201. Certainly I have been discussing centrifugal shirts more in terms of long-sleeved than of short-sleeved varieties ... as pertaining, I would argue, to the realistic (relative) and materialistic ('absolute') 'bodily' spectra in question. Yet if the naturalistic (particle absolute) and idealistic (wavicle absolute) 'head' spectra are also to be considered, as applying to Fascist alpha positions and to Ecologist and Anarchist middle-ground positions, then whether or not a short-sleeved shirt is worn in conjunction with a cravat (if undone at the neck) or a tie (if done-up at the neck) will determine the ideological status of the shirt (or person) in question, be it Democratic Fascist (with cravat) or Dictatorial Fascist (without one); Ecologist (with tie) or Anarchist (without one), and all in relation to the muscle shirts and vests of the Communist and, hence, moral Left.

 

202. As a sort of footnote to the above, it should be possible to distinguish T-shirts with long sleeves from the short-sleeved variety on the basis of a kind of Democratic Socialist/Totalitarian Socialist division, reserving for muscle shirts and vests (at any rate those of a manifestly centripetal order) a sort of Democratic Communist/Transcendental Communist distinction on the basis that such a division is rather more curvilinear than rectilinear (unlike the Socialist one) and therefore appropriate to a 'head' as opposed to a 'bodily' ideological integrity. Thus short-sleeved T-shirts are still 'bodily' and, hence, Socialist because rectilinear, whereas muscle shirts and vests suggest, in their comparatively curvilinear design, a 'head' or, more specifically, psychic connotation applicable to communist persuasions.

 

203. Either one is for some form of centralized regulation of the economy or one is against it, whether absolutely, like a Conservative, or partly, like a Liberal, in the interests of private enterprise. One is either for a centripetal, centralized, and therefore moral society, in which the State or some equivalent institution regulates things, or one is for a centrifugal, decentralized, and consequently immoral society in which, to some degree or another (depending on the prevailing capitalist ideology), private enterprise is encouraged to flourish. To want the best of both worlds, private enterprise and State regulation, is to be amoral, like a Liberal. To want only private enterprise is, from an omega centripetal standpoint, to be immoral - in short, an overt capitalist. Only he who wants a centralized regulation of the economy is truly moral and therefore Socialist or Communist, depending on the degree of his morality and the type of society in question, be it 'bodily' or of the 'head'.

 

204. Yet to want centralized control in only one context is not enough, since it is no use agreeing to centralized regulation of some things but not of others, agreeing, say, to State regulation of the economy but rejecting any notion of centralized interference in the arts, sciences, sexual morality, religion, or whatever. He who is in favour of a moral order, in which centripetal criteria obtain, must be in favour of it all along the line, if he is not to be an hypocritical amoralist for whom some things are better left decentralized and, hence, private. Thus the artist, musician, writer - all those who pursue a creative vocation - should submit to centralized regulation of what they may or may not create ... if moral progress is to become manifest in every sphere of life, not just in some. He who is for a socialist economy but against socialist literature ... is not a moral Socialist but an amoral hypocrite pursuing his own brand of private enterprise, and is thus no better, in effect, than a Liberal. And what applies to a socialist economy should apply even more to a communist one, particularly to a transcendental communist one, where not the State but the Centre would regulate society in the name of Social Transcendentalist salvation and the divine integrity of the People as Holy Spirit. A free enterprise in literature or art or music or science or whatever that ran contrary to the will of the Second Coming would be incompatible with the most moral society, which would have a God-given duty to uphold the ultimate morality in the interests of the People's spiritual salvation, thereby safeguarding the omega 'Kingdom of Heaven' from the threat of worldly or other kinds of reactionary subversion.

 

 

 

ALPHA OMEGA

 

1. // 2. ()

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

 

 

3. || 4. ()

| |

_____| _____|

 

205. The above diagrams show the distinctions in saluting between the centrifugal (open hand) idealistic Right and the centripetal (clenched fist) idealistic Left in the one case (1 & 2), and the centrifugal (open hand) naturalistic Right and the centripetal (clenched fist) naturalistic Left in the other case (3 & 4), with feminine and masculine implications, as pertaining to an alpha/omega dichotomy respectively. It should be remembered that although Hitler, for instance, adopted the wavicle-biased raised arm salute (1) from Mussolini, he also, and rather frequently, resorted to the bent arm salute (3) which, so I contend, indicates a particle equivalent commensurate with the more democratic kind of fascism (nazism). Thus if the antithetical types of idealistic saluting are effectively Creatoresque and Holy Ghostian in their centrifugal/centripetal contrast, then the antithetical types of naturalistic saluting are Satanic and Antichristic respectively.

 

206. It is perhaps quite logical that Mussolini's Fascism should have preceded Hitler's Nazism in its coming to power; for did not the Creator precede Satan?

 

207. The hand that slaps a face is centrifugal, whereas the hand that, clenched into a fist, punches a face is centripetal. Alpha and omega of (feminine) gentlemen and (masculine) men.

 

208. If it is moral to drink from a can, as I believe it to be in view of its phallic and therefore centripetal connotations, then it can only be immoral to drink from a bottle (vaginal and, hence, of a centrifugal connotation), and amoral to drink from a glass (which is to a bottle what a skirt is to a dress). The bottle is alpha, the glass worldly, and the can omega. Thus whereas it would be logical - indeed desirable - for a Conservative or a Fascist to drink from a bottle, it would be illogical and nothing short of absurd for a Socialist or a Communist to do so. Socialists and Communists should stick to cans and thus confirm their moral bias. Similarly, Socialists and Communists should stick to cigarettes (assuming they smoke at all) and leave cigars to the amoral and pipes to the immoral, since cigars and pipes are to smoking what glasses and bottles are to drinking, and should accordingly be left to those who are more politically qualified to smoke them. A Socialist with a pipe in his mouth would be a contradiction in terms, as would a Conservative or a Fascist with a cigarette. Pipes are no less centrifugal and, hence, feminine than bottles, whereas cigarettes are centripetal and therefore masculine - as, up to a point, are cigars.

 

209. In relation to chips, jacket potatoes are immoral and baked and/or boiled potatoes amoral. This is because chips are centripetal and 'phallic', whereas jacket potatoes, particularly when open and stuffed with cheese, onions, a sausage, etc., are centrifugal and, hence, 'vaginal', baked and/or boiled potatoes being a kind of compromise coming in-between the two extremes - the one moral and the other immoral. Thus whereas the moral man will prefer a diet of chips, the immoral man will be content with a jacket potato and the amoral man with baked and/or boiled potatoes. One could argue that while, politically speaking, chips are socialist and/or communist (depending on the type), jacket potatoes are fascist and baked and/or boiled potatoes liberal - using that term in a broadly middle-ground sense. Indeed, we can exactly correlate potato categories with the drinking and smoking categories discussed above, proceeding from the immoral alpha-stemming category to the moral omega-oriented category via the worldly amoral category, as follows:-

 

IMMORAL AMORAL MORAL

 

bottles glasses cans

pipes cigars cigarettes

jacket potatoes baked potatoes chips

 

Thus, strictly speaking, the man who drinks from a bottle and smokes a pipe should prefer jacket potatoes to other potato formats; the man who drinks from a glass and smokes cigars should prefer baked and/or boiled potatoes to the alternative potato formats; and, last but in no way morally least, the man who drinks from a can and smokes cigarettes should prefer chips to either of the alternative potato formats.

 

210. In such fashion it will be possible for us to distinguish people across the broad spectrum of alpha-stemming (immoral) and omega-oriented (moral) alternatives. For the truly integrated man will be morally together in his habits, and the more enlightened he is, the more morally together will he be. Thus the enlightened chip eater would find potatoes and jacket potatoes no less beneath his moral pale than ... drinks in glasses and bottles would be beneath the moral pale of the can drinker (not necessarily alcohol), or cigars and pipes ... beneath the moral pale of the cigarette smoker (not necessarily tobacco), and would eat, drink, and smoke on the level of chips, cans, and cigarettes. The test of a moral society is whether it acknowledges such a moral disparity or whether, in open-society fashion, it strives to block notions of moral hierarchy which run contrary to the traditional norms.

 

211. The man who is atomic and an integral part of dualistic civilization will be more or less balanced between the 'I' of the personal self and the 'I' of the impersonal, or transcendent, self - in short, between person and persona. The fact of his two 'I's' means that he will often confound the one with the other and speak of each as if they were interchangeable or even identical. In writing, such a man will mix autobiography with art; for his 'ego' is both personal and transcendent (albeit to a limited extent), and he cannot conceive of the one without sooner or later conceiving of the other in identical terms, i.e. as 'I'.

 

212. However, with the man who is not an integral part of dualistic civilization but potentially or actually more attuned to a transcendental civilization, no such ambiguity normally exists; for such a man will relate more to his impersonal 'I' than to the personal one, and to such an extent, in the more evolved cases, that the latter will have been transmuted into a 'he', having become all but eclipsed by the former, so that instead of 'I' standing for both person and persona, or private and professional selves, it will stand for the persona alone, which will tend ever more radically towards the goal of self-transcending awareness in the ultimate 'I' of God. In fact, one has not started on the path to self-transcendence unless the personal 'I' has become 'he' and, therefore, clearly distinguishable from the impersonal 'I' of the superconscious persona.

 

213. Conversely, the man whose impersonal ego, or superconscious mind, stands to him (his personal 'I') as a 'he' ... is as far removed from the possibility of such salvation as it is humanly possible to be; for he is centred in the personal 'I' and regards that which is not personal as outside himself and effectively as 'he'. The painter Salvador Dali provides us with a conspicuous example of such a man. For he often spoke of his artistic self (the impersonal self of the persona) in the third person ... as 'Dali', reserving first priority to the self whose face became synonymous with exaggerated self-importance, as one of the most celebrated poseurs of modern times. Instead of transcending this self in his art, Dali used his art to aggrandize it, thereby becoming ever more personally egocentric (at any rate up until the time when, with disease-ridden old-age, he was no longer able to work and consequently became one of the world's most deflated persons - devoid of even the faintest traces of personal egocentricity). But the man for whom the personal self remains more important than the persona is both pagan and immoral.

 

214. Only when the impersonal self is uppermost, and to the extent that the personal self becomes 'he', can it be said of a man that he is moral and, hence, transcendental. The man balanced between person and persona is simply amoral, oscillating between the 'I' of the subconscious and the 'I' of the superconscious in an egocentric compromise which is akin to Christianity and its doctrine of the 'Three in One'. Such a man may understand the world but, being amoral, he will never understand the Holy Spirit! If he is superior to the immoral man he is decidedly inferior to the moral one, in whom persona has eclipsed the person to an extent which makes him truly 'born again', or transvaluated (to use a Nietzschean equivalent).

 

215. What particularly distinguishes mankind from the animal kind is its capacity for self-transcendence, its ability to escape from the personal self through an absorption in something conceived as superior to and greater than itself. A man can lose himself in a painting, but a dog never! Unlike human beings, dogs are tied to the natural world, and hence to the personal self, to an extent which precludes even an indirect self-transcendence: the sort of transcendence afforded man by art.

 

216. Yet if man is superior to dogs and, by implication, all other animals in this way, he cannot know true self-transcendence while he remains rooted in the personal self, in other words while the impersonal self (the persona) of the artist or professional is effectively a 'he' outside the personal self, or even, albeit to a lesser extent, when the individual is balanced between his two 'I's' in a kind of bourgeois compromise. For indirect self-transcendence keeps one chained to appearances and is only acceptable and intelligible on the basis that such a self-transcendence, be it through art, literature, music, drama, or whatever, will be the norm so long as the personal self prevails and man has not yet evolved to a transvaluated state, in which such a self has been eclipsed by the transcendent, or impersonal, self.

 

217. All art is thus spiritually false, because conceived on a materialistic basis in response to this basic limitation of untransvaluated humanity. I am the personal self and therefore the impersonal self is outside me ... as art or music or literature, a 'he' or an 'it' distinct from the personal me, and consequently I can only get lost in this other self on an external basis ... through art, which, if genuine, is a reflection of something greater than myself rather than a reflection of myself, i.e. the personal self. Such a reflection would no more be genuine art than the reflection of my face in the mirror, since art must transcend the personal self if it is to be fine and not bogus or decadent, like so much contemporary so-called art.

 

218. However, what of the man who has transcended the personal self and is rooted or, rather, centred in the impersonal self of the persona? Clearly, such a man no longer relates to art, since it is a crutch for those rooted in the personal self and only a mode of indirect self-transcendence in consequence. This liberated man has no need of such crutches; for he is capable of walking free of them in the interests of a direct self-transcendence achieved through absorption in the impersonal self of the superconscious, whether through mind-expanding drugs like LSD or, more directly, through transcendental meditation. For him, by contrast, the personal self is outside his true self, a 'he' which must be eclipsed by the impersonal self, the ultimate 'I', if salvation is to come genuinely to pass, no matter how humbly, initially, in relation to a definitive heavenly condition. This man despises art because he is the freest and most enlightened of men. His self-transcendence, or transcendence of the personal self, is directly through his spirit rather than indirectly through the materialistic medium of some art form external to himself. For him, art is bourgeois and therefore unworthy of his attention. Art, too, must be consigned to the rubbish heap of history, since it is irrelevant to true self-transcendence. And too often it is not even an indirect reflection of the higher self but a direct reflection of the lower self, and thus doubly irrelevant! A man is not liberated from the personal self until he is above art.

 

219. We should distinguish between a strictly amoral integrity, which is middle ground, and an oscillation between immoral and moral extremes; for whereas the former corresponds, in subatomic terms, to neutron neutrality, the latter corresponds, by contrast, to proton and electron alternations, and therefore is only loosely amoral. In fact, compared with neutron amorality, the proton/electron amorality is dynamic rather than static, a positive, or active, amorality as opposed to a negative, or passive, amorality - a mode of amorality one would more closely associate with contemporary America than with Britain, and certainly more with Catholicism than Protestantism. Indeed, whereas the Protestant Christ is rather neutral in terms of His amoral stance before the world, the Catholic Christ tends to oscillate between immoral (Father) and moral (Holy Spirit) extremes. For it cannot be denied that our immoral - amoral - moral triad extends to the Trinity, and that, in relation to the Holy Spirit, the Father is immoral and the Son amoral, as pertaining to their respective atomicities (proton-proton reactions, proton/electron compromise, electron-electron attractions).

 

220. Thus while Christ is dynamically amoral in Catholic Christianity, He is statically amoral in Protestant Christianity; the difference, in effect, between romantic and classic, or pre- and post-worldly extremes vis--vis a worldly mean. Doubtless racial factors enter into this distinction, since Protestantism is largely Nordic, whereas Catholicism is mainly Celtic (Latin) and, to a lesser extent, Slavic. The body is less disposed to a proton/electron oscillation than the head; indeed, it corresponds to the nucleus of the world, and finds its political embodiment in Liberalism, using that word in a loosely pluralistic sense. On the other hand, within liberal, or parliamentary, politics, it is clear that there are two kinds of amorality, and especially is this so of British politics: namely, the middle-ground 'neutron' amorality of Liberalism in the strict party-political sense (whether called Liberals, Liberal Democrats, or anything else), and the oscillatory 'proton/electron' amorality between capitalist Conservatism on the one hand and socialist Labourism (Fabianism) on the other - hitherto the chief twentieth-century mode of political amorality in Britain. Only in a socialist society can such amorality be transcended. For as soon as one does away with capitalism, there is no need of two or more parties, since pluralism is largely a consequence of economic disparities and could not exist where only moral economics, and therefore a moral political order, held sway. Where you have a free-electron order, there can be no question of amoral compromises with proton equivalents, still less with a 'neutron' position in between centrifugal (decentralized) and centripetal (centralized) extremes. The atom is transcended in the political nuclear fission which makes for a free-electron society, and, lo and behold, morality comes absolutely to pass!

 

221. Books are relatively centrifugal phenomena which open-out in a fan-like way, and consequently they are less moral than immoral or, at best, amoral ... on account of their peculiar construction. The longest and therefore biggest books are obviously the most immoral, whereas the shortest, smallest books are the least immoral. Doubtless tapes are the most moral (because centripetal) means of conveying verbal information to people, and any writer who values morality will sooner or later want his work transposed to tape. But, of course, only short works can be fully transposed to tape without there being too many tapes involved, and consequently it is unlikely that the writer of long books would get his work on tape, which is probably just as well, since, morally speaking, it would be illogical for one 'so far gone' in book immorality to seek redemption in such a centripetal fashion. Only the writer of short books is morally entitled, it seems to me, to have his work transposed to tape and thus morally upgraded for the benefit, in decades to come, of a morally more sensitive and demanding public. In short, a petty-bourgeois/proletarian overlap as opposed to a grand-bourgeois kind of large book isolation in irredeemable bookishness, the product of a deeply centrifugal mentality, like that of John Cowper Powys - author of some of the longest novels in the English language.

 

222. A white man is only truly above racism on the day he discovers that he would be prepared to take a black or a coloured woman to bed.

 

223. The trouble with woman is that, in consequence of her comparative (in relation to men) physical weakness, she is more disposed to hit a man when he is down than when he is up!

 

224. Yin and Yang, feminine and masculine, appearance and essence, protons and electrons, centrifugal and centripetal, nature and civilization, illusion and truth, fact and fiction - a whole range of polar dichotomies which are in constant friction as the world devolves from the alpha absolute and evolves towards the omega absolute in the unfolding of its destiny. In comparative terms woman is an illusory fact and man a truthful fiction, since the one is a Given and the other a Becoming, like nature and civilization. The Given devolves from cosmic doing (proton-proton reactions), whereas the Becoming evolves towards supercosmic being (electron-electron attractions), and the world is the devolutionary/evolutionary atomic stage upon which the tragicomedy of human struggle is played out. Of course, women can and do take part in the Becoming and men, by contrast, in the Given, but that is rather the exception to the rule within strictly worldly parameters. Most women, now as before, are more of the Given than of the Becoming, just as most men are more of the Becoming than of the Given, and so it will continue until the world comes to an end and all the Given gives way to doing in the 'Kingdom of Hell', and all the Becoming, in turn, makes way for being in the 'Kingdom of Heaven'. For with the triumph of the masculine ideal, everything feminine will pass from the world and only doing and being remain, a soulful doing and a spiritual being, as germane to Democratic Communism and to Transcendental Communism respectively - fire and light of post-worldly absolutes.

 

225. Just as the best literature is ever fictitious, so the worst literature is ever factual; for fiction pertains to the masculine Becoming whereas facts are rooted in the feminine Given. Yet fact and fiction are more a dichotomy of the world, i.e. a relative dichotomy, than a dichotomy outside the world, i.e. an absolute dichotomy, as between that which, as Doing, precedes the Given and that which, as Being, succeeds the Becoming - in other words, illusion and truth. Therefore the absolutely worst writing will be illusory, whereas the absolutely best writing will be truthful, so that illusion and truth may be said to flank fact and fiction as alpha and omega flank the world. Generally speaking, factual writing is realistic and tends to educate; fictional writing is materialistic and tends to entertain; illusory writing is naturalistic and tends to mystify; and truthful writing is idealistic and tends to enlighten. Of the literary arts, one might say that drama is comparatively factual, literature (novels and short stories) comparatively fictional, poetry absolutely illusory, and philosophy absolutely truthful. Though this is by no means always the case in practice!

 

226. However, it would seem that a major elemental antithesis (vertical) can be said to exist between realistic fact (the given) and idealistic truth (being), whereas a minor elemental antithesis (vertical) may be said to exist between materialistic fiction (the becoming) and naturalistic illusion (doing). Poetry, particularly in its oral manifestation, is the earliest of the literary arts and leads to drama, as doing to the given. Philosophy, particularly in its theosophical manifestation, is the most recent of the literary arts and stems from literature, as being from the becoming. Poetry - drama/literature - philosophy: a devolutionary/evolutionary equation between poetry and drama on the one side (doing - the given), and literature and philosophy on the other side (the becoming - being). Illusion - fact/fiction - Truth.

 

227. Thus it can be said that one devolves from illusion to fact, but evolves from fiction to truth. Devolves from poetry to drama, but evolves from literature to philosophy. The alpha-stemming devolutionary types will prefer poetry and drama to literature and philosophy, whereas the omega-oriented evolutionary types will prefer literature and philosophy to drama and poetry. Because poetry is, to all intents and purposes, the oldest of the literary arts and philosophy the youngest, drama and literature come in-between, as relevant to a more relative and therefore worldly age. And this according to an alpha-to-omega, or horizontal, perspective, as opposed to an elemental, or vertical, one, wherein we proceed upwards, as it were, from drama to philosophy via literature and poetry, and therefore can speak of drama as the lowest and philosophy as the highest of the literary arts.

 

228. The very contemporary phenomenon of 'factitious' novel-writing, or novels based on fact rather than conceived in a properly fictional vein, suggests to me a literary decadence wherein true fiction is rendered impossible by dint of the author's overdependence upon fact, whether autobiographical or otherwise. Instead of progressing towards truth, as the best fictional writing should, such 'factitious' writing indicates a regression to fact, to the given, and often becomes overdramatic. Instead of finding an increasingly masculine emphasis, one finds in these overly realistic novels a strongly feminine element which, whether or not because they are more usually written by women, drags literature back and down towards drama and other kinds of factual writings. The best and most progressive novels, by contrast, will tend upwards and forwards from fiction to truth, and it would be scant exaggeration to say that, at their most evolved level, they are scarcely distinguishable from philosophy, since more concerned to enlighten than simply to entertain or, worse still, to instruct.

 

229. Between the Poet who mystifies and the Philosopher who enlightens, there is all the difference in the world between the alpha of illusion and the omega of truth. But strictly between them is the Dramatist who seeks to instruct and the Novelist who seeks to entertain.

 

230. Using Spenglerian distinctions with regard to historical epochs, viz. 'Historyless Chaos' (naturalism), 'Culture' (realism), 'Civilization' (materialism), and 'Second Religiousness' (idealism), it could be argued that the Poet is par excellence the writer or, at any rate, literary artist of 'Historyless Chaos'; the Dramatist par excellence the writer of 'Culture'; the Novelist par excellence the writer of 'Civilization'; and the Philosopher par excellence the writer of 'Second Religiousness', even when, as is often the case, poets, dramatists, novelists, and philosophers write out-of-epoch, as it were, albeit within terms roughly corresponding to their rightful epoch - as to a certain extent did the poets Yeats and Pound, who were great mystifiers in an age of entertainment, i.e. fiction.

 

231. Poets and playwrights are often in league together, as, for that matter, are novelists and philosophers. Indeed, it often transpires that, when playwrights and poets are not one and the same person, the Playwright looks up to the Poet as to a superior type of writer, just as, when they are not one and the same, the Novelist looks up to the Philosopher in such fashion. Yet to look up to an omega-oriented philosopher is one thing; to look up to an alpha-stemming poet quite another! For in the former instance one must be transvaluated to a degree, whereas in the latter instance one can only be untransvaluated and thus fundamentally alpha stemming oneself, albeit on a more devolved basis.

 

232. In the context of English civilization, the progression or, more correctly, regression/progression from Chaucer to Shakespeare and from Dickens to Russell (Bertrand) is one, corresponding to the Spenglerian epochs, from the most outstanding poet to the most outstanding playwright, and from the most outstanding novelist to the most outstanding philosopher. For, in its unbroken continuity, English civilization tends to embrace the four epochs in question, viz. 'Historyless Chaos', 'Culture', 'Civilization', and 'Second Religiousness' - from the early Middle Ages through the Elizabethan period to the Victorian era and, with the twentieth century, to the age of Socialism and, consequently, an inceptive or rudimentary mode of 'Second Religiousness'. (Arguably Communism, and in particular the Transcendental Communism I have described elsewhere, is the more evolved and, hence, truer manifestation of 'Second Religiousness'.) Thus Chaucer and Shakespeare on the one hand, but Dickens and Russell on the other, with Chaucer and Russell alpha illusion and omega truth respectively of this particular civilization, but Shakespeare and Dickens the 'factual' and fictional worldly giants coming in-between. Poetic doing, the dramatic given, novelistic becoming, and philosophic being.

 

233. In ancient Greek civilization we have the poetic alpha of Homer and the philosophic omega of Plato, but no real worldly antithesis in between - largely because there were no novelists in ancient Greece, though plenty of dramatists, of whom Sophocles and Aeschylus are among the better known.

 

234. No less than Doing extends into the Given, Being can be found in the Becoming. As Doing devolves into the Given, so Being evolves out of the Becoming. When Doing is most itself and alpha stemming, it manifests in speech, that is to say, in the oral transmission of poetry; for poetry was spoken long before it was ever written or read, and such speech corresponds, particularly when most passionate, to a strictly alpha-stemming integrity commensurate with cosmic as opposed to worldly parallels, insofar as speech is a thing of the head rather than of the body, and the head - at any rate in its old-brain/subconscious manifestations - corresponds to the cosmos as opposed to the world, i.e. the planet earth. However, with drama, even when poetic, we have a devolution of Doing from the absolute to the relative and its subsequent absorption by the Given; for dramatic acting corresponds to the body and thus to the world, and even poetic drama - undoubtedly the highest kind of drama - will be less a thing of the head than poetry-proper, and therefore a diluted or corrupted form of 'poetry' which exists, in relative doing, within the bodily context of the Given. Now the more factual the drama the less poetic it will be and consequently the more purely dramatic, with Doing firmly subordinated to the Given, which manifests through physical gestures as bodily will. Poetic drama is thus an accommodation of Doing to the world, and the more worldly the drama, i.e. the more it approximates to the Given, the less speech there will be and the greater, in consequence, will be the degree of physical action. Or, alternatively, the more speech will be subordinated to bodily action, serving merely to explain or justify it.

 

235. Conversely, the Being of literary becoming will be firmly subordinated to the Becoming, i.e. the narrative, when literature is most true to itself and thus predominantly fictional. But the more truthful, and hence philosophical, literature becomes, the less subordinate Being will be to the Becoming until, at the utmost level of philosophical literature, it threatens to break away, as from the relative to the absolute, and so attain to an outright philosophical independence of becoming, which is to say, the narrative unfolding of fiction. Yet even philosophical literature is predominantly literary and thus essentially a manifestation of the Becoming rather than a vehicle for Being, just as, to take an opposite case, poetic drama (the highest kind of drama) is essentially dramatic and thus a manifestation of the Given rather than a vehicle for Doing. Literature cannot transcend the Becoming without ceasing to be literary, and so if Being is to become manifest in the world it must take an overtly philosophical form, where Truth can be developed to the utmost limits of its intellectual realization, and this Being-oriented philosophy will be as much above and beyond philosophical literature as ... Doing-oriented poetry was above and before poetic drama.

 

236. Therefore as we pass from fiction to truth with Being-in-the-Becoming, so we pass beyond fiction to Truth with the Become-of-Being, which requires a philosophical presentation. In the Philosopher, Being attains to its fruition, and he is both the ultimate writer and the end of writing. Beyond him there can be only the fuller realized Being of pure spirit through meditation. The Philosopher is the omega writer, and the ultimate philosopher, or ontological theosophist, most especially so! His Truth stands in sharp contrast to the Illusion of alpha poets, as Being to Doing, or the Holy Spirit to the Father. The omega philosopher is all essence, and the alpha poets are all appearance. He is thought, and they are speech. He is centripetal, and they are centrifugal. He is moral, and they are immoral. He is the End, and they are the Beginning. By contrast, novelists are the-Beginning-of-the-End and dramatists the-End-of-the-Beginning, bearing in mind the evolutionary and devolutionary distinctions which exist between them. Now if alpha poets are immoral and omega philosophers moral, then (worldly) dramatists and novelists are alike amoral - the former more usually in a negative (tragic) sense and the latter more often in a positive (comic) sense. Thus a cosmic immorality to a feminine worldly amorality on the devolutionary side (of poets and dramatists), analogous to the distinction between dresses and skirts, but a masculine worldly amorality to a supercosmic morality on the evolutionary side (of novelists and philosophers), analogous to the distinction between trousers and one-piece zipper suits.

 

237. Poetic naturalism to dramatic realism; novelistic materialism to philosophic idealism. For naturalism and realism are no less the poetic and dramatic norms ... than materialism and idealism the novelistic and philosophic norms. The most poetic poetry will be naturalistic and the most dramatic drama realistic. The most novelistic (narrative) fiction will be materialistic and the most philosophic philosophy idealistic. The further poetry is from naturalism the less genuinely poetical will it be, whilst, at the opposite extreme, the further philosophy is from idealism the less genuinely philosophical will it be. In a relatively alpha-stemming (poetic) age, philosophy will be comparatively illusory and thus a sham by any strictly philosophical criterion. Conversely, in a relatively omega-oriented (philosophic) age, poetry will be comparatively truthful (in the metaphysical sense) and thus a sham by any strictly poetical criterion. Drama and literary fiction (novels) are only possible in a worldly age or civilization. For realism and materialism cannot flourish in either naturalistic or idealistic ages, as pertaining to alpha-stemming and omega-oriented extremes.

 

238. To see realism as a revolt against naturalism and idealism as a revolt against materialism, insofar as we are dealing with four broad periods of historical time which correspond to the Spenglerian distinctions between 'Historyless Chaos' and 'Culture' on the one hand, and ... 'Civilization' and 'Second Religiousness' on the other hand. Clearly, the first period is naturalistic because pagan, cosmic, pantheistic, animistic, etc., whereas the second period signifies a humanistic, and hence realistic, revolt against naturalism which takes the form of Christianity and its anthropomorphic associations. Such a revolt is more marked in Protestantism than in Catholicism, and one could describe Protestantism as an anti-realist realism, in view of its traditional hostility to the Catholic Church. It is certainly true that Protestantism indirectly paved the way for the liberal, capitalist materialism to follow, with the development of 'Civilization' (in the Spenglerian sense of that term), and if capitalism is the alpha of this third historical period then Socialism must assuredly be its omega, a kind of anti-materialist materialism which sets itself up against capitalism much as Protestantism set itself up against Catholicism, and which can only have the effect (so I firmly believe) of indirectly paving the way for the Social Transcendentalist idealism to come - an idealism which will usher in the fourth period, corresponding to 'Second Religiousness', on an appropriately Transcendental Communist note. Our age is on the verge, it seems to me, of such an idealistic breakthrough, and while Democratic Communism may be more socialist than transcendentalist, nevertheless a truly transcendental type of Communism is in the making and will one day lay claim to its rightful place in the world, to usher in the 'Kingdom of Heaven' on earth and the 'reign' of the Second Coming. Such idealism will be as superior to realism as materialism to naturalism. For truth is no less superior to fact than fiction to illusion, or, in Spenglerian terms, 'Second Religiousness' is no less superior to 'Culture' than 'Civilization' to 'Historyless Chaos'. For whilst a parallel certainly exists between Being and the Given on the one hand and the Becoming and Doing on the other, Being is no less superior to the Given than the Becoming to Doing. Better the idealistic being which evolves out of the materialistic becoming, than the realistic given which devolves from naturalistic doing.

 

239. With that said, however, all that remains is for me to correlate each of the above categories with its corresponding element, i.e. earth, water, fire, or air, in order for our elemental spectra to be complete in both a vertical and, as here, a horizontal sense. Thus as naturalistic Doing precedes the realistic Given, it should follow that Doing correlates with fire and the Given with earth, since fire connotes with naturalism and earth with realism. Similarly we may hold that, as the materialistic Becoming precedes idealistic Being, the Becoming correlates with water and Being with air, since water has a materialistic connotation and air an idealistic one. Hence, to compare the two, we may argue that fire, earth, water, and air is the order of elements corresponding to Doing, the Given, the Becoming, and Being, and that, whilst each element co-exists in the world with the others, there is still an overall historical sense in which we have a regression from fire to earth and a progression from water to air, which corresponds to the evolutionary/devolutionary distinction between Doing and the Given on the one hand, and the Becoming and Being on the other hand. Which is no less a regression from heat to darkness in the one context (devolutionary) and a progression from coldness to light in the other context (evolutionary), since heat is to fire and darkness to earth what coldness is to water and light to air - the qualitative aspect of an elemental quantity.

 

240. Therefore whereas naturalistic Doing is hot and the realistic Given dark, like fire and earth respectively, the materialistic Becoming is cold and idealistic Being light, like water and air respectively. Considered in a horizontal sense, heat and light are the qualitative antipodes of life, with darkness and coldness coming in-between. Heat is illusion and darkness fact. Coldness is fiction and light truth. Or, rather, fire is illusion and earth fact. Water is fiction and air truth. For heat is agony and darkness fear. Coldness is hope and light joy. Quantities connote with quantities and qualities with qualities, and the two should never be confounded!

 

241. Fire is the element of poets, whose Doing is illusory. Earth is the element of playwrights, whose Given is factual. Water is the element of novelists, whose Becoming is fictional. Air is the element of philosophers, whose Being is truthful.

 

242. It is ridiculous to equate Socialism with internationalism, as though only Socialism were internationalist. Countries have been international for centuries ... almost since the beginning of nation-state time, since it is impossible for nations to exist in 'splendid isolation' from one another as so many independent units. The only difference between now and then was that in the past the relationship between countries was more competitive and violent than it generally tends to be these days, and although wars and other forms of international violence have not ceased to occur, nonetheless we live in an age when international exchanges are normally conducted on a more co-operative and peaceful basis than was formerly the case, with a result that the world is slowly becoming positively as opposed to negatively internationalist, which is to say internationalist in a co-operative or socialist fashion. Yet competitiveness still exists and will doubtless continue to do so for as long as capitalism and other forms of alpha-stemming immorality prevail, which will probably continue to be the case for some time to come, bearing in mind the relative nature of the world and, indeed, all human life. However, this is not to say we can't ever get to a stage when only co-operation prevails (since that would be to rule out all possibility of moral progress), but, rather, that the struggle against centrifugal immorality can only be long and hard, given the facts of atomic existence. Probably there will always be some degree of capitalism even in the best of (socialist) worlds, though more in the form of low-key private enterprise on or off the 'black market' than in the form of widespread capitalist freedoms in countries as a whole. For as long as capitalist countries continue to exist, there will be no true co-operative internationalism but only competitive internationalism or, at best, a compromise between co-operative and competitive economics.

 

243. Colour television can only have the effect, after a while, of breaking down and counteracting our dependence on print. For the more one watches colour television, the less one will want to read a book (with its black characters on a white page). Only a black-and-white television can be expected to psychologically harmonize with print, and, to reverse the argument, one could maintain that for compulsive bookworms who yet have some time for TV, a black-and-white television is probably a better idea than a colour one - provided one wishes to retain a respect for print!

 

244. However that may be, if it is doubtful that colour television and momochrome print go together, there can be no doubt that colour books, i.e. books with polychrome reproductions, will harmonize with colour television, and probably be the favourite if not only reading-matter of people habituated to watching it. And, doubtless, such books are as technologically superior to conventional books with black print on white paper as colour television to its black-and-white counterpart. Doubtless, too, we should associate colour magazines with video, regarding them as a kind of extrapolation from colour books and a suitable form of reading-matter for people who prefer video to television.

 

245. I find it difficult not to believe that a man's sexual ego is primarily conditioned by the size of his penis, so that the bigger the penis the bigger the sexual ego and, conversely, the smaller the penis the smaller the sexual ego, with due gradations of what may be termed average sexual ego coming in-between. Similarly, it seems just as credible to believe that a woman's sexual ego will depend to a quite significant extent on the size of her breasts, so that small breasts will make for a comparatively small sexual ego and large breasts, by contrast, for a comparatively large one. Doubtless men with small sexual egos will generally prefer the company of like-minded women and, conversely, men with large sexual egos the company of women whose sexual egos are correspondingly large, since like is attracted to like and it is rather unlikely (no pun intended) that a man with a small penis would wish to impose himself upon a woman with large breasts or, alternatively, that a man whose penis was large would turn a blind eye to a woman with large breasts in preference for one whose breasts were scarcely perceptible. Yet, exceptions notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that sexual egos are physically conditioned, since sex is itself physical and like begets like. Neither need we suppose that a small sexual ego is necessarily a misfortune or that a large one is inevitably fortunate. The person with a small sexual ego is more likely to have a large intellectual or spiritual one, and to look down upon the sexually egocentric person as a sort of semi-beast incapable of true intellectual or spiritual accomplishment; for it cannot be denied that men with small penises and women with small breasts are usually endowed with big heads, metaphorically speaking, and pride themselves less on being physical than spiritual. One could even go so far as to say that unless a man has a small penis or a woman small breasts, there is relatively little prospect of his/her achieving anything much in the way of intellectual, cultural, religious, or artistic endeavour, since these things of the spirit presuppose a spiritual predilection, which in turn presupposes a comparatively small sexual ego - else where or how would one find the time or inclination to dedicate oneself to them? Truly, the highest men are not born to fornicate but, rather, to avoid fornication, and, as Baudelaire aptly says: 'The more a man cultivates the arts the less he fornicates'. Yet, for my part, I say: that man will better cultivate the arts who, for physical reasons, has a small sexual ego to begin with!

 

246. Work stems from doing; play aspires towards being. Work, as a rule, is centrifugal and objective; play, by contrast, centripetal and subjective. Work is a curse that has to be escaped from ... through play. For only in play does one come to know the 'Kingdom of Heaven' which Christ spoke of in connection with little children, who of course play. The highest play, however, will be the most centripetal and subjective, and the highest civilization that which has the most play (of the highest order) and the least work. For, eventually, play must completely triumph over work if salvation is to come truly to pass. An electron absolute as opposed to an atomic relativity between proton work and electron play. However, such an absolute will only be fully achieved in the Messianic Millennium, and then on the basis of post-human evolution.

 

247. Since I have equated work with Doing and play with Being, I should now like to distinguish between natural work and artificial work on the one hand, and natural play and artificial play on the other, reserving for natural work the equation with Doing and for artificial play the equation with Being, but introducing two new equations in the form of natural play with the Given and artificial work with the Becoming, so that, from a simple doing/being antithesis between work and play, we progress to the more comprehensive antitheses between Doing and the Given on the one hand, and the Becoming and Being on the other, with natural work and play appertaining to the former antithesis, but artificial work and play appertaining to the latter one. Therefore if natural work is alone equated with Doing and, hence, an inherently alpha-stemming naturalistic age or society, commensurate with Spengler's 'Historyless Chaos', only artificial play should be equated with Being and thus an inherently omega-oriented idealistic age or society such as will correspond to Spengler's (period of) 'Second Religiousness'. By contrast, natural play should only be equated with the Given and, hence, with a realistic age or society corresponding to Spengler's 'Culture', whereas artificial work should be equated with the Becoming and therefore with a materialistic age or society commensurate with Spengler's 'Civilization' - the modern age par excellence, in which artificial work is the work and the industrial worker the representative figure.

 

248. Although natural work (manual labour, farm labour, etc.) and natural play (sex, sport, etc.) still of course exist, we live in an increasingly artificial age which has its fulcrum, so to speak, in artificial work (mechanical, industrial, technological, commercial), in accordance with materialistic criteria. Such an age is akin to a second alpha in that it reflects, on higher terms, the first alpha age (of natural work), and stands in opposition to the first omega age (of natural play) as a kind of historical fall from the Given to the Becoming or, which amounts to the same, from realism to materialism. If a second omega age is to emerge it can only do so at the expense of this second alpha age, and in terms of the most artificial play in which Being attains to full maturity as idealism supersedes materialism in the interests of universal salvation. Such artificial play, commensurate, amongst other things, with synthetically-induced visionary experience, will be as superior to the materialistically-compromised artificial play of television and video as essence to appearance or, in natural terms, visions to dreams, and lead towards the ultimate Being of a truly divine play in which no compromise with work of any description would be either desirable or, indeed, possible. For work is ever immoral in relation to play, which, at its most Being-oriented heights, attains to the true morality of God.

 

249. Burial of the dead stands between the alpha-stemming funeral pyre and the omega-oriented cremation as a kind of worldly norm suitable to a bodily (as opposed to a head) people and/or age. There are two types of burial: on land and at sea, and whereas the former is realistic, the latter is materialistic. In fact, burial on land, i.e. in the earth, stands to the funeral pyre as realism to naturalism or, in Spenglerian parlance, as 'Culture' to 'Historyless Chaos', while burial at sea stands to cremation as materialism to idealism, or 'Civilization' to 'Second Religiousness'. Therefore realism and materialism are flanked, here as elsewhere, by naturalism and idealism respectively - Doing and Being as alpha and omega extremes either side of the Given and the Becoming, or, in concrete terms, burial on land and burial at sea. Ours is an age when all kinds of waste, human and non-human, is dumped into the sea - people being, for the most part, either buried on land, i.e. in cemeteries, or cremated. Doubtless as land becomes increasingly expensive and more sought-after for other purposes, not to mention in shorter supply as the population continues to increase, burial will be totally eclipsed by cremation, and especially would this be the case in a post-worldly and therefore omega-oriented age, when all forms of burial, including the dumping of non-human waste at sea, would be frowned upon as incompatible with the moral requirements of such an idealistic time - a time when waste is for the most part incinerated rather than buried or dumped, and the Becoming duly gives way to Being.

 

250i. And they asked him: What is evil? And he replied: That which, as the negative Given, engenders or is engendered by pain.

ii. So they asked him: What, then, is good? And he replied: That which, as the positive Given, engenders or is engendered by pleasure.

iii. And they asked him: What is weakness? And he replied: That which, as the negative Becoming, engenders or is engendered by humiliation.

iv. So they asked him: What, then, is strength? And he replied: That which, as the positive Becoming, engenders or is engendered by pride.

 

251i. And they asked him: What is ugly? And he replied: That which, as negative Doing, engenders or is engendered by hate.

ii. So they asked him: What, then, is beauty? And he replied: That which, as positive Doing, engenders or is engendered by love.

iii. And they asked him: What is illusion? And he replied: That which, as negative Being, engenders or is engendered by sorrow.

iv. So they asked him: What, then, is truth? And he replied: That which, as positive Being, engenders or is engendered by joy.

 

252i. Truth is the appearance of joy; joy the essence of truth.

ii. Beauty is the appearance of love; love the essence of beauty.

iii. Strength is the appearance of pride; pride the essence of strength.

iv. Goodness is the appearance of pleasure; pleasure the essence of goodness.

 

253i. Conversely, evil is the appearance of pain; pain the essence of evil.

ii. Weakness is the appearance of humiliation; humiliation the essence of weakness.

iii. Ugliness is the appearance of hate; hate the essence of ugliness.

iv. Illusion is the appearance of sorrow; sorrow the essence of illusion.