Op. 81




Cyclic Philosophy


Copyright 2011 John O'Loughlin





1. Distinguishing between Straight and Curved Elements

2. Understanding the Planes of Existence

3. Distinguishing Sensuality from Sensibility in the Elements

4. Sanity and Insanity

5. A Suggested Solution to the Contemporary Dilemma

6. A Distinction of Sentience

7. Anti-Life vis--vis Life in Sensuality and Sensibility

8. Forward to Transcendentalism

9. Rejecting Falsehood

10. The Right to Sanity





1.   Life, like the Universe, is divisible between objectivity and subjectivity, divergence (in sensuality) and/or convergence (in sensibility) in either straight lines (objective) or curved lines (subjective), the one hailing from a vacuum in female vein and the other from a plenum in male vein, so that it hangs or, better, balances between the genders, as between gender.


2.   Space is only one of four spectrums of existence, the others being time, volume, and mass, and so there has, of necessity, to be a space which is objective, or straight, and a space which is subjective, or curved.  Ditto for time, volume, and mass.  To limit any one of these planes of existence to just one gender factor, say curved, is to take a one-sided view of them which, no matter how justified it may seem from one's own particular standpoint, must fail to do justice to the spectrum in question.  Likewise where the 'straight' interpretation of a given plane is concerned.


3.   Therefore it behoves anyone attempting to plot a more comprehensive perspective in the interests of philosophical wholeness and credibility to divide space, time, volume, and mass between objective and subjective, straight and curved, female and male alternatives, so that each, in general, is conceived as being both straight and curved rather than simply straight or curved.


4.   Let us take one spectrum at a time, starting with space, and divide it between the straight, or objective, nature of spatial space and the curved, or subjective, nature of spaced space, the former appertaining to sensuality and the latter to sensibility.


5.   Likewise with time, the division there being rather more between the curved, or subjective, nature of sequential time and the straight, or objective, nature of repetitive time, the former appertaining to sensuality and the latter to sensibility.


6.   Similarly with volume, whose division is between the straight, or objective, nature of volumetric volume and the curved, or subjective, nature of voluminous volume, the former appertaining to sensuality and the latter to sensibility.


7.   Finally the division of mass, the lowest spectrum, will be between the curved, or subjective, nature of massive mass and the straight, or objective, nature of massed mass, the former appertaining to sensuality and the latter to sensibility.


8.   Returning to the axial theory which I developed in earlier texts, it is demonstrably the case that a gender division exists between that which rises diagonally from sensuality to sensibility due to a subjective disposition and that which falls diagonally from sensuality to sensibility due to an objective disposition, the one male and the other female.


9.   Hence we can distinguish rising through time and space in time-space subjectivity from falling through space and time in space-time objectivity, with a distinction, in consequence, between the curved nature of time and space in the one case, and the straight nature of space and time in the other case.


10.  Hence we can distinguish rising through mass and volume in mass-volume subjectivity from falling through volume and mass in volume-mass objectivity, with a distinction, in consequence, between the curved nature of mass and volume in the one case, and the straight nature of volume and mass in the other case.


11.  Therefore in the noumenal, or upper class, contexts of the planes of space and time, time-space subjectivity affords us evidence of a rise from curved time in its sequential mode to curved space in its spaced mode, while space-time objectivity affords us evidence of a fall from straight space in its spatial mode to straight time in its repetitive mode.


12.  Likewise in the phenomenal, or lower class, contexts of the planes of volume and mass, mass-volume subjectivity affords us evidence of a rise from curved mass in its massive mode to curved volume in its voluminous mode, while volume-mass objectivity affords us evidence of a fall from straight volume in its volumetric mode to straight mass in its massed mode.


13.  Hence a subjective rise, whether noumenal or phenomenal, is from one type of curved existence to another, as germane to a male disposition, whereas an objective fall, whether noumenal or phenomenal, is from one type of straight existence to another, as germane to a female disposition.


14.  Since that which rises from sensuality to sensibility in either phenomenal or noumenal contexts is germane to a male experience, it follows that a rise on the one side of life will condition a fall on the other; for the female will not automatically elect to fall diagonally from sensuality to sensibility within the objective parameters of her noumenal/phenomenal options unless the male first elects to rise diagonally from sensuality to sensibility within the subjective parameters of his noumenal/phenomenal options, given the hegemonic advantages that accrue to female sensuality.


15.  Rises within both time-space subjectivity and mass-volume subjectivity have been identified with alternative forms of salvation, the former upper class and metaphysical, the latter lower class and physical.  Conversely, falls within both space-time objectivity and volume-mass objectivity have been identified with alternative forms of damnation, the former upper class and metachemical, the latter lower class and chemical.


16.  Thus we have noumenal distinctions between the straight nature of metachemical space and time and the curved nature of metaphysical time and space, which contrast, on an upper class/lower class basis, with the phenomenal distinctions between the straight nature of chemical volume and mass and the curved nature of physical mass and volume.





1.   Considered spatially, space is not curved but straight or, more precisely, that which, like light, proceeds from a vacuum in spatial space will tend in a straight line rather than a curve.  Therefore it will continue indefinitely in a given direction.


2.   The notion that a body will return to its starting point if it persists long enough makes no sense in relation to spatial space, since, by definition, such space is infinite in extent and has neither beginning nor end.   Only bodies in space have a beginning or an end, and if they persist long enough in a given direction due to an objective disposition they will continue indefinitely in that direction space without spatial end.


3.   Spatial space is the ideal medium for things to proceed in a straight rather than curved fashion and, as a metachemical manifestation of noumenal objectivity, light does indeed proceed in such a fashion, in contrast to sound which, as a metaphysical manifestation of noumenal subjectivity, tends to proceed in a curved fashion, as in relation to sequential time.


4.   Of course, strictly speaking space is only definable as space in relation to metachemical and/or metaphysical factors which act upon it or within it from either a noumenally objective or a noumenally subjective standpoint, thereby creating space.  Take away these factors and there would be only nothingness, which is neither spatial nor spaced because not definable in terms of space.


5.   Likewise time is only straight or curved in relation to metachemical and/or metaphysical factors which act upon or within it from either a noumenally subjective or a noumenally objective standpoint, thereby creating time.


6.   Ditto for volume and mass, whose straightness or curvature is definable in relation to chemical and/or physical factors acting upon or within them from either a phenomenally objective or a phenomenally subjective standpoint, thereby creating volume and mass.


7.   Hence space, time, volume, and mass are not definable in relation to nothing but to a something which acts upon or within them on either an objective (if female) or a subjective (if male) basis, thereby creating and maintaining the distinctions of straightness and curvature which are characteristic of these planes. 


8.   For fundamentally space, time, volume, and mass are no more and no less than planes of existence which are definable in relation to metachemical, metaphysical, chemical, and physical properties of either an objective or a subjective disposition.  Take away these properties and there would be no space, time, volume, or mass, but only nothingness.


9.   Hence it takes something to create or maintain space, time, volume, and mass, and this applies as much to the upper-class planes, as it were, of space and time as to the lower-class planes of volume and mass.


10.  That 'something' is generally called an element, and the elements range from fire and air in the noumenal contexts of space-time objectivity and time-space subjectivity to water and vegetation (earth) in the phenomenal contexts of volume-mass objectivity and mass-volume subjectivity.


11.  Thus it is fire which creates notions of straightness in space-time objectivity and air (gas) which creates notions of curvature in time-space subjectivity, space and time only being intelligible as abstract entities of a spatial-repetitive or a sequential-spaced disposition in relation to fire and air, which are their substantial preconditions.


12.  Likewise it is water which creates notions of straightness in volume-mass objectivity and vegetation which creates notions of curvature in mass-volume subjectivity, volume and mass only being intelligible as abstract entities of a volumetric-massed or a massive-voluminous disposition in relation to water and vegetation, which are their substantial preconditions.





1.   Since space, time, volume, and mass are abstractions from the elements, they can be defined as either spatial or spaced, sequential or repetitive, volumetric or voluminous, and massive or massed in relation to sensual or sensible manifestations respectively of fire, air, water, and vegetation.


2.   Such sensual or sensible manifestations of fire can only be defined in relation to space-time objectivity, the noumenal objectivity of either metachemical primacy (if negative) or metachemical supremacy (if positive), the former cosmically inorganic and the latter universally organic.


3.   Hence they should be defined in relation to either a stellar-Venusian axis or an eyes-heart axis, wherein fire is the cardinal element and space is accordingly spatial and time ... repetitive.


4.   Such sensual or sensible manifestations of air can only be defined in relation to time-space subjectivity, the noumenal subjectivity of either metaphysical primacy (if negative) or metaphysical supremacy (if positive), the former cosmically inorganic and the latter universally organic.


5.   Hence they should be defined in relation to either a solar-Saturnian axis or an ears-lungs axis, wherein air (or, at any rate, gas) is the cardinal element and time is accordingly sequential and space ... spaced.


6.   Such sensual or sensible manifestations of water can only be defined in relation to volume-mass objectivity, the phenomenal objectivity of either chemical primacy (if negative) or chemical supremacy (if positive), the former geologically inorganic and the latter personally organic.


7.   Hence they should be defined in relation to either a lunar-oceanic axis or a tongue-womb axis, wherein water is the cardinal element and volume is accordingly volumetric and mass ... massed.


8.   Such sensual or sensible manifestations of vegetation (earth) can only be defined in relation to mass-volume subjectivity, the phenomenal subjectivity of either physical primacy (if negative) or physical supremacy (if positive), the former geologically inorganic and the latter personally organic.


9.   Hence they should be defined in relation to either a terrestrial-Martian (of the planet Mars) axis or a penis-brain axis, wherein vegetation (earth/flesh) is the cardinal element and mass is accordingly massive and volume ... voluminous.


10.  Therefore that which exists as an abstraction from some concrete element, be it noumenal or phenomenal, does so on both sensual and sensible terms as well as on both a straight and a curved basis, depending on the nature of the element from which it has been abstracted.


11.  As already noted, elements can be either objective (and female) or subjective (and male), fire and water being of the former category and vegetation and air of the latter, and this applies as much to the inorganic manifestations of each of the elements as to their rather more positive organic manifestations.


12.  Inorganic elements, being negative, are always primal and anterior to those organic offshoots which, in their positivity, have been identified with supremacy - the supremacy, needless to say, of doing, being, giving, and taking, which are the principal attributes respectively of fire, air, water, and vegetation.


13.  Therefore do not search for supreme doing, being, giving, or taking in the inorganic realms of cosmic or geologic primacy, for you will only find primal manifestations of these attributes of fire, air, water, and vegetation, which are unanimously negative.


14.  Look to yourself for doing or being or giving or taking of a supreme order, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, for you are the organic positivity which has evolved out of an inorganic backdrop to positive life, and you are immensely, if not immeasurably, superior to anything cosmic and/or geologic in consequence!


15.  He who is fully aware of his organic supremacy, be it metachemical, metaphysical, chemical, or physical, will be above any form of cosmic and/or geologic worship, since he has the capacity for supremacy at one elemental level or another in both sensuality and sensibility, and will not wish to defer to primacy in consequence.





1.   To love the organic unnature of beauty; to take pride in the organic supernature of strength; to take pleasure in the organic nature of knowledge; to be joyful in the organic subnature of truth.


2.   Conversely, to hate the inorganic unnature of ugliness; to feel humiliated by the inorganic supernature of weakness; to feel pain in the inorganic nature of ignorance; to feel woe in the inorganic subnature of falsity (delusion).


3.   For Nature is a combination of metachemical unnature, chemical supernature, physical nature, or nature per se, and metaphysical subnature, whether in relation to the negativity of inorganic primacy or to the positivity of organic supremacy.


4.   One's own Nature, human nature, is made up of such a combination in varying ratios, depending on both the gender and class (build) of the individual, with particular reference to organic supremacy, which guarantees one a positive norm as a matter of metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical course.


5.   Thus one is naturally disposed to the love of beauty, the pride of strength, the pleasure in knowledge, the joy in truth, and therefore inclined to a hatred of ugliness, a humility in weakness, a pain in ignorance, and a woe in falsity, since these things are contrary to the rule of organic supremacy, being attributes of inorganic primacy.


6.   It seems to me that a love of ugliness, a pride in weakness, a pleasure in ignorance, and a joy in falsehood would be antinatural, as, from a converse point of view, would be a hatred of beauty, a humility in strength, a pain in knowledge, and a woe in truth.


7.   For if it is natural to love beauty and to hate ugliness, then it must be antinatural to hate beauty and to love ugliness; and if it is natural to take pride in strength and to feel humiliated by weakness, then it must be antinatural to take pride in weakness and to feel humiliated by strength; and if it is natural to take pleasure in knowledge and to feel pain in ignorance, then it must be antinatural to take pleasure in ignorance and to feel pain in knowledge; and if it is natural to feel joy in truth and to feel woe in falsity, then it must be antinatural to feel joy in falsity and to feel woe in truth.


8.   For that which is antinatural is contrary to Nature, whether the Nature be metachemical and unnatural, chemical and supernatural, physical and natural per se, or metaphysical and subnatural.  And being antinatural is commensurate, in this context, with insanity, since sanity is only possible on the basis of living in harmony with Nature, whether in general terms or with reference to a bias for one particular element due to both gender and class factors.


9.   One can thus distinguish the negative Nature, as it were, of inorganic primacy from the positive Nature, in all its elemental manifestations, of organic supremacy, deeming Antinature to be that which is contrary to Nature insofar as it subverts the mean ... of regarding organic supremacy positively and inorganic primacy negatively.


10.  By twisting things so that organic supremacy is regarded negatively and inorganic primacy positively, Antinature, to repeat, is commensurate with insanity, since it causes people to love ugliness and to hate beauty, to take pride in weakness and to be humbled by strength, to take pleasure in ignorance and to feel pain in knowledge, or to feel joy in falsity and to feel woe in truth, all of which are contrary to Nature, and hence to sanity.


11.  What, then, is the cause of this insanity which stems from an anti-natural perspective?  Being organic, and therefore essentially positive, but having too much to do with that which is inorganic and fundamentally negative, whether because the society and/or civilization in which one lives is heavily inorganic or because one is personally drawn towards the inorganic, or both.


12.  In consequence of which one ends up, as an organic entity having a capacity for positivity, loving ugliness, taking pride in weakness, taking pleasure in ignorance, and feeling joy in falsity, all of which are contrary to the natural norms and therefore symptomatic of insanity. 


13.  For if one loves ugliness, one can only hate beauty; and if one takes a pride in weakness, one can only be humbled by strength; and if one takes pleasure in ignorance, one can only feel pain in knowledge; and if one feels joy in falsity, one can only feel woe in truth.  Contrary, in every case, to Nature and to the sanity that accrues to being in harmony, as an organic entity, with the organic.


14.  This twisted estimation of things which is antinatural is pretty much the abnormal mean in societies which are too heavily biased towards the inorganic, whether traditionally in relation to cosmic and/or geologic primacy or, more contemporaneously, in relation to urban and technological factors which especially characterize and condition the lives of those who are obliged or choose to live with them.


15.  For a society which is extensively and/or intensively urbanized and technologized will inevitably produce individuals who are so given to artificial manifestations of inorganic primacy as to be effectively insane in the extents to which anti-natural estimates condition their thoughts and feelings to the detriment of organic harmony.  Western society - and countries like Britain and America in particular - is especially prominent in the production of such insane individuals!





1.   That which is organic is positive in its supremacy; that, on the contrary, which is inorganic is negative in its primacy.  The inorganic, whether 'natural' or artificial, can never be positive; therefore it can never be beautiful, strong, knowledgeable, or true, but only ugly, weak, ignorant, or false.


2.   An unduly positive attitude to things that are inorganic makes for insanity, which stems from the anti-natural tendency to project an organic disposition, duly twisted, upon inorganic matters or products, so that one comes to value them above the organic.


3.   It is still possible, even in this day and age, to project a positive attitude onto organic matters or products and, conversely, a negative one onto the inorganic, so that the love of beauty, say, is not twisted away from that in Nature which is beautiful, namely manifestations of metachemical supremacy, and one is able, in consequence, to evaluate manifestations of metachemical primacy, which are ugly, as they deserve.


4.   Thus sanity is still possible even in the midst of an ever-more extensive and/or intensive development, by society in general, of inorganic primacy, but it is increasingly difficult to remain sane under threat from the artificial manifestations of inorganic primacy which characterize both urban and technological growth.  The sane man is pretty much an outsider in a society which prides itself, perversely, upon the production and worship of artificial constructs whose essence, to the limited extent that one can use such a term here, is negative.


5.   What type of society is it that puts inorganic constructs above organic life-forms in its estimation of value - in short, which puts things above people, animals, plants, etc., in its obsession with urban and technological growth?  The answer can only be - a capitalist society.


6.   For a capitalist society is one in which capital can be accumulated by those who have the will to produce or sell products and/or services, but especially products, so that the more products and/or services sold, the bigger the capital gain.  Hence a capitalist society must not only keep on producing products, it must keep on selling them as well!


7.   Which ultimately means that organic life-forms, and people not least of all, suffer as inorganic produce, the products and services of the marketplace, take priority over them in response to the greed for capital gain of the producers.


8.   And they suffer not least of all in terms of the mounting environment of inorganic produce which builds up, both externally in the outside world and internally in their domestic lives, with less and less room, seemingly, for organic concerns and life forms in the increasingly product-cluttered environments of the technologically dominated world around them.


9.   Reacting against capitalism in terms of socialism, which aims to put people first, is not, as history has shown, the solution to the problem of inorganic imbalance, since people rather than products or people above products is all very well in theory but apt to prove unworkable in practice, particularly when there is not enough access to certain inorganic products and various kinds of organic produce in a context where population growth is likely to rise more dramatically in consequence of the socialistic bias which putting people first tends to encourage.


10.  Socialism as opposed to capitalism only creates a people-related pattern of problems where formerly, or elsewhere, there had been a product-related pattern of problems, not least of all in terms of the impact of products upon people.  The impact of people upon people, or of people upon dwindling natural resources, on the other hand, can be just as, if not more, devastating, as many countries traditionally boasting a socialistic disposition have shown.


11.  Neither capitalism nor socialism is therefore a solution to the dilemma man finds himself in when wealth becomes the standard criterion, the principal goal whether in relation to the capitalistic Few or to the socialistic Many.


12.  Economics is not ultimate but, rather, penultimate, beyond science and politics, yes, but beneath religion, and therefore a society built around wealth whether inorganically or organically, with reference principally to products or to people, leaves something to be desired, not least of all in terms of the soul.  It may gratify the ego, and enable the ego to continue deferring, in heathenistic vein, to the spirit and to the will, but it will do little or nothing for the soul, which is of the essence of life, particularly Divine Life.  


13.  Therefore we must move beyond economics to religion, beyond capitalism and socialism into what, in previous texts, has been called Social Transcendentalism, which aims to combine or, rather, reconcile economics to religion, so that instead of being independent of religion in relation to political and scientific factors, the economic well-being of the people is subsumed into religion, not identified with religion but made to become an aspect of religious devotion or praxis.


14.  I do not speak here of welfare, which is intended to reconcile people to the capitalist system which continues to abuse and misuse them, but rather of deliverance from welfare, of saying farewell to welfare and welcome to coming well, to well-being.  For well-being can only arise in relation to religion, to the care of the soul, and anyone who is prepared to take care of his soul or, failing that, at least of his intellect in relation to soul or of his or, rather, her spirit in relation to soul should be provided with the necessary economic support and sustenance that will enable him to fully live according to his deserts.


15.  But only with regard to Social Transcendentalism in 'Kingdom Come', should the People vote, at the opportune time, for religious sovereignty and the rights, including the right to divinely inspired life, that would be its logical corollary.  For if religion is to take upon itself the mantle of the ultimate organic concern, then it must have the means to ensure that economic matters are addressed from a religious perspective, and that such state-like responsibility as accrues to the administrative aspects of 'Kingdom Come' should primarily be pursued with regard to the development of religion and not to the enhancement of economics, still less to the enhancement of politics or science!


16.  For all these disciplines must take a subordinate place to religion if 'Kingdom Come' is to become a reality and not remain a wishful dream slumbering on the periphery of a world besotted with wealth, power, and fame, to the detriment of that which is the ultimate guarantor of health - namely the well-being of the soul.





1.   Sensibility is, in some sense, a rejection of sensuality, a negating and turning away from sensuality in something which is nevertheless more than the absence of sensuality, being a specific kind of sentience in its own right - the inner sentience, namely, of that which is sensible.


2.   Therefore sentience is divided between the outer sentience of sensuality, which is - to coin a religious phrase - 'once born', and the inner sentience of sensibility, which is 'reborn', and therefore something finer and deeper than sensuality.


3.   Sensuality should really be seen as a guide to sensibility, a pathway to sensibility, rather than as something to be lived for in itself; for to limit oneself to sensuality is to turn one's back on that which is deeper and finer, the love of metachemical sensibility being superior, in this regard, to the love of metachemical sensuality; the pride of chemical sensibility likewise being superior to the pride of chemical sensuality; the pleasure of physical sensibility being superior to the pleasure of physical sensuality; and the joy of metaphysical sensibility being superior to the joy of metaphysical sensuality, since, to repeat, deeper and finer.


4.   In fact, where the love associated with metachemical sensuality is absolutely evil in its noumenally barbarous freedom, the love associated with metachemical sensibility is absolutely good in its noumenally civilized constraint; and where the pride associated with chemical sensuality is relatively evil in its phenomenally barbarous freedom, the pride associated with chemical sensibility is relatively good in its phenomenally civilized constraint.


5.   On the other - and male - side of the gender fence it should be noted that where the pleasure associated with physical sensuality is relatively foolish in its phenomenally natural (philistine) enslavement, the pleasure associated with physical sensibility is relatively wise in its phenomenally cultural binding; and where the joy associated with metaphysical sensuality is absolutely foolish in its noumenally natural (philistine) enslavement, the joy associated with metaphysical sensibility is absolutely wise in its noumenally cultural binding.


6.   One could distinguish, in this respect, between the spatial love of metachemical sensuality and the repetitive love of metachemical sensibility; as between the volumetric pride of chemical sensuality and the massed pride of chemical sensibility.


7.   Likewise, on the male side of the gender divide, one could distinguish between the massive pleasure of physical sensuality and the voluminous pleasure of physical sensibility; as between the sequential joy of metaphysical sensuality and the spaced joy of metaphysical sensibility.


8.   In subatomic terms, I like to think of the falling axis of space-time fieriness in metachemical objectivity as exemplifying a distinction between photons in sensuality and photinos in sensibility, the former appertaining to the eyes and the latter to the heart.


9.   Likewise I like to think of the falling axis of volume-mass wateriness in chemical objectivity as exemplifying a distinction between electrons in sensuality and electrinos in sensibility, the former appertaining to the tongue and the latter to the womb.


10.  Where the rising axis of mass-volume vegetativeness in physical subjectivity is concerned, however, I like to think of the subatomic distinction as being rather more between neutrons in sensuality and neutrinos in sensibility, the former appertaining to the penis (flesh) and the latter to the brain.


11.  And where the rising axis of time-space airiness in metaphysical subjectivity is concerned, I like to think that the subatomic distinction would be rather more between protons in sensuality and protinos is sensibility, the former appertaining to the ears and the latter to the lungs.


12.  Be that as it may, a distinction of sentience indubitably exists between the outer and the inner, sensuality and sensibility, and whether sensuality prevails over sensibility, in 'once-born' fashion, or sensibility over sensuality, in 're-born' fashion, will depend not only upon the individual but upon the nature of the society in which he lives and its system of values for better (sensibility) or worse (sensuality).





1.   Of course, we must distinguish, here as elsewhere, between the positivity of organic supremacy and the negativity of inorganic primacy, whether in traditional 'natural' terms or with regard to the more artificial and/or synthetic constructs of the urban/technological present, for sentience exists to a greater extent in the former than in the latter.


2.   In fact, the latter can detract from our capacity for sentience, making us less alive to ourselves and/or to other people, and correspondingly more akin to the artificial constructs which dominate us, whether environmentally or technologically.


3.   Therefore people who value organic supremacy above inorganic primacy, the animate above the inanimate or the sentient above the insentient, will avoid undue exposure to those manifestations of contemporary life which, while not entirely devoid of sentience, are subject to the reign of inorganic primacy to an extent which makes them detrimental to one's personal and/or universal (depending on the plane) well-being.


4.   For the consequence of falling victim to such artificial constructs is insanity, whereby the usual positive attitude towards organic supremacy and negative attitude towards inorganic primacy is anti-naturally reversed, and one comes to esteem the latter above the former in one or a number of elemental contexts.


5.   Therefore madness lurks in wait for those people who are so besotted with the latest technologies and artificial constructs that they come to prefer them to organic life itself, regarding as beautiful that which, in inorganic reality, is actually ugly, or as strong that which is actually weak, or as knowledgeable that which is actually ignorant, or as true that which is actually false, so that life is turned upside down and inside out, to the detriment of personal and/or universal health.


6.   It would not be fanciful to suggest that this lamentably paradoxical state-of-affairs is the mean for a majority of people in contemporary urban - and particularly Western - society, who are drawn to the artificial like moths to a flame or, better, filings to a magnet, and have yet to become disillusioned with the true nature, as it were, of the technological or environmental marvels which increasingly drain them of organic life-energy as they revel in the inorganic energies which emanate from or pertain to the marvels in question.


7.   For everything inorganic, even when subject to a crude degree of sentience in either sensuality (outer) or sensibility (inner), has the effect of detracting from one's own life energies and of rendering one less organically aware in consequence, making one 'dead' to all but the technological marvels which daily dominate one.


8.   One could say that just as, in general terms, inorganic primacy detracts from organic supremacy, rendering one less positive or, if subject to insanity in consequence of too great a respect for the inorganic, apt to be misguidedly positive about the primal and negative about the supreme, so, in particular terms, materialism detracts from fundamentalism, as metachemical ugliness from metachemical beauty; realism detracts from nonconformism, as chemical weakness from chemical strength; naturalism detracts from humanism, as physical ignorance from physical knowledge; and idealism detracts from transcendentalism, as metaphysical falsity from metaphysical truth.


9.   And, taken past a certain point, materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism not only detract from fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism respectively, but overrule and replace them, arrogating to themselves attributes which appertain to organic supremacy, while simultaneously undermining and dismissing as irrelevant or outmoded that which is properly organic.


10.  Yet, in reality, materialism is ugly, realism weak, naturalism ignorant, and idealism false, while fundamentalism is beautiful, nonconformism strong, humanism knowledgeable, and transcendentalism true - at any rate, so long as one is still sane and capable of distinguishing the personal and/or universal from the geologic and/or cosmic, whether traditionally or, more artificially, in relation to contemporary society.


11.  Yes, idealism is as much an inorganic threat, in its falsity, to transcendentalism as ... materialism, in its ugliness, to fundamentalism, and the sane noumenal person, whether divinely metaphysical or diabolically metachemical, will not only know how to distinguish the one from the other, but will have them in perspective and live according to his/her organic bias, be it for truth or beauty in sensuality or, preferably (especially from a male standpoint), in sensibility.


12.  Likewise, naturalism is as much an inorganic threat, in its ignorance, to humanism as ... realism, in its weakness, to nonconformism, and the sane phenomenal person, whether masculinely physical or femininely chemical, will know how to distinguish the one from the other and live according to his/her organic bias, be it for knowledge or strength in sensuality or, preferably (especially from a male standpoint), in sensibility.





1.   An age of materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism is of necessity a secular age, an age dominated by science rather than led by religion; for it is one in which inorganic primacy takes precedence over organic supremacy, and things are accordingly judged or evaluated in relation to their materialistic, realistic, naturalistic, or idealistic worth.


2.   Now in an age led or, at any rate, characterized by religion, on the other hand, things are judged and evaluated in relation to the beauty of fundamentalism or to the strength of nonconformism or to the knowledge of humanism or to the truth of transcendentalism (the religious per se), in consequence of which a love of beauty tends to encourage a hatred of ugliness, a pride in strength tends to encourage a humility if not humiliation in weakness, a pleasure in knowledge tends to encourage a pain in ignorance, and a joy in truth tends to encourage a woe in falsity, making one contemptuous, in these various ways, of materialism and realism and naturalism and idealism.


3.   Today, however, it is less evident, in face of the ever-burgeoning plethora of technological options, that a hateful or shameful or painful or woeful contempt of materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism is the norm but, rather, that a sort of inverted contempt of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism has become the norm for those people who, judged by natural standards, are anything but sane!


4.   In fact, such people are sorry testimony to the dominion of Antinaturalism, which twists values from a positive attitude towards matters having to do with organic supremacy to a falsely positive attitude towards things having to do with inorganic primacy, particularly in relation to the artificial constructs and technologies of the contemporary world.


5.   But who or what is responsible for this?  For turning people away from people and enslaving them ever more securely to the machines and products of the technological present?  Precisely the capitalist manufacturers and distributors of these artificial constructs, whose principal concern is to sell them and maximize profits.


6.   It matters not to the capitalistic individuals whether a majority of people go insane in their anti-natural estimation of the cultural or moral worth of these products, so long as they continue to express a dependence upon them and prefer them to more natural or organic alternatives. 


7.   Yet the manufacturers and distributors are themselves likely to be more in favour of inorganic primacy and indifferent, if not hostile, towards organic supremacy than their commercial victims, since they are the 'first movers', as it were, in the production of these artificial constructs, and have a vested interest in selling them in order to become richer and more able, in consequence, to live according to their appetites.


8.   Which, of course, means to live under the sway of inorganic primacy to a greater extent than in relation to organic supremacy, given the near impossibility of being able to transcend a professionally-conditioned artificial lifestyle for one more natural in character when, to judge by performance and affiliation, one is more exposed to the insanity of anti-natural evaluations than those less well-off than oneself, and more inclined to take the secular rule of inorganic primacy for granted.


9.   Paradoxical indeed would be the man who used wealth accumulated via commercial endeavour to further a more naturalistic lifestyle, independent, to a large degree, of those materialistic or realistic or naturalistic or even idealistic factors which made him wealthy in the first place!  That is not the way out of the contemporary dilemma in which evaluations are twisted away from organic supremacy by a hegemonic primacy.


10.  Neither, for that matter, is war, or the threat or actuality of violence used against capitalist society by movements or individuals who stand for an alternative society which, by the very nature of their actions, would be less than godly or God-fearing in its people-oriented disposition. 


11.  You cannot use a symptom of capitalism to cure capitalism, still less expect socialism to remedy evils which have more to do with a fixation on wealth through the absence or rejection of godliness than with this or that particular expression of wealth creation or distribution.


12.  Even religion is a thorny issue when the forms it takes are less than genuinely religious, as in the cases of fundamentalism, nonconformism, and humanism, which rather than offering a lead away from the world in a post-worldly direction ... tend to either fall-in with the world, as in the cases of politics-oriented nonconformism and economics-oriented humanism, or to lead back behind the world, as in the case of science-oriented fundamentalism, with consequences only too predictably non-religious as far as the interpretation and health of the soul is concerned!


13.  Only transcendentalism, because it is genuinely metaphysical and religious rather than metachemical and scientific or chemical and political or physical and economic, can lead the way beyond the world towards that estimation of things in which truth, and truth first and foremost if not alone, is the principal criterion for assessing the value of life and standard by which, or against which, other issues should be judged.


14.  For until truth is sovereign, and recognized as such on the basis of what it stands for, religion will continue to be subject to the reign of beauty or strength or knowledge masquerading as truth, with fundamentalist, nonconformist, and humanist consequences which, while claiming God for themselves, effectively exclude the possibility of truth - and therefore genuine godliness - due to their rejection, in one degree or another, of transcendentalism.


15.  I teach the New Transcendentalism, the Social Transcendentalism, which takes over from where socialism leaves off in its concern for people before products, but with the very important addition of transcendental religion ... to give people both a lead and a safeguard against the pitfalls of secular humanism, whose obsessive concern with wealth distribution makes it almost as dangerous to human well-being as the wealth creation which capitalist inhumanism monopolizes, to the detriment of mental and emotional health.





1.   People familiar with my previous texts will know all about Social Transcendentalism and its concepts of a triadic Beyond and a Gaelic Federation and other matters, pertaining to a New Order, which have been identified, provisionally if not ultimately, with 'Kingdom Come', so I won't waste time repeating myself here, except to reiterate that such a New Order, amounting in effect to a new culture/civilization complex, can only come to pass via a majority democratic mandate for it, should the Electorate of such chosen countries as Eire be granted the paradoxical opportunity to vote for religious sovereignty with the coming of what to me would be Judgement, and thereby opt, if they so choose, to be delivered not only from 'sins and/or punishments of the world', meaning the conventional democratic norms, but from the Creator-based religious primitivity - and falsity - which continues to officially prevail, to the detriment of soulful well-being.


2.   For the Christian religion, which is no true religion, tends to fall back on Old-Testament Creationism (not to mention Creatorism), and thus not only on a cosmic - and necessarily negative - order of God, such that panders to inorganic primacy, but on the lie of the 'First Mover' as God and correlative taboo which taking the 'Fallen Angel' for Devil places upon the notion of a counter-Cupidian axis, so to speak, in which a departure from sequential time to spaced space equals metaphysical salvation, and not merely in relation to the inorganic primacy of a cosmic rise from the sun to Saturn but, more significantly from a human standpoint, in relation to the organic supremacy of a universal rise from the ears to the lungs, the airwaves to the breath, outer metaphysics to inner metaphysics, for those who are deemed especially worthy of such a deliverance.


3.   With the sun and ears positions of inorganic primacy and organic supremacy respectively equivalent to Satanic and Davidian devils, the 'fallen-angel' fall guy for slag precludes notions of counter-Cupidian salvation; for everything is then locked-in to a pyramidal triangle ruled either by the stellar-plane 'First Mover' - which is aided and abetted, in completion of the Cupidian axis, by a Venusian aside, call it Allah in relation to the stellar Jehovah and the solar Satan - or, where organic supremacy is concerned, by the Risen Virgin, symbolic of the eyes, Who is aided and abetted, in Cupidian-axis vein, by the Sacred Heart-aside of the Risen Christ in pinning the Father, symbolic of the ears, Whose position, paradoxically, is akin to that of Davidian Devil vis--vis the so-called Christian gods of the Risen Virgin and Risen Christ, this latter being the organic equivalent, one might say, to Allah.


4.   Be that as it may, all such heathenistic triangular falsehoods, whether cosmic and primal or universal and supreme, preclude one's adopting the notion of a counter-Cupidian axis which delivers one from sensuality to sensibility in metaphysics, the elemental context, par excellence, of being, and thus of soulful redemption as the essence of genuine religion.   Not only does being remain enslaved to doing, to metachemistry, in the Christian and, for that matter, Judaic and Mohammedan traditions, but the doingful context, so to speak, of 'First Mover' is falsely identified with being and perversely regarded as metaphysical, so that the Cupidian axis itself becomes synonymous, in its ugliness and hatred (if inorganic) or beauty and love (if organic), with notions of divinity, and materialism and/or fundamentalism accordingly prevail at the expense of idealism and/or transcendentalism.


5.   Then poets like Keats, who were a part, in their upbringing and education, of this false system of things, this lying civilization, can speak of beauty being truth and truth beauty, when, in point of fact, they are the alpha and omega, the apparent and essential extremes, in metachemistry and metaphysics, of organic supremacy, with all the noumenal difference between the Devil and God.


6.   The Lie must be exposed and the limitations it imposes upon religion done away with, so that the Truth may live and lead mankind forward out of the worldly mire in which they are bogged down to the detriment of all that is wise and holy or, in the female case, good and unclear, given the cultural and civilized distinctions which accrue to salvation and damnation.  People should no longer be obliged to live with Creator-based religious primitivity and its twisted concept of divinity, the same sort of insanely twisted view of things that esteems inorganic primacy above organic supremacy, and allows the more unscrupulous and predatory elements in society to capitalize on the artificial equivalents of cosmic and/or geologic primacy at the People's expense.


7.   For it is not even the case that Old-Testament primitivity, rooted in the Cosmos, is fundamentalist and transcendentalist but, rather, materialist and idealist, given the negativity of inorganic primacy which prevails there to the exclusion of beauty and truth, even though the twisted adherents of such primitivity will arrogate beauty and truth to cosmic primacy and hype that which demonstrably falls short of organic supremacy, even as Supreme Being over Supreme Doing where the God-over-Devil falsehood is concerned, so that eyes, ears, and heart must necessarily be excluded from the religious reckoning, and that which is avowedly universal be attributed to the Cosmos!


8.   It is exactly the same anti-natural tendency which contemporary insanity displays when it attributes to the artificial or synthetic manifestations of inorganic primacy, be they noumenal or phenomenal, cosmic- or geologic-equivalent, positive qualities which, in reality, pertain to manifestations of organic supremacy, and instead of having a contemptuous attitude towards the former and a respectful attitude towards the latter, people's estimations are reversed, and reversed, it has to be said, with Old Testament sanction!


9.   Thus it is the Bible, the so-called Holy Book, and other books of a like Creator-based nature, which are at the roots of the insanity which characterizes the contemporary world, and which, irony of ironies, could be used by its adherents to justify that insanity under pretext that what is happening is not really insane at all but, on the contrary, eminently sane, since loving beauty and taking pride in strength and taking pleasure in knowledge and feeling joy in truth - in short, adhering organically to all the naturalistic norms across the range of elements in the interests of supreme doing, supreme giving, supreme taking, and supreme being. 


10.  But, in reality, it is precisely the inorganic that they love or take pride in or take pleasure in or feel joyful about (albeit in a twisted and false kind of way), because it is to the inorganic that they have attributed beauty and strength and knowledge and truth in Old Testament vein, and it is the inorganic which paradoxically rules a supreme roost in contradiction of its primal nature.


11.  How the Lie must be exposed, challenged, and done away with, so that the People may democratically crawl out from under the crushing burden of the church and state conspiracy of contemporary Western insanity and turn towards the light of Truth which shines from beyond the world in Messianic vein, and has no use for creators or trinities or triangles or inverted values or hyped deities or monotheistic authoritarianisms or bibles or anything else steeped in insanity and posing, falsely and criminally, as truth!


12.  There is only one Truth ultimately, the Truth of the Saved from time to space in time-space subjectivity, the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical supremacy, and the transcendental meditation which sensibly encourages the Son-like metaphysical ego to plunge, identity-wise, into the Father-like metaphysical will of the lungs to breathe and be borne out by the Holy Spirit of the breath, only to recoil, in self-preservation, more profoundly to self, in and as the Holy Soul of Heaven, than would otherwise have been possible, wherein the Son-Ego is redeemed and experiences that joy which is Truth's - and therefore God's - sublime reward. 


13.  Then the cycle must be repeated, endlessly, for as long as one, as a saved God, a primary God (the Son) utilizing both secondary God (the Father) and Heaven (the Holy Spirit) towards a heavenly redemption which is primary (the Holy Soul), chooses or is able to meditate.  There is no other Truth, ultimately, than this, and its joy is eternal testimony to the reign of genuine transcendentalism.


14.  For genuine Transcendentalism has nothing to do with 'first movers' or 'creators' or the cosmic noumenal regarded universally, nor even with the 'fallen-angel' fall guy for slag which characterizes 'once born' and particularly male reality in cursed under-plane subservience to a blessed female hegemony, but, on the contrary, is the salvation from that enslaved reality to the over-plane deliverance in metaphysical sensibility which, more organically, has been identified with the lungs, and hence with awareness of breathing through transcendental meditation in the context of spaced space.


15.  The genuine or, more accurately, saved Transcendentalist is a transcendental meditator, and in meditating he or, rather, He (for he is noumenal, and hence upper class in his godly disposition) brings His inner metaphysical ego to that redemption - and resurrection - which is commensurate with joyful experience of the Holy Soul of Heaven, a reality which transcends the limitations of trinitarian thinking in respect of that which is at the core of genuinely religious commitment - namely, self-transcendence (of the metaphysical ego) through the metaphysical soul, the soul-of-souls or soul per se, which is nothing less than the self brought to a deeper and finer pitch of inner being.





1.   Social Transcendentalism is partial to upholding the saved transcendentalism of the transcendental meditator, but it is no utopian partisanship which would have society build 'castles in the air' or 'pie in the sky' in overly Heaven-prone fashion. 


2.   On the contrary, it is Social Transcendentalism, and therefore that which has been described above together with less than what has been described above, meaning new orders of earthly humanism and purgatorial nonconformism for the lower-class masses of phenomenal mankind (ever distinct from noumenal mankind) which, together with heavenly transcendentalism, have been translated into my concept of a triadic Beyond.


3.   Such a concept has reference to a religious structure beyond the worldly means of church and state in which space, volume, and mass equally have a place in relation to the sensibilities of lungs, brain, and womb, and the entire structure of this triadic Beyond is served from a new order of time in which the heart has progressed, if you like, from an economic standing in molecular wavicles to a religious standing in elemental wavicles, the sort of standing commensurate with service of a religious structure in what would be the administrative aspect of 'Kingdom Come', and not, like the Sacred Heart of the Risen Christ, with the aiding and abetting of a pyramidal triangular structure in which the other points of the triangle are taken by eyes and ears, the Risen Virgin and the Father, in what amounts, vis--vis the Christian and, in particular, Catholic tradition of brain over womb, Christ over the Virgin Mary, to a heathenistic decadence.


4.   Such a decadence parallels the inverted triangular heathenism of Protestantism down below in volume and mass, with tongue over penis (flesh), Puritans and Presbyterians over Anglicans, as described in previous texts, and is therefore something which, like that, requires salvation or damnation, depending on gender, from sensuality to sensibility if anything remotely 'reborn' and civilized/cultural is to re-emerge from out the all-too-heathenistic 'once-born' norms of contemporary barbarous/natural (if not philistine) society.


5.   I have maintained that Social Transcendentalism can only come to pass via a majority democratic mandate for religious sovereignty, the sovereignty which I have advocated and believe to be ultimate, and that such a mandate, commensurate with Judgement, would give the People rights in relation to religious self-transcendence or, in the case of females, not-self constraints (upon spirituality) that could only be institutionally upheld within the framework of a triadic Beyond, thereby ensuring not only that they could be fulfilled, but that nothing primitive or religiously traditional could interfere with or thwart them.


6.   Therefore salvation is open to Anglicans up diagonally in mass-volume subjectivity from penis to brain in vegetative physics, and to Catholics up diagonally in time-space subjectivity from ears to lungs in airy metaphysics, while damnation would be the just fate of Puritans and/or Presbyterians down diagonally in volume-mass objectivity from tongue to womb in watery chemistry, as described elsewhere.


7.   In fact Puritans, and Baptists in particular, have traditionally intimated of this damnation from watery sensuality to watery sensibility through the ritual of baptism, bodily submergence via the officiating minister in what could be regarded as a womb-like trough, and such a ritual is effectively commensurate not with Christ but with Mary, with a proto-Marian tendency such that, in Social Transcendentalist estimation, confirms the suitability of such persons to the bottom - and chemical - tier of our projected triadic Beyond.


8.   Be that as it may, Social Transcendentalists would be divisible, in this triadic Beyond, between persons of Puritan descent, persons of Anglican descent, and persons of Roman Catholic descent, and the administrative aside itself would be drawn from persons of various traditions, not least of all Catholic upper-class females effectively damned from eyes to heart and Presbyterian pro-upper class males effectively abandoning the passionate tongue within the inverted triangle of so-called Protestant solidarity or, better, society for the new manifestation of the Sacred Heart which is not only distinct from the Sacred Heart of the (Catholic) Risen Christ but from the Profane Heart, as it were, of the Blood Royal to which such Presbyterians - and not a few Puritans and Anglicans - in, for example, Northern Ireland would traditionally have deferred, with correlative taboos upon working back up the Cupidian axis from Blood Royal sensibility toward Risen Virgin sensuality (in the Eyes), given the Catholic connotations that accrue to such a position in relation to that other type of organic triangle - the pyramidal one of Catholic decadence.


9.   The triadic Beyond would also, as already outlined elsewhere, be subject to three-way subdivisions of each tier, so that not only would the genders be segregated, which is crucial to a post-worldly and indeed otherworldly disposition, but that males would themselves be divisible between those with a natural affiliation to the intellect and those whose natural or, rather, subnatural affiliation was towards the soul, whether with regard to chemistry, to physics, or, up above on the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond, to metaphysics, the context of transcendentalism par excellence, and thus of that which would do most justice to truth (and comparatively less justice, in their 'bovaryized' manifestations, to knowledge and strength, the intellect and the spirit).


10.  But, of course, the intellect and the spirit would have more justice done to them down below, as it were, on the lower tiers of the triadic Beyond, as one descended, structurally speaking, from air to vegetation and water, as from a sensible manifestation of metaphysical space (spaced) to sensible manifestations of physical volume (voluminous) and chemical mass (massed), and criteria more applicable to men and women (than to gods) would accordingly prevail for persons mostly drawn, as already intimated, from the various Protestant traditions.


11.  All, however, would be Social Transcendentalists, irrespective of their denominational backgrounds or tier positions within the triadic Beyond, and all would have rights in relation to religious sovereignty that ensured that never again would they be exposed to the primitivity of religious authoritarianism and the Cosmos-slavering madness which adherence to Creator-based religion engenders.  In fact, they would have a right to sanity, to a pride in strength, a pleasure in knowledge, and a joy in truth which really did pertain to organic supremacy and not to hyped-up manifestations of inorganic primacy, whether 'natural', as traditionally, or artificial, in the more contemporary context of urban/technological primacy.


12.  For it would be their sensibilities in mass, volume, and space which were the focal-points of religious praxis, and whether the expansion of self (in the subjective case of males) or the constraining of not-self (in the objective case of females) was the principal concern, that concern would be pursued independently not only of sensuality but of those hyped manifestations of inorganic primacy which have traditionally bedevilled religion in the West and, through their subversive arrogation of supremacy, made it virtually impossible for the Truth to prevail.  Let this not be the sorry story of tomorrow!



LONDON 2000 (Revised 2011)






AddThis Social Bookmark Button