THE SOUL OF BEING
Copyright © 2011 John O'Loughlin
1. Fair to Life
2. Collective and Individual
3. Conscious and Unconscious
4. Self vis-à-vis Not-Self
5. Unself vis-à-vis Not-Unself
6. Negativity vis-à-vis Positivity
7. Form and Content(ment)
8. Primary and Secondary
9. Free and Bound
10. Sensuality and Sensibility
11. Sensible Supremacy vis-à-vis Sensual Primacy
12. Metaphysical Salvation
FAIR TO LIFE
1. The elemental comprehensiveness of the philosopher who admits of fire, water, vegetation (earth), and air in the overall composition of life is such that he cannot regard life as one thing or another but, rather, as a combination of factors which exist in a variety of ratios, depending on the life or life form that is experiencing them.
2. Thus if we equate fire with evil, water with good, vegetation with folly, and air with wisdom, as this philosopher would in fact be inclined to do, then we have no option but to conclude that life is no more evil than good, no more foolish than wise, and simply because, regarded in elemental terms, it is a combination, in varying degrees, of evil, good, folly and wisdom.
3. How, exactly, life is a combination of evil, good, folly, and wisdom would depend on the individual, as on the individual's circumstances, ethnicity, gender, background, class, age, race, environment, etc., since experience of life varies from person to person, with no two persons sharing exactly the same experiences.
4. For some people there is more evil than good to life, and for others more good than evil, and I fancy, as a philosopher, that this would apply more to women than to men, since women generally experience the elements primarily in terms of fire and water, and only secondarily in terms of vegetation and air.
5. For some people there is more folly than wisdom to life, and for others more wisdom than folly, and again I fancy, writing as a self-taught philosopher, that this would more apply to men than to women, since men generally experience the elements primarily in terms of vegetation and air, and only secondarily in terms of fire and water.
6. Thus, on a gender basis alone, I fancy that women will experience life primarily in terms of evil and/or good, and only secondarily in terms of folly and/or wisdom, while men, by contrast, will experience life primarily in terms of folly and/or wisdom, and only secondarily in terms of evil and/or good.
7. Neither gender, however, would have the right to claim that life was only evil or good or foolish or wise, since such a claim would be less representative of life than of each of the elements of which it is composed taken separately and treated independently.
8. But if life is neither solely evil nor good even for women, and neither foolish nor wise even for men, how much less is it one thing or another in general terms, considered in relation to people generally. Life, to repeat, is a composite of all these elemental factors existing to greater or lesser extents, depending on a variety of circumstances. It is certainly not evil, good, foolish, or wise, but evil, good, foolish, and wise.
9. So all we can do, if we are honest with life and philosophically perceptive enough to understand it, is to take the basic elements and mould them into some sort of pattern or hierarchy that will grant us more of some and less of others, or most of the one and least of the other, as the case may be.
10. We cannot eliminate any particular element from the overall equation, since that would prove impossible as well, ultimately, as detrimental to life, but we can select, as far as possible, from the available elements those to which we wish to grant prominence, and then set them up against or over those which we deem less or least desirable.
11. Obviously, the 'we' has to take into account the gender divide, since men and women have different priorities, but society can be fashioned in such a way that the prevailing elements to which it subscribes are either on the female side of the gender fence, so to speak, or on its male side, rather than simply aiming at a balance between the two.
12. For a balance tends to marginalize the noumenal elements of fire and air as it concentrates, with amoral consequences, upon water and vegetation, while the fashioning of society in terms of either a female bias towards fire or a male bias towards air will make for immoral or moral consequences.
13. In general terms, one may say that whereas balanced societies tend to favour men and women in roughly equal degrees, the biased societies tend to favour either men or women, whether in phenomenal terms or with respect to the noumenal extremes of fire and air, wherein the bias is less worldly than netherworldly in the one case, and otherworldly in the other case.
14. Thus societies come to reflect the elements and to sustain life either in terms of amoral, immoral, or moral criteria overall, the amoral being a combination of nonconformist and humanist, the immoral predominantly characterized by fundamentalism, and the moral disposed to a preponderating transcendentalism.
15. Neither fundamentalist nor transcendentalist societies are of the world but, on the contrary, of world-rejecting fieriness or airiness, as the case may be. In fact, they are rather less political and/or economic than either scientific or religious, with a corresponding distinction between cosmic Netherworldliness and karmic Otherworldliness.
(COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL)
16. Whether the collective exists for the individual or the individual for the collective ... will be determined by the type of society - individuals existing for the collective in the amoral contexts of the world, the collective existing for the individual in both the immoral and moral contexts of that which is either anterior to the world, and netherworldly, or posterior to it, and otherworldly.
17. Thus the individual does not exist in his own right in worldly societies, but in relation to the collective, which has the right to subsume him into itself in the interests of a society conceived in phenomenal terms, whether this right be expressed democratically and/or bureaucratically or, indeed, technocratically and/or plutocratically - the difference between volume-mass realism and mass-volume naturalism.
18. For worldly societies, which are collectivistic, are only germane to the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, not to the noumenal planes of space and time, and therefore they will either favour a feminine bias in volume-mass realism or a masculine bias in mass-volume naturalism, assuming they have not attempted to strike a balance between the two.
19. If the individual exists for the collective in the worldly contexts, as described above, then in both netherworldly and otherworldly contexts it is the collective that exists for the individual, whether that individualism be expressed autocratically and/or aristocratically or, indeed, theocratically and/or meritocratically - the difference between space-time materialism and time-space idealism.
20. For non-worldly societies, in their individualistic bias, are only germane to the noumenal planes of space and time, and therefore they will either favour a diabolic bias (superfeminine to subfeminine) in space-time materialism or a divine bias (submasculine to supermasculine) in time-space idealism.
21. Materialism and idealism are much less disposed to the striking of a balance than realism and naturalism, though even in the biased extremes of life a kind of unbalanced balance, or uneasy compromise, is possible, as between (in general terms) the Devil and God, and such a compromise would be less worldly than non-worldly, as the netherworldly and the otherworldly extremes co-exist in a context of limbo, the noumenal equivalent of the world.
22. For if the world is a compromise between purgatory and the earth, water and vegetation, feminine and masculine, then limbo is a compromise between Hell and Heaven, fire and air, diabolic and divine.
23. Generally speaking, the noumenal extremes are much more repellent than attractive, given their absolutist integrities, and thus more suspicious of one other than are their phenomenal counterparts 'down below', in the mundane realms of volume and mass.
24. It is for this reason that noumenal compromise is the exception to the rule, whereas phenomenal compromise is the rule rather than the exception, given the relativistic integrities of water and vegetation, woman and man.
25. There is more masculine in phenomenal woman and more feminine in phenomenal man than ever there is submasculine and/or supermasculine in noumenal woman (divine in the Devil) or superfeminine and/or subfeminine in noumenal man (diabolic in God), even though nobody and no-one is ever entirely relative or completely absolute.
26. Morality can be collectivistic or individualistic, immorality likewise, though amorality will aim at and reflect a balance between either objective and subjective modes of collectivism or, alternatively, objective and subjective modes of individualism - the former worldly and the latter non-worldly.
27. Immoral societies will thus be either superfeminine to subfeminine (if noumenal) or upper feminine to lower feminine (if phenomenal), while moral societies will be either lower masculine to upper masculine (if phenomenal) or submasculine to supermasculine (if noumenal), thereby confirming a distinction between fire and water on the one hand, and vegetation and air on the other hand.
28. As a rule, immoral societies are sensual and 'once born', whereas moral societies are sensible and 'reborn', since the former are Superheathen/Heathen and the latter Christian/Superchristian.
29. In a Superheathen society the collective exists for the individual, as goodness for evil, whereas in a Heathen society the individual exists for the collective, as evil for goodness.
30. In a Christian society the individual exists for the collective, as wisdom for folly, whereas in a Superchristian society the collective exists - or will exist - for the individual, as folly for wisdom.
31. Thus whereas the Superheathen society is evil and the Heathen society good, the Christian society is foolish and the Superchristian society wise.
32. The superfeminine woman is free to do evil in a Superheathen society, while the feminine woman is free to give goodness in a Heathen society.
33. The masculine man is bound to take folly in a Christian society, while the supermasculine man is bound to be wise in a Superchristian society.
34. Evil usually takes an individual form and goodness a collective one, because evil is noumenal and goodness phenomenal, whereas folly usually takes a collective form and wisdom an individual one, because folly is phenomenal and wisdom noumenal.
35. To contrast the doing of evil to other individuals with the giving of good to other collectives, while likewise contrasting the taking of folly within the collective to the being of wisdom within the individual.
36. For both evil and goodness are objective, after their immoral fashions, whereas both folly and wisdom are subjective, in due moral vein - the former options female and the latter options male.
(CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS)
37. The conscious self is that which is supreme and the unconscious self that which is primal in the psyche.
38. Hence there is more positivity to the conscious self and more negativity to the unconscious self, since the former has closer associations with the organic and the latter with the inorganic.
39. Generally speaking, the organic corresponds to supremacy in both phenomenal and noumenal terms, whereas the inorganic corresponds to primacy in both noumenal and phenomenal terms.
40. Thus there is about the supreme, or conscious, self an organic correlation with both the personal and the universal, whereas the primal, or unconscious, self has about it an inorganic correlation with both the cosmic and the geologic.
41. More specifically, there is a subjective phenomenal self, which we may call the physical supreme self, that is organically connected to the personal, and a subjective noumenal self, which we may call the metaphysical supreme self, that is organically connected to the universal, while, conversely, there is an objective noumenal self, which we may call the metachemical supreme self, that is organically connected to the universal, and an objective phenomenal self, which we may call the chemical self, that is organically connected to the personal.
42. Contrariwise, there is an objective noumenal unself, which we may call the metachemical primal self, that is inorganically connected to the cosmic, and an objective phenomenal unself, which we may call the chemical primal self, that is inorganically connected to the geologic, while, conversely, there is a subjective phenomenal unself, which we may call the physical primal self, that is inorganically connected to the geologic, and a subjective noumenal unself, which we may call the metaphysical primal self, that is inorganically connected to the cosmic.
43. Hence whereas the supreme self always has an organic association in relation to different orders of personal and/or universal commitment, the primal self always has an inorganic association in relation to different orders of cosmic and/or geologic commitment.
44. This is what keeps the supreme self positive and the primal self negative, since the organic is that which, being supreme, sits atop the inorganic, as it were, as mankind above starkind.
45. Thus the conscious self testifies to a more devolved and/or evolved status, depending whether it is objective or subjective, female or male, than does the unconscious self, which is correspondingly less devolved and/or evolved, as the case may be.
46. It is not that the conscious self, being supreme in its positivity, is evolved while the unconscious self, being primal in its negativity, is devolved, for the devolved and the evolved constitute an objective/subjective distinction in both primal and supreme contexts.
47. Since there is not one but four kinds of conscious self in both external, or sensual, and internal, or sensible, contexts, one has to carefully distinguish between the supreme self in relation to fiery metachemistry and watery chemistry, both of which are objective, and the supreme self in relation to vegetative physics and airy metaphysics, both of which are subjective.
48. The same of course applies to the unconscious self, except that it will have negative associations by dint of its connection to inorganic orders of objectivity and/or subjectivity.
49. The self, however, whether conscious or unconscious, does not exist in splendid or even sordid isolation, but in relation to organic supremacy, if positive, or to inorganic primacy, if negative, and therefore we have to allow for such a distinction on both objective and subjective, or devolutionary and evolutionary, terms.
50. Organic supremacy may be thought of as manifesting a will and a spirit, for it is the positive will of the not-self that the conscious self utilizes in an endeavour to be transported, by its positive spirit, towards that which is positively selfless, and from which it must rebound, as from one extreme to another, before regaining its equilibrium and plunging anew into the not-self.
51. Thus the conscious self is itself transported, via the positive will of the not-self and the positive spirit of selflessness, from self to superself, and then from superself to subself, before returning to selfhood afresh, and so on, in an ongoing cycle.
52. Inorganic primacy may also be thought of as manifesting a will and a spirit, for it is the negative will of the not-unself that the unconscious self utilizes in an endeavour to be transported, by its negative spirit, towards that which is negatively unselfless, and from which it must rebound, as from one extreme to another, before regaining its equilibrium and plunging anew into the not-unself.
53. Thus the unconscious self is itself transported, via the negative will of the not-unself and the negative spirit of unselflessness, from unself to super-unself, and then from super-unself to sub-unself, before returning to unselfhood afresh, and so on.
54. However, since, as human beings, we are more organic than inorganic, it follows that the unconscious self will be less prevalent, as a rule, than the conscious self, even though there are ages and societies which tend to identify more with primacy than supremacy, and in which the unconscious self and its correlative orders of negative will and spirit, are granted special prominence.
55. It is my belief that the twentieth century was such an age, and that Britain and America were prominent examples of countries in which the unconscious tended to eclipse the conscious, as things degenerated from supreme to primal orders of will and spirit under heathenistic/superheathenistic pressures deriving from a female hegemony.
56. Not only has the unconscious been granted special if not, some would argue, undue prominence by psychology, but it has been whitewashed and absolved of many of the negative associations that properly accrue to it.
57. People have made their pact, as it were, with the Devil, and the result, none too surprisingly, is that some of the attributes that were formerly associated with the conscious have been attributed to the unconscious, with detrimental consequences for conscious self-esteem.
58. Those who identify more with supremacy than primacy, however, will know that the unconscious is the source of much, if not all, negativity, and that attempts to whitewash or hype it up simply 'fly in the face' of conscious actuality.
59. Yet self-deception inevitably leads to a greater respect for the Cosmos and for such occult fancies as astrology and black magic, whether in sensuality or sensibility.
60. When this is culturally conditioned, as by the 'Liberty Belle' and the 'Stars and Stripes', there is not much that can be done to disillusion people with the whole ethos of primal hype and unconscious obsession to which, particularly as Americans, they are fatally attracted.
61. Even sensibility will not be exempt from the possibility or even actuality of primal dominance, though to a lesser extent, it seems to me, than sensuality, which has the full-gamut, so to speak, of cosmic primacy behind it.
62. Yet, ultimately, there is no bulwark against the dominance of primacy except through sensibility, particularly in regard to those subjective orders of sensibility which develop the brain and/or lungs in due Christian and/or Superchristian vein.
63. For only then is supremacy being consciously cultivated to a degree whereby primacy becomes ethically undesirable, and never more so, I would argue, than in relation to a Superchristian, or Social Transcendentalist, ethos of respiratory sensibility.
64. For the Christian ethos of cogitative sensibility, or prayer, is only phenomenal, and it tends to 'fall back' on the 'once-born' metaphysics of theocracy, symbolized by the Father, which then locks-in, in due sensual fashion, to the Old Testament autocracy of Jehovah and the likelihood, in consequence, of the eclipse of universal supremacy by cosmic primacy, as notions of cosmic Creation come to the fore.
65. Only a clean break with the Cosmos, and hence Old Testament delusion, will allow for the possibility of enhanced supremacy through respiratory sensibility, and thus for an end to primal enslavement.
66. For primitive religions always 'fall back' on the Cosmos, and the result is a scientific perversion of religion that is fated to worship at the altar of primacy to the detriment, if not effective exclusion, of supremacy.
67. Thus does the unconscious secure and maintain a prominence for itself over the conscious that makes the struggle by the latter towards anything positive and supreme a very uphill one indeed - in fact, so uphill as to be pretty daunting!
68. Constantly magnified through worship, the unconscious dominates the conscious, and instead of being regarded as something out of which we have grown or are growing, as we develop the conscious in due process of pursuing self-realization, it becomes the focus of conscious attention, ever holding back and down that which is capable of an independent existence.
69. Such an existence, aspiring to Eternal Life, will not materialize to any significant extent unless one breaks the connection with the Cosmos and, rejecting all Bible-inspired deference towards it, launches out on a universal quest such that enables supremacy to be developed to virtually infinite extents on the basis of the utmost being of respiratory sensibility.
70. Everything else - and lesser - will fall into place beneath this optimum supremacy, and instead of being hamstrung by a theocratic supremacy ever vulnerable to primal eclipse, whether in solar or stellar terms, people would be delivered to the sensible lead of meritocracy, wherein religion, released from theocratic constraints, is saved to the utmost truth and joy via the ultimate God and Heaven.
(SELF VIS-À-VIS NOT-SELF)
71. The self, as we have seen, is that which is conscious, whether instinctually, emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually, and is thus that which exists in relation to the not-self of organic will.
72. But the self can become both more than and less than itself through utilization of the not-self for purposes of identifying, as far as possible, with that which selflessly emanates from the not-self as organic spirit.
73. Thus the self is transported, via the not-self, to superself, from which spiritual extension of itself in relation to selflessness it is obliged to rebound to the opposite extreme ... of subself, wherein the achievement of a profounder experience of itself is made possible, before a return to the middle-ground, so to speak, of ordinary self occurs, as a psychological necessity.
74. Thus the self is stretched first in one direction, that of superconscious selflessness, and then in a contrary direction, that of subconscious selfhood, before returning to its egocentric norm, wherein the process of escaping from self in order to achieve a deeper experience of self begins afresh.
75. But this could not happen without the assistance of both the not-self, whether metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, whose organic will enables the self to be transported, and selflessness, which is the spirit, whether metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, upon which it is transported.
76. Hence there is always a connection between the self, in whatever guise, and both the not-self and a correlative order of selfless spirit emanating from that not-self which the self can embrace only up to a certain point, the point of superconscious extremism, from which it must rebound to the subconscious extreme in due psychic course.
77. Now this distinction between self and transported self on the one hand, and not-self and selflessness on the other ... is between egocentric personality and psychocentric impersonality in the one case, and not-egocentric will and egoless spirit in the other case, which is also a distinction between form and content on the one hand, that of the self and transported self, and between power and glory on the other hand, that of the not-self and selflessness.
78. Thus the egocentric personality of the self is fated, through utilization of both the not-self and selflessness, to become psychocentrically impersonal in the superconscious extreme, before becoming psychocentrically personal in the subconscious extreme, from which it must return to egocentric consciousness as before, and so on.
79. Hence there is a progression, for the self, from form to content, as from egocentric personality to psychocentric impersonality, and then, unable to live with the superconscious extreme for long, a rebound to psychocentric personality occurs, as from content to contentment, in which the subconscious is experienced, prior to a return to egocentric consciousness.
80. The 'Three-in-One' of the self is thus a self of egocentric personality, a superself of psychocentric impersonality, and a subself of psychocentric personality, as form is superseded, thanks to selflessness, by content, and content is in turn superseded, thanks to selfishness, by contentment, the contentment which follows from a profounder experience of the self than would otherwise have been possible, and from which one must again return to egocentric selfhood in the process of re-establishing one's psychological equilibrium.
81. But just as the form of the egocentric self can be either metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical in both sensuality and sensibility, so the contentment of the psychocentric self will be either metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, depending on the prevailing element in the relationship of self to not-self and of selflessness to superself/subself at any particular time.
82. Hence to contrast, within fiery metachemistry, the beautiful form of the metachemical egocentric self in relation to the metachemical not-self of the eyes in sensuality and the heart in sensibility ... with the loving contentment of the metachemical psychocentric self in relation to the metachemical selflessness of the light in sensuality and the blood in sensibility, whose content conditions the metachemical egocentric self towards psychocentric impersonality/personality.
83. Hence to contrast, within watery chemistry, the strong form of the chemical egocentric self in relation to the chemical not-self of the tongue in sensuality and the womb in sensibility ... with the proud contentment of the chemical psychocentric self in relation to the chemical selflessness of verbal salivation in sensuality and pregnancy in sensibility, whose content conditions the chemical egocentric self towards psychocentric impersonality/personality.
84. Hence to contrast, within vegetative physics, the knowledgeable form of the physical egocentric self in relation to the physical not-self of the phallus in sensuality and the brain in sensibility ... with the pleasurable contentment of the physical psychocentric self in relation to the physical selflessness of the orgasm in sensuality and (prayerful) thought in sensibility, whose content conditions the physical egocentric self towards psychocentric impersonality/personality.
85. Hence to contrast, within airy metaphysics, the truthful form of the metaphysical egocentric self in relation to the metaphysical not-self of the ears in sensuality and the lungs in sensibility ... with the joyful contentment of the metaphysical psychocentric self in relation to the metaphysical selflessness of the airwaves in sensuality and the breath in sensibility, whose content conditions the metaphysical egocentric self towards psychocentric impersonality/personality.
86. Of course one could and really should distinguish more pedantically between the personality of the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, and the universality of the noumenal planes of time and space, since that which is noumenal is less personal than universal, and therefore of a standing that obliges one to distinguish between universal orders of egocentric self and psychocentric self in relation to metachemical and metaphysical elements, and to contrast each of these with their impersonal equivalents in what may be described as psychocentric un-universality, and hence 'versality' or, more correctly, polyversality.
87. Be that as it may, I have persisted in using the terms 'personal' and 'impersonal' for convenience's sake, since such terms make generalizing easier and, besides, one can still distinguish the noumenal from the phenomenal on the basis of metachemical from chemical on the one hand, that of fire and water, and of metaphysical from physical on the other hand, that of air and vegetation.
88. Thus not only can the self be personal in one context and impersonal in another, where, by contrast, it becomes psychocentric, but it can be either personal on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass or universal on the noumenal planes of time and space, with due modifications of psychocentricity, as before.
89. But if the conscious self equals ego on any plane, in both external and internal, sensual and sensible contexts, then the superconscious self and/or subconscious self equals mind, or psyche, not the not-self or selflessness, but transported and transmuted self that becomes first psychocentrically impersonal and/or polyversal (depending on the plane) and then psychocentrically personal and/or universal, as it rebounds from superconscious mind to subconscious mind, before returning to egocentric selfhood afresh.
90. Hence just as ego can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, depending on the element, so mind, the psychic extrapolation from egocentric psychology, can be likewise, due to the influence, in no small part, of spirit, such that selflessly emanates from the will of the not-self on either metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical terms, depending, once again, on the elemental context.
91. Thus we have to distinguish one type of psyche, or mind, from another not only in terms of superconscious impersonality and/or polyversality vis-à-vis subconscious personality and/or universality, but also in terms of each of the elements, so that there is no one overall psyche, but different kinds of psyche in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics.
92. Hence there can be four kinds of psyche both in sensuality and sensibility, as well as their respective subdivisions, according to whether selflessness or enhanced selfhood is prevalent at any particular time.
93. Thus psyche can be both spiritual and emotional in all four elements, albeit in different ways according to whether fire, water, vegetation, or air is the prevailing element, while the ego will always be intellectual in one of four different ways, and the not-self or not-ego always wilful, or characterized by will, and hence power.
94. For will it is that powers the glory of spirit, whichever spirit that may happen to be, and spirit it is which adds content to egocentric form and makes it possible for content to psychocentrically achieve contentment for itself on the rebound from superconscious mind to subconscious mind, thereby acquiring a profounder experience of itself through emotional fulfilment.
95. But no sooner has mind acquired such a profounder experience than, duly universal and/or personal (depending on the plane), the ego re-asserts itself in the interests of psychological equilibrium and consciously plunges into the not-self again, so that the self may be transported anew towards selflessness by that which is selfless and from which it must react, in due superconscious course, in the interests not only of enhanced self-realization but, more fundamentally, of self-preservation.
96. For the self is not only what comes first, as form; it is also what comes last, as contentment, and both the powerful will of the not-self and the glorious spirit of selflessness are but means for it to a psychocentric end in spiritual content and, most especially, emotional contentment.
97. Just as there are four kinds of form and content(ment) in both sensuality and sensibility, so there are four kinds of power and glory in each context, which correspond to metachemical, chemical, physical, and metaphysical options.
98. We can grade these four kinds of power and glory from 1-4, starting with the first-rate power and glory of metachemistry which, in its noumenal objectivity, is expressive, and continuing with the second-rate power and glory of chemistry which, in its phenomenal objectivity, is compressive; continuing again with the third-rate power and glory of physics, which, in its phenomenal subjectivity, is depressive, and ending with the fourth-rate power and glory of metaphysics which, in its noumenal subjectivity, is impressive.
99. Hence power and glory descends from that which is most powerful and glorious in metachemical expression to that which is least powerful and glorious in metaphysical impression via that which is more (relative to most) powerful and glorious in chemical compression and that which is less (relative to least) powerful and glorious in physical depression.
100. Considering that power and glory descends from first- to fourth-rate, it seems to me logically correlative that form and content(ment) should ascend from fourth- to first-rate, since it is inconceivable that one could have a first-rate form and content(ment) in connection with a first-rate power and glory or, conversely, a fourth-rate form and content(ment) in connection with a fourth-rate power and glory.
101. That which, as power and glory, has its per se manifestation in expression would be too disruptive of form and content(ment) to allow for anything other than a fourth-rate manifestation of the latter, while, conversely, that which, as power and glory, was most 'bovaryized' through impression would be least disruptive of form and content(ment), and thus most inclined to allow for a first-rate, or per se, manifestation of the latter.
102. Hence if form and content(ment) ascend from that which is least formal and content through metachemical expression to that which is most formal and content through metaphysical impression via that which is less (relative to least) formal and content through chemical compression and that which is more (relative to most) formal and content through physical depression, we may categorically maintain that form and content(ment) will be fourth-rate in connection with the first-rate power and glory of metachemical expression, third-rate in connection with the second-rate power and glory of chemical compression, second-rate in connection with the third-rate power and glory of physical depression, and first-rate in connection with the fourth-rate power and glory of metaphysical impression.
103. Reversing this, one may contend that a first-rate power and glory will engender a fourth-rate form and content(ment), a second-rate power and glory engender a third-rate form and content(ment), a third-rate power and glory engender a second-rate form and content(ment), and a fourth-rate power and glory engender a first-rate form and content(ment).
104. Thus whereas power and glory are only in their per se manifestations in expression, they are 'once bovaryized' in compression, 'twice bovaryized' in depression, and 'thrice bovaryized' in impression. Conversely, whereas form and content(ment) are only in their per se manifestations in impression, they are 'once bovaryized' in depression, 'twice bovaryized' in compression, and 'thrice bovaryized' in expression.
105. Beauty is the fourth-rate, or expressive, form that exists in relation to the first-rate power of metachemical will (the eyes in sensuality and the heart in sensibility), while love is the fourth-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to the first-rate glory of metachemical spirit (sight-light in sensuality and the blood in sensibility).
106. Strength is the third-rate, or compressive, form that exists in relation to the second-rate power of chemical will (the tongue in sensuality and the womb in sensibility), while pride is the third-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to the second-rate glory of chemical spirit (verbal salivation in sensuality and amniotic fluid in sensibility).
107. Knowledge is the second-rate, or depressive, form that exists in relation to the third-rate power of physical will (the phallus in sensuality and the brain in sensibility), while pleasure is the second-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to the third-rate glory of physical spirit (sperm in sensuality and thought in sensibility).
108. Truth is the first-rate, or impressive, form that exists in relation to the fourth-rate power of metaphysical will (the ears in sensuality and the lungs in sensibility), while joy is the first-rate content(ment) that exists in relation to the fourth-rate glory of metaphysical spirit (the airwaves in sensuality and the breath in sensibility).
109. Hence the ascension of form and content(ment) from beauty and love to truth and joy via strength and pride and knowledge and pleasure ... is accompanied by the descension, so to speak, of power and glory from metachemical will and spirit (Devil and Hell) to metaphysical will and spirit (God and Heaven) via chemical will and spirit (woman and purgatory) and physical will and spirit (man and earth).
110. The metachemical self is a fourth-rate self that exists (in universal egocentric and polyversal/universal psychocentric manifestations) in relation both to a first-rate not-self (eyes and/or heart) and to first-rate selflessness (sight-light and/or blood), while the chemical self is a third-rate self that exists (in personal egocentric and impersonal/personal psychocentric manifestations) in relation both to a second-rate not-self (tongue and/or womb) and to second-rate selflessness (verbal salivation and/or amniotic fluid).
111. The physical self is a second-rate self that exists (in personal egocentric and impersonal/personal psychocentric manifestations) in relation both to a third-rate not-self (phallus and/or brain) and to third-rate selflessness (spermatic orgasm and/or prayerful thought), while the metaphysical self is a first-rate self that exists (in universal egocentric and polyversal/universal psychocentric manifestations) in relation both to a fourth-rate not-self (ears and/or lungs) and to fourth-rate selflessness (airwaves and/or the breath).
112. Where there is most power and glory, as in metachemical expression, there will be least form and content(ment), while, conversely, where there is most form and content(ment), as in metaphysical impression, there will be least power and glory.
113. Where there is more (relative to most) power and glory, as in chemical compression, there will be less (relative to least) form and content(ment), while, conversely, where there is more (relative to most) form and content(ment), as in physical depression, there will be less (relative to least) power and glory.
114. Just as expression is synonymous with doing, the appearance-based attribute of noumenal objectivity, so impression is synonymous with being, the essence-centred attribute of noumenal subjectivity.
115. Just as compression is synonymous with giving, the quantitative attribute of phenomenal objectivity, so depression is synonymous with taking, the qualitative attribute of phenomenal subjectivity.
116. Hence we may plot an overall progression from the doing of metachemical expression to the being of metaphysical impression via the giving of chemical compression and the taking of physical depression - as from fire to air via water and vegetation.
117. Whereas both doing and giving are devolutionary with regard to their respective orders (noumenal/phenomenal) of objectivity, both taking and being are evolutionary with regard to their respective orders (phenomenal/noumenal) of subjectivity.
118. To descend from the most doing of the metachemical will to the least doing of the metaphysical will via the more (relative to most) doing of the chemical will and the less (relative to least) doing of the physical will.
119. To descend from the most giving of the chemical spirit to the least giving of the physical spirit via the more (relative to most) giving of the metachemical spirit and the less (relative to least) giving of the metaphysical spirit.
120. To ascend from the least taking of the chemical ego to the most taking of the physical ego via the less (relative to least) taking of the metachemical ego and the more (relative to most) taking of the metaphysical ego.
121. To ascend from the least being of the metachemical soul to the most being of the metaphysical soul via the less (relative to least) being of the chemical soul and the more (relative to most) being of the physical soul.
122. The will is of course synonymous with the instinctual not-self, the spirit with emanational selflessness, the ego with the intellectual self, and the soul with the emotional self, or that which is subconscious as opposed to conscious or (in connection with the spirit) superconscious.
123. The will, or not-self, corresponds to power, and power can be evil, good, foolish, or wise, depending whether it has associations with metachemical expression (doing), chemical compression (giving), physical depression (taking), or metaphysical impression (being).
124. The spirit, or selflessness, corresponds to glory, and glory can be barbarous, civilized, natural, or cultural, depending whether it has associations with fire, water, vegetation, or air.
125. The ego, or conscious self, corresponds to form, and form can be criminal, punishing, sinful, or graceful, depending whether it has associations with beauty, strength, knowledge, or truth.
126. The soul, or subconscious self, corresponds to content(ment), and content(ment) can be cruel, clever, stupid, or kind, depending whether it has associations with love, pride, pleasure, or joy.
127. Things thus proceed, within metachemistry, from the criminality of the beautiful ego to the cruelty (possessiveness) of the loving soul via the evil of the expressive will and the barbarity of the fiery spirit.
128. Things thus proceed, within chemistry, from the punishment of the strong ego to the cleverness (adroitness) of the proud soul via the goodness of the compressive will and the civility of the watery spirit.
129. Things thus proceed, within physics, from the sinfulness of the knowledgeable ego to the stupidity (gravitas) of the pleasurable soul via the folly of the depressive will and the naturalness of the vegetative spirit.
130. Things thus proceed, within metaphysics, from the gracefulness of the truthful ego to the kindness (light-heartedness) of the joyful soul via the wisdom of the impressive will and the culture of the airy spirit.
131. It is as if things proceeded, within a noumenally objective trinity, from the daughter of universal metachemical ego to the daughter of polyversal/universal metachemical psyche via the mother of diabolic will and the unclear spirit of Hell.
132. As if things proceeded, within a phenomenally objective trinity, from the daughter of personal chemical ego to the daughter of impersonal/personal chemical psyche via the mother of feminine will and the clear spirit of purgatory.
133. As if things proceeded, within a phenomenally subjective trinity, from the son of personal physical ego to the son of impersonal/personal physical psyche via the father of masculine will and the unholy spirit of earth.
134. As if things proceeded, within a noumenally subjective trinity, from the son of universal metaphysical ego to the son of polyversal/universal metaphysical psyche via the father of divine will and the holy spirit of Heaven.
135. Thus the only context in which the so-called 'Holy Trinity' has any relevance is the metaphysical one of noumenal subjectivity, wherein we can speak of Son - Father - Holy Spirit, both in relation to the 'once-born' metaphysics of the theocratic 'kingdom without' and, more profoundly, in relation to the 'reborn' metaphysics of the meritocratic 'kingdom within', which has less to do, in sensuality, with the airwaves than, in sensibility, with the breath.
136. Therefore only in relation to air, whether sensually with regard to the ears or sensibly with regard to the lungs, is there any possibility of holy spirit, the airy spirit of metaphysical subjectivity. The holy spirit of Heaven only comes upon those who are either listening (preferably to music) or meditating (upon the breath), and it comes upon the latter more profoundly, through sensibility, than upon the former.
137. Both of the vegetative contexts of phenomenal subjectivity, corresponding to phallus and to brain, have reference to a trinity in which spirit is unholy, since such selflessness issues from physical and therefore foolish organs of not-self, and is accordingly natural rather than cultural, the earthly spirit of a masculine father.
138. Even the physicality of subjectivity in the plutocratic 'kingdom within' can only be described in terms, necessarily phenomenal, of Son - Father - Unholy Spirit, since the Son, corresponding to self, is less graceful here than sinful, the Father less wise here than foolish, and the Unholy Spirit less airy here than vegetative in its cogitative or prayerful nature, with a consequence that the soul (which reacts from such a spirit) is less kind than stupid, less gay than grave, less light than heavy.
139. Yet if the phenomenal trinity of vegetative physics implies an unholy shortfall from the noumenal trinity of airy metaphysics, then that which is neither phenomenally subjective nor noumenally subjective but objective in either noumenal or phenomenal terms ... cannot be described in relation to an Unholy Spirit, much less the Holy Spirit, but only, as I have maintained, in relation to an Unclear Spirit (if noumenal) or to a Clear Spirit (if phenomenal), both of which stand apart from anything male, since concerned with a female relationship between Daughter and Mother, self and not-self, together with its selfless complement, in due objective terms.
140. Thus we cannot entertain notions of Son - Father - Holy Spirit or of Son - Father - Unholy Spirit with metachemistry or chemistry, fire or water, but only notions of Daughter - Mother - Unclear Spirit in the metachemical context or of Daughter - Mother - Clear Spirit in the chemical one.
141. If the concept of Son - Father - Unholy Spirit is unconventional in relation to the more conventional notion of Son - Father - Holy Spirit (though even here my philosophically-conditioned order of symbols differs from that of conventional religious practice), then how much more unconventional are the notions of Daughter - Mother - Unclear Spirit for the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry on the one hand, and of Daughter - Mother - Clear Spirit for the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry on the other hand!
142. If those who imagine that the conventional trinity of Son - Father - Holy Spirit suffices for the Christian realm of vegetative 'rebirth' are mistaken, how much more mistaken would be those who conceive of such a trinity in relation to watery or to fiery orders of 'rebirth', never mind the more prevalent 'once-born' contexts, affirming sensuality, of metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding, in organic terms, to the eyes and to the tongue.
143. No, neither the eyes nor the heart, nor even the tongue or the womb, corresponding to noumenal and to phenomenal levels of objective sensuality and sensibility respectively, have anything to do with holiness, and those who persist in imagining the contrary not only deceive themselves, but are guilty of subverting and corrupting religion.
144. As, up to a point, are those who would conceive of holiness in relation to the phallus or to the brain in vegetative sensuality and sensibility, and are therefore guilty of hyping their phenomenal limitations (in mass and volume) to a degree which marginalizes, if not effectively excludes, genuine holiness.
145. Even those who, in their theocratic fundamentalism, uphold holiness in 'once-born' terms, as auditory sensuality through sequential time, leave something to be desired, and that something is the 'reborn' holiness that, corresponding to the metaphysical 'kingdom within', requires transcendental meditation to ensure that respiratory sensibility through spaced space has the final say.
146. For nothing short of meritocratic transcendentalism can save people, effectively theocrats, from the 'once-born' metaphysics of the 'kingdom without' to the 'reborn' metaphysics of the 'kingdom within', and such a salvation will only be possible in 'Kingdom Come', the pseudo-Kingdom and genuine Centre which the Second Coming (and effective Superchrist) wishes to establish not only at the expense of the metaphysical 'kingdom without' (of the theocratic Father), but also at the expense of the physical 'kingdom within' (of the plutocratic Son), in order that the metaphysical 'kingdom within' (of the meritocratic Holy Spirit of Heaven) may come officially and universally to pass in the top tier of what I have elsewhere - see, for instance, Deistic Deliverance and Ultranotes from Beyond - described as the triadic Beyond.
147. Before I proceed any further, I should emphasize that, not for the first time in this text, I have been guilty of using a convenient generalization to advance a fresh perspective in connection with more immediately significant material, and that, much as this may have been strategically justified at the time, philosophical conscience now compels me to do justice to the truth by also allowing for a more precisely comprehensive perspective.
148. Thus since the per se of power is in metachemistry (as metachemical expression) and the per se of glory is in chemistry (as clear spirit), so that we have a distinction between not-self and selflessness, it stands to reason that generalizations to the effect that power and glory will be first-rate in metachemistry do not square with such a distinction, since glory is hardly in its per se manifestation there but, rather, is 'once bovaryized' and thus duly second-rate.
149. Hence, in metachemistry, we should distinguish between the first-rate power of the metachemically universal not-self and the second-rate glory of metachemical universal selflessness on the one hand, and contrast each of these with the third-rate form of the metachemically egocentric self and the fourth-rate content(ment) of the metachemically psychocentric self.
150. For where power is first-rate, as in metachemical expression, content(ment) will be fourth-rate, form third-rate, and glory second-rate, as the ratios of things proceed from most power to least content(ment) via more (relative to most) glory and less (relative to least) form.
151. Likewise, in chemistry, one should distinguish between the second-rate power of the chemically personal not-self and the first-rate glory of chemically personal selflessness on the one hand, and contrast each of these with the third-rate content(ment) of the chemically psychocentric self and the fourth-rate form of the chemically egocentric self.
152. For where glory is first-rate, as in clear spirit, power will be second-rate, content(ment) third-rate, and form fourth-rate, as the ratios of things proceed from more (relative to most) power to less (relative to least) content(ment) via most glory and least form.
153. Similarly, in physics, one should distinguish between the third-rate power of the physically personal not-self and the fourth-rate glory of physically personal selflessness on the one hand, and contrast each of these with the second-rate content(ment) of the physically psychocentric self and the first-rate form of the physically egocentric self.
154. For where form is first-rate, as in egocentric sinfulness, content(ment) will be second-rate, power third-rate, and glory fourth-rate, as the ratios of things proceed from less (relative to least) power to more (relative to most) content(ment) via least glory and most form.
155. Finally, in metaphysics, one should distinguish between the fourth-rate power of the metaphysically universal not-self and the third-rate glory of metaphysically universal selflessness on the one hand, and contrast each of these with the second-rate form of the metaphysical egocentric self and the first-rate content(ment) of the metaphysical psychocentric self on the other hand.
156. For where content(ment) is first-rate, as in psychocentric kindness, form will be second-rate, glory third-rate, and power fourth-rate, as the ratios of things proceed from least power to most content(ment) via less (relative to least) glory and more (relative to most) form.
157. Of course, things don't literally proceed from power to content(ment) via glory and form, since this is simply with regard to the structural ratios of the various components, but, rather, from form to content(ment) via power and glory, as from egocentric self to psychocentric self via somatic not-self and what I should like to call psychesomatic selflessness (the spiritual emanation from the not-self).
158. And, proceeding thus, we know that form is only in its per se manifestation in physics, content(ment) only in its per se manifestation in metaphysics, power only in its per se manifestation in metachemistry, and glory only in its per se manifestation in chemistry.
159. Knowing which, there can be no doubt that the ego, corresponding to form, is only in its per se manifestation in vegetation; that the soul, corresponding to content(ment), is only in its per se manifestation in air; that the will, corresponding to power, is only in its per se manifestation in fire; and that the spirit, corresponding to glory, is only in its per se manifestation in water.
160. A society that wants perfect power will accordingly be built around fire in due metachemically expressive fashion; a society that wants perfect glory will accordingly be built around water in due chemically clear fashion; while a society, by (gender) contrast, that wants perfect form will accordingly be built around vegetation in due physically sinful vein; and, last but hardly least, a society that wants perfect content(ment) will accordingly be built around air in due metaphysically lighthearted vein.
161. The powerful society will affirm will through fire, the glorious society affirm spirit through water, and both alike will be predominantly objective, and hence female, in their respective ways. Conversely, the formal society will affirm ego through vegetation, the content(ment) society affirm soul through air, and both alike will be preponderantly subjective, and hence male, in their respective ways.
162. Science rules in the powerful society, politics governs in the glorious society; economics represents in the formal society, and religion leads in the content(ment) society.
163. Regarded from the perspective of science, a religious society will be scientifically fourth-rate, an economic society scientifically third-rate, and a political society scientifically second-rate, since only in metachemistry is science first-rate.
164. Regarded from the perspective of politics, an economic society will be politically fourth-rate, a religious society politically third-rate, and a scientific society politically second-rate, since only in chemistry is politics first-rate.
165. Regarded from the perspective of economics, a political society will be economically fourth-rate, a scientific society economically third-rate, and a religious society economically second-rate, since only in physics is economics first-rate.
166. Regarded from the perspective of religion, a scientific society will be religiously fourth-rate, a political society religiously third-rate, and an economic society religiously second-rate, since only in metaphysics is religion first-rate.
167. Of course, what applies to society, which is a conglomeration of individuals sharing common ideals, ethics, nationality, etc., also applies to the individuals who constitute it, insofar as individuals are divisible into those for whom the will, and hence power, is paramount; those for whom the spirit, and hence glory, is paramount; those for whom the ego, and hence form, is paramount; and those for whom the soul, and hence content(ment), is paramount.
168. To some extent this is also attributable to the individual's gender, insofar as females tend to have a bias, in their predominantly objective dispositions (which diverge in sensuality and/or converge in sensibility in a straight line due to a vacuous precondition), towards will and spirit, whereas males tend, by contrast, to have a bias towards ego and soul, after the manner of their preponderantly subjective dispositions (which diverge in sensuality and/or converge in sensibility in a curved line due to a plenumous precondition).
169. Just as fire is the element of the will par excellence, so air, its noumenal antithesis, is the element of the soul par excellence, the heavenly element that is essential where fire is apparent.
170. Just as water is the element of the spirit par excellence, so vegetation (earth), its phenomenal antithesis, is the element of the ego par excellence, the mundane element that is qualitative where water is quantitative.
171. The elements thus proceed from appearance to essence via quantity and quality, as from will to soul via spirit and ego, or power to content(ment) via glory and form.
172. If power is first-rate in fire, where it is expressive in its noumenal objectivity, then it is second-rate in the phenomenally objective compressiveness of water, third-rate in the phenomenally subjective depressiveness of vegetation, and fourth-rate in the noumenally subjective impressiveness of air.
173. If glory is first-rate in water, where it is clear in its chemical spirituality, then it is second-rate in the metachemical unclearness of fire, third-rate in the metaphysical holiness of air, and fourth-rate in the physical unholiness of vegetation.
174. If form is first-rate in vegetation, where it is sinful in its knowledgeable egocentricity, then it is second-rate in the graceful egocentricity of air, third-rate in the criminal egocentricity of fire, and fourth-rate in the punishing egocentricity of water, as we descend from truth and beauty to strength.
175. If content(ment) is first-rate in air, where it is kind in its joyful psychocentricity, then it is second-rate in the stupid psychocentricity of vegetation, third-rate in the clever psychocentricity of water, and fourth-rate in the cruel psychocentricity of fire, as we descend from pleasure and pride to love.
176. Power accordingly descends from expression to impression via compression and depression, as from fire to air via water and vegetation in will.
177. Glory accordingly descends from clear to unholy via unclear and holy, as from water to vegetation via fire and air in spirit.
178. Form accordingly ascends from strength to truth via beauty and knowledge, as from water to air via fire and vegetation in ego.
179. Content(ment) accordingly ascends from love to joy via pride and pleasure, as from fire to air via water and vegetation in soul.
180. If will is most apparent in fire, it is more (relative to most) apparent in water, less (relative to least) apparent in vegetation, and least apparent in air.
181. If spirit is most quantitative in water, it is more (relative to most) quantitative in fire, less (relative to least) quantitative in air, and least quantitative in vegetation.
182. If ego is most qualitative in vegetation, it is more (relative to most) qualitative in air, less (relative to least) qualitative in fire, and least qualitative in water.
183. If soul is most essential in air, it is more (relative to most) essential in vegetation, less (relative to least) essential in water, and least essential in fire.
184. The self, as has been argued, is a composite of three factors, viz. the conscious mind, or intellectualized ego; the superconscious mind, or spiritualized ego; and the subconscious mind, or emotionalized ego. It is thus, in general terms, divisible between ego, mind, and soul, as between intellect, spirit, and emotion.
185. There is a sort of cause-and-effect relationship between the ego and the soul, in whatever element in both sensuality and sensibility, but it is not a direct relationship. Rather is it an indirect relationship in which the self, as cause, achieves soulful redemption for itself via the not-self and selflessness.
186. Hence ego does not directly but only indirectly causes soul, via the intermediate co-operation of the not-self and its selfless complement, the latter of which, as spirit, transmutes ego into mind and directly causes it to rebound from such a transmutation towards the emotional depths of the self, which is its soul.
187. Thus the ego is the effective cause of the will, the will is the direct cause of the spirit, the spirit is the direct effect of the will, and the mind is the causative effect of the spirit, an effect from which, in rejecting, the self rebounds to its soulful kernel before regaining its psychological equilibrium in the ego.
188. Thus whereas there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between will and spirit, power and glory, there is no such relationship between ego and soul since, together with the mind, they are different manifestations of the same thing - namely the self, which is neither its own cause nor its own effect but, rather, the effective cause and causative effect of both the not-self and selflessness.
189. Thus self is truly 'Three-in-One', and this 'One', corresponding to ego/mind/soul, stands apart from the causal not-self of the will and the effective selflessness of the spirit as 'Son' from 'Father' and 'Holy Ghost'.
190. At least this is so of the metaphysical context of noumenal subjectivity in both sensuality and sensibility, but not, as has been argued, of physical, chemical, and metachemical contexts, where 'ghosts' or 'spirits' which are unholy, clear, and unclear have ever to be reckoned with!
(UNSELF VIS-À-VIS NOT-UNSELF)
191. If the self is conscious in egocentricity and has, through utilization of the not-self and selflessness, the capacity to become both superconscious and subconscious in psychocentricity, then the unself is that which is unconscious in un-egocentricity, as negative egocentricity could be called, and super-unconscious to sub-unconscious in un-psychocentricity, the negative counterpart to psychocentricity.
192. The unself is therefore that which is anterior to and older than the self, a negative self which exists to the rear, so to speak, of conscious selfhood, as both its precondition and antithesis.
193. Since the self can only be associated with supremacy, or that which is positive, the unself invites an association with primacy, or that which is negative, and primacy stands to supremacy as the inorganic to the organic.
194. Just as the self exists in relation to both the not-self and its selfless complement, the spirit, so the unself, or unconscious mind, exists in relation to what may be called the not-unself and its unselfless complement, the antispirit.
195. For whereas both the not-self and selflessness, being organic, are positive, the not-unself and unselflessness are negative in their inorganic associations.
196. Whereas the self, through its positive relationship with the not-self and selflessness, has reference to beauty and love in metachemical supremacy, to strength and pride in chemical supremacy, to knowledge and pleasure in physical supremacy, and to truth and joy in metaphysical supremacy, the unself, by contrast, has reference, through its negative relationship with the not-unself and unselflessness, to ugliness and hatred in metachemical primacy, to weakness and humbleness in chemical primacy, to ignorance and pain in physical primacy, and to falsity and woe in metaphysical primacy.
197. This is because the unself effectively taps-in to that which is cosmic and/or geologic rather than to whatever is personal and/or universal, and both the cosmic and the geologic have negative associations primarily, in keeping with their inorganic natures or, rather, unnatures.
198. Hence the metachemical unself has less to do with the eyes or the heart in supreme sensuality and sensibility ... than with the stellar plane, or sphere of the stars, in primal sensuality and with the Venusian plane, or sphere of the planet Venus, in primal sensibility, both of which cosmic planes correspond to the metachemical not-unself.
199. Likewise, the chemical unself has less to do with the tongue or the womb in supreme sensuality and sensibility ... than with the lunar plane, or sphere of the moon, in primal sensuality and with the oceanic plane, or sphere of the seas, in primal sensibility, both of which geologic planes correspond to the chemical not-unself.
200. Similarly, the physical unself has less to do with the phallus or the brain in supreme sensuality and sensibility ... than with the terrestrial plane, or sphere of the earth's core, in primal sensuality and with the Martian plane, or sphere of the planet Mars, in primal sensibility, both of which geologic planes correspond to the physical not-unself.
201. Finally, the metaphysical unself has less to do with the ears or the lungs in supreme sensuality and sensibility ... than with the solar plane, or sphere of the sun, in primal sensuality and with the Saturnian plane, or sphere of the planet Saturn, in primal sensibility, both of which cosmic planes correspond to the metaphysical not-unself.
202. Likewise, the orders of unselflessness to which the unself subscribes in its quest for un-psychocentric transmutation have less to do with the various levels and types of organic not-self than with their inorganic counterparts in the cosmic and/or geologic contexts to which I have referred.
203. Hence there is about the antispirit of unselflessness a strong astrological connotation, which owes more to the astronomical bodies from which the different levels and types of negative spirit emanate than to those personal and/or universal bodies which have an organic association.
204. Hence in metachemical primacy, which corresponds to an axis of negative fire, one would be distinguishing between the negative sensual spirit, or antispirit, of stellar light and the negative sensible spirit of Venusian heat; in chemical primacy, which corresponds to an axis of negative water, the distinction would be between the negative sensual spirit of lunar tides and the negative sensible spirit of oceanic undercurrents; in physical primacy, which corresponds to an axis of negative vegetation, the distinction would be between the negative sensual spirit of subterranean magma and the negative sensible spirit of Martian rocks; and in metaphysical primacy, which corresponds to an axis of negative air (or gas), the distinction would be between the negative sensual spirit of solar rays and the negative sensible spirit of Saturnian rings.
205. Whatever the level and type of negative spirit, or unselflessness, it would be something that issues, in astrological fashion, from the astronomical bodies to which I have given the status of not-unselves, and the unself would be primarily attuned to that rather than to anything organic, and hence personal and/or universal.
206. Thus the unself achieves un-psychocentric transmutations for itself (with regard to super-unconscious mind and sub-unconscious soul) via the cosmic and/or geologic bodies which exist not only as a backdrop to anything organic but, in a wider sense, as its blueprint and precondition.
207. For organic supremacy does not exist in 'splendid isolation' from the astronomical/astrological realm of inorganic primacy but, rather, as something that grew out of it, whether on devolutionary or evolutionary terms, depending on the gender-conditioned context, and that is still subject to its negative influence from time to time, as and when unconscious processes supplant conscious processes in the lives of individuals and even of whole societies which would seem to be hooked on primal, as against supreme, options.
208. Since the twentieth century, what has been called the unconscious has had an importance and influence that would have been impossible to imagine in Christian times, when supremacy was generally more prevalent, and in sensible rather than sensual terms.
209. The slide from sensible supremacy to sensual supremacy, which was due, in no small part, to the supersession of Catholicism by Protestantism in various formerly Christian countries, paved the way for the eclipse of sensual supremacy by sensual primacy, as in Britain and, in particular, the United States of America.
210. Thus 'freedom of conscience' was replaced, in due degenerative course, by freedom from conscience, or secular freedom as such, and secular freedom, whether in the tongue-based guise of 'free speech', as in England-dominated Britain, or in the eye-based guise of a 'free press', as in America, became increasingly identified with sensual primacy, and thus with the dominance of tongue and eye by lunar and stellar influences in due negative fashion.
211. Thus both 'Britannia', ruler of the waves (water) and the 'Liberty Belle', ruler of the so-called heavens (fiery stars), became symbolical of sensual primacy on respectively phenomenal and noumenal, volumetric and spatial, terms, and in such countries the individual was - and remains - exposed to and rendered subservient before the secular freedoms of the unself, viz. the unconscious, in its negative relationship with both geologic and cosmic not-unselves and complementary modes of unselflessness.
212. Thus everything negative is thrown into a prominence that would otherwise be unthinkable, and politics and science, corresponding to the secular freedoms of lunar and stellar bodies, acquire an importance, in unrestrained objectivity, such that they never had even during the era of ecclesiastical, or Protestant, freedom - the 'freedom of conscience' for the individual to dissent from the teachings and/or obligations of the Catholic Church, but not to be free from religion or, at any rate, from religious considerations per se.
213. In fact, so prominent have politics and science become under the hegemonic sway of the unself vis-à-vis both the not-unself and unselflessness, that they have had to be divested of many formerly-held notions of negativity, and granted a degree of positivity in the absence of more genuinely positive alternatives (as from supreme economics and/or supreme religion).
214. Thus some of the positivity formerly accruing to sensible supremacy, not to mention sensual supremacy, has been attributed to the sensual primacy of the unself and its somatic and psychesomatic associations (in not-unself and unselflessness), in order not only to make it more attractive, but to allow it to 'take over' such positivity as still exists and, in the nature of organic life, cannot help but existing, even in an age which, due to Anglo-American pressures, rejects supremacy and all its attendant economic and religious associations.
215. Of course, there is much negative economic and religious activity, as there is bound to be in an age of sensual primacy, when politics and science are hegemonic, and such economics and religion as exist will reflect the prevailing concerns with secular freedom, as it bears upon both cosmic and geologic determinants.
216. But as for positive economic and/or religious activity, that - excepting where a residue of it survives from the past - is difficult to imagine in a context where politics and science are uppermost in due primal fashion, and negativity accordingly rules a secular roost.
217. Likewise it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the self, particularly in its subjective mode, can be delivered from the sort of objective constraints which are placed upon it by the unself and, instead, returned to sensible supremacy, no longer harnessed to sensual supremacy and corrupted, if not eclipsed, by such sensual primacy as characterizes the objective unself in particular.
218. For just as the self is divisible, over and above a phenomenal/noumenal distinction, into objective and subjective manifestations, so the unself is likewise divisible, and in a sensual age or civilization it is the objective self and/or unself which is paramount, dominating the subjective self and/or unself, as the case may be.
219. Hence the more freedom from self and the less binding to self, the more will female criteria, rooted in objectivity, tend to prevail over male criteria, as is symbolically evident by the twin pillars of freedom in the modern world - Britain with its feminine 'Britannia', ruler of the seas, and America with its superfeminine 'Liberty Belle', ruler of the stars.
220. Thus does 'Feminism' ride out on the back of secular freedom, not, be it noted, so much in relation to sensual supremacy, with its ecclesiastical freedom, as in relation to sensual primacy, wherein negativity gets the better of positivity, and the moon and the stars become the geologic and cosmic foci, not to mention justifications, of objective attention, in due political and scientific terms.
221. For woman, in the broadest phenomenal/noumenal sense, is not in her element with economics, still less with religion (which, in any case, has never existed in its per se manifestation in the West), but only with politics and science, wherein her objective disposition is granted free rein in relation to sensual primacy.
222. Not that sensible primacy is excluded from the frame, least of all in objective contexts, but even that is likely to be subordinated to sensual primacy in the interests of female liberation and enhanced domination of males.
223. And with sensual primacy paramount, particularly in relation to spatial space, evil is free to do its damnedest, not least of all in terms of the negative power of stellar ill-will that panders to spiritual barbarism and perpetuates a vicious cycle of ugliness and hatred from the criminal and cruel unself of metachemical primacy.
224. Thus an age of sensual primacy will be characterized by negative evil power and negative barbarous spirit in relation to the materialism or, rather, antimaterialism (negative materialism) of spatial antispace, and by negative good power and negative civilized spirit in relation to the antirealism (negative realism) of volumetric antivolume, with the male side of life duly subordinated to it in terms of negative foolish power and negative natural spirit in relation to the antinaturalism (negative naturalism) of massive antimass, and negative wise power and negative cultural spirit in relation to the anti-idealism (negative idealism) of sequential antitime.
225. Whatever the negative context, the unself will be utilizing the relevant not-unself in order to achieve psychocentric transmutation via its complementary mode of unselflessness, and thereby rebound from super-unself to sub-unself, super-unconscious to sub-unconscious, wherein the negative emotions of hatred or humility or pain or woe, depending on the elemental context, will be paramount.
226. In no negative context will there be anything positive, though positivity still exists, and exists in relation to the self, albeit to a self which, in an age of sensual primacy, will be on the backfoot, so to speak, and be existing in the shadow of the unself, with its secular values or, rather, antivalues in relation to science and politics.
227. There could be no worse situation than that in which the unself, corresponding to the unconscious, is free of self and able to do and/or give, where female objectivity is concerned, in due scientific and/or political fashion.
228. Such economics and religion as are affiliated to this will take and/or be, depending on the context, in due secular vein, falling demonstrably short of anything supreme, whether in 'once-born', and Protestant, or in 'reborn', and Catholic, terms, with consequences all-too-predictably Freemasonic and/or occult.
229. For economics and religion are only in their hegemonic modes in supremacy, with particular reference to 'reborn' contexts, and where this is patently lacking, both disciplines will be scientifically and/or politically 'bovaryized', as the case may be.
230. And where economics and religion are 'bovaryized', there, too, men will be 'bovaryized' away from what properly pertains, in supreme subjectivity, to the male side of life, and be unable, in consequence, to regard themselves with any great degree of self-respect.
231. In fact, they become prey to the predatory instincts of women, falling victim to the twin objectivities of science and politics in their negative, or hegemonic, modes.
232. Thus, in paraphrasing Yeats, do the subjective 'best' lack all conviction, while the objective 'worst' are full of a passionate intensity, as germane to the rule and/or governance of sensual primacy.
233. For, with primacy, all that is objectively negative has free rein not only to exclude the subjectively positive, but to dominate the subjective negativity of that which is sensually male, the stellar duly hegemonic over the solar, and the lunar over the terrestrial.
234. Just so, in sensual supremacy, the eyes would be hegemonic over the ears and the tongue hegemonic over the phallus, as the objective positivity of female sensuality dominates subjective positivity in due 'once-born' terms.
235. All that was required to tip sensual supremacy over into sensual primacy ... was the advent, on the back of religious freedom, of secular freedom in republican struggle against the traditional Church and State, and with its victory, in certain countries, the way was paved not only for political hegemony but, worst of all, for the scientific hegemony that is its noumenal counterpart.
236. The 'Stars and Stripes' are the ultimate emblematic embodiment of the triumph of sensual primacy and the hegemony of both politics and, especially, science in due secular fashion - a triumph presided over by the 'Liberty Belle', gift of a people (the French) who achieved in politics what America has since achieved in science - namely, secular freedom.
(NEGATIVITY VIS-À-VIS POSITIVITY)
237. Since science has its per se manifestation in metachemistry ... as that which, rooted instinctually in appearances, pertains to the materialism and/or fundamentalism (depending on the context) of elemental particles in the most basic and/or least advanced element of fire, we may conclude that metachemical primacy descends, or regresses, from the most ugliness and hatred of scientific materialism to the least ugliness and hatred of religious materialism via the more (relative to most) ugliness and hatred of political materialism and the less (relative to least) ugliness and hatred of economic materialism, while, conversely, metachemical supremacy ascends, or progresses, from the least beauty and love of scientific fundamentalism to the most beauty and love of religious fundamentalism via the less (relative to least) beauty and love of political fundamentalism and the more (relative to most) beauty and love of economic fundamentalism, and does so whether with regard to sensuality or sensibility.
238. Since politics has its per se manifestation in chemistry ... as that which, rooted spiritually in quantities, pertains to the realism and/or nonconformism (depending on the context) of molecular particles in the more (relative to most) basic and/or less (relative to least) advanced element of water, we may conclude that chemical primacy descends, or regresses, from the most weakness and humility of scientific realism to the least weakness and humility of religious realism via the more (relative to most) weakness and humility of political realism and the less (relative to least) weakness and humility of economic realism, while, conversely, chemical supremacy ascends, or progresses, from the least strength and pride of scientific nonconformism to the most strength and pride of religious nonconformism via the less (relative to least) strength and pride of political nonconformism and the more (relative to most) strength and pride of economic nonconformism, and does so whether with regard to sensuality or sensibility.
239. Since economics has its per se manifestation in physics ... as that which, centred intellectually in qualities, pertains to the naturalism and/or humanism (depending on the context) of molecular wavicles in the less (relative to least) basic and/or more (relative to most) advanced element of vegetation, we may conclude that physical primacy descends, or regresses, from the most ignorance and pain of scientific naturalism to the least ignorance and pain of religious naturalism via the more (relative to most) ignorance and pain of political naturalism and the less (relative to least) ignorance and pain of economic naturalism, while, conversely, physical supremacy ascends, or progresses, from the least knowledge and pleasure of scientific humanism to the most knowledge and pleasure of religious humanism via the less (relative to least) knowledge and pleasure of political humanism and the more (relative to most) knowledge and pleasure of economic humanism, and does so whether with regard to sensuality or sensibility.
240. Since religion has its per se manifestation in metaphysics ... as that which, centred emotionally in essences, pertains to the idealism and/or transcendentalism (depending on the context) of elemental wavicles in the least basic and/or most advanced element of air, we may conclude that metaphysical primacy descends, or regresses, from the most falsity and woe of scientific idealism to the least falsity and woe of religious idealism via the more (relative to most) falsity and woe of political idealism and the less (relative to least) falsity and woe of economic idealism, while, conversely, metaphysical supremacy ascends, or progresses, from the least truth and joy of scientific transcendentalism to the most truth and joy of religious transcendentalism via the less (relative to least) truth and joy of political transcendentalism and the more (relative to most) truth and joy of economic transcendentalism, and does so whether with regard to sensuality or sensibility.
241. Thus wherever science and politics hold hegemonic sway, as in particle-based contexts, there will be most and more negativity vis-à-vis least and less positivity respectively, whereas wherever economics and religion are paramount, as in wavicle-centred contexts, there will be more and most positivity vis-à-vis less and least negativity respectively.
242. It does seem that the distinction between primacy and supremacy, as regarding negative and positive alternatives, is something that encourages one to distinguish between materialism and fundamentalism in relation to metachemistry, realism and nonconformism in relation to chemistry, naturalism and humanism in relation to physics, and idealism and transcendentalism in relation to metaphysics, and this whether with regard to scientific, political, economic, or religious contexts.
243. Thus one would have to distinguish the negativity, in primacy, of materialism, realism, naturalism and idealism ... from the positivity, in supremacy, of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism, whether with regard to sensual or to sensible contexts.
244. An age of primacy, like the twentieth century, was one in which, particularly in the Anglo-American West, materialism eclipsed fundamentalism, realism eclipsed nonconformism, naturalism eclipsed humanism, and idealism eclipsed transcendentalism - in short, a secular as opposed to an ecclesiastical age, in which the supreme is no longer reflective of the times.
245. Henceforward people would increasingly be judged as materialists, realists, naturalists, or idealists ... rather than as fundamentalists, nonconformists, humanists, or transcendentalists, even though approximations to the latter still persisted in existing, and as a retort, in some cases, to the prevailing negativity of the primal antivalues.
246. For nothing positive can be ascribed to materialism, realism, naturalism, or idealism ... except where and to the extent that they have been infused, consciously or (more probably) unconsciously, with positive values properly accruing to fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, or transcendentalism.
247. In actuality, however, primacy remains negative in both sensual and sensible contexts, whereas supremacy is alone commensurate with positivity, and hence with that which puts the self, in whatever elemental mode, above the unself, as the conscious above the unconscious.
248. Thus we have no option but to equate materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism with the unself in each of its elemental manifestations, and to deduce that wherever things illustrative of primacy exist, it is because the unself, or unconscious, has come to the fore at the expense of the self, and relegated fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism to the 'rubbish heap' of historical supremacy, even as it arrogates from them such positivity as is claimed for itself.
249. Duly invested with some of the positivity formerly applying, and still properly accruing, to supreme contexts, it is no wonder if both politics and science, the objective disciplines of a primal hegemony, are able to make claims for themselves and to deceive, in due female fashion, the ignorant masses that they are the solution to all of their problems.
250. For it does indeed seem that, in an age of primacy, the solution to life's ills can only be found in politics and science, since they alone are sensually hegemonic, and life itself has to be primarily regarded in terms of realism and materialism, the former hegemonic over naturalism, and the latter hegemonic over idealism, with Anglo-American consequences for all concerned!
251. For in Britain, the
watery land of 'Britannia', realism is politically hegemonic over
as conservatism over liberalism, while in
252. One cannot even claim, with any degree of contemporary relevance, that nonconformism is hegemonic over humanism in Britain, or fundamentalism hegemonic over transcendentalism in America, since such a 'once-born' situation would be commensurate with sensual supremacy, and in neither country is supremacy anything but tangential, these days, to the prevailing primacy, be it phenomenal, as in Britain's case, or noumenal, as in the case of America.
253. For in both countries politics and science are hegemonic, the one through the parliamentary prerogative of 'free speech', which owes something of its current realistic prominence to a free-church precondition in Puritan nonconformism, and the other through the constitutional prerogative of 'freedom of the press', which owes something of its current materialistic prominence to a free-temple precondition in Judeo-Oriental fundamentalism, with both the tongue and the eyes under the reigning light, so to speak, of the moon and the stars - less (relative to least) strength and pride vis-à-vis more (relative to most) weakness and humility in the political context, least beauty and love in relation to most ugliness and hatred in the scientific one.
254. One could no more imagine a situation in which there was no 'freedom of speech' in parliamentary Britain ... than imagine one in which there was no 'freedom of the press' in presidential America; for in both countries water and fire are free in both supreme and, in particular these days, primal terms.
255. And where water and fire are free, vegetation and air will not be bound to themselves in due Christian and/or Superchristian vein, but be deferentially subservient before the twin objectivities of Heathen and Superheathen power.
257. Now it is the phenomenal unself of weakness and humility in the one case, and the noumenal unself of ugliness and hatred in the other case ... which is chiefly characteristic of each nation, thanks, in no small part, to the 'dogs' of primal freedom.
258. Even supreme freedom is morally undesirable from a Christian standpoint, not only because it corresponds to a 'once-born' situation in which the tongue is hegemonic over the phallus and the eyes are hegemonic over the ears, but because it inevitably paves the way for sensual primacy, and hence the eclipse of the tongue by the moon and of the eyes by the stellar cosmos, negativity duly 'riding out' at the expense of positivity.
259. But where supreme binding (to Christ) still exists, this will not happen or, at any rate, won't have happened to anything like the same extent, albeit Anglo-American influences still have to be reckoned with, as in Ireland.
260. For Christianity, being a Catholic phenomenon, remains faithful to sensible supremacy at the 'reborn' phenomenal level of the brain, which is the Christian salvation, through the 'word of Christ', from the 'once-born' phenomenal realm of the flesh, of which the phallus is sensual cynosure.
261. Thus Catholicism encourages people - and men in particular - to remain sensibly bound to phenomenal supremacy rather than to become sensually free (of such a binding) through sensual supremacy (as in Protestantism) or, worse again, through sensual primacy (as in the secular negativity of political and scientific societies), and in such an encouragement there is the reward of vegetative positivity in physically sensible, or cerebral, terms.
262. What there is not and what there is need of, it seems to me, is an airy positivity in metaphysically sensible terms, a salvation not of the brain in relation to the flesh, the rejection of which is graphically illustrated by the Crucifixion, but of the lungs in relation to the ears, and for this ... one would have to go beyond Christianity to the Superchristian heights of what I identify with 'Kingdom Come', where sensible binding to noumenal supremacy would become if not the sole then, at any rate, the leading mode of binding, in due meditative vein.
263. Thus Catholicism, by upholding sensible binding to phenomenal supremacy through Christ, paves the way for the Social Transcendentalist binding to noumenal supremacy via the prophet (call him Second Coming or Ultimate Messiah) of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, and all because it upholds sensual binding to noumenal supremacy through the Father, whose 'once-born' mode of noumenal binding, equivalent to the ears, leaves to be desired the 'reborn' mode of noumenal binding to the lungs, so that sensible supremacy may supersede sensual supremacy as the prevailing mode of metaphysics.
264. Only then, with metaphysical sensibility, will religion achieve a Superchristian fulfilment and deliverance not only from the Subchristian sensuality of 'the Father', but, no less significantly, be elevated above the 'reborn' sensibility of 'the Son', whose cerebral binding leaves something to be desired from a genuinely religious standpoint - namely, attainment of the Holy Spirit of Heaven and achievement, via that, of joyful self-realization of an ultimate order.
265. For joyful self-realization can only come to pass in relation to air, the soulful element par excellence, whether externally via the airwaves, and hence the ears, or internally via the breath, and hence the lungs. If the former is Subchristian, then the latter is most assuredly Superchristian, and hence the salvation of Subchristians, as from ears to lungs.
266. Thus the being of the soul passes from sensuality to sensibility, as from music to meditation, with the achievement of inner joy, the joy-of-joys and soul-of-souls.
267. Contrasted with the being of soul, however, is the antibeing of antisoul, the negative being of the psychocentric unself in relation to the woe of metaphysical primacy, whether in sensuality or sensibility.
268. Such an antibeing exists in the shadow of metachemical primacy, as under the rule of hatred and, most especially, of negative doing, the antidoing of metachemical antiwill.
269. For metachemistry is that in which the will and/or antiwill, depending on the context, is paramount, and where doing and/or antidoing are accordingly very much in the expressive driving-seat.
270. In fact, there could be no greater contrast, overall, than between the metachemical and the metaphysical, as between fire and air; for the one is dominated by the will and/or antiwill of the somatic not-self and/or not-unself, while the other is led by the soul and/or antisoul of the psychocentric self and/or unself, depending, once again, on whether we are alluding to supremacy or to primacy.
271. Thus whereas doing and/or antidoing characterizes metachemistry in supreme and/or primal modes, being and/or antibeing characterizes its noumenal antithesis, metaphysics - the being and/or antibeing of metaphysical soul and/or antisoul, as opposed to the doing and/or antidoing of metachemical will and/or antiwill.
272. If doing and being, to concentrate on supremacy, are as far apart as will and soul, then giving and taking, their phenomenal equivalents, are as far apart as spirit and ego, or chemistry and physics.
273. For unlike metachemistry, chemistry is governed by spirit, the quantity that gives, whereas, unlike metaphysics, physics is represented by the ego, the quality that takes.
274. Hence we may contrast the giving of chemical spirit with the taking of physical ego, since water is the element in which spirit is paramount, whereas vegetation, its phenomenal antithesis, is the element in which the ego is paramount, and in neither context can there be anything, in consequence, but 'bovaryized' modes of will and soul.
275. Of course, what applies to giving and taking, the supreme manifestations of chemistry and physics, applies just as much to the antigiving and the antitaking, so to speak, of the antispirit and the anti-ego, of unselflessness and the unself in their per se manifestations respectively, except that here we will be dealing with primacy in both its sensual and sensible modes.
276. Thus the antispirit of chemical unselflessness and the anti-ego of the physical unself are as far apart as the spirit of chemical selflessness and the ego of the physical self, as we distinguish, within phenomenal parameters, negative water from negative vegetation.
277. Thus primacy and supremacy can be found in every element, from fire and air 'up above', in the noumenal realms of time and space, to water and vegetation 'down below', in the phenomenal realms of volume and mass.
278. Without primacy there would be no supremacy, without the inorganic nothing organic, without the egocentric unself of negative intellectuality no egocentric self of positive intellectuality, without the somatic not-unself of negative instinctuality no somatic not-self of positive instinctuality, without the psychesomatic unselflessness of negative spirituality no psychesomatic selflessness of positive spirituality, and without the psychocentric unself of negative emotionality no psychocentric self of positive emotionality.
279. Primacy is the foundation, but it does not have to be the boss, and in any sensibly-run society worthy of the name physical and/or metaphysical, it will be kept in a subordinate position, in order that supremacy may be developed to the full extent of that society's existing capacities.
280. Supremacy fares better in subjective contexts, as above, than ever it does in objective ones, and therefore it requires humanism or transcendentalism, rather than nonconformism or fundamentalism, if it is to survive on a properly sensible basis, without undue threat of subversion and/or eclipse by primacy.
281. For humanism and transcendentalism, corresponding, in elemental terms, to vegetation and air, alone pertain to the male, and hence subjective, side of life, whereas nonconformism and fundamentalism, with their watery and fiery connotations, will be exposed, like females, to the direct sway of objective pressures which render supremacy more vulnerable to primal encroachments.
282. Hence there is a greater risk of fundamentalism succumbing to materialism and of nonconformism succumbing to realism than of humanism succumbing to naturalism or of transcendentalism succumbing to idealism, given the objective dispositions, in rectilinear (straight) divergence and/or convergence, of both fundamentalism and nonconformism.
283. Yet no kind of supremacy is exempt from the risk of primal subversion, and the sensual lures, for example, of the terrestrial and of the solar have ever to be reckoned with from a subjective and hence male standpoint, particularly for those whose modes of supremacy are 'once born' rather than 'reborn'.
284. To descend, or regress, from the most primacy of materialism to the least primacy of idealism via the more (relative to most) primacy of realism and the less (relative to least) primacy of naturalism.
285. To ascend, or progress, from the least supremacy of fundamentalism to the most supremacy of transcendentalism via the less (relative to least) supremacy of nonconformism and the more (relative to most) supremacy of humanism.
286. Since space is supernoumenal and time subnoumenal, we may contrast the extreme (noumenal) right-wing nature of space with the extreme (noumenal) left-wing nature of time, the former divisible between positively spatial and spaced modes of space, the latter divisible between positively sequential and repetitive modes of time.
287. Since antispace is anti-supernoumenal and antitime anti-subnoumenal, we may contrast the extreme (antinoumenal) right-wing unnature of antispace with the extreme (antinoumenal) left-wing unnature of antitime, the former divisible between negatively spatial and spaced modes of antispace, the latter divisible between negatively sequential and repetitive modes of antitime.
288. Since volume is upper phenomenal and mass lower phenomenal, we may contrast the moderate (phenomenal) right-wing nature of volume with the moderate (phenomenal) left-wing nature of mass, the former divisible between positively volumetric and voluminous modes of volume, the latter divisible between positively massive and massed modes of mass.
289. Since antivolume is anti-upper-phenomenal and antimass anti-lower-phenomenal, we may contrast the moderate (antiphenomenal) right-wing unnature of antivolume with the moderate (antiphenomenal) left-wing unnature of antimass, the former divisible between negatively volumetric and voluminous modes of antivolume, the latter divisible between negatively massive and massed modes of antimass.
290. That which exists in space-time objectivity, the noumenal objectivity of fire, will be extreme right in space but extreme left in time, whereas that which exits in time-space subjectivity, the noumenal subjectivity of air, will be extreme left in time and extreme right in space. For space alone can be described as extreme right, or supernoumenal, with time as extreme left, or subnoumenal, and this in negative contexts no less than in positive ones.
291. That which exists in volume-mass objectivity, the phenomenal objectivity of water, will be moderate right in volume but moderate left in mass, whereas that which exits in mass-volume subjectivity, the phenomenal subjectivity of vegetation, will be moderate left in mass but moderate right in volume. For volume alone can be described as moderate right, or upper phenomenal, and mass as moderate left, or lower phenomenal, and this in negative contexts no less than in positive ones.
292. Thus there is, in supremacy, a right-wing fundamentalism in positive spatial space and a left-wing fundamentalism in positive repetitive time, a right-wing nonconformism in positive volumetric volume and a left-wing nonconformism in positive massed mass, a left-wing humanism in positive massive mass and a right-wing humanism in positive voluminous volume, a left-wing transcendentalism in positive sequential time and a right-wing transcendentalism in positive spaced space, the former options on each axis in organic sensuality and the latter ones ... in organic sensibility.
293. Thus there is, in primacy, a right-wing materialism in negative spatial space and a left-wing materialism in negative repetitive time, a right-wing realism in negative volumetric volume and a left-wing realism in negative massed mass, a left-wing naturalism in negative massive mass and a right-wing naturalism in negative voluminous volume, a left-wing idealism in negative sequential time and a right-wing idealism in negative spaced space, the former options on each axis in inorganic sensuality and the latter ones ... in inorganic sensibility.
294. To supremely regress, in positive space-time objectivity, from right to left, as from spatial space to repetitive time, but to supremely progress, in positive time-space subjectivity, from left to right, as from sequential time to spaced space.
295. To primally regress, in negative space-time objectivity, from right to left, as from spatial antispace to repetitive antitime, but to primally progress, in negative time-space subjectivity, from left to right, as from sequential antitime to spaced antispace.
296. To supremely regress, in positive volume-mass objectivity, from right to left, as from volumetric volume to massed mass, but to supremely progress, in positive mass-volume subjectivity, from left to right, as from massive mass to voluminous volume.
297. To primally regress, in negative volume-mass objectivity, from right to left, as from volumetric antivolume to massed antimass, but to primally progress, in negative mass-volume subjectivity, from left to right, as from massive antimass to voluminous antivolume.
298. That which most characterizes space-time objectivity is appearance, whether the negative appearance of primacy or the positive appearance of supremacy, and appearance is commensurate with the instinctual tendency of the antiwill and/or will of the somatic not-unself and/or not-self ... to do, whether negatively, as antidoing, or positively, as doing.
299. That which most characterizes time-space subjectivity is essence, whether the negative essence of primacy or the positive essence of supremacy, and essence is commensurate with the emotional tendency of the antisoul and/or soul of the psychocentric unself and/or self ... to be, whether negatively, as antibeing, or positively, as being.
300. That which most characterizes volume-mass objectivity is quantity, whether the negative quantity of primacy or the positive quantity of supremacy, and quantity is commensurate with the emanational tendency of the antispirit and/or spirit of psychesomatic unselflessness and/or selflessness ... to give, whether negatively, as antigiving, or positively, as giving.
301. That which most characterizes mass-volume subjectivity is quality, whether the negative quality of primacy or the positive quality of supremacy, and quality is commensurate with the intellectual tendency of the antimind and/or mind of the egocentric unself and/or self ... to take, whether negatively, as antitaking, or positively, as taking.
302. Thus whereas antidoing/doing finds its per se manifestation in the appearance of space-time objectivity, antibeing/being finds its per se manifestation in the essence of time-space subjectivity, antigiving/giving finds its per se manifestation in the quantity of volume-mass objectivity, and antitaking/taking finds its per se manifestation in the quality of mass-volume subjectivity.
303. Antidoing/doing is evil (expressive) in space-time materialism and/or fundamentalism, good (compressive) in volume-mass realism and/or nonconformism, foolish (depressive) in mass-volume naturalism and/or humanism, and wise (impressive) in time-space idealism and/or transcendentalism, thereby descending from first- to fourth-rate via second- and third-rate manifestations of willpower in both primal and supreme contexts.
304. Antibeing/being is cruel (hateful and/or loving) in space-time materialism and/or fundamentalism, punishing (humble and/or proud) in volume-mass realism and/or nonconformism, sinful (painful and/or pleasurable) in mass-volume naturalism and/or humanism, and kind (woeful and/or joyful) in time-space idealism and/or transcendentalism, thereby ascending from fourth- to first rate via third- and second-rate manifestations of soul content(ment) in both primal and supreme contexts.
305. Antigiving/giving is clear (watery) in volume-mass realism and/or nonconformism, unclear (fiery) in space-time materialism and/or fundamentalism, holy (airy) in time-space idealism and/or transcendentalism, and unholy (vegetative) in mass-volume naturalism and/or humanism, thereby descending from first- to fourth-rate via second- and third-rate manifestations of spirit glory in both primal and supreme contexts.
306. Antitaking/taking is feminine (weak and/or strong) in volume-mass realism and/or nonconformism, diabolic (ugly and/or beautiful) in space-time materialism and/or fundamentalism, divine (false and/or truthful) in time-space idealism and/or transcendentalism, and masculine (ignorant and/or knowledgeable) in mass-volume naturalism and/or humanism, thereby ascending from fourth- to first-rate via third- and second-rate manifestations of ego form in both primal and supreme contexts.
307. The will does, the spirit gives, the mind takes, and the soul is. And this whether in primacy or supremacy, negativity or positivity, in both sensuality and sensibility.
308. Hence will is most in its element in fire, the fire of space-time objectivity; spirit is most in its element in water, the water of volume-mass objectivity; mind most in its element in vegetation, the vegetation of mass-volume subjectivity; and soul most in its element in air, the air of time-space subjectivity.
309. That which applies to the will in relation to positive, or organic, fire ... applies no less to the antiwill in relation to negative, or inorganic, fire; that which applies to the spirit in relation to positive, or organic, water ... applies no less to the antispirit in relation to negative, or inorganic, water; that which applies to the ego in relation to positive, or organic, vegetation ... applies no less to the anti-ego in relation to negative, or inorganic, vegetation; and that which applies to the soul in relation to positive, or organic, air ... applies no less to the antisoul in relation to negative, or inorganic, air.
310. The will and/or antiwill to do and/or antido; the spirit and/or antispirit to give and/or antigive; the ego and/or anti-ego to take and/or antitake; and the soul and/or antisoul to be and/or antibe.
311. From the most doing and/or antidoing of the expressive will and/or antiwill to the least doing and/or antidoing of the impressive will and/or antiwill via the more (relative to most) doing and/or antidoing of the compressive will and/or antiwill and the less (relative to least) doing and/or antidoing of the depressive will and/or antiwill.
312. From the most giving and/or antigiving of the clear spirit and/or antispirit to the least giving and/or antigiving of the unholy spirit and/or antispirit via the more (relative to most) giving and/or antigiving of the unclear spirit and/or antispirit and the less (relative to least) giving and/or antigiving of the holy spirit and/or antispirit.
313. From the most taking and/or antitaking of the masculine ego and/or anti-ego to the least taking and/or antitaking of the feminine ego and/or anti-ego via the more (relative to most) taking and/or antitaking of the divine (submasculine-to-supermasculine) ego and/or anti-ego and the less (relative to least) taking and/or antitaking of the diabolic (superfeminine-to-subfeminine) ego and/or anti-ego.
314. From the most being and/or antibeing of the sempiternal (heavenly) soul and/or antisoul to the least being and/or antibeing of the infernal (hellish) soul and/or antisoul via the more (relative to most) being and/or antibeing of the paternal (earthly) soul and/or antisoul and the less (relative to least) being and/or antibeing of the maternal (purgatorial) soul and/or antisoul.
315. From the primal and/or supreme evil power of the expressive antiwill and/or will of the scientifically somatic not-unself and/or not-self to the primal and/or supreme wise power of the impressive antiwill and/or will of the religiously somatic not-unself and/or not-self via the primal and/or supreme good power of the compressive antiwill and/or will of the politically somatic not-unself and/or not-self and the primal and/or supreme foolish power of the depressive antiwill and/or will of the economically somatic not-unself and/or not-self.
316. From the primal and/or supreme civilized glory of the clear antispirit and/or spirit of politically psychesomatic unselflessness and/or selflessness to the primal and/or supreme natural glory of the unholy antispirit and/or spirit of economically psychesomatic unselflessness and/or selflessness via the primal and/or supreme barbarous glory of the unclear antispirit and/or spirit of scientifically psychesomatic unselflessness and/or selflessness and the primal and/or supreme cultural glory of the holy antispirit and/or spirit of religiously psychesomatic unselflessness and/or selflessness.
317. From the primal and/or supreme sinful form of the masculine antimind and/or mind of economically unegocentric and/or egocentric selfhood to the primal and/or supreme punishing form of the feminine antimind and/or mind of politically unegocentric and/or egocentric selfhood via the primal and/or supreme graceful form of the divine antimind and/or mind of religiously unegocentric and/or egocentric selfhood and the primal and/or supreme criminal form of the diabolic antimind and/or mind of scientifically unegocentric and/or egocentric selfhood.
318. From the primal and/or supreme kind content(ment) of the sempiternal antisoul and/or soul of religiously un-psychocentric and/or psychocentric selfhood to the primal and/or supreme cruel content(ment) of the infernal antisoul and/or soul of scientifically un-psychocentric and/or psychocentric selfhood via the primal and/or supreme stupid (grave) content(ment) of the paternal antisoul and/or soul of economically un-psychocentric and/or psychocentric selfhood and the primal and/or supreme clever (adroit) content(ment) of the maternal antisoul and/or soul of politically un-psychocentric and/or psychocentric selfhood.
319. To contrast the form and/or antiform of the egocentric self and/or unself with the content(ment) and/or anticontent(ment) of the psychocentric self and/or unself, and the power and/or antipower of the somatic not-self and/or not-unself with the glory and/or antiglory of psychesomatic selflessness and/or unselflessness.
320. If power is evil, or expressive, in space-time objectivity, it is good, or compressive, in volume-mass objectivity; foolish, or depressive, in mass-volume subjectivity; and wise, or impressive, in time-space subjectivity.
321. If glory is unclear, or barbarous, in space-time objectivity, it is clear, or civilized, in volume-mass objectivity; unholy, or natural, in mass-volume subjectivity; and holy, or cultural, in time-space subjectivity.
322. If form is criminal, or selective, in space-time objectivity, it is punishing, or deflective, in volume-mass objectivity; sinful, or reflective, in mass-volume subjectivity; and graceful, or elective, in time-space subjectivity.
323. If content(ment) is cruel, or infernal, in space-time objectivity, it is just, or maternal, in volume-mass objectivity; grave, or paternal, in mass-volume subjectivity; and kind, or sempiternal, in time-space subjectivity.
324. Since the antiwill and/or will is metachemical in its per se manifestation, those who primarily live for the antiwill and/or will, and hence for negative and/or positive power, will be materialists and/or fundamentalists.
325. Since the antispirit and/or spirit is chemical in its per se manifestation, those who primarily live for the antispirit and/or spirit, and hence for negative and/or positive glory, will be realists and/or nonconformists.
326. Since the anti-ego and/or ego is physical in its per se manifestation, those who primarily live for the anti-ego and/or ego, and hence for negative and/or positive form, will be naturalists and/or humanists.
327. Since the antisoul and/or soul is metaphysical in its per se manifestation, those who primarily live for the antisoul and/or soul, and hence for negative and/or positive content(ment), will be idealists and/or transcendentalists.
328. In the metachemical context of space-time objectivity, instinctuality will be paramount in the not-self and/or not-unself of somatic power and/or antipower.
329. In the chemical context of volume-mass objectivity, spirituality will be paramount in the selflessness and/or unselflessness of psychesomatic glory and/or antiglory.
330. In the physical context of mass-volume subjectivity, intellectuality will be paramount in the self and/or unself of egocentric form and/or antiform.
331. In the metaphysical context of time-space subjectivity, emotionality will be paramount in the self and/or unself of psychocentric content(ment) and/or anticontent(ment).
332. To contrast the doing and/or antidoing of will and/or antiwill in all 'bovaryized' contexts of power and/or antipower with the will and/or antiwill of doing and/or antidoing in the metachemical context of the will and/or antiwill per se.
333. To contrast the giving and/or antigiving of spirit and/or antispirit in all 'bovaryized' contexts of glory and/or antiglory with the spirit and/or antispirit of giving and/or antigiving in the chemical context of the spirit and/or antispirit per se.
334. To contrast the taking and/or antitaking of ego and/or anti-ego in all 'bovaryized' contexts of form and/or antiform with the ego and/or anti-ego of taking and/or antitaking in the physical context of the ego and/or anti-ego per se.
335. To contrast the being and/or antibeing of soul and/or antisoul in all 'bovaryized' contexts of content(ment) and/or anticontent(ment) with the soul and/or antisoul of being and/or antibeing in the metaphysical context of the soul and/or antisoul per se.
336. For just as antidoing and/or doing is only in its per se manifestation in metachemistry, where it is powerfully expressive (in relation to the noumenal objectivity of space-time materialism and/or fundamentalism), so antigiving and/or giving is only in its per se manifestation in chemistry, where it is gloriously clear (in relation to the phenomenal objectivity of volume-mass realism and/or nonconformism).
337. And just as antitaking and/or taking is only in its per se manifestation in physics, where it is formally sinful (in relation to the phenomenal subjectivity of mass-volume naturalism and/or humanism), so antibeing and/or being is only in its per se manifestation in metaphysics, where it is contentedly kind (in relation to the noumenal subjectivity of time-space idealism and/or transcendentalism).
338. Just as the will, the spirit, the ego, and the soul operate or exist in all elemental contexts, so they have a different way of operating and existing ... according to whether metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or metaphysics is the prevailing element.
339, Just as one would think of metachemistry in relation to fire, of chemistry in relation to water, of physics in relation to vegetation, and of metaphysics in relation to air, so one should think of the will per se in relation to metachemical doing, of the spirit per se in relation to chemical giving, of the ego per se in relation to physical taking, and of the soul per se in relation to metaphysical being.
340. Yet, as has been demonstrated, each elemental context has a will, a spirit, an ego, and a soul germane to itself, which should not be confused or identified with the wills, spirits, egos, or souls of its rival elements.
341. For there is no more any one will, spirit, ego, or soul ... than there is just one element, be it metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, viz. fiery, watery, vegetative (earthy), or airy.
342. All elements play a part in life to greater or lesser extents, depending upon a variety of circumstances, both individual and societal.
343. And where there is a positive, or supreme, element ... there will also be a negative, or primal, element beneath it, an element that has reference not to a self but to an unself and its relationship with or dependence upon a not-unself and unselflessness ... such that implies negative orders of ego (anti-ego), will (antiwill), spirit (antispirit), and soul (antisoul), orders which may well take precedence, in some individuals and societies, over their positive counterparts.
344. In either context, metachemistry is ruled by the will and/or antiwill of the somatic not-self and/or not-unself, chemistry is governed by the spirit and/or antispirit of psychesomatic selflessness and/or unselflessness, physics is represented by the mind and/or antimind of the egocentric self and/or unself, and metaphysics is led be the soul and/or antisoul of the psychocentric self and/or unself.
345. Hence metachemistry is the elemental context in which the will and/or antiwill is primary, and everything else secondary; chemistry is the elemental context in which the spirit and/or antispirit is primary, and everything else secondary; physics the elemental context in which the mind and/or antimind is primary, and everything else secondary; and metaphysics the elemental context in which the soul and/or antisoul is primary, and everything else secondary.
346. Thus whereas the somatic not-self and/or not-unself is paramount in metachemistry, psychesomatic selflessness and/or unselflessness is paramount in chemistry, egocentric self and/or unself paramount in physics, and psychocentric self and/or unself paramount in metaphysics, thereby granting us distinctions between doing, giving, taking, and being on both positive and negative terms.
347. Doing is most apparent in metachemistry and least apparent in metaphysics, whilst in chemistry and physics it is respectively more (relative to most) apparent and less (relative to least) apparent.
348. Giving is most quantitative in chemistry and least quantitative in physics, whilst in metachemistry and metaphysics it is respectively more (relative to most) quantitative and less (relative to least) quantitative.
349. Taking is most qualitative in physics and least qualitative in chemistry, whilst in metaphysics and metachemistry it is respectively more (relative to most) qualitative and less (relative to least) qualitative.
350. Being is most essential in metaphysics and least essential in metachemistry, whilst in physics and chemistry it is respectively more (relative to most) essential and less (relative to least) essential.
351. Whereas the apparent is instinctual, the quantitative is spiritual, the qualitative ... intellectual, and the essential ... emotional.
352. Power is instinctual, glory spiritual, form intellectual, and content(ment) emotional, however instinctual, spiritual, intellectual, or emotional any given elemental manifestation of power, glory, form, or content(ment) may happen to be.
353. Thus we have distinguished the expressive instinctuality of metachemical power from the compressive instinctuality of chemical power, the depressive instinctuality of physical power, and the impressive instinctuality of metaphysical power.
354. Likewise we have distinguished the unclear spirituality of metachemical glory from the clear spirituality of chemical glory, the unholy spirituality of physical glory, and the holy spirituality of metaphysical glory.
355. Similarly, we have distinguished the selective intellectuality of metachemical form from the deflective intellectuality of chemical form, the reflective intellectuality of physical form, and the elective intellectuality of metaphysical form.
356. Finally, we have distinguished the infernal emotionality of metachemical content(ment) from the maternal emotionality of chemical content(ment), the paternal emotionality of physical content(ment), and the sempiternal emotionality of metaphysical content(ment).
357. Expressive instinctuality is noumenally objective (evil) in space-time power, compressive instinctuality is phenomenally objective (good) in volume-mass power, depressive instinctuality phenomenally subjective (foolish) in mass-volume power, and impressive instinctuality noumenally subjective (wise) in time-space power.
358. Unclear spirituality is noumenally objective (barbarous) in space-time glory, clear spirituality is phenomenally objective (civilized) in volume-mass glory, unholy spirituality phenomenally subjective (natural) in mass-volume glory, and holy spirituality noumenally subjective (cultural) in time-space glory.
359. Selective intellectuality is noumenally objective (criminal) in space-time form, deflective intellectuality is phenomenally objective (punishing) in volume-mass form, reflective intellectuality phenomenally subjective (sinful) in mass-volume form, and elective intellectuality noumenally subjective (graceful) in time-space form.
360. Infernal emotionality is noumenally objective (cruel) in space-time content(ment), maternal emotionality is phenomenally objective (clever) in volume-mass content(ment), paternal emotionality phenomenally subjective (stupid) in mass-volume content(ment), and sempiternal emotionality noumenally subjective (kind) in time-space content(ment).
(FORM AND CONTENT(MENT))
361. Leaving aside the unself for a moment, the self is divisible, as has been shown, into ego, mind, and soul, corresponding to conscious, superconscious, and subconscious, or to egocentricity for the conscious and to psychocentricity for both the superconscious and the subconscious - the former impersonal and/or polyversal (depending on the axis or plane) and the latter personal and/or universal (once again depending on the axis or plane).
362. Thus there is more than a difference of degree between the egocentric self, or conscious, and the psychocentric self, or superconscious and/or subconscious - namely a difference of kind, insofar as the latter kind of self is less egocentric than psychocentric, and therefore transmuted.
363. The egocentric self begins and ends with the not-self, while the psychocentric self, the self purged of egocentricity, begins with selflessness and ends with the rejection of selflessness, wherein psychocentricity rebounds from impersonal (phenomenal) and/or polyversal (noumenal) to personal (phenomenal) and/or universal (noumenal), which is the soul, or kernel, of the self.
364. Thus the self continues as form through the not-self until it is transmuted into content by selflessness and, unable to live with selflessness for very long, elects to rebound from spirit to the depths of self, wherein it experiences the contentment of soul.
365. Thus whereas there is a difference of kind between form and content, ego and mind, there is only a difference of degree between content and contentment, mind and soul - namely, the degree of impersonal and/or polyversal psychocentricity vis-à-vis personal and/or universal psychocentricity.
366. Hence the superconscious and the subconscious, the mind and the soul, have psychically more in common with one another than either of them has with the ego, or conscious, to which they relate as antipodes of selfhood, and this in spite of their extreme positions, respectively, within the overall context of the self.
367. But if content and contentment share a common psychocentric affiliation, even though they are poles apart, then form shares with contentment the psychological factor of being either personal (if phenomenal) or universal (if noumenal), and consequently the transmutation back to egocentric selfhood is effected via this common denominator, which allows for a smooth transition of the self from soul to ego, and thus from contentment to form.
368. For form is the usual or normal condition of the self, whereas content and contentment, the spiritual and emotional transmutations of self, are dependent upon the contributions made by both the not-self and selflessness, power and glory.
369. Thus the self needs the not-self and selflessness if it is to achieve both less than and more than itself - 'less than' via quantitative spiritualization and 'more than' via essential emotionalization, the 'less than' being the necessary precondition, in content, of subsequent contentment.
370. One could argue, in fairly Koestlerian vein, that there is a certain reculer pour mieux sauter, a stepping back to leap further forwards, about the utilization of both the not-self and selflessness by the self, since whereas the self is ever qualitative in its egocentric intellectuality, the not-self is apparent in its somatic instinctuality and selflessness merely quantitative in its psychesomatic spirituality, neither of which lies beyond the ego.
371. The only thing, as it were, lying beyond the ego ... is the soul, as psychocentric emotionality beyond egocentric intellectuality, essence beyond quality, and to get to that ... the ego has to reculer pour mieux sauter via both the will and the spirit, suffering the quantification (content) of quality through utilization of appearance (power) in order to achieve an accommodation with essence (contentment), the emotional kernel of its overall selfhood.
372. Thus far from going forward via selflessness, the self effectively goes backwards, as with its own quantification, in order to leap forwards, as it were, from content to contentment, spiritualized self, or mind, to emotional self, or soul, from which it will return to its psychological equilibrium in egocentric quality, prior to any fresh resolve, consciously predetermined, to plunge anew into the not-self, whose instinctual power is ever apparent.
373. Thus appearance and quantity, will and spirit, are means for the self to achieve deliverance from quality to essence, as from ego to soul via mind, which is quantified self.
374. There is accordingly a sense in which the self, corresponding to the ego, utilizes the not-self and selflessness to achieve both its own death and resurrection, dying to ego through mind, and rising from mind to soul, wherein its redemption is actualized.
375. Certainly, metaphysics provides one with ample testimony to the fact that self corresponds, in Trinitarian terminology, to the Son, the not-self to the Father, and selflessness to the Holy Spirit, so that it could be maintained that the Son utilizes both the Father and the Holy Spirit to die to ego and be resurrected, via the death-in-life of the mind, or spiritualized self, into the Eternal Life of the soul, which is the Son's guarantee of contentment in relation to the profoundest self-realization it is possible for Him to experience.
376. With physics, on the other hand, it would be more a matter of the Son utilizing the Father and an Unholy Spirit to achieve death and resurrection for Himself, whereas with chemistry the Trinitarian analogue would be that of a Daughter utilizing the Mother and a Clear Spirit to achieve death and resurrection for Herself, while metachemistry would require the analogy of the Daughter utilizing the Mother and an Unclear Spirit for similar purposes.
377. It has to be admitted, however, that where physics, chemistry, and metachemistry are concerned, the emphasis will be less on soul than on ego, spirit, and will respectively, so that such soul as arises will be more a by-product of some alternative focus than a premeditated goal.
378. For physics is characterized not by an emotional per se in the soul, but by an intellectual per se in the ego, while chemistry is characterized by a spiritual or emanational per se in the spirit, and metachemistry by an instinctual per se in the will, none of which has any bearing on emotional perfection, neither in sensuality nor in sensibility.
379. For, unlike metaphysics, physics is a context in which the egocentric Son is paramount, whereas chemistry and metachemistry afford one examples of contexts in which, in the one case, the psychesomatic Spirit is paramount, and, in the other case, the somatic Father or, rather, Mother, the will, is paramount, to the detriment, in all cases, of the psychocentric Son, the Son-of-Sons and self-of-selfs.
380. Now it is this capacity to embrace and identify with the Son-of-Sons and self-of-selfs that makes a man either a subman (in sensuality) or a superman (in sensibility), and elevates him above the various emotional shortfalls from perfect contentment in metaphysics which characterize each of the other elemental contexts.
381. For if first-rate contentment only exits in relation to second-rate form, third-rate glory, and fourth-rate power, then it is because it only exists in relation to first-rate form, third-rate power, and fourth-rate glory ... that physical contentment is second-rate; because it only exists in relation to fourth-rate form, second-rate power, and first-rate glory ... that chemical contentment is third-rate; and because it only exists in relation to third-rate form, second-rate glory, and first-rate power ... that metachemical contentment is fourth-rate.
382. Thus contentment ascends, through the elements, from love to joy via pride and pleasure, as from fourth- to first-rates via third- and second-rates, while form likewise ascends, through the elements, from strength to knowledge via beauty and truth, as from fourth- to first-rates via third- and second-rates.
383. Conversely, power descends, through the elements, from expression to impression via compression and depression, as from first- to fourth-rates via second- and third-rates, while glory likewise descends, through the elements, from clear to unholy via unclear and unholy, as from first- to fourth-rates via second- and third-rates.
384. There is about form and content(ment) an ascendancy from least to most via less and more form and content(ment), while power and glory exemplify the contrary disposition of a descension, so to speak, from most to least via more and less power and glory.
385. This is because in their per se manifestations form and content(ment) are subjective, and hence male, whereas in their per se manifestations power and glory are objective, and hence female, descending rather than ascending.
386. There is accordingly a devolutionary/evolutionary distinction, within noumenal parameters, between power on the one hand and content(ment) on the other hand, the former devolving from most to least via more and less will, as from fire to air via water and vegetation, but the latter evolving from least to most via less and more soul, as above.
387. Likewise, within phenomenal parameters, such a devolutionary/evolutionary distinction also exists between glory on the one hand and form on the other, the former devolving from most to least via more and less spirit, as from water to vegetation via fire and air, but the latter evolving from least to most via less and more ego, as above.
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)
388. Taken together, the devolutionary dispositions of power and glory, corresponding to will and to spirit, will be primary in fire and water but secondary in vegetation and air, while the evolutionary dispositions of form and content(ment), corresponding to ego and to mind/soul, will be primary in vegetation and air but secondary in fire and water.
389. This is because fire and water are objective, or female, elements, whereas vegetation and air are subjective, or male, elements, and anything according with a devolutionary disposition can only be primary in the one case and secondary in the other - in complete contrast to the standings of those entities whose disposition is evolutionary.
390. Of course, what applies to the positive contexts of supremacy applies no less to the negative contexts of primacy, where a like-distinction between the primary nature or, rather, unnature of negative fire and water as against the secondary unnature of negative vegetation and air will condition a corresponding distinction between primary and secondary modes of will, spirit, ego, and soul.
391. Hence the antiwill and the antispirit will only be primary in the objective elements of negative fire and water, while the anti-ego and the antisoul will only be primary in the subjective elements of negative vegetation and air.
392. Rather than get drawn into the elaborate distinctions between primacy and supremacy again at this point, I should like to return to supremacy, and hence to positivity, and underline the fact that whereas power and glory will be primary in objective contexts and, conversely, secondary in subjective ones, form and content(ment) will be primary in subjective contexts and secondary in objective ones.
393. Hence a primary mode of form or content(ment) requires a secondary mode of power and glory, whilst a primary mode of power or glory demands a secondary mode of form and content(ment).
394. One can no more have form or content(ment) without power and glory ... than vice versa, though the type of form or content(ment) no less than the type of power or glory one prefers ... will require or demand a correlative mode of power and glory or form and content(ment), as the case may be.
395. Just as there are four positive elements, so there are four supreme types of form, content(ment), power, and glory in both sensuality and sensibility, as well as four negative types of form, content(ment), power, and glory in each context in relation to elemental primacy.
396. It also has to be said that each elemental axis is subdivisible four ways, according to whether scientific, political, economic, or religious criteria are paramount, with subatomic correlations along the lines of elemental particles, molecular particles, molecular wavicles, and elemental wavicles.
397. Hence if there are eight basic modes of supremacy and another eight basic modes of primacy in sensuality and sensibility, there will be at least thirty-two disciplinary modes of form, content(ment), power, and glory in each context, according to whether scientific, political, economic, or religious subdivisions of any given axis are specifically operational.
398. Thus with thirty-two disciplinary modes of supremacy and another thirty-two disciplinary modes of primacy, there will be some sixty-four modes of supremacy and primacy altogether, which range right across the elemental board, so to speak, from fire to air via water and vegetation in both sensuality and sensibility.
399. Rather than risk further subdivisions, I should like at this point to return to the more fundamental distinction between form and content(ment) vis-à-vis power and glory, and reaffirm the fact, as I conceive of it, that a first-rate and therefore per se mode of content(ment) stems from a second-rate mode of form, and requires a fourth-rate mode of power and a third-rate mode of glory, the glory, in the latter case, of the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
400. Such a consummate mode of content(ment) can only be achieved within the metaphysical element of air, and presupposes the simultaneous presence of 'bovaryized' modes of form, power, and glory, viz. ego, will, and spirit, the ego being the starting-point for the emotional end ... of the soul per se.
401. For metaphysics is the only context in which contentment is the end, the goal and raison d'être of egocentric, somatic, and psychesomatic behaviour.
402. In physics, by comparison, form is the effective end, whereas in chemistry and metachemistry, by contrast, glory and power are the effective ends respectively. For that which, in any elemental context, is first-rate ... will co-opt the lesser-rated alternative or contrary factors to itself in pursuance of its own aggrandisement.
403. Thus while metaphysics attests to pursuance of the true end of contentment, physics attests to pursuance of the comparatively false end (for the ego is hardly ultimate) of form, while chemistry attests to pursuance of the contrastingly false end (for the spirit is not even penultimate) of glory, and metachemistry attests to pursuance of the demonstrably false end (for the will is anything but ultimate) of power.
404. For whereas metaphysics begins in form and ends in content(ment), physics effectively begins in content(ment) and ends in form, chemistry effectively begins in power and ends in glory, and metachemistry effectively begins in glory and ends in power.
405. Thus physics perpetuates ego through form, chemistry perpetuates spirit through glory, and metachemistry perpetuates will through power. Only metaphysics perpetuates soul through contentment.
406. For metaphysics is principally concerned with the soul of being, the soul-of-souls, whereas the principal concern of physics is with the ego of taking, the ego-of-egos, while the principal concerns of chemistry and metachemistry will be with the spirit of giving, the spirit-of-spirits, and the will of doing, the will-of-wills.
407. Yet the will of doing, the spirit of giving, and the ego of taking, corresponding, as has been indicated, to will, spirit, and ego per se, are all false goals or ends compared to or contrasted with the soul of being, wherein soul is truly an end and not either a beginning, like the will, or something intermediate, like the spirit and the ego, falsely turned into an end.
408. For the self is not only posterior as soul to will and spirit, it is also posterior as ego to will and spirit, and whether it is realized to the full or merely in relation to ego or, indeed, whether the will and/or spirit become the principal foci of realization, displacing self, will depend on the element to which one or a certain aspect of oneself, corresponding with the not-self and/or selflessness, is principally drawn.
409. When will and spirit displace self, whether as ego or as mind/soul, we have a situation in which power and glory (though not necessarily both at once) are the prevailing norms, norms attesting to the triumph, through objectivity, of the female side of life.
410. For the female is one in whom will and spirit are primary while ego and mind/soul are secondary, and thus someone characterized by either the rule of power or the governance of glory.
(FREE AND BOUND)
411. Both Britain and America, those principal allies in the cause of objective freedom, or the freedom of objectivity, are countries in which the spirit, symbolized by 'Britannia', and the will, symbolized by the 'Liberty Belle', are hegemonic over the ego and the mind/soul, to the greater glory, in Britain's case, of the feminine (and basically Heathen) spirit of giving, and to the greater power, in America's case, of the superfeminine (and basically Superheathen) will of doing.
412. In neither country is subjective binding, or the binding to subjectivity, taken all that seriously; for binding presupposes self, and where the self is denied or, rather, subordinated, in secondary fashion, to the not-self and selflessness, there will be an entrenched opposition to ego and mind/soul, particularly when the latter are sensible and supreme.
413. For sensual ego and mind/soul will be subordinated to the prevailing will and/or spirit which, being primal, reflects the secular ascendancy of materialism over fundamentalism and of realism over nonconformism, whereas sensible ego and mind/soul will simply be regarded as a threat, potential if not actual, to freedom, and thus to the rule, in negativity, of secular primacy.
414. For sensible ego and mind/soul cannot properly exist within a free society, but presuppose the rejection of freedom and concomitant achievement of binding, the binding of ego to Christian humanism in the one case, and the binding of the mind/soul to Superchristian transcendentalism in the other case.
415. Thus in a bound society, which can only be subjective, and hence male, either humanism will have gained the ascendancy over nonconformism, sensible masculinity in the brain over sensible femininity in the womb, in due Christian vein or, alternatively, transcendentalism will have gained the ascendancy over fundamentalism, sensible supermasculinity in the lungs over sensible subfemininity in the heart, in due Superchristian vein, neither of which could have any truck with the subordination of humanism to nonconformism in Protestant fashion, i.e. of Anglicanism to Puritanism/Dissenterism, or, worse again, the subordination of transcendentalism to fundamentalism, of Satan to Jehovah, in Judeo-Oriental fashion, since both would presuppose sensual and therefore 'once-born' modes of supremacy such that fly in the face of Christian/Superchristian orders of 'rebirth'.
416. Yet religious freedom (of conscience and/or the First Mover) isn't only not Christian and/or Superchristian, humanist and/or transcendentalist, it is vulnerable, as history has shown, to the encroachments of secular freedom, and thus to the eclipse of Protestant nonconformism by realism and of Judeo-Oriental fundamentalism by materialism, with consequences all-too-familiarly political and scientific, to the detriment of both economics and religion, since such economics and religion as could be accommodated, in Protestant and/or Judeo-Oriental terms, to nonconformism and to fundamentalism respectively are necessarily of the 'once-born', or sensual, varieties of humanism and transcendentalism, and it is in relation to them, rather than to anything genuinely Christian and/or Superchristian, that the naturalism and idealism of secular primacy have come to the fore and been obliged to take a no-less subordinate position vis-à-vis the prevailing secular freedoms of realism and materialism.
417. Thus such economic and religious sensuality as acquiescently co-exists, in suitably subordinate fashion, with political and scientific freedom ... is not of the supreme, or Protestant and/or Judeo-Oriental varieties, but is decidedly primal itself, being but a negative counterweight, in male subjectivity, to the hegemonic negativity of political freedom in parliamentary realism and the scientific freedom of constitutional materialism.
418. Thus do negative modes of economics and religion co-exist with the negative modes of politics and science which characterize the secular freedoms of societies in which primacy has gained the upper hand over supremacy, with such supremacy as still survives - more usually on a sensual, or 'once-born', basis - very much under the shadow of sensual primacy.
419. Thus while primacy does not exclude supremacy - at least not in its sensual manifestations - it inevitably subordinates supremacy to the prevailing norms - fundamentalism duly subordinated to materialism and nonconformism to realism, with transcendentalism duly subordinated to idealism and humanism to naturalism on the subjective, or male, side of what is, in any case, a predominantly objective, and hence female, society.
420. Of course, the dominance of humanism by nonconformism and of transcendentalism by fundamentalism in sensual supremacy would still have attested to a female hegemony, albeit not the worst possible, or secular, modes of female hegemony such that currently rule and/or govern the free roost, so to speak, wherever realism and materialism have come into the open in defiance of sensual supremacy, as is indubitably the case with both Britain, land of political freedom par excellence, and America, land of scientific freedom par excellence.
421. Thus do both 'Britannia' and the 'Liberty Belle' stand out as symbols of sensual primacy, as Britain and America stand together as principal allies in the cause and defence of secular freedom not only at the expense of secular binding but, more generally, to the detriment if not exclusion of ecclesiastic binding, as one might call the binding to sensible supremacy which characterizes both Christian and Superchristian dispositions.
422. For neither realism nor materialism can become hegemonic in societies in which either humanism (if Christian) or transcendentalism (if Superchristian) is paramount, but only in societies which have fallen away from sensible supremacy into sensual supremacy, wherein nonconformism and fundamentalism are hegemonic, and from which the sensual primacy of hegemonic realism and materialism was able to emerge in due degenerative course, signalling the eclipse of positivity by negativity and, consequently, of the organic by the inorganic.
423. Thus did religious or, as I prefer to call it, ecclesiastical freedom lead to secular freedom in countries like Britain and America, as nonconformism was eclipsed by realism and fundamentalism by materialism, each of them dragging such humanism and transcendentalism as was compatible with sensual supremacy down with it to the naturalist and idealist depths, in primacy, of that which, ever subjective, can only be subordinate to an objective hegemony.
424. And such a hegemony is
the worst of all possible worlds and/or societies; for beneath sensual
it is impossible to go, and sensual primacy, corresponding to secular
is now - and has long been - the yardstick in both
425. Thus secular selflessness in
426. For the spirit and the will are very much in their primary manifestations in these countries, while the ego and the mind/soul exist in their secondary manifestations, and not simply as historical shadows to the prevailing secularity but, more particularly, as subordinate modes, in realism and materialism, of sensual primacy.
427. Even where the ego and the mind/soul are primary, as in naturalism and idealism respectively, such a primary manifestation of selfhood will be subordinate to the prevailing primacy of selflessness and not-selfhood, since in neither case can that which is subjective assert itself over the primal objectivity of realism and materialism, not to mention (from a humanist and/or fundamentalist standpoint) over the supreme objectivity of nonconformism and fundamentalism, in sensual contexts.
(SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY)
428. The self can only be hegemonic or ascendant in sensibility, and then on the basis of transcending the secondary modes of will and spirit which pertain to sensibility, whether in primacy or, more positively, in supremacy, so that both of the latter are kept, as they deserve, in a subordinate relationship to the self, be it egocentric, and vegetative, or psychocentric, and airy.
429. For no more than the self can be paramount in sensuality ... can the not-self or selflessness be paramount in sensibility, since, in the one case, the self is subordinate to either the not-self or selflessness, while, in the other case, the not-self and selflessness will be subordinate to the self.
430. And when the not-self and selflessness, will and spirit, are subordinate to the self, it is because the male side of life is in the ascendant, in due subjective vein, over that which appertains, in objectivity, to its female side, and all because sensibility is paramount.
431. Thus do things tend, in sensible supremacy, towards the best of all possible worlds and/or societies, worlds and/or societies in which Christian and Superchristian values are paramount in due subjective vein.
432. But if sensual primacy is the worst of all possible worlds and/or societies and sensible supremacy the best, it has to be admitted that this is so, in both cases, only for males, not for females, since sensual primacy is arguably the best of all possible worlds and/or societies for females and sensible supremacy arguably the worst.
433. For females and males are not equal but diametrically antithetical, the former objective and negative or, at any rate, generally more negative than positive, and the latter subjective and ... generally more positive than negative, with corresponding tensions not only between sensuality and sensibility, but also between primacy and supremacy, so that, ultimately, what suits the one sex will be contrary to the interests of the other.
434. At least this would generally be true of men and women, although situations of course vary with the individual, and it would seem that some women are less given to primacy than others, while, conversely, some men are more given to supremacy than others, depending on their circumstances.
435. Yet supremacy in women, where it exists, generally follows from supremacy in men, while, conversely, primacy in men generally follows, where it exists, from primacy in women, so that complementarity is more a result of the ascendancy of one sex over the other than a natural or preordained fact.
436. For women would not be nearly as supreme, or positive, without male assistance and input, while men, conversely, would not be nearly so disposed to primacy, or negativity, were women less free and more disposed, in consequence, to be disloyal to their fundamental natures or, rather, unnatures.
437. For the drift towards primacy is only made possible by the relaxation of subjectively-conditioned constraints, in both sensibility and sensuality, upon female objectivity, with greater freedom, in consequence, for women to be 'true' to themselves, meaning principally their not-self and/or selflessness.
438. If men pave the way, through liberal delusion, in this respect, it is not long before women take over and avail themselves of ecclesiastical or supreme freedoms in order to further the secular freedoms which, being primal, have more relevance to them, as creatures of objectivity, than ever anything derived from or partly deferential towards subjectivity would have, no matter how twisted.
439. For women are less creatures of economics or religion, even when the latter are (falsely) objective, than creatures of politics and science, and when such disciplines are in the ascendant, as they must be in free societies of a secular order, it will be found that women, too, are ascendant over men and able, in consequence, to dominate them to a greater extent than would otherwise be possible.
440. Such is patently the case in both England-dominated Britain, land of parliamentary freedom par excellence, and America, land of press freedom par excellence, whose women, respectively symbolized by 'Britannia' and the 'Liberty Belle', are very much in the ascendant, due to the eclipse of sensual supremacy by sensual primacy.
441. For politics and science can only be subordinate to economics and religion in sensual supremacy, as things ascend from least to most positivity via less (relative to least) and more (relative to most) positivity ... on the basis, in both phenomenal and noumenal contexts, of a progression from science to religion via politics and economics.
442. Conversely, economics and religion can only be subordinate to politics and science in sensual primacy, as things descend from most to least negativity via more (relative to most) and less (relative to least) negativity ... on the basis, in both phenomenal and noumenal contexts, of a regression from science to religion via politics and economics.
443. Hence we have to weigh a preponderating positivity in economics and religion against a 'subponderating' positivity in science and politics on the one hand, that of supremacy, and a predominating negativity in science and politics against a 'subdominating' negativity in economics and religion on the other hand, that of primacy.
444. Thus whereas science and politics are subponderant, so to speak, in supremacy, they are predominant in primacy, and therefore only in the latter will they be hegemonic and able, as female disciplines, to dominate economics and religion, and to do so, moreover, from the objective standpoint of secular freedom.
445. For the hegemony of science and politics, the 'Liberty Belle' and 'Britannia', would not be possible except in relation to secular freedom, and such a freedom presupposes maximum objectivity, and hence the eclipse of supremacy by primacy.
446. It is science and politics, the will or, rather, antiwill of the not-unself per se and the spirit or, rather, antispirit of unselflessness per se, which have economics and religion, the anti-ego and the antimind/antisoul, not to mention supremacist residues of the ego and the mind/soul, in their negative grip in both Britain and America, to the detriment of anything subjective, and hence male.
(SENSIBLE SUPREMACY VIS-À-VIS SENSUAL PRIMACY)
447. Primacy is the scourge of the contemporary world, a scourge in which the female is free to give and/or do not on a subponderating basis, as with supremacy, but on a predominating basis in which, due to liberated primacy, both politics and science are able to give and/or do the most.
448. Only when sensible supremacy is brought back onto the world agenda, though obviously in a new and altogether higher mode ... with the dawn of 'Kingdom Come', will the male be delivered from female freedom to take and/or be not on a subdominating basis, as with primacy, but on a preponderating basis, commensurate with the positivity of supremacy.
449. But those whom I have provisionally earmarked, in successive texts, for 'Kingdom Come' ... conceived, initially, in relation to a prospective Gaelic Federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales ... would not be British (as customarily defined by me in relation to England and Anglo-Irish, Anglo-Scottish, and Anglo-Welsh extrapolations thereof) or American in any case, since neither England-dominated Britain nor America could, at this point in time, achieve an ultimate order of sensible supremacy, but, on the contrary, Gaels of one persuasion or another.
450. One must first be at least nominally Christian - and preferably Catholic - to be in with a chance of progressing from the binding of form to the binding of content(ment) in due course, abandoning a sensible vegetative fulcrum for a sensible airy one.
451. For although there is a connection, in Christianity, with the Subchristianity, as it were, of sensual air via the airwaves, it is not the fulcrum of devotion but simply a theocratic aside to what is actually a plutocratic mean in cerebral vegetativeness.
452. Thus the Christian is in a position to abandon the Subchristianity of aural sensuality for the Superchristianity of respiratory sensibility, thereby effectively abandoning music for meditation.
453. Anyone who is into Subchristianity or its Judaic equivalence on a hard-line basis ... would be less disposed to abandon aural sensuality for respiratory sensibility, for he would be too locked-in to a submasculine deference towards the superfeminine 'First Mover' and its metachemical domination of sensual metaphysics.
454. For that which is hard-line submasculine stands to the superfeminine as David to Saul, being part-and-parcel of the same 'once-born' system which remains locked-in to itself, come what may.
455. And what applies to sensual supremacy applies even more to sensual primacy, where communism, centred in solar negativity, is vulnerable to a Leninist and/or Stalinist take-over and domination which subordinates the solar plane to the stellar one in Bible-like fashion.
456. For while communism turns against Christ, and hence the vegetative 'rebirth' of cerebral sensibility, it remains deferential, on a satanic basis, towards the Jehovahesque plane, so to speak, of stellar primacy, bowing to autocracy from a largely theocratic (Marxist) point-of-view.
457. For the fulcrum of theocracy is not in vegetative sensibility, and hence Christ, but in airy sensuality, and hence either the Father in relation to Christ or, in the un-Christian event of the latter being rejected, Satan in relation to what precedes Satan, viz. Jehovah, or some such autocratic equivalence.
458. For that which is submasculine cannot exist independently of either masculine or superfeminine factors, but, in abandoning the one, will be subject to the dominion of the other, a dominion not of man but of superwoman, and hence of the autocratic 'First Mover'.
459. Rejecting the vegetative sensibility of plutocracy, for which it is wrongly, in my view, regarded as atheist, communism becomes the theocratic victim of the fiery sensuality of autocracy, and remains locked-in, in hard-line submasculine fashion, to the Superheathen rule of metachemical primacy.
460. Thus in both sensual supremacy and sensual primacy, hard-line submasculinity is fated to remain under the ruling thumb of superfemininity, like David under Saul or Satan under Jehovah, and the result is the perpetual subjection of transcendentalism to fundamentalism in the case of sensual supremacy, and of idealism to materialism in the case of sensual primacy.
461. Only a rejection of hard-line submasculinity can pave the way for supermasculinity and deliverance, in consequence, from the evil rule of superfemininity, with its fundamentalist and/or materialist sensuality.
462. For those whose submasculinity is only tangential to a sensible masculine fulcrum, however, no such rejection is required, for they are already in a position, through plutocracy, of preponderating sensibility, and need only abandon theocratic sensuality in order to achieve meritocratic sensibility in due Superchristian course, as and when the opportunity arises.
463. One could argue that they are akin to writers, say philosophers, who advocate not praying but meditating, not vegetative sensibility but airy sensibility, and all because for them music, the art form of airy sensuality par excellence, is a hobby or pastime rather than the main concern of their professional lives.
464. For how, by a converse token, could the professional musician cut his own throat, so to speak, by advocating meditation, and hence respiratory sensibility, at the expense of the aural sensuality of music? His musical commitment would surely suffer, and he would become less accomplished as a musician the more he turned against it in pursuance of meditative praxis.
465. But the writer, or exponent of cerebral sensibility, may well feel that respiratory sensibility is more desirable than aural sensuality, as well as more desirable, from a class-evolutionary standpoint, than his own brand of sensibility, and therefore be more inclined to advocate it than the musician.
466. Be that as it may, there is something similar in the relationship of Christianity to Subchristianity or of man to subman, where the Christian conforms to a literary parallel and the Subchristian to a musical one. Only if the latter is soft-line (and presumably Christian) rather than hard-line (and presumably Subchristian) would he be able to take the writer's advice and duly abandon music for meditation, opting to be saved from aural sensuality to respiratory sensibility along the time-space axis, rising diagonally, of metaphysical supremacy.
467. For the hard-line submasculine musician, the jazz musician as opposed to the classical musician, will be locked-in to the pyramidal triangle of Superheathen sensuality in deference to the superfeminine 'First Mover' and effective exponent, in 'Her' metachemical objectivity, of the light.
468. Music, for him, will not be deferential to 'the word', to sensible physical vegetativeness, but to art, to sensual metachemical fieriness, and consequently he will be unable, barring rejection of his hard-line submasculinity, to abandon it for meditation, spurning aural sensuality in the interests of respiratory sensibility.
469. On the contrary, he will continue to 'suck up' to optical sensuality, being but a submasculine 'fall guy' for superfeminine denigration and domination from 'on high', a god who will be mistaken for and treated as the Devil (Satan/David) by that which (as Jehovah/Saul) is more genuinely diabolical than himself.
470. Where, however, there is no such deferential subjection but, rather, a deferential acknowledgement, via the Subchristian Father, of Christ, then brass is less the focus or fulcrum of music, in jazz-like vein, than strings, and such brass as is to be found in strings-centred music will be but a theocratic aside to a plutocratic fulcrum in vegetative sensibility.
471. In fact, classical music, which is arguably the music of Christians, will have brass merely as an aside, as it were, to its vegetative fulcrum in strings, just as the Father, the Subchristian God, is an aside to Christ, the actual deity (albeit more masculine than submasculine, and hence properly divine) of Christians.
472. But if classical music generally exemplifies a vegetative mean that, over the years, could be said to have increased the extent to which the airy mean of brass figures in its overall composition, it has not (works of a sonata-like order for individual instruments aside) abandoned strings altogether, and there is about the increasing accommodation of brass something, once again, of a reculer pour mieux sauter, as though brass were a precondition of something higher.
473. Which, in truth, it is, since one has to have an association with theocracy before one can be saved, via the Second Coming, to meritocracy; before, in other words, one can be expected to abandon Christianity, via Subchristianity, for Superchristianity, or the brain, via the ears, for the lungs, or Christ, via the Father, for the Holy Ghost, etc.
474. Hence brass-based Classical could be regarded as the precondition, in metaphysical sensuality, of metaphysical sensibility, in which not brass but pipes would become the appropriate backdrop for or, more correctly, musical exemplification of ... meditative praxis.
475. For if brass is ear-like in its centrifugal design, then pipes are arguably lung-like in their centripetal design, and thus a more fitting exemplification of meditation than any other types of instrument, including woodwind.
476. In fact, woodwind instruments are more suited, it seems to me, to the exemplification of prayer, in due Christian vein, and thus fall short not only of pipes but also of brass, which are more metaphysical, albeit on 'once-born' terms, than physical, and accordingly less egocentric overall.
477. However that may be, it should not be thought that the Superchristian would be given to pipes to the extent that the Subchristian is given to brass, since the emphasis in Superchristianity, and hence the 'reborn' metaphysics of Social Transcendentalism, could only be meditative, i.e., on meditation, which is something that transcends music, as the lungs transcend the ears.
478. For whereas music is the focus of aural sensuality, the focus of respiratory sensibility could only be meditation, and thus music, in the modified guise alluded to above, would have to be subordinate, as meditative exemplification, to that which properly pertained to sensible metaphysics.
479. Doubtless the more music was transcended by meditation, the purer and more genuine would metaphysical sensibility become; for meditation is not merely an alternative to music but the salvation of metaphysics from sensuality to sensibility, the theocratic ears to the meritocratic lungs.
480. Hence the more meritocratic and the less theocratic a person is, the more, as superman, will he meditate (on the breath) rather than listen to music (via the airwaves).
481. For metaphysical sensibility is as superior to metaphysical sensuality ... as physical sensibility to physical sensuality, wherein one would be conscious of cogitating and/or praying as opposed to philandering and/or copulating.
482. Of course, one cannot be completely one thing or another, nor should one strive, as a person, to become such. But one can certainly focus one's energies on one thing rather than another, and thus illustrate a preponderating predilection for either sensuality or sensibility, whether in the phenomenal realms of mass and volume or, above those, in the noumenal realms of time and space.
483. And, as a rule, one mode of sensuality will lead, via subordinate sensibility, to another, whilst, conversely, one mode of sensibility will lead, via subordinate sensuality, to another, the possibility of Christians becoming Superchristian via Subchristianity being a case in point, as I hope to have proved.
SUMMATIONAL APPENDIX & PHILOSOPHICAL APOTHEOSIS
1. To contrast the metachemical appearance, quantity, quality, and essence of space-time objectivity with the metaphysical appearance, quantity, quality, and essence of time-space subjectivity, as one would contrast fire with air.
2. To contrast the chemical appearance, quantity, quality, and essence of volume-mass objectivity with the physical appearance, quantity, quality, and essence of mass-volume subjectivity, as one would contrast water with vegetation.
3. The quality and essence of space-time objectivity stand in an inferior relationship to its appearance and quantity, as metachemical ego and soul in relation to metachemical will and spirit.
4. The quality and essence of volume-mass objectivity stand in an inferior relationship to its appearance and quantity, as chemical ego and soul in relation to chemical will and spirit.
5. The appearance and quantity of mass-volume subjectivity stand in an inferior relationship to its quality and essence, as physical will and spirit to physical ego and soul.
6. The appearance and quantity of time-space subjectivity stand in an inferior relationship to its quality and essence, as metaphysical will and spirit to metaphysical ego and soul.
7. Metachemistry reflects a noumenal hierarchy descending from appearance to essence via quantity and quality.
8. Chemistry reflects a phenomenal hierarchy descending from quantity to quality via appearance and essence.
9. Physics reflects a phenomenal hierarchy ascending from quantity to quality via appearance and essence.
10. Metaphysics reflects a noumenal hierarchy ascending from appearance to essence via quantity and quality.
11. Just as the will is most apparent in metachemistry, so it is least apparent in metaphysics, less (relative to least) apparent in physics, and more (relative to most) apparent in chemistry.
12. Just as the spirit is most quantitative in chemistry, so it is least quantitative in physics, less (relative to least) quantitative in metaphysics, and more (relative to most) quantitative in metachemistry.
13. Just as the ego is most qualitative in physics, so it is least qualitative in chemistry, less (relative to least) qualitative in metachemistry, and more (relative to most) qualitative in metaphysics.
14. Just as the soul is most essential in metaphysics, so it is least essential in metachemistry, less (relative to least) essential in chemistry, and more (relative to most) essential in physics.
15. To contrast the triumph of the will, or somatic not-self, in metachemistry with the triumph of the soul, or psychocentric self, in metaphysics, as one would contrast science with religion.
16. To contrast the triumph of the spirit, or psychesomatic selflessness, in chemistry with the triumph of the ego, or egocentric self, in physics, as one would contrast politics with economics.
17. Whereas the will in its per se, or metachemical, manifestation is a scientific entity, the soul, by contrast, is a religious entity in its per se, or metaphysical, manifestation.
18. Whereas the spirit in its per se, or chemical, manifestation is a political entity, the ego, by contrast, is an economic entity in its per se, or physical, manifestation.
19. To contrast the triumph of science through metachemical will with the triumph of religion through metaphysical soul, as one would contrast the most apparent with the most essential.
20. To contrast the triumph of politics through chemical spirit with the triumph of economics through physical ego, as one would contrast the most quantitative with the most qualitative.
21. The triumph of science is the rule of power, and hence of the Devil, which is commensurate with metachemical will.
22. The triumph of politics is the governance of glory, and hence of purgatory, which is commensurate with chemical spirit.
23. The triumph of economics is the representation of form, and hence of knowledge, which is commensurate with physical ego.
24. The triumph of religion is the leadership of content(ment), and hence of joy, which is commensurate with metaphysical soul.
25. Although power, glory, form, and content(ment) are to be found in all elemental contexts, they will not be found to the same extent or in the same manner.
26. For power, and hence the will, can only be hegemonic in metachemistry; glory, and hence the spirit, only be hegemonic in chemistry; form, and hence the ego, only hegemonic in physics; and content(ment), and hence the soul, only hegemonic in metaphysics.
27. To deny metachemistry in order to affirm chemistry, or vice versa, on the objective, or female, side of life.
28. To deny physics in order to affirm metaphysics, or vice versa, on the subjective, or male, side of life.
29. Hegemonic science tends to deny religion and hegemonic religion, by contrast, to deny science, since appearance and essence are incommensurate, like criminality and grace, or the Devil and God, or Hell and Heaven, or cruelty and kindness ... where the will per se and the soul per se are concerned.
30. For science, like the will, is of the not-self, whereas religion is of the self in its psychocentric mode.
31. In between, we find that politics, like the spirit, is of selflessness, while economics is of the self in its egocentric mode.
32. Abandoning the egocentric self for the psychocentric self, physics for metaphysics, is akin to the alchemical transmutation of base metal into gold, since the ego is profane but the soul sacred, and the soul differs from the ego in its per se manifestation not only as air from vegetation but, in disciplinary terms, as religion from economics.
33. No aspect of the self, whether egocentric or psychocentric, has anything to do with the organs of sensuality or of sensibility as such, but is a psychological and/or psychical substratum of the central nervous system which is called consciousness.
34. And consciousness ranges from egocentricity in the psychological middle-ground, so to speak, of the self ... to psychocentricity in the superconscious and subconscious extremes of the self, which may be identified, in psychic terms, with the mind and the soul respectively.
35. What in overall terms distinguishes one kind of egocentric consciousness from another ... is the somatic organs of not-self sensuality and/or sensibility to which the self is affiliated at any particular time, making for metachemical, chemical, physical, and metaphysical distinctions.
36. What, in overall terms, distinguishes one kind of psychocentric consciousness from another ... is the psychesomatic spirit of emanational selflessness by which the self is conditioned at any particular time, making, as above, for metachemical, chemical, physical, and metaphysical distinctions.
37. Hence while consciousness is distinct from both the organs of sensuality and/or sensibility and the elements of sensuality and/or sensibility which emanate from them in psychesomatic, or spiritual, terms, it is both dependent on and conditioned by them to varying extents, depending on the person and the disposition of his central nervous system at any particular time.
38. Strictly speaking, there is only one self per central nervous system, since the self is the central nervous system, but it is a self that, while reflecting a mean disposition in relation to one specific element, is capable, in its subatomic complexity, of subordinately embracing each of the other elements to greater or lesser extents, depending whether metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical factors are paramount at any particular time.
39. Thus the self is more or less determined by the nature of one's central nervous system, with a bias towards either metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical organs and spirits in consequence, a bias primarily subject to a variety of genetic conditioning factors, including gender, race, heredity, build, etc., as well as to what might, in secondary vein, be termed supra-genetic conditioning factors like ethnicity, education, environment, and class.
40. For although the self is predetermined on one level, viz. genetic, it is subject to modifications, for the most part of a subsidiary order, on the contingent level, so to speak, of supra-genetic factors which impinge upon the central nervous system and cause modifications of self to ensue which then impact upon the organs of sensuality and/or sensibility (the various not-selves) to which these modifications correspond.
41. For the central nervous system is no less subject to subatomic modifications than the organs of sensuality and/or sensibility it utilizes in pursuance of a variety of ends, whether through self-denial or, alternatively, through self-affirmation, the former primarily dependent upon the not-self and selflessness, the latter having to do with the self in its egocentric and psychocentric manifestations respectively.
42. For whereas the self is only really 'true' to itself through either egocentric or psychocentric self-affirmation, it is subordinate to the will of the not-self and to the spirit of selflessness through self-denial.
43. Hence self-denial entails subordination of the self to the not-self and/or selflessness, as in objective contexts of a hegemonic will and/or spirit, whereas self-affirmation entails subordination of the not-self and/or selflessness to the self, as in subjective contexts of a hegemonic ego and/or soul - the former contexts female, the latter ones male.
44. For women are more disposed, by and large, towards self-denial on account of their objective dispositions, while men, by contrast, lean towards self-affirmation on account of their subjective dispositions, since the central nervous system of the one gender is primarily geared to the will and to the spirit, whereas the central nervous system of the other gender is primarily geared to itself, with particular reference, in consequence, to the ego and to the soul.
45. For the central nervous systems of men and women are not, after all, equal, but are geared to different ends, the female CNS being in some respects older and more primitive than the male CNS, given its predilection towards both the not-self and selflessness, as opposed, in general terms, towards the self.
46. For self-respect through self-fulfilment is predicated upon an evolutionary drive, whereas self-sacrifice through self-denial stems from a devolutionary disposition in which objectivity is primary and subjectivity secondary.
47. Thus there is about self-denial an elemental affiliation with fire and water, metachemical and chemical properties, whereas self-fulfilment implies an affiliation with vegetation and air, physics and metaphysics.
48. Self-denial also implies a tendency to identify with what have been termed supra-genetic factors, like education, environment, ethnicity, etc., as opposed to genetic factors, of which gender is a cardinal illustration, and has more in common with what philosophers would call 'free will' than with 'natural determinism'.
49. For it is the self-denying disposition of the female central nervous system which encourages women to identify with the will and the spirit of the not-self and selflessness to a powerful and/or glorious end, whereas the self-affirming disposition of the male CNS 'fights shy' of freedom in the interests of binding to self through ego and/or soul, the ends of which can only be formal or content, depending on the elemental context.
50. Yet Western society is graphically illustrative, these days more than ever, of what happens when men 'cut their own throat', so to speak, and relax their grip on binding to genetically-conditioned natural determinism through such historical upheavals as the Reformation, which paved the way, in due sensually supreme fashion, for the sensual primacy which characterizes our own time so far as the dominance, particularly in countries like Britain and America, of secular freedom through self-denying objectivity is concerned.
51. For in both Britain and America the female elements are hegemonic in the self-denying objectivities of water and fire, symbolized by 'Britannia' and the 'Liberty Belle', and in neither country is there much respect, in consequence, for the self, whether in terms of the natural determinism, as it were, of the ego, or of the subnatural-to-supernatural determinism, up above, of the soul, wherein contentment rather than form would be the prevailing mode of self-affirmation.
52. Thus not Christian, still less Superchristian, criteria, but Heathen and Superheathen criteria are paramount where the dominion of self-denying freedom (from self) for the not-self and/or selflessness holds sway, as it surely does in both Britain and America, to the detriment of genetic supremacy in both vegetative and airy contexts.
53. For supra-genetic factors, by contrast, are more closely affiliated, in their exemplification of freedom, to primacy than to supremacy, since free will and free spirit come to a climax with science and politics in due objective fashion, and both of these disciplines thrive on supra-genetic factors to the detriment, if not exclusion, of genetic ones.
54. In fact, neither science nor politics could be hegemonic without freedom, the freedom of supra-genetic objectivity, and it is because, in free societies, both economics and religion have been torn away from anything resembling genetically-conditioned self-respect ... that they now exist under the thumb, as it were, of politics and science, as under the dominion of immorality.
55. Yet all this is a sorry testimony to what happens when, through liberal delusion, gender-specific thinking of a male-oriented moral order is undermined, so that secular values eventually emerge from under the weakened ecclesiastical structure that then ensues to proclaim, with one voice, the rule and/or governance of Feminism.
56. For where one mode of gender-specific thinking is abandoned, another - and quite contrary mode - will eventually take its place, to signal the dominion, through liberated will and spirit, of Feminism, as symbolically illustrated by those twin embodiments of female glory and power, viz. 'Britannia' and the 'Liberty Belle', neither of which can offer a crumb of hope to mankind that Christian and/or Superchristian values are sacrosanct and likely to be upheld in the teeth of Feminist opposition, to the greater cause of binding to self.
57. For there is no higher cause than binding to self, particularly to metaphysical self of a sensibly soulful contentment, and this is a cause that the male of the species has to champion for himself in the teeth, if needs be, of female indifference and/or opposition.
58. For that man who does not think in morally-oriented, gender-specific terms ... is no Christian, much less a Superchristian, but an apologist, consciously or unconsciously, of Heathen and/or Superheathen immorality, to the detriment of his self-respect as a man.
59. For if men do not strive for deliverance from the female and, by definition, objective side of life through enhanced subjectivity of a sensible order, they will simply be dominated by it, as is all too frequently the case at present in the free societies of secular modernity.
60. For the male and the female, to repeat, are not equal creatures but demonstrably dissimilar and unequal, even in their nervous systems, and only a society which is disposed to 'free will' at the expense of 'natural determinism', to supra-genetic factors at the expense of genetic ones, will stress equality between men and women, even when, in actuality, the dominance of freedom is only possible on the basis of a female-oriented inequality in which the male, and hence the subjective, side of life has been relegated (where it has not been marginalized or, in the case of sensible supremacy, effectively excluded) to an inferior position.
61. Hence Feminism attests not to equality between men and women, which in any case is an amoral delusion with liberal overtones, but to a post-liberal inequality between them which favours women, and hence secular primacy.
62. How much more morally desirable is that inequality between the genders which favours men, and hence ecclesiastic supremacy, not, be it noted, in the sensual terms of Protestant heresy ... so much as in the properly Christian and/or Superchristian terms of sensibility.
63. For life, remember, is a gender struggle, a struggle for dominance of men by women and of deliverance from such a dominance by men, and unless one accepts the immutability of gender, of the predominating objectivity of the female as against the preponderating subjectivity of the male, with the ineluctable 'friction of the seeds', one will continue to deceive oneself and, what's worse, deceive others as to the true nature of life.
64. For the female nervous system, as an objective concretization of form and objective abstractionization, so to speak, of content(ment), testifies to a secondary order of self for which the objective concretization of power in the metachemical not-selves (of eyes and heart) and the chemical not-selves (of tongue and womb), and the objective abstractionization of glory in metachemical selflessness (optical light and/or blood) and chemical selflessness (saliva and/or amniotic fluid) are primary, with self-denying consequences vis-à-vis will and spirit.
65. By contrast, the male nervous system, as subjective concretization of form and subjective abstractionization, so to speak, of content(ment), attests to a primary order of self for which the subjective concretization of power in the physical not-selves (of phallus and brain) and the metaphysical not-selves (of ears and lungs), and the subjective abstractionization of glory in physical selflessness (sperm and/or thought) and metaphysical selflessness (airwaves and/or the breath) are secondary, with self-affirming consequences vis-à-vis ego and soul.
66. Hence not only is the female side of life metachemical and chemical, as opposed to physical and metaphysical, but it is that in which the self, being objective, is secondary and the not-self and selflessness primary, so that power and glory dominate, through will and spirit, the ego and soul of form and content(ment).
67. Hence not only is the male side of life physical and metaphysical, as opposed to metachemical and chemical, but it is that in which the self, being subjective, is primary and the not-self and selflessness secondary, so that form and content(ment) preponderate, through ego and soul, over the will and spirit of power and glory.
68. Thus even though there are male elements in females and, conversely, female elements in males - and sometimes to quite alarming extents! - a clear-cut distinction nevertheless still exists between that which, being objective, is female and that which, being subjective, is male.
69. Thus the expressive not-selves of the eyes and the heart in space-time devolution are objective concretizations of metachemical power, viz. noumenally objective doing, while the compressive not-selves of the tongue and the womb in volume-mass devolution are objective concretizations of chemical power, viz. phenomenally objective doing, both of which instinctual axes correspond to the female side of life.
70. Thus the depressive not-selves of the phallus and the brain in mass-volume evolution are subjective concretizations of physical power, viz. phenomenally subjective doing, while the impressive not-selves of the ears and the lungs in time-space evolution are subjective concretizations of metaphysical power, viz. noumenally subjective doing, both of which instinctual axes correspond to the male side of life.
71. Thus the unclear selflessness of optical light and blood in space-time devolution are objective abstractionizations of metachemical glory, viz. fiery giving, while the clear selflessness of saliva and amniotic fluid in volume-mass devolution are objective abstractionizations of chemical glory, viz. watery giving, both of which spiritual axes correspond to the female side of life.
72. Thus the unholy selflessness of orgasmic sperm and cogitative thought in mass-volume evolution are subjective abstractionizations of physical glory, viz. vegetative giving, while the holy selflessness of the airwaves and the breath in time-space evolution are subjective abstractionizations of metaphysical glory, viz. airy giving, both of which spiritual axes correspond to the male side of life.
73. Thus not only is female power and glory distinct from male power and glory, as that which is primary from that which is secondary, but such a distinction derives from the basic difference between the female nervous system (arguably less centralized), as objective, and the male nervous system (arguably more centralized), as subjective, with a secondary order of self in the one case, and a primary order of self in that of the other.
74. Hence whereas the secondary order of self, the self as objective concretization of form and objective abstractionization of content(ment), is disposed to the primary, and therefore predominating, orders of not-self and selflessness, the primary order of self, the self as subjective concretization of form and subjective abstractionization of content(ment), is disposed, by contrast, to the secondary, and therefore subdominating, orders of not-self and selflessness.
75. It is not that women are selfless and men selfish, for self-denial differs from selflessness, the spiritual emanation, as self-affirmation from systematic selfishness, particularly when the egocentric self is transcended by psychocentric selfhood, but, on the contrary, that women are primarily disposed, in their objective dispositions, towards the not-self and selflessness at the expense of a secondary order of self, whereas the primary disposition of men, by contrast, is towards the self, whether egocentric or psychocentric, at the expense of a secondary order of not-self and selflessness, thereby confirming a subjective orientation.
76. For objectivity derives, after all, from a vacuous precondition, whereas subjectivity derives from a plenum, the plenum of male somethingness (as in the scrotum) as opposed to the vacuum of female nothingness (as in the womb) which, by contrast, has its roots not in the solar cosmos but in the stellar one.
77. Thus does the negative charge of the female gender ever contrast with the positive charge of the male gender, as, at its most extreme, primacy contrasts with supremacy, or self-denial with self-affirmation.
78. Whereas the not-self is intimately associated with power, and hence with the appearances, through instinctual doing, of noumenal objectivity, phenomenal objectivity, phenomenal subjectivity, or noumenal subjectivity, as the case may be, selflessness has intimate associations with glory, and hence with the quantities, through spiritual giving, of fiery metachemistry, watery chemistry, vegetative physics, and airy metaphysics, whether in sensuality or sensibility.
79. Whereas the egocentric self is intimately associated with form, and hence with the qualities, through intellectual taking, of space-time devolution, volume-mass devolution, mass-volume evolution, or time-space evolution, as the case may be, the psychocentric self has intimate associations with content(ment), and hence with the essences, through emotional being, of photons and/or photinos (metachemistry), electrons and/or electrinos (not to mention, in more radical contexts of chemistry, positrons and/or positrinos), neutrons and/or neutrinos (not to mention, in more radical contexts of physics, deuterons and/or deuterinos), and protons and/or protinos (metaphysics), as applicable to both sensuality and sensibility.
80. Thus whereas the not-self, or will, exists in relation to a basis of power, of which the expressiveness of noumenal objectivity, the compressiveness of phenomenal objectivity, the depressiveness of phenomenal subjectivity, and the impressiveness of noumenal subjectivity are the apparent manifestations in both sensuality and sensibility, selflessness, or spirit, exists in relation to a basis of glory, of which the unclearness of fiery metachemistry, the clearness of watery chemistry, the unholiness of vegetative physics, and the holiness of airy metaphysics are the quantitative manifestations in both sensuality and sensibility.
81. Likewise, whereas the profane self, or ego, exists in relation to a basis of form, of which spatial space to repetitive time devolution, volumetric volume to massed mass devolution, massive mass to voluminous volume evolution, and sequential time to spaced space evolution are the qualitative manifestations in both sensuality and sensibility, the sacred self, or soul, exists in relation to a basis of content(ment), of which elemental-wavicle photons and/or photinos, elemental-wavicle electrons and/or electrinos, elemental-wavicle neutrons and/or neutrinos, and elemental-wavicle protons and/or protinos are the essential manifestations in both sensuality and sensibility.
82. That which is of divergent and/or convergent noumenal objectivity in power, of outer and/or inner fiery metachemistry in glory, of space-time devolution in form, and of photons and/or photinos in content(ment) ... I call superfeminine to subfeminine, whether the superfemininity to subfemininity be primal, and inorganic, or supreme, and organic - negative in relation to materialism or positive in relation to fundamentalism in both sensuality and sensibility, the contexts, necessarily upper class, of scientific rule.
83. That which is of divergent and/or convergent phenomenal objectivity in power, of outer and/or inner watery chemistry in glory, of volume-mass devolution in form, and of electrons and/or electrinos in content(ment) ... I call upper feminine to lower feminine, whether the upper to lower femininity be primal, and inorganic, or supreme, and organic - negative in relation to realism or positive in relation to nonconformism in both sensuality and sensibility, the contexts, necessarily lower class, of political governance.
84. That which is of divergent and/or convergent phenomenal subjectivity in power, of outer and/or inner vegetative physics in glory, of mass-volume evolution in form, and of neutrons and/or neutrinos in content(ment) ... I call lower masculine to upper masculine, whether the lower to upper masculinity be primal, and inorganic, or supreme, and organic - negative in relation to naturalism or positive in relation to humanism in both sensuality and sensibility, the contexts, necessarily lower class, of economic representation.
85. Finally, that which is of divergent and/or convergent noumenal subjectivity in power, of outer and/or inner airy metaphysics in glory, of time-space evolution in form, and of protons and/or protinos in content(ment) ... I call submasculine to supermasculine, whether the submasculinity to supermasculinity be primal, and inorganic, or supreme, and organic - negative in relation to idealism or positive in relation to transcendentalism in both sensuality and sensibility, the contexts, necessarily upper class, of religious leadership.
86. Thus do will, spirit, ego, and soul stake their respective claims on life, which is a combination, to varying degrees and with differing emphases, of doing, giving, taking, and being, or, more concretely, of not-self, selflessness, profane self, and sacred self, or, more abstractly, of power, glory, form, and content(ment), the latter of which not only transcends the former but is its redemption and guarantor, in supermasculinity, of 'reborn' Eternal Life - the supremely joyful life of the soul of sensible being.