101. With
fire, however, the emphasis of perfection will be on power rather than glory,
and thus on unclearness as opposed to clearness, barbarity as opposed to
civility, vice as opposed to virtue, whereas with water, by contrast, the
emphasis of perfection will be on glory rather than power, and thus on
clearness as opposed to unclearness, civility as opposed to barbarity, virtue
as opposed to vice.
102. Conversely,
vegetation and air are both typified, in their respective subjective
dispositions towards form and content, by unholiness and holiness, since
unholiness stands to holiness on any subjective plane as particle to wavicle,
vice to virtue, nature to culture, and hence in more general terms as will to
spirit.
103. With
vegetation, however, the emphasis of perfection will be on form rather than
content, and thus on unholiness as opposed to holiness, nature as opposed to
culture, vice as opposed to virtue, whereas with air, by contrast, the emphasis
of perfection will be on content(ment) rather than form, and thus on holiness
as opposed to unholiness, culture as opposed to nature, virtue as opposed to
vice.
104. One
should, however, distinguish what is applicable to the self and to the unself
as psychological and psychical postulates from what applies to the not-self and
to selflessness as physiological and ontological (therapeutic) postulates,
since it does not necessarily follow that unholiness and holiness, for example,
should be applied in either context.
105. In
fact, I happen to believe that, in subjective contexts, unholiness and holiness
are more applicable to the self, viz. ego, and to the unself, viz. mind,
whereas nature and culture are more applicable to the not-self and to selflessness,
say ears and airwaves or lungs and breath (in metaphysical idealism), since it
is important to distinguish the psychological and psychical attributes on the
one hand, that of the self and the unself, from the physiological and
ontological attributes on the other hand, that of the not-self and
selflessness.
106. Hence
one should contrast the unholiness of stupidity (sin) in relation to the self
and the holiness of kindness (grace) in relation to the unself with the
naturalness of form (subjective will) in relation to the not-self and the
culture of content (subjective spirit) in relation to selflessness ... where
both the phenomenal (vegetative) and the noumenal (airy) manifestations of male
subjectivity are concerned.
107. Conversely,
I happen to believe that, in objective contexts, unclearness and clearness are
more applicable to the self, viz. id, and to the unself, viz. soul, whereas
barbarity and civility will be more applicable to the not-self and to
selflessness, say eyes and sight-light or heart and blood (in metachemical
materialism), since it is important to distinguish the psychological and
psychical attributes on the one hand, that of the self and the unself, from the
physiological and ontological attributes on the other hand, that of the
not-self and selflessness.
108. Hence
one should contrast the unclearness of cupidity (crime) in relation to the self
and the clearness of cruelty (punishment) in relation to the unself with the
barbarity of power (objective will) in relation to the not-self and the
civility of glory (objective spirit) in relation to selflessness ... where both
the noumenal (fiery) and the phenomenal (watery) manifestations of female
objectivity are concerned.
109. Thus
not only are cupidity and cruelty the objective equivalents of stupidity and
kindness in relation to the self and to the unself, but power and glory are the
objective equivalents of form and content in relation to the not-self and to
selflessness.
110. If
cupidity is unclear (criminally unjust) and cruelty clear (punishingly just) in
relation to objective orders of the self (id) and the unself (soul), then
stupidity is unholy (sinfully imprudent) and kindness holy (gracefully prudent)
in relation to subjective orders of the self (ego) and the unself (mind).
111. Likewise,
if power is barbarous (viciously evil) and glory civilized (virtuously good) in
relation to objective orders of the not-self and selflessness, then form is
natural (viciously foolish) and content cultural (virtuously wise) in relation
to subjective orders of the not-self and selflessness.
112. To
contrast, within the space-time axis of objective self/unself, the cupidity of
beauty in metachemical unclearness with the cruelty of love in metachemical
clearness - the former perfectly unjust (noumenally criminal) and the latter
imperfectly just (noumenally punishing).
113. To
contrast, within the space-time axis of objective not-self/selflessness, the
power of the eyes and/or the heart in metachemical barbarity with the glory of
sight-light and/or blood in metachemical civility - the former perfectly evil
(noumenally vicious) and the latter imperfectly good (noumenally virtuous).
114. To
contrast, within the volume-mass axis of objective self/unself, the cupidity of
strength in chemical unclearness with the cruelty of pride in chemical
clearness - the former imperfectly unjust (phenomenally criminal) and the
latter perfectly just (phenomenally punishing).
115. To
contrast, within the volume-mass axis of objective not-self/selflessness, the
power of the tongue and/or the womb in chemical barbarity with the glory of
speech and/or conception in chemical civility - the former imperfectly evil
(phenomenally vicious) and the latter perfectly good (phenomenally virtuous).
116. To
contrast, within the mass-volume axis of subjective self/unself, the stupidity
of knowledge in physical unholiness with the kindness of pleasure in physical
holiness - the former perfectly imprudent (phenomenally sinful) and the latter
imperfectly prudent (phenomenally graceful).
117. To
contrast, within the mass-volume axis of subjective not-self/selflessness, the
form of the phallus and/or the brain in physical nature with the content of
orgasm and/or cogitation in physical culture - the former perfectly foolish
(phenomenally vicious) and the latter imperfectly wise (phenomenally virtuous).
118. To
contrast, within the time-space axis of subjective self/unself, the stupidity
of truth in metaphysical unholiness with the kindness of joy in metaphysical
holiness - the former imperfectly imprudent (noumenally sinful) and the latter
perfectly prudent (noumenally graceful).
119. To
contrast, within the time-space axis of subjective not-self/selflessness, the
form of the ears and/or the lungs in metaphysical nature with the content of
the airwaves and/or the breath in metaphysical culture - the former imperfectly
foolish (noumenally vicious) and the latter perfectly wise (noumenally
virtuous).
120. What
applies to the positive attributes of metachemical, chemical, physical, and
metaphysical supremacy ... applies no less to their negative counterparts in
relation to primacy.
121. Hence
to contrast ugliness with hatred on the one hand, and the stellar cosmos with
Venus on the other hand ... in relation to metachemical primacy.
122. Hence
to contrast weakness with humility on the one hand, and the moon with the
oceanic aspect of the earth on the other hand ... in relation to chemical
primacy.
123. Hence
to contrast ignorance with pain on the one hand, and the terrestrial aspect of
the earth with Mars on the other hand ... in relation to physical primacy.
124. Hence
to contrast falsity with woe on the one hand, and the sun with Saturn on the
other hand ... in relation to metaphysical primacy.
125. Whereas
supremacy has reference to elements and elementinos, primacy has reference, by
contrast, to what I shall call anti-elements and anti-elementinos, their
negative counterparts.
126. All
elements and elementinos can, with this theory, be either negative or positive,
since my usage of such terms is applicable to definitions of either primacy or
supremacy, not to the more conventional notion of subatomic charges.
127. The
latter concept I have always used as defining the nature of an element and/or
elementino, i.e. whether it should be regarded as objective (if subatomically
negative) or subjective (if subatomically positive).
128. Hence
I have had no hesitation in equating negatively-charged subatomic elements
like, for example, photons and electrons with objectivity, and hence
femaleness, reserving to positively-charged subatomic elements like, for
example, protons and (in relative terms) neutrons ... an equation with
subjectivity, and hence maleness.
129. And
yet, besides being negative or positive in this conventional subatomic way,
elements and elementinos can, I believe, be primal or supreme, affiliated to
negative contexts like, in primal terms, ugliness and hatred or, conversely, to
positive contexts like, in supreme terms, beauty and love.
130. Thus
for me it is the same type of element and/or elementino in a different guise
which makes for either primal negativity or supreme positivity in relation to a
given elemental axis, be it metachemical (as above), chemical, physical, or
metaphysical.
131. The
applicability of any given subatomic element and/or elementino to a specific
axis is, however, conditional upon its 'gender charge', so to speak, in
relation to objective (if negative) or subjective (if positive) dispositions.
132. Hence
the applicability of negatively-charged photons/photinos and/or
antiphotons/antiphotinos to the metachemical axis of space-time objectivity
and/or anti-objectivity.
133. Hence
the applicability of negatively-charged electrons/electrinos and/or anti-electrons/anti-electrinos
to the chemical axis of volume-mass objectivity and/or anti-objectivity.
134. Hence
the applicability of (in relative terms) positively-charged neutrons/neutrinos
and/or antineutrons/antineutrinos to the physical axis of mass-volume
subjectivity and/or antisubjectivity.
135. Hence
the applicability of positively-charged protons/protinos and/or
antiprotons/antiprotinos to the metaphysical axis of time-space subjectivity
and/or antisubjectivity.
136. Anti-elements/anti-elementinos
differ from elements/elementinos as primal objectivity or subjectivity, as the
case may be, from supreme objectivity or subjectivity, whether in terms,
necessarily noumenal, of cosmic from universal or, more phenomenally, of
geologic from personal.
137. The
objective axes of space-time and volume-mass, being female, will have a greater
capacity for primal negativity than for supreme positivity, whereas the
subjective axes of mass-volume and time-space will have a correspondingly
greater capacity for supreme positivity than for primal negativity.
138. In
fact, primacy will be primary on the objective axes but secondary on the
subjective ones, whereas supremacy will be primary on the subjective axes but
secondary on the objective ones.
139. Thus
the objective axes of space-time and volume-mass are more characterized by
anti-elements/anti-elementinos than by elements/elementinos, even though the
latter will still apply.
140. Thus
the subjective axes of mass-volume and time-space are more characterized by
elements/elementinos than by anti-elements/anti-elementinos, even though the
latter will still apply.
141. Just
as it takes less to make a woman angry than to make a man angry, so it takes
more to make a woman glad than to make a man glad.
142. For
men and women have different charges, men generally positive in their
subjectivity, and women no less generally negative in their objectivity (though
of course neither gender is exclusively one thing or the other).
143. It is
for this reason that there is more appearance and quantity, corresponding to
fiery materialism and to watery realism, about women, but more quality and
essence, corresponding to vegetative naturalism and to airy idealism, about
men.
144. Where
a woman talks, a man thinks, for talking is quantitative and thinking
qualitative. Yet there is also what may
be called a female approach to thinking, viz. reading, and a male approach to
talking, viz. writing - the former apparent and the latter essential.
145. Thus the
genders could be said to be utilizing intellect on a noumenal basis when they
read and/or write - the quasi-noumenality, more particularly, of materialistic
thinking on the one hand, that of reading, and of idealistic speaking on the
other hand, that of writing.
146. It
could also be claimed that the genders draw further apart from each other
through reading and writing, for they are no longer in the phenomenal contexts
of quantity and quality, corresponding to watery tongue and to vegetative
brain, but are in the noumenal contexts of appearance and essence,
corresponding to fiery eyes and to airy lungs.
147. Not
only is there a quickening of breath with writing, but ink is, in some sense,
the oxygen of writing, quickly drying on the air as it is applied to the
lung-like parchment of writing-paper from a vegetative source, viz. the pen.
148. In
similar fashion, the genders draw together to mate but draw further apart in
respect of the female commitment to children and the male commitment, by
contrast, to career.
149. If
talking and thinking are characteristic of the genders as they impact upon each
other from either a feminine or a masculine standpoint, then reading and
writing are no less characteristic of their maternal and vocational
responsibilities as they go about their respective duties of rearing children
and pursuing a career.
150. Certainly
mothers spend a lot of time reading to their children, since the latter respond
to the materialistic context of reading and are themselves increasingly prone,
in later childhood, to read books, etc.
151. There
are few careers that don't involve some degree of pen-pushing, as they say, and
writing is crucial to people, more usually male, who have a career to pursue,
be it in business or the Arts.
152. Of course,
these days, things are less 'cut and dried' than formerly, but that is only a
sign, somewhat paradoxically, of the Heathen/Superheathen, Anglo-American
times, and not necessarily a manifestation of better things.
153. One
could argue that there are many careers, these days, that are, in any case,
fundamentally childish, and which call, in consequence of their materialistic
bias, for female rather than male contributions.
154. With
such careers, women are either 'liberated' from 'domestic servitude', as
maternal responsibility is called, or choose to combine maternal and
professional responsibilities, as the case may be.
155. In
such fashion, women also become 'liberated' from marriage through divorce
and/or a refusal to contemplate marriage in the first place, deeming it a
bourgeois anachronism.
156. There
is obviously a distinction between women who combine marital with professional
duties and those, on the other hand, who refuse to entertain anything that
would interfere with their careers.
157. If
the latter eventually have children, they are more likely to have them outside
of marriage and to bring them up on as 'free' a basis as possible, scorning the
just punishment, in parental chastisement (of offspring), as a bourgeois
anachronism.
158. Consequently
the children - and girls in particular - of such unmarried mothers are likely
to grow up freer than would otherwise be the case, and thus take for granted so
many immoral and fundamentally barbarous proclivities germane to Superheathen
modernity.
159. Their
mothers, not having married, are more likely to be freer and openly
promiscuous, in consequence, than would otherwise be the case, with greater
scope for all manner of deceits and abuses, not to mention increased exposure to
sexually-transmitted diseases.
160. Such
Americanized women are patently less civilized than barbarous, sheltering under
the Superheathen patronage of the 'Liberty Belle' and all that is scornful of
traditional values, whether heathenistically civilized or, worse again from
their point of view, naturalistically Christian.
161. For
just as heathenistic civilization expresses a Protestant revolt against
Catholic nature, so superheathenistic barbarism is expressive of an
American-style cosmic-based revolt against heathenistic civilization, which
continues, as in
162. Culturally,
the distinction between civilized tradition (effectively bourgeois) and
barbarous modernity (effectively proletarian) would take the forms, for
example, of books vis-à-vis films, or of classical music vis-à-vis Jazz, or of
painting vis-à-vis light art.
163. Whatever
the exact case, a distinction indubitably exists not only in terms of, say,
Britain and Ireland over Heathen and Christian alternatives, but in terms of
Britain and America where Heathen and Superheathen alternatives are concerned,
the former civilized (in the narrowly feminine, and hence watery, context of
sensual realism) and the latter barbarous (in the fundamentally superfeminine,
and hence fiery, context of sensual materialism).
164. Hence
the thrust of Superheathen modernity comes not from Britain, still less from
Ireland, but from the United States of America, which is the prime upholder of
barbarous freedom not only at the expense of civilized freedom, the British
and, in particular, English tradition, but in opposition to anything
demonstrably identifiable with cultural binding.
165. For
America cares little for and knows even less about genuine culture, given its
profligate predilection towards cultural barbarity under the Superheathen
patronage of the '
166. In
fact
167. Even
the cultural nature of Catholic Ireland is less than truly cultural, but still
closer to genuine culture, for all its sinful shortcomings, than either the
cultural civility, manifesting not least of all in garrulous plays, or the
cultural barbarity, manifesting more often than not in violent films, of both
Britain and America.
168. Cultural
nature chiefly manifests in sculpture, as of the Virgin Mary and Christ, whereas
cultural culture, or the cultural per se, takes the form, more usually, of music, particularly, I
would argue, of folk music and that which, through traditional sources, avails
of piping, not least of all in terms of uilleann pipes.
169. Music
will always be the cultural art form par excellence, but there is a vast difference between the
cultural culture of folk music at one end of the musical spectrum, so to speak,
and the barbarous culture of Jazz at its other end - the former effectively
Superchristian and the latter Superheathen.
170. In
between - and lower down - one could distinguish the phenomenal modes of music
from their noumenal counterparts on the basis of a feminine/masculine dichotomy
between the civilized culture of Pop and the natural culture of Classical - the
former effectively Heathen and the latter Christian.
171. Overall,
this is effectively to distinguish the airiness of Folk from the fieriness of
Jazz, while likewise distinguishing the vegetativeness of Classical from the wateriness
of Pop, pretty much as, in religious terms, one would distinguish
transcendentalism from fundamentalism on the one hand, and nonconformism from
humanism on the other hand.
172. Thus not
only do the brass-oriented fieriness of Jazz and the vocals-oriented wateriness
of Pop stand, as objective types of music, on the same side of the gender
fence, but they stand as a sort of Anglo-American testimony to musical freedom
in respectively Superheathen and Heathen terms.
173. Conversely,
not only do the strings-oriented vegetativeness of Classical and the
pipes-oriented airiness of Folk stand, as subjective types of music, on the
same side of the gender fence, but they stand as a sort of Euro-Gaelic
testimony to musical binding in respectively Christian and Superchristian
terms.
174. Hence
to contrast the barbarous fieriness and civilized wateriness of Jazz and Pop
with the natural vegetativeness and cultural airiness of Classical and Folk, as
one would contrast metachemical materialism and chemical realism with physical
naturalism and metaphysical idealism.
175. Obviously
the terms 'Jazz', 'Pop', 'Classical', and 'Folk' have reference to general
categories that embrace a number of related subdivisions, including the Blues,
Rock, Romantic, and Trad.
176. Yet
such subdivisions are still characterized by adherence to the elemental bias of
the general category, and should not be regarded as constituting an independent
elemental category in the manner of each of the principal musical divisions -
viz. fire in the case of Jazz, water in the case of Pop, vegetation in the case
of Classical, and air in the case of Folk.
177. It
may be that some subdivisions of a given type of music are rather more negative,
overall, than positive, and thus stand to the principal category in the manner
of primal to supreme, as in the cases, for example, of Blues to Jazz or even of
Romantic to Classical.
178. Such
subdivisions would constitute modes of antimusic, whether in relation to the
objective contexts of Jazz and Pop, or, alternatively, to the subjective
contexts of Classical and Folk.
179. For
antimusic will have less to do, overall, with love, pride, pleasure, or joy,
than with hatred, humility, pain, or woe, as befitting its negative, and hence
primal, disposition.
180. Whatever
the exact case, musical freedom stands objectively aloof, in both negative and
positive contexts, from musical binding, as that which most typifies the
Superheathen/Heathen (un)nature of the age and its instinctual and emotional
opposition, in consequence, to intellectual and spiritual orientations, such
that more accord with Christian and Superchristian criteria.
181. The
free musician does not care to read music (from scores) or learn by rote a
traditional tune, but relies heavily upon memory for the basic structure of his
compositions, which are then enlarged upon through improvisation.
182. Thus
improvisation is crucial to the concept of musical freedom, whether the
improvisation be instinctively conditioned, as more usually in the case of
Jazz, or emotionally conditioned, as in the case more usually of Pop, where
vocal and/or bodily freedom (depending on the context) is arguably more
important than instrumental freedom.
183. Anything
'bound', as with regard to the reliance of classical music upon printed scores
or of folk music upon inherited tradition, is anathema to the free musician,
who disdainfully turns his back upon what he regards as either bourgeois or
obsolete, if not both bourgeois and obsolete.
184. But
Christian and Superchristian types of music persist, even in Britain and
America, where they defy the freedom of female objectivity in loyalty to
binding to male subjectivity.
185. Neither
nature or culture, physics or metaphysics, naturalism or idealism, nor
vegetation or air ... can be excluded from life, even though, in some
countries, notably Britain and America, they have been marginalized by the
prevailing elements of water and fire, realism and materialism, chemistry and
metachemistry, civility and barbarity.
186. If,
eventually, both Classical and (especially) Folk overhaul Pop and Jazz, as a
progressive return is made to binding, it will not be on traditional terms but in
a new and transmuted guise such that reflects environmental and technological
progress.
187. Such
a male-centred overhaul of Pop and Jazz would be properly commensurate with a
Superchristian age, an age when not Classical but Folk, or some derivative thereof,
was the prevailing type of music, to the detriment, if not effective exclusion,
of Jazz.
188. For
things are not going to revert to Christianity, nor even to Heathenism, when
they are patently Superheathen, and thus Americanized, but can only progress,
within noumenal parameters, to a subjective antithesis to Superheathen
modernity in the guise of Superchristian futurity.
189. Thus
life will pass, slowly but surely, from one noumenal extreme to another,
dragging the phenomenal realms (of what is now recognizably the
Heathen/Christian world of realism and naturalism) after it, as metaphysics
replaces metachemistry as the true exemplar of evolutionary progress and, in a
very literal sense, moral leadership.
190. For
Superheathenism doesn't so much lead the world as rule it, as from a
cosmic-oriented basis in metachemical materialism, and such a 'once-born'
situation is commensurate not with binding but with freedom, the rule of
noumenal objectivity and, to a lesser extent, phenomenal objectivity from what
are patently female positions.
191. Just
as 'Britannia' superseded a Christianity fallen into Marian decadence, so the
'Liberty Belle' will one day be superseded by a Superchristian retort which
will offer the world what it has so far lacked - namely, true leadership.
192. Freedom
may be at the 'cutting edge' of revolution, but it is not, and never could be,
in the vanguard of evolution. For
evolution requires not freedom but binding, binding, above all, to an ultimate
order such that advances religion to a new and altogether more genuine level of
spirituality.
193. Just
as there is something reactive about revolution, so evolution is active, active
in the sense of furthering moral progress at the expense of the immorality of
freedom.
194. One
cannot repeat too often that whereas revolutions are designed, in their violent
methodologies, to liberate people from an old order of binding, evolutionary
progress is concerned with the deliverance of people from the disorder of
freedom, so that they may be returned to a new order of binding, superior to
anything that went before.
195. Just
as one is damned (as a woman) to freedom by revolutionary liberation, so one is
saved (as a man) from freedom to binding by evolutionary deliverance, as moral
action replaces immoral reaction as the principal mode of conduct.
196. Freedom
is a woman and binding a man, and though neither freedom nor binding can be
totally hegemonic, not even on the noumenal planes of space and time (where
absolutism of one kind or another is the elemental norm), societies can be
known and judged according to whether freedom or binding is their principal
characteristic.
197. Phenomenal
societies, whether Heathen or Christian, will generally favour and achieve, in
their molecular relativity, an imbalanced compromise between freedom and
binding, woman and man, whereas their noumenal counterparts, of which America
is a contemporary Superheathen example, will be much more disposed to emphasize
freedom or binding, in keeping with their more absolutist
dispositions.
198. Hence
freedom or binding, rather than freedom and binding, is the rule for noumenal societies, which are less
disposed to volume and mass than to time and space - at least officially and
according to how they shape up culturally.
199. For
all societies have to embrace some degree of pluralism, and the Social
Transcendentalism to which I subscribe would not be above that in its
commitment, through the advancement of religious sovereignty in the People, to
the triadic Beyond of the deistic Centre.
200. Thus
there can be no question of freedom being entirely excluded from the religious
pluralism of the triadic Beyond, but, rather, constrained and maintained at a
sensibly phenomenal level (water), wherein it will act as a foundation for both
the phenomenal binding through vegetation and the noumenal binding through air
of the higher tiers of the Beyond in question.
