Copyright © 2011 John O'Loughlin
1. Sacred ego can be distinguished from profane ego in respect of its desire to be subsumed into soul and achieve unity with the deeper self which would be equivalent to the redemption of truth in joy, or, to speak religiously, of God in Heaven.
2. Thus sacred ego differs quite markedly from that ego which, being profane, is a sort of (necessarily false) end in itself which makes an ideal out of knowledge and effectively subsumes soul, duly 'bovaryized', into itself as a pleasurable by-product, as it were, of knowledge, so that it could be said that the earth, in religious terms, is subsumed into man, who rules an ungodly roost in egocentric profanity.
3. Therefore while sacred ego will be metaphysical and effectively subordinate to soul, profane ego will be physical and disposed, in consequence, to subordinate soul to itself - the difference, in a word, between God and man, as between, say, an upper-class type of male given, traditionally, to transcendental meditation and his effectively lower-class, and erstwhile Christian, counterpart, for whom man-centred prayer in Christ furnishes a knowledgeable fulcrum which precludes genuine soulfulness, the product, after all, of a commitment to respiratory devotions like transcendental meditation.
4. It is perhaps one of the great ironies of life that those who, in Buddhist vein, have been more committed to transcendental meditation than to prayer, to respiratory sensibility than to cogitative sensibility, and would be able to level with or accommodate the heavenly afterlife experience of an inner pure light, have, for environmental or other reasons, tended to be cremated, whereas their Christian counterparts, who might reasonably be expected to fall short of anything genuinely heavenly, have more usually been buried and thus not had their afterlife experience rudely interrupted by raging flames.
5. And yet the devotees of transcendental meditation are precisely those who most deserve a heavenly afterlife and would probably experience one even in the paradoxical or unlikely event of burial, whereas Christians, who would have spent more time reading and praying than meditating (in respiratory fashion), tend to go to the grave in expectation of Heaven, or of heavenly afterlife experience, when all they are likely to get is a sort of earthly reincarnation in which visionary experience, having more to do with the brain stem than the spinal cord, is or becomes the self-oriented norm, and one can infer a sort of meeting Christ face to face in manly subversion of God and earthly subversion of Heaven which owes not a little to the Christian tendency to subvert God in respect of man and Heaven in respect of the earth without necessarily realizing that that is what most characterizes this religion of the world, or worldly religion owing not a little to a temperate climatic and verdant topographic precondition or mean, as in Western Europe, which reduces everything to the effectively lower-class parameters of an egocentric fulcrum, in which man is the measure of all things and all things must accordingly accommodate themselves to his earthly limitations, including such religious concepts as God and Heaven.
6. How ironic, then, that those who, as Buddhists, are most likely to experience a heavenly afterlife often have it cut short, and in the most barbarous fashion, by funeral-pyre flames, whereas their Christian counterparts go to the grave in the expectation of Heaven and are more likely, through both prior religious conditioning and environmental factors (not the least of which would be the mundane context of burial itself), to recoil from the inner light to a reincarnation of ego in terms, necessarily transmuted, of visionary experience.
7. Therefore it might reasonably be inferred that Heaven has never properly or fully prevailed for either tradition, which is not altogether surprising in view of the fact or, rather, truth that a definitive manifestation of God and Heaven lies beyond man, both profane and sacred, lower- and upper-class, in what I hold to be a cyborg futurity which is already scratching the surface of post-modern life in relation to the synthetic artificiality of the urban proletariat.
8. For man is at best only capable of a penultimate, or more (relative to most) evolved, commitment to God and Heaven, which in any case will be globally subordinate to a humanistic per se in regard to the egocentric profanity of that effectively lower-class, or lowlander, manifestation of man which dominates the world and has tended to do so for several centuries past, together with his necessarily false, because worldly, religion of Christianity, which makes a god out of man or, rather, reduces God to the dimensions of man through Christ and Heaven to the dimensions of the earth through a Christ-like visionary experience which is an implicit rejection of pure soul.
9. Doubtless environmental factors, as already noted, played a not-inconsiderable role in the development of this worldly delusion of man-centred religion, but it was doubtless inevitable and not something one can dismiss as of no historical or evolutionary consequence, even if its days are numbered and the future belongs to a religion which, besides initially embracing lower-class criteria, will do more justice to truth and its corollary - and reward - of joy in consequence of the inevitability of globalization and the subordination of worldly criteria to an otherworldly lead, a lead such that will enable universality to come properly and fully to pass as and when the peoples of the globe are united in a common purpose of world-overcoming and eternity-building, and thus the achievement, as a long-term goal, of universal perfection.
10. However, the persistence of profane ego in the Western world in particular will continue to pose a threat and problem to the ongoing development, in evolutionary centro-complexification, of sacred ego, which is above knowledge in the truth that liberates from egotistic self in the interests of soulful joy, or timeless bliss, through psychocentric salvation.
11. For profane ego appertains to man, especially to man per se, who is a humanistic entity for whom form is more important than contentment, and therefore knowledge than truth or, rather, joy, which is the heavenly reward for an ego whose knowledge, being sacred, has to do with God and therefore with the achievement, through transcendentalism, of a heavenly resurrection of the self as it passes from ego to soul or, in physiological terms, from brain stem to spinal cord, something it is only likely to do in relation to such meditative techniques as encourage the ego to recoil from the threat of self-annihilation posed by the out-breath of holy spirit to the self more profoundly, as though from one extreme to another, wherein it is, perforce, encouraged to identify with the soul and achieve that self-harmony which is the source of timeless bliss, of heavenly joy, for the redeemed ego, now effectively one with soul in perfect contentment.
12. Of course, such contentment as is vouchsafed to form, to ego, through such consciously-engaged respiratory procedures as are encouraged by transcendental meditation is still a long way from the pure soul of the Afterlife as such, though one is more likely to be able to abide with the inner light of pure soul if one has been conditioned to reach an accommodation with the soul in life - something presupposing a lifelong commitment to transcendentalism, and thus to meditation techniques which encourage such an eventuality, the fruit of self-redemption of form in contentment, or consciousness in subconsciousness, which is not only deeper but purer and holier even than the spirit.
13. For the Afterlife as such is not about the redemption of ego in soul, of form in contentment, but can be expected to either take the form of visionary experience in modified ego or the contentment of non-visionary, or properly unitive, experience in modified soul, the sort of ego and soul that pertain to the brain stem and spinal cord as two separate entities, two separate manifestations of the self, one of which will be more congenial to one in the Afterlife than the other according to how one had lived in respect of the competing sensibilities, the sensibility of metaphysics for godly males or the sensibility of physics for manly males - the former category of males indubitably upper-class and effectively highlander, the latter their effectively lower-class and lowlander counterparts, or the sort of people who would more likely have been buried, in Christian vein, in expectation of meeting Christ face to face, as it were, in the Afterlife.
14. Therefore whether the self, in withdrawing its myriad nervous fibres from the body, now succumbed to the mortality of the flesh, would cannibalistically self-consume primarily in relation to the brain stem or primarily in relation to the spinal cord would be largely predetermined in respect of one's class and religious orientation, with consequences for either visionary or non-visionary (purely unitive) afterlife experience, something which, in any case, had owed not a little to environmental and topographical factors largely responsible for encouraging one type of civilized orientation or another in the first place.
15. Be that as it may, the actual afterlife experiences of 'the dead', whether heavenly or earthly, must contrast quite substantially with the religious life experiences of 'the living', since these people, no matter how upper- or lower-class they may effectively be, still have both ego and soul in a totality of self which is differentiated in terms of emphasis upon either the ego or the soul according as profane or sacred, intellectual or emotional, criteria were paramount.
16. With the egocentric, as we may call those of a profane disposition, ego takes priority over soul, and therefore such soul as accrues to an egocentric mean will be subordinated, as pleasure, to knowledge, which will accordingly rule as an ungodly manifestation of ego characteristic of 'man', meaning all those humanistic and effectively lower-class, lowlander males for whom egocentric knowledge coupled to psychoistic pleasure takes precedence over psychocentric joy coupled to egoistic truth and, therefore, the 'world' of profane values over the 'otherworld' of sacred values.
17. With the psychocentric, as we may call those of a sacred disposition, soul takes priority over ego, and therefore such ego as accrues to a psychocentric mean will be subordinated, as truth, to joy, which will accordingly rule as an unearthly manifestation of soul characteristic of 'Heaven', as the reward for all those transcendentalist and effectively upper-class, highlander males for whom psychocentric joy coupled to egoistic truth takes precedence over egocentric knowledge coupled to psychoistic pleasure and, therefore, the 'otherworld' of sacred values over the 'world' of profane values.
18. There can be no question that egocentricity is more characteristic of 'the world' than of any otherworldly alternative lying above and/or beyond it, but that, in a civilization becoming ever-more globally integrated, it would not be wise, or indeed morally desirable, to exclude the desirability of psychocentricity in relation to that which will both lead and condition everything else, including those female shortfalls from metaphysics and physics which can be identified, in antimetachemical and antichemical fashion, with either a beautiful approach to truth coupled to a loving approach to joy or, in the lower-class context, a strong approach to knowledge coupled to a proud approach to pleasure.
19. However, even knowledge will be modified in relation to truth, as will pleasure in relation to joy, as criteria appertaining, in 'Kingdom Come', to the lead of psychocentricity in the most evolved manifestations of God and Heaven gradually supersede purely worldly criteria, so we can be confident that the strong approach to knowledge coupled to the proud approach to pleasure will also be modified in relation if not to truth and joy then, where females are concerned, to the effect of truth and joy upon beauty and love, as life in general progresses under an enhanced sense of truth which could be said to stem from the Messianic equivalent of the Second Coming, Who would have made 'Kingdom Come' possible in the first place.
20. And, precisely, in terms not only of His teachings, His Social Theocratic truth and Social Transcendentalist joy, which would have to have been disseminated to and understood by the People, meaning principally the urban proletariat, but also, and not less significantly, of the coming to pass of a paradoxical election for religious sovereignty as the means whereby the goal of 'Kingdom Come' could subsequently be established in the event of a majority mandate for such a sovereignty in countries that, like Eire, could be expected to endorse, under Church-hegemonic pressures, the utilization of the State, always a secondary factor in the overall church/state partnership, towards such a religious end, an end having profound implications for the electorate should they decide to democratically exchange their worldly sovereignty for a sovereignty that will entitle them to become both godly and, where applicable, god-deferring to a degree and in a way that would not otherwise be possible.
21. For religious sovereignty would enable the People, the urban proletariat of either a Catholic or a Protestant denominational background (not to mention any other religious descent), to dispense with the 'old gods', the effectively 'dead gods' of their respective religious traditions to which they are, for the most part, 'dead' in any case, and have rights in relation to an order of godliness and heavenliness that lies beyond man in what has been called a cyborg futurity - though, in point of fact, such a 'futurity' is already superficially with us - in which God and Heaven become not merely more (relative to most) evolved in respect of transcendental meditation, but most evolved in respect of a synthetically artificial approach to both non-visionary and visionary afterlife experience which effectively 'resurrects the dead' and brings Eternity to pass as the norm for all those who have been saved to 'Kingdom Come', the context of a religiously sovereign People in a society in which a new type of Church, commensurate with what in previous texts has been called the triadic Beyond, was being served by a new type of State, commensurate with the administrative aside to the said Beyond, and to the express end of developing religion towards its logical conclusion in global universality and the 'overcoming of man' in the interests and from the standpoint of God, whose principal concern is the attainment of Heaven and thus the soulful redemption of sacred ego, a concern made somewhat easier and more lasting, one can believe, in relation to the cyborgization of human or, more correctly, post-human life (the urban proletariat) in the interests of a more synthetically artificial approach to the eternal welfare of the self, both in respect of the ego and the soul, the brain stem and the spinal cord, form and contentment, though always with the end of universal perfection in mind.
22. For, ultimately, even visionary afterlife experience, no matter how synthetically artificial, must bow to the non-visionary or purely unitive afterlife experience of the soul, else one will be encouraging a context of formal reincarnation where nothing but the discarnate vindication of divine truth in sublime joy should rightfully obtain in respect of the gradual progress of eternal life towards its universal peak in some further omega point set, beyond the earth, in space, in special space centres which will enable Heaven to be to its maximum and most authentic extent, and thus to contrast with its least evolved extent in regard to the cosmic manifestation of metaphysical sensibility which pertains to ringed planets like Saturn, whose gaseous 'haloes' correspond, I believe, to an externalized self germane to the cosmic context in general, one dominated or characterized not by what subjectively pertains to God the Father but, on the contrary, by what objectively pertains to Devil the Mother in metachemical sensuality, as germane to the stellar aspect of the Cosmos which rules a diabolic roost in free will.
23. However that may be, we who are instrumental in furthering God in the interests of Heaven, and thus sacred ego in the interests of eternal soul, God the Father in the interests of Heaven the Holy Soul, can have no truck with any manifestations of God and Heaven, much less the Devil and Hell, that fall short of their most evolved manifestations such that pertain not to man, still less to the metaphysically sensible aspects of either the Cosmos or nature, but to the coming Cyborg as the vehicle for the indefinite support and sustain of the self throughout Eternity, and which can only come to pass if the urban proletariat, the species of 'man' which is post-human and effectively post-humanist in character, opts for a properly transcendental destiny and thus comes into its religious own beyond the parameters of 'the world' to what has been described as the 'otherworldy' context of 'Kingdom Come', a 'Kingdom' in which the People, should they so elect at 'Judgement', or what has been social theocratically defined as the paradoxical election for religious sovereignty at the cross-roads between this world and the next, will be free of all gods, both genuine and false, but the God which pertains to the cyborgization of life to a heavenly end.
24. Yet they are only likely to so elect in countries where the Church is effectively hegemonic over the State and religious values accordingly take precedence over secular ones, in countries which, like Eire, have long been loyal to 'Mother Church' and thus to a diagonally rising bureaucratic-theocratic axis which contrasts with the diagonally-falling autocratic-democratic axis typifying those countries in which, like Britain (and England in particular), the State takes precedence over the Church, and state values accordingly count for more than religious ones.
25. Such a 'secular people' cannot be expected, short of a miracle, to vote for religious sovereignty; for they won't be encouraged or permitted to do so in the first place, since one can only anticipate a desire for religious sovereignty in societies not overly dominated by state-hegemonic values but still subject, in some degree, to a hegemonic Church the mission of which has been to prepare the 'faithful', whether or not this is taken to include the People generally, for the possibility of salvation in and through the Second Coming as and when 'Kingdom Come' is proclaimed in consequence of such a people being in a position to vote for religious sovereignty and thus paradoxically exploit the democratic process, under Church sanction and encouragement, to that end, an end which would not so much do away with the State and the Church as transmute them in respect of 'Kingdom Come', and thus with reference to what has been described as the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond for both Catholics and Protestants alike.
26. Therefore the urban proletariat that pertain to countries like Eire in which God and the Church effectively come first are not so atheistic that they would be unprepared or unqualified to paradoxically utilize the State to a religious end, but, on the contrary, can be expected to do so in view of their traditional loyalty to religious values and ongoing commitment to religion, one way or another, even in a secular age, or an age dominated by the sorts of state-hegemonic values that accrue to societies like Britain and America and would reduce the world to democratic profanity, making us all eat the fruit of 'the forbidden tree of knowledge' as a matter of dietary course, irrespective of how much better off people are when they put the soul food, as it were, of heavenly joy above the egocentric food of manly knowledge, whose earthly pleasures pale to insignificance before the inner splendour of unfettered soul.
27. But of course no matter how theoretically true the above statement may be, 'people' is a term that requires to be qualified in practice, since we are presupposing the right sort of people, a people who are God-fearing or God-believing in their bureaucratic-theocratic axial orientation, a people who are theocratically led by male hegemonic criteria rather than dominated, in autocratic vein, by female hegemonic criteria, a people who have an upper-class capacity by dint of some genetic or topographical feature which suggests that highland values are not altogether unrepresentative of their stock - in short, a people like the Gaels or Celts, and the Irish ones not least, who even now display a cultural propensity for the heights - witness Gaelic Football - which contrasts markedly with the lowlander mentality of Association Football, in which you can only score under the bar, not over it, and thus live the democratic alternative to theocratic freedom.
28. Of course, while climate and topography indubitably precede people, the people precede the culture that results from them, and therefore we cannot pretend that there is no ethnic or racial connection between what could be termed highlander values on the one hand, those of the Celts, and lowlander values on the other hand, those of the Anglo-Saxons and of the Anglo-Saxon nations in general. A people do not exist in the void but in response to certain conditioning factors, both physiological and psychological, which have made them what they are and continue so to do.
29. But Europe in general has been more characterized, it could be argued, by lowlander values than by highlander ones, which is why Paul was able to export a lower-class, or phenomenal, version of rebirth from sensuality to sensibility to Western Europe, making of the mass-volume progression from phallus to brain in vegetation (earth) a Christian salvation which could be said to contrast, in male terms, with anything appertaining to metaphysics, wherein a progression, or diagonal rise from sensuality to sensibility bisecting two contiguous class planes (in this instance the noumenal planes of time and space), from ears to lungs in air, as from the airwaves to the breath, outer air to inner air, would be the mode of salvation, or of achieving a sensible 'rebirth' at the expense of sensuality and thus of heathenistic values, ever dominated by a female hegemony 'on high', to a Christian or, in this instance, Buddhist-type end. For one of the main consequences of rising from ears to lungs, sequential time to spaced space, in metaphysics, would be the rejection of music, or something analogous, in favour of transcendental meditation, and thus of a male hegemony over females, now brought low as from spatial space in the eyes to repetitive time in the heart, whose under-plane subservience in respect of a beautiful approach to truth and a loving approach to joy would be the freely psychic concomitants of truth and joy 'on high'.
30. That, however, did not transpire, and even in so-called Celtic Christianity it is difficult to imagine a genuinely transcendentalist commitment to the supersession of ego by soul in Buddhist-like fashion when you bear in mind the extent to which such a highlander form of Christianity would still have been compromised by Old-Testament criteria and in no position to entirely break with the Judaic obstacle, ever fiery, to any such respiratory eventuality.
31. In short, Celtic Christianity would have been hamstrung by the Judaic aspects of Christianity which defer, in heathenistic vein, to a cosmic 'first mover' deemed responsible for creating the world and all that is naturally or humanly in it - the sort of 'Creator' that owes more, in stellar sensuality, to Devil the Mother than ever it does, in Saturnian sensibility, to God the Father, even if this sensual 'first mover', ever characteristic of sun- and star-drenched environments like that of the Middle East, happened to be called 'God' and to be worshipped as such.
32. Thus even before the Pauline form of Christianity that we recognize as Roman got the better of so-called Celtic Christianity, the latter would have been a long way short of being genuinely transcendentalist in view of the extent to which matters fundamentalist would still have clung to it in consequence of its having arisen in connection with the so-called Christian Bible, the greater part of which is manifestly Judaic in respect of the Old Testament and its Creator-worshipping heathenistic primitivity.
33. So, with the victory of Roman Catholicism over Celtic Christianity, it could be said that lowlander values gained the ascendancy, paradoxically, over highlander values in Europe, and with it a greater emphasis upon bureaucracy, upon Marianism, at the expense of theocracy, or some more mystical Christ who, for all the ideal intentions of the Celts, would not have achieved what we may believe his historical ancestor was unable to achieve in Palestine by dint of the extent to which Old-Testament Creatorism, ever steeped in fundamentalism, would have got in the way of a more-than New Testament humanism, a sort of pseudo-transcendentalism, and thus prevented any possibility of an authentic transcendentalism, which at the humankind level (as opposed to either the cosmic or natural levels) presupposes transcendental meditation, from coming properly to pass.
34. The legacy of that Biblical block on transcendentalism is still of course with us, since the Roman Catholic Church can do no better than defer to sin from a standpoint centred in verbal absolution for penitential contrition, and thus continue to pander to the sorts of lowlander values which have ever bedevilled Christianity and held it firmly to the earth, with its pessimistic interpretation of man as a sinful creature fallen from God and Heaven.
35. Doubtless such a 'sinful creature' could only be characterized by a bureaucratic mean which would seem, with 'Mother Church', to be if not exactly hegemonic then certainly very influential over anything theocratic, no matter how perversely compromised by lowlander criteria issuing from Paul and having a sort of intellectual fulcrum, in 'the word', that necessarily fights shy of anything centred, metaphysically, in the breath, for which the practice of transcendental meditation would be the more genuinely theocratic corollary.
36. Certainly Celtic Christianity might have put more emphasis upon self-development in meditative terms, but it would have been up against its Christian roots soon enough and inclined to intellectually modify the concept of 'meditative' accordingly, so that it was unlikely to depart all that far from the autocratic clutches of Jehovah, Who constrains all to worshipful subservience of the cosmic 'first mover' even when the emphasis, New-Testament wise, is bureaucratically placed upon the so-called 'Mother of God' as a phenomenal, or lower-class, order of 'first mover' germane to nature who conditions the 'faithful' to worship of Christ and thus hope in the resurrection from worldly sin to eternal life even as worldly sin most characterizes the bureaucratic context in which 'Mother Church' has its roots and man his nominally subordinate place under a female hegemony.
37. I say 'nominally' because there is still, even with Roman lowlander implications, a theocracy of sorts in situ diagonally 'on high' which offers consolation to the sinfully afflicted, as and when they repent of their sins and accept verbal absolution as a kind of surrogate grace which is the most they can expect while 'the world' still prevails and lower-class values accordingly take precedence over anything higher.
38. This surrogate grace is tailored, after all, to the phenomenal lowness which characterizes man as a sinful creature, and therefore it can only perpetuate a situation in which man calls the sinful shots and grace is only possible through an intermediary of God, a priestly representative of the Father, who forgives the sins of the confessee, provided he demonstrates or seems to demonstrate genuine contrition.
39. Whether the sinner is genuinely contrite and penitential is, of course, another matter, which - with due respect to God and/or God's intermediary - only he can really know about. But one nevertheless has reason to suspect his sincerity in view of the bureaucratic values generally prevailing within both 'the world' and the Church that ministers to and mirrors 'the world', and can do no better, as a rule, than accept sin and forgive it in all good faith.
40. Frankly, this is a situation that a more genuine theocracy would not condone; for it would be committed to genuine grace in the form of transcendental meditation or some synthetically artificial equivalent thereof, and could not allow grace to be overshadowed by sin in worldly vein. It would not be about forgiving sin, for such a liberal approach to theocracy simply perpetuates the world of the bureaucratically 'fallen', but rather about encouraging genuine grace through transcendentalism, the practice of some meditative technique likely to result in the redemption of ego in soul, and therefore it would look upon the forgiveness of sin as a Christian shortcoming and shortfall from authentic grace that could have no place in 'Kingdom Come', the long-term goal of which would be global unity in that transcendent universality which is neither Western, and effectively lowlander, nor Eastern, and effectively highlander, but a transmuted combination of each.
41. But it would also be concerned, this more genuine theocracy which I equate with Social Theocracy, to reinterpret transcendentalism in more synthetically artificial terms, so that measures were set in motion to push transcendentalism beyond the sort of Buddhist stage of upper-class humankind towards a stage in which afterlife criteria took precedence over the criteria of transcendentalism in temporal life, and precisely in relation to the gradual cyborgization of eternal life such that religious sovereignty would both permit and necessitate.
42. For transcendental meditation is all about transcending the ego in the soul, and thus achieving the redemption of self through perfect self-harmony whilst one is at one with the soul on the recoil from the spirit, or at one, in physiological terms, with the spinal cord on the recoil from the out-breath with which one had, perforce, identified one's ego, and such a oneness is only possible on an intermittent basis since one must, as a self-respecting ego, no matter how sacred, return to the physiological context of the brain stem soon enough in order to plunge anew, in the interests of self-transcendence, into the bound will and spirit of the relevant not-self, in this case the metaphysical sensibility of lungs and breath, before any prospect of a subsequent recoil in self-preservation to self more profoundly can be anticipated.
43. Therefore one is committed to a moral-virtuous-blessed-saved circle in metaphysical sensibility in which free ego is eclipsed by free soul via bound will and spirit without the soul being that which actually and permanently obtains. For there is obviously a difference between engaging with the soul via the ego to which one must necessarily return and literally being at one with the soul in the soul in consequence of death, when, if one has learnt to accommodate the soul during life, one can be expected to tally in the vicinity of the spinal cord rather than recoil from its inner or pure light to the visionary experience of the brain stem in respect of reincarnated ego.
44. Consequently the experience of timeless bliss in relation to the soul which the redeemed ego is granted through transcendental meditation can only be quite distinct from experience of the soul as such independently of the ego in connection with death, when afterlife experience ensues upon anything one might have experienced in life, and does so independently of either meditation or prayer or, indeed, thought in general. It does so as a matter of course, and is therefore not subject to some technique for bringing one closer to the soul whether (falsely) in terms of the prayerful ego or, more efficaciously, the relative transcendence of ego through respiratory meditation.
45. Therefore the afterlife experience is a permanent condition, for you cannot return to the ego from the soul to plunge anew into the relevant not-self when both the bound will and spirit of metaphysical sensibility, together with all other aspects of the body, are no longer functioning in consequence of the mortality of the flesh. You either accept the inner light of the soul, the spinal cord, or recoil to the visionary experience of the ego, the brain stem, wherein it could be said that you see Christ face to face as a shortfall from God or, rather, Heaven, since God does not pertain to the experience of joyful soul in the spinal cord but, rather, to the type of ego, avowedly sacred, which, though situated in the brain stem, is prepared to subordinate itself to the soul through techniques which bring one into closer harmony with it.
46. But even if the afterlife experience is permanent, it cannot be said with any certainty that it lasts for ever; for there is a distinction between something which achieves a mean in one type of posthumous experience or another and the indefinite duration of that experience for all eternity. Frankly, the prospects of afterlife experience lasting for ever are, it seems to me, extremely remote; for the self cannot be expected to last beyond however long it takes to, as it were, cannibalistically self-consume and effectively burn itself out, to recede from intense inner illumination to a pale shadow of its former posthumous condition, which may even be considerably shorter than how long it takes the corpse in general to decompose and be reduced to a skeleton, if not, eventually, to a pile of dust.
47. Therefore we cannot anticipate afterlife experience lasting for ever and ever, as though permanency, or the achievement of a consistent state of posthumous experience, was commensurate with indefinite duration. On the contrary, the chances are that this consistently visionary and/or non-visionary experience which we have identified with the Afterlife, as with afterlife permanence, will have 'run its course' long before the body in general has decomposed beyond the flesh, including the physiological bases of ego and soul in brain stem and spinal cord, to the level of mere skeletal remains.
48. And that, my readers, is why 'natural' afterlife experience, the experience that inexorably follows death (for males in particular), leaves something to be desired from the standpoint of eternity. For if it does not last for ever it is because it becomes subject to the limitations of the flesh upon which and with which it has co-existed as psyche since one's life first began and, like the flesh, must eventually wither away or peter-out and come to an eternity-defying end.
49. Therefore the Christian or Buddhist-type afterlife, whilst it may begin in the light, whether visionary or non-visionary (give and take an ethnically-conditioned progression or regression from one to the other), can only end in the darkness, the darkness of total decay and decomposition, of nothingness the other side of both bodily death and non-bodily afterlife experience - the one leading to the other but the latter likely to have burnt itself out before the former has reached the nadir of its decomposition and left nothing but a skeleton, subject to further decay, in which the remains of neither brain stem nor spinal cord would be found.
50. So much for natural life in both its temporal and so-called eternal manifestations! You are born, you live, you die, you live again (as a male) but not for ever, and then there is nothing, nada, nient, the void. What was, is no more. You are caught, species-wise, on the wheel of birth-life-death-rebirth-relife-redeath, and there is nothing, short of having yourself cremated, that you can do about it!
51. But, then, cremation is not particularly wise from a male point of view, since the chances must be pretty high that the life going on in 'eternity', the relife, as if were, of afterlife experience, would be capable of feeling, if it hadn't already 'run its course' and ceased to shine, whether purely or impurely, and therefore be capable of registering any external disturbance to its 'trip', which was being rudely if not barbarously 'gatecrashed' by crematorial flame and turned 'upon its head', turned upside down and effectively subverted in what might well be the most agonizing experience for the sentient self of excruciating torment, a torment effectively commensurate with hell, from which there was absolutely no escape.
52. Perish the thought! And yet one cannot rule out such a possibility, no matter how speculative it may be from the standpoint of the living. One cannot rule it out because it is unlikely that afterlife experience, particularly when soulful, or centred in the spinal cord, would be bereft of feeling, of a capacity to experience heavenly bliss, which would, after all, be the reward for a life dedicated to the salvation of the self in respect of the soul and thus of some meditation technique commensurate with transcendentalism.
53. And even the lesser afterlife experience of the egocentric in life, of the profane in ego who had subordinated soul to the pleasures associated with knowledge, even that, we may suppose, would be capable of registering any external disturbance to itself and of painfully experiencing the consequences.
54. Therefore cremation could be extremely unwise from a male point of view, since no self-respecting person would wish to suffer the excruciating consequences of having his 'trip', whether visionary or non-visionary, assailed by raging flames and torn apart in the most brutal fashion.
55. Therefore it is not the wise, the sensible, who opt for cremation but the foolish, the sensual, all those who, in life, had been too much under the hegemonic rule - in free societies whose freedom was more with regard to will and/or spirit than ego and/or soul - of females, and accordingly allowed themselves to be dominated by female criteria to the detriment if not, in some cases, effective exclusion of male values, not least in terms of respect for the concept of an Afterlife which comes from the free ego and/or soul, in Christian and Buddhist-like vein, of a sensibly-oriented society characterized by the lead and dominance of males.
56. Now while free females may not suffer unduly from cremation, given that their freedom is predominantly somatic, of will and/or spirit in either metachemical or chemical not-self, and that when they die it is the death of the body rather than the rebirth of the self, the mind, that most characterizes them, the same is unlikely to hold true of males. For even though they will have been paradoxically emphasizing will and/or spirit in free soma under hegemonic female pressures during life, they are still creatures for whom, contrary to females, psyche both precedes and, subatomically speaking, predominates over soma (as father over son in ratios of either more - relative to most - wavicles/less - relative to least - particles for masculine males or most wavicles/least particles for divine males), and who can expect the actuality of that fact or, rather, truth to kick-in sooner or later no matter how materialistic or realistic or otherwise sensually disposed they may consider themselves to be or to have been in life.
57. For you can be obliged, under female hegemonic pressures, to deny your self, your brain stem and/or spinal cord, your ego and/or soul, for the greater part of your diurnal existence, particularly if you happen to live in a society or country which encourages you to do so in the interests of free will and/or spirit. But at the end of the day you will still, short of a sex change (and perhaps even then) be male, and your actuality of psyche preceding and predominating over soma, self over not-self, will still be what most characterizes you as a male, whether you are consciously and/or subconsciously aware of it or not.
58. Frankly, it is difficult to the point of impossible to understand how a male could not be aware of this truth no matter how much he strives or is obliged to bury it and turn away from his self as though it were a figment of his imagination or of no account in consequence of the extent to which he had 'lost his head' not only to females but to female criteria generally. Males are males and females ... females, and different they remain, in life as in death.
59. Therefore a failure to identify a distinction between male and female criteria - all too typical of the amoral and liberally androgynous 'world' - can be a source of considerable error and misunderstanding, not least when, as a male, you are obliged to toe-a-female-line and knuckle under, as the saying goes, to manifestations of freedom which, by their very nature, can only suit females and ultimately prove detrimental to males.
60. Therefore when you live under free will and/or spirit in societies dominated by power and/or glory, by metachemical and/or chemical facts, you've potentially got a big problem as a male, because you will be expected to deny the ego and/or soul, and thus the form and/or contentment of physical and/or metaphysical truths, in the interests of free soma, which will be busily conditioning your psyche to acquiesce, contrary to its egocentric or psychocentric grain, in just such freedom.
61. Therefore since soul and ego are the enemies, from the female hegemonic standpoints, of free will and free spirit, they will be denied, and the subverted will-slavering soul that accrues id-wise to an antimetaphysical position under a metachemical hegemony characterized by free will, and the subverted spirit-slavering ego that accrues superego-wise to an antiphysical position under a chemical hegemony characterized by free spirit, will ensure that you are at cross-purposes with your gender actuality as a male and in no position to believe in or look forward to an Afterlife of reborn psyche in consequence.
62. So the prospects that you will almost blandly or complacently opt for cremation under a psyche-denying freely somatic lifestyle can only be greater than would be the case had you been freely egocentric or psychocentric most of your life in male hegemonic contexts and sufficiently self-respecting, in consequence, as to prefer burial in the expectation of either meeting the Saviour or God face to face, as it were, in the Afterlife.
63. Which, of course, accords with a sensible orientation in which Christian or some such religious criteria were more characteristic of how you approached life in a society that was the converse of anything freely somatic, a society characterized, rather, by male hegemonic criteria in which the female was put in her (subordinate) place and kept there, to the best of one's ability, in the interests of the male ideals of free ego and/or free soul and the triumph, in consequence, of form and/or contentment over their more natural, and sensual, enemies - glory and power, now reduced, in sensible vein, to bound manifestations of spirit and will which accord with what is blessed and virtuous, whether in primary (male) or secondary (female) terms.
64. And do so, remember, not as ends in themselves, but as the subordinate corollaries of the morality of free ego and the salvation of free soul, without which there cannot be any morality or salvation, as the case may be, much less genuine culture as a manifestation of free psyche for an individual who is not only properly cultural, but properly civil and thus civilized in the deference of bound soma, whether on primary (male) or secondary (female) terms, the former implying psychic grace and somatic wisdom, the latter psychic punishment - for a creature who is predominantly somatic - and somatic modesty.
65. Christ is reputed to have said that the 'poor in spirit' were blessed, and this is equivalent to saying that the antigiving of bound spirit is blessed, whereas free spirit, its sensual counterpart, is cursed, as, therefore, are what he might have called the 'rich in spirit', who are about sensual giving rather than sensible antigiving.
66. But spirit is only a mode of not-self, one issuing, in quantitative terms, from the will, and the 'poor in will' would be virtuous, since bound will is virtuous in its antidoing, the sensible antithesis of that will which is vicious in its freedom of action and therefore applicable to what could be called the 'rich in will', who are accordingly about sensual doing rather than sensible antidoing.
67. Reversing Christ's terminology, one could say that the 'rich in ego' are moral, which is equivalent to saying that the taking of free ego is moral, whereas bound ego, its sensual counterpart, is immoral, as, therefore, is what might be called the sensual antitaking of the 'poor in ego'.
68. But ego is only profane if falsely turned into an end in itself, as it tends to be by the overly physical, whom we may call 'pricks', whether consciously moralistic or not, and more significant from a divine standpoint are what Christ, rightfully scornful of egocentric wealth as an obstacle to the 'Kingdom of Heaven', might have called the 'rich in soul', who are saved, since free soul is the beingful salvation of the self, the sensible antithesis of that self whose soul is damned in its binding to free soma and therefore applicable to what could be called the sensual antibeing of the 'poor in soul'.
69. I do not approve, nor have ever admired, the 'poor in ego' or the 'poor in soul', for they have allowed themselves to be dominated by hegemonic female criteria to an extent which has rendered them subordinate before the 'rich in spirit' or the 'rich in will', neither of whom would be greatly partial to free ego or free soul in any case, since they strive to dominate and condition psyche from a freely somatic basis according with their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating (in either more - relative to most - particles/less - relative to least - wavicles or most particles/least wavicles) over psyche, and their ego is accordingly less consciously egocentric than superconsciously ego-eccentric in relation to free spirit and their soul less subconsciously psychocentric than unconsciously psycho-eccentric in relation to free will, both of which directly condition their psyche accordingly, making bound ego and soul mirror images of the impulsive supernaturalness of spirit and the instinctive unnaturalness of will.
70. Yet males are not by gender actuality 'poor in ego' or 'poor in soul', but are only made such under the dominance of the 'rich in spirit' and the 'rich in will' who constrain them from their rightful inheritance of being either 'rich in ego', i.e. sensibly partial to free ego, or 'rich in soul', i.e. sensibly partial to free soul, according as they are either preponderantly physical (and lower-class/lowlander) or preponderantly metaphysical (and upper-class/highlander) and able to condition the antichemical and the antimetachemical to either 'poverty of spirit' or 'poverty of will', as the elemental/class case may be.
71. I do approve, and even admire, the 'poor in spirit' and the 'poor in will', for they have allowed themselves to be conditioned by hegemonic male criteria to an extent which has rendered them subordinate to the 'rich in ego' or the 'rich in soul', neither of whom would be greatly partial to free spirit or free will in any case, since they strive to dominate and condition soma from a freely psychic basis according with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and predominating (in either more - relative to most - wavicles/less - relative to least - particles or most wavicles/least particles) over soma, and their spirit is accordingly less supernatural than natural in relation to free ego and their will less unnatural than subnatural in relation to free soul, both of which directly condition their soma accordingly, making bound spirit and will mirror images of the intellectual consciousness of ego and the emotional subconsciousness of soul.
72. However, from a gender standpoint, it could be argued that females are naturally the 'rich in spirit' and the 'rich in will' and only become somatically 'poor', or bound, under psychically free male hegemonic pressures which constrain them to emphasize ego or soul at the expense of spirit and will in the interests of a sort of overall psychic monism on either class basis, notwithstanding the distinctions between the primary (male) and secondary (female) manifestations of each.
73. Conversely, it could be argued that males are naturally or, rather, nurturally (by nurture) the 'rich in ego' and the 'rich in soul' and only become psychically 'poor', or bound, under somatically free female hegemonic pressures which constrain them to emphasize spirit or will at the expense of ego and soul in the interests of a sort of overall somatic monism on either class basis, notwithstanding the distinctions between the primary (female) and secondary (male) manifestations of each.
74. In the former case, either knowledge and pleasure directly conditioning, as primary free (physical) psyche, a knowledgeable approach to strength and a pleasurable approach to pride which, as primary bound (physical) soma, in turn conditions strength and pride to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antichemical) soma, in the strong approach to knowledge and proud approach to pleasure of secondary free (antichemical) psyche, or truth and joy directly conditioning, as primary free (metaphysical) psyche, a truthful approach to beauty and a joyful approach to love which, as primary bound (metaphysical) soma, in turn conditions beauty and love to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antimetachemical) soma, in the beautiful approach to truth and loving approach to joy of secondary free (antimetachemical) psyche.
75. In the latter case, either weakness and humility directly conditioning, as primary free (chemical) soma, a weak approach to ignorance and a humble approach to pain which, as primary bound (chemical) psyche, in turn conditions ignorance and pain to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antiphysical) psyche, in the ignorant approach to weakness and painful approach to humility of secondary free (antiphysical) soma, or ugliness and hatred directly conditioning, as primary free (metachemical) soma, an ugly approach to illusion and a hateful approach to woe which, as primary bound (metachemical) psyche, in turn conditions illusion and woe to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antimetaphysical) psyche, in the illusory approach to ugliness and woeful approach to hate of secondary free (antimetaphysical) soma.
76. Thus instead of a moral-virtuous-blessed-saved circle conditioning a virtuous-blessed-moral-saved circle, as in the aforementioned examples of male hegemonic sensibility, the examples of female hegemonic sensuality would attest to a vicious-cursed-immoral-damned circle conditioning an immoral-damned-vicious-cursed circle in which not primary and secondary manifestations of culture and civility but, on the contrary, primary and secondary manifestations of barbarity and philistinism duly obtained.
77. Therefore the only consequence of a female hegemonic society, or a society, in short, in which females have been liberated from somatic repression at the hands of psychically free males and are now free to impress soma (upon the self) as they desire, is the prosecution of all that is worst in life, from crime and evil in chemistry and metachemistry to folly and sin in antiphysics and antimetaphysics, as all that is vicious, cursed, immoral, and damned runs its barbarous and/or philistine course in primary (female) or secondary (male) terms.
78. Conversely, the only consequence of a male hegemonic society, or a society in which males have been liberated from psychic oppression at the hands of somatically free females and are now free to express psyche (at the expense of not-self) as they desire, is the furtherance of all that is best in life, from grace and wisdom in physics and metaphysics to modesty and punishment in antichemistry and antimetachemistry, as all that is moral, saved, virtuous, and blessed runs its cultural and/or civil course in primary (male) or secondary (female) terms.
79. Civilization can be balanced rather precariously between these two extremes or it can demonstrate a bias one way or the other, without ceasing to be worldly and effectively relative. But it can also demonstrably tip one way or the other on the scales of judgement, and thus revert to barbarism or progress to civility, revert to philistinism or progress to culture. The scales are always there in worldly society, but the judgement that indicates one bias or another will point to the most likely fate of any given society in the course of its unfolding for better or worse.
80. Societies that are typified by the descending autocratic-democratic axis of crime and punishment tend to see the world in terms of a correlative interpretation of black and white as tyranny and freedom from tyranny, but always with a bias for freedom which is implicitly if not explicitly democratic, so that their Weltanschauung is one which regards progress from a democratic point of view and is partial to the concept of freedom in democratic, though usually liberal democratic, terms.
81. Societies, by contrast, which are typified by the ascending bureaucratic-theocratic axis of sin and grace tend to view the world in terms of a correlative interpretation of black and white as worldliness and freedom from worldliness, but always with a bias for freedom which is implicitly if not explicitly theocratic, so that their Weltanschauung is one which regards progress from a theocratic point of view and is partial to the concept of freedom in theocratic, though usually liberal theocratic, terms.
82. No society is, as a rule, completely one thing or another, but most societies tend to be identifiable in regard to the predominance of one of the two axes which officially characterizes that society, country, nation, or whatever, as pertaining, when not unduly conservative and reactionary, to either a democratic or a theocratic interpretation of freedom, the one low and the other high.
83. The notion, however, that autocracy is black and democracy white may at first seem somewhat problematic, since autocracy would appear to correspond to an outer light and democracy to an inner darkness. But, in actuality, autocracy corresponds not primarily to the outer light but to a higher outer darkness which, as free will, is rooted in somatic force and causes soul to behave in a somewhat eccentric and effectively pseudo-expressive manner compatible with what I have called outer light, whereas democracy primarily corresponds to a lower inner light which, as free ego, is centred in psychic heat and causes spirit to behave in a somewhat concentric and effectively pseudo-impressive manner, so that as we proceed down the autocratic-democratic axis from noumenal objectivity to phenomenal subjectivity it is, in fact, fair to maintain that autocracy is primarily black and democracy primarily white, even if we allow secondary white and black features to each, since in overall terms the former corresponds to crime and the latter to punishment, with the one appertaining to the metachemical heights of the autocratic Few and the other to the physical depths of the democratic Many, albeit the physical depths are compromised by antichemical objectivity which twists the physical self against the metachemical not-self in anti-notself terms.
84. As regards the ascending axis of bureaucracy-theocracy, however, the metaphorical interpretation of bureaucracy as black and theocracy as white certainly corresponds to the primary distinction between sin and grace, the lower outer darkness of free spirit, which is rooted in the phenomenal objectivity of somatic motion and renders bound ego pseudo-expressive, and the higher inner light of free soul, which is centred in the noumenal subjectivity of psychic light and renders bound will pseudo-impressive, and therefore remains a valid perspective for distinguishing worldliness from otherworldliness, or anti-self behaviour from pro-self behaviour, with the former appertaining to the chemical depths of the bureaucratic Many and the latter to the metaphysical heights of the theocratic Few, albeit the chemical depths are compromised by antiphysical subjectivity which twists the chemical not-self against the metaphysical self in anti-self terms.
85. Of course, the notion of democracy as white in relation to autocracy as black, though logically sustainable in that democracy does strive to extend freedom of expression at the expense of what its adherents prefer to call tyranny, or unconstitutional monarchy, authoritarianism, despotism, etc., has less to do with the self than with being either pro-notself in the case of autocracy or anti-notself in the case of democracy, which is accordingly in opposition to a mode of fiery freedom pertaining to metachemical soma as an impression, in a higher order of outer darkness, of force upon light, will upon soul, and precisely from the standpoint of freedom from such higher outer darkness in the vegetative lower inner light of physical psyche which egocentrically represses motion, or spirit, in order to oppose force.
86. However, the opposition of democracy to autocracy is not one that does away with the reality of a hegemonic state but, rather, transfers the not-self reality of state hegemony from the Few to the Many, as from the (not-self affirming) criminality of the higher outer darkness to the (not-self rejecting) punishingness of the lower inner light, as though in a descent from Henry VIII to Oliver Cromwell and what has since stemmed from his parliamentary victory over the royalists in terms of the liberalism of parliamentary democracy.
87. Therefore the diagonal descent from autocracy to democracy, though significant of a 'progression' from higher outer darkness to lower inner light, from the 'black' of force to the 'white' of heat, remains indicative of a state-hegemonic aberration which removed the State from subservience to the Church and turned it into a free entity which would henceforward subordinate the Church to itself, meaning principally the types of Church commensurate with free autocracy (initially) on the one hand and free democracy (subsequently) on the other hand, neither of which would or ever could be Roman Catholic but, rather, Anglican in the one case and Puritan in the other, and thus paradoxical falsehoods designed for the benefit of a fundamentally corrupt society.
88. That subject was, of course, dealt with in my last text, so I shall not repeat myself here. The terms I then used, though hardly conventional, were highly efficacious in highlighting the underlying moral distinctions between state hegemonic and church subordinate societies on the one hand, and church hegemonic and state subordinate societies on the other hand, the former of course germane to the descending autocratic-democratic axis in respect primarily of 'frigg*** jerks' and 'sodd*** pricks', the latter germane to the ascending bureaucratic-theocratic axis in respect primarily of 'fuck*** cunts' and 'snogg*** bums', with 'snogg*** jerks' and 'fuck*** pricks' being no less paradoxically church subordinate to the one context than 'sodd*** cunts' and 'frigg*** bums' state subordinate to the other.
89. So, of course, it is hardly credible to suppose that one could make a positive, or church-hegemonic, case out for, say, 'sodd*** pricks' at the expense of 'fuck*** pricks', nor for 'frigg*** jerks' at the expense of 'snogg*** jerks', even though the former in the first category would be in democratic opposition to the former in the second category, like punishment to crime, and the latter in the second category would more likely despise the latter in the first category, whose pseudo-sin left something to be desired from the more elevated standpoint of pseudo-grace.
90. Be that as it may, the overall reality of 'jerks' and 'pricks' is one of state freedom and church binding, of a hegemonic autocratic or democratic state and a subordinate aristocratic or plutocratic church, and neither context commends itself to the self-respecting, nor even, where sin is paramount, to the self-abusing. Rather, they are significant, relative to the respective concerns of 'cunts' and 'bums', of a regressive aberration, one that brought the not-self to prominence at the expense of the self, so that even democracy, contrary to what normally passes as gospel, has no business pluming itself as the epitome of progress and enlightenment - not even when it takes a Social Democratic turn and probably least of all then, whether on extra-parliamentary or state totalitarian terms.
91. For Social Democracy is the nadir of state hegemonic regression in which authoritarianism is paradoxically resurrected in the guise of state totalitarianism, and the People are crushed by and in the name of manual labour, democracy becoming ever more pseudo as neo-autocratic factors, duly transmuted, illuminate the inner darkness of the masses with a sort of outer light that is ever dictatorial in character, and thus germane to a People's autocracy.
92. Fortunately, most democratic societies, more partial in any case to non-manual or mental (clerical) work, are determined to prevent such a paradoxical situation from ever coming to pass, and there are now many instances of countries which have retreated from their various interpretations of Social Democracy to a liberal mean, thereby joining those societies which have maintained a pluralist bias in the face of communistic temptation or opposition, and which accordingly conceive of freedom primarily in liberal democratic terms.
93. But in a state hegemonic context they are quite naturally going to struggle with the concept of theocratic freedom, and therefore tend to underestimate or discard it as largely irrelevant - a quite understandable if somewhat regrettable position in view of the extent to which an autocratic-democratic axis, regressively descending from the objective Few to the subjective Many, disqualifies one, or any such society, from taking the bureaucratic-theocratic alternative, which progressively ascends from the objective Many to the subjective Few, all that seriously.
94. And yet that is precisely what one has to do if one is to have any prospect of Social Theocracy, the otherworldly counterpart to Social Democracy, and thus be in with a chance of deliverance from worldly sin to otherworldly grace on a more or less permanent and representative basis commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', so that theocracy is liberated from an effective subservience to bureaucracy and becomes the self-oriented mean, a mean which is only possible if something more genuinely transcendentalist is exchanged for the world-deferring pseudo-transcendentalism of verbal absolution for penitential contrition, and exchanged not simply on a humankind basis of transcendental meditation, as though in conversion to Buddhism, but with a cyborg-oriented intent that brings synthetic artificiality to bear on self-cultivation in what would be the most appropriate redemption of the urban proletariat as and when they opted to democratically embrace religious sovereignty and duly gravitated from their post-modern, post-human(ist) status in what must be a correlatively post-worldly mode of synthetic artificiality to one commensurate with the eternal cyborg of 'Kingdom Come', in which transcendentalism would be freed from the remaining clutches of humanism, not to mention human beings, and be permitted to develop to its logical extent in relation to global universality.
95. For one cannot envisage Social Theocracy replacing liberal theocracy, the theocracy of, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, except in respect of global civilization and thus the transcendence of both West and East in the interests of a universality that was not merely more (relative to most) evolved in relation to the transcendental meditation of Buddhist humankind, still less pseudo in relation to the humanized transcendentalism or, more correctly, transcendentalized humanism of Christianity (for humanized transcendentalism is precisely the Buddhist mean), but most evolved in relation to the cyborgization of what remained of mankind in terms of the post-human(ist) urban proletariat, who are of course a global phenomenon in their windy-city cosmopolitanism.
96. The only thing, therefore, that guarantees that the West can no longer sit on a Christian fence and the East on a Buddhist one, if not something lesser than or even contrary to Buddhism, is the ongoing development of globalization and the prospect, in consequence, of higher values obtaining for people of Western descent than would otherwise be possible, even if many of them would still be fated to accept a less than fully transcendentalist mode of Social Theocracy in view of the hierarchical predestination of some to the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond and others to the middle and bottom tiers, according to denominational entitlement (as described in previous texts).
97. But if there would be many in the West who would mount higher in relation to Social Theocracy than had been their ancestral case in relation to Roman Catholicism (quite apart from the transformations to which persons of Anglican and Puritan descent would be subjected), there would also be many in the East who, within the framework of global civilization, of ethnic universality, would if not mount higher then either proceed further along, with respect to synthetically artificial transmutations of transcendentalism, or cross over, if they were not already sensible, from alpha to omega, as from cosmos- and/or nature-based Creatorism to the ultimate creations that would permit religion to peak in universal independence not only of man but of nature and the Cosmos as things became ever-more cyborg-orientated in the interests of granting to the self, the brain stem and spinal cord, its maximum protection and longevity, to ensuring, in other words, that the self was truly in eternity and not merely subject to the mortality of the flesh as before, as of old, with an afterlife of somewhat truncated or restricted duration the only logical concomitant of the natural decay and decomposition of the flesh.
98. But, of course, such cyborgization of the urban proletariat would take time, money, and considerable expertise, and only be possible on a gradual basis such that was unable to prevent people from dying if even still subject, in 'Kingdom Come', to enhanced levels or degrees of synthetic artificiality. Therefore until cyborgization became truly universal, premised upon a global transformation of society in general, steps would have to be taken to ensure that the dead, or those who continued to die (which in theory might include everyone), were given the next best thing to indefinite duration in a cyborg eternity - namely, space centre mortuaries or vaults wherein their 'natural' afterlife experience would be granted every encouragement to be as transcendentalist, and therefore soul-affirming, as possible, and precisely because it would take place, on the back of a more meditative disposition in society as a whole, at a gravity-defying transcendent remove from the Earth such that compared more than favourably with the mundane worldliness of earthly burial - always likely to result in a Christian or, rather, Christic shortfall from heavenly afterlife experience anyway - and contrasted most markedly with the afterlife-denying cremation of corpses which these days more than ever is the norm for a godless society, or a society which, even when it proclaims belief in God, or what it conservatively prefers or chooses to regard as God, behaves to the contrary under female hegemonic criteria and treats people as though they were all equal under what would in fact be the Devil, which is to say, to life as characterized, in particular, by a metachemically somatic interpretation of freedom that left no room for free psyche and the possibility, in consequence, of afterlife experience whether visionary or non-visionary, of a physical or a metaphysical order.
99. The last thing a sensibly-oriented free society would want, on the other hand, would be to have afterlife experience, even when 'natural', or proceeding as a matter of inner necessity independently of synthetic stimulation, first rudely interrupted and then barbarously terminated by raging flame during the incineration of the corpse, which is only the mortal, or bodily, aspect of a dead person. For while that is not necessarily what would happen in the case of females, especially those who had been most somatically free in life and therefore least likely to experience any afterlife at all, the prospects of even 'heathenistic' males, habituated to living under a female shadow, escaping some intense discomfiture of self, of illuminated brain stem and/or spinal cord, in consequence of their gender actuality being the converse of females can only be pretty slim, and consequently it would not be a wise man or a wise society that opted for cremation when other options were possible or in the process of being developed.
100. But the development of a transcendentalist alternative to the humanism of Christian burial presupposes a more genuinely transcendentalist dimension in religion, as in society as a whole, and that of course presupposes the sort of omega-oriented Truth that only globalization can enable society to embrace at the expense, in general terms, of both Western burial and Eastern crematorial traditions alike, so that, with Social Theocratic guidance, society could progress towards an enhanced respect for the Afterlife which owed more to transcendentalism than to humanism without the pitfalls or paradoxically self-destructive tendencies so often characterizing the East, not least in respect of funeral pyres and an undue respect, bordering on the most fatal fundamentalism, for the Cosmos as a predominantly fiery context.
101. But of course America, as a superficial manifestation of and extrapolation from the West, is also given to cremation, if on a rather more synthetically artificial basis than has typified, say, India traditionally, and it must be said that America is often less Christian than heathenistic in its approach to life, one overlapping with and even indistinguishable at times from certain Middle Eastern and Far Eastern traditions, like Judaism and Hinduism, so that it seems that its Biblical bias is distinctly towards the Old Testament.
102. There is, in fact, about America a strong suggestion of upper-class alpha, of metachemical objectivity, of perpendicular triangularity, of death worship, of disposable culture, of a triadic (or triangular) approach to corporal punishment, of something, in sum, which is profoundly un-Western or, at any rate, West European in character, so that one wonders whether its political system isn't rather un-European in character too, apparently democratic but fundamentally a sort of pluralistic autocracy the presidential executive of which is not incompatible with responsibilities associated with being commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces.
103. Frankly, I am quite prepared to believe that, compared to Britain and even France, America is less a liberal democracy, whether parliamentary or republican, than a sort of liberal autocracy which stands to Britain and France, though especially Britain, in a somewhat overshadowing role analogous to the higher outer darkness vis-à-vis the lower inner light of an autocratic-democratic axis. America may speak of democracy, and the virtues of freedom conceived in democratic terms, but its actions suggest something rather more autocratic in character, if with a pluralistic or, more accurately, dualistic essence.
105. Therefore America values somatic freedom above every other kind of freedom, with a bias, in its noumenally objective and effectively upper-class alpha, for metachemistry, for fieriness, for the stellar aspect of the Cosmos (to which the 'stars and stripes' quite naturally or deferentially lends itself), and thus for an explosive culture not the least potent aspect of which is film. If Britain - and England in particular - is a country politically congenial to 'pricks', given its physical orientation within a parliamentary democracy that nevertheless answers quite paradoxically to antichemical pressures from subordinate females in consequence of its own metachemically autocratic traditions still being very much extant, then America is the land where the 'jerk' is top-dog and 'frigging' criteria take jazzy precedence over anything 'sodding', not to mention, from a bureaucratic-theocratic perspective, anything 'fucking' or 'snogging'.
106. Therefore the American view of the world, as of life, is one in which the 'jerk' should be free to do his 'frigging' thing within the bounds of a pluralistic political structure which, whilst it might have the appearance of being democratic, is fundamentally autocratic and ranged against democracy, not only democracy in its parliamentary mode, which embraces a left-wing orientation, but more especially the extra-parliamentary republican democracy which we have generically termed Social Democracy and hold to be both pseudo-democratic and neo-autocratic, since it resurrects the higher outer darkness in dictatorial pursuance of state totalitarianism, and such a forceful darkness, causing the higher outer light of bound soul to shed its pseudo-aristocratic radiance upon the lower inner darkness of an earthly proletariat, a lumpen proletariat, effectively if not literally blue-collar, cannot but prove problematic to the American version of autocracy which, besides being pluralistic, is profoundly capitalistic in respect of the exploitation of somatic freedom to a metachemically powerful and/or chemically glorious end.
107. Frankly, the anti-capitalist co-operative rhetoric of Social Democracy is anathema to a system whose enterprise is rooted in the exploitation of a metachemically free soma to a corporate capitalist end and which is intensely competitive in consequence. Therefore, unlike France and even Britain, America will feel compelled to forcefully go for the throat of any country which resists its cultural influence in the name of Social Democratic values; for to such a country attack is the best defence, America being fundamentally extreme right-wing and therefore the natural, one might say born, enemy of the democratic Extreme Left, though I dare say that even theocratically extreme-left peoples and individuals, not to mention their liberal counterparts, would feel less than secure in a world dominated by American values.
108. Britain and France, on the other hand, being sensibly democratic, I might even say properly democratic, have both a parliamentary Left and an extra-parliamentary Extreme Left to consider, and would not rush in where angels fear to tread, no matter how weary of Social Democracy they might be in respect of their respective liberal democratic interests and traditions. But Britain, having a stronger and freer autocratic tradition than France, one which even now is still very much part of the overall autocratic-democratic equation, has a tendency to 'look up', if paradoxically, to America, language and cultural ties notwithstanding, and allow itself to be bewitched and even dominated by America to an extent which it would be difficult to imagine applying to any other country, including France.
109. Such a cultural fatality on the part of Britain towards America weakens its own democratic instincts in respect of the punishment of crime as it comes under the shadow of American culture and the obsession with crime which characterizes America as a metachemically free nation, thereby shooting itself in the foot and further undermining its democratic freedom, something which, in the right circumstances, I would have no problem with, but which in relation to the autocratic pluralism of America one can hardly view as an improvement!
110. Therefore the Anglo-American alliance is not only bad for Britain, it is bad for the world in general; for it makes America stronger and all the more ready to throw its weight about at the expense of weaker or more sensible nations, while simultaneously making Britain more of an autocratically-subverted problem for its European neighbours, most of whom are decidedly more bureaucratic-theocratic in character, and therefore less well-disposed towards the sexual and other perversions so typifying the state-hegemonic aberrations of the two Western countries in the modern world which are most removed from the rising axis in question, and therefore most problematic from the standpoint of self.
111. Even France is less state hegemonic than Britain, given its Catholic traditions and the inability or unwillingness even of the most executive of republican presidents to discard the feelings and teachings of the Church in matters of grave importance. There may be a struggle, amounting to something of a tradition, in France between republicans and Catholics, conservatives and radicals, but the fact of France being a fundamentally Catholic nation cannot be totally discarded from considerations relating to the freedom of the State which, despite official rhetoric, is qualified, not unqualified, and would be a disgrace to itself were it to be totally independent of the Church and no better, in consequence, than a radical Social Democracy. France remains a liberal republic not because it continues to compromise with autocracy, which is much less institutionally significant in France than in monarchic Britain, but because it is unable or unwilling to completely sever ties with the Catholic Church, no matter how conservative the bureaucratic aspect of that Church may happen to be.
112. For once you server ties with the Church through Social Democracy, through undue state freedom culminating, it may be, in outright totalitarianism, you put yourself beyond the possibility of theocratic redemption not only in and through the verbal absolution for penitential contrition of the Catholic confessional, but, more significantly from the standpoint of genuine grace, through the possible deliverance of theocracy from bureaucratic constraint which Social Theocracy, as germane, so I have argued, to 'Kingdom Come', is designed to further. In such fashion you would be deprived not only of hope for the future, but of that ultimate liberation which is commensurate with eternity and an end to the sinful mean of 'the world'. In short, that ultimate mode of left-wing freedom which, to repeat, can only be social theocratically ranged against 'the world' from an otherworldly vantage-point led and characterized, in subjectively upper-class vein, by eternal values.
113. France is not of course Eire, and therefore there are and will, for the foreseeable future, continue to be differences in respect of the relationship between Church and State, but even Napoleon Bonaparte was unable, as a military dictator, to completely undermine the Church in consequence of the alleged collusions between papal bureaucracy and monarchic autocracy which when once autocracy was undermined in the State only retreated into the Church where it lay low, biding its time and supporting the defence of the Church from undue state impositions or threats of a radically democratic nature.
114. To suggest, from a democratic standpoint, that that was therefore the best possible reason to oppose the Church would only be to compound the error of undue state freedom and make what is already a tricky if not paradoxical situation much worse; for the freer the State endeavours to become, the more will ultra-conservative elements within the Church struggle to resist it, and with a vengeance! France is not Britain, still less America, and were France to become genuinely state hegemonic in either Protestant or communist fashion it would be a tragedy for French culture and civilization and, above all, for the Church which made such culture and civilization, or civility, possible and may yet make a better future possible in the event, at some appropriate time, of church backing for a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to a freely theocratic end, the sort of end which, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, would enable the People to transcend the Catholic Church through the Social Theocratic Centre and climb beyond the parameters of 'the world' to the otherworldly heights of 'Kingdom Come'.
115. For, unlike Social Democracy, which can only reduce people to the lowest-common-collective-denominator in earthly submission before a despot, Social Theocracy will have the ability and intent to raise people, bit by bit, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, towards the highest-common-individual-denominator of heavenly redemption in which the religiously sovereign People would have rights in respect of synthetically-artificial self-development such that would bring them ever nearer, through progressive cyborgization, to a definitive manifestation of God and Heaven, and take them ever further from the Great Lie of the Devil and Hell hyped as God and Heaven which is the Old Testament Creatoresque obstacle to Truth which, even now, is swallowed unequivocally in certain countries that have a vested interest in dominating the world from just such a lying perspective and thereby precluding its universal development towards a maximum of truth and joy, sanctity and sublimity, grace and holiness, godly taking and, above all, heavenly being, while yet using the terminology of religion in respect of the most hidebound autocratic conservatism, a conservatism which makes even the bureaucratic conservatism of 'Mother Church' seem comparatively liberal.
116. We who struggle against the Lie will be 'beast' to its power-obsessed exponents; but we should also know that the only real beast - apart from the more obvious Social Democratic one who revels in homosexual darkness - is he or, rather, she who, in bitch-like diabolical vein, opposes Truth and the evolutionary development of God in the interests of a noumenal freedom which is not metaphysically psychic but metachemically somatic, and therefore rooted, stellar-wise, in the Cosmos, as that which is most representatively cosmic and therefore germane not to God the Father but to Devil the Mother. Rest assured that the universal, when it properly emerges, will be nothing like the cosmic, nor even the natural or human, but completely transcendent and therefore as far removed from the Eternal Death at the roots of the Cosmos as it is divinely possible to be.
117. Such a universal removal of transcendence, commensurate with Eternal Life at its most evolved manifestation, from polyversal fundamentalism will be the destiny of the urban proletariat when once they democratically opt for religious sovereignty and put themselves upon the path that leads from post-historical post-humanity and post-modernity in post-egocentricity to the optimum eternal divinity and sublimity in psychocentricity of the definitive Cyborg, come the omega point of universal perfection.
118. For only through the gradual cyborgization of post-human(ist) life will eternity attain to its ultimate omega point, an omega point of beingful supremacy in the evolutionary subjectivity of metaphysical sensibility which will be not merely least evolved, as in the metaphysically sensible aspect of the Cosmos, nor less (relative to least) evolved, as in the metaphysically sensible aspect of nature, nor even more (relative to most) evolved, as in the metaphysically sensible aspect of humankind, but most evolved, and therefore of a per se order of universality which will leave such manifestations of it as accrue to planets like Saturn, winged seed-pods on certain tall trees, and transcendental meditation decidedly in its wake as it heads, calmly and gracefully, towards its optimum manifestation in the most supreme being of a synthetically artificial mode of transcendentalism which will grant to the self, the brain stem and spinal cord of ego and soul, their immortal reward in an afterlife that will never end but remain eternally valid, as the self is saved by the soul to the timeless bliss of heaven.
LONDON 2003 (Revised 2011)