggestive of an alpha-noumenal
absolutism, the men, by contrast, restricted to shorter-length dresses or,
rather, tunics by dint of their inferior feminine status, not quite men but
more akin to women in their psychological stance before the world. In fact, we should distinguish men from women
at this early juncture in time on the basis of a submasculine/superfeminine
dichotomy, since if men were neither sartorially nor psychologically quite
masculine, they were nevertheless not women in any clinical sense, and
therefore deserve at least a submasculine status,
which contrasts quite sharply with the full-blown femininity, as it were, of
women, whom I have accordingly described as superfeminine. For if we think of men in this way, it
enables us to pit an evolution from submasculine to supermasculine via masculine levels against a devolution
from superfeminine to subfeminine
via feminine levels, as between submen and superwomen
in a devolutionary stage of history, men and women in a balanced devolutionary/
evolutionary stage, and subwomen and supermen in an
evolutionary stage such as we are currently embarked upon. For what devolves on the one side must evolve
on the other. A contemporary female in
miniskirt is rather more a subwoman than a woman, for
whom a knee-length skirt would be the norm, whereas a male in a one-piece
zipper suit is rather more a Superman than a man, for whom trousers would be
the norm. Yet just as women can now
dress beyond miniskirts in jeans, one-piece zipper suits, etc., and so become
effectively quasi-supermasculine, so men once dressed
beneath pantaloons, breeches, leggings, etc., in gowns or tunics, and thus
appeared effectively quasi-superfeminine. Sartorial dichotomies between male and female
are to all intents and purposes cancelled out at the very extremes of
devolution and evolution. There is only noumenon in the one case and supernoumenon
in the other. But as soon as the
phenomenon enters into account, no matter how modestly initially, i.e. in subphenomenal terms, we have a 'fall' from noumenal indivisibility into noumenal/phenomenal
divisibility which, contrary to appearances, continues as devolution until such
time as a transvaluation along Christian lines
('rebirth') establishes the phenomenal in an evolutionary light, and
consequently it assumes an independence from the noumenal
which paves the way for true evolution in due course, that is to say on the
basis of a superphenomenal/supernoumenal dichotomy,
pending the eventual eclipse of the superphenomenal
and subsequent attainment of a supernoumenal
indivisibility. For we must pass through
the relative in order to attain to the absolute, and the world is but a
phenomenal precondition of supernoumenal salvation.
135. Applying my devolutionary/evolutionary theories
to Darwin and, indeed, to the creation-verses-evolution argument which persists
even now in some quarters, I would maintain that while the evolutionists are
not entirely right, the creationists are far from being entirely wrong. Or, put like this, it should be apparent that
while man wasn't literally created by God (the Father), he didn't evolve from
apes either but, rather, devolved from them to become not man as we understand
him, but a subhuman creature with no concept of evolution and no desire,
initially, to break with the alpha-stemming system of things. It is only because and to the extent that we
are evolutionary that we tend to regard man's emergence from apes in an
evolutionary light. An untransvaluated point of view, strongly autocratic in
character, would regard it in an entirely different light - indeed, in terms of
creationism, which is nothing less than a mythical concept of devolution, i.e.
devolution in a noumenal age, when gods rather than
stars ruled human consciousness and man sought an explanation for life not in
science but in religion. Of course, this
is still true of some men even these days, which is why they oppose
evolutionary theories from a creationist point of view. Yet two wrongs don't make a right! Both creation and evolution must go, the one
because alpha-stemming metaphysics is no longer relevant, and the other because
it imposes where it doesn't belong. Only
devolution can adequately explain the link between ape and man, and the more
devolved man became from nature, the less sway alpha-noumenal
criteria had upon him and the closer he grew to an evolutionary possibility,
the very possibility to which we, in this post-Christian age, are logical
heirs.
136. To my mind, the Big
Bang theory of the origins of the Universe is merely a secular extrapolation
from monotheism and, consequently, no nearer the truth as to how the Universe
began than monotheism. For as most
people will know, monotheism was not the original state of religious observance
but a Judaic creation established in defiance of pagan polytheism, as
sanctioned by virtually all of the ancient world, including the Greeks and
Romans. Thus polytheism is the original
mode of religious observance, monotheism a revolt against pagan precedent and
therefore a worldly, anthropomorphic development which sought to eclipse the
Many by the One, the Gods by God. But
polytheism is closer, by dint of its primal nature, to the truth of the origins
of the Universe than monotheism, if by 'truth' we mean that which accords with
a proton-constituted diabolic order or, rather, disorder of flaming stars
flying everywhichway.
Consequently ‘Big Bangs’ would likewise be closer to the truth of the
origins of the Universe than the monotheistic Big-Bang theory currently in
vogue in the Judeo-Christian West. For
what begins in proton-proton reactions does not begin in unity but, rather, in
disunity and, hence, friction, and such a beginning is less divine than
diabolic, even though it will be perceived as divine by pagan humanity, who are
polytheistic in consequence. Divinizing
the diabolic, or replacing polytheism by monotheism, comes later ... at a more
devolved juncture in time when, as with the ancient Hebrews, the desire for a
unitary explanation of creation took precedence over polytheistic diversity,
and the One God was accordingly proclaimed.
It could be said that at this monotheistic point in time, the universal
has been eclipsed by the galactic, that the Galaxy has, in effect, replaced the
Universe, and the divine reference-point accordingly become more centralized,
as though a macrocosmic centrifugal bias has been superseded by a microcosmic
centripetal one, which could only signify progress away from the Many towards
the One.
137. It has long been a contention of my philosophy
that the central star of the Galaxy, as of any galaxy, is the God-equivalent
star (the Almighty), and if we devolve from galaxies in general to this galaxy
in particular, then the inevitable religious concomitance of doing so is a
devolution from gods in general to the particular god which, as the central
star of the Galaxy, serves a monotheistic purpose. Furthermore, devolutionary progress is also
guaranteed by citing an unseen First Mover (the central star of this galaxy) at
the expense of stars in general, irrespective of their galactic positions, so
that, contrary to polytheistic precedent, only this First Mover, or
Creator-star, is accorded a divine status, not the small or peripheral stars
which, in reality, are diabolic by dint of their decentralized, revolving, and
(in relation to the central star) cruder proton formations. For the largest stars will be the purest as
well as the oldest, and therefore be wavicle
proton-proton reactions as opposed to particle proton-proton reactions, which
is nothing less than a distinction, on an alpha-cosmic basis, between the
Divine and the Diabolic, the large central star of any given galaxy and the
host of smaller peripheral stars which revolve around it. Thus not only is monotheism an improvement on
polytheism by dint of singling out one galaxy, namely the one in which we
happen to live, and effectively attributing divinity to its principal star; it
improves on polytheism by avoiding the error of attributing divinity to stars
in general, irrespective of their galactic positions, with a consequence that
only that which is relatively divine in relation to lesser stars (inherently
diabolic) is acknowledged as such, and no confusion of the Divine with the
Diabolic, or vice versa, can result.
138. If monotheism refers back, willy-nilly,
knowingly or unknowingly, to the central star of the Galaxy, then it seems to
me that atheism, or the refusal to acknowledge God's existence, whether monotheistically or polytheistically,
is inherently worldly and therefore a step down, as it were, from the head to
the body or, more literally, from the Cosmos to the planet, so that
earth-centrism comes to replace star-centrism, and man accordingly becomes the
measure of all things, including divinity, which no longer exists
transcendently but anthropomorphically and, consequently, in the guise of man,
in accordance with humanistic criteria.
Such a humanized God is hardly God in any true, or formless, sense, but
a worldly figure whose reign will only last while the world, and hence the
body, has its day. For He is relative to
the world and must end with it, once it is overcome by the superdiabolic
Antichrist. Of all churches, the
Protestant Church is the most purely Christic and
therefore worldly, since it is effectively atheistic with regard to the Father,
or Creator-God, having no allegiance whatsoever to the papacy, that symbol and
representative on earth of the Father.
Yet if bourgeois liberal humanism is centred in a false, or worldly,
God, then proletarian socialist humanism is centred in the Antichrist, which is
to say, the superdiabolic. It is not only atheist with regard to the
Father, but also with regard to the Son, whom it looks down upon from a head
(new-brain) standpoint. One might almost
say that it is polytheistic in respect of the People who, as proletariat, are
democratically sovereign, sovereign diabolically rather than divinely. For this latter sovereignty can only exist in
and through the Centre ... in which not the new brain but the superconscious prevails, making for a theocratic
sovereignty in the People which is monotheistic to the extent that it can be
associated with a collective spiritual aspiration towards divinity, conceived
as the omega goal and culmination of evolution.
139. Thus from atheistic worldly sovereignty to
monotheistic divine sovereignty via polytheistic diabolic sovereignty - three
stages and manifestations of popular sovereignty, two of which have already
come to pass, the third of which awaits its coming largely in and for the Third
World, that truly godly part of the globe.
For just as the so-called
140. Traditionally, man stands to woman as the sun
to the earth, which is to say as the Diabolic to the world. Woman is physical, whereas man is
wilful. Woman is mundane, whereas man is
transcendental. He is 'will' in the Schopenhaurian sense of the word, and it is the exercise of
this will which, in connection with woman, results in sexual conquest. For the bigger, more powerful body that is
man goes in search of the smaller, weaker body that is woman and strives to
bend it to its will. Sex is therefore
akin to a union of the sun with the earth, and the child that ultimately
results from this union is akin to the moon, is effectively a kind of human
satellite, dependent upon and hence revolving around its mother, who is akin to
the earth. It shines, like the moon,
with a borrowed or reflected light, the light of parental, though especially
maternal, authority. Now this light is
chaste and intellectual, not unchaste and sensual, like the sun and, by
implication, emotional love of the husband for his wife.
141. Thus the family is but a microcosmic reflection
of and extrapolation from the Solar System, is effectively a mini solar system
... with sun, earth, and moon(s), the father giving, like the sun, to his wife
and child, who revolve around him - the one directly (as planet) and the other
indirectly (as moon). Originally man had
many wives, the principle of polygamy more closely paralleling the Solar System
than monogamy, which is really an attenuation of it consequent upon solar
devolution. In other words, the more
primitive the age or society, the more likely it is to reflect the Solar System
in terms of one sun and several planets or, translated into human terms, one
husband and several wives, each of whom have children (satellites) of their own
who, naturally enough, revolve around them.
Thus the modern monogamous family is but the furthermost contraction of
a cosmic principle, the utmost point of galactic devolution. Father, mother, and child -
sun, earth, and moon. Add a
godfather, and one has the equivalent of the central star of the Galaxy, the
First Mover in the family cosmos, who remains somewhat aloof from the family
unit itself, as godfathers should, just as the central star remains at a
constant, almost aloof distance from the Solar System of which the sun is the
principal mover. For the father-proper,
corresponding to the sun, is effectively a devilfather in relation to the godfather and, hence,
someone who directly imposes, through masculine will, upon his wife, who, as
mother of her child, corresponds to the earth, with its moon in attendance.
142. Yet just as the sun is a larger and more
powerful body than the earth, and the earth in turn is a larger and more
powerful body than the moon, so the husband is a larger and more powerful body,
as a rule, than his wife, who, in turn, is a larger and more powerful body than
her child, be it son or daughter. In
relation to his wife, the husband, or devilfather,
stands, like the sun, in an immoral light, since he imposes upon her for
his own sexual self-gratification. On
the other hand, the wife, or earthmother, stands to
her husband in an amoral light, like the earth to the sun, prepared to
bow to his will when required to do so but not, in herself, sexually
self-assertive. Thus she stands in
between husband and child, since only on this amoral basis can the latter be
accredited a moral standing in relation to herself. For the child shines, it will be remembered,
with a borrowed light, like the moon, and is therefore anything but amoral itself,
still less immoral and, hence, self-assertive like its father. On the contrary, the child is innocent
and therefore sexually moral, shielded from the immorality of the father by the
amorality of the mother, who is the intermediary making the child's existence
possible, just as the earth makes the existence of the moon possible and, in a
sense, shields it from the sun. Thus
children were regarded by Christ as epitomizing, in their innocence and purity,
the 'Kingdom of Heaven', since they are not consumed, like husbands and
fathers, with sexual lust, but exist at a transcendent or, at any rate, moral
remove from any such possibility, shining with the light of intellectual
curiosity, which includes curiosity as to the nature of sexuality, particularly
as it bears upon parental distinctions.
143. Such curiosity, however, has nothing whatsoever
to do with lustful fantasies concerning sex itself. For these only emerge, as a rule, following
puberty, when the moral innocence of childhood is undermined and besieged by
creeping adulthood, and one of two things generally happens, depending on one's
sex: either, as a female, one becomes amoral, like the earth, and accepts the
possibility of being sexually imposed upon or, as a male, one become immoral,
like the sun, and actually proceeds to sexually impose oneself upon
others. There is, however, a third
possibility, which is considerably rarer and only found, as a rule, among
people - and in particular men - of genius, and that is a refusal to consider
oneself in either a sexually amoral or an immoral light but, on the contrary, a
determination to remain celibate and therefore moral. As I say, it is usually only men of genius or
religious vocation who are like this, and they may be regarded as very much an
exception to the rule, a kind of adult children who, willy-nilly, aspire to
following in Christ's footsteps and becoming as little children in their own
creative or contemplative 'Kingdoms of Heaven', wherein the pursuit of truth is
the principal aim, the raison d'être of their moral existence. On the other hand, the great majority of men
are drawn towards the sun, as it were, and effectively function towards women
in a diabolic and, hence, immoral fashion, albeit one regulated by social
conditioning. Where marriage does not
take place, it can be assumed, I think, that the couple concerned are more
evolved than to fall for a social pattern which derives, in all its essentials,
from cosmic precedent and is therefore inherently alpha-stemming and atomic. Yet cohabitation is still hardly a transvaluation along the lines of a social rebirth, but
more a symptom of the breakdown or decay of traditional values. For as often as not the male partner in such
a relationship has imposed himself upon the female and
thereby functions, in effect, as a sun vis-à-vis a planet, or as the
sun to the earth. Now if a child results
from their relationship, it is no less a kind of moon equivalent than if they
had been married. The only real
difference is that it is then more of an unofficial moon equivalent than an
official one, just as its progenitors may be described as unofficially
paralleling the sun and the earth respectively.
144. No, while the degeneration of an age-old system
of familial relationships is one thing, a true transvaluation
is quite another! For whereas the former
is the utmost point of devolution, a truly evolutionary stance can only be
maintained outside of and beyond all heterosexual cohabitations, whether
official or unofficial, bound or free.
Yet by this I do not mean through homosexual cohabitation, which is less
omega-orientated than worldly or, rather, antiworldly,
but through the establishment, under Social Transcendentalism, of a
transcendent process of propagation which is designed to free both men and
women alike from atomic interdependence and thereby allow for a free-electron
society commensurate with divine criteria.
For men and women cannot live together and be saved. Even Christ taught that to follow Him and
set-up the 'Kingdom of Heaven' one would have to abandon family, wife,
girlfriends, etc., since such a 'Kingdom' can only be established on a supermasculine basis, and so long as atomic compromises
between males and females continue to exist, it is not Heaven but the world
that prevails, as at present, for the great majority of people, who maintain
familial relationships.
145. Consequently the 'Kingdom of Heaven', which I
interpret in Social Transcendentalist and hence Centrist terms, cannot be
established while families, patterned on the Solar System, continue to exist,
and therefore the family, which is already under threat from the winds of
change, will have to be consigned to the rubbish heap of social history ... if
the free-electron Heaven is ever to be born.
For Heaven and the world are incommensurate, cannot co-exist, and if
Heaven is to become more than a wishful dream but a sort of concrete reality,
then the world, in all its permutations, must die - whether naturally or
violently. Those of us who wish to
further Heaven have no option but to oppose the world. For unless we do so, the
world, and hence the family, will continue to exist indefinitely, to the
detriment of Heaven.
146. Thus Social Transcendentalism will be pledged,
in the future, to rejection of the family and to the furtherance of artificial
methods of propagation, including sperm banks, artificial insemination,
test-tube reproduction, incubators, State- or, rather, Centre-sponsored
collective nurturing and upbringing of children, and so on ... in order that
the need for family relations, and thus by implication the cohabitation of men
and women, can become a thing of the past, as relative to an alpha-stemming or
atomic phase of social experience. For
where the People are concerned, we are dealing less with atomic man and woman
than - potentially if not literally at this juncture in time - with electron
Superman and quasi-Superman respectively, at any rate within the republican
context, and it would be both morally and socially wrong to regard them in a
strongly atomic and, hence, familial light.
Everything should be geared to the absolute, to absolutist criteria, and
this includes sexual behaviour no less than any other pattern of social
behaviour. Where a more sublimated,
pornographic sexuality is neither possible nor desirable ... by dint of an
individual's comparative spiritual or psychological limitations, then
plastic-inflatable ('sex doll') or vibrator sexuality should obtain, thereby
lifting sex from the natural to the artificial plane and providing a release from
sexual tensions which might otherwise seek traditional and therefore worldly
outlets, to the detriment of spiritual progress. For, in the future, people will not behave
like animals but like gods - indeed, the People will be God ... the Holy
Ghost and consequently be above natural patterns of sexual behaviour, even if
only as far above, initially, as is compatible with the use of either plastic inflatables or vibrators, depending on one's gender. Life will not be relative and dualistic, as
at present, but absolute and transcendental, with a much more radical swing
between solitude and multitude, which is to say, between sensual obligations
conducted in private and spiritual aspirations carried out in public. Thus while people will live alone in single rooms
or cubicles, and so sleep, eat, drink alone (non-alcoholically), and have
solitary sex, they will be far more public and collective as regards the
spiritual, cultural, and educational aspects of life. For the public face will be entirely
religious in character, and such a face can only achieve a blissful smile when
it no longer has to compete with public sensuality, of whatever
description. To all appearances, it will
be as though the sensual side of life didn't exist, since only the spiritual
side would obtain a public airing.
Truly, the Social Transcendentalist '
147. Masculinity and femininity are of the world
rather than of that which precedes or succeeds it. Strictly speaking, it cannot be said that the
stars are either masculine or feminine, since they are less masculine or feminine
than pre- or sub-masculine/feminine ... in that their existence is on the plane
of a subatomic absolute, i.e. proton-proton reactions, and therefore it cannot
be accorded gender. Yet just as the
stars are beneath gender, so pure spirit of a transcendent order, i.e. electron-electron
attractions, would be above gender and therefore supra-atomic in constitution,
no less absolute in its own fashion than the stars or, at any rate, the biggest
and purest of them are in theirs. For
the smaller stars may be regarded as having devolved from proton purity to a
crude atomicity which, in the case of planets like the earth, assumes an
inorganic materialistic status commensurate with the atom as such and, hence,
with a combination of protons and electrons.
Doubtless there are degrees of devolution from the utmost, or wavicle, proton purity to a very crude, or particle, proton
purity, which is nothing less than a distinction between the Divine and the
Diabolic, or the central star of the Galaxy and peripheral stars like the sun,
while further devolution will entail the formation of inorganic materialism on
the basis of planetary atomicity.
148. However that may be, we would have no more
right to consider a proton star masculine than an electron globe of pure spirit
feminine. Gender only obtains in the
world, and it does so both simultaneously and successively, the former
literally and the latter effectively, since the world passes from a
predominantly centrifugal phase to a predominantly centripetal one in the
course of its historical unfolding, and this is approximately commensurate with
the distinction between autocracy and democracy - the one preceding the other,
just as dresses precede trousers and bottles precede cans. Thus whilst it obviously goes without saying
that men exist in an autocratic age no less than women in a democratic one, it
nevertheless has to be said that in the former context the female element
predominates, whereas in the latter context it is the male element which is
ascendant, and to such an extent that the female element becomes threatened
with total eclipse, a fact which in large measure explains the paradoxical
phenomenon of feminism - really quite the opposite of what it at first appears
to be, since less a defence of woman as woman than a manifestation of
masculine criteria or, more correctly, a symptom of the ongoing 'masculinization' of the female to a point where she no
longer regards herself in traditional feminine terms but, rather, in relation
to a liberation from them. Through
Feminism woman is effectively pursuing her right, in this incipiently
post-atomic age, to be treated like a man and granted equal opportunity with
men. For, as I have often maintained in
the past, women who effectively function like men deserve to be treated like
men, and this is the only workable basis for equality between the sexes, an
equality founded upon the post-dualistic nature of an advanced democratic
society, wherein distinctions between male and female gradually cease to apply,
as ongoing masculine progress eclipses the feminine element in life.
149. Of course, there are women and women, just as
there are men and men ... on each side, one might say, of the political divide,
and while some women are determined to socially progress and to see that
justice, on the basis of sexual equality, is done, there are others who,
inherently more conservative or intellectually less-evolved, seek to impede
post-sexist progress as much as possible and thereby stand-up for traditional
female norms, whether in terms of sex or motherhood or domestic responsibility
or whatever ... to the detriment of women's liberation. Whether or not they realize it, such women
are fighting a losing battle - like their male counterparts. For the pressure of evolution is decidedly
away from female/male distinctions, which are merely bourgeois, towards a
unisexual uniformity in which, instead of a skirt/trousers dichotomy, one finds
a jeans and, eventually, one-piece zipper suit absolutism indicative of a
free-electron homogeneity. The world may
be balanced between female and male elements, not to mention autocratic and
democratic political norms, but that which supersedes it, whether as Devil or
God, Transcendental Socialism or Social Transcendentalism, is less concerned
with such a balance than with establishing, on a unisexual basis, free
societies in which everything sexist has been consigned to the rubbish heap of
world history, including the traditional maternal and sexual status of women.
150. Yet while such societies - and in particular
that which pertains to the Superdivine rather than to
its superdiabolic counterpart - would maintain a
unisexual bias, the eventual outcome of evolution should be no less
post-feminine than the inception of devolution was pre-masculine, and
accordingly aspirations towards the culmination-point in Eternity would be
beyond gender and therefore manifestations of a free-electron absolutism which,
being neither male nor female, could only be defined in terms of a blissful
'it'. This would be especially true of
those aspirations which were conducted on a post-human basis within the
millennial context of the Supra-beings, or new-brain collectivizations,
which I have hitherto characterized as the second (after the Superbeings) and final post-human life form beyond
man. For a Supra-being would be as much
above man, and hence gender, as a tree is beneath him, and in this totally
classless, genderless society of hypermeditating
new-brain collectivizations, the development of pure
spirit would be taken to such a point that transcendence, or the achievement of
pure electron-electron attractions, would automatically ensue ... to signal the
beginnings of a truly heavenly phase of evolution. Such electron-electron attractions,
antithetical to the proton-proton reactions which characterize the alpha noumenal, would bring evolution to a supernoumenal
culmination, which would be as far above masculine superphenomenalism
as the inception of devolution was beneath feminine subphenomenalism. Verily, at whichever extreme of the Universe
one cares to dwell, there is neither 'she' nor 'he', but only 'it'.
