RECLAIMING TRUTH FROM THE JAWS OF FACT

1. The objectivity of females, hailing from a particle vacuum in metachemistry and/or chemistry, ensures that, for them, the somatic not-self takes precedence over the psychic self in what amount to apparently selfless actions motivated by the precedence of psyche by soma, whereas, in marked gender contrast to this, the subjectivity of males, appertaining to a wavicle plenum in physics and/or metaphysics, ensures that, with them, the psychic self takes precedence over the somatic not-self in what amount to seemingly selfish actions motivated by the precedence of soma by psyche, so that, in the one case, will and spirit and, in the other case, ego and soul are the prevailing realities of the objective/subjective divide.

2. When females are hegemonically free in sensual contexts or societies, then the somatic not-self rides out at the psychic self's expense and the result is an emphasis upon self-sacrifice and generally selfless behaviour. When, on the other hand, males are hegemonically free in sensible contexts or societies, then the psychic self rides in, so to speak, at the somatic not-self's expense, and the result is an emphasis upon self-realization and generally selfish or, better, self-oriented behaviour.

3. Obviously you cannot have the former while the latter obtains, or vice versa, and so societies, like the individuals of which they are variously composed, tend to settle for the one or the other rather than both, and to emphasize either selflessness or selfishness, not-self or self, soma or psyche, according to the context.

4. Selflessness, as I think I have demonstrated, tends to make for societies rooted in factual sanity and requiring of the subordinate gender, in this case male, acquiescence in somatic freedom through illusory insanity, the only basis, short of gender transmutation, upon which such an unmale acquiescence can be sustained.

5. Selfishness, by contrast, tends to make for societies centred in truthful sanity and requiring of the subordinate gender, in this case female, acquiescence in psychic freedom through fictional insanity, the only basis, short of gender transmutation, upon which such an unfemale acquiescence can be sustained.

6. For just as no sane male could possibly acquiesce in a situation dominated by factual sanity, the empirical antithesis of reason and thus of philosophy, so few sane females would be likely to acquiesce in a situation dominated or, rather, characterized by truthful sanity, the rationalistic antithesis of unreason, and thus of drama. Therefore acquiescence in the one can only be guaranteed through male insanity and acquiescence in the other through female insanity, the former illusory and the latter fictional which, in literary terms, translates into a distinction between poetry and prose, the 'insane' counterparts to drama and philosophy.

7. A combination of the two alternatives is hard to imagine, much less justify, since either objective sanity must prevail at the expense of subjective sanity or vice versa, sane males not being insane enough to acquiesce in factual sanity, sane females not insane enough to acquiesce in truthful sanity, though some cross-over and shilly-shallying is of course possible and does occur, for a number of reasons, not least of all ethnic.

8. But it is not desirable that males should be insane one minute and sane the next, psychically bound here and free there or, conversely, that females should be sane one minute and insane the next, somatically free here and bound there, since not only must instability arise in the individual, and thus in society at large, in consequence of such toing and froing, but each individual will be morally unstable and inclined to hypocrisy, acting in one way now and in a completely different, unrelated way later on, as and when circumstances dictate.

9. If one doesn't know whether what one is dealing with is sane or insane, or sane or insane in a certain way, how can one possibly deal with it? How can one enter into trusting relations with anyone who is one thing to your face but a completely different thing behind your back? Who insanely acquiesces, from a male standpoint, in factual sanity one minute, but later turns out to be someone professing a love of truthful sanity, or, conversely, who insanely acquiesces, from a female standpoint, in truthful sanity one minute, but later turns out to be someone professing a love of factual sanity? Can you trust or believe such people? Are they sincere in what they profess to, or are they not rather two-faced hypocrites and forked-tongue spurters of cant whose word cannot be trusted, much less their literary predilection (if evident)?

10. One thing is clear: society cannot adequately function on a basis of insincerity, of lack of trust between the various individuals who constitute it, but must surely break down into anarchy and violence if trust between equals or, at any rate, persons of kindred disposition is lacking.

11. Therefore society does its best, through its appointed guardians, to maintain either one thing or another, either factual sanity at the expense of truthful sanity or truthful sanity at the expense of factual sanity, with the correlative modes of illusory and fictional insanity for the subordinate gender.

12. Thus arises the distinction, amounting to an antithetical dichotomy, between empirical and rationalist societies, the former professing their opposition to truth through fact, the latter their opposition to fact through truth, though some individuals in each society will paradoxically profess a love of truth through fact and others a love of fact through truth, the world, particularly in its Western manifestations, being a pretty mixed up and heterogeneous place, with fewer examples of ethnic uniformity or conformity than one would expect!

13. However that may be, I have no compunction in professing, as a philosopher - albeit, to my eternal credit, a self-taught one - a love of truth and in affirming the desirability, from a male standpoint, of truthful sanity in ego and, especially, soul as the means by which culture and grace, wisdom and holiness, may be developed in the interests of lasting form and contentment, peace and confidence.

14. I do not see any great merit in the subversion of truth through fact, or in the empirical identification of philosophy with science, and am only too aware how an intellectual aberration of this magnitude came to have such an immoral influence on societies that, for want of Christian resolve, have developed secular freedoms to the point where the Church, if and where it still exists, is little more than an adjunct to the State, and everything accordingly revolves around the protection and advancement of the darknesses of somatic freedom, in reality the enemy of enlightenment and true philosophy.

15. Thus have the antiphilosophers of empiricism kow-towed to the factual sanities, in somatic freedom, of female hegemonies, and often enough from a standpoint rooted in the illusory insanity of minds so bound by instinctual or spiritual subversion of soul and ego (by id and superego) that they have been incapable of independent judgement and have taken every last fact that came somatically dropping to their attention as gospel truth, never for a moment realizing that their standpoint was philosophically insane and morally untenable, but prepared to brand anyone with the capability to point out to them the nature of their illusory position as enemies of god and reason!

16. Thus does a wrong pass itself off as a right, since even bent males have a conscience of sorts which has to be placated in terms of the ascription of truth to fact and, in bigoted recoil, the levelling of superstitious fantasy (fiction) upon those who would uphold religious truth, or truth in terms of religion, in the face of scientific fact, now reinterpreted as truth per se.

17. Two wrongs, however, do not make a right, and the arrogation of reason to the service of a fundamentally unreasonable context, be it chemical or metachemical, simply compounds the problem and ensures that genuine reason is excluded and subjectively banished from the empirical equation in which the illusory insanity of a factually bound psyche trails meekly and even idolatrously behind the march of factual sanity to ever greater depths of somatic barbarity and crime, like some gross tragedy.

18. In such fashion philosophy, now corrupted as antiphilosophy, becomes an apologist for the barbarities and crimes of state freedom, including, not least of all, the expansion and utilization of state power to imperial ends. Instead of rationally pursuing truth to ever greater heights of psychic light (enlightenment), it plunges, under cover of the empirical subversion and denial of truth, into ever greater depths of somatic darkness, from which nadir of self-destruction nothing wise or good can emerge, but only the evil and foolish claims of an unreasoning not-self in secular pursuit of the worst of all possible worlds, a world governed by fear and loathing in which negativity is everywhere king and anything positive will be brutally or callously derided and ostracized as a subversive threat to the secular status quo.

19. Such is the nature of the secular realities of the fact-besotted scientifically-oriented world which the empirical antiphilosopher does his best to justify, in the name of truth, from a standpoint characterized by illusory insanity and simultaneously fighting shy of fictional insanity unduly hyped, or misinterpreted, as religious superstition.

20. Little do such people realize, so far removed are they from the possibility of genuine truth, just how necessary to, and yet distinct from, such truth fictional insanity actually is, being the female complement, in chemical and/or metachemical contexts, to the truthful sanity which proclaims the triumph of reason through free psyche of either a physical or a metaphysical order, the former relative and centred in knowledge, the latter absolute and centred in joy, the psychocentric (soulful) redemption of ego.

21. But let us not waste any more time with these ignorant, false, and objectively deluded males, who are traitors to reason and effectively a disgrace to their gender! The Western world has enough poetic fools and dramatic scoundrels in it as it is, without my having to draw especial attention to those who represent the corruption of philosophy in antiphilosophical rejection of religion and affirmation of science!

22. No doubt the fact or, perhaps I should say, truth of my being a philosopher who affirms religion on a new and more rational basis has something to do with the matter, as does my contempt for the empirical enslavement of psyche to somatic fact which follows from a female hegemony and want of male self-respect on the part of those for whom soma is the key to all knowledge, knowledge having been conveniently reduced to what factually pertains to the not-self, as opposed to truthfully pertains to the self, and therefore damned and cursed with the stamp of free soma as the mark of its authenticity.

23. Nothing, however, could be further from the case, and anyone who wants to live in a rational society dominated by free males in psychically hegemonic vein will be extremely wary of treating empiricism as the key to ultimate reality or, indeed, as worthy of any but the most peripheral respect, a sort of last resort that may be more applicable to freely metachemical and/or chemical contexts where and if they might still exist, but could never be advocated for consideration in connection with contexts characterized by truthful sanity in freely physical and/or metaphysical vein.

24. In short, an omega-oriented, male-conditioned, rationalistic society, such as I have outlined in terms of the administrative aside to and triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come', in which not only culture and grace, wisdom and holiness, for males but, subordinate to and complementary of that, civility and punishment, goodness and unclearness for females, are the saved/blessed ideals to be virtuously advanced on both phenomenal and noumenal, relative and absolute, moral terms, men and antiwomen being subordinate, overall, to the lead of gods and antidevils - such a moral society, I say, could only be one in which the wisdom of truthful sanity prevailed over the goodness of fictional insanity in rationalistic affirmation of the self, and the emphasis upon free psyche accordingly resulted in both the enhancement of psychic subjectivity for males, whether in physical knowledge or metaphysical joy, and the reduction, proportionate to this, of somatic objectivity for females, whether through chemical pride or metachemical beauty, as the primary salvation/blessedness of the one gender and the secondary blessedness/salvation of the other gender, the wisdom/holiness of males and the punishment/goodness of females, enabled culture and civility, holiness and unclearness, to take humanity beyond the world of sensual confusion and suffering towards a brave new Other World of sensible infusion and well-being destined to peak in a post-human cyborg perfection, such that ensured that never again could the darkness of somatic freedom return to negatively deprive life of its supra-human potential, in the light of psychic freedom, for the maximizing of positivity through all eternity.