TWO KINDS OF DEPENDENCE
It is often said that we live in a woman's world, not least of all by men. Yet, despite appearances to the contrary, this is basically untrue, because the world has a positive base in its soft core which makes for an evolutionary tendency towards the Divine Omega, and thus towards a transcendental society. Women are rather like strangers in the world - visitors from the sun or any nearby star. For, like the sun, they have a hard core and a relatively soft or urbane exterior, whereas men are effectively hard outside but essentially soft inside, more disposed to leniency and compassion than the so-called fair sex.
Since women resemble the sun, it is perhaps natural that they should generally be more heliotropic than men, and this can, I think, be borne out by the greater importance they attach to sunbathing and to acquiring a suntan. Sensing an affinity between femininity and the sun, women draw sustenance, both physically and psychologically, from its rays, which they often soak-up for hours on-end, lying perfectly still and availing themselves of the sensuality imparted by the sun's rays to sink into their subconscious mind, like animals, and doze or daydream, unconsciously or perhaps even consciously transmitting signals to nearby males. In this context they reflect a sort of stemming from the diabolic roots of life, and are almost as far removed from an aspiration towards the divine consummation of evolution, in transcendence, as any animal or plant. Communion with the sun is for many women a form of religion, though, unbeknown to themselves, it is the lowest form - a kind of devil worship!
Like the sun, women have a tendency to contract and diverge rather than, like men, to expand and converge - the former tendency existing on the physical level, the latter on the spiritual one. Were it not for the fact that men are attracted to them, we may assume that most women would remain solitary and independent for life, scorning one another but making no real attempt to acquire male company, either. They do of course obtain male company in a majority of cases, but this is usually because their urbane appearance has attracted a man who has expressed a dependence on them. Such dependence is akin to that of a planet upon a star, and will continue to be the norm for as long as an atomic integrity holds good between proton equivalents and electron equivalents, viz. females and males. Once evolution reaches the stage where the atom can be split and mankind sundered, once and for all, from the galactic-world-order, however, then it is highly probable that men will emerge who'll be independent of women, going their own omega-oriented way either in homosexuality or, preferably, celibacy, with or without pornographic stimuli. Of course, evolution also affects women; for if it didn't it is doubtful that we would have the Women's Liberation Movement and other aspects of evolutionary progress which, to some extent, have the effect of 'masculinizing' women, and thus causing them to behave, in varying degrees, more like men. Where, formerly, it was the case that men were dependent on women, just as society was dependent on monarchical government, so, with the transformation to post-atomic freedom, men duly become independent of them, just as society becomes independent of monarchical control. Women, however, correspondingly become more dependent on men, though not so much in a sensual as in an intellectual or a spiritual sense.
Here we have slightly returned to the theme of the previous essay, in which the enslavement of the populace to the nobility was stressed at the expense of the reverse situation - namely, that of the dependence of the populace upon the nobility during a given phase of evolutionary development. Since I was emphasizing the absolute at the expense of the relative there, I should now remark that, as the relative preponderates in life, so a paradoxical situation is the norm. For, indeed, both aspects of the noble/populace antithesis to some extent apply. The nobility do enslave the populace, much as stars enslave planets, but so too, at this comparatively early stage of human evolution, do people in general show themselves to be dependent upon a monarchical government, since insufficiently advanced, in artificial terms, to be capable of an independent, self-willed, socialist destiny. Only when evolution has arrived at a more advanced stage, in which people are for the most part isolated from nature in their giant cities, can their dependence on monarchical government be broken and the emphasis accordingly be placed on freeing them from autocratic control or tyranny, as though only those factors had played a part in the traditional relationship of nobles to populace! The truth is of course rather different, but it wouldn't flatter the masses to say so! Neither would the average man be flattered to learn that he was only dependent on women because insufficiently advanced to be capable of an independent, post-atomic lifestyle. Better for him to believe that women were dependent on men, even though their basic behaviour and attitudes would hardly substantiate such a belief!
The fact that men have been dependent on women for thousands of years is no fault of men, any more than it is the fault of planets that they have been dependent on stars. Evolution proceeds from the natural to the supernatural very slowly, and while nature dominates human affairs ... the atomic integrity of the galactic-world-order will continue to prevail. Women will function as protons and men, by contrast, as electrons - the latter dependent on and revolving around the former. The man will say that he lives for his family, and the woman will believe him. Only when evolution progresses to a point where the artificial predominates over the natural will a situation arise in which the man - assuming he has a wife and children at all - will say he lives for his work or the cause, whether political or religious. To live for something greater than himself rather than for someone lesser than himself ... is the distinction between the free man and the bound man, and it will correspond to the splitting of the atom in a post-atomic society, whereby electrons are severed from their proton control. The inceptive stages of this tendency are already manifest in the contemporary West, where the frequency of divorce is testifying to a disruption of traditional marital fidelity, and where wives as well as husbands are obliged to take regular employment, a fact which, logically enough, results in small rather than large families. And wisely, since the minimum commitment to propagation ensures a greater freedom for both husbands and wives from the atomic integrity of long-term parental responsibility. Given the much-improved ratio of infant survival over infant mortality these days, there is no real necessity for large families anyway. A child or two from most couples will maintain and possibly even increase the birth-rate level, while leaving the woman relatively free to conduct her life along quasi-electron, as opposed to traditional proton, channels. Eventually, however, the further development of post-atomic tendencies will lead to the supersession of marriage by a much freer interaction between men and women, compatible with their higher status in conformity to electron principles. A long-term relationship between specific couples in such a free society would not only be anachronistic ... but morally reprehensible, since indicative of a regression to dualistic criteria. Reproduction would, for the most part, be taken care of artificially, which is to say, with the aid of sperm banks, test tubes, incubators, and so on, while relationships between the sexes would be increasingly spiritual rather than, as before, predominantly physical. Functioning as quasi-electrons, the women would be intellectually and/or spiritually dependent on men, while the men, as free electrons, would be physically independent of women. Such a society is not as far off as it may now seem!