Op. 89




Cyclic Philosophy


Copyright 2011 John O'Loughlin





1. Thinking in Fours

2. What is the Cosmos?

3. What is Nature?

4. What is Man?

5. What is the Cyborg?

6. An Overview of Life





1.   I often think in terms of fours, for example in terms of four basic Elements - fire, water, vegetation (earth), and air; in terms of four devotional ideals - beauty, strength, knowledge, and truth; in terms of four emotional ideals - love, pride, pleasure, and joy; in terms of four musical ingredients - rhythm, harmony, melody, and pitch; in terms of four types of literature - poetry, drama, fiction, and philosophy; in terms of four types of human being - devil, woman, man, and god; in terms of four religious conditions and/or places - hell, purgatory, earth, and heaven; in terms of four subatomic elements - photons, electrons, neutrons, and protons; in terms of four major disciplinary categories - science, politics, economics, and religion; in terms of four modes of ideological negativity - materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism; in terms of four modes of ideological positivity - fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism; in terms of four elemental conditions - metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics; in terms of four fine arts - art, sculpture, literature, and music; in terms of four planes of existence - space, time, volume, and mass; in terms of four somatic/psychic faculties - will, spirit, ego, and soul; and so on and so forth.


2.   There are, of course, other ways of thinking, and I also often find myself thinking in terms of one or another of them - for example, gods the Wise Son and the Wise Father, and heavens the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit; or men the Wise Son and the Wise Father, and earths the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit; or women the Good Daughter and the Good Mother, and purgatories the Unclear Soul and the Unclear Spirit; or devils the Good Daughter and the Good Mother, and hells the Unclear Soul and the Unclear Spirit; not to mention clear and unholy orders of both soul and spirit, and evil and foolish orders of both ego and will, as germane to females and males in sensuality as opposed to sensibility.  Even these ways of thinking can be turned into quadruplicities of sorts, albeit with a dualistic balance and requirement.


3.   I am, as you will have guessed, a thinker, a philosopher, albeit very much self-taught and therefore self-respecting, and therefore I make it my business, my concern, to think logically and comprehensively, and even doggedly and boldly, not to say cautiously and sceptically, about a large variety of issues and contexts, some of which are more philosophical than others, but all of which, whether strictly metaphysical or not, contribute to the overall perspective in which this fits here and that fits there, and without a prior knowledge of the status of this as against the status of that, no certain or, at any rate, sustainable estimation of both relative and absolute values, premised upon a sense of what belongs where and why, would be possible.


4.   So much for introductions!  The thing I would now like to emphasize is a new way of looking at history or, rather, at a totality, if you will, of possible or actual circumstances which, whether or not strictly historical, would owe quite a lot to this tendency of mine to think in terms of four, as, for example, in terms of four ages or, better, conditions of life.  After all, others, including the great John Bunyan, have done likewise, if with a different perspective and from a different standpoint.  There are, for example, with Spengler four ages or phases of life - what he called 'Historyless Chaos', 'Culture', 'Civilization', and 'Second Religiousness'.  This is not the place to discuss his theories of history, but my own latent theorizing would owe something to such a fourfold classification, though I flatter myself to say little or nothing to Spengler!


5.   I shall start by laying my cards on the table, so to speak, and then proceed to discuss each one of them in some detail thereafter, striving, as far as possible, to justify my position, and making some effort, in the process, to analyse and define each of the major categories in the game.  These, in more or less the following order, are Cosmos, Nature, Man, and Cyborg. 


6.   In other words, I am going to elaborate upon a theory of life which embraces four main categories of existence, each with its own characteristics and integrities, some of which overlap with others, but all of which add up, if my theories are credible, to a new way of conceiving of both the Universe, as it were, and Man's place in it. 


7.   Therefore, to repeat, things are conceived of as proceeding, in very broad terms, from the Cosmos to the Cyborg via Nature and Man, as though, in general terms, from fire to air via water and vegetation or, alternatively, from doing to being via giving and taking.


8.   Now in order to proceed any further we shall need to ask: What is the Cosmos? And what is Nature? And what is Man? And what is the Cyborg? - I shall attempt an answer for each category, not definitive of course or even necessarily standard, but such that will lend support to our theory of a sort of chronological progression from alpha to omega via 'the world', and thereby clarify the distinctions between the four main components of life as we are conceiving of it.  For life does not begin with Man, and neither, I contend, should it end with him, even if he happens to be a pretty significant player in the overall game.





1.   We all know that the Cosmos is largely composed of starry bodies, together with such planets and/or moons as may circle, in Solar System-like vein, around certain of them, as in the case of our sun.  Starry bodies in space, together with their satellites and a whole lot of debris which has built up over the millennia, constitute our general concept of the Cosmos.


2.   Some have contended that the Universe, to give it its alternative name, is meaningless, since devoid of God in the conventional or traditional sense of Creator, like Jehovah, and that we accordingly live in a meaningless Universe, since we, too, are part of the overall picture.  I won't go into the Existentialist pros and cons - mostly cons - of this argument, because it is not relevant to our text.  But I will contend that if the Universe was truly meaningless it would not be the sort of place in which one could live but, rather, closer to what it probably was like before galaxies and solar systems and such-like cosmic units were formed out of the cooling of smaller stars and the gradual coming to pass, in contrast one fancies to the everywhichway chaos of primal cosmic matter, of magnetic reciprocities and tensions such that, together with other factors, eventually led to the development of galaxies and related orders which, in the manner of our solar system, display a variety of orbital patterns, whether in relation to space itself (allegedly curved, if Einstein and such physicists are to believed) or, more probably, in consequence of the various bodies attracting and repelling one another in a kaleidoscope-like array of interdependent movements that owe more to basic gravitational forces in relation to different volumes and masses than to any 'cultural' interpretation of orbits as such which, while intellectually attractive, doesn't really do all that much justice to the rather more primitivistic relationships characterizing such primal bodies as stars at various stages of cosmic devolution.


3.   Now it seems unlikely that galaxies and solar systems were ready-formed, as it were, out of the so-called Big Bang at the roots of the Universe - always rather suspiciously suggestive of a secular parallel to monotheism - but, rather, that they took an immense time to come into being, more time than we could reasonably comprehend, and that wherever they did form, which may not have been everywhere, the Cosmos ceased to be meaningless, or anarchic, and became meaningful, and ordered - even, in some limited sense, civilized.  For we should not confine civilization just to Man, even though he may be the paragon of it, but should allow for something equivalent to civilization, even if on a much lesser or 'bovaryized' basis, in relation to the Universe generally. 


4.   Now the Universe achieved, in galaxies and solar systems, whether or not other solar systems exist outside this particular galaxy, a meaning which would otherwise be lacking.  It became in some rudimentary way civilized, whereas in its original manifestation as starry bodies presumably flying everywhichway in primal chaos it would have been not merely barbarous but infernally philistine, if we take 'philistine' to mean the opposite of cultured, and therefore that which most accords with the absolute beginning of things rather than their absolute end, with appearance rather than essence, with will rather than soul, with doing rather than being, with the Devil rather than God, with outer rather than inner, with light rather than lightness, with speed rather than calmness, with individualism rather than co-operation, and so on and so forth.


5.   Even now I think it safe or, at any rate, reasonable to contend that the Universe or Cosmos, whatever one prefers to call it (and it may be that Multiverse or even Polyverse is the more appropriate description of something so vast as potentially to be composed of countless galaxies and/or solar systems, as well as the possibility of anarchic stars or bodies that even now would defy meaning), is primarily philistine, or apparent, or manifesting the most basic id-like will, and therefore that which stands at the inception of life as the precondition for anything else, whether lower or contrary. 


6.   But I do not believe that one can or indeed should limit the Cosmos to just a philistine status, even if that may happen to be its most characteristic attribute and therefore one that would necessarily have to take precedence over all the others, including barbarism, civilization, and - dare I say it? - rudimentary manifestations of culture, as though in crudely supernatural, natural, and subnatural departures from a quintessentially unnatural inception and basis. 


7.   For the 'everything within everything', the fourfold of things even within the Cosmos, never mind Nature, Man, and Cyborg, is surely a credible argument and interpretation of reality, and I would not be the first to espouse it.  Anaxagoras believed such a thing in the fifth century B.C., at around the same time that Empedocles did justice to the fourfold classification of the Elements which has inspired so many philosophers, including myself, right down to modern times.


8.   However that may be, the Cosmos, I shall maintain, is primarily a philistine reality which, despite the chaos from out of which it must have emerged, achieved, in part or in whole, a degree of order which we have since been able to testify to and interpret in terms of galaxies, solar systems, and so on.  In fact, without such an order we would not have come to pass in the first place, any more than the subject of my next question, Nature.





1.   Generally one thinks of Nature in terms of everything natural, whether cosmic, terrestrial, oceanic, planetary, animal, vegetable, mineral, human, or what have you, and that which is not Nature as being in some sense man-made and therefore artificial or synthetic.  I do not, myself, wish to take such a comprehensive view of Nature, though I admit that there is more to it than simply the vegetative or terrestrial aspect of things - not least of all the vast watery volumes that constitute the greater proportion of natural matter on Earth. 


2.   I think it helps if we distinguish Nature from the Cosmos, as I have effectively already done, by limiting it to that which is both mundane and not man-made, even if this can still contain unnatural, supernatural, natural, and subnatural elements within itself, as in relation to fire, water, vegetation, and air, but especially, I shall argue, water and vegetation (earth), and with more reference to water than to vegetation, so that 'Mother Nature' is largely, though not exclusively, oceanic, or of the seas and lakes and other waterways and watery contexts that predominate over its strictly vegetative manifestations, the growth of which still requires water.


3.   But even here we need to distinguish between that which is wild and what has been modified or created by man, since there are aspects of the natural world which are really a part of civilization and therefore partake of the man-made, even with a largely non-human ingredient.  I refer, for instance, to farms, not to mention zoos and parks, tree-lined streets, gardens, and other modifications of Nature such that, duly domesticated, are adjuncts to or aspects of civilization proper. 


4.   But Nature in general, nature in the raw, is anything but an adjunct to or lesser aspect of civilization, but if not its enemy then something which we can regard, most unequivocally, as signifying a fall, in the biblical sense, from the Cosmos, as from appearance to quantity, beauty to strength (or more probably weakness initially), the light to the darkness, 'the heavens' to 'the world'.


5.   Even the metaphor of the Garden of Eden, the Edenic myth in Genesis, is symptomatic to me of a fall, nay the fall of life from the noumenal heights of the starry Cosmos to the phenomenal depths of mundane Nature.  It was a fall, in effect, from the Devil to woman, from love to pride (or more probably humility, if not humiliation, initially), from hotness to coldness, from a context with a philistine fulcrum to one with a barbarous fulcrum or mean, not excluding degrees and lesser manifestations, relative to itself, of philistinism, civilization, and culture.


6.   But, in the main, barbarism, which of course was something that Man rebelled against, not as an animalistic aspect of 'the fallen' but, ultimately, as that Adamic upheaval that, egged on by the developing pride of Eve and tasting of the forbidden tree - from Nature's barbarous standpoint - of knowledge, knew good from evil or, more correctly, came into the first realization of his own essence as a creature capable of crawling out of Nature and opposing it from an antithetical standpoint.  I propose to discuss that standpoint in the next chapter, one dealing with the question of Man.


7.   Before I do, a word or two more about Nature.  Despite whatever beauty, knowledge, and truth, or their converse, Nature may entail, it seems to us primarily about strength, and the will of the stronger to exploit the weaker, as predator upon prey, and dominate the weaker from the more barbarous standpoint of greater strength.  It is also inherently barbarous in the extent to which natural upheavals wreak havoc over both Nature and Man in the forms of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, landslides, avalanches, raging fires, violent storms, and so on and so forth.  There is great violence in Nature, as well as a sort of logic for balance and renewal, for ecological interdependence, for growth and decay.  Nature is mighty, and we underestimate it at our peril! 


8.   So much for the paradoxical barbarism of Nature!  One must also admit of its philistinism, its beauty, all too apparent in certain scenic landscapes, waterscapes, snowscapes, and so on, as well as of its civilization and even culture, the former knowledgeable of survival techniques and the latter more innately discernible in its feeling for itself, for its well-being, its heightened sense of satisfaction in what it is as opposed to what it does, gives, or takes, even though what it gives is arguably more representative of Nature than anything else, bearing in mind its reproductive and assertive tendencies, its spirit, which rages against both the light and the heaviness from dark springs bubbling deeply below the surface.


9.   Yet Nature, too, attains to meaningfulness and even an order which testifies to a degree of civilization, of routine and design, of intention.  Ant nests and bee hives were not born in a day, and the purposes to which they were intended doubtless evolved over many millennia until they reached a perfection which we can only marvel at, as we contemplate the results and come to the conclusion that Nature is far from being exclusively barbarous but also, in some sense, civilized and knowledgeable, able to achieve an order from out the primal chaos which fans the inclemencies and destructive abominations at the roots of its existence.


10.  Nature, however, is still stronger than Man.  But Man had one major advantage over Nature which precluded him from merely remaining or continuing as an aspect of it, like the animals, birds, insects, reptiles, fish, and, most especially, plants.  Coming into his civilizing own as a two-legged creature capable of self-knowledge, he revolted against Nature, against 'the Fall', and duly departed from 'the Garden' to build a world antithetical to it which has its fulcrum in knowledge and, hence, form.





1.   As intimated above, Man, as we know him, is decidedly not of 'the Fall', but a rebel against it and thus against Nature.  He is in part a creature of Nature, begotten but not made, dependent upon the flesh, but he can also transcend Nature and create a world of his own, unique unto himself, and in a variety of environments and climates.  Man is more universal than any other species, more adaptable and capable of surviving in a great variety of conditions, though largely because he creates a stable environment for himself which is able to prevail against the Elements.


2.   Man is, in essence, a civilizing being, for he responds to his ego in such a way as to project his sense of form onto the surrounding world and, in doing so, has developed civilization in a way and to an extent unrivalled by either the Cosmos or Nature.  Civilization is not tangential to Man, as it arguably is to what precedes him, but what most characterizes him; for he is one who builds, on the basis of self-knowledge, against the strengths and beauties, not to mention weaknesses and uglinesses, of Nature and the Universe. 


3.   Man harmonizes with Nature only as and when it suits him.  When it doesn't, he knows better than any other species how to go against it in pursuit of his own interests.  He has taken this knowledgeable tendency based in self further than ants, bees, bats, swallows, owls, wolves, dolphins, and other such creatures.  For it is only when civilization steps out of Nature that it is properly and recognizably civilized, even though it will continue to co-exist with it, as with an opposite.


4.   But there are degrees and types of civilization, some more advanced than others, some more sensible than sensual, others the converse of this, whether on a higher or a lower basis, and dichotomies have arisen, or been perceived to have arisen, between 'the civilized' and 'the barbarous', as between those who would claim to represent civilization in the face of barbarous opponents whose closeness to Nature rendered them conspicuously uncivilized.


5.   In reality, all men, without exception, are drawn, in self-knowledge, towards civilization, towards an order built around the man-made, with utilitarian and non-utilitarian artefacts, but not all men can be said to be as self-consciously aware of this as those who have developed civilization to a greater extent and have a formal self-image of themselves as champions or defenders of civilization against barbarism, meaning, in effect, of Man against Nature, knowledge against strength. 


6.   For if Man is not a creature of Nature but a being-apart from Nature who only comes into his humanizing own at that point when he becomes self-consciously aware of his knowledgeable essence, then those who were lacking or perceived as lacking in such awareness would appear barbaric, and their societies as being more beholden to strength than to knowledge - in short, as being more feminine than masculine in the degree to which they continued to identify with and even to worship Nature, or some aspect thereof, not to mention the cosmic preconditions of Nature in the noumenal Behind, that antithesis, we shall argue, of the noumenal Beyond.


7.   It is only when he categorically turns against Nature, ceases to worship or identify with it, that Man can be said to have come into his human own as a being for whom knowledge takes precedence over strength, and female criteria, whether applying in the feminine to strength or in diabolism to beauty, are accordingly subordinated to male criteria.  For until strength is subordinated to knowledge, it cannot be said that civilization, much less Man, has come properly to pass.


8.   Therefore the real distinguishing characteristic between 'the barbarous' and 'the civilized' is the importance which they respectively attach to strength and knowledge, and no society or people that calls itself civilized can possibly be one in which strength takes precedence over knowledge, even if a sort of civilized manifestation of strength, not to mention beauty in the noumenal alpha and truth in the noumenal omega, indubitably co-exists, in the fourfold comprehensiveness of things, with knowledge, meaning the civilized knowledge of that which is mental rather than carnal, and accordingly finds its environmental parallel in the town.


9.   For certainly the town is the context par excellence of civilized knowledge, of the phenomenal wisdom of a sensible environmental relativity, and until such a context comes significantly to pass, it is hard to imagine much progress being made in the way of a knowledgeable hegemony over both strength and beauty, both of which tend to be more prevalent in contexts, even civilized contexts such as villages and farms, owing more to sensuality than to sensibility.


10.  But a knowledgeable hegemony in civilization per se is one thing, a truthful hegemony in culture per se quite another, and this is unlikely to happen in relation to Man, the creature, par excellence, of knowledge, whose commitment to civilized truth, to a 'bovaryization' of truth owing more to knowledge than to that which transcends it, tends to fall as far short of cultural truth as the natural knowledge of, say, bees or ants falls short of the civilized knowledge which belongs exclusively to Man. 


11.  Therefore if something more than knowledge is to emerge into life with an authenticity that causes knowledgeable truth to pale into relative insignificance, something more than Man will be required, and that something is the subject of my next chapter - namely, the Cyborg.





1.   Nietzsche insisted that man was something that should be overcome, meaning superseded, and in his teachings, not least Thus Spoke Zarathustra, this was to be achieved by what he called the Superman.  But such a term was derived, in no small measure, from the traditional Western notion of thinking of the ne plus ultra of things in terms of the supernatural, of supernature, when in point of fact the supernatural is closer, in feminine strength, to what precedes nature in its vegetative aspect, so that any identification of life with the supernatural is bound to lead back towards strength and, hence, the barbarism of Nature as we have defined it in terms of a watery predominance. 


2.   Certainly vegetative nature is still Nature, but it is nevertheless what  lies beyond both the unnatural and supernatural, fiery and watery aspects of Nature as something closer, in effect, to the subnatural, meaning that which is deeper than the vegetative and more akin, in consequence, to air than to earth, to the soul than to the ego, to metaphysics than to physics, to God than to Man, to contentment than to form, to culture than to civilization - in short, to being than to taking.


3.   Nietzsche disbelieved in God, as also, somewhat cynically, in Man, especially in his Christian manifestation, the manifestation of civilized knowledge par excellence, and thus of that which, hitherto, has been morally most advanced in Western civilization.  But he wasn't able to see through and defeat the Western convention of a supernatural ne plus ultra, with its spiritual hyperbole, and so blandly conceived of the Superman, the 'meaning of the earth', etc., who would replace Man as the epitome of all that was noble and self-overcoming. 


4.   And the Superman was centred, as supernatural things tend to be, not in truth but in strength, which is precisely the barbarous attribute of Nature, and especially of the per se manifestation of Nature which takes a supernatural, and therefore watery, turn more congenial to feminine females than to masculine males, viz. to women than to men. 


5.   It is as if, with the Superman, we consider the going backwards from knowledge into strength as somehow constitutive of progress, when, in point of fact, nothing could be more regressive from a male standpoint than to end-up playing second fiddle, as it were, to the more authentic strength of watery females in a fresh outbreak of barbarism, the 'fair sex' always fundamentally more barbarous and less civilized and/or more philistine and less cultured than the male sex, for reasons already described. 


6.   Obviously, Nietzchean paradoxes are the last thing we need if we are truly to progress and develop an alternative not merely to Nature but to Man and his town and city-like town mentality.  For, in truth, the city that is proper is no town-like patchwork of suburban and urban areas, a congeries of villages and farms, but a more unequivocally urban context that lends itself to an analogue with a sensible form of environmental absolutism, the absolutism in which Truth, with a capital T, can develop and be upheld in the interests of a cultural hegemony such as the West has never before experienced, given its town-conditioned Christian predilection for civilized knowledge.


7.   Before I discuss such Truth, a word or two more about Man.  For if Man is not of 'the Fall', as from Cosmos to Nature, but the most dogged enemy of such a barbarous condition that Nature could ever have, then he must be avowedly something else and better - namely, the precondition, in his civilization, of a rise from Man to Cyborg, and thus of a return, on antithetical terms, to the noumenal heights from which life 'fell' with Nature. 


8.   Man, in short, is the precondition of God, for God is that which is culturally absolutist in relation to Truth, and ultimately God and the Cyborg are virtually synonymous, antithetical, in every respect, to the beautiful Lie of the Cosmos, which is the arena in which the Devil, duly hyped as God in terms of 'First Mover', has His or, rather, Her throne, and never more so than in relation to the stellar aspect thereof, which is arguably not only its primal but its predominating aspect, in noumenal objectivity.  Man climbs to God via the Cyborg, for the Cyborg is, or should be, the outcome of the earth, conceived in civilized terms, as that context of life wherein sensible knowledge is enthroned. 


9.   But the Cyborg is not to be thought of in terms of robots or robotic devices, as some people are only too keen to imagine!  Rather is it to be thought of in terms of the gradual stepping up of the interface between Man and technology to a point, or series of points, where virtually everything that formerly served the self, the brain stem and spinal cord, in conventional bodily terms has been superseded by artificial and synthetic mechanisms which will enable Man to overcome the mortality of the flesh, so to speak, and thus live if not for ever initially, then certainly for a considerably longer period of time than would otherwise be possible.


10.  In short, Man's innate evolutionary drive should have the effect of advancing him towards Eternity, towards a context antithetical to the Cosmos, and more in terms of sensibility than of sensuality, through recourse to technological stratagems and devices which interface with him to such an extent that he ceases to be recognizably human and becomes more-than-human, becomes godly in the Cyborg. 


11.  Now the Cyborg will enable human life to survive beyond death or, rather, overcome the mortal inevitability of death and live immortally for ever, live on a higher plane of existence in which afterlife-type experiences and even certain in-life experiences can be sustained artificially and synthetically for as long as desirable, and partly to enable such Cyborg life to avoid the fate of death and either the temporal 'eternity' in the grave of a Christian-type afterlife for the self or, more prevalently as time goes by, the afterlife-denying hell of cremation, as the remains of the deceased are handed over to the raging furnace in the belief that there is no survival of death by the self and no possibility or likelihood, in consequence, of its being 'alive', in self-consuming soulful illumination, to suffer the excruciating agony of fiery encroachment and, ultimately, obliteration.


12.  Societies based around the cathode-ray-tube and other vacuous media owing more to a female hegemony than to a male one, may be conditioned towards that belief, as indeed towards disbelief in the self generally, but I believe it to be a false one; that, on the contrary, the self continues to survive the mortality of the flesh until such time as it has nervously consumed itself and fades into nothingness and that darkness which, to judge from medieval eschatological paintings, some would interpret in terms of hell, but which is really just the final cessation of afterlife experience co-existent with ongoing decomposition, whether extensively or otherwise, of the bodily remains.


13.  They say that to inspire men towards God you need to put the fear of the Devil into them, and it may be that what I have said above and in previous texts, concerning crematoria, could be interpreted in that way.  Certainly I do not just envisage the synthetic afterlife of the Cyborg as being exclusively motivated by fear of the Devil, viz. the crematorial philistinism and/or barbarism of secular modernity; for there would surely be enough grounds for a more positive and self-serving attitude to develop in the course of time or, rather, eternity. 


14.  But for the present, which has not yet officially crossed the threshold between Man and Cyborg, or the world in its civilized form and the otherworldly cultural contentment of 'Kingdom Come', mankind may need some such inducement and wake-up call to help kick-start the engine of its evolutionary advance beyond humanism into a society in which transcendentalism, in its sensible manifestation, is if not the sole goal then certainly the focus of cultural and moral enlightenment, and those who are properly of the city - in other words, the great majority of people - witness a new dawn in which cities are not only encouraged to develop along more unequivocally urban lines, with due structural and institutional refinements, but can come into their religious own as the contexts most according with a sensible environmental absolutism and therefore with the possibility and, indeed, justification of cultural truth, of Truth with a capital T, such that would deliver people from a lot more, eventually, than just the hideously agonizing prospect of crematorial annihilation.


15.  But if Man is fated to rise, in knowledgeable self-overcoming, towards the Cyborg, in self-affirmation of Truth as the precondition of self-transcendence in Joy, of God in Heaven, and to do so via the sort of paradoxical election which I have customarily equated, in my writings, with Judgement, with the possibility of a vote for religious sovereignty and the fobbing off of 'sins and/or crimes of the world', meaning conventional political sovereignties and concomitants, onto the Saviour and his closest followers in the event of a majority mandate for the said sovereignty, then the ensuing context of 'Kingdom Come' would indeed be a pluralistic one divisible between a triadic Beyond and its administrative aside, as described in previous texts, and not a monistic or totalitarian absolutism in which nothing but Godliness and Truth existed.


16.  Not all men would be entitled to such cultural truth, for there will also be contexts in the triadic Beyond of civilized knowledge and generative strength, as well, with the administrative aside, as a context, duly transmuted, of racial beauty, so that all the elements will be acknowledged and done sensible justice to, after their various tier fashions, together with the threefold subdivisions, two male and one female, of each tier, as already described in previous texts. 


17.  Therefore even if not all progressive mankind, all mankind that would want 'Kingdom Come', can or ever could be entitled to godliness, for transcendental meditation on the top tier (top subsection) of our triadic Beyond, still they would all be entitled, sooner or later, to cyborgization, so to speak, for advancement, at the various tier or elemental levels, towards that goal of Man's overcoming in the Cyborg, and of a rise, in consequence, towards an antithesis to the Cosmos such that will enable culture to flourish as never before, but also, in lesser and 'bovaryized' manners to how things would have been in the pre-Cyborg past, civilization, barbarism, and philistinism, or knowledge, strength, and beauty as well, albeit subordinated to and conditioned by that overriding Truth which we have identified with genuine Godliness and the best of what 'Kingdom Come' would have to offer.


18.  Therefore pluralism even within the Cyborg phase of evolution, but a pluralism harmonized to the lead of Truth, and therefore one which can advance, on a fourfold elemental basis, towards the utmost stage of evolutionary sophistication in the space-centre Omega Point(s) of a more closely-knit accommodation with the godly, and hence Truth, than would otherwise be possible, while still respecting, for structural purposes, the various tier entitlements of the respective post-human components, not all of whom, as argued in previous texts, would have had or still be having the same type of self, and therefore not one of which could or ever should be forced into a uniformly transcendental manifestation of life from a uniform structural base. 


19.  Each tier context of our projected triadic Beyond will not only have a self peculiar to itself, to class and gender, but a cyborg structure peculiar to itself moreover, since the structure relevant to one type of eternity would be quite irrelevant, and possibly harmful, to another, and a cyborg structural absolutism is not and never could be the goal of evolution, whose cultural contentment in the utmost manifestation of truth demands the support not only of the relevant form of knowledge but, on the other side of the gender fence, the relevant glory of strength and power of beauty as well.





1.   In the sequence Cosmos-Nature-Man-Cyborg outlined above, we have a division, not necessarily neat, between the female objectivity of the Cosmos and Nature on the one hand, and the male subjectivity of Man and Cyborg on the other hand, as between devolution from the One to the Many, cosmic individualism to natural collectivism, and evolution from the Many to the One, manly competitiveness to godly co-operativeness.


2.   Life devolves out of the 'Big Bang', or equivalent cosmic inception, in de-centralized plurality of stars, and continues to devolve through the fall into Nature in such fashion that innumerable species of one kind or another are to be found throughout the planet, testifying, one would imagine, to an even greater de-centralized diversity of life than in the cosmic bodies as such, given the interactivity between plants, fish, animals, birds, insects, reptiles, and even prehistoric or primitive man, meaning that which, though avowedly human, had yet to come into a knowledgeable self-awareness.


3.   But there comes a time when, with the rise to self-knowledge of Man, as symbolized in the mythical illustration of Adam tasting of the forbidden fruit (from a natural standpoint based in strength) of the 'tree of knowledge' in the Garden of Eden, indubitably an idealized conception of Nature, the way is set for a revolt against this devolutionary condition and the beginnings of an evolutionary alternative to Nature gets under way with Man, the champion of civilization par excellence, even though this cannot be said of all men, and we note in human, as opposed to natural, history a subsequent struggle not only between pre-masculine 'men' more characterized, in paganistic fashion, by beauty or strength than by knowledge, but between Man proper and those men who, for environmental or ideological reasons, remained beholden to beauty and/or strength to a degree which precluded their siding with knowledge in civilized revolt against Nature.


4.   Therefore although a distinction can be said to exist between devolution from the One to the Many and evolution from the Many towards the One, towards an Omega Point owing more to a Cyborg outcome of evolution, I have contended, than to Man himself, it is by no means fine but subject to historical rivalries deriving from the unequal development of men in different locations and climates which gave rise to general distinctions between 'the barbarous' and 'the civilized' or, on a higher level, 'the philistine' and 'the cultured'.


5.   Nevertheless a pattern does seem to be discernible in history between resistance to progressive change as a symptom of devolutionary regression on the objective and largely female side of life, and commitment to progressive change as a symptom of evolutionary progression on the subjective and largely male side of life, as between beauty and strength on the one hand, and knowledge and truth on the other, each of which more neatly harmonizes, when authentic, with one of the fourfold categories already named, viz. the Cosmos, Nature, Man, and the Cyborg.


6.   Therefore the evolutionary thrust of Man in knowledge against the devolutionary regressions of a strength-slavering Nature should lead, in due course, to a struggle up towards the One in which not individualism, as with the Alpha Point(s), so to speak, of the Cosmos, but co-operation is the leading attribute and characteristic of what becomes, with the Cyborg, an Omega Point, an evolutionary culmination in a context no less led and conditioned by God (the Second Coming) than its cosmic antithesis could be said to have been - and in some sense still be - ruled and conditioned by the Devil, viz. the noumenal manifestation of devolution which takes an absolutely analytic as opposed to synthetic guise.


7.   For what devolved from the One, from centrifugal revolution, must be illustrative of a convolutional tendency to fall in outward spirals towards the Many, to analytically come apart from the One, individualism towards collectivism, whereas what evolves, or should evolve, towards the One, in centripetal revolution, must be illustrative of an involutional tendency to spiral inwardly in ever-increasing degrees of centro-complexification such that confirms a rise from out the Many in synthetic aspiration towards Oneness, competitiveness towards co-operation.


8.   We even speak of periods of social or historic upheaval as constitutive of a revolution, but it is evident that there are, so to speak, 'revolutions and revolutions', some of which are merely devolutionary, like that which reduced kingly power and granted more power to the nobles, the barons, with the Magna Carter; others evolutionary, like the French and American Revolutions, which sought to do away with monarchy altogether and were accordingly republican in character; yet others, like the post-Cromwellian English Revolution, a cross between devolution and evolution, which resulted in a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. 


9.   But it seems to me that these historical revolutions, though immensely significant in themselves, are as shadows to or pale reflections of the cosmic and cyborg revolutions which, though the latter is still hypothetical, could be said to characterize both the alpha and omega extremes - the tending away from a particle-based centrifugal revolution through devolutionary convolutions, and the tending towards - and hopefully eventual achievement of - a wavicle-centred centripetal revolution through evolutionary involutions, which will be as antithetical, in its essential bias, to the merely apparent Oneness of the Alpha Point as it is possible for things to get, given the near absolutist particle/wavicle distinctions between these two extreme contexts.


10.  For what began as a reflection of wilful appearances must surely end, having passed through spiritual quantities (the 'essence' of Nature) and intellectual qualities (the 'essence' of Man) in the natural/human world, in an affirmation of soulful essences, as life devolves, in broad terms, from elemental particles to molecular particles, and evolves, no less broadly, from molecular wavicles to elemental wavicles, devolves analytically from will to spirit on its female side and evolves synthetically from ego to soul on its male side, the side not of philistinism and barbarism par excellence, beauty and strength, but of civilization and culture par excellence, knowledge and truth, with due distinctions between the Cosmos and Nature on the one hand, and Man and the Cyborg on the other.


11.  But devolution and evolution are not just of historical scope, with female objectivity more vacuously characteristic, in the nothingness of particle hegemonies, of the former and male subjectivity especially characteristic, in the somethingness of wavicle hegemonies, that is, in relation to a plenum (as opposed to a vacuum), of the latter; for we can note - and have noted in my philosophy - a sort of devolutionary/evolutionary dichotomy, or falling/rising distinction, within the elements themselves, even subatomically, as between particles and wavicles on both molecular and elemental, relative and absolute terms in any given context, be it metachemical and photonic, chemical and electronic, physical and neutronic, or metaphysical and protonic, with due negative/positive distinctions between the female elements and their male counterparts, devolutionary vacuums and evolutionary plenums. 


12.  No regular subatomic element, least of all those which have reference to the Elements in general, is exclusively particle or wavicle, but a combination, in varying degrees, of both particles and wavicles, with the devolution of particles from most to least via more (relative to most) and less (relative to least) being co-existent with the evolution of wavicles from least to most via less (relative to least) and more (relative to most), so that every predominant particle has its subordinate wavicle and every preponderant wavicle, to speak in contrary terms, its subordinate particle.


13.  Now with this structural variation it should be evident that the particle will only be predominantly paramount in its most- and more-particle modes, while, conversely, the wavicle will only be preponderantly paramount in its more- and most-wavicle modes, the wavicle being subordinate to the particle in least- and less-wavicle modes and the particle subordinate to the wavicle in less- and least-particle modes.  So much for the underlying particle/wavicle ratios of the subatomic!


14.  If we translate this into a dichotomy between profane and sacred, practical and theoretical, as between most and more particles over least and less wavicles on the one hand, and more and most wavicles over less and least particles on the other hand, we shall find that it should be possible to distinguish, in any given element, between its profane and sacred components on this basis, with, broadly, a metachemical distinction, in fire, between materialism and fundamentalism; a chemical distinction, in water, between realism and nonconformism; a physical distinction, in vegetation (earth), between naturalism and humanism; and a metaphysical distinction, in air, between idealism and transcendentalism; so that whether a thing is to be adjudged profane or sacred, of soma or of psyche, state or church, will depend on its status as something either characterized by a particle hegemony or, conversely, by a wavicle hegemony, with the sort of distinctions I have drawn above.


15.  Take the metachemical element of fire, with its negatively-charged photons in sensuality and photinos in sensibility - is there not a distinction here between the hegemonic materialism of most and more particles and the hegemonic fundamentalism of more and most wavicles, with fundamentalism being subordinate to materialism in least and less wavicles, but materialism being subordinate to fundamentalism in less and least particles? 


16.  In other words, is not the distinction, in metachemistry, between materialism and fundamentalism simply between particles on the one hand and wavicles on the other, with the former only being predominantly paramount in most- and more-particle modes, but the latter only preponderantly paramount in more- and most-wavicle modes, so that we have, to all intents and purposes, a distinction between the profanity of metachemical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony, and the sacredness of metachemical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle hegemony, the former pair characterized by the practicality, to all intents and purposes, of ugliness and hatred, the latter pair by the theoreticality, so to speak, of beauty and love. 


17.  For can things fall apart from the centre, from the One, on the basis of beauty and love, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of ugliness and hatred?  Certainly the absence of beauty is ugliness in a metachemical context, whether sensual or sensible, just as the absence of love in such a context tends to make for hatred, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have - and are always liable to have - more to do with particles than wavicles, and never more so than in any element which, like the photonic fieriness of metachemistry, is beholden to a vacuum rather than to a plenum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a particle precondition in due primary noumenal vein.


18.  Now what applies to metachemistry must surely also apply to the chemical element of water, with its negatively-charged electrons in sensuality and electrinos in sensibility, where we may note a distinction between the hegemonic realism of most and more particles and the hegemonic nonconformism of more and most wavicles, with nonconformism being subordinate to realism in least and less wavicles, but realism being subordinate to nonconformism in less and least particles, with a distinction, once again, between the profanity of chemical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of chemical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one - the former pair characterized by weakness and humility, the latter pair by strength and pride. 


19.  For can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of strength and pride, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of weakness and humility?  Certainly the absence of strength spells weakness in a chemical context, just as the absence of pride in such a context, whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for humility, if not humiliation, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with particles than wavicles, and never more so than in any element which, like the electronic wateriness of chemistry, is beholden to a vacuum rather than to a plenum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a particle precondition in due primary phenomenal vein.


20.  Now what applies to chemistry must surely also apply to the physical  element of vegetation (earth), with, I shall argue, its capacity for a positively-biased neutrality of neutrons in sensuality and neutrinos in sensibility (not to mention positively-charged deuterons and deuterinos), where we may note a distinction between the hegemonic naturalism of most and more particles and the hegemonic humanism of more and most wavicles, with humanism being subordinate to naturalism in least and less wavicles, but naturalism being subordinate to humanism in less and least particles, with a distinction, once again, between the profanity of physical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of physical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one - the former pair characterized by ignorance and pain, the latter pair by knowledge and pleasure. 


21.  For can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of knowledge and pleasure, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of ignorance and pain?  Certainly the absence of knowledge spells ignorance in a physical context, just as the absence of pleasure in such a context, whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for pain, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with particles than with wavicles, if less so in any element which, like the neutronic vegetativeness of physics, is beholden to a plenum rather than to a vacuum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a wavicle precondition in due secondary phenomenal vein.


22.  Finally what applies to physics must surely also apply to the metaphysical element of air, with its positively-charged protons in sensuality and protinos in sensibility, where we may note a distinction between the hegemonic idealism of most and more particles and the hegemonic transcendentalism of more and most wavicles, with transcendentalism being subordinate to idealism in least and less wavicles but idealism subordinate to transcendentalism in less and least particles, with a distinction, once again, between the profanity of metaphysical science and politics in relation to a particle hegemony and the sacredness of metaphysical economics and religion in relation to a wavicle one - the former pair characterized by falsity and woe, the latter pair by truth and joy. 


23.  For can things fall apart from the centre on the basis of truth and joy, or draw closer to a centre on the basis of falsity and woe?  Certainly the absence of truth spells falsity in a metaphysical context, just as the absence of joy in such a context, whether sensual or sensible, tends to make for woe, but in either case the negative factors, the devolutionary components, have more to do with particles than wavicles, if less so in any element which, like the protonic airiness of metaphysics, is beholden to a plenum rather than to a vacuum, and therefore stems, in a manner of speaking, from a wavicle precondition in due secondary noumenal vein.


24.  However that may be, and whatever one may think of my equation of specific subatomic elements with a correlative Element, be it fiery, watery, vegetative, or airy, it should be evident that things will degenerate from the positive to the negative or from a plenumous tendency towards a vacuous one in any context where the particle tends to prevail over the wavicle, and that this analytical negativity, or want of synthetic cohesiveness, is what makes for a profane as opposed to a sacred disposition, for secular as opposed to ecclesiastic values, be it in relation to the concrete practicality of materialism, realism, naturalism, or idealism, and therefore for the negation of beauty/love, strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, or truth/joy, as maintained, in synthetic contrast, by the theoretic abstractions of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism, and never more so than in relation to humanism and transcendentalism which, being male and subjective, are more characterized by the synthetic virtues of ego and soul, of wavicle hegemonies in which, in the one case, a molecular relativity centred on economics and, in the other case, an elemental absolutism centred on religion are the prevailing norms.


25.  For even with 'everything in everything', as I think I phrased it near the beginning of this text, the male elements of physics and metaphysics, with their subatomic corollaries (not altogether divorced, I contend, from a positivistic XY chromosomal integrity) of neutrons/neutrinos and protons/protinos, are those in which economics and religion, form and contentment, knowledge/pleasure and truth/joy, are the prevailing disciplines, whereas the female elements of metachemistry and chemistry, with their subatomic corollaries (not altogether divorced from a negativistic XX chromosomal integrity) in photons/photinos and electrons/electrinos, are those in which science and politics, power and glory, ugliness/hatred and weakness/humility, are the prevailing disciplines, with such beauty/love and strength/pride as accrues to the metachemical and chemical modes of religion and economics being no less secondary, as a secondary order of positivity characterized by psychic determinism, to the prevailing negativities in which the natural, or somatic, freedom of objective science and politics is primary ... than such ignorance/pain and falsity/woe as accrues to the physical and metaphysical modes of politics and science is secondary, as a secondary order of negativity characterized by natural determinism, to the prevailing positivities in which the psychic freedom of subjective economics and religion is primary.


26.  For science and politics are no more positive disciplines than economics and religion negative ones.  Metachemistry and chemistry have their positivities, but they are ever subordinate, in secondary psychic vein, to the prevailing particle-conditioned negativities, while, conversely, the political and scientific negativities of physics and metaphysics are just as subordinate, in secondary somatic vein, to their prevailing wavicle-conditioned positivities in economics and religion. 


27.  And economics and religion should be thought of primarily in terms of the sacred, the synthetically theoretical, whether in the primary modes of physics and metaphysics or in the secondary modes of metachemistry and chemistry, where they tend to play second fiddle, as it were, to materialism and realism, whereas science and politics should be thought of primarily in terms of the profane, of the analytically practical, whether in the primary modes of metachemistry and chemistry or in the secondary modes of physics and metaphysics where, by contrast, they tend to play second fiddle to humanism and transcendentalism. 


28.  Thus the positivity of psychic freedom implies an economic and a religious outlook, and the more such an outlook develops at the expense of the natural or somatic freedom, in particle hegemonies, of science and politics in their per se manifestations, the more positive things become, since they attest not to the Cosmos and Nature but to Man and, hopefully in the future, the Cyborg - the overcoming of Man in terms of a religiously-biased resolve, as upheld by the Church, to evolve life towards a godly consummation in the Omega Point of the utmost involutional centro-complexification.


29.  For Man, to paraphrase Nietzsche, is something that 'should be overcome' ... if we wish life to evolve beyond an economic hegemony and attain to the Cyborg heights of religious perfection, wherein truth and joy will peak as never before even with a continuation, on duly modified terms, of knowledge/pleasure and strength/pride, together, in the administrative aside to our hypothetical triadic Beyond (of 'Kingdom Come'), with beauty/love, the sort of beauty and love that would of course owe more to fundamentalism than to materialism, and have the service, in sensibility, of new manifestations of nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism in mind, as the free  manifestations of realism (female primary), naturalism (male secondary), and idealism (male secondary), together with materialism (female primary), were duly consigned, in judgemental rejection of free nature, of particle hegemonies in somatic freedom, to the rubbish bin of state-oriented scientific and political history, and life duly stepped beyond the analytical shadows of negativity, of devolutionary convolution, into the synthetic light of an involutional positivity centred on the sacredness of psychic freedom such that, with its free nurture, would more than vindicate Man's revolt against the Fall, as evolving life proceeded to evolve out of the world into the otherworldly rise of a Life Eternal such that only the Cyborg could be expected to live, in sensible pursuit of that ultimate revolution which lies beingfully within ... in the soulful essence of the self.


30.  But if Man's ultimate destiny lies in God, in the Cyborg, then a distinction must necessarily continue to exist between the profane and the sacred, practicality and theoreticality, will/spirit on the one hand, and ego/soul on the other, as between the not-self and the self, soma and psyche, nature and nurture, phenomenal and noumenal, and so continue that, whether this distinction exists in metaphysics, as between idealism and transcendentalism, in physics, as between naturalism and humanism, or, indeed, on the opposite side of the gender fence, in chemistry, as between realism and nonconformism, or in metachemistry, as between materialism and fundamentalism, there will be a particle/wavicle dichotomy between the one and the other, with the self alone sacred, whether in male grace (both primarily divine and masculine, given the subjective bias for self of males proper) or in female punishment (both secondarily diabolic and feminine, given the objective bias for not-self of females proper), and the not-self inevitably profane, whether in male sin (both secondarily divine and masculine, given the subjective bias for self of males) or in female crime (both primarily diabolic and feminine, given the objective bias for not-self of females).


31.  The grace of God-the-Wise-Son and of Heaven-the-Holy-Soul implies a psychic corollary in truth and joy, in inner metaphysical ego and soul, whereas the sin of God-the-Wise-Father and Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit implies a somatic corollary in falsity and woe, in inner metaphysical will (of the lungs to breathe) and spirit (of the breath), since the grace of truth and joy is only sustainable in forgiving relation to the sinfulness of falsity and woe, both God and Heaven being strictly of the self rather than of the not-self, and therefore inevitably false and woeful in relation to the sinfulness of nature, in this case the inner subnatural soma of respiratory metaphysics wherein God-the-Wise-Father and Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit have their profane throne in the lungs and the breath.


32.  And what applies to God and Heaven in metaphysics applies no less to Man and the Earth in physics, whereby the inner natural soma of cogitative physics, wherein Man-the-Wise-Father and Earth-the-Holy-Spirit have their profane throne in the brain and its capacity for thought (though not the ordering of thoughts), is inevitably sinful in its somatic negativity, its particle-hegemonic practicality of physical will and spirit, ignorance and pain, and only the inner psychic context of ego and soul, knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to Man-the-Wise-Son and Earth-the-Holy-Soul, can be accounted graceful, and precisely in sacred opposition to, though necessary forgiveness of, the somatic profanity of the not-self in its sensibly physical manifestation.


33.  Obviously what applies to sensibility also applies to sensuality, except that we will be dealing less with wise and holy orders of nature and nurture, soma and psyche, than with their foolish and unholy counterparts.... While, on the opposite side of the gender fence, this sensual/sensible dichotomy is, of course, less between folly/unholiness in the one context and wisdom/holiness in the other, as relative to alternative types of sin and grace, than between evil/clearness and goodness/unclearness in relation to alternative types of crime and punishment, the will and spirit of soma always characterized by the one and the ego and soul of psyche by the other, so that crime is always negative, whether in ugliness/hatred or weakness/humility, and punishment alone positive, whether in beauty/love or strength/pride in both sensual and sensible contexts.


34.  But, whatever the gender, somatic nature is always bad or wrong or  profane or particle-hegemonic or practical, whether in male sin or in female crime, in secondary (subjective) or primary (objective) terms, and psychic nurture alone good or right or sacred or wavicle-hegemonic or theoretical, since the not-self is ever dominated by the negativity of its phenomenal attributes and the self alone capable of sustained positivity, whether primarily in grace for males or secondarily in punishment for females, on the basis of its noumenal character, a character which enables it to transcend the limitations of time in respect of Eternity.


35.  For only when we are rid of the not-self, the body, the various organs of the various Elements, with death ... does the self escape from the clutches of nature and enter into full self-realization of itself in either soulful heaven for gods (divine males) or soulful earth for men (masculine males) or, on the opposite side of the gender fence, soulful purgatory for women (feminine females) or soulful hell for devils (diabolic females) - viz. joy, pleasure, pride, and love, such that are not corrupted by or conditional upon their negative opposites in woe, pain, humility, and hatred.


36.  That is why, in generations to come, we need to transcend the body and enter more fully into communion with the soul, the objectivity of whose inorganic, or psychic, primacy for females and the subjectivity of whose inorganic, or psychic, supremacy for males, premised upon a noumenal as opposed to a phenomenal disposition in each case, will put the organic primacy of female objective soma and the organic supremacy of male subjective soma firmly in the shade of time-worn suffering; for everything organic is subject to decay and death, while the inorganic, conceived in relation to psyche, is alone capable of timeless bliss - whether in love, pride, pleasure, or joy, according to one's elemental disposition in gender and class. 


37.  Release from the body is blissful, but we shouldn't have to wait until death to experience such a release, nor resign ourselves to an afterlife limited and to some extent even conditioned, I would say, by the body's decomposing mortality.  If we have the will, then the self can find a more fitting and lasting not-self, a more dependable profanity, not subject to the sufferings and decayings of Man, to not merely assist it into Eternity, like the natural body, but to assist it eternally, in Truth-respecting defiance of the strength/knowledge world and moral antithesis to cosmic beauty, as to the Cosmos in general.  Then and only then will God have come fully to pass; for, in truth, God is not the beginning but the end of all things, and therefore ultimately premised upon the Cyborg, who will be the moral vindication and evolutionary outcome of the civilized earth.


38.  This is what I have to teach, and only now could it be said that, with the utmost centro-complexification of what has all along been a most progressive and exactingly comprehensive philosophy, my theoretical goal has effectively been reached; for I have brought to ideological summation a moral doctrine and historical perspective which should stand the test of time - and, beyond time, of Eternity - for generations to come. 


39.  Rome, it has been said, was not built in a day, and neither was it ever likely that so comprehensively deep and far-reaching a philosophy, subject to so many rethinks and revisions, as that to which I have dedicated a not-inconsiderable portion of my adult life, would achieve its Omega Point much before now, when I have at last brought all the strands together in the closest possible way, in fitting testimony to the centro-complexifying gradualism of an evolutionary involution winding its way, in Pilgrim-like fashion, towards that centripetal revolution which will be the Oneness not of not-self individualism in free soma, but of self-cooperation, co-operation with the self, in free psyche - the freedom-of-freedoms for those who, as males, are most fittingly entitled to it. 


40.  I may be the first Social Transcendentalist but, if human history is to be vindicated, hopefully not the last!  For this ideological philosophy embraces the People, meaning city persons most especially, irrespective of their gender or class.  For it is only from the lead of the earthly city that the 'Celestial City' will at length emerge victorious in the omega point of cultural truth, and life at last achieve divine unity.



LONDON 2002 (Revised 2011)






Bookmark and Share