Op. 99

 

APOTHEOSIS OF THE GNOSIS

 

Aphoristic Philosophy

 

Copyright © 2003-2010 John O'Loughlin

____________

 

CONTENTS

 

Aphs. 1-127

____________

 

1.   We live in the present, in the here-and-now, but the past exists for us in memory and the future in imagination.  All are of time - past, present, and future - but that which is timeless is beyond the temporal and therefore eternal.

 

2.   The eternal is identifiable with the soul, with essence, which is beyond both the ego, as a qualitative entity associated with the self, and the will and the spirit of what, in relation to the not-self, are apparent and quantitative entities.

 

3.   The eternal is therefore of metaphysics, which is beyond physics and, on the other side of the gender fence from anything male and subjective, both metachemistry and chemistry, which have intimate associations with fire and water rather than, like physics and metaphysics, with vegetation (earth) and air.

 

4.   It could be argued that while the present is the manifestation of time closest to the ego, the past is closest to the will, the future to the spirit, and the timelessness of eternity, as intimated above, alone commensurate with the soul, which is to be found not in the temporal aspect of the self, viz. the brain stem, but in the eternal aspect of the self, viz. the spinal cord, and therefore transcends ego as joy transcends truth or Heaven transcends God.

 

5.   But the present and the eternal are both of the self in their different ways, the past and the future being closer, in relation to memory and imagination, to the not-self wherein both the will and the spirit have their respective homes, albeit not as dominating elements where males who are sensibly free are concerned, but as subordinate elements to the ego and the soul, the former of which may achieve its redemption in the latter, as time in eternity, by exploiting the relevant modes of not-self from a metaphysical standpoint.

 

6.   Whereas the self is predominantly psychic and therefore of psyche, the not-self is predominantly somatic and therefore of soma, so that we may distinguish between the two contexts, both of which are divisible in any given element, in terms of the ethereal and the corporeal, mind and matter, mental and bodily, with the former divisible between ego and soul, form and contentment, quality and essence, molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, taking and being (though in sensuality these are subject to subversion), but the latter divisible between will and spirit, power and glory, appearance and quantity, elemental particles and molecular particles, doing and giving (though in sensibility these are subject to inversion).

 

7.   What applies on a 3:1 absolute basis of most wavicles/least particles in metaphysics, which is protonic, also applies on the 2½:1½ relative basis of more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles in neutronic physics, where we can distinguish man and the earth from God and Heaven, whether in terms of psyche or soma, Man the Father and Earth the Holy Soul, in psyche, from God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul or, in soma, the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit of the Earth from the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven.

 

8.   With females, on the other hand, we cannot speak primarily of physics or metaphysics, protonic or neutronic subatoms, but only of chemistry or metachemistry, electronic or photonic subatoms, more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles in the 2½:1½ relative context of the one or most particles/least wavicles in the 3:1 absolute context of the other, and with them psyche does not precede and predominate over soma as, in metaphorical terms, father over son but, on the contrary, soma precedes and predominates over psyche, as mother over daughter, and therefore we can distinguish woman and purgatory from the Devil and Hell, whether in terms of soma or psyche, as Woman the Mother and Purgatory the Clear Spirit, in soma, from Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit or, in psyche, as the Daughter of Woman and the Clear Soul of Purgatory from the Daughter of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell.

 

9.   Therefore criteria applicable to males are not applicable to females, or vice versa, given the negative/positive distinctions in soma/psyche between the genders.  The self may take precedence over the not-self with males but, with females, it is the not-self which takes precedence over self, soma over psyche, and therefore will and spirit over ego and soul, power and glory over form and contentment, appearance and quantity over quality and essence, elemental particles and molecular particles over molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, doing and giving over taking and being.

 

10.  Consequently females are rather more partial to time in terms of past and future, will and spirit, memory and imagination, than to time in terms of the present in the consciousness of ego or to timeless eternity in terms of the Beyond in the subconsciousness of soul.  They are partial to time in terms of the unconsciousness or, rather, unnaturalness (in soma) of will and the superconsciousness or, rather, supernaturalness (in soma) of spirit, past and future, which have more reference to power and glory, fire and water, than to form and contentment, vegetation and air, at least with regard to their per se manifestations in each Element.

 

11.  But this is only if females are hegemonically free in sensuality in terms of soma, with a corresponding directly bound psyche, and not subordinately bound in sensibility in terms of soma, with a corresponding indirectly free psyche. 

 

12.  For if females are hegemonically free in sensuality in terms of soma, then males will be subordinately bound in sensuality in terms of psyche and be secondarily free in soma, contrary to their gender actuality of psyche preceding and predominating over soma.

 

13.  But if males are hegemonically free in sensibility in terms of psyche, then females will be subordinately bound in sensibility in terms of soma and be secondarily free in psyche, contrary to their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche.

 

14.  Life is ever a gender tug-of-war between somatic freedom of females in sensuality and its indirect corollary of the psychic binding of males and, conversely, psychic freedom of males in sensibility and its indirect corollary of the somatic binding of females.  If power and glory are hegemonic, then form and contentment, duly subverted by free soma, will get a raw deal.  But if form and contentment are hegemonic, it will be power and glory that will be transmuted towards a deferential acknowledgement of free psyche, rendering all that is of will and spirit, duly inverted by free psyche, subordinate to the control of ego and soul.

 

15.  Such is the framework of the ideal society, of a society centred in the ideals of ego and/or soul rather than based in the brute realities of will and/or spirit, power and/or glory, to the detriment of form and/or contentment.

 

16.  Whereas the somatically free types of society will be dominated by time, not least in relation to the past (tradition) and the future (expectation), the psychically free types of society will be characterized either by the mastery of time in and through the present, which comes from knowledge, or by the redemption of time, not least in relation to eternity (timeless bliss), for which truth is the egoistic precondition.

 

17.  There are therefore two types of time-affirming societies, the metachemically objective and the chemically objective, the past and the future, and contrasted to these are two types of time-rejecting societies, the physically subjective and the metaphysically subjective, the present and the timeless, the latter of which is not about a moment in time or a different approach to now, but beyond time in the timelessness of eternity.

 

18.  Given a gender divide between the time-dominated societies of the past and the future and the time-spurning societies of the present and the Beyond, it is no small wonder if society presents us with corresponding distinctions between autocracy and aristocracy in relation to the metachemical mode of somatic freedom and psychic binding, between bureaucracy and meritocracy in relation to the chemical mode of somatic freedom and psychic binding, and, in subjective contrast to each of these objective realities, between democracy and plutocracy in relation to the physical mode of psychic freedom and somatic binding, not to mention between theocracy and technocracy in relation to the metaphysical mode of psychic freedom and somatic binding.

 

19.  Therefore one can contrast a high somatic freedom in autocracy with a low psychic freedom in democracy, leaving for the moment their bound corollaries aside, as between the past and the present, will and ego, power and form, elemental particles and molecular wavicles, but a low somatic freedom in bureaucracy with a high psychic freedom in theocracy, leaving for the moment their bound corollaries aside, as between the future and the Beyond, spirit and soul, glory and contentment, molecular particles and elemental wavicles.

 

20.  Thus a contrast between two forms of the State, the autocratic and the democratic, memory and knowledge, and two forms of the Church, the bureaucratic and the theocratic, imagination and truth.  One could speak, in this respect, of a descending axis from autocracy to democracy, the metachemical Few in the noumenal objectivity of competitive individualism to the physical Many in the phenomenal subjectivity of co-operative collectivism, and of an ascending axis from bureaucracy to theocracy, the chemical Many in the phenomenal objectivity of competitive collectivism to the metaphysical Few in the noumenal subjectivity of co-operative individualism, so that as things descend from the autocratic Netherworld to the democratic World, so they may be inferred to ascend from the bureaucratic World to the theocratic Otherworld, the 'world' not of the Devil and Hell but of God and Heaven, not of 'Kingdom Gone' but of 'Kingdom Come' - the worldly positions those of the phenomenal Many, the overworldly positions those of the noumenal Few, whether for better (otherworldly theocratic) or worse (netherworldly autocratic).

 

21.  So much for alternative and usually competing types of freedom!  There is also, as noted, alternative types of binding, as from the aristocratic corollary of autocracy to the plutocratic corollary of democracy on the descending axis of the State, not to mention from the meritocratic corollary of bureaucracy to the technocratic corollary of theocracy on the ascending axis of the Church which, unlike the State, lives in hope of the resurrection of religion in 'Kingdom Come', and thus of its theocratic redemption in and through the Second Coming or some equivalent Messianic destiny likely to correspond with the notion of such a divine 'Kingdom'.

 

22.  But this of course only applies to 'Mother Church', to the Church that is fundamentally bureaucratic and thus nonconformist, not to those forms of religion which in their fundamentalist or humanist associations with autocracy and democracy are more closely bound to one mode or other of the State and less partial, in consequence, to the imaginative projection of spirit in expectation of Messianic deliverance in some brighter future long associated with 'Kingdom Come'. 

 

23.  Where will and/or ego obtain, by contrast, there can be only a looking back to the past via a memory partial to tradition or a focusing on the present in overly conscious concern with knowledge and the management or curtailment, if needs be, of will, neither of which are greatly conducive to the expectation of soul and thus an end to the world in terms of otherworldly criteria.  Rather will the democratic State, and its religious affiliate, be primarily concerned with conserving the worldly gains of democracy at the expense of autocracy which, rooted in the Devil, is something to fear from a democratic point of view.

 

24.  For if man becomes the measure of all things, as he does with egocentric form, there can be no place for God, for godliness in theocracy, and therefore no willingness to subsume ego into soul to such an extent that it becomes eclipsed by soul and rendered subordinate before a heavenly end to life, as before eternity and timeless bliss.

 

25.  But if God or, rather, Heaven (for we should not confound metaphysics with physics in respect of an egocentric fulcrum) is allowed to be the end of all things, as it is with psychocentric contentment, there can be no place for man, for manliness in democracy, and therefore no willingness to subsume soul into ego to such an extent that, duly  corrupted, it becomes eclipsed by ego and rendered subordinate before a knowledgeable - and necessarily false -  end to life, as before temporality and present time.

 

26.  Obviously, Heaven can only be made the true end of life if society is of such a character that an ascent from bureaucracy to theocracy is more typical of it than a descent from autocracy to democracy, even when the theocracy and the democracy are less than completely free of bureaucratic and autocratic subversion or vitiation and are therefore characterized by worldly relativity in ecclesiastic or parliamentary vein. 

 

27.  The possibility of a free, or People's, democracy is no less the case for a more sensibly-oriented type of physical society than the possibility of a free, or People's, theocracy for its metaphysical counterpart, but such freedoms have to be won, they will not be handed to one on a plate by the autocratic and/or bureaucratic powers-that-be, and the former tends, in its elemental uniqueness, to be exclusive of the latter, insofar as democratic freedom presupposes an autocratic tradition and theocratic freedom a bureaucratic one - autocracy as something against which a struggle has to be waged, bureaucracy more open, in imagination, to the possibility of theocratic redemption come 'judgement', provided godliness can be adequately proved!

 

28.  Therefore they spring, these alternative types of freedom, from different types of society, and at the risk of over-simplifying or over-generalizing one could maintain that while the autocratic-democratic axis is more characteristic of Britain and, especially of England, the bureaucratic-theocratic axis is more significant of Ireland, so that there is a sort of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic distinction between the two types of society and their respective traditions, a distinction which can be broadened to include Anglo-Saxons and Celts generally, not least in the British Isles as a whole.

 

29.  For the British Isles has long been the scene of a struggle, traditionally characterized by Anglo-Saxon opposition to and even domination of Celts, between the lowland mentality of democracy and the highland mentality of theocracy, as between physics and metaphysics, form and contentment, ego and soul, taking and being.  Therefore it is only within the so-called Celtic fringe, and especially in relation to Catholic Ireland, that one could reasonably expect freedom struggles or ambitions to take a theocratic rather than simply democratic turn, and for those of us who identify with metaphysics more than physics in highland and even upper-class male vein, then democracy could never be regarded as anything more than a means to a higher end.

 

30.  Democracy to the metaphysical likes of us is not, I repeat not, an end-in-itself, as it evidently is to those who primarily relate to physical values in effectively lowland or lower-class male vein, but simply something to exploit in the interests of a higher and purer theocracy than has existed in the past, should the Movement for Social Theocracy or Social Transcendentalism, as you please, succeed in convincing the electorates of relatively free democracies, like the one which exists in the Irish Republic, that a vote for religious sovereignty would be in their best interests, since the only way in which they could gain the right to theocratic freedom from bureaucratic constraint and/or subversion, and thereby move beyond worldly relativity to an otherworldly absolutism commensurate with 'Kingdom Come'.

 

31.  It would also confirm, this paradoxical utilization of the democratic process, that they were not inveterately or representatively a democratic people but rather a people with the potential for a purer theocracy - in a word for theocratic freedom - at the expense of such democratic freedom as they had inherited, compliments of their struggle against English imperialism.  For if they are not properly democratic, since intrinsically more theocratic, then they will surely accept the paradoxical utilization of democracy to a theocratic end such that would deliver them from the bureaucratic subversion of religion by 'Mother Church' and allow them to embrace theocratic freedom in 'Kingdom Come' - freedom, not least, from both autocratic and democratic subversions of religion as well, such that further bedevil the endeavour to extricate transcendentalism from the clutches of nonconformism by complicating the overall picture in relation to fundamentalism and humanism - the former arguably less politically subversive than scientifically subversive, and the latter plainly economically subversive of what should - and could - be a religious purism that permitted joy to unfold as the holy reward for unfettered truth.

 

32.  Therefore much as one might like every people to come democratically to Social Theocracy, only some peoples would be capable, at this point in time, of actually doing so, and they would have to have had a Church-based tradition such that would permit them to climb, via democratic paradox, from the bureaucratic subversion of theocracy to theocratic freedom and thus to metaphysical salvation, wherein God and Heaven are the cardinal elements and the redemption of the former in the latter, as of truth in joy, is the principal raison d'être - one having reference to that which, in its soulful essence, lies beyond time in the eternity of timeless bliss.

 

33.  A people, on the other hand, with a powerful autocratic tradition, with an entrenched aristocracy, cannot achieve theocratic liberation; for their struggle, to the extent that there may be one, is against autocracy and presupposes an extension of democracy at autocracy's expense.  They have to pit the here-and-now of temporal time against the weight of tradition which bears down upon them and would impede further knowledgeable progress - and therefore democratic freedom -  in defence of its power-based interests.  They are a people with a colourful past, not a people who yearn, in imagination, for a more contented future, but a people who, if they are not careful, will revel in tradition even at the expense of the achievements of the present and the knowledge which made it possible. 

 

34.  Therefore such a people have to question their own motives in respect of democracy, which is their principal ideal in terms of enhanced freedom from somatic control of an autocratic nature.  But if they are not democratically free to the extent of a republican democracy in which psychic freedom can have its physical (as opposed to metaphysical) way, then their freedom will be somewhat compromised by autocratic criteria and subject to worldly qualification, which obviously leaves something to be desired from a democratic standpoint, even with a knowledge that what logically follows in terms of Social Democracy is less otherworldly than post-worldly to an extent which, if too totalitarian, can prove even more of an obstacle to theocratic liberation than a worldly democracy, bearing in mind its repudiation of 'God building' and more or less blue-collar orientation towards hard-line physics in overly Marxist vein.

 

35.  Obviously, no society which goes so far down the road of democratic totalitarianism is in a position to opt for religious sovereignty, and therefore their theocratic redemption is well-nigh inconceivable ... all the more so as they endeavour, from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint, to stamp-out religious traditions as though religion were a closed issue, never to be resurrected in a new or superior guise.

 

36.  Therefore democratic pluralism is crucial to any prospect of religious sovereignty, for one has to be able to appeal to the electorate to vote for such theocratic freedom in the first place, and this is only conceivable in the absence of a controlling totalitarianism such that would preclude any challenge to its rule from an alternative Movement the avowed aim of which was the effective supersession of State and Church alike by the Centre in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and the green light for the development of 'Kingdom Come', as customarily outlined by me in terms of a triadic Beyond and administrative aside - the former identifiable with Social Transcendentalism and the latter, rather more political in view of its various supportive responsibilities, with Social Theocracy, the ideological face of the Movement for Social Transcendentalism, and thus the supersession of conventional religion and its various subversions of theocracy.

 

37.  But again, in such a pluralistic democracy, one looks for evidence of a bureaucratic-theocratic axis, and even where this may exist in respect of an unrepresentative minority, if the overall axis is autocratic-democratic then it is hard to see much prospect, short of a number of significant changes in society, for a successful outcome to any paradoxical election, assuming such a judgmental experiment could be brought to pass in the first place!

 

38.  No, such an election, which embraced the possibility of a vote for religious sovereignty and the likelihood of a majority mandate, could only be expected to take place and to succeed in societies which, while nominally democratic, were basically bureaucratic and more disposed, through imagination, to theocratic liberation in consequence of an age-old longing for Messianic intervention in the interests of 'Kingdom Come', something difficult if not impossible to conceive of in those societies whose sense of freedom, owing more to the State than to the Church, is overwhelmingly democratic and therefore merely physical in character.

 

39.  Thus not only Ireland but, hopefully, Scotland, the Isle of Man, and Wales could come, in the ripeness of time, to an accommodation with Social Theocracy, not least in respect of the possibility of a united Ireland achieved on the basis of a Gaelic federation, germane to 'Kingdom Come', between the respective countries, especially Ireland and Scotland, and the transcendence, in consequence, of the British/Irish dichotomy which, under English domination, has ruled and divided the Celts, Gaels, Highlanders, or whatever else you would like to call those whose true loyalty, especially when properly male, is not to man but to God, as to theocracy.

 

40.  One of the worst consequences of the division of the Celts along British/Irish lines is that the former, when Scotch or Welsh, find it harder to come to terms with their Celtic traditions and ancestry in view of the extents to which they have been turned, through English imperial influence, from a bureaucratic-theocratic axis under Catholicism to an autocratic-democratic axis under Protestantism, with a consequence that they find their Celtic identities compromised in respect of state-stemming fundamentalist and humanist subversions of transcendentalism, as of theocracy, more typical of England and the English than of anything representatively Celtic as such, and are more inclined to side with England against the Irish when push-comes-to-shove in the struggle for or against Celtic values and aspirations.

 

41.  Thus do they often behave like Anglo-Saxons, contrary to their Celtic ancestry; for the only Celts who are broadly identifiable with the bureaucratic-theocratic axis of a nonconformist subversion of transcendentalism through 'Mother Church' are the Catholic Irish, who remain a case apart from the autocratic-democratic axis typifying British and, in particular, English civilization.

 

42.  Yet even these compromised Scotsmen and Welshmen, not to mention their Ulster counterparts, are more often than not Celts and therefore persons who, in the highland traditions of their ancestry, should be more willing to identify with theocratic liberation from bureaucratic constraint than democratic liberation from autocratic constraint, and thus with a mode of male liberation in sensibility owing more to the Church than to the State, more to metaphysics than to physics, more to highland values than to lowland values, more to soul than to ego, and therefore more to God than to man.

 

43.  Alas! their fate under English domination ill-qualifies them for an overly theocratic freedom in 'Kingdom Come', such as would be accorded to Catholics who had opted for religious sovereignty.  But they cannot and should not be excluded, as Protestants, from the prospect of salvation in the triadic Beyond to which I have dedicated a not-inconsiderable proportion of my mature philosophy, even if, in the light of their respective denominational affiliations, it would have to take a less than properly or fully transcendentalist guise ... as in the case of the salvation of Anglicans to the middle tier of the Beyond in question and the salvation of Puritans and/or Presbyterians to its bottom tier, as described in a variety of earlier texts.

 

44.  But where those properly affiliated, as Catholics, to the bureaucratic-theocratic axis are concerned, then of course their highness in respect of theocratic freedom is more than justified and is even confirmed, in cultural terms, by the prevalence of sports such as Gaelic Football in Ireland which sharply contrasts with the democratic lowness, as it were, of Association Football as the English sport par excellence, a game which, though incontestably subjective in its maleness, does not permit of any points over the bar like its air-affirming Gaelic counterpart, and therefore stands as ample testimony to the extent to which, unlike Ireland, Britain as a whole, but England in particular, is characterized by a want of theocratic idealism and a more or less inveterate bent for democratic freedom in respect of the autocratic-democratic axis, the upper end of which, stretching back to feudal times, is more characterized by Rugby, in objectively female vein, and thus to a deference to fire which, like air, is also above the bar but in markedly contrary terms!

 

45.  Thus the sensible contrast between Gaelic Football as an expression of an as-yet incomplete degree of theocratic freedom from clerical subversion and Association Football as the expression of an incomplete or, rather, limited degree of democratic freedom within a parliamentary system, only goes to confirm the distinction between Celtic highness and Anglo-Saxon lowness, metaphysics and physics, religion and, for what of a better term, economics, God/Heaven and man/the earth.

 

46.  To say, on the evidence of this and other such cultural differences, that the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon races were equal would, to say the least, be somewhat disingenuous, if not downright ridiculous!  The Celts, particularly to judge by contemporary cultural circumstances in their Irish manifestation, are a higher race than the English, many if not most of whom are Anglo-Saxon, and therefore by no means equal or equivalent.

 

47.  Of course, one hears a lot these days, not least in multiracial England vis-à-vis blacks and coloureds, about racial equality and equality of opportunity, but it is only a fool who would confound equality of opportunity or of rights in certain fields, irrespective of race, with racial equality as such, as though all races were equal, or exactly the same!  There are more differences in this world than those between Celts and Anglo-Saxons, and even there the cultural differences are such that one could not reasonably fail to notice or take heed of them, especially in light of the more sharply polarized distinctions between Catholic Ireland and Protestant England, as between contrary senses of freedom and their corresponding ideals.

 

48.  The only reason why the British Isles, in geographical terms an archipelago which deserves a unitary culture and identity, is split between Ireland and Britain (notwithstanding the more simple geographical matter of the Irish Sea), as between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one hand and the Republic of Ireland on the other, is because of the religious divide between Protestantism and Catholicism, which is superimposed upon, though not exactly synonymous with, a racial division between Anglo-Saxons and Celts such that attains to its most marked polarization in respect of England and the Republic of Ireland.

 

49.  Ireland may not be entirely Celtic, any more than England is entirely Anglo-Saxon, but nevertheless such a racial division, coming to a head in the cultural differentiations alluded to above, cleaves the British Isles in two, making them the focus of two different world struggles, the theocratic and the democratic, with the one yet to be delivered, in Social Theocracy, from bureaucratic constraints and the other falling well short, through its autocratic traditions, of Social Democracy.

 

50.  On a wider basis, this distinction between theocracy and democracy is reflected in the world at large, with the West largely symptomatic of democracy and the East of theocracy, irrespective of how short of freedom.  Therefore there is a sense in which Ireland, Catholic Ireland, is something of an Eastern-like exception in the West, sandwiched in between the Anglo-Saxon powers of Britain and America which are in the vanguard of democracy, if not necessarily of complete democratic liberation from autocracy, then certainly of the right to democratic freedom in relative, or worldly, terms. 

 

51.  To the Republic of Ireland, however, this has long been something of a problem, and even a source of disquiet!  For although Ireland shares many of the values and customs of Britain and America, not least through ancestral ties, it is still, in its heart-of-hearts, a case apart which fears for its own theocratic life in the toing-and-froing of the democratic currents which swirl all around it from its more powerful neighbours.  It is even conveniently overlooked by Britain and America when it suits them to get into bed with each other over some democratic matter which Ireland could not, in its theocratic wisdom, be trusted to endorse or advance.

 

52.  Thus Ireland is often brushed under the carpet by its bigger and more inveterately democratic neighbours, not least Britain, as and when it suits them to cosy up to one another at the expense of some perceived enemy of democracy.  Ireland is an inconvenience that Britain in particular could more usually do without.  But still Ireland refuses to go away, and to reverse the argument it must also be said that Britain is often an inconvenience to Ireland, not least in respect of the North and the ongoing division of the island along broadly sectarian lines which afflicts not only Irish Celts, but those on both sides of the Irish Sea.

 

53.  For were it not for British imperialism, Ireland would not still be divided, as it has been for many a long year, between the predominantly Catholic 'South' and the predominantly Protestant 'North', the Republic and the six counties of Ulster which constitute the oddly-contrived statelet of Northern Ireland within the UK.  Such an inconvenience for the Irish, which is one of the worst humiliations that can be inflicted upon a people, suits neither tradition; for Ireland is a small enough country without having to endure a largely arbitrary division of its territorial mass in the interests of Ulster Protestants.

 

54.  And even these latter folk, often dubbed loyalists, would have to admit that the greater percentage of the province of Ulster was less than satisfactory from a national point of view and that Irish unity, on terms they could agree to, would ultimately make more sense, as it would to those in the Republic who want to see a united Ireland if only because a partitioned one leaves something to be desired. 

 

55.  My views on how this could - and I believe should - be brought about have been well-documented by now, so I shan't elaborate on them here, except to say that only Social Theocracy can liberate the overwhelming majority of both traditions from their Catholic/Protestant schismatic antagonism and bring them, via a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, into the pluralistic framework of 'Kingdom Come' or, at any rate, of that which, in the event of Scotland and other Celtic countries opting for such a sovereignty, would approximate to a Gaelic federation of Irish and British Gaels and thus reunite the Celts of these islands on the basis of theocratic liberation not only from bureaucratic subversion of religion through 'Mother Church', but also from such autocratic and democratic subversions of it as, more germane to Protestantism, typifies the broader experiences of Scotch and Welsh Protestants under the aegis of British state control, and this contrary, I have argued, to their Celtic interests and ancestral predilections.

 

56.  Continuing devolution for Scotland and Wales is the way for both countries to gradually come to an accommodation with the prospect of a return to the heights of theocratic freedom in relation to a Gaelic federation, existing within the wider European framework, of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and possibly the Isle of Man - something which, to my mind, has long pointed in the direction of 'Kingdom Come' and thus of a godly resolve of the freedom issue which, on a wider European and even global basis, cannot but be in the vanguard of evolutionary progress in a shrinking world, a world which deserves better than to be divided between East and West, theocracy and democracy, and to be held back from global unity by divisions which only the paradoxical exploitation of democracy to a theocratic end, contrary to its worship by the West, can remove.

 

57.  For ultimately global unity is inconceivable on other than religious terms, but such terms must be genuinely progressive and symptomatic of liberation not only from bureaucratic but, in the wider context, from autocratic and democratic subversion and even control.

 

58.  I am confident that the world can come to global unity in the utmost theocratic universality, even if other factors have to be taken into account and progress will be slow and at times difficult.  But I am equally confident that there is no other basis for such unity than what has been suggested, and that the sooner the lowlanders of the West accept that globalization implies a deference to the highlanders of the East, as to religious values generally, and that democracy should not be regarded as an end in itself but rather as a means to a higher end, the sooner will globalization achieve an acceptable resolution which will enable peace and prosperity to prevail on terms which presage the infinite perfection not of man but of his successor in the gradual cyborgization of life that will permit godly and heavenly criteria to flourish as never before, and to achieve peaks of truth and joy such that put the past achievements of theocracy, whether in relation to the Cosmos, to Nature, or to Mankind, in a series of inferior lights.

 

59.  For the future, in this global experiment, belongs to Cyborgkind, the Godkind that stretches beyond Mankind, as air stretches beyond vegetation, and it can only be from the urban proletariat, that post-humankind species of 'man', that the Cyborg is developed and eventually emerges in a guise that we can scarcely conceive of but which will take evolving life to its maximum degree of theocratic resolution, a resolution set not on earth but in space, in special space centres, and constituting the omega point of godly destiny, making all previous manifestations of metaphysical sensibility dwindle to a comparative insignificance.

 

60.  That, if it ever happens, is a long way off at present.  But intimations of futurity, hopes for a better future, of the coming of the 'Kingdom', are characteristic of a bureaucratic mean in religion, which is not overly concerned, like autocracy, with powerful tradition, nor, like democracy, with egotistic knowledge in respect of the present and fear of the past, but spiritually yearns through imagination for a timeless redemption of the ego in what would be the ultimate theocracy, the theocracy-of-theocracies that has been identified, in these notes, with Social Theocracy and its promise, in 'Kingdom Come', of a triadic Beyond broadly identifiable with Social Transcendentalist practice and theory.

 

61.  Therefore the meritocratic servants of 'Mother Church', its priests, are not so much - quasi-autocratic exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - class enemies of the People in the sense of outwardly opposing religious progress from an entrenched conservatism that resists all possibility of meaningful change, as the basis for and guarantor of further theocratic development as technocracy is expanded in the enhanced service of theocratic praxis.  They are there and they are not, to be sure, of Social Theocracy, but they maintain a hope in the prospect of 'Kingdom Come', and to that extent they are not reactionary but the bedrock of subsequent progress, without whom there would be no 'Mother Church' at all and therefore no bureaucratic-theocratic axis such that portends the possibility of theocratic liberation.

 

62.  Some would argue that the feudal aristocracy, traditionally affiliated to autocracy, are not the class enemies of the People when a people is of a persuasion which is less theocratic than democratic, but such a people will often find themselves struggling against feudal traditions in the interests of greater democratic freedom; for there is nothing about the aristocracy as such that encourages hope, in bureaucratic vein, in the Messianic redemption of society through theocratic liberation but, rather, a certain pride and satisfaction in the traditions of their class which, whilst understandable, is not concerned to advance democracy at autocracy's expense and may consequently prove problematic to those engaged in precisely that exercise.

 

63.  Certainly the People, as I have made clear in previous texts, are not just one thing or another but both traditional and revolutionary, folk and proletariat, 'sheep' and 'goats', and often, in worldly countries, they combine the two tendencies to greater or lesser extents within the same person, so that a clear-cut divide between folk and proletariat, conservative and radical, is not always discernible.  This of course varies, but there are also minorities of various persuasions to be taken into account, and for them someone germane to an alternative axis or tradition may well seem a class enemy, even if racial or ethnic enemy would be a more fitting description.

 

64.  For of course if you divide society, as I have, between a rising bureaucratic-theocratic axis typifying or favouring Celts and a falling autocratic-democratic axis favouring or typifying Anglo-Saxons, only those who are of one's racial or ethnic group will seem reasonable and representative to one, the others being a potential if not actual threat and disruptive influence which it were better to guard against, as against one's traditional racial enemy.

 

65.  Such thinking is not as fanciful as apologists for racial equality or, rather, for a perverse concept of racial equality might like to believe, but is more than modestly evidenced in the British Isles, where the divisions of Ireland and Britain or Ireland from Britain, and vice versa, are reflected even in Northern Ireland, and we can be sure that a certain Anglo-Saxon element is instrumental there in preventing the unity of Celts from taking place in a way that would not only unify Ireland, but ensure that the autocratic-democratic axis so representative of Anglo-Saxon reality was replaced by a bureaucratic-theocratic one more characteristic of the Celts, not least when Catholic.

 

66.  However, that is not my primary concern, nor even a part of the Social Theocratic agenda; for I have said that theocratic liberation from bureaucratic constraints or realities is of the essence of 'Kingdom Come', and that such a divine 'Kingdom' can only come to pass on the basis of a paradoxical election for religious sovereignty which utilized the democratic process and thereby made it possible for those who may formerly have considered democracy as a ne plus ultra to test their conscience in respect of my work and vote accordingly, even if this means that many of those who did indeed opt for religious sovereignty and the rights accruing to it, including deliverance from Cosmos-based metachemical subversions of metaphysics, had formerly been Protestants of Celtic extraction and were now able to see the light and get themselves, and the majority of their people, back on track from a racial and cultural point of view.

 

67.  For while democracy will be an end-in-itself to the average Anglo-Saxon, for the Celt, by contrast, it should be viewed as a means to a higher end and therefore as a vehicle to be paradoxically exploited, come 'judgement', in the interests of theocratic liberation through religious sovereignty, something that changes the terms of religion for Catholics and Protestants alike, doing away with the old schismatic dichotomy between the two camps and enabling all to partake, at different tier levels in our projected triadic Beyond, of Social Transcendentalism, the way ahead for the reunification of Celtic and indeed ultimately of all humanity, as things progress towards global resolution.

 

68.  For even if you are democratic rather than theocratic or, rather, given through Protestantism to either an autocratic or a democratic subversion of theocracy, there will still be a place for you within the administrative and triadic pluralism of 'Kingdom Come', and some degree of if not exactly autocratic or bureaucratic then, in sensible transvaluation, anti-autocratic and anti-bureaucratic, not to mention modified democratic, subversion of theocracy would still initially obtain under the lead of the utmost theocratic purism, pending the gradual cyborgization of life and emerging capacity for greater totalitarian uniformity, for enhanced perfection as what remains of the initial plurality of factors is phased out and/or amalgamated to the end of a godly/heavenly absolutism in the omega point of evolutionary consummation.

 

69.  Provided one is not hard-line autocratic or democratic, refusing to countenance anything stemming from the bureaucratic-theocratic axis, there will be a place for one in 'Kingdom Come', in the context of religious sovereignty should the electorate so vote.... Which, again, is only likely to happen in countries where the majority are effectively more Church than State or, even in the latter instance, more given to an autocratic and/or democratic subversion of theocracy than to autocracy or democracy as such, and therefore more Celtic, dare I say, than Anglo-Saxon, as in Northern Ireland.

 

70.  No, the racial dichotomy is significant, cannot be underestimated without attendant perils, and those who strive to do so often have an ulterior agenda in mind, like the transmutation of a given race through interbreeding with it from the standpoints of races more given to a competing, if not conflicting, order of civilization. 

 

71.  Doubtless the approach to this matter in Ireland would differ from how it was approached in, say, England; for in Ireland the breeding-out (if not in exceptional circumstances kicking-out) of Anglo-Saxons is the only guarantee of an ecclesiastic bias towards theocracy, whereas in England - Celts often being Irish Catholics and Catholics Irish Celts - it would be harder if not impossible to conceive of Celts being bred out by their Anglo-Saxon neighbours but, rather, of the Anglo-Saxon race itself being under threat from a variety of black and coloured peoples from its Empire who may well render England more susceptible to theocracy in the generations to come.

 

72.  Of course, words can never do justice to the multiplicity of factors always at work in any given context.  But my observations as an Irishman in England, an Irishman-in-exile from his native land through having been brought to Britain as a very young boy, are such as to suggest that the natural lustfulness of the Anglo-Saxon race is being tested in the racially equalitarian society which now prevails in Britain and is likely to result in a lot more half-breeds and mixed marriages than currently meets the eye.

 

73.  Which, from a theocratic standpoint, may not be a bad thing; though I wouldn't myself wish to mate with a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) Englishwoman and father children who might well end-up becoming more democratic than theocratic under pressure of English culture, even if black or coloured Englishwomen were superficially more attractive but still somewhat problematic from a Celtic Irish point-of-view.  In fact, I have remained rigorously celibate through all my years of exile in England, not having slept with a single woman of any colour, and I believe that this owes something, though not everything, to my refusal to compromise with the Anglo-Saxon race and sell-out to an autocratic-democratic axis at the expense of my Catholic heritage for bureaucracy-theocracy.

 

74.  I was born a Catholic but, due to events beyond my control, was raised, from my tenth year, as a Protestant following the death of my protective maternal Catholic grandmother when I was ten, my mother having felt free to dispatch me to a Children's Home in Carshalton Beeches, Surrey, and although I protested in writing at the change of denomination which then confronted me, I knew that nothing would extricate me from that situation and that I would have to put up with a Protestant upbringing, come what may.

 

75.  But instead of turning me into a Protestant, a Baptist, it gradually turned me into a rebel against what I took to be Christianity, and so I turned, via books by Bertrand Russell, towards my own intellectual devices in the hope of finding a viable substitute for Christianity.  In such fashion I was put on the road to becoming a philosopher, or truth-seeker, in my own right.

 

76.  Eventually, as these and other such texts should confirm, I succeeded, and that is why today, after several decades' philosophical struggle, I am a Social Theocrat and not either a Catholic (though officially I guess I would still qualify through things like my christening certificate) or a Protestant, but an advocate of what I take to be an ultimate religion capable of superseding - and on the basis of its truth entitled to transcend - Christianity, not to mention every other so-called world religion which currently exists.

 

77.  I would not admit to being, in Irish sectarian fashion, a Christian, either Catholic or Protestant, but that does not make me a Jew, a Judaist, still less a Hindu or Buddhist or Moslem, or whatever.  I am, to repeat, a self-styled Social Transcendentalist, and that means that I reject all worldly and netherworldly religions in favour of this ultimate otherworldly religion which stretches, or would have the capacity to stretch, beyond mankind, and therefore towards and into a godlike ideality premised upon the extension of synthetic artificiality, as especially germane to the urban proletariat, to ever-more sensible levels of cyborgization capable of doing more justice to truth and joy than anything godly/heavenly in the past, even up to and including the transcendental meditation of Buddhists and Buddhist-like cults.

 

78.  Just as Social Transcendentalism is beyond Christianity, meaning principally Catholicism in one form or another, so it is beyond Buddhism, not to mention Islam; for it is the ultimate theocracy, the freest of theocracies, and one which is therefore intended to pave the way to global unity in the utmost universality - a universality of metaphysical sensibility which would be as far removed from anything cosmic as it is possible to imagine.

 

79.  For the cosmic is chiefly typified by the polyversal subversion of universality in relation to Devil the Mother; the natural by the impersonal subversion of universality in relation to Woman the Mother; and the human by the personal subversion of universality in relation to Man the Father (not to mention the Son of Man when soma displaces psyche, as it more often does in the Son-centred fatality of Christianity).  Only the universal, which ultimately requires a cyborg precondition, is capable of universality in relation to God the Father to an extent that is not compromised by human or natural or cosmic factors, but is effectively per se and thus definitive.

 

80.  And God the Father, in sensibly metaphysical ego, exists to be redeemed by Heaven the Holy Soul, in sensibly metaphysical soul, as truth by joy, which is equivalent to the form of the brain stem being eclipsed, in a heaven of timeless bliss, by the contentment of the spinal cord, the like of which would not happen without recourse to the Son of God, in sensibly metaphysical will or, rather, antiwill, and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, in sensibly metaphysical spirit or, rather, antispirit, the subjective antidoing and antigiving of which panders, in respiratory fashion, to the recoil of taking from the threat of self-annihilation on the wings of exhalation to the self more profoundly in the being of soul, the true end of life for the metaphysically aware, with specific reference to males of a noumenally subjective and therefore effectively upper-class disposition.

 

81.  This in itself automatically puts one beyond worldly relativity and the more or less amoral fudging of religion in terms of a reluctance to be gender specific and gender conscious.  There is nothing liberal and androgynous about it, and what I alluded to above in connection with a TM-like procedure, a genuinely religious devotion involving the lungs and breath of transcendental meditation, would apply to an even greater extent in relation to the synthetic artificiality of 'Kingdom Come', when other than natural somatic factors would have to be developed to allow the self, the brain stem and spinal cord, to achieve its maximum self-realization and soulful redemption, and ultimately to be given the sort of indefinite support not characteristic of the mortality of the flesh.

 

82.  But the worldly shy away from gender consciousness in respect of hegemonic male criteria as they shy away from religion, castigating the former as male chauvinism and the latter as fanaticism and superstition.  Little do they realize the extents to which a failure to uphold a male hegemonic context both in the interests of genuine religion and as a consequence of genuine religion makes for the sorts of sensually-based vicious/immoral negativities which plague modern life to such a barbarous/philistine extent, making it almost inconceivable that anyone with enough self-respect and religious sympathy to be sensitive to such a predicament could possibly remain unaware of its baleful influences and therefore impartial to its negative consequences.

 

83.  Doubtless my own experiences in England have conditioned me, over many years, to keep my distance as much as possible from the sorts of people and contexts likely to prevail upon one to abandon reason and sell-out to the Devil-worshipping and/or woman-worshipping promiscuity of contemporary secularity, in which somatic freedom under female hegemonies is more or less taken for granted, with the psyche firmly placed under wraps. 

 

84.  To some extent my ethnicity as an Irishman of Catholic descent has precluded me from achieving the kind of worldly success that falls to the more superficial and coarser minds; for it cannot be denied that anyone who writes from a genuinely philosophical standpoint in favour of greater theocratic freedom will not be representative of mainstream British writing but, rather, a sort of ethnic outsider who is likely to have his work spurned by the more democratically-minded editorial representatives of the civilization in question, a civilization that, with liberated females and feminized males in positions of editorial responsibility, has long fought shy of theocracy, and thus of the possibility of truth and godliness, in defence of its own autocratic-democratic axis and racial mean, one, as was noted above, more typified by Anglo-Saxons than by Celts, in which freedom, to the extent that it is countenanced, necessarily has to take a democratic turn in conjunction with a plutocratic disposition.

 

85.  Unfortunately, despite my considerable talent for philosophy, as for truth and its general ramifications, I have never been encouraged to write and/or pursue a literary vocation in England, nor granted any sort of intellectual recognition whatsoever, but been studiously ignored and rejected by the defenders, for the most part female these days, of democratic values.  So I am in the quite unique position, for a radical self-taught intellectual, of having completed a large literary oeuvre which, by any objectively fair evaluation, would tower above most if not all philosophical writings to-date, but which, because it is unrepresentative of British values, would simply be perceived as an Irish-type subversive threat to the status quo and therefore as something to reject from an Anglo-Saxon standpoint as, quite frankly, irrelevant and potentially disruptive.

 

86.  Thus instead of living in the country of a people open to truth and the sensible pursuit of higher values, one finds oneself being ethnically discriminated against by a people that are closed to truth - even though they may proclaim otherwise for the benefit of the international community and to salve what remains of their consciences - and only interested in protecting or advancing the sorts of lowland values which culminate in democratic freedom, albeit of a relative and therefore strictly worldly order which pays attention, for the most part rather cynically, to aristocratic tradition and the power-oriented values of autocracy.

 

87.  This people do not care a fig for theocratic liberation, for they were never theocratic enough in the first place, never subject to the bureaucratic subversion of theocracy through 'Mother Church' but only - Catholic minorities excepted - to the autocratic subversion of democracy through what they would probably call 'Father State', though I would not hesitate to equate that with a worse kind of 'Mother' than anything properly germane to the Roman Catholic Church!

 

88.  Be that as it may, such autocratic subversion of false, or Anglican,  theocracy through the Monarchy and such democratic subversion of false, or Puritan, theocracy through the Parliament ensured that the State remained both genuinely (if partially) autocratic, even with a Constitutional Monarch, and genuinely (if partially) democratic, through a free parliament, with scant place, in consequence, for any prospect of genuine theocracy, never mind its subversion under the bureaucratic aegis of 'Mother Church'.

 

89.  Therefore anyone who preaches church freedom in Britain is as unrepresentative of the English people in general as an advocate of state freedom would be of the generality of Irish people in Catholic Ireland, where the bureaucratic subversion of theocracy by the Catholic Church ensures that there is scant room or call for the subversion of democracy by autocracy and no place, in consequence, for anything resembling a genuine State, with state freedom of either a somatic or, in the case of parliament, a psychic bias.  On the contrary, the State will be subordinate to the Church; for it is not a falling autocratic-democratic axis that typifies the Celtic Irish people of the Republic of Ireland but a rising bureaucratic-theocratic one, and therefore their freedom concerns will be of an altogether higher and nobler order than those pertaining to democracy.

 

90.  Their freedom concerns can only be theocratic, and it is because of their racial and cultural superiority to the Anglo-Saxon, in this respect, that they require independence from outside meddling of an English or British kind.  For just as the English Establishment, whether literary or otherwise, will reject theocratic subversion or, rather, inversion of their democratic sensibilities from a Celtic standpoint, not least when the Celt happens also to be Irish and therefore Catholic or, in my case, professedly Social Theocratic, so the Irish Establishment should, in the interests of cultural  hygiene premised upon a certain racial foundation, in their case Celtic, reject democratic inversion of their theocratic sensibilities from an Anglo-Saxon standpoint, not least when the Anglo-Saxon also happens to be English and therefore Protestant or, in some cases, Social Democratic.

 

91.  But that they should reject the more freely theocratic work and advice of someone who, through no fault of his own, was taken into English exile as a young boy, would, even if he were not avowedly Celtic and of Catholic descent, be nothing short of disgraceful and a mark of the most unreasoning stupidity!  I do not say that they will rush into its arms, since there are all sorts of fools and confusions at large these days which entitle even the most curiously optimistic to be wary, but I would certainly expect better from them than I have received at the hands of the British, with a philosophy that in the exacting comprehensiveness of its thematic structures is arguably second-to-none and still, at the time of writing, completely unknown!

 

92.  I think the reasons for that have been sufficiently dealt with, though I could add a certain want of commercial viability in view of the profounder scope of my work, coupled to a disadvantaged background  which ill-qualified me as attractive prey for the publishing predators to latch-on to the way they snap up persons with even comparatively shallow and vulgar minds who, having had the benefit of settled homes and, thanks of parental financing, gone to the 'right' schools or colleges, happened to secure the sorts of high-profile jobs or positions in the media or elsewhere which subsequently attract publishers anxious to cash-in on their fame or public standing when they eventually turn to writing with the confidence, moreover, that with all the money spent on  their education they have an almost 'divine right' to publication and recognition.

 

93.  Frankly, I can conceive of a literary canon taking shape for future generations which has no reference to intrinsic excellence at all but, rather, follows from such commercial viability and success as their authors managed to achieve during the course of a rip-roaring literary career.  Perhaps some if not many of the 'greats' of the past were of a similar ilk, not intrinsically great at all but simply well-set up gentlemen - and even ladies - whose shallowness of mind was all the more attractive to publishers in view of its association with a track-record of public notoriety or fame?

 

94.  Frankly, I don't wish to enter into such unsavoury realms of speculation!  But I can conceive of instances of that sort of thing which have since multiplied to an alarming extent, and will probably carry-on multiplying if markets remain dogmatically free of moral scruples and publishers are able to exploit their more gullible and vulgar authors in the interests of a substantial profit.

 

95.  But that is really what these democratic types are all about; for democracy exists, remember, in conjunction with plutocracy, and plutocrats are there to make money, come what may, by whatever means are deemed most efficacious and on the pragmatic basis of what sells must be best, irrespective of its probable want of intrinsic value.  In point of fact, any intrinsic value a work - say, a literary work - may have is soon compromised by the extrinsic value attaching to it as a commercial product, so that its value to the businessman rests primarily on how well it sells rather than what it is in itself.

 

96.  So many units sold is the mark of success from a capitalist standpoint, and therefore it stands to reason that only works which are likely to sell well in the first place will be published, not least in terms of fiction, with particular reference to novels, which are the form of literature par excellence most according with a democratic/plutocratic mean, the voluminously physical literature of a democratic age or society which is commercially best-served, it would appear, in a standard book-like format.

 

97.  When Christ said, or is reputed to have said, that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the 'Kingdom of Heaven' he was only confirming what every wise or holy man knows to be the case - that economic wealth and religious health are incompatible, as incompatible as, say, democratic freedom and theocratic freedom, or fiction and truth, or literature and philosophy, or man and God, or books and ... discs. 

 

98.  When your god is economics, or rather the wealth accruing to a plutocratic disposition within the context of democratic freedom, then there can be no room for God as such, but only the subversion of God, in time-honoured Western vein, by man, so that fiction is passed of as truth or, failing that, only a rather essayistic and therefore 'bovaryized'  approach to philosophy is countenanced as philosophy, and genuine philosophy, which can only be aphoristic in respect of the noumenal heights, is either regarded as being beyond the Western pale or not credited with any existence or reality at all (like certain Irishmen in Britain of a profounder stamp)!

 

99.  But of course that is only from a phenomenally physical  - one might almost say a Lockean - standpoint, not in relation to metaphysics, and so whilst it is possible for genuine philosophy to exist and to achieve something approximating to truth in a higher sense than mere knowledge would allow, it is not possible for it to exist in relation to the sorts of God-excluding societies which make man the measure of all things and ensure that anything that poses for or passes as truth is given a physical presentation and not allowed or encouraged to be true to itself in properly metaphysical terms.

 

100. Thus what is published in book form as truth is, in reality, most unlikely to be metaphysically true, but simply some hyped knowledge or even ignorance designed to pass muster as truth for a civilization which, in its democratic instincts, makes it its business to reject actual truth and exclude it as something either fancifully irrelevant or potentially subversive to its own integrity, which is far better served, in fundamentally female fashion, by fact and the hyping of fact as truth in typically empirical vein.

 

101. Thus true truth, which is above and beyond knowledge and really quite contrary to fact, especially in its metachemical manifestation, cannot be encouraged within the parameters of a democratic society, and no self-respecting purveyor of truth, a genuine philosopher, could possibly wish it to be subsumed into or compromised by a system which makes a god out of economics and allows man to play God, to the exclusion of what really is or would be God, such that follows from a bureaucratic premise in 'Mother Church' which allows not only for a theocratic outcome but, ultimately, for theocratic freedom from bureaucratic subversion and an alternative, in Social Theocracy, to such democratic freedom as everywhere - and not only in Social Democracy - opposes God-building from the lowly, albeit inflated, standpoint of man.

 

102. For man is physically low even when he hypes himself as God and plays God for the sake of seeming to be doing justice to religion and the full-gamut of human possibility, and hard-line democratic types are effectively lowlifes in their incapacity to conceive of a theocratic alternative to their own sense of freedom, but rather to ensure that everything, even a democratically-twisted approach to theocracy, is subsumed within the physical parameters of their own limitations and rendered accountable to them.  

 

103. For they will not have it said that there is a higher way which is above them!  They defy such a higher way; for it is not part of their agenda, unlike the extension of democracy at autocracy's expense.  They are simply a different racial ideal, a different people, a different worldview, which will have no other worldview than their own, not only in relation to themselves but, wherever possible, at the expense of other peoples as well, irrespective of whether the latter may not wish to partake of the democratic freedom which to the apologists of democracy for its own sake is the only kind of freedom and therefore inevitable destiny of the human race, as of the entire planet.

 

104. Perish the thought!  And yet the experience of people like the Catholic Irish under British imperial domination in the past and to a diminished extent in the present, both in Britain and Northern Ireland, is such as to confirm that their racial adversaries really do believe that democracy is the only freedom and that those who cleave to theocracy are simply superstitious anachronisms.  Little do they realize, these democratic bigots, to what extent their anti-Catholic history, stemming in large part from Henry VIII, has conditioned them to believe that there is only one path to freedom and that they are the ones who are treading it, even if not to a radical, or Social Democratic, extent.

 

105. But a falling autocratic-democratic axis of metachemical free soma to physical free psyche is one thing, a rising bureaucratic-theocratic axis of chemical free soma to metaphysical free psyche quite another, and never the twain shall meet!  Theocrats can be nominally democratic, as in the Republic of Ireland, and democrats nominally theocratic, as in England, but the immense gulf between the metaphysical freedom of theocracy and the physical freedom of democracy, between Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ideals persists and can only, in the nature of these things, continue to persist until the world is brought, democratically, to a theocratic head in global universality and everything pertaining to man duly submits to the lead of God, not least in terms of the gradual supersession of human rights by divine rights as religious sovereignty replaces political sovereignty in the judgmental process of bringing the world, bit by bit, country by country, to 'Kingdom Come', and thus to the overcoming of worldly shortcomings in the name of otherworldly values, of which truth and joy are the chief.

 

106. But you do not get truth and joy in the context of physics, of democratic freedom, but only knowledge and pleasure; neither do you get it in the context of chemistry, of bureaucratic freedom, but only weakness and humility; still less do you get it in the context of metachemistry, of autocratic freedom, but only ugliness and hatred. 

 

107. Obviously, neither ugliness and hatred nor weakness and humility are desirable from the male standpoint of psychic freedom, but only either knowledge and pleasure in physics, or truth and joy in metaphysics, the former appertaining to democratic freedom, to the molecular-wavicle 'general good' of a co-operatively collectivistic psychically free context, the latter to theocratic freedom, to the elemental-wavicle 'particular good' of a co-operatively individualistic psychically free context, so that it is either in respect of the democratic Many at the expense of the autocratic Few in State-oriented vein, as in mature democracies, or in respect, from a Church-oriented standpoint, of the theocratic Few at the expense of the bureaucratic Many, as in mature theocracies.

 

108. Both types of freedom are 'good', but they are not equally 'good'.  The theocratic, being metaphysical, is higher, for it is designed to further the subjectively individual 'good' of the godly Few in terms of a unitary absolutism rather than to pander, in democratic vein, to the subjectively collective 'good' of the manly Many, an ungodly Many, to be sure, but not the only ungodly Many!

 

109. However that may be, the 'general good' of the ungodly can never be attractive to the godly; for it excludes all that is true and joyful and metaphysically superior from existing, thereby ensuring that society never ventures far from the earth in its mundane concerns with the here-and-now in egocentrically physical vein.  Such a society may be relatively fair or equal in relation to itself (though not of course to those perceived as a subversive threat from an alternative ideological standpoint), but it will never transcend its own democratic limitations and achieve anything eternal, anything meant to last, to prevail as testimony to the unitary well-being of the godly Few. 

 

110. They have reduced life to a relativistic mediocrity, these well-meaning democrats, not, to be sure, directly at the expense of the theocratic, who have still to come into their own, but primarily at the expense, within their own cultural complex, of the autocratic; yet such a mediocrity, in contrast to the metachemical negativity of the autocratic, at least has the virtue of positivity, if only in respect of knowledge and pleasure.

 

111. Thus they represent an ideal, but it is the lesser of the two ideals possible to evolving life as it either descends from the 'particular bad' of the ungodly, or devilish, Few to the 'general good' of the ungodly, or manly, Many, as from autocratic somatic freedom to democratic psychic freedom, elemental-particle competitive individualism to molecular-wavicle co-operative collectivism, or, in diagonal contrast, ascends from the 'general bad' of the ungodly, or womanly, Many to the 'particular good' of the godly Few, as from bureaucratic somatic freedom to theocratic psychic freedom, molecular-particle competitive collectivism to elemental-wavicle co-operative individualism.

 

112. If we attempt a generalization where these four main alternatives are concerned (excluding for the moment the more complex gender hegemonic and subordinate relationships which have hitherto characterized my mature philosophy), we shall find that the 'particular bad' of autocratic freedom coupled, in bound psyche, to aristocratic binding can be characterized in terms of crime and evil, whereas the 'general good' of democratic freedom coupled, in bound soma, to plutocratic binding would have to be characterized in terms of punishment and modesty, which is what happens when a metachemically hegemonic female reality is opposed from a sensibly physical standpoint and duly turned around.

 

113. By contrast, the 'general bad' of bureaucratic freedom coupled, in bound psyche, to meritocratic binding can be characterized in terms of sin and folly, whereas the 'particular good' of theocratic freedom coupled, in bound soma, to technocratic binding would have to be characterized in terms of grace and wisdom, which is what happens when a chemically hegemonic female reality is opposed from a sensibly metaphysical standpoint and duly turned around.

 

114. Therefore the crime and evil of the autocratic/aristocratic sensuality has to be contrasted with the punishment and modesty of the democratic/plutocratic sensibility which, although nominally embracing a hegemonic male sensibility in the guise of the relative grace and wisdom of knowledge and pleasure, is paradoxically subject to the devolution or, rather, counter-devolution of female values in punishing and modest vein, so that the emphasis tends to fall not on knowledge and pleasure, despite the rhetoric, but on strength and pride, or at least it would in the absence of a more complete democratic freedom which shifted things, in evolutionary vein, back up to knowledge and pleasure in effectively Social Democratic terms.

 

115. Contrariwise the sin and folly of the bureaucratic/meritocratic sensuality has to be contrasted with the grace and wisdom of the theocratic/technocratic sensibility which, although nominally embracing a hegemonic male sensibility in the guise of the absolute grace and wisdom of truth and joy, is paradoxically subject to the counter-devolution of female values in punishing and modest vein, so that the emphasis tends to fall not on truth and joy, despite the rhetoric, but on beauty and love, or at least it would in the absence of a more complete theocratic freedom which shifted things, in evolutionary vein, back up to truth and joy in effectively Social Theocratic terms.

 

116. Therefore the relativity of the worldly positions of a compromise between autocracy and democracy on the one hand and bureaucracy and theocracy on the other hand does not permit of full male hegemonic virtues in terms of either knowledge and pleasure in the former or truth and joy in the latter, but tends to substitute for the outright dominance of negative female values in sensuality the covert dominance of positive female values or, rather, antivalues in sensibility, with counter-devolutionary consequences as described above.

 

117. For although physical sensibility might suggest that knowledge and pleasure were hegemonic over strength and pride, in actuality it tends to be strength and pride which call the shots in the absence of a more complete democratic freedom which is not compromised, in worldly vein, by autocratic traditions rooted in a female hegemony.  So long, on the other hand, as those traditions are still extant, a nominal male hegemony in knowledge and pleasure will be vulnerable to the covert dominance of strength and pride, and these female antivalues, rooted in soma, will tend, as often as not, to be confounded with knowledge and pleasure, as antiwoman/antipurgatory with man/the earth.

 

118. Likewise, although metaphysical sensibility might suggest that truth and joy were hegemonic over beauty and love, in actuality it tends to be beauty and love which call the shots in the absence of a more complete theocratic freedom which is not compromised, in worldly vein, by bureaucratic traditions rooted in a female hegemony.  So long, on the other hand, as those traditions are still extant, a nominal male hegemony in truth and joy will be vulnerable to the covert dominance of beauty and love, and these female antivalues, rooted in soma, will tend, as often as not, to be confounded with truth and joy, as the Antidevil/Antihell with God/Heaven.

 

119. Of course I have purposely simplified the above accounts in order to give a general impression or explanation of what tends to happen in the absence of either Social Democratic or Social Theocratic alternatives to the worldly relativities alluded to in the text.  Males are not and cannot be properly hegemonic when the sensual traditions, rooted somatically in female hegemonies, have not been uprooted.  For what existed as a norm in the past persists, no matter how transvaluated, into the present, and males will continue to bow to disguised female hegemonies in which strength and pride are mistaken for knowledge and pleasure or beauty and love for truth and joy, or, more pragmatically, in which strength and pride are regarded as manly virtues and beauty and love as godly ones, contrary to the actual cases.

 

120. Therefore if this paradox is to be defeated and both knowledge and pleasure and, more importantly from a metaphysical perspective, truth and joy emerge into properly hegemonic positions where they are equated with manly/earthly or godly/heavenly virtues of free psyche, you have to engineer a system where either Social Democratic or Social Theocratic criteria are paramount, and in the interests of future global unity in ethnic universality it makes more sense to create such a system on the basis of Social Theocracy, which is not merely post-worldly in hard-line democratic vein but otherworldly in what could be called hard-line theocratic vein, so that it is the metaphysical rather than the physical which ultimately wins out and brings the globe to a universal resolution in God/Heaven, gradually refining life towards a co-operatively individualistic peak which transcends the co-operative collectivism of 'the Many' in what, for 'the Few', would be the true unity of a Oneness Supreme, an Absolute Perfection.

 

121. Such a resolution to life in the absolute perfection of a Oneness Supreme, more congenial, I wager, to Celts than to Anglo-Saxons, means that democracy is regarded not as an end-in-itself, in lowland vein, but as a means to a higher end - in short, as something to be exploited, from a bureaucratic-theocratic point of view, in the interests of enhanced theocracy, and an end to the subversion of God and Heaven by the Antidevil and Antihell, as of truth and joy by beauty and love, so that, for the first time in the religious history of the West, things become subject to properly male hegemonic control and the female elements, not least in respect of beauty and love in whatever psychic/somatic permutations, are subordinated to the pursuit, for metaphysical males, of truth and joy, which are alone to be identified with God and Heaven.

 

122. And not, as may formerly have been the case in some cultures, in relation to the least evolved manifestations of metaphysical sensibility in the Cosmos, nor to the less (relative to least) evolved manifestations of metaphysical sensibility in Nature, nor even - across the worshipful/devotional divide, to the more (relative to most) evolved manifestations of metaphysical sensibility in Humankind, in Mankind, where they take the form of transcendental meditation, but, for the dehumanized post-humankind 'humanity' of the effectively atheistic urban proletariat, the most evolved and therefore per se manifestations of metaphysical sensibility in relation to the progressive cyborgization of life to ever-greater heights of godly/heavenly absolute perfection.

 

123. For it is with the gradual cyborgization of post-humankind that the terms of life can be changed not only in respect of the subversion of male values in traditions, no matter how professedly democratic or theocratic, rooted in female hegemonies but in respect, no less importantly, of the transmutation, in analytic to synthetic vein, of binarism into monism and of relativity into absolutism, as a more totalitarian perfection is engineered out of the pluralistic imperfections with which Social Theocracy, if granted its majority mandate, was initially saddled. 

 

124. And all, be it not forgotten, to an enhanced godly/heavenly end, an end in which all that is not metaphysically sensible, whether antimetachemically antidevilish/antihellish in the administrative aside or antichemically antiwomanly/antipurgatorial or physically manly/earthly in the lower tiers of our projected triadic Beyond is reduced to a minimum, if not entirely superseded, eventually, by what is sensible on the utmost metaphysical terms.

 

125. And what is metaphysically sensible on such terms is not what does or gives or takes, primarily, but what subordinates doing as antidoing and giving as antigiving to its raison d'être of the redemption of taking in being, of truth in joy, of metaphysical form in metaphysical contentment, of absolute grace in absolute holiness, of a moment of time in timeless eternity, of the brain stem in the spinal cord, of ego in soul, of quality in essence, of molecular wavicles in elemental wavicles, of consciousness in subconsciousness - in short, of God in Heaven.

 

126. There can be no higher or better destiny than that, and that is the destiny which awaits the urban proletariat if they choose to heed my words and vote, when the opportunity presents itself, for religious sovereignty and an end, in consequence, to the worldly relativity which, falling well short of windy-city cosmopolitanism, would hold them back from God and Heaven. 

 

127. Democratic freedom, provided it is not too absolutist, can be a fine thing, even though, in practice, it tends to result in the substitution of an inner darkness for an outer light; but the theocratic freedom that could emerge into inner light at the expense of both the outer darkness of bureaucratic freedom and the inner-darkness subversion of theocracy via the paradoxical exploitation of relative democratic freedom by those who democratically opt for religious sovereignty will be a good deal finer - so fine, indeed, as to permit of mankind's overcoming and of the emergence, in its wake, of Godkind as the sole beneficiaries of evolutionary progress towards the omega point of heaven in space, where the universal transcendence of time in timeless bliss will achieve its sublime apotheosis from out the divine gnosis of godly resolve!

 

      

LONDON 2003 (Revised 2004-10)

 

 

APOTHEOSIS OF THE GNOSIS

 

 

Support independent publishing: Buy this e-book on Lulu.

 

Bookmark and Share