As life evolves, so it becomes more interiorized, and people therefore spend a greater amount of time indoors than outdoors.  Just as the Christians spent a greater amount of time indoors, as a rule, than the pagans of pre-atomic times, so in the coming post-atomic age will Transcendentalists spend even more time indoors than their Christian predecessors - perhaps the greater part of their lives.  Indeed, Transcendentalists will spend so much time indoors ... as to be the complete antithesis of pagans, who doubtless spent most of their time outdoors, living in closer proximity to nature and thus enslavement to the natural-world-order.  This was because they stemmed from the alpha roots of life in the stars and consequently reflected a preference for appearance over essence, the exterior over the interior.  We can't properly understand why the ancient Greeks, to name but one pagan people, built temples on a columnar basis if we do not appreciate the need felt by such peoples to exteriorize their buildings, and thus remain in contact with nature even when they entered them.  A classical temple remained open to nature even when, as was not always the case, it possessed a roof.  The Greeks would never have dreamt of completely shutting themselves off from the outside world in sealed buildings, and so they built openly, with the use of columns.  There is no deeper underlying reason behind their architectural styles than that!

      The Christians, however, being dualists, had more respect for transcendentalism than their pagan forebears.  In fact, they were prepared to spend as much time indoors as outdoors, and sometimes even more.  Their religious buildings, while partly imitating Greco-Roman styles, albeit superficially and primarily for decorative purposes, shut people off from nature behind walls, though never entirely so!  For in every church there were windows, and in some churches, particularly Gothic, there were more windows than walls.  Yet, even then, these windows weren't plain and ultra-transparent, but either frosted or stained, and stained, often enough, in a most colourful and religiously educative manner - the tradition of stained glass lasting into the industrial age, though on a largely revivalist basis.

      With the ongoing development of Protestantism in certain countries from the seventeenth century, however, walls tended to preponderate over windows, the latter being frosted and mainly utilitarian.  People became even more shut off from nature in these buildings, though, thanks to their windows, not exclusively so!  There was a plentiful supply of natural light, duly supplemented, in the course of time, by different forms of artificial light.  Coming out of or going into a church, one might have encountered columns either embedded in the walls and/or forming a portico.  This may have been reassuring for some people, particularly those who admired the Greek ideal. Nevertheless inside the building, walls and windows preponderated, with perhaps a few decorative columns for aesthetic purposes.  That was the essence of late-Christian architecture.

      But we haven't reached the end of human evolution, least of all in religious terms.  For an age is coming when meditation centres will have to be built, and such centres will correspond to a transcendental civilization, a global civilization whose citizens will be even more shut off from nature in their buildings than the Christians were - so shut off, in fact, as not even to have windows in them.  Then what?  Not thick walls suggestive of materialism but, on the contrary, relatively thin, synthetic walls all the way around, with artificial light to illuminate the interiors when necessary ... Which shouldn't be when people are meditating and thereby striving to transcend appearances!  Electric or neon light should replace natural light, where such transcendental buildings are concerned.  There will doubtless be need of air-conditioning, perhaps even of sophisticated filter systems, but not of windows.  People will enter a building in which the lights have been dimmed and get dimmer as the meditation session proceeds.  They will understand that essence is what counts in a meditation centre, not appearance!  The Christian churches were, as a rule, less bright inside than the Greek temples, open or partly open to the sky, would have been - indeed, many of them might fittingly be described as dim or even dingy.  A bright meditation centre, however, would be a contradiction in terms!

      So Transcendentalists will be completely shut off from nature in their religious buildings, and thus exist in a context essentially closer to the post-human phases of evolution in the ensuing Superman/Superbeing Millennium.  Evolution will have progressed from appearance to essence, from exterior architecture to interior architecture.  This will signify a qualitative improvement - the inner manifestations of evolutionary progress.

      But there will also be need of manifestations which, being outer, may be defined as quantitative, in which the diversity and separateness of things at the roots of evolution are gradually transcended - the direction of evolution being from the innumerable stars to the ultimate globe of transcendent spirit via planetary life.  The lower the stage of human evolution, the more prevalent is this diversity and separateness.  Why, one may wonder, has the world given birth to so many distinct languages?  Precisely because lingual diversity is a cultural manifestation of diabolic influence, the great variety of things or distinctions on the pre-atomic and even atomic levels of evolution.  Before men evolved to national distinctions, they were subject to the far more numerous tribal distinctions, and of course each tribe evolved a distinct language of its own.  Literally thousands of conflicting tongues babbling away in pre-atomic times, a source of deep-rooted hostility and distrust - interminable intertribal strife!  Such was the case even when certain tribes joined together to form nations, or when the victory of one tribe over another paved the way for the nation states of today, and the number of languages was reduced in proportion to the number of vanquished or incorporated tribes - the tongue of the stronger tribe becoming the national language of the new nation.  And yet, even then, still too many languages, circumstances still reflecting the diversity and separateness of things ... as stemming from the alpha roots of evolution in the stars.  Is not the contemporary world torn between literally hundreds of tongues, even though the vast majority of people speak one or another of the half-dozen foremost languages in the world, including English, French, and Spanish?  Some people even speak two or more such languages, since capable of transcending national barriers and culturally embracing wider sectors of humanity.  But most people are still imprisoned in the language of their particular nation, a language among languages - no more and no less!

      Clearly, there is more scope for quantitative improvement here, for a further contraction of diversity and separateness.  Such an improvement must surely come when the world transcends national distinctions and becomes not simply an international community, but a supra-national community in the ultimate human civilization of the transcendental future.  What will be required is a convergence towards the Omega Absolute, or the goal of evolutionary development, on the level of language, the adoption, in due course, of a supra-national language to supersede the various national tongues which currently exist and will doubtless continue to do so until the world is brought under a central administration in the coming post-atomic age.  For there can be no question of one national tongue, like English or Russian, being adopted at the expense of all the others.  That would not signify a lingual convergence to the Omega Absolute, but, rather, an imperialistic extension of one national tongue into the future.  Yet all national tongues are equally irrelevant to a transcendental civilization, which must be supra-national.

      Likewise, all national or regional so-called world religions would be equally irrelevant to the formation of the next civilization.  There could be no question of Buddhism or Hinduism being adopted by peoples who had traditionally upheld Christianity or Islam or whatever.  Transcendentalism will mark a new beginning in religious evolution, and it will do so as a world religion in the truest sense, not as one of seven or eight contending religions, the co-existence of which simply reflects the divisive and separative nature of things stemming from the alpha roots of evolution.  All existing so-called world religions should be superseded by the True World Religion of transcendental man, in which quiescent meditation will enable its practitioners to approximate more closely to the ultimate tranquillity, peace, and blessed being of the Divine Omega, conceiving of the latter as the goal of evolution in transcendent spirit.  But there will be no oriental fanaticism about this type of meditation, no striving to attain to transcendence through meditation techniques alone, and for literally hours at a stretch every day of the week!  Unlike a Buddhist, transcendental man will know that his civilization is but a stage on the road to the post-Human Millennium, when brains become artificially supported and sustained in communal contexts, and a new life form, post-human and largely supernatural, continues the evolutionary journey from approximately where man left off.  Knowing that technology will have an important role to play in furthering spiritual progress, he won't be subject to the delusions of the traditional oriental fanatic concerning his prospects of salvation through natural meditating methods alone!  He will be able to meditate rationally, calmly, periodically, uncluttered by superstition.  And when the technicians have perfected the means of supporting and sustaining brains artificially, he will be superseded by the Superman of the first phase of the post-Human Millennium, in which not transcendental meditation but hallucinogenic contemplation will prevail, in accordance with the need to open-up the superconscious and have the psyche pass through an intermediate period of internal visionary experience en route, as it were, to higher things.

      One of these higher things will of course be the hypermeditation of collectivized new-brains artificially supported and sustained in the second phase of the post-Human Millennium, the truly classless society of the Superbeings, which will exist, in evolutionary terms, as antithetical equivalents to trees.  In this ultimate phase of millennial evolution, the interaction of new brains on any given support/sustain system will lead, after a certain period of time, to spirit being cultivated to a point where it becomes transcendent, when electrons detach themselves from atomic constraint and soar heavenwards in supra-atomic freedom.  Now whilst electrons climb free of new-brain matter and merge with and converge towards other such transcendences in the void, the protons left behind will probably react against one another in subatomic cursedness, thereby destroying whatever remains to be destroyed.  Spirit, however, will have attained to its goal in supra-atomic blessedness, a goal which first became apparent to Christians in the age of atomic balance, but which was sought after more keenly as time went by and life became increasingly post-atomic in constitution.  With the final overcoming of matter, ultimately reduced to its new-brain guise, salvation will be definitively attained.  All that remains to be done then ... is that the individual transcendences from whichever Superbeing in whichever part of the Universe should merge into one ultimate transcendence for evolution to run its course and achieve completion in a beingfulness that will last for ever.

      Not so the remaining stars, however, which will gradually fade, collapse, and disappear, leaving the Universe to the perfection of the divine presence alone.  This divine presence - God in any ultimate sense - will be the most interiorized existence possible, the ultimate experiential interiorization of a supreme level of being, towards which all progress in earthly interiorization tends, including that still to be made in the future transcendental civilization.





I believe it was Winklemann who once wrote that the moderns had failed to attain to the perfect aesthetic beauty of the ancients; that the Christian civilization of the West had not equalled, let alone surpassed, the ideal beauty achieved by the ancient Greeks in their, for the most part, sculptural traditions.  Now if I am not mistaken, it was with a critical and not altogether sympathetic eye that the great German aesthetician looked upon this fact.  And looked upon it even with regard to the Renaissance, when, as we all know, ancient values were resurrected and geniuses of the stature of da Vinci and Michelangelo endeavoured to equal, if not surpass, what was regarded as an art superior in beauty to the Christian.

      I shall not attempt to disagree with Winklemann's assertion concerning the aesthetic pre-eminence of Greek sculpture.  But I do see reason to question the contention that because Christian sculpture, even in its neo-pagan guise, was less beautiful than the finest works of ancient Greece, it had, ipso facto, failed to attain to the same level.  I question this contention, the very cornerstone of Winklemann's thesis, because I believe it completely overlooks the important moral distinction which should be drawn between ancient and modern civilization, between the pre-atomic pagan civilization of the ancient Greeks and, to a lesser extent, Romans on the one hand, and the atomic Christian civilization of the West on the other, a distinction which should always be remembered when one endeavours to compare the two civilizations - namely, that whereas the ancients were recipients of a religious integrity stressing appearance, Christians were subject to considerations of essence as well as appearance, the former appertaining to truth, the latter to beauty, and could not therefore be expected, if on none other than moral grounds, to strive after an ideal that stressed beauty alone.

      No, contrary to Herr Winklemann's assumption, the Christians did not fail to emulate or surpass the ancient Greeks.  On the contrary, they concentrated, if not exclusively then at any rate partly, on a creative dimension and objective, namely truth, for which the Greeks not only had little respect ... but no real understanding, and precisely because it would have been alien to their level of civilization, a level that required unbroken fidelity to pagan criteria.  Morally considered, the Christians were somewhat superior to the ancient Greeks; for the sculpture half-beautiful and half-truthful can only arise at a later juncture in evolutionary time than the sculpture exclusively or predominantly concerned with beauty - evolution being a struggle from appearance to essence, which is to say, from the absolute beauty of the stars to the absolute truth of transcendent spirit.  Even with the Renaissance - a half-hearted attempt to rival the ancient Greeks - the leading sculptors, not excepting Michelangelo and da Vinci, managed to avoid producing works as beautiful as their pagan prototypes, and this largely in spite of themselves and because they, no less than everyone else, were inheritors of a thousand or so years of Christian civilization, in which truth had come to supplant beauty in the scale of moral worth.  Admittedly, they were Italians, and thus arguably part-descendants of the ancient Romans.  So one could to some extent speak of a recrudescence of pagan civilization in defiance of Christian values and the (compared with certain other European countries) relatively thin veneer of Christianity that had been imposed on a traditionally pagan people from without.  Certainly, the fact that the Renaissance broke out primarily in Italy and in rebellion against the Gothic ideal (to truth) of Northern Europe, suggests that a vein of paganism remained firmly embedded in the Italian psyche and only required the relaxation of cultural pressure ... for it to bubble-up, like molten lava, and gush forth in the neo-pagan effusions of the Renaissance - a movement mistakenly identified, in my opinion, with one of the greatest periods in the history of Western civilization!

      Yet, much as they sought to rival the ancients, the leading sculptors of the Renaissance were no ancient Greeks or Romans but modern Italians, the inheritors of Christian values.  Their sculptures, detached from Christian iconography and free-standing, were very often beautiful, but by no means as beautiful, fortunately, as the works upon which they had been partly modelled.  The human soul had made some progress in the meantime, and neither da Vinci nor Michelangelo were content to carve sculptures the faces of which resembled soulless masks!  After all, the closer one approximates to Absolute Beauty with the use of the human form - a form which, by definition, will preclude all but a relative approximation to it - the greater the emphasis one must place on appearance alone, and the more lifeless the facial features of the sculpture in question will become, since expression is a concession to soul and thus to essence, albeit, in its emotional manifestation, to the lower essence of the subconscious rather than, as with spirit, to the higher essence of the superconscious.  Such higher essence would, however, be beyond appearance altogether, and so could never be defined in terms of the Greek ideal of mask-like vacuity, which, by contrast, is necessarily beneath essence conceived as soul.  It could be defined, as I hope to demonstrate presently, in terms of biomorphic or abstract sculpture, such as one encounters in the twentieth century.  But the men of the Renaissance had no desire to completely forsake the soul, which is why their works, though morally inferior to much Gothic and subsequent Baroque sculpture, remained morally superior to the pagan masterpieces they sought to emulate and, if possible, excel.  Unadulterated appearance appertains to the Diabolic Alpha!

      In tracing the history of art's development, we find that the ancients preferred sculpture to anything else - indeed, were predominantly and for long periods almost solely concerned with sculpture.  Why was this?  I think the answer must be: because sculpture, besides being the most materialistic mode of artistic endeavour and therefore the one most suited to a pagan age, is the art form that permits the closest possible approximation to nature and, by implication, to Absolute Beauty, irrespective of the limitations inherent in the (anthropomorphic) medium itself.  A civilization the ideal of which is 'the Beautiful' will find, in sculpture, its appropriate medium of expression, and the ancients took this medium to unprecedented and, as we now know, unsurpassed levels of aesthetic perfection - a truly diabolical perfection of pagan classicism.

      Painting, on the other hand, is less well-suited to the emulation of nature because it is inherently two-dimensional and partly transcendental, which is to say, detached from the material, utilitarian world in a creative realm unique to itself.  Of course, painting in the sense that we generally understand the term, i.e. oils on canvas, did not arise and could not have arisen in the pre-atomic age of the ancient Greeks, for the simple reason that the degree of spiritual evolution necessary to the adoption of such a partly transcendental medium didn't exist in pagan times.  Even the Romans, late pagans though they were, never took painting beyond the wall, where it existed in conjunction with utilitarian ends and reflected a largely materialistic bias.  The mural and the mosaic, which the Romans took to a very high level indeed, are the precursors of painting as we generally understand it and, to a significant extent, the successors to sculpture and amphora painting, both of which particularly appealed to the Greeks.  For the evolution of art is from the materialistic to the spiritualistic, from the mundane to the transcendent, and although the co-existence of sculpture and painting over a given period of time - never more consistently so than in a Christian, or atomic, age - may lead one to infer equal though separate status to each medium of expression, nevertheless the sculptural must eventually be transcended by an art form stemming from painting and, to a greater extent, light art, which yet transcends both painting and light art at the same time.

      Such an art form will, I believe, be holography, and it should become the principal and, ultimately, sole mode of artistic expression in the future transcendental, or post-atomic, civilization.  For what light art was to painting and painting to murals, namely a step away from the mundane in the direction of greater transcendentalism, holography must one day become to light art, as connections with the mundane are entirely severed in a wholly transcendental art form or, at any rate, in one which gives the impression of being wholly transcendental, such as should bring the evolution of art to completion in maximum spiritualization.

      Thus what began in three-dimensional sculpture as the closest possible approximation, using representational means, to Absolute Beauty, will culminate in three-dimensional holography ... as the closest possible intimation, using abstract means, of Absolute Truth.  The development of vase painting at a later stage than sculpture, of murals at a later stage than vase painting, of canvas painting at a later stage than murals, of light art at a later stage than canvas painting, signify but intermediate realms of creative evolution between the two extremes - that of pagan sculpture on the one hand, and of transcendental holography on the other.

      What, then, of modern sculpture, considered in its biomorphic or largely abstract guises?  Surely there exists an antithesis of sorts between, say, a Phidias and a Henry Moore, between a Greek youth or warrior and a nondescript biomorphic shape?  Yes, of course there does!  And such an antithesis appertains solely to sculpture, that is to say, to extremes of sculptural development rather than to extremes of artistic development per se.  At its best, modern sculpture intimates of truth - a thing, incidentally, which Moore doesn't always do; for, like Barbara Hepworth, he also inclines to a form of extreme naturalism, and thus approximates to varying degrees of natural beauty, not, of course, to anything like the same extent as the ancient Greeks (which is just as well), but certainly to an extent which makes one conscious of a particular work being partly beautiful rather than simply profound or true (though some intimation of truth there will probably be, if for no other reason than that the overall semi-abstract or non-representational shape of the work will suggest transcendental implications).  For what transcends nature, by going beyond it, necessarily intimates of truth.  The disadvantage with sculpture doing so is that it can never transcend its own materiality and is thus limited, to the degree that it is material, as a medium for intimating of spiritual truth.  Admittedly, there have been experiments with extremely lightweight sculpture, not least of all by Naum Gabo, and such experiments undoubtedly mark a progression in the evolution of sculpture from its crudely material beginnings.  But no matter how lightweight sculpture becomes, it cannot transcend its basic materiality or cease to have a tactile appeal, the sort of appeal which sculpture must retain if it is to do proper justice to itself as sculpture.

      By contrast, light art, although often mistaken for or identified with sculpture, has no tactile appeal but stems from painting in the overall evolution of art, being a better intimation of truth to the extent that it is even more detached from materiality, i.e. canvas, oils, walls, frames, etc., and consequently suggestive of spirit by dint of the impalpability of electric or neon light.  Of course, the use of artificial light to intimate of truth is inherently unsatisfactory, because transcendent spirit would not, when it eventually emerged from matter, i.e. collectivized new brains, be glaringly bright and therefore aligned with appearance.  On the contrary, it would be an entirely essential emanation.  Artificial light differs from natural light as an electric fire from an open fire - in degree rather than kind.  This is especially true of electric light, though the electron bombardment of phosphor (which is the metaphysical principle underlining fluorescent lighting) bespeaks a considerable evolutionary progression in the development of artificial light and is, by definition, better suited to intimate of pure spirit.  Yet, even then, art must necessarily fall short of that which it is intended to be an intimation; for the use of apparent means, no matter how refined upon, can never be anything more than a loose guide to essential ends.  If, judged objectively, art is inevitably a failure, it is nevertheless a necessary failure, inextricably linked to man's destiny.  And this is no less so at the pagan end of the spectrum of human evolution, where approximations to Absolute Beauty were never less than crude.

      Returning to sculpture, it should be possible for us to clearly distinguish between extreme petty-bourgeois sculpture, whether lightweight or biomorphic, and light art, which stems not from sculpture (as a higher manifestation of sculptural development) but from painting and, needless to say, a particular kind of painting - namely, that which one would associate, in its abstraction, with the most extreme form of petty-bourgeois transcendentalism.  Now whereas even the most radically biomorphic or lightweight modern sculpture stems from the fundamentally pagan tradition of sculptural development, and thus signifies the tail-end, as it were, of this art form's evolution, light art marks a fresh creative development in the overall evolution of art and may be defined as a post-atomic medium of expression, a medium forming an antithetical equivalent with the vase painting of the pre-atomic Greeks, and being but one evolutionary stage from the ultimate transcendental art ... in the abstract holography of the future post-atomic civilization.

      Thus sculpture cannot actually extend beyond a bourgeois/proletarian phase of evolutionary development, for its materiality would be incompatible with an exclusively transcendental age, an age free of the pagan root and of any art form, including painting, which stemmed from that root in fidelity to natural beauty.  Even art that was purposely ugly, as much modern art in the West certainly appears to be when judged by traditional standards, would be irrelevant to a civilization solely concerned with truth.  For while such art may be relevant to and even, by a curious paradox, meritorious in a bourgeois/proletarian (transitional) age or society, it would be quite unnecessary in a society that had ceased to concern itself with aesthetics or their anti-beauty negation, having gravitated to higher concerns in loyalty to transcendental criteria.  Whether it would be acceptable, from the historical standpoint, in a post-atomic age ... must remain open to debate.  But it certainly wouldn't be created in such an age.  For, as I hope to have demonstrated, creative endeavour would have progressed to a positive and altogether superior level - one diametrically antithetical to that of the ancient Greeks.

      As for the culmination of the sculptural tradition in the two main types of petty-bourgeois sculpture we have witnessed this century, it is doubtful that Winklemann, if he could return from the grave to witness certain typical examples of it, would appreciably modify his opinion concerning the failure of Western art to attain to the high level of beauty achieved by the ancients.  Confronted by a Giacometti, which, to my mind, aptly signifies the negative or anti-beauty side of this culmination, he would probably be appalled by the extreme slenderness and knobbliness of the figure, the facial expression of which was far too redolent of soul to satisfy even a crude approximation to human, let alone absolute, beauty.  Confronted, on the other hand, by an Arp, which, as biomorphic sculpture, seems to aptly signify its positive or pro-truth side, he would be at a loss to establish any formal connections between such sculpture and nature, and would have to confess that Arp, no less than Giacometti, was an abysmal failure by ancient Greek standards, as well as a further example of the lamentable decline in aesthetic merit which Western sculpture appeared to signify.  Ah, poor Winklemann!  He could never have understood the truth.  He died facing Hell.  His spirit, fortunately, cannot be resurrected!





It is not so often, these days, that one hears or reads of sadomasochism in sexual relations, which is perhaps just as well!  For the infliction of pain on another, even when the other is a willing accomplice to its infliction, isn't really the most honourable of pursuits and scarcely tallies with a developing transcendental age or, at any rate, with an age becoming increasingly transcendent in certain contexts, not the least of which being sex.  Sadism, one feels, is somehow too cruel and barbaric for sensibilities worthy of the name civilized, even when the civilization they may pertain to isn't the ultimate one but - certainly so far as the greater part of the West is concerned - something closer to being penultimate.  Sadists and masochists, we like to believe, are exceptions to the sexual rule, and probably their behaviour, in the main, is not as brutal or submissive as it could be or, indeed, once was for similarly-disposed people in the infancy, as it were, of man's sexual evolution.

      Ah, there we have the crux of the matter!  I have fathered a contention which suggests that, at one time, relations between the sexes were a lot rougher than at present, and so much so as to imply that sadomasochism, or its historical equivalent, was once the rule rather than the exception!  Frankly, I believe such a contention to be reasonable, and am prepared to argue in its defence.  For men were more disposed to inflicting pain on others, regardless of sex, in pagan and early-Christian times than they are these days, at least in the more civilized parts of the world, and we needn't doubt that, as a corollary of this, women were correspondingly more disposed to the endurance of pain during such times than (would be) their latter-day descendants.  The closer human society stands to the diabolic roots of life in the stars, the more likely it is that pain will predominate, and not merely as something to be endured but ... actively engaged in as a test of one's strength or courage or capacity of endurance (stoicism).  Before sex became a pleasure it was predominantly a pain, and we may conjecture that its practitioners acted more savagely and unsympathetically towards one another than most latter-day couples would be prepared to countenance!

      But not everyone behaves gently in love-making.  There are those who prefer to look upon sex from either a sadistic or a masochistic angle, depending, as a rule, on their gender.  The infliction and endurance of pain is, for them, the governing principle of sexual behaviour, without which sex would become far less exciting.  What can one say of such people - that they are barbarous or backward?  An approach to sex that consciously endorses pain as the governing principle is arguably less than civilized, in the modern sense of that term.  Certainly most men do not behave brutally towards their partners during sex but, for the most part, gently and sympathetically.  Sex, like so much else, has become civilized in the course of time.  Its sadomasochistic origins have been refined upon to the point where pain is eclipsed by pleasure, which has become the principal incentive for sexual intercourse.  Admittedly, there are exceptions.  But even those who consciously pursue sadomasochistic relationships do so on a comparatively restrained basis, never or rarely sinking to the level of savagery of our distant ancestors.  Nevertheless, their activities and attitudes are such as to suggest that, where sex is concerned, they are simply laggards - neo-pagan types who display less subtlety and restraint than the majority of their contemporaries; pain-wallowing anachronisms whose approach to sex, in an age of sexual pleasure, is barbarous rather than civilized.  Most people do not admire sadomasochism in others!

      This essay isn't specifically intended to be about sexual behaviour but also about other things, including pain and pleasure generally.  We may note that, as human evolution progresses, there develops a tendency among men to minimize pain and maximize pleasure - at any rate, to the extent that it can be maximized.  For while pleasure is preferable to pain, it is by no means entirely separable from pain, but also pertains to the flesh as a positive response to positive stimuli; though, unlike pain, it is strictly limited as to its intensive potential.  By which I mean that, whereas pain can descend to the absolute level of maximum suffering, pleasure is strictly finite, dependent on and limited by the physical constitution of the flesh which, being proton-dominated, leaves comparatively little scope for electron attraction in response to positive stimuli from without.  Because protons predominate over electrons in the crude atomicity of the flesh, the strongest sensation we can feel will always be the negative one, as evoked by a negative external stimulus, like the application of force to the skin.  Our capacity for pleasure can never become the ultimate goal of human striving but only, at best, a temporal, intermediate goal ... to be transcended for something higher when or as often as opportunity permits.  We may endeavour to curtail pain or the causes of pain as much as possible, but we can't thereby expand pleasure indefinitely, until, for instance, it attained to an intensity the equal of anything humanity had ever experienced of pain in the past.  There can never be a pleasurable sensation the equal, in intensity, of a hand or body consumed by fire!  The atomic constitution of the flesh will always preclude such a possibility and thereby render the pursuit of increased pleasure futile.  The wiser, more advanced members of the human race have long subordinated pleasure to the pursuit of higher ends, such as happiness and awareness, which stem from positive stimuli impinging upon areas of the body or brain with a greater ratio of electrons to protons and/or neutrons than the flesh.  Unfortunately even in the heart, that seat of the emotions, the ratio of protons to electrons is too favourably disposed towards the former to enable the positive emotion of love to outweigh, in intensity, the negative emotion of hate, which has hitherto been the ruling emotion of the heart, with love, or the actual condition of 'being in love', a periodic exception to the general rule!  This isn't to say, however, that hate has existed at the expense of love on a permanent basis; for, like the flesh, the heart requires a stimulus one way or another in order to respond in an emotional way.  But, certainly, a heart which is not 'in love', as we say, will be more disposed, in its neutrality, to the negative emotion of hate than would otherwise be the case.  Doubtless one of the great charms of 'being in love' for most people is that, whilst it lasts, the ruling emotion of hatred is quelled, if not ousted, and one becomes more disposed to look at life positively, in response to the rebellious 'electron uprising', as it were, of the heart against its customary proton master.  We acquire, through love, a reprieve from hate or, alternatively, a neutrality favouring hate or some weaker negative emotion.

      But even love is temporal and therefore inadequate as a goal of evolutionary striving or ideal to be pursued for its own sake.  We can never entirely escape from hate.  For, alas, the heart, too, is atomic and accordingly biased towards its proton master!  Love may be a pleasant reprieve from negative emotions, but it doesn't last for ever - certainly no more than a few years.  And as we get older our capacity for 'falling in love' is reduced, partly because we become more intellectualized and less disposed to appearances, partly because the heart contracts and beats less vigorously than before.  Falling in love would for many adults constitute a kind of indignity in the face of their intellectual and/or spiritual preoccupations and pretensions.  Not surprisingly, certain higher men, like surgeons, refuse to acknowledge that the heart could possibly be anything more than a pump.  We may be sure that youths, particularly female, would be highly sceptical if not downright critical of such an attitude!  A young woman in love would have little doubt that the heart was more than just a natural pump - namely the seat of the emotions!

      Yet relatively few people have no other desire than to live for their emotions, particularly among the older generation.  A person, who may have predominantly lived for pleasure at one stage of his life, may subsequently live for positive emotions.  It is even possible that such a person may come, in the fullness of time, to live for his feelings, placing due importance on happiness, the most positive feeling.  He may gravitate, as it were, from the heart to the head or, more specifically, to that part of the head in which the old brain is located and from the psychic aspect of which, in the subconscious, feelings of a more elevated and, on the whole, generalized nature may emerge, in response to a variety of external stimuli.  Not that all such feelings are positive; for the subconscious is no less disposed to negative feelings in response to negative stimuli than the heart or the flesh.  But these feelings won't be quite as strong as those connected with areas of the body in which protons greatly predominate over electrons.  Sadness is a strong feeling, but it isn't as strong, or bad, as the emotion of hate, and nowhere near as difficult to endure as the sensation of physical pain in response to some brutal external stimulus aimed at the flesh.  Most people would rather be sad than burning to death, and we may surmise that a majority of people would likewise prefer transient sadness to lasting hatred.

      The negative feelings of the subconscious are therefore less disagreeable, as a rule, than the negative emotions and sensations of the lower regions of soul, as evoked by and dependent on the body.  One suffers less from the old brain than from the heart or the flesh.  But, conversely, the positive feelings associated with the psychic aspect of the old brain are likely to be more rewarding than those associated with the parallel aspect of more deeply proton-dominated organs.  We cannot blame a man for preferring happiness to either love or pleasure, because such a feeling is more refined, in that it connotes with a greater degree of electron freedom than would be possible in lower regions of the body, and has, in consequence, a more diffuse, impersonal, universal quality.  Both love and pleasure are dependent on other people, but happiness can transcend others in response to quite disparate external stimuli.  Intellectual activity can bring a person happiness for the duration of his work, or whatever.  Like pleasure, happiness can be switched on and off, can come and go with changing circumstances.  One can be happy for apparently no reason at all; though, in point of fact, there will usually be some reason, if one bothers to analyse the situation carefully enough.

      Although superior to love and pleasure, happiness cannot, however, be turned into the goal of evolutionary striving.  For there is no absolute happiness!  It cannot be cultivated to the exclusion of other feelings, least of all sadness, which is always lurking in the background, ready to pounce, in response to appropriately negative stimuli, and devour one's peace of mind.  The man who strives to cultivate happiness is certainly on a superior level than the lover or the hedonist, but he is still some way short of salvation, and can no more expect to escape from sadness on a permanent basis than the lover ... from intermittent hatred or the hedonist ... from intermittent pain.  If pain is the lowest and most intense feeling the soul can experience, then happiness is its highest and most refined.  Yet such an antithesis cannot transcend the soul, for it exists within the soul's confinement and will relate to the temporal world, of which the soul is but a psychic manifestation.  One cannot be happy all the time, since each part of the soul demands some expression, and not only on a positive basis!  The old brain, even with a greater overall electron content than the heart or the flesh, is still a part of the body and one, moreover, in which protons predominate over electrons, so that sadness, when it arises, will remain the stronger feeling, irrespective of whether it is less strong, or disagreeable, than the negative feelings of the heart (hate) and the flesh (pain) respectively.  Precisely because the material constitution of the body is largely composed of protons and electrons, as in any natural matter, it is impossible to cultivate one feeling at the lasting expense of another.  Positive stimuli impinging upon the flesh or senses will evoke positive feelings, but negative stimuli will evoke the converse of these and, given the proton-dominated constitution of flesh, heart, and old brain (roughly corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), these negative feelings will be stronger, as a rule, than their positive counterparts.  We can minimize, by degrees, the negative stimuli impinging upon the body, but we can't entirely escape from such stimuli or transcend negative feelings altogether.  Even the man who consciously cultivates awareness for long periods at a time cannot avoid sleeping or eating or hearing or seeing or walking.

      But if happiness is temporal and therefore inadequate as the goal of evolutionary striving, then the cultivation of awareness in the superconscious, or psychic aspect of the new brain, is quite a different proposition!  The man who lives predominantly for and in his spirit doesn't care too much for happiness or love or pleasure or any other positive feeling associated with the soul, because his attention will be focused on the eternal, on what is potentially absolute and therefore cultivatable as an end-in-itself.  With the spirit there is no converse side, no negative feelings, because, pertaining to the realm of awareness, it is above feelings.  Admittedly, the new brain, like the old one, is atomic in constitution and consequently composed of protons and electrons.  But electrons predominate over protons here and thus set the new brain apart from the old one as a brain predominantly given to awareness; though there will, of course, be overlappings with feelings in view of the (partly) proton content of brain matter, so that some soul may cling to the new brain and behave in an appropriately sensual way, extending the governing principle of the old brain into the new one on a largely tangential basis.  Nevertheless, awareness remains the leading characteristic of new-brain activity, and it will preponderate to a greater or lesser extent depending on the psychic development of the individual, that is to say, on the degree to which the superconscious preponderates over the subconscious - if at all.  Intelligence, which is broadly synonymous with awareness, varies considerably from person to person, though all people live in their superconscious at least some of the time, either directly, through meditation, or indirectly, as when the will is applied to the subconscious and thought is evoked in response to a variety of external stimuli.  All of us 'feed our minds', even if only to the extent of reading a newspaper or watching some television serial.  To 'feed one's mind' is not only to ingest, through one or other of the senses, information which is then digested and either made immediate use of or consigned to memory for possible future use; it is primarily a process whereby awareness is sharpened, whereby we, as spirit, grow increasingly conscious about various aspects of whatever we are ingesting, from a symphony to a television programme, from a novel to a painting, and become, during this process of enriched assimilation, more alive to ourselves than at other times!

      Being dependent on external stimuli for the cultivation of greater awareness does, however, have its drawbacks, not least of all because awareness is an internal quality and can only be cultivated to a relatively limited extent through the use or assistance of external stimuli, no matter how intellectually stimulating such stimuli may happen to be!  If we wish to cultivate awareness to a higher extent - which we won't do, as a rule, before it has been cultivated to a quite high pitch through external means - then we can do no better than to turn away from appearances and focus our attention upon the self, awareness thereby becoming aware of itself in a kind of spiritual narcissism, which is the opposite of any sensual narcissism.  We turn inwards to develop our awareness of self to the highest degree humanly possible, and become, in the process, quasi-divine, living only for and in the spirit, above and beyond the ambiguous realms of feelings and thoughts and dreams.  This is the meditative state and, although it isn't unknown to people in the West, relatively few are those who regularly experience it for any length of time in this day and age!

      Unlike pleasure, love, and happiness, maximum awareness can become the goal of human striving, indeed the goal of evolution itself, though we can none of us expect to attain to that goal before certain intermediate stages, transcending the human, have been introduced - a thing, alas, which won't happen for some time to come!  The 'being-for-self' awareness of the meditator is certainly a viable state, and one which more people are bound to experience as time goes by.  But it isn't the ultimate state, nor can we expect it to take us directly to that state in spiritual transcendence.  The best we can do, while still human beings, is to live for awareness, particularly the direct, essential awareness of meditation.  We cannot experience the post-human tripping state of Supermen, at any rate not on an official and universal basis, nor can we experience the subsequent hypermeditative state of Superbeings, the state immediately preceding transcendence.  But we can cultivate awareness to a greater extent than hitherto, and thus modify both the psychological and physiological constitutions of our brains.  For, unlike bodily matter, brain matter, particularly when of the new brain, can be significantly modified in the course of time ... as intellectual activity rearranges and refines upon its basic atomic constitution, transforming the predominant electron content of the new brain from a marginally to a substantially predominating content in the course of our psychic evolution.  Unlike the body, which grows naturally and independently of conscious volition, the superconscious mind requires to be artificially cultivated as a result of conscious effort on our part.  We cannot change our bodies, at least not beyond making them physically stronger or weaker, but we can certainly change our minds, and thus alter the physiological constitution of the new brain in the process!  This is, after all, merely the beginnings of a tendency which, at the climax of millennial evolution, will result in mind becoming completely independent of new-brain matter, as electrons break away from proton and/or neutron constraint and soar heavenwards towards their spiritual destination in the supra-atomic Beyond.

      All this takes us a long way from sadomasochism, which is where I began this essay, but not for nothing and not without a certain arcane logic!  For the sadist and the meditator exist at opposite poles of human behaviour - the one stemming from the Diabolic Alpha in an attitude to sex which emphasizes its reactive proton origins; the other aspiring towards the Divine Omega in a context which stresses electron attractions as applying both to his own and to other people's higher self.  In this day and age, each extreme is rather the exception to the rule.  But whereas the sadomasochistic exception is largely a consequence of man having, in the main, outgrown such diabolical behaviour, the meditative exception reflects the converse consequence ... of man not yet having become spiritual enough to directly aspire towards the Divine Omega on both a regular and a widespread basis.  We needn't lament the sadomasochistic exception, but we should, if spiritually progressive, look towards a future in which meditation will become the rule!





In this age, and as time goes by, everything becomes more biased towards the electron, regardless of its origins or basic constitution.  Sex is no longer the predominantly proton-biased sadomasochistic reaction of one body to another it formerly was, in the early days - extending up to comparatively recent times - of human evolution.  People are generally more disposed, when indulging in sex, to join together on an electron basis of mutual attraction, which necessarily stresses gentleness and sympathy.  Whereas the female was a proton equivalent in the disreputable days of sadomasochistic sex, the modern female increasingly behaves, in her liberated capacity, like a quasi-electron equivalent in the attractive sexual relationships of free sex.  Like electrons, electron equivalents behave positively, that is to say, passively, gently, tenderly, and so on.  The quasi-electron equivalent (of the liberated female) and the free-electron equivalent (of the unmarried male) behave lovingly towards each other and thus participate in a sexuality which could be defined as positively unisexual.  This contrasts with the negative unisexual activity of proton equivalents and pseudo-proton and/or bound-electron equivalents of earlier, more barbarous times.  But before evolution reached the stage of encouraging positive relationships, it did, of course, have to pass through an intermediate stage of heterosexual relationships, as manifested in the ambiguous coupling of proton and/or neutron equivalents, i.e. women, with bound-electron equivalents, i.e. men, which was institutionalized in the atomic tradition of marriage.  This stage of sexual evolution represented and reflected a compromise, we may surmise, between negative and positive approaches to sex, proton-proton reactions and electron-electron attractions - in other words, between the rough and the smooth, the aggressive and the gentle.  An atomic dualism, as opposed to either a pre- or a post-dualistic absolutism.

      The age, as I said, is becoming increasingly electron-orientated, and therefore more disposed towards the post-dualistic.  Unisexuality, both figuratively and literally, is on the increase, and we may suppose that it won't cease to be so for some time to come - certainly not until it has attained to a maximum development either before or with the termination of human evolution.  To expect a return to traditional sexual criteria in the future would be equivalent to expecting evolution to reverse itself and uphold atomic dualism again.  That is something it is most unlikely to do, though there may be periodic, if temporary, reactions and backslidings, according to fluctuations in fortune or circumstance, in the foreseeable future.  Sooner or later, however, all traditional values will be officially discredited, so no-one would think, for example, of getting married.  We can, I believe, be confident that marriage will die a painless death with the termination of atomic values generally.  For it affirms a union between man and woman, between a bound-electron equivalent and a proton and/or neutron equivalent.  With the overcoming of protons and the transformation of men into Supermen, there can be no question of its being valid or justified.  A quasi-electron equivalent and a free-electron equivalent do not, if and when they come together, form an atomic integrity.  They are entirely post-atomic.

      But if, in post-atomic sexuality, one body attracts another on the most positive physical terms, terms which lay emphasis on pleasure alone, in post-atomic religion the attraction of minds to one another will be no less - indeed, probably even more - positive and electron-centred.  For such an attraction is based on the superconscious, the upper part of what atomic dualists are especially fond of calling the conscious mind, and it manifests in awareness - the psychic quality of spirit.  Awareness is the positive attribute of electrons when they exist in a context considerably outnumbering protons in any atomic constitution, and the more considerably they outnumber protons, the greater is the degree of awareness to be found there.  Where, however, protons outnumber or dominate electrons, as in the body generally, the atomic integrity will be biased towards feelings, and electrons accordingly be obliged to exert themselves against their own deepest grain, as it were, by responding to positive stimuli from without in an appropriately sensual context.  The bound electron becomes a perpetrator of positive feelings.  By contrast, the free electron becomes, in the electron-biased context, a perpetrator of awareness which, as a spiritual quality, transcends feelings altogether.

      Thus awareness isn't simply a refined or very positive feeling, but a state-of-mind appertaining to an entirely different and superior realm of consciousness - namely that of the superconscious.  It is through and in this superconscious that awareness is cultivated in the form of a greater awareness of self, which is identical, in its spiritual essence, to all other selves.  The person experiencing such awareness cares nothing for the physical presence of human beings or material things in the external environment.  The attraction of selves is wholly spiritual and takes place in utmost loyalty to one's own self, through complete self-centredness, without regard for the physical presence of lesser, or personal, selves.  This is not God in any ultimate sense, but it can certainly be a stage on the road to divinity, an earthly manifestation of transcendent togetherness.  It signifies a far superior development to the egocentric togetherness of the praying congregation, whose wills are directed, through the act of prayer, down towards the subconscious, from which the requisite thoughts appropriate to the occasion are evoked and transmuted into spoken words.  The meditator, by contrast, turns away from the subconscious in a superconscious that is free to exist for itself on its own spiritual terms, that is to say, in the direct cultivation of awareness as a means to a higher end - namely the attainment, one way or another, of spiritual transcendence.  It is the difference between a bound-electron equivalent and a free-electron equivalent, between the atomic (egocentric) and the post-atomic (superconscious).

      No-one would ever think of praying in the post-atomic age, for prayer would be far too egocentric.  Besides, fictions derived from cosmic facts are of no importance to a psyche biased towards truth, which is to say, awareness.  Certain illusions derived from the truth and pertaining to the Cosmos will, of course, remain acceptable, in the interests of Transcendentalism.  But no fictions derived from cosmic facts would remain so, and for the simple reason that the psyche will be too superconscious to have much respect for subconscious contents, which, in any case, would have receded into the psychic distance of discarded archetypes.  Thus while the illusion of, say, curved space will prevail in the interests, effectively, of transcendental complacency, the fictions of the Creator and of Satan, respectively if unconsciously derived from the central star of the Galaxy and the sun, will cease to play any part whatsoever in our religious integrity, having been consigned, along with the fictional/illusory Christ, to the remote regions of our psychic past - much the way that certain outmoded political and social institutions were formerly consigned, by socialist revolutionaries, to the rubbish heap of history.





We are entering an age and, to a limited extent as yet, already live in an age when, to put it bluntly, politics is no longer a matter for politicians, but effectively for priest-types functioning in a political role.  That is to say, when politics is being transferred from the State to the Church ... with intent to the latter's furtherance, as evolution tends towards an exclusively religious stage from a transcendental base.  The priest who involves himself in politics is less an anomaly these days - though Christian purists will maintain otherwise - than an intimation of things to come, and this even when he functions from a reactionary standpoint (as did a certain well-known cleric in Northern Ireland).  Previously, throughout the greater part of the Christian era, politics was a matter for politicians and religion a matter for priests.  There existed a sharp distinction between materialists and spiritualists, in accordance with the dualistic nature of Christian civilization, torn between state and church.  Prior to that, religion, to the extent that it existed, was predominantly in the hands of politicians, as in ancient Greece.  We, however, are entering an age the converse of the pre-atomic, in which politics will be in the hands of priest-types who will direct political affairs in the interests of subsequent religious development, seeking, by degrees, to expand the Church at the State's expense.  The dichotomy between politicians and priests will be superseded by an absolutism favouring the latter or, rather, their transcendental successors, who will be partial to meditation and have nothing to do with a priesthood in any traditional sense.  I merely use the term 'priest' on account of its long-standing antithesis to 'politician'.  However, antitheses of any description won't pertain to a post-atomic age, so we needn't expect politics to remain the preserve of materialists.

      Of course, in Marxist-Leninist states politics remained, until quite recently, in the hands of Soviet materialists, who functioned as quasi-electron equivalents in a post-atomic society, and even now, under Social Democracy, politics is still, by and large, in the hands of materialists, as before.  Doubtless politics will remain in such hands until states upholding Socialism are eventually transformed, through the acceptance of transcendental truth, into genuinely free-electron societies, with the correlative development of proletarian civilization.  Then the State will truly 'wither', in Engles' oft-quoted phrase, as spiritual types take over the reins of government and work for the expansion of the Church, as implying the development of transcendental meditation in suitably designed meditation centres.  At that point in time, Socialism will be well on the way to its total eclipse by Transcendentalism, as particularly applying to the completely free, stateless, classless, moneyless, paradisiacal society of the Superbeings, or new-brain collectivizations, in the second phase of the post-Human Millennium - the transcendental phase-proper.  For Socialism won't be entirely eclipsed with the advent of the first post-human phase of evolution, when the State, in both senses of the term, will be superseded by the Supermen, or brain collectivizations, the millennial machinery of which will stem from the expanding Church.  Thus Socialism will lead to Social Transcendentalism and that, in turn, to the post-Human Millennium, which, after a relatively 'socialist' phase, will culminate in the transcendental phase-proper ... of the hypermeditating Superbeings, who, as the ultimate earthly life-form, will be pending transcendence, and thus the attainment of pure spirit, i.e. free electrons, to the heavenly Beyond in ultimate salvation from atomic constraint.

      In speaking of the two senses of the word 'state', I was, of course, referring, in post-atomic terms, to what is literally the State in a socialist society, i.e. the proletariat, and to what can be superficially mistaken for it but is in fact the machinery of state which, in its bureaucratic and administrative capacity, is intended to serve the proletariat.  I have elsewhere used the word 'state' in a more traditional sense, as applying to politics rather than religion, and I am well aware that, from another traditional standpoint, it can be used to signify landed or property interests, which are its earlier and therefore more concrete manifestations - manifestations still accruing, in some measure, to atomic societies.  The socialist use of the word 'state' normally emphasizes, by contrast, an abstract manifestation, since the proletariat are an abstraction, not a concrete entity like an individual or, more specifically in this context, an area of land which, in national terms, signifies the root beginnings of the State from which bourgeois landed/property and property/people compromises were successively derived, these atomic manifestations of the State in turn being superseded, in socialist societies, by the ideologically Absolute State ... of the proletariat (initially in theory only).

      Thus the overall evolution of the State, to speak in atomic terms, is from the proton absolutism of the aristocratic concrete manifestation to the electron absolutism of the proletarian abstract manifestation via the atomic compromises of the bourgeois concrete/abstract manifestations.  With the post-atomic stage of this evolution, however, the approach to salvation, that is to say, to a post-Human Millennium, requires that Socialism should accommodate itself, through Social Democracy, to Transcendentalism, in order that materialism may eventually be superseded by the development of an exclusively spiritual orientation of post-atomic society, as quasi-electron politics gives way to free-electron politics and Socialism begins its 'withering' in the name of transcendental progress.  As intimated elsewhere in my work, the supersession of materialist leaders, or Marxists, by spiritualist leaders, or Transcendentalists, is the key to the evolution of the Church at the State's expense.  All states upholding materialistic socialism will become spiritual in the course of time.  Dialectical materialism will be superseded by post-dialectical transcendentalism.

      In the meantime, however, Transcendentalists and Marxists will have to learn to work together and to trust one another.  This should not be difficult, since both approaches to salvation have evolutionary progress at heart and should exist, in the future, on the same class level, not, as with Nazism and Fascism vis-à-vis Soviet Communism, in a bourgeois/proletarian antagonism, the fruit of which was the bitterest fighting of World War Two.  Transcendentalists would not be fascist but genuinely socialistic, if from a spiritual standpoint.  Strictly speaking, there are no Transcendentalists in the modern world but only, in absolute politics, Socialists.  For Transcendentalism (communism or communalism) does, after all, develop out of Socialism or, more correctly, Social Transcendentalism ... as the goal of earthly striving in the ultimate post-human society of the Superbeing Millennium.





Christians have a fatal tendency to confound the Diabolic Alpha with the Divine Omega, to interchange the two as mood and circumstance dictate.  Not that we need particularly blame them for that, since Christianity is, after all, a dualistic religion.  Christ was no transcendentalist but a dualist to the core, that is to say, a man who taught that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' lay within, in one's spiritual development, but who nonetheless remained loyal to the Father, to what I call the alpha root of evolution, as when he pleaded with the Father to 'forgive them', meaning the Jews, 'for they know not what they do.'  There could be no question of Christ turning his back on the Father in the name of a more exclusive orientation towards the Holy Spirit, or creation of the Divine Omega.  Christ had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit, only of the Father, which Jews would have identified, more fundamentally, with Jehovah.  But he differed from Judaists by teaching that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' lay within (as opposed to without, i.e. with the Creator), and therefore depended upon personal spiritual development.  Probably he confounded this 'Kingdom of Heaven' with the Creator to a degree, not realizing that, taken to its logical extreme, it would be at the furthest possible evolutionary remove from such a primal divinity.  Certainly the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father owes more than a little to subsequent ecclesiastical refinement and reappraisal of Christ!  Much of the dualism of Christianity only became possible following Christ's death, when the Church Fathers (as they're not inappropriately called) were in a position to remodel Christ according to evolutionary requirement and fresh insights concerning man's destiny.  I doubt, myself, if the Christ whom Christians have been traditionally raised on has much in common with the original, probably more Judaic Christ.

      However that may be, the 'Kingdom of Heaven' does indeed lie within, but it has nothing to do with the Father (nor Jehovah, Allah, and other more fundamentalist manifestations of the Creator).  No, a transcendental impetus, a desire to aspire via this mini-kingdom towards a definitive, or ultimate, Heaven does, it seems to me, derive from Christ, which is to say, from man-become-God.  For it is only in man that there arises a degree of awareness which desires a break with nature and an aspiration towards the supernatural.  Certainly the Creator would not desire any such aspiration by man, since the root of evolution - especially in its cosmic guise - exists at an absolute remove from the (future) culmination of it and, lacking relativity, couldn't possibly understand or condone the aspiration in question.  But, of course, some people would argue that the root of evolution and the Father aren't really the same, and in another sense this is arguably true.  Theology is concerned with figurative abstractions from the concrete, literal cosmos, and inevitably boils down to psychic contents of the subconscious, to which one can attribute any power or status one chooses.  The facts of the matter, however, are rather different, and in this day and age it is the facts one should be concerned about, not theological fictions!  At least that would be the case for people living in a post-atomic society; though those who live at the tail-end of atomic civilization may be more indulgent of theological fictions, especially when also practising Christians.

      I, however, am not a practising Christian, and neither do I write for dualists.  That is why I speak freely about theological matters, including the distinction between Satan and the Creator, which is commensurate with a difference in degree, though not necessarily in kind, between the central star of the Galaxy and the small peripheral star that we recognize as the sun - one of millions of 'fallen angels' which an explosion of gas sent hurtling out in every direction, with the inception of the Galaxy.  Probably there were millions of such explosions throughout the Universe, bearing in mind that we now recognize millions of galaxies, and their offshoots may have interwoven, so that differently-constituted balls of flame came into relative proximity with one another and thereby established the rudiments of a galactic integrity with its - dare I say it? - Newtonian tensions between force and mass.  Else we must ascribe the integrity of galaxies to the quicker cooling of certain smaller stars, which went on to become planets vis-à-vis larger stars and eventually put a halt to the everywhichway divergence of stars in general.  Gas was undoubtedly the creative force behind galaxies, but we cannot speak of gas out of nothing, or creation out of a void, which is a meaningless, not to say implausible, proposition.  Certainly gas came into existence in the void, but that does not mean to say it was dependent on the void, that the void encouraged or needed it.  Creation asserted itself against the indifferent backdrop of the void and did so, initially, in the form of gas or gases that went on, through explosive pressures, to become stars, doubtless very anarchic stars until brought into some kind of galactic order through the emergence of planets which, in cooling, hardened into some rudimentary manifestation of an atomic integrity, the electron aspect of which created an atomic tension between stars and planets, that is to say, between subatomic absolutism and atomic relativity.

      All this speculation is, of course, at a far remove from theology.  But theology is dependent on cosmic reality, it requires some concrete base from which to extrapolate gods and devils and demons.  Now the base from which these theological symbols were extrapolated certainly existed, and necessarily continues to exist, but man can outgrow theology in his quest for the supra-atomic absolute.  If the Creator (especially in the guise of Jehovah) is a figurative extrapolation from the central star of the Galaxy, and the Devil (as Satan) is a like-extrapolation from the sun, then it stands to reason that the distinction between the two is merely one of degree rather than kind, and that the Creator is therefore a more powerful 'devil', or alpha absolute, than Satan.  How is it, then, that Christians, deriving the Father from Judaic precedent, have traditionally looked upon this diabolic absolute as divine, as a being of an altogether higher order than the Devil, whom they have regarded as the root of all evil in the world?  The answer to this at first-sight insoluble problem seems to me rather straightforward: they have taken a better view of the Creator for the simple reason that He is not perceived as being directly responsible for all the misery of life, since existing at a farther remove from the world than the Devil.  Translated from the figurative to the literal plane, or from theology to science, this means that the central star of the Galaxy, about which such smaller stars as the sun revolve, is at too great a cosmic remove from the earth to do much mischief there, whereas the sun, a mere ninety-three million miles away, directly influences and affects this planet, thereby being the source of all or much of the evil that Christians have traditionally seen fit to ascribe to the Devil's influence.  It is therefore the 'Fallen Angel', and not the 'Almighty Creator', which is the root of all evil in the world, if in a comparative sense.

      Considered from an absolute point of view, however, it is the Creator, and indeed the millions of Creators, or central stars of galaxies throughout the Universe, which are the literal roots of all evil.  For what culminates, as evolution, in the future Divine Omega, or definitive globe of transcendent spirit, must begin in the Diabolic Alpha, with numerous explosions of what we now call central, or governing, stars.  Scientists would not speak of numerous Creators but, more literally, of numerous First Causes; though for some obscure reason (probably not unconnected with monotheistic tradition), the single Big Bang theory of the Universe's origins still holds sway in conservative minds - as though the millions of galaxies now in existence could be traced to a single root out of which they all exploded!  Granted an ignorance of the pluralistic nature of the Diabolic Alpha, it is still staggering that so many scientists should trace this immense multi-galactic Universe to just one single source!  Are we to suppose that galaxies tend away from one another as from a central void in space, the origin-point of their creation?  To be sure, diverge they do.  But that is surely more from one another, in a sort of kaleidoscopic interaction, than from a central void which, so we are led to believe, was once an immense star before the Big Bang got to it!

      Returning from cosmic speculation to Christians, perhaps it isn't altogether surprising that certain aspects of nature, such as the beauty of flowers, were claimed to glorify the Creator by their presence here, their raison d'être, as it were, being to glorify God and give men pleasure in the process.  Now if the Devil is a convenient fiction for taking the blame for whatever evil is afoot in the world, then it logically follows that the Creator must be accredited with whatever natural good can be found there, including the beauty of nature.  But, considered literally, it is not the central star of the Galaxy that causes flowers to grow but ... the star closest to us, which we recognize as the sun.  And so, it is the Devil, to revert to the theological equivalent, rather than God (the Creator) that is glorified by the beauty of flowers, since such beauty is partly the handiwork, as it were, of one who, as a 'fallen angel' ... from stellar to solar planes, is by no means impartial to beauty himself!

      Ah, himself!  How beguiling is theology!  'Itself' would be a more accurate description of the subatomic absolute in question - namely, the sun, with its proton-proton reactions.  Gender only applies to an atomic integrity, particularly to one in which protons and electrons are approximately in balance, as during the dualistic stage of human evolution.  An 'it' is certainly at the root of nature considered in mineral, vegetable, or animal terms.  The flowers would no more survive without sunlight than other manifestations of the natural world, and the sun, as already noted, is the source from which the Devil was originally extrapolated, in due process of theological abstraction.  Nature depends on evil, is itself fundamentally evil, as the Church has traditionally taught, and would only be praised as glorifying the Creator by essentially pagan types, whose allegiance to Christianity was less than transcendental.  With its 'survival-of-the-strongest' ethos, nature is precisely what must be overcome if evolution is to attain, via man, to a supernatural culmination in spiritual truth.  Flowers can be an obstacle to that overcoming, as can vegetables, animals, and women.  However, as a dualistic religious development, Christianity could not be expected to overcome nature in absolute terms, only relatively, with intent to curb the intensity and reduce the frequency of naturalistic indulgences.  It could not turn against the Father; for Christ was Himself, to a degree, 'three in One', being soul, flesh, spirit, and therefore Man.  One would have to turn against Christ, with his loyalty to the Father, in order to aspire towards transcendent spirit on an absolute basis, to absolutely turn away from nature.

      Evolution on earth is still a long way from directly pending transcendence, but a day will surely come when life is set directly on course for ultimate salvation, as the new-brain collectivizations of the ultimate life form on earth, namely the Superbeings, hypermeditate towards free-electron absolutism in the supra-atomic Beyond.  Of what consequence will all those who oppose utopian societies, from a humanistic standpoint, be then?  Evolution would have overcome them long before, since men will arise who know that while human nature can only be relatively changed on human terms, it can be absolutely changed with the aid of the most advanced technology, a technology which won't merely upgrade man ... but transform him into a post-human life form, transcending his body in the process.  As Nietzsche wrote: 'Man is something that should be overcome', and, thanks partly to my teachings, we are now, or soon shall be, in a position to know how to go about overcoming him ... in the interests of salvation and in opposition to any bourgeois humanism, such as would impede evolutionary progress by endeavouring to keep man chained to an atomic, dualistic, Christian integrity.  Such an impediment cannot be endured for ever!

      The men of the coming transcendental civilization cannot aim for Heaven conceived in literally transcendent terms, as did the Christians with their delusion concerning life after death, but will have to resign themselves to developing spirit and aspiring towards the goal of human evolution in the post-Human Millennium.  The goal of human evolution and the goal of evolution per se, however, are two quite different things, and we should not confound the one with the other, nor treat them as identical.  The post-Human Millennium is what lies beyond man in the life forms of, first, the Supermen and, then, the Superbeings (as brain collectivizations and new-brain collectivizations respectively), and is thus a goal for man to attain to - in short, a relative goal.  But the absolute goal of evolution is Heaven, or the spatially transcendent Beyond, and that can only be attained to by the Superbeings, who will be far superior to man in spiritual striving!

      This, needless to say, is not the teaching of Christ but of a wholly transcendental teacher who, in his omega-biased integrity, corresponds to a Second Coming.  This man does not pay tribute to the Father, and neither does he confound alpha with omega.  He is not 'God', in the sense that Christ was or became (on an anthropomorphic basis) God to Christians, but simply a teacher who points towards the literal creation of ultimate Godhead as transcendent spirit or, more specifically, the definitive globe of such spirit at the climax to all evolution.  Such a climax may still be a long way off at present.  Nonetheless, we are entering an age when an aspiration towards omega divinity will be the rule rather than, as at present, the exception!





The masses, or what may be termed the militant lumpen core of the proletariat, are highly prone to swearing, particularly within the confines of bourgeois/proletarian civilization.  The words one hears most often from their lips are sexually explicit four-letter ones.  Why, it may be wondered, do such words figure so prominently on many proletarian tongues?  Arguably a good question and I intend to answer it from two points of view - namely a negative and a positive.

      First the negative answer.  These proletarians generally lead hard lives under the capitalist/socialist yoke and, when various personal and/or environmental circumstances are taken into account, haven't a great deal for which to be grateful.  Hence the abusive recourse to four-letter words, the psychological smear or denigration which they cast over the object of abuse patently testifying to an aggrieved mentality.  Often the object in question is transcended in a general reference that embraces everything and anything, turning life, for the swearer, into an affair worthy of permanent denigration, and casting an ugly psychological smear over whatever he thinks or says.  The mentality of the habitual swearer is probably too familiar to most non-swearers to warrant further exegesis here.

      So let us turn to the positive answer.  We know what the words are, but do we sense any underlying implication in their use, any refutation or belittling, it may be, of sex?  I, for one, do; though that doesn't make me any more partial to their use than before!  To sense that either the female sex organ or the actual sex act is being denigrated, if unconsciously, by certain of these words ... doesn't necessarily make them any sweeter to the ear.  But it does throw a new light on their use, a light which suggests that perhaps the proletariat, for all their professed addiction to sex, are privately disgusted by it and anxious, in consequence, to verbally belittle it whenever opportunity or circumstances permit.  Someone described as a 'fuck*** cunt' is worse than just a 'cunt'; he is a sexually active 'cunt' - an active sex organ.  This, clearly, is one of the lowest possible things that anyone can be described as, and it indicates, I think, that the user of these words has an instinctive class aversion both to the object in question and to its active use, an aversion which, if not conscious, at least indicates a potential for post-atomic sexuality, such as the proletariat can be expected to uphold in the transcendental future.  It also reflects the fact that the user in question lives in a broadly homosexual/masturbatory culture which, though relative, precludes any genuine respect for the female sex organ.  Even petty-bourgeois liberated women tend, more often than not, to negate their vagina in a fixation on phallic oral sex, which conforms to the masculine bias of the times.  Were we living in an age the converse of our own, it would be the penis that served as a term of abuse on the lips of the proletariat.

      If most liberated women are averse to the employment of four-letter words themselves, the same cannot be said of the majority of proletarian women who, despite their sex, are as prone as their menfolk to denigrate others, and by implication their own sex organ, through the liberal use of such words.  On superficial accounting, this strikes one as singularly odd.  But when, applying a positive viewpoint to this tendency, one investigates the subject in greater depth, it occurs to one that, unlike liberated females, proletarian women are potentially Supermen, and will therefore be more inclined to take a masculine view of their sex organ and to employ it as a term of abuse, with an underlying implication of self-denigration in attendance.  The average proletarian woman of today no longer regards herself as a creature entitled to sexist respect but unconsciously, if not consciously, behaves as if she were already generically a Superman.  Hence her willingness to demean her sex organ by employing it as a term of abuse!

      Having tackled these two answers, we may generalize that the one implies the other, that without the negative the positive side would not exist; that the denigration of the female sex organ is implicit in the primary use of four-letter words as stringent criticism of some adversary which springs from a deeply aggrieved, aggressive, and resentful psyche.  On the surface, the object of abuse is being reviled, but the reviler is acquiescing, instinctively or otherwise, in the fittingness of the term employed in this abuse.  He is acting on the principle that there is nothing lower, from a human angle, than the organ from which the term has been extrapolated and to which it indirectly applies, compliments of the victim of such abuse who, willy-nilly, becomes that lowness in the reviler's imagination, since, as the direct focus of abuse, he symbolizes the lowness in question.  To act on this principle is to turn against the feminine root, to negate complacency in dualism and, by implication, to affirm the moral superiority of a post-dualistic society.  Such a person, of whatever sex, can only be the crude clay, so to speak, from which a post-sexist, truly saved humanity will be moulded.

      It is my opinion that swearing of the four-letter variety one hears, for example, in England is more prevalent among the proletariat of a bourgeois/proletarian civilization than among proletariats in socialist states, and largely because it reflects the oppression of the masses under a capitalist/socialist system.  The exploited swear both as a reflection of their exploitation and to avenge themselves, one way or another, on the objects of their oppression, either symbolically or actually.  Probably this isn't the whole truth, but I am firmly convinced that it is a significant ingredient in that truth.  Unless they are mad or incorrigibly bad-natured, ill-tempered, or youthfully exhibitionist, people swear from an aggrieved mentality, which may well be connected with capitalist and/or socialist oppression.  Some, admittedly, swear all the time.  But they are more to be despised than pitied!

      Of course, socialist societies aren't entirely immune to swearers, but will take measures, if genuine, to curb swearing and make it a kind of offence against the People, since it could be construed as reflecting poorly on the socialist system which, in theory if not always in practice, is designed to ameliorate the living standards of the masses and thus reduce or remove any excuse for swearing - a habit which, whilst it may be justified in a capitalist/socialist society, should have little or no place in a genuinely socialist one.  Thus the negative aspect of swearing becomes increasingly unacceptable, since there shouldn't be too many causes for grievance in a society run on behalf of the People by their elected servants.  That leaves - does it not? - the positive aspect, which has more to do with the belittling of the female sex organ than with the slandering of an opponent.

      A socialist state, if not an absolute civilization, is potentially such a civilization.  In other words, it is a state in which proletarian women are almost, though not quite, Supermen.  It is a state, in short, that denies relativity.  For while the implicit denigration of the female sex organ may be acceptable in an extreme relative state, the same cannot be said of a state tending towards the absolute, where denigratory references to the female sex organ would suggest a sexist relativity incompatible with a bias for the absolute.  Hence, even on positive grounds, swearing would become unacceptable, because involving sexist discrimination.  Doubtless as the socialist state matured towards or was converted into a transcendental civilization, swearing would become even more unacceptable, since by then those who, as proletarian women, had been potentially Supermen would have actually become Supermen, and all references to the female sex organ be taboo, not least of all because Supermen were indisposed to using it in a relative context, their vibrator sexuality being absolute - the vibrator becoming a kind of artificial penis rather than simply a penis substitute.

      So a day will come when, because all men are brothers and sexist discrimination has been overcome, the use of four-letter, or equivalent, swear words will be outlawed, their continual employment by some people becoming a crime against the People which, like other such crimes, may well be subject to corrective discipline.





A transcendental civilization won't punish offenders against it, but will endeavour to correct them.  The bourgeois/proletarian civilization of the contemporary West is certainly interested in correcting offenders, especially in its more progressive manifestations, that is to say, in countries whose relativity is inherently more extreme, like Sweden and Germany.  But it hasn't outlawed or transcended punishment, nor can we expect it to do so, since wherever the pagan root is still intact, no matter how extreme the relativity, punishment will necessarily survive, and often in its most absolute guise - as involving the death penalty.

      A transcendental civilization, to repeat myself, won't uphold punishment, and consequently there will be no death penalty.  Neither will there be life-imprisonment sentences, nor long-term prison sentences which virtually amount to the same thing.  Indeed, there won't be any imprisonment at all, because no prisons.  Instead there will be correction centres, whether psychiatric or otherwise, and an offender's detention in such centres will last for as long as it takes to correct him, and no longer!  Should he prove recalcitrant or well-nigh impossible to correct, then detention may have to be indefinite - that being the exception to the general rule.

      There are some crimes, however, that are less a product of mental derangement or misguided belief than of cold-blooded calculation, and murder and rape may be among them.  It occasionally happens that a murder is committed in consequence of tragic circumstances, whether developing over a period of time or resulting from a sudden flare-up of tension or, indeed, quite by accident, without the assailant's intending to kill anyone.  In a transcendental civilization, assuming murder was occasionally still committed, careful consideration would have to be given to the circumstances of the murder, so that the exact nature of the act was accounted for and the disposition or character of the murderer simultaneously taken into account, the better to determine whether extenuating circumstances should be upheld.  For, taken together, all these factors would determine whether the accused required one type of correction or another or, indeed, whether in fact he required any correction at all, it being necessary merely to detain him until a reasonable verdict could be reached.

      Of course, I don't wish to imply that certain kinds of murder should go without censure.  Detention could mean anything from 1-5 years, depending on the criminal circumstances.  One thing I am certain of, however, is that no-one, whatever the circumstances surrounding the act, would be sentenced to life-imprisonment in a transcendental civilization.  I would like to envisage five years as being the maximum term of detention, with the possibility of a longer period should such an act, or something similar, be committed by the same person again, following release.  Most people should certainly be released from detention within a few months or, at worst, years of their confinement.  Possibly no-one would think of committing murder in a society where all men were treated equally and no-one had any reason to be envious of anyone else - everyone living on approximately the same post-atomic plane.  We may suppose that, as society evolves towards a post-human epoch from a transcendental base, all or most forms of contemporary crime will disappear.  Its causes, including alcohol addiction, drug abuse, sexual rivalry, poverty, racial inequality, poor housing, inadequate education, envy, greed, etc., will have been eradicated.  When there are no longer barbarians in existence because the society or, rather, civilization in question is absolute rather than relative, there will be little or no barbarous behaviour.  A civilized proletariat would have no cause or excuse to indulge in crime.  The wonder of it is that, in a society where the majority are still effectively barbarous, there isn't more crime than already exists.  Certainly this may be said of most Western societies!

      If punishment would be incompatible with a transcendental civilization, could the same be said of euthanasia - the painless putting to death of the incurably ill, insane, or seriously injured?  In a relativistic society there are various arguments on this matter, a fact which accords with its relativity.  In an absolutist society, however, there could be no doubt whatsoever as to the validity of euthanasia for certain specific cases.  And the motivation, the chief moral justification, for sanctioning it would be to put an end to pain which, while tolerated and even admired by some people in a relativistic society, would amount to a kind of sacrilege in one exclusively orientated towards the post-Human Millennium ... in a post-atomic integrity.  While the diabolic pagan root is intact, while, in other words, deference is paid to the proton-proton reactions of stellar/solar energy through some theological abstraction (the Father, the Creator, etc.), stoicism of one degree or another will be upheld by the more traditional or conservative elements in relativistic civilization.  Once this root has been transcended, however, no argument for the endurance of pain could be justified, and consequently euthanasia would be officially endorsed for application to all extreme cases of incurable pain.  The very sight of pain in a transcendental civilization would be an offence against the spirit, a reminder of the centuries-old tyranny of the soul against which proletarian humanity had rebelled before becoming civilized.  Certainly there is no spiritual profit to be gleaned from constant and deep suffering!  A Christian who revels in pain will be brought closer to the crucified Christ, His transcendent salvation, however, receding into the psychological distance.  Such dualism will find no sanction in the future!  He who stems from the Father will have been superseded by he who points man towards the Holy Spirit - the man destined to fulfil the role of a Second Coming.  Such a man can have no truck with pain!

      There are, of course, other things with which a civilization founded on the teachings of this man would have no truck, including the maintenance of standing armies and the perpetration of war.  It is doubtful that symphony orchestras or other acoustic ensembles would be maintained, and we may surmise that all types of acoustic music would cease to be appreciated - the same, I dare say, applying to all types of naturalistic art, or art employing canvas and oils, not to mention all types of narrative literature, from novels and plays to poems and short stories, especially in relation to books, whether hardback or softback.  A transcendental civilization wouldn't uphold any form of traditionalism or conservationism, like a relativistic one, but would be exclusively concerned with what was relevant to itself.  And that could only mean what was absolutely on the post-dualistic level.  Whatever pertained to tradition, no matter how important it was once considered to be, would have been destroyed and/or consigned to the rubbish heap of open-society history.  To a civilized proletarian the past would be something to ignore, so concerned would he be with living in the present in the interests, needless to say, of subsequent evolutionary progress.  He would not be concerned with a cultural heritage - no more, for that matter, than were his barbarous predecessors who, when they weren't militantly Marxist-Leninist in an overly state-socialist context, existed as cultural outsiders within relativistic civilization - the bourgeois/proletarian civilization of the contemporary capitalist/socialist West.





One can be religious on one of two levels, though neither level is mutually exclusive.  The level, in the first place, of genuine religion, and the level, in the second place, of quasi-religion - a distinction, in large measure, between the absolute and the relative.  Most people, at any given time, are more likely to be religious on the second level, and certainly this may be said of twentieth-century people.  There are, in the petty-bourgeois phases of evolution, adherents of a genuine religion, be it neo-Catholicism and LSD tripping on the materialistic side, or neo-Puritanism and neo-Orientalism on the spiritualistic side, as it were, of each phase, but they are a minority, probably a tiny minority within the overall confines of Western society - the truly civilized members of bourgeois/proletarian civilization.  Co-existent with this minority is that overwhelming majority of people who, in the absence of a genuine religious discipline, may loosely be described as barbarous, and whose religiosity will accordingly take the form of adherence to one or more manifestations of contemporary quasi-religion, such as football, cricket, rugby, television, cinema, video, snooker, chess, quiz contests, art, music, literature, etc., depending on their class/temperamental integrity, that is to say, on whether their main 'religious' allegiance corresponds to the earlier or to the later phases of petty-bourgeois evolution, the lower or higher levels of quasi-religious indulgence, or whether, on the other hand, it is in fact largely proletarian, as in regard to pop music.  Probably these phases or levels can be divided into materialistic and spiritualistic sides, as in the case of genuine religion, and I shall venture the opinion that materialist indulgence in the earlier phase of petty-bourgeois evolution will take the form of a strong interest in football, cricket, rugby or some such physically-biased active sport, whereas its spiritualist counterpart will take the form of an equally strong interest in theatre, cinema, and television, which are all appearance-biased active arts.  Following on behind this, as it were, we may find materialist indulgence in the later phase of petty-bourgeois evolution taking the form of a strong interest in snooker, chess, darts, quiz contests, or some such intellectually-biased passive sport, whereas its spiritualist counterpart will take the form of a strong interest in abstract art, electronic music, experimental literature, and biomorphic sculpture, which are all essence-biased arts.  The 'barbarous' no less than the 'civilized' are entitled to class/temperamental distinctions.

      Of course, civilized people are not exempt from an interest in one or another form of quasi-religion, in whichever phase or on whichever side of petty-bourgeois evolution.  Quite the contrary, most of them are keen followers of some sport or admirers of various works of art, depending on their individual temperamental predilections for either the materialistic or the spiritualistic sides of life.  Doubtless, there must be some people whose temperaments fall, so to speak, between two stools, making them if not equally then at least unequally partial to both materialistic and spiritualistic achievements.  But, on the whole, it will be found, I think, that the majority of people given to quasi-religious devotion are not civilized, in the sense we have suggested, but non-participators in contemporary or traditional genuine religion.  Regarded in conjunction with the proletariat, they are 'the Many', whereas the others are 'the Few', for whom petty-bourgeois civilization is a spiritual reality - the class evolutionary stage centred on them.

      When we come to regard the age in this light, criticisms levelled against the bourgeoisie, whether on political or religious grounds (as applying to bourgeois art, science, literature, music, or anything else), which are so widespread an aspect of modern life, become intelligible from a class-evolutionary viewpoint as the rejection of the values of a preceding governing class by their petty-bourgeois successors, who, in all vital regards, rule the contemporary roost and are accordingly entitled to if not respect then at least toleration from the bourgeoisie, including the grand bourgeoisie, since there are worse things than criticism and we may be sure that the petty bourgeoisie won't indulge in them, being a relative class themselves - if on extreme rather than moderate terms.  Besides, the bourgeoisie would have a very difficult, not to say impossible, task endeavouring to refute most of the criticisms levelled against them by their petty-bourgeois successors, who are well aware that they have an ideological superiority.  Like it or not, they are obliged to bow before the new civilized class and put-up with such criticism, at times bordering on slander, as comes their way.  This is particularly conspicuous in the realm of so-called modern art, the abstract bias of which leaves many members of the older class either cold or, more usually I suspect, completely bewildered, unable as they must be, with their balanced relativity, to relate to works of art which are near absolute in construction.  Their own representational preferences are of course mocked and, at times, sardonically criticized by supporters of the avant-garde, who, as members of the new class, consider themselves entitled to deal condescendingly with what are perceived to be cultural inferiors.  The bourgeoisie, as already remarked, learn to live with this fact!

      Yet if they are prepared to tolerate criticism from 'above', the same most certainly can't be said of criticism from 'below', and by this I don't so much mean from their grand-bourgeois and/or aristocratic predecessors (though such criticism is at times strongly resented) as from the broad mass of people who, lacking genuine religious allegiance, may be defined as barbarous - in short, the proletariat.  Here, if anywhere, lies the distinction in bourgeois eyes between a reasonable criticism based (no matter how much they may privately resent the fact) on class-cultural superiority, and an unreasonable criticism directed against everything bourgeois, in whichever stage of its relativity, and threatening, by its radical vehemence, the social stability and cultural integrity of Western civilization.  The criticism of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat is no mere extreme relativity directed against an earlier and more moderate relativity, but something that appertains to an absolutism the essence of which is the undermining and eventual elimination of relativistic civilization in toto, regardless of whether the focal-points of criticism be the grand bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie, or the petty bourgeoisie.  All criticism aimed against the bourgeoisie strikes at the relativistic heart of petty-bourgeois civilization when it comes from the barbarous majority, or from certain activist quarters of it, and such criticism, it need hardly be said, is no less objectionable to the new civilized class than to the old.  Both will take measures to protect themselves from this absolutist onslaught, even to the extent of proscribing what is deemed to be particularly virulent and thus capable of undermining the relative integrity of the bourgeois state.  Toleration of freedom of criticism does not extend to the absolutist extreme in a relativistic civilization.  The so-called open society is really closed, in practice if not theory, at the top, open, in theory if not practice, to virtually any depths below.

      Were I to criticize the bourgeoisie from a petty-bourgeois standpoint, my work would doubtless be tolerated by some and even admired by others.  Yet speaking as one who, at least in theory, does not consider himself an integral part of petty-bourgeois civilization but a barbarous outsider (if a comparatively well-read and intelligent one), I cannot expect either toleration or admiration from upholders of one or another degree of relativity.  My spiritual temperament favours an absolutist religion which, as Transcendentalism, will form the focal-point of genuine religious allegiance in the civilization to-come.  I could not, in all honesty, describe myself as a yoga-practising petty-bourgeois extremist, still less as an extreme puritan.  I am less the upholder of a contemporary religion than the founder of a future one, in which transcendental meditation will play a part.  Being in favour of what pertains to tomorrow does not allow one to participate in that which pertains to today.  One can't live wholly in two worlds at once.  Paradoxically, it is from the ranks of the quasi-religious that the blueprint for the genuine religion of the future absolutist civilization has sprung.  That, after all, conforms to evolutionary logic!





In a relativistic civilization too many people have an unfortunate tendency to regard soul and spirit as synonymous, and primarily because, being relative themselves, they fail to distinguish between the subatomic and the supra-atomic, as regards the two most antithetical absolutes conceivable.  They speak of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but they don't regard the latter as being radically different from - indeed, opposite to - the former.  They may agree that 'God is spirit', but are only too ready to treat soul as identical with spirit, and thus to see in fire or flame not pure soul but pure spirit!  This is in effect to confound the Diabolic with the Divine!

      We are familiar with terms such as divine Providence, divine Creator, God the Father, and so on, but not many of us bother to question whether the terms in question really do apply to the Divine or whether, on the contrary, there is a clear distinction between what is or would literally be divine and what has traditionally been considered such.  A monarch may justify his rule by reference to 'Divine Right', but is it really God, considered literally as transcendent spirit, or a metaphorically relative divinity which, if the truth were known, is less truly divine than effectively diabolic or, rather, archdiabolic?

      What is the difference, you may wonder, between the diabolic and the archdiabolic?  It is the difference, I maintain, between the Devil and the Creator.  In other words, between a 'fallen angel' and the primary 'angel' from which, in a manner of speaking, it 'fell'.  Transposed from the theological to the scientific plane, this becomes the difference between the sun and the governing star at the centre of the Galaxy - in short, between a petty peripheral star and the great central one.  Objectively considered, the sun (Satan) is no more evil than the governing star (the Creator); it is just that, from a subjective standpoint, the sun, being much closer to the world, has more influence on us and can therefore be accorded, in theological reckoning, a diabolic status.  The governing star, which is at a much greater distance from the earth, becomes entitled, by contrast, to a 'divine' status; though I should like to distinguish it from what, as transcendent spirit, would literally be divine.  By comparison to the divinity of the supra-atomic, the 'divinity' of the subatomic can only be described in terms of the archdiabolic when pertaining to the Creator-equivalent central star of any particular galaxy.

      If size and strength more than galactic position (though the two are of course linked) determines the distinction between the archdiabolic and the diabolic, viz. the Creator and Satan, then what they both have in common as stars is a subatomic constitution, as implying proton-proton reactions.  This is the quality of pure soul, the most negative sensation.  By contrast, the quality of pure spirit, as pertaining to the supra-atomic, is electron-electron attractions, the most positive awareness.  This is no mean distinction!  It signifies the beginning and the end of evolution - the one beneath, the other above the atomic compromise of temporal matter.  Such a compromise, manifesting itself on all levels of earthly life, is only subject to radical change in man, and then on a class-evolutionary basis.  Pagan/aristocratic man lived in an atomic compromise biased towards protons.  Christian/bourgeois man lives in an atomic compromise balanced between protons and electrons.  Transcendental/proletarian man will live in an atomic compromise biased towards electrons.  The first class-stage signified a radical stemming from the Diabolic Alpha.  The second class-stage, in whichever phase, signifies a moderate stemming from the Diabolic Alpha and a no-less moderate aspiration towards the Divine Omega.  The third and final class-stage will signify a radical aspiration towards the Divine Omega.  All forms of diabolism, whether conscious or unconscious, direct or indirect, will be completely alien to it.  Consequently, such a society can only be atheistic with regard to such a concept as the Creator.

      Man betrays himself at every stage of his evolution, not just in terms of worship and/or self-realization, but also in terms of his art, science, politics, sexuality, dress, even architecture.  I use the verb 'betrays' in the sense of revealing his evolutionary position at any given time, and one of the most striking forms of betrayal is indeed to be found in his architecture, about which I should like to theorize a little.

      There is no clearer, more striking architectural indication of a society radically stemming from the Diabolic Alpha than through the use of conical or pyramidal forms.  Such forms indicate a high regard for the gravitational force of the sun as they taper to a point high above the heads of men.  A particularly striking example is afforded by the pyramids of ancient Egypt, which are triangular in design as they taper to a point from three sides.  It cannot surprise us that the ancient Egyptians, besides being animal-worshippers, were confirmed sun-worshippers, and no greater concession to solar gravity could be imagined than that evinced by each of the main pyramids, originally erected as tombs to the Pharaohs.  Even the Aztec civilization of Central America, despite its overtly diabolical integrity, bespeaks a degree of evolutionary improvement on the architectural monuments of ancient Egypt, to the extent that the pyramidal forms taper to a point in step-wise, vertical/horizontal progression, suggestive of an indirect rather than a direct concession to the sun's gravitational force.  Other instances of a society radically stemming from the Diabolic Alpha are not difficult to find, and even certain Native American tribes, with their pre-architectural quasi-nomadic lifestyles, could be cited as a people whose conical dwellings, or wigwams, betrayed a shamelessly direct concession to solar gravity.  Given the fact that these wigwams were more usually conical than triangular, we may ascribe to Native Americans a spiritual approach to the Diabolic Alpha, an approach similar, in effect, to the revolution in architectural style wrought by the dome in late-pagan and early-Christian Europe - the tapering somehow less radical because curvilinear.

      With regard to the bourgeois stage of evolution, the acknowledgement of a transcendental ethos having reduced man's commitment to the Diabolic Alpha (in whichever manifestation) and imposed on him a moderate aspiration, through Christ, towards the Divine Omega, the 'Kingdom Within', we find that architectural styles came to mirror this dualistic integrity by the new emphasis placed on the vertical, gravitation-defying character of walls in their relation to stories, which accords with Christian respect for the transcendent.  And yet a concession to gravitational force, whether from the sun or the central star of the Galaxy, was still in order and appertained to the tapering design of roofs, with or without turrets, so that a compromise was effected, in accordance with Christian dualistic principles, between the diabolic-affirming and the diabolic-defying, as regards the diagonal roof and the vertical walls, variations on the former according with the epochal/class integrity of the buildings in question.

      This brings us, I think, to the exclusively gravity-defying architecture of the late-twentieth century and beyond, many of the most conspicuous examples of which can be found in the USA, which, though aligned with Western civilization and effectively a bourgeois/proletarian nation, upholds a considerable number of proletarian tendencies, some of which are quite civilized.  With this transcendental architecture, as I shall call it, man has turned his back on the diabolic and pursued a gravity-defying style of building that maintains unbroken allegiance to the vertical, as the parallel sides of these skyscrapers terminate in the horizontality of a flat roof.  So gravity-defying are some of these buildings that, not content to defy the sun, they also seem to float clear of the ground, as in Van der Rohe's work employing steel supports reminiscent of stilts.  Whether or not a central 'block' support is employed at the base of the building, the general impression created by such works is of the transcendent, as of a building engrossed in the gravity-defying achievement of levitation.

      As to the formal shapes employed, I would maintain that angular or rectilinear walls betray a materialist approach to modern architecture, cylindrical or curvilinear walls a spiritualist approach.  Probably the best approach of all, from a religious standpoint, would be the use of a curvilinear design pressing upwardly outwards, as implying a spiritual expansion, and I know of no better example than the church designed by Le Corbusier, namely Notre Dame en Haut, which, while not exactly harmonizing with the Catholic religion, suggests the possibility of future development in the context of religious architecture, as applying to the eventual erection of meditation centres - the appropriate type of religious buildings for a transcendental civilization.  Thus it may well transpire that a strict distinction between the secular and the religious will be upheld, as between rectilinear and curvilinear styles.

      Having briefly theorized on the relations of architecture to man's evolutionary position, I should like to conclude this essay by drawing attention to another context, often overlooked, in which either a concession to gravitational force or a denial of it is maintained, and with regard, in contrast to the above, to the gravitational force of the earth's molten core - namely, with regard to footwear and trousers.  For just as a concession to the sun's gravity induces a proliferation of architectural styles tapering, in various degrees, upwards, so the parallel concession to that of the earth's molten core induces a proliferation of footwear and legwear tapering downwards, either literally or metaphorically to a point.  In the case of legwear, as I have called it, a conspicuous example of this downwards-tapering is afforded by the importance men once ascribed to leggings and tight, knee-length stockings, which contrasted with their short, baggy trousers (breeches) in such a way as to suggest what I have described as a concession to the earth's gravitational force, and thus to betray a sartorial integrity, whether pagan or aristocratic, stemming from the Diabolic Alpha.  In the case of footwear, we can have no hesitation in defining high-heeled and pointed shoes as indicative of a similar trend, though one more conspicuously pervasive among women than men, and not least of all in our own time!

      This brings us to the point that, as with architecture, footwear and legwear will undergo a corresponding change in favour of gravity-defying or transcending styles ... with the progression from aristocratic to bourgeois and, finally, proletarian stages of evolutionary development.  If straight trousers and slightly downwards-tapering heels on shoes attest to a bourgeois stage of compromise or neutral relationship to the earth's gravity, then it need not surprise us to discover that flared trousers and slightly upwards-tapering heels attest to a proletarian stage relevant to a gravity-defying transcendental society.  In an extreme relativistic civilization, such as exists in the bourgeois/proletarian West, one can encounter virtually any style of footwear or legwear; though the style generally worn by any given person will correspond to his basic class, not to mention sexual, allegiance.  We may infer from this that while such a heterogeneous situation accords with the everywhichway integrity of relativistic civilization, no such heterogeneity could be encouraged in an absolutist civilization, where only gravity-defying trousers and shoes would be permissible, in accordance with its transcendental essence.  It is therefore highly unlikely that high-heels and downwards-tapering trousers would continue to be worn in a civilized proletarian society.  On the contrary, only such clothing as betokened man's freedom from diabolism, and thereby attested to an absolute aspiration towards the Divine Omega.





There was a time when jazz could be described as the music of the black American, but in an age of multi-racial interest in and commitment to jazz, that is no longer necessarily the case.  If anything, jazz ceased to be a black man's music with the dawn of 'modern jazz', and we may note an acoustic/electric distinction between the traditional and the modern.

      Since the twentieth century was a predominantly petty-bourgeois age, I think it only fair to define jazz as a form of serious petty-bourgeois music.  I would even go so far as to say that it was the American equivalent of European classical music, which, in the twentieth century, also developed a specifically petty-bourgeois integrity, though one more conservative and, contrary to superficial appearances, deeply rooted in tradition than its American counterpart.  Although, following Schoenberg's lead, much of this European music is atonal or, at any rate, relatively atonal compared to nineteenth-century Romanticism, it has remained largely acoustic, not rivalled the best modern jazz in the use of electric instruments.  Furthermore, it has retained, in the great majority of cases, a dependence on scores and conductors, thereby betraying a respect for conceptual appearances which, except in a small minority of cases, is not to be found in modern jazz, or even, as a rule, in its traditional precursor.  Clearly, American jazz is more transcendental than European orchestral music and thus entitled, in my opinion, to be regarded as a mainstream, as opposed to subsidiary, form of petty-bourgeois serious music.  And this in conjunction with a similar distinction which I have elsewhere applied to art and which can, I believe, be applied to most other subjects as well, depending on whether they pertain to the genuinely petty-bourgeois nations of the Western world, like America and Germany, or to the pseudo-petty-bourgeois ones, like Britain and France, which are still firmly rooted in bourgeois tradition.

      Thus, in art, the distinction between Expressionism and Impressionism, as pertaining to the genuinely petty-bourgeois civilization in the earlier stage of its development, and Cubism and Symbolism, which pertain to their materialist and spiritualist counterparts respectively within the confines of the pseudo-petty-bourgeois nations, is paralleled, in music, by the distinction between jazz on the one hand and classical on the other, a distinction itself capable of being divided into a spiritualist and a materialist side in each case, so that we may speak of acoustic tonal jazz as the materialistic counterpart of late-Romanticism and, by contrast, of electric tonal jazz as the spiritualistic counterpart of neo-Classicism.  We may also mark the evolution of jazz from an earlier to a later stage, again paralleling the evolution of classical from late-Romanticism to non-serial atonal composition on the materialist side, and from neo-Classicism to serialized atonal composition on the spiritualist side, which I shall define in terms of atonal electric on the one hand and atonal acoustic on the other.  Thus where the one side signifies an expansion of spirituality with the assistance of electric instruments, the other side signifies a contraction of materialism through the use of acoustic instruments - something that has also happened in European serious music, though, in my estimation, to a less radical extent.

      If, then, jazz may be claimed to have progressed from a stage stemming from bourgeois tonality to a stage aspiring towards proletarian atonality, and to have done so from two points of view, viz. a materialist and a spiritualist, is there any possibility, I wonder, of its evolving beyond this latter stage to an absolutely proletarian one?  The answer to this has, I think, to be - no.  For jazz, whether acoustic or electric, would cease to be jazzy if it abandoned the one thing that keeps it tied to the relative, albeit extreme, petty-bourgeois level - namely, percussion.  Jazz, of whichever variety, is the wedding of pagan rhythmic vitality and consistency to either tonality or atonality produced on mostly artificial instruments, formerly saxophones and trumpets, latterly electric keyboards and guitars; though the two kinds of instruments, corresponding to an earlier and a later manifestation of the artificial, often overlap in practice.  Jazz is simply incapable of evolving beyond petty-bourgeois criteria.  It cannot be the ultimate music since, to all appearances, it is a penultimate music, relevant to an extreme relativistic civilization.  Beyond and above modern jazz must come the universal proletarian music of electric atonality.

      Why should music progress to an atonal integrity?  The straight answer to that is: in order to escape from rhythm and thus be in the best possible position to intimate of the Divine Omega, that is to say, to impress rather than to express.  Melody reflects an atomic integrity to the extent that it is composed of rhythm and pitch - the former horizontal, the latter vertical.  Melodic music is therefore quintessentially relative, a compromise, as it were, between rhythm and pitch, which is only possible and morally acceptable during an atomic stage of civilized evolution.  Before this compromise arose, music was absolutist on the horizontal level of rhythm, a music of the soul, feminine and sensuous.  After it has passed, music will become absolutist on the vertical level of pitch, a music of the spirit, masculine and intellectual.  Such music can only be atonal, or non-melodic, the complete antithesis of pagan music, having transcended rhythm in its absolutist dedication to pitch, whereby a musical impression of the transcendent will be achieved.  That is the moral significance of atonality, and such atonality can only be truly transcendent, and therefore in the best position to intimate of the Divine Omega, when projected from an electric basis - the most artificial, or synthetic, technical medium.

      By contrast, jazz never abandons the percussive root and is consequently always part expressive.  When atonal and electric it can be predominantly impressive but, as already noted, it would cease to be jazzy (and thus to swing) if ever it became exclusively so.  There are, of course, jazz albums which abandon the percussive root intermittently, and certainly this can be said of the now-defunct American band Weather Report.  But, overall, jazz predominates on such albums within any particular composition, and must necessarily continue to do so, in the context of relativistic civilization.  Conversely, when the melodic or atonal apex is abandoned, as it often is on albums that feature a drummer in the role of band leader, the resultant music sinks beneath jazz to a purely rhythmic level, approximating to the pagan, and may be defined as the most evil music conceivable.  Again, jazz usually predominates on these albums, and sometimes the overall balance is such that pure rhythm will be preceded or succeeded by pure pitch or, at the very least, unaccompanied melody.  For it often happens that one extreme calls forth another, and certainly I can think of a number of compositions in which frantic rhythm from the drums is countered by electric atonality from either sax, guitar, or keyboards, so that the impression created is of a music in which the parts are at loggerheads and seemingly indulging in a musical tug-of-war between rhythm and pitch, alpha and omega.  This is not, to say the least, a particularly laudable situation!  But neither, for that matter, is the analogous context of a 'melody' at war with itself, now predominantly rhythmic, now predominantly atonal, and indisposed to the preservation of a melodic compromise, or classical balance.  And yet these situations mirror the evolutionary struggle which is constantly taking place between rhythm and pitch, as between evil and good, soul and spirit, in an extreme relativistic age. Such struggles are also taking place in European classical music, though, as a rule, on less radical terms.

      When we ask ourselves what it is that makes jazz a serious or civilized music, I think the basic answer has to be: its commitment to instrumentality, and therefore relatively high degree of artificiality.  Vocals do of course occur, but usually as a minor rather than a major ingredient in the overall instrumental scope of an album, as pertaining, on average, to one or two tracks, and then more usually of a religious connotation - one compatible, needless to say, with petty-bourgeois criteria.  For it is virtually axiomatic that to be civilized, particularly on the extreme relativistic level we are discussing, music must be either exclusively instrumental or accompanied, in part, by vocals of a religious significance.  An album of romantic songs, on the other hand, falls somewhat short of the civilized by dint both of its excessive commitment to the voice - a natural instrument - and the sexual or emotional content of the songs.  Being civilized, at whatever stage of class evolution, is to a large extent synonymous with being religious (spiritual), though being sophisticated is a subsidiary requirement more likely to find favour among materialists, whose music, while being exclusively or predominantly instrumental, isn't consciously intended to convey a religious notion.  No doubt, much of the jazz I characterized, a short while ago, as materialist, through its dependence on acoustic instruments, is only entitled to consideration as a civilized music on account of its technical sophistication.  But by this fact alone it stands in an inferior relation to its spiritual counterpart, whether of the tonal or atonal varieties.

      While we may therefore be justified in discriminating between the civilized and the barbarous, as between jazz of one kind or another and such popular romance-biased kinds of vocal music as blues, soul, funk, reggae, rock 'n' roll, pop, rock, and punk, it often happens that respected jazz musicians abandon the civilized level not for the barbarous as such - though the incorporation of, say, rock elements into jazz creates a 'fusion' music which may broadly be defined as bourgeois/proletarian - but a kind of popular petty-bourgeois level, implying the production of albums with a preponderance of vocals, and vocals, moreover, of a romantic and/or sexist nature.  And yet, as a rule, these musicians cling by a slender thread to their civilized roots, even if ambiguously, and retain at least one track of either pure instrumentality or a vocal bias whose connotations are distinctly religious.  With the greatest, most civilized jazz musicians, however, there is little or no concession to the popular at all.  Musicians like Jean-Luc Ponty and John McLaughlin have been producing a succession of instrumental albums year after year.  They are fast becoming something of an exception in the realm of modern jazz, a small minority of the consistently civilized.  Perhaps it is no mere coincidence that both Ponty and McLaughlin are European?

      And yet a European in jazz is almost as unusual as an American in classical, not merely in terms of performance but, more significantly, of composition.  Why is it that, just as there were so many great European classical composers in the twentieth century, there were, comparatively speaking, so few great European jazz composers in it?  And, conversely, why should there be so many great American jazz composers but, by comparison, so few great American classical composers?  Is not the answer to both these questions that whereas classical is pre-eminently a European phenomenon, jazz is an American one pre-eminently, and that, though cross-fertilization does occur, the mainstream commitments to each type of music will be regional, accruing to the continental divide.  The American jazz composers who adopt classical influences are as rare a breed as the European classical composers who adopt the influence of jazz.  Rarer still are the American classical composers and the European jazz composers, both of whom, though working in an alien tradition, sooner or later tend to bend their respective types of music back towards their native influences, so that American 'classical' becomes jazzy (Copland, Gershwin, Barber, Bernstein, et al.), whilst European 'jazz' becomes classical or, at any rate, retains a respect and proclivity for classical procedure (Ponty, McLaughlin, Catherine, Weber, Hammer, Vitous, Ackermann, et al.).  And this no less so when the composer/performer concerned has spent many years on the other continent, particularly in the case of European jazz musicians who have emigrated to or chosen to work in America.  No great surprise, therefore, when we discover that the purest jazz is composed by Americans and the purest classical by Europeans!  And yet even this is not exempt from a degree of cross-fertilization, whether conscious or unconscious.  Certainly there is some classical in Chick Corea, just as there is some jazz in Michael Tippett.  A relativistic civilization, divisible into mainstream and subsidiary elements, could not be otherwise!





There is a difference between philosophy-proper and metaphysical philosophy, the pseudo-philosophy which has developed with increasing tenacity along mainly petty-bourgeois lines over the past 150 or so years - indeed, ever since Schopenhauer, that great 'anti-philosopher', took it upon himself to dig into oriental metaphysics and preach a doctrine of self-denial in the interests of spiritual salvation.  To the extent that Schopenhauer was metaphysical, he was an anti-philosopher, that is to say, a pseudo-philosopher.  For philosophy-proper in the West is not concerned with the essence of things but, on the contrary, with their appearance, and this whether it is on a grand-bourgeois, a bourgeois, or a petty-bourgeois level, as pertaining to a critique of nature, a critique of ethics, or a critique of language.  A distinction, in other words, between the natural, the human, and the artificial, as applying, in various degrees, to the works of, say, Bacon, Kant, and Wittgenstein respectively.  Of course, the critique of nature or, more precisely, the classification and study of natural phenomena, is the root concern of Western philosophy, and this is more likely to be carried through with consistency and thoroughness in a pagan age than in a Christian one.  Thus Bacon could not hope, in this respect, to emulate the work of Aristotle, who had the ideologically naturalistic integrity of pagan civilization behind him.  But neither did Plato go quite so far, in his ethics, as Kant, and doubtless because pagan ethical thinking reflected a lower scale-of-values, relative to an earlier stage of evolution, than its Christian successor in the West.  Needless to say, there was no attempt at a critique of language by the ancient Greeks, since such a critique can only materialize in an extensively urban civilization, presupposing a greater degree of evolution.

      Each civilization tends, within limits, to evolve according to its own capacities and technological capabilities.  If the civilization of the ancient Greeks was unable to evolve beyond a town stage of evolution, then it need not surprise us that its thought was likewise unable to evolve beyond a level commensurate with such an environment.  The Christian civilization of the West fared rather better in the long term, though not without having had to pass through intermediate environmental stages corresponding to those of the ancients, in which a philosophical concern with nature (Bacon) and ethics (Kant) took precedence.  The evolution of philosophy to the stage of a critique of language had to wait until Western civilization was at a comparatively advanced environmental stage, as it was in Habsburg Vienna at the turn of the nineteenth century, where Wittgenstein set the trend for subsequent philosophers, including Berlin, Barthes, and Merleau-Ponty, to follow.  Wherever philosophy has been diverted from this central twentieth-century concern with language, it has entered the realm of metaphysics, as in the cases, to varying extents, of Heidegger, Jaspers, Sartre, and Weil, and thereupon become a pseudo-philosophy, descended, at least in part, from the metaphysical preoccupations of Schopenhauer.

      More overtly than this largely essayistic writing, the utilization of novels and short prose as vehicles for the exposition of metaphysical speculation, as in Aldous Huxley, Hermann Hesse, and Simone de Beauvoir, developed in the twentieth century to a point where such writings may be said to constitute the bulk of contemporary pseudo-philosophy in the West.  As Western civilization is nothing if not relative, suspended between the pagan and the transcendental absolutes of naturalistic philosophy on the one hand and of abstract theosophy on the other, we cannot dismiss such pseudo-philosophy as an aberration or unwarranted intrusion of the theosophical into the realm of speculation.  On the contrary, pseudo-philosophy is an integral part of this relativistic civilization, particularly in its later stages of development, when an aspiration towards the theosophical, and thus extension of thought into essence, is becoming more intensified.  If formerly, under the influence of aristocratic absolutism, academic philosophy had little or no competition from a metaphysical rival (Christian theology being something else), then with the advancement of Western civilization into an extreme, or petty-bourgeois, age there can be no question that such competition will develop and be intensified to a point where the 'pseudo' predominates over the 'genuine'.

      In contrast to the West, the East has long maintained a metaphysical tradition - indeed, so long ... that one has reason to doubt whether there was ever a physical tradition behind it!  Strictly speaking, the East cannot be described as philosophical; for where there is no critique of nature or ethics or language ... there can be no genuine philosophy.  Rather, the Orient has long been theosophical, concerned with essence, and thus antithetical to the Occident, whether or not we include within that designation Greco-Roman civilization.  As the West, even in its Christian guise, has been philosophical and scientific, so the East has been theosophical and poetic, theosophy being to poetry what science is to philosophy - the empirical or experiential confirmation of intuitively realized speculation and occasionally, no doubt, its correction.  And, being theosophical, the East has produced much instructive and devotional poetry, just as the West has produced - the famous exception of the so-called 'Metaphysical Poets' notwithstanding - comparatively little, since poetry in the West has more often than not been associated with nature and feminine beauty, partaking of a quasi-philosophical integrity which, in contrast to the East's theosophical one, may be described as physico-poetic.   To Keats, 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty', and we have no reason to be surprised, given his apparent bias (and this regardless of Aldous Huxley's defence of Keatsian logic by reference, in The Perennial Philosophy, to a factual interpretation of truth!).

      By contrast to the East, however, the West has produced a substantial body of academic philosophy, the most recent manifestations of which will find few parallels in the East.  And yet there has been a slight shift of emphasis, in recent decades, from philosophy to theosophy in the West, and, as a corollary of this, a corresponding shift of emphasis from theosophy to philosophy in the East, so that an attempt at attaining to a compromise is under way in deference to evolutionary requirement.  For a world civilization - which is what evolution would seem to have in store for humanity - cannot come about if the two main hemispheres of the world are at loggerheads.  On the contrary, it presupposes a compromise between science and theosophy, as between physics and metaphysics, the one in the service of the other as man struggles towards the post-Human Millennium - an epoch when science, as technology, and theosophy, as meditation, will be brought to a pitch of harmonious compromise, transcending all hitherto-imagined formulae on the subject.  An epoch, I mean, when human brains will be artificially supported and sustained in communal contexts, first as Supermen experiencing upward self-transcendence through LSD or equivalent synthetic hallucinogens, then, following the removal of the old brain from each superhuman individual by qualified technicians, as Superbeings, or collectivized new brains experiencing not merely upward self-transcendence but the nearest thing, prior the heavenly Beyond, to pure self, as the interconnected new brains of each Superbeing hypermeditate towards total transcendence in salvation from the flesh (or its remnants thereof) and consequent attainment to Heaven ... conceived as pure spirit expanding and converging towards other such transcendences in order to establish, with the eventual culmination of heavenly evolution, the Omega Point, i.e. the definitive globe of transcendent spirit, the supreme being of the One, at the opposite pole of evolution to the most infernal doing of ... the Many, i.e. the stars (large and small), which constitute the Diabolic Alpha, but which old-world religions paradoxically describe in terms of the Divine, i.e. the 'heavens'.

      Be that as it may, men of the future absolutist civilization won't follow suit, since they will have their minds turned to an exclusive aspiration towards the Divine Omega through self-realization, with no time, in consequence, to worship the alpha or its theological successor in some kind of Christ-like anthropomorphic compromise.  For as the 'Three in One', Christ combines, to a relative degree, both Father and Holy Spirit within Himself as man.  Like all men, He is thus a combination, as it were, of alpha and omega, neither wholly one (the Father) nor the other (the Holy Ghost), and therefore a distinctly 'Second Person' entity worshipped by Christians as God.  The future transcendental civilization, however, won’t have any time for the worship of such a man-god, but will concentrate, through transcendental meditation, on self-realization as a step towards ultimate divinity.  That such a divinity won't be fully attained to during the duration of this final human civilization ... can be no argument against the practice of TM.  Men will simply have to make the best of their situation and do what they can to create a society closer than any previous one has ever been to the heavenly goal of evolution.

      The fact that this society will eventually be bettered, come the post-Human Millennium, is no argument against its short-term existence, since evolution proceeds by degrees towards a long-term goal and cannot proceed straight from the Christian or petty-bourgeois (yoga) civilizations to the Millennium in question, jumping over the need for and justification of a transcendental civilization.  Neither can it jump over the post-Human Millennium or, rather, act, through men, as though the millennial Beyond were unnecessary because some people wrongly assume that Heaven can be attained to, in the pure spirit of transcendence, from human effort alone!  Unfortunately that is far from being the case, and the Christian West is not alone is assuming the contrary!  Given its traditional disregard for technology, the non-Christian East is even more exposed to this fallacy, with consequences all-too-painfully familiar to warrant further mention here.  For unless men are eventually superseded by Supermen (brain collectivizations), and they in turn by Superbeings (new-brain collectivizations), there will be no eventual attainment of spirit to the heavenly Beyond, in the absolute purity of total transcendence.  Neither the West nor the East has realized this fact, but the world will have to realize it in the future, as it adopts my truth as a means to Heaven, that is to say, to the ultimate truth ... of pure spirit.

      Clearly this truth has nothing to do with academic philosophy, with a critique of apparent phenomena, whether natural or artificial or somewhere in-between, but corresponds to the furthest development of the pseudo-philosophical, the most metaphysical of writings, suggestive of prose poetry, to have yet arisen.  Not the climax to a petty-bourgeois tradition, but the inception of proletarian absolutism on terms which transcend the relative.  This absolutism I distinguish from the relative as philosophical theosophy - the root universal guide for the pioneers of the final human civilization, global and transcendent, to follow.  May they learn from me well; for theirs is the road of pure essence, the culmination of all spiritual striving!





Bourgeois music is a music the melodic integrity of which is usually balanced between rhythm and pitch.  Either side of this music, in class-evolutionary terms, is music that is of a melodic integrity either predominantly given to rhythm, as in the case of the grand bourgeoisie, or predominantly given to pitch, as in the case of the petty bourgeoisie, both of which classes are themselves divisible into an earlier and a later stage, the musical constitution of which will be either more or less extreme but never, or rarely, totally extreme.  By which I mean absolutist, and therefore given to the production of either pure rhythm or pure pitch.  These extreme stages correspond, by contrast, to aristocratic (pagan) and proletarian (transcendental) absolutes - pre-atomic and post-atomic integrities either side of a bourgeois (Christian) atomicity.  Consequently they are not, as a rule, to be encountered within the confines of relativistic civilization!  The rhythmic purism preceded it and the atonal purism will succeed it.  The earlier stage of grand-bourgeois music stems from the former in its predominantly rhythmic content; the later stage of petty-bourgeois music aspires towards the latter in a predominantly atonal context; though such music, whether as modern jazz or avant-garde classical, is rarely atonal in the strictly post-rhythmic sense.  There accrues to it at least a vestige of rhythm in either melody or percussion, the latter particularly prominent in modern jazz which, owing to its negroid roots, is more susceptible to percussively rhythmic indulgence than most forms of  contemporary classical.

      Taking the evolution of music as a whole, we can contend that its progression is from evil to good via an evil/good compromise.  There is nothing lower or morally worse, in musical terms, than pure rhythm, while, conversely, there is nothing higher or morally better than pure pitch.  The one stems from the diabolic absolutism ... of proton-proton reactions, the other aspires towards the divine absolutism ... of electron-electron attractions.  In between, one finds the atomic compromise of melody, as pertaining to all stages of relativistic civilization.  Melody is to music what Christ is to religion - the humanistic, 'intellectual' compromise coming in-between the alpha/omega extremes.  Thus pure rhythm stands to music as God the Father to religion, viz. the alpha soulful extreme, while pure pitch stands to music as the Holy Ghost to religion, viz. the omega spiritual extreme.  Being relative, Christian civilization is content with a melodic compromise equivalent to Christ, either literally, as balanced between rhythm and pitch, or biased towards one or other of the two extremes, depending, to a significant extent, on the epoch in question.  It has no desire to embrace a post-atomic absolutism.  That must be left to a transcendental civilization, in which free-electron criteria will prevail.

      Thus notes are to music what electrons are to atoms - the spiritual, positive, expansive ingredient, and we may define them as electron equivalents.  By contrast, rhythm may be defined as the proton equivalent - the soulful, negative, contractive side of the atom, and in the musical equivalent of an atomic integrity notes will be bound to rhythm in melody, either with or without a percussive accompaniment.  Jazz and classical are alike subject to percussive accompaniment, which stands to melody as God the Father to Christ.  Usually, as noted above, there is more percussion in jazz than in classical, but quite often the treatment of percussion in the latter, particularly in the orchestral guise of symphonies, is more violent than in the former, if, as a mitigating factor, its use is rather more intermittent than continuous.

      Yet if classical is, on the whole, nobler than jazz in respect of a less frequent recourse to percussion, it isn't, as a rule, quite so transcendental as regards instrumentation and pitch, since not only tied to acoustic means but, through scores and conductors, to tonal or quasi-atonal notation as well.  Indeed, the term 'quasi-atonal' aptly serves as a definition of higher petty-bourgeois music, whether in jazz or classical, since complete atonality, though possible, would transcend relativity and thus render all forms of rhythmic accompaniment, whether percussive (overt) or notational (covert), taboo - a situation hardly compatible with a petty-bourgeois civilization, in which criteria of musical excellence and moral acceptability are ever relative!  Besides, no less than contemporary classical, jazz has its own safeguards or inhibitions against genuine atonality built-in to the instrumental integrity of the music, whereby the persistence of a percussive root makes the pursuit of atonality all but impossible.  A violin or a guitar that seems to be free on an atonal flight one moment ... will be brought back into line, as it were, with a concession to rhythm or melody the next.  This is a fair definition of the quasi-atonal.  And yet, morally considered, it signifies a distinct improvement on persistent melody, such as can be found in trad jazz and in most types of bourgeois and early petty-bourgeois classical.  The electron equivalent is therein straining at the leash, so to speak, of proton constraint, which can only auger well for the future freeing of pitch from all forms of rhythm.  Only when pitch is completely free to exist on its own spiritual terms ... will music attain to a climax, becoming, in consequence, purely transcendent.  Such a climax, it need scarcely be emphasized, cannot be achieved or furthered by the adherents of relativistic civilization.  It will fall to those nations/musicians specifically concerned with the development of an absolutist civilization.

      Which instrument or instruments, you may well wonder, would be most appropriate for a truly atonal music?  Certainly none of the traditional acoustic ones, whether predominantly made of wood or of brass.  Not, either, such typically petty-bourgeois or, rather, bourgeois/proletarian instruments as electric guitars, bases, pianos, organs, and the like.  Although signifying an evolutionary improvement upon their acoustic counterparts, these instruments require a degree of manual manipulation incompatible, it seems to me, with the transcendental criteria of an absolutist civilization.  The playing of an electric guitar, for example, presupposes a compromise between rhythm and pitch, the fingers of one hand being concerned with notes, either separately or collectively, and those, or one or more, of the other hand having to sustain the notes through a variety of rhythmical procedures either independent of or, if more civilized, dependent on a plectrum.

      Clearly, such musical relativity would be incompatible with an absolutist civilization!  The electric guitar is nothing if not a quintessentially bourgeois/proletarian instrument.  For though, as an electric instrument, it signifies an expansion of the spiritual, its technical manipulation presupposes a degree of respect for the rhythmical.  This, however, isn't the case or, at any rate, needn't be so where synthesizers are concerned, which can be programmed to realize a variety of atonal sequences independently of manual control, being susceptible, in any case, to the minimum of manual effort.  I would be extremely surprised if such highly synthetic instruments didn't play a leading role in realizing the music of tomorrow, a music programmed in advance and conveyed by remote control, thereby relieving composers of the obligation to perform their own music in public, an obligation which, though concerned with the cultivation of being, entails a degree of doing.  A civilization with an emphasis on transcendent being couldn't countenance very much mundane doing!

      And yet, the performance of a particular work by the composer himself, either alone or in conjunction with other musicians, is preferable, from an evolutionary standpoint, to the performance by a number of musicians of someone else's work, and we may note here an important distinction between modern jazz and its classical counterpart, the latter of which entails, more often than not, a division between composer and performers, thereby indicating a greater concession to relativity and making, in the process, for a dependence on scores and conductors - two factors which presuppose a degree of respect for appearances and, by implication, the proton root.  Were classical music determined to become completely essential, entirely rhythm-free, this situation could not be countenanced.  But the plain fact of the matter is that classical music has no such ambitions, being resigned to reflecting, in various degrees, an atomic relativity, the structure of which bespeaks a compromise between essence and appearance, inner and outer, in deference to relativistic criteria.  Here, as in certain other contexts, it is inferior to jazz, a music which scorns appearance in a partly memorized, partly improvised musical self-sufficiency approximating to essence and therefore closer, in consequence, to a musical absolutism, whereby no composer/performer, conductor/score lacunae exist between performer(s) and music.  It is on account of such facts that modern jazz is entitled to be considered a mainstream petty-bourgeois music, one more transcendental than its orchestral counterpart, as applying, in the main, to Europe.  And to the extent that, since the late-twentieth century, America is the leading petty-bourgeois or, at any rate, bourgeois/proletarian nation, and jazz is essentially an American phenomenon, then we can't be surprised if this should be the case.

      Speaking as an Irish-born writer, it is scant humiliation for me to discover and acknowledge such a fact, since I am led, with my spiritual bias, to identify more closely with American than with European culture, though not to the point of forgetting that the bourgeois/proletarian civilization of the contemporary West and the future transcendental civilization, which I hope Ireland will be instrumental in furthering, are two entirely different things, in consequence of which very little common ground can be established between them.  If modern jazz, as pertaining to bourgeois/proletarian civilization in its predominantly petty-bourgeois phase, is the 'best of a bad job' in musical class-evolutionary terms, it is still somewhat short of being a completely 'good job', which could only develop, it seems to me, in a society dedicated to absolute values and, hence, to the establishment of a free-electron music - electronic and, in its pure pitch, highly appropriate to a people who pay no respects to the alpha, nor to its part-alpha 'Son', but are dedicated, instead, to an exclusive, absolutist aspiration towards the omega.  Such transcendental music, significant of the post-atomic, will be vastly superior to melodic music and almost infinitely superior to its pagan precursor in the overly percussive past.  It will be the ultimate music, of universal import.