Copyright © 1999-2010 John O'Loughlin
2. Immorality vis-à-vis Morality
4. Eternal Life
5. The Truth about God
7. Culture and Religion
9. State and Church
10. God and Heaven
11. Gender Divisions
12. Contrasting the Arts
13. True Religion
16. The Soul
17. The Self
18. The Undersoul
21. The Few and the Many
22. Religious 'bovaryizations' vis-à-vis the Truth
23. Philosophy and Religion
24. Theory and Practice
25. The Four Kinds of Literature
26. Musical Quadruplicities
27. Passing from Sensuality to Sensibility
28. Saved from the Curse and damned from the Blessing
1. The more one is responsible to oneself the less one can be responsible to others.
2. Conversely, the more one is responsible to others the less one can be responsible to oneself.
3. Those who are responsible to themselves tend to be irresponsible to others, and vice versa.
4. Responsibility to oneself is Christian; responsibility to others - heathen.
5. The wise man is responsible to himself; the foolish man ... irresponsible to himself.
6. The good woman is responsible to others; the evil woman ... irresponsible to others.
7. In being irresponsible to himself the fool may well become responsible to others, and thus quasi-good.
8. In being irresponsible to others the evil woman may well become responsible to herself, and thus quasi-wise.
9. Since the genders are not, by nature, equal, it is illogical to speak of the desirability of equal responsibility, whether to oneself or to others.
10. The subjectivity of the male sex ensures that, by and large, men are happier being responsible to themselves than responsible to others.
11. Conversely, the objectivity of the female sex ensures that, by and large, women are happier or, at any rate, more resigned to being responsible to others than responsible to themselves.
12. Accusations of irresponsibility (in not being responsible towards others) are more often levelled at men by women than vice versa.
13. The wisest men will always be most responsible to themselves and least responsible to others.
IMMORALITY VIS-À-VIS MORALITY
1. The immorality of unnature vis-à-vis the morality of 'nature'. Or, more correctly, the immorality of unnature vis-à-vis the morality of subnature, with the amorality of supernature and of nature coming in-between, like chemistry and physics in between metachemistry and metaphysics.
2. From the immorality of the Devil/Hell to the morality of God/Heaven via the amorality of woman/purgatory and of man/earth, as from alpha to omega via the world.
3. From the immorality of beauty/love to the morality of truth/joy via the amorality of strength/pride and of knowledge/pleasure.
4. From the noumenally objective absolutism (metachemical) of immorality to the noumenally subjective absolutism (metaphysical) of morality via the phenomenally objective relativity of chemical amorality and the phenomenally subjective relativity of physical amorality.
1. If morality, or the choosing of metaphysical right over physical wrong, is a godly thing, as I happen to believe, then morality is only possible and, more to the point, credible in connection with God, or godliness.
2. Take away God, or the possibility of godliness, and you are left with a moral vacuum, with the absence, in short, of a reason for being moral.
3. Consequently life ceases to be an affair guided by morality and becomes one in which amorality is widely prevalent, albeit governed and/or ruled by immorality.
4. For if you remove God from the overall picture, the Devil inevitably steps-in to take His place, and the world becomes his or, rather, her oyster - to be exploited and manipulated as a matter of diabolic course.
5. Yet revolt against immorality is of course possible and, to some extent, inevitable, though only in relation to an objective form of amorality which is as good to evil, or woman to the Devil, or purgatory to Hell, or punishment to crime, or justice to cruelty.
6. Parliament is, in effect, the epitome of the revolt of objective amorality against the tyrannical evil of immorality, which is of course also objective, if from a noumenal rather than a phenomenal point of view. Such a revolt has been symbolized by, amongst other things, 'Britannia'.
7. Thus a society bereft of God but not overly partial to the Devil becomes characterized by the goodness of objective amorality. Such is also true of the individual, even when not literally feminine or, at any rate, a woman. And in such a society and for such an individual, politics rather than science is hegemonic. Hence parliamentary democracy.
1. The notion of God dying or of the 'death of God', whether conceived of from a Christian or a Nietzschean standpoint, is, if taken literally, something of a contradiction in terms. For nothing defies the idea of death more than that which, as God, is identifiable with Eternal Life.
2. It is not God Who dies, but an outworn concept of God, a traditional or conventional way of conceiving of God, or godliness.
3. God is the One who defies death in the interests of Eternity, of life lived beyond the mortality of the flesh.
4. Eternal Life is the life of God, the life that is attuned to the Heaven of metaphysical being.
5. That, on the contrary, which dies eternally, being synonymous with Eternal Death, is the Devil, and an age or society obsessed by death, particularly of an immortal character, is necessarily ruled by the Devil, as by the will and the ego of noumenal objectivity, wherein the hells of metachemical spirit and soul have their life-denying throne.
6. An age or society ruled by the Devil worships beauty and rejects truth. In such a context the poet is sovereign, not the philosopher!
7. God may be absent from such an age or society, as from that in which woman is amorally sovereign, but godliness as such is not identifiable with death. On the contrary, it is man who must die (to the flesh) if God, or godliness, is to come into its rightful 'high estate' in Eternity.
8. In ideological terms, I have identified this death with the abandonment of political sovereignty following the assumption, democratically mandated, of religious sovereignty through the Messianic Second Coming, that is to say, through the will of he who corresponds, in his life and teachings, to the bringer of 'Kingdom Come'.
9. As the reader may know from previous texts by this author, I effectively identify with that destiny on the basis of my Social Transcendentalist ideology, including, not least of all, its doctrine of deistic deliverance from theism, and the concomitant acceptance of religious self-determination in a 'triadic Beyond' (relative to the present), wherein Eternal Life will come more fully and lastingly to pass.
THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD
1. I have recently been reading Sartre's essay Existentialism and Humanism, with its subjective starting-point in the cogito, and in many respects it could be said that my philosophy is a continuation of existentialist humanism to the subjective ne plus ultra of Social Transcendentalism, wherein man transcends himself in ... God, not, be it noted, theistically, but deistically, in relation to transcendental meditation.
2. For at the high-point of his evolution man becomes God; with Social Transcendentalism God is the ultimate Creation and outcome of evolution, not the Creator and power behind evolution.
3. Thus instead of God being responsible for man, man is responsible for God; for God is a higher type of man, a man (whom I have called subman) who practises transcendental meditation.
4. So what is truth? - Truth is about God. And what is the truth about God? - Not only that God is, in any truly religious sense, the end rather than the beginning of things, but, more to the point, that God is but a means to the end ... of Heaven; that God is not an end-in-Himself but, on the contrary, someone (primary) and/or something (secondary) in need of redemption. And for God, Heaven is precisely that redemption, whether in terms of the Holy Spirit for the Father (secondary God) or of the Holy Soul for the Son (primary God).
5. But the metaphysical ego (self) of the Son-God can only achieve heavenly redemption for itself in the metaphysical soul via the metaphysical will (not-self) of the Father-God and the metaphysical spirit (not-self) of the Spirit-Heaven, the Holy Spirit the selflessness of which is but a means for the metaphysical ego of enhanced selfhood in the Holy Soul - one extreme duly leading to another as the self recoils from selflessness in relation to the spirit with a spring-like zeal the effect of which is to drive it more profoundly into self (as soul) than would otherwise be possible.
6. Yet only until such time as, reverting to its egocentric fulcrum, the self plunges anew into not-self, ego into will, to be borne aloft, as before, on the wings of spirit, breath from lungs, in what amounts to a cyclic recurrence of self - not-self - not-self - self; ego -will - spirit - soul; Son - Father - Holy Spirit - Holy Soul ... for the duration of one's transcendental meditation.
7. Yes, like Sartre, my starting-point is also subjective and my ending-point, no matter how briefly, an enhanced subjectivity. But it is not simply that man transcends himself in God, although this can and does happen. Rather is it a case of God transcending Himself in Heaven. For God would be meaningless without Heaven, which is His - mine, your, our - Resurrection.
8. God lives not for Himself, but for Heaven, wherein truth is transmuted into joy, ego into soul, wisdom into holiness, grace into peace - the peace that surpasses understanding, as the sublimity of joy surpasses the divinity of truth, the Heaven (resurrected Son) of metaphysical soul surpassing the God (unredeemed Son) of metaphysical ego.
9. Social Transcendentalism points the way forward for those who, as submen, wish to be redeemed in the Heaven-of-Heavens. It is the prerogative of man-become-subman not only to be God, but to achieve Heaven.
1. To contrast the appearance of doing (acting) with the essence of being, as one would contrast the will with the soul, power with contentment - not least of all in relation to the noumenal axes, germane to space and time, of metachemistry and metaphysics, wherein the will and the soul have their respective per se manifestations.
2. To contrast the quantity of giving with the quality of taking, as one would contrast the spirit with the ego (mind), glory with form - not least of all in relation to the phenomenal axes, germane to volume and mass, of chemistry and physics, wherein the spirit and the ego have their respective per se manifestations.
3. The notion of a 'will to power', à la Nietzsche, is really a tautological paradox; for power is of the will and the will is power, whether in metachemistry, its per se manifestation, or in the 'bovaryized' contexts of chemistry, physics, and metaphysics.
4. The will, in short, is an expression of power, whether the latter happens to be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, depending on the type of will.
5. Conversely, power is an expression of will, whether the latter happens to be evil, good, foolish, or wise, depending on the type of power.
CULTURE AND RELIGION
1. You do not buy and sell genuine culture, any more than you buy or sell God. Like God, or godliness, genuine culture, which (being metaphysical) is a religious thing, is above and beyond the scope of the marketplace.
2. That which is less than genuinely cultural and/or godly will, of course, be bought and sold on a commercial basis; for such it has always been.
3. The bourgeoisie strive to render everything accountable to commerce, including much of what passes, in the vulgar imagination, for culture and religion. For economic accountability is the ne plus ultra of respectability to the business mind, which is incapable of appreciating genuine culture or of understanding anything genuinely religious.
4. Thus in a world where the businessman is 'king' or, at the very least, 'lord', things are only meaningful and valuable if they can be sold. Anything that transcends economic or commercial evaluation will be shunned or treated as though it were worthless - which, in one sense, it may well be, though only in the rather limited sense that the bourgeois understands.
5. In a society where economics is 'king', God and culture will be 'beyond the pale' of that which is accorded value. Only false religion and art can flourish there, and they will be hyped-up out of all proportion to their true worth or, rather, nature.
6. The bourgeois loathes nothing so much as genuine culture and religion, both of which he will perceive as a threat to his economic sovereignty and worldly interests.
7. Know that what they sell in the marketplace - whichever shop you care to name - will be culturally false and religiously untrue.
8. For genuine religion, by which is meant metaphysical religion of, in particular, a sensible order, towers above the commercial nature of economics like the air above vegetation, or grace above sin, or God above man, or Heaven above the earth. Such is also true of genuine culture.
9. Any society purporting to be genuinely religious or cultural would not be characterized by an economic hegemony, after the fashion of capitalist societies.
10. On the contrary, a genuinely cultural and religious society (assuming, for the sake of argument, that such a thing were possible and that 'society' and religion, as we are here attempting to define it, are not a blatant contradiction in terms) would be one in which economics had been overcome by religion, subordinated to religion, and was not, in consequence, independent of religion or of religious considerations ... in the free-market manner.
11. It would be equivalent to man having been overcome by God, of the earth by Heaven, and accordingly be significant of the end of the world, not excepting the part played in worldly affairs by democratic politics.
12. A People who, democratically, had exchanged political sovereignty, with its economic and judicial concomitants, for religious sovereignty, with its rights in relation to metaphysical self-realization for 'the best' and physical and/or chemical self-realization for 'the rest', would be saved from the world (of political and economic hegemonies) to the Other World (of religious hegemony), which I identify with 'Kingdom Come'.
13. Such a post-worldly and even otherworldly society, composed of religiously-sovereign individuals, would be one in which not man (and economics) but God (and religion) was sovereign, a society in which truth was free of economic subversion and no longer undermined by knowledge.
14. I call such a society Social Transcendentalist; for it is that in which the individual transcends the collective.
1. If true culture is religious, then what may be called beautiful culture is scientific - the difference, in a word, between cultural art and barbarous art.
2. If knowledgeable culture is economic, then what may be called strong culture is political - the difference, in a word, between natural art and civilized art.
3. Thus, broadly, there are four different approaches to art - the barbarous approach of beauty, the civilized approach of strength, the natural approach of knowledge, and the cultural approach of truth.
4. The barbarous approach to art of beauty is scientific in its noumenal objectivity; the civilized approach to art of strength is political in its phenomenal objectivity; the natural approach to art of knowledge is economic in its phenomenal subjectivity; and the cultural approach to art of truth is religious in its noumenal subjectivity.
5. No art-form does better justice to beauty than the scientific art-form, necessarily barbarous, of art per se, i.e. painting.
6. No art-form does better justice to strength than the political art-form, necessarily civilized, of sculpture.
7. No art-form does better justice to knowledge than the economic art-form, necessarily natural, of literature.
8. No art-form does better justice to truth than the religious art-form, necessarily cultural, of music.
9. Painting and sculpture, beauty and strength, appearance and quantity, stand together on the objective, or female, side of life ... like fire and water, the Devil and woman.
10. Literature and music, knowledge and truth, quality and essence, stand together on the subjective, or male, side of life ... like vegetation and air, man and God.
STATE AND CHURCH
1. In similar fashion to the above, the State (both monarchic and parliamentary) stands apart from the Church (both pantheistic and atheistic) as beauty and strength from knowledge and truth, science and politics from economics and religion.
2. Which is not to say that the State cannot be knowledgeable (and republican) or true (and totalitarian), in shadow-like vein to pantheistic and atheistic churches.
3. Nor is it to deny that the Church can be beautiful (and monotheistic) or strong (and polytheistic), in shadow-like fashion to monarchic (authoritarian) and parliamentary (democratic) states.
4. However, when the State is genuine, or true to itself rather than a reflection, necessarily distorted, of some more genuine Church, it will be beautiful or strong, authoritarian or parliamentary.
5. Likewise when the Church is true to itself rather than a distorted reflection of some more genuine State, it will be knowledgeable or true, pantheistic or atheistic (deistic).
6. If the State is genuine, whether in noumenal or phenomenal, upper- or lower-class terms, then the Church can only be pseudo, or less than genuine.
7. Conversely, if the Church is genuine, whether in phenomenal or noumenal, lower- or upper-class terms, then the State can only be pseudo, or less than genuine.
8. As a male, I logically prefer that society in which the Church is genuine and the State comparatively pseudo.
9. But I also prefer, in my truth-oriented capacity as philosopher, an effectively noumenal type of writer when aphoristically genuine, the Church to be noumenal and upper-class, and the State likewise - a concept I have long identified with 'Kingdom Come', in which the State, necessarily totalitarian, is geared to the protection and service of an atheistic or, more correctly, a deistic Church.
10. Such a Church I have customarily identified with the concept of 'the Centre' and the inclusion thereof of a triadic Beyond in which religious sovereignty is with the People.
GOD AND HEAVEN
1. Whether a 'Creator' exists or not in relation to this planet and, by implication, the innumerable life forms on it, there is no need to worship 'Him', since worship is, by and large, a primitive manifestation of religion.
2. Doubtless some star, whether the Sun or some other body in the Galaxy, if not the Universe, played a part in the 'creation', by extrapolation, of this planet. But even if that body or star should still exist, that would be no excuse or reason for worship!
3. A lot of what grows or exists on earth owes much of its origins to the Earth itself, not to some extraterrestrial body. Naturally, the Sun is an important factor in the continuing growth and existence of life on earth, but it is by no means the sole factor!
4. We are all composites of many factors - some terrestrial and doubtless others extraterrestrial, like the Sun and the Moon. Therefore no single factor can be accorded merit for creating life on earth, much less human life.
5. Human life itself is very diverse. People come in different shapes and sizes even in the same race, never mind in relation to the different races. And then the races themselves - red, white, black, yellow, and any number of mixed-race variations on what I have long equated with an element-conditioned theme - how different they are!
6. And who or what created them all? - Well, not a red God or a white God or a black God or a yellow God, that's for sure! More like variations on the many factors that contribute - common propagative impulses aside - to the compositeness of human life - some of them unnatural (and arguably metachemical), others supernatural (and arguably chemical), natural (and arguably physical), and subnatural (and arguably metaphysical), to greater or lesser extents, depending on the race (if ascertainable).
7. So an unnatural Creator, a supernatural Creator, a natural Creator, and a subnatural Creator, not simply one Creator, not even where any given race was concerned (though one could generalize in terms of a more prominent factor for each race - unnatural for reds, supernatural for whites, natural for blacks, and subnatural for yellows).
8. Be that as it may, I don't believe in Creator-worship, for the most genuine and significant God any man can identify with is the God within himself, and such a God, necessarily deistic, can only be metaphysical.
9. In short, you have to be a certain type of man - sort of metaphysically upper class - with a certain type of racial disposition - probably yellow or thereabouts - to be able to take the God within, the true God, seriously, whether in primary (with regard to the self) or in secondary (with regard to the not-self) terms.
10. For, ultimately, God exists in relation to the subnatural/subhuman, the metaphysical will/ego par excellence, while everywhere else is to be found only man, woman, and the Devil; physical nature, chemical supernature, and metachemical unnature, as one retreats from deity, and hence deism, in variously theistic terms - pantheistic, polytheistic, and monotheistic.
11. And what is God, this God that exists within in both subnatural and subhuman terms, if not someone and something that needs to be redeemed in and by Heaven - the subastral Heaven of the spirit for the secondary God (subnatural will), and the subconscious Heaven of the soul for the primary God (subhuman ego), whether in sensuality or, more significantly, in sensibility.
12. For unless will is redeemed in spirit and, for the self, ego is redeemed in soul, there is no sense to God, since God is not an end-in-himself/itself, but a means to a higher end - the end, needless to say, of Heaven.
1. The meditating man is a subman, for his ego is subhuman, and thus metaphysical. He is deeper than man. For man is human-all-too-human in his vegetative sinfulness, his physical knowledge (whether carnally or intellectually), whereas the subman is a God, is 'God the Son' in his airy gracefulness, his metaphysical truth (whether aurally or respiratorily).
2. There is nought deeper and higher than the subman, especially the meditating subman, who meditates - transcendentally.
3. Imagine the term 'superman' being applied to such a person - would it not be implausible to equate that most calm and profound of states, centred in being, with anything 'super'?
4. For the prefix 'super' generally connotes with something dynamic, imposing, quick, strong, proud, even brash and slick. There is a suggestion, moreover, of something if not exactly superficial then, at any rate, artificial and ... large.
5. No, I can no longer conceive of the ne plus ultra of human - and particularly male - maturation in terms of the 'super', much less superman, à la Nietzsche. Only in terms of the subman, who is as much beyond man, in his metaphysical subhumanism, as the superman is behind him - that is to say, anterior as opposed to posterior to man. And then as a creature who is kind of at cross-purposes or loggerheads with his gender.
6. Now if it is more natural to be a man than a superman, it is more supernatural to be a superwoman than a superman, to be superfeminine than supermasculine, and thus properly of strength in the chemical phenomenality of watery punishment.
7. If men are more usually masculine (and knowledgeable) than supermasculine (and strong), then women, by contrast, are more usually superfeminine (and strong) than feminine (and knowledgeable).
8. For whereas the supermasculine approximates, in vegetative paradox, to the supernatural (of which the superfeminine is per se), the feminine approximates, in watery paradox, to the natural (of which the masculine is per se). The strong man is as much the male exception as ... the knowledgeable woman the female exception. Generally men are knowledgeable and women strong.
9. But not a few women, more fiery than watery, are what may be called unfeminine, and hence beautiful - the gender antithesis of that which, being submasculine, is true, like the subman.
10. For if supernature and nature constitute a phenomenal, or worldly, antithesis, as between water and vegetation, strength and knowledge, woman and man, then unnature and subnature constitute a noumenal, or supra-worldly, antithesis, as between fire and air, beauty and truth, the Devil and God.
11. Now if the masculine is more genuinely natural (and vegetative) than the feminine, and the superfeminine more genuinely supernatural (and watery) than the supermasculine, it can be argued that, where the noumenal options are concerned, the unfeminine is more genuinely unnatural than the unmasculine, while, conversely, the submasculine is more genuinely subnatural than the subfeminine, conceiving of the latter as the female antithesis to the unmasculine.
12. In fact, so much more so would this be the case ... that one might be forgiven for disposing, on all but an academic basis, with notions of unmasculine and subfeminine, so that only the unfeminine and the submasculine were countenanced ... the better to do proper justice to the absolutism (comparatively speaking) of the noumenal planes of space and time, in contradistinction to the relativity, or greater relativity, of the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, wherein man and woman, the masculine and the superfeminine (in general terms), have their worldly places.
CONTRASTING THE ARTS
1. To contrast the beauty of barbarism with the strength of civilization, as one might contrast the Devil with woman, or art (painting) with sculpture.
2. To contrast the knowledge of nature with the truth of culture, as one might contrast man with God, or literature (fiction) with music.
3. To contrast the criminality of barbarism, which is evil in its noumenal objectivity, with the justness of civilization, which is good in its phenomenal objectivity.
4. To contrast the sinfulness of nature, which is foolish in its phenomenal subjectivity, with the gracefulness of culture, which is wise in its noumenal subjectivity.
5. As a rule, art appeals to 'the barbarous' and sculpture to 'the civilized' - the former evil and the latter good.
6. As a rule, literature appeals to 'the natural' and music to 'the cultural' - the former foolish and the latter wise.
7. 'The barbarous', who are evil in their criminal fixation, through noumenal objectivity, upon appearances, prefer beauty to strength, whereas 'the civilized', who are good in their just fixation, through phenomenal objectivity, upon quantities, prefer strength to beauty.
8. 'The natural', who are foolish in their sinful fixation, through phenomenal subjectivity, upon qualities, prefer knowledge to truth, whereas 'the cultural', who are wise in their graceful fixation, through noumenal subjectivity, upon essences, prefer truth to knowledge.
9. Civilization turns against barbarism as water against fire, strength against beauty, woman against the Devil, quantity against appearance, sculpture against art.
10. Culture turns away from nature as air from vegetation, truth from knowledge, God from man, essence from quality, music from literature.
11. Barbarous beauty is the enemy not only of civilized strength, but also of natural knowledge and cultural truth.
12. Barbarous beauty is the enemy of civilized strength because it is not civilized but barbarous; it is the enemy of natural knowledge because it prevents such knowledge from achieving deliverance from itself in truth; and it is the enemy of cultural truth because it tends to exclude such truth from properly existing.
13. Thus unrestrained, barbarous beauty tends to dominate natural knowledge to the detriment of cultural truth.
14. Restrain barbarous beauty through civilized strength, and natural knowledge is able to seek deliverance from itself in cultural truth.
15. Only woman can release man from the Devil that constrains him from finding God. For woman is a different type of female from the Devil, whereas God is a different type of male from man.
16. Woman is a lower (and better) type of female than the Devil, whereas God is a higher (and better) type of male than man.
17. Goodness (strength) is better than evil (beauty), as sculpture is better than art, while wisdom (truth) is better than folly (knowledge), as music is better than literature.
18. But if art is unnatural (barbarous), then sculpture, literature, and music are all natural in one way or another - sculpture supernatural (civilized), literature natural (philistine), and music subnatural (cultural).
19. Thus art (painting) stands apart from sculpture, literature, and music ... as that which is against nature as opposed to being of nature.
20. For it is of fire as opposed to water, vegetation, or air.
1. Unless one is first atheist, one cannot be deist. For being against theism is a precondition of being for deism and, hence, the God within.
2. The atheist, who may also be deistic, is not only against monotheism; he is also opposed to polytheism and pantheism, those phenomenal offshoots of a noumenal 'Father'.
3. In this respect it is perhaps ironic that it isn't the unnatural which stands apart from the natural, as fire from water, vegetation, and air, but the subnatural which stands apart from both the unnatural, corresponding to monotheism, and the supernatural and natural aspects, corresponding to polytheism and pantheism, of Nature. For it is the subnatural which is both atheistic and, more importantly, deistic.
4. Thus deistic metaphysics, corresponding to the subnatural, stands apart from both monotheistic metachemistry, corresponding to the unnatural, and polytheistic chemistry and pantheistic physics - the former corresponding to the supernatural and the latter to the natural, i.e. to vegetation as opposed to water.
5. Only the airiness of atheistic deism transcends the vegetativeness of pantheism, and such airiness, corresponding to the metaphysical, is antithetical to that which, ever metachemical, is fundamental to the wateriness of polytheism, viz. the fieriness of monotheism.
6. The genuinely religious person, who is bound to be metaphysical, will be atheistic. Metachemical monotheism, chemical polytheism, and physical pantheism (the religion of Christ) will all be 'beneath the pale' of his metaphysical deism, the true nature (subnature) of genuine religion.
7. That which is not genuine is false or pseudo, whether its nature be knowledgeable (and natural), strong (and supernatural), or, preceding Nature, beautiful (and unnatural). Theism is the name of false religion, for all theistic religions are less than, if not contrary to, metaphysics.
8. Monotheism, being metachemical in its fiery unnature, is religiously false through science; polytheism, being chemical in its watery supernature, is religiously false through politics; pantheism, being physical in its vegetative nature, is religiously false through economics.
9. Only atheism, which is metaphysical in its airy subnature, is religiously true; for it is deistic, and thus concerned not with knowledge, still less with strength or beauty, but solely with truth - the truth of God within or, more specifically, of the primary God within, Who is one with the egocentric self of the meditating subman, and Whose privilege is to be redeemed, via the secondary God and Heaven of the respiratory not-self and its spiritual emanation (the breath), in the primary Heaven of the Holy Soul, the essence of which is joy.
10. Thus does a primary God (the metaphysical ego) achieve redemption for Himself in a primary Heaven (the metaphysical soul) via a secondary God (the metaphysical will) and a secondary Heaven (the metaphysical spirit) - the 'Son' achieving soulful resurrection for Himself via the 'Father' and the 'Holy Spirit', truth and joy via the lungs and the breath. This is the ultimate significance, it seems to me, of the concept of the Son's resurrection; for 'God the Son' is nothing without 'Heaven the Holy Soul'. Neither can this resurrection, this redemption, be achieved independently of 'God the Father' and 'Heaven the Holy Spirit'.
11. The secondary God and Heaven within, in the context of inner metaphysics, are but means for the primary God within to achieve the end ... of primary Heaven within. The 'Father' and the 'Holy Spirit' are servants, in the not-self, of the 'Son', who is one with the self.
12. This is what I teach. You are 'God the Son' when you meditate, allowing the will of the lungs and the spirit of the breath to transport you from ego to soul, truth to joy, primary God to primary Heaven, in the peace that surpasses understanding, the contentment that transcends form.
1. A metaphysically conscious self stretched in a superconscious direction by metaphysical spirit ... recoils to what, at the other extreme of universality from itself, one may call the subconscious, thereby achieving redemption.
2. The self that, in metaphysical ego, was personal ... becomes, with the attainment of metaphysical soul, universal.
3. In like manner, the metaphysical not-self ... of respiratory will attains to universality in metaphysical spirit, the Holy Spirit of (selfless) Heaven to which the self is drawn but from which it is fated to recoil in the interests not only of self-preservation, but of enhanced selfhood ... through the Holy Soul of Heaven.
4. Thus both heavens - the secondary Heaven of the metaphysical spirit and the primary Heaven of the metaphysical soul, being holy, are universal.
5. Conversely, both gods - the secondary God of the metaphysical will and the primary God of the metaphysical ego, being unredeemed, are personal.
6. Redemption is always from the personal to the universal, as from power to glory in the case of the not-self, and from form to content(ment) in the case of the self.
7. Giving is the redemption of doing, being the redemption of taking.
8. Quantity is the redemption of appearance, essence the redemption of quality.
9. The quantitative glory of molecular particles is the redemption of the apparent power of elemental particles; the essential contentment of elemental wavicles is the redemption of the qualitative form of molecular wavicles.
10. I have long maintained that the proton in sensuality and the protino in sensibility is the element/elementino par excellence of metaphysics, as germane to the noumenal subjectivity of time-space evolution.
11. For the proton/protino is at the core of the atom, and thus stands closest to that which, as the soul, is at the core of the self.
12. In fact, it is inconceivable to me that the core of the self, the soul, could be anything but protonic in its metaphysical essence; for it is that which is deepest.
1. If the proton/protino (in sensuality and sensibility) is the deepest element/elementino (in sensuality and sensibility) of the atom, the one lying at the core of the overall structure of atoms, then the photon/photino is arguably the shallowest, the one lying closest to its surface.
2. In between, or intermediate between these elemental extremes, would lie the electron/electrino (and/or positron/positrino), and the neutron/neutrino (and/or deuteron/deuterino), like spirit and ego in between soul on the one hand, and will on the other.
3. For it seems to me that the essential nature of protons/protinos, which lie at the core of the atom, merits a correlation with soul, while, conversely, the apparent nature of photons/photinos, lying furthest from the atom's core, warrants an equation with will, both of which could be said to flank, on an antithetical basis, anything so intermediate as electrons/electrinos and neutrons/neutrinos, with their respective correspondences to spirit and ego - electrons/electrinos being no less quantitative in their molecular particle collectivism ... than neutrons/neutrinos are qualitative, not least of all with regard to the collectivism of their molecular wavicles.
4. Be that as it may, there is no doubt in my mind that the photon/photino is an element/elementino with an elemental particle appearance; that the electron/electrino (and/or positron/positrino) is an element/elementino with a molecular particle quantity or, rather, quantitativeness; that the neutron/neutrino (and/or deuteron/deuterino) is an element/elementino with a molecular wavicle quality or, rather, qualitativeness; and, last but hardly least, that the proton/protino is an element/elementino with an elemental wavicle essence, corresponding to soul.
5. Thus the atom to which we are here referring could be said to proceed, in general terms, from the elemental particle appearance of photons/photinos to the elemental wavicle essence of protons/protinos via the molecular particle quantitativeness of electrons/electrinos and the molecular wavicle qualitativeness of neutrons/neutrinos, as from will to soul via spirit and ego.
6. Conversely, it could be said to recede from the elemental wavicle essence of protons/protinos to the elemental particle appearance of photons/photinos via the molecular wavicle qualitativeness of neutrons/neutrinos and the molecular particle quantitativeness of electrons/electrinos, as from soul to will via ego and spirit, essence to appearance via quality and quantity.
7. Whether this could be said of all atoms is of course a moot point, particularly since their atomic structure must vary according to the overall element with which they are associated, fire and water having a different atomic structure from vegetation and air, and each of these pairs of elements differing from one another.
8. Now although one need not doubt that so basic and fundamental an entity as the atom will have a certain ascertainable structure, the ratio of subatomic components varies from one type of atom to another - fire exemplifying a predominance of elemental particles (and thus photons/photinos); water exemplifying a predominance of molecular particles (and thus electrons/electrinos); vegetation exemplifying a preponderance of molecular wavicles (and hence neutrons/neutrinos); and air exemplifying a preponderance of elemental wavicles (and hence protons/protinos).
9. For how else to explain the distinctive characters of the elements except by reference to those underlining factors which, in their varying subatomic ratios, make for distinctions of appearance, quantity, quality, and essence, whatever the exact combination of elements/elementinos.
10. Atoms combined into molecules is the basis of matter, but since matter varies enormously across a wide range of produce, both natural and artificial, it follows that the molecular composition of matter must vary proportionately to the nature of the product - some molecules having more of these types of atoms and less of those, others more of those and less of these, and so on, with correspondingly disparate ratios of elemental factors.
11. I am not a scientist, nor do I have any ambitions to become one. But I am convinced that matter without a soul, inanimate matter, including household products, must also, of necessity, lack a proton/protino core, being largely composed of, amongst other things, electrons/electrinos, neutrons/neutrinos, and, most conspicuously in the case of the more garish ones, photons/photinos.
12. It is for this reason that religious people, whose special provenance is the soul, will avoid associating themselves with too much matter, after the fashion of materialists. Rather will they strive to reduce materialism to a bare minimum, the better to cultivate the soul. For no soul can thrive where there is too much inanimate matter, and therefore no genuine religion. Only a sort of living death.
1. No inanimate matter has a soul. Only animate, sentient matter, including plants and animals.
2. Human beings have souls, but comparatively few human beings are regularly in touch with their soul, least of all in metaphysical terms.
3. For to be in touch with the soul-of-souls, the metaphysical soul, one has to be a genuinely religious person, not a scientific or a political or an economic type of person.
4. These others, on the contrary, are regularly in touch with their will, their spirit, their ego - each or all of which prevent them from developing soul to anything like a religious extent; though not, of course, to extents compatible with science, politics, or economics, as with regard to love, pride, and pleasure.
5. Doubtless more than a few animals and even some plants would have experienced something similar, even if not in relation to science, politics, or economics. But are there what may be called religious plants and animals, plants and animals, I mean, with a self-conscious capacity for joy, even bliss?
6. I shouldn't like to categorically deny such a possibility, particularly in relation to certain species of birds, whose song is - well, heavenly, and to certain species of trees which grow so tall that they seem to merge into the sky and blend with the surrounding air, providing a congenial habitat for the loftiest birds. Of how many human beings could such a thing be said?
7. One would like to think that, at the highest level, the best, most soulful human beings can outdo trees and birds in sublime accomplishments; that they would in effect be more religious than those other species of life, but that is not to deny to such species the capacity for religious or soulful experience, still less to overlook the millions of people whose capacity to cultivate anything remotely resembling genuine religious experience is virtually extinct or sadly non-existent.
8. In this respect, mankind are no more homogeneous than any other kind of life on this planet, not excepting the plants.
9. A religious person will not be someone, you can rest assured, to shoot at birds (least of all singing birds) or to fell tall trees. On the contrary, he will feel a sympathy towards and empathy with certain trees and birds that would be completely lacking in a non-religious person - say, a scientist or a politician. But, more than that, he will feel sympathetic towards and be led to empathize with other religious persons to an extent that would be inconceivable in a non-religious person, even an economist.
10. But he must be careful, if truly wise, not to allow such feelings to cloud his judgement and draw him into collectivism, whether under cover of religion or otherwise.
11. For the genuinely religious experience is cultivated independently of the collectivity, by the Individual acting on and for himself or, more correctly, his self. No-one can meditate for you, and, at the end of the day, the cultivation of metaphysical soul is an intensely private experience, an experience as far removed from public show as the soul itself.
12. Like essence, the religious experience is neither seen nor heard, still less tasted or touched, but felt, felt in the soul as the peace that joyfully surpasses egocentric understanding, including the truth of God, which is for the godly individual but a means to that heavenly end.
1. I think with my brain, my brain does not think for me; on the contrary, it is me, the central nervous system, composed of a myriad nerve fibres, which avails of the brain's capacity for thought, for verbal and other symbols, to order thought in such a way that what is thought will be meaningful to me and able to assist me, the central nervous system, to both understand and cope with the world, life, my problems, etc., as I see fit.
2. The brain does not think for me; it is a tool of my self, the CNS, or brain stem. I lock into the brain but I am not the brain, even though it performs many duties that are indispensable to my well-being, including the regulation of bodily functions.
3. I am really that which is first and last, the most essential being that both precedes the body in time and succeeds it in Eternity.
4. I have developed all these bodily limbs and organs for purposes of surviving in the world, but I will one day leave them behind as I die to the flesh and am 'reborn' in the spirit or, rather, the soul, the essence of my being. I will, in a sense, come 'face to face' with my self, not the way one comes face to face with oneself in the mirror, but internally, as incandescent soul.
5. First I was id, or instinct; then I developed the capacity for thought through the ego, which is the conscious focal-point of the self; finally I shall be soul, the residue of what remains to the self when the ego passes away with the body's death and the id turns inward, as from bodily manipulation towards a self-consuming apocalypse of nervous tension, a cannibalistic orgy of self-realization in the lamp of the self, the soul.
6. The central nervous system passes from id to ego to soul or, more correctly, from id to ego and mind to soul, as from unconscious to conscious and superconscious to subconscious.
7. For if in the beginning there is id-controlled will, the will of the not-self (any not-self), what follows is ego-controlled id, spirit controlled mind, and, last but hardly least, the soul that ensues upon an egoless id that no longer has a will to control, and is beholden to no-one and to nothing but itself or, rather, the self of which it is the alpha, the instinctual beginning, and out of which is destined to shine the omega, the transfused end.
8. For what is the central nervous system, the myriad nerve fibres of the self, but an instrument of instinctive will that can only turn upon itself in the absence of organic will to manipulate with or without egocentric prompting?
9. Not only are the various organic not-selves, the bodily organs, discarded at death; the ego, which depends on the will, and the mind, which depends on the spirit, are also discarded at death - transcended in and by the soul, which is the transformed id, the id that, no longer having bodily organs to manipulate from the standpoint of the self (which should not be confused with the actual workings, through bodily will, of those organs), turns inward and becomes the soul.
10. Thus the self as central nervous system passes from id to soul, instinct to illumination, alpha to omega, self-consuming until such time as it has effectively 'burnt itself out' and ceased, in consequence, to incandesce. Even the inner light must eventually fade and die.
1. Consciously, the ego uses the will and the spirit to achieve soul for itself, passing from conscious to subconscious via unconscious and superconscious, as from primary God (the Son) to primary Heaven (the Holy Soul) via secondary God (the Father) and secondary Heaven (the Holy Spirit) - at any rate, within the context of metaphysics, both sensually, in the (once born) 'kingdom without' and sensibly, in the (reborn) 'kingdom within'.
2. Outside metaphysics the same principle, effectively a cyclical recurrence, applies less to sons, fathers, and holy spirits/souls, so to speak, than in physics to sons, fathers, and unholy spirits/souls; in chemistry to daughters, mothers, and clear spirits/souls; and in metachemistry to daughters, mothers, and unclear spirits/souls.
3. Now just as people differ in their approach to soul or, more correctly, in the kind of soul to which they habitually relate, not to mention - more importantly in non-metaphysical contexts - the kinds of ego, spirit, and will, so their central nervous system differs according to gender and genetic factors which determine, in advance, the nature of the self, be it metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical.
4. In fact, so much do selves differ in this way, that it is impossible to categorically regard the self, the CNS, as passing from God to Heaven at death, even if the notion of a beginning and an end, alpha and omega, is applicable to all selves, whatever their underlying elemental constitution.
5. For, in actuality, only a metaphysical self, the type of central nervous system which predisposes one to metaphysics, is compatible with the notion of id as God and soul as Heaven, albeit 'God' is less the 'Son' than a primary manifestation of the 'Father', and the soul is accordingly less the resurrected 'Son' than a resurrected 'Father' - in short, a kind of blissful undersoul compared to the joyful oversoul, to speak in rather Emersonian terms, which characterizes the conscious pursuit of primary Heaven.
6. Therefore it is deeper and correspondingly more perfect, more eternal, than the oversoul to which one ordinarily applies the term 'soul' in common or everyday usage.
7. This undersoul only comes to light, as it were, at death, since it is the transmutation of the id, corresponding to a primary 'Father', and not of the ego, corresponding to a primary 'Son'.
8. Only with the type of person whose self is primarily metaphysical ... can one speak of id into soul in terms of God and Heaven. For the rest, the id-into-soul transmutation of the self will have less to do with God and Heaven than, in the case of physical selves, with man and the earth; in the case of chemical selves, with woman and purgatory; and in the case of metachemical selves, with Devil and Hell.
9. For the afterlife experience, to speak bluntly, is proportionate to the type of self, for better or worse, with which one had lived as a person, be that self female or male, upper class or lower class, evil and/or good on the one hand, that of metachemical and chemical selves, or foolish and/or wise on the other hand, that of physical and metaphysical selves - the former options objective and the latter ones subjective.
10. The assumption that everyone is destined for Heaven at death is absurdly presumptuous. Only those whose self is fundamentally of God in its metaphysical bias can anticipate a heavenly transmutation on the part of what, for them, had been an impressive id.
11. The rest can expect the earth, purgatory, or Hell, as respectively germane to depressive, compressive, and expressive ids within a self that, far from being metaphysical, could only have been physical, chemical, or metachemical, depending on the person.
12. Thus while the alpha and omega of the self, the id and the soul of the central nervous system, are indeed commensurate with God and Heaven for airy, or metaphysical, types, they are more likely to be commensurate with man and the earth for vegetative, or physical, types; with woman and purgatory for watery, or chemical, types; and with the Devil and Hell for fiery, or metachemical, types - most of whom, to speak pedantically, will be upper-class females, for whom not strength and pride (as with chemical types), still less knowledge and pleasure (as with physical types) or truth and joy (as with metaphysical types), had been their characteristic modes of self, but beauty and love (presuming, as I have been all along, on a positive as opposed to a negative disposition).
1. People differ in their central nervous systems, as in their afterlife experiences. Not surprisingly, whole societies tend to reflect this in their methods of disposing of the dead, burial on land or at sea being flanked, as it were, by burning on the one hand and entombment (as in caves, vaults, mausoleums, etc.) on the other hand - this latter the preferred option of peoples and persons with a metaphysical bias.
2. Doubtless embalming is a strategy employed by such peoples to prolong the Afterlife, since an embalmed corpse is bound to decompose more slowly than one which is simply buried without reference to any preservative techniques, other, of course, than recourse to a coffin.
3. Traditionally, Western society has tended to emphasize burial, especially on land, as the Christian way of disposing of the dead - the inference being a physical rather than a metaphysical concept of the Afterlife such that attests to a vegetative - and sinful - mean.
4. Only the rich or exalted in rank would have had the option of entombment and embalming, whether in a private mausoleum or otherwise, while, at the opposite extreme, incineration of corpses would have conveyed a connotation of grave misfortune, punishment, and even damnation, as in the burning of witches, heretics, etc.
5. With the decay of Western civilization, however, and the spread of secular values, no such connotation would seem to apply to cremation, the modern equivalent of ancient funeral pyres; though one fancies that anyone who was still capable of religious self-respect, even if only physically, would shudder at the prospect of being cremated, and do everything in his powers to avoid it.
6. For how can one speak, in the Christian manner, of sure and certain hope of the resurrection to Eternal Life, i.e. of id into soul within the self, and permit that resurrection to be violated by raging fire, suffering the flames of Hell, so to speak, to ravage one's corpse in due process of it being cremated?
7. Those who voice Christian sentiments over a person destined for cremation or already cremated ... are guilty of the grossest hypocrisy and moral ignorance! While proclaiming their loyalty to Christ, they are effectively instruments of the Antichrist.
8. Be that as it may, death is still inevitable in the modern world, as indeed it has always been, though rarely has it been treated with such a callous disregard for Eternity as at present! Those who cynically disparage or dismiss the Afterlife show themselves to be completely lacking in self-respect; for the soul does not die the way the body and mind do, even if its existence in death is conditional upon due transmutation of the id, the self's instinctual will, and not on anything lying beyond the bounds of the self, or central nervous system.
9. Inevitably, the soul fades away in the course of Eternity, extreme bodily decomposition and self-consumption (by the in-turned id) being principal factors in its eventual demise. But while it existed it was - and remains - a permanent condition, this illumination of the undersoul - not intermittent like the sporadic joys of the oversoul, whether incidental to daily experience or consciously pursued via techniques like transcendental meditation. The undersoul is too deep, in short, to be anything but permanent, whether blissfully or otherwise, bearing in mind the different types of self.
10. However, if the modern world, with its Americanized materialism, is obsessed with death, death without hope of Eternity, or death, at best, with hope - barring Vampire-like resurrections - of only the most fleeting and meagre of eternities ... such that cultural and environmental superficialities condition and duly render compatible with cremation, then it is to be hoped that the future world, the next world more specifically of 'Kingdom Come' ... as defined by me in previous texts, will render deeper homage to Eternal Life, even to the extent of devising means whereby the inner lights of Eternity, purgatorial and earthly no less than heavenly, can be achieved synthetically in relation to what must surely be a greater emphasis on artificially sustaining life beyond the usual natural span - an emphasis, I mean, in which man achieves Eternity independently of bodily death thanks to his growing mastery of life-sustaining technologies.
11. In such an Other World, longevity would greatly expand Eternity, making it possible for people to experience their particular mode of inner light, their characteristic undersoul, on a basis that would rival if not outstrip the greatest mummified achievements of antiquity, not excepting ancient Egypt. For if, due to advanced technology, one can live longer, if, in fact, one can live virtually indefinitely, there would be no advantage to living were one to exclude afterlife-type experiences from one's life, effectively denying oneself the benefits of Eternity.
12. For if natural life has the benefit of an afterlife, an artificially-extended life without the benefit of Eternity would be no improvement at all, but probably a lot worse! Only when longevity was combined with Eternity, blending into Eternity, would it become truly meaningful, reducing natural life and its eternity to an inferior historical position. For what could be better than an Eternity that actually lasted, or had the potential to last, for ever?
1. Sleep is a sort of half-death, in which a partially in-turned id achieves imperfect redemption in a soul which plays host to both the ego and, especially, the mind.
2. For, with sleep, consciousness slides down into unconsciousness, which projects itself onto subconsciousness via the superconscious, thereby both creating and perpetuating the dream.
3. In such fashion, sleep resembles cinema, in that the unconscious acts like a film projector projecting light onto the blank screen of the subconscious, while the dream images of the superconscious are displayed on this screen as from a roll of film - the contents, originally, of consciousness.
4. Thus do the unconscious, the subconscious, and the superconscious play host to the images, and even sounds, of consciousness, a spiritualized rather than an intellectualized account of life being more congenial to the self (as id/soul) once the ego departs the scene with sleep.
5. But the ego never entirely departs the scene with sleep, and judgemental evaluations of the dream remain possible to it even under duress of unconsciousness, as and when one wakes oneself up in consequence of self-conscious opposition to the content of certain dreams, whatever their nature. Would the id, the unconscious, do this? Hardly, for that which is unconscious would be unlikely to champion consciousness, like the ego.
6. The id simply projects itself, its instinctive energies, inwards, achieving a degree of soul which, however, is far from pure in view of the extent to which mind intervenes in consequence of the continuance of normal bodily functions, including respiration.
7. Were one dead, there would be nothing in the way of the id from achieving pure soul for itself, as though on a blank screen of subconsciousness. But, set free of conscious constraints with sleep, the superconscious dances to its own tune on the screen of the unconscious/subconscious self. Or, rather, it dances to the tune of the self, whose instinctive energies animate mind in the absence of conscious control.
8. Thus do we see ourselves, in the dream, from the standpoint of the unconscious/subconscious self, some aspects of which may be anything but flattering to our ego and consequently tend to provoke an egocentric reaction of the sort that returns us to consciousness.
9. In general, however, we are not unduly provoked by the id/soul but, rather, diverted and even amused, if not baffled or enthralled by it. We see the mind, the contents of consciousness, not as the ego sees it but as the deeper self sees it - not logically or rationally but instinctually and even emotionally.
10. This is a pre-conscious view of superconsciousness, and one day it will be superseded by a post-conscious view of subconsciousness, as both the ego and the mind depart the scene for good, leaving us 'face-to-face' with the soul as with a redeemed self, a self that does not dream because there is nothing between itself and the fulfilment of its instinctive drives toward self-illumination (soul) on the psychic pyre of its own self-overcoming (id).
11. Either the Devil-Self will achieve Hell-Self or the woman-self achieve purgatory-self; either the man-self achieve earth-self or the God-Self achieve Heaven-Self, depending on the type of self to which, in life as in death, the ego/mind and body/spirit was attached.
12. For the Afterlife is no more the same for everybody and everyone than is the self, and we may believe that even in life people dream on different levels according to the nature, if applicable, of the self with which they were born and with which they will eventually die, be it metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical in relation to both gender and genetic distinctions.
THE FEW AND THE MANY
1. Truth is not for all, but only for some - namely the metaphysical, who stand to the physical (to name but one alternative category of persons) as the subjective Few to the subjective Many, the cultural individuals to the natural (philistine) collectivity. Such people are genuinely (in transcendentalism) religious, and they stand at a noumenal (time/space) remove from the physical in what amounts to an upper-class mode of subjectivity.
2. Knowledge is not for all, but only for some - namely the physical, who stand to the metaphysical as the subjective Many to the subjective Few, the natural collectivity to the cultural individuals. Such people are genuinely (in capitalism) economic, and they stand at a phenomenal (mass/volume) remove from the metaphysical in what amounts to a lower-class mode of subjectivity.
3. Strength is not for all, but only for some - namely the chemical, who stand to the metachemical (to name but one alternative category of persons) as the objective Many to the objective Few, the civilized collectivity to the barbarous individuals. Such people are genuinely (in parliamentarianism) political, and they stand at a phenomenal (volume/mass) remove from the metachemical in what amounts to a lower-class mode of objectivity.
4. Beauty is not for all, but only for some - namely the metachemical, who stand to the chemical as the objective Few to the objective Many, the barbarous individuals to the civilized collectivity. Such people are genuinely (in cosmology) scientific, and they stand at a noumenal (space/time) remove from the chemical in what amounts to an upper-class mode of objectivity.
5. Truth and beauty are for the Few, but for opposite kinds of noumenal persons - namely the metaphysical and the metachemical, the cultural and the barbarous, the subjective and the objective, the philosophical and the poetical, the soulful and the wilful.
6. Knowledge and strength are for the Many, but for opposite kinds of phenomenal persons - namely the physical and the chemical, the natural and the civilized, the subjective and the objective, the fictional and the theatrical, the intellectual and the spiritual.
7. One can no more expect all noumenal people to live by truth than to live by beauty, or vice versa.
8. One can no more expect all phenomenal people to live by knowledge than to live by strength, or vice versa.
9. So long as there are distinctions between the Few and the Many (as there will be in any viable and, in the broadest sense, civilized society), there will be distinctions between beauty and strength on the one hand, that of female objectivity, and between knowledge and truth on the other hand, that of male subjectivity.
10. And, invariably, there will be like-distinctions between science, politics, economics, and religion, as between fire, water, vegetation, and air.
11. The metaphysical Few understand the truth and live to transcend it in joy, which is heavenly.
12. The physical Many do not and (frankly) cannot understand the truth (of genuine religion), and therefore religion for them has to be conceived in terms of knowledge and, through that, the attainment of pleasure, which is earthly.
13. The chemical Many do not and (frankly) cannot understand the truth, and therefore religion for them has to be conceived in terms of strength and, through that, the attainment of pride, which is purgatorial.
14. The metachemical Few do not and (frankly) cannot understand the truth, and therefore religion for them has to be conceived in terms of beauty and, through that, the attainment of love, which is hellish.
15. The metachemical Few are thrice removed from the possibility of truth. The chemical Many are twice removed from the possibility of truth. The physical Many are once removed from the possibility of truth.
16. Only the metaphysical Few can live in truth, for they are as gods compared to or contrasted with everyone else.
RELIGIOUS 'BOVARYIZATIONS' VIS-À-VIS THE TRUTH
1. One thing that virtually everyone knows is that religion is about God and that God is about truth and that truth is about getting to Heaven and that Heaven is about joy. They know it not in so many words but - the metaphysical excepted - in general terms, through the distorting lenses of their various religious sympathies.
2. Now what happens when religion is made available to the physical, who are economic, is that man gets hyped as God and knowledge as truth, as witness the example of Christian humanism.
3. Now what happens when religion is made available to the chemical, who are political, is that woman gets hyped as God and strength as truth, as witness the example of Christian nonconformism.
4. Now what happens when religion is made available to the metachemical, who are scientific, is that the Devil gets hyped as God and beauty as Truth, as witness the example of Christian and, indeed, non-Christian fundamentalism.
5. Thus the more religion departs from transcendentalism, the less true it becomes, and something economic, political or scientific posing as religion is the 'bovaryized' result.
6. Inevitably the physical, the chemical, and the metachemical do a disservice to the concept of God as truth when they assume religious identities - identities which, in their various ways, fall as short of metaphysics as ... vegetation, water, and fire of air.
7. That poet - Keats, I believe it was - who claimed that beauty was truth, truth beauty, or something to that effect, patently demonstrated a metachemical 'bovaryization' of religion, the sort of 'bovaryization' in which, as already remarked, the Devil is hyped as God and beauty as truth - a not uncharacteristic vanity of genuine poets!
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
1. Just as the poet is the type of writer who most corresponds, in his metachemical fixation upon beauty, to fundamentalism, hyping the Devil as God, and therefore beauty as truth, so the dramatist is the type of writer who most corresponds, in his chemical fixation upon strength, to nonconformism, hyping woman as God, and therefore strength as truth.
2. Just as the novelist is the type of writer who most corresponds, in his physical fixation upon knowledge, to humanism, hyping man as God, and therefore knowledge as truth, so the philosopher is the type of writer who most corresponds, in his metaphysical fixation upon truth, to transcendentalism, declaring God to be that which is concerned with redemption of metaphysical ego in metaphysical soul and the attainment, in consequence, of Heaven.
3. At least, that is what this philosopher does, and does it because he knows the truth and is only too aware that truth is not an end-in-itself but only a means, necessarily divine, to a sublime end, commensurate with Heaven.
4. This philosopher does not look for God, for subhuman ego, outside the metaphysical self (unless, however, it be in terms of that secondary order of God which corresponds to the metaphysical not-self), but knows that God is immanent for those who, like himself, care to be metaphysical, whether aurally (in sensuality) or, preferably, breathily (in sensibility).
5. For metaphysics is of course an airy thing, nothing else, and therefore not something that covers a multitude of arcane subjects about which there would be little enough of air and, so far as its devotees were concerned, all too much cant and muddle-headedness!
6. Metaphysics is a mystery for such people only because they don't have the faintest idea what it's all about and are only too ready, in consequence, to identify it with just about anything obscure and arcane.
7. To know and understand metaphysics one must be 'up to' metaphysics, not unduly physical or chemical or, worse, metachemical. Otherwise that which pertains to truth will be obscured by knowledge or strength or, worse again, beauty, with predictably heretical consequences!
8. On that basis, anyone who puts undue confidence in poets or dramatists or novelists to reveal truth and be metaphysical ... is likely to be disappointed or, at best, misled. One doesn't consult a scientist about religion. Neither should one consult a poet about truth, a subject that is best left to philosophers, and then, preferably, to that philosopher most capable of grasping and revealing it.
9. For philosophers come in different shapes and sizes, different categories, and, unless I am grossly mistaken, it seems to me that there is a correlation between philosophy and religion, as between verses, a quasi-poetic mode of philosophy, and religious fundamentalism; as between dialogues, a quasi-theatrical mode of philosophy, and religious nonconformism; as between essays, a quasi-narrative mode of philosophy, and religious humanism; as between aphorisms, the properly philosophic mode of philosophy, and religious transcendentalism.
10. Thus even philosophy is subdivisible, like religion, into that which, being versistic (or of verses), is likely to approach truth through beauty; that which, being dialogistic (or of dialogues), is likely to approach truth through strength; that which, being essayistic (or of essays), is likely to approach truth through knowledge; and, last but hardly least, that which, being aphoristic (or of aphorisms), is most likely to approach truth truthfully, via metaphysics.
11. Those other philosophers, those versifiers and dialogists and essayists, are likely to fall as far short of truth, in their respective metachemical or chemical or physical fashions, as religious fundamentalists, nonconformists, and humanists, whose approach to God tends to involve the Devil, woman, or man, so that, in the end, God is what they want Him to be rather than what He really is or, alternatively, is that which can only be approached via some intermediary figure akin to their own limitations, be they fundamentalist, nonconformist, or humanist.
12. For such people, God is always transcendentally elsewhere, never with them personally, but someone to pray to, whether directly or indirectly, via someone else, i.e. an intermediary.
13. Only the Transcendentalist actually lives God - consciously in his metaphysical ego and unconsciously in his metaphysical will, the former primary (and of the self immanently) and the latter secondary (and of the not-self immanently or, more correctly, permanently).
14. And as he lives God, becoming indistinguishable from God, from that which corresponds to godliness, so he experiences the redemption of God - superconsciously in his metaphysical spirit and subconsciously in his metaphysical soul, the former secondary (in the not-self) and the latter primary (in the self).
15. He is the God-Son who achieves the Heaven-Soul, the Holy Soul of Heaven, via the God-Father and the Heaven-Spirit, the Holy Spirit of Heaven. Ego into will plus spirit equals soul, and it is soul which, in this metaphysical context, is his redemption as, primarily, God the Son.
THEORY AND PRACTICE
1. The connection between philosophy and religion is so very intimate because, essentially, they are two approaches to the same thing, viz. metaphysics.
2. This is so, at any rate, of genuine philosophy (aphoristic) and religion (transcendentalist), whose approach to metaphysics is not hyped or clouded by physics, chemistry, or metachemistry, as the case may be.
3. The only difference between philosophy and religion is that whereas the former approaches metaphysics theoretically, the latter's approach to metaphysics is from the practical standpoint, with a view to actually experiencing truth and joy.
4. For while philosophy can only speak of truth and joy, religious praxis affords one experience of truth and joy, the former as God and the latter as Heaven.
5. Thus while terms like 'truth' and 'joy' are germane to the theoretical approach to metaphysics, which is called philosophy, 'God' and 'Heaven' are their experiential fulfilments in relation to religious praxis, the praxis that, far from theorizing about truth and joy, actually allows one to become God (the knower of truth) and Heaven (the feeling of joy) through transcendental meditation.
6. Thus religion is the vindication of philosophy, the practical fulfilment of a metaphysical theory. And we may believe that without philosophy, genuine philosophy, there would be no genuine religion, no transcendental meditation and related metaphysical experience. They are, in a sense, two sides of the same coin - the 'tails' side of metaphysical theory, and the 'heads' side of metaphysical practice.
7. Thus religious praxis is the test of philosophy, as of the philosopher. For to theorize for the sake of theorizing would be a sheer waste of time and confirmation, if ever one needed it, of philosophical insincerity.
8. No theory is valid until it has been put into practice and, hopefully, proved to be the basis of experiential fulfilment, vindicated in terms of its ability to deliver that which until then had been merely theoretical.
9. Philosophy may talk about the truth of God and the joy of Heaven, but only religion can deliver experience of God through truth and of Heaven through joy - the truth of meditative praxis, which is God, and the joy of ego-transcendence, which is Heaven.
10. It is on this basis, metaphorically speaking, that one moves from the 'tails' to the 'heads', from the 'dark' to the 'light', from the philosophy to the religion. And a religion is only as good as its philosophy!
11. Should the philosophy be ultimate, as genuine and 'true' as it is possible to be, then the religion will be likewise, with truly divine and sublime implications.
12. If I am the 'philosopher king', the truest philosopher, then Social Transcendentalism will be the 'religious king', the godliest religion, against which all other religions will have to be judged. Doubtless that accords with Judgement.
THE FOUR KINDS OF LITERATURE
1. No less than philosophy is the 'literature' of religious people, so, by noumenal contrast, poetry is the 'literature' of scientific people, i.e. those for whom fire rather than air is the principal element, and who are accordingly more of the will than of the soul.
2. Similarly, if on comparatively phenomenal and therefore lower-class terms, drama is the 'literature' of political people, i.e. those for whom water is the principal element, as in connection with the tongue, and hence speech, while, on the opposite side of the gender divide, fiction, the literary per se it may well be, is the 'literature' of economic people, or those for whom vegetation (earth) is the principal element, as in connection with the flesh, and hence sex - the carnal mode of knowledge.
3. Doubtless any knowledge is commensurate with a literary disposition, in the specific sense we are here discussing, but carnal knowledge seems to be especially typical of that kind of fiction which aims, in shamelessly commercial vein, to corner the mass market and reap the biggest financial take.
4. Certainly theatre cannot compete with fiction on these terms, though from a political perspective there is nothing to rival the spoken word, whether or not one regards it as the theory behind political praxis.
5. From an analogical standpoint, it could be argued that drama stands to fiction as harmony to melody in music or, equally, as rugby to football in field sports - a thing more supernatural than natural and able, in sensual, or 'once-born', societies to command the moral 'high ground', if only in relation to lower-class phenomenality.
6. For in relation to upper-class noumenality, it is of course poetry which commands the moral 'high ground' in such sensual societies, wherein fire rather than water is the prevailing element.
7. In neither context, however, would one be dealing with anything 'reborn', and hence Christian, much less atheistic and/or deistic (as in the Social Transcendentalist sense already outlined). For poetry and drama can only thrive hegemonically in heathenistic societies, not in those sensible types of society in which either a 'reborn' form of knowledge, and hence fiction, or a 'reborn' form of truth, and hence philosophy, becomes chiefly characteristic, in consequence of a male hegemony.
8. There, on the contrary, beauty and strength are rather the exception, culturally speaking, to the general rule of knowledge or truth, the natural or the subnatural taking precedence, in literary terms, over the supernatural and the unnatural.
9. Thus a society in which the philosopher is 'king' will be as far removed from that in which the poet is 'king' or, more correctly, 'queen' ... as a society in which the novelist is 'king' or, rather, 'lord' from one in which the dramatist is 'queen' or, more correctly, 'lady'.
10. Indeed, a philosopher-respecting society, which can only be religious, will be even further removed from a poet-worshipping one than would be the respective literary protagonists of the phenomenal types of society from each other, given the noumenal gap which exists, in space and time, between religion and science, elemental wavicles and elemental particles, which, unlike their molecular counterparts, are not contiguous.
11. Woman and man are much more interactive than, in comparable terminology, God and the Devil. Water and vegetation (earth) come in between fire and air, and may often turn to mud as they mix indiscriminately, as, indeed, can dramatists and novelists when the former become too prone to description and the latter to dialogue.
12. Whether poetry is as much the theory behind science, or drama as much the theory behind politics, or fiction as much the theory behind economics ... as philosophy is, to my mind, the theory behind religion, one thing there can be absolutely no uncertainty about is that fiction will only appeal a very little, if at all, to the genuine philosopher, who will be too truth-orientated in his metaphysical understanding to allow knowledge, much less beauty and strength, those attributes of poetry and drama, to obscure his literary path as he walks towards the peace of joy, and thus the fulfilment of his theoretical mission in the religious praxis of God and Heaven, the grace and holiness that only applied metaphysics can deliver.
13. The true philosopher will not be overly disposed to love beauty, to take pride in strength, or to take pleasure in knowledge. On the contrary, he will be theoretically joyful in truth, as God is practically joyful in Heaven.
14. And all he has to do to achieve religion is to abandon philosophy for meditation, abandon the subhumanity of truth for the divinity of God (the Son), thereby passing from the subconsciousness of joy to the sublimity of Heaven.
1. Trad, Folk, Jazz, Pop - broadly, all these kinds of music reflect a particle basis in either the will (Trad, Jazz) or the spirit (Folk, Pop), and are accordingly of a female persuasion such that suggests a metachemical and/or chemical bias in which rhythm and/or harmony will be hegemonic, depending on the genre.
2. By contrast, Classical, Romantic, Avant-garde, and Electronic reflect a wavicle basis in either the ego (Classical, Avant-garde) or the soul (Romantic, Electronic), and are accordingly of a male persuasion such that suggests a physical and/or metaphysical bias in which melody and/or pitch will be hegemonic, depending on the genre.
3. Broadly, the division of what could be called old music lies between Trad and Folk on the one hand, that of naturalistic (acoustic) objectivity, and ... Classical and Romantic on the other hand, that of naturalistic (acoustic) subjectivity.
4. Similarly, the division between what could be called new music lies between Jazz and Pop on the one hand, that of artificial (electric) objectivity, and ... Avant-garde and Electronic on the other hand, that of artificial (electric) subjectivity.
5. Whatever the case, whether 'old' or 'new', traditional or contemporary, this division in music between a particle-based objectivity and a wavicle-centred subjectivity is symptomatic of a gender dichotomy in which will and spirit stand objectively apart from ego and soul pretty much, in political terms, as the Left, whether extreme (noumenal) or moderate (phenomenal) from the Right, whether moderate (phenomenal) or extreme (noumenal).
6. Thus, in the old music of the naturalistic (acoustic) past, Trad and Folk stand to Classical and Romantic as fire and water to vegetation and air, Extreme Left and Moderate Left to Moderate Right and Extreme Right, so that one can distinguish the noumenal objectivity of Trad and the phenomenal objectivity of Folk from the phenomenal subjectivity of Classical and the noumenal subjectivity of Romantic, musical will (rhythm) and spirit (harmony) from musical ego (melody) and soul (pitch).
7. Likewise, in the new music of the artificial (electric) present, Jazz and Pop stand to Avant-garde and Electronic as fire and water to vegetation and air, Extreme Left and Moderate Left to Moderate Right and Extreme Right, so that one can distinguish the noumenal objectivity of Jazz (including the Blues and/or Funk) and the phenomenal objectivity of Pop (including Rock and/or Punk) from the phenomenal subjectivity of Avant-garde (including Serial and/or Aleotory music) and the noumenal subjectivity of Electronic (including Computer and/or Synthesizer music), musical will (rhythm) and spirit (harmony) from musical ego (melody) and soul (pitch).
8. Thus, for me, Trad, Jazz, Romantic, and Electronic are all upper-class (noumenal) kinds of music, whereas Folk, Pop, Classical, and Avant-garde are all lower-class (phenomenal) kinds of music, with due regard, in each quadruplicity, to the objective/subjective distinction which divides the female approach to music from the male - the former primary and the latter secondary.
9. For fire and water, will and spirit, are of course primary compared to or, rather, contrasted with the secondary natures of vegetation and air, ego and soul.
PASSING FROM SENSUALITY TO SENSIBILITY
1. Just as one can outgrow literature in music, so one can outgrow music in meditation, turning from the airwaves to the breath, from aural sensuality to respiratory sensibility, from outer metaphysics to inner metaphysics, from the ears to the lungs, from sound to silence, metaphysical vice to metaphysical virtue, the curse of sequential time to the salvation (from such a noumenal curse) of spaced space.
2. To some extent this is a progression that happens as one ages; for people generally pass from sensuality to sensibility as they get older, both in proportion to the atrophying of the senses and, especially in the case of males, to the attainment of wisdom.
3. However, a person whose senses are still in pretty good shape should not - and normally will not - strive to be too sensible. For human beings are not intended to be exclusively sensible, nor, for that matter, to be exclusively sensual.
4. Even extroverts, whom we may presume to be more sensual than sensible, have an introverted side to them, just as introverts, with their greater respect for sensibility, are capable of being extrovert from time to time.
5. However that may be, there can be no arguing with the fact that sensibility is finer than sensuality, being deeper and more lasting, in consequence of which the more enlightened people will be drawn to sensibility, as from music to meditation.
6. Especially will this be so of males, since male sensibility is salvation from male sensuality, whether metaphysically or physically, in relation to air or to vegetation, as one diagonally ascends through two planes either from time to space in noumenal subjectivity (metaphysics) or from mass to volume in phenomenal subjectivity (physics).
7. With females, on the other hand, removal from sensuality to sensibility is effectively damnation, whether metachemically or chemically, in relation to fire or to water, as they diagonally fall through two planes either from space to time in noumenal objectivity (metachemistry) or from volume to mass in phenomenal objectivity (chemistry).
8. In general, females will prefer sensuality to sensibility and the virtuous blessing that a hegemonic position, on a higher plane than their male counterparts, signifies vis-à-vis male sensuality.
9. The struggle towards sensibility at the expense of sensuality is more usually a male one, in view of the hegemonic advantage, on a higher plane than their female counterparts, that male sensibility confers vis-à-vis female sensibility.
10. For the attainment of voluminous volume by lower-class, or masculine, males (in vegetation) is salvation from the curse, necessarily vicious, of massive mass, while the attainment of spaced space by upper-class, or submasculine, males (in air) is salvation from the curse, necessarily vicious, of sequential time.
11. Both men and gods, the physical and the metaphysical, stand to gain from an advancement (evolution) from sensuality to sensibility, and precisely in terms of an enhanced sense of self, and hence of greater self-respect.
12. For a self, be it phenomenal or noumenal, which is under a female hegemony is bound to be deferential towards it, at the cost of self, since the female is rooted in not-self and is comparatively selfless.
13. For her, spatial space is one kind of blessing and volumetric volume another - the former upper-class in its noumenal objectivity and the latter lower-class in phenomenal objectivity.
14. Therefore both devils and women, the metachemical and the chemical, stand to lose from a retreat (devolution) from sensuality to sensibility, and precisely in terms of a diminished sense of not-self/selflessness, and hence of greater not-self contempt.
15. For a not-self, be it noumenal or phenomenal, which is under a male hegemony is bound to be deferential towards it, at the cost of not-self, since the male is centred in self and is comparatively selfish.
16. Since life is a gender tug-of-war, victory goes to the female gender in terms of sensuality, which for females is a virtue, and to the male gender in terms of sensibility, which for males is a virtue.
17. Females are damned (from the blessing of a virtuous hegemony over male sensuality) from sensuality to sensibility, falling diagonally through two planes, while, conversely, males are saved (from the curse of a vicious subordination under female sensuality) from sensuality to sensibility, rising diagonally through two planes.
18. Now, obviously, salvation is a male prerogative, since it is only possible to males, and then on the basis of taking the initiative in ascending from sensuality to sensibility, whether (as men) from massive mass to voluminous volume in vegetation, or (as gods) from sequential time to spaced space in air - the former options physical and the latter ones metaphysical.
19. However, should they choose not to take such an initiative, either because they are morally ignorant or because of the extent to which females have them in their sensual grasp, then the inevitable consequence is to viciously languish under the curse of male sensuality, ever subordinate to a female hegemony in which, whether in space or volume, metachemistry or chemistry, upper- or lower-class contexts, the not-self is paramount, and selfless objectivity accordingly prevails.
20. Such is the heathenistic actuality, the 'once-born' facticity, of those countries that esteem the blessing of female virtue under the sensual rule and/or governance of either noumenal objectivity, symbolized in the modern world by the 'Liberty Belle' , or phenomenal objectivity, symbolized by 'Britannia', both of which are bastions of freedom - freedom, on the one hand, from the sensible actuality of not-self deference by females towards male self, and freedom, on the other hand, for the sensual actuality of not-self hegemony over male self.
21. In such countries and/or societies the gender tug-of-war has been won by females, and females are accordingly free, with feminist implications.
SAVED FROM THE CURSE AND DAMNED FROM THE BLESSING
1. A man or God that is saved is free from the curse of deferring, in sensual vice, to the not-self hegemony of female freedom.
2. A woman or Devil that is damned is cast down from the blessing of not having to defer, in sensual virtue, to the self hegemony of male binding.
3. The man or God who no longer has to defer to female freedom (of the not-self to act selflessly) is saved.
4. The woman or Devil who must now defer to male binding (to self) is damned.
5. Such are the consequences of a shift, in society and the individuals of which it is composed, from sensuality to sensibility, from the 'kingdoms without' to the 'kingdoms within'.