THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS
A volume of aphoristic philosophy by
Copyright © 2008-2010 John O’Loughlin
part of this volume of
aphoristic philosophy during the better part of a wet and windy week in
John O'Loughlin, London 2008
The intercardinal axis stretches from the northwest to the southeast on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and from the southwest to the northeast on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
Therefore it bisects two diametrically opposite class positions on the state-hegemonic axis, namely the upper-class position of the metachemical northwest and the middle-class position of the physical southeast, the former female (diabolic or superfeminine) and the latter male (masculine).
Likewise it bisects two diametrically opposite class positions on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, namely the lower-class position of the chemical southwest and the classless position of the metaphysical northeast, the former female (feminine) and the latter male (divine or supermasculine).
Coupled, however, to each hegemonic position are subordinate positions relative to the upended gender, and these under-plane positions, as I have on occasion called them, correspond in pseudo-supermasculine male vein to pseudo-metaphysics (from out of antimetaphysics) at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, which exists under metachemistry as sequential time (pseudo-time) under spatial space; in pseudo-feminine vein to pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry) at the southeast point of the said compass, which exists under physics as voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) under massive mass; in pseudo-masculine vein to pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics) at the southwest point of the said compass, which exists under chemistry as massed mass (pseudo-mass) under volumetric volume; and in pseudo-superfeminine vein to pseudo-metachemistry (from out of antimetachemistry) at the northeast point of the said compass, which exists under metaphysics as spaced space (pseudo-space) under repetitive time.
Therefore metachemistry coupled, at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to pseudo-metaphysics is polar to physics or, more correctly in relation to the same gender, pseudo-chemistry coupled, at the southeast point of the said compass, to physics, while across the overall axial divide chemistry or, more correctly in relation to the same gender, pseudo-physics coupled, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to chemistry is polar to metaphysics coupled, at the northeast point of the said compass, to pseudo-metachemistry.
One can also have – and sometimes finds – quasi-metachemistry (from out of antimetaphysics), quasi-physics (from out of antichemistry), quasi-chemistry (from out of antiphysics), and quasi-metaphysics (from out of antimetachemistry), but these ‘quasi’ positions tend to be the immoral exception to the unmoral (‘pseudo’) rule, as are the amoral ‘bovaryizations’, so to speak, of the hegemonic positions coming down from above, a plane up in each class case, in defiance of their moral advantages in relation to the normally unmoral subordinate gender position.
For morality, whether metachemical, physical, chemical, or metaphysical, exists over unmorality, as the clear in relation to the unholy where female-dominated gender pairings are concerned, and as the holy in relation to the unclear where their male-dominated – and sensible – counterparts are concerned.
Therefore anything amoral, coming down from above (a plane up) will be as morally undesirable from the hegemonic gender’s standpoint as anything immoral coming up from below (a plane down) from the standpoint of the subordinate gender, which will normally be that of pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry and of pseudo-chemistry under physics on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and of pseudo-physics under chemistry and of pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
Examples, in literature, of literary immorality, coming up from below, include drama (of which there is a considerable amount) written by males and of philosophy (of which there is comparatively little) written by females, whereas examples of literary amorality (coming down from above) include poetry (of which there is comparatively little) written by females and of fiction (of which there is a great deal) written by males.
For fiction is no less pseudo-female than poetry is male or, rather, pseudo-male, while drama is no less female than philosophy is male, which, transposed to our respective axes on the intercardinal axial compass, will give us drama over pseudo-poetry vis-à-vis pseudo-philosophy over fiction on the state-hegemonic axis, but pseudo-drama over poetry vis-à-vis philosophy over pseudo-fiction on the church-hegemonic axis.
The difference between the metachemical and chemical forms of drama, however, is that whereas the former, corresponding to absolute (noumenal) criteria is ‘short’, the latter, corresponding to relative (phenomenal) criteria, will be ‘long’ – the difference, in a word, between elemental particles and molecular particles, the concrete ethereal and the concrete corporeal.
Likewise, the subordinate gender positions, or literary genres, will reflect these absolute/relative distinctions, being, in poetic terms, either ‘short’ or ‘long’, though less in relation to will and spirit than to pseudo-soul and pseudo-ego, their gender-representative attributes.
Similarly, the difference between the physical and metaphysical forms of philosophy is that whereas the former, corresponding to relative (phenomenal) criteria, will be ‘long’, the latter, corresponding to absolute (noumenal) criteria, will be ‘short’ – the difference, in a word, between molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, the abstract corporeal and the abstract ethereal.
Likewise, the subordinate gender positions, or literary genres, will reflect these relative/absolute distinctions, being, in prosaic terms, either ‘long’ or ‘short’, though less in relation to ego and soul than to pseudo-spirit and pseudo-will, their gender-representative attributes.
For no less than pseudo-soul and pseudo-ego in the pseudo-metaphysical and pseudo-physical forms of poetry will be germane, under female hegemonic pressures, to bound psyche, pseudo-spirit and pseudo-will in the pseudo-chemical and pseudo-metachemical forms of fiction will be germane, under male hegemonic pressures, to bound soma.
Males, if left to their own devices, will no more opt for bound psyche (coupled to free soma) than females for bound soma (coupled to free psyche). In either case, all such gender paradoxes, which we have equated with the ‘pseudo’, are a consequence of hegemonic pressure from the opposite gender, whose existence, a plane up from their subordinate complements, ensures the paradoxical outcome described, an outcome which, despite a superficial emphasis on soma in the female-dominated cases and on psyche in the male-dominated ones, cannot change the basic gender ratio of the subordinate gender, whether in relation to male psyche or to female soma, and whether with an absolute (3:1) or a relative (2½:1½) bias.
Thus although the subordinate gender can be obliged to emphasize free soma (if pseudo-male) or free psyche (if pseudo-female), their respective gender bias towards either psyche or soma will persist and effectively continue to characterize them, come what may.
For females and males remain gender opposites, despite seeming complementary appearances to the contrary.
Just as the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, characterized by metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, is a combination of noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity, akin to a sartorial distinction between flounced dresses and flared boiler-suits and/or zipper-suits, so the southeast point of the said compass, characterized by physics and pseudo-chemistry, is a combination of phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, akin to a sartorial distinction between tapering pants and tight skirts.
Thus an overall polar distinction between noumenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity on the female side of the gender divide, as between noumenal pseudo-subjectivity and phenomenal subjectivity on its male side, confirming the axial integrity of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society.
Now just as the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, characterized by chemistry and pseudo-physics, is a combination of phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, akin to a sartorial distinction between flounced skirts and flared pants, so the northeast point of the said compass, characterized by metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, is a combination of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal pseudo-objectivity, akin to a sartorial distinction between tapering zipper-suits and tight dresses.
Thus an overall polar distinction between noumenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity on the male side of the gender divide, as between noumenal pseudo-objectivity and phenomenal objectivity on its female side, confirming the axial integrity of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society.
Obviously the deliverance of the phenomenal pseudo-subjective to noumenal subjectivity, as of pseudo-physics to metaphysics, would be constitutive of salvation, whereas the deliverance of the phenomenal objective to noumenal pseudo-objectivity, as of chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, would constitute counter-damnation, the ‘first’ (chemical) becoming ‘last’ (pseudo-metachemical) and the ‘last’ (pseudo-physics) becoming ‘first’ (metaphysical).
Such, in a nutshell, is the procedure or methodology of salvation, which cannot proceed without the correlative counter-damnation of females. For salvation is strictly a male destiny, the destiny of those who have fallen from XY self-division into an XX-X worldly compromise in mortal isolation, whose gender situation is subject to female hegemonic criteria insofar as they exist in terms of free soma and bound psyche (contrary to male norms) under chemical female (feminine) pressures.
Therefore if they are to be returned to free psyche and bound soma, the Y-oriented original starting-point for post-pubic males from which they were picked off by an XX-chromosomal seduction to arrive at the aforementioned beauty-deferring XY-chromosomal self-division, they must be saved from their upended subordinate gender predicament (as pseudo-mass under volume) and granted the benefit of gender sync in metaphysics, so that, contrary to before, it would be male criteria that called the proverbial shots in relation to the determination of free psyche and bound soma (contrary to gender actuality) for females, become, in the counter-fall of counter-damnation, pseudo-females whose noumenal pseudo-objectivity in pseudo-metachemistry will be the gender complement to the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics, existing or, rather, being a plane up at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass in time (repetitive) over pseudo-space (spaced), like the proverbial St. George whose triumphant foot is firmly planted upon the prostrate form of the slain dragon, analogous not only to the sartorial paradigm of tapering zipper-suits over tight dresses mentioned above, but to all that most typifies the triumph of godliness/heavenliness over pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness in and with ‘Kingdom Come’.
Obviously, if this process is taken far enough, and the deliverance of both the pseudo-physical and the chemical to metaphysics (salvation) and pseudo-metachemistry (counter-damnation) goes ahead to a significant and even conclusive degree, then there will be a kind of knock-on effect on the opposite axis, the axis not of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate … but of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, and it will be logically sustainable for us to postulate the damnation of the metachemical to pseudo-chemistry, as though from flounced dresses to tight skirts, on the female side of the gender divide, and the correlative counter-salvation of the pseudo-metaphysical to physics, as though from flared zipper- or boiler-suits to tapering pants, on the male side of such a divide, thereby effectively collapsing the axis in question, which, I have long maintained, is now more than ever the secular fruit of schismatic heresy.
For without prey to avail of at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical will quickly discover that their exemplification of somatic license, of free soma coupled to bound psyche, is in vain, in consequence of which they will simply be put out of commission, so to speak, and those who have financed them in what some would call a Faustian pact will be obliged to cut their physical/pseudo-chemical losses and deal with the damned and counter-saved, judging them as they see fit as preconditions of their own entitlement to axial transposition and subsequent make-over in something approximating the pseudo-physical and chemical preconditions of metaphysical salvation and pseudo-metachemical counter-damnation, if they, too, are to be saved and counter-damned, and thus join with those who have already experienced the blessings or pseudo-cursings of deliverance from their pseudo-omega and alpha world, to signal the end of axial relativity and of all exploitation, not least that which originally stemmed from the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry in terms of free soma and bound psyche and is accordingly characteristic of free will (and spirit), as germane to female XX-chromosomal freedom of seductive exploitation, whether or not as a precondition of reproductive resolution in the surrogate plenum of maternity.
This, then, is how the world is overcome. It is not, initially, the entire world, since we are focusing our deliverance on the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (identified in the aphorism above with the chemical alpha and the pseudo-physical pseudo-omega), where the generality of Catholics, whether traditional or lapsed, are to be found and, being of a nature that is more self-effacing than self-affirming, more sinfully self-conscious, one might say, than stiff-upper-lip smug (in the parliamentary/puritan manner), are of that which can be overcome and accordingly delivered in the aforementioned gender-bipolar terms.
And not just, as traditionally, to some accommodation with Christ, which is always a temporary matter having its axial polarity in the dual traditions of Catholic Mass and Confession (wherein verbal absolution for penitential contrition is the surrogate grace and substitute for the want of genuine grace and wisdom achievable, for mankind, on a transcendental meditation-like basis), but, as time marches on, permanently, through a substance-motivated cyborgization that will have to become increasingly communal in structure if enough people are to be elevated to a properly supra-human status commensurate with godliness and pseudo-devilishness at the ultimate metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical levels, which can be characterized as cyborgistic, as properly germane to global civilization marching towards the prospect of genuine universality, an outcome that has less to do with the Cosmos than with that which is its noumenal antithesis in some kind of space-centre apotheosis.
For just as mankind are antithetical to nature, and never more so than when the fulcrum of what is representative of man is understood as existing humanistically at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, with the generality of Catholics appearing, by contrast, closer to nature, so cyborgkind, as we may call that which lies beyond mankind, are antithetical to the Cosmos, and will have a right to the aforementioned space-centre apotheosis as the definitive manifestation of all that is most metaphysically evolved and pseudo-metachemically counter-devolved, all that corresponds, in general terms, to the celestial city of space-oriented urbanization.
On the other hand, man, as a quintessentially parliamentary/puritan humanistic phenomenon, committed to the terrestrial city of earthly urbanization, does not have any such celestial ambitions, nor is he in any kind of line for that which must be overcome, at least directly, if salvation and counter-damnation are to be achieved.
Hence ‘world overcoming’ is a term which has to be understood, as intimated above, only in relation to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where the pseudo-physical and chemical of the worldly pseudo-omega and alpha can be delivered to otherworldly metaphysical and pseudo-netherworldly pseudo-metachemical criteria, thereby respectively attaining to salvation and counter-damnation at the noumenal expense of their previous phenomenal limitations.
With the gathering momentum of this process in all or most Catholic or Catholic-equivalent countries, the netherworldly metachemical and pseudo-otherworldly pseudo-metaphysical will be ‘put out of business’ to the extent that there will no longer be a large pool of lapsed Catholics and others of a similar ilk upon whom to impose their exemplifications of somatic license, and their days will accordingly be numbered, falling and counter-rising to the damnation (for metachemistry) of pseudo-chemistry and to the counter-salvation (for pseudo-metaphysics) of physics, wherein they will be judged and subjected to humanistic justice, the justice whose traditional raison d’être, stemming from the pseudo-righteousness of physics (with its paradoxical emphasis on bound soma under female-dominated pressures), would have been to protect the integrity of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria from subversion by its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate rival, in the interests of axial stability and continuity.
For only by keeping the flounced skirt in check can the flounced dress continue to reign over both flared zipper-suit and straight skirt/tapering pants alike. And who or what better to serve the flounced dress than the straight or tight skirt of pseudo-chemistry, the pseudo-objective phenomenal counterpart to the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry, with its somatic freedom and psychic binding, its moral evil and moral crime (ever germane to the ‘increase and multiply’ ethos of Old Testament sanction), which rules the state-hegemonic roost as undisputed, albeit constitutional, sovereign factor.
They have called this moral evil and moral crime of metachemistry God (the Father), but we know it to be Devil the Mother/Hell the Clear Spirit and, for the bound-psychic corollary of free soma, the Daughter of the Devil/the Clear Soul of Hell, the former pairing commensurate with the beauty and love of free will and free spirit in metachemistry, the latter pairing commensurate with the ugliness and hatred of bound psyche metachemically, the absolute (noumenal, 3:1) ratio of the former to the latter very considerably in the former’s favour, which is why there is usually three times as much beauty and love as ugliness and hate with this elemental position, three times as much positive supersensuousness as negative subconsciousness, three times as much positive supernature as negative subnurture, three times as much positive superheathenism as negative subchristianity, and so on, with considerably more somatic brightness than psychic darkness in noumenally objective consequence.
Therefore this has always been the anchor of civilization and effective starting-point from which to extrapolate, in worldly vein, civilizations like that of the Christian West which remain beholden to the Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father expedience even as they flaunt an extrapolative deity as representatively characteristic of their own more worldly position, whether with effect to woman in Mother of God-like vein or, across the axial divide that must inevitably arise out of the Reformation, Puritanism following Anglicanism, in Son of Man-like vein, this latter of which would more accord with a Puritan than a Catholic or even an Anglican position.
For more exclusively Catholic, at least on noumenal terms, is the ‘Son of God’ concept of deity, which owes much, if not everything, to the Catholic postulate of the Resurrection.
But this is also a phoney god, a god that fails and has manifestly failed to deliver anything approximating a universal requirement, insofar as the anchor for any such extrapolation is strictly Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the necessary beginnings of civilization, and one cannot really or reasonably believe in a Son of God when in truth there never was anything in back of Him who actually corresponded to God the Father.
Neither can one reasonably believe in the Marian deity, another falsehood, as the Mother of God when, in fact, the Christ was no more than a Son of God or, rather, of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, in which case His actual logical status is more problematic, obliging us to postulate less flattering epithets to describe his effective status.
But even the Son of Man comes out of an analysis of these pseudo-gods, these false deities, in pretty poor shape; for ‘Son of Man’, much as it may parallel ‘Son of God’, is a meaningless term unless associated with Man the Father, the free psychic equivalent of God the Father, so that its status, as something germane to bound soma as opposed to free psyche, is understood as constituting a state – and in this axial instance a state-hegemonic – parallel that owes little or nothing to church – not even church-subordinate – criteria.
Certainly the conception ‘Son of God’ is less than of the Church in its bound-somatic crucifixion paradigm, which would correspond to the dark side as opposed to the bright side where metaphysics is concerned, as, incidentally, would the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
But, priestly surrogates aside, there never was a bright side to Catholic metaphysics, only the illogical postulating of the resurrection of the crucifixional paradigm of bound soma from below, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to the above, where, in due Romanized north-eastern vein, He would represent the ‘sins of the world’ to the Father.
Yet this ‘father’ is no Father in the true sense of metaphysical godliness, whose free ego is truthful, but Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father antithetically in back of metaphysics, what we have termed metachemistry and know to be commensurate with beauty and (for Hell the Clear Spirit) love in free soma and (for The Daughter of the Devil) ugliness and (for The Clear Soul of Hell) hatred in bound psyche, and thus with everything that stands contrary to whatever can be properly associated with truth and joy in metaphysical free psyche (God the Father/Heaven the Holy Soul) and with illusion and woe in metaphysical bound soma (the Son of God/the Holy Spirit of Heaven), the latter of which, in each and every one of its metaphysical permutations, shouldn’t have any relationship or connection with metachemistry in each of its fourfold permutations, since metaphysics and metachemistry are, as intimated above, completely irreconcilable and hence incompatible, as incompatible as the noumenal modes of alpha and omega, objectivity and subjectivity, space and time.
So the ‘Son of God’ postulate is a total fraud when it comes to representing ‘sins of the world’, which He could only have taken upon himself down at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to the so-called Father, the Father who doesn’t exist above Him, in metaphysical free psyche over metaphysical bound soma, because there is no room for such a divine father in a civilization that is merely an extrapolation from Middle-Eastern civilization, more specifically from Judaism, and consequently remains beholden to Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father as the proverbial ‘best of a bad job’ and effective sugar-coating of the bitter pill of overwhelming female dominion characterizing both Cosmic (as here) and (down below) natural criteria.
Strangely, the Christian West, as an extrapolative civilization, never has had any connection, least of all officially, with metaphysical godliness, since any move in a Buddhist direction, implying recourse to transcendental meditation and hence lungs and breath, can only be discouraged and denigrated as ‘atheist’ from a standpoint rooted in the free will of Devil the Mother and beholden to the free spirit of Hell the Clear Spirit – in other words, to both beauty and love.
These beautiful and loving aspects of metachemical soma necessarily, by their very existence, rule out the possibility of metaphysical psyche, which is the starting-point of metaphysics as a male element reflecting male criteria of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, to which the metaphor of Father preceding Son can be applied, as, of course, to its physical counterpart ‘down below’, at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where, as we have seen, the precedence of bound soma by free psyche can – and should – be metaphorically interpreted in terms of Man the Father and Son of Man, this latter the more state-hegemonically representative term within a ratio that would be more 2½:1½ than 3:1.
Be that as it may, neither the Son of Man nor the so-called Son of God actually amounts to anything genuinely divine; for to be that you must be properly aligned with metaphysical criteria, being the free-ego Father that precedes the bound-will Son as psyche preceding soma in male gender actuality.
But, in transcendental meditation, the free-ego Father, who is truth, utilizes the bound-will Son, who is illusion, in order to temporarily identify with the bound-spirit Holy Spirit of Heaven, which is woe, so that he may recoil, in self-preservation, from the out-breath of lung projection to self more profoundly, bypassing his starting-point in the free ego to achieve a temporary (alas!) accommodation with the free soul of Heaven the Holy Soul, which is joy, the joy (bliss) of perfect self-harmony, of maximum self-togetherness, which, unfortunately, has to be abandoned in order that the god-self, which is true to metaphysical ego, may psychologically plunge anew, projecting itself down, into the lungs and breath of metaphysical not-self, the bound soma of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, abandoning truth for illusion and woe in the name of joy, and thus re-experience, over and over, the benefit of recoiling, in self-preservation, to self more profoundly.
One might call that, in fairly Nietzschean vein, an ‘eternal recurrence’, since it is necessarily repetitive in character, like time per se, and appertains to metaphysics. But it is still only human or, at any rate, of godly men; it is still affiliated with mankind, even if more peripherally than is the context, puritan-like, of prayer or, for that matter, bible-reading intellectuality.
Therefore it is not constitutive of metaphysics per se, which will be cyborgistically global, but of a penultimate mode of metaphysics that is uniquely Far Eastern in character, being antithetical to the naturalistic metaphysics, so to speak, of yogic sex pretty much as puritan humanism would consider itself antithetical, ‘down below’ in the phenomenal realms of mass and volume, to the mass catholic position that pays homage to Marianism as the embodiment of female perfection in maternal resolution, another ‘naturalism’ which civilization, this time with an emphasis on bound soma rather than free psyche, and hence upon civility as opposed to culture, categorically rejects, as an obsolescent or otherwise undesirable sensuality vis-à-vis its own stiff-upper-lip sensible pretensions, not least to New Testament independence of the Old.
Being antithetical to nature, however, is only what characterizes mankind, whether humanistically as with Puritanism, or with an effective superhuman orientation, as with Buddhism and, to a lesser extent, upper-order Catholicism, whose ‘Son of God’ pretensions not only put the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse, but effectively exclude the relevant horse … of metaphysical free psyche … in the extrapolative deference of this Son to Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father metachemically in back of itself, thereby excluding God the Father proper from the overall frame in the interests of Old Testament Creationism and, more pertinently, what could be called Creatorism, with an emphasis less of what has been created than on the creative source itself, about which conventional theology is usually reluctant to theorize, bearing in mind its anything but divine nature.
So Western civilization, like its Middle Eastern anchor, is so morally and elementally limited, falling well short of metaphysics proper, as to have no place whatsoever even for transcendental meditation, and therefore we cannot accord it eternal validity, only a certain temporal longevity commensurate with ‘the world’ whose days, if the burgeoning of globalization is any evidence, are already numbered, having been overtaken by the march of global progress largely though not exclusively at the behest of the United States of America, or at least by whatever is culturally best and most technologically progressive about America as a radically multiracial society that furthers the global dimension willy-nilly, even when it is not consciously aware of doing so, and all because there is so much about this multiracial society which is non-Western in character.
It was America above all that profited from the Second World War as it found itself intervening, post-Pearl Harbour, on the side of the humanist powers, whether liberal or social democratic, at the expense of the ‘maschine kultur’ cyborgistic fascism of Nazi Germany, which was, so far as I am concerned, the actual starting-point, not least of all film-wise, of the cyborg age, the beginning, in a way, of globalization which, based in cameras and mechanistic technology generally, sought dominion if not over the entire world (a highly ambitious notion!), at least over its European neighbours including, most especially, the Soviet Union.
But the USSR (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was, as I have argued in other texts, more an extrapolation from the West, meaning liberal humanism, that a catalyst for cyborgistic globalization premised upon ‘maschine kultur’, and consequently it was never anything more than the politico-economic omega point, so to speak, of the West, the logical stage, whether progressive or, more likely, regressive, beyond bourgeois humanism and liberal democracy that has to be identified, willy-nilly, with proletarian humanism and social democracy.
Now if this absolutist humanistic extrapolation from the West gives itself global airs, as some would allege (though we must credit Stalin with less fanciful ambitions than Trotsky), then there is every likelihood of a fascist backlash, of a refusal, on the part of peoples more accustomed to a catholic tradition, to take such a prospect for granted but, rather, to strive to oppose it by equally totalitarian means – fostered as much by the need for a resolute opposition as by the necessary exclusion of communistic elements from the overall polity – in order that the Church may be protected from those who would overthrow it without reference to Messianic intervention but solely on a secular basis, one fuelled by the dialectical materialism of this aforementioned state-absolutist extrapolation from state-hegemonic axial criteria that we have identified with proletarian humanism and, correlatively, with a totalitarian form of social democracy.
So oppose it they did, though in Hitler’s case, a nominal Austrian Catholic who later acquired German citizenship, the ‘fascism’ of the original movement was steadily eroded by militarist considerations even before the sell-out to the Prussian Junkers, insofar as the Brown Shirt repudiation of the Versailles Treaty and its crippling implications for Germany in the post-War era was anything but fascistically concerned, as in Latin countries and to a lesser extent in the fledgling Irish Free State, with the defence of the Catholic Church from ‘atheistic’ barbarians, some of whom were not even Marxist, still less Bolshevik, so much as socialist republicans of a radical stamp whose ancestral derivation from the French Revolution would always put them at polar loggerheads with the Catholic Church, though not necessarily at axial loggerheads with it!
For if it is one thing to be in favour of more secular freedom in relation to traditional church strictures that often fall short of contemporary societal requirements, including technological and environmental transformations, it is quite another to be entirely hostile, on a Marxist basis, to all religion, ‘the opium of the people’, because one’s ideological orientation derives from bourgeois liberal thinking in what, like Britain, would be state-hegemonic countries, and has only the wish to overcome everything that is not social democratically orientated towards the urban proletariat, including besides bourgeois humanism the liberal and other churches.
Doubtless there were so-called ‘fifth columnists’ from both types of revolutionary body at work in the same society or country, but sooner or later a distinction will emerge between those who are socialist republicans in relation, by and large, to catholic societies, and those who are Marxist if not Bolshevik and essentially socialistic in relation to non-catholic societies or to societies whose Catholicism is less prevalent or ethnically representative, as arguably in Russia (predominantly Eastern Orthodox) and much of the former Soviet Union.
Consequently, correlative with this, the reaction to it will be axially representative, whether in terms of Latin fascism or, in a much less uniformly catholic country like Germany, Teutonic nazism, whose ethos was always less church-defensive than state-aggressive, coupled, as it had to be, with that cyborgistic ‘maachine kultur’ ethos which few countries outside Germany and the United States, with the possible exceptions of Britain and Japan, had anything analogous to, least of all on an ideologically systematic basis.
They say your enemy’s enemy is your friend, and that paradoxical adage may have some truth to it insofar as whatever is militantly against, even polar to, social democratic totalitarianism on the state-absolutist axis can actually be of benefit to that which has no interest in social democracy or Marxism or Sovietism whatsoever, if only because its catholic traditions appertain to an alternative axis that not only has to be defended from internal sabotage at the hands of socialist republicans and ethnically-unrepresentative Marxist ‘fifth columnists’, but advanced, eventually, towards a completely new and revolutionary level of church-hegemonic axial criteria, a level which I have in other texts described as Social Theocratic and tend to identify with true communism (or communalism) as against the false (or Marxist-Leninist) communism of social democracy.
In other words, something profoundly religious and able, with the technology and knowledge at its disposal, to deliver the people of its axis from their lowly pseudo-physical and chemical gender situations to what will be an unprecedented manifestation and degree of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, thereby effectively bringing ‘Kingdom Come’ to pass as that which can be characterized by religious sovereignty, conceived as the ultimate sovereignty, one not only beyond but axially contrary to the political sovereignty of the so-called bourgeois or liberal democracies, insofar as it will apply to peoples whose democratic orientation is less liberal humanist, in the parliamentary/puritan manner, than social republican in character, and, in the case of the catholic Irish of Eire, to a people whose assumption of political sovereignty was not unconnected with the need to rid themselves of external interference at the hands of an ethnically incompatible people (the Protestant British), and cannot be dissociated, in consequence, from some degree of catholic traditionalism within the framework of church-hegemonic axial criteria. Otherwise, why bother?
So, in effect, a kind of necessary evil and relatively short-term expedience, not democracy in any representative state-hegemonic sense, as in Britain, but the means whereby a traditionally church-hegemonic people may achieve a degree of axial stability that is intrinsic to their social and cultural norms or traditions.
But, of course, one can argue that these norms, notwithstanding the part played by tradition, are not frozen in aspic or crystal or rock or anything of the sort, but can be taken to a whole new level of society and culture, which I have identified with Social Theocracy in what would be the effective resurrection of the axis in question, stretching, be it not forgotten, from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, and to an accommodation, in consequence of this resurrection, with someone standing and stretching beyond Christ as the long-awaited Messianic figurehead and effective Godfather of ‘Kingdom Come’, whose metaphysics will not be merely confined to a crucifixional paradigm of bound soma and, in some sense, proto-cyborgistic transmutation, as in the Catholic past, but will have the benefit of anterior free psyche as that which properly appertains to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, the truth and joy that is only possible to a definitive degree within the context of cyborgistic universality, wherein the substance-motivated communal cyborgization of the religiously sovereign masses under Social Theocracy will gradually, over many decades if not centuries, come more fully to pass, eclipsing mankind as the ultimate stage of evolving life which will only find its apotheosis, so to speak, in the space centre turned celestial city of true universality.
Some might think my concept of ‘world overcoming’, and hence the overcoming of a significant proportion of mankind, too Nietzschean – man, in his words, being something that should be overcome … in favour of the Superman – and even fanciful in its transcendent ambitions. Others might prefer to level anti-humanist or anti-human rights rhetoric at me in their partisan approach to life from the standpoint of democratic humanism. Few Catholics, I suspect, would take their human situation for granted, particularly as they have been taught all along that man is sinful and in need of redemption, not least through divine intervention.
Certainly I have never tired of emphasizing the redemptive nature of Social Theocracy, as of the world- or man-overcoming that would redeem those whom we have described as pseudo-physical or chemical, i.e. pseudo-men whose phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity (flared pants-like) stems from the chemical hegemony of feminine females, and, in terms of the latter, women whose phenomenal objectivity places them on the side of whatever pertains to the achievement of a surrogate plenum through maternity, whether in relation to the strength and pride of free soma or to the weakness and humility of bound psyche.
But such a resolution, while it may be justified on one level – and that rather more heathenistic than christianistic, so to speak – can only be achieved at the expense of males, and therefore contrary to their psychic integrity and even interests, insofar as the hegemony of feminine females in chemistry over pseudo-physical males or, more correctly, pseudo-masculine males, equivalent to volume over pseudo-mass (massive mass) results in the male becoming ‘feminized’ to the extent that free soma and bound psyche is then (contrary to his actual gender estate as that for whom psyche precedes and preponderates over soma) his effective mean, irrespective of how much it may clash with his natural or, more to the point, nurtural instincts, to coin a term owing more to psyche than to soma and hence to the church as opposed to the state.
Therefore religion is needed to save him from this upended gender predicament and return him, duly transmuted, to his proper high estate, which, in free psyche and bound soma, is akin to a godly image or parallel, with ‘father’ preceding ‘son’.
However, pseudo-physical males cannot be saved from their lowly pseudo-masculine gender meekness under chemical pressures except if feminine females (not diabolic or superfeminine ones) are simultaneously counter-damned to an even more upended gender predicament under metaphysical males in pseudo-metachemistry; for which a pseudo-devilish agent is required in order to do for females what the godly will do for their pseudo-male counterparts, delivering both not only from each other, but from those who would continue to avail of their meekness and, in the female case, pseudo-vanity from the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical vantage-points of vanity and pseudo-meekness, through the aforementioned exemplification of somatic license, or free soma coupled to bound psyche, a free soma that is less a manifestation of ‘original sin’ than of what could be called ‘original evil’, since sin is ever affiliated to the pseudo-physical as the bound psychic corollary, for pseudo-masculine males, of the folly of free soma, which is only ‘free’ because soma has been subjected, under chemistry, to feminine pressures, since contrary to the male gender estate (of free psyche/bound soma) deriving from anterior metaphysics.
Therefore it is not as if the pseudo-masculine male has no prior understanding of or commitment to metaphysics. Rather, he has been so detached from it, bit by bit, by female whiles and seductive ploys rooted in free will, that he has lost his sense of being grounded or centred in it, and therefore would be unable to return to it – and on higher, more synthetically systematic terms – without external intervention from those males who have remained true to themselves, to their psychic self-precedence, call them godly saints or philosopher kings, and would wish, for reasons not entirely connected with the people or, more accurately, the pseudo-physical, i.e. their pseudo-masculine counterparts, but partly if not largely motivated by a determination to bring down both the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical, thereby effectively destroying the other axis, so that they, the saviours and counter-damners, so to speak, will have the long-term benefit of what the Bible would call divine vengeance on the elemental positions in question, but what we, more exactingly logical and rigorous, shall call divine vengeance on the pseudo-divinely pseudo-metaphysical and pseudo-diabolic vengeance on the diabolically metachemical, allowing, it would seem, for gender parallelism between the opposite noumenal positions.
Therefore both the pseudo-physical and the chemical are pawns in the noumenal game of indirectly bringing down the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical, damning the former to pseudo-chemical phenomenality, while likewise being partly responsible for the counter-salvation of the pseudo-metaphysical to physical phenomenality, wherein they will hegemonically exist in relation to what had been pseudo-righteousness rather than, as with the pseudo-feminine females, justice.
But neither pseudo-righteousness nor justice, roughly commensurate with the physical and pseudo-chemical elemental positions, are of much use to themselves or indeed to what they had traditionally served, namely the ruling interests of the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical, with their free soma and bound psyche, if these latter positions, formerly polar to themselves, no longer exist, having fallen and counter-risen, according to gender, following the removal, on a systematically comprehensive basis, of their prey base at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and therefore it is likely that the existing or ensuing physical and pseudo-chemical elements will opt for axial transference to where the pseudo-physical/chemical lapsed catholic generality had been rather than remain in an untenable position, neither able to profit from those whom they would previously have financed nor gravitate, social democratically, to the justice-absolutism (sic.) nadir of their axis, which is less state-hegemonic than state-totalitarian.
Granted that a bankrupt ideology like Marxism-Leninism gives little comfort to anyone who may previously have preferred to finance somatic license than seek its economic penalization, we can only suppose that the more reasonable elements (I employ that term in a non-philosophic sense) of the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass will, as it were, cut their losses and opt, as soon as was politically or socially expedient, for axial transference, even if this did mean that what was physical would have to become somewhat pseudo-physical and what, by contrast, pseudo-chemical comparatively chemical in the ethnic interests of some kind of acceptable precondition of salvation from pseudo-physics to metaphysics and, for the chemical, counter-damnation to pseudo-metachemistry.
Such a final deliverance of the remaining elements to their divine and pseudo-diabolic resolutions would be way beyond divine and/or pseudo-diabolic vengeance, being, if anything, the summation, barring further refinements, of righteousness and pseudo-justice, since those who, in physics, had been pseudo-righteous would have the benefit, following axial transformation, of the genuine article, while their just counterparts, ever in primary state-hegemonic polarity to the metachemical Vain, would no longer be in such a somatically subversive (of masculine psyche) position but, rather, in one that was in every respect pseudo-justly subordinate to the unequivocally righteous hegemony of metaphysics.
What, then, can bring all this to pass, assuming it is possible to do so? Since a thinker, and therefore a philosopher, has to partly repeat himself with virtually every new project, I shall say here what I have said in the past and will doubtless continue to say in the future. There must be a movement for Social Theocracy, the true communism of ‘Kingdom Come’, and that movement must organize itself on a party-like basis, using, where possible, the Nazi Party as a rough guide as to how something fundamentally different from both the traditional and existing state apparatus can, with determination and meticulous planning, manoeuvre itself into a position whereby it can utilize the existing democratic machinery of state to a profoundly non-democratic or, in our case, theocratic end, one characterized by the prevalence, in the masses, of religious sovereignty as the final form of mass sovereignty, a sovereignty that can only have the long-term effect of transmuting the masses towards that which transcends, in time and pseudo-space, them as more genuinely supra-human, or godly and pseudo-devilish, criteria ensue.
Therefore it will be necessary to achieve a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, before any prospect of the supersession of both the religious traditions and the existing political structure can be envisaged, much less systematically undertaken by those who, as Social Theocratic elite, had opted to take the ‘sins of the world’ onto their Christ-like shoulders and, in delivering the people from their political and concomitant burdens, be in a position to secure their religious sovereignty by every and all means at their disposal.
Obviously the building and staffing of centres wherein the religiously sovereign can congregate to have the benefit of Social Theocratic or, more correctly, Social Transcendentalist self-enhancement and not-self curtailment for the metaphysical, i.e. free psyche and bound soma, coupled, for the pseudo-metachemical, to self-curtailment and not-self enhancement, i.e. bound soma and free psyche, will be of paramount importance, and for this purpose it will be not merely necessary to procure and/or manufacture the relevant synthetically artificial substances, but, as a necessary corollary of all that, to oversee the gradual development of the kind of communal cyborgization that, irrespective of gender, will ensure that such specific substances can be taken or ingested with relative impunity, and simply because those who, through religious sovereignty, were entitled to them would not be subject to the sorts of human limitations that, other factors notwithstanding, bedevil the use of drug consumption today, as in the past, but would have the benefit, as a right, of an increasingly supra-human framework commensurate with definitive godliness/heavenliness and, for the pseudo-diabolic females, pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness, in which to lavish their attention on the expansion of mind and/or the contraction of body, as the gender case may be.
Today, however, you play with substances more befitting metaphysical gods or pseudo-metachemical pseudo-devils at your own peril, in a pre-‘Kingdom Come’ situation that, when it doesn’t result in sordid death or paranoid addiction, leads to prosecution and even incarceration in consequence of its criminalization at the hands of a law that is there to protect the world and not to advance otherworldly and/or pseudo-netherworldly criteria.
One cannot really argue with that. But we can – and should – begin to think in terms of alternative scenarios, of which the official coming to pass of what, in religious sovereignty, would properly correspond to ‘Kingdom Come’, is granted verbal articulation and even theoretical endorsement.
For that is what the religious tradition actually points towards, and it would be untrue to itself and even guilty of criminal negligence if it failed, for reasons best known to itself, to endorse or even recognize a credible and viable concept of ‘Kingdom Come’ that was not only properly metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical, but logically sustainable in its non-reductionist, fudge-transcending, gender structuralism.
Do I seriously think the Church will recognize and endorse Social Theocracy as the most credible blueprint for and even implementation, given a majority mandate, of what we may continue to identify, for convenience or common usage’s sake, with ‘Kingdom Come’ …? No, to be perfectly frank I don’t remotely expect high-ranking vested interests in the Catholic Church to effectively cut their own throats by recognizing and endorsing Social Theocracy. At the end of the proverbial day, a revolutionary ideology or movement, even when compatible with a church-hegemonic axial destiny, cannot reasonably expect more than a handful of low-ranking priests to come out in favour of it at the expense of their traditional prerogatives and duties.
The Catholic Church, put bluntly, is simply a manifestation of Western civilization, and Western civilization is not global civilization, nor even Middle Eastern or Far Eastern civilization. Western civilization, particularly in its pristine or catholic manifestation, is simply an anachronism that must be given the ‘coup de grace’ at the earliest convenient opportunity, and for that there will be need of special Social Theocratic authorities who will have the knowledge and means to bring the clean-up process of consigning to the rubbish bin of history all those obstacles to the implementation and development of religious sovereignty in the people - including, besides reactionary churchmen, defeated democratic parties and their no-longer relevant politicians - sensibly to pass.
For when you move beyond the world in terms of the assumption of religious sovereignty, democratically mandated from out the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to a religiously sovereign end, you no longer have need of political parties, who would simply be irrelevant.
Hence they must be disposed of, as must the millions of bibles and prayer-books and hymnals that would continue to stand in the way of Social Theocratic progress if they, too, were not consigned to the historical rubbish heap, presumably via special facilities whose incinerators, working around the clock, would be more than capable of consuming the vast quantities of obsolete material involved, though always proceeding in an orderly and well-logged manner, so that a record is maintained of the numbers dealt with in any given zone and, correlatively, some knowledge is available of the possible numbers still to be confiscated and disposed of in both that and other zones farther afield.
In this way, the process will proceed in an orderly and methodical manner, with a systematic thoroughness that will leave little scope for error or oversight. Eventually, Ireland and other kindred countries where Social Theocracy can be democratically introduced or achieved will be ‘bible free’, ‘prayer-book free’, ‘hymnbook free’, etc., as though delivered from a curse analogous to that which formerly afflicted the country in the days before St. Patrick allegedly banished the snakes en masse – presumably to hell!
Thus with both political and religious anachronisms out of the way, the progress of Social Theocracy and therefore of the Social Theocratization of Ireland and other such countries will proceed largely unimpeded, and it will be down to the ingenuity of the serving elite to bring the benefits of Social Theocratic liberation to the religiously sovereign people … in the guise of Social Transcendentalism, the ‘church’ as opposed to the ‘state’ aspect of the Centre in which the people’s rights will be practically even more than theoretically upheld and advanced, delivering them over to their respective forms of self-enhancement (psychically) and self-curtailment (somatically), according to gender.
For the genders, remember, are opposites, and opposite they will remain even in ‘Kingdom Come’, with the metaphor of St. George and the prone dragon very much symbolic of the kind of metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical structure that will obtain for all Eternity and pseudo-Infinity, Time and pseudo-Space without end.
Thus if you want Eternity, as properly germane to metaphysics, you think cyborgistically, you don’t think humanistically, still less naturalistically or cosmically. And with the substance-motivated development of cyborgization will come not only deliverance from the world of meek pseudo-physics and pseudo-vain chemistry, of femininity and pseudo-masculinity, but the nemesis of all who would, with vain disregard for pseudo-devilishness and pseudo-meek disregard for godliness, prey upon the meek and the pseudo-vain from a desire for wealth, power, and fame, a desire that all too often translates into immense wealth and fame, not to mention power and pseudo-contentment.
These people, who are scarcely human, will not be defeated until the meek have been saved and the pseudo-vain counter-damned. And for that to happen, there will be need of considerably more than penitential contrition and verbal absolution!
the situation nor
have I underestimated it. The Social
Theocratic revolution, if it is to transpire, will be an immense
world-shattering revolution, as was the National Socialist revolution
I do not like this republic, not only for the above reasons, but because every time I look at the tricolour, as I did recently in Galway and again in Dublin, I see the Anglo-Irish subterfuge of continuing, by other means, perfidious Albion’s traditional ‘divide and rule’ policy in Ireland, an Anglican – or Church of Ireland – division of Catholics from Puritans (dissenters) which is the source not only of so much historical rivalry and suspicion, but also of the ongoing division of the greater part of the island of Ireland from the six counties of the North East, the greater part of the province of Ulster in the statelet of so-called Northern Ireland, wherein the gaels or celts remain divided and ruled.
Only when the Anglo-Irish infamy of this tricolour – this colonial trick and Tonean trickery – has been democratically consigned to the rubbish bin of Irish history … will there be any prospect of gaelic unification and thus of a united Ireland, an Ireland not of Catholics and Protestants, but of Social Theocrats whose destiny in Social Transcendentalism will bring them all the self-enhancing benefits of true communism.
One thing philosophy can do is to help one make sense of a variety of seemingly unrelated contexts and to perceive links or correlations between them. Take knives and handguns.
I have already distinguished the southwest from the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass in terms of chemistry over pseudo-physics vis-à-vis physics over pseudo-chemistry, the former pairing commensurate with phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, the latter with phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity.
So can knives and handguns be distinguished from one another, with conventional knives over straight-handled handguns on the one hand, and curve-handled handguns over retractable knives, or knives with a retractable blade, on the other hand.
Therefore a distinction between the phenomenal objectivity of straight knives, which have to be thrust forward into their object, and the phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of straight-handled handguns, which would parallel flared pants under flounced skirts or, for that matter, canned lager under bottled light ale, with the feminine-female pressures of phenomenal objectivity bearing down on the pseudo-physical in such fashion that some of these pressures, ever chemically objective, rub off onto them in the pseudo-subjective manner described.
Now if that is how things work out at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, which one would normally associate with a mass or lapsed catholic position, then they can only work out on a contrary basis across the axial – and ethnic – divide, at the southeast point of the said compass, where we would expect to find varying degrees of parliamentary/puritan criteria.
Hence we would find a distinction between the phenomenal subjectivity of curve-handled handguns and the phenomenal pseudo-objectivity of retractable knives, the blade of which is folded or hidden away in such fashion that it has to be released prior to being used, thereby paralleling tight skirts under tapering pants or, for that matter, bottled brown ale under canned stout, with the masculine-male pressures of phenomenal subjectivity bearing down on the pseudo-chemical in such fashion that some of these pressures, ever physically subjective, kind of rub off onto them in the pseudo-objective manner described above.
So, in overall terms, the phenomenal objectivity of knife thrusting, whether chemical or pseudo-chemical, has to be contrasted with the phenomenal subjectivity of trigger drawing, as the forefinger is wrapped around the trigger of the handgun and used to pull the latter towards the holder of the gun, whether physical or pseudo-physical, curved or straight.
As with literature and, I guess, ale and beer, gender-bender behaviour is not uncommon, especially among youths, and one finds male youths with knives and even a few females, from time to time, with handguns; which, in comparative terms, is probably more excusable if still far from acceptable from a gender representative point of view.
But if the pseudo-masculine male with a straight-handled knife is equivalent to the pseudo-masculine male dramatist in the immoral context of a quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physics (unmoral) and, hence, from straight-handled handguns and, analogously, free-verse poetry, then the feminine female with a straight-handled handgun would be equivalent to the pseudo-masculine male poet in the amoral context of a quasi pseudo-physical departure from chemistry (moral) and, hence, from straight-handled, non-retractable knives and, analogously, free-verse drama.
Conversely, if the pseudo-feminine female with the curve-handled handgun is equivalent to the masculine male philosopher in the immoral context of a quasi-physical departure from pseudo-chemistry (unmoral) and, hence, from retractable knives and, analogously, long-prose fiction (novels), then the masculine male with a retractable knife would be equivalent to the pseudo-feminine female novelist in the amoral context of a quasi pseudo-chemical departure from physics (moral) and, hence, from curve-handled handguns and, analogously, essayistic philosophy.
Hence whilst it is immoral for a pseudo-masculine male to carry a non-retractable knife in quasi-feminine female fashion, it would be only amoral for a feminine female to carry a straight-handled – and presumably straight-triggered – handgun, since that which is hegemonically moral, in this case heathenistically so, can only become amoral in descent, whereas whatever was unmoral in its unholy subordination to clearness will invariably become immoral once it steps over the gender line in relation to straight-handled knives, given the fact that it will be taking a 2½:1½ ratio of bound psyche to free soma into an elemental context, viz. chemistry, whose ratio of free soma to bound psyche is 2½:1½, viz. strength and pride to weakness and humility.
Hence with the gender likelihood of more weakness and humility (if not humiliation) in bound psyche than strength and pride in free soma, it is immorally undesirable for any pseudo-masculine male to step over the pseudo-physical/chemical line through a knife-carrying, if not wielding, proclivity.
Conversely, while it is immoral for a pseudo-feminine female to carry a curve-handled handgun in quasi-masculine male fashion, it will be only amoral for a masculine male to carry a retractable knife, since that which is hegemonically moral, in this case christianistically so, can only become amoral in descent, whereas whatever was unmoral, in its unclear subordination to holiness, will invariably become immoral once it steps over the gender line in relation to curve-handled handguns, given the fact that it will be taking a 2½:1½ ratio of bound soma to free psyche into an elemental context, viz. physics, whose ratio of free psyche to bound soma is 2½:1½, viz. knowledge and pleasure to ignorance and pain.
Hence with the gender likelihood of more ignorance and pain than knowledge and pleasure, it is immorally undesirable for any pseudo-feminine female to step over the pseudo-chemical/physical line through a handgun carrying, if not using, proclivity.
Of course, neither kinds of amorality, coming down from the opposite types of moral positions above, a plane up in each phenomenal case, would be greatly desirable either, since the want of adherence to either a chemical (if female) or a physical (if male) position only encourages the gender underdog to become immorally overreaching in an attempt to escape, under encroaching pressures, from his/her unmoral position, be that unholy in pseudo-physics or unclear in pseudo-chemistry, this latter of course the pseudo-feminine as opposed to pseudo-masculine position.
Naturally, what has been said about knives and handguns as phenomenal weapons could be said of their noumenal counterparts, swords and rifles, though with even more categorical assurance as to the undesirability of amoral or immoral gender cross-overs, given the 3:1 ratio which characterizes both metachemistry and metaphysics in their opposite ways, three times as much soma as psyche to metachemistry, three times as much psyche as soma to metaphysics, and therefore with similar criteria applying to pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry as to pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics at the northwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.
As regards retractable swords, I guess one cannot rule out the likelihood of bayonets as the most representative form of pseudo-metachemical complement to the metaphysical rifle, meaning one with a curved magazine if not handle which can fire several rounds a minute and will probably have telescopic sighting.
Such sophisticated rifles/submachine guns will have the metaphysical jump, so to speak, on retractable swords, or bayonets, pretty much as sophisticated modern helicopters, or choppers, on jump jets, both of which would conform to a kind of St. George and the Dragon parallel insofar as you imagine the Saint with his foot on a prone dragon, a slain objectivity which is then akin to an angel (not to mention, to switch metaphors, the proverbial lion that lays down with the lamb … of God) in a tight or straight dress, a pseudo-objective female, or pseudo-diabolic female, whose unclearness is the unmoral complement to the moral holiness standing triumphantly above her in the form of the blessed Saint, time with its repetitive foot on the spaced-out pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-space at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
In such fashion do latter-day choppers, as I prefer to call them, stand triumphantly above jump jets, conceived as a kind of pseudo-jet which has been subjected to repetitive pressures, that can hover in the manner of a chopper and whose technology thus effectively defers, in spaced fashion, to the hegemonic factor, like an avenging angel of the Lord, who just happens to be a godly saint.
Of course, one could argue, on the basis of my ‘short’/’long’ distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal, the ethereal and the corporeal, that knives and handguns correspond to the former while swords and rifles correspond to the latter, as though indicative of a fall from noumenal ethereality into phenomenal corporeality, from the elemental to the molecular, whether on particle-dominated (chemical/pseudo-physical) or wavicle-dominated (physical/pseudo-chemical) general terms.
In which case knives and handguns would be metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical or metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical, and, by contrast, swords and rifles chemical/pseudo-physical or physical/pseudo-chemical, depending on the axis and therefore the gender orientation in each case.
But although there appears to be a logical symmetry to such a theory, I don’t personally believe in it, if only because swords and rifles seem to be much more elevated types of weapons than knives and handguns, having upper-order associations that one would hesitate to identify with the masses.
Evidently the ‘short’/’long’ theory, which I initially cited in connection with the literary divisions of drama, poetry, prose and philosophy, only applies in certain contexts, not everywhere. In which case, the existing theory of knives and handguns vis-à-vis swords and rifles would stand, irrespective of its incompatibility with the ‘short’/’long’ theory cited above.
I shall continue to keep an open mind, however, in view of the conflict that often arises between common usage and philosophical logic, not to mention my categorical knowledge that elemental particles and elemental wavicles are ‘short’ and hence noumenal, whereas molecular particles and molecular wavicles are ‘long’ and hence phenomenal, the particle subatomic positions corresponding to the concrete, whether noumenal or phenomenal, and the wavicle subatomic positions to the abstract, again whether phenomenal or noumenal.
Swords and rifles, to return to our thesis, are incontestably ‘long’ vis-à-vis knives and handguns, like dresses and zipper-suits vis-à-vis skirts and pants, and yet the latter do not suggest – at least to me – a noumenal standing analogous to elemental particles and wavicles respectively. Perhaps that owes something to the fact that the relationship between beers and wines, normally identifiable with a lower-order/upper-order class dichotomy, is one in which the former are normally ‘short’ and the latter ‘long’, which is to say, are stored in tall as opposed to squat bottles so that, notwithstanding the parts played by kegs and cans, one can infer a parallel with swords and rifles in the case of wine bottles and possibly kegs, leaving to bottled ale a parallel with knives and to canned lager and/or stout a parallel with handguns, as already intimated.
One could also say, in returning to the start of this project, that the world sometimes defies philosophy’s attempt to understand it, or obliges philosophy to, as it were, wrap itself around it rather than subsume it into itself in the manner of an overarching ideology.
Sometimes the subsuming of the world can only be taken so far, others factors notwithstanding, because there remains a distinction between what can be understood of the world and what actually transcends it in terms of an overarching or transcendent ideology, whose viewpoint may sometimes be in conflict with the world and often simply lie beyond it.
Such is the case with Social Theocracy, which makes no claim to worldly approval, still less knowledge, but has only the overcoming of the world conceived in terms of the mass catholic position, traditional or lapsed, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass as its raison d’être, a world-overcoming that would deliver the aforementioned pseudo-physical/chemical people from their lowly estates to the otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly heights of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical Beyond, thereby saving and counter-damning them, according to gender, not only from themselves but from those who avail of their pseudo-masculine meekness and feminine pseudo-vanity to prey upon them from the vantage-point of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where somatic license is sovereign, one might even say ‘queen’ (as in England and the UK generally), and with the end in mind of bringing this predatory axis – the secular fruit of schismatic heresy – down for want of prey.
For only when the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis has been deprived of prey will it be brought down, as the modern-day version of Jehovah’s unequivocal reign over Satan, to face its judgement at the hands of those at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass for whom the Son of Man’s reign over what could be called Antiwoman the Antimother or, more representatively, pseudo-Woman the pseudo-Mother is the christianistic norm, with physical and pseudo-chemical implications for pseudo-righteousness and justice.
Thus will the damned and pseudo-saved, the fallen and counter-risen, be judged, and thus will the physical and pseudo-chemical earn the right to axial transference to the southwest point of the said intercardinal compass, where, duly made over in pseudo-physical and chemical terms, their salvation and counter-damnation to metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry will follow as a matter of course, enabling them to join with those who had already been delivered in such fashion and to give the process of metaphysical evolution and pseudo-metachemical counter-devolution a spur in the directions of increased purism or purity, whether with respect to the supersession of visionary substances like LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide, or ‘acid’) by unitive substances like cocaine (‘coke’) in the case of psychic expansion from ego to soul, godliness to heavenliness, truth to joy, brain stem to spinal cord, in metaphysics or, correlatively, with respect to the supersession of tranquillizers like morphine by narcotics like heroin (‘smack’) in the case of somatic contraction from pseudo-spirit to pseudo-will, pseudo-devilishness to pseudo-hellishness, ugliness to hatred (of somatic self, not least free soma), blood to heart, in pseudo-metachemistry.
Thus from out of the kind of ‘supercatholic’ ego/pseudo-spirit dichotomy will emerge the soul/pseudo-will dichotomy of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry writ large, so to speak, as the Centre (analogous to ‘Kingdom Come’) progresses and counter-regresses towards its totalitarian apotheosis, abandoning the relativity, one might even say the pluralism, of its Social Theocratic inception for the absolutism, still respectful of gender, of its Social Transcendentalist resolution and evolutionary/counter-devolutionary consummation in the utmost soul/pseudo-will of Heaven and pseudo-Hell.
Such will be the true Communism that emerges out of the socialistic theocracy as the culmination of the Centre, and it will require both the utmost communal cyborgization of the religiously sovereign and the utmost space-centre development in order that the Social Transcendentalist apotheosis may come to pass as the antithesis of everything cosmic.
For the Cosmos is rooted in whores and demons, stars and suns, or, more critically, superstars and pseudo-supercrosses (upended ‘supercrosses’ like the CND emblem), heat and pseudo-light, and this ultimate manifestation of ‘Kingdom Come’ will be centred, by contrast, in saints and angels, supercrosses and pseudo-superstars (contiguously encircled ‘superstars’), light and pseudo-heat, as though an ultimate manifestation of St. George and the Dragon, albeit a narcotically slain dragon that is only angelic, tight dress-wise, because of the extent to which it has been rendered senseless and thereby is unable to threaten the peace in grace and wisdom of the holy elect of metaphysical self-awareness, all those supra-human saints in the heavenliness of spinal-cord soul, for whom the persistence of perfect self-harmony in self-togetherness is the ultimate joy.
Thus one might well have a kind of ‘coked up’/’smacked down’ dichotomy between the metaphysically saved and the pseudo-metachemically counter-damned, the former delivered from their bound-psychic sin to the utmost expanded psychic self in soulful self-affirmation, the latter delivered from their free-somatic pseudo-evil to the utmost contracted somatic self in pseudo-wilful self-denial, a contrast not only between grace and pseudo-goodness, holiness and unclearness or, more correctly, pseudo-unclearness, but between blessedness and pseudo-cursedness (counter-cursedness), the blessedness of holy self-affirmation and the pseudo-cursedness of pseudo-unclear self-denial, since the freedom of the psychic self of males demands the enslavement of the somatic self of pseudo-females, without which there is no hegemonic triumph of holiness for St. George over his pseudo-metachemical counterpart in the eternity of metaphysical perfection, and therefore no ‘lying down’ of the neutralized ‘lion’ with the elevated ‘lamb’.
Thus the metaphysical perfection, in blessed holiness, of Eternity requires the pseudo-metachemical imperfection, in counter-cursed pseudo-unclearness, of pseudo-Infinity, whose pseudo-objectivity, constrained beyond all previously known bounds to the utmost pseudo-spiritual pseudo-giving and, ultimately, pseudo-wilful pseudo-doing, will enable the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics first of all to take and then, ultimately, to be as never before.
It is not as if one is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rather, it is Pauline who is being deprived of her somatic freedom in order that Peter may be all the psychically freer, may know the bliss of perfect self-harmony for all Eternity.
And know it cyborgistically, not humanly or naturally or even cosmically (the latter two subjected to analytical vitiation at the hands of more prevalent objectivities), as in the pre-centrist past, but within the synthetically artificial context of that substance-oriented communal cyborgization that will be his religiously sovereign right.
If one may cite a distinction between the superhuman and the supra-human, it will not only be within the cyborg communes as the progression and counter-regression, according to gender, from relativity to absolutism, pluralism to monism, ego/pseudo-spirit ‘liberalism’ to soul/pseudo-will ‘totalitarianism’, but, more generally, in relation to the ongoing dichotomy between the administrative aside to the Centre-proper and all those who had voted for religious sovereignty and were entitled to superhuman service in the interests of their supra-human godliness/heavenliness and pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness, entitled to be protected and advanced in their rights by those whose cyborgization would be less than communal, indeed intensely personal or individual, that they might better serve those whose communal cyborgization will be of the Centre-proper, meaning the ‘church’ rather than ‘state’ aspect of ‘Kingdom Come’, which we can increasingly identify with Social Transcendentalism at the expense of Social Theocracy (and a gradual Y-like supra-cross purism at the expense of the supercross), even though, initially, there will be more Social Theocracy than Social Transcendentalism, if only because revolutionary change is a difficult and protracted process that will have much to concern itself with outside the immediate confines of the Centre, not least in terms of the eradication of traditional political and religious obstacles to the advancement of political and religious or, more correctly, politico-religious progress, as defined by the coming to power of Social Theocracy and the furtherance of its Social Transcendentalist ambitions.
Yet Social Theocracy, the ‘state’ aspect of the Centre, will not come to power without a struggle with the political and religious status quo, which it must democratically vanquish by not only securing the right to operate within the political arena but, in so operating, to achieve from the electorate a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, in order that it may begin the process of removing anachronistic obstacles to the people’s religiously sovereign will the better to consolidate and develop, out of Social Theocratic revolution, what is properly Social Transcendentalist and, hence, quintessentially germane to the ‘church’ aspect of the Centre, which, as noted above, will appertain to the Centre-proper.
I have said it before and I will say it again: one can know little or nothing about the subconscious until one has accepted the supersensuous as its somatic precondition. For in metachemistry, the elemental position in question, soma precedes and predominates over psyche in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the spatial-space absolutism of noumenal objectivity.
Hence one has to allow, with this diabolic (or superfeminine) female element, for the precedence of subconsciousness by supersensuousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between supernaturalism and subnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, superheathenism and subchristianity, the supersensuous/subconscious dichotomy itself indicative of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle mode of what transpires to be a protonic subatomicity given, through beauty and love at the expense of ugliness and hatred, to positive heat.
Contrariwise, in metaphysics, psyche precedes and preponderates over soma in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the repetitive-time absolutism of noumenal subjectivity.
Hence one has to allow, within this divine (or supermasculine) male element, for the precedence of subsensuousness by superconsciousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between, as it were, supernurturalism and subnaturalism or, in equivalent terminology, superchristianity and subheathenism, the superconscious/subsensuous dichotomy itself indicative, as noted above, of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the wavicle at the expense of the particle mode of what transpires to be a photonic subatomicity given, through truth and joy at the expense of illusion and woe, to positive light.
Dropping from metachemistry and metaphysics, the alpha and omega of space and time, to chemistry and physics, the alpha and omega of volume and mass, one will find that, with chemistry, soma precedes and predominates over psyche in the ratio of 2½:1½, a consequence of the volumetric-volume relativity of phenomenal objectivity.
Hence one has to allow, with this feminine female element, for the precedence of unconsciousness by sensuousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between naturalism and unnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, heathenism and unchristianity, the sensuous/unconscious dichotomy itself indicative of a 2½:1½ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity, albeit favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle mode of what transpires to be an electronic subatomicity given, through strength and pride at the expense of weakness and humility, to positive motion.
Contrariwise in physics, psyche precedes and preponderates over soma in the ratio of , a consequence of the massive-mass relativity of phenomenal subjectivity.
Hence one has to allow, with this masculine male element, for the precedence of unsensuousness by consciousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between nurturalism, so to speak, and unnaturalism or, in equivalent terminology, Christianity and unheathenism, the conscious/unsensuous dichotomy itself indicative, as noted above, of a 2½:1½ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity, albeit favouring the wavicle at the expense of the particle mode of what transpires to be a neutronic subatomicity given, through knowledge and pleasure at the expense of ignorance and pain, to positive force.
Therefore no more than subconsciousness can be properly understood except in relation to supersensuousness … can unconsciousness be understood except in relation to sensuousness, where the noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between metachemistry and chemistry is concerned.
Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, no more than subsensuousness can be understood except in relation to superconsciousness … can unsensuousness be understood except in relation to consciousness, where the noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between metaphysics and physics is concerned.
Now what applies to each of the hegemonic elements, viz. metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics, on the intercardinal axial compass applies no less to their subordinate gender complements, viz. pseudo-metaphysics in the case of metachemistry, pseudo-physics in the case of chemistry, pseudo-chemistry in the case of physics, and pseudo-metachemistry in the case of metaphysics.
Under metachemical pressures, the superconsciousness/subsensuousness of metaphysics becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subsensuousness pseudo-superconsciousness of pseudo-metaphysics, with a 1:3 ratio of free soma to bound psyche, pseudo-truth/joy to pseudo-illusion/woe in the reversal of metaphysical attributes from psyche and soma and soma to psyche.
Similarly under chemical pressures, the consciousness/unsensuousness of physics becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-unsensuousness/pseudo-consciousness of pseudo-physics, with a ratio of free soma to bound psyche, pseudo-knowledge/pleasure (carnal) to pseudo-ignorance/pain in the reversal of physical attributes from psyche to soma and soma to psyche.
Likewise, under physical pressures, the sensuousness/unconsciousness of chemistry becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-unconsciousness/pseudo-sensuousness of pseudo-chemistry, with a 1½:2½ ratio of free psyche to bound soma, pseudo-strength/pride to pseudo-weakness/humility (if not humiliation) in the reversal of chemical attributes from soma to psyche and psyche to soma.
Finally, under metaphysical pressures, the supersensuousness/subconsciousness of metachemistry becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subconsciousness/pseudo-supersensuousness of pseudo-metachemistry, with a 1:3 ratio of free psyche to bound soma, pseudo-beauty/love to pseudo-ugliness/hate in the reversal of metachemical attributes from soma to psyche and psyche to soma.
Hence whatever the elemental (hegemonic gender) or pseudo-elemental (upended gender) context, the positive attributes will always accrue to freedom and the negatives ones to binding, with freedom corresponding to the bright side and binding to whatever is in the shadow of such brightness, be the latter superheathen (and metachemical), heathen (and chemical), Christian (and physical) or superchristian (and metaphysical).
Where the hegemonic elements are concerned, one could – and should – distinguish subatomically between the heat of metachemical protons, the motion of chemical electrons, the force of physical neutrons, and the light of metaphysical photons, but we shall find that the free/bound dichotomy corresponds to the virtue and vice of a moral situation in which positivity either predominates (somatically) or preponderates (psychically) over negativity.
Where, on the other hand, the subordinate or pseudo-elements are concerned, one can – and should – distinguish subatomically between the pseudo-light of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-photons, the pseudo-force of pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons, the pseudo-motion of pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons, and the pseudo-heat of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-protons, but we shall still find that the free/bound dichotomy corresponds to the pseudo-virtue and pseudo-vice of an unmoral situation in which positivity does not predominate (somatically) or preponderate (psychically) over negativity.
Yet in all four ‘pseudo’ cases, the emphasis will fall, under pressures from the hegemonic element, on the free factor, notwithstanding axial subversion of the polar phenomenal positions at the behest of the overall controlling element, be it metachemical in the case of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies or metaphysical (at least to a degree) in the case of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate ones.
But if morality is hegemonic and unmorality, corresponding to unholiness (whether pseudo or genuine) in the pseudo-male cases and to unclearness (whether genuine or pseudo) in the pseudo-female cases, subordinate, corresponding, in a sense, to the upended gender a plane down, in each class context, from the hegemonic gender, then immorality is always and everywhere a quasi-metachemical, quasi-chemical, quasi-physical, or quasi-metaphysical departure from pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-physics, pseudo-chemistry, or pseudo-metachemistry, as the case may be, which simply results in the upended gender ratio, be it 1:3 or 1½:2½, inversely noumenal or phenomenal, impinging upon the hegemonic position in a way that emphasizes the negative (and bound) at the expense of the positive (and free), with predictably vicious consequences.
Thus instead of three times as much beauty and love as ugliness and hatred in metachemistry, quasi-metachemistry, departing from pseudo-metaphysics via antimetaphysics, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of three times as much ugliness and hatred as beauty and love, and therefore of three times as much crime as evil.
Likewise, instead of 2½ times as much strength and pride as weakness and humility in chemistry, quasi-chemistry, departing from pseudo-physics via antiphysics, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of 2½ times as much weakness and humility (if not humiliation) as strength and pride, and therefore 2½ times as much pseudo-crime as pseudo-evil.
Similarly, instead of 2½ times as much knowledge and pleasure as ignorance and pain in physics, quasi-physics, departing from pseudo-chemistry via antichemistry, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of 2½ times as much ignorance and pain as knowledge and pleasure, and therefore 2½ times as much pseudo-wisdom as pseudo-grace.
Finally, instead of three times as much truth and joy as illusion and woe in metaphysics, quasi-metaphysics, departing from pseudo-metachemistry via antimetachemistry, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of three times as much illusion and woe as truth and joy, and therefore three times as much wisdom as grace.
Clearly, you don’t have to be a genius to realize that none of these ‘quasi’ positions are good for the reputations of the corresponding hegemonic positions, whatever their kind of morality, since in all four gender-bender cases one will have an unfavourable emphasis upon that which is bound, and hence viciously dark, and therefore absolutely or relatively, depending on the elemental context, immoral.
Even the amorality of those coming down from above, as from the hegemonic elemental position, much as it may result in a greater emphasis on the positive than on the negative attribute, should be discouraged, insofar as all attempts to approximate the pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical pseudo-elements in such fashion will only encourage a correlative coming up, on the part of pseudo-males or pseudo-females, from below, as from their upended gender positions a plane down in each class context, with consequences described above.
It is not the duty of the hegemonic, least of all when noumenally subjective (metaphysical), to play at the subordinate gender’s game with an inverse ratio of somatic and/or psychic factors to what obtains with them, so that we can speak of amorality instead of unmorality, but to remain loyal to who or what they are, so that little or no encouragement is given to anyone below to ‘get above themselves’ in the various ‘quasi’ manners described above.
For the end result will always be immoral, and any degree of immorality proportionate to or consequent upon an amoral departure from morality on the part of the hegemonic gender, who should have known better, is logically unsustainable and, what’s more, socially and morally wrong.
If the worst of all possible worlds is to be precluded from transpiring, it can only be by the hegemonically moral remaining where they are and playing their own game, like our proverbial St. George with his foot firmly planted on the prostrate dragon, keeping the beast down as much for her own sake as for his.
As I have already remarked elsewhere with regard to a sartorial metaphor, tapering zipper-suits and straight dresses are not interchangeable. You know your gender place and you keep to it. For that is what makes for the best of all possible worlds, and never more so than in the case of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, in which supermasculine males have the right, morally and socially, to keep pseudo-superfeminine females in their noumenally pseudo-objective, straight dress-like places a plane down, in pseudo-space under time, from their own noumenally subjective tapering zippersuit-like absolutism at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass in what, under a Social Theocratic politico-religious dispensation favouring religious sovereignty, would be ‘Kingdom Come’ writ large, the otherworldly best and pseudo-netherworldly pseudo-worst of all possible worlds.
When the most righteous of ‘Philosopher Kings’, the aphoristic philosophy king, and the most pseudo-just of ‘Fiction Queens’, the short-prose fiction queen, join forces, then will the meek and pseudo-vain of the pseudo-omega/alpha world be saved and counter-damned from their lowly positions to ultimate righteousness and pseudo-justice, holiness and pseudo-unclearness, blessedness and pseudo-cursedness.
To contrast the drama of metachemical objectivity (will) with the pseudo-drama of chemical objectivity (spirit), as one would contrast speaking with pseudo-speaking, or doing with giving.
To contrast the poetry of pseudo-physical subjectivity (pseudo-ego) with the pseudo-poetry of pseudo-metaphysical subjectivity (pseudo-soul), as one would contrast reading with pseudo-reading, or pseudo-taking with pseudo-being.
To contrast the prose of pseudo-chemical objectivity (pseudo-spirit) with the pseudo-prose of pseudo-metachemical objectivity (pseudo-will), as one would contrast writing with pseudo-writing, or pseudo-giving with pseudo-doing.
To contrast the philosophy of metaphysical subjectivity (soul) with the pseudo-philosophy of physical subjectivity (ego), as one would contrast thinking with pseudo-thinking, or being with taking.
Drama, corresponding to metachemistry, is the literature of the speaking Vain, pseudo-poetry, corresponding to pseudo-metaphysics, is that of the pseudo-reading pseudo-Meek.
Pseudo-drama, corresponding to chemistry, is the literature of the pseudo-speaking pseudo-Vain, poetry, corresponding to pseudo-physics, is that of the reading Meek.
Pseudo-philosophy, corresponding to physics, is the literature of the pseudo-thinking pseudo-Righteous, prose, corresponding to pseudo-chemistry, is that of the writing Just.
Philosophy, corresponding to metaphysics, is the literature of the thinking Righteous, pseudo-prose, corresponding to pseudo-metachemistry, is that of the pseudo-writing pseudo-Just.
The righteousness of the true philosopher king is established on the basis of the aphoristic brevity, and fidelity to truth, of his philosophy. His thoughts fly on wings of thoughtful insight towards the pinnacle of truth.
The pseudo-justice of the pseudo-beautiful fiction queen is established on the basis of the pseudo-prosaic brevity, and fidelity to pseudo-beauty, of her fiction. Her stories intuitively flit from subject to subject without ceasing to be pseudo-prosaic.
In the future, literature must be ruled by the aphoristic righteousness of the Philosopher King and by the pseudo-prosaic pseudo-justice of the Fiction Queen. There can be no place for anything that is either less than philosophically true or pseudo-prosaically fictitious (pseudo-beautiful).
The salvation of poetic falsity to philosophic truth and the correlative counter-damnation of pseudo-dramatic facticity to pseudo-prosaic fiction will pave the way for the damnation of dramatic fact to prosaic fiction (long prose, or novels) and the correlative counter-salvation of pseudo-poetic falsity to pseudo-philosophic truth (knowledge).
Only thereafter can pseudo-philosophic truth be axially converted to poetic falsity as a precondition of salvation to philosophic truth, while prosaic fiction undergoes a conversion to pseudo-dramatic fact as a precondition of counter-damnation to pseudo-prosaic fiction, the pseudo-just complement to the righteousness of philosophic truth.
Thus everything will disappear but philosophic truth and pseudo-prosaic fiction, which are the ultimate forms, according to gender, of literature.
The real enemy of philosophic truth is not dramatic fact (though that necessarily excludes truth) but pseudo-philosophic truth, which essayistically poses as truth from the standpoint of humanistic knowledge.
Divine knowledge, which is aphoristic, cannot prevail while the essayistic prolixity of pseudo-philosophy continues to pose as truth.
Only when pseudo-philosophy has been eclipsed by poetry and prose by pseudo-drama, following the eventual collapse of state-hegemonic axial criteria, will there be any prospect of a universal acknowledgement of genuine philosophy coupled, in pseudo-metachemistry, to pseudo-prose.
That will be the age when the Philosopher King and pseudo-Prose Queen truly reign, aphoristic philosophy and short-prose fiction having triumphed over everything else in divine and pseudo-diabolic partnership akin to St George and the (neutralized) Dragon, which is also, be it not forgotten, the bound lion that lies down with the free lamb of God, ‘lying down’ in pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics as the avenging angel of the Lord, for whom any hint of free soma and bound psyche is anathema.
But even then, the hegemony of true philosophy over pseudo-prose will be akin to choppers and jump jets, to tapering zipper-suits and straight dresses, to curved-handled rifles and sheathed swords, to an ultimate literary righteousness and pseudo-justice which will reign in ‘Kingdom Come’ for ever and anon as the best of all possible literary worlds.
Since we have described the moral ramifications of a descent from above (amoral) vis-à-vis an ascent from below (immoral) in relation to knives and handguns, whether with respect to the southwest or the southeast points of our intercardinal axial compass, we may as well conclude by giving the ale and beer equivalents of such descending and ascending behaviour, though not before reminding ourselves that light ale was adjudged to be morally hegemonic over lager at the southwest point of the said compass, specifically in terms of bottles over cans, while stout was adjudged to be the hegemonic beer vis-à-vis brown ale across the axial divide at what transpired to being the southeast point, and specifically in terms of cans over bottles.
Thus bottled light ale over canner lager at the southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass was adjudged to be equivalent to chemical morality (heathen) over pseudo-physical unmorality (unchristian) in relation to feminine and pseudo-masculine criteria, the former elementally akin to water and the latter to pseudo-earth (pseudo-vegetation).
However, if one were to have an amoral descent from above (chemistry) it would be in terms of canned light ale, and such a descent would logically correlate with the possibility – indeed likelihood – of an ascent from below (pseudo-physics) that would, in this particular elemental context, take the form of bottled lager, the immoral counterpart to canned light ale, insofar as we would have the logical right to infer a pseudo-masculine ratio of 1½: 2½ free soma to bound psyche, as germane to a quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physics which, by analogy, could be inferred as likely to give bottled light ale a bad name or, more correctly, to cast immoral aspersions upon chemistry.
Thus as with the quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physical handguns (straight handled) to straight knife-wielding on the part of pseudo-masculine males, any departure, whether motivated by amoral pressure from above or otherwise, from canned lager to bottled lager by such males will be of equivalent significance, being, in a sense, no less immoral.
Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, canned stout over bottled brown ale at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass was adjudged to be equivalent to physical morality (christian) over pseudo-chemical unmorality (unheathen) in relation to masculine and pseudo-feminine criteria, the former elementally akin to earth (vegetation) and the latter to pseudo-water.
But if we were to have an amoral descent from above (physics) it would be in terms of bottled stout, and such a descent would logically correlate with the possibility – indeed likelihood – of an ascent from below (pseudo-chemistry) that would, in this particular elemental context, take the form of canned brown ale, the immoral counterpart to canned stout, insofar as we would have the logical right infer a pseudo-feminine ratio of 2½:1½ bound soma to free psyche, as germane to a quasi-physical departure from pseudo-chemistry which, by analogy, could be inferred as likely to give canned stout a bad name or, more correctly, to cast immoral aspersions upon physics.
Thus as with the quasi-physical departure from pseudo-chemical retractable knives to curve-handled handguns on the part of pseudo-feminine females, any departure, whether motivated by amoral pressure from above or otherwise, from bottled brown ale to canned brown ale by such females will be of equivalent significance, being, in a sense, no less immoral.
Thus, in overall phenomenal axial terms, any amoral departure from the hegemonic positions that is likely to encourage or result in an immoral backlash, whether in terms of canned light ale vis-à-vis bottled lager or in terms, axially contrary to that, of bottled stout vis-à-vis canned brown ale, can only be bad for the hegemonic positions, whose moral advantage, whether heathen or christian, is likely to be undermined if not dissipated by its immoral counterpart, and should accordingly, here as in other analogous contexts, be systematically avoided.
Clearly the reputation of bottled light ale, although heathenistically moral in view of its chemical parallelism, would stand in better stead if not confronted by bottled lager, just as the reputation of canned stout, with its physical parallelism to christian morality, can only stand if not confronted by canned brown ale, neither of which confrontational departures from below, we can logically contend, would be anything like as likely if not sparked off by an amoral descent - in the antithetical terms of canned light ale and bottled stout – from above.
As for glasses, glasses are a way of moving from can over bottle or, depending on the axial context, bottle over can to a common ground somewhere in between, but they also come in different shapes and sizes, which is a topic outside the scope of this supplementary appendix.
Since we have expanded our moral/amoral vis-à-vis unmoral/immoral theories from the realm of knives and handguns into that of ale and beer, there would seem to be a case for expanding them into the sartorial realm, already outlined in the main text, of pants and skirts, which, as the reader may recall, we divided between flounced skirts over flared pants at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and tapering pants over straight skirts at its southeast point, a division which, though logically sound, failed to address the possibility – indeed probability – of amoral departures from the moral (hegemonic) positions and, conversely, of immoral departures from the unmoral (subordinate) ones.
This we shall now attempt to do, though not without first of all attempting to correct what now seems to be the error (vis-à-vis the tapering pants/straight skirt dichotomy at the southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass) of conceiving of the southwest as signifying a dichotomy between flounced skirts and flared pants. For surely a straight skirt under tapering pants dichotomy in the one context would suggest the likelihood, if not inevitability, of a straight pants (if with turn-ups) under flounced skirt dichotomy in the other?
I apologize for the logical inconsistency which, to be sure, wasn’t at all apparent to me over the few days of frantic scribble when I originally drafted the main body of the text. But straight pants (with turn-ups) under flounced skirts now seems to me, on calmer reflection, an adequate counterpart to straight skirts (without turn-ups) under tapering pants, especially since one could just as logically equate the former with phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity under phenomenal objectivity as one equated the latter with phenomenal pseudo-objectivity under phenomenal subjectivity.
But what, then, are the respective amoral and immoral, descending and ascending, corollaries of these moral and unmoral positions, corresponding to specific modes of sartorial attire?
Let us start with the more familiar southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, by contending that an amoral descent from tapering pants in the physically hegemonic position to a quasi-pseudochemical accommodation with straight skirts below (in the pseudo-chemical position) would take the form of tapering skirts, analogous to a descent from the canned stout of the preceding appendix to bottled stout, thereby connoting with a 2½:1½ free psyche to bound soma advantage (amoral) over the resident under-plane unmorality of 1½: 2½ free psyche to bound soma that, being pseudo-chemical, one would have a logical right to equate with straight skirts.
But if the concept and indeed reality of tapering skirts derives its justification from an amoral descent from above (physics), then the reactionary concept of straight pants (without turn-ups) can only derive its justification from an immoral ascent from below (pseudo-chemistry) in the quasi-physical terms of a departure, on the part of pseudo-feminine females, from bottled brown ale to canned brown ale, and with similar undesirable implications vis-à-vis the hegemonic gender and, indeed, position generally.
For straight pants can only cast a shadow, metaphorically speaking, over tapering pants, just as we have argued that canned brown ale would in a sense be bad for the reputation of canned stout, if only because, coming up from below, it signified a phenomenally relative ratio that, being the converse of the hegemonic position, favoured bound soma at the expense of free psyche, and therefore that which could more logically be associated with the dark rather than the bright side of the context in question.
Be that as it may, let us now turn our critical attention away from the southeast towards the southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass, and contend that an amoral descent from flounced skirts in the chemically hegemonic position to a quasi-pseudophysical accommodation with straight pants (with turn-ups) would take the form of flared pants, analogous to a descent from the bottled light ale of the preceding appendix to canned light ale, thereby connoting with a 2½:1½ free soma to bound psyche advantage (amoral) over the resident under-plane unmorality of 1½: 2½ free soma to bound psyche that, being pseudo-physical, one would have a logical right to equate with straight pants (with turn-ups).
But if the concept of flared pants derives its justification and indeed reality from an amoral descent from above (chemistry), then the reactionary concept of straight skirts (with pleats) can only derive its justification from an immoral ascent from below (pseudo-physics) in the quasi-chemical terms of a departure, on the part of pseudo-masculine males, from canned lager to bottled lager, and with similar undesirable implications vis-à-vis the hegemonic gender and, indeed, position generally.
For straight skirts (with pleats) can only cast a shadow, metaphorically speaking, over flounced ones, just as we have argued that bottled lager would be bad for the reputation of bottled light ale, if only, once again, because, coming up from below, it would signify a phenomenally relative ratio that, being the converse of the hegemonic position, favoured bound psyche at the expense of free soma, and therefore that which could more logically be associated with the dark side (symbolized by the pleats of the skirt) rather than the bright.
Therefore straight skirts (with pleats), deriving their justification from below, are no less immoral vis-à-vis flounced skirts than, across the axial divide, straight pants (without turn-ups) are such vis-à-vis tapering pants, and precisely because, in each case, they are the product of an inverse ratio of phenomenal relativity to that which hegemonically obtains in relation to one kind or another (heathen or christian) of preponderating freedom.
But just as these immoral equivalents, straight skirts (with pleats) and straight pants (without turn-ups) are undesirable from the antithetical standpoints of flounced skirts and tapering pants in the respective hegemonic positions of phenomenal relativity (2½: 1½), so we could logically argue that their existences would be less prevalent if not sparked off, so to speak, by an amoral coming down from above, in each axial case, of flared pants and tapering skirts, since here, as in other analogous contexts, one has the logical right to infer that the subordinate gender positions would be much less disposed to an immoral ascent from below if not pressurized by an amoral descent from above on the part of the hegemonic gender, whose moral adherence to flounced skirts (if chemical) or to tapering pants (if physical), as the axial case may be, would otherwise preclude such an undesirable upshot and allow them the satisfaction of keeping the unmoral in their straight pants (with turn-ups) or straight skirts (without pleats but with the possibility of a slit) subordinate gender place.
Ah well, is it any wonder that only philosophers – and then only the greatest – understand the world? I think I have proved my point and shall accordingly terminate this further supplementary appendix without drawing attention to the noumenal, and therefore 3:1 absolute ratio, parallels to the aforementioned phenomenal positions, where dresses and zipper-suits of one sort or another would, I believe, be subject to similar moral/amoral vis-à-vis unmoral/immoral possibilities, albeit rather more in relation to netherworldly and/or otherworldly criteria having to do with a distinction between ‘super’ and ‘sub’ factors in soma or psyche than to anything merely worldly and, hence, phenomenally relative along the lines of a ‘standard’/‘unstandard’ dichotomy of the sort that, reflecting a 2½: 1½ ratio, results in distinctions between sensuous and unconscious or conscious and unsensuous to the exclusion of absolute criteria.
To contrast the fast hotness of metachemistry with the light softness of pseudo-metaphysics; the slow coldness of chemistry with the heavy hardness of pseudo-physics; the hard heaviness of physics with the cold slowness of pseudo-chemistry; and the soft lightness of metaphysics with the hot fastness of pseudo-metachemistry.
The positively qualitative (free psychic) lightness of grace (truth/joy) vis-à-vis the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) softness of wisdom (illusion/woe) in metaphysics; the positively qualitative (free psychic) heaviness of pseudo-grace (knowledge/pleasure) vis-à-vis the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) hardness of pseudo-wisdom (ignorance/pain) in physics; the positively quantitative (free somatic) hotness of evil (beauty/love) vis-à-vis the negatively qualitative (bound psychic) fastness of crime (ugliness/hate) in metachemistry; the positively quantitative (free somatic) coldness of pseudo-evil (strength/pride) vis-à-vis the negatively qualitative (bound psychic) slowness of pseudo-crime (weakness/humility, if not humiliation) in chemistry.
The negatively qualitative (bound psychic) pseudo-lightness of pseudo-sin (pseudo-illusion/pseudo-woe) vis-à-vis the positively quantitative (free somatic) pseudo-softness of pseudo-folly (pseudo-truth/pseudo-joy) in pseudo-metaphysics; the negatively qualitative (bound psychic) pseudo-heaviness of sin (pseudo-ignorance/pseudo-pain) vis-à-vis the positively quantitative (free somatic) pseudo-hardness of folly (pseudo-knowledge/pseudo-pleasure) in pseudo-physics.
The negatively quantitative (bound somatic) pseudo-hotness of pseudo-goodness (pseudo-ugliness/pseudo-hate) vis-à-vis the positively qualitative (free psychic) pseudo-fastness of pseudo-punishment (pseudo-beauty/pseudo-love) in pseudo-metachemistry; the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) pseudo-coldness of goodness (pseudo-weakness/pseudo-humility) vis-à-vis the positively qualitative (free psychic) pseudo-slowness of punishment (pseudo-strength/pseudo-pride) in pseudo-chemistry.
The gender attributes of the subordinate gender are inverted or, better, subverted under pressure from the hegemonic gender, i.e. from lightness in psyche and softness in soma metaphysically to pseudo-softness in soma and pseudo-lightness in psyche pseudo-metaphysically under metachemical pressure, as from hotness in soma and fastness in psyche metachemically to pseudo-fastness in psyche and pseudo-hotness in soma pseudo-metachemically under metaphysical pressure.
Likewise from heaviness in psyche and hardness in soma physically to pseudo-hardness in soma and pseudo-heaviness in psyche pseudo-physically under chemical pressure, as from coldness in soma and slowness in psyche chemically to pseudo-slowness in psyche and pseudo-coldness in soma pseudo-chemically under physical pressure.
Nothing comes out of nothing. Therefore something does not come out of nothing. Something comes out of something, like man coming out of woman, but on a much more rudimentary, pre-life level where the origins of the Cosmos are concerned.
For the Void is nothing, and therefore not the source of those ‘somethings’ which we now identify with stars, or stellar bodies. Nothing was created by the Void. That which emerged within the nothingness of the Void was self-creating, as, in various ways and to varying extents, is all life, which simply exploits its environment, or a series of preconditions within a given environment, to develop itself, both independently of and dependent on its environment, since without those preconditions it could not exist.
Therefore life is both self-creating and self-perpetuating, re-creating itself over and over through a series of developmental leaps, both devolutionary and evolutionary. For in rejecting one template it opts for another, electing to set forth on a fresh developmental path - the path, it may be, that leads to Eternity.
Devolutionary convolutions should be contrasted with evolutionary involutions, for that which diverges is not identical with what converges, any more than that which falls without is identical with what rises within. To some extent this explains the antagonisms between females and males, even in the face of an apparent or seeming complementarity.
Yet females and males are only opposites within the same species, sharing gender variations on many characteristics, including limbs and organs, in common. They are not completely opposite, like fire and air, or even water and earth. Yet they are still more than relatively opposite, being capable of an absolute opposition within comparative, or species specific, terms, the sort of opposition less of spirit and ego (corresponding to water and earth), though that indubitably exists, than of will and soul (corresponding to fire and air).
They say that darkness precedes light, that light came out of darkness, as out of the Void, but the Void is neither dark nor light, dim nor bright, but devoid of attributes, a mere Nothingness against which, as was noted above, a variety of Somethings that we now recognize as stars, suns, planets, moons, comets, etc. gradually and successively came to pass.
But life, as we have discovered, is a combination of darkness and brightness, of shade and light, and in those Somethings which have life it is usually if not invariably the case that brightness precedes darkness, that darkness is in fact determined by brightness as bound psyche by free soma in the case of female entities, whether feminine or diabolic (superfeminine) and, conversely, as bound soma by free psyche in the case of male entities, whether masculine or divine (supermasculine), with specific ratios according to the elemental correspondence to class on either absolute (3:1) or relative (2½:1½) terms.
For life is not – and could not survive, much less thrive – on a basis that was more negative (and vicious) than positive (and virtuous), immoral gender-bender exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, and therefore we find for both genders in all elements that the bright positivity of freedom precedes and somatically predominates and/or psychically preponderates over the dark negativity of binding.
Thus because darkness or ‘the dark side’ is conditioned by brightness, it could more logically be maintained that darkness is the bound concomitant of a bright freedom, whether that freedom be female or male, heathen or christian, superheathen or superchristian, according as somatic or psychic criteria are uppermost in any given society and/or individual in connection with specific elemental attributes.
To say, on the other hand, that darkness came out of brightness would not be as logically credible or correct as might at first seem to be the case, but, rather, a reversal of the light out of darkness fallacy. The dark attribute, corresponding to some form of vicious negativity, does not succeed the bright attribute but co-exists with it as its concomitant shadow, deferring, except in gender-bender instances, to the hegemonic sway of that which, being virtuously positive, is destined to remain the predominating (in soma) or preponderating (in psyche) elemental factor, whether absolutely in the noumenal spheres of metachemistry and metaphysics or relatively in the phenomenal spheres of chemistry and physics.
If there is a moral world order, as Kant for one maintained, it is not one based in Christian, much less superchristian, values, but more usually in superheathen and heathen values corresponding to female hegemonic criteria in metachemistry and chemistry, fire and water, the fast hotness of noumenal objectivity in spatial space and the slow coldness of phenomenal objectivity in volumetric volume, under which, as pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry and as pseudo-physics under chemistry, we shall find, in pseudo-male terms, the light pseudo-softness of noumenal pseudo-subjectivity in sequential time (pseudo-time) and the heavy pseudo-hardness of phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity in massed mass (pseudo-mass).
As regards the Christian and superchristian alternatives and, in effect, supplements to these traditionally more prevalent kinds of morality that reflect female elemental dominance, we shall find male hegemonic criteria in physics and metaphysics, earth (vegetation) and air, the hard heaviness of phenomenal subjectivity in massive mass and the soft lightness of noumenal subjectivity in repetitive time, under which, as pseudo-chemistry under physics and pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, we shall find, in pseudo-female terms, the cold pseudo-slowness of phenomenal pseudo-objectivity in voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) and the hot pseudo-fastness of noumenal pseudo-objectivity in spaced space (pseudo-space).
Therefore when, to speak in generalities, superheathen morality is metachemically triumphant over pseudo-superchristian unmorality, we find fast hotness hegemonic over light pseudo-softness – the converse of the metaphysically hegemonic triumph of superchristian morality over the pseudo-superheathen unmorality of pseudo-metachemistry which manifests as soft lightness over hot pseudo-fastness.
Likewise when heathen morality is chemically hegemonic over pseudo-christian unmorality, we find slow coldness triumphant over heavy pseudo-hardness – the converse of the physically hegemonic triumph of Christian morality over the pseudo-heathen unmorality of pseudo-chemistry, which manifests as hard heaviness over cold pseudo-slowness.
In all four subordinate gender cases, the principal attributes, whether as a reflection of soma preceding psyche (female) or of psyche preceding soma (male) are reversed, so that the soft lightness of metaphysics, with a psychic emphasis upon lightness, becomes the light pseudo-softness of pseudo-metaphysics, whose paradoxical emphasis under metachemical hegemonic pressure is somatic; the hard heaviness of physics, with a psychic emphasis upon heaviness, becomes the heavy pseudo-hardness of pseudo-physics, whose paradoxical emphasis under chemical hegemonic pressure is somatic; the slow coldness of chemistry, with a somatic emphasis upon coldness, becomes the cold pseudo-slowness of pseudo-chemistry, whose paradoxical emphasis under physical hegemonic pressure is psychic; and the fast hotness of metachemistry, with a somatic emphasis upon hotness, becomes the hot pseudo-fastness of pseudo-metachemistry, whose paradoxical emphasis under metaphysical hegemonic pressure is psychic, the pseudo-objectivity of which is confined to a subordinate gender status in spaced space by the psychic triumph in repetitive time of a metaphysics whose hegemonic freedom, epitomized by St. George, holds the prone dragon of defeated metachemistry to bound soma, its predominating attribute, from which it can never depart save as the Lord’s pseudo-ugly/pseudo-hateful avenging angel whose hotness will burn His anti-metaphysical enemies in the flames of pseudo-Hell.
None of the above is intended to refute the claims already put forth in my writings regarding the somatic subversion of physics by pseudo-chemistry at the behest of metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms (northwest to southeast on the intercardinal axial compass), as regarding the psychic subversion of chemistry by pseudo-physics at the behest of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry in overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms (southwest to northeast on the intercardinal axial compass), since what applies to either of the phenomenal positions independently, as described above, is compromised by inter-axial polarity with their noumenal counterparts, which establish the aforesaid axial dichotomy between state-hegemonic and church-hegemonic societies already addressed by me in earlier texts, thereby guaranteeing that the lot of the masses, short of deliverance from their lowly estates, will always paradoxically reflect the greater prevalence of binding over freedom, whether somatically in state-hegemonic societies or psychically in church-hegemonic ones.
It is in relation to the latter, of course, that deliverance takes on a religious character properly commensurate with salvation and counter-damnation, the salvation of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, the latter of whom will be cursed with male hegemonic pressure in the forms of free psyche (secondary church hegemonic) and bound soma (secondary state subordinate) as the males achieve the blessings of gender sync in connection with free psyche (primary church hegemonic) and bound soma (primary state subordinate) in the heaven of three times as much truth and joy as illusion and woe, or the noumenally absolute ratio (3:1) of transcendentalism to idealism which favours not the Son of God or the Holy Spirit of Heaven but God the Father and, most especially, Heaven the Holy Soul … for all Eternity.
GALWAY/LONDON 2008 (Revised 2009-10)