metaphysical philosphy

 

 

Op. 128

 

LITERATURE AND THE INTERCARDINAL AXIAL COMPASS

 

Metaphysical Philosophy

As revised weblog material by John O’Loughlin

 

 

Copyright © 2008-2010 John O’Loughlin

___________________

 

CONTENTS

 

1.                Defining What I Write

2.                Bootlegs and Shoelegs

3.                Never Simply Black and White

4.                The Ratios of Positivity to Negativity according to Class/Element for each Gender

5.                Examining Play and Work in relation to Freedom and Binding

6.                Freedom and Determinism – A False Dichotomy

7.                The Truth about Being

8.                The Distinction between Beauty and Truth

9.                An Axial Dichotomy Examined

10.           The Relationships of Psychology to Physiology and vice versa

11.           Problem with ‘the People’

12.           Choppers and Jump Jets

13.           Philosophers and Artists in Proper Perspective

14.           St George and the Dragon

15.           Sartorial Parallels to St George and the Dragon do not Change Places

16.           Metachemical Morality and quasi-Metachemical Immorality

17.           Metaphysical Morality and quasi-Metaphysical Immorality

18.           Chemical Morality and quasi-Chemical Immorality

19.           Physical Morality and quasi-Physical Immorality

20.           Life as Self-Overcoming

21.           From Hell’s Angels to Heaven’s Demons

22.           Why Evil conditions Crime and Grace conditions Wisdom

23.           Ale and Stout

24.           Stout and Brown Ale vis-à-vis Light Ale and Lager

25.           On the Subject of Blessedness

26.           Literature and the Intercardinal Axial Compass

 

____________________

 

 

DEFINING WHAT I WRITE

 

Although I have a number of weblog sites, including at searchwarp.com, blogger.com, myspace, and yuwie, most of my writing tends to revolve around philosophy or, at least, my philosophical ideas and ideals. Frankly, I don't much like the term 'philosophy' because it suggests a knowledge-oriented shortfall from the sort of Truth-oriented material I normally write and should therefore be taken provisionally, as a concession to common usage rather than as an accurate definition for my type of writing.

 

If one were to be pedantic about it, I suspect that philological knowledge vis-à-vis philosophical pleasure would suffice for a kind of ego/soul distinction in physics, or the vegetative realm of man, whereas theological truth vis-à-vis theosophical joy would suffice for a kind of ego/soul distinction in metaphysics, or the airy realm of God.

 

Therefore, since most of my mature writings happen to be metaphysical, a better definition of them would be theological/theosophical, with but a smattering of philology/philosophy, as and when I stoop to something physical and merely humanistic.

 

Most of the time, thank God, I am transcendentalistic, and therefore anything but earthy.

 

 

BOOTLEGS AND SHOELEGS

 

If 'bootlegs' are illicit recordings usually of a low calibre simply because they were done independently of the record company by someone in the audience or whatever using a hidden microphone, then one could infer that recordings made officially, whether live or in the studio, were 'shoelegs' by comparison, since less crude and correspondingly more refined, standing higher in the social scale than those who normally wear boots or make what are called 'bootleg' recordings.

 

But even if such a term implies a boot-like lowness and/or crudity compared to professionally-made recordings, it could be argued that all so-called heavy metal recordings are effectively bootleg whether official or unofficial, since how can anything so heavy and 'low', in the sense of weighted down, be equated with 'shoelegs'?

 

I am of course being facetious, but then why should one always believe that professional recordings are 'shoeleg', or something of the sort, just because illicit ones are 'bootleg'? I am confident there are occasions when such descriptions could be comfortably reversed, so to speak.

 

 

NEVER SIMPLY BLACK AND WHITE

 

It is always tempting to see things in black and white or, shall we say, bright and dark, light and shade, but unfortunately things are rarely that simple! For a start, there are two axes, one dominated by free soma in female fashion and stretching from northwest to southeast of the intercardinal axial compass, and the other led by free psyche in male fashion and stretching from southwest to northeast of the said compass, and therefore there are fundamentally two kinds of bright and dark, or light and shade, even without class complications.

 

Take metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Free soma, the female ideal, is a brightness, whilst its bound psychic counterpart is somewhat of a dark shadow, trailing behind the leading string, as it were, like ugliness and hatred behind, or in back of, beauty and love.

 

Therefore a somatic brightness has to be contrasted, in each gender case (though I have concentrated solely on metachemistry), with a psychic darkness.

 

The same is true of chemistry over antiphysics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, free soma being bright and bound psyche dark, like strength and pride vis-à-vis weakness and humility (at least where chemistry is concerned).

 

But on the sensible side of the moral divide things are quite otherwise! There free psyche is bright and bound soma dark, whether in terms of physics over antichemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where the one corresponds to knowledge and pleasure and the other to ignorance and pain (to concentrate on physics alone) or, up above, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at its northeast point, where truth and joy correspond to what is bright and illusion and woe to the shadow of that metaphysical brightness (excluding once again the subordinate gender position from fear of overcomplicating the text). The bright side of a male hegemonic coupling is certainly psychic, whilst its dark side, corresponding to the bound, is somatic.

 

This has some interesting, if quite unconventional, moral ramifications, but I don't wish to enlarge upon that now. Suffice it to say that things are never simply black and white, least of all in terms of evil being somehow dark and good bright (the reverse is actually the case, since the one corresponds to metachemical free soma and the other to antichemical bound soma).

 

A distinction between the dark and the bright most certainly exists, and at all points of the intercardinal axial compass, but it is not simply in terms of soma being dark and psyche bright, or vice versa. That is why, with both the female ideal of free soma and the male ideal of free psyche corresponding to the bright side of things, one has a moral incompatibility between them which is no mere black/white dichotomy but a competition between alternative kinds of brightness that is likely to lead to different types of society, depending on which kind is officially encouraged and regarded as alone right, and to keep those who believe in the one kind quite separate from those who believe in the other, both within and without their particular society.

 

For mutually incompatible, as free females and free males, they indubitably remain, as, in a corresponding sense, does Britain and Eire.

 

 

THE RATIOS OF POSITIVITY TO NEGATIVITY ACCORDING TO CLASS/ELEMENT FOR EACH GENDER

 

People speak rather glibly of 'bitches' as something bad, but fail to appreciate that life could not prevail if people were wholly negative and of a character likely to bitch. Arguments tend to be the exception to the rule and so, too, do wars. People are more positive than negative, for how else could life survive and continue to prosper?

 

Exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding, we cannot even contend with any credibility that females are more negative than males, at least not in terms of the ratio of positive to negative factors. What does seem to be the case is that there are female elements, viz. metachemistry and chemistry, or, in simple parlance, fire and water, and male elements, viz. physics and metaphysics, or, again, earth (vegetation) and air, the former pair primary and the latter secondary, and that the ratio of positive to negative tends to remain fairly consistent with a given class or elemental position, be it female or male.

 

To generalize in terms of 'upper' and 'lower', or noumenal and phenomenal, class and/or elemental positions is to allow for a distinction, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, between the absolute and the relative, the former having a 3:1 ratio of positive to negative and the latter a 2½:1½  ratio of positive to negative, whether in soma or psyche, with regard to particles or wavicles.

 

So in metachemistry, for instance, there will tend to be three times as much positive as negative or, in other words, three times as much beauty and love in free soma as ugliness and hatred in bound psyche. Conversely, in metaphysics, which is a male noumenal element, there will tend to be three times as much truth and joy in free psyche as illusion and woe in bound soma.

 

For positivity is free and negativity bound, whether in soma or psyche, and freedom is invariably brightly supreme rather than darkly primal.

 

Likewise in chemistry, which is a female phenomenal element, there will tend to be two-and-a-half times to one-and-a-half times as much positive as negative, with, say, strength and pride corresponding to the former and weakness and humility (if not humiliation) to the latter. Conversely, in physics, which is a male phenomenal element, there will tend to be two-and-a-half times to one-and-a-half times as much positive as negative, with knowledge and pleasure corresponding to the former and ignorance and pain to the latter.

 

Therefore whether one is a sensual bitch or indeed a sensible bastard, the positive tends, other factors notwithstanding, to prevail over the negative, and one has to admit that even the most committed of bitches can be three times as much beauty and love as ugliness and hatred, the most committed of bastards three times as much truth and joy as illusion and woe.

 

Down below, in the phenomenal realms of men and women generally, things are, admittedly, less clear-cut and corresponding less positive. But positivity still generally and even naturally prevails over negativity, and strength and pride do consequently prevail over weakness and humility, their male counterparts knowledge and pleasure likewise generally prevailing over ignorance and pain.

 

Normally people are perceived as this or that, bitch or bastard, according to a momentary circumstance, a show of negativity in one form or another. But that fails to take account of the general picture, just as the ascription of 'tramp' to someone who is perceived on their feet fails to take into account the necessity of his being, at other times, someone who sits on his backside and could be regarded, in consequence, as a 'bum'.

 

Therefore just as people tend, when down on their luck, to be both tramps and bums, so they are both positive and negative, free and bound, whether in or out of luck. In fact, beauty and love are no less characteristic of the noumenally free 'bitch' than ugliness and hatred of the noumenally bound one, who in any case is likely to be the same person under different circumstances.

 

And what applies to the metachemical female applies no less to her chemical counterpart, whose strength and pride will naturally take precedence over or have the better of weakness and humility. The 'dark side', which always corresponds to binding, is less prevalent than the brightness that normally - and supremely - obtains, for males no less than females, and we simply do an injustice to ourselves, and thus to life, when we fail to appreciate this fact.

 

Few men would prefer ignorance and pain to knowledge and pleasure, and yet we live in times when, through ignorance or commercial expedience, darkness is treated as though it were entirely independent of the brightness which more generally obtains and is even, in some sense, more influential and pervasive than the latter.

 

But the 'dark side' is even less prevalent in metaphysics, and hence with noumenal males, than with their phenomenal counterparts, and truth and joy are likely to get the better of illusion and woe as free psyche of bound soma to a near absolute degree, which is to say, on something approaching a 3:1 ratio.

 

There are, however, two sets of paired elemental contexts, axially conditioned and both phenomenal, where the dark is traditionally granted more emphasis than the light or the bright side, and these are with physics over antichemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass and with chemistry over antiphysics at its southwest point, and all because, in the first instance, the subversion of physics to somatic emphasis by antichemistry at the behest, in parallel gender terms, of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics back up the axis at the northwest point of the compass in question ensures that the darkness of antichemical bound soma (corresponding to good) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of metachemical free soma (corresponding to evil) on primary state-hegemonic terms, while the darkness of physical bound soma (corresponding to pseudo-wisdom) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of antimetaphysical free soma (corresponding to pseudo-folly) on secondary state-hegemonic terms which, in general parlance, are male rather than female, whilst, in the second instance, the subversion of chemistry to psychic emphasis by antiphysics at the behest, in parallel gender terms, of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry back up the axis at the northeast point of the compass in question ensures that the darkness of antiphysical bound psyche (corresponding to sin) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of metaphysical free psyche (corresponding to grace) on primary church-hegemonic terms, while the darkness of chemical bound psyche (corresponding to pseudo-crime) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of antimetachemical free psyche (corresponding to pseudo-punishment) on secondary church-hegemonic terms which, in general parlance, are female rather than male.

 

Therefore whereas the male and antifemale masses at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass are more conditioned, through somatic emphasis, to the darkness of bound soma than to the church-subordinate light, or brightness, of free psyche (and this contrary to the natural ratio of positivity to negativity, freedom to binding, for the equivocally hegemonic gender), their female and antimale counterparts at the southwest point of the said compass are likewise more conditioned, through psychic emphasis, to the darkness of bound psyche than to the state-subordinate light, or brightness, of free soma (contrary, once again, to the natural ratio of positivity to negativity, freedom to binding, for the equivocally hegemonic gender), and all because freedom for the masses of either axis would not only be bad, being of a contrary order, for the ruling elites, but bad for the masses themselves through want of axial guidance, continuity, stability, consistency, integrity, and the avoidance of phenomenal strife between the contrary orders of freedom obtaining in soma and psyche.

 

Incidentally, the total want of a God-the-Father parallel in physical free psyche (Man the Father) to the Son-of-Man concept correlative with physical bound soma (as a secondary state-hegemonic parallel vis-à-vis antichemistry) is significant, it seems to me, of the somatic emphasis which tends to prevail with the physical and antichemical, and to prevail in polar contrast to the respective kinds of somatic light or brightness obtaining with the antimetaphysically and, especially, metachemically free, the latter of whose beauty and love is constitutive, believe it or not, of evil, and not of the crime which accrues to the church-subordinate metachemical ugliness and hatred of bound psyche in polar contrast to the punishingness of antichemical free psyche (under male hegemonic physical criteria), whose attributes are rather more anti-weakness and anti-humility - and by positive implication pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride - than anything weak and humble in chemical bound-psychic fashion across the axial divide, where, as we all know, the strength and pride of chemical free soma are 'done down' in the interests of bound-psychic emphasis on weakness and humility as the secondary church-hegemonic complement, in pseudo-crime, to the antiphysical sinfulness of anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure - and by negative implication pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain - which constitute their primary church-hegemonic bound-psychic counterparts on the male side of the gender divide.

 

But such logical fleshing out by me somewhat transcends the traditional fudging of the mass Catholic position along with whatever controls it 'on high' and should not be taken as literally reflecting common knowledge, much less doctrinal thinking!

 

 

EXAMINING PLAY AND WORK IN RELATION TO FREEDOM AND BINDING

 

If it is not possible to categorically maintain that soma is invariably dark or black or shaded vis-à-vis psyche, and for the simple reason that brightness is determined by freedom, whether somatic or psychic, and darkness by binding, likewise irrespective of the faculty, then it is possible to maintain that whatever is bound is dark and whatever free bright.

 

Therefore brightness can be associated with either soma or psyche and darkness likewise, the chief determinant being the distinction between freedom and binding. But this distinction can be applied quite categorically to the dichotomy between play and work, since play is invariably free, or associated with freedom, whereas work is contractually obligated and is therefore a manifestation of binding.

 

Since soma can be free or bound, so it can have associations with either play or work. The same holds true of psyche, which is only to be associated with play when free, not when bound. Therefore we can plot a distinction between play and work on the basis of freedom and binding, whether in relation to soma or psyche.

 

Since metachemistry is the element of free soma and bound psyche par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism of an objective disposition, we can maintain that metachemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its antimetaphysical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms.

 

Likewise, since chemistry is the element of free soma and bound psyche on phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that chemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its antiphysical corollary likewise, if on primary terms in relation, traditionally, to the subversion of chemistry to bound psychic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry.

 

Be that as it may, it should be possible to contend, for sensibility, that since physics is the element of free psyche and bound soma on phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that physics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antichemical corollary likewise, if on primary terms, traditionally, in relation to the subversion of physics to bound somatic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics.

 

Finally, since metaphysics is the element of free psyche and bound soma par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism of a subjective disposition, we can maintain that metaphysics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antimetachemical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms.

 

Hence the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which stretches from northwest to southeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a primary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the female contrast between metachemistry and antichemistry is concerned, but a secondary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the male contrast between antimetaphysics and physics is concerned, the contrast between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play being primarily church subordinate in relation to metachemistry and antichemistry, but secondarily church-subordinate in relation to antimetaphysics and physics.

 

By complete contrast, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis which stretches from the southwest to the northeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a primary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play as far as the male contrast between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, but a secondary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play as far as the female contrast between chemistry and antimetachemistry is concerned, the contrast between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work being primarily state-subordinate in relation to antiphysics and metaphysics, but secondarily state-subordinate in relation to chemistry and antimetachemistry.

 

Hence play-brightness has a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms and work-darkness a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms on the former axis, irrespective of whether in primary or secondary terms, while work-darkness has a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms and play-brightness a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms on the latter axis, again irrespective of whether in primary or secondary terms.

 

In terms of metachemistry to antichemistry, evil is bright and goodness dark, for evil corresponds to the somatic freedom of metachemistry and goodness to the somatic binding of antichemistry, whereas crime is dark and punishment bright, since crime corresponds to the psychic binding of metachemistry and punishment to the psychic freedom of antichemistry.

 

Likewise, in terms of antimetaphysics to physics, pseudo-folly is bright and pseudo-wisdom dark, for pseudo-folly corresponds to the somatic freedom of antimetaphysics and pseudo-wisdom to the somatic binding of physics, whereas pseudo-sin is dark and pseudo-grace bright, since pseudo-sin corresponds to the psychic binding of antimetaphysics and pseudo-grace to the psychic freedom of physics.

 

In terms, by axial contrast, of antiphysics to metaphysics, sin is dark and grace bright, for sin corresponds to the psychic binding of antiphysics and grace to the psychic freedom of metaphysics, whereas folly is bright and wisdom dark, since folly corresponds to the somatic freedom of antiphysics and wisdom to the somatic binding of metaphysics.

 

Likewise, in terms of chemistry to antimetachemistry, pseudo-crime is dark and pseudo-punishment bright, for pseudo-crime corresponds to the psychic binding of chemistry and pseudo-punishment to the psychic freedom of antimetachemistry, whereas pseudo-evil is bright and pseudo-goodness dark, since pseudo-evil corresponds to the somatic freedom of chemistry and pseudo-goodness to the somatic binding of antimetachemistry.

 

Strange, but it is so!

 

 

FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM – A FALSE DICHOTOMY

 

Philosophy has many clichés, of which the dichotomy between Freedom and Determinism is not least. There is, however, no such dichotomy but, rather, one between freedom and binding, the latter determined by freedom.

Therefore since binding is determined by freedom, it exists in relation to freedom as its shadow counterpart, its corollary and in some sense complement. And just as freedom can be somatic or psychic, female or male, so binding can be psychic or somatic, the psychic counterpart of somatic freedom and the somatic counterpart of psychic freedom.

There is no more one freedom than one binding. But that which is bound will be determined by freedom as the self determines the nature (in this case bound) of the not-self. And the self, like the not-self, can be somatic or psychic, depending on gender.

Females, I have long maintained, when left to their own devices, are free soma and bound psyche. Males, by contrast, free psyche and bound soma. Therein lies the basis of the so-called 'war of the sexes' or ‘friction of the genders’, the gender struggle and in some sense 'tug-of-war' between opposite selves and, correlatively, opposite not-selves.

Complementarity is seeming, insofar as it follows from the hegemonic control of the one gender over the other, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, from a freely somatic or, by contrast, a freely psychic standpoint.

The compromised gender I have tended, in my writings, to classify as either antimales (under female hegemonic control in sensuality) or antifemales (under male hegemonic control in sensibility), and either 'upended' gender, compromised by criteria appertaining to the controlling gender, can and will be subject, sooner or later, to disillusionment with their lot and anxious to return, one way or another, to gender sync.

 

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT BEING

 

As a self-taught philosopher, or thinker, I have long maintained that being, metaphysical being, is inconceivable without the assistance, in antimetachemistry, of antidoing, its female or, more correctly, antifemale corollary.

 

For unless doing is 'brought low', as from metachemistry to antimetachemistry, there can be no 'rising up' of being, as from antimetaphysics to metaphysics, and hence the repudiation of what can be called antibeing under doing.

 

Being requires antidoing no less, across the axial divide, than doing, its metachemical antithesis, the antimetaphysical corollary of antibeing, since neither can be unequivocally hegemonic unless their respective gender complements are 'upended' and effectively subordinated to their control.

 

And what applies unequivocally, on the noumenal planes of space and time, applies to an equivocal degree, with due axial subversion having to be borne in mind, on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, where the equivocal hegemony of physical taking requires the 'upended' subordination of antichemical antigiving, its 'antifemale' complement, in relative contrast to the subordination of antiphysical antitaking under an equivocally hegemonic chemical giving.

 

For unless giving is 'brought low', as from chemistry to antichemistry, there can be no 'rising up' of taking, as from antiphysics to physics, and hence the repudiation of what has been called antitaking under giving.

 

But this is not universally established or encouraged, since these phenomenal positions are also subject, as intimated above, to axial interplay with their sensual or sensible noumenal counterparts, and this is what paradoxically precludes a simple switch from phenomenal sensuality to sensibility on the part of those who, under Catholic guidance traditionally, would more relate to the possibility of some degree of being and/or antidoing as the solution to their lowly predicament in giving and/or antitaking than a straightforward switch, across the axial divide, from that to taking and/or antigiving, as the gender case may be.

 

For the Catholic Church, relative to Western civilization, is the 'one true church’, the one that offers a degree of being and/or antidoing to those who have not 'sold out' to taking and/or antigiving.

 

But such a Church, being Western, is still a far cry from global universality, which transcends both the West and the East alike, and therefore its 'take' on being and/or antidoing is less than what could be and, hopefully, one day will be once the march of global civilization reaches its sensible destiny in the light of a metaphysics that is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and not subject, as is Catholic Christianity and indeed Christianity in general, to the subversion of metaphysics by metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in time-honoured alpha-stemming Old Testament fashion, with Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) always precluding anything but a Son-like fulcrum in relation to itself which, even in the Catholic postulate of a resurrected Saviour, persists to the detriment of metaphysical independence.

 

For there can be no such independence in the 'Son', only in relation to a 'Father' who precedes 'His Son' independently of metachemical subversion, and therefore on the basis of metaphysical freedom and the repudiation, democratically and peaceably, of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, without which there can be no authentic metaphysical being, much less beingful approach to antidoing, in metaphysical bound soma, of the Son, and therefore no authentic and fully universal truth.

 

Catholicism may appertain to the 'one true church', but such a church still falls short of global universality and, hence, the transcendence of everything still rooted in Old Testament Creatorism, as we may call that which puts the emphasis on the nature of the creative force as opposed, like Creationism, to what was created or to what transpired in consequence of the prior existence of this ‘creator’.

 

We advocates of global universality, whom I have in the past identified with and continue to identify with Social Theocracy, can no more endorse the West than the East, where religion is concerned. We are beyond both traditions in our revolutionary advocacy of the one true centre.

 

And yet we are the profoundest theocrats. For Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father was never truly theocratic but autocracy in disguise, the sugar coating, as it were, of the bitter pill of metachemical autocracy, and we repudiate all autocracy and everything that pays tribute, in aediculated vein, to Creatorism.

 

If we refuse to regard ourselves as 'atheist' it is because that would be to pay too much credit to what was never properly theocratic to begin with, but effectively antitheocratic in its autocratic roots. There is nothing atheist about Social Theocracy, and for that reason it can only encourage true being and not the subversion of being by doing.

 

 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEAUTY AND TRUTH

 

Some say that beauty is truth and truth beauty, but they couldn't be more wrong. Beauty and love, which hang together like will and spirit in metachemistry, are a product of noumenally objective appearances, whereas truth and joy, which hang together like ego and soul in metaphysics, are the product of noumenally subjective essences.

 

Thus there is all the difference between alpha and omega, appearance and essence, where beauty and truth, love and joy, are concerned, and incompatible they remain.

 

Either you defer to the outer heat of metachemical free soma or, in rejecting it, you cultivate the inner light of metaphysical free psyche. The one is absolutely female, the other absolutely male.

 

Outer heat is as incompatible with inner light as spatial space with repetitive time; for space and time are absolutely antithetical, like alpha and omega.

 

But outer heat can rule the outer mode of time, which I call antitime, and equate with an antimetaphysical subjection to the spatial space of metachemistry which takes the form of sequential time.

 

Contrariwise, inner light can rule ('lead' would probably be too soft a term here) the inner mode of space, which I call antispace, and equate with an antimetachemical subjection to the repetitive time of metaphysics which takes the form of spaced space.

 

Hence either females get the better of males, who become antimale, or males the better of females, who become antifemale.

 

Yet to the truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well seem like truth; for it is what rules him and keeps him in subjection to its metachemical appearance.

 

Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, truth may well seem like beauty to the beauty-rejecting female, the antimetachemical antifemale, since it is what rules over her and keeps her in subjection to its metaphysical essence.

 

Lacking truth proper, which is inner, the antimetaphysical antimale may well project his sense of truth onto beauty and convince himself that beauty is truth. Lacking beauty proper, which is outer, the antimetachemical antifemale may well project her sense of beauty onto truth and convince herself that truth is beauty. Neither one of them is correct!

 

There is no more any such thing as outer truth than there is inner beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer. The worship of beauty is only possible because of the absence of truth, while, conversely, the worship of truth is only possible because of the absence of beauty.

 

It is the absence of truth from the antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical beauty possible to them, and the absence of beauty from the antimetachemical antifemales that makes the worship of metaphysical truth possible to them, albeit in both cases the worship of the ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not to be equated with that factor as such, but is only a symptom of subjection.

 

Beauty does not worship itself but projects itself objectively as a metachemical expression of spatial space, which is the appearance of outer heat. Neither does truth worship itself because, being intensely subjective, it is a metaphysical impression of repetitive time, which is the essence of inner light.

 

Space and time are as incompatible as appearance and essence, and therefore beauty is never truth nor truth ever beauty. Beauty rules over the antitruth want of truth as space over antitime, spatial appearance over sequential anti-essence, while, conversely, truth rules over the antibeauty want of beauty as time over antispace, repetitive essence over spaced anti-appearance.

 

Either the noumenally objective heat of metachemistry rules over the noumenally antisubjective antilight of antimetaphysics as Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial City or, across the upper-order planes of what is an axial divide, the noumenally subjective light of metaphysics rules over the noumenally anti-objective antiheat of antimetachemistry as the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair.

 

You can't have it both ways, for you cannot be simultaneously superheathen and/or anti-superchristian and superchristian and/or anti-superheathen. But the latter is much harder, much more difficult, of attainment than the former, which is everywhere the alpha rather than the omega of civilization, and therefore that which is most basic and, at certain epochs (of which the present is a case in point), by far the more prevalent.

 

 

AN AXIAL DICHOTOMY EXAMINED

 

In the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial distinction - southwest to northeast - between Gaelic football and hurling, the former is symptomatic of all that, rock 'n' roll-like, is sensually loose or centrifugal or extrovert, and the latter of all that, in the best traditions of Irish folk music, is sensibly tight or centripetal or introvert ... or is it?

 

Well, yes, up to a point!  But even if it is morally superior to Gaelic football, it is merely symptomatic of the Irish Catholic status quo, with priests and bibles and churches and all the rest of it.  It is good but - and here's the rub from a revolutionary standpoint - not good enough to pass muster in supra-Western - and therefore properly global - terms.

 

There is a strong suggestion of the point over the bar having its idealism vitiated by the materialism of the hurley, as though the all-too-extrapolative paradigm of bound metaphysical soma in the Crucified were being held in check by some free metachemical agent, akin to what I have in the past called Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father), in typically paradoxical Catholic fashion.

 

In other words, such 'stout' as transpires in the idealistic point is compromised by a whiskey-like factor in back of everything Christian that precludes its ever attaining to anything like true transcendence (for which, in any case, a metaphysically free psychic repudiation of all metachemical free soma is a prerequisite) and ensures that hurling, for all its northeast idealistic pretensions, remains firmly in the grip of northwest materialism as the rugby of Irish sport.

 

Frankly, I have little time for this!  I am neither in favour of the RC elite, who represent traditional values, nor of the sinful Catholic masses whose passion is for Gaelic football.  What I do favour, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, is the salvation and counter-damnation (according to gender) of the latter to a position akin to that of the former, except that it would not be in relation to hurling but to an indoor transmutation of Gaelic which would enable 'the last' to be 'first', and in a completely new way such that the RC tradition was never able to envisage, much less achieve.

 

Such is the logic of revolution, and I firmly believe in the desirability of a Social Theocratic revolution such that takes noumenal sensibility to altogether new heights of idealism - ones that are actually open to transcendentalism and precisely because transcendentalism is the lead string in what would amount to a true Father whose 'Son' was in no degree a mere extrapolation from Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, but the logical corollary, in metaphysical bound soma, to a freely psychic metaphysical precondition, the state-subordinate idealism to a church-hegemonic transcendentalism which would be free, for ever more, of all fundamentalist and materialist subversion or vitiation.

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIPS OF PSYCHOLOGY TO PHYSIOLOGY AND VICE VERSA

 

You cannot understand psychology without physiology or physiology without psychology, since the two aspects of the totality of factors somatic and psychic 'hang together', though with different ratios, depending on gender and class.

 

Females, I have long believed, are more physiology than psychology, males, by contrast, more psychology than physiology, since in the one case soma precedes psyche (and literally predominates over it), whereas in the other case, that of males, psyche precedes soma (and consequently tends to preponderate over it), thereby indicating that the genders are in effect opposites, with correspondingly opposite concepts of self.

 

Self for the female is basically somatic; for the male, by contrast, it is essentially psychic.  Therein lies the roots of the gender friction and so-called 'war of the sexes'.

 

Self is whatever is free and the female, if left to her own sensuous devices, will opt for somatic freedom and psychic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma or as chemical bound psyche to chemical free soma.

 

By contrast, the male, if left to his own devices, will more than likely opt for psychic freedom and somatic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as physical bound soma to physical free psyche or as metaphysical bound soma to metaphysical free psyche.

 

Therefore self for the male is the opposite of what it is for the female, psyche taking precedence over soma as psychology or physiology in one of two class/elemental ways: either relatively (2½:1½) as more psyche/less soma, or absolutely (3:1) as most psyche/least soma, the former corresponding to a conscious/unsensuous (nurtural/unnatural) disposition in physics, the latter to a superconscious/subsensuous (supernurtural/subnatural) disposition in metaphysics.

 

With the female, on the other hand, soma takes precedence over psyche as physiology over psychology in one of two class/elemental ways: either absolutely (3:1) as most soma/least psyche, or relatively (2½:1½) as more soma/less psyche, the former corresponding to a supersensuous/subconscious (supernatural/subnurtural) disposition in metachemistry, the latter to a sensuous/unconscious (natural/unnurtural) disposition in chemistry.

 

Of course, there are more than four elemental positions at stake when it comes to axial polarities of either a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate order, since the hegemonic triumph or prevalence of the one gender presupposes and necessitates the upending and subordination of the other, whether as antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (state-hegemonically polar to the southeast point of it), as antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass (church-hegemonically polar to the northeast point of it), as antichemistry under physics at the southeast point  of the said compass (state-hegemonically polar to the northwest point of it), or as antimetachemistry under metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (church-hegemonically polar to the southwest point of it).

 

But even the antipositions under the hegemonic ones, whether noumenally unequivocal or phenomenally equivocal, absolute or relative, reflect ratios of soma to psyche or of psyche to soma, depending on the upended gender, corresponding to their class/elemental positions, and are therefore distinct from the controlling gender a plane above them in each class/elemental instance.

 

Antimetaphysics is not a context, like metachemistry, of a supersensuous/subconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subsensuous and anti-superconscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to supersensuousness/subconsciousness to obtain from within a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

 

Conversely antimetachemistry, across the noumenal axial divide, is not a context, like metaphysics, of a superconscious/subsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subconscious and anti-supersensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to superconsciousness/subsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

 

And what applies to the noumenal positions applies no less to their phenomenal counterparts, antiphysics not being a context, like chemistry, of a sensuous/unconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unsensuous and anti-conscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to sensuousness/unconsciousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

 

Conversely, antichemistry, across the phenomenal axial divide, is not a context, like physics, of a conscious/unsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unconscious and anti-sensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to consciousness/unsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

 

But of course subversion of the equivocally hegemonic positions by their upended subordinate counterparts at the behest of the axially polar unequivocally hegemonic positions results in a switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the chemical/antiphysical case and from psyche to soma in the physical/antichemical one, in order that either church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, by contrast, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics can be axially established and duly maintained, to the advantage of axial stability and continuity.

 

For the Catholic southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is no more heathenistic in somatic emphasis than the Puritan southeast point of it is overly christianistic, so to speak, in psychic emphasis.  Free psyche to bound psyche in the one axial case, free soma to bound soma in the other, would seem to be the guarantors of either church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic criteria, for both genders.

 

But that is another subject and one I have said much about in the past and could say a lot more about in the present, were I not mindful of the principal topic of this [reformatted] weblog, which is of the ratios between psyche and soma or soma and psyche, according to gender and class.

 

We do not understand female psychology unless we are aware of the physiology which conditions it, making for subconsciousness in relation to supersensuousness in metachemistry and for unconsciousness in relation to sensuousness in chemistry.

 

Likewise, we shall not understand male physiology unless we are aware of the psychology which conditions it, making for unsensuousness in relation to consciousness in physics and for subsensuousness in relation to superconsciousness in metaphysics.

 

Needless to say, both these class positions are incompatible, since you cannot be conscious/unsensuous and superconscious/subsensuous at the same time, any more than females could transcend their class distinctions and be both supersensuous/subconscious and sensuous/unconscious at the same time.

 

But then compatibility is not an issue from an axial standpoint, which ensures that either antichemistry is polar to metachemistry and physics polar to antimetaphysics or, across the axial divide, that antiphysics is polar to metaphysics and chemistry polar to antimetachemistry.

 

The physical and the metaphysical are not ethnically aligned, any more than are their chemical and metachemical counterparts.

 

 

PROBLEM WITH ‘THE PEOPLE’

These days I do not like - or even use - the term 'the People' as much as before, largely because it strikes me as being too liberal and relativistic, lacking gender definition and, in a certain sense, discrimination.

It is the old Christian, Western, worldly subsuming of all under the one category, like mankind, as though equal criteria could be applied right across the board irrespective of gender.  Unfortunately, 'the People' do not all pull in the same direction; some pull this way and others that, neither the conservative 'behind' nor the radical 'beyond' seeing 'eye to eye', least of all when this is not a simple distinction between sensuality and sensibility!

Increasingly, I realize that the salvation of males of a certain ethnic stamp (antiphysical-cum-pseudo-physical) is only possible with the counter-damnation of their female counterparts (chemical), and that salvation cannot be applied to everyone, much less to those who are not even of the right ethnic stamp, irrespective of gender.

That is another of those Western, Christian fudges which results in the watery and the vegetative, or earthly, being subsumed under the term 'congregation' or, later, 'the people', to the detriment of truth, in consequence of which the preaching is as though to an androgynous muddy mishmash of indiscriminate gender from a standpoint which, taking expressions like 'mankind' and 'people' for granted, itself lacks gender clarity and definition.

Woe to those who use this term 'people' so glibly that they fail to see the tensions which distinguish males from their female counterparts in matters of social or moral principle!

And woe to those who would continue to use it when 'the people' had been overcome and were no longer recognizably human-all-too-human, but godlike and pseudo-devilish, according to gender, in their communal cyborgization, their supra-human destinies!

 

CHOPPERS AND JUMP JETS

 

Choppers and jump jets 'hang together' at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, like metaphysics and antimetachemistry, St George and the proverbial dragon, tapering zipper-suits and tight dresses, Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, and should be used in conjunction, the latter supporting the former, by powers dedicated to the defence and/or advancement of the metaphysical/antimetachemical cause, a cause I would tend to identify with 'Kingdom Come'.

 

 

PHILOSOPHERS AND ARTISTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE

 

The true ‘philosopher kings’ are those who remain faithful to the Y of their XY chromosomal integrity through thick and thin, remaining metaphysically aloof from the world at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass when lesser males than themselves have either fallen into antimetaphysics under metachemical pressure and become artists kowtowing to beauty or, as is more often the case, fallen all the way from antimetaphysics to antiphysics in consequence of the female achieving a maternal resolution of beauty in strength and of love in pride, wherein the hegemonic sway of chemistry over antiphysics is assured.

From this worldly position, ever the source of worshipful nostalgia on the part of males (become antimales) for the lost Y of youthful idealism, there is no way back to metaphysics - as there sometimes is for their antimetaphysical counterparts above - except via salvation, or deliverance from the antiphysical upended-gender plight by those who have either remained metaphysical (the ‘philosopher kings’) or returned to metaphysics from antimetaphysics (the repentant artists and, in some sense, ‘prodigal sons’).

For the antiphysical 'male' is not merely divided against his self on an X/Y basis but, as an accomplice in female resolution, has sacrificed his Y chromosome to the XX-chromosomal pressures successively brought to bear on him by beauty and strength, in consequence of which his acquiescence in maternal resolution is akin to an XX-X situation without hope, barring faith, of Y-chromosomal redemption, which is fidelity to self conceived, as is proper with males, psychically.

With faith, however, matters can be otherwise; but it will require an ability, quite unprecedented in religion, of the metaphysical to save such antimales (from their subordinate worldly plight), and this, in turn, will require the correlative counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry by those who, in relation to the godly/heavenly, could be described as antidevilish/antihellish, either of which manifestations of antimetachemistry would have been already
in situ under the metaphysical ... as unbeautiful females of a high stamp or, alternatively, brought down to antimetachemistry from metachemistry in consequence of the return of disillusioned antimetaphysical 'males' (antimales) to metaphysics, as noted above.

Whatever the case, only the combination of metaphysical and antimetachemical agents will suffice to deliver, on contrary rising and counter-falling terms, the antiphysical and chemical from their respective worldly standings, and less for their own sake than in the interests of divine and antidiabolic vengeance upon the diabolic and antidivine powers at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass who, in defiance of godliness and antidevilishness, would otherwise continue to prevail over them through the exemplification of somatic license netherworld and anti-otherworld without metachemical and antimetaphysical end, keeping that which is genuinely divine and antidiabolic out of the equation while they continue to give themselves inflated airs to the detriment of truth and to the possibility of an end, more pertinently, of evil and pseudo-folly, the evil of metachemical somatic license and the pseudo-folly of its antimetaphysical equivalent.

 

 

ST GEORGE AND THE DRAGON

 

I am a great believer in St George and the Dragon, in what should be the metaphysical hegemony of the male over the female at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, pretty much like metaphysics over antimetachemistry, or tapering velcro-cum-zippersuits, to coin a sartorial parallel, over tight dresses.

Unfortunately, St George can be - and often is - reduced by the Puritan manifestation of Protestantism, not least in England, to physics over antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass, in which case the sartorial paradigm is one of tapering pants and tight skirts, as germane to phenomenal relativity, the lower-order parallel to noumenal absolutism.

But this George would be considerably less than saintly! For physics is subject to subversion to somatic emphasis at the expense of psyche by antichemistry in polarity to the unequivocally hegemonic factor on what is, after all, a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis - namely metachemistry, which, unlike its subordinate counterpart antimetaphysics, is also on the female side of the gender fence, so to speak, if from the standpoint of that which is sovereign in its free soma and bound psyche, corresponding, in sartorial terms, to a flounced dress and, in religious terms, to Anglicanism (as does antimetaphysics).

 

No, St George can only be a Roman Catholic emblem traditionally, and metaphor for something which England officially abandoned centuries ago, even as early as with Henry VIII, switching axes in the heretical process so that, with the abandonment of church-hegemonic criteria, ever deferential to Rome, it became increasingly state-hegemonic and, correlatively, church-subordinate, with greater freedom of imperial adventure.

But even Catholicism doesn't really do justice to metaphysics, since it tends to fudge things down to antimetachemistry, making one aware of straight dresses existing independently - and quite falsely - of tapering zipper-suit pressures, so to speak, a plane above, and therefore as though they were the non plus ultra of things, like the so-called ‘sacred heart’.

I'm afraid to say that above the Christian 'sacred heart' are the 'sacred lungs', so to speak, of metaphysical bound soma, roughly corresponding to the Crucifixional paradigm for what is, after all, a manifestation of bound soma in the Son. But such a ‘sacred lung’ parallel  to the so-called ‘Son of God’ raised, crucifixionally, ‘on high’ has never been encouraged, probably from fear that TM, or transcendental meditation, would get out of the bag of 'sacred lungs' at the expense of that which anchors Western civilization to itself as a Son-like extrapolation, namely the middle-eastern take on God which is actually less metaphysical than metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in the sense of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father.

Thus if you are anchored, as an extrapolation, to an ancient and rather primitivistic lie, the ‘best of a bad job’, antithetically in back, which happens to be the modest beginnings of civilization, you are not in a position to have the full gamut of metaphysics, which exists independently of things metachemical, including beauty.

 

On the contrary, you end up with this Christian, Catholic fudge of a truncated metaphysics (the bound soma of the resurrected Son) done down antimetachemically (to 'sacred heart') without the benefit of TM, which presupposes a rejection of the Creator, as of 'Creatorism' ... in the sense of Devil the Mother (or free soma metachemically) in what some would regard as an atheistic (which it is not) independence of the Old Testament.

So, alas, the postulate of resurrection from below, say southwest to northeast on church-hegemonic axial terms, is really a nonsense, since you don't get to metaphysics or become metaphysical on that basis. You are, as a male, metaphysical to begin with, at least when full of youthful idealism, but – ‘philosopher king’ exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - you can get picked off by beauty to antimetaphysics under metachemistry, deferring to beauty as from a 'fall guy' position a plane down from metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. This is the typical artist's position in which the original youthful orientation towards the Y of self-identity has been eclipsed by an X/Y self-division which is now capable, in consequence of the X, of deferring to the XX-chromosomal hegemony of the metachemical position.

The typical male experience, however, is to fall, following or accompanying female resolution in maternity, down to antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest and rather Marian (Woman the Mother) point of the said compass, and from that, with an XX-X isolation from the Y of one’s original ‘image of godliness’ idealism, there is no way back to metaphysics bar salvation for the antiphysical by the metaphysical and, correlatively, counter-damnation for the chemical by the antimetachemical, a bit like the boxed-in dragon that the proverbial Saint has his foot upon, as though keeping it down and in its place.

But this whole process of salvation coupled to counter-damnation is a drastic remedy for what is perceived to be a worldly imperfection for males, and one that has other than altruistic motives, as I think I may have intimated in my previous [reformatted] weblog, since those who eventually get to do the saving and counter-damning of the respective gender positions at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass will have other things in mind than their prospective metaphysical and antimetachemical deliverance.

But that is another story.  Suffice it to say that St George and the Dragon is a decent traditional metaphor for the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where one could even expect to find choppers (suitably badgeful rather than ringful) and jump jets, their - dare I say it? - antimetachemical counterparts, as though germane not merely to a mastered dragon but, to expand the metaphor, to a lion that lies down with the lamb in tight-dress under tapering zipper-suit fashion, and serves to support and complement what must be, for all eternity, a metaphysical hegemony, acting as the avenging angel of the Lord.

 

 

SARTORIAL PARALLELS TO ST GEORGE AND THE DRAGON DO NOT CHANGE PLACES

 

In a society that was a combination, St George and the Dragon-like, of metaphysics and antimetchemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry, corresponding, in sartorial terms, to tapering zipper-suits and straight dresses, you would not find metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry changing places, still less would you find the antifemales of antimetachemistry being encouraged to become quasi-metaphysical, since the ratio of soma to psyche with them would be 3:1, the reverse of what it would - or should - be for their metaphysical counterparts, the males proper, and therefore instead of three parts truth and joy to one part illusion and woe you would find three parts illusion and woe to one part truth and joy - an unacceptable ratio from the standpoint of the metaphysical proper, since likely to give metaphysics a bad name in relation to what would be the immoral forms of grace and wisdom, with the ratio emphasis decidedly on the latter in quasi-metaphysical guise.

So just as females would not be encouraged to get above themselves - the sartorial parallel for the metaphysical ‘above’ is of course the tapering zipper-suit - in a genuinely metaphysically-led society, so they would be pinned to their rightful position as antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical corollaries of a metaphysical hegemony, the sartorial mean of this context being a straight dress.

 

One would not find the hype so often encountered in Western society traditionally, least of all from a standpoint that tends to allow females to play at being God and to assume, with brushed-back hair, subjective pretensions way above, in the event of male dominance, a more befitting anti-objective status. They would be encouraged to know their place and to keep to it. They would be the proverbial Dragon that, duly neutralized, the proverbial Saint has firmly under his foot, in order that the truth and joy of metaphysics can have its way without threat from without, from free females who, unlike their neutralized counterparts, will always seduce males from their Y chromosomal centre through beauty and love (coupled in bound psyche to a degree of ugliness and hate which has the effect of supplementing the proverbial carrot with a proverbial stick) in the long-term interests of maternal resolution in the world.

In contrast to the neutralized ‘angel’ who is a pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female, one could say, with beauty and love in free psyche and ugliness and hate in bound soma, the free, or metachemical, female is decidedly the proverbial ‘whore’ of free soma and bound psyche, with a 3:1 ratio of beauty and love to ugliness and hate, the positivistic basis of life that accords with the 'increase and multiply' ethos of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in Old Testament vein.

 

And just as the ‘angel’ is led and controlled by the Saint, so the ‘whore’ holds dominion over the demonic 'fall guy' who is less a devil than an antigod, at least in antimetaphysics; though he can become quasi-metachemical and therefore quasi-devilish if he is of a disposition that prefers to outdo the female at her own game (though this will only be in ugliness and hate) rather than to accept his subordinate place in what we can describe as a pseudo-metaphysical position under metachemistry wherein truth and joy become identified with free soma and illusion and woe with bound psyche, the reverse, in other words, of the metaphysical position-proper, and one whose ratio of 3:1 will favour the illusion and woe of bound psyche even as metachemical pressure from above is encouraging him to identify, falsely, with the truth and joy of free soma, a paradox that, in quasi-metachemical guise, becomes one part beauty and love to three parts ugliness and hate in the immoral forms of evil and crime, with a gender emphasis, as noted, on crime.

Be that as it may, a sensibly led society will never encourage people to identify with anything metachemical or antimetaphysical-cum-pseudo-metaphysical, still less quasi-metachemical, wherein sartorial distinctions between flounced dresses and flared zipper- and/or boiler-suits would - or should - be the mean, since its own commitment, if noumenal, to metaphysics and antimetachemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry will ensure the opposite - namely, as stated above, a kind of tapering zipper-suit vis-à-vis straight dress (‘tapering’ would, I fear, amount to a subjective exaggeration) sartorial mean in which the saintly are hegemonically in control of the angelic, like St George over the Dragon which, if prostrate and therefore pseudo-metachemically neutralized, will correspond to the angelic pseudo-female whose prostration is the guarantee of metaphysical freedom for the male.

Such a society, which I have long identified with 'Kingdom Come' and construe as exemplifying religious sovereignty as the ultimate form of sovereignty that the people of certain countries, avowedly church-hegemonic traditionally, will have to be given the opportunity of voting for in relation to a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process, can only be one in which the metaphysical and the antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical will begin the process of saving the antiphysical-cum-pseudo-physical and counter-damning the chemical, or delivering from the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to the northeast point of it all those who would otherwise continue to languish, morally and culturally, under metachemical and antimetaphysical-cum-pseudo-metaphysical pressures, thereby hastening the day when their deliverance will be so permanent and irreversible (supra-human) that the others will be put out of business for want of sufficient prey and come crashing down their own axis, northwest to southeast on the intercardinal axial compass, to join those who had formerly financed their exemplifications of somatic license, namely the antichemical-cum-pseudo-chemical and the physical.

 

Other changes will have to follow but, eventually, even the physical and pseudo-chemical will find the prospect of axial transference and, with due modifications approximating to pseudo-physics and chemistry, salvation and counter-damnation from the southwest to the northeast points of the said compass attractive, if only because they will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

But that is getting a long way ahead of myself and of this particular [reformatted] weblog. Let me repeat its principal contention: that the saintly and angelic of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass are as far removed, in noumenal (or space/time) terms from the whorish and demonic of the northwest point ... as it is noumenally possible to be, and that the saintly is no less likely to be male and the angelic pseudo-female than the whorish … female and the demonic pseudo-male.

 

Alpha and omega, to speak in general terms, are absolutely incommensurate, appertaining to different axes, the former state-hegemonic and the latter church-hegemonic, and therefore they remain as hegemonically far apart as evil/crime and grace/wisdom, both of which are moral in their opposite ways - the evil/crime metachemically so, and the grace/wisdom metaphysically so, with a paired distinction, in consequence, between superheathen/subchristian vanity and superchristian/subheathen righteousness or, put in equivalent terms, supersensuous/subconscious vanity and superconscious/subsensuous righteousness, the moral vanity of the clear and the moral righteousness of the holy, the former female and the latter male.

Between those extremes there is no mutual respect, no seeing ‘eye to eye’, because it is a gender distinction, fundamentally, between the beauty and love of evil (coupled, on a subordinate ratio basis, to the ugliness and hatred of crime) and the truth and joy of grace (coupled, on a subordinate ratio basis, to the illusion and woe of wisdom), with Mother/Daughter vanity at alpha odds with Father/Son righteousness.

 

Only the complete triumph, with 'Kingdom Come', of the latter can put an end to the former's reign. Only the saintly god and angelic pseudo-devil can 'see off' the whorish devil and demonic pseudo-god, but to do so they must save and counter-damn like never before; for the antiphysical-cum-pseudo-physical 'last' (under chemistry) must become the metaphysical 'first' (over antimetachemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry) if deliverance from the alpha-dominated world is truly to obtain, a deliverance rendered all the more imperative in view of what takes advantage of it not only in its immediate vicinity (i.e. the chemically hegemonic), but from the standpoint of what rules the other axis, the secular fruit, in this day and age, of the schismatic heresy that first spawned state-hegemonic criteria and gave rein to the aforementioned exemplification of somatic license which is everywhere the primary servant of the superheathen virtue of beauty and love which is the vanity of moral evil.

 

 

METACHEMICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-METACHEMICAL IMMORALITY

 

Morality can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or Christian, alternatives, to speak in generalities.

Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antimetaphysics under metachemistry is an antimorality in anti-metaphysical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-metaphysical guise or, with some 'males' aspiring towards the metachemical, an immorality in quasi-metachemical guise, wherein the male ratio, duly upended under female hegemonic pressure, of three parts psyche to one part soma becomes three parts ugliness and hate to one part beauty and love - the opposite of the female position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral evil and crime in metachemical free soma and bound psyche and, from the standpoint of the antimale opting for a quasi-female rather than sticking to a pseudo-male alternative, immoral evil and crime in quasi-metachemical free soma and bound psyche, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'male' and the reason why, in this context, males outdo females in ugliness and hate while underdoing them, so to speak, in beauty and love - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the metachemical/antimetaphysical northwest. The other three points could be addressed in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some metachemical females to become quasi pseudo-metaphysical, entertaining pseudo-truth and joy in pseudo-metaphysical free soma and pseudo-illusion and woe in pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, but with a ratio the opposite of their male or, rather, pseudo-male, counterparts - rather more three parts pseudo-truth and joy to one part pseudo-illusion and woe than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring soma over psyche on an approximately 3:1 basis.

So rather than an overwhelming emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-metachemical counterparts, an overwhelming emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-metaphysical free soma, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-metachemical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for ugliness and hatred.

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a female standpoint, than the moral evil and crime which characterizes their metaphysical hegemony.  Being morally metachemical is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being amorally quasi pseudo-metaphysical, just as being pseudo-morally 'metaphysical' is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being immorally quasi-metachemical.

It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antimetaphysical, the initial 'fall guy' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-metaphysics (truth and joy falsely in free soma and illusion and woe falsely in bound psyche) or, if sufficiently vain and insufficiently 'the artist', to immorality in quasi-metachemistry, seeking to become beautiful and loving vis-à-vis ugly and hateful alternatives, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour ugliness and hatred in bound psyche at the expense of beauty and love in free soma, the opposite not only of the metachemical female, as noted above, but of those metaphysical males whose ratio of truth and joy in free psyche to illusion and woe in bound soma is most decidedly 3:1, three parts transcendental grace to one part idealistic wisdom.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention in the next [reformatted] weblog to the noumenal antitheses of metachemistry and antimetaphysics - namely, metaphysics and antimetachemistry.


METAPHYSICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-METAPHYSICAL IMMORALITY

 

Morality, as noted in the previous [reformatted] weblog, can be metaphysical, physical, chemical, or metachemical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either male or female, sensible or sensual, Christian or heathen alternatives, to speak in generalities.

 

Truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is one sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom, whereas knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom.

 

Conversely, strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime, whereas beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime,

Both metaphysics and physics, corresponding to male elements (air and earth), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

Both chemistry and metachemistry, corresponding to female elements (water and fire), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.
 
There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antimetachemistry under metaphysics is an antimorality in anti-metachemical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-metachemical guise or, with some 'females' aspiring towards the metaphysical, an immorality in quasi-metaphysical guise, wherein the female ratio, duly upended under male hegemonic pressure, of three parts soma to one part psyche becomes three parts illusion and woe to one part truth and joy - the opposite of the male position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral grace and wisdom in metaphysical free psyche and bound soma and, from the standpoint of the antifemale opting for a quasi-male rather than sticking to a pseudo-female position, immoral grace and wisdom in quasi-metaphysical free psyche and bound soma, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'female' and the reason why, in this context, females outdo males in illusion and woe while underdoing them, so to speak, in truth and joy - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the metaphysical/antimetachemical northeast. The other three points could be addressed (as the metachemical/antimetaphysical northwest already has been in the previous weblog) in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some metaphysical males to become quasi pseudo-metachemical, entertaining pseudo-beauty and love in pseudo-metachemical free psyche and pseudo-ugliness and hatred in pseudo-metachemical bound soma, but on a ratio basis that is the opposite of their female or, rather, pseudo-female, counterparts - rather more three parts pseudo-beauty and love to one part pseudo-ugliness and hatred than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring psyche over soma on an approximately 3:1 basis.

So rather than an overwhelming emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-metaphysical counterparts coming up from below, an overwhelming emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-metachemical free psyche, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-metaphysical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for illusion and woe.

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a male standpoint, than the moral grace and wisdom which characterizes their metaphysical hegemony. Being morally metaphysical is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being amorally quasi pseudo-metachemical, just as being pseudo-morally 'metachemical' is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being immorally quasi-metaphysical.

 

It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antimetachemical, the initial 'fall gal' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-metachemistry (beauty and love falsely in free psyche and ugliness and hatred falsely in bound soma) or, if pretentiously righteous and insufficiently 'the anti-vanity angel', to immorality in quasi-metaphysics, seeking to become true and joyful vis-à-vis illusory and woeful, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour illusion and woe in bound soma at the expense of truth and joy in free psyche, the opposite not only of the metaphysical male, but of those metachemical females whose ratio of beauty and love in free soma to ugliness and hatred in bound psyche is most decidedly 3:1, three parts materialist evil to one part fundamentalist crime.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention, in the ensuing [reformatted] weblog, to the phenomenal planes below space and time, whether as space/antitime or time/antispace, which are volume and mass, beginning with volume/antimass and proceeding, in the subsequent weblog, to mass/antivolume, so that our initial attention will be on chemistry and antiphysics.

 

 

CHEMICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-CHEMICAL IMMORALITY

 

Morality, as we have already argued, can be chemical, metachemical, metaphysical, or physical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or Christian alternatives, to speak in generalities.  Strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime, whereas beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime,

Conversely, truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is one sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom, whereas knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom.

Both chemistry and metachemistry, corresponding to female elements (water and fire), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both metaphysics and physics, corresponding to male elements (air and earth), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antiphysics under chemistry is an antimorality in anti-physical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-physical guise or, with some 'males' aspiring towards the chemical, an immorality in quasi-chemical guise, wherein the male ratio, duly upended under female hegemonic pressure, of 2½ parts psyche to 1½ parts soma becomes 2½ parts weakness and humiliation to 1½ parts strength and pride - the opposite of the female position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral pseudo-evil and crime in chemical free soma and bound psyche and, from the standpoint of the antimale opting for a quasi-female rather than sticking to a pseudo-male alternative, immoral pseudo-evil and crime in quasi-chemical free soma and bound psyche, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'male' and the reason why, in this context, males outdo females in weakness and humiliation while underdoing them, so to speak, in strength and pride - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the chemical/antiphysical southwest. The other three points could be addressed (as the metaphysical/antimetachemical northeast already has been in the previous weblog), in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some chemical females to become quasi pseudo-physical, entertaining pseudo-knowledge and pleasure in pseudo-physical free soma and pseudo-ignorance and pain in pseudo-physical bound psyche, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their male or, rather, pseudo-male, counterparts - rather more 2½ parts pseudo-knowledge and pleasure to 1½ parts pseudo-ignorance and pain than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring soma over psyche on an approximately 2½:1½ basis.

So rather than a relatively preponderating emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-chemical counterparts, a relatively predominating emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-physical free soma, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-chemical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for weakness and humiliation (the male equivalent, more often than not, of female humility).

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a female standpoint, than the moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime which characterizes their chemical hegemony. Being morally chemical is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being amorally quasi pseudo-physical, just as being pseudo-morally 'physical' is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being immorally quasi-chemical.

 

It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antiphysical, the initial 'fall guy' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-physics (knowledge and pleasure falsely in free soma and ignorance and pain falsely in bound psyche) or, if sufficiently pseudo-vain and insufficiently 'the pseudo-artist', to immorality in quasi-chemistry, seeking to become strong and proud vis-à-vis weak and humble, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour weakness and humiliation in bound psyche at the expense of strength and pride in free soma, the opposite not only of the chemical female, as noted above, but of those physical males whose ratio of knowledge and pleasure in free psyche to ignorance and pain in bound soma is most decidedly 2½:1½, 2½ parts humanist pseudo-grace to 1½ parts naturalist pseudo-wisdom.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention, in the next [reformatted] weblog, to the phenomenal antitheses of the above - namely, to mass and antivolume, physics and antichemistry.

 

 

PHYSICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-PHYSICAL IMMORALITY

 

Morality, as we have seen, can be physical, metaphysical, metachemical, or chemical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either male or female, sensible or sensual, Christian or heathen alternatives, to speak in generalities.

 

Knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom

 

Conversely, beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and moral vice of a christianistic order.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and moral vice of a heathenistic order.
 
There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antichemistry under physics is an antimorality in anti-chemical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-chemical guise or, with some 'females' aspiring towards the physical, an immorality in quasi-physical guise, wherein the female ratio, duly upended under male hegemonic pressure, of 2½ parts soma to 1½ parts psyche becomes 2½ parts ignorance and pain to 1½ parts knowledge and pleasure - the opposite of the male position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral pseudo-grace and wisdom in physical free psyche and bound soma and, from the standpoint of the antifemale opting for a quasi-male rather than sticking to a pseudo-female position, immoral pseudo-grace and wisdom in quasi-physical free psyche and bound soma, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'female' and the reason why, in this context, females outdo males in ignorance and pain while underdoing them, so to speak, in knowledge and pleasure - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the physical/antichemical southeast. The other three points could be addressed (as the chemical/antiphysical southwest already has been in the previous weblog) in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some physical males to become quasi pseudo-chemical, entertaining pseudo-strength and pride in pseudo-chemical free psyche and pseudo-weakness and humility in pseudo-chemical bound soma, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their female or, rather, pseudo-female, counterparts - rather more 2½ parts pseudo-strength and pride to 1½ parts pseudo-weakness and humility than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring psyche over soma on an approximately 2½:1½ basis.

So rather than a relatively predominating emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-physical counterparts coming up from below, a relatively preponderating emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-chemical free psyche, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-physical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for ignorance and pain.

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a male standpoint, than the moral pseudo-grace and wisdom which characterizes their physical hegemony. Being morally physical is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being amorally quasi pseudo-chemical, just as being pseudo-morally 'chemical' is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being immorally quasi-physical.

 

It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally anti-chemical, the initial 'fall gal' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-chemistry (strength and pride falsely in free psyche and weakness and humility falsely in bound soma) or, if pretentiously righteous and insufficiently 'the anti-pseudo-vanity angel', to immorality in quasi-physics, seeking to become knowledgeable and pleasurable vis-à-vis ignorance and pain, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour ignorance and pain in bound soma at the expense of knowledge and pleasure in free psyche, the opposite not only of the physical male, but of those chemical females whose ratio of strength and pride in free soma to weakness and humility in bound psyche is most decidedly 2½:1½, 2½ parts realist pseudo-evil to 1½ parts nonconformist pseudo-crime.

Let us leave it there, finally!

 

 

LIFE AS SELF-OVERCOMING

 

Nietzsche was right about life as self-overcoming, but one has to distinguish, unlike him and most historical writers, the female self-overcoming somatically of will in spirit from the male self-overcoming psychically of ego in soul, before one can realize just how difficult the latter is while the former still obtains and has not been definitively neutralized.

 

Picked off from the Y chromosome of youthful idealism by the XX-chromosomal cosh of female beauty and love, whose goal is worldly resolution in strength and pride, few males ever recover from the XX-X predicament (their isolated X in marital partnership with the female XX) of worldly compromise in which they exist as the proverbial 'slave of a slave' and 'trickle in the sewer' of Baudelairean notation, mere adjuncts to a female norm which is the resolution of will in spirit, and the acquirement, via beauty and love, of maternal strength and pride, the acquirement, one might say, of a surrogate plenum (the child) which is the solution to the initial - and fundamental - vacuum of female existence.

It may be that, in this compromised position, males yearn nostalgically for their 'lost paradise', the Y-like idealism of their youth, in which so-called spirituality counted for so much more, but it is hardly likely that many of them will return to the heights from which they were seduced, even if conventional religion - that 'bovaryization' of true religion - likes to palliate their predicament by introducing the concept of resurrection as a kind of divine principle and salvationist right, with the attendant notion of moral progress.

But salvation is not so easy and is, besides, something that could only be imposed upon the generality of males of a certain axial stamp (avowedly church-hegemonic) from above, meaning by those who already relate, no matter how theoretically rather than practically, to metaphysics, and would be mindful of the correlative necessity of the counter-damnation of females to a position a plane down from the saved males in antimetachemistry, a necessity less the responsibility of the godly metaphysical than of the antidevilish antimetachemical.

Only then could male self-overcoming of ego in soul actually become a permanent, indeed eternal, reality, with no threat from either will or spirit to contend with, the female effectively neutralized in what would be the equivalent of St George with his foot on the prostrate dragon of that which is no longer free to hinder male self-overcoming from a position contrary to it in which, as noted above, the overcoming of will in spirit is of the utmost necessity from a female standpoint and explains, in no small measure, the world as that compromise between female resolution and male co-option which will always keep heaven or, more generally, 'kingdom come' on hold, so long as it has not been overcome.

 

FROM HELL’S ANGELS TO HEAVEN’S DEMONS

 

I have always respected and even admired the Hell's Angels.  But there comes a time when some kind of rebirth from sensuality (or anti-sensibility) to sensibility has to be made, as from antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to metaphysics over antimetachemistry at its northeast point.

 

Let's face it: anyone with a ring in his ear and long hair is a kind of ‘sonofabitch’, even if his bike isn't unduly 'ringful', with spokes radiating out from a narrow hub.  But if he graduates to having a kind of stud in his ear, or if, say, his bike has larger than normal hubs, or wheels that are less 'ringful' in their spoke radiations than 'badgeful' in a kind of hub-oriented centripetal way, then he is less a ‘sonofabitch’ than a kind of ‘sonofagun’, and one could certainly argue that, even without acid or coke or guns of an elongated rather than hand-held variety, he is worthy to be regarded more as a Heaven's Demon than as a Hell's Angel.  But with them ...

Well, there must come a time in any movement or club's existence when there is a parting of the ways, a revolutionary upheaval, a departure, even if only by a small number initially, from being an antimetaphysical 'sonofabitch' to being a metaphysical 'sonofagun', a sensible radical of noumenal, or ethereal, disposition who would quite comfortably and credibly accord with the St. George metaphor for male-hegemonic dominion and keep his 'old lady', or whatever, firmly in her antimetachemical place, a place not unknown to the habitual wearers of tight dresses!

I have long regarded myself as the godfather of Social Theocracy, and Social Theocracy, as conceived and elaborated by me in a variety of textural contexts, is nothing if not radically metaphysical in its ideological scope - indeed, so metaphysical as to stand for the bringing of metaphysics to a definitive peak in relation to global civilization and thus to a society centred in religious sovereignty.

 

Metaphysics has never before been anything like definitive, not even in transcendental meditation, and therefore only when it becomes such, on a basis transcending anything Eastern or Western, Christian or non-Christian, will it have not only the right but the wherewithal to rule and to control everything else, including, not least, its own anti-bitch corollary, antimetachemistry, avoiding, in the process, the traditional pitfalls of utopian reductionism that attend mere extrapolations from alpha-rooted 'theocracy' and seemingly necessitate polar fudging.

In that time, the time of Eternity, Hell's Angels would be completely irrelevant and effectively anachronistic.  Only those who have made it up and across, as though in a counter-Cupidian thrust out of perpendicular triangularity, to metaphysics, like prodigal sons returning to the fold of ‘philosopher king’ dominion, will have a right to serve that which is godly and, more significant to the context in question, heavenly.

 

I call them Heaven's Demons, and I believe I speak with justification when I say that such people are already to be found amongst the so-called Hell's Angels, having effectively, if not officially, outgrown their former or traditional status.  You only have to have a bike with high, cowhorn-like handlebars to be of this alternative disposition and manifestation of biker radicalism, the Y-like implications of the handlebars in question pointing towards that Y-chromosomal freedom of psyche of the metaphysical male, for whom Yo, Yaweh, Yes, Yohalin, and other conceptual or contextual manifestations of Y-like freedom will be the primary concern of Social Theocracy in the decades and centuries to come, an ideology whose very emblem, the so-called Supercross of an upended CND symbol, is but a foreshadowing of that Y-like freedom that, in the more advanced stage of global civilization, will be less Superchristian than Supra-christian, with superhuman elements serving a religiously-sovereign supra-human community whose metaphysics and antimetachemistry will be more than simply theoretical, but the heavenly and antihellish praxis, so to speak, of that which stretches beyond anything known to man.

 

 

WHY EVIL CONDITIONS CRIME AND GRACE CONDITIONS WISDOM

 

In general terms, the free conditions the bound, so that one can say that binding is determined by freedom, irrespective of gender, and therefore of whether, in female vein, soma conditions psyche or whether, in male vein, psyche conditions soma.

The conditioning of psyche by soma in both metachemistry and chemistry, the hegemonically female elements
par excellence, means that crime is conditioned by evil and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of evil, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metachemistry, evil and crime, corresponding to beauty and love in free soma and to ugliness and hatred in bound psyche, are genuine, whereas in chemistry, more the element of spirit than of will, evil and crime, corresponding to strength and pride in free soma and to weakness and humility in bound psyche, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on psyche as opposed to soma, even with a relative predominance of soma over psyche in chemistry, due in large part to the antiphysical subversion of chemistry at the behest of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on what we have elsewhere described as - and know to be - the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the southwest to the northeast points of the axis in question.

The conditioning of soma by psyche in both metaphysics and physics, the hegemonically male elements
par excellence, means that wisdom is conditioned by grace and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of grace, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metaphysics, grace and wisdom, corresponding to truth and joy in free psyche and to illusion and woe in bound soma, are genuine, whereas in physics, more the element of ego than of soul, grace and wisdom, corresponding to knowledge and pleasure in free psyche and to ignorance and pain in bound soma, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on soma as opposed to psyche, even with a relative preponderance of psyche over soma in physics, due in large part to the antichemical subversion of physics at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics on what we have elsewhere described as - and know to be - the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the northwest to the southeast points of the axis in question.

However, the upended subordinate gender corollaries of these mutually exclusive hegemonic elements follow the pattern, under pressure from the hegemonic gender, of their gender opposites, not of themselves, whether as soma apparently conditioning psyche in antimetaphysics and antiphysics respectively or, across the hegemonic gender divide, as psyche seemingly conditioning soma in antimetachemistry and antichemistry respectively, so that, irrespective of their respective gender ratios of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, the subordinate gender mimics, as far as possible, the criteria applying to their gender betters, pseudo-sin no less a corollary of pseudo-folly in antimetaphysics and sin no less a corollary of folly in antiphysics ... than pseudo-goodness is a corollary of pseudo-punishment in antimetachemistry and goodness a corollary of punishment in antichemistry. For, speaking generally, there can no more be sin without folly than ... goodness without punishment, just as, from the standpoint of the hegemonic gender in any given elemental position, there can no more be crime without evil in free soma than, across the gender divide, wisdom could possibly exist without a gracious precondition in free psyche.

Notwithstanding the distinctions between moral evil and crime or, again generally, moral grace and wisdom and their immoral counterparts (already touched upon in a series of previous weblogs), the chief distinction between the hegemonic gender's conditioning of the bound by the free and their gender subordinate's conditioning of it under pressures from those a plane above them in either of the respective noumenal or phenomenal elemental positions will be that, in the former case, the ratio of free to bound will always favour the free, whether noumenally on a 3:1 basis or phenomenally on a 2½:1½ basis, whereas in the latter case the ratio of free to bound will always be contrary to the free, whether noumenally on a 1:3 basis or phenomenally on a 1½:2½ basis, with predictably unattractive consequences.

But this is effectively a separate subject (not least in respect of the immorality already touched upon), so I shall leave it there for the time being, only remarking, in conclusion, that the subversion of chemistry by antiphysics at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry in the one axial case and the subversion of physics by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics in the other axial case provides a compromise solution whereby a male-oriented bound psyche, corresponding to sin, and a female-oriented bound soma, corresponding to goodness, will correspond to the greater part of each subordinate gender's respective ratio of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, i.e. the 2½ (as opposed to the 1½), at the expense, axially speaking, of the hegemonic gender and without the benefit, traditionally, of either genuine salvation to free psyche in metaphysics or, in the case of the antichemical, genuine undamnation, speaking paradoxically and contrary to the will of godliness, to free soma in metachemistry, the reason being that neither axis can exist independently of the other whilst an elemental fudge at either pole continues to be the general rule and to keep them in some kind of axial relativity whose respective modes of consistency and stability are held up as guarantors of continuity, and therefore as justifying their respective poles.

 

I do not doubt the credibility of such a claim, but I have a different mindset and approach to axial relativity which the reader may already have familiarized himself with in other writings by me and accordingly have come to the conclusion that I am no apologist for the axial status quo!

 

 

ALE AND STOUT

 

Anyone familiar with my philosophy will know that I distinguish the southwest from the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass on the basis of an equivocal female hegemony in chemistry over an ‘upended’ male position of antiphysics-cum-pseudo-physics (which from now on, for simplicity’s sake, we shall simply refer to as pseudo-physics) from an equivocal male hegemony in physics over an ‘upended’ female position of antichemistry-cum-pseudo-chemistry (which shall likewise be simplified to pseudo-chemistry), thus in effect distinguishing water over pseudo-earth (or pseudo-vegetation) from earth (or vegetation) over pseudo-water or, in vulgar parlance, ‘piss’ over pseudo-‘shit’ from ‘shit’ over pseudo-‘piss’, the former pairing akin, in sartorial terms, to a flounced skirt over flared pants and the latter akin to tapering pants over a straight skirt, as though in a distinction, generally speaking, between sensuality and sensibility or, more correctly, sensuality and pseudo-sensibility on the one hand, and sensibility and pseudo-sensuality on the other, the centrifugal and the centripetal, a context governed by objectivity in female vein and one governed, in male vein, by subjectivity.

So what does all this have to do with ale and stout beers? Let me answer that query in the following way. Taking our gender and sartorial parallels from the above, we should be able to argue, with some justification and overlooking for the moment populist notions that would tend to intuitively confirm this, that bottles parallel skirts and, by contrast, cans parallel pants (or jeans), since bottles tend to be transparent (and water-affirming) whereas cans are somewhat opaque (and earthy), a distinction, after all, between female and male criteria.

 

Therefore we should be able to distinguish bottles over cans on the one hand, that of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, from cans over bottles on the other hand, that of the southeast point of the said compass, as though in a distinction, once again, between flounced skirts and flared pants vis-à-vis tapering pants and straight skirts, leaving anything else to the likelihood of a kind of liberal or androgynous indeterminacy somewhere in between the phenomenal antitheses.

But what is it, you may wonder, that leads one to infer a flared or a tapering parallel, say, to the respective types of bottles and cans? Not necessarily the shape of the bottle or can, or even of the top or widget. What seems to satisfy this requirement is less the medium in which beer is stored than the nature of the beer itself, i.e. whether it lends itself to a watery (‘piss’) or to an earthy (‘shit’) correlation, which, so far as I am concerned, is precisely the distinction between light ale and/or lager and stout and/or brown ale, to simplify the options.

In other words, chemistry over pseudo-physics = bottled light ale over canned lager, whereas physics over pseudo-chemistry = canned stout over bottled light ale, the former pairing exemplifying the overall influence of female criteria and the latter ... that of males, as, I would argue, would the axial distinction between lager and stout.

Therefore a female-dominated distinction between, for instance, bottled light ale and canned lager has to be distinguished from a male-dominated distinction between canned stout and bottled brown ale, the former pairing susceptible to identification with flared phenomenal (relative as opposed, like say dresses, to absolute) clothing and the latter to what tapers as though from the hegemony not of water (‘piss’) but of earthiness (‘shit’).

Now what is particularly interesting about this finding, if I may so put it, is that traditionally the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, in which volume is volumetrically hegemonic over the massedness, so to speak, of pseudo-mass, would be identifiable, in overall axial terms, with church-hegemonic (catholic) criteria, whereas the southeast point of the said compass, in which mass is massively hegemonic over the voluminousness, so to speak, pseudo-volume, would be identifiable, in overall axial terms, with state-hegemonic (puritan or protestant) criteria, which is also, as far as these lower-order points of the axes in question are concerned, to make a distinction between Gaelic football and Association football, since the traditional noumenal, or upper-order, poles to these points tend to encompass hurling in the catholic case and rugby in the protestant one, where the religious correlations would be rather more Roman Catholic with, certainly in Eire, an Old English rather than mass Gaelic connotation and, in England and Britain generally, Anglican rather than Puritan.

Be that as it may, the British Isles has long been a rather paradoxical place, where people tend to be at cross-purposes with themselves in so many contexts, not least in terms of beer-drinking habits, which has seen people of Irish Catholic descent traditionally favouring stout (the beer, we have argued, of the parliamentary/puritan southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) and people of English Protestant, if not puritan, descent favouring ale, not least in its light ale or lager-like manifestation, which, as I have argued, is relative to the catholic southwest point of the said compass and not at all to anything dominated, in physical fashion, by male criteria.

So not only is it paradoxical but extremely ironic that so many Catholic Irish should identify their beer-drinking habits with an English-derived beer, originating it has been said in London’s Covent Garden, while many of their English and even British counterparts favour light ale or lager, as if it connoted with something puritan and male!

 

I think I have shown, with correlations based in a degree of logic, that this is simply not the case, and I could also add to the misery of these 'where ignorance is bliss' people by pointing out that, in overall elemental terms, rock 'n' roll connotes with the catholic, or lapsed catholic, southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass while classical, not least in a strings-oriented symphonic mode, connotes with the protestant if not puritan southeast, and therefore with all that is axially contrary, on phenomenal (lower order) terms to female hegemonic criteria.

 

Put simply, the southwest is about spirit and pseudo-ego, while the southeast is about ego and pseudo-spirit. This is precisely the distinction between chemistry and pseudo-physics on the one hand, and physics and pseudo-chemistry on the other, our flounced skirt and flared pants pairing vis-à-vis their sensible counterparts in tapering pants and straight skirts. So light ale is the beer of ‘piss’-drenched singing rock 'n' rollers and stout, by axial contrast, the beer of ‘shit’-tight scroll-reading orchestral bow-scrapers.

Perhaps we should leave a more detailed examination of the distinctions between light ale and lager on the one hand and stout and brown ale on the other to another time, before things become too complicated!

 

 

STOUT AND BROWN ALE VIS-À-VIS LIGHT ALE AND LAGER

 

I intimated in the last paragraph of my [reformatted] weblog 'Ale and Stout' that I might give this intriguing subject some additional thought in order to clarify one or two outstanding issues and, lo and behold!, that is what I have done and, as usual, resolved the issue to my logical satisfaction.

For physics over pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass equals vegetation (or earth) over pseudo-water or, in common parlance, ‘shit’ over pseudo-‘piss’, and one has here not simply a can/bottle distinction, as noted above, but one, moreover, between stout and brown ale, the latter a kind of ‘shat’-upon beer which accords, in tight skirt-like vein, with pseudo-‘piss’, which, translated back into beer terminology, would equate with brown ale as a manifestation less of phenomenal subjectivity than of phenomenal pseudo-objectivity.

On the other hand, chemistry over pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass equals water over pseudo-vegetation (or pseudo-earth) or, in common parlance, ‘piss’ over pseudo-‘shit’, and here one has not simply a bottle/can distinction, as intimated above, but one, moreover, between light ale and lager, the latter a kind of ‘pissed’-upon beer which accords, in flared pants-like vein, with pseudo-‘shit’, which, translated back into beer terminology, would equate with lager as a manifestation less of phenomenal objectivity than of phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity.

Therefore light ale over lager at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass has to be contrasted with stout over brown ale at the southeast point of the said compass, the former pairing commensurate with chemistry over pseudo-physics, or phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) females over phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) pseudo-males, and the latter pairing commensurate with physics over pseudo-chemistry, or phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) males over phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) pseudo-females.

That, then, is the logical underpinning of the distinctions between ale and lager and/or stout, and one can see that ale, whether light or dark, pale or brown, is, in overall terms, on the female side of the gender fence and both lager and stout, germane as they should be to cans as against bottles, are on its male side, pertaining, as noted above, to separate axes of which the southwest is polar to the northeast on church-hegemonic terms and the southeast polar to the northwest of state-hegemonic terms.

 

 

ON THE SUBJECT OF BLESSEDNESS

 

The notion of God blessing one or others is false, since deriving from 'bovaryized' notions of God which owe nothing to metaphysics, the elemental context of soul par excellence in which ego has no other business than to get itself, as something godly, into heaven. One might say that God is blessed with Heaven or, put differently, the grace of godly truth is blessed with the holiness of heavenly joy. That is it, and that is all it ever could be, in truth.

Hence the graceful truth of metaphysical ego, which is godly, is blessed with the holy joy of metaphysical soul, which is heavenly, and therefore God the Father is blessed with Heaven the Holy Soul.

 

It is even true to say that God the Son is blessed with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, since what metaphysically applies to free psyche also applies to its gender corollary of bound soma, except that here it is the wisdom of metaphysical will, which is son-of-godly, that is blessed with the holy woe of metaphysical spirit, which is the heavenliness of metaphysical not-self, the spiritual heavenliness that, in relation to humankind, one could identify with the breath as against, for anything son-of-godly, the lungs.

 

Therefore, in the bound somatic state-subordinate metaphysical corollary of a church-hegemonic psychic freedom, it could be said that the Son of God is blessed with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, even though such a spiritual heaven is a far cry from the soulful heaven of perfect self-harmony, which is less of the breath issuing from son-of-godly lungs than of the spinal cord to which the self has attained in the transcendence of brain-stem ego.

However that may be - and we should not forget that, with me, psyche preceding soma as male actuality requires the metaphorical association of father preceding son -, metaphysics is the elemental context of most soul, more (in relation to most) ego, less (in relation to least) spirit, and least will, the 'more ego' and 'most soul' constitutive of psychic freedom and the 'less spirit' and 'least will' of somatic binding.

 

Now this ratio-like integrity of metaphysics would be true whether the metaphysics was cosmic and least evolved, natural and less (relative to least) evolved, human and more (relative to most) evolved or cyborgistic (to slightly anticipate the future) and most evolved, the 'most evolved' according with the definitive manifestation of metaphysics in which the holiness of perfect self-harmony will be most developed because not having to contend, as lesser manifestations of metaphysics do and have done in the past, with subversive vitiation at the hands, so to speak, of either metachemical, chemical, or physical 'bovaryizations' of religion - and hence of the concept of godliness - in relation to the Cosmos, nature, and mankind which have tended to marginalize metaphysics  as a cyborgistic mean, and undermine anything approaching true religion from standpoints rooted in either science, politics, or economics, as the prevailing case may be, often with one or more of these 'bovaryized' religions prevailing, to different degrees, at once, and therefore further undermining the possibility of metaphysical self-realization.

For, contrary to metaphysics, metachemistry is the elemental context of most will, more (relative to most) spirit, less (relative to least) ego, and least soul, in consequence of which a society dominated by metachemical religion, in materialist/fundamentalist fiery vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to will at the expense of soul and therefore to the exclusion of anything metaphysical.

Similarly, chemistry is the elemental context of most spirit, more (relative to most) will, less (relative to least) soul, and least ego, in consequence of which a society dominated by chemical religion, in realist/nonconformist watery vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to spirit at the expense of ego and therefore to the exclusion of anything physical.

Likewise, physics is the elemental context of most ego, more (relative to most) soul, less (relative to least) will, and least spirit, in consequence of which a society dominated by physical religion, in humanist/naturalist vegetative (or earthy) vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to ego at the expense of spirit and therefore to the exclusion of anything chemical.

Obviously, although, as noted above, metaphysics is the elemental context of most soul, more (relative to most) ego, less (relative to least) spirit, and least will, it will not be able to achieve its definitive manifestation while the 'bovaryized' modes of religion still prevail and assail it from standpoints in which either will, spirit, or ego take precedence over soul. Only when it is fully self-conscious of what it is and of what it must do to reign supreme will it be able to triumph over the false religions of will (cosmic), spirit (natural), and ego (human), thereby inaugurating the age, commensurate with 'kingdom come', of genuine religion, in which everything will be subordinated to the attainment by males of perfect self-harmony in soul for a metaphysics that is beyond not only anything cosmic and natural, but human as well, a metaphysics, in short, which is effectively cyborgistic and therefore fully metaphysical, in the clear from vitiation at the proverbial hands of anything cosmic, natural, or human, unlike its least evolved, less (relative to least) evolved, and more (relative to most) evolved preceding manifestations.

For metaphysics, to repeat, is the elemental context in which the grace of godly truth in metaphysical ego is blessed with the holiness of heavenly joy in metaphysical soul, and self-transcendence from ego to soul, godliness to heavenliness, truth to joy, is accordingly a prerequisite of metaphysical perfection. The true God-nurture does not bless others but is content with his own blessedness, which is to be blessed with the joyful redemption of godly ego in heavenly soul, that is to say, in the heavenliness of perfect self-centredness.

This is the destiny of the saintly, which institutionally will require the complementarity of pseudo-metachemical angels whose bound soma and free psyche, conditioned by metaphysical pressures, will nonetheless be at variance with the free psyche and bound soma of the metaphysical, since reflective of a female rather than male ratio of noumenal absolutism, as described by me in other writings, not least those associated with my philosophy proper.

 

 

LITERATURE AND THE INTERCARDINAL AXIAL COMPASS

 

Using the intercardinal axial compass of bisecting diagonals as a model for sensual and sensible distinctions on both noumenal and phenomenal planes, we can plot a distinction between drama and poetry as female and pseudo-male options vis-à-vis philosophy and prose as male and pseudo-female options, as though the former pairing corresponded to the sensuality of noumenal and phenomenal objectivity coupled to pseudo-subjectivity at the northwest and southwest points of the said compass, while the latter pairing corresponded, by contrast, to the sensibility of noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity coupled to pseudo-objectivity at the northeast and southeast points of the compass in question.

As I tend to distinguish the northwest from the southwest in terms of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics (from out of antimetaphysics) vis-à-vis chemistry and pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics), I will allow for a noumenal contrast between elemental particles and pseudo-elemental wavicles in respect of the former pairing and for a phenomenal contrast between molecular particles and pseudo-molecular wavicles in respect of the latter pairing, the former commensurate with will and pseudo-soul, the latter with spirit and pseudo-ego.

Therefore, in literary terms, a distinction between the short (elemental particle) drama of metachemical will and the short (pseudo-elemental wavicle) poetry of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-soul must be contrasted with the long (molecular particle) drama of chemical spirit and the long (pseudo-molecular wavicle) poetry of pseudo-physical pseudo-ego, with female and pseudo-male distinctions in each category relative to the noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy that exists between the northwest and southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass.

Likewise as I tend to distinguish the northeast from the southeast in terms of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry (from out of antimetachemistry) vis-à-vis physics and pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry), I will allow for a noumenal contrast between elemental wavicles and pseudo-elemental particles in respect of the former pairing and for a phenomenal contrast between molecular wavicles and pseudo-molecular particles in respect of the latter pairing, the former commensurate with soul and pseudo-will, the latter with ego and pseudo-spirit.

Therefore, in literary terms, a distinction between the short (elemental wavicle) philosophy of metaphysical soul and the short (pseudo-elemental particle) prose of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-will must be contrasted with the long (molecular wavicle) philosophy of physical ego and the long (pseudo-molecular particle) prose of pseudo-chemical pseudo-spirit, with male and pseudo-female distinctions in each category relative to the noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy that exists between the northeast and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.

Doubtless the distinctions between 'short' and 'long', appertaining to elemental and molecular class or axial dichotomies, can be given more concrete interpretation than the above might suggest, with 'short drama' for instance decidedly wilful where the 'long' variety, equating with spirit, would be more verbal and voice-oriented, encouraging a correspondingly long-winded approach to poetry, on the other side of the gender fence, that is more likely to be of the free-verse variety than of anything overly lyrical and metric.

 

But, whether 'long' or 'short', the drama would be female and concerned primarily with fact, the objective expression of female will and/or spirit, whereas the poetry would be pseudo-male and primarily concerned, lacking a capacity for truth in the female-hegemonic circumstances that dominate it, with illusion or, more correctly, with falsity, being the pseudo-subjective impression of pseudo-male pseudo-soul and/or pseudo-ego.
Likewise, to extend our concrete interpretation into axial sensibility to the right of anything sensually hegemonic, one would have to argue that 'short philosophy', meaning an aphoristic approach to philosophising, will be decidedly soulful where the 'long' variety, equating essayistically with ego, will be more intellectual and knowledge-oriented, encouraging a long-winded approach to prose fiction, on the other side of the gender fence, that is more likely to be novelistic than concerned with telling stories on a short-prose basis, as, one suspects, would be that approach to prose fiction that is properly complementary to aphoristic philosophy.

 

However, whether 'long' or 'short, the philosophy would be male and concerned primarily with truth, the subjective impression of male ego and/or soul, whereas the prose would be pseudo-female and primarily concerned, lacking a capacity for fact in the male-hegemonic circumstances that dominate it, with fiction, being the pseudo-objective expression of pseudo-female pseudo-spirit and/or pseudo-will.

Thus a broad distinction in literature emerges between the free female fact of drama and the bound male falsity of poetry which contrasts, as sensuality with sensibility, with the free male truth of philosophy and the bound female fiction of prose – a pseudo-male incapacity for truth under female hegemonic fact making for falsity (and hence poetry) no less certainly than a pseudo-female incapacity for fact under male hegemonic truth makes for fiction (and hence prose).

I shall say little at this point of gender-bender cross-overs from poetry into drama and from philosophy into prose, the former sensually up and the latter sensibly down a plane, but clearly most such cross-overs have been the result, traditionally, of male perversity and ambition which, particularly in the case of drama-loving poets, would constitute the worst form of literary crime!

 

 

LONDON 2008 (Revised 2009-10)

 

 

LITERATURE AND THE INTERCARDINAL AXIAL COMPASS

 

 

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

 

Bookmark and Share