OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM VOL.2–
Incompatibility of the Intercardinal Axes
Metaphysical Philosophy as
Revised and Reformatted Weblogs
Copyright © 2006-2010 John O’Loughlin
01. Debunking ‘Motherfucking’
02. The Typical Manifestations of Each Intercardinal Point
03. The Representative Somatic and Psychic Antipodes in Each Axial Case
04. Examining the Relationships between Nature and Genetics and Nurture and Culture
05. Primacy and Supremacy Revaluated
06. An Investigation of Positivity and Negativity in relation to ‘Pro’ and ‘Anti’ Elements
07. The Struggle against Moral Relativism
08. How ‘the First’ will be Last and ‘the Last’ First
09. Revaluating Gaelic Football and Hurling
10. The Natural and Cultural Alternatives of Sensuality and Sensibility
11. Antitheses Exclude, Polarities Attract
12. Contrasting Left- and Right-wing Values
13. Why Beauty is not Truth and Truth not Beauty
14. Heat and Motion vis-à-vis Light and Force
15. The Incompatibility of Beauty and Truth
16. A Deeper Analysis of the Relationship between Beauty and Truth
17. An Analysis of the Relationship between Strength and Knowledge
18. A More Comprehensive Assessment of Heat, Light, Motion and Force
19. Contrasting Heat with Light in Sensuality and Sensibility
DEBUNKING ‘MOTHERFUCKING’. Just as the expression 'sonofabitch' is somewhat logically dubious (as already explained in a previous entry), so is the expression 'motherfucker' likewise; although used in the sense of someone who 'fucks' a 'mother', whoever she may be, it undoubtedly makes perfect sense. But in terms of a position on the intercardinal axial compass - forget it! Having already identified the position of 'mothers' with metachemistry in noumenal objectivity and chemistry in phenomenal objectivity, I can safely say that 'motherfucking' would not be verbally relevant to either, even if one could, in slang jargon, resort to expressions like 'motherfrigging', and hence 'motherfrigger' in the one case, that of metachemistry, and 'mothersucking', and hence 'mothersucker', in the other case, that of chemistry. For 'frigging' and 'sucking' are no less germane to noumenal and phenomenal objectivity than 'snogging' and 'fucking' to their sensible counterparts in noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity, where we are concerned with metaphysics and physics, those male hegemonic realities identifiable with 'fathers' and 'sons' rather than with 'mothers' or 'daughters'. Obviously one could argue in favour of anti-positions, as it were, for any hegemonic position, be it sensual or sensible in noumenal or phenomenal class terms, but even then 'antimothers', for example, would have to be equated with either 'antifrigging' or 'antisucking', their antimale counterparts with either 'antisnogging' or 'antifucking'. So, other than in terms of someone who 'fucks' a 'mother', the expression 'motherfucker' is as inept as its verbal transmutation, and in no sense to be taken literally.
THE TYPICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF EACH INTERCARDINAL POINT. Although all four points of our intercardinal axial compass, viz. northwest, southeast, northeast and southwest, are divisible between soma and psyche (body and mind) on either a mother/daughter (coupled to antison/antifather) or a father/son (coupled to antidaughter/antimother) basis, in practice each point is chiefly characterized by just two such metaphorical illustrations of soma or psyche, whether free or bound, in consequence of the prevailing influence, whether unequivocally or equivocally hegemonic, of the conditioning gender. Hence in the case of metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass we find a context typified, in primary and secondary vein, by a mother/antison manifestation of state-hegemonic criteria; in the case of physics and antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass we find a context typified, in secondary and primary vein, by a son/antimother manifestation of state-hegemonic criteria - the overall axial polarity of mother to antimother constitutive of primary and antison to son secondary state-hegemonic criteria. In the case of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, however, we find a context typified, in primary and secondary vein, by a father/antidaughter manifestation of church-hegemonic criteria; in the case of chemistry and antiphysics at the southwest point of the said compass we find a context typified, in secondary and primary vein, by a daughter/antifather manifestation of church-hegemonic criteria - the overall axial polarity of father to antifather constitutive of primary and antidaughter to daughter secondary church-hegemonic criteria (at least in traditional terms). Hence in overall general terms, mother and antison line up against antimother and son on the state-hegemonic (but also church-subordinate) axis, whereas father and antidaughter line up against antifather and daughter on the church-hegemonic (but also state-subordinate) axis.
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NATURE AND GENETICS AND NURTURE AND CULTURE. Today I want to say a few words about the relationships between nature and genetics on the one hand, and nurture and culture on the other. For it seems to me that while nature and nurture are common to all, genetics and culture are more particular or individualistic, pretty much as the male - as opposed to female - input into both soma and psyche. Anyway, let us say that while nature is the basis of genetic modifications, all arms being pretty much alike but each person's arms being unique to that person alone, so nurture, to move from soma to psyche, is the basis of culture, since while you can lead a horse to water you can't make him drink, as the saying goes, and no amount of instruction in reading and writing will inevitably turn a man, shall we say, into a writer, who is culturally more than the sum of his nurtured parts, so to speak. But if nature and nurture are more general than particular, more objective than subjective, then genetics and culture must owe more, as suggested above, to the male side of life than to its female side, in view of the extents to which they reflect the particular subjectively, being the product of individualism. My arm is not the same as your arm, even though all arms, as products of nature, are pretty much alike, and the reason for that is genetic inheritance. Likewise, my thinking is not the same as your thinking, even though all thoughts, as products of nurture, are pretty similar in their cerebral fundamentals. Yet the distinction between nature and genetics on the one hand and nurture and culture on the other would indicate that females have an input into psyche no less than males into soma, even if on opposite terms such that we have identified with the general and the particular, nature and nurture in the case of females and genetics and culture in the case of males, the former options objectively general, and therefore collective; the latter ones subjectively particular, and therefore individual, a particle/wavicle dichotomy between determinism and freedom (which is genetic and/or cultural freedom from determinism and therefore from nature and/or nurture, according as to whether somatic or psychic factors are paramount).
PRIMACY AND SUPREMACY REVALUATED. Just as we distinguish between sensual and sensible, alpha and omega, outer and inner, so we should distinguish between primal and supreme on a like basis, but with a further distinction between antisupremacy and antiprimacy, as in antisupremacy under primacy and antiprimacy under supremacy, the former germane to either noumenal or phenomenal sensuality, the latter to their sensible counterparts. Hence not only primacy and supremacy as alpha and omega, but antisupremacy as anti-omega and antiprimacy as anti-alpha, with something like doing and antibeing lining up in noumenal sensuality and antisensibility against taking and antigiving in phenomenal sensibility and antisensuality where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria in respect of a polar antithesis between the northwest and the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are concerned, and, conversely, giving and antitaking lining up in phenomenal sensuality and antisensibility against being and antidoing in noumenal sensibility and antisensuality where church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria in respect of a polar antithesis between the southwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are concerned. Hence doing over antibeing as noumenal primacy over noumenal antisupremacy at the space/antitime northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, but taking over antigiving as phenomenal supremacy over phenomenal antiprimacy at the mass/antivolume southeast point of the said compass. Hence, too, giving over antitaking as phenomenal primacy over phenomenal antisupremacy at the volume/antimass southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, but being over antidoing as noumenal supremacy over noumenal antiprimacy at the time/antispace northeast point of the said compass. Therefore metachemical primacy, in noumenally objective doing, over antimetaphysical antisupremacy, in noumenally antisubjective antibeing, will contrast with physical supremacy, in phenomenally subjective taking, over antichemical antiprimacy, in phenomenally anti-objective antigiving, where the northwest-southeast antithesis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria is concerned, whereas chemical primacy, in phenomenally objective giving, over antiphysical antisupremacy, in phenomenally antisubjective antitaking, will contrast with metaphysical supremacy, in noumenally subjective being, over antimetachemical antiprimacy, in noumenally anti-objective antidoing, where the southwest-northeast antithesis of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria is concerned. Today the latter axis is, thanks to the post-worldly prevalence of the former one, much less prevalent than previously; but its revolutionary overhaul and 'resurrection' is just a matter of time, and one will then witness a growing trend towards metaphysical supremacy and antimetachemical antiprimacy as the antiphysical antisupreme are saved and the chemical primal counter-damned to their respective gender destinies at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, leaving their lowly fates at the southwest point of what, under the influence of contrary axial pressures in post-worldly society, was less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate than quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate far behind them.
AN INVESTIGATION OF POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY IN RELATION TO ‘PRO’ AND ‘ANTI’ ELEMENTS. Formerly, when I wrote about metachemistry over antimetaphysics vis-à-vis metaphysics over antimetachemistry on the one hand and, 'down below', chemistry over antiphysics vis-à-vis physics over antichemistry on the other hand, it was on a basis that was often overly partial to the inner at the expense of the outer forms of both the sensual and sensible antitheses. One might have got the impression that beauty and truth 'hung together' the way that God and the Antidevil were found to do in metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass or, antithetically, that ugliness and illusion did likewise in respect of the Devil and Antigod at its northwest point. But that would, I now believe, have been far from the case! For is not metachemistry over antimetaphysics symptomatic of a plus over a minus, so to speak, with metaphysics over antimetachemistry likewise exemplifying, as in the contrast between God and the Antidevil, such a dichotomy? But when we speak of pluses and minuses we must beware of making a simple positive/negative dichotomy, as though metachemistry or metaphysics were always positive and their upended gender counterparts negative. It seems to me that each element, whether hegemonic or subordinate, as well as whether noumenal (as in the above-mentioned examples) or phenomenal, is divisible into a positive and a negative, whether in soma or psyche, and that we should therefore distinguish between what could be called pro-positive and pro-negative options in the hegemonic cases from anti-positive and anti-negative options in the cases of the subordinate elements or, more correctly, anti-elements, as though one were distinguishing between pro-metachemistry and anti-metaphysics, pro-metaphysics and anti-metachemistry, as well as, in the phenomenal contexts, between pro-chemistry and anti-physics, pro-physics and anti-chemistry. For then one has two approaches, as before, to each element/anti-element, corresponding, again as before, to soma or psyche, but with a different emphasis depending on the gender orientation of the element/anti-element concerned. For is not this distinction between positivity and negativity really one of freedom and binding? Is not that which is free, whether somatically in sensuality or psychically in sensibility, positive, compared or, rather, contrasted to whatever is bound, whether psychically in sensuality or somatically in sensibility, which then becomes its negative corollary? Let us investigate this hypothesis today, since I have spent most of the preceding evening and even much of the night mulling over this problem and have now convinced myself of its solution. Metachemistry or, better, pro-metachemistry over anti-metaphysics is the context of free soma and bound psyche on the noumenal planes of space and anti-time, and therefore we should speak of beauty and love in connection with pro-metachemical free soma and ugliness and hatred in connection with pro-metachemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner sensual modes of pro-metachemical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-illusion and anti-woe in connection with anti-metaphysical free soma and anti-truth and anti-joy in connection with anti-metaphysical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner sensual modes of anti-metaphysical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-beautiful and quasi-loving while the latter pair are pseudo-ugly and pseudo-hateful. Be that as it may, metaphysics or, better, pro-metaphysics over anti-metachemistry is the context of free psyche and bound soma on the noumenal planes of time and anti-space, and therefore we should speak of truth and joy in connection with pro-metaphysical free psyche and illusion and woe in connection with pro-metaphysical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of pro-metaphysical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-ugliness and anti-hate in connection with anti-metachemical free psyche and anti-beauty and anti-love in connection with anti-metachemical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of anti-metachemical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-truthful and quasi-joyful while the latter pair are pseudo-illusory and pseudo-woeful. However that may be, let us briefly turn from the noumenal planes to their phenomenal counterparts, beginning with chemistry or, better, pro-chemistry over anti-physics in the context of free soma and bound psyche on the phenomenal planes of volume and anti-mass, which should lead us to speak of strength and pride in connection with pro-chemical free soma and weakness and humility in connection with pro-chemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner modes of pro-chemical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-ignorance and anti-pain in connection with anti-physical free soma and anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure in connection with anti-physical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner modes of anti-physical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-strong and quasi-proud while the latter pair are pseudo-weak and pseudo-humble. Be that as it may, physics or, better, pro-physics over anti-chemistry is the context of free psyche and bound soma on the phenomenal planes of mass and anti-volume, and therefore we should speak of knowledge and pleasure in connection with pro-physical free psyche and ignorance and woe in connection with pro-physical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer modes of pro-physical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-weakness and anti-humility in connection with anti-chemical free psyche and anti-strength and anti-pride in connection with anti-chemical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of anti-chemical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-knowledgeable and quasi-pleasurable while the latter pair are pseudo-ignorant and pseudo-painful. Consequently we now have distinctions between pro-positive soma and pro-negative psyche on the one hand and anti-negative soma and anti-positive psyche on the other in sensuality, whether on the noumenal or phenomenal planes, which contrast with the distinctions between pro-positive psyche and pro-negative soma on the one hand and anti-negative psyche and anti-positive soma on the other in sensibility, again whether on the noumenal or phenomenal planes. If pro-metachemistry is primarily pro-positive in relation to the beauty and love of its somatic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the ugliness and hatred of its psychic binding; if, correlatively, anti-metaphysics is, under pro-metachemical pressures, primarily anti-negative in relation to the anti-illusion and anti-woe of its somatic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-truth and anti-joy of its psychic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate standpoint, one might say an anti-standpoint, the hegemonic point of view of pro-metachemical freedom and binding. Conversely, if pro-metaphysics is primarily pro-positive in relation to the truth and joy of its psychic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the illusion and woe of its somatic binding; if, correlatively, anti-metachemistry is primarily, under pro-metaphysical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-ugliness and anti-hatred of its psychic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-beauty and anti-love of its somatic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-point of view, the hegemonic standpoint of pro-metaphysical freedom and binding. Similarly, if pro-chemistry is primarily pro-positive in relation to the strength and pride of its somatic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the weakness and humility of its psychic binding; if, correlatively, anti-physics is primarily, under pro-chemical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-ignorance and anti-pain of its somatic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure of its psychic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-standpoint, the hegemonic point of view of pro-chemical freedom and binding. Conversely, if pro-physics is primarily pro-positive in relation to the knowledge and pleasure of its psychic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the ignorance and pain of its somatic binding; if, correlatively, anti-chemistry is primarily, under pro-physical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-weakness and anti-humility of its psychic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-strength and anti-pride of its somatic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-point of view, the hegemonic standpoint of pro-physical freedom and binding. However, being equivocal, the phenomenal hegemonic positions, as explained often enough by me in the past, are subject to subversion at the hands of their subordinate counterparts when axial factors linking the northwest to the southeast or, conversely, the northeast to the southwest are taken into account; for the switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the case of the southwest and from psyche to soma in the case of the southeast also has to be born in mind, since this is what makes for either state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial continuity and consistency, as determined by the unequivocally hegemonic elements 'on high'.
THE STRUGGLE AGAINST MORAL RELATIVISM. When I wrote, yesterday, about 'pro' approaches to positivity and negativity, it soon became evident that each positive 'virtue', if you will, had an attendant 'vice' that was its negative shadow, and that the division of positivity/negativity into sensual and sensible hegemonies on either noumenal or phenomenal planes quickly became identified with a gender distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, appearance and quantity, so to speak, vis-à-vis quality and essence, as beauty and love/ugliness and hatred together with strength and pride/weakness and humility 'squared up', as it were, against knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain together with truth and joy/illusion and woe. Such hegemonic positions, along with their subordinate 'anti' approaches to positivity and negativity, meant that there would always be a conflict between sensual, or 'once born', virtue and sensible, or 'reborn', virtue, as though in a heathen/Christian struggle between free soma/bound psyche on the one hand and free psyche/bound soma on the other. Relativity in these matters can be - and often is - upheld. But those who are more or most committed to 'Christian' criteria will tend to spurn heathen 'virtue' and, in their fixation on either knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain or truth and joy/illusion and woe, regard the 'once born' alternatives as vicious and therefore as unworthy of Christian endorsement. Beauty and love/ugliness and hatred are not acceptable from the standpoint of truth and joy/illusion and woe, since alpha tends to exclude omega and vice versa on the noumenal planes of space and time, and therefore the devotees of truth and joy/illusion and woe, who are metaphysical, will tend to spurn everything associated with beauty and love/ugliness and hate in their determination to live a godly life, one that, in complete contrast to metachemical devility, requires an antidevilish corollary in the 'anti' approaches to positivity and negativity that have been identified with antimetachemistry and, hence, with anti-beauty and anti-love/anti-ugliness and anti-hatred such that reflect a noumenal antifemale rejection of noumenal female criteria and the possibility, in consequence, of deference to noumenal male hegemonic criteria in metaphysics. Likewise strength and pride/weakness and humility are not acceptable from the standpoint of knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain, since alpha tends to exclude omega and vice versa on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, and therefore the devotees of knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain, who are physical, will tend to spurn everything associated with strength and pride/weakness and humility in their determination to live a manly life, one that, in complete contrast to chemical femininity, requires an antifeminine corollary in the 'anti' approaches to positivity and negativity that have been identified with antichemistry and, hence, with anti-strength and anti-pride/anti-weakness and anti-humility such that reflect a phenomenal antifemale rejection of phenomenal female criteria and the possibility, in consequence, of deference to phenomenal male hegemonic criteria in physics. Frankly, beauty and love/ugliness and hatred, together with their antimetaphysical subordinates, are vicious from a metaphysical and, by extrapolation, antimetachemical standpoint, since they heathenistically fly in the face of the sort of noumenally sensible 'reborn' criteria with which metaphysics in particular is concerned. One might say that noumenal objectivity and its anti-subjective counterpart is superheathenly unacceptable from what effectively amounts to a superchristian standpoint and therefore something to be repudiated and, if possible, defeated. Similarly strength and pride/weakness and humility, together with their antiphysical subordinates, are vicious from a physical and, by extrapolation, antichemical standpoint, since they heathenistically fly in the face of the sort of phenomenally sensible 'reborn' criteria with which physics in particular is concerned. One might say that phenomenal objectivity and its anti-subjective counterpart is heathenly unacceptable from what amounts to a Christian (puritan) standpoint and therefore something to be repudiated and, if possible, defeated or, at the very least, avoided, since that which, in Catholicism, is pegged to its lowly southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass by some degree, if pseudo, of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at its northeast point is in no position to repudiate itself except insofar as it accepts a degree of grace and, for females, punishment through verbal absolution for confession of its sinful and, for females, pseudo-criminal shortcomings. However, much as Catholicism would not be able to make such logical distinctions as I have noted (and not just here but over several years of writing), it upholds an axial integrity which is at complete variance with the puritanism of the southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, and even Christianity, in that puritan sense, has to compete with and acknowledge its axial polarity at the Anglican northwest point of the said compass which, unlike Catholicism, is less affiliated to metaphysics and antimetachemistry than - dare I say it - to their opposites in view of its subordination to state-hegemonic criteria in relation, more specifically, to the monarchy which, in Britain, is anything but Roman Catholic in nature! Yet a sensual phenomenalism to a sensible noumenalism in the case of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria and a sensual noumenalism to a sensible phenomenalism in the case of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria do not permit of an unequivocal endorsement of sensible, or 'reborn', criteria, and therefore there is always a degree of moral relativity at large in Christianity and, by definition, Western civilization which bedevils any attempt to establish, at least on Western terms, an entirely Christian, much less superchristian, moral dispensation. Even the Bible, the so-called Christian Bible, is torn between Old and New Testaments in response to a degree of moral relativity which pits the sensual against the sensible, heathen against Christian criteria, in such fashion that, no matter how much some people may uphold either knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain or truth and joy/illusion and woe in sensible defiance of heathen virtue, there will be others only too ready to uphold their sensual opposites and to do so, moreover, with Biblical, and particularly Old Testament, sanction. For beauty and love/ugliness and hate together with strength and pride/weakness and humility are very much germane to the power and glory, will and spirit, of Old Testament-based Biblical criteria which, as in the so-called Lord's Prayer, tends to exclude the form and contentment, ego and soul, of that which makes for what is fully and properly Christian and even more than Christian in repudiation of heathen values. Verily, a civilization that is more worldly than pre-worldly (netherworldly) or post-worldly (otherworldly) can only uphold moral relativism; for the meat of the female is the poison of the male and vice versa. Even these days, in what is by all accounts an American-dominated post-worldly age, it could be said that materialistic and realistic secularity is less about moral relativism than about an almost unequivocal endorsement, in the gullible wake of 'feminism', of heathenistic virtue in the guise if not always of beauty and love/ugliness and weakness, together with their 'fall guy' antimetaphysical subordinates in anti-truth and anti-joy/anti-illusion and anti-woe, then of strength and pride/weakness and humility, together with their 'fall guy' antiphysical subordinates in anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure/anti-ignorance and anti-pain, such that antichristically fly in the face of ego and soul as they defer to their respective mothers whose hegemonic will and spirit, in sensual secularity, seemingly knows no objective bounds. Hopefully that will not always be the case, since males (unlike females) cannot live by bread (or circuses) alone, and a time will surely come when the attempt to establish a morally more absolutist dispensation will resurrect sensible, if not necessarily Christian, values and bring to the earth or, more correctly, the antiphysical anti-earthly and chemical purgatorial the possibility of heavenly and antihellish deliverance from their lowly plight to the metaphysical and antimetachemical heights of 'Kingdom Come', wherein truth and joy/illusion and woe, coupled to the anti-primacy of anti-beauty and anti-love/anti-ugliness and anti-hate, will reign supreme for ever more, putting a 'Celestial City' coupled to 'Anti-Vanity Fair' end to all that is ungodly and, more to the point, vainly devilish and pseudo-meekly antigodly. For the omega, remember, excludes the alpha, and the triumph of God will ultimately entail the defeat of the Devil and all that metachemically pertains to beauty and love/ugliness and hatred, not to mention their antigodly concomitants.
HOW ‘THE FIRST’ WILL BE LAST AND ‘THE LAST’ FIRST. When we take into account our new findings with regard to the respective points and positions of the intercardinal axial compass, it soon becomes evident that salvation is from an 'anti' approach to negativity and positivity to a 'pro' approach to positivity and negativity such that entails the deliverance of anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure/anti-ignorance and anti-pain from antiphysics to the truth and joy/illusion and woe of metaphysics, as from antiphysical bound psyche/free soma (negative/positive) to metaphysical free psyche/bound soma (positive/negative) in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms. Correlatively, it soon becomes evident that counter-damnation is from a 'pro' approach to negativity and positivity to an 'anti' approach to positivity and negativity such that entails the deliverance of weakness and humility/strength and pride from chemistry to the anti-ugliness and anti-hate/anti-beauty and anti-love of antimetachemistry, as from chemical bound psyche/free soma (negative/positive) to antimetachemical free psyche/bound soma (positive/negative) in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms. Therefore there is a very real sense in which 'the first' in chemistry shall be 'last' in antimetachemistry, and 'the last' in antiphysics 'first' in metaphysics. For while males are transposed or transfigured from an 'anti' approach to bound psyche/free soma in consequence of having been upended under feminine female hegemonic pressure at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to a 'pro' approach to free psyche/bound soma in sync with male gender actuality (of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma) at the metaphysical northeast point of the said compass, their female counterparts will be transposed or transfigured from a 'pro' approach to bound psyche/free soma in consequence of an equivocal hegemony in chemistry subject, however, to subversion at the hands of antiphysics linked, in polar vein, to some degree of metaphysics at the northeast point of the said compass to an 'anti' approach to free psyche/bound soma at cross-purposes with female gender actuality (of soma preceding and predominating over psyche) in consequence of divine male hegemonic pressure in metaphysics. It is not that the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is overly heathen in its want of gender subversion; for somatic emphasis at the expense of psychic emphasis is not encouraged by a link, no matter how polar, with the northeast point of the said compass; rather, when church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria are properly in motion (as they are not, incidentally, in the quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate secularized present of deference to contrary axial pressures) somatic freedom is subordinated, paradoxically, to psychic binding (which appertains to the church) and the latter is very decidedly the precondition, for males, of salvation to free psyche in the aforementioned metaphysical heights, as though from sin to grace and, on somatic and therefore state-subordinate terms, from folly to wisdom, the overall deliverance being from meekness to righteousness. Not so, however, for females, whose counter-damnation is from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment in psyche (bound to free) and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-goodness in soma (free to bound), the overall deliverance being from pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice, bearing in mind that the vain and the just converse of anything pseudo and, by a like token, pseudo-meek and pseudo-righteous converse of anything genuine (or approximately so) appertains to the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, where we only have a right to speak of damnation from vanity to punishment and of counter-salvation from pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness, and then only on condition that the salvation of the meek and counter-damnation of the pseudo-vain is so radically permanent ... that the vain and pseudo-meek are effectively put out of predatory business for want of pseudo-vain and meek prey down at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. All this has been described by me, in some detail, before, so I shall not belabour the point again. What ultimately matters from the standpoint of godliness and what could be called the anti-point of view of antidevilishness at the northeast point of our axial compass is that the antimanly and womanly are saved and counter-damned from their lowly positions, in subverted heathenism, at the southwest point to something approaching divine and antidiabolic superchristianity at its northeast point, without which no end to their exploitation at the hands of the predatory superheathen can be envisaged and no collapse, in consequence, of the secular fruit of schismatic heresy from northwest to southeast, as though into the hands of the subverted Christian who, in judging the damned and counter-saved according to their own just and pseudo-righteous criteria, will subsequently have the benefit of axial transference and the long-term possibility of salvation and counter-damnation in due course.
REVALUATING GAELIC FOOTBALL AND HURLING. For years I thought Gaelic football superior to hurling as though it were the higher of the two Irish sports and the one that stood at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as against the southwest in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms. But subsequent reflection led me to revaluate this assumption and to perceive that while both games allowed for a point over the bar, hurling was more consistently the game in which the player was expected to keep the ball or, rather, sliothar off the ground with the use of his hurley, the hockey- if not club-like stick, and therefore, when other factors had been taken into account, including the hurley itself, I came to believe that hurling stood in axial polarity to Gaelic football in reverse terms to how I had supposed in the past. But that does not make me pro-hurling. On the contrary, I perceive in the hurley a parallel with Devil the Mother hyped as God which has the idealism, as it were, of a transcendent point over the bar 'by the balls' in the sense that such a point stems from a materialistic precondition in the hurley itself. Therefore there seems to me to be something quintessentially Catholic in the noumenal context of the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass which, despite rhetoric to the contrary, is still subject to the metachemical fundamentalism and, more to the point, materialism of its northwest point in typically alpha-stemming, Old-Testament deferring, extrapolative fashion. I am suspicious of this hurley materialism, and I feel that it could not be endorsed in a context led by a more complete and genuine order of metaphysics that sought to dispose of everything metachemical (not to mention antimetaphysical) as it enhanced the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass in the interests of a more complete and permanent gender-based salvation and counter-damnation of those at its southwest point, who, in the relativity of these things, may well be more given to Gaelic football than to hurling. An aspect of raising the lowly up to a position of paramount metaphysics (and for females antimetachemistry) would be the indoor interiorization of sport, not least in respect of Gaelic football, and I feel that while Gaelic could be interiorized with benefit to all who both play and watch it, hurling, corresponding to the Roman Catholic noumenal status quo, would be less suited to such a transfiguration in view of the much greater noise that would surely result from the utilization of hurleys in an indoor context. But if Gaelic football was raised up in such fashion, then it would not be long before everything traditionally state-hegemonic/church-subordinate in Ireland was adversely affected to a degree whereby rugby, the higher, or noumenal, British sport was brought crashing down to association football and football itself was deemed eligible for axial transposition and subsequent elevation in the wake of Gaelic football. In the end, only something approximating to football, and then to Gaelic football, duly transmuted, would exist, as though in parallel with the triumph of everything godly and antidevilish at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass. Now such a hypothesis may seem wildly fanciful and even a little crazy, but it only follows the general inter-axial schema of salvation and counter-damnation, damnation and counter-salvation already outlined in my writings and therefore parallels, in some degree, that more politically- and religiously-oriented sequence of events which I equate with moral and cultural progress. It may be that, in the event of a credible approximation to 'Kingdom Come' ever coming to pass, no sport will be given all that much encouragement. But that sounds somewhat idealistic and, as it were, too dismissive of reality and the slowness and difficulty with which significantly meaningful change can be engineered. If some accommodation with the sporting status quo has to be made, then what I have outlined above may not, after all, be that far off the provisional mark, even if, long term, the prospects for any physical sport surviving could not be too great. If the lowly are to be raised up, as from southwest to northeast of the intercardinal axial compass, then those who are already representative of the noumenal heights will have to be if not cast down then, at the very least, removed and invalidated, since you can no more establish an ideology like Social Theocracy without getting rid, in due course, of everything Catholic than bring the Gaelic footballers to indoor salvation/counter-damnation without getting rid of that which is so obviously rooted in materialism and, hence, an outdoor allegiance which apparently goes all the way back, on sublimated terms, to Old Testament fundamentalism. Gaelic football and hurling, like rugby and association football in Britain, have their respective political and religious adherents in Ireland, and it would come as no surprise to me to discover that, when push comes to shove, a blue shirt stands behind every hurler that would be quick to pounce, in defence of hierarchical values, on radical republicanism. I am not, of course, a radical republican in that obviously Sinn Fein sense, but I do subscribe to an overhaul or, rather, to the supersession of Catholic tradition on my own rather more elevated metaphysical and antimetachemical terms, for which a democratic mandate of the concept of religious sovereignty would be required. For unless a paradoxical election or utilization of the democratic process in Eire does transpire at some future date, there can be no deliverance of the people not just from Catholic tradition but from that which has effectively consigned such a tradition to an obsolescent status in the background of contemporary American-inspired materialism, making them less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate than deferentially quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-state-subordinate in a paradoxical limbo from which they can only be delivered via the successful prosecution of a contrary order of paradox such that, in the event of a majority mandate, would signify the dawn of a new order of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria commensurate, in Social Theocracy, with 'Kingdom Come', and thus with the restitution of salvation and counter-damnation on terms which, being synthetically artificial, owed nothing to Catholicism and everything to its globally universal successor.
THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL ALTERNATIVES OF SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY. Just as the distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal is one of space/time vis-à-vis volume/mass, and therefore of the ethereal vis-à-vis the corporeal, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, so we have made distinctions between metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, between metaphysics and antimetachemistry at its northeast point, between chemistry and antiphysics at its southwest point and between physics and antichemistry at its southeast point, this overall framework further divided into two distinct axes, church-hegemonic/state-subordinate from southwest to northeast, and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate from northwest to southeast. Another way of defining these noumenal and phenomenal distinctions is to differentiate the noumenal from the phenomenal on the basis of 'super' from 'non-super' (standard), with the sensual differentiated from the sensible on a heathen/Christian-like basis which is commensurate with a distinction between nature and culture, 'once born' and 'reborn' criteria. Hence at the sensual northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass we shall find that metachemistry is both superheathen and supernatural in its female-based noumenally objective hegemony (unequivocal), whereas antimetaphysics, its subordinate antimale counterpart, is effectively anti-superchristian and anti-supercultural in its noumenal anti-subjectivity. Down from noumenal sensuality, the sensuality of chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass will be both heathen and natural in its female-based phenomenally objective hegemony (equivocal), whereas antiphysics, its subordinate antimale counterpart, will be anti-Christian and anti-cultural in its phenomenal anti-subjectivity. Across the axial divide to the sensibility of the southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, it soon becomes evident that physics will be both Christian and cultural in its phenomenally subjective male-centred hegemony (equivocal), whereas antichemistry, its subordinate antifemale counterpart, will be anti-heathen and anti-natural in its phenomenal anti-objectivity. Finally, the sensibility of metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass will be both superchristian and supercultural in its male-centred noumenally subjective hegemony (unequivocal), whereas antimetachemistry, its subordinate antifemale counterpart, will be anti-superheathen and anti-supernatural in its noumenal anti-objectivity. Hence a noumenal antithesis, across the axial divide, between metachemistry and metaphysics, supernatural superheathenism and supercultural superchristianity, with their subordinate counterparts antimetaphysics and antimetachemistry constitutive of an antithesis between anti-supercultural anti-superchristianity and anti-supernatural anti-superheathenism. Hence, too, a phenomenal antithesis, across the axial divide, between chemistry and physics, natural heathenism and cultural Christianity, with their subordinate counterparts antiphysics and antichemistry constitutive of an antithesis between anti-cultural anti-Christianity and anti-natural anti-heathenism. Of course, the existence, at least traditionally, of inter-class polarity between the noumenal and phenomenal manifestations of either axis is enough to ensure that neither the heathen or anti-Christian on the one hand nor the Christian or anti-heathen on the other hand have it entirely their own way, since the anti-Christian antiphysical can be saved, as we have seen, to superchristian metaphysics and, correlatively, the heathen chemical counter-damned to anti-superheathen antimetachemistry. Likewise, if conversely, the superheathen metachemical can be damned, in the event of the other axis getting its act thoroughly together, to anti-heathen antichemistry and, correlatively, the anti-superchristian antimetaphysical counter-saved to Christian physics. But that is to project into a potentially post-axial future, and does not take into account the influence of contemporary secularity on each axis, not least the traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate one, which is in want of the possibility of substantive salvation and counter-damnation in view of the obsolescence of Catholic tradition vis-à-vis the burgeoning plethora of exemplifications of somatic licence of a synthetically artificial nature which seduce the chemical and antiphysical from their axial traditions into quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference to the prevailing ethos. Yet somatic freedom and its corollary of psychic binding are only germane to the female-dominated sensual points of the intercardinal axial compass, namely metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest and chemistry over antiphysics at the southwest, and will always be in opposition to that which strives to establish a cultural and christianly alternative to heathenistic naturalism, be it 'super' in the noumenal 'above' or 'non-super' (standard) in the phenomenal 'below'. The male-led struggle for psychic freedom and its corollary of somatic binding can not now be Christian but only superchristian, since it is only from the vantage-point of an unequivocal male hegemony (over antimetachemistry) in sensibility that meaningful deliverance of the antiphysical and chemical from their lowly positions at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass can ultimately be effected, and for that to transpire nothing short of a democratically-mandated Social Theocratic revolution in certain countries, including Eire, will suffice, since the restoration of the people to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria cannot be established on anything short of a basis capable of levelling with and eventually countering everything that now rains down upon them, in contemporary synthetically artificial terms, from the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vantage-point of the northwest point of the said compass. If their paradoxical predicament of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference is to be countered it will take the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to do so, and that will spell the end not only of heathenism in either of its principal class manifestations, but of everything that falls short of the superchristian requirement for the hegemonic establishment, on a Social Theocratic basis, of superculture and, subordinately to this, of an anti-superheathenism which will be the anti-supernatural corollary, in antidevilish antimetachemistry, of the triumph of metaphysics and, thus, of God.
ANTITHESES EXCLUDE, POLARITIES ATTRACT. Appearance excludes essence and vice versa to what, on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace, amounts to something like an absolute degree, viz. 3:1, since either beauty and love (coupled to ugliness and hatred) triumph over anti-illusion and anti-woe (coupled to anti-truth and anti-joy) in the unequivocal hegemony of metachemistry over antimetaphysics or, across the sensual/sensible noumenal divide, truth and joy (coupled to illusion and woe) triumph over anti-ugliness and anti-hatred (coupled to anti-beauty and anti-love) in the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry. Similarly quantity excludes quality and vice versa to what, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume, amounts to something like a relative degree, viz. 2½:1½, since either strength and pride (coupled to weakness and humility) triumph over anti-ignorance and anti-pain (coupled to anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure) in the equivocal hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics or, across the sensual/sensible phenomenal divide, knowledge and pleasure (coupled to ignorance and pain) triumph over anti-weakness and anti-humility (coupled to anti-strength and anti-pride) in the equivocal hegemony of physics over antichemistry. Hence no more than metachemistry is acceptable from a metaphysical standpoint ... can chemistry be acceptable from a physical standpoint. The one gender's hegemony necessarily excludes the other's. However, the modification of the phenomenal positions attendant upon a polar link with the noumenal ones germane to a given axis ensures that, at any rate traditionally, the equivocal triumphs of chemistry over antiphysics and of physics over antichemistry are subverted in favour of psychic emphasis in the one case and somatic emphasis in the other, thereby resulting in a paradoxical upending of hegemonic priorities in favour of the underplane position, be it antimale in the case of antiphysics or antifemale in the case of antichemistry. For on this basis - and this basis alone - is axial continuity and consistency guaranteed, whether with regard to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria or, in complete contrast, to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Hence the polarity of metachemistry and antichemistry is one of beauty and love (coupled to ugliness and hatred) vis-à-vis anti-strength and anti-pride (coupled to anti-weakness and anti-humility) on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with the polarity between antimetaphysics and physics being one of anti-illusion and anti-woe (coupled to anti-truth and anti-joy) vis-à-vis ignorance and pain (coupled to knowledge and pleasure) on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms. Hence, across the axial divide, the polarity of metaphysics and antiphysics is one of truth and joy (coupled to illusion and woe) vis-à-vis anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure (coupled to anti-ignorance and anti-pain) on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, with the polarity between antimetachemistry and chemistry being one of anti-ugliness and anti-hatred (coupled to anti-beauty and anti-love) vis-à-vis weakness and humility (coupled to strength and pride) on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms. Noumenal free soma (coupled to noumenal bound psyche) excludes noumenal free psyche (coupled to noumenal bound soma) and vice versa, but noumenal free soma vis-à-vis phenomenal bound soma constitutes state-hegemonic criteria and noumenal bound psyche vis-à-vis phenomenal free psyche church-subordinate criteria, whether on primary or secondary, female or male, terms. Conversely, phenomenal free soma (coupled to phenomenal bound psyche) excludes phenomenal free psyche (coupled to phenomenal bound soma) and vice versa, but noumenal free psyche vis-à-vis phenomenal bound psyche constitutes church-hegemonic criteria and noumenal bound soma vis-à-vis phenomenal free soma state-subordinate criteria, whether on primary or secondary, male or female, terms.
CONTRASTING LEFT- AND RIGHT-WING VALUES. Having categorically established a sensual/sensible antithesis between heathen and Christian values, whether noumenal and 'super' or phenomenal and 'standard', I should like to politicize the issue, so to speak, by making what seems a commonsense distinction between the left-wing nature of everything heathen and the right-wing nature of everything Christian, so that the dichotomy between, for instance, superheathen and superchristian on the noumenal planes and between heathen and christian on the phenomenal planes assumes a left/right distinction which will be either 'extreme' or 'moderate', depending on the plane. Hence the extreme left-wing nature of metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass has to be contrasted with the extreme right-wing nature of metaphysics at its northeast point. Hence, too, the moderate left-wing nature of chemistry at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass has to be contrasted with the moderate right-wing nature of physics at its southeast point. So far so good! The heathen side of things is, in general terms, sensual and the Christian side of them sensible, which boils down to an objective/subjective distinction between left- and right-wing criteria. The heathen is also, be it not forgotten, of a female and therefore naturalistic character, whether supernaturally so in metachemistry or naturally so in chemistry, pretty much like fire and water, and thus contrasts with whatever is of a cultural character, whether culturally so in physics or superculturally so in metaphysics, as germane to male-dominated Christian criteria having more to do with vegetation (earth) and air than with their elemental opposites. But, as we have seen before, things are not just equivocally or unequivocally hegemonic at the main points of the intercardinal axial compass, with 'pro' approaches to positivity and negativity, freedom and binding (as discussed in a previous blog). There are also subordinate points germane to the upended gender to be considered, and those points, whether antimetaphysical at the northwest, antiphysical at the southwest, antichemical at the southeast, or antimetachemical at the northeast, also require to be addressed in terms that do ample justice to their 'anti' approaches to positivity and negativity, freedom and binding (as also discussed in a previous blog). For that which is antimetaphysical is less supernatural than anti-supercultural and therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the Extreme Left than as one of what could be called the Extreme Anti-Right, as though in a distinction between noumenal objectivity in metachemistry and noumenal anti-subjectivity in antimetaphysics. Likewise that which is antiphysical is less natural than anti-cultural and therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the moderate left than as one of what could be called the moderate anti-right, as though in a distinction between phenomenal objectivity in chemistry and phenomenal anti-subjectivity in antiphysics. Across the sensual/sensible axial divide, that which is antichemical is less cultural than anti-natural and therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the moderate right than as one of what could be called the moderate anti-left, as though in a distinction between phenomenal subjectivity in physics and phenomenal anti-objectivity in antichemistry. Finally that which is antimetachemical is less supercultural than anti-supernatural and therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the Extreme Right than as one of what could be called the Extreme Anti-Left, as though in a distinction between noumenal subjectivity in metaphysics and noumenal anti-objectivity in antimetachemistry. Hence no less than superheathen and anti-superchristian values hang together in devilish and antigodly vein at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so does that which is Extreme Left and Extreme Anti-Right. Hence no less than heathen and anti-christian values hang together in womanly and antimanly vein at the southwest point of the said compass, so does that which is moderate left and moderate anti-right. Conversely, no less than Christian (puritan) and anti-heathen values hang together in manly and antiwomanly vein at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, so does that which is moderate right and moderate anti-left. Finally, no less than superchristian and anti-superheathen values hang together in godly and antidevilish vein at the northeast point of the said compass, so does that which is Extreme Right and Extreme Anti-Left. There is no point on this intercardinal compass which is only this or that, in noumenal extreme or phenomenal moderate terms. The genders always hang together at the various points of the said compass, but always in terms of the upending of the one gender under the hegemonic pressures of the other gender, be it female in sensuality or male in sensibility, so that both positions at any given point of the compass have to be considered and granted due articulation. In general terms, the Left would no more be capable of remaining in hegemonic positions without the complicity of the Anti-Right than the Right without the complicity of the Anti-Left. Therefore I have no doubt that the complicity of the Extreme Anti-Left is crucial to the hegemonic sway of the Extreme Right, since that which is godly in its superchristian and supercultural resolve cannot prevail unless all that is devilish has been antimetachemically repudiated in an anti-superheathen and anti-supernatural complementarity which is the antidevilish accomplice of godliness and, hence, of the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass. Without such a hegemony, however, antimetachemistry is inconceivable.
WHY BEAUTY IS NOT TRUTH AND TRUTH NOT BEAUTY. Since nothing is more alpha and omega than beauty and truth, it stands to reason that beauty is no more equivalent to truth than truth to beauty. But there will still be people who paradoxically prefer to regard beauty in terms of outer truth and truth in terms of inner beauty. Are they wrong? I mean, does the concept of 'outer essence' make any more sense than 'inner appearance'? For appearance and essence are certainly commensurate with alpha and omega on the noumenal planes of space and time. Why, then, do certain people persist in regarding beauty and truth in such paradoxical terms? I think part, if not all, of the answer to that question must be: they are endeavouring to compensate for the absence of authentic truth and/or beauty from their lives or social experiences. And that suggests that the principal kind of people who indulge in such paradoxical estimations of beauty and truth are more likely to be of the upended gender in relation to each antithetical position than of the hegemonic gender. In other words, they are more likely to be antimales in the case of beauty and antifemales in the case of truth, the former antimetaphysically subordinate to a metachemical hegemony favouring beauty, the latter antimetachemically subordinate to a metaphysical hegemony favouring truth. Hence those who, in antimetaphysics, are anti-truth (among other related things, including joy) may well prefer to regard beauty as outer truth if not, in plain terms, truth. Those, on the other hand, who, in antimetachemistry, are anti-beauty (among other related things, including love) may well prefer to regard truth as inner beauty if not, in plain terms, beauty. For each type of upended position is lacking in either truth proper or beauty proper, neither of which owes anything to beauty or truth. In fact, beauty is so much outer heat that it is completely incompatible with inner light, which is truth. Outer light may be a kind of outer truth in the absence of truth proper and inner heat a kind of inner beauty in the absence of beauty proper, but it is as illogical to identify outer heat with the one as inner light with the other, especially since the emphasis will fall somatically on what could, with reservations, be called the outer form of illusion in the one case and psychically on what, with equal reservations, could be called the inner form of ugliness in the other case, the former under hegemonic female pressures in metachemistry and the latter under hegemonic male pressures in metaphysics. That said, it is precisely the absence of truth from antimetaphysics that makes the hegemonic rule of beauty possible and, conversely, the absence of beauty from antimetachemistry that makes the hegemonic lead of truth possible. The hegemonic meat of the one gender is the subordinate poison of the other.
HEAT AND MOTION VIS-À-VIS LIGHT AND FORCE. Females, corresponding to the element of fire, are more heat than light and males, corresponding to the element of air, more light than heat, whether in outer or inner, sensual or sensible terms. But that is only on the noumenal planes of, to speak generally, space and time. It does not apply to the phenomenal planes of volume and mass where, by contrast, females, corresponding to the element of water, are more motion than force and males, corresponding to the element of vegetation (earth), more force than motion, whether in outer or inner, sensual or sensible terms. Hence a class distinction - never absolute however - between those more given, in space and time, to heat and light and, down below, those more given, in volume and mass, to motion and force, as though in a further distinction between will and soul on the noumenal planes and spirit and ego on the phenomenal ones. But if, in overall terms, females are more heat and motion, will and spirit, fire and water, than males and males, by contrast, more light and force, soul and ego, air and vegetation (earth) than females, then the genders are forever at loggerheads in a confrontation between heat and light on the one hand and motion and force on the other hand, neither of which are complementary. For, in sensuality, heat will get the better of light as metachemistry of antimetaphysics while, down below on the phenomenal planes, motion will get the better of force as chemistry of antiphysics. Conversely, in sensibility, force will get the better of motion as physics of antichemistry, while, up above on the noumenal planes, light will get the better of heat as metaphysics of antimetachemistry. But while this is unequivocally so on the noumenal planes it tends, with axial interrelativity, to be only equivocally so on the phenomenal ones, where the hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics can be subverted to psychic emphasis at the behest of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on the one hand and, across the axial divide, the hegemony of physics over antichemistry can be subverted to somatic emphasis at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics on the other hand, as explained in previous entries and, indeed, in the pre-blog philosophy, as it were, of Opera D'Oeuvre. However that may be, the broad distinction between heat and motion as representatively female and light and force as representatively male continues to hold true, and whether females get the better of males or males of females will determine the nature of society and the kinds of ideals or virtues which tend to prevail. Outer heat over outer light will make for a situation in which beauty (to stress the somatic virtue alone), with metachemistry, is unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of truth proper with antimetaphysics, appearance triumphant over what could be called anti-essence. Inner light over inner heat, on the other hand, will make for a situation in which truth (to stress the psychic virtue alone), with metaphysics, is unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of beauty proper with antimetachemistry, essence triumphant over what could be called anti-appearance. Down below, on the phenomenal planes, outer motion over outer force will make for a situation in which strength (to stress the somatic virtue alone), with chemistry, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of knowledge proper with antiphysics, quantity triumphant over what could be called anti-quality. Inner force over inner motion, on the other hand, will make for a situation in which knowledge (to stress the psychic virtue alone), with physics, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of strength proper with antichemistry, quality triumphant over what could be called anti-quantity. But, in overall class terms, heat and motion are no less incommensurate on the female side of the gender divide than force and light on its male side. Metachemistry excludes chemistry and vice versa, while, in sensibility, physics excludes metaphysics and vice versa. While it could be said that there is something of everything in everyone, it cannot be maintained that everyone has the same degree of everything in them, and therefore class and ethnic distinctions persist which harden into both axial polarities and, across the axial divide, antipathies and antagonisms which foster axial exclusivity and mutual incompatibility.
THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF BEAUTY AND TRUTH. Some say that beauty is truth and truth beauty, but they couldn't be more wrong. Beauty and love, which hang together like will and spirit in metachemistry, are a product of noumenally objective appearances, whereas truth and joy, which hang together like ego and soul in metaphysics, are the product of noumenally subjective essences. Thus there is all the difference between alpha and omega, appearance and essence, between beauty and truth, love and joy, and incompatible they remain. Either you defer to the outer heat of metachemical free soma or, in rejecting it, you cultivate the inner light of metaphysical free psyche. The one is absolutely female, the other absolutely male. Outer heat is as incompatible with inner light as spatial space with repetitive time, for space and time are absolutely antithetical, like alpha and omega. But outer heat can rule the outer mode of time, which I call antitime, and equate with an antimetaphysical subjection to the spatial space of metachemistry which takes the form of sequential time. Contrariwise, inner light can rule ('lead' would probably be too soft a term here, at least in relation to gender differentials) the inner mode of space, which I call antispace, and equate with an antimetachemical subjection to the repetitive time of metaphysics which takes the form of spaced space. Either females get the better of males, who become antimale, or males the better of females, who become antifemale. Yet to the truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well seem like truth, for it is what rules him and keeps him in subjection to its metachemical appearance. Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, truth may well seem like beauty to the beauty-rejecting female, the antimetachemical antifemale, since it is what rules over her and keeps her in subjection to its metaphysical essence. Lacking truth proper, which is inner, the antimetaphysical antimale may well project his sense of truth onto beauty and convince himself that beauty is truth. Lacking beauty proper, which is outer, the antimetachemical antifemale may well project her sense of beauty onto truth and convince herself that truth is beauty. Neither one of them is correct. There is no more any such thing as outer truth than there is inner beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer. The worship of beauty is only possible because of the absence of truth, while, conversely, the worship of truth is only possible because of the absence of beauty. It is the absence of truth from the antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical beauty possible to them and the absence of beauty from the antimetachemical antifemales, conversely, that makes the worship of metaphysical truth possible to them, albeit in both cases the worship of the ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not to be equated with that factor as such, but is only a symptom of subjection. Beauty does not worship itself but projects itself objectively as a metachemical expression of spatial space, which is the appearance of outer heat. Neither does truth worship itself because, being intensely subjective, it is a metaphysical impression of repetitive time, which is the essence of inner light. Space and time are as incompatible as appearance and essence, and therefore beauty is never truth nor truth ever beauty. Beauty rules over the antitruth want of truth as space over antitime, spatial appearance over sequential anti-essence, while, conversely, truth rules over the antibeauty want of beauty as time over antispace, repetitive essence over spaced anti-appearance. Either the noumenally objective heat of metachemistry rules over the noumenally antisubjective antilight of antimetaphysics as Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial City or, across the upper-order planes of what is an axial divide, the noumenally subjective light of metaphysics rules over the noumenally anti-objective antiheat of antimetachemistry as the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair. You can't have it both ways, for you cannot be simultaneously superheathen and/or anti-superchristian and superchristian and/or anti-superheathen. Yet the latter is much harder, much more difficult, of attainment than the former, which is everywhere the alpha rather than the omega of civilization and therefore that which is most basic and, at certain epochs (of which the present is a case in point), by far the more prevalent. In fact, so much is this now the case that one might well consider truth (as a precondition of joy) to be 'beyond the pale' and, to all intents and purposes, extraneous to contemporary civilization. For it is beauty and the worship of beauty which rules the roost, as it were, and keeps people in subjection to appearances and, hence, to the female domination of society. The struggle for truth is there to be waged, but it will be a long and complicated struggle which only a select few, identifying with metaphysics, will be able to wage. For the enemy, for them, is not strength principally, nor even knowledge, but beauty, and therefore all that, being apparent, is most contrary to essence. Hitherto this has been equated with God but, in truth, it is the very devil, the devil not of Satan or any other equivalent antigodly 'fall guy' for sanctimonious denigration from the spatial 'on high', but of that metachemical 'first mover' which is Devil the Mother hyped as God and the ruler, in consequence, of those antigodly antisons - and hence antichrists - whose want of metaphysical truth keeps them as much in somatic subjection to the twin evils of beauty and love as their antifatherly counterparts in psychic subjection to the twin crimes of ugliness and hate, crimes which issue from the psychic binding of the Daughter of the Devil to the somatic freedom of Devil the Mother, as of a noumenally subordinate church to a noumenally hegemonic state, the former of which negatively acquiesces, through fundamentalism, in the materialistic liberties of the latter, whose positivity is bounded only by the limits of its own somatic licence.
A DEEPER ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEAUTY AND TRUTH. Carrying on from yesterday and the previous entries, I can say for sure that the relationship between, for instance, beauty and truth is more complex than might at first seem to be the case. For it cannot be denied that the mutual exclusivity of these two ideals, the one superheathen and the other superchristian, ensures that their hegemonic rule is always at the expense of each other, not in partnership. Yet, even so, it is plausible to suppose that the absence of truth in the context of metaphysical sensuality, or antimetaphysics, with specific regard to bound psyche, is compensated by a sense of outer truth, which is somatically deferential to beauty, while, conversely, the absence of beauty in the context of metachemical sensibility, or antimetachemistry, with specific regard to bound soma, is compensated by a sense of inner beauty, which is psychically deferential to truth. Put another way, if antimetaphysics is antitruth in bound psyche and anti-illusion in free soma, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for outer truth in free soma and inner illusion in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to metaphysics, where, by contrast, truth is inner in free psyche and illusion outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner aspects of antimetaphysics are sensual and the inner and outer aspects of metaphysics sensible. Similarly, if antimetachemistry is antibeauty in bound soma and anti-ugliness in free psyche, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for inner beauty in free psyche and outer ugliness in bound soma, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to metachemistry, where, by contrast, beauty is outer in free soma and ugliness inner in bound psyche, albeit the inner and outer aspects of antimetachemistry are sensible and the outer and inner aspects of metachemistry sensual. If all this is so, then being outer and inner, somatically free and psychically bound, is the sensual norm and being inner and outer, psychically free and somatically bound, the sensible one, the former ruled by soma and the latter led by psyche. Metachemistry is both outer and inner in free soma and bound psyche, beauty and ugliness, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antimetaphysics, which is again outer in free soma and inner in bound psyche, the anti-illusion of the former fostering a capacity for outer truth and the antitruth of the latter a capacity for inner illusion. Conversely, metaphysics is both inner and outer in free psyche and bound soma, truth and illusion, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antimetachemistry, which is again inner in free psyche and outer in bound soma, the anti-ugliness of the former fostering a capacity for inner beauty and the antibeauty of the latter a capacity for outer ugliness. Thus, in overall metachemical terms, what is sensually beautiful in free soma is sensibly ugly in bound soma, while what is sensually ugly in bound psyche is sensibly beautiful in free psyche. Likewise, in overall metaphysical terms, what is sensibly true in free psyche is sensually illusory in bound psyche, while what is sensibly illusory in bound soma is sensually true in free soma. But inner beauty is no more genuine beauty from the standpoint of somatic sensuality than outer truth genuine truth from the standpoint of psychic sensibility. Nor, by extrapolation, would outer ugliness be genuine ugliness from the standpoint of psychic sensuality any more than inner illusion genuine illusion from the standpoint of somatic sensibility. Somatic beauty and psychic ugliness hang together in sensuality no less than psychic truth and somatic illusion in sensibility, but they do so as the genuine articles, not as their pseudo counterparts in antimetachemistry and antimetaphysics where, in the one case, psychic beauty and somatic ugliness sensibly hang together while, in the other case, somatic truth and psychic illusion sensually hang together. For where genuine beauty is somatic genuine ugliness will be its psychic shadow, not, as in sensibility, a somatic shadow to a psychic perversion of beauty attendant upon the metaphysical hegemony of truth and illusion. Conversely, where genuine truth is psychic genuine illusion will be its somatic shadow, not, as in sensuality, a psychic shadow to a somatic perversion of truth attendant upon the metachemical hegemony of beauty and ugliness. As to the relationship of all this to heat and light, that is another question, albeit I fancy one that affords an equally complex, because comprehensively exacting, solution. Metachemistry is certainly heat, primarily in relation to free soma, but I can well believe that its bound psychic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of light which would accord with an ugly counterpart to beauty proper. In contrast, metaphysics is certainly light, primarily in relation to free psyche, but I can well believe that its bound somatic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of heat which would accord with an illusory counterpart to truth proper. Hence whereas beauty proper is outer heat of a sensual disposition, truth proper is inner light of a sensible one, the sensual inner light of ugliness proper and the sensible outer heat of illusion proper standing in subordinate relationships to the prevailing ideal, be it superheathenistically beautiful or superchristianly true. But all this changes with the upended under-plane gender positions of antimetaphysics and antimetachemistry. For it would seem that if truth proper is inner light of a sensible disposition, then pseudo-truth, as we may call its outer counterpart, is outer light of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic pseudo-illusory corollary of which will be inner heat of a sensual disposition. Likewise, if beauty proper is outer heat of a sensual disposition, then pseudo-beauty, as we may call its inner counterpart, can only be inner heat of a sensible disposition, the bound-somatic pseudo-ugly corollary of which will be outer light of a sensible disposition. Thus do the genders remain in contrary relationships even as they approximate a complementarity on the basis of either hegemonic sensuality or hegemonic sensibility.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRENGTH AND KNOWLEDGE. Carrying on from yesterday, I can say for sure that the relationship between strength and knowledge is, like that between beauty and truth above, more complex than might at first seem to be the case. For it cannot be denied that the mutual exclusivity of these two ideals, the one heathen and the other Christian, ensures that their hegemonic rule, no matter how equivocal, is always at the expense of each other, not in partnership. Yet, even so, it is plausible to suppose that the absence of knowledge in the context of physical sensuality, or antiphysics, with specific regard to bound psyche, is compensated by a sense of outer knowledge (carnal), which is somatically deferential to strength, while, conversely, the absence of strength in the context of chemical sensibility, or antichemistry, with specific regard to bound soma, is compensated by a sense of inner strength, which is psychically deferential to knowledge. Put another way, if antiphysics is antiknowledge in bound psyche and anti-ignorance in free soma, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for outer knowledge in free soma and inner ignorance in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to physics, where, by contrast, knowledge is inner in free psyche and ignorance outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner aspects of antiphysics are sensual and the inner and outer aspects of physics sensible. Similarly, if antichemistry is antistrength in bound soma and antiweakness in free psyche, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for inner strength in free psyche and outer weakness in bound soma, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to chemistry, where, by contrast, strength is outer in free soma and weakness inner in bound psyche, albeit the inner and outer aspects of antichemistry are sensible and the outer and inner aspects of chemistry sensual. If all this is so, then being outer and inner, somatically free and psychically bound, is the sensual norm and being inner and outer, psychically free and somatically bound, the sensible one, the former ruled by soma and the latter led by psyche. Chemistry is both outer and inner in free soma and bound psyche, strength and weakness, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antiphysics, which, with gender inversion, is again outer in free soma and inner in bound psyche, the anti-ignorance of the former fostering a capacity for outer knowledge and the antiknowledge of the latter a capacity for inner ignorance. Conversely, physics is both inner and outer in free psyche and bound soma, knowledge and ignorance, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antichemistry, which, with gender inversion, is again inner in free psyche and outer in bound soma, the anti-weakness of the former fostering a capacity for inner strength and the antistrength of the latter a capacity for outer weakness. Thus, in overall chemical terms, what is sensually strong in free soma is sensibly weak in bound soma, while what is sensually weak in bound psyche is sensibly strong in free psyche. Likewise, in overall physical terms, what is sensibly knowledgeable in free psyche is sensually ignorant in bound psyche, while what is sensibly ignorant in bound soma is sensually knowledgeable in free soma. But inner strength is no more genuine strength from the standpoint of somatic sensuality than outer knowledge genuine knowledge from the standpoint of psychic sensibility. Nor, by extrapolation, would outer weakness be genuine weakness from the standpoint of psychic sensuality any more than inner ignorance genuine ignorance from the standpoint of somatic sensibility. Somatic strength and psychic weakness hang together in sensuality no less than psychic knowledge and somatic ignorance in sensibility, but they do so as the genuine articles, not as their pseudo counterparts in antichemistry and antiphysics where, in the one case, psychic strength and somatic weakness sensibly hang together while, in the other case, somatic knowledge and psychic ignorance sensually hang together. For where genuine strength is somatic, genuine weakness will be its psychic shadow, not, as in sensibility, a somatic shadow to a psychic perversion of strength attendant upon the physical hegemony of knowledge and ignorance. Conversely, where genuine knowledge is psychic, genuine ignorance will be its somatic shadow, not, as in sensuality, a psychic shadow to a somatic perversion of knowledge attendant upon the chemical hegemony of strength and weakness. As to the relationship of all this to motion and force (the phenomenal equivalents of heat and light), that is another question, albeit I fancy one that affords an equally complex, because comprehensively exacting, solution. Chemistry is certainly motion, primarily in relation to free soma, but I can well believe that its bound psychic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of force which would accord with a weak counterpart to strength proper. In contrast, physics is certainly force, primarily in relation to free psyche, but I can well believe that its bound somatic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of motion which would accord with an ignorant counterpart to knowledge proper. Hence whereas strength proper is outer motion of a sensual disposition, knowledge proper is inner force of a sensible one, the sensual inner force of weakness proper and the sensible outer motion of ignorance proper standing in subordinate relationships to the prevailing ideal, be it heathenistically strong or christianly knowledgeable. But all this changes with the upended under-plane gender positions of antiphysics and antichemistry. For it would seem that if knowledge proper is inner force of a sensible disposition, then pseudo-knowledge, as we may call its outer counterpart, is outer force of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic pseudo-ignorant corollary of which will be inner motion of a sensual disposition. Likewise, if strength proper is outer motion of a sensual disposition, then pseudo-strength, as we may call its inner counterpart, can only be inner motion of a sensible disposition, the bound-somatic pseudo-weak corollary of which will be outer force of a sensible disposition. Thus do the genders remain in contrary relationships even as they approximate a complementarity on the basis of either hegemonic sensuality or hegemonic sensibility, neither of which, on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, is unequivocal and therefore, unlike their noumenal counterparts in space and time, subject to emphatic subversion at the hands of their respective under-plane complements at the behest of the overall controlling element in the noumenal above, be it state-hegemonically/church-subordinately metachemical over antimetaphysical vis-à-vis antichemical under physical or, in traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, metaphysical over antimetachemical vis-à-vis antiphysical under chemical.
A MORE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF HEAT, LIGHT, MOTION AND FORCE. If we allow for a distinction between space and antitime, metachemistry and antimetaphysics, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between heat and antilight, beauty and antitruth. Likewise, if we allow for a distinction between time and antispace, metaphysics and antimetachemistry, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between light and antiheat, truth and antibeauty. Similarly, if we allow for a distinction between volume and antimass, chemistry and antiphysics, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between motion and antiforce, strength and antiknowledge. Finally, if we allow for a distinction between mass and antivolume, physics and antichemistry, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between force and antimotion, knowledge and antistrength. Therefore just as heat proper, appertaining to metachemistry, would be sensual rather than sensible or, in broad terms, outer rather than inner, so, by metaphysical contrast, light proper would be sensible rather than sensual, inner rather than outer. And just as motion proper, appertaining to chemistry, would be sensual rather than sensible or, in broad terms, outer rather than inner, so, by physical contrast, force proper would be sensible rather than sensual, inner rather than outer. For heat and light are, in this regard, as much the alpha and omega of things noumenal, in space and time, as motion and force the alpha and omega of things phenomenal, in volume and mass. But, in overall gender terms, heat and motion would be hegemonically female and force and light hegemonically male. For females are more will and spirit than males, whose correspondence must be to ego and soul. Females are, in simple elemental terms, more fire and water and males, by contrast, more vegetation (earth) and air, which means that the former are primary in the objectivity of fire and water, metachemistry and chemistry, will and spirit, heat and motion, whereas the latter are secondary in the subjectivity of vegetation and air, physics and metaphysics, ego and soul, force and light. But just as metachemistry, corresponding to fire, gets the better of antimetaphysics, corresponding to anti-air, in space/antitime, so metaphysics, corresponding to air, can get the better of antimetachemistry, corresponding to antifire, in time/antispace. And just as chemistry, corresponding to water, gets the better of antiphysics, corresponding to anti-vegetation, in volume/antimass, so physics, corresponding to vegetation, can get the better of antichemistry, corresponding to antiwater, in mass/antivolume. For in sensibility it is the male positions which are hegemonic and the female ones technically subordinate, antichemistry under physics as antivolume under mass, and antimetachemistry under metaphysics as antispace under time. Nevertheless, despite gender and class differentials, I think it can be safely said that no-one and nobody is entirely any one thing, be it fire, water, vegetation (earth), or air, and that people are accordingly a combination, in varying degrees (dependent by and large on gender and class), of all of the elements and their respective concomitants. Certainly some females will be more heat than motion and others, lower- rather than upper-class, more motion than heat, but even the former will be capable of motion and the latter of heat. Likewise, quite apart from characteristics appertaining to the opposite gender, some males will be more force than light and others, classless rather than middle class, more light than force, but even the former will be capable of light and the latter of force. And both genders can be modified, as logic would confirm, by ‘anti’ positions on either the noumenal or phenomenal planes, when they become subject to the hegemonic control of the opposite gender. Hence the antimale attributes of antilight in antimetaphysics under metachemical heat and of antiforce in antiphysics under chemical motion have to be contrasted with the antifemale attributes of antimotion in antichemistry under physical force and of antiheat in antimetachemistry under metaphysical light. Therefore there may be more ‘anti’ than ‘pro’ about males and females when they find themselves, as so often, under the hegemonic control of their noumenal or phenomenal gender counterparts, even with axial subversion of the equivocal hegemonies at the behest of the overall controlling element whose unequivocal hegemony in the noumenal ‘above’ ensures that axial continuity and consistency is maintained on the basis of a polar connection, so to speak, with its upended gender counterpart, metaphysics linking with antiphysics no less certainly than metachemistry with antichemistry on what become diametrically antithetical axes in which the emphasis is either on psyche or on soma, as germane to a church-hegemonic/state-hegemonic dichotomy. Therefore the connection between light and antiforce is crucial to the prospect of salvation of the latter and counter-damnation of those who would correspond, in secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate vein, to the connection between antimetachemistry and chemistry. Contrariwise, the connection between heat and antimotion is crucial to the maintenance of undamnation of the former and counter-unsalvation of those who would correspond, in secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vein, to the connection between antimetaphysics and physics. Only the radical and more or less permanent salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and correlative counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry can so affect the overall axial balance that the metachemical will be damned to antichemistry and the antimetaphysical counter-saved to physics. For nothing short of the permanent removal (deliverance) of the antiphysical and chemical to metaphysics and antimetachemistry can bring the metachemical and antimetaphysical down for want of prey at what in previous entries has been described as the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Until then, their exemplifications of somatic licence will continue to bemuse and bedazzle the chemical and antiphysical into quasi-state-hegemonic deference to the prevailing modes of objectivity and antisubjectivity, rendering the prospect of salvation and counter-damnation on traditional terms not only anachronistic but patently ineffectual and inadequate. Only the revolutionary overhaul of the corrupted church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis can return the peoples concerned to God and the Antidevil and hold out to them the prospect of lasting salvation and counter-damnation, according to elemental gender, to the metaphysical and antimetachemical heights of the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass. But for this nothing short of the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to a religiously sovereign end will suffice, and for that one will have need of Social Theocracy and its determination to establish Heaven at the expense of anti-earth and Antihell at the expense of purgatory, bringing light to those paradoxically trapped in an antilight-deferring antiforce and antiheat to those paradoxically trapped in a heat-deferring motion. For only when light and antiheat are metaphysically and antimetachemically triumphant over the world … of the antiphysical and chemical … will what has traditionally been regarded as ‘Kingdom Come’ actually have transpired, and divine and antidiabolic vengeance be wreaked on those whose heat-besotted diabolic and antilight-besotted antidivine defiance of divine light and antidiabolic antiheat continues, at this point in time, to rule the world and keep it from heavenly salvation and antihellish counter-damnation in the time of noumenal subjectivity and the antispace of noumenal anti-objectivity, the Eternity of the Celestial City and the Anti-Infinity of Anti-Vanity Fair.
CONTRASTING HEAT WITH LIGHT IN SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY. Aldous Huxley would write of being beyond time in timeless bliss, and one thought he was on to truth but, in reality, nothing could have been further from the case! For eternity is the context of time par excellence, and therefore in metaphysics, as in godliness, one is beyond space in the timefulness of eternal bliss. With space, on the other hand, it is more a case of being behind time in timeless bliss or, more correctly, love, which, like beauty, owes nothing to God and everything to the Devil, which is to say, to Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father), pretty much like the Cosmos hyped as Universal or, in elemental terms, metachemistry hyped as metaphysics. Huxley was simply an Anglican Englishman who 'went to the dogs', as they say, of netherworldly fundamentalism and materialism, specifically with regard to a kind of Hindu (rather than Judaic) take on such Eastern things. For he also wrote of the Clear Light of the Void as though it were commensurate with God or, at any rate, godliness, the 'Ground' behind all appearances, etc. But is there really any such thing as the Clear Light? I don't think so. What one has, in stellar metachemistry, is the Clear Heat of the Void, and therefore such a term as Clear Heat would be commensurate not with God but with Devil the Mother hyped as God in metachemical back of everything ... antimetaphysical and, hence, to be associated with antilight, the Unholy Light, of our proverbial 'fall guy' for diabolic denigration who, in antitruth, is less devilish than antigodly. Hence what hangs together at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass are metachemistry and antimetaphysics, viz. the Devil and the Antigod or, in other words, the Clear Heat and the Unholy Light, the former absolutely female and the latter absolutely antimale. But this is the noumenal sensuality and noumenal antisensibility of Vanity Fair and the Anti-Celestial City. It has no bearing on the converse of itself in anything approximating to the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair at the northeast point of the said compass. On the contrary, such positions would correspond to God and the Antidevil, being metaphysical and antimetachemical, and one would have a right to equate them with the Holy Light and the antiheat of what can be called the Unclear Heat, the former absolutely male in its noumenal sensibility and the latter no less absolutely antifemale in its noumenal antisensuality, a sort of secondary sensibility which is less subjective than anti-objective in character. So far from the Clear Light having anything to do with God or godliness or metaphysics, it is not even antigodly, but a misnomer which has no bearing on anything whatsoever! For that which is of the Light is either unholy in antilight subjection to the clear heat of metachemical primacy or, across the axial divide, holy in the metaphysical supremacy of a noumenal sensibility that prevails over - and at the expense of - the antiprimacy, as it were, of the Unclear Heat, the antiheat of antimetachemistry. The Unholy Light is anti-eternal in its subjection to the clear-heat infinity of spatial space, being, by definition, the antitime of sequential time. By complete noumenal contrast, the Unclear Heat is anti-infinite in its subjection to the holy-light eternity of repetitive time, being, by definition, the antispace of spaced space. For where Space and Time are concerned, nothing could be more categorically indicative of a distinction between the Devil and God, alpha and omega, than Heat and Light, Fire and Air. And that is a distinction, on overall noumenal terms, between the Clear Heat and the Unholy Light with regard to metachemistry and antimetaphysics, Spatial Space and Sequential Time, and between the Holy Spirit and the Unclear Heat with regard to metaphysics and antimetachemistry, Repetitive Time and Spaced Space. Either Heat gets the better of Antilight, as the Devil of Antigod, or Light gets the better of Antiheat, as God of the Antidevil. Similar criteria apply, on a phenomenal basis, to motion and force within the framework of volume and mass, but that is another subject and one which need not concern us here except in passing. Suffice it to say that as in 'the above' so, to a moderate extent, in 'the below', where the generality of men and women are concerned, clearness and unholiness on the one hand and holiness and unclearness on the other being relative rather than absolute and therefore always to be thought of within the phenomenal contexts of the southwest or southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass where either volume prevails over antimass, as clear motion over unholy force (antiforce) or, in sensible contrast, mass prevails over antivolume, as holy force over unclear motion (antimotion), each equivocal hegemonic position subject as before, however, to emphatic subversion from either soma to psyche or psyche to soma at the hands of its subordinate gender counterpart in polar relation to the unequivocal hegemonic position of the noumenal 'above', be it metaphysical (over antimetachemical) in the case of antiphysics (under chemistry) or metachemical (over antimetaphysical) in the case of antichemistry (under physics), as described elsewhere.
LONDON 2006 (Revised 2007-10)