Op. 45




Supernotational Philosophy


Copyright 2011 John O'Loughlin





1. Aphs. 1-234

2. Appendix



1.   Just as, formerly, right-thinking people opposed slavery and serfdom, so their latter-day counterparts should oppose work.  For work is no less evil in relation to the contemporary world than slavery and serfdom were evils in relation to the past.  Work divides and degrades people, sets up artificial barriers between them which are no less an obstacle to universal harmony than the natural barriers of race and class which formerly divided them and which, to a certain extent, still do so today.  Where man was formerly divided by race and class, he is now divided by profession.  Only when work is also consigned to the 'rubbish heap of history' will man be truly free - free from division and free for unity.  Such unity, it need hardly be said, can only be achieved through play, albeit play of the most spiritual order - the order making for universal joy.


2.   Decadence is to civilization what cancer is to the flesh: a degeneration which must be eliminated by the scalpel of revolutionary change.


3.   It is only when and because men generally symbolize goodness that they look-up to women, as to the Beautiful, from a worldly point-of-view, propagating truth in the guise of children.


4.   Why did Christ say: You must become as little children in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?  Doubtless because children symbolize innocence, since playful, contemplative, trusting, loving, etc.  And yet, there are men - saints, artists, priests - who get above goodness and become truth, thereby putting themselves above beauty and, hence, women.  From their divine vantage-point, they look down upon both diabolic beauty and worldly goodness alike.  Such men are more likely to remain celibate than to become lovers, fathers, and husbands.


5.   Better to suffer for Heaven than to seek pleasure in the world.


6.   To distinguish between small paving stones as People's democratic and medium-to-large paving stones as bourgeois democratic, with macadamized 'pavements' corresponding to a People's theocratic equivalent by dint of their construction within the idealistic context of a wavicle continuum.  Thus, on the one hand, the particle materialism of paving stones while, on the other hand, the wavicle idealism of macadamized sidewalks, so-named after their Irish inventor, MacAdam.


7.   Stereo speakers as worldly in relation to stereo headphones, whether of the larger particle-suggesting variety, more suited to rock, or of the smaller wavicle-suggesting variety, better suited to jazz.  Conventional and micro, Communist and Fascist equivalents beyond 'democratic' speakers, as especially suited to classical and pop.  Certainly, headphones connote with the head in contrast to the body, with theocracy as opposed to democracy, and can be distinguished, on the above-mentioned basis of type, as brain from mind, particles from wavicles.


8.   But if we ascribe Communist and Fascist equivalents to stereo headphones, depending on their type, e.g. conventional or micro, then it seems not unreasonable to ascribe an Ecological equivalence to radio headphones, so that we regard them as ideologically situated in between the alternative kinds of stereo headphones, much as trikes can be regarded as being ideologically situated in between Communist motorbikes on the one hand and Fascist scooters on the other ... in a uniquely middle-ground theocratic position, as befitting Ecological equivalents in general.  Certainly radio headphones are as distinct, given their individual construction and purpose, from stereo headphones as trikes from motorbikes or scooters, and while they may come in a variety of shapes and sizes, it would seem that an Ecological equivalent is much the most likely and plausible description.  Thus whether radio headphones are designed on a uniquely middle-ground basis or in such a way as to suggest a leaning towards either of the flanking extremes, it will suit our ideological purposes if we regard them in the aforementioned light, as a kind of trike-like extrapolation from or extension beyond small streamlined transistors with microlight headphones, which, by contrast, suggest a radical Liberal Democratic equivalent.


9.   Concerning stereo headphones, we should distinguish, I believe, not only between Communist conventionals and Fascist micros, but (to the extent that more radical ideological equivalents can be derived from these) also between Transcendental Socialist and Social Transcendentalist stereo headphones, and on the following basis: namely that while Communist conventionals will be of a chunky construction with ring- or doughnut-like ear pads, Transcendental Socialist conventionals will be of a slender construction with correspondingly more streamlined ear pads, possibly of a centralized foam design; and that while Fascist micros will be very lightweight and all-of-a-piece, Social Transcendentalist micros will be of the collapsible or fold-up variety, with larger centralized ear pads and a stronger overall construction.  Such larger micros, together with the smaller conventionals (in relation to Communist headphones) will, I contend, stand to one another as plain scooters to streamlined motorbikes, both of which may be said to form a closer parallel that not only overhauls and transcends the more absolute and wider parallel of Fascist micros and Communist conventionals, but overhauls and transcends radio headphones as well, just as plain scooters and streamlined motorbikes overhaul and transcend trikes, on the basis of a post-superworldly relativity.


10.  Clearly ring-padded radio headphones will be of an Ecological status with a bias towards Communist conventionals; streamlined centre-padded radio headphones will be of an Ecological status with a bias towards Fascist micros; streamlined ring-padded radio headphones will be of a uniquely middle-ground Ecological status.  Parallels may be drawn with rock-blues, jazz-blues, and blues-blues respectively, not to mention with comparable kinds of trikes.


11.  To me, Social Theocracy and Social Transcendentalism are interchangeable terms for the ideology of what is potentially, if not actually at this point in time, a true world religion, a religion capable of genuinely global aspirations.  I personally prefer to think of the first term in connection with political equivalents, since it is closer in appearance and sound to Social Democracy, and the second term in connection with religious equivalents, since it better expresses the freedom from alpha-stemming orientations and correlative freedom for omega-aspiring orientations.  For, despite my transcendental use of the word, 'theocracy' too easily connotes with quasi-autocratic subservience to alpha-stemming deities, whereas 'transcendentalism' more readily expresses the freedom that an omega-aspiring religion entails.  Thus one can conceive of a Social Theocratic Party or Movement, but the actual religious realization of the ideology in question would be better served by the term Social Transcendentalism, which, in any case, is the term I tend to prefer.


12.  Public ownership of the land in relation to public ownership of industry - a natural/artificial distinction which finds a parallel between hand-played percussion on the one hand and drums on the other, as befitting alpha and omega manifestations of decentralization.  Thus primitive Communism and contemporary Communism, each of which are unacceptable from a truly civilized, and therefore centralized, standpoint.  Better than public ownership of the means of production, whether natural or artificial, agricultural or industrial, is Centrist trusteeship of those means for the People-become-Holy-Ghost.  Otherwise the People can never become Holy Ghost, but will remain enslaved to materialism and be no better than proletarian.  A truly free people are free for the spirit.  Those who elect, under Messianic auspices, to serve the People in this ultimate freedom must bear the 'sinful' materialisms of the world for them in a Christ-like sacrifice ... in order that  they may go free of such 'sins' for all time.  But trusteeship is not ownership!  Trusteeship is social, not Socialism.  Ownership is a dirty concept from a divine standpoint.


13.  Purely as a matter of general interest, can there be ownership of the land, as of anything else, without prior purchase?  Is not ownership dependent upon one's buying what is offered for sale?  So can there be true ownership where no purchase was involved, as in primitive communal societies which knew nothing about money and would not have cared for financial transactions had they done so?  No, it seems to me that no ownership could have existed in those primitive communities, least of all where land was concerned.  Rather did people, whether as individual clans or tribes, occupy and make use of land for the benefit of the community, as in ancient Ireland.  But such occupation was not ownership!  One must first buy land before one can be said to own it, and even those who deprived the Irish of the land they were occupying and using were not so much owners as usurpers - certainly until they or their descendants sought to legalize their usurpation through royal or other purchase, which is to say, by first claiming the seized land in the name of the king or some high feudal lord and then buying it back from him at whatever price was demanded (doubtless a reasonable one for the vast amount of land involved).  So there is a distinct difference between occupying and owning, and once ownership supplants occupation, as with the feudal system, then those who were formerly occupants become serfs, in the pay of the owners.  From being free in the community, they become bound to the individual.


14.  A modern example of occupying but now owning is afforded by squatters, who take over deserted or derelict property and make use of it for themselves.  For to own one must first buy.  No ownership can be said to exist where a purchase has not been made.  The Irish were once beneath ownership, but hopefully one day they will be beyond it, even in the collective sense advocated by Socialists.  Yet while public ownership may be preferable to, because more evolved than, private ownership, it is still ownership, and thus rather more on the diabolic than the divine side of life.  It can only truly exist where the State, acting on behalf of the community, buys out the private owners of their land, industry, or whatever, which is then nationalized.  Thus the State, having first bought in the collective interest, owns what it has bought.  Yet such ownership can only exist in a Liberal State, or one in which a Socialist administration nationalizes certain industries, having first bought them from private ownership.  It cannot be equated with a Communist State, or one where Capitalists are not so much bought out as ... liquidated and/or expropriated.  For it cannot be assumed that Capitalists will willingly agree to sell their land, industry, etc., in the general interest.  Where Socialism wholly triumphs, then the Capitalists or Feudalists are expropriated, and the result is less ownership than trusteeship by the State for the People, since no purchase was or can be made.  Now, obviously, such trusteeship can be called ownership, and ownership of the means of production by the People through the Communist State is the usual description of Socialist policy in states where Socialism is wholly triumphant - a description that owes more than a little to Capitalist precedent and which can be regarded as an extrapolation from it, in accordance with the naturalistic criteria of a People's democracy, which makes no claims to spiritual salvation.  Only, however, in a Social Transcendentalist Centre, where the People were religiously sovereign, would the term 'public ownership' fall into disrepute, as Centrist trusteeship of the means of production became the accepted norm, a norm transcending state ownership in the interests of a totally free society, as much beyond ownership as early communal societies were beneath it.  Clearly, the more industry is nationalized in liberal republics like the Irish one, the less would a Social Transcendentalist Centre be obliged to indulge in the expropriation of private ownership.  What was owned by the State in the name of the People (who pay the taxes from which governments draw their purchasing power) would pass to the trusteeship of the Centre.  Wavicles superseding particles on a free-electron basis.


15.  Transcendental Socialism is one-party Socialism, in which the proletariat own the means of production through the State.  Social Transcendentalism is one-party trusteeship of the means of production for the People through the Centre.  Hence whereas the former implies ownership, the latter implies trusteeship.


16.  Re-evaluation (in relation to evaluations carried out in, for example, From Materialism to Idealism) of different types of People's discs in relation to ideological equivalents: Democratic Socialist long-playing album; pure Socialist large single; Communist small single; Transcendental Socialist compact disc.  Thus from the democratically large-scale disc to the theocratically small-scale disc.


17.  No-one who is familiar with contemporary modes of motorized transportation will have failed to notice a distinction between cars on the one hand, and motorbikes and scooters on the other, which can be inferred to parallel the distinction I have already drawn between the body and head, as regarding worldly democracy and otherworldly theocracy, the latter divisible into brain and mind, with particular reference (in relation to motorbikes and scooters) to the new brain and the superconscious mind.  By which I mean that whereas cars connote, on account of their extensive bodywork, with the body and thus may be ascribed a democratic significance, motorbikes connote, on account of their engine bias, with the brain or, more accurately, the new brain, while scooters connote, on account of their preponderant panelling, with the superconscious, i.e. mind of a post-worldly and hence transcendent order.  Consequently a dichotomy in the first place between body-oriented cars and head-oriented motorbikes/scooters, with a further dichotomy between brain-oriented motorbikes and mind-oriented scooters.  World-Devil-God distinctions on democratic and transcendent terms.


18.  Certainly we need not doubt that cars will appeal more to worldly, democratic people than to those of a post-worldly or otherworldly disposition, who will doubtless prefer motorbikes or scooters, as befitting 'heads'.  But in a democratic society such more ideologically-advanced individuals are rather the exception to the rule, as can be confirmed by the preponderance of four-wheel over two-wheel motor vehicles on today's roads.  Of course, distinctions between Fascist streamlined scooters and Social Transcendentalist  plain scooters do not alter the fact that scooters are essentially mind orientated, any more than streamlined motorbikes cease to be brain orientated in relation to plain, or conventional, motorbikes just because they signify a Transcendental Socialist extrapolation from Communist purism.  Certainly a latter-day plain scooter will be less idealistic and mind orientated than a streamlined scooter, but it will still be more a phenomenon of the superconscious than of the new brain.  Similarly a latter-day streamlined motorbike will be less materialistic and brain orientated than a plain motorbike, yet still be more a phenomenon of the new brain than of the superconscious.  For scooters are ever scooters, no less than motorbikes remain motorbikes whatever modifications are introduced.  They pertain to separate ideological spectra.


19.  However, it is my unshakeable conviction that scooters and motorbikes are more relevant to post-worldly intellectuals than ever cars would be, given their inherently bodily construction.  Cars for the democratic masses, scooters and motorbikes for the transcendental elites, whether divine or diabolic, fascistic or communistic.  For it is incontestable that two-wheeled motor vehicles are as much beyond the world ... of the democratic masses ... as ponies and horses may be said to have preceded it, with scooters as a kind of antithetical equivalent to ponies and motorbikes as a kind of antithetical equivalent to horses - a difference, in part, of scale and, in part, of design.  Certainly ponies are smaller and slower than horses, and the same is generally true of scooters in relation to motorbikes; shorter legs in the case of ponies and smaller wheels in the case of scooters, making for a slower overall performance.  Doubtless the type of person who would have preferred a pony to a horse in the pre-worldly age of pagan antiquity will have his antithetical equivalent in the type of person who, in this incipiently post-worldly age of transcendent futurity, prefers a scooter to a motorbike - the difference, in other words, between alpha-stemming idealism (the Father) and omega-oriented idealism (the Holy Ghost).  And doubtless, too, the type of person who, in an alpha-stemming age, would have preferred a horse to a pony has his antithetical equivalent in the typical motorcyclist for whom scooters are inadequate or unacceptable, as the case may be.


20.  But what of those who come in-between each of the extreme choices?  For we can no more ignore the reality of a mid-position in between scooters and motorbikes than in between ponies and horses, and if the former has to do with trikes, then it seems not unreasonable to contend that the latter had to do with donkeys, quadrupeds which were no less distinct from (and slower than) ponies and horses than trikes (are) from scooters and motorbikes.  Thus if we are to consider trikes as the antithetical equivalent to donkeys, it will be partly on account of the slow pace at which each mode of transportation moves, neither of them a match for their immediate rivals.  Yet just as trikes are rather more a scaling-down of the body than truly correlative with the head, so we may believe that donkeys were less suitable modes of conveyance for 'heads', or head types, prior to the world (of carriages and cars) than for 'bodies', or mass types, in that pre-dualistic context, thereby rating lower in the alpha-stemming estimation of pagans than either ponies or horses.  Just as, in the omega-oriented estimation of post-dualistic transcendentalists, trikes rate lower than either scooters or motorbikes, being no less bodily or populist, in relation to these latter modes of conveyance, than donkeys were in relation to the former modes.


21.  So from natural modes of conveyance to artificial modes via carriages and cars, which is to say, from alpha-stemming God/Devil dichotomies (excluding the subworldly donkey) to omega-oriented God/Devil dichotomies (excluding the supra-worldly trike) via the world.  Certainly, the head is making a comeback, but on diametrically antithetical terms to its first appearance, when subconscious and old brain were predominant.  We may be some way from a society in which scooters and motorbikes, not to mention trikes, are the rule rather than the exception, but if the world is not to last for ever, then such a society must surely arise ... whether with a bias for scooters over motorbikes, or vice versa.


22.  Possibility of tanks as the antithetical equivalent of chariots, particularly those of the martial variety.  For are not tanks designed both to protect their occupants from enemy fire and enable them to train projectiles on an enemy - the very things which chariots were intended to do, albeit from a relatively naturalistic point-of-view?  Tanks may have displaced cavalry in the evolution of warfare, but their role is more akin to that of chariots, which were evidently displaced by cavalry.


23.  Evolutionary theory of lettering from autocratic Block Capitals to centrist lower-case writing via theocratic mixed-case writing, democratic mixed-case printing, socialist lower-case printing, and transcendental socialist lower-case italics.  Consequently, lettering may be assumed to evolve from a materialistic inception in BLOCK CAPITALS to an idealistic culmination in lower-case writing via writerly and printerly compromises in between.  From the separate to the joined, as from the large to the small, strength to truth, the particular to the general.  Or, put in nuclear terms, from proton particles to wavicles, atomic particles to wavicles, and electron particles to wavicles - pre-worldly, worldly, and post-worldly alternatives, with diabolic/divine implications on the extreme levels, which, however you regard them, tend to be mutually exclusive.  Thus lower-case printing excludes both the autocratic possibility of upper-case printing and the transcendental possibility of lower-case writing; lower-case writing excludes both the theocratic possibility of mixed-case writing and the socialist possibility of lower-case printing.  Spectra remain distinct, and alpha and omega manifestations thereof cancel out the possibility of an antithetical option.  Unfortunately the age of lower-case writing is still some way off, though we are seeing more lower-case printing these days, particularly where consciously socialist or proletarian publications are concerned. (Supplementary to the above distinctions, I should like to add the theory that mixed-case italics correspond to a Nazi equivalent, in contrast to lower-case italics.)


24.  I have never been particularly happy with Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, and now, for the first time, I realize exactly why.  It is as though it were the philosophical equivalent of the United Kingdom, as signifying a compromise between constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, with the former indicative of 'Will' and the latter of 'Representation', i.e. of aristocratic and bourgeois, autocratic and democratic, options.  There is nothing in it that connotes with or intimates of a properly People's equivalent.  Rather, it is an entirely alpha-stemming work, with reactionary attitudes towards revolutionary opposition to such a reality.  No, The World as Will and Representation doesn't go far enough for my taste, since its author has no desire to acknowledge the possibility of anything beyond such 'Will and Representation', and accordingly is not only reactionary but ... inherently pessimistic, as befitting a man of aristocratic disposition, a man whom I recently overheard a Hornsey librarian bluntly describe as 'that old cunt', with all its alpha-stemming, or proton, implications!  There is need, it seems to me, for a counterbalance to Schopenhauer, for a 'Superworld as Superwill and Super-representation', so to speak, if omega-oriented criteria, more reminiscent of Hegel or Nietzsche, are to be granted philosophical credibility!  A 'Superworld' of artificial representations and artificial or, rather, supernatural will.  For why should subnatural will (the 'noumenon' in Schopenhauer's terminology) and nature be the ne plus ultra of evolutionary possibility?  Surely an artificial world composed of synthetic phenomena presupposes a radically different order of atomic constitution from the natural or, indeed, bourgeois artificial world?  And surely the supernatural will of proletarian humanity within the urban context of that artificial world is of a diametrically antithetical nature to the subnatural will which, according to Schopenhauer, is the primal energy behind all phenomena and their activities thereof - a will, I mean, which has relevance to the artificial as opposed to the natural, and is therefore centred in electrons rather than protons?  Certainly there is no doubt in my mind that such a will exists and that it is no less behind the fashioning of the synthetically-transcendental world in which a majority of latter-day people live ... than the primal will was behind the fashioning of the natural world of which man used, traditionally, to be a part.  For these two types of will work on a diametrically antithetical basis and cannot, therefore, be traced to a single source.  Indeed, it could no more be said that they are identical or that there is only one ... than that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost are identical, or that only the former has any reality.  If the primal will precedes mind, then the superwill succeeds it, the mind itself having passed from an alpha-stemming to an omega-oriented phase in the meantime.


25.  But if we can distinguish between an alpha-stemming and an omega-oriented will on the above basis, with latitudinal implications, one should also be careful to distinguish longitudinally, as it were, between divine, diabolic, and worldly types of will on each of the extreme positions, and to a certain extent Schopenhauer did in fact do so - at any rate, with regard to the alpha-stemming types of will.  For he fully admitted to a distinction between conscious will, or will of which the subject is fully conscious, and unconscious or subliminal will, which rises up of its own accord from the instinctual depths of the organism, a testimony to the automotive.  Clearly this distinction is between diabolic will in the case of the conscious, and worldly will in the case of the unconscious; for the former would seem to owe more to the old brain than to the subconscious, about which Schopenhauer had relatively little to say, and may therefore be accorded a diabolic origin, in contrast not only to worldly instinctual will but to divine will, which, on the alpha-stemming level, manifests itself in imagination, whether as dreams or consciously-willed fantasies, images, and so on, that do not impinge on or lead to bodily actions.  For the essence of divine will is unconnected with bodily actions, which depend on conscious or subliminal types of will, and is accordingly complete in itself.  Whether in dreams or fantasies or the even rarer instance of natural visions, divine will pertains to the subconscious as a kind of psychic extrapolation from the central star of the Galaxy, which corresponds to the Creator by dint of its centralized uniqueness and almost transcendent aloofness from planetary revolutions, a star seemingly wrapped-up in itself rather than directly responsible for the motions of planets, in contrast to the myriad suns which circle around it (as monarchs around a pope) in the rest of the Galaxy, of which our sun is but a minute component.  And yet, if dreams can be regarded, in some basic metaphysical sense, as extrapolations from the central star of the Galaxy, then we need not hesitate in ascribing to consciously-willed activity an extrapolation from the sun, as though it corresponded to the influence of the sun on the earth's motions, while reserving to the unconscious or instinctual will a parallel with the influence of the earth's molten core on the planet itself, as though that, too, were but an extrapolation from some more fundamental principle acting upon the cosmic head.  Consequently while the central star of the Galaxy would connote with mind, being a kind of cosmic foreshadowing of the subconscious, the sun would assume, in this context, a connotation with the brain, being a kind of cosmic foreshadowing of the old brain, from which all conscious willing proceeds, leaving the planet itself to foreshadow the instinctual, subliminal manifestation of will in the body.  Needless to say, each kind of will is to be found in everyone, although not, I shall argue, to the same extent, since we can generalize people into divine, diabolic, and worldly dispositions, according to both racial and class factors, about which the reader will already be familiar from earlier sections of my work.


26.  So we have three levels or types of will in the sense of action - one primarily mental, one arising in the mind but intended to activate the body, and one primarily physical, residing in the body.  All three types of will discussed above pertain to an alpha-stemming orientation, which is to say, they are of a naturalistic, proton-based constitution.  Schopenhauer, as we have seen, was particularly mindful of two of them, viz. the diabolic, or conscious, will, and the worldly, or subliminal, will, and so far as he was concerned no alternative will existed, nor could ever exist, these two types of will being extrapolated from a single primal source and returning to it, in the context of noumenon, once their phenomenal manifestations had passed away.  Yet, as I have already argued, an omega orientation is also possible and presupposes a different order of will, as well as parallel types or levels of will within that omega-oriented context.  In other words, just as there are divine, diabolic, and worldly types of alpha-stemming will, so there must be divine, diabolic, and worldly types of omega-aspiring will, which constitute antithetical equivalents to the former.  Such omega-aspiring types of will should be of an electron-based supernaturalistic constitution and may alternatively be regarded as levels of superwill.  Consequently the antithetical equivalent of imaginative will on the plane of dreams or fantasies or visions, as the case may be, will be imaginative superwill, which should take the forms, in an ascending order of importance, of film-viewing, video-making, and LSD-tripping.  Similarly, the antithetical equivalent of conscious will on the plane of bodily actions will be conscious superwill, which should have to do not with natural actions in relation to nature but with artificial actions in relation to artificial phenomena such as machines, computers, synthesizers, motorized vehicles, and so on.  Finally, the antithetical equivalent of subliminal or instinctual will with regard to bodily functions will be instinctual superwill which, as in the case of the higher levels of omega-oriented will, should have to do with an instinctual response to external artificial stimuli, whether in the guise of music or sport or any other artificial inducements.  Thus in complete contrast to the alpha-stemming types of will, whether on the divine or diabolic or worldly planes, the omega-aspiring types of will are dependent upon and stimulated by artificial phenomena, without which they would cease to exist.  Rather than being behind all natural phenomena, like Schopenhauer's noumenon, artificial phenomena are, in a very real sense, behind all supernoumena, a precondition for the emergence of whichever type of superwill.  It is the disco that creates the dance, not vice versa.  And, by a like-token, it is the machine which conditions the response of conscious superwill, no less than LSD which creates the trip.  The former is a precondition of the latter.


27.  Thus in complete contrast to Schopenhauer, we have a will which is the effect of artificial causes rather than the cause of natural effects, a will which, far from being the means to a higher end, namely the creation of phenomena, is an end-in-itself, and therefore the transcendence of all phenomena through self-realization, or realization of the superwill.  Such self-realization can be bodily or intellectual or spiritual, although the long-term goal of evolutionary progress must be the utmost divine type of superwill, in spiritual transcendence, and not the utmost worldly or diabolic types of superwill in connection with, and hence enslavement to, artificial phenomena.  Even if the latter are preferable to the different types of alpha-stemming will, they are inherently inferior to the highest omega-aspiring type of superwill and must eventually be eclipsed by it, as spirit triumphs over both brain and body in the attainment not only of salvation from the world but, more importantly, of heavenly bliss.  Such a heavenly culmination to evolution may not have been envisaged by Schopenhauer but it was by Nietzsche, whose 'great noontide' would seem to correspond with the ultimate fulfilment of Christian aspirations in the heavenly Beyond - a Beyond which is no mere return to the pre-worldly noumenon but an advancement beyond the world to Paradise.  If Schopenhauer was the culmination of one philosophical tradition, then Nietzsche can at least in part be regarded as the inception of another.  It is my belief that I am the culmination of that alternative tradition, necessarily antithetical to the first.


28.  Can one have been noumenon, in the sense of will as expounded by Schopenhauer, before birth in the phenomenal world as a particular individual, and, if so, is one destined to become noumenon again, following death?  I do not believe so!  Such a noumenon is equivalent to cosmic energy or force ... in the context of suns and stars, and it seems rather unlikely that before birth one was a star or component thereof, since one's entry into the world came via one's parents and is inconceivable on any other basis than parental procreation.  Similarly, after death one will simply cease to exist as a person and become nothing, particularly if, instead of being exposed to the organic cycle through burial, one's corpse is incinerated and thereby reduced to a few pounds of common ash.  One is no more likely to become pure will after death than to have been it before birth.  Such will is solely cosmic, existing on primitive divine, diabolic, and worldly levels, which is to say, in the central star of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy); in the circling stars of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy); and in the circling planets of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy), where molten cores may be presumed to exist.  In such alpha-stemming contexts we have a gradual scaling-down or reduction of proton energy from the comparatively pure level of the central star of the Galaxy to the cruder level of the earth's core, as the noumenon descends towards the phenomenal world.  Beyond it there is nothing or, rather, only the possibility of supernoumenal electron-electron attractions.  Yet such pure spirit would not have emerged from man, and hence the world, but from a more evolved life form, corresponding to a new-brain collectivization, elsewhere in the Universe - it being assumed, for the sake of argument, that the Universe does in fact contain such a life form.


29.  Concerning will on the alpha-stemming worldly and omega-aspiring worldly levels, it seems to me that dance is to sex what sport is to war - namely a kind of antithetical equivalent wherein electron-biased criteria, as germane to worldly superwill, are preponderant.  Thus from sex on the wavicle level of proton-biased atomic will to dance on the wavicle level of electron-biased atomic will; and from war on the particle level of proton-biased atomic will to sport on the particle level of electron-biased atomic will.  In a primitive, or pagan, society it follows that sex and war preponderate over dance and sport, whereas in an advanced, or transcendental, society ... dance and sport will be preponderant over sex and war, and possibly to the complete exclusion of the latter.  Only in a worldly, or Christian, society will a balance exist between sex and war on the one hand and dance and sport on the other, as befitting atomic criteria.  Thus from sex and war at one end of the evolutionary scale to dance and sport at the other end, the former presupposing alpha-stemming atomic will and the latter, by contrast, presupposing omega-aspiring atomic will.  Wavicle construction (self-indulgence) and particle destruction (self-sacrifice) on the proton-biased levels; wavicle co-operation (self-transcendence) and particle competition (self-assertion) on the electron-biased levels, with all due gradations and compromises coming in-between.


30.  Certainly, contemporary society testifies to a preponderance of dance and sport over sex and war, and I venture to suggest that disco-dancing, wherein people dance freely in the collective, is the antithetical equivalent of the pagan orgy, wherein people copulated freely in the collective, choosing whomsoever they pleased.  Of course, orgiastic behaviour was not unheard of in the late-twentieth century, but it was more an expression of bourgeois decadence within a pseudo-modern context than a reflection of truly contemporary trends.  The genuinely modern man, a proletarian, will rather be found free-dancing in a disco than free-fucking at an orgy.  And what applies to the male sex applies no less to the female, whose commitment to the dance should leave one in no doubt that what is happening isn't so much sexual as an antithetical equivalent of sex with superior moral implications - certainly when judged in relation to orgiastic behaviour!  For it is the consequence of a different kind of will, one dependent on artificial, though in this case musical, motivation.  Transcendent rather than mundane.


31.  Consequently we may distinguish not merely dance from sex, but collective sex at one end of the wavicle-atomic spectrum from collective dance at the other end, with alpha and omega, proton and electron, implications ... as pertaining to the noumenal within a worldly, and hence bodily, context.  For the noumenal, as pure will, is characterized by its indivisibility, and such indivisibility manifests itself within the collective, whether on the alpha-stemming levels of a proton-biased atomicity or on the omega-oriented levels of an electron-biased atomicity, that is to say whether as noumenon or supernoumenon.  It is only in the phenomenal as such, which comes in between these antithetical kinds of noumena as a manifestation of worldly individualism, that individualized sex and dance have their rightful place and are properly intelligible, with individualized sex, or sex between man and wife, succeeding orgiastic sex as atomic wavicles succeed proton-biased atomic wavicles, while, from the converse viewpoint, individualized dancing, or dancing between couples, precedes the more collectivized free-dancing one would associate with the disco.  Thus from pre-worldly sexual noumenon to worldly sexual phenomenon, and from worldly dancing phenomenon to post-worldly dancing noumenon.


32.  Likewise, we can distinguish between the particle equivalents of sex and dance, namely war and sport, on alpha and omega worldly levels, reserving a collective (noumenal) status for tribal war, or warfare between various tribes, clans, etc., and an individualized (phenomenal) status for national war, or warfare between two rival rulers, a kind of war which may be regarded as having succeeded the tribal kind to the degree and in the sense that individualized sex succeeded orgiastic sex.  Conversely, we should reserve an individualized (phenomenal) status for national sports, or sporting contexts involving two competitors or teams, and a collectivized (noumenal) status for international sports, or sporting contexts which involve a number of competitors or teams from a variety of countries ... such as cycling, motor racing, motorcycle racing, speedboat racing, and so on, which are not only more transcendental in relation to national sports but, as a rule, more artificial as well.  Indeed, a distinction should be drawn between these truly modern or artificial sports on the one hand, and athletics on the other which, although fulfilling some of the criteria we have laid down for international sports, presupposes strong naturalistic bodily exertions suggestive of a form of neo-pagan behaviour.  Could it be that athletics, despite its unquestioned contemporary significance and popularity, is less truly modern than pseudo-modern, standing to cycling as sunbathing to solariums or hand percussion to drums?


33.  However that may be, we have before us an atomic-particle spectrum stretching from pre-worldly martial noumenon to worldly martial phenomenon, and from worldly sporting phenomenon to post-worldly sporting noumenon, a spectrum which can be seen to parallel the sex/dance one outlined above.  Such relativity is germane to the world, and not only implies two opposite kinds of noumenon or will, viz. alpha-stemming noumenon on the sex/war levels and omega-aspiring noumenon on the sport/dance levels, but two opposite manifestations of each kind of will, viz. the will to survive on the war and sport spectrum, and the will to live on the sex and dance spectrum.  For is it not the case that war and sport call forth the will to survive, to vanquish opposition, whereas sex and dance entail the will to live, to enjoy and fulfil oneself?  No mean distinction, and the co-existence of each type of will at both ends of the worldly spectra is, it seems to me, an indisputable fact, even if one or other of the opposite types of will tends to preponderate in any given individual, making for a sports bias or a dance bias, as the case may be.  Certainly such opposite types of will correspond to the particle/wavicle dichotomy, which is a characteristic of atomic structures ... whether pre-worldly and of a proton bias, worldly and atomically balanced between protons and electrons, or post-worldly and of an electron bias, and this dichotomy is to be found not only within the bodily, or worldly, context but is originally and even more characteristic of the head, or divine/diabolic, context, since germane to the basic distinction between the Devil and God, whether on the traditional proton levels of the alpha duality between old brain and subconscious, which finds its cosmic analogue in the distinction between the central star of the Galaxy and the sun, or on the contemporary electron levels of the omega duality between new brain and superconscious, the latter of which should lead to the transcendental culmination of evolution.  Consequently we may characterize the will to survive as a particle-biased, and therefore diabolical, atomic disposition, in contrast to the will to live, which pertains to the wavicle side of the atom and is accordingly of a divine bias.  War and sport are alike of a diabolic bias, since expressions of the will to survive, whereas sex and dance are of a divine bias, since expressions of the will to live.  In the cases of war and sex, we have an alpha-stemming proton-biased dichotomy within the worldly context.  In the cases of sport and dance, by contrast, an omega-oriented electron-biased worldly dichotomy.  Self-sacrifice and self-indulgence on the one hand, self-assertion and self-transcendence on the other hand.  Two diametrically opposite kinds of will manifesting on two diametrically opposite planes.


34.  But if the bodily, or mass, level of will is subject to such divisions, then so too, as already intimated, is the head, or elite, level, with similar divisions on both alpha/omega and wavicle/particle terms.  Taking the alpha-stemming old brain and subconscious first, we can attribute a divine bias to self-indulgent dreaming and/or fantasizing, while reserving a diabolic bias for self-sacrificing consciously-determined actions, of which the most purely diabolical would be suicide, since that takes effect with regard to the self and is accordingly not diluted, as it were, through worldly relativity in the form of war.  Conversely, we should attribute a divine bias to self-transcending tripping and/or the viewing of films, videos, etc., and a diabolic bias to self-assertive consciously-determined actions, of which cultural commitments in the form of playing a musical instrument or typing a book or painting a picture will be more representative than anything connected with the body and directly involving other people, like competitive sport.  These latter options will of course pertain to the superconscious and new brain in an omega-oriented context, and therefore be morally antithetical to the former, or self-transcending, options.


35.  However, now that I have written all this, I can imagine a number of objections, not least of all concerning the simple division of will - far more though it is than anything Schopenhauer or Nietzsche ever contemplated - into 'will to survive' on the one hand and 'will to live' on the other.  How, for instance, can one categorize suicide or a particularly reckless and virtually self-destructive act of war under the rubric 'will to survive'?  Is it not rather the case that such acts follow from a will to die and that we must accordingly allow for such a will in our overall calculations, mindful of Freud's distinction between Thanatos and Eros, or death-urge and life-urge, which are clearly antithetical postulates either side of an alpha/omega division, much as Freud equated them with the id and the superego respectively, which is to say with the old brain and the superconscious.  How, then, can we settle for an alpha-stemming will to survive on the one hand and a no-less alpha-stemming will to live on the other, reserving the notion of self-sacrifice for the former and self-indulgence for the latter?  Can the will to survive co-exist with the will to live?  Doubtless it can on the omega-oriented level, where we have distinguished between sport and dance.  But one must reserve some doubts about such a co-existence on the alpha-stemming level of war and sex.  In fact, I incline to think that the will to die and the will to love would be more applicable to that distinction, thereby adding not one but two extra types of alpha-stemming will to our overall picture.... Or, alternatively, it could transpire that the will to survive is a kind of half-way house between the will to die and the will to live, and that we should accordingly be thinking in tripartite terms, with, say, the will to die corresponding to a proton-biased particle atomicity, the will to survive corresponding to a proton-biased particle/wavicle atomicity, and the will to live corresponding to a proton-biased wavicle atomicity.


36.  Obviously what applies with regard to the alpha-stemming noumenal levels would also have to apply to the omega-oriented noumenal levels, with similar tripartite distinctions.  But then death, in the electron-biased particle atomicity, would be rather different from and certainly less lethal than its alpha-stemming counterpart.  More like wishing to lose in a sports competition or purposely throwing away one's chances of survival.  A sort of self-willed defeat that, by no stretch of the imagination, could be equated with the will to survive!  However, we can be under no doubt that limiting will to either survival or living, as both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer did (though with greater reference to survival), is totally inadequate for explaining the complexity of will, as is the no-less one-sided limitation of the noumenon to an alpha-stemming status, even when such a primal noumenon is occasionally invested with attributes more correctly belonging to what I have called the supernoumenon, which is, in reality, radically antithetical to it.  Indeed, I doubt that the use of the singular is really correct; for whilst I will not argue with the professed indivisibility of will, as employed in the aforementioned sense, I most certainly believe that distinctions between divine, diabolic, and worldly levels of will, whether at the alpha or omega poles of their respective spectra, justify one in speaking of noumena, and that use of the plural more accords with an objectively valid recognition of such distinctions than would the singular, it being remembered that wavicle, particle, and atomic distinctions are the ones primarily at stake, as between the central star of the Galaxy, the sun, and the earth.  And yet, irrespective of whether or not one prefers to be pedantically exacting, the indivisibility of will on the alpha levels is neither the same nor as pure as its indivisibility on the omega levels.  For the indivisibility of the former is merely apparent, as pertaining to proton-proton reactions, whereas the indivisibility of the latter is essential, as pertaining to electron-electron attractions, and therefore is much more truly indivisible, as befitting the Holy Ghost.  Proton-proton reactions may be indivisible to the extent that we are concerned with a subatomic absolute, but such an indivisibility is really very frictional in character, calling to mind the difference between an orgy and a disco dance, self-indulgence and self-transcendence or, alternatively, between tribal war and international sport, self-sacrifice and self-assertion.  There can be no question that indivisibility is not being truly manifested on the alpha plane but is merely apparent, as between conflicting protons.


37.  Which leads us to another contention about the alpha noumenon, namely that it is perceptible.  By which I mean that the basic pre-phenomenal 'thing-in-itself' can be seen or known by dint of its frictional constitution, which is nothing less than the proton-proton reactions of solar fission and all fiery manifestations thereof.  Yes, the stars are the alpha noumenon or, as I should say ... to distinguish between the central star of any galaxy and sun-like revolving stars, noumena, which not only precede worldly phenomena, including the earth, but are a precondition of the phenomenal, since atomic cohesion derives from solar cooling and the consequent formation of core and crust which, certainly in the case of the core, are more noumenal than properly phenomenal.  It is only with the organic that the phenomenal is truly born, whether in nature, animals, or man, and this is because only in the organic do we get a proton-electron fusion to a degree which transcends the noumenal absolutism of the stars.  In other words, nature is more than solidified protons; it is fully atomic and no more can be described as the objectification of the will, or alpha noumenon, than the sun can be described as organic.  There is more to it than proton-proton reactions!  And yet, the fact that stars can be seen, i.e. are perceptible, does not preclude them from being noumenal.  For the alpha noumenon is, like flame, apparent, and does not become phenomenal on that account.  All I have to do to perceive the noumenon of or in a piece of wood is to set fire to it, with spectacular if diabolical results!  And what applies to a piece of wood applies no less to a chair or a table or a cupboard made from wood, the atomic constitution of which is well stocked with protons!


38.  Why, then, did philosophers like Hume and Kant stress the unknowability of the thing-in-itself, or noumenon?  Surely because they made the mistake of investing it with attributes better reserved for the omega noumenon, the supernoumenal thing-in-itself which is the end-product of evolution rather than its precondition, while simultaneously regarding stars, and by implication flame, as phenomenal because of their apparent nature, so that there was nothing to fall back on except some hypothetical rudimentary noumenon behind all appearances.  Alas, the truth is more complex than that!  The noumenon they were alluding to most certainly can be known as well as experienced, if one is unfortunate enough to get burnt alive and so drop, as it were, from the phenomenal plane of the organic to the noumenal plane of proton-proton reactions.  We can both feel and see (and therefore have knowledge of) the alpha noumenon ... to the extent that we are brought into contact with flame.  What we cannot see (though feeling and knowledge cannot be ruled out, the latter dependent on the former) is the omega noumenon, which is a spiritual antithesis to the alpha noumenon, essential rather than apparent, blissful as opposed to agonized, centripetal as opposed to centrifugal, and only embryonic in human life to the extent that we cultivate pure spirit in the superconscious mind and accordingly aspire towards the supernoumenal culmination of evolution.  Such a culmination will of course be Heaven, a condition of perfect essence, in complete contrast to the perfect appearance of the stars.  With the phenomenal, whether in nature, animals, or man, both appearance and essence are imperfect ... by dint of the fact that the one has fallen away from proton absolutism into an atomic relativity, whereas the other, trapped in such relativity, is somewhat short of the electron absolutism which is commensurate with the Holy Ghost.  Now obviously, no-one who values Christian teachings and the notion of evolutionary progress is going to want perfect appearances or wish to resurrect a proton-biased idealism, as if the 'fall' from proton purism into worldly atomicity was a cause for regret!  Only a madman or a neo-pagan barbarian could possibly want a world governed by fire and equivalent to Hell!  But neither is turning away from the alpha noumenon sufficient for salvation, since it merely entails a worldly stasis or death-in-life which falls woefully short of a heavenly aspiration.  Only through the cultivation of pure spirit can man begin to change the imperfect essence of his intellectually-polluted spirit into the perfect essence of transcendent spirit, and so aspire towards and eventually achieve salvation from the world, not just the world of imperfect appearances but, no less importantly, the world of imperfect essences, which is thought.  Doubtless there are degrees and stages of evolving towards this supernoumenal perfection, both within and beyond the human context, as well as different means of cultivating pure spirit, both visionary and post-visionary.  But whether the means employed is the relatively humble ones of television or the more advanced ones of artificially-induced internal visionary experience or, indeed, something in between ... like video, the outcome can only be a diminution of impure essence and an expansion of pure essence towards an omega culmination in undifferentiated spirit, which is ultimate divinity.  Oh, how different that omega noumenon beyond the phenomenal would be from the alpha noumenon behind it!  All the difference, in a word, between Heaven and Hell, electron-electron attractions on the one hand and proton-proton reactions on the other, irrespective of the quality of these reactions, i.e. wavicle, particle, or a planetary compromise between the two.


39.  Consequently we have an evolutionary progression, as it were, which stretches from the alpha noumenon in perfect appearance to the phenomenal world and from the artificial superphenomenal world (a precondition of anything higher) to the supernoumenal culmination of evolution in perfect essence.  From the central star of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy) to the natural world via suns and planets, and from the synthetic world of progressive humanity to the ultimate globe of pure spirit via intermediate transcendences.  In relation to man, such transcendences are still a long way into the future.  Yet we who relate not to the phenomenal world but to supernoumenal aspirations raised on the back, so to speak, of superphenomenalism ... are in the chain of progress that leads in their direction.  We can have no truck with any alpha-stemming chain, which finds its culmination in the world.  Bourgeois criteria are beneath us!


40.  As regards Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, it could be argued that, in seeing through and spurning the alpha noumenon, Schopenhauer was a wise fool, or a man who was wise enough not to advocate its furtherance in life but too foolish to perceive the possibility of an alternative noumenon which pertained not to Hell but to an omega Heaven lying in the distant future.  In this respect he was certainly superior to Nietzsche, who foolishly affirmed the very will that Schopenhauer spurned and so prepared the way for the worst excesses of neo-paganism which were to follow in the twentieth century.  To coin a Jungian distinction, Nietzsche was less modern than pseudo-modern, and consequently he fell woefully short of genuine transcendentalism.  We cannot entirely blame such philosophers for their failings, since they were as much victims of their times as of their class and, in all probability, their race.  For it does seem that, no less than class and time, race has to be taken into account when we assess a philosopher's work, the better to understand it, and on the basis of the God-Devil-world divisions which find approximate European parallels in the Celtic-Slavic-Nordic distinctions touched upon elsewhere in my work.  Clearly, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were not just philosophers; they were Germanic philosophers, and this fact should not be ignored when we assess their work in relation to the truth.  Neither can we appraise it in isolation from the civilization to which they belonged, nor in isolation from the age in which it was written and the nature of their social class.  There is much difference between alpha-stemming philosophy and the omega-oriented philosophy or, rather, superphilosophy to which I relate - all the difference, in effect, between a pony and a scooter.


41.  Dresses pertain to the alpha noumenal in and of the world, which is to say, they reflect proton absolutism on the bodily level, whether with a wavicle bias, a particle bias, or something in between ... according to the texture and quality of the fabric employed.  Beyond the noumenal dress we find, in the context of worldly phenomena, skirts on the one hand and trousers on the other, each of which reflects an atomic heterosexual compromise between protons and electrons, female and male.  Suits, whether feminine or masculine, are quintessentially phenomenal ... in the sense of a worldly atomicity, and beyond trouser suits we find jeans of one description or another which, whether worn independently of short matching jackets or in conjunction with them, suggest a superphenomenalism, a socialistic post-worldly norm pending supernoumenal leathers and/or PVCs, particularly in terms of one-piece zipper suits.  Such zipper suits will become the supernoumenal norm of the future, an antithetical equivalent to dresses.  Thus from an apparent, centrifugal noumenal absolutism to an essential, centripetal noumenal absolutism via worldly phenomenalism and superphenomenalism.  A sartorial progression from alpha to omega within a bodily context.  For it should not be forgotten that what covers the body is one thing, what also covers the head quite another, so that shroud-like dresses or hooded gowns stand to dresses as God or the Devil to the world, which is to say symbolic of a divine and/or diabolic alpha-noumenal absolutism, depending on the texture and quality of the hooded garment.  Smooth or silky and we have a proton-wavicle equivalent; coarse or thick and we have a proton-particle equivalent.  Alpha God and Devil as distinct from and superior to the alpha-biased world ... of hoodless dresses.  Conversely, an omega-oriented distinction should also be drawn between hoodless one-piece zipper suits and hooded one-piece zipper suits, with a superdivine and/or superdiabolic implication beyond - and above - superworldly equivalents, depending whether the one-piece zipper suits in question be made from leather or PVC, the former thicker and coarser than the latter, and therefore standing to them in an inferior moral relationship - as, for example, electron particles to wavicles.  Such hooded one-piece zipper suits should not be confounded, however, with hooded anoraks or waist-length zipper jackets, which pertain rather more to the superphenomenal than to the supernoumenal, apart, in any case, from being primarily intended for protection against rain.  Yet the state of the weather would no more condition the wearing of one-piece hooded zipper suits in the future ... than it did the wearing of hooded dresses or gowns in the past.  Moral considerations alone would obtain, and doubtless some people(s) would have a moral advantage over others in this regard - certainly in the short term!


42.  Strictly speaking, one should distinguish between alpha devolution and omega evolution, since there is no overall evolution from alpha to omega but, rather, a gradual devolution from the Alpha Absolute accompanied, at an approximately midway point in phenomenal time, by a gradual evolution towards the Omega Absolute.  Evolution therefore begins where devolution ends: within the phenomenal context of worldly dualism.  Dresses to skirts signify proton devolution; trousers to one-piece zipper suits signify electron evolution.  However, skirts and trousers are alike atomic, so that we are dealing not so much with the noumenal as with the phenomenal, which is both more and less than the noumenal extremes; more than the alpha and less than the omega.  A strictly noumenal devolution from the Alpha Absolute in regard to clothing would be evinced by the distinction between long dresses and minidresses.  Conversely, a strictly noumenal evolution towards the Omega Absolute would be evinced by the distinction between, say, PVC pants and PVC one-piece zipper suits.  In the one case, contraction; in the other case, expansion.  Skirts and trousers form a phenomenal balance in between these two extremes, though skirts can also be regarded as devolving from full-length phenomenalism in a radically proton-biased atomicity to mini-length phenomenalism in a moderately proton-biased atomicity.  Conversely, trousers can be regarded as having evolved, within the phenomenal context of worldly dualism, from a knee-length moderately electron-biased atomicity (breeches) to an ankle-length radically electron-biased atomicity.  Jeans, whether worn separately or with a matching jean-jacket, are rather less an electron-biased atomicity than an electron atomicity, superworldly rather than worldly, and a precondition of free-electron supernoumenal pants, whether in the electron-particle guise of leathers or in the electron-wavicle guise of PVCs - superdiabolic and superdivine distinctions beyond the superworld.


43.  Shorts are socialistic and/or communistic, depending on the type.  Rather as I have elsewhere distinguished between socialist chips and communist chips, with Democratic Socialist, pure Socialist, Communist, and Transcendental Socialist distinctions, I shall here divide shorts into similar categories, contending that cotton shorts with turn-ups are Democratic Socialist; cotton shorts without turn-ups pure Socialist; nylon shorts Communist; and nylon shorts with sown-in underpants Transcendental Socialist.  Furthermore, I should like to distinguish between socialistic Nazi shorts and fascistic Nazi shorts on the basis of a denim/cord dichotomy, reserving a possible liberal status for knee-length shorts, such as are often worn by elderly or academic-looking males.


44.  My reason for regarding shorts as broadly socialist is that they suggest a particle bias ... by dint of being so short and compact, and are therefore materialistic rather than idealistic.  Being masculine, or of a phallic connotation, they are obviously on the electron side of the atom and may accordingly be regarded in an electron-particle light, as suitable for sports.  As a rule, Democratic Socialist shorts will be longer than pure Socialist shorts, while Communist shorts will be shorter than Transcendental Socialist shorts.  Made from cotton, Socialist shorts, whether democratic or pure, may be described as superworldly, since connected with the natural (cotton) and therefore retaining a superphenomenal status - as, incidentally, do Nazi shorts.  By contrast, Communist and Transcendental Socialist shorts, being fashioned from nylon, which is synthetic, appertain to the artificial, and are accordingly of a supernoumenal status.


45.  Objects presuppose subjects.  There can be no objects unless there is first a subject who perceives them.  My table does not exist for me until I look at it.  And yet, that is not to say that until I look at my table it does not exist.  On the contrary, my table exists whether or not I or anyone else is there to look at it, though not as an object but as a phenomenal thing-in-itself, which is to say, as a nondescript 'thing', neither more nor less.  Obviously one can argue that if I am not present to perceive my table the table still exists, and certainly it would for me by dint of my recollection of what a table is and that I happen to possess one in my room, etc.  But if I were to die tomorrow, then that would not apply.  For in death I would have no recollection of tables, whether in general or in particular, as applying to myself.  Now if no-one else connected with me in life knew that I had such-and-such a table in such-and-such a room, then that table would not exist as a table but solely as a phenomenal thing-in-itself.  For there would be no consciousness of it as table.  I and others like me (fellow human beings) create the category 'table', just as I create objects by being their subject, the mind that perceives them.  Take away all perceiving subjects and not only would all perceived objects cease to exist, but their function and status along with them.  Only phenomenal things-in-themselves would remain, and they would differ from noumenal things-in-themselves as matter differs from flame.  Absence of mind, whether literally or through madness, is the precondition for objects being reduced from intelligible phenomena to unintelligible phenomena, which is thing-in-itself.  Berkeley's argument no longer passes muster, since we no longer believe in an all-seeing and all-knowing God.  (Probably the nearest cosmic equivalent to such a theological postulate is the sun, and yet the sun does not literally see, since it has no eyes.  Neither is it strictly divine!)


46.  Both Hume's and Kant's admission of the unknowability of the thing-in-itself has to do with the noumenal thing-in-itself rather than with the phenomenal one which I have just been discussing, and is true up to a point, that is to say, when applied to objects considered as phenomena.  As I have already argued, however, it ceases to apply to a flammable object, like a wooden chair or table, once that object has been set alight and is burning extensively.  For the resulting flame would be as close to the noumenal thing-in-itself as one could get ... short of setting oneself alight and thereby subjectively experiencing noumenal thing-in-itself in the guise of fire, which is nothing less than the creation of proton-proton reactions out of atomic cohesion.  But there is another reason why these and other such philosophers, including Schopenhauer, denied the possibility of direct knowledge of the noumenal thing-in-itself, which is that the society and age in which they lived was too phenomenal to permit of identification with the noumenal.  In short, we have the seeds of modern atheism in the eighteenth century, which gave birth, after all, to the Age of Enlightenment, and in an age when God, in the primitive sense of Creator, was being denied, it is virtually inconceivable that philosophy could have acknowledged the knowability of the noumenal thing-in-itself.  We are so used to regarding the Cosmos from a phenomenal point-of-view - as stars, suns, planets, etc., - that the concept of a noumenal Cosmos composed of gods and devils is totally alien to us and explains, in some degree, why both Hume and Kant were indisposed to crediting man with an ability to directly know and experience the noumenal thing-in-itself, which is nothing less, after all, than stellar and/or solar flame.  The ancients of course had a different view, living at a time when stars were gods and the noumenal view of the Cosmos, as of life in general, accordingly prevailed.  But Hume and Kant lived in a more evolved, albeit worldly society and, being Protestant, neither of them could be expected to give the alpha noumenal its papal due.  Once again, one is made conscious of the degree to which a particular philosopher's thinking is conditioned not only by the age and society in which he lives, but by his race and class.  If the truth is graspable, as I happen to believe, then it is more likely to be grasped by someone of idealistic racial disposition living in an age conducive to its realization ... than by a Germanic philosopher living in the thick of worldly phenomenalism and regarding everything, including the Cosmos, in a phenomenal light!


47.  However, one has to admit that if, from a relatively evolved viewpoint, the alpha noumenal is not directly accessible to human knowledge or is not regarded as being directly knowable, then the resulting materialism and phenomenalism will nonetheless be tinged with a quasi-noumenal significance, and a kind of false mysticism of the phenomenal, as upheld by the aforementioned philosophers (though criticized by Schopenhauer), will prevail in which, for example, a discrepancy between object and subject, on the basis of the former's being inherently different from how the latter sees it, will be postulated at the expense of an exact correlation between the two.  Such worldly mysticism is rather more Protestant than Catholic, and its subsequent rejection by more evolved, or superphenomenal, philosophers is a precondition of advancement towards an admission of the possibility of direct experience of a thing-in-itself which is not so much noumenal as supernoumenal, and consequently of an omega orientation.  Such an admission is in fact made by me, and made, I should add, less in defiance of anti-philosophy than from the truly revolutionary standpoint of theosophy, which stands to philosophy as omega to alpha, completely beyond all phenomenal middle-grounds.  Direct knowledge of the omega thing-in-itself, which is pure spirit, comes through transcendental meditation, and that is the path to God ... the Holy Spirit.  Here we are beyond not only Hume and Kant, but the entire civilization to which they belonged, with its worldly phenomenalism.  We are beyond both philosophy and anti-philosophy alike, the Father and the Son, love of the external and love of the phenomenal self.  We love only the eternal, which is internal and therefore psychic.


48.  One should distinguish not only between philosophy and theosophy on an alpha/omega basis, as regarding the centrifugal and the centripetal, but also between anti-philosophy and proto-theosophy, which pertain to the phenomenal middle-ground in between noumenal and supernoumenal extremes.  Indeed, the strictly phenomenal mode of idealistic writing is both anti-philosophical and proto-theosophical at once, and therefore uniquely Christian in a worldly, or Protestant, sense.  Yet because of this it is neither properly philosophical nor theosophical, but a cross between the two.  Only proto-theosophical writings prepare the ground for theosophy as such.


49.  Similarly, if the above distinctions apply to a divine spectrum stretching from alpha to omega, as from the subconscious to the superconscious, then we need not doubt that their diabolic counterparts, which may be regarded as applicable to a spectrum stretching from the old brain to the new brain, will be theology on the one hand and psychology on the other, so that knowledge of God ... the Father in the one case and of the psyche in the other ... constitute the extreme poles of a spectrum rather more naturalistic than idealistic in character.  For the brain stands in a diabolic relation to the mind, and in using the former to study the latter one is looking-in at it from outside, not so much as subject to object as ... object to subject, particle naturalism to wavicle idealism, whether at the alpha or omega pole of the brain, with reference to the subconscious or to the superconscious, to the Father or to the Holy Ghost.  Hence, on the one hand, philosophy and theology, with the former standing in a superior relation to the latter, and, on the other hand, theosophy and psychology, the former of which likewise stands in a superior relation to the latter - love to knowledge, direct experience to analytical observation.


50.  But if both philosophy and theosophy treat of how best to live life from a divine standpoint, whether of the Father in the one case or of the Holy Ghost in the other, and, by contrast, both theology and psychology treat of understanding either the Father or the psychical Holy Ghost from a diabolic, because external, standpoint, then sexology and sociology are the twin disciplines which treat of man from a physical and, hence, worldly standpoint, having reference to man as a reproductive animal on the one hand and as a social animal on the other, with alpha and omega implications within a mass, or bodily, context.  Of course, such a standpoint is not rooted in the body but in the brain, and so we should distinguish between brain activity which looks down to the body, as in the cases of sexology and sociology, and brain activity which looks up to the mind, as in the cases of theology and psychology, reserving a superior status for the latter than the former, as though a higher part of the brain, or old-brain/new-brain symbiosis, was being exercised in each case.  Doubtless a theologian is a morally superior kind of man to a sexologist, and what applies on the alpha-stemming level of the old brain ... must also apply on the omega-oriented level of the new one, so that we may regard a psychologist as a morally superior kind of man to a sociologist - diabolic rather than worldly, looking up towards the mind as opposed to down towards the body.


51.  However, such divine, diabolic, and worldly antitheses as I have named, viz. philosophy and theosophy, theology and psychology, sexology and sociology, form only the extremes of a picture which, if it is to lay claim to a more comprehensive perspective, must also include a middle-ground position, so to speak, in between each of the aforementioned antitheses.  For such a middle-ground position does of course exist, and more so over the past few centuries than have either of the respective extremes, if we recall the inevitability of a phenomenal divisibility coming in-between alpha-stemming noumenal indivisibility on the one hand and omega-aspiring supernoumenal indivisibility on the other hand.  Consequently such a phenomenal middle-ground is relative to and symptomatic of a kind of compromise, or cross, between what precedes it in the history of the particular spectrum to which it pertains and the discipline that is destined, sooner or later, to succeed it, about which, however, it will be largely if not entirely ignorant.  In the case of the philosophy/theosophy spectrum, which is that which most closely approximates to the Divine, we are alluding to anthroposophy, or a love of man considered in its humanistic context, and such a discipline corresponds to a Christian position in between Creator-stemming philosophy and theosophical aspirations towards the Holy Ghost, with particular reference to idealistic Protestantism.  Not how best to conduct one's life in the light of philosophical wisdom, nor how best to conduct oneself in the light of theosophical idealism, but how best to love one's fellow man in the light of anthroposophical humanism.  'The happiness of the greatest number' follows from an anthroposophical premise ... that the chief concern of life is neither personally practical nor impersonally theoretical, active nor passive, but both active and passive, practical and theoretical, in relation to the interests of humanity generally.  What one might call worldly idealism or, as I have elsewhere termed it, a wavicle atomicity, which corresponds to phenomenal religion.  In the case of the theology/psychology spectrum, however, we are obliged to posit an epistemological middle-ground in between knowledge of God (the Father) and knowledge of the psyche, which takes the form of knowledge of knowledge, or knowledge of how we know what we know - the origin, nature, and limitations of knowledge as such, a discipline that focuses attention on man's knowledge-forming faculty rather than on either theological anterior knowledge in relation to the Father or psychological posterior knowledge in relation to the psyche and such bearing as it may have on the future development of transcendent spirit.  If epistemology fits in between these two extremes, then so, it seems to me, does ontology, or the science of being, and philology, or the science of the structure and development of language, with the latter preceding epistemology and the former succeeding it, pretty much as grand- and petty-bourgeois disciplines flanking a specifically bourgeois discipline on the diabolic spectrum.  Finally, it will be necessary to posit an anthropological middle-ground in between sexology and sociology on the third, or worldly, spectrum, so that the study of man as such is seen as taking a phenomenal position in between the study of his sexual habits on the one hand and (the study) of his social habits on the other, that is to say as a humanistic concern coming in-between reproductive and productive extremes, sex and society.


52.  Thus our three spectra should read as follows:-


             1.    philosophy              anthroposophy               theosophy

        2.    theology                  epistemology                  psychology

        3.    sexology                  anthropology                 sociology


with Father - Son - and Holy Ghost implications stretching through divine, diabolic, and worldly distinctions.  Clearly the three major contemporary disciplines are theosophy, psychology, and sociology, since they alone pertain to the omega poles of their respective spectra ... and things can only become more omega orientated as time goes by, doubtless even to the point where, firstly, sociology and, then, psychology will be left behind as both worldly and diabolic biases are eclipsed by the divine bias of a truly supernoumenal indivisibility in Transcendentalism.  At present, however, open-society criteria tend to prevail in the world and, consequently, a seemingly timeless juxtaposition of one discipline with another - philosophy with theosophy, theology with psychology, sexology with sociology - is not uncommon.  Yet, strictly speaking, each of the extremes is mutually exclusive.  Philosophy excludes the possibility of theosophy and vice versa.  One is a philosopher or a theosophist, a theologian or a psychologist, a sexologist or a sociologist, not both at once!  Although appearances of being 'three in one', like Christ, will accrue to the anthroposophical, epistemological, and anthropological middle-grounds, as befitting a worldly phenomenal compromise in-between alpha and omega, proton and electron antitheses.  Where philosophy ends, anthroposophy begins.  And where anthroposophy ends, there begins theosophy.  The same of course applies to the disciplines on each of the other spectra.


53.  Correct doing in relation to God ... the Father; correct doing/being in relation to God ... the Son (of Man); correct being in relation to God ... the Holy Ghost: philosophy - anthroposophy - theosophy.  The more doing the less being and, conversely, the more being the less doing.  A theosophist is not only atheistic with regard to the Father; he is indifferent to philosophy.  A stoical or hedonistic theosophist would be as paradoxical or, rather, self-contradictory as a meditating philosopher.


54.  Many of the things that pass for philosophy are less philosophical than ontological or epistemological or philological or psychological or even theological.  Genuine philosophy, by which is meant classical philosophy, is concerned rather more with the practical conduct of life than with theories about life as such.  In that respect, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Cowper Powys are somewhat closer to the classical ideal than, say, Kant or Schopenhauer.  So, in The Conquest of Happiness, is Bertrand Russell.  Worldly, or phenomenal, philosophy, on the other hand, is far more conceptual than perceptual.


55.  In music, the distinction between alpha-noumenal, phenomenal, superphenomenal, and supernoumenal can be recognized on the basis of a percussive absolutism in the first case, an orchestral relativity in the second, an electronic relativity in the third, and synthesizer absolutism in the fourth.  Thus in the case of the alpha noumenal, we are dealing with a reactive indivisibility between a variety of, for the most part, hand-played percussion instruments, the musical equivalent to proton-proton reactions.  With the ensuing phenomenal stage of music, however, percussion is reduced and transmuted, played rather more with drumsticks or some similar artificial means, and it takes on a subordinate role to stringed and wind instruments, as in the classical orchestra, so that an atomic integrity between protons and electrons is the musical result, with correspondingly relativistic implications.  Similar implications accrue to the compromise between percussive and electric instruments - as, for example, guitars, keyboards, etc. - which characterizes superphenomenal music, whether in terms of pop, rock, modern jazz, or any combination of the three; though, as a rule, percussion is rather more persistent on this level of music than on the classical, if slightly less forceful, diversified, and (except in rare instances) obtrusive, serving merely to accompany the lead instruments rather than to rival or dominate them.  Yet if some kind of electron-biased atomicity may be elicited in connection with superphenomenal music, then the ensuing supernoumenal music would suggest an attractive indivisibility symptomatic of free-electron criteria ... in which several synthesizers co-operate in the production of a totally synthesizer-derived sound, as in the cases of Jean-Michel Jarre and Tangerine Dream traditionally.  Such synthesizer indivisibility is the ultimate musical format and, if progress is to come, it can only be in terms of how the synthesizers are played, that is to say with regard to increasing the pitch-biased, and hence idealistic, element at the expense of rhythm, so that even synthesizer-derived percussion 'withers away' in the course of supernoumenal time, as music approximates ever more closely to the pure electron indivisibility of the Omega Absolute.  Such truly divine music will be as far removed from the percussive inception of music in alpha-noumenal rhythms ... as one-piece zipper suits of a PVC construction from ankle-length cotton dresses.  Only with the transcendence of rhythm will music become entirely free.


56.  It is not by mere chance that coital sex is rhythmic, that man makes love to the opposite sex on a rhythmical basis.  Such coital rhythms amount to a deference, on the part of men, to the proton-biased alpha-noumenal nature of the vagina.  Like music, sex can only become free, from a male standpoint, once it is released from coital enslavement and elevated above the rhythmic to a masturbatory status in pornographic sublimation, albeit with the long-term aim of transcending the masturbatory element altogether - an aim comparable to synthesizer music or, rather, supermusic that transcends percussive rhythms.  Hence supersex, which is supernoumenal in character, permits of sexual salvation to the extent that the rhythmic element is left behind, or transcended, as 'sex' becomes increasingly mind-biased.  Such supernoumenal sex is to phenomenal sex what the Centre is/will be to the State - the only terms on which the State can 'wither' ... as the Centre expands.  When, however, the State becomes an end-in-itself, as in communist countries, there can be no withering of sex in regard to its rhythmic roots but, rather, a continuation of sex on artificial terms, with particular regard to the use of plastic inflatables and/or vibrators, depending on the individual's gender.  In other words, sex is superphenomenal in the context of the Socialist State, and superphenomenal sex is centred on inflatable/vibrator commitments - an artificial heterosexuality that stands to natural heterosexuality as a proletarian democracy to a bourgeois democracy.  Consequently, the Socialist State, when true to itself, will uphold artificial heterosexuality in preference to natural heterosexuality, employing sperm banks and artificial insemination for propagative purposes.  It will not be particularly disposed to pornographic sexuality, since such sexuality is supernoumenal in character and accordingly pertinent to a more evolved type of society - one commensurate with the Centre and, hence, a People's theocracy, which does not so much grow out of a People's democracy as ... evolve from theocracy-disposed societies that achieve a liberal republican status as its necessary precondition.


57.  But the Socialist State will not properly understand the nature and status of pornography (although I use the term with regard to erotic as opposed to sadistic material, and especially within a lawfully teenage context), in consequence of which it is improbable that pornographically-dependent sex will flourish wherever Socialism prevails.  Only in the Centre, and thus with reference to Social Transcendentalism, can proper justice be done to this ultimate mode of sexuality.  However, if the Socialist State is incapable of coming to terms with supernoumenal criteria, whether with regard to sex, music, art, or anything else (and primarily because its naturalistic bias will dispose it to superphenomenal criteria), then there should be no doubt as to the place of inflatable and vibrator sexuality in such a State; for this alone is truly commensurate with the superphenomenal.  On the other hand, homosexuality will be frowned upon and its practitioners penalized within the context in question, since it is symptomatic of sexual decadence within a phenomenal, or democratic, context, having strong socialist implications from a Western, and hence Germanic, point-of-view, which makes it not so much superphenomenal as anti-phenomenal and therefore somewhat more antinatural than supernatural.  Such antinatural sexuality - and all modes and degrees of anally-biased intercourse come under this category - could not be countenanced within a superphenomenal society, such as Communism strives to realize.  For the antinatural is but a degeneration of the natural and accordingly fails to meet the artificial criteria required in and by a superphenomenal context.  Plastic inflatables are no less beyond homosexuality than straight heterosexuality is before it.  Homosexuality is the end of phenomenal civilization, not the beginning of superphenomenal civilization!  And even homosexual pornography, or pornographic material involving male models, would be irrelevant in a superphenomenal society, since a form of sexual Nazism in which materialism is idealized through the medium of photography.  An idealistic decadence is no less unacceptable to a new civilization than decadence in all of its materialistic baseness.  Nazism and Socialism are alike beneath the superphenomenal pale.... Of course, what applies to the superphenomenal applies even more to the supernoumenal, where even inflatable and vibrator sexuality would be to a certain extent taboo, the emphasis being on mature juvenile erotica.


58.  Probable antithetical equivalents to be found between (a) erotic paintings and/or drawings on the one hand and pornographic erotica on the other, as regarding alpha and omega idealistic extremes, e.g. ancient Indian or Persian drawings/paintings in relation to latter-day photographic pornography; (b) erotic sculptures or carvings on the one hand and 'sex dolls' or vibrators on the other, as regarding alpha and omega naturalistic extremes, e.g. ancient Greek nude statues in relation to plastic inflatables; (c) cunnilingus in relation to fellatio, as regarding worldly idealistic extremes; (d) lesbianism in relation to homosexuality, as regarding worldly materialistic extremes.  Thus, treating heterosexuality as a worldly and therefore realistic mode of sexuality, one could speak of cunnilingus and fellatio as flanking it above ... in the realms of pre- and post-worldly sexual idealism, but of lesbianism and homosexuality as flanking it beneath ... in the realms of pre- and post-worldly sexual materialism.  Flanking these extremes, however, will be the alpha and omega idealistic extremes cited in (a) above, and the alpha and omega naturalistic extremes cited in (b) above, so that we may speak of erotic drawings, for instance, as preceding cunnilingus and of pornographic erotica as succeeding fellatio on the one hand, but of erotic sculptures as preceding lesbianism and of plastic inflatables as succeeding homosexuality on the other hand.  An atomic breakdown of each mode of sexuality would read as follows: alpha idealistic extreme: proton wavicles; omega idealistic extreme: electron wavicles; alpha naturalistic extreme: proton particles; omega naturalistic extreme: electron particles; pre-worldly idealistic extreme: proton-biased atomic wavicles; post-worldly idealistic extreme: electron-biased atomic wavicles; pre-worldly materialistic extreme: proton-biased atomic particles; post-worldly materialistic extreme: electron-biased atomic particles; worldly realistic middle-ground: atomic balance.


59.  Treating cunnilingus and fellatio as antithetical on this pre- and post-worldly basis seems to me the most objectively credible interpretation of these modes of sexual behaviour, which reflect diametrically opposite attitudes - the former an attitude of deference and even obeisance towards the female sex, the latter an attitude of deference towards the male sex, as appropriate to the moral and social standing of each of the sexes during the pre- and post-worldly epochs in question.  By which I mean that until the properly worldly epoch of Western civilization, as pertaining to the 17-19th centuries, men were inferior to women and, accordingly, would have been more disposed to practising sexual deference towards them in the form of cunnilingus, whereas ever since the first decades of the twentieth century women have been losing ground to men and thus becoming less feminine than masculine in their outlook on life, more disposed, in consequence, to practise sexual deference towards men in the form of fellatio, in which the woman is the sexually active partner within a context that places her in a quasi-obeisant position, acknowledging the phallic ascendancy of male-biased post-worldly society.  For whereas women were once the exemplars of everything good and noble, the balance has increasingly tipped, during the past hundred years, towards men, and women now continue to prostrate themselves before men as the exemplars of everything good and noble - in a word, of triumphant male progress!  Yet such a view is of course relative and therefore pertinent to the world, or worldly sexuality, rather than to the divine and diabolic modes of sexuality which exist at a proletarian remove, as it were, from bourgeois modes, including the aforementioned, and which presuppose a free-electron orientation, not merely atomic sexuality with either a proton or an electron bias, depending on the mode or context in question.  Consequently we could speak of cunnilingus as grand-bourgeois idealistic sexuality, in contrast to petty-bourgeois fellatio.  And by a similar token it should be feasible to regard lesbianism in a grand-bourgeois materialistic light, in contrast to petty-bourgeois homosexuality - treating each mode of sexuality on an alpha/omega basis within the worldly framework of fleshy realism, so that, on the one hand, we are able to distinguish between alpha and omega modes of realistic idealism, whilst, on the other hand, we are distinguishing rather more between alpha and omega modes of realistic materialism.


60.  But why do I distinguish, in such fashion, between idealism and materialism anyway?  What is it about cunnilingus and fellatio that justifies me in applying the term 'idealism'?  Well, the answer to that question is: because each mode of sexuality requires the use of the head and entails a quasi-absolutist sexual commitment ... either to the vagina or to the penis, rather than - except in the case of dualistic oral sex, which ought to be described as idealistic realism - to both at once.  Thus in the case of cunnilingus, the male applies his mouth and tongue to the female's vagina ... in an idealistic deference towards her sexual femininity, which makes for an alpha-stemming orientation, whereas in the case of fellatio the female applies her mouth and tongue to the male's penis ... in an idealistic deference towards his masculinity, which makes for an omega-oriented sexuality, albeit within the worldly context.  Such idealism is in marked contrast to the sexual materialism of lesbians and homosexuals, since the head is not here at stake and two sexually identical bodies pleasuring each other on a rather more down-to-earth basis are somewhat less idealistic than materialistic (on account of their sexual identity).  For realism is precisely the compromise between male and female, penis and vagina, which constitutes the heterosexual norm as the world's sexual fulcrum, so to speak.  There can be idealistic realism, as in the case of a dualistic oral experience, but never materialistic realism ... except to the extent that sodomy takes place between the sexes.  Straight heterosexuality is realistic on account of this sexual compromise between opposites.  Only on the pre- or post-worldly flanks, as it were, can one speak of realistic materialism - realistic to the extent that two bodies are involved, materialistic to the much greater extent that both of them are sexually identical.  Yet if both materialism and idealism flank realism in its strictly coital context, it should not be forgotten that such pre- and post-worldly manifestations of sexual extremism are also flanked, on both alpha and omega levels, by more extreme manifestations of sexuality, with noumenal and supernoumenal, subphenomenal and superphenomenal implications ... as discussed above.  In point of fact, we have already distinguished between superphenomenal and supernoumenal on the omega plane, with specific reference to plastic inflatables and pornography respectively, and should categorize the former in terms of idealistic naturalism, or supernaturalism, and the latter in terms of idealistic idealism, or superidealism.  Contrast this with the naturalistic idealism of the divine alpha-noumenal and the materialistic naturalism of the diabolic alpha-noumenal, or subphenomenal, and you have a complete picture of sexual evolution, both civilized and natural, from the dawn of civilization to the present day and even into the next and ultimate civilization, which, being transcendental, will place especial emphasis on the superidealistic modes of sexuality in preference to anything natural or, for that matter, antinatural (without, however, unduly encouraging sex of any description).


61.  Interestingly, a further distinction could be drawn between the superphenomenal and a crude supernoumenal mode of sexuality.  For there is a sense in which, contrary to what I maintained earlier with regard to the Socialist State effectively being a plastic-inflatable dead-end, extrapolations from Communist purism to a Transcendental Socialist order suggest the possibility of a video alternative to inflatable sex which might be defined as crudely supernoumenal ... insofar as motion is involved with regard to actual participants.  There are other analogies with what I am attempting to express here - for example, the superphenomenal/crude supernoumenal distinctions between, say, light-blue denims and leather pants (in contrast to the smooth supernoumenal status of PVC pants), which suggest a Communist/Transcendental Socialist option.  Doubtless, what applies on the supernaturalistic plane also applies, in a converse kind of way, on the superidealistic plane, where a distinction between Fascism and Social Transcendentalism would be in order, so that the supernoumenal mode of sexuality, which requires erotic pornography, may be regarded as being less pure on the Social Transcendentalist level than on the strictly Fascist level - less pure to the extent of being more actively heterosexual than passively erotic in character, i.e. pornography rather than erotica, though always on a non-sadistic and non-sensational basis.  Of course, there are other applications of video than the purely sexual, and our theorizing has to account for them if a more comprehensive and possibly accurate perspective is to emerge.  One could even distinguish between videos on the basis of a Transcendental Socialist/Social Transcendentalist dichotomy, with those on the former side being linked to television, i.e. projected onto a television screen, but those on the latter side being relatively free-standing in the context of a video screen.  Clearly, if televideo is Transcendental Socialist, then a colour portable of streamlined construction, like a monitor-style TV, can be regarded in a Communist light, given its purist implications.  Similarly if free-standing video is Social Transcendentalist, then colour slides projected onto a screen would be Fascist, and we could regard the video as a 'fall' from Fascist purism to the extent that it entailed pictorial movement, i.e. action, and therefore stood closer to the Transcendental Socialist ideological plane in terms of doing at the expense of being, or doing-being as opposed to being-doing - a distinction, within relative terms, between the Divine and the Diabolic.


62.  Taking a wider view of being and doing, we may contend that sleep or, rather, dreaming signifies doing-being on the alpha level of subconscious self-indulgence, whether for good or bad, with regard to pleasant dreams or nightmares, whereas consciously-determined activity signifies being-doing, whether for good or ill, with regard to life or death, sex or war.  Sublimated actions, or those which proceed instinctively from the body, are the closest to pure doing, since they lack conscious determination and accordingly may be described as worldly, in the strict bodily sense of that term.  Instinctive sexual actions come within this category, as do involuntary movements, scratchings, jerks, etc.  But all of this is natural or, at any rate, has reference to natural behaviour, which is why I used the word 'alpha' a moment ago, in order to distinguish it from those artificial or supernatural modes of behaviour that would be better defined in terms of 'omega', whether on divine, diabolic, or worldly levels - in other words, with regard to artificially-motivated doing-being, such as watching television, video, or, more inherently, experiencing LSD visions; artificially-motivated being-doing, such as dancing (particularly within a disco context), playing a musical instrument, or competing in some engrossing sports context, like motorcycle racing; and, finally, artificially-motivated doing, whether in a sports or a dance or some other context, where what happens at the time is more automatic than consciously determined.  Such distinctions hold true, then, at both ends of the evolutionary spectra, and while supernatural doing-being and being-doing are preferable, from an evolutionary standpoint, to their natural counterparts (the same should be said of automatically-motivated doing in relation to instinctively-motivated doing), we must not forget that the goal of human striving is pure superconscious being, and that such being is as much above artificially-motivated doing-being as the unconscious being of pure unconsciousness is beneath the subconsciously-motivated doing-being of dreams.


63.  Just as we spoke of being or doing-being on alpha and omega levels, with regard to natural and supernatural distinctions, so we can speak of natural truth on the alpha divine level and of supernatural truth on the omega divine level or, to be more precise, of a continuum of truths stretching from subnatural alpha beginnings to a supernatural omega end via a natural worldly compromise.  Thus we have truth in relation to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or protons, atoms, and electrons, with centrifugal/centripetal implications.  But I shall simplify matters by speaking of natural-to-supernatural, including within the scope of the former term subnatural truth.  Hence truth in relation to nature and the Cosmos on the one hand, and truth in relation to man's aspirations towards the Holy Ghost on the other.  Outer truth and inner truth, centrifugal truth and centripetal truth, natural religion and supernatural religion.  Similarly, we can speak of two opposite kinds of beauty, viz. natural beauty (including the cosmic subnatural variety) and supernatural, or artificial, beauty - the former outer and centrifugal, the latter inner and centripetal; natural aesthetics and supernatural aesthetics.  Doubtless race horses come within the former category and streamlined motorbikes within the latter.  Or beautiful women on the one hand and plastic inflatables on the other hand.  Or perhaps even natural flowers in relation to artificial flowers - for example, plastic roses?  Indeed, the more disposed a person is to artificial beauty the less he will be disposed to its natural counterpart.... Now what applies to beauty applies just as much to truth, that is to say, to supernatural truth in relation to natural truth. 'The more a man cultivates the arts, the less he fornicates', wrote Baudelaire in regard to beauty, and the more mindful a man is of inner truth in relation to the Holy Ghost, the less he will care for outer truth in relation to either the Cosmos or nature.


64.  But if truth and beauty are the divine and diabolic alternatives with which life presents us on very antithetical terms, then strength and goodness are their worldly counterparts, and we can just as readily distinguish between natural strength and artificial, or mechanical, strength ... as between natural goodness and artificial goodness, reserving for ourselves the right to a specific bias either way.  Doubtless natural strength applies to truncheons, fists, feet, and hands used in an aggressive way, while bullets, bombs, missiles, and torpedoes are all manifestations of artificial strength when launched from their mechanical platforms.  So are tractors when used to clear away or lift something that would have required three or four times as many horses or even ten times as many men all exerting their muscles at once.  Strength is the power of force exerted against something else and, although it is of the world, it has a diabolic bias, in contrast to goodness which, while being worldly in character, smacks of the Divine, whether in terms of the natural or the artificial, with reference, say, to fruit on the one hand and to flavoured yoghurts on the other, or to water as opposed to cola, or potatoes as opposed to chips.  The Good is always useful, particularly to human wellbeing, and doing well to others is only intelligible within the framework of what is good for them.  If strength is fundamentally autocratic, then goodness is essentially democratic.  Apples are good so long as one needs to eat and even after one has eaten, though rotten apples are bad.  The absence of all apples, or of any food, is also bad, especially if one is starving to death in consequence.  Yet it isn't bad in the same concrete way as a rotten apple, but in an abstract way, which is rather less evil than unfortunate.


65.  Similarly, the absence of truth isn't necessarily falsity, though falsity can exist alongside truth and even be taken for truth until it is 'seen through'.  Falsity is, rather, the negation of truth, just as ugliness is the negation of beauty, weakness the negation of strength, and evil the negation of good.  Whatever conduces towards happiness is true, whatever conduces towards love is beautiful, whatever conduces towards pride is strong, and whatever conduces towards pleasure is good.  Conversely, whatever results in grief is false, whatever results in hate is ugly, whatever results in humiliation is weak, and whatever results in pain is evil.  And this whether we are considering the alpha or omega poles of any given experience-spectrum, the natural or the supernatural.  There is natural truth and supernatural truth, natural happiness and supernatural happiness.  Pleasant dreams are an example of the former, pleasant trips an instance of the latter.  Conversely, there is natural falsity and supernatural falsity, natural sadness and supernatural sadness.  Unpleasant dreams are an example of the former, unpleasant trips an instance of the latter.  Likewise, there is natural beauty and supernatural beauty, natural love and supernatural love.  Good-looking women are an example of the former, well-made 'sex dolls' an instance of the latter.  Conversely, there is natural ugliness and supernatural ugliness, natural hate and supernatural hate.  Bad-looking women are an example of the former, badly-made 'sex dolls' an instance of the latter.  Similarly, we may speak of natural goodness and supernatural goodness, natural pleasure and supernatural pleasure, with natural food an example of the former and synthetic food an instance of the latter.  Conversely, we may speak of natural evil and supernatural evil, natural pain and supernatural pain, with rotten or mouldy food an example of the former but rotten or poisonous synthetic food an instance of the latter.  Finally, we may speak of natural strength and supernatural strength, natural pride and supernatural pride, with athletic ability an example of the former and Grand-Prix ability an instance of the latter.  Conversely, we can speak of natural weakness and supernatural weakness, natural humiliation and supernatural humiliation, with athletic inability an example of the former and Grand-Prix inability, whether for personal or mechanical reasons, an instance of the latter.  Examples could be multiplied, but each category is to a large extent independent of the others and should only be evaluated in relation to itself.


66.  Speaking of any given spectrum in terms of another is both morally wrong and patently absurd.  A person isn't necessarily weak because he lacks the appearance of strength, since he may well be primarily good or beautiful or true and, accordingly, entitled to evaluation on one or other of these alternative terms, with the possibility of an alternative negative evaluation if appropriate.  Also we must bear in mind the nature of the quality - or absence thereof - we select in regard to any given person or thing, since there is an antithetical distinction between the natural and the supernatural and/or artificial, and what is entitled to evaluation in terms of the one should never be evaluated according to the other!  Of course, no man is entirely any one thing.  All men are a combination, in different degrees, of a variety of qualities and quantities.  Yet this need not prevent us from ascribing a leading or principal characteristic to any given person, since no man is everything in equal degrees either.  Some men are predominantly divine and, hence, truthful or false; some men are predominantly diabolic and, hence, beautiful or ugly; some men are predominantly worldly in an autocratic way and, hence, strong or weak; some men are predominantly worldly in a democratic way and, hence, good or evil, with all due gradations of quality in accompaniment.  Thus sadness with the false and happiness with the true; hate with the ugly and love with the beautiful; humiliation with the weak and pride with the strong; and, finally, pain with the evil and pleasure with the good.  Basically, men are divisible along these essentially tripartite lines, with divine, diabolic, and worldly implications.  It is only in a democracy that this fact can be lost sight of, the more so in proportion as worldly, and hence bodily, criteria obtain.  For there can be no doubt that societies differ from one another in evolutionary terms, and the ideal of one society may differ considerably from that of another, especially when the societies in question are not only diametrically antithetical in terms of, say, to what pole of a given spectrum they may pertain but pertain, moreover, to different spectra, with the possibility - certainly in the case of a divine/worldly distinction - of no real cultural or social contiguity whatsoever.


67.  Thus whilst a materialistic society will make strength its principal ideal, beauty will be the principal ideal of naturalistic societies, goodness the principal ideal of realistic societies, and truth the principal ideal of idealistic societies.  There may also be periods in any given society when not strength but weakness will be the prevailing norm, not beauty but ugliness, not goodness but evil, not truth but falsity, irrespective of whether or not such negative quantities and their respective qualitative attributes are elevated to the status of an ideal.  Certainly there is ample evidence to show that the negative attribute tends to precede the positive one in any given type of society, so that before truth can get an airing, even in relatively rudimentary terms, there must first be falsity; for falsity is ever the alpha roots of the Divine from which the flower of truth must eventually spring.  One might even say that falsity is a precondition of truth, since without it there can be no revolt in favour of truth.  Without paganism there would have been no Christianity, without the Creator no Christ.  And what applies to the alpha-stemming half of the divine spectrum applies just as much to its omega-aspiring half; for no less than natural falsity is superseded by natural truth ... must supernatural falsity, or Fascism, be superseded by supernatural truth, or Social Transcendentalism.  Fascism is as much a precondition of theocratic Centrism as paganism ... of Christianity, particularly in its Catholic manifestation.  Truth, whether natural or supernatural, is not possible without reference to a falsity against which it is in revolt.  You cannot conjure truth out of thin air.  Falsity is the ground of truth.  Similarly, ugliness is the ground and precondition of beauty.  Beauty, whether natural or artificial, cannot materialize where there has not first been ugliness.  You do not start from beauty and work down to ugliness, since evolution proceeds forwards, and as much within the diabolic spectrum as within the divine spectrum or, for that matter, each of the worldly spectra.  Beauty is perfect form, which is perfect appearance, and should be regarded in terms of the maturation of the Diabolic rather than as a refutation of or antithesis to it.  Thus ugliness and beauty are both diabolic, the only difference being that whereas ugliness is the root, or primitive, manifestation of the Diabolic, beauty is its flowering into full maturity, a more evolved manifestation of the Diabolic which stands to the original manifestation as the blossom of a flower to its roots, just as Christ stands to the Creator as Son to Father, natural divinity to subnatural divinity - the one true and the other false.  Doubtless, the same may be held of artificial beauty in relation to artificial ugliness, a modern skyscraper city, say, in relation to the slum- or ghetto-type city that may have preceded it - assuming the new-style city was not built from scratch (though obviously in relation to other cities, both contemporary and past).


68.  Imperfect form precedes perfect form no less on the artificial plane than on the natural one, which stands to it as alpha to omega, even though they may overlap and co-exist, which is usually the case within contemporary open societies where, more often than not, the natural takes precedence over the supernatural, as though in deference to a traditional hierarchical pattern.  Obviously my chief intellectual interest is with the latter, or artificial, modes of ugliness/beauty, and I wager that, ideologically considered, Communism and Western Socialism stand to Transcendental Socialism as Fascism to Social Transcendentalism, which is to say, as ugly preconditions of a more beautiful, and hence ideologically mature, extrapolation.  For it has to be admitted that Transcendental Socialism is more concerned with beauty than truth, even when it boasts of connections with the latter, and that such beauty testifies to a revolt against Western ugliness.  The artificial beauty of the Moscow metro is ample testimony to such a revolt, and points to a centripetal or internal distinction of the artificial from the centrifugal and external nature of natural beauty.  For it must be said that the centripetal is no less a characteristic of artificial beauty, or for that matter its ugly counterpart, than the centrifugal is a characteristic of natural beauty and ugliness.  Such a dichotomy can be found in each of the spectra under discussion, and is significant of the fundamental distinction between protons and electrons.  For just as there are more protons in the alpha than in the omega of things, so, conversely, there are more electrons in the omega than in the alpha - a fact which determines the antithetical characteristics under consideration.


69.  Alpha-stemming diabolic evolution can be regarded as a struggle from the formless to the formful, as from the sun to the most beautiful men, which entails a progression from protons to electrons, albeit with reference to a particle as opposed to a wavicle bias ... contrary to what appertains to the Divine.  And yet, if we are talking, in effect, of two different levels of the Diabolic, viz. ugly and beautiful, with qualitative implications of hate and love, we are also talking of two different types of the Diabolic, with Satanic and Antichristic implications respectively.  For if natural ugliness is characterized by a particle-biased formlessness with regard to protons, then the particle-biased form which characterizes the Beautiful has regard to electrons, and therefore to a more atomically-evolved manifestation of the Diabolic.  Just as Christ stands to the Creator in the manner of natural truth to natural falsity, or wavicle-biased electrons to wavicle-biased protons, so natural beauty stands to natural ugliness in the manner of Antichrist to Satan.  But if this is true of the alpha-stemming part of each spectrum, it is no less true of its omega-aspiring part, since, as we have noted, artificial ugliness tends to precede artificial beauty, and artificial falsity to precede artificial truth.


70.  Thus we have two types of the Diabolic, or Superdiabolic, on the artificial plane no less than on the natural one, together with two types of the Divine, which may be characterized in terms of the Supersatanic and the Super-antichristic on the one hand, and the Superfatheristic and the Superchristic on the other, with proton and electron distinctions - protons tending to predominate on the planes of falsity and ugliness, electrons on the planes of truth and beauty, though always with the aforementioned wavicle and particle distinctions ... as applying to the Divine and to the Diabolic respectively.  For whereas a wavicle bias makes for essence, a particle bias makes for appearance, whether in terms of ugliness or beauty.  Hence proton-wavicle artificial or supernatural falsity and proton-particle artificial or supernatural ugliness on the one hand, but electron-wavicle artificial truth and electron-particle artificial beauty on the other hand.  Alternatively, one could speak of superfalsity and supertruth with regard to the omega part of the divine spectrum, and of super-ugliness and superbeauty with regard to the omega part of the diabolic spectrum.  These would contrast to both natural falsity and truth in the one case, and to natural ugliness and beauty in the other - as relative to the alpha part of each spectrum.


71.  Thus there is a progression from the Father to Christ with regard to the natural part of the divine spectrum, and from the Superfather to Superchrist with regard to its artificial, or supernatural, part.  Such alternatives are of course more characteristic of the head than of the body, and oblige us to posit analogies with mind and brain on a tripartite basis, as between subconscious, conscious, and superconscious in the one case, with old brain, mid-brain, and new brain in the other, the subconscious correlative of the Father, the conscious correlative of Christ, and the superconscious correlative of Superchrist; although a correlation between the lower part of the superconscious and the Superfather also has to be considered, which accords with the superfalse and therefore with an artificial, external precondition of the supertrue ... in pure superconsciousness.  Doubtless the Jungian distinction between the personal unconscious and collective unconscious is correlative of the Father and the Superfather respectively, while leaving Christ and Superchrist to the conscious and superconscious.  With regard to the brain, however, we shall posit a correlation between the old brain and Satan, the mid-brain and Antichrist, the lower part of the new brain and Supersatan, and the upper part of the new brain and Super-antichrist, though such correlations are not of course to be taken literally but merely regarded as an approximate guide to the true nature of both mind and brain in their tripartite entirety.  Certainly, analogies with political or religious figures could be inferred, and few people would doubt an argument to the effect that Hitler more accords with the superfalse collective unconscious than with the supertrue superconscious, whereas if Marx is as credible a candidate as any for the role of Supersatan in relation to socialist super-ugliness, then no better candidate than Lenin could be found to fill the role of the Super-antichrist in relation to communist or, rather, Soviet superbeauty.  I shall say nothing, however, about the best candidate for the Superchristic role in relation to supertruth!  For as surely as the Diabolic proceeds from the lower new-brain to the higher new-brain, so the Divine proceeds from the lower superconscious to the higher superconscious.  Indeed, we should really be speaking of superdiabolic and superdivine in connection with the omega pole of each spectrum, since that is what, in effect, the roles of the Superfather and Superchrist on the one hand and of Supersatan and the Super-antichrist on the other hand actually amount to, in contrast with the alpha-stemming equivalents which precede them.


72.  Certainly this distinction we have drawn between one type of divinity and another, as also between one type of diabolism and another, could be further defined in terms of negative and positive, with the Father and Superfather corresponding to the negative Divine on natural and supernatural levels, but Christ and Superchrist corresponding to the positive Divine on natural and supernatural levels.  Just so, Satan and Supersatan would correspond to the negative Diabolic on natural and supernatural levels, with the Antichrist and the Super-antichrist corresponding to the positive Diabolic on these same levels, which are equivalent and yet antithetical in evolutionary terms.  Thus the negative divine and diabolic levels would correspond to proton wavicles and particles respectively, while the positive divine and diabolic levels would likewise correspond to electron wavicles and particles.  As already noted, the false is not diabolic and the true alone divine; it is simply a lower, i.e. negative, mode of the Divine.  And, by a similar if converse token, beauty is not divine because ugliness is diabolic; it is simply a higher, i.e. positive, mode of the Diabolic.  Hence Baudelaire, no less than Milton, was almost right to conceive of Satan as the most perfect manly beauty.  For beauty does indeed connote with the Diabolic.  Where he went wrong was in considering Satan beautiful, since that, as we have seen, applies to the Antichrist, who stands to Satan as Christ to the Creator.  Satan, alas, would be consummate ugliness!


73.  However that may be, the distinctions we have drawn between falsity and truth, ugliness and beauty, etc., appertain to the head, both psychologically and physiologically, more than to the body, which, not altogether surprisingly, has a different order of distinctions which are less divine or diabolic than worldly.  I have already noted the body's basic distinctions in terms of weakness and strength on the one hand and evil and goodness on the other, with the former options appertaining to what may be called an autocratic spectrum, and the latter options appertaining to a democratic one, whether with regard to the natural or to the artificial, that is, whether on alpha-stemming or omega-aspiring terms.  Sticking to our physical analogue, it will come as no surprise to most people that broken bones are symbolic of weakness, whereas muscles, particularly when developed beyond the normal scale, serve to symbolize strength.  In the first case, humiliation; in the second case, pride.  Similarly, spilt blood all-too-readily connotes with evil and, hence, pain, whereas sensual gratification, particularly when of the flesh, connotes with goodness and, hence, pleasure.  Taking our analogies a step further, one could argue that bones and muscles connote with autocratic weakness and strength respectively, while blood and flesh connote, by contrast, with democratic evil and good.  Certainly we have adequate reason to equate broken bones with weakness and spilt blood with evil, since in both cases violence is usually responsible, and violence is the product of ugliness and thus of hate.  The body isn't usually the motive of its own actions, neither on the negative planes of weakness and evil nor on the positive planes of strength and goodness, which, likewise, may require some motive from 'On High', so to speak, such as beauty and love if, for example, the gratification of the flesh is to acquire diabolic sanction.  The more democratic the society, however, the less importance such a motive will be and the more purely carnal the bodily satisfactions.  Mindless self-assertion and mindless self-indulgence become equally indicative of worldly purism.


74.  However, even in the world there are diabolic and divine leanings, with the particle-biased atomic spectrum of weakness and strength, negative and positive autocratic worldliness, leaning towards the former and, by contrast, the wavicle-biased atomic spectrum of evil and good, negative and positive democratic worldliness, leaning towards the latter.  In other words, each spectrum has a bias towards either the Diabolic or the Divine within the context of its own worldly integrity.  Consequently the weakness/strength spectrum is the worldly parallel to the ugliness/beauty spectrum above, whereas the evil/goodness spectrum is the worldly parallel to the falsity/truth spectrum above, the former diabolic and the latter divine.  Now just as we distinguished between negative and positive in regard to the atomicity of each of the 'head' spectra, so the negative worldly attribute within each of the 'bodily' spectra has a proton bias, the positive worldly attribute, by contrast, an electron bias.  Thus proton-biased weakness and evil, electron-biased strength and goodness.  Particles and wavicles within an atomic cohesion.


75.  Speaking more generally of each of the spectra, whether 'head' or 'bodily', we have to satisfy ourselves as to whether the qualitative attribute precedes and is a precondition of the quantitative attribute, or vice versa.  In other words, does sadness precede falsity or is falsity a precondition of sadness?  Or, to take the negative diabolic equivalent of falsity, does hate precede ugliness or is ugliness a precondition of hate?  Similarly, within the positive side of each spectrum, does joy precede truth or is truth a precondition of joy?  And does love precede beauty or is beauty a precondition of love?  Obviously a commonsensical, merely physical answer to these questions will assert that the quantitative precedes and is therefore a precondition of the qualitative, viz. falsity a precondition of sadness, truth a precondition of joy, and so on.  But while this would be the most apparent answer, the essential, or metaphysical, answer is to the contrary; namely that sadness precedes and is the necessary precondition of falsity, just as joy precedes and is the necessary precondition of truth.  Likewise, within the diabolic spectrum, hate is the precondition of ugliness, love the precondition of beauty.  And, taking the worldly spectra to complete the picture, it will transpire that humiliation is the precondition of weakness, pride the precondition of strength; pain the precondition of evil, pleasure the precondition of good.  For it must be admitted that the noumenal precedes the phenomenal, and what is qualitative is inherently noumenal, in contrast to the quantitative, and therefore phenomenal, attribute that stems from it.  Contrary to superficial appearances, hate precedes ugliness, not vice versa, and, conversely, no woman is more beautiful than when she is loved.  Indeed, love is what renders her beautiful or, if that sounds too sweeping, let us rather say that without love there is no essential beauty but merely an apparent, or superficial, beauty such that merely pertains to the physical.  With love, her beauty becomes metaphysical and accordingly acquires soul.


76.  Thus we concur with Schopenhauer in positing a noumenal precondition of phenomenal quantities, although such a qualitative precondition extends beyond the negative attributes to the positive ones as well, which are not so much Cosmos-derived as ... nature-derived, and therefore more worldly, since appertaining to the electron side of the atom, whether on wavicle or particle, divine or diabolic terms.  Unlike hate, love cannot be derived in any degree from a cosmic noumenal source, for instance the particle-biased proton-proton reactions of the sun, since it requires an electron-particle bias, and such a bias will not be found, as a rule, on the subatomic plane but only within a worldly and, in particular, organic context, with especial reference to man.  Even animals would seem incapable of love as we understand it, since of a psychic constitution which is too rudimentary and, hence, biased towards protons for all but the most primitive expressions of love, as for example in loyalty and trust, to materialize.  Yet, in man, love can be so intense as to completely transform his world-view, and this manifestation of the Diabolic must be subsumed under the general rubric of Antichristic emotionalism, in contrast to the satanic emotionalism of hate, which may be said to derive from a pre-worldly and therefore genuinely noumenal source.  Of course, what applies to hate and love will apply to each of the other pairs of attributes as well, the negative preceding the positive and the qualitative the quantitative, so that we may trace the original negative experience to one of three noumenal roots, viz. divine, diabolic, or planetary, while reserving for the positive experience a comparatively worldly noumenal extrapolation, as in the case of joy as a precondition of truth.  As the reader may have surmised, falsity is everywhere the root divine condition, though, before falsity can arise in the phenomenal, there must first of all be sadness, or something analogous, in the noumenal, which is to say, in the central star of the Galaxy, for which a wavicle proton-proton reaction is the most apposite definition, as befitting the Creator.  Thus falsity is the expression of sadness no less than truth the expression of joy.  Truth cannot be achieved on the basis of sadness, and neither will falsity arise from joy.


77.  Yet if the qualitative precedes the quantitative on the alpha-stemming levels of the divine, diabolic, and worldly spectra, so that we have a noumenal precondition of a phenomenal outcome, it is completely the converse where the omega-aspiring levels of these same spectra are concerned!  For, as I have elsewhere argued, the superphenomenal is a precondition of the supernoumenal, and consequently before there can be any qualitative attribute of a given negative/positive polarity, there must firstly be a quantitative attribute that precedes it.  Thus before there can be supersadness, a superfalsity such as Fascism must arise, and, likewise, before superjoy can become a reality, there must firstly be supertruth.  In each case, whether of the negative or positive Divine, Superfather or Superchrist, the quantitative is a precondition of the qualitative.  And what applies to the divine spectrum is just as applicable to the diabolic one, where, taking the negative pole first, super-ugliness will precede superhate and be no less its precondition than superbeauty in relation to superlove - the positive diabolic pole on both quantitative and qualitative terms.  An example of super-ugliness would be heavy rhythmic rock music, whereas light, pitch-biased modern jazz will serve as an example of superbeauty.  Thus if superhate, or hate which springs from and is inspired by artificial ugliness, accords with the qualitative attribute of the negative Superdiabolic, in which a proton-particle bias will preponderate, then superlove, or love inspired by artificial beauty, accords with the qualitative attribute of the positive Superdiabolic, in which an electron-particle bias will be preponderant.  Both of which contrast with the wavicle bias, whether on proton or electron terms, of the negative and positive Superdivine - in other words with supersadness and superjoy, as appertaining to the superfalse and to the supertrue respectively.  Generally speaking, it will be found that whereas the Divine is optical the Diabolic is aural, and that purer feelings accrue to the former than to the latter.  But more about that later!  Here I wish to stress the superphenomenal precondition of supernoumenal experience, and this applies as much to the 'bodily' spectra within an omega-aspiring context as to the 'head' spectra, whether mind or brain, divine or diabolic (or, as I should say, superconscious or new brain/superdivine or superdiabolic).


78.  Thus superweakness will be a precondition of superhumiliation, or humiliation attendant upon artificial weakness, i.e. a mechanical breakdown or technical malfunctioning in some artificial context on which one is dependent, while superstrength will be the precondition of superpride, or pride attendant upon the powerful and efficient functioning of some machine or mechanical apparatus with which one is associated - a racing car, say, or a high-speed powerboat.  Clearly, there will be quite a difference of feeling between someone whose racing car malfunctions early-on in a race and the driver whose machine is performing at peak levels, leading him to eventual victory over his remaining rivals.  In the first instance, superhumiliation attendant upon superweakness; in the second instance, superpride attendant upon superstrength.  A proton-biased particle atomicity in the one case, an electron-biased particle atomicity in the other.  Negative and positive modes of superworldliness respectively.


79.  Similarly, in turning from the superautocratic to the superdemocratic, we shall find that superevil is a precondition of superpain, or pain attendant upon the reception of artificial evil, whether through violence or electric shock or some accident involving mechanical or automotive means, while supergood is a precondition of superpleasure, or pleasure attendant upon the use of some artificial good, whether in the realms of food, drink, sex, drugs, or whatever.  Thus superpain attendant upon superevil, for instance a bullet wound, and superpleasure attendant upon supergoodness, for instance a (drink of) cola.  In the one case, a proton-biased wavicle atomicity; in the other case, an electron-biased wavicle atomicity.  Negative and positive modes of superworldliness within superdemocratic terms.  Thus here, no less than elsewhere in the other spectra, the superphenomenal is effectively a precondition of the supernoumenal.


80.  My philosophy can accordingly be regarded as the antithetical equivalent of Schopenhauer's, since he is concerned with the alpha, where noumenon precedes phenomenon, whereas I am primarily concerned with the omega, where superphenomenon precedes supernoumenon.  Before one can be 'turned on' at any given supernoumenal level, one must firstly be 'wired up', 'plugged in', 'geared up', etc., to the relevant superphenomenal precondition.  A new world is thereby established which is the converse of the old one.  And, increasingly, the more this new and artificial world takes hold of the 'turned-on' individual, the less will the old and natural world have any meaning for him.  Beyond a certain point, one has no use for the noumenal or phenomenal in the alpha-stemming contexts propounded by Schopenhauer.  One denies them.  For the Father is irrelevant to anyone set upon attaining to the Holy Ghost.  He must be atheist with regard to the former before he can become truly theist or, rather, deist with regard to the latter.  A true re-evaluation or, rather, 'transvaluation of all values' is required here, and this presupposes the adoption of the superphenomenal as a means to the supernoumenal.  Such is the real implication of being 'born again'.


81.  We have agreed, therefore, that the negative precedes the positive, whether in terms of the Divine, the Diabolic, or the world.  The further back in alpha-stemming time we go (at least in imagination), the more will falsity predominate over truth, ugliness over beauty, weakness over strength, and evil over good ... though not to the same extent everywhere or in every early pagan society.  Some societies, which may be accorded a divine bias, will have more falsity than ugliness; other early societies, the converse of divine, will have more ugliness than falsity; and yet others, which we may regard as predominantly worldly, will have more weakness than ugliness or more evil than falsity, as the case may be.  In other words, identical criteria cannot be applied right across the global board irrespective of racial factors, no more than all men can be judged according to criteria only applicable to one class or type of man - say, worldly and, hence, bodily criteria, as in a democratic society.  For the world - and here I use the term in its most general sense - is a much more complex place than some people(s) would have us believe, and while divine, diabolic, and worldly factors will be found in virtually all societies, they will not be found to the same degree, neither on a caste nor a racial basis.  Early Irish society was no less divine because falsity generally prevailed than when truth subsequently emerged victorious in the guise of Catholic Christianity.  It was simply divine in a negative way.  And, doubtless, early English society, while having a divine dimension, was if not more diabolical in a negative way, as relative to a predominating ugliness, then almost certainly more worldly in terms, for example, of weakness or, to a lesser extent, evil.  Therefore we cannot categorically argue that ugliness predominated over beauty in every early society, since that would be to judge them all according to only diabolic criteria, but should rather maintain that while some societies were dominated by ugliness, others, though still subject to a degree of ugliness, were dominated by falsity or weakness or evil, depending on the type of society in question.  Now since, paradoxically, the Divine takes precedence over both the Diabolic and the world, a predominantly false society would have been morally superior to each of the other types, whether ugly, weak, or evil.  Similarly, a predominantly ugly society, whilst inferior to a false one, would have been morally superior to both predominantly weak and evil societies.  For the Diabolic takes precedence over the world, since aligned with the head as opposed to the body, if, in relation to the Divine, as brain rather than mind.  Thus in Europe early Slavic society would have to be rated above early Germanic society, though below early Celtic society.


82.  However that may be, it is perhaps one of life's supreme ironies that the society or caste which is most false or ugly or weak in an early phase of its existence is the one destined to become most true or beautiful or strong at a subsequent phase of it, when the positive pole has come to the fore at the expense of the negative one and electron-biased norms accordingly preponderate.  Provided the racial structure of any given type of society remains relatively unchanged, then positive counterbalances to the earlier negative preconditions will duly emerge ... to usher in a better age for the peoples concerned.  A predominantly false society will thus become a predominantly true, or Catholic, one.  A predominantly ugly society will become a predominantly beautiful, or Orthodox, one.  And, finally, a predominantly weak society will acquire new strength and emerge in a Protestant guise, just as a predominantly evil society will cast of its painful constraints and become good - in a word, democratic and equalitarian, serving the happiness of the greatest number.  Such swings from one extreme to another are shared by all societies, and we may characterize the negative pole and approximations to it in terms of devolution, in contrast to the evolutionary nature of progress towards and approximations to the positive pole.  Devolution from the alpha, evolution towards the omega.  This in both natural, i.e. noumenal/phenomenal, and supernatural, i.e. superphenomenal/supernoumenal, societies ... whether divine, diabolic, or worldly.  And in all three cases, at whichever pole of their respective spectra, we have devolution from protons, evolution towards electrons.  Devolution from falsity, evolution towards truth; devolution from ugliness, evolution towards beauty ... and so on, with the same of course applying to the super-manifestations of each quantity and its qualitative attribute - as, for example, in the case of superhate and superlove, which are conditional upon the prior existence of super-ugliness and superbeauty respectively.  Thus there is devolution from super-ugliness and evolution towards superbeauty, each of which pertains to the artificial part, so to speak, of the diabolic spectrum, with Supersatanic and Super-antichristic implications.  Generally speaking, devolution at this level is commensurate with the superphenomenal, whereas evolution at such a level is commensurate with the supernoumenal.


83.  Likewise, in relation to the naturalistic part of each spectrum, we can speak of devolution from the noumenal and of evolution towards the phenomenal, with mainly proton and electron implications ... such as find a moral analogue in the distinction between centrifugal and centripetal.  But if progress towards the centripetal is evolutionary, it is only so on a rather limited, centrifugal-dominated basis within the noumenal-to-phenomenal part of any given spectrum, where the proton element preponderates overall, and moral progress is accordingly subordinate to the root centrifugal element and has its existence within the umbrella, so to speak, of that element, as where trousers or breeches are worn under or in conjunction with jackets and coats, creating a paradoxically amoral impression.  It is only with the artificial part of each spectrum that the centripetal element can break increasingly free of the centrifugal element and thereby achieve supernoumenal salvation.  For here it is not the centripetal which exists in the centrifugal but, on the contrary, the latter which exists in the former, since the electron element is preponderant overall.  Hence not coats or jackets over trousers or breeches, but trousers or, rather, jeans and pants over T-shirt and vest, which are the last refuge, so to speak, of the centrifugal within an omega-aspiring context.  A transvaluation beyond the phenomenon has taken place, and therefore the centripetal element has become truly ascendant and capable of encroaching ever further upon what remains of the centrifugal, until, with supernoumenal salvation, nothing demonstrably centrifugal remains, since one-piece zipper suits have eclipsed pants/vest relativity, the pants having paved the way, as it were, for the suits in question, which are not so much pants and vest in one as expanded pants ... symptomatic of a centripetal absolutism.


84.  Yet if there is devolution from dresses to skirts, and evolution from pants to one-piece zipper suits, there is also co-existence within the phenomenal and superphenomenal contexts of skirts and trousers, as relative to a worldly compromise in atomic cohesion.  There is a second femininity within the alpha-stemming context of the artificial part of each spectrum, and this is the femininity of skirts made from synthetic materials like PVC and co-existing with pants of an equally synthetic construction.  For one cannot limit skirts to the phenomenal when they are made from synthetics, and therefore it follows that such skirts encroach upon the superphenomenal as a devolution from phenomenal skirts, or those made from naturalistic materials like cotton and silk, and are accordingly of shorter length, i.e. mini.  Devolution presupposes a reduction of scale, particularly in terms of length ... which connotes with sexual status, or the social standing of the feminine element in life at any given point in time, and short skirts are certainly devolved in relation to long or medium-length ones.  Therefore just as devolution of the dress, that inherently noumenal parallel, proceeds from full-length to mini via intermediate lengths, so devolution of the skirt, that inherently phenomenal parallel, proceeds from full-length to mini via intermediate lengths, with its optimum devolution occurring within the superphenomenal context of PVC minis - at any rate, with regard to length; though the shift from natural to synthetic materials is, of course, rather more evolutionary than devolutionary in character, and may be regarded as the evolutionary ingredient par excellence within a superphenomenal context - a context, however, where jeans and pants will always predominate, since a masculine bias is more characteristic of the superphenomenal than of the phenomenal.  Indeed, so much is this so ... that the more positive and progressive it becomes, the closer it will draw to the centripetal indivisibility of the supernoumenal, as, for example, with regard to one-piece zipper suits of a synthetic construction.  Accordingly, it is my belief that while skirts of a synthetic and devolved order are permissible within the negative pole of the superphenomenal (the quantitative pole, which may be described in terms of super-ugliness), dresses would be quite anomalous there, even when made from synthetic materials and of a highly devolved, i.e. mini-length, order.  For dresses and skirts are not identical or interchangeable but pertain to different civilizations, one might almost say to different ages and classes, and while the dress is perfectly at home in an alpha-stemming noumenal context, it would be completely out-of-place in a superphenomenal one, since far too feminine for the context in question.  Only the half- or quarter-femininity, so to speak, of a miniskirt could have any place there, and then in a rather subordinate way to jeans or pants.  For if the centrifugal dominates the noumenal and, to a lesser extent, the phenomenal, then the centripetal is the dominating factor of the superphenomenal and, to a greater extent, of the supernoumenal.


85.  I have digressed at some length from my original devolutionary/evolutionary theme, although not altogether without good reason, since the sartorial parallels drawn above indicate, in no uncertain terms, that the ratio of negative to positive within a naturalistic context is more in favour of the negative than of the positive, whereas in an artificial context, by contrast, it is the positive pole that comes out on top.  Let us take the naturalistic context of any given spectrum first - say, falsity and truth in the case of the Divine.  Now if we equate falsity with the noumenon and truth with the phenomenon, our sartorial parallel will show that falsity is equivalent to the dress, any dress, and truth to trousers.  Therefore falsity is indivisible and truth divisible.  Falsity is whole, truth merely a half-measure; falsity accords with proton absolutism, truth merely corresponds to relativity with an electron bias.  The one outweighs the other and, accordingly, the imbalance is always in favour of falsity or, what amounts to the same thing, the noumenal indivisibility of the negative pole.  In other words, the Father outweighs Christ, and even when truth has come to the fore, as in Christianity, there is always more falsity to be reckoned with.  Again, to revert to our sartorial parallel, we may have all males in trousers, but not all females will be in skirts.  Many will still prefer dresses, whether long or short, and even those who usually wear skirts may also at certain times favour a dress, so that any possible balance between trousers and skirts is countered by the number of females wearing dresses which, when added to the number of skirts being worn in society, creates or, rather, maintains an imbalance in favour of the negative and, hence, of alpha-stemming domination.  Had men the possibility, during a phenomenal age, of one-piece zipper suits, they could balance-out the negative, feminine element of dresses ... and thereby achieve or maintain a comparable degree of positivity, bringing their own masculinity to the full.  But this they cannot of course do, since no such possibility then exists, and so their existence is that of a male half-measure vis--vis female half-measures, i.e. skirts, and female whole-measures, i.e. dresses, in consequence of which truth is accordingly a half-measure in relation to alpha-noumenal falsity.  And not only Christian truth in relation to pagan falsity (not to mention Christian falsity, as paralleled by skirts), but Antichristian beauty in relation to Satanic ugliness, worldly strength in relation to worldly weakness, worldly good in relation to worldly evil.


86.  Thus, taking the qualitative attributes of each of the above-mentioned dichotomies, joy is a half-measure in relation to sadness, love a half-measure in relation to hate, pride a half-measure in relation to humiliation, and pleasure a half-measure in relation to pain.  No matter how earnest the endeavour to establish the True on the basis of joy, or the Beautiful on the basis of love, or the Strong on the basis of pride, or the Good on the basis of pleasure, the negative correlations of these virtues always preponderate, and the result is a world in which truth, beauty, strength, and goodness are outweighed by falsity, ugliness, weakness, and evil; a world in which sadness, hate, humiliation, and pain predominate because they are always the whole measure, or capable of becoming such, while the others remain merely the half.  They are the dress while the others are merely the trousers.  Small wonder if men of a certain progressive stamp grow weary of natural virtue and instead turn towards the possibility of supernatural, or supernoumenal, virtue, which requires a superphenomenal precondition!  Better to fall into a new and therefore artificial falsity, ugliness, weakness, or evil ... if in due course that will pave the way towards a new and higher type of truth, beauty, strength, or goodness which, in contrast to the natural types, will be a whole measure rather than merely a half.  Better that the negative poles should be half- or quarter-measures on the artificial part of each spectrum ... than that one should remain a perpetual victim of negative whole-measures on their natural part.  Better PVC miniskirts than full-length cotton dresses.  Better jeans than half-measure cotton trousers, particularly if they lead to boiler suits in due course.  Or, better still, PVC pants leading to one-piece zipper suits of an equally synthetic construction, since jeans are merely worldly whereas PVC pants, being synthetic, are of a divine orientation.


87.  Indeed, one should distinguish between cords and denims on the one hand, as alternative types of worldly masculine-biased attire, and leather and PVC pants on the other, as alternative types of post-worldly (diabolic and divine) attire which are not so much masculine as supermasculine - certainly on the supernoumenal levels of one-piece zipper suits!  Be that as it may, there is no guarantee of strength or goodness or beauty or truth, not to mention their qualitative concomitants (which, on the omega-oriented artificial part of each spectrum, derive from them), except from a superphenomenal base which, even when a half-measure or, more correctly, less than a whole-measure, is a precondition of supernoumenal whole-measures thereafter, and hence of full-blown positivity.  Now, obviously, while full-blown strength, symbolized by a denim boiler suit, is preferable to the half-measure strength which obtains in the naturalistic context, it is not the ultimate positivity but merely a worldly or, rather, superworldly positivity that complements, on a superautocratic plane, full-blown goodness ... as relative to superdemocratic worldliness, which can be symbolized by a one-piece cord suit - a sort of cord boiler suit.  Both kinds of one-piece suit - rare though they were in the late-twentieth century - are only really relevant to a superworldly supernoumenon and, hence, to a supernoumenon of the body as opposed to the head.  One might define them in terms of Western supernoumenalism ... insofar as the West, being largely a Germanic phenomenon, is nothing if not bodily, and therefore values strength and goodness above beauty and truth.  A higher supernoumenon, namely that of the head, would have to be given the 'go ahead' elsewhere ... by peoples more inherently disposed to diabolic or to divine criteria, i.e. beauty or truth, and such post-worldly peoples would eventually eclipse the worldly ... as demanded by evolutionary progress, which, in this day and age, tends away from the body (and thus the world) towards the head (and thus the Antichristic Diabolic in relation to the new brain, and the Superchristic Divine in relation to the superconscious).  Higher than worldly supernoumenalism would be the diabolic supernoumenalism of leather or rubber one-piece zipper suits, as especially relevant to the Slavic East, and higher again would be the divine supernoumenalism of PVC one-piece zipper suits, as especially relevant to the Third World and to theocracy-biased countries like Ireland and Iran.


88.  Thus whilst all kinds of supernoumenalism are preferable to their respective superphenomenal preconditions, because significant of full-blown positivity, evolution will demand that only the highest supernoumenalism eventually prevails.  Since this is commensurate with the Divine, and hence with the (electron-wavicle) Holy Ghost, so the ultimate indivisibility must be of a PVC-type construction, and therefore a reflection of truth rather than of beauty, goodness, or strength.  Or, more correctly, a reflection of supertruth rather than of superbeauty, supergoodness, or superstrength.  Such supertruth, whether in sartorial or other terms, is the goal of all evolutionary striving.  For true world unity can only be achieved on the basis of spiritual homogeneity, not on the basis of co-existence between incompatible ideals.  Even superbeauty will eventually have to be consigned to obsolescence ... if supertruth is ultimately to prevail.


89.  Some pages ago I briefly referred to a kind of divine/diabolic distinction between the optical and the aural, and now I wish to expand on that reference on the basis of distinguishing between optical perception, which is linked rather more closely to the mind than to the brain, and aural perception which, by contrast, is linked rather more closely to the brain than to the mind.  For it will not have failed to dawn on the reader that, through the agencies of seeing and hearing, the eyes and the ears are two modes of perceiving the world - the former optical and the latter aural.  Using the term 'perception' in the general sense of understanding and noting, it is indisputable that perception of the world is no less aural than optical, and that while people may differ from one another in terms of the degree to which their perception of the world is either optical or aural, all would agree, I think, that hearing is as much a mode of perception as seeing, the only real difference being that in the one case the emotions are more deeply involved than in the other case because, as already remarked, hearing connects more directly to the brain than to the mind, and the brain is nothing if not emotional.  This being the case, it is right that we should regard it in a diabolic rather than a divine light - indeed, to switch metaphors, as heat rather than light, since emotions, passions, etc., are of a deeper and less-elevated order of noumenal experience than feelings, using that term in the narrow sense of abstract emotions like sadness, joy, and happiness which, by contrast, are not only more refined but of an altogether higher order of noumenal experience, an order pertaining to spirit as opposed to soul.  Thus if we associate emotion with the brain, and hence the Diabolic, it is only proper that we should equate feelings with the mind, and hence the Divine.  Accordingly, in the one case we shall have concrete noumenal experience and in the other case abstract noumenal experience, as befitting the respective natures of hearing and seeing, aural perception and optical perception.


90.  But of course we cannot limit perception to the pre-worldly, and hence natural, context that may be regarded as preceding worldly concepts and conceptions.  Perception does precede conception, as Schopenhauer correctly maintained, but it is no less the case, in this day and age, that there are modes of perception which succeed the conceptual, and we should be careful to distinguish them from the pre-conceptual varieties.  Accordingly I use the term 'superperceptual' for all modes of perception, whether aural or optical, that relate to and are dependent upon artificial phenomena such as television, radio, record-player, video-recorder, etc., and I maintain that they relate to the natural modes of perception as omega to alpha or as the supernoumenal to the noumenal, with an antithetical status in consequence.  Yet such supernoumenal perceptions, or superperceptions, are only relative, not absolute.  For there is a sense in which, say, optical perception of television differs only in degree rather than kind from optical perception of natural phenomena like trees and flowers.  Admittedly, we should distinguish perception of the artificial from perception of the natural, and many people, me included, would hold the view that the perception of flowers on television, where in a sense they become artificial, is superior than and preferable to the perception of flowers in naturalis, and therefore is a mode of superperception.  However, such 'superperception' is relative, in contrast to the use of artificial modes of perception, whether optical or aural, which may be regarded as constituting a direct, or absolute, antithesis to the natural modes, and the chief examples of which are the camera and the microphone, the former functioning as an artificial eye and the latter as an artificial ear, albeit in a more radical sense than is achieved by corrective lenses on the one hand or by hearing aids on the other, each of which may be described as intermediary between natural modes of perception and their artificial, and hence mechanical, counterparts - at any rate, to the extent that they serve to correct a natural defect rather than to take the place of natural modes of perception as such.  Consequently we may define the camera as an artificial eye, or optical recorder of phenomena external to itself, while reserving to microphones, including those which are used in bugging operations, the status of an artificial ear, or aural recorder of phenomena external to itself. (Although the glass eye is artificial and intended to replace the loss of a natural eye, it has no perceptive function and therefore cannot be accorded an antithetical status to the natural eye in the functional sense we are elucidating here.)


91.  Interestingly enough, while we increasingly use our natural modes of perception in connection with artificial phenomena such as television and radio, the artificial modes of perception are more often used in connection with natural phenomena, including people, conversation, and singing, a fact which cannot be without some significance in throwing light upon the paradoxical and transitional nature of the age.  For it does seem that most people have what borders on an aversion to photographing or recording artificial phenomena, preferring to concentrate on subjects which the natural eye or ear has grown out of, in their preference for artificial phenomena.  Doubtless, this ironic situation will be transcended in the course of time ... as artificial modes of perception become increasingly important and the world becomes correspondingly more transcendental.  In the future, people will cease to be interested in natural phenomena perceived through artificial means, but will increasingly turn towards the artificial perception of artificial phenomena.  Even the natural perception of artificial phenomena, as, for example, on and through cinema films, television, and videos, will be transcended by and through artificially-induced visionary experience, thereby opening-up new worlds of internal perception as required by the progression of divine, or visionary, experience from superfalse to supertrue levels, in conjunction with the correlative progression of the diabolic, or auditory, experience from super-ugly to superbeautiful levels.


92.  Indeed, now that I have returned to my initial divine/diabolic theme, it is incumbent upon me to distinguish divine from diabolic progressions in terms of an optical/aural dichotomy, and to regard the following options as constituting parallel progressions, viz. films and records, television and radio, videos and compact discs, and, finally, LSD trips and cassettes, with, in the one case, divine and, in the other, diabolic implications.  Thus, with this dichotomous view of artificial visionary and auditory phenomena, we have a divine progression, on the one hand, from films to trips via television and videos, which is paralleled by a diabolic (aural as opposed to optical, heat as opposed to light) progression, on the other hand, from records to cassettes via radio and compact discs.  Now, obviously, films in the context of cinema must precede the showing of films - TV films excepted - on television, just as records in the context of LPs must precede the playing of records on the radio, and therefore we can categorically maintain that there is a sequential and, in a limitedly literal sense, evolutionary progression from the one to the other, since without prior films or records there could be no television or radio transmission of films and records, which may consequently be regarded as a precondition of the media in question.  Furthermore, both television and radio are alike in that they are multimedia modes of transmission, with a variety of channels broadcasting an even greater variety of programmes, some of which will be literary and theatrical, some of which musical and operatic, others of which documentary, sports, current affairs, and so on.  Thus there exists a definite parallel between radio and television, irrespective of the type of radio or television we have in mind.  A parallel of sorts, although of a different order, may also be said to exist between videos and compact discs, insofar as they are extrapolations from and evolutionary improvements on films and records or, as we could alternatively argue with qualified justification, the equivalent of films and records in a post-television and post-radio age, society, mentality, or whatever, while further along our evolutionary spectrum we find ourselves positing a like-parallel between artificially-induced visionary experience and cassettes only on the basis that there would seem to be little else - at any rate on such a radically extreme level, a level which suggests an outright supernoumenal indivisibility in each case (not forgetting our divine/diabolic distinctions between visionary and auditory modes of perception).  Here the Divine truly attains, as only it can, to an internal level of visionary perception, while the Diabolic, though not capable of such internalization itself, at least becomes less external to the degree that cassettes increasingly depend upon microlight headphones - indeed, as in the case of portable minicassette-players, can only be listened to with the aid of such headphones, there being no speaker option.


93.  Until now we have been considering the perceptual beyond the world, i.e. the conceptual, on both optical and aural terms, which we have called superperceptions.  Now we must consider artificial levels of the conceptual beyond the world, which likewise may be called superconceptions, and which, like the superperceptual, can be divided into relative and absolute distinctions.  In the first category we shall find pocket calculators and other portable modes of computation which serve as a correction to or substitute for the brain, and which stand to it rather as spectacles and hearing-aids to the eyes and ears respectively, having a direct connection with their user.  In the second and more absolute category, however, we shall find computers ... from the smallest to the largest, the least complex to the most sophisticated, which exist not merely in relation to the brain, and hence in an intermediate position, but as completely artificial brains antithetical in every way to it, and therefore no less independent of natural intelligence than cameras in relation to the eye or microphones in relation to the ear.  Such 'artificial brains' assume a superworldly conceptual status analogous to the superdivine status of artificial optical perception and to the superdiabolic status of artificial aural perception, and accordingly complement these latter modes of perception within the artificial context of an omega orientation, in contrast to natural thought, which stands to the computer as natural sight to the camera and as natural hearing to the microphone.  Nevertheless, natural thought, or the conceptual capability and employment of the human brain, can be used in conjunction with artificial phenomena, i.e. as thought about the man-made world, just as the eye can be used to see and the ear to hear artificial phenomena, and we should distinguish such thought from purely natural thought, or thought about nature and naturalistic phenomena generally, including people, animals, etc., in the same way and to the same extent that we have distinguished optical and aural perceptions in relation to artificial phenomena such as television and radio from their more naturalistic counterparts.  In such fashion, we shall be able to distinguish thought of a new-brain order from its old-brain counterpart, as well as from any mid-brain compromise between or conjunction of the two, so that a relatively superconceptual status will accrue to the former, thereby allowing for the varieties of thoughts, some of which are antithetical to others, that fall to the human brain, itself divisible in the aforementioned ways.


94.  Consequently an omega-oriented order of the conceptual will be antithetical to the alpha-stemming order of conceptual thought to the degree that the new brain is antithetical to the old brain.  One cannot think on both levels at once, since there are evolutionary and class distinctions between the two contexts and those who most approximate to a dual integrity in their thinking are neither specific to the one nor to the other but pertain to an intermediate, bourgeois level situated in between.  Traditionally such a level has found its religious embodiment in prayer, as relative to Christianity or some such 'worldly' religion, and we may regard the conceptual, contrary to Schopenhauer, as truly appertaining to the Divine ... in contrast to the perceptual, which can only pertain to it indirectly, that is to say through the medium of appearances.  For true divinity is essential, not apparent, and therefore centripetal as opposed to centrifugal in character, a turning in upon oneself, whether in pagan and, hence, sensual terms, as in sleep, or in Christian and, hence, intellectual terms, as in prayer, or, beyond both of these, in transcendent and, hence, spiritual terms, as in meditation.


95.  Thus one can distinguish, on a tripartite basis, between the subconceptual, the conceptual, and the superconceptual, where the above-mentioned modes of conceiving are concerned, and there should be no doubt that progress tends from the first to the third, though not without apparent levels of the Divine coming in-between, so that we may allow, to take a single example, for a television-to-video-to-LSD progression in between mid-brain cognitive conceptions on the one hand and new-brain meditative conceptions on the other, which constitutes ascending levels of artificial perception ... from the external to the internal, and so from the false to the true or, more correctly, quasi-true.  For it must be admitted that film, whether on television, video, or at the cinema, pertains to divine superfalsity to the extent that we are dealing with appearances external to ourselves which come to us via mechanical means, whereas artificially-induced visionary experience of an hallucinogenic order is closer to divine supertruth by dint of taking place within the psyche in a context rather more chemical than material, and therefore more directly spiritual.  If it is less than truly superconceptual, it is at any rate more than merely superperceptual.  One might distinguish this ultimate mode of visionary experience from the mechanically-derived modes like television or video in terms of a perceptual-conceptual integrity ... in contrast to the conceptual-perceptual integrity of the latter, which I accordingly equate with the superfalse.  For the closer one draws to the Holy Ghost, the more superconceptual things become, since ultimate divinity is not apparent but essential and therefore can only be approached, i.e. evolved towards, from within ... on the basis of superconceptual freedom.  Such freedom paves the way for the pure meditative experience to follow, and is its necessary precondition.


96.  But such a meditative experience shouldn't be confounded with the petty-bourgeois meditative experiences so prevalent in the West in the late-twentieth century.  These latter were more akin to 'prayer without words' - decadent modes of Christian religious observance analogous to abstract paintings, which call to mind a denial of the will in the negative and merely relative sense advocated by Schopenhauer.  The decline and extinction of bourgeois civilization is one thing, the rise and expansion of proletarian civilization quite another, and those who demand the Truth should never rest content with the half-measures and subterfuges of a civilization in partial eclipse!  The ultimate meditation, when it becomes possible, will as little resemble 'prayer without words' as laser light art the painting without subject-matter which is but the Schopenhaurian/Sartrean decline into the nothingness, or neant, of decadent bourgeois civilization.  It will be dynamic, like the Tao-te-Ching mode of meditation assisted by deep-breathing exercises.  But if that admirable form of yoga corresponds to the positive pole of a divine integrity within a naturalistic context, i.e. the Eastern equivalent to  Western truth as embodied in the person of Christ, then the supermeditation I have in mind for the future will correspond to the positive divine pole within an artificial, or supernaturalistic, context and be relatively artificial - indeed, assisted not by breaths of natural air but by inhalations of chemically-manufactured air stored in oxygen containers and requiring the use of special oxygen masks.  Such dynamic supermeditation will, I believe, greatly facilitate upward self-transcendence, particularly in contexts simulating, through recourse to special body harnesses, the gravity-defying miracle of levitation.  The result will not only be higher than could be achieved via natural meditation but purer as well, since such impurities as cling to natural air would not exist within the comparatively artificial context of oxygen containers.


97.  However, in returning to the distinction we were making between perception and conception, it should be re-emphasised that the Divine would be rather more conceptual than perceptual; for that which is above appearances is essential and therefore beyond sight, or the possibility of optical perception.  Being in the Holy Spirit would be to feel the bliss of electron-electron attractions, not to see them.  For where there are no eyes, there is no sight.  Of course, one should distinguish between sensory perception, which depends upon the use of sight, and spiritual perception, which, like the artificially-induced visions of an LSD trip, is less a matter of external vision than of internal vision ... as germane to the mind's eye, that elusive capacity of the imagination to 'visualize' its contents.  Such spiritual perception extends down to the dream contents of the subconscious, as well as to daydreams or fantasies, and, as I have argued, can also embrace natural visions, or hallucinations; though these will have the appearance of being outside the psyche and accordingly border on sensory perception, especially when motivated by external phenomena.  Conversely, it may be argued that films, whether at the cinema or elsewhere, primarily appeal to sensory perception ... to the extent that they are external to the psyche and have to be watched, in contrast to the artificially-induced visionary experience of LSD trips which, as already noted, transcend sensory perception and accordingly enter the realm of supertruth.  For here we touch upon the crucial distinction between the superfalse and the supertrue - a distinction between sensory perception of artificially-produced visionary phenomena, i.e. films, and the spiritual perception of artificially-induced visions which are not so much phenomenal as noumenal or, rather, supernoumenal ... as pertaining to the superconscious part of the psyche.  Here we move from the realm of the superphenomenal to the much higher and therefore more genuinely divine realm of the supernoumenal.  It is a progression, in other words, from appearance to essence, from sensory perception to spiritual conception or, at any rate, to a realm of spiritual perception which borders on the superconceptual.  For me, it signifies a Superchristic prelude to properly transcendental essence.


98.  Since I began, some pages ago, by contending that the eyes, and hence the sense of sight, were of divine origin in relation to the ears, and that there exists, in consequence, a kind of divine/diabolic distinction between optical perception and aural perception, I had better qualify my original statement by words to the effect that such a distinction is merely apparent and relative in relation to spiritual perception of either a visionary or an auditory order, since no sensory perception, whether optical or aural, can be truly divine or diabolic.  Rather, it is superficially so in relation to dreams, visions, voices, whisperings, etc., which correspond to the inner eye and to the inner ear in their various hallucinatory manifestations - more usually as manifestations of subconscious activity than of conscious activity as such, which, except in the context of fantasies or daydreams, corresponds to the conceptual, and hence to abstract thought.


99.  Yet we are just as susceptible to auditory perceptions in our dreams as to visionary perceptions, and the ratio of the one to the other will indicate the nature of the dream, i.e. divine or diabolic, whether on negative or positive terms, which is to say with reference to the false and/or ugly on the one hand, or to the true and/or beautiful on the other hand.  Some people's dreams are predominantly visionary and therefore 'quiet', as befitting the Divine, whether negative or positive.  Other people's dreams, by contrast, are predominantly auditory, as befitting the Diabolic, again whether negative or positive.  Yet others experience an approximate balance between the two poles of the subconscious or, as I should say, the subconscious-proper and the old brain.  Just so, some people are more susceptible to auditory hallucinations than to visionary ones and may accordingly be regarded as having a relatively diabolic psychic bias, in contrast to those for whom visionary hallucinations are the norm.  There is no reason why auditory hallucinations should be regarded as any stranger than visionary ones, nor need we discount the possibility of a psychic balance between the two, as germane to a worldly integrity.  Probably most people's autonomous psychic activity outside dreams is so faint and distant, these days, that they are unaware of its existence, particularly since so much time is now spent in front of televisions, radios, and other such mechanically autonomous devices.  Doubtless in the future, LSD trips will open-up further autonomous regions of the psyche and duly eclipse natural hallucinations with artificially-induced hallucinatory experience either of a predominantly visionary or of a predominantly auditory nature, depending on the type of hallucinogen and the character of the tripping recipient.  A 'good' trip will almost invariably be predominantly visionary; a 'bum' trip will be less visionary than auditory.  Yet whatever the psychic nature of the trip, the positive will generally preponderate over the negative, to the extent that we are referring to a supernoumenal and, hence, full-blown positivity as opposed to a phenomenal or, rather, superphenomenal half-measure ... as relative to films, which, as everyone knows, can be good or bad or good and bad, depending on the type of film in question.


100. Thus trips have this further advantage over films, in that not only are they internal rather than external, but almost invariably 'good'.  A 'bad' as opposed to an audibly-biased 'bum' trip is indeed the exception to the rule, and so much so that one would have cause to suspect the quality of the recipient rather than that of the LSD, in the event of persistently 'bad' tripping.  Conversely, with dreams it is more usually the bad dream, or nightmare, that is a full-measure and the good dream a half one, particularly in the case of the very young and of people who are psychically backward.  For dreams are predominantly noumenal by nature, and the noumenal is nothing if not negative.  Even good dreams, which are comparatively rare, are less good than bad dreams are bad, owing to the predominantly negative constitution of the subconscious.  Either the Father gets the better of Christ, so to speak, or Satan the better of the Antichrist, depending on the type of dream to which one is usually partial.  And even persons whose dream life is predominantly truthful or beautiful, which should include most well-constituted males, will only experience the Christic or the Antichristic on the basis of a half-measure, as relative to natural truth or beauty.  For a full-blown positivity, one must turn to the superconscious and to the experience, therein, of artificially-induced visions.  Doubtless the future will in fact encourage such a procedure, in accordance with the transcendental requirements of an omega-oriented society - the only possible society in which true salvation can be achieved.


101. Having spoken of the senses of sight and hearing, of eyes and ears in relation to superficially divine and diabolic parallels, I should now like to expatiate on the senses of smell and taste, of nose and tongue in relation to the world, since, in contrast to the aforementioned ones, these senses overlap with the body - indeed, are connected to bodily organs in the form of the lungs and the stomach respectively.  Whereas sight and hearing solely have reference to the head and are therefore comparatively transcendent senses, indirectly connected via eyes and ears to the Divine and to the Diabolic (which find their true parallels in mind and brain), smell and taste, although situated in the head, have reference to the body, since whatever is smelled as scent or perfume soon passes, if inhaled, into the lungs with air, while whatever is tasted as food or drink soon passes, if swallowed, into the stomach with saliva.  Thus although the senses of smell and taste only have effect with regard to the nose and the tongue respectively, these latter organs lead, via bronchial tubes and throat, to the lungs and the stomach, and thereby compromise the senses in question, rendering them less transcendental than mundane, and hence comparatively worldly.  Indeed, just as sight may be identified with sadness and happiness, depending on the nature of what is seen, and hearing likewise be identified with hate and love, depending on the nature of what is heard, so smell and taste can be ascribed a qualitative dichotomy on the basis of what is smelt or tasted, whether negative or positive.  Now if humiliation and pride are the twin poles around which the former revolves, then we shall have to ascribe to the latter the poles of disgust and pleasure, as befitting such a worldly and, indeed, democratic sense as taste.  A sweet scent causes one to feel pride; no less than a savoury meal gives one pleasure.  Conversely, a bad smell, like B.O. or halitosis, will cause its perpetrator humiliation, no less than rotten or stale food will bring him disgust.  Disgust at other people's bad smells is the converse of humiliation at one's own, and to disgust with bad food can be added humiliation at the prospect of having to eat it!  Nevertheless, whilst emotional reactions do overlap, depending on the context and the relation of subject to object or vice versa, it seems feasible to attribute an autocratic axis to smell and a democratic axis to taste, so that the one is perceived as worldly with a diabolic bias, whether negative (humiliation) or positive (pride), whereas the other is perceived as worldly with a divine bias, whether negative (disgust) or positive (pleasure).


102. However, in between we shall find the uniquely worldly, and hence middle-ground, sense of touch, which pertains to the body and, in particular, to the hands, that focal-point of the will to touch.  Now if a qualitative dichotomy is to be reserved for this last and most basic sense, then I can think of none better than fear on the one hand and hope on the other, the latter of which may also embrace trust and mutual goodwill, as between one handshaker and another.  Touch, then, is not so much autocratic or democratic as plutocratic, one might even say parliamentarian, taking that term to signify something coming in-between authoritarianism and republicanism, and I define the quantitative attributes of this sense in terms of war and peace, which strike me as constituting a quintessentially worldly dichotomy - the phenomenal consequences of fear and hope respectively.


103. Anyone who is conscious of a distinction between the body and the head, who doesn't treat the head as a part of the body but perceives it in relation to divine and diabolic realities above the world, of which the body is a microcosm, will have noticed that whereas the body is basically rectilinear in shape, the head, by contrast, is usually of a curvilinear design, and that this is relative to the fundamental distinction between the world on the one hand, and the Divine and/or Diabolic on the other hand.  Thus even when caste and racial exceptions have been taken into account, the fundamental dichotomy between body and head is generally based on a rectilinear/curvilinear distinction.  We see this distinction clearly enough when comparing stereo speakers with headphones, whether of the ring-like conventional design or of the centralized micro design.  For speakers are rectilinear and therefore bodily, whereas headphones are curvilinear and thus of the head ... in more than an obvious sense.  I have discussed this subject elsewhere, so will now proceed to analogous distinctions between cars, which are usually rectilinear in design (the old-style, or 'Beetle', Volkswagen being a paradoxical exception to the rule), and motorbikes and/or scooters, where we are conscious of a predominantly curvilinear impression which is partly attributable to the wheels and partly to the engine and/or panelling.  Likewise between paintings in the rectilinear case and light art, whether relatively materialistic or spiritualistic, in that of the curvilinear.  And, most especially, between modern rectilinear architecture on the one hand and modern curvilinear architecture on the other - a conspicuous instance of our basic body/head dichotomy, and no small indication as to the nature of any given contemporary society - the rectilinear variety preponderating in the democratic West where, not surprisingly, bodily criteria take precedence over those of the head, especially in cities like New York and Chicago, which abound in rectilinear skyscrapers of a superworldly order, a blatant testimony to the body's rule even when, as often transpires, the architecture concerned is so towering and stylistically indivisible as to appear highly idealistic in character.  Such a paradoxical idealism of the body is particularly characteristic of America, which abounds in Nazi overtones.


104. However that may be, ring-like curvilinear architecture is, by contrast, communistic and therefore comparatively naturalistic in character; though we should take pains to distinguish between the relatively low, pure Communist architecture and the higher, less naturalistic architecture which, while still of a ring-like design, may be described as Transcendental Socialist.  For the reader will be aware that such a Communist/Transcendental Socialist distinction has been encountered in my work before, and has its divine counterpart in the Fascist/Social Transcendentalist one which, in architecture, takes the form of tall, highly centralized, and hence idealistic, curvilinear buildings on the one hand, and of less tall and highly centralized, though still idealistic, curvilinear buildings on the other hand, this latter option directly paralleling the taller, less ring-like, and therefore naturalistic, curvilinear buildings of a Transcendental Socialist design.  Consequently, with 'head' architecture our basic distinction, already noted with regard to motorbikes and scooters, not to mention conventional and micro headphones, between a ring-like and a centralized design also holds true, and is precisely that which distinguishes the Diabolic from the Divine, or curvilinear naturalism from its idealistic counterpart.  Doubtless in the future, most if not all buildings will be curvilinear, since the head alone will count ... as the body, and hence the world, is overcome.  But it is to be hoped that, ultimately, the centralized variety of curvilinear architecture will preponderate over the ring-like variety, as divine criteria displace the diabolic in a world tending ever more closely towards the heavenly Beyond.  We may not yet have seen the last of the rectilinear mode of architecture, but the future belongs to the curvilinear - of that there can be little doubt!


105. Smoking, which involves the sense of smell and possibility of inhalation into the lungs, corresponds to the diabolic-in-the-world and is therefore a relatively autocratic habit, having strong overtones with both weakness and strength, humiliation and pride, depending on the smoker and his mode of smoking, viz. pipe, cigar, or cigarette, with class and even evolutionary implications between them.  By contrast, drinking, which involves the sense of taste and necessarily has reference to the stomach, corresponds to the divine-in-the-world and is therefore a relatively democratic habit, having strong overtones with both evil and good, pain and pleasure, depending, once again, on the drinker and his mode of drinking, viz. bottle, glass, or can, with class and evolutionary implications between them, as before.  Generally speaking, the pipe is to the bottle what the cigar is to the glass, and we may regard them as constituting a negative/positive dichotomy on the basis of noumenal and phenomenal distinctions.  Thus pipe to cigar on the one hand, and bottle to glass on the other - at any rate, such is the case with regard to the natural part of each spectrum.  For when it comes to the artificial, or supernatural, part ... we have a dichotomy between small cigars (cheroots) and cigarettes on the one hand, and between small glasses (half-pints) and cans on the other hand, which constitutes a superphenomenal/supernoumenal distinction, albeit within a strictly worldly framework.  For it should be emphasized that smoking and drinking are essentially bodily habits, and that 'heads', whether divine or diabolic, will either smoke or drink only in moderation or, more usually, not smoke or drink at all.  Those, on the other hand, who both drink and smoke regularly are worldly on both democratic and autocratic terms, whether or not they are also disposed to the sense of touch and therefore highly sensual.  Considered politically, if bottles and pipes correspond to the autocratic and cans and cigarettes to the democratic, then glasses and cigars should correspond to the plutocratic, and so be more strictly of the world.  One might say, using a perceptual-conceptual axis, that whereas bottles and pipes, together with cans and cigarettes, are perceptual and therefore noumenal, albeit in diametrically opposite ways, glasses and cigars are conceptual, and therefore relatively phenomenal.  From worldly alpha to worldly omega via the world.


106. A similar tripartite distinction to the above is to be found in the progression from umbrellas to hooded jackets via raincoats, with umbrellas corresponding to pipes and bottles, hooded jackets to cigarettes and cans, and raincoats to cigars and glasses.  Head - body - head.


107. Since we have ascertained that, in relation to eyes, cameras are an artificial mode of optical perception and that, in relation to ears, microphones are an artificial mode of aural perception, both of which stand as artificial senses to the natural senses of seeing and hearing, we should now take our investigation a stage further and contend that, in relation to internal visionary perception, i.e. dreams, televisions are an artificial mode of visionary perception and therefore antithetical to natural dreams, whereas in relation to internal auditory perception, i.e. audible hallucinations, radios are an artificial mode of auditory perception and therefore antithetical to natural thoughts, or thoughts which occur on an hallucinatory or dream-like basis, as though spontaneously generated.  In other words, televisions and radios are to the psyche what cameras and microphones are to the senses - their antithetical equivalents, which lead an autonomous, or quasi-autonomous, existence of their own and, in a certain sense, take the place of natural autonomous psychic experience.  Thus televisions are dreaming artificial brains, just as radios are artificial brains that render the auditory equivalent of visionary dreaming, which is a kind of artificial audible hallucination - an audible dreaming.  Not that I wish to imply this is all radios and televisions amount to - since there is obviously a great deal more to them than that! - but simply that when they are employed in a literary or a dramatic way, as with the transmission of plays, stories, serials, etc., their function is rather more analogous to dreaming than to thinking, to fantasy than to fact.  Thus if they are the artificial equivalents of internal modes of perception, whether visionary or auditory, and cameras and microphones are the artificial equivalents of external modes of perception, both optical and aural, then computers are the artificial equivalent of conceptual thinking, which stands in between the sensory external and the psychic internal modes of perception as a bridge and link from the one to the other.  Hence for the full complement to the natural head, with its senses and psyche, it is necessary to be in possession not only of camera and microphone but of computer, radio, and television as well, all of which, taken together, constitute an artificial head whose parts function on an equivalent, if antithetical, basis to what we are all, or at any rate most of us, endowed with by nature.  Add to fantasies and natural visions the artificial fantasies of video, particularly of the home-made variety, and the artificial visions, or artificially-induced visionary experience, of hallucinogens like LSD, and one has an even fuller antithetical complement to the natural psyche - a complement stretching into the truly divine realms of the supertrue.


108.   'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God'. - Such a claim is not so much pagan as proto-Christian or simply Judaic.  For it places God in the conceptual and therefore attests to a relatively worldly approach to divinity which finds its Christian complement in the New Testament.  But before the conceptual there was the perceptual, and after the conceptual there is, or will be, the perceptual again, albeit on artificial rather than naturalistic terms.  Hence a more comprehensive account of divinity, which would in some measure correspond to the Blessed Trinity of divinities ... from the Father to the Holy Ghost via Christ, would read as follows: In the beginning was the Star and the Star was God; in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God; in the beginning was the Film and the Film was God (at any rate, on a somewhat rudimentary basis).  Thus pagan - Judeo-Christian - transcendental.  However, for the modern post-Christian age, God's origin can neither be traced to the Star nor to the Word but simply to the Film, Video, Trip, etc., in increasing degrees of spiritual refinement.  To the extent that we watch the Film or, rather, films ... we partake of and become God (Superfather).  Such a crude level and manifestation of divinity will gradually be transmuted into higher and more genuine levels (Superchristic) as the contemplating head progresses, over the decades, from films to trips via videos, and so draws ever closer to the ultimate level of divinity (Supertranscendent) in pure contemplation achieved through dynamic meditation.  In the meantime, film stars (as opposed to cosmic ones) will be the Superfatheristic norm for most contemplating heads.  The Superchristic can only come later, as the Son followed the Father and truth eclipsed falsity.  Those of us who prefer the positive Divine to the negative Divine, and hence truth to falsity, will welcome the inevitable eclipse of the mechanical, external, superfalse divinity by the chemical, internal, supertrue divinity, and thus the real coming of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' under Social Transcendentalist auspices.  For the Superpagan must be superseded by the Superchristian, if salvation is truly to be achieved.  To the extent that video paves the way for the Superchristic ... it should be encouraged, even though it pertains, as film, to the Superfather and, hence, to superfalsity.


109. To the extent that a wavicle/particle and, hence, divine/diabolic distinction can be drawn, on the level of what may be called theocratic smoking, between cannabis and hashish ('grass' and 'shit'), we should also distinguish between capsule vision-engendering LSD and tablet audio-engendering LSD on a similar basis, which, taken in conjunction with 'dope', will furnish us with the basis of a working dichotomy between Social Transcendentalism and Transcendental Socialism.  Thus in the one case a cannabis/capsule LSD integrity, with cannabis corresponding to the 'Social' and capsule LSD to the 'Transcendentalism', whilst, in the other case, a tablet LSD/hashish integrity, with tablet LSD corresponding to the 'Transcendental' and hashish to the 'Socialism'.  In the case of Social Transcendentalism, the emphasis would be on capsule LSD; in the case of Transcendental Socialism, by contrast, the emphasis would be on hashish.  That follows, needless to say, from the divine/diabolic distinction between the two ideologies which, though not absolutely divisible, yet maintain a relative bias one way or the other, depending on the ideology in question.  Thus a lesser emphasis on cannabis and a greater one on capsule LSD would be juxtaposed with a lesser emphasis on tablet LSD and a greater one on hashish.  Accordingly, capsule LSD and hashish are the two main adversaries or, as I should say, parallel alternatives, with cannabis and tablet LSD constituting subordinate options within the overall framework of each ideology.  Yet if cannabis is subordinate to capsule LSD within the Social Transcendentalist context, and to the extent, I wager, of being confined to particular rather than general use, then tablet LSD should be no less subordinate to hashish within the Transcendental Socialist context, and to the extent, once again, of being confined to particular rather than general use.  Should time or circumstances prove me wrong, then so be it!  But as the principal architect of Social Transcendentalism, I reserve the right to define ideological priorities as I see fit.  For how else can a divine/diabolic distinction be maintained?  Transcendental Socialist tendencies may be unquestionably bad, or immoral, in relation to Social Transcendentalist ones, though this fact would not render the latter ideology perfect - least of all where the subordinate possibility of cannabis was concerned.  Were men capable of only the divine, we could ban or eliminate the 'dope' element outright.  But even where and when they have a divine bias, the capacity for the diabolic will still exist, albeit in a transmuted and relatively innocuous guise.  And yet, if cannabis is paradoxically preferable to hashish from a moral, or divine, standpoint, it can hardly be deemed superior to tablet LSD.  Certainly it is better to be an 'acid head' than a 'shit head'; but if a 'shit head' is all one can be, there will at least be the consolation, within a Transcendental Socialist context, that one is not a tobacco head or, rather, body, insofar as tobacco is arguably to the body what hashish and cannabis are to the head - the relatively diabolic, or smoking, side of a worldly dichotomy which finds its relatively divine, or drinking, side in alcohol.


110. Of course the world opposes what threatens its own tobacco/ alcohol integrity, whether such a threat comes from beyond ... in the forms of 'dope' and 'acid', or from behind ... in the neo-pagan forms of hard drugs like heroin, opium, morphine, etc., which, whether smoked or injected, threaten to resurrect the alpha-stemming (old-brain/subconscious) head at the expense not only of the body but, from an omega-oriented standpoint, the (new-brain/superconscious) head as well.  For in a transitional age, when body civilization is in decline but the ultimate head civilization hasn't yet officially arisen, it is all too easy for neo-pagan tendencies associated with the old-brain/subconscious mind to come out of hibernation, as it were, and seek to gain a footing at the expense of traditional worldly norms, including alcohol and tobacco.  Such traditional hard drugs correspond, in their own context, to neo-royalism in politics, and will be vigorously opposed - and rightly - by those bent on defending the worldly status quo.  Whether, however, such people have as much justification in opposing post-worldly drugs like LSD ... is another thing - at any rate, from a new-brain/superconscious standpoint, though they doubtless act correctly from a worldly standpoint and, hence, in opposition not only to the Super-antichristic diabolic, but to the Superchristic divine as well, i.e. with reference to both Transcendental Socialism and Social Transcendentalism, not forgetting their respective 'dope' and 'acid' concomitants.  Thus the body has to defend itself against a fourfold encroachment upon its democratic integrity by both divine and diabolic alpha-stemming and omega-oriented head alternatives.  Ultimately both the body and the alpha-stemming (old-brain/subconscious) head should lose, though not before the omega-oriented head, in both its diabolic and divine aspects, proves worthy of global victory, thereby initiating an age of exclusively new-brain and superconscious drugs.  For salvation is not only at the expense of the world, and therefore of tobacco and alcohol, but of everything pertaining to the pre-worldly divine and diabolic options as well.  Now from a Social Transcendentalist and hence truly divine  standpoint, it is from the possibility of post-worldly drugs like hashish and tablet LSD too, since what pertains to Transcendental Socialism must, of necessity, be irrelevant to Social Transcendentalism.


111. If cocaine is relevant to some kind of superworldly ideological bias, then that, too, would prove irrelevant from both divine and diabolic standpoints.  Broadly speaking, if the cannabis/capsule LSD equation pertains to rock-jazz (a Social Transcendentalist equivalent), and the tablet LSD/hashish equation ... to jazz-rock (a Transcendental Socialist equivalent), then cocaine should pertain to electric blues, that middle-ground theocratic musical form (whose political analogue is Ecology) in between centristic jazz and communistic rock.  So if the future turns out anything like I imagine, which is not inconceivable, then cocaine will go the way of all the other drugs not strictly relevant to either of the two main ideological alternatives under discussion.


112. As a sort of footnote to the above, I should like to draw attention to the superphenomenal nature of 'dope', whether cannabis or hashish, as opposed to the supernoumenal nature of 'acid', whether capsule or tablet.  Cocaine is also superphenomenal, though from a different standpoint than either cannabis or hashish, whereas untipped cigarettes and/or roll-ups on the one hand, and fizzy beer on the other hand are superphenomenal from a strictly worldly and, hence, bodily standpoint.  Musically speaking, they stand to the head drugs in the manner of pop and/or soul to rock, jazz, and blues.  Both rhythm 'n' blues and rock 'n' roll pertain to a mid-point in between pop and soul - the former with a bias towards soul and the latter with a bias towards pop.  Such a mid-point corresponds, as already noted, to a moderately worldly integrity as characterized by touch, that uniquely worldly sense, and finds its chief drug neither in alcohol nor tobacco, but simply and purely in sex.  For sex is to touch what alcohol is to taste and tobacco to smell.


113. Writing or, more specifically, the technique of writing will correspond to phenomenal, superphenomenal, or to supernoumenal categories according to whether it is divisibly relative, divisibly absolute, or indivisibly absolute.  In the first case, we are dealing with word pairs, for example pronouns and verbs like 'I am', 'you are', 'they are', as well as with negative verbs like 'do not', 'will not', 'shall not', 'cannot'.  In the second case, we are dealing with the contraction of such word pairs into one word divided by an apostrophe, as in 'I'm', 'you're', 'they're', 'don't', 'won't', 'shan't', 'can't'.  In the third case, however, we are dealing with the further contraction (centro-complexification) of such words by elimination of the apostrophe, as in 'Im', 'youre', 'theyre', 'dont', 'wont', 'shant', 'cant'.  Thus we have an overall progression from worldly relativity, which is bourgeois, to divine absolutism, which is classless, via diabolic absolutism, which is proletarian.  A progression, in other words, from divisible relativity to indivisible absolutism via divisible absolutism, which corresponds, so I maintain, to phenomenal, superphenomenal, and supernoumenal distinctions.  In a bourgeois society, the phenomenal mode of writing will be the accepted norm, while superphenomenal contractions will accord with a proletarian alternative or opposition to it.  There will be scarcely any writing conceived on a supernoumenal basis, since that presupposes a classless society and, hence, the supersession of State divisibility by Centrist indivisibility - in a word, the transcendence of bourgeois/proletarian or, in the case of liberal republics, white- and blue-collar distinctions ... through a social homogeneity aimed at the creation of a truly divine society, one which is neither plutocratic nor democratic but theocratic and therefore socially indivisible.  In such a society, where the great majority of people are programmed for spiritual transcendence by a politico-religious elite assisted by special police, supernoumenal writing would become the accepted norm, and consequently something approximating to what G.B. Shaw pioneered would take the place of all phenomenal and superphenomenal modes of writing in the name of absolutist indivisibility.  For in writing, no less than everything else, centro-complexification is both a mark and a standard of evolutionary progress.  'I have' - 'I've' - 'Ive', or 'do not' - 'don't' - 'dont' ... attest to just such a centro-complexification, and any writer worthy of the claim 'progressive' will doubtless be more disposed to one or other of the two absolutist technical approaches to writing than to conventional relativity.  But a radical technique is of little use or justification if it does not serve an equally radical subject-matter, the thematic treatment of which should be no less radical.  One cannot and should not marry superphenomenal contractions to a worldly, or democratic, subject-matter, and neither should a post-worldly, or transcendental, subject-matter, treated positively and with sincerity, be married to phenomenal relativity.  Getting sorted out in this regard and remaining both technically and thematically congruous ... is the test of a great writer.  It is also the mark of one!


114. Other examples of phenomenal vis--vis superphenomenal vis--vis supernoumenal distinctions are afforded us by time and money.  In the case of time, we are speaking of a progression, as it were, from conventional alphanumeric relativity to noumenal absolutism, whether this latter be divisible, as between a.m. and p.m., or indivisible, and hence 24 hrs.  Thus 'five past six' or 'two minutes to eight' or 'half-past twelve' will accord with phenomenal relativity by dint of the compromise between numerals and words, even when, as in the examples cited, numerals are written as words (for, in reality, they are read as numbers from conventional wind-up watches).  However, superphenomenal time-reading will only entail numbers, as from a twelve-hour digital watch, and it is the division of such time into a.m. and p.m. which makes for a divisible absolutism.  With a 24 hr. digital, on the other hand, no such division exists, and therefore the indivisible absolutism which results from a 24 hr. mode accords with a supernoumenal status - the ultimate mode of time-reading, especially pertinent to a Social Transcendentalist society and ideological bias.


115. As to money, a similar progression from the phenomenal to the supernoumenal via the superphenomenal can be inferred with regard to the distinctions between traditional pounds/shillings/ pence counting and decimal counting which either divides pounds from pence, as in superphenomenal usage, or counts in pence alone, as with the supernoumenal alternative.  Thus whereas '5 - 2s - 6p' accords with phenomenal relativity by dint of its fulcrum, so to speak, being shillings rather than pounds or pence, and therefore having a worldly and, indeed, atomic significance in between larger and smaller units (not to mention entailing a compromise, as with phenomenal time-reading, between words and numbers), '6 - 50p' accords with a superphenomenal, or divisible, absolutism by dint of being pounds and fractions of pounds, i.e. pence, in contrast to the indivisible absolutism of '650p' which accords with a supernoumenal counting by dint of its exclusive emphasis on pence - a more idealistic emphasis, given the indivisible character of pence in relation to pounds.  Of course, in speaking of pounds, I am alluding to pound pieces rather than to notes.  For the superphenomenal can only be established on the basis of a coin absolutism, and would not be possible with notes and old-style (large) pennies, both of which accord with the phenomenal in its extreme manifestations.  It is just that with the superphenomenal this coin absolutism is divisible, as between pounds and pence.  With the supernoumenal, by contrast, it is only in pence and therefore indivisible.


116. Similarly, in respect of length measurement, yards, feet, and inches accord with the phenomenal, feet standing in between the two extremes in the way that shillings may be said to stand in between pounds and pence or, for that matter, minutes in between hours and seconds.  With metres and centimetres, however, one enters the realm of superphenomenal length measurement, the metric absolutism divisible between metres and centimetres, which can be transcended only on the supernoumenal basis of centimetre indivisibility.  Nowadays we deal in metric units rather than imperial ones and accordingly measure on a superphenomenal basis.  The same is true of weighing (grams, kilograms), solid volume (cubic metres, cubic centimetres), and so on ... through all the possible metric modes of quantification, and to that extent it is fair to say that phenomenal, i.e. imperial, standards of quantification no longer have any relevance.  In my view, telling the time on a conventional alphanumeric basis is no less obsolete than imperial measurements.  The man for whom the time is 'half-past twelve' (instead of 12.30) or 'five to six' (instead of 5.55) is living on the level of imperial measurements and is accordingly lagging behind the times.  Even the superphenomenal will one day be eclipsed as indivisible absolutism puts divisible absolutism in the shadow of its supernoumenal light.


117. Devolution from autocratic theocracy (the Father) to theocratic autocracy (Satan), with further devolution from autocratic autocracy (worldly alpha) to democratic autocracy (alpha world).  Evolution from autocratic democracy (omega world) to democratic democracy (worldly omega), with further evolution from theocratic democracy (the Antichrist) to democratic theocracy (the Holy Ghost).  Thus a 'fall', on the one hand, from alpha theocracy to the worldly alpha/alpha world via diabolic autocracy, and a 'rise', on the other hand, from the omega world/worldly omega to omega theocracy via diabolic democracy.  God - Devil - world; world - Devil - God, with the head, on both subconscious and old-brain terms, eclipsed by the worldly body on both autocratic and democratic terms, prior to the possibility of the head being resurrected, on both new-brain and superconscious terms, with the return of Devil and God on an omega basis.


118. Similarly, one could speak of a regression from alpha idealism to worldly realism via alpha naturalism and worldly materialism on the one hand, but of a progression from worldly superrealism to omega superidealism via worldly supermaterialism and omega supernaturalism on the other hand.  Thus from (idealistic) autocratic theocracy to (realistic) democratic autocracy via (naturalistic) theocratic autocracy and (materialistic) autocratic autocracy.  And thus from (superrealistic) autocratic democracy to (superidealistic) democratic theocracy via (supermaterialistic) democratic democracy and (supernaturalistic) theocratic democracy.  On the one hand, noumenal to subphenomenal regressions; on the other hand, phenomenal to supernoumenal progressions.  Devolution from the noumenal head to the subphenomenal body in the case of the regressive distinctions.  Evolution from the phenomenal body to the supernoumenal head in the case of the progressive distinctions.  Treated graphically, this will read as follows:-


                  ALPHA DEVOLUTION                                                        OMEGA EVOLUTION


          1.  autocratic theocracy (noumenal)                                     8.  democratic theocracy (supernoumenal)

          2.  theocratic autocracy (noumenal-subphenomenal)           7.  theocratic democracy (superphenomenal-supernoumenal)                   

          3.  autocratic autocracy (subphenomenal)                            6.  democratic democracy (superphenomenal)                                                                        

          4.  democratic autocracy (phenomenal-subphenomenal)     5.  autocratic democracy  (subphenomenal-phenomenal)


Such a procedure is rather more complex and, I trust, accurate than would be the use of comparatively simple noumenal/phenomenal or superphenomenal/supernoumenal distinctions, given the necessary gradations of alpha devolution on the one hand and of omega evolution on the other hand which, considered with regard to the head in each of its dual extremities, flank worldly phenomenalism in regard to the body.


119. Thus we can pinpoint antithetical equivalents between idealistic autocratic theocracy, which is noumenal, and superidealistic democratic theocracy, which is supernoumenal; between naturalistic theocratic autocracy, which is noumenal-subphenomenal, and supernaturalistic theocratic democracy, which is superphenomenal-supernoumenal; between materialistic autocratic autocracy, which is subphenomenal, and supermaterialistic democratic democracy, which is superphenomenal; and between realistic democratic autocracy, which is phenomenal-subphenomenal, and superrealistic autocratic democracy, which is subphenomenal-phenomenal.  On the one hand, a devolutionary regression, as we have seen, from idealism to realism via naturalism and materialism; on the other hand, an evolutionary progression from superrealism to superidealism via supermaterialism and supernaturalism, with antithetical correlations between alpha idealism and omega superidealism, alpha naturalism and omega supernaturalism, alpha-worldly materialism and omega-worldly supermaterialism, worldly realism and worldly superrealism.  Thus the realistic body is flanked by the materialistic body, while the naturalistic head is flanked by the idealistic head.  Worldly relativity and worldly absolutism; diabolic relativity and divine absolutism.


120. Defining each historical distinction separately, we have in autocratic theocracy the subconsciously-dominated, Creator-oriented societies of pagan antiquity, including the Egyptian and early Irish, which may be defined as proto-papal by dint of their cosmic religious essence, an essence shared, though on a less elevated plane, by the succeeding theocratic autocracies which, again like the Egyptian and Irish, were rather more disposed to god-kings than to kingly gods ... to the extent that the latter lost power in proportion to the increase in power of the former, who thus ruled on the basis of diabolic and, hence, old-brain autocracy.  Contrasted to which we shall find the autocratic autocracies of alpha-worldly societies like the ancient Greek and Roman, whose chief characteristic is a secular ruling elite of kings and tyrants - an autocracy of the body as opposed to the head.  This is also true of the succeeding democratic autocracies, including the late Roman and early English, except that in their case the tyrant or monarch is accountable to his nobles through some agreement such as the Magna Carta, which effectively curbs his autocratic power.  One might say that autocratic devolution has gone as far as it is possible to go at this point without ceasing to be autocracy, and that such an autocratic nadir is a precondition of subsequent democratic transformation, following a Cromwell-type parliamentary revolution which shifts the balance of power from the monarch and his nobles to the People or, at any rate, the bourgeoisie in what I have termed an autocratic democracy - the parliamentary democracy upon which Britain built its greatness as a world power of the first rank, a democracy in which not the People but parliament is sovereign, an essential representational sovereignty which contrasts with, though exists in the service of, the apparent sovereignty of the reigning monarch within the constitutional framework of a United Kingdom.


121. And yet, if a parliamentary democracy is, by definition, bourgeois on account of its semi-autocratic nature, then the succeeding republican democracies of, for example, France and the United States may be regarded (somewhat contrary to accepted opinion) as proletarian democracies within a Western, or Germanic, context, which is necessarily bodily rather than of the head (in its new-brain aspect) and therefore inherently relative or, as we usually say, pluralistic.  For the body is politically divisible not just in the autocratic and democratic parts, as between blood and bone on the one hand and muscle and flesh on the other, but - as just indicated - in both its autocratic and its democratic aspects.  Now if this is not to push the metaphor too far, then I would say that in between such a division we can posit a bodily parallel to parliamentary democracy on the basis of a vein/nerve compromise, which is relatively middle-ground in relation to autocratic blood and bone on the one hand and to democratic muscle and flesh on the other, and therefore suitable to something which, strictly speaking, is neither of the one nor of the other but ... a sort of half-way house in between the two.  Thus if we are to equate blood with royalty, and hence a secular or bodily monarchy, while reserving for the nobility in general a connection with bones, both of which accord with an alpha-worldly autocracy, then the antithetical equivalent to this, namely an omega-worldly democracy, should be conceived in terms of the equation of bodily muscles with one part of the democratic democracy and flesh with the other, so that a kind of antagonism between muscles and flesh is envisaged, which, so I contend, would typify a Western-style People's democracy.


122. Taking the American democracy as our model, it seems feasible to equate muscles with the Democrats and flesh with the Republicans, which gives us a kind of pain/pleasure distinction between workers and players or, in popular parlance, the poor and the rich, the have-nots and the haves.  In a parliamentary democracy, on the other hand, no such political distinction really exists, because we are speaking rather more on the level of veins in the one case and of nerves in the other, neither of which has any real connection with proletarian extremes within a bodily context.  Indeed, such a division, being relative to an autocratic democracy, is somewhat more bourgeois than proletarian, as between plutocratic conservatism on the one side and laissez-faire liberalism on the other, and, so far as the British example of parliamentary democracy is concerned, no longer exists in its traditional mould but has been superseded by a kind of vein/muscle dichotomy between Low Toryism and Democratic Socialism (Labour), a dichotomy between disjunctive adversaries which is neither bourgeois nor proletarian but effectively grand bourgeois in the Tory case and petty bourgeois in that of the Democratic Socialists, so that each side pulls in obliquely opposite directions rather than, as with republican democracies, at approximately parallel points to each other.  The only way anything approximating to the American type of democracy could arise in Britain would be if the Labour Party, as the party correlative with muscles, found itself in opposition to a Liberal and/or Social Democratic party which, correlating with the flesh, sought to stay in government or to become the government at Labour's expense.  In other words, if the only two main contenders for political power in Britain were the Democratic Socialists and the Liberal Democrats - the former broadly representative of blue-collar interests and the latter of white-collar interests, neither of them much interested in either bourgeois or grand-bourgeois interests.


123. Yet such a dichotomy between alternative working-class parties is hardly likely to arise in a parliamentary democracy like Britain's where, one way or another, the Tories will always be a major, if not the main, contender for office, given British plutocratic traditions, and only one 'working-class' party can ever hope to seriously rival them as an effective alternative.  Two 'working-class' parties in competition for the majority vote may be a fact of life in republican democracies, but it certainly doesn't and can't have any reality in a parliamentary democracy, where one of the contending parties will always be bourgeois or, more correctly, grand bourgeois, and therefore constitute a direct link with the aristocracy and monarchy, the Lords and the reigning sovereign.  It is for this reason that any party to the right of the Conservatives will be not so much fascist, in the accepted latin sense, as neo-royalist, since blue blood in Conservative veins can be replaced, if necessary, by a transfusion of red blood in the event of the monarchy being seriously called into question or put under threat from the Extreme Left, no matter how unlikely such a prospect may seem in reality.  For just as the Extreme Right in a parliamentary democracy like Britain's can only be of the body, and hence a resurrection of royalist blood, so the Extreme Left will also be merely bodily, and hence muscular.  In both cases, the head is beyond the pale, as it must be in any parliamentary democracy, where either neo-royalism or socialist anarchism will be the alternative extremes, never genuine Fascism or Communism, which pertain to the head, but only something bodily.


124. And yet in a republican democracy, which is rather more extreme than a parliamentary one, head alternatives to the bodily rule will encroach upon the democratic status quo from time to time and threaten to destabilize it, as in France, where communistic opposition to democracy is not unheard of, even if such opposition hasn't had any appreciable effect in undermining or supplanting it.  For even the French remain by and large democratic in a Western mould, which, being bodily, is inherently superphenomenal and therefore relative.  Like their American counterparts, they fall short of the head and, consequently, France is not on that account a bourgeois democracy like Britain or Holland, even if it is less of a proletarian democracy, in the Western mould, than the United States of America, which is far more Germanic and accordingly more bodily and materialistic than France.  If France is ideologically contiguous with the lesser East European states like Poland and Hungary, then America is ideologically contiguous with the Commonwealth of Independent States (formerly the Soviet Union), that great supra-national entity which signifies a full-blown theocratic democracy, a democracy not of the body but the head and, needless to say, in terms of the new brain, which, in contrast to the democratic body, is indivisible and accordingly aligned with absolute political criteria, as congenial to the Slavic race.  For the Slav is less bodily in proportion as he is more brainy, using the word in an ideological sense.  Consequently he leads the ideological field and will continue to do so until the superconscious has its ideology and democratic theocracy, in the form of Social Transcendentalism, stakes its claim on a variety of, for the most part, Third World peoples in the name of a divine alternative to Transcendental Socialism.


125. Such an alternative, no less supra-national, would not be Fascist but, as I define it, Centrist, and therefore no mere resurrection of the subconscious or collective unconscious such as Nazism and, to a lesser extent, Italian Fascism tended to be.  These latter ideologies are no more identical to Social Transcendentalism than a military dictatorship is identical to Transcendental Socialism.  For whereas Fascism resurrects the subconscious, military dictatorships to some extent resurrect the old brain, and accordingly stand to Communism as Fascism to Centrism or, for that matter, bodily neo-royalism to socialism - mere rehashes of the alpha-stemming past rather than genuinely omega-oriented proletarian ideologies.  Now, obviously, for a head people like the Italians, the resurrection of subconscious idealism is no closer to true progress than the resurrection of Mosleyite neo-royalism for a bodily people like the British.  Either way - and with regard to neo-autocratic militarism as well - we are not seeing anything new but, rather, a kind of archreactionary obstacle to transcendental progress.  As history dealt with neo-royalism, so it has dealt with Fascism and military dictatorships.


126. Which leaves three contemporary alternatives, viz. Socialism, Communism, and Centrism, approximately paralleling the omega world, the omega Devil, and the omega God, whether or not subdivisions can be adduced in the case of the world, as between muscular Democratic Socialism and fleshy Liberal Democracy in Britain, or the muscular Democrats and the fleshy Republicans in the United States, or, indeed, any other Western equivalents of a two-party proletarian option which suggests if not an alternative approach to Socialism then certainly an alternative approach to Capitalism - one either State Capitalist, as in the British Labour movement traditionally, or Corporate, as in the American system, where Socialism in any strict sense of the word, i.e. with reference to public ownership of the (artificial) means of production, is strictly taboo.  For it does seem that Socialism in the West is interpreted far more with regard to a wider distribution of wealth on a capitalistic basis than in terms of a Socialist economy as such, which, within the bodily context relative to the germanic democracies of the West, could all too easily be interpreted too literally and materialistically, as in the case of fringe Socialist parties in which ownership is conceived on the basis of worker collectivism, or literal ownership by workers of the means of production at their factory, rather than in the more elevated, and hence idealistic, sense of public ownership through the State.


127. And yet ownership of the means of production by the People through the State should not be confused with State ownership as such.  For whereas the former is Socialism on a theocratic and therefore head (new-brain) basis, the latter is State Capitalism, and it is this rather than State Socialism which obtains in the West, particularly in countries like Britain.  For the People aren't strictly politically sovereign in the United Kingdom, which is a constitutional monarchy, and consequently they cannot own the means of production through the State.  On the contrary, it is the State which, in the guise of the sovereign parliament, takes over or buys-out industry, public services, etc., in the national interest, and accordingly on a State Capitalist basis.  Naturally, this procedure can be called Socialist by its practitioners, but in reality it is a very long way from actually being such!  For one cannot have State Socialism in a State which is patently capitalistic, democratic, Germanic, parliamentary, and therefore bodily through and through!  One can only have - short of selling-out to the most decentralized mode of public ownership, which is a formula for chaos - State Capitalism and, needless to say, in competition with Private Capitalism.  Thus the Capitalist/'Socialist' dichotomy is really a distinction between Private Capitalism on the one hand and State Capitalism on the other, which exists as a kind of tug-of-war between antithetical bodily interests: quasi-autocratic in the one case and democratic in the other, each of which is a component of parliamentary relativity within the context of the Nation State, so that there are, in effect, two competing centralized economic norms.


128. Now this is no less true of those Western societies where Corporatism tends to prevail over State Capitalism and consequently provides the main alternative to Private Capitalism, that is to say, to Capitalism pursued on an individualistic or traditional basis.  One could argue that whereas Private Capitalism is Republican and therefore aligned with the flesh, Corporate Capitalism is Democratic and accordingly more aligned with the muscles.  In each case, we have a post-parliamentary democratic antagonism between Private and Corporate Capitalism, which is not so much horizontal as vertical, and therefore constitutive of a proletarian polarity rather than of a grand-bourgeois/petty-bourgeois antagonism on the parliamentary model, as in Britain.  In this sense, the American democracy is too extreme to be State Capitalist, which is why, although nationalization does occur, Corporatism is the logical alternative to the private mode of Capitalism.  Furthermore, Capitalism in America is associated with an industrially more advanced society than is Capitalism in Britain or, for that matter, most other Western states, which is why I had no hesitation in associating Private Capitalism with the flesh instead of, as in Britain, with veins in the Tory case and nerves in that of the Liberals (latterly Liberal Democrats), both of which appertain to a less advanced or, depending on your point of view, older industrial society than the American.  If the Tories are traditionally about Private Capitalism on this middle-ground (veins) basis ... with strings, or import tariffs, then Liberals (including Thatcherite Tories) simply represent Private Capitalism without such strings, i.e. laissez faire, and therefore conducted on a freer, less harshly nationalistic basis.  They in no way signify State Capitalism, but simply a different and more egalitarian approach Capitalism on a private basis.


129. Yet such an approach paves the way for State Capitalism which, masquerading as Socialism, seeks under Labour, traditionally, to supplant private-owned industry by nationalized industry whenever possible - at any rate, provided the Labour Party is being true to its petty-bourgeois colours and is not playing either the grand-bourgeois tariff capitalists' or the middle-bourgeois laissez-faire capitalists' games.  Should either of the latter subsequently change their tune slightly - the Tory capitalist becoming less obstructive of foreign imports and the Liberal capitalist partial to a degree of nationalized industry, services, etc., then that is no reason for Labour to sell-out to the private sector, but, rather, all the more reason for it to remain State Capitalist until such time, if ever, as politicians of a genuinely Socialist stamp begin to infiltrate the Labour movement and - dare I say it? - introduce notions of public ownership of the means of production on a Western and, hence, literal basis, the very basis that would undermine democratic centrality and threaten Labour's elected status as a parliamentary party.  For one cannot advocate decentralist economic policies without calling into question the entire future of State Capitalism, and to advocate such policies from a centralist, i.e. parliamentary point of view, is both hypocritical and illogical, particularly when there cannot be the slightest chance of their implementation, least of all in terms of the basis in question!  Therefore, much as some people in the Labour Party may traditionally have entertained genuine ideals with regard to Socialist economics, there is no way those ideals could bear practical fruit without that party becoming torn apart and effectively committing political suicide.  For such ideals undermine the very basis on which the parliamentary Labour Party is elected, since they run contrary to its centralized grain.  Consequently the Labour Party, true to its state-capitalist colours, has no option but to oppose all those who would take power away from the centre in pursuance of Socialist economics.  For such people are wittingly or unwittingly a socialist 'fifth column' within the Labour movement and, like the Trojan Horse, their decentralist predilections can only lead to Labour's downfall!


130. However, despite militant-type infiltration, it has to be admitted that most decentralist economic thinking takes place outside the Labour Movement by Socialist parties that bitterly oppose what Labour stands for and see themselves as the vanguard or, at any rate, focal-point of Socialist opposition to Capitalism, both private and state.  Such parties are not interested in political centrality, with its socialistic politics of distributing wealth as widely and fairly as possible on the basis of State Capitalism, but represent economic decentralization and are accordingly economically Socialist (on the Western bodily model) where Labour is politically Socialist.  Thus they signify a 'fall' from political centrality to the economic fringes where, invariably, they languish in verbal opposition to the Capitalist status quo.  Frankly, there is scant chance of any hard-line extra-parliamentary party influencing the course of British political or economic thinking, and I wager that if, at some future time, the East became responsible for the political and economic direction of the West (as to some extent it already has done in regard to Japan), it would oppose the kind of economic thinking that advocates literal worker ownership of the means of production and introduce its own theory and, indeed, practice of a sort of sublimated ownership of those means by the workers through the State, so that State Socialism rather than Utopian Socialism became the economic norm, and the head, in its new-brain manifestation, accordingly prevailed over the body, whether as flesh or muscle.  For it is most unlikely that a highly centralized people like, for example, the Chinese would encourage decentralization, particularly in view of the fact that what they upheld, as State Socialism, was superior - as superior as the head to the body, and therefore not a materialistic but an idealistic approach to Socialist economics.


131. And yet State Socialism is not the ultimate form of economic management, no more than the new brain is the ultimate form of the head.  If it is superior to Utopian Socialism, it is distinctly inferior to theocratic Centrism, or trusteeship of the means of production by the Centre for the People, which pertains not to the Transcendental Socialist stage of evolution or mode of democracy, but to the Social Transcendentalist stage of evolution and mode of theocracy beyond, whether or not co-existence between the two becomes a temporary fact of life.  For just as what I have described as theocratic democracy, analogous to Transcendental Socialism, comes after democratic democracy in evolutionary terms, so democratic theocracy comes after theocratic democracy ... to usher in not the kingdom of superhell but the kingdom of superheaven, the Social Transcendentalist heaven in which trusteeship of the means of production by the Centre relieves the People of responsibility in respect of public ownership, and thereby renders them, through Superchristic auspices, all the more credible as collective, albeit rudimentary, Holy Ghost.  For one cannot own the means of production and be saved to the Holy Spirit at the same time, and if the People are to be saved (from the State and, hence, the materialistic worldly responsibilities which accrue to a republican status), then they must be freed from public ownership and elevated to the divine status of so many units of potential transcendence.  This can only happen by and through the Centre, which is my principal contribution to ideological evolution, and thus on the basis of a Social Transcendentalist revolution, democratically achieved, in those countries where the establishment of 'Kingdom Come' would be both logical and just.


132. For other countries - and I have gone into this subject often enough elsewhere in my writings without wishing to repeat myself here - Transcendental Socialism, with its state-socialist control of the means of production, would continue to be valid for quite some time, if only because the superdiabolic destiny is required if the world is to be overcome and all forms of Capitalism be consigned to the rubbish heap of history.  Doubtless the head in both its new brain and superconscious aspects will work together to this end, since such aspects have more in common and are closer to each other than to the body against which they must struggle, if the world is eventually to be overcome.  For the goal of history is not the perpetual co-existence of the world (with its autocracies and democracies), the Devil, and God, but the overcoming of the world by the Devil (theocratic democracy), and, finally, the overcoming of the Devil by God (democratic theocracy), in order that only the Divine may ultimately prevail and the 'Kingdom of Heaven' be globally established as the necessary precondition of post-millennial transcendence.  Thus if State Socialism corresponds to a superphenomenal-supernoumenal integrity commensurate with theocratic democracy, then Centre trusteeship corresponds to a supernoumenal integrity commensurate with democratic theocracy, that ultimate ideological standpoint which must eventually eclipse the penultimate ... if divine justice is to be done.  Verily, we have come a long way from the age of autocratic theocracy, both in terms of devolution and evolution, but haven't yet arrived at the age of democratic theocracy.  Only when we do, will 'heaven on earth' be more than just a dream or hope of the pious millions!


133. Strictly speaking, we should speak of the devolution of ape to pagan man, and then of the evolution of Christian man, and Christian-equivalent men in other (so-called) world religions, from pagan man.  For the necessary corollary of evolution towards the Omega Absolute is devolution from the Alpha Absolute, and in Christian man devolution and evolution balance out between the Devil on the one hand and Christ on the other, that is to say, between Hell and Heaven in relative terms.  The evolution of transcendental man from Christian man, however, takes man beyond such relativity into an aspiration towards the absolute Heaven of pure spirit, i.e. the Holy Ghost.  Transcendental man is thus wholly evolutionary and therefore antithetical to the devolutionary integrity of pagan man.  If the former can be described as superhuman, then the latter may be regarded as subhuman.  Only Christian, or relative, man was purely human, and thus balanced between devolutionary and evolutionary extremes in a kind of worldly purgatory of bodily humanism.  One might say that with this stage of life there is neither a dress absolutism nor a zipper suit absolutism, as between alpha and omega sartorial extremes, but a sort of compromise in the form of skirts on the one hand and trousers on the other hand.  Transvaluated devolution and untransvaluated evolution (since trousers are usually worn in conjunction with an overlapping jacket - a phenomenon rather more feminine than masculine).


134. Thus we should think in terms of devolution from planets and trees to animals, including apes, and early man, who himself underwent a further series of devolutions from autocratic theocracy and theocratic autocracy to autocratic autocracy and democratic autocracy, as already described.  The fact that early man tended to look-up to certain animals and even to worship trees can only be fully comprehended on the basis that he felt himself to be at a further remove from the noumenal than those animals or trees and consequently, in a very real sense, their inferior, so untransvaluated, and hence merely devolutionary, was his point of view.  Therefore it need not surprise us that women and children also held - and to some extent still hold - a special place in the estimation of men by dint of being closer to nature and accordingly more alpha-orientated in themselves.  The disparity in status between women and men was amply reflected in their respective modes of attire - the women garbed, as a rule, in full-length dresses ... suggestive of an alpha-noumenal absolutism, the men, by contrast, restricted to shorter-length dresses or, rather, tunics by dint of their inferior feminine status, not quite men but more akin to women in their psychological stance before the world.  In fact, we should distinguish men from women at this early juncture in time on the basis of a submasculine/superfeminine dichotomy, since if men were neither sartorially nor psychologically quite masculine, they were nevertheless not women in any clinical sense, and therefore deserve at least a submasculine status, which contrasts quite sharply with the full-blown femininity, as it were, of women, whom I have accordingly described as superfeminine.  For if we think of men in this way, it enables us to pit an evolution from submasculine to supermasculine via masculine levels against a devolution from superfeminine to subfeminine via feminine levels, as between submen and superwomen in a devolutionary stage of history, men and women in a balanced devolutionary/ evolutionary stage, and subwomen and supermen in an evolutionary stage such as we are currently embarked upon.  For what devolves on the one side must evolve on the other.  A contemporary female in miniskirt is rather more a subwoman than a woman, for whom a knee-length skirt would be the norm, whereas a male in a one-piece zipper suit is rather more a Superman than a man, for whom trousers would be the norm.  Yet just as women can now dress beyond miniskirts in jeans, one-piece zipper suits, etc., and so become effectively quasi-supermasculine, so men once dressed beneath pantaloons, breeches, leggings, etc., in gowns or tunics, and thus appeared effectively quasi-superfeminine.  Sartorial dichotomies between male and female are to all intents and purposes cancelled out at the very extremes of devolution and evolution.  There is only noumenon in the one case and supernoumenon in the other.  But as soon as the phenomenon enters into account, no matter how modestly initially, i.e. in subphenomenal terms, we have a 'fall' from noumenal indivisibility into noumenal/phenomenal divisibility which, contrary to appearances, continues as devolution until such time as a transvaluation along Christian lines ('rebirth') establishes the phenomenal in an evolutionary light, and consequently it assumes an independence from the noumenal which paves the way for true evolution in due course, that is to say on the basis of a superphenomenal/supernoumenal dichotomy, pending the eventual eclipse of the superphenomenal and subsequent attainment of a supernoumenal indivisibility.  For we must pass through the relative in order to attain to the absolute, and the world is but a phenomenal precondition of supernoumenal salvation.


135. Applying my devolutionary/evolutionary theories to Darwin and, indeed, to the creation-verses-evolution argument which persists even now in some quarters, I would maintain that while the evolutionists are not entirely right, the creationists are far from being entirely wrong.  Or, put like this, it should be apparent that while man wasn't literally created by God (the Father), he didn't evolve from apes either but, rather, devolved from them to become not man as we understand him, but a subhuman creature with no concept of evolution and no desire, initially, to break with the alpha-stemming system of things.  It is only because and to the extent that we are evolutionary that we tend to regard man's emergence from apes in an evolutionary light.  An untransvaluated point of view, strongly autocratic in character, would regard it in an entirely different light - indeed, in terms of creationism, which is nothing less than a mythical concept of devolution, i.e. devolution in a noumenal age, when gods rather than stars ruled human consciousness and man sought an explanation for life not in science but in religion.  Of course, this is still true of some men even these days, which is why they oppose evolutionary theories from a creationist point of view.  Yet two wrongs don't make a right!  Both creation and evolution must go, the one because alpha-stemming metaphysics is no longer relevant, and the other because it imposes where it doesn't belong.  Only devolution can adequately explain the link between ape and man, and the more devolved man became from nature, the less sway alpha-noumenal criteria had upon him and the closer he grew to an evolutionary possibility, the very possibility to which we, in this post-Christian age, are logical heirs.


136. To my mind, the Big Bang theory of the origins of the Universe is merely a secular extrapolation from monotheism and, consequently, no nearer the truth as to how the Universe began than monotheism.  For as most people will know, monotheism was not the original state of religious observance but a Judaic creation established in defiance of pagan polytheism, as sanctioned by virtually all of the ancient world, including the Greeks and Romans.  Thus polytheism is the original mode of religious observance, monotheism a revolt against pagan precedent and therefore a worldly, anthropomorphic development which sought to eclipse the Many by the One, the Gods by God.  But polytheism is closer, by dint of its primal nature, to the truth of the origins of the Universe than monotheism, if by 'truth' we mean that which accords with a proton-constituted diabolic order or, rather, disorder of flaming stars flying everywhichway.  Consequently Big Bangs would likewise be closer to the truth of the origins of the Universe than the monotheistic Big-Bang theory currently in vogue in the Judeo-Christian West.  For what begins in proton-proton reactions does not begin in unity but, rather, in disunity and, hence, friction, and such a beginning is less divine than diabolic, even though it will be perceived as divine by pagan humanity, who are polytheistic in consequence.  Divinizing the diabolic, or replacing polytheism by monotheism, comes later ... at a more devolved juncture in time when, as with the ancient Hebrews, the desire for a unitary explanation of creation took precedence over polytheistic diversity, and the One God was accordingly proclaimed.  It could be said that at this monotheistic point in time, the universal has been eclipsed by the galactic, that the Galaxy has, in effect, replaced the Universe, and the divine reference-point accordingly become more centralized, as though a macrocosmic centrifugal bias has been superseded by a microcosmic centripetal one, which could only signify progress away from the Many towards the One.


137. It has long been a contention of my philosophy that the central star of the Galaxy, as of any galaxy, is the God-equivalent star (the Almighty), and if we devolve from galaxies in general to this galaxy in particular, then the inevitable religious concomitance of doing so is a devolution from gods in general to the particular god which, as the central star of the Galaxy, serves a monotheistic purpose.  Furthermore, devolutionary progress is also guaranteed by citing an unseen First Mover (the central star of this galaxy) at the expense of stars in general, irrespective of their galactic positions, so that, contrary to polytheistic precedent, only this First Mover, or Creator-star, is accorded a divine status, not the small or peripheral stars which, in reality, are diabolic by dint of their decentralized, revolving, and (in relation to the central star) cruder proton formations.  For the largest stars will be the purest as well as the oldest, and therefore be wavicle proton-proton reactions as opposed to particle proton-proton reactions, which is nothing less than a distinction, on an alpha-cosmic basis, between the Divine and the Diabolic, the large central star of any given galaxy and the host of smaller peripheral stars which revolve around it.  Thus not only is monotheism an improvement on polytheism by dint of singling out one galaxy, namely the one in which we happen to live, and effectively attributing divinity to its principal star; it improves on polytheism by avoiding the error of attributing divinity to stars in general, irrespective of their galactic positions, with a consequence that only that which is relatively divine in relation to lesser stars (inherently diabolic) is acknowledged as such, and no confusion of the Divine with the Diabolic, or vice versa, can result.


138. If monotheism refers back, willy-nilly, knowingly or unknowingly, to the central star of the Galaxy, then it seems to me that atheism, or the refusal to acknowledge God's existence, whether monotheistically or polytheistically, is inherently worldly and therefore a step down, as it were, from the head to the body or, more literally, from the Cosmos to the planet, so that earth-centrism comes to replace star-centrism, and man accordingly becomes the measure of all things, including divinity, which no longer exists transcendently but anthropomorphically and, consequently, in the guise of man, in accordance with humanistic criteria.  Such a humanized God is hardly God in any true, or formless, sense, but a worldly figure whose reign will only last while the world, and hence the body, has its day.  For He is relative to the world and must end with it, once it is overcome by the superdiabolic Antichrist.  Of all churches, the Protestant Church is the most purely Christic and therefore worldly, since it is effectively atheistic with regard to the Father, or Creator-God, having no allegiance whatsoever to the papacy, that symbol and representative on earth of the Father.  Yet if bourgeois liberal humanism is centred in a false, or worldly, God, then proletarian socialist humanism is centred in the Antichrist, which is to say, the superdiabolic.  It is not only atheist with regard to the Father, but also with regard to the Son, whom it looks down upon from a head (new-brain) standpoint.  One might almost say that it is polytheistic in respect of the People who, as proletariat, are democratically sovereign, sovereign diabolically rather than divinely.  For this latter sovereignty can only exist in and through the Centre ... in which not the new brain but the superconscious prevails, making for a theocratic sovereignty in the People which is monotheistic to the extent that it can be associated with a collective spiritual aspiration towards divinity, conceived as the omega goal and culmination of evolution.


139. Thus from atheistic worldly sovereignty to monotheistic divine sovereignty via polytheistic diabolic sovereignty - three stages and manifestations of popular sovereignty, two of which have already come to pass, the third of which awaits its coming largely in and for the Third World, that truly godly part of the globe.  For just as the so-called First World, meaning the West, is the truly atheistic, and hence capitalistic, part of the globe, so the Second World is the polytheistic, and hence socialistic, part of it.  The Third World, which has yet to become monotheistic in the transcendental sense I imply, will be Centrist and therefore beyond democratic sovereignty both in terms of the body (First World) and the head (Second World).  Its sovereignty will be theocratic and thus of the superconscious.  Such sovereignty is not only the highest of the three popular alternatives, it is the ultimate sovereignty, and once the globe has been brought to it, mankind will be set directly on course for the Omega Beyond.  But before God in this ultimate sense can eclipse the Devil, the Devil must eclipse the world.  For that is the logic of historical evolution!


140. Traditionally, man stands to woman as the sun to the earth, which is to say as the Diabolic to the world.  Woman is physical, whereas man is wilful.  Woman is mundane, whereas man is transcendental.  He is 'will' in the Schopenhaurian sense of the word, and it is the exercise of this will which, in connection with woman, results in sexual conquest.  For the bigger, more powerful body that is man goes in search of the smaller, weaker body that is woman and strives to bend it to its will.  Sex is therefore akin to a union of the sun with the earth, and the child that ultimately results from this union is akin to the moon, is effectively a kind of human satellite, dependent upon and hence revolving around its mother, who is akin to the earth.  It shines, like the moon, with a borrowed or reflected light, the light of parental, though especially maternal, authority.  Now this light is chaste and intellectual, not unchaste and sensual, like the sun and, by implication, emotional love of the husband for his wife.


141. Thus the family is but a microcosmic reflection of and extrapolation from the Solar System, is effectively a mini solar system ... with sun, earth, and moon(s), the father giving, like the sun, to his wife and child, who revolve around him - the one directly (as planet) and the other indirectly (as moon).  Originally man had many wives, the principle of polygamy more closely paralleling the Solar System than monogamy, which is really an attenuation of it consequent upon solar devolution.  In other words, the more primitive the age or society, the more likely it is to reflect the Solar System in terms of one sun and several planets or, translated into human terms, one husband and several wives, each of whom have children (satellites) of their own who, naturally enough, revolve around them.  Thus the modern monogamous family is but the furthermost contraction of a cosmic principle, the utmost point of galactic devolution.  Father, mother, and child - sun, earth, and moon.  Add a godfather, and one has the equivalent of the central star of the Galaxy, the First Mover in the family cosmos, who remains somewhat aloof from the family unit itself, as godfathers should, just as the central star remains at a constant, almost aloof distance from the Solar System of which the sun is the principal mover.  For the father-proper, corresponding to the sun, is effectively a devilfather in relation to the godfather and, hence, someone who directly imposes, through masculine will, upon his wife, who, as mother of her child, corresponds to the earth, with its moon in attendance.


142. Yet just as the sun is a larger and more powerful body than the earth, and the earth in turn is a larger and more powerful body than the moon, so the husband is a larger and more powerful body, as a rule, than his wife, who, in turn, is a larger and more powerful body than her child, be it son or daughter.  In relation to his wife, the husband, or devilfather, stands, like the sun, in an immoral light, since he imposes upon her for his own sexual self-gratification.  On the other hand, the wife, or earthmother, stands to her husband in an amoral light, like the earth to the sun, prepared to bow to his will when required to do so but not, in herself, sexually self-assertive.  Thus she stands in between husband and child, since only on this amoral basis can the latter be accredited a moral standing in relation to herself.  For the child shines, it will be remembered, with a borrowed light, like the moon, and is therefore anything but amoral itself, still less immoral and, hence, self-assertive like its father.  On the contrary, the child is innocent and therefore sexually moral, shielded from the immorality of the father by the amorality of the mother, who is the intermediary making the child's existence possible, just as the earth makes the existence of the moon possible and, in a sense, shields it from the sun.  Thus children were regarded by Christ as epitomizing, in their innocence and purity, the 'Kingdom of Heaven', since they are not consumed, like husbands and fathers, with sexual lust, but exist at a transcendent or, at any rate, moral remove from any such possibility, shining with the light of intellectual curiosity, which includes curiosity as to the nature of sexuality, particularly as it bears upon parental distinctions.


143. Such curiosity, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with lustful fantasies concerning sex itself.  For these only emerge, as a rule, following puberty, when the moral innocence of childhood is undermined and besieged by creeping adulthood, and one of two things generally happens, depending on one's sex: either, as a female, one becomes amoral, like the earth, and accepts the possibility of being sexually imposed upon or, as a male, one become immoral, like the sun, and actually proceeds to sexually impose oneself upon others.  There is, however, a third possibility, which is considerably rarer and only found, as a rule, among people - and in particular men - of genius, and that is a refusal to consider oneself in either a sexually amoral or an immoral light but, on the contrary, a determination to remain celibate and therefore moral.  As I say, it is usually only men of genius or religious vocation who are like this, and they may be regarded as very much an exception to the rule, a kind of adult children who, willy-nilly, aspire to following in Christ's footsteps and becoming as little children in their own creative or contemplative 'Kingdoms of Heaven', wherein the pursuit of truth is the principal aim, the raison d'tre of their moral existence.  On the other hand, the great majority of men are drawn towards the sun, as it were, and effectively function towards women in a diabolic and, hence, immoral fashion, albeit one regulated by social conditioning.  Where marriage does not take place, it can be assumed, I think, that the couple concerned are more evolved than to fall for a social pattern which derives, in all its essentials, from cosmic precedent and is therefore inherently alpha-stemming and atomic.  Yet cohabitation is still hardly a transvaluation along the lines of a social rebirth, but more a symptom of the breakdown or decay of traditional values.  For as often as not the male partner in such a relationship has imposed himself upon the female and thereby functions, in effect, as a sun vis--vis a planet, or as the sun to the earth.  Now if a child results from their relationship, it is no less a kind of moon equivalent than if they had been married.  The only real difference is that it is then more of an unofficial moon equivalent than an official one, just as its progenitors may be described as unofficially paralleling the sun and the earth respectively.


144. No, while the degeneration of an age-old system of familial relationships is one thing, a true transvaluation is quite another!  For whereas the former is the utmost point of devolution, a truly evolutionary stance can only be maintained outside of and beyond all heterosexual cohabitations, whether official or unofficial, bound or free.  Yet by this I do not mean through homosexual cohabitation, which is less omega-orientated than worldly or, rather, antiworldly, but through the establishment, under Social Transcendentalism, of a transcendent process of propagation which is designed to free both men and women alike from atomic interdependence and thereby allow for a free-electron society commensurate with divine criteria.  For men and women cannot live together and be saved.  Even Christ taught that to follow Him and set-up the 'Kingdom of Heaven' one would have to abandon family, wife, girlfriends, etc., since such a 'Kingdom' can only be established on a supermasculine basis, and so long as atomic compromises between males and females continue to exist, it is not Heaven but the world that prevails, as at present, for the great majority of people, who maintain familial relationships.


145. Consequently the 'Kingdom of Heaven', which I interpret in Social Transcendentalist and hence Centrist terms, cannot be established while families, patterned on the Solar System, continue to exist, and therefore the family, which is already under threat from the winds of change, will have to be consigned to the rubbish heap of social history ... if the free-electron Heaven is ever to be born.  For Heaven and the world are incommensurate, cannot co-exist, and if Heaven is to become more than a wishful dream but a sort of concrete reality, then the world, in all its permutations, must die - whether naturally or violently.  Those of us who wish to further Heaven have no option but to oppose the world.  For unless we do so, the world, and hence the family, will continue to exist indefinitely, to the detriment of Heaven.


146. Thus Social Transcendentalism will be pledged, in the future, to rejection of the family and to the furtherance of artificial methods of propagation, including sperm banks, artificial insemination, test-tube reproduction, incubators, State- or, rather, Centre-sponsored collective nurturing and upbringing of children, and so on ... in order that the need for family relations, and thus by implication the cohabitation of men and women, can become a thing of the past, as relative to an alpha-stemming or atomic phase of social experience.  For where the People are concerned, we are dealing less with atomic man and woman than - potentially if not literally at this juncture in time - with electron Superman and quasi-Superman respectively, at any rate within the republican context, and it would be both morally and socially wrong to regard them in a strongly atomic and, hence, familial light.  Everything should be geared to the absolute, to absolutist criteria, and this includes sexual behaviour no less than any other pattern of social behaviour.  Where a more sublimated, pornographic sexuality is neither possible nor desirable ... by dint of an individual's comparative spiritual or psychological limitations, then plastic-inflatable ('sex doll') or vibrator sexuality should obtain, thereby lifting sex from the natural to the artificial plane and providing a release from sexual tensions which might otherwise seek traditional and therefore worldly outlets, to the detriment of spiritual progress.  For, in the future, people will not behave like animals but like gods - indeed, the People will be God ... the Holy Ghost and consequently be above natural patterns of sexual behaviour, even if only as far above, initially, as is compatible with the use of either plastic inflatables or vibrators, depending on one's gender.  Life will not be relative and dualistic, as at present, but absolute and transcendental, with a much more radical swing between solitude and multitude, which is to say, between sensual obligations conducted in private and spiritual aspirations carried out in public.  Thus while people will live alone in single rooms or cubicles, and so sleep, eat, drink alone (non-alcoholically), and have solitary sex, they will be far more public and collective as regards the spiritual, cultural, and educational aspects of life.  For the public face will be entirely religious in character, and such a face can only achieve a blissful smile when it no longer has to compete with public sensuality, of whatever description.  To all appearances, it will be as though the sensual side of life didn't exist, since only the spiritual side would obtain a public airing.  Truly, the Social Transcendentalist 'Kingdom of Heaven' would be a very different proposition from the Liberal world!  The Solar System would not enter into account, being, to all intents and purposes, a taboo subject - like astronomy.


147. Masculinity and femininity are of the world rather than of that which precedes or succeeds it.  Strictly speaking, it cannot be said that the stars are either masculine or feminine, since they are less masculine or feminine than pre- or sub-masculine/feminine ... in that their existence is on the plane of a subatomic absolute, i.e. proton-proton reactions, and therefore it cannot be accorded gender.  Yet just as the stars are beneath gender, so pure spirit of a transcendent order, i.e. electron-electron attractions, would be above gender and therefore supra-atomic in constitution, no less absolute in its own fashion than the stars or, at any rate, the biggest and purest of them are in theirs.  For the smaller stars may be regarded as having devolved from proton purity to a crude atomicity which, in the case of planets like the earth, assumes an inorganic materialistic status commensurate with the atom as such and, hence, with a combination of protons and electrons.  Doubtless there are degrees of devolution from the utmost, or wavicle, proton purity to a very crude, or particle, proton purity, which is nothing less than a distinction between the Divine and the Diabolic, or the central star of the Galaxy and peripheral stars like the sun, while further devolution will entail the formation of inorganic materialism on the basis of planetary atomicity.


148. However that may be, we would have no more right to consider a proton star masculine than an electron globe of pure spirit feminine.  Gender only obtains in the world, and it does so both simultaneously and successively, the former literally and the latter effectively, since the world passes from a predominantly centrifugal phase to a predominantly centripetal one in the course of its historical unfolding, and this is approximately commensurate with the distinction between autocracy and democracy - the one preceding the other, just as dresses precede trousers and bottles precede cans.  Thus whilst it obviously goes without saying that men exist in an autocratic age no less than women in a democratic one, it nevertheless has to be said that in the former context the female element predominates, whereas in the latter context it is the male element which is ascendant, and to such an extent that the female element becomes threatened with total eclipse, a fact which in large measure explains the paradoxical phenomenon of feminism - really quite the opposite of what it at first appears to be, since less a defence of woman as woman than a manifestation of masculine criteria or, more correctly, a symptom of the ongoing 'masculinization' of the female to a point where she no longer regards herself in traditional feminine terms but, rather, in relation to a liberation from them.  Through Feminism woman is effectively pursuing her right, in this incipiently post-atomic age, to be treated like a man and granted equal opportunity with men.  For, as I have often maintained in the past, women who effectively function like men deserve to be treated like men, and this is the only workable basis for equality between the sexes, an equality founded upon the post-dualistic nature of an advanced democratic society, wherein distinctions between male and female gradually cease to apply, as ongoing masculine progress eclipses the feminine element in life.


149. Of course, there are women and women, just as there are men and men ... on each side, one might say, of the political divide, and while some women are determined to socially progress and to see that justice, on the basis of sexual equality, is done, there are others who, inherently more conservative or intellectually less-evolved, seek to impede post-sexist progress as much as possible and thereby stand-up for traditional female norms, whether in terms of sex or motherhood or domestic responsibility or whatever ... to the detriment of women's liberation.  Whether or not they realize it, such women are fighting a losing battle - like their male counterparts.  For the pressure of evolution is decidedly away from female/male distinctions, which are merely bourgeois, towards a unisexual uniformity in which, instead of a skirt/trousers dichotomy, one finds a jeans and, eventually, one-piece zipper suit absolutism indicative of a free-electron homogeneity.  The world may be balanced between female and male elements, not to mention autocratic and democratic political norms, but that which supersedes it, whether as Devil or God, Transcendental Socialism or Social Transcendentalism, is less concerned with such a balance than with establishing, on a unisexual basis, free societies in which everything sexist has been consigned to the rubbish heap of world history, including the traditional maternal and sexual status of women.


150. Yet while such societies - and in particular that which pertains to the Superdivine rather than to its superdiabolic counterpart - would maintain a unisexual bias, the eventual outcome of evolution should be no less post-feminine than the inception of devolution was pre-masculine, and accordingly aspirations towards the culmination-point in Eternity would be beyond gender and therefore manifestations of a free-electron absolutism which, being neither male nor female, could only be defined in terms of a blissful 'it'.  This would be especially true of those aspirations which were conducted on a post-human basis within the millennial context of the Supra-beings, or new-brain collectivizations, which I have hitherto characterized as the second (after the Superbeings) and final post-human life form beyond man.  For a Supra-being would be as much above man, and hence gender, as a tree is beneath him, and in this totally classless, genderless society of hypermeditating new-brain collectivizations, the development of pure spirit would be taken to such a point that transcendence, or the achievement of pure electron-electron attractions, would automatically ensue ... to signal the beginnings of a truly heavenly phase of evolution.  Such electron-electron attractions, antithetical to the proton-proton reactions which characterize the alpha noumenal, would bring evolution to a supernoumenal culmination, which would be as far above masculine superphenomenalism as the inception of devolution was beneath feminine subphenomenalism.  Verily, at whichever extreme of the Universe one cares to dwell, there is neither 'she' nor 'he', but only 'it'.


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--vis the head, as in the French case, or vis--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 Britain, this is still fundamentally the case.  Possibly we could also distinguish between subgents, subroughs, and submen, if we wanted to stretch our tripartite distinctions back towards an alpha-stemming pagan age, of which the contemporary age is only incipiently antithetical - at any rate, as regards those who see themselves existing beyond the bourgeois realistic pale and who thereby effectively conform to superhuman criteria, to the superphenomenal as opposed to the phenomenal.  However that may be, it has to be admitted that human beings come in different shapes and sizes, with those in the divine and diabolic categories very much the exception to the worldly rule.  Perhaps, one day, things will be different?  But, in the meantime, such tripartite distinctions will continue to exist, with gentlemen, whether conventional or super, constituting a wavicle antithesis to particle rough men, rather than to atomic men in general.


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 Socialist State.  And yet if Antichrist is against the world, whether in its autocratic or its democratic manifestations, and whether one regards Antichrist as a person (Marx) or as a symbol for worship of the People, then beyond Antichrist is the Superchristic ideology of the Second Coming, who offers his 'chosen people(s)' the opportunity of a new monotheism, a supermonotheism based on an aspiration by the People towards the omega climax of evolution in the transcendental Beyond.  Only through Social Transcendentalism, the ideology of true religion in 'Kingdom Come', can the People of his chosen countries officially aspire towards this omega culmination of evolution.  Thus they must become religiously sovereign through the agency of the Second Coming, if they are to be in a position where such an aspiration is morally possible.  For religious sovereignty implies that the People collectively become the Holy Ghost, and their prerogative as Holy Spirit is to evolve their divinity to a point where it becomes literally transcendent and, hence, definitively divine.... Since I have gone into the how-and-wherefore of this subject often enough elsewhere in my writings, I shall not enlarge upon it here ... except to remind the reader that no such definitive divinity is possible unless the People are subsequently transmuted, by those entrusted with their spiritual welfare, beyond the human level to the post-human level in which human brains become artificially supported and sustained in collective contexts for purposes of hypertripping, and that this first post-human life form (Superbeings) should be superseded by a second one which, as new-brain collectivizations (Supra-beings), will hypermeditate towards transcendence and, hence, the literal achievement of electron-electron attractions in the heavenly Beyond.  For man is incapable of literally attaining to pure spirit of a blessed, transcendent order.  His own future institutionalized tripping and meditating will have to be superseded, on a post-human basis, by hypertripping and hypermeditating before any possibility of transcendence can occur.  This sober truth has long been at the core of my teachings, and I can only reiterate it here.  Willy-nilly, 'Man', to cite Nietzsche, 'is something that should be overcome', and only through the Social Transcendentalist Centre ... will this ultimately be achieved, superseding even the Superman of Nietzsche's Zarathustrian musings.  Thus Social Transcendentalism, that democratic theocracy I have placed at the top of the list of evolutionary ideologies, is no mere proletarian humanism, but a radical transvaluation and re-evaluation of man in terms of his divine potential for self-overcoming.  For it is not enough, from the divine standpoint, to be against bourgeois man.  One must be against man in general, if the post-human Superbeing is ever to become a reality.


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 Socialist State does the State become absolutely a means of helping the oppressed or, more correctly, of preventing oppression.  For such a State does not co-exist with a capitalist opposition, as in the liberal contexts, but is beyond all possibility of such an opposition.  Thus it is not only a transmuted State but an absolutist State intimating, no matter how indirectly, i.e. through itself, of a future 'Kingdom of Heaven', or Millennium, without being in a position to become that 'kingdom'.  For such a millennial 'kingdom' can only come via Social Transcendentalism, and it presupposes the Centre, which is less a State than a new Church, albeit one that will dovetail State responsibilities into itself and thereby function on an inclusive basis beyond worldly relativity - in other words, the relativity of Church and State.  When the State becomes absolutist, both within itself and at the expense of the Church, one has but a diabolic parallel to divine absolutism, a parallel which is Super-antichristic rather than Superchristic, like the Centre.  This is Communism, and whilst it may be preferable, from a divine standpoint, to Liberalism and the consequent co-existence of Satanic and Antichristic States, it is inferior to Centrism, which alone lays claim to the establishment of a true 'Kingdom of Heaven'.  By comparison, the Communist State is a 'Kingdom of Hell', albeit more on positive than negative terms, i.e. with regard to doing well to the proletariat rather than, as in revolutionary or transitional contexts, doing bad to the bourgeoisie.  Certainly there are those who will argue that doing good to others (the proletariat) is preferable to being bad to oneself, that a good doing is preferable to a bad being, as in Fascist States.


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.


201. Put analogically, one could argue that the supersession of worldly will by diabolic will is equivalent to electric fires superseding electric cookers, while the analogical equivalence for divine consciousness is electric light, which towers above both fires and cookers alike, shining at a quasi-spiritual remove from soulful and wilful orders of heat.  Yet before the victory of light over heat, the victory of diabolic heat over worldly heat, of positive emotions over positive sensations, in order that one kind of will be eclipsed by another in the progression of will from the body to the head.  For denying bodily will through the affirmation of head will is a step in the direction of liberation from the will through divine consciousness, albeit an indirect step, and one which those who support it would probably regard in a definitive light, as though an end-in-itself.  The fact that it is not such an end ... is an article of divine judgement, and, while from a divine standpoint, emotional and intellectual will may be superior, because of the brain, to sensational and physical will, nevertheless it is manifestly inferior to the pure feelings and consciousness which accrue to the affirmation of positive being.  Will is ever connected with the realm of doing ... whether for others, as in the context of positive worldly will, or for self, as in the context of positive diabolic will, and until doing is denied, there can be no true being, the being-for-self which is the ultimate positive affirmation because the definitive morality - supermonotheistic in character.


202. Thus whilst a People's democracy is preferable to a bourgeois democracy because symptomatic of a more elevated order of will, it can only be morally inferior to a People's theocracy, which is less a question of will than of consciousness, less a question of soulful heat than of spiritual light, and therefore less a question of eternal damnation than of eternal salvation.  For whereas a bourgeois democracy is purgatorial, since of the world, a People's democracy is hellish, since aligned with a soulful survival of the body.  It is not a means to a higher end, i.e. a People's theocracy, but an end-in-itself and, consequently, a kind of eternity.  Only a People's theocracy can be heavenly, since aligned with a spiritual survival of the body, and such a survival is the will-less salvation which is commensurate with the true eternity of Heaven.  Thus in the event of the world 'dying', i.e. being overcome, the two positive eternities of communistic soul and centristic spirit will co-exist on a bipolar supra-national planet for centuries to come, in fact until such time as Heaven finally comes to terms with Hell, and the spiritual eternity vanquishes the soulful eternity in the name of global unification - the material precondition of ultimate spiritual unity achieved on a truly divine basis.



                                 DEVOLUTION                                                                 EVOLUTION


                            1.  proton-wavicle being against self                                8.  electron-wavicle being for self

                            2.  proton-particle doing against self                               7.  electron-particle doing for others

                            3.  atomic proton doing against others                            6.  atomic electron doing for others

                            4.  proton-biased atomic being against others                 5.  electron-biased atomic being for others


203. Regarding the above-mentioned devolutionary and evolutionary options, it becomes clear that whereas 'self', whether in the contexts  of being or doing, pertains to the proton and electron absolutes, 'others', whether in the contexts of being or doing, pertain to atomic relativities, so that while the former is either divine or diabolic, the latter is inherently worldly.  In other words, reference to 'self' puts being and doing on the plane of God and Devil (whether in regard to the alpha or to the omega alternatives), whereas reference to 'others' puts being and doing on the plane of the world (whether in terms of materialism or realism, pantheism or atheism).


204. Thus, bearing this in mind, one can list the aforementioned options as follows:-


                                           DEVOLUTION                                                                      EVOLUTION


                            1.  proton-wavicle being against self                                    8.  electron-wavicle being for self

                            2.  proton-particle doing against self                                    7.  electron-particle doing for self

                            3.  atomic proton-particle doing against others                    6.  atomic electron-particle doing for others

                            4.  proton-biased atomic-wavicle being against others        5.  electron-biased atomic-wavicle being for others                                                                                   


 with, in the case of (1) and (8), an alpha and omega divine antithesis; in the case of (2) and (7) an alpha and omega diabolic antithesis; in the case of (3) and (6) a worldly alpha and worldly omega antithesis; and in the case of (4) and (5) an alpha worldly and omega worldly antithesis.  With wavicles one has being, with particles doing.  With protons one has reaction against, with electrons ... attraction towards.  Proton-wavicle absolutism is accordingly being against self, proton-particle absolutism ... doing against self.  Electron-wavicle absolutism is accordingly being for self, electron-particle absolutism ... doing for self.  Reaction and attraction, against and for, or, as one could also say, active and passive, bearing in mind the reactive nature of action and the attractive nature of passivity - doing and being.  Similarly, atomic proton-particle relativity is doing against others, proton-biased atomic-wavicle relativity ... being against others.  Electron-biased atomic-wavicle relativity is being for others, atomic electron-particle relativity ... doing for others.  Thus with wavicles one is either in the sphere of morality or, as in the case of the alpha worldly and omega worldly antithesis, in that of amorality, whereas with particles one is in the sphere of immorality, whether on worldly or diabolic terms.


205. All being is in space, whereas all doing is in time.  For space is no less correlative of being than time ... of doing.  There is divine space and worldly space, diabolic time and worldly time, both negatively and positively.  On the one hand, devolutionary space and time, and, on the other hand, evolutionary space and time; the one preceding the other on an alternate basis, starting on the devolutionary plane with negative diabolic time as the effect of negative divine space, and ending on the evolutionary plane with positive diabolic time as the cause of positive divine space, due worldly causes and effects coming in-between.  For whereas effects succeed causes when space is at issue, causes precede effects when time is at issue, though in the world such a procedure is less absolute than relative.  Consequently we may speak of negative diabolic time as the effect of negative divine space but negative worldly time as the effective cause of negative worldly space on the one hand, and of positive worldly time as the causative effect of positive worldly space but positive diabolic time as the cause of positive divine space on the other hand.  Otherwise we would fall into the illogical trap of accrediting space, and hence being, with directly causative properties when, in point of fact, being of a negative order, i.e. alpha and worldly, can only be indirectly responsible for doing of a negative order, which, whether diabolic or worldly, finds its correlation in time - the direct cause of being, whether negative or positive.


206. Hence a distinction between cause and effect where the divine and diabolic absolutes are concerned, but a distinction between effective causes and causative effects where the worldly relativities are at issue, as in the devolutionary regression from negative worldly time to negative worldly space, the former the effective cause of the latter, and also as in the evolutionary progression from positive worldly space to positive worldly time, the latter the causative effect of the former.  Thus as against alpha worldly relativity, negative diabolic time is the effect of negative divine space (the apparent cause), whereas as against - or beyond - omega worldly relativity, positive diabolic time is the cause of positive divine space (the essential effect).  Therefore whereas negative divine space is merely the apparent cause of negative diabolic time, positive divine space is the essential effect of positive diabolic time.  Alpha and omega, protons and electrons, centrifugal and centripetal, reactions and attractions.  In the alpha case, a space-time continuum leading to worldly time/space; in the omega case, a time-space continuum results from worldly space/time.  Alpha outer space and outer time, negative worldly time and worldly space; positive worldly space and worldly time, omega inner time and inner space.


207. Outer space and time have reference to self, to a self with a subconscious/old-brain bias or, more correctly, to selves with either a subconscious bias or an old-brain bias, depending on the type of alpha 'self' in question; negative worldly time and space have reference to others, to others with a blood/bone bodily bias or, more correctly, with either a blood bias or a bone bias, depending on the type of negative worldly 'other' in question.  Positive worldly space and time have reference to others, to others with a flesh/muscle bodily bias or, more correctly, with either a flesh bias or a muscle bias, depending on the type of positive worldly 'other' in question; inner time and space have reference to self, to a self with a new-brain/superconscious bias or, more correctly, to selves with either a new-brain bias or a superconscious bias, depending on the type of omega 'self' in question.


208. Put in the form of our familiar devolutionary/evolutionary diagram, we could say:-


                                           DEVOLUTION                                                                      EVOLUTION


                            1.  being against self in negative divine space                      8.  being for self in positive divine space

                            2.  doing against self in negative diabolic time                     7.  doing for self in positive diabolic time

                            3.  doing against others in negative worldly time                 6.  doing for others in positive worldly time

                            4.  being against others in negative worldly space               5.  being for others in positive worldly space


 Additionally, we should also note that while both negative worldly time and space on the one hand and positive worldly space and time on the other hand are in the world, and therefore neither strictly outer nor inner, alpha nor omega, the negative pair constitute a relative outer in relation to the relatively inner nature of the succeeding positive pair.


209. Space and time are thus either inner or outer, depending on the type of space and time in question.  In the world they are relatively inner and outer, before the world they are absolutely outer and beyond it they are absolutely inner.  Outer space and time are only intelligible within the context of proton absolutism, in contrast to inner space and time which are synonymous with electron absolutism.  In between, we find the worldly space and time which is both outer and inner, protons and electrons, in an atomic compromise.  Space as we ordinarily understand it, i.e. cosmic space and the gaps between objects, pertains to the world, albeit more in terms of a neutron void than an atomic compromise.


210. Similarly, when consciousness is equated with a void, or nothingness (neant), as by Sartre, we have a neutron position in between protons on the one hand (old brain/subconscious) and electrons on the other (new brain/superconscious), which is symptomatic of bourgeois decadence.  By contrast, proletarian consciousness (light), when properly 'turned on', is an electron being in superconscious space, whereas proletarian motion (heat) is an electron doing in new-brain time, the difference, in other words, between wavicles and particles, divine and diabolic, white- and blue-collar alternatives.  Such superbeing and superdoing are dependent on and motivated by artificial phenomena (superphenomena) of an electronic bias, whether in optical or aural terms.  On the other hand, worldly being and doing are motivated by natural phenomena of an atomic constitution, whether in optical or aural terms, and stand between the transcendental orders of (super)being and (super)doing and the traditional, alpha-stemming orders of (sub)being and (sub)doing motivated by natural noumena of a proton bias.  For whereas the superphenomenal is a precondition, or cause, of the supernoumenal, the phenomenal stems from a noumenal precondition and may accordingly be described as its causative effect.


211. As against being in space, of whatever order, we have doing in time of whatever order, and whereas being accords with binding - indeed, is inseparable from binding - to a centre, doing accords with freedom from a centre, be it alpha or worldly.  To be free is to do in time; to be bound is to be in space.  If I am free to do, I am not bound to be.  If I am bound to be, I am not free to do.  Space cancels time and time space, though a time-space continuum of doing-being or a space-time continuum of being-doing are possible and, indeed, inevitable while relativity remains a reality.  In the one case, a Social Transcendentalist free binding; in the other case, a Transcendental Socialist bound freedom.  The Devil-God/God-Devil ideological alternatives of the foreseeable future (see Appendix).


212. If Schopenhauer can be described as a theosophical philosopher, then it seems to me that I, who stand in an antithetical relationship to him, should be described as a philosophical theosophist.  For philosophical theosophy is, after all, the antithesis to theosophical philosophy.


213. Philosophy is not about saying simple things in a complex manner, as certain pseudo-philosophers have erroneously supposed, but about saying complex things as simply and therefore straightforwardly as possible.  The philosopher has the difficult task of rendering extremely complicated issues as simply as possible.  It is not his business to obfuscate or seek to appear profound.  On the contrary, it is his business to reveal the Truth.


214. We need be in no doubt concerning the fact that Schopenhauer was a revolt against bourgeois idealism, or claims for the primacy and supremacy of thought, since he posited will as the supreme and primary factor in life, which he rightly regarded as preceding intellect and, hence, thought.  Yet unlike Marx, who also revolted against bourgeois idealism, Schopenhauer effectively did so from an aristocratic point-of-view and thus functioned as a Neo-Platonist, a kind of traditional idealist - as to a lesser extent was Nietzsche, given his 'aristocratic radicalism'.  Thus Schopenhauer and Marx may be regarded as having revolted against bourgeois idealism in opposite ways - the former backwards and the latter forwards ... into proletarian materialism.  For Schopenhauer, the will was paramount.  For Marx, on the contrary, economic factors were the driving force behind historical change, a subject which, in any case, Schopenhauer repudiated.  Consequently while Schopenhauer was reactionary, Marx was progressive, taking economic materialism as his starting-point.  And, to be sure, dialectical materialism is the only logical starting-point for a progressive, and hence proletarian, revolt against bourgeois idealism.  One extreme engenders another.  So any philosopher whose work is in the least degree proletarian effectively stems from Marx, rather than from either Hegel or Nietzsche or any of the other bourgeois idealists.  It has the People as its starting-point and treats of them in a respectful manner.  They are not 'rabble', 'mob', 'poisoners of all wells', etc., as with Nietzsche, but simply proletarians whose oppressive and unfortunate circumstances stem, in no small degree, from bourgeois exploitation, and therefore can only be properly alleviated once that exploitation has been removed from their backs and they are enabled, in consequence, to walk upright - as proud, free-standing men.


215. However, whilst it is incontestable that the proletarian philosopher will maintain a respectful attitude towards the People, it does not follow that he will be a materialist, like Marx, and only think in economic terms.  While that may be the most logical starting-point in the revolt against bourgeois idealism, it is anything but the most logical or even desirable finishing-point, since it leaves the religious essence of man out of account - indeed, negates it through its vehement opposition to bourgeois religion, and thus pictures man in his proletarian manifestation as a kind of behavioural machine for whom economic factors are the main, if not sole, determinant of his destiny.  Now, doubtless, whilst a blue-collar view of the proletariat will largely confirm one in such a picture (and Marxism is nothing if not a view which conceives of the proletariat as synonymous with industrial workers), it cannot claim to do justice to working-class people who are white collar and therefore more disposed, in their use of intellect or mind, to a religious or, at any rate, idealistic view of life.  Consequently, Marxism is largely irrelevant to the white-collar proletariat who, though doubtless suffering from bourgeois exploitation as much as if not more than their blue-collar counterparts, are less materialistic than manual or industrial workers.  That is why proletarian philosophy has to evolve towards an idealistic position if justice is to be done to that not-inconsiderable stratum of the working class which is more spiritually conscious, and hence culture-loving, than the Marxian proletariat.  For the time has come for proletarian idealism to be voiced, and such an idealism can only be voiced in terms of a proletarian ideology which, contrary to Marxist Communism, has its starting-point in the white-collar proletariat.


216. Yet if proletarian idealism has a starting-point in the white-collar proletariat, it cannot have its end or finishing-point there, since true idealism is more a question of play than of work, and consequently the goal of this idealism must be proletarian play of the most idealistic and, hence, religiously being-oriented order.  In other words, the end of proletarian idealism must be play and thus the gradual transmutation of workers into players, with especial reference to spiritual play.  For while proletarian idealism has its starting-point in the social, or white-collar, stratum of the People, its end can only be theocratic and accordingly less concerned with social wellbeing than with cultural and, in particular, spiritual fulfilment achieved on the basis of the utmost being-oriented play, thereby confirming its divine bias on both negative, or worker, and positive, or player, terms.  Likewise, while proletarian materialism has its starting-point in the blue-collar proletariat and is therefore socialist, it likewise proceeds in the course of time towards a kind of theocratic idealism which is less being orientated than doing orientated, and accordingly of a sports order of play commensurate with blue-collar criteria - a diabolic mode of playing which both contrasts with and provides a positive counterbalance to the diabolic order of work that, in its manual essence, appertains to the industrial proletariat.


217. Thus from being-oriented work to being-oriented play within the divine spectrum of proletarian idealism, and from doing-oriented work to doing-oriented play within the diabolic spectrum of proletarian materialism - the twin poles of God and Devil beyond and above the (bourgeois) world.  On the one hand, a Superfatheristic/Superchristic distinction between (proton-wavicle) being-oriented work and (electron-wavicle) being-oriented play, and, on the other hand a Supersatanic/Super-antichristic distinction between (proton-particle) doing-oriented work and (electron-particle) doing-oriented play.  Social Transcendentalism in the one case, but Transcendental Socialism in the other case.


218. Of course, such proletarian idealism as is voiced throughout my writings does owe something, if indirectly, to bourgeois idealism, particularly to Schopenhauer (to the extent that he can be classified as a bourgeois idealist), Hegel, Nietzsche, and even Teilhard de Chardin, whose starting-point is rather more Catholic than secular.  But there can be no question that, fundamentally, any idealism which is intended for the proletariat comes after Marxian materialism as a revolt against both a blue-collar concept of the proletariat and the concomitant economic determinism which, while largely relevant to the proletariat in question, could only be an insult to that greater proportion of the working class which is white collar or, at any rate, other than industrial.  Certainly, late Marxist thinkers like Koestler and Sartre unwittingly undermined proletarian materialism by their subversive repudiation of a variety of traditional communist assumptions about man and society, and therefore indirectly paved the way for the proletarian idealism to follow; though this idealism makes no short-term claim to supplant Communism, as though the age were ripe for universal Centrism!  On the contrary, I fully accept the historical value and necessity of Communism for certain countries, since the world cannot be elevated to the Divine overnight, so to speak, but will remain divided between diabolic and divine interests for some time to come ... according to the natures of the various countries, some of which are traditionally more democratic, others of which traditionally more theocratic, neither of which can nor indeed should be forced into the same ideological straitjacket ... contrary to racial factors which, to a significant extent, condition their respective ideological standings.  Even Marx spoke rather more in terms of a Germanic version of Communism than of a Slavic version, which, as we all know, had to wait for Lenin to modify Marxism away from the (muscle) body towards the (new-brain) head, in order that quasi-dictatorial criteria, founded upon the need for a vanguard party of the (blue-collar) working class within the framework of a totalitarian State, could come to the fore at the expense of purely Marxist, democratic criteria more suited to the Germanic West, where notions of literal worker ownership, worker management, mass-democratic participation, etc., are especially congenial - at any rate, to those Marxists whose Socialism is inherently materialistic rather than naturalistic, decentralist (in relation to bourgeois centrality) rather than centralist, and democratic rather than theocratic.  Anathema to both Western Capitalists and Eastern Communists alike, they find themselves trapped between the Scylla of State Capitalism and the Carybdis of State Socialism, mouthpieces of a uniquely Germanic mode of Communism which, instead of opposing the world from a diabolic standpoint beyond it, stems from the world as the furthermost reach of worldly or, more correctly, anti-worldly materialism.


219. However, if this proletarian materialism is strictly Marxist and, by implication, an ideological precondition of the proletarian naturalism, or State Socialism, advocated by Lenin and upheld by his Asiatic followers, of whom the Chinese must be accounted the principal latter-day exponents, then proletarian naturalism may likewise be regarded as a precondition of my own Social Transcendentalist Centrism, which is both a revolt against and an extension beyond Transcendental Socialism to the extent that, in the one case, it opposes State ownership by Centre trusteeship, and in the other case it advocates a People's theocracy in which the People, with particular reference to the white-collar proletariat, become religiously sovereign ... as, in effect, Holy Spirit, and are thereby empowered to aspire, no matter how indirectly or humbly at first, towards the definitive realization of spiritual unity in the Omega Beyond - an aspiration, so I contend, which would be stepped-up and accordingly rendered more efficacious in the course of millennial time ... as in due course the People were transcended by the successive stages and manifestations of post-human life, as described elsewhere in my writings.


220. Thus Social Transcendentalism is no mere reaction against Transcendental Socialism, like Nazism or Fascism, but an extension beyond and above proletarian naturalism to the divine level of a proletarian idealism, no less supra-national in scope than its diabolic counterpart, though determined to further the cause of People's theocracy throughout the globe in the name of spiritual salvation.  For ultimate reality rests neither in the material world nor in the blue-collar proletariat, but in the superconscious mind, which is the starting-point of transcendent heaven, the Superheaven of an electron-wavicle attraction.  If bourgeois idealism accorded thought the status of an ultimate reality, then we proletarian idealists must ensure that positive pure spirit is accorded such a status, as it fully deserves.


221. In the wisdom of his old age Sartre believed - and correctly - that the ultimate society had to be ethical, i.e. concerned with the transcendent absolute beyond man, and that no such ethical society could arise except on the basis of freedom, but that no such freedom was possible until bourgeois power, or the economic ability of the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat, had been abolished.  Like Sartre, I, too, believe that there can be no transcendental ethics without freedom (from bourgeois oppression), and no freedom until Capitalism has been overcome.  But, unlike him, I go beyond opposition to capitalist power in my belief that the People must also be spared power or, at any rate, have political, economic, and judicial power removed from them, if an ethical aspiration towards the transcendent is duly to result.  For it is not enough that the People should be freed from bourgeois oppression.  They must also be freed from their own power, if the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is to become a reality.  In other words, they must be given the opportunity, through Social Transcendentalism, to democratically exchange their political, economic, and judicial power for the right to become collective Holy Ghost, since only then will salvation from the world be truly achieved - a salvation in which, through the aegis of Messianic intervention, the People literally become ultimate divinity and are thereafter in a position to realize pure spirit in their collective quest for definitive transcendence.  For all secular power is immoral, and People's political power can be no exception!  Such power, should the People democratically decide to dispense with it in exchange for the reality of religious sovereignty, would subsequently be borne, in a Christ-like sacrifice, by the Second Coming, who would thereby take the immoral 'sins of the world' upon his shoulders, so to speak, in order that the People could go free of them and thus be all the more spiritually credible as Holy Spirit.  Having delegated responsibility for bearing these worldly powers, including the economic and judicial, to his closest followers within the Social Transcendentalist framework, it would be the duty of the Centre, thereafter, to collectively serve the religiously sovereign People, the service of whom would be conducted in a quasi-dictatorial manner, as befitting the shouldering of worldly powers by the political Centre in the interests of the People's deliverance (salvation) from such a burden themselves.  To resort to an Old Testament parallel, it would be analogous to Moses being outside the Promised Land and having to remain outside it for the sake of his Chosen People.  Only those in the 'promised land' ... of the Social Transcendentalist 'Kingdom of Heaven' would be totally free from worldly power in the interests of their divine betterment.  Now, for them, a truly ethical society would duly emerge.


222. In terms of economics, a series of distinctions could be drawn between:-


                                          1.  amoral worldly power, or capitalist private ownership;

                          2.  immoral worldly power, or corporate capitalism;

                          3.  immoral diabolic power, or state socialist ownership;

                          4.  moral divine power, or centre trusteeship.


For the basic distinction between moral or amoral and immoral modes of economic power is fundamentally one with regard to the individual, on whose shoulders rests morality, and the collective, which can only be immoral in view of the diffusion of power on a necessarily decentralized (centrifugal) basis, whether we then make a further distinction between the literal implementation of this basis, as in Marxian Socialism, or a sublimated implementation, as in State Socialism.  Yet, if both Corporate Capitalism (not to be confused with the first of the above options) and State Socialism are economically immoral because of the collective, and hence diffused, modes of ownership, Private Capitalism, although centralized, is less than moral by dint of the ownership of capital, shares, industry, etc., by a particular individual, who is likely to amass further capital, industry, etc., at other people's expense.  Only when industry is transferred to Centre trusteeship and, hence, to an impersonal, institutionalized 'individual', viz. the Centre, can economics approximate to a moral order ... commensurate with divine criteria, in which no ownership is at stake and capital profits accruing to industrial success are used to further the People's interests, with particular emphasis on their spiritual welfare, and thus the furtherance, in effect, of the Holy Ghost.  Therefore the Centre alone would have true economic power, a power used for the general good rather than (as with private ownership) to further the economic growth of a particular person.  Consequently we can speak, overall, of an economic spectrum stretching from amoral realism (private capitalism) to moral idealism (centre trusteeship) via immoral materialism (corporate/state capitalism) and immoral naturalism (state socialism), with worldly and divine individualism flanking worldly and diabolic collectivism respectively - Fascist and Communist modes of economic immorality in between Liberal and Centrist modes of economic morality (Germanic Second Coming and Slavic Antichrist in between Germanic Christ and Celtic Holy Ghost).


223. On balance, Bertrand Russell was less a philosopher than an historian of philosophy, which is a breed of writer antithetical to philosophers of history, such as Toynbee and Spengler.  In my opinion, historians of philosophy are no less a superior breed of historian to historians-proper than ... philosophers of history are an inferior breed of philosopher to philosophers-proper.  For whereas the former are rather more of the philosophical head than of the historical body, the latter are rather more of the historical body than of the philosophical head.  Should Bertrand Russell's name mean anything to future generations, it will be more in consequence of monumental books like A History of Western Philosophy than of the series of slender essayistic volumes - quick to date - which bear many of the hallmarks of a left-liberal homme de lettres, and few if any hallmarks of a systematic philosopher!


224. Re-evaluation of different kinds of football, viz. eleven-a-side, five-a-side, six-a-side, in relation to ideological equivalents: Democratic Socialist eleven-a-side football played on a grass pitch; pure Socialist eleven-a-side football played on a plastic pitch; Communist five-a-side indoor football; Transcendental Socialist six-a-side indoor football.  Thus, further to my previous thoughts on this subject, [See, for instance, From Materialism to Idealism.] I have distinguished between Communist and Transcendental Socialist equivalents on the basis of a five-a-side/six-a-side dichotomy between a type of indoor football which is materialistic, i.e. played all along the ground and therefore absolutist, and a type of indoor football which is comparatively idealistic, i.e. allowing for flighted balls and therefore relativistic - a distinction analogous to our musical dichotomy between soft rock as Communist and jazz-rock as Transcendental Socialist.  Thus the addition of a flighted ball possibility to six-a-side football entitles it to be regarded, in my view, as a Transcendental Socialist equivalent beyond the Communist purism of (ground-low) five-a-side football - at least that is one of the principal reasons for considering it in a more idealistic light, a light analogous (to give a further parallel) to that in which we view streamlined motorbikes vis--vis plain or conventional motorbikes of a comparatively light-weight (in relation to the larger socialist motorbikes) construction.  Doubtless the free-flow of substitutes adds or, rather, confirms an idealistic, i.e. wavicle-biased, dimension to the game, and possibly the existence of the not-inappropriately named 'sin bin' does likewise ... if on Leninist 'theocratic' terms.


225. Considering both types of indoor football in relation to conventional outdoor football, it should be clear that the former are of the head rather than of the body to the extent that the indoor context, having fewer players, signifies a degree of centro-complexification unattainable on an outdoor eleven-a-side basis, and thereby confirms a superior ideological development commensurate with communistic criteria.  In a very real sense six-a-side football is the ultimate mode of football, just as Transcendental Socialism is the ultimate mode of Socialism, as superior to Democratic Socialism as the new-brain head to the muscle body.  Certainly there is every chance that indoor football will be the football of the future, played long after the outdoor variety has been consigned to the rubbish heap of history.  For it alone accords with the diabolic head above the worldly body, and therefore stands in a parallel relation to Fascist basketball on the one hand and to Social Transcendentalist hoopball on the other: five-a-side football a direct parallel to the former and six-a-side football to the latter.


226. To distinguish between outdoor American football as Nazi in a left-wing way and indoor American football as Nazi in a right-wing way, as regarding avant-garde rock on the one hand and avant-garde jazz on the other, both of which are ideologically parallel.  Thus American football may be said to stand in an ideologically superior light to conventional outdoor football, whether Democratic Socialist or pure Socialist, but in an ideologically inferior light to basketball, which succeeds it, so to speak, on the basis of a properly theocratic parallel to Communist five-a-side football (see above).  As to the possibility of an Ecological equivalent in between Fascist basketball and Communist five-a-side football, I should like to posit team handball as the most credible candidate for this position, since the term 'handball' suggests a midway-point in between materialistic football and idealistic basketball, and Ecological equivalents are nothing if not midway between one theocratic extreme and another.  Granted that we derive the materialistic status of football largely from the fact that, in relation to hands or head, feet are the lowest-common-denominator and therefore balls which proceed along the ground in consequence of having been kicked or passed can only be regarded in a materialistic light, correlative with Socialism, by contrast to those which are thrown through the air or passed from hand to hand, then it must follow that the idealistic status of basketball owes not a little to the transcendentalism of the term 'basket', which has nothing whatsoever to do with any part of the body (any more than does the hoop of hoopball), since an artificial phenomenon quite distinct from hands or feet.  Now if basketball corresponds to a Fascist equivalent on account of both the transcendentalism of the basket and the hands-high method of play, and indoor football corresponds to a Communist equivalent on account of the foot-low method of play which is confirmed by the term 'football', then it needn't surprise us if handball corresponds to an Ecological equivalent in between these theocratic alternatives on account of the midway status of the 'hand' in relation to the 'foot' in the one case and to the 'basket' in the other - a status confirming a relatively realistic position vis--vis basket-high idealism and foot-low materialism.  Such a realistic, or as I should say in regard to this level of sport, superrealistic position is commensurate with an Ecological equivalent - a superrealism lying in-between superidealistic and supermaterialistic positions ... commensurate with Fascist and Communist ideological equivalents respectively, as, to a lesser degree, with their Social Transcendentalist (hoopball) and Transcendental Socialist (six-a-side football) extrapolations.


227. When we speak of a 'good ball' in relation to football, we generally mean an accurate or skilful pass from one player to another, whereas a 'bad ball' implies just the opposite, i.e. that one of the players has given the ball away to the opposition through a careless or foolish pass.  Consequently the expressions have nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the ball itself, which does not enter into account.  Yet balls can also be good or bad, depending on their construction, that is to say, whether they conform to the specifications of the game and are accordingly of the correct size, shape, weight, material, etc, or whether, on the contrary, something is amiss with one or more of these factors.  Thus we distinguish a good ball from a bad ball in terms of physical factors, which contrasts to our way of distinguishing, within the context of an actual football match, between a 'good ball' and a 'bad ball', as applicable to the standard of play.  Clearly, whereas criteria applying to the actual construction of the ball are physical, those which apply to the way the ball is played are metaphysical, and consequently we have a distinction between the ball itself and what is done with it during the course of play - a distinction, in other words, between the phenomenal and the noumenal or, as we should be saying in connection with such a comparatively advanced and artificial game as football, the superphenomenal ball and the supernoumenal pass, the latter of which is only possible on account of the prior existence of the former, which may accordingly be described as its material precondition.  One could argue, in Hegelian terms, that whereas the ball itself is a manifestation of the world, the play resulting from its use, whether for good or bad, is a manifestation of Spirit in the world at that particular level of its unfolding.


228. For a writer, technique is a kind of bridge between style and theme, a worldly link between appearance and essence.  The more apparent the style, the less essential the theme and, conversely, the more essential the theme, the less apparent the style.  The simplest and most alpha-stemming writing will be the most stylistic; the profoundest and most omega-oriented writing, by contrast, the most thematic.  In between will come worldly, or bourgeois, writing, which strives to achieve a balance between style and content, appearance and essence.  Now whether this balance is effectively with regard to the Father and the Holy Spirit, or Satan and the Antichrist, or indeed worldly alpha and worldly omega options ... will depend on the kind of writer in question, which is to say,  whether a writer primarily concerned with the pursuit of truth, like a philosopher; or one primarily concerned with the pursuit of beauty, like a poet; or one whose primary concern is with the pursuit of strength, like a playwright; or one whose primary concern is with the pursuit of goodness, like a novelist.  For each different type of writer correlates with a different spectrum, and no two spectra have the same stylistic or thematic extremes.  To distinguish style from content on the basis of beauty or truth alone would be to misrepresent the issue, since these quantities pertain to different spectra and could only be inferred to co-exist in writers who were neither divine nor diabolic but a paradoxical cross between the two, like philosophical poets or poetic philosophers.  As to those who are less mongrels than thoroughbreds, we must allow for a false style no less than a true theme, an ugly style no less than a beautiful theme, a weak style no less than a strong theme, or an evil style no less than a good theme, depending on the type of writer, viz. philosopher, poet, playwright, or novelist, in question.


229. Just as there was a pre-historical time of doing-oriented chaos before historical chronologies were compiled, so there will be a post-historical time or, rather, eternity of being-oriented order, in which the study of history or the making of chronologies will be taboo, since beneath the pale.  For history is only relevant to an open society, not to one which, like the post-historical eternity I have in mind, will be so omega orientated as to be indisposed to looking back over its shoulder, so to speak, at the doings - for the most part sordid - of the past.  In a truly omega-oriented closed society, history would be as much beneath the pale as it was once beyond the pale of the most alpha-stemming closed societies.  For history is the Becoming, not the Become (being).


230. As a rule, worldly societies, whether autocratic or democratic, are matriarchal, whereas diabolic and divine societies, by contrast, are patriarchal.  For whereas the body is of the world, the head is either of Heaven or Hell above the world, depending on whether a mind or a brain bias is upheld in and by any given divine or diabolic society.  Because woman more accords, traditionally, with the worldly body than with either the divine or the diabolic head, being, to all intents and purposes, akin to a planet vis--vis the sun and stars (the sun more conspicuous than the stars on account of its correlation with husbands and fathers ... as previously discussed), we should have no hesitation in regarding a worldly, and hence feminine society, as matriarchal ... in contrast to pre- and post-worldly patriarchal societies, which accord with the head on either subconscious/old-brain terms in the former case or new-brain/superconscious terms in the latter case - the divine (mind) level rather more archpatriarchal than patriarchal.  As yet, however, we haven't witnessed a post-worldly divine society, since that is germane, so far as I am concerned, to Social Transcendentalism and, hence, to ideological futurity.  But we have ample evidence of post-worldly diabolic societies, especially in regard to the Communist East, and they are nothing if not patriarchal, with male leaders in both presidential and ministerial posts - leaders who would be unwilling to share power with women.  How different is the People's Republic of China, in this respect, from Western countries like Great Britain, a quintessentially worldly democracy in which not only has a woman been elected Prime Minister on three successive occasions but ... co-existed with a female monarch who has been on the throne even longer than her indefatigable Prime Minister was in parliament!  Thus at both autocratic and democratic poles of this worldly society women have been in power, thereby confirming its matriarchal nature.  Indeed, it is scarcely surprising that two of the three most esteemed monarchs in English history have been women - namely Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria, and probably it is no mere coincidence that their respective reigns marked cultural and imperial highpoints in English history.  It was only during the Cromwellian revolution that anything resembling a democratic patriarchy existed, while Henry VIII would be the most credible candidate for an autocratic one - a sort of medieval patriarch who is better remembered, in the popular imagination, for his eight wives than for his political achievements.


231. What especially limits languages like French and German to a bourgeois, worldly status is their division into feminine and masculine gender, which ensures a dualistic balance at the expense of a transcendent or genderless one-sidedness.  In other words, a worldly relativity as opposed to a post-worldly absolutism, the very factor which makes for a bourgeois view of life.  For it cannot be denied that language to some extent conditions one's psychology, and regular use of languages balanced between feminine and masculine genders can hardly fail to elicit complacency in dualistic norms - short of one's rebelling against such languages in favour of one which, like English, is genderless and therefore more extreme in character.  Certainly the Creole language of the island of Reunion is considerably less dualistic than French, having but three feminine nouns, viz. la pic (the mountain peak), la tunnel (the tunnel), and la sable (the sand), which, ironically, are all masculine in French.  Could it be, I wonder, that the Creole speakers of Reunion despise gender and thus, by implication, bourgeois dualistic norms?


232. One of the most controversial issues for the Church, particularly the Protestant one, in the late-twentieth century was the ordination of women priests, which some saw as a necessary advance towards complete equality of the sexes and others, evidently more conservative, regarded with deep suspicion ... as something that flew in the face of Christian tradition.  My own position on this issue has recently become clearer, so I shall here set it down for the philosophical record, irrespective of my ideological opposition to the Church, particularly in its Protestant manifestation, and professed adherence to Social Transcendentalism.  Not altogether surprisingly, it is the Catholic Church which most opposes the concept of women priests, and quite logically too, since Catholicism is much more an idealistic mode of Christianity than Protestantism, more - to revert to my customary metaphors - a church of the head (mind) than one of the body, given its Latin origins and, in the main, following.  (For it is only in the Germanic countries that bodily Christianity, or Protestantism, has traditionally flourished.)  Thus where the head rules, the head decides, and masculine criteria accordingly prevail.  Where the body rules, on the other hand, such criteria, while nominally upheld, are less unassailable - indeed, can and have been subverted to suit the climate of the age.  Now since the present age is highly decadent insofar as the Germanic West is concerned, it can be of no surprise to us if liberal tendencies of the sort we are discussing make an appearance in the Church to usher in a new era or, more correctly, a further manifestation of the general decadence in which, effectively, the bodily phenomenon of women priests has its day.  For let there be no doubt on this issue: women priests are only credible in a bodily Church whose decadence is so far advanced ... as to warrant female salvation from the socialistic and/or communistic damnation which not only lies in wait beyond the boundaries of the Christian West, but threatens the Church from within, to the ultimate detriment of women themselves!  Thus, as in other comparable worldly contexts where middle-class women have been called in or, rather, have called themselves in to heal the breach and shore-up the tottering edifice of worldly civilization, the Protestant Church affords us a no-less instructive example of the inexorable decline of the West, as mainly furthered by men.


233. But let us now take a countervailing argument which, though essentially irrelevant in this context, can be formulated on the basis of sexual equality between men and women.  For if women are prepared to do the same things as men, why shouldn't they be allowed to, providing they can do them just as well?  Isn't sexual equality a contemporary ideal, and therefore doesn't the ordination of women priests confirm that the ideal is being realized?  Superficially it does.  But, judged by more exacting standards, can the sort of women who want to become priests be regarded as quasi-Supermen in relation, officially or unofficially, to masculine Supermen and, consequently, as deserving of real equality?  And the answer to this question has to be 'no'.  A middle-class woman can never be the real equal of a middle-class man, since bourgeois heterosexuality, confirmed by unequal sartorial customs, precludes unisexual equality between men and women, keeping the latter in a relatively inferior position vis--vis the former.  Now since the Church, especially in its Protestant manifestation, is nothing if not middle class, there can be no equality in the sense that proletarian women, who both dress and appear masculine, achieve equality with proletarian men on a quasi-Superman/Superman basis.  Rather, one will have a heterosexual inequality between men and women, and such an inequality can only result, in the event of women being ordained, in a neo-autocratic materialism in which, effectively, priestesses seek to replace priests as the most credible representatives of bodily Christianity in a radically decadent age.  Now to the extent that certain male priests may no longer appear quite so credible, for one reason or another, regarding this purpose, female priests would have a limited justification, albeit not one that could outlive the eclipse of Western civilization.


234. When a religion is worldly, like Christianity, Heaven is otherworldly and only arrived at, if at all, following death.  When, on the other hand, a religion is transcendental, Heaven is in the world and can be arrived at through self-realization ... in successive stages of spiritual centro-complexification.  Heaven for the former is without.  For the latter it is within.  Christ taught the 'Kingdom of Heaven' within the self, but he also said: 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.'  Unfortunately, the heart is too much connected with the world, since a kind of organic extrapolation from the fiery core of the planet rather than a truly divine reality like mind, which, in any case, is more noumenal than phenomenal, particularly in its most transcendental manifestation.  Christ was the 'Light of the World', but the 'Kingdom of Heaven' demands a purer and brighter light if heavenly salvation is to be achieved - the light, I need scarcely add, of the Social Transcendentalist Messiah!



LONDON 1987 (Revised 2011)









Graph of Being/Doing Correlations




                Being against Self              Doing against Self                             Doing against Others                        Being against Others


                Divine Idealism                   Diabolic Naturalism                          Worldly Materialism                          Worldly Realism


                Autocratic Theocracy        Theocratic Autocracy                        Autocratic Autocracy                        Democratic Autocracy


                Noumenon                            Noumenal Subphenomenon             Subphenomenon                                 Phenomenal  Subphenomenon


                Proton Wavicles                  Proton Particles                                 Atomic Proton Particles                   Proton-biased Atomic Wavicles


                Monotheism                         Polytheism                                           Pantheism                                            Atheism


                Divine Outer Space            Diabolic Outer Time                          Worldly Outer Time                            Worldly Outer Space


                Divine Morality                  Diabolic Immorality                          Worldly Immorality                            Worldly Amorality


                Unfree Binding                    Bound Unfreedom                              Bound Binding                                   Freedom in Binding






                Being for Others                  Doing for Others                                 Doing for Self                                      Being for Self


                Worldly Superrealism        Worldly Supermaterialism                Diabolic Supernaturalism                Divine Superidealism


                Autocratic Democracy       Democratic Democracy                     Theocratic Democracy                      Democratic Theocracy



                 Phenomenon                       Superphenomenon                             Supernoumenal

                                                                                                                               Superphenomenon                            Supernoumenon



                Atomic Wavicles                  Atomic Electron Particles                Electron Particles                              Electron Wavicles


                Superatheism                       Superpantheism                                  Superpolytheism                                 Supermonotheism


                Worldly Inner Space          Worldly Inner Time                            Diabolic Inner Time                           Divine Inner Space


                Worldly Supermorality      Worldly Superimmorality                 Diabolic Superimmorality                Divine Supermorality


                Freedom from Binding       Free Freedom                                      Bound Freedom                                   Free Binding







AddThis Social Bookmark Button