Op. 79






Cyclic Philosophy


Copyright 2011 John O'Loughlin





1. Cause and Effect

2. A Transvaluated Overall Picture

3. Returning to Meaning

4. Progressive/Regressive Partnerships

5. The End of History

6. The Extremes of Self-cultivation

7. Paradigmatic Triplicities

8. Mean and Shadow

9. Some Technological Parallels

10. Tramp and Bum

11. The Justice of Judgement

12. Justice to the People

13. Contrary Fates of Rising and Falling

14. Blessed and Cursed vis--vis Saved and Damned

15. Contrasting Rates of Elemental Affinities

16. The Reality of Right and Wrong

17. Common and Uncommon in Sensuality and Sensibility

18. As in the Beginning ...

19. The Moral Desirability of Culture and Civility

20. The Totality of Nature





1.   Insecurity is a symptom of insanity, a confirmation, as it were, of what it means to be insane.  And being insane has a lot to do with what, in previous texts, I have described as the negativity of inorganic primacy ... as against the positivity of organic supremacy, and is therefore due, in no small measure, to the undue prevalence, on the metachemical level, of materialism at the expense of fundamentalism; on the chemical level, of realism at the expense of nonconformism; on the physical level, of naturalism at the expense of humanism; and on the metaphysical level, of idealism at the expense of transcendentalism.


2.   Thus there would seem to be a distinction, at one elemental level or another, between the sanity of adherence to organic supremacy and the insanity of adherence to inorganic primacy, a distinction which puts fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism on the side of sanity, but materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism on the side of insanity, with corresponding distinctions between confidence in relation to the one, and insecurity in relation to the other.


3.   Insecurity is an all-too-prevalent aspect of modern life, of life lived not in relation to organic supremacy - at least not to any appreciable extent - but increasingly in response to negative pressures arising from the prevalence of inorganic primacy, whether in relation to materialism, realism, naturalism, or idealism.


4.   People have never felt more insecure; for, due to inorganic pressures, they are not able to live in harmony with the self, whichever type of self (from metachemical and chemical to physical and metaphysical) that may happen to be, but are at loggerheads with it in what amounts to a kind of antiself which is akin, speaking in Sartrean terms, to 'iron in the soul'.


5.   Religion teaches the wisdom of living in harmony with self, but science too often practises a doctrine of self-division, of self-escapism through anti-selfhood in response to contemporary materialistic or realistic or naturalistic or idealistic pressures, depending on the element, viz. fire, water, vegetation (earth), or air.  Hence whereas religion, when genuine, fosters self-confidence, science undermines the self through the pressures which inorganic primacy bring to bear on selfhood, turning one against oneself or, rather, one's self in a spirit which is less selfless than self-corrupted.   And this breeds insecurity, which is due in no small measure to the insanity of being twisted against the self in such an inorganic manner.


6.   Instead of being confident in relation to one's self, whichever type of self that may happen to be (and certainly one may, as a physical type, be more economic than religious or, as a chemical type, be more political than scientific), people demonstrate a lack of self-confidence in the insecurity which constantly surrounds them because they are obliged, by technological developments, to learn new techniques or upgrade their existing skills or expand their range of employment commitments beyond anything they had known in the past.  They do not have time to cultivate self-confidence because they are too busy learning how to manipulate and exploit the various machines with which they are called upon to earn a living, and the result, all too much of the time, is an insecure individual whose insecurity in the face of new technological challenges is commensurate with the extent to which such manifestations of inorganic primacy have driven him mad.


7.   In short, contemporary urban/industrial civilization is responsible, in no small measure, for fostering a race of insecure individuals whose insecurity is commensurate with the extent of their madness in the clutches of inorganic primacy.  The more they are subject to the sway of inorganic pressures the madder they become and the further removed, in consequence, from that calm self-assurance which is the product of living harmoniously with the self in relation to organic supremacy.  Contemporary civilization drives them mad and, short of opting out of it altogether, there would seem to be little or nothing they can do to reverse the trend of modern life towards increased insecurity.  Physically they may be secure, but mentally and psychically they are all too often a bundle of nerves on the verge of a mental breakdown.  For that is inevitably the consequence of what it means to be at loggerheads with the self in such an inorganic fashion.


8.   Short of doing away with the root causes of modern insecurity, there would seem to be little that the individual can do to return to a more self-confident lifestyle other than to completely drop out of contemporary society, with its urban and industrial/technological madness.  But that may appear a rather drastic solution, and the problem can be solved by the individual on a more personal and practical level, if only he takes the trouble to reduce his commitments to inorganic primacy and step up his commitments to organic supremacy, thereby having less to do with machine technology and more time, in consequence, for self-cultivation, whether in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or metaphysics, depending on the type of person.


9.   Only thus can the crippling effects of self-division be overcome, as one establishes a closer relationship with one's self than would otherwise be possible.  And in that lies the key not only to confidence but also to sanity, the bedrock of such confidence.  For confidence is as much the effect of sanity, as insanity is the cause of insecurity.  An organic cause will give rise to an organic effect, the secure self that is in harmony with itself and not twisted against itself by inorganic pressures stemming from an over-artificial civilization languishing in the grip of inorganic primacy.





1.   At one time the self counted for more than the not-self and selflessness.  Then the not-self and selflessness came to displace the self or, rather, to co-exist with an egocentric transmutation of self.  It remains to be seen whether, in future, the not-self and selflessness are displaced by the self, albeit in terms of a self which owes more to the omega of things than ever it does to the alpha.


2.   That is just the point!  At one time the self was alpha-stemming and absolutist on an instinctive basis which one can equate with the id, the most basic manifestation of self.  Then the world intervened and such a self found itself eclipsed by the not-self and selflessness on a variety of levels, from metachemical and chemical to physical and metaphysical.  Only a relativistic self, which is called the ego, could co-exist, whether primarily or secondarily, with such a worldly mean.


  3. But if the world is to be overcome, then the self will once again have to come back on the agenda, only on the most antithetically conceivable terms to how it began - namely on the omega-oriented and absolutist basis of the soul, which is the self conceived in relation to essence ... as that which remains when all else has passed away.


4.   One might say that, in general terms, life devolves from the alpha ... of the id-self to the world ... of the not-self and selflessness in co-existence with the ego-self, and then evolves from the latter to the omega ... of the soul-self, which is as much beyond the world as the id-self was before or behind it.


5.   At least that is how I would normally have thought of the overall picture; although I can see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to reverse the above and speak of life evolving from the alpha ... of the id-self to the world ... of the not-self and selflessness in co-existence with the ego-self, and then devolving from the latter to the omega ... of the soul-self, so that the return to self is conceived in terms of devolution from the world rather than of evolution beyond it.


6.   Thus an evolutionary divergence from id-self to not-self and selflessness, and a devolutionary convergence from not-self and selflessness to soul-self via ego-self.  To evolve away from the self and to devolve back to it again, albeit on the most antithetical terms conceivable.


7.   For evolution surely presupposes the evolving of not-self and selflessness at the expense of the self, which is the world replacing the alpha paradise, call it 'Garden of Eden' or whatever, while devolution surely presupposes the devolving from the not-self and selflessness to the self, which is the omega paradise, call it post-Human Millennium or whatever, replacing the world, with its egocentric relativity.


8.   Hence evolution from the id-based alpha paradise to the world, and devolution from the egocentric world, with its various orders of will and spirit, to the soul-centred omega paradise - self in the Beginning and in the End, albeit on the most antithetical conceivable terms.


9.   Such is how I now view the overall picture of life, especially human life, on this planet, and it is one which suggests that worldly life is but a passing parade that must one day give way to the otherworldly life which puts the focus back on the self at the expense of all that, in contemporary life, alienates one from selfhood, especially the inner-most selfhood which is commensurate with the soul.





1.   Human life requires meaning if it is to progress and not simply stagnate in a swamp of moral decay.  For without meaning it becomes reduced to a matter of mere survival, and survival too easily revolves around propagation, and hence sex.


2.   Perhaps things are not quite as bad as that these days, but it was not so long ago that sex and, via sex, propagation was the virtual be-all-and-end-all of things, as people lived not in relation to something beyond and greater than themselves, but merely in relation to physical survival in a meaningless universe.


3.   Such, at any rate, was the negative doctrine under which so many of them lived, and it is small wonder, in consequence, that sex became so all-important, and eternity (to the extent that the term figured at all) was reduced to generative persistence through propagation.


4.   Such must continue to remain the fate of those who refuse to attribute meaning to life or who, blinded by intellectual mentors of an Existentialist or a Nihilistic persuasion, find it undesirable to do so.  For so long as life is regarded as meaningless, it ceases to have any value beyond sexual reproduction.  But as soon as you introduce meaning into life, it becomes an experiment in self-transcendence in which the world is but a passing parade and life - human life in particular - an ongoing voyage of self-discovery.


5.   Meaninglessness hails from a vacuum and is accordingly of female persuasion.  Meaningfulness, on the contrary, stems from a plenum and is accordingly of male persuasion.  An age or society that champions or recognizes the pre-eminence of meaninglessness will be dominated by female criteria in typically 'free' vein.  One that recognizes the pre-eminence of meaningfulness, on the other hand, will be led by male criteria in typically 'bound' vein.  The former will be 'open', the latter 'closed'.  The one will be secular and ... left wing, the other religious and ... right wing.


6.   The twentieth century was, by and large, an age of meaninglessness.  It remains to be seen whether the twenty-first century can officially embrace meaningfulness in one or a number of countries and move beyond 'freedom' into a higher order of binding than that which obtained during the more authentically Christian centuries of, for example, Western civilization.


7.   Only binding or loyalty through faith to a 'higher way', a new meaning for life or interpretation of life, can deliver man from the vacuous freedoms which continue to reduce life, in typically meaningless vein, to survival, both physical and sexual.  But only where man has the courage to be 'true' to himself, or his gender, and stand up for that which stems from a plenum and gives meaning to his existence ... can a new meaningfulness, a new doctrine of progressive life, come to pass.  Man needs the courage to be loyal to himself if he is to have the will to subscribe to this new doctrine and the confidence to advance it.


8.   And what is this new doctrine?  Precisely that life, if it is to have meaning, real purposeful meaning, must depart the worldly rule of the not-self and selflessness and return more absolutely to self conceived in terms of the soul.  Only thus will redemption of the ego come to pass, especially of the metaphysical ego, and life become orientated towards a final paradise which owes nothing to the so-called Edenic paradise from which mankind expelled themselves during the course of their evolution towards the world.


9.   Thus because the world increasingly manifests itself as a context of 'freedom', of meaningless survival in relation to not-self and selflessness, it is fitting that the world should be rejected by those men who are capable of being 'true' to themselves, in order that progress can be made in climbing beyond it towards the heights of that paradise where binding to self is of the very essence of meaning, and nothing more meaningful could ever be envisaged.


10.  For it is only with regard to binding to self at the expense of freedom from self or, rather, of freedom for not-self and selflessness that the world, conceived in relation to the dominance of, in particular, the female, or objective, manifestations of these latter entities, can be overcome, to be replaced by a society in which otherworldly criteria of a truly paradisiacal order become paramount.  Such is the meaning of 'Kingdom Come', which will be a kingdom beyond the world rather than either of or before it.





1.   To distinguish between progressive evolution from the id-self to the not-self and selflessness and regressive evolution from the not-self and selflessness to the soul-self, as between that which leads from the alpha paradise to the world, including the ego-self, and that which leads from the latter to the omega paradise in relation to natural/synthetic orders of not-self and selflessness.


2.   To distinguish between regressive devolution from the not-self and selflessness to the id-self and progressive devolution from the not-self and selflessness to the soul-self, as between that which leads away from the world, including the ego-self, to the alpha paradise and that which leads away from the world to the omega paradise in relation to natural/synthetic orders of self.


3.   Hence to further distinguish, on the one hand, between progressive evolution and regressive devolution, as between the development of not-self and selflessness at the expense of the id-self and the rejection of not-self and selflessness in favour of the id-self.


4.   Hence to further distinguish, on the other hand, between regressive evolution and progressive devolution, as between the rejection of not-self and selflessness in relation to naturalistic criteria and the development of the soul-self.


5.   That which progresses and regresses in relation to naturalistic criteria does so both from the alpha paradise to the world and from the world to the alpha paradise, whereas that which progresses and regresses in relation to synthetic criteria does so only from the world to the omega paradise, not from the omega paradise to the world.


6.   Regressive evolution from the world is designed, in its synthetic transmutation of naturalistic criteria in relation to the not-self and selflessness, to serve progressive devolution from the ego-self to the soul-self.


7.   Regressive devolution from the world has the effect, in rejecting the not-self and selflessness from the standpoint of the id-self, of countering progressive evolution from the id-self to the ego-self.


8.   Thus whereas regressive evolution from the world would manifest in the synthetic transmutation of not-self and selflessness in the interests of the soul-self, regressive devolution from the world manifests in the rejection of not-self and selflessness in the interests of the id-self.


9.   That which returns us to 'the Garden', viz. the alpha paradise, is a very different proposition from that which would advance us towards the post-Human Millennium, viz. the omega paradise.  The former operates within naturalistic criteria and the rejection of artificiality, the latter in relation to synthetic criteria that are designed to operate in harmony with the self, and are not therefore at artificial variance with it.


10.  It is in relation to regressive evolution/progressive devolution that one should view Social Transcendentalism, the religious basis (so far as I am concerned) of 'Kingdom Come', which is therefore antithetical to all forms of neo-primitivism, including fascism, but is not on that account communist, i.e. worldly on a socialist/proletarian basis, and hence no more than a more exclusively democratic attenuation of the world.  Social Transcendentalism has nothing less than world-overcoming as its raison d'tre, for it is that which leads beyond the world to the omega paradise of 'Kingdom Come'.


11.  It fully accepts, however, that such world-overcoming as would lead to a new order of society in which, for example, religious sovereignty was the norm can only be achieved by using the means of the world, viz. democracy, to advance beyond the world, so that the final decision as to whether the world is overcome in relation to the development of 'Kingdom Come' rests with the People, the electorate, themselves, and is not and never could be something imposed upon them from above.


12.  For the People must demonstrate a willingness to entertain salvation from the world to the otherworldly context of 'Kingdom Come' if the latter is authentically and legally to come to pass, and to come to pass in relation to a specific politico-religious structure which has been named Social Transcendentalism and which appeals, initially, to peoples of Gaelic descent living first and foremost in Ireland (North and South), but also, in the longer term, in countries like Scotland and Wales, not to mention islands like the Isle of Man, so that the end-result would be a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in which not political sovereignty but religious sovereignty was the appropriate mode of sovereignty for peoples who had democratically elected - in judgmental vein - to be delivered from the world, with its sins and/or punishments, to the omega paradise in its inceptive manifestation.





1.   A people who had democratically opted to advance beyond the world to the inceptive manifestation of the omega paradise, viz. 'Kingdom Come' conceived in terms of a federal structure in which political sovereignty had devolved upon a 'God-King' in return for the religious sovereignty that his truth alone had made possible ... would, under Social Transcendentalism, have effectively passed beyond history, since where Eternity takes over from the temporal comings and goings of the world there must necessarily be an end to history, which is of the world.


2.   Hence 'Kingdom Come' will be beyond history in the sense that its structure is commensurate with Eternity for mass, volume, and space, the three planes of what, in previous texts, I have described as the triadic Beyond.  Should 'Kingdom Come' initially manifest, as I would like, in a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, then those countries would have passed out of the becoming of worldly history and into the being of otherworldly eternity, even if still subject to the sway or influence of history from, in particular, countries still very much a part, for the foreseeable future, of the world.


3.   The important thing to grasp is that history effectively ends with Eternity, with the coming to pass of 'Kingdom Come', since history is a reflection of the world, and once the world has been democratically and peaceably overcome, then the return to self in terms of soul is as much posterior to history as adherence to the primitive id-self was anterior to it.  So until 'Kingdom Come', there can be no end to history but, rather, the perpetuation of history in conventional, and even unconventional, terms.


4.   Both the alpha paradise of adherence to the id-self and the (coming) omega paradise of adherence to the soul-self are outside of history, or the record of worldly unfolding.  For the very nature of paradise is its timelessness in relation to an absolutist identity with the self, and whether that paradise be apparent (and instinctual) or essential (and soulful), it will be eternally independent of worldly becoming.


5.   If mankind 'fell' from paradise, it was in terms of an evolutionary progression from the id-self towards the not-self and selflessness of the egocentric world.  If, in the future, mankind (or a certain section of it initially) returns to paradise, it will be in terms of a devolutionary progression from the world towards the soul-self, which we may term a 'rise' and equate, in consequence, with the resurrection of the worldly 'dead' to the Life Eternal.


6.   In reality the worldly 'dead' are either subject to the life-in-death of purgatorial punishment or the death-in-life of earthly sin, broadly identifiable with the distinction between Protestants and Catholics, especially with regard to the ethnic divisions of Ireland, but, either way, they can be saved from their respective worldly fates to the otherworldly Beyond ... of 'Kingdom Come', wherein history has no meaning.


7.   That man who is saved from the history of worldly becoming passes into the eternity of otherworldly being, and for him the only thing that really matters is self-realization and, ultimately, self-transcendence.


8.   For to transcend one's self one must first of all know one's self, to know oneself as either chemical (and feminine), physical (and masculine) or metaphysical (and divine), so that one knows what kind of self it is that has to be transcended, and how.


9.   Knowing oneself is thus not only a precondition of transcending one's self, but a precondition of knowing whether one's mode of self-transcendence will be in giving (and feminine), taking (and masculine), or being (and divine), and accordingly germane to the bottom tier of mass, the middle tier of volume, or the top tier of space within the otherworldly context of the triadic Beyond.


10.  By and large people of Puritan background would be in the bottom tier, people of Anglican background in the middle tier, and people of Roman Catholic background in the top tier, even though each tier would be subsectioned on a three-way basis in relation to disparate manifestations of nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism, according to the overall dictates of the elemental context.


11.  All tiers, however, would be of eternity in their deliverance from worldly temporality, and hence history.  For mass, volume, and space are not of time but independent of time, especially in the sensible manifestations of mass, viz. massed; volume, viz. voluminous; and space, viz. spaced, that would typify the triadic Beyond.


12.  The only context of 'Kingdom Come' still open to time would be the administrative aside to the Centre, as I have often termed the triadic Beyond itself, and such an aside, the focal-point of a Christ-like sacrifice of bearing political 'sins and/or punishments of the world' in the interests of the People's salvation from them through religious sovereignty in the event of their having democratically opted to be saved from the world, would be very sensibly of repetitive time in its refined service of the Centre or, more correctly, Centre proper.





1.   As I have indicated, one can go in one of two directions from the world - either backwards to the instinctual idiocy, so to speak, of the id-self or forwards to the emotional sublimity of the soul-self; backwards to the alpha paradise of self-identity or forwards to the omega paradise of self-identity, the former apparent and superficial, the latter essential and profound.


2.   People are going backwards and forwards all the time, even when they are recognizably of the world, and therefore more disposed to the not-self and selflessness in tandem with the ego-self than to either of the self-oriented extremes.  In that event, they go backwards a bit or forwards a bit, depending on their natures, and sometimes they go both backwards and forwards at the same time or, at any rate, within the space of a short timespan.


3.   Doubtless there are many paradigms of such departures from the world to either of the self-oriented paradises, and we know them or are ignorant of them according to our capacities for knowledgeable insight.  Take parks, for example.  Are they not symbolically Edenic in their profusion of plant life and plethora of simple creatures, from birds and fish to insects and small animals.  The contents of parks may vary from park to park, but by and large it is not an omega paradise, but an alpha paradise, a paradise closer to primeval instinct that is signified by the existence of such places, with their tamed countryside for the town and/or city.


4.   A person who spends time in the park, whether a little time or a lot, is effectively returning to the id-self and thus abandoning the world, with its buildings and streets, for an alpha paradise in which instinctual life urbanely proliferates.  He is getting back to 'the Garden' in his desire to establish a closer relationship with nature, and for him parks are a necessary antidote to the city.


5.   So going to the park, innocent as it might seem, is one of those things a person does when he is of a mind to put the world to one side for a while and return, no matter how temporarily, to the sort of paradise which is closer to the id than to the soul, being more alpha than omega.  He may not know this, but that is nevertheless what a park is, and people spend time in them according to their needs and/or insights.


6.   Now take the opposite tendency to going backwards from the world to an alpha paradise - namely, going forwards from the world toward an omega paradise, a paradise which is inner rather than outer, profound rather than superficial, centripetal rather than centrifugal, essential rather than apparent, and likely to accord, in consequence, with the self conceived essentially ... in relation to the soul.


7.   At present I can think of no better example of this phenomenon, relatively crude though it is, than a shopping centre, especially when there is a certain amount of watery and/or plant life to be found in the more pedestrian parts of the environment and, tired of walking, one can sit in quite close proximity to nature without having to endure - shopping centres without a roof excepted - the inclemencies of the weather or otherwise put oneself at risk of becoming too 'open'.


8.   Now shopping centres may seem to some people a curious choice for establishing an antithesis to parks, but they do, as a rule, contain nature, whether in watery or plant form, and nature is an important symbol for mankind of the self, to the extent that it is generally closer to self than to either not-self or selflessness, being fixed and self-absorbed in its simple, straightforward kind of way.


9.   At the time of writing, early in the twenty-first century, I can say quite categorically that 'Kingdom Come' hasn't yet come to pass, and that the world accordingly still exists, to varying extents, in all or most countries, especially the West, where it has tended to peak, so to speak, in relation to economics, and hence commerce.  The coming of a religious concept of or approach to 'the Centre' is still, to all intents and purposes (my own theorizing excepted), a thing of the future, and consequently it is not surprising that centres tend, like shopping centres, to be commercial, or places where one can buy and/or sell a variety of produce and products.


10.  Hence the shopping centre is pretty much the 'state-of-the-art' situation as it stands at present of what I have described as an antithesis to parks, and is thus a kind of embryonic or crude omega paradise, a paradise that holds hope of future expansion and modification in the direction of religion but which, at this juncture in time, is still firmly commercial and thus centred around economics, specifically with regard to capital gain.


11.  Nevertheless shopping centres provide a fledgling alternative to the world, with its buildings and streets, its urban not-selves and selflessnesses, and it seems to me that anyone who is of a mind to go forwards from the world toward an omega paradise can do no better, at present, than to visit a shopping centre and spend some time meditating or contemplating or whatever in proximity to a fountain or a boxed-in arrangement of plant and/or floral life. 


12.  Of course, one can meditate at home, just as one can sample plant life in one's back or front garden if one happens to have one, but on an analogue with parks it is to the shopping centre that one must go if one wishes to sample a taste of the omega paradise as it currently exists in the world, and thus go some way towards the self inwardly and essentially rather than, as with parks and gardens, outwardly and apparently.


13.  And the more one does this, the less, it seems to me, will one want to visit parks, with their vast open spaces and Edenic associations.  One will have become too progressive to have much time or taste for regressing away from the world in an alpha-oriented direction.  One's devolution from not-self and selflessness will be forward-tending, not backward-tending, and therefore one will identify less with the id than with the soul.


14.  For the soul-self can only be cultivated on the basis of an inward-tending orientation, and to have such an orientation one needs to be indoors rather than outdoors.  Meditating in the park would, frankly, be a contradiction in terms! 





1.   Parks - buildings/streets - shopping centres: this, then, is one of the paradigms of our id-self - not-self and selflessness/ego-self - soul-self triplicity, i.e. the world flanked by anterior and posterior paradises.  In point of fact it is really more of a quadruplicity, with not-self and selflessness standing apart from ego-self; but for the sake of simplicity and clarity I will persist with a tripartite structure.  Let us now take some alternative paradigms.


2.   Like cassettes - radio - CDs within the midi framework, where radio is a kind of worldly parallel beamed from stations of established knowledge and/or strength, in which the not-self and its selfless corollary are predominantly discernible, and cassettes or, rather, the cassette-decks in which cassettes can be played tend to suggest a closer link to the self, particularly in connection with the use of blank tapes for recording purposes, as, from an arguably profounder standpoint, do CD drives for the playing of compact discs.


3.   Thus the midi that is 'liberal' or pluralistic in this way would suggest the possibility of two self-oriented alternatives to the world, i.e. radio, one of which would correspond, in its comparatively superficial and apparent presentation of centrifugal unfolding, to an alpha paradise, and the other of which, in its comparatively profound and essential presentation of centripetal unfolding, would correspond to an omega paradise.


4.   Such pluralistic midis would indeed present the individual with two alternatives to the worldly radio, and the individual subject to such alternatives might find himself utilizing the cassette deck at one moment and the CD-player the next, thereby effectively alternating between the mechanical equivalents of his id-self and his soul-self.


5.   Of course he might choose, in the course of time, to utilize one rather than the other, the 'outer' approach to the self as opposed to the 'inner' approach to the self or vice versa, and there are even individuals who won't have anything to do with such pluralistic devices, either because they are not up to them from the standpoint of a strong id-self bias or are too progressive for them from the standpoint of a strong soul-self bias, in which case they will favour radio-cassette players or radio-CD players or, stronger again, cassette players or CD players, not forgetting, however, those whose more inveterately worldly bias precludes them from bothering with anything much beyond and/or behind the radio.


6.   Whatever the individual case, it seems to me that a park-like parallel can be inferred where the cassette deck and/or cassette player is concerned, which would contrast with the shopping-centre-like parallel of the CD-player, whether in connection with a midi or not, and that radio, standing in between the more self-oriented extremes of sound reproduction, induces a relatively worldly inference along the lines of buildings and/or streets, so that it is less of the self (except egocentrically) than of the not-self and selflessness.


7.   In terms of the above-mentioned parallels, it should logically follow that a person with a strong bias for parks over shopping centres would prefer cassette players, and hence cassettes, to CD players, whereas a person with a strong bias for shopping centres over parks would prefer CD players, and hence CDs, to cassette players.  People with no particular bias either way, on the other hand, would be happier with midis, if not radios, in what could metaphorically be described as a comparatively middle-of-the-road orientation.


8.   In relation to literature, it may be that books correspond, in their various permutations, both hardback and paperback, to the world, whereas 'books' on cassette, marketed as 'spoken word', would, like their musical counterparts, correspond to the id-self, while 'books' or other literary presentations on CD, by contrast, would assume an omega-oriented correlation commensurate with the soul-self.


9.   Hence books would parallel radio as the medium of the world, while both the paradises, alpha and omega, would have 'the word' reproduced on either cassettes or CDs - cassettes tending at present to prevail over CDs where the spoken word is concerned by dint, I would guess, of their greater if not more accessible audio capacity, with CDs being reserved for optical storage of more voluminous compilations, like encyclopaedias and 'collected-works' presentations of old masters.


10.  Despite my own suspicion that establishment literature prefers to regress towards the alpha than progress towards the omega, I see a future for both the optical and audio presentation of original literary works on CD, and am confident that CD or equivalent media (like DVD) will supersede both tapes and books in the course of time, particularly if and when the world is 'overcome', no matter how partially, in the interests of 'Kingdom Come'.


11.  Another parallel to the id-self - ego-self (in conjunction with not-self and selflessness) - soul-self triplicity that could be mentioned is one which takes a culinary or, rather, cutlery form, as in the use of knife and fork with most types of conventional dinner being regarded as of the world, but the use of fork held in the right hand in scooping fashion being considered as of the alpha paradise on account of its superficial absolutism, the absolutism, almost, of a fascist salute, but the use, by contrast, of a tablespoon held in such fashion suggesting an omega orientation by dint of its profounder absolutism, the absolutism, again to cite a saluting analogy, of the clenched fist.


12.  Be that as it may, I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that our eating habits, including the means with which we raise food to our mouth, can be no less revealing of our ideological or moral position than the use of various technologies or environmental persuasions, and that as a man eats, so can he be judged!





1.   The theory of 'means' and 'shadows', which I first explored in my previous text, Bringing the Judgement, has to do with the relationship between a predominating not-self and a subordinate not-self which is paradoxically complementary to it from a contrary standpoint, be that standpoint sensual or sensible, noumenal or phenomenal.


2.   To begin with, it helps to establish the distinction between the objective axes of space-time and volume-mass, both of which are female, and the subjective axes of mass-volume and time-space, both of which are male.


3.   Hence the plane of space is divisible between the objectivity of spatial space and the subjectivity of spaced space, while the plane of time is divisible between the subjectivity of sequential time and the objectivity of repetitive time, space-time accordingly falling diagonally from spatial space to repetitive time, time-space, by contrast, rising diagonally from sequential time to spaced space.


4.   Likewise the plane of volume is divisible between the objectivity of volumetric volume and the subjectivity of voluminous volume, while the plane of mass is divisible between the subjectivity of massive mass and the objectivity of massed mass, volume-mass accordingly falling diagonally from volumetric volume to massed mass, mass-volume, by contrast, rising diagonally from massive mass to voluminous volume.


5.   Thus the axes of space and time, which are noumenal and hence   upper class, afford us a distinction between the female objectivity of space-time and the male subjectivity of time-space, while the axes of volume and mass, which are phenomenal and hence lower class, afford us a distinction between the female objectivity of volume-mass and the male subjectivity of mass-volume.


6.   Scholars of my work - if there are any - will recall at this point that whereas the objective is rooted in a vacuum and tends either to diverge in sensuality or converge in sensibility on a straight-line basis, the subjective, by contrast, is centred in a plenum and tends to diverge in sensuality or converge in sensibility on a curved-line basis.


7.   Hence the femaleness of objectivity and, by implication, both space-time and volume-mass, but the maleness of subjectivity and, by implication, both mass-volume and time-space.


8.   Just as one cannot be both noumenal and phenomenal, upper class and lower class, at the same time, so one cannot be of space-time and volume-mass or, alternatively, of mass-volume and time-space to an identical degree, since the one tends to preclude the other and both, moreover, are subject to a gender specific integrity, so that he who is of time-space tends not to have that much to do with space-time and vice versa, while he who is of mass-volume tends not to have that much to do with volume-mass, although neither can be completely ruled out.


9.   Since these four axes are inseparable from a given element, be it fire in relation to space-time, air in relation to time-space, water in relation to volume-mass, or vegetation (earth) in relation to mass-volume, they operate with regard to the various orders of not-self and selflessness, will and spirit, both on and across the gender divide, from the female elements of fire and water, which are objective, to the male elements of vegetation and air, which are subjective.


10.  Hence space-time can be organically translated into a distinction between the eyes and the heart, while time-space affords one a like distinction between the ears and the lungs, the former in each case sensual and the latter sensible.


11.  Likewise volume-mass can be organically translated into a distinction between the tongue and the womb, while mass-volume affords one a like distinction between the penis and the brain, the former in each case sensual and the latter sensible.


12.  Hence quite apart from the gender specific axes of space-time and time-space, corresponding to eyes-heart and ears-lungs, the plane of space is divisible between the objectivity of the eyes and the subjectivity of the lungs, while the plane of time is divisible between the subjectivity of the ears and the objectivity of the heart.


13.  Hence quite apart from the gender specific axes of volume-mass and mass-volume, corresponding to tongue-womb and penis-brain, the plane of volume is divisible between the objectivity of the tongue and the subjectivity of the brain, while the plane of mass is divisible between the subjectivity of the penis and the objectivity of the womb.


14.  Now as I have argued in the past, so I shall continue to argue that a hegemonic upper-class, or noumenal, position, be it sensual or sensible, tends to encourage a contrary lower-class, or phenomenal, position, whereas a hegemonic lower-class, or phenomenal, position, be it sensual or sensible, tends to encourage a contrary upper-class, or noumenal, position.


15.  Within the male gender options, which the reader will recall are subjective and elementally divisible between vegetation and air, the phenomenality of a hegemonic penis will tend to co-exist with the noumenality of subordinate lungs, the former sensual and the latter sensible, while, conversely, the noumenality of hegemonic lungs will tend to co-exist with the phenomenality of a subordinate penis, the former sensible and the latter sensual.


16.  Likewise the phenomenality of a hegemonic brain will tend to co-exist with the noumenality of subordinate ears, the former sensible and the latter sensual, while, conversely, the noumenality of hegemonic ears will tend to co-exist with the phenomenality of a subordinate brain, the former sensual and the latter sensible.


17.  Within the female gender options by contrast, which the reader will recall are objective and elementally divisible between fire and water, the phenomenality of a hegemonic tongue will tend to co-exist with the noumenality of a subordinate heart, the former sensual and the latter sensible, while, conversely, the noumenality of a hegemonic heart will tend to co-exist with the phenomenality of a subordinate tongue, the former sensible and the latter sensual.


18.  Likewise the phenomenality of a hegemonic womb will tend to co-exist with the noumenality of subordinate eyes, the former sensible and the latter sensual, while, conversely, the noumenality of hegemonic eyes will tend to co-exist with the phenomenality of a subordinate womb, the former sensual and the latter sensible.


19.  Thus, on the male side of life, either the penis or the lungs will be hegemonic in the one case, and either the brain or the ears in the other case, with the subordinate complement always standing as a 'shadow' to the prevailing 'mean', be it sensual or sensible, vegetative or airy, noumenal or phenomenal, which is to say, upper class in time-space or lower class in mass-volume.


20.  Thus, on the female side of life, either the tongue or the heart will be hegemonic in the one case, and either the womb or the eyes in the other case, with the subordinate complement always standing as a 'shadow' to the prevailing 'mean', be it sensual or sensible, fiery or watery, noumenal or phenomenal, which is to say, upper class in space-time or lower class in volume-mass.





1.   Technology mirrors such 'mean' and 'shadow' positions as have been outlined above, and one or, rather, two such instances of a technological mirroring can be found in the all-too-prevalent media of televisions and computers, both of which, I shall argue, are of an objective and hence female disposition.


2.   Television would seem to be the principal manifestation of a parallel to spatial space, be it with regard to the eyes or, more inorganically, the stars in stellar-plane mode, and to the 'mean' of this eye-based medium must be added the 'shadow', ever subordinate to the prevailing technology, of video recorders and/or players, so that one ends up with a situation in which metachemical sensuality co-exists, as the dominant partner, with chemical sensibility, as though in reflection of eyes over womb or, in inorganic terms, of the stellar plane over the oceanic aspect of planet Earth.                                                


3.   Thus it could be said that the relationship of television to video is akin to spatial space to massed mass, which is akin, in metaphorical language, to a 'Liberty Belle' parallel co-existing with a 'Fallen Whore', video-recorders and/or players being open to any number of different video tapes, both pre-recorded and blank.


4.   Therefore the relationship of television to video would be of an objective noumenal sensuality standing above an objective phenomenal sensibility as upper-class 'mean' to lower-class 'shadow', the one outer and the other inner.


5.   Let us now consider the possibility of the reverse of this double-edged female situation, which would be that of a lower-class 'mean' standing above or, rather, in a more dominant relationship to an upper-class 'shadow', the one phenomenally sensible and the other noumenally sensual, though both alike would be objective.


6.   To my mind, the only technological paradigms of such a situation would be of CPUs vis--vis VDUs in computers, since the CPU, or central processing unit, is the principal manifestation of the computer, is indeed the computer itself, while the VDU, or visual display unit, is simply the screen upon which all data and videos originating from or via the CPU are shown.


7.   Hence the VDU stands in a subordinate relationship to the CPU, which can be regarded as the 'mean' of computers, and such a subordinate position, akin to a situation in which eyes are 'shadow' to the womb or stars to the oceanic aspect of planet Earth, would mean that with computers the spatial space/massed mass partnership is the reverse of what it is with televisions and videos, so that one could infer the hegemony of chemical sensibility over metachemical sensuality.


8.   Certainly the CPU is a 'pregnant' entity, to speak in womb-coloured metaphor, not only with regard to the hard disc but also in respect to the sustained use of CDs and/or compact floppies, and I fancy that if we are not dealing here with some technological parallel to the 'Fallen Whore' alluded to above, then we are dealing with one that parallels the 'Blessed Virgin' in what would amount to a sort of 'Marian' manifestation of the womb that could only invite a symbolic analogue, as far as the VDU 'shadow' was concerned, with the 'Risen Virgin'.


9.   Thus in complete contrast to the 'Liberty Belle'/'Fallen Whore' parallelism of television and video recorder, corresponding to spatial-space 'mean' and massed-mass 'shadow', one would have for CPUs and VDUs a 'Blessed Virgin'/'Risen Virgin' analogue in which massed mass was 'mean' and spatial space 'shadow', thereby suggesting the overall distinction between televisions and computers to be one of emphasis rather than kind, since both would appear to accord with female objectivity in relation to space and mass.


10.  And such objectivity, as we have already discovered, has more to do with eyes and womb than with, say, tongue and heart, even though the latter cannot be wholly excluded.  Neither, on the other hand, could a Venusian and lunar parallel, a parallel with the planet Venus and the moon, be completely excluded from what I have argued is basically one between the stellar and oceanic planes where analogies invoking an inorganic alternative to organic supremacy are concerned.                                                               


11.  Probably inorganic primacy is more applicable than organic supremacy in discussing technology anyway, given the materialistic and realistic correlations that particularly accrue to such media as televisions and computers at the expense, one could argue, of fundamentalism and nonconformism, their organic counterparts.


12.  Be that as it may, my understanding of the above media would not have been possible without a prior philosophical knowledge of the relationship between 'means' and 'shadows' on both a gender specific, i.e. objective or subjective, and a class specific, i.e. noumenal or phenomenal, basis, and I flatter myself to think that my own attitude as a male - and a godly male who both meditates and practises philosophy - towards them will be less enthusiastic or supportive than might otherwise have been the case, weary though I have always been of, in particular, television and video.





1.   People can often be heard saying that such and such a person - almost invariably a man - is a 'tramp' or that such and such a person is a 'bum', but, in reality, no-one who fits such a pejorative description is or ever can be exclusively the one thing or the other.


2.   In reality, those who approximate to what the generality of people think of as 'tramps' or 'bums' are both 'tramps' and 'bums', since it is as impossible to tramp about all day as to spend one's entire time sitting on one's 'bum', i.e. backside, when common sense alone dictates that one alternates, in one degree or another, between the two contexts, the context of walking around and the context of sitting down.


3.   Consequently there are no 'tramps' and no 'bums', since those so described (whether relatively fairly or unfairly) are, in reality, both 'tramps' and 'bums' and thus, effectively, 'tramps/bums'.


4.   But the generality of people, who after all are comparatively unthinking, will persist in imagining the contrary, simply because they have never bothered to think about the situation very deeply or comprehensively, whether through laziness or because they have no real experience of being 'tramps' and/or 'bums' themselves.


5.   Consequently they continue to delude themselves that such and such a person is a 'tramp' or a 'bum' when, in point of fact, that is only half of the overall picture in relation to what is perceived at the time.


6.   Were they less dependent on their eyes for information and more capable of independent thought, such of course would not be the case, but the great majority of people, being psychologically commonplace, are incapable of detaching their minds from what they see, and consequently what they see conditions what they think.


7.   In reality, those who are so dominated by their eyes, their sight, that they almost invariably allow what they see to condition their thinking, often while they are actually seeing it, are not just fundamentally evil - for all people are that in greater or lesser degree - but openly or unashamedly evil, whether through ignorance or wilful intent.


8.   They make no attempt to disguise their lust for sight-conditioned thought and would, one fancies, be quite incapable of not thinking about anything their eyes latch upon were they put to the test, so much does thinking - and usually negatively - about what they see seem to them a perfectly natural and acceptable occurrence.


9.   Those of us who can detach our minds from what we see, who don't invariably comment derogatorily upon what crosses our field of vision, particularly where other people are concerned, will not have too high an opinion of the type of people described above, but will rather tend to despise them for the openly evil and superficial idiots they actually are!


10.  If one doesn't wish to allow one's eyes to condition one's thinking, particularly in the manner described, it is because one knows the eyes to be fundamentally evil in their metachemical disposition and not something to give free rein to in consequence, least of all to an extent that the mind becomes dominated by them in patently heathenistic and - let's face it - female fashion.


11.  It is also because one prefers peace of mind to a troubled and angry mind, and can see no reason why the mind should be allowed to succumb to the influence of sight to such an extent that it is no longer a noble thing but a grossly aggressive and aggrieved thing that would be more of a burden than a help.


12.  Let them keep their petty little vulgar and negative minds if that's what they want or, more to the point, is all they are capable of, because being able to surmount the dominating influence of their eyes would be beyond their limited capabilities.


13.  And let us nobler types continue to turn away from the ignoble mob, as from all mob types, lest we become corrupted by their psychic poison and lose what self-possessed integrity we have managed to secure for ourselves in the face, so often, of their superficial provocation.


14.  For the mob is a nasty thing, evil to the core and unconcerned with higher values, and all those who follow the ways of the mob will sooner or later succumb to mob values at the expense of what is true and noble, casting stones of 'tramp' or 'bum' upon those who deserve better but will never get it from the aggressively superficial.





1.   Justice, all higher justice, cries out for vengeance against the mob, especially the democratic mob of so-called people's agitators and bullies.  At present the mob is still 'king', but if justice is to be done to the higher man, with his higher values, including the divine prerogative of truth, then another type of 'king' must come to the fore to displace from his throne the lying and hypocritical 'king' who passes for democratic sovereignty and the rule, in consequence, of the world.


2.   For only the displacement from his worldly throne of the false king, the sovereign mob, can lead to 'Kingdom Come', and thus to the 'God-Kingship' that recognizes no other sovereign besides truth and the religious sovereignty that would be its logical corollary. 


3.   Such a displacement, however, can only proceed by using the world's democratic methodology, the electoral process, on the basis of the most paradoxical election in countries and by peoples who, not overly enamoured of worldly criteria, would be capable of and willing to use it paradoxically, so that the end result, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, was the democratic overcoming of the world and the institution, thereafter, of 'Kingdom Come', as described above.


4.   Only in countries and with peoples who would be capable of respecting religious sovereignty because of a sufficiently religious orientation could such a paradoxical election take place, but before it can take place there has to be recognition, by the peoples concerned, of the inherent Messianic credibility of he who offers them religious sovereignty, since such a man - in reality a God - is the nearest thing to a Second-Coming equivalent there is or is ever likely to be, and one must be capable of anticipating such a Coming if one is likely to take him seriously in the first place.


5.   I believe the Gaelic peoples, and in particular the Irish, would be capable of recognizing the bearer of religious sovereignty as the Second Coming, and it is for this reason that I have appealed to them to consider well the opportunity for deliverance from the world, with its sins and/or punishments, which acceptance of my teachings entail, since there can be no 'Kingdom Come' without a majority wish, democratically expressed, for religious sovereignty - the ultimate sovereignty - and an end, in consequence, to the false kingships of the democratic world.


6.   Judgement beckons, and Judgement, in this ultimate sense, is about turning away from the world and embracing the prospect of the otherworldly 'Kingdom' which has been prospectively identified with a Gaelic federation ... of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in what would amount to a grouping of religiously sovereign peoples presided over by a 'God-King', no mere mortal but one who, corresponding to a Second Coming in his Messianic credibility, was or had been the means by which the world could be democratically overcome ... in the interests of his great gift of religious sovereignty and the right, by the religiously sovereign people, to religious self-determination in what has been described as a triadic Beyond, commensurate with the religious aspect of 'Kingdom Come'.


7.   I do not say right to 'spiritual' self-determination, for spirituality is too limited and, in the West, hyped a word or tendency to have anything much beyond feminine and, in particular, bottom tier applicability in our projected triadic Beyond.  No, I say 'religious', which includes, besides spirituality, both intellectuality and, more importantly for those who are entitled to it, emotionality of the sort that is commensurate with the soul, and the metaphysical soul most especially.


8.   Hitherto, in the West, the soul has got rather a raw deal, having been marginalized to the Afterlife, while spirituality, particularly in the guise of the Holy Spirit, has been hyped out of all proportion to its true worth, the worth, in metaphysics (where a holy order of spirituality is alone applicable - more, traditionally, in relation to sensuality than to sensibility), of a secondary order of heaven and a third-rate order of spirit, a type of spirit and of heaven which is but a means, for the metaphysical ego, or universal self, to self-transcendence and thus to the overcoming of ego in soul, the trans-universal self, so to speak, of the resurrected 'Son', who, as metaphysical ego, is a first-rate order of God become, via the metaphysical spirit and, more initially, metaphysical will, a first-rate order of heaven.


9.   Thus soul, not spirit, is the be-all-and-end-all of religion, genuine religion, such that embraces the truth, whether sensually or, in my case, the case of an advocacy of the ultimate 'kingdom within' as germane to 'Kingdom Come', sensibly, and for that reason one cannot speak of a Trinity along the lines of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and/or Ghost, since such a thing is meaningless and nonsensical without reference to a holy order of soul such that is the raison d'tre of religious striving and justification, in consequence, of Fathers, Sons or, rather, of Sons, Fathers, and Holy Spirits to begin with, since Son-into-Father-through-Holy-Spirit-equals-Holy-Soul, which is the resurrection of the Son, i.e. the metaphysical ego, as (temporarily and intermittently) the Holy Soul of Heaven, i.e. the metaphysical soul, which is the result of what happens to metaphysical ego when it has entrusted itself to both the metaphysical will and spirit, the Father and the Holy Spirit (to speak in theological language) of, in inner terms, the lungs and the breath in what amounts to the sensible context of metaphysics, and salvation, in consequence, from metaphysical sensuality, i.e. religion centred not in the lungs and the breath ... of an ultimate 'kingdom within', but in the ears and the airwaves ... of an ultimate 'kingdom without', the sort of 'kingdom', alas, upon which the penultimate 'kingdom within' of Christ's vegetative sensibility of the brain-centred 'word' backs, as upon a metaphysical anchor to its own physical 'rebirth'.


10.  But just as the mob rules with democracy, so the mob has ruled and to some extent continues to rule with Christianity, with its more genuine, or Catholic, manifestation in particular, whereby man-hype in Christ has tended to monopolize sensible notions of godhead to the exclusion of what is genuinely godly ... as germane to the metaphysical context alone, the cerebral physics of vegetative sensibility falling back upon the aural metaphysics of airy sensuality, as upon a more generalized and primitivistic Father, the Father of New Testament usage vis--vis Christ.


11.  But that Father, the Creatoresque Father of 'once-born' metaphysics, Who is nevertheless more genuinely godly than Christ, is precisely what one must be saved from if one is to climb the axis of time-space from ears to lungs, the airwaves to the breath, metaphysical sensuality to sensibility, and thus achieve an accommodation, through the Second-Coming equivalent, with an ultimate 'kingdom within', no mere penultimate 'kingdom within' of lower-class Christianity, but that which, in saving from the ultimate 'kingdom without' of aural sensuality, brings the metaphysically Saved to a superior position to Christ in which not cerebral sensibility but respiratory sensibility is the norm, in keeping with the metaphysically 're-born' law of 'Kingdom Come'.


12.  And in 'Kingdom Come' the ultimate truth (compared to sensual metaphysics) ... of respiratory sensibility will take precedence, in the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond, over both cerebral sensibility and uterine sensibility (as one might call the womb-based sensibility of maternal spirit), the physical and chemical shortfalls, in volume and mass, from the metaphysical sensibility of spaced space, as religiously exemplified by transcendental meditation.





1.   The preachers of equality have nothing in common with the bringer of religious sovereignty and advocate of 'Kingdom Come'; for they reduce everything to the lowest-common-denominator of worldly 'mud', wherein the mob bogs down in its own punishment and sin, whereas he opens up the prospect, for salvation-minded Gaels, of a triadic Beyond in which persons of Puritan, Anglican, and Roman Catholic denominational background would find a tier, duly subdivided along tripartite lines, according with their moral and elemental entitlement.


2.   In other words, there is no equality between so-called men in 'Kingdom Come' except it be the equality of Social Transcendentalism and an end, in consequence, to worldly schisms.  Rather is there a distinction between the chemical, the physical, and the metaphysical, as between women, men, and gods.


3.   He who identifies his destiny with a Second Coming, a Messiah who saves Catholics to a higher order of sensibility than that to which Christ would have related, while yet maintaining or insisting on new orders of phenomenal salvation (for Anglicans) and damnation (for Puritans), as, in general terms, for men and women under gods, has nothing in common with those who reduce everyone to 'man' and insist that all are equal before God.


4.   On the contrary, not even men and women are equal to one another, never mind either of the phenomenal commonality of lower-class persons to those who stand above them as either devils or gods, noumenal elites of upper-class persons who have as much in common with them as beauty or truth with strength or knowledge or, in emotional terms, love or joy with pride or pleasure.


5.   To preach the equality of all is to fly in the face of elemental reality and do a disservice not only to devils but to gods as well, seeking, as far as possible, to exclude them from anything like a bona fide existence as, in the event of not being able to completely exclude beauty and truth, one twists beauty and truth out of all recognition to what they would be in societies that did justice to either the one or the other, in an attempt to accommodate them to the hegemony of strength and/or knowledge, as the case may be.


6.   Thus with everything and everyone reduced to the world, to the mud of a mobocracy of woman and/or man hype, depending by and large on whether feminine or masculine, Protestant or Catholic values are paramount, the preachers of equality can live safely in the lie that all are equal before God, and that God created all men equal!


7.   Quite apart from the absurdly primitivistic and superstitious nature of their concept of God, which no self-respecting meditator would ever allow himself to even remotely identify with, such unthinking and profoundly subversive people are really the enemies of God, as of the Devil, since nothing genuinely godly or devilish can flourish where the criteria of men and women, whether with a masculine bias for mankind or a feminine bias for mankind, are sacrosanct, as they tend to be in the mud-slavering world of both the Christian democratic and anti-Christian democratic mobs.


8.   Whether sensible or sensual, Catholic or Protestant, republican or parliamentary, such preachers of and believers in equality are nonetheless less than convinced of their own equality with one another, as recent history attests, and are more inclined to preach the equality of all Catholics or of all Protestants or of all republicans or of all parliamentarians than of Catholics with Protestants or vice versa, or of republicans with parliamentarians or vice versa.


9.   For in reality men and women are no more equal to one another than, say, devils and gods, and even when you have effectively excluded devils or gods from your worldview or, failing that, even when you have a grudging bias for devils over gods or for gods over devils, depending on the type of worldly system, still the inequality of men and women, as of masculine and feminine, sin and punishment, knowledge and strength, pleasure and pride, remains, and no amount of lying or self-deceiving baloney can alter what is an inexorable fact!


10.  Even the preachers of equality find it difficult to be completely convinced of their doctrine; for no-one is entirely bereft of leanings which owe something, though not everything, to the opposite sex, never mind to devils or gods, and both strength and knowledge are obliged to bow before a perverse concept of each other from the standpoint of their respective partisans, as well as embrace an even more perverse concept of beauty and/or truth.


11.  I have no time for the swinish preachers of equality and their swamp of worldly mud, in which they would have all mankind, and not a few other kinds, bog down for Christian or democratic, ecclesiastical or secular good; for they are enemies of the People who demean the People by casting them in images of earthly or purgatorial equality which lead to stagnation and bad feelings and not a few bad smells, to boot!


12.  The true deliverer of the People from such class enemies has no time for equalitarian nonsense and the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy which so often accompanies it; for he knows that the People are more heterogeneous than these belittling swine who preach equality could possibly imagine or would want to admit, and that only when the People are delivered from the equalitarian class enemy will they be able to live with one another on the unequal basis of women, men, and gods that the triadic Beyond would be determined to advance, to the greater advantage not merely of strength and knowledge but, more especially, of truth, without which there can be no hope for the liberating future and no escape from the crippling past!





1.   I recently saw a television recording of a well-known Northern Ireland cleric talking about the salvation of Ulster, but, in reality, you can't save an abstraction, like the six counties to which the cleric was referring.


2.   You can only save or damn that which is animate and capable of rising or falling, in consequence, from sensuality to sensibility within the class and gender parameters of a given elemental axis, be it fiery and metachemical, watery and chemical, vegetative and physical, or airy and metaphysical.


3.   Consequently to speak of the salvation of Ulster, that statelet of Northern Ireland, is nonsense; for Ulster cannot rise from sensuality to sensibility, any more than it can fall from sensuality to sensibility.  Only the People of Ulster can rise or fall, as the case may be, and to rise on the one side of the gender fence, namely male, is to fall on the other side, namely female, so that there could be no wholesale salvation of people in Ulster or, for that matter, anywhere else when the inexorable rule of salvation for males entails the damnation of females, whether in the phenomenal contexts of mass/volume Christianity or in the noumenal context of time/space Social Transcendentalism, as germane, so I teach, to 'Kingdom Come'.


4.   Another irony not wasted on me was that the cleric to whom I allude above was not a Catholic but a Protestant, and consequently not someone who would relate, in Catholic vein, to the phenomenal salvation of males from mass to volume, as, in vegetation, from phallus to brain, and to the phenomenal damnation of females from volume to mass, as, in water, from tongue to womb - the former through Christ and the latter its Marian corollary.


5.   On the contrary, Protestantism in the British Isles, and Ulster not least of all, is divisible between the blessed hegemony of Presbyterians and Puritans in volumetric volume and the cursed under-position, as it were, of Anglicans in massive mass, the former affiliated to the tongue in watery sensuality and the latter to the flesh (including the phallus) in vegetative sensuality, neither of them germane to contexts of salvation or damnation in consequence of their 'once-born' standings within what amounts to an inverted triangle.


6.   Consequently not only can you not save or damn an abstraction like Ulster, but you cannot save or damn Protestants within the clerical parameters of Presbyterian/Puritan anti-Christianity and Anglican pseudo-Christianity, since both salvation and damnation presuppose an advancement from sensuality to sensibility, the 'once-born' outer to the 're-born' inner, and require a Catholic resolve, in consequence, to keep the norms of brain and womb sensibly in place, in what is effectively a non-triangular framework.


7.   Of course, there is less sensibility to Roman Catholicism these days and more sensuality, as befitting the age, an age of heathenistic criteria, but of the type of sensuality that is germane to the ears and thus to a 'once-born' order of metaphysics in what has been generally described as 'the Father'.


8.   Therefore both Protestants and Catholics exist, by and large, in contexts of sensuality, of blessed or cursed Heathenism in which 'once-born' criteria are effectively, if not officially, paramount, and one gets tongue over phallus in the one case, that of Protestants, and eyes over ears in the other case, that of Catholics - the former in each case germane to the female aspect of things and the latter to its male aspect.


9.   Hence both Protestants and Catholics can be saved and/or damned from sensuality to sensibility in relation to what I have described as the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come', wherein the Presbyterian/Puritan 'first' shall be bottom-tier Social Transcendental 'lower last' and the Anglican 'last' shall be middle-tier Social Transcendental 'lower first', and Catholics shall be top-tier Social Transcendental 'upper first' if sufficiently airy and metaphysical, but administrative-aside Social Transcendental 'upper last' if habitually more fiery and metachemical.


10.  For just as the phenomenal corollary of rising to brain from phallus  in vegetative sensibility is falling to womb from tongue in watery sensibility, so the noumenal corollary of rising to lungs from ears in airy sensibility is falling to heart from eyes in fiery sensibility, and the latter would be very much germane to the administrative aside that serves the triadic Beyond, though always with a noumenal bias that ensures that truth remains hegemonic over both knowledge and strength, and people of Catholic descent consequently remain religiously above those of Protestant descent, who will be divided between the bottom two tiers of our triadic structure.


11.  But structure we have, not utopian 'pie in the sky' or 'castles in the air' or overly partisan concepts of the Beyond such that would exclude a 'new purgatory' and a 'new earth' from what with me becomes, in the triadic Beyond, a 'new heaven' in metaphysics over both physics and chemistry.


12.  Yet the latter would not be a rehash of Catholic tradition, the sort of tradition which aural decadence would seem, in any case, to have left in its wake, but rather strength and knowledge, womb and brain, conditioned by inner truth, by lungs, and therefore coloured by factors which had not existed before, since Catholicism falls back on the ears, a sensual and outer mode of truth and godliness which is precisely that from which one must be saved, if one wishes to achieve an accommodation with metaphysical sensibility.


13.  But if the Catholic Father vis--vis the Catholic Christ and Virgin Mary is a kind of New Testament reality, it must be said that clerical sleight-of-hand easily accommodates the Old Testament, and thus the rule, within a pyramidal triangle, of Jehovah over Satan, of stellar over solar, with a peripheral Venusian parallel to complete the heathenistic structure in which female criteria are hegemonic over male criteria, whose Satanesque solar 'fallen angel' is accordingly 'fall guy for slag'.


14.  Such, however, is the 'once-born' rule for the negativity of inorganic primacy, wherein ugliness and hatred dominate falsity and woe, in typically cosmic fashion.


15.  The 'once-born' rule for the positivity of organic supremacy, on the other hand, is beauty and love dominating truth and joy, like eyes over ears, and perhaps here we should be talking rather more in terms of, say, Moses or, rather, Saul and David than of Jehovah and Satan.


16.  Be that as it may, Catholicism is no less disposed, at bottom, than Protestantism to falling back on heathenistic criteria of a 'once-born' and therefore sensual nature, and it is for this reason that Risen-Virgin fundamentalism often gets the jump, so to speak, on Fatheresque transcendentalism, as the eyes pull upper-plane rank on the ears, spatial space over sequential time, like the sensuality of framed painting over the sensuality of scored music.


17.  I do not 'buy' and have never 'bought' such a heathenistic situation, and that is why I am against Catholicism no less than Protestantism and anxious to save and/or damn both Catholics and Protestants to the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come', wherein the 'rebirth' of sensibility is paramount and one can infer a male hegemony over the female side of life in saved consequence! 


18.  With Social Transcendentalism there would be no falling back on Biblical falsehoods and hypocrisies, but an end, once and for all, to the lies that have held people back from the truth and which continue so to do, regarding as supreme being that which, in reality, is germane to primal doing in the cosmic realm of inorganic primacy, which is negative, and to supreme doing in the universal realm of organic supremacy, which is positive. 


19.  Either way, that which is germane to being becomes 'fall guy for slag', i.e. Satanic and/or Davidian 'Devil', and a taboo on the notion of a counter-Cupidian axis is consequently maintained, to the exclusion of metaphysical salvation (as from sensuality to sensibility, ears to lungs in organic supremacy).


20.  I have exposed the lie, the great delusion and crime at the roots of Bible-inspired religion, and it is for the People to judge of the veracity of what I have written in due course and, hopefully, to act accordingly, voting, when the time is ripe, for religious sovereignty and deliverance, in consequence, not only from 'sins and/or punishments' (depending on one's ethnicity) of the world, but, no less importantly, from the type of Biblical falsehoods and primitivistic limitations that continue to identify the concept of God with Creator, and with a cosmic 'first mover' moreover, so that that which in reality is metachemical and diabolic gets to play that which is metaphysical and divine, and all within the necessarily heathenistic and un-Christian parameters of 'once-born' antinot-selves, as germane, in particular, to the cosmos-slavering Old Testament.


21.  One cannot be saved from the Old Testament 'Father', since that is on an axis which falls from sensuality to sensibility, as from stellar to Venusian, Jehovah to (I would guess) Allah, and even to be saved from solar to Saturnian, rising from negative sensuality to sensibility, would be less than organic, and therefore something less concerned with truth and joy than with falsity and woe.  No, one can only be saved from ears to lungs in organic supremacy, rising from sensual truth and joy in the not-self/selflessness of ears and airwaves to sensible truth and joy in the not-self/selflessness of lungs and breath, wherein the positivity of supreme being is at its profoundest peak.


22.  Thus the metaphysically Saved must turn away from the Ear Father and the Airwaves Holy Spirit of Heaven if they are to embrace the ultimate Holy Soul of Heaven via both the Lung Father and the Breath Holy Spirit of Heaven, achieving the transcendence of inner Ego Son in due process of soulful resurrection.


23.  Such is the doctrine that speaks to the metaphysically Cursed, seeking their deliverance from sensuality to sensibility and an end, for them, to the spatial upper-plane hegemony of the metachemically Blessed, all those fire-devils who nonetheless pass for gods in the realm of Risen-Virgin fundamentalism. 


24.  This doctrine of the Social Transcendentalist way to 'Kingdom Come' also speaks to the physically Cursed, that they may turn away from the volumetric upper-plane hegemony of the chemically Blessed and cease, in consequence, to live under a feminine shadow and the heathenistic freedoms which are permitted to the blessed Free.


25.  For until those affiliated to the male side of life take a lead in opting from sensuality to sensibility, there will be no damnation of those affiliated to its female side from sensuality to sensibility, and no end to the hegemony of heathenistic criteria in consequence! 


26.  Let the People mark my words well; for the 'Day of Judgement', in which they must judge me and via me themselves, is at hand, and nothing short of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty can or will deliver the peoples concerned (see 'The Justice of Judgement' above) from the blessed freedoms and/or cursed enslavements, according to gender, of the 'once born' to the saved bindings and/or damned constraints of the 'reborn'.





1.   The notion that God blesses is a contradiction in terms.  It is not for God or the godly to bless but to save, and to save the metaphysically Cursed from their enslavement to the freedoms of the metachemically Blessed.


2.   Hence it is not God that blesses but, in effect, the Devil, the diabolic 'first mover' of things from whom the 'fallen angel' escaped, as from the hell of stellar primacy in spatial space to the comparative heaven of solar primacy in sequential time, primal doing to primal being. 


3.   For the 'first-mover' Creator Devil is blessed with hegemonic ascendancy in space over the 'fallen angel' fall guy for slag in time, and is accordingly of the context, in inorganic primacy, which is blessed with freedom for itself and from which, in consequence, the blessings of freedom for the relevant female antinot-self (of stellar primacy) may be inferred.


4.   Of course, when one talks of 'first movers' and 'fallen angels' one automatically limits and restricts oneself to the cosmic negativity of inorganic primacy, wherein only negative noumenal values like ugliness and hatred in relation to cosmic metachemistry, and falsity and woe in relation to cosmic metaphysics may be said to apply.


5.   To speak of love and beauty in relation to universal metachemistry or truth and joy in relation to universal metaphysics, on the other hand, is to put oneself 'beyond the pale' of Old-Testament usage in what would, in effect, be closer to the New Testament, wherein organic supremacy tends to prevail at the expense of inorganic primacy, being in some sense superimposed upon it, and one can accordingly conceive of the outer metachemical in terms of the Risen Virgin and the outer metaphysical in terms of the Father, neither of which would owe anything, in Jehovahesque or Satanic outer fashion, to either the stellar plane or the solar plane but, on the contrary, would parallel the eyes and the ears respectively, contexts of sensual organic supremacy in which only positive values, corresponding to the 'once-born' manifestations of supreme doing and supreme being, could be said to exist.


6.   Hence because blessing or the fact of being blessed appertains to the ascendant female position in, for instance, spatial space over the under-plane position of the male in sequential time, it follows that it is the Risen Virgin who is blessed and/or who blesses from a heathenistic or 'once-born' standpoint, whereas the Father, corresponding to the ears, is cursed in relation to what in the Risen Virgin is, after all, an organic manifestation of the Devil, since of that which is organically enslaved to the stellar or, rather, optical freedom for the outer noumenal not-self which reigns above.


7.   Thus in this positive noumenal context of sensual universality, no less than in its cosmic and negative counterpart, it is the New-Testament Risen Virgin, corresponding to a sensual manifestation of the Devil, who is blessed and the New-Testament Father, corresponding to a sensual manifestation of God, who is cursed ... with enslavement to the former's freedom.


8.   Salvation in positive metaphysics, the divine context of airy sensuality and sensibility, is of course from ears to lungs, and consequently one must abandon the former in order to be saved to the latter, abandoning the Father, as it were, as binding to metaphysical self takes the place of enslavement to the metachemical not-self of the Risen Virgin or equivalent 'once-born' blessed context of diabolic hegemony in organic supremacy.


9.   For salvation is about binding to self for males, whether that self be physical in Christ or metaphysical (as above) in the Second-Coming equivalent, whereas that from which one achieves salvation would have been enslaved to the free not-self of either the blessed woman or the blessed devil, the fleshy phallus duly subservient to the tongue in the one context and the ears duly subservient to the eyes in the other, so that in cultural terms, for instance, literature (and drama in particular) would be entitled to pull rank on sculpture, and painting likewise entitled to pull rank on music.


10.  Having the self, which is ever subjective and primary on the male side of life, enslaved by the free not-self of the ascendant female aspect of things is indeed a curse, not a blessing, for only the hegemonic devil and/or woman is blessed, in due heathenistic fashion, with an ascendant and therefore dominating position from which she is free to do and/or give her blessed most.


11.  Being saved from the curse of enslavement to the free ascendancy of the metachemically and/or chemically Blessed, on the other hand, is to achieve a binding to self, which then causes the female side of things, whether diabolic in space-time or feminine in volume-mass, to fall diagonally from sensuality to sensibility, wherein the relevant not-selves are placed under constraints which preclude their being of any real threat to the hegemonic subjectivity of the bound males in physics and/or metaphysics.


12.  Thus constraint on the female not-selves in sensibility is the corollary of binding to self for saved males, and instead of a heathenistic situation in which males are effectively cursed with under-plane enslavement of self to an ascendant female not-self, one has the much more desirable situation, from a male standpoint, in which females are no longer objectively dominant over males but sensibly subservient to them in either Christian or, with my teachings, Social Transcendentalist terms, the terms not of womb under brain, but of heart under lungs.


13.  It is always necessary to constrain the female side of things in sensibility, because with females, whether noumenally diabolic or phenomenally feminine, the not-self is primary and the self secondary on account of the objectivity of their vacuously-conditioned dispositions, which drives them outwards. 


14.  Self for females is not what comes first but, on the contrary, what comes second to a dominant not-self, which is alone capable of first- or second-rate status in will and/or spirit, power and/or glory.


15.  For males, on the other hand, it is the other way around, both the ego and the soul of formal and contented selfhood capable, depending on the elemental context, of first- or second-rate status, and consequently males will always be less than satisfied, deep down, with any situation in which the self is obliged to bow before a not-self hegemony.  That is truly a cursed situation, and therefore something from which to be saved and, moreover, from which to seek salvation.


16.  For salvation is, of course, a male prerogative, since it alone pertains to the male side of life and is something which is agreeable to males on account of their bias for self and corresponding interests in achieving,  through binding to self, either a first-rate order of soul (and correlative second-rate order of ego) in sensible metaphysics or a first-rate order of ego (and correlative second-rate order of soul) in sensible physics, the former salvation germane, so I teach, to 'Kingdom Come' and the latter very much the lower-class way of Christian tradition.


17.  Females can never achieve anything more than third- and fourth-rate orders of soul and ego, as germane to that which, being metachemical or chemical, appertains like beauty/love and strength/pride to the female side of life, and consequently they have a vested interest, you could say, in exploiting first- and second-rate orders of will and spirit in their respective sensual not-selves in order to maintain hegemonic standings over males, whose will and spirit in physical and metaphysical sensuality is never more than third- or fourth-rate, as germane to knowledge/pleasure and truth/joy.





1.   To contrast the first-rate power of the will to do metachemically through not-selfish, i.e. of the not-self, beauty with the fourth-rate power of the will to do metaphysically through not-selfish truth, and each of these noumenal absolutes with the phenomenal relativity of the second-rate power of the will to do chemically through not-selfish strength and the third-rate power of the will to do physically through not-selfish knowledge.


2.   To contrast the first-rate glory of the spirit to give chemically through not-selfish, i.e. of the not-self, pride with the fourth-rate glory of the spirit to give physically through not-selfish pleasure, and each of these phenomenal relativities with the noumenal absolutism of the second-rate glory of the spirit to give metachemically through not-selfish love and the third-rate glory of the spirit to give metaphysically through not-selfish joy.


3.   To contrast the first-rate form of the ego to take physically through selfish, i.e. of the self, knowledge with the fourth-rate form of the ego to take chemically through selfish strength, and each of these phenomenal relativities with the noumenal absolutism of the second-rate form of the ego to take metaphysically through selfish truth and the third-rate form of the ego to take metachemically through selfish beauty.


4.   To contrast the first-rate contentment of the soul to be metaphysically through selfish, i.e. of the self, joy with the fourth-rate contentment of the soul to be metachemically through selfish love, and each of these noumenal absolutes with the phenomenal relativity of the second-rate contentment of the soul to be physically through selfish pleasure and the third-rate contentment of the soul to be chemically through selfish pride.


5.   That which, as will, does, always does apparently, from the most apparent context of the metachemical will to the least apparent context of the metaphysical will via the more (relative to most) apparent context of the chemical will and the less (relative to least) apparent context of the physical will.  For the will, being affiliated to elemental particles, is ever a thing of appearances.


6.   That which, as spirit, gives, always gives quantitatively, from the most quantitative context of the chemical spirit to the least quantitative context of the physical spirit via the more (relative to most) quantitative context of the metachemical spirit and the less (relative to least) quantitative context of the metaphysical spirit.  For the spirit, being affiliated to molecular particles, is ever a thing of quantities.


7.   That which, as ego, takes, always takes qualitatively, from the most qualitative context of the physical ego to the least qualitative context of the chemical ego via the more (relative to most) qualitative context of the metaphysical ego and the less (relative to least) qualitative context of the metachemical ego.  For the ego, being affiliated to molecular wavicles, is ever a thing of qualities.


8.   That which, as soul, is, always is essentially, from the most essential context of the metaphysical soul to the least essential context of the metachemical soul via the more (relative to most) essential context of the physical soul and the less (relative to least) essential context of the chemical soul.  For the soul, being affiliated to elemental wavicles, is ever a thing of essences.


9.   To do in relation to beauty, strength, knowledge, and truth, descending, as it were, from first- to fourth-rate orders of power.


10.  To give in relation to pride, love, joy, and pleasure, descending from first- to fourth-rate orders of glory.


11.  To take in relation to knowledge, truth, beauty, and strength, descending from first- to fourth-rate orders of form.


12.  To be in relation to joy, pleasure, pride, and love, descending from first- to fourth-rate orders of contentment.


13.  To combine, in the fiery devility of metachemistry, a first-rate power with a second-rate glory, a third-rate form and a fourth-rate contentment, thereby descending from will to soul via spirit and ego.


14.  To combine, in the watery femininity of chemistry, a first-rate glory with a second-rate power, a third-rate contentment and a fourth-rate form, thereby descending from spirit to ego via will and soul.


15.  To combine, in the vegetative masculinity of physics, a first-rate form with a second-rate contentment, a third-rate power and a fourth-rate glory, thereby descending from ego to spirit via soul and will.


16.  To combine, in the airy divinity of metaphysics, a first-rate contentment with a second-rate form, a third-rate glory and a fourth-rate power, thereby descending from soul to will via ego and spirit.


17.  Metachemistry, being of the will per se, is the context of powerful appearances par excellence, and hence of beauty.


18.  Chemistry, being of the spirit per se, is the context of glorious quantities par excellence, and hence of pride.


19.  Physics, being of the ego per se, is the context of formal qualities par excellence, and hence of knowledge.


20.  Metaphysics, being of the soul per se, is the context of contented essences par excellence, and hence of joy.





1.   What is evil?  That which is free in blessed hegemony over the male side of life, whether metachemically or chemically, absolutely or relatively, in relation to the noumenal objectivity of spatial space or to the phenomenal objectivity of volumetric volume.


2.   And what is good?  That which has been brought low from a blessed hegemony in objective sensuality to a damned constraint (upon not-self) in objective sensibility, passing from spatial space to repetitive time in the noumenal context of metachemistry and from volumetric volume to massed mass in the phenomenal context of chemistry.


3.   Therefore whereas evil is free and 'once born', goodness is constrained and 'reborn', though both alike appertain to the female side of life in either absolute (and metachemical) or relative (and chemical) terms.


4.   What is folly?  That which is enslaved in cursed subservience to a female hegemony, whether metaphysically or physically, absolutely or relatively, in relation to the noumenal subjectivity of sequential time or to the phenomenal subjectivity of massive mass.


5.   And what is wise?  That which has been raised up from a cursed enslavement in subjective sensuality to a saved binding (to self) in subjective sensibility, passing from sequential time to spaced space in the noumenal context of metaphysics and from massive mass to voluminous volume in the phenomenal context of physics.


6.   Therefore whereas folly is enslaved and 'once born', wisdom is bound and 'reborn', though both alike appertain to the male side of life in absolute (and metaphysical) or relative (and physical) terms.


7.   No less than evil is inextricably linked to freedom (of not-self) for female sensuality to dominate male sensuality in either eyes (noumenal) or tongue (phenomenal), goodness is just as inextricably linked to constraints upon the freedom (for not-self) of female sensibility in either heart (noumenal) or womb (phenomenal).


8.   And no less than folly is inextricably linked to enslavement (of self) by male sensuality in either ears (noumenal) or phallus (phenomenal), wisdom is just as inextricably linked to binding (to self) for male sensibility in either lungs (noumenal) or brain (phenomenal).


9.   Now whereas the 'free female' is evil and the 'enslaved male' a fool, the 'constrained female' is good and the 'bound male' wise.


10.  Whereas 'the evil' are blessed with the hegemonic position of unconstrained freedom over males, 'the good' are damned by constrained freedom to a subservient position under males.


11.  And whereas 'the foolish' are cursed with the subservient position of enslaved binding under females, 'the wise' are saved by the hegemonic position of unenslaved binding over females.


12.  What is right and what is wrong?  Clearly it is right for males that they should be delivered from sensuality to sensibility, rising diagonally through two planes in either lower-class (phenomenal) or upper-class (noumenal) terms, so that they are no longer foolishly enslaved but wisely saved from such a curse, which is wrong for them.


13.  Clearly it is right, from a male standpoint, that females should be delivered from sensuality to sensibility, falling diagonally through two planes in either upper-class (noumenal) or lower-class (phenomenal) terms, so that they are no longer evilly free but goodly damned from such a blessing, which is wrong for males.


14.  Thus whereas both evil and folly are wrong, since heathenistically outer, goodness and wisdom are right, since non-heathenistically inner, and therefore less a matter of sensuality than of sensibility.


15.  One has to be gender partisan, for it is obvious, on a utilitarian basis, that evil is and can be 'right' for females and goodness 'wrong' for them.  But, in moral reality, it is necessary to differentiate between the wrongness of sensuality and the rightness of sensibility, since it would be a poor kind of philosopher who accorded rightness to evil and wrongness to goodness or, alternatively, rightness to folly and wrongness to wisdom. 


16.  The damned female is alone good, whether absolutely in metachemistry or relatively in chemistry, and therefore right from a male standpoint, whereas the saved male is alone wise, whether relatively in physics or absolutely in metaphysics, and therefore inherently right.





1.   Nations of common sense or, more correctly, sensuality, like the British (particularly English), and of uncommon sense or, again, sensuality, like the Americans, tend not to have too much time for what, from their respective standpoints, must seem like either common sensibility or uncommon sensibility.  For they are so hooked on sensuality as to be only moderately capable of sensibility.


2.   Nations, on the other hand, of common sensibility, like the Irish (and even Gaels in general), and of uncommon sensibility, like the Indians, tend not to have too much time for what, from their respective standpoints, must seem like common sensuality or uncommon sensuality.  For they are so given to sensibility as to be only moderately capable of sensuality.


3.   For the heathenistic sensual, freedom is the highest ideal and they will fight tooth and nail to protect the blessed hegemony of evil over folly, of metachemistry over metaphysics (as in the American case in particular), and of chemistry over physics (as in the British case in particular), for they incline, if unconsciously, to take the curse of under-plane enslavement of the male side of things to a female hegemony for granted, being basically ignorant of the extent to which both freedom and enslavement are morally wrong.


4.   With the non-heathenistic sensible, on the other hand, binding to self is the highest ideal and they will do everything in their power to protect the saved hegemony of wisdom over goodness, of physics over chemistry (as in the Irish case traditionally), and of metaphysics over metachemistry (as in the Indian case traditionally), for they incline to a male hegemony in their awareness of the extent to which both binding to self for males and constraining of the not-self in females are morally right.


5.   Societies, like nations, can accordingly be divided into those for which freedom of the sensual not-self is the ne plus ultra of things and those, on the contrary, for which binding to the sensible self is the ne plus ultra of things - the former with a female bias and the latter with a male one.


6.   Those who uphold freedom may kid themselves that it is a righteous ideal but, in reality, it is morally wrong; for it implies the hegemony of evil over folly and the enslavement of males to a female domination in which heathenistic criteria of 'once-born' sensuality are paramount, to the inevitable detriment of male self-respect.


7.   Whether the symbolic illustration of this be the 'Liberty Belle' or 'Britannia', a noumenal and metachemical or a phenomenal and chemical manifestation of hegemonic freedom, the result is a crushing victory for evil over goodness, female sensuality over female sensibility, and an equally crushing victory for folly over wisdom, male sensuality over male sensibility, with a consequence that common sensuality in the phenomenal case of evil/folly (Britain) and uncommon sensuality in the noumenal case of evil/folly (America) will tend to prevail at the expense of common sensibility in the phenomenal case of wisdom/goodness (Ireland) and uncommon sensibility in the noumenal case of wisdom/goodness (India).


8.   For sensuality, like sensibility, is common when it is phenomenal and relativistic, appertaining to a lower-class mean in volume and mass, whereas sensibility, like sensuality, is uncommon when it is noumenal and absolute, appertaining to an upper-class mean in time and space.


9.   The triadic Beyond to which I subscribe as the framework of religious praxis for 'Kingdom Come' would accordingly be divisible between an upper tier of uncommon sensibility in which transcendentalism was in its per se mode, a middle tier of common sensibility in which humanism was in its per se mode, and a bottom tier of common sensibility in which nonconformism was in its per se mode, as well as 'bovaryized' subdivisions on every tier relative to chemical, physical, and metaphysical approaches to mass, volume, and space.


10.  Thus would the triadic Beyond cater to an upper-class elite, corresponding to 'the saved few', of the bound in spaced space, a middle-class commonality, corresponding to 'the saved many', of the bound in voluminous volume, and a lower-class commonality, corresponding to 'the damned many', of the constrained in massed mass, give and take subsectional distinctions between per se and 'bovaryized' modes of transcendentalism, humanism, and nonconformism.


11.  Either way, one would be talking about a society in which wisdom and goodness were the prevailing ideals, since sensibility permits of a righteous structure in which the female aspect of things is ever subordinate to a male hegemony.


12.  And in such a society males would develop their full potential for self-knowledge and self-transcendence, becoming as wise in uncommon or common sensibility as their respectively saved standings as gods or men, transcendentalists or humanists, permitted, with nothing worse than at times begrudging support from 'the constrained good' of the nonconformist modes of metaphysics, physics, and chemistry below, i.e. their female counterparts.





1.   The dividing line between idiocy and genius can be very thin, in fact little more than an elastic band or a thong, as when long hair hangs loose in the one instance and is tied together in a ponytail in the other, the former approximating to the id-self and the latter to the soul-self, alpha and omega of the self in relation to hair.


2.   One fancies that the man with long hair hanging loose would prefer,  or should be of a mind, to drink out of a bottle than a can, whereas his ponytailed counterpart would or should prefer direct recourse to a can, each of them outside the worldly parameters of glasses and cups/and or mugs.


3.   It would also be logically consistent for the one to prefer the use of a scooping fork with his dinner and for the other, less of an idiot than a genius, to prefer to wield a spoon, neither of them much partial to the use of knife and fork.


4.   One would expect to see the loosely long-haired person lounging around in parks and his ponytailed antithesis sitting in close proximity to some fountain and/or plant(s) in a shopping centre, perhaps consuming a non-alcoholic drink from a can (at any rate if he is of a more than communistic persuasion and is accordingly glad to leave 'worldly alcohol' in its most attenuated presentation well alone).


5.   Not least significant of the distinctions between 'the idiot' and 'the genius' would be the preference for tapes, both audio and video, on the part of the former and for CDs and/or DVDs on the part of the latter, whom one would expect to sport a ponytail and to be sufficiently centripetal as to be above or beyond Jazz.


6.   For it is not the id, remember, which is of especial relevance to 'the genius' but the soul, and consequently he will be loathe to entertain anything which is likely to 'jerk him off' in blatantly alpha-oriented fashion.


7.   Returning to 'the Garden' is not on his agenda, for he is one who looks forward to the paradise to come rather than back towards the ancient paradise, which tends to be identified with nature and the most 'scenic' or 'exotic' manifestations of nature in particular.


8.   It is in 'the Garden' that long hair hangs loosely, and that instinct is granted maximum prominence as people continue to be held spellbound by the beauty of natural appearances, perceiving life in overly libertarian terms.


9.   Not so in 'the Centre' of millennial futurity, where a centralized ponytail would be virtually de rigueur for those who were truly 'up to it', third-tier type people (albeit with a fringe for females), and the soul is granted maximum prominence as people defer to the truth of subnatural essences, conceiving of life in overly conservative terms.


10.  Neither the relative libertarianism of the 'worldly strong' nor the relative conservatism of the 'worldly knowledgeable' greatly appeal to our self-obsessed extremes - the id-oriented 'idiot' and the soul-oriented 'genius' - for they are as alpha and omega to that which comes in between.


11.  However, much as it would take a poor view of idiots, the triadic Beyond would not be a context in which relatively libertarian and relatively conservative people had no place, for not everyone can be ultra-conservative, and the advocate of 'Kingdom Come' would be less than fair to himself if he excluded those who come in between 'the idiot' and 'the genius' from the Beyond in question, bearing in mind the necessity of a comprehensive structure if justice is to be done not only to those who are entitled to top-tier status, but to the generality of lower-class persons for whom anything more than massed mass or voluminous volume, whether in nonconformist, humanist, or transcendentalist terms, would be completely irrelevant.


12.  But more irrelevant than spaced space in nonconformist, humanist, and transcendentalist terms for the commonality of persons in relation to the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come' ... would be the idiocy of the id-self and all that which clings to religious or cultural tradition of the most primitive and superstitious kind. 


13.  For what pertains to the one type of paradise is completely irrelevant to the other, even though that which was in the Beginning, namely the self, is and ever shall be also in the End, both the phenomenal end of history and the noumenal end of eternity in which not the id but the soul is the sovereign manifestation of the self, and all else must bow to the reign of that which, in its joyful being, justifies divine truth and stands as the eternal refutation of the beautiful lie.


14.  Thus does the philosopher vanquish the poet from the ultimate eternity, as the genius of his soul takes its rightful place at the head of those who, in their dramatic or narrative leanings, are destined to defer to that which is the literary ne plus ultra of things and guide to those who, while lacking true genius, are anything but idiots!


15.  And with the light excluded, 'the dark' and 'the heavy' will approach, on their own respective terms, the compelling lightness of the philosopher's beingful genius and take from it that which will bring to their darkness and their heaviness, their giving and their taking, a lighter tone.





1.   We have used words like evil, good, folly, and wisdom in relation to sensuality and sensibility, contending that evil is ever germane to metachemical and chemical sensuality and good, by contrast, to the metachemical and chemical modes of sensibility, while, on the opposite, or male, side of the gender fence, folly is ever germane to physical and metaphysical sensuality and wisdom, by contrast, to physical and metaphysical sensibility.


2.   Therefore there is a distinction not only between absolute evil and relative evil, the evil of the Devil and of woman, but also between absolute good and relative good, the good, once again, of the Devil and of woman, albeit it be a very different kind of Devil and woman from the Devil and woman we have identified, in 'once-born' terms, with evil.


3.   Likewise there is a distinction not only between relative folly and absolute folly, the folly of man and of God, but also between relative wisdom and absolute wisdom, the wisdom, once again, of man and of God, albeit it be a very different kind of man and God from the man and God we have identified, in 'once-born' terms, with folly.


4.   Therefore just as absolute evil and good are equally - though antithetically - diabolic, or of the Devil, so absolute folly and wisdom are equally - though antithetically - divine, or of God.


5.   And just as relative evil and good are equally - though antithetically - feminine, or of woman, so relative folly and wisdom are equally - though antithetically - masculine, or of man.


6.   Hence whereas 'the diabolic' and 'the divine' can be absolutely right or wrong, depending on the context, so 'the feminine' and 'the masculine' can be relatively right or wrong, again depending on the context, i.e. whether of sensuality or sensibility.


7.   To descend, Devil-wise, in space-time from absolute evil to absolute good is to descend, in fiery metachemistry, from absolute wrong to absolute right, from blessed freedom in spatial space to damned constraint in repetitive time, which is equivalent to descending from the absolute barbarity of noumenal objectivity in its sensual mode to the absolute civility of noumenal objectivity in its sensible mode.


8.   To descend, woman-wise, in volume-mass from relative evil to relative good is to descend, in watery chemistry, from relative wrong to relative right, from blessed freedom in volumetric volume to damned constraint in massed mass, which is equivalent to descending from the relative barbarity of phenomenal objectivity in its sensual mode to the relative civility of phenomenal objectivity in its sensible mode.


9.   To ascend, man-wise, in mass-volume from relative folly to relative wisdom is to ascend, in vegetative physics, from relative wrong to relative right, from cursed enslavement in massive mass to saved binding in voluminous volume, which is equivalent to ascending from the relative nature of phenomenal subjectivity in its sensual mode to the relative culture of phenomenal subjectivity in its sensible mode.


10.  To ascend, God-wise, in time-space from absolute folly to absolute wisdom is to ascend, in airy metaphysics, from absolute wrong to absolute right, from cursed enslavement in sequential time to saved binding in spaced space, which is equivalent to ascending from the absolute nature of noumenal subjectivity in its sensual mode to the absolute culture of noumenal subjectivity in its sensible mode.


11.  Thus just as 'the evil' become good when they are damned from sensuality to sensibility on either the metachemical axis of space-time or the chemical axis of volume-mass, so one has a right to speak of a correlative descent, in each case, from barbarity to civility - the former wrong and the latter right, whether absolutely (in the noumenal contexts of metachemical sensuality and sensibility) or relatively (in the phenomenal contexts of chemical sensuality and sensibility).


12.  Thus just as 'the foolish' become wise when they are saved from sensuality to sensibility on either the physical axis of mass-volume or the metaphysical axis of time-space, so one has a right to speak of a correlative ascent, in each case, from nature to culture - the former wrong and the latter right, whether relatively (in the phenomenal contexts of physical sensuality and sensibility) or absolutely (in the noumenal contexts of metaphysical sensuality and sensibility).


13.  It is as incontestable that being barbarous and natural are 'wrong' as that being civil and cultured are 'right', since the evil of barbarity and the folly of naturalism, as in a sense of being philistine, keep things orientated to a 'once-born' and effectively heathenistic situation of 'the blessed' (with freedom) and 'the cursed' (with enslavement to freedom) in sensuality, whereas the goodness of civility and the wisdom of culture keep things orientated to a 're-born' and effectively non-heathenistic situation of 'the constrained' (from freedom) and 'the saved' (with binding to self) in sensibility.


14.  Consequently civility, as in a wider correlative sense civilization, is a damned good thing that follows from a cultured lead by males in either phenomenal or noumenal contexts of sensibility to maintain a saved hegemony of cultural wisdom at the expense not only of natural or philistine folly but, on the female side of life, of the barbarous evil that would otherwise win back the 'civilized good' from their damned constraints.


15.  Those with any moral sense or, rather, sensibility ... will always be on the side of culture and civility against nature and barbarity; for they alone are right, whether relatively in the phenomenality of mass and volume or absolutely in the noumenality of time and space, and can accordingly speak of themselves in relation to wisdom and goodness, enhanced subjectivity for males and constrained objectivity of females.





1.   Readers of my previous text(s) may recall that I conceive of Nature in the necessarily comprehensive terms of the four elements, viz. fire, water, vegetation (earth), and air, and that Nature should accordingly be subdivided, as it were, on a fourfold basis between the unnature of fire, the supernature of water, the nature-proper of vegetation, and the subnature of air.


2.   Hence Nature is comprehensively divisible between that which one cannot live in and yet which is everywhere the basis of life, viz. fiery unnature, and those elemental manifestations of it in which life is to be found, viz. watery supernature, vegetative nature, and airy subnature.


3.   It has also been established that Nature is therefore divisible between the female objectivity of unnature and supernature, corresponding to fire and water, and the male subjectivity of nature per se and subnature, corresponding to vegetation and air, so that a straight/curved dichotomy relative to the distinction between vacuums and plenums can be inferred.


4.   Hence the metachemical 'nature' of unnature, the chemical 'nature' of supernature, the physical 'nature' of nature proper, and the metaphysical 'nature' of subnature - the female pair objective and the male pair subjective.


5.   Now because Nature in general can be of space-time metachemistry, of volume-mass chemistry, of mass-volume physics, or of time-space metaphysics, we cannot limit it to just one axis or plane, let alone sensual or sensible manifestation thereof, as though Nature were on a par with barbarity or naturalism or civility or culture, still less equivalent to naturalism and therefore something to be antithetically ranged against, say, culture.  In reality, all of these elemental alternatives are germane to Nature, albeit to a different mode of it, depending on the context. 


6.   In other words, unnature can be absolutely evil or good, sensually barbarous or sensibly civilized, depending whether it is of space-time spatially or repetitively, while supernature can likewise be relatively evil or good, sensually barbarous or sensibly civilized, depending whether it is of volume-mass volumetrically or massedly.


7.   Across to the male side of the gender fence, which is ever subjective, nature per se can be relatively foolish or wise, sensually natural or sensibly cultural, depending whether it is of mass-volume massively or voluminously, while subnature can likewise be absolutely foolish or wise, sensually natural or sensibly cultural, depending whether it is of time-space sequentially or spacedly.


8.   Hence one cannot limit Nature to this or that element when it embraces, in the totality of its elemental comprehensiveness, all the axes and all the immoral and moral, wrong and right positions of sensuality and sensibility in consequence, from barbarity and naturalism in sensual unnature and subnature to civility and culture in sensible unnature and subnature where the space/time absolutism of the noumenal alternatives is concerned, and from barbarity and naturalism in sensual supernature and nature-proper to civility and culture in sensible supernature and nature-proper where the volume/mass relativity of the phenomenal alternatives is concerned.


9.   In that respect, culture and civility are as much a part or aspect of Nature as naturalism and barbarity, albeit they are - and ever will be - germane to its sensible manifestations on both relative and absolute, lower and upper class, terms.


10.  I would be less than the philosopher I am if I didn't assert the desirability of subnature over nature, as of metaphysics over physics, and gods, or the godly, over men, with a corresponding preference for unnature over supernature, as of metachemistry over chemistry, and devils, or the devilish, over women.  For only with a noumenal bias for sensibility can ultimate justice be done to both culture and civility, wisdom and goodness, with the former germane, so I contend, to the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond and the latter, by and large, to the administrative aside which would be pledged to the service and protection of the Beyond in question.


11.  Certainly the relative culture of sensible nature over the relative civility of sensible supernature would still have a right to existence, though not, as I have argued, in the Christian context of old (long-since abandoned by a majority of Catholics), but in relation to the lower two tiers of the triadic Beyond and the salvation of Anglicans from relative naturalism to relative culture, phenomenal folly to phenomenal wisdom, and the correlative damnation of Puritans from relative barbarity to relative civility, phenomenal evil to phenomenal goodness.


12.  Hence a structure of hope for the future in which the subnature within, corresponding to an absolute culture, was in a position to pull moral rank on the nature within, corresponding to a relative culture, and to the supernature within, corresponding to a relative civility, while being served, in the administrative aside, by the absolute civility of the unnature within, whose inner beauty would shine benevolently upon the inner truth, knowledge, and strength of the metaphysical, physical, and chemical manifestations of the triadic Beyond for ever more, eternity without end.



LONDON 2000 (Revised 2011)






AddThis Social Bookmark Button