501. Thus there is a kind of primal/supreme distinction between that which, being negative, is cosmic and/or geologic, and that which, being positive, is personal and/or universal.

502. The primal, like the supreme, can be either outer or inner, 'once born' or 're-born', of sensuality or of sensibility.

503. Hence we have as logical an entitlement to think of sensible primacy in connection with 're-born' negativity ... as to think of sensual supremacy in connection with 'once-born' positivity.

504. The primal, whether sensual or sensible, is always inorganic, whereas the supreme, whether sensual or sensible, will always be organic - the difference, in short, between the particles and wavicles of cosmic and/or geologic bodies, and the particles and wavicles of personal and/or universal bodies.

505. We may, in respect of their metaphysical essence, be able to attribute primal being to the sun sensually and to the planet Saturn sensibly, but only the ears and the lungs are entitled to attributions of supreme being, the former sensually and the latter sensibly.

506. Hence supreme being has nothing whatsoever to do with anything cosmic, much less geologic, but only with that which is metaphysically universal, and hence noumenally subjective in either sensual or sensible positive terms.

507. That which is metaphysically cosmic in noumenally subjective terms has to do with primal being, which is always negative in both sensual and sensible contexts.

508. Our own overall atomicity is torn between the negativity of cosmic and/or geologic primacy and the positivity of personal and/or universal supremacy, if with an intrinsic bias, in view of our organic constitutions, towards the latter.

509. Which isn't to claim that there are not times and even historical periods when the negativity of cosmic and/or geologic primacy is uppermost, and we recognize in them the hegemony of science and/or politics.

510. Such times and historical periods tend to owe more to the objective and particle aspect of things than to their subjective and wavicle aspect, and are accordingly more free than bound, not to mention, in general terms, more female than male.

511. I have no doubt that the twentieth century was, by and large, an age in which the emphasis was on primacy, and more usually in sensual than in sensible terms, in keeping with the 'once-born' hegemony of primal water and primal fire in due geologic (lunar) and cosmic (stellar) terms, as especially germane to Anglo-American influence.

512. Which is not to say that there was no place for supreme water and supreme fire in due personal (verbal) and universal (optical) terms. But supremacy can only be subordinate to primacy in relation to politics and science, and never more so than in their outer, or 'once born', modes.

513. In politics, the relationship of supremacy to primacy is rather like less (relative to least) strength and pride vis-à-vis more (relative to most) weakness and humility, whilst in science it is rather like least beauty and love vis-à-vis most ugliness and hatred.

514. Such would also be the case in inner, or 're-born', modes of science and politics, except that sensibility is more characterized by the lead of economics and/or religion than by the rule of either one or other of the aforementioned objective disciplines.

515. This is because the greater refinement of sensibility engenders an enhanced wavicle capacity in relation to a smaller particle precondition in the elementino, or inner element.

516. If primacy has the advantage over supremacy in outer or sensual contexts, then supremacy has the capacity to subordinate primacy to itself in inner or sensible contexts, and most especially in connection with its subjective manifestations, with particular reference to supreme being.

517. Thus the more supremacy, in sensibility, the less primacy, with a consequence that one can transcend negativity to an extent that would be difficult, if not impossible, to imagine in relation to sensuality.

518. One can conceive of a situation developing, in the future, wherein the urge to sensible supremacy is so pronounced ... that people would acquiesce in the use of science to reduce the threat of primacy, including the development and siting, in space, of special 'blocking' or 'filtering' devices to impede, if not divert, the influx of cosmic energies.

519. Thus would our capacity for supremacy be enhanced in proportion to the extent to which sources of primacy in the cosmos and/or Solar System (including the earth itself) were artificially impeded.

520. Yet this could not happen to any appreciable extent without the simultaneous transmutation of mankind, via social and genetic engineering, towards a post-human phase of evolution, during the process of which man was most decidedly 'overcome', to coin a Nietzschean turn-of-phrase.

521. For man should not be regarded, in overly humanistic vein, as an end-in-himself, the be-all-and-end-all of evolutionary development, but as a life form in continuous process of evolution who will, one day, overcome, or evolve beyond, himself, and thus become more than human.

522. And I don't just mean superman, in the sense of someone given to meditative praxis in the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond come 'the Kingdom', but something which is as much beyond (posterior to) man, in chronological terms, as apes and trees are and/or were before (anterior to) him, with the possibility, finally, of evolution to a position, set in space centres, which is antithetical not merely to animals and vegetation but to the starry bodies in general, a position corresponding to the Omega Point of consummate Eternity.

523. Such a definitive position of evolutionary development may be a very long way off at present, but we can set ourselves on route for it, so to speak, through adoption of an ultimate religion such that, in its Superchristian/Superjudaic implications, would be truly open to the Beyond, and thus to the concept of unlimited evolution towards consummate transcendence.

524. The religion I have in mind stems from the ideological philosophy of Social Transcendentalism, with its meritocratic deism, and it sets no bounds to the scope of evolutionary development other than those that would be commensurate, on the peaks of Eternity, with definitive transcendence.

525. If man is indeed something that should be overcome, as Nietzsche believed, then it will not be simply in terms of the superman, as a higher type of man, germane to Superchristianity, but, more importantly, of the transmutation of mankind in general, via a cyborg-like transition, towards that which is more than human, and not only in antithetical relation to apes, trees, and starry bodies, but also in relation to the evolutionary transmutations of the triadic Beyond, as it progresses through Eternity on simultaneously humanist, nonconformist, and transcendentalist terms.

526. Thus will the three-tier structure of the Centre-proper be subject to evolutionary transformations as, in general terms, woman, man, and superman are gradually transmuted, via a cyborg transition, along parallel lines by the technological, biological, and ontological administrators of the pseudo-Kingdom of 'Kingdom Come', whether in relation to a Gaelic federation (as described elsewhere) or, more likely by then, the entire population of a world which had slowly but surely evolved, via the ideological philosophy of Social Transcendentalism, towards millennial redemption.

527. One could therefore distinguish the successive evolutionary transmutations of the bottom tier from those of the middle tier of the triadic Beyond in terms of supergivings, supra-givings, and ultra-givings from supertakings, supra-takings, and ultra-takings, and both of these feminine and masculine orders of successive transmutation from the superbeings, supra-beings, and ultra-beings of its top, or supermasculine, tier.

528. Thus one would have a 'super' antithesis to apes, a 'supra' antithesis to trees, and an 'ultra' antithesis to minerals and/or starry bodies in all three tiers of the Centre, coupled to corresponding transmutations in the administrative aside (of the pseudo-Kingdom) from, say, superdoings and supra-doings to ultra-doings in simultaneous relation to technological, biological, and ontological concerns.

529. All such transmutations of post-human life would be designed to refine upon each tier's commitment to its own sphere of religious praxis, and thus bring evolving life closer to the maximization of its emotional, intellectual, or spiritual potential, as the case may be.

530. Thus not only being, but giving and taking would also be subject to modified enhancement by doing, itself subject to such enhancement, as a matter of millennial course.

531. Eventually, even giving and taking would become more being-like, though still distinct from being-proper on their respective tiers of the triadic Beyond.

532. Although we generalize between doing ... in relation to the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry, giving ... in relation to the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry, taking ... in relation to the phenomenal subjectivity of physics, and being ... in relation to the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics, since doing is apparent, giving quantitative, taking qualitative, and being essential, we must also allow for the fact that all contexts are, in actuality, combinations of doing, giving, taking, and being in relation to the presiding element, be it fire, water, vegetation, or air.

533. More specifically, one should distinguish between the expressive taking and being of the metachemical self and unself in relation to the expressive doing and giving of the metachemical not-self and its selfless complement.

534. Similarly, one should distinguish between the compressive taking and being of the chemical self and unself in relation to the compressive doing and giving of the chemical not-self and its selfless complement.

535. Likewise, one should distinguish between the depressive taking and being of the physical self and unself in relation to the depressive doing and giving of the physical not-self and its selfless complement.

536. Finally, one should distinguish between the impressive taking and being of the metaphysical self and unself in relation to the impressive doing and giving of the metaphysical not-self and its selfless complement.

537. Thus one should be distinguishing, in effect, between four orders of doing, giving, taking, and being, only one of which will be in its per se manifestation in any given element, while the rest will be 'bovaryizations' of their respective wills.

538. For while doing is a manifestation of expressive will in relation to the noumenal objectivity of metachemical appearances, giving is a manifestation of compressive will in relation to the phenomenal objectivity of chemical quantities, taking a manifestation of depressive will in relation to the phenomenal subjectivity of physical qualities, and being a manifestation of impressive will in relation to the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical essences.

539. Hence whereas doing is only in its per se manifestation in metachemical expression, it is 'once bovaryized' in chemical compression, 'twice bovaryized' in physical depression, and 'thrice bovaryized' in metaphysical impression.

540. Hence whereas giving is only in its per se manifestation in chemical compression, it is 'once bovaryized' in metachemical expression, 'twice bovaryized' in metaphysical impression, and 'thrice bovaryized' in physical depression.

541. Hence whereas taking is only in its per se manifestation in physical depression, it is 'once bovaryized' in metaphysical impression, 'twice bovaryized' in metachemical expression, and 'thrice bovaryized' in chemical compression.

542. Hence whereas being is only in its per se manifestation in metaphysical impression, it is 'once bovaryized' in physical depression, 'twice bovaryized' in chemical compression, and 'thrice bovaryized' in metachemical expression.

543. One can therefore distinguish between the first-rate doing of metachemical expression, the second-rate doing of chemical compression, the third-rate doing of physical depression, and the fourth-rate doing of metaphysical impression.

544. Likewise, one can distinguish between the first-rate giving of chemical compression, the second-rate giving of metachemical expression, the third-rate giving of metaphysical impression, and the fourth-rate giving of physical depression.

545. Similarly, one can distinguish between the first-rate taking of physical depression, the second-rate taking of metaphysical impression, the third-rate taking of metachemical expression, and the fourth-rate taking of chemical compression.

546. Finally, one can distinguish between the first-rate being of metaphysical impression, the second-rate being of physical depression, the third-rate being of chemical compression, and the fourth-rate being of metachemical expression.

547. Where there is most doing, as in metachemistry, there will be least being, less (relative to least) taking, and more (relative to most) giving.

548. Where there is most giving, as in chemistry, there will be least taking, less (relative to least) being, and more (relative to most) doing.

549. Where there is most taking, as in physics, there will be least giving, less (relative to least) doing, and more (relative to most) being.

550. Where there is most being, as in metaphysics, there will be least doing, less (relative to least) giving, and more (relative to most) taking.

551. Hence to contrast the most doing of the metachemical not-self with the least being of the metachemical unself, the less (relative to least) taking of the metachemical self, and the more (relative to most) giving of that which is metachemically selfless.

552. Hence to contrast the most giving of that which is chemically selfless with the least taking of the chemical self, the less (relative to least) being of the chemical unself, and the more (relative to most) doing of the chemical not-self.

553. Hence to contrast the most taking of the physical self with the least giving of that which is physically selfless, the less (relative to least) doing of the physical not-self, and the more (relative to most) being of the physical unself.

554. Hence to contrast the most being of the metaphysical unself with the least doing of the metaphysical not-self, the less (relative to least) giving of that which is metaphysically selfless, and the more (relative to most) taking of the metaphysical self.

555. To contrast, in all elemental contexts, the taking of the self with the doing of the not-self, and to further contrast the giving of that which is selfless with the being of the unself.

556. The self takes cognizance of the not-self, the not-self, in doing, engenders that which is selfless, and selflessness, in giving, encourages the unself to be.

557. The self is always, in one degree or another, intellectual, the not-self always instinctual, selflessness always spiritual, and the unself always emotional.

558. Hence there is a progression, in each elemental context, from ego to soul via id and spirit, as from taking to being via doing and giving.

559. In metachemistry, the beautiful self achieves unselfish love for itself by taking cognizance of the eyes and/or heart not-self and reacting against the selfless giving of optical and/or cardiac spirit, sight and/or blood, via expressive doing.

560. In chemistry, the strong self achieves unselfish pride for itself by taking cognizance of the tongue and/or womb not-self and reacting against the selfless giving of verbal and/or uterine spirit, speech and/or offspring, via compressive doing.

561. In physics, the knowledgeable self achieves unselfish pleasure for itself by taking cognizance of the phallus and/or brain not-self and reacting against the selfless taking of orgasmic and/or cerebral spirit, sperm and/or thought, via depressive doing.

562. In metaphysics, the truthful self achieves unselfish joy for itself by taking cognizance of the ears and/or lungs not-self and reacting against the selfless giving of auditory and/or respiratory spirit, sound and/or breath, via impressive doing.

563. Thus whereas the metachemical self is beautiful and the metachemical unself loving, the chemical self is strong and the chemical unself proud.

564. Whereas the physical self is knowledgeable and the physical unself pleasurable, the metaphysical self is truthful and the metaphysical unself joyful.

565. Likewise, whereas the metachemical not-self is devilish and that which is metachemically selfless ... hellish, the chemical not-self is feminine and that which is chemically selfless ... purgatorial.

566. Whereas the physical not-self is masculine and that which is physically selfless ... earthly, the metaphysical not-self is godly and that which is metaphysically selfless ... heavenly.

567. To contrast the unclear ego of beauty with the unclear id of the Devil, and the unclear spirit of Hell with the unclear soul of love.

568. To contrast the clear ego of strength with the clear id of woman, and the clear spirit of purgatory with the clear soul of pride.

569. To contrast the unholy ego of knowledge with the unholy id of man, and the unholy spirit of earth with the unholy soul of pleasure.

570. To contrast the holy ego of truth with the holy id of God, and the holy spirit of Heaven with the holy soul of joy.

571. That which is unclear contrasts with the clear as expression with compression, or evil with good, or fire with water, or crime with punishment.

572. That which is unholy contrasts with the holy as depression with impression, or folly with wisdom, or vegetation with air, or sin with grace.

573. The not-self, with its correspondence to the id, is a means for the self, corresponding to ego, towards the end ... of the unself, corresponding to soul, via the selfless, with its correspondence to spirit.

574. One begins with self and ends with unself, returning to self in order to plunge anew into the not-self so that self may be transmuted by the selfless and feel obliged to react, or rebound, from such a transmutation in the interests of self-preservation, achieving, thereby, a deeper experience of itself than would otherwise have been possible.

575. One extreme engenders another, and so the self, duly transmuted by spirit, rebounds from the spiritual extreme to the soulful extreme, before regaining its egocentric equilibrium as a precondition of subsequent engagement of the not-self and, through it, that which is selfless.

576. It is as if, to revert to Christian usage, something akin to the Son is always over both the Father and the Holy Spirit; though this would only literally apply to the metaphysical context where, through airy impression, there is indeed holiness, not to depressively physical, compressively chemical, or expressively metachemical contexts, in which spirit manifests in unholy, clear, or unclear terms, according to the elemental prevalence, respectively, of vegetation, water, or fire.

577. Furthermore, the Son is Himself divisible, in a manner of speaking, between an egocentric mean and the spiritual and soulful extremes which flank this mean in relation to selflessness, the one effectively superegocentric and the other subegocentric.

578. For, in metaphysical as in all other elemental contexts, one must distinguish between the self as conscious and the unself as either superconscious or subconscious, depending whether it is in its spiritual or its soulful manifestation.

579. Thus in no sense is the self, corresponding to the Son, the Christ-like cynosure of psyche, ever commensurate with either the not-self or the selfless, corresponding, in Christian terms, to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

580. On the contrary, the self is always distinct from both the not-self and that which is selfless, just as the Son is always distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

581. The 'Three-in-One' of the Son, as of the self, has reference to a division between ego, superego, and subego, or conscious, superconscious, and subconscious, corresponding to self in its ordinary mode and to the spiritualization and emotionalization of the self in the extraordinary modes of what, for convenience's sake, I have called the unself, as germane to its superconscious and subconscious extremes.

582. But this self, duly divisible along the aforementioned lines, is ever distinct from the not-self and that which is selfless, just as the Son, its religious equivalence, remains distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, even as He is transported by the former and conditioned by the latter.

583. Yet the Christian Son/self is in practice less metaphysical than physical, since Christianity pertains, through prayer, to the cerebral sphere of vegetative 'rebirth', not to the pulmonary sphere of airy 'rebirth' wherein transcendental meditation would be the mode of religious praxis, a mode as genuinely holy, in its respiratory impressions through noumenal subjectivity, as prayer is unholy in its cogitative depressions through phenomenal subjectivity.

584. Of course, Christianity falls back, as we have seen, on 'once-born' metaphysics, corresponding to theocracy, but even there the self is distinct from both the not-self and selflessness, and we are dealing, in aural sensuality, with that which appertains to the 'kingdom without' and leaves much to be desired in relation to a metaphysical 'rebirth' such that, affirming the ultimate 'kingdom within', the noumenal 'kingdom' of respiratory sensibility, would have Superchristian, and hence meritocratic, implications, in keeping with its transcendent being.

585. Thus while theocracy does indeed embrace, in its metaphysical sensuality, a 'holy (order of) spirit', it is only in relation to the airwaves, not in relation to the breath, for which, by contrast, the metaphysical sensibility of meritocracy is required to bring religion to the ultimate 'kingdom within', in due Superchristian vein.

586. The metaphysical sensuality of theocracy is really something to be saved from rather than regarded as an end-in-itself, even though it lies beyond the physical sensibility of 're-born' vegetativeness through the cerebral word of Christ.

587. Thus if spirit is only holy in metaphysics, whether in 'once-born' or in 're-born' terms, it can only be unholy in physics, clear (on the opposite side of the gender fence) in chemistry, and unclear in metachemistry, as we abandon impression for depression, compression, and expression, or air for vegetation, water, and fire.

588. Only in metaphysical impression is spirit graceful, whereas in physical depression it is sinful, in chemical compression ... punishing, and in metachemical expression ... criminal, as we descend from wisdom to folly, before crossing the gender divide to goodness and, behind it, the evil of crime.

589. But spirit is only that which is pertinent to giving, whatever the elemental context. There is also that which, as mind, is pertinent to taking, not to mention that which, as id, is pertinent to doing, and that which, as soul, is pertinent to being.

590. Giving, and hence spirit, has its per se manifestation in politics; taking, and hence mind, has its per se manifestation in economics; doing, and hence the instinct, has its per se manifestation in science; and being, and hence soul, has its per se manifestation in religion.

591. Hence we should distinguish the spirit of politics as an expressive or, rather, compressive illustration of civilization ... from the mind of economics as a depressive illustration of nature.

592. In similar vein, we should distinguish the id of science as an expressive illustration of barbarism ... from the soul of religion as an impressive illustration of culture.

593. For while civilization is compressive and nature depressive after the manner of water and vegetation, of politics and economics within the phenomenal realms of mass and volume, barbarism is expressive and culture impressive after the manner of fire and air, of science and religion within the noumenal realms of time and space.

594. There may even be a sense in which, since science corresponds to the most basic element and general first-mover of things, people and societies tend to reflect, on a gender-conditioned basis, the reaction of religion against science, of politics against religion, of economics against politics, and of science against economics, preparatory to the resumption of a religious reaction against science, and so on.

595. For societies, like the individuals of which they're composed, are all the time changing, alternating between one element and another, in a constant flux of interaction which is yet subject to structural stability and constancy.

596. We may not be able to eliminate any particular element from the overall equation, but we can certainly change the ratios of elements around, in accordance with the establishment of the most desirable type of society from any given standpoint, be it immoral (and female) or moral (and male), objective or subjective, barbarous/civil or natural/cultural.

597. Speaking as a philosopher, I can only subscribe to the morally most desirable arrangement of society, and that follows not from the collective to the individual but from the individual to the collective, shaping society in the image of what is best for the individual and, above all, for the best and highest individuals who, in their wisdom, are the best that society has to offer.

598. That society in which the good and/or foolish collective defers to the wise individual rather than the evil individual to the good and/or foolish collective ... is the only one which will ever amount to anything morally significant, for it is on the basis of its best individuals that a society should be judged.

599. Thus the best society will be that in which not woman and/or man but the superman is paramount, and wise individualism has accordingly supplanted good and/or foolish collectivism as the prevailing ideal.

600. Such a society is commensurate, so I maintain, with 'Kingdom Come', and it is with the intention of bringing such a society about that I have penned these lines and brought to a close what is, I believe, a well-nigh definitive testament of Social Transcendentalist will from one who regards himself, not without sufficient reason, as the king of philosophers, and hence the proverbial 'philosopher-king' whose 'reign' should last for ever.

LONDON 1997–98 (Revised 2012)

Preview ULTRANOTES FROM BEYOND eBook