PART ONE: ESSAYS
A FEUDAL PROTOTYPE
It is difficult to see how trees could possibly be popular with Social Transcendentalists, as we may call people with a socially transcendent view of life. For a tree mirrors, on earth, the galactic-world-order of governing star, minor stars, and planets, which is to say, the tyranny of both major and minor stars over planets. With a tree, the trunk is equivalent to the governing star of the Galaxy, the branches are equivalent to the peripheral stars there, and the leaves equivalent to the planets. The leaves serve both the branches and trunk of a tree by drawing moisture, sunlight, etc., into themselves, which is then transferred to the tree-proper. We need not doubt that this procedure mirrors the galactic arrangement further down the ladder of evolution, whereby the planets serve the stars by keeping them in some kind of galactic order and thereby enable individual stars to rule over particular solar systems to their own lasting advantage (given that a fixed star is better off than a shooting one, if for no other reason than it isn't likely to collide with other stars and has a recognizable status in its powerful fixity).
So much for the galactic and natural levels of evolution! Let us now apply this arrangement to human affairs, where it will be found that the pattern of a tree is imitated whenever human society stems from natural dominion, whether absolutely, as in a pagan age, or relatively, as in a Christian one, when a transcendental dimension necessarily dilutes the commitment of that society to naturalistic criteria. In the first instance, we find an absolute monarchy presiding over a feudal system. In the second instance, a constitutional monarchy presiding over a capitalist system. The monarch is equivalent, in a feudal society, to the trunk of a tree, the nobility are equivalent to its branches, and the peasantry equivalent to its leaves. Now in this natural arrangement the latter serve the former, either directly vis-à-vis the nobility or indirectly vis-à-vis the monarch. With the extension of feudalism into a capitalist phase of evolution this arrangement to some extent still applies, except that where formerly the nobles and monarch were the sole rulers being served by the peasantry, the rise of the bourgeoisie ensures that they, too, are served in some measure by ... if not the peasantry then their urban equivalents - the industrial proletariat.
Thus, when all this is taken into account, it is difficult to see how a tree (a plant which served as a blueprint, as it were, for feudal and capitalist societies) could possibly be popular with Socialists, never mind Social Transcendentalists, since they relate to an artificial arrangement of society in which the exploitation of man by man, or peasants by nobles, no longer applies, and the proletariat, that antithetical equivalent of the peasantry, are served by a bureaucracy who, antithetically equivalent to the nobility, take their directives from the reigning president, the antithetical equivalent of the feudal monarch.
Although, contrary to popular notions, a socialist society is not classless (no more than was the feudal society which preceded the compromise epoch of bourgeois capitalism), it is nevertheless one in which the bulk of humanity are served rather than exploited, and cannot bear any resemblance, in consequence, to that society stemming from the naturalistic pattern of the tyranny of trunk and branches over leaves, which we equate with feudalism. The distinction between strong and weak, as between a tree and its leaves or a nobility and its peasants, does not apply to a socialist society, where, by contrast, the only distinction is between a more ideologically-motivated bureaucracy and a less ideologically-motivated proletariat, a fact which calls forth not tyranny but the service of the latter by the former.
Clearly a day will come when trees, no less than monarchs and nobles, are banished from a society tending towards the omega supernatural from an artificial base. We see this process in action wherever the city has come to supplant nature, and it can only become more absolute with the passing of time. Doubtless oxygen will be produced artificially to a much greater extent in the future than at present, thereby enabling man to dispense with trees and spend more time indoors, to the lasting advantage of his spiritual life. An omega-oriented absolute society can only be interiorized, not partial to a dualistic oscillation between internal and external environments, like a relative society. And a socialist society, properly considered, should be anything but relative!
There are, however, two types of what may be called post-atomic societies, and we can define them as relative and absolute respectively. A relatively post-atomic society, such as exists in the United States, will tolerate trees in public places, whereas an absolutely post-atomic society that was also civilized would find trees objectionable, if on none other than ideological grounds, and accordingly seek to curtail their numbers and distribution as much as possible.
By contrast, a pre-atomic society would be more likely to worship or fear trees, as in fact used to be the case wherever pagan criteria prevailed, and this same tendency would have been refined upon, to a point of respect, with the ensuing development of atomic society, where trees were cultivated as much for their perceived natural beauty as for the various utilitarian uses to which they could be put - industrial, social, environmental, or whatever. Such respect, while still applying wherever atomic criteria survives, would become transmuted, with the development of post-atomic society, into tolerance, a tolerance probably attaching far more importance to utilitarian than to aesthetic considerations, though falling short of outright antipathy, such as can only be expected from an absolutely post-atomic society moving towards, if not already in, a Social Transcendentalist and, hence, fully civilized status.
Before men and women acquired a distinct social status with the development of atomic civilization - the sexes balancing each other in a relationship sanctified and legalized by marriage - they were submerged in a kind of pre-sexist society which, in effect, rendered them Superwomen and quasi-Superwomen respectively - a pagan society that culminated in the city states of the ancient Greeks and Romans, to name but two representative pagan peoples. In this society the sartorial norm for Superwomen was a long, ankle-length dress or robe, while their inferior counterparts, the quasi-Superwomen, were obliged to wear a short or, more correctly, less lengthy dress or robe, such as accorded with their inferior social status.
The development of Christianity in the West changed all that, though only very gradually, in line with the progress of civilization away from nature towards more artificial attainments, so that, by the seventeenth century, a sexist distinction between women on the one hand, and men on the other ... had emerged to replace the old 'lesbian' pre-atomic unisexual society with one partial to properly heterosexual atomic distinctions. Gradually women came to wear shorter skirts/dresses, and men ... to dress exclusively in trousers, not in stockings partly covered by a skirt-like tunic such as had prevailed throughout the Middle Ages when, though nominally distinct from women, they continued to think and behave more like quasi-Superwomen vis-à-vis Superwomen or, in relatively more evolved terms, as submen vis-à-vis pseudo-Superwomen.
With the twentieth century, however, a trend the converse of
the pre-atomic began to develop, in which women increasingly came to dress in
still shorter skirts/dresses, indicative of a more modest vaginal status, and
even to abandon them altogether for trousers of one description or another,
though never or rarely completely so. We
may equate this bourgeois/proletarian age with a transition between the atomic
and the post-atomic, Christian and transcendental criteria, in which liberated
females (subwomen) and free males (pseudo-supermen)
tend to be its chief representatives, particularly in the
However, if the twentieth century signified a transition to a post-atomic transcendental age, we need not doubt that the twenty-first century will witness the beginnings of an actual post-atomic civilization, absolute as opposed to relative, and dedicated, in consequence, to transcending all sexist dichotomies. Instead of subwomen and pseudo-Supermen, or liberated females and free males, this transcendental civilization will encourage the emergence of a relative distinction between quasi-Supermen and Supermen, as between what, in earlier works, I have alternatively described as female and male Supermen - the reformed proletarian females and the bona fide proletarian males respectively, each category newly civilized.
Thus, whereas in bourgeois civilization an absolute distinction existed between men and women, in the coming civilization both alike will have been 'overcome' (to use a Nietzschean expression), their evolutionary successors being unisexually superhuman because appertaining to a post-atomic stage of civilization, a stage leading to the ultimate overcoming of human beings in the first phase of the post-Human Millennium, when relatively superhuman Transcendentalists will have been superseded by the absolute Supermen who, as brain collectivizations artificially supported and sustained, will be partial to a contemplation, via synthetic hallucinogens like LSD, of the artificially-induced visions of their new brains - given, in other words, to a kind of quasi-Supernaturalism preceding the ultimate Supernaturalism of the hypermeditating Superbeings who, as new-brain collectivizations, will constitute the ultimate life form on earth ... prior to the elevation of evolving life to total salvation in the post-Millennial Beyond, with the attainment to transcendence, and consequent escape of electrons from the remaining atomicity of individual new-brain collectivizations.
Returning to history, we have, then, the suggestion of two sexual extremes either side of a heterosexual balance - the first, or 'lesbian', extreme signifying a pagan stage of human evolution, when men had not really acquired a separate social identity from women but were equivalent to quasi-Superwomen and/or submen; the second, or 'homosexual', extreme signifying a transcendental stage of human evolution, when women have ceased to retain a separate social identity from men and become quasi-Supermen in a post-sexist society. In between, as already noted, a social balance, submen having in the meantime become men, to drag Superwomen or, rather, pseudo-Superwomen down to an atomic level, as women, beside themselves.
If any of this is true - and there seems to be no reason to assume the contrary - how, one may well wonder, is one to explain 'homosexual' behaviour among the ancients, for instance the Greeks and Romans, who apparently lived in a lesbian age? And how, by a similar token, does one explain the 'lesbian' activity which seems to have developed among women as never before in what appears to be a homosexual if not yet unisexual age? The situation in each case appears to involve a paradox, to constitute an inexplicable enigma, until we look a little closer into each age and come to realize that in pre-atomic civilization men weren't really men but either quasi-Superwomen or submen, and therefore more disposed than later generations of penis-wielders to regard one another in a quasi-feminine light.
Consequently, their seemingly homosexual behaviour acquires a lesbian character which sets it apart from contemporary homosexual behaviour among free men in an incipiently post-atomic society. One might describe it as quasi-lesbian, the converse of latter-day seemingly lesbian behaviour among females which, on account of the increasing masculinization of women and their gradual elevation towards a post-atomic status, we can describe as quasi-homosexual, involving either liberated females or their proletarian counterparts.
Whereas the character of quasi-lesbian activity among quasi-Superwomen in ancient civilization would have been reactive, in accordance with their 'feminine' status in an overwhelmingly proton age, the character of most contemporary quasi-homosexual activity between quasi-Supermen or their near equivalents in contemporary civilization will be attractive, in conformity with their 'masculine' status in an increasingly electron-biased age. Such a paradoxical situation would in each case parallel the genuine lesbian and homosexual behaviour appropriate to each civilization, as well, of course, as co-exist with a degree of heterosexual behaviour more suited, on the whole, to an atomic age than to either of the civilized extremes.
I do not wish to leave the reader with the impression that the future will be literally homosexual in the sense generally understood by that term, as implying sexual contact between only males. Such a concrete sexuality appertains solely to a bourgeois/proletarian stage of post-atomic civilization, is the materialistic alternative to pornographic indulgence, which accords, by contrast, with a spiritual predilection. It is the pseudo-electron side of a relatively post-atomic civilization, an objectively inferior form of sexual indulgence than the free-electron equivalent ... of pornography.
No, the transcendental civilization will not encourage concrete homosexual behaviour between Supermen, or its lesser equivalent in quasi-homosexuality ('lesbianism') ... as affecting quasi-Supermen, the reformed proletarian females. It will encourage, on the contrary, a more absolute type of pornography, a type that, utilizing computers, will be found to stem from the higher type of petty-bourgeois magazine pornography, as involving a focus on the sex organ of the participating models rather than, as with lower types of pornography, a more diffused perspective which inevitably emphasizes female beauty, that bête noir from any truth-oriented absolute standpoint. If such soft-core pornography may be equated with Post-Painterly Abstraction, that quintessentially American form of Abstract Impressionism, then the more vaginally exclusive hard-core pornography can be regarded as being on the evolutionary level of the highest type of light art, necessarily spiritualistic in design and content.
Thus, as spiritualistic light art is destined to be superseded in an absolute civilization by abstract holography, we should have no qualms in contending that relative hard-core pornography will likewise be superseded, in that same civilization, by absolute hard-core pornography, in accordance with the more transcendental criteria of a quintessentially unisexual stage of civilized evolution. In all probability quasi-Supermen would be more inclined to a male-based absolute pornography, their bona fide counterparts to the female variety. Either way, the pornography, or erotica, in question would be beyond both sublimated beauty-mongering, that sexual cynosure of soft-core pornography, and the sexist relativity of relative hard-core pornography. It would be the ultimate pornography, relevant to the final civilization in the historical evolution of man from femininely superhuman beginnings to masculinely superhuman endings via bourgeois humanism.
A ZIGZAGGING PROGRESSION
No less than politics, art has a way of evolving from a barbarous to a civilized phase within any given cultural tradition, whether contemporary American or European, and it does so within the compass of the creative integrity of any given class. Take the early petty-bourgeoisie, those stemming from a bourgeois stage of creative endeavour who yet rebelled against bourgeois precedent to create an anti-art, if by 'art' we mean bourgeois representational painting. They are divisible, as in any relative civilization, into materialistic and spiritualistic camps, those on the one side producing Expressionism, those on the other side ... Impressionism, the first fundamentally Austro-German, the second ... Franco-American. In both cases, one might describe the art produced as non-representational, either applying to a distortion or a mere impression of the representational, whether natural or artificial, though particularly the former. Non-representational art is not abstract; it is the negative, barbarous forerunner of the abstract.
Which brings us to the higher, or civilized, phase in the creative evolution of the early petty-bourgeoisie, with particular reference to Abstract Expressionism on the one hand and to Abstract Impressionism or (as it is more usually called in America) Post-Painterly Abstraction on the other hand, the one materialistic or, rather, pseudo-spiritualistic, the other spiritualistic. By now, both Austria and France have been left behind, their petty-bourgeois successors having blossomed into a civilized phase of creative evolution, America most especially so, thanks to its wealth, power, and geographical isolation from Nazi persecution. Certainly such art as we are now discussing can be described as abstract, since there is not even a negative connection with the representational but, rather, a positive intimation of higher abstract possibilities or trends - what one might term a pro-light art status, to distinguish it from the anti-art (bourgeois representational framed-painting) status of its 'barbarous' forerunner.
So much for the evolution of modern art in
its mainstream petty-bourgeois manifestations, as applicable, in the main, to
Which brings us to the distinction between the barbarous and the civilized phases of light art, the former phase paralleling the civilized phase of avant-garde painting, the latter phase overhauling and surpassing it; the first phase symptomatic of a lower type of late petty-bourgeois art, the second phase symptomatic of a higher type - a positive as opposed to a negative type. And just as the non-representational painting of the anti-artists, whether materialistic or spiritualistic, was a revolt against civilized bourgeois painting, so we may contend that the sculptural light art of the anti-modernists (as we may alternatively call the lower type of late petty-bourgeoisie) was in large measure a revolt against civilized petty-bourgeois painting, an expression of the reaction of a new art form against formal precedent, one leading, in due course, to the development of civilized light art, as symptomatic of a higher type of late petty-bourgeois/early proletarian creativity, and suggestive, at least on the spiritualistic side, of a pro-holographic status, since intimating of a purer abstraction than abstract painting - one completely free of material surrounds. Such an art form as abstract light art can only point the way towards the ultimate art, which would be virtually formless.
No such formlessness can accrue, however, to petty-bourgeois art, not even in its highest phase, since petty-bourgeois criteria are forever relative. Just as with avant-garde painting, so with light art (both in its barbarous and civilized manifestations), a distinction exists between the materialistic and the spiritualistic, the abstract expressionist and the abstract impressionist, and we may believe that if the spiritualistic side intimates, in its highest manifestation, of abstract holographic possibilities ahead, then the materialistic side indirectly intimates of a representational holography consonant with its expressive bias, a holography that is indeed furthered within the confines of bourgeois/proletarian civilization, and which may be equated with the barbarous phase of a proletarian class integrity ... co-existing with civilized light art and indicating, in its revolt against that art form's abstraction, an anti-light art status commensurate with a higher spiritual embodiment of representational form. The coming of abstract holography will of course eclipse the barbarous with the civilized, but it may have to wait the dawn of a transcendental civilization to gain in universal momentum.
If, then, the progress of art follows a kind of zigzagging course in the revolt of a lower phase of a superior art form against the higher phase of an inferior art form and does so, moreover, on both materialistic and spiritualistic terms, we need not doubt that this process mirrors distinct class stages within any given relative civilization, the ultimate development being a sort of proletarian revolt within bourgeois/proletarian civilization against civilized late petty-bourgeois art that takes the form of representational holography, an art form which will co-exist with abstract-impressionist light art until such time as bourgeois/proletarian civilization is democratically overthrown and/or reformed.
However, unlike the relative arts, abstract holography, the ultimate and therefore truly civilized proletarian art form, would not co-exist with a barbarous art form or intimate of a superior abstraction to come or be divided into a materialistic and a spiritualistic camp, the one contracting the material while the other seemingly expands the spiritual. Abstract holography would be absolute in every sense, the sole civilized art of a transcendental civilization, complete in itself and yet intimating, more convincingly than any previous art form, of transcendent spirit, of the Divine Omega which lies beyond man as the goal of evolutionary striving.
Whereas relative art, whether avant-garde painting or abstract light art, could be said to intimate of both a higher abstract possibility in the development of art and the Divine Omega on terms relative to its particular class stage of aesthetic evolution, absolute art, being complete in itself as the ultimate manifestation of aesthetic development, would intimate, on the most pure terms, only of the Divine Omega, the ultimate impression of spiritual transcendence. Art, as we have traditionally understood it, would attain to a spiritual climax here, though the process of revolt against a contemporary civilized art would continue, taking the form, with the onset of a post-Human Millennium, of recourse to synthetic hallucinogens like LSD, which would constitute the next, or barbarous, phase in the zigzagging evolution of art and life towards the goal of evolution in ultimate divinity, what one might describe as an anti-hologram 'representational' phase.
Strictly speaking, LSD trips could not be described as an art but, rather, as the successor to art, an antithesis to dreams, which, however, preceded the inception of art in the sculptural monuments of the ancients. Just as dreams are beneath art, a pseudo-phenomenon of the old brain which the subconscious is obliged to witness during sleep, so trips would be above it, a quasi-noumenon of the new brain which the superconscious can contemplate in the interests of expanded consciousness.
This barbarous phase of the post-Human Millennium will be superseded, in due course, by its ultra-civilized phase, a phase during which the new-brain collectivizations of the Superbeings will experience hypermeditation and thus directly cultivate their superconscious rather than, as with the brain collectivizations of the Supermen in the preceding phase, indirectly do so ... through the medium of LSD visions. This direct cultivation of pure spirit will constitute the ultimate spiritual abstraction, an ultra-positive successor to the quasi-positive 'representational' phase of millennial evolution, and such a procedure will inexorably culminate in transcendence, or the attainment of pure spirit to space, in which setting it will converge towards and expand into other such transcendences en route, as it were, to the ultimate spiritual oneness of the Omega Point, the culmination, in de Chardinesque terminology, of all heavenly evolution.
Such a culmination is what the abstract holography of the next civilization will intimate of, but it is not something that the highest art will achieve; for that must be left to what transcends art through the most pure contemplation of the Superbeings in the highest phase of the post-Human Millennium. Even the contemplation of LSD-induced visions will be relative and, therefore, impure in relation to that, a quasi-barbarism leading to the more than civilized - namely the supercivilized self-contemplation of the ultimate life form, pro-transcendental rather than anti-holographic.
FROM THE BARBAROUS TO THE CIVILIZED
If art is not fine it
is crude, if not civilized then ... barbarous.
In the twentieth century, art continued to exist on both levels, though
in a more complex and divergent way than ever before. Moreover, a new type of folk art arose - a
militant or politically propagandist form of barbarism called Socialist
Realism. It is distinguishable from
other types of folk art by being absolute in status and character, existing
within (formerly) Marxist-Leninist countries independently of civilized art and
on thematic terms which never vary. No
other kind of painting could be officially created or admired within the
Within the West, on the other hand, barbarous art was generally relative, co-existent with fine art and comparatively free from ideological fastidiousness - in short, a-political. It was free to adopt varied subject-matter and, within limits endemic to its folksy status, to treat what it had adopted in a variety of ways, both technically and conceptually; though this is only clearly apparent to anyone who takes an evolutionary or comprehensive view of such art, and thus perceives it as passing through a spectrum of ongoing development from Naive-Primitive painting at the lower end, to Pop Art at the upper end via Modern Realism.
For within each type or stage of folk art there is certainly a distinct formal and conceptual bias, which appears stronger at the lower end and in the middle, so to speak, than at the top, where, in response to evolutionary pressures, technique and treatment of more varied subject-matter varies quite dramatically from artist to artist, while still permitting a barbarous integrity to shine through. For, despite its greater freedom than earlier types of modern crude art, Pop Art was still recognizably folksy and bore no resemblance whatsoever to the civilized art with which it was more or less contemporary - namely, light art.
Before Pop Art arose, however, there was another type of art, distinct from civilized petty-bourgeois precedent and co-existent with light art, though not on that account a folk art. This was Op Art, which strove to create an impression of movement and light relative to optical variations induced, in the viewer's mind, by the wavy lines or small circles or tiny dots or whatever of the particular Op work. As a form of abstract art, there could be no question of one's considering such work as a more sophisticated type of folk art since, by definition, folk art is formally and conceptually anachronistic, existing as a law unto itself on a creative level very much beneath the technical and/or conceptual requirements of that civilized art with which, superficially at least, it is contemporary.
No, and neither could this art be described as a higher kind of abstraction, one, say, post-Mondrianesque and therefore bringing art to an all-time abstract climax. For in the European West, abstract art had attained to a climax with Neo-Plasticism, a materialistic development beyond Cubism, just as spiritualistic art had attained to a similar climax with Surrealism, that illusory art beyond (realistic) Symbolism, a climax indicative of a progression from lower/early petty-bourgeois art to higher/early petty-bourgeois art, which had a mainstream counterpart - mainly relative to Germany and America - in the distinctions between Expressionism and Abstract Expressionism on the materialistic side and, by contrast, Impressionism and Post-Painterly Abstraction (Abstract Impressionism) on the spiritualistic side, after which time painterly art was destined to be transcended with the development of light art from lower/relative to higher/absolute levels.
But if this late petty-bourgeois development was mainly relative, once again, to mainstream petty-bourgeois culture within the broadly
bourgeois/proletarian civilization of contemporary America, then the fundamentally bourgeois nations, such as Britain, France, Holland, and Belgium, were less disposed to such a radical break with the past and more disposed, in consequence of their more conservative natures, to create a type of light art employing painterly means, which resulted in the paradoxical phenomenon of Op Art, neither strictly painting nor strictly light art but a sort of chimerical compromise between the two and, if I'm not mistaken, the more civilized abstract successor to sculptural Op or, as it is better known, Kinetic Art. If Op is materialistic in character, a bourgeois equivalent to tubular light art, then its spiritualistic counterpart, equivalent to non-tubular or free light art, must surely be Minimalist Art, which provides the mere outlines of a representational image, and is thus closer in conception to a comic book than to a magazine.
As for sculpture-proper, which is the earliest fine art known to man and one not susceptible, in consequence of its ancient lineage, to extension beyond an early petty-bourgeois age, we are dealing with an art the basis of which is form and the essence of which is tactility. From being representational, sculpture has this century become non-representational (biomorphic) but remains, at least in theory and in spite of its relative formlessness, fundamentally tactile.
On the other hand, sculptural light art, though often having the appearance of a type of modern sculpture, should not be confounded with sculpture, since there can be no tactility with white-hot electric or neon tubes and, as a rule, very little form! As a mainstream lower/late petty-bourgeois development, this relatively civilized art signifies a step beyond abstract painting in the overall evolution of art from sculptural beginnings towards a holographic climax. Consequently there can be no question of its signifying a higher type of sculpture, since no sculpture can extend into a post-painterly epoch, but simply a lower type of light art, one 'sculptural' in appearance, and thus the logical precursor of a totally abstract and 'painterly' kind of light art such as usually employs slender neon tubing in adherence to a higher materialistic integrity.
By contrast, spiritualistic light art has its inception in
'architectural' light art, or the use of spotlights and other such powerful
beams of electric light trained on the night sky according to a specific
pattern, and became in the course of (post-Nazi) time more refined and
absolute, culminating, we may assume, in such indoor laser shows as the
Americans in particular have developed.
Generally speaking, whilst
To return to painting, it should be evident to the reader by now that any painterly art with a pretence of being civilized can only be anachronistic in an age of late petty-bourgeois/early proletarian art, in which the focus of creative endeavour has switched from abstract painting to light art. Frankly, painterly art is now passé, and those who still indulge in any form of civilized painting, be it non-representational or abstract, are living behind the times in a kind of petty-bourgeois dream world of their own imagination.
Probably artists in the older European countries like
But as the highest criterion of what is truly contemporary can only be derived from the leading Western nations, it follows that those who scorn this or are not in a psychological position to adopt it will continue to work in an obsolescent context, producing art of an inferior quality and status - novels and classical music no less than painting and sculpture. Although such passé work could not be described as folk art, it is certainly less than truly civilized, if by 'civilized' we mean what is in the forefront of creative evolution. Some of it may even be of less value than contemporary folk art, the mention of which brings me back to the distinction between the fine and the crude, where we began this essay.
Since barbarous art must be categorized as an absolutely anachronistic type of art, bearing no resemblance whatsoever to contemporary civilized trends, we shall see that the current production of civilized art which is less than contemporary, like Abstract Expressionism or Abstract Impressionism in relation to light art, can only be regarded as comparatively civilized. Certainly it is civilized compared with any folk art of the present century, including Pop Art. But it is less civilized than those truly contemporary civilized arts which are in the vanguard of creative evolution. We may prefer it to the genuinely barbarous, but if we are on the side of creative progress we will hesitate to regard it with the same respect as we reserve for higher developments. And after light art, what higher development is possible if not representational holography, which I regard, in this context, as a relatively civilized art preceding the attainment of holography to an absolutely civilized status in total abstraction, both of which phases (of holographic evolution) should be relevant to the proletariat within the context of a transcendental civilization, such as I hope will presently arise in Ireland, a country with a long tradition of theocratic allegiance.
If Pop Art is co-existent with light art within the overall context of bourgeois/proletarian civilization, then with the progression to an absolute civilization no such co-existence would be acceptable, the people having become or in the process of becoming civilized, and therefore entitled to the appreciation of a relatively civilized art. In such a society the age-old dichotomy between the fine and the crude will be transcended, leading to an exclusive production of fine art of the highest quality. Whereas relative civilization tolerated barbarism, an absolute civilization would be dedicated to civilizing the People. Only thus will they come into their own as worthy inheritors of the highest cultural legacy - one stemming from contemporary bourgeois/proletarian civilization yet, at the same time, completely transcending it.
TOWARDS AN ABSOLUTELY FREE-ELECTRON LITERATURE
Bourgeois writers, appertaining to an atomic stage of evolution, tend to write in a way that gives as much importance to form as to content, to technique as to theory, whereas petty-bourgeois writers, appertaining to a relatively post-atomic stage of evolution, tend to write in a way that attaches more importance to content than to form, to theory than to technique, which results, as a rule, in a more spontaneous, improvisational kind of literature - one predominantly concerned with what is being said rather than the way in which it is being said.
Instead of being balanced between appearance and essence in a dualistic compromise, these more contemporary writers are lopsided on the side of essence, dedicated to the inner world of truth as opposed to the outer world of fact. Their work partakes of the improvisational character of modern art, not to mention modern jazz, in a bias for spiritual freedom, wrapped-up in the interior world rather than enslaved to external appearances to the extent of, say, a bourgeois. One might argue that they are intimating, consciously or unconsciously, of a future literary goal in total interiorization, a completely abstract literature such as I envisage taking the guise of computerized poetry. For in writing 'on the wing', they are exposed, as bourgeois authors rarely were, to grammatical laxities and eccentricities - a situation which a pedant would necessarily regard with dismay but which, so one imagines, these modernistic authors are really quite proud of, insofar as it attests to a growing freedom from grammatical constraints, a tugging of the electron equivalent (of words) at the proton/neutron leash (of emotions/meanings), with the promise of a complete departure from that leash in due course.
Few are the petty-bourgeois authors who do actually depart from the leash; indeed, strictly speaking, none of them can, since such a degree of abstract absolutism as I envisage being relevant to a free-electron literature would be incompatible with extreme relativistic criteria, even where experimental literature in the guise of a predominantly abstract poetry was concerned! If such a materialistic poetry, chiefly pertaining to mainstream petty-bourgeois civilization, is absolute or very nearly absolute in itself, it is still relative to the extent of being published in separate volumes, traditionally, of poetry rather than in an anthological format. There is something of a quasi-electron equivalent about it, in contrast to the relatively free-electron status of such petty-bourgeois spiritualistic poetry as is usually represented by a predominating concern with the metaphysical, though one still published, as a rule, in separate editions under the name of a given poet, who may or may not acquire a degree of fame in consequence.
By contrast, proletarian anthological poetry transcends the individual in the collective, and thereby signifies a progression from the relative to the absolute, even when, as is generally the case these days, such anthologies tend to contain material of a less than absolute status. So we may regard them as relatively civilized, with a quasi-electron status germane to their comparatively materialistic integrity. They appear as a kind of outsiders' threat to civilized petty-bourgeois precedent, scorned by all but their authors or those who, through working-class intuition or affiliation, naturally gravitate towards new developments.
No matter! A time will come when, with the development of People’s civilization from relative to absolute levels, such quasi-electron poetry is succeeded by the absolutely free-electron and truly civilized poetry of a non-readerly abstraction, which, availing itself of computer discs, should bring literature to a transcendental climax on a par with abstract holography, pure jazz, and hypermeditation, to name but a few compatible modes of free-electron absolutism. We are probably closer to that time now than we realize!
If the late-twentieth century was essentially a late petty-
bourgeois/early proletarian epoch, then it was also on that account an epoch of
either experimental or metaphysical poetry - in short, a quintessentially
poetical age. Chronologically speaking,
this poetry, relative in the main to countries like
But if anthological poetry and representational holography are essentially outsiders in the contemporary Western context, this is not to say that they, or some derivative from them, won't become insiders in a society dedicated to the establishment and furtherance of People’s civilization, a Social Transcendentalist society such as I envisage being relevant to Ireland and other such theocratically-biased countries in the near future. There, by contrast, they would become the accepted norm, rendering all types and degrees of petty-bourgeois literature and art anachronistic, and consequently subject to curtailment.
People's civilization cannot be furthered on the basis of
half-measures. There must be a
wholehearted commitment to cultural progress and a no-less wholehearted
opposition to cultural traditions, whether indigenous or foreign. While relative civilization protects and
admires past cultural achievements, even when they pertain to an earlier
civilization, the absolute civilization of the future must rigorously proscribe
and/or remove all cultural achievements irrelevant to itself. Instead of being conservationist, an
Neither fiction-writing nor painting nor classical composing
would be encouraged in a Social Transcendental
So, of course, would Socialist Realism and more relative types
of folk art, which pertain to a barbarous integrity - the former directed
against Western civilization from a state socialist base, the latter existing within
Western civilization and testifying to the comparatively uncivilized status of
the masses vis-à-vis the bourgeoisie.
Barbarisms, whether militant or urbane, external or internal, should no
more find encouragement in a Social Transcendental
A poetry that is computerized and on route, as it were, to total abstraction. An omega literature, placing maximum emphasis on content, on the literary truth of free-electron words, freed from proton and/or neutron-biased grammatical constraints and therefore intimating of the omega absolutes, those unified electrons of pure spirit such as should one day stem from the highest of the millennial life forms - the superbeingful new-brain collectivizations of the ultimate classless society. Certainly one would look in vain for concessions to appearance in this absolute literature!
TOWARDS AN ABSOLUTE ARCHITECTURE
It is probable that, with the development of a Social Transcendentalist civilization, all forms of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois architecture would be demolished to make way for the uniquely proletarian forms in due course. Already, since the late-twentieth century, the mould of proletarian architecture has been established, at least in its rudimentary form, and we need not doubt that such a mould - collective and transcendent - will be further developed and/or remodelled in the future, so that apartment blocks will become more the architectural rule than, as at present, the architectural exception.
If we endeavour to categorize domestic architecture according to class-evolutionary stages of development, or to stipulate the appropriate domestic environment for any given class, beginning with the aristocracy, we may arrive at conclusions similar to the following: a large country house and/or castle for the aristocracy; a small country house for the early-stage grand bourgeoisie; a detached suburban house for the late-stage grand bourgeoisie; a semidetached suburban house for the bourgeoisie; a terraced suburban house for the early-stage petty bourgeoisie; an apartment and/or bedsitter in a city tenement for the late-stage petty bourgeoisie; and, finally, a small flat in a city block for the proletariat. Such, rightly or wrongly, is how I estimate approximate class stages of architectural evolution, and in an open society which is advanced in years, having embraced a proletarian stage of architectural development, one finds all earlier modes of architecture still in existence, complete with their specific class owners.
Thus while proletarians ascend by lift to their flats on the ninth or tenth floor of a communal high-rise in the city, aristocrats may still be found climbing the wooden stairs of an ancient country house. While late-stage petty-bourgeois types wake-up each morning in a cramped bedsitter, early-stage grand-bourgeois types go to sleep each night in the spacious bedroom of their quite affluent small country-house. Such is life in a relative civilization, with its open-society distinctions not only between the rich and the poor, but also between the country and the city.
Life in an absolute civilization of transcendental integrity would, one fancies, have to be quite different from that - indeed, so different as to attest to a uniformity of architectural styles and domestic environments. A post-atomic closed society would have no aristocrats in it for a start, and scarcely any bourgeoisie, so that neither rural nor suburban modes of architecture would be encouraged. The emphasis would be on developing proletarian architecture within an urban environment, and this would certainly entail the demolition of suburban and early urban modes of architecture in order to make room for the inevitable spread of late urban architecture as the city expanded, literally engulfing formerly petty-bourgeois and bourgeois environments. So terraced houses no less than semidetached and detached suburban houses would have to make way for the urban blocks destined to supplant them. Eventually a proletarian uniformity of architectural style within a uniform environment would arise, testifying to the lower, or relative, phase of People’s civilization.
How 'relative', you may well wonder? Well, firstly to the extent that there would be numerous blocks of flats in any given area, each block separate from its nearest neighbours. But secondly in terms of a materialistic style encasing a spiritualistic content, a rectangular or square design housing proletarians, those absolutely electron equivalents in relation to the proton- or neutron-biased classes stretching from the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie. So the rectangular, then, may be regarded as a materialistic form, a mechanistic design stemming, in some degree, from the Diabolic Alpha, and this no less so in a high-rise block of flats than in a country or suburban house. In early proletarian architecture, a rectangular design is the norm. But this could not be the case in late proletarian architecture, with the higher phase of People’s civilization, since such a phase would be absolutely orientated towards the Divine Omega. Consequently an absolute mode of architecture would have to be developed, a mode curvilinear in design, the circular a comparatively spiritual form intimating of divinity conceived as transcendent spirit, with particular reference to the goal of evolution in the post-Millennial Beyond.
So a curvilinear style of architecture, in complete contrast to the aristocratic inception of architecture in palatial or country-house rectilinear styles. A truly absolute mode of architecture, the proletariat living in more intensive collectivizations in a more extensive communal setting than where the preceding relative mode ... was concerned, one large circular tower comprising the equivalent to a residential sector of a city, a kind of omega city, built in such a way that the maximum number of people can be accommodated there in relative dignity, a central circular space enabling the residents on the inner side to look out onto the space and/or other half of the building some hundreds of yards away, while those on the outer side looked out onto - well, why not another such curvilinear tower a few hundred yards away?
Or, better still, why not the circular tower built in such a way that it spirals out in a series of concentric circles, the residents on the outer side of the central tower looking out onto the inner side of the adjacent tower, while those on the far side of the second arm, as it were, of the spiral would be looking out onto the inner side of its third arm, and so on, through successive spirallings, until the entire population of the area was accommodated in this omega city, replete with shops, cinemas, etc., on the ground floor of each arm of the spiral?
Certainly this second suggestion involves a more absolute approach to architecture, doing away with distinctions between one tower and another in any given locale and establishing, in consequence, a more homogeneous city, not simply an isolated block of flats in the country. We may also speculate that if Meditation Centres were to be built into them, the best possible place would be in the centre, from which spiritual cynosure the domestic arms of the spiral would curve outwards in an ever-expanding arc.
Thus any given city would be complete in itself, on religious no less than on commercial or domestic terms. It should be possible, in addition, for people to get from one arm of the spiral to another without having to venture out-of-doors, simply by following a ground passageway which led from the outermost ring of the city through each of the arms of the spiral to the Meditation Centre at its heart. In this way people would be spared contact with nature and enabled to maintain an intensely-interiorized and highly-civilized lifestyle - in complete contrast to the aristocratic inception of civilized evolution in the country.
Because proletarian civilization should be concerned with the maximum interiorization of life, it follows that not only access to the open country, but natural light must be minimized in order to reduce contact with nature as much as possible. Although proletarian architecture would appear comparatively lightweight and transcendental in construction, employing synthetic materials, its glass-like outer casing should not be translucent but, increasingly in the future, of an opaque constitution in order to preclude the entry of natural light and necessitate recourse to artificial lighting, preferably of a neon, i.e. electron-biased, type.
Likewise instead of air entering the interior of the buildings from without, special air-conditioning filters linked to oxygen containers should be employed in proletarian architecture not simply to reduce or exclude contact with the natural but, more importantly, to condition man towards greater dependence on the artificial, since that is a means to the supernatural, and artificially produced oxygen would induce a clearer consciousness in its recipients than naturally produced oxygen - trees having largely become discredited phenomena, subject to destruction.
So a free humanity aspiring towards omega divinity would necessarily require to be freed from dependence on natural light, which stems from the sun, that component of the Diabolic Alpha, as well as from dependence on natural air, which stems in large measure from trees, those offspring of the Diabolic Alpha and mirrors of the galactic-world-order, serving, in some degree, as the prototype for feudal society. Obviously, anything akin to a feudal arrangement would be taboo in a People’s civilization, and so one can take it as axiomatic that the artificial production of oxygen, no less than of light, will become essential to the psychological and moral well-being of the future proletariat.
As to the curvilinear style of advanced proletarian
architecture, one should add that a positive commitment to the Divine Omega
presupposes a defiance of the Diabolic Alpha, so that such architecture ought
really to taper down slightly at roof level in order to defy gravitational
force upwards, while at its lower end a slight tapering upwards in defiance of
gravitational force downwards would not be out-of-order. Quite possibly such curvilinear architecture
will be built, in any case, on raised inner platforms and/or outer pillars,
thereby being elevated above the ground in accordance with transcendental criteria
- the overall appearance suggestive of levitation. This is already true of certain advanced
petty-bourgeois skyscrapers in
Moreover, it is also possible that, rather than simply living in high-rise blocks of flatlets raised on stilt-like supports, people will eventually live in space in cosmic flatlets, and within an architectural context not all that dissimilar from the one outlined above, replete with permanent recourse - obligatory in space - to artificial lighting and artificially produced oxygen, not to mention artificial heating. Such space cities would certainly constitute a more transcendental context than earth ones, enabling the occupants to cultivate their spiritual potential to a degree impossible to achieve on earth, where there is always so much gravitational force.
Could it be, I wonder, that the post-Human Millennium - a time when human brains are artificially supported and sustained in communal contexts - will be partly set in space in such curvilinear space cities? Why should not the post-Human Millennium, particularly during its higher phase, be set in a context closer to the definitive Beyond (of literal Heaven), where the goal of transcendence (of pure spirit from the superbeingful new-brain collectivizations) may well prove easier to achieve?
Ah, I should not allow my imagination to run away with me like this! But I do not think it can be too far off the mark. Certainly such space cities would not preclude contact with the earth, nor need one suppose that everyone would necessarily have to spend their entire lives in them. They would enable a more advanced life form to conduct its intensely spiritual affairs at a transcendent remove from the earth's gravity, and hence in a context appropriate, one feels, to an exclusively omega-oriented aspiration. If what directly stems from the Diabolic Alpha is rooted to the earth, why shouldn't what may, one day, directly aspire towards the Divine Omega be free from the earth's gravity in an almost heavenly context?
However, all this far-out futuristic speculation does not invalidate the foregoing suggestions concerning proletarian architecture on earth in the coming Social Transcendentalist civilization, and we need not doubt that proletarian earth cities would have to precede space cities, which, in any case, may well prove more applicable to absolutely post-human life forms than to the ultimate stage of man's evolution.
There are those who sing the praises of democracy, but they don't realize that, for all its advantages, democracy is essentially a middle-class phenomenon which, like novelistic fiction, canvas painting, and symphonic music, stretches from a late-stage grand-bourgeois age to an early-stage petty-bourgeois one ... as a kind of materialistic hybrid in between autocracy and theocracy, and that, with the emergence of a late-stage petty-bourgeois age, it becomes effectively anachronistic, though subject to extensive modification ... in the interests of an attempt to bring it into line with an age of pseudo-democracy, that form of democracy germane to state socialism, with its so-called People’s democracy.
For people's democracy, despite its proletarian implications, is essentially a late-stage petty-bourgeois phenomenon, existing at the tail-end of a democratic spectrum, beyond the pale of genuine democracy but not, on that account, a chronologically inferior development! On the contrary, simply a more contemporary one, relevant to the second-half of the twentieth century - like colour photography, colour film, and rock music. Pseudo-democracy is, in effect, the antithetical equivalent of Cromwellian dictatorship, a form of political dictatorship posing as democracy, no less the end of the middle spectrum of social affairs than Cromwell's dictatorship was its inception, back in the seventeenth century, when the English bourgeoisie revolted against royalist autocracy. Socialism, by contrast, signifies a revolt against democratic pluralism, with its capitalist base. However, capitalism and socialism are not, contrary to what is commonly supposed, antithetical. Rather, socialism is the antithetical equivalent of feudalism, with capitalism coming in-between.
However, the middle, or democratic, spectrum is flanked by two others, which we may characterize as an autocratic spectrum beneath (if we imagine these spectra of evolutionary development lying parallel to one another in a horizontal course), and a theocratic spectrum above, the former beginning in pagan antiquity under aristocratic auspices, and the latter beginning with an early-stage grand-bourgeois epoch in Western Europe, the one manifesting in authoritarian monarchism, the other in Roman Catholicism. Let us take each spectrum separately.
Beginning with the ancient kingdoms of rural antiquity, authoritarian monarchism (royalism) signified worship of the God-King, the nearest equivalent on earth to the Creator or, as Christians prefer to say, the Father, whose status, at least in theory, was omnipotent, the ultimate tribunal over life and death, the maker or breaker of men. Gradually, as evolution progressed, the powers of the monarch were curbed, and by the seventeenth century Cromwell was able to lead a successful revolt in England against authoritarian monarchism which resulted, albeit briefly, in the dethronement of autocracy and its replacement by a democratic dictatorship.
Since then the powers of the monarchy have been further curbed in all Western societies, with the result that it has become - where still surviving - constitutional, or subject to parliamentary sanction, the reigning monarch little more than a figurehead of state, bereft of independent power, and consequently functioning in a pseudo-autocratic context. We may contend that constitutional monarchy is the norm for those societies which have retained an autocratic spectrum while being centred, as in Britain, on a democratic one, and that pseudo-autocracy is, by and large, a late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century phenomenon, the autocratic spectrum coming to an end with an early-stage petty-bourgeois era, after which time the extension of the first or bottom spectrum will take the form of a military dictatorship, as germane to a late-stage petty-bourgeois era, and thus become quasi-fascist, as in so many Third World countries since World War II.
Of course, where a constitutional monarchy is already deeply
entrenched, as in
Can one therefore speak of a military dictatorship as being reactionary from a democratic point of view? Certainly it signifies a reaction, very often, from the middle-spectrum democratic traditions of the imperial power to the bottom spectrum of autocratic tradition, though not on monarchic terms. Rather, military dictatorship is more contemporary than democracy, a development paralleling the tail-end of the middle spectrum in pseudo-democracy, as pertaining to Marxist-Leninist states, both of which relate to late-stage petty-bourgeois criteria.
So, paradoxically, there is more progression than reaction to a
military dictatorship in recently-liberated
This brings me to a discussion of the third and highest spectrum, namely the theocratic one, which began on early-stage grand-bourgeois terms in the form of Roman Catholicism and was superseded, in those nations destined for democracy, by Protestantism, that democratic religion, equivalent to drawing in art and to the concerto in music. Unfortunately, due to historical pressures, Roman Catholicism became increasingly autocratic, a religious complement to authoritarian monarchy, and was subject to a revolt by the bourgeoisie, whose Protestant triumph led to the persecution of Catholics and their relegation to second-class citizenship throughout the era of bourgeois hegemony, roughly from a late-stage grand-bourgeois to an early-stage petty-bourgeois age, spanning the 17th-20th centuries.
With the dawn of a late-stage petty-bourgeois era, however, Fascism made its appearance on the top spectrum as the antithetical equivalent of Roman Catholicism, a necessarily anti-democratic ideology with a religious mission, though less one favouring the development of a True World Religion, the successor to all old-world religions, than one partial to Roman Catholicism, if more so in Italy than Germany, while retaining a quasi-religious status for itself as vested in the dictator, who became an approximation, in effect, to God. If Roman Catholicism found its aesthetic equivalent in stained glass, then fascism had light art, that successor to drawing on the penultimate section, as it were, of the top spectrum, the section preceding holography, which would be relevant to the proletariat, and no less so than Social Transcendentalism, the means to the True World Religion, the successor to fascism and ideology, so far as I am concerned, of 'Kingdom Come', necessarily hostile to both royalism and military dictatorship, liberalism and socialism, Protestantism and fascism (considered as a late-stage petty-bourgeois movement), because beyond and above all of these, the principal exponent of truth!
Social Transcendentalism would be beyond antithetical equivalents because extending the top spectrum into an absolute stage of evolution, a stage antithetical, in constitution, to the authoritarian monarchism of the bottom spectrum, before bourgeois relativity intervened in the form of parliamentarianism. Beyond all bourgeois relativity, no less than autocratic absolutism was beneath it, Social Transcendentalism would open out towards the superhuman millennium and, consequently, the eventual supersession of man by his post-human successors, the only way towards definitive salvation, the only way forward. No proletarian humanism, like socialism, but a post-humanist concern with evolutionary progress towards future transformations in advancing life, man being something that, in the Nietzschean dictum, 'should be overcome'.
Humanism pertains to the middle spectrum, not the third, which has little respect for ethics once it reaches that stage, as with Social Transcendentalism, where truth is attained to and systematically endorsed. Only the Protestant part of the top spectrum kow-tows to ethics, as during the hegemony of the age of democratic relativity. Social Transcendentalism, even more than fascism, is 'beyond good and evil', those antithetical attributes of the Christian civilization. Only that is 'good' which furthers truth, and every act must be judged according to this criterion. Only in truth does man aspire towards the Holy Spirit, only in the context of pure awareness.
The ethical good act has nothing to do with divinity, considered in its ultimate sense. Goodness pertains to Christ, the temporal divinity between the two absolutes of alpha and omega, the strong and the true, the Creator and the Ultimate Creation. Neither strength, which pertains to the bottom spectrum, nor goodness, that ethical compromise between the extremes, can have any place in the absolute phase of the top spectrum. Neither a worship of the Father nor an emulation of the Son will prevail in that society dedicated to the realization of truth. Only an aspiration towards the Holy Spirit can have any value there, and only that which brings such an aspiration closer to ultimate realization is 'good'. We have lived long enough in the world of the Strong and the Good. Now we must live for the truth!
NEW BEGINNINGS/OLD ENDINGS
It was shortly after the Second World War that late-stage petty-bourgeois civilization began to get properly under way and a world arose which signified a break with the past, a new beginning, an aspiration, one might say, towards absolute proletarian criteria. For centuries men had lived with paintings, novels, symphonies, wind-up watches, spectacles, carriages, ships, universities, houses, books, acoustic guitars, and numerous other things which it seems fair to associate with a period of history stretching from late-stage grand-bourgeois to early-stage petty-bourgeois times, from approximately the mid-seventeenth to the mid-twentieth centuries, though some of those things of course date from even earlier times.
But then, with the acquirement of new technologies and a desire to revolutionize life in some degree, all that changed, and post-war man, particularly in his late-stage petty-bourgeois manifestation, began to turn against the past and acclimatize himself to the ever-changing present. Of course, the old things - wind-up watches, universities, novels, etc. - continued to exist, both in their historical and more contemporary manifestations. But a growing number of people were preferring the new and thus living within a more civilized context, if by 'civilized' we mean artificial and transcendental.
To be sure, there was still a large number of people going to universities, those traditional institutions of higher education, but there was also a large number, probably more petty-bourgeois/proletarian in character, who went to technical colleges, those late-stage petty-bourgeois successors to universities. Admittedly, there were still a considerable number of people who preferred wind-up watches to digital ones. But, even so, the number of digital wearers seemed to be on the increase. If many people still read novels, there was also a more contemporary body of people who preferred their fiction in a magazine or comic book, and who went to the cinema as often as possible or, alternatively, sat at home and watched a film on television.
The old and the new often overlapped, but there could be no doubt that the new was gaining in importance and influence as time wore on. Even people with old-world habits and allegiances occasionally indulged in some form of contemporary activity or identification, if on a comparatively low-key basis. A detailed investigation of people's lifestyles would probably indicate that most of them were far from consistent in terms of contemporary allegiance and behaviour, largely, one suspects, through ignorance as to the class-status of any given pursuit or identification, and possible ambivalence as to their own class-status in a continuously changing world.
Hence the paradoxical and often amusing chimeras of, say, university students in jeans - those late-stage petty-bourgeois successors to trousers - or, conversely, of technical-college students in trousers - those more traditional kinds of legwear. No-one is ultra-consistent, and I myself occasionally wear cords and a button-up shirt instead of a tee-shirt. Nevertheless a methodology of homogeneous living is possible and could be systematically pursued by anyone intelligent enough to work out both his own class-status and the class-status of the things or habits available to him in the contemporary world, should he decide to harmonize the two in the interests of ideological perfection.
Here, for example, is a list of some old and new things which might be of interest to anyone aspiring towards a more homogeneous lifestyle:-
universities technical colleges
condoms the pill
natural sex pornography
novels short stories
spectacles contact lenses
trousers jeans (denims/cords)
wind-up watches digital watches
operas vocal rock
symphonies instrumental rock
concertos modern jazz
ballroom dancing disco dancing
stained glass light art
prayer transcendental meditation
manual washing-up washing-up machine
hand washing machine washing
outdoor drying spin/heat drying
open fire electric fire
gas cooker electric cooker
drying hair manually hairdryer
feather bed water bed
hand shaving electric/battery shaving
manual toothbrush electric toothbrush
woollen blanket electric blanket
liberal democracy social democracy
truncheons plastic bullets
handkerchiefs paper tissues
men's bicycles motorbikes
women's bicycles scooters
natural conversation telephone conversation
manual games autonomous games
monarchs military dictators
This isn't by any means an exhaustive list, but it should indicate the nature of the distinction that exists between traditional bourgeois civilization and contemporary petty-bourgeois/proletarian civilization, the former preceding the Second World War and the latter succeeding it, the two generally overlapping in such open societies as prevail in the West at present, particularly in the more traditional societies of countries like Britain and France, which have a longer history than the more contemporary nations like Germany and the United States, not to mention Italy and Japan.
Indeed, it is in these more contemporary nations that
late-stage petty-bourgeois/proletarian civilization is more consistently upheld
and most clearly manifest, such aspects of it as apply to the older Western
countries often deriving from them. No
sooner does one think of America, for instance, than a veritable host of
contemporary things and practices leap to mind, including jeans, tee-shirts,
cola, cartoons, comic books, films, jazz, and basketball. If
Of course, this civilization is not the ultimate one, and I personally have no doubt that another and better one will shortly emerge in which specifically proletarian criteria will prevail, replacing most of the contemporary things and attitudes which people in the West nowadays take for granted. But, even so, the break with tradition that followed World War II created the basis for any subsequent evolutionary progress, and such progress as has still to be made will derive, in large part, from what currently exists, whether in science or art, religion or politics, society or sex.
Certainly it is difficult to see how the pill, contact lenses, digital watches, hovercraft, and other such contemporary things could be bettered, though profound changes will doubtless occur and, indeed, already are occurring, as in the development of a new kind of pill, more long-term than the old, and the burgeoning plethora of plastic digital watches in succession, seemingly, to the older (and possibly more petty-bourgeois) metallic ones. Probably either a late phase of petty-bourgeois civilization or an early phase of proletarian civilization is already manifest in many of these changes, which herald an age of absolute criteria. Assuming they haven't been entirely eclipsed by computers, magazines may continue to be published in a proletarian civilization, but it is unlikely that they will be crammed full of adverts, as in capitalist societies.
Other aspects of contemporary civilization, like photography and film, jazz and rock, motorbikes and bicycles, kinetics and light sculptures, short stories and posters, will undoubtedly die-out in the course of time, evolutionary progress having rendered them obsolescent, knowledge having placed them within a certain time-span relative to a given class-status and/or kind of civilization, and history having sealed their fate in the process of its inexorable unfolding. Not everything contemporary is necessarily the blueprint for a higher development. Nevertheless a significant proportion of it is, and in some cases that development has already been realized.
THE RISE OF THEOCRATIC CENTRISM
Just as philosophy, fiction, and poetry are three branches of literature corresponding, one could argue, to three parallel spectra; and sculpture, painting, and drawing are three branches of art likewise corresponding to three parallel spectra; and ballet, the symphony, and the concerto are three branches of classical music whose correspondence to three parallel spectra is no less evident, so authoritarianism, parliamentarianism, and totalitarianism are three branches of politics, as different from each other as any of the above-named branches but, nevertheless, related by a common family tie, so to speak, to political evolution. To return to our spectrum analogy, one could speak of authoritarianism as autocratic, parliamentarianism as democratic, and totalitarianism as theocratic, indicative, in their different ways, of a progression from the Father to the Holy Spirit via the Son. Politics and religion are not entirely separate, as might at first appear to be the case, but are really two aspects of the same thing, politics being the practical application of a religious premise, the ordering of human society according to the criteria of religious precedent.
Thus in its first, or royalist, stage of evolution, politics is autocratic, reflecting the 'divine order' of the Creator and His 'fallen angels', establishing on earth an equivalent to the galactic-world-order, in which the monarch functions as the human equivalent of the central star of the Galaxy and thereby rules over both a nobility, corresponding to peripheral stars, and a populace, corresponding to planets, who are enslaved to monarch and nobility alike, owing allegiance to both, though particularly to the feudal baron, lord, or whatever, who directly rules over them and thus holds them within a solar system-like integrity. He comes in-between the peasantry and their monarch, free to rule the former as he thinks fit but owing direct allegiance to the latter, who rules by 'divine right', the personification on earth of the Creator, less truly divine, in any objectively omega-oriented (free-electron) sense, than archdiabolic, a more powerful ruler than the myriads of nobles who only correspond to minor stars, devil equivalents vis-à-vis a demonic populace.
We see this same so-called 'divine order' at work in trees, where a trunk, corresponding to central star/monarch, is served by the branches, corresponding to peripheral stars/nobility, which in turn are served by the leaves, those planet/peasant equivalents which have no option but to slave for their differently-constituted masters, providing them with the nourishment they require to survive. A pedant could argue as to the exact solar/noble status of any given branch in the overall feudal hierarchy of a tree, but we need not go into such trifling details here! Suffice it to say that most of the larger branches would be equivalent to high-ranking nobles such as dukes and princes, most of the smaller ones, or those not immediately stemming from the trunk, equivalent to low-ranking nobles such as viscounts and barons. The eventual grading of nobles along more complex and variegated lines was a development presupposing a higher degree of civilization ... commensurate with a more advanced age, as the monarch moved out of his castle into a palace, and the lesser royals and/or nobility in general moved from their forts, or small castles, into country houses, or small palaces. In a strictly pagan society, this wouldn't have been possible or, indeed, credible. But with the rise of the Christian bourgeoisie and the development of parliamentarianism at the expense of authoritarianism, the status of the feudal classes was irrevocably changed, so their freedom to rule in an autocratic manner was curbed, the monarchy in due course becoming subject to greater constitutional constraint.
The emergence of parliamentarianism as a compromise, in effect, between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, the Father and the Holy Ghost, marked a shift from pseudo-pagan to properly Christian criteria, as democracy, in large measure derived from Protestant teachings as to human equality, supplanted autocracy, and the age of dualism, necessarily hostile to autocratic Roman Catholicism, was ushered in, placing due emphasis on compromise between disparate (in the main) bourgeois interests, and upholding the ethic of self-enrichment through hard work. Indeed, democracy was quintessentially ethical, concerned with the general good, usually interpreted in a commercial or utilitarian way, and thus was committed to human freedom, freedom, above all, from autocratic tyranny in order to pursue the Good rather than remain enslaved, as with feudal societies, to the Strong, whether natural or 'divine'.
Inevitably, democracy gave rise to industry and furthered the growth of urbanization, which, at first, was highly ugly. Centred in the ethics of equality and a faith in the ability of human effort to overcome natural obstacles, it necessarily favoured the artificial, one might even say the transcendental; though the theory and practical implementation of Christian teachings weren't always consonant, the industrious bourgeois rarely averse to putting practice above theory, private enrichment before the general good, and to an extent that the former tended to eclipse the latter, making for a society where the toiling masses, far from sharing in the general wealth, were exploited and oppressed by their industrial masters to a degree not far short of the exploitation and oppression experienced by peasants in the age of feudal enslavement.
The bourgeoisie may have acknowledged a transcendental perspective, relative to Protestantism, but they remained firmly rooted in the mundane and were, to a degree, sympathetic towards feudal precedent. There was no moral rebirth with them, no clean break with the past, since capitalism is ever a mode of industrial feudalism, an artificial as opposed to a natural form of exploitation. Just as Christ acknowledged the Father, so parliamentarians acknowledge royals, democracy being a kind of diluted autocracy, the bourgeoisie sharing power with the aristocracy, as symbolized by the distinction in England between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the bourgeoisie themselves divisible between capitalist and socialist interests, not to mention different shades of capitalism, as in the heyday of Tory/Liberal confrontation in Victorian times. As in Christ, so in parliamentarianism, everything must be divided, divisible, and divisive! Compromise is taken for the norm and, indeed, transformed into an ideal, not simply regarded as the best way of dealing with divisions but considered sacrosanct in itself - valid for all time!
Well, those who, as Bolshevik-styled communists, signify an extension of democracy into absolute channels ... don't think so, even though they pertain to the democratic spectrum and are themselves materialists, concerned with the ethical application to society of a proletarian humanism based on the teachings of Karl Marx, whose Communism is to pseudo-democracy what Protestantism was to democracy proper - namely the theoretical foundation for political action, Marx following on behind Christ as the Anti-Christ, state socialism no less anti-democratic, in the bourgeois atomic sense, than capitalism was pro-democratic, the means, one feels, to the overthrow of liberal democracy.
Yet not, on that account, the means to Transcendentalism, which appertains to the third and highest spectrum, the theocratic spectrum, as one that would seem to have played only a very secondary role throughout the age of parliamentarianism, theoretical influence notwithstanding, and only began to take an independent line with the rise of Fascism, an ideology biased towards Roman Catholicism but revolutionary and independent enough to signify, in the person of the Leader, a crude approximation to the Second Coming, the basis of a genuinely theocratic society in which religion becomes absolute, if on terms diametrically antithetical to the absolutism of its inception in various degrees and kinds of Creator-worship. Does not the leader of a fascist state personify divinity on terms the converse of the God-Kings of pagan antiquity?
Certainly, one would be hard-pressed to deny the divine status of the Leader in a fascist society, even if, in the late-stage petty-bourgeois context to which we are of course alluding, this status is less than a truly objective intimation of the Holy Ghost and more like a representation of the Father, given its quasi-autocratic implications. But fascism and royalism are really antithetical, and if sovereignty is vested in the Monarch in an autocratic society, the ruler equivalent to the Father there, then it is most assuredly vested in the Leader in a theocratic society, who becomes the personification of the Holy Spirit, the leading embodiment of truth, an intimation of ultimate divinity. Only in a democratic society is sovereignty vested in the People, who are entitled to elect representatives to parliament who govern and/or serve on their behalf.
Early in the twentieth century, however, a further, even more radical example of the same kind of revolution occurred in Russia and, bearing in mind the progress of history towards an absolute age, it resulted in the eventual emergence of a People’s republic, necessarily proletarian in character and therefore beyond the bourgeois compromise of the French Revolution. Beyond a Soviet-type revolution history cannot go on the middle, or democratic, spectrum, pseudo-democracy being the ultimate form of democracy, where sovereignty is vested in the proletariat and a sort of dictatorial democracy ... of the proletariat ... prevails, the antithetical equivalent to the democratic dictatorship of the Cromwellian revolution. The only way forward after this is Fascism and its ideological successor in Social Transcendentalism, but this pertains to the top, or theocratic, spectrum and can only be hostile towards republicans of whatever degree, as sovereignty is vested in the Leader, who becomes dictator to the masses, a no-less absolute figure than the autocratic monarch of royalist times, because equivalent to God.
Thus a totalitarian society is inevitably anti-republican and anti-democratic, the Leader alone responsible for determining the course of evolution, and thereby leading from above, pulling the masses after him towards the post-Human Millennium, that stage in time when man will have been completely overcome and only the Supermen prevail, in the guise of brain collectivizations artificially supported and sustained, though not without human supervision and assistance from qualified technicians. Only in the second phase of this post-Human Millennium, when the old brain has been surgically removed from each Superman, would such technicians become superfluous, as the truly classless, free society of the Superbeings, or new-brain collectivizations, hypermeditated towards transcendence and thus the attainment of pure spirit (free electrons) to the post-Millennial Beyond.
All this is, of course, pertinent to Social Transcendentalism and therefore to the ideology propounded by the closest approximation on earth to the Second Coming. If Fascism was petty bourgeois in character, the crude beginnings of a theocratic society, then Social Transcendentalism is proletarian and, hence, absolute, the more objective ideology of the Second Coming for a post-democratic age, an age when real progress towards the post-Human Millennium can be made, as Social Transcendentalism strives to extend the top spectrum towards a theocratic absolutism, and thereby paves the way for universal civilization.
Pertaining to the tail-end of the middle spectrum, Communism simply isn't qualified to further progress towards the post-Human Millennium. Its concept of Millennialism is necessarily subjective, envisaging not the supersession of men by post-human life forms, but a kind of global equalitarian society based on the ethics of proletarian humanism. In short, it lacks a capacity for truth, being an extension of ethics beyond bourgeois relativity to a kind of proletarian absolutism germane to People’s democracy. But such a relatively absolute phase of democracy cannot stretch into a genuinely proletarian age. There is only one way forward, and that is through Social Transcendentalism. For it is only the last stretch of the top spectrum which is truly absolute in character. The age of People’s republics, no less than that of bourgeois republics, will soon be a thing of the past. Tomorrow belongs to us!