151. I did, I believe, make this point before, but it is a tricky one and well worth illustrating by examples of what I call omega-in-the-alpha on the one hand and alpha-in-the-omega on the other, i.e. positivity in the naturalistic part of any given spectrum and negativity in its artificial part - the former largely centrifugal and the latter mainly centripetal. Now the illustration I have in mind pertains to umbrellas on the one hand and to hooded zippers on the other - two modes of protection against rain which co-exist as alpha and omega in both naturalistic and artificial contexts, by which I mean within each part of their particular spectrum, be it idealistic, naturalistic, or materialistic, depending on the type of brolly or hooded zipper in question. However that may be, a full-length brolly will be strongly alpha stemming because inherently centrifugal, whereas a knee-length or even a thigh-length hooded zipper will be comparatively omega orientated, since centripetal, albeit of a length which, in its evident femininity, precludes a truly masculine implication and therefore suggests omega-in-the-alpha, which is nothing less than a kind of Christian middle-ground vis-à-vis the alpha absolute ... as pertaining to a naturalistic omega orientation. Contrasted to which, we shall discover the alternatives, on the one hand, of a collapsible umbrella, complete with phallic-like sheath (suggestive of a masculine compromise), and, on the other hand, of a short or waist-length hooded zipper, which is closer to a genuine omega or, rather, superomega orientation on account of its highly masculine connotations, and which thereby contrasts not only with hooded zippers of a partly feminine character (knee/thigh-length establishing a skirt-like centrifugal compromise), but with the collapsible umbrella - that alpha-in-the-omega which is nothing more than a kind of superalpha equivalent commensurate with the negative pole, or part, of the artificial spectrum to which (depending on the type) it belongs, the supernegative pole to superpositive waist-length hooded zippers.
152. Thus from long brollies and hooded zippers within the largely centrifugal alpha-stemming naturalistic part of any given spectrum ... to the short brollies (collapsibles) and hooded zippers within the largely centripetal omega-oriented artificial part of any given spectrum - the contrast, on the one hand, between omega-(long hooded zippers)in-the-alpha (long umbrellas) and, on the other hand, alpha-(collapsibles)in-the-omega (short hooded zippers). A small positivity within a large negativity in the one case, and a small negativity within a large positivity in the other, of which dozens of comparable examples could be given, including towns within the country and parks within the city. For there is as exact a correlation between, say, thigh-length hooded zippers and country towns as between collapsibles and city parks. The thigh-length hooded zipper is, strictly speaking, a phenomenon-noumenon of country towns, just as the collapsible umbrella is a noumenon-phenomenon of city parks or, if that seems overly rigid, is aligned with the park vis-à-vis the (hooded) city - as, for that matter, are miniskirts.
153. Since alpha proceeds from noumenal to phenomenal and omega, by contrast, from phenomenal to noumenal, we can speak, as I have just done, of hooded zippers as phenomenal-noumenal in contrast to umbrellas as noumenal-phenomenal, reading the former from the bottom up, which is to say from body to hood, and the latter from the top down, which is to say from umbrella hood to body stem, including the handle. The alpha noumenal is centrifugal whereas the omega noumenal is centripetal. Appearance and essence, protons and electrons, negative and positive.
154. Since alpha and omega are polar opposites within any given spectrum, in both naturalistic (overall alpha-stemming) and artificial (overall omega-oriented) manifestations thereof, it follows that drama will be tragic when appertaining, in negativity, to the alpha pole of the realistic spectrum, but comic when appertaining, in positivity, to its omega pole, and this whether we are considering the traditional, naturalistic manifestation of this spectrum or its more contemporary and, hence, artificial counterpart - in short, whether we are referring to autocratic realism or to democratic realism, the former tending to materialize on stage and the latter on film, though particularly within the context of television drama. For films are not invariably dramatic, or written on an original and quasi-theatrical basis, but are more often, these days, adaptations from novels, in consequence of which they can be regarded as appertaining to the artificial manifestations of a fictional, or materialistic, spectrum, on both negative and positive terms, which is to say as alpha and omega of artificial materialism. And even original film scripts usually tend to the narrative rather than to the dramatic and are therefore as distinct from plays as novels, the best of them being art films, or films recognized for their narrative and/or aesthetic worth. Really, it is television plays which are the dramatic counterpart of stage plays; for plays and films are two quite distinct visual media, the one realistic and the other materialistic, which, on balance, is equivalent to a kind of British/American dichotomy - the former worldly and the latter purgatorial. Will and intellect, body and brain, making for dramatic and narrative distinctions.
155. How much is ethnically conditioned and how much
sheer rebellion, I don't pretend to know; but I have always avoided either
writing or reading plays, which I now perceive as a quintessentially English
art-form, and, instead, have concentrated most of my creative energies on
philosophy - the discipline at the furthest possible remove from drama, like
air from earth or heaven from the world.
Conversely, it has not escaped my attention that Irish dramatists are
usually Anglo-Irish, particularly the world-famous ones like Sheridan, Wilde,
Shaw, Yeats, Beckett, Synge, who may well have felt
as disposed to rebel, consciously or unconsciously, against Irish theology and
philosophy as I have rebelled against British drama, scorning Shakespeare like
the plague. The consequences either way
are that the Irish in England become more idealistic than they might otherwise
have been, while the English in Ireland become, as Anglo-Irish, more realistic
than might otherwise have been the case, as the two peoples react against each
other and become more adamantly themselves than before. It was my destiny to bring philosophy to an
all-time idealistic peak - a fact all the more remarkable for having taken
156. It makes a lot of difference whether one's starting point is Socialism or Transcendentalism; for if Socialism is the thesis and Transcendentalism the antithesis, as was the case with Lenin, then the synthetic result is Transcendental Socialism, whereas if Transcendentalism is the thesis and Socialism the antithesis, as is the case with me, then the synthetic result is Social Transcendentalism, which stands to Transcendental Socialism as God to the Devil or, what amounts to the same, light to heat.
157. A recently-acquired insight that waist-length hooded zippers the hood of which zips into the neck are of a wavicle bias, in contrast to the particle bias suggested by waist-length hooded zippers with a free-standing hood. Thus a Social Transcendentalist/Transcendental Socialist distinction, with unhooded zippers, whether leather or cloth, having an inferior because bodily status commensurate with Socialism and Liberalism. Only hoods, it seems, truly confirm a 'head' status, whether Communist or Transcendentalist. However, it also has to be admitted that crash helmets worn in conjunction with leather jackets, as in the context of motorcycle riding, confer a kind of 'head' status which may well be more socialist (and therefore intellectual) than communist (and soulful) or transcendentalist (and spiritual), by dint of the materialistic as opposed to naturalistic or idealistic construction of crash helmets, which are metallic.
158. There doubtless exists a strong connection between matriarchies and polytheistic societies on the one hand, and between patriarchies and monotheistic societies on the other, given that the former are centrifugal, and hence feminine, whereas the latter are centripetal, and hence masculine. Consequently it is virtually inconceivable that a patriarchy could be polytheistic or a matriarchy monotheistic, bearing in mind the contradictory nature of the two contexts. The ancient Hebrews were certainly once polytheistic and matriarchal, but became, under Mosaic guidance, monotheistic and patriarchal, thereby abandoning paganism for Judaism, with its Jehovah God, prototype of the Christian Father. Thus they achieved civilization on an alpha-oriented basis. For the centrifugal is always comparatively barbarous in relation to the centripetal - the barbarism of cosmic and/or natural polytheism.
159. Frankly, it is my belief that modern pluralist societies, with their democratic relativity, are the secular equivalents of the ancient polytheistic societies, since where formerly there were many gods, there are now many parties and, as often as not, such pluralism brings a sort of democratic matriarchy in its train - witness the Thatcher phenomenon in Britain, not to mention the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II, the longest reigning British monarch since Queen Victoria - which somehow ties-in with the generally centrifugal nature of pluralist societies.
160. Contrasted to which, we may posit as the modern secular equivalent of traditional monotheistic societies those countries which have adopted one-party government, especially within the socialist context, and whose mode of society is consequently rather more patriarchal - as befitting a centripetal orientation, the intrinsic masculine nature of which will logically preclude undue political interference from and leadership by women. Here, in contrast to pluralist societies, it is the totalitarian ones which reflect the greater degree of civilization, in that they have achieved a degree of centro-complexification commensurate with a more highly-evolved state of political affairs, the modern equivalent, as I say, to the coming of monotheism to the ancient world. Indeed, it could well transpire that, in relation to this totalitarian absolutism, it is the pluralist societies which are comparatively barbarous - the barbarism of liberal democracy, with its matriarchal naturalism. Could it be, I wonder, that what Moses was to the ancient Hebrews, Lenin is to the modern Russians? For he, more than any other, eclipsed the darkness of pluralism by the light or, rather, heat of Bolshevik communism, thereby creating the world's first totalitarian State, a State which may well have been - certainly up until the collapse of the Soviet Union - to the modern world what Israelite monotheism was to the ancient one - a beacon of civilization flaming in the darkness of democratic pluralism. Democratic 'Judaism' as opposed to democratic 'paganism'.
161. Yet while, to return to the ancient world, Israelite monotheism signified a more advanced state-of-affairs than pagan polytheism, it was not, like Christianity, an omega-oriented phenomenon so much as a more exclusive alpha orientation - focusing on the 'One God', regarded as the true God, rather than embracing numerous gods. Or, what approximately amounts to the same thing, focusing on one star (effectively the central star of the Galaxy), rather than embracing numerous stars throughout the Galaxy, not to mention the Universe as a whole. There is no question of Jehovah and Christ being equivalent, since Jehovah is a Creator divinity, is God conceived as Creator, whereas Christ is a Saviour divinity, or God conceived in human terms Who offers mankind salvation (from the world) if only they follow His example and cultivate the 'Kingdom of Heaven' within the self. Jehovah, like the Father, is a divinity to be worshipped and placated, whereas Christ is essentially a divinity to be followed and therefore emulated. Jehovah is alpha, but Christ omega. Consequently, Israelite monotheism, with its focus on one Creator, viz. Jehovah, was a very different and in some sense inferior proposition to the later Christian monotheism which primarily focused on Christ, while reserving a lesser, more traditional focus for the Father - that Christian equivalent, so to speak, of Jehovah. Israelite monotheism was therefore more closely linked to pagan polytheism than ever Christian monotheism could be. Or whereas, put another way, Israelite monotheism signified a rebellion against pagan polytheism which, nevertheless, maintained an alpha-oriented divine focus, Christian monotheism was more a rebellion, through Christ, against Old Testament monotheism in the name of a new monotheism - the omega-oriented monotheism of the New Testament, which cannot but contrast with the alpha-oriented monotheism of Israelite tradition.
162. In just such a fashion, it is my firm belief that whereas Communism embodies, in its totalitarian centrality, a rebellion against democratic pluralism (the 'polytheism' of the modern world), Transcendentalism signifies a rebellion against Communism in the name of a truly omega-oriented ideology which will be the future equivalent of Christianity, or of what Christianity was to the ancient world - namely, an altogether new order of monotheism. Thus it is as a new and superior order of totalitarianism that Transcendentalism should be seen - one less democratic than theocratic in essence and therefore as distinct from Communism as (was) Christianity from Judaism, or the New Testament from the Old Testament. It is this theocratic totalitarianism which is truly civilized; for it rises above democratic sovereignty in the name of an ultimate sovereignty, a sovereignty of the People as Holy Spirit, or ultimate Godhead, through the establishment, under Messianic auspices, of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth (Social Transcendentalist Centre) in an unequivocally omega-oriented integrity. Such a theocratic totalitarianism transcends democratic totalitarianism as Heaven transcends Hell, since it is the light of lights rather than the heat of heats, and long after the latter has burnt itself out it will shine-on in the world and eventually transcend it, becoming, in due process of convergence, the omega absolute. Transcendental Socialism may be a beautiful world religion or no religion at all, but Social Transcendentalism will be the true world religion, of which all other, earlier religions are but faint shadows.
163. Not for the first time in my work, I should like to point up the parallel with Spengler, that great philosopher of history, which the above theories call to mind. For just as he distinguished between four succeeding periods of time in terms of a) 'Historyless Chaos'; b) 'Culture'; c) 'Civilization'; and d) 'Second Religiousness', so the distinctions I have just drawn between polytheism and monotheism on the one hand and pluralism and totalitarianism on the other fit nicely into the Spenglerian categories, with polytheism symptomatic of 'Historyless Chaos'; monotheism symptomatic of 'Culture'; pluralism symptomatic of 'Civilization' (in reality a kind of modern or second barbarism); and, finally, totalitarianism symptomatic of 'Second Religiousness' (particularly when it is of an unequivocally theocratic nature). Similarly, these four distinct periods of time could be defined - and already have been by me - in terms of a) materialism; b) naturalism; c) realism; and d) idealism, with 'Historyless Chaos' thereby further defined in terms of polytheistic materialism; 'Culture' in terms of monotheistic naturalism; 'Civilization' in terms of pluralistic realism; and 'Second Religiousness' in terms of totalitarian idealism - a slow and painful ascent from the centrifugal depths of alpha-stemming paganism to the centripetal heights of omega-oriented transcendentalism via the worldly middle-grounds of centripetal Christianity ('Culture') and centrifugal Liberalism ('Civilization'), with feminine and masculine distinctions between the centrifugal and the centripetal, as, in effect, with regard to Temple and Church on the one hand, and to State and (with the Second Coming) Centre on the other, bearing in mind our alpha/omega polarity. Yes, the liberal State is a sort of superfeminine entity, a second centrifugal reality which, in its inherent pluralism, signifies an historical fall from the centripetal masculinity of the Church, particularly the one true Church ... of Roman Catholic Christianity. But just as the Church rose above both the pagan and Judaic temples of theocratic precedent, so the Centre will rise above both the pluralist and totalitarian states of democratic precedent, in order to establish, among the 'chosen peoples', the supertheocratic culmination of human evolution, which is nothing less than the omega 'Kingdom of Heaven' - antithetical in every respect to the alpha ones.
164. Just as Christian monotheism would not have been possible without a Judaic monotheistic precedent, so Centrist totalitarianism would be impossible to conceive of without a Communist totalitarian precedent. For Marx (or Lenin) stands to me as Moses to Christ, and while, from an omega standpoint, Communism is as inferior to Transcendentalism as Judaism to Christianity, nevertheless the one is a precondition of the other, since without a centripetal revolt against centrifugal precedent, whether polytheistic or pluralistic, there can be no true omega orientation thereafter and, consequently, no essential transcendentalism to contrast with the apparent transcendentalism which precedes it. Without Judaism, no Christianity. Likewise, without Communism - the modern equivalent par excellence of Judaism - there can be no Transcendentalism in the Social Transcendentalist sense, as advocated by me, and therefore nothing approximating to a Second Coming and True World Religion.
165. Yet if Communism, like Judaism before it, is not truly or essentially omega orientated, it is nevertheless far from being alpha stemming in the pluralistic tradition, even though, again like Judaism, it makes use of the given - namely the State - and transmutes it in a centripetal and, hence, totalitarian way. For taking the given and transmuting it, through selection, towards a transcendental, omega-oriented objective is a necessary historical precondition of subsequent ideological progress, even if, in the paradoxical nature of what has been transmuted, it can never be genuinely transcendental, but must always remain tied to its alpha-stemming, fundamentalist roots. Thus, in the final analysis, Communism, no less than Judaism before it, remains an end-in-itself, incapable of subsequent transmutation into the Centre, which, by contrast, stands in opposition to the concept and reality of the State in the interests of spiritual liberation.
166. Hence, just as Judaism and Christianity remained separate ... as two independent religious entities, the one apparently centripetal (Jehovah) and the other essentially centripetal (Christ), so, in the future, Transcendental Socialism and Social Transcendentalism will remain separate ... as two independent ideological entities, the former apparently centripetal - for even the centralized totalitarian State is still a State and therefore something that has been extrapolated from a given precedent - and the latter essentially so, since primarily concerned with a spiritual convergence to the omega goal of evolution, without which there could be no withering of the State (through the Centre) and therefore no true 'Kingdom of Heaven', but only a perpetual State, after the Communist example. For the totalitarian Centre differs as much from the totalitarian State of Communist precedent as the monotheistic Church from the monotheistic Temple of Judaic precedent, being a wavicle (essential) fulfilment of a particle (apparent) precondition - in the one case artificial and in the other case natural, as pertaining to parallel points in historical time.
167. Thus, taking the natural options first and then proceeding to the artificial (or supernatural) options, we find that there is a sort of overall historical progression, on the one hand, from the polytheistic Temple to the monotheistic Church via the monotheistic Temple, followed by a further progression, on the other hand, from the pluralist State to the totalitarian Centre via the totalitarian State. Again, to revert to Spengler's fourfold divisions of historical unfolding, which effectively alternate between becoming and being, we should be justified in drawing a direct parallel between pagan polytheism and 'Historyless Chaos', Judaic monotheism and 'Culture' or, rather, pseudo-Culture (for the monotheism in question is not genuinely omega orientated), Christian monotheism and 'Culture', Liberal pluralism and 'Civilization', Communist totalitarianism and 'Second Religiousness' or, rather, pseudo-Second Religiousness (for the totalitarianism in question is not genuinely omega orientated), and, finally, Centrist totalitarianism and 'Second Religiousness', with pagan polytheism corresponding to a materialistic period of historical time, Judaic monotheism corresponding to a materialistic-naturalistic period of such time, Christian monotheism corresponding to a naturalistic period, Liberal pluralism to a realistic period, Communist totalitarianism to a realistic-idealistic period, and, finally, Centrist totalitarianism to an idealistic period - the ultimate period of historical time prior to the post-Human Millennium and, thus, man's final overcoming. Needless to say, we have not yet attained to the idealistic period of time commensurate with the birth of a genuine Second Religiousness. Nevertheless we are tending towards it and should be able to date it, in the future, from the coming of Social Transcendentalism, with the correlative democratic establishment of the Centre - a fate reserved, in my estimation, for certain chosen countries that, hopefully, will lead the historical way in this regard.
168. Turning from the general to the particular, and thus from a sequential progression of materialist to idealist via naturalist and realist stages of historical time, in the above context, to an hierarchical order of elemental spectra with, from an artificial omega-oriented standpoint, realism at the bottom, idealism at the top, and materialism and naturalism in between (as in the context of ideological distinctions more recently explored in my work), it seems to me that a kind of alpha/omega distinction can be drawn between, for example, the political parties or ideologies of the Right on the one hand, and those of the Left on the other, with the former inherently centrifugal and the latter inherently centripetal, as follows:-
Idealistic Alpha Air Idealistic Omega
Fascism Heaven Transcendentalism
Naturalistic Alpha Fire Naturalistic Omega
Anarchism Hell Communism
Materialistic Alpha Water Materialistic Omega
Nazism Purgatory Socialism
Realistic Alpha Earth Realistic Omega
Conservatism World Liberalism
with a kind of negative/positive polarity between Conservatism and Liberalism (including Liberal Democracy) on the realistic spectrum, between Nazism and Socialism on the materialistic spectrum, between Anarchism and Communism on the naturalistic spectrum, and between Fascism (in the Latin sense) and Transcendentalism on the idealistic spectrum, which, as I understand it, signifies an ideological zenith between right- and left-wing options - in short, a divine spectrum with Superfatheristic tendencies (fundamentalist) at the alpha pole and Superchristic tendencies (transcendentalist) at the omega pole, each of which rather contrast with the Supersatanic (anarchist) and Super-antichristic (communist) polarities of the diabolic spectrum immediately beneath, the one centrifugal and the other centripetal - Stateless chaos and State centrality, in accordance with antithetical forms of naturalistic ideology.
169. Consequently, one could speak of Fascism as right-wing idealism, but of Transcendentalism as left-wing idealism; of Anarchism as right-wing naturalism (although these days it is more usually the Greens who, in their environmental conservatism and conservancy, slot into such a right-wing position), but of Communism as left-wing naturalism; of Nazism as right-wing materialism, but of Socialism (especially in the more militant sense) as left-wing materialism; and of Conservatism as right-wing realism, but of Liberalism (whether Liberal Democratic or Democratic Socialist) as left-wing realism. Inevitably a sort of ideological tug-of-war or even state-of-war will normally exist between the respective polarities which, as one ascends away from worldly relativity towards the various supraworldly absolutes, becomes increasingly exclusive and, hence, totalitarian. For there can no more be a true co-existence between Nazism and Socialism on the materialistic spectrum than ... between the more obviously totalitarian ideologies above, even though, in most Western societies, fringe rivalries of the above-mentioned kinds will continue to exist outside the official rivalry (in dialectical realism) of the parliamentary pale and, needless to say, overlapping with a variety of other contending parties or movements in a sort of centrifugal/centripetal dichotomy.
170. In my view, there can be no doubt that victory ultimately goes to the omega of things, particularly in the communist and (hopefully) transcendentalist contexts, but even then the shadow of anarchist or fascist reaction will continue to linger long after the Left have institutionalized their triumph and established the ultimate totalitarian societies. For alpha cannot be entirely vanquished while man is still human and not yet divine - even in the self where, most bitter irony of all, its various political manifestations lie in wait to ambush or sabotage every omega-oriented resolve. Even when no institutionalized opposition is apparent, there is a Nazi in the breast of every Socialist, an Anarchist in the breast of every Communist, and a Fascist in the breast of every Transcendentalist, like a dark alter ego, or shadow-self, waiting to dethrone light from its precarious human perch. Indeed, it is precisely in totalitarian societies that such a shadow-self is most insidious and must accordingly be all the more carefully guarded against, if the ideological purity of those societies is to be maintained. For the enemy you can't see is more dangerous than the one you can!
171. It may not have escaped the reader's attention, during the course of his life, that whereas, in proletarian circles, some English-speaking countries, like Britain and Australia, regularly have recourse to words like 'mate' and 'bloke', others, like America and Canada, prefer words like 'man' and 'guy', which are roughly equivalent - the former as a term of address and the latter as a mode of description, as in 'that bloke' or 'this guy'. My own interpretation of why, for instance, Americans prefer 'man' to 'mate' ... is that 'man' is more masculine than 'mate' (which suggests a feminine or partly feminine derivation) and therefore has both greater appeal and more applicability to a country which, unlike Britain, prides itself on being macho. Hence the unequivocal 'man', in preference to the rather ambiguous 'mate'. As regards 'guy' and 'bloke', it is doubtful that any such gender-based distinction exists here, although I can't help feeling that 'guy' is much the more positive term, underlining the American optimism with respect to a man's masculine or turned-on credibility. A 'bloke', on the other hand, is almost someone to be pitied; for he has to be weighed not only against dubious gender but, more concretely, the oppressive realities of life in a constitutional monarchy.
172. It ought to be noted that whereas Fascist-style saluting with open or outstretched hand suggests a centrifugal bias, the clenched-fist saluting of, for example, black-power and Communist-type Movements suggests, by contrasts, a centripetal bias, which is nothing less than a feminine/masculine distinction in accordance with their respective alpha-stemming and omega-oriented integrities. Thus whereas Fascism will favour, in its alpha-stemming integrity, the outstretched-hand raised arm salute, Social Transcendentalist Centrism should favour a clenched-fist raised arm salute, in conformity with its omega-oriented integrity ... as the most centripetal of all masculine ideologies.
173. The Social Transcendentalist flag should be of centripetal design, with what I have customarily rather colloquially described as the Holy-Y emblem contiguously surrounded by, say, a black circular band, reminiscent of the CND design (which strikes me as a kind of upside-down approach to the right sort of emblem). Whether the Social Transcendentalist flag will then have a specific colour surround, say purple, outside this band or regional colour variations, depending on the Centre in question, remains to be seen; although a black band, if applicable, would tend to preclude any additional surrounding colour and thereby maintain an overall impression of colourless light ... upon which, or in which, the 'Holy-Y' would have its emblematic place. Whatever the case, there can be no question of a centrifugal impression being created; for that is alpha stemming and whatever is alpha is antithetical to omega, whether in terms of the nazi swastika or the British Union Jack which, with its vertical, horizontal, and diagonal stripes, strikes me as constituting a centrifugal design appropriate to an inherently alpha-stemming people. Indeed, I have more than once found myself thinking of the Union Jack as grossly centrifugal and therefore inherently feminine, the sort of flag that could only be acceptable in and applicable to a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy at its head.
174. The paradoxical thing about Jean-Paul Sartre is that he is, or appears to be, both a playwright and a philosopher when, in reality, drama and philosophy are as mutually exclusive as realism and idealism or earth and air, since pertaining to diametrically antithetical spectra - the one worldly and the other divine. Consequently we can have no hesitation in concluding either that Sartre is not a genuine dramatist or, alternatively, is less than a genuine philosopher; for it is inconceivable that one can be both, i.e. a wilful realist on the one hand and a spiritual idealist on the other, since exclusive extremes tend to cancel one another out. So what, then, is Sartre? Certainly not a genuine philosopher, since an enemy of philosophical idealism and self-proclaimed materialist whose so-called philosophy embraces a phenomenological existentialism in which action, or the way a person acts, becomes the yardstick by which to judge him, while providing the actor with an antidote to the existentialist nightmare of his own contingency! In short, salvation through purposeful action, especially when political, is the key that unlocks the door of self-imprisonment and temporarily frees one from the apparent futility of one's existence. But what is this if not a dramatist's solution to the problem of existence, a solution which affirms the will as a way out of the dilemma of human contingency in a seemingly meaningless universe? To be sure, while Sartre may be a pseudo-philosopher who has rebelled against bourgeois idealism in the name of existentialist materialism, he is by no means a pseudo-dramatist but, if plays like Altona, Nekrassov, and Kean (all of which I read as a youth) are anything to judge by, a very genuine dramatist with a flair for dramatic action based on sound if not always purposeful affirmations of the will, whether in the context of the will to power, to self-destruction, to romantic self-assertion, or whatever.
175. Hence it is as a genuine dramatist that Sartre should be regarded; for there can be no doubt about his dramatic credentials, no matter whether or not we approve of them! And yet, the pseudo-philosopher is unquestionably more famous than the genuine dramatist, is really the Sartre one first thinks of in connection with the age - an age when the genuine philosopher is if not improbable then, at any rate, implausible in view of the overriding materialism which characterizes it, to the detriment not only of bourgeois idealism (which had to be debunked anyway), but to the struggle by post-Marxian idealists like myself to introduce a new, superior idealism with a view to establishing, on the basis of Social Transcendentalism, a future 'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth which, as the post-Human Millennium, will lead mankind out of the materialistic darkness of 'Civilization' (Spengler) into the spiritualistic light of 'Second Religiousness' - the millennial culmination of which will be an unequivocally post-human superconscious absolutism orientated towards omega transcendence, the sort of absolutism which Sartre was unable or unwilling to contemplate, in view of his obsession with the ego and concomitant relativity of human, though particularly bourgeois, consciousness. As a materialist, Sartre is at least two removes from the possibility of genuine philosophy (which is always idealistic) and thus no more than a reflection of late twentieth-century materialism in the West, a dialectical materialist for whom post-dialectical naturalism and/or idealism were alike beyond his, and by implication the West's, pseudo-philosophical pale - omega Devil and God outside and above the orbit of worldly and anti-worldly (purgatorial?) civilization, which is inherently hostile to philosophy - as, indeed, to anything genuinely divine. Rest assured, however, that the civilization to come, with its theosophical superphilosophy, will be no less hostile to anything worldly, including drama, which will cease to be either written or performed, as the will is rejected in deference to universal spirituality - the salvation from the body which is intrinsic to the Social Transcendentalist 'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth.
176. Having already described Sartre as a genuine dramatist but a pseudo-philosopher, I should now like to describe his great contemporary and in many ways intellectual adversary, Albert Camus, as a pseudo-dramatist but genuine or, at any rate, quasi-genuine philosopher, insofar as two of his four plays were adaptations from novels and accordingly more narrative than dramatic, whereas his philosophy, little though there is of it, tends towards idealism in its almost Burkean revolt against dialectical materialism, or the political implications thereof. In fact, though coming from a working-class background, Camus was far more interested in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche than in Hegel or Marx, and towards the end of his short life he broke with Communism and gravitated towards the Church without, however, actually embracing Christianity. He remained to the end a rebel and outsider, inferior to Sartre as a dramatist but in some ways quite superior to him as a philosopher. Even the Notebooks suggest as much, despite their relative brevity. For Camus was more spiritual and lyrical than intellectual and logical, and thus a sort of philosophical poet in prose. Nevertheless, he must remain less important than Sartre as a philosopher; for his idealism was essentially conventional and traditional, whereas Sartre's materialism was highly contemporary and thus, in the rather paradoxical nature of these things, more relevant to the age. It is the contemporary pseudo-philosopher who comes off best, in Western eyes, in relation to the quasi-genuine traditional philosopher.
177. Whereas Lenin was a political transcendentalist who appropriated Marxian socialism to his transcendentalism and thereby created Soviet Communism, i.e. Transcendental Socialism, I am essentially a religious socialist who has appropriated Nietzschean transcendentalism to my socialism and thereby created Social Transcendentalism. Thus the Transcendental Socialist/Social Transcendentalist distinction is nothing less than Marxism-Leninism on the one hand and what could be called Nietzsche-Loughlinism on the other - two parallel ideological positions which approach freedom from opposite directions. Certainly, Nietzsche is every bit as important from a transcendentalist point of view as Marx from a socialist one, and while my socialism is no more Marxist than Lenin's transcendentalism was Nietzschean, I realize that without Nietzsche I could no more have arrived at Social Transcendentalism ... than Lenin could have arrived at Soviet Communism without Marx.
178. Liberalism-Socialism-Communism-Transcendentalism: these four ascending ideologies of the Left could also be conceived as, in some sense, falling into two pairs; namely Democratic Socialism and Socialism on the one hand, and Democratic Communism (Soviet Communism) and Communism on the other - taking Socialism as a totalitarian alternative to Democratic Socialism, and Communism as a transcendental alternative to Democratic Communism, or Communism with a one-party democratic face. Thus Democratic Socialism - Socialism - Democratic Communism - Communism, with the latter alone truly indicative of a society in which, thanks to the Social Transcendentalist Centre, the State had 'withered' or, at the very least, was in the process of 'withering'.
179. But what about the ideologies of the Right, viz. Conservatism-Nazism-Anarchism-Fascism? Are not Conservatism and Anarchism (or, for that matter, the Greens) alike democratic, in contrast to the authoritarian or dictatorial nature of Nazism and Fascism respectively? Thus a similar sort of pairing can be conceived of as existing on the Right, with Conservatism leading to Authoritarian Conservatism, i.e. Nazism and/or a military dictatorship, and Democratic Anarchism leading to Dictatorial Anarchism, i.e. Fascism. Thus: Democratic Conservatism - Authoritarian Conservatism - Democratic Anarchism - Dictatorial Anarchism, which may be regarded as directly paralleling Democratic Socialism - Totalitarian Socialism - Democratic Communism - Transcendental Communism, or, as I usually prefer to write it, Liberalism-Socialism-Communism-Transcendentalism.
180. Where the Right rule, the Left lead. For the Right, remember, are centrifugal, whereas the Left are centripetal. Ruling is a centrifugal equivalent; leading a centripetal one. It is for this reason that I have distinguished the authoritarian and dictatorial on the Right from the totalitarian and transcendental on the Left, since the former terms are appropriate to centrifugal rule, while the latter ones convey a left-wing connotation applicable to centripetal leadership. Now if we make a diagram of the above-mentioned ideological distinctions, as follows:-
I. Dictatorial Anarchism I. Transcendental Communism
N. Democratic Anarchism N. Democratic Communism
M. Authoritarian Conservatism M. Totalitarian Socialism
R. Democratic Conservatism R. Democratic Socialism
we shall see that Anarchism and Communism, of whatever sort, are polar in relation to Conservatism and Socialism, again of whatever sort, and that the democratic alternates with the non-democratic as we proceed from the bottom up or, more specifically, from realism (R) to idealism (I) via materialism (M) and naturalism (N). It could almost be said that Socialism is anarchic in relation to Conservatism, with Communism conservative in relation to Anarchism, but that would be a somewhat fanciful or, at best, an oblique suggestion deriving from the antithetical natures of the polar opposites, which, however, remain fundamentally centrifugal on the one hand and centripetal on the other, as between negative and positive poles of a magnet.
181. What I believe these elemental divisions do indicate, however, is a body/mind distinction, with Conservatism and Socialism on both realistic and materialistic spectra paralleling the body (including the brain), but Anarchism and Communism on both naturalistic and idealistic spectra paralleling the mind (in terms of soulful and spiritual distinctions between the democratic and non-democratic options). Moreover, if we take an atomic breakdown of each of the eight ideological poles, as follows:-
I. proton-wavicle absolute I. electron-wavicle absolute
N. proton-particle absolute N. electron-particle absolute
M. atomic-proton 'absolute' M . atomic-electron 'absolute'
R. proton-atomic relativity R. electron-atomic relativity
it would appear that our sense of two halves or divisions in each case is reinforced, insofar as the lower spectra (R and M) are relatively atomic and therefore 'bodily' (as between will and intellect, whether negative or positive, alpha or omega), whereas the higher spectra (N and I) are either particle or wavicle absolutes and therefore 'psychic' (as between soul and spirit, whether negative or positive, alpha or omega). Thus the fact that we can speak of proton distinctions on the negative naturalistic and idealistic poles confirms the fundamental correctness of one ideological term, viz. Anarchism, for their political manifestations, just as the electron distinctions on the positive naturalistic and idealistic poles would appear to justify the singular term Communism for each of these, even though we have necessarily divided them into democratic and transcendental manifestations, in accordance with particle and wavicle distinctions. Similarly, the proton-atomic and atomic-proton distinctions of the negative realistic and materialistic poles confirm the fundamental correctness of one term, viz. Conservatism, for each of their political manifestations, as does the electron-atomic and atomic-electron distinctions of the positive realistic and materialistic poles, where Socialism transpires to being the appropriate political term for each pole. Consequently a similar atomic structure calls forth and justifies a similar political description, whether or not we then divide, as here, that description into, say, democratic and totalitarian.
182. However, now that I have written the above, it seems to me that an alternative logical structure with regard to the right-wing positions is possible and may even be nearer the truth than the Conservative/Anarchist divide to which I have been adhering. Yet, that said, I could not have arrived at this alternative structure without having initially adhered to the preceding one, since it is in the nature of these writings (with their evaluations and revaluations) for one thing to lead to or make possible another, irrespective of how initially frustrating or seemingly contradictory this may at first appear! Thus it now occurs to me that while the fundamental division between democratic and authoritarian Conservatism is highly plausible, the authoritarian position ought rather to be reserved exclusively for a military dictatorship, which is doubtless more authoritarian than Nazism, and should therefore be regarded as right-wing materialism. So having got beyond the military dictatorship and/or Nazi option formerly suggested for the negative pole of the materialistic spectrum, we are left with the task of placing Nazism on a separate spectrum, and are accordingly put in the logical situation of either affirming a Fascist identity between Nazism and dictatorial anarchism, i.e. Fascism-proper, or, more plausibly, of reversing our previous contention concerning the nature of right-wing naturalism, by opting to distinguish between Nazism as democratic fascism and Fascism-proper as dictatorial fascism, so that instead of an anarchist divide we have a fascist divide, placing Nazism in the position hitherto reserved for Democratic Anarchism. And this would be because, unlike Fascism, Nazism had been voted into power and duly upheld the principle of periodic referenda and the possibility of regular, four-yearly elections to confirm its power-base in the People.
183. Hence Nazism seems entitled to the description of Democratic Fascism, which would stand, at the negative naturalistic pole, in an antithetical relationship to Democratic Communism, viz. Soviet Communism, in what can be best described as an alpha-stemming, centrifugal mode of naturalism, the sworn enemy of everything centripetal and omega orientated. Thus, quite apart from the parallel of red flags, it would seem that a sort of Satanic/Antichristic antithesis may be inferred to exist, or to have existed, between Democratic Fascism and Democratic Communism, in contrast to the Fatheristic/Holy-Ghostian antithesis which may be posited as existing (if only in theory at present) between Dictatorial Fascism and Transcendental Communism, which pertains to alpha and omega of the idealistic, or divine, spectrum above - one, so I believe, which will only achieve an omega manifestation with the Second Coming and correlative true world religion of Social Transcendentalism. For what Mussolini was to the idealistic alpha, the Second Coming will be to the idealistic omega, and if his will is done the People will become divine, thereby bringing Transcendental Communism to pass.
184. Thus we should distinguish between two types of Conservatism and two types of Fascism (as opposed to anarchism), with the former antithetical to our Socialist options, and the latter antithetical to our Communist ones, as follows:-
I. Dictatorial Fascism (Fascism proper) I. Transcendental Communism (Communism proper)
N. Democratic Fascism (Nazism) N. Democratic Communism (Sovietism)
M. Authoritarian Conservatism (militarism) M. Totalitarian Socialism (militant socialism)
R. Democratic Conservatism (Toryism) R. Democratic Socialism (Labour)
Such spectra, besides being distinguishable from one another on the above ideological basis of realism (R), materialism (M), naturalism (N), and idealism (I), can also, of course, be distinguished from one another on the fundamentally more elemental basis of (from the bottom up) earth, water, fire, and air, which should underline the inherent character of each of the four or, rather, eight ideological positions, corresponding to the world, purgatory, hell, and heaven respectively, with appropriate negative and positive distinctions between alpha and omega - centrifugal and centripetal antitheses.
185. To distinguish jackets with conventional fold-over collars from those with straight collars ... on the basis of a centrifugal/centripetal divide. For is not a conventional folding collar centrifugal in design and therefore inherently antithetical to the straight collars which feature on the more contemporary or advanced types of jacket? Doubtless this is so, and because we know that the centrifugal is alpha and the centripetal omega, we are entitled to speak of the former as alpha stemming and the latter as omega orientated, drawing due political conclusions accordingly. Jackets, then, will (depending on their design) connote with one or other of the alternative political positions, whether right wing and centrifugal or left wing and centripetal. Interestingly, centrifugal jackets (as one might term those with fold-over collars, or lapels) are not, like their opposite numbers, taken-in at cuffs or waist, but retain a quasi-centrifugal status commensurate with an alpha-stemming integrity. Only with straight-collared jackets does one find both cuffs and waist taken-in, and this confirms their centripetal standing as truly omega orientated, and therefore suitable for use by left-wing people. Hopefully, there will be a lot more centripetal jackets being worn in the future ... as the Left gains in ascendancy over the Right and life becomes increasingly omega orientated.
186. Of course, what applies to jackets applies just as much to shirts, where we can distinguish between conventional V-collared shirts as centrifugal and T-shirts as centripetal, with correlative alpha-stemming and omega-oriented implications. That is why conventional shirts go with open-collared jackets, while T-shirts go with close-collared jackets - the former bourgeois and the latter proletarian.
187. Recently I have become uncomfortably aware of the extent to which brass instruments like trumpets, trombones, saxophones, and even flutes suggest a centrifugal bias by dint of their open-ended designs, which are arguably more alpha stemming than omega orientated. Even the quite large sound-hole in the belly of an old acoustic guitar of mine looks uncomfortably centrifugal, although I incline to the belief that, unlike brass instruments, acoustic guitars are essentially centripetal, if rather more in terms of omega-in-the-alpha than genuinely omega, like, for example, the radically centripetal types of electric guitar. But I have no hesitation in regarding brass instruments as alpha-in-the-omega, and because of their high-profile use by jazz musicians I am obliged to regard jazz, particularly when acoustic, as a sort of modern alpha music, given to strongly centrifugal tendencies, and in some sense right wing in relation to rock. In fact, regarding jazz in this light suggests to me a sort of musical parallel with Fascism, since I am convinced that if jazz and rock are antithetical, the one generally centrifugal (witness the 'all-over', or sequential drumming) and the other comparatively centripetal (where the drum beat is simpler and more focused), then we have an alpha/omega distinction analogous to that between Fascism and Communism.
188. Indeed, can we not divide modern music into four general categories, as with politics, so that jazz and rock are seen to tower above the more down-to-earth, or bodily, antithesis between, say, classical and pop, with the former corresponding to Conservatism and the latter to Socialism? For if there are four main political options, each of which can be subdivided, surely it is not fanciful to speak in terms of four main musical options, allowing for similar subdivisions in each category ... depending on the type of classical or pop, jazz or rock in question. Thus classical would stand to jazz as Conservatism to Fascism on the alpha-stemming centrifugal side, while pop would stand to rock as Socialism to Communism on the omega-oriented centripetal side. There would be two main subdivisions in each case, and doubtless they would parallel the political subdivisions already touched upon, so that a kind of democratic/authoritarian distinction could be inferred to exist between, say, symphonic and concerto compositions in the case of classical, with the former corresponding to Democratic Conservatism (the Tories) and the latter to Authoritarian Conservatism (a military dictatorship), given the much greater emphasis concertos place on one instrument, which towers above the orchestra like an autocratic dictator.
189. However that may be, a similar subdivision would have to apply to pop, where we are effectively distinguishing between the democratic and the totalitarian, and again I strongly suspect that whereas 'democratic' pop would be group orientated and musically moderate, the 'totalitarian' variety would have a solo emphasis, whether within the context of a group or, alternatively, with regard to a superstar solo artist performing, in the lead role, in conjunction with other musicians. Certainly, this kind of pop would be musically more radical and instrumental than the 'democratic' variety, since (if my theory is valid) paralleling the concerto, or authoritarian, form of classical.
190. Likewise, we would have to distinguish 'democratic' jazz from 'dictatorial' jazz on the basis of a Fascist divide, as well as 'democratic' rock from 'transcendental' rock on the basis of a Communist divide, reserving for those in the 'democratic' categories a more group-oriented and possibly romantic status, but for those in the 'dictatorial/transcendental' categories a solo-oriented and comparatively spiritual status, with a correspondingly greater emphasis on instrumental brilliance. Naturally, a centrifugal/centripetal contrast would exist between each of the 'fascistic' and 'communistic' kinds of music, in accordance with the underlying dichotomy which distinguishes alpha from omega, or vice versa. Judged from an omega standpoint, rock is no less ideologically and morally superior to jazz, of whatever variety, than pop to classical in each of its main manifestations. Now if jazz is superior to classical, because a more evolved and head-biased music, then rock is no less superior to pop, and for the same reasons. In fact, rock is the ultimate kind of modern music, just as Communism is the ultimate kind of modern politics, with transcendental rock just as much the ultimate kind of rock as Transcendental Communism (or Social Transcendentalism) is the ultimate kind of Communism.
191. From a rock purist's standpoint, any compromise with jazz would be both ideologically and morally unacceptable, just as a jazz purist would prefer not to compromise with rock. Yet there are and have been fusions between rock and jazz, as also between pop and classical, which suggest a middle-ground situation. Perhaps this kind of 'fusion music' is analogous, in ideological terms, to Anarchism or Ecological politics with regard to the former, but to Liberalism or Social Democracy with regard to the latter, so that instead of an alpha/omega dichotomy one has a sort of worldly, or atomic, cross between the two extremes? If so, then we would have no justification in regarding fusion music, of whatever sort, as reflecting progress over purist music (except, perhaps, in the cases of jazz and classical), but would have to acknowledge the musical, not to mention ideological, superiority of the rock or pop purist, whose omega orientation could only stand in the vanguard of musical progress, like Socialism and Communism standing, on their respective levels, in the vanguard of political progress. For if rock is superior to jazz, as omega to alpha, then it can only be superior to jazz-rock and to rock-jazz as well. Similarly, if pop is superior to classical, as omega to alpha, then it can only be superior to classical pop and to pop classical as well. Translated into political terms, this means that any cross between Communism and Fascism, be it anarchic or ecological, will be inferior to Communism (even if superior to Fascism), while any cross between Conservatism and Socialism, be it liberal or social democratic, will be inferior to Socialism (even if superior to Conservatism).
192. In an alpha/omega distinction, the alpha, being centrifugal, will always be both ideologically and morally inferior to the omega, which is centripetal, and thus any compromise between alpha and omega, while arguably superior to the alpha alone (as, say, Christ to the Father), will be inferior to the omega (as, say, Christ to the Holy Ghost). For history tends, willy-nilly, from alpha to omega, from the centrifugal to the centripetal, and ultimate moral judgements can only be made on the basis of the latter, never the former, which, by contrast, is comparatively immoral. Morality only arises after the alpha has been found out and judged wanting. It is the omega which is alone moral, and until the omega of things comes to pass, on whatever elemental level, no moral judgement vis-à-vis the alpha is possible. Even the in-between, or fusion, reality is less moral than amoral, and thus an extrapolation from the alpha rather than its transvaluated antithesis. Thus in politics, Capitalism is not immoral until Socialism comes to pass as its moral antithesis and judges it accordingly. In music, jazz is not immoral until rock comes to pass and, attaining to maturity in total independence of jazz, points up a centripetal and, hence, moral antithesis to the centrifugal bias of jazz. Fusion music, like Liberalism in politics, is merely amoral, since not antithetically ranged against the alpha but stemming from it in diluted compromise, untransvaluated and partly acquiescent in the alpha precedent, unable to judge it immoral and thus morally in the dark compared to the omega.
193. Therefore just as Liberalism is not socialist but capitalist in a different, less overtly aggressive way than Conservatism, so pop classical is not popular but classical in a different, less overtly aggressive or centrifugal way. In fact, taking pop classical as the realistic middle-ground form of fusion music in between classical and pop, and Liberalism as the realistic middle-ground form of democratic politics in between Conservatism and Socialism (at least in their democratic manifestations), we should be able to establish musical and political correlations, as we ascend to higher spectra, between classical pop and Social Democracy in the case of the materialistic middle-ground position (in between solo classical/authoritarian conservatism and solo pop/totalitarian socialism), rock-jazz and Ecology in the case of the naturalistic middle-ground position (in between trad jazz/democratic fascism and hard rock/democratic communism), and, finally, jazz-rock and Anarchism in the case of the idealistic middle-ground position (in between modern jazz/dictatorial fascism and soft rock/transcendental communism), zigzagging, it would appear, from a right-wing middle-ground bias with pop classical and Liberalism to a left-wing middle-ground bias with classical pop and Social Democracy; and from a right-wing middle-ground bias with rock-jazz and Ecology to a left-wing middle-ground bias with jazz-rock and Anarchism, bearing in mind the alternations between alpha and omega which, for example, pop classical (essentially classical and therefore fundamentally conservative) and classical pop (essentially Pop and therefore socialistic) would seem to indicate - as, on a higher level, do rock-jazz (essentially jazz and therefore fundamentally fascistic) and jazz-rock (essentially rock and therefore communistic).
194. Yet, that said, the middle-ground, or fusion, positions remain untransvaluated, no matter how left wing the apparent bias, and thus fundamentally amoral. For unless one transcends the alpha of things altogether or, at any rate, as far as is reasonably possible, no true omega orientation is possible and, hence, no true morality. The middle-ground positions remain atomic and thus, in a sense, middle class as opposed to either upper class in the alpha or working class in the omega. Thus whether we are concerned with Anarchism or jazz-rock, Ecology or rock-jazz, Social Democracy or classical pop, or Liberalism (latterly Liberal Democracy in England) or pop classical, the result is amoral in every case, and such an amoral atomicity stands in-between alpha immorality and omega morality, just as the middle class stand in-between the upper class and the working class or, as I prefer to put it, the older class and the newer class - centrifugal and centripetal, appearance and essence.
195. Thus if we are to tabulate our findings for the benefit of enhanced clarification, we shall have, as before, the four spectra ranged as follows:-
IMMORAL AMORAL MORAL
I. Dictatorial Fascism Anarchism Transcendental Communism
N. Democratic Fascism Ecology Democratic Communism
M. Autocratic Conservatism Social Democracy Totalitarian Socialism
R. Democratic Conservatism Liberalism Democratic Socialism
with, for the musical parallels, the following:-
IMMORAL AMORAL MORAL
I. Modern Jazz Jazz-Rock Soft Rock
N. Trad Jazz Rock-Jazz Hard Rock
M. Concerto Classical Classical Pop Solo Pop
R. Symphonic Classical Pop Classical Group Pop
always allowing for subordinate or alternative labels such as funk, punk, blues, soul, etc., which will, I trust, be a variant, traditional or contemporary, on one or another of the above-named musical forms. (Thus, for example, blues for trad jazz, funk for soft rock, punk for hard rock, soul for pop, and so on.)
196. Admittedly, I haven't dealt with the 'naturalistic' alpha/omega antitheses, neither in politics nor music, but only with the 'artificial' alpha/omega antitheses, as especially relevant to the modern age. I am fairly convinced, however, that older types of music, like folk, chamber, Elizabethan, opera, etc., can also be categorized in a parallel way to the above, as can older types of politics and religion, including royalism and Catholicism. My chief interest, all along, has been with the modern, in the main late-twentieth-century manifestations of an alpha/omega antithesis, and I am confident that my findings match-up to contemporary reality and go some way towards explaining or, rather, solving the dilemmas and contradictions of the age.
197. Now at last it is possible to distinguish alpha from omega, whether in politics, music, or any number of other subjects, on the basis of a centrifugal/centripetal dichotomy, with proton immoral and electron moral implications respectively, while reserving for the middle ground an amoral status commensurate with an atomic cross between each of the elemental absolutes. The jazz-rocker may prefer a leather zipper to a button-up leather jacket, but it will more than likely be one with a centrifugal collar than with the centripetal collars ordinarily associated with an omega orientation. For the jazz-rocker, like the Anarchist, is an amoral person in between immoral and moral extremes, and the amoral is nothing if not inherently contradictory. Only with the soft-rocker or, more usually these days, funkster ... can one expect to see a centripetal collar; for he, if true to his music and sufficiently together to know how to dress, will have no hesitation in appearing moral. Neither, on a lower omega-oriented level, will the hard-rocker, or punkster, whose more aggressive centripetal rhythms stand to the soft-rocker/funkster as Democratic Communism to Transcendental Communism, or the Antichrist to the Second Coming, or, in atomic terms, electron particles to electron wavicles. Such moral musicians will instinctively be in revolt against the musical immorality of the parallel alpha positions, which is to say, modern and trad jazz respectively, but they won't be too keen on the amoral middle-ground positions either, since jazz-rock (or funk-jazz) and rock-jazz (or punk-jazz) are less than transvaluated, and will therefore appear morally suspect to anyone with an unequivocally omega orientation, whether towards Heaven or Hell or, indeed, lower down in the purgatorial and worldly omega orientations of pop, for which the parallel middle-ground positions are less jazz-rock or rock-jazz than ... classical pop or pop classical, depending on the spectrum in question. The true proletarian will always have an omega orientation, and thus despise and loathe everything else - loathing the immoral musical or political antithesis, but despising the amoral middle-ground positions in between. For the struggle to bring about a better world, one that is truly moral, depends upon those with an omega orientation, who must take full responsibility, both politically and socially, for their morality. Only thus can the eventual defeat of both the immoral and the amoral be guaranteed.
198. In relation to the centrifugal collar, the clerical collar, or so-called 'dog collar', of the clergy is centripetal and thus omega orientated, albeit within a Christian rather than radically transcendental context, commensurate with the Holy Spirit. If the average centrifugal collar-and-tie combination is applicable to 'Civilization' (in the Spenglerian sense of that term), then the clerical collar may effectively be said to pre-date it in the context of 'Culture', or the naturalistic omega-oriented period of time and context historically preceding the fall into a second centrifugal age - the democratically secular age we are currently living through. There is accordingly a sense in which the clerical collar is both morally and historically superior to the centrifugal shirt collar of contemporary bourgeois, capitalist society.
199. Yet if 'Culture' precedes 'Civilization' in its full flowering, then 'Second Religiousness' succeeds it, and does so in terms of T-shirts, muscle shirts, sweat shirts, etc., all of which tend to the centripetal in defiance of centrifugal precedent, and may consequently be described as omega orientated and proletarian. However, worse from a moral standpoint than the centrifugal collar-and-tie combination of bourgeois 'Civilization' is what appears to be the much grosser centrifugal collar of bourgeois decadence and a return, effectively, to 'Historyless Chaos' (Spengler) with open-necks, the more radically centrifugal nature of which can only indicate a correspondingly more immoral status commensurate with an unequivocally alpha-stemming context. In fact, compared to the open-neck centrifugal collar, the collar that is buttoned-up at the neck suggests a centripetal tendency which is arguably an amoral middle-ground position in relation to open-neck collars on the one hand and to, say, T-shirts on the other, conceiving of the former as immoral and the latter as truly moral, given their centripetal implications. Thus it could be contended that if the centrifugal (fold-back) collar is Liberal Democratic when done-up, it is Conservative when left undone, since the impression created is then more expansively centrifugal. Now, doubtless, we should distinguish between a more expansively centrifugal impression created in conjunction with a cravat and one created independently of such an item; for if the former is relative, then the latter is comparatively absolute and, to my mind, that suggests a Democratic Conservative/Authoritarian Conservative distinction - unless, however, one is to interpret an open-neck collar minus cravat in terms of bourgeois or Conservative decadence.
200. However that may be, a similar distinction would have to be drawn between a centrifugal collar done-up at the neck and worn in conjunction with a tie, and one done-up but worn without a tie, since what applies to the immoral alpha must also apply to the amoral middle-ground position, in consequence of which we could speak of a Liberal/Social Democratic distinction between the two, treating the former as indicative of a relatively right-wing bias and the latter as indicating a relatively left-wing and more absolute bias, while still being inherently middle ground in relation to, say, T-shirts.