151. Although the death penalty is fundamentally an
autocratic procedure deriving its justification from the tit-for-tat mentality
of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', we can, I think, distinguish
between applications of the death penalty which are bodily and applications
which pertain, by contrast, to the head, thereby effectively distinguishing the
world from the Diabolic and/or Divine - a distinction more often taking effect
between one type of country or society and another ... than within the confines
of any given country or society. Thus
whilst it can be argued that some countries will favour executions which make a
target of the head, other countries will favour executions which take immediate
effect against the body, and this, I argue, is because such countries are
inherently bodily rather than of the head, i.e. worldly as opposed to diabolic
or divine. Consequently in the first
category of executions we can place beheading (whether by sword or axe),
hanging, and guillotining, the latter a kind of antithetical equivalent of the
axe option, insofar as the head is actually removed, albeit by mechanical
rather than manual means. In the second
category, however, we shall find crucifying, shooting, and electrifying, as
with the electric chair. Broadly, the
first modes of execution in each category are parallel both in an historical
and an evolutionary sense, as are the second and third respectively. Therefore we can posit a parallel progression
from beheading/crucifying to guillotining/electrifying via hanging/shooting -
at least in an approximate way, since overlappings between one mode of
execution and another do of course occur, and some countries have shown a
susceptibility towards more than one mode both in terms of horizontal and
vertical distinctions - in other words, with regard to both the head and the
body (Britain being a case in point, as between hanging and shooting, for which
its inveterate dualistic integrity may be cited as a probable explanation).
152. However that may be, such options are usually
with regard to adjacent modes of execution like beheading and hanging or
shooting and electrifying, rather than with regard to what might be described
as the historical extremes, like beheading and guillotining on the one hand, or
crucifying and electrifying on the other hand.
The Republican French may have guillotined people, but they didn't
literally behead them with an axe.
Similarly, while Americans may sentence people to death through
electrocution, they are unlikely to crucify anyone. Such extremes are mutually exclusive and,
hence, reserved for antithetical periods in historical time - as between
autocratic antiquity and democratic modernity.
Yet no matter how antithetical these methods of execution may happen to
be, they have reference either vis-à-vis the head, as in the French case, or
vis-à-vis the body, as in the American case, and this factor is symptomatic, it
seems to me, of the peoples concerned and the type of society in which they
happen to live. Just as the guillotine
affects the head via the neck, so the electric chair affects the body via the
limbs.
153. Now what applies to these latter-day modes of
execution applies no less to the primitive modes such as beheading on the one
hand and crucifying on the other hand.
It even applies, in some degree, to the relatively bourgeois, or
realistic, modes of execution coming in-between. For hanging predominantly has effect with
regard to the head and shooting with regard to the body, the former a more
idealistic method of execution than the latter ... to the extent that it
focuses on the head or, more specifically, the neck as opposed to the body,
while yet leaving the head intact. In
effect, hanging is more moderate than either beheading or guillotining, just as
shooting (in the chest) is more moderate than either crucifying or
electrifying. Each of these pertains to
a less extreme type of civilization, and one could argue that the replacement
of hanging by shooting is indicative of a degenerate progression from idealism
to materialism and is therefore symptomatic of a liberal rather than a
Christian epoch in time - the head having been eclipsed, as it were, by the
body.... As to the distinction I suggested earlier between the Diabolic and the
Divine, both of which pertain rather more to the head than to the body, I think
we should regard beheading by axe as a diabolic mode of execution and beheading
by sword as a divine one, insofar as the axe suggests, in its truncated
materialism, a particle equivalence, whereas the sword suggests, in its
elongated idealism, a wavicle equivalence, and this is nothing less than the
fundamental distinction between the Diabolic and the Divine. Accordingly, one could argue that the use of
a small or short guillotine would signify a diabolic mode of execution, while
the use of a large or tall one would amount to a comparatively divine mode of
execution - the length of the blade also a determining factor, on the basis of
the particle/wavicle distinction already drawn in relation to axes and
swords. Since, in principle, I am
against the death penalty, I am not here advocating its reinstatement in terms
of either the guillotine or the electric chair, still less in terms of older
and cruder methods of execution, but am simply endeavouring to provide a brief
outline, necessarily partial, of the principal historical modes of execution as
they bear upon God/Devil and world distinctions between the head and the body,
and therefore in relation to the tripartite essence of my teachings.
154. The opposite of a gentleman is not a man but a
rough man - in short, a lout. For the
world isn't simply dualistic or antithetical, but is divisible between divine,
diabolic, and worldly options, with the latter somewhat preponderant these
days. Thus while the majority of men may
be described as neither particularly gentle nor rough but as existing somewhere
in between the two extremes, it can be inferred that they correspond to the
mean and consequently are men in relation to the less populous categories of
divinely-biased gentlemen on the one hand and diabolically-biased rough men on
the other, both of which stand to the former as the head to the body and,
hence, as God and Devil to the world.
For a tripartite division on this basis is of the essence of life, and
explains why it is so often riven with frictions not only between the Diabolic
and the Divine, but between each of these and the worldly, the latter of which
will often be divided against themselves (as in parliament). To establish approximate sartorial
distinctions between each of our three principal categories of males (each of
which has its female counterpart), we may posit a PVC zipper-jacket mean for
those in the first, or divine, category; a leather-jacket mean for those in the
second, or diabolic, category; and a cotton denim/cord-jacket mean for those in
the third, or worldly, category.
155. However, as I have specifically selected
superphenomenal modes of jacket attire, I must qualify my selection in relation
to supermen rather than men, since we have to distinguish between contemporary
proletarian norms and the more conventional bourgeois norms ... if we are to do
proper justice to the present. Thus
males who regularly dress in such fashion will be less gentlemen, rough men,
and men than effectively supergents, super-roughs, and supermen - as
appertaining to an alternative society.
Obviously, in traditional terms, gentlemen have dressed in silk or some
other finer material than either rough men or men in general, and where
bourgeois gentlemen continue to exist, as in
156. Further to my earlier supernotational entry
concerning the division of theism into monotheistic, polytheistic, and
atheistic categories, I should now like to add a fourth category - namely that
of pantheism, and to place this mode of theism, which identifies God with
nature, in between polytheism and atheism in a chronological sequence reading
as follows: monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, which I would like to
equate with specific historical/ideological periods of time and/or civilization
... beginning with (idealistic) autocratic theocracy and ending, as before,
with (superidealistic) democratic theocracy, all due gradations of devolution
and evolution coming in-between. Thus to
take the devolutionary series from autocratic theocracy to democratic autocracy
first, we shall have a regression, so to speak, from autocratic theocracy to
democratic autocracy via theocratic autocracy and autocratic autocracy, which
can be illustrated, as before, in the following manner:-
1. autocratic theocracy
(idealistic monotheism)
2. theocratic autocracy
(naturalistic polytheism)
3. autocratic autocracy
(materialistic pantheism)
4. democratic autocracy
(realistic atheism)
with autocratic
theocracy corresponding to idealistic monotheism, theocratic autocracy
corresponding to naturalistic polytheism, autocratic autocracy corresponding to
materialistic pantheism, and democratic autocracy corresponding to realistic
atheism, the latter of which brings us to the possibility and, indeed, reality
of a democratic transvaluation, as it were, and therefore of an evolutionary
progression from autocratic democracy to democratic theocracy via democratic
democracy and theocratic democracy, as follows:-
8. democratic theocracy
(superidealistic monotheism)
7. theocratic democracy
(supernaturalistic polytheism)
6. democratic democracy
(supermaterialistic pantheism)
5. autocratic democracy
(superrealistic atheism)
with autocratic
democracy corresponding to superrealistic atheism, democratic democracy
corresponding to supermaterialistic pantheism, theocratic democracy
corresponding to supernaturalistic polytheism, and democratic theocracy
corresponding to superidealistic monotheism - the ultimate divinity.
157. Thus if we once more bring the two series
together into one devolutionary/evolutionary diagram, we shall find:-
ALPHA DEVOLUTION OMEGA EVOLUTION
1. monotheistic autocratic theocracy 8.
monotheistic democratic theocracy
2. polytheistic theocratic autocracy 7.
polytheistic theocratic democracy
3.
pantheistic autocratic autocracy 6. pantheistic democratic democracy
4. atheistic democratic autocracy 5.
atheistic autocratic democracy
which gives us a
comprehensive outline of religious regression ... from the Creator to Catholic
atheism via Satan and the Virgin Mary on the one hand, and of religious
progression ... from Protestant atheism to the Holy Ghost via the Second Coming
and the Antichrist on the other hand.
For in relation to the monotheistic extremes of the Father and the Holy
Ghost, the anthropomorphic middle-ground of Catholicism and Protestantism is
distinctly atheistic, as befitting worldly humanism. In other words, the divine focus of
Christianity is not the Creator, still less the Holy Spirit, but Christ ...
regarded as the Son of God and therefore in effect as man. The only real difference between the Catholic
Christ and the Protestant one is that whereas the former is autocratic, the
latter is democratic ... as relative to the distinction between democratic
autocracy and autocratic democracy, each of which corresponds to realistic
periods of worldly time. Thus whereas
the Catholic Christ is closer to the Father, both theologically and paternally,
the Protestant Christ is relatively independent of the Father and consequently
more democratically humanistic and religiously accessible. In the one case pessimistic atheism; in the
other case optimistic atheism. But
atheist they both remain, if for no other reason than that the religious focus
is on man rather than on some theistic Creator of the Universe.
158 Hence Christianity is essentially idolatrous
from a truly divine standpoint, and may be described as the religion of the world,
as opposed to either God (monotheism) or the Devil (polytheism). Similarly, pantheism is also a worldly
religion, if in the somewhat broader sense of identifying God with nature
rather than with either the Cosmos, in one or more of its components, or
man. Certainly polytheism and pantheism
can and do overlap, as when the stars are regarded as being part of
nature. But, strictly speaking, worldly
pantheism will be confined to the earth.
I have subsumed this under the Virgin Mary only because, like Venus
before her, she can be equated with 'Mother Earth' and, hence, with nature as
opposed to the Cosmos on the one hand and man on the other, coming in-between
polytheistic and atheistic alternatives.
Similarly, I have subsumed superpantheism, or the artificial pantheism
of a democratic democracy, under the Second Coming ... not because I wish to
identify it with Christ, but to point up a kind of sexual antithetical
equivalent to the Virgin Mary which, taking America as our model, can be
regarded as a symbol for worship of the machine - the form superpantheism more
usually takes. Thus God as machine
rather than God as nature, and, in a certain mythical sense, Superman, who may
well approximate to the American equivalent of the Second Coming - an all-powerful
doer of good.
159. However that may be, superpantheism accords
with a supermaterialistic age and society, the exact antithesis to autocratic
materialism, and whilst it, too, is of the world, it borders on superdiabolic
polytheism which, in the guise of Transcendental Socialism, threatens it from
an Antichristic and proletarian point-of-view, as pertaining to a
supernaturalistic age and society. For
the world doesn't have eternal validity, even on its most evolved level, and
beyond the machine are the People, polytheistically sovereign in a
160. Thus far religious evolution may be said to
have progressed from worship of Christ to worship of the People via worship of
the machine. Hence from superrealistic
individualism to supernaturalistic collectivism via supermaterialistic
collectivism. In the future, the new
factor of an aspiration by the People towards a definitive transcendent unity
will take its rightful place and, ultimately, eclipse everything else. For this is no mere worship of anything, but
a transvaluated spiritual aspiration towards the ultimate individualism of the
Holy Ghost, and may accordingly be described as superidealistic individualism
... insofar as the People will be collectively aspiring, whether indirectly
(through contemplation) or directly (through meditation), towards that
indivisible absolute which, as electron-electron attractions, is the ultimate
indivisibility - the transcendent unity of the Omega Beyond. Therefore better than the Antichristic
worship of the collective is the Superchristic aspiration by the collective
towards a definitive unity. For that
which is ultimately one is beyond collectivism, beyond polytheistic Communism
in monotheistic Centrism. The collective
is simply a means to that higher end.
And in superidealistic Centrism the People will effectively be One, not
a 'collection' of democratic individuals but an 'individual' of theocratic
collectivism - in a word, God.
161. Should anyone mindful of Schopenhauer's
criticisms of the atomic theories of the noumenon, propounded in his day by
Cartesian materialists, regard my own theories as atomic, and therefore equally
deserving of criticism from an idealistic standpoint, I should like to say this
in their defence: that they are not atomic but subatomic as regards the alpha
noumenon and supra-atomic as regards the omega noumenon, which I have also
termed the supernoumenon. Thus my
concept of the alpha noumenon as proton-proton reactions is no more atomic than
the antithetical concept of the omega noumenon as electron-electron
attractions, since in both cases we are dealing with elemental absolutes,
necessarily formless, and not with formal atomic relativities, of which the world,
in both its organic and inorganic manifestations, affords us a permanent
example. To extrapolate the noumenon
from the atom, on the other hand, would be to take a worldly, materialistic
view of it commensurate with anthropomorphic predilections, of which ghosts, or
the concept of bodily spirits, are among the best known. For electrons and protons joined together
form atoms, and atoms are the building blocks of the material world. Thus an atomic view of the noumenon will be
worldly, as Schopenhauer well-knew, and consequently far from being the primal
view of the noumenon as something that lies at the back of the world ... as its
subatomic precondition. It will also be
far from the omega view of the noumenon which, according to my teachings, is
diametrically antithetical to the alpha noumenon and therefore one dependent on
the world as its precondition. In short,
it will be a bourgeois view of the noumenon, and accordingly be neither
subatomic nor supra-atomic but, rather, an atomic compromise between the two -
a noumenon which is neither alpha nor omega but strictly of the world. Unfortunately, Schopenhauer was not prepared
to admit to the validity of such a noumenon, or view thereof, since he was
somewhat more aristocratic and monarchic than bourgeois and democratic, in
consequence of which he spoke from an alpha-noumenal point of view. Yet much as I despise the atomic conception
of the noumenon, I have to accept it as a precondition of a free-electron
conception, since the subatomic conception, to which Schopenhauer related,
leads nowhere because it is an end-in-itself.
Without bourgeois materialism or, more correctly, realism ... there
could be no proletarian idealism, but only the aristocratic idealism of a proton
noumenon which defies change. And yet
salvation is more than just a denial of the alpha noumenon; it is evolution
towards the omega noumenon, conceived on a post-atomic basis. Schopenhauer may have been correct as regards
the alpha noumenon, but the bourgeois philosophers were not incorrect to
conceive of a worldly noumenon. They
were simply more evolved.
162. Since a constitutional monarchy is
democratically accountable, it cannot be a thing of the head (old brain) but,
rather, a thing of the body (blood) and hence contiguous with democratic
constraint, which is also bodily, if in a relatively more evolved way. Thus a constitutional monarchy is less solar
than planetary, less diabolic than worldly, and may be regarded as an
extrapolation from the earth's molten core, in contrast to monarchies which
derive their authority from the sun and are accordingly diabolic. Traditionally it will be found that head
peoples, including Slavs and Latins, have been more given to autocratic, or
absolute, monarchies than bodily peoples, who, like the British, prefer a
constitutional monarchy, since that alone accords with the body and, hence, a
democratic compromise. It is a secular
monarchy, more devolved than the diabolic monarchies that preceded it in the
overall devolution of autocratic traditions.
163. Further to my entry on drugs, especially
cannabis and hashish, I would like to add a new theory which, on balance,
probably does more justice to truth than the old one. For I was wont to regard 'dope' as a
continuation of smoking beyond tobacco and therefore as a kind of complement to
LSD. Now, on further reflection, it
seems to me that cannabis and hashish are not so much transcendental drugs
beyond tobacco as transcendental, or head, drugs before it, and consequently
symptomatic of pre-worldly theocratic societies, including the Islamic. For is it not the case that such drugs are
natural, i.e. grown in plant form from the soil, rather than synthetic, and
that they are accordingly more symptomatic of an alpha-stemming naturalistic
age or society than of an omega-aspiring artificial age or society - in short,
a traditional theocratic equivalent of tobacco.
Hence their use would signify a sort of neo-pagan or theocratic
alternative to democratic smoking norms, which are called into question in and
by the decadence of worldly, or Western, society. Thus the democratic body could be regarded as
being under threat, in its civilized decrepitude, from the theocratic head,
albeit in old-brain/subconscious and, hence, traditional terms. Consequently, instead of signifying a
progression beyond worldly norms, the use of hashish and cannabis may be
regarded as constituting an assault upon those norms and, by implication,
Western civilization ... from a traditionally theocratic angle, as though Islam
were seeking to subvert and replace Christianity, now that Western civilization
appears to be in rapid decline. One
might say that smoking 'dope' instead of or in addition to tobacco is akin to
embracing Islam or Buddhism or some other oriental religion at the expense of
Christianity, and is therefore less a progression towards some new, higher
religion than a regression towards some older, more sensual religion.
164. Now what applies to 'dope', or natural drugs
that are smoked, could and probably does apply just as much to drugs that, like
heroin and morphine, are injected, which, on account of their liquidity,
suggest an alternative, albeit more lethal one, to alcohol, including
spirits. For it does seem that just as a
parallel exists between, say, hashish and tobacco, so a parallel likewise
exists between heroin and alcohol, and that just as people are divisible into
drinkers and smokers, so a like-division can be discerned between those who
smoke 'dope' and those who inject 'smack'.
It may even be that people who smoke are more susceptible to 'dope' or vice versa, whereas
those who drink are more susceptible to 'smack' or vice versa - assuming
the one habit doesn't automatically exclude the other. Whatever the case, it would seem that, like
'dope', injected drugs are more usually a resurrection of the past, or
infiltration of traditional theocratic norms into Western civilization, than an
indication of the future, contrary to synthetic drugs like LSD. It could be that such a phenomenon is
inevitable in a civilization which has absorbed, through mass immigration,
peoples from older, more theocracy-biased civilizations who may well, in some
cases, have need for drugs of this order.
For while tobacco and alcohol are endemic to the West, 'dope' and
'smack' stem from the East, both Middle (dope) and Far (smack), and should be
regarded in a traditional light by dint of their naturalistic constitution and
narcotic properties. Substituting the
old-brain/subconscious head for the autocratic/democratic body does not indicate
either evolutionary or moral progress.
On the contrary, it creates a problem which the West has to solve, if
civilized progress isn't to be set back hundreds if not thousands of years!
165. Regarding drugs from the standpoint of a
divine/diabolic dichotomy, it seems feasible to contend that drugs which expand
consciousness are entitled to a divine connotation, in contrast to those which,
like heroin and morphine, reduce or contract it, and may therefore be presumed
to connote with the Diabolic. Thus we
can distinguish between 'divine' and 'diabolic' drugs on this fundamental
basis, and it would seem that, as a rule, mind-expanding drugs are smoked
whereas mind-contracting ones are injected.
For hashish and cannabis are both mind-expanding in relation to, say,
heroin and morphine. Furthermore, such a
distinction to some extent also exists between tobacco and alcohol, since
tobacco is a stimulant which slightly increases consciousness, whereas alcohol
almost invariably results in a diminution of consciousness proportionate to the
volume drunk and the alcoholic strength of the type of alcohol - be it wine,
spirits, or beer. Consequently what
'dope' and 'smack' are to a pre-worldly context, namely mind-expanding and
mind-contracting drugs respectively, tobacco and alcohol are to the worldly
context itself, and thus, it could be argued, divine and diabolic alternatives within the world rather
than outside of or before it.
166. Yet if we are to distinguish between
pre-worldly divine and diabolic drugs and worldly drugs which assume a
relatively divine or diabolic status, then we should also distinguish between
divine and diabolic drugs on a post-worldly basis, the basis of the Holy Ghost
and its diabolic counterpart, rather than of either the Father or Christ and
their diabolic counterparts. Thus we
should distinguish between mind-expanding drugs like LSD and mind-contracting
ones like cocaine, regarding both in a post-worldly transcendental light by
dint of their synthetic properties. For
it does indeed seem that a kind of divine/diabolic dichotomy exists here which
in the one case transcends smoking and in the other case transcends drinking,
since LSD and cocaine are truly contemporary drugs, not merely age-old drugs
which have acquired a pseudo-modern currency in the decadence of Western
civilization, but contemporary in a way that suggests a Centrist and a
Communist polarity - the one comparatively divine because mind-expanding and
the other comparatively diabolic because mind-contracting or, more specifically,
mind-numbing. If God desires the
expansion of consciousness, would it not be logical for the Devil to reduce it
or, at the very least, maintain it at a level of heat (emotion) as opposed to
light (awareness)? Such a rhetorical
question requires no answer, and if cocaine was not the diabolic drug of the
late-twentieth century, then I would be at a loss to discover an
alternative. After all, is there not a
correspondence of sorts between LSD ('acid') and soda on the one hand, and
cocaine ('coke') and cola on the other - a correspondence of names which, as I
am sure many people would agree, is more than merely coincidental but, rather,
indicative of an underlying Centrist/Communistic dichotomy?
167. However that may be, I should like to expand
this basic dichotomy in terms of a Fascist/Social Transcendentalist distinction
on the one hand, and of a Communist/Transcendental Socialist distinction on the
other, reserving for the first category a distinction between capsule LSD and
tablet LSD, and for the second category a distinction between injected cocaine
and snorted cocaine. Thus Fascist
capsule LSD and Social Transcendentalist tablet LSD in the one case, but
Communist injected cocaine and Transcendental Socialist snorted cocaine in the
other - a double distinction paralleling that between streamlined scooters and
plain scooters on the one hand, but plain motorbikes and streamlined motorbikes
on the other hand, which reflects a regression from idealism towards
materialism in the Fascist/Social Transcendentalist case, but a progression
from materialism towards idealism in the Communist/Transcendental Socialist
case, both cases still essentially remaining apart and therefore indicative of
a divine/diabolic dichotomy.
Consequently while tablet LSD is less idealistic than capsule LSD,
snorted cocaine (free basing) is more idealistic than injected cocaine. This is because in the one case we have a
regression from a wavicle-suggesting (capsule) entity to a particle-suggesting
(tablet) entity, whereas in the other case we have a progression from fluid
cocaine intravenously injected to powdered cocaine nasally inhaled, the latter
symptomatic of a higher approach to the use of this narcotic. Of course, I do not, as a self-pronounced
Social Transcendentalist, recommend cocaine, since my ideological bias is
towards LSD-type hallucinogens which, in the event of a Social
Transcendentalist revolution, I would favour legalizing, though only within
certain restricted terms and, hence, germane to the context of the Centre -
both ideologically and spiritually. Not
for me to expect LSD to be legalized in an open-society democratic context,
since it would be irrelevant to the type of society in question! If LSD, or some such hallucinogen, was to be
legalized in the future, it could only be under Social Transcendentalism for
purposes of religious aspiration.
Cocaine, however, would remain illegal - what it is in all democratic
societies at present. (As an afterthought, I would like to contend that
mescaline is an Ecological equivalence in between Fascist LSD and Communist
cocaine. This is because it usually has
the appearance of the latter but the essence of the former, comes in a powdered
form but tends to expand consciousness ... making for artificially-induced
visionary experience of an upward self-transcending order. In that respect, it can be regarded as a
cross between cocaine and LSD, since having the appearance of a narcotic but
the effect of an hallucinogen.)
168. Hegel teaches us that societies evolve from a
state where a few are free to a state where all are free via a state where some
are free. Thus from approximately
autocratic to theocratic via democratic levels.
Likewise, we can infer from this fact that in the first type of society
'the Few' make history, in the second type of society 'some' make history,
while in the third type of society 'all' make history. Therefore the question: is history made by
the Few or by the Many, by individuals or by the People in general, can be
answered by reference to the type of society prevailing at any given historical
time. If, formerly, the Few (the
nobility) and, subsequently, some (bourgeois parliamentarians) made history,
then these days it is increasingly the Many (the People) who are responsible
for its making.
169. But what exactly do we mean by 'free'? Certainly freedom, or the concept thereof,
changes from society to society, from age to age, and what is free to one age
or society may appear unfree, or bound, to another. Yet, as a rule, men are neither free nor
bound but, in greater or lesser degrees, both free and bound ... depending on
the individual and the society or age to which he belongs. If we are to speak of a few being free at one
point in history, with 'free' taken to mean independent or in a position of
freedom from want or simply not enslaved, then we should qualify that freedom
in terms of their independence, and without reference to moral or spiritual
values, which can be assumed to have less applicability or to be relatively
undeveloped. Thus in this basic respect
'being free' is simply the antithesis to 'being enslaved', or physically bound,
and therefore merely relative, not absolute (or with regard, in other words, to
spiritual values). One can be free and
yet be a tyrant or a slave-driver at the same time. But this is hardly compatible with freedom in
a moral or spiritual sense! For that is
the ultimate freedom, far superior to physical freedom, and it tends to be less
the concern of the State than of the Church, which interprets freedom
spiritually - as freedom from sin or, in Schopenhauer's sense, the will and its
sensual desires.
170. Thus one could argue that contraction of
physical enslavement to a point of freedom, or seeming physical freedom, is the
prerogative of political progress, whereas expansion of spiritual freedom to a
point of binding ... is the prerogative of religious, or moral, progress. We cannot speak of freedom simply in physical
terms; it must also be considered from the standpoint of the spirit. Now in terms of spirituality it is, above
all, the idea of a new and higher binding which has to be borne in mind, since
it is not enough to be free from physical enslavement, one must also be free for the new spiritual
binding. For freedom is not an
end-in-itself but simply a means to a higher end, which I conceive as the
ultimate spiritual binding of and to the Centre. It is only in the struggle against physical
binding that man is free, since freedom is not absolute but relative, as
between protons and electrons in the atom.
Indeed, it is atomic. For, being
relative, there are options, and one must choose between them if one is to be
free - in other words, if one is free to make such a choice. Only with pre-atomic societies is man truly
bound, since in such autocratic societies there is no (democratic) relativity,
but an approximation, derived from cosmic precedent, to proton-proton
reactions. Such a society is absolutist,
and therefore bound to alpha-stemming criteria.
The bound man is not free and neither, in a moral sense, is the
so-called freeman, whose physical freedom depends upon the enslavement of
others. All men are, in effect, bound to
the physical, whether as master or slave.
171. Now while some men are bound to the physical, whether
as employer or employee, within a democratic society, others are free from the
physical and bound to the spirit. There
exists a balance between the bound and the free, and the struggle against the
bound is waged by the free, whether in the name of freedom, as with Socialists
and Communists, or in the name of a new binding, as with Fascists and
Centrists. In the one case, freedom from
physical enslavement to the bourgeoisie is regarded as an end-in-itself. In the other case, freedom from enslavement
must lead to a new binding, since the bound is what is truly absolutist and, in
post-atomic societies, it will amount to electron-electron attractions as an
approximation - at any rate within a Social Transcendentalist context - to the
Holy Spirit. For that is the ultimate
spiritual binding, which makes for the Centre, and such a theocratic binding is
no less absolute than the autocratic binding of pre-worldly societies. Beyond the atom there is no more a relativity
(between protons and electrons) ... than there was before it. Both the Father and the Holy Ghost are bound
- as, for that matter, are Satan and the Antichrist, though they or, rather,
their devotees may proclaim themselves free.
Only the world, however, is truly free because indeterminate, and
therefore torn between antithetical options.
Yet freedom is a passing phase of historical time. Even Communist freedom is, in effect, bound
to a new centre - namely that of the totalitarian State. But because Communist society is more
economic and political than religious and spiritual, it will proclaim itself
free from autocratic bindings rather than bound to theocratic aspirations. And in this respect it is totally free, not
partially free like Liberalism, whether of the centre or of the left. In other words, the difference between a
proletarian democracy and a bourgeois democracy, particularly one with
autocratic roots still nominally intact.
172. Yet it is not just adherence to autocracy that
constitutes a binding, since the bourgeoisie are also bound to their own centre
to the extent that they are capitalistic and parliamentarian, and if the Father
is one binding, then Christ is very much another - a middle-ground, or worldly,
binding in between antithetical absolutes.
Thus freedom in a bourgeois democracy is relative to those who oppose
such a Capitalist binding, whether from a Socialist or a Communist standpoint,
and is necessarily decentralist and anti-Christian. For 'the free' are either a 'fall' from the
centre or an opposition, in freedom, to the centre, whether it be autocratic or
democratic, aristocratic or bourgeois.
And freedom is a kind of damnation in relation to the centre, to those
who are saved on whichever evolutionary level.
Freedom is an alienation from and opposition to the centre, and
therefore an imperfect condition which, except for those who revel in it, goads
its protagonists towards the establishment of a new centre, superior to the old
one. For some, this objective is
eventually achieved. For others -
perhaps the great majority of those caught between centres - there is no
alternative but to languish in freedom or perish from it. That has certainly been the fate of most
Western Socialists to-date!
173. I am not free to act if I am bound, but I am
bound to act if I am free - whether against an old binding (Socialism), for the
sake of acting (Anarchism), or for a new binding (Communism/Centrism). Broadly, freedom in the twentieth century was
for the proletariat (an electron equivalence) to become free from aristocratic
(proton) and bourgeois (neutron) constraints, and so achieve a proletarian
absolutism within a uniquely People's society.
One can trace the beginnings of this struggle to bourgeois liberalism (a
neutron-centred atomicity), and from there a split developed between Democratic
Socialism (a particle-biased atomic-electron equivalence) and Liberal Democracy
(a wavicle-biased atomic-electron equivalence) - as between blue- and
white-collar interests. These are
relative to the world, or Western democracies, and can co-exist within the same
political framework.
174. Beyond the world, however, no such relative
co-existence is possible, since both the Divine and the Diabolic are absolute
on post-worldly terms, and therefore can only exist independently of each other
... in different societies or countries, even though, in the paradoxical nature
of contemporary life, each will uphold relativity within their respective
ideological frameworks. Thus we get (or
will do in the future) Transcendental Socialism (a particle-biased electron
equivalence) on the one hand and Social Transcendentalism (a wavicle-biased
electron equivalence) on the other - the former morally free and the latter
bound to the Centre (conceived in its Social Transcendentalist context), as
befitting a wavicle and, hence, idealistic bias. Alternatively, one could speak of Centristic
Communism in the one case and of Communistic Centrism in the other. For whilst each ideology would exist in
absolute independence, they are intrinsically relative, albeit with
diametrically opposite biases. In the
case of Transcendental Socialism an electron-particle freedom of the
proletariat from bourgeois and/or aristocratic constraints, in the case of Social Transcendentalism an
electron-wavicle binding of the proletariat to the ultimate Centre - the
transcendent 'Kingdom of Heaven', wherein lies divine salvation for all
Eternity.
175. To distinguish, on the one hand, between unfree
binding (proton wavicles), bound unfreedom (proton particles), bound binding
(atomic protons), and freedom-in-binding (proton-biased atomicity), as regards
alpha-stemming idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism; and then to
distinguish, on the other hand, between freedom-from-binding (electron-biased
atomicity), free freedom (atomic electrons), bound freedom (electron
particles), and free binding (electron wavicles), as regards omega-oriented
realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism.
Thus a devolutionary regression from unfree binding to
freedom-in-binding via bound unfreedom and bound binding on the one hand, but
an evolutionary progression from freedom-from-binding to free binding via free
freedom and bound freedom on the other hand.
Consequently, Transcendental Socialism may be defined in terms of bound
freedom, Social Transcendentalism, by contrast, in terms of free binding - a
distinction, one could argue, between the centralized State and the state-like
Centre.
176. Not free from what but free for what (Nietzsche)? And the ultimate response to that is: For a
new binding! Thus as the Diabolic
contracts, and greater degrees of physical freedom from autocratic constraint
are accordingly proclaimed, so the Divine expands, and greater degrees of
binding to theocratic transcendentalism are likewise proclaimed. As the State withers, so the Church
expands. The ultimate contraction of the
State is a free, or socialist, society.
The ultimate expansion of the Church is a bound or Centrist society. Freedom is diabolic, binding divine. The world achieves a balance between binding
and freedom, and is therefore amoral. On
the other hand, an imbalance on the side of binding, as in traditional secular
autocracies, is relatively moral (albeit in an untransvaluated sense), whereas
an imbalance on the side of freedom, as in republican democracies, is
relatively immoral. For morality is
proportionate to binding, and the more moral the society the greater the degree
of binding. In the alpha-stemming case,
a proton morality; in the omega-oriented case, an electron morality - the former
false and the latter true.
177. Only in the case of an omega-oriented society
can binding, and hence being, be not merely apparent (as in alpha-stemming
societies) but essential, as regarding the wavicle indivisibility of
electron-electron attractions - a truly indivisible absolutism in relation to
the false absolutism of proton-proton reactions in the apparent
'indivisibility' of the Creator, viz. the central star of the Galaxy.
178. In relation to being, doing is always immoral,
whether positive and constructive, like good acts, or negative and destructive,
like evil acts. For, like the Divine,
the Diabolic is both negative and positive, Satanic and Antichristic, and
while, from a Christian standpoint, good acts may be preferable to bad ones,
nonetheless they are immoral in relation to true morality, which is
being-orientated and therefore not free but bound, whether the binding be
negative or positive, to proton wavicles or to electron wavicles, to the Father
or to Christ; as also, within an artificial and hence contemporary context, to
the Superfather or to the Superchrist (both the latter of which can be
generalized into an allegiance, temporary or otherwise, to violent films in the
one case and to passive trips in the other case). Being should be associated, in its negative
manifestations, with illusion and sadness, whilst in its positive
manifestations it should be associated with happiness and truth. By contrast, doing should be associated, in
its negative manifestations, with ugliness and hate, though in its positive
manifestations it should be associated with beauty and love. Whether the qualitative attribute precedes
the quantitative one, or vice versa, will depend upon whether the type of being
or doing in question is naturalistic or artificial, which is to say upon
whether it conforms to a noumenal-phenomenal regression or, by contrast, to a
superphenomenal-supernoumenal progression, depending on both the individual and
the age or society in which he happens to live.
In the one case, a regression, for instance, from hate to ugliness at
the negative pole of the naturalistic diabolic spectrum. In the other case, a progression from
ugliness to hate at the negative pole of the artificial diabolic spectrum. Similarly a regression, for instance, from
happiness to truth at the positive pole of the naturalistic divine spectrum,
as, conversely, a progression from truth to joy at the positive pole of the
artificial divine spectrum.
179. Thus whereas hate is a precondition of ugliness
in the one context, ugliness is a precondition of hate in the artificial
context antithetical to it. In the
former case, an act could only be ugly if preceded or motivated by hate,
whereas in the latter case hate, or a hateful feeling, follows upon the precondition
of ugliness. For whereas in the natural
context the noumenal precedes the phenomenal, of which the quantitative
attribute is a phenomenal manifestation, in the artificial context antithetical
to it, by contrast, the superphenomenal precedes the supernoumenal, of which
the qualitative attribute is a noumenal manifestation. No less than the good act (beauty) is
preceded by the positive diabolic feeling and the bad act (ugly) by the
negative diabolic feeling in a naturalistic context, so the positive diabolic
feeling (love) is preceded by the good act and the negative diabolic feeling
(hate) by the bad act in an artificial context.
And no less than the false being (illusion) is preceded by the negative
divine feeling and the true being (truth) by the positive divine feeling in a
naturalistic context, so the negative divine feeling (sadness) is preceded by
the false being and the positive divine feeling (joy) by the true being in an
artificial context. And so on, with due
regard to the worldly spectra of strength/pride and weakness/ humiliation,
evil/pain and goodness/pleasure, strife/fear and peace/hope, which I have
characterized as bodily rather than of the head. In an alpha-stemming naturalistic context,
pride will precede strength and humiliation likewise precede weakness, but in
an omega-oriented artificial context strength is a prerequisite of pride and
weakness a prerequisite of humiliation.
180. Returning to our moral/immoral distinctions,
one should distinguish between worldly immorality and diabolic immorality on
the basis of a pantheistic/polytheistic dichotomy. For whereas worldly immorality has to do with
nature or some antithetical equivalence
thereof ... like the city, diabolic immorality has to do with the stars
or some antithetical equivalence, like the proletariat. Immorality is free rather than bound, is
decentralized rather than centralized, and accordingly contrasts with divine
morality, which, at its purest level, can only be monotheistic. Thus one should speak of an alpha-stemming
regression from monotheistic morality to atheistic amorality via polytheistic
and pantheistic immorality, while reserving for the omega orientation a
progression from superatheistic amorality to supermonotheistic morality via
superpantheistic and superpolytheistic immorality.
181. Correlated with the specific ideological and
historical stages we have already touched upon, the devolutionary and
evolutionary distinctions listed above will read as follows:-
ALPHA
DEVOLUTION OMEGA EVOLUTION
1.
monotheistic autocratic theocracy (moral) 8. supermonotheistic
democratic theocracy (moral)
2.
polytheistic theocratic autocracy (immoral) 7. superpolytheistic
theocratic democracy (immoral)
3.
pantheistic autocratic autocracy (immoral) 6. superpantheistic
democratic democracy (immoral)
4. atheistic democratic autocracy (amoral) 5.
superatheistic autocratic democracy (amoral)
with a devolutionary
regression from alpha monotheistic morality to worldly atheistic amorality via
alpha polytheistic immorality and worldly-alpha pantheistic immorality on the
one hand, and an evolutionary progression from worldly superatheistic amorality
to omega supermonotheistic morality via worldly-omega superpantheistic
immorality and omega superpolytheistic immorality on the other hand.
182. As to the distinction between monotheistic and
supermonotheistic morality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of divine
binding ... commensurate with the Father and the Holy Ghost. As to the distinction between polytheistic
and superpolytheistic immorality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of
diabolic freedom ... commensurate with Satan and the Antichrist. As to the distinction between pantheistic and
superpantheistic immorality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of
worldly freedom ... commensurate with the Virgin Mary and the (Germanic) Second
Coming. And finally, as to the
distinction between atheistic and superatheistic amorality, we have two
diametrically opposite kinds of worldly binding ... commensurate with the
Catholic Christ and the Protestant Christ - the former divisible between the
Child and the Resurrection, the latter humanistic or, as one should say, adult,
making for a neutron amorality in contrast to a proton/electron oscillation
between antithetical extremes.
183. Put more concretely, we have an extrapolation,
in the case of alpha morality, from the central star of the Galaxy, which is
worshipped as Creator, while, in the case of omega morality, we have an
aspiration towards the transcendent culmination of evolution in spiritual
unity. In the case of polytheistic
immorality we have a 'fall' from binding, or monotheism, into worship of the
stars, or extrapolations thereof, as gods, whilst in the antithetical case of
superpolytheistic immorality we have a worship or, rather, quasi-religious
self-identification of the People, collectively, with ultimate sovereignty - at
any rate, in democratic terms. In the
case of pantheistic immorality we have an identification of nature, in all its
diverse manifestations, with divinity, whereas in the superpantheistic
immorality antithetical to it, the city and/or machine become the focus of a
divine identification. Finally, in the
case of atheistic amorality we have a worship of man as God which, in both
Catholic and Protestant contexts, takes the form of Christ.
184. Thus whereas the bound is always individual,
whether moral or amoral, the free is ever collective, whether in a worldly and,
hence, pantheistic context, or in a diabolic and, hence, polytheistic one. Morality is rooted in the individual,
immorality in the collective. Binding is
to the One, freedom is for the Many.
Whether the One be Father, Son, or Holy Ghost (depending on the type and
stage of religion), a moral binding thereof will ensue, whereas in between, on
both polytheistic and pantheistic levels, a decentralized freedom (from such a
binding) will become the immoral norm.
What makes adherence to Christianity, in a binding to Christ, amoral
rather than strictly moral is that, being man, Christ is neither protonic nor
electronic, the Father nor the Holy Ghost, but an atomic mid-point in between
two purist extremes, and accordingly an impure realism appertaining to the
world. For true morality is ever
idealistic and, hence, bound to the absolute - in a word, monotheistic. Thus it happens that, traditionally, the Jews
have shown themselves, through their refusal to compromise with worldly
relativity, to be the most moral people, even in the face of worldly
persecution. Doubtless once the Jewish
people accept Social Transcendentalism as the true world (global) religion,
they will become no less moral but, if anything, even more so ... as they take
a lead in furthering the ultimate monotheism - the supermonotheism of an
unequivocally transcendental aspiration which, unlike allegiance to the
Creator, will be rooted in the people and tend towards the true indivisibility
of an ultimate binding in electron-electron attractions. For centro-complexification leading towards
the projected Omega Point is the way of divine evolution, and those of us who
have an interest in furthering such evolution must champion the Social
Transcendentalist Centre at the expense of the decentralized State.
185. True morality resides in the individual and
adherence to the One through personal binding to a religious focal-point. No-one can trip or meditate for you, and even
if you trip or meditate in a group ... you are essentially still alone with
your spirit. For the group is not
indivisible, like spirit, but divisible, like matter, and therefore any concept
of divinity which is social in character is less moral than immoral - in fact,
is polytheistically diabolic. Doubtless
the world, or a certain part of it, must pass through this polytheism before any
prospect of global monotheism on the ultimate spiritual level becomes
possible. Now, paradoxically, such a
diabolic immorality is preferable, from an omega-divine standpoint, to the
worldly immorality that characterized the greater part of the Germanic West in
the twentieth century. Being equivalent
to the new-brain head rather than to the flesh/muscle body, it is closer to the
superconscious than to the latter - indeed, so close as to be virtually
contiguous. Only a standpoint which,
like worldly amorality, was beneath worldly immorality would find the
flesh/muscle body preferable to the new-brain head. For one part of the body, in this case that
of the veins/nerves, is closer to another part of it than to the head, and when
it comes to the crunch the body will stick together, as it were, to defend
itself from encroachments of one kind or another from the head. The world is not interested in becoming
either the Devil or God but only in remaining itself, and accordingly its end
can only be at the expense of bodily will.
186. God helps his own, and can only do so through a
divinely-biased publisher, like one affiliated to the Catholic Church. He cannot seek publication in the world,
through commercial channels, and neither should he seek it through academic or
university publishers, since publishers of that sort are the nearest Western
approximation to the Devil or, at any rate, to a diabolic (brain-centred) order
of publication. For let there be no
doubt on this point: the commercial worldly and the academic diabolic types of
publishers are not the channels
through which divine truth should seek printed dissemination! Neither the body nor the brain is of direct
use to God. Only the mind, and the mind
will be given its due by religious rather than by academic or commercial
publishers. The true equivalent to the
Second-Coming appeals to the Church for recognition of his messianic
revelations, since the Church is alone qualified to recognize divine truth when
such truth is put before it, and for the Church the Second Coming is no mere
myth or figment of the imagination but a centuries-old hope and waiting ...
that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' may be proclaimed and established here on earth
for those who deserve such a 'kingdom'.
God calls His own, and those who deserve salvation from the world will
surely receive it ... through Social Transcendentalism.
187. Traditionally the State is an instrument of
oppression, a means of defending the interests of the oppressor rather than of
the oppressed. It is only with the
Welfare State that the State becomes less an instrument of oppression than a
source of help to the oppressed. Yet the
Welfare State is not absolutist but, within the liberal contexts of Western
democracy, co-exists with the traditional bourgeois State of capitalist
oppression. Only in a
188. It is no less important to realize that there
is a negative morality ... than to realize there is a positive one. There is no more a single kind of morality
than a single kind of immorality. Being
can be both negative and positive, like doing, and by 'negative' and 'positive'
I mean active and passive or, alternatively, for and against. Thus, within the sphere of naturalistic
morality, one can speak of the negative morality of the dream but the positive
morality of visionary experience. In the
more contemporary sphere of artificial morality, one can speak of the negative
morality of film viewing but the positive morality of artificially-induced
visionary experience. Indeed, films are
to dreams what trips are to visions - their antithetical equivalence ... as
relative to an omega-oriented age or society.
189. Likewise, within the sphere of naturalistic
immorality, one can speak of the negative immorality of doing against others
and/or the self, in contrast to the positive immorality of doing for others
and/or the self ... where the former is Satanic and the latter Antichristic,
with worldly and diabolic options depending upon whether the target of
whichever kind of immorality is other people or the personal self. Now what applies to the sphere of
naturalistic immorality applies no less to that of artificial immorality, in
which doing for or against the self and/or others will be conducted rather more
via mechanical or synthetic means than via natural means, including the human
body.
190. Thus to recapitulate: being against my self -
negative divine morality; being for my self - positive divine morality; doing
against myself - negative diabolic immorality; doing for myself - positive
diabolic immorality; doing against others - negative worldly immorality; doing
for others - positive worldly immorality.
191. Although 'good' and 'evil' are relative terms
usually employed in connection with worldly contexts, it is possible to employ
them absolutely, in terms of distinctions outside the world, the way the
Catholic Church has traditionally done, and on the basis that absolute good is
divine and absolute evil diabolic, a distinction, I maintain, between wavicle
proton-proton reactions on the one hand, and particle proton-proton reactions
on the other - the former appertaining to the Father (central star of the
Galaxy) and the latter to Satan (the sun).
192. Thus within a strictly cosmic framework, it is
possible to differentiate between absolute good and evil, though only up to a
certain point. For while we need not
doubt that the particle proton-proton reactions of the sun are absolutely evil
by dint of their infernal essence, the wavicle proton-proton reactions of the
bigger, purer, central star of the Galaxy (from which, willy-nilly, the Creator
was extrapolated) are only absolutely good to the extent that we have a wavicle
being which contrasts with the particle doing, as it were, of stars in general,
i.e. those which revolve around the central star of the Galaxy. Yet such being is merely apparent,
since wavicle proton-proton reactions are no less reactive in their own context
than ... particle proton-proton reactions in theirs, and while the central star
has the appearance of stillness, and hence being, on account of its central
position in a galaxy of revolving stars, nevertheless its essence is reactive
and, consequently, this apparent being is negative, a negative morality of
being-against-the-self or, rather, itself, which is the condition of alpha
divinity.
193. Hence while we can infer absolute goodness from
the apparent being of the Galaxy's central star, such goodness is merely
negative in character, and therefore a poor second to the positive absolute
goodness which can only arise with the Holy Spirit at the culmination of
evolution when, from the utmost omega-aspiring life form, i.e. the Supra-being
new-brain collectivizations, the wavicle electron-electron attractions of
transcendent spirit are set free, in the guise of spiritual globes, to converge
towards the long-term possibility of a definitive unity (of all such spiritual
globes) in the Omega Point (de Chardin).
Only in wavicle electron-electron attractions does positive being, or
being-for-itself, come to pass, and such an essential being stands to the
apparent being of the Creator as positive morality to negative morality, or
ultimate Heaven to primal Heaven, or the purest bliss to the purest agony - in
sum, as true absolute goodness to false absolute goodness.
194. The fact that, in contrast to Catholicism, the
Protestant faith denies the existence of absolute good and evil outside the
world may be attributed to the inherently worldly nature of this largely
Germanic mode of Christianity. For
Protestantism is, above all, concerned with man in the world, and
therefore with good and evil conceived relatively, as worldly experiences. Doubtless this lack of a cosmic sense - at
any rate, with regard to absolute good and evil on the alpha plane - is in
large part due to the bodily nature of Germanic humanity, who, unlike both
Slavic and Celtic humanity, have their kingdom in the world, that
planetary correlation of the body, and not in either a cosmic hell or a cosmic
heaven such as correlates with the head - at least on old-brain/subconscious
terms. For the world is a revolt against
the Cosmos, in some sense a more evolved orientation which, religiously
speaking, fights shy of both the Father and Satan - much as bourgeois
philosophy fought shy of the alpha noumenon by positing, to Schopenhauer's
aristocratic displeasure, the thing-in-itself as in the material world
rather than as its subatomic precondition.
Thus while Protestant insistence on relative good and evil is no less
incorrect from a Catholic standpoint than Kant's insistence on a worldly
thing-in-itself, it is perfectly inevitable within the context of its time and
society, not to mention the racial preconditions - in this case Germanic - of a
bodily standpoint. True, to acquire a
bias for positive absolute goodness and even (within the communist context)
positive absolute evil, one has to turn one's back, so to speak, on the alpha
negative absolutes. But, ironically, it
is only the peoples whose religious traditions upheld these negative absolutes
who would be qualified, both racially and morally, to acquire such a bias, since
the Protestant peoples are ever worldly and, by themselves, incapable of
transcending the worldly body for either the divine or the diabolic head. Thus the Resurrection, in both its diabolic
and divine manifestations, has especial applicability to those very peoples for
whom the truth of absolute good and evil outside the world was
incontestable. Communism is one
resurrection. Centrism has yet to
establish the other!
195. Returning to the distinction between moral
being and immoral doing, the former divine and the latter either diabolic or
worldly, depending whether it is focused on the self or on others, I must now
add amoral being to our calculations, since this is primarily the worldly
equivalence which assumes a Christian status in relation to both immoral and
moral alternatives. Indeed, just as we
have distinguished between negative and positive morality on the basis of being
against self on the one hand and being for self on the other (a distinction
which also applied to each kind of immorality ... whether diabolic and
self-centred or worldly and focused on others), so we must distinguish between
negative and positive amorality, conceiving of the former in terms of being
against others, and the latter in terms of being for others. Thus not only does doing have two modes of
diabolic immorality, viz. doing against self and doing for self, as well as two
modes of worldly immorality, viz. doing against others and doing for others,
the same also applies to being, with being against self and being for self the
negative and positive modes of divine morality, but being against others and
being for others the negative and positive modes of worldly amorality. Hence a four-way division between negative
and positive which, so I maintain, parallels our earlier divisions between
devolutionary idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism on the one hand,
and evolutionary realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism on the other,
as regards monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, and atheism ... or vice versa, depending
on whether we focus on alpha stemming or omega aspiring, devolution or
evolution.
196. Using a similar schema, we can list our
being/doing options as follows:-
DEVOLUTION EVOLUTION
1.
negative divine morality of being against self 8. positive divine
morality of being for self
2.
negative diabolic immorality of doing against self 7.
positive diabolic immorality of doing for self
3. negative worldly immorality of doing against
others 6. positive worldly immorality of doing for
others
4.
negative worldly amorality of being against others 5.
positive worldly amorality of being for others
or alternatively:-
DEVOLUTION EVOLUTION
1.
idealistic being against self (monotheism) 8. superidealistic
being for self (supermonotheism)
2.
naturalistic doing against self (polytheism) 7.
supernaturalistic doing for self (superpolytheism)
3. materialistic doing against others
(pantheism) 6. supermaterialistic doing for others (superpantheism)
4. realistic being against others (atheism) 5. superrealistic being for others
(superatheism)
which also corresponds,
it should be remembered, to:-
DEVOLUTION EVOLUTION
1.
proton-wavicle autocratic theocracy 8.
electron-wavicle democratic theocracy
2.
proton-particle theocratic autocracy 7. electron-particle theocratic democracy
3.
atomic-proton autocratic autocracy 6. atomic-electron democratic democracy
4.
proton-biased atomic democratic autocracy 5. electron-biased
atomic autocratic democracy
Consequently, we have a
journey, so to speak, which begins in the Father and regresses to the Catholic
Christ via Satanic and Maternal (Virgin Mary) stages of devolution, but which
then progresses from the Protestant Christ to the Holy Ghost via Messianic
(Second Coming) and Antichristic stages of evolution.
197. At death both the spirit and soul die, which is
to say are terminated by and through the body's mortality. Emotion and consciousness cease at death, since
death is their end. It is not the body
that dies, since, strictly speaking, the body had never lived but merely
functioned like a machine. Yet the
breakdown of this worldly machine puts an end to both diabolic emotions,
whether negative or positive, and divine consciousness, whether negative or
positive; to heat-will and light-will, soul and spirit. What was potentially eternal (certainly on
the divine plane of conscious being) is thus prevented from being
eternally, and so succumbs to death, or nothingness. One could say that the world, or the body,
gains a victory over it, since the world is temporal and its temporality
becomes an obstacle to eternity. Only
when the body has been overcome ... through the gradual replacement of natural
parts by artificial parts and the subsequent even more radical elevation of
human brains to the post-human status of being artificially supported and
no-less artificially sustained in collectivized contexts, analogous to a
Christmas tree, will both the soul and the spirit, though particularly the
latter, be freed from the threat of death and thereby enabled to realize their
eternal potential. Then will God have
achieved a definitive victory over the world.
198. Worldly will, or sensations; diabolic will, or
emotions; divine will, or consciousness.
A connection may accordingly be posited between worldly will and the
body, diabolic will and the brain, and divine will and the mind, with blood in
the body the essence of worldly will, blood in the brain the essence of diabolic
will, and consciousness the essence of divine will. Thus whereas both worldly and diabolic will
are centred in the blood, divine will is transcendently aloof from the blood,
as light from heat or, more correctly, fire.
In this regard, it is less a will than a will-less being. For will is indistinguishable, physically
speaking, from the blood, and without blood there can be no will, which is to
say sensations and emotions, both of which stand to will as feelings to
consciousness. Thus whereas we have a
quantitative distinction between will and consciousness, a qualitative
distinction exists between emotions and feelings. The real difference, however, is that whereas
will is subordinate in both body and brain to sensations and emotions
respectively, feelings are subordinate in the mind to consciousness. Put analogically, one could argue that
whereas light (will) is subsidiary to heat (sensations/emotions) in both
electric cookers and electric fires, heat (feelings) is subsidiary to light
(consciousness) in electric lights. For
electric cookers and electric fires stand to bodily sensations and brain
emotions as electric-light bulbs to mind consciousness, which is to say as
worldly and diabolic parallels to a divine parallel. Now at death it could be argued, to extend
our analogy, that the cooker overcomes both the electric fire and the electric
light at once, precluding a diabolic and a divine eternity. For it is the electric cooker which parallels
the world and, hence, bodily temporality.
199. However that may be, traditional theology has
upheld three posthumous options for the dying: either Hell, Heaven, or, failing
both, a sort of purgatorial no-man's-land in between. Doubtless these options correlate with the
tripartite distinctions we have already drawn between diabolic emotions (soul),
divine consciousness (spirit), and worldly sensations (will), so that,
depending on the person, a bias one way or another in life could be expected to
lead to a correlative, albeit more absolute, fate in death. The emotional man would be a candidate for
Hell, the conscious man a candidate for Heaven, and the sensual man a candidate
for Purgatory or, in Eastern terms, reincarnation. Thus to a certain extent people would be
predestined for one or another of the three posthumous options, depending on
which level they generally conducted their lives whilst alive. The divine man would go to Heaven, the
diabolic man to Hell, and the worldly man to Purgatory. Strictly speaking, however, people went
nowhere. For one cannot survive death,
neither spiritually, soulfully, nor wilfully.
Yet the fact that Christian theology distinguished between three options
accords with the tripartite division of man into divine, diabolic, and worldly
selves, a division, so I maintain, which can be extrapolated from the cosmic
roots of life in the central star of the Galaxy (negative spirit), the sun
(negative soul), and the fiery core of the planet (negative will) - the first
and second eternal (Heaven and Hell), the third temporal (the world). Hence the Christian emphasis upon overcoming
the will, if any possibility of salvation (from the world) is to be achieved.
200. Consequently the body, as the objectification
of the will ... as taught by Schopenhauer, must be denied if salvation, and
hence greater consciousness, is to become a reality. Thus not only sex but exercise, eating,
drinking, etc., which conform to the world as opposed to God. Divine teaching is therefore profoundly
anti-bodily and anti-populist. For it is
the mass man who most accords with a bodily and therefore sensual predilection,
in contrast to the intellectual or spiritual elites. A democratic society will accordingly be
anti-divine, since such a society is precisely that in which the mass man, and
hence the average bodily type, is king or, more literally, politically
sovereign, and where the mass man is free to please himself ... there can be
little denial of the will but, on the contrary, a maximum affirmation of it
which, in democratic societies, will take a predominantly positive and
therefore pleasure-oriented form rather than, as in worldly autocratic
societies, a predominantly negative and therefore pain-oriented form more
suggestive of a will-to-death than of a will-to-life. Such a wilful state-of-affairs can only
continue so long as the world is free to please itself and do what it
wants. For the world will not deny
itself, since it isn't free to become other than what it is by nature. If the will is to be denied, then the world
must be overcome and a new order of will, less worldly than diabolic, take its
place, with one kind of democracy supplanting another. Yet from a divine standpoint, that would be
less of a salvation than a damnation, since salvation ultimately rests with the
Superchristic God rather than with the Super-antichristic Devil, and therefore
isn't so much a higher and more attenuated order of will ... as a complete
denial of the will achieved through will-less being in pure consciousness. Thus not positive soul but positive spirit,
not love but joy. Such is the ultimate
divine order, and it can only be achieved under Superchristic auspices, which
is to say through the Social Transcendentalist Centre.
