Preview MAGNUS DEI eBook  


Op. 82




Cyclic Philosophy


Copyright 2011 John O'Loughlin





1. Introducing Will-Spirit-Ego-Soul

2. Doing-Giving-Taking-Being

3. Power-Glory-Form-Content(ment)

4. Some General Ideas

5. Right and Wrong Revisited

6. From Clearness to Holiness

7. Will-Spirit-Ego-Soul Revisited

8. The Sensibility of Holiness

9. The Sensibility of Unclearness

10. Alternative Sensualities

11. From Chaos to Paradise

12. Religious Categories

13. Values and Antivalues

14. The Nature of Judgement

15. The Struggle for Sensibility

16. Sensibility and Sanity

17. Forms of Competition and Co-operation

18. Free to Prey and Bound to Pray

19. Significant Racial Distinctions

20. Positive Racial Consciousness

21. Nordic and Celtic

22. Towards the Urban Centre

23. Urban/Suburban Patchwork

24. Self-negation through External Manipulation

25. Godless Impostor

26. Power and Glory vis--vis Form and Content(ment)

27. Immanence and Transcendence

28. Free to Enthral vis--vis Bound to Enslave





1.   The Will, according to elemental disposition, can be evil, good, foolish, or wise, on both relative (phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal) terms.  Chemical will can be evil (sensual) or good (sensible), metachemical will likewise.  Physical will can be foolish (sensual) or wise (sensible), metaphysical will likewise.


2.   The Spirit, according to elemental disposition, can be clear, unclear, unholy, or holy, on both relative (phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal) terms.  Chemical spirit can be clear (sensual) or unclear (sensible), metachemical spirit likewise.  Physical spirit can be unholy (sensual) or holy (sensible), metaphysical spirit likewise.


3.   The Ego, according to elemental disposition, can be barbarous, civilized, natural, or cultural, on both relative (phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal) terms.  Chemical ego can be barbarous (sensual) or civilized (sensible), metachemical ego likewise.  Physical ego can be natural (sensual) or cultural (sensible), metaphysical ego likewise.


4.   The Soul, according to elemental disposition, can be cruel, punishing, sinful, or graceful, on both relative (phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal) terms.  Chemical soul can be cruel (sensual) or punishing (sensible), metachemical soul likewise.  Physical soul can be sinful (sensual) or graceful (sensible), metaphysical soul likewise.





1.   To do evilly, goodly, foolishly, or wisely, according to whether one is sensually chemical/metachemical, sensibly chemical/metachemical, sensually physical/metaphysical, or sensibly physical/metaphysical.


2.   To give clearly, unclearly, unholily, or holily, as above.


3.   To take barbarously, civilizedly, naturally, or culturally, as above.


4.   To be cruelly, punishingly, sinfully, or gracefully, as above.






1.   The power of evil, good, folly, and wisdom.


2.   The glory of clearness, unclearness, unholiness, and holiness.


3.   The form of barbarity, civility, nature, and culture.


4.   The contentment of crime, punishment, sin, and grace.





1.   Afterlife: Progression from 'Heaven' to 'Hell' ... as from 'Light' to 'Darkness'.  For the light of the self, the soul, must fade in the course of posthumous time (Eternity), whereupon the darkness of extensive decomposition comes to pass.


2.   Music: Gender splits - masculine and feminine - across all the elements, viz. fire, water, vegetation (earth) and air.  For example, Blues (masculine) and Jazz (feminine) within fire; Rock (masculine) and Pop (feminine) within water; Classical (masculine) and Romantic (feminine) within vegetation; Gospel (masculine) and Soul (feminine) and/or Trad (masculine) and Folk (feminine) within air.


3.   Individualism vis--vis Collectivism: Gender distinction between the objectivity of freedom (rooted in a vacuum) and the subjectivity of binding (centred in a plenum).  Therefore freedom of the individual (from the self) vis--vis binding of the individual (to the self) as a female/male distinction.


4.   Morality: Indirect (female) and direct (male), both germane to sensibility according to conventional gender distinctions, i.e. the fire and water of female objectivity, as against the vegetation and air of male subjectivity.


5.   Immorality: Direct (female) and indirect (male), both germane to sensuality according to conventional gender distinctions, as above.


6.   Public vis--vis private is equivalent to sensuality vis--vis sensibility, whether objective (and female) or subjective (and male).


7.   Freedom of the (female) individual from the self and/or for the not-self, relative to fire and water, tends to result in enslavement of the (male) individual to the (female) not-self, whereas binding of the (male) individual to the self tends to result in deliverance of the (female) individual from the not-self.


8.   Freedom and enslavement are two manifestations (female and male) of the public aspect of things, whereas binding and deliverance are two manifestations (male and female) of the private aspect of things.


9.   The blessing of freedom (for females), as against the curse of enslavement (for males) in sensuality, but the salvation of binding (for males), as against the damnation of deliverance (for females)) via sensibility.


10.  The male is cursed when his self is enslaved, in sensuality, to the female not-self, whereas the female is damned when her not-self is so constrained, in sensibility, as to render her deferential to the male self.


11.  Collectivism comes in between individualism as molecular particles/wavicles in between elemental particles/wavicles, i.e. elemental particles (ruling, or scientific, individualism); molecular particles (ruling, or political, collectivism); molecular wavicles (leading, or economic, collectivism); elemental wavicles (leading, or religious, individualism).


12.  Hence collectivism and individualism can be either public or private, sensual or sensible, outer or inner.





1.   A simple distinction, in my view, between sensuality and sensibility, immorality and morality, whereby immorality, and hence wrongness, is premised upon sensuality, but morality, and hence rightness, upon sensibility.


2.   Rightness and wrongness can, however, be direct or indirect - wrongness being direct when female but indirect when male, whereas rightness is direct when male but indirect when female.


3.   When wrongness, or immorality, is direct (female) it is objective and free, when it is indirect (male) it is subjective and enslaved (unbound), and this whether in noumenal or phenomenal, absolute or relative, terms.


4.   When rightness, or morality, is direct (male), it is subjective and bound, when it is indirect (female) it is objective and constrained (unfree), and this whether in phenomenal or noumenal, relative or absolute, terms.


5.   Wrongness is a blessing for females and a curse for males, whereas rightness is a salvation for males (from the curse of indirect wrongness) and a damnation for females (from the blessing of direct wrongness).


6.   To be delivered, as a phenomenal male (a man), from the curse of massive mass (in the phallus) to the salvation of voluminous volume (in the brain), rising diagonally from mass to volume in mass-volume subjectivity, which is physical and, hence, vegetative.


7.   To be delivered, as a phenomenal female (a woman), in response to the above from the blessing of volumetric volume (in the tongue) to the damnation of massed mass (in the womb), falling diagonally from volume to mass in volume-mass objectivity, which is chemical and, hence, watery.


8.   To be delivered, as a noumenal male (a god), from the curse of sequential time (in the ears) to the salvation of spaced space (in the lungs), rising diagonally from time to space in time-space subjectivity, which is metaphysical and, hence, airy.


9.   To be delivered, as a noumenal female (a devil), in response to the above from the blessing of spatial space (in the eyes) to the damnation of repetitive time (in the heart), falling diagonally from space to time in space-time objectivity, which is metachemical and, hence, fiery.


10.  In either case, whether phenomenal or noumenal, relative or absolute, the female 'fall' follows from a male 'rise', and the male rises precisely because he wishes to progress from indirect wrongness to direct rightness, as from sensuality to sensibility, thereby escaping the curse of under-plane subservience - and subjection - to a female hegemony.





1.   In sensuality the female is blessed with clearness and the male cursed by unholiness, whereas in sensibility the male is saved to holiness and the female damned to unclearness.


2.   'The unclear' defer to 'the holy' in sensibility, no less than 'the unholy' defer to 'the clear' in sensuality.


3.   Culture and civility - and hence, in a broader sense, civilization - are only genuinely possible in sensibility; in sensuality, by contrast, things remain beholden to or conditioned by nature and barbarity.


4.   Just as the male rises, diagonally, from nature to culture, as from sin to grace, so the female falls, diagonally, from barbarity to civility, as from crime to punishment.


5.   To rise, through physical salvation, from mass to volume in mass-volume subjectivity is the masculine equivalent of the godly rise, through metaphysical salvation, from time to space in time-space subjectivity, which thereby achieves not merely relative but absolute culture.


6.   To fall, through chemical damnation, from volume to mass in volume-mass objectivity is the feminine equivalent of the devilish fall, through metachemical damnation, from space to time in space-time objectivity, which thereby achieves not merely relative but absolute civility.


7.   Just as the male rises, in salvation, from folly to wisdom, as from self-freedom to self-binding, so the female falls, in damnation, from evil to good, not-self freedom to not-self binding.


8.   The self-enhancement of males, whether in phenomenal or in noumenal contexts of sensibility, is attendant upon the self- or, rather, not-self debasement of females, since a diagonal rise to binding on the one hand is only possible on the basis of a diagonal fall from freedom on the other hand, the hand of female damnation.


9.   Freedom from self (indirect immorality) through bewitchment by the female not-self is the male curse that can only be escaped from through binding to self (direct morality) in sensibility.


10.  Freedom for not-self (direct immorality) through domination of the male self is the female blessing that can only be undermined through binding of not-self (indirect morality) in sensibility.


11.  Thus the rise of males depends upon the fall of females, and the deliverance from freedom to binding, whether directly (males) or indirectly (females) is what makes for culture and civility, both of which are morally right as opposed, like barbarity and nature, to morally wrong (and therefore immoral).


12.  Freedom can therefore be directly wrong, or primarily immoral, as in the case of females, or indirectly wrong, or secondarily immoral, as in the case of males, whereby freedom centres upon the self as opposed, with females, to the not-self, and is accordingly natural rather than barbarous, or foolish rather than evil.


13.  Binding can therefore be directly right, or primarily moral, as in the case of males, or indirectly right, or secondarily moral, as in the case of females, whereby binding centres upon the not-self as opposed, with males, to the self, and is accordingly civilized rather than cultural, or good rather than wise.


14.  Creatures rooted in objectivity, like females, will always be primarily of the not-self, or organs of sensuality or sensibility germane to the objective elements of fire and water, whereas those centred in subjectivity, like males, will always be primarily of the self, or the brain stem and spinal column which, together, constitute the central nervous system.


15.  Hence not only do males and females differ in respect of their selves, they differ in respect of the not-selves to which they relate - males having a secondary relationship, on account of their self-oriented subjectivity, to their not-selves, which appertain to the subjective elements of vegetation (earth) and air.





1.   The female is less selfish than the male because more not-selfish, whereas the male is more selfish than the female because less not-selfish.


2.   The will is always not-selfish and the ego selfish, since the will is based in the not-self and the ego in the self.  This applies to all four categories of will and ego, viz. metachemical, chemical, physical, and metaphysical, in both sensual and sensible, not to mention negative and positive contexts.


3.   That which issues from the not-self is spiritual and comparatively selfless or, which amounts to the same, of a spiritual order of not-self, whereas that which issues from the self is soulful and comparatively selfish or, which amounts to the same, of a soulful order of self.


4.   Just as the spirit depends upon the will for its existence, so the soul depends upon the ego, whether in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or metaphysics.


5.   Without will there can be no spirit, without ego no soul, and therefore there is no spirit or soul where will and ego are lacking - at least not in life.


6.   In death, on the other hand, things revert to the id, or primitive instinctual will of the self, the nervous reactions of which engender not spirit but a more intrinsic order of soul such that illumines the self in what has been described as Eternal Life.


7.   The soul of such Eternal Life, a sort of oversoul, should not, however, be confounded with the soul of diurnal life, which has intimate connections with the ego, being a projection of egocentric recoil from the prospect of self-annihilation at the hands, so to speak, of the spirit.


8.   In the soul the self finds its redemption and, in some sense, resurrection, since what was ego is now soul, and the soul is the nearest thing to the Afterlife.


9.   But soul can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, like ego, and therefore hellish, purgatorial, earthly, or heavenly, depending whether love, pride, pleasure, or joy is the reigning feeling.


10.  Only the metaphysical soul is commensurate with soul per se, and thus with a heavenly end in which the self is lifted up, or resurrected, in joy.


11.  But for the soul per se to be holy rather than unholy, it must be associated with metaphysical sensibility, and thus be the product of an ego which is into the will of the lungs to breathe and is carried forth upon the holy spirit of the out-breath before recoiling to self-as-soul in self-preservation under selfless threat.


12.  In metaphysical sensuality, by contrast, soul, like spirit, is unholy, since affiliated to the ears and the airwaves, whereas the holiness of physical soul and spirit is only phenomenal and therefore relative, having to do with pleasure rather than with joy.


13.  On the female side of life, on the other hand, there is neither holiness nor unholiness, but only clearness and unclearness, which are the norms for soul and spirit in relation to the objective modes of ego and will, the former of the self and the latter of the not-self.


14.  Creatures for whom the not-self is primary and the self secondary can make do, by and large, with third- and fourth-rate orders of ego and soul, as in relation to pride (chemical) and love (metachemical), the former affiliated to a purgatorial disposition and the latter to a hellish one.


15.  This is because, being objective, they are driven to affirm first- and second-rate orders of will and spirit in connection with their metachemical and chemical not-selflessness - first- and second-rate orders of will and spirit complementing third- and fourth-rate orders of ego and soul in the space-time objectivity of metachemical sensuality and sensibility; first- and second-rate orders of spirit and will complementing third- and fourth-rate orders of soul and ego in the volume-mass objectivity of chemical sensuality and sensibility.


16.  In contrast to males who, when 'true' to themselves, will affirm first- and second-rate orders of ego and soul in connection with the physical and metaphysical selves - first- and second-rate orders of ego and soul complementing third- and fourth-rate orders of will and spirit in the mass-volume subjectivity of physical sensuality and sensibility; first- and second-rate orders of soul and ego complementing third- and fourth-rate orders of spirit and will in the time-space subjectivity of metaphysical sensuality and sensibility.


17.  For males a progression from sensuality to sensibility in either mass-volume subjectivity or time-space subjectivity is commensurate with deliverance from the curse of unholiness to the redemption of holiness, which is salvation, whereas for females a 'progression' from sensuality to sensibility in either space-time objectivity or volume-mass objectivity is commensurate with deliverance from the blessing of clearness to the perdition of unclearness, which is damnation.


18.  In truth, the progress of males, up diagonally, from sensuality to sensibility entails the regression of females, down diagonally, from sensuality to sensibility, so that the elevation of the one gender presupposes the relegation of the other, who will not be so resigned to sensibility as their male counterparts on account of their inferior status in under-plane damnation.


19.  Females are more naturally disposed to sensuality than to sensibility, given their hegemonic standing in the blessed freedom of space over time (noumenal) and of volume over mass (phenomenal), and it can therefore be safely presumed that they will struggle against sensibility in the interests of a return to upper-plane domination in sensuality.


20.  Such a situation is, of course, commensurate with barbarity for females and naturalism or even philistinism for males, and contrasts with the moral gains, especially for males, of culture on the one hand and of civility on the other, both of which appertain to sensibility, and thus to the reign not of evil and folly but of wisdom (male) and goodness (female).





1.   The ratio of sensuality to sensibility in people is not fixed but tends to fluctuate according to a whole range of factors - gender, age, class, race, profession, environment, nationality, and so on, so that individual differences become modified in the course of time.


2.   In general terms, it is fair to say that young people tend to display more sensuality than sensibility, and old people more sensibility than sensuality, with middle-aged people falling somewhere in between the two extremes.


3.   All, however, are both sensual and sensible to greater or lesser extents; for human beings are a combination of both and cannot expect, even in countries or societies which purport to be cultured and civilized, to remain exclusively sensible.  Neither, on the other hand, are barbarous and natural countries or societies exclusively sensual, even when they are at their evil and/or foolish worst.


4.   Certainly the individual can develop an enhanced capacity for  sensibility at the expense of sensuality, and this is only likely to happen to any appreciable extent within societies or countries which encourage sensibility because recognizably cultural and civil.


5.   Such countries or societies will be Christian and 'reborn' rather than Heathen and 'once born', tending to encourage adherence to the 'kingdom within' as opposed to the 'kingdom without', whether the latter be stellar or solar or lunar or, indeed, terrestrial, which is to say, of nature.


6.   However, there is the 'kingdom within' which is subjective (and male), and the 'kingdom within' which is objective (and female), as well as lower- and upper-class manifestations of each according to whether phenomenal or noumenal, relativistic or absolutist criteria happen to be paramount - the Christian West traditionally being an example of adherence to a phenomenal 'kingdom within' which, whether subjective or objective, directly moral or indirectly so, tended to remain partial to the sensibilities of volume and mass in Christic and Marian means which, however sincere, would never do justice to space and time.


7.   For space and time, and space in particular, are the only contexts of sensibility in which the 'kingdom within' has to do with truth and beauty in relation to the lungs and the heart, as opposed, like volume and mass, to knowledge and strength in relation to the brain and the womb, and to achieve the institutional embodiments of such a 'kingdom within' would be to go beyond culture and civilization as they have existed in the West in the past to an entirely new manifestation of culture and civilization which, while allowing for modified levels of traditional, or phenomenal, culture and civilization, was geared to the advancement of that which did the most justice to sensibility on noumenal terms, with especial reference to the lungs.


8.   For only in connection with the lungs can God and Heaven come to wise and holy fruition, and therefore only in connection with a religious praxis based, like transcendental meditation, upon the lungs ... can religion come properly and ultimately to pass.  For there is no wisdom in godliness and no holiness in heavenliness prior to metaphysical sensibility, as I hope presently to explain.


9.   Before I do, let it be said that religion per se, and therefore God per se, is not about knowledge, still less strength, much less beauty, but about truth, and that truth it is which distinguishes the godly individual from men, women, and devils, or devilish individuals, for whom knowledge, strength, and beauty are - certainly in organic supremacy - the respective virtues.


10.  That said, we can, I believe, establish that the godly individual, being metaphysical rather than physical, chemical, or metachemical, will be one for whom truth is the means to a joyful end, since his sole intention will be to achieve soulful redemption of his self by utilizing his ego to find a conscious accommodation with the will and spirit of his inner (sensible) metaphysical not-self, the lungs and the breath, in the interests of enhanced selfhood.


11.  Now the ego that is into the will of the lungs to breathe is conscious of meditating, and in meditating one is thrown back from the threat to self of the out-breath upon self more profoundly than would otherwise have been the case, thereby achieving what religion would call a resurrection of the self (ego) in the form or, rather, content(ment) of the soul, which is its redemption in what amounts, for the nonce, to heavenly joy, to what I elsewhere called the Holy Soul of Heaven.


12.  For the Holy Soul of Heaven is the reward for the Wise Ego of God-the-Son when it plunges, identity-wise, into the Wise Will of God-the-Father, the graceful will of the lungs to breathe, and is transported upon the wings of the Holy Spirit of Heaven towards that selfless threat to self which necessitates recoil, in the interests of self-preservation, to what becomes the redemption of the self in the aforementioned Holy Soul of Heaven.


13.  Heavenly holiness only exists, as I have said, in relation to inner metaphysics, or metaphysical sensibility, and therefore as either the Holy Spirit of Heaven or the Holy Soul of Heaven, the former secondary (to the self) and the latter primary, since affiliated with the self in what amounts to its soulful redemption.


14.  However, there is such a thing as earthly holiness, which is germane to physical sensibility, and it has to do with the utilization of the inner physical ego for purposes of achieving some kind of soulful redemption, via inner physical will and spirit, in the soul of physical sensibility.


15.  Such a soul, however, which we can call the Holy Soul of the Earth, is no true religious end but, rather, something which, being pleasurable, tends to be subordinated to a false end by dint of the fact that the per se manifestation of physical sensibility is not soul but ego, since ego corresponds to form and form is the attribute, in this case qualitative, that is most correlative with vegetation (earth), the physical element par excellence.


16.  Hence the Holy Soul of the Earth tends to be subordinate to what may be called the Wise Ego of Man-the-Son, for whom not truth but knowledge is the principal characteristic, with pleasurable associations, as already noted.


17.  Nevertheless it can be said that the achievement, whether intermittently or otherwise, of the Holy Soul of the Earth necessitates a willingness by the Wise Ego of Man-the-Son to plunge, identity-wise, into the Wise Will of Man-the-Father, the will of the brain to think, before recoil to soulful redemption can be anticipated in connection with the Holy Spirit of the Earth, the actual thoughts which issue, in mental cogitation, from the brain.


18.  In general terms, the utilization of intellect - for that is what we are actually alluding to here - for a (necessarily false) religious end is called prayer, and prayer it is that confirms a person, especially when male, as a Son-of-Man (like Christ), as opposed to a Son-of-God (like the Second Coming), for whom holiness can never be more than earthly, and hence relativistic.


19.  However, inner physical ego and will, the former primary (as germane to the masculine self) and the latter secondary (as germane to the not-self, i.e. brain) are wise after a relativistic fashion, but only in terms of the phenomenal, the physical, and therefore on a basis that falls short of absolute wisdom, the wisdom not of man (knowledge) but of God (truth), which is, of course, noumenal and metaphysical, or noumenally metaphysical, in relation to an altogether higher order of sensibility such that only appeals, as a rule, to a superior type of human being, whom we have called godly and can identify, quite literally, with God - primarily in terms of the Wise Ego of God-the-Son and secondarily in terms of the Wise Will of God-the-Father, the will, in other words, of the lungs to breathe, and to breathe out what becomes, in conscious recognition, the Holy Spirit of Heaven from which the Wise Ego of God-the-Son must recoil, in self-preservation, to the Holy Soul of Heaven as the profoundest manifestation of self and per se manifestation of soul, as germane to metaphysical sensibility.


20.  For a per se manifestation of soul, being deeply essential in joy, can only exist in relation to the essential element, the air, and not in relation to the qualitative element of vegetation (earth) where, as pleasure, it is 'once bovaryized', still less in relation to the quantitative element of water where, as pride, it is 'twice bovaryized', much less in relation to the apparent element of fire where, as love, it is 'thrice bovaryized' and therefore neither of Heaven nor the earth, still less of purgatory, but of Hell, the positive, or organic, Hell whose egocentric and wilful preconditions have less to do with Sons and Fathers than with Daughters and Mothers.





1.   If the lungs are the focus of metaphysical sensibility, and hence the possibility of heavenly holiness, and the brain is the focus of physical sensibility, and hence the possibility of earthly holiness, then the focal points of chemical and metachemical sensibilities, both of which, being objective, appertain to the female side of life, will be the womb and the heart, sensibilities, in consequence, that are neither heavenly nor earthly but purgatorial in the case of chemically-biased females and hellish in the case of their metachemical counterparts, whom we may characterize as devils rather than women.


2.   In neither case, however, will we be dealing with holiness in the spirit and the soul, but with unclearness, since that which rises, in salvation, to holiness on the male side of life necessarily does so from unholiness, its sensual antithesis, whereas that which falls, in damnation, to unclearness on the female side of life necessarily does so from clearness, the sensual antithesis to unclearness.


3.   Another distinction that needs to be drawn, in connection with female deliverance from sensuality to sensibility, is that the fall of spirit and soul from clearness to unclearness is accompanied by, or correlates with, the fall of ego and will from evil to goodness, so that, far from a distinction between wisdom and holiness, whether relative (phenomenal) or absolute (noumenal), we shall find one between goodness and unclearness, the female counterparts, within chemical and metachemical sensibilities, to wisdom and holiness.


4.   Thus the enlightened male, whether relatively enlightened in Christ or absolutely enlightened in the Second Coming, will not be one to identify wisdom and holiness with females, but will be aware, whether knowledgeably or truthfully, that females, when properly damned, can only be good and unclear, since that is what accords with an objective disposition.


5.   But, of course, there are two ways of being good and unclear, just as there are two ways of being wise and holy, and they differ as the phenomenal from the noumenal, or chemical sensibility from metachemical sensibility, the former of which properly pertains to women, and the latter of which is frankly more germane to devils, or the upper-class category of females.


5.   The chemical context of sensibility is of course no less, in elemental terms, of water in relation to the womb than the metachemical context is of fire, so to speak, in relation to the heart, and so spiritually we may infer contexts of amniotic fluid and of blood, or something to that effect.


6.   Be that as it may, we have to differentiate, as before, ego from will, and spirit from soul, in each elemental context of female sensibility, so that we may be in no doubt that the good ego and/or will of the one will be no less pre-conditional to the unclear spirit and/or soul of the other than if both were exactly the same.


7.   The fact that they differ, as between water and fire, however, means that the per se manifestation of chemical sensibility will not be the same as the per se manifestation of metachemical sensibility, so that, quite apart from false religious ends accruing to each on account of neither element being conducive to a lifestyle under the soul, a properly religious lifestyle, we have to differentiate between a spiritual per se in connection with the quantitative element of water and a wilful per se, or per se manifestation of will, in connection with the apparent element of fire, the one germane to chemical sensibility and the other to its metachemical counterpart.


8.   That said, it remains to be emphasized that, the female self being objective rather than subjective, since issuing from a vacuum rather than appertaining to a plenum, the not-self (relative to fire and/or water) takes precedence over the self, and that the division between primary and secondary orders of ego/soul on the one hand and will/spirit on the other will accordingly be the reverse of what it is on the male side of life where, as we have seen, the self, being subjective, is primary and the relevant not-self (and its spiritual emanation) secondary.


9.   Therefore will and spirit are primary but ego and soul secondary  where the female distinction between self and not-self is concerned, and the Mother will take precedence, in consequence, over the Daughter, as, of course, will the order of unclearness appertaining to her in the sensible contexts under discussion.


10.  To distinguish, then, between the Good Ego of Woman-the-Daughter and the Good Will of Woman-the-Mother, the latter of which, affiliated in chemical sensibility to the womb, will be directly responsible for what may be called the Unclear Spirit of Purgatory, from which the Good Ego of Woman-the-Daughter will recoil, if less sharply than in male contexts, to what becomes the Unclear Soul of Purgatory, the religiously false end of soulful pride which, frankly, will be subordinated to the spiritual per se of the Unclear Spirit of Purgatory, as germane to the contents, fluidal or otherwise, of the womb.


11.  Where metachemical sensibility is concerned, however, we shall be distinguishing between the Good Ego of Devil-the-Daughter and the Good Will of Devil-the-Mother, the latter of which, affiliated to the heart, will be directly responsible for what may be called the Unclear Spirit of Hell, from which the Good Ego of Devil-the-Daughter will recoil, none too sharply, to what becomes the Unclear Soul of Hell, the religiously false end of soulful love which, frankly, will be subordinated to the wilful per se of the Good Will of Devil-the-Mother, as germane to the heart.


12.  Since the good/unclear defers, in sensibility, to the wise/holy, it follows that chemical sensibility will defer to physical sensibility, as womb to brain (the Christian norm, traditionally symbolized by Marian and Christic distinctions), whereas metachemical sensibility will defer to metaphysical sensibility, as heart to lungs (the main though not exclusive bias of our prospective 'Kingdom Come', with its triadic Beyond), so that a like-to-like distinction between the phenomenal in relation to women and men, and the noumenal in relation to devils and gods is the sensible consequence, as germane to the civilized support of culture.





1.   That which, in sensuality, is neither good nor unclear will, of necessity, be evil and clear, whether relatively (in the phenomenal context of chemical sensuality) or absolutely (in the noumenal context of metachemical sensuality), whereas that which, likewise, is neither wise nor holy will, of necessity, be foolish and unholy, whether relatively (in the phenomenal context of physical sensuality) or absolutely (in the noumenal context of metaphysical sensuality).


2.   Hence we can distinguish the Evil Ego of the Daughter-of-Woman and the Evil Will of the Mother-of-Woman from the Clear Spirit of Purgatory and the Clear Soul of Purgatory in connection with chemical sensuality, while likewise distinguishing the Evil Ego of the Daughter-of-the-Devil and the Evil Will of the Mother-of-the-Devil from the Clear Spirit of Hell and the Clear Soul of Hell in connection with metachemical sensuality, the former revolving around the not-self organ of the tongue and its saliva, the latter around the not-self organ of the eyes and their sight-light.


3.   Similarly we can distinguish the Unwise (foolish) Ego of the Son-of-Man and the Unwise (foolish) Will of the Father-of-Man from the Unholy Spirit of Earth and the Unholy Soul of Earth in connection with physical sensuality, while likewise distinguishing the Unwise (foolish) Ego of God-the-Son and the Unwise (foolish) Will of God-the-Father from the Unholy Spirit of Heaven and the Unholy Soul of Heaven in connection with metaphysical sensuality, the former revolving around the not-self organ of the penis (flesh) and its sperm, the latter around the not-self organ of the ears and the airwaves.


4.   Clearly, the distinction between the Unwise/Unholy and the Wise/Holy is between outer, or sensual, manifestations of God/Heaven and Man/Earth on the one hand, and inner, or sensible, manifestations of God/Heaven and Man/Earth on the other hand, so that salvation is always from the one to the other, as from penis to brain within mass-volume subjectivity, the contexts of Man/Earth, and from ears to lungs within time-space subjectivity, the contexts of God/Heaven.


5.   Likewise the distinction between the Evil/Clear and the Good/Unclear is between outer, or sensual, manifestations of the Devil/Hell and Woman/Purgatory on the one hand, and inner, or sensible, manifestations of the Devil/Hell and Woman/Purgatory on the other hand, so that damnation is always from the one to the other, as from eyes to heart within space-time objectivity, the contexts of the Devil/Hell, and from tongue to womb within volume-mass objectivity, the contexts of Woman/Purgatory.


6.   To be metaphysically saved, as from time to space, is to progress from a foolish God and an unholy Heaven to a wise God and a holy Heaven, on both primary and secondary terms, as from ears/airwaves to lungs/breath, whereas to be physically saved, as from mass to volume, is to progress from a foolish man and an unholy earth to a wise man and a holy earth, on both primary and secondary terms, as from penis/sperm to brain/thought.


7.   To be chemically damned, as from volume to mass, is to regress from an evil woman and a clear purgatory to a good woman and an unclear purgatory, on both primary and secondary terms, as from tongue/saliva to womb/amniotic fluid, whereas to be metachemically damned, as from space to time, is to regress from an evil Devil and a clear Hell to a good Devil and an unclear Hell, on both primary and secondary terms, as from eyes/sight-light to heart/blood.


8.   To progress, in the above-mentioned subjective contexts, is to rise diagonally from sensuality to sensibility on either phenomenal (physical) or noumenal (metaphysical) terms, thereby achieving salvation from the curse of under-plane subservience (to females) in sensuality.


9.   To regress, in the above-mentioned objective contexts, is to fall diagonally from sensuality to sensibility on either phenomenal (chemical) or noumenal (metachemical) terms, thereby suffering damnation from the blessing of over-plane hegemony (over males) in sensuality.


10.  Hence males have more to gain from sensibility than females, whose fate is to regress from the blessed hegemony of chemical and/or metachemical sensuality.  Culture and, by sensible association, civility and, hence, civilization (in the truest sense) require a male lead or resolve, whereas barbarity and, by sensual association, naturalism or philistinism are the root conditions of a female rule.


11.  The evil woman/Devil has clear manifestations of spirit and soul to live with, whereas the good woman/Devil has to live with unclear manifestations of spirit and soul, the former blessed and the latter damned.


12.  Conversely, the foolish man/God has to live with unholy manifestations of spirit and soul, whereas the wise man/God has unholy manifestations of spirit and soul to live with, the former cursed and the latter saved.


13.  Given the co-existence of both female and male genders, life is a constant toing-and-froing between freedom and binding, immorality and morality, wrong and right, even when steps have been taken to ensure the institutionalization of both culture and civilization at either a phenomenal or a noumenal level, if not both at once.


14.  For you cannot indefinitely peg females to sensibility, nor reduce males to a perpetual subservience, in sensuality, before females.  Life, to repeat, is both sensual and sensible, and therefore such binding or morality as is sensibly achieved at the expense, necessarily, of freedom or immorality has to be paid for through periodic recourse to sensuality, since rightness does not exist in a moral vacuum completely independently of wrongness.


15.  Rightness only exists because of wrongness, morality because of immorality, binding because of freedom, sensibility because of sensuality, and therefore it is inconceivable that right could continue to exist were there no wrong, just as it is inconceivable that one's sensibilities could exist without a sensual basis or platform upon which they stand.


16.  Where there is scope for modification of this dualism is in terms of the ratio of right to wrong or vice versa, and this is amenable to human control subject to a variety of influential factors - age, gender, class, environment, diet, climate, race, profession, genetic constitution, drugs, law enforcement, and so on.


17.  Ratios of right to wrong, of sensibility to sensuality, can be modified to some extent in the interests of enhanced sensibility, and therefore right, but such modifications presuppose a wide variety of influential factors taking place either separately or in combination over a period of time both personal (individual) and transpersonal (social).


18.  I do not wish to elaborate on such possibilities here, but I can say that criteria which would not be applicable in humanistic societies might well become feasible in societies which had undergone revolutionary change in the direction of 'Kingdom Come', and had consequently embraced concepts of human transmutation towards post-human life forms as a matter of moral, and evolutionary, course.


19.  For a stable culture/civilization complex would obviously be more to mankind's long-term interests than one which, in time-honoured fashion, was subject to constant fluctuations at the hands of barbarous/natural or, more correctly, philistine opponents.


20.  It would indeed be the mark of a higher culture/civilization that it could withstand barbarous/philistine backslidings or counter-revolutionary threats and continue on its God-appointed course towards ever greater ends, ends transcending the earth as it became ever more heavenly and orientated towards the maximum of positive being, even if (as in the case of my projected triadic Beyond) with subordinate manifestations of positive taking (masculine) and giving (feminine).





1.   Chaos, anarchy, and other crude manifestations of barbarism/philistinism, or undue naturalism, can have no place in a society unequivocally orientated towards the maximum of positive, or supreme, being.  Rather are they symptoms of pre-worldly societies whose primitivity necessarily fell short of culture/civilization.


2.   With culture/civilization and a positive commitment, institutionally upheld, to sensibility, one enters the world, which is to say, those societies given, in greater or lesser degree, to a sensible alternative to sensuality, and thus to the possibility of knowing right from wrong.


3.   Prior to the world of partial, or humanistic, adherence to culture/civilization, there was only the chaos and/or anarchy of unequivocally barbarous/philistine societies, which did not distinguish between right and wrong but effectively lived in the wrong as if it were right, knowing no better.


4.   To call such societies paradisiacal would indeed be to debase the concept of paradise, and to wrongly identify chaos with it!


5.   In reality, nothing could be further from paradise than the sort of primitive pre-worldly societies based in the irrational and altogether unconstitutional rule of chaos!


6.   If things proceed from alpha to omega, as from chaos to order, anarchy to polity, chance to determinism, freedom to binding, then they do so via the world and the transmutation of chaos in line with the development, on an alternative basis, of culture and civilization.


7.   It may even be that barbarism and philistinism are transmutations of chaos commensurate with the acceptance of culture and civilization, and are only properly recognizable as such in relation to the latter.


8.   Thus if barbarism and philistinism are only recognizable as such from the standpoints of culture and civilization, the cultural rejection of nature and the civil rejection of barbarity, the latter will have to have come officially to pass before the former can be evaluated and condemned for their opposition to sensibility from an overly sensual base, whether barbarous or natural.


9.   But worldly culture and civilization, as we have seen, will continue to be subject to periodic or intermittent outbreaks of barbarism and philistinism, to greater or lesser extents depending on the nature of the particular culture/civilization complex and the individuals of which it is composed.


10.  Only in a post-worldly culture/civilization complex, commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', would the development of cultural/civilized stability and continuity be substantially different from the worldly past, and then because such an omega-oriented society was sufficiently God-directed as to have post-human aspirations and the desire and capacity, in consequence, to engineer, at both alpha and omega levels, the artificial transmutation of life towards a much less relativistic end.


11.  And such societies would come, in the course of cyborg-to-post-human time, to resemble genuine paradises which, in their stability and positivity, were as far removed from the chaotic anarchy or anarchic chaos of primitive societies as to be their complete antitheses.


12.  They would even become antithetical to the Cosmos itself, as they gravitated, under technological and moral guidance, from being 'paradises on earth' to being 'paradises in Heaven', which is to say, set in space centres at a discreet remove from earthly gravity and, by implication, gravitas.


13.  One can speak, it seems to me, of devolution from alpha chaos in the Cosmos (Hell) to unequivocal barbarism/naturalism in the pre-world, and from worldly relativity in cultural/civilized opposition to barbarity/philistinism to unequivocal post-worldly evolution towards omega paradise in the Universe (Heaven), or space as a setting for that which, equivalent to omega points, was antithetical to the Cosmos, and therefore properly universal.


14.  One can contrast the convolutional nature of devolution from cosmic chaos with the involutional nature of evolution towards universal paradise, as one would contrast the centrifugal with the centripetal, whether objectively or subjectively, in relation to straight lines or to curves.


15.  Were paradise to slide back into chaos, the omega into the alpha, it would indeed be a grim joke and unfortunate irony of life, but I do not believe that it would or could, since it is something at the furthest possible remove from chaos, like an old person on the point of death from a baby on the point of birth.  The old person does not turn into the baby, or vice versa.


16.  The circle of life has gaps in it, both with regard to the furthest point of devolution vis--vis the hindmost point of evolution, and the furthermost point of evolution vis--vis the hinderleast point, so to speak, of devolution.


17.  Such gaps can only be bridged by revolution, since that removes what exists to either side of itself, and in the context of the Cosmos/Universe such a procedure could only be counter-revolutionary and therefore morally impermissible and unjustifiable.


18.  A revolution that leads from devolution to an evolutionary alternative to it which yet co-exists with the barbarous/philistine consequences of devolution is one thing; a counter-revolution that reverses what has been gained by culture/civilization at the expense of barbarism/philistinism or which strives, cold-bloodedly, to return from omega to the alpha beginnings of things again, descending from the heights of reason and morality to the depths, the alpha-most beginnings, of unreason and immorality would be the product of insanity and corruption, and could never, under any circumstances, be encouraged or condoned.


19.  One can only suppose the chances of that happening in a highly advanced culture/civilization complex to be extremely remote, given the rule of morality and preponderance, under evolutionary involution, of paradisiacal reason.


20.  For that which is most rational or logical is most wise, and contrasts, absolutely, with that which, having no reason or logic at all, is most irrational and illogical, and avowedly most evil.  God's utmost logicality contrasts, absolutely, with the Devil's utmost illogicality, as the most evolved philosopher with the least devolved poet, or paradise with chaos.





1.   Some time ago, both here and in previous texts, I came to the conclusion that cultural/civilized stability and, by implication, continuity ... would be most guaranteed, in relation to post-worldly criteria, on the basis of what has been called the triadic Beyond, a three-tier structure, duly subdivided three ways, of religious praxis that, being of 'Kingdom Come', was beyond the world as we know it, in the worldly present ... of the early twenty-first century.


2.   Thus instead of a phenomenal manifestation of culture and civilization that, while benefiting the lower class (including the middle class), did less than justice to the upper class or, conversely, instead of a noumenal culture/civilization complex that, benefiting the upper class, did little or no justice to the lower class, I opted, in deference to both Western and Eastern traditions, for a manifestation of culture and civilization that was both phenomenal and noumenal, of mass and volume on the one hand, and of time and space on the other hand.


3.   The mass, volume, and space aspects of this culture/civilization complex I identified with the triadic Beyond, the actual contexts of religious praxis that, being of 'Kingdom Come' and requiring the democratically-mandated prior endorsement of religious sovereignty, were as yet beyond the world and its religious status quo.


4.   The time aspect of this culture/civilization complex was identified by me with the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond - in short, with the more political, economic, and scientific aspects of 'Kingdom Come' that, being of the utmost degree of noumenal civilization, would minister not only to the space manifestation of the triadic Beyond, but to its mass and volume manifestations as well, if, in the latter case, to a lesser extent, given the extent to which mass would connote with phenomenal civilization vis--vis the phenomenal culture of volume, and therefore also embrace what could be called local government.


5.   Be that as it may, 'Kingdom Come' was envisaged as a three-tier structure of phenomenal (lower two tiers) and noumenal (upper tier) sensibilities, all of whose components would be served and protected from the time-based administrative aside of the Kingdom or, rather, Centre proper (which would, in effect, be at the furthermost remove from autocratic norms traditionally associated with the concept 'Kingdom').


6.   In such fashion, it was believed that stability would be guaranteed as never before, since the structure contained within itself the possibility of collateral development on every plane of life - mass, volume, time, and space, and not just in relation to one or two planes, as has tended to be the case with culture and civilization in the worldly past.


7.   Moreover, the inclusion of truth on the top tier of the triadic Beyond meant that not only would there be a basis for lasting contentment, as guaranteed by the possibility of genuine soulfulness, but that both the knowledge and strength of the lower tiers would be influenced and, to varying extents, conditioned by the prevailing value of the top tier, thereby sharing in the life of divine contentment to a degree that would not otherwise be possible, with predictably unstable consequences.


8.   For divine sensibility in relation to inner metaphysics has not, except to a partial extent in the East traditionally, figured in the religious reckoning of worldly culture and civilization, with a consequence that inferior, because phenomenal, orders of sensibility have been hyped beyond their real worth, allowing divinity to be eclipsed and subverted by humanity.


9.   One need only think of the calculated avoidance of any kind of religious qualification attending, for example, the Holy Spirit ... to realize that such a term was kept purposely vague the better to avoid compromising it with wise truth or exposing it, on the other hand, to a less than heavenly correlation.


10.  For, in truth, the Holy Spirit as upheld in relation to Christ is anything but heavenly, being effectively of the earth and therefore something that, were it to be qualified as the Holy Spirit of (the) Earth, would fail to synchronize with anything godly, much less sensibly metaphysical.


11.  Indeed, the Trinity is in itself a basically irrational construct that, in leaving the soul out of account, fails to do justice to truth and, hence, the raison d'tre of genuine religion, which is nothing less than realization of the metaphysical soul on as sensible a basis as possible - something which can only come to pass, in any case, with the assistance of both the relevant, or inner metaphysical, will and spirit, viz. the Father, so to speak, of the lungs and the Holy Spirit of the out-breath, from which the ego of the Son, the godly self, will recoil in due process of self-preservation and, by association, self-enhancement in terms of heavenly soul.


12.  For such a soul is the redemption and resurrection of the godly ego, and no such resurrection can come to pass without the assistance of both the godly will and the heavenly spirit, as germane to the inner metaphysical context of respiratory sensibility.


13.  But where there is no meditation of a transcendental order, no utilization of the lungs and breath, secondary orders of God (the Father) and Heaven (the Holy Spirit), by a primary order of God (the Son) determined to achieve a primary order of Heaven (the Holy Soul), there can be no true religion and hence no godliness that accords, in its wisdom, with holiness.


14.  Rather there will be godliness according, in its folly, with unholiness, as in the case of the outer noumenal context of metaphysical sensuality, as germane to the ears and the airwaves, or, in the case of physical sensibility, as germane to the brain and its thoughts, a prayerful shortfall from godliness in the manliness, so to speak, of primary (self) and secondary (not-self, i.e. brain) orders of man affiliated to earthly holiness of either a spiritual (secondary) or a soulful (primary) order, with humanistic consequences of religious subversion through man-hype, or the usurpation of God by man.


15.  For, in reality, the masculine ego and will of physical sensibility are germane, as already noted, to contexts of Son-of-Man and Father-of-Man, both of which have as little to do with God (in the sensible metaphysical contexts of God-the-Son and God-the-Father) as the Holy Spirit of Earth and the Holy Soul of Earth (to do) with Heaven (in the sensibly metaphysical contexts of the Holy Soul of Heaven and the Holy Spirit of Heaven).


16.  Therefore godliness and holiness, whether primary or secondary, do not come about, least of all positively, i.e. in relation to beingful supremacy, except through the practice of transcendental meditation, and any reference to such terms which does not have TM in mind is crooked and false, being guilty of subverting religion and, by implication, truth to suit some ulterior motive, be it humanistic or cosmic or geologic or whatever.


17.  In fact, the negative contexts of 'inner' God and Heaven are only credible in relation to the metaphysical manifestation of cosmic sensibility, i.e. to the sphere of Saturn and its gaseous rings, and then in terms of beingful primacy, such that carries an antigodly and antiheavenly correlation, in connection with antiwisdom and antiholiness, as befitting its inorganic nature.


18.  Negative godliness and heavenliness attaching to the cosmic sphere of metaphysical sensuality, on the other hand, being 'outer', could only be logically conceived of in relation to antifolly and anti-unholiness, and then less with reference to the stellar plane than to the solar one, which alone accords with the metaphysical, and thus the possibility of negative divinity.


19.  For the stellar plane, affiliated to Venus on the space-time axis, is metachemical, and therefore on the objective side of life, whereby negative orders of devility in relation to clearness (sensuality) or unclearness (sensibility) are the cosmic consequences, with, 'down below', negative orders of femininity in relation to clearness (sensuality) and unclearness (sensibility) characterizing the inorganic (geologic) chemical axis of volume-mass objectivity, as between lunar and oceanic poles.


20.  Likewise, nothing organically metachemical, having reference to an eyes-to-heart axis, or chemical, having reference to a tongue-to-womb axis, would accord with masculinity, much less divinity; for here we are not dealing with male alternatives in relation to Sons or Fathers of a masculine or divine nature, but with Daughters and Mothers of a feminine or diabolic nature, with clear or unclear orders of spirituality and soulfulness in female consequence.


21.  Therefore while humanism errs from the truth of transcendentalism in its masculine, or physical, concern with knowledge, nonconformism and fundamentalism are not even contexts where association with Sons and Fathers or Holy Spirits and Holy Souls can be logically inferred but, on the contrary, contexts that appertain to the female side of the gender divide in which Mothers and Daughters in association with clear (sensual) or unclear (sensible) manifestations of spirit and soul are the objective correlations.  They do not, strictly speaking, relate to man or God but, rather, to woman or the Devil, depending on the element (i.e. water or fire).


22.  For as surely as air is the metaphysical element of godliness, whether for heavenly better (holy) or worse (unholy), and vegetation (earth) is the physical element of masculinity, likewise whether in connection with earthly sensuality or sensibility, so water is the chemical element of womanliness, and fire the metachemical element of devility or devilishness, whether in sensuality (clear) or in sensibility (unclear), which is to say, whether in connection with purgatorial or hellish manifestations of spirit and soul.


23.  Therefore nonconformism and fundamentalism are not even, like humanism, shortfalls from the religious truth of transcendentalism, but that which, being female in one way or another, is contrary to the path of male salvation.


24.  In fact, nonconformism is no less contrary, or antithetical, to humanism than ... fundamentalism to transcendentalism, woman being no less antithetical to man, as strength to knowledge, than the Devil is antithetical to God, as beauty to truth, both of which contexts have to do with contrary orders of organic supremacy rather than with anything inorganic, and hence affiliated to the negativity of primacy, with its cosmic and/or geologic primitivity.





1.   Just as fundamentalism is a false, because fiery, religion of beauty and love, the devil and hell of metachemical ego/will and spirit/soul, so nonconformism is a false, because watery, religion of strength and pride, the woman and purgatory of chemical ego/will and spirit/soul.


2.   But just as humanism is a false, because vegetative, religion of knowledge and pleasure, the man and earth of physical ego/will and spirit/soul, so transcendentalism is the true, because airy, religion of truth and joy, the god and heaven of metaphysical ego/will and spirit/soul.


3.   False religions tend to prevail less because people or peoples are incapable of grasping the truth (though that, alas, is certainly a factor) as because they have some alternative agenda which, for them, takes precedence over religion and requires, in consequence, a 'bovaryized' order of religion.


4.   Such alternative agendas may be economic, as in the case of humanism or, rather, of societies centred in physics, with a humanist religious preference; political, as in the case of societies based in chemistry, with a nonconformist religious preference; or scientific, as in the case of societies based in metachemistry, with a fundamentalist religious preference.


5.   Whatever the case, it is not God or Heaven, truth or joy, which comes first with them but man and the earth, knowledge and pleasure; woman and purgatory, strength and pride; or the Devil and Hell, beauty and love.


6.   That is what makes them humanist, nonconformist, or fundamentalist, as opposed to or distinct from transcendentalist.  But in all cases such societies or people(s) are given to organic supremacy, and thus to positive orders of doing (metachemical), giving (chemical), taking (physical), or being (metaphysical), whether in relation to religion or otherwise.


7.   They contrast, one could say, with societies or people(s) given to inorganic primacy, to negative orders of doing, giving, taking, or being, which have less to do with universal and personal virtues or vices than with cosmic (noumenal) and geologic (phenomenal) virtues (antivirtues) or vices (antivices), depending whether sensibility or sensuality is the prevailing tendency.


8.   Whichever the case, one would hesitate to use descriptive terms like fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, or transcendentalism in relation to their disciplinary leanings, whether in connection with science, politics, economics, or religion, but rather such terms as materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism; for there is all the difference in the world - and even without it - between these two sorts of terminology and their proper applicability.


9.   Hence materialism is as far removed from fundamentalism, its organic counterpart, as ugliness and hatred from beauty and love, or what could be called the Antidevil and Antihell from the Devil and Hell, as germane not to an eyes-heart axis but to a stellar-Venusian axis within space-time objectivity.


10.  Hence realism is as far removed from nonconformism, its organic counterpart, as weakness and humility from strength and pride, or what could be called antiwoman and antipurgatory from woman and purgatory, as germane not to a tongue-womb axis but to a lunar-oceanic axis within volume-mass objectivity.


11.  Hence naturalism is as far removed from humanism, its organic counterpart, as ignorance and pain from knowledge and pleasure, or what could be called antiman and anti-earth from man and earth, as germane not to a penis-brain axis but to a terrestrial-Martian axis within mass-volume subjectivity.


12.  Hence, finally, idealism is as far removed from transcendentalism, its organic counterpart, as falsity and woe from truth and joy, or what could be called Antigod and Antiheaven from God and Heaven, as germane not to an ears-lungs axis but to a solar-Saturnian axis within time-space subjectivity.


13.  One cannot therefore use terms like fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism in relation to anything cosmic and/or geologic, since such terms have specific applicability to universal and/or personal factors having reference to positive, or supreme, manifestations of doing, giving, taking, and being (in that order).


14.  Conversely, one cannot use terms like materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism in relation to anything universal and/or personal, since such terms have specific applicability to cosmic and/or geologic factors having reference to negative, or primal, manifestations of doing, giving, taking, and being (in that order).


15.  Unfortunately, it has to be said that industrial and post-industrial modernity is more sympathetic to inorganic primacy than to organic supremacy, in consequence of which materialism tends to prevail at fundamentalism's expense; realism to prevail at nonconformism's expense; naturalism to prevail at humanism's expense; and idealism to prevail at transcendentalism's expense.


16.  The social corollary of this is that antivalues in both vice (sensuality) and virtue (sensibility) tend to prevail at the expense of everything organically valuable, be it in sensuality or in sensibility, and that ugliness and hatred take precedence over beauty and love; that weakness and humility take precedence over strength and pride; that ignorance and pain take precedence over knowledge and pleasure; and, last but hardly least, that falsity (illusion) and woe take precedence over truth and joy.





1.   One could argue that the above is not universally the case, neither in any given country nor in the world at large, but it would be difficult to seriously maintain that it didn't characterize the drift of, in particular, Western society and societies heavily influenced by the West, especially with reference to what could be called Anglo-American imperialism.


2.   For the drift of Protestant countries and Protestant-dominated societies from sensual manifestations of organic supremacy to sensual manifestations of inorganic primacy is more characteristic of the past two-three hundred years than would be the consolidation of supremacy, and hence of religious sensibility, at primacy's expense.


3.   On the contrary, everything points, in the secularization of Western society, towards a cosmic and/or geologic primacy in which the negativity of materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism sits enthroned, with materialism and realism especially characteristic, in their female objectivity, of America and Britain, the backbone, as it were, of Anglo-American imperialism.


4.   This is what characterizes the greater proportion, one could say, of the modern world, and this is what makes modern life so difficult for creatures who, being organic, are supposed to be positive, but so often find themselves succumbing, under inorganic pressures, to the negativity of primacy, with predictably divisive consequences.


5.   For that which goes contrary to Nature, to the respective natures of fundamentalism (unnatural), nonconformism (supernatural), humanism (natural), and transcendentalism (subnatural), brings not the positivity of organic supremacy, be it in relation to beauty/love, strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, or truth/joy, but rather the negativity of inorganic primacy, be it in relation to ugliness/hatred, weakness/humility, ignorance/pain, or falsity/woe.


6.   Only countries and societies who still cling, no matter how tenuously, to organic supremacy can expect to progress to 'Kingdom Come', which is to say, to the holy/unclear positivity of sensible manifestations of mass, volume, and space, as germane to the triadic Beyond, and to a sensible manifestation of time, as germane to its administrative aside in the Centre proper.


7.   At present, such countries and societies will be more sensually supreme than sensibly supreme, for sensual evil and folly is everywhere pretty much the order of the day, and few are those who can escape it or consistently live according to superior criteria.


8.   But salvation and/or damnation, depending on gender, to the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come' presupposes a sensual bias such that warrants rejection and repudiation, come Judgement.


9.   For this to happen, the people of such countries will have to be granted the opportunity, as electorate, to vote for religious sovereignty and thus, in effect, for an end to the type of society (worldly) which is responsible for encouraging and maintaining a sensual bias, a sensual hegemony in heathenistic immorality, in order that it may be effectively rejected and replaced by 'Kingdom Come'.


10.  The reader familiar with my works, especially the highest and most progressive of them, will know that I equate 'Kingdom Come' not only with a triadic Beyond and its administrative aside but, more concretely, with the coming together of certain countries into a federation of Social Transcendentalist Centres, or societies characterized by religious sovereignty.


11.  Especially entitled to such a federation, initially, would be the Gaelic countries of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, with the possibility, in consequence, of what has been provisionally termed a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, should each, or two or more of these countries, democratically opt for religious sovereignty and an end to the 'sins and/or punishments of the world' which political sovereignty, in particular, but also judicial and economic sovereignties are largely responsible for maintaining.


12.  For only when the People elect, under Social Transcendentalist guidance, to exchange political sovereignty for religious sovereignty will there be any prospect of deliverance from the sensual bias of the worldly status quo to the sensible bias of 'Kingdom Come', and the beginnings, in consequence, of a new and altogether superior order of civilization and culture such that would be, or become in due course, beyond the immoral backsliding to a barbarous/philistine hegemony which characterizes the contemporary West, both organically and, more viciously still, inorganically, in relation, that is to say, to negative orders of sensuality.





1.   Of course, there is sensibility within inorganic primacy no less than within organic supremacy, but there, too, sensibility - and therefore negative orders of morality, rightness, binding, etc. - tends to be the exception to the general rule, since the drift of things from organic supremacy to inorganic primacy was - and continues to be - characterized by a sensual bias, as especially applicable to Protestantism and the gradual erosion of religious or, better, ecclesiastical values by their secular counterparts.


2.   We who live in the modern, secular world of the early twenty-first century are subject to the prevalence of sensuality - and hence moral wrongness under the banner of freedom - over sensibility in both organic and, especially, inorganic terms.


3.   It may even be that sensuality has always, to greater or lesser extents, had the better of sensibility, and that the latter only exists for most people as the exception to the general rule - a rule in which common sense, meaning sensuality, takes precedence over what could be called uncommon sensibility.


4.   Be that as it may, and granted that I have in the past acknowledged a dichotomy between the lower-class nature (phenomenal) of common sense or, rather, sensuality and common sensibility, and the upper-class nature (noumenal) of uncommon sensuality and uncommon sensibility, it seems that life is more typified, for most people, as an experience in which sensuality tends to prevail over sensibility, irrespective of their class or, indeed, gender (although I believe females are more given by nature to sensuality than to sensibility, given its hegemonic advantages from their point of view).


5.   Instances where sensibility prevails over sensuality, or outer sense, would be more exceptional, given their 'reborn' nature and evident requirement of an introspective disposition, whether physical or metaphysical, and always as something more typifying males than females, who arrive at sensibility - and then more usually on their own necessarily chemical or metachemical terms - by default rather than through direct, conscious choice.  (After all, what female falls in love of gets pregnant consciously?)


6.   Therefore those males who do arrive at a sensible preference or hegemony will have done so, more usually, at the expense of females, and within the framework of a consciously-upheld, 'reborn' disposition.  Obviously such a disposition would be easier or, at any rate, less difficult to uphold in a context or society consciously given to 'reborn' criteria - in short, a Christian or similar manifestation of cultural and civilized intent, whether or not institutionally underpinned.


7.   But for others, perhaps the majority hitherto, matters would seem to have been otherwise, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a sensible hegemony or prevalent disposition can only be maintained, as a rule, by doing violence against the self, a thing which, for obvious reasons, most people are loathe to entertain.


8.   Which is not to say that most people won't endeavour to be sensible, or at the very least pay lip service to the principle of a sensible bias in society at large, but that, even with the best will in the world, they will be unable to depart the sensual rule to any appreciable extent while they remain recognizably human and, just as often, young and, especially, female.


9.   Modifications, as I think I have already argued, take time, literally years of pro-sensible pressure, and can only go so far on a human basis should there be - as at present - the lack of an official alternative will such that would strive, systematically and progressively, for man's 'overcoming', to use a Nietzschean type of word, and for his supersession, gradually and purposefully, by post-human life forms with a greater capacity for sensibility.


10.  When we look at the present, and the all-too-prevalent inorganic present not least of all, we nevertheless find some progress towards sensibility in spite of the overwhelming basis of things (inevitably) in sensuality.  Few of us would be content, these days, to just watch television as though video recorders had never been invented.  People may, in the nature of things, watch more television than videos or DVDs, but they are now able, as was not the case before, to opt for a sensible alternative, comparatively speaking, to the sensual rule in connection with inorganic primacy.


11.  And what applies to videos in relation to television applies no less to CDs and/or cassettes in relation to radio, or to CD-ROMs and/or DVDs in relation to computers, the latter of which tend, despite sophisticated progress, to represent the sensual rule of things as the basis, needless to say, of the sensible, i.e. CD-ROM, etc., exception.


12.  Doubtless it is possible to be able to live one's life in such a way that sensibility, in relation to the above media of artificial sound and/or image reproduction, becomes more the rule than the exception, but I would hesitate to believe that most people preferred to utilize or were capable of utilizing videos, DVDs, cassettes, and CDs to the exclusion of their sensual preconditions in television, radio, computers, or whatever.


13.  Yet even the small minority who might be disposed to artificial sensibility to a greater extent than to artificial sensuality would only be living negatively, in relation to one form or another of inorganic primacy, and be subject, in consequence, to negative manifestations of culture and civilization such that served as an artificial or technological parallel to cosmic and/or geologic primacy.


14.  Certainly, such people would be more sensible than their television, radio, and basic computer-utilizing counterparts who either lacked the will or the means to regularly play cassettes, CDs, CD-ROMs, DVDs, and such like, but they would still be effectively negative in their commitment to those materialistic or realistic or naturalistic or idealistic manifestations, necessarily artificial, of inorganic primacy.


15.  Theirs would be the binding, the morality, the rightness, within artificial terms, of the cosmically and/or geologically sane, not the comparable virtues of the universally and/or personally sane, for whom the sensibility of organic supremacy counted for more than anything else, including the morally flawed sensuality of organic supremacy in relation to the positive freedom of the 'once-born' fools and devils on whom they had sensibly elected to turn their backs, whether literally or in the sense of having gravitated from sensuality to sensibility in due process of being saved and/or damned (according to gender).





1.   Hitherto, in works previously dealing with this subject, I have tended to equate inorganic primacy, whether 'natural' or artificial, with insanity, and organic supremacy, by contrast, with sanity, thereby correlating the inorganic with the insane and the organic with the sane.


2.   Current reflection, however, convinces me that the context of insanity is more complex than that, because, quite apart from the difficulty of equating sanity with the barbarous and philistine manifestations, in sensuality, of organic supremacy, it would surely be illogical to equate the civilized and cultural manifestations, in sensibility, of inorganic primacy with insanity.


3.   In short, the distinction between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, must surely be the chief criterion for enabling one to distinguish insanity from sanity or vice versa in relation to either inorganic primacy or organic supremacy, so that both contexts, whether 'natural' or artificial, become subject to the dichotomy in question.


4.   Hence we should distinguish the negative insanity, as it were, of sensual manifestations of inorganic primacy from the negative sanity of those manifestations thereof which are sensible, as one would distinguish negative barbarism and philistinism from negative civilization and culture.


5.   Likewise, we should distinguish the positive insanity, so to speak, of sensual manifestations of organic supremacy from the positive sanity of those manifestations thereof which are sensible, as one would distinguish positive barbarism and philistinism from positive civilization and culture.


6.   Thus just because something may, in metachemical manifestations of organic supremacy, be beautiful and loving ... does not necessarily guarantee that it will also be sane.  The determinant of that will be the distinction between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, wrong and right, immorality and morality.


7.   And what applies to metachemical manifestations of organic supremacy should apply just as much to its chemical, physical, and metaphysical manifestations, where strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, and truth/joy can be adjudged one way or the other according to whether sensual (and insane) or sensible (and sane) affiliations are discernible in any given context.


8.   Conversely, just because something may, in metachemical manifestations of inorganic primacy, be ugly or hateful ... does not necessarily guarantee that it will also be insane.  The determinant of that will be the distinction between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, etc., as applicable to either a 'once-born' or a 'reborn' disposition.


9.   Now what applies to metachemical manifestations of inorganic primacy should also apply to its chemical, physical, and metaphysical manifestations, where not ugliness and hatred so much as weakness and humility, ignorance and pain, and falsity and woe will be the respective alternatives which can be adjudged in relation to insanity or sanity (negatively), according to whether sensual or sensible affiliations are discernible in any given context.


10.  With no exception, all elemental contexts reveal a dichotomy between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, which should allow one - barring an amoral confusion or transmutation - to distinguish their insane manifestations from their sane manifestations precisely on the basis of sensuality and sensibility.


11.  Thus salvation (male) and/or damnation (female) will be from the insanity of sensual freedom to the sanity, comparatively speaking, of sensible binding, whether in relation to the negativity of inorganic primacy or to the positivity of organic supremacy.


12.  In general terms it could be argued that insanity is centrifugal and convolutional, whereas sanity is centripetal and involutional, the one tending from a vacuum (directly insane) and/or from a plenum (indirectly insane) in what amounts to a female/male distinction in sensuality, while the other tends towards a plenum (directly sane) and/or towards a vacuum (indirectly sane) in what amounts to a male/female distinction in sensibility.





1.   Further to the above, one could - and indeed should - argue that the kind of dichotomy which exists, in inorganic no less than organic contexts, between the insanity of sensuality (outer sense) and the sanity of sensibility (inner sense) is also commensurate with a distinction between competition and co-operation, so that it would be difficult, to the point of impossible, not to deduce a correlation between competition and insanity on the one hand, and co-operation and sanity on the other hand, whether in negative or positive terms.


2.   Certainly competition will be fiercer in inorganic primacy than in organic supremacy, given the negativity of primacy, and one may be sure that objective competition, or competition rooted in a vacuum, will be more competitive than its subjective counterpart.


3.   Conversely, co-operation will be less close in inorganic primacy than in organic supremacy, and we can take it that subjective co-operation, or co-operation centred in a plenum, will be more co-operative than its objective counterpart.


4.   Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that just as negative competition will be affiliated to inorganic primacy and positive competition to organic supremacy, so the female forms of each mode of competition, being objective, will be more fiercely competitive than their male counterparts, enabling us to distinguish a kind of direct mode of competition (freely extensive) on the one hand from an indirect mode of it (freely intensive) on the other hand, according to whether freedom attaches primarily to the not-self (female) or to the self (male), with straight and curved distinctions respectively.


5.   Likewise, there can be no doubt that just as negative co-operation will be affiliated to inorganic primacy and positive co-operation to organic supremacy, so the male forms of each mode of co-operation, being subjective, will be more closely co-operative than their female counterparts, enabling us to distinguish a kind of direct mode of co-operation (boundly intensive) on the one hand from an indirect mode of it (boundly extensive) on the other hand, according to whether binding attaches primarily to the self (male) or to the not-self (female), with curved and straight distinctions respectively.


6.   Thus not only will female competition, being objective, be fiercer than its male counterpart, but it will also be at its most competitive in inorganic primacy and at its least (relative to objective criteria) competitive in organic supremacy.


7.   Not only will male co-operation, being subjective, be closer than its female counterpart, but it will also be most co-operative in organic supremacy and least (relative to subjective criteria) co-operative in inorganic primacy.


8.   If we think in axial terms, i.e. the female axes of space-time objectivity and volume-mass objectivity vis--vis the male axes of mass-volume subjectivity and time-space subjectivity, we can broadly distinguish the inorganic forms of each from their organic counterparts on the following disciplinary terms: viz. war and peace in relation to the female axes and sport and dance in relation to the male axes of inorganic primacy, but sex and spirituality in relation to the male axes and art and fecundity in relation to the female axes of organic supremacy.


9.   In other words, we shall find a distinction between war and peace on the one hand and sport and dance on the other, in relation to the negativity, overall, of inorganic primacy, but between sex and spirituality on the one hand and art and fecundity on the other, in relation to the positivity, overall, of organic supremacy.


10.  Hence not only is there a female/male distinction, embracing both competition and co-operation, between war and peace on the one hand and sport and dance on the other, but war, being objective, will be more fiercely competitive than sport, while dance, being subjective, will be more closely co-operative than peace, or the sensible alternative to war.  Both alike, however, will appertain to the negativity of inorganic primacy.


11.  Conversely, not only is there a male/female distinction, embracing both competition and co-operation, between sex and spirituality on the one hand and art and fecundity on the other hand, but sex, being subjective, will be less fiercely competitive than art, while fecundity, being objective, will be less closely co-operative than spirituality.  Both alike, however, will appertain to the positivity of organic supremacy.


12.  But of course, in general terms, war will be more competitive than art, and sport more competitive than sex, while, conversely, peace will be less co-operative than fecundity and dance less co-operative than spirituality.  For competition peaks in inorganic primacy, whereas co-operation peaks in organic supremacy.


13.  What can be deduced from the forgoing is that just as sanity is preferable, from a male standpoint, to insanity, binding to freedom, so co-operation is preferable to competition, and never more so than in relation to organic supremacy.


14.  For while negative co-operation is arguably preferable, from a male standpoint, to negative competition, it can only be inferior to positive co-operation (as dance to spirituality), whether relatively, in the phenomenal context of physical sensibility, or absolutely, in the noumenal context of metaphysical sensibility, as applicable to the brain and the lungs respectively.


15.  Whatever people may think, competition is morally wrong (immoral) and co-operation alone morally right, and while barbarism and philistinism will subscribe to the one, whether negatively or positively, or directly negatively (female) and indirectly negatively (male) or indirectly positively (female) and directly positively (male), civilization and culture will always uphold the other, since civilization and culture are symptomatic of sanity and thus of co-operation, and never more so than in relation to organic supremacy.





1.   Moral people, whether male (directly moral) or female (indirectly moral), will be predominantly co-operative, and their immoral counterparts, whether female (directly immoral) or male (indirectly immoral) predominantly competitive; for co-operation correlates with binding and competition with freedom.


2.   Free societies, or societies primarily identifiable with barbarism and philistinism, will accordingly be those in which there is most competition and least co-operation, whereas bound societies, or societies primarily identifiable with civilization and culture, will be those in which there is most co-operation and least competition.


3.   By contrast to bound societies, which uphold the virtues of sensibility, free societies will be awash with the vices of sensuality, and never more so than when they are more characterized by inorganic primacy than by organic supremacy.


4.   For while freedom is no more exclusively inorganic than binding exclusively organic, the worst freedom will be prevalent in relation to inorganic primacy and the best binding, by contrast, in relation to organic supremacy, whether in terms of males or females.


5.   One can well believe that free societies will be those in which free will is uppermost, and bound societies those, by contrast, in which natural determinism predominates; for free will differs from natural determinism as immorality from morality, insanity from sanity, competition from co-operation, wrong from right, and, in gender terms, females from males.


6.   Thus the conflict between free will and natural determinism is in large measure deducible to the gender division between females (whether diabolic or feminine, noumenal or phenomenal) and males (whether masculine or divine, phenomenal or noumenal).


7.   Females, on account of their objectivity (as pertaining to a vacuum) are directly given to free will, and hence freedom, while males, on account of their subjectivity (as pertaining to a plenum) are only indirectly given to free will, which is the difference, after all, between freedom for not-self objectivity and freedom from self subjectivity, the former appertaining to the evil of barbarism and the latter to the folly of philistinism.


8.   Males, on account of their subjective dispositions, are directly given to binding, and hence natural determinism, while females, on account of their objective dispositions, are only indirectly given to binding, which is the difference, after all, between binding to self subjectivity and binding of not-self objectivity, the former appertaining, in enhanced selfhood, to the wisdom of culture and the latter to the goodness of civilization, as of civility, wherein the not-self is constrained.


9.   A free female will, in sartorial terms, be garbed in a flounced, or centrifugal, dress (noumenal) and/or skirt (phenomenal), while a bound female will be garbed in a tapering, or centripetal, dress (noumenal) and/or skirt (phenomenal), both alike being convolutional, in keeping with the objective nature (in not-self) of females.


10.  A free male will, in sartorial terms, be garbed in a flounced, or centrifugal, pair of pants (phenomenal) and/or one-piece zippersuit (noumenal), while a bound male will be garbed in a tapering, or centripetal, pair of pants (phenomenal) and/or one-piece zippersuit (noumenal), both alike being involutional, in keeping with the subjective nature (in self) of males.


11.  Straight attire of a convolutional (female) or involutional (male) nature would doubtless constitute a kind of amoral equation in between the immoral and moral extremes of centrifugal and centripetal, flounced and tapering, attire.


12.  The 'free', whether convolutional or involutional, objective or subjective, directly immoral or indirectly immoral, female or male, are respectively of the Blessed and the Cursed, the former barbarously evil and the latter philistinely foolish in their adherence to sensuality.


13.  The 'bound', whether involutional or convolutional, subjective or objective, directly moral or indirectly moral, male or female, are respectively of the Saved and the Damned, the former culturally wise and the latter civilly good in their adherence to sensibility.


14.  Those who are neither particularly free nor bound but 'straight', in the sense of dressing or living in between the centrifugal and centripetal extremes, are effectively of a liberal disposition which fights shy of both heathenistic and Christian alternatives alike, preferring the amoral middle-ground of a worldly compromise in which nothing demonstrably blessed or cursed, still less saved or damned, is discernible.


15.  To say that such people are hypocritical or two-faced would be an overstatement, for normally they drift about in a sort of tepid limbo between Hell and Heaven, freedom and binding, in lifestyles that are neither characterized by free will nor natural determinism but by the amoral indeterminacy, so to speak, of worldly compromise, lacking commitment either way.


16.  Both 'the free' and 'the bound' encroach upon such people, but they do so from directly opposite points of view, with totally different agendas.


17.  At the risk of oversimplifying, it could be said that 'the free' will prey upon them, whereas 'the bound' will pray for them.


18.  For in the one case, that of 'the free', these people will be blessed and/or cursed (according to gender) with freedom, whereas in the other case, that of 'the bound', they will be saved and/or damned (according to gender) to binding, as the world is torn asunder by heathenistic and Christian criteria, sensuality and sensibility, the chaff and the wheat.





1.   If one takes a universal view of humanity, it will be evident, sooner or later, that most people on this planet are not blue-eyed, still less green- or grey-eyed, but brown-eyed to one degree or another, and that brown eyes are therefore more characteristic of the human race in general than any other colour, including blue.


2.   I like to think of this racial distinction between a brown-eyed majority and a blue- and/or green-eyed minority as akin to an iceberg, the greater bulk of which remains submerged beneath the surface of the sea as its tip thrusts up into the sky.


3.   Humanity, it seems, is akin to an iceberg, in which the brown-eyed majority effectively live beneath the surface of life while the blue-eyed minority thrust up into the sky.  In other words, the brown-eyed are akin to the submerged bulk of the iceberg and the blue-eyed to the lofty tip of it which has climbed above the sea level towards the sky, as though from subconsciousness to consciousness.


4.   This is, of course, an oversimplification, but it strikes me as a credible metaphor for the division of humanity between a brown-eyed majority and a blue-eyed minority, the former of which more often than not - and especially in the case of dark-skinned peoples - tend to lead and to respect a lifestyle that is closer to the earth, more earthly and mundane, one could say, than loftily aloof from the earth in some sky-biased or 'ivory-tower' idealism or, better, transcendentalism which spurns the flesh the better to cultivate the spirit and/or soul.


5.   Again I am of course generalizing, which, as a sort of artist-philosopher, I feel I have every right to do; but not, I believe, without due consideration to the facts of life as reflected in the world around me, not least of all in relation to north London, which thereby justifies me in taking this line.


6.   So the airy blue-eyed are akin to the tip of a racial iceberg which, originating in Northern Europe, has climbed above the brown-eyed bulk of it as spread-out over most other regions of the globe.  Only in Northern Europe, initially, did man evolve to a blue-eyed disposition to any significant extent, while most other parts of the world continued to remain bogged down in an almost total dark-eyed uniformity.


7.   And these dark-eyed peoples are more characteristic, I shall contend, of the world in general, and typify, it seems to me, a mundane mean which fights shy, even if unconsciously, of airy transcendentalism, of too sky-biased an orientation, even of the preconditions of that in some crucifixional symbolism in which the flesh has been renounced.


8.   Mysticism, with them, is never or rarely pure and simple in relation to the sky, and hence air.  It is never or rarely - Far Eastern exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - divorced from the earth, and free from some kind of mundane significance, whether sexual, animal, vegetative, social, or whatever.


9.   It is not the traditional brown-eyed regions of the world which uphold the most exalted mysticism, such that fights shy of sexual or natural connotations, with or without the aid of the Cross, but rather the Christian West traditionally, and then more in relation to the blue-eyed regions of Northern Europe than to Europe as a whole.


10.  For while Nordics and other North Europeans may have divorced their mysticism, their spirituality, their religiosity, from the earth, the Latins and other South Europeans have, by and large, persisted in upholding some form of earth mysticism, not least of all sexually, which though distinct in its Marian connotations from the more deeply traditional earthiness of Africa and Asia nevertheless overlaps with - and necessarily blends-in to - those cultures which are more openly sexual and natural.


11.  Thus the dichotomy between the blue-eyed North and the brown-eyed South of Europe, while embracing two different Christian traditions, one of which overlaps with the heathenistic world, is only part of a perspective which extends a lot farther south and east traditionally, to embrace peoples of non-European and non-Christian descent, most of whom would be, or have been, more deeply mundane, and heathen, than their Latin or Hellenistic counterparts.


12.  Be that as it may, it seems racially demonstrable to me that the brown-eyed are neither as transcendental nor as idealistic as their blue-eyed counterparts, and that wherever a significant percentage of blue-eyed humanity are gathered together, as in Northern Europe traditionally, there and there alone exist all that is most morally elevated and spiritually progressive, all that is capable of scaling the airy heights of genuine mysticism.


13.  Elsewhere, the brown-eyed have their mundane, earthly way, or ways (if we distinguish blacks from coloureds of one persuasion or another), in heathenistic defiance of and/or opposition to a more elevated spiritual order, call it Christian or transcendental, or whatever.


14.  Frankly, I can't see things changing very much with them; but I can see the threat to either the existence or the possibility of a higher culture, a mystical and air-oriented culture, which such peoples pose to North Europeans, and blue-eyed North Europeans in particular, by living among them, especially if in such great numbers that they become a serious genetic threat to their very existence, and not simply an ethical or cultural irrelevance the very presence of which confirms a moral relativism which cannot but undermine moral confidence.


15.  For sooner or later interbreeding is likely to occur - as, in fact, is already happening - and the offspring of such mixed relationships are more likely to be brown-eyed than blue-eyed, thereby diminishing the racial pool of Nordic and/or Celtic humanity, and turning the society in which they live increasingly mundane and earth-centred.


16.  I, for one, would prefer that, in a hundred years' time, there were still blue-eyed people in the world, that they hadn't been bred out of existence through interbreeding with the brown-eyed majority, particularly persons of coloured origins, so that, contrary to my liking, the world of that time was even more earthly than today, with sexual and natural mysticism everywhere the prevailing ideology.


17.  I fear that in some countries, including England, this process (as it might be called) is already well under way, and is likely to gather momentum, both as the coloured peoples breed among themselves and subsequently interbreed with whites, in the foreseeable future.  For such countries little or nothing can be done, and they deserve the fate, in a manner of speaking, which they have imperialistically brought upon themselves.


18.  For other countries, like Ireland, such a process, for a variety of reasons, not least historically, is much less advanced, and therefore there is still hope that the process as it exists can be controlled and regulated in a manner which will not only safeguard their existing culture but, more importantly, enable a new and higher culture to develop in relation to what I have elsewhere called 'Kingdom Come'.  I include, besides Ireland, both Scotland and Wales within the scope of this alternative dispensation, though I am more confident about Scottish prospects than about Welsh ones, as things currently stand.





1.   It is said that the eyes are the windows of the soul, and certainly it is true that moods and emotions, not to mention certain thoughts, are often apparent to others from a casual observance of one's eyes at the time.


2.   But such moods and emotions are more usually sensual, not sensible, for the more one develops the soul internally, in relation to sensibility, the less is it likely to show up externally, in relation to the eyes.  In fact, the highest and deepest emotions are best experienced with the eyes shut, since the one extreme tends to exclude the other, and sight would only be a distraction from the inner emotions of sensible soul.


3.   Thus the more essential experiences like emotions become, the less apparent they will be, and the harder to detect from an external standpoint in consequence.  The eyes may be the windows of superficial soul, but they are more of an obstacle than a conduit to profound soul!


4.   Nevertheless, I have written, at the risk of being taken in some quarters for a devil's apologist, of the eyes in relation to colour (see the above cycle), and of that in relation to race, since there does seem to be a connection, universally demonstrable, between the two.


5.   In fact, it would seem that eye colour is not merely arbitrary but so deeply connected to race, to racial types, that it would be difficult to the point of impossible to imagine no connection between the two, and foolish, moreover, to go about the world with a racial blind spot, so to speak, as to distinctions of eye colour.  For eye colour, like the colour of skin and hair, tells one something, though not everything, about other people, and enables one to formulate opinions and judgements in relation to them.


6.   Morally blind is that man who cannot formulate opinions or judgements in relation to other people on this basis, whether through racial ignorance or political expedience or religious sanctimoniousness or moral cowardice, or whatever.


7.   Yet having well thought-out opinions and basing one's life on them is one thing; turning against others because they are different and then racially and/or physically abusing them quite another, and while the former is a mark of wisdom, the latter is the height not merely of folly but of evil, and can never be condoned!


8.   Whatever colour your eyes or, for that matter, your skin and hair  may happen to be, others have as much natural right to exist as you do, even if they are higher or lower, as the case may be, since that which lives deserves to live, provided it is not a threat either to itself or to others.


9.   In reality, of course, there are greater and lesser degrees of a right to exist, degrees subject to values which transcend nature, like income, environment, profession, class, but these are subject to different criteria than those applying to natural rights, and do not revolve around colour, neither of eyes, skin, nor hair.


10.  However, since nature is all the time being challenged and modified, as well as shamelessly exploited, by men, there is no guarantee that natural rights applying today will still be applicable tomorrow, whether the 'tomorrow' happens to be a hundred or a thousand years' time.


11.  There is no guarantee, in short, that mankind will be the same in a hundred or a thousand years' time as it is today, in the early twenty-first century, and therefore we cannot safely assume that differences of colour will continue to exist in a variety of contexts, as they have in the past.


12.  But if we are determined to develop a higher culture in countries where, due to both traditional and contemporary factors, such a development would seem feasible, then we have got to safeguard the criteria upon which such a development can be made, including those appertaining to a logically-based racial consciousness which is aware of itself and certain of its capacities to achieve more.


13.  A federation, involving Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, of Social Transcendental Centres characterized by religious sovereignty and the reign of a Messianic 'God-King' (the effective Second Coming of Christian eschatology), such as I have provisionally identified with 'Kingdom Come', would have to be consciously Gaelic and aware of its capacities to develop ever more transcendentally on the basis of true spirituality.


14.  If this is something that the Gael is not capable of, then it is debatable whether Gaelic would have a cultural right to exist.  But if, because of a blue-eyed disposition in the race generally, the Gael is capable of such a transformation and enhancement of spirituality, then he should be given every encouragement to develop it and to lead the way into 'Kingdom Come' for others to follow, in due course.  For only higher races can take a lead in developing Social Transcendentalism, whatever the future may hold for humanity in general.


15.  Not, then, to squander one's racial inheritance, but to capitalize on it; such is my concept of positive racism.  For it is not directed against others of a different race or racial disposition, but is integral to oneself and to how one behaves in consequence of positive racial consciousness.





1.   To my mind, Nordic and Celtic are the alpha and omega of an Aryan racial polarity appertaining, traditionally, to Northern Europe, in what is, by and large, a distinction between fair-haired and dark-haired peoples.


2.   Hence the Nordic could be characterized as being affiliated to a fair-haired disposition in which pale-blue and/or pale-green eyes tend to prevail, whereas the Celtic would be characterizable as pertaining to a dark-haired racial disposition in which dark-blue and/or dark-green eyes tended to be the mean - at least in general terms.


3.   Which is not to say that Celts can't be fair haired or pale eyed, any more than Nordics dark, while both can be other than as described above.  But, for categorical simplification, it helps to establish such a dichotomy, if only to underline the alpha/omega distinction which would seem to apply to them.


4.   For it seems to me that, since race and culture are deeply intertwined, and rather like alpha and omega, devil and god, it helps to distinguish contexts in which race is primary and culture secondary from those, by contrast, in which, granted an omega orientation premised upon a more subjective disposition, culture is primary and race secondary.


5.   This suffices, I believe, to distinguish the Nordic from the Celtic; for in the one case race is primary and culture secondary, whereas in the other case culture is primary and race secondary, the former being primarily Nordic and secondarily Teutonic, but the latter being primarily Gaelic and secondarily Celtic.


6.   Thus it could be said that whereas culture exists as a Teutonic shadow to race in the case of Nordics, race exists as a Celtic shadow to culture in the case of Gaels, who are therefore primarily of God and only secondarily of the Devil.


7.   For race, to repeat, stands to culture pretty much as alpha to omega, will to contentment, and accordingly any triumph of the will can only be achieved on a Nordic basis, never a Celtic one, since the Celt will naturally subordinate will to contentment in his bias for culture.


8.   Now were Celts to achieve their triumph, it could only be in relation to culture, and then in terms of a Gaelic espousal of soulful contentment that necessarily subordinated the will (of the Celt) to a secondary position in the overall relationship of race to culture.


9.   Hence the Gaelic triumph of cultural contentment would be the Celtic retort to the Nordic triumph of racial power which the Nazis, in particular, were responsible for bringing to a head at the expense, necessarily, of Teutonic culture.


10.  Such a Gaelic triumph of culture requires, it seems to me, a Social Transcendentalist ideological precondition in which religion is advanced on the basis of religious sovereignty and the concomitant development of a triadic Beyond in relation to 'Kingdom Come', or a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, etc., that would unite not only Ireland, North and South, within the heavenly framework of this projected federation, but Gaels in general, thereby delivering them from the relativity of worldly factionalism and/or schism.


11.  Thus in contrast to the Nordic triumph of the will and subordination of soul which National Socialism was especially responsible for furthering ... must come the Gaelic triumph of the soul and subordination of the will under the Messianic ideology of Social Transcendentalism, in order that a 'Kingdom of Heaven' may come to pass as the effective historical antithesis, in Aryan European terms, to the 'Kingdom of Hell', the Third Reich, which Hitler and his chief henchmen were largely responsible for creating on the basis of a Nordic racial hegemony.


12.  Thus whereas the alpha of things European was built upon a fair-haired, pale-blue eyed and avowedly Nordic racial disposition that necessarily favoured the power of will over the contentment of (Teutonic) soul, of race over culture, the coming omega of things European must be built upon a dark-haired, dark-blue eyed disposition, avowedly Celtic, that will necessarily favour the contentment of (Gaelic) soul over the power of will, of culture over race, since though race and culture are deeply intertwined they are not, as we have seen, of identical standing in every people.  The Gael, who is first and foremost a cultural being and only secondarily a Celt, will triumph over race, and thus the will, in his attainment of 'Kingdom Come', wherein soul will peak at an all-time contentment germane to heavenly transcendentalism.





1.   The suburbs are 'looser' than the urban heart of the city, not contrary to it, no, but less centripetal overall.  Things are generally more spread out, houses or dwellings often being detached or semidetached, with the corollary of more garden space.


2.   But as one approaches the properly urban areas of the city - and London is as good an example as any - the buildings generally stand closer together, and row after row of tenements is not uncommon.


3.   Now imagine what kind of effect this distinction between the spaced-out suburbs and the up-tight urban areas has on people, or, rather, conceive of people as being divisible, according to environment, between the 'looser' suburbs and the 'tighter' ('thicker') urban areas-proper, and you will quickly come to the realization that people become the mirror images, in effect, of where they live.


4.   Thus suburban people, accustomed to more space, will generally be less 'up tight' than urban people, or those who live in or near the heart of the city, and correspondingly 'looser' in their morals.


5.   For the more centro-complexified things become, the more centripetal, by a corresponding degree, do people become, and, conversely, the less the degree of centro-complexification the less centripetal, correspondingly, are people, and the greater the likelihood, in consequence, that how they dress and behave will reflect this fact.


6.   Therefore one would logically expect more evidence of sartorial looseness in the suburbs than in the city proper, even to the extent - though this is not commensurate with degrees of centripetal difference - of flounced dresses and/or skirts as distinct from tapering ones, or of straight or even flounced jeans as distinct from tapering ones.


7.   Certainly the evidence would appear to suggest that the pressures of urban centro-complexification condition large numbers of people towards tapering attire of one kind or another, while their suburban counterparts, though not entirely exempt from such pressures themselves, demonstrate greater flexibility in their sartorial styles, even to the extent of favouring clothes which, in their flounced or flared 'looseness', are not so much less centripetal as patently centrifugal, and thus indicative of influences having less to do with the suburbs than with avowedly rural or provincial milieus.


8.   Be that as it may, there are a number of grounds (besides sartorial ones) for supposing or even concluding that environment has an effect upon morals, and that where people live to some extent determines, through protracted conditioning, how they live, whether for better (city proper) or worse (outer suburbs).


9.   Thus I will make no bones about the fact that inner-city people are generally more moral, because centripetal, than their suburban counterparts, and correspondingly less inclined to yobbish or lax behaviour.


10.  My own experience would confirm that the city, with its centro-complexifications, not least of all in respect of architecture, is the place to develop the centripetal orientation of an omega-point philosophy, and that only in such an environment can such a philosophy be developed to its logical conclusions, not in relation to suburban conditioning.


11.  I was brought up in the suburbs and detested the city, meaning London proper.  But the older I get and the more accustomed I become to city life, the less appeal the suburbs have for me, and I would now regard a move from London proper to, say, the Surrey suburbs of my youth as retrogressive.


12.  I have 'grown up' in London, in the best sense of that term, and although I am far from endorsing the concept of metropolis as moral exemplar (least of all in relation to square and/or rectilinear styles of architecture), it is incontrovertible to me that London provided the basis for my transcendental philosophy, the centripetal orientation of which would not, I feel sure, have come to fruition in a markedly suburban environment.





1.   Despite the above, the distinction between urban and suburban can only be applied on a very general basis in relation to any large city; for, in reality, such places - and, once again, London is as good an example as any - tend to be a patchwork of urban and suburban areas.


2.   The Greater London Area is, in fact, divisible into a great many urban and suburban areas, from Sutton and Croydon in the south to Wood Green and Enfield in the north, each borough having a principal town (Wood Green in the case of Haringey) and a number of smaller towns, each of which has its own suburbs.


3.   Thus although on a general basis one can distinguish the urban centre of London from the suburban periphery, in particular or specific terms even the central parts of London have their suburbs and the outer or peripheral parts (as germane to the greater metropolitan area) their urban centres, of which Sutton and Croydon are outstanding examples.


4.   It is not by mere coincidence that each of the major urban centres, from Sutton and Croydon to Wood Green and Enfield, boasts one or more indoor shopping centres, thereby confirming and even asserting their urban status.


5.   The three-tier shopping centres at Sutton (St Nicholas) and Croydon (Whitgift) put most other shopping centres to shame in terms of size and architectural sophistication.  Neither Wood Green (two tiers) nor Enfield (ground level) can match the above, though Wood Green is fast improving.


6.   Both Dublin (St Stephen's Green) and Galway (the Eyre Square Centre) boast impressive shopping centres, and it seems to me that no city or town worthy of the name can afford to be without at least one such centre in this day and age, especially as they are fast becoming the 'heart' and - dare I say it? - 'soul' of urban life.





1.   On the subject of soul, or the soul, it seems to me that the man who can get emotions directly from himself or, rather, his self ... is wiser than the one who tends to rely on externals, like television or radio, since the latter habit would seem to reflect a lack of self-esteem.


2.   Few media are morally more dangerous or corrupting than television (cinema being one) in the extent to which it sucks the life out of viewers by jerking them off emotionally, reducing them to passive playthings of what so often transpire to be lurid images and vulgar sounds which monopolize the mind to the exclusion of everything else, not just the soul (in any genuine sense of that term) but even the ego, which is unable to function in a sufficiently detached manner to remain critically independent and aloof.


3.   Divested of ego and soul, one is reduced to mere spirit and will, neither of which are strictly germane to the self but reflective, in female manner, of the subordination of self to not-self, including not least of all the medium in question, which chiefly panders, in its fiery basis, to metachemical sensuality and thus to optical appreciation in the form of protracted viewing, which is to say, staring at artificial images.


4.   Modern life is so greatly in the grip of images, imagery, image, even imagination, that it is the friend of appearances and, by implication, enemy of essences or, at any rate, of those essences which thrive independently of imagery ... to the greater glory or, rather, contentment, in the self, of genuine soul.


5.   Alas, the souls which are so image-friendly are very shallow indeed, being of that metachemical breed of essence that takes its cue from appearances and is only intelligible in relation to such appearances as the viewing mind ingests.


6.   It is for this and related reasons (environmental, social, sexual) that a majority of modern people are so crassly superficial, given the extents to which imagery has control over their lives and is able to dictate fashion.  For profundity does not issue from a television screen but is negated by it, as, in effect, is the self.





1.   Nietzsche's concept of the superman (whom I here deem unworthy of a capital 'S') as the successor to God and 'meaning of the earth' shows fundamentally what a common, ignorant earth-grubber he was, since the earth and Heaven are as distinct as man and God, and he who is bereft of God or godliness cannot know Heaven, and thus the highest values.


2.   Certainly the superman is not beyond man, even if he is distinct from the death of some kind of false (presumably diabolic) God, since, as I have demonstrated in various of my writings, that which, as God, is beyond man is akin, in his affiliation with the subnatural element of air, to some kind of subman, for whom the subconscious (soul) is the principal mode of psyche.


3.   Not only is the superman not beyond man but, in his dearth of godliness, in his opposition to godliness, he even ranks as inferior to man, certainly to man in his Catholic manifestation traditionally, who, frankly, is much more the sinful 'meaning of the earth' than this godless impostor who, in his supernatural/superconscious affiliation, is little more than a second-rate - compared to the female mode of supernaturalism - illustration of purgatorial glory.


4.   Whatever false God or gods may have 'died' in order that Nietzsche's superhuman 'meaning of the earth' might live, the most genuine gods are still, or perhaps only now, very much alive - namely the primary God of the inner metaphysical ego, equivalent to 'the Son', and the secondary God of the inner metaphysical will, equivalent to 'the Father', neither of whom would have any meaning except in relation to a primary order of Heaven, viz. the Holy Soul, and a secondary order of Heaven, viz. the Holy Spirit, which are their respective redemptions.


5.   Thus the meditating 'subman', the deepest and highest of men who is really, in his transcendentalism, a god, is not merely into the inner metaphysical ego, but uses the inner metaphysical will of the secondary God and the inner metaphysical spirit of the secondary Heaven, the lungs of 'the Father' and the out-breath of the Holy Spirit to transport his consciousness towards superconscious quantification, from which selfless threat to self it must needs recoil to self more profoundly, which is precisely the subconscious essence of inner metaphysical soul, the primary Heaven, in short of the Holy Soul.


6.   Hence, within the inner metaphysical context of respiratory sensibility, it could be said that consciousness put through unconsciousness into superconsciousness recoils to subconsciousness, from which soulful redemption the self must once again return to ego in order to plunge anew into the relevant will and be borne out towards selfless annihilation on the wings of the relevant order of spirit, the third-rate spirit, in truth, of the inner metaphysical context.


7.   For spirituality is not, after all, what counts for most with metaphysical praxis, but rather the redemptive emotionality of the soul, which is the raison d'tre of genuine religion and thus of the godly individual whom we have identified, in defiance of earth-grubbing Nietzsche, with the subman.


8.   For the subman, to paraphrase Nietzsche, is the meaning of Heaven or, rather, the meaning of the subman, a godly individual, is Heaven; for Heaven is found in the subconsciousness of soul, and the soul is never so subconscious - and hence genuine - as when experienced in relation to the subnatural element of air, which is the metaphysical element par excellence.


9.   Thus the connection between the subnatural element of air, specifically with regard to the inner metaphysical context of the breath, and the subconscious (soulful) manifestation of psyche, enables us to infer not only a per se manifestation of soul, but a godly disposition in what has been termed the subman, the man, par excellence, of metaphysical truth (God) and joy (Heaven).


10.  So it is the 'Son-God', a primary order of God, who utilizes the 'Father-God', or the will of his lungs to breathe, for purposes of achieving, via the holy spirit of the out-breath, his psychic redemption in the holy soul of the profoundest (subconscious) self-realization, which is a primary order of Heaven, and meaning, or justification, of the subman's existence.


11.  Verily, the superman is neither beyond God nor the 'meaning of the earth', but bereft of godliness and even of genuine manliness, which, having to do with the earth, or vegetative realm, is less a thing of strength, still less of beauty, as of knowledge (whether carnally or mentally), together with its soulful corollary in pleasure, which is the meaning of man.


12.  The meaning of the superman, on the other hand, would have to be pride, since pride follows from a purgatorial affiliation to first-rate spirituality which, contrary to popular superstition or common usage, is less a metaphysical and religious attribute than a chemical and political one, as germane to the feminine realm of woman or, more correctly in this case, to the supernatural element of water wherein the superconsciousness of spirit is in its per se manifestation, and a correlation with the superhuman accordingly comes to pass, though never more so than in relation to the superfeminine, which manifests strength and pride in per se terms and not through the distorting lens, so to speak, of a vegetative (muscular) 'bovaryization' as germane to the supermasculine, and hence to what passes for that traitor to man, rival of the Devil (false God), and godless impostor - the superman!





1.   'For Thine is the Power and the Glory for Ever and Ever ...' - so runs the so-called Lord's Prayer, which every Christian has driven into him from infancy.  But what power and glory - metachemical, chemical, physical, metaphysical?  There would seem to be no awareness of such distinctions.


2.   Since 'the Lord's Prayer' has reference, if obliquely, to Christ, one can assume that the power and glory with which He, as 'Lord', is identified is physical, since the God of Christians (Who is not the Father [in relation to the Mother and Son of the New Testament], still less Jehovah, that unequivocally Old Testament and pre-Christian 'Creator') is anything but metaphysical in His adherence, through prayer, to vegetative sensibility, the sensibility of the brain.


3.   But even physical power and glory cannot be associated with one thing, like men, since while power is of the will and therefore germane in contexts of male subjectivity to a secondary order of man (if physical) or God (if metaphysical), glory is of the spirit, and only germane, in consequence, to either a secondary order of the earth (if physical) or Heaven (if metaphysical), where male subjectivity is concerned.


4.   To associate both power and glory with God, as does 'the Lord's Prayer', is to leave Heaven without an attribute, since glory has no more to do with God than power with Heaven.


5.   Power has to do with a secondary order of God (the Father) when it is metaphysical, and a secondary order of man (the father) when it is physical.  Glory, by contrast, has to do with a secondary order of Heaven (the Holy Spirit) when it is metaphysical and a secondary order of the earth (holy spirit) when physical - at any rate, so far as sensible orders of male subjectivity are concerned.


6.   Christianity has never been about metaphysical sensibility, which implies transcendental meditation and a sensibly godly disposition, but rather about physical sensibility, as implying prayer, and therefore Christ is no 'Son of God' but a 'son of man', which is a primary order of man, and therefore someone having less to do with power than with form, just as the primary order of the earth (as of Heaven) has less to do with glory than with contentment.


7.   For just as power and glory are of the not-self in both physics and metaphysics, not to mention chemistry and metachemistry on the objective (and female) side of the gender fence, so form and contentment are of the self, and it is the self which is primary and the not-self secondary in the male contexts of plenum-conditioned subjectivity (curvilinear), in complete contrast to the female contexts of vacuum-conditioned objectivity (rectilinear) whose self, and therefore form and contentment, is secondary and whose not-self, and therefore power and glory, is primary.


8.   It would seem that 'the Lord's Prayer' is given to a female bias in its identification of God with power and glory, quite apart from the illogicality of equating both power and glory with God, not to mention its failure to identify a specific mode of power or glory.


9.   In truth, one can no more equate power and glory with God than with man (always more germane to Christianity, and hence Christ), woman, or the Devil.  One can only equate a secondary order of absolute power with God (metaphysical) and a secondary order of absolute glory with Heaven (metaphysical), thereby affirming secondary orders of God (the Father) and Heaven (the Holy Spirit) in relation to airy sensibility, the sensibility of the lungs.


10.  One can only equate a secondary order of relative power with man (physical) and a secondary order of relative glory with the earth (physical), thereby affirming secondary orders of man (the father) and the earth (holy spirit) in relation to vegetative sensibility, the sensibility, as already noted, of the brain.


11.  One can only equate a primary order of relative power with woman (chemical) and a primary order of relative glory with purgatory (chemical), thereby affirming primary orders of woman (the mother) and purgatory (the unclear spirit) in relation to watery sensibility, the sensibility of the womb.


12.  One can only equate a primary order of absolute power with the Devil (metachemical) and a primary order of absolute glory with Hell (metachemical), thereby affirming primary orders of the Devil (the Mother) and Hell (the Unclear Spirit) in relation to fiery sensibility, the sensibility of the heart.


13.  Since form and contentment appertain to the self, which is primary in the male contexts (of physics and metaphysics, man/earth and God/Heaven) but secondary in the female contexts (of chemistry and metachemistry, woman/purgatory and the Devil/Hell), one can only equate a primary order of absolute form with God (metaphysical) and a primary order of absolute contentment with Heaven (metaphysical), thereby affirming primary orders of God (the Son) and Heaven (the Holy Soul) in relation to airy sensibility, the sensibility of the consciousness that is into the lungs/breath.


14.  One can only equate a primary order of relative form with man (physical) and a primary order of relative contentment with the earth (physical), thereby affirming primary orders of man (the son) and the earth (holy soul) in relation to vegetative sensibility, the sensibility of the consciousness that is into the brain/thought.


15.  One can only equate a secondary order of relative form with woman (chemical) and a secondary order of relative contentment with purgatory (chemical), thereby affirming secondary orders of woman (the daughter) and purgatory (the unclear soul) in relation to watery sensibility, the sensibility of the consciousness that is into the womb/amniotic fluid.


16.  One can only equate a secondary order of absolute form with the Devil (metachemical) and a secondary order of absolute contentment with Hell (metachemical), thereby affirming secondary orders of the Devil (the Daughter) and Hell (the Unclear Soul) in relation to fiery sensibility, the sensibility of the consciousness that is into the heart/blood.


17.  Sensible metaphysics therefore presents us with a distinction between primary orders of absolute form and contentment in the self of God (the Son) and Heaven (the Holy Soul) and secondary orders of absolute power and glory in the not-self of God (the Father) and Heaven (the Holy Spirit), corresponding to inner metaphysical ego and soul on the one hand, and to inner metaphysical will and spirit on the other hand.


18.  Sensible physics likewise presents us with a distinction between primary orders of relative form and contentment in the self of man (the son) and the earth (holy soul) and secondary orders of relative power and glory in the not-self of man (the father) and the earth (holy spirit), corresponding to inner physical ego and soul on the one hand, and to inner physical will and spirit on the other hand.


19.  Sensible chemistry therefore presents us with a distinction between secondary orders of relative form and contentment in the self of woman (the daughter) and purgatory (the unclear soul) and primary orders of relative power and glory in the not-self of woman (the mother) and purgatory (the unclear spirit), corresponding to inner chemical ego and soul on the one hand, and to inner chemical will and spirit on the other hand.


20.  Sensible metachemistry likewise presents us with a distinction between secondary orders of absolute form and contentment in the self of Devil (the Daughter) and Hell (the Unclear Soul) and primary orders of absolute power and glory in the not-self of Devil (the Mother) and Hell (the Unclear Spirit), corresponding to inner metachemical ego and soul on the one hand, and to inner metachemical will and spirit on the other hand.


21.  The sensible secondary God (the Father) has wise power absolutely, and the sensible primary God (the Son) wise form absolutely, wise power leading to holy glory absolutely no less inevitably than wise form leads, via wise power and holy glory, to holy contentment absolutely.


22.  For the sensible metaphysical ego must plunge into the sensible metaphysical will and be borne aloft by the sensible metaphysical spirit before it can recoil, in self-preservation, to self more profoundly ... as sensible metaphysical soul, the soul of souls and heaven of heavens.


23.  The sensible metaphysical ego relates, as true Son of God, as primary God, to the lungs and their will to breathe.  He is conscious, through meditation, of the breath, the breathing power of the Lung-God, the secondary God Who has been identified with the Father, and allows himself or his ego to be borne aloft on the secondary Heaven of the out-breath, which has been identified with the Holy Spirit.


24.  But he must recoil from the secondary Heaven of the Holy Spirit to his self more profoundly, and thus achieve the primary Heaven of the Holy Soul, which is his redemption and resurrection (from ego to soul, God to Heaven, wisdom to holiness in metaphysical sensibility).


25.  Both inner metaphysical power and glory are for him but a means to the sublime end of the inner metaphysical transformation of his self from form to contentment.  For his joy is the ultimate contentment and raison d'tre in the utmost supreme being.





1.   It is often held that God is both immanent and transcendent, but such a belief would not hold with my philosophy, which distinguishes between primary and secondary orders of God, or godliness, in relation to the metaphysical self (ego) and not-self (will), with particular emphasis upon the inner, or sensible, context of metaphysics, wherein both primary and secondary gods are wise.


2.   Hence where wise gods are concerned, one can certainly distinguish, as I do, between a primary God and a secondary God, the former of the self egocentrically or, rather, egoistically (since consciousness is directed towards subconscious enhancement of self via both unconscious and superconscious assistance from the relevant not-self), and the latter of the not-self instinctively, which is to say in terms of will.  But this is not equivalent to a distinction between immanence and transcendence.  For how can the not-self transcend the self?


3.   Rather is it the case that godliness is immanent on both primary and secondary terms, as God-the-Son in egoistic selfhood and as God-the-Father in instinctive not-selfhood, both of which are equally or, at any rate, unequally immanent.


4.   The distinction between immanence and transcendence is not therefore between one type of God and another, 'the Son' and 'the Father' as interpreted by me in relation to inner metaphysics, but rather between God and Heaven, the latter of which transcends, i.e. goes beyond, the former, whether on primary or on secondary terms.


5.   Hence the Holy Spirit of Heaven transcends the Wise Will of God-the-Father in the secondary context of God and Heaven, as the breath transcends the lungs, being their raison d'tre and redemption.


6.   Likewise the Holy Soul of Heaven transcends the Wise Ego of God-the-Son in the primary context of God and Heaven, as the inner metaphysical soul transcends the inner metaphysical ego, being its raison d'tre and redemption.


7.   Heaven is therefore the transcendence of God, whether in relation to the inner metaphysical not-self or to the inner metaphysical self, for wisdom is redeemed in holiness, as joy vindicates truth.


8.   The ego that, become conscious of the breathing process through transcendental meditation, puts itself through the will and the spirit of the inner metaphysical not-self is redeemed in the soul-of-souls, the per se manifestation of soul, which is commensurate with a primary order of transcendence.


9.   The breath that flows from out the lungs, as inner metaphysical spirit from inner metaphysical will, the Holy Spirit from 'the Father', is commensurate with a secondary order of transcendence, since it is germane to a secondary immanence.


10.  Both the secondary immanence of God-the-Father and the secondary transcendence ... of the Holy Spirit of Heaven are means for the primary immanence ... of God-the-Son to achieve the primary transcendence ... of the Holy Soul of Heaven, which is the transcendence-of-transcendences and heaven-of-heavens.


11.  One meditates, as a primary God, in order to achieve resurrection of the self from ego to soul, thereby enhancing the self in terms of its attainment, on a cyclical basis, to primary Heaven.


12.  This is the ultimate self-interest, the ultimate egoism (as especially applicable to males of a metaphysical disposition), the Wise Ego of God-the-Son destined to be eclipsed by the Holy Soul of Heaven as the inner metaphysical self consciously utilizes both the unconscious will and the superconscious spirit of the inner metaphysical not-self (the Wise Will of God-the-Father and the Holy Spirit of Heaven) for purposes of self-transmutation from godly immanence to heavenly transcendence of that immanence, which is the redemption of ego in soulful resurrection of that which is primary.





1.   The female can only remain free to exploit her chemical and/or metachemical not-self in sensuality so long as the male is resigned to being enthralled by what she does and/or gives.  Should he become disillusioned with his dependence in this respect he will gravitate more closely to self, to the sensibility of physics and/or metaphysics, wherein he is saved from the curse of freedom from self, which is enthralment.


2.   Freedom is a blessing and enthralment a curse, but that man who becomes disillusioned with enthralment and consciously gravitates, in salvation, to self-binding will seek the enslavement of females to his self via constrained not-self, which is damnation.


3.   The damned female, whether lower class (mass/phenomenal) or upper class (time/noumenal), will find enslavement of not-self to the bound self of her male, as of males in general, no less contrary to her nature than the cursed male, whether upper class (time/noumenal) or lower class (mass/phenomenal) will find enthralment of self by the free not-self of his female, as of females in general, contrary to his nature.


4.   For whereas females are primarily of the not-self and only secondarily of the self, on account of their objective dispositions in relation to a vacuum, males are primarily of the self and only secondarily of the not-self, on account of their subjective dispositions in relation to a plenum.  Therefore the male whose self is enthralled by female not-self, whether chemical or metachemical, is no less removed from his self-interest than the female whose not-self is enslaved by male self ... from her not-self interest.


5.   Self-interest for the male entails binding to self in sensibility; not-self interest for the female entails freedom of not-self in sensuality.  That which is advantageous to the one gender becomes disadvantageous to the other, and vice versa.


6.   Deliverance from enslavement of not-self to binding to freedom for not-self interest is what most suits females; deliverance from enthralment of self to freedom to binding in self-interest is what most suits males.  For females prefer being blessed, in heathenistic fashion, with freedom over males than being delivered, contrary to not-self interest, to enslavement under males, whereas males prefer being saved, in Christian fashion, to binding over females than being cursed, contrary to self-interest, by enthralment under females.


7.   Just as enslavement for females is a binding of not-self, the paradoxical placing of constraints upon freedom of not-self action, so enthralment for males is a paradoxical freedom from self, an escape from self through the dispersal, centrifugally, of binding.


8.   Since the subjectivity of their disposition ensures that self-interest is of more applicability to males than denial of self through the secondary freedom, the indirect freedom, of enthralment, the male who denies his self-interest in sensuality always risks being torn apart by the objective object of his enthralment.


9.   Since the objectivity of their disposition ensures that not-self interest is of more applicability to females than denial of not-self through the secondary binding, the indirect binding, of enslavement, the female who denies her not-self in sensibility always risks being eclipsed or upstaged by the subjective subject of her enslavement.


10.  Females are selfishly dominated by males in sensibility, becoming unto a 'second sex', whereas males are not-selfishly dominated by females in sensuality, whereupon they likewise become akin to a 'second sex'.


11.  Those who, as females, are dominated by binding in sensibility are damned, whereas those who, as males, are dominated by freedom in sensuality are cursed.


12.  Conversely, those who, as males, dominate through binding to self in sensibility are saved, whereas those who, as females, dominate through freedom of not-self in sensuality are blessed.


13.  Blessed with freedom (for not-self) and damned by enslavement (of not-self), females will tend to prefer the former to the latter, even though this means that the evil of barbarism takes precedence, in freedom, over the goodness of civilization with them, as of vice over virtue.


14.  Saved by binding (to self) and cursed with enthralment (of self), males will tend to prefer the former to the latter, thereby permitting the wisdom of culture to take precedence over the folly of philistinism, as of virtue over vice.


15.  For while freedom has intimate connections with barbarism (in relation to not-self) for females and with philistinism (in relation to self) for males, the former directly immoral and therefore criminal but the latter indirectly immoral and therefore sinful, binding has no less intimate connections with culture (in relation to self) for males and with civilization (in relation to not-self) for females, the former directly moral and therefore graceful but the latter indirectly moral and therefore punishing.


16.  The good female, whether phenomenally relative or noumenally absolute, woman or devil, will be more identifiable with civilization than with barbarism, and thus with punishment than with crime, while the wise male, whether phenomenally relative or noumenally absolute, man or god, will be more identifiable with culture than with philistinism, and thus with grace than with sin.


17.  Culture requires the support of civilization, as wisdom of goodness, and therefore the oppression of females in terms of the paradoxical placement of sensible constraints upon their not-self freedom-of-action, which is primary with them on account of their objective dispositions, as conditioned by a vacuum.


18.  A society which is dominated by females, through freedom, is one that is immorally removed from culture and civilization in barbarism and philistinism, and therefore more characterized by evil and folly than by wisdom and goodness, by crime and sin, in other words,  than by grace and punishment.


19.  Such a society, being sensually heathenistic, is not just at bottom evil and foolish, but predominantly evil and foolish, with an incapacity, bordering on aversion, for wisdom and goodness.


20.  A society dominated or characterized by barbarism, a free society, will make a god out of evil and a devil out of folly, the curse of the 'free', or enthralled, male, whose sinful disposition will be upstaged by the criminality of the blessed free.


21.  A society dominated or characterized by culture, a bound society, will make a god out of wisdom and a devil out of goodness, the damnation of the 'bound', or enslaved, female, whose punishing disposition will be upstaged by the grace of the saved bound.


22.  As a male, I would have to prefer the latter type of society, and will do what I can to help bring it to pass as a matter of moral necessity.  For the barbarous and philistine alternative is something to be delivered from, not something to esteem as an end-in-itself. 


23.  Let the true end of life be culture and civilization, and may Social Transcendentalism be the ideological focus for and means by which it can come to pass in relation to 'Kingdom Come', wherein wisdom and goodness will sit virtuously enthroned for all Eternity!


24.  For that is the promise of 'Kingdom Come', of a federation, initially, of the Gaels, and religious sovereignty is the means by which it can be brought democratically to pass come Judgement, or the decision as to whether to be saved and/or damned from freedom to binding, as from barbarism and philistinism, evil and folly, to civilization and culture, goodness and wisdom, when the opportunity eventually comes to pass, as it surely must if a morally sensible alternative to the sensual immorality of the present is to officially become a reality and not remain a dream-wish of the disillusioned few.



LONDON 2001 (Revised 2011)






Bookmark and Share