ON A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS HAVING AXIAL IMPLICATIONS
Metaphysical Philosophy as
Revised and Reformatted Weblogs
Copyright © 2006-2010 John O’Loughlin
1. Growing Old with Young Musicians
2. Distinguishing ‘ology’ from ‘osophy’ in Knowledge and Truth
3. The Real Truth about Being
4. Distinguishing Beauty from Truth and Truth from Beauty
5. Distinguishing Culture from Civility on Genuine and Pseudo Axial Terms
6. Examining the Sensible Rejection of Sensuality from the Standpoint of Elites
7. The Instinctive Irrational Reductionism of Popular Expletives
8. Freedom and Determinism
9. The Development of Civilization against Nature on both Phenomenal and Noumenal Terms
10. The Correspondence between Psychology and the Elements
11. An Analysis of the Basic Musical Divisions in Psychological Relation to the Elements
12. Incompatible Gender Ideals
13. An Analysis of the
Sporting Dichotomy in
14. A Revaluation of Hoods vis-à-vis Umbrellas
15. Probable Parallel of Singers and Hoods
16. Utilizing the Democratic Process to a Revolutionary Theocratic End
17. Why I am not in the Humanists’ Economic Pocket
18. Concerning a Distinction between the Administrative Few and the Religiously Sovereign One
19. Never Simply Black and White
20. A Brief Examination of the Moral Distinctions between Play and Work
21. Synthetic and Non-Synthetic Antitheses
22. From Superbarbarism and Superphilistinism to Superculture and Supercivility
23. Metachemical and Metaphysical Antitheses
24. Antimetachemical and Antimetaphysical Antitheses
25. Chemical and Physical Antitheses
26. Antiphysical and Antichemical Antitheses
27. The One and the Anti-Not One
28. Victors and Victims
GROWING OLD WITH YOUNG MUSICIANS. They say that people outgrow music or, at least, certain musical tastes, and that is doubtless true. For I no longer take much interest in classical or jazz, which used to preoccupy me a great deal more than ever it does at present. I was always keen on rock music, particularly what is called progressive rock, but even that changes and one finds oneself listening to what is called heavy metal and, by contrast, electronica, meaning Tangerine Dream-like stuff which is likely to be synthesizer-based instrumental. Not that one listens to a great deal of it or all that often. There are other things besides music; but, all the same, if I had to describe my predominating tastes at present it would be heavy metal and electronica, and would include such bands as Motorhead, Iron Maiden, the Spiritual Beggars, Black Label Society (BLS), Michael Schenker Group (MSG), King Crimson, the aforementioned Tangerine Dream, and - yes - Arch Enemy. I don't know what it is about them, maybe a combination of factors including Michael Amott (also of Spiritual Beggars), but their music and lyrics impress me sufficiently for me to want to rate them as high if not higher than all the rest. And I'm fifty-four, for christs sake! Anyway, it seems to me that age is not really - thank god! - a problem in regard to taste and that, when push comes to shove, one would rather listen to good contemporary music, with a 2000+ date, than simply regurgitate the past or, worse, dwell on the past as though nothing else mattered. Certainly it is good to keep the faith with some of one's old favourites, and it sure as hell makes one feel better to be buying and/or listening to someone approximately one's own age who, like Alice Cooper or Ozzy Osbourne or even Deep Purple, is still, to all appearances, 'going strong' and sounding hip. But I couldn't do that exclusively, and I thank my lucky stars, or whatever it is, that I am flexible enough to change with the times and grow new tastebuds with the passing of time.
DISTINGUISHING ‘OLOGY’ FROM ‘OSOPHY’ IN KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH. I've often thought that philosophy is a hyped term which is generally used to describe a love of truth when, in point of fact, it is only a love of knowledge, which is something of a (physical) shortfall from the metaphysical nature (sic) of truth. Besides, if philosophy is a love of knowledge then surely philology would be a more suitable term for the pursuit of knowledge, something analogous to theology having to do with the pursuit of truth and not the love of truth, which I should imagine would be theosophical in character, using that term, like the aforementioned one, in a wholly novel and more metaphysically pertinent way than is usually the case. Thus theology would stand to theosophy as philology to philosophy - as an egoistic alternative to anything psychoistic, and therefore having more to do with truth than joy, not to mention, where philology and philosophy are concerned, with knowledge than pleasure. Yet even the expression 'love of' is problematic in this context, love being irrelevant to both metaphysics and physics. Rather could it be said that there is pleasure in knowledge and joy in truth; though knowledge can also lead to pleasure and truth to joy, which, if experienced for their own sake, would transcend both a 'love of knowledge' and a 'love of truth', being arguably more than either philosophical or theosophical. For ego and soul are both aspects of psyche, the difference between the two (male) contexts normally being that soul tends to revolve around ego in the case of physics and ego around soul in the case of metaphysics, where theology should lead beyond theosophy, or a 'love of truth’ and, hence, God, to something approximating a heavenly redemption of ego in pure soul, which would truly be the joyful transcendence of both theology and theosophy.
THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT BEING. As a self-taught philosopher, or thinker, I have long maintained that being, metaphysical being, is inconceivable without the assistance, in antimetachemistry, of antidoing, its female or, more correctly, antifemale corollary. For unless doing is 'brought low', as from metachemistry to antimetachemistry, space to antispace, there can be no 'rising up' of being, as from antimetaphysics to metaphysics, antitime to time, and hence the repudiation of what can be called antibeing under doing. Being requires antidoing no less, across the axial divide, than doing, its metachemical antithesis, the antimetaphysical corollary of antibeing, since neither can be unequivocally hegemonic unless their respective gender complements are 'upended' and effectively subordinated to their control. Now what applies unequivocally on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace applies to an equivocal degree, with due axial subversion having to be borne in mind, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume, where the equivocal hegemony of physical taking requires the 'upended' subordination of antichemical antigiving, its 'antifemale' complement, in relative contrast to the subordination of antiphysical antitaking under an equivocally hegemonic chemical giving. For unless giving is 'brought low', as from chemistry to antichemistry, volume to antivolume, there can be no 'rising up' of taking, as from antiphysics to physics, antimass to mass, and hence the repudiation of what has been called antitaking under giving. But this is not universally established or encouraged, since these phenomenal positions are also subject, as intimated above, to axial interplay with their sensual or sensible (depending on the axis) noumenal counterparts, and this is what paradoxically precludes a simple switch from phenomenal sensuality/antisensibility to phenomenal sensibility/antisensuality on the part of those who, under Catholic guidance traditionally, would more relate to the possibility of some degree of being and/or antidoing as the solution to their lowly predicament in giving and/or antitaking than a straightforward switch, across the axial divide, from that to taking and/or antigiving, as the gender case may be. For the Catholic Church, relative to Western civilization, is the 'one true' church, the one that offers a degree of being and/or antidoing to those who have not 'sold out', usually via some degree of puritanical rejection of Anglicanism, to taking and/or antigiving, but such a Church, being Western, is still a far cry from global universality, which transcends both the West and the East alike, and therefore its 'take' on being and/or antidoing is less than what could be and, hopefully, will be independently of such a church when once the march of global civilization reaches its sensible/antisensual destiny in the light of a metaphysics that is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and not subject, as is Catholic Christianity and indeed Christianity in general, to the subversion of metaphysics by metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in time-honoured, alpha-stemming, Old Testament fashion, with Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) always precluding anything but a Son-like fulcrum in relation to itself which, even in the Catholic postulate of a resurrected Saviour, persists as a sort of paradoxical extrapolation to the detriment of metaphysical independence and, hence, freedom. For there can be no such independence in the 'Son', only in relation to a 'Father' who precedes 'His Son', as psyche precedes soma in male actuality, independently of metachemical subversion and therefore on the basis of metaphysical freedom and the repudiation, democratically and peaceably, of Devil the Mother hyped as God, without which there can be no authentic metaphysical being, much less beingful approach to antidoing, in metaphysical bound soma, of the Son, and therefore no authentic and fully universal truth. Catholicism may appertain to the 'one true church', but such a church, being Christian, i.e. centred in the 'Son', still falls short of global universality and, hence, the transcendence of everything rooted in Old Testament Creatorism, with its hype of Devil the Mother as God. We advocates of global universality, whom I have in the past identified with and continue to identify with Social Theocracy, can no more endorse the West than the East where religion is concerned. We are beyond both traditions in our revolutionary advocacy of the one true centre. And yet we are the profoundest theocrats. For Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father was never truly theocratic but autocracy in disguise, the sugar coating, as it were, of the bitter pill of metachemical autocracy, the 'best of a bad job', to speak colloquially, and we repudiate all autocracy and everything that pays tribute, in aediculated architectural vein, to Creatorism. If we refuse to regard ourselves as 'atheist' it is because that would be to pay too much credit to what was never properly theocratic to begin with, but effectively antitheocratic in its autocratic roots. There is nothing atheist about Social Theocracy, and for that reason it can only encourage true being and not the subversion of being by doing and, hence, the vitiation of being in relation to what fundamentally remains contrary to it. The real truth about being is that it has never really come to pass because doing has been hyped as being pretty much as the cosmos as universal and the first-mover She as He. We absolutely reject this fundamental lie from the standpoint of truth.
DISTINGUISHING BEAUTY FROM TRUTH AND TRUTH FROM BEAUTY. Some say that beauty is truth and truth beauty, but they couldn't be more wrong so far as I'm concerned. 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 for what amounts to a gender distinction) 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. Hence either females get the better of males, who become antimale, or males get the better of females, who become antifemale. Yet to the truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well seem like truth, since 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, strictly speaking, any such thing as outer truth than there is inner beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer, essence and appearance. 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 antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical beauty possible for them and, conversely, the absence of beauty from antimetachemical antifemales that makes the worship of metaphysical truth possible for them, albeit in both cases the worship of the ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not equivalent to 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 antitruthful want of truth as space over antitime, spatial appearance over sequential anti-essence, while, conversely, truth rules over the antibeautiful 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, alpha and/or anti-omega or omega and/or anti-alpha. But the latter is much harder, much more difficult, of attainment than the former, which is in general terms 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, and not just - though certainly more so - among juveniles!
DISTINGUISHING CULTURE FROM CIVILITY ON GENUINE AND PSEUDO AXIAL TERMS. One has to distinguish, whether one likes it or not, between genuine culture and pseudo-civility, the respective attributes of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of what I like to think of as the intercardinal axial compass, and pseudo-culture and genuine civility, the respective attributes of physics and antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass. For not only are these pairings distinct from each other, but they appertain to two diametrically antithetical axes, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis that also embraces, at its southwest point, chemistry and antiphysics, or pseudo-barbarity and genuine philistinism, and the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis that also embraces, at its northwest point, metachemistry and antimetaphysics, barbarity and pseudo-philistinism. That said, it should be evident that a polarity between philistinism and culture on the one hand and pseudo-barbarity and pseudo-civility on the other ... should not be confounded with the polarity between barbarity and civility on the one hand and pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture on the other.... The polarities of each axis are as distinct as their respective components, and that is why they rarely or never see eye-to-eye, as it were, across the axial divide, but remain symptomatic of ethnic incompatibility and rivalry. But pseudo-culture and civility (the genuine article) are no less guilty of hyping the pseudo-cultural element to the standing of genuine culture than they are of hyping Man to the standing of God. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your standpoint, there is all the axial difference in the world - and even above it - between these two superficially parallel but diametrically incompatible elements! Pseudo-culture is not and never has been or ever will be genuinely cultural, but the worldly opponent of such culture that puts commercial considerations above the truth or, at the very least, the artist's endeavour to be as sincere and honest in his pursuance of self-enlightenment, of self-discovery, as he possibly can be. No one who has been published in book form on the basis of commercial expedience or in relation to commercial sense is or ever can be a genuine artist, a purveyor of genuine culture. Books are illustrative of pseudo-culture in the pocket of civility and are axially beholden to pseudo-philistinism in the pocket (hegemonically speaking) of barbarity. They are no more expressive of genuine culture (coupled to pseudo-civility) than Man is expressive of God. And by 'God' I do not mean Devil the Mother hyped as God (in metachemistry), but the genuine metaphysical article, which is God the Father in metaphysical free psyche and the Son of God in metaphysical bound soma, psyche preceding soma as 'father' preceding 'son' in male actuality. The Son of Man, which is the more prevalent take on humanism, is not even on the physically free-psychic level of Man the Father, an almost unheard of term. But he is still hyped nonetheless, like the bullshit that passes for truth or, in colloquial terms, for bullgas.
EXAMINING THE SENSIBLE REJECTION OF SENSUALITY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ELITES. The general rule on either a noumenal or a phenomenal, an ethereal or a corporeal, basis, is that the male comes properly to pass in sensibility in consequence of having rejected the antimale whose subordination to the female in sensuality precluded his moral enlightenment and kept him more or less in the position of an Antichrist. For antigods, whether as bound psychic antifathers or free somatic antisons, only exist by dint of the hegemony of devils, whether as free somatic mothers or bound psychic daughters, as antimetaphysics under metachemistry or, in terms of plane, antitime under space. Likewise antimen, whether as bound psychic antifathers or free somatic antisons, only exist by dint of the hegemony of women, whether as free somatic mothers or bound psychic daughters, as antiphysics under chemistry or, in terms of plane, antimass under volume. For gods and men to respectively come properly to pass, there must be a sensible rejection of antigods and antimen, the former, whether as free psychic fathers or bound somatic sons, constraining the noumenal female-become-antifemale to the subordinate status of antidevils, whether as bound somatic antimothers or free psyche antidaughters, as antimetachemistry under metaphysics or, in terms of plane, antispace under time, and the latter, whether as free psychic fathers or bound somatic sons, constraining the phenomenal female-become-antifemale to the subordinate status of antiwomen, whether as bound somatic antimothers or free psychic antidaughters, as antichemistry under physics or, in terms of plane, antivolume under mass. Hence no antidevils in antimetachemical antispace without gods in metaphysical time, and no antiwomen in antichemical antivolume without men in physical mass. But the rejection of antimetaphysics by the metaphysical is from pseudo-meekness to righteousness and brings in its train the eclipse of vanity by pseudo-justice as metachemistry is abandoned for antimetachemistry by noumenal females-become-antifemales, whereas the rejection of antiphysics by the physical is from meekness to pseudo-righteousness and brings in its train the eclipse of pseudo-vanity by justice as chemistry is abandoned for antichemistry by phenomenal females-become-antifemales. For the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry is not subject, like its physical counterpart, to axial subversion at the hands of its female complement, but is free to maintain a psychic emphasis at the expense of bound soma. With physics, as with the physical, by contrast, the equivocal hegemony finds itself subject to antichemical subversion to bound somatic emphasis in consequence of the gender-based axial polarity that antichemistry establishes with metachemistry or, rather, that metachemistry, ever somatically free, establishes with antichemistry to the detriment of psychic freedom. The pseudo-righteous are subject to somatic emphasis at the expense of free psyche, whereas the righteous-proper are in an axial position, unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and axially antithetical to antiphysics, to maintain a free psychic emphasis and to constrain the antiphysical, their gender counterparts, to bound psychic emphasis at the expense of free soma, thereby precluding what would otherwise be a heathenistic emphasis, under the chemical hegemonic pressures of free females, on free soma. Such are the paradoxes of axial polarity, whether the axis be church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, as in the metaphysical-antiphysical and antimetachemical-chemical case, or state-hegemonic/church-subordinate, as in the metachemical-antichemical and antimetaphysical-physical case. But, contrary to this, are the respective class rejections of sensuality by sensible males which broadly establish the representative elites on either a righteous or a pseudo-righteous basis, with antifemale pseudo-justice or genuine justice their respective subordinate corollaries. The salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and the counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry is a quite separate and more paradoxically problematic matter that has not yet achieved its final, because maximum, solution. Contrariwise, the damnation of the metachemical to antichemistry and the counter-salvation of the antimetaphysical to physics will only ensue to anything like a conclusive extent in the wake of the achievement of class-elevated salvation and counter-damnation, the class-elevated as opposed to class-modified options hitherto being very much, despite appearances to the contrary, the exception to the general rule, since it is easier to transfer from sensuality to sensibility on either a noumenal or a phenomenal basis than to be transformed from the phenomenal to the noumenal or from the noumenal to the phenomenal on a sensual/sensible basis, as the class case may be. Yet even so, there are sound traditional reasons why the transference from sensuality to sensibility, to speak in general terms, on the phenomenal planes has not been encouraged and why, in consequence of axial intransigence, phenomenal sensibility was achieved more in relation to a puritanical rejection of Anglican interference than as a consequence of mass Catholic transfers from the alpha to omega, as it were, of worldly alternatives.
THE INSTINCTIVE IRRATIONAL REDUCTIONISM OF POPULAR EXPLETIVES. Just as the phrase 'sonofabitch' is logically incorrect, insofar as one can only be an 'antison' of a 'bitch' in the sense of that which antichristically lines up either as antimetaphysics under metachemistry or as antiphysics under chemistry, the hegemonic position of somatic freedom being in each case female and, hence a 'mother', so such terribly populist terms-of-abuse as 'motherfucking' and 'motherfucker' are completely illogical as far as their relevance to the contexts - metachemical or chemical - of 'mothers' is concerned. In fact, such expressions simply mirror the instinctive or instinctual nature of expletives generally. For, in reality, both the metachemical and chemical positions should be identified with the specifically female attributes, in noumenal objectivity and phenomenal objectivity, of somatic licence, which are 'frigging' in the one case and 'sucking' in the other. Hence the phrase 'motherfrigging' for metachemical objectivity and 'mothersucking' for chemical objectivity would be logically more sustainable than the populist - albeit aggressively generalized - term, 'motherfucking'. But just as a somatically free 'antison' (not to mention psychically bound 'antifather') lines up under a somatically free 'mother' (not to mention psychically bound 'daughter') in both noumenal and phenomenal modes of sensuality, and more gender representatively in terms of antisensibility than of sensuality, so one could - though not necessarily should - speak of an 'antisnogging-antison' in the case of antimetaphysical antisubjectivity and an 'antifucking-antison' in the case of antiphysical antisubjectivity, the antimale free-somatic converse, in each case, of a hegemonic 'snogging-son' in metaphysical sensibility and a hegemonic 'fucking-son' in physical sensibility, not to mention of a 'snogging-father' and a 'fucking-father' where the free psychic aspects of such metaphysical and physical hegemonies are concerned. For free psyche is simply the concomitant of bound soma, which both the metaphysical and physical 'sons' are illustrative of. However that may be, the corollary, from an antifemale standpoint, of metaphysics is antimetachemistry and hence what could vis-à-vis the 'son' be called an 'antifrigging-antimother', whereas the corollary of physics is antichemistry and hence what could vis-à-vis the 'son' be called an 'antisucking-antimother'. Thus, even without reference to 'antidaughter' positions in both antimetachemistry and antichemistry, both of which would have more to do, under male-hegemonic pressures, with free psyche than bound soma, the overall perspective on such terms is far more complex than a simple generalized - and fundamentally irrational - instinctive reductionism would have us believe. Just as 'sons-of-bitches' only exist in the imagination of those who resort to such language, so such complementary terminology as 'motherfucking' and 'motherfucker' fail to stand up to logical scrutiny. Yet, in the heat of the moment, such instinctive populism as passes muster will always curry favour with the broad masses at the expense of that which only flows, after all, from a considered analysis by a mind at an intellectual remove from expletive instinct, and therefore determined not only to apply more apposite terminology - no matter how unpleasant such terms may be - but to broaden out the perspective until every factor is embraced and one can see why such and such a term has specific applicability to only one point or position on the overall compass, so to speak, of alternative options.
FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM. What if the much-vaunted dichotomy between determinism and free will is really a fallacy? For can't free will be a product of determinism? I mean, nature flourishes on both free will and free spirit, and therefore can it not be said that both are determined by the underlining drive to either wilful (instinctual) or spiritual freedom of nature? Certainly there is, as I have sought to logically demonstrate in the past, a distinction between somatic freedom as a product of natural determinism and psychic freedom as a product of, well, a certain supernatural or cultural determinism, with metachemistry and chemistry lining up on the side of free will and free spirit, but physics and metaphysics lining up on the side of free ego and free soul, the former pair effectively female and the latter pair more usually male. Now if this much-vaunted dichotomy between free will and determinism is, as I happen to think, a fallacy, then it could be maintained that not only is freedom a product of determinism, but that determinism works towards freedom, if in opposite gender ways. There is the determinism of free soma, both instinctually and spiritually, on the one hand, and the determinism of free psyche, both intellectually and emotionally, on the other hand. For if females are fundamentally soma preceding and predominating over psyche and males, by contrast, essentially psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, then each gender's freedom is determined by contrary factors which are not only incompatible but fated to war on one another until the victory of one or the other is assured, whether intermittently or permanently. Life is oriented towards freedom, but such freedom is determined by gender and by the underlining interests of nature. Female freedom is more metachemical (fiery) and chemical (watery) than either physical (vegetative) or metaphysical (airy), and therefore females have certain metachemical and chemical predilections, including the ugly periodic bleeding of menstruation and a weak tendency towards tearfulness, really quite alien to males. But, by a similar token, they are less physically and metaphysically free, or knowledgeable, than males, whose bodies are more suited to strenuous physical and intellectual behaviour. The somatic freedom of females in will and spirit does not imply a suppleness of movement for the simple reason that their physiological disposition hampers the kind of overall flexibility to which the male, unaccustomed to pendulous breasts and amply protruding buttocks arching over fleshy seductive thighs, is predisposed with his leaner overall frame. And such a more uniform frame is no less the precondition of a degree of intellectual freedom to which the female, except in rare - and usually physiologically untypical - instances, is completely unsuited and, frankly, indisposed.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION AGAINST NATURE ON BOTH PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL TERMS. The wonder about this world is that civilization has advanced as far as it has - admittedly not everywhere and not in the same ways - in spite of what males are up against vis-à-vis females. For females are programmed, by nature, to get the better of males and more often than not they do, with depressingly predictable consequences! Yet males are still able to carry on the struggle for civilization, meaning principally culture and civility, which is no small achievement in the circumstances, since civilization only develops at the expense of nature and all that is behind it in the Cosmos, pretty much as man at the expense of woman and the Devil. But ultimately civilization only develops to its cultural maximum in God, Who is beyond man, and therefore even man must eventually submit to the will of God if not merely woman but the Devil is to be defeated. And by 'the Devil' I do not mean Satan or any other false conception of evil rooted in an antimetaphysical 'fall guy' for diabolic denigration from 'on high', but the metachemical 'first mover' whom I have consistently identified, in my writings, with Devil the Mother (hyped as God), whether in the Cosmos, in nature, in mankind, or, from a contemporary camera-besotted standpoint, in Cyborgkind, where one could say that She is least rather than less (in relation to least), more (in relation to most) or most somatically free, as She assuredly is in Her cosmic manifestation. But this hype of Devil the Mother as God is what bedevils conventional religion and ensures that what properly appertains to godliness, in metaphysics, is given a raw and usually somewhat partial deal, a deal unable to transcend bound metaphysical soma for want of free metaphysical psyche relative to itself. Only the repudiation of the false Father of Devil the Mother hyped as God can lead to the full complement of godliness, as it were, in metaphysics, and then only for males, since metaphysical free psyche and bound soma is a profoundly male actuality that requires a subordinate - and necessarily upended femaleness - in the guise of antimetachemistry, the Antidevilish complement of true godliness which, in truth, is less female than antifemale in character and therefore the opposite of everything somatically free and psychically bound. Thus if God and the Devil are antithetical, they are so on an alpha/omega basis, not on what could be called an alpha/anti-omega basis for metachemistry and antimetaphysics, still less on an omega/anti-alpha basis commensurate with metaphysics and antimetachemistry. What 'hangs together' in either sensuality or sensibility, the outer somatically-dominated context of space/anti-time or the inner psychically-dominated context of time/anti-space, is Devil and Antigod in the one case, that of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, and God and the Antidevil in the other case, that of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, and each pairing is mutually exclusive of its antithesis. Therefore in a 'world' where God is hegemonically triumphant over the Antidevil, there can be no Antigod subordinate to a hegemonic Devil ... the Mother. Such metachemistry and antimetaphysics will simply cease to theologically exist or to be acknowledged. They will have been consigned, along with everything else that stands in the way of godliness and antidevilishness, to the 'rubbish heap' of history. And this will happen, when it happens, democratically, by dint of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections designed to deliver the people from every last manifestation of the Devil and Antigod and empower them with rights in relation to God and the Antidevil, both of which will only fully or properly materialize when the people are in a position to live either a godly or, in the antifemale case, an antidevilish kind of existence, as explained in more detail in various of my mature philosophical works. See, for instance, Opera D’Oeuvre and, more specifically, Metaphysical Megatruth.
THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGY AND THE ELEMENTS. Just as fire and water line up on the female, or objective, side of life against vegetation (earth) and air, their male, or subjective, counterparts, which have more to do with a convergent plenum than with a divergent vacuum, as in the distinction between phallus and vagina or, if you will, 'balls' and 'cunt', so it could be said that the unconscious and the subconscious line up on a like basis against consciousness and superconsciousness, with a noumenal antithesis between the unconscious and the superconscious, will and soul, on the ethereal planes of space and time, but a phenomenal antithesis between the subconscious and the conscious, spirit and ego, on the corporeal planes of volume and mass. Hence fire and air are the alpha and omega of the noumenal planes, water and vegetation (earth) the alpha and omega of the phenomenal ones. But, in practice, either the alpha gets the better of the omega, establishing a sensual/antisensible correspondence between will and antisoul, the unconscious and the anti-superconscious, on the planes of space and antitime, and between spirit and anti-ego, the subconscious and the anticonscious, on the planes of volume and antimass, or, alternatively, the omega, premised upon an urban rather than a natural precondition, gets the better of the alpha, establishing a sensible/antisensual correspondence between soul and antiwill, the superconscious and the anti-unconscious, on the planes of time and antispace, and between ego and antispirit, the conscious and the anti-subconscious, on the planes of mass and antivolume. For the one gender can only be hegemonically ascendant at the expense of the other, which means that either females sensually triumph over antimales, whether unequivocally in space or equivocally in volume, or, by sensible contrast, males triumph over antifemales, whether equivocally in mass or unequivocally in time. Thus what has been called anticonsciousness in the one case (phenomenal) and anti-superconsciousness in the other case (noumenal) are products of female domination through either the subconscious (phenomenal) or the unconscious (noumenal), anti-ego antiphysically subordinate to the chemical hegemony of spirit, and antisoul antimetaphysically subordinate to the metachemical hegemony of will. By contrast, what has been called anti-unconsciousness in the one case (noumenal) and anti-subconsciousness in the other case (phenomenal) are products of male domination through either the superconscious (noumenal) or the conscious (phenomenal), antiwill antimetachemically subordinate to the metaphysical hegemony of soul, and antispirit antichemically subordinate to the physical hegemony of ego. However, only the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry permits mind to truly flourish in superconscious freedom of anti-unconsciousness, its antifemale counterpart. The equivocal hegemony of physics over antichemistry, on the other hand, tends to fall victim to axial subversion at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, and therefore such egocentric consciousness as obtains is usually vitiated by anti-subconsciousness to the greater glory or, rather, power of the unconscious. For where the unconscious is sovereign, even consciousness must toe an anti-subconscious line.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE BASIC MUSICAL DIVISIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RELATION TO THE ELEMENTS. If the unconscious and the subconscious line up, objectively, against their subjective – and male – counterparts, the conscious and the superconscious, as contended in my previous entry, then this may not only be equivalent to fire and water on the female side of life vis-à-vis vegetation (earth) and air on its male side but, in musical terms, to rhythm and harmony vis-à-vis melody and pitch, the former pair equivalent to fire and water, the unconscious and the subconscious, but the latter pair equivalent, by contrast, to vegetation and air, the conscious and the superconscious. Thus not only would rhythm and harmony appertain to the objective, or female, side of life, but they would correspond to will and spirit, power and glory, whereas melody and pitch, their subjective, or male, counterparts, would correspond to ego and soul, as though in association with form and content(ment). And in broad musical terms I can think of no better genre distinctions for each of these contrasting attributes of the musical totality than ballet and opera vis-à-vis the symphony and the concerto, taking the former pair as largely synonymous with rhythm and harmony, power and glory, but the latter pair as largely synonymous with melody and pitch, form and content(ment). Doubtless other musical genres, such as jazz and pop vis-à-vis rock and electronica, could also be cited in this respect, but the fundamental distinction between rhythm and harmony on the one hand, and melody and pitch on the other would seem to confirm a gender dichotomy between the unconscious and the subconscious, fire and water, on the female side of things, and between the conscious and the superconscious, vegetation and air, on its male side. In terms of contrasting axes, however, it could be contended that rhythm and melody would stand hegemonically apart from what may be called antipitch and antiharmony where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned, rhythm and antipitch lining up as metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and melody and antiharmony lining up as physics over antichemistry at its southeast point. By axial contrast, it could be contended that pitch and harmony would stand hegemonically apart from what might be called antirhythm and antimelody where church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria were concerned, pitch and antirhythm lining up as metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and harmony and antimelody lining up as chemistry over antiphysics at its southwest point. But that is another story, and it suffices here if we limit our criteria to the fundamental distinctions between unconscious rhythm and subconscious harmony where noumenal and phenomenal objectivity are concerned, and between conscious melody and superconscious pitch where phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity are concerned, thereby establishing the likelihood of a noumenal antithesis between unconscious rhythm and superconscious pitch, fire and air, power and content(ment), will and soul, but of a phenomenal antithesis between subconscious harmony and conscious melody, water and vegetation, glory and form, spirit and ego. And if this is not commensurate, in classical terms, with an antithesis between ballet and the concerto on the one hand and opera and the symphony on the other hand, then I should be the first to concede to being the most surprised individual on earth!
INCOMPATIBLE GENDER IDEALS. From the standpoint of soul, which is metaphysical, will is something to avoid, pretty much as contentment is only possible if one steers clear (the word is not exactly apposite, but never mind!) of power or, at any rate, an unduly rigorous commitment to the pursuit of power. Likewise, from the standpoint of the ego, which is physical, spirit is something to avoid, pretty much as form is only possible if one steers clear of glory or, at any rate, an unduly rigorous commitment to the pursuit of glory. For spirit and ego are no less phenomenally incompatible, in relation to the planes of volume and mass, than will and soul, their noumenal counterparts in relation to the planes of space and time, and therefore any commitment to either soul or ego on the part of males, in particular, presupposes a rejection of will or spirit, depending on the class/plane context, and the correlative acceptance, in gender subordination, of antiwill or antispirit, as the antifemale case may be. For if that which appertains to air or vegetation (earth) is to be hegemonically triumphant, whatever pertains to fire or water must be brought low and effectively upended, functioning in effect as either antifire vis-à-vis air or antiwater vis-à-vis vegetation. Now the converse of course applies to female hegemonies in sensuality, where either antisoul or anti-ego will be the subordinate corollary of will or spirit, as the class/plane case may be. But this is still to think independently of axial subversion of the phenomenal hegemonic factors via a contrary link, sensual to sensible or sensible to sensual, with their noumenal counterparts 'on high', which has the effect of switching the phenomenal emphasis either from soma to psyche or from psyche to soma, depending on whether metaphysics over antimetachemistry has control of antiphysics under chemistry on a northeast-to-southwest axis compatible with church-hegemonic (and state-subordinate) criteria or whether, on the contrary, metachemistry over antimetaphysics has control of antichemistry under physics on a northwest-to-southeast axis compatible with state-hegemonic (and church-subordinate) criteria. For the subversion of spirit by anti-ego at the behest of soul over antiwill is what makes salvation from anti-ego to soul psychically possible to antiphysical males, whereas the subversion of ego by antispirit at the behest of will over antisoul is what somatically precludes the damnation from will to antispirit of metachemical females, the axially correlative modes of counter-damnation of females and counter-salvation of males notwithstanding. Therefore, in the end, it is only the unequivocally hegemonic factors, whether wilfully metachemical or soulfully metaphysical, which rule or lead, as the axial case may be. And, because of this, they remain mutually exclusive and incompatible, which brings us back to our starting point and to the age-old knowledge that will is something to avoid from the standpoint of soul - as Schopenhauer himself well knew, albeit on somewhat pinched metaphysical terms.
A REVALUATION OF HOODS VIS-À-VIS UMBRELLAS. It took me a long while to get around to seeing a parallel between hoods and stars and/or triangles on the one hand, and brollies and crosses on the other, whether on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace or, down below, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume, to divide each between, in general terms, its sensual and sensible alternatives. Previously I had tended to think of hoods as male and brollies as female, since there appeared to be a centripetal/centrifugal distinction between them, but then I began to realize that a sensual/sensible distinction could be discerned which was akin to the distinction between stars and crosses. The hood-wearer was in some sense heathenistic in his subordination, if male, to female criteria, to the female-like symbolism or implication of the hood which, in a manner of speaking, prevailed over him in metachemical (noumenal) or chemical (phenomenal) fashion, depending on the class standpoint, whereas the person utilizing an umbrella was more christianistic, as it were, in his holding aloft of a cross-like structure which, while shielding him from the rain, suggested a male symbolism in its phallic-like tubularity and erectness that connoted rather more with physical (phenomenal) or metaphysical (noumenal) criteria, again according to class. But of course there are two axes, one stretching from northwest to southeast and the other from southwest to northeast, on the intercardinal axial compass which I use to illustrate the distinction between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria on the one hand, and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on the other hand, and while the one is characterized by the dominance of female criteria in free to bound somatic and bound to free psychic fashion, the other is characterized by the dominance of male criteria in bound to free psychic and free to bound somatic fashion, as in a kind of British/Irish cultural and ethnic divide. For me, this means that both the sensuality of the northwest and sensibility of the southeast of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis will be dominated by objective criteria in unreflexive vein, whereas both the sensuality of the southwest and sensibility of the northeast of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will be dominated by subjective criteria in reflexive vein. In other words, a distinction between noncollapsibles in the one case and collapsibles in the other, whether with regard to hoods or umbrellas. Hence a descent from the noncollapsible hood of the northwest to the noncollapsible brolly of the southeast in the case of the female-dominated state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but an ascent, by contrast, from the collapsible (or fold-in) hood of the southwest to the collapsible brolly of the northeast on the male-dominated church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. A descent, in the one case, from the noumenal sensuality of metachemistry and the noumenal antisensibility of antimetaphysics to the phenomenal antisensuality of antichemistry and the phenomenal sensibility of physics, but an ascent, in the other case, from the phenomenal antisensibility of antiphysics and the phenomenal sensuality of chemistry to the noumenal sensibility of metaphysics and the noumenal antisensuality of antimetachemistry. Those dominated, in autocratic fashion, by the noumenal objectivity of metachemical sensuality will be unreflexive and thus given to noncollapsibles of one sort or another. Those dominated, in theocratic fashion, by the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical sensibility will be reflexive and thus given to collapsibles of one sort or another. The noncollapsible hood will find its antithesis, within an axis characterized by the dominance of objectivity, in the noncollapsible brolly; the collapsible hood ... its antithesis, within an axis characterized by the dominance of subjectivity, in the collapsible brolly. Therefore hoods are no more necessarily low than brollies high. Hoods, as argued above, can be high (and noumenal) or low (and phenomenal), pretty much like drama and poetry. Just so, across the sensual/sensible divide, brollies can be low (and phenomenal) or high (and noumenal), pretty much like fiction and philosophy. But a star and/or triangle vis-à-vis cross-like distinction between the two approaches to weather protection will continue, I believe, to prevail, as though in a contrast between left-wing (whether extreme or moderate, noumenal or phenomenal) and right-wing (whether moderate or extreme, phenomenal or noumenal) criteria, thereby suggesting that hoods are less christianistic than heathenistic and umbrellas, by contrast, more christianistic than heathenistic, despite appearances to the contrary.
PROBABLE PARALLEL OF SINGERS AND HOODS. While on the subject of hoods and brollies (see previous entry), I should like to make a distinction between the free-standing singer of, say, a rock group and the one who also plays an instrument, particularly a guitar, on the basis of the distinction already drawn (see previous entry) between noncollapsible objectivistic hoods and collapsible subjectivistic hoods, as though the former were on the level of the free-standing singer and the latter parallel with the guitar-playing singer, whose disposition is arguably less unequivocally objective than equivocally subjective. Either way, singing, particularly in a rock-band context, is indicative, it seems to me, of a fiery or a watery female dominance of the male (as antimale), as with hoods, and therefore the 'male' singer appears to be one who is either antimetaphysically subordinate to metachemistry (free-standing singer) or antiphysically subordinate to chemistry (piano-playing singer), in hood-like vein. Naturally, there are female singers as well, but they tend to be either metachemical (and fiery) or chemical (and watery), with the piano arguably more applicable than the guitar in the latter context, as alluded to above.
UTILIZING THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO A REVOLUTIONARY THEOCRATIC END. I have always maintained that Social Theocracy should only strive for a position of ideological influence through the democratic process, albeit in relation to countries where, like Eire, a majority Catholic tradition would make the prospect of a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria feasible, if only because the people concerned have been accustomed to such an axial reality and, in some cases, remain acquainted with it even in the face of a quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate lapsed Catholic decadence commensurate with Anglo-American - and particularly American - secular influence. But such a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria could only be Social Theocratic and therefore strictly revolutionary in character, extending the axis in relation to a post-worldly and therefore effectively global age. The paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to counter the contemporary paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference by those at the southwest to those at the northwest of the intercardinal axial compass would be intended to foster a desire, in the people, for a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria on the basis of a Social Theocratic revolution such that could only transpire in the event - however unlikely at present - of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, which I have been advocating for several years as the desirable alternative to political sovereignty and its worldly concomitants and implications. Therefore I am no advocate of republicanism, neither on the liberal basis of the Irish Republic nor on the radical basis of a more totalitarian approach to politics such that would lead to a socialistic/fascistic polarity in Eire analogous to that which prevailed, in the inter-war years, between Sinn Fein and the Blue Shirts. For me, the Republic is something that, in Nietzsche's memorable phrase, 'should be overcome', and the only way that this can happen is if a majority mandate for religious sovereignty were to transpire from a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process with a view to 'world overcoming' in relation to the prospect of 'otherworldly' criteria taking precedence over anything else. Then what I have called the Social Theocratic Centre would be born, and it would be akin, in my judgement, to 'Kingdom Come', insofar as it would be designed to accommodate the rights of a religiously sovereign people, including the right to be free from religious superstition and tyranny, with its basis in netherworldly tradition. For until the people are religiously sovereign they will not be free from the last bastion of tyranny, which is that of Jehovahesque Creatorism in respect of Old Testament criteria and the notion - no matter how nonsensical or infantile - of a cosmic Creator Who, in metaphorical parlance, was or remains responsible for everything that followed. But free from is not, as Nietzsche would doubtless agree, the same as free for, and more important than being free from religious superstition and tradition would be being free for religious self-realization through self-transcendence of a synthetically artificial character, the sort of character that would be necessary not only to global civilization as a synthetic actuality in the process of development, but to the defeat, through potent alternatives, of contemporary American-dominated synthetic artificiality such that more often than not takes a celluloid form in its associations with the film industry and camera-based media in general. But of course this could not transpire without recourse to a correlative process of what I have in the past called 'cyborgization' such that would enable the religiously sovereign people (earmarked for supra-human transmutation) to have recourse to enlightenment of a synthetically artificial character without fear of natural repercussions such that are only too prevalent on the human plane. For 'man is something that should be overcome' from the standpoint of godliness, call it superman or superbeing if you will, since godliness, when properly understood, could only be dangerous to man and we wouldn't want man to suffer from trying to play God without actually undergoing the necessary transformations that would render him, or his evolutionary successor, godly and thus capable of living on a properly or fully godly plane with virtual impunity. However, I am merely scratching the surface of the overall complexity of the problem in this essayistic aphorism - which is not a substitute for my works in general (see, for example, Opera D’Oeuvre) - and therefore I have not mentioned the antimetachemical corollary of metaphysical godliness which, as an antifemale reality, would be antidevilishness, and therefore something that needs to be addressed as a quite separate category germane less to the Celestial City, to use Bunyanesque terms, than to what I have tended, in the past, to equate with Anti-Vanity Fair. Unfortunately, conventional Western thinking is too inclined to subsume the sexes into one another rather than to differentiate between them in such fashion that criteria applying to the one sex are not applied to the other. All this will have to change in the more fully developed global future, once universality gets properly under way on a basis that requires an anti-polyversal corollary if it is not to be subversively undermined.
WHY I AM NOT IN THE HUMANISTS’ ECONOMIC POCKET. One thing the godly individual, who is metaphysical, can't be, and that is culturally or creatively in the liberal democrat's or the social democrat's economic pocket. I have not sought publication for my writings in book form because, quite apart from my lack of commercial appeal as a truth-oriented writer of Irish stock, I would only end up in the bourgeois humanist's or the proletarian humanist's economic pocket, and that is no place for the godly individual to be! Books, whether hardback or softback, liberally relativistic or socially absolutist, have no professional or commercial appeal for me. I despise them and their humanistic dupes and perpetrators! The book has no place in the sphere of godliness, and that includes the so-called Book of Books, the Bible which, as (I was going to say 'we all know', but that is evidently not necessarily the case) I have long maintained, is rooted in God's opposite, the Devil, meaning - contrary to popular if not populist presumption - Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, and extends, New Testament-wise, only as far as an extrapolation from such a Devil which is better known as the Son, though doubtfully of God! since this Son is unable to transcend himself (something, in any case, the Son is in no position to do), but is both the mark and the end of the Western road in religious terms. Frankly, this netherworldly alpha to worldly omega of things religious is not enough! Even the Catholic postulate of otherworldly omega in the Resurrected is a Son, and therefore significant of metaphysical bound soma rather than of free psyche which, in the West, has never existed independently of metachemistry (or Devil the Mother hyped as God), as, by elitist contrast, it has in parts of the TM-oriented East, where nothing like Jehovah has existed in the religious tradition to hold metaphysical ego back from expressing itself in the interests of soul. But all this is rather beside the initial point; which was about the incompatibility of books with godliness and the irrelevance of both liberal democratic and social democratic criteria to the sphere of metaphysics, which is rather to be thought of as social theocratic, even if it may have to pass through a comparatively liberal phase in which a degree of pluralism exists prior to a long-term centro-complexification which may well be more totalitarian in character. We shall just have to wait and see! But the godly individual will continue to take books with a considerable pinch of salt as he pursues his internet-oriented e-book or, rather, e-scroll vocation independently of book publication and, hence, of market forces and/or commercial pressures. The Truth - or that which is properly germane to metaphysics, particularly to metaphysics of a synthetically artificial and therefore properly or definitively universal order - is not to be found in books, and those who are looking for it there are going, later if not sooner, to be sorely disappointed!
CONCERNING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS FEW AND THE RELIGIOUSLY SOVEREIGN ONE. I like to distinguish between the Few and the One at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass that I am always citing these days, and principally in terms of the Leaders and the Led or, more to the future point, the Served, who would appertain to the Saved and the Counter-Damned in a framework characterized by religious sovereignty. Hence the Servants of the People are more of the Few than of the One, since they would remain outside the sphere of religiously sovereign centro-complexification as so many personally cyborgized individuals whose duty it was to serve those earmarked, as religiously sovereign, for cyborg universality, that is, for transmutation from what they had been at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the Many, into what they were destined to become at its northeast point in relation to revolutionary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria - namely, the aforementioned One. For centro-complexification will require that the saved (male) and counter-damned (antifemale) masses be transformed, by degrees, into supra-human communes in which any given artificially supported and sustained individual will be germane to the One, however many brains or new brains or brain-stem/spinal-chord aspects of a given brain may happen to be simultaneously 'housed' in the supra-human commune of what, in the past, I have tended to term a superbeing, meaning the communal entity in general, including its support and sustain features. Such a superbeing would be germane to universal oneness even as its servants, in the administrative aside to the Centre proper of supra-human experience, continued to operate as, in effect, the Few. For, as intimated above, they would be personally cyborgized, not communally or universally cyborgized, and would always be at an administrative and protective remove from the focus of supra-human advancement, rather like shepherds tending their flock and overseeing its 'spiritual' grazing, so to speak. But such a superbeing entity, constitutive of a kind of communal unity of religious purpose, would still be germane to universal oneness even as it co-existed, on the earth and perhaps even in the same city and/or country, with other such superbeingful entities, who would also have their respective administrators and protectors. 'Heaven on earth', in this particular ideological context which I like to think of as being the most credible projection of evolutionary progress for the future, would always be relative, never absolute; for there would almost certainly be a number of superbeing communes in existence on different parts of the earth that only had the potential for definitive universality in a Oneness Supreme such that, by definition, could not emerge on the earth but only beyond it ... in space ... as the destiny of all earthly communes. Consequently while 'heaven on earth' is a precondition of Heaven per se, which can only be set in space in space centres or, more desirably, a definitive Space Centre, it is not something that can be regarded as an end-in-itself, but only as a means to a higher end such that earth centres can be transformed into over the course of eternity, being transported, via shuttle-like arrangements, to outer space where the possibility of their further centro-complexification can be fully realized in relation to an ultimate Space Centre the sum-product of all earth centres, which will be more absolutely representative of universal oneness and therefore be capable of sustaining and supporting a beingfulness in the metaphysically free which will be nothing short of ultimate and more properly germane, in consequence, to what could be termed ultrabeings, their antimetachemical antifemale counterparts less super-antidoings by then than ultra-antidoings in correlative bound somatic deference to the free psyche metaphysically obtaining above them on the plane not of antispace so much as of time, which will be less germane to Anti-Vanity Fair than to the Celestial City, and therefore constitute the higher aspect of that Oneness which will be led by theocracy though also embrace a degree of anti-aristocracy in its antimetachemical elements. Yet a core of what may be called the ultra-technocratic Few will continue, on an enhanced cyborg basis, to serve the interests of the theocratic/anti-aristocratic One - in complete contrast to the rule of the aristocratic/antitheocratic – if not, in free soma, autocratic/antitechnocratic - Few by the ultra-autocratic One of metachemical/antimetaphysical tradition on the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
NEVER SIMPLY BLACK AND WHITE. It is always tempting to see things in black and white or, shall we say, bright and dark, but, unfortunately, things are rarely that simple. For a start, there are two axes, one dominated by free soma in female fashion and the other led by free psyche in male fashion, and therefore there are fundamentally two kinds of bright and dark, or light and shade, even without class complications. Take metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Free soma, the female ideal, is a brightness, whilst its bound psychic counterpart is somewhat of a dark shadow, trailing behind the leading string, as it were. Therefore a somatic brightness has to be contrasted, in each gender case, antimetaphysical as well as metachemical, with a psychic darkness. The same is true of chemistry over antiphysics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, free soma being bright and bound psyche dark. But on the sensible side of the moral divide things are quite otherwise. There free psyche is bright and bound soma dark, whether in terms of physics over antichemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass or, up above, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at its northeast point. The bright side of a male hegemonic coupling, being free, is certainly psychic, whilst its dark side, corresponding to the bound, is somatic. This has some interesting, if quite unconventional, moral ramifications, but I don't wish to enlarge upon that now. Suffice it to say that things are never simply black and white, least of all in terms of evil being somehow dark and good bright (the reverse is actually the case, bearing in mind the distinction between free metachemical soma and bound antichemical soma on primary state-hegemonic terms). To be sure, a distinction between the dark and the bright most certainly exists, and at all points of the intercardinal axial compass, but it is not simply in terms of soma being dark and psyche bright, or vice versa. That is why, with both the female ideal of free soma and the male ideal of free psyche corresponding to the bright side of things, one has a moral incompatibility between them which is no mere black/white dichotomy but a competition between alternative kinds of brightness that is likely to lead, in axial differentiation, to different types of society, depending on which kind of freedom is officially encouraged and regarded as alone right, and to keep those who believe in the one kind quite separate from those who believe in the other, both within and without their particular society. For mutually incompatible, as free females and free males, they respectively remain.
A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF THE MORAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PLAY AND WORK. If it is not possible to categorically maintain that soma is invariably dark or black or shaded vis-à-vis psyche, and for the simple reason that brightness is determined by freedom, whether somatic or psychic, and darkness by binding, likewise irrespective of the faculty, then it should be possible to maintain that whatever is bound is dark and whatever is free, by contrast, is bright. Therefore brightness can be associated with either soma or psyche and darkness likewise, the chief determinant being the distinction between freedom and binding. But this distinction can be applied quite categorically to the dichotomy between play and work, since play is invariably free, or associated with freedom, whereas work is contractually obligated and is therefore a manifestation of binding. Since soma can be free or bound, so it can have associations with either play or work. The same holds true of psyche, which is only to be associated with play when free, not when bound. Therefore we can plot a distinction between play and work on the basis of freedom and binding, whether in relation to soma or psyche. Since metachemistry is the element of free soma and bound psyche par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism, we can maintain that metachemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its antimetaphysical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms, exemplifying somatic play and psychic work. Similarly, since chemistry is the element of free soma and bound psyche on phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that chemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its antiphysical corollary likewise, if on primary terms in relation, traditionally, to the subversion of chemistry to bound psychic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, at any rate, of some degree of metaphysics, whether hyped or not, over antimetachemistry. Be that as it may, it should be possible to contend, for sensibility in contrast to sensuality, that since physics is the element of free psyche and bound soma on phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that physics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antichemical corollary likewise, if on primary terms, traditionally, in relation to the subversion of physics to bound somatic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics or, at any rate, of some degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics. Finally, since metaphysics is the element of free psyche and bound soma par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism, we can maintain that metaphysics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antimetachemical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms, exemplifying psychic play and somatic work. Hence the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which stretches from northwest to southeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a primary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the female contrast between metachemistry and antichemistry is concerned, but a secondary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the male contrast between antimetaphysics and physics is concerned, the contrast between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play being primarily church subordinate in relation to metachemistry and antichemistry, but secondarily church-subordinate in relation to antimetaphysics and physics. By complete contrast, however, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis which stretches from the southwest to the northeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a primary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play as far as the male contrast between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, but a secondary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play as far as the female contrast between chemistry and antimetachemistry is concerned, the contrast between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work being primarily state-subordinate in relation to antiphysics and metaphysics, but secondarily state-subordinate in relation to chemistry and antimetachemistry. Hence play-brightness has a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms and work-darkness a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms on the former axis, irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms, while work-darkness has a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms and play-brightness a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms on the latter axis, again irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms. Therefore in terms of metachemistry to antichemistry, evil is bright and goodness dark, for evil corresponds to somatic freedom of metachemistry and goodness to somatic binding of antichemistry, whereas crime is dark and punishment bright, since crime corresponds to psychic binding of metachemistry and punishment to psychic freedom of antichemistry. Likewise, in terms of antimetaphysics to physics, pseudo-folly is bright and pseudo-wisdom dark, for pseudo-folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antimetaphysics and pseudo-wisdom to somatic binding of physics, whereas pseudo-sin is dark and pseudo-grace bright, since pseudo-sin corresponds to psychic binding of antimetaphysics and pseudo-grace to psychic freedom of physics. In terms, by axial contrast, of antiphysics to metaphysics, sin is dark and grace bright, for sin corresponds to psychic binding of antiphysics and grace to psychic freedom of metaphysics, whereas folly is bright and wisdom dark, since folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antiphysics and wisdom to somatic binding of metaphysics. Likewise, in terms of chemistry to antimetachemistry, pseudo-crime is dark and pseudo-punishment bright, for pseudo-crime corresponds to psychic binding of chemistry and pseudo-punishment to psychic freedom of antimetachemistry, whereas pseudo-evil is bright and pseudo-goodness dark, since pseudo-evil corresponds to somatic freedom of chemistry and pseudo-goodness to somatic binding of antimetachemistry. Strange, but it is so.
SYNTHETIC AND NON-SYNTHETIC ANTITHESES. Speaking in axial terms, one might note a fall, on the one hand, from synthetic naturalism (supernaturalism) to non-synthetic artificiality, as, in general terms, from metachemistry to physics, but a rise, on the other hand, from non-synthetic naturalism to synthetic artificiality (super-artificiality), as, in general terms, from chemistry to metaphysics. For the four main points, effectively hegemonic, of the intercardinal axial compass would seem to connote with synthetic naturalism at the northwest, non-synthetic naturalism at the southwest, non-synthetic artificiality at the southeast, and synthetic artificiality at the northeast, the axes, of course, being determined according to a polarity between the northwest and the southeast on the one hand, and between the southwest and the northeast on the other hand, even with other - and subordinate - factors to consider in each case. However that may be, I have little doubt that the noumenal antitheses, in space and time, are equally synthetic, if in relation to supernature and super-artificiality respectively, which amounts to a distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics, superheathen objectivity and superchristian subjectivity, absolute alpha and absolute omega, whereas the phenomenal antitheses, in volume and mass, are equally non-synthetic, if in relation to nature and artificiality respectively, which amounts to a distinction between chemistry and physics, heathen objectivity and Christian subjectivity, relative alpha and relative omega. The pairings of metachemistry with antimetaphysics, of chemistry with antiphysics, of physics with antichemistry, and of metaphysics with antimetachemistry do not substantially alter this conclusion, although they modify the respective axial realities of what, in total, are state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate mutually exclusive traditions.
FROM SUPERBARBARISM AND SUPERPHILISTINISM TO SUPERCULTURE AND SUPERCIVILITY. If the distinction - excluding for the moment the paradoxical emphases of axial subversion - between chemistry and physics in the sensuality and sensibility of phenomenal relativity is one of barbarism and philistinism in free soma and bound psyche vis-à-vis culture and civility in free psyche and bound soma, then the distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics in the sensuality and sensibility of noumenal absolutism could be described as one of superbarbarism and superphilistinism in free soma and bound psyche vis-à-vis superculture and supercivility in free psyche and bound soma. Clearly, if barbarism appertains to chemical free soma and philistinism to chemical bound psyche, then civility must appertain to physical bound soma and culture to physical free psyche, civility being the bound-somatic antithesis of barbarism no less than culture the free-psychic antithesis of philistinism. Likewise, if superbarbarism appertains to metachemical free soma and superphilistinism to metachemical bound psyche, then supercivility must appertain to metaphysical bound soma and superculture to metaphysical free psyche, supercivility being the bound-somatic antithesis of superbarbarism no less than superculture the free-psychic antithesis of superphilistinism. So far so good! But we also have underplane, or secondary, positions to bear in mind where each point of the intercardinal axial compass is concerned, namely antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the noumenal northwest, antiphysics under chemistry at the phenomenal southwest, antichemistry under physics at the phenomenal southeast, and antimetachemistry under metaphysics at the noumenal northeast, the actual state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial differentials being established on a northwest to southeast basis on the one hand, and on a northeast to southwest basis on the other hand, with the noumenal heights more or less dictating the terms of the phenomenal positions below. So much for that! What we have now to establish is that the secondary or 'anti' positions are less equivalent to the primary or 'pro' positions directly hegemonic over them than contrary to their corresponding primary or 'pro' positions in sensuality or sensibility, as the gender case may be. Hence it makes logical sense to regard antimetaphysics as anti-supercivil and anti-supercultural rather than, like metachemistry, as superbarbarous and superphilistine, since metachemistry is superheathenly supernatural and antimetaphysics anti-superchristianly anti-superartificial, after the respective fashions of noumenal objectivity and noumenal anti-subjectivity. Similarly it makes logical sense to regard antiphysics as anti-cultural and anti-civil rather than, like chemistry, philistine and barbarous, since chemistry is heathenly natural and antiphysics anti-christianly anti-artificial, after the respective fashions of phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal anti-subjectivity. Crossing to the sensible side of the phenomenal axial divide, it makes logical sense to regard antichemistry as anti-barbarous and anti-philistine rather than, like physics, as civil and cultural, since physics is christianly artificial and antichemistry anti-heathenly anti-natural, after the respective fashions of phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal anti-objectivity. Similarly it makes logical sense to regard antimetachemistry as anti-superphilistine and anti-superbarbarous rather than, like metaphysics, supercultural and supercivil, since metaphysics is superchristianly super-artificial and antimetachemistry anti-superheathenly anti-supernatural, after the respective fashions of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity. Thus, in overall axial terms, metachemistry and antimetaphysics form a gender-conditioned polarity with antichemistry and physics on the basis of somatic opposition between superbarbarism and anti-barbarism on primary state-hegemonic terms (free somatic metachemistry to bound somatic antichemistry) and anti-supercivility and civility on secondary state-hegemonic terms (free somatic antimetaphysics to bound somatic physics), with a corresponding psychic opposition between superphilistinism and anti-philistinism on primary church-subordinate terms (bound psychic metachemistry to free psychic antichemistry) and anti-superculture and culture on secondary church-subordinate terms (bound psychic antimetaphysics to free psychic physics). Contrariwise, metaphysics and antimetachemistry form a gender-conditioned polarity with antiphysics and chemistry on the basis of psychic opposition between superculture and anti-culture on primary church-hegemonic terms (free psychic metaphysics to bound psychic antiphysics) and anti-superphilistinism and philistinism on secondary church-hegemonic terms (free psychic antimetachemistry to bound psychic chemistry), with a corresponding somatic opposition between supercivility and anti-civility on primary state-subordinate terms (bound somatic metaphysics to free somatic antiphysics) and anti-superbarbarism and barbarism on secondary state-subordinate terms (bound somatic antimetachemistry to free somatic chemistry). Superculture is the salvation of anti-culture no less than supercivility the salvation of anti-civility for those who, as antiphysical, are neither cultural nor civil in physical fashion and therefore are in with the prospect of their noumenal counterparts. But if metaphysics is the salvation, in church and state, of antiphysics, then antimetachemistry is most assuredly the counter-damnation (a counter fall from hegemonic ascendancy in relative gender sync to antimetachemical underplane subservience in absolute gender upendedness) of chemistry, since anti-superphilistinism is the counter-damnation of philistinism no less than anti-superbarbarism the counter-damnation of barbarism for those who, having been philistine and barbarous in the phenomenal relativity of an equivocal hegemony, will be denied their noumenal counterparts in the absolutism of an unequivocal subjection to the metaphysical ascendancy of superculture and supercivility, the 'father' and 'son' of the super-artificial superchristianity of the truly blessed (with complete gender sync).
METACHEMICAL AND METAPHYSICAL ANTITHESES. To contrast the superbarbarism (noumenal barbarism) of metachemical free soma and the superphilistinism (noumenal philistinism) of metachemical bound psyche with the superculture (noumenal culture) of metaphysical free psyche and the supercivility (noumenal civility) of metaphysical bound soma, as one would contrast the supernatural (noumenal natural) with the super-artificial (noumenal artificial) across the absolute gender divide - female and male - of the hegemonic positions of the northwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass. Therefore to contrast the beauty and love of metachemical free soma and the ugliness and hatred of metachemical bound psyche with the truth and joy of metaphysical free psyche and the illusion and woe of metaphysical bound soma, as one would contrast evil and crime with grace and wisdom, the former pairing appertaining to Devil the Mother/Hell the Clear Spirit and the Daughter of the Devil/the Clear Soul of Hell; the latter pairing to God the Father/Heaven the Holy Soul and the Son of God/the Holy Spirit of Heaven. In brief, both the evil of metachemical free soma and the grace of metaphysical free psyche are bright, that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom, whereas both the crime of metachemical bound psyche and the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma are dark, which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of binding. The former antitheses correspond to contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play, whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of work. And, being noumenal, they are absolutely exclusive, appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the hegemonic factors - metachemistry over antimetaphysics as space over antitime and metaphysics over antimetachemistry as time over antispace.
ANTIMETACHEMICAL AND ANTIMETAPHYSICAL ANTITHESES. To contrast the anti-supercivility (noumenal anticivility) of antimetaphysical free soma and the anti-superculture (noumenal anticulture) of antimetaphysical bound psyche with the anti-superphilistinism (noumenal antiphilistinism) of antimetachemical free psyche and the anti-superbarbarism (noumenal antibarbarism) of antimetachemical bound soma, as one would contrast the anti-superchristian (noumenal antichristian) with the anti-superheathen (noumenal antiheathen) across the absolute gender divide - antimale and antifemale - of the subservient positions of the northwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass. Therefore to contrast the anti-illusion and antiwoe of antimetaphysical free soma and the antitruth and antijoy of antimetaphysical bound psyche with the anti-ugliness and antihatred of antimetachemical free psyche and the antibeauty and antilove of antimetachemical bound soma, as one would contrast pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin with pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness, the former pairing appertaining to the Antison of Antigod/the Unholy Spirit of Antiheaven and Antigod the Antifather/Antiheaven the Unholy Soul; the latter pairing to the Antidaughter of the Antidevil/the Unclear Soul of Antihell and Antidevil the Antimother/Antihell the Unclear Spirit. In brief, both the pseudo-folly of antimetaphysical free soma and the pseudo-punishment of antimetachemical free psyche are bright, that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom, whereas both the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical bound psyche and the pseudo-goodness of antimetachemical bound soma are dark, which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of binding. The former antitheses correspond to contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play, whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of work. And, being noumenal, they are absolutely exclusive, appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the subservient factors - antimetaphysics under metachemistry as antitime under space, antimetachemistry under metaphysics as antispace under time.
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ANTITHESES. To contrast the philistinism of chemical bound psyche and the barbarism of chemical free soma with the civility of physical bound soma and the culture of physical free psyche, as one would contrast the natural with the artificial across the relative gender divide - female and male - of the hegemonic positions (duly subverted to uncharacteristic gender emphasis by inclusive axial factors) of the southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass. Therefore to contrast the weakness and humility of chemical bound psyche and the strength and pride of chemical free soma with the ignorance and pain of physical bound soma and the knowledge and pleasure of physical free psyche, as one would contrast pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil with pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace, the former pairing appertaining to the Daughter of Woman/the Clear Soul of Purgatory and Woman the Mother/Purgatory the Clear Spirit; the latter pairing to the Son of Man/the Holy Spirit of Earth and Man the Father/Earth the Holy Soul. In brief, both the pseudo-crime of chemical bound psyche and the pseudo-wisdom of physical bound soma are dark, that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of binding, whereas both the pseudo-evil of chemical free soma and the pseudo-grace of physical free psyche are bright, which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom. The former antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of work, whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play. And, being phenomenal, they are relatively exclusive, appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the subverted hegemonic factors - chemistry over antiphysics as volume over antimass and physics over antichemistry as mass over antivolume.
ANTIPHYSICAL AND ANTICHEMICAL ANTITHESES. To contrast the anticulture of antiphysical bound psyche and the anticivility of antiphysical free soma with the antibarbarism of antichemical bound soma and the antiphilistinism of antichemical free psyche, as one would contrast the anti-artificial with the antinatural across the relative gender divide - antimale and antifemale - of the subservient positions (duly subversive of the hegemonic ones under pressure from noumenally inclusive axial factors) of the southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass. Therefore to contrast the antiknowledge and antipleasure of antiphysical bound psyche and the anti-ignorance and antipain of antiphysical free soma with the antistrength and antipride of antichemical bound soma and the antiweakness and antiwoe of antichemical free psyche, as one would contrast sin and folly with goodness and punishment, the former pairing appertaining to Antiman the Antifather/Anti-earth the Unholy Soul and the Antison of Antiman/the Unholy Spirit of Anti-earth; the latter pairing to Antiwoman the Antimother/Antipurgatory the Unclear Spirit and the Antidaughter of Antiwoman/the Unclear Soul of Antipurgatory. In brief, both the sinfulness of antiphysical bound psyche and the goodness of antichemical bound soma are dark, that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of binding, whereas both the folly of antiphysical free soma and the punishment of antichemical free psyche are bright, which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom. The former antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of work, whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play. And, being phenomenal, they are relatively exclusive, appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the subverting subservient factors - antiphysics under chemistry (at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry) as antimass under volume, and antichemistry under physics (at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics) as antivolume under mass.
THE ONE AND THE ANTI-NOT ONE. Not so long ago, in an aphoristic entry entitled 'Concerning a Distinction between the Religious Few and the Religiously Sovereign One', I made the mistake, unusual for me, of subsuming the antifemale position in antimetachemistry into the concept of Oneness in relation to the male hegemonic position in metaphysics, and this in spite of customary differentials between the two supra-human contexts, such as time and antispace or, indeed, the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair. Doubtless part of the reason for this was the existence of the concept Few in relation to the serving elite, who would constitute an administrative aside, so to speak, to the religious rights and experiences of the religiously sovereign supra-human entities of the Centre-proper; but another reason was that I just hadn't formulated an adequate distinction, at the time, between the two supra-human contexts that would have done justice to it in terms of what properly appertained to the One, namely the metaphysical, and what was correlative of it in relation to the antimetachemical. Since then, however, I have had plenty of time in which to revaluate the situation and, true to my long-standing methodology, I have come up with the ingenious concept of the Anti-Not-One as the most appropriate description of that which, appertaining to the upended female in antimetachemistry (the noumenal antifemale) should be regarded as complementing the One of those for whom metaphysical self-realization is the name of the church-hegemonic game. Therefore not just a distinction, at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, between the Few and the One, the serving and the served, but a further distinction between the One and the Anti-Not-One, the latter of whom, being antimetachemical, will be contrary to Not-Oneness, as typifying that which appertains to metachemistry in relation to free soma. Therefore the metaphysical/antimetachemical complementariness of noumenal male and noumenal antifemale elements at the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass is most assuredly more and less than just the One: it is to be thought of in terms of metaphysical oneness and antimetachemical anti-not-oneness, the latter of which is contrary, in bound soma, to all that is freely somatic at the northwest point of the said compass, with specific reference to the unequivocally hegemonic position of metachemistry, as appertaining to noumenal females. If Oneness has to do with the Self, with psyche, then Not-Oneness is most assuredly its somatic antithesis which, in the past, I have identified with the concept Not-Self. Hence the Not-Self is not only that which cannot be identified with the Self; it is contrary to it in relation to soma and therefore originates on a female-hegemonic basis in metachemistry in which soma takes precedence over psyche as Not-Self over Self, the former free and the latter bound to it in what, elsewhere, I have described as church-subordinate fashion. For the Not-Self is the root of all that is if not state absolutist then, at the very least, state hegemonic. But the Anti-Not-Self, having to do with bound soma and, by extrapolation, free psyche, can only materialize in relation to the hegemonic triumph of the Self and, hence, of metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and where the triumph of the Self is primarily about free psyche, the vanquishing of the Not-Self in terms of the Anti-Not-Self can only be primarily, if not rhetorically, about bound soma, since the unequivocal hegemony of noumenal male criteria in metaphysics is only possible on the basis of the constraining of females to noumenal antifemale criteria in antimetachemistry, thereby not only upending them in relation to bound soma and free psyche (or the church-hegemonic rhetoric of free psyche and bound soma), but opposing them to whatever is contrary to that in metachemistry. Thus the overall context of the religiously sovereign would be divisible between the One and the Anti-Not-One, between free psyche (with a concomitant degree of bound soma) for noumenal males and bound soma (with a degree of spin-off free psyche) for noumenal antifemales, the cultivation of the Self to ever-greater degrees of universal Onenesss requiring the correlative curtailment, in antifemales, of the Not-Self to ever-greater degrees of what could be termed antipolyversal Anti-Not-Oneness. For whereas cultivation of the Self makes for increased unity in undifferentiated subjectivity of a wavicle cohesiveness, the curtailment of the Not-Self ensures that soma is not in a metachemical position to foster polyversal differentiation on the basis of particle disjunctiveness attendant upon a vacuous objectivity at its spatial roots. And whereas with metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass one has a situation whereby the Not-One and what could be called, for the noumenal antimale, the Anti-One rule over the Few, or those whose aristocratic allegiance is to the prevailing royalty, with metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the said compass, by contrast, one has - or will have - a situation in which the Few, or those whose technocratic allegiance is to the religiously sovereign, serve under the One and the Anti-Not-One, pledged to protect and advance their religiously sovereign rights for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity, for all time and antispace, until such time as the metaphysical oneness of superbeing transcendence achieves its space-centre apotheosis, as it were, in an ultrabeingful universality of definitive Oneness, the ultimate godly individualism, and the antimetachemical anti-not-oneness of anti-superdoing antimaterialism likewise attains, in the slipstream of what properly obtains in metaphysics, an anti-ultradoingful antipolyversality of definitive Not-Oneness, the ultimate antidevilish anti-collectivism, as the Celestial City achieves the maximum of evolutionary being in the utmost psychic freedom and the Anti-Vanity Fair is correlatively brought to the maximum of counter-devolutionary antidoing in the utmost somatic binding. Then and only then will one have the Omega Point and the Anti-Alpha Point as the culmination of things Superchristian and Anti-Superheathen.
VICTORS AND VICTIMS. Whether in relation to metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to chemistry over antiphysics at the southwest point of the said compass, to physics over antichemistry at its southeast point, or to metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast, each point is divisible between a hegemonic gender position and a subservient, upended gender position in such fashion that we can distinguish between victors and victims, the hegemonic victors and the subservient victims. For life would seem to be divisible between these two options, even though there are a number of different permutations in which they materialize or operate. Either soma gets the better of psyche in sensuality, and we have a distinction between the Not-One and the Anti-One at both noumenal and phenomenal points of the intercardinal axial compass, or psyche gets the better of soma in sensibility, and we have a distinction between the One and the Anti-Not-One at both phenomenal and noumenal points of the said compass, the former divisible between the sensuality of the Not-One and the antisensibility of the Anti-One; the latter between the sensibility of the One and the antisensuality of the Anti-Not-One. Therefore victors, corresponding to the hegemonic positions, will be either metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, while their victims, corresponding to the underplane subservient positions, will be either antimetaphysical, antiphysical, antichemical, or antimetachemical, depending on the exact point of the intercardinal axial compass. The victory of free soma over bound psyche is a victory for heathen values, whether noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, at the expense of antichristian values, whereas the victory of free psyche over bound soma is a victory for Christian values, whether phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal, at the expense of antiheathen values. Our age is one in which, thanks to medial like television and film, heathen values tend to prevail at the expense of antichristian ones, but a time must surely come when this situation will be reversed and Christian values, duly resurrected in a superchristian mould, will get the better of their antiheathen counterparts, obliging bound soma to defer to free psyche in the interests of all, including culture and civility, that is best in civilization. Then, as now, something of the hegemonic position will rub off onto the subservient, upended position, but the two positions will remain, as now, quite distinct according to gender. The Antimetachemical may not be as partial to truth and joy as the Metaphysical, but their opposition to beauty and love, not to mention ugliness and hatred, will ensure a deference to truth and joy, not to mention illusion and woe, that would not otherwise materialize or be possible. The Anti-Not-One will lie down with the One, as Anti-Vanity Fair with the Celestial City, and thus defer to the victor's triumph as an honourable victim, one who though not godly will be so far from anything devilish as to be effectively antidevilish in her antifemale subjection to male hegemonic criteria. The triumph of metaphysics over antimetachemistry will signify the triumph of the ultimate victor over the ultimate victim and, eventually, it will be the sole victor over the sole victim as God and the Antidevil supersede all that is not only axially polar to themselves in post-worldly manifestations of woman in chemistry (duly subverted to psychic emphasis) and antiman in antiphysics, but contrary and opposed to them on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of the Devil and Antigod in metachemistry over antimetaphysics and man and antiwoman in physics (duly subverted to somatic emphasis) and antichemistry. For the end of the world in relation to the triumph of Heaven and Antihell will also put an end to the netherworldly rule of Hell and Antiheaven over the world, both directly, in axial relation to physics and antichemistry, and indirectly, in inter-axial exploitative relation to chemistry and antiphysics, whose worldly standing - excluding axial subversion - is less omega and anti-alpha than alpha and anti-omega and is therefore directly capable of being overcome once the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis gets its act together so conclusively as to provide a lasting salvation and counter-damnation to all who, identifiable with the phenomenal not-one and the phenomenal anti-one, can be delivered from their lowly plight at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to the divine and antidiabolic heights of its northeast point as a matter of moral and eschatological necessity. Then the victimized 'last' of antiphysical anti-self will be metaphysically 'first' in noumenal self, while the victorious 'first' of chemical not-self will be antimetachemically 'last' in noumenal anti-not-self, the psychically bound becoming psychically free and the somatically free somatically bound. So be it!
LONDON 2006-07 (Revised 2008-10)