THE CENTRE OF TRUTH
A collection of revised and reformatted weblogs by
Copyright © 2009-10 John O’Loughlin
Social Theocratic Pluralism
The Axial Relativity of Fact, Fiction, Falsity, and Truth
Of Whores, Demons, Saints, and Angels
Rating Soul and Pseudo-Soul
Rating Ego and Pseudo-Ego
Rating Spirit and Pseudo-Spirit
Rating Will and Pseudo-Will
Overall Rates of the Elements and Pseudo-Elements
Being, Giving, Taking, and Doing
Ratios of Soma to Psyche and of Psyche to Soma
Christmas and Easter in Axial Perspective
Divergence and Converge in Genuine and Pseudo Modes
Innocence and Guilt as Correlative Factors
A New Light on Old Terms
From X to Y
Open and Enclosed as Free and Bound
Aspects of Female Hype
Devolution and Evolution in Positive and Negative Modes
Fallacy of the Alpha Male
Noumenal and Phenomenal Salutes in Axial Perspective
Two Specific Kinds of Saluting
The Gender Implications of Brollies and Hoods
The Essence of Salvation
Bovaryizations of Salvation
Of Poets and Dramatists
On God and Godliness
The True End of Religion
What is a Yippie?
The True Centre of Truth
Collectivism and Individualism
The Alpha and Omega of Life
Centretruths is the name of my domain, but it is also the name I give to a vast collection of philosophical writings by me which are what I would call 'true to the centre' and aimed, chronologically, at 'the centre of truth', which, as people may or may not know, is a godly order of ego associated with metaphysics and thus with the airy element par excellence and, the way I figure it, subatomically with photons rather than, say, protons, electrons, or neutrons.
Thus it is about light, but not the light that is 'freaked out' by heat, as in the case of sunlight, but the light that is internal and self-perpetuating and, in any ultimate sense, heavenly in its joyful beatitude.
Metaphysics is also the element that is more about Heaven than about God, more about soul, one could say, than ego, and therefore it is only definitive and truly itself when it exists in a kind of least ego (or god) to most soul (or heaven) ratio, something, I have argued in certain of my books, which it has not done hitherto but will only do, if it is to do so at all, in the future, when metaphysics 'comes out' in its true colours and proclaims its entitlement to lead life beyond not only previous levels or manifestations of metaphysics, but every other elemental alternative to itself as well, the antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical corollary of itself duly excepted.
I look forward to such a 'coming out' of metaphysics, and have done my best, in a succession of philosophical works, to make that possible.
SOCIAL THEOCRATIC PLURALISM
Social Theocratic pluralism is inextricably linked to my concept of the Triadic Beyond, suitable, with due gender segregation, to what should be, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty out of the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in certain countries with, like Eire, a church-hegemonic tradition, peoples of ex-catholic (top tier), ex-puritan (middle tier), and ex-Anglican (bottom tier) descent, with further provisions for peoples of ex-Buddhist (top tier), ex-Moslem (middle tier), and ex-Judaic and/or Hindu (bottom tier) descent. Thus everybody would have his/her place in this triadic Beyond of the Social Theocratic Centre, which stood for the overcoming of ethnic pluralism in an ethnic universality (Social Theocratic and/or Transcendentalist) which was inherently pluralistic.
The institutional edifice (of the Social Theocratic Centre) would be constructed on a towering curvilinear basis with a centripetal structure, reminiscent (though not identical to) the curvilinear towers of early-Christian Celtic tradition. Thus at the top, a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical tier subdivisible between supermasculine and pseudo-superfeminine gender elements; in the middle, a physical/pseudo-chemical tier subdivisible between masculine and pseudo-feminine gender elements deferential (unlike their state-hegemonic axial predecessors of before) to metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry; and at the bottom. a chemical/pseudo-physical tier subdivisible between feminine and pseudo-masculine gender elements deferential (unlike their metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical counterparts of before) to physics and pseudo-chemistry, with the long-term possibility for both bottom- and middle-tier peoples of further progress towards metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry as evolutionary and counter-devolutionary pressures make for enhanced centro-complexification in the interests of a totalitarian - but still gender divisible - consummation earmarked for space-centre apotheosis.
Since I customarily think in terms of what I call the intercardinal axial compass stretching, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, from southwest to northeast and, on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, from northwest to southeast, I am inclined to place a British Isles saint at each point of this compass, rather than to treat them all as identical (as one would suppose saints should be treated) and therefore positioned at the northeast point, where metaphysics rules supreme over pseudo-metachemistry.
For it seems to me that the only saint fully commensurate with this position (composed, as noted, of two elements) would be St George, although not in relation to English Anglicanism but, rather, to the Catholic tradition that preceded the Reformation and subsequent schismatic activities of those deriving from Henry VIII’s [VIII’s]apostasy. But if St George with his foot on a prone or neutralized dragon, akin to pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, is the ideal candidate for the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, and this irrespective of England's departure from that position several centuries ago in favour of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria rooted, metachemically, at the northwest point of the said compass, then it would seem feasible to position St Patrick, the vanquisher of snakes, at the southwest, in typically mass Irish Catholic vein (snakes don’t fly, unlike dragons), and allow Saints David and Andrew, the national saints of Wales and Scotland respectively, to stand at the northwest and southeast poles of what would be the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, as though in a kind of metachemical-to-physical polarity suggestive of a distinction between fire and earth rather than, say, water and air, a distinction that, politically, would have autocratic-to-democratic implications and, religiously, Methodist-to-Puritan ones; though, in point of fact, I don't see that axis in terms of such a religious polarity but, rather, in relation to an Anglican-to-Puritan one such that would have more applicability to England than to either Wales or Scotland, even granted the puritan or protestant traditions of these latter countries.
Nevertheless that, ironically, is how I view the various saints of the British Isles, not all in one basket, as one would expect, but with one truly saintly individual, the metaphysical St George with his foot on a pseudo-metachemical dragon, and three 'bovaryized' saints - namely the watery or chemical/pseudo-physical St Patrick, the fiery or metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical St David, and the earthy or physical/pseudo-chemical St Andrew, all of whom one would expect to symbolize their respective countries in a way that distinguished them from the English saint.
of God' (sic) from the
'Pseudo-Son-of-Pseudo-Man'; Counter-Resurrection of the 'Son of Man'
Therefore a free-somatic pseudo-physical precondition of
bound-somatic metaphysics (both happen to be primary as opposed to
state subordinate) is paralleled by a free-somatic pseudo-metaphysical
precondition of bound-somatic physics (both happen to be secondary
hegemonic). Logically - and ecclesiastically - all this leaves so much
desired ... that it is a mystery how anyone could ever have taken
outcome seriously - least of all from a religious standpoint!
Resurrection of 'God the Father' (!) from 'Pseudo-Man-the-Pseudo-Father'; Counter-Resurrection of 'Man of Father' from 'Pseudo-God-the-Pseudo-Father'. Therefore a bound-psychic pseudo-metaphysical precondition of free-psychic metaphysics (both happen to be primary as opposed to secondary church hegemonic) is paralleled by a bound-psychic pseudo-metaphysical precondition of free-psychic physics (both happen to be secondary church subordinate). And these are the aspects of their respective elements and/or pseudo-elements that are never mentioned, much less considered, by apologists of Christianity - namely the church aspects, whether hegemonic (catholic) or subordinate (protestant), notwithstanding the omission of the female elements and/or pseudo-elements from such a resurrectional and/or counter-resurrectional scenario.
Were the Christian civilization more than merely an extrapolation from a kind of Middle East anchor Judaically in back of itself, there would be no place for resurrectional theories at all. But precisely because it is - or was - merely extrapolative, as 'Son' from so-called 'Father' (in reality Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the ‘best of a bad job’ starting-point of civilization), you end-up with a paradoxical logic that actually defies logic because that which is postulated as arising, in resurrection, is merely the somatic aspect of a totality of factors in which psyche, whether in 'Pseudo-Man-the-pseudo-Father' pseudo-physically or in 'God the Father' metaphysically is necessarily absent.
And the same of course applies to the counter-resurrectional position, scarcely acknowledged by Protestants, of the 'Son of Man' from 'Pseudo-God-the-Pseudo-Son', a descent from northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass that leaves the church, and therefore psychic aspects (albeit secondary vis-à-vis anything metachemical to pseudo-chemical), entirely out of the theological frame.
THE AXIAL RELATIVITY OF FACT, FICTION, FALSITY, AND TRUTH
of metachemistry with the fiction of
pseudo-chemistry on the female (primary) side of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest
southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, as one would
vanity with justice, or barbarity with civility, or clearness with
or, indeed, drama (wilfully active theatre) with fictitious literature
(novelistic long prose).
To contrast the pseudo-falsity of pseudo-metaphysics with the pseudo-truth of physics on the male (secondary) side of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching, as above, from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, as one would contrast pseudo-meekness with pseudo-righteousness, or pseudo-philistinism with pseudo-culture, or pseudo-unholiness with pseudo-holiness or, indeed, pseudo-poetry (stanza divisible verse) with pseudo-philosophy (essayistic in its long-prose-like prolixity).
Hence the co-existence on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of fact with pseudo-falsity (metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest) and of pseudo-truth with fiction (physical/pseudo-chemical southeast) - fact and fiction no less polar on the female side of this axis than pseudo-falsity and pseudo-truth are such on its male, or secondary, side.
Contrariwise, to contrast the truth of metaphysics with the falsity of pseudo-physics on the male (primary) side of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the northeast to the southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass, as one would contrast righteousness with meekness, or culture with philistinism, or holiness with unholiness or, indeed, philosophy (aphoristic in its noumenal concision) with poetry (indivisible block-like verse).
To contrast the pseudo-fiction of pseudo-metachemistry with the pseudo-fact of chemistry on the female side (secondary) of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching, as above, from the northeast to the southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass, as one would contrast pseudo-justice with pseudo-vanity, or pseudo-civility with pseudo-barbarity, or pseudo-unclearness with pseudo-clearness or, indeed, pseudo-literature (fictitious short prose) with pseudo-drama (speech-oriented theatre that is accordingly more spirit than will).
Hence the co-existence on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of truth with pseudo-fiction (metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast) and of pseudo-fact with falsity (chemical/pseudo-physical southwest) - truth and falsity no less polar on the male side of this axis than pseudo-fiction and pseudo-fact on its female, or secondary, side.
Fact and truth are the alpha and omega of things hegemonically noumenal; pseudo-falsity and pseudo-fiction the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of things subordinately noumenal, as in relation to pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry and pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics.
Pseudo-fact and pseudo-truth are the alpha and omega of things hegemonically phenomenal; falsity and fiction the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of things subordinately phenomenal, as in relation to pseudo-physics under chemistry and pseudo-chemistry under physics.
Hence the absolute distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics in relation to the alpha and omega of the hegemonic noumenal positions has to be contrasted with the pseudo-absolute distinction between pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry in relation to the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of the subordinate noumenal positions.
Hence, too, the relative distinction between chemistry and physics in relation to the alpha and omega of the hegemonic phenomenal positions has to be contrasted with the pseudo-relative distinction between pseudo-physics and pseudo-chemistry in relation to the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of the subordinate phenomenal positions.
In terms of axial polarity, the clearness of space in the space of clearness vis-à-vis the unclearness of pseudo-volume in the pseudo-volume of unclearness has to be contrasted with the pseudo-unholiness of pseudo-time in the pseudo-time of pseudo-unholiness vis-à-vis the pseudo-holiness of mass in the mass of pseudo-holiness on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.
Again, in terms of axial polarity, the holiness of time in the time of holiness vis-à-vis the unholiness of pseudo-mass in the pseudo-mass of unholiness has to be contrasted with the pseudo-unclearness of pseudo-space in the pseudo-space of pseudo-unclearness vis-à-vis the pseudo-clearness of volume in the volume of pseudo-clearness on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the northeast to the southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass.
OF WHORES, DEMONS, SAINTS, AND ANGELS
are unequivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-meek
at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so it could
that the former correspond to whores and the latter to pseudo-demons,
keeping with a metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical distinction analogous
between drama and pseudo-poetry or fact and pseudo-falsity.
Just as the pseudo-righteous are equivocally hegemonic over the just at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, so it could be said that the former correspond to pseudo-saints and the latter to angels, in keeping with a physical/pseudo-chemical distinction analogous to that between pseudo-philosophy and novelistic literature or pseudo-truth and fiction.
Thus whores and angels would be in polarity on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, with pseudo-demons and pseudo-saints their polar counterparts on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, as germane, to males.
Conversely, just as the righteous are unequivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-just at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, so it could be said that the former correspond to saints and the latter to pseudo-angels, in keeping with a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical distinction analogous to that between philosophy and pseudo-literature or truth and pseudo-fiction.
Just as the pseudo-vain are equivocally hegemonic over the meek at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so it could be said that the former correspond to pseudo-whores and the latter to demons, in keeping with a chemical/pseudo-physical distinction analogous to that between pseudo-drama and poetry or pseudo-fact and falsity.
Thus saints and demons would be in polarity on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, with pseudo-angels and pseudo-whores their polar counterparts on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, as germane to females.
The demonic 'last' shall be saintly 'first' in the salvation of the meek to righteousness, as from phenomenal underplane pseudo-physics to noumenal overplane metaphysics.
Conversely, the pseudo-whorish 'first' shall be pseudo-angelic 'last' in the counter-damnation of the pseudo-vain to pseudo-justice, as from phenomenal overplane chemistry to noumenal underplane pseudo-metachemistry.
The whorish 'first' shall be angelic 'last' in the damnation of the vain to justice, as from noumenal overplane metachemistry to phenomenal underplane pseudo-chemistry.
Conversely, the pseudo-demonic 'last' shall be pseudo-saintly 'first' in the counter-salvation of the pseudo-meek to pseudo-righteousness, as from noumenal underplane pseudo-metaphysics to phenomenal overplane physics.
Be that as it may, this should be only a temporary situation pending, I shall contend, the axial transference of the original physical and pseudo-chemical, pseudo-righteous and just, to the middle tier of my projected triadic Beyond under the metaphysical righteous and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-just, but over the last-to-be-transferred neo-chemical and neo-pseudo-physical (those who had been metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical), who will take up bottom tier positions in the overall ethnic pluralism of the said Beyond ... of what should be a 'resurrected' church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis earmarked for gradual upwards-tending centro-complexification as and when 'the Centre', or overall arrangement of triadic Beyond and administrative aside, gravitates from earth to space in space-centre apotheosis - a point in Eternity and pseudo-Infinity when only metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, righteousness and pseudo-justice, saints and pseudo-angels, would have any relevance, given the time/pseudo-space heights of the context in question.
All such eschatological speculation may seem a little farfetched at present, but I can see the logic of it and am convinced of its moral desirability ... if undesirable alternatives are to be systematically avoided. If this is a kind of blueprint for 'Kingdom Come', or a society characterized by the dominance of an ultimate evolutionary stage (cyborgistic) of metaphysics ... in which what in the past I have called 'religious sovereignty' will be the general rule, then such a blueprint, based in sound sustainable logic, should be possible both to implement and bring to practical fruition for the sake of those who would otherwise continue to fall victim to whores and pseudo-demons whose polarities merely co-exist with them in an axial partnership aimed at the financial exploitation and cultural degradation of the pseudo-whorish pseudo-vain and demonic meek, the latter of whom may have inherited a pseudo-earth under purgatory, but will not inherit a heaven over pseudo-hell until they have been saved to righteousness and their female counterparts counter-damned to pseudo-justice, neither of which can - nor ever should - exist independently of the other.
RATING SOUL AND PSEUDO-SOUL
To distinguish the first-rate soul of joy in metaphysical free psyche from the first-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-love in pseudo-metachemical free psyche, as one would distinguish Heaven the Holy Soul from the Unclear Soul of Pseudo-Hell.
To distinguish the second-rate soul of pleasure in physical free psyche from the second-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-pride in pseudo-chemical free psyche, as one would distinguish Earth the Holy Soul from the Unclear Soul of Pseudo-Purgatory.
To distinguish the third-rate soul of humility in chemical bound psyche from the third-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-pain in pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the Clear Soul of Purgatory from Pseudo-Earth the Unholy Soul.
To distinguish the fourth-rate soul of hatred in metachemical bound psyche from the fourth-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-woe in pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the Clear Soul of Hell from Pseudo-Heaven the Unholy Soul.
Thus first-rate soul, being metaphysically free, is joyful; second-rate soul, being physically free, is pleasurable; third-rate soul, being chemically bound, is humble; and fourth-rate soul, being metachemically bound, is hateful – the former alternatives positively male (holy) and the latter alternatives negatively female (clear).
Thus first-rate pseudo-soul, being pseudo-metachemically free, is pseudo-loving; second-rate pseudo-soul, being pseudo-chemically free, is pseudo-proud; third-rate pseudo-soul, being pseudo-physically bound, is pseudo-painful; and fourth-rate pseudo-soul, being pseudo-metaphysically bound, is pseudo-woeful – the former alternatives positively pseudo-female (unclear) and the latter alternatives negatively pseudo-male (unholy).
From the most soulful omega of joy to the least soulful omega of hate via the more (relative to most) soulful omega of pleasure and the less (relative to least) soulful omega of humility is significant of a descending scale of soul from positive male to negative female.
From the most pseudo-soulful omega of pseudo-love to the least pseudo-soulful omega of pseudo-woe via the more (relative to most) pseudo-soulful omega of pseudo-pride and the less (relative to least) pseudo-soulful omega of pseudo-pain is significant of a descending scale of pseudo-soul from positive pseudo-female to negative pseudo-male.
I shall say nothing, here, of ego, spirit, and will, all of which could be subjected to similar categorizations as the above (soul).
RATING EGO AND PSEUDO-EGO
To distinguish the first-rate ego of knowledge in physical free psyche from the first-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-strength in pseudo-chemical free psyche, as one would distinguish Man the Father from the Pseudo-Daughter of Pseudo-Woman.
To distinguish the second-rate ego of truth in metaphysical free psyche from the second-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-beauty in pseudo-metachemical free psyche, as one would distinguish God the Father from the Pseudo-Daughter of the Pseudo-Devil.
To distinguish the third-rate ego of ugliness in metachemical bound psyche from the third-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-illusion in pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the Daughter of the Devil from Pseudo-God the Pseudo-Father.
To distinguish the fourth-rate ego of weakness in chemical bound psyche from the fourth-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-ignorance in pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one would distinguish the Daughter of Woman from Pseudo-Man the Pseudo-Father.
Thus first-rate ego, being physically free, is knowledgeable; second-rate ego, being metaphysically free, is truthful; third-rate ego, being metachemically bound, is ugly; and fourth-rate ego, being chemically bound, is weak – the former alternatives positively male (fatherly) and the latter alternatives negatively female (daughterly).
Thus first-rate pseudo-ego, being pseudo-chemically free, is pseudo-strong; second-rate pseudo-ego, being pseudo-metachemically free, is pseudo-beautiful; third-rate pseudo-ego, being pseudo-metaphysically bound, is pseudo-illusory; and fourth-rate pseudo-ego, being pseudo-physically bound, is pseudo-ignorant – the former alternatives positively pseudo-female (pseudo-daughterly) and the latter alternatives negatively pseudo-male (pseudo-fatherly).
From the most egoistic omega of knowledge to the least egoistic omega of weakness via the more (relative to most) egoistic omega of truth and the less (relative to least) egoistic omega of ugliness is significant of a descending scale of ego from positive male to negative female.
From the most pseudo-egoistic omega of pseudo-strength to the least pseudo-egoistic omega of pseudo-ignorance via the more (relative to most) pseudo-egoistic omega of pseudo-beauty and the less (relative to least) pseudo-egoistic omega of pseudo-illusion is significant of a descending scale of pseudo-ego from positive pseudo-female to negative pseudo-male.
I shall say nothing, here, of spirit and will, both of which, like soul before and ego above, could be subjected to similar categorizations.
RATING SPIRIT AND PSEUDO-SPIRIT
To distinguish the first-rate spirit of pride in chemical free soma from the first-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-pleasure in pseudo-physical free soma, as one would distinguish Purgatory the Clear Spirit from the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Earth.
To distinguish the second-rate spirit of love in metachemical free soma from the second-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-joy in pseudo-metaphysical free soma, as one would distinguish Hell the Clear Spirit from the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Heaven.
To distinguish the third-rate spirit of woe in metaphysical bound soma from the third-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-hatred in pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Holy Spirit of Heaven from Pseudo-Hell the Unclear Spirit.
To distinguish the fourth-rate spirit of pain in physical bound soma from the fourth-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-humility in pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Holy Spirit of Earth from Pseudo-Purgatory the Unclear Spirit.
Thus first-rate spirit, being chemically free, is proud; second-rate spirit, being metachemically free, is loving; third-rate spirit, being metaphysically bound, is woeful; and fourth-rate spirit, being physically bound, is painful – the former alternatives positively female (clear) and the latter alternatives negatively male (holy).
Thus first-rate pseudo-spirit, being pseudo-physically free, is pseudo-pleasurable; second-rate pseudo-spirit, being pseudo-metaphysically free, is pseudo-joyful; third-rate pseudo-spirit, being pseudo-metachemically bound, is pseudo-hateful; and fourth-rate pseudo-spirit, being pseudo-chemically bound, is pseudo-humble – the former alternatives positively pseudo-male (unholy) and the latter alternatives negatively pseudo-female (unclear).
From the most spiritual alpha of pride to the least spiritual alpha of pain via the more (relative to most) spiritual alpha of love and the less (relative to least) spiritual alpha of woe is significant of a descending scale of spirit from positive female to negative male.
From the most pseudo-spiritual alpha of pseudo-pleasure to the least pseudo-spiritual alpha of pseudo-humility via the more (relative to most) pseudo-spiritual alpha of pseudo-joy and the less (relative to least) pseudo-spiritual alpha of pseudo-hatred is significant of a descending scale of pseudo-spirit from positive pseudo-male to negative pseudo-female.
I shall say nothing, here, of will, which, like soul and ego before and spirit above, could be subjected to similar categorizations.
RATING WILL AND PSEUDO-WILL
To distinguish the first-rate will of beauty in metachemical free soma from the first-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-truth in pseudo-metaphysical free soma, as one would distinguish Devil the Mother from the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-God.
To distinguish the second-rate will of strength in chemical free soma from the second-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-knowledge in pseudo-physical free soma, as one would distinguish Woman the Mother from the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-Man.
To distinguish the third-rate will of ignorance in physical bound soma from the third-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-weakness in pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Son of Man from Pseudo-Woman the Pseudo-Mother.
To distinguish the fourth-rate will of illusion in metaphysical bound soma from the fourth-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-ugliness in pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would distinguish the Son of God from Pseudo-Devil the Pseudo-Mother.
Thus first-rate will, being metachemically free, is beautiful; second-rate will, being chemically free, is strong; third-rate will, being physically bound, is ignorant; and fourth-rate will, being metaphysically bound, is illusory – the former alternatives positively female (motherly) and the latter alternatives negatively male (pseudo-sonful).
Thus first-rate pseudo-will, being pseudo-metaphysically free, is pseudo-truthful; second-rate pseudo-will, being pseudo-physically free, is pseudo-knowledgeable; third-rate pseudo-will, being pseudo-chemically bound, is pseudo-weak; and fourth-rate pseudo-will, being pseudo-metachemically bound, is pseudo-ugly – the former alternatives positively pseudo-male (pseudo-sonful) and the latter alternatives negatively pseudo-female (pseudo-motherly).
From the most wilful alpha of beauty to the least wilful alpha of illusion via the more (relative to most) wilful alpha of strength and the less (relative to least) wilful alpha of ignorance is significant of a descending scale of will from positive female to negative male.
From the most pseudo-wilful alpha of pseudo-truth to the least pseudo-wilful alpha of pseudo-ugliness via the more (relative to most) pseudo-wilful alpha of pseudo-knowledge and the less (relative to least) pseudo-wilful alpha of pseudo-weakness is significant of a descending scale of pseudo-will from positive pseudo-male to negative pseudo-female.
I have now dealt with all the positions, from soul and ego to spirit and will, pseudo-soul and pseudo-ego to pseudo-spirit and pseudo-will, that could be categorized in such fashions, thereby bringing this series of weblogs to a successful conclusion.
OVERALL RATES OF THE ELEMENTS AND PSEUDO-ELEMENTS
Metaphysics combines the first-rate soul of joy (Heaven the Holy Soul) with the second-rate ego of truth (God the Father), the third-rate spirit of woe (the Holy Spirit of Heaven), and the fourth-rate will of illusion (the Son of God), all of which are subordinately accompanied, in pseudo-metachemistry, by the first-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-love (the Unclear Soul of Pseudo-Hell), the second-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-beauty (the Pseudo-Daughter of Pseudo-Devil), the third-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-hatred (Pseudo-Hell the Unclear Spirit), and the fourth-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-ugliness (Pseudo-Devil the Pseudo-Mother), albeit in terms of a 1:3 as opposed to 3:1 ratio of psyche (soul and ego) to soma (spirit and will) as germane to pseudo-space under time, or noumenal pseudo-objectivity under noumenal subjectivity at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
Physics combines the first-rate ego of knowledge (Man the Father) with the second-rate soul of pleasure (Earth the Holy Soul), the third-rate will of ignorance (the Son of Man), and the fourth-rate spirit of pain (the Holy Spirit of Earth), all of which are subordinately accompanied, in pseudo-chemistry, by the first-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-strength (the Pseudo-Daughter of Pseudo-Woman), the second-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-pride (the Unclear Soul of Pseudo-Purgatory), the third-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-weakness (Pseudo-Woman the Pseudo-Mother), and the fourth-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-humility (Pseudo-Purgatory the Unclear Spirit), albeit in terms of a 1½:2½ as opposed to 2½:1½ ratio of psyche (ego and soul) to soma (will and spirit) as germane to pseudo-volume under mass, or phenomenal pseudo-objectivity under phenomenal subjectivity at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
Chemistry combines the first-rate spirit of pride (Purgatory the Clear Spirit) with the second-rate will of strength (Woman the Mother), the third-rate soul of humility (the Clear Soul of Purgatory), and the fourth-rate ego of weakness (the Daughter of Woman), all of which are subordinately accompanied, in pseudo-physics, by the first-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-pleasure (the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Earth), the second-rate will of pseudo-knowledge (the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-Man), the third-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-pain (Pseudo-Earth the Unholy Soul), and the fourth-rate ego of pseudo-ignorance (Pseudo-Man the Pseudo-Father), albeit in terms of a 1½:2½ as opposed to 2½:1½ ratio of soma (spirit and will) to psyche (soul and ego) as germane to pseudo-mass under volume, or phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity under phenomenal objectivity at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
Metachemistry combines the first-rate will of beauty (Devil the Mother) with the second-rate spirit of love (Hell the Clear Spirit), the third-rate ego of ugliness (the Daughter of Devil-the-Mother), and the fourth-rate soul of hatred (the Clear Soul of Hell), all of which are subordinately accompanied, in pseudo-metaphysics, by the first-rate pseudo-will of pseudo-truth (the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-God), the second-rate pseudo-spirit of pseudo-joy (the Unholy Spirit of Pseudo-Heaven), the third-rate pseudo-ego of pseudo-illusion (Pseudo-God the Pseudo-Father), and the fourth-rate pseudo-soul of pseudo-woe (Pseudo-Heaven the Unholy Soul), albeit in terms of a 1:3 as opposed to 3:1 ratio of soma (will and spirit) to psyche (ego and soul) as germane to pseudo-time under space, or noumenal pseudo-subjectivity under noumenal objectivity at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
BEING, TAKING, GIVING, AND DOING
The Being of Soul, which is metaphysically joyful, is positively blessed with the Soul of Being, which is psychically free; the Taking of Soul, which is metaphysically truthful, is positively blessed with the Soul of Taking, which is psychically free; the Giving of Soul, which is metaphysically woeful, is negatively blessed with the Soul of Giving, which is somatically bound; the Doing of Soul, which is metaphysically illusory, is negatively blessed with the Soul of Doing, which is somatically bound.
The Taking of Ego, which is physically knowing, is positively counter-blessed with the Ego of Taking, which is psychically free; the Being of Ego, which is physically pleasurable, is positively counter-blessed with the Ego of Being, which is psychically free; the Doing of Ego, which is physically ignorant, is negatively counter-blessed with the Ego of Doing, which is somatically bound; the Giving of Ego, which is physically painful, is negatively counter-blessed with the Ego of Giving, which is somatically bound.
The Giving of Spirit, which is chemically proud, is positively counter-uncursed with the Spirit of Giving, which is somatically free; the Doing of Spirit, which is chemically strong, is positively counter-uncursed with the Spirit of Doing, which is somatically free; the Being of Spirit, which is chemically humble, is negatively counter-uncursed with the Spirit of Being, which is psychically bound; the Taking of Spirit, which is chemically weak, is negatively counter-uncursed with the Spirit of Taking, which is psychically bound.
The Doing of Will, which is metachemically beautiful, is positively uncursed with the Will of Doing, which is somatically free; the Giving of Will, which is metachemically loving, is positively uncursed with the Will of Giving, which is somatically free; the Taking of Will, which is metachemically ugly, is negatively uncursed with the Will of Taking, which is psychically bound; the Being of Will, which is metachemically hateful, is negatively uncursed with the Will of Being, which is psychically bound.
The Pseudo-Being of Pseudo-Soul, which is pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-woeful, is negatively counter-unblessed with the Pseudo-Soul of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically bound; the Pseudo-Taking of Pseudo-Soul, which is pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-illusory, is negatively counter-unblessed with the Pseudo-Soul of Pseudo-Taking, which is psychically bound; the Pseudo-Giving of Pseudo-Soul, which is pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-joyful, is positively counter-unblessed with the Pseudo-Soul of Pseudo-Giving, which is somatically free; the Pseudo-Doing of Pseudo-Soul, which is pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-truthful, is positively counter-unblessed with the Pseudo-Soul of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically free.
The Pseudo-Taking of Pseudo-Ego, which is pseudo-physically pseudo-ignorant, is negatively unblessed with the Pseudo-Ego of Pseudo-Taking, which is psychically bound; the Pseudo-Being of Pseudo-Ego, which is pseudo-physically pseudo-painful, is negatively unblessed with the Pseudo-Ego of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically bound; the Pseudo-Doing of Pseudo-Ego, which is pseudo-physically pseudo-knowing, is positively unblessed with the Pseudo-Ego of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically free; the Pseudo-Giving of Pseudo-Ego, which is pseudo-physically pseudo-pleasurable, is positively unblessed with the Pseudo-Ego of Pseudo-Giving, which is somatically free.
The Pseudo-Giving of Pseudo-Spirit, which is pseudo-chemically pseudo-humble, is negatively cursed with the Pseudo-Spirit of Pseudo-Giving, which is somatically bound; the Pseudo-Doing of Pseudo-Spirit, which is pseudo-chemically pseudo-weak, is negatively cursed with the Pseudo-Spirit of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically bound; the Pseudo-Being of Pseudo-Spirit, which is pseudo-chemically pseudo-proud, is positively cursed with the Pseudo-Spirit of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically free; the Pseudo-Taking of Pseudo-Spirit, which is pseudo-chemically pseudo-strong, is positively cursed with the Pseudo-Spirit of Pseudo-Taking, which is psychically free.
The Pseudo-Doing of Pseudo-Will, which is pseudo-metachemically pseudo-ugly, is negatively counter-cursed with the Pseudo-Will of Pseudo-Doing, which is somatically bound; the Pseudo-Giving of Pseudo-Will, which is pseudo-metachemically pseudo-hateful, is negatively counter-cursed with the Pseudo-Will of Pseudo-Giving, which is somatically bound; the Pseudo-Taking of Pseudo-Will, which is pseudo-metachemically pseudo-beautiful, is positively counter-cursed with the Pseudo-Will of Pseudo-Taking, which is psychically free; the Pseudo-Being of Pseudo-Will, which is pseudo-metachemically pseudo-loving, is positively counter-cursed with the Pseudo-Will of Pseudo-Being, which is psychically free.
RATIOS OF SOMA TO PSYCHE AND OF PSYCHE TO SOMA
The 3:1 ratio of free soma (body) to bound psyche (mind) in metachemistry, a noumenally objective element (protonic), could be described in terms of the super-predominance (superdominance) of free soma over the sub-preponderance (subponderance) of bound psyche, corresponding to a superfeminine/submasculine dichotomy which, on other occasions, I have identified with a distinction between supersensuousness and subconsciousness, or superheathenism and subchristianity, or even supernaturalism (evil) and subnurturalism (crime).
By contrast, the 3:1 ratio of free psyche to bound soma in metaphysics, a noumenally subjective element (photonic), could be described in terms of the super-preponderance (superponderance) of free psyche over the sub-predominance (subdominance) of bound soma, corresponding to a supermasculine/subfeminine dichotomy which, on other occasions, I have identified with a distinction between superconsciousness and subsensuousness, or superchristianity and subheathenism, or even supernurturalism (grace) and subnaturalism (wisdom).
On the other hand, the 2½: 1½ ratio of free soma to bound psyche in chemistry, a phenomenally objective element (electronic), could be described in terms of the predominance of free soma over the un-preponderance (unponderance) of bound psyche, corresponding to a feminine/unmasculine dichotomy which, on other occasions, I have identified with a distinction between sensuousness and unconsciousness, or heathenism and unchristianity, or even naturalism (pseudo-evil) and unnurturalism (pseudo-crime).
By contrast, the 2½: 1½ ratio of free psyche to bound soma in physics, a phenomenally subjective element (neutronic), could be described in terms of the preponderance of free psyche over the un-predominance (undominance) of bound soma, corresponding to a masculine/unfeminine dichotomy which, on other occasions, I have identified with a distinction between consciousness and unsensuousness, or christianity and unheathenism, or even nurturalism (pseudo-grace) and unnaturalism (pseudo-.wisdom).
Passing from the elements to the pseudo-elements, the 3:1 ratio of bound soma to free psyche in pseudo-metachemistry, a noumenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element (pseudo-protonic) conditioned by the noumenally subjective hegemony of metaphysics, could be described in terms of the super-predominance (superdominance) of bound soma over the sub-preponderance (subponderance) of free psyche, corresponding to a pseudo-superfeminine/pseudo-submasculine dichotomy which I would identify with a distinction between pseudo-supersensuousness and pseudo-subconsciousness, or pseudo-superheathenism and pseudo-subchristianity, or even pseudo-supernaturalism (pseudo-goodness) and pseudo-subnurturalism (pseudo-punishingness).
By contrast, the 3:1 ratio of bound psyche to free soma in pseudo-metaphysics, a noumenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-element (pseudo-photonic) conditioned by the noumenally objective hegemony of metachemistry, could be described in terms of the super-preponderance (superponderance) of bound psyche over the sub-predominance (subdominance) of free soma, corresponding to a pseudo-supermasculine/pseudo-subfeminine dichotomy which I would identify with a distinction between pseudo-superconsciousness and pseudo-subsensuousness, or pseudo-superchristianity and pseudo-subheathenism, or even pseudo-supernurturalism (pseudo-sin) and pseudo-subnaturalism (pseudo-foolishness).
On the other hand, the 2½:1½ ratio of bound soma to free psyche in pseudo-chemistry, a phenomenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element (pseudo-electronic) conditioned by the phenomenally subjective hegemony of physics, could be described in terms of the predominance of bound soma over the un-preponderance (unponderance) of free psyche, corresponding to a pseudo-feminine/pseudo-unmasculine dichotomy which I would identify with a distinction between pseudo-unsensuousness and pseudo-consciousness, or pseudo-unheathenism and pseudo-christianity, or even pseudo-unnaturalism (goodness) and pseudo-nurturalism (punishingness).
Finally, the 2½: 1½ ratio of bound psyche to free soma in pseudo-physics, a phenomenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-element (pseudo-neutronic) conditioned by the phenomenally objective hegemony of chemistry, could be described in terms of the preponderance of bound psyche over the un-predominance (undominance) of free soma, corresponding to a pseudo-masculine/pseudo-unfeminine dichotomy which I would identify with a distinction between pseudo-unconsciousness and pseudo-sensuousness, or pseudo-unchristianity and pseudo-heathenism, or even pseudo-unnurturalism (sin) and pseudo-naturalism (foolishness).
CHRISTMAS AND EASTER IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE
The polarity of Christianity between Christmas and Easter exists, I maintain, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms … in relation to the nativity heathenism, so to speak, of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and the resurrectional or, rather, crucifixional Christianity of its northeast point, these points constitutive of a polarity between female-dominated and male-dominated contexts, the chemical/pseudo-physical southwest point and the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point, both of which adhere, in Catholic vein, to church-hegemonic axial criteria, as noted above.
Now if the Christ child on his mother’s knee, shall we say, is no better than an antichrist or, rather, the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-Man, it has to be said that the elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts of chemistry and pseudo-physics, corresponding to purgatory and pseudo-earth, also embrace, besides free somatic aspects, bound psychic ones, which ought really to be described in terms of the Daughter of Woman (chemistry) and Pseudo-Man the Pseudo-Father (pseudo-physics), neither of which would strictly adhere to the ‘Mother/Son’ focus of the Christmas, or nativity-like, setting of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, if only because Christianity cannot afford to be too complex or even too logical, notwithstanding the curtailments and fudges imposed upon it as a mere extrapolative religion – and culture – from Middle Eastern precedent.
Be that as it may, the Easter polarity to this heathenistic relativity of ‘mother and child’ (son) is rather more male-hegemonic, as befitting what appertains to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and in any crucifixional scene in which a prone ‘Mother of God’ (sic), or Mary, the mother of Jesus, is distraughtly at the foot of the Cross … upon which her son is raised up to virtual Y-like independence … we have a relationship seemingly the reverse of the nativity-type one, a relationship, I mean, which seems to parallel that of St George and the Dragon, of a male hegemony, in metaphysics, over a pseudo-female subordination, in pseudo-metachemistry, the latter of which, duly neutralized, is effectively pseudo-dragon, akin to a pseudo-jet (jump jet) under a chopper, or pseudo-space under time.
Thus with a prone, distraught Virgin Mary, one has the equivalent, it seems to me, of the pseudo-dragon who or which has been neutralized by hegemonic male criteria, which towers over her in much the same way that the crucified Christ towers over the Virgin, who can only weep at her predicament … of no longer being a dominating mother-like figure but a distinctly subordinate one in the overall crucifixional context, in which Christ is by far the dominant figure.
But such a figure limply hanging on the Cross of course has a Y-like form emblematic, it seems to me, of male chromosomal selfhood, of a return to psychic self and indeed of independence of the female. It is for this reason that one would tend to identify the Catholic crucifixional figure, whose arms are stretched Y-like towards the heavens while his body sags under its own weight, with the ‘true cross’, since without a Y-like intimation of male selfhood in metaphysics there is simply the thing, rectilinear and materialist, upon which Christ was crucified, and that is of little intrinsic religious, i.e. metaphysical, significance, being, if anything, opposed to such significance.
It is for this reason that both the ornate (Anglican) and plain (Puritan) crosses are mere abstractions from the concrete Y-intimating essence of the ‘true cross’, a religious and symbolic degeneration that would seem to parallel the ‘Star of David’ (a kind of cross, though that is not a concept or reality which would appeal to many Jews, given the number of Jews who were barbarously crucified upon crosses during Roman times) abstraction of two interlocking triangles from the more concrete representations of gender interlocking that characterized such older religious traditions as the Hindu and even Babylonian.
An abstraction from a concrete embodiment of self-affirmation, whether natural or human, pagan or christian, is always a degeneration or decadence which effectively symbolizes the rejection, puritanically, of natural (sexual) or human (spiritual) aspirations. And, to be sure, the Cross is itself a kind of extrapolation from the interlocking triangles of the so-called ‘Star of David’ emblem, a further attenuation, as it were, of the gender interlocking between male (below) and female (above) organs, with the vertical beam analogous to the one and the horizontal beam to the other.
Hence both Judaism and Protestantism are parallel repudiations of concrete embodiments of natural and human aspirations, repudiations that lead nowhere but simply remain opposed to what preceded them in the older traditions from which they derive their almost puritanical fear of self, whether natural or human, sexual or (to use a conventional if misleading term) spiritual.
But we who stretch beyond humanity in our yearning for cyborgistic apotheosis and Y-like definitiveness in the most perfect and evolved metaphysics, we cannot be persuaded by such degenerate repudiations of self, even if we are not particularly enamoured of the more concrete traditions which precede them. We must build away from the contemporary abstractions, which include cinema, towards a new concretism, a new reality, which will transcend human aspirations as they achieve a god-like or, rather, cyborgistic character in which heavenly experience will be the metaphysical rule rather than the puritanical exception, notwithstanding the necessary part that will have to be played by pseudo-metachemistry in pseudo-dragon-like vein if females are to be brought to a neutralized subordination analogous to the Easter relationship of the prone figure at the foot of the Cross to the limp Y-intimating body hanging upon it.
There can be no Heaven where there is not pseudo-Hell, and therefore no free male, risen Y-like ‘on high’, without the inescapable corollary of a bound and gagged (metaphorically speaking) female, whom we deem pseudo-female, and consider akin to a jump jet under a chopper.
Counter-damnation of females from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry is the inevitable corollary of the salvation of males or, rather, pseudo-males from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and in ‘Kingdom Come’, the context or society I have long defined in relation to the prevalence (democratically mandated) of religious sovereignty, those who are now pseudo-physically low (and phenomenally meek) will be raised up to metaphysical highness (noumenal righteousness), while those who are now chemically high (and phenomenally pseudo-vain) will be cast down to pseudo-metachemical lowness (noumenal pseudo-justice), as the gender positions are axially reversed in favour of the male and his Y-like freedom from XX-chromosomal persecution through seduction, a seduction, going all the way back to Eve, that allows the free female to abandon the hell of metachemical vacuity for the purgatory of a chemical surrogate plenum, the child that Christmas celebrates through the Nativity in effectively heathenistic (female-dominated) vein, but which Easter opposes from the standpoint of the fully Christian, even proto-Superchristian, independent male, whose heavenly resurrection (to self) would be inconceivable without a Y-like crucifixional affirmation of psychic self, the true, or soulful, self that the ‘true cross’ cannot but symbolize through the concrete embodiment of the transfixed male.
DIVERGENCE AND CONVERGENCE IN GENUINE AND PSEUDO MODES
To contrast the noumenal objectivity, and therefore absolute divergence, of metachemistry with the noumenal pseudo-subjectivity, and therefore absolute pseudo-convergence, of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast spatial space with sequential time (pseudo-time), or elemental particles with elemental pseudo-wavicles.
To contrast the noumenal subjectivity, and therefore absolute convergence, of metaphysics with the noumenal pseudo-objectivity, and therefore absolute pseudo-divergence, of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast repetitive time with spaced space (pseudo-space), or elemental wavicles with elemental pseudo-particles.
To contrast the phenomenal objectivity, and therefore relative divergence, of chemistry with the phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, and therefore relative pseudo-convergence, of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast volumetric volume with massed mass (pseudo-mass), or molecular particles with molecular pseudo-wavicles.
To contrast the phenomenal subjectivity, and therefore relative convergence, of physics with the phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, and therefore relative pseudo-divergence, of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast massive mass with voluminous volume (pseudo-volume), or molecular wavicles with molecular pseudo-particles.
Objectivity diverges in straight lines, whether absolutely or relatively, from free squares or rectangles, whereas pseudo-subjectivity pseudo-converges in curved lines, whether absolutely or relatively, from bound circles or ellipses (ovals), all of which, conditioned by a hegemonic vacuum, are ringful, or ring-like, in character.
Subjectivity converges in curved lines, whether absolutely or relatively, from free circles or ellipses, whereas pseudo-objectivity pseudo-diverges in straight lines, whether absolutely or relatively, from bound squares or rectangles, all of which, conditioned by a hegemonic plenum, are badgeful, or badge-like, in character.
That said, the free elements are no more completely free than the bound ones (pseudo-elements) completely bound, not even in relation to absolute (noumenal) divergence or converge, pseudo-convergence or pseudo-divergence.
The objective free elements are either absolutely predominant (3:1 ratio of free soma to bound psyche in metachemistry) or relatively predominant (2½:1½ ratio of free soma to bound psyche in chemistry), whereas the subjective free elements are either absolutely preponderant (3:1 ratio of free psyche to bound soma in metaphysics) or relatively preponderant (2½:1½ ratio of free psyche to bound soma in physics).
Correlatively, the pseudo-subjective bound pseudo-elements are either absolutely pseudo-preponderant (3:1 ratio of bound psyche to free soma in pseudo-metaphysics) or relatively pseudo-preponderant (2½:1½ ratio of bound psyche to free soma in pseudo-physics), whereas the pseudo-objective bound pseudo-elements are either absolutely pseudo-predominant (3:1 ratio of bound soma to free psyche in pseudo-metachemistry) or relatively pseudo-predominant (2½:1½ ratio of bound soma to free psyche in pseudo-chemistry).
Thus the gender dichotomy between female objectivity and male subjectivity, pseudo-female pseudo-objectivity and pseudo-male pseudo-subjectivity, is never total, since all elements and pseudo-elements are combinations, to greater or lesser extends, of male and female aspects.
Nevertheless, it can be logically demonstrated that objectivity is broadly female (in noumenal or phenomenal ratio terms) and pseudo-objectivity broadly pseudo-female (in noumenal or phenomenal ratio terms), whereas subjectivity is broadly male (in noumenal or phenomenal ratio terms) and pseudo-subjectivity broadly pseudo-male (in noumenal or phenomenal ratio terms).
Hence the absolutely predominant female character, with(out) noumenal objectivity, of metachemistry as against the relatively predominant female character, with(out) phenomenal objectivity, of chemistry, both of which would correlatively contrast with the absolutely pseudo-preponderant pseudo-male character, with(in) noumenal pseudo-subjectivity, of pseudo-metaphysics and the relatively pseudo-preponderant pseudo-male character, with(in) phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, of pseudo-physics.
Hence the absolutely preponderant male character, with(in) noumenal subjectivity, of metaphysics as against the relatively preponderant male character, with(in) phenomenal subjectivity, of physics, both of which would correlatively contrast with the absolutely pseudo-predominant pseudo-female character, with(out) noumenal pseudo-objectivity, of pseudo-metachemistry and the relatively pseudo-predominant pseudo-female character, with(out) phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, of pseudo-chemistry.
INNOCENCE AND GUILT AS CORRELATIVE FACTORS
Innocence and guilt ‘hang together’, like two sides of the same coin, whether that metaphorical coin happens to be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, not to mention, in subordinate contexts, pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical.
Hence there is, besides the obvious distinction between ‘being innocent’ or ‘being guilty’ of, say, a crime or even a sin, a more complex distinction which amounts, in any element or pseudo-element, to the equivalence of being free or being bound, that is, in effect, equivalent to freedom and binding or, for that matter, virtue and vice, brightness and shadow, positivity and negativity. Therefore one is both innocent and guilty, just as one is free and bound, positive and negative, virtuous and vicious, etc., etc.
But metachemical innocence and guilt is not the same as chemical innocence and guilt, even if, being of a female character, it shares with its lesser sister certain features in common. For the innocence of metachemistry is evil (beautiful and loving) and the guilt of metachemistry criminal (ugly and hateful), whereas the innocence of chemistry is pseudo-evil (strong and proud) and the guilt of chemistry pseudo-criminal (weak and humble), the ratio of innocence to guilt in metachemistry, a noumenal or ethereal element, differing from its chemical, or phenomenal and corporeal, counterpart in the absolute terms of 3:1 as against the relative terms of 2½:1½. Yet innocence still predominates over guilt in either element.
Likewise, physical innocence and guilt is not the same as metaphysical innocence and guilt, even if, being of a male character, it shares with its greater brother certain factors in common. For the innocence of physics is pseudo-graceful (knowledgeable and pleasurable) and the guilt of physics pseudo-wise (ignorant and painful), whereas the innocence of metaphysics is graceful (truthful and joyful) and the guilt of metaphysics wise (illusory and woeful), the ratio of innocence to guilt in physics, a phenomenal or corporeal element, differing from its metaphysical, or noumenal and ethereal, counterpart in the relative terms of 2½:1½ as against the absolute terms of 3:1. Yet innocence still preponderates over guilt in either element.
Therefore the innocence of evil and the guilt of crime not only differs from the innocence of pseudo-evil and the guilt of pseudo-crime, but stands in gender opposition to the innocence of grace and the guilt of wisdom, not to mention the innocence of pseudo-grace and the guilt of pseudo-wisdom, as incompatible gender ideals that can only suffer a catastrophic negation if subjected to the hegemonic sway of the opposite gender, whereof, in the female case, evil will be negated by good and crime by punishment, whilst, in the male case, grace will be negated by sin and wisdom by folly.
For if the innocence of evil and the guilt of crime are negated, by a pseudo-chemical subordination to a physical hegemony, then the damned outcome can only be the pseudo-guilt of goodness (pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility) and the pseudo-innocence of punishment (pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride), in consequence of a fall from free soma metachemically to bound soma pseudo-chemically (evil to good) and from bound psyche metachemically to free psyche pseudo-chemically (crime to punishment0, neither of which could be desirable from a metachemical standpoint, where the female is hegemonic, but rather eventualities to faithlessly fear, just as, from the converse standpoint, the pseudo-chemical damned could be inferred to live in faithless hope of a return to metachemical innocence and guilt.
Similarly, if the innocence of pseudo-evil and the guilt of pseudo-crime are negated, by a pseudo-metachemical subordination to a metaphysical hegemony, then the counter-damned (pseudo-damned) outcome can only be the pseudo-guilt of pseudo-goodness (pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred) and the pseudo-innocence of pseudo-punishment (pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love), in consequence of a counter-fall (pseudo-fall) from free soma chemically to bound soma pseudo-metachemically (pseudo-evil to pseudo-good) and from bound psyche chemically to free psyche pseudo-metachemically (pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment), neither of which could be desirable from a chemical standpoint, where the female is hegemonic, but rather eventualities to pseudo-faithlesslessly fear, just as, from the converse standpoint, the pseudo-metachemical counter-damned (pseudo-damned) could be inferred to live in pseudo-faithless hope of a return to chemical innocence and guilt.
For no female, whether pseudo-chemical or pseudo-metachemical, is going to be at ease with a situation which negates her authentic sense of innocence and guilt, freedom and binding, under male hegemonic pressures, such that, in the metaphysical case, favour genuine grace and wisdom at the expense of pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime coupled, on its own side of the gender fence, to sin and folly, or, in the physical case, favour pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom at the expense of evil and crime coupled, on its own side of the gender fence, to pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly, and consequently the pseudo-metachemical will no more be resigned to pseudo-goodness and pseudo-punishment than their pseudo-chemical counterparts to goodness and punishment.
Which is a test for males and the very existence of culture or pseudo-culture, as the class/axial case may be, not merely in polar rejection of philistinism or pseudo-philistinism, but in opposition to pseudo-barbarity and barbarity in the interests, for pseudo-females, of civility and pseudo-civility.
For just as the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female corollary of culture is pseudo-civility, so the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female corollary of pseudo-culture is civility, and neither can be sustained (by males) where culture or pseudo-culture is not. Only a reversion, pseudo-faithlessly or faithlessly hoped for by the pseudo-civil and civil, to pseudo-barbarity or barbarity, as the axial/class case may be, with the restoration, in consequence, of a female hegemonic sway over philistines and pseudo-philistines.
For males, on the other hand, the importance of remaining in control of their hegemonic positions cannot be underestimated, least of all in metaphysics, since the negation of grace and wisdom by sin and folly in the church-hegemonic axial case is something to faithfully fear … as the righteous, hegemonic over the pseudo-just, must faithfully fear the meek, subordinate to the pseudo-vain. The negation of pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom by pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly in the state-hegemonic axial case is likewise something to pseudo-faithfully fear … as the pseudo-righteous, hegemonic over the just, must pseudo-faithfully fear the pseudo-meek, subordinate to the vain.
Those, on the other hand, who live in sin and folly, pseudo-physical guilt and innocence, could be inferred to live in faithful hope of deliverance through salvation to the greater innocence of grace and the lesser guilt of wisdom in righteousness, while their pseudo-sinful and pseudo-foolish pseudo-metaphysical counterparts could be inferred to live in pseudo-faithful hope of counter-deliverance through counter-salvation (pseudo-salvation) to the greater innocence of pseudo-grace and the lesser guilt of pseudo-wisdom in pseudo-righteousness, neither of which, however, would have anything to do with metaphysics and therefore with God and, more significantly, Heaven, but, equating with man and the earth, leave much to be desired from a truly religious, or church-hegemonic, axial standpoint.
It is for this reason that ‘Kingdom Come’ will not be a physical but a metaphysical destiny primarily intended for the pseudo-physical, whose deliverance from meekness will bring about the counter-damnation (pseudo-damnation) of the pseudo-vain to pseudo-justice, subordinate, for ever more, to the hegemonic triumph of righteousness.
A NEW LIGHT ON OLD TERMS
In ‘Kingdom Come’ – which I equate with the introduction, through democracy, of Social Theocracy – the church-hegemonic lower last will become church-hegemonic higher first in a switch from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, while the state-subordinate lower first will become state-subordinate higher last in a switch from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry. In other words, the pseudo-physical meek will become the metaphysical righteous, while the chemical pseudo-vain will become the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-just.
In consequence of which, the state-hegemonic higher first will become state-hegemonic lower last in a switch from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, while the church-subordinate higher last will become church-subordinate lower first in a switch from pseudo-metaphysics to physics. In other words, the metachemical vain will become the pseudo-chemical just, while the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meek will become the physical pseudo-righteous ... until such time as circumstances, relative to my concept of the triadic Beyond, may decide otherwise, i.e. until such time as an accommodation with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, stretching from southwest to northeast on the intercardinal axial compass, becomes universal.
To contrast, on polar church-hegemonic axial terms, the faithful fear of the righteous cultured for the meek philistine and, conversely, the faithful hope of the meek philistine for the righteous cultured, while also contrasting, on rather more state-subordinate axial terms, the pseudo-faithless hope of the pseudo-just pseudo-civil for the pseudo-vain pseudo-barbarous and, conversely, the pseudo-faithless fear of the pseudo-vain pseudo-barbarous for the pseudo-just pseudo-civil.
To contrast, on polar state-hegemonic axial terms, the faithless fear of the vain barbarous for the just civil and, conversely, the faithless hope of the just civil for the vain barbarous, while also contrasting, on rather more church-subordinate axial terms, the pseudo-faithful hope of the pseudo-meek pseudo-philistine for the pseudo-righteous pseudo-cultured and, conversely, the pseudo-faithful fear of the pseudo-righteous pseudo-cultured for the pseudo-meek pseudo-philistine.
FROM X TO Y
When one takes a good long look at the Nazi swastika, it becomes impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is more X than Y about it, and that it could be said to reflect a further degeneration from the Iron Cross-type freaked-out departure, along with figureless straight crosses in general, from the ‘true cross’ … of a Y-like figure with upstretched arms whose very existence intimates of divine, or metaphysical, possibility, of an eternity of Y-chromosomal fidelity to self, psychically speaking, for the liberated male, the male who is neither a child of his mother nor a victim, later on, of female XX-chromosomal encroachment, with the end of a worldly resolution in the surrogate plenum of maternity in mind or, rather, body.
Thus the free male is Y-like in his ‘philosopher king’-like studied aloofness from the world and commitment to psychic self, his true self which the ‘true cross’ of Roman Catholic tradition intimates of, and which the Y-like ‘supercross’, that upended CND-like emblem with male and female symbols attached, of Social Theocratic futurity will help bring to fruition even for the broad mass of ‘lapsed catholic’ pseudo-males … in the interests of their deliverance from pseudo-earthly worldly subjection to the purgatorial female whose somatic freedom, in maternity, exists at their psychic expense.
As, it could be argued, did the Nazi swastika, with its X-like disregard for individual, i.e. male, liberty and ruthless predatory pursuit of ends that, national socialistically speaking, could only prove enslaving to males while, correlatively, allowing females to feel more predatorily and/or maternally free – indeed, rewarding such people with a special state-recognized status! To say that Hitler was a ‘sonofabitch’ would almost certainly be an understatement, given the Nazi propensity for the X-like swastika and X-like war upon the male psyche. One can be all the more grateful to countries like Britain and America, despite their own WASPish shortcomings, for having stood up to this X-like threat to male freedom, including freedom of the press, and, together with the Soviet Union, put her to the sword of military defeat (this metaphor is not, I realize, in the best of taste, but nonetheless …) and effective consignment to the proverbial ‘rubbish bin of history’.
We should also be grateful that Britain and America, together with their Western allies, subsequently stood up to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, bringing this false kind of Communism, which I have long identified with radical Social Democracy, down … for want of economic and political credibility. Social Theocracy, which I like to equate with the ‘true communism’ of a dope-motivated communal cyborgization, in ‘Kingdom Come’, of the religiously sovereign, whether male or pseudo-female, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty having come democratically to pass within church-hegemonic societies, has nothing to do with this economic falsehood, which can be regarded as an extrapolation from liberal democracy and bourgeois humanism, a proletarian form of humanism that one would identify with social democratic totalitarianism and consider totally unworthy of respect for its total want of ‘God-building’ and atheistic repudiation of religion, a repudiation that is only to be expected from the secular absolutist offshoot of state-hegemonic protestant humanism and anti-catholic secularity.
For those, on the other hand, who clung, church-hegemonically, to the ‘true cross’ of Roman Catholic tradition, there could be no truck with social democratic totalitarianism, much less Nazism, nor any encouragement to the destabilization and debasement of church-hegemonic axial criteria through radical republicanism, which derives less from Marx and the British Library Reading Room than from the French Revolution and opposition, within Catholic countries, to the Church for its monarchic ties and even to the principles of a church-hegemonic society, whether or not this is understood – which is arguably unlikely – in strict axial terms.
Such secular-oriented departures from state deference to the ‘true church’ tend to reap a fascist-like retort, which is not to be confused with nazi-to-militarist retorts to radical social democracy on state-hegemonic-to-state-absolutist axial terms. And fascistic retorts to radical republicanism do not generally result in failure, least of all in countries with a strong Catholic tradition. In the end, even radical republicanism has to toe the ethnic line and realize that a completely secular alternative to church-hegemonic traditions, no matter how liberalized, is simply not on, since likely to lead back to the protestant-inspired secularities of the state-hegemonic axial traditions so characteristic of countries like Britain and America, and in Eire, for one country, no such direction, fifth-columnist exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, is axially feasible.
So they simply have to hang-on, these catholic countries, in some kind of loosely church-hegemonic axial vein that, allowing for certain secular freedoms, is still axially at variance with the state-hegemonic traditions and will continue so to be until such time as the ‘resurrection’ of church-hegemonic axial criteria, social theocratically, makes possible their own overhaul in terms of a more capable, permanent, radical deliverance of both the pseudo-male and the female from ‘the world’ to the otherworldly and, for pseudo-females, pseudo-netherworldly contexts of ‘Kingdom Come’, in which the liberated male will rise, Y-like, over the enslaved or neutralized pseudo-female whose XX-chromosomal dispositions will no longer be encouraged or even permitted to operate freely, as in the heathenistic past, but be put out of commission, so to speak, in the interests of male holiness in grace and wisdom, free psyche and bound soma, metaphysically.
Therefore the only thing that overhauls the ‘true cross’ of Catholic tradition is the ‘supercross’ of social theocratic communism, and in the course of time this upended CND-like emblem will become more purely and freely Y-like, as though in a departure, on evolutionary terms, from superchristian to supra-christian criteria commensurate with the supersession of psychic ego by psychic soul, of visionary relativity by unitive absolutism, for metaphysical males, whose pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female counterparts will likewise proceed, on counter-devolutionary terms - and under a contiguously-encircled absolute star emblem equally badgeful, or badge-like, in character -, from relative somatic binding to absolute somatic binding, bound spirit to bound will, the pseudo-female corollary, long-term, of free soul.
Therefore not one emblem, as in Christianity, for both genders but two emblems, one for each gender, as civilization emerges from out the androgynous shadow of ‘the world’ into the gender-differentiated structure of ‘Kingdom Come’, to a condition in which the male rises Y-like above the prone pseudo-female in perfect liberation from pseudo-earthly submission. His destiny is Heaven, hers … pseudo-Hell, and in the achievement of this, global universality will have come properly to pass or, at least, have brought itself to the threshold of space-centre apotheosis and complete transcendence of the world.
How far one will then be from the imperial eagle and XX-like predatory exploitation of the Nazis and their accursed swastika! We are no idiots, we Social Theocrats, but Yidiots, it could be said, whose affirmation of all things Y-like and transcendent brings us closer to the spirit, nay, the soul of Ysrael when it comes into the fullness of its universal destiny and spiritually presides over a world in which God and Heaven, though especially Heaven, are universally triumphant, with a pseudo-Devil and pseudo-Hell under His metaphorical heel for all eternity, like the prone dragon (pseudo-dragon) that the legendary English saint remains master of in the name of Eternal Peace, the imperial eagle vanquished from the face of the earth for ever more.
OPEN AND ENCLOSED AS FREE AND BOUND
The Skull & Crossbones, being X-shaped, is every bit as bad, if not worse, than the nazi swastika. Blackbeard = Hitler.
Schopenhauer was wrong about females being number two of the human kind. Males are.
The Scottish flag, the so-called Cross of St Andrew, is X-like in its bisecting diagonals and therefore reminiscent of the diagonal clash of swords that one would identify with battle and strife, as though an abstraction thereof.
In relation to females, open-toed high heels go with a flounced dress as a metachemical mean; open-toed low heels go with a flounced skirt as a chemical mean; enclosed-toe low heels go with a tight skirt as a pseudo-chemical mean; and enclosed-toe high heels go with a tight dress as a pseudo-metachemical mean.
High heels, whether open or enclosed, alpha or omega, sensual or sensible, summery or wintry, are upper order, or noumenal, ethereal, absolute; low heels, whether open or enclosed, alpha or omega, etc., are lower order, or phenomenal, corporeal, relative.
One fancies that large-breasted females have more of a right to high heels than their small-breasted counterparts. As also to dresses as opposed to skirts.
Open societies, like open-toed heels, are alpha, heathenistic, female-dominated, sensual; enclosed societies, like enclosed-toe heels, are omega, christianistic, male-dominated, sensible.
This is not, however, a distinction between ‘left’ and ‘right’, which is rather more axial in character. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are not in overall axial polarity in relation to the hegemonic factors; they pertain, above all, to opposite axes.
Extreme Right = Upper Class; Moderate Right = Middle Class; Moderate Left = Lower Class; Extreme Left = Classless.
Hence an upper-class/middle-class polarity, characterizing the hegemonic axial positions, between metachemistry and physics, science and economics, noumenal female and phenomenal male. But a lower-class/classless polarity, again characteristic of the hegemonic axial positions, between chemistry and metaphysics, politics and religion, phenomenal female and noumenal male.
The church-hegemonic axis stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, being hegemonically political and religious, is illustrative of a polarity between moderate and extreme left-wing positions.
The state-hegemonic axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, being hegemonically scientific and economic, is illustrative of a polarity between extreme and moderate right-wing positions.
In overall axial terms, left-wing societies are more psyche than soma, mind than body; right-wing ones … more soma than psyche, body than mind. This is because females, whether hegemonically or subversively, dominate state-hegemonic and males, by contrast, church-hegemonic societies.
In overall hegemonic terms, the state-hegemonic polarity between science and economics is equivalent to an Extreme Right/Moderate Right polarity between autocracy and plutocracy, with, in subordinate terms, pseudo-religion and pseudo-politics indicative of a pseudo-Extreme Left/pseudo-Moderate Left polarity between pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy) and pseudo-democracy (meritocracy).
In overall hegemonic terms, the church-hegemonic polarity between politics and religion is equivalent to a Moderate Left/Extreme Left polarity between democracy and theocracy, with, in subordinate terms, pseudo-economics and pseudo-science indicative of a pseudo-Moderate Right/pseudo-Extreme Right polarity between pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) and pseudo-autocracy (technocracy).
The polarity between autocratic science and plutocratic economics is indirect, i.e. of a female/male character, as is that between pseudo-theocratic pseudo-religion (pseudo-male) and pseudo-democratic pseudo-politics (pseudo-female), whereas the polarity between autocratic science and pseudo-democratic pseudo-politics is direct, i.e. of a female/pseudo-female character, as is that between pseudo-theocratic pseudo-religion (pseudo-male) and plutocratic economics (male).
The polarity between democratic politics and theocratic religion is indirect, i.e. of a female/male character, as is that between pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics (pseudo-male) and pseudo-autocratic pseudo-science (pseudo-female), whereas the polarity between democratic politics and pseudo-autocratic pseudo-science is direct, i.e. of a female/pseudo-female character, as is that between pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics (pseudo-male) and theocratic religion (male).
The primary state-hegemonic polarity, being female, is between autocratic science, the Extreme Right, and pseudo-democratic pseudo-politics, the pseudo-Moderate Left, whereas the secondary state-hegemonic polarity, being male, is between pseudo-theocratic pseudo-religion, the pseudo-Extreme Left, and plutocratic economics, the Moderate Right.
The primary church-hegemonic polarity, being male, is between pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics, the pseudo-Moderate Right, and theocratic religion, the Extreme Left, whereas the secondary church-hegemonic polarity, being female, is between democratic politics, the Moderate Left, and pseudo-autocratic pseudo-science, the pseudo-Extreme Right.
Science, being metachemical, is more about Doing than Being; religion, being metaphysical, more about Being than Doing; politics, being chemical, is more about Giving than Taking; economics, being physical, more about Taking than Giving.
Pseudo-science, being pseudo-metachemical, is more about Pseudo-Doing than Pseudo-Being; pseudo-religion, being pseudo-metaphysical, more about pseudo-Being than pseudo-Doing; pseudo-politics, being pseudo-chemical, is more about pseudo-Giving than pseudo-Taking; pseudo-economics, being pseudo-physical, more about pseudo-Taking than pseudo-Giving.
Doing prevails over pseudo-Being as metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics, science over pseudo-religion, autocracy over pseudo-theocracy, at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where females, being unequivocally hegemonic, dominate pseudo-males in primary state-hegemonic terms.
Taking prevails over pseudo-Giving as physics over pseudo-chemistry, economics over pseudo-politics, plutocracy over pseudo-democracy, at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where males are equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-females but are effectively subverted by pseudo-females to somatic emphasis at the behest of metachemical females in secondary state-hegemonic terms.
Giving prevails over pseudo-Taking as chemistry over pseudo-physics, politics over pseudo-economics, democracy over pseudo-plutocracy, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where females are equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-males but are effectively subverted by pseudo-males to psychic emphasis at the behest of metaphysical males in secondary church-hegemonic terms.
Being prevails over pseudo-Doing as metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, religion over pseudo-science, theocracy over pseudo-autocracy, at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where males, being unequivocally hegemonic, dominate pseudo-females in primary church-hegemonic terms.
Open and enclosed are correlative factors at all points of the intercardinal axial compass, though the openness can be somatic (female) or psychic (male) and the enclosedness psychic (male) or female (somatic), depending on the elemental/pseudo-elemental positions.
Hence the somatic openness of noumenal objectivity in metachemistry has to be seen in relation to the psychic enclosedness of noumenal pseudo-subjectivity in pseudo-metaphysics, where bound psyche prevails over free soma in the ratio of 3:1, the converse of the metachemical position.
Hence the somatic openness of phenomenal objectivity in chemistry has to be seen in relation to the psychic enclosedness of phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity in pseudo-physics, where bound psyche prevails over free soma in the ratio of , the converse of the chemical position.
Hence the psychic openness of phenomenal subjectivity in physics has to be seen in relation to the somatic enclosedness of phenomenal pseudo-objectivity in pseudo-chemistry, where bound soma prevails over free psyche in the ratio of , the converse of the physical position.
Hence, finally, the psychic openness of noumenal subjectivity in metaphysics has to be seen in relation to the somatic enclosedness of noumenal pseudo-objectivity in pseudo-metachemistry, where bound soma prevails over free psyche in the ratio of 3:1, the converse of the metaphysical position.
Just as autocracy unequivocally holds dominion over pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), so the equivocally hegemonic dominance of pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) by plutocracy is subverted to a secondary state-hegemonic position in relation to the primary state-hegemonic polarity between autocratic science and pseudo-democratic pseudo-politics on the female side of the gender divide, as between metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry.
Just as theocracy unequivocally holds dominion over pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), so the equivocally hegemonic dominance of pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) by democracy is subverted to a secondary church-hegemonic position in relation to the primary church-hegemonic polarity between theocratic religion and pseudo-plutocratic pseudo-economics on the male side of the gender divide, as between metaphysics and pseudo-physics.
ASPECTS OF FEMALE HYPE
Do females have a Y-chromosome? No, they don’t. Then why should they have or be given names that begin with a Y, like Yancy or Yogini or Yulia or Yasmin or Yoni or Yoko, or whatever. To me, it is on a par with what I call hair-hype, as and when females have their hair brushed or combed back in patent denial of a fringe. One would think they were subjective, introspective, and so thoughtful that anything remotely objective-looking like a fringe, never mind a youthful pudding-basin style of hair, could only be psychologically irrelevant! More could be done to discourage females from playing God, especially since it saves males from having to exert themselves on that account – though that is probably the way most of them like it.
As for me, I could never take any interest in a female who had her hair combed back, even if she didn’t also have a forename that began with Y or constantly dressed in jeans or pants in a blatant rejection of her gender. Neither could I accept one whose name was Grace, or even Joy, even if she didn’t also consider herself blessed and worthy of Heaven. Either males have been largely ignorant of the true nature of females or they have covertly if not overtly encouraged them to give themselves divine airs and graces in order not to have to face up to their own responsibilities in that regard and/or in order to have a better opinion of women than the facts – if they were known – would warrant.
Doubtless the back-to-front religious traditions that place God – as Creator – at the beginning and are paradoxically rooted in the delusion of Devil-the-Mother hyped as God-the-Father, or metachemistry hyped as metaphysics, or cosmos hyped as universe, are partly if not largely responsible for this self-deceiving state-of-affairs. Yet anyone with an ounce of original intelligence and male self-respect – and I don’t just mean great exceptional men like Baudelaire – would hesitate to worship as God a creator who not only makes men in his own image but also made women, and made them after men moreover!
The trouble with simplistic unitary creative explanations of life, including not least the human, is that while they may work on and even be needed by children, once having adopted such a course you are stuck with it for ever – certainly long after your rational mind might have told you that a Being responsible for both sexes was singularly unworthy of the slightest respect, since ‘He’ or ‘It’ can only be a moral contradiction in terms, partial to holiness on the one hand and open to clearness on the other, given to grace one moment and partial to evil the next, capable of wisdom in the service of grace and also of crime in the service of evil, and both blessed with salvation and uncursed by damnation! Even if it were not entirely diabolical, such a creator would be considerably less than divine!
Bah, enough of this! Let us rather look forward to the day when all such unitary and creator gods, unworthy of the slightest credence, are systematically consigned, along with their bibles and symbols, to the ‘rubbish heap of history’, in order that what is truly divine, and I might add pseudo-diabolic, can be cultivated independently of all such traditional obstacles to religious progress and inherent moral contradictions, such ‘best of a bad job’ starting-points of civilization and infantile explanatory cop-outs.
But, of course, the divine will have to be cultivated by metaphysical males and the pseudo-diabolic, in contrast, by pseudo-metachemical pseudo-females, and not as ends-in-themselves but, more correctly, as godly and pseudo-devilish starting-points for heavenly and pseudo-hellish ends, the joy and pseudo-love of primary (male) and secondary (pseudo-female) church-hegemonic free psyche, coupled, be it not forgotten, to the woe and pseudo-hatred of their state-subordinate bound somatic counterparts, which will issue as much from the illusion and pseudo-ugliness of the bound will of each gender … as the joy and pseudo-love from the truth and pseudo-beauty of each gender’s free ego. Yamen!
DEVOLUTION AND EVOLUTION IN NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE MODES
The state-hegemonic axis is ruled at the metachemical northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass by devolutionary positivity and led at the pseudo-chemical southeast point of the said compass by devolutionary negativity, both of which, compared with anything pseudo-metaphysical and physical, are primary state-hegemonic, which is to say, characterized by a female/pseudo-female polarity between free will and bound spirit, evil and good, as also in relation to free spirit and bound will, if to a less representative metachemical/pseudo-chemical extent.
The church-hegemonic axis is led at the metaphysical northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass by evolutionary positivity and ruled at the pseudo-physical southwest point of the said compass by evolutionary negativity, both of which, compared with anything pseudo-metachemical and chemical, are primary church-hegemonic, which is to say, characterized by a male/pseudo-male polarity between free soul and bound ego, as also in relation to free ego and bound soul, if to a less representative metaphysical/pseudo-physical extent.
Hence a polarity between, in general terms, free will and bound spirit on the one axis, contrasted to which we shall find a polarity, likewise, between free soul and bound ego on the other axis.
Even with a pseudo-metaphysical/physical polarity between bound soul and free ego on the one axis, and a pseudo-metachemical/chemical polarity between bound will and free spirit on the other axis, such secondary state- or church-hegemonic polarities detract little from the fact that each axis is primarily characterized by a positive/negative devolutionary polarity in the one case, that of metachemical/pseudo-chemical state-hegemonic criteria, and by a positive/negative evolutionary polarity in the other case, that of metaphysical/pseudo-physical church-hegemonic criteria, with distinctions, in consequence, between evil and good, free will and bound spirit, on the one hand, and grace and sin, free soul and bound ego, on the other hand.
I am, and always shall be, in favour of evolutionary positivity, which, being metaphysical, is subjectively convergent, albeit to a degree that globally and universally transcends anything Western or Eastern, Catholic or Buddhist, since ideologically germane to the ‘true communism’ of Social Theocracy and thus to the politico-religious realization of ‘Kingdom Come’ conceived as the post-historical (eternal) destiny of church-hegemonic axial criteria.
The concept of ‘the British Isles’, as a term so dear to contemporary cartographers and geographers, is anachronistic and has been so for a considerable number of years, not least since the birth, in 1949 of the Irish Republic and, before that, the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1921, when Ireland was granted Dominion status within the British Empire and effectively broke away from the United Kingdom of what had been Britain and Ireland but was destined, in 1922, to become Britain and Northern Ireland (meaning the six counties which are two-thirds of the Province of Ulster).
FALLACY OF THE ALPHA MALE
In my philosophy, which is highly logical, there are no ‘alpha males’, a much-vaunted term for those contemporary males perceived, rightly or wrongly, as womanizing competitors, who may or may not also be macho and athletic, not to say glamorous and aesthetic.
Such males, it has to be said, are hardly christian and sensible, but then, anachronistic exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding, this is not an omega-oriented age but one that is still – as has been the case for a number of decades - alpha-stemming in its female-hegemonic, film-besotted sensuality.
Even if such so-called alpha males were quasi-alpha, or quasi-bitches, they would be exceptions to the rule in exceptional – and rather unattractive – circumstances. To put it bluntly, the typical contemporary male is a kind of pseudo-omega ‘sonofabitch’, or subordinate pseudo-male to a female hegemony, whether the latter be metachemical and noumenal or chemical and phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal. He is either a pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-male living under metachemical hegemonic pressures or a pseudo-physical pseudo-male living under chemical hegemonic pressures, both of which kinds of pressure would correspond to alpha-female objectivity.
For, in overall gender terms, the female is most decidedly alpha, or rooted XX-wise in a vacuous objectivity, and the male omega, or centred XY-wise in a plenumous, so to speak, subjectivity, despite appearances to the contrary which may or may not be – but usually are – societally conditioned.
This so-called alpha male is really either pseudo-omega or, more exceptionally, quasi-alpha, which would be the morally less acceptable ‘male’ position, since patently immoral rather than, in more standard ‘sonofabitch’ pseudo-omega vein, unmoral, the victim of a female hegemony whose morality will, in general terms, be either superheathen in its metachemical somatic (bodily) freedom or heathen in its chemical somatic (bodily) freedom, neither of which kinds of morality would be condoned by a christian/superchristian male disposition, which will fight shy of the unholiness associated with an unmoral ‘fall guy’ and/or ‘sonofabitch’ pseudo-subjective (pseudo-omega) status, the all-too-contemporary ‘male’ predicament, given the persistence, under alpha-stemming criteria, of female hegemonies.
I, for one, do not condone the pseudo-omega pseudo-male, still less his departure, via antimetaphysics or antiphysics, from a subordinate ‘locked-in’ position to a quasi-metachemical or quasi-chemical, depending on the class and/or elemental context, quasi-alpha sell-out to ‘free bitch’ criteria, such that usually results in the worst of all possible metachemical or chemical worlds, so to speak, whose ratio is the converse (of free soma to bound psyche) of anything obtaining in the properly – and female – hegemonic contexts.
The only solution to this predicament, which, no matter how seemingly ‘locked-in’, will remain vulnerable to a quasi-alpha departure, via anti-omega anti-subjectivity, from the pseudo-omega under-plane unmoral position (and usually as a consequence of amoral pressure, i.e. of a quasi-pseudo-omega descent from above), is his deliverance, via salvation (in the case of the pseudo-physical pseudo-male), from his subordinate status to one that was unequivocally hegemonic over a pseudo-female (and therefore pseudo-alpha) position at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass in relation to a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity with his own lowly pseudo-physical pseudo-omega position, thereby elevating him to a metaphysical subjectivity in a genuine omega that spelt the end of subjection to female dominion in what, with perfect sync with the male gender prerogative of free psyche and bound soma, free mind and bound body, would amount to the blessedness of moral holiness in grace and wisdom.
Such ‘saved’ pseudo-males, now fully and properly male, would be at peace with themselves (their self, or psyche) and free from the guilt of sin and folly, bound psyche and free soma under chemical hegemonic pressures, the upended male (pseudo-omega) gender predicament that follows from a female hegemony in which, contrary to male criteria, the objectivity of alpha-stemming criteria, rooted in a sensual vacuum, rules a free somatic/bound psychic roost, to the detriment of male gender innocence and self-respect, given that the male ratio of soma to psyche, even in the corporeal depths of phenomenal relativity, will be the converse of the female ratio and thus more bound than free, more sinful than foolish, and thus, in pseudo terms, more ignorantly painful than knowledgeably pleasurable.
Only the salvation of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics will lead to the correlative counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, the ‘first’ (equivocally hegemonic) becoming ‘last’ (gender subordinate), and thus to the overcoming of the world (at least in its chemical/pseudo-physical manifestations) in the interests of otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly deliverance.
As to the subsequent damnation of the metachemical to pseudo-chemistry and correlative counter-salvation of the pseudo-metaphysical to physics, that is a matter for state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial societies, and not therefore immediately germane to the fate, or respective fates, of those whose worldliness is traditionally characterized by church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, wherein alpha phenomenality has the hegemonic advantage over pseudo-omega phenomenality, alpha corporeal females (feminine) over pseudo-omega corporeal pseudo-males (pseudo-masculine), to the detriment, as noted above, of the latter, whose sinful/foolish predicament requires divine intervention from a metaphysical standpoint if it is to be superseded by the blessedness of grace and wisdom in the holiness of inner peace. Yamen.
NOUMENAL AND PHENOMENAL SALUTES IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE
Saluting, about which subject I have often theorized in the past (and sometimes incorrectly), can be divergent (and female) or convergent (and male), open-handed or clenched-fisted. Yet one should also distinguish not only the noumenal (ethereal, absolute) from the phenomenal (corporeal, relative) modes of saluting, but the hegemonic (and genuine) from the subordinate (and pseudo) gender positions, right across the axial board, so to speak, of what I call the intercardinal axial compass … of intersecting, inter-class diagonals.
Hence metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics at the northwest point of the said compass, where metachemistry would be unequivocally dominant within a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial framework, would have a saluting contrast between the noumenal divergence of the open-hand raised-arm salute and the noumenal pseudo-convergence (pseudo-subjective) of the clenched-fist bent arm salute, as though symptomatic, in the latter case, of a contiguously encircled (bound) supercross, a pseudo-supercross (kind of CND-like), under a free absolute star, or superstar (equal number of points).
Polar to the above at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where physics is equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry on what would still be state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, we shall find a saluting contrast between the phenomenal convergence of a clenched fist held to head salute and the phenomenal pseudo-divergence (pseudo-objective) of an open-hand held to head salute (conventional military salute), as though symptomatic, in the latter case, of a contiguously encircled (bound) star, a pseudo-star, under a free cross, the latter of which would not only be without contiguous encirclement (in the Celtic and arguably mass Catholic manner), but would be figureless in relation to the abstractionism, as it were, of a male hegemonic position, a position that, subatomically, could be described as molecular wavicle as opposed to either molecular particle or, up above, elemental particle or wavicle, depending on the elemental case.
Be that as it may, back and across from the above at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where chemistry is equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-physics on what would be church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, we will find a saluting contrast between the phenomenal divergence of an open hand held to chest salute and the phenomenal pseudo-convergence (pseudo-subjective) of a clenched fist held to chest salute, as though symptomatic, in the latter case, of a contiguously encircled (bound) cross, a pseudo-cross, under a free relative star (unequal number of points), which just happens to be the typically modern or contemporary form of the emblematic star.
Polar to the above at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where metaphysics is unequivocally hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry on what would still be church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, we shall find a saluting contrast between the noumenal convergence of a clenched-fist raised-arm salute and the noumenal pseudo-divergence (pseudo-objective) of an open-hand bent arm salute, as though symptomatic, in the latter case, of a contiguously encircled (bound) superstar, a pseudo-superstar (pseudo-absolute), under a free supercross, a Y-like non-contiguously encircled absolute cross whose metaphysical significance, devoid of female-derived somatic ‘thingfulness’, will dominate the context in question to the lasting advantage of males, and with the long-term possibility of a Y-like purism properly germane to supra-christian rather than to simply superchristian criteria that will signify the achievement of a properly global or universal totalitarianism within a more evolved metaphysical framework capable of taking both metaphysics and a more counter-devolved pseudo-metachemistry into space.
TWO SPECIFIC KINDS OF SALUTING
In relation to the types of saluting germane to metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, the respective gender positions at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (with which I ideologically identify), the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics requires a raised-arm clenched-fist salute, as described in the preceding weblog (see ‘Noumenal and Phenomenal Salutes in Axial Perspective’), that is slightly curved and fairly flexible, with a kind of inwards-turned fist that may well oscillate, or be oscillated, in a slow and graceful curvilinear manner (kind of Mandela-like), whereas the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-female position a plane down (pseudo-space under time) from metaphysical subjectivity at the northeast point of the said compass, requires that the bent arm open-hand salute referred to in the aforementioned weblog form a fairly rigid right angle with itself (horizontal upper arm, vertical lower arm) in relation to the vertical displacement of the open hand, palm outwards, which should be held still and remain straight, thereby contrasting, as contiguously-encircled absolute star (pseudo-superstar) to the free absolute cross (supercross), with the almost curvilinear flexibility of the raised-arm clenched-fist salute, as germane to metaphysical males.
Thus a contrast, in overall terms, between the morality of the hegemonic gender position and the unmorality (unclear under holy) of the subordinate gender position, as in other analogous elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts.
What one doesn’t want, from a metaphysical standpoint, is an amoral descent from the noumenal subjectivity of the hegemonic position towards, in gender-bender terms, the unmorality of the subordinate position, since any subjective imposition upon the pseudo-objective position, in this case the right-angled open hand salute, that could be described, in its subjective modification of the said position, as quasi-pseudo-objective, probably in relation to a kind of inwards-turned open hand with slightly curved fingers on a more flexible bent arm, could be logically inferred to create a quasi-subjective backlash as though in response to pressure from above (metaphysics) on the unmoral position, in this case pseudo-metachemical, and such a backlash, resulting in a more rigid raised-arm clenched-fist salute the latter part of which would be parallel with the arm in an upwards and outwards-tending direction, could only be bad for the subjectivity of the metaphysical salute proper, serving to detract from its subjectivity, quite apart from the fact that such a quasi-subjective salute would, coming from a pseudo-objective, pseudo-female position, be immoral, and therefore bad not only for metaphysics, or the reputation of metaphysics, but for the unmorality of the pseudo-metachemical position itself, which would cease to have the significance proper to it.
In short, a descent from above (metaphysics) would be no better in this context, that of noumenal subjectivity paired with noumenal pseudo-objectivity, than the one I believe I described some time ago in my book The Best of All Possible Worlds (2008), where I used the analogy of a sartorial contrast between zipper-suit and dress, contrasting the tapering zipper-suit of metaphysics with the straight dress proper to pseudo-metachemistry, and then logically demonstrating how an amoral descent from above, namely metaphysics, in terms of a tapering dress, could be inferred to result in an immoral backlash from below, namely pseudo-metachemistry, in the form of a straight zipper-suit, the pseudo-objective basis of which would, within a quasi-subjective gender-bender role, somewhat detract from the subjectivity proper to the tapering zipper-suit and thereby undermine its moral right to dominate, hegemonically, the context in question, that of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
Therefore here, as in other instances, an amoral descent from above (the hegemonic or moral position) should be discouraged, since the only result will be an immoral ascent from below (the subordinate or unmoral position), and such an ascent can only detract from the subjective standing of metaphysics.
Hence, as in other analogous contexts, it is right to remain ‘stuck up’ in the interests of the morality to which one subscribes and in order to keep the subordinate gender position firmly in its unmoral place, kind of neutralized dragon-like (pseudo-dragon) under a saintly heel in the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical context in question. Failure to do so can only result in defeat and the undermining and even, paradoxically, eclipse of the hegemonic position, with long-term reductionist implications that would have what aesthetes call an art-for-art’s sake air about them.
Therefore beware of raised-arm clenched-fist salutes that are too straight or rigid. They do no emanate from metaphysics. They can have no place in a properly run, structurally differentiated metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical society … such that fully accords with divine/pseudo-diabolic criteria, as germane to what tradition would term ‘Kingdom Come’. The supercross and the pseudo-superstar must remain in an uncompromised, properly differentiated moral/unmoral (holy/unclear) relationship, with no place, in consequence, for amoral and immoral gender-bender intrusions whose effect, whether coming down from above (amoral) or up from below (immoral), can only be subversive of the relationship in question.
THE GENDER IMPLICATIONS OF BROLLIES AND HOODS
When brought into use, brollies (umbrellas) are divergent (opening outwards), hoods convergent (closing inwards). Hence the former are fundamentally female in character and the latter essentially male – despite appearances to the contrary.
Further to this basic distinction, one should distinguish the sensuality of ‘outer’ brollies and hoods from the sensibility of ‘inner’ brollies and hoods, as between non-collapsible and collapsible brollies – arguably metachemical and pseudo-chemical or, depending on the axis, chemical and pseudo-metachemical, and non-folding hoods – arguably pseudo-physical and metaphysical or, depending on the axis, pseudo-metaphysical and physical; though correlative distinctions between the female and pseudo-male and/or male and pseudo-female alternatives could, I contend, be made, if only to distinguish the metachemical from the pseudo-metaphysical (noumenal divergence from noumenal pseudo-convergence) kinds of brolly and hood; the chemical from the pseudo-physical (phenomenal divergence from phenomenal pseudo-convergence) kinds of brolly and hood; the physical from the pseudo-chemical (phenomenal convergence from phenomenal pseudo-divergence) kinds of hood and brolly; and, finally, the metaphysical from the pseudo-metachemical (noumenal convergence from noumenal pseudo-divergence) kinds of hood and brolly.
From the sensual, or ‘outer’, standpoint the objectivity of brollies will condition the pseudo-subjectivity of hoods or, more correctly, pseudo-hoods in metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and chemistry/pseudo-physics at the northwest and southwest points, respectively, of the intercardinal axial compass of bisecting inter-class diagonals; whereas from the sensible, or ‘inner’, standpoint the subjectivity of hoods will condition the pseudo-objectivity of brollies or, more correctly, pseudo-brollies in physics/pseudo-chemistry and metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry at the southeast and northeast points, respectively, of the said compass of bisecting inter-class diagonals, with the usual sensual/pseudo-sensible female-dominated or sensible/pseudo-sensual male-dominated implications, the concrete interpretations of which I would rather leave to the reader’s discretion, even though brollies will always be female and/or pseudo-female and hoods, by contrast, pseudo-male and/or male, depending on the elemental/pseudo-elemental context.
THE ESSENCE OF SALVATION
Salvation, about which subject I have theorized at some length over the years, is essentially a metaphysical deliverance of the pseudo-physical from the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to its northeast point on what I have customarily described as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, as germane, in traditional terms, to Irish Catholicism and, indeed, to Catholicism generally.
Salvation presupposes some degree of ‘Messianic intervention’ by a Christ-like ‘philosopher king’ germane to the metaphysical northeast point of the aforementioned intercardinal axial compass, who regards it as his mission to deliver the pseudo-physical pseudo-males from the hegemonic domination of chemical females, whose influence is such as to cause the pseudo-physical to mirror, on a converse ratio basis to themselves (kind of 1½:2½ as opposed to 2½:1½), free soma and bound psyche, contrary to male gender reality, in the phenomenal relativity of physics, of a relatively preponderating ratio of free psyche to bound soma (2½:1½).
Hence upended males, or pseudo-males, under chemical female hegemonic pressure at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, the pseudo-physical ‘meek’, who are both sinful (bound psychic) and foolish (free somatic), deserve, in the Messianic estimation, to be delivered from their paradoxical predicament to a situation that, in metaphysics, would be comprised of free psyche and bound soma, in sync with male gender reality, except that, unlike with the phenomenal relativity of physics (which the pseudo-physical also correspond to), the ratio of psyche to soma obtaining in metaphysics would be in the order of 3:1, in keeping with the noumenal absolutism of the elemental position in question.
Hence a deliverance from the unsaved predicament, under chemical female hegemonic pressure, of a relatively preponderating (2½:1½) ratio of bound psyche (sin) over free soma (folly) to an absolutely preponderating (3:1) ratio of free psyche (grace) over bound soma (wisdom) in metaphysics, the latter of which would be unequivocally hegemonic – and this is the important point – over pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-female equivalent of pseudo-physics, except that, being noumenal, it would have an absolute ratio, under metaphysical male hegemonic pressure, of free psyche to bound soma, not, of course, in terms of 3:1 free psyche to bound soma (which would be male and metaphysical) but, rather, in terms of 1:3 free psyche to bound soma, the converse of the male position and correlative destiny, in counter-damnation, of chemical females, whose ratio of free soma to bound psyche, being relatively predominant, derives from their hegemonic position over the pseudo-physical pseudo-males, a ratio of 2½:1½ free soma (pseudo-evil) to bound psyche (pseudo-crime) that, with counter-damnation to pseudo-metachemistry, would be replaced by the aforementioned absolute ratio (1:3) of free psyche (pseudo-justice) to bound soma (pseudo-goodness) in consequence of metaphysical male hegemonic pressure.
Of course, the counter-damnation of chemical females to pseudo-metachemistry is not – and could not be – the responsibility of the godly Saviour, who would have his hands full, so to speak, with saving the pseudo-physical to metaphysics, but of a correlative ‘shadow figure’, a kind of pseudo-devil, or pseudo-devilish Counter-Damner, whose pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female status was appropriate to the position and, hence, to the destiny of chemical females.
Being hegemonic, if equivocally so, over pseudo-physical pseudo-males at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass at the base of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the chemical females are akin to the ‘first’ who, with counter-damnation, would end-up ‘last’ in pseudo-metachemistry, but only because the pseudo-physical ‘last’ under them had become, through salvation, the metaphysical ‘first’ unequivocally hegemonic, in the noumenal absolutism of the context in question, over them, and more akin, in consequence, to the legendary Saint (George) whose heel keeps a prone, or neutralized, dragon (pseudo-dragon) in its lowly ‘under-foot’ place, a plane down (pseudo-space) from the metaphysical eternity (of time) at the northeast point of the axial compass in question, the summit, as it were, of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (free psyche/bound soma) axial criteria.
Thus the salvation of the pseudo-physical ‘meek’ presupposes the correlative counter-damnation of the chemical ‘pseudo-vain’, the former, under divine auspices, to metaphysics, the latter, under pseudo-diabolic auspices, to pseudo-metachemistry, neither of which can succeed, much less obtain, without the co-existence of the other.
For salvation is for pseudo-physical pseudo-males to become metaphysically male, while counter-damnation is the fate correlatively reserved for chemical females, who would become pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-female, kind of prone virgin-like at the foot of the ‘true cross’ upon which the Saviour is raised up, with Y-chromosome-intimating upstretched arms, towards metaphysical blessedness.
We who endorse Social Theocracy go beyond such traditional intimations of salvation and counter-damnation even emblematically; for a truly developed context of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry can only transpire on the global basis, as germane to post-Western terms, of ‘Kingdom Come’, so to speak, from a position that rejects metachemistry hyped as metaphysics, or Devil-the-Mother hyped as God-the-Father, and thereby allows for the full complement, independent of Creatoresque fundamentalism, of metaphysics in free psyche and bound soma, ‘father’ and ‘son’, and, more importantly, ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’, the holiness of which will be due, in no small measure, to the perfect gender sync characterizing the male who is fully and completely metaphysical, not only true in free psyche and illusory (not false) in bound soma, but, more importantly, joyful in free psyche and woeful in bound soma, the absolute ratio (3:1) of psyche to soma more than satisfying the requirements of perfect self-righteousness.
Heaven, my friends, is for metaphysical males, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and a simpleton and, in all probability, an apologist of the androgynous liberalism of worldly relativity that degenerates towards feminism.
BOVARYIZATIONS OF SALVATION
Besides salvation-proper, about which I theorized in the previous article (see ‘The Essence of Salvation’), there are what could be described as ‘bovaryized’ concepts or interpretations of salvation that, frankly, accrue to other parts of the intercardinal axial compass than to the metaphysical northeast.
Such religious ‘bovaryizations’, wherein a religious concept or position is compromised – and vitiated – by some other controlling element than the metaphysical – could be described as physical, pseudo-physical (which is a pseudo-element dominated by chemistry), and pseudo-metaphysical (a pseudo-element dominated by metachemistry), and they would have little or nothing in common with the metaphysical ethos, subject to a messianic twist, of delivering ‘the meek’ (meaning the pseudo-physical) from ‘the world’ … of their pseudo-earthly subjection to a purgatorial hegemony having to do (in Marian fashion) with chemical females a plane up from them (in volume over pseudo-mass) at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
Starting with the physical interpretation of salvation, which I regard as ‘once bovaryized’ (seeing as it is on the same hegemonic side of the gender fence as the metaphysical), I would describe it as having to do, quite apart from personal notions of salvation which are religiously neither here nor there, with savings gathering interest in the bank and therefore of an economic character in keeping with the ‘Son of Man’ focus or fulcrum of physics.
Hence physical salvation is anything but deliverance from ‘the world’, conceived as the abode of sin, but, rather, an endorsement of ‘the world’ or, in this case, a particular form and mode of worldliness, from an economically-motivated standpoint that tends to regard financial enrichment as an ideal and to enhance its wellbeing through interest-generating savings, all of which is rather more germane to the southeast point of the aforementioned intercardinal axial compass, as befitting a physical hegemony over pseudo-chemistry, its pseudo-female counterpart.
Across from that at the southwest point of the said compass, we shall describe the chemically-dominated pseudo-physical ‘twice bovaryized’ concept of salvation as taking a politically-motivated pseudo-economic turn that usually implies some kind of socialistic equalitarianism, whether under Marian auspices or, increasingly these days, independently of conventional religion, whereupon the notion of salvation tends to have Hollywood-like implications of saving the world from alien invaders or monsters or machines – a kind of demonization of traditional Catholic interpretations of salvation (through Christ the ‘Risen Lord’) which are a consequence, in large part, of secular rejection of traditional religious values.
Finally, back and up from the pseudo-physical subordination to chemistry at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass we shall find the pseudo-metaphysical subjection to metachemistry at its northwest point, which rules the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and hence for both the pseudo-metaphysical and, to an obviously lesser extent, the physical, it is the notion of preservation, ‘long to reign over us’ (or ‘them’) that characterizes what I shall describe, in relation to the previous interpretation of salvation, as ‘thrice bovaryized’, since the notion of salvation as preserving the metachemical status quo, namely the ruling monarch in UK terms, is as far removed from salvation per se as it is axially possible to get and has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘world overcoming’ and deliverance of the ‘meek’ (the pseudo-physical) from subjection to a chemical hegemony at the southwest point of our axial compass.
This preservative ‘bovaryization’ of salvation, of saving, is, as intimated above, more Anglican than Puritan in character and is fundamentally scientific where mass catholic, or lapsed catholic, and puritan-inspired ‘bovaryizations’ are largely political and economic respectively, and therefore stands at axial variance with the religious concept of salvation as deliverance from ‘the world’, meaning the mass Catholic, or lapsed Catholic, southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to its polar northeast, where, on no less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, metaphysics is – or should be – hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry.
In fact, an Anglican monarch cannot be saved in this true, or religious, sense of salvation; for not only is he/she on the wrong (state-hegemonic) axis for salvation to have any religious relevance, but he/she is not interested in ‘world overcoming’ but only in state-hegemonic polar partnership with the physical/pseudo-chemical southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass with a view to keeping ‘the meek’ (not to mention the chemical ‘pseudo-vain’) in their lowly exploited place - something also often levelled at the Church hierarchy in countries like Ireland but wrongly, in my opinion, since, despite appearances to the contrary, the Church continues, albeit increasingly lamely and ineffectually in this day and age, to offer its followers the benefit of a kind of surrogate salvation, through Christ, in the form of verbal absolutism for penitential contrition, even though, ultimately, this is insufficient for ‘world overcoming’ and deliverance to a higher realm.
Be that as it may, the idea of God Saving the ruling British monarch, other than in a preservative sense that endorses the metachemical status quo – a thing, incidentally, not of God, or godliness (a state of mind rather than an all-powerful manifestation of free soma), but of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in time-honoured ‘best of a bad job’ Middle-East derived starting point of civilization fashion – is a contradiction in terms, since salvation from ‘the world’ is entirely irrelevant to an entity that, in axial terms, directly rules over if not its Irish Catholic manifestation at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass then most assuredly its mass/pseudo-voluminous puritan manifestation at the southeast point of the said compass, which is precisely the point in state-hegemonic polar opposition to the Anglican descendants of the excommunicated Henry VIII’s [VIII’s] apostasy and Protestant revolution which transferred the seat of power in England from a kind of pseudo-metachemical deference to popish metaphysics at the church-hegemonic northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass to an overt metachemical rule over pseudo-metaphysics (the Anglican pseudo-males) at its northwest point, and therefore ceased to have any transcendentalist bias but became, under state-hegemonic scientific endorsement, fundamentally committed to the defence and enlargement of materialism, including, eventually, the acquisition and exploitation of an immense overseas Empire. This is not worldly, no, but neither is it even crudely otherworldly. It remains a humanistic manifestation of netherworldly control, and the netherworldly cannot be saved, like a certain type of the worldly, to otherworldly transcendence. They can only continue to relate to the ‘thrice bovaryized’ concept of salvation and hope that their preservation, long to rule over state-hegemonic axial criteria, will prevail even unto the ‘end of the world’ and ‘last judgement’.
OF POETS AND DRAMATISTS
A ‘sonofabitch’ (pseudo-prick) is not a ‘cunt’; he is either a poet rather than a pseudo-dramatist (pseudo-physics/chemistry) or a pseudo-poet rather than a dramatist (pseudo-metaphysics/metachemistry). He has a clenched fist rather than an open hand, but it is an aggressive, pseudo-convergent fist that is the product, in no small measure, of the divergent hand that either ‘sucks’ (chemistry) or ‘jerks’ (metachemistry) him off.
I don’t much like ‘male’ poets, genuine or pseudo, but I categorically despise so-called ‘male’ dramatists for being quasi-bitchful ‘cunts’ who have abandoned their nominal gender position for hegemonic advantage over it (and hence over poets of one sort or another). To me, they are literary criminals; for when one ‘jumps upstairs’ from pseudo-physics to chemistry or from pseudo-metaphysics to metachemistry one takes one’s pseudo-male gender ratio with one, a ratio that, whether relative (2½:1½) or absolute (3:1), phenomenal or noumenal, will normally if not invariably be the converse of the gender ratio proper to the ‘upstairs’ position, be it chemical (and feminine, volumetric) and metachemical (and superfeminine, spatial), to speak in general terms, and therefore one is almost bound to demonstrate more negativity than positivity, more bound psyche (pseudo-physical sinfulness pseudo-criminally transmuted in quasi-chemistry or pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-sinfulness criminally transmuted in quasi-metachemistry) than free soma (pseudo-physical folly pseudo-evilly transmuted in quasi-chemistry or pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-folly evilly transmuted in quasi-metachemistry), in contrast to the hegemonic positions proper which, being female, will be illustrative of more positivity than negativity, more free soma (pseudo-evilly in chemistry or evilly in metachemistry) than bound psyche (pseudo-criminally in chemistry or criminally in metachemistry), depending on the elemental case.
Frankly, it makes more sense, from the resident unmoral standpoint, to remain meekly unholy (pseudo-physical) or pseudo-meekly pseudo-unholy (pseudo-metaphysical) than to immorally aspire, after the fashion of that which is responsible for one’s meekness in the first place, to either pseudo-vane pseudo-clearness (chemistry) or vane clearness (metachemistry); though, logically, I have to concede that there would be much less immoral ‘coming up from below’ (pseudo-physics or pseudo-metaphysics) if there was, or had been, no amoral ‘going down from above’ (chemistry or metachemistry) which, to my way of thinking, is the chief reason why the unmoral, whether genuine (pseudo-physical) or spurious (pseudo-metaphysical), become goaded into such an immoral departure from their respective types of ‘meekness’ in the first place.
Now ‘coming up from below’, a plane down in each class case, is not really in the hegemonic gender’s moral interests either, since it will tend to detract from their own moral position, undermining it through the pseudo-convergent proximity of pseudo-subjectivity intruding upon a context, whether chemical or metachemical, that should be – and in the normal hegemonic course of events patently is – objective, given in divergent vein, to centrifugal tendencies characterized, unlike what ‘comes up from below’, by more somatic positivity than psychic negativity.
Therefore the ‘quasi-bitchful cunt’, as one may call those who depart their ‘sonofabitch (pseudo-bastard) pseudo-prick’ subordinate gender status, is worse than the ‘bitch’ who, unlike her gender-bender immoral counterpart, will normally remain less criminal than evil, less bound psychic than freely somatic, as befitting her gender. Poets are normally fools or sinners, (genuinely or spuriously, depending on the elemental or, rather, pseudo-elemental context, as outlined above), but so-called ‘male’ dramatists, whether ‘coming up from below’ or, strange to say and harder to believe, plunging straight into drama as though nothing else, including poetry, mattered, are the worst of the worst in literary terms, and deserve no respect, least of all from the sensibly-minded, for their criminally-biased undertakings or productions.
If there is one thing worse, speaking generally in terms that defer to the predominant or preponderant somatic/psychic ratio factor, than heathen pseudo-morality (chemistry) or superheathen morality (metachemistry), it can only be quasi-unchristian immorality (a quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physics) and quasi-subchristian pseudo-immorality (a quasi-metachemical departure from pseudo-metaphysics), the former issuing from genuine unmorality and the latter from pseudo-unmorality, as from demons and pseudo-demons anxious to become – or remain – pseudo-whores or whores in pseudo-dramatic (quasi-chemical) or dramatic (quasi-metachemical) fashion, and to become them on the worst possible, i.e. negative, terms!
Let us leave this sorry subject with the conclusion that none of this would happen did not chemistry exist hegemonically over pseudo-physics, as volume (volumetric) over pseudo-mass (massed) and metachemistry hegemonically over pseudo-metaphysics, as space (spatial) over pseudo-time (sequential). Until such time as the pseudo-physical are delivered (saved) to metaphysics and the chemical delivered (counter-damned) to pseudo-metachemistry on appropriately global terms commensurate with a universal resolve, there is no way that things could be otherwise than how they now are; for what subsequently transpires on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass) will determine the ensuing fate, long-term, of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate one (stretching, by contrast, from the northwest to the southeast points of the said compass), and thus of the respective fates (in damnation to pseudo-chemistry and counter-salvation to physics) of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, the noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of which are currently responsible for seducing the phenomenally objective and phenomenally pseudo-subjective from their pseudo-diabolic and divine, noumenally pseudo-objective and noumenally subjective, destinies in ‘Kingdom Come’, where only pseudo-metachemistry and, more importantly, metaphysics will obtain and therefore not pseudo-dramatists and poets but pseudo-prosodists (or short-story writers) and philosophers, the latter of whom will be aphoristically metaphysical and thus given to the elucidation or consolidation of Truth.
ON GOD AND GODLINESS
Can you have godliness, or be godly, without God? Some people would like to think so, but, frankly, I don’t see how you can. After all, godliness is inseparable from God, even if to be godly doesn’t necessarily imply that one is God but, rather, one who is capable of understanding what God is, as, I believe, is the case with me.
So what, then, is God? God, or godliness, is a state of mind, more specifically it is a metaphysical ego, and metaphysical ego is not, unlike physical ego, egocentric, making an end out of knowledge, but, on the contrary, egoistic; that is to say, it knows itself to be true and it strives to vindicate its truth by self-transcending, via bound will and spirit (antiwill and antispirit) itself through joy, which is to metaphysical soul what truth is to metaphysical ego, its heavenly reward and justification, through metaphysical being, for metaphysical taking, the condition of divine, or metaphysical, ego.
The metaphysical ego of God the Father takes, not least of the metaphysical antiwill of the Son of God and the metaphysical antispirit of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, in order, through self-transcendence, to attain to the metaphysical being of Heaven the Holy Soul, which is even more profoundly of the universal self than the divine taking of metaphysical ego.
So an ego that wants to lose itself in soul or, rather, to lose itself in antiwill and antispirit in order to re-emerge in soul, an ego that, being godly, has only one objective in mind – namely the attainment of Heaven or, as I phrased it above, Heaven the Holy Soul, the goal and characteristic attribute of metaphysics.
For only in Heaven is God, or godliness, justified and vindicated; only in joy is the value of truth revealed. Therefore there is nothing wrong with the term ‘God’, provided one knows how to qualify it – an absolute necessity - in relation to metaphysical ego, and these days not so much in terms of metaphysical ego in the Cosmos (the least evolved stage or manifestation of metaphysics with arguably most god and least heaven), nor even of metaphysical ego in nature (the less – relative to least – evolved stage or manifestation of metaphysics with arguably more god and less heaven), still less of metaphysical ego in mankind (the more – relative to most – evolved stage or manifestation of metaphysics with, arguably, less god and more heaven), but, theoretically at least, in terms of metaphysical ego in cyborgkind (the most – and therefore definitive – stage or manifestation of metaphysics with, arguably, least god and most heaven), as a theoretical postulate that, hopefully, will see the light of day, so to speak, in ‘Kingdom Come’, about which subject, as indeed about the different and successive stages of metaphysics, I have theorized often enough in the past not to wish to further elaborate on it here.
Clearly, I am not an atheist, or someone who doesn’t believe in the existence or possibility of God, but neither am I one to acquiesce in anachronistic stages or manifestations of God, or godliness, from a global standpoint, deeming anything short of or anterior to the coming cyborg stage of metaphysics irrelevant to my concept of God, Buddhistic transcendental meditation not excepted.
But atheists aren’t usually people – let’s say males – who have limited patience with cosmic or natural or human metaphysics. Rather are they people who tend, for one reason or another, to lack a metaphysical dimension, often in consequence of some ethnic associations with a ‘religious bovaryization’, like fundamentalism or pantheism or humanism, with which, over a period of time, they have become disillusioned, turning against its characteristic concept of notion of God without the benefit of having seen thoroughly through it and moved on to ‘higher pastures’ of religious understanding.
They may, for instance, have turned against ‘Creatorism’, the Jehovah-esque God of the Old Testament, from disillusionment with the world and God’s ostensible role as its creator (nominally), without realizing that the fundamentalist God was never actually God in the first place but, among other things, Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, or the principal aspect of metachemical free soma, which is free will, hyped as what to one of my sort would be the egoistic aspect of metaphysical free psyche, as already described above.
Hence, quite apart from the other three aspects – free spirit, bound ego and bound soul (anti-ego and antisoul) - of metachemistry, they have become disillusioned with Beauty hyped as Truth without realizing that there was or is a hype of that nature there in the first place.
But a man who turns his back, as it were, on Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the ‘best of a bad job’ starting point of civilization, not least in its Judaic and Christian manifestations, has not really turned his back on God even if he thinks, through rejecting ‘the Creator’, that he has, any more than would one who had turned his back on Woman the Mother hyped if not exactly as God then, more usually, as Mother of God under the mistaken assumption that God was a kind of female pantheistic figure one could identify, like woman, with nature.
God, however, is neither metachemical and fundamentalist nor chemical and pantheist, beautiful nor proud, given that the most characteristic or representative aspect of chemistry, the Marian element (water), is spirit, and therefore maternal pride, not the strength of chemical free will which, though indubitably concomitant with spiritual pride, is no more chiefly representative, Woman the Mother-wise, of the element in question than would be spiritual love vis-à-vis wilful beauty in metachemistry.
Be that as it may, disillusionment with the chemical ‘bovaryization’ of religion would be no more a manifestation of disillusionment with God than with its metachemical counterpart, Devil the Mother, and in the chemical case the principal aspect or component thereof is, in any case, less Woman the Mother than what I have habitually called Purgatory the Clear Spirit, ‘clearness’ and not ‘holiness’ being a property of a hegemonic female element (objective) like chemistry.
Then there is the physical ‘bovaryization’ of religion which is less pantheistic than humanistic, tending, in the popular fancy, to revolve around the concept Son of Man, though, like Woman the Mother, that would be less representative of the physical fulcrum, as it were, than something associated with ego egocentrically, like Man the Father, or physical free ego for which knowledge is the principal - one might say the sovereign - factor.
Hah! So disillusionment with will, spirit, or ego hyped, variously and successively, as God is, I guess, quite understandable, and even if a person thought himself an atheist on that account, or any of those accounts, it would hardly qualify for disillusionment with God, or godliness, from the standpoint of metaphysics, quite apart from the various stages of metaphysics and thus of the ratio of God to Heaven. As I say, there are large numbers of persons who, for one ethnic reason or another, haven’t a clue what metaphysics is, and don’t even care to find out. If they think they are atheists simply because the Old Testament Creator or the New Testament Creations aren’t to their liking, they are a long way from convincing me that God doesn’t exist – at least as a metaphysical postulate, a state of mind which is true and capable of vindicating itself through joy, thereby transcending ego in soul and, hence, godliness in heavenliness, progressing from the one aspect of free metaphysical psyche to the other, even if via some degree of bound metaphysical soma, but never as a ‘thingful’ extrapolation from some free somatic religious ‘bovaryization’ whose female disposition is both powerful and glorious, wilful and spiritual, and therefore popularly associated with a whole lotta ‘thingful’ almightiness.
Yet this much I will concede: that God, in the aforementioned metaphysical sense, doesn’t now exist cyborgistically in relation to the universal unfolding of global civilization. He is still only a theory in a philosophic mind, a mind that sees itself as the ‘godfather’ of Social Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism, conceived by him as the ideological prerequisites of ‘Kingdom Come’ as a context or life-stage characterized not by political sovereignty, like the democratic present, nor even by economic interests capable of taking precedence over politics, but by religious sovereignty, something the people of (initially) certain countries would have to vote for if they wanted to become God (universally and globally) or, in the case of females, had no choice but to accept the pseudo-Devil, the pseudo-metachemical counterpart of God as the righteous destiny of metaphysical males.
For, ultimately, it is the People who must decide if they want to become God and/or the pseudo-Devil or not, since the self-appointed ‘Godfather of Kingdom Come’, the ‘inventor’ of religious sovereignty and ‘architect’ of Social Theocracy/Transcendentalism, is simply its theoretical precondition, not someone to be worshipped for himself, or his achievement, but used as a springboard to the practical implementation of Social Transcendentalism (religious praxis/church) through Social Theocracy (political front/state), whether or not he has any direct involvement in the process. For, like Marx before him in relation to Social Democracy, the ‘false communism’ of an economic mean, he can only do so much, being deeply theoretical, and may have to leave the practicalities of developing Social Theocracy to others who come after him and, like Lenin and Trotsky, make inroads into the political arena with a view to bringing the ‘true communism’ of Social Transcendentalism democratically to pass.
One thing is certain: a religiously sovereign proletariat or people will not come to pass of its own volition. It will require a degree of messianic intervention, if only to deliver them from their lowly mass or lapsed Catholic estates, and this in turn will require the politico-religious exploitation of the democratic framework in certain countries deemed axially ripe for church-hegemonic/state-subordinate upgrading in the near or not too distant future, if the dream of ‘Kingdom Come’ is to be turned into reality and bear all the hallmarks of a religiously-liberated populace, a populace for whom all the ‘old gods’ are truly ‘dead’ because they were never godly enough, but more usually God-defying ‘bovaryizations’ of religion that metaphysics had to live with simply because it could not, at that time or in relation to those other systems, ‘come out’ and proclaim itself and its right not only to exist but to supersede everything else, including chemistry and physics or, rather, pseudo-physics in the interests of a metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry, godliness over pseudo-devilishness, heaven over pseudo-hell, eternity over pseudo-infinity and, ultimately, celestial city over pseudo-vanity fair without mortal end.
THE TRUE END OF RELIGION
So much is the elemental wavicle context of metaphysics characterized by soul, and thus heavenly joy, that it could reasonably be said that ego, being egoistic rather than egocentric here, is complementary to or affiliated with soul to such an extent that it does not have an independent existence but is consciously or, rather, superconsciously disposed to subsume itself into soul as its proper goal and resolution.
It is not as though we are dealing with ego per se, a molecular wavicle entity associated, neutronically, with physics, which, being egocentric, would regard itself as an end-in-itself. On the contrary, the ‘bovaryized’ ego of metaphysics, which can be termed godly or even, with due qualification, God, is the child or consequence of an elemental wavicle subatomicity dominated by photons, and therefore only exists in relation to soul, as though soul, which is inner feeling (emotion) had permitted a consciousness to exist superconsciously whose sole raison d’être was to understand and develop, through what is called metaphysical truth, the knowledge necessary to the achievement, for itself or, more correctly, for that to which it is affiliated, the maximum degree and extent of soul.
Thus truth in this higher sense is not only the godchild of joy, as God of Heaven, but it is the means that soul requires in order for it, against all the odds and alternative distractions or even impositions, to attain to its maximum self-realization, truth vindicated by joy as godliness by heavenliness.
If, then, God or godliness, viz. metaphysical ego, is of less significance than Heaven or heavenliness, viz. metaphysical soul, why is it that, almost without exception, traditional and conventional religions have stressed God at the expense of Heaven and thus, by implication, ego at the expense of soul?
Obviously, early or formative metaphysics, which I equate with cosmic and natural environments or, at any rate, with the metaphysical aspect of such environments, would have acknowledged and actually represented more God than Heaven, more ego than soul, more form than contentment, but that would owe something if not everything to the more representative cosmic and natural bodies that, leading to ‘bovaryized religions’, had less to do with ego or soul than with will and spirit, contexts dominated, I mean, by metachemistry (fire) and chemistry (water) to the detriment of physics (vegetation and/or earth) and metaphysics (gas and/or air).
Even mankind conceived, humanistically, as a particular environment or life-stage, would, in physics, be a context dominated not by soul but by ego, and so much so that, proto-cyborgistic intimations of soul through disciplines like transcendental meditation notwithstanding, religions centred around ego must indubitably grant pride of place to knowledge, not only in terms of Bible-study or scriptural exegesis but, through intellect (the vegetative essence of egocentric mankind) prayer, whether learned or improvised, recited or personal.
But even ego, though manifestly inferior to soul from a religious standpoint, is beyond will and spirit, the representative cosmic and natural approaches to religion which are in effect the least religious because the most scientific or political, as the case may be, as also, of course, the most female in character, with elemental particle (will) and molecular particle (spirit) subatomic implications tending to favour protons and electrons over neutrons and photons.
But when religion is associated, in fundamentalist and pantheist terms, with will and spirit, power and glory, one gets an emphasis on God as a ‘thingfulness’ that derives from the somatic, or bodily, basis of female-dominated elemental contexts like metachemistry and chemistry, and such an ascription of ‘thingfulness’ to God, even unto the extent of ‘the Almighty’, precludes the term from being interpreted in a physical, much less metaphysical, light, whereby, in relation to the male side of things, psyche takes precedence over soma, as mind over body, and form and contentment, corresponding to ego and soul, are accordingly the focal-points of ‘divine’ reference.
Yet, as we have seen, ego is less godly when physical than manly, less egoistic than egocentric, with humanist rather than transcendentalist implications, and therefore only another stage of ‘religious bovaryization’. By the time one gets to metaphysics, and particularly to a metaphysics unhampered or simply not compromised by metachemical, chemical, or physical, i.e. fundamentalist, pantheist, or humanist impositions or influences tending towards metaphysical vitiation, but, rather, a properly universal metaphysics germane to a cyborgistic stage of life beyond, potentially if not actually, all of the other stages, it should be evident that ego counts for much less than soul, and that even if and when we use the term ‘God’ in relation to metaphysical ego we are aware that it has absolutely no somatic correlations whatsoever, that it is a ‘no-thing’ (but not on that account ‘nothing’) in relation to the successive orders of ‘thingfulness’ especially characterizing metachemical and chemical approaches to religion, and that, as a state of mind, a state less of supreme beingfulness, by the way, than of a supreme-beingfully-oriented form of supreme taking, it has no other business than to bring about, through superconsciousness of what needs to be done or rather taken account of, the maxim extent of supreme beingfulness to which such ego can aspire, thereby transcending itself in the achievement of that supreme kind of being which is of the metaphysical soul and a condition less of God than of Heaven, less of truth than of joy, less of form than of contentment, and therefore at the furthest possible remove from anything powerfully supreme in the elemental particle subatomicity (protonic) of metachemical free will, viz. of what has traditionally been identified, as the Creator, the Father, the Almighty, Jehovah, etc. with God!
Although conventionally identified with a Supreme Being, such a ‘bovaryized’ religious entity is less joyfully beingful than beautifully doingful, a kind of Supreme Doing, and therefore the Devil-the-Mother alpha beginning of things as opposed, with metaphysical free soul, to their Heaven-the-Holy-Soul omega ending of things through a god-transcending ‘thinglessness’ that, being joyfully supreme, is the true end or goal of religious evolution.
And by ‘true end’ of religious evolution I allude less to the successive stages of ‘bovaryized religion’, i.e. metachemical, chemical, and physical, than of the successive stages of metaphysics, from cosmic and natural to human and, to anticipate the coming ‘kingdom’, cyborg, in which the ratios of God to Heaven, as of ego to soul, would have continued to evolve from most god and least heaven cosmically to, hypothetically, most heaven and least god cyborgistically via the intermediate, or natural and human, stages of more (relative to most) god and less (relative to least) heaven vis-à-vis less (relative to least) god and more (relative to most) heaven, all but the cyborg stage of which no longer have any metaphysical credibility in what is, by any accounts, an age of global advancement towards the maximum universality in the utmost metaphysical centro-complexification.
WHAT IS A YIPPIE?
I like to think of myself as a yippie, perhaps the first of my kind, since I am increasingly drawn towards words associated, actually or potentially, with the Y-chromosome, which happens, as most adults will know, to be germane to males, as, androgynous exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, a genetic inheritance from one’s male ancestry. Thus a yippie is in some sense a self-conscious or Y-conscious male who strongly identifies with his male inheritance.
One thing, however, a yippie is not is a transmuted or transformed yuppie. He does not regard life from the perspective of wealth-generation, and therefore has not gone out of his way to become rich or to identify himself with money-making schemes, the likes of which clutter up the Internet with brazen promises of wealth. On the contrary, money for him is a kind of by-product of other things, not an end-in-itself, and certainly anything but the basis of a business career. He does not believe in financial greed, least of all in a time when such greed has led to recessionary problems the likes of which few if any of us are unaffected by. For him, money is a means to a higher end, one in the service of his religious and ideological beliefs, and in this respect he resembles the hippies of the late ‘60s who, as often as not, didn’t care about money at all.
But even if he would consider himself closer on that account to hippies than to yuppies, he would have nothing in common with their ethos of free love and dope-fuelled sexual promiscuity, nor would he be partial to Eastern spirituality and the kind of mindless identification with cosmic mysticism, of which the Clear Light of the Void would constitute a salient aspect so dear to the likes of Huxley and other renegade Anglicans. To him, all that matters in religious terms is transcendentalism, and he knows that transcendentalism is the opposite of fundamentalism and no friend of pantheism or humanism either. Transcendentalism is the free-psychic or church-hegemonic aspect of metaphysics, and metaphysics for him is unequivocally universal, which is to say, as far removed from anything cosmic (hyped as universe and/or universal) as it is possible to be – a universality of global civilization destined for a sensibly cyborgistic apotheosis or culmination in the not-so-distant future.
Therefore his view of life is intensely artificial, which would again suggest a marked contrast with hippie indulgence of nature and things natural, including sex. Even his hair would not be long, like theirs, but more usually as short as possible, as though significant of his artificial transcendence of natural phenomena and the possibility if not actuality of being a kind of ‘sonofabitch’.
But if the yippie as I define him is intensely, or synthetically, artificial, even in his drug preferences for or projections into a ‘millennial future’, he is yet, like the hippie, unconventional by majority standards, and thus closer in spirit to the hippie social nonconformism (though not in terms of communal promiscuity) than to the yuppie professional conformism, since for him what really counts in life is culture and, hence, his metaphysical ideology, which I have variously identified with Social Theocracy (political/state) and Social Transcendentalism (religious/church).
The yippie is in some sense a reborn and transmuted hippie, and thus a refutation, even if from a vocational standpoint, of the careerist professionalism of his yuppie predecessors. He doesn’t want to ‘do his own thing’ independently of the world (of straights and squares, bitches and ‘sonsofbitches’) but, on the contrary, to triumph over the world, and for this he requires a politico-religious ideology capable of assuming power and delivering religion from the clutches of the state.
Therefore the yippie has to be himself to others in order to influence them and make them aware of the alternatives to the worldly status quo. World-overcoming, to use a Nietzschean phrase, is high on his list of ideological priorities, and therefore he will engage with the world with a view to its Social Theocratic overcoming.
Finally, the yippie is, not unlike the yuppie of the ‘80s, a ‘yes man’, but a ‘yes man’ for whom the positivity of what could be called the ‘Yo-factor’ is incontrovertibly sacrosanct, since reflecting his own Y-chromosomal essence. For this reason he is a transvaluator rather than a devaluator, and will always side with the Y against the X, especially against the XX of Eve-like female seductive persuasion, which was the undoing of Adam and cause of the male ‘fall’ from grace and innocence into worldly bondage, the very same bondage (to female persuasion) in which the majority of non-yippie males still exist and will continue to exist until the end of the world through Social Theocratic overcoming, when they will be restored to godliness and, more importantly, to the heavenly innocence of the ultimate ‘Garden’ – the Social Theocratic/Transcendentalist Centre.
I am a yippie. I am for the ‘Yo-factor’. I am also enamoured of first names (surnames can also count) beginning with Y – at least for males. And I am inevitably for Israel or, rather, Ysrael in its struggle to survive and eventually thrive from the standpoint of an enhanced Y, a Y for which the myth of Eden is no longer relevant because the attainment to a new metaphysical paradise will put an end to worldly suffering and allow the transfigured to ascend into the heavenly bliss of metaphysical grace (coupled state-subordinately to wisdom on a lesser ratio basis) or into the pseudo-hellish torment of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-punishment (coupled state-subordinately to pseudo-goodness on a greater ratio basis), depending on gender.
For the opposite of a Y brought low by an XX is an XX kept down by a triumphant Y. This is ultimately what really distinguishes a yippie from a hippie.
THE TRUE CENTRE OF TRUTH
There is no ‘God the Supreme Being’, only ‘Heaven the Supreme Being’, or ‘Heaven the Holy Soul’; for being is a condition of soul, not of ego, spirit, or will, and being is only supreme, call it joyfully or blissfully so, when it is the condition of metaphysical soul, as of soul per se, which is the chief if not only aspect or attribute of metaphysics.
If Heaven the Holy Soul’s condition of supreme beingfulness has a consciousness, it is like the light surrounding the inner flame of the soul’s burning, and, in metaphysics, such a light, or consciousness, is apt to be superconscious.
Such superconsciousness is aware, to a metaphysical degree, of the soul’s being, and is effectively one with the joy of perfect self-harmony. You can call this metaphysical type of consciousness God or godly, but it is so much an aspect of the soul as to be inseparable from it insofar as it is the soul’s conscious self-awareness of itself and not an independent entity like ego, spirit or will, which far from pertaining to the elemental wavicle context in question is either at a molecular wavicle, molecular particle, or elemental particle remove from it, like, in subatomic terms, neutrons, electrons, and protons from photons.
Such a consciousness of the soul’s beingful condition would not exist without the soul, since it is the soul which gives rise to it and not vice versa. God or godliness does not exist, to repeat, independently of Heaven or heavenliness but as its conscious self-realization, and therefore any concept of God that fails to address the soul as, in effect, its Maker … is delusory or just plain wrong, a kind of non-metaphysical misnomer.
There is no God independent of Heaven, no superconsciousness except in relation to the superfeeling of soulful joy or, rather, joyful soul. Therefore God does not exist in will, spirit, or ego, which is to say, metachemically, chemically, or physically, but only Devil (the Mother), woman (the mother), or man (the son) hyped as God – as in all or most traditional religions, which tend to worship God as a kind of wilful or spiritual or intellectual thing-in-itself independently of the emotional thinglessness which is heavenly soul and, more particularly in this context, the superconscious self-awareness of that soul’s condition of supreme being.
For supreme being, to repeat, attaches to Heaven, the condition of metaphysical soul, and is not an attribute of the consciousness of that being, even though you cannot have a knowledge of such beingful supremacy without a godly consciousness, which we have termed superconscious and deem to be the self-reflecting aspect of joyful soul, the faculty of such a soul that is conscious of itself as joy or bliss or heaven and has no existence outside of that consciousness.
Thus ‘God in Heaven’ is no understatement, even if the concept of God applied to contexts independent of soulful self-awareness happens to be an overstatement, as and when the concept becomes associated, through ‘bovaryized religions’, with metachemical doing or chemical giving or physical taking to the detriment if not exclusion of metaphysical being, to which it properly attaches as the aforementioned superconscious self-awareness of the condition of supreme being.
It is for this reason that, although it rejects all erroneous concepts of God and therefore all the ‘bovaryized religions’, Social Theocracy, the ideological front of Social Transcendentalism, is not atheist; for a disbelief in God per se, in the metaphysical consciousness of soul, would necessarily preclude one’s acceptance of Heaven, and it would be a strange religion indeed that believed in neither God nor Heaven, truth nor joy, superconsciousness nor superfeeling, or, worse, thought that you could have Heaven without God, much as if one could be expected to know what soul was without the consciousness proper to it, which both confirms and experiences the essential condition.
Therefore the true centre of truth is indeed joy, and the conscious recognition or realization of joy is truth, which is thereby vindicated not as a separate entity but as an integral aspect of metaphysics and, hence, soul.
Heaven without God would be akin to a flame without a light, and although it often transpires that ‘the blind lead the blind’, as people’s demagogues over ignorant masses, it cannot be said that they will lead them to Heaven if they persist in denying God, but only to a hell, purgatory, or earth of their own devising.
The God, or modes of so-called god, I deny was never God in the first place, but a wilful, spiritual, or intellectual substitute for God and, more importantly, Heaven attendant upon a want of religious direction and insight proportionate to the extent to which science, politics, or economics took precedence over religion, resulting in the false, or ‘bovaryized’, religions to which we have become only too accustomed, including fundamentalist, pantheist, and humanist manifestations thereof.
It is to be hoped that in the more enlightened and properly religious future, such falsehoods will be done away with, consigned, as we say, to ‘the rubbish bin of history’, but only in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty resulting from the paradoxical utilization – preferably with church backing - of the political process in countries with the right kind of (church-hegemonic) axial preconditions for any such eventuality, such as Eire and, hopefully, France and other traditionally or predominantly Catholic nations.
Social Theocracy, the ideological front of Social Transcendentalism, will have to establish itself in all such countries as the movement standing for true religious progress, even the resurrection of church-hegemonic values (duly transformed), and hence the possibility of a genuinely radical alternative to the democratic and largely capitalistic status quo. It must engage with society as a politico-religious ideology with specific objectives, principally the achievement of the necessary majority mandate from the electorate without which it will be unable to fully ‘set up shop and do business’ as business needs to be done if the current types of secular society are to be overhauled by one which, characterized by religious sovereignty, will be akin, even in its inceptive manifestation, to ‘Kingdom Come’, a kingdom not of this world but headed, in its otherworldly values, for a much superior world in which, with due superhuman and/or suprahuman social engineering, the realization of supreme being will be the leading aspiration, the raison d’être of all that is best in the movement, whilst all that is worst in it – and there will necessarily have to be a pseudo-metachemical corollary of metaphysics – is reserved for those earmarked, largely through gender, for a species of supreme or, rather, primal pseudo-doing, the bound somatic corollary, in pseudo-metachemistry, of the free psychic supremacy of the metaphysical.
Be not deceived! A society resembling ‘Kingdom Come’ cannot come to pass unless there is a sharply-defined distinction between ‘the Saved’ and the ‘Counter-Damned’, the male metaphysical and the pseudo-female pseudo-metachemical, the former delivered from pseudo-physics and the latter from chemistry at the ‘mass catholic’ southwest point of what I am wont to term the intercardinal axial compass, wherein feminine females are equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-masculine males, like water over pseudo-vegetation, or purgatory over pseudo-earth, or even volume over pseudo-mass, in what is one of the two principal manifestations of the world (the other, of course, being axially irrelevant in physics over pseudo-chemistry).
Lest I become too technical, it is the pseudo-physical ‘last’ who will become metaphysical ‘first’ and the chemical ‘first’ whose correlative destiny is to become pseudo-metachemical ‘last’. For that is the only way that ‘Kingdom Come’ can succeed, that is, by having a full complement of metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical factors at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on properly church-hegemonic terms in a structure which is non-reductionist and non-utopian in character but, for that reason, very much a viable concern.
Now, ultimately, when it gets properly up and running along what I have in the past described, with good reason, as substance-motivated communally cyborgistic lines, it will be the true communism of Social Theocracy which, pledged to the service of Social Transcendentalism, will expose the communism of Social Democracy for the economic and class-reductionist falsehood that it patently is and always was.
There is no proletarian humanism about Social Theocracy but, rather, an unequivocal endorsement of ‘man overcoming’ in conjunction with ‘world overcoming’ such that will lead not to a new kind of man but to the superman and, for the religiously sovereign, the suprahuman cyborgistic communes whose raison d’être, at any rate in relation to the metaphysical, will be the truthful realization of joy, as of the supreme being to the exclusion, barring pseudo-metachemical pseudo-hatred of free soma, of all else.
Only thus will Paradise truly reign, as of the godly heavenliness over the pseudo-devilish pseudo-hell for all Eternity and Pseudo-Infinity, and ultimately not on earth but in the space-centre apotheosis of true evolutionary progress and counter-devolutionary counter-regression that, with the avoidance of utopian reductionism, will truly signify the culmination of ‘Kingdom Come’ in the gender-differentiated two-tier structure of ‘the Celestial City’ wherein a place for the pseudo-Vanity Fair of the pseudo-metachemical will continue to exist a plane down, as it were, from the metaphysical and their divine entitlement to heavenly bliss.
COLLECTIVISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
The tendency of female objectivity, rooted in the divergent vacuum of an elemental and molecular particle free soma, is towards collectivism and, hence, unity of social groupings or relations, of which the family unit is the bedrock; the tendency, by contrast, of male subjectivity, centred in the convergent plenum of a molecular and elemental wavicle free psyche is, by contrast, towards individualism and, hence, unity of moral purpose, of which religious conscience is the essence.
Unity of social purpose, which addresses society from a somatic standpoint, rests on the State; unity of moral purpose, which addresses society from a psychic standpoint, rests on the Church.
To contrast the noumenal collectivism (supercollectivism) of metachemical females with the noumenal pseudo-individualism (pseudo-superindividualism) of pseudo-metaphysical males at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, which is the apex of the state-hegemonic axis.
To contrast the phenomenal individualism or, rather, individuality (relative as against absolute) of physical males with the phenomenal pseudo-collectivity of pseudo-chemical females at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, which is the base of the state-hegemonic axis.
To contrast the phenomenal collectivism or, rather, collectivity (relative as against absolute) of chemical females with the phenomenal pseudo-individuality of pseudo-physical males at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, which is the base of the church-hegemonic axis.
To contrast the noumenal individualism (superindividualism) of metaphysical males with the noumenal pseudo-collectivism (pseudo-supercollectivism) of pseudo-metachemical females at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, which is the apex of the church-hegemonic axis.
The noumenal collectivism of metachemical females is in direct opposition to the phenomenal pseudo-collectivity of pseudo-chemical females, whilst the noumenal pseudo-individualism of pseudo-metaphysical males is in direct opposition to the phenomenal individuality of physical males on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.
The phenomenal collectivity of chemical females is in direct opposition to the noumenal pseudo-collectivism of pseudo-metachemical females, whilst the phenomenal pseudo-individuality of pseudo-physical males is in direct opposition to the noumenal individualism of metaphysical males on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.
overall axial terms, by
overall axial terms, by
The test of a true or genuine male is not whether and how he conforms to society, which all men must do to greater or lesser extents, but to what extent he can develop, to speak in general terms, a Christ-like individuality, even at the risk of Golgotha- or Calvary-like consequences from his endorsement of a psychic as opposed to somatic ‘take’ on society.
My ideal society, combining a hegemonic noumenal individualism (superindividualism) with a subordinate noumenal pseudo-collectivism (supercollectivism), would be of the nature of ‘Kingdom Come’ in its juxtaposition of metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical elements, of an elemental-wavicle psychic individualism (God in Heaven) and a pseudo-elemental-particle somatic pseudo-collectivism (the pseudo-Hell of the pseudo-Devil).
Even if substance-motivated communal cyborgization were to apply to both elemental contexts, it would not apply to them on anything like the same terms, but on terms reflecting the gender distinction between a psychic-oriented individualism and a somatic-oriented pseudo-collectivism, the plenumous convergence and pseudo-vacuous pseudo-divergence of a subjective/pseudo-objective noumenal dichotomy.
Ultimately, God is the superindividuality (of superconscious self-awareness) accruing to a heavenly superindividualism, the truthful acknowledgement of joy, whereas his pseudo-female counterpart, the pseudo-metachemical subordinate of a metaphysical hegemony, is the pseudo-supercollectivity (of supersensuous self-denial) accruing to a pseudo-diabolic pseudo-supercollectivism, the pseudo-hateful corollary of pseudo-ugliness.
THE ALPHA AND OMEGA OF LIFE
To contrast Hell in the Devil (the Mother) with God (the Father) in Heaven. That is, to contrast Hell the Clear Spirit in Devil the Mother with God the Father in Heaven the Holy Soul.
One could say that whereas Hell the Clear Spirit is nothing without Devil the Mother, God the Father would be nothing without Heaven the Holy Soul.
Both Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit are positive, that is, associated, in beauty and love, with metachemical free soma.
Both Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father are positive, that is, associated, in joy and truth, with metaphysical free psyche.
Metachemical free soma predominates on an absolute (3:1) basis over metachemical bound psyche, the ugliness of the Daughter of the Devil and hatred of the Clear Soul of Hell, both of which are negative modes of Devil and Hell, so to speak.
Metaphysical free psyche preponderates on an absolute (3:1) basis over metaphysical bound soma, the illusion of the Son of God and woe of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, both of which are negative modes of God and Heaven, so to speak.
The absolute beginning (alpha) of life in beauty and love contrasts with the absolute ending (omega) of it in joy and truth, as Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit with Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father.
Because in the Judeo-Christian tradition Devil the Mother has been identified with and effectively hyped as God the Father, the concept of God as be-all-and-end-all of everything, including religion, has falsely obtained, with a consequence that varying degrees of thingfulness accrue to the divine concept.
There is no greater lie, nor older tyranny, than that of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, pretty much as beauty as truth.
And yet, while beauty is the principal aspect or attribute of metachemistry, which is will, truth, as we have seen, is not the principal aspect of metaphysics but, in its graceful freedom, joy, which accords with Heaven the Holy Soul.
Heaven the Holy Soul is the one true attribute of metaphysics, and hence of religion which, when genuine, is about the cultivation and sustenance of soul or, in equivalent terms, male noumenal self-respect, since soul is the self from a metaphysical (subjectively noumenal) standpoint.
The corollary of noumenal self-respect in the metaphysical male is noumenal self-sacrifice in the metachemical or, rather, pseudo-metachemical female, which involves a predominating commitment to the pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred of bound metachemical (pseudo-metachemical) soma.
Such a predominant binding to soma in pseudo-metachemistry only follows from a male hegemony in metaphysics, and is akin, on converse ratio terms, to a mirror image, in free psyche and bound soma, of metaphysics, contrary to the female’s natural grain.
I deem the pseudo-metachemical position under metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass to be akin to the subordination of pseudo-science to religion, as, in other terms, of the pseudo-Devil (of pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother) to Heaven the Holy Soul, since the representative attributes in each case, being absolute, are bound will (antiwill) and free soul.
The bound spirit (antispirit) of pseudo-Hell the Unclear Spirit (pseudo-spirit) and the free ego of God the Father are much less representative of the pseudo-metachemical and metaphysical contexts or positions, since comparatively relative, like pseudo-hatred and truth.
Only pseudo-ugliness and joy are fully representative of the pseudo-metachemical and metaphysical positions, with absolute contrasts between pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother (whose spirit, being pseudo, is unclear) and Heaven the Holy Soul.
Those who are truly religious are much less for God than Heaven, since such ego as metaphysically obtains with them compliments of the soul is merely the superconscious self-realization of supersensible joy, akin to the light surrounding a candle flame, the halo surrounding a saintly head, and the rings surrounding Saturn.
God, to repeat, would not exist without Heaven, whereas Hell could not exist without the Devil. Hell is as much a loving consequence of devilish beauty as godly truth of heavenly joy.
You could say that it is time for humanity to face the Truth and turn away from beauty and love in the interests of joy and truth – time, in other words, for Eternity. But humanity is a general term, and life, as we all know, is a struggle between female and male criteria.
Therefore if joy and truth are to metaphysically triumph it would be at the expense, ultimately, of beauty and love, and in consequence, in all likelihood, of a protracted struggle by the believers in true religion to topple science from its diabolic throne and render it pseudo-metachemically accountable to a metaphysical hegemony.
I have outlined, in previous texts, the means whereby this can be achieved, and the term ‘world overcoming’ with regard to the pseudo-physical meek (who are not blessed) and the chemical pseudo-vain (who are not, as things stand, counter-cursed).
It has been said that means determine ends, but, with us, the genuinely religious or metaphysical, ends determine means, because one knows that ego, duly bovaryized in metaphysics, is only a means for the true end of life in soul.
Heaven the Holy Soul is both the omega point of life and the true centre of truth, without which there could be no truth because no joy for it (superconsciousness) to bear divine witness to.
Let metaphysics reign! And may the triumph of free soul bring about the death of free will and thus an end to all tyranny, theocracy completely victorious over autocracy as the male over the female, Heaven without mortal End. For the Life Eternal can only come fully into being when Infinite Life, rooted vacuously in space, has been definitively consigned to the proverbial rubbish bin of history. To this end, Social Theocracy must be totally committed, since it is, or has the capacity to become, the true, or religious, communism of ‘Kingdom Come’.
LONDON 2009 (Revised 2010)