PROTONS AND ELECTRONS

 

There are two kinds of antithesis, and they may be defined as relative and absolute. The vast majority of antitheses are relative, though as evolution approaches the antithesis of the Alpha Absolute(s) in ... the Omega Absolute, we may note an approximation to or from the absolutes at either end, as it were, of the evolutionary spectrum. Only the Alpha Absolute(s) ... of the stars and the projected Omega Absolute ... of undifferentiated transcendent spirit would constitute an absolute antithesis, however. Such an antithesis is absolute in every sense, there being no point of contact or similarity between the two extremes of evolution. On the other hand, a relative antithesis, such as exists between stars and planets, or men and women, presupposes points of contact, and may be likened to the North and South poles of a magnet - the unlike poles of which attract, while the like poles repel. Those poles which are opposites are yet similar to the extent that they are both comprised of the metallic substance of the magnet, and accordingly form a relative rather than an absolute antithesis.

Such an antithesis we may note at the basis of the Solar System and, on a larger scale, of the Galaxy. There is a kind of magnetic reciprocity between the sun and circling planets of the Solar System formed by the relative contrast between the negative, i.e. active, charge of the sun, in which, according with the principles of a proton-proton reaction, hydrogen is transformed into helium, and the positive, i.e. passive, charge at the core of this planet, which is gradually cooling. The sun's core would therefore be radically different from the earth's, and I wager that while the one is hard, the other is soft, and this contrary to traditional notions on the subject! Indeed, in describing the sun as possessing a negative charge and in equating that with the active, I have already reversed the traditional notions as to what constitutes a negative charge, and this reversal, corresponding to a Nietzschean 'transvaluation of all values', is at the core of my philosophical endeavour, and may be traced back to the essay 'The Negative Root' from BETWEEN TRUTH AND ILLUSION - my first step in this revolutionary direction.

The sun, then, generates energy from deep within its tightly-packed proton core, and is thus active, whereas the earth has a soft core which feeds upon the surrounding hardness of its outer layers and is thus dependent on those layers for sustenance, i.e. the continuation of its existence. This distinction between an independent hard-core sun and a dependent soft-core planet is fundamental to the mechanistic workings of the Solar System, which function in the guise of a magnetic reciprocity - the hard core of the sun attracting the planet's soft core to itself but having to contend, in the process, with the attractive forces of other suns (stars), which establish a dynamic equilibrium between suns and planets, after the manner of an atomic integrity involving protons and electrons.

Here, of course, the equation of the sun's hard core with protons gives the lie to the traditional notion of protons as positive and electrons, by contrast, as negative. For any 'transvaluation of values' applying to the macrocosm must also apply to the microcosm, since the inner workings of the latter are at the base, so to speak, of the solar and indeed galactic orders, which would not exist at all were they not derived from a microcosmic blue-print in the atom. Admittedly, it may have been acknowledged that protons were active and electrons passive, but activity is not, contrary to traditional belief, a positive phenomenon. On the contrary, it is only passivity which is positive and the more passive ... the more positive is it. That is why only a planet, as a place with a positive core, could be used as a base from which to launch an aspiration, in the form of mankind, towards a condition of ultimate passivity in the heavenly Beyond (of transcendent spirit). No star could be so used, for stars are the very converse of such an aspiration, because the diabolic active roots of the Universe.

No, if the sun is a negative phenomenon, corresponding to the proton of an atom, then the planets must be positive phenomena corresponding to electrons, the overall integrity of the Solar System corresponding to the interactions of an atom, and the still greater integrity of the Galaxy corresponding to a cluster of atoms forming a kind of molecular structure. This structure, kept in dynamic equilibrium by the relatively antithetical constitutions of stars and planets, only exists by dint of the common will of stars for dominion over planets. For without planets to keep them in equilibrium, the stars would fly-out in every direction, in accordance with the divergent inclinations of a negative charge, through anarchic revolt against the dominating influence of the governing star of the Galaxy, which probably exerts a greater attraction over the planets of whichever solar system than any of the smaller stars considered either separately or taken together. Thus arises the paradoxical situation in which like are kept in the vicinity (a galaxy) of like because of their mutual interest in the dominion of planets - phenomena which have the effect of preventing the stars from breaking away.

When this pattern is repeated on earth, as it must be whenever evolution is insufficiently advanced to warrant an exclusive aspiration towards the Divine Omega, we get what I have termed the galactic-world-order, in which a monarch, as personification on earth of the governing star of the Galaxy, lords it over both nobles, who correspond to the lesser stars of the Galaxy, and populace, who of course correspond to the planets. The nobles and monarch are fundamentally akin, and would tend away from one another were it not for their mutual interest in the domination of the populace for their own aggrandisement, an interest which constrains nobles to an oath of allegiance to the throne. Naturally, the populace are also bound by loyalty to the throne, but their allegiance is of a very different order from that of the nobility, who, after all, stand to gain a share of the spoils. The allegiance of the populace more resembles the submission of slaves to the will of the conqueror, and we may infer from the term 'subject' the subjection of such slaves to monarchical dominion, a subjection which entails an indirect rather than a direct allegiance to the throne. Only those who are fundamentally 'of the same stuff' as the monarch are entitled to a direct oath of allegiance, and this applies no less to a constitutional monarchy than to an authoritarian one - the only difference being that the sphere of direct allegiance is widened, though not necessarily deepened, by the admission of the parliamentary bourgeoisie, who have partly taken over the traditional preserve of the aristocracy.

The relationship of peer and/or parliamentarian to the populace of his particular sphere of geographical influence thereby comes to resemble the relationship of sun to planets in a solar system, and is thus atomic. While the wider relationship of monarch to peers, parliamentarians, and populace as a whole comes to resemble the galactic order in being molecular, or composed of separate atoms which interact and are obliged to remain in place by the stronger attractive power of the governing proton - namely, the monarch. Since a star is negative, and therefore active, it may be described as of essentially feminine constitution, and never is the galactic-world-order so faithfully reproduced on earth than when the reigning monarch happens to be a woman, as was usually the case in more primitive societies, given their greater disposition to violence. Then the pomp and ceremony essential to maintaining the cohesion of nobles, politicians, and populace to the monarchy was reinforced by the charismatic power of the reigning queen.

I do not wish to go into the distinction between monarch, nobles, and populace to any extent, though I should remark that the antithesis formed between the personifications on earth of the stars of the Galaxy and the populace itself is relative rather than absolute - there being various points of contact, not least of all in the common structure and substance of the human body. That the monarch rules by 'divine right' isn't, however, strictly true, although there is a sense in which it could be said that he/she does rule by 'diabolic right', which is to say, as the personification on earth of the governing star of the Galaxy, and therefore according to the principles of the galactic-world-order. He/she functions in the guise of an arch-devil. For even if the governing star of the Galaxy isn't literally the Devil it corresponds to the diabolic roots of evolution in the Universe and is therefore antithetical, in an absolute way, to the future divine culmination of evolution there. In truth, the Creator is an abstraction from this governing star and consequently appertains to the subconscious mind, a mind, however, which is being outgrown, as modern man tends ever more deeply into the superconscious, expanding consciousness upwards rather than remaining a victim of the Given. The monarch is therefore the nearest person on earth to that abstraction, since he/she functions in the role of the governing star vis--vis society in general. Compared with the monarch, the various grades of nobles, from a duke down, correspond to petty devils, having status positions relative to the lesser stars of the Galaxy. Reversing this correspondence, one might well argue that our sun is but a baron-equivalent in the overall hierarchy of the Galaxy, being but a small peripheral star of only moderate power. A duke-equivalent would be much larger and, needless to say, would stand closer, as it were, to the governing star of the Galaxy than a mere baron-equivalent. The Solar System of this important star would doubtless be somewhat larger and more imposing than that pertaining to a star like our own.

But, cosmic speculation aside, we can say for certain that the twentieth century signified a turning-point in the evolution of man in which, for virtually the first time in history, the galactic-world-order was completely overthrown in a number of countries, in order that he could be set on course for a post-atomic society tending, eventually, towards the Divine Omega in conscious transcendentalism. The example of Eastern Europe stands as a lesson to those countries which have retained some form of monarchical allegiance. The atom has been split, but that is merely a prelude to splitting one part of humanity, corresponding to electrons, from the clutches of another, corresponding to protons, in the interests of evolutionary progress towards an exclusively omega-oriented (divine) society.

Of course, I have described the workings of the Solar System and the Galaxy in rather Newtonian terms in these pages, stressing the force-and-mass aspect of magnetic reciprocities in preference to the curved-space notion of latter-day quasi-mystical physics, and I am fully aware that many educated persons would strongly object to this, considering me mistaken and hopelessly anachronistic. After all, it is in our interests to regard the workings of the Cosmos from a quasi-mystical point-of-view, which is a good deal more comforting than to dig deeply into its basic diabolism and unearth findings not guaranteed to flatter our transcendental bias or reassure us that we live in a good universe. Yes, I know the position well enough! But I also know it is important that some people, broadly regarded as philosophers, should commit themselves to a more literal investigation of the Cosmos, the better to understand how it really works. For unless they do, the truth of evolutionary progress will be obscured beneath the 'theological' expedience of scientific subjectivity, and no truly objective knowledge of the Universe will be accessible to us, a knowledge which a small number of higher minds should be able to live with ... no matter how much the spiritual progress of the age may demand a subjective interpretation of the physical cosmos, such as corresponds to our superconscious bias and reflects our growing allegiance to internal as opposed to external reality. The literal truth of the workings of the Cosmos and of the relations between planets and stars would seem to be very different from what the curved-space mysticism of Einstein would have us believe! But the truth concerning the external cosmos isn't necessarily what an age tending towards the post-atomic absolute should want to uphold. Rather, it will increasingly view life in terms of the freedom of electrons from proton control - not their dependence upon them!