The distinction between materialists and spiritualists is an age-old reality which stems, in large measure, from the fundamental dichotomy in the Galaxy between stars and planets, the relatively antithetical constitutions of which give rise to a magnetic reciprocity responsible for maintaining the orbital integrity of the Galaxy as a whole - as, indeed, the entire universe of galaxies of which this one is but an infinitesimal part.  On the microcosmic plane this same distinction is to be found in the relatively antithetical constitutions of protons as negative charges and electrons as positive charges - the former active and the latter passive, though galvanized into action by the competing attractive powers of the nearest protons.  On the human plane, the distinction between active materialists and passive spiritualists has traditionally manifested itself in the relatively antithetical constitution of women and men, the women constraining the men to themselves, after the fashion of stars or protons, and galvanizing them into action on their behalf, i.e. as fathers to their family, the children of which resemble tiny protons, or neutrons, in that they revolve around the mother much the way that a tiny extinct sun, such as the moon, revolves around the earth.  However, I have elsewhere sought to demonstrate that as evolution progresses towards a predominantly artificial phase, the atomic integrity of the traditional family unit is gradually undermined until, with the dawn of post-dualistic civilization ... following a sudden revolutionary break with tradition which resembles the splitting of the atom, the electron equivalents are set free of proton constraint and the former proton equivalents are themselves electronized, functioning, thenceforth, in the guise of quasi-electrons.  The spiritualistic world predominates over the materialistic one at that juncture in time by quite a considerable margin!

      The aforementioned atomic distinction, however, between female and male on the family plane may be equated with the human microcosm, whilst a similar distinction between politicians and priests or scientists and artists will pertain to the human macrocosm, i.e. to society as opposed to the family, society itself coming to resemble a galaxy in that it is composed, on the independent level, of numerous proton-dominated atoms and, on the dependent level, of various professional interests and contributions, some of which resemble protons, others electrons, but all of which are subject to evolutionary pressures and may therefore undergo gender changes corresponding to the transformation, on the microcosmic plane, from closed atomic families to open post-atomic promiscuity.

      Thus it can happen that a traditional proton profession, such as politics when patterned after the galactic-world-order, will acquire a sex change, so to speak, and become a quasi-electron opposing the proton political order in the interests of evolutionary progress.  Hence socialist politicians, although nominally materialists, function in the guise of what may be called 'lesser spiritualists' in opposition, in such a transitional age as this, to the materialistic politicians per se, though on a lower level, needless to say, than genuine spiritualists, including latter-day gurus.  Likewise, in science, a sex change corresponding to the progress of electron freedom over proton determinism ensures that quasi-electron scientists, who function in the guise of 'lesser spiritualists', oppose the materialism of traditional science in deference, amongst other things, to the higher spirituality of avant-garde artists, who are their spiritual peers.  As quasi-electrons, revolutionary politicians and scientists oppose proton determinism and thus behave like spiritualists, which, however, they can never be in an authentic or genuine sense, seeing that their professions are largely governed by materialistic considerations.  And just so for so-called liberated women who, in this transitional age, are by no means absolved from certain traditional female duties and responsibilities!  Only with the advent of post-atomic civilization would the lifestyles of quasi-electron equivalents be radically influenced by electron freedoms - a situation which today applies neither to the bourgeois West nor to the proletarian East, the former being insufficiently civilized and the latter not really civilized at all, despite the considerable changes for the better which have come to pass since the eclipse of Soviet Communism by Social Democracy.  Consequently, in the East artists and priests have traditionally had a comparatively raw deal.

      The distinction between materialists and spiritualists does not of course only apply to politicians and priests or to scientists and artists, nor indeed to proton politicians and quasi-electron politicians, proton scientists and quasi-electron scientists, the former of whom will be more indebted to Newton than to Einstein.  It applies equally well within the profession of art, where social realists align themselves with the quasi-electron level of socialist politicians and produce a materialistic art of superior quality to traditional materialists, but necessarily inferior to the genuine spirituality of the free-electron, or avant-garde, artists.  Likewise, a similar distinction exists in literature between writers, on the one hand, under quasi-electron materialistic domination, like Koestler and Sartre, and free-electron spiritualists, on the other hand, like Huxley and Camus.  And, of course, in the religious profession we will generally find the distinction between priests and gurus to be one between electrons under proton dominion (the Creator), and electrons free of such a dominion.  A decadent civilization may produce either bound- or free-electron equivalents, depending to a large extent on the bent of the artist - the distinction between Sartre and Camus, in France, being adequate confirmation of this fact, even though Sartre wasn't particularly bound to quasi-electron politics and Camus wasn't a particularly radical free-electron equivalent.  No doubt, this distinction between the two writers goes some way towards explaining their differences of political opinion and concomitant professional antagonism!

      A post-dualistic civilization, however, could only produce free-electron artists, since religion and art take considerable precedence over politics and science with the advent of such a high degree of civilization as would be achieved on the post-atomic plane.  In a post-atomic barbarous society, on the other hand, art and religion can only be bound to politics and science, since a new state has come to replace the old one and officially outlawed the religion appertaining to it without, however, creating a new religion to replace what went before.  In such a society - and the Soviet Union was the classic example - the artist must necessarily be bound to the quasi-electron materialism of the politician and accordingly produce some kind of socialist realism.  The free-electron artist, to the extent that he exists at all, can only be unofficial and, hence, taboo.  His spiritualistic bias is incompatible with a barbarous state integrity, which derives, through Marx, from the teachings of Lenin.  Only with the coming of Social Democracy, and thus an end to 'scientific communism', will this artist be able to come into the open - to 'come out' - and join the crusade of those who wish to see a genuinely free-electron society come to pass, in which the spirit is freed from all proton constraint and enabled to achieve full self-realization in the name of that greater being which is the 'Kingdom of Heaven'.