Op. 141

RESERVATIONS IN ORANGE AND GREEN

Aphoristic Philosophy

John O'Loughlin

Copyright © 2013 John O'Loughlin

___________

CONTENTS

Orange Notebook 1

Green Notebook 1

Orange Notebook 2

Green Notebook 2

Orange Notebook 3

--------------------

 

 

ORANGE NOTEBOOK 1

 

How much of a part did the Renaissance contribute to the Reformation? For was not the Renaissance something of a Catholic decadence? If Catholicism underwent its own decadence with the Renaissance, as the evidence for papal debauchery and such like would suggest, then that, no doubt, had a considerable influence upon the Reformation, at least in Germany, and upon the Protestant rejection, through Luther (who had been to Rome and seen corruption at first hand), of all things Catholic.

 

I suppose, when it comes down to it, the offspring of parents take the male surname in order that the father be further bound, beyond marriage, to the mother. That didn't work, however, in my father's case and, ever since, I have been burdened with the surname of a man I didn't know and who, to judge by his absence from the family, didn't want to know me, either.

 

I guess human swine will always eat pig's flesh, after their swinish natures. You can always tell a swine by the fact that he eats pig's flesh, or pork.

 

******

 

The sun melted into the ocean, like butter descending from above.

 

Hatred of most things British, love of most things German and/or Germanic – the emotional poles of my existence (subject to occasional modification).

 

I'd rather be shown up in public than show off in public.

 

Those who love hate, hate to love.

 

The British can be reserved, but they can also be unspeakably vulgar. Some Britons are more reserved than unspeakably vulgar, others more unspeakably vulgar than reserved. Even the reserved can, on occasion, be unspeakably vulgar, just as the unspeakably vulgar can, on occasion, be reserved. The British are both reserved and unspeakably vulgar, and perhaps, in some cases, reserved because unspeakably vulgar.

 

When you've acted in films like Run Lola Run, Anatomy, The Princess and the Warrior, and Atomised, as Franka Potente has, you'd probably feel you had a right to consider yourself the finest actress of your day, having played leading roles in four of the very best films of your time. I think my order of preference of the above films would be:-

1.    The Princess and the Warrior (Der Krieger und die Kaiserin);

2.    Atomised (Elementarteilchen);

3.    Run Lola Run (Lola Rennt);

4.    Anatomy (Anatomie).

 

******

 

Whether a man knows his mind as well as a woman knows her body … must remain a moot point.

 

British urban terraced housing, up close and up tight! A convergence to some kind of worldly omega point that nonetheless stops short of anything arguably social democratic, like rectilinear tower blocs on sprawling estates.

 

With me, content precedes form, so that not just what but how I think conditions the way I write, the 'form' of my writings.

 

The damned androgynous liberal, paving the way, through equalitarianism, for the liberated bitch, unhampered by conservatism, to strut her liberated stuff with socialistic importunity. What a disgrace!

 

They are mistaken who think that by removing discrimination in one context it doesn't have a knock-on effect and undermine one's ability to discriminate in others. These days 'discrimination' has become a dirty word, especially with the 'politically correct', but it wasn't always so. In fact, the ability to discriminate meant the difference between 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong', 'high' and 'low', and was regarded, correctly, as a prime attribute of the cultured, i.e. 'the discriminating' or 'the discerning' or those, generally, who could distinguish between 'right' and 'wrong', etc. In a non-discriminatory, egalitarian system 'anything goes' and the capacity to discriminate is not only undermined, but regarded as undesirable because 'elitist'. Somehow I can't help but think that all this want of discrimination stems from Protestant opposition to Catholicism and the gradual secular levelling which has since ensued, in consequence. In spite of that, however, people do still discriminate, because it is necessary to both human dignity and survivability.

 

******

 

These days, literature is beset by too many conventional slaves who deprive it of original artists. Commercialization has so bedevilled literature that no self-respecting artist could possibly allow his work to be published commercially, much less expect it to be published by the book-oriented publishing establishment! Which is really just as well, since the prospects of his work surviving unscathed at the hands of editors and printers and others on the production side of publishing could only be slight, if the appalling evidence of most books is anything to judge by!

 

Politicians in Britain are usually too out of touch with reality (in their various provincial 'ivory towers') to think about the consequences of their actions, never mind to experience them at first-hand. Anybody who regularly votes in British General Elections to elect members of parliament would have to be British. Certainly, as an Irishman, I could not do such a thing, since, quite apart from what politicians have done and are still doing to undermine themselves, it would strike me as an axial betrayal, a betrayal of what I believe in.

 

I have employed a species of cultural fascism to hit back, time and again, at communistic workmen whose exploitation of somatic licence goes too far for my liking. In fact, they've only got what they deserved, that is, some form of retributive punishment. Which, on second thoughts, is probably less than they deserved.

 

The British form of global success, the imperial acquisitions of Empire, and so on, are fundamentally ant-like in character, and therefore only admirable from the standpoint of those who admire ants.

 

The weather goes from bad to worse, and there is nothing you can do about it, nobody you can specifically hold to account and blame for it. So helpless!

 

Much of the time we don't actually listen to music; we hear it and are tormented by it.

 

How could they bomb Monte Cassino?

 

Keeping up appearances is to put down essences. Keeping up (sticking to) essences is to put down appearances.

 

Drumming is the essence of rock music, one might almost say the godly element par excellence. Most kinds of music either don't have an essence or, like jazz, tend to have only a pseudo-essence in the guise of an approach to drumming (or percussion) that is more sequential than repetitive and therefore germane not to time (metaphysics) but to pseudo-time (pseudo-metaphysics), which, of course, exists under the spatial space, or space per se, of metachemistry, as under jazz vocals and/or brass, with particular reference, I should imagine, to use of a trumpet.

 

Born in Raiding, just south of Furchtenstein in Austria, Franz Liszt would have to be considered, these days, as just another great Austrian composer. Although Burgenland, the province in which Liszt was born, formerly belonged to Hungary within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, since 1921 it has been a part of the province of Lower Austria, in which Liszt's geburtshaus is to be found.

 

Austria is probably the one place in central Europe where Turks wouldn't want to live, at least in any great numbers.

 

Brunau-am-Inn's most infamous son – any guesses?

 

He was a tormented genius – tormented by other people!

 

Uneducated proletarians are simply people who are incapable – exceptions to the rule notwithstanding – of being educated. Only a fool or a madman would throw pearls before swine, not least those who, lacking the requisite capacity, don't want to be educated in the first place.

 

The incompetence of the British, inextricably bound, as it tends to be, to a degree of leg-pulling and even foul play, sometimes even Paddy-bashing as a foil for their want of competence, invariably makes for discontent. They are too much will and too little soul, but also, and conversely, too little spirit and too much ego.

 

Living in Britain, one is afflicted by the barbarity of so-called multiculturalism which, like the legendary tower of Babel, simply confounds and confuses one, since contrary to that which, as culture, leads to contentment.

 

Living in London, which is one of the most cosmopolitan cities on earth, is like living in a microcosm of the world. Any sense of national pride, whether English or British, would be difficult if not impossible in such a city, since it has little or nothing to do with the British nation, whatever that means, but appears rather to glory in the cosmopolitan transcendence of Englishness or Britishness to a point where the historically indigenous of one sort or another become swamped by foreign influences and scarcely recognizable as such.

 

When countries, or the people of a given country, are growing, they tend towards nationhood, or the achievement of a uniform culture within civilized bounds. When, however, countries are falling apart or disintegrating, they tend towards internationalism, or the break-up of nationhood under the twin pressures of barbarity and philistinism. As Yeats wrote: 'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world' … or, more specifically, upon what was once a nation. But a nation, one could argue, that undermined itself through foreign conquests and the absorption or integration of foreign elements, becoming, in the process, less male and more female in character.

 

It is ironic that while Ireland was discovering nationhood (through the Gaelic Revival, the Easter Rising, and so on), Britain was in the process of losing it (through the disruptive internationalism of Empire and the disintegrative consequences of global imperialism), with devolution as a concomitant of a developing British malaise.

 

Nationhood is the only thing worth holding on to; it is what defines a country. Without it, you are nothing. Internationalism leads not forwards but backwards … to alphaville, as to a polytheistic plethora of competing cultures whose incompatibility makes for barbarous strife and a want of certainty or conviction, a confusion of mind that allows the body to sensuously triumph.

 

Latterly, the wretched workmen next-door have added sawing to their ungodly repertoire of hammering, drilling, and scraping. Whatever next?

 

A more fitting name for the British would, in my opinion, be the Brutish. For, accustomed to the strife of imperialism and the acquisition by force of empire, the British masses are nothing if not brutal, with few if any exceptions. Getting on with it without reasoning or even knowing why seems to be their fatality, one deriving, in no small part, from the English Reformation, which left them bereft of religious sensibility or otherworldly idealism, without even the benefit of a Lutheran protest.

 

London is little more than a glorified ants' nest of commerce-driven industry and industrial chaos.

 

Too many people, too little space. What could be worse?

 

Prisoners of war and concentration camps usually go 'hand-in-glove'. You cannot really have the one without the other, not when vast numbers of POWs are involved.

 

A modern militarily successful nation will have an awful lot of concentration camps.

 

To turn Europe into a single, if federated, supernation would seem to be the coming task of historical progress in Europe as a whole. An aspiration that can only be fulfilled at the expense of the individual nations which traditionally exist within it but are currently disintegrating in the 'melting pot' of international anarchy.

 

******

 

Frederick May – one of the great 'might have beens' of Irish classical music.

 

Only 'arseholes' drink beer straight from cans, whether in terms of pale ale and lager on the one hand (colloquially identifiable with 'piss' and 'pseudo-shit'), which I have tended to identify with chemistry and pseudo-physics, or stout and brown ale on the other hand (colloquially identifiable with 'shit' and 'pseudo-piss'), which I have tended to identify with physics and pseudo-chemistry, with a strong suggestion of the applicability of such tastes to either a paedophile or a homosexual disposition. Either way, a degeneration from bottles, as from either female- or male-dominated kinds of heterosexuality.

 

I will always be a thoughtful thorn-in-the-side of the thoughtless majority, who make a virtue of their incapacity or unwillingness to think, and especially to think honestly or credibly or boldly.

 

For some, the 'golden mean' in between Hell and Heaven is Purgatory; for others it is Earth. In neither case does one rise above the corporeal equivalent of beer.

 

She don't half waste money on flashy clothes; she completely wastes it!

 

When, in the past, I saw people – almost invariably males – drinking from cans in the London Underground, I didn't think anything of it, apart from feeling a slight disgust or contempt. Now I would sense a correlation of sorts between canned drinks, including though not limited to alcohol, and the Underground, or Metro.

 

He had reservations about visiting 'the Reservation', but once there he overcame his customary reserve and reserved a table for two, reserving the right to eat in the company of his alter ego.

 

Another wet, windy day with a heavy-leaden sullen sky that causes one to feel truly contemptuous of the weather and all the more prone to world rejection, as one struggles with oneself in the face of such persistent, almost predictable inclemencies and simply turns within, like a tortoise withdrawing back into its shell on what may appear to be a damage-limitation exercise. Sad.

 

******

 

I eat because I have to, not because I particularly want to.

 

It is not my consciousness that exhibits a considerable thirst when I drink when thirsty, nor is it my consciousness that reveals how much of an appetite I have when I eat when hungry, but my body which speaks for itself in the degree to which it thirstily or hungrily devours whatever fluids or solids happen to be available, whilst I, as consciousness, though able to consciously moderate my intake, observe and rationally conclude that I must have been thirsty or hungry. By itself, consciousness has little to do with this, since its principal function is to enable one to locate the sources of liquid or solid nourishment that one's body desires. Fundamentally consciousness is little more than a tool, or means, for enabling one, as body, to survive, since ego, the seat of consciousness, is subject to the Will, which expresses the body's needs and desires. I am, in a sense, driven by the Will to drink and eat, but the actual source of what is drunk or eaten has to be located, or chosen, by consciousness, as ego acting in the service of the Will. As for spirit acting in the service of the Soul, that is another matter, if one that is secondary to the above. For spirit cannot serve the Soul unless ego has served the Will and the body can accordingly relax its grip, as it were, upon consciousness, freeing spirit for what is superconscious and therefore transcendental, that is, transcendent of the fundamental needs of the body.

 

Religion is a luxury, not a necessity, like science. Some would describe it as icing on the cake of life or, more credibly, as candles on the icing (spirit) that decorates the actual cake (will), with its fruit or other fillings (ego). The candles would, of course, correspond to the Soul – at least when lit. For only when the cake has candles is the Soul acknowledged.

 

One could argue that the most likely equivalence, in the Galaxy, to what is monotheistically regarded, in conventional religion (alpha-stemming), as 'the Creator', 'the Almighty', 'the All-Powerful', and other variations on the theme of what I tend to equate with Devil the Mother and/or Virgin hyped as God … would be a so-called Black Hole, especially one that existed in proximity to a Quasar that was busily consuming vast quantities of gaseous matter or nearby degenerative stars and, in consequence, was emitting astronomical amounts and degrees of radioactive material the brightness of which far outshone the brightest of the circling stars, thereby signalling a status quite at variance with the generality of stellar bodies, not least in respect of its central location in the Galaxy as a whole. Ironically, science would appear to have confirmed, by default, the existence of this Creator equivalence which conventional religion would equate with God, even if the vast numbers of galaxies in the so-called Universe (cosmos) would suggest the existence of a comparable number of Black Holes/Quasars more in keeping with a polytheistic than a monotheistic parallel. Actually, I have long maintained, in my writings, that monotheism accords with the 'central star' (black hole and/or quasar) of this galaxy as opposed to those of galaxies in general, the individual Black Holes/Quasars of which would amount, polytheistically, to a comparable number of 'Creators', 'Almighties', etc., in the Cosmos as a whole. Apparently, if science is to be believed, the Black Hole at the centre of the Milky Way, our own galaxy, is not also a Quasar (though how a Black Hole can be expected to exist without a Quasar, I don't honestly know), since not burning ferociously with the consumption of other stars and/or gaseous clusters, which, if true, is probably just as well for us! Assuming it was formerly host to a Quasar, it would now appear to be the equivalent, as a Black Hole, of a 'dead God', a 'god that died', to use a Nietzschean expression, and therefore no longer capable of creating anything, least of all new stars. Which, if true (and we have a right, for want of conclusive data, to uphold a degree of scepticism), would make Christianity seem all the more understandable, traditionally, in terms of a shift away from the old 'Creator' concept of God towards a humanistic concept, in Christ, that offered one the prospect of Eternal Life following his own death on the Cross, the worship of which exemplifies dying to 'the world', as to 'the flesh', in order to be reborn into the otherworldly life of the spirit or, better, the Soul, the full realization of which can only happen in Eternity, especially with the prospect, following Messianic intervention, of 'Kingdom Come'. All of which rather suggests the likelihood, with the return of some Christ-like Saviour in the guise of a 'Second Coming', of a kind of Superchristianity suited to man's logical successor, the Superman, and thus to what I have identified, in various of my later writings, with Social Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism, with a return, in consequence, to 'the Centre', albeit not, to be sure, to the centre of the Galaxy!

 

******

 

When, the other day, I saw two degenerate-looking characters milling around outside Finsbury Park underground station with cans of beer in their hands, I smiled to myself and thought: 'That figures, doesn't it?'

 

I am the most reserved of people, who rarely speaks to anyone, least of all women, except when I have to, or am spoken to.

 

I have never reserved a table in a restaurant, since I have no interest in eating alone in what would most likely be a middle-class milieu. In fact, I have always avoided worldly contexts like restaurants, theatres, and concert halls, with their middle-class connotations. But that doesn't mean to say I've endorsed working-class contexts like pubs, clubs, football grounds, circuses, etc. instead. On the contrary, I have generally kept away from all public buildings of a communal or social nature, partly, I suspect, for financial reasons and partly from a distaste, as someone of Irish descent, of being seen in public in Britain or, at any rate, in London, the vast scale and compressed urban nature of which has always intimidated and, frankly, disgusted me ... to the point where I prefer to live as a recluse. As though, in fact, I wasn't really there, like a ghost.

 

---------------------

 

GREEN NOTEBOOK 1

 

A cultured life tends not to be influenced by the weather but, come rain or shine, gets on with what it does indoors irrespective of what is going on without.

 

I believe, as a kind of bohemian intellectual and artist-philosopher, that I am one of those upper-order classless people who fits in nowhere, since a congenital outsider who prefers, when not thinking about himself or his philosophy, to observe the world from a private distance.

 

I visit my ageing mother with a certain trepidation, since her facial ugliness and physical decrepitude are such that, in spite of every effort to be polite and concerned, I am positively disgusted, revolted, and filled with all manner of social reservations. The description 'old hag' would not, I fear, be inappropriate, although she still has the rudiments of a 'kind heart', even if it happens to be laced, on occasion, with sarcastic asides and cynical innuendos. But, really, I should be grateful, at sixty, that my mother is still alive and that I have at least one contact in London to keep me from being entirely alone. Without her, I don't know what I'd do, since I have never experienced the slightest romantic feeling towards Englishwomen, least of all in north London.

 

People are so glib about calling 'bums' those whom they know little or nothing about and would probably be unable to comprehend or understand even if they were of a mind to, which is unlikely, to say the least, given that the world only goes around, as Baudelaire sarcastically reminded us, by misunderstanding and, if I may say so, the incomprehension of people for one another which, bad enough within ethnically homogeneous national bounds, becomes even more pronounced in an age of international cosmopolitanism.

 

Women are like Black Holes, sucking in weak or deluded males and then raging, with Quasar-like intensity, before spitting out the light of reproductive heat in the throes of motherhood. This may be 'Creator-esque', but it has nothing whatsoever to do with God, or with what is godly. On the contrary, it is the metachemical antithesis of metaphysics, as Devil the Mother of God the Father, or Hell the Clear Spirit of Heaven the Holy Soul. Like it or not, life for most people is simply a mirror image, on the microcosmic scale, of the Galaxy, reflecting on a more natural or corporeal basis what tends to occur supernaturally, in the alpha-based ethereal heights of galactic subatomic fusion and/or fission.

 

Females preside over what is devolutionary, in atomic reflection of subatomic activity, rather than, like some males, over what is evolutionary and therefore tending towards either metaphysical independence of the metachemical or, in the corporeal realm, physical independence of the chemical. In both cases, it is the psyche which, whether in ego (corporeal) or soul (ethereal), physics or metaphysics, constitutes an evolutionary opposition to the predominantly devolutionary nature of soma, whether in will (ethereal) or spirit (corporeal), metachemistry or chemistry, since whereas soma, being more closely associated with the body, is objective, psyche is subjective and therefore the necessary precondition, through mind, of evolutionary progress, in contrast to the devolutionary regression of soma.

 

Baudelaire was right about 'true progress' being inner, since it is that alone which constitutes an antithesis, whether phenomenal or (more genuinely) noumenal, to the regressive nature (outer) of devolution and of all things female. However, I would be the last person to settle for a simple devolutionary/evolutionary antithesis. For where there is devolution, whether noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, there will also be pseudo-evolution, pseudo-subjectivity to objectivity. And where, conversely, there is evolution, again whether phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal, there will be pseudo-devolution, pseudo-objectivity to subjectivity. In either case, the 'pseudo' is gender subordinate to the genuine, as a pseudo-element to an element, existing on an immediately lower plane to the hegemonic factor, be it objective or subjective, female or male. Hence pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry, as pseudo-time a plane down from space, and pseudo-physics under chemistry, as pseudo-mass a plane down from volume, where the alternative (noumenal or phenomenal) forms of devolution and pseudo-evolution are concerned. And hence pseudo-chemistry under physics, as pseudo-volume a plane down from mass, and pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, as pseudo-space a plane down from time, where the alternative (phenomenal and noumenal) forms of evolution and pseudo-devolution are concerned.

 

Whereas the objective female is somatically free, the pseudo-subjective male, a pseudo-male, will be pseudo-psychically bound (in his preponderating ratio factor of psyche to soma). And whereas the subjective male is psychically free, the pseudo-objective female, a pseudo-female, will be pseudo-somatically bound (in her predominating ratio factor of soma to psyche), pseudo-binding being, in either case, the product of hegemonic pressure from the free element, that is, the gender existing a plane up from its correlative pseudo-gender in the pseudo-element, whether in terms of absolute (3:1) or relative (2½:1½) ratio distinctions of soma to psyche or, conversely, of psyche to soma.

 

******

 

William Burroughs – that dope-fiend faggot with an obscure style of convoluted writing that came to a head in 'novels' like The Naked Lunch and The Soft Machine, both of which I laboured over as an author-besotted youth without making any appreciable progress. Certainly Junkie was comparatively more accessible, though still quite obscure and even esoteric in places. Burroughs was never an author I could warm to, being, in any case, so technically and socially cold.

 

Allen Ginsberg, though also obscure and a faggot, even an unapologetic 'arsehole', was nonetheless of considerably more interest to me than Burroughs. But one would have to be Jewish, I believe, to really have any prospect of penetrating the obscurities and complexities of his mature poetry, whether with regards to publications like Howl, Kaddish, Reality Sandwiches, or Planet News, all of which I laboured over in my youth. His early work, like Empty Mirror, was certainly more accessible and even intelligible. But as he matured, his style became correspondingly more prolix and its content at times extremely difficult to fathom. Some of it was, frankly, revolting in the degree and nature of its obscenity, and I never did have the same respect for Ginsberg as transpired with the likes of Gregory Corso in Gasoline or Lawrence Ferlingetti in Pictures of the Gone World, both of whom were lyrically effusive and full of a metaphorical mastery that seemed positively magical against the backdrop of an expansive formal structure quite unique to poetry.

 

Another American author I didn't much like was Norman Mailer, who struck me as somewhat akin to Ernest Hemingway in his alpha-male persona as a boxer and sports enthusiast, the sort of persona I detest in a writer, even one as sophisticated as Ezra Pound, and deem to be at loggerheads with true literature and genuine artistry, whereby the writer distances himself, as an intellectual type of artist, from all things athletic and merely physically competitive. Norman Mailer, like Hemingway before him, was fundamentally a philistine who simply subverted literature from a standpoint owing more to journalism than to art, with little one could consider worthy of lasting literary respect. Though I quite admired his second novel, Barbary Shore, when I happened upon it as a youth back in the late 'sixties. I can still remember the character Lovett quite vividly. But, generally speaking, I have only contempt for people who debase literature from the standpoint of the alpha-male, the so-called 'he-man', the sportsman, the pugilist, the war correspondent, the journalist, the 'man of the world' and other fundamentally philistine types who, as bitch-sucking pseudo-males (sons-of-bitches), have no compunction, seemingly, about being as crassly commercial as possible. Such writers simply disgust and revolt me!

 

The same could not be said, however, of Henry Miller who, although given to the subversion of literature as narrative fiction, was no philistine but at heart a real artist who aspired to being a writer with a capital 'W' like, in his deferential estimation, the great Irish Writer, James Joyce. Although most of Miller's best work was arguably done in Paris, especially with Tropic of Cancer and Black Spring, he continued, even with his more America-oriented books like Tropic of Capricorn and, subsequently, The Rosy Crucifixion Trilogy ('Sexus', 'Plexus' and 'Nexus'), to be at or near the cutting-edge of American literature, a writer worth reading if only because he turned literature on its head, as it were, and made of himself, his personal history and experiences, the principal protagonist of virtually all his major writings, with the possible exceptions of The Colossus of Maroussi and A Devil in Paradise, which portrayed, in fairly narrative vein, a Greek (George Katsimbalis) and a Frenchman (Conrad Moricand) from two very different, even contrasting viewpoints. Now given that Miller was essentially an artist, with a discerning aesthetic temperament, and not, like Hemingway or Mailer, a philistine journalist in literary disguise, one can forgive him for writing the way he did, and even find inspiration and encouragement for writing in a similar, albeit inevitably independent, vein oneself. Henry Miller means more to me than any other American writer of the twentieth century, and whilst writers like Henry James and Aldous Huxley will always be of literary significance, if only as chroniclers of bourgeois decadence, both socially and spiritually, it is to Miller one must turn if one wishes to have a subjective portrait of mid-twentieth-century civilization in both Europe and America that is laced with much autobiographical reminiscence and not a little poetic inspiration and literary or cultural criticism, as well as topped off with an arresting degree of what could be called religious or metaphysical speculation concerning the future.

 

Jack Kerouac, whom many would regard as Miller's literary successor, wrote such novels as On the Road and The Dharma Bums on the wing, as it were, without undue hesitation or reflection, as though life were a train ride through the world which had to be documented en passant and therefore as spontaneously as possible with what little time the pursuit of other pleasures left to one who, as an American, was always in a hurry and incapable of or indisposed to leisurely reflections, grammatical niceties or, indeed, the slightest regard for literary convention. Kerouac rushes you along at breakneck speed, if not exactly breathtaking pace, and you either ride with him on this never-ending freight-train journey across the vast expanses of the American plains or you fall off and are left to pick up your wounded pride and develop reservations about reading such writers, whose novels take the term 'avant-garde' to a whole new level, beyond even the most subconscious spontaneity of Andrι Breton and his Surrealist followers or imitators. Kerouac is smart, make no mistake about that, but he is also a bum and a fag moreover, so think twice before climbing onto the bandwagon of twentieth-century literary degeneration and its downhill rush towards literary oblivion such that leaves you feeling cheated and somehow debased, cheapened, coarsened by these sophisticated cowboys of the so-called 'beat generation'. This is not classic literature; it is effectively pop literature, the equivalent of Pop Art, beneath even the bourgeois decadence of Henry James or the petty-bourgeois philistinism of Norman Mailer. A kind of proletarian barbarism that assaults literary taste and makes you pine, paradoxically, for some kind of filmic or cinematic release.

 

Were one to describe the poet Kenneth Rexroth as the 'father', through his poetic obscurantism, of the 'beat generation', or poets like Allen Ginsberg and Gregory Corso, then I think it only fair to describe Ezra Pound as the 'grandfather' or even 'godfather' of that generation, since his Cantos, the late-period economically-charged rambling verses of a 'Tower-of-Babel'-like lingual complexity teetering on the brink of madness, arguably paved the way for the 'babbling towers' that, principally in the guises of Rexroth and Ginsberg, were to advance the degenerative process of American poetry towards a homosexual dead-end (fag-end?) from which, even now, it hasn't really recovered, except in respect of the unashamedly heterosexual musings of 'rock poets' like Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison, surely the only credible antidote to what preceded it in the turgid informality of the 'beat poets', whose jazz-inspired poems rarely danced to the regular beat of rhythmic percussion the way the poetry of the 'rock poets' does, thereby switching the axis to one that can only lead inwards and upwards when given sufficient encouragement from a messianic standpoint.

 

******

 

The last major war in Europe began above ground and ended underground, in Hitler's Bunker. The next major war in Europe, if ever there is one, will probably start underground and gradually work its way up, way up, in a quite unprecedented 'coming out' that will leave the world far behind.

 

The Centre, which I associate with Social Theocracy, should not be thought of as the synthetically artificial equivalent of a Black Hole or Quasar but, rather, as the antithesis to such an elusive entity, tending towards the centripetal and all that contrasts, in evolutionary convergence and expansion, or expansion through convergence, with whatever contracts and diverges, or contracts from divergence, in devolutionary vein. The 'Celestial City' equivalence of the ultimate Space Centre, the future successor to the contemporary Space Station, will doubtless expand through the convergence upon it of the various centres throughout the world, which would have to be accommodated in such fashion that they did not circle the principal or initial Centre, like so many stars or planets circling a Black Hole/Quasar, but were somehow assigned to it as an expansion, through convergence, of the central axis, the true Omega Point to which all smaller centres should be drawn, having been provided with devices that enabled them to 'lock on' and thereby become part of the ever-expanding Universal Centre. This, truly, would be the antithesis of a Black Hole, since manifesting, through centro-complexification (Teilhard de Chardin), the attainment, by degrees, of centripetal subjectivity, as far removed from centrifugal objectivity as anything could ever possibly be.

 

You get sucked-in to a human 'black hole' (woman) only to be shredded and spat out in transmuted guise, when it comes time for the 'black hole' to transform itself into a quasar-like body emitting light as the basis of a new star (child). I dunno, but one senses a blueprint of sorts for what goes on down here, on Earth, on a kind of extrapolative or attenuated basis.

 

Oh, that beautiful Quasar, so lit up and so different from the 'dark side' in back, the ugly Black Hole that appears to stand in a subconscious relationship to the supersensual effulgence or luminosity of the light-emitting Quasar! Her soma is beautiful alright, and probably loving to boot, but her psyche, corresponding to a Black Hole, is dark and ugly, even hateful, and you have to be weary of getting sucked-in to it or of the possible consequences of reacting against it!

 

He didn't like them 'coming on' to him with reproductive intent, but remained unusually reserved in his demeanour, always ready to 'hose down' a potential threat to his peace of mind.

 

Could it be that Quasars precede Black Holes rather than emerge from them? Or give rise to a situation in which Black Holes form as a kind of psychic dustbin for all that is in supersensual rotation about a fixed point and cannot but suck-in surrounding gases or stellar clusters? At any rate, I have long maintained that, on the female side of the gender divide, soma precedes psyche, not least in metachemistry, the fiery element par excellence, where one would have, with noumenal absolutism, a 3:1 ratio of soma to psyche in the form of supersensuous to subconscious, or supernatural to subnurtural, so to speak. It is not, in that instance, a case of light out of darkness, light emerging from darkness, but rather a case of light giving rise to, or engendering, a certain kind of darkness which is both independent of and distinct from mere nothingness, the empty void of inter-galactic space. By itself, space is neither dark nor light, black nor bright, but only becomes recognizably dark in relation to the light of stars and, most especially it would appear, of quasars. You cannot have darkness before light, or the bound before the free. Only the light of freedom establishes the darkness of binding, whether in soma (female) or in psyche (male), with correlative types of bound psyche (female) and bound soma (male). So, if this theory is correct, why should not Quasars precede Black Holes, making for a special kind of darkness distinct from the nothingness of space? I rest my case.

 

I have long believed that Sigmund Freud's emphasis upon the subconscious at the expense of – nay, to the exclusion of – what I call the supersensuous to be philosophically (though not necessarily psychologically) erroneous, because too partial … to do justice to the totality of (metachemical) factors in which one can, to be sure, posit the existence of subconsciousness, but only, in philosophical terms, as an adjunct to physiological supersensuousness, the factor that, with respect to the female or objective nature of metachemistry, precedes, as free soma, a bound psychic concomitant in the guise of the subconscious, with a correspondingly absolute (3:1) ratio of the one to the other, as of the 'super' to the 'sub'.

 

******

 

Cigs, cans, fags – an unholy trinity of Social Democratic degeneration.

 

Music is our defence against noise, the heads side of the coin of what is often chaotically loosed upon the airwaves.

 

Weak noise might sometimes approximate to music, but weak music invariably approximates to noise.

 

Living in a twisted society where the Dream had been betrayed must surely be worse than living in one which never had a Dream at all (but is/was crassly materialistic and realistic). Strange that it is the latter type of society which caused me to dream the Ideal principally for those who are sick of living in a twisted society, the result, in most respects, of alien interference and the legacy of imperial imposition.

 

There are no posters, paintings, sculptures, flags, icons, idols, etc., more hateful to me than those espousing the cause of hammer-brandishing workers.

 

Secularity has divested the term 'idol' of any moral opprobrium, making it natural and even admirable to idolize someone or, worse, something, like a pop star or a football team.

 

Those heathens are only too ready to bow to the ungodly designs of the wilful scum who rule over them from a standpoint based in somatic licence.

 

One can see where the want of religion and respect for the soul actually leads. Certainly not forwards.

 

Many want to be liberated from worldly bondage and netherworldly tyranny, but few are willing to pay the otherworldly price and make the necessary sacrifices.

 

I watch so little television it always amazes me that I continue to pay the licence fee, which I tend to do by quarterly direct debit. In fact, it scandalizes me that I should continue to pay it when I rarely watch anything, preferring to watch and re-watch (any number of times) my favourite DVDs, most of which are quality German-language films, Austrian and Swiss included.

 

Unlike Communism – Soviet Communism in particular – Nazism (not to mention Fascism in general) never went in for iconographic or sculptural monuments. There were no huge iconic reproductions or statues of Hitler, the way the 'great leaders' of the Communist world were idolized and monumentally reproduced for the dubious benefit of the slavish masses, which, to my mind, is just as well. Most of these idols, including the ones of Lenin and Saddam Hussein, have since been consigned to the 'rubbish bin of history', as fitting testimony to the folly of communist or socialist idolatry and the transience of tyrannical control.

 

******

 

Women are a restless lot, constantly plotting and scheming how to get or extend power over men. For me, they give the terms 'agitation' and/or 'agitator' – not least in respect of so-called agents provocateurs or agit prop – a bad name, as something or somebody to despise for constantly stirring-up trouble – like women!

 

No man who is really a man, or properly male, should ever be an agitator. Rather is it a condition to be associated with long-haired youths, and then only in certain circumstances or as the unsavoury corollary of a collegiate lifestyle in which egotistical leaders emerge from the 'herd' to direct and guide it on some ostensibly revolutionary path.

 

I always despised political agitators, finding in them little that was truly or recognizably male.

 

Males who want to be like women – are they not the most despicable from a male standpoint?

 

Not letting you be but … needling you – to what purpose? Put simply, power. To gain power over you in the hope of making you an adjunct to their reproductive needs which, sad to say, is the basic meaning of life (for women), with anything deeper a male conceit or wish.

 

******

 

Christianity inherited wine from the Romans and turned it to religious account or, at any rate (for the Romans were not adverse to identifying the consumption of wine with religious rites), to what one would identify, through the Mass, with Christian usage. And the result, even when this usage has been attenuated or modified to suit other alcoholic tastes, has been a civilization fixated on alcohol and prone to alcoholism and other related forms of self-abuse. Christ himself cannot be exonerated from being in some degree responsible for this sorry state-of-affairs, which will doubtless continue so long as Christianity, in some form or other, continues to exist, as it does even in these so-called global times. Like it or not, alcohol does more harm than good, and anybody who thinks otherwise must be either mad or stupid, and almost certainly sick.

 

How can a peasant read the 'Word of God', or what passes for such? Few peasants in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, when the Reformation was in full swing, would have been able to read anyway but, even supposing some could, what right would they have had to stand on equal terms with God, presuming, for the sake of argument, that a degree of metaphysics had been invested in this term and it wasn't wholly metachemical (like Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father) or partly chemical (like the so-called Mother of God) or partly physical (like the so-called Son of Man)? Strictly speaking, God and man are unequal entities, as, on opposite terms, are the Devil and woman, and you cannot have equality between what is unequal. What you can have is the debasement of terms like God to the level of man (Son of Man, God as Man, etc.), and then you don't really have religion, whether in fundamentalist falsity or transcendentalist truth, but merely some degree of humanism or, in the case of woman, some form of pantheism, with worldly implications that soon lead to irreligious practices of an economic or a political order. Which is precisely where we find ourselves today, except that economics has joined forces with science to combat – and exploit – politics. And the rule of science, as of fundamentalist falsity, means that there is little room, as things stand, for religion, and hence the prospect of transcendentalist truth, a factor crucial to the extrication of politics from the predatory grips of science and economics, and for the possibility, under Social Theocracy, of 'Kingdom Come'.

 

******

 

I tried to enjoy myself, but there was always too much crap around, pulling my soul down into the mud of their democratic or plutocratic licence, where the lowest-common-denominator of promiscuous filth prevails.

 

If I were to attempt a definition of how a homosexual drinks, I would imagine him as drinking straight from a can of stout or perhaps even brown ale, without recourse to a glass. If, on the other hand, I were to attempt to define how a paedophile drinks, I would imagine him as drinking straight from a can of lager or perhaps even pale ale, without recourse to a glass. Either way, I would conceive of these degenerates in relation to extra-parliamentary social democracy on the one hand, that of the homosexual, and extra-parliamentary democratic socialism (republican socialism) on the other hand, that of the paedophile, with an axial distinction between degenerative Protestant (Puritan) and degenerative Catholic (Marian) types of degeneration which would correspond to the respective nadirs of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, as in the case of a British/Irish ethnic divide, and this contrary to what are usually perceived as being representative of this distinction, as when Britons are identified with a predilection for lager and the Irish with a predilection for stout. Be that as it may, logic suggests otherwise, and I firmly believe that a connotation can be posited between canned stout and homosexuality on the one hand, and canned lager and paedophilia on the other hand, as though in a distinction between sodomy and pederasty, with the usual four-letter connotations that would merely confirm what I am contending, especially when paedophilia is conceived as implying illicit sexual relations between male adults and juvenile girls.

 

Degenerative modes of consuming alcohol (for that is what drinking from a can actually amounts to) could be construed as being indicative of a degenerate sexual predilection, whether licit (homosexual) or illicit (paedophile), in the persons concerned, though it would, of course, be another thing to prove it! But if a parallel does in fact exist, then such modes of consuming alcohol would be no better than their corresponding modes of sexual degeneracy, and should accordingly be viewed with contempt by those who neither approve of nor practise either sodomy or pederasty. For drinking straight from the can is the mark of an 'arsehole' or, as the Germans say, ein arschloch.

 

Even if your sexual persuasion is not to bugger the shit out of another man or to fuck the piss out of a little girl, which I would guess is pretty much what homosexuals and paedophiles tend to do, you are little better than that if it is your habit to drink straight from a can of stout or, alternatively, a can of lager. Either way, you are an 'arsehole', and your behaviour is despicable from the standpoints of the bottle-fearing, heterosexual majority, who oppose degeneracy in sexual as in other matters, including, not least, radical forms of social democracy and democratic socialism. And so they should!

 

Of course, you might add drinking beer directly from a bottle to the above, though whether, depending on the type of drink, that would make for a higher class of homosexual and/or paedophile is a moot point. One could argue that this is less significant of somebody who is an 'arsehole' than of somebody who is a 'prick', given that bottles cannot be equated with a female sexual receptacle, like glasses, into which the drink is poured, and may well suggest, in the context alluded to, an active rather than passive sexual disposition. There may also be a sense in which bottles more approximate to a psychic correlation than to a somatic one, making them not only correspondingly more male but also relative to a church rather than to a state bias. However that may be, the liberal heterosexual will normally pour from the bottle into a glass in the presence, most especially, of women, thereby replicating or intimating of coitus, not drink straight from the bottle like a 'prick', who may or may not be a sodomite or pederast, though could well be one who engages his female partner in anal sex. Which leaves, I suppose, the possibility of bisexuality in connection with a tendency to drink straight from both bottles and cans (though obviously not at the same time), like somebody who is into acoustic bass one moment and electric bass the next, or whatever. A not untypical aspect, presumably, of what Jung would call 'civilization in transition', though I would be less generous.

 

******

 

Men can live perfectly happily, in a manner of speaking, without a relationship. Women, on the other hand, cannot. That is the problem.

 

One thing I have never done is to write for money. Writing for money is to turn your back on Truth, or the possibility of enlightenment through metaphysical knowledge, which is also the possibility of meaningful work. It is to 'sell out', and in all 'selling out' (to commerce) there is a loss of soul (the price to be paid for 'selling out') and therefore a want of – nay, an incapacity for – Truth, that is, of metaphysical self-knowledge and its joyful reward (heaven). The abuse of soul through religious corruption is one thing; the abandonment of soul through economic greed is much worse, since it leaves one with no hope of a better world, but only with a different stake in this one, ruled, as it is, by will.

 

Great minds are as abhorrent to the small-minded as small minds to the Great, albeit from entirely different points of view.

 

People in general live for the body, not the mind, which is held against anyone who happens to be one, as though he were a sexual deviant or some kind of 'nut'. After all, is not 'mental' a term of abuse to those who are physical and who take their physicality for granted? In other words, the great majority. To be sure, the term 'mental' is up against it from a physical standpoint, as are males from the standpoint of females and, these days more than ever, the church from the standpoint of the state, which seeks freedom from church interference or regulation in the interests of unrestricted physical, or somatic, licence, the crux, if I am not mistaken, of what the term 'free world' implies, a 'world' that is overwhelmingly secular in its plutocratic opposition to autocratic excesses and indifference, if not hostility (deriving from a largely Protestant tradition), to theocratic ideals, which exploits the democratic masses, and indeed the concept of democracy itself, to maximize the freedom of the rich.

 

Religion is the consolation of losers, including those who are too self-respecting to 'win', that is, to succeed on worldly or netherworldly terms, sacrificing soul for the benefit of material gain.

 

Do you really think the tables can be turned on women, the primary sex, whose will and spirit, hailing from a vacuum, objectively dominates life? Even I, as someone who has drawn up a blueprint for 'Kingdom Come', even I have certain reservations!

 

Take a look at the world around you and tell me what you see. Would it not suggest that most men are only too ready to serve a woman's reproductive needs?

 

They say faith can move mountains, and it would certainly take a lot of faith to move the mountain of female status in society from a position of domination to one of gender subordination to the hill of male liberation. Meanwhile, most males are resigned to being slaves to female dominion, working to finance their romantic prospects or, in the event of matrimonial commitments, to support their family.

 

Marriage is designed to secure a stable future for any prospective offspring, tying the male surname not just to his wife but also to his children and thus ensuring, if not guaranteeing, the latter a degree of parental responsibility which so-called 'free love' would most likely fail to provide, with the male 'taking off' at the first whiff of being 'tied down' and rendered financially and paternally accountable. Which is precisely what marriage is designed to do – except in the case of my father, who 'took off' even though he had married my mother and officially bequeathed his surname to me, something for which I have never been particularly grateful, not least for having been brought from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain, with the return of my mother to England, and subsequently having had to grow up and live in England with a very Irish surname ever subject to mispronunciation by non-Irish people, and not just Britons! That sonofabitch O'Loughlin would have a lot to answer for! Unfortunately for me, however, he died back in Ireland before I could get around to exacting any justice, financially or otherwise, on my mother's behalf. Whether he would have acknowledged me had he lived longer … is something I shall never know, though I suspect not, since he would have felt guilty for having fathered me and then 'run off' … back to his mother, taking no further responsibility for either me or my mother, who received nothing in the way of financial compensation and would not have learnt of his death but for one of her relatives, who happened to send her a Galway newspaper in which his obituary was to be found, without, however, any mention of the fact that he had ever been married, much less fathered a son! And that is why, whenever I visit Ireland, I tend to be persona non grata, even, in some people's estimation, “O'Loughlin's bastard”, with (bar the exception of one paternal aunt many years ago) either no relations with any of those who are technically or theoretically relatives of mine on his side of the family or, at best, only very strained and, as it were, sporadic relations which I may have been foolish enough to instigate with the odd aunt or cousin in the past when more of them were alive or accessible, without receiving any reciprocal encouragement or recognition or, indeed, invitations to visit again. And that, believe it or not, is the way I like it, even the way it should be, since it would be difficult to the point of impossible to be on friendly terms with the relatives of a man who, like my father, was really no father at all, but an irresponsible coward and drunken weakling whom I never saw and was, for all I know, probably better off for never having seen. Knowing what happened between my parents, any remaining or existing relatives of his could only be embarrassed by my presence … were I foolish enough to inflict it upon them. From their standpoint, as formerly from my father's standpoint, I am supposed not to exist. And yet, whether I like it or not, I am technically Irish, having been born in Ireland as the son of a Catholic Irishman, but subsequently finding myself without the slightest sentimentality about being Irish, and scarcely any pride in the fact, given my want of an Irish upbringing and humiliating misunderstood exile in England, well away from what one could have taken some pride in, like the GAA and those other aspects of Irish culture which strongly suggest Catholic axial connotations which, even today, are almost unique to Ireland. Alas, through no particular fault of my own, I wear my Irishness, as they say, rather lightly, even if my blood still resonates to a certain tone and my genetic make-up owes something to what is, in so many respects, culturally and socially alien to me.

 

******

 

Visited the park with three ponds and one lake – a lake for sailing toy boats that has the look, in its shallowness, of a gigantic puddle surrounded, on all sides, by at least nine weeping willows and sundry other species of deferential tree. But what matter, even though you rarely see any toy boats on its lake, Broomfield Park in Palmer's Green, London N13, is pleasant enough as parks go, and one is glad, on a warm day, of the cool breezes which waft across the watery expanses of, in particular, two of the rustic-looking ponds that pay host to a plethora of ducks and geese!

 

In Britain, to paraphrase Stendhal, the hammerer 'walks proud', compliments, I dare say, of the democratic levelling that the nonconformist (puritan) types of Protestantism led to in opposition, it would seem, to the kingly Anglicanism that, as the original type of English Protestantism, was not motivated, as in Germany, by a Luther-inspired grass-roots opposition to papal excesses, but simply followed from kingly expediency, and remained aloof, in consequence, from populist tendencies.

 

The renaissance decadence of the papacy certainly played a part in the development of the so-called Reformation in Germany as a protest against papal excesses and the age-old practice of indulgences, but once you are committed to the Protestant cause you have to carry on protesting against Catholicism even after the Church had begun to 'clean up its act' with the Counter-Reformation. All that pseudo-pagan excess of the Renaissance, including the Old Testament predilections of Pope Julius II and his gifted protιgι Michelangelo, all that pseudo-return (well before fascism) to the apparent glories of ancient Rome, the eagle raised predatorially and imperially 'on high', the naked statuary of the 'body beautiful', the 'body muscular', all that anti-Christian, anti-Crucifixional decadent filth might be in the process of being censored, doctored, modified, even repudiated, but still there is no going back to the 'one true church', given the enormities of what had transpired and the fact that there could be no guarantee, even after Pope John IV and Loyola, that something similar would not return, with aristocratic insouciance, to tarnish the standing of Catholicism once again. Once the cat of Protestant protest had been let out of the proverbial bag, there could be no getting it back into the bag again, the bag of Catholic acquiescence, since far too much had happened in the meantime, too many lives had been blighted or lost in the struggle against corruption for a return to the pre-schismatic position to be possible. Protestantism must continue to protest even when the anti-Christ epithet applied, with no little justification, to various Renaissance popes could not, with equal justification, be applied to most of the popes who followed the Counter-Reformation and continued to live austere, ascetic, celibate lives. Therefore the protest becomes more hollow or, in the event of the 'Vicar of Christ' being credibly Christian, simply irrelevant, and Protestants, rather than protesting against Catholicism, act, to all intents and purposes, as though Catholicism didn't exist and was, in any case, irrelevant to their religious beliefs. Which may well be the case, only Protestantism will continue to exist so long as Catholicism exists and has not, democratically and responsibly, been consigned to the rubbish bin of religious history. For only when it has been superseded (as by Social Theocracy) will there be any prospect of bringing Protestantism to an end, thereby enabling what, in religious terms, really leads nowhere because rooted in a protest against the abuse of what does actually tend, axially speaking, in the right direction for any prospect of otherworldly criteria, centred in metaphysics, to transpire, only not, by any means, far enough and therefore with a metaphysical shortfall (done down pseudo-metachemically as a false ne plus ultra) by dint of an Old Testament allegiance to the beauty and love of metachemistry in back of the Christian – both Catholic and Protestant – manifestations of Western civilization, like a Judaic anchor to the ship of Christianity floating on a Judeo-Christian tide within the parameters of 'the world'. It takes more than a protest against Catholicism to set men free of such an anchor and to construct the spaceship that will ultimately enable them to leave 'the world' behind for truly otherworldly climes which will be so far beyond the worldly status quo as to have no allegiance whatsoever to the quasar/black hole-like entity that apparently rules over it from a position owing nothing whatsoever to metaphysics and everything, by contrast, to metachemistry, to whatever pertains to Hell in the Devil, to both love in beauty (free soma) and hate in ugliness (bound psyche), with the latter subordinate to the former, like a black hole of subconsciousness to a supersensuous quasar whose frantic swirling cosmic dance lures not only weaker stars, but also weaker men away from the prospect of Eternal Life towards certain psychic death upon the somatic flames of female seduction. That, more than anything, is what is most anti-Christ, precisely because it is of Devil the Mother/Virgin, the Creator-esque 'Almighty' behind heathen/pagan life, behind the sucking in and spitting out, through reproduction, of more of the same, generation after generation, world without sexual end.

 

All this can and, I believe, should be countered, in the name of God in Heaven, not just illusion in woe (bound soma) but also, and more importantly, truth in joy (free psyche), with the former subordinate to the latter as subsensuousness to superconsciousness. But only the 'resurrection' of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will enable the process of countering it, as germane to the inceptive phase of 'Kingdom Come', to begin in earnest, and to preclude, moreover, anything so despicably anti-Christian as the decadence of renaissance papacy from ever occurring again, much as what has since stemmed, in secular licence, from the Protestant schism is arguably far worse, if the current ungodly state of the Western world is anything to judge by! For 'free enterprise', while it might be independent of Catholicism and religion generally, is by no means independent of that embodiment of free will which rules over 'the world', as over the Galaxy, from a standpoint with no otherworldly pretensions whatsoever, since the epitome of everything netherworldly, of fast doing as opposed, in metaphysics, to light being, of Devil the Mother as opposed to Heaven the Holy Soul.

 

******

 

The quickness of the supersensuous vis-a-vis the hotness of the subconscious in metachemistry;

The slowness of the sensuous vis-a-vis the coldness of the unconscious in chemistry;

The heaviness of the conscious vis-a-vis the hardness of the unsensuous in physics;

The lightness of the superconscious vis-a-vis the softness of the subsensuous in metaphysics.

 

The masses don't and can't understand genius. They have to take it on trust, through faith. It would also be fair to say that, generally speaking, the masses don't like genius, not only because they cannot understand it, but also because it suggests privilege and, what's worse, some kind of creative or moral or intellectual or cultural superiority, which is virtually anathema to those who are inferior in such respects.

 

Whether the top of the hierarchy happens to be king or pope, metachemical or metaphysical, of Hell in the Devil or of God in Heaven, autocratic or theocratic, alpha or omega, scientific or religious, of the State or of the Church, objective or subjective, a hierarchy is crucial to dealing with what's high, since it cannot be comprehended from below, that is, from the standpoints of the masses. Only that which is closer to either Hell in the Devil or God in Heaven can act as a link or conduit to metachemistry or metaphysics, as the case may be. For there is no way a lowly creature like an artisan or a peasant, much less an industrial worker, could commune with what is 'On High', any more than he could be expected to commune with kings or popes. Only in an overly worldly age or society does the justification of autocratic or theocratic hierarchies cease to have any meaning or relevance, and we get republics of one kind or another that signify a levelling down or, more correctly, an exclusion, as far as possible, of hierarchy in the interests of an egalitarian reduction to the lowest-common-denominator of democratic and/or plutocratic criteria designed to preclude a return to social inequalities. But sooner or later such plebeian or proletarian societies have to allow for a new order of social inequality if they or, rather, things in general are not to bog down in equalitarianism and simply stagnate. For a worldly society, based in the masses and excluding, as far as possible, Hell in the Devil or God in Heaven, love in beauty or truth in joy, will necessarily be limited to the mundane criteria of men and women, of what could be called Woman in Purgatory and Earth in Man, strength in pride and pleasure in knowledge, neither of which are of much use to the other, but have need, like vegetation and water, to be either ruled by fire or led by air, ruled by love in beauty or led by truth in joy, else there is no hope of either promotion or salvation, no prospect of a 'better deal' such that would release them, one way or the other, from worldly bondage (posing as freedom) to a life of either infinite freedom or eternal peace, somatic action or psychic being. Verily, when life is reduced, with republics, to the domination of chemistry or physics, it can be only a matter of time before the desire for metaphysics or metachemistry, depending on the context, becomes so pressing that the lid of worldly repression is blown off by popular demand, following a referendum or major shift in voting practices. Ironically, it is equality that, when all's said and done, is the People's worst enemy, not those who would rule or lead them from higher, if incompatible, standpoints. For you cannot have both Hell in the Devil and God in Heaven, metachemistry and metaphysics. Which is why axial differentiation between two types of 'High' and two types of 'low' becomes inevitable, quite apart from the gender differentiation characterizing each.

 

Any attempt to bring God down to man is doomed to failure, because you end-up with man (humanism) and not God (transcendentalism). Conversely, any attempt, through some messianic equivalence, to bring man up to God would be doomed to failure – Catholic hierarchies notwithstanding – were man not earmarked, under some kind of messianic auspices, for transmutation (transfiguration) through 'man overcoming' (transcendentalism coupled, for females, to pseudo-fundamentalism or, more representatively, to pseudo-materialism) in relation to alternative kinds of cyborgization intended to 'turn the tables' on the objectively-dominated outer world in the interests of a subjectively-oriented inner one.

 

Fundamental to the more chemical woman is the most chemical (metachemical) woman, whom we can call Superwoman. Transcendental to the more physical man is the most physical (metaphysical) man, whom we call Superman. Superwoman and Superman are as incompatible as metachemistry and metaphysics, supernature and, for want of a better term, supernurture, as that which is above chemistry (water) in its fieriness and, by contrast, that which is above physics (vegetation) in its airiness. In either case, a differentiation between female soma and male psyche in both relative and absolute, phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal contexts.

 

The metachemical expresses itself through the exercise of willpower, the metaphysical impresses itself, by absolute contrast, through the exercise of soulful contentment. Such noumenal absolutes, which are 'meta' or 'super', have to be differentiated from their phenomenal counterparts whose relativity either expresses itself, in the case of chemistry, through the exercise of spiritual glory or impresses itself, in the case of physics, through the exercise of egocentric form.

 

******

 

A thinker needs an 'ivory tower' in which to think his thoughts in environmental detachment from those who would oppose and thwart his penchant for thought, thereby reducing his capacity to think.

 

Only a privileged existence allows for any degree of meaningful or profound thought, an existence not at the mercy of other people, especially unintellectual or unintelligent people who, in any case, resent intellectuality.

 

All great thinkers, who are independent solitary individuals, defy the heathenistic basis of life in the 'central star' of the Galaxy, the quasar/black hole around which other stars revolve, like gyrating male pigeons, and sometimes get sucked-in to, as men can get sucked-in to women. Rather do they strive towards an alternative centre, which is not of this world but not of the Galaxy either, an otherworldly centre, by contrast, which is truly universal in its centripetal totalitarianism and therefore antithetical to the false universality of the Cosmos hyped as universe, to that congeries or countless multitude of galaxies with their own quasars/black holes which occasionally spit forth new stars.

 

W.B. Yeats had a square, or rectangular, tower at Thoor Ballylee in County Galway. I should like a round, or curvilinear, one, not necessarily independent of a larger structure, whether or not it was covered in ivy (not 'ivory').

 

A thinker lives for his thoughts, nothing else. For him, ideas are precious and of more value than money can buy. They are, in a sense, priceless.

 

Looking down on the world of poets and novelists and, across the axial divide, at the netherworld of dramatists … is something that can only be done from the otherworldly perspective of philosophers, provided they are metaphysically genuine and not, like so many of the so-called 'professors of philosophy', given to the subversion of metaphysics through metachemistry, with its empirical disregard for the thoughts of the soul, its pragmatic slavery to concrete facts, its fundamental indifference, if not hostility, to Truth that owes much, if not everything, to a love of Beauty.

 

******

 

I have never reserved a restaurant table, but I reserve the right to write and publish the best of my thoughts in the interests of Truth and the possibility of an enhanced appetite for spiritual food.

 

In Britain, the Reformation came about in consequence of the excommunication of Henry VIII for divorcing Catherine of Aragon and remarrying in the hope of acquiring a male heir through his second wife, Anne Boleyn. In Germany, by contrast, the Reformation came about in consequence of the disgust of Luther, a pious monk, with the decadent and debased practices, including the selling of indulgences, of the renaissance papacy, who had undermined the reputation of the Catholic Church. England underwent a reformation in relation to the pragmatic needs of a reigning monarch. Germany, on the other hand, underwent a reformation, if rather less universally so but certainly in advance of England, in relation to the ideological disgust of Martin Luther. The Reformation proper was fundamentally a Luther-led north German revolt against anti-Christian attitudes and practices within the Italian-dominated Catholic Church. Protestantism in Germany remained – and to this day remains – an altogether different proposition, nurtured by entirely different criteria, from English Protestantism which, in the aristocratic-dominated guise of Anglo-Catholicism, eventually led to autocratic excesses which it required a Puritan-led civil war to curb.

 

If 'God' did make man in His own image (to play with the myth for the sake of argument), it could only be a certain higher type (metaphysical) of man who could conceivably commune with Him, that is, on a largely metaphysical basis, not men in general who, for the most part, are signally incapable of being metaphysical, especially those who, deferring to all things metachemical, dress in triangular garb. As for woman …

 

I can always tell an enemy of metaphysics by the way he dresses. Of course, there are direct and indirect enemies of metaphysics, absolute (pseudo-metaphysical) and relative (physical) distinctions that also have to be distinguished from shortfalls from metaphysics which are at least deferential to it, if (from a pseudo-physical standpoint in sin) imperfectly so.

 

What a pity that Luther, having piously opposed what he saw as ungodly or unchristian practices in the Roman Church, should subsequently succumb to an ex-nun and father six children! There is nothing Christian, much less metaphysical, about that!

 

The rebirth of interest in Graeco-Roman antiquity, with its body-worshipping paganism, so at variance with the crucifixional paradigm of metaphysical bound soma, brought about the downfall of the reputation of the Catholic Church and the consequent uprising of the Reformation which not even the Counter-Reformation was able to reverse. For by then the horse had bolted from its stable, so to speak, and left much of Christendom schismatically divided and torn asunder by bloody conflict, with echoes that still reverberate down to our own time. But a 'true church' that goes to the dogs (of Renaissance pseudo-paganism) is still preferable, once cleansed and restored to some semblance of religious (metaphysical) health, to a patently false church whose clergy can marry and beget children, thereby reflecting what might be called the galactic world order of quasar-seduced stars which revolve, like families, around the free female equivalence at its core, whose somatic spinning of wilful antics engenders a psychic 'black hole' out of which only ugliness and hatred (as of external attempts to constrain somatic licence) can emerge, as the inevitable corollary, tails side to heads, of the loving Beauty whose wilful actions suck-in whatever is vulnerable, for want of a quasar-rejecting disposition, to being sucked-in, shredded, and spat back out, following gestation, in the guise of a new-born star, or child equivalence, dependent, thereafter, upon its maternal creator for protection against the clamorous, upended falling stars whose psyches, or nuclear cores, become paradoxically bound to the quasar's somatic gyrating as it spins on a light-emitting axis of tremendous heat in an apparently never-ending cosmic dance. A clergy that defies both this and any natural or human extrapolations from it which mirror, on a devolved basis, what tends to take place more fundamentally within the Galaxy as a whole are alone worthy of respect from a religious, that is, reborn, transvaluated, metaphysical standpoint, and have been honoured accordingly.

 

To be susceptible to the rule of the galactic world order, as the majority of men (the masses) are, but to have enough religious deference to be capable of regarding it as sinful … is the mark of a true Christian, a Catholic, whose confession of sin to a priest, that necessarily celibate individual closer to what is properly metaphysical, keeps him in touch, no matter how imperfectly or intermittently, with the possibility of godly redemption by and through a post-resurrectional metaphysical Christ 'On High', whose return to the world in the guise of a Second Coming will allow, in due course, for 'Kingdom Come' and the salvation, in consequence, of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics coupled, it should be added, to the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, so that one would end-up with a distinction, to speak in generalities, between the Saved (in metaphysical free psyche) and the counter-Damned (in pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma), with, in overall metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical terms, a gender distinction between Righteousness and pseudo-Justice, the Saint and (neutralized) Dragon-like mainstream structure of 'Kingdom Come'.

 

******

 

I think Irish Catholics favour stout over other beers because of the lightness and softness, those metaphysical attributes, suggested by the foamy head and dark, blacked-out body, a paradigm of free psyche and bound soma as male gender reality or, at any rate, of what is properly male when hegemonic over females or independent of female subversion. Moreover, fermenting at the top, stout ties-in with the Catholic propensity for confession and some correlative priestly absolution, symbolized, it would seem, by the foaming head on top of the pint.

 

Wine that's all body and no head doesn't make it for me. It bores me flat.

 

'Why can't I be God?' asks Alice Cooper somewhat rhetorically in one of my favourite songs on his seminal album DragonTown. Well, if you want an answer, it's this: It don't work that way, man. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

Bringing Tangerine Dream to Virgin was, for me, the best thing Richard Branson ever did while still boss at the label, since, unlike most bands, Tangerine Dream have gone from strength to strength over the decades and are still, at the time of writing (2013), going strong, producing music that is not only unique but truly contemporary from the standpoint of a kind of cutting-edge superclassicism compared to which the traditional acoustic instrumentation of so-called avant-garde classicism is a kind of anachronistic joke reminiscent of some dotard's senility.

 

Rolling with the f***ing Stones is no easy ride, especially since it begs the question: Will rock 'n' roll survive the Rolling Stones when, eventually, they cease to roll?

 

When the roll is left out of rock you get a decadent if not degenerate music suggestive of other than heterosexual predilections.

 

When blues joins forces with rock, as it does with musicians like John Mayall and Eric Clapton, it becomes decidedly less blue and correspondingly more green, that is, upbeat and positive, with greater commercial potential within a contemporary mainstream musical format.

 

******

 

Communistic atheism is perfectly intelligible within the urban context of the industrial if not industrious proletariat of hammering workmen and such-like labouring creatures who would probably not have any contact or relationship with what is properly god-like in relation to heavenly metaphysics. As the degenerative nadir of Protestant-derived state-hegemonic axial criteria, there can be no place for 'God building' (Lenin) in a society built around the industrial proletariat. Only subservience, one might say, to a new kind of Devil, images of whom are displayed in public to remind the atheistic masses of just who or, rather, what is really in charge of their godless destinies under communism.

 

All great music, great rock music not least, is largely a means of expression by males for males, since most females signally lack a capacity to either appreciate or understand it. The female who really 'gets into' the feeling of a rock groove and soars with the guitar or keyboard or whatever solo to heights of instrumental exultation, with some appreciation of the technical complexities involved – where is she? Do you know one? Have you met one? And if you had, would she not be a particular exception to the general rule? And if she could play guitar, acoustic or electric, with real feeling and a sense of inner groove, of rhythmic impulse, would that not be even rarer? Being into great music is, by and large, the prerogative of males, one might say a man's thing, not because women are systematically excluded or discriminated against, but because, with some discretion in this matter, they tend to exclude themselves, having little capacity, in their reproduction-striving restlessness, for soulful reverie or lyrical abandon. Rather does their talent lie in wilfully subverting it from a vacuously-conditioned objective standpoint, as also in a spirited subversion of ego, or the capacity to deeply reflect and thus think.

.

I doubt if I would be so anti-XX ('XX-chromosomal cosh' being a habitual term of mine) had I not been subject to a life-long double exile (as from country and class) which leaves me with a feeling that life is to be found elsewhere and merely endured where I am, stuck in a sort of stateless, classless mire akin to a kind of limbo.

 

Usually I'm American during the day (internet/rock music) and German at night (DVDs/grammar and/or travel books).

 

******

 

Beauty is just as virtuous as Truth; only it appertains to a different order of virtue. Strength is just as virtuous as Knowledge; only it appertains to a different order of virtue. Strength is not as virtuous as Beauty, nor Knowledge as virtuous as Truth. Beauty is the higher female virtue, Truth the higher male virtue. Therefore while one can logically argue that Beauty is more virtuous than Strength, and Truth, by contrast, more virtuous than Knowledge, one cannot logically argue that Truth is more virtuous than Beauty, or Knowledge more virtuous than Strength. Truth and Knowledge simply appertain to different orders of male virtue. Now such orders of male virtue, going against the grain of the natural world order, tend to be overshadowed by Beauty and Strength, their female counterparts.

 

Summer is that dangerous time of year (from a male standpoint) when women are more outgoing, and, as a man, you could lose your head to a woman if you weren't especially careful and mindful of your true interests.

 

Transcendentalism/idealism does not directly triumph over materialism/fundamentalism but only indirectly, via the salvation of pseudo-humanism/pseudo-realism to itself and the correlative counter-damnation of naturalism/pantheism to pseudo-materialism/pseudo-fundamentalism, in consequence of which materialism/fundamentalism would be damned to pseudo-naturalism/pseudo-pantheism, and pseudo-transcendentalism/pseudo-idealism counter-saved to humanism/realism, pending further developments.

 

I once purchased online a DVD, which I had supposed to be a film but turned out to be a seminar, entitled Evolve Your Brain, in which the speaker contended, after a few preliminary statements about the brain's structure, that the female brain was likely superior to the male one because it was all the time going backwards and forwards in a more open or flexible manner. What? Did he not know, from comparing the relative head sizes of men and women, that women had smaller brains than men? And is it not men who 'lose their head' to a woman's body? As, presumably, the speaker, a Dr Joe Dispenza, had done at some point in his life. Certainly, women are clever at what they do, namely to seduce and reproduce, but that, apart from knitting and sowing and cooking and other things of a female nature, is all they have ever done really, so why shouldn't they be? But when it comes to certain other types of cleverness, including wisdom, vergiss es! Only a fool would equate an onslaught of wilful action or spirited speech with cleverness.

 

Not to succumb to the gravity of somatic reaction but to carry on, willy-nilly, with one's psychic vocation as a writer/thinker – that is the daily challenge to which one must rise and effectively slay the fire-breathing dragon all over again, reducing her to impotence.

 

He who can defeat the people, slaying the dragon of their somatic reaction, is alone worthy of being their master and leader.

 

Either you slay the dragon on a regular, if not daily and hourly, basis, or the dragon slays you.

 

------------------

 

ORANGE NOTEBOOK 2

 

Now I'm full of self-loathing with a runny nose in the middle of a mid-July heatwave! As for multiple sneezes to unblock a stuffy nose in the morning, with overburdened tissues successively cast into a small plastic bag hanging from a nearby hook that serves as a substitute waste-paper bin, the talk of enhanced self-esteem through job-worthiness that some politicians go on about seems to me like a sick joke, with no relevance to my condition whatsoever.

 

When I get my self-esteem back it won't be because of job-worthiness or jobbery, still less because of the next-door neighbours or the all-too-close proximity of workmen hammering and drilling, but because of a string of brilliant thoughts that I shall feel duty-bound, as a creative intellectual, to commit to writing for the benefit of posterity, as though to capture what might otherwise disappear back into the depths of my mind and be lost forever.

 

In the meantime, I must persevere with more snot snivelling, nose blowing, sneezing, and not a few other unpleasant symptoms of the human condition, the condition, strangely enough, that not all would wish to see overcome.... In fact, scarcely any females, precious few kids, and not enough males to give one grounds for any degree of Nietzschean optimism with regards to the coming Superman. Though cautiously optimistic that man will, one day, be overcome … I resolutely remain, if only because the human condition can be so detestable that one would be a fool to take it for granted.

 

******

 

Fast and hot – a credibly female combination suggestive of a quasar/black hole, or of supersensuous/subconscious metachemistry, with beauty and love spinning around ugliness and hate, or crime, to speak more generally, spinning around evil. For is not crime the true source of evil? Get done for speeding and you are charged with a criminal offence. Bad mouth the charging officer and you are guilty of being evil, that is, hot tempered. The heat is bound to the speed, as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma.

 

Love of the beauty of speed taken too far can lead to hatred for the ugliness of having been charged with driving too fast and thereby breaking the law. Evil as the corollary of crime, not vice versa (contrary to what I used to think!).

 

As I customarily – and, I think, correctly – equate crime and evil with metachemistry, so I equate punishment and goodness, the polarities to crime and evil, with pseudo-chemistry, so that we have, in overall terms, a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity between two female elements or, more correctly, a female element (metachemistry) and a pseudo-female pseudo-element (pseudo-chemistry). Now since I have equated crime with metachemical free soma and evil with metachemical bound psyche, and this in accordance with the female gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche, as body over mind, so that the former is free (and brightly positive) but the latter bound (and darkly negative), it now behoves me to equate punishment, the polarity to crime, with pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma and, by contrast, goodness, the polarity to evil, with pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche, the pseudo-bound soma no less indicative of the state-hegemonic aspect of the axis established by the polarity of metachemistry with pseudo-chemistry than the pseudo-free psyche of the church-subordinate aspect thereof. Therefore, in overall terms, the polarity between crime and punishment, of metachemical free soma and pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma, is no less germane to the state-hegemonic aspect of the axis in question than the polarity between evil and goodness, metachemical bound psyche and pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche, is germane to its church-subordinate aspect. Of course, as explained in previous works by me, the pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-chemistry only exist because of hegemonic pressure, a plane up at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, from physics, an element in which, in accordance with male gender actuality, psyche precedes and preponderates over soma, and, being hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry, is free to do so, thereby obliging the subordinate pseudo-female pseudo-element to mirror such an actuality … of psyche over soma, if on terms which, being contrary to female gender actuality, have been described as 'pseudo', with pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche the pseudo-chemical corollaries of physical bound soma and free psyche, the difference being that the preponderance of psyche over soma in this (phenomenal) male element is not reflected in the ratio of psyche to soma of its pseudo-female corollary by dint of the predominance of soma over psyche on the female side of the gender divide, whether in relation to a relative degree (2½: 1½), as with pseudo-chemistry and, indeed, chemistry (appertaining to a different axis) or to an absolute degree (3:1), as in the case of metachemistry and, across the axial divide, pseudo-metachemistry, which would, of course, be subordinate to metaphysics and polar to chemistry on what I customarily describe as secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms vis-a-vis the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity between metaphysics (3:1) and pseudo-physics (2½:1½), the former unequivocally hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry (1:3) and the latter equivocally subordinate to chemistry (1½:2½), with a primary church-hegemonic polarity between the sin of pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche (2½) and the grace of metaphysical free psyche (3), correlative with a primary state-subordinate polarity between the folly of pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma (1½) and the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma (1), but a secondary church-hegemonic polarity between the pseudo-evil of chemical bound psyche (1½) and the pseudo-goodness of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche (1), correlative with a secondary state-subordinate polarity between the pseudo-crime of chemical free soma (2½) and the pseudo-punishment of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma (3). How all this contrasts not only with the primary state-hegemonic polarity between the crime of metachemical free soma (3) and the punishment of pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma (2½), correlative with the primary church-subordinate polarity between the evil of metachemical bound psyche (1) and the goodness of pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche (1½), but also with the secondary state-hegemonic polarity between the pseudo-folly of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma (1) and the pseudo-wisdom of physical bound soma (1½), correlative with the secondary church-subordinate polarity between the pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche (3) and the pseudo-grace of physical free psyche (2½). Either way, whatever the axis, crime and punishment are no less germane to the state on female axial terms than evil and good to the church on such terms, whereas sin and grace are no less germane to the church on male axial terms than folly and wisdom to the state on such terms, with due 'pseudo' or 'genuine' distinctions according with the axis and who or what, in overall gender terms, actually dominates it.

 

Those who are too somatically and therefore criminally free (vain) upstairs, as it were, on the state-hegemonic axis tend to get punished downstairs with pseudo-bound soma (justice), whereas those who are too somatically and therefore pseudo-criminally free (pseudo-vain) downstairs on the church-hegemonic axis tend to get pseudo-punished upstairs, as it were, with pseudo-bound soma (pseudo-justice). Either way, one is alluding to the state aspect, whether hegemonic or subordinate, of each axis in relation to female elements and pseudo-elements respectively or, more accurately, of the transposition, through punishment, of female elements into pseudo-female pseudo-elements.

 

In terms of its female attributes the quickness and hotness in free soma and bound psyche of metachemistry has to be contrasted with the slowness and coldness of chemistry in free soma and bound psyche, while in terms of its male attributes (across the hegemonic gender divide) the heaviness and hardness of physics in free psyche and bound soma has to be contrasted with the lightness and softness of metaphysics in free psyche and bound soma. In terms of the subordinate gender positions, however, the pseudo-softness in pseudo-free soma and pseudo-lightness in pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-male pseudo-metaphysics (a plane down from metachemistry) has to be contrasted with the pseudo-hardness in pseudo-free soma and pseudo-heaviness in pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-male pseudo-physics (a plane down from chemistry). Contrariwise, the pseudo-coldness in pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-slowness in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-female pseudo-chemistry (a plane down from physics) has to be contrasted with the pseudo-hotness in pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-quickness in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-female pseudo-metachemistry (a plane down from metaphysics).

 

Thus the beauty and love in free soma and the ugliness and hatred in bound psyche of metachemistry is absolutely (3:1) hegemonic over the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy in pseudo-free soma and the pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe in pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-metaphysics (1:3).

 

Likewise the strength and pride in free soma and the weakness and humility in bound psyche of chemistry is relatively hegemonic (2½:1½) over the pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure in pseudo-free soma and the pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain in pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics (1½:2½).

 

Contrariwise, the knowledge and pleasure in free psyche and the ignorance and pain in bound soma of physics is relatively hegemonic (2½:1½) over the pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride in pseudo-free psyche and the pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry (1½:2½).

 

Likewise the truth and joy in free psyche and the illusion and woe in bound soma of metaphysics is absolutely hegemonic (3:1) over the pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love in pseudo-free psyche and the pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred in pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-metachemistry (1:3).

 

******

 

Unless you have the ability, the honesty, and even humility to correct yourself, to rectify a long-standing error of logic or judgement, you will not progress and effectively achieve philosophical, or logical, perfection. The ability to overhaul long-standing errors of judgement is crucial to the advancement of a philosophy to the pinnacle of logical perfection, and thus the achievement of Truth.

 

There is a saying: “You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.” Well, believe it or not, I have always reserved the right to scratch my own back.

 

******

 

The primary church-hegemonic polarity between sin and grace in the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics and the free psyche of metaphysics is paralleled, on secondary church-hegemonic terms, by the polarity between pseudo-evil in the bound psyche of chemistry and pseudo-goodness in the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-metachemistry. Correlatively, the primary state-subordinate polarity between folly and wisdom in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-physics and the bound soma of metaphysics is paralleled, on secondary state-subordinate terms, by the polarity between pseudo-crime in the free soma of chemistry and pseudo-punishment in the pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-metachemistry.

 

Contrariwise, the primary state-hegemonic polarity between crime and punishment in the free soma of metachemistry and the pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry is paralleled, on secondary state-hegemonic terms, by the polarity between the pseudo-folly in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-metaphysics and the pseudo-wisdom in the bound soma of physics. Correlatively, the primary church-subordinate polarity between evil and goodness in the bound psyche of metachemistry and the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-chemistry is paralleled, on secondary church-subordinate terms, by the polarity between pseudo-sin in the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-grace in the free psyche of physics.

 

On overall primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the polarity between meekness (sin/folly) and righteousness (grace/wisdom) is paralleled, on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, by that between pseudo-vanity (pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime) and pseudo-justice (pseudo-goodness/pseudo-punishment).

 

On overall primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, the polarity between vanity (crime/evil) and justice (punishment/goodness) is paralleled, on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, by that between pseudo-meekness (pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin) and pseudo-righteousness (pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace).

 

Thus a distinction always needs to be made between the vanity and justice female polarity of the primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis and the pseudo-vanity and pseudo-justice female polarity of the secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, as, correlatively, between the meekness and righteousness male polarity of the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and the pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness male polarity of the secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis. Otherwise confusion through over-simplification will inevitably transpire.

 

Hence whereas the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis is constitutive of a polarity, on overall hegemonic/subordinate gender terms, between pseudo-vanity/meekness and righteousness/pseudo-justice (with reverse gender hegemonic/subordinate implications), the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis is constitutive of such a polarity between vanity/pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness/justice (again with reverse gender hegemonic/subordinate implications).

 

Only when the Meek have been saved to righteousness, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and the pseudo-Vain have been counter-damned to pseudo-justice, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, will there be any prospect of the Vain being damned to justice, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, and the pseudo-Meek being counter-saved to pseudo-righteousness, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pending further developments (as already discussed in several of my previous works).

 

But the salvation of the Meek to righteousness will require a full complement of metaphysics, not just the bound soma (of the crucifixional paradigm) but also the free psyche that can only transpire through total independence of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics 'in back' of the Catholic tradition. For only then will the counter-damnation of the pseudo-Vain to pseudo-justice appertain to a pseudo-metachemistry that is deferentially subordinate to metaphysics rather than subversive of it, not least through a triangular accommodation of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics in traditional church-hegemonic vein. There can be no reservations about the desirability of a stepped-up (resurrected) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in the interests of metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical independence of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, especially since such a stepping-up, equivalent to a revolution, would enable us to transcend the limitations of the Catholic Church and thereby move religion towards if not actually into 'Kingdom Come', to which end I long ago conceived of the ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy as the means whereby the Meek/pseudo-Vain could be delivered from their preyed-upon predicament, at the foot of the traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, in the event of a majority mandate for what has been termed 'religious sovereignty', the sovereignty to end all sovereignties and liberate religion from the paradoxical clutches of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, or, in other words, metachemistry hyped as metaphysics.

 

Pseudo-evil (chemical bound psyche) is no more equivalent to sin (pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche) in lower-order church-hegemonic terms than … pseudo-goodness (pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche) is equivalent to grace (metaphysical free psyche) in upper-order church-hegemonic terms, where we have a distinction not between coldness and pseudo-heaviness, as with the lower-order dichotomy, but between pseudo-hotness and lightness.

 

Pseudo-sin (pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche) is no more equivalent to evil (metachemical bound psyche) in upper-order church-subordinate terms than … pseudo-grace (physical free psyche) is equivalent to goodness (pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche) in lower-order church-subordinate terms, where we have a distinction not between pseudo-lightness and hotness, as with the upper-order dichotomy, but between heaviness and pseudo-coldness.

 

Pseudo-crime (chemical free soma) is no more equivalent to folly (pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma) in lower-order state-subordinate terms than … pseudo-punishment (pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma) is equivalent to wisdom (metaphysical bound soma) in upper-order state-subordinate terms, where we have a distinction not between slowness and pseudo-hardness, as with the lower-order dichotomy, but between pseudo-quickness and softness.

 

Pseudo-folly (pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma) is no more equivalent to crime (metachemical free soma) in upper-order state-hegemonic terms than … pseudo-wisdom (physical bound soma) is equivalent to punishment (pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma) in lower-order state-hegemonic terms, where we have a distinction not between pseudo-softness and quickness, as with the upper-order dichotomy, but between hardness and pseudo-slowness.

 

In terms of the overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity a distinction exists between pseudo-meekness and vanity in upper-order terms vis-a-vis pseudo-righteousness and justice in lower-order terms, while in terms of the overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity a like distinction exists between pseudo-vanity and meekness in lower-order terms vis-a-vis pseudo-justice and righteousness in upper-order terms.

 

With regards to the hegemonic/subordinate relationship, metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics is equivalent to vanity over pseudo-meekness in upper-order state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, while physics over pseudo-chemistry is equivalent to pseudo-righteousness over justice in lower-order state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms.

 

Similarly, chemistry over pseudo-physics is equivalent to pseudo-vanity over meekness in lower-order church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, while metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry is equivalent to righteousness over pseudo-justice in upper-order church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.

 

The primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity is, of course, established on an overall female basis, between vanity and justice, whereas the secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity is established, on overall male terms, between pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness.

 

Contrariwise, the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity is established, on overall male terms, between meekness and righteousness, whereas the secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity is established, on overall female terms, between pseudo-vanity and pseudo-justice.

 

The polarity, on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, between vanity and justice is, of course, equivalent to crime/evil vis-a-vis punishment/goodness, that is, quickness/hotness vis-a-vis pseudo-slowness/pseudo-coldness, whereas the polarity, on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, between pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness is, of course, equivalent to pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin vis-a-vis pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace, that is, pseudo-softness/pseudo-lightness vis-a-vis heaviness/hardness.

 

Contrariwise, the polarity, on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, between meekness and righteousness is, of course, equivalent to sin/folly vis-a-vis grace/wisdom, that is, pseudo-heaviness/pseudo-hardness vis-a-vis lightness/softness, whereas the polarity, on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, between pseudo-vanity and pseudo-justice is, of course, equivalent to pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime vis-a-vis pseudo-goodness/pseudo-punishment, that is, coldness/slowness vis-a-vis pseudo-hotness/pseudo-quickness.

 

Taking this a stage further, one can logically argue that the beauty and love proper to metachemical free soma is polar, in primary state-hegemonic terms, to the pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (if not humiliation) appertaining to pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma, whereas the ugliness and hatred proper to metachemical bound psyche is polar, on primary church-subordinate terms, to the pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride appertaining to pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche.

 

Correlatively, one can logically argue that the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy appertaining to pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma is polar, on secondary state-hegemonic terms, to the ignorance and pain proper to physical bound soma, whereas the pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe appertaining to pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche is polar, on secondary church-subordinate terms, to the knowledge and pleasure proper to physical free psyche.

 

Contrariwise, it can be logically argued that the pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain appertaining to pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche is polar, on primary church-hegemonic terms, to the truth and joy proper to metaphysical free psyche, whereas the pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure appertaining to pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma is polar, on primary state-subordinate terms, to the illusion and woe proper to metaphysical bound soma.

 

Correlatively, it can be logically argued that the weakness and humility proper to chemical bound psyche is polar, on secondary church-hegemonic terms, to the pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love appertaining to pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche, whereas the strength and pride proper to chemical free soma is polar, on secondary state-subordinate terms, to the pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred appertaining to pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma.

 

******

 

It is harder to pull the lower up than it is to bring the higher down.

 

A philosopher can do no more than to take logic to its ultimate conclusion and get everything to add up. That, for me, is philosophical perfection.

 

Luther – the bad, mad monk who ended-up getting married and fathering six children by an ex-nun. What a religious come-down!

 

Now any f***ing vicar can preach the 'word of God' (sic.) from an ungodly pulpit while his wife and kids look on.

 

Are historical religious scams, like indulgences (which had a tradition going back to ancient Roman times), any worse than the commercial scams that are an everyday part of largely Protestant-derived secular modernity? I think not.

 

The Catholic Church of the Renaissance, though deeply flawed, was not wrong to be Catholic; only wrong to be flawed and undermined by papal and ecclesiastic abuses.

 

The paradox of 'hippie squares'. You think, as a youth, that you're being hip but, really, with things like square-covered records (never mind the square-covered CDs that came later), checked shirts (including so-called lumberjack shirts), and those little square 'beat poet' books (or booklets), you are anything but hip. Simply a long-haired square, with a fatality towards metachemistry (and therefore all things beautiful and loving) and a tolerance, if not indulgence, of pitch-oriented guitar jerks whose elongated solos appear to scale the infinity of space. Idealistic youth? More like materialism in disguise, or materialism confounded with idealism.

 

Of course, that isn't to say one misspent one's youth. Youth is youth, and what one has since discovered is that there were aspects of it which were not as hip, or round, as one may have thought at the time.

 

These days, a square little Allen Ginsberg book of poems would have no appeal to me whatsoever. As for the way music was packaged – record in sleeve/cover resembling circle in a square, or pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry (like London bus stops) – forget it. I would have some reservations about buying even CDs, never mind LPs, these days.

 

I may have played football, from time to time, in the reserves, but more often I was in the school first team of my year, where I played out on the wing and endeavoured to fly past defenders before curling in a 'high ball'.

 

On Sundays I like to buy what I take to be something suitably insane in Sainsbury's, like a box of Swedish meatballs or a small packet of sausage rolls. One of these days I may even buy some scotch eggs. But one thing's for sure: no pizza on Sundays!

 

Thinking to write, writing to be read, and being read only to be talked about, and not necessarily in the most flattering terms, least of all by those who, like women, are especially partial to speech, which is apt, for want of knowledgeable evidence, to degenerate into mere gossip!

 

One needs a heck of a lot of resolve in reserve to be able to continue with one's vocational commitments to literature in close proximity to the brutal noise which workers in this environment daily inflict upon one. A heck of a lot!

 

A world full of levelling swine is a world in chaos, a world headed down for the dark side or, at any rate, for more dark than light, pretty much like the one we still live in today.

 

He was a sun-drenched, pizza-chomping, loud-mouthed sonofabitch who liked to jerk off, whenever possible, to the sequential rhythms of some sax-oriented modern jazz from out West. He was no friend of mine.

 

******

 

To contrast Abstract Expressionism with Abstract Impressionism, as one would contrast the noumenal objectivity of metachemical space (spatial) with the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical time (repetitive), or absolute outsanity with absolute insanity, further contrasting what might be called Abstract pseudo-Impressionism with Abstract pseudo-Expressionism, as one would contrast the noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-time (sequential) with the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-space (spaced), or absolute pseudo-insanity with absolute pseudo-outsanity.

 

Thus no less than metachemistry is hegemonic over pseudo-metaphysics and, by contrast, metaphysics hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry, so, in parallel vein, would Abstract Expressionism be hegemonic over Abstract pseudo-Impressionism and, by contrast, Abstract Impressionism hegemonic over Abstract pseudo-Expressionism.

 

Hence a contrast between space and pseudo-time, noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity on the one hand, that of Abstract Expressionism and Abstract pseudo-Impressionism, but one between time and pseudo-space, noumenal subjectivity and noumenal pseudo-objectivity on the other hand, that of Abstract Impressionism and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism.

 

A simple distinction between the alpha/pseudo-omega and the omega/pseudo-alpha of abstraction would be of art that was frameless in the hegemonic case and surrounded by a frame in the subordinate case, namely that of the pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha of the abstract, which, in relation to the above theory, would be pseudo-Impressionism and pseudo-Expressionism, given that the ratio of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche in the former case and of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma in the latter case should be 1:3, the reverse, in other words, of the 3:1 ratio of freedom to binding characterizing each of the hegemonic elements, be it metachemical (ohjectively expressionist in free soma/bound psyche) or metaphysical (subjectively impressionist in free psyche/bound soma).

 

Of course, in conceiving of such theories (independently, it may well be, of any literal correspondence with historical reality or painterly evidence), one has taken the existing terminology of Abstract Expressionism and Abstract Impressionism and simply enlarged upon it, making, with the addition of Abstract pseudo-Impressionism and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism, for a more comprehensive perspective and, indeed, antithesis, in keeping with the tendency of my philosophy to have a subordinate gender position under – one plane down – a hegemonic one, as in pseudo-omega under alpha or, conversely, pseudo-alpha under omega.

 

My philosophy would not, however, solely identify the abstract with what is noumenal, since anyone familiar with it, from earlier works, would know that, for me, the abstract is secondary to the concrete, as male to female, on both noumenal (ethereal) and phenomenal (corporeal) planes, and can therefore, like the concrete itself, be either absolute or relative, that is, elemental or molecular, with an absolute concrete/abstract antithesis existing between elemental particles and elemental wavicles, as between will and soul, but a relative concrete/abstract antithesis existing between molecular particles and molecular wavicles, as between spirit and ego, the former, in each antithetical case, objective (female) and the latter subjective (male).

 

Therefore, in relation to my philosophy, the position assigned to Abstract Expressionism would accord with the absolute concrete and that assigned to Abstract Impressionism with the absolute abstract, while the distinction drawn, subordinately, between Abstract pseudo-Impressionism and Abstract pseudo-Expressionism would accord with the absolute pseudo-abstract and the absolute pseudo-concrete respectively.

 

Therefore while I may have logical reservations about equating the term 'abstract' only with what is noumenal or ethereal, irrespective of gender, I can have no reservations whatsoever about limiting it to the male side of life in both phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal terms, as in relation to whatever corresponds with molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, physics and metaphysics, ego and soul. Certainly, Abstract Expressionism (which, being expressionistic, is objective) could have no place here, while Abstract Impressionism (which, being impressionistic, is subjective) would only apply to the noumenal, or ethereal, plane of abstraction, as an approximation to metaphysics.

 

Expressionism and Impressionism, coupled, for argument's sake, to pseudo-Impressionism and pseudo-Expressionism respectively, would, of course, correspond to phenomenal, or corporeal, manifestations (molecular) of the concrete and abstract, together with their pseudo-abstract and pseudo-concrete subordinates in what should be a volume/pseudo-mass and mass/pseudo-volume pairing antithesis having more relevance to spirit/pseudo-ego and ego/pseudo-spirit than to any absolute distinctions between will/pseudo-soul and soul/pseudo-will in space/pseudo-time and time/pseudo-space respectively. But that is not a subject I need enlarge upon, least of all on a purely or largely theoretical and speculative basis!

 

******

 

Equality between the genders? The 'sacred cow' of a soulless civilization rooted in some degree of constitutional barbarity.

 

It is not whether you are educated or not, but how and to what ends.

 

It is more impressive to be self-educated than to have been educated by others.

 

It is one of the great ironies of Western history that, even with its Marian shortcomings, the real protest against 'the world' happens to be Catholic, not Protestant, and that Protestantism, lacking otherworldly pretensions, leads to a position of world-acceptance and even world-exploitation. Of course, Catholicism could be accused, by its opponents, of sanctifying 'the world' in the persons, or world personifications, of the 'Mother and Child', which strongly suggest a concession if not commitment to 'family values', at loggerheads not only with otherworldly aspirations but also with Christ as a vehicle of salvation, traditionally, from 'the world', including, not least, its family values and whatever appertains to the female side of life.

 

Fortunately the Catholic Church had and continues to have the perfect foil to the mainstream female-dominated world, in the guise of a celibate clergy. For a celibate priest is the only type of priest worthy of respect from a standpoint closer to the otherworldly criteria of Christ, in whom one has a personification of the Ideal in relation to males. However, in the case of females, short of the neutralization that would keep them pseudo-metachemically subordinate to a male hegemony in metaphysics, virginity is no Ideal but a consequence of that metachemically-sanctioned vacuum which leads to objectivity and the struggle to acquire, via a male willing (contrary to his actual gender interests) to 'play ball', a surrogate plenum in the guise of offspring.

 

Hence the 'Mother and Child' resolution of such a struggle, aided and abetted by beauty and love, that makes for mainstream worldliness and the relative sanctification of 'family values'. Yet this worldliness, though inescapable, is not an end-in-itself, at least for the male, but, if not exactly the means to a higher end then, at any rate, that which is axially polar to the world-renouncing celibacy of metaphysical wisdom in respect of, among others, priests and saints. The other axis, being heretical from a church-hegemonic standpoint, does not and cannot endorse celibacy, because its apex is rooted, autocratically, in the royal need – certainly in Britain and not a few other European countries – of an heir or heirs to the throne, and its polarity, while equivocally characterized by the dominance of male criteria, is only able to pursue its own largely plutocratic interests at the expense of unconstrained autocracy and therefore as a guarantor of constitutionality in the metachemical context officially ruling over it. In neither case is celibacy of much relevance, and even the parliamentary/puritan type of worldliness is not, in England, an end-in-itself but, much as it may formerly have existed in fear of Communism (as of a worker-oriented descent into a sub-humanist hell), rather a context in which many if not most of its members live partly in hope of deliverance, via various types of honours, from their lowly estate as commoners to some kind of netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly promotion that may culminate, for those so honoured, in a major change of class status.

 

Thus whereas the directionality of the church-hegemonic axis is towards otherworldly (metaphysical) deliverance from a female-dominated type of worldliness (chemistry over pseudo-physics), the directionality of the state-hegemonic axis is towards netherworldly (metachemical) deliverance from a male-dominated type of worldliness (physics over pseudo-chemistry), and I fancy that, just as the former kind of deliverance favours the interests of males (as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics), so the latter kind, whatever appearances to the contrary may suggest, favours the interests of females (as from pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry) who, in the event of class promotion, would move from a pseudo-chemical subordinate position, as pseudo-females, under physical males to a metachemically hegemonic position, as upper-class females, over pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-males, the type of 'male' especially susceptible to the enticements of sensuality and as far removed from the priestly ideal of celibacy as it is humanly possible to be.

 

All in all, despite its shortcomings and limitations, I still respect the Catholic Church for the nature of its axial directionality under the guidance of a celibate clergy. But it will still have to be overhauled, by the coming 'resurrection' of the church-hegemonic axis, if 'Kingdom Come', or its nearest equivalence, is eventually to transpire in relation to a full complement of metaphysics, free psyche as well as bound soma (the crucifixional paradigm) and, correlative with this, a subordinate and properly deferential pseudo-metachemistry for pseudo-females, an eventuality, were it to transpire, requiring complete independence from all modes, contemporary as well as historic, of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, and thus from the traditional subsuming of such pseudo-metachemistry (coupled to a 'done-down' truncated metaphysics) into the age-old triangularity that, like the sharp pediments which are its cultural or architectural corollary, attest to metachemical dominion.

 

******

 

I guess the fulcrum or focus of rock 'n' roll is, was, and probably always will be sex, which is what both energizes it and renders a majority of its productions fairly predictable within a popular context, with excursions elsewhere, as into the more serious kinds of progressive rock, pretty much the exception to the general rule, notwithstanding the fact that some of which excursions fall flat for want of moral credibility or religious sincerity under pressure, it may well be, of obedience to the dread hand of commercial requirement, expectation, and actual control. Rock is, to be sure, a 'broad church', but its mainstream course tends to be pretty narrow in its sex-oriented gender relativity. And that narrowness, which is not exempt from repetitious banality and brain-washing reiteration, more usually bores and depresses me.

 

Most people would not accept their circumstances were they not obliged to live the way they do.

 

As a rule, night grants you a peaceful reprieve from the day's warfare, as from everything 'under the sun', including unruly neighbours.

 

It could be argued that most people only experience real peace when asleep.

 

People would not love animals so much did they not detest one another.

 

Aphoristic philosophy, or true philosophy, is the one literary genre that follows from what is thought rather than from what is read, written, or spoken, like all the others, including, most especially, fiction, poetry, and drama.

 

If you hate what you do, don't do it!

 

All societies are comprised of two sides: the lawful dog-eat-dog on the one hand, and the unlawful dog-eat-dog on the other.

 

The Rich always have something in reserve; the Poor don't.

 

Most people use their brains only in the service of their bodies, not of their minds.

 

The brain may rule the body, especially in the case of females, but the (male) mind can transcend it, by leading the brain.

 

The majority of people are neither scientific brains nor religious minds, but either political or economic bodies, with a correspondingly feminine or masculine bias.

 

One could argue that whereas the autocrat will normally be a brain and the theocrat a mind, the democratic and plutocratic masses will generally correspond to opposite types of bodies.

 

Being a mind is no small distinction in a world characterized by bodies, including those of children, and dominated by brains.

 

It has been said that great minds think alike, and, if so, that would have to be because they subjectively converge upon a religious omega point – that of God in Heaven.

 

Those who deliver sermons tend to reproduce something old. Those who deliver papers, by contrast, tend to introduce something new, even if it is most likely to be concrete as opposed to abstract.

 

The thoughts of theologians should be distinguished from the speeches of scientists, as the readings of economists from the writings of politicians.

 

The thoughts of philosophers differ from those of theologians by being, in some sense, a chip off the scientific block, such that will most likely, in correlating hitherto isolated fields of research in the interests of a more comprehensive – and possibly truer – perspective, introduce something new from a standpoint most likely to be abstract as opposed to concrete.

 

Hence neither a psychological nor a physiological partisanship, as with scientific specialists, but a combination of both psychology and physiology to arrive at a more credible perspective such that does proper justice, given the requirements of ratio differentiation, to the element or subject as a whole. With me, there can be no subconscious without a supersensuous precondition in metachemistry. Nor, conversely, can there be any subsensuous in metaphysics without a superconscious precondition such that, as with metachemistry, stands to its extrapolative corollary in a most vis-a-vis least (3:1) ratio commensurate with absolute, or noumenal, criteria, as germane to what is ethereal. As for the unconscious, which should be distinguished from the subconscious, that, to me, would be meaningless were it not conceived as the extrapolative corollary of the sensuous in chemistry, the converse of the unsensuous in physics as the extrapolative corollary of consciousness which, like the sensuous in chemistry, would stand in a more vis-a-vis less (2½:1½) ratio commensurate with relative, or phenomenal, criteria, as germane to what is corporeal.

 

******

 

I would have serious reservations about entering any building crowned by an angular pediment, whether or not the said pediment incorporated a roundel within its triangular dominance. Naturally, I tend to avoid buildings whose faηades sport what I habitually think of as a rectilinear – as opposed to curvilinear – pediment, Alexandra Palace, which I can see from my bedroom, being a case in point, and I would certainly have definite reservations about entering it!

 

One might suppose that the proper place or environment for buildings with an angular pediment would be atop a mountain, not a hill. By contrast, a church with a cupola-dominated pediment, whether or not the actual pediment itself was curvilinear, should ideally by sited on the brow of a hill, overlooking the town from a vantage-point arguably closer to heaven, but not so far removed from the town or townsfolk as to be inaccessible. For unlike castles, churches were designed to invite people in, not to keep them out.

 

Eventually, the Reichstag got its dome, but not in the neo-classical manner that Adolf Hitler had envisaged. Rather, in a pleasingly modernist style compliments of a British architect named Norman Foster.

 

There can be few centres of politics, never mind government, in the world that would put the Reichstag in the proverbial shade. The Houses of Parliament in London, by contrast, do not inspire me to vote, and I have to confess to always having strong reservations about doing so. Probably in my check-shirted, LP-buying youth, Big Ben, with its arguably if not appropriately Anglican circle (clock face) in a square (tower), would have appeared less metachemically/pseudo-metaphysically objectionable to me than has subsequently transpired to being the case.

 

******

 

The 'Dragon' that has to be neutralized if the Saint is to be victorious (and gain hegemonic peace of mind) will not be defeated by his 'turning the other cheek'. It must first of all be fought.

 

I resent nothing more than intrusions into my privacy, including my freedom to think, by noisy or censorious neighbours, especially when they also happen to be foreigners with, to judge by experience, a marked sensitivity if not antipathy to thought. Needless to say, I would be loathe to let such intrusions go unpunished.

 

Generally speaking, the masses resist education, so egalitarian efforts to impose it upon them are doomed to failure. Education is the privilege of a select few who don't have to live with the masses and are not subject, in consequence, to their censorious or hostile attitude to thought, as to thinking and intellectual endeavour generally, all of which goes against their outgoing, largely female-dominated natures.

 

Egalitarian rhetoric, especially that involving education, by vote-hungry politicians should be seen for what it is worth and contemptuously dismissed.

 

Only an egalitarian fool would strive to educate the ineducable.

 

Dominated by females, children, and animals, the masses resist thought and hold it against the thinker as one who subjectively goes against the grain of their family-oriented objectivity, their somatically-dominated clear-mindedness and, for want of a better word, 'outsanity', such that brands intellectual activity with the derogatory epithet 'mental'.

 

Anyone who lives on a higher plane than the masses, the people, one's neighbours, etc., is their enemy, whether he be speaker or thinker, and however he may regard his relationship with them.

 

God is as much an enemy of the people in one way as the Devil is their enemy in another, albeit they are the enemies of different – even opposite – gender-conditioned manifestations of the people.

 

The closer my physical proximity to people, neighbours and nearby workmen not least, the more have I striven to mentally distance myself from them and to resist their endeavours to physically thwart me in the pursuit of my intellectual labours.

 

My philosophy was only possible in spite of people, not because of them.

 

******

 

Some things fall from above to below. Other things rise from below to above, albeit from a different below to a different above. Like water falling from fire and air rising (at least in part) from vegetation, though whatever falls from above is likely to be of the opposite gender to whatever rises from below. Hence the distinction, not to mention struggle, between devolution and evolution.

 

There can be no 'Risen Virgin', only a counter-fall (counter-damnation) of that which is chemical (of the Mother) to what is pseudo-metachemical (of the pseudo-Virgin) as the necessary corollary, for females, of the rise (salvation) of that which is pseudo-physical (of the pseudo-Son) to what is metaphysical (of the Father).

 

But what falls from the Virgin, as it were, to the Mother necessarily drags down with it the pseudo-Father to the pseudo-Son, just as, by complete contrast, what rises from the Son to the Father necessarily drags up with it the pseudo-Mother to the pseudo-Virgin – at least in terms of a simple logical antithesis between falling/pseudo-rising and rising/pseudo-falling which has nothing whatsoever to do with axial differentiation between rises/counter-falls and falls/counter-rises, as already described.

 

The female may fall from metachemistry (the Virgin) to chemistry (the Mother), but the pseudo-male can only pseudo-rise from pseudo-metaphysics (the pseudo-Father) to pseudo-physics (the pseudo-Son). Contrariwise, the male may rise from physics (the Son) to metaphysics (the Father), but the pseudo-female can only pseudo-fall from pseudo-chemistry (the pseudo-Mother) to pseudo-metachemistry (the pseudo-Virgin). However, all this somewhat contrasts with the axial rise of the pseudo-Son to the Father, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and the axial counter-fall of the Mother to the pseudo-Virgin, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, whereby the lower-order pseudo-male becomes, through salvation, upper-order male, and the lower-order female becomes, through counter-damnation, upper-order pseudo-female. Contrariwise, the axial rise (salvation) of the pseudo-Son and counter-fall (counter-damnation) of the Mother should lead to the axial fall (damnation) of the Virgin to the pseudo-Mother, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, and the axial counter-rise (counter-salvation) of the pseudo-Father to the Son, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, whereby the upper-order female becomes, through damnation, lower-order pseudo-female and the upper-order pseudo-male becomes, through counter-salvation, lower-order male.

 

What the above distinctions tend to prove is that what happens in nature, with parallel higher and lower gender-divisible positions which tend to rotate in opposite directions, depending on which gender is hegemonic, is not characteristic of what happens – or can happen – in civilization, where the upper and lower gender-divisible positions are diagonally contrary (rather than vertically parallel) and tend to the reversal, in consequence, of who is constitutive of the hegemonic gender, depending on whether a rise (coupled to a counter-fall) or a fall (coupled to a counter-rise) is the axial outcome. Only civilization can put an end to the opposing gyrations of nature, as of that which stems from the galactic world order in the centrifugal or centripetal, objective or subjective cyclic spiralling of a recurrence that, whether infinite and finite (female) or temporal and eternal (male), characterized by the dominance of a vacuum (female) or of a plenum (male), can never cease to spin in opposite directions with little hope of peace or rest. It is by combining upper and lower diagonally contrary gender positions that civilization achieves a stability which defies the cyclic recurrence of nature and makes deliverance from it possible, though less in relation to itself than to what may one day transcend civilization in the eternity and pseudo-infinity, the metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry of 'Kingdom Come', the structure of which, served by an administrative aside to the Centre proper, should be completely beyond the sway of nature in both of its recurrences, since antithetical to the Galaxy in its cultural universality and achievement of a non-polar stability, a stability beyond even axial relativity in the absolutism of its structured centro-complexification.

 

You can have doubts about civilization, especially since it divides, over and above gender polarity, into separate axes that tend to be at loggerheads, but the solution is not, however, a 'return to nature', with its clockwise and anti-clockwise spinning or cycling, its opposite types of noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal recurrence. The solution, rather, is evolutionary progress towards that which we can have absolutely no reservations about because transcending both axial and polar relativity in the absolutism of its non-axial, non-polar gender-divisible structure strictly commensurate with Culture writ large. That is, with not only a civilized check on nature which co-exists with it but, more importantly, the antithesis to nature which is the outcome of civilization as it advances beyond 'the world' towards an otherworldly goal that will be its own centre, not, like a quasar/black hole, the centre of the Galaxy, as of any galaxy, but central to itself and with whatever chooses to identify with it in the quest for true universality, antithetical, in every respect, to the false universality which engendered, largely on a devolutionary basis, the myriad galaxies of which our galaxy, the so-called 'Milky Way', is but a single – and possibly exceptional – example. The Centre to come, commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', will not encourage divergence but convergence, not contraction but expansion, not beauty but truth, not doing (rooted in the vacuous necessity of will) but being (centred in the soulful core of the psychic self), not freedom but liberation from freedom and attainment, in consequence, of the peace that is only possible once the war of conflicting opposites is no more and the Dragon has been slain, neutralized for all pseudo-Infinity, by the triumphant Saint whose peaceful reign will be eternal, as His airy wings hover, in metaphysics, above the constrained fiery wings, in pseudo-metachemistry, of His defeated enemy, held down and in check for evermore.

 

More comprehensively than the above, the objective freely somatic virtues (coupled to objective unfreely psychic vices) and pseudo-subjective pseudo-freely somatic pseudo-virtues (coupled to pseudo-subjective pseudo-unfreely psychic pseudo-vices) of the mainstream and subordinate clockwise cycles of female-dominated nature/pseudo-nurture on both noumenal and phenomenal planes vis-a-vis the subjective freely psychic virtues (coupled to subjective unfreely somatic vices) and pseudo-objective pseudo-freely psychic pseudo-virtues (coupled to pseudo-objective pseudo-unfreely somatic pseudo-vices) of the mainstream and subordinate anti-clockwise cycles of male-dominated nurture/pseudo-nature on both phenomenal and noumenal planes, neither of which are constitutive of civilization, still less of what transcends it in non-axial, non-polar terms.

 

Christianity differs from heathenism as civilization from nature, and Christianity is largely identifiable with Western civilization, the only civilization that, taking its stand on the religion of the Cross, is non-cyclical in its identification with bisecting axes, not least on a diagonal Catholic/Protestant basis. Other so-called 'world religions' tend to favour the cyclic, whether on a clockwise basis like, arguably, Judaism and Hinduism, or on an anti-clockwise basis like, I would argue, Islam and Buddhism, which, however one chooses to interpret the respective orientations of these religions in terms of either a bias towards noumenal absolutism like, arguably, Judaism and Buddhism in their opposite ways, or a bias towards phenomenal relativity like, arguably, Hinduism and Islam in their opposite ways, suggests to this author a closer relationship with nature that, whether characterized by female- or male-hegemonic criteria, not only distinguishes them from Christianity, as the religion of Western civilization par excellence, but rather indicates a heathenistic shortfall from the non-cyclical disposition, through its axial integrity, of the religion of Christ which, with the inevitable resurrection of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, would have the capability to become effectively Superchristian, and therefore the means whereby evolutionary progress beyond the axial differentiation of Christianity could be achieved … in the interests of the ultimate Centre, antithetical, in every respect, to the incessant cycles of nature and hence of that which stems, on an extrapolative and necessarily attenuated basis, from the galactic world order which the Christian civilization was able to check but not, alas, transcend. Only through Western-dominated globalization will it be possible for the heathenistic Infidel, the unbeliever in the religion of the Cross, with its axial implications, not only to be curbed but, more significantly, liberated from his cyclic recurrence in the name of the still centre of universal peace.

 

One could argue that Western civilization in Europe was saved from its own degeneration in the twentieth century largely by and through the United States of America, whose intervention against and/or opposition to both Communism and Fascism, the female-dominated clockwise cycling of the one and the male-dominated reactionary anti-clockwise cycling of the other, eventually extricated Europe from the secular grip of its own unchristian degeneration and infused new blood, new life into its creaking carcass, thereby enabling it to join with America in the ongoing struggle against anti-Western cyclic threats to the Christian civilization generally, most of which, unlike their Western communist and fascist counterparts of more recent times, are still rooted in a cosmos-dominated natural/nurtural past.

 

******

 

For most people life simply mirrors the alternation between day and night, sun and moon, soma and psyche, state and church, with war between people during the day and peace with oneself at night, even war between men during the day and peace with women at night, presuming upon a kind of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (protestant) polarity in the one case, and a kind of state-subordinate/church-hegemonic (catholic) polarity in the other case, though that would, of course, be largely speculative, since I am not convinced that it could be logically proved.

 

When does expression become explosion and when, by contrast, does impression become implosion? I guess the obvious answer must be: beyond the point of retention, when the centrifugal becomes overly divergent (and therefore no longer expressive) and the centripetal overly convergent (and therefore no longer impressive), with catastrophic results.

 

One hears a lot about the space-time continuum and other such clichιs of modern science, but I, being self-taught and suspicious of authority, have long preferred to make a distinction between space (as spatial) and pseudo-time (as sequential) on the one hand, and time (as repetitive) and pseudo-space (as spaced) on the other hand, neither of which would be compatible with the other, since significant of two different types of space and two different kinds of time. As for the distinction I also make – and have long made – between volume (as volumetric) and pseudo-mass (as massed) on the one hand, and mass (as massive) and pseudo-volume (as voluminous) on the other hand, here, too, there is no connection or continuum between what are, in effect, opposite types of volume and opposite kinds of mass, neither of which could possibly be compatible, never mind identical, with the other.

 

----------------------

 

GREEN NOTEBOOK 2

 

The most I can say about the small, antiquated, dysfunctional computers at my local library in the borough of north London I happen to live in is that on some days, for whatever reason, they are less of a sick joke than on others. But, really, it doesn't take much intelligence to work out that the 'disadvantaged' remain disadvantaged in boroughs where the council either can't afford to buy decent computers for their libraries or prefer to make do with old ones in the interests of other priorities, including their own pockets. Now that, at any rate, sounds true to life.

 

I cannot conceive of a dignified life that is not independent of other people, especially of unruly neighbours and noisy workmen.

 

The State rules by day, but the Church at night, rather like the Sun and the Moon.

 

I have kept my best work in reserve for last.

 

As foreigners, they often lack the skills, social as well as occupational, to integrate with the indigenous, so they simply breed and are obliged to claim benefit while marking time, time for … integration in the next generation? Or is integration not possible in some cases? Not even desirable? Even I have reservations about how far I am prepared to integrate into a society whose criteria are not always ethnically compatible with my own, especially since, as an Irishman, I feel acutely embarrassed by so much of what passes for the norm in a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society, and am correspondingly reluctant to engage with it.

 

Man is far more considerate of which foreign species are introduced into a natural habitat than he is of which foreigners are allowed into his native land. Or, rather, some men are. Namely the ones responsible for making such decisions in the first place!

 

Are we not all the victims of other men, who make decisions for us or independently of us or even against us? I believe so. And that is one of the contributory factors to why society can be such a problematic thing, with a dual-sided nature that both protects and exploits, encourages and undermines, advances and retards.

 

'Anything goes' only because and when people are ignorant of what should or shouldn't 'go', and why. A civilization in terminal decline and disintegration plays host to much that is not characteristic of its past, but rather symptomatic of outside influence and interference. These days the West looks to America for guidance, but America itself is far from socially or ethnically homogeneous and often sends out contradictory signals. Germany is less heterogeneous, despite mass immigration from East Europe and other countries, and is besides a more suitable role model for Europe than America, being at the centre not only of Europe but, I guess, of what it means to be European.

 

Not a day passes by but one feels one is being made war upon by foreigners or people of foreign origin, many of whom are indifferent if not hostile to Christianity. Such is life in the hideously cosmopolitan metropolis of London, where nothing one holds dear or sacred can be taken for granted, and where burly fools rush in or, more correctly, muscle in where angels would fear to tread, were it not a city hostile to the angelic and long given to some demonic protest that paradoxically culminates underground. Surely this is an Irishman's nightmare?

 

The other day, while I was attending to some obligation in Wood Green, I overheard a self-professed young Irishman saying to another man, with whom he was evidently in conversation: “The number of foreigners in London upsets me. As an Irishman I get upset by all those foreigners.” Well, you are not the only one. Though, I must say, I found his comment strangely comforting at the time, to know that there are others like oneself, who don't take the London cosmopolitanism for granted but, rather, feel repelled and alienated by it, by the babble of conflicting tongues and confusion of ethnic distinctions. But whether that is appreciably any worse than the ethnic rivalry between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland … is a debatable point. I, for one, could not live with a kind of tribal psychosis of being this or that, especially since I tend to favour a more revolutionary solution to the problem of outmoded religion, whatever its provenance.

 

At last, after some six months or more the workmen next-door have dismantled and removed the scaffolding from front and back, the latter of which was particularly annoying in that not only did it overlap with part of my accommodation, partially passing under my window and resting on the roof to my downstairs landing, but the tarpaulin loosely hanging from the main scaffold tended to break loose from its moorings in the wind and take periodic swipes at my slanting roof and back wall, at night more so than during the day, so that there was no escaping from it and certainly no reprieve. Even earplugs were only of partial use, so fierce, at times, was the thwack of the pegs dangling on uncertain strings from the tarpaulin proper, which would recoil under pressure from the wind only to launch a fresh assault on my bedroom with what sounded like redoubled gusto. Frankly, this recurring rat-a-tat-tat of the dangling pegs, which should have fastened the tarpaulin to the scaffolding, was a kind of torture, from which I have emerged with some additional psychological scarring to that caused by the persistent manual work with which the house next-door has been plagued for several months, and still continues, despite the removal of scaffolding, to be intermittently plagued.

 

******

 

I have just completed another literary trip through Germany, one of several in recent months, compliments of an 'Eyewitness Travel' guide that I borrowed from one of the Haringey libraries, and, as usual, I am mentally exhausted and not a little privately disgusted by the alarming number of printing errors apparently overlooked and/or committed at various stages of the editing and/or printing process for what is described as a 2008 reprint (with revisions) of a 2001 publication, and one, moreover, that had already undergone at least five prior reprints! The fact that this publication had been farmed out to a Chinese printing company (South China Printing Company Ltd) may well have had some bearing on the result, commendable though it is that a Chinese company should be able to print in English. But it is a sad fact, nevertheless, that publications of this nature, which are in other respects quite excellent and nobly intentioned, should be flawed by so many typographical mistakes. These books surely deserve better, as, I might add, do the public, especially those who, unlike myself, actually buy them!

 

Buy virtually any of my eBooks – if you dare – and you'll probably find far fewer typographical blunders. In fact, you will probably be able to read without living in fearful anticipation of the next printing or spelling error. But, unfortunately for me, most people will continue to buy books. Which is ironic, really, though not, I dare say, without axial or social implications at variance with my own!

 

German is such a fantastically complex language that you can only admire Germans for being able to speak it. Even the lowliest German must be privy to grammatical complexities which non-German speakers would be entirely ignorant of and unable, for the most part, to broach or risk being confronted by, for fear of having their ignorance and anti-German pretensions exposed. Learning German is, indeed, a humbling experience, and doubtless one that those who are too proud to wish to learn would not relish.

 

It must be difficult enough for a German to speak Deutsch, never mind a foreigner. And then there are the various dialects within any given German-speaking country, not to mention the difficulties which arise when borders are crossed and Germans, Austrians, and Swiss Germans endeavour to make sense of one another!

 

******

 

Those who buy surfing credits in bulk from Traffic Exchanges squeeze out the non-buying users, in consequence of which one tends to see too many adverts of the same kind and quickly becomes bored, if not seriously disillusioned, with the nature of what happens on any given Traffic Generating site especially susceptible to such users. Frankly, for all the good they do in terms of generating revenue for the non-paying customer (and probably for not a few of the paying customers to boot), you might as well avoid Traffic Exchanges and simply concentrate on submitting such sites as you have to Social Networks and the occasional Internet Directory.

 

In my experience, the mentally defective are usually physically effective (fit, strong, active, healthy, etc.) and the mentally effective, by contrast, somewhat prone to physical defects or, at any rate, to a defective physique. You can, I suppose, have it both ways, but never to any great extent.

 

“What do you think about that?” is a common enough expression, and most people, if asked, would provide some kind of answer. But have they really thought about the subject in question, whatever it may be? No, the actual process of thinking about anything is so frowned upon by a majority of people, especially in public, that it almost goes without saying that an opinion about something doesn't necessarily require any conscious thought!

 

Egalitarianism is always popular with the masses, who are naturally suspicious if not envious of elites and of anyone culturally distinguished.

 

With physical writings – novels, essays, etc. - form determines content, if not the level of contentment. With metaphysical writings – aphorisms, maxims, etc. – contentment, if not content, determines form. It is not the ego but the soul that is the fulcrum of the latter kind of writings, not knowledge or, more correctly, knowledge as the basis of pleasure, but truth or, more correctly, joy as the basis of truth.

 

The Sun was so thickly veiled behind a dense mound of shifting cloud that it looked more like the Moon, and it seemed as though, with no shadows, my surroundings had been turned into a premature night without the benefit, however, of peace and quiet because still restless in its daytime pretensions. One was adrift, as it were, in a kind of limbo that refused to release the semblance of night from daytime clutches, leaving one marooned and not a little disoriented, as one waited patiently for a non-approaching train.

 

Catholicism invented cathedrals. In fact, cathedrals are not a Protestant phenomenon, though so-called Anglo-Catholicism, otherwise known as Anglicanism, has its fair share of cathedrals, including the magnificent St Paul's. The egalitarian Protestants – Puritans, Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, and the like – have never gone in for anything so hierarchical as cathedrals, except, in a manner of speaking, to commerce, where even they recognize some kind of business-oriented hierarchy. But cathedrals are certainly an appropriate setting for any Christ 'On High', nailed to the Cross, whether he be closer to the Alpha, as arguably in the Anglican case, or closer to the Omega, as is surely true of Roman Catholicism, given the axial contrast between the two upper-order types of Church which makes for a kind of bias towards what some would describe as either 'the Father' or 'the Holy Ghost', but which I would identify with a bias, in Christ, towards either Devil the Mother (hyped as God the Father) or Heaven the Holy Soul (the concomitant of which, in metaphysical free psyche, would of course be God the Father or, in simple parlance, godfatherliness, the factor most approximating superconsciousness within a context governed by the supersensibility of soul and therefore standing to the latter as, in metaphorical terms, candlelight to candle flame).

 

******

 

Most people in Britain are like roses, not tulips, although there are quite a few who resemble sunflowers, and they would tend to put even roses in the shade of their outgoing natures.

 

I would be suspicious of artists, never mind thinkers, who weren't tulip-like, that is, inward-turning and capable of introspection and more, in consequence, than a slavish adherence to nature.

 

They sweep the dirt of the past under the rug of history and then hoover – if not hover – over it with the smugness of modernity, confident that some prophet of futurity will conveniently overlook it in his obsession with a shiny bright future.

 

History is a bitch desperately striving to become a bastard.

 

The truly mature tend to see themselves as being beyond nature … in some cultural realm closer to the ultimate nurture.

 

The merely nurtural tend to bow via the pseudo-natural to Supernature, whereas the natural, when not impeded and led astray by external forces, tend to aspire towards Supernurture – at least when male or, rather, pseudo-male and therefore under the sway of nature but characterized, all the same, by the pseudo-nurture of sin.

 

A decadent civilization does not encourage the natural/pseudo-nurtural to aspire towards Supernurture/pseudo-Supernature, as towards Superman/pseudo-Superwoman, but renders them more vulnerable, through some secular alternative to Marianism like republican socialism, to the predations of the pseudo-nature/nurture-financed Supernatural/pseudo-Supernurtural.

 

Man is no more capable of anything than is God. Both operate within different kinds of limitations specific to masculine and divine parameters. The same could be said, within other (if contrary) parameters, of woman and the Devil.

 

The human can be masculine or feminine (not to mention pseudo-feminine or pseudo-masculine in gender subordination to a hegemonic masculinity or femininity), the Superhuman supermasculine or superfeminine (not to mention pseudo-superfeminine or pseudo-supermasculine in gender subordination to a hegemonic supermasculinity or superfemininity).

 

Positivity and negativity attach to both the human and the superhuman, albeit in contrary gender ways and with opposite ratios in both the relativity of the phenomenal (2½:1½) and the absolutism of the noumenal (3:1), quite apart from the effects of class and gender differentiation upon the subordinate position (pseudo-element) to any given hegemonic position (element).

 

******

 

The Sun stubbornly poked its face through a hole in the cloud, as if to spy on me before disappearing again under cover of a shifting bunch of denser clouds whose intervention, scarcely providential, appeared somewhat premature.

 

Since my previous project, my last eBook, the word 'reluctance' has become curiously taboo, and I tend, in consequence, to avoid using it.

 

A street preacher shouting salvation above the indifferent crowd, the noise of traffic, and whatever else, including a nearby busker, was going-on in the vicinity of where he stood, a solitary figure preaching the 'Word of God' in a manner at variance with the godly but nonetheless desperately at loggerheads with 'the world'.

 

It would seem the overgrown boys in shorts are back on the football pitch and busily engaged in running their proverbial socks off. Just the start of another football season during the course of which a fair number of goals will be scored with the head, whether or not with the use of the head. For there are obviously different ways of using your head, though the so-called 'people's game' (also popularly called the 'beautiful game', which is odd really, since not a term one would readily associate with 'the people', having more in common, I would argue, with Rugby Union as traditionally more germane to the 'upper class') would appear to favour using it physically as opposed to mentally.

 

Like most modern cults, the cult of National Socialism went from worship of the Leader (Hitler) to sacrifice of the worshippers (people), culminating in death and disaster of a magnitude which no Wagnerian opera could have foreseen, let alone realized!

 

Better the 'Spiritual Beggars' than what could be called the Material Buggers, the mere carnality (non-reproductive) of a material age, an age dominated and characterized by materialism.

 

******

 

I would regard any female in a straight skirt or dress as being either relatively or absolutely reserved in regard to spirit (relative) or will (absolute). Any female in a tapering skirt or dress, however, I would regard as being either relatively or absolutely mad, as though subject to a gender aberration which is less pseudo-chemical (relative) or pseudo-metachemical (absolute) than quasi-pseudo-chemical (from the standpoint of physics) or quasi-pseudo-metachemical (from the standpoint of metaphysics), neither of which forms of amoral degeneration (from the hegemonic male moralities of physics and metaphysics respectively) could possibly be any good for either pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, let alone, following an immoral backlash, for the hegemonic elements themselves.

 

I would have real reservations, as a male, about amorally descending, from a hegemonically moral standpoint, be it relative (physics) or absolute (metaphysics), onto the subordinate gender positions of pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, since it would be equivalent, in sartorial terms, to abandoning either tapering trousers (physical) or a tapering zipper-suit (metaphysical) for a tapering skirt (quasi-pseudo-chemical) or a tapering dress (quasi-pseudo-metachemical), and neither could possibly be desirable from a male standpoint, quite apart from the immoral backlash which is likely to occur when what is unmorally subordinate, in pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, becomes pressurized into either a quasi-physical or a quasi-metaphysical (depending on the context) immoral ascent, bringing her pseudo-objective criteria (in straight skirt and/or dress) to bear on what is hegemonically subjective (and therefore characterized, as noted above, by either tapering trousers or a tapering zipper-suit), which could only be morally undermined, if not diminished, by competition coming up from below. Were this to happen in other contexts than the sartorial example given above, it would not be a jot better or any the less alarming, whatever appearances to the contrary or common usage might suggest!

 

Without the Sun there would be no life on this planet, not even Christian life, which tends, when genuine, to go against the natural grain. In fact, there would not even be a planet, never mind an aspiration towards some otherworldly goal or alternative to 'the world'.

 

Everything sensible mirrors gravity; everything sensual mirrors nuclear fusion, which resists gravity by continuously pushing outwards, objectively striving beyond itself.

 

Unlike extroverts, introverts tend to be grave and reserved, not given to outward show or impulsive action.

 

Some people contain others, some people have to be contained, which is to say, restrained and inhibited in their sensual pursuits. Which also applies to whole peoples, whose social conditioning tends to favour either sensuality or sensibility, not both at once.

 

******

 

As one who 'falls between two stools', Irish and British, I am accustomed to not fitting-in anywhere, but to being a classic outsider, who is neither 'fish nor fowl' because a paradoxical cross, through birth and upbringing, between the two who, in his latter years, has gravitated towards all things German, as though in search of a new centre.

 

I have dedicated my life to philosophy, and what a philosophy! Never before have so many factors been got to add up in so comprehensively exacting a manner. In fact, I believe I am philosophically unique, the last link in the chain of philosophical evolution, as it were.

 

Neither decadent modernity nor cyclic antiquity, but the evolution of Western civilization on its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (catholic) towards 'Kingdom Come', hopefully via Social Theocracy, the ideological face of my philosophy.

 

Life survives on worldly terms in consequence of the beautiful tyranny of females, who normally get their way and vindicate both their need and capacity for reproduction.

 

Defeating such tyranny, which is reinforced by the emotional cement of love, that freely somatic concomitant of beauty, was never going to be easy, even before decadent modernity paved the way for cyclic degeneration and the concomitant accommodation, one way or the other, of the different manifestations of cyclic antiquity.

 

In the end, the evolution of Western civilization from Roman times through Roman Catholicism and, hopefully via Social Theocracy, into the Social Transcendentalism of 'Kingdom Come' … will defeat and subsume everything else, anything contrary to or lesser than itself, in the interests of true universality.

 

Although the decadence of Western civilization can be identified, primarily I believe, with the Renaissance, what subsequently ensued, in the actual falling away from the 'one true church', led to a regeneration of religion through the Protestant Reformation and, not least in England, an effective switch of axis from church-hegemonic (catholic) to state-hegemonic (protestant) that paved the way, in due course, for the degenerative processes which culminated, in the twentieth century, with Communism/Socialism and Fascism/Nazism as contrary manifestations of cyclic recurrence within a modern, or synthetically artificial, framework, the kind of framework deriving from the non-cyclic artificiality of Western civilization in relation to divergent axes, with particular reference, as noted above, to its state-hegemonic manifestation. Such a degeneration from the original regeneration of Western civilization into cyclic recurrence of a synthetically artificial nature overlapped with the development of globalization in consequence of the effects on the world in general of Western imperialism, such that brought the West into direct contact with older and more naturally cyclic cultures which may well have contributed to the Western degeneration into recurring cycles of a comparatively artificial order, an order only partly deriving from Western civilization yet still distinct from non-Western cultures, even though one fancies, in the division of such cultures between clockwise (Judaic/Hindu) and anti-clockwise (Islamic/Buddhist) cycling, Communism/Socialism would have a certain appeal to Jews and Hindus, or persons of Judaic or Hindu descent, and Nazism/Fascism, by contrast, greater appeal to persons of Islamic or Buddhist descent, if not to Moslems and Buddhists generally. However that may be, the defeat of both Communism and Fascism (to revert to general terminology), at least in Europe and even, in some instances, farther afield, has left the West with the global legacy of its imperial past under the domination, by and large, of state-hegemonic countries fronted by America and, to lesser extents, the leading European imperial powers like Britain, France, and even Russia, but without a universal possibility such that could only derive from the resurrection of church-hegemonic axial criteria pending a revolutionary overhaul of the Western tradition which was both global in its contemporary relevance and synthetically artificial, paving the way, with 'Kingdom Come' (as that is what I am intimating of) for true universality and, hence, the end to cyclic division and any concomitant ethnic rivalry, including, not least, the centuries-old Catholic/Protestant dichotomy within Western civilization itself.

 

Clockwise cyclic recurrence, being closer to nature, is fundamentally a reflection of female domination, both wilfully and spiritually, and while anti-clockwise cycling may not be entirely free of female influence, it is more likely, in relation to the greater exercise of intellectual and emotional factors, to favour the male, as in the case of fascist reaction to Communism in Europe being partly if not largely in defence of Western civilization, with its non-cyclical axial polarities deriving, in no small measure, from Christian values.

 

******

 

Life often seems to be a case of one evolutionary step forward by males, two devolutionary steps backward under female pressure, not least in respect of a variety of social and familial obligations which males perforce undertake in relation to females.

 

Sentimentalists like to think that the weather is there for our benefit, to enable us to survive and even thrive, but, in reality, like most other aspects of nature, it simply is what it is, irrespective of human preferences, and we profit or suffer accordingly.

 

Some people, in their seeming incapacity for reflection, their outgoing, extrovert dispositions, resemble sunflowers, not least when, at any rate in the case of males, they have wiry hair sticking out everywhichway on face and head! I have always disliked sunflowers, and people who resemble them rarely curry favour with me.

 

From the kind of introverted standpoint of a tulip, even a rose would be bad enough. But a sunflower! Strange how certain rock stars come to mind.

 

To go out with a whimper, not a bang, would seem to befit a philosophical disposition. You can leave bangs to the scientific.

 

Freedom through wax earplugs, which grant a sense of independence from close neighbours such that enables one to move around – cross the floor, open and close doors, etc. - without hearing the noise one makes in the process. Therefore as though undetected by others and relatively unaffected by their noise which, as experience has taught, can be both distracting and annoying, even humiliating and the source, paradoxically, of a kind of self-defeating inhibitory reservation which conditions one to act more circumspectly or cautiously than one would otherwise do, with a corresponding sense of constraint that, frankly, reduces self-esteem and makes for a sense of shame, frustration even, that one is not free to be true to oneself and behave, within reason, as one thinks fit or according to one's nature. The caged bird is not a happy creature. Only the free bird really sings. Yet the struggle to become truly free is not what motivates the greater percentage of human behaviour in our time. Rather are most people taken up with resisting the unfreedoms that those who are really free tend to impose upon them in defence of their own freedoms of action, freedoms that, by their very objective nature, cannot be the property of all, but must remain the preserve of the rich and powerful.

 

I have never reserved a ticket for any concert, whatever the kind of music, and I dare say I never shall. Nor have I ever reserved a ticket for anything else, bar the occasional coach journey or flight.

 

I am a person entirely without curiosity about others, who goes about his business without paying the slightest attention to anybody, with the possible exception of the occasional woman (I saw a beautiful long-haired blonde walking along the platform in a tight-fitting black dress amongst a sea of dark faces while waiting for a train today). In fact, I pride myself on minding my own business, as though to contrast myself with the average British male, many of whom can't lay eyes on anything, oneself included, without having to think or mumble something stupid or vulgar. My motto is: Don't let that poison get too close, least of all under your skin. Keep it at arm's reach. So, of course, I tend to mind my own business.

 

Those who work for a living don't normally live for their work. I do.

 

There are people without talent who are lauded to the skies. There are people with talent who are simply ignored. It just depends on who or what you are.

 

Birds of prey can have no place in a theocracy, whose symbolic ideal is the dove. And yet, I have heard and read of high-ranking clergy – bishops, archbishops, cardinals – described as resembling eagles, hawks, falcons, and other such birds of prey! What could be more hypocritically at variance with the true spirit of the Christian religion? Birds of prey have more in common with an aristocracy or autocracy than ever they do with a theocracy, distinctions of rank notwithstanding.

 

Theocrats are not aristocrats, but the danger of aristocrats being taken for theocrats is always very real in a civilization that hypes Devil the Mother as God the Father … out of expedience. Theocrats may have their various ranks, but that is still quite separate and distinct from the ranks applying to the aristocracy.

 

An aesthete is somebody indisposed to truth.

 

It's not how many books or eBooks you sell, but who you sell them to … that really matters.

 

Likewise, it's not how many people read you, but who reads you (and for what reason) that actually counts.

 

Writing for others, with others constantly in mind, is the mark of a slave, not a free man.

 

You cannot make sense of what, like so much of the contemporary world, is fundamentally senseless, even if, as a philosopher, you have the capacity to distinguish sense from senselessness.

 

It is not enough to 'change the world'; one must strive, rather, to overcome it. Marxists may endeavour to 'change the world', but that is about all they do, lacking a capacity for 'God building' or, in non-Leninist terms, otherworldly aspirations.

 

Even now, in the twenty-first century, it is probably fair to say that there is more nature than civilization in the world.

 

The majority of people, now and at all times, endeavour to live 'in harmony' with nature. Only a relatively small number of men – more usually men of genius – struggle against it in the interests of nurtural or even supernurtural progress, the latter of which would be antithetical not to nature but to supernature, as to all things 'supernatural', including, in all probability, quasars/black holes and other such manifestations of cosmic existence.

 

Conservationists and 'nature lovers' are not on the side of progress, which tends to favour the artificial, not least in respect of the Arts, which should, if true or genuine, be amongst the most artificial of creations, defying natural limitations in their aspirations toward a perfect alternative to nature.

 

Decriminalize one type of activity and another type soon takes its place, like paedophilia the homosexuality of yesteryear which, if ever decriminalized – and one sincerely hopes it never will be – could lead to a focus on incest between siblings or even bestiality or something else that is not focused upon, much less subjected to criminal prosecution, these days.

 

******

 

Just as cadence goes downhill, as it were, to decadence, so, by contrast, regeneration goes downhill to degeneration, like the Reformation going to the dogs of deformation, religious reform sliding down to atheistic state-absolutist deformity.

 

Parallel with the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity between cadence and decadence on the male side of the gender fence is what may be called the secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity (female) between pseudo-degeneration and pseudo-regeneration, with cadence and pseudo-degeneration standing to each another as metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, but decadence and pseudo-regeneration standing to one another as pseudo-physics and chemistry.

 

Therefore while the axial polarity of cadence to decadence is of the unequivocally hegemonic (metaphysics) to the equivocally subordinate (pseudo-physics), the axial polarity of pseudo-degeneration to pseudo-regeneration is of the unequivocally subordinate (pseudo-metachemistry) to the equivocally hegemonic (chemistry).

 

Parallel with the primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity between regeneration and degeneration on the female side of the gender fence is what may be called the secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity (male) between pseudo-decadence and pseudo-cadence, with regeneration and pseudo-decadence standing to each other as metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, but degeneration and pseudo-cadence standing to one another as pseudo-chemistry and physics.

 

Therefore while the axial polarity of regeneration to degeneration is of the unequivocally hegemonic (metachemistry) to the equivocally subordinate (pseudo-chemistry), the axial polarity of pseudo-decadence to pseudo-cadence is of the unequivocally subordinate (pseudo-metaphysics) to the equivocally hegemonic (physics).

 

Just as cadence is only possible in relation to a male hegemony over females (as pseudo-females), so decadence transpires from a male subordination (as pseudo-males) to a female hegemony.

 

And just as regeneration is only possible in relation to a female hegemony over males (as pseudo-males), so degeneration transpires from a female subordination (as pseudo-females) to a male hegemony.

 

It seems that degeneration is not only cyclic and absolute, especially in terms of clockwise cycling, as my initial theories seemed to imply, but can also be axial and relative, as with the polarity noted above between regeneration and degeneration on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, so that the axis in question is as much characterized by a regenerative/degenerative primary polarity (female) as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis by a cadent/decadent primary polarity (male), no less in relation to its own relativity than in terms of socialistic absolutism, whereby it would be logical to infer a renunciation of the Catholic Church and thus of any church/state relativity, the kind of polar relativity that would also be renounced, across the axial divide, from a standpoint less republican socialist than Marxist, or radically social democratic, with predictably state-absolutist consequences. And yet, much as this would be the likely cyclical outcome of axial degeneration on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a suspicion remains that, on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis by contrast, decadence should imply a kind of church absolutism in axial contrast to any state-absolutist degeneration of the Marxist variety. Alas, republican socialism does not, in my experience, lend itself to logically convenient analogies with church absolutism but, striving after greater independence of the State from church interference or control, makes it appear less decadent than degenerate or, rather, of a twisted kind of decadence with pseudo-regenerative properties of the sort readily identifiable with iconic landmarks like 'Liberty Leading the People' (Delacroix), the opposite of degeneration with pseudo-cadent properties, as strongly suggested by the state-capitalist overtones of Marxism-Leninism. Be that as it may, decadence and degeneration are not only cyclically absolute but also axially relative, as I trust the above theoretical modifications should serve to illustrate, and every endeavour to establish cadence results, sooner or later, in a decadent backlash as surely as the regenerative aspirations of the Reformation – certainly in England under Henry VIII – eventually had to contend with a degenerative backlash or polarity in the nonconformist community which no Anglo-Catholic of the sixteenth-century could have foreseen, let alone willingly encouraged!

 

Christian art became so decadent with the Renaissance, that it is small wonder that Protestantism preferred to exclude it, as far as possible, from its religious reforms. Better no art at all than the anti-Christian 'body beautiful', 'body muscular', 'body nude', and other such Michelangelo-inspired aberrations that dragged art down and away from the New Testament focus of Christianity towards the pagan past via Old Testament Judaism.

 

******

 

Does cyclic degeneration derive from axial degeneration? The foregoing theories would suggest it does. But since there is more than one type of cycling one must also ask the question: Does cyclic decadence derive from axial decadence? And the answer would seem to be: Yes, it most assuredly does. So that gives us our two types of cycling; one effectively degenerate, or deriving from axial degeneration, and the other effectively decadent, or deriving from axial decadence. Now just as axial degeneration is the breaking away of pseudo-chemistry from physical control, so axial decadence is the breaking away of pseudo-physics from chemical control, with, in each case, a degree of unprecedented freedom for the breakaway gender that is quickly exploited by the freedoms (or bindings) proper to their respective polarities in metachemistry and metaphysics, which bind them anew to one or the other modes of cycling – clockwise in the case of female-dominated degenerative cycling, but anti-clockwise in the case of male-dominated decadent cycling, making, in contemporary terms (synthetically artificial), for a communistic/fascistic distinction which cannot but be at loggerheads with itself or, more correctly, with the opposite mode of cycling. For the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female informed by metachemistry will tend, under female influence, to cycle in clockwise fashion, whereas the pseudo-physical pseudo-male informed by metaphysics (even by the truncated metaphysics – bound soma of the crucifixional paradigm – typifying Catholic axial tradition) will tend, under male influence, to cycle in an anti-clockwise manner, thereby being at gender loggerheads with his clockwise counterpart on both phenomenal (corporeal) and noumenal (ethereal) planes, since in the one case metachemistry has been brought to bear on pseudo-chemistry, while in the other case metaphysics has come to bear on pseudo-physics, conditioning the cyclic directionality accordingly. No longer, as with axial control, is there a gender compromise but, rather, a clash of gender realities brought about by their release, through somatic degeneration on the one hand and psychic decadence on the other, from axial compromise. Even so, males accustomed, through metachemistry, to state-hegemonic female domination will shadow their female counterparts in what I like to term dotted-line cyclic fashion, while females accustomed, through metaphysics, to church-hegemonic male domination will shadow their male counterparts in similar dotted-line cyclic fashion, the former effectively degenerate and the latter no-less effectively decadent, albeit on secondary terms compared to their gender counterparts in the primary modes of degenerative (female) or decadent (male) cycling. Nor should we forget, finally, that some pseudo-cadent overtones deriving from physics will accrue to pseudo-chemical degeneration and, by contrast, some pseudo-regenerative overtones deriving from chemistry accrue to pseudo-physical decadence, even before metachemistry and metaphysics necessarily 'get in' on the act and bring their gender parallel polarities to bear on the respective types of corporeal decline.

 

I am persuaded, by a study of ancient history, that Greece was more state-hegemonic than church-hegemonic, as it were, whereas Rome was – or became – more church-hegemonic than state-hegemonic, thereby enabling one to infer the axial parallelism of Roman Catholic church-hegemonic tradition with that of ancient Rome, in contrast to the axial parallelism of Protestant state-hegemonic tradition with that of ancient Greece, so that as the one tradition derived, in no small measure, from its Roman counterpart or blueprint, so the other tradition, as it developed independently of Catholicism, fell back on ancient Greece, as upon its nearest historical counterpart, and was more inclined, in consequence, to identify with, if not slavishly worship, all things Greek. The position, on the other hand, of ancient Egypt in relation to both Greece and Rome must remain, I believe, ambiguous, since subject, over several dynasties, to shifting allegiances and influences, both Greek and, subsequently, Roman. But the influence upon Israel, or the Israelites, of Egypt cannot be denied, and should not be underestimated, however one chooses to interpret it. I, for one, would have few reservations in equating it with a predilection towards state-hegemonic criteria, whether axial or, more probably, of a clockwise cyclic tendency closer to nature, since dominated by females. Certainly the Jews would have fared better with the Greeks than ever they did with the Romans who, at the time of their conquest of Galilee, Judea and surrounding lands, had not limited themselves to a monotheism deriving, supernaturally, from metachemistry in which worship of the 'One God', the Creator, the Almighty, was the religious norm.

 

Casually thinking about the 'Garden of Eden' concept of Paradise this morning, I was wondering to myself what the hell a snake was doing there in the first place, never mind the Devil disguised as one! I mean, how can you have predatory creatures, cold-blooded killers, like snakes in Paradise, or what is purported to be such? It simply beggars belief! I abandoned all pretensions of respect for that book, the 'Book of Genesis', so long ago that, as a philosophically-inclined writer, I can't even be bothered to expose its shortcomings anymore, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding. Worse than Bible shortcomings, however, are the lunatics who strive, with their limited powers of reason, to justify and explain away (in no matter how exaggerated a fashion) those accounts or statements which – quite apart from the subsequent findings of science – simply defy logic, of which there are no small number in the Bible as a whole. It is simply amazing to what lengths such people will go to make the irrational appear rational or at least reasonable, like a snake in Paradise!

 

The lower you sink in society, as in religion, the worse things get.

 

It is always somewhat disconcerting to be surrounded by neighbours who do their undamndest to oppose, with a variety of thumping noises, the slightest suspicion of intellectual or computer-related activity on one's part. One gets a sense of how the world really is in the main, and of how determined one has to be not to let average or sub-average people – especially females and kids – get the better of one and effectively put an end to one's cultural endeavours, to drive one out of one's self-made paradise under pretext of being inconvenienced by what little disturbance one makes during the process of using a computer or – strangest of all – exercising one's brain in the formation of thought! For then the thumping bimbos really 'come out' in all their alarming sensitivity to the activation of thought by a solitary intellectual. Oh for a monastic-like retreat where one could get on with one's thinking or writing or whatever independently of the 'many-too-many', the lumpen proletariat, the foreign bimbo, the class enemy of culture, the born enemy of religious or philosophical truth! For that, in my experience, is what a majority of people – and of women in particular – actually are, as men like Schopenhauer, Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and other exceptional geniuses of the past well knew!

 

I've heard females described, apparently by some old-school British politician, as “all antennae and no brains”, which is a phrase that stuck in my mind, since it somehow rings true and causes me to reflect, today, whether my own position as an adult male of intellectual persuasion is not akin to all brains and no antennae? Not intellectually reserved, but certainly socially reserved. With, I think, good reason!

 

Heads rolled during the French Revolution and, subsequently, bodies fought bodies in the bloody, brutal Napoleonic Wars that inevitably ensued. That scoundrel Bonaparte may not have begun the French Revolution but, as time progressed, he certainly knew how to finish it off.

 

Has the 'Age of the People', dating from approximately the late-eighteenth century, finally come to an inglorious end with or since the collapse of Communism in Europe? One can only hope so, for it led to some of the most dreadful wars in history.

 

Whether regeneration devolves to degeneration or cadence devolves to decadence, the results tend to be pretty much the same: war and perpetual strife, as that which is low (degenerate or decadent) paradoxically comes to the fore, turning the world upside down and inside out.

 

There is no such thing as 'divine decadence', that illogical notion of certain feminists and shallow intellectuals gunning for some degree of radical notoriety. Decadence is no more 'divine' than degeneration is 'diabolic'. Rather is it their respective polarities, cadence and regeneration, which are divine and diabolic, that is, significant of either soulful being or wilful doing, of psychic subjectivity or somatic objectivity, according to whether metaphysical or metachemical criteria are chiefly in evidence at any particular time. The repudiation of diabolic regeneration – the 'increase and multiply' injunction of the Old Testament – is what alone makes for the possibility of divine cadence, unlike the degenerative polarity to regeneration on the one axial hand, and the decadent victim of regenerative/degenerative predation on the other axial hand.

 

******

 

I have blown through philosophy like a divine wind and shaken it to the very depths of its foundations, consigning the cobwebs of outmoded thought to the rubbish bin of philosophical history where, one day, they will not merely rot but go up in flames or, at any rate, be vaporized.

 

Those philosophy-denying fools are probably correct, in their self-satisfied smugness, to maintain that philosophy has no applicability to the modern world, but they are severely deluded if they think it cannot point to a better one, beyond the scope of the modern preference for drama, fiction and, to a lesser extent, poetry.

 

Both drama and fiction (that internalized mode of drama) rip off poetry – and hence the poet – while avoiding, as far as possible, all contact with philosophy.

 

Outgrowing poetry I dabbled in fiction, but soon found its philosophical subversion was not enough … if one seriously wanted to pursue Truth and climb the hill of metaphysical insight that leads to salvation.

 

Philosophy is only true to itself in metaphysics. With physics, chemistry, and metachemistry it becomes regressively more 'bovaryized', that is, undermined and even vitiated by economics, politics, and science, in that regressive order.

 

If anything it is those 'bovaryized' kinds of philosophy that have some relevance, in varying degrees, to the modern world, a world dominated by science and economics under which the political 'bovaryization' of philosophy labours in vain towards a 'better world'.

 

A majority of people, being relatively simple, still behave as though the atom had never been split and that there was only one type of sanity, namely the female-dominated outer sanity ('outsanity') of the marketplace. They couldn't be more wrong!

 

To say that somebody is uneducated presupposes that he/she can be educated. But that is not invariably the case. On the contrary, it is more often a symptom of egalitarian rhetoric which conveniently overlooks the incapacity of most people to be educated beyond a certain level, as well as the actual irrelevance of what has been called 'higher education' to them.

 

There is nothing more objectionable to the average person than thought and, worse, the ability of the exceptional individual, a philosopher, to think for himself and demolish, if necessary, centuries of presumed wisdom.

 

Every day I think in the face of hostile opposition from neighbours and workmen – in short, from the 'common herd', as it were, of thoughtless cretins, and value my thinking, or my ability to think, all the more!

 

Civilization only advances because of exceptional individuals, not because of the masses, who tend, rather, to reduce everything to the lowest-common-denominator of a nature-affirming sex-oriented opposition to civilization and its raison d'κtre, culture. In this respect, D.H. Lawrence, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau before him, was a forceful spokesman for the masses who was fundamentally against civilization.

 

There can be no true culture without civilization and, within the framework of civilization, a variety of constraints upon females. For civility on their part is not the same as culture, and the prospects for culture, as the apotheosis of male nurture, would be very bleak indeed if there was no accompanying civility, no constraints placed upon soma in the interests of psychic flourishing in the form, generally speaking, of artistic revelation.

 

Philosophy and music that is, in the main, metaphysical will always be at the peak of culture.

 

It is not the philosopher's fault if people in general find him unreadable. In fact, it is rather more to his credit that unthinking individuals cannot profit from his thought, since it is not his business to enlighten fools.

 

You do not read philosophy to be entertained, nor even to be educated or informed, still less to be emotionally titillated, but rather to be enlightened. Philosophy has no other business, essentially, than to enlighten, to bring the reader to a greater understanding of metaphysics and metaphysical issues generally. But that presupposes a reader capable of metaphysical understanding and genuinely interested in pursuing metaphysical truth, because inherently wise. In short, the psychic exception to the somatic rule!

 

******

 

Those who are always testing others, who put others 'to the test', tend to do so from lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. It is as though they can only believe in their own worth, such as it is, by exposing, where possible, the foibles or weaknesses of others, thereby reassuring themselves that it is not they who are at fault, or lacking in virtue, but those whom they set out to test.

 

None of my writing has ever been done outdoors. On the contrary, it is the product of an indoor, sedentary lifestyle that would not, I feel confident, be compatible with the outside world, still less identifiable with those who write outdoors or, more correctly, with writings conducted outdoors by persons who like to be 'close to Nature' and to soak up what they perceive as its natural beauty, all the while sucking up to the Sun, like so many neo-pagans. By contrast, I have always had strong reservations about conducting my philosophical pursuits in public, never mind outdoors! However, this has never precluded me from writing indoors about certain outdoor experiences or events, comparatively rare as that may be.

 

Saw a church – or what was described as such – while in a nearby borough this afternoon which was so astonishingly mundane-looking in its four-square modernity as to make one wonder how-on-earth anything approaching God, never mind the so-called 'Word of God', could possibly be worshipped or taken seriously in such a place. Frankly, it beggars belief to what extents of architectural degeneracy nonconformist churches can sink!

 

I write what I think and think about what I write, thereby closing the circle.

 

As a thinker I am unreservedly forthright and determined to be as honest with myself as possible, no matter what the outcome. For what is the point of being intellectually dishonest, or of knowing one thing and saying another? That would be a mark, surely, of intellectual cowardice.

 

******

 

In terms of the number and audacity of his conquests, one would have to say that Hitler, as Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces during the Second World War, was the greatest military leader, or conqueror, since Napoleon. Like Napoleon before him, Hitler came to grief in Russia, defeated as much, one could almost say, by the appalling weather and endless steppe, the vast expanses of bleak terrain, as by the Russians themselves.

 

When the Germans occupied Paris in 1940, you could argue that they had at last got their own back on the French for having occupied Berlin, under Napoleon, in 1806. The justice of history.

 

Hitler was, in many respects, the reverse of Napoleon, that is, a statesman who became a warlord as opposed to a warlord, or general, who became a statesman.

 

Metternich, though born in Germany, became the Austrian Chancellor; Hitler, though born in Austria, became the German Chancellor. Another case of history repeating itself, albeit on antithetical terms.

 

It would be no exaggeration to say that the wars Napoleon waged have been considerably overshadowed, in the twentieth-century, by the wars waged by Hitler against the rest of Europe, Russia not excepted.

 

Stalin, though obviously a great statesman and warlord, does not compare with either Napoleon or Hitler, who both waged aggressive wars of external conquest. Stalin merely reacted to invasion and was eventually able to repulse it and expand the Soviet Empire into Eastern Europe in the process of rolling back the Nazi invaders.

 

The Germans liberated a lot of Russian and/or Russian-dominated territory, like the Ukraine, from Soviet control, only for that territory to be counter-liberated when the Soviets returned with a vengeance that affected more than just the Nazis.

 

To undo the remnants of the discredited Versailles Treaty with regards to the return of Danzig and the establishment of a Corridor linking East Prussia to the rest of the Reich, Nazi Germany, having failed on the diplomatic front to appease an Anglo-French-backed Polish military regime, had to go to war with Poland, and we all know where that led, although the Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin signed just before the invasion was a masterstroke that, by speeding up the conquest of Poland by limiting the German sphere of influence, effectively neutralized the Anglo-French allies and led, in the winter of 1939-40, to the so-called Phoney War, when a stalemate ensued in the West and no-one seemed anxious to invade Germany, least of all the architects of the Maginot Line.

 

Eamonn de Valera who, more than any man, was responsible for the Irish Civil War, eventually came in from the intransigent republican cold, as it were, by accepting political reality and becoming Taoiseach (prime minister) of the 26 counties in 1932. After several spells in office in this role, he went on to become President of the 26 counties in 1959. But when he died in 1975 Ireland was no nearer unity than it had been back in 1920-22, with six of the nine counties of Ulster still a part of the United Kingdom in the guise of the statelet of Northern Ireland.

 

Keeping Eire neutral during the Second World War was a brave and sensible strategy on de Valera's part, especially with British threats of intervention into key Irish ports, since there was no justification for siding with the traditional imperial oppressor of Ireland and certainly no sense in siding with Nazi Germany at the risk of British opposition and possible invasion. But signing the Book of Condolences upon news of Hitler's death, as de Valera did, was a courageous and, to my mind, magnanimous gesture, since Hitler was no enemy of Ireland (Eire) and, besides, it would have looked like a pro-British stance had he not done so, putting him on a more or less equal footing with Churchill and those who had systematically warred upon Nazi Germany. For that I have more respect for 'Dev' than for his intransigent republicanism in the face of loyalist reaction, given the virtual inevitability of partition and the desirability, at the time, of Free State compromise. In the end, he, too, had to compromise, for there was no alternative.

 

It was a tenet of Nazi ideology, not least with Hitler, that Germany had been 'stabbed in the back' by the Armistice of 1918, which led to the collapse of the Imperial Regime and the threat and, indeed, reality of a 'Red' takeover in the immediate aftermath. Yet Irishmen serving on the Western Front during 1916 would have been no less justified in regarding the Easter Rising of that year as a 'stab in the back' of their commitment, within the United Kingdom, to the war against Germany. And yet, what brought about the Easter Rising in Dublin? Was not the threat and, indeed, reality of conscription into the British Armed Forces sufficient motive for such an uprising, even if it had not been 'on the cards' for some time? Frankly, there would have been a lot of Irishmen who had no desire to fight for Britain against the Germans, having nothing in particular against Germany but, rather, more in common with it than many British and even English would have allowed. So elements of the Irish people rise in revolt against Britain at this time, not only from fear of or opposition to conscription, but also in the hope of exploiting Britain's worsening difficulties on the Western Front to the advantage of Irish freedom and the possibility of self-determination, a self-determination that, with the Second World War, would express itself in terms of neutrality. Speaking personally, I would not have much sympathy for those who, fighting for Britain against Germany in the First World War, may have regarded the Easter Rising as a 'stab in the back'. The real heroes of the time were those who fought and died for Irish freedom, not those who fought and died for the enemy of Irish freedom which, like France and Russia, had sided with Serbia and, by implication, the Bosnian Serb terrorist who had assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo, thereby precipitating the chain of regrettable events which culminated in the First World War. Germany's magnanimity in siding with Austria not only against Serbia but also against the Russian ally of Serbia that had declared war on Austria and the Austro-Hungarian Empire was no disgrace, but a mark, rather, of brotherly honour that will always deserve to be remembered with respect.

 

We always hear about Obersalzberg in connection with the Nazis, particularly Hitler, who could overlook his homeland in the province of Salzberg, but nothing at all about Untersalzberg, which is closer to Berchtesgarden, probably because it held less interest for Hitler and might even have connoted with the kind of mensch that Hitler and his followers were determined to subjugate, if not exterminate, from a standpoint closer to the Nietzschean άbermensch. Nevertheless, as a region Untersalzberg would be no less spectacular than its better-known counterpart further south – thanks or no thanks to Hitler and the Nazis.

 

******

 

Don't let the bitches, anxious to capitalize on their assets, make you feel guilty. Be a bastard and feel innocent.

 

What, you may wonder, is the chief cause of axial decadence on the one hand and axial degeneration on the other, that is, of the falling away of both decadence and degeneration from their respective axes into cyclic recurrence whether of a clockwise (degenerate) or an anti-clockwise (decadent) nature, bearing in mind what has already been said on previous pages about the roles of gender in determining these antithetical outcomes. Is it that the chemical hegemony over pseudo-physics, of pseudo-regeneration over decadence, and the physical hegemony over pseudo-chemistry, of pseudo-cadence over degeneration, lose their controlling influence on the subordinate gender positions, pseudo-masculine in the one case and pseudo-feminine in the other, or does the decline into cyclic decadence owe more to a loss of faith in metaphysics and the decline into cyclic degeneration more to a weakening of loyalty to metachemistry, so that the polarities to both pseudo-physical decadence and pseudo-chemical degeneration are less attractive than before and unable, in consequence, to command the same degree of respect such that would keep both decadence and degeneration within the axial framework as opposed to allowing them to break away, for want of control, into the opposite types of cyclic recurrence? I suspect, too, that if chemistry and physics are less influential than before, it could have something to do with a diminishing respect for their respective polarities in pseudo-metachemistry (under metaphysics) and pseudo-metaphysics (under metachemistry), albeit pseudo-metachemical pseudo-degeneration would never have the same appeal to chemical pseudo-regeneration as metaphysical cadence to pseudo-physical decadence. Nor, I suspect, would pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-decadence have the same appeal to physical pseudo-cadence as metachemical regeneration to pseudo-chemical degeneration. Be that as it may, the decline of both decadence and degeneration from being complementary, on subordinate terms, to pseudo-regeneration and pseudo-cadence respectively ... to actually becoming cyclically independent of them can and does happen, for whatever reasons, and the consequences are predictably worse for society as a whole than when decadence was held fast to pseudo-regeneration and degeneration held fast to pseudo-cadence, even if only because of the polar attractions of both cadence (metaphysics) and regeneration (metachemistry) upon them. Either way, one has a devolutionary descent from stability under the alternative ruling principles or elements of axial civilization into instability and even anarchic chaos independently of such principles in a situation closer to nature even when it takes a synthetically artificial, or contemporary, guise, as in the cases, we have argued, of Communism and Fascism, the one clockwise and dominated by female criteria, the other anti-clockwise and dominated by male criteria. But both decadence and degeneration can and do exist within the bipolar framework of axial civilization, if respectively subordinate to pseudo-regeneration and pseudo-cadence, so that one cannot regard them as typifying what exists in the corporeal realms of phenomenal relativity. On the contrary, they will normally be obliged to play a secondary role, in effect, to the hegemonic gender position there, be it pseudo-regenerative in chemistry or pseudo-cadent in physics, which, traditionally within the Western framework, will suggest the primacy of Marianism over the pseudo-Christianity of the 'Christ Child' on the one axis, that of the effective dominance of 'Mother Church' within the church-hegemonic axial tradition (catholic), and the primacy, by contrast, of the Conservative Right over the Liberal and/or Socialist Left on the other axis, that of Parliamentary Democracy within the state-hegemonic axial tradition (protestant). Such is the antithetical nature of 'the world' and, even without the threats of the antithetical types of cyclic recurrence, it cannot be regarded as an end-in-itself, but only as a temporal arrangement pending the possibility of eternal life in 'Kingdom Come' and the eventual triumph, in consequence, of otherworldly values, about which I have hitherto written at some length and without any reservations whatsoever, bearing in mind that they are inseparable from the subjugation, neutralized dragon-like, of what has been termed pseudo-netherworldly values, the constrained values of pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics at the apex of revolutionary church-hegemonic criteria.

 

------------------

 

ORANGE NOTEBOOK 3

 

My mother used to have what I understood to be an old Irish saying: “God created friends and the Devil relatives.” Well, I don't know about relatives, since, living outside my native country, I've never had that many to contend with, but I would certainly settle for neighbours in the latter context!

 

Do shepherds leave the shepherding of the flock to sheep? No, of course not! Nor do cowboys leave the herding of the herd to cattle. In a democracy, whether republican or parliamentary, both sheep and cattle equivalents can vote for the kinds of shepherd or cowboy equivalents they prefer. But they can't expect to be left without shepherd or cowboy equivalents altogether, since the absence of external controls would lead to anarchy and to a general want of democratic accountability, with extremely serious consequences.

 

Mozart's father, Leopold, was a Bavarian from Augsberg, and therefore it must be said that Wolfgang Amadeus himself was partly of German descent, even if born in Salzberg, Austria.

 

To be safe from the prying ears and penetrating eyes of women you need, short of a monastic retreat, very thick walls, very thick walls indeed!

 

In this book it could be argued that I rounded on cyclic recurrence in no uncertain terms, laying into it with a vengeance that would have astounded Nietzsche.

 

The next time you get to watch a saxophonist in action, particularly one who is swaying his saxophone around (like a sonofabitch), ask yourself if the bright shiny exterior of the instrument coupled to its dark, deep interior, the gaping hole, as it were, inside the bell, doesn't suggest something analogous to a quasar/black hole, dancing its undamned pitch in the spotlight of a starry night.

 

Even if rock had done nothing more than to take contemporary music off the 'gold standard' of jazz, it would have achieved something momentous.

 

One should be careful to distinguish between contemporary music, like rock and electronica, and contemporary anachronistic music, like so-called classical still being composed in one acoustic and/or orchestral way or another, including what passes for the avant-garde. For contemporary musicians/composers who use the most up-to-date instruments and museum-like anachronisms who are not in a position to 'jump ship', as it were, are two very different kettles of musical fish who swim in very different musical environments.

 

For me, the best type of rock is – and always will be – progressive rock (prog rock), which synthetically strains towards electronica from a position rooted, manually, in drums and bass.

 

No group has charmed and entertained me more than Tangerine Dream, who are my 'dream band', epitomizing what I regard as best in electronica, regressive electronica, and progressive rock, since they seem to have spanned a number of genres, even if, to a cynical mindset, it would seem as if they had gradually 'gone downhill' from the original keyboard-based electronic format to formats embracing guitars (both electric and acoustic), drums, percussion, and brass and/or wind instruments (including sax and flute). Nonetheless, their music remains recognizably Tangerine Dreamish, despite all the inevitable changes in instrumentation and personnel which the group has undergone over the course of several decades. Few other bands can rival them or, more correctly, Edgar Froese for staying power. For he, more than anyone else, has kept Tangerine Dream 'on the road' through all the transmutations which have taken place, and it would be no exaggeration to say that without its founder member Tangerine Dream would probably cease to exist, since he is effectively the backbone and central nervous system of the group who, like Brahms before him, has taken his music from Hamburg to Vienna, as from Germany to Austria, in the course of its development. Only his son, Jerome, it seems to me, could credibly step into his shoes and possibly take Tangerine Dream into a post-Edgar Froese future.

 

******

 

One should distinguish civilized decadence and degeneration, according to axis, from non-civilized decadence and degeneration, which is, like nature, merely cyclical in character. The doctrine of egalitarianism or equalitarianism can lead from the one type of decadence or degeneration to the other, with predictably philistine and barbarous consequences. To be sure, both philistinism and barbarism exist within the axial framework of civilization, but not, thank goodness, as its dominating or most characteristic features! On the contrary, culture generally gets the better of philistinism and civility of barbarity, which is just the opposite of what happens when axial decadence and degeneration are eclipsed by their cyclic counterparts, making for a situation in which philistinism and barbarity come to the fore through a want of culture and civility, whether in relation to Fascism or to Communism.

 

Curious that, on state-hegemonic axial terms, civility is degenerate vis-a-vis its polarity in the barbarity of regeneration, in contrast to the polarity between the pseudo-culture of pseudo-cadence and the pseudo-philistinism of pseudo-decadence, both of which need to be evaluated separately from the polarity, in church-hegemonic axial terms, between the pseudo-civility of pseudo-degeneration and the pseudo-barbarity of pseudo-regeneration, in contrast to the polarity between the culture of cadence and the philistinism of decadence.

 

Any artist who is not more than a 'mirror held up to life' is a mere philistine. In our own time, photographers are the type of the philistine artist par excellence, as are so-called Modern Realists, who strive to minutely reproduce, with near photographic exactitude, the objects of their painterly endeavour.

 

I've always had strong reservations about listening to music employing the trumpet (horn), not least in the context of modern jazz, probably because I tend to regard trumpets as the most alpha-oriented of musical instruments, even of brass instruments in general. There is also, I guess, something quintessentially Old Testament-like about trumpets, and I, for one, find it difficult to associate the instrument with anything angelic, never mind godly! No, the trumpet is definitely a kind of taboo instrument for me. In fact, so much so, that I cannot pretend to relish the prospect of hearing even so accomplished a musician as Miles Davis playing one, these days, much as I occasionally used to listen to him in my unsuspecting youth.

 

******

 

With the primary axial polarity between regeneration and degeneration, metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry on the state-hegemonic axis, we find a parallel with that between vanity and justice, so that it can be logically maintained that whereas metachemical regeneration is vain (but not necessarily 'in vain'), pseudo-chemical degeneration is just. Hence justice is no less relatively degenerate than vanity is absolutely regenerative. But why, then, do we tend to regard justice as honourable if, indeed, it is a concomitant of pseudo-chemical degeneration? There are, I believe, two answers to that question. One is that unbridled regeneration, or vanity, is undesirable and deserves to be constrained through the application of justice. The other is that the polarity between metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, though primary, is not the only polarity on the state-hegemonic axis, but one that co-exists, on the female side of the gender fence, with the secondary state-hegemonic polarity, on its male side, between pseudo-metaphysics and physics, that is, between pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness, which corresponds to pseudo-decadence and pseudo-cadence, so that pseudo-meekness is as much an absolute concomitant of pseudo-decadence as pseudo-righteousness is a relative concomitant of pseudo-cadence, the former corresponding to what is pseudo-metaphysically subordinate to metachemistry, the latter to what is physically hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry. And there, in relation to pseudo-righteousness, lies the basis of the second reason why justice is considered honourable. For it is subject to the physical hegemony of pseudo-righteousness and would not otherwise exist, being a consequence, by and large, of male hegemonic criteria. Although degenerate from a female point of view rooted in regeneration, justice is instrumental in maintaining the balance of axial forces which, by constraining regeneration, and hence excessive vanity, allows pseudo-righteousness to prevail and to prevail, within a relative framework, over degeneration. But if what is controlled by and rendered subject to a male hegemony in physics – namely pseudo-chemical justice – is honourable partly for that very reason, the axial converse of such a gender arrangement in which the male is dominant over a pseudo-female position, namely the absolute subordination of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meekness to metachemical vanity, as of pseudo-decadence to regeneration, is, from a male standpoint centred in physics, dishonourable, since the product, in no small degree, of a female hegemony, and thus of metachemical control. Now what applies to the state-hegemonic axis is also applicable, in reverse terms, to the church-hegemonic one, where pseudo-justice under righteousness, pseudo-metachemical pseudo-degeneration a plane down from metaphysical cadence, is honourable or, more correctly, pseudo-honourable from a male standpoint because of the male hegemony in metaphysics, whereas the subordination, by contrast, of meekness to pseudo-vanity, of pseudo-physical decadence to chemical pseudo-regeneration is dishonourable from such a standpoint, owing to the hegemony, in relative terms, of chemistry, a female element, over a subordinate pseudo-male in pseudo-physics. Thus whether a subordinate gender position is honourable or dishonourable would seem to be linked to the nature of the gender hegemony presiding over it, with positions following from the prevalence of a male hegemony (in physics and/or metaphysics) being deemed honourable or, more correctly from my logical standpoint, relatively honourable (in pseudo-chemistry) and absolutely pseudo-honourable (in pseudo-metachemistry), but those, by contrast, in which the male (as pseudo-male) is subject to female hegemonic control (whether in relation to metachemistry or to chemistry) being castigated as dishonourable or, more correctly from my logical standpoint, as absolutely pseudo-dishonourable (in pseudo-metaphysics) and relatively dishonourable (in pseudo-physics) – again from one or other of the male hegemonic standpoints. As for females, their hegemonic positions are not evaluated by the same kind of male-oriented moral logic, even if females have their own views on the status of what I would call pseudo-male subordinates, but tend, rather, to be grudgingly accepted or acknowledged by hegemonic type males as facts of life which, no matter how majestic or inevitable in relation to an objective disposition motivated by vacuous necessity, require to be curbed or constrained in the interests of those male virtues in either physical pseudo-righteousness or metaphysical righteousness which allow for the honourableness, from a male standpoint, of pseudo-chemical justice and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-justice respectively, while simultaneously reducing, almost as a by-product, the extents of dishonourableness attendant upon the subordination of pseudo-physical meekness to chemical pseudo-vanity on the church-hegemonic axis and of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meekness to metachemical vanity on the state-hegemonic one. Therefore it should follow that the hegemony, on state-hegemonic axial terms, of pseudo-righteousness over justice will reduce the degree to which pseudo-meekness is subordinate to vanity, while, conversely, the hegemony, on church-hegemonic terms, of righteousness over pseudo-justice will reduce the degree to which meekness is subordinate to pseudo-vanity, whether or not this actually happens in practice or for any appreciable amount of time. Some things, however, are fairly certain: degenerative justice, functioning at the behest of pseudo-cadent pseudo-righteousness, can no more defeat regenerative vanity than pseudo-decadent pseudo-meekness, functioning at the behest of regenerative vanity, can defeat pseudo-righteous pseudo-cadence on the state-hegemonic axis, while decadent meekness, functioning at the behest of pseudo-regenerative pseudo-vanity, can no more defeat cadent righteousness than pseudo-degenerative pseudo-justice, functioning at the behest of cadent righteousness, defeat pseudo-regenerative pseudo-vanity on the church-hegemonic axis. The balance of polar forces, compounded by gender differentials in both upper- and lower-class terms, remains in place as testimony to the non-cyclic stability of Western civilization, even if, through messianic intervention or some equivalence thereof, destiny may have a non-axial order of stability in store for the world which, being global, will simultaneously allow the problem, from a civilized standpoint, of cyclic recurrence to be definitively solved by making it logically possible for its various manifestations, historical as well as contemporary, to be consigned to the proverbial rubbish bin of history.

 

Nature may cycle its foliage, but, by and large, buildings and streets remain constant, fixed in unchanging moulds that transcend the seasonal variations impinging upon them.

 

To contrast the vain barbarity of regeneration with the just civility of degeneration, as one would contrast metachemistry with pseudo-chemistry as primary state-hegemonic polarity (female) vis-a-vis the secondary state-hegemonic polarity (male) which contrasts the pseudo-meek pseudo-philistinism of pseudo-decadence with the pseudo-righteous pseudo-culture of pseudo-cadence, where the contrast between pseudo-metaphysics and physics is concerned.

 

Contrariwise, to contrast the righteous culture of cadence with the meek philistinism of decadence, as one would contrast metaphysics with pseudo-physics as primary church-hegemonic polarity (male) vis-a-vis the secondary church-hegemonic polarity (female) which contrasts the pseudo-just pseudo-civility of pseudo-degeneration with the pseudo-vain pseudo-barbarity of pseudo-regeneration, where the contrast between pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry is concerned.

 

******

 

What is righteousness? Is it the same, for instance, as the pseudo-cadence of pseudo-physics? No, that, by contrast, is pseudo-righteous because, although equivocally hegemonic over the just civility of pseudo-chemistry, in overall axial terms it is subject to the domination of female criteria by dint of the axial primacy of metachemistry which, unequivocally hegemonic over pseudo-metaphysics, is polar to pseudo-chemistry, as regeneration to degeneration, or vanity to justice. Righteousness, by axial contrast, is not pseudo-cultural, like physics, but properly cultural, which is only possible in the cadence of metaphysics, and such culture, appertaining to an unequivocally hegemonic elemental position (over pseudo-metachemistry) is only possible in relation to the Self, or soul, where it is true. For, like righteousness, culture is nothing if not self-culture, and the self-righteous in self-culture are the truly righteous, being one with self as, in equivalent terms, God is One with Heaven, or Superconsciousness One with the Supersensibility of the Soul. The Righteous are joyful in their self-culture, for they have triumphed over life and need not fear death. Theirs is the grace of the Saved.

 

If the righteous man – effectively a superman – is righteous because of his commitment to self-culture, to the cultivation of the Soul within the elemental framework of metaphysics, then anyone who is not self-righteous is not righteous, even if, like the physical man of ego, he happens to be pseudo-righteous in his equivocal hegemony over the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, who is nevertheless polar to what is unequivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-male, namely the metachemical female of regenerative vanity. As for the pseudo-metaphysical themselves, they are anything but righteous, since no less pseudo-meek under a metachemically vain hegemony than the pseudo-physical are meek under a chemically pseudo-vain one, barbarity absolutely dominating pseudo-philistinism in the former case, and pseudo-barbarity relatively dominating philistinism in the latter case.

 

The metaphysical man, a superman, is alone righteous in his commitment to metaphysics on the church-hegemonic axis, and Roman Catholic priests, being vocationally celibate, have traditionally exemplified such righteousness, even with a bound-somatic shortfall, through the Crucified Christ, from free-psychic grace in metaphysics such that, at the human level or stage of metaphysics, would imply regular recourse to transcendental meditation and a disposition completely independent of anything metachemical, no matter how beautiful or loving. Therefore the Righteous are, in effect, theocratic rather than, say, plutocratic, democratic, or autocratic, and are also men who, being righteous, or self-cultivated, tend to distance themselves from women, at least from sexual relationships with a gender which is fundamentally autocratic and therefore the very antithesis of the theocratic. Baudelaire aptly described women as being both tyrannical and slavish, and we may infer from this that if the tyrant is autocratic and regenerative, then the slave is likely to be democratic and pseudo-regenerative, that is, chemical rather than metachemical, pseudo-vain rather than vain, more concerned with reproduction (or its familial consequences) than with seduction, but still given, objectively, to a somatic disposition which is ever concrete, if relatively rather than absolutely so. The unrighteous man, using that term in a general sense, does not, however, distance himself from women in this way, but sexually engages with them to varying (relative or absolute, pseudo-physical or pseudo-metaphysical) extents, either in the meek acceptance of parental responsibility (relative) or in the pseudo-meek avoidance of such responsibility (absolute) through an overriding concern with aesthetic hedonism. With the pseudo-righteous man, physically hegemonic over the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, there is also a relative sexual engagement presupposing paternal responsibility, albeit modified by his knowledge-oriented bias towards ego and likely concomitant economic interests making, via regular recourse to contraception, to reduced family commitments in, compared with his unrighteous counterparts, small family units.

 

******

 

God in Heaven as Truth in Joy or Mind in Soul, Superconsciousness in – and as the consequence of – Supersensibility. No Heaven, Joy, Soul, Supersensibility – call it by what name you like – and there could be no God, Truth, Mind, Superconsciousness. Without candle flame there would be no candlelight. Candlelight is candle flame regarded from the outside, and is therefore one and the same as that which burns within. So is God, Truth, Mind, Superconsciousness One and the Same as Heaven, Joy, Soul, Supersensibility, since the former variations on the one theme are the latter variations on it perceived from without rather than experienced from within.

 

Deny the Soul and you are left, as a male, with mind that, far from being superconscious, is merely conscious and dominated by the brain, which is called ego, or egocentric mind. And conscious, or egocentric, mind, unlike its superconscious counterpart, is not free of the Will but tends, even if indirectly, to be dominated by it, since, while it may be hegemonic over pseudo-Spirit, its axial polarity on the male side of the gender fence, viz. Pseudo-Soul, is very much subordinate to the hegemony of free will, as of the Will per se, which happens, being metachemical, to be female in character and therefore objective in disposition.

 

Having suggested a possible connection, on previous pages, between the descent into cyclic recurrence of a synthetically artificial order of Western civilization and its imperial associations with the older and more natural cyclic recurrences of pre-Western or non-Western cultures, I should not wish to leave the reader with the impression that such cultures were themselves the product of degeneration or decadence, since not only were they largely non-axial in character but, with few if any exceptions, stemmed from either regenerative or cadent preconditions that, with Judaism and Buddhism in particular, reflected the greater influence of cosmos-derived ethereal upper-class factors that were either autocratic or theocratic rather than a consequence, like the Western examples of more recent date, of democratic or plutocratic mass-movement tendencies inherently characteristic of a worldly age or society. In that respect, the ancient cyclic absolutes of pre-Western societies would appear to have been established on a basis the social opposite of their Western counterparts, even if still embracing relatively degenerate and decadent elements as a matter of cyclic course, and specifically, I believe, in relation to a kind of non-axial polarity between the regenerative nature of Judaism and the degenerate nature, knowledgeably bookish, of Islam on the one hand, and between the cadent nature of Buddhism and the decadent nature, within a sexual or bodily framework, of Hinduism on the other hand, irrespective of how much or how little such polarities count for within cycles that are either clockwise (Judaism/Hinduism) or anti-clockwise (Buddhism/Islam), and therefore mutually exclusive of their polar devolutions. And what applies to the pre-Western cultures can also be said of their Western counterparts, where I argued for a distinction between the clockwise cycling of Communism and Socialism as against the anti-clockwise cycles of Fascism and Nazism, the ghost of an axial polarity being inferred with the regenerative secular nature of Communism and the degenerative nature, from a Christian standpoint, of Nazism in the one polar case, and with the Catholic-defending cadent nature of Fascism, virtually in all Latin countries, and the decadent, or Church-independent, nature of Socialism in the other polar case, albeit such 'natures' are manifestly the product of synthetic artificiality and by no means identical to their non-Western counterparts. Incidentally, when does Western civilization really begin, not least from the standpoints of non-Western cultures? For, in a broad sense, it dates back to Graeco-Roman times, with the succession of Greece by Rome, and, more specifically to Christianity, it dates from the Middle Ages in terms of what superseded the so-called Dark Ages in relation to the medieval flowering of Roman Catholicism, not least in Italy and France, which, having succumbed to decadence in the guise of the body-affirming Renaissance, was duly, albeit only partly, eclipsed by the Reformation in much of northern Europe, so that the emergence of its regenerative axis or, rather, of the axis rooted in regeneration could be said to date from the mid-sixteenth century, a century which many people, including non-Westerners, would be inclined to equate with the inception of the modern if not contemporary form of Western civilization on account of the burgeoning imperialism which followed from the greater economic and political freedoms of the Reformation, freedoms which ultimately brought the United States of America not merely into being, but as the principal exponent, in due course, of largely Protestant-derived Western values in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Therefore when this staged framework, progressing from Greece and Rome to Protestant-derived modernity via Catholic medievalism, of what constitutes Western civilization is taken into account, even Islam, a much later religion than Christianity, could be regarded as being, in some sense, pre-Western in character, not simply non-Western. However that may be, the non-European cycles, or forms of cyclic recurrence, did not derive, like their more recent Western counterparts, from mass-movement degeneration or decadence, but came into being as a consequence of elite rule by those closer, for whatever reason, to the spirit of either regeneration or cadence within a comparatively naturalistic as opposed to artificial environmental and social context or, more correctly, number of contexts.

 

We have now come a long way from the Catholic decadence of the Renaissance (often culturally overrated by Protestant and secular thinkers) tending to the Reformation theory of the first (orange) notebook, and would know that not only was it unrighteous but dishonourable and, what's more, unreserved, that is, unreservedly heathenistic in its glorification, through art, of the naked body, the opposite of anything Christian and therefore orientated, through Christ, towards somatic binding in the interests, for males, of … psychic freedom from bodily domination, not least in respect of women, who are the natural enemies, in their vacuous vanity, of righteousness and, hence, of physical or bodily reservedness. For the Righteous are nothing if not physically reserved, since given, in their self-centred honourableness, to mental calm and the cadence whose synonym is recreation, the recreation of psychic relaxation in the beingfulness of the liberated soul. Even the pseudo-Righteous are unable, in their preoccupation with ego, to achieve more than a pseudo-honourable order of righteousness (pseudo-righteous) commensurate with knowledgeable taking, the gender antithesis not so much of doing as of giving. But that which is dishonourable in its unreservedness is manifestly unrighteous, and therefore the product of error under opposite gender pressure, whether in relation to the pseudo-meekness (pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin in secondary state-hegemonic pseudo-free soma/secondary church-subordinate pseudo-bound psyche) of pseudo-metaphysics ever subordinate to a metachemical hegemony favouring vanity (crime/evil in primary state-hegemonic free soma/primary church-subordinate bound psyche), or in relation to the meekness (sin/folly in primary church-hegemonic pseudo-bound psyche/primary state-subordinate pseudo-free soma) of pseudo-physics ever subordinate to a chemical hegemony favouring pseudo-vanity (pseudo-evil/pseudo-crime in secondary church-hegemonic bound psyche/secondary state-subordinate free soma), neither of which hegemonic elements, being female, conduce towards reservedness, or the virtue of being aloof from pseudo-male failings, of which decadence, whether pseudo (pseudo-metaphysical) or genuine (pseudo-physical) is the outward proof. Unreserved, dishonourable, unrighteous, you have need, in pseudo-physics, of deliverance from your sin (pseudo-bound psyche) and folly (pseudo-free soma) to the grace (free psyche) and wisdom (bound soma) of metaphysical salvation, as to that which reserves the moral right to remain aloof from whatever is not righteous, whether pseudo-righteous or unrighteous, since, from a male standpoint, truly honourable in its inner self-centredness at the centre of truth. The question is: Do you want to be saved and, no less importantly, do you believe it is possible to be saved in a world dominated by women? Obviously, I cannot answer that question for you, but I reserve the right to ask it and to wrestle with my own reservations in relation to it, not least with regards to the fact that the world we live in these days is far bigger than the Christian one of old, whether Catholic or Protestant or a combination of both, and no concept of Salvation, inextricably tied, as it has to be, to that of counter-Damnation, would be of any use that was stuck in a Christian mould, as though the world were only occupied by Christians, and then in its more worldly, or Western, manifestations, not least in Europe. Sorry, but that isn't the case, and one has to make allowances for that fact, as I believe I have done over the years in a variety of texts which have some relation to what I have called the ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy, and make allowances, besides, for so much else that Christianity signally fails to address and would be demonstrably incapable of providing a solution to, since rooted, through the Old Testament, in what is the very opposite of the centre of truth, of the cadent righteousness of the truly reserved. And those roots, enjoining people to 'increase and multiply', have reference to the regenerative vanity whose starting-point is unreservedly Creator-esque in its quasar/black hole-like cyclic vacuity out of which the beautiful and loving freely somatic (coupled to ugly and hateful bound psychic) enemies of the freely psychic joy and truth (coupled to the bound somatic woe and illusion) objectively diverge, to render any subjective convergence to the centre of truth, the omega point of joyful soul, a rather uphill and daunting task, but not, I maintain, as impossible as some, lacking in both logic and faith, would have us believe. And not so much in regard to 'moving mountains', which to me is a largely irrelevant concept of faith, as in 'climbing hills'. For if this hill can be climbed, then there will be no place for mountains, much less mountain-scalers and mouthpieces like Moses and Zarathustra, that mouthpiece of the Nietzschean will to power, and less and less place, correlatively, for anything in between, including decadent valleys and degenerate flatlands. Regeneration may have had the first creative say and be indicative, moreover, of what comes first as the alpha-most tendency in life, whether in ancient cyclic, schismatic axial, or modern cyclic guise, but if righteousness is to finally prevail, not least over pseudo-justice, its subordinate gender concomitant, then it will be desirable for cadence to reserve to itself the last recreational thought, and for the Y-like emblem of truth to be planted atop the hill whose centre is universal and eternally beyond the realm of cosmic necessity.

 

The Church was not built atop a mountain, like the Kehlsteinhaus or Adlerhorst (eagle's nest) of the Zarathustrian Hitler. No Nietzschean Zarathustra or Mosaic Jehovah lights our path under a blazing sun or tumultuous sky violently rent asunder by commanding thunderclaps and lightening bolts of 'the Almighty', but only the flickering inner light of metaphysical truth, the light which, as Truth, bears witness to the Joy of the heavenly soul which is the maker and breaker of godliness. Now why, as a male of philosophic tendency, should one have any reservations about that?

 

London, 2013

 

 

RESERVATIONS IN ORANGE AND GREEN

 

 

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

 

Bookmark and Share