Op. 63



'The Omegala'


Cyclic Philosophy


Copyright © 2011 John O'Loughlin





Cycles 1-37





1.   There are four wisdoms - the wisdom of the heart, the womb, the brain, and the lungs.  Of these four wisdoms, or commitments to sensibility (inner sense), the wisdom of the lungs is the wisest.


2.   Conversely, there are four follies - the folly of the eyes, the tongue, the phallus (flesh), and the ears.  Of these four follies, or commitments to sensuality (outer sense), the folly of the eyes is the most foolish.


3.   Not everyone can be wise or foolish after a given fashion.  For certain types of wisdom and folly, being objective, are feminine, whereas other types of wisdom and folly, being subjective, are masculine.


4.   Both the wisdom of the heart and of the womb are objective - the former noumenally and the latter phenomenally.  Conversely, both the wisdom of the brain and of the lungs are subjective - the former phenomenally and the latter noumenally.


5.   Both the folly of the eyes and of the tongue are objective - the former noumenally and the latter phenomenally.  Conversely, both the folly of the phallus and of the ears are subjective - the former phenomenally and the latter noumenally.


6.   The lungs correspond, like the eyes, to Space, whereas the heart corresponds, like the ears, to Time.


7.   The brain corresponds, like the tongue, to Volume, whereas the womb corresponds, like the phallus, to Mass.


8.   The Space of sensuality is spatial, whereas the Space of sensibility is spaced.


9.   The Time of sensuality is sequential, whereas the Time of sensibility is repetitive.


10.  The Volume of sensuality is volumetric, whereas the Volume of sensibility is voluminous.


11.  The Mass of sensuality is massive, whereas the Mass of sensibility is massed.





1.   To contrast the phenomenal planes of Volume and Mass with the noumenal planes of Space and Time - the former planes natural (in an all-encompassing sense) and the latter ones supernatural.


2.   Thus there are two natural planes no less than two supernatural ones ... in both sensuality and sensibility.


3.   The natural planes are divisible between the physicality of Mass and the metaphysicality of Volume, while the supernatural planes are divisible between the chemistry of Time and what might be called the metachemistry of Space.


4.   Nature is thus divisible between physical and metaphysical, Mass and Volume, whereas supernature is divisible between chemical and metachemical, Time and Space.


5.   To contrast the physical nature of Mass with the metaphysical nature of Volume, further contrasting the chemical supernature of Time with the metachemical supernature of Space.


6.   Physical nature can be negative or positive, massive or massed, being realist in the former context but humanist in the latter one.


7.   Metaphysical nature can be negative or positive, volumetric or voluminous, being materialist in the former context but nonconformist in the latter one.


8.   Chemical supernature can be negative or positive, sequential or repetitive, being naturalist (in a more specific sense) in the former context but fundamentalist in the latter one.


9.   Metachemical supernature can be negative or positive, spatial or spaced, being idealist in the former context but transcendentalist in the latter one.


10.  Physical nature is subjectively phenomenal in its negative mode and objectively phenomenal in its positive mode, whereas metaphysical nature is objectively phenomenal in its negative mode and subjectively phenomenal in its positive mode.


11.  Chemical supernature is subjectively noumenal in its negative mode and objectively noumenal in its positive mode, whereas metachemical supernature is objectively noumenal in its negative mode and subjectively noumenal in its positive mode.


12.  That which is negative is false, contrasting with the genuineness of whatever is positive.  The 'false' is everywhere evil and the 'genuine' alone good.


13.  Evil is that which, being false, is apparent, extrinsic, divergent, sensual, etc., whereas good is that which, being genuine, is essential, intrinsic, convergent, sensible, etc.


14.  Thus nature is both good and evil in physical and metaphysical modes, supernature both good and evil in chemical and metachemical modes.


15.  Physical nature is evil in realism and good in humanism - the former affiliated to massive Mass and the latter to massed Mass.


16.  Metaphysical nature is evil in materialism and good in nonconformism - the former affiliated to volumetric Volume and the latter to voluminous Volume.


17.  Chemical supernature is evil in naturalism and good in fundamentalism - the former affiliated to sequential Time and the latter to repetitive Time.


18.  Metachemical supernature is evil in idealism and good in transcendentalism - the former affiliated to spatial Space and the latter to spaced Space.


19.  The negativity of evil nature/supernature diverges from a vacuum, whereas the positivity of good nature/supernature converges upon a plenum.





1.   To contrast the false metachemistry of idealist supernature with the genuine metachemistry of transcendentalist supernature, as one would contrast light with air, or illusion with truth.


2.   To contrast the false chemistry of naturalist supernature with the genuine chemistry of fundamentalist supernature, as one would contrast fire with blood, or weakness with strength.


3.   To contrast the false metaphysics of materialist nature with the genuine metaphysics of nonconformist nature, as one would contrast water with thought, or ignorance with knowledge.


4.   To contrast the false physics of realist nature with the genuine physics of humanist nature, as one would contrast earth with offspring, or ugliness with beauty.


5.   Just as I have distinguished between the physical and the metaphysical with regard to nature, so we may distinguish between the phenomenal and, for want of a better term, the metaphenomenal on a like basis, conceiving of the phenomenal as equivalent to the physical and of the metaphenomenal as equivalent to the metaphysical.


6.   Similarly, just as I have distinguished between the chemical and the metachemical with regard to supernature, so we may distinguish between the noumenal and, for want of a better term, the metanoumenal on a like basis, conceiving of the noumenal as equivalent to the chemical and of the metanoumenal as equivalent to the metachemical.





1.   Just as Anglicanism is Protestant humanism compared to the nonconformism of Puritanism and the 'fundamentalism' of Presbyterianism, so Orthodoxy is Catholic humanism compared to the nonconformism of the 'Celtic Church' and the 'transcendentalism' of Roman Catholicism.  Thus humanism and nonconformism are germane to both Protestantism and Catholicism, unlike fundamentalism and transcendentalism, which appertain to the Protestant and Catholic extremes.


2.   One could argue, in contrast to the above, that Pentecostalism is if not Catholic 'transcendentalism' then certainly Protestant 'transcendentalism', bearing in mind its bias towards the Holy Ghost.  But, frankly, I don't believe that there is, or ever could be, any such thing as Protestant 'transcendentalism', bearing in mind Protestantism's pseudo-Christian and effectively Heathen basis, and since there is no way that Pentecostalism could be described as Catholic, it must follow that it is a radical manifestation of Protestant nonconformism, whose concept of the Holy Ghost, doubtless deriving from Biblical references to 'tongues of fire', would be more mystical than truly spiritual (even to a Catholic degree).


3.   The YMCA, with its inverted triangle, prides itself on being non-denominational in character, but, in reality, it is a Protestant organization whose emblem reflects, in typically British fashion, the tripartite character of Protestant civilization, viz. the Mother at the base of this inverted triangle, with the Son appertaining to the upper right angle and the Father appertaining, by contrast, to the upper left angle of its apex.  In such fashion, it can be maintained that Puritanism and Dissenterism stand above Anglicanism, and pretty much like the Conservatives and the Liberals (latterly Liberal Democrats) above Labour, or, for that matter, Rugby Union and Rugby League above Association Football.


4.   Thus if the YMCA is non-denominational, it can only be so with regard to the variety of Protestant denominations, not with reference to Roman Catholicism which, by contrast, has nothing to do with inverted or any other kinds of triangles but, on the contrary, relates to a World-denying ethos that, being properly Christian, eschews clashing objectivities (between the Father and the Mother), as both the Christ Child (the actual 'Son' of Catholicism) and the Holy Spirit 'turn their backs' on the Virgin in the interests of subjective deliverance from the World which, being feminine, is objective in the Mother/Virgin.  Only in nature is 'the World' subjective; but then nature, in the particular sense I am adumbrating here, is not really the World but, rather, that which stands at a masculine remove from it in and as the Antichrist.





1.   To contrast the fire of barbarism, both outer (eyes) and inner (blood) with the air of culture, both outer (ears) and inner (lungs), as one would contrast the Devil with God (in both negative and positive modes respectively).


2.   To contrast the water of civilization, both outer (tongue) and inner (womb) with the vegetation of nature, both outer (phallus) and inner (brain), as one would contrast woman with man (in both negative and positive modes respectively).


3.   To fall from the barbarism of the eyes to the barbarism of the heart, as from idealism to fundamentalism, but to rise from the culture of the ears to the culture of the lungs, as from naturalism to transcendentalism.


4.   To fall from the civilization of the tongue to the civilization of the womb, as from materialism to humanism, but to rise from the nature of the phallus to the nature of the brain, as from realism to nonconformism.


5.   To descend, along a space-time continuum, from metachemical objectivity to chemical objectivity, but to ascend, along a time-space continuum, from chemical subjectivity to metachemical subjectivity.


6.   To descend, along a volume-mass continuum, from metaphysical objectivity to physical objectivity, but to ascend, along a mass-volume continuum, from physical subjectivity to metaphysical subjectivity.


7.   The descent from metachemical objectivity to chemical objectivity, as from the eyes to the heart, sight to blood, has reference to the salvation of the soul (from the antisoul) in barbarous sensibility.


8.   The ascent from chemical subjectivity to metachemical subjectivity, as from the ears to the lungs, sound to breath, has reference to the salvation of the spirit (from the antispirit) in cultural sensibility.


9.   The descent from metaphysical objectivity to physical objectivity, as from the tongue to the womb, taste to conception, has reference to the salvation of the id (from the anti-id) in civilized sensibility.


10.  The ascent from physical subjectivity to metaphysical subjectivity, as from the phallus to the brain, sex to prayer, has reference to the salvation of the mind (from the antimind) in natural sensibility.


11.  In all four instances of descent or ascent from sensuality to sensibility, salvation is a matter of willpower directed towards a glorious end, the will of the soul to pride, of the spirit to joy, of the id to pleasure, and of the mind to love.


12.  The will of the soul is centred in strength, the will of the spirit is centred in truth, the will of the id is centred in beauty, and the will of the mind is centred in knowledge.  Strength is diabolical, but the will of the soul is barbarous; truth is divine, but the will of truth is cultural; beauty is mundane, but the will of beauty is civilized; knowledge is purgatorial, but the will of knowledge is natural.  Barbarism leads to Hell, culture leads to Heaven, civilization leads to the World, and nature leads to Purgatory.  The pride of the Father, the joy of the Holy Spirit, the pleasure of the Mother, and the love of the Son.





1.   To descend, along the space-time continuum, from spatial Space to repetitive Time, as from primal doing to supreme doing, but to ascend, along the time-space continuum, from sequential Time to spaced Space, as from primal being to supreme being.


2.   To descend, along the volume-mass continuum, from volumetric Volume to massed Mass, as from primal giving to supreme giving, but to ascend, along the mass-volume continuum, from massive Mass to voluminous Volume, as from primal taking to supreme taking.


3.   To be saved from the sensual barbarism of primal doing to the sensible barbarism of supreme doing, as from photons to photinos, illusion to strength.


4.   To be saved from the sensual culture of primal being to the sensible culture of supreme being, as from protons to protinos, weakness to truth.


5.   To be saved from the sensual civilization of primal giving to the sensible civilization of supreme giving, as from electrons to electrinos, ignorance to beauty.


6.   To be saved from the sensual nature of primal taking to the sensible nature of supreme taking, as from neutrons to neutrinos, ugliness to knowledge.


7.   Salvation along the space-time continuum is from Devil to warrior, idealism to fundamentalism, as ‘the Diabolic’ fall diagonally from superfeminine to subfeminine barbarism.


8.   Salvation along the time-space continuum is from beast to God, naturalism to transcendentalism, as ‘the Divine’ rise diagonally from submasculine to supermasculine culture.


9.   Salvation along the volume-mass continuum is from whore to angel, materialism to humanism, as ‘the mundane’ fall diagonally from negative feminine to positive feminine civilization.


10.  Salvation along the mass-volume continuum is from sinner to saint, realism to nonconformism, as ‘the purgatorial’ rise diagonally from negative masculine to positive masculine nature.


11.  To fall, in the fire of barbarism, from light to soul, as from the eyes to the heart, but to rise, in the air of culture, from heat to spirit, as from the ears to the lungs.


12.  To fall, in the water of civilization, from coldness to (the) id, as from the tongue to the womb, but to rise, in the soil (vegetation) of nature, from darkness to mind, as from the phallus to the brain.


13.  To fall through the Father into Hell, but to rise through the Holy Spirit into Heaven.


14.  To fall through the Mother into the World, but to rise through Christ into Purgatory.


15.  The fall of the soul into Hell is no less a salvation than the rise of the spirit into Heaven.


16.  The fall of the id into the World is no less a salvation than the rise of the mind into Purgatory.


17.  The fall of the soul into the glory (Hell) of pride through the will (Devil) of strength is to fundamentalism what the rise of the spirit into the glory (Heaven) of joy through the will (God) of truth is to transcendentalism - namely, salvation.


18.  The fall of the id into the glory (World) of pleasure through the will (woman) of beauty is to humanism what the rise of the mind into the glory (Purgatory) of love through the will (man) of knowledge is to nonconformism - namely, salvation.





1.   Power, or willpower, does not stand to glory as evil to good but as virtue to good, since goodness is the glorious outcome of a virtuous act, which is to say, the use of some particular form of willpower directed towards a glorious end.  Hence power stands to glory as the virtuous precondition of an end whose essence is good.  At least this is true of willpower with regard to sensibility, whether in terms of strength, truth, beauty, or knowledge.


2.   When we consider willpower with regard to sensuality, however, the relationship between power and glory is reversed, since willpower is then the vicious consequence of a precondition whose essence or, rather, appearance is evil.  Thus instead of willpower preceding glory, as in sensibility, it is the negative glory, or evil, of sensuality that precedes a willpower which is, of necessity, vicious, and this whether in terms of weakness, illusion, ugliness, or ignorance.  For these vices are respectively consequent upon the prior existence, in centrifugal vacuity, of humiliation, woe, pain, and hatred, whose glory, being negative, can only be evil.


3.   Hence evil precedes vice in the sensual contexts of negative glory, and vicious acts are less evil than foolish on account of their association with sensuality.  Conversely, virtue precedes goodness in the sensible contexts of positive willpower, and virtuous acts are less good than wise on account of their association with sensibility.


4.   The folly of vice contrasts, on any plane, with the wisdom of virtue.


5.   Thus we may contrast the folly of the Devil of sensuality, or Anti-Devil, viciously diverging from the evil of the Hell of sensuality, or Anti-Hell, with the wisdom of the Devil of sensibility, or Pro-Devil, virtuously converging upon the good of the Hell of sensibility, or Pro-Hell, as one would contrast the divergence of illusion from woe with the convergence of strength upon pride, or the divergence of light from Space with the convergence of soul upon Time.


6.   Thus we may contrast the folly of the God of sensuality, or Anti-God, viciously diverging from the evil of the Heaven of sensuality, or Anti-Heaven, with the wisdom of the God of sensibility, or Pro-God, virtuously converging upon the good of the Heaven of sensibility, or Pro-Heaven, as one would contrast the divergence of weakness from humiliation with the convergence of truth upon joy, or the divergence of sound from Time with the convergence of spirit upon Space.


7.   Thus we may contrast the folly of the Woman of sensuality, or Anti-Mother, viciously diverging from the evil of the World of sensuality, or Anti-World, with the wisdom of the Woman of sensibility, or Pro-Mother, virtuously converging upon the good of the World of sensibility, or Pro-World, as one would contrast the divergence of ignorance from hate with the convergence of beauty upon pleasure, or the divergence of taste from Volume with the convergence of the id (maternal instinct) upon Mass.


8.   Thus we may contrast the folly of the Man of sensuality, or Anti-Christ, viciously diverging from the evil of the Purgatory of sensuality, or Anti-Purgatory, with the wisdom of the Man of sensibility, or Pro-Christ, virtuously converging upon the good of the Purgatory of sensibility, or Pro-Purgatory, as one would contrast the divergence of ugliness from pain with the convergence of knowledge upon love, or the divergence of lust from Mass with the convergence of mind upon Volume.


9.   To diverge from spatial Space but to converge upon spaced Space; to diverge from sequential Time but to converge upon repetitive Time; to diverge from volumetric Volume but to converge upon voluminous Volume; to diverge from massive Mass but to converge upon massed Mass.


10.  Diverging viciously, in folly, from the evils of idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism; converging virtuously, in wisdom, upon the goods of transcendentalism, fundamentalism, nonconformism, and humanism.


11.  Damned by and to sensuality, one can only be saved to and by sensibility.  Saved from idealism to fundamentalism, diagonally falling from the eyes to the heart; saved from naturalism to transcendentalism, diagonally rising from the ears to the lungs; saved from materialism to humanism, diagonally falling from the tongue to the womb; saved from realism to nonconformism, diagonally rising from the phallus to the brain.  Barbarism, culture, civilization, and nature, germane to Hell, Heaven, the World, and Purgatory.





1.   Strictly speaking, barbarism is that which has to do with the space-time continuum ... of falling fire, whereas culture is that which has to do with the time-space continuum ... of rising air.


2.   Likewise, civilization is that which has to do with the volume-mass continuum ... of falling water, whereas nature is that which has to do with the mass-volume continuum ... of rising vegetation.


3.   Alternatively, one could speak of the space-time continuum as the idealism-fundamentalism continuum, while reserving for Time-Space the description of the naturalism-transcendentalism continuum.


4.   Similarly, one could speak of the volume-mass continuum as the materialism-humanism continuum, while reserving for Mass-Volume the description of the realism-nonconformism continuum.


5.   Space-Time is concretely intelligible in terms of an eyes-heart continuum, while Time-Space could more concretely be defined in terms of an ears-lungs continuum.


6.   Volume-Mass is concretely intelligible in terms of a tongue-womb continuum, while Mass-Volume could more concretely be defined in terms of a phallus-brain continuum.


7.   Whatever the parallel (and other instances could be cited) the space-time continuum is synonymous with the barbarism (falling fire) of hellish doing, and contrasts, absolutely, with the culture (rising air) of heavenly being in the time-space continuum.


8.   Likewise, the volume-mass continuum is synonymous with the civilization (falling water) of worldly giving, and contrasts, relatively, with the nature (rising vegetation) of purgatorial taking in the mass-volume continuum.


9.   The absolute contrast between barbarism and culture has reference to the metachemical and chemical planes upon which Space and Time have their existence, whereas the relative contrast between civilization and nature has reference to the metaphysical and physical planes upon which Volume and Mass have their existence.


10.  Hence the space-time fall from metachemical to chemical barbarism contrasts absolutely with the time-space rise from chemical to metachemical culture, while the volume-mass fall from metaphysical to physical civilization contrasts relatively with the mass-volume rise from physical to metaphysical nature.


11.  To fall, in barbarous salvation, from the metachemical objectivity of idealism to the chemical objectivity of fundamentalism, as from outer philosophy to inner philosophy.


12.  To rise, in cultural salvation, from the chemical subjectivity of naturalism to the metachemical subjectivity of transcendentalism, as from outer theosophy to inner theosophy.


13.  To fall, in civilized salvation, from the metaphysical objectivity of materialism to the physical objectivity of humanism, as from outer philology to inner philology (language of the genes).


14.  To rise, in natural salvation, from the physical subjectivity of realism to the metaphysical subjectivity of nonconformism, as from outer theology (pantheism) to inner theology.





1.   No doubt, the fact that women are more closely associated with water than men, as in the civilized bias of the tongue and the womb, is what makes it feasible for them to shed tears, which fall, it seems to me, in star-like radiance from their eyes.  A man would normally disgrace himself by crying, but a woman only confirms her femininity, or rather superfemininity, by shedding tears.


2.   Probably tears stand to the eyes as milk to the breasts, and I fancy that, given their proximity to the 'fiery' realms of the eyes and the heart, both alike are noumenal contexts, with a closer correspondence, in consequence, to barbarism than to civilization.


3.   Broadly, fire and water being feminine elements, one could argue that Summer and Winter are feminine seasons, in contrast to the masculine essence, in earth (vegetation) and air, of Spring and Autumn.  Certainly, this would apply almost literally to Winter and Spring respectively, while the gender attribution to Summer and Autumn would have to be weighed against the diabolic and divine correlations which accrue to the 'noumenal elements', viz. fire and air, and their closer association, in consequence, with superfeminine/subfeminine and submasculine/supermasculine alternatives.


4.   There is a sense, though only a relative one, in which the manner of a person's dying would determine whether he went to Heaven or to Hell, the former as a spirit and the latter as a soul.  By which I mean that a natural death would suggest the salvation of the spirit to Heaven, in terms of one's having 'given up the ghost' with one's last breath and accordingly become subject to the passage of spirit (breath) into air (Heaven), whereas a violent death, particularly one that resulted in the flow of blood from a wound, would suggest, on the contrary, the damnation of the soul to Hell, as blood trickled into the earth, or whatever, and effectively eclipsed, in the horror of its unfolding, the fate reserved for the spirit.  Hence although a violent death would still entail one's 'giving up the ghost', such an inevitable process would effectively be overshadowed by the seepage of blood from a wound, and accordingly it would be logically feasible to maintain that visible loss of blood would tip the balance of Judgement in favour of the damnation of the soul (blood) into Hell (the depths and, from a Christian standpoint, fiery core of the Earth).  Such, relatively, would be the contrasting fates to which a dying person could be regarded as being subject, though only of course from a narrowly Christian and, in some sense, factual point of view.  For damnation and salvation, as outlined by me in terms of ascents or descents (depending on the context) from sensuality to sensibility, are really very different from that, as is the concept of Eternity to which the mature part of my oeuvre, with its evolutionary perspectives, has long been partial.





1.   The concept of ghosts, or spiritual and/or soulful presences having human form, would be inconceivable without due reference to a tradition of religious belief rooted in the phenomenal, and embracing, besides anthropomorphism, both humanism and nonconformism.  Such a tradition, avowedly Christian, will tend to encourage a bodily projection of spirit and/or soul, in keeping with its phenomenal limitations.


2.   Hence the notion of ghosts is only credible, it seems to me, on the basis of an extrapolation of spirit and/or soul from the human form in its entirety.  For air, the substance of spirit, and blood, the substance of soul, share a common passage through the veins, and the veins encompass all parts of the body, including, of course, the head and nether limbs.


3.   Thus there could be no philosophical difficulty in extrapolating either bloody or airy presences, corresponding to the concept of ghosts, from the human form, and in endowing them with supernatural significance, the former effectively diabolical, the latter divine, which is a distinction, after all, between soul and spirit, Hell and Heaven.  Yet such presences are still tied, for all their ostensibly supernatural significance, to a phenomenal tradition, or one in which both the soul and the spirit are subordinated, in typically Christian fashion, to the mind and the id of nonconformist and humanist convention, being coloured and subverted thereby.





1.   Salvation from the World, which is a Christian (nonconformist) ideal, does not exclude salvation of the World, that heathen (humanist) ideal, which is as germane, by and large, to women as the above-mentioned ideal to men, who stand to gain more from mind sensibility in Christ than from phallus sensuality in the Antichrist.  Nevertheless, salvation of the World is just as legitimate a mode of deliverance from sin (sensuality) as salvation from the World, and is of course achieved on the basis of womb sensibility, as that which, in humanism, appertains to the Mother replaces that which, in materialism, appertains to the Antimother, and hence to tongue sensuality.


2.   However, neither salvation described above has any bearing on God or Heaven, since whereas the one is worldly, the other is purgatorial, and thus no more than a phenomenal solution to the problem (from a sensible standpoint) of phenomenal sensuality/sin.  In fact, such salvations are specifically for those who, as average men and women, are broadly masculine or feminine.  The salvation that leads to the Holy Spirit of Heaven, by contrast, requires a noumenal precondition in the submasculine, since it is only from aural sensuality in the Davidian beast, as it were, of the Antispirit ... that one can rise towards the respiratory sensibility of the lungs and thereby achieve true divinity in the supermasculine, abandoning naturalism for transcendentalism, which is beyond noumenal sin in the most perfect grace, the metanoumenal grace of the ultimate sensibility!


3.   Just as salvation from the World is for those who relate, through Antichrist, to the Antipurgatory, as it were, of the phallus, so the salvation described above is for those who relate, through the Antispirit, to Antiheaven, the negative Heaven of the aural beast.  It could similarly be defined as salvation from Hell, since, conceived as the context of emotional sensibility, Hell profits no less from the aural attentions of Antiheaven than the maternal virtue of the World from the phallic attentions of Antipurgatory, wherein the Antichrist is enthroned.  Thus no less than Christianity allows, through nonconformism, for a salvation from the World, so true religion allows, through transcendentalism, for a salvation from Hell, which, like the World, will otherwise continue to profit at Antiheaven's and, ultimately, Heaven's expense.  Rejecting the emotional blandishments of Hell, which often take a musical guise, can only be achieved if one is sincerely determined to be saved to Heaven, thereby rising from the ears to the lungs, from the Antispirit (the Clear Fire of Time) to the Holy Spirit of Heaven, wherein there is nothing but Eternal Peace.


4.   Conversely, Hell only thrives, as a rule, at Antiheaven's expense, since music, the cultural embodiment of soul, needs a willing pair of ears if it is to be appreciated, just as, lower down in the phenomenal realm of the World, female beauty needs a willing phallus to achieve maternal fulfilment.  Hence Antiheaven is no less crucial to Hell's salvation (from the optical sensuality of Antihell) than Antipurgatory ... to the World's salvation (from the tongue-based sensuality of the Antiworld).  The question for both Antiheaven and Antipurgatory, and by implication those who effectively function in terms of the Antispirit and the Antichrist (Antimind), is whether to remain of use to Hell and the World respectively or whether, on the contrary, to seek their own respective salvations in Heaven and Purgatory, thereby ceasing to be of use to that which is morally antithetical to both.





1.   As we have shown, one sensibility tends to prevail at the expense of another, whether with regard to the phenomenal/metaphenomenal (physical/metaphysical) planes or to the noumenal/metanoumenal (chemical/metachemical) ones.


2.   Thus the World only prevails at the expense of Purgatory, the Mother/womb at the expense of the Son/brain on the one hand, and likewise Hell ... at the expense of Heaven, the Devil/heart at the expense of God/the lungs on the other hand.  And so much is this the case that one may confidently maintain that the achievement, to any significant extent, of Purgatory or Heaven, knowledge or truth, is really the exception to the rule, a rule in which, due to their objective essences, both beauty and strength have the moral or, rather, amoral and immoral advantage respectively.  For whereas beauty is objectively amoral and strength objectively immoral, knowledge is subjectively amoral and truth subjectively moral, and neither form of subjectivity can expect to make much headway in a society and/or world which is more partial to objectivity on account of its cosmic sanction.


3.   In fact, so much is objectivity characteristic of the stellar roots of the Cosmos ... it is inconceivable that the subjective virtues could ever hope to prevail universally over the objective ones without some drastic technological action of the sort outlined by me in previous texts, which would in some degree shield the Earth from cosmic rays, while simultaneously encouraging a transmutation of mankind towards some post-human goal set in Space Centres.  For the way things stand, purgatorial nonconformism and heavenly transcendentalism can only remain in the shadow of worldly humanism and hellish fundamentalism respectively, even given the prospect of certain short-term changes.


4.   In the meantime, most men will continue to compromise, now as before, with the World and Hell, neither of which have a masculine essence and no real sympathy, in consequence, for subjective modes of salvation.  They may well achieve, despite this compromise, a degree of nonconformist or transcendentalist salvation, but not to the extent that they would be able and willing to sacrifice the World or Hell for it.  And, in that, they would be demonstrating that, for all their good intentions, they were still fundamentally creatures of either the Antipurgatory or the Antiheaven, for whom the pressures of the World and Hell were simply too much to ignore!





1.   Although I have spoken of salvation from the World and/or Hell, it should not be forgotten that salvation is primarily from sensuality to sensibility, as from Antipurgatory to Purgatory (Antichrist to Christ) or Antiheaven to Heaven (Antispirit to Holy Spirit), so that those other concepts of salvation should only be regarded as secondary to the primary ones, a sort of additional incentive, as it were, for abandoning subjective sensuality, insofar as the senses or, more correctly, outer senses of Antipurgatory, viz. the phallus, and of Antiheaven, viz. the ears, are preyed upon by the respective objective sensibilities of the World, viz. the womb, and of Hell, viz. the heart, to the detriment of Purgatory and Heaven.  For the more enslaved to objective sensibilities the subjective sensualities become, the harder it will be to break free of this enslavement and rise, on wings of salvation, towards the subjective sensibilities of Purgatory and Heaven.  By deferring to objective sensibility, a man deprives himself of subjective sensibility, and thus remains enslaved to sensuality.


2.   Of course, those who are of the World and Hell have good reason to do what they do vis-ŕ-vis both the Antipurgatorial and the Antiheavenly, insofar as their own salvation from the Antiworld and the Antihell depends, in no small degree, on there being an Antipurgatory and an Antiheaven to prey upon, without which no salvation to objective sensibility would be possible.  For the only way they can avoid being the victims of their own more pronounced objective sensualities is to exploit the opposite gender's subjective sensuality in the interests of objective sensibility.  To them, this is honourable, since it sustains their salvation.  But to those who are exploited in such fashion, namely men, it poses a problem, since their own need of salvation is thwarted in consequence, and if they are not to remain enslaved to sensuality, to their own outer senses, they must set about solving this problem as best they can, the only definitive solution being to reject the seductions of objective sensibility and seek refuge in either Purgatory or Heaven, which is to say, in Christ or God.  For only in subjective sensibility will they find an answer to the problem of being imposed upon by a contrary order of sensibility.


3.   It could be said that the salvation of Antichrists and Antispirits in Antipurgatory and Antiheaven respectively is not genuine and complete until they are beyond the seductions of the World and Hell, viz. Mothers and Fathers, and thus indifferent if not hostile to the thought of compromising with mothers (or ids) and fathers (or souls), something that could not be said to apply to those who, on the contrary, wish to have the 'best of both worlds' (an impossible wish!) and who are accordingly identifiable as Antichrists and Antispirits in Antipurgatory and Antiheaven respectively.  One does not become a Christ or a Holy Spirit (Buddha?) by continuing to entertain the objective sensibilities of the World and/or Hell!  On the contrary, one remains fundamentally an Antichrist or an Antispirit, and thus no better than those who profit from one's folly.  In fact, probably worse, insofar as they will be more given to objective sensibility than to objective sensuality, and thus able to regard themselves, no matter how paradoxically, as existing in a superior light, a light not incompatible with the notion of 'his better half'.





1.   Extroverts differ from introverts as sensuality from sensibility, or appearance from essence.  Since each category can be either objective or subjective, one has further to distinguish objective extroverts, who are more likely to be feminine, from their subjective counterparts, while likewise distinguishing subjective introverts, who are more likely to be masculine, from their objective counterparts.  On the supernatural planes of the metachemical and chemical sensualities, or outer senses, we shall find that objective extroverts are primarily of the eyes and subjective extroverts primarily of the ears, the former superfeminine and the latter submasculine, whilst on the natural planes of the metaphysical and physical sensualities, we shall find that objective extroverts are primarily of the tongue and subjective extroverts primarily of the phallus, the former negatively feminine and the latter negatively masculine.  Conversely, on the supernatural planes of the metachemical and chemical sensibilities, or inner senses, we shall find that subjective introverts are primarily of the lungs and objective introverts primarily of the heart, the former supermasculine and the latter subfeminine, whilst on the natural planes of the metaphysical and physical sensibilities, we shall find that subjective introverts are primarily of the brain and objective introverts primarily of the womb, the former positively masculine and the latter positively feminine.  Thus we are distinguishing, in each case, between four categories of extroverts and four categories of introverts, two of which exist on the supernatural planes and two on the natural planes ... in both objective and subjective modes.


2.   A person who is highly extrovert, whether objectively or subjectively, with regard to feminine or masculine gender, is unlikely to be or to become sensible, and for the very sound reason that she/he will be primarily a person of sensuality, with little aptitude, in consequence, for sensibility.  Conversely, a person who is highly introvert, whether subjectively or objectively, with regard to masculine or feminine gender, is unlikely to be or to become sensual, and for the very sound reason that he/she will be primarily a person of sensibility, with little time, in consequence, for sensuality.


3.   Whatever people may think, it is better to be a person of uncommon (exceptional) sensibility than one of so-called common sense, or unexceptional sensuality.  In fact, the more sensibility one has, on whatever plane, the less likely is it that one will be much given to sensuality.  Sensibility excludes sensuality, and vice versa, since those who make a habit of displaying so-called common sense will rarely if ever be able to lay claim to sensibility, which is alone virtuous.  By and large, the extrovert will be as indisposed to 'uncommon sensibility' as the introvert to 'common sense'.


4.   One can only regard that which, stemming from extroversion, is pertinent to 'common sense' as philistine, in contrast to the 'uncommon sensibility' which accrues to the introvert and sets him/her apart as a person of cultural discrimination.


5.   It is questionable whether a deeply 'commonsensical' or philistine person can be saved to what we have called uncommon sensibility, thereby undergoing a moral rebirth.  Certain extroverts are 'to the manner born', and no amount of preaching can prevail upon them to abandon sensuality for sensibility, outer sense, which is crude, for inner sense, which is refined.





1.   The distinction between extroversion and introversion is also, in some degree, a distinction between freedom and thraldom, or being free as opposed to being bound, i.e. committed to a centre.  For freedom and thraldom, as we are here attempting to define them, are akin to sensuality and sensibility, the former centrifugal and the latter centripetal, an alpha/omega distinction, in short, between appearances and essences, the 'once born' and the 'reborn'.  One is born free but privileged, as a human being, to cultivate a binding to some virtue, 'born under one law, (but) to another bound', as Aldous Huxley, quoting from Fulke Greville, was often keen to remind us.  Born heathen, but fated to be baptized, it may be, into Christ, and so on.  Hence freedom is, in its identification with the senses, with outer sense, something to be escaped from, to be saved from, since no more than a precondition of a sensible alternative.


2.   A so-called 'free society' is apt to stress sensuality at the expense of sensibility, and is thus the opposite of a sensible or bound society, in which the cultivation of sensibility, on whatever plane, will be given every encouragement.  In fact, the freer a society is the less sensibility there will be in it, with evil consequences for all concerned!  People will be reduced to extrinsic valuation, becoming no more than commodities to be bought and sold in the market place of commercial exploitation.  Human dignity can only suffer, as that which is best in people is snuffed out or spurned.  Only 'hollow men' can prevail in this Heathen/Superheathen society, the most 'hollow' rising to the top as 'stars', 'tycoons', 'heroes', 'rulers', and such like.  These leading 'free men' inevitably enslave the masses to their sensual will.  Becoming enthralled by their spectacular shows, the masses cultivate a secondary order of hollowness in the reflections of the prevailing freedoms to which they are exposed.  They do not escape the woes, humiliations, hatreds, and pains that are especially characteristic of the Free, but live them vacariously, in the shadow of the primary vacuums.  Nor, of course, are they immune to such scourges themselves, given the loss of self-respect which follows from a hollow premise.  Freedom has a price, and one pays for it with one's soul, spirit, mind, or id, as the case may be.  Ultimately, one pays for it with one's life!


3.   If freedom is evil, then thraldom, in the context of being bound to one or other of the sensibilities, is alone good, and we may hold that, whatever the virtuous form it takes, such thraldom is deliverance from freedom.  Whether, like freedom, one's thraldom is moral, amoral (objectively or subjectively), or immoral, it alone provides the solution to the problem of freedom.  One is not saved until one is in thrall (not to be confounded with enthralment, as to some sensational spectacle) to one's self, whether that self be natural or supernatural, which is to say, physical/metaphysical or chemical/metachemical.  Only in sensibility is there deliverance from the freedoms of outer sense, the freedoms with which we are born but from which, if wise, one can escape into the bindings of rebirth.  Only the Reborn are saved, though only the reborn to humanism (the womb), nonconformism (the brain), and transcendentalism (the lungs) can be saved eternally.  For Mass, Volume, and Space are potentially, if not currently, beyond the ravages of Time.





1.   Although women are capable of and, indeed, disposed to sensibility, viz. the heart and the womb in particular, it would seem to be a fact of life, confirmed by experience, that they retain a keen bias towards sensuality, particularly with regard to the eyes and the tongue, and appear, in consequence, to lack sensibility, or to have too much 'common sense'.  Certainly, it would seem that they have more sensuality and less sensibility, overall, than men ... when considered in general terms.  And the fundamental reason for this, it seems to me, is that the organs of outer sense to which they more naturally relate as women, viz. the eyes and the tongue, stand above the respective male, or subjective, senses, viz. the ears and the phallus, whereas the sensibilities to which men relate, viz. the lungs and the brain, stand above the respective female, or objective, sensibilities, viz. the womb and the heart.


2.   Hence women have an advantage over men in sensuality but are at a disadvantage to them in sensibility, where their sensibilities are lower than the corresponding (noumenal or phenomenal) male sensibilities.  In outer sense, women are accordingly able to dominate men from their higher sensuality, eyes over ears and tongue over phallus, and this is doubtless a more desirable situation, from their point of view, than the converse situation ... of not being able to dominate men because the latter have effectively turned away from women in their dedication to higher sensibilities, viz. lungs over heart and/or brain over womb, as the case may be.


3.   Thus women are obliged, by necessity, to play a double game: on the one hand, they need to achieve sensibility for romantic and maternal purposes, the former more usually a precondition of the latter, whilst, on the other hand, they cannot allow themselves to become too dedicated to sensibility at the risk of losing domination, through sensuality, over men.  Thus no sooner have they achieved sensibility than they are apt to return, like boomerangs, to sensuality, in order to dominate men from above, i.e. the superfeminine over the submasculine and/or the negative feminine over the negative masculine.


4.   It has to be admitted that the distinction between the supernatural and the natural planes, the former embracing metachemical and chemical alternatives, the latter embracing metaphysical and physical alternatives, is effectively one of upper- and lower-class divisions, with 'upper-class' people, in this more general sense, appertaining to supernatural sensuality and/or sensibility, but 'lower-class' people appertaining to natural sensuality and/or sensibility.


5.   Thus there are women, for instance, for whom emotional fulfilment of a romantic order is sufficient unto itself, without the need or even desire for maternal responsibility, while, conversely, more than a few mothers would not be able to say, with any great confidence, that they have personally experienced very much in the way of romantic passion, prior to becoming pregnant.  The former would effectively be upper-class women and the latter all-too-palpably lower class.  I say nothing of what could be described as a middle-class tendency to descend from romance to maternity, in due worldly fashion!


6.   One can see how easy it would be to extrapolate from the above supernatural/natural distinction the notion that Space and Time have an upper-class correlation, in contrast to the lower-class correlation accruing to Volume and Mass, both of which of course appertain to the natural, as defined in terms of metaphysical and physical alternatives.  Hence the 'upper-class' nature of God and the Devil, as opposed to the 'lower-class' nature of man and woman.  Or, in religious terms, the 'upper-class' nature of transcendentalism and fundamentalism, as opposed to the 'lower-class' nature of nonconformism and humanism.  Doubtless, Nietzsche would see in this upper/lower distinction a confirmation of his belief that Christianity is a lower-class religion, a religion not rising above woman (humanism) and man (nonconformism), or the Mother and Christ.  Certainly one has to remember that it also embraces the Father and the Holy Spirit, although, as I hope to have shown in both this and earlier texts, neither of these fringe 'Christian' deities has much to do with either fundamentalism per se or transcendentalism per se, since pertinent to quasi-fundamentalist and quasi-transcendentalist deities having reference to the cerebral/lunar sphere of the 'Three in One', a sphere dominated by Christ, and hence man.


7.   Thus Christianity doesn't really rise above Volume, and salvation to and by Christ is no better than to the brain, in what is effectively a nonconformist Heaven or, more correctly, Purgatory.  Christianity is most definitely, in its cerebral phenomenality, a 'lower-class' religion, and therefore not properly religious, or supernatural, at all, but all-too-natural, within strictly political (humanist) and economic (nonconformist) contexts.  A religion centred and/or rooted in Volume and Mass can only bog down in Volume and Mass, to the detriment of Time and Space.





1.   Since Time and Space are effectively behind/beyond the pale of Christianity, it follows that both the Devil and God (however one chooses to define them, i.e. whether with reference to sensuality or to sensibility) will also be such, since the Diabolic devolves on a space-time continuum, while the Divine evolves on a time-space continuum.  All that is really relevant to such a religion and, by implication, the civilization that upholds it ... are the fortunes of man and woman (in both sensuality and sensibility), which is why Christianity is a religion of the World and Purgatory - the former devolving in a volume-mass continuum, while the latter evolves in a mass-volume continuum.  Consequently God and the Devil, like Heaven and Hell, are extraneous to Christian life, only figuring tangentially in relation to the concept of Judgement in an afterlife, when some kind of association with the Divine and/or the Diabolic is posthumously anticipated.  But how inevitable such a situation is to a religion which, making deities out of man and woman, excludes God and the Devil from actively participating in life!  Alas, there is no room for Heaven or Hell in a society overly concerned with Purgatory and the World!


2.   If such can be said of the Christian West in those centuries when ecclesiastical concerns took precedence over secular ones, then the same can surely be said of it in more recent centuries, when, by contrast, secular concerns have taken precedence over ecclesiastical ones, and the State has accordingly dominated the Church.  In fact, so much has this become the case ... that, in the present century, one might be forgiven for having wondered whether the fact of God and the Devil being marginalized in, if not excluded from, Western society has any relevance to the contemporary world at all, insofar as Volume and Mass are manifestly to be thought of in connection with the State, where they take a democratic rather than a theocratic form.


3.   Thus whereas formerly one would have thought in terms of man and woman, as opposed to the Devil and God, one now has to think in terms of republicanism and parliamentarianism, as opposed to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, or, put more concretely, of senators and representatives as opposed to rulers and leaders, with the latter categories being no less behind/beyond the pale, for better or worse, of the democratic norms ... than God and the Devil in relation to the humanist Mother and the nonconformist Son of Christian tradition.


4.   Thus, once again, the supernatural forms of politics and economics are excluded from the Western norm, and only that which retains a natural basis in Volume and/or Mass is acceptable.  One can rise from socialism to capitalism or fall from parliamentarianism to republicanism in this physical/metaphysical civilization, but anything which rises from communism to pacifism or falls from fascism to militarism is undesirable, since manifestly un-Western in its time-space or space-time absolutism.  In fact, it can only have the whiff of a 'previous' life about it, the sort of life which is to democratic modernity what the 'Afterlife' was to theocratic antiquity, and thus no more than a peripheral consideration.  What matters for the future is surely not time-space or space-time politics and economics but...?  A Superchristian rebirth such that puts democracy on the rubbish heap of history and paves the way for the Eternal Life of 'Kingdom Come' in a triadic Beyond.  That, at any rate, would be my standpoint!





1.   To rise from the physics of socialism to the metaphysics of capitalism, as from people to profits, the phallus to the brain.  Conversely, to fall from the metaphysics of parliamentarianism to the physics of republicanism, as from debate to welfare, the tongue to the womb.


2.   To rise from the chemistry of communism to the metachemistry of pacifism, as from music to meditation, the ears to the lungs.  Conversely, to fall from the metachemistry of fascism to the chemistry of militarism, as from spectacle to imperialism, the eyes to the heart.


3.   As I believe I have already suggested, a 'rise' is equivalent to an evolutionary progression, whereas a 'fall' is equivalent to a devolutionary regression, the one effectively masculine and the other feminine.  For men are evolutionary, whereas women are devolutionary, the former evolving, in vegetation, from the sensuality of the phallus to the sensibility of the brain, as from Antichrist to Christ, while the latter devolve, in water, from the sensuality of the tongue to the sensibility of the womb, as from Antimother to Mother.


4.   Likewise, with gods and devils, or submen/supermen on the one hand, that of an evolutionary progression, and superwomen/subwomen on the other hand, that of a devolutionary regression.  Hence from the Antispirit to the Holy Spirit ... in the case of gods, but from the Antisoul to the Holy Soul in the case of devils, the former rising in air, as from ears to lungs, and the latter falling in fire, as from eyes to heart.


5.   Men and women are no more interchangeable or equal ... than gods and devils.  Indeed, equality between the sexes is an amoral rejection of morality and effective lie.  Women remain women and men remain men, never or rarely changing sides, so to speak, and becoming contrary to what they were by birth.  Women, who are rooted in the Devil, have no genuine concern for or resolve to become God.  Rather, they oppose the godly wherever they find it, from fear that their own power base in the Devil and worldly interests could be undermined.  Morality is a male responsibility, though particularly in the supernatural contexts of the submasculine (where it has reference to aural sensuality) and of the supermasculine (where it has reference to spiritual sensibility).  A natural society, on the other hand, will be amoral, since it is based in the phenomenal, and phenomenality (as I prefer to call that which pertains to phenomena as distinct from the sense-based empirical philosophy of phenomenalism) is amoral whether having applicability to the physical or to the metaphysical, to the Antichrist/Mother or to the Antimother/Christ, where vegetation and water are the prevailing elements.


6.   Hence Christianity has always been fundamentally amoral, with both men and women having simultaneous access, on an equalitarian basis, to the same church, or religious dwelling.  Judaism, by contrast, has demonstrated a moral resolve, with strict segregation of the sexes, as befitting a context based in moral sense, and thus in the subjectivity of the submasculine taking precedence over the objectivity of the superfeminine, which is relegated, in the form of Jewish women, to the periphery of the religious dwelling, viz. synagogue.  For, unlike Hinduism, Judaism signifies the triumph of subjectivity over objectivity, of Jehovah or, if you prefer, Satan ... over the Clear Light of the Void, and it would be unacceptable for women to exist on an equal footing with men in such a religion, long the repository of moral sense.  Where the submasculine takes precedence over the superfeminine, then equality between immoral sensuality and moral sensuality, the eyes and the ears, would be both illogical and morally untenable.  Only Christians, who uphold a balance between masculine and feminine, could condone a situation in which men and women existed on an equal footing in what is patently an amoral context of humanist and/or nonconformist phenomenality.  For them, the submasculine and the superfeminine of divine and diabolic sensualities within the naturalist and idealist contexts behind ... are no less alien to their phenomenal dispositions than would be the subfeminine and the supermasculine of diabolic and divine sensibilities within the fundamentalist and transcendentalist contexts beyond.


7.   In fact, just as Hinduism and Judaism would seem to signify diabolic and divine contexts behind, or anterior to, the Christian religion, so Mohammedanism and Taoism (or non-Aryan Buddhism) signify diabolic and divine contexts beyond, or posterior to, Christianity, the former pair no less rooted in supernatural sensuality (of the eyes and ears respectively) than the latter pair are centred in supernatural sensibility (of the heart and lungs respectively).  Christianity, by contrast, remains centred in the natural sensibilities of the womb (humanism) and the brain (nonconformism), the former of the World (Mother) and the latter of Purgatory (Christ), with but a peripheral or tangential acknowledgement, necessarily constrained by phenomenal criteria, of the Father and the Holy Ghost, the one closer to (though not identical with) fundamentalist sensibility, the other closer to (though not identical with) transcendentalist sensibility.


8.   There is a sense in which the relation of the Father to Christ in the New Testament of Christian allegiance mirrors the relation of Jehovah to Satan in the Old Testament of Judaic allegiance.  For the figures of Christ and Satan issue from their respective progenitors as sons from fathers, the 'Son of God' from the Father, Satan from Jehovah.  And, in each case, the 'Son' is a revolt against his 'progenitor' and promise of a new beginning, a fresh resolve!





1.   Whereas Satan signifies a major submasculine revolt against if not a strictly superfeminine 'progenitor' then, at any rate, a quasi-superfeminine one, Christ signifies a masculine revolt against a minor submasculine 'progenitor', the Father standing to Christ as the emotional brain to the intellectual one, and therefore as a sort of sub-purgatorial deity to a purgatorial deity who happens to be the cynosure of Christian cerebration.  In this respect, the Father is at an antithetical remove from the Holy Ghost, whose spiritual standing with regard to the brain warrants identification with the concept of a super-purgatorial deity, the 'Third Person' of the 'Holy Trinity' of cerebral and/or lunar deities within the broadly nonconformist framework of Christian phenomenality.


2.   Were Jehovah literally to be regarded as 'Creator of the Universe', as the Bible would have us believe, He would have to be identified with the metachemical/metanoumenal objectivity of superfeminine gender, and thus be accorded parity with the Clear Light of the Void (Space), after the manner of Hindu precedence.  Few people, least of all Jewish, would wish to regard Him in that light, and I, for one, would have difficulty squaring the Biblical account of Him with anything superfeminine, even if certain of His acts and attitudes, stemming from jealousy and vengefulness, were less than credibly submasculine, as germane to His Satanic offspring!  Yet the notion of a 'Creator of the Universe' does in fact correlate with something that is not only anterior to the solar plane, but effectively stellar or cosmic, and thus very much germane to the superfeminine.  Therefore we either have to dismiss such a concept in connection with God, or the notion thereof, as absurd, or resort to regarding Jehovah as One with the Clear Light of the Void, and hence superfeminine primacy.  But, as the reader may have gathered by now, superfeminine primacy and the Devil or, at any rate, the Devil of sensuality (Antidevil) are really one and the same thing!


3.   Thus if Jehovah is really equivalent to the Clear Light ... He is the Devil, and what 'fell' from Him or His 'Heaven', being submasculine in its aural subjectivity, was a sort of subgod, the Satanic beast of solar flame.  Therefore it is Jehovah who is if not literally the Devil (of superfeminine primacy) then at least the nearest thing to Her within the Judaic framework, a sort of twisted Devil who, in His non-Aryan and Hebraic origins, is a bit closer to the godly, viz. the Satanic beast of submasculine revolt against superfeminine primacy.  Suffice it to say that Satan is as preferable to Jehovah, or the Judaic 'Clear Light' ... as David to Saul and/or Moses, the shepherd boy to the jealous king and/or Egyptian prince.  For the submasculine revolt is a precondition of supermasculine redemption, or the abandonment of the beast for what is truly godly, viz. the supreme beingfulness of the Holy Spirit of Heaven.  The superman arises from out the subhuman, and from nowhere else!





1.   Because the 'Holy Trinity' is broadly purgatorial, with a purgatorial cynosure in Christ which is flanked by the sub-purgatory of the Father and the super-purgatory of the Holy Ghost, it is nnonconformist in three different ways, viz. the emotional nonconformism of the Father, the intellectual nonconformism of the Son, and the spiritual nonconformism of the Holy Ghost.  In denominational terms, this would suggest a distinction between Presbyterianism, Puritanism, and Roman Catholicism, since all three denominations are different forms of nonconformism, the first two relevant to the Father and the Son, the third relevant to the Holy Ghost.


2.   Hence the sub-purgatorial bias towards poetic emotion of Presbyterianism and the purgatorial bias towards epistolary intellectuality of Puritanism would contrast, as Protestant forms of nonconformism, with the super-purgatorial bias towards philosophic spirituality (prayer) of Roman Catholicism, and all within the cerebral parameters of Christianity.  However, down below, in the realms of Protestant and Catholic humanism, we would find the World, and the World (of 'Christian' humanism) would be divisible between the humanism of the Mother and the humanism of the Blessed Virgin, the former effectively Anglican and the latter Eastern Orthodox, each of which would be sensual or, rather, instinctual with a dramatic bias.  For the Mother is of course instinctual (in sensibility) whereas the Trinity is emotional/intellectual/spiritual, after the manner of its cerebral essence, an essence no less masculine than (the essence of) the womb is feminine.


3.   Hence nonconformism, whether Protestant or Catholic, is that which, appertaining to the brain, is closer to the masculine than to the feminine, whereas humanism, whether Protestant of Catholic, is that which, appertaining to the womb, is closer to the feminine than to the masculine.  Nonconformism is a revolt against humanism, and Nonconformists are more purgatorial, and hence Christian, than worldly, or Marian.  The first revolt, or schism, was between Romanism and Orthodoxy (or what became known as such), and led to the hegemony of the Holy Ghost over the Blessed Virgin.  The second revolt, or schism (third if we include the Reformation), was between Puritanism/Presbyterianism and Anglicanism, and led to the hegemony of the Son/Father over the Mother.  The World always precedes Purgatory, but then nonconformism rises up against humanism, and the Son (or the Father/Holy Spirit) lays claim to an independence of the Mother/Virgin, as the brain triumphs over the womb.  Nonconformists are saved from the World, whereas Humanists are saved to the World.  For the World is just as entitled to its feminine salvation (in maternal sensibility) as Purgatory to its masculine one (in cerebral sensibility).


4.   The nonconformism of Protestantism stands to Catholic nonconformism pretty much as Rugby League/Union to Hurling, whereas the humanism of Protestantism stands to Catholic humanism pretty much as Association Football to Gaelic Football (and/or some Eastern-European equivalent).





1.   Some pages ago I described the Father as quasi-fundamentalist and the Holy Ghost, by contrast, as quasi-transcendentalist vis-ŕ-vis genuine fundamentalism and transcendentalism (as, for example, of Allah and the Holy Spirit of Heaven), and I thought I was being pretty accurate.  But it has since occurred to me that I would have been still more accurate to describe the Father and the Holy Ghost as pseudo-fundamentalist and pseudo-transcendentalist respectively, bearing in mind their relevance to the cerebral sphere of purgatorial nonconformism.  For the emotional brain is no closer to the genuine fundamentalism of the heart than ... the spiritual brain to the genuine transcendentalism of the lungs.  Appertaining to the overall cerebral sphere of the brain, the trinitarian 'Three in One’ has reference to a Dissenter/Puritan/Roman-Catholic spectrum which is a nonconformist end-in-itself rather than a means to a higher end like, for instance, transcendentalism.  One gets to this end-in-itself from the starting-point or base of the phallus, conceived as the Antichristic precondition of, in particular, cerebral redemption in Christ.


2.   Hence the diagonal axis of 'rising vegetation', as I have described the evolutionary rise from phallus to brain, is based in realism and culminates in nonconformism, whether in relation to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost.  Based in fleshy sin and culminating in cerebral grace, the grace of the word 'made flesh' with regard to emotional, intellectual, and spiritual options ... roughly corresponding to reading, writing, and praying.  Now it can be said of the base of this diagonal axis, this mass-volume continuum, that it may sometimes involve a quasi-nonconformist tendency, just as its apex may occasionally take on a quasi-realist guise, as, for instance, with reference to the word being 'made flesh'.  That is where and how notions of 'quasiness' can be entertained and ascribed.  In other words, with reference to opposites within the same axis and/or continuum.


3.   Yet no such ascription can reasonably be applied to something in relation to one or other components of a different axis, say Dissenter nonconformism being described as quasi-fundamentalist in relation to Islamic fundamentalism.  For this latter appertains to the axis of 'falling fire', the space-time continuum, wherein notions of 'quasiness' should be confined.  Compared to what is fundamentalist, the Dissenter nonconformism of the Father is pseudo-fundamentalist, since fundamentalism is not only not of the brain, whether emotionally or otherwise, it is subfeminine rather than submasculine, the subfemininity of diabolic sensibility as opposed to the submasculinity of purgatorial sensibility in its emotional mode.  Likewise, the Catholic nonconformism of the Holy Spirit is pseudo-transcendentalist, since transcendentalism is not of the brain, even in its spiritual, or conscious, mode, but of the lungs, and such a status is rather more supermasculine, or (meta)noumenally subjective, than masculine or, at best, pseudo-supermasculine with regard to the spiritual aspect of the brain (the Holy Ghost).


4.   Hence if Christianity at its worst is no more than pseudo-fundamentalist, at its best it is no more than pseudo-transcendentalist, the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic extremes of the Trinity still pertaining, together with the Puritan middle-ground, to nonconformism.





1.   Nonconformism is always vis-ŕ-vis humanism, Purgatory vis-ŕ-vis the World, not vis-ŕ-vis fundamentalism or transcendentalism, Hell or Heaven.


2.   Idealism is, in some respects, no less quasi-fundamentalist than fundamentalism quasi-idealist, since idealism and fundamentalism appertain to the same diagonal axis in 'falling fire', and it is thus possible for the one mode of doing to intimate of the other in superfeminine/subfeminine terms.


3.   Naturalism is, in some respects, no less quasi-transcendentalist than transcendentalism quasi-naturalist, since naturalism and transcendentalism appertain to the same diagonal axis in 'rising air', and it is thus possible for the one mode of being to intimate of the other in submasculine/supermasculine terms.


4.   Materialism is, in some respects, no less quasi-humanist than humanism quasi-materialist, since materialism and humanism share the same diagonal axis in 'falling water', and it is thus possible for the one mode of giving to intimate of the other in a negative/positive feminine manner.


5.   Realism is, in some respects, no less quasi-nonconformist than nonconformism quasi-realist, since realism and nonconformism share the same diagonal axis in 'rising vegetation', and it is thus possible for the one mode of taking to intimate of the other in a negative/positive masculine manner.


6.   The Devil intimates of the warrior, and vice versa, in the 'quasiness' of the space-time continuum.


7.   The beast intimates of God, and vice versa, in the 'quasiness' of the time-space continuum.


8.   The slut intimates of the angel (mother), and vice versa, in the 'quasiness' of the volume-mass continuum.


9.   The sinner intimates of the saint, and vice versa, in the 'quasiness' of the mass-volume continuum.


10.  At its best, idealism is quasi-fundamentalist, in contrast to fundamentalism being quasi-idealist at its worst.


11.  At its best, naturalism is quasi-transcendentalist, in contrast to transcendentalism being quasi-naturalist at its worst.


12.  At its best, materialism is quasi-humanist, in contrast to humanism being quasi-materialist at its worst.


13.  At its best, realism is quasi-nonconformist, in contrast to nonconformism being quasi-realist at its worst.


14.  The quasi-fundamentalism, quasi-transcendentalism, quasi-humanism, and quasi-nonconformism of (respectively) idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism ... still falls short of genuine sensibility, and  hence of salvation from evil to good.  Conversely, the quasi-idealism, quasi-naturalism, quasi-materialism, and quasi-realism of (respectively) fundamentalism, transcendenta-lism, humanism, and nonconformism ... still falls short of sensual falsehood, and hence of damnation from good to evil.


15.  It could be argued that Jehovah is, in some degree, the quasi-transcendentalist aspect of Judaic naturalism, rooted in Satan, but even if He were such, He would still fall short of genuine transcendentalism in the sensibility of supreme being, viz. the Holy Spirit of Heaven.  However, much as the meditative aspect of Judaism lends itself to a quasi-transcendentalist interpretation within the overall confines of Judaic naturalism, the concept of Jehovah is still tied to the Biblical notion of 'Creator of the Universe', and thus fails to tally with anything quasi-transcendentalist.  On the contrary, such a notion is effectively idealist, having more to do with primal doing than with any mode of being, whether primal or supreme.  And idealism, as we have seen, owes more to the Devil ... of Clear-Light primacy ... than ever it does to the 'God' of Clear-Fire primacy, viz. the Satanic beast, whose solar correlation excludes a stellar dimension.


16.  To fall from the stellar plane of Clear-Light primacy to the solar plane of Clear-Fire primacy, as from superfeminine to submasculine, the Devil (Jehovah) to God (Satan), is to revolt against the metachemical objectivity of spatial Space from the standpoint of the chemical subjectivity of sequential Time.  It is to begin a process destined to be repeated on a number of succeeding levels, including the rise, in both Catholic and Protestant contexts, of nonconformism at humanism's expense, a process in which the subjective achieves independence of an objective precondition, to the greater glory of masculine/godly progress.





1.   To contrast the meditation of God, in both sensuality and sensibility, with the contemplation of the Devil.  For contemplation is too often confounded with or substituted for meditation when, in point of fact, the one has relevance to subjective values and the other to objective values.  Hence one can no more meditate objectively than contemplate subjectively.  Whether one's meditation be divergent or convergent, of sensuality or sensibility with regard to the ears or to the lungs respectively, it will contrast absolutely with that which, involving either the eyes or the heart, appertains to contemplation.


2.   Thus we should distinguish not only between divergent and convergent forms of meditation, the former naturalist and the latter transcendentalist, but also between divergent and convergent forms of contemplation, the former idealist and the latter fundamentalist.  In the one case, that of meditation, we are dealing with a distinction between an aural and a spiritual relationship to air, whereas in the other case, that of contemplation, we have a distinction between an optical and an emotional relationship to fire.  The person who meditates divergently does so in relation to his ears, in contrast to the convergent meditation of the person for whom the lungs are paramount.  Similarly, the person who contemplates divergently does so in relation to his eyes, in contrast to the convergent contemplation of the person for whom the heart is paramount.  The divergent meditator will be listening to music, maybe even to a concert performance by a convergent contemplator, or someone who is feeling his way, via emotional sensibility, through his music, whether instrumentally or vocally or, indeed, a combination of both.  Conversely, the convergent meditator will be focused on his breathing, whereas the divergent contemplator will be staring, in Zen-like vacuity, at a fixed point in front of his gaze.  Salvation for the godly individual will be from the divergent form of meditation to its convergent antithesis, as from naturalism to transcendentalism.  Salvation for the devilish individual, on the other hand, will be from the divergent form of contemplation to its convergent antithesis, as from idealism to fundamentalism.  The former is effectively to rise from submasculine sensuality to supermasculine sensibility.  The latter is effectively to fall from superfeminine sensuality to subfeminine sensibility.  To rise from chemical subjectivity to metachemical subjectivity, but to fall from metachemical objectivity to chemical objectivity.  To rise from the ears to the lungs.  To fall from the eyes to the heart.  Meditation is the cultural technique of God (whether outwardly in sensuality or inwardly in sensibility), whereas contemplation is the barbarous technique of the Devil (whether outwardly in sensuality or inwardly in sensibility).  The one leads to Heaven, the other to Hell.


3.   Besides the more obvious forms of contemplation and meditation, as germane to the aforementioned distinctions between idealism/fundamentalism and naturalism/ transcendentalism, there are intermediate forms whose standing is 'quasi', which is to say, quasi-fundamentalist and/or idealist with regard to contemplation, and quasi-transcendentalist and/or naturalist with regard to meditation.  Both Hinduism and Judaism, although respectively rooted in idealism and naturalism, contain quasi-fundamentalist and quasi-transcendentalist forms of contemplation and meditation, the former intimating of the heart and the latter of the lungs, whereas both Mohammedanism and Buddhism, although respectively centred in fundamentalism and transcendentalism, contain quasi-idealist and quasi-naturalist forms of contemplation and meditation, the former intimating of the eyes, the latter of the ears.  (I shall not burden anyone with additional explanatory material on this paradoxical subject!)





1.   Now follows a theory, necessarily general, correlating the most popular electronic media with a given elemental axis: the space-time continuum, in falling fire, of television to video-players/recorders, the former effectively idealist and the latter quasi-fundamentalist; the time-space continuum, in rising air, of radio to audio-players/recorders, the former effectively naturalist and the latter quasi-transcendentalist; the volume-mass continuum, in falling water, of personal computer wordprocessors (PCWs) to personal computers (with or without CD-ROM), the former effectively materialist and the latter quasi-humanist; the mass-volume continuum, in rising vegetation, of record-players to compact disc-players, the former realist and the latter quasi-nonconformist.


2.   Thus to descend, in falling fire, from television (TV) to video, as from the eyes to (relatively speaking) the heart, but to ascend, in rising air, from radio to audio, as from the ears to (relatively speaking) the lungs.  Likewise to descend, in falling water, from personal computer wordprocessors (PCWs) to personal computers (PCs), as from the tongue to (relatively speaking) the womb, but to ascend, in rising vegetation, from long players (LPs) to compact discs (CDs), as from the phallus to (relatively speaking) the brain.


3.   All such descents/ascents can thus be regarded as constituting a kind of progression from sensuality to sensibility or, at any rate, to something which, though rooted in outer sense, is closer to sensibility, given the factors of interiorization which characterize video-players, audio-players, personal computers, and compact disc-players in relation to their respective software.


4.   Hence to contrast the hellish standings of televisions/videos on the space-time axis of falling fire with the heavenly standings of radios/audios on the time-space axis of rising air, the former axis having particular reference to the eyes and the latter to the ears.


5.   Hence to contrast the worldly standings of personal computer wordprocessors/personal computers on the volume-mass axis of falling water with the purgatorial standings of record-players/compact disc-players on the mass-volume axis of rising vegetation.  Whereas  televisions/videos and radios/audios have reference to the diabolic and to the divine respectively, personal computer wordprocessors/personal computers and long players/compact discs have reference to the feminine and to the masculine respectively.





1.   To be saved to the quasi-fundamentalism of video cassettes from the idealism of television, thereby passing from Space to Time.


2.   To be saved to the quasi-transcendentalism of audio cassettes from the naturalism of radio, thereby passing from Time to Space.


3.   To be saved to the quasi-humanism of personal computers from the materialism of personal computer wordprocessors, thereby passing from Volume to Mass.


4.   To be saved to the quasi-nonconformism of compact discs from the realism of long players, thereby passing from Mass to Volume.


5.   A midi system comprised of radio, cassette deck(s), record turntable, and compact-disc drive is superior to a record-player and/or compact disc-player, but inferior to a radio and/or cassette-player/recorder, for the simple reason that it is a combination of both phenomenal (turntable, CD drive), and noumenal (radio, cassette deck) planes rather than either phenomenal or noumenal, the former being 'lower' than it and the latter 'higher', i.e. appertaining to the divine planes of Time-Space.  A midi, by contrast, will usually combine Time-Space with Mass-Volume, thereby compromising between divine and masculine parallels ... as the 'rising vegetation' of long players/compact discs takes its place beside ('beneath' would be a more philosophically correct description in relation to the phenomenal planes in question) the 'rising air' of radio/cassettes.


6.   Similarly, a multimedia computer system comprised of compact-disc drive, hard disc, compact disc, and video and/or television card is superior to a conventional personal computer and/or wordprocessor, but inferior to a television and/or video-player/recorder, for the simple reason that it is a combination of both phenomenal (PC, PCW) and noumenal (TV, video) planes rather than either phenomenal or noumenal, the former being 'lower' than it and the latter 'higher', i.e. appertaining to the diabolic planes of Space-Time.  A multimedia system, by contrast, will usually combine Space-Time with Volume-Mass, thereby compromising between diabolic and feminine parallels ... as the 'falling water' of compact floppies/hard disc takes its place beside (once again 'beneath' would be philosophically more correct) the 'falling fire' of television/video.


7.   The inclusion of CD-ROM in multimedia PCs (which is, after all, the component that confers a multimedia status in the first place) does not change the gender of computers.  On the contrary, such computers are akin to clever or brainy women whose status remains fundamentally humanist even with a nonconformist dimension.  For the hard disc is to computers what pregnancy is to women - their guarantor of humanist salvation from the vanity/vacuity of materialism.  Yet just as expectant mothers still have a tongue, so hard-disc computers still retain a compact-floppy drive, after the fashion of PCWs.  Such a drive, or rather the use of compact floppy in relation to it, gives to PCs/PCWs a tongue-like aspect which is more conspicuous at those times when a disc is being retrieved than inserted, since retrieval takes the form of a partial ejection of the compact floppy in response to manual depression of the drive's button.  Such an ejection more than superficially parallels the protrusion of a tongue!


8.   Yet computers are not only feminine with regard to the tongue-like factor of compact-floppy ejection or, indeed, with regard to the womb-like fecundity of inclusive hard disc.  The notion of 'falling water' is even more prominent in the relaying of words through reformatted margins, where the suggestion of a basin-like context in which water is finding its own level is hardly fanciful, in view of the alacrity with which words go about accommodating themselves to the new margins, like water in a well.  Verily, there is more femininity to computing than first meets the eye, even though a majority of computer users tend to be women, seemingly with good reason!


9.   It could be argued that whilst a radiocassette-player/recorder is preferable to a radio ... to the extent that it signifies a step towards sensibility, a cassette-recorder and/or personal cassette-player is preferable to the latter, and for a similar reason, viz. that it signifies a further step (away from sensuality) towards sensibility.  Hence to ascend, in rising air, from radio to cassette-player via radiocassette-player, as from sequential Time to spaced Space.


10.  Likewise to descend, in falling fire, from television to video-recorder via televideo, the latter a stage in between the spatial alpha of television and the repetitive omega or, at any rate, quasi-omega of video.


11.  Likewise to ascend, in rising vegetation, from record-player to compact disc-player via those midi systems which play host to both conventional turntable and compact-disc drive, thereby standing in between the massive alpha of record-players and the voluminous ... quasi-omega of compact disc-players.


12.  Likewise to descend, in falling water, from personal computer wordprocessor to personal computer via multimedia, the latter standing in between the volumetric alpha of PCWs and the massed ... quasi-omega of PCs, and pretty much as midi systems in between record-players and compact disc-players.


13.  Hence there is a sense in which, just as personal cassette-players would be preferable to radiocassette-players from a purist's standpoint, so video-players would likewise be preferable to televideos, compact disc-players preferable to midis, and personal computers preferable to multimedia computers - though only in terms of their closer proximity to the respective modes of sensibility which properly accrue to the omega of each plane.





1.   Consciousness stands to the unconscious as masculine to feminine, which is to say, as a subjective mind to an objective mind, the former reflective and the latter ... deflective.  Such is also the case in the supernatural realms of conscious and unconscious mind, except that instead of mind in relation to Volume and Mass, we shall have mind in relation to Space and Time.


2.   To descend, in falling fire, from the super-unconscious to the sub-unconscious, as from spatial mind to repetitive mind, the former metachemical and the latter chemical.


3.   To ascend, in rising air, from the subconscious to the superconscious, as from sequential mind to spaced mind, the former chemical and the latter metachemical.


4.   To descend, in falling water, from the outer unconscious to the inner unconscious, as from volumetric mind to massed mind, the former metaphysical and the latter physical.


5.   To ascend, in rising vegetation, from the outer conscious to the inner conscious, as from massive mind to voluminous mind, the former physical and the latter metaphysical.


6.   Hence to descend, in devility, from the super-unconscious to the sub-unconscious, as from barbarous Space to barbarous Time, the former superfeminine and the latter subfeminine.


7.   Hence to ascend, in divinity, from the subconscious to the superconscious, as from cultural Time to cultural Space, the former submasculine and the latter supermasculine.


8.   Hence to descend, in femininity, from the outer unconscious to the inner unconscious, as from civilized Volume to civilized Mass, the former anti-feminine and the latter pro-feminine.


9.   Hence to ascend, in masculinity, from the outer conscious to the inner conscious, as from natural Mass to natural Volume, the former anti-masculine and the latter pro-masculine.


10.  Being subjective, consciousness is evolutionary, whereas unconsciousness, being objective, is devolutionary.  Consciousness 'rises', as we have seen, from sensuality to sensibility, whereas unconsciousness 'falls' ... from sensuality to sensibility.


11.  The outer forms of consciousness and unconsciousness, being sensual, are sinful, whereas the inner forms of consciousness and unconsciousness, being sensible, are graceful.  Salvation is of course to rise or to fall, depending on the (gender-determined) context, from sin to grace, the grace of a sensible resolution to a sensual precondition.


12.  To fall, in the space-time continuum, from super-unconscious sin to sub-unconscious grace, thereby achieving the salvation of the soul.


13.  To rise, in the time-space continuum, from subconscious sin to superconscious grace, thereby achieving the salvation of the spirit.


14.  To fall, in the volume-mass continuum, from unconscious sin to unconscious grace, thereby achieving the salvation of the id.


15.  To rise, in the mass-volume continuum, from conscious sin to conscious grace, thereby achieving the salvation of the mind.


16.  The soul is saved by the inner Devil to a sensible Hell.


17.  The spirit is saved by the inner God to a sensible Heaven.


18.  The id is saved by the inner Woman to a sensible World.


19.  The mind is saved by the inner Man to a sensible Purgatory.


20.  Hence the salvation of the soul by the Father to barbarous Time.


21.  Hence the salvation of the spirit by the Holy Spirit (of Heaven) to cultural Space.


22.  Hence the salvation of the id by the Mother to civilized Mass.


23.  Hence the salvation of the mind by the Son (Christ) to natural Volume.


24.  The soul ranges from the super-unconscious to the sub-unconscious, as from the eyes to the heart.


25.  The spirit ranges from the subconscious to the superconscious, as from the ears to the lungs.


26.  The id ranges from the outer unconscious to the inner unconscious, as from the tongue to the womb.


27.  The mind ranges from the outer conscious to the inner conscious, as from the phallus to the brain.





1.   To fall from the photons of the super-unconscious to the photinos of the sub-unconscious, as from the sensual soul (anti-soul) to the sensible soul (pro-soul).


2.   To rise from the protons of the subconscious to the protinos of the superconscious, as from the sensual spirit (anti-spirit) to the sensible spirit (pro-spirit).


3.   To fall from the electrons of the outer unconscious to the electrinos of the inner unconscious, as from the sensual id (anti-id) to the sensible id (pro-id).


4.   To rise from the neutrons of the outer conscious to the neutrinos of the inner conscious, as from the sensual mind (anti-mind) to the sensible mind (pro-mind).


5.   The Devil of sensuality differs from the Hell of sensuality as molecular photons from elemental photons, since appertaining to the divergence of objective power in backbrain Space from objective glory in super-unconscious Space.  Conversely, the Devil of sensibility differs from the Hell of sensibility as molecular photinos from elemental photinos, since appertaining to the convergence of objective power in forebrain Time towards objective glory in sub-unconscious Time.


6.   The God of sensuality differs from the Heaven of sensuality as molecular protons from elemental protons, since appertaining to the divergence of subjective power in backbrain Time from subjective glory in subconscious Time.  Conversely, the God of sensibility differs from the Heaven of sensibility as molecular protinos from elemental protinos, since appertaining to the convergence of subjective power in forebrain Space towards subjective glory in superconscious Space.


7.   The Woman of sensuality differs from the World of sensuality as molecular electrons from elemental electrons, since appertaining to the divergence of objective power in right-midbrain Volume from objective glory in unconscious Volume.  Conversely, the Woman of sensibility differs from the World of sensibility as molecular electrinos from elemental electrinos, since appertaining to the convergence of objective power in right-midbrain Mass towards objective glory in unconscious Mass.


8.   The Man of sensuality differs from the Purgatory of sensuality as molecular neutrons from elemental neutrons, since appertaining to the divergence of subjective power in left-midbrain Mass from subjective glory in conscious Mass.  Conversely, the Man of sensibility differs from the Purgatory of sensibility as molecular neutrinos from elemental neutrinos, since appertaining to the convergence of subjective power in left-midbrain Volume towards subjective glory in conscious Volume.


9.   Soul power succeeds soul glory in sensuality, whereas soul power precedes soul glory in sensibility, so that Hell has both a beginning and an ending, the beginning in woe and the ending in pride, with the devils of illusion and strength respectively diverging and converging in between.


10.  Likewise spirit power succeeds spirit glory in sensuality, whereas spirit power precedes spirit glory in sensibility, so that Heaven has both a beginning and an ending, the beginning in humility and the ending in joy, with the gods of weakness and truth respectively diverging and converging in between.


11.  Similarly, id power succeeds id glory in sensuality, whereas id power precedes id glory in sensibility, so that the World has both a beginning and an ending, the beginning in hate and the ending in pleasure, with the Women of ignorance and beauty respectively diverging and converging in between.


12.  Finally, mind power succeeds mind glory in sensuality, whereas mind power precedes mind glory in sensibility, so that Purgatory has both a beginning and an ending, the beginning in pain and the ending in love, with the Men of ugliness and knowledge respectively diverging and converging in between.





1.   To diverge as illusion through backbrain Space from the woe of super-unconscious Space, but to converge as strength through forebrain Time towards the pride of sub-unconscious Time.


2.   To diverge as weakness through backbrain Time from the humility of subconscious Time, but to converge as truth through forebrain Space towards the joy of superconscious Space.


3.   To diverge as ignorance through right-midbrain Volume from the hate of unconscious Volume, but to converge as beauty through right-midbrain Mass towards the pleasure of unconscious Mass.


4.   To diverge as ugliness through left-midbrain Mass from the pain of conscious Mass, but to converge as knowledge through left-midbrain Volume towards the love of conscious Volume.


5.   Whether things diverge, in sensuality, objectively or subjectively ... will depend on the charge of the element involved, which has to do with its effective 'gender'.  Thus as photons are negative (in relation to the superfeminine) and protons ... positive (in relation to the submasculine), it follows that divergence from the glory of elemental photons via the power of molecular photons will be objective, whereas divergence from the glory of elemental protons via the power of molecular protons will be subjective.


6.   Likewise, as electrons are negative (in relation to the outer feminine) and neutrons if not positive then, at any rate, neutral (in relation to the outer masculine), it follows that divergence from the glory of elemental electrons via the power of molecular electrons will be objective, whereas divergence from the glory of elemental neutrons via the power of molecular neutrons will be subjective or, at any rate, subjective with a neutral qualification ('subjective'?).


7.   Conversely, whether things converge, in sensibility, objectively or subjectively ... will depend on the charge of the elementino involved, which has to do with its effective 'gender'.  Thus as photinos are negative (in relation to the subfeminine) and protinos ... positive (in relation to the supermasculine), it follows that convergence towards the glory of elemental photinos via the power of molecular photinos will be objective, whereas convergence towards the glory of elemental protinos via the power of molecular protinos will be subjective.


8.   Likewise, as electrinos are negative (in relation to the inner feminine) and neutrinos ... positive (in relation to the inner masculine), it follows that convergence towards the glory of elemental electrinos via the power of molecular electrinos will be objective, whereas convergence towards the glory of elemental neutrinos via the power of molecular neutrinos will be 'subjective'.


9.   It seems to me that the gender distinction we have contended to exist between women as double negative in photons/photinos and electrons/electrinos, roughly corresponding to fire and to water, and men as double positive (or, at any rate, neutral + positive) in neutrons/neutrinos and protons/protinos, roughly corresponding to earth (vegetation) and to air, ties-up with the well-known genetic distinction between the sexes, with women being ascribed double X chromosomes and men an X-Y chromosomal bias, the former blowing hot and cold in fire and water, but the latter turning heavy and light by turns in earth and air.  Hence the photon/photino X of the space-time continuum of falling fire would co-exist, in women, with the electron/electrino X of the volume-mass continuum of falling water in a double negativity of objective divergence and/or convergence, whereas the neutron/neutrino X (effectively neutral) of the mass-volume continuum of rising vegetation would co-exist, in men, with the proton/protino Y of the time-space continuum of rising air in a negative/positive or, rather, neutral/positive relationship of subjective divergence and/or convergence.


10.  It is my belief that the co-existence of X and Y in the male is only possible because of the effectively neutral status of the X, which is drawn towards the feminine X (of falling water), but is also open to the divine Y (of rising air).  For man can aspire towards God, as from neutrons/neutrinos to protons/protinos, whereas woman can only fall back on the Devil, as from electrons/electrinos to photons/photinos.  Some 'men' are of course less masculine than divine anyway, since centred in protons/protinos, just as some 'women' are less feminine than diabolic, since rooted in photons/photinos.  But it is probably safe to maintain that the majority of men and women (certainly in the West) are less divine or diabolic than predominantly masculine or feminine, with purgatorial or worldly allegiances to natural phenomena.  Those, on the contrary, with heavenly or hellish allegiances to supernatural noumena will not typify man or woman, since effectively of God or the Devil.





1.   Where, formerly in my philosophy, I was apt to equate negativity with sensuality and positivity with sensibility, quite as though they were the alpha and omega of things, I am now at last in a position to avoid such an error, since negativity, as we have seen, is equivalent to objectivity, while positivity is equivalent to subjectivity, neither of which are exclusively alpha or omega.  Thus whereas the outer senses of seeing and tasting are predominantly negative because objective, the outer senses of hearing and touching, by contrast, are predominantly positive because subjective.  Conversely, whereas the inner senses of breathing and thinking are predominantly positive because subjective, so the inner senses of feeling and conceiving are predominantly negative because objective.  God is positive and the Devil ... negative, whether in terms of sensuality or of sensibility, alpha or omega, while man is 'positive' or, at any rate, neutral with a positive bias, and woman negative, whether in sensuality or in sensibility.


2.   The American West is, by and large, diabolically negative, which is to say objective with regard to the supernatural planes of falling fire in Space-Time (spatial-repetitive), whereas the Asian East is, by and large, divinely positive, which is to say, subjective with regard to the supernatural planes of rising air in Time-Space (sequential-spaced).  Conversely, the European North is, by and large, purgatorially positive with regard to the natural planes of rising vegetation in Mass-Volume (massive-voluminous), whereas the African South is, by and large, mundanely negative with regard to the natural planes of falling water in Volume-Mass (volumetric-massed).


3.   The formation of the World and the development of life on it must have happened in approximately the following way: first came falling fire, which slowly turned to steam; then came falling water as the steam condensed; next came rising vegetation, as nature began to take shape from out the Deluge; finally rising air took wings from nature to replenish the atmosphere.  Thus the Earth arose as we have known it since the dawn of autonomous life.  Falling fire - falling water - rising vegetation - rising air.  Devil - woman - man - God, or something to that effect.


4.   Certainly, man is the bridge to God, rising vegetation to rising air, the brain to the lungs in relation to sensibility, and therefore the guardian, through Christ, of that which leads to the Holy Spirit (of Heaven).  Only a Church which is genuinely nonconformist, in Christian terms, will adequately reflect this fact of masculinity being a stepping-stone to divinity, or the 'peace that surpasses all understanding'.


5.   Of course, it is possible, as I believe I have shown, for masculinity to become an end-in-itself, as in the rather more Puritan context of Protestant nonconformism, where the Son (being writerly) is less likely to lead towards the Holy Spirit than back towards the (readerly) Father in a Puritan/Presbyterian opposition to the (Anglican) Mother.  Nevertheless, even the Catholic Son, or Christ Child, will only lead towards the Holy Spirit, and thus to a pseudo-transcendentalist shortfall, relative to Christianity, from the Holy Spirit of Heaven, which is genuinely transcendentalist, and therefore truly divine.  Such a divinity can only be reached via the Second Coming, who is or can become a bridge to the peace of ultimate Heaven.  He can also become or be turned into an end-in-himself, serving as a 'New Purgatory' for those who would feel ill at-ease in such a Heaven.  He can also be set apart from a 'New Earth' down below, in what would be the ultimate humanism, the humanism of the Mary Child, so to speak, in the lowest tier of 'Kingdom Come'.  For, assuredly, we cannot squeeze the whole world, the whole of humanity, into just one tier, say Heaven, as though mankind in toto were predestined for such a divine fate!  The Beyond, if and when it comes, must be triadic, with an ultimate humanism, an ultimate nonconformism, and an ultimate transcendentalism, corresponding to the World, Purgatory, and Heaven, or to Mass, Volume, and Space, or to beauty, knowledge, and truth, all of which would be beyond the ravages of Father Time in the sanctuary of Eternal Life, an Eternity to which the Beautiful in Mass and the Knowledgeable in Volume will have just as much entitlement as the True in Space, as a 'New Earth', a 'New Purgatory', and a 'New Heaven' are simultaneously brought to pass, with giving and taking beside or, rather, beneath being, like woman and man beneath God.





1.   Transcendentalism is a context in which the supermasculinity of God in supreme being is paramount; nonconformism a context in which the masculinity of man in supreme taking is paramount; humanism a context in which the femininity of woman in supreme giving is paramount.  Hence in the transcendentalist context of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, only the supermasculine should prevail; in the nonconformist context of the Holy Mind of Purgatory, only the masculine should prevail; and in the humanist context of the Holy Id of the World, only the feminine should prevail.


2.   The triadic Beyond to which I subscribe, as the self-styled architect of 'Kingdom Come', will amount to a Superchristian dispensation for the deliverance of Mass, Volume, and Space from the clutches of Time, which currently rules both Mass and Volume from a fundamentalist base in the Superheathen Behind.  Judgement is not about the end of the World, in the sense of some apocalyptic upheaval likely to destroy life and/or the Earth itself, but about the end of Time, of everything associated with the Father, and hence religious fundamentalism.  For Time is the enemy of Eternity, and so long as Time rules life from its fundamentalist Hell, there can be no Eternity, and thus deliverance of the World and Purgatory, in particular, from the Devil's grip.


3.   Anglicans and Puritans will have to decide, when the moment is adjudged ripe, whether to remain under the dominion of Dissenter fundamentalism in what passes, in some quarters, for 'Protestant solidarity', or join with Roman Catholics in democratically opting, as they would (from this writer's standpoint) be fully entitled to do, for deliverance from Time in the Eternity of the triadic Beyond, where woman, man, and God, or the godly, could have access to a new and superior order of Mass, Volume, and Space than would otherwise be possible, an order, I mean, beyond the confines of both Protestant and Catholic traditions in what would amount to a Superchristian refinement upon beauty, knowledge, and truth.  No more need beauty and knowledge bow to strength, as though to the Devil.  No more need Christian truth feel excluded and isolated as something, no matter how short of the kind of genuine truth I have in mind, 'beyond the pale' (of 'Protestant solidarity'?).  I neither advance a heavenly exclusivity such that, extrapolated from the Holy Spirit, would probably alienate Protestants as 'too religious' nor exclude Heaven for those who, as Catholics, would be most entitled to it.


4.   The triadic Beyond would have a place for almost everyone or, at any rate, for Humanists and Nonconformists as well as Transcendentalists, and none need feel in any degree beholden to the others, as though beauty and knowledge were somehow disreputable failings vis-ŕ-vis truth.  The accommodation of Mass and Volume to Space in what would amount to an ultimate pluralism is no shoddy compromise dreamt up by an unprincipled amoralist, but the only possible and desirable arrangement for Eternity.  Not only can people never be forced into a single mould, say heavenly at the expense of earthly, or vice versa, but it would serve Eternity no advantage were one only to think in such partisan terms.  For Mass and Volume are just as capable of Eternity as Space, and without their consent, democratically expressed through the will of the People, it is highly doubtful that Space would achieve Eternity in any case, given that truth is only one factor in the totality of factors which have to be taken into democratic account.  Heaven may be the apex or top tier of our projected triadic Beyond, but without the World and Purgatory, or woman and man, there is no way that such a Beyond could ever come about!  For the triadic Beyond is not just about God or of God, but must also be of that which, approximating to woman in the 'New Earth' and to man in the 'New Purgatory', is less than God, and thus less than the 'New Heaven' of the divinely Saved.  The triadic Beyond is everything that anyone could ever want it to be - anyone, that is, except the Devil and those for whom the infernal Behind of Father Time takes precedence over the prospect of Eternity.  For them, on the contrary, Eternity is simply 'beyond the pale' of that which is subject to the dominion of Time.





1.   Although everyone (except the Diabolic) would benefit from the prospect of a triadic Beyond, man and superman, or Nonconformists and Transcendentalists, would benefit most, since any Christian-type arrangement is designed primarily to deliver man from woman and allow for the possibility of God (superman).  When this is not the case, because the reality is rather more Heathen than Christian, man simply loses out to woman and God to the Devil.  In fact, God is effectively excluded from societies in which the Devil is free to do whatever it takes to secure feminine interests at man's expense.  When the Devil is free, then man is 'up against it', because woman can bring the full range of her X-X chromosomal integrity to bear on his X-Y chromosomes, effectively isolating the X from the Y, which is then all the more vulnerable to her dominion.  For women, being devolutionary in their negativity, do to give, drawing on superfeminine/subfeminine qualities to enhance their femininity, and men can hardly take to be, in due evolutionary fashion, if the Y of their being has been so conclusively isolated ... that all they have left is an X amenable to female persuasion.  God, clearly, will be 'beyond the pale' of any man who is overly subject to the dominion of woman/the Devil!


2.   Thus if this situation is to be reversed, so that man can, if desirable, get to God or, at the very least, have more respect for himself (as a Nonconformist), then the Devil must be neutralized.  This means that women must be deprived, in no small degree, of the opportunity of utilizing their superfeminine and/or subfeminine qualities in what amounts to a pact with the Devil.  For if women are free to exploit the Devil, there can be no hope for God, Who will continue to languish 'beyond the pale' of what men are subject to ... under duress of female domination.  Women, in short, must be 'put in their place', which, with  regard to my ideal society, means the bottom tier of the triadic Beyond, the 'New Earth' of the Mary Child.


3.   But the only way this can happen is by 'resurrecting the Dead', which is to say, by ensuring that the 'inner-light' reality of the grace relevant to 'Mother Earth' achieves a synthetic transmutation with regard to the 'feminine' tier of the triadic Beyond, so that large quantities of synthetic hallucinogens become readily available to counter women's fatality, through the eyes, for the outer light.  In other words, only by keeping them regularly doped on drugs that, like LSD, would confine their objectivity to visionary pastures ... will it be possible to constrain them as women and prevent them climbing back towards the Devil, since they will then be too preoccupied with the inner light to have much time or inclination for the outer one, the source of Original Sin.  Only thus will it be possible to keep woman down and the Devil effectively marginalized, if not entirely excluded.  In that respect, the triadic Beyond will radically contrast with the kinds of situations that prevail these days, when women are free to capitalize on the outer light, usually through their eyes, to a degree which keeps them diabolically in the ascendant over men.  Never could it be said, with more justification, that women were less 'in their place' than in the late-twentieth century!





1.   However, if men are not to regress, in 'Kingdom Come', to an objective stance before women ... such that would detract from their liberation from the World in the second tier of our projected triadic Beyond, then they, too, should duly have recourse to certain drugs that, in contrast to the hallucinogens, will 'firm up' their subjectivity and thus keep them more aloof from the World or, at any rate, the 'New Earth' below.  Such drugs may well include heroin and cannabis, and would be administered on a selective basis, as and when circumstances required.  For the Saved of the 'New Purgatory' would not be 'above drugs', the way their divine counterparts in the 'New Heaven' should be, since men and women share a phenomenal relativity that falls short of the noumenal absolutism of God, not to mention the Devil (who would, in any case, be excluded from 'Kingdom Come').  Those closest to Heaven in the second tier of the triadic Beyond would probably not have need of such 'subjectivity-enhancing drugs' as their less-elevated fellows there, and for them study should suffice.  But for less subjective males, the availability of these drugs would assist their purgatorial growth and discourage them from regarding women in traditionally sexist terms.  Reproduction would increasingly become an artificial affair, subject to technological regulation.  For once you remove the Devil from the overall frame, divinely-sanctioned alternatives to conventional reproductive techniques would have to be developed.


2.   The chief beneficiaries of 'Kingdom Come', as already noted, would of course be God first and foremost and man secondarily, which is to say,  the divine and masculine tiers of our projected triadic Beyond, in which transcendentalism and nonconformism were taken to new heights of spiritual and intellectual accomplishment respectively.  Woman would also benefit, despite her comparatively lowly place in relation to the 'New Earth', since she would be delivered from the Devil, the Devil of superfeminine-to-subfeminine objectivity, and thus be able to develop her femininity in more intensively humanist terms than would otherwise be possible.  In fact, she will be no less the beneficiary of Eternity than man and God, since each tier portends the possibility of subsequent transmutation from human to post-human via cyborg stages, this latter effectively transitional between mankind and the post-human life forms of the much longer-term, when, if all goes according to plan, what I call superbeings, suprabeings, and ultrabeings would emerge into the daylight of a much more radical triadic Beyond, one ultimately comprised, it may well be, of artificially supported and sustained right-midbrain collectivizations, left-midbrain collectivizations, and forebrain collectivizations, each of which would have a capacity to experience its particular sensibility (be it in beauty, knowledge, or truth) to an extent infinitely beyond anything possible on the human plane, including the divinely human or supermasculine plane of meditating Transcendentalists in the 'New Heaven' of our projected triadic Beyond.


3.   Yes, the potential for Eternity is infinite, and women will be no less entitled to Eternal Life than the men and supermen of the 'New Purgatory' and 'New Heaven' respectively ranged above them.  Thus everybody wins, although the chief beneficiaries, to repeat, will be man and superman, since God is only possible when the Devil is excluded, and a society in which every encouragement is given to man to break free of woman, and of the superman to attain to God or, rather, of God to attain to the superman transpires in what would be effectively Superchristian in its radically subjective bias.  In such a society God wins, the Devil loses (is marginalized if not ostracized), man gains his freedom (from woman) and woman is bound (to herself), thereby ceasing to diabolically boss and constrain men to the Devil's rule.  For only when woman is 'put in her place' (the bottom tier of the triadic Beyond) will man be free either to remain himself or, if capable, attain to the superman, thereby passing from the X of his neutrino self (in the brain) to the Y of his protino self (in the lungs), the divine self of an ultimate subjectivity in the Holy Spirit of Heaven.





1.   I have never gambled, not do I do the lottery.  I dislike the concept of money as an end-in-itself, a goal to be achieved.  When that becomes the case, as it does with the lottery, it is clear that economics has replaced religion, and man replaced God.  Or, perhaps, 'excluded' would be a more fitting description?  Whatever the case, it comes down to a sort of Protestant ethos of money worship, in which the financial jackpot of the lottery rainbow becomes synonymous, in a paradoxical sort of way, with salvation, salvation in and through a Son (Christ) Who can all-too-readily be identified with economic gain!


2.   No, I don't like the lottery one little bit, since money is no substitute for genuine spirituality.  Even the attention to numbers which the lottery entails is morally corrupting, numbers being closer, in their scientific origins, to the Devil than to God.  But, then again, a people like the British have never been particularly moral anyway, so notions of 'moral corruption' are somehow beside-the-point where they are concerned.


3.   The British motto is and has always been: No surrender!  But to what, you might wonder?  God, morality, truth, religion - call it by what name you like!  No surrender ... to God!  A fine motto indeed!





1.   Superficially you might think the British intelligent, when, in reality, they can be barbarously stupid, stupid, I mean, in relation to the Irish and anything to do with God.  Such intelligence as they have doesn't extend beyond economics, as implicit in the previous entry.  For when you are rooted in the Devil, as they are, then man is as far as things go, albeit not to a genuine or straight man but to a bent one, for whom money, and thus economics, is the supreme reward.  Such a man, effectively feminized, is subject to the twin pressures of politics and science.  His life revolves around money, but he is beholden to the twin objectivities of politics and science ... as to woman and the Devil.  Scant chance of his taking religion seriously!  Anyone who writes on God, or truth, will not find much support from him, least of all when Irish and of apparent, if not proven, Gaelic and/or Catholic descent, the combination of the two being the ne plus ultra of ethnic unacceptability from his English-conditioned WASPish point of view.  His much-vaunted intelligence will recoil from the threat to his British and economic integrity which the ardent truth-writer poses.  At least it will if such a man is a publisher's reader and in a position to reject a 'man of God'.  For the chances of a 'man of God' - and I don't mean a priest - being published in Britain can only be pretty slim in any case, even supposing, for the sake of argument, that such a man had any pressing desire to be published in the first place, or had any confidence that his work would get beyond the ever-growing army of female publishers readers, with their well-nigh tyrannical passion for what has been called political correctness!  No, the British are not open to the truth, neither with regard to religion nor, hardly surprisingly in view of their reluctance to break with the Devil, about themselves.  They are open to Hell all right, but Heaven remains something airily beyond their pale and something, seemingly, that no self-deceiving Briton would ever want, even if he were in a position to want it.


2.   The average Briton is quite polite to one's face, the face, in this case, of an Irish citizen, but impolite to the point of calumny behind one's back.  What one usually gets to one's face is an Englishman (or a Welshman, a Scotsman), but this Englishman quickly mutates into a Briton behind one's back, as though by some Jekyll and Hyde transformation.  In other words, he is civil to one's face but a barbarian as soon as one's back is turned and he can snidely denigrate you to his heart's perverse content, stabbing you in the back with the recoil of ethnic intransigence from the front of civility.


3.   Slagging you off is a British pastime, almost a speciality, and it says a lot about the nature of being British as opposed, in other contexts, to being English or Scottish or Welsh.  It is not that the English, say, are especially two-faced, though some of them might be in view of their ambivalent gender as gentlemen under a double-edged negative assault from woman/the Devil.  Rather, it tends to be the case that they have an English face on the one hand and a British face on the other, so that hypocrisy results from the alternation between each of these faces, as and when circumstances allow.  Rarely have I encountered a Briton who is the same man behind your back that he was to your face.  In fact, I have hardly ever encountered a Briton who has any real control of his mind anyway.  Most seem to be the playthings of banal thoughts that have them in their systemically-conditioned grip and which are recycled, or recycle themselves, with disarming regularity on a predictably superficial basis.  One would think that the first notion would suffice, but no!  They have to keep reminding themselves every time they see you, which could be every day of the week, of what they had thought, or been obliged to think, the day before!  What morons!  You would think they were animals, to have to keep reminding themselves over and over about the same notions with regard to the same old people.  Doubtless their lack of religion has more than a little to do with such a lamentable state-of-affairs, since, as victims of politics and science, they tend to reflect the critical disposition of women at a variety of levels, diabolic no less than feminine, and such a disposition, vacuously-conditioned to first perceive and then irrationally exaggerate the mote in the other's eye rather than the beam in its own, generally has more to do with sensuality than with sensibility!





1.   At the end of the day, Britain is a superstate, a combination of three countries which make up Great Britain.  Such a superstate, rooted or, to be fairer, centred in the 'blood royal', owes more to the Devil than ever it does to God (Who, in any true sense, is 'beyond the pale').  Indeed, it is fundamentally barbarous, like the British themselves, who derive their 'national' characteristics from this superstate, not the least daunting of which is a passion for 'greatness'.  One day, if God is to triumph over the Devil, Great Britain will have to devolve, democratically and willingly, to its component countries, so that Ireland no longer has a barbarous giant breathing fire down its neck.  Something recognizably British, in a looser and more geographic sense, will of course remain, but it would not be characterized by a single polity, as at present.


2.   Naturally, what applies to the English and Scotch and Welsh British also applies to the Ulster British, to Ulster loyalists, who are no less, and in some cases even more, pertinent to British barbarism, to the barbarism, within a superstate framework, of being British or, in their case, descended from the British.  The United Kingdom is, as I have already intimated, fundamentally a kingdom of the Devil/Hell, a kingdom centred in the 'blood royal' and necessarily suspicious of, if not hostile towards, anything Irish, meaning godly and cultural, or that which is 'beyond the pale' of the well-established British commitments to science, politics, and economics.  Religion is such a thing, and the British will go to any lengths, particularly in Northern Ireland, to denigrate it as something unworthy of 'rational' minds, meaning, of course, minds rooted in the empirical objectivity of science and objective inquiry generally.  Doubtless those of an overly scientific persuasion are the most against it, and for them it is not a means to the peace of Eternity, but superstitious nonsense!  And the others, the political and the economical, had better believe them, or else!


3.   Frankly, I think it high time that the crass superficiality of such barbarous jerks should be exposed for all to see, so that, appalled by its small-mindedness, those of less extreme reactionary views might recoil in horror and dismay from what they have had to endure in the name of 'British/Protestant solidarity', etc., and begin to turn their attention towards the Irish instead, the long-suffering and much denigrated Catholic Irish, whose boots their chief denigrators would be unworthy to lick, much less clean!  Let them turn away from the fundamentalist devils, whether scientific or military, and begin to view their Irish neighbours not as a papist threat to scientific and other such barbarous freedoms but, rather, as potential allies in the development, through democratic will, of the triadic Beyond, a pluralist Beyond in which their beautiful and knowledgeable approaches to religion will have no less of a place than the comparatively more truthful, or truth-oriented, approach of those traditionally regarded and denigrated as Papists.  Let them realize that neither monarchy nor papacy can have any place in the triadic Beyond, since such a goal stretches beyond both Protestant monarchism and Catholic papacy alike, just as it would leave parliamentary democracy and republican democracy, the Union Jack and the tricolour, in its triadic wake.


4.   'Kingdom Come', as we may also call the triadic Beyond, will not be a kingdom of woman/the World and man/Purgatory living under the Devil/Hell, like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but a 'kingdom' of woman, man, and God ... in that ascending order, an order in which, with the diabolism of Father Time consigned to the rubbish heap of history, the feminine, the masculine, and the Divine will be taken to new and altogether unprecedented peaks of refinement, until, eventually, following the transmutation of mankind along 'superhuman' lines, only superbeings, suprabeings, and ultrabeings remain, to carry beauty, knowledge, and truth beyond the Earth to the Space Centres of Supermillennial futurity.  For in the Supermillennium, Mass and Volume will be raised, together with Space, into space, and accordingly become comparatively more heavenly.


5.   Beyond the 'Devils' of science lie the 'women' of politics, the 'men' of economics, and the 'Gods' of religion.  From the 'falling fire' of science to the 'rising air' of religion via the 'falling water' of politics and the 'rising vegetation' of economics, as from barbarism to culture via civilization and nature.





1.   To be saved from something is not to be freed, or liberated from it, but to be delivered from evil/vice to virtue/good, delivered to the inner power/glory of sensibility from the outer glory/power of sensuality.  Since sensuality is apparent and sensibility ... essential, the one extrinsic and the other intrinsic, it could also be argued that salvation is to be delivered from the centrifugal divergence, in freedom, of the one to the centripetal convergence, in binding, of the other, bearing in mind that freedom is a vicious curse and binding a virtuous blessing.


2.   Although freedom is a vicious curse, it is preferable, or less bad, than the damnation of being confined, by external powers, to an outer glory against one's will, which is enslavement, and therefore something from which one can only be liberated, i.e. freed, to have the right to diverge, or dissent, in due centrifugal course.


3.   Freedom, or the ability to viciously diverge from an evil glory, can be either objective or subjective, negative or positive, but will always be a curse, just as binding, or the ability to virtuously converge upon a good glory, will always be a blessing, whether objective and negative or subjective and positive, which is to say, diabolic/feminine or divine/masculine, depending on the plane.


4.   Worse than the positive freedoms of subjective divergence are the negative freedoms of objective divergence.  Better than the negative bindings of objective convergence are the positive bindings of subjective convergence.


5.   Worse than weakness diverging from humility on the chemical plane of subjective supernature, and of ugliness diverging from pain on the physical plane of subjective nature ... is illusion diverging from woe on the metachemical plane of objective supernature, and of ignorance diverging from hatred on the metaphysical plane of objective nature.


6.   Better than strength converging towards pride on the chemical plane of objective supernature, and of beauty converging towards pleasure on the physical plane of objective nature ... is truth converging towards joy on the metachemical plane of subjective supernature, and of knowledge converging towards love on the metaphysical plane of subjective nature.





1.   It rains so much in Ireland that, were it not to retain what amounts to an ideological bias for agriculture over industry, it would be even more exposed to the danger of civilization than Britain, with all the attendant 'feminine' features that such a danger poses.  Obviously, for a country that prides itself on being religious, that is avowedly masculine in its rural base (the necessary precondition of any higher culture), the threat posed by 'falling water', in the most literal sense of that term, to its natural/cultural bias is very real, particularly in view of the, compared to Britain, greater volume of rainwater per annum.  One could easily infer, under constant pressure of the rain, a fatality towards humanism within the Catholic Church in Ireland, and such a fatality could only detract from what should be its nonconformist bias, such that elevates Christ above the Blessed Virgin, and thus, in true Catholic fashion, paves the way for the Holy Spirit, that transcendentalist or, more correctly, pseudo-transcendentalist flower of Christianity.


2.   Only by maintaining a firm agricultural and rural base in nature generally ... can the masculine/pseudo-divine aspects of Catholicism be protected from encroaching humanism.  For wherever such a base has been eroded, one can only assume the worst, i.e. the growth of 'Heathen' tendencies, under cover of industrial/urban expansion, at Christianity's expense.  Such a growth means that the feminine and, via that, the Diabolic, will be replacing the masculine and, via that, the Divine.  In short, that civilization will be eclipsing nature and, through that, barbarism eclipsing culture.  Instead of Ireland being a country where God and the Church come first, it will simply become a place where the Devil and the State come first, a place where the masculine resolve ... to cling to nature in the teeth of so much 'falling water' ... is systematically thwarted by industrial/urban expansion, and what was once a comparatively religious country, given to masculine/pseudo-supermasculine subjective deliverance from the World, becomes just another secular society, little different from Britain in the way that civilization lords or, rather, 'ladies' it over nature at man's expense.


3.   Probably, things are not yet as bad as that!  But, even so, there would still be no grounds for complacency.  For Ireland, remember, is afflicted with more rain, on average, than Britain, and is thus more vulnerable, if anything, to the 'feminine' threat which this poses vis-ŕ-vis nature.  Only by standing firmly by nature in the teeth of civilized pressure ... can Ireland avoid the fate of Britain and remain a religious country, a country in which one builds from man to God, as from nature to culture, 'rising vegetation' to 'rising air', nonconformism to transcendentalism.  And, hopefully, once the danger posed by its 'industrial revolution' has been sufficiently exposed for what it really is, something more genuinely religious than Christianity will ensue, to lead Ireland into a new age of masculine/supermasculine deliverance, an age, I mean, in which the true transcendentalism of the Holy Spirit of Heaven will take its rightful place at the apex of Irish culture, in what I have described throughout this text as a triadic Beyond.


LONDON 1996 (Revised 2011)






Bookmark and Share