(Or an attempt to outline a post-human future)


Transcendental meditation wouldn't suffice to take man to the heavenly Beyond ... of the Omega Absolute, but it would certainly suffice to take him to the post-Human Beyond ... of the Superman.  For the Superman is the evolutionary development immediately above man, towards which transcendental men are advancing.

      With the decline of egocentric religion, the post-egocentric religion of Transcendentalism becomes the final form religion will take in the evolutionary history of man.  Instead of praying and singing hymns, like Christians did, the Transcendentalists of the centuries ahead will directly cultivate their spirit through the medium of transcendental meditation.  They will learn to meditate and regularly practise meditation in suitably-designed meditation centres, the institutional successors to churches.  Praying, singing, chanting, etc., will have no appeal to them whatsoever.  Only the expansion of the superconscious through meditation will be relevant to them, and this they will prefer to do communally - as part of a large gathering of fellow Transcendentalists.

      Man in his third stage of evolutionary development (the stage beyond paganism and Christianity) will be succeeded, however, by the Superman, that is to say, by a brain artificially supported and sustained, with possible access to artificial hearing, seeing, and speaking devices, subject to external control.  The Supermen - for there should be many such brains in existence - will be clustered together in tree-like formations, their brains being sustained and supported from a central energy source.  There will be numerous tree-like clusters of this nature in existence throughout the world, and they will each signify a life form antithetical, in essence, to animals, particularly with reference to such tree-climbing, tree-inhabiting animals as apes.  The 'tree' in question will be artificial, but the brains being supported on it will be natural and capable of self-identification.  Each brain will be a separate Superman, and all Supermen will be resigned to a communal life, just as apes are resigned to such a life in the crowded branches of the trees they inhabit.  The great antithetical difference, however, between these two life forms will be that whereas apes are resigned to a sensual communality, the Supermen will partake of a spiritual communality, and this spiritual life will constitute the first phase of the post-Human Millennium, being conditioned and encouraged by the regular intake of suitably-regulated doses of LSD, or some equivalent synthetic upward self-transcending, vision-inducing stimulant, which will be externally administered to the artificially-supported brains by the future equivalent of priests - the superpriestly spiritual leaders, so to speak, of the Millennium in question.

      Meditation, then, will terminate with the termination of man, to be superseded by the visionary contemplation, revealed through LSD-type hallucinogens, of the Superman.  Meditation is fundamentally too naturalistic to be wholly compatible with an advanced spirituality in a more sophisticated evolutionary context.  As evolution progresses, so the lifestyles of its participants become increasingly artificial, subject to the substitution of synthetic for natural products and experiences. A being freed, so to speak, from the natural body wouldn't be qualified to practise yoga, with its complicated posturings, and neither would he be able to regulate the flow of oxygen to his brain through the manipulation of various breathing techniques designed to facilitate increased awareness.  Rather, oxygen would have to be fed to him artificially, through the medium of special containers, and its flow regulated according to uniform standards of intake acceptable to the brain commune as a whole.  It would pass into the blood vessels of the various brains, where it would be converted into corpuscles and suitably exploited in the interests of proper brain functioning.  There could be no question of a natural respiratory system being in use at that point in time, for the lungs would have 'gone the way' of the rest of the body, left behind with the creature known as man.  And, of course, an artificial pump, replacing the human heart, would serve the brain commune by maintaining a uniform flow of blood through such artificial vessels as were deemed necessary to link the pump to the natural blood vessels of the individual brains.  The Supermen would never experience the human failing of heart attacks but, at worst, only a temporary mechanical failure of the artificial pump which, hopefully, could be quickly repaired - assuming, for argument's sake, it were to break down in the first place!

      The introduction of hallucinogens like LSD into the Supermen's brains would, of course, have to be through the blood, so we may surmise that the future equivalent of priests will inject the desired quantities of them into the artificial blood vessels at salient, predetermined points in the sustain apparatus, thereby guaranteeing each Superman a uniform, carefully-regulated dose of the benevolent, mind-expanding synthetic stimulant, which would be designed to take over from where television and/or meditation had left off.  What follows would be a sustained period of gentle acclimatization to its vision-inducing properties, as the Supermen contemplated the jewel-like crystalline images of their turned-on superconscious. With the termination of 'the trip', which would probably occur after several hours, the Supermen would be left to sink into their subconscious minds and either doze or sleep, in the interests of psychic integrity.  The following day, however, they would be given another 'trip', and so on, until, with a gradual increase of the dosage to peak levels, they became spiritually ripe for the next evolutionary transformation - namely from Supermen to Superbeings.

      Before I go on to discuss Superbeings, a word or two must be said about man and his future transformation into Superman.  The average transcendental man of the late-twentieth century is rather like an embryonic superman, and, to be sure, there are already people living a life which approximates to the one just outlined and therefore intimates of it.  At the time of writing, I happen to reside next to a couple whom I understand to be unemployed.  They rarely go out during the day and hardly ever at night.  As a rule, they spend their mornings in bed and their afternoons either listening to the radio or watching television.  At night they invariably sit in front of their television for several hours.  Now, for me, a quite conscientious intellectual, their lifestyle appeals to my critical sense and generally causes me to feel somewhat indignant and even censorious.  What right have they, I ask myself, to spend their days either lying in bed or watching television when I, compelled by a sense of duty, spend 5-6 hours a day at my writings, with from 1-2 hours study every evening?  Clearly, my moral sense is offended and I feel tempted to preach to them on the virtue of work, irrespective of whether or not there may be any work available to such people under the present economic climate.  And yet my attitude - by no means untypical of people like me - is really quite beside-the-point and hopelessly one-sided.  I regard my television-addicted neighbours from a reactionary point-of-view, quite overlooking the more relevant progressive one which, even if they personally aren't directly aware of it, is at least applicable to the trend of evolution towards the Superman.  Now since transcendental man is pre-eminently a proletarian phenomenon, and since the proletariat tend, on the whole, to watch more television than the bourgeoisie, I must make some attempt, if I'm to do proper justice to this phenomenon, to view my neighbours' behaviour in the light of contemporary transcendentalism and thus equate their lifestyle, no matter how alien it may be to myself, with a proletarian spirituality that is a prelude to the visionary lifestyle of the Superman.  For, viewed in this light, the hours my neighbours spend in front of their colour television correspond, on a lower external level, to the hours the Supermen will spend contemplating the luminous contents of their superconscious minds, as induced by the higher internal stimulant of LSD.  And, of course, the hours they spend in bed, both before and after television, will correspond to the rest-periods which the Supermen will require to safeguard their psychic integrity, following the visionary exigencies of their respective 'trips'.  My neighbours are therefore resting, each night, from their television experiences of the previous day, while preparing themselves, throughout the morning, for the afternoon and evening viewing to-come.  They are the Supermen in embryo, and allow me to add, at the risk of scandalizing middle-class sensibilities, that they are by no means untypical of their class!  Perhaps they are just a shade more radical or thoroughgoing than those who, largely because of job commitments, are obliged to confine their TV-viewing to the evenings and weekends.... Which just goes to show that one should be wary of looking at unemployment solely from a socio-economic point of view, quite overlooking the spiritual or modernist dimensions which accrue to it and would seem to be compatible with the unofficial development of transcendentalism in a civilization which, in regard to the bourgeoisie, is becoming increasingly decadent.

      Transcendental man is therefore clearly in evidence in the context of extensive television-viewing.  Meditation, though undoubtedly relevant to his future development, isn't the only kind of spiritual stimulus, even if it is an inherently superior kind to television, by dint of the fact that it expands spirit directly, through internalizing the mind, rather than indirectly, through the medium of artificial appearances.  Nevertheless the incentive provided by television for a mild degree of upward self-transcendence cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to spiritual development, but should be regarded as a prelude to higher things, the temperaments of some people probably being such that they could never come to fully appreciate the virtues of meditation anyway, given that such virtues tend, as a rule, to be appreciated only by a more sophisticated type of mind in the twentieth century, and not by what we may call the lumpen proletariat.  If television succeeds in gradually leading the majority towards transcendental meditation, then it will have achieved more than at first meets the eye!  It does at least condition people to sit still and remain intellectually passive for a number of hours, which is what meditation also does, albeit minus an external stimulus and therefore with an emphasis on one's own spiritual resources.  But if the general proletariat are closer, in their dependence on visionary experience, to the future Supermen, then it could well be that the meditating elite of the present century are closer, in their self-containment, to the ensuing Superbeings, and will doubtless experience a higher degree of collective meditation, pending transcendence.  But there is no reason why the proletariat shouldn't indulge in periodic bouts of meditation in due course, even if only as a supplement to their television-viewing.  Towards the climax of the transcendental civilization the vast majority of people, of whatever temperament, should be indulging in a degree of meditation on a regular basis, pending their transformation into Supermen.

      When this transformation will be brought about I cannot, as someone born into the twentieth century, know for certain.  Yet if decadence, in one of its principal manifestations, can be equated with the coming to fruition of the spiritual development of a given class, a kind of spiritual climax to the overall cultural or intellectual progress of each succeeding class, and we accept as fact that the aristocracy attained to the zenith of their spiritual development towards the end of the sixteenth century and, following their example, the bourgeoisie towards the end of the nineteenth century, then there would seem to be some justification for our supposing that the proletariat, i.e. urban men, will attain to the zenith of their spiritual development some time in the twenty-second century, and that the transformation from man to Superman will therefore occur at approximately the same time, which, at the very latest, could be towards the end of the twenty-second century.  Hence we may reasonably contend that man in his final form has about two centuries to go, after which time he should be ripe for transformation into the Superman that will constitute the first phase of millennial life - a phase in which the brain will be artificially supported and sustained.

      With the second phase of millennial life, however, the Supermen will be transformed, by the technological leadership, into Superbeings, and will consequently become a new and higher life form, antithetical, in essence, to plants and especially to trees.  No longer will each brain be capable of self-identification and limited egohood but, with the removal of the old brain (in which resides the subconscious part of the psyche), become elevated, instead, to complete superconscious identification in blissful contemplation of spirit.  From being a separate member of a commune of independent brains, the new-brain Superbeings will become components in a larger whole (just as the leaves of trees are components in the larger collective entity known as a tree), and thereupon cease to differentiate between themselves, to know themselves, in the manner of Supermen, as separate individuals.  These clusters of new brains will in effect assume the character of one giant entity, and where previously each brain cluster could be regarded as a commune of individuals, and thus bear the plural title of Supermen, each new-brain cluster, by contrast, will constitute a separate Superbeing, the plural being reserved for reference to whatever number of such clusters may happen to exist in the world at any given time.  So, considered separately, a Superbeing will constitute a much higher approximation to the ultimate unity of the Omega Point (de Chardin), and thus reflect an ongoing evolutionary convergence (in centro-complexification) from the Many to the One.  Furthermore, the new brains of the Superbeings will doubtless be closer together on the artificial supports than would have been possible with the larger ego-bound brains of the Supermen, and will therefore more easily lend themselves to the appearance of a collective entity - each new brain being inseparable from the whole.

      How long it will take before the Supermen can be transformed, i.e. engineered, into Superbeings ... I cannot of course say.  Though there is no reason for one to assume that the Supermen will last for centuries.  After several decades they would doubtless begin to tire of their LSD or equivalent hallucinogenic experiences and to long for a higher type of consciousness, completely beyond the visionary.  The leadership would remain in regular contact with them to ascertain exactly what their psychic position was at any given time, and would consequently know when the transformation to the Superbeing was apposite.  However, the post-visionary consciousness of the Superbeing wouldn't be forced upon any brain cluster prematurely.  For evolution has to proceed by degrees, as the Hindu metaphor of reincarnation adequately confirms - the inability of the devotee's psyche to come to terms with the posthumous Clear Light ... being a reflection of his egocentric past and necessitating, in the paradoxical logic of reincarnation, a return to this world, where it is to be hoped that personal, i.e. evolutionary, progress will better qualify his soul for unification with the Divine in due course.  Likewise, the actual progress of the Supermen towards the Omega Point would be a gradual affair, requiring their full acquiescence in artificially-induced internal visionary experience, before any transformation to the Superbeing could reasonably be endorsed.  Appearance must precede essence, even when it is internal, and therefore as spiritualized as possible.

      With the eventual removal of the old brain, however, the liberated new brain would be conscious of nothing but the light of its own superconscious mind and such a light would be essence, not appearance.  It would constitute a higher type of meditation than anything the more sophisticated transcendental men had known prior to the post-Human Millennium, being the final form consciousness will take.  Eventually - though again it's impossible to be explicit - this highest collective meditation of the Superbeings should lead to transcendence, and thus to the establishment, in space, of Spiritual Globes, which would be the bigger the more spirit they each contained, that is to say, depending on the number of Superbeings, from whichever part of the planet, that had attained to transcendence at any given time.  Yet these Spiritual Globes would not be the Omega Point or, rather, Omega Absolute (to drop de Chardin and revert to my preferred terminology), but that stage of evolution immediately preceding the establishment of definitive God, which would be ultimate Oneness.  The Spiritual Globes issuing from the Superbeings would constitute an evolutionary antithesis to the planets, or material globes, and would tend towards one another in the heavenly Beyond.  Those which issued from the same part of the earth would probably coalesce into larger wholes as a matter of course, the larger Spiritual Globes, composed of the spirit of numerous Superbeings from any one area of the world, exerting a more compelling attractive influence on the smaller ones which, in being pulled in their direction, would eventually bring about the formation of still larger Spiritual Globes until, by a similar process occurring throughout the Universe over an immensely long period of time or, rather, eternity, all separate Spiritual Globes had converged together to establish the Omega Absolute, in complete contrast to the alpha-stemming divergence of the innumerable stars.  And with the Omega Absolute, evolution would be complete and, following the disintegration and dissolution of the stars, the Universe become perfect - perfect in an ultimate unity which would last for ever.

      It is therefore my contention that God doesn't yet exist as the Omega Absolute and won't exist as such until every single Spiritual Globe, from whichever part of the Universe, had been absorbed into ultimate Oneness some thousands or even millions of years hence.  Gone are the days when it was possible to be agnostic, contending that one cannot know for sure whether God, in any ultimate sense, does or doesn't exist.  On the contrary, I believe that one can know, and this essay is intended to furnish proof of the fact.  From now on it will be possible for every man to be atheist, for knowledge has at last put paid to agnostic doubts.  Every man will know that, while alpha absolutes exist, the Omega Absolute is a creation of the future, stemming not from men but, more directly, from the Spiritual Globes of the heavenly Beyond.  Transcendental man may be a long way from the realization of that blessed creation at present, but, as a participator in evolutionary progress, he is certainly tending in the right direction.  When he becomes the Superman of the post-Human Millennium, he will have entered the eternal plane.  For, although such a context is at a considerable evolutionary remove from the Omega Absolute, his brain won't die, as does man's, but be artificially supported and sustained through to the subsequent transformation ... of the Superbeing, until, with transcendence, spirit becomes completely independent of the brain or, more correctly, new brain and capable, thereafter, of indefinite self-sustain.  Here we are left with the ultimate paradox, which is that while the Superman won't last for ever, the spirit appertaining to him, which can be expected to achieve transcendence with the Superbeing, most certainly will.  For everything must pass but the Omega Absolute, towards which everything tends.





Ethnic generalizations are sometimes misleading, though not necessarily impertinent.  The distinction between Anglo-Saxon and Celt is a particularly revealing one, and, in its extreme manifestations ... between Protestant Englishmen and Catholic Irishmen, it furnishes us with an objective understanding of the relative merits and predilections of these two, in many ways, antithetical peoples.

      If there is one word that sums up England and the English better than any other it must be 'quantity', with its strong materialistic implications.  The word I would choose for the Irish, on the other hand, is 'quality', which, by contrast, has spiritual implications.  Quantity appertains to appearance, quality to essence.  Here, if anywhere, one has the chief distinction, it seems to me, between the English and the Irish (not to mention Welsh and Scots) in a nutshell, a distinction which has been the source of much bitterness and misunderstanding, down the centuries, as well, paradoxically, as a certain amount of mutual admiration and respect - the English casting a-not-unenvious eye on the Irish for their intellectual, cultural, and religious genius; the Irish likewise sometimes feeling that a more pragmatic, factual, materialistic approach to life wouldn't be a bad thing.  Yet whereas it is conceivable that more than a few Englishmen have wished they were Irish, it is unlikely that all that many Irishmen have wanted to be English, and for the very sound reason that quality is a better asset than quantity, an altogether superior predilection.

      Of course, there are several disadvantages and detrimental consequences from belonging to a people who generally put being above doing in their scale of values.  On the lowest level such a preference often leads to drunkenness and laziness, an unwillingness or inability to come properly to terms with the practical demands of life, and no Englishman needs to be reminded that a significant proportion of Irishmen are either regularly drunk and unemployed or irregularly drunk and under-employed, as the case may be!  Nor would he need to be reminded that his ancestors were able to dominate Ireland in consequence of its comparative military weakness.  For the fact that Irishmen have lived so long under external rule must be regarded as a further disadvantage of what it means to belong to a people for whom being takes precedence over doing, and quality thereby prevails over quantity - not least of all in terms of population density.  Had the Irish been more industrious and pragmatic, they might have driven out the invader sooner than they did.  But that wasn't to be, and so the yoke of imperial enslavement had to be endured, in accordance with historical necessity.

      Yet this is just the negative side of Irish experience, as largely appertaining to the masses.  For on the positive side came the intellectual, cultural, and religious achievements of men of genius such as Burke, Boyle, Swift, Goldsmith, Moore, Maturin, Wilde, Shaw, Joyce, Synge, Yeats, O'Faollain, O'Casey, and Beckett.  Naturally the English, with their much larger populations, have produced more writers than the Irish, and some of them have been very good ones, too.  But, with few exceptions, they haven't produced as many outstanding writers as the Irish - certainly not in the twentieth century, which, if anything, marked a turning-point in these two peoples' fortunes, and not just with regard to creative writing.  Fundamentally the twentieth century was the first post-dualistic century in history, and since the Irish are nothing if not extreme, it is inevitable that the twentieth century should have been more to their liking than it has been, on the whole, to the rather more middle-of-the-road English.  If England dominated Irish political life during the centuries when dualism (particularly in its liberal manifestation) ruled supreme, then it should come as no surprise to us when we find that, with the emergence of a post-dualistic age, the Irish have dominated and continue to dominate English cultural affairs.  I need only city Joyce in respect of the novel, Yeats in respect of poetry, Starkie in respect of biography, O'Faollain in respect of the short story, and, in the semi-literary context of theatre, Shaw in respect of the play ... to confirm this Irish domination of literature.  And although I have racked my brains over literally dozens of English authors, from the best, like Aldous Huxley, to the worst, like D.H. Lawrence, it would be impossible for me to ascribe pre-eminence in any one field to an Englishman.  For modern English writing is not only comparatively second-rate; it is also deeply pessimistic, reflecting the disenchantment, anxiety, and regret that many Englishmen feel for the passing of dualistic civilization and its replacement by an increasingly volatile world which is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the English temperament.

      It isn't by mere chance that Joyce's greatest novel, Ulysses, concludes with a wholehearted affirmation of contemporary life, its very last word being 'Yes' with a capital Y, whereas Joyce's contemporary and in many ways English counterpart, Huxley, allows Point Counter Point - as indeed most of his novels, including Island, the last one - to end on a note of defeat and despair, reflecting the end of a civilization beset by the twin enemies of barbarism and decadence.  This pessimistic syndrome in the face of post-dualistic evolution cuts right across contemporary English literature, from Waugh and Muggeridge to Orwell and Amis, signifying, as it does, what may be called the mainstream trend of the age.  Not so where the Irish are concerned, and not so either - at least nowhere near to the same extent - with  British writers of Irish extraction, like Lawrence Durrell, Anthony Burgess, Cecil Day-Lewis, and John Middleton Murray, who seem to reflect an in-between psychological realm of pessimism tempered by optimism, rather than to stand at either Irish or English extremes.

      It is tempting to see in this Irish literary revival a golden age of Celtic literature which would correspond to the golden age of ancient Greece in the fifth century B.C., and, indeed, to equate the 1916 Uprising with the Greek victory over the Persians in 479 B.C., so that the Irish are perceived as being, in some sense, the modern equivalent of the ancient Greeks.  But this would be an over-facile and quite erroneous analogue, scarcely one based on real historical logic!  That Joyce may have conceived of such an analogue at the time he was writing Ulysses ... is a possibility we shall not ignore.  But there is no reason for us to endorse it on the grounds of historical recurrence.  If there is a kind of cyclical recurrence in history, and one with reversible applicability, depending on whether the context be pre- or post-dualistic, then there would be a strong case in favour of our equating the victory of the Americans over the British in the War of Independence with that of the ancient Greeks over the Persians in 479 B.C., and of seeing in America the modern equivalent of ancient Greece.

      Thus, in the trend towards dualism of the ancient world, the Greeks won their independence from a predominantly pre-dualistic people, only to lose it, eventually, to the Romans, who were early dualists.  Reversing this cycle through the trend away from dualism of the modern world, we find the Americans, as antithetical equivalents to the ancient Greeks, winning their freedom from the late-dualistic British, who can be regarded as antithetically equivalent to the Romans, and, in all probability, destined to lose it in the future to an early post-dualistic people, like the Russians or, more probably, the Chinese, who would then be the modern equivalent of the ancient Persians.  As history tends to reverse itself on the post-dualistic level, we might well be justified in equating the modern Irish with the ancient Egyptians or, at any rate, with a development which is tending towards an antithesis to the world's first great religious civilization and which, if it continues, may well constitute the basis for the world's last great religious civilization in due course - a civilization not peculiar to the Irish alone, but partly stemming from Ireland, or Irishmen, and spreading throughout the world.

      Thus the pre-dualistic development from Egypt and Persia to Greece (a kind of transitional civilization) and on, with early dualism, to Rome, would seem to have its post-dualistic parallel with Britain, as late dualism, leading via America (another transitional civilization) to Russia and/or China, and on, finally, to Ireland, the future equivalent, now in embryo, of ancient Egypt, which will round off the cyclical recurrence of evolutionary civilizations and lead, in due turn, to a post-Human Millennium, with the transformation of universal man into the Superman.  Ireland, then, will have the responsibility of determining the shape of the last great civilization, which will be cosmopolitan, just as Egypt determined the shape of the first, purely national one, and in such speculation I believe we are some way along the road to understanding the contemporary Irish domination of literature in twentieth-century Britain.

      As an extreme people for whom quality prevails over quantity, the Irish are already laying the foundations of the next civilization, a civilization that will follow on behind the American one of transition between dualism and transcendentalism.  With the ancient world we are always conscious of a lacuna between the Egyptians and the Greeks, the Persians not having fashioned a civilization to compare with either their predecessors or successors, and consequently not being known as a highly civilized people to contemporary minds.  In the modern world a similar lacuna may be projected as existing between the American civilization of today and the Irish or Gaelic civilization of tomorrow, since the Marxist-Leninist materialism of both the former Soviet Russia and, more especially, contemporary China falls short of genuine civilization, and corresponds to a neo-barbarism analogous, one can only surmise, to the relatively barbarous society of ancient Persia.  The twenty-first century may well constitute a new Dark Age for the passing civilizations, both British and American, but at least, if the logic of scientific history is to be trusted, we can express hope about the rebirth of civilization on higher terms in the not-too-distant future.

      Not so long ago, in an earlier volume of essays, my application of a modified cyclical recurrence to various nations in the overall progression of history led me to refute not only Spengler, with his assessment of Nazi Germany as a 'New Rome', and Britain, traditionally, as the 'New Greece' (or modern equivalent of ancient Greece), but also Malcolm Muggeridge and Simone Weil, the former upholding the theory of Britain as equivalent to ancient Greece and America to ancient Rome, while the latter maintained faith in France as the modern equivalent - particularly during the Napoleonic period - to ancient Rome, and Britain, by contrast, as equivalent to ancient Greece.  I disagreed with each of them and, I think, wisely, as things turned out.  But I wasn't entirely justified in aligning France with ancient Greece, even though I still adhere to the alignment of Britain with ancient Rome.  Frankly, I should have equated France with Carthage, so that America was free to be equated with ancient Greece.... As for Nazi Germany, it might have become the 'New Persia', so to speak, had it defeated the allies in World War Two.  But this it ultimately failed to do, and so Germany lost its claim to a major place in historical recurrence, much as Spengler may have wished otherwise!  Unfortunately, his reading of history was insufficiently profound to comprehend Nazi Germany in the light of a potential modern equivalent to ancient Persia, and so he drew the erroneous analogy with Rome.  Likewise, Muggeridge and Weil failed to probe deeply enough into historical evolution, and so came up with mistaken contentions.  However, it is interesting that they attributed Grecian characteristics to Britain when, except for one short period in its history, namely the Romantic era, Britain has steadfastly resembled ancient Rome, having come to power, as its antithetical equivalent, at the tail-end rather than inception of dualistic civilization.  Yet whereas ancient Rome took over Greek civilization and embellished, modified, and extended it into the Christian era, with the reversal of cyclical recurrence on the post-dualistic level we find that it is America, the 'New Greece', which has taken over British civilization and embellished, modified, and extended it into the transcendental era.  The Romans made no attempt to found a new religion completely independently of the Greeks, even though they eventually converted to Christianity, and neither have the Americans made any serious attempt to break away from Protestantism, as inherited from Britain in the seventeenth century.  Despite its indubitable transcendental leanings, not to mention its large Catholic population, America still officially clings to Protestant Christianity, and will doubtless continue to do so for some time to come.

      Yet the Irish will, I believe, adopt a completely new religion in the future, one stemming from Christianity but independent of humanistic influence, and will expand it abroad, just as Irish monks brought Catholicism to Britain and various Continental countries during the Dark Ages.  This new religion, though reminiscent of Buddhism, will be more than just a copy or derivative of oriental religion, since far less influenced by natural criteria and correspondingly more sympathetic to artificial and technological ingredients, pointing the way towards the Superman.  It won't make the mistake of imagining that man can attain to God, for it will know that man is but a stage on the road to something higher (the Superman), who is but a stage to something higher again (the Superbeing), and so on, until the attainment of the Omega Absolute at the climax of evolution.  If such a transcendental religion is destined to catch on anywhere, it can only be in a country with a long tradition of religious devotion, a country in which quality takes precedence over quantity and, consequently, being over doing.  I believe Ireland is such a country, and it will doubtless remain so in the future, whatever happens on the world stage.

      An Irish priest is always somehow more credible, more authentically theocratic, than an English one, and it would be scant exaggeration to say that an Irish priest is worth an English bishop, or even several English bishops.  Conversely, the Irish politician is usually inferior to his English counterpart and not taken quite so seriously either by his own people or by the British.  This is, however, relative to the antithetical predilections of the two peoples, and isn't likely to change very much in the future - whatever their respective fates may happen to be.  The Irish will continue to value their religious representatives above their political ones, while the English will take politicians more seriously than priests.  How it is that the Irish and English do differ so radically in this way must, in some degree, remain an enigma, although there is evidently something in the blood of the Celt that corresponds to a spiritual predilection, whereas the typical Anglo-Saxon feels more at home in the realm of tangible reality.  Doubtless the respective histories of the two peoples have contributed to this distinction, as, one suspects, have the geological and geographical differences between their respective islands or ancestral backgrounds, not least of all in respect of climate.  Yet whatever the main reasons, the moderation of the Englishman and the extremism of the Irishman remain fundamental characteristics of a centuries-old ethnic divide.

      In a transcendentalist age, however, it is inevitable that the Irish will dominate English cultural and intellectual affairs, as they did in the twentieth century.  The new men will take over from where their predecessors left off, bringing works of quality to a people who would otherwise be condemned, in materialistic stagnation, to mere quantity alone.





It was by mere chance that the terms 'Left' and 'Right' came to be applied to political allegiances of, in the one case, a progressive and, in the other, a reactionary or conservative bias.  For it was the progressive party (Jacobin/Cordelier) that sat on the left of the chamber in the new French Assembly of October 1791, while the moderates (Girondists) sat on the right, following the political turmoil of the French Revolution.  Thenceforth, as a result of this contingency, each successive progressive party the world over acquired the description 'left wing' and, conversely, each conservative party the description 'right wing'.  We have lived with this habit for so long now that we tend to take it for granted, convinced that it reflects a logical, meaningful way of describing the antithetical parties.  The thought that evolution, whether political or otherwise, may not be proceeding from the Right to the Left never really enters our heads, and we would be inclined to brand anyone who had the nerve to suggest, on the contrary, that political evolution proceeds from the Left to the Right as an ignoramus or, more likely, an idiot.  Yet the curious fact of the matter is that, strictly speaking, evolution does indeed proceed in this latter fashion - not according to the chance arrangement of an historic division in the new French Assembly!

      It isn't simply a matter of bringing a Nietzschean 'transvaluation of all values' to bear on the traditional viewpoint.  For such a 'transvaluation' can only reasonably be applied to natural phenomena and their relationship to civilization as it is now constituted.  A contingency doesn't permit of a transvaluation, and so we shan't attempt to turn the logic or, more correctly, illogicality of 'Left' applied to progressives and 'Right' applied to conservatives the correct way up.  Instead, we shall simply reverse the descriptions, so that, for once, the progressive party are regarded as right wing and the conservative party, by contrast, as left.  This merely as an experiment in logic, not as a recommendation for a revolution in our political thinking!

      Why, then, have I come to this subversive decision?  Because the brain, as currently constituted, is divisible into a left and a right compartment - the old brain or, in psychological terminology, subconscious mind being on the left, and the new brain/superconscious mind, by contrast, being on the right.  Translated into physiological terms, this means that the old brain is located to the left of the new brain, not underneath it.  Strictly speaking, there is no physiological entity corresponding to the ego, since it is a function of the brain, a spiritual attribute that arises from the latter's physiological workings, which also produce the independent attributes of subconscious and superconscious psychic functioning.  Thus as spirit arises from matter, it is dependent on matter, and will remain so until transcendence is attained ... as the long-awaited goal of human evolution.

      Now since evolutionary progress presupposes the gradual expansion of spirit towards its transcendent goal, it follows that the psyche's evolution proceeds from left to right, which is to say, from the subconscious to the superconscious via a continuously-modified ego which reflects, at any given point in time, the existing degree of consciousness, or the extent to which the one side of the psyche prevails over the other, in any individual.  This degree of consciousness isn't only a personal affair, depending on the intellectual or spiritual potential inherited from one's parents, nor, for that matter, is it solely related to the cultural standards of the society into which one was born, but is also - and perhaps predominantly - a consequence of the environment in which one lives - the successive historical transformations from rural to urban via suburban and/or provincial engendering a corresponding shift in the psyche's constitution, so that consciousness will reflect either more or less superconscious influence according to the individual's environmental position, extended over many years, at any given time.  With the rapid growth of urban environments, in recent centuries, we may note a more radical shift in consciousness from a kind of twilight balance between the subconscious and the superconscious to a light imbalance, so to speak, on the side of the latter, an imbalance which constitutes the psychic integrity of transcendental - as opposed to Christian - man.  Thus a shift away from the old brain towards the new or, rather, deeper into the new brain ... is a principal characteristic of evolutionary progress at this juncture in time, and, as the former is on the left and the latter on the right, we may infer that, strictly speaking, political evolution also tends from left to right, reflecting, as it must, the psyche's evolution.

      The fact that the old brain/subconscious mind is situated on the left and its antithesis on the right ... makes for a corresponding distinction between the left- and right-hand sides of one's face, most especially with reference to the eyes.  The left eye, it will be observed, is usually somewhat gentler and even sleepier-looking than the right one, and in the morning, if you bother to scrutinize your face before washing, you will find that it usually contains more sleep than its neighbour, the reason being that it is closer to the subconscious and therefore more under subconscious domination during sleep.  A factor which I have often observed in myself, and which I can only suppose common to others as well, is a predilection I have to sleep on my left side, so that consciousness slides down naturally into subconscious domination with the coming of sleep.  When, by contrast, I have attempted to sleep on my right side ... the almost invariable consequence has been a nightmare, and this I can only suppose to be related to the fact that, in such a position, the subconscious is on top of the superconscious and, with the coming of sleep, tends to oppress one through its essentially active, negative characteristics.  A reversal of this position doesn't necessarily prevent one from experiencing a nightmare, but it does at least guarantee that the subconscious, in being underneath, remains in a less oppressive context, thereby facilitating a more agreeable dream-life.

      As to the right eye, the fact of its proximity to the superconscious guarantees it a more penetrating, lucid, aggressive appearance than the left one, an appearance which, as a rule, will be more marked the greater the intelligence of the individual concerned, that is to say, the more his particular psyche is under the sway of the superconscious, with its intellectual/spiritual bias.  A poster I have of Lenin is particularly revealing of the distinction between the left and right eyes.  For whereas the former is in shadow the latter stares fiercely out at one from a brightly-lit section of the face, almost menacing in its fixity.  Men like Hitler, Dali, Baudelaire, and Nietzsche also provide conspicuous examples of the psyche's dichotomy, as reflected in facial appearance, and more than a few well-known politicians, including former American president Richard Nixon, have furnished convincing illustrations of this fact when photographed in a stern mood!  It would be misguided, however, to equate this forceful stare in highly intelligent men with the evil eye of superstitious tradition.  For it isn't the right eye but the left one which connects with the subconscious, and the only valid criterion for objectively assessing evil must pertain to the sensual, not to the spiritual!  A penetrating right eye is no more evil than a highly intelligent mind.

      Whether the distinction between the two eyes is sharp or blurred will, of course, depend on the psychic constitution of the individual, the vast majority of people probably not presenting the critical observer with very much contrast, and especially will this be true of people accustomed to a rural environment.  A more marked contrast will only be observed, as a rule, among the most spiritually-evolved people who, now as before, constitute a minority of higher types.  In the course of time, this distinction between the two eyes will doubtless spread to greater numbers of people, in response to social amelioration in educational and genetic contexts.  Post-dualistic man will be aptly reflected in his facial bias - a bias corresponding to the stronger influence of the superconscious in his overall psychic integrity.

      Before the discovery or perhaps I should say acknowledgement of the superconscious, psychologists were inclined to attribute positive characteristics to the subconscious in an attempt to explain away the psyche's positive predilections.  Since, to their way of thinking, consciousness was simply something that sat atop the subconscious, it seemed perfectly feasible to attribute positive motivations to the latter, seeing that such motivations had to come from somewhere and, given that the subconscious was the only other known part of the psyche, so the psychologists reasoned they must come from there.  Thus Freud and, following his example, Jung each endowed the subconscious with positive inclinations.

      For my part, I contend that positivity, in the truest sense of that word, is the principal attribute of the superconscious and will generally - though not invariably - be found on the right-hand side of the psyche, which is to say, in the new brain.  Positivity is not, as was formerly believed, an active thing but a decidedly passive phenomenon, like love, and corresponds to the spiritual life.  Only negativity is active, since aligned with the sensual, and it is precisely this characteristic that should be associated with the subconscious.  The proof of this, if it isn't already self-evident, lies in the fact that one's dreams are always active, and thus negative, whereas the experience of anyone who has expanded his consciousness through LSD, for example, will show that the contents of the superconscious, as revealed in this hallucinogenic way, are perfectly still, passive luminosities whose positivity fascinates the receptive consciousness.  Thus an antithesis may be posited between the restless, active contents of one's subconscious mind, as experienced during sleep, and the tranquil, utterly passive contents of one's superconscious mind, as revealed through upward self-transcending synthetic stimulants like LSD, whilst awake.  Aldous Huxley's mescaline experiments, as recorded in The Doors of Perception, provide quite conclusive proof of this matter and clearly point in the general direction that transcendental man is taking towards the millennial Superman, when equivalent artificially-induced upward self-transcending visionary experiences will become the social norm, shared by the vast majority of fellow-superhuman beings.  If Aldous Huxley deserves to be especially remembered for anything, over the coming centuries, it must surely be for his experiments with synthetic stimulants, which arguably constitute the most interesting and enlightening side of his work.  Hallucinogens like LSD may not be suitable to society as it is currently constituted, but they must surely presage a future applicability in response to the dictates of a more evolved psyche than generally exists at present.

      I have contended that whereas the subconscious is active, the left eye, as the one nearest to the old brain, is relatively passive and sleepy-looking, which would seem, on the face of it, to be a contradiction in terms.  Yet this is only so if one fails to perceive a contradiction within each part of the psyche, which corresponds to the mind/brain dichotomy.  For whilst it is perfectly true to say that the subconscious is active during sleep, we cannot accredit it with anything like the same degree of activity during our waking hours, when the conscious mind takes over.  Thus we needn't be surprised that the eye most under subconscious influence should be comparatively passive during the day, whereas the right eye reflects the visio-spatial/analytical activity of the superconscious or, at any rate, of its lower regions thereof, which correspond to the higher, logico-verbal regions of the subconscious.  Admittedly, the eyes don't exclusively connect with that part of the cerebral cortex nearest to them.  For they also cross-connect in the chiasma and thereby link-up with the opposite brain.  But the distinction between the contradictory appearance of the left and right eyes in highly intelligent people confirms a bias reflecting the predominant influence of the nearest brain, whether old or new.  The fact that the left side of the brain controls the body's right side, and, conversely, the right side of the brain the body's left side, does not invalidate this contention, since the eyes are arguably too close to the brain to be subject to the same rules as govern the physical body in general.

      The converse of the intellect's conscious activity in the lower regions of the superconscious, however, is the utterly passive nature of the visionary contents of the upper regions of superconscious mind, as revealed by mind-expanding drugs, which tend to fade into post-visionary consciousness at the topmost level ... of mystical beatitude.  Thus not only is there an antithesis between the active dream-world of the subconscious and the passive visionary world of the superconscious, but there is a parallel distinction within each part of the psyche between, on the one hand, active dream and passive thought, and, on the other hand, passive visionary experience and active intellectual behaviour, depending on whether one is in a state corresponding to sleep or to wakefulness.  In a wider context, an active superconscious mind is paralleled by a slothful subconscious body, and, conversely, an active subconscious body normally presupposes a slothful superconscious mind.  When the superconscious is passive, the subconscious comes awake, so to speak.  And, similarly, a passive subconscious mind makes possible the true awakening of the superconscious in visionary experience.  One might say, to extend this paradox, that the superconscious is only half-awake in visio-spatial/analytical activity, while the subconscious is only half-awake in logico-verbal/intellectual passivity.  To come fully awake, the former needs the passive visionary experience encouraged by synthetic hallucinogens like LSD, whereas the latter needs the active dream behaviour of sleep.  Let us therefore leave the matter with this teasing paradox: that whereas the subconscious only comes fully awake with the sleep of the superconscious, so the latter likewise only attains to full wakefulness with the sleep of the former.  Our higher mind is generally only half awake.  It will be our duty and privilege, in the future, to bring it fully awake, as we are transformed into Supermen.





It isn't merely to escape from the natural body that Supermen would be elevated to the status of brains artificially supported and sustained in our projected post-Human Millennium, but also to preclude the possibility of physical irresponsibility or otherwise riotous behaviour, among the populace, in consequence of high-level LSD tripping or equivalent synthetic experiences.  The gradual supersession of the natural body by an artificial, communal one will enable the religious life of Supermen to be conducted with a minimum of physical friction and social disturbance.  No-one will be liable to throw himself out of an upstairs window or under a car or on unsuspecting females or whatever in the post-Human Millennium, for no-one who regularly participates in the hallucinogenic experience will have a body to abuse.  The leadership, responsible for the maintenance and supervision of the social order, won't have to worry about irresponsible or riotous behaviour from the 'trippers', since their artificially-supported brains will be immobile and, consequently, no Superman would be disposed to physical revolt.  A perfectly docile society will become the cherished norm, and this norm won't be violated by any of its members.

      Of course, people have taken LSD in the twentieth century and, as a rule, they've behaved responsibly, refraining from physical violence.  The more intelligent members of the hippy subculture which arose in the late 1960s but declined in the early 1970s would certainly have behaved in this way, not imposing any severe strain on their friends or, indeed, on society generally.  But not everyone would have done so and, had LSD been legalized, the chances of riotous behaviour resulting from a more widespread use of this particular hallucinogen could only have been greater, doubtless leading to serious abuses of personal freedom by people not psychically qualified to make sensible use of it.  Of course, LSD wasn't legalized, and we needn't expect any radical change in the law relating to its use over the coming decades.  Quite probably, it will remain illegal until the advent of the post-Human Millennium, when men become transformed into Supermen and the natural body, or what remains of it, is consequently superseded by an artificial support/sustain system for the brain.  For so long as man exists, there will always be the possibility of social repercussions of a violent nature resulting from a premature legalization of LSD, or equivalent upward self-transcending synthetic stimulants.  We can't anticipate the widespread use of LSD under present conditions, even if certain individuals, more intelligent than their fellows, are perfectly capable of responding to it in a civilized manner - as various people showed themselves to be during the hippy era.  Unfortunately the persecution, by the liberal authorities, of hippies for 'drug abuse' was a virtual inevitability in a society where the legalization of such a potent mind-expanding stimulant remains, for reasons already discussed, out of the question in the short-term.

      There are, however, two kinds of alleged drug abuse.  There is the reactionary abuse involving recourse to stronger natural drugs than any given society is prepared to tolerate, and in a society where, in consequence of evolutionary progress, even comparatively mild drugs like tobacco and alcohol are becoming less respectable, it stands to reason that the use of opium, morphine, cocaine, and heroin will be penalized as incompatible with the moral standards of that society, and stiff sentences accordingly be meted out to those convicted of 'drug abuse'.  Yet such an abuse should be distinguished from, if not treated more leniently than, abuses involving synthetic drugs, [Strictly speaking, my understanding of drugs is of something that deadens the mind in the manner of a narcotic, whereas substances which, like LSD, enliven the mind or open it up to visionary experiences I regard as stimulants - the opposite, in effect, of a drug.] some of which may well be applicable to a future age.  LSD is, I believe, an example of the latter, and whilst its use cannot reasonably be legalized at present, nevertheless a distinction should be upheld between what may well presage a future spirituality and what is patently a manifestation of reactionary sensuality.  In a society tending, all the while, in the general direction of greater spirituality, the use or, rather, misuse of 'drugs' reflecting that tendency shouldn't be confounded with the use or misuse of drugs whose natural constitutions are far more harmful to both the individual and society in general.  While, from society's standpoint, a smashed window must be treated with equal severity by the law whether it be the result of hallucinogenics or narcotics abuse, from the individual's standpoint, however, the distinction between the two kinds of drug is a marked one, reflecting the difference between progress and regress.  Generally speaking, the man who is prematurely progressive is a superior phenomenon to the one who is belatedly regressive, and should, within reasonable limits, be recognized as such!

      Yet I am not here encouraging the use of LSD.  What is destined to find its niche in society will do so as a matter of course, irrespective of the opposition or repression it may meet with in the meantime.  The absence of 'progressive' drug abuse from society would doubtless prove a grave obstacle to evolutionary progress, which is always carried out, no matter what the context, in the face of natural opposition.  A society without LSD adherents would not be tending towards the Supermen but, on the contrary, standing somewhat closer to the apes!  Modern industrial society, however, should be progressive, and it would be an encouraging factor to learn that, of the total number of people convicted for drug abuse each year, the majority were for synthetic rather than natural abuses.  For a ratio biased on the side of the synthetic could be interpreted as a good omen of things to come and, instead of fretting themselves over its increase, the responsible authorities might be prevailed upon to take a more lenient line which, while still penalizing the offence, got it into better perspective from an evolutionary point-of-view.

      Positive lawbreakers, who presage the future, are no less culpable, in the eyes of the law, than negative ones who resurrect the past.  They are evolution's slaves rather than its masters, a medium through which change may be effected in due course.... Not wishing to directly align myself with the lawbreakers, however, I prefer, in my philosophical endeavour to comprehend evolution, the role of seeking to influence the lawmakers for the better, so that, through this and similar methods, they may become more receptive to the possibility of amending or changing the law in the future, at a time when such a policy appeared not only feasible but desirable.  An attempt to have the law changed prematurely, on the other hand, would be to nobody's advantage, not even the drug-taker's, since he would then be confronted - assuming he knew how to respect the drug - by those who simply maligned or squandered it, to the detriment of his own self-esteem.

      For transcendental man, then, we can take it as axiomatic that television will remain the principal medium (above both video and cinema) through which a degree of upward self-transcendence may be achieved.  Television is visionary experience coming at one from outside the self, and, since appearances precede essences, we needn't expect the widespread evolutionary leap to artificially-induced visionary experience inside the self to come about for some time yet - certainly not until the majority of people are capable of appreciating it!  Which probably won't be during the remaining course of this century, nor even, perhaps, during the early course of the next (although that isn't something about which anyone can be certain at present).  With the increased pace of evolution nowadays, we are by no means guaranteed that modern, i.e. transcendental, man will remain content to continue watching television throughout the course of the next hundred years.  It could well transpire that the novelty and excitement of television-viewing, even via satellite, will wear thin some time before then, to be replaced either by the higher visionary experience of Supermen or, what's more likely, by a wider interest in transcendental meditation as a prelude to the post-Human Millennium.  At this juncture in time, transcendental meditation remains a comparatively elitist interest, restricted to those who are capable of directly cultivating spirit without need of external assistance, such as television.  It presages not the Superman but the Superbeing of the succeeding phase of the post-Human Millennium, and is accordingly somewhat closer, in essence, to the blessed state of the heavenly Beyond.  But evolutionary progress should lead, in due course, to an ever-growing number of people taking-up with transcendental meditation in the decades or centuries to come, so that it will co-exist and possibly alternate with television spirituality within the framework of a higher religion - one institutionalized and collectivized.

      A materialist would probably contend that television will suffice to lead transcendental man directly to the LSD visions of the Superman, thereby making transcendental meditation totally irrelevant.  But I don't believe that meditation can be dismissed so easily, as though it were simply an anachronism which artificially-induced visionary experience, whether apparent or essential, external or internal, was destined to replace.  The need for a religious institution, such as would be provided by meditation centres, still requires to be addressed and is absolutely indispensable to religious progress in the world.  By becoming part of a meditating community, one would be on the next evolutionary rung, so to speak, above the church congregation, and such a communal context necessarily signifies an approximation, no matter how crudely, to the envisaged ultimate unity of the Omega Absolute, the divine culmination of evolution.  Yet no such approximation is reflected, however, in the context of an individual sitting either alone or with one or two others in front of a television screen every night, which is why, it seems to me, television can't be regarded as the logical successor to religion, but only as a component of contemporary spiritual progress.  What would condemn transcendental meditation outright, as a useless anachronism stemming from an obsolete society, would be a lack of applicability to the future, its failure to presage a superior spiritual development which a later stage of evolution will encourage.  If, then, the post-Human Millennium could be conceived solely as an affair of the Superman, with his artificially-induced internal visionary experience, we would be justified in condemning transcendental meditation as a futility.  But since the Millennium in question should extend into a more spiritual phase, in which the ensuing Superbeing will directly cultivate spirit pending transcendence, we would be mistaken to consider transcendental meditation irrelevant, even though it can be shown that, by itself, such meditation wouldn't suffice to take man to the heavenly Beyond.  This knowledge, however, needn't preclude us from meditating, since the experience is sufficiently rewarding in itself to be self-justificatory.

      But whether the entire human population can be induced to take meditation seriously, over the coming centuries, is another matter, and not one about which I feel confident to speculate, even given the inevitability of meditation centres as a precondition of the post-Human Millennium.  Not everyone attends church, and perhaps it will transpire that not everyone will attend the 'church' of tomorrow, although we may expect a greater degree of directive persuasion on the part of the relevant authorities than has ever existed before, with, it should be added, more incentive for the devotees to attend!  And so transcendental man, full-blown, would be participating in the transcendental civilization, a civilization presupposing the simultaneous existence, in harmonious co-existence, of socialism and transcendentalism or, rather, of a fusion of the one with the other.  For unless there is a community religion, there is no civilization, in the true sense of that term, but only what precedes it - namely barbarism.

      Since pre-dualistic man had a civilization, in which paganism and royalism (or some autocratic equivalent) prevailed, and dualistic man also, with his Christianity and parliamentary liberalism, it would seem only fair for us to ascribe a future civilization to post-dualistic man, since man is man at any stage of his evolution and ever in need of a church, where he can rub shoulders with his fellows.  The coming together of men into crowds isn't by itself a good thing, however.  What determines the moral status of the crowd is the reason why men come together, that is to say whether for sensual or spiritual purposes.  Since a communal context is relevant both to the lower communality of the plants and to our projected higher communality of the coming Superbeings, there is nothing in communal life per se that distinguishes it as a virtue.  One might say that it becomes a vice when the motivation driving people together is sensual, and such a motivation was certainly paramount during the era of pagan pre-dualism when, as often as not, men visited the temple or whatever to express their sexual predilections, with or without the assistance of resident priestesses!  The pagan orgy utilized the crowd for sensual purposes, so that men came together on the basis of the lowest-common-denominator, and thereby resembled the leaves of trees.

      With the advent of Christian dualism, however, the emphasis in crowd formations was spiritual rather than sensual, although a degree of sensuality was necessarily still upheld, as, for example, in the celebration of the Mass, with the symbolic offering of Christ's body and blood conducted through the sublimated mediums of wafer and wine - a far more frugal approach to sensuality than would have been intelligible to pagan man.  But if a diluted sensuality was the norm of Christian communal life, then for a post-dualistic age it follows that the motivation driving people together must be exclusively spiritual and thus, for the first time in history, entirely good.  The coming together of people for purposes of meditation in specially-designed centres will reflect the highest mode of communal life given to man, and be the nearest approach to the subsequent spiritual communality of the Superbeings.  Because no such motivation has previously existed in the West, nor, properly considered, anywhere else in the world, there can be little doubt that it will be endorsed over the coming centuries, so that man will pass through the entire spectrum of his evolution, from the beastly to the godly, as he enters its highest phase with widespread transcendentalism.  Tomorrow's crowds will, in this religious context, be purely virtuous, superior even to Christian congregations.

      There are, however, strict limits to the degree of togetherness men can experience, since they have bodies and remain imprisoned in them, prevented, by the flesh, from experiencing a truly close approximation to the omega goal of evolution in indivisible spiritual unity.  For transcendental men, the regular practise of meditation in communal contexts will simply constitute a stepping-stone to a still-closer approximation to ultimate divinity ... as experienced by the ensuing Supermen of the post-Human Millennium.  These Supermen will, as already noted, be elevated above the natural body in extensively artificial contexts designed on a collective basis.  As brains artificially supported and, no less importantly, artificially sustained, they will stand in a much closer relationship to ultimate divinity than transcendental men, with their individual bodies.  Unfortunately the body is always a grave obstacle to the attainment of an advanced degree of spiritual togetherness, of communal oneness, since its varieties of forms and appearances aren't always pleasant to behold, least of all when radically ugly, and serve rather to excite disgust, which negative feeling drives men apart.  Likewise its exposure to germs of one kind or another is a repellent rather than an attractive feature, since men fear contagion and are consequently inclined to maintain their physical distance, when possible, from the victims of colds, flu, and other common illnesses.  Even the division of the sexes is, in its relativity, a contributory factor in the inhibition of closer approximations to the Omega Absolute.  Obviously, the only solution to these problems lies with the Superman, who will be elevated above them through the supersession of the natural, individual body by an artificial and communal one, and accordingly experience a greater degree of unity with his fellows - a degree presaging the even greater spiritual unity of the Superbeings, when individual consciousness will be eclipsed by the collective, post-visionary consciousness of the tightly-packed clusters of new brains.  After which it will simply be a matter of time before this comparative spiritual unity makes way for the most complete spiritual unity ... of the Spiritual Globes as, following transcendence, they tend towards one another in accordance with the positive drift of a gradual convergence towards ultimate Oneness.

      However, where space is concerned, it isn't true, contrary to what modern scientists tend to believe, that the Universe is expanding.  The stars, we may rest assured, are contracting, and if they are tending farther apart, they are not expanding but ... diverging, after the fashion of their infernal natures.  The concept of an expanding Universe should only apply to man and man-equivalent life forms (if any) elsewhere.  Now when we narrow the Universe to man we find, despite appearances to the contrary, that spirit is expanding, in accordance with the chief characteristic of being, while simultaneously converging towards its goal in the indivisible unity of the Omega Absolute.  Thus an antithesis exists between the divergence of the physical universe on the one hand, and the convergence of the spiritual universe on the other, as, likewise, between the contraction of stars and the expansion of spirit.

      On what may be termed the microcosmic plane of global civilization, we see the contraction of the diabolic side of the Universe in the curtailment of nature, the overcoming of various pestilential diseases, the penalizing of serious natural drug abuse, the decline of authoritarianism, the reduction of competitive individualism, and the gradual undermining of private property.  Conversely, we see the expansion of the divine side of the Universe in the growth of cities, the increase in the use (or abuse) of synthetic stimulants, the development of collective contexts, the increase in public spending, the substitution of artificial for natural modes of sexuality, the growing interest in meditation, and so on - all factors which point in the general direction of both a post-Human Millennium and subsequent heavenly Beyond.  What is happening on this planet is probably also happening on the thousands if not millions of other possible life-sustaining planets throughout the physical Universe, so that the divine side of the Universe is simultaneously converging towards its future culmination in the most absolute noumenal indivisibility.  We needn't expect this culmination to come about for some considerable time yet, however, since there are definite stages to evolutionary progress, presupposing, in the future, the emergence of new life forms out of man which will be as spiritually superior to him ... as apes and trees were and, in some sense, continue to be his spiritual inferiors.

      It would be erroneous, however, to suppose that man will venture to the far corners of the Universe in the future, and thereupon come into contact, whether on a friendly or a hostile basis, with beings from outer space.  For although there will doubtless continue to be a degree of space exploration during the coming centuries, the fact of evolutionary progress will preclude him from making the exploration of space his chief priority, since higher stages of evolution presuppose greater degrees of psychic interiorization, and consequently less interest in the phenomenal worlds that lie outside it.  As human evolution draws toward its climax so noumenal essence predominates over phenomenal appearance, making the cultivation of spirit the overriding priority of the age.  In all probability, the life-sustaining planets in other parts of the Universe won't differ too radically from the earth, seeing that life, particularly on the human plane, requires fairly predictable conditions, neither too hot nor too cold.  This being the case, we would be foolish to concern ourselves with the altogether futile, time-wasting explorations of kindred planets!  As transcendental men we would have better things to do with our time than to dabble in appearances, cosmic or otherwise!  And as Transcendentalists we would not have an indefinite life-span, but no more, at most, than a few centuries before the transformation to the Superman became apposite.  Our current space explorations should be designed primarily to assist our spiritual development, not be pursued for the mere sake of exploring!  And it is sincerely to be hoped that if, in the not-too-distant future, we put an end to war between human beings, we won't proceed to start wars between ourselves and the nearest aliens, since an end to war as such is commensurate with a higher, more advanced stage of evolutionary progress.  Yet while this is undoubtedly so, it is also worth remembering that an extension of war from tribal and national to international and, in all likelihood, planetary levels is also compatible with evolutionary progress, and consequently that some kind of compromise, involving a more civilized or sublimated kind of warfare than man has hitherto waged against himself, may well be required throughout the duration of the next civilization, in the interests, needless to say, of safeguarding his spiritual progress.

      As to the phasing-out of aspects of life on the diabolic side of the Universe, the growing freedom from nature which man will achieve in the centuries to come will doubtless lead to his dispensing with what might be described as unnecessary animals, such as dogs, cats, horses, mice, rabbits, and other pets, whilst any dispensing with necessary animals, including pigs, cattle, and sheep, will probably follow with the advent of the Superman and consequent supersession of the natural body by artificial supports and sustains for the brain.  There are besides pets, workers, and livestock, many other types of animal in the world and these, whether wild or captive, will also be dispensed with in the course of time.  What began in the transcendental civilization would doubtless be finished, by the relevant authorities, during the post-Human Millennium, so that towards the climax of spiritual evolution on earth very few beasts would remain in existence.  For their continued presence there would be incompatible with the radically spiritual bias of a society tending towards transcendence, as well as a potential threat, if left unchecked, to the safe and proper functioning of that society in an extensively artificial context.  As man tends towards the spirit so he makes war on the beast, both internally and externally, since it stems from the alpha side of the Universe in its intrinsic sensuality.  If animals are acceptable to a dualistic civilization which, in its openness, has pagan roots, they would most assuredly prove incompatible with and therefore unacceptable to a transcendental civilization.... Although we needn't expect a radical purge of pets or other animals to take place over the coming decades, we can certainly anticipate a gradual reduction in their numbers, as society takes appropriate measures to transcendentalize itself, so to speak.

      Likewise the gradual elimination of private property is compatible with evolutionary progress towards the Divine, insofar as property reflects a diabolical inclination on the part of its owners, who function in the guise of individual suns competing with one another for planets.  Since the most powerful suns or stars in the Universe are likely to be those which control the biggest and/or greatest number of planets, so the most powerful men are usually those with the most property, which stands to them in the ratio of a planet to a sun.  A man with three houses is equivalent to a sun with three planets, and he can only be more powerful, from an alpha-stemming viewpoint, than the man with a single house (provided, of course, that the scale of the latter is smaller than that of the former, whether collectively or individually).  Nowadays there aren't that many people with three or more houses, but even one house will be considered excessive in the future, and its owner doubtless penalized as a matter of social necessity.  With the post-Human Millennium there will be no private property in existence at all, not even for the leaders, who will live in communal dwellings while their superhuman 'charges' live in the communal clusters of artificially-supported brains in the various meditation centres.  Thus the world will tend ever more radically in the direction of God, or the transcendence of all materialism, in the heavenly Beyond.  Verily, the overcoming of nature and the natural body will be a significant step on the road to that spiritual destination!





Since everything on earth stems from the polar constitution of the Galaxy, including the distinction between female and male, which is the essence of Original Sin, it follows that the gradual overcoming of this constitution signifies an evolutionary progression away from the natural-world-order towards the supernatural context of God.  Since stars correspond to the female side of the Galaxy and planets to the male side, we find that the struggle away from the natural towards the supernatural entails a rebellion, on the part of males, against female attractive power, a rebellion which has led to a loosening of traditional sexual ties and to a gradual move towards a predominantly male-oriented society, a society in which the post-dualistic bias of industrial, urban man finds its chief sexual outlets in either homosexuality or pornography, while women, becoming increasingly masculinized, effectively function as 'lesser men', or 'quasi-males', thus giving rise to an extension of 'homosexual' tendencies within the framework of heterosexual relationships - as manifested, for example, in the ubiquitous cult of unisex and the practice, intermittently or otherwise, of anal sex.  Thus bisexuality cuts across heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships, reflecting, as it must, the growing post-dualistic bias of contemporary man.  If the pre-dualistic age was congenial to lesbianism, then the post-dualistic age will necessarily favour homosexuality, in accordance with the expansion of the male over the female side of life, as essential to mankind's struggle towards the Divine.

      Thus, in the Western world, it is fashionable - one might almost say obligatory - to refer to homosexuals as 'gay' rather than 'queer', since the derogatory implication of the latter term would reflect too naturalistic a mentality, suggestive of a poor opinion of deviations from the natural or traditional norm.  But to have such an opinion would be to put oneself in the position of a man, devoid of evolutionary perspective, who imagines that life should always be lived on natural terms, and that deviations from such terms are inherently blameworthy and, consequently, something to be regarded as a perversion.  It would be to condemn evolutionary progress in matters relating to sex, and thus remain entrenched in a short-sighted materialism that was all-too-ready to brand manifestations of sexual progress as 'insane' because, according to one's traditional criteria, arguably perverse.

      No, in this age only the less spiritually-evolved people are partial to the word 'queer' for what they regard as a deviation from the natural right.  They are the twentieth-century's sexual fascists - people who are unable or unwilling to recognize sexual progress when they see it, but persist in applying their own rather short-sighted denigrations to it as a matter of course.   'Queer' is equivalent to 'perverse', and being homosexual is, according to this value-judgement, somewhat inferior to the natural, heterosexual norm.  In fact, it is to be a kind of sexual spastic.  Not surprisingly, Marxist-Leninist societies tend to frown upon homosexuality and pornography as constituting a perversion of the natural norm, which is also symptomatic, in their view, of bourgeois decadence.  Lacking any kind of transcendental criterion, such societies have no basis for justifying or understanding it, since, without reference to the spiritual dimension of evolutionary progress, homosexuality may well appear a perversion of the natural rather than a development towards the supernatural, in which increasingly artificial standards come to apply.  But such artificiality isn't readily encouraged in Marxist-Leninist states, since it connotes with an elitist tendency that would appear to run contrary to the inherent naturalness of the general proletariat, whose social backwardness or, rather, innocence must be protected from such 'corrupting' influences as allegedly stem, in the main, from the decadent West.

      To be sure, there is a certain degree of logic behind this type of thinking, especially with regard to the presumed inability of the general proletariat to properly appreciate the merits of so-called perverse activity.  Yet decadence isn't the root from which homosexuality and pornography spring, even though such phenomena may arise during the decadence of a given civilization.  The fact of contemporary Western civilization's being decadent does not, however, imply that everything which exists in or springs from it is inevitably decadent, too.  Decadence can only extend to certain contexts, with politics and religion especially conspicuous, and is chiefly characterized by the inadequacy or irrelevance of the official system, whether political or religious, from a majority standpoint - by its inability, in other words, to correspond to the evolutionary changes wrought by environmental and other factors among the masses.  That certain sections of the masses may develop more relevant unofficial systems to compensate themselves, in some measure, for this lack ... is a fact which cannot be denied, and sometimes a context or system that began unofficially, as a reflection of evolutionary progress outside the prevailing system, is subsequently absorbed into the decadent civilization in response to both popular demand and financial expediency.  Pornography is, I believe, one such phenomenon, and its prevalence throughout the West reflects a manifestation of evolutionary progress which co-exists with the manifestations of decadence also to be found there.  For as a means of intellectualizing sexuality, pornography - and I use the term loosely in the sense of general erotica - must signify a development away from traditional materialism ... in which not concrete but sublimated sexuality comes to pass, as the highest, most appropriate sexuality for an increasingly transcendental age, with other types of post-dualistic sexuality, including the homosexual, in fairly close attendance.

      Of course, homosexuals have existed in the past, long before the dawn of post-dualism, and not all latter-day homosexuals can be considered truly post-dualistic.  Nevertheless it remains a fact that, in recent decades, homosexuality has become more widespread than ever before, a fact which must be associated, to some extent, with the gradual undermining of the traditional female side of life and consequent upsurge of the male side in its place.  If homosexuality is a reflection of this, then so, too, is pornography, bisexuality, unisex, celibacy, and, indeed, the sodomizing of women.  Whatever the particular sexual preference of the individual male, it is evident that he can choose between a number of alternative modes of post-dualistic sexuality within the broad contexts of the Western dualistic and, most especially, transitional civilizations.  Admittedly, he can also remain traditionally dualistic and only consort with actual, palpable females in a consistently orthodox fashion if he so desires or, what's probably nearer the truth, if his class instincts and environmental/professional conditioning so dictate.  He can thus behave, on the conventional bourgeois level, like any good traditional Marxist-Leninist male, who would never dream of doing anything unnatural to a woman or of having sexual relations with a man, never mind casting an appreciative eye over pornography!  But such conventional types, who are more apt than anyone to regard homosexuals as 'queer' and pornographers as 'pervs' or 'jerks', are unlikely to be around for ever, least of all towards the latter stages of the next civilization when, with the full-blown acceptance of post-dualistic criteria, adherence to traditional dualistic criteria would be regarded as a gross misfortune, the subject of derisory contempt if not actual suppression.

      To be shamelessly heterosexual in that more advanced age would be tantamount to being the victim of atavistic paganism, a kind of anachronism in a wholly transcendental society that was progressing, all the time, closer to a post-Human Millennium, and thus to the complete supersession of the natural body by artificial supports and sustains for the brain - arranged, no doubt, on a communal basis.  To be shamelessly heterosexual at that time would be even more uncomfortable, from the social point-of-view, than being homosexual now.  For at least the twentieth century gave rise to the transitional civilizations of America, Germany, and Japan, which recognize the legitimacy of a degree of sexual transcendentalism unprecedented in the dualistic civilizations of the more traditional European West.  And even these latter are being obliged, in coming under the influence of the more advanced civilizations, to extend the transcendental side at the expense of the pagan side of things, so that post-dualistic sexuality is a tolerated, if not wholeheartedly encouraged, aspect of contemporary life.  But in a full-blown post-dualistic civilization the prevalence of natural sexual activity could hardly be considered compatible with transcendental criteria, and so more rigorous steps would have to be taken to phase it out.  Doubtless artificial modes of reproduction would be preferred, though not necessarily along the lines envisaged by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, while women - assuming they still existed at such a time - would be a great deal more liberated than at present - so liberated, in fact, as to take artificial sexual practices, including recourse to vibrators, for granted.

      Yet the Western world, being partly tied to its pagan past, will have its Mary Whitehouses and Malcolm Muggeridges, not to mention Andrea Dworkins, for some time to come - certainly for the foreseeable future!  It will also, thank goodness, have its Havelock Ellises and Henry Millers, who reflect the transcendentally progressive side of this world.  Doubtless hard-line Marxists would, in the event of taking over the West, carry on from approximately where sexual puritans left off, thereby postponing the advent of the highest civilization for as long as possible or, at any rate, until such time as internal or international pressure obliged them to change their tune.  But it is doubtful that they would be able to stamp out pornography, homosexuality, etc., altogether, and so a flickering of post-dualistic sexuality would probably continue, sometimes threatening to burst into flame and set the whole world alight - an eventuality which well-intentioned people could only look forward to, since a world in which transcendental sexuality predominates is superior to one still under the dominion of natural, sensual, palpable sex.

      There are, of course, various drawbacks to the prevalence of pornography in the West at present, but they are largely inevitable.  The man who misuses pornography is an example of what I mean, and such men, insufficiently sublimated to properly appreciate it, tend to react from pornographic idealism with a greater degree of heterosexual realism than might otherwise have been the case, in consequence of which they then commit rape or put their pornographically-induced fantasies into action in socially unacceptable ways.  Instead of being absorbed into the higher sexuality of the pornographic world, these men rebound off it, so to speak, with redoubled physical violence, their sexual appetites inflamed by the seductive spectacles to-hand.  They are akin to the egocentric mind that, according to the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation, rejects the purity of the Clear Light of the Void and is therefore obliged to return to the world in the guise of a new person.  What the Clear Light ... is to the insufficiently-evolved person, the pornographic stimulus is to such men as these, who must needs refer everything back to palpable reality, rather than strive to live on the higher plane of sexual sublimation.  As I said, this is a drawback.  But it is one that has to be endured by society in the name of evolutionary progress and fidelity to transcendental criteria.  There is no justification for stamping out pornography on the hypothetical grounds that it leads to an increase in sexual crimes, since such crimes as are committed against unsuspecting people tend to be committed by a small minority of men, not by the majority of pornography enthusiasts who, on the contrary, are perfectly capable of containing themselves and directing their sexual impulses towards the Ideal.  That such masturbation as may take place in this context is regarded, by less-evolved people, as a perversion ... is perhaps inevitable, if regrettable.  For the people in question remain too tied to the natural to see that it is only through the perversion or, rather, subversion of natural behaviour ... that man can progress towards the supernatural, and thereby achieve redemption as an evolutionary being.  Not to be capable of unnatural or artificial sexual behaviour is to condemn oneself to the level of a beast, in whom natural determinism prevails.

      Yet masturbation, much as it may take place amongst a majority of the pornography-buying public, does not have to take place, and, with the more highly-evolved men, it generally transpires that voyeurism alone is sufficient to cater for their pornographic needs.  A man who can scrutinize pornography without feeling compelled to masturbate ... may well be more spiritually evolved than one who can't, since he reduces sensual commitment to the barest minimum of optical engagement.  But even masturbation, morally considered, is a less sensual activity than copulation, and undoubtedly represents a more civilized, because artificial, mode of sexual behaviour. [For one thing, it cannot be equated with Original Sin and neither, for another, does it involve the literal use of another body, and of another body, if female, likely to be more fleshy than one's own.]   Of course, D.H. Lawrence wouldn't have agreed with me here.  But, then, Lawrence was one of the twentieth-century's least civilized writers, a kind of modern savage for whom sex in naturalis, and as often as possible, was the key to salvation.  Such a key, however, simply opens the door to damnation, and has been condemned by all true spiritual leaders for centuries.  We don't cultivate spirit when we make love, and neither did Lawrence, whose writings are among the most naturalistic of his time, intend us to do so.  Instead, he wanted us to become 'whole', which, according to him, meant perfect.  Alas, such ‘wholeness’ would not lead us towards God, but simply keep us tied to the beastly as perpetual men!  Yet man is something that 'should be overcome' said Nietzsche, an altogether more enlightened philosopher, and pornography, by freeing him from the palpable, is a contributory factor in his overcoming - a means of encouraging him towards the complete transcendence of sex in the post-Human Millennium.

      Of course, man is human at any stage of his evolution and cannot completely escape from the sensual world into a post-human spiritual one.  There are sensual, sexual obligations to be honoured whether one is in the pagan, the Christian, or the transcendental stages of human evolution.  But whereas the sexual obligations of pre-dualistic pagan man would be largely if not exclusively natural, those, by contrast, of post-dualistic transcendental man should become increasingly artificial, as befits his greater freedom from natural determinism.  The former is only capable of heterosexual copulation, whereas the latter, while still capable of such activity, prefers to gloat over a pornographic magazine and/or video, and thus displays more free will, as is compatible with a higher degree of evolutionary progress.  For in the age-old struggle between free will and natural determinism, free will can only triumph over natural determinism as men grow ever more civilized, and so approximate, by ever-increasing degrees, to the ultimate freedom of God.  In a transcendental society the ratio of free will to natural determinism should be in the region of at least 3:1, in accordance with the post-dualistic status of the age.  Eventually, with the advent of transcendence, natural determinism will be completely escaped from, as the Spiritual Globes issuing from Superbeings tend towards ultimate Oneness in the heavenly Beyond.  For Salvation (as definitively signified by transcendence) is, above all, deliverance from the flesh, from, at that incredibly-advanced juncture in time, the clustered new-brains whose physiological constitutions would retain a degree of natural determinism right up to the moment of transcendence, and hence complete spiritual freedom.  But, of course, the degree of natural determinism imposed upon the meditating wills of the Superbeings would be considerably less than the degree of it imposed upon man, whether transcendental or otherwise, and be proportionate, moreover, to the stage of evolutionary progress consonant with that age when, with extensive technological assistance, the new-brain clusters were artificially supported and sustained, 'the flesh' having been reduced to the barest minimum compatible with a truly intensive cultivation of spirit.

      Returning from the upper reaches of our projected post-Human Millennium to the present, we find that the most advanced men are those in whom free will predominates over natural determinism to the greatest extent.  As a rule, men of genius are the ones who display the most free will, and this is virtually a primary criterion of genius, whether we are alluding to a man like Schopenhauer, who willed to spend most of his adult life in undeviating fidelity to certain solitary habits, or to one like Salvador Dali, who once lectured a gathering of students with a loaf of bread tied to his head.  Natural determinism, carried to any extent, is incompatible with greatness, and never more so than today, when transcendental criteria are on the rise.  The leading minds must be the freest minds, mini-versions of God on earth who intimate, through no matter what idiosyncratic circumlocutions, of greater freedoms to come; Christ-like figures with a divine mission - artists and philosophers.  Thus they draw the masses up towards themselves, and so away from the tyranny of natural determinism.

      However, just as it follows that not all men can be as free as the great, so it usually happens that not all women can be as free as men - even in the twentieth century, the first post-dualistic century in history.  As a rule, women are more under the sway of natural determinism than of free will, and especially were they so in the past, prior to the growth of female emancipation.  Today, however, while natural determinism still prevails over free will in most women, evolutionary pressures are ensuring that women, too, become freer than ever before, thus behaving increasingly like men, whose work-a-day world is no longer an exclusively male preserve.  Nowadays comparatively few women can expect to have more than three children.  For the emphasis on free will in an incipiently post-dualistic age ensures that child-rearing becomes rather more the exception than the rule, and that women accordingly look upon their professional calling as the main one, with child-rearing a temporary interruption of their public duties.  On the other hand, in an age with high mortality rates, like the nineteenth century, this attitude and behaviour wouldn't have been possible, even if other factors had encouraged it.  But, in the modern age, with extremely low infant mortality rates in the more civilized parts of the world, it stands to reason that large families and/or regular pregnancies aren't going to be necessary either to increase or maintain the population level, and that 1-3 successful first-time pregnancies and deliveries, per adult woman, will suffice to maintain the population ... as well, possibly, as enable it to increase.  Thus women are now freer than ever before of maternal responsibilities and able, in consequence, to regard their public functions, as wage-earning employers/employees, as their principal ones.  Free will is gradually getting the better of natural determinism in women as well as in men, and although a significant proportion of women don't much welcome this fact, it nevertheless remains an inescapable aspect of evolutionary progress which comparatively few of them can do anything to reverse.  For the post-dualistic age is hostile to traditional female aspects of life in proportion as it is biased on the side of those male elements which are gradually bringing the world closer to Heaven.  Future women, you can rest assured, will be a great deal less naturalistic and correspondingly more liberated than contemporary ones!  We may not yet have reached a supermasculine stage of evolution, but we are certainly tending in its direction, as various aspects of the modern world, including the sexual, adequately confirm.  

      An historical man (assuming he could come back to life from a previous century) could only cast a scandalized gaze over the shapely rump of a liberated young woman walking along the street in tight-fitting denims.  The more enlightened modern male, however, hardly deigns to be impressed by the seductive spectacle of such a clearly-outlined female figure.  He is simply conscious of looking at another man, albeit an attractive one, in front of him.  He is post-dualistic and, consequently, if not literally homosexual, then his relations with such quasi-masculine 'women' are effectively bisexual.  For homosexuality, in one degree and form or another, is not so much the exception in a post-dualistic age as ... the general rule!





Are introverts morally superior to extroverts?  This is an interesting question and one which I believe can be answered in the affirmative.  Yes, introverts generally are morally superior to extroverts, and for the simple reason that whereas the former are aligned with essence, or the internal, the latter remain aligned with appearance, or the external.  Essence and appearance are forever antithetical and can never be considered equal.  Of course, no-one is completely an introvert or an extrovert, but the fact that, when not striving for a balance, most people are predominantly one or the other permits us to distinguish between them as, in effect, 'the good' and 'the bad'.

      To be an introvert is to value the internal world above the external one, to prefer being 'in one's head', through reflection or contemplation, than outside it ... in curiosity at the world around one.  An introvert is thus biased in favour of the spirit rather than of the flesh, and may be defined as of masculine character, in whom the profound predominates over the superficial.  Conversely, an extrovert spends more time in the external environment and may accordingly be described as of feminine character, with a corresponding predilection for the superficial over the profound.  The extrovert is usually a man of action and may well be highly observant.  He notices what goes on around him with a comprehensiveness and penetration which the introvert will rarely if ever possess.  To him external events are important, whereas the internal world, to the extent that he has one, seems relatively trivial. 

      Generally speaking, this extrovert/introvert antithesis appertains to the division of the sexes.  Women are fundamentally extrovert and men, by contrast, introvert.  A woman notices appearances with more consistency and penetration, as a rule, than does a man, and this is because, for her, appearance is what really matters, what really counts in life, so that, as Schopenhauer well-remarked, she usually takes appearances for reality (and even, in a certain sense, too seriously).  On the other hand, a man, if truly masculine, will treat essence with more respect than appearance, and thus adopt an introverted attitude to life.  He will be predominantly immersed in the spirit, whereas a woman will remain aligned with the flesh.  Indeed, it could be argued that whereas women are rooted in the eyes, men are centred, by contrast, in the brain.

      These distinctions between the sexes are gradually being eroded and all because the influence of modern industrial civilization, in slowly masculinizing women, is driving society towards a post-dualistic status in which the ultimate objective can only be the complete transcendence of the feminine element in life.  Needless to say, we have a long way to go before we attain to a supermasculine and highly introverted society, which, so I contend, will only come about with a post-Human Millennium, and the correlative elevation of humanity to the superhuman level ... of human brains artificially supported and no-less artificially sustained in communal contexts.  In the meantime, women will doubtless continue to exist, but not as traditionally!

      Nevertheless, one would be a hypocrite to assert that all modern women were already radically masculinized, since the evidence of the senses would seem to indicate that a majority of them are still sufficiently feminine to be able to continue behaving in a traditionally seductive, sensual manner, and to perform the usual female duties in life.  Some women may be more advanced and liberated than others, but they remain a comparatively small minority of, for the most part, university-educated intellectual types.  Most women, it seems to me, have not yet betrayed their sex or been obliged to do so to any radical extent, which is why they continue to treat appearances as being of more importance than essence.

      I shall give you a typical example of an average woman's concept of the world, as appertaining to sex.  Such a woman will regard the solitary man as 'bent' by assuming that he masturbates.  Whether or not he does so ... isn't particularly important.  What is important, however, is the light thrown on the woman's psychology by the word 'bent'.  It reveals, I mean, that she cannot conceive of sex in transcendent terms, but must refer it back to nature, so that anything which may be regarded as a deviation from the natural norm is deemed perverse, and duly castigated with the crude epithet in question.  Lacking a more evolved spiritual dimension, this average type of woman is unable to relate to a lifestyle or attitude to life which refutes conventional sexual behaviour.  Rather than interpreting the man's celibacy in terms of spiritual aspirations, she regards it as a failure, a perversion of the natural sex instinct, and does so because of an inherent bias, in her psyche, for appearance over essence, the flesh over the spirit.  Such women are incapable of appreciating the virtue of sublimated sexuality.  They remain chained to the concrete, the apparent, the phenomenal, and are thus more traditionally feminine.

      Of course, even the most advanced women have spiritual limitations, and I do not for one moment believe that they would be capable of attaining to the same level of spiritual freedom as a man of outstanding genius - say, a Nietzsche, Baudelaire, Schopenhauer, Dali, de Chardin, or Prokofiev.  The tendency of publishers to employ an ever-growing army of women readers, these days, can only be a source of lasting regret to those men - more spiritually advanced than the majority of their fellows - whose works are bound to prove unattractive to such readers by dint of being either too complex or too artificial, too transcendental or too progressive, too moral or too elitist, as the case may be.  With a high percentage of women employed in editorial roles there are always going to be significant drawbacks from a serious writer's standpoint, not the least of which will entail the female reader reacting against the content of too radical a typescript for her liking under the impression that it is erroneous or dangerous when, in point of fact, it is simply the product of a more spiritually-evolved psyche, one that would probably find a greater degree of sympathy and understanding from an intelligent male reader - provided, however, that he was habituated to appreciating men of genius and could therefore boast of intimate scholarly connections with the likes of Huysmans, Roussel, Spengler, Sartre, and Koestler.  Alas, not many female readers could do that!

      Despite the progress which has been made, during the past century, in drawing women up higher towards more masculine criteria, the fact nonetheless remains that a division between the sexes still exists and will doubtless continue to exist until the post-Human Millennium, when only Supermen will prevail.  Yes, the traditional feminine/masculine division still exists, but so, too, does a new dimension, as applying in particular to so-called liberated women in their relation to the most intelligent males, in which a kind of spiritual disparity exists along a post-dualistic spectrum in response to male superiority in things of the spirit.  The more advanced women are doing their best to close the gap, but even they have to admit, sooner or later, that they are still fundamentally women and cannot therefore hope to compete with the contemporary world's outstanding male geniuses.  If these geniuses are to be described as 'greater men', then the leading female intellects effectively become 'lesser men' in relation to them, and so they must remain.  This is not male chauvinism, but fidelity to truth as I endeavour to push free thought to greater heights, in revolt against natural determinism.  No woman, barring a sex change, will ever become a man, though she can certainly become more man-like in the course of evolutionary time, and thus sacrifice a number of traditional feminine norms or be obliged to modify them in response to masculine pressures.

      As for sex, however, women are on the whole extrovert and, hence, superficial.  They are likely to be more impressed by a neat, clean appearance than by what a man may know about the Universe or God or the Millennium, and, consequently, they are inclined to regard a well-dressed man as superior to a poorly-dressed one, even though the former may be a money-grubbing scoundrel and the latter a poverty-stricken genius!  This is the inevitable consequence of taking appearances for reality and evaluating people according to superficial criteria.  One cannot be surprised that some men, predominantly given to essence, choose to dress poorly or informally as a means of expressing their contempt for appearances.  For one can't please the world and genuinely aspire towards the transcendental Beyond at the same time.  A truly introverted man will know in which direction salvation lies.

      The fact that evolution is tending in the direction of greater spirituality ... inevitably means that women must be treated increasingly like men, since the post-dualistic age requires that they effectively become 'lesser men' rather than remain just women, as before.  The move towards sexual equality in certain contexts is therefore both morally desirable and inevitable, but one must understand the exact terms on which the world is moving towards it, else the chances of one's interpreting equality in a ridiculous way can only be pretty high!

      Let me give you an example.  A husband and wife decide that, since the sexes are equal and women should be liberated from traditional domestic slavery, they will share whatever domestic duties they may have, including care of their offspring.  Consequently the husband takes turns with the cooking, washing-up, sewing, hoovering, bed-making, nappy-changing, bottle-feeding, etc., while his wife dedicates a correspondingly greater amount of time to reading, watching television, listening to the radio, practising yoga, or whatever.  Here, in this absurd situation, evolution has only gone forwards for the wife, whereas for her husband it has effectively gone backwards, since he now has to take a share in traditional female duties.  But this is precisely what shouldn't happen, since evolution is primarily furthered by men, and the modern age signifies not the triumph of women over men but the coercion of women away from their traditional roles, in response to a male-oriented technological world.  For a modern husband to take turns with his wife in tackling domestic responsibilities is really quite ridiculous, since evolutionary progress should be serving his interests by making him even more masculine, and hence spiritually-biased, than were his male ancestors, thereby leading him towards a greater degree of spirituality, whether through culture or religion, than would previously have been possible.  With the comparatively recent invention of so many electrical appliances for domestic use, such as dishwashers, washing-machines, spin-dryers, hoovers, fridges, cookers, electric fires, and so on, the woman is spared much of the time-consuming manual work which her sexual ancestors formerly had to do, and should thereby have more free time in which to cultivate masculine, i.e. spiritual, interests, like watching television, reading books, playing chess, or painting pictures.  This is what liberation should really mean for the wife - not the absurd imposition onto her husband of traditional female duties!

      So although we speak of equality, we should be careful not to misspeak of it, and thereupon run the risk of reversing or impeding evolutionary progress.  What we must understand is that the sexes are only equal, these days, to the extent that women are now effectively becoming 'lesser men' through the influence of environmental and technological progress, rather than remaining firmly entrenched on the female side of history.  But that same coercive influence which has slowly dragged them across the borderline, so to speak, which separates the feminine from the masculine, has driven men even further ahead on the masculine side of it, so that an evolutionary gap still exists between women and men, but this time on the post-dualistic level ... as a distinction between 'lesser men' and 'greater men' or, as one could alternatively phrase it, quasi-men and genuine men, according to the logic of a male-biased society.

      We can exploit a useful analogy here with a tug-of-war, in which a male team is striving to pull a female team over a white line which divides the feminine from the masculine side.  Let us imagine that the women are three feet away from being pulled over the line and that the men are also three feet away from it on their side.  Thus a gap of six feet exists between the sexes, since the two teams are balanced either side of the line.  With their greater strength, however, the men gradually pull the women closer to the line and eventually right over it, so that everyone is on the male side.  But the distance the women have been pulled is also the distance the men have moved deeper into their masculine territory, which means that a gap of six feet still exists between the two teams, since the women are now some three feet over the white line and the men at least (barring a large team) nine feet away from it.  This analogy suffices to explain the spiritual gap which exists between 'lesser men' and 'greater men' on the post-dualistic side of evolution.  The men have dragged women into a masculine-biased lifestyle, but they have evolved apace at the same time, and thus exist on a higher level of post-dualistic evolution.  Because women are now effectively 'lesser men', it is expedient to treat them as men rather than to discriminate against them as women.  What it is not proper to do, however, is to treat the men, who are now effectively 'greater men', as if they were women, and so oblige them to share in a variety of traditional female responsibilities!  In truth, an inequality between the sexes still exists, the only difference being that it is not now the old gender-based inequality, in which women were women and men were men, but a completely new, post-dualistic inequality reserving to 'greater men' the right to take upon themselves tasks and responsibilities which, owing to their comparative physical or mental weakness, 'lesser men' would be insufficiently advanced or qualified to do.  The 'lesser man' who now plays a competent acoustic guitar in the manner of, say, Judi Collins or Joni Mitchell is dwarfed by the 'greater man' who plays a brilliant electric guitar like, say, John McLaughlin or Carlos Santana.  No equality of guitar-playing could ever exist between these two dissimilar masculine creatures, though masculine they both arguably are!

      There is, however, a reverse case to the downgrading of the husband in a domestic egalitarianism which results in his sharing feminine duties with his wife and, fundamentally, it is no less absurd, insofar as it entails the downgrading of women.  I refer to that aspect of sexual equality which results in women becoming freak athletes, whether as cricketers, footballers, long-distance runners, or whatever.  Now whilst I'm not altogether opposed to the concept of women in sport, there are certain sports which seem less to reflect evolutionary progress, where the emancipation of women is concerned, than simply to degrade women into types of 'lesser men' who are far below the 'lesser men' whose lifestyles reflect a spiritual bias.  Better for women to become the latter than the former, since evolution is tending towards the spiritual and thus away from the physical, as reflected, amongst other things, in contemporary sport.

      We are on difficult ground here, so I beg the reader's patience whilst I redefine my position, this time solely with regard to men.  We can omit the inverted comas here, for we are now dealing with the literal - namely the distinction between lesser and greater men, defining the former as physical and the latter as spiritual.  The fact is that, just as an introvert is morally superior to an extrovert, so a brain worker is morally superior to a muscle man or a manual labourer, since evolution tends towards a spiritual culmination.  A literary genius is thus a superior type of man to a sportsman, say, a cricketer or a footballer, no matter how accomplished the latter may happen to be.  The one uses brain power, the other muscle power.  The one is introverted, the other extroverted.  The one aspires towards the divine consummation of evolution, the other stems, in a manner of speaking, from the diabolic roots of life in the cosmos.  But the preponderance of sport over war in modern life does at least indicate that the lesser men are now generally behaving in a less evil, because more sublimated, competitive fashion than was formerly the case.  It is better that this lesser type of man should be a cricketer or a footballer than a swordsman or a spear thrower in a much more lethal form of competition - namely, gladiatorial contests or even war.

       Thus for men, competitive sport represents a degree of evolutionary progress which has to some extent sublimated evil along less violent and dangerous lines.  For women, on the other hand, competitive sport does not reflect such sublimation, but is simply something imposed upon them in response to the post-dualistic nature of the age.  Where, formerly, men were opposed to one another more violently, whether as soldiers or gladiators, they are now increasingly brought into opposition on terms which don't, as a rule, lead to bloodshed or loss of life, though injuries of one sort or another do of course frequently occur.  But women were never - or rarely - opposed to one another in war or gladiatorial combat, so one cannot regard their adoption of competitive sport as a form of moral progress.  Rather, it signifies a regression for them which is a consequence of their masculinization and the correlative tendency of men to treat or regard women as 'lesser men'.  Where, formerly, women were confined to maternal, domestic, and sexual roles, they are now free to play football or cricket or hockey in a competitive context.  Thus they become 'lesser men', but only in relation to men who were already lesser when compared with brain workers.  As 'lesser men' in this context they are decidedly inferior to those women whom we earlier discussed in terms of intellectual or spiritual predilections, since their masculinization is physical and therefore not strictly compatible with evolutionary progress.  Indeed, it could well be that women whose lifestyles are now spiritualized to the extent that they become 'lesser men' are superior to the actual lesser men whose lifestyles, in contrast, are predominantly physical and competitive.  For if the actual lesser men become 'greater men' in relation to the sports-playing 'lesser men' on the physical level, why shouldn't 'lesser men' on the spiritual level become 'greater men' when compared with the actual lesser men of sport?  The distinction between the physical and the spiritual should still hold true, regardless of gender.  For if a philosopher of genius is superior to a female novelist, how can the latter not be superior to a sportsman, whose emphasis is physical rather than spiritual?

      One is therefore unable to contend that all men, just because of their maleness, are, ipso facto, superior to all women.  There are men who are superior to other men, as spiritual to physical; there are women who are superior to other women, as spiritual to physical.  But there are certain types of women who are superior to lesser types of men, as spiritual to physical, and certain types of men who are superior to all women, regardless of how intelligent or intellectually accomplished some of the latter may happen to be!  The fact is that, much as a female intellectual can outshine lesser types of men, she can never outshine the greatest, who are always in the vanguard of evolutionary progress.  A Simone de Beauvoir is obliged to take second place to a Sartre, a Woolf to a Huxley, a Plaith to a Pound, a Weil to a de Chardin, a Gregory to a Yeats, and so on.  Here we come back to the inevitable gap along the post-dualistic spectrum which cannot be closed while women remain at least partly female.  Only with the post-Human Millennium will there be an absolute equality, and then only because all bodies will have been transcended in the artificially-supported and no-less artificially-sustained brains of the Supermen and nothing approximating to the feminine will accordingly remain.  And because the artificial contexts will necessarily impose a uniform psychology on the brains being supported, there will be no distinction whatsoever between male and female - everything having by then become supermasculine, in advanced spirituality.

      Hence the equality of the sexes that we superficially speak of, these days, is but a prelude to the complete overcoming of the feminine element in life, as essential to evolutionary progress.  To treat women as women would be an unfortunate anachronism in a world with post-dualistic aspirations.  We do not wish to be reminded of dualistic criteria, since our bias is towards the post-Human Millennium.  We are all the time becoming more introverted, and we desire that women should become more introverted or, at the very least, less extrovert as well.  They will always lag behind us on the human plane, but on the superhuman one there will be no distinctions.  Men will become Supermen and so, too, will women.  Sex will be transcended, for sex is specific to the body and the psychology which that body, be it male or female, imposes upon the mind.  An artificially-supported brain could only be masculine, never feminine!  It is precisely by overcoming the feminine that a true equality will exist - an equality of supermasculine Supermen.  We may have a long way to evolve before such equality comes to pass, but at least it is my belief that we are slowly tending towards it.





Transcendentalism should not be confused with or mistaken for Buddhism or Hinduism or any other Asiatic religion.  On the contrary, the religion of the future will involve meditation, but that won't make it Buddhist or Hindu.  There can be no question of Transcendentalism being equated with any of those old religions.  For it will be superior to all traditional world religions, whether considered separately or taken together.  It will reflect a religious convergence from the Many to the One, and therefore could not be described as one of the old religions up-dated.  The Many - and they include Christianity (in all its various denominations), Mohammedanism, Shintoism, Judaism - must be transcended in the One, the one true world religion, which, unlike the many fundamentally false so-called world religions, will take humanity to the post-Human Millennium.  Religious evolution demands that Transcendentalism supersedes all so-called world religions, whatever their constitutions.  There can be no question of any of the old religions taking over from and supplanting the others.  All traditional faiths must be superseded as humanity moves in toto towards the ultimate world religion, based on meditation.

      What will especially distinguish Transcendentalism from the above-named religions, however, is the knowledge its devotees will have of mankind's position in relation to the post-Human Millennium and, beyond that, the heavenly Beyond at the transcendental culmination-point of all evolution.  A Transcendentalist will have an objective perspective of future evolutionary requirements, and will thus be absolved from the error of imagining that one can attain to God if only one meditates long and hard enough.  Having a theoretical foreknowledge of the post-Human Millennium, the Transcendentalist will have no illusions about the likelihood of his subsequently attaining to God if only he devotes himself to the task with sufficient determination, but will know that man is but a link in the evolutionary chain stretching from the stars to God, a link which fits in between the apes and the Supermen, and therefore not someone or something capable of personally achieving transcendence.  The Transcendentalist won't meditate with a view to attaining to God, but simply in the interests of spiritual expansion, so that he may experience a state of mind approximating, no matter how crudely or humbly initially, to the condition of transcendent spirit.  He will know that, hitherto, whether through paganism or Christianity, men have come together in religious buildings partly for sensual as well as spiritual reasons, and that now, virtually for the first time in history, their motive for coming together will be purely spiritual.  No longer will men sing or chant or inhale incense or partake of the Mass or pray or dance or listen to sermons.  All that will be a thing of the past!  Instead they will simply meditate, and, in meditating, they'll learn something of the peace and stillness of the transcendental Beyond.

      But they won't expect meditation to work miracles for them and literally take them to that Beyond.  They will know that, as men, they are subject to certain limitations which can never be transcended except in the post-Human Millennium, when human brains become artificially supported and sustained, and thus cease to be human.  For in the Millennium in question a more extensive, not to say intensive, spirituality will be possible, since the artificial supports will have freed the Supermen from the great majority of sensual or natural obligations to which men are perforce enslaved, including the obligations to eat, drink, defecate, urinate, copulate, and take exercise.  If, having an old brain as well as a new one, the Supermen still sleep, that will be a limitation of their particular stage of evolution.  But such a stage will have to be lived through, and presumably with the aid of synthetic stimulants like LSD, before the next and more advanced stage could get properly under way.  For, with the Superbeings, meditation will return, but on a much superior level than before.  Each Superbeing, or new-brain collectivization, will experience the maximum degree of meditation compatible with its more absolutist constitution ... as the ultimate earthly life-form, until, eventually, such meditation leads to transcendence and thus to the Spiritual Globes of the heavenly Beyond, the Beyond of Heaven per se.  Yet these Spiritual Globes won't be God, but only become the Omega Absolute when they have merged into one another, through a process of convergence throughout the Universe, and thereby established ultimate spiritual unity, in complete contrast to the divergent behaviour of the stars.

      All this and more the Transcendentalist will know, and so his religious sense will be radically different from a Buddhist's or a Hindu's.  Only Spiritual Globes attain to the Omega Absolute, while man must be content with attaining, in due process of evolution, to the Superman.  He won't be deceived on this issue and therefore have to approach meditation on the human level with the same fanaticism as a Buddhist set on attaining to the heavenly Beyond.  Yet, at the same time, he won't treat meditation frivolously either, as though the impossibility of literal transcendence on the human plane justified his doing so!  On the contrary, if to approximate to the ultimate heavenly condition in such a fashion is the best that can be done at a certain stage of evolution - technology being insufficiently advanced to establish a Millennium on the aforementioned post-human terms - then approximate one must, and therefore treat one's relatively humble endeavour with respect.  In due course, spirituality will be upgraded, as the Supermen carry-on from where men left off.  But everything must take its proper course.  Some form of religious orientation in a communal context will continue to be both morally desirable and socially necessary so long as there is intelligent life on earth, and the transcendental orientation of the next civilization will be no exception!  Man must pass through this ultimate phase of his evolution before the more advanced spirituality of the post-Human Millennium becomes either possible or desirable.

      Another distinction between the Transcendentalist and the oriental mystic which needs clarification is the complete absence of any reference to or identification with either the Ground (of all being) or the avatar who functions in an anthropomorphic role approximately equivalent to Christ.  The Ground in the East is basically equivalent to the Father in the West, to Allah in the Middle East, and to Jehovah in Israel.  In all probability, it is an abstraction from the central star of the Galaxy, thereby corresponding to the creative-force at the diabolic roots of the Universe.  Likewise, Allah and Jehovah correspond to that same force and are only intelligible within the context of dualistic religion, where a limited or transmuted degree of Creatorism reflects the egocentric balance between subconscious and superconscious minds, as the pagan and the transcendental form opposite poles of a dualistic reference-point whose axis is anthropomorphic.  Anthropomorphism, or the fusing together of pagan and transcendental within the context of a saviour, human and yet divine, transcendent and yet mundane, is also only intelligible within the context of traditional dualistic faiths, and would have to be excluded from Transcendentalism, with its post-dualistic bias.  Thus the Transcendentalist would not recognize a Buddha or a Mohammed or a Christ as God, but would know that anthropomorphism was a thing of the past.  Consequently he would not identify (except initially and provisionally) any teacher of the true world religion ... with God, but would know that, historically, he was the man who pointed humanity towards the post-Human Millennium by upholding meditation and showing them the true way to Heaven through successive evolutionary transformations.  A Transcendentalist would not worship the teacher of the true world religion - or what purports to be such and may well become such - the way a Christian worships Christ, or a Mohammedan Mohammed, or a Buddhist Buddha, but would simply acknowledge his teachings and follow his guidance.  And, in doing so, he would also turn away from the abstraction appertaining to the root creative and sustaining force of evolution, which, whether as Jehovah, Allah, the Ground, the Father, or whatever, could no longer be recognized, still less feared.  The omega orientation, on the contrary, would require all or most of one's attention, and it would entail a religion of love, not of love and hate, as with dualistic faiths, and certainly not of hate alone, as in pagan contexts.  Man would thus have no need of reference to the Creator, and neither would he acknowledge His 'Son' - the human avatar.

      Meditation, however, requires a specific building appropriate to a transcendental orientation.  It is no good one's imagining that, in the future, meditation can be carried out in a church, and that churches should therefore be converted into meditation centres.  As a rule, churches appertain to the dualistic stage of evolution with regard to their architectural characteristics, including the degree of materialism inherent in their overall construction.  Transcendentalism, by contrast, requires comparatively idealistic buildings suggestive of space and light, which should be constructed from synthetic materials.  Everything naturalistic and materialistic would have to be excluded from them in the interests of as transcendental an environment as possible.  For meditation carried out in a materialistic, brick-heavy building would be a lie, as would a Christian service taking place in a pagan temple.  Clearly, churches will have to be superseded by meditation centres when the transcendental civilization gets properly under way, the post-dualistic nature of which would require the removal of buildings connected, no matter how indirectly, with pagan precedent.

      Unlike dualistic civilization, the transcendental one would not encourage antiquarianism or conservationism, and thus preserve old buildings, whether pagan or Christian, virtually as a matter of historical course.  There would be no pride in the past or in anything stemming from the Alpha Absolute, but simply a post-dualistic orientation towards the Omega Absolute, which will only materialize, so to speak, in the future.  The emphasis would be on making the human world as transcendent as possible, and doing this will inevitably require the removal of everything pre-dating post-dualistic civilization, whether in terms of churches, castles, palaces, cathedrals, monasteries, or whatever.  There could be no question of that which is not post-dualistic being protected or admired when, eventually, the next civilization comes properly to pass!  Nostalgia for the historical past would constitute a grave heresy in a transcendental age!  The necessity of improving the world, of making it as transcendentally advanced as possible, will certainly preclude the preservation of traditional architectural styles and monuments - as, indeed, of traditional culture in general.  Transcendental man would stand to lose from an acquaintance with or allegiance to earlier institutions and customs.  He wouldn't wish to be reminded of such things, the sight of which could only detract from his omega-oriented aspirations.  Better that meditation centres flourish where once churches or temples or mosques or synagogues did.  Better that the spiritual convergence towards an Omega Point ... of absolute spiritual unity ... be reflected in one transcendental institution of world-wide uniformity.

      But it is evident that the old order could only be overcome through radical measures at some future date, when the ultimate revolution of apocalyptic transformation brings about the necessary boost to evolution which would not otherwise materialize.  The Last Judgement of Christian prophecy is somehow relevant to the modern world, though not in terms strictly compatible with Biblical teachings.  A world exclusively dedicated to the attainment of millennial transcendence would be one in which the Last Judgement lay in the distant past, when opposition to post-dualistic criteria still existed and had to be dealt with in appropriately judgemental terms.  Such a judgement, unfortunately, has still to come, since the world is by no means set directly on course for the post-Human Millennium at present.

      As for the Second Coming, it should be evident that he corresponds to the world teacher destined, at this crucial juncture in time, to set mankind on course for the transcendental civilization.  There is no question of such a teacher being universally accepted at present, though his teachings will have to take root in his or one country before eventually spreading abroad ... in the struggle to bring about universal Transcendentalism.  He won't promise the world any miraculous changes over the coming decades, or petition peoples to live in peace when they are patently divided into mutually hostile camps which are incapable of reconciliation and require, in consequence, to be sorted out on the basis of moral judgements and ideological transmutations.  He isn't so superficial as to imagine that evolution can progress without a revolutionary boost, nor so corrupt as to consider candour naive.  For he knows that only the victory of social progress over the old civilizations will clear the way for the transcendental civilization.  He is no false messiah preaching idealistic nonsense, but a realist teaching truth.  And he knows that such truth will have to wait a while yet for universal acknowledgement!





Today's world is a curious, even bizarre, mixture of the old and the new, the naturalistic and the synthetic.  It is very much a transitional age, an age in which progress away from dualism is becoming manifest in numerous different contexts, not least of all music.  We have grown so accustomed to the incongruities resulting from the co-existence of ancient and modern ... that we tend, in spite of ourselves, to take them for granted.  Take, for example, the distinction between symphony orchestras and rock groups, a distinction which reflects class differences as much as anything.  The orchestral performers, with their bow ties, black suits, acoustic instruments, scores, and conductor, obviously appertain to a very different musical world from the, for example, T-shirted, jean-wearing rock groups whose electric instruments would be capable of drowning out any orchestra in a competition designed to discover who could make the most noise or, at any rate, create the greater volume of decibels.  The orchestra clearly appertains to the bourgeois, semi-naturalistic world in which acoustic instruments are taken for granted, whereas the rock group is comparatively proletarian, given their electric instruments of a largely synthetic construction.  The two worlds exist side-by-side, occasionally overlapping but, for the most part, remaining distinct - the rock group preferring, as a rule, to evolve further and further away from classical musicians who, as often as not, remain tied to the nineteenth century, if not to several previous centuries.  How long, one wonders, can this paradoxical state-of-affairs continue?

      My guess is that it won't continue very much longer, since evolution cannot be reversed or impeded for ever!  The life-span of the symphony orchestra would seem to be drawing towards a close, although its final collapse may not be for several years yet - certainly not before the second-half of the new century.  Whatever happens between the capitalist West and the socialist East in the historical unfolding of our world over the coming decades, I cannot envisage symphony orchestras outlasting the twenty-first century.  Even today, with computers, rockets, colour televisions, laser beams, holographs, microchips, supersonic jets, and other such late twentieth- and/or early twenty-first century phenomena, the orchestra appears increasingly out-of-place, a sort of acoustic anachronism in an electronic age.  The bowing or blowing or banging of acoustic instruments contrasts sharply with the latest push-button techniques in the manipulation of the most up-to-date electronic instruments, and one cannot help but feel that whereas the latter are very much an integral part of modern life, the former resemble social dinosaurs in their remoteness from it!

      Naturally, works for symphony orchestra continue to be composed, but even the most avant-garde compositions are unlikely to be performed beyond the twenty-first century.  If these comparatively modern works outlast the orchestra, it will be because they have been recorded to disc or tape, and thus preserved for posterity.  The actual performance life-span of these works can only, in the face of evolutionary pressures, be short - far shorter, I would imagine, than the performance life-span enjoyed by the works of Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach.  For as evolution progresses in the modern age, so it becomes ever quicker, and consequently the likelihood of Walton or Honegger or Prokofiev still being regularly performed well into the new century can only be increasingly remote.  This is one reason why a contemporary composer who makes the grade is quickly acknowledged with international success and recording fame, his music soon to take its place beside the 'immortal' recordings of a whole galaxy of illustrious predecessors.  A Tippett recording is already somehow part of the musical tradition, and Walton is now regarded as virtually one of the 'old masters', to be placed alongside the immortals.  Simply to have been recorded is confirmation of one's 'classic' status.  And, given the likelihood of the classical orchestra's impending demise, a delay in recording a modern composer could well prove fatal - depriving posterity of access to his works.

      But if orchestral concerts are unlikely to be an aspect of twenty-first-century life, the same must surely hold true of jazz concerts and, indeed, the recording of modern jazz.  The electric guitar may be a relatively new instrument, peculiar to the second-half of the twentieth century, but we need not expect it to outlive the symphony orchestra by a great many years, since it has already become part of a long musical tradition within the swiftly-evolving context of modern life.  Doubtless some form of electric music will continue to be composed and performed during the twenty-first century, but the instruments and instrumental combinations will probably change, as new tastes and evolutionary pressures dictate.  The possibility that modern jazz will merge with atonal electronic music, over the coming decades, cannot be ruled out, since the latter seems destined to supplant serious acoustic music and will doubtless undergo progressive modifications in the course of time.  Eventually all music should be composed on the highest possible evolutionary level, which means that even pop music will be transcended as society increasingly becomes more transcendentally sophisticated overall, not just within certain sections of the population.  Pop music, arguably the musical equivalent of socialist realism in art, may be necessary and even commendable in a transitional age like this, but it must eventually be eclipsed by a more spiritual music, equivalent to transcendentalism in art, if an ultimate civilization, classless and universal, is to come fully to pass.

      One reason why recordings of whatever type of music are beginning to supplant live performances ... is that they make for a superior means of listening to music, in which a perfect instrumental balance can be obtained at a volume suitable to oneself and in the comfort of one's home.  The use of headphones can further enhance one's appreciation of music by seeming to interiorize it, and one is of course free to select exactly the right recordings for one's particular taste or mood.  It may be that in improving the technical aspect of musical appreciation in this solitary fashion, one is obliged to forfeit the social advantages accruing to a public concert, in which a large audience comes to share the same enthusiasm, and, doubtless, studio recordings will never be able to match live concerts for atmosphere.  Yet, even then, the advantages of recorded music are too great to warrant serious criticism, and reflect the ongoing spiritualization of art through sublimated means of appreciation.  The fact that recordings tend, paradoxically, to undermine the musical necessity or validity of live performances, whether by orchestra or group, cannot be denied, and is a further reason why the latter will eventually die out.  When, exactly, the last public performance will be, I cannot of course say.  But a world tending ever more rapidly towards the post-Human Millennium, and thus towards the complete dominion of being over doing, won't require people to perform in public for ever.  Better that we should just sit still, in the comfort of our homes, and listen to the latest studio recordings at an appropriately transcendent remove from the actual recording session!





To discover whether the so-called Free World, by which is meant the West, is actually free, one must have an objective criterion by which to assess freedom.  One must know what freedom is and how it stands in relation to evolution.  One must eschew the relative in favour of the absolute, and by comparing what currently exists in the world, as a given system, with this desired absolute, one will see how free, if at all, that system really is.

      Evolution being a struggle from the Diabolic Alpha to the Divine Omega, from the raging stars in one absolute context ... to the eventual emergence of pure spirit in another, it must follow that freedom, in any ultimate sense, can only be interpreted as a freedom from the former and a dedication to the latter.  In other words, the freer a man is ... the less will he be under the influence or domination of the Diabolic, with its selfless naturalism.  Degrees of freedom can therefore be ascertained along an evolving spectrum ... from the ultimate negativity in stellar energy to the ultimate positivity in transcendent spirit.  How, then, does the 'Free World' stand up to the test of freedom, as defined above?

      To answer this question, one must understand what freedom usually means in the West.  Generally speaking, it means the freedom to worship as one chooses, to vote for one of a number of political alternatives, to exercise freedom of opinion, to buy and amass property of one's own, to conduct business in the interests of personal profit, to become an avant-garde artist, to read what one likes, to practise transcendental meditation, and so on.  These, I think, are most of the main or, at any rate, obvious freedoms normally found in Western society.  Let us now put them to the test, using our ethical criterion.

      The freedom to worship as one chooses is not really a manifestation of omega-oriented freedom, as we may call that which aspires towards pure spirit, but an example of alpha-stemming boundness.  To worship is either to worship God the Father or Jesus Christ.  In Christianity it is mostly to worship Christ, although the Father or, to give Him an alternative name, the Creator (Jehovah) ... is by no means ignored.  On the other hand, the Holy Spirit cannot be worshipped, for the simple reason that it is a state of blissful being to aspire towards, rather than an already-existent fact.  One can only worship what exists, either as a theological entity (Christ) or as an abstraction from cosmic reality (the Father), and to do this is to be bound to the Alpha Absolute, even if, as where Christ is concerned, there is an omega-oriented element involved.  With the Creator, however, there is no omega-oriented element at all, no transcendent spirituality, since this anthropomorphic deity appertains to the subconscious ... as an abstraction, in all likelihood, from the governing star of the Galaxy ... out of which both the lesser stars and the planets originally 'fell'.  To worship is therefore to be bound (to that star) rather than to be free (from it).

      To vote for one of a number of political alternatives, which is the next 'freedom' under consideration, isn't quite what it may at first appear, since in a capitalist democracy one of the parties concerned will always be more bound to aristocratic and/or bourgeois materialism than the others, which means that a vote for that party is, in effect, a vote for slavery to capitalist materialism to a greater extent than would be the case with liberal or left-wing parties, although they, too, are partly allied to such a materialism.  No, so long as there are parties with either aristocratic or bourgeois loyalties, the politics in question will be largely bound instead of free.  Freedom comes with an aspiration towards the supernatural, towards pure spirit, and although politics can never be conducted on strictly religious terms, nevertheless parties with allegiance to the proletariat, within a context of social democracy, will reflect a greater degree of political freedom, as a rule, than any others.

      As to the right to exercise freedom of opinion, this is partly tied-up with dualistic politics and religion, since appropriate to a stage of evolution when no absolute aspiration towards the divine omega is under way in post-dualistic terms.  It entails freedom to defend or champion what is bound to the sensual, the material, the diabolic, the galactic-world-order, and thus, in practice, can fall a long way short of truly free opinion, which will be aligned with a post-dualistic, omega-oriented system of beliefs.

      The 'freedom' to buy and amass property of one's own likewise entails loyalty to what stems from the Diabolic Alpha rather than to what aspires towards the Divine Omega, since private property emphasizes the individual, with his materialistic acquisitions, and is accordingly an aspect of a process at a sublimated remove from the possessive tendency of stars to amass either weaker stars (suns) or planets to themselves, as a matter of cosmic necessity.  To have one's own property is to be bound to materialism, like a star, and to amass additional property, whether large or small, is to extend the dominion of the materialistic in one's life at the expense of spiritual freedom.

      Likewise the 'freedom' to conduct business in the interests of personal profit enslaves one to materialism and makes the acquirement of profit an end-in-itself, quite divorced, it may transpire, from work satisfaction or quality of work or, indeed, the nature of the product itself.  Christ is reputed to have said that it was 'easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven', and that may well illustrate why, in the interests of spiritual freedom, it is better not to become bound to wealth.  Those who do so will never be free to any significant extent!

      On the other hand, the freedom to become an avant-garde artist reflects, in the main, a freedom from the sensual, apparent, concrete realm of artistic activity, and may well be indicative of an omega-oriented tendency compatible with evolutionary progress on the post-dualistic level.  Even when the object of this art is to discredit the external, natural world; even when, in other words, it is anti-natural rather than pro-transcendental, it connotes with evolutionary freedom from the natural-world-order to the extent that it attacks, distorts, and belittles whatever is bound to that order, whether human, animal, or vegetable, and thus indirectly assists in the re-orientation of the mind towards supernatural criteria.

      As to the freedom to read what one likes, this too can entail the study of books, magazines, papers, etc., which do in fact subscribe to anti-natural and/or pro-transcendental tendencies; although, unfortunately, it can also entail the study of traditional, reactionary, or anachronistic kinds of writings which bind one to what stems, in selfless aggression, from the diabolic roots of evolution, and thus preclude, for large numbers of less-informed people, true enlightenment.  A post-dualistic society, on the other hand, would only encourage the reading of books, magazines, etc., compatible with transcendental criteria, thus preventing the everywhichway cultural or intellectual confusions which arise in and necessarily appertain to liberal societies, with their atomic relativity.  Freed from the pernicious influence of writings bound, in one degree or another, to the Diabolic Alpha, the people would be enabled to acquire an exclusively omega-oriented education worthy of the highest civilization.

      Finally, the freedom to practise transcendental meditation in public halls, or wherever, is another aspect of Western life that, carried-on in the right non-mystical spirit, is conducive towards a freedom from the sensual realm and aspiration towards the spiritual one.  We need not doubt that this, too, should be encouraged in the future.

      Getting back to the question of whether the 'Free World' is really free and, if so, to what extent, we can now answer it by contending that in some contexts, not least of all the freedom to worship as one chooses, to vote for one of a number of alternative class parties, to amass property, and so on, the so-called Free World is really bound, in varying degrees, to the diabolic roots of evolution in the stars.  Whereas in certain other contexts, notably avant-garde art and transcendentalism, it is probably more free from those roots than anywhere else in the world, and accordingly reflects an aspiration, whether directly or indirectly, towards the divine consummation of evolution in the transcendental Beyond.  In all probability, the omega-oriented tendencies outweigh the alpha-stemming ones in a majority of Western countries these days.  But the continual existence of the latter provides adequate grounds, as I see it, for ideological opposition and their subsequent elimination, in the event of a truly moral society coming to pass.





There are two kinds of antithesis, and they may be defined as relative and absolute.  The vast majority of antitheses are relative, though as evolution approaches the antithesis of the Alpha Absolute(s) in ... the Omega Absolute, we may note an approximation to or from the absolutes at either end, as it were, of the evolutionary spectrum.  Only the Alpha Absolute(s) ... of the stars and the projected Omega Absolute ... of undifferentiated transcendent spirit would constitute an absolute antithesis, however.  Such an antithesis is absolute in every sense, there being no point of contact or similarity between the two extremes of evolution.  On the other hand, a relative antithesis, such as exists between stars and planets, or men and women, presupposes points of contact, and may be likened to the North and South poles of a magnet - the unlike poles of which attract, while the like poles repel.  Those poles which are opposites are yet similar to the extent that they are both comprised of the metallic substance of the magnet, and accordingly form a relative rather than an absolute antithesis.

      Such an antithesis we may note at the basis of the Solar System and, on a larger scale, of the Galaxy.  There is a kind of magnetic reciprocity between the sun and circling planets of the Solar System formed by the relative contrast between the negative, i.e. active, charge of the sun, in which, according with the principles of a proton-proton reaction, hydrogen is transformed into helium, and the positive, i.e. passive, charge at the core of this planet, which is gradually cooling.  The sun's core would therefore be radically different from the earth's, and I wager that while the one is hard, the other is soft, and this contrary to traditional notions on the subject!  Indeed, in describing the sun as possessing a negative charge and in equating that with the active, I have already reversed the traditional notions as to what constitutes a negative charge, and this reversal, corresponding to a Nietzschean 'transvaluation of all values', is at the core of my philosophical endeavour, and may be traced back to the essay 'The Negative Root' from BETWEEN TRUTH AND ILLUSION - my first step in this revolutionary direction.

      The sun, then, generates energy from deep within its tightly-packed proton core, and is thus active, whereas the earth has a soft core which feeds upon the surrounding hardness of its outer layers and is thus dependent on those layers for sustenance, i.e. the continuation of its existence.  This distinction between an independent hard-core sun and a dependent soft-core planet is fundamental to the mechanistic workings of the Solar System, which function in the guise of a magnetic reciprocity - the hard core of the sun attracting the planet's soft core to itself but having to contend, in the process, with the attractive forces of other suns (stars), which establish a dynamic equilibrium between suns and planets, after the manner of an atomic integrity involving protons and electrons.

      Here, of course, the equation of the sun's hard core with protons gives the lie to the traditional notion of protons as positive and electrons, by contrast, as negative.  For any 'transvaluation of values' applying to the macrocosm must also apply to the microcosm, since the inner workings of the latter are at the base, so to speak, of the solar and indeed galactic orders, which would not exist at all were they not derived from a microcosmic blue-print in the atom.  Admittedly, it may have been acknowledged that protons were active and electrons passive, but activity is not, contrary to traditional belief, a positive phenomenon.  On the contrary, it is only passivity which is positive and the more passive ... the more positive is it.  That is why only a planet, as a place with a positive core, could be used as a base from which to launch an aspiration, in the form of mankind, towards a condition of ultimate passivity in the heavenly Beyond (of transcendent spirit).  No star could be so used, for stars are the very converse of such an aspiration, because the diabolic active roots of the Universe.

      No, if the sun is a negative phenomenon, corresponding to the proton of an atom, then the planets must be positive phenomena corresponding to electrons, the overall integrity of the Solar System corresponding to the interactions of an atom, and the still greater integrity of the Galaxy corresponding to a cluster of atoms forming a kind of molecular structure.  This structure, kept in dynamic equilibrium by the relatively antithetical constitutions of stars and planets, only exists by dint of the common will of stars for dominion over planets.  For without planets to keep them in equilibrium, the stars would fly-out in every direction, in accordance with the divergent inclinations of a negative charge, through anarchic revolt against the dominating influence of the governing star of the Galaxy, which probably exerts a greater attraction over the planets of whichever solar system than any of the smaller stars considered either separately or taken together.  Thus arises the paradoxical situation in which like are kept in the vicinity (a galaxy) of like because of their mutual interest in the dominion of planets - phenomena which have the effect of preventing the stars from breaking away.

      When this pattern is repeated on earth, as it must be whenever evolution is insufficiently advanced to warrant an exclusive aspiration towards the Divine Omega, we get what I have termed the galactic-world-order, in which a monarch, as personification on earth of the governing star of the Galaxy, lords it over both nobles, who correspond to the lesser stars of the Galaxy, and populace, who of course correspond to the planets.  The nobles and monarch are fundamentally akin, and would tend away from one another were it not for their mutual interest in the domination of the populace for their own aggrandisement, an interest which constrains nobles to an oath of allegiance to the throne.  Naturally, the populace are also bound by loyalty to the throne, but their allegiance is of a very different order from that of the nobility, who, after all, stand to gain a share of the spoils.  The allegiance of the populace more resembles the submission of slaves to the will of the conqueror, and we may infer from the term 'subject' the subjection of such slaves to monarchical dominion, a subjection which entails an indirect rather than a direct allegiance to the throne.  Only those who are fundamentally 'of the same stuff' as the monarch are entitled to a direct oath of allegiance, and this applies no less to a constitutional monarchy than to an authoritarian one - the only difference being that the sphere of direct allegiance is widened, though not necessarily deepened, by the admission of the parliamentary bourgeoisie, who have partly taken over the traditional preserve of the aristocracy.

      The relationship of peer and/or parliamentarian to the populace of his particular sphere of geographical influence thereby comes to resemble the relationship of sun to planets in a solar system, and is thus atomic.  While the wider relationship of monarch to peers, parliamentarians, and populace as a whole comes to resemble the galactic order in being molecular, or composed of separate atoms which interact and are obliged to remain in place by the stronger attractive power of the governing proton - namely, the monarch.  Since a star is negative, and therefore active, it may be described as of essentially feminine constitution, and never is the galactic-world-order so faithfully reproduced on earth than when the reigning monarch happens to be a woman, as was usually the case in more primitive societies, given their greater disposition to violence.  Then the pomp and ceremony essential to maintaining the cohesion of nobles, politicians, and populace to the monarchy was reinforced by the charismatic power of the reigning queen.

      I do not wish to go into the distinction between monarch, nobles, and populace to any extent, though I should remark that the antithesis formed between the personifications on earth of the stars of the Galaxy and the populace itself is relative rather than absolute - there being various points of contact, not least of all in the common structure and substance of the human body.  That the monarch rules by 'divine right' isn't, however, strictly true, although there is a sense in which it could be said that he/she does rule by 'diabolic right', which is to say, as the personification on earth of the governing star of the Galaxy, and therefore according to the principles of the galactic-world-order.  He/she functions in the guise of an arch-devil.  For even if the governing star of the Galaxy isn't literally the Devil it corresponds to the diabolic roots of evolution in the Universe and is therefore antithetical, in an absolute way, to the future divine culmination of evolution there.  In truth, the Creator is an abstraction from this governing star and consequently appertains to the subconscious mind, a mind, however, which is being outgrown, as modern man tends ever more deeply into the superconscious, expanding consciousness upwards rather than remaining a victim of the Given.  The monarch is therefore the nearest person on earth to that abstraction, since he/she functions in the role of the governing star vis-à-vis society in general.  Compared with the monarch, the various grades of nobles, from a duke down, correspond to petty devils, having status positions relative to the lesser stars of the Galaxy.  Reversing this correspondence, one might well argue that our sun is but a baron-equivalent in the overall hierarchy of the Galaxy, being but a small peripheral star of only moderate power.  A duke-equivalent would be much larger and, needless to say, would stand closer, as it were, to the governing star of the Galaxy than a mere baron-equivalent.  The Solar System of this important star would doubtless be somewhat larger and more imposing than that pertaining to a star like our own.

      But, cosmic speculation aside, we can say for certain that the twentieth century signified a turning-point in the evolution of man in which, for virtually the first time in history, the galactic-world-order was completely overthrown in a number of countries, in order that he could be set on course for a post-atomic society tending, eventually, towards the Divine Omega in conscious transcendentalism.  The example of Eastern Europe stands as a lesson to those countries which have retained some form of monarchical allegiance.  The atom has been split, but that is merely a prelude to splitting one part of humanity, corresponding to electrons, from the clutches of another, corresponding to protons, in the interests of evolutionary progress towards an exclusively omega-oriented (divine) society.

      Of course, I have described the workings of the Solar System and the Galaxy in rather Newtonian terms in these pages, stressing the force-and-mass aspect of magnetic reciprocities in preference to the curved-space notion of latter-day quasi-mystical physics, and I am fully aware that many educated persons would strongly object to this, considering me mistaken and hopelessly anachronistic.  After all, it is in our interests to regard the workings of the Cosmos from a quasi-mystical point-of-view, which is a good deal more comforting than to dig deeply into its basic diabolism and unearth findings not guaranteed to flatter our transcendental bias or reassure us that we live in a good universe.  Yes, I know the position well enough!  But I also know it is important that some people, broadly regarded as philosophers, should commit themselves to a more literal investigation of the Cosmos, the better to understand how it really works.  For unless they do, the truth of evolutionary progress will be obscured beneath the 'theological' expedience of scientific subjectivity, and no truly objective knowledge of the Universe will be accessible to us, a knowledge which a small number of higher minds should be able to live with ... no matter how much the spiritual progress of the age may demand a subjective interpretation of the physical cosmos, such as corresponds to our superconscious bias and reflects our growing allegiance to internal as opposed to external reality.  The literal truth of the workings of the Cosmos and of the relations between planets and stars would seem to be very different from what the curved-space mysticism of Einstein would have us believe!  But the truth concerning the external cosmos isn't necessarily what an age tending towards the post-atomic absolute should want to uphold.  Rather, it will increasingly view life in terms of the freedom of electrons from proton control - not their dependence upon them!





It is often said that we live in a woman's world, not least of all by men.  Yet, despite appearances to the contrary, this is basically untrue, because the world has a positive base in its soft core which makes for an evolutionary tendency towards the Divine Omega, and thus towards a transcendental society.  Women are rather like strangers in the world - visitors from the sun or any nearby star.  For, like the sun, they have a hard core and a relatively soft or urbane exterior, whereas men are effectively hard outside but essentially soft inside, more disposed to leniency and compassion than the so-called fair sex.

      Since women resemble the sun, it is perhaps natural that they should generally be more heliotropic than men, and this can, I think, be borne out by the greater importance they attach to sunbathing and to acquiring a suntan.  Sensing an affinity between femininity and the sun, women draw sustenance, both physically and psychologically, from its rays, which they often soak-up for hours on-end, lying perfectly still and availing themselves of the sensuality imparted by the sun's rays to sink into their subconscious mind, like animals, and doze or daydream, unconsciously or perhaps even consciously transmitting signals to nearby males.  In this context they reflect a sort of stemming from the diabolic roots of life, and are almost as far removed from an aspiration towards the divine consummation of evolution, in transcendence, as any animal or plant.  Communion with the sun is for many women a form of religion, though, unbeknown to themselves, it is the lowest form - a kind of devil worship!

      Like the sun, women have a tendency to contract and diverge rather than, like men, to expand and converge - the former tendency existing on the physical level, the latter on the spiritual one.  Were it not for the fact that men are attracted to them, we may assume that most women would remain solitary and independent for life, scorning one another but making no real attempt to acquire male company, either.  They do of course obtain male company in a majority of cases, but this is usually because their urbane appearance has attracted a man who has expressed a dependence on them.  Such dependence is akin to that of a planet upon a star, and will continue to be the norm for as long as an atomic integrity holds good between proton equivalents and electron equivalents, viz. females and males.  Once evolution reaches the stage where the atom can be split and mankind sundered, once and for all, from the galactic-world-order, however, then it is highly probable that men will emerge who'll be independent of women, going their own omega-oriented way either in homosexuality or, preferably, celibacy, with or without pornographic stimuli.  Of course, evolution also affects women; for if it didn't it is doubtful that we would have the Women's Liberation Movement and other aspects of evolutionary progress which, to some extent, have the effect of 'masculinizing' women, and thus causing them to behave, in varying degrees, more like men.  Where, formerly, it was the case that men were dependent on women, just as society was dependent on monarchical government, so, with the transformation to post-atomic freedom, men duly become independent of them, just as society becomes independent of monarchical control.  Women, however, correspondingly become more dependent on men, though not so much in a sensual as in an intellectual or a spiritual sense.

      Here we have slightly returned to the theme of the previous essay, in which the enslavement of the populace to the nobility was stressed at the expense of the reverse situation - namely, that of the dependence of the populace upon the nobility during a given phase of evolutionary development.  Since I was emphasizing the absolute at the expense of the relative there, I should now remark that, as the relative preponderates in life, so a paradoxical situation is the norm.  For, indeed, both aspects of the noble/populace antithesis to some extent apply.  The nobility do enslave the populace, much as stars enslave planets, but so too, at this comparatively early stage of human evolution, do people in general show themselves to be dependent upon a monarchical government, since insufficiently advanced, in artificial terms, to be capable of an independent, self-willed, socialist destiny.  Only when evolution has arrived at a more advanced stage, in which people are for the most part isolated from nature in their giant cities, can their dependence on monarchical government be broken and the emphasis accordingly be placed on freeing them from autocratic control or tyranny, as though only those factors had played a part in the traditional relationship of nobles to populace!  The truth is of course rather different, but it wouldn't flatter the masses to say so!  Neither would the average man be flattered to learn that he was only dependent on women because insufficiently advanced to be capable of an independent, post-atomic lifestyle.  Better for him to believe that women were dependent on men, even though their basic behaviour and attitudes would hardly substantiate such a belief!

      The fact that men have been dependent on women for thousands of years is no fault of men, any more than it is the fault of planets that they have been dependent on stars.  Evolution proceeds from the natural to the supernatural very slowly, and while nature dominates human affairs ... the atomic integrity of the galactic-world-order will continue to prevail.  Women will function as protons and men, by contrast, as electrons - the latter dependent on and revolving around the former.  The man will say that he lives for his family, and the woman will believe him.  Only when evolution progresses to a point where the artificial predominates over the natural will a situation arise in which the man - assuming he has a wife and children at all - will say he lives for his work or the cause, whether political or religious.  To live for something greater than himself rather than for someone lesser than himself ... is the distinction between the free man and the bound man, and it will correspond to the splitting of the atom in a post-atomic society, whereby electrons are severed from their proton control.  The inceptive stages of this tendency are already manifest in the contemporary West, where the frequency of divorce is testifying to a disruption of traditional marital fidelity, and where wives as well as husbands are obliged to take regular employment, a fact which, logically enough, results in small rather than large families.  And wisely, since the minimum commitment to propagation ensures a greater freedom for both husbands and wives from the atomic integrity of long-term parental responsibility.  Given the much-improved ratio of infant survival over infant mortality these days, there is no real necessity for large families anyway.  A child or two from most couples will maintain and possibly even increase the birth-rate level, while leaving the woman relatively free to conduct her life along quasi-electron, as opposed to traditional proton, channels.  Eventually, however, the further development of post-atomic tendencies will lead to the supersession of marriage by a much freer interaction between men and women, compatible with their higher status in conformity to electron principles.  A long-term relationship between specific couples in such a free society would not only be anachronistic ... but morally reprehensible, since indicative of a regression to dualistic criteria.  Reproduction would, for the most part, be taken care of artificially, which is to say, with the aid of sperm banks, test tubes, incubators, and so on, while relationships between the sexes would be increasingly spiritual rather than, as before, predominantly physical.  Functioning as quasi-electrons, the women would be intellectually and/or spiritually dependent on men, while the men, as free electrons, would be physically independent of women.  Such a society is not as far off as it may now seem!





The distinction between materialists and spiritualists is an age-old reality which stems, in large measure, from the fundamental dichotomy in the Galaxy between stars and planets, the relatively antithetical constitutions of which give rise to a magnetic reciprocity responsible for maintaining the orbital integrity of the Galaxy as a whole - as, indeed, the entire universe of galaxies of which this one is but an infinitesimal part.  On the microcosmic plane this same distinction is to be found in the relatively antithetical constitutions of protons as negative charges and electrons as positive charges - the former active and the latter passive, though galvanized into action by the competing attractive powers of the nearest protons.  On the human plane, the distinction between active materialists and passive spiritualists has traditionally manifested itself in the relatively antithetical constitution of women and men, the women constraining the men to themselves, after the fashion of stars or protons, and galvanizing them into action on their behalf, i.e. as fathers to their family, the children of which resemble tiny protons, or neutrons, in that they revolve around the mother much the way that a tiny extinct sun, such as the moon, revolves around the earth.  However, I have elsewhere sought to demonstrate that as evolution progresses towards a predominantly artificial phase, the atomic integrity of the traditional family unit is gradually undermined until, with the dawn of post-dualistic civilization ... following a sudden revolutionary break with tradition which resembles the splitting of the atom, the electron equivalents are set free of proton constraint and the former proton equivalents are themselves electronized, functioning, thenceforth, in the guise of quasi-electrons.  The spiritualistic world predominates over the materialistic one at that juncture in time by quite a considerable margin!

      The aforementioned atomic distinction, however, between female and male on the family plane may be equated with the human microcosm, whilst a similar distinction between politicians and priests or scientists and artists will pertain to the human macrocosm, i.e. to society as opposed to the family, society itself coming to resemble a galaxy in that it is composed, on the independent level, of numerous proton-dominated atoms and, on the dependent level, of various professional interests and contributions, some of which resemble protons, others electrons, but all of which are subject to evolutionary pressures and may therefore undergo gender changes corresponding to the transformation, on the microcosmic plane, from closed atomic families to open post-atomic promiscuity.

      Thus it can happen that a traditional proton profession, such as politics when patterned after the galactic-world-order, will acquire a sex change, so to speak, and become a quasi-electron opposing the proton political order in the interests of evolutionary progress.  Hence socialist politicians, although nominally materialists, function in the guise of what may be called 'lesser spiritualists' in opposition, in such a transitional age as this, to the materialistic politicians per se, though on a lower level, needless to say, than genuine spiritualists, including latter-day gurus.  Likewise, in science, a sex change corresponding to the progress of electron freedom over proton determinism ensures that quasi-electron scientists, who function in the guise of 'lesser spiritualists', oppose the materialism of traditional science in deference, amongst other things, to the higher spirituality of avant-garde artists, who are their spiritual peers.  As quasi-electrons, revolutionary politicians and scientists oppose proton determinism and thus behave like spiritualists, which, however, they can never be in an authentic or genuine sense, seeing that their professions are largely governed by materialistic considerations.  And just so for so-called liberated women who, in this transitional age, are by no means absolved from certain traditional female duties and responsibilities!  Only with the advent of post-atomic civilization would the lifestyles of quasi-electron equivalents be radically influenced by electron freedoms - a situation which today applies neither to the bourgeois West nor to the proletarian East, the former being insufficiently civilized and the latter not really civilized at all, despite the considerable changes for the better which have come to pass since the eclipse of Soviet Communism by Social Democracy.  Consequently, in the East artists and priests have traditionally had a comparatively raw deal.

      The distinction between materialists and spiritualists does not of course only apply to politicians and priests or to scientists and artists, nor indeed to proton politicians and quasi-electron politicians, proton scientists and quasi-electron scientists, the former of whom will be more indebted to Newton than to Einstein.  It applies equally well within the profession of art, where social realists align themselves with the quasi-electron level of socialist politicians and produce a materialistic art of superior quality to traditional materialists, but necessarily inferior to the genuine spirituality of the free-electron, or avant-garde, artists.  Likewise, a similar distinction exists in literature between writers, on the one hand, under quasi-electron materialistic domination, like Koestler and Sartre, and free-electron spiritualists, on the other hand, like Huxley and Camus.  And, of course, in the religious profession we will generally find the distinction between priests and gurus to be one between electrons under proton dominion (the Creator), and electrons free of such a dominion.  A decadent civilization may produce either bound- or free-electron equivalents, depending to a large extent on the bent of the artist - the distinction between Sartre and Camus, in France, being adequate confirmation of this fact, even though Sartre wasn't particularly bound to quasi-electron politics and Camus wasn't a particularly radical free-electron equivalent.  No doubt, this distinction between the two writers goes some way towards explaining their differences of political opinion and concomitant professional antagonism!

      A post-dualistic civilization, however, could only produce free-electron artists, since religion and art take considerable precedence over politics and science with the advent of such a high degree of civilization as would be achieved on the post-atomic plane.  In a post-atomic barbarous society, on the other hand, art and religion can only be bound to politics and science, since a new state has come to replace the old one and officially outlawed the religion appertaining to it without, however, creating a new religion to replace what went before.  In such a society - and the Soviet Union was the classic example - the artist must necessarily be bound to the quasi-electron materialism of the politician and accordingly produce some kind of socialist realism.  The free-electron artist, to the extent that he exists at all, can only be unofficial and, hence, taboo.  His spiritualistic bias is incompatible with a barbarous state integrity, which derives, through Marx, from the teachings of Lenin.  Only with the coming of Social Democracy, and thus an end to 'scientific communism', will this artist be able to come into the open - to 'come out' - and join the crusade of those who wish to see a genuinely free-electron society come to pass, in which the spirit is freed from all proton constraint and enabled to achieve full self-realization in the name of that greater being which is the 'Kingdom of Heaven'.