BRINGING THE JUDGEMENT
(With Social Transcendentalism)
Copyright © 2000-2010 John O'Loughlin
1. Cycles 1-25
1. Whereas the Irish are socially extrovert and culturally introvert, the British - and in particular the English - are socially introvert and culturally extrovert.
2. Hard to escape the impression that the expression 'go to hell' is all too applicable to what one does when one turns on the television.
3. Except for stanza-divisible poetry and aphoristic philosophy, all other literary genres - including free verse and essays - are lower class, i.e. phenomenal.
4. Drama and fiction stand in between poetry and philosophy like water and vegetation (earth) in between fire and air.
5. In such fashion they are akin to strength and knowledge in between beauty and truth.
6. One can divide the day, which, as everyone will know, is composed of twenty-four hours, into four distinct periods, corresponding to the elements, of six hours, viz. from midnight till six o'clock, the fiery period of beauty; from six o'clock till noon, the watery period of strength; from noon till six o'clock in the evening, the vegetative period of knowledge; and from six o'clock till midnight, the airy period of truth.
7. Since I conceive of fire and water as corresponding, on account of their objectivity, to the female side of life, and of vegetation and air, their subjective counterparts, as corresponding to its male side, it behoves me to consider the first half of the day, viz. from midnight till noon as in some sense female, and the second half of the day, viz. from noon till midnight, as in some sense male, since it is then that not beauty and strength but knowledge and truth are more in their element, or so it seems to me.
1. What is truth? Such a question has been raised before, and few if any persons have answered it truthfully. Here, to be best of my knowledge, is my answer. Truth is metaphysical knowledge, and metaphysical knowledge is knowledge about God and the means whereby God can be redeemed and/or resurrected in relation to what has been called Heaven.
2. Truth can be sensual (and 'once born') or sensible (and 'reborn'), outer or inner, but the best, most definitive truth will be sensible, standing as metaphysical salvation (from sensuality to sensibility). Inner metaphysical truth, as we shall call the sensible variety, centres on the ego that is aware of the importance of the breath - and particularly the out-breath - in enabling it to transcend itself in relation to the soul, specifically the inner metaphysical soul, which is its redemption. Such an ego, the ego, I have argued in the past, of a primary deity - call it 'the Son' for convenience's sake - must needs utilize the will of the relevant not-self, in this case inner metaphysical, in order not only to identify with the breath, self with selflessness, but to be borne out by it in due process of so identifying. Therefore the relevant not-self (to the inner metaphysical context) being the lungs, the ego-self of the primary deity plunges its awareness into the wilful, or will-based, not-self of the lungs - the secondary deity whom, again for convenience's sake, we shall call 'the Father' - and allows this awareness to be transported on the wings, so to speak, of the breath, the secondary heaven of the Holy Spirit. But at some point in its outward-tending transportation the ego-self must recoil from the threat of self-destruction which the selflessness of the Holy Spirit, issuing from the not-self, poses to it, and in such recoil, as from one extreme to another, it achieves a profounder experience of self than would otherwise have been possible. This profounder experience we call the soul, and in the elemental context in question, that of metaphysical sensibility, it becomes the holy soul of a primary heaven, the redemption - and resurrection - of the primary God, viz. the ego-self.
3. Thus truth teaches us that not only is God someone to be redeemed in something, namely Heaven, but that 'the Son', being primary, can only be redeemed via the secondary God and Heaven of 'the Father' and the 'Holy Spirit'. For without recoil from the out-flowing breath which issues from the lungs, there can be no profounder experience of self, as soul, for the ego in question. Such is the logic of inner metaphysical truth, and it is this knowledge which paves the way for religious praxis, as self returns to ego, its fulcrum, and plunges anew into inner metaphysical spirit via the relevant will, thereby sustaining a cyclical procedure for the duration of what can be called transcendental meditation.
4. Thus the man of truth, a philosopher, will know that truth is of no consequence until it is redeemed in joy, and that the redemption of truth in joy is the raison d'être of truth, as of philosophy, without which there could be no metaphysical joy. Philosophy theorizes, religion, if true, puts the theory into practice, so that what results is surely God and Heaven, the practical fulfilment or realization of truth and joy. How few religions there are, or have been, which do as much justice to God and Heaven! Most remain lamentably moored to some primitive concept of God and Heaven which is not even truthful in an outer and sensual sense but merely illusory, having reference to cosmic Creation. They mistake the primal for the supreme, the negative for the positive, the inorganic for the organic, and science for religion, in consequence of which people come to regard religion as something pertaining to the beginning of things rather than to their end or most evolved manifestation! They remain tied to the Cosmos as to the apron strings of a grandmother long after they should have grown up to full independence of such craven servility! Yet full independence can only come through such truth as I have outlined in this text, not via some intermediate avatar, some half-way house, so to speak, who, besides not knowing what truth is, has been all too often identified with a guide to falling in line with the Creator, or Cosmos, rather than as a bridge to some higher, more advanced devotion still to come. Small wonder that intelligent people find little or nothing to console them in the Church that bears the name of Christ!
5. Christianity speaks of the 'Three in One', the three 'Persons' of the Trinity, but really there are only two, since the Holy Spirit is not a God but a state of Heaven, a secondary mode of Heaven which stands to the primary mode, the Holy Soul, as the breath to the soul, metaphysical selflessness to the essence of metaphysical self. Thus the concept of Gods the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is deeply flawed, as, in a sense, is the identification of the components of the so-called Blessed Trinity with 'Persons'. For, quite apart from the fact that Heaven is not God but the redemption of God, the resurrection of God in the primary context, God is not personal, or of the person, but universal, which is to say, noumenal rather than phenomenal, of space and/or time as opposed to volume and/or mass. Which does not preclude, however, the identification of God, whether in primary or in secondary terms, with a higher kind of man - necessarily upper-class and ... metaphysical. For ‘universal’ is not synonymous with 'cosmic', as though germane to the Universe. On the contrary, it is that which stands to the cosmic as supremacy to primacy, positivity to negativity, and the organic to the inorganic.
6. Ultimately, God depends on Heaven for his redemption. Without Heaven, God would be pointless. Hence only the Holy Soul (of Heaven) redeems God the Son, viz. the metaphysical ego, just as only the Holy Spirit (of Heaven) redeems God the Father, viz. the metaphysical will. Lungs would be pointless without the breath. Just so, the metaphysical knowledge (truth) of the primary god would be pointless without the metaphysical happiness (joy) of the primary heaven. In fact, metaphysical soul is the resurrection of metaphysical ego, the resurrection, in other words, of ‘the Son'.
7. Christianity is a religion of the People, a religion that would seem to be expressly designed for the lower classes, who can have just so much religion, according to what the Church allows, but no more! It is as if, being lower class, the People don't need genuine religion, since it would be largely irrelevant to them. What interest can the People possibly have in religious truth, the truth-of-truths, when their lives revolve, for the most part, around strength and knowledge?
8. Only a certain type of higher man, a godly subman, who is deeper (and higher) than the People, will have any interest in metaphysical truth. Such a man will tend to be 'his own man', self-possessed and, to a large extent, self-motivated. He will not be accustomed to obeying others, to having a boss to tell him what to do, and consequently he can take the concept and, indeed, actuality (within certain devotional circumstances) of 'God within the self' seriously.
9. When, on the contrary, one is comparatively selfless, dependent on external authority, then it stands to reason that the nature of one's lifestyle, necessarily working class, will determine to a greater or lesser extent one's susceptibility to 'external gods', to gods corresponding, in no small degree, to the managers or governors who rule over one. This suffices to explain the People's susceptibility to state religion.
1. The ego exists in all four elemental contexts, where it is commensurate with form and thus knowledge. That ego which is metachemical will have knowledge of the Devil, which is beauty.
2. That ego which is chemical will have knowledge of woman, which is strength.
3. That ego which is physical will have knowledge of man, which is knowledge per se.
4. That ego which is metaphysical will have knowledge of God, which is truth.
5. Contrary to the above, that ego which is negatively metachemical will have ignorance of the Devil, which is ugliness.
6. That ego which is negatively chemical will have ignorance of woman, which is weakness.
7. That ego which is negatively physical will have ignorance of man, which is ignorance per se.
8. That ego which is negatively metaphysical will have ignorance of God, which is falsity (illusion).
9. Alternatively, one could differentiate between the ignorance of the Antidevil, antiwoman, antiman, and the Antigod, and the knowledge of the Devil, woman, man, and God.
10. It is important to understand that God and the Devil (or the Antigod and the Antidevil) are higher types of persons, upper-class persons, and not completely distinct from mankind. For mankind are divisible between the lower-class commonality of men and women, and the upper-class nobility of devils and gods.
11. Just so, the generality of people are divisible between strength and knowledge (and/or weakness and ignorance), while a smaller number of persons, corresponding to an elite, are divisible between beauty and truth (and/or ugliness and falsity).
12. Generally speaking, beauty and strength are female attributes, knowledge and truth male ones, since the female side of life, rooted in a vacuum, is ever objective, whereas its male side, centred in a plenum, is ever subjective, and therefore the division in question is between appearance and quantity on the one hand, and quality and essence on the other hand.
13. The female side of life, being objective, is primary, like fire and water, whereas the male side of it, being subjective, is secondary, like vegetation (earth) and air.
14. That which is objective diverges (in sensuality) and/or converges (in sensibility) on a direct, or straight-line, basis.
15. That which is subjective diverges (in sensuality) and/or converges (in sensibility) on an indirect, or curved-line, basis.
16. The female side of life, being primary, is more aggressive than its male side, just as fire and water are more aggressive than vegetation and air.
17. An aggressive country or people will have a female bias, in which heathenistic criteria, properly appertaining to sensuality, will be paramount.
18. An unaggressive country or people will have a male bias, in which Christian or Christian-type criteria, properly appertaining to sensibility, will be paramount.
1. Theory of smoking loosely based on the elements, viz. the noumenal objectivity of pipe smoking as that mode of smoking which most correlates with fire; the phenomenal objectivity of roll-up smoking as that mode of smoking which most correlates with water; the phenomenal subjectivity of cigarette smoking as that mode of smoking which most correlates with vegetation; the noumenal subjectivity of cigar smoking as that mode of smoking which most correlates with air.
2. Hence a distinction between a female approach to smoking, in which a certain objective looseness is demonstrable, and a male approach to smoking in which, by contrast, subjective binding is chiefly characteristic. Pipes and roll-ups vis-à-vis cigarettes and cigars.
3. It may also be possible to distinguish, comparatively speaking, between sensuality and sensibility in every elemental context, with, say, straight pipes and drop-bowl pipes characterizing what may be called the metachemical approach to smoking; plain roll-ups and 'joints' typifying the chemical approach to smoking; untipped cigarettes and filter cigarettes characterizing the physical approach to smoking; squat cigars and thin cigars typifying the metaphysical approach to smoking, and other such variations on a common theme.
4. One would, as a smoker, be saved from sensuality to sensibility in the case of cigarettes and cigars, but damned from sensuality to sensibility in the case of pipes and roll-ups, since the male side of life tends to exemplify a sensible salvation (from the curse of subjective sensuality), while the female side of life tends to confirm a sensible damnation (from the blessing of objective sensuality), the male side rising diagonally through two contiguous planes and the female side falling diagonally through two such planes, albeit the planes in question be objective rather than subjective.
5. All this is of course relative to the context of smoking, which, no matter how sensible, or what the approximate elemental correlation, remains fundamentally metachemical and, hence, fiery, not truly watery, vegetative, or airy.
6. Making such comparative distinctions, it would be feasible - if not particularly tasteful - to distinguish pipe-smoking 'jerks' from roll-up-smoking 'cunts' on the female, or objective, side of the smoking divide, and to further distinguish these looser individuals from their male-oriented counterparts, whose subjective binding induces one to rather slangfully differentiate between cigarette-smoking 'pricks' and cigar-smoking 'bums'.
7. Hence an overall distinction between pipe-smoking 'jerks'/roll-up-smoking 'cunts' and cigarette-smoking 'pricks'/cigar-smoking 'bums', as between noumenal and phenomenal objectivity/phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity.
8. An approximate sartorial parallel to the above would be dresses and skirts vis-à-vis trousers and zippersuits, the objective looseness of the female attire contrasting with the subjective binding of the male attire.
1. All the elements kill when they go on the rampage. Fire kills in the form not least of all of volcanic eruptions, spewing out molten lava from the turbulent bowels of the earth. Water kills not least of all in the form of floods, overflowing banks and carrying away whatever stands in its path. Earth (vegetation) kills not least of all in the form of earthquakes, bringing civilization to its knees as it shatters the foundations of buildings and rips infrastructures apart. Air kills not least of all in the form of tornadoes or hurricanes, leaving a trail of havoc in the wake of its devastating advance.
2. Nature kills indiscriminately when the world is rocked by volcanic eruptions, floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes. The violence of nature knows no bounds and no-one is ever entirely safe from the threat or actuality of natural violence. We live, believe it or not, on a very dangerous planet, a planet which turns, from time to time, upon both mankind and the animal kind with the full ferocity of its pent-up forces.
3. Yet still there are idiots and fools whose basic concept of God is one derived from the Old Testament or equivalent sources in which God is conceived, in typically primitive vein, as 'Creator', and not just as Creator of this planet and all life on it but, more preposterously, as Creator of the Universe, meaning the Cosmos in general! How much longer will we have to endure the primitivity of these simple folk or, more insidiously, of the priests who rule over them!
4. All that is cosmic, and therefore basic, is grossly inferior to even the least of human beings. That which is organic has grown out of the inorganic, whether on a devolved basis due to objectivity or, alternatively, on an evolved basis due to subjectivity. Whereas the cosmic/geologic foundation is primal in its negativity, the personal/universal offshoot is supreme in its positivity. Hence the impossibility of attributing supremacy to the Cosmos.
5. One can certainly attribute primal being to that aspect of the Cosmos corresponding to a subjective orientation, like the Sun and the planet Saturn, but anything corresponding, by contrast, to an objective orientation would, in its female bias, equate with primal doing, whether in terms of stellar sensuality or Venusian sensibility.
6. And it is the objective-oriented cosmic noumena which precede the subjective-oriented noumena, primal doing preceding primal being, not vice versa, so that, strictly speaking, it is a sort of primitive, or negative, devil preceding an equally primitive god, the female mode of cosmic noumena preceding its male mode.
7. In neither context would there be anything supreme, and therefore all references to a so-called 'Supreme Being' behind cosmic Creation are delusory and deserve to be both exposed and, more importantly, rejected as unworthy of enlightened minds. Such references are in fact the fruit of ignorance.
8. Even Voltaire, that in many ways truly insightful philosopher, was a simple Creator-slavering deist or, more correctly, theist whose woefully primitivistic and hyped notion of God as Creator and Supreme Being could hardly ingratiate him to those of us who identify with a post-Christian rather than a pre-Christian interpretation of deity. In that respect, he was little different from Hitler!
9. Sartre would not have been impressed with Voltaire's deity, and although he didn't go particularly far in developing a higher and truer concept of deity, he paved the way for those, such as I, who were able to view his humanistic atheism as a springboard to better things.
10. Out of existentialist humanism I have developed Social Transcendentalism, which takes man to God or, rather, brings the concept of God to the level of the higher man, the man capable of meditating and so of identifying his ego with metaphysics, becoming, in the process, 'the Son', the primary deity whose redemption lies in the primary heaven of the Holy Soul. I call this man a subman, for he is beyond man in the mass and/or volume of vegetative physics.
1. Before there can be metaphysical being, the being-of-beings or soul-of-souls, there must firstly be metaphysical taking, the second-rate taking of the subhuman ego, the primary deity, in short, of 'the Son'. For Heaven is dependent upon God for its existence, no less than God is dependent upon Heaven for His redemption and, in some sense, resurrection. One can't have one without the other.
2. Nor can metaphysical taking get to metaphysical being without the assistance of both metaphysical doing and metaphysical giving, the fourth-rate doing of the subnatural will, the secondary deity, in short, of 'the Father', and the third-rate giving of the subastral spirit, the secondary heaven, in other words, of 'the Holy Spirit'. For the metaphysical taking that is not stretched out on a kind of psychic limb by metaphysical giving will not recoil to self more profoundly, and before such a taking can be stretched out it must first pass through the metaphysical doing of that whose respiratory will powers the breath in the first place.
3. Thus metaphysical taking achieves metaphysical being for itself, whether in sensuality or sensibility, via the assistance, consciously entered into, of both metaphysical doing and metaphysical giving, and such metaphysical being is a first-rate order of soul, the soul in its per se manifestation which is the goal and fulfilment of the genuinely religious quest, as pursued by those higher men who are identifiable with a primary order of divinity. Supreme being exists as soulful experience in all positive elemental contexts, but only in the metaphysical context will it be first-rate and therefore joyful.
4. In the physical context, the supreme being of the soul will be second-rate and therefore pleasurable, while, across the other side of the gender fence, the supreme being of the chemical context will be third-rate and therefore proud, and the supreme being of the metachemical context above and behind this will be fourth-rate and therefore loving, the soul of love as opposed to the souls of pride, of pleasure, and of joy.
5. Likewise if the supreme taking of the metaphysical context is second-rate, then the supreme taking, in ego, of the physical context is first-rate, the supreme taking of the chemical context fourth-rate, and the supreme taking of the metachemical context third-rate.
6. Conversely if the supreme giving of the metaphysical context is third-rate, then the supreme giving, in spirit, of the physical context is fourth-rate, the supreme giving of the chemical context first-rate, and the supreme giving of the metachemical context second-rate.
7. Finally if the supreme doing of the metaphysical context is fourth-rate, then the supreme doing, in will, of the physical context is third-rate, the supreme doing of the chemical context second-rate, and the supreme doing of the metachemical context first-rate.
8. Hence it transpires that, in metaphysics, the achievement of first-rate being is only possible on the basis of second-rate taking, third-rate giving, and fourth-rate doing; that, in physics, the achievement or, rather, maintenance of first-rate taking is only possible on the basis of second-rate being, third-rate doing, and fourth-rate giving; that, in chemistry, the maintenance of first-rate giving is only possible on the basis of second-rate doing, third-rate being, and fourth-rate taking; that, in metachemistry, the maintenance of first-rate doing is only possible on the basis of second-rate giving, third-rate taking, and fourth-rate being.
9. Only in metaphysics is being, and therefore soul, an end. In physics, by comparison, taking, and therefore ego, is an end or, rather, a mean (for the ego is not a genuine end), while in chemistry, by contrast, giving, and therefore spirit, is a mean, and in metachemistry doing, and therefore will, is a mean, the latter of which, like spirit and particularly ego, tends to be turned into a false end by dint of being falsely identified with an end.
10. A disciplinary parallel to the above would be making science an end rather than a means to a political (yet still comparatively false) end. Likewise politics can become an end (necessarily false from a male standpoint) by dint of the female criteria attaching to chemistry as a solution to the problem of metachemistry and the extent to which, particularly in the West traditionally, spirituality has been religiously hyped and virtually identified with the religious mean.
11. Economics, too, can be falsely turned into an end rather than used as a means to a religious end, particularly when religion is falsely sealed off at the level of vegetative physics in what amounts to a too Christ-centred orientation, and economic gain becomes virtually synonymous with religious probity. But the physical ego is a mean, not an end, and efforts to perpetuate it as an end only result in the stunting and limiting of human potential to the level of taking, thereby precluding the subhuman maturation, so to speak, of the human being.
12. Only religion can allow for the subhuman maturation of the human being, who, when truly religious and therefore metaphysical, becomes synonymous with deity, specifically the primary deity of 'the Son', whose privilege it is to transcend his ego-self via the wilful not-self and the spiritual not-self in the interests of enhanced selfhood, which is called the soul. Thus does the primary God pass to primary Heaven, ego duly eclipsed by soul which, unlike the ego, corresponds to a genuine end in the first-rate being of holy joy.
13. Therefore only in that context where the soul, and hence being, is properly an end and subject to being recognized as such, can the ego, the will, and the spirit be subordinated to that end rather than maintained as ends, necessarily false, in themselves. Such a context, avowedly metaphysical, is alone compatible with genuine religion.
14. The souls, or modes of being, that are not ultimate but second-rate (pleasurable), third-rate (proud), or fourth-rate (loving) will always be subordinated to the first-rate manifestation of the element to which they are affiliated, be it physical (and economic), chemical (and political), or metachemical (and scientific). For the soul cannot function as an end when it is of an order that is subordinate to a prevailing mean which is either egocentric (physical), spirtualistic (chemical), or wilful (metachemical).
15. Only in the metaphysical context does the ego, the will, and the spirit function as a means to an end or, more correctly, does the ego function as a means to a soulful end, and the will function as a means to a spiritual end of which the latter is inclusively utilized by the ego as part of its means to the soulful end we have identified with a primary heaven.
16. Thus God is a means to the end of Heaven in both primary (self) and secondary (not-self) contexts of metaphysics. How unlike the ego which falsely becomes an end-in-itself, due to its first-rate status within the humanistic context of physics!
1. Philosophy treats of truth and joy, religion of God and Heaven. For religion is in many respects the practical fulfilment of a theoretical precondition. One does not live by philosophy: one thinks by it. In the metaphysical context, what one primarily lives by is religion. For transcendental meditation, the praxis of metaphysical religion in its sensible manifestation, is not a philosophy but the practical vindication of a philosophy, which understands the nature, as it were, of truth and joy.
2. Being God and Heaven is obviously different from theorizing about God and Heaven from the standpoint of truth and joy. One could say that being graceful and holy is equally distinct from theorizing about grace and holiness from the standpoint of calmness and peace. For calmness and peace are arguably preconditions of grace and holiness, just as truth and joy presuppose the possibility, through religious praxis, of God and Heaven or, alternatively, of godliness and heavenliness.
3. Such pedantic distinctions notwithstanding, it is certainly true that the metaphysical will is centred on calmness and the metaphysical spirit on peace; for calmness delivers peace no less than the lungs deliver the breath. Whether that calmness is going to be transformed into grace and that peace into holiness, however, will depend whether religious praxis takes over from philosophical theory, whether, that is, an insight surrounding the nature of the metaphysical context is turned into a consciously-determined principle of religious praxis. If so, then one is not just calm and peaceful; one becomes graceful and holy.
4. For he who passes beyond the natural metaphysical condition of calmness and peace through a philosophical theory of truth and joy soon finds himself in the position of actually experiencing grace and holiness through becoming God and Heaven. He can move forward from metaphysical nature to philosophy (the transcendent theory), from philosophy to religion (the meditative praxis), and finally from religion to sublimity (which some have called theosophy, meaning actual experience of godliness and heavenliness).
5. Hence a path of ascent, within metaphysical nature, from subnature to subconsciousness via subhumanism and subastralism, as from will to soul via ego and spirit, as, in general terms, from calmness and peace to grace and holiness via truth and joy and God and Heaven.
6. Subnature is the base metal, so to speak, that has to be transmuted into the refined gold of actual subconscious fulfilment. For this purpose it is necessary to have become subhuman in one's metaphysical philosophising, and to have given oneself over to the subastral commitment of religious praxis.
7. For the subhuman becomes subconscious via the subastral having once appreciated the significance and utilized to a sublimated end the subnatural, 'the Son' becoming 'the Holy Soul of Heaven' via 'the Father' and 'the Holy Spirit of Heaven', ego duly transmuted into soul via will and spirit.
8. Thus the taking of the metaphysical ego is transcended by the being of the metaphysical soul as the God-Self achieves self-transcendence in the Heaven-Self, and all because it partook of the doing of the metaphysical will and the giving of the metaphysical spirit, the godly not-self and the heavenly not-self of, for example, the lungs and the breath, identifying with the out-breath only so far, which is to say, until self-preservation induces the self in question to recoil from the threat of self-annihilation posed by the heavenly not-self and rebound to selfhood more profoundly (as soul) than would otherwise have been the case.
9. The God-Self, being primary, has been identified with 'the Son' and the Heaven-Self with 'the Holy Soul', while the godly not-self, or God-Not-Self, being secondary, has been identified with 'the Father' and the heavenly not-self, or Heaven-Not-Self, with 'the Holy Spirit'.
10. There is no other raison d'être to religion than the achievement of self-transcendence by the metaphysical ego in the metaphysical soul, 'the Holy Soul of Heaven', which is at the core of the self in question. Anything that falls short of this is indicative of 'bovaryized' religion, which is to say, of non-metaphysical religion, be it physical, chemical, or metachemical. And 'bovaryized' religion is pretty much everywhere the rule rather than the exception!
11. Whereas genuine religion is alone transcendentalist, manifesting self-transcendence in relation to the metaphysical soul, false religion either glorifies the physical self, the ego-of-egos, or else, over on the female side of the gender fence, subordinates the self, in due objective fashion, to one or other of the not-selves, with a result that either the spirituality of the chemical not-self or the instinctuality of the metachemical not-self becomes hegemonic.
12. Hence whereas what may be called humanist religion glorifies the self in its per se manifestation in relation to physics, nonconformist religion denies the self (which is not commensurate with self-transcendence) in the interests of a spiritual per se in relation to chemistry, and fundamentalist religion denies the self in the interests of an instinctual per se in relation to metachemistry, with, in consequence, a bias for will rather than spirit or, in the physical context, ego.
13. For you cannot achieve self-transcendence in a context where the self is either the mean, as in the vegetative realm of physics, or fated to be subordinated to one or other of the not-selves in typically chemical or metachemical fashion. All that is achieved is a religion that is earmarked either to play second-fiddle, so to speak, to economics (humanism), third-fiddle to politics (nonconformism), or fourth-fiddle to science (fundamentalism).
14. Obviously, to judge by the world in general, false religion suits the majority of people, for economics and politics are more characteristically of the world, and science tends to hold a ruling, if not dominating, position in relation to it. Only world-denial sets one on course for the metaphysical transcendentalism of genuine religion, and world-denial, as the world adequately confirms, tends to be the exception to the rule!
15. Thus the Transcendentalist, as we may call the devotee of genuine religion, is very much an elitist outsider in a world where not religion but economics, politics, or science is destined to be hegemonic. Many are called but few are chosen ... by religion, as, indeed, by that other elitist discipline, science.
16. Therefore religion can only be of genuine interest to the subjective Few, who, when being metaphysical, know themselves as gods in pursuit of heavenly redemption, whether in sensuality or, more profoundly, in sensibility.
17. As I have argued in the past, metaphysical sensibility is the salvation of metaphysical sensuality; for the latter, centred around ears and airwaves, tends to be surbordinate, in typically 'once-born' or sensual fashion, to the optical first-mover of things, as music to art, whereas the former stands a plane above its metachemical counterpart in what amounts to an ascendant position.
18. It is precisely the ascendant position of metaphysical sensibility that constitutes metaphysical salvation, as from ears to lungs, airwaves to the breath, music to meditation, sequential time to spaced space. For salvation is a male prerogative solely germane to the subjective axes of time-space (as here) and of mass-volume, and constitutes deliverance from the under-plane curse, in sensual contexts, of being 'fall guy for slag' and other-dependent, meaning subordinate to the female aspect of things, and hence to females.
19. Being saved from time to space, as from ears to lungs, is the noumenal and, in some sense, upper-class equivalent of being phenomenally saved from mass to volume, as from phallus to brain. It is the salvation of gods as distinct from the salvation of men, and would only appeal to those who were avowedly metaphysical in the first place.
20. Hence metaphysical salvation is the salvation-of-salvations, the ultimate 'kingdom within' that exposes the Christian 'kingdom within' as penultimate and therefore as something germane to a 'First Coming' as distinct from a 'Second Coming', the coming of an ultimate Messiah whose destiny is to complete, in upper-class terms, what Christ started or, at any rate, what the Church has continued to the effective exclusion of metaphysical sensibility.
1. To distinguish the tragic from the comic on the basis of an objective/subjective dichotomy between that which, appertaining to the female side of life, is rooted in a vacuum, and that which, appertaining to its male side, is centred in a plenum.
2. Thus to distinguish the tragic from the comic on a gender-conditioned basis in which that which is rooted in a vacuum stands tragically aloof from whatever is centred in a plenum.
3. If the female side of life is tragic and its male side comic, then tragedy is divisible, on a noumenal/phenomenal basis, between evil and good, while comedy, by contrast, is divisible, on a phenomenal/noumenal basis, between folly and wisdom.
4. Evil and good would therefore qualify as tragic attributes of a female, or objective, disposition (with straight-line divergence and/or convergence), whereas folly and wisdom would qualify as comic attributes of a male, or subjective, disposition (in which divergence and/or convergence was curved).
5. Hence the tragedy, relative to evil and good, of crime and punishment, as against the comedy, relative to folly and wisdom, of sin and grace.
6. Generally speaking, women seek deliverance from evil in good, crime in punishment, whereas men seek deliverance from folly in wisdom, sin in grace.
7. Either way, tragedy is a woman's lot and comedy a man's, pretty much as if women were fated for work and men for play.
8. Neither can one escape the correlation between work and the State on the one hand, and play and the Church on the other hand, since the one is arguably female and the other male.
9. In literary terms, poetry and drama correspond, when most genuine, to the tragic side of life, while fiction and philosophy, their subjective counterparts, correspond to its comic side when most genuine.
10. Just as the most genuine poetry will always be tragic in relation to beauty and the most genuine drama tragic in relation to strength, so the most genuine fiction will always be comic in relation to knowledge and the most genuine philosophy comic in relation to truth.
11. Just as the Devil and woman share a tragic disposition with regard to objectivity, which hails from a vacuum, so man and God share a comic disposition with regard to subjectivity, which issues from a plenum.
12. Likewise both science and politics are tragic disciplines, whereas economics and religion are comparatively comic, as of course are economists and priests in relation to scientists and politicians.
13. As an expression of comedy, laughing is essentially a male prerogative; just as crying is basically a female one!
14. One could distinguish, in addition to the above, between the smiling of gods in relation to wisdom and the laughing of men in relation to folly, thereby distinguishing the noumenal from the phenomenal, grace from sin, on the basis of an upper-class/lower-class male dichotomy.
15. Similarly, if conversely, one could distinguish the scowling of devils in relation to evil from the crying of women in relation to good, thereby distinguishing the noumenal from the phenomenal, crime from punishment, on the basis of an upper-class/lower-class female dichotomy.
16. Be that as it may, both smiling and laughing are comic attributes, whereas scowling and crying are demonstrably tragic ones.
17. Just as smiling confirms wisdom and laughing confirms folly, so scowling confirms evil and crying confirms good.
18. As inconceivable to conceive of a wise man who doesn't smile as to conceive of a fool who doesn't laugh!
19. As inconceivable to conceive of an evil woman who doesn't scowl as to conceive of a good one who doesn't cry!
20. No less than the wise man is a philosophic god whose smile epitomises grace, so the evil woman is a poetic devil whose scowl epitomises crime, the generality of men and women, however, approximating to fiction and drama in their respective fixations upon folly and goodness, sin and punishment.
1. As the subjective stands in a secondary relationship to the objective, as that which, in some sense, derives from it, we may hold that fire and water are primary elements but vegetation and air secondary ones, since the former are objective and the latter subjective.
2. Likewise the female aspect of life is primary but the male aspect secondary, since men not only derive from women but demonstrate a dependence on them, especially with regard to those objective factors which it might be thought demeaning or somehow irrelevant for someone with a subjective disposition to broach.
3. This is certainly true of the generality of men or, rather, males, though independence of women has also been demonstrated by a comparatively small number of higher males who, as gods, tend to function beyond the confines of strict dependency.
4. Nevertheless even gods are secondary to devils, since of a subjective disposition, and without the Devil it is doubtful there would be God.
5. Of course what applies in sensuality has less applicability to sensibility, since sensibility offers to the male side of life, whether phenomenal or noumenal, the possibility of a higher degree of independence of its female side than would characterize sensuality, where, in cursed vein, males are under-plane subordinate to females.
6. For females are blessed with a hegemonic position both in relation to spatial space and volumetric volume, eyes and tongue, and both the corresponding male organs, viz. ears and penis, are fated to remain under the shadow, so to speak, of an objective control.
7. Only deliverance from sensuality to sensibility, which is called salvation, can release the male side of life from such a subordinate position, making for a diagonal rise from ears to lungs, or sequential time to spaced space in noumenal subjectivity, and from penis to brain, or massive mass to voluminous volume in phenomenal subjectivity.
8. Then, and only then, is the female side of life damned (from the hegemonic blessing in sensuality) to the under-plane positions of repetitive time in noumenal objectivity, as from eyes to heart, and massed mass in phenomenal objectivity, as from tongue to womb. But even then the male side of life is still secondary, if not now subordinate, to the female side.
9. Obviously in a situation where there is both sensuality and sensibility, the human situation, as it were, it is impossible to cultivate one thing to the total exclusion of the other. Nor should one try. For too much emphasis on the one thing will sooner or later result in a return to its opposite, be it in sensuality or in sensibility.
10. However, a preponderating ratio favouring sensuality or sensibility will tend to be reflective of both the individual's personal and/or universal disposition and the nature of the society in which he/she lives, be it one that emphasises objectivity, and hence freedom, or one, on the contrary, for which subjectivity, and hence binding, is primarily characteristic.
11. It would seem that the striking of a sort of balance between sensuality and sensibility is also possible and indeed characteristic of those societies, not to mention individuals, for whom both freedom and binding have to be kept within moderate limits.
12. I call such societies, and the individuals of which they are consciously composed, liberal and worldly, and they differ from both the free societies of a pre- or nether-worldly disposition and the bound societies of a post- or other-worldly disposition.
13. Such more extreme societies are less liberal, or a balanced mixture, so far as possible, of libertarianism and conservatism, than either ultra-libertarian in the free case or ultra-conservative in the bound case, thereby approximating less to the world than to that which, as Hell in the one case and Heaven in other, may be said to flank it above.
14. For the world is a combination, to varying extents, of purgatory and the earth, water and vegetation, relative freedom and relative binding, whereas that which stands in a sort of anterior position to the world is absolutely free in its fiery hellishness, while that which stands in a kind of posterior position to the world is absolutely bound in its airy heavenliness.
15. Yet even extreme societies must grapple with the problem and to some extent allow for the actuality of life as a combination, in varying degrees, of sensuality and sensibility, not just one or the other.
16. Know that in the world, which has a lot to do
with the planet Earth, liberalism is much more applicable than either
ultra-libertarianism or ultra-conservatism, but that extremes will
persist in existing, especially in relation to those geographical
which have been characterised as
17. We can no more build a world solely on the basis of ultra-libertarianism than solely on the basis of ultra-conservatism; for the world defies both extremes as it liberally perpetuates itself in relation to both libertarianism and conservatism - the former female (and primary) and the latter male (and secondary).
18. But we can certainly allow for the existence of extremism, and if we are wise - and geographically favoured - we will prefer ultra-conservatism to ultra-libertarianism, thereby offering mankind, the bulk of whom will still prefer some kind of liberalism, i.e. libertarianism and/or conservatism, the leadership of Heaven as against the rulership of Hell.
19. Ultra-libertarianism is sartorially akin to a dress and libertarianism to a skirt, whether in sensuality or sensibility (flounced or tapering), whereas conservatism is sartorially akin to trousers and ultra-conservatism to zippersuits.
20. Hence a female distinction, elementally conditioned, between the noumenal objectivity of ultra-libertarianism, i.e. dresses, and the phenomenal objectivity of libertarianism, i.e. skirts, as against a male distinction between the phenomenal subjectivity of conservatism, i.e. trousers, and the noumenal subjectivity of ultra-conservatism, i.e. zippersuits, whereof not fire and water but vegetation and air are the corresponding elements.
21. As illogical, on the female side of life, for a libertarian person, a woman, to be dressed in a dress as for an ultra-libertarian person, a devil, to be dressed in a skirt.
22. As illogical, on the male side of life, for a conservative person, a man, to be dressed in a zippersuit as for an ultra-conservative person, a god, to be dressed in pair of trousers and/or jeans.
23. Life does not, of course, preclude people from dressing in a manner incompatible with their ideological bent, whether in terms of up- or down-dressing on one's own side of the gender fence or even, in the more paradoxical cases, of cross-dressing, whereby females wear subjective attire and males attire which, in its skirt- or dress-like cylindrical looseness, is manifestly objective.
24. Personally, I find pants and/or zippersuits on females as illogically objectionable as skirts and/or dresses on males.
25. Anything beyond a constrained objectivity, and hence freedom, for females is symptomatic of sartorial hype and prolific of gender subversion. One ends up with the paradoxical situations of females either playing at being men or, in the more extreme cases, playing at being gods!
26. This is as much the case with an overly subjective hairstyle, hair brushed or combed back from the brow, as with the wearing of male-oriented attire by females. All honest and genuine women, by contrast, wear some kind or degree of fringe. The rest, with few exceptions, are hyped subversives.
1. In the broadest terms Nature is divisible between four elements - the fiery unnature of space-time devolution, which is noumenally objective; the watery supernature of volume-mass devolution, which is phenomenally objective; the vegetative nature of mass-volume evolution, which is phenomenally subjective, and the airy subnature of time-space evolution, which is noumenally subjective.
2. Hence Nature is divisible between an apparent element par excellence which, as fire, can be identified with metachemistry; a quantitative element par excellence which, as water, can be identified with chemistry; a qualitative element par excellence which, as vegetation (earth) can be identified with physics; and an essential element par excellence which, as air, can be identified with metaphysics.
3. Vegetation is the per se manifestation of Nature, but Nature also demonstrates 'bovaryized' manifestations of itself which are less natural than barbarous (fire), civilized (water), or cultural (air).
4. Of the four elements, fire is the only one in which one cannot live and in which, in consequence, life is not to be found. Hence in identifying fire with unnature, or the unnatural manifestation of Nature, one is distinguishing that which effectively lies behind Nature or, rather, behind the life-enveloping kinds of Nature from that which actually envelops life, whether in the guise of fish, of animals, or of birds, and which can accordingly be identified with supernature (water), nature (vegetation), and subnature (air).
5. The unnatural element of fire, which is metachemical in its noumenal objectivity and space-time devolution, is not, however, on that account anti-natural. On the contrary, it is simply the unnatural manifestation of Nature.
6. Or, to be more precise, one can say that the positive, or organic, manifestations of Nature differ from their negative and inorganic counterparts as Nature from Antinature, the former having a supreme correlation and the latter a primal one.
7. Hence that which is against Nature, being negative and inorganic, is to be identified with the Antinatural, and, like its Natural counterpart, the Antinatural can be unnatural, supernatural, natural, or subnatural, which is to say negatively metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical.
8. Because the Antinatural is primal and the Natural supreme, it follows that the former is everywhere the precondition of the latter, being the effective blueprint, so to speak, for all that has been raised on the back of an Antinatural base.
9. Therefore before we can speak of an eyes-to-heart axis of organic metachemistry, we must allow for the prior existence of a stellar-to-Venusian axis of inorganic metachemistry, which will be the primal manifestation of noumenal objectivity (fire) in space-time devolution.
10. Likewise before we can speak of a tongue-to-womb axis of organic chemistry, we must allow for the prior existence of a lunar-to-oceanic axis of inorganic chemistry, which will be the primal manifestation of phenomenal objectivity (water) in volume-mass devolution.
11. Similarly, if conversely, before we can speak of a penis-to-brain axis of organic physics, we must allow for the prior existence of a terrestrial-to-Martian axis of inorganic physics, which will be the primal manifestation of phenomenal subjectivity (vegetation) in mass-volume evolution.
12. Finally before we can speak of an ears-to-lungs axis of organic metaphysics, we must allow for the prior existence of a solar-to-Saturnian axis of inorganic metaphysics, which will be the primal manifestation of noumenal subjectivity (air) in time-space evolution.
13. In all cases, the inorganic preconditions of an organic offshoot, no matter how modified, are Antinatural, which is to say, contrary to that which, being organic, is Natural, be it metachemically so in unnature, chemically so in supernature, physically so in nature, or metaphysically so in subnature.
14. We are therefore entitled to distinguish between metachemical anti-unnature and metachemical unnature, as between primal and supreme manifestations of noumenal objectivity; between chemical anti-supernature and chemical supernature, as between primal and supreme manifestations of phenomenal objectivity; between physical antinature and physical nature, as between primal and supreme manifestations of phenomenal subjectivity; and between metaphysical anti-subnature and metaphysical subnature, as between primal and supreme manifestations of noumenal subjectivity.
15. Just as we have distinguished Antinatural from Natural on the basis of a primal/supreme dichotomy, so we may further distinguish the noumenal from the phenomenal manifestations of Antinature and Nature on the basis of a cosmic/universal dichotomy for the noumenal and of a geologic/personal dichotomy for the phenomenal.
16. For that which is cosmic and/or geologic, being primal, is negative in its inorganic actuality, whereas whatever is universal and/or personal, being supreme, is positive in its organic actuality.
17. Thus we may distinguish the cosmic noumenal from the universal noumenal on the basis of an objective dichotomy between the stellar-to-Venusian axis and the eyes-to-heart axis of space-time devolution, and of a subjective dichotomy between the solar-to-Saturnian axis and the ears-to-lungs axis of time-space evolution.
18. Thus we may distinguish the geologic phenomenal from the personal phenomenal on the basis of an objective dichotomy between the lunar-to-oceanic axis and the tongue-to-womb axis of volume-mass devolution, and of a subjective dichotomy between the terrestrial-to-Martian axis and the penis-to-brain axis of mass-volume evolution.
19. That which falls, or diagonally descends, through two planes does so from spatial space to repetitive time in space-time devolution and from volumetric volume to massed mass in volume-mass devolution.
20. That which rises, or diagonally ascends, through two planes does so from massive mass to voluminous volume in mass-volume evolution and from sequential time to spaced space in time-space evolution.
21. One may distinguish the descent of devils in space-time devolution from the descent of women in volume-mass devolution, as between noumenal and phenomenal manifestations of objectivity.
22. One may distinguish the ascent of men in mass-volume evolution from the ascent of gods in time-space evolution, as between phenomenal and noumenal manifestations of subjectivity.
1. Evil is the noumenal objectivity of space-time devolution and it is divisible between the primal evil, in anti-unnature, of ugliness and hatred and the supreme evil, in unnature, of beauty and love.
2. Good is the phenomenal objectivity of volume-mass devolution and it is divisible between the primal good, in anti-supernature, of weakness and humility and the supreme good, in supernature, of strength and pride.
3. Folly is the phenomenal subjectivity of mass-volume evolution and it is divisible between the primal folly, in antinature, of ignorance and pain and the supreme folly, in nature, of knowledge and pleasure.
4. Wisdom is the noumenal subjectivity of time-space evolution and it is divisible between the primal wisdom, in anti-subnature, of falsity and woe and the supreme wisdom, in subnature, of truth and joy.
5. Evil and good attach primarily to the female, or objective, side of life and only secondarily to its male side, whereas folly and wisdom attach primarily to the male, or subjective, side of life and only secondarily to its female side.
6. One can only get beyond good and evil in relation to either folly or wisdom.
7. In the female contexts of noumenal objectivity and phenomenal objectivity, the attributes of evil and good, whether primal or supreme, attach primarily to the not-self and secondarily to the self.
8. In the male contexts of phenomenal subjectivity and noumenal subjectivity, the attributes of folly and wisdom, whether primal or supreme, attach primarily to the self and secondarily to the not-self.
9. This is because objectivity is always more not-self-oriented than self-oriented, whereas subjectivity is always more self-oriented than not-self-oriented.
10. Thus, taking the supreme manifestation of evil alone, beauty and love are primary in the not-self and secondary in the self, since will and spirit take precedence, in metachemistry, over ego and soul.
11. Taking the supreme manifestation of good alone, strength and pride are primary in the not-self and secondary in the self, since will and spirit take precedence, in chemistry, over ego and soul.
12. Taking the supreme manifestation of folly alone, knowledge and pleasure are primary in the self and secondary in the not-self, since ego and soul take precedence, in physics, over will and spirit.
13. Taking the supreme manifestation of wisdom alone, truth and joy are primary in the self and secondary in the not-self, since ego and soul take precedence, in metaphysics, over will and spirit.
14. Since beauty and love are synonymous, in supreme metachemistry, with the Devil and Hell, it follows that the Devil and Hell are primary in the metachemical not-self and secondary in the metachemical self, enabling us to symbolically distinguish the Mother and the Unclear Spirit of Hell from the Daughter and the Unclear Soul of Hell.
15. Since strength and pride are synonymous, in supreme chemistry, with woman and purgatory, it follows that woman and purgatory are primary in the chemical not-self and secondary in the chemical self, enabling us to symbolically distinguish the mother and the clear spirit of purgatory from the daughter and the clear soul of purgatory.
16. Since knowledge and pleasure are synonymous, in supreme physics, with man and the earth, it follows that man and the earth are primary in the physical self and secondary in the physical not-self, enabling us to symbolically distinguish the son and the unholy soul of the earth from the father and the unholy spirit of the earth.
17. Since truth and joy are synonymous, in supreme metaphysics, with God and Heaven, it follows that God and Heaven are primary in the metaphysical self and secondary in the metaphysical not-self, enabling us to symbolically distinguish the Son and the Holy Soul of Heaven from the Father and the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
18. The self always attaches, in any elemental context, to the brain stem and central nervous system, whereas the not-self always attaches to whatever organ, in sensuality or sensibility, with which the self happens to be actively engaged.
19. Just as the self can be transmuted from ego to soul during the process of its engagement of the not-self, so the not-self passes from will to spirit as it performs its duties.
20. Spirit is no less a redemption in the not-self of the will than soul is a redemption in the self of the ego.
21. Whether the context is primary or secondary, the Devil is redeemed in Hell (fire), woman is redeemed in purgatory (water), man is redeemed in the earth (vegetation), and God is redeemed in Heaven (air).
1. At bottom mankind are evil, for life is rooted in metachemistry, but some are more evil than others, even on a gender basis, and none are more evil than those who most approximate to a metachemical lifestyle and/or status in space-time devolution, whereby the evil of noumenal objectivity is the mean, and things are accordingly orientated towards a per se order of will.
2. But if mankind are at bottom evil, they are also capable of and variously given to goodness, folly, and wisdom, since life is not just a matter of metachemistry but also of chemistry, physics, and metaphysics, as it devolves away from the Devil in woman, and evolves away from man in God.
3. Generally speaking, goodness is no less the desired alternative to evil on the objective, or female, side of life than wisdom the desired alternative to folly on its subjective, or male, side, wherein wisdom is normally associated with an avoidance of folly and, hence, an undue emphasis on the physical aspect of things.
4. Yet there will always be people who are demonstrably more or most of one thing rather than another, and usually this follows from a predetermined orientation in the self, the central nervous system, towards one element as opposed to another, whether on not on the basis of gender or class (which latter has intimate associations with build, i.e. height, weight, and so on).
5. Certainly I do not agree with Nietzsche that woman is at bottom base while man is only evil, or something to that effect, for life tends to demonstrate the opposite - namely that man is at bottom base, or physical (and hence foolish), while woman is fundamentally evil, or metachemical (and hence cruel), even though the genders are capable of elemental cross-overs, so to speak, to a comparatively limited degree.
6. There is much more gender immutability to life than mutability, and gender is only one factor in an equation that needs to consider class before one can reasonably distinguish 'the evil' and 'the good' from 'the foolish' and 'the wise'.
7. Just as metachemistry and chemistry are germane to the female, or objective, side of life, so physics and metaphysics are germane to its male, or subjective, side, irrespective of the paradoxical extents to which females strive to be physical or metaphysical and males, by contrast, to be chemical or metachemical.
8. For fire and water, the primary elements, are objectively distinct from the secondary elements of vegetation and air, and it is as inconceivable that the primary elements could be male as that the secondary elements, with their subjective bias, could be female. Males are very definitely the second sex, whether as men in relation to women or, up above in the noumenal realms of space and time, as gods in relation to devils.
9. In an age when sensuality rules the roost in 'once-born' and therefore outer terms, it follows that females will have the upper hand over males, that the primary sex will take precedence over the secondary sex, in what amounts to a heathenistic norm of objective domination, whether negatively or positively.
10. The modern age, stemming from the nineteenth and even, to some extent, the eighteenth century, clearly demonstrates the hegemony of the female side of life over its male side, whether phenomenally in relation to the hegemonic standing of volumetric volume over massive mass, or noumenally in relation to the hegemonic standing of spatial space over sequential time - the former tending to be symbolized by 'Britannia' and the latter by 'the Liberty Belle'.
11. Such an age is clearly one in which chemistry and metachemistry, water and fire, are hegemonic over physics and metaphysics, vegetation and air, and it is also demonstrably the case that the mode of this objective hegemony is less religious (and supreme) than secular (and primal), so that negativity tends to overshadow positivity in the gradual drift, or degeneration, of society from the organic to the inorganic, as from (in objective terms) nonconformism and fundamentalism to realism and materialism.
12. Hence what could be identified, in broad terms, with Anglo-American civilization, that dominant feature of the modern West, has passed from an organic phase in which the hegemony of objectivity was avowedly, if falsely, religious, to one in which, with the rapid increase of technology and urbanization, the hegemony of objectivity, ever characteristic of a female orientation, is in its inorganic phase, and the prevailing criteria of sensual existence are accordingly primal rather than supreme.
13. It is as if the nonconformist domination of humanism in the phenomenal case and the fundamentalist domination of transcendentalism in the noumenal case have been eclipsed by the realist domination of naturalism on the one hand and the materialist domination of idealism on the other, making for a situation in which the personal and the universal modes of sensuality stand in the more overly heathenistic shadow, so to speak, of its geologic and cosmic modes.
14. Hence modern life, with its rampant technological and urban expansion, signifies the sensual hegemony not so much, in phenomenal terms, of strength and pride over knowledge and pleasure as of weakness and humility (if not humiliation) over ignorance and pain, where this gradual eclipse of heathenistic supremacy by heathenistic primacy is concerned, the personal inexorably losing ground to the geologic.
15. Likewise, in the noumenal context above the phenomenal one, which is more characteristic of America than, for instance, of Britain, one finds that the sensual hegemony is not so much of beauty and love over truth and joy as of ugliness and hatred over falsity (illusion) and woe, as the eclipse of heathenistic supremacy by heathenistic primacy runs its cosmic - and in some sense cosmic-slavering - course, to the detriment of universality.
16. It is obvious that no mode of objective hegemony, not even supreme, is conducive to a sensibly-run society, and that Protestantism, as we may call the supreme manifestation of such a hegemony, merely paved the way, in an ever-more technology- and urban-oriented fashion, for the wholesale primacy which characterises the contemporary West, whereof realism and materialism are the respective rulers of a secular roost.
17. I cannot myself endorse a society in which negative values are paramount, and even the dominance of positive values is objectionable to me when they so clearly manifest the hegemony, in female fashion, of either chemistry over physics or, worse again, of metachemistry over metaphysics. For such hegemony is frankly anti-Christian and thus symptomatic of organic secularity, no matter how much it may hide behind a mask of religion.
18. And whatever is anti-Christian is bad for the male side of life, flies in the face of that sensible teaching which decrees a male salvation from sensuality to sensibility as the only guarantor of release from the curse of male subjection to female domination, whether in relation to physics or, more wisely, to metaphysics.
19. Thus objectivity stands against subjectivity as freedom against binding, freedom for the female side of life to be objectively hegemonic over its male side, and to bear witness, in ever more primacy-oriented terms, to the domination of realism over naturalism and of materialism over idealism, of water, in simple elemental terms, over vegetation, and of fire over air.
20. Such a domination does not come about without the necessary technological and environmental preconditions, and once they are there it is difficult, to the point of inconceivable, to imagine a return to supremacy even on secular terms, Protestantism itself having succumbed to the negative goodness and negative evil which geologically and cosmically orientated societies so obviously demonstrate.
1. As against those sensually supreme
which have gradually gone to the dogs of primacy, are to be found
which still retain a fair degree of sensible supremacy, either because
predominantly Catholic or because of some Buddhist-like commitment to
metaphysical sensibility. The former are
mostly to be found in the West, i.e. in countries like
2. Indeed, Ireland is as good a Western example as you are likely to find of a country which is still predominantly disposed to physical sensibility despite the ubiquitous influence of Anglo-American civilization, since in a Catholic country it is not volumetric volume over massive mass so much as voluminous volume over massed mass which chiefly characterizes the social disposition of the People, making for a situation in which vegetative sensibility stands a plane above watery sensibility, as brain above womb.
3. Hence a country which is sensibly supreme will have either brain above womb or, if noumenal, lungs above heart, since salvation for males is ever reflective of deliverance from the under-plane position of sensuality to the over-plane position of sensibility, bringing damnation to females as they fall diagonally from the over-plane position of sensuality to the under-plane position of sensibility.
4. Hence a vegetative rise, in physics, from penis to brain will engender a corresponding watery fall, in chemistry, from tongue to womb, while an airy rise, in metaphysics, from ears to lungs will engender a corresponding fiery fall, in metachemistry, from eyes to heart.
5. Catholicism upholds the Christic rise, in physics, from penis to brain, as from vegetative sensuality to vegetative sensibility, and the Marian fall, in chemistry, from tongue to womb, as from watery sensuality to watery sensibility, and is thus symptomatic of a phenomenal commitment to supremacy, whereby mass and volume are the principal planes. It is therefore a religion of the lower classes which, in its physical shortfall from metaphysical sensibility, the respiratory sensibility of the ultimate 'kingdom within', remains anchored, so to speak, to metaphysical sensuality, the aural sensuality, so often manifesting in music, which remains the more genuinely religious aspect of Catholicism even though it leaves something to be desired from the standpoint, ever germane to a Second Coming, of metaphysical sensibility.
6. For metaphysical sensibility is the salvation from metaphysical sensuality, as lungs from ears, and until such a salvation comes officially to pass, physical sensibility will be vulnerable not only to the contrary disposition, in 'once-born' terms, of metaphysical sensuality, but to the theological sleight-of-hand which, especially in relation to Old Testament usage, tends to substitute metachemical sensuality for metaphysical sensuality, as Jehovah for the Father or, in more concrete terms, the eyes for the ears, if not, in the cosmic-oriented nature of Creator-based scripture, the stellar plane for the solar one, thereby subverting supremacy via the Christian backdoor of Old Testament primacy.
7. No, the Catholic position is far from a final one in religious terms, and it is as the architect of a higher and more definitive order of religion that I have advanced, within the ideological scope of Social Transcendentalism, the concept of a triadic Beyond, as germane, so I teach, to 'Kingdom Come'.
8. I am, if you will, the philosophical creator of Social Transcendentalism and all it teaches, and I know that justice will not be done to religion, and thus to the truth, until Social Transcendentalism has its way with the People and they accordingly come to vote for religious sovereignty not only as the means of deliverance from 'sins and/or punishments of the world', meaning political sovereignty and its concomitants, but also deliverance from the kind of cosmic-based religious primitivity which even now, in the guise of some Old Testament 'Creator', bedevils the development of supremacy to the level of metaphysical sensibility.
9. In fact, it would be truer to say that while the New Testament 'Father' bedevils the development of supremacy to the level of metaphysical sensibility simply by symbolizing metaphysical sensuality standing behind physical sensibility, the sensibility, in effect, of ‘the Son', the Old Testament Jehovah subverts supremacy through the cosmic-oriented emphasis upon primacy which inevitably comes to light whenever the concept of Creator turns, more retrogressively, upon cosmic Creation.
10. Either way, there can be no respiratory sensibility, and hence no ultimate 'kingdom within', until the People democratically opt, under Messianic auspices, for religious sovereignty and the rights that such an ultimate sovereignty would confer.
11. Such rights would include meditation for those who were most suited to it, whether in the transcendentalist per se of the top tier of my projected triadic Beyond or in the pseudo-transcendentalist 'bovaryizations' of transcendentalism that would characterize (the top subsection of) each of its lower tiers.
12. Such rights would also include cogitation for those who were most suited to it, whether in the humanist per se of the middle tier of my projected triadic Beyond or in the pseudo-humanist 'bovaryizations' of humanism that would characterize (the middle subsection of) each of its flanking tiers.
13. Such rights would also include contemplation for those who were most suited to it, whether in the nonconformist per se of the bottom tier of my projected triadic Beyond or in the pseudo-nonconformist 'bovaryizations' of nonconformism that would characterize (the bottom subsection of) each of its higher tiers
14. Thus would the religiously sovereign People, upper class and lower class alike, be empowered to meditate, to cogitate, and to contemplate, after their several fashions; for meditation is alone transcendentalist, while cogitation is humanist, and contemplation nonconformist.
15. To meditate at one of three levels, depending on one's denominational entitlement and elemental affinity, be it chemical, physical, or metaphysical; that is to say watery, vegetative, or airy.
16. Likewise to cogitate at one of three levels, whether in the chemical vein of the bottom tier, the physical vein of the middle tier, or the metaphysical vein of the top tier.
17. Similarly to contemplate at one of three levels, whether in the chemical vein of what, at the bottom, would be a watery tier of massed mass overall; in the physical vein of what, in the middle, would be a vegetative tier of voluminous volume overall; or in the metaphysical vein of what, at the top, would be an airy tier of spaced space overall.
18. Contemplation is lower, on any tier, than cogitation, while cogitation is lower, on any tier, than meditation, for things proceed, on a gender basis, from chemical to physical, and thence, within the male options, from physical to metaphysical.
19. A chemical lower tier, suitable to persons of Puritan descent, would have a nonconformist per se in contemplation, and 'bovaryized' orders of cogitation and meditation.
20. A physical middle tier, suitable to persons of Anglican descent, would have a humanist per se in cogitation, and 'bovaryized' orders of contemplation and meditation.
21. A metaphysical upper tier, suitable to persons of Roman Catholic descent, would have a transcendentalist per se in meditation, and 'bovaryized' orders of contemplation and cogitation.
22. Meditation is 'bovaryized' when it is either chemical, and watery, or physical, and vegetative, i.e. of an aerobic or a yogic orientation. For only metaphysical meditation accords with a transcendentalist per se, and in sensibility this implies the breath. Sweat-producing meditation (chemical) is a quasi-nonconformist mode of transcendentalism, while body-oriented meditation (physical) is a quasi-humanist mode of transcendentalism, both of which are accordingly pseudo-transcendentalist.
23. Cogitation is 'bovaryized' when it is either metaphysical, and airy, or chemical, and watery, i.e. of an aural or a spoken orientation. For only physical cogitation accords with a humanist per se, and in sensibility this implies thought and/or prayer in the brain. Airwaves-oriented cogitation (metaphysical), having to do with something you listen to, is a quasi-transcendentalist mode of humanism, while tongue-oriented cogitation (chemical), having to do with speech, is a quasi-nonconformist mode of humanism, both of which are accordingly pseudo-humanist.
24. Contemplation is 'bovaryized' when it is either physical, and vegetative, or metaphysical, and airy, i.e. established as the result of a mouth-ingested or a sniffed (snorted) drug-related orientation. For only chemical contemplation accords with a nonconformist per se, and in sensibility this implies - or would imply in the dead-resurrecting, 'inner-light' context of 'Kingdom Come' - the injection of contemplation-enhancing drugs. Contemplation as a result of swallowing drugs (physical) is a quasi-humanist mode of nonconformism, while contemplation as the result of sniffing drugs (metaphysical) is a quasi-transcendentalist mode of nonconformism, both of which are accordingly pseudo-nonconformist.
25. In general terms, I have tended, in the past, to identify injected drugs like heroin with a chemical per se status, ingested drugs like LSD or so-called 'magic mushrooms' with a quasi-physical chemical status, and inhaled drugs like cocaine with a quasi-metaphysical chemical status. But all drugs, whatever their assumed elemental correlation or most typical method of consumption, have been equated with the chemical overall, and thus with a female bias that would make them especially applicable to women within the hypothetical context, germane to 'Kingdom Come', of the triadic Beyond, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty.
26. To sum up, transcendentalism, which has to do with meditation, can be chemical, physical, or metaphysical, but is only genuine when metaphysical. Consequently metaphysical transcendentalism is the per se mode of transcendentalism, and hence of meditation.
27. Humanism, which has to do with cogitation, can be chemical, physical, or metaphysical, but is only genuine when physical. Consequently physical humanism is the per se mode of humanism, and hence of cogitation.
28. Nonconformism, which has to do with contemplation, can be chemical, physical, or metaphysical, but is only genuine when chemical. Consequently chemical nonconformism is the per se mode of nonconformism, and hence of contemplation.
29. Fundamentalism, which has to do with worshipful devotion, would not be applicable to the triadic Beyond, least of all in its genuinely fundamentalist manifestation, which happens to be metachemical, and hence fiery.
30. Even metachemical transcendentalism, whether in the form of jogging or boxing or some related meditative activity of a fiery disposition, would not be applicable to religious praxis in the triadic Beyond.
1. For me, 'Kingdom Come' is not a mere abstraction but a politico-religious or ideological aspiration which I have sought to concretise in relation to what, in previous texts, has been called a Gaelic federation ... of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
2. Therefore 'Kingdom Come' will not have come to pass on these islands until the Gaels democratically enter into a Social Transcendentalist federation of their respective countries in the interests not only of Irish unity on the island of Ireland but, even more importantly, of independence from England in what would amount, under Social Transcendentalism, to a new religion in which, through religious sovereignty, the People were empowered to develop their respective meditative, cogitative, and contemplative interests in what has been called a triadic Beyond.
3. In such a 'Kingdom', presided over by a 'God-King', or Messianic figurehead who also happened to be no mean philosopher, there would be no Christianity, and therefore no deference to the sort of Creator Worship which, in one degree or another, has always characterized and even compromised Christianity, to the detriment of inner development.
4. In such a 'Kingdom', the People would be their own gods or men or women more sensibly and radically than ever before, and even those who were not destined for godliness would know more about the truth than persons of their masculine or feminine disposition had ever known in the past.
5. They would also know, however, that knowing more about the truth and actually living or being it were two entirely different things, and that no-one need fear the imposition of criteria from above that were too religiously demanding or exacting for mere mortals to take. For the triadic Beyond would ensure that only those who were 'up to' the truth would be expected or encouraged to live it.
6. Class hierarchies are not unfair on the lower orders so much as fair to the lower orders when they take into account the differences between people and allot responsibilities or privileges according to their deserts.
7. What would be unfair would be trying to squeeze everybody, irrespective of class or gender, into the one mould, be it upper class and metaphysical, or lower class and physical and/or chemical. For then you are simply flying in the face of reality and either trying to uniformly upgrade life to the highest common denominator or, worse again, uniformly degrade life to the lowest common denominator, to the detriment of those who have to live it.
8. In reality there are uncommon denominators and common denominators, and while the former are upper class, whether metachemical or metaphysical, the latter are demonstrably lower class, and therefore chemical or physical.
9. Accepting hierarchical differences and distinctions is being fair to life and thus to the people who have to live it, whether 'on high' or 'down below'. You avoid utopian chimeras and end-up with a viable plant-like entity which, with roots, stalk, and blossom, can grow to its full capacity, provided it is being adequately served from a sun-like aside.
10. Such a sun-like aside I have customarily identified with the administrative aspect of 'Kingdom Come', viz. the politico-economic structure of our hypothetical Gaelic Federation, and it would come to pass - and in the nature of things could only come to pass - in consequence of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and the correlative bearing of the old sovereignties, not least of all political, by the Messianic advocate of 'Kingdom Come' in what would amount to a Christ-like sacrifice on his part through which the People duly found deliverance, via religious sovereignty, from 'sins and/or punishments of the world'.
11. Thus delivered from the bog of worldly sin and/or punishment in which the People, whether republican or parliamentary, had been sunk, they would be able to leave the political administration of 'Kingdom Come' to the Messianic Saviour and, more practically, his closest followers, while they concentrated their principal energies on religious self-development (or, in the case of women, constrained not-self development) within the framework of the triadic Beyond.
12. Simultaneously delivered from the old theocratic religion, with its autocratic sleight-of-hand that substituted Old Testament for New Testament, the People would never again have to defer to primitive Godheads, whether cosmic or universal, and need not fear the substitution of Messiah Worship, in what would amount to a 'cult-of-the-leader' fundamentalism, when they had a structure in place, guaranteed by religious sovereignty, which empowered them to get-on with the nonconformist and humanist and transcendentalist modes of contemplation, cogitation, and meditation, to the exclusion of worshipful devotion to an idol, be that idol living or dead
13. Certainly the Messianic Leader, or Second Coming equivalent, would stand to them as the Creator of 'Kingdom Come', with its triadic Beyond, and thus in a sense the foremost manifestation of the type 'Creator', who, in the event of the People's endorsement, would have supplanted all previous 'Creators', including the most basic and cosmic-oriented one. But he would differ from those autocratic and theocratic 'Creators' as one who was not there to be worshipped, but to encourage the People to develop their respective sensible selves or, in the case of women, sensible chemical not-self more profoundly than would otherwise be the case.
14. For only then will the People be truly free of tyranny and able to determine the scope and pace of their respective levels and kinds of religious development to a point which will be completely beyond religion as it has hitherto been understood, that is to say, at its topmost level a truly religious religion which owed little or nothing to cosmic science.
15. I desire nothing less than the liberation of the People from their autocratic and theocratic and even democratic attachments, that they may become all the more bound, in the case of males, to their deepest self-interests and correspondingly less free, in the case of females, to exploit not-self at the expense of self, particularly, it has to be said, male self.
16. For an authentically religious society, which is after all what 'Kingdom Come' would essentially be at its topmost level, is one in which males are freer than ever before of enslavement to females and more bound, in consequence, to their deeper self, be that self metaphysical or physical, than would otherwise be possible, with beneficial consequences for sensible knowledge and sensible truth.
17. For just as strength militates against knowledge, so beauty militates against truth, and in either case it is not the male side but the female side of life which is uppermost in due chemical or metachemical fashions, to the detriment of man and God.
18. I happen to believe that the Gaels are sufficiently subjective, when male, to want a society in which the male side of life is hegemonic or ascendant over its female side, so that not science and politics but economics and, especially, religion are uppermost, nature and culture supplanting barbarism and civilization, and I also happen to believe that only with a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales will a united Ireland finally come to pass, since that should satisfy the requirements of the majority of loyalists and nationalists alike.
19. Thus it is as a revolutionary Unionist that I have put forward the concept of a Gaelic Federation, and I have no doubt that such a union would be in the best interests of the great majority of Gaels both in Ireland, north and south, and in Scotland, Wales, and even the Isle of Man.
20. For it would deliver them from the Catholic/Protestant schism which is perhaps the second greatest failure of Christianity after the Old Testament, and thus make possible, for the first time in centuries, a new sense of nationhood, necessarily pan-Gaelic, via the new religion of Social Transcendentalism.
1. One can do negatively or positively, competitively or co-operatively, and those who do negatively do such on the basis of materialism in metachemical primacy, whereas those who do positively do such on the basis of fundamentalism in metachemical supremacy.
2. One can give negatively or positively, competitively or co-operatively, and those who give negatively do such on the basis of realism in chemical primacy, whereas those who give positively do such on the basis of nonconformism in chemical supremacy.
3. One can take negatively or positively, competitively or co-operatively, and those who take negatively do such on the basis of naturalism in physical primacy, whereas those who take positively do such on the basis of humanism in physical supremacy.
4. One can be negatively or positively, competitively or co-operatively, and those who tend to be negatively are such on the basis of idealism in metaphysical primacy, whereas those who tend to be positively are such on the basis of transcendentalism in metaphysical supremacy.
5. An age or society in which primacy has eclipsed supremacy as the prevailing mean will be one in which competition, founded upon negative values, takes precedence over co-operation, and success is judged on the basis of competitive ascendancy, especially in relation to materialism and realism.
6. Even before the slide from sensual supremacy to sensual primacy, and the corresponding hegemony of materialism over idealism and of realism over naturalism, societies in which sensible primacy had become the mean would have demonstrated, in contrary terms, a competitive bias, whether with regard to idealism over materialism or, down below in the phenomenal realm, to naturalism over realism.
7. It is not inconceivable, but indeed all too plausible, that the degeneration of sensibly-biased societies from supremacy to primacy played a part in the Protestant Reformation and consequent entrenchment of sensual supremacy.
8. Be that as it may, the contemporary emphasis, in the Anglo-American West, on sensual primacy is indicative of a society in which competition will be rather more objective than subjective, with corresponding materialist and realist hegemonies.
9. Competitiveness thrives on negative values like hatred, humility, pain, and woe, and these are precisely the most characteristic values of societies in which primacy has eclipsed supremacy in consequence of the ongoing entrenchment of inorganic factors at the organic's expense.
10. Hence competition is something to regret from an organic and therefore supreme standpoint which, due to its positive nature, will prefer co-operation. No supreme taking, much less supreme being, can be cultivated in societies which are in the grip of primacy, whether in sensibility or, worse again from a male point-of-view, in sensuality.
11. Even primal being, that characteristic of inorganic godliness, will be subject to a subordinate position to primal doing in sensual contexts, while primal taking will likewise be subordinate to primal giving in those societies which are characterized by a sensual bias overall.
12. Hence the rule of metachemical primacy over metaphysical primacy in the noumenal case of sensual competitiveness, and the rule, or rather governance, of chemical primacy over physical primacy in the phenomenal case of sensual competitiveness.
13. Which is equivalent to the rule of ugliness and hatred over falsity and woe in the one case, and of weakness and humility over ignorance and pain in the other case.
14. Societies in which sensible primacy had eclipsed sensible supremacy would more signify the lead of ugliness and hatred by falsity and woe in the noumenal case, and the lead or, rather, representation of weakness and humility by ignorance and pain in the phenomenal case.
15. Either way, we would not be able to speak of the hegemony of positive values, neither objectively in sensuality, where beauty and love would rule over truth and joy and, down below, strength and pride have the upper hand over knowledge and pleasure, nor subjectively in sensibility, where truth and joy would have the upper hand over beauty and love, and knowledge and pleasure likewise have the upper hand over strength and pride.
16. Societies which have 'gone to the dogs' of primacy are ill-equipped to foster positive values, whether in relation to doing, giving, taking, or to being. Only negative values thrive in them, whether in relation to materialism, realism, naturalism, or to idealism. Everything fundamentalist, nonconformist, humanist, and transcendentalist will be subject to ridicule from the standpoint of a competitive edge.
1. Materialism is the anti-unnatural mode of primacy, which stands to the unnatural mode of supremacy, viz. fundamentalism, as negative metachemistry to positive metachemistry.
2. Realism is the anti-supernatural mode of primacy, which stands to the supernatural mode of supremacy, viz. nonconformism, as negative chemistry to positive chemistry.
3. Naturalism is the antinatural mode of primacy, which stands to the natural mode of supremacy, viz. humanism, as negative physics to positive physics.
4. Idealism is the anti-subnatural mode of primacy, which stands to the subnatural mode of supremacy, viz. transcendentalism, as negative metaphysics to positive metaphysics.
5. One could speak of the materialism of the Antidevil and/or Antihell as against the fundamentalism of the Devil and/or Hell, whether in relation to primary or to secondary orders of the same.
6. One could speak of the realism of the antiwoman and/or antipurgatory as against the nonconformism of woman and/or purgatory, whether in relation to primary or to secondary orders of the same.
7. One could speak of the naturalism of the antiman and/or anti-earth as against the humanism of man and/or the earth, whether in relation to primary or to secondary orders of the same.
8. One could speak of the idealism of the Antigod and/or Antiheaven as against the transcendentalism of God and/or Heaven, whether in relation to primary or to secondary orders of the same.
9. Either way, primacy attaches to the inorganic as a manifestation of Antinature, whereas supremacy attaches to the organic as a manifestation of Nature, whether in terms of metachemical unnature, which is fiery; of chemical supernature, which is watery; of physical nature, which is vegetative; or of metaphysical subnature, which is airy.
10. All that is primal, whether cosmic or geologic, noumenal or phenomenal, signifies in human life not merely a divided self but that which is against the self, as though symptomatic of iron in the soul. If the self is positive in its organic supremacy, then what may be called the antiself is negative in its inorganic primacy, and it is the eclipse of the self by the antiself which causes negative values to prevail at the expense of their positive counterparts
11. If the self is organic and the antiself inorganic, then the antiself is not so much a part or aspect of the self as something that runs contrary to it, like the cosmic to the universal or the geologic to the personal. We do not have divided selves in the sense of self being naturally both negative and positive. On the contrary, the self is structured in such a way as to be positive, whether in objective or in subjective terms, depending by and large on gender.
12. When the self is eclipsed by antiself negativity, it is as if the self were overcome by cosmic and/or geologic influences which temporarily take possession of the self and render its behaviour contrary to what it is normally, whether metachemically, chemically, physically, or metaphysically.
13. One might say that the antiself is the self acting under duress of inorganic factors which temporarily cripple its nature and turn it upside down or inside out, shutting down positive tendencies as negative ones take their place.
14. Thus whereas fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism are expressions of the self or of different types of self being loyal to itself, materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism are the result of undue inorganic intrusions into the self which take the place, no matter how temporarily, of what the self would normally be about
15. It is as though not the organic self as such, but that same self under duress of inorganic pressures ceased being loyal to itself and became quasi-inorganic in reflection of materialism, realism, naturalism, or idealism, thereby behaving in a materialist, a realist, a naturalist, or an idealist manner, to the detriment of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism.
16. Thus a self that would normally, in the course of natural organic events, have been loving or proud or pleasurable or joyful becomes, all of a sudden, hateful or humble or pained or sad, and all because it had been turned against itself by one or a number of inorganic intrusions from without.
17. When such inorganic intrusions are so frequent and powerful as to cause a lasting if not almost permanent eclipse of organic selfhood by quasi-inorganic behaviour, whether because of a ubiquitous negative environmental and/or technological influence, then whole societies become deranged and subject to competitive urges as a matter of primal course.
18. The modern over-urbanized and industrialized world is symptomatic of just such a primal derangement, making for wholesale self-dissatisfactions as the self continues to be turned inorganically against itself to the detriment of self-esteem and the peace, on any level, that such esteem brings.
19. Instead of being loyal and/or of encouraged to be loyal to self, whichever self, depending on the individual, that may happen to be, people are constantly bombarded with a plethora of inorganic distractions stemming from materialism or realism or naturalism or idealism, and induced to seek satisfaction outside the self.
20. No such satisfaction is ultimately possible, because the self that is at loggerheads with itself in consequence of the ubiquitous influence of inorganic intrusions is bound to remain dissatisfied with both itself and, correlatively, the society in which it has to live, since that society, despite its brazen boasts to the contrary, cannot provide the satisfaction that the self craves, but only perpetuates self-division in the pursuit of its materialistic or realistic or naturalistic or idealistic delusions.
21. A self that is permanently at war with itself, trapped in a stressful predicament of self-division, cannot expect to achieve, much less maintain, any degree of harmony and peace. On the contrary, it will continue to toss and turn in a fitful pursuit of self-deceiving goals with which the negativity of inorganic primacy has seduced it.
22. Only the rejection of such a society can lead to inner harmony, either by the individual opting out of it or by whole communities of people who happen to be favoured with less competitive societies continuing to remain loyal to organic supremacy and its co-operative rewards.
1. Being in harmony with self in organic supremacy, whether the self be objective and female or subjective and male, requires that one be steeped in a lifestyle that respects the organic and is not overly distracted from what is in the self's best interests by inorganic primacy.
2. Whether the not-self be in the self's best interests, as in the case of females, or the self be in the self's best interests, as in the case of males, the important thing is to stay in touch with the organic, so that positive supremacy is one's due reward.
3. Thus whether in terms of co-operation with others or in terms of co-operation with oneself, whether in terms of supreme doing and giving on the one hand or of supreme taking and being on the other, organic supremacy is the only means of avoiding the competitive pitfalls presented by inorganic primacy.
4. For competition is negative, and the competitive individual or society does not have the self's best interests at heart, neither in relation to oneself nor to others. On the contrary, the competitive individual or society is ranged against self-esteem from the standpoint, ever primal, of self-negation, so that selfhood is something to be overcome.
5. Whence arises the competitive urge to overcome selfhood and destroy inner harmony and peace, maintaining a situation in which self-negation is ever prevalent and people are judged not according to what they are, but according to what they are not.
6. This self-negation of inorganic primacy has nothing to do with self-denial as a consequence of self-realization, as in the case of those divine individuals who first of all understand who they are, in relation to where they are metaphysically at, and then set about transcending it in the interests of self-redemption.
7. On the contrary, self-negation rules out the possibility of self-redemption, for it works against the self rather than through it, and substitutes a false notion of success, based on competition, for what is truly in the self's interests. Instead of perpetuating fundamentalism or nonconformism or humanism or, above all, transcendentalism, it perpetuates materialism or realism or naturalism or idealism, to the detriment of self.
8. But the individual for whom self is neither something to be denied in the interests of not-self nor something to be perpetuated for its own sake but, rather, something to be transcended in the interests of self-redemption is beyond even the utmost level of self-negation in what amounts to the apex of self-realization. He is more than a doing-oriented Fundamentalist, a giving-oriented Nonconformist, or a taking-oriented Humanist. He is a being-oriented Transcendentalist, and only in connection with such an individual do we have the right to speak of first-rate supreme being.
9. For first-rate supreme being adheres to the metaphysical Transcendentalist when he reaches an accommodation with his soul via the will and spirit of his metaphysical not-selves and is able to transcend his ego in the process. It is not something characteristic of a 'Creator of the Universe' or anything so primal and primitive. On the contrary, it is purely characteristic of the subman, the godly individual, when he achieves a heavenly redemption, in soul, of his self, and ceases for the moment to be God.
10. First-rate supreme being is the condition of heaven that the self feels when it is of a metaphysical disposition and accordingly joyful, whereas second-rate supreme being is the pleasurable being of the redeemed physical self, third-rate supreme being the proud being of the redeemed chemical self, and fourth-rate supreme being the loving being of the redeemed metachemical self.
11. Were the chemical and metachemical selves concerned primarily with self, they wouldn't have third- and fourth-rate orders of being respectively, but something more akin to the second- and first-rate orders of being that accrue to the physical and metaphysical selves respectively of those people, usually male, for whom either ego or soul is paramount.
12. When the not-self is paramount, however, whether as will or spirit, then of course the order of self will be correspondingly subordinate, as is usually the case for the ego and soul of females, which, when not fourth-rate, are never more than third-rate.
13. But that which is most of the self, that self which is most essential, the soul, will only be most soulful in the airy context of metaphysics, and never more so than in sensibility, where one is dealing with the metaphysics of the breath as against the metaphysics of the airwaves, and is accordingly attuned to the lungs as opposed to the ears.
14. For this first-rate order of soul a certain metaphysical disposition is required, without which one would be false to one's 'true' self, be that self metachemical, chemical, or physical, were one to persist in pursuing a metaphysical course on the basis of transcendentalism.
15. Pursuing it on the basis of either humanism or nonconformism, on the other hand, is certainly feasible for those individuals who, whether for physical or chemical reasons, would be more suited to the metaphysics of the ego or the spirit than of the soul, and who would, as already outlined, constitute gender-divided alternatives to the top subsection of what I have elsewhere described as the highest tier of the triadic Beyond, as germane, so I teach, to 'Kingdom Come'.
16. Even though not identical with first-rate supreme being in the metaphysical soul, such orders of supreme taking and supreme giving would be conditioned by metaphysical criteria to a degree that would distinguish them from properly physical and chemical orders of supreme taking and supreme giving respectively, as germane, so I teach, to the per se subsections of the lower tiers of the triadic Beyond.
17. For the metaphysical context is ever one that panders to being, whether directly in transcendentalism or indirectly in humanism and nonconformism, whereas the physical context will inevitably pander to taking and the chemical context to giving, even when indirect approaches to taking or giving, germane to subsectional 'bovaryizations', happen to apply, as would be the case for the physical and chemical tiers of our projected triadic Beyond.
18. Now being of a first-rate supreme order is what follows from a metaphysical commitment, whether directly or, to slightly lesser degrees, indirectly, in consequence of a subsectional 'bovaryization', whereof both giving and taking are of a distinctly being-oriented order - indeed are inseparable from a beingful approach, paradoxically, to giving and taking.
1. Being 'true' to one's self in the sense of knowing what kind of a self one has and adhering to it as much as possible, whether in terms of metachemical objectivity, chemical objectivity, physical subjectivity, or metaphysical subjectivity.
2. Thus knowing oneself not only in relation to gender but also, and no less significantly, in relation to class, so that one ceases to live either above or beneath oneself but lives in accordance with one's nature, be that nature metachemically unnatural, chemically supernatural, physically natural, or metaphysically subnatural.
3. That person who is 'untrue' to his/her self will become false to others, who will be misled as to his true nature. But even devils have a right to existence and to recognition as such, whether or not we share their disposition.
4. One can no more eliminate one or more of the different types of self than eliminate one or more of the different types of element. Life is a combination of all elements in greater or lesser degrees, and one must find one's place in life as the elements find theirs.
5. When once one has found one's rightful place in life, no matter how often one may deviate from it in the course of diurnal events, one will know oneself as a person of a given elemental disposition, be that disposition metachemical and fiery, chemical and watery, physical and vegetative, or metaphysical and airy.
6. One will know, in sum, whether one is a devil, a woman, a man, or a god, and can live one's life accordingly. For many people think that they are simply men or women without realizing that mankind are divisible between devils and women on the one hand, and between men and gods on the other hand - devils and gods being the noumenal counterparts to women and men.
7. I have maintained that, in sartorial terms, the distinction between devils and women is of dresses and skirts, those objective modes of attire, whereas the distinction between men and gods is of trousers (or pants, jeans, etc.) and zippersuits, those subjective modes of attire.
8. Hence an 'upper-class' distinction (noumenal) between dresses and zippersuits, and a 'lower-class' distinction (phenomenal) between skirts and trousers.
9. People who do not understand this are simply guilty of ignorance, and ignorance is more often the fruit of inorganic primacy than of organic supremacy, being rooted in the competitive negativity of geologic naturalism.
10. It is more logical to hold ignorance against a man than against a woman, because ignorance attaches to the physical as the primal equivalent of knowledge.
11. Conversely, it is more logical to hold weakness against a woman than against a man, because weakness attaches to the chemical as the primal equivalent of strength.
12. From the standpoint of the noumenal options however, it would be more logical to hold falsity against a god than against a devil, because falsity attaches to the metaphysical as the primal equivalent of truth.
13. Conversely, it would be more logical to hold ugliness against a devil than against a god, because ugliness attaches to the metachemical as the primal equivalent of beauty.
14. Few of us would logically esteem ignorance, weakness, falsity, or ugliness, and yet most of us live in societies in which precisely those primal values, those negative consequences of inorganic primacy, are paramount, thanks to the ubiquitous spread of naturalism, realism, idealism, and materialism.
15. Of course, ignorance may pass itself off as knowledge, weakness as strength, falsity as truth, and ugliness as beauty, but that would not pass muster in contexts, necessarily characterized by organic supremacy, where genuine knowledge, strength, truth, and beauty were paramount, and one knew, in consequence, that these attributes of the various elements were of a co-operative rather than a competitive disposition.
16. Yet even now, in this seemingly 'godless', meaning secular, age, genuine knowledge, strength, truth, and beauty are possible and can be discovered to exist, both in individuals and the wider community in general. We cannot help being organic creatures even when we are under pressure of inorganic factors to such an extent that we twist and turn in a fitful revolt against that which is contrary to our nature and which causes us, in turning us against ourselves, so much pain, humility, (if not humiliation), woe, and hatred.
17. Despite the manifestly competitive conditions in which most people have to live these days, I remain quietly optimistic that things can be reversed and that a better age is possible, that 'Kingdom Come' can come to pass, and that we should build on the sure foundations of organic supremacy, which we carry within ourselves, a much less competitive and more co-operative society, a society in which the individuals who constitute it are in touch with their selves and know the peace that comes from inner harmony.
18. Then and only then will godliness come back into the picture, then and only then will the secular values of modernity, rooted in inorganic primacy, be overthrown and 'the dead' accordingly be 'resurrected' to their respective organic capacities in what I have called the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come', meaning, initially, a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, should a majority mandate for religious sovereignty - the only guarantee, ultimately, of organic supremacy in its most sensible modes - duly come to pass with the coming of 'Judgement', or the People's decision whether or not to progress, democratically and officially, from political sovereignty to religious sovereignty, thereby abandoning 'sins and/or punishments of the world' for that which lies beyond it.
1. Fiery metachemistry, being apparent, is the element of doing par excellence, wherein doing is alone - of the doing, giving, taking, being options - in its per se manifestation.
2. Watery chemistry, being quantitative, is the element of giving par excellence, wherein giving is alone - of the doing, giving, taking, being options - in its per se manifestation.
3. Vegetative physics, being qualitative, is the element of taking par excellence, wherein taking is alone - of the doing, giving, taking, being options - in its per se manifestation.
4. Airy metaphysics, being essential, is the element of being par excellence, wherein being is alone - of the doing, giving, taking, being options - in its per se manifestation.
5. To contrast the apparent doing of metachemistry with the quasi-quantitative doing of chemistry, the quasi-qualitative doing of physics, and the quasi-essential doing of metaphysics.
6. To contrast the quantitative giving of chemistry with the quasi-apparent giving of metachemistry, the quasi-essential giving of metaphysics, and the quasi-qualitative giving of physics.
7. To contrast the qualitative taking of physics with the quasi-essential taking of metaphysics, the quasi-apparent taking of metachemistry, and the quasi-quantitative taking of chemistry.
8. To contrast the essential being of metaphysics with the quasi-qualitative being of physics, the quasi-quantitative being of chemistry, and the quasi-apparent being of metachemistry.
9. To contrast the apparent doing of metachemistry with the essential being of metaphysics, as one would contrast the most scientific with the most religious.
10. To contrast the quantitative giving of chemistry with the qualitative taking of physics, as one would contrast the most political with the most economic.
11. The fact that, in metachemistry, giving, taking and being are quasi-apparent does not preclude them from being pseudo-quantitative, pseudo-qualitative, and pseudo-essential, respectively, in relation to the genuinely apparent standing of metachemical doing.
12. The fact that, in chemistry, doing, taking and being are quasi-quantitative does not preclude them from being pseudo-apparent, pseudo-qualitative, and pseudo-essential, respectively, in relation to the genuinely quantitative standing of chemical giving.
13. The fact that, in physics, doing, giving and being are quasi-qualitative does not preclude them from being pseudo-apparent, pseudo-quantitative, and pseudo-essential, respectively, in relation to the genuinely qualitative standing of physical taking.
14. The fact that, in metaphysics, doing, giving and taking are quasi-essential does not preclude them from being pseudo-apparent, pseudo-quantitative, and pseudo-qualitative, respectively, in relation to the genuinely essential standing of metaphysical being.
15. Nothing can ever change the fact that fire is the apparent element par excellence, water the quantitative element par excellence, vegetation the qualitative element par excellence, and air the essential element par excellence, with respective correspondences to will, spirit, ego, and soul or, rather, in strictly elemental terms, to power, glory, form, and contentment.
16. For will, spirit, ego, and soul tend to be the organic manifestations of what, more basically, are power, glory, form, and contentment.
17. From the metachemical power of will in its per se manifestation to the metaphysical contentment of soul in its per se manifestation via the chemical glory of spirit in its per se manifestation and the physical form of ego in its per se manifestation.
18. From the metachemical power of first-rate will to the metachemical contentment of fourth-rate soul via the metachemical glory of second-rate spirit and the metachemical form of third-rate ego, all of which are either apparent or quasi-apparent in relation to a doing per se.
19. From the chemical power of second-rate will to the chemical contentment of third-rate soul via the chemical glory of first-rate spirit and the chemical form of fourth-rate ego, all of which are either quantitative or quasi-quantitative in relation to a giving per se.
20. From the physical power of third-rate will to the physical contentment of second-rate soul via the physical glory of fourth-rate spirit and the physical form of first-rate ego, all of which are either qualitative or quasi-qualitative in relation to a taking per se.
21. From the metaphysical power of fourth-rate will to the metaphysical contentment of first-rate soul via the metaphysical glory of third-rate spirit and the metaphysical form of second-rate ego, all of which are either essential or quasi-essential in relation to a being per se.
1. Is there such a thing as a goddess? Yes, I guess you could say that the metaphysical female is a goddess, because the metaphysical male is a god.
2. But she is not identical to the metaphysical male, who is transcendentalist. On the contrary, she is the nonconformist approach to metaphysics that follows from a chemical bias, and would, in the event of 'Kingdom Come' actually coming to pass, be eligible for metaphysics chemically, that is to say, through nasal recourse to cocaine or some such powdered drug that is sniffed (snorted).
3. For females, being fundamentally metachemical, cannot be expected to embrace metaphysics transcendentally, in proper metaphysical terms, nor should one take seriously any female who does - or appears to do so - but, rather, regard her as a liberal aberration and subversive intrusion into a realm reserved for gods, i.e. male metaphysicians, for whom respiratory sensibility would be properly metaphysical.
4. Thus the goddess does not meditate, at least not in terms of transcendental meditation, but, rather, contemplates such visionary experience as her chemical approach to metaphysics makes possible. She stands on the lowest rung of the top tier, so to speak, of the triadic Beyond, being metaphysically inferior to both the cogitator and the meditator, those humanist and transcendentalist approaches, on the male side of the gender divide, to metaphysics.
5. Thus we can distinguish contemplative goddesses from both cogitative gods and meditative gods, the latter of whom would be the per se manifestation of divinity within the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond.
6. Elsewhere, in the lower two tiers, there would be neither gods nor goddesses but only men and women, whether physical or chemical, in relation to volume and mass.
7. To save Catholic gods and goddesses up, from time to space, within time-space subjectivity, as from ears to lungs, and Anglican men and women up, from mass to volume, within mass-volume subjectivity, as from penis (or the flesh) to brain, but to damn Puritan men and women down, from volume to mass, within volume-mass objectivity, as from tongue to womb, thereby achieving sensibility in mass, volume, and space for all three tiers of the triadic Beyond.
8. Thus to save from sensuality or to damn to sensibility those who, at present, are avowedly more sensual than sensible in their overall religious stance as either Catholics (metaphysical) or Protestants (both physical and chemical).
9. For Catholic degeneration into metaphysical sensuality tends to parallel the Protestant adherence to both physical sensuality (Anglicans) and chemical sensuality (Puritans).
10. Either way, there is scope for movement into sensibility, whether up or down, such that the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come' would encourage, though only, of course, in response to a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, come 'Judgement', or a paradoxical election which embraced the possibility of religious sovereignty.
1. That which is negative and primal is also, by definition, malevolent, since it functions in relation to the inorganic on the basis of competition.
2. That which is positive and supreme is also, by definition, benevolent, since it functions in relation to the organic on the basis of co-operation.
3. Competition is both extrinsically (objective) and intrinsically (subjective) malevolent, since it works against the self from the standpoint of the antiself, which is the self that has been eclipsed by inorganic pressures to such an extent that it functions in relation to primacy.
4. Co-operation is both extrinsically (objective) and intrinsically (subjective) benevolent, since it works in harmony with the self (whichever self that may happen to be) from the standpoint of organic supremacy.
5. One can - and, I believe, should - distinguish the malevolence of primal metachemistry from the benevolence of supreme metachemistry, as one would distinguish ugliness and hatred from beauty and love in both primary and secondary contexts.
6. One can - and, I believe, should - distinguish the malevolence of primal chemistry from the benevolence of supreme chemistry, as one would distinguish weakness and humility from strength and pride in both primary and secondary contexts.
7. One can - and, I believe, should - distinguish the malevolence of primal physics from the benevolence of supreme physics, as one would distinguish ignorance and pain from knowledge and pleasure in both primary and secondary contexts.
8. One can - and, I believe, should - distinguish the malevolence of primal metaphysics from the benevolence of supreme metaphysics, as one would distinguish falsity and woe from truth and joy in both primary and secondary contexts.
9. Malevolence and benevolence are equally applicable to both sensuality and sensibility in all the above elemental contexts, since either can be 'once born' and outer or 'reborn' and inner.
10. Primacy is always malignant in its inorganic negativity, whether with regard to metachemical materialism, chemical realism, physical naturalism, or to metaphysical idealism.
11. Supremacy is always benign in its organic positivity, whether with regard to metachemical fundamentalism, chemical nonconformism, physical humanism, or to metaphysical transcendentalism.
12. The organic is benign to itself in relation to the positivity of co-operative supremacy, whereas the inorganic is malignant to the organic in relation to the negativity of its competitive primacy.
13. The inorganic is not malign to itself, for it has no self to be malign towards, but tends, as iron in the soul, to undermine the benignity of the organic.
14. That self which is benign towards itself tends, by extrapolation, to be benevolent towards others, whether directly, through extrinsic supremacy, or indirectly, through intrinsic supremacy.
15. That antiself, on the contrary, which is malign towards the self tends, by extrapolation, to be malevolent towards others, whether directly, through extrinsic primacy, or indirectly, through intrinsic primacy.
1. Most people would, in general terms, tend to identify primacy with evil and supremacy with good, but that is really an over-simplification of what is, in fact, a more comprehensive picture in which not simply evil and good, but folly and wisdom are also to be found, and found, be it remembered, as male complements, in subjectivity, to a female dichotomy between the aforementioned objective terms.
2. In reality, primacy is no more evil than supremacy is good. Primacy is simply malevolent in both the objective contexts of negative metachemical evil and chemical good, and the subjective contexts of negative physical folly and metaphysical wisdom.
3. Likewise supremacy is no more good than primacy is evil. Supremacy is simply benevolent in both the positive objective contexts of metachemical evil and chemical good, and the positive subjective contexts of physical folly and metaphysical wisdom.
4. Thus there is negative evil (malevolent) and positive evil (benevolent), negative good and positive good, negative folly and positive folly, and negative wisdom and positive wisdom, with the negative options ever attaching to primacy and the positive options to supremacy.
5. The principal differentiating factor between primacy and supremacy is therefore not evil and good, still less folly and wisdom, but negativity and positivity, either of which can be evil (metachemical) or good (chemical), not to mention foolish (physical) or wise (metaphysical) in relation to competitive malevolence or co-operative benevolence, depending on the context.
6. Thus we arrive at the seemingly paradoxical but in actuality logically incontrovertible conclusion that evil can be malevolent or benevolent, apparent in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the will does, and the metachemical will most especially.
7. Likewise we arrive at the conclusion that good can be malevolent or benevolent, quantitative in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the spirit gives, and the chemical spirit most especially.
8. Similarly we arrive at the conclusion that folly can be malevolent or benevolent, qualitative in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the ego takes, and the physical ego most especially.
9. Finally we arrive at the conclusion that wisdom can be malevolent or benevolent, essential in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the soul is, and the metaphysical soul most especially
10. It should not be forgotten, however, that the doing of will is always evil, whether in the per se context of metachemistry or in the pseudo-evil contexts of chemistry (quasi-good), physics (quasi-foolish), or metaphysics (quasi-wise).
11. Nor should it be forgotten that the giving of spirit is always good, whether in the per se context of chemistry or in the pseudo-good contexts of metachemistry (quasi-evil), metaphysics (quasi-wise), or physics (quasi-foolish).
12. Similarly the taking of ego is always foolish, whether in the per se context of physics or in the pseudo-foolish contexts of metaphysics (quasi-wise), metachemistry (quasi-evil), or chemistry (quasi-good).
13. Likewise the being of soul is always wise, whether in the per se context of metaphysics or in the pseudo-wise contexts of physics (quasi-foolish), chemistry (quasi-good), or metachemistry (quasi-evil).
14. Thus whereas the doing of evil is always apparent (genuine) or pseudo-apparent (non-metachemical 'bovaryizations' of will), the giving of good is always quantitative (genuine) or pseudo-quantitative (non-chemical 'bovarizations' of spirit).
15. Thus whereas the taking of folly is always qualitative (genuine) or pseudo-qualitative (non-physical 'bovaryizations' of ego), the being of wisdom is always essential (genuine) or pseudo-essential (non-metaphysical 'bovaryizations' of soul).
1. Just as the metachemical person, a devil, is primarily a doer and the chemical person, a woman, primarily a giver, so the physical person, a man, is primarily a taker and the metaphysical person, a god, primarily a be-er.
2. The apparent nature (unnature) of doing contrasts with the essential nature (subnature) of being, no less than the quantitative nature (supernature) of giving contrasts with the qualitative nature (nature per se) of taking.
3. What applies to Nature in general is also applicable to its Antinatural antagonist, wherein doing is less fundamentalist than materialist, giving is less nonconformist than realist, taking less humanist than naturalist, and being less transcendentalist than idealist.
4. Materialism could also be described as anti-fundamentalism, realism as anti-nonconformism, naturalism as anti-humanism, and idealism as anti-transcendentalism, since the Antinatural is everywhere contrary to the Natural in its inorganic, and therefore primal, constitution.
5. People will think it odd that I have described naturalism and idealism as antinatural, but, in actuality, the Naturalist and the Idealist are as much antinatural, in the inorganic sense implied, as the Materialist and the Realist, since they subscribe to conditions which owe more to primacy than to supremacy, whether in the noumenal contexts of cosmic malevolence (materialist and idealist) or in the phenomenal contexts of geologic malevolence (realist and naturalist).
6. In this respect naturalism is not to be confounded or equated with Nature, meaning the generality of organic options, but applies solely to a physical manifestation of the Antinatural which has an inorganic as opposed to an organic correlation.
7. Nature in general terms is of course organic, but it is organic on the basis of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism, with humanism being its physical manifestation and therefore that which organically parallels naturalism.
8. Life struggles away from naturalism in plant, animal, and especially human terms, but naturalism itself remains rooted in the core of the earth, which is inorganic in its geologic formations.
9. Like idealism, its fellow subjective mode of primacy, naturalism is more competitive, and hence malevolent, than co-operative, if on a phenomenal rather than a noumenal basis.
10. If idealism equates with antibeing and naturalism with antitaking, then materialism equates with antidoing and realism with antigiving, the negative modes of being, taking, doing, and giving.
11. Whereas materialism is rooted in the antiwill and realism in the antispirit, naturalism is rooted or, rather, centred in the anti-ego and idealism in the antisoul.
12. Hence the negative modes of metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics, to which we have given the names of materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism.
13. Primacy, based in the inorganic, makes malevolent competitors out of people who were organically intended to be benevolently co-operative, turning the self against itself, and thus against other selves, in what has been described as the antiself.
14. Not simply a doing devil of beauty and love, a giving woman of strength and pride, a taking man of knowledge and pleasure, or a being god of truth and joy, but an antidoing antidevil of ugliness and hatred, an antigiving antiwoman of weakness and humility, an antitaking antiman of ignorance and pain, or an antibeing antigod of falsity and woe.
15. Which is to say, not simply a Fundamentalist, a Nonconformist, a Humanist, or a Transcendentalist, but a Materialist, a Realist, a Naturalist, or an Idealist, all the latter of whom take their cue from inorganic primacy and live the death-life, the life-killing death of competitive malevolence.
16. Truly, if 'the dead' are to be resurrected, much will have to be done to overcome primacy and institute a new and superior order of supremacy ... as germane to 'Kingdom Come', that people may live to the maximum of their respective organic capacities. Then and only then will co-operative benevolence become the rule!
1. The competitive 'nature' of Antinature is such that competition obtains on every basis, from the noumenal objectivity of metachemical anti-unnature to the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical anti-subnature via the phenomenal objectivity of chemical anti-supernature and the phenomenal subjectivity of physical antinature.
2. Thus competition is the inorganic norm, or organic abnormality, from the space-time devolution of materialism to the time-space evolution of idealism via the volume-mass devolution of realism and the mass-volume evolution of naturalism.
3. Contrariwise, the co-operative 'nature' of Nature is such that co-operation obtains on every basis, from the noumenal objectivity of metachemical unnature to the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical subnature via the phenomenal objectivity of chemical supernature and the phenomenal subjectivity of physical nature.
4. Thus co-operation is the organic norm from the space-time devolution of fundamentalism to the time-space evolution of transcendentalism via the volume-mass devolution of nonconformism and the mass-volume evolution of humanism.
5. No more than we can categorically maintain that primacy is evil and supremacy good, can it be maintained that competition is evil and co-operation good. Good and evil are not applicable except in relation to the metachemical and chemical modes of competition and co-operation, where we can distinguish competitive evil and good from co-operative evil and good, and further distinguish each of these objective orders of competition and co-operation from their subjective counterparts, which have less to do with evil and good than with folly and wisdom, whether negatively, as in the case of primacy, or positively, as in the case of supremacy.
6. Hence even where organic supremacy is concerned, we need to distinguish co-operative evil from good, and each of these from the co-operative modes of folly and wisdom.
7. Thus one will avoid the error of assuming that because competition is malevolent and co-operation benevolent, all competition is evil and all co-operation good. There is evil malevolence (anti-unnatural) and good malevolence (anti-supernatural), evil benevolence (unnatural) and good benevolence (supernatural).
8. There is also, on the other (subjective and male) side of the gender fence, foolish malevolence (antinatural) and wise malevolence (anti-subnatural), foolish benevolence (natural) and wise benevolence (subnatural).
9. Of course, it is better to be good than evil in both malevolent and benevolent, primal and supreme contexts, just as it is better to be wise than foolish in both malevolent and benevolent contexts, since whereas in the former case goodness is a rejection of evil, in the latter case wisdom is a rejection or, more correctly, a transcendence of folly.
10. Yet it is still better to be benevolent than malevolent, and thus organically co-operative rather than inorganically competitive, whether or not one is co-operative on evil, good, foolish, or wise terms.
11. Certainly it is better to be chemically co-operative than metachemically co-operative, organically good than organically evil, just as it is better to be metaphysically co-operative than physically co-operative, organically wise than organically foolish.
12. But these distinctions are still subject to innate factors of class and gender to such an extent that there will always be people whose principal lifestyle is evil rather than good or foolish rather than wise, whether in relation to competition or to co-operation.
13. Drawing logical distinctions in philosophy is not the same as expecting people to rigorously adhere to them. I know what is logically best in a given situation, but I would not make the mistake of advising everyone to adopt such a position. On the contrary, good and folly will always be for the mass/volume Many, evil and wisdom for the time/space Few - albeit, in each case, for antithetical types of Many and Few.
14. But even with such distinctions, it is still the case that primacy will exist at the expense of supremacy in those individuals or societies which have 'gone to the dogs' of materialism (negative evil), realism (negative good), naturalism (negative folly), and idealism (negative wisdom), thereby indulging in competitive malevolence within a broadly Antinatural (inorganic) framework.
1. To contrast the individualism of the Few with the collectivism of the Many, as one would contrast the noumenal with the phenomenal, the abstract, or non-representational, with the concrete, or representational, whether in terms of metachemistry vis-à-vis chemistry or of metaphysics vis-à-vis physics.
2. The individualism of the metachemical Few is always apparent, since based in an elemental-particle equation, with especial reference to photons in sensuality and to photinos in sensibility.
3. The collectivism of the chemical Many is always quantitative, since based in a molecular-particle equation, with especial reference to electrons in sensuality and to electrinos in sensibility.
4. The collectivism of the physical Many is always qualitative, since centred in a molecular-wavicle equation, with especial reference to neutrons in sensuality and to neutrinos in sensibility.
5. The individualism of the metaphysical Few is always essential, since centred in an elemental-wavicle equation, with especial reference to protons in sensuality and to protinos in sensibility.
6. Thus individualism can be evil or wise, metachemical or metaphysical, of a scientific persuasion in the noumenal objectivity of space-time devolution or of a religious persuasion in the noumenal subjectivity of time-space evolution.
7. Thus collectivism can be good or foolish, chemical or physical, of a political persuasion in the phenomenal objectivity of volume-mass devolution or of an economic persuasion in the phenomenal subjectivity of mass-volume evolution.
8. Both the objective modes of individualism (metachemical) and collectivism (chemical) are female, having reference to the primary side of life, whereas both the subjective modes of individualism (metaphysical) and collectivism (physical) are male, having reference to the secondary side of life.
9. Hence female-biased societies will be characterised by either evil individualism or good collectivism, if not a combination, to varying extents, of both.
10. Hence male-biased societies will be characterised by either wise individualism or foolish collectivism, if not a combination, to varying extents, of both.
11. This applies as much to primal contexts as to supreme ones, since both individualism and collectivism can be inorganic or organic, and thus either competitively malevolent or co-operatively benevolent.
12. In a society led by wisdom rather than ruled by evil, the individualism of gods will take precedence over the collectivism of both men and women, who will be less vulnerable to the individualism of devils than would otherwise be the case
13. A society led by religion rather than ruled by science would be one in which godly truth had superseded manly knowledge and delivered both men and women (given to strength) from the domination of beauty - thereby extending essence at the expense of appearance.
14. The primal or inorganic equivalent of such a supreme society would be one in which antigodly falsity had superseded antimanly ignorance and delivered both antimen and antiwomen (given to weakness) from the domination of ugliness - thereby extending anti-essence at the expense of anti-appearance.
15. I do not advocate such a society but one, on the contrary, in which organic factors are hegemonic, and truth can accordingly lead knowledge and strength away from the truth-excluding or, at any rate, belittling rule of beauty, whereof scientific appearances are sovereign.
16. Obviously the kind of organic society that I
advocate in relation to 'Kingdom Come' can only come to pass in those
within the British Isles which are not so far gone in primacy as to be
incapable of taking supremacy seriously.
I allude, in particular, to
17. It was with these countries in mind that I first conceived the notion of a Gaelic Federation presided over by a 'God-King', a Second-Coming equivalence and Messianic Redeemer who would deliver such peoples from worldly sin and/or punishment, were they to vote on a majority basis for religious sovereignty and the rights that would accrue to such an ultimate sovereignty in relation to the triadic Beyond.
18. It is for the peoples of these countries to judge for themselves whether or not they would be better off, culturally and morally speaking, in 'Kingdom Come' than in the worldly societies in which, whether as parliamentarians or republicans, Protestants or Catholics, unionists or nationalists, they currently exist, to the detriment, more often than not, of their souls.
19. I also happen to believe that a united Ireland could come to pass within the framework of a Gaelic Federation, since there would be a new basis for compromise between unionists and nationalists which ensured that both sides got what they deserved, providing they were prepared to break with tradition, both political and, above all, religious.
20. I bring the judgement, but it is for others to judge me and determine whether or not they wish to be delivered from sensuality to sensibility within the triadic structures of 'Kingdom Come', and achieve salvation or damnation according to their gender-oriented deserts.
1. Few things are more paradoxical but nonetheless incontrovertible than the co-existence, within any given individual or type of society, of a predominant sensuality with a subordinate sensibility or, conversely, of a predominant sensibility with a subordinate sensuality.
2. Let me attempt to clarify. There are, be it remembered, four planes, viz. the plane of mass, volume, time, and space, with the planes of mass and volume standing in an inferior position to those of time and space, pretty much as phenomenal to noumenal, lower class to upper class.
3. Movement between planes tends to be diagonally up or down, depending on the gender, from phenomenal to phenomenal, as from mass to volume or volume to mass, or from noumenal to noumenal, as from time to space or space to time.
4. Let us therefore distinguish the upper-class diagonal descent from space to time from the upper-class diagonal ascent from time to space, as one would distinguish the noumenal objectivity of metachemical absolutism, corresponding to fiery abstractionism, from the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical absolutism, corresponding to airy abstractionism, and further distinguish the lower-class diagonal descent from volume to mass from the lower-class diagonal ascent from mass to volume, as one would distinguish the phenomenal objectivity of chemical relativity, corresponding to watery concretism, from the phenomenal subjectivity of physical relativity, corresponding to vegetative concretism.
5. Thus a distinction, in gender terms, between the noumenal descent of metachemical absolutism from spatial space to repetitive time, as in organic terms from eyes to heart, and the noumenal ascent of metaphysical absolutism from sequential time to spaced space, as from ears to lungs, with a further distinction 'down below' between the phenomenal descent of chemical relativity from volumetric volume to massed mass, as in organic terms from tongue to womb, and the phenomenal ascent of physical relativity from massive mass to voluminous volume, as from penis (focus of the flesh) to brain.
6. None of this is new to my philosophy, so the reader (if there is one) should have no difficulty in recognising well-trodden paths of logical direction, being mindful of the fact that fire and water, corresponding to the metachemical and the chemical, are 'female' elements in their diagonal descent from sensuality to sensibility, whereas vegetation (earth, more conventionally) and air, corresponding to the physical and the metaphysical, are 'male' elements in their diagonal ascent from sensuality to sensibility.
7. What is new is this: that a predominant phenomenal sensuality tends to co-exist in people with a subordinate noumenal sensibility, and vice versa, while a predominant phenomenal sensibility tends to co-exist with a subordinate noumenal sensuality, and vice versa.
8. In other words, there is a kind of 'shadow' to the prevailing sensuality or sensibility, whether phenomenal or noumenal, which is the paradoxical corollary of that sensuality's or sensibility's prominent status, and this 'shadow' is always sensual when the predominant factor is sensible and, conversely, sensible when the predominant factor is sensual.
9. Thus a predominant sensuality in volumetric volume, which is chemical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensibility in repetitive time, which is metachemical, as in the case of those lower-class people - typically blessed women - whose principal not-self, the tongue, tends to encourage an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise of the heart, while, conversely, a predominant sensibility in repetitive time will co-exist with a subordinate sensuality in volumetric volume, as in the case of those upper-class people - typically damned devils - whose principal not-self, the heart, tends to encourage a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of the tongue.
10. Thus a predominant sensibility in voluminous volume, which is physical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensuality in sequential time, which is metaphysical, as in the case of those lower-class people - typically saved men - whose principal not-self, the brain, tends to encourage an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise of the ears, while, conversely, a predominant sensuality in sequential time will co-exist with a subordinate sensibility in voluminous volume, as in the case of those upper-class people - typically cursed gods - whose principal not-self, the ears, tends to encourage a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of the brain.
11. Having dealt with the two intermediate planes, the planes of volume and time, let us now turn to the top and bottom planes - the planes, namely, of mass and space - and see how this paradox of 'shadow' noumenal to predominant phenomenal or, conversely, of 'shadow' phenomenal to predominant noumenal works out there.
12. Clearly a predominant sensuality in massive mass, which is physical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensibility in spaced space, which is metaphysical, as in the case of those lower-class people - typically cursed men - whose principal not-self, the penis, tends to encourage an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise of the lungs, while, conversely, a predominant sensibility in spaced space will co-exist with a subordinate sensuality in massive mass, as in the case of those upper-class people - typically saved gods - whose principal not-self, the lungs, tends to encourage a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of the penis.
13. Likewise a predominant sensibility in massed mass, which is chemical, will co-exist with a subordinate sensuality in spatial space, which is metachemical, as in the case of those lower-class people - typically damned women - whose principal not-self, the womb, tends to encourage an upper-class 'shadow' in the guise of the eyes, while, conversely, a predominant sensuality in spatial space will co-exist with a subordinate sensibility in massed mass, as in the case of those upper-class people - typically blessed devils - whose principal not-self, the eyes, tends to encourage a lower-class 'shadow' in the guise of the womb.
14. Thus just as the lower-class person, given to a phenomenal mean, tends to have his/her upper-class 'shadow', sensible if sensual or sensual if sensible, within the parameters of his/her gender bias, so the upper-class person, given to a noumenal mean, tends to have his/her lower-class 'shadow', sensual if sensible or sensible if sensual, within those same gender-oriented parameters.
15. The sensual woman gets to be a sensible devil and the sensible devil a sensual woman on a subordinate basis, while the sensual man gets to be a sensible god and the sensible god a sensual man on a subordinate basis.
16. Conversely, the sensible woman gets to be a sensual devil and the sensual devil a sensible woman on a subordinate basis, while the sensible man gets to be a sensual god and the sensual god a sensible man on a subordinate basis.
17. Such are the sensual/sensible paradoxes of life, whether in the individual or in particular types of society, and it just goes to prove that one is never wholly one thing or another, neither in phenomenal and lower-class terms, nor in noumenal and upper-class terms, but a paradoxical alternation between mean and 'shadow'.
18. Were all men equal there would not be a distinction, often socially institutionalized, between sensuality and sensibility, as between, say, phallic Heathens and cerebral Christians (Catholics), and what applies to men in the vegetative context of mass-volume physics applies no less to women in the watery context of volume-mass chemistry, where the distinction between sensuality and sensibility is rather more of the tongue and the womb than of the penis and the brain.
19. Were all gods equal there would not be a distinction, often socially institutionalized, between sensuality and sensibility, as between, say, aural Judaists and respiratory Buddhists, and what applies to gods in the airy context of time-space metaphysics applies no less to devils in the fiery context of space-time metachemistry, where the distinction between sensuality and sensibility is rather more of the eyes and the heart than of the ears and the lungs.
20. None of this precludes the possibility, for males, of salvation from sensuality to sensibility or, in the case of females, of damnation from sensuality to sensibility on either a phenomenal or a noumenal basis, depending on their class, though it is still incontrovertibly the case that 'shadows' will persist in existing on a sensual basis where sensibility is the mean and that, notwithstanding this, there are still people and even, in some sense, peoples for whom sensuality must be accounted the predominant mean and sensibility the subordinate 'shadow'.
LONDON 2000 (Revised 2001-10)