Op. 143




Aphoristic Philosophy


John O’Loughlin


Copyright © 2014 John O’Loughlin





Is life worth living? Yes for the alpha bitches, and no for the pseudo-omega sons-of-bitches; no for the pseudo-alpha daughters-of-bastards, as it were, and yes for the omega bastards – on both noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal, upper- and lower-class planes. It's really as simple as that. Life is only worth living for the hegemonic gender, whether in the alpha (female) or in the omega (male), not for the subordinate gender, whether as pseudo-omega (pseudo-male) or as pseudo-alpha (pseudo-female). So there is a sense in which the 'once born' or sensual life of the heathen is worth living from a female point of view, and the 'reborn' or sensible life of the Christian worth living from a male standpoint. There it is.


The British – and the English in particular – have often been praised, usually by themselves or by people akin to them, for their moderation, exemplified, not least, by parliamentary compromise and a refusal to entertain extremism, whether of the left or the right, but this, I am confident, has a lot to do, over and above historical experience, with the non-gender nature of the English language which, fighting shy of female and male alternatives either side of a neutral (or neuter) middle-ground, tends to condition an almost androgynous perspective which can result in the much-vaunted liberal moderation upon which the British would seem to pride themselves. It is almost inconceivable that the situation that arose in Germany in the 1920s and '30s, when society was torn asunder by communist (female) and nazi (male) antagonism, could have happened in Britain, where Communists and Fascists would have been more likely, in the long-term, to come to some kind of parliamentary arrangement, comparatively few and far between as their numbers were, whether because of genuine female/male ideological opposition or, more likely, because political extremism, like other forms of extremism, simply wasn't germane to a mindset conditioned, over several generations, by the gender-neutral nature of the English language. The well-documented incapacity of the British – and the English in particular – for ideology or, more accurately, for ideological idealism and transcendentalism, which even Nietzsche was aware of and drew attention to, must owe something if not everything to the want or, if you prefer, absence of gender from the English language, the androgynous relativity of which, deeply atomic in character, precludes a truly male aspiration and orientation towards ideological radicalism from transpiring, in consequence of which the concept of 'fighting the good fight' … of male idealism against female materialism … is either non-existent or reinterpreted to suit a more gender neutral disposition partial to parliamentary democracy and, more specifically, to a right-wing orientation favouring private enterprise at the expense of all forms of socialism, including the non-Marxist (republican socialist) variety, as well as to any threat to that parliamentary bias posed by either unrestricted autocracy or papal theocracy, neither of which would be acceptable to a mindset whose concept of what is 'good' and constitutive, moreover, of 'the good fight' never strays very far from the benefits accruing to private enterprise within a polity, characterizable as parliamentary, more partial to that than to anything else. This, however, is not my concept of 'the good fight', and whilst I am no advocate of papal theocracy, with its claim to infallibility, I most certainly regard such a fight in relation to religion and, most especially, to what I term Social Theocracy (as the means to Social Transcendentalism), to which, as the reader may know, I have dedicated a not-inconsiderable proportion of my writings for several decades past.


What is more important – work or health? Health, of course. No health, no work.


What is more important – play or health? Play, of course. No play, no health. There is unquestionably a gender distinction of sorts between work and play, but only in the sense that one conceives of work somatically, or in relation to soma (body), and conceives of play, by contrast, psychically, or in relation to psyche (mind). Then a gender distinction can be said to exist, though one also has to allow for play of a workful nature, so to speak, and for work of a playful nature, the former pseudo-somatic and the latter pseudo-psychic, as if intended for and/or reflective of gender subordinate positions conditioned – as such positions tend to be – by the hegemonic gender's bias, be that bias somatic (and properly workful) or psychic (and properly playful), with female and male gender implications that point to pseudo-male (workful play) and pseudo-female (playful work) corollaries, including, no doubt, physical sports like football in the one case and mental tasks like bookkeeping or shorthand typing in the other case, as between footballers and secretaries, the great majority of whom, in each case, will be what I have described as pseudo-male and pseudo-female respectively.


Some would argue that both fusion music, or jazz-rock and/or blues-rock, and rock classical are subversive of rock proper, meaning rock 'n' roll-derived subgenres, as it were, like hard rock, soft rock, progressive rock, punk rock, heavy metal, and, to be sure, there may be some truth in such an argument. But the fact remains that, axially considered, jazz-rock is no less axially preferable to jazz than rock classical to so-called classical music from a rock 'n' roll point-of-view, since not really identifiable with the upper and lower polarities of state-hegemonic axial criteria (northwest to southeast poles of the intercardinal axial compass) but, rather, peripheral to the lower pole, in lapsed Catholic/republican socialist vein, of the church-hegemonic axis (southwest to northeast poles of the intercardinal axial compass) whose upper pole can only be some form of superclassicism like electronica. Therefore to have what can be inferred to be the Protestant, or lapsed Protestant, proletariats 'on board', as it were, of a type of music more readily identifiable with a proletariat of Catholic descent, no matter how subversive of the latter the former may appear in each of their effectively antithetical manifestations, is surely preferable to not having them 'on board' at all, but to being confronted, instead, by a jazz/classical polarity which is not so much axially subversive as diametrically inimical to rock 'n' roll. It is to be expected that in the future event of a collapse of state-hegemonic axial criteria (presumably brought about by a radical modification of church-hegemonic axial criteria), the proletariats who have rejected jazz in favour of jazz-rock (fusion) and classical music in favour of rock classical, whom I have theoretically contended to be of Protestant descent, would be more likely to serve justice, or to support the serving of justice, on the prime movers up and down the state-hegemonic axis than would anybody more closely – and therefore axially – aligned with such movers, whether in relation to jazz or to classical or, indeed, to anything else recognizably state hegemonic, and to serve or support the serving of such justice in the interests of their own subsequent middle- and lower-tier amalgamation, as ex-Nonconformists and ex-Anglicans, with the upper-tier ex-Catholics, so to speak, on what would be a 'stepped up', or resurrected, church-hegemonic axis commensurate with 'Kingdom Come' and, more specifically, to what has previously been described, in certain earlier books, as the Triadic Beyond, a largely self-explanatory term for what lies beyond the present structures of society. Such justice, brought to bear on the prime movers of state-hegemonic somatic licence and the profiteering from the financing of said licence by their polar counterparts, would be a precondition of their subsequent entitlement, these ex-Protestants, to church-hegemonic status, whether on the middle tier under the saved (and for females counter-damned) from rock proper, as presumably for people who had been chiefly instrumental in the production of rock classical, or on the bottom tier, as presumably for people who had been chiefly instrumental in the production of jazz-rock (including blues-rock), whom I would incline to suspect were more Anglican than Nonconformist in what had been their Protestant allegiances, and therefore traditionally closer to mainstream jazz than to mainstream classical. Be that as it may, all this is of course merely speculation about a hypothetical scenario and should not be taken as gospel, even though I believe it corresponds to the overall ethnic reality of how things actually are, or should be logically inferred as being, irrespective of exceptions to the rule or illogical associations on the part of various individuals whose cultural preferences, for one reason or another, do not necessarily follow from an ethnic precondition. One thing I will say for sure is that if any one type of music could be said to have been really subversive of rock 'n' roll, not least in its hard rock and progressive rock permutations, it would surely have been punk rock, which was not merely peripheral to rock proper but, rather, a direct assault on it, as though from persons of a hard-line republican tendency who simply spat on the remaining vestiges of Catholic sensibility or ethnicity in mainstream rock in the interests of a descent into the musical equivalent of socialist anarchy, with an unbridled instrumental and vocal energy that reflected the youthful ardour of a generation at loggerheads with the rock norms of their parents.


What can be said of a man coming along the street in pleated trousers? All sorts of stupid things, of course, but more insightfully and even obviously: that he would not appear to be somebody who has been down on his hands and knees hammering or drilling or plastering or scrubbing or whatever. There is a good chance that he may even be a gentleman, nurturally if not naturally averse to any kind of manual labour. Which would indicate that he was less working class than middle class, would it not?


Generally speaking, 'the bad' die young … of unnatural causes, and 'the good' die old … of natural causes. And this contrary to the 'accepted wisdom' … of fools.


My books have always emphasized content over form, for the are essentially books of ideas that strive toward contentment, or psychic self-satisfaction, through truth, the subjectivistic 'objective', as it were, of philosophy. If I feel I have 'got it right', or accurately described and/or defined something, be it ever so intangible and requiring whatever modifications of existing terminology, I am happy, that is to say, intellectually and morally content. But such contentment only comes in relation to the type of books I write, and would not be true of writers whose 'objectives' were less subjective.


When I was a youth, back in the late 1960s, guys with short cropped hair (and Doc Martin boots, turned-up denims, braces, etc.) were normally regarded as skinheads. Now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, guys with short cropped hair wouldn't 'cut it' as skinheads (except perhaps in the conventional or traditional sense) because many guys choose to shave their head (in addition to their face and possibly even body hair), and such shaven heads, strange to say, are not regarded as the mark of skinheads, since distinct from the culture that sprang up in the late 'sixties and was the antithesis to the long-haired culture of 'freaks' or 'hippies', and a kind of counterpart to that between mods and rockers of the mid-sixties which had automotive motivations in the distinction between scooters and motorbikes, a factor less relevant to the skinhead phenomenon, with its closer association with football hooliganism, neo-nazism, and a general yobbism that, in some respects, presaged the punks of the late '70s. But even if a contemporary shaven head is literally more 'skinhead'-like in the physical sense than were most of the so-called skinheads of the late '60s, with their closely-cropped hair, it is still a distinct category and even culture in its own right, and should not be confounded with either cropped hair or baldness, since whereas the former is traditionally the preserve of the so-called skinheads, even if less culturally identifiable with them these days than before, the latter is due to hair loss, usually though not invariably through the process of ageing, and a guy who shaves his head, whilst he may look bald to others, is not necessarily somebody suffering from hair-loss but may well be – and in the more youthful instances almost certainly is – somebody given to an overzealous attitude to shaving which may well reflect a masculine or even macho contempt for hair and, especially in the case of long hair, for the effeminacy or cultural irrelevance, going back to the late '60s, often associated with it. Obviously, the commercial availability, these days, of home shaving kits, complete with clippers, trimmers, scissors, and all the rest of it, has contributed enormously to the trend for shaven heads, as has the ready availability of well-lined hoods on zipper jackets of one type of another, and I can see no reason why this should not continue to be the case well into the future, since inventions cannot be undone, and once they come into common usage the trend is set on an irreversible course that will appeal to those for whom hair is either a nuisance or an anachronistic irrelevance having a variety, depending on the style, of undesirable connotations, if not both.


You cannot have all predators and no prey or all prey and no predators, for then the predators would be no more predatory than the prey … prey, or objects for predation. Likewise you cannot have all advantaged and no disadvantaged or all disadvantaged and no advantaged, for then the advantaged would be no more advantaged than the disadvantaged … disadvantaged. You always have a combination of both, with more disadvantaged than advantaged, more prey than predators. Otherwise there can be neither. Such is the distinction between 'the Few' and 'the Many' – the predatory or advantaged upper class and the preyed-upon or disadvantaged lower class, the latter necessarily being far more numerous, as masses, than the former, as elites. The masses are not morally superior to the elites. On the contrary, it is the elites who hold the high ground, both literally and metaphorically. Such moral superiority as does exist is rather more between one type of elite and another or one type of mass and another, with the sensibility of inner values counting for more than the sensuality of outer ones in the moral estimation of those who hold to some form of sensibility under what normally transpires to being a male hegemony, whether ethereal or corporeal, noumenal or phenomenal, theocratic or plutocratic, metaphysical or physical.


They say the exception proves the rule, but it is also the case that the rule necessitates the exception, like the artist, philosopher, seer, etc. Otherwise what a boring and predictable state-of-affairs! Don't trust triangles! The triangular, in whatever walk of life, is in a pact with the Devil, that is, with all aspects of metachemistry, including the objective beauty of free will, whose criminal nature or, more correctly, supernature, in metachemical free soma, is intentional. Some regard mainstream life, that euphemism for what has been co-opted (one way or another) to the triangular, as sacrosanct. I don't. Greatness has always stood out from the crowd, feared and worshipped by the Many as the prerogative of the Few.


Intentionality wars upon intellectuality as instinctuality upon emotionality, albeit on axially polar as opposed to inter-axial terms. One could call this a direct – albeit gender differentiated – as opposed to an indirect kind of warfare. In overall axial terms, intentionality indirectly combats intellectuality through a subordinate pseudo-emotionality, whereas instinctuality indirectly combats emotionality through a subordinate pseudo-intellectuality. Conversely, from the standpoint of the sensibly 'inner' as opposed to sensually 'outer' values, intellectuality indirectly combats intentionality through a subordinate pseudo-instinctuality, whereas emotionality indirectly combats instinctuality through a subordinate pseudo-intentionality. The polarity between intentionality/pseudo-emotionality and intellectuality/pseudo-instinctuality can be logically associated with state-hegemonic axial criteria stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, whereas the polarity between instinctuality/pseudo-intellectuality and emotionality/pseudo-intentionality can be logically associated with church-hegemonice axial criteria stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, to begin, in each axial case, with the alpha-west and conclude with the omega-east. Therefore a direct gender polarity only exists between intentionality and pseudo-instinctuality (overall female) and pseudo-emotionality and intellectuality (overall male) in the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but between instinctuality and pseudo-intentionality (overall female) and pseudo-intellectuality and emotionality (overall male) in the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.


1.          In relation to its specifically hegemonic elements, the polarity between intentionality and pseudo-instinctuality, the former hegemonically noumenal and the latter subordinately phenomenal, is primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (overall female), whereas that between intellectuality and pseudo-emotionality, the former hegemonically phenomenal and the latter subordinately noumenal, is secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (overall male).

2.          Contrariwise, the polarity between emotionality and pseudo-intellectuality, the former hegemonically noumenal and the latter subordinately phenomenal, is primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (overall male), whereas that between instinctuality and pseudo-intentionality, the former hegemonically phenomenal and the latter subordinately noumenal, is secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (overall female).


All our lives long we are engaged in a gender war compounded by other factors, like class, ethnicity, occupation, etc., which can only be won by males on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, not on those of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, where the female is noumenally hegemonic and therefore sovereign on primary terms. But it can only be definitively won, this gender war, if the pseudo-intellectually sinful are saved to graceful emotionality (joy), so that the instinctual (who are less sinful than pseudo-evil and even, in freely somatic state-subordinate terms, pseudo-criminal) are deprived of subordinate allies – and prey – and duly condemned to counter-damnation in the form of pseudo-intentionality as the subordinate corollary of that tempered emotionality that makes for sanctity, pseudo-metachemistry for ever under the sway of metaphysics, like the proverbial neutralized dragon under the saintly heel. The 'want' of emotional sensibility in females is endemic to the gender and is not an anomalous characteristic of this or that female. Even intellectual sensibility is usually beyond their capacities, which will normally allow for no more than a pseudo-intentional deference to the emotional sensibility of joy in the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, and a pseudo-instinctual deference to the intellectual sensibility of knowledge in the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a pseudo-sensual deference, in each case, that would not obtain without the institutionalized continuity of hegemonic pressure from the male gender, since it is by no means natural to females but, rather, a product of their pseudo-female subordination to male hegemonic criteria in one or another degree, depending on the plane, of free psyche/bound soma or, in their case, of pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma, with ratio implications that are the pseudo-sensual converse of their male counterparts in both phenomenal and noumenal sensibility.


Are you stressed out (by love) or blessed in (through joy) by the music you listen to. If the former, then it is obviously no good. If the latter, then at least you know it is headed in the right direction from a male standpoint. Whitesnake is the band I love to hate the most because they are so, so given to sex, love, women, romance, etc. that I have to turn to a band like Iron Maiden (!) which I hate to love but do because, to me, they are the perfect antidote to Whitesnake and to the more prominent rock 'n' roll sons-of-bitches generally. In fact, to my way of thinking Whitesnake and Iron Maiden are the alpha and omega of British rock music, rather like the dunces and the clever, the foolish and the wise, the romantic and the esoteric. No wonder most relatively sane males who know anything about hard rock/heavy metal prefer Iron Maiden; for, despite the manifestly unattractive nature of that name, you would have to be kind of mad (or madly in love and/or on a gender-bender trip) to be overly enthusiastic about bands like Whitesnake, the narrow focus of whose lyrics makes even singers like Ian Gillan and Glynn Hughes, never mind Mick Jagger and Christ Farlowe, appear comparatively broad-minded.


By way of contrasting Association Football with Gaelic Football, the free psyche and bound soma of physics over (a plane up at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) the pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry would suggest that, in the case of Association Football (which I believe should be correlated with this male-dominated element/pseudo-element pairing), the free psyche of physics and the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-chemistry could be regarded as correlating with the entitlement to head the ball (one way or another, viz physically high or pseudo-chemically low, climbing or diving), and the bound soma of the one and pseudo-bound soma of the other with the penalization of ball handling, as of the ball being wilfully or accidentally handled, which can, however, be kicked (one way or another, viz physically high or pseudo-chemically low, on the volley or along the ground), whereas the free soma and bound psyche of chemistry over (a plane up at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass) the pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics would suggest that, in the case of Gaelic Football (which I believe should be correlated with this female-dominated element/pseudo-element pairing) the free soma of chemistry and pseudo-free soma of pseudo-physics could be regarded as correlating with the entitlement to handle the ball (one way or another, viz chemically high or pseudo-physically low, whether in the air or on the bounce), and the bound psyche of the one and pseudo-bound psyche of the other with a taboo on heading the ball, which can nevertheless be kicked (one way or another, viz over the bar between the extended uprights or into the net of the goal below, whether or not this implies a chemical/pseudo-physical state-subordinate distinction as opposed to a chemical/pseudo-physical church-hegemonic one in which hands or fists have been used in the scoring process). Therefore it would appear that the opposite natures of Gaelic Football and Association Football derive, in no small part, from the elements and pseudo-elements, corresponding to a hegemonic gender and subordinate pseudo-gender parallel, with which they can and, I believe, should be correlated – largely, I have to say, with ethnic associations in mind which distinguish what appertains, in mass Irish Catholic vein, to the foot of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis from what appertains, in mass British Protestant (nonconformist) vein, to the foot of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis – namely our aforementioned distinction between chemistry and pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and, across the axial divide, physics and pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point thereof, the former polar to the northeast point of the said compass, as in sports terms to Hurling, and the latter polar to the northwest point of it, as to Rugby, and not least, I would guess, in relation to Rugby Union. The above-mentioned planes are of course volume over pseudo-mass, the former volumetric and the latter massed, in the case of chemistry/pseudo-physics, and mass over pseudo-volume, the former massive and the latter voluminous, in the case of physics/pseudo-chemistry, both of which would stand as phenomenal (corporeal) counterparts to the noumenal (ethereal) planes of space and time, whether with regard to space over pseudo-time, the former spatial and the latter sequential, in the case of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics (at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass), or to time over pseudo-space, the former repetitive and the latter spaced, in the case of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry (at the northeast point of the said compass), where not Gaelic Football and Association Football but, as noted above, Rugby and Hurling would seem to be the most credible candidates, within the overall context of the British Isles, for two such antithetical sports.


When the average man abandons 'the world' for 'God in Heaven', as for a (fully) metaphysical approach to life, monkeys will have turned into monks.


Does a late Picasso look like an early Picasso? Does a late Dali look like an early Dali? Does a late Braque look like an early Braque? Or, for that matter, an elderly Picasso like a young Picasso, an elderly Dali like a young Dali, an elderly Braque like a young Braque? No, of course not! Then why should my late writings, the products of an elderly John O'Loughlin, be like the early ones, the novels and short stories, dialogues and essays, of a youthful John O'Loughlin? If I hadn't evolved my writing style or approach to writing over the course of several decades, passing through a corresponding number of phases, there would surely be something wrong with me as a writer and no less as a person. Believe it or not, it actually takes courage and no little determination to sit down at one's desk and systematically 'do one's own thing' independently of literary convention and the commercial appetite for fiction or drama or some other mass-market predilection. In truth, not many people have the ability to be true to themselves, know what they are doing is uncommercial and unconventional, yet still press on with it regardless because they happen to believe in it and consider it to be inherently necessary or justified. That, to my mind, is the mark of a true artist, whose originality, uniqueness, and determination to be true to himself, to what he believes is true, irrespective of what other people – or even artists – may think, manifests his creative genius. So don't expect anything resembling conventional literature from me – nothing resembling a 'book', with a beginning, a middle, and an end, other than in the sense that no form of protracted literary composition can avoid having a beginning, a middle, and an end in relation to itself, its very existence as a piece of writing. Little by little the bricks of my philosophic logic have stacked up into an edifice that is both strong and true, tall and round, with a capacity to withstand the tests of time and the gusts of criticism which will probably blow around it in years to come.


They hide their mediocrity behind a veil of silence, whose inscrutable obstinacy threatens to stifle one's creative impulses. But struggle on regardless one must, if one's freedom of mind isn't to be unduly undermined by the cynical void that resentfully surrounds it on all sides from what are more usually the antichrist champions of bodily freedom. Sometimes silence is as demoralizing as noise, though when the one technique fails there is always the other for the enemies of thought and philosophical endeavour to fall back on, countering freedom of mind with freedom of body, or the mental with the physical.


How could anyone who purports to be Christian possibly be a dancer?


Only an androgynous liberal would contend that mental freedom depends upon bodily freedom and should never be pursued for its own sake. But even he has to be distinguished from those who oppose mental freedom from the standpoint of bodily freedom. Those who seek a compromise between bodily freedom and mental freedom are always somewhere in between the champions of bodily freedom on the one hand and the practitioners of mental freedom on the other, like a liberal between left- and right-wing alternatives, or a businessman between sportsmen and artists. Actually, the endeavour to maintain a balance between body and mind, whilst it may appear liberal, is nonetheless a fair approach to the upbringing of children and youths, since it is not the business of mainstream education to instil a bias one way or the other but to pursue a more or less neutral path that, appertaining to the middle-ground, does not strive to prejudice this way or that at the expense of the individual student's innate disposition, which, in any case, time alone will reveal to be either suited to a compromise stance or more fitted for a bodily or mental bias, as the case may be. Once the individual understands who or what he is, then it is up to him to pursue the course best suited to himself, whether that results in a bodily bias, a bias towards the body within a liberal framework, a bias towards the mind within a liberal framework, or, indeed, a mental bias such that, in transcending liberal options, effectively repudiates the life of bodily freedom, as of manual labour and physical sport. Certainly the greatest philosophers and thinkers do not become such through bodily compromise! Rather they are creatures of the mind, and no-one who was less than that could hope to excel in the world of ideas and stand, ultimately, in the front rank of philosophical endeavour. Conversely, no great sportsman, shall we say, became pre-eminent in his field of competitive physicality by studying Schopenhauer or Nietzsche every day.


Those who can't think for themselves end up advising others (as well as being advised by others of a like persuasion).


The only thing worse than a thoughtless woman is a thoughtless child.


They run from their own company into the company of others, as into the clutches of wolves.


Christianity has always been torn between the Judaic Jehovah of the Old Testament (or Talmudic equivalent) and the Father of the Son (Christ) of the New Testament; for, in truth, Jehovah and the Father are not the same but as separate – and different – as the Old and New Testaments. Jehovah does not have a Son, least of all a 'Son of God', like the so-called Father who only really figures – and this to a limited extent – in relation to the New Testament … of what is properly Christian, owing more, if memory serves, to Greeks and Romans than ever the Hebraic Old Testament does. The Father is, in a sense, a diluted Jehovah, even an attenuated Creator, a Creator-God for Christians, whose religious fulcrum lies elsewhere (the Son). From a Social Theocratic standpoint, however, both the Old and the New Testaments of the so-called Christian Bible are irrelevant, since no more than obstacles to that truth which is independent of Creator Gods of whatever provenance. We, on the contrary, look towards the creation of an Ultimate God, Who resides in Heaven … the Holy Soul, which dwells within. For, in truth, God/Heaven (which are essentially one and the same) is the last or omega-most of entities, not the first or alpha-most. Even on an Elemental level, fire and water precede vegetation (earth) and air, and, in that sense, John Cowper Powys was correct to regard women or females as an 'older race' than men, since more germane, in overall gender terms, to fire and water than to vegetation and air, and consequently standing closer to those aspects of Nature which are objective rather than subjective. But this, I have long contended, makes them primary rather than secondary in gender terms, with a disposition that tends to dominate their male counterparts for purposes of reproduction.


Iron Maiden (dreadful name!) always drive me to my notebook, where I scribble furiously in an attempt to escape from their, at times, overblown music, with its grating repetitions of chorus or riff.


At one time 'God' was the name they gave to cosmic processes, including the creation of stars and planets. At another it was what went on in Nature, less ethereal than corporeal, since largely involved with the creation of plants and animals. At yet another time they conceived 'God' to be human and more instrumental to the processes by which man came properly into his own as a kind of creature beyond Nature who, through Salvation, could look forward to a life not subject to death. We have yet to move beyond the human into the Superhuman antithesis to cosmic Supernature and a form of life which is truly the realization of Eternity, conceived from a cyborgistic standpoint, that would be as far beyond mankind as cosmic Supernature was – and is – behind Nature. If Nurture is the corporeal antithesis of Nature, then I call the ethereal antithesis of Supernature by the name of Supernurture, and equate it with all things cyborgistic and capable not merely of an individually superhuman but of a collectively supra-human apotheosis in which God truly finds His place in Heaven … the Holy Soul, like super-intellectuality in super-emotionality, truth in joy.


Living in a consumer society he consumed so much that he became consumptive and died of consumption.


The heavier the music, the further removed it is from the lightness of true being and, hence, the sanctity of grace. To search for 'the truth' through a medium like Heavy Metal amounts to a contradiction in terms, with the paradoxical result that only a limited concept of truth – if that – is ever likely to emerge. Even Iron Maiden have their lighter, quieter moments, when the music turns reflective and softly transcendent, if not reproachful of the inherent limitations of the soul-destroying heaviness and hardness which is the hallmark of Heavy Metal, that derivative of and, in a very real sense, degeneration from Hard Rock.


Highly mechanized units ranged against the bearers of humanistic civilization in a cyborgistic transcendence of mankind. This is the struggle for global universality, an ongoing struggle with humanistic reaction that should culminate, if successful, in 'Kingdom Come' as the fulfilment of 'man overcoming' (Nietzsche) in the interests of divine (and pseudo-diabolic) criteria, according to gender.


Humanists are the Christian enemy of the heathenistic naturalism of Pantheists and all those who would affirm Nature above Man because more susceptible to female control in rural or other environments of a less than urban character. In Elemental terms, this amounts to a kind of hegemonic antithesis between vegetation and water, or physics and chemistry, with subordinate pseudo-watery and pseudo-vegetative, pseudo-chemical and pseudo-physical, pseudo-Elemental corollaries also in the overall frame – one identifiable with this or that manifestation of worldliness, depending on whether we are alluding to physics/pseudo-chemistry or to chemistry/pseudo-physics, the former pairing with a hegemonic humanism and a subordinate pseudo-pantheism, the latter pairing with a hegemonic pantheism and a subordinate pseudo-humanism.


Those who have the intelligence to read and understand me but, through prejudice or malice, prefer not to … don't deserve that intelligence in the first place, since they have allowed it to be eclipsed by baser considerations, or by considerations having no bearing on the pursuit of truth.


Writing 'books of ideas' is the abstraction, or abstract art, of literature, a kind of abstraction that, being philosophical, or geared towards the pursuit of metaphysical knowledge (truth), focuses upon the essence of things, as of life. And it is best served, this ontological abstraction, by a non-physical type of book, viz. an eBook. This is the type of 'book' most suited, I believe, to eBook publication on or via the Internet, since it exists at a kind of Platonic remove from the corporeal realm of 'real' books, and never more so than in the type of eScroll presentation that I also favour, and favour more, if anything, than the eBook, since I have conceived of it in terms that, utilizing noumenally subjective means, including textual presentation, are more inherently metaphysical. But, either way, I have distilled the quintessence of literature, viz. thoughtful ideas and subjective musings, from what, in my comparative youth, had been a slightly more conventional approach to literature involving characters and plot, as well as a degree of narrative description – all things I am happy to have ditched or, more correctly, transcended … in the interests of metaphysical knowledge, which is, above all, self-knowledge, the door to enlightenment and, hence, male emancipation from worldly bondage.


'Big Girls Don't Cry', or, in German, Grosse Mδdchen Weinen Nicht, despite its teenage focus, has long been one of my all-time favourite German films, with attractive characters, great acting, a thoughtful and credible plot, delightful music, etc. But if there is one criticism above all, amounting to a moral flaw, that can be levelled at it, not least in the context of the current anti-smoking climate, it must surely be that es gibt zu viel rauchen, and that, alas, is no small matter when considering the overall character of the film and the likelihood of a bad influence on teenagers! But, hell, didn't I smoke cigarettes as a teenager? Didn't we all? Or most of us? Like it or not, teenagers do, and, in that respect, this film could be said to offer a realistic portrayal of vulnerable youth, especially in relation to its two main protagonists who happen, in the characters of Kati and Steffi, to smoke the most, almost as though they were in competition to outdo each other! Perhaps boys made these girls so nervous that they had to smoke in order to calm their nerves.


As the night sky was rent asunder by the lightning and the thunder, it seemed that all hell had broken loose to do its undamndest worst to send the earth to the brink of annihilation. I cursed this frantic tyranny with all the righteous indignation I could muster, as storm-tossed clouds sent my soul into a fluster. And yet, on rational consideration, one would have to say it was all local, and the bolts that tore through the sky were not specifically aimed at this or that but, were generated in what appeared to be a random fashion that usually fell well-short of the ground and whatever stood upon it. There were no premeditated targets for this storm, which raged on oblivious of the world below and those of us who bothered to contemplate it from a safe distance.


An occasional DVD purchase aside, I only use the computer for the sake of my eScrolls/eBooks, not because I have any fondness for computers or the stress to which one is subjected by constant interference, hold ups, pop ups, crashes, freezes, and the hundred-and-one other things that make computing a virtual nightmare. For me, the computer is a means to a publishing end, that's all.


Every creative and publishing step forward I take is achieved in spite of neighbour – and especially female – opposition to my work, so I know well enough that one must struggle anew every day not so much with oneself – though that also happens – as with others, particularly those whose only real business in life is reproduction, which implies the same thing over and over again, generation after generation, world without apparent end.


There are different types of Antichrist, like, for instance, those who are especially athletic and those who are obese, the former effectively corresponding to a higher class of Antichrist, as it were, than the latter. Both alike, however, would be male, at least nominally so, since females should be evaluated in relation to other than strictly Christian criteria, like Marian criteria, for example, or criteria having some bearing on the objective 'First Cause' of things, neither of which would have much to do with sin and folly, whether of the genuine or 'pseudo' varieties, but a lot to do with crime and evil, with free soma and bound psyche in relation to metachemistry and chemistry, the former genuinely criminal and evil, the latter so on a 'pseudo' basis by dint of its secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate status vis-a-vis the pseudo-physically sinful (in pseudo-bound psyche) and foolish (in pseudo-free soma) who exist, on pseudo-masculine terms, a plane down from their feminine counterparts, like pseudo-mass under volume, massed mass under the volumetric, which tends, naturally enough, to be watery (in chemistry) rather than pseudo-vegetative (in pseudo-physics).


I've always found the idea of a female with a crucifix around her neck to be as paradoxically improbable and even unconvincing as a male with a star-shaped pendant around his. Both would appear to be at cross-purposes with their actual gender.


The mixed congregations of the Christian churches reflect a kind of androgynous liberalism or atomicity peculiar to and even typical of 'the world' which, in practical and ethnic terms, has tended to imply the West as a whole but Western Europe in particular. The true philosopher, a man of truth, is not to be found in a Christian congregation, but at a kind of Platonic remove from any reflection or even celebration of family values. Schopenhauer would have been sardonically amused by the mass of people in this or that congregation, piled up in heaps or whatever his exact expression was.


If your internet security is compromised, banners can appear on your site(s) that you didn't put there, subverting the overall integrity of the page. It is simply extraordinary to what lengths internet criminals will go to achieve their ends!


These days it would seem that St George tends to take the form of anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware, anti-malware, pop-up blockers, and other manifestations of internet security designed to lance the Dragon of intrusive adverts, banners, pop-ups, viruses, and other thoroughly undesirable, unwarranted attacks upon one's computer. As for the intruders, with their fiery assaults upon one's computing activities – Scum!


Those antichrist fools, shaking their hips and wriggling their behinds, mouthing off, and generally acting like young women, have it 'all to do' from a properly male standpoint, the standpoint of sensibility and wisdom. They exist, these sons-of-free-somatic-bitches, as so-called 'alpha males', in a fool's paradise, and of course they tend, when political, to have left-wing sympathies if not inclinations.


Not for the first time in my history of computer downloads an installation has stalled, and I am left wondering whether it will ever restart.


If the First World War was the 'death throes' of the old European order, governed by autocracy, then it could be said that the Second World War was the 'birth pangs' of a new European order, the legacy of which we are still living with today.


The wise man ensures that his fantasy world doesn't coincide with reality.


Those who write for money invariably produce shit.


Those who publish for money spurn truth.


No-one who writes or thinks with a kind of Anglican fatality towards materialism/fundamentalism (metachemistry) can possibly be of any use or relevance to the Catholic and more than Catholic purveyor of transcendentalism/idealism (metaphysics), who would simply be 'beyond the pale' of the mindset based, as though rooted, in metachemistry (doubtless hyped as metaphysics, as in the Cosmos hyped as the Universe, or Devil the Mother/Virgin hyped as God the Father, etc). For such people beauty is truth, and there is consequently no place, in their triangular set-up, for truth itself, as for a metaphysics completely independent of metachemical subversion.


They have no idea how genius operates simply because they have no ideas in their head in the first place. Period. To equate genius with something broader or wider than just excellence or outstanding ability in one field or discipline is to misunderstand it, which is what most people, entirely lacking in if not opposed to a specific focus, tend to do, since there is nothing more objectionable to those rooted in alpha divergence than a persistent focus amounting to a kind of omega convergence, as upon truth, or metaphysical knowledge.


Nothing to say, nothing to write; I must be making some kind of moral progress. Something to read, something to think; seems like I'm back to my old (male-biased) ways again.


Sounds like another 'Catholic' night torn between the rain and the wind, with little evidence of anything else.


Let those who wish to return to Nature live outside the bounds of civilization, without the benefit of modern conveniences within a secure structure.


The rain is so fierce and frequent, so prolonged and intense, that one feels not only under siege but somehow hemmed-in and as though oppressed by it. One wonders how much more of this certain other aspects or manifestations of nature, never mind civilization in general, can take.


Malfunctioning computing is a nightmare from which one longs to escape … into the dream of a properly functioning and responsive computer. Some hope!


Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns, as they say, and take the fight to your neighbours, refusing to be cowed by them into some kind of meek submission that would endanger if not undermine one's vocational activities – these being, in my case, of an intensely literary nature.


Equalitarianism is a disease that cripples the body politic and, eventually, brings the entire social organism into disrepute, since it ceases to function as a coherent whole but becomes subject to a partisan imbalance.


Writers have always sought escape from the social constraints imposed by neighbours and such like by fleeing abroad or at least to some more congenial hideaway where they can work in peace without fear of resentful intrusions or cynical antagonisms from philistine opponents of any sort of literary vocation. When one cannot live with kindred spirits, it is better to live by oneself than to continue enduring the indifference if not animosity of spirits who are anything but kindred!


Listening to Mendelssohn, one always feels in the presence of the noblest music.


I take a look around me on the crowded streets of various north London 'towns' and ask myself how many of these people even know what 'the good fight' is, never mind live in the daily process of fighting it, that is, struggling against female opposition to truth by living a life removed from female domination and the power of beauty.


Coming to terms with 'the world' is one thing and, for most people, it is probably fair to say the only thing. But 'the world' doesn't lead anywhere itself, least of all to the otherworldly pastures of Heaven or, more correctly, 'Kingdom Come', which has to be conceived as implying more than just a Christian type of posthumous life in the grave (something which cremation, as a manifestation of antichristian or secular practise, in any case repudiates, as though from the standpoint of science), not to mention the necessary gender division between heavenly and pseudo-hellish (pseudo-devilish) criteria which Christianity would seem not to acknowledge, since rather more androgynous in its overall mixed congregation-like accommodation of worldly norms. But, of course, the Afterlife that I have in mind would be cyborgistic in character, and therefore akin to a sort of superchristian dispensation capable of sharply differentiating between metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, male saint and pseudo-female neutralized dragon. Christianity even has female saints!


You are predestined for this or that not only according to gender, but also according to class, race, and ethnicity which, taken together with occupation, constitute a quadruplicity of realities that overlay gender and can be applicable to either gender in consequence.


The other day I realized, quite categorically, that pleated slacks and macadamised sidewalks don't correlate, any more than jeans and paved sidewalks, or pavements proper. Either you wear pleated slacks/trousers for pavements or jeans for sidewalks, even though circumstances may – and indeed do – oblige somebody in slacks to walk on sidewalks and somebody in jeans to walk on pavements from time to time. Having long despised the 'squareness' of paving stones, and hence pavements, I find the wearing of jeans or jean-like non-pleated attire in relation to a preference for macadamised sidewalks (usually more wheely-bag friendly than their paved counterparts).a no-brainer. And even if reality doesn't always match or even match-up to my preference, the bias is there and has long been so, with few deviations from it (though occasional deviations there certainly have been and, depending on circumstances, will probably continue to be).


The 'good fight' against overbearing female domination and worldly consequences has never been particularly popular, and not just with the ladies. The Christian exception proves the heathen rule, and it may well be that the crux of the distinction between popular and classical music, or populism and classicism in general, is precisely one hinging upon the contrast between female-dominated heathenism and male-hegemonic Christianity, a distinction no less applicable, I contend, to superheathen and superchristian criteria, which would be less worldly in antithetical terms than antithetical in terms of netherworldly and otherworldly criteria, metachemistry and metaphysics, with their subordinate gender corollaries of pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry respectively.


Science may interpret the world but only religion can change it or, more correctly, enable males to transcend it in pursuit of an otherworldly alternative. Even Marx's contention that it is not enough to interpret the world; rather one should strive, as a philosopher, to change it … had some religious implications, if, in relation to social democracy and proletarian humanism, demonstrably false ones. Yet that still contrasts with the Darwinian concept of evolution and its profoundly scientific implications which contribute nothing to religion, since historically factual rather than based in some myth that, conceiving of the origins of the world in relation to original sin, allows for and actually encourages a gender-based perspective on life and morality that could conceivably lead to a very different outcome to, never mind conception of, evolution than that postulated by science.


He (not me) was one of those many-too-many sons-of-bitches who was so pretty bitched up that he had little or no inclination towards cultural creativity left in him – meek plaything of a natural will.


While she was busy looking for 'Mr Right', he was busy escaping from 'Miss Wrong'.


There is nothing women hate so much as thoughtful self-absorption in men.





Some maintain that music isn't a necessity, like food and drink, but a luxury, and I have to say that I believe such people to be body-over-mind types who fail to understand that for certain others, usually those of a mind-over-body disposition, music is necessary and therefore a necessity because, quite apart from the possibility of professional or vocational commitments, the soul requires to be fed since man, particularly in the case of males, does not live by bread alone. Starved of cultural nourishment, not least in respect of music, the soul of those who are mind-over-body would succumb to depression and lethargy to an extent that could well lead to a loss of appetite and, hence, pose a danger to life and limb. Music is not simply a luxury for those who, more usually as males, are mind-over-body, as it may well be for those, on the contrary, who are body-over-mind, the great majority of whom I would suppose to be female. Rather it is a cultural necessity that helps keep the soul alive and well, that is, capable of responsive feeling in consequence of a more positive attitude to life. Starved of music the soul would die and, with it, the body would cease to be soulfully animated but become a mere self-perpetuating automaton, bereft of sensibility and the possibility of higher feeling. But that would still contrast with those whose healthy bodies, bolstered by carnal appetites, are not incompatible with dead minds, the sort of people who, being body-over-mind, don't really need music because their sense of life derives from the body and its sensual nourishment. And so much so that the absence of music, at least in any recognizably soul-oriented mode, would not necessarily impair their bodily well-being.


To claim that all people are the same, irrespective of gender and its vacuous/plenemous, objective/subjective, somatic/psychic, individual/collective, competitive/cooperative, particle/wavicle distinctions, broadly speaking, between females and males, would be grossly mistaken, since any androgynous approach to mankind, such as is evidenced by the exponents of unisexual liberalism, with its gender neutrality, can only do a disservice to gender and, hence, to life conceived in terms of a gender struggle, or struggle between the genders. Quite apart from the gender-extrapolative distinctions of class, race, ethnicity (culture & religion), and occupation, mankind is subject to a constant struggle of opposing forces that can never be reconciled because whatever common ground there is between them is undermined by their antithetical natures as female and male, making it as though peripheral to their respective inclinations. I believe the attempt to achieve a common ground between people irrespective of their gender, to emphasize their common humanity, as it were, derives from a liberal perspective on life which is quintessentially worldly and, hence, atomic, with androgynous predilections that fight shy of gender differences from a kind of neutral standpoint designed to accommodate both genders, as far as possible, to a middle-ground position in which, paradoxically, gender ceases, in almost unisexual vein, to be an issue. One can see how the English language, in avoiding gender in its treatment of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and so on, facilitates this tendency through a process of gender neutralization congenial to a liberal view of life and the avoidance thereby of certain moral issues, not least those presented by religion from the standpoint of a type of gender discrimination going back to the concept of 'original sin' and on towards Christ's advice to male followers of his to leave females of one sort or another behind in order to 'take up the Cross', as it were, and climb the hill towards salvation from female domination, and hence heathen values generally, that leads to paradise or, in eschatological terminology, to the gender-based divisions of 'Kingdom Come' in which metaphysical values would be hegemonic over pseudo-metachemical ones in a structural paradigm of saint and neutralized dragon, or lamb and neutralized wolf.


The dominance of females over males is aided and abetted by science and politics, the dominance of males over females … by economics and religion. If religion is undermined by science or economics by politics, then the only consequence, whether with a noumenal (scientific) or a phenomenal (political) bias, will be the dominance of males by females and a form of civilization characterized by outer and sensual values in relation to a predatory impulse. Just as science is the enemy of religion and politics the enemy of economics, so there are philosophers who, espousing science over religion or politics over economics, are the enemies of economic or religious philosophers, serving only to advocate superficial approaches to civilization characterized by female dominion which effectively subvert philosophy from standpoints contrary to a love of wisdom and the pursuit, thereby, of truth. If scientific philosophers are the most false and political philosophers the more (relative to most) false type of philosopher, then economic philosophers are the more (relative to most) true and religious philosophers the most true type of philosopher. In fact, the religious philosopher, being most true, is alone he for whom metaphysics takes positive precedence over physics and chemistry negative precedence over metachemistry, the element of the scientific philosopher par excellence. For metaphysics and chemistry, being elementally hegemonic, are axially polar (on opposite gender terms), and therefore both separate from and contrary to the axial polarity established (likewise on opposite gender terms) between metachemistry and physics, which are also elementally hegemonic.


1.     Just as metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics is axially polar, on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, to physics over pseudo-chemistry, with a same gender polarity between metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry on the one hand (overall female) and pseudo-metaphysics and physics on the other hand (overall male), the former primary and the latter secondary, so a like polarity exists, in overall axial terms, between autocracy over aristocracy and plutocracy over meritocracy, with autocracy and meritocracy polar on overall female terms (primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) and aristocracy and plutocracy polar on overall male terms (secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate).

2.     Similarly, just as metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry is axially polar, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, to chemistry over pseudo-physics, with a same gender polarity between metaphysics and pseudo-physics on the one hand (overall male) and pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry on the other hand (overall female), the former primary and the latter secondary, so a like polarity exists, in overall axial terms, between theocracy over technocracy and democracy over bureaucracy, with theocracy and bureaucracy polar on overall male terms (primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate) and technocracy and democracy polar on overall female terms (secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate).


Therefore the overall polarity between autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy, corresponding to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and physics/pseudo-chemistry, necessarily excludes that between theocracy/technocracy and democracy/bureaucracy, corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry/pseudo-physics, since the more of the one type of polarity the less of the other, and vice versa.


1.          The more autocracy/aristocracy the less, on similar albeit lower-order gender structural terms, democracy/bureaucracy, and, correlatively, the more plutocracy/meritocracy the less, on similar albeit higher-order gender structural terms, theocracy/technocracy, since the one type of structure necessarily excludes the other.

2.          Similarly if conversely, the more theocracy/technocracy the less, on similar albeit lower-order gender structural terms, plutocracy/meritocracy, and, correlatively, the more democracy/bureaucracy the less, on similar albeit higher-order gender structural terms, autocracy/aristocracy, since the one type of structure necessarily excludes the other.

3.          Hence it is logical that metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics should form an axial polarity with physics/pseudo-chemistry, in order to guarantee for both autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy as little interference or competition as possible from their respective lower- or higher-order structural counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental parallels happen, in the one case, to be female over pseudo-male or, in the other case, male over pseudo-female.

4.          Likewise it is logical that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry should form an axial polarity with chemistry/pseudo-physics, in order to guarantee for both theocracy/technocracy and democracy/plutocracy as little interference or competition as possible from their respective lower- or higher-order structural counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental parallels happen, in the one case, to be male over pseudo-female or, in the other case, female over pseudo-male.


1.          In the past I have tended to equate aristocracy with pseudo-theocracy and technocracy with pseudo-autocracy, so that we have had an antithesis between autocracy/pseudo-theocracy and theocracy/pseudo-autocracy, which would correspond to the above distinctions between autocracy/aristocracy and theocracy/technocracy.

2.          Similarly I have tended, in the past, to equate bureaucracy with pseudo-plutocracy and meritocracy with pseudo-democracy, with a cross-axial antithesis between democracy/pseudo-plutocracy and plutocracy/pseudo-democracy corresponding to the above distinctions between democracy/bureaucracy and plutocracy/meritocracy.

3.          Another way of making such distinctions would be to equate autocracy with science and aristocracy with pseudo-religion on the one hand, and theocracy with religion and technocracy with pseudo-science on the other hand, which would neatly tie-in with our long-established antithesis between metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry.

4.          Likewise one could equate democracy with politics and bureaucracy with pseudo-economics on the one hand, and plutocracy with economics and meritocracy with pseudo-politics on the other hand, which would just as neatly tie-in with the long-established antithesis between chemistry/pseudo-physics and physics/pseudo-chemistry.


Be that as it may, I have no doubt that just as the hegemonic elements on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are democracy and theocracy, or politics and religion, with subordinate corollaries in bureaucracy and technocracy, or pseudo-economics and pseudo-science, so the hegemonic elements on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are autocracy and plutocracy, or science and economics, with subordinate corollaries in aristocracy and meritocracy, or pseudo-religion and pseudo-politics. For if you have genuine science in one context (metachemistry), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-metachemical); if you have genuine politics in one context (chemistry), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-chemical); if you have genuine economics in one context (physics), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-physical); and if you have genuine religion in one context (metaphysics), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-metaphysical). That, it seems to me, is logically incontrovertible and subject to proof by example of the way in which each axis operates according to which gender is hegemonic in any given context, be it noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, absolute or relative.


1.                Hence autocracy is only genuine in a metachemical context characterized by scientific freedom, not in a pseudo-metachemical context characterized by the binding of science pseudo-scientifically, or technocratically, to religious freedom in metaphysics. Or put the other way around, theocracy is only genuine in a metaphysical context characterized by religious freedom, not in a pseudo-metaphysical context characterized by the binding of religion pseudo-religiously, or aristocratically, to scientific freedom in metachemistry.

2.                Likewise democracy is only genuine in a chemical context characterized by political freedom, not in a pseudo-chemical context characterized by the binding of politics pseudo-politically, or meritocratically, to economic freedom in physics. Or put the other way around, plutocracy is only genuine in a physical context characterized by economic freedom, not in a pseudo-physical context characterized by the binding of economics pseudo-economically, or bureaucratically, to political freedom in chemistry.


So just as the distinction between genuine science and pseudo-science is an autocratic/technocratic one, so the distinction between genuine religion and pseudo-religion is a theocratic/aristocratic one; and just as the distinction between genuine politics and pseudo-politics is a democratic/meritocratic one, so the distinction between genuine economics and pseudo-economics is a plutocratic/bureaucratic one, with autocracy/aristocracy polar to plutocracy/meritocracy on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, and theocracy/technocracy polar to democracy/bureaucracy on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the former polarity or, more correctly, polarities effectively excluding, on all but a kind of dotted-line peripheral axial basis, the latter ones from the mainstream functioning of representative state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, and the latter polarities likewise effectively excluding, on all but a kind of dotted-line peripheral axial basis, the former ones from the mainstream functioning of representative church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Which is a credible enough explanation of the distinctions between Britain and Ireland or, more pedantically at this point in time, of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, even without axially unrepresentative trends or tendencies at large in each case.


1.                Metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, corresponding to autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to science over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-religion.

2.                Metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, corresponding to theocracy//pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of cooperative collectivism in relation to religion over pseudo-competitive individualism in relation to pseudo-science.

3.                Chemistry/pseudo-physics, corresponding to democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to politics over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-economics.

4.                Physics/pseudo-chemistry, corresponding to plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of cooperative collectivism in relation to economics over pseudo-competitive individualism in relation to pseudo-politics.


1.                In analogous terms, spatial space, or space per se, over sequential time, or pseudo-time, is equivalent to science over pseudo-religion, which is in turn equivalent to autocracy over pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), and that is of course equivalent to metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics.

2.                Conversely repetitive time, or time per se, over spaced space, or pseudo-space, is equivalent to religion over pseudo-science, which is in turn equivalent to theocracy over pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and that is of course equivalent to metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.

3.                Similarly, volumetric volume, or volume per se, over massed mass, or pseudo-mass, is equivalent to politics over pseudo-economics, which is in turn equivalent to democracy over pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), and that is of course equivalent to chemistry over pseudo-physics.

4.                Conversely massive mass, or mass per se, over voluminous volume, or pseudo-volume, is equivalent to economics over pseudo-politics, which is in turn equivalent to plutocracy over pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), and that is of course equivalent to physics over pseudo-chemistry.


One fancies that just as theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) would look askance, back across the upper-order axial divide, at autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), so plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) would look askance, back across the lower-order axial divide, at democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), since sensibility over pseudo-sensuality must regard itself as being in some sense morally superior to sensuality over pseudo-sensibility, whether with regard to noumenal (ethereal) or phenomenal (corporeal) antitheses. Yet, in overall axial terms, theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) is prepared to exist in polarity with democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), as noumenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity with phenomenal sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue interference or parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of phenomenal cooperative collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), while, likewise, plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is prepared to exist in polarity with autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), as phenomenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity with noumenal sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue interference or parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of noumenal cooperative collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy). Hence both the ideologies of the celestial city and the terrestrial city are prepared and even perforce obliged to accommodate polarities with not parallel but opposites types of nature, viz. the terrestrial nature, as it were, of democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) in the case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and the celestial nature, or supernature, of autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy) in the case of plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), so that competition from their parallel types of nature, viz. autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy) in the case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) in the case of plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is minimized if not effectively excluded.


1.                Logically, I can find no reason to contest the contention that the competitive individualism of science and the cooperative collectivism of religion are noumenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as space per se and time per se, the former spatial and the latter repetitive.

2.                Likewise I can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the pseudo-cooperative collectivism of pseudo-religion and the pseudo-competitive individualism of pseudo-science, the former subordinate to science and the latter to religion, are pseudo-noumenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as pseudo-time and pseudo-space, the former sequential and the latter spaced.

3.                Similarly, there is no logical reason to contest the contention that the competitive individualism of politics and the cooperative collectivism of economics are phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as volume per se and mass per se, the former volumetric and the latter massive.

4.                Likewise I can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the pseudo-cooperative collectivism of pseudo-economics and the pseudo-competitive individualism of pseudo-politics, the former subordinate to politics and the latter to economics, are pseudo-phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume, the former massed and the latter voluminous.


As noted above, competitive individualism is chiefly characteristic of the female side of life, as in general terms of females, who have to compete on an individual basis for males, while cooperative collectivism is chiefly characteristic of the male side of life, as in general terms of males, who profit more from cooperating on a collective basis than from competing on such a basis, never mind on an individual basis, though of course what I have termed pseudo-cooperative collectivism can be interpreted as implying a degree of competitiveness under pressure from competitive individualism, whether noumenal or phenomenal, the converse of pseudo-competitive individualism implying a degree of cooperation under pressure from cooperative collectivism, again whether in relation to the noumenal or the phenomenal planes.


Democracy, which is republican, will tend to favour proportional representation, in contrast to the 'first past the post' preference of pseudo-democracy which, being meritocratic, favours the retention of a parliamentary oligarchy in the interests of plutocratic continuity under the hegemony of economics over pseudo-politics, or physics over pseudo-chemistry. That is why, in Britain, proportional representation, like its pseudo-economic corollary, socialism, is effectively a 'dead letter', the product of delusion or naivety on the part of certain politicians, since the hegemony of economics over politics ensures that only a pseudo-political outcome is possible, the converse of the pseudo-economic subordination to politics more characteristic of countries, like the Republic of Ireland, which favour some degree of socialism in relation to proportional representation within a republican context, a context governed by the hegemony of democracy over bureaucratic pseudo-plutocracy in reflection of a chemical/pseudo-physical pairing traditionally standing at the foot of the metaphysically- and pseudo-metachemically-dominated church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. Yet this, in contrast to Britain, is also the tradition, extending into religion on the mass Catholic level, of competitive individualism being hegemonic over pseudo-cooperative collectivism, as volumetric volume over massed mass, which tends to favour the politically competitive individual at the expense of the pseudo-economically pseudo-cooperative collective, so that political republicanism is more prominent, in its hegemonic sway, than socialism or any analogous form of pseudo-economic subservience. Small wonder that the plutocratic/meritocratic British look askance, across the lower-order axial divide, at the democratic/bureaucratic Irish! Which is only, after all, the phenomenal parallel to the theocratic/technocratic Irish looking askance at the autocratic/aristocratic British where noumenal, or upper-order, axial antitheses are concerned. For neither people are, or ever could be, simply phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal. And, as noted above, axial polarity across the noumenal-phenomenal divide ensures that both the British and the Irish are compromised by their respective noumenal or phenomenal opposites. The phenomenal British may look askance at the democracy/bureaucracy of the phenomenal Irish, but their own plutocracy/meritocracy is compromised by axial co-existence with the autocracy/aristocracy of the noumenal British, thereby ensuring a minimum of interference from the axially subversive threats posed by theocracy/technocracy. And no matter how morally contemptuous of autocracy/aristocracy the noumenal Irish may be, their own theocracy/technocracy is compromised by axial co-existence with the democracy/bureaucracy of the phenomenal Irish, thereby ensuring a minimum of interference from the axially subversive threats posed by plutocracy/meritocracy. What could be more paradoxical? And yet that is how the British/Irish divide traditionally stacks up, and there is no reason, short of a major revolution in ethnicity, to anticipate any change.





In the Beginning there was just hydrogen, then, following gravitational compression, there emerged helium, to start a process which led to everything else, including the mineral-rich Earth, so that we have a cosmic scenario, corresponding to conventional religion, in which God precedes the Devil, or Heaven precedes Hell (helium?), followed, millions of years later, by the 'Fall of Man' and 'the World', or something to that Biblical effect. But, of course, 'God' and 'the Devil' would exist, as 'Heaven' and 'Hell', or hydrogen and helium, in the same star, as would the building blocks of everything else, including what became, out of the Earth generally, 'the World' to which 'Adam and Eve' were banished from 'the Garden of Eden'. Which is not a particularly convincing interpretation of all those religious concepts, not all of which would correspond to my use of religious terminology in which God, for example, is a corollary of Heaven in a transcendent context having absolutely nothing to do with stars and everything to do with an ultimate level or stage of metaphysics beyond even human metaphysics and antithetical to cosmic metaphysics that may well be the summation of evolutionary progress when and if evolving life gets to such a summation, presumably cyborgistic in character, in the distant future. Interestingly, while the term 'Cosmos' is very much a scientific term, factual and without religious connotations of the sort alluded to above, the term 'Universe' has become associated with religion to a degree that makes it more congenial to theologians and religious thinkers generally. And yet so many people – and not just those who go to university to study the cosmos – alternate, perhaps unconsciously, between scientific and religious usage without necessarily realizing there is a contradiction involved. But precisely because 'Universe' is a religious term, not unconnected, in my opinion, with monotheistic traditions, it can have evolutionary implications that stretch beyond science and its observational predilections in relation to the Cosmos, as when the term 'Universal' is taken to mean applying everywhere on the planet or throughout the world in a global sense rather than in the narrowly religious, and specifically Judeo-Christian, sense of a worldly age or lifestyle having morally opprobrious implications, so that what, in this higher sense, is universal is also, by definition, global and capable of being expanded, through centro-complexification, into space to exist, in Celestial City-like vein, at an antithetical remove from the Cosmos, like true religion at an antithetical remove from beautiful science – the factual Alpha and truthful Omega of what exists or could conceivably one day exist in such an antithetical fashion.


He said: Do you go to church?

I said: No.

He said: I do.

I said: Really?

He said: But it has to be a certain type of church.

I said: Naturally, this or that denomination.

He said: No, a church on a hill.

I simply smiled and thought him a little odd, though I suspected he had a Catholic Cathedral in mind.


A wicked wind tore into the building and threatened to tear it apart. Whipped on by this ferocious wind, the rain lashed down against the roof and windows of my civilized abode with what seemed like malicious intent, as though determined to avenge itself upon civilization and if possible undo the gains of man, the manifest opposition of man to such barbarous manifestations of Nature. In spite of all this, I continued to sit still and to thoughtfully ponder this experience from the comfort of my chair, grateful to have a secure refuge from the inclement moods of our common enemy which relentlessly assailed my dwelling and caused the external TV aerial to rattle and creak incessantly for hours on end, something with which I was by now all-too-familiar but, sadly, powerless to do anything about. All I could do was wait patiently for this wicked wind to abate.


Have just finished R.L. Dinardo's Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII, a Stackpole Book first published in paperback 2006, and, after some cautious optimism at the beginning, my attitude progressively deteriorated after the first fifty or so pages to a position where I couldn't wait to get to the end of what, like so many other paperbacks to have come my way from one or other of the local libraries in recent months, was a less than comfortable read, given the number of typographical, grammatical, and other blunders which, regrettably, marred what might otherwise have been an engrossing if not enjoyable book. Why can't somebody sit down with these people and actually comb through the text before publication, to ensure that unnecessary and, frankly, counter-productive errors of text are ironed out? After all, who wants a book that is so technically flawed that they cannot respect it? Admittedly, Professor Dinardo is not a literary man, still less an artist, but even so … even historians are entitled to more editorial care and correction than this title evidently received. From now on I shall have to avoid such books, because they rarely escape the curse of technical incompetence, whether because of the author, the editor, the printer, or a combination of all or more. It were better to leave such books on the shelf!


Still the rain falls and the wind blows, heavily and fiercely, on yet another wet and windy day when the weather is, frankly, obscene. How helpless one feels in the teeth of this monstrosity! And yet this is the world we live in! Not one of our choosing, but a Given. It could also be said that the world is too big and too full of people you don't like the look or sound of. Toll!


Surely people who worship some Creator God have sunny weather or come from climates where the weather is more tolerable, if not consistently enjoyable, than do those of us habituated, over long centuries of ancestral perseverance, to northern European weather conditions, including, no least, those characteristic of the British Isles. Europe – and northern Europe in particular – abandoned Creator-ism for Christ several centuries ago, but it was only with the Reformation that, in the sixteenth century, northern Europe finally succeeded in prizing itself apart from the religious clutches of southern Europe in favour of a religious stance more in harmony with the sort of inclement conditions generally prevailing there, which are not only wet and windy but frosty and sleety, icy and snowy, damp and so much else to boot. This religious stance was further removed from Creator-ism, as from 'the Father' and by extrapolation 'fathers', through the humanistic person of Christ, albeit a Christ largely independent of His Mother. For it was only following the Reformation that northern Europe came into its own independently of the Marian shackles of Roman Catholicism, not to mention an undue emphasis upon the Father at the expense of the Son, and of the 'Son of Man' in particular. But even the Son was not to be overly worshipped, least of all as a figure, since worship of an individual removes one, as a male, from the prospect and moral desirability of cooperative collectivism, by making one subject to some metachemical or chemical hegemony at variance with physical and metaphysical predilections, of which the Book collectivism of the Bible, and in particular of the New Testament conceived as the truly Christian aspect thereof on the one hand, and some approximation to if not attainment of the 'heavenly host' in relation (it could be said) to the Holy Ghost on the other hand … would be chiefly characteristic, albeit in terms of the sensibility of two contrasting axes, as far removed from each other as ego and soul, or knowledge and truth, and therefore tending to be mutually exclusive – as exclusive, in fact, as the competing individualisms, for worship, of whatever corresponded to metachemistry and chemistry, as to the scientific and political embodiments of objective concretion underpinning if not undermining the phenomenal and noumenal modes of subjective abstraction that require a cooperatively collective precondition if they are to emerge in anything like a recognizably economic or religious, that is, properly economic or religious guise.


Coming second with the Second Coming, who, like Adolf Hitler, wouldn't be of much use to non-Christians, or the greater percentage of the globe's population, which could only be properly served by a messiah of global character who transcended the narrow confines of any given so-called world religion from a standpoint that, whilst not ignorant of viable religious preconditions in any given tradition, was sufficiently unique as to be globally relevant, and not just another partisan manifestation of what could be called religious imperialism, whereby Christians strive to overcome Moslems, and Moslems strive to overcome Jews, and so on, without any appreciable progress towards an ultimate world religion that was more than the sum of any particular tradition.


She was subject to periodic aberrations which messed with her head and rendered her somewhat unstable and even erratic at such times, so much was her mind in the grip of bodily functions stemming from a natural diktat that overruled the mind and rendered her unsuitable for purely mental tasks.


Equalitarianism from the people's standpoint (as opposed to that of certain intellectuals and so-called philosophers removed from 'the common herd' by at least a middle-class extent): tit-for-tat, or some convenient variation on the unchristian doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth which, stemming from the Old Testament, considerably pre-dates any injunction to 'turn the other cheek'.


Anything to do with fathers is a taboo subject for me, since my own was a no-show, and I have never felt comfortable thinking about him, much less striving to emulate him.


The mind is the repository of thought and the page or screen the repository of symbols that must be read in order to be turned into words and re-interpreted as thought in the virtuous circle linking author and reader in a psychic relationship.


During the week I do quite a lot of traffic generating for various of my eScroll and eBook websites, so I am something of a surf slave manually engaged in the time-consuming process of amassing a certain number of credits with which to promote them by ascribing a specific number, rarely more than ten, to each of them or, at any rate, to those sites which I happen to be specifically engaged upon promoting at the time.


Moses apparently went up a mountain – though I doubt he climbed it in the sense that we would understand these days – to get away from his people and produce the tablets of what became the Mosaic Law, or Ten Commandments, and was therefore at quite a topographical remove from what subsequently transpired with Christ on his hill of Calvary, who died not only because of worldly sin, so to speak, but also because of whatever stood in back of it as its ruling principle. Some would claim this to be a distinction between the Father and the Son, but I think it more akin to one between Jehovah and the Son (whose Father could not be Jehovah but a kind of attenuated Creator, as previously argued) or, in equivalent terms, between the Old and the New Testaments, with Jehovah pertaining, in Judaic vein, to the one and both Christ and His Father appertaining, in Christian vein, to the other. Be that as it may, the idea of going up a mountain to reach or attain to God has never appealed to me since, to my mind, mountains and godliness are incompatible, like autocracy and hills. I, for one, wouldn't look for God on a mountain, even if it took me closer to the sky, nor would I visit a church that was built on one. Temples may be built there, but Christian churches? He who doesn't find God and, more relevantly from a metaphysical standpoint, Heaven within himself, his inner self, will find something less than if not contrary to Heaven (and God) outside it, like Man, Woman, and the Devil, or the Earth, Purgatory, and Hell.


When Christians pray they are usually still. When Jews pray, not least at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, they are moving or swaying (scarcely nodding) their head and upper torso backwards and forwards in a manner that, to a Christian, would suggest an element of showiness, as though germane to a more superficial order of praying that presumably emerged from and pertains to climatic conditions peculiar to the Middle East and to the Judaic parts of it in particular. For there is evidently and, I think incontrovertibly, a link between culture and environment, even with the north/south divide in Europe, which is effectively a Protestant/Catholic one traditionally. How all this ties-in with Moslems, on the other hand, I am not so sure, but they, too, have their own way of praying which involves bodily prostration on hands and knees before Allah, an attitude that would strike a Christian mindset – and a Protestant one in particular – as being too subservient (as before autocratic authoritarianism) for their liking. For Christians, while they may differ from one another as, broadly, Catholics and Protestants, really do differ more markedly from Jews and Moslems, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists, and devotees of other so-called world religions.


So long as Christian churches continue in existence Christianity is not dead and, as it were, on the rubbish heap of history, no more than Judaism with its synagogues, or Islam with its mosques, or Hinduism with its temples, and so on. All the old, traditional religions still exist at this point in time (the early 21st century), and will doubtless continue to do so until 'Kingdom Come', presuming upon the eventuality of a concept which I interpret in terms of religious sovereignty and the electorates of various countries with the right kind of axial preconditions (church-hegemonic/state-subordinate) being in a position to opt, via utilization of the democratic process, for religious sovereignty and the rights accruing to actually being religiously sovereign, including freedom from the 'old gods', as Nietzsche would say, and encouragement to develop and realize Heaven (for males) within in terms that, being pertinent to a further development of global civilization, would have the capacity to overhaul contemporary modes of global civilization and the degrees and types of synthetic artificiality accruing to it from a more evolved standpoint, one favouring the inner at the expense of the outer, and therefore sensibility of a certain order at the expense of sensuality of whatever order. Therefore if there is to be just the one true religion for the entire globe, it would have to be in consequence of the people's express wish, and not something imposed upon them from without. That, for me, underlies the significance of democracy in countries where it is genuine, not as an end-in-itself but as a means or stepping stone to a new and ultimately higher end commensurate, in its theocratic fullness, with 'Kingdom Come'. So with 'Kingdom Come' as a context characterized and defined by religious sovereignty, we have the sovereignty that, primarily appertaining to Heaven/God and, to a lesser extent, to the pseudo-Devil/pseudo-Hell, is beyond all lesser or contrary sovereignties, including those of Man, Woman, and the Devil, which are less theocratic (though they have their theocratic 'bovaryizations' deferring to plutocratic, democratic, and autocratic norms) than plutocratic, democratic, and autocratic, in that regressive hegemonic order. For the context we are alluding to is one of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on a stepped-up, or 'resurrected', church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, and that of course presupposes, with its soulful fulcrum, the hegemony of Heaven/God over the pseudo-Devil/pseudo-Hell of what, with a pseudo-fulcrum in pseudo-bound will, would be forever equivalent to the wolf and/or lion that, through neutralization, 'lies down', in pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, with the 'lamb of God' or, more correctly, the grace of Heaven/God.


To be a 'mind' in a world where the great majority are 'bodies' … is no small achievement, especially when its activities are conducted in the face of those who, taking physical matters for granted, tend to interpret the term 'mental' in a denigrative fashion, and would therefore brand as 'mental' one's ability to think and/or proclivity for thought, further demonstrating their opposition to such mental processes by emphasizing their sensitivity to it whenever, by thinking or even writing, one gives them the opportunity to censor it with some physical disturbance or other.


It is odd that I still live, after some forty years' removal from Surrey, in the cesspit of north London and, more especially, in the vicinity of Crouch End, from the overcrowded dinginess of which I despair of ever getting away. For I have never got over the depression that first assailed me shortly after moving or, more accurately, having had to move at someone else's bequest from the leafy part of Surrey I lived in to north London, where there are always so many cynically-domineering foreigners and lumpen proletarians that one feels as though isolated from any prospect of meaningful relationships, so outnumbered is one by what is alien and, frankly, often repulsive. London was, is, and always will be my nemesis. In fact, I remember how outraged I felt during the first few years here, as though I had left all innocence and decency behind in Surrey, only to be confronted by an implacable impersonality and social indifference that made me feel like the victim of some terrible crime. Occasionally I dreamt I was back in Surrey, not necessarily in Merstham, which I had been obliged to leave, but possibly also in Reigate or even Carshalton Beeches, where I spent my late childhood and early teens, and somehow life always seemed more pleasant and refined there, moved at a more leisurely pace, you could say (or so it seemed in retrospect), and was not subject to the hideous impersonality that afflicted me in the intensely urban and cosmopolitan environments to which I was becoming increasingly hostage and, what's worse, subject to depression in consequence of my disgusted reaction to them. The analogy of a deep-sea fish floundering in the shallows often came to me, and I realized that the path of intellectual development upon which I had embarked would never have been half so radical or original had I not been somewhat akin to a fish-out-of-water, or virtually so, who thought beyond the environmental parameters if what congenial circumstances would have encouraged if not allowed. I am not a Londoner, even after forty years of it, and would be ashamed to identify with a city that has always depressed and, frankly, even disgusted me. The idea of having some kind of meaningful relationship with anyone here strikes me as improbable if not undesirable, in view of my distaste for London in general and for the parts of north London to which I have become painfully accustomed in particular.


They know how to breed, but they don't care to read, still less to think! You know to whom I am alluding, and I have never liked such people, including some of my nearest neighbours, who seem to know when I am reading or thinking, and make what I would describe as periodic efforts, with timely thumps and even ironic ahems, to thwart or hinder me, especially when I am stuck in the midst of reflection or puzzlement or some other hiatus in the intellectual process that, somehow aware of but totally incapable of understanding or sympathizing with, induces them to redouble their efforts to complicate in the aforementioned manner. But they are not going to succeed! Got back at them all yesterday evening with the aid of Deep Purple, Spiritual Beggars, Michael Schenker Group (MSG), and Tangerine Dream. Perfect! For three whole hours, thanks to a cheap bottle of red wine, no-one could put-in on me and effectively make a mockery of my life and life's work by striving to thwart or undermine it. I had them all on the back foot, so to speak, and was determined to press home my advantage with a vengeance!


Anyone who, having listened to and watched Michael Schenker perform on tracks like 'Rock Bottom' on his World Tour 2004 DVD, doesn't think he is one of the technically greatest if not the greatest and most electrifying all-time practitioner of the electric guitar would have to be an idiot. No-one else – with the possible exception of Bernhard Beibl of Tangerine Dream – comes even close, though Jimi Hendrix was of course intensely electrifying if, at times, somewhat over-the-top, like a John Coltrane of the electric guitar who had a personal and/or social axe to grind, as they say, and did so with a vengeance. What spoilt Hendrix for me was his over-use of the word 'baby' in so many of his songs, especially on live recordings, and the feeling one had, as a male, of being excluded from if not irritated by them in consequence.


Don't go quietly into the dark night. Punish the swine! They're the reason one is alone.


God gets peace (of soul-mind) from the Devil only because He doesn't have anything to do with Her. If you're less than godly and absolutely isolated from the Devil you don't get peace (of soul-mind), but either the half-peace (of ego-mind) in the case of Man, man proper, or the half-war (of spirit-body) in the case of Woman, woman proper, who will be closer to if not occasionally eclipsed by Devil the Virgin and Her shortfall, morally speaking, from Woman the Mother, whose half-war on the half-peace of Man the Son usually precludes him from attaining to the full peace, as it were, of God the Father, Who is beyond, in Heaven the Holy Soul, all knowledge of Hell the Clear Spirit in Devil the Virgin, like truth in joy beyond love in beauty, the beautiful free will that, burning up with love, is the criminal root of all evil … in ugliness and hate, the bound psychic corollary of somatic freedom of a metachemical order.


I have gone beyond philosophy as hitherto understood in the West by introducing a theosophical element into my metaphysics which ensures that it is fully metaphysical and, hence, effectively super-philosophical, the product, one could say, of messianic insight in relation to a degree of genius that is philosophically unsurpassed.


For some reason, probably not unconnected with religious tradition, my mind becomes more philosophical and, hence, metaphysical on Sundays than on other days of the week, and I write accordingly, attaining heights of metaphysical insight that few men, even among the philosophers, have been privileged enough to attain to, from where 'the world', torn between physical and chemical adversaries ruled over by metachemistry, appears very small indeed!


Whilst other people are letting themselves go, I am gathering myself in, by taking cognizance of my being as a thinking mind that also feels, and feels deeply enough about certain issues as to write about them and preserve a record for myself and – who knows? - maybe even elements of posterity, should there be a small number of sufficiently intelligent people around to appreciate it.


One thing that can be said about long hair is that it sucks. Thanks to a home hair-cutting kit which I purchased a couple of years ago, I don't have a problem with hair, since I can trim it on a regular basis and keep it very short. But there was a time when my hair sucked, so long was it, and I must have looked like a long-haired sucker to others or, at any rate, to people with very short hair. Ah well.


One of the reasons that common people don't read books, quite apart from the fact that they might regard physical books as too middle class and even 'old hat' (compared, say, to film), is that they are afraid of being confronted by the author's low opinion of them as proletarians, lumpen proletariat, mob, uneducated yobs, violent boors, etc., and would rather keep their distance, in consequence, from the likely criticism of intellectuals, artists, nobs, philosophers, and such like 'class enemies' of ordinary folk. For writers who are any good do tend to 'do their thing' independently of the common people and their want of cultural acumen, and so these people have every reason, it seems to me, to fear the worst and cynically dismiss 'mind improvement' through literature as a bourgeois con.


Writers that are any good tend to write for other writers, if not consciously then unconsciously, rather than for the female-dominated masses of common humanity. Short of being forced, virtually at gunpoint, to write (or paint or compose or whatever) for the masses, as by a socialist dictatorship of some sort, and thereby 'sell out', in a manner of speaking, to what, as a species of anti-art, is intended to praise the shit our of philistines and their barbarous fascinations, they prefer, these artists, to go their own way and explore their truth, and therefore they have a certain appeal, willy-nilly, to others of a like persuasion, who may be anxious to discover if they have succeeded or whether there are areas of common ground in their mutual pursuit of similar ends, ends which necessarily transcend the narrow parameters of those driven by utilitarian motives in their artistic or creative concern with 'higher values', like truth and, from the standpoint of truth, pseudo-beauty rather than some beautiful lie coupled to a pseudo-truth whose sole purpose is to suck-up to it from an inferior class position. Those kinds of 'higher values' are something the true artist, the progressive writer and philosopher, has a moral duty to do without, and therefore he can never be understood, much less worshipped, by the common herd of those for whom the dominance of beauty, as of all that is most superficial and effectively barbarous, over their world is a sine qua non. Heaven protect us from an indiscriminate commitment to 'higher values'!


Surrounded by bitches and the loud-mouthed excitable offspring of bitches, all with their various knives into culture....Which I, as a sensible writer, am doing my best to defend, if not, cautiously and wearily, to advance.


With state religion, they always substitute magic for truth, falling back on miracles and mystical delusions and so-called 'supernatural' events which can be expected to appeal to the masses and not unduly antagonize women.


Hermann Hesse, that most poetic of prose writers who stands closer to Henry Miller than to, say, Jean-Paul Sartre or Aldous Huxley, with their more philosophically-detached attitudes to life which, of course, mark them out as literary beings of a higher order.


Working offline is, for me, nearer heaven than hell, since the Internet usually bugs the hell out of me.


Do not all human beings breathe the same air – more or less? Without the air that the planet manufactures, and that the weather stirs up and refreshes, we would soon be dead. As simple as that. And yet, with what seeming insouciance and blatant disregard people go about polluting it on a daily basis! Are we not sickened by pollution and diminished as human beings? Incontrovertibly! But the heyday, as it were, of being human is long over. We are now increasingly superhuman, but not on the terms of being, alas, but under the female domination of doing and, let's face it, giving.


A concise definition of true religion, which is to say, metaphysical truth: absolute insanity. A concise definition of false religion, which is to say, metachemical hype: absolute outsanity. Worldly religion lies somewhere in between the alpha of scientific religion and the omega of religious religion, or religion per se, the false and the true, like politics and economics, from which they take their respective religious cues in relation to the relativity of either sanity with an outer bias or sanity with an inner bias, the former arguably Marian and the latter usually Nonconformist.


I only like architecture with rounded corners and curvilinear structures in its overall design, because that alone, being truly modern, is jeans/jogger and T-shirt/vest friendly, and should ideally be sited in proximity to tarmac sidewalks or macadamized surfaces in general, with pavements being increasingly reserved, it would appear, for shop-front rectilinearity.


Love is an emotional poison that enters into one's bloodstream and affects one's mental equilibrium in such fashion and to such an extent that one becomes besotted with the object of one's desire to the detriment of one's self and, by implication, one's own moral wellbeing. There is no more dangerous passion than that engendered by the poison of love. Females know how to distil this poison and when to inject it into the male of their choice. For beauty and love are correlative.


I was too long a single tenant in a live-in landlord's house to be greatly enamoured of spiders and their webs, not least in view of the extent to which I felt squeezed and somehow sucked-dry by a variety of predatory encroachments on what was left of my liberty in what could only be a fairly lifeless existence.


Glynn Hughes' autobiography is an object lesson in the destructive power of drug addiction, as well as a moving testimony to the recuperative powers of the human soul, which enabled this major rock singer and musician to rise above his addiction and achieve freedom from dependency. Despite the 2-3 years both Glynn Hughes and David Coverdale spent in the band, Ian Gillan will always be the voice of Deep Purple, in the same way that Ozzy Osbourne will always be the voice of Black Sabbath, despite stints by Ronnie James Dio and others. Likewise, Bruce Dickenson will always be the voice of Iron Maiden, despite the fact that, like Deep Purple's Ian Gillan, whom he both admires and even occasionally resembles as a vocalist, he wasn't their original singer and subsequently left to be replaced by Blaze Bayley, before eventually rejoining and continuing to front the group, which has since gone from strength to strength both as a live band and in the studio.


One of my pet hates: those three-chord bands with their triangular limitations making for a three-chord bash from the Devil's tail upon the body – and sometimes even the head – of musical sensibility. Though they might deny it, their music somehow correlates with the triangular limitations – and implications – of conventional suits, ties, collared-shirts, etc. One of the things I like most about Tangerine Dream, on the other hand, is their joyful if not blissful independence of the Blues and other kinds of music rooted in triangular limitations, even if, ironically, their sartorial appearance sometimes leaves something to be desired in that regard.


I've often wondered how people can keep small animals and birds in cages, depriving them of freedom of movement. I could not look at a caged bird, for instance, without feeling sorry for it, since a creature with wings is intended to fly and cages surely deny it that ability, making for a stunted life.


The wilful enemy of soul and the spirited enemy of ego are alike female, whether literally or in character, and can be regarded as the concrete embodiments of power and glory, which ever war upon the peaceable abstractions of form and contentment – power upon contentment in the one case and glory upon form in the other, as though in relation to a noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between the absolute and the relative. Power-mongers never like contentment in others, especially a higher class of male, and do their utmost to thwart and undermine it. To the average woman, contentment in a male, or self-satisfaction, is nothing short of anathema or, at any rate, is so unacceptable as to be the subject of subversion and mockery.





Peace does not come, as deluded males like to think, through compromise with females, but from being true to yourself, as a male, in relation to either the half-peace (phenomenal) of ego or the full peace (noumenal) of soul, neither of which can survive unscathed the onslaughts of the half-war (phenomenal) of spirit or the full war (noumenal) of will as waged by the gender enemies of ego and soul. When art is concrete, or figurative, it bears the hallmarks of female dominion through either if not both will and spirit. When, by contrast, art is abstract, or non-figurative, one gets the impression of male independence, via ego and/or soul, from the dominance of will and/or spirit and, hence, of female values generally. Hitherto, concrete art has tended to predominate over its abstract antithesis. For males, even as artists, are generally dominated by females, whether or not they realize the fact. Art that is in any degree credibly metaphysical, and hence truly religious, could only be abstract, never concrete! You do not figuratively represent God in Heaven, even if art, to be meaningful, must at least strive to represent such concepts or even actualities through abstract means. For abstraction, by contrast, that was an end-in-itself would not be art but decoration, whether in relation to craft or to some architectural structure. Art is not decoration because, unlike craft (say pottery) or, for that matter, architecture, it is non-utilitarian in character and therefore must be meaningful in its own right by signifying, whether through concrete or abstract means, some concept or actuality lying beyond the boundaries of mere craft. Now for this to truly succeed, it is better that art should be abstract or, at worst, pseudo-concrete, with impressive or pseudo-expressive attributes which are likely to do most justice to either the metaphysical or, in the case of pseudo-concretion, the pseudo-metachemical which, being pseudo-female rather than male, should not rise above the pseudo-expressive. Compared to music, however, art is the art form least likely, even when impressively abstract, to do most artistic justice to metaphysics, even if the justice or, more correctly, pseudo-justice done to pseudo-metachemistry (by pseudo-expressive pseudo-concretion) is likely to be more successful and somehow credible than could be achieved from its musical counterpart, given that music must be at a disadvantage to art when it comes to delineating or representing pseudo-space. Art and sculpture are the outer, or female, arts; literature and music the inner, or male, arts – an objective/subjective distinction which the bovaryization, or attenuated transmutation, of any given art form towards some other art form may obscure but which, in relation to the representative manifestation or actual fulcrum of any given art form, is nevertheless effectively the case.


1.                In basic terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of a gender hegemonic polarity between art and literature, as between metachemistry and physics (corresponding, in simple elemental terms, to fire and vegetation), with a gender subordinate polarity between pseudo-music and pseudo-sculpture, pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to pseudo-air and pseudo-water, or air subverted by a fiery hegemony and water subverted by a vegetative one).

2.                Contrariwise the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of a gender hegemonic polarity between sculpture and music, chemistry and metaphysics (corresponding, in simple elemental terms, to water and air), with a gender subordinate polarity between pseudo-literature and pseudo-art, pseudo-physics and pseudo-metachemistry (corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and pseudo-fire, or vegetation subverted by a watery hegemony and fire subverted by an airy one).

3.                In the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, this gives us a primary (overall female) polarity between art and pseudo-sculpture, metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to fire and pseudo-water), with a secondary (overall male) polarity between pseudo-music and literature, pseudo-metaphysics and physics (corresponding to pseudo-air and vegetation).

4.                In the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, on the other hand, we have a primary (overall male) polarity between pseudo-literature and music, pseudo-physics and metaphysics (corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and air), with a secondary (overall female) polarity between sculpture and pseudo-art, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry (corresponding to water and pseudo-fire).


When true to themselves, so to speak, as against being bovaryized towards one or another of the alternative elements/pseudo-elements, art and music are noumenal, or ethereal, art forms having upper-class connotations, while sculpture and literature, likewise when true to themselves, are phenomenal, or corporeal, art forms having lower-class connotations, bovaryized exceptions to the general rule in the case of both the former and latter art forms notwithstanding. But, in representatively gender terms, art and sculpture are, like will and spirit, power and glory, fundamentally on the female side of the gender divide due to their concrete absolute (elemental) and concrete relative (molecular) objectivity, whereas literature and music, like ego and soul, form and contentment, essentially appertain to the male side of the gender divide due to their abstract relative (molecular) and abstract absolute (elemental) subjectivity. No less than the concrete arts, like painting and sculpture, are objective because particular, or stemming from a particle bias normally to be associated with competitive individualism, as in relation to portraiture (painting) and figurative monuments (sculpture), so the abstract arts, like literature and music, are subjective because wavicular, or stemming from a wavicle bias normally to be associated with cooperative collectivism, as in relation to chapters (literature) and movements (music). No less than particles, being female, are rooted in a vacuum, so wavicles, being male, are centred in a plenum, a kind of negative/positive or, better, objective/subjective distinction which informs the Arts as much as it informs and characterizes life itself.


1.                Art begins in metachemistry, to which, as a noumenally objective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in chemistry, twice bovaryized in phyiscs, and thrice bovaryized in metaphysics, regressing from the absolute concrete to the absolute abstract via the relative concrete and relative abstract.

2.                Sculpture begins in chemistry, to which, as a phenomenally objective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in metachemistry, twice bovaryized in metaphysics, and thrice bovaryized in physics, regressing from the relative concrete to the relative abstract via the absolute concrete and absolute abstract.

3.                Literature begins in physics, to which, as a phenomenally subjective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in metaphysics, twice bovaryized in metachemistry, and thrice bovaryized in chemistry, regressing from the relative abstract to the relative concrete via the absolute abstract and absolute concrete.

4.                Music begins in metaphysics, to which, as a noumenally subjective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in physics, twice bovaryized in chemistry and thrice bovaryized in metachemistry, regressing from the absolute abstract to the absolute concrete via the relative abstract and relative concrete.


The anti-forms of art, sculpture, literature, and music tend to begin in the 'pseudo' manifestation (under a hegemonic antithetical art form) of their proper element, be it pseudo-metaphysics vis-a-vis metaphysics in the case of music, pseudo-physics vis-a-vis physics in the case of literature, pseudo-chemistry vis-a-vis chemistry in the case of sculpture, or pseudo-metachemistry vis-a-vis metachemistry in the case of art, and regress to the same gender or, rather, pseudo-gender pseudo-elemental position before crossing the gender fence, as it were, in relation to the opposite pseudo-elemental positions, whether initially noumenal or phenomenal, depending on the point of axial departure. Therefore in relation to pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-metaphysics would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-art; in relation to pseudo-chemistry, pseudo-physics would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-sculpture; in relation to pseudo-physics, pseudo-chemistry would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-literature; and in relation to pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-metachemistry would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-music, with 'less' and 'more' bovaryized approaches to any given pseudo-art form coming in between what could be described as the least bovaryized, or pseudo-representative mode of pseudo-art, and its most bovaryized mode. Do I need to explain all this in non-philosophical language, drawing attention to the respective concrete and abstract approaches (noumenal or phenomenal) to both the Arts and the Anti-Arts? No, I don't believe so, although there is nothing to stop other people attempting it. However, I will give you a clue as to what I mean and of the complexity of the overall task. Take music, for instance, which gives us a concrete/abstract dichotomy, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes, between pitch and melody on the one hand, and harmony and rhythm on the other, as between space and volume in the case of the concrete options, and mass and time in that of the abstract ones. In simple parlance, pitch is no less noumenally antithetical to rhythm than melody phenomenally antithetical to harmony. But there are also the 'pseudo' manifestations of musical characteristics to bear in mind, whether in terms of pseudo-rhythm under pitch, pseudo-harmony under melody, pseudo-melody under harmony, or pseudo-pitch under rhythm, a plane down from the hegemonic element in each pseudo-elemental and effectively subordinate case, like pseudo-time under space, pseudo-mass under volume, pseudo-volume under mass, and pseudo-space under time. Now, as I've argued before, if space is spatial (which on account of the elemental particles of its noumenally objective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-space is spaced; if volume is volumetric (which on account of the molecular particles of its phenomenally objective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-volume is voluminous; if mass is massive (which on account of the molecular wavicles of its phenomenally subjective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-mass is massed; and if time is repetitive (which on account of the elemental wavicles of its noumenally subjective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-time is sequential. Hence the sequential nature or, rather, pseudo-nature of pseudo-time under space (which is spatial) is musically commensurate with pseudo-rhythm under pitch; hence the massed pseudo-nature of pseudo-mass under volume (which is volumetric) is musically commensurate with pseudo-harmony under melody; hence the voluminous pseudo-nature of pseudo-volume under mass (which is massive) is musically commensurate with pseudo-melody under harmony; and hence the spaced pseudo-nature of pseudo-space under time (which is repetitive) is musically commensurate with pseudo-pitch under rhythm.


Is architecture a high art form, a kind of fine art? Some would contend that, in certain instances, like the Taj Mahal or the Vatican, it is. But I myself cannot see how any architectural structure that, like a building, even a religious one, is partly if not largely utilitarian, to be lived in or worked in or worshipped in or used to house products or artefacts or whatever, could possibly be anything other than a grandiose form of craft, a sort of glorified craft that, at its best, forms a stable and viable structure in which genuine works of art that have no meaning beyond themselves, like paintings and sculpture, can be housed. No, architecture is not a high or fine art, and architects are not artists but, at best, sophisticated craftsmen and draughtsmen whose work, not unwisely, has tended to acknowledge the fact that, as a rule, form follows function, and that considerations of utility are accordingly paramount. Now what connection does that have with art and, more particularly, the mind of an artist, be he painter, sculptor, writer, or composer?


The primary sex are usually if not invariably early and the secondary sex usually if not invariably late, as in getting up early and going to bed early in the case of adult females, and getting up late and going to bed late in the case of adult males. How often have I heard women grumbling about the difficulty of getting their husbands out of bed in the early morning! And yet, to their wives' annoyance, most husbands are no less reluctant to go to bed early and sacrifice the evening's late-night entertainment on the television or whatever. Following on from the above, when the First shall be last and the Last first, then the primary gender will be subordinate to the hegemonic sway of the secondary gender who, as free males, will have the peace that surpasses the half-peace of egocentric understanding (knowledge) and, hence, of a phenomenal hegemony axially beholden to the domination, or sovereignty, of noumenal primacy in the guise of the somatic licence appertaining to and characteristic of metachemistry. Would you expect original knowledge from a female, meaning somebody of the gender that embodies the primacy of beauty and strength (more correctly of pride in relation to the spirit fulcrum of chemistry)? That is, from a gender that receives much if not most of its knowledge second-hand, via the male it happens to have battened-on to for purposes of reproduction? Normally one wouldn't, because original knowledge, that product of egocentric deliberation within a free mind, is not germane to the female equation, and even such knowledge as they acquire via the male of their choosing is likely, sooner or later, to be subverted and twisted out of all recognition, not least to suit the utilitarian designs of beauty and strength (pride). Female liberation, or the liberation of females from male hegemonic (chauvinistic?) influence and, to varying extents, control, inevitably implies the subversion if not abandonment of knowledge and truth (to speak in parallel terms that overlooks the actual fulcrum of the metaphysical element) for strength (again using parallel terms at the expense of the actual fulcrum of the chemical element) and beauty, society thereby regressing from male hegemonic control to the dominance, in hegemonic vein, of females in terms of both beauty axially at the expense of knowledge and strength axially at the expense of truth, beauty excluding truth across the noumenal (ethereal) axial divide, and strength excluding knowledge across the phenomenal (corporeal) axial divide, so that pseudo-truth and pseudo-knowledge tend to be the concomitant metachemically-subverted and chemically-subverted subordinate gender complements, respectively, of beauty and strength.


With regards to literature, one should contrast the literary per se, as it were, of narrative prose, usually in the form of novels, with the once-bovaryized literature of philosophy, the twice-bovaryized literature of drama, and the thrice-bovaryized literature of poetry, the literary genre furthest removed from literature proper, as one regresses from prose to poetry (the 'sculpture' of literature) via philosophy and drama, as from physics to chemistry via metaphysics and metachemistry, whilst not overlooking the roles played by pseudo-prose, pseudo-drama, pseudo-philosophy, and pseudo-poetry, those anti-literature genres which would appear to regress from pseudo-physics to pseudo-chemistry via pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, as from pseudo-prose to pseudo-poetry via pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-drama. Hence, in overall terms, from the pairing of prose and pseudo-poetry to the pairing of poetry and pseudo-prose via the pairing of philosophy and pseudo-drama and the pairing of drama and pseudo-philosophy, as from physics/pseudo-chemistry to chemistry/pseudo-physics via metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, with the latter pseudo-elemental and/or pseudo-literary contexts in all paired cases conditioned by the hegemonic influence of the former elemental and/or literary contexts in such pairings. Unlike music, whose fulcrum is the soul, literature has its fulcrum in the ego, as in narrative prose, and is invariably bovaryized the further it departs from the ego, as in relation to philosophic soul, dramatic will, and poetic spirit, regressing from the masculine (prosodic) to the supermasculine (philosophic) before crossing the gender (and axial) divide with superfeminine (dramatic) and feminine (poetic) bovarizations of literature. How unlike music, its fellow subjective art-form, which has its fulcrum in the soul, and regresses to ego, spirit, and will, in that order, as though from rhythm (soul) to pitch (will) via harmony (ego) and melody (spirit), only true to itself in the rhythms of soul, but regressively bovaryized by the harmonies of ego, the melodies of spirit, and the pitch, or pitches, of will. In narrowly classical terms, this could be interpreted as a regression from ballet to the concerto via the symphony and opera, though in a supra-classical sense one might characterize such a regression as being from electronica/dance to jazz/blues via classical/romantic and pop/rock, with electronica/dance alone corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry; classical/romantic corresponding to physics/pseudo-chemistry; pop/rock corresponding to chemistry/pseudo-physics, and jazz/blues corresponding to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, music being in its soulful/pseudo-wilful paired fulcrum, as it were, with electronica/dance, but becoming regressively more bovaryized with the ego/pseudo-spirit pairing of classical/romantic, the spirit/pseudo-ego pairing of pop/rock, and the will/pseudo-soul pairing of jazz/blues, or something to that overall effect. Not forgetting, of course, what has already been said about the 'anti' forms of music that, appertaining to the subordinate gender positions, would seem to have more in common with dance, romantic, rock, and blues, regressing from blues to dance via rock and romantic, as from pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-metachemistry via pseudo-physics and pseudo-chemistry, which of course would contrast with the regression from metaphysics to metachemistry via physics and chemistry of the hegemonic genres of electronica, classical, pop, and jazz. Therefore, quite logically, the soulful per se, or musically representative genre which, in a sense, is also the least bovaryized genre of electronica is complemented by the most-bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) anti-genre of dance; the less (compared to least) bovaryized (once bovaryized) genre of classical is complemented by the more (compared to most) bovaryized (twice bovaryized) anti-genre of romantic; the more (compared to most) bovaryized (twice bovaryized) genre of pop is complemented by the less (compared to least) bovaryized (once bovaryized) anti-genre of rock; and the most bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) genre of jazz is complemented by the least bovaryized, or pseudo-soulful per se, anti-genre of blues.


1.                Put differently, soul can only be hegemonic over pseudo-will, the weakest (contrasted with will per se) manifestation of will; as in the case of electronica over dance, metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.

2.                Likewise ego can only be hegemonic over pseudo-spirit, the weakest (contrasted with spirit per se) manifestations of spirit, as in classical over romantic, physics over pseudo-chemistry.

3.                Similarly spirit can only be hegemonic over pseudo-ego, the weakest (contrasted with ego per se) manifestation of ego, as in pop over rock, chemistry over pseudo-physics.

4.                Finally will can only be hegemonic over pseudo-soul, the weakest (contrasted with soul per se) manifestation of soul, as in jazz over blues, metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics.


There is thus no way that will can be hegemonic over soul, the devil over god, or vice versa, since they are mutually exclusive, like jazz and electronica, to an absolute degree. Likewise, there is no way that spirit can be hegemonic over ego, woman over man, or vice versa, since they are mutually exclusive, like pop and classical, to a relative degree. Now the same of course applies to the absolute and relative, noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal modes of anti-music, viz. blues and dance in the one case (absolutely exclusive), and rock and romantic in the other case (relatively exclusive). But if this is true to a limited extent of music, how much more so will it be the case when we contrast art with music on the one hand, and sculpture with literature on the other, where in their most representative (non-bovaryized) genres or forms we really do have a mutually exclusive antithesis between will and soul in the one case (noumenal), and spirit and ego in the other case (phenomenal), because of the absolute/relative distinctions between the former and the latter antithesis, making it logical to contend that the metachemical per se of art will be even more incompatible with the metaphysical per se of music than the chemical per se of sculpture with the physical per se of literature, whatever this – and I have given some hints already – may actually turn out to be in practice, bearing in mind the incompatibility of noumenal objectivity with noumenal subjectivity on the one hand, and of phenomenal objectivity with phenomenal subjectivity on the other, an incompatibility having as much to do with gender as with class.


As also maintained by me in the past, the 'anti' manifestation of anything – including the overblown concept of Anti-Christ – is only a starting-point for the lock-in position under the hegemonic sway of the prevailing element, be it female or male, noumenal or phenomenal in either, and is therefore transmutable into what I call (and how I mostly tend to define) the 'pseudo' manifestation of any given element or, more correctly, anti-element. Therefore anti-music, as described above, lends itself, as a matter of course, to the definition of pseudo-music, as that manifestation of anti-music which is gender subordinate to the prevailing manifestation of music which, being hegemonic, takes precedence over it, whether or not the prevailing hegemony happens to accord with the representative genre or with some bovaryized manifestation of music.


1.                In overall axial terms, one can therefore contrast the pairing, on a hegemonic/subordinate basis, of jazz and blues with the pairing, on a like basis, of classical and romantic on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, with jazz and romantic corresponding to the primary (overall female) state-hegemonic polarity of metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, but blues and classical corresponding to the secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic polarity of pseudo-metaphysics and physics, metachemistry of course being hegemonic over pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand, and physics hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry on the other.

2.                By axial contrast, the pairing of pop and rock at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass with the pairing of electronica (trance) and dance at the northeast point thereof on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis affords us a primary (overall male) polarity between rock and electronica, corresponding to pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall female) polarity between pop and dance, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry, chemistry of course being hegemonic over pseudo-physics on the one hand, and metaphysics hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry on the other.


In that respect, the First (chemical) would indeed become last (pseudo-metachemical) and the Last (pseudo-physical) become first (metaphysical) … in the event of the salvation to metaphysics of those identifiable with pseudo-physics and the correlative counter-damnation to pseudo-metachemistry of those identifiable with chemistry, since chemistry is no less equivocally hegemonic, in its phenomenal relativity, over pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass than metaphysics (is) unequivocally hegemonic, in its noumenal absolutism, over pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point thereof, the point that, in the event of a Social Theocratic overhaul of conventional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, would be constitutive of the true apex, in free psyche as well as bound soma, of the church-hegemonic axis, with, in musical terms, an electronica/dance-like pairing that would somewhat contrast, in otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly vein, with the pop/rock pairing already alluded to in connection with what I hold to be mainstream worldliness, which is effectively divisible, unlike its physical/pseudo-chemical counterpart, between purgatorial and pseudo-earthly criteria appertaining to the chemical/pseudo-physical complementarity. Of course, when I subordinately associate dance with electronica, I am not referring to dance per se, as to the somatically-unrestrained spatial licence of, say, jazz dancing, with the likelihood of flouncy dresses as the most appropriate sartorial adjunct to a metachemical disposition favouring female freedom on noumenal terms. On the contrary, such dance as is properly and even unequivocally subordinate, in its noumenal absolutism, to electronica of a trance-like order would be of a constrained, hemmed-in, almost straight-dress character that warrants identification with pseudo-space under time, the spaced space of the one a consequence, in no small part, of the repetitive time, or time per se, of the other, which therefore hegemonically obliges it to take on the character of what should really be termed pseudo-dance, as subordinate, from a pseudo-female standpoint, to the regular rhythms of trance-like electronica as, in contrary vein, the by and large pseudo-male pseudo-music of the blues would be subordinate – and to a well-nigh absolute degree – to the spatial and altogether pitchful liberties of jazz in the hegemonic position at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be a state-hegemonic pairing of metachemistry with pseudo-metaphysics or, in simple musical terms, jazz with the blues. Obviously I am not going to recommend such an unequivocal subordination as is evinced by the pseudo-male (sonofabitch-like) pseudo-music of the blues. But I do believe that those who, in their pseudo-harmonic broken chords, are equivocally subordinate to the melodies of pop, can and should, as purveyors of the usually more instrumentally-oriented bias of rock, be in the kind of pseudo-musical position from which deliverance to the regular rhythms of electronica, with its synthetically artificial approach to soul, can be engineered, with effect to saving them from the (chemical) domination of spirit, as of vocal melody, that the latter may be counter-damned to the pseudo-space of pseudo-will in gender subordination, for ever more, to a metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry, the musical equivalent of the time-honoured saint and (neutralized) dragon paradigm or, for that matter, of the lamb and (neutralized) wolf and/or lion metaphor for intimating of such a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical pairing, corresponding to electronica and dance, which is to say, to the cyborgistic – and therefore globally universal – most representative form of music, or music per se, and the most bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) pseudo-form of pseudo-music, the weakest manifestation of pseudo-music (out of anti-music) that would be no less pseudo-expressive of pseudo-will than its hegemonic partner, in the electronica/dance pairing, would be impressive of soul, the impressive rhythms of metaphysical subjectivity which it will be the prerogative of a certain type of higher male, effectively supermasculine, to produce, and to do so using the most synthetically artificial means in the artful utilization of synthesizers to a rhythmic end, transcending the externalized rhythmic bovaryizations of manual percussion instruments, including drum kits.


If I have focused on music at the expense of literature, it is because, notwithstanding my own philosophical bovaryization of literature towards eternity, music is – or has the capacity to be – the most metaphysical art form, one that, when true to itself, will be rhythmically metaphysical, and therefore significant of the noumenal subjectivity of repetitive time, or time per se – the only form of time commensurate with eternity, the eternity that must needs rule over the pseudo-infinity of pseudo-space, and therefore of that which, as so-called dance, will remain forever subordinate to the trance-like pulse of so-called electronica, which may well, in the not-too-distant future, be re-evaluated in terms of its essentially protonic significance vis-a-vis the pseudo-photonic subordination of pseudo-space to time.

As with music, literature can be axially divided between state-hegemonic and church-hegemonic alternatives:-


1.                In the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis one would have a primary (overall female) state-hegemonic polarity between drama and pseudo-poetry, metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, but a secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-philosophy and prose, pseudo-metaphysics and physics, so that one could contrast the pairing of drama and pseudo-philosophy, metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, with that of prose and pseudo-poetry, physics and pseudo-chemistry – pseudo-philosophy being as much subject to the hegemonic influence of drama as pseudo-poetry to the hegemonic influence of prose.

2.                In the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, one would have a primary (overall male) church-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-prose and philosophy, pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall female) church-hegemonic polarity between poetry and pseudo-drama, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry, so that one could contrast the pairing of poetry and pseudo-prose, chemistry and pseudo-physics, with that of philosophy and pseudo-drama, metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry – pseudo-prose being as much subject to the hegemonic influence of poetry as pseudo-drama to the hegemonic influence of philosophy.


In terms of the First becoming last and the Last … first, this would effectively correspond to those given to pseudo-prose under poetry being in line, axially speaking, for deliverance to philosophy over pseudo-drama, with those earmarked for counter-damnation to pseudo-drama thereby being delivered from an equivocally hegemonic position (in chemistry over pseudo-physics) to an unequivocally subordinate one (in pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics), as counter-damnation followed in the wake of salvation in terms of deliverance from the phenomenal to the noumenal, corporeal relativity to ethereal absolutism, with those who had been equivocally first in the former context inevitably becoming unequivocally last in the latter one. That, at any rate, would be the literary parallel, I believe, to the music fates already outlined above, with that which was 'pseudo' becoming 'genuine' and that, conversely, which was 'genuine' becoming 'pseudo'. What then happens to the state-hegemonic genres – literary, musical, or anything else – will be contingent upon the extents to which salvation/counter-damnation transpires on the church-hegemonic axis. But, again, it is obvious that the 'genuine' would become 'pseudo', as in the case of the damnation of drama to pseudo-poetry, and the 'pseudo' become 'genuine', as in the case of the counter-salvation of pseudo-philosophy to prose, neither of which would then be viable alternatives to drama/pseudo-philosophy in view of the absence of polarity consequent upon a collapse of the said axis for want of poetic/pseudo-prosodic prey, so to speak, and its inevitable slide, following damnation/counter-salvation, towards some kind of radical Social Democracy (Bolshevism-like) in the event of no alternative, in the guise of Social Theocracy, being available to it or, rather, to those who had not been instrumental in the production of either drama/pseudo-philosophy above or prose/pseudo-poetry below but, finding common cause with the church-hegemonic masses (of lapsed Catholics, republican socialists, etc), preferred to opt, following a kind of judgement, for lower-tier positions, successively, under the Saved and Counter-Damned on what would be a stepped-up, or 'resurrected', church-hegemonic axis. But they would need to acquire the moral entitlement, the ethnic credibility, as it were, by being instrumental in judging both the prime movers in somatic licence 'upstairs' and the profiteers from the financing of said licence 'downstairs', on what had been the state-hegemonic axis, as they deserved, in order to prove worthy of joining, on the aforementioned basis, with those who were already subject to 'resurrected' church-hegemonic criteria, and subject to it, moreover, in terms of salvation and counter-damnation, according to gender. For the triumph of philosophy over pseudo-drama cannot ultimately transpire if others are still clinging, in drama/pseudo-philosophy, to their converse, any more than the ongoing acceptance of prose over pseudo-poetry has anything to do with the prospect of being delivered from poetry/pseudo-prose to that very metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical apotheosis, as it were, of the literary pairing, in effect, of philosophy with pseudo-drama in what would be a literary/pseudo-literary equivalence of the musical/pseudo-musical pairing of electronica (trance) with dance. As for art and sculpture, I do not feel qualified, not least gender-wise, to outline their various genres and pseudo-genres (out of anti-genres); though there would undoubtedly be types and degrees of bovaryization away from representative portraiture in the one case and figurative representation in the other that accorded, like music and literature (in that order), with some kind of metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical pairing, with the art parallels to such radical bovaryizations ranking beneath their sculptural counterparts in terms of thrice bovaryized to twice bovaryized under, in the case of literature, a once-bovaryized manifestation of literary production. Yet all these scenarios, or possible eventualities, would be contingent, needless to say, upon the 'will of the people' and could only transpire, if at all, following the express wish of the electorates of countries with a church-hegemonic disposition or tradition to exchange political sovereignty – together with its judicial and/or economic concomitant – for religious sovereignty, and thus elect for the possibility, under Social Theocracy, of deliverance from 'the world' of their lowly chemical/pseudo-physical phenomenal estates to the salvation/counter-damnation of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry noumenally 'On High', thereby acceding to the rights that would characterize such an ultimate sovereignty in a context equivalent, in a manner of speaking, to 'Kingdom Come'. Everything else would follow from this, including an end to the secular domination of state-hegemonic axial criteria and the push towards a more genuinely global universality capable of culminating in some 'Celestial City'-like arrangement as the goal of evolution or, more correctly and comprehensively, of evolution coupled to the utmost counter-devolution, of eternity in partnership, in other words, with pseudo-infinity, the pseudo-space that 'lies down' with the time of eternity because, like the proverbial lion, wolf, or dragon, it is not, following neutralization, in a position to do anything else. Just, as we have argued, like pseudo-drama under philosophy or, in relation to music, pseudo-dance under the trance of an electronica that, in truth, could well be closer to some kind of protonica, so to speak, of the true centre, to which this pseudo-photonica would be forever subordinate.


In general subatomic terms, it could be said that the pairing of protons with pseudo-photons is polar to that of electrons with pseudo-neutrons on the church-hegemonic axis, with salvation being from pseudo-neutrons to protons, and counter-damnation being from electrons to pseudo-photons, the equivocally hegemonic electronic First becoming the unequivocally subordinate pseudo-photonic last, and the equivocally subordinate pseudo-neutronic last becoming, by contrast, the unequivocally hegemonic protonic First, or something to that overall subatomic effect. And all this in contrast to the state-hegemonic polarity between photons/pseudo-protons and neutrons/pseudo-electrons, photons no less polar to pseudo-electrons on primary (overall female) state-hegemonic terms than pseudo-protons to neutrons on secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic terms, thereby enabling us to infer a cross-axial antithesis between photons/pseudo-protons and protons/pseudo-photons in the case of the ethereal absolutism of the noumenal, but such an antithesis between electrons/pseudo-neutrons and neutrons/pseudo-electrons in the case of the corporeal relativity of the phenomenal, the kind of relativity that is less elemental than molecular, with a closer relationship between electrons and pseudo-neutrons on the one hand, and neutrons and pseudo-electrons on the other hand, than could ever be inferred to exist between their noumenal counterparts, photons/pseudo-protons and protons/pseudo-photons, where the relationship of particles to wavicles, of soma to psyche, or of wavicles to particles, of psyche to soma, will be 3:1 as against 2½:1½, and therefore somewhere in the region of most particle to least wavicle or, by axial contrast, most wavicle to least particle, as opposed, with phenomenal relativity, to more (compared to most) particle and less (compared to least) wavicle or, in axially antithetical terms, more (compared to most) wavicle and less (compared to least) particle, as the subatomic case may be.


1.                Logically, I like to think that the photon is most particle and least wavicle, corresponding to most soma, as it were, and least psyche, whereas the proton, by contrast, I would conceive to be most wavicle and least particle, corresponding to most psyche and least soma, since such an elemental dichotomy would underpin the noumenal objective/subjective antithesis between metachemistry and metaphysics, or absolute vacuum and absolute plenum, corresponding, on a more evolved basis, not just to the respective absolute ratio distinctions between soma and psyche, as noted above, but to the aforementioned distinctions between the representative, or non-bovaryized, forms of art and music, space and time, commensurate, at any stage of devolution/evolution, with what is most alpha on the one hand and most omega on the other.

2.                Descending from the elemental to the molecular, I would argue that the electron was more (compared to most) particle and less (compared to least) wavicle, corresponding to more soma and less psyche, but that the neutron, by contrast, was more (compared to most) wavicle and less (compared to least) particle, corresponding to more psyche and less soma, since such a molecular dichotomy would underpin the phenomenal objective/subjective antithesis between chemistry and physics, or relative vacuum and relative plenum, corresponding, on a more evolved basis, not just to the respective relative ratio distinctions between soma and psyche, as noted above, but to the aforementioned distinctions between the representative, or non-bovaryized, forms of sculpture and literature, volume and mass, commensurate, at any stage of devolution/evolution, with what is more (compared to most) alpha on the one hand and more (compared to most) omega on the other.


Therefore in the case of the art/music antithesis, the alpha and omega of the noumenal planes of space and time, one would have a distinction between that form of art which most accorded with spatial space and that form of music most according with repetitive time, whether in ancient, modern, or indeed intermediate (worldly) formal manifestations, whereas in the case of the sculpture/literature antithesis, the alpha and omega of the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, one has a distinction between that form of sculpture most according with volumetric volume and that form of literature that most accorded with massive mass, again in relation to ancient, modern, or intermediate formal manifestations, given the need for and logical justification of alpha/omega qualification in relation to this or that age or type of civilization, bearing in mind the immense distinctions which indubitably do exist between what could be called the natural and the artificial, not to mention super-artificial and synthetic approaches to any given art form, be it painterly, sculptural, literary, or musical, with considerable differences, even in the latter context, between, say, acoustic and electric and/or electronic approaches to musical composition or performance. One simply cannot overemphasize the complexity of this matter, since one man's alpha meat is another's alpha poison, one man's omega meat another's omega poison, and so on, through a variety of permutations that derive, in no small part, from specific epochal and ethnic predilections. Clearly, an alpha/omega antithesis that was only natural, or conceived within natural boundaries, would hardly suffice to delineate such an antithesis within artificial boundaries deriving from nature, never mind, at the opposite extreme from nature, within synthetic boundaries either deriving from the artificial (super-artificial) or even purely synthetic in character such that more readily lend themselves to a post-modern if not futuristic concept of how the alpha/omega antithesis plays out in the Arts and may one day even be transcended in favour of an omega-dominated pairing. Nor should one overlook, in relation to the above, the 'pseudo' forms or, more correctly, anti-forms of creativity which complement, on subordinate gender terms, the hegemonic art forms, as pseudo-omega to alpha or, by contrast, pseudo-alpha to omega, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes. For they are just as important in enabling us to understand how elements and pseudo-elements (out of anti-elements) pair off and form polarities in one direction or another with axial implications, be they church-hegemonic/state-subordinate or, in an age dominated by devolution at the expense of evolution, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate. Probably the ultimate alpha and omega, noumenal or phenomenal, would be across not merely an artificial or synthetic divide, but rather across a natural/synthetic divide that, in the case of the natural alpha, preceded worldly relativity and, in the case of the synthetic omega, succeeded such relativity, thereby taking the overall antithesis in relation to the respective representative (not bovaryized) forms of art and music in the case of the noumenal, and sculpture and literature in that of the phenomenal, to their utmost pre- and post-historical manifestations, whereby one is logically entitled to speculate, even without existing or easily discoverable proof, that the alpha of the one context will do, or have done, the most justice, as it were, to spatial space, and the omega of the other – and possibly coming – context most justice to repetitive time, with other degrees of either devolutionary or evolutionary justice coming somewhere in-between.


The male is protonically self-centred, but can – and usually does – become seduced by photonic distractions which result in his 'fall from grace' to a pseudo-protonic deference to beauty and its loving wiles, a deference that, under counter-pressures, sometimes leads to the angry externalization of soul when that which is not of the Self but decidedly 'other oriented' places demands on the pseudo-protonic position which, emanating from the predominantly free somatic standpoint of a photon hegemony, are contrary to male self-interest. Nevertheless, barring a 'prodigal son'-like return to grace (and thus to protonic self-centredness), the pseudo-protonic pseudo-male risks being dragged down, in a further and more drastic fall, into a pseudo-neutronic subordination to an electron hegemony, from which position any return to grace, being further away, is even more problematic, albeit axially polar, in metaphysics, to his pseudo-physical predicament and therefore within the scope of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate influence. The main danger here, however, is not the remoteness of protonic renewal, nor even the pseudo-masculine deference to a feminine hegemony in chemistry, but the equally corporeal alternative of a neutronic pseudo-salvation across the lower-order axial divide, as it were, which will compound his fall by making him one with man to the exclusion, totally and utterly, of godly aspiration, as he settles for some degree of egocentric self-centredness at the expense of the soul and therefore of any possibility of metaphysical redemption. Man, by being egocentrically self-centred, is the real enemy of God, as of godliness, since one who is neutronically open, via pseudo-protonic polarity, to photonic domination and, hence, to the reign of beauty over both pseudo-protonic pseudo-truth and neutronic knowledge via its own polarity with pseudo-electronic pseudo-strength, to speak in parallel terms for ease of overall comprehension. The more neutronic a male becomes, the less pseudo-neutronic vis-a-vis an electronic hegemony, and therefore the more will he be shut out from the possibility of protonic salvation in metaphysics, which requires, barring the 'prodigal son'-like return from pseudo-protonic deference to photonic beauty, a pseudo-neutronic polarity which, understandably in view of its paradoxical predicament, does not and should not take itself for granted, but will remain open, in the pseudo-egotistical fashion typifying the sinfulness of pseudo-man, to the possibility of some degree of metaphysical redemption, if it is not to succumb, as hinted at above, to the pseudo-salvation, across the axial divide, of neutron egocentricity. For the half-salvation, as one could also term it, though obviously attractive from a pseudo-neutronic point-of-view, is no compensation for salvation proper, that is, for the salvation (from pseudo-neutronic subordination to an electronic hegemony) of the soul in protonic self-centredness, the return to the Centre which is the source of all grace and guarantor of wisdom for males, a free psychic grace and bound somatic wisdom unlikely to succumb, ever again, to the blandishments of photonic will as it goes about its worldly designs which, if successful, will culminate in an electronic resolution through the surrogate plenum of maternity, a resolution requiring the concomitant 'fall of man' from godliness to a status that, at least initially, is not even neutronic but, as described above, demonstrably pseudo-neutronic and therefore pseudo-egocentric, with a pseudo-free somatic, pseudo-knowledgeable predilection towards 'carnal knowledge', which is ever the folly correlative with the pseudo-bound psychic preponderance (2½:1½ pseudo-bound psyche to pseudo-free soma) of sin … in the pseudo-ignorance thereof, forever needful of deliverance, in truth, to the joyful grace of heavenly soul, which is alone free of pseudo-earthly deference (to purgatory) and able, in consequence, to be true to itself in perfect self-unity, as he who repents of sin is entitled to grace in the free psyche of metaphysical self, with the bound soma of metaphysical not-self a wise deliverance from that folly which makes a carnal mockery of knowledge even as knowledge itself is no guarantor of truth but, rather, its main rival in the male sense of self which, having nothing to do with God or godliness, derives from the 'fall of man' to pseudo-man as he perceives what I have described as a half-rise, a half-salvation, in the egocentric possibilities that lie across the lower-order axial divide and accordingly settles for some degree of neutronic release from his pseudo-neutronic, pseudo-physical predicament under electronic pressure from chemical females. In which case he may well become physically hegemonic over a pseudo-electronic, pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, but metaphysically hegemonic over a pseudo-photonic, pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female from a protonic standpoint – he will never be! Even if neutronic egocentricity, the physical form of subjectivity, does not exactly correspond to 'the forbidden tree of knowledge' of Biblical reference, if only because we can logically presume that the latter would have more to do with the less predominant (1½) pseudo-free somatic ratio of carnal knowledge vis-a-vis its pseudo-bound psychic counterpart than with the more preponderant (2½) free psychic ratio of intellectual knowledge vis-a-vis its bound somatic counterpart, the pseudo-righteousness of physical free psyche is still a phenomenal (corporeal) shortfall from genuine righteousness which, being noumenal (ethereal), can only be metaphysical. But there is a certain class of male persons for whom the sensibility of metaphysics would be too psychologically if not physiologically elevated for their liking and who, in consequence of a more down-to-earth disposition, are resigned to egocentric selfhood and would not be happy with anything other than an intellectual approach to religion which, being religiously once-bovaryized, is not incompatible with an economic per se, such that usually takes the form of private enterprise or, in a word, capitalism. Such persons normally oppose socialism, but those who, for similar reasons, espouse socialism as the alternative to capitalism are still well short of the requirements for a metaphysical predilection or aspiration which, being religious, take their primary cue from a sense of sin and of a desire for repentance on the part, more especially, of the pseudo-physical pseudo-males whose guilt-ridden yearning for redemption, especially within the confines of the Church, is their saving grace and guarantor, long term, of hope in the possibility of a more complete and permanent redemption such that could only transpire within the supra-church context of what has been termed 'Kingdom Come', with its enhanced sense of 'the Centre'.


I could never believe, even as a youth, in a god that created woman, who, when superfeminine, is the metachemical opposite of anything metaphysically godly and, when feminine, the chemical opposite of anything physically manly. That, for me, was the start of my repudiation of the Bible and of its account of Creation, never mind the ascription of the fulcra of each of those elemental contexts, viz. power and glory respectively deriving from will and spirit, to God in the so-called 'Lord's Prayer' – attributes that are in the one case absolutely and in the other relatively incompatible with godliness, and with godliness, moreover, as a super-intellectual concomitant of heavenly contentment in the metaphysical soul that, in comparison with the physical ego, could never amount to other than a once-bovaryized order of form in relation to that definitive emotional contentment which is the joyful fulcrum of metaphysics.


Gender equality is a secular ideal that has no place in religion, least of all in any religion which purports to be true and therefore orientated, no matter how imperfectly or partially, towards metaphysics and its gender-subordinate corollary in pseudo-metachemistry, the necessary corollary of a metaphysical supremacy favouring males.


The underlying difference between adult males and females, or in common parlance men and women, is that whereas the former tend to be minds that also have bodies, the latter are more usually bodies that also have minds. No small difference! Particularly when each gender is being 'true to itself' in either free mind and bound body (male), corresponding to my habitual reference to free psyche/bound soma, or free body and bound mind (female), corresponding to my habitual reference to free soma/bound psyche.


The alarming sensitivity of women to thought is proof enough of just how different – and therefore unequal – the genders actually are.


The secular decadence of gender equalitarianism always leads, in any case, to female domination almost as a matter of course, since women are by nature vacuously objectivistic, or outgoing, with little time or inclination for reflection.


A reproductive need will always be at variance if not loggerheads with a productive desire.


Heretical denominations compound their falsity by allowing women to become so-called priests and take over the pulpit, to the detriment of truth. Not that, if defined metaphysically, there would have been that much of a predilection towards truth from such denominations anyway, since their hegemonic polarities tend to be beauty and knowledge.


But even Catholic churches are host to mixed-gender congregations, and therefore fail to meet the gender-discriminatory requirements of true religion, which aims – and by definition can only aim – at the liberation of males from female domination through the practice, in religious contexts, of gender segregation. Catholicism may be closer, in view of its axial predilections, to the truth than its Protestant counterparts, but notwithstanding the fact that the masses tend to remain bogged down in the Marian worship of strength, it is still some way from actually being true, which seems to me to be the prerogative of 'Kingdom Come' and a shift of focus, if not fulcrum, from the below to the above.


The 'fallen' neutronic male may be at the centre of family life, with wife and children taking his surname and deferring to his judgement in certain matters, but no truly protonic male could ever be the centre of anything but himself, that is, his soul, the sanctity of which he will be vigilant in guarding against external encroachments.


That which is most evolved towards noumenal subjectivity as opposed to least devolved from noumenal objectivity corresponds to what is godly, and it can only, by going against the grain of female objectivity, be male. Put another way, that which is most centred in the absolute badgefulness (curvilinear), as it were, of noumenal subjectivity, as opposed to least removed from the absolute ringfulness (rectilinear) of noumenal objectivty, would correspond to what is godly, and the godly, which is one with heaven, or centred in metaphysical self, can only be omega, never alpha! It is not the First Doing (of will), but the Last Being (of soul). And never will metaphysical heavenliness/godliness be more itself than when antithetical to such cosmic manifestations of it as may exist in a coming cyborgistic manifestation as much beyond , or posterior to, human manifestations of godliness/heavenliness as the cosmic variety was behind, or anterior to, its natural manifestations, as outlined by me in certain earlier works.


A wavicle preponderance, such as characterizes the proton and/or neutron bias of representative males (as opposed to the unrepresentative pseudo-particle emphasis under female hegemonic pressure of pseudo-males) ensures degrees of subjectivity, whether absolute (protonic) or relative (neutronic), that cannot but be at the centre of objective attention, such that derives from precisely the opposite tendency, namely a particle predominance characteristic, by contrast, of the photon and/or electron bias of representative females (as opposed to the unrepresentative pseudo-wavicle emphasis under male hegemonic pressure of pseudo-females), who will dominate and bind male subjectivity to a subordination to hegemonic female criteria favouring particle objectivity or, failing that, risk being dominated and bound by it in terms of pseudo-female subordination to hegemonic male criteria, be those wavicle-oriented criteria religious or secular, ethereal or corporeal, depending on the degree and type of wavicle subjectivity obtaining in the male or males to which, somewhat like filings to a magnet, they become paradoxically attracted. Attraction is, of course, a two-way thing. But, barring the paradoxical attraction of mentally weak males (pseudo-males) to females and, hence, to the dominion of bodily criteria, it seems to be a law of nature that the attraction of particles to wavicles is greater than that of wavicles to particles in view of the extent to which the one bias is objective and the other subjective, so that it is the gender with the subjective bias that becomes, by and by, the focus of much if not – at least for a pre-maternal time – most female attraction, the centre drawing-in the periphery, as it were, as that which, in one way or another (ego or soul) and to one degree or another (relatively or absolutely), is self-centred, becomes, not least through worship, the focus of other-oriented attraction. The man of truth, a philosopher shall we say, is not disposed to being or becoming the man of power, like a politician or ruler. For power and contentment, domination of others and self-determination, are as alpha and omega, and it would be wrong, morally and ethically wrong, for a champion of metaphysical truth, a philosopher, to seek, through politics or science, power over others. Christ's claim to have brought a sword … to cleave the faithless from the faithful, the chaff from the wheat, as it were, doesn't sit well with metaphysical truth, and we may believe that such a claim, if actually made, was simply rhetorical and not expressive of a desire for political, much less martial, glory or, worse, power. A certain type of power is all very well in the right hands, but the best form of power, from a religious standpoint, will be that which, as pseudo-power, is subordinate to contentment, as pseudo-science to religion or, in narrowly parallel terms, pseudo-beauty to truth, the pseudo-free psychic aspect (together with pseudo-love) of pseudo-metachemistry subordinated to the free psychic aspect (together with joy) of metaphysics, in a 3:1 primary/secondary church-hegemonic psychic differential the corollary of the 1:3 secondary/primary (to correct past errors of parallel judgement) state-subordinate somatic differential in which the actual representative fulcra are pseudo-ugliness and joy, pseudo-bound will and free soul in a 3:3 somatic/psychic differential between pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother and Heaven the Holy Soul, akin, in a manner of speaking, to the (neutralized) dragon and hegemonic saint, a plane up from the former in time over pseudo-space, of proverbial metaphorical usage. With pseudo-truth subordinate to beauty, on the other hand, you have a situation where pseudo-religion is (understandably) subordinate to science and, hence, the dominion of objectivity, not least empirically, will accordingly be taken for granted in relation to the rule of autocracy in what will be a society fundamentally so materialist as to be without an idealist, never mind transcendentalist, dimension. In short, the most basic form of civilization that, with a scientific/pseudo-religious basis, will rule over an economic/pseudo-political polarity on patently state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms. From a philosophical standpoint, true to metaphysics, I cannot endorse, much less identify with, such a society, which is fundamentally opposed to metaphysics and, hence, to the lead of a transcendentalist/idealist integrity commensurate with the triumph of religious truth and of the hegemony of religion over what may be called the pseudo-fundamentalism/pseudo-materialism of pseudo-science, pseudo-power bowing before the throne of contentment, as before the leadership of truth. Hitherto this religious/pseudo-scientific pairing has had to live in a kind of uneasy co-existence with a political/pseudo-economic polarity that, like the economic/pseudo-political one characterizing the state-hegemonic axis, is of 'the world' in one of its two principal axial manifestations, as opposed to being either netherworldly or otherworldly, metachemical or metaphysical. But the time is surely approaching when the salvation of the pseudo-economic to religion, the pseudo-physical to metaphysics, and the counter-damnation, correlatively, of the political to pseudo-science, the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, will be conducted as never before … when 'the world' mostly held – and had every corporeal right to hold – the balance of power if not, exactly, the moral 'high ground' and – notwithstanding the plutocratic opposition to autocracy of the state-hegemonic axis – the religious/pseudo-scientific aspects of life were accordingly fated to remain largely peripheral to it in consequence of their otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly status. Should this situation ever be modified by post-worldly criteria, then it is not inconceivable that 'world overcoming', to use a Nietzschean expression, will not only be possible but morally and ethnically desirable, with consequences that point to the possibility of 'Kingdom Come' and thus of a society much more orientated towards otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly criteria in religion and pseudo-science, in theocracy and technocracy, as it were, than had ever been possible – or indeed feasible – in the past, not excepting the medieval past of the Roman Catholic Middle Ages (which was the high point of Western civilization, the point preceding the switch of axis to state-hegemonic criteria following the Reformation and its gradual slide towards secular decadence and worse). If so, then contentment hegemonic over pseudo-power will no longer be the prerogative of the Few (in monk/nun-like vein) but will become the right of the Many, whether through salvation (from pseudo-physics to metaphysics) or through counter-damnation (from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry) on what would necessarily have to be a stepped-up, or 'resurrected', church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis under the aegis of messianic enlightenment if not, at the end of the day, some form or degree of messianic intervention such that will enable contentment to triumph over power or, more correctly, the pseudo-power of the deferential and altogether pseudo-scientifically subordinate caryatid-like supporters of true religion a plane down, in pseudo-metachemistry, from the metaphysical hegemony characterizing life at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.


If there's one thing worse than an idiot, who is bound to be human, it's a malfunctioning machine, like a computer, which doesn't even know it is doing wrong or being a nuisance.


Let it not be said of him that he was too godly for his own good lest, in his quest for inner sanity, he be judged insane by the profane.





Light, heat, motion, and force, corresponding to the photon, the proton, the electron, and the neutron, with implications of space, time, volume, and mass that contrast space with time in relation to the noumenal antithesis between metachemical light and metaphysical heat on the one hand, and volume with mass in relation to the phenomenal antithesis between chemical motion and physical force on the other hand, notwithstanding the 'pseudo' forms of light, heat, motion, and force that take subordinate positions as pseudo-elements to elements, with:-


1.                pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-heat unequivocally subordinate to metachemical light, as pseudo-time to space;

2.                pseudo-metachemical pseudo-light unequivocally subordinate to metaphysical heat, as pseudo-space to time;

3.                pseudo-physical pseudo-force equivocally subordinate to chemical motion, as pseudo-mass to volume;

4.                pseudo-chemical pseudo-motion equivocally subordinate to physical force, as pseudo-volume to mass.


Equivalent to the above, to cite only the fulcrum and pseudo-fulcrum of each context, would be:-


1.                The unequivocal subordination of pseudo-soul to will at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on the apex of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.

2.                The unequivocal subordination of pseudo-will to soul at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on the apex of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.

3.                The equivocal subordination of pseudo-ego to spirit at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on the base of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.

4.                The equivocal subordination of pseudo-spirit to ego at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on the base of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.


1.                The power of photons to create a spatial light; the contentment of protons to recreate a repetitive heat; the glory of electrons to create a volumetric motion; the form of neutrons to recreate a massive force.

2.                Conversely, the pseudo-power of pseudo-photons to pseudo-create a spaced pseudo-light; to pseudo-contentment of pseudo-protons to pseudo-recreate a sequential pseudo-heat; the pseudo-glory of pseudo-electrons to pseudo-create a voluminous pseudo-motion; the pseudo-form of pseudo-neutrons to pseudo-recreate a massed pseudo-force.


1.                The power of photons is hegemonic over the pseudo-contentment of pseudo-protons, as spatial light over sequential pseudo-heat.

2.                The contentment of protons is hegemonic over the pseudo-power of pseudo-photons as repetitive time over spaced pseudo-light.

3.                The glory of electrons is hegemonic over the pseudo-form of pseudo-neutrons, as volumetric motion over massed pseudo-force.

4.                The force of neutrons is hegemonic over the pseudo-glory of pseudo-electrons, as massive force over voluminous pseudo-motion.


Power, contentment, glory, and form = space, time, volume, and mass = light, heat, motion, and force = will, soul, spirit, and ego = intention, emotion, instinct, and intellect = photons, protons, electrons, and neutrons = devil, god, woman, and man = hell, heaven, purgatory, and earth = doing, being, giving, and taking. The 'pseudo' out of 'anti' modes, appertaining to pseudo-elements subordinate to elements, are as described above; though it should not be forgotten that both elements (hegemonic) and pseudo-elements (subordinate) are divisible between somatic and psychic, particle and wavicle, sensual and sensible aspects on both noumenal and phenomenal, absolute and relative terms, with a positive/negative distinction between the free and the bound, whether soma or psyche (depending on gender) and, correlatively, a pseudo-positive and pseudo-negative distinction between the pseudo-free and the pseudo-bound, again whether in relation to soma or psyche (according to gender). For the free is ever positive and bright, but the bound ever negative and dark, or in shadow, on both genuine (hegemonic) and 'pseudo' (subordinate) gender terms.


It is not where you are born, but who you were born from … that dictates not only your genetic make-up, but also your racial or ethnic composition.


The Virgin and Child or, more accurately, Mother and Child scenario of Christianity signifies a fait accompli of chemistry over pseudo-physics, corresponding to electrons over pseudo-neutrons, whereby spirit is hegemonic over pseudo-ego and the former is free to address the latter in terms of speech, cooing, caressing, even recourse to tears, while the child remains dependent on its mother for protection and sustenance. What this does not reveal is the stage of female experience intermediate between seduction and maternity that can only be identified with pregnancy, which has nothing to do with chemical spirit but is, rather, symptomatic of a kind of damnation from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry (on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis) that suggests and, indeed, confirms varying degrees (coinciding with the stages of pregnancy) of pseudo-natural neutralization of the female as pseudo-female under a temporary male hegemony in physics, whose transformation from pseudo-metaphysical lover to physical father-to-be would suggest a counter-salvation analogous to a counter-rise as male corollary of the female's fall (in damnation) from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry. But such a pseudo-natural order of neutralization vis-a-vis a realistic hegemony in bound soma conditioned by a humanistic preponderance of free psyche in physics is, alas for the physical male, all too temporary, since confined to the later stages of pregnancy, and it will not be long before, following birth, the pseudo-chemical pseudo-spirituality of the pseudo-female under a physically egocentric hegemony on the male's part, analogous to voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) a plane down from massive mass (or mass per se), is superseded, with cross-axial transference, by the aforementioned chemical hegemony over the pseudo-physical dependency of the pseudo-egocentric child upon the spirited mother who, operating through maternal instinct on the plane of volumetric volume (or volume per se) over massed mass (pseudo-mass), is then – and only then – in the mainstream worldly position to which the Christian iconography of Mother and Child alludes, a position at once purgatorial and pseudo-earthly in terms of the respective gender, or familial, standings. Of course, such a slide from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, seduction to pregnancy, and then, following childbirth, a cross-axial transference to chemistry might be the lot of the average female, but it would not – and did not – appeal to theologians to ascribe such a fate to Mary, the so-called 'Mother of God', and therefore the fait accompli, as I described it, of the Virgin and Child having no prior relationship with the female poles of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, viz. metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, seduction and pregnancy, is a taken-for-granted aspect of Catholic theology, which necessarily has to ascribe miraculous powers to Mary, notwithstanding providential intervention on the part of the so-called Father or attenuated Creator, commensurate with the 'Virgin birth', that ensure she remains recognizably church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, and on hegemonic terms, moreover, vis-a-vis the so-called Christ Child. Consequently, in relation to this, the notion of 'Mother Church' is not without theological significance, even if it still leaves something to be desired from the standpoint of salvation from 'the world' (of chemistry/pseudo-physics) to the otherworldly benefits of metaphysics, as traditionally represented by a Christ 'On High', whose mother, far from now being hegemonic over him, is then prone if not prostate at the foot of the 'True Cross' (meaning non-materialistically the one upon which, in Roman Catholic vein, the arms of the Crucified stretch upward towards what I hold to be a Y-chromosomal intimation of male psychic freedom) in a manner suggestive of a pseudo-metachemical subordination to a metaphysical (no matter how limited to and by the bound soma of the crucifixional paradigm) hegemony and, hence, to the 'Son of God'. Whereas the fate of any chemical hegemony over pseudo-physics, whether Marian or otherwise, can only be counter-damnation (up the axis on a southwest-to-northeast tangent) to pseudo-metachemistry, as to the Easter-time prone Virgin at the foot of the Cross, with a reversal of gender positions which ensures that the feminine female hegemony over pseudo-male pseudo-masculinity below will be superseded by a supermasculine or, more correctly (in relation to the limitations of bound metaphysical soma), a subfeminine nominally male hegemony over pseudo-female pseudo-superfemininity above, corresponding less to a 'Risen Virgin' than to a counter-fallen (counter-damned) pseudo-Virgin whose actual status is akin to pseudo-Devil-the-pseudo-Mother (of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma) under a 'Son of God' (of metaphysical bound soma) in a kind of double darkness symbolic of the Christian tragedy. For there can be no brightness here, neither in the one context nor in the other, because the absence of metaphysical free psyche primarily commensurate with the super-emotionality of Heaven the Holy Soul (and only secondarily with the once-bovaryized ego, or super-intellectual mind, of God the Father-proper) ensures that the bright side of metaphysics, corresponding to superconscious supermasculinity, remains above and beyond the Christian pale by dint of the extent to which the Judaic roots of Christianity in Devil the Mother hyped as God the Creator (whether one calls this Jehovah or the Father, depending on one's ethnic bias) precludes all but a truncated metaphysics from existing, simultaneously ensuring that the sub-intentional 'Son of God' coupled, in secondary bound somatic vein, to the sub-instinctual 'Holy Spirit of Heaven' remain as far as things go metaphysically, with a consequence that pseudo-metachemistry is itself compromised by a want of pseudo-submasculine pseudo-free psyche in relation to the supermasculine absence of metaphysical free psyche, so that it is, in a sense, doubly 'pseudo' and, with a pseudo-bound somatic emphasis upon the pseudo-superfemininity of pseudo-Devil-the-pseudo-Mother coupled (in secondary pseudo-bound somatic vein) to pseudo-Hell-the-Unclear-Spirit, is no more than a pseudo-ugly/pseudo-hateful corollary of the illusion/woe typifying metaphysical bound soma in each of its (bound sub-will and bound sub-spirit) subfeminine manifestations, with the properly church-hegemonic attributes of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love (corresponding to pseudo-free sub-ego and pseudo-free sub-soul) in pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche, and truth and joy (corresponding to free super-ego and free super-soul) in metaphysical free psyche lying somewhere beyond the pale of what Catholic Christianity is in a position to allow, given the continuing and effectively dominating parts being played by the beauty and love (in free super-will and free super-spirit) of metachemical free soma on the one hand and, subordinately, the pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy (in pseudo-free sub-will and pseudo-free sub-spirit) of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma on the other hand - the former attributes effectively superfeminine and the latter pseudo-subfeminine. That is why, from the standpoint of metaphysics, Catholicism is a failure and why, if a full complement of metaphysics and a properly deferential pseudo-metachemistry (no longer susceptible to subsuming the subfeminine bound soma of metaphysics into its own pseudo-superfeminine pseudo-bound soma 'Sacred Heart'-wise, with intent to deferring, in trianglular vein, to the rule of metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics in back) is to be forthcoming or at all possible, both metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics will have to be repudiated, and not simply on a personal, individual basis but officially, as though by society in general following what I would advocate as the utilization of the democratic process in certain countries (especially those with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial traditions) to a religiously sovereign end, an end commensurate with liberation from traditional religious adherence to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, and with a repudiation, in consequence, of all things Christian, including, not least, the Church itself for historically having had to go along with the best-of-a-bad-jobism, so to speak, of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father and accordingly precluded, in Judeo-Christian vein, the possibility of metaphysical, coupled to pseudo-metachemical, independence such that, at a broadly humanistic stage of religious evolution above but not beyond Catholicism, takes or can take the form of transcendental meditation and/or yoga, but at the superhumanistic and even cyborgistic stage to which we are alluding would require synthetically artificial means for achieving a fully metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical end. For as long as conventional religion, state religion in the profoundest and most obvious sense, persists in existing, metaphysics will continue, in merely straining on a kind of church-hegemonic leash, to be short-changed, as it were, and the power of metachemistry above and the glory of chemistry below will, in alpha-stemming fashion, continue to hog the religious limelight at the expense not just of the form of physics, which does and can still exist to a certain extent, if in axial polarity to metachemical power, but, most especially, of the contentment of metaphysics, as of that which, lying beyond the bound somatic limitations of the crucifixional paradigm, is truly heavenly and godly in the super-emotionality and super-intellectuality of metaphysical free psyche, since beyond the pale of a world dominated by the super-intentionality and super-instinctuality of metachemical free soma or, in my religious terminology, Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit, corresponding to beauty and love, with no place, in consequence, for Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father proper, corresponding to the aforementioned joy and truth of metaphysical free psyche. Now how religiously false is that?


There is a sense in which painters are the Devil's artists, and never more so than when portraying metachemical power via the aesthetics of beauty. Traditionally, the Arts have been dominated, certainly in the West, by art (from which the term derives), as society has been dominated by the powerful, whose 'God', having to do with a Creator-esque 'First Mover', is omnipotent and, hence, 'almighty', in stark contrast to the powerless 'God' (which some, deferring to the Father, would only regard as the 'Son of God') nailed to the Cross, whom artists have often depicted from a bovaryized artistic standpoint likely closer to pseudo-metachemistry than to metachemistry, and hence, fittingly I believe, with a degree of ugliness eclipsing the beauty proper to art … as the Devil's art form par excellence. But if art, not least in relation to Western painting, approximates, when metachemically genuine, to beauty, as to 'the Beautiful', then it must be said that sculpture approximates, when chemically genuine, to strength, if not to the chemical fulcrum of pride, and is therefore less superfeminine than feminine in character, since the art form of woman as opposed to the Devil, and therefore at axial variance, even to an antithetical extent, with literature as the art form par excellence of man, given less, especially in prose (its representative manifestation), to the glory of strength than to the form of knowledge, in which the ego is granted free rein to massively prevail, by taking cognizance of rightful man's place in the world. But much as I prefer literature to sculpture, it does not and cannot achieve the contentment of truth, which is joy, and which only the finest, most representative music can conjure, as if from the air, and in the right compositional hands bring us closer to the composure of heaven. For if painters tend to be the Devil's artists, expressing spatial light, then composers and musicians, when true, are surely God's artists, to utilize parallel if antithetical terms, with a commitment, one might say, to repetitive heat. Now although, like art, music can be bovaryized, even to a quasi-metachemical extent, the best of it, by which I mean that which most closely approximates to metaphysics, and hence to an impression of repetitive heat, will stand closest to truth and thus provide the only convincingly reliable guide, notwithstanding the role of philosophy as a mode of literary bovaryization, to what is true and exactly why it is so. Not simply because it reflects godliness, but because godliness is itself a reflection of Heaven, and there is no Heaven outside the joy of metaphysical soul, of soul per se, which music has the ability to conjure, on occasion, from the depths, the centre, of the Self.





1.                The physical ego of the intellectual mind, the once-bovaryized metaphysical ego of the superintellectual mind, the twice-bovaryized metachemical ego of the subintellectual mind, and the thrice-bovaryized chemical ego of the unintellectual mind, as we regress from free intellectual psyche in phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity (intellectual conscious and intellectual superconscious) to bound intellectual psyche in noumenal and phenomenal objectivity (intellectual subconscious and intellectual unconscious).

2.                The metaphysical soul of the superemotional mind, the once-bovaryized physical soul of the emotional mind, the twice-bovaryized chemical soul of the unemotional mind, the thrice-bovaryized metachemical soul of the subemotional mind, as we regress from free emotional psyche in noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity (emotional superconscious and emotional conscious) to bound emotional mind in phenomenal and noumenal objectivity (emotional unconscious and emotional subconscious).

3.                The chemical spirit of the instinctual body, the once-bovaryized metachemical spirit of the superinstinctual body, the twice-bovaryized metaphysical spirit of the subinstinctual body, the thrice-bovaryized physical spirit of the uninstinctual body, as we regress from free instinctual soma in phenomenal and noumenal objectivity (instinctual sensuous and instinctual supersensuous) to bound instinctual soma in noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity (instinctual subsensuous and instinctual unsensuous).

4.                The metachemical will of the superintentional body, the chemical will of the intentional body, the physical will of the unintentional body, the metaphysical will of the subintentional body, as we regress from free intentional soma in noumenal and phenomenal objectivity (intentional supersensuous and intentional sensuous) to the bound intentional soma in phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity (intentional unsensuous and intentional subsensuous).


1.                To regress from the knowledge of the intellectual ego to the weakness of the unintellectual ego via the truth of the superintellectual ego and the ugliness of the subintellectual ego, as from the free psyche in primary consciousness and secondary superconsciousness of physics and metaphysics to the bound psyche in primary subconsciousness and secondary unconsciousness of metachemistry and chemistry.

2.                To regress from the joy of the superemotional soul to the hate of the subemotional soul via the pleasure of the emotional soul and the humility (if not humiliation) of the unemotional soul, as from the free psyche in primary superconsciousness and secondary consciousness of metaphysics and physics to the bound psyche in primary unconsciousness and secondary subconsciousness of chemistry and metachemistry.

3.                To regress from the pride of the instinctual spirit to the pain of the uninstinctual spirit via the love of the superinstinctual spirit and the woe of the subinstinctual spirit, as from the free soma in primary sensuousness and secondary supersensuousness of chemistry and metachemistry to the bound soma in primary subsensuousness and secondary unsensuousness of metaphysics and physics.

4.                To regress from the beauty of the superintentional will to the illusion of the subintentional will via the strength of the intentional will and the ignorance of the unintentional will, as from the free soma in primary supersensuousness and secondary sensuousness of metachemistry and chemistry to the bound soma in primary unsensuousness and secondary subsensuousness of physics and metaphysics.


Will and spirit are always free (in primary soma) on the female side of the gender divide and bound (in secondary soma) on its male side, whereas ego and soul are always free (in primary psyche) on the male side of the gender divide but bound (in secondary psyche) on its female side – at least in terms of the hegemonic elements of metachemistry and chemistry on the one hand, and physics and metaphysics on the other. The pseudo-elemental positions, ever subordinate to the hegemonic elements, tend to reflect the elemental hegemonies on reverse ratio terms within pseudo-free and pseudo-bound contexts in which the attributes, being 'pseudo', exist in contrary positions to their exact elemental counterparts in the sense that what is positive in free soma becomes pseudo-positive in pseudo-free psyche and, conversely, what is negative in bound psyche becomes pseudo-negative in pseudo-bound soma where the transpositions from metachemistry and chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry are concerned, in contrast to what is positive in free psyche becoming pseudo-positive in pseudo-free soma and, conversely, what is negative in bound soma becoming pseudo-negative in pseudo-bound psyche where the transpositions from physics and metaphysics to pseudo-physics and pseudo-metaphysics are concerned.


1.                Hence the pairing of metachemical free soma and bound psyche in supersensuousness and subconsciousness with pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche in pseudo-subsensuousness and pseudo-superconsciousness in a 3:1 free primary body to bound secondary mind vis-a-vis a 1:3 pseudo-free secondary body to pseudo-bound primary mind ratio differential between the hegemonic photonic element and the subordinate pseudo-protonic pseudo-element.

2.                Hence the pairing of chemical free soma and bound psyche in sensuousness and unconsciousness with pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche in pseudo-unsensuousness and pseudo-consciousness in a 2½:1½ free primary body to bound secondary mind vis-a-vis a 1½:2½ pseudo-free secondary body to pseudo-bound primary mind ratio differential between the hegemonic electronic element and the subordinate pseudo-neutronic pseudo-element.

3.                Hence the pairing of physical free psyche and bound soma in consciousness and unsensuousness with pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound soma in pseudo-unconsciousness and pseudo-sensuousness in a 2½:1½ free primary mind to bound secondary body vis-a-vis a 1½:2½ pseudo-free secondary mind to pseudo-bound primary body ratio differential between the hegemonic neutronic element and the subordinate pseudo-eletronic pseudo-element.

4.                Hence the pairing of metaphysical free psyche and bound soma in superconsciousness and subsensuousness with pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound soma in pseudo-subconsciousness and pseudo-supersensuousness in a 3:1 free primary mind to bound secondary body via-a-vis a 1:3 pseudo-free secondary mind to pseudo-bound primary body ratio differential between the hegemonic protonic element and the subordinate pseudo-photonic pseudo-element.


1.                The pairing of photonic elements with pseudo-protonic pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of space over pseudo-time, or spatial space over sequential time at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the apex of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.

2.                The pairing of electronic elements with pseudo-neutronic pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of volume over pseudo-mass, or volumetric volume over massed mass at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the base of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.

3.                The pairing of neutronic elements with pseudo-electronic pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of mass over pseudo-volume, or massive mass over voluminous volume at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the base of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.

4.                The pairing of protonic elements with pseudo-photonic pseudo-elements is equivalent to the hegemony of time over pseudo-space, or repetitive time over spaced space at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is the apex of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.


1.                Hence the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis affords us a primary polarity between photonic space and pseudo-electronic pseudo-volume coupled to a secondary polarity between pseudo-protonic pseudo-time and neutronic mass – the former polarity of overall female character in relation to the primary concrete particles and secondary abstract wavicles of noumenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, and the latter polarity of overall male character in relation to the primary abstract wavicles and secondary concrete particles of noumenal pseudo-subjectivity and phenomenal subjectivity.

2.                Hence the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis affords us a primary polarity between protonic time and pseudo-neutronic pseudo-mass coupled to a secondary polarity between pseudo-photonic pseudo-space and electronic volume – the former polarity of male character in relation to the primary abstract wavicles and secondary concrete particles of noumenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, and the latter polarity of overall female character in relation to the primary concrete particles and secondary abstract wavicles of noumenal pseudo-objectivity and phenomenal objectivity.


1.                Just as I distinguish between the supersensuous and the subconscious in metachemistry, with a 3:1 ratio differential of free soma to bound psyche, so one could alternatively regard such a distinction as being between supersensuality and subsensibility, since this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of soma to psyche but would also suggest a parallel with superfemininity vis-a-vis submasculinity, the superparticle supernaturalism of a superconcrete freedom in state-hegemonic materialism via-a-vis what could be termed the subwavicle subnurturalism of a subabstract binding in church-subordinate fundamentalism, the former primary and the latter secondary.

2.                Likewise, if on contrary noumenal axial terms, just as I distinguish between the superconscious and the subsensuous in metaphysics, with a 3:1 ratio differential of free psyche to bound soma, so one could alternatively regard such a distinction as being between supersensibility and subsensuality, since this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of psyche to soma but would also suggest a parallel with supermasculinity vis-a-vis subfemininity, the superwavicle supernurturalism of a superabstract freedom in church-hegemonic transcendentalism vis-a-vis what could be termed the subparticle subnaturalism of a subconcrete binding in state-subordinate idealism, the former primary and the latter secondary.

3.                Dropping from the noumenal planes of space and time in metachemistry and metaphysics to the phenomenal planes of volume and mass in chemistry and physics, as from ethereal absolutism to corporeal relativity, it could be argued that just as I distinguish between the sensuous and the unconscious in chemistry, with a 2½:1½ ratio differential of free soma to bound psyche, so one could alternatively regard such a distinction as being between sensuality and unsensibility, since this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of soma to psyche but would also suggest a parallel with femininity vis-a-vis unmasculinity, the particle naturalism of a concrete freedom in state-subordinate naturalism vis-a-vis what could be termed the unwavicle unnurturalism of an unabstract binding in church-hegemonic pantheism, the former primary and the latter secondary.

4.                Similarly, if on contrary phenomenal axial terms, just as I distinguish between the conscious and the unsensuous in physics, with a 2½:1½ ratio differential of free psyche to bound soma, so one could alternatively regard such a distinction as being between sensibility and unsensuality, since this would not only accord with the aforementioned ratio bias of psyche to soma but would also suggest a parallel with masculinity vis-a-vis unfemininity, the wavicle nurturalism of an abstract freedom in church-subordinate humanism vis-a-vis what could be termed the unparticle unnaturalism of a unconcrete binding in state-hegemonic realism, the former primary and the latter secondary.


1.                As for the pseudo-elements a plane down, in each class case (pseudo-noumenal and/or pseudo-phenomenal) from the hegemonic elements, one should distinguish between the pseudo-subsensuous and the pseudo-superconscious of pseudo-metaphysics, with a 1:3 ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche, which could alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-subsensuality and pseudo-supersensibility, thereby suggesting a parallel with pseudo-subfemininity and pseudo-supermasculinity, the pseudo-subparticle pseudo-subnaturalism of a pseudo-subconcrete pseudo-freedom in state-hegemonic pseudo-idealism juxtaposed with what could be termed the pseudo-superwavicle pseudo-supernurturalism of a pseudo-superabstract pseudo-binding in church-subordinate pseudo-transcendentalism, the former secondary and the latter primary.

2.                Likewise, if on contrary pseudo-noumenal axial terms, one could distinguish between the pseudo-subconscious and the pseudo-supersensuous, with a 1:3 axial differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma, which could alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-subsensibility and pseudo-supersensuality, the pseudo-subwavicle pseudo-subnurturalism of a pseudo-subabstract pseudo-freedom in church-hegemonic pseudo-fundamentalism juxtaposed with what could be termed the pseudo-superparticle pseudo-supernaturalism of a pseudo-superconcrete pseudo-binding in state-subordinate pseudo-materialism, the former secondary and the latter primary.

3.                Dropping from the pseudo-noumenal planes of pseudo-time and pseudo-space in pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry to the pseudo-phenomenal planes of pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume in pseudo-physics and pseudo-chemistry, one should distinguish between the pseudo-unsensuous and the pseudo-conscious in pseudo-physics, with a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche, which could alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-unsensuality and pseudo-sensibility, the pseudo-unparticle pseudo-unnaturalism of a pseudo-unconcrete pseudo-freedom in state-subordinate pseudo-realism juxtaposed with what could be termed the pseudo-wavicle pseudo-nurtualism of a pseudo-abstract pseudo-binding in church-hegemonic pseudo-humanism, the former secondary and the latter primary.

4.                Similarly, on contrary pseudo-phenomenal axial terms, one should distinguish between the pseudo-unconscious and pseudo-sensuous in pseudo-chemistry, with a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma, which could alternatively be regarded as a distinction between pseudo-unsensibility and pseudo-sensuality, the pseudo-unwavicle pseudo-unnurturalism of a pseudo-unabstract pseudo-freedom in church-subordinate pseudo-pantheism juxtaposed with what could be termed the pseudo-particle pseudo-naturalism of a pseudo-concrete pseudo-binding in state-hegemonic pseudo-naturalism, the former secondary and the latter primary.





The primary mind, to change the subject, is no more attracted to the primary body than the primary body to the primary mind, since that would amount to a contradiction in terms. What happens is that the secondary body (bound) is attracted by the primary body (free) when the primary mind (free) is insufficiently developed as to serve as an attractive proposition for the secondary mind (bound). But if it is, then the secondary mind (bound) will be drawn towards the primary mind (free) and you will have a situation whereby, in effect, females will be subordinate to males as pseudo-females in either pseudo-chemistry to physics or pseudo-metachemistry to metaphysics, as the class and/or axial case may be. Otherwise you will get the converse of this situation in which, through the attraction of secondary bodies (bound) to primary bodies (free), males will become subordinate to females as pseudo-males in either pseudo-physics to chemistry or pseudo-metaphysics to metachemistry, depending on the class and/or axial case. But neither situation is necessarily permanent, least of all the lower-order axial contexts of phenomenal relativity, where the subordination of pseudo-males to females in one context will be superseded by the subordination of pseudo-females to males in another, as the genders exchange roles to greater or lesser extents, depending on the individuals and their actual circumstances at the time, divided, as they usually are, between professional and leisure engagements. However, in the upper-order axial contexts of noumenal absolutism, a primary mind (free) will not usually be attracted by a primary body (free), since the one kind of freedom tends to exclude the other, like the Devil excluding God or God excluding the Devil. This explains why certain great minds, especially when philosophical or religious, tend to lead celibate if not solitary lives, since too wrapped up in their own mental primacy to be much disposed to the bodily primacy of those who would seduce them from it for purposes at variance, even to an antithetical degree, with their own.


Sleep is doubtless the mind's most potent drug, since it acts like a sedative and causes parts of the mind to behave in a well-nigh hallucinatory manner through dreams and nightmares and even visionary experience. Did we not spend so much time asleep it is doubtful that we would be as indifferent if not hostile to narcotic drugs as we generally are; though I fancy that some substance-based chemical alternative to sleep would more appeal to insomniacs than to regular sleepers, who have probably had their fill of visionary if not hallucinatory experience by the time they wake up and leave the world of dreams behind them for the greater part of each day.


1.                Metaphysics, that noumenally subjective element of representative soul, once-bovaryized ego, twice-bovaryized spirit, and thrice-bovaryized will, regressing from superemotionality to subintentionality via superintellectuality and subinstinctuality, as from the superbeing and supertaking of superconscious free psyche to the subgiving and subdoing of subsensuous bound soma.

2.                Metachemistry, that noumenally objective element of representative will, once-bovaryized spirit, twice-bovaryized ego, and thrice-bovaryized soul, regressing from superintentionality to subemotionality via superinstinctuality and subintellectuality, as from the superdoing and supergiving of supersensuous free soma to the subtaking and sub-being of subsensuous bound psyche.

3.                Chemistry, that phenomenally objective element of representative spirit, once-bovaryized will, twice-bovaryized soul, and thrice-bovaryized ego, regressing from instinctuality to unintellectuality via intentionality and unemotionality, as from the giving and doing of sensuous free soma to the untaking and unbeing of unconscious bound psyche.

4.                Physics, that phenomenally objective element of representative ego, once-bovaryized soul, twice-bovaryized will, and thrice-bovaryized spirit, regressing from intellectuality to uninstinctuality via emotionality and unintentionality, as from the taking and being of conscious free psyche to the undoing and ungiving of unsensuous bound soma.


1.                Pseudo-metaphysics, that pseudo-noumenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-element of pseudo-representative pseudo-soul, once-bovaryized pseudo-ego, twice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit, and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-will, pseudo-regressing from pseudo-superemotionality to pseudo-superintentionality via pseudo-superintellectuality and pseudo-superinstinctuality, as from the pseudo-superbeing and pseudo-supertaking of pseudo-superconscious pseudo-bound psyche to the pseudo-subgiving and pseudo-subdoing of pseudo-subsensuous pseudo-free soma.

2.                Pseudo-metachemistry, that pseudo-noumenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element of pseudo-representative pseudo-superwill, once-bovaryized pseudo-superspirit, twice-bovaryized pseudo-subego and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-subsoul, pseudo-regressing from pseudo-superintentionality to pseudo-subemotionality via pseudo-superinstinctuality and pseudo-subintellectuality, as from the pseudo-superdoing and pseudo-supergiving of pseudo-supersensuous pseudo-bound soma to the pseudo-subintellectuality and pseudo-subemotionality of pseudo-subconscious pseudo-free psyche.

3.                Pseudo-chemistry, that pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-objective pseudo-element of pseudo-representative pseudo-spirit, once-bovaryized pseudo-will, twice-bovaryized pseudo-soul, and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-ego, regressing from pseudo-uninstinctuality to pseudo-intellectuality via pseudo-unintentionality and pseudo-emotionality, as from the pseudo-ungiving and pseudo-undoing of pseudo-unsensuous pseudo-bound soma to the pseudo-being and pseudo-taking of pseudo-conscious pseudo-free psyche.

4.                Pseudo-physics, that pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-element of pseudo-representative pseudo-ego, once-bovaryized pseudo-soul, twice-bovaryized pseudo-will and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit, regressing from pseudo-unintellectuality to pseudo-instinctuality via pseudo-unemotionality and pseudo-intentionality, as from the pseudo-untaking and pseudo-unbeing of pseudo-unconscious pseudo-bound psyche to the pseudo-doing and pseudo-giving of pseudo-sensuous pseudo-free soma.


Of course, it would be mistaken to suppose or conclude from the above that elements and pseudo-elements exist in some kind of splendid isolation from other elements and pseudo-elements, because they are only the starting point for atoms and molecules and the constituents of matter, including what goes into the making of human beings, in general. In all the above examples, the bovaryized attributes of the prevailing elements or pseudo-elements imply some other elemental or pseudo-elemental bovaryization that, together, combine to form the atom or pseudo-atom which has the properties described.


1.          Therefore one should conceive of a metaphysical atom as being comprised of a protonic soul, but a once-bovaryized neutronic ego, a twice-bovaryized electronic spirit, and a thrice-bovaryized photonic will which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something approximating a metaphysical bias for free psyche and bound soma in any given noumenally subjective male, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most protons, more (compared to most) neutrons, less (compared to least) electrons, and least photons, the subatomic preconditions of joy and truth on the positive side and woe and illusion on the negative side of what is customarily described as a 3:1 ratio differential of free psyche to bound soma in respect, most especially, of the absolute elements of protons and photons.

2.          Contrariwise, one should conceive of a metachemical atom as being comprised of a photonic will, but a once-bovaryized electronic spirit, a twice-bovaryized neutronic ego, and a thrice-bovaryized protonic soul which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something approximating a metachemical bias for free soma and bound psyche in any given noumenally objective female, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most photons, more (compared to most) electrons, less (compared to least) neutrons, and least protons, the subatomic preconditions of beauty and love on the positive side and ugliness and hatred on the negative side of what is customarily described as a 3:1 ratio differential of free soma to bound psyche in respect, most especially, of the absolute elements of photons and protons.

3.          Similarly, in dropping from noumenal to phenomenal planes, one should conceive of a chemical atom as being comprised of an electronic spirit, but a once-bovaryized photonic will, a twice-bovaryized protonic soul, and a thrice-bovaryized neutronic ego which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something approximating a chemical bias for free soma and bound psyche in any given phenomenally objective female, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most electrons, more (compared to most) photons, less (compared to least) protons, and least neutrons, the subatomic preconditions of pride and strength on the positive side and humility and weakness on the negative side of what is customarily described as a 2½:1½ ratio differential of free soma to bound psyche in respect, more especially, of the relative elements of electrons and neutrons.

4.          Contrariwise, one should conceive of a physical atom as being comprised of a neutronic ego, but a once-bovaryized protonic soul, a twice-bovaryized photonic will, and a thrice-bovaryized electronic spirit which would be replicated in molecules adding up to something approximating a physical bias for free psyche and bound soma in any given phenomenally subjective male, whom one can only presume partial to an atomic integrity comprised of most neutrons, more (compared to most) protons, less (compared to least) photons, and least electrons, the subatomic preconditions of knowledge and pleasure on the positive side and ignorance and pain on the negative side of what is customarily described as a 2½:1½ ratio differential of free psyche to bound soma in respect, more especially, of the relative elements of neutrons and electrons.


1.          Turning to the pseudo-elements, which are subordinate to the elements, one should conceive of a pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a pseudo-metaphysical bias for pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma in any given pseudo-noumenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-male, whom one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-protons, more (compared to most) pseudo-neutrons, less (compared to least) pseudo-electrons, and least pseudo-photons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-joy and pseudo-truth on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-woe and pseudo-illusion on the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1:3 ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche in respect, most especially, of the absolute pseudo-elements of pseudo-photons and pseudo-protons existing under metachemical hegemonic pressure.

2.          Contrariwise, one should conceive of a pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a pseudo-metachemical bias for pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche in any given pseudo-noumenally pseudo-objective pseudo-female, whom one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-photons, more (compared to most) pseudo-electrons, less (compared to least) pseudo-neutrons, and least pseudo-protons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred on the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1:3 ratio differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma in respect, most especially, of the absolute pseudo-elements of pseudo-protons and pseudo-photons existing under metaphysical hegemonic pressure.

3.          Similarly, in dropping from pseudo-noumenal to pseudo-phenomenal planes, one should conceive of a pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a pseudo-chemical bias for pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche in any given pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-objective pseudo-female, whom one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-electrons, more (compared to most) pseudo-photons, less (compared to least) pseudo-protons, and least pseudo-neutrons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-pride and pseudo-strength on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-humility and pseudo-weakness on the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free psyche to pseudo-bound soma in respect, more especially, of the relative pseudo-elements of pseudo-neutrons and pseudo-electrons existing under physical hegemonic pressure.

4.          Contrariwise, one should conceive of a pseudo-physical pseudo-atom as being comprised of a pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, but a once-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, a twice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit which would be replicated in pseudo-molecules adding up to something approximating a pseudo-physical bias for pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma in any given pseudo-phenomenally pseudo-subjective pseudo-male, whom one can only presume partial to a pseudo-atomic integrity comprised of most pseudo-neutrons, more (compared to most) pseudo-protons, less (compared to least) pseudo-photons, and least pseudo-electrons, the pseudo-subatomic preconditions of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure on the pseudo-positive side and pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain on the pseudo-negative side of what has to be described as a 1½:2½ ratio differential of pseudo-free soma to pseudo-bound psyche in respect, more especially, of the relative pseudo-elements of pseudo-electrons and pseudo-neutrons existing under chemical hegemonic pressure.





1.                In overall subatomic terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis offers us a polarity between representative photons and pseudo-representative pseudo-electrons, in metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, on its female side, and one between pseudo-representative pseudo-protons and representative neutrons, in pseudo-metaphysics and physics, on its male side.

2.                By axial contrast, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis offers us a polarity between representative protons and pseudo-representative neutrons, in metaphysics and pseudo-physics, on its male side, and one between pseudo-representative pseudo-photons and representative electrons, in pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry, on its female side.


1.                The polarity between metachemical photons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons is primary and that between pseudo-metaphsyical pseudo-protons and physical neutrons secondary in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.

2.                The polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons is primary and that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-photons and chemical electrons secondary on overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.

3.                More specifically, the polarity between metachemical photons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-protons and physical neutrons is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate.

4.                Likewise the polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons is primary and pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-photons and chemical electrons is pseudo-primary and primary state subordinate.


1.                In terms of the once-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between metachemical electrons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-photons is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-neutrons and physical protons is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate.

2.                Likewise the once-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between metaphysical neutrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-protons is primary and pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-electrons and chemical photons is pseudo-primary and primary state subordinate.


1.                In terms of the twice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between metachemical neutrons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-protons is secondary and pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-electrons and physical photons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state-hegemonic.

2.                Likewise, the twice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between metaphysical electrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-photons is secondary and pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-neutrons and chemical protons is pseudo-secondary and secondary church hegemonic.


1.                In terms of the thrice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between metachemical protons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-neutrons is secondary and pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-photons and physical electrons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state hegemonic.

2.                Likewise, the thrice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between metaphysical photons and pseudo-physical pseudo-electrons is secondary and pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-protons and chemical neutrons is pseudo-secondary and secondary church hegemonic.


In overall axial terms, one finds that the primary and pseudo-primary polarities are positive and pseudo-positive, whereas their secondary and pseudo-secondary counterparts are negative and pseudo-negative, which is to say, bound and pseudo-bound as opposed to free or pseudo-free, whether in relation to the state or to the church.


1.                On the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, the overall female (divisible between hegemonic noumenal objective and subordinate pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objective) side of the gender divide is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic but secondary and pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas the overall male (divisible between subordinate pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjective and hegemonic phenomenal subjective) side of this divide is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate but pseudo-secondary and secondary state hegemonic.

2.                On the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, the overall male (divisible between subordinate pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-subjective and hegemonic noumenal subjective) side of the gender divide is pseudo-primary and primary church hegemonic but pseudo-secondary and secondary church subordinate, whereas the overall female (divisible between hegemonic phenomenal objective and subordinate pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objective) side of this divide is primary and pseudo-primary state subordinate but secondary and pseudo-secondary church hegemonic.


In such fashion is the fourfold composition of elements and pseudo-elements put into axial perspective, and this is the sum of philosophical truth which also embraces, as a specific elemental bias within the overall atomic framework, metaphysical truth as the transcendent ideal of all philosophical endeavour.


1.          What can be established with a fair degree of certainty is that each hegemonic element, whether photon, electron, neutron, or proton, has a primary and a secondary aspect, the former free and the latter bound, whether in soma or psyche, depending on gender or, in these elemental contexts, the effective preconditions of gender.

2.          Conversely, each subordinate pseudo-element, whether pseudo-proton, pseudo-neutron, pseudo-electron, or pseudo-photon, has a pseudo-primary and a pseudo-secondary aspect or, more correctly, pseudo-aspect, the former pseudo-bound and the latter pseudo-free, whether in pseudo-psyche or pseudo-soma, depending, once again, on gender or the effective elemental preconditions thereof.

3.          Therefore whereas the free aspect of an element, whether somatically predominant or psychically preponderant on absolute (3) or relative (2½) terms, is positive and, hence, bright, the bound aspect, whether psychically postponderant or somatically postdominant on absolute (1) or relative (1½) terms, is negative and, hence, dark, or in shadow.

4.          Likewise, whereas the pseudo-bound pseudo-aspect of a pseudo-element, whether pseudo-psychically pseudo-preponderant or pseudo-somatically pseudo-predominant on pseudo-absolute (3) or pseudo-relative (2½) terms, is pseudo-negative and, hence, pseudo-dark, the pseudo-free pseudo-aspect, whether pseudo-somatically postdominant or pseudo-psychically postponderant on pseudo-absolute (1) or pseudo-relative (1½) terms, is pseudo-positive and, hence, pseudo-bright.


In what could be called majoritarian ratio terms, whether elementally predominant and preponderant or pseudo-elementally pseudo-preponderant and pseudo-predominant, the hegemonic element is bright and the subordinate pseudo-element pseudo-dark, but such pseudo-darkness is the pseudo-primary corollary of the primary brightness to which it is pseudo-elementally subordinate on either pseudo-preponderant to predominant (pseudo-male to female) or pseudo-predominant to preponderant (pseudo-female to male) parallel ratio terms.


Another thing one can be confident about is the association between photons and metachemistry, electrons and chemistry, neutrons and physics, and protons and metaphysics, to take just the four principal subatomic elements. But it is only a terminological association, not an exact correlation, because each of the elements described, whilst they may constitute the fulcrum of the discipline to which they have been ascribed, do not constitute the atomic basis of that discipline, much less the nuclear superstructure, which, besides requiring human application, is also comprised of the bovaryized elements that supplement the representative elements on the terms outlined in previous pages. Now what applies to the elements is also applicable to the pseudo-elements, which require the addition of bovaryized pseudo-elements to the pseudo-element most representative of the pseudo-discipline to which it appertains as its pseudo-subatomic precondition, be that pseudo-discipline pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical. Hence we can no more equate pseudo-metaphysics with pseudo-protons alone than ,,,, pseudo-metachemistry with pseudo-photons alone, even though such pseudo-elements play the main pseudo-subatomic role in the overall pseudo-atomic composition of any given pseudo-disciplinary bias. But when it comes to why some people are this way and others that way, why this atomic bias and not that, we enter the determining realms of gender and class, with gender taking precedence over class as the primary determinant of a class extrapolation that even when it shares the same gender does so to a different extent, making for an absolute/relative dichotomy between the photonic bias, for instance, of upper-class females (metachemical) and the electronic bias of lower-class females (chemical) in gender antithesis to the neutronic bias of lower-class males (physical) and the protonic bias of upper-class males (metaphysical, not forgetting the pseudo-gender subordination that stems from the superior pressure of what becomes the hegemonic gender upon their inferior counterparts and leads, in due course, to pseudo-class distinctions, on a pseudo-absolute/pseudo-relative basis, between the pseudo-protonic bias of what can be termed pseudo-upper class pseudo-males (pseudo-metaphysical) and the pseudo-neutronic bias of pseudo-lower class pseudo-males (pseudo-physical) in pseudo-gender antithesis to the pseudo-electronic bias of pseudo-lower class pseudo-females (pseudo-chemical) and the pseudo-photonic bias of pseudo-upper class pseudo-females (pseudo-metachemical), none of whom would exist as such but for their upper- or lower-class gender counterparts or, more accurately, opposites.


If much of what has been written on this and previous pages sounds like the 'Visible Matter/Invisible Matter' or, following on from the above, 'Bright Matter/Dark Matter' theories of contemporary scientists and more especially of physicists, then don't be surprised: it does. But that doesn't mean to say science has caught up with my philosophy. On the contrary, any system based in empirical observation will never 'catch up' with one whose logic remains centred in insightful feelings, or truth. Science may have a beautiful will, but it has no soul or only, at best, a thrice-bovaryized intensely sceptical one, and that is why philosophy of this nature is so necessary, and why the resurrection of truth, in the truly metaphysical sense that has nothing to do with fact hyped as truth, absolutely depends on it, if civilization is to return, on more radical terms than ever existed in the (medieval) past, to the leadership of religion, which has nothing to do with fundamentally understanding the world for purposes of material exploitation, but everything to do with ideally transcending it in the interests of soulful liberation, since at the opposite gender remove from the dominance of will and the enslavement of 'the world' to that domination, both directly, in polar axial terms, and indirectly, where its lapsed Catholic/republican socialist manifestation is concerned and one finds a proletariat in dire need of precisely the kind of liberation, deliverance, salvation – call it by what name one likes – alluded to above, which the Catholic Church, compromised by ongoing deference to free will in the guise of 'the Creator', 'the Almighty', 'the All-Powerful', and other variations on a freely-somatic metachemical theme, is no less signally incapable of providing now than ever it was in the Judeo-Christian past. Only Social Theocracy, it seems to me, can open the door to religious freedom and, hence, to the hegemony of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, of true religion over pseudo-science.








Support independent publishing: Buy this e-book on Lulu.


Bookmark and Share