201. Just so, the 'unholy' is ever inferior, in subjective terms, to the 'holy', since the explicit 'outer' standings of the political positions do not reflect a superior status to the implicit 'inner' standings of the religious positions.
202. One should not imagine that my use of the term or, rather, prefix 'anti', as in 'antispirit' or 'antivirtue', implies that which is against the noun being qualified - say, spirit or virtue, as in 'anti-spirit' or 'anti-virtue'. On the contrary, such a prefix is indicative of the negative mode of spirit, virtue, goodness, etc., as relevant to a scientific and/or economic position. Hence my description of the Clear Light ... as 'antigood' does not signify that the Clear Light ... is against goodness and therefore evil. It simply indicates the negative mode of goodness, as germane to the least perfect inner form.
203. Virtue/antivirtue is always perfect, from least to most via less and more, whereas vice/antivice is always imperfect, from most to least via more and less. This is because perfection, like virtue, has to do with form, whereas imperfection, like vice, is a manifestation of content - the former subjective and the latter objective. The Devil, like man, is imperfect in his content, while God, like woman, is perfect in his form. And this irrespective of whether we are considering the negative or positive modes of devility and divinity, in relation, as already discussed, to science and religion. It is also of course applicable to the economic and political positions in between.
204. The moral imperfections of the Father and the Son contrast with the moral perfections of the Mother and the Holy Spirit ... as content with form, particles with wavicles, objectivity with subjectivity, evil with good, vice with virtue, folly with wisdom, and other such equivalent distinctions.
205. The conceptual content (internal) of the Son contrasts, relatively, with the perceptual form (external) of the Mother, while the perceptual content (external) of the Father contrasts, absolutely, with the conceptual form (internal) of the Holy Spirit. Internal imperfection is vis-à-vis external perfection, and external imperfection is vis-à-vis internal perfection.
206. The internal manifestation of external perfection, or beauty, is confidence. Conversely, the external manifestation of internal perfection, or truth, is calmness.
207. The external manifestation of internal imperfection, or knowledge, is sobriety. Conversely, the internal manifestation of external imperfection, or strength, is pride.
208. The conceptual anticontent of the Antison contrasts, relatively, with the perceptual antiform of the Antimother, while the perceptual anticontent of the Antifather contrasts, absolutely, with the conceptual antiform of the Antispirit. Inner anti-imperfection vis-à-vis outer antiperfection and outer anti-imperfection vis-à-vis inner antiperfection.
209. The internal manifestation of external antiperfection, or ugliness, is shyness. Conversely, the external manifestation of internal antiperfection, or illusion, is agitation (brightness).
210. The external manifestation of internal anti-imperfection, or ignorance, is insobriety. Conversely, the internal manifestation of external anti-imperfection, or weakness, is humiliation.
211. Such distinctions, here applicable to religion and to science respectively, also apply, albeit more relatively, to the economic and political positions in between, where we are conscious of explicit 'inner negative' and 'outer positive' options, viz. inner Antison and outer Son in regard to (inner) ignorance and (outer) knowledge. And so on.
212. Because form is qualitative and content quantitative, the former appertaining to wavicle perfection and the latter to particle imperfection, it is not possible to evaluate the one from the standpoint of the other - say, beauty from the standpoint of knowledge, or truth from the standpoint of strength. That is why any attempt to quantify a qualitative attribute like beauty is bound to fail, since beauty must forever remain unquantifiable in view of its subjective quality. Worse, such a procedure, as in the case of so-called 'beauty contests', is an insult to the subject of quantification, in this case woman, since an effective subversion of the qualitative from a masculine, and therefore quantitative, point of view. In attempting to quantify beauty, man shows disrespect for the qualitative, which is but a reflection of the subservience in which woman, and hence the World, has traditionally been held.
213. It would be no less absurd for the Devil to judge God from his quantitative point of view ... than (it is) for man to judge woman on such a basis, overlooking or ignoring the threat to her self-respect which such a paradoxical procedure implies. Doubtless women are far less inclined to judge each other on quantitative terms ... where beauty is concerned!
214. The genuine aesthete is one for whom form takes considerable precedence over content in the execution of his/her art. In fact, the more form and the less content ... the greater the artist.
215. Art, and therefore beauty, ends where religion, and hence truth, begins - in the most perfect inner form. Beauty is no more truth ... than art is religion or woman ... God. Beauty, like art, will have to be vanquished by truth, if Heaven is to replace the World and religion come into its own on the most perfect internal terms.
216. The philosopher is the only writer, or literary figure, who stands beyond the World ... like God beyond woman or religion beyond art, transcending beauty in his commitment to truth. Whereas the poet is an artist, the literary artist par excellence, the philosopher is a deist, a believer in his own inner divinity and consequent right to enlighten.
217. Just as only the masculinity of phenomenal objectivity can be damned to the Devil, the diabolic realm of noumenal objectivity, so only the femininity of phenomenal subjectivity can be saved to God, the divine realm of noumenal subjectivity. Hence whilst it would not be true to say that man is the Devil or woman ... God, nonetheless it is much more likely that man will be damned to the Devil and woman saved to God than vice versa, since the masculine generally predominates in men and the feminine in women.
218. An androgynous balance between masculinity and femininity notwithstanding, man is by definition that which is more masculine than feminine, and woman, by contrast, that which is more feminine than masculine. In the one case, the relative imperfection of internal content preponderates over the relative perfection of external form; in the other case, the relative perfection of external form preponderates over the relative imperfection of internal content. Woman is indeed man's 'better half', though her perfection, being external, is of sin in the 'will to fame/fulfilment' through beauty, rather than, like man, the imperfection of crime in the 'will to wealth' through knowledge, which, being internal, panders to the masculine delusion of moral superiority - a delusion institutionalized by the Christian Church, particularly in its nonconformist manifestation, through the person of Christ, the Man-God whose defiance of woman, and hence the World, leads back towards the Father and the punishing Fundamentalism of a 'will to power' through strength. In other words, to that which, as the religious Devil, is the furthest removed from the graceful Transcendentalism of the 'will to glory' through truth, the absolute salvation in the most perfect inner form of religious God, which I have termed and maintain to be the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
219. Those who have said: 'No man comes to the Father except through the Son' spoke rightly; for, indeed, the Father is where the Son can and does lead to, as Purgatory is eclipsed by Hell. What I say, however, is this: 'No woman comes to the Holy Spirit ... except through the Mother, as the World is transcended by Heaven.' I do not say 'man'; for that would be a contradiction in terms and could also be taken to imply that Heaven can be achieved via the World, i.e. through sex, which is anything but the case, since sex is of the World. No, I say 'woman', or those for whom the feminine takes precedence over the masculine, phenomenal subjectivity over phenomenal objectivity, perfect external form over imperfect internal content. To approach the noumenal subjectivity of God ... one must first of all be phenomenally subjective. For only then can one be saved from the sinfulness of one's worldly status to the grace of the heavenly Beyond, becoming divine. And this can only happen via the Second Coming, not via the Son or any other manifestation of purgatorial aloofness all too capable of degenerating towards the Father. For wherever the Father is, salvation is not to be found. Only damnation ... in the Fundamentalism of the heart's passion!
220. When the Church claims that 'Christ saves', one has good reason to be sceptical if not deeply cynical. For where the Church is, there, too, stands the Father, and where the Father is ... there can be no salvation but only damnation, the damnation of Purgatory to Hell, of the intellect to the soul, the brain to the heart, the Son to the Father. Hence anyone who accepts Christ through the Church also accepts, later if not sooner, His Father, and is accordingly damned to the Fundamentalism of the 'will to power' through strength. The Church is a lie, and anyone who accepts this lie, the lie that 'Christ saves', will never know the truth, but continue to flounder in the moral evil of Father-dominated religion.
221. Of course, the original Christ and the 'Church Christ' are not identical, nor could they ever be so! The original Christ said that anyone who wished to follow him into the 'Kingdom Within' would have to abandon father, mother, sister, brother, etc., and live only for and in the self. The 'Church Christ', by contrast, is surrounded and even dominated by the Father and/or Mother, depending on His denomination. Consequently, He does not stand out as a particularly good example of spiritual freedom.
222. But what of the Second Coming, or he who regards himself in such a Messianic light, without making the silly mistake of imagining that he is literally Christ, or that Christ will literally return to the World? Such a man likes to think that the historical Christ was 'forsaken' by the Father for having effectively turned against the Father (or was it the Creator/Jehovah?) in his advocacy of the 'Kingdom Within', and thus his resurrection - which of course this man regards in metaphorical terms - was accordingly not back to the Father but on towards the Holy Spirit in what could (again metaphorically) be regarded as a clean break with everything cosmic or fundamentalist or Creator-based. Now if this Christ were literally to return to the World as the Second Coming, he would come not in the Father's name, as he originally came, but in the name of the Holy Spirit, from whence he had returned to the World with the express purpose of saving it to the Heaven which he had known, and known, moreover, in defiance of and opposition to the Father.
223. Now, naturally, such a literal Christ will not and cannot return; for metaphors and factual reality are two entirely different things. But - and this is the crucial point! - he who loosely corresponds to a Second Coming knows himself, with good reason, to be unequivocally affirmative of the Holy Spirit, and thus akin to one who has dallied long in a realm which is as far removed from the Father ... as it is possible to be. Such a man says: 'One cannot achieve salvation except through me, since I lead you not back to the Father but on ... from the Mother ... to the Holy Spirit of Heaven, the definitive divinity of a being supreme. No 'Church Christ' can do this, which is precisely why you have need of a Second Coming if you are to be saved to the heavenly Beyond.
224. Ironically, Christianity, or the Church
Fathers, had need of the Father as a platform from which to launch Christ into
the world, since He would not have stood out from men as a deity had He not
been 'blessed' with providential sanction.
But, in reality, the historical Christ was a 'naughty boy' who effectively
rejected His Father in pursuance of the 'Kingdom Within', the '
225. So there is, or rather was, a certain logic to the concept of the Crucified Christ being 'forsaken' by the Father, since he had effectively broken with the 'Kingdom Without' and thus could not expect to return to it. That is why Christ was significant. Such a man offers one hope of a better world, a world owing nothing to the cosmic heavens of divine precedence, particularly since such a precedence is less germane to the Father (a Christian invention relative to Christ and having its throne, so to speak, in the heart) than to the Creator (of the Universe), i.e. a scientific divinity of which Jehovah is the Judaic manifestation and the Clear Light of the Void the Hindu manifestation, the former a more devolved, and thus anthropomorphic, divinity than the latter.
226. Of course, the original Christ would have related to Jehovah, not the Father, since the latter is unique to Christianity as a fundamentalist modification of idealistic precedence. It is only the 'Church Christ' who relates to the Father, and He does so much less as a rebel against an earlier divinity than as the dutiful Son of a kindly Father, thereby perpetuating the lie of the Church, to the detriment of true salvation. Instead of leading away from Jehovah, the 'Church Christ' leads back to the Father, the real power behind the Christian throne!
227. The eclipse of Christ by the Father, of Nonconformism by Fundamentalism, is the real tragedy of (in particular) Protestantism, since knowledge leads to strength as surely as wealth to power, or man to the Devil. Conversely, the eclipse or, rather, transcendence of the Mother by the Holy Spirit, of Humanism by Transcendentalism, is the hope of Catholicism, since beauty can lead to truth as surely as fame to glory, or woman to God. And yet, even Catholicism is saddled with, and therefore compromised by, the Father, whose grip on the Trinity ensures that Fundamentalism continues to be the dominant factor in religious affairs, a factor which, due to its autocratic nature, cannot be regarded as of insignificant influence on the Church.
228. No more, for that matter, than can the even more subversive element, from a religious standpoint, of scientific idealism, as relevant to Jehovah, and hence the Old Testament, with which religion returns, via Fundamentalism, to the crass authoritarianism of Creatorism and, hence, Creationism. At which point the hope of salvation ... from the Mother to the Holy Spirit ... must remain very remote indeed!
229. It is worth noting that the nature of the Trinity will differ according to whether autocratic or democratic criteria, relative to the type of society in existence, are preponderant. By which I mean that whereas the Holy Trinity will be regarded as reflecting the power of the Father in and by an autocratic society, with the Son and the Holy Spirit stemming from the Father and returning to Him ... in a union of the 'Three in One', or of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father, the preferred conception in a democratic society, by contrast, will be one that affirms, in pluralistic fashion, the equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father in a Trinity loosely centred in the Son, the 'One' with whom the other parts of it are co-existent on an independent rather than an inclusive basis.
230. Hence whereas an autocratic society will affirm the dominance of the Father ... in due authoritarian fashion, a democratic society will favour a more pluralistic concept of the Trinity which places Christ on an equal footing with the Father. It is from such a standpoint that notions relating to the greater desirability and moral superiority of the Holy Spirit can be developed, albeit with due regard to the Mother, without whom the reculer pour mieux sauter would not be possible. For a society that stressed the moral superiority of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son, making the Father and Son consanguineous with the Holy Spirit, would simply be the converse of an autocratic one, call it theocratic or Pentecostalist, and such a situation, whilst it might be preferable to the other two, would not be commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', or the Transcendentalism, in other words, of that society which, thanks in no small part to the Mother, would be beyond the Trinity altogether, in what I have termed the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
231. Such a transcendental society cannot come to pass except through the Second Coming, the Messianic means whereby the Holy Spirit may be liberated from the Trinity and elevated to the definitive status of a divinity supreme. Yet such a supreme divinity cannot come to pass unless the People democratically will it; for it is ultimately the People who become the Holy Spirit of Heaven. The Second Coming is simply its prophet and provisional embodiment.
232. There is only one afterlife which is true and eternal, or truly eternal, and that is the afterlife of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, wherein consciousness is enhanced in proportion to its identification with the inner air upon which it is focused and by which it is lifted aloft in a joyful transcendence of the World. Such a transcendence is of the heavenly Beyond, and ultimately it will take place on the eternal plane of divine Transcendentalism, achieving its peak in the ultrabeingful contexts of space centres, wherein even earthly gravity would have no place. But there would undoubtedly be a number of stages en route to that ultrabeingful culmination, of which the post-Human Millennium would be among them. (A subject I have gone into often enough elsewhere in my oeuvre without wishing or needing to enlarge upon it here.) Suffice it to say that, from a transcendental standpoint, Man is simply a stepping-stone to something higher, rather than, as in the humanist contexts, an end-in-himself.
233. Neither the bourgeois humanism of Parliamentary Democracy nor the proletarian humanism of Social Democracy are greatly conducive towards the notion that Man is but a stage on the road to something higher, since Humanism regards Man as an end-in-himself rather than as a stepping-stone to God. In fact, democratic humanism is the enemy of God, since it is Man who becomes the measure of all things, and all things, including religion, must be tailored to suit him. The Beyond is not something that has any real meaning or relevance to a democratic Humanist, for whom the World and/or Overworld (bourgeois Purgatory) is all that really matters and, not least of all, his stake in it. Once the democratic Humanist has achieved what he wants in material or real terms, he has no further ambitions. As far as he is concerned, God was something in the past, not something still to come. God died so that Man could live.
234. And, in a sense, the
death of Christ on the Cross was the death of God and the birth of Humanism,
which proclaimed the triumph of
235. Hitherto I would have said that there is only one afterlife, namely the ongoing salvation of the Holy Spirit of Heaven in the coming post-Human Millennium. Now I know better, and it pleases me to state that there are two if not three afterlives, of which the one I subscribe to is by far the best, since the only one that is both true and eternal. Yet contrary to this transcendental afterlife is what may be called the pagan afterlife of ... the Clear Light ... in some primal Beyond or, more correctly, Behind, whilst in between these two extremes comes what is effectively a Christian afterlife, having relevance to the Holy Trinity in its autocratic-democratic-theocratic options, options which one must be careful to distinguish from the idealist and transcendentalist alternatives, which are less middle-ground than alpha and omega.
236. To be light diverging from a vacuum, as opposed to spirit converging upon a plenum - such is the nature of the pagan afterlife, which one can only suppose to be relevant to people who, through over-use of their senses, particularly their eyes and ears, have led a largely vacuous existence. Such people may well have spent too much time in front of their televisions or, more likely, gazing at cinema screens. Whatever the individual case, the pagan afterlife (of which Aldous Huxley was acutely aware) would entail a sense of one's being en route, as light, to the cosmos, presumably towards a star or stars with which some kind of merging could be anticipated. However, given the fact that light diverges from stars and travels through space, the chances of one's being overtaken by such powerful light and effectively repulsed and even diverted by it ... could only be greater than the converse possibility ... of one's little quota of light actually making it through to union with the nearest or biggest stars....Which sad fact obliges one to concede that the probability of one's being returned to the World by incoming light ... adds a certain piquancy to the Hindu notion of reincarnation, albeit solely with reference to the likelihood of one's not making it through to the Clear Light, but having to settle, as light, for a deflection back through space to the World again. Ah, what a disappointment such a fate must be to anyone who had hoped for better things! Clearly, the pagan afterlife has the odds stacked against it!
237. But so, too, in a way does the Christian afterlife, the afterlife, I mean, of a certain subliminal consciousness of emotions, thoughts, or visions brought about by chemical changes in the brain following bodily death. Doubtless, the cessation of air to the brain does indeed cause the latter to undergo chemical changes, and the chances of some kind or degree of awareness of the effects of such changes can only be pretty high, in view of the susceptibility of brain chemistry to generate mind, as in sleep. Now whether, in the event of some subliminal awareness of these changes, one's mind was brought into contact with emotional, intellectual, or visionary stimuli ... would depend, I guess, upon the nature of one's brain and the sort of lifestyle one had led whilst alive, and even up to and including one's death. Would it be the soul of the Father in emotions, or the intellect of the Son in thoughts, or possibly even the spirit of the Holy Ghost in visions? In other words, would this subliminal awareness of chemical changes in the brain be exposed to a purgatorial Hell, a purgatorial Purgatory, or a purgatorial Heaven, or even to all three together or successively? That is obviously not a question for me, or indeed anyone living, to attempt answering, but it does suggest to me, at any rate, the likelihood of one or more of these options for anyone who had led a relatively purgatorial, or Christian, life whilst alive, and who could therefore be expected to experience some form of cerebral afterlife when dead. But only, it has to be said, while the brain was not yet in a state of advanced decomposition or impending disintegration! Thus only for a comparatively short period of time - a matter of weeks or, at most, a few months ... before total disintegration dissolved the possibility of even the faintest subliminal consciousness of chemical metamorphoses. And shorter still for anyone who had opted for cremation, moving from an emotional purgatory, shall we say, to a fiery eclipse in a matter of hours or days, Christ or the Father overtaken by Satan even before one had grown properly acclimatized to Purgatory! Ugh! What folly! How morally ignorant such people must have been - whilst alive!
238. Yet it now occurs to me that there is, possibly, an alternative afterlife of the phenomenal sort, one associated not with Purgatory but the World, not with Christ, or the Trinity, but the Mother ... in what could, I suppose, be a dream-like recollection of past events and memories of one's life, an afterlife of an altogether more subjective character, broadly pleasant in the down-to-earth range and nature of its revelations, a subliminal consciousness, it may be, of the sort one would more associate with the left midbrain than with the right midbrain, an afterlife arguably more Catholic than Protestant or, at any rate, more humanist than nonconformist. Yet it may well be that those who have lived more in the body than in the brain will experience, on some subliminal level, a sensual metamorphosis more conducive to personal recollections than to impersonal events. Again, however, this worldly Heaven would only last until such time as extensive decomposition had set-in, eradicating the brain's capacity for self-consciousness. Thus even an earthly burial would not guarantee the mundane corpse a greatly extended afterlife, its memory-teeming brain soon fated for earthly transmutations. Judged by truly divine criteria, this humanist afterlife is little better than the nonconformist one, albeit preferable, all to same, to a cosmic eclipse!
239. So I return to my starting point, in regard to the afterlife, and maintain that only the transcendental path can offer one the possibility of Eternal Life, a life lived in and for the spirit in the most complete identification with inner air, and that only in relation to Transcendentalism will there be any prospect of a lasting afterlife or, rather, of life evolving towards a spiritual consummation from a basis, in Social Transcendentalism, which would be beyond life as we know it today. For the ultimate afterlife begins not in death but in a new life, and such a post-worldly life can only be stepped up and refined upon in the course of its future unfolding. Eventually, following decades if not centuries of extensive social engineering, there will be no death as we know it, and therefore no pagan, Christian, or mundane afterlives, but simply a more intensive stretch of self-realization culminating, it is to be hoped, in the most complete manifestation of the Holy Spirit of Heaven. That which is experiencing Eternal Life will have no need of such afterlives as I have briefly documented here. He or, rather, it will be their refutation.
240. In a sense, one could say that whereas the writer closest in spirit to the pagan, or cosmic, afterlife is the dramatist, the philosopher, when true, is the writer for whom the transcendental afterlife has most significance, while the Christian and mundane afterlives in between those alpha and omega extremes would have relevance to novelists and poets respectively, the former, given through knowledge, to the brain, and the latter given, through beauty, to the body.
241. One could also argue that whereas the afterlife of cosmic idealism is essentially upper class, the afterlife of Christian purgatory is essentially middle class, the afterlife of mundane worldliness essentially working class, and the afterlife of airy transcendentalism essentially classless - this latter alone according with what is truly divine, and hence eternal.
242. More generally, the cosmic afterlife is of musicians, the Christian afterlife of writers, the mundane afterlife of dancers, and the transcendental afterlife of artists.
243. Again, speaking generally, one could argue that the cosmic afterlife is for scientists, the Christian afterlife for economists, the mundane afterlife for politicians, and the transcendental afterlife for priests.
244. It would also seem that whereas the cosmic afterlife is of the backbrain/subconscious, the Christian afterlife is of the right midbrain/conscious, the mundane afterlife of the left midbrain/unconscious, and the transcendental afterlife of the forebrain/superconscious.
245. From the cosmic afterlife of the Devil to the transcendental afterlife of God via the Christian afterlife of man and the mundane afterlife of woman, as from Hell to Heaven via Purgatory and the World.
246. If in natural life nightmares are the nearest thing to the cosmic afterlife, then dreams are the nearest thing to the mundane afterlife, visions the nearest thing to the Christian afterlife, and meditation the nearest thing to the transcendental afterlife.
247. Nightmares stand to dreams as Hell to the World or the subconscious to the unconscious, the former objective and the latter subjective. One might say that nightmares are 'big bad dreams' which, in contrast to 'good little dreams', are more akin to the sun than to the earth.
248. A similar objective/subjective distinction can be noted between crime and sin. For whereas crime is generally objective, i.e. committed against someone/something, sin is no less generally subjective, i.e. committed against oneself. That is why murder, for example, is a crime, whereas suicide is a sin. Likewise theft is a crime, but gluttony a sin.
249. Television stands to cinema pretty much as the Father to Satan, which is to say, as the alpha-most point of a fundamentally Christian medium vis-à-vis the alpha-most point of a basically Judaic one. Whereas cinema approximates to the 'Kingdom Without', TV, by contrast, approximates to the 'Kingdom Within', albeit as the fundamentalist antithesis to computers, and strictly within the artificial parameters of a technological civilization.
250. Just as Jehovah predates Satan, being anterior to the Satanic Fall, so silent cinema predates sound cinema, the latter akin to a Satanic fall from the primal 'divinity' which, in due idealistic fashion, ushered in the age of scientific culture.
251. Television was, one could argue, the 'Christian' retort to 'Judaic' cinema, the alpha-most part of an artificial 'Inner Kingdom' which is composed of radio (roughly approximating to Christ), video (approximating to the Mother), and, latterly, computers (approximating to the Holy Ghost).
252. For everything natural there is eventually something artificial which both complements and eclipses it, pretty much on the basis of an old brain/new brain dichotomy. For big dreams, or nightmares, there is cinema, while for little dreams, or pleasingly subjective dreams, there is video. For emotional fantasies there is television, for thoughts there is radio, and for visionary hallucinations there is computing, including Virtual Reality, not to mention hallucinogens like LSD. There may even one day be artificial meditation for natural meditation, which would presumably involve recourse to artificial oxygen and breathing masks, with or without the aid of special body harnesses to lift one clear of the ground in a levitation-like defiance of gravity.
253. It was doubtless inevitable that, in rejecting Jehovah through Christ, the Christians should come to accept the Father instead, and so gravitate to the 'Kingdom Within' at its alpha-most and therefore fundamentalist point, thereby settling for a religious Devil as opposed, like Jehovah, to a scientific God. Or, in bodily terms, for the heart as opposed to the eyes (including, at the back of Judaic anthropomorphism, the rather more primal Hindu idealism of the Clear Light ... with its 'Third Eye' situated in the pineal gland). Doubtless, Jewish reluctance to embrace Christ or, rather, Christianity ... derived, in no small measure, from the distaste with which a people long accustomed to scientific divinity felt, consciously or unconsciously, for religious fundamentalism, the Father being, in effect, the religious equivalent of the scientific Devil, or Satan. For how can one reject Satan and embrace his religious equivalence, trading scientific idealism for religious fundamentalism? Even Christ, the historical rebel against Jehovah, would not have embraced the Father instead. His 'Kingdom Within' was rather closer to the lungs than to the heart, and thus would have had effect to the Holy Spirit, since one does not naturally embrace the heart if one has been accustomed to an idealistic tradition. Such fundamentalism ties-in, as I have intimated, with naturalism, and thus presupposes a pagan tradition, the sort of tradition which, rooted in the sun (the Judaic Satan), finds its 'inner' counterpart not in the lungs but in the heart, i.e. the Father, and thus at a vampire-like remove from solar flame. Christ would not have advocated some fundamentalist equivalent of Count Dracula as the religious antidote to the sun. On the contrary, his salvation was of the spirit within, which is the religious antidote to the light without. It was for denying the tradition which, in Judaism, clung to that light, however, that Christ was killed or, at any rate, rejected by the Jews.
254. From the eccentricity of the cosmic afterlife (of the Clear Light of the Void) to the psychocentricity of the transcendental afterlife (of the Holy Spirit of Heaven) via the egocentricity of the Christian afterlife (of the Father-Son-Holy Ghost) and the concentricity of the mundane afterlife (of the Mother).
255. From the eccentric backbrain/subconscious to the psychocentric forebrain/superconscious via the egocentric right midbrain/conscious and the concentric left midbrain/unconscious.
256. 'Christ in Judgement' is indeed an apt reflection of the 'Christian afterlife', in which chemical changes in the brain following death may centre in thoughts (Christ) or cause one to be damned (relatively) to emotions (the Father) or saved (relatively) to visions (the Holy Ghost), depending which way, if any, the judgmental balance (of purgatorial egocentricity) tips. Either way, the result would not be Hell per se or Heaven per se, but purgatorial Hell (the Father) and/or purgatorial Heaven (the Holy Ghost), with the thoughtful middle-ground of Purgatory per se doubtless capable of a bias (depending on the nature of the thoughts) towards what could be called hellish Purgatory (negative Christ) or heavenly Purgatory (positive Christ) ... on the borderline, as it were, with the more radical purgatorial extremes.
257. In a way, the 'Christian afterlife' is akin to classical music, the intellectualized music of a purgatorial disposition, which is roughly divisible, on a trinitarian basis, between operas, symphonies, and concertos - operas being emotional, and therefore closer to the Father; symphonies intellectual, and therefore closer to the Son; and concertos visionary, and therefore closer to the Holy Ghost. But such 'classical music' finds itself flanked by the more extreme musical forms of Jazz and Folk, the former reflective of a mystical idealism, and the latter reflective (at its uilleann-pipes best) of a gnostical transcendentalism, both of which stand outside the Christian tradition as, in some sense, the alpha and omega of music.
258. Notice how Jazz works up a rhythmic frenzy in what, to Christian ears, may seem like excessive percussion ... in order to launch, as though from a particle base, the musical light which issues, in centrifugal divergence, from brass instruments ... as 'brass-light' flees the vacuous particles so barbarously engineered by a variety of percussion instruments. Jazz is virtually the musical corollary of cosmic mysticism and thus of a senses-based lifestyle which portends, if pursued vigorously enough, the possibility of a mystical afterlife in which, inevitably, light is the prevailing element.
259. Remember that light stands to spirit as illusion to truth, and that those who, through moral primitivity, pursue a light-oriented lifestyle do so as adherents of scientific idealism (if not naturalism) as opposed to religious transcendentalism. Theirs is the mystical Hell which, in the cosmos, stands at the farthest possible remove from the gnostical Heaven, the true heaven of the airy lightness of a joy supreme. Theirs is the Jazz of 'brass-light', rather than the Folk of 'pipe-air'.
260. One could argue that if a Jazz person is more or less predestined for the cosmic afterlife, then a Rock person is in some sense predestined for the mundane afterlife, the afterlife we characterized as having a correlation with memory, since Rock is no less a music of the World ... than Jazz a netherworldly form of music. And so we can safely assume that Rock people, being more given to the darkness of worldly heaviness than to the speed of cosmic light, will be disposed, if consistently heavy, to what we characterized as the mundane (as opposed to purgatorial) afterlife, the more subjective afterlife which, though also following from chemical changes in the brain of the recently deceased, would tend to root subliminal consciousness in the phenomenal self and its bodily experiences and/or memories. Such a mundane afterlife would be closer, in effect, to the transcendental afterlife of post-human futurity ... than to the properly Christian afterlife above ... in the more objective realm of Trinitarian cerebration, given its subjective nature. Beauty, after all, is closer to truth than knowledge which, in due purgatorial fashion, intimates of possibilities having a basis in strength, and hence the Father. In fact, the purgatorial Christ, though separate from the Father, is likely to incline more towards the strength of the Father than towards the 'visionary truth' of the Holy Ghost, given the fatal attraction which strength, or almighty power, exerts on knowledge, and thus of emotion on the intellect. The scales of purgatorial Judgement are tipped against the Holy Ghost within the Trinitarian framework. And so much so, that the Christian afterlife is likely to be much less satisfactory than the mundane one which, through the left midbrain, should remain rooted in the subjectivity of the Mother, not veer off towards the greater objectivity (noumenal) of the Father, following a brief dalliance of posthumous consciousness with the phenomenal objectivity, in thought, of Christ - knowledge leading to strength no less surely than ... beauty to truth.
261. But true truth, being of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, can only follow from a post-worldly basis, the basis of 'Kingdom Come' established at the Mother's, and therefore the World's, expense ... in due transcendental fashion. For this, the World has need of the Second Coming, without whom no salvation from the World to the heavenly Beyond of a transcendental afterlife is possible. For this afterlife does not follow death in the usual posthumous sense, but presupposes a new life established by the Second Coming which will ultimately prevent death and therefore the possibility of any of the traditional afterlives ever happening again. Such a transcendental afterlife is only possible on the basis of Eternal Life, which should follow, needless to say, from an acceptance, by the People, of the teachings of he who corresponds to a Second Coming. Only when his philosophy has been accepted ... will the way be clear for a Life Everlasting ... lived by life forms that will not die but live in the joyful lightness of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, being without end.
262. Now that I have had a chance to reflect upon the above, it strikes me that, in contrast to traditional notions concerning the Holy Trinity and salvation and/or damnation through Christ, a person who was destined for the mundane afterlife of the Mother, being of a worldly disposition, would stand a better chance of passing from the phenomenal subjectivity of dream-like memories to the noumenal subjectivity of purgatorial Heaven (in which, we may suppose, visionary experience would be paramount) ... than one who, encountering the Christian afterlife, went straight to Purgatory. For in the latter instance the pull of the Father, as from thoughts to emotions, would be stronger than the possibility of visionary salvation in the Holy Ghost, and, as such, one can only conclude the likelihood of one's passing from the phenomenal objectivity of the Son to the noumenal objectivity of the Father, as from Purgatory per se to purgatorial Hell, to be greater. That being the case, purgatorial Heaven could only be embraced, it seems to me, via the Mother, which is to say via the mundane realm of phenomenal subjectivity, and thus via what I have termed the mundane afterlife.
263. Consequently we can have no confidence with the sort of paradoxical logic which would suggest, in traditional eschatological fashion, that one could pass from the phenomenal objectivity of a 'Christ in Judgement' to the noumenal subjectivity of the Holy Ghost. The chances of that happening must be pretty remote; indeed, as remote as it would be to pass from the phenomenal subjectivity of the Mother to the noumenal objectivity of the Father, as though from the World to Hell or, at any rate, the purgatorial hell of an emotional self-conflagration. For Hell per se is, as I have already argued, more a realm of cosmic mysticism than of emotional fundamentalism. Just as Heaven per se is more a realm of spiritual gnosticism than of visionary transcendentalism. Alas, even if one does pass from the Mother to the Holy Ghost with death, progressing from beauty to truth, such a purgatorial Heaven is no more eternal ... in the sense of lasting for ever ... than would be the purgatorial Hell which stems, in all probability, from the thoughtful Son, like strength from knowledge. It would only last as long as the brain does when, due to death, it passes through a series of chemical changes en route to final decomposition. It may be the 'best of a bad job' rather than the 'worst of a good one', so to speak, but it is still far from being the 'best of a good job' in the eternity of true Heaven which, beyond the sphere of cerebral metamorphoses, lies in the transmutation of mankind towards the post-human realm of millennial futurity and the establishment, under Messianic auspices, of the Holy Spirit of Heaven in ever more perfect manifestations of its heavenly unfolding. A purgatorial salvation in the Holy Ghost may be better than a purgatorial damnation in the Father, but it must pale to insignificance beside the heavenly salvation which only the Second Coming can offer ... as he sets out his will in the name of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, or that which, as the truth, is antithetical to the Clear Light of the Void, and hence to all mystical illusions. Only the truth liberates, and it liberates, above all, from the World and its beautiful lie.
264. 'Beautiful people' are capable of grasping the Truth, but generally they prefer the lie of their own phenomenal subjectivity to the truth of the noumenal subjectivity which lies beyond them in the transcendental realm of supreme being. Especially is this so in relation to the pressures of knowledge and strength which can be brought to bear upon them, chaining them to their phenomenal selves.
265. Probably it would be mistaken to presume that beauty is happy to live with knowledge and strength, even though most of the time it of course does so. The truth or, rather, fact of the matter is that beauty is compelled to live with knowledge and strength, just as ugliness is compelled to live with ignorance and weakness. Remove knowledge and strength from beauty ... and beauty would be obliged to re-evaluate itself in relation to truth. For there is no reason why beauty should be overconcerned with truth whilst it is yet subject to the twin pressures of knowledge and strength, neither of which, in practical terms, are even remotely concerned with truth. Truth will only appeal to beauty when it is no longer compelled to bow down before knowledge and strength. Only then will beauty be able to deny itself and, in denying the World, be resurrected to the eternal life of heavenly Truth.
266. Unlike beauty, which is capable of understanding truth but generally prefers or, more correctly, is obliged by circumstances outside its control to deny truth, thus propagating the famous lie of its own divinity, neither knowledge nor strength are capable of understanding or leading to truth, although this fact does not prevent either of these objective accomplishments from regarding what they stand for as truth, as when both religious nonconformism and fundamentalism claim to represent the Truth. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth, but then that is only something the Truth could know, just as it would know, through its divine mediator, that falsity is the name given by truth to the spurious claims of knowledge and strength that they are in fact one and the same as truth. Unlike the lie which, as we have seen, is germane to beauty, neither knowledge nor strength is capable of denying the truth because they are incapable of grasping it to begin with! All they can do is claim to be the truth, and in that they are false. When such falsity parades itself as truth we get bigotry; for the bigot is one who claims to be what he is not. He claims to represent the truth, but in actuality he is representing knowledge or strength, as the case may be, and those who are one with the truth can immediately see through him to the falsehood of his claim. Even the habitual liar, bogged down in her own beauty, can see through him to the falsehood beneath. The chances are, however, that, unlike the truthful ones, she will not endeavour to expose this falsity but will accommodate herself to it as best she can, if only to protect the lie of her beauty from the threat of truth or, more likely, wrath of knowledge and strength.
267. Whereas falsity is that which poses as what it is not and the lie is that which rejects what it knows to be the truth, illusion is neither false nor lying but simply incapable of the truth, since too far removed from it in the alpha of a mystical light. Illusion does not pose as the truth; for it knows nothing of the truth or of the fact that such a thing, accomplishment, or whatever could ever exist (unlike knowledge and strength which, despite their constitutional inability to comprehend it, at least know that somewhere or other, compliments of the Trinity, there is such a value). No, illusion is not falsity, but that which projects itself onto the World, calling the World after its own illusory nature (Maya). Illusion sees only illusion, but it mistakes what it sees for the illusion when, in actuality, it is itself illusory and incapable, in consequence, of self-reflection. It shoots out from the particle-inspired vacuums at the roots of idealistic space, spreading its light wherever it goes and blinding itself to the reality of the World. It sees only light, and in the light it is consumed by illusion.
268. Illusory is the God (Jehovah) that stems from the light of cosmic space, but false are the Gods (the Father/the Son) that appertain to strength and knowledge, and claim truth for themselves or, more correctly, their not-selves through soul and mind, while mendacious is the God(dess) who appertains to beauty and, through love of the flesh, rejects truth in the interests of the Son. I speak, naturally, of the Mother.
269. If beauty, to repeat, co-exists with knowledge and strength, it is less because it wants to than because it has to, and the same, of course, applies to ugliness in relation to ignorance and weakness.
270. A musical paradigm of beauty co-existing with knowledge and strength ... would be of a group comprising of violin, organ, and hand percussion. Conversely, a musical or, more correctly, antimusical paradigm of ugliness co-existing with ignorance and weakness ... would be of a group comprised of guitar, piano, and drums.
271. Just as the violin is a beautiful instrument on account of its attractive (bowing) technique, so the guitar is an ugly instrument by dint of its reliance on a reactive (strumming/picking) technique. One could see this as a humanist/realist dichotomy, as between (electron) wavicles and particles in relation to the World.
272. Just as the organ is an attractive instrument on account of its attractive (sustain) technique, so the piano is a reactive (percussive) instrument by dint of its use of wire-striking hammers. One could see this as a deist/materialist dichotomy, as between (neutron) wavicles and particles in relation to the purgatorial Overworld.
273. Just as hand percussion implies recourse to an attractive technique, in which the palms and fingers of the percussionist's hands gently strike the skin of his percussion instruments, so drums imply a reactive technique by dint of their reliance on drumsticks. One could see this as a fundamentalist/naturalist dichotomy, as between (proton) wavicles and particles in relation to the diabolic Netherworld.
274. The beauty of the flesh vis-à-vis the knowledge of the brain and the strength of the heart ... in the case of the Mother vis-à-vis the Son and the Father, or violins vis-à-vis organs and hand percussion. Conversely, the ugliness of the earth vis-à-vis the ignorance of the moon and the weakness of the sun ... in the case of what we may call the Antimother vis-à-vis the Antison and the Antifather, or guitars vis-à-vis pianos and drums.
275. No less than beauty, knowledge, strength, and truth can be inner or outer, religious or political, so ugliness, ignorance, weakness, and illusion can be inner or outer, economic or scientific.
276. As illogical to speak of beauty, knowledge, strength, and truth in relation to economics or science ... as to speak of ugliness, ignorance, weakness, and illusion in relation to religion or politics.
277. Generally speaking, men are relatively evil and women, by contrast, relatively good, which is to say, objective and subjective on phenomenal terms, whereas the Devil is absolutely evil and God, by contrast, absolutely good, which is to say, objective and subjective on noumenal terms. One cannot argue, ignoring gender, that 'human nature' is this or that, i.e. good or evil. Nature, in the mundane sense, is generally good, because reflecting the subjectivity of the World, but human beings are divisible between those who are closer to nature and those who reject nature in the interests, more usually, of civilization. In other words, between good, more usually recognizable as feminine, and evil, more usually recognizable as masculine. Thus either there is no one 'human nature' or, if there is, it is a nature that should be identified with the feminine, and hence woman, rather than with the masculine.
278. Considering that boys are generally brought up to play at being soldiers, with toy guns, and girls generally raised, by contrast, to play at being mothers, with dolls, one would not have to be an alien from outer space to perceive that the one gender was basically evil and the other gender good. And so it remains, by and large, throughout life. Men, with few exceptions, remain evil and women ... good - the former objective and the latter subjective. Such is the rule of gender, which reflects a distinction between civilization and nature.
279. When taken to its noumenal extremes, i.e. when hellish and heavenly criteria are at issue, then it follows that the distinction is between barbarism and culture, the former diabolic and the latter divine, in keeping with the more radical manifestations of objectivity and subjectivity which accrue to the Devil and God.
280. The distinction between free will and natural determinism ... is likewise a distinction between evil and good, whether relatively or absolutely, with regard, that is, to phenomenal or to noumenal options. I am not free to be good or evil; on the contrary, I am bound, if close to nature and the feminine ideal of phenomenal subjectivity, to be good; for that is what accords with natural determinism. If I am free to be anything, it is the freedom to be or, rather, do evil. Freedom is not a moral choice; it is a compulsion to do evil. The choice lies in whether one wishes to be good, and thus remain bound to natural determinism, or to do evil, and thus express one's freedom. Also, in a more relative and phenomenal sense, between giving goodness and taking evil. For, in truth, the distinction between being good and doing evil is of God and the Devil, whereas the distinction between giving goodness and taking evil is of woman and man. In religious terms, this means that one can only be good, which is to say, absolutely subjective, through the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit of Heaven); only do evil, in absolute objectivity, through the Father (the Holy Soul of Hell); only give goodness, in relative subjectivity, through the Mother (the Holy Will of the World); only take evil, in relative objectivity, through the Son (the Holy Mind of Purgatory). In political terms it means pretty much the same thing on an outer, or external, basis. In scientific terms, however, it means that one can only be antigood, or absolutely subjective, through the Antispirit (the Clear Light of the Void); only do anti-evil, in absolute objectivity, through the Antifather (the Clear Fire of Time); only give antigoodness, in relative subjectivity, through the Antimother (the Clear Soil of Mass); only take anti-evil, in relative objectivity, through the Antison (the Clear Water of Volume). In economic terms it means pretty much the same thing on an inner, or internal, basis.
281. He/she who is most bound to subjectivity is the most good. Conversely, he/she who is most free in objectivity is the most evil. Goodness begins in the World and ends in Heaven. Evil begins in the purgatorial Overworld and ends in Hell. From the Mother to the Holy Spirit ... on the one hand, and from the Son to the Father on the other hand. Not to mention, negatively, from the Antimother to the Antispirit on the one hand, and from the Antichrist to the Antifather (Satan) on the other hand.
282. To contrast the negative phenomenal self of the Antimother (whether externally or internally, in relation to realist science or to socialist economics) with the positive phenomenal self of the Mother (whether externally or internally, in relation to republican politics or to humanist religion).
283. Likewise to contrast the negative noumenal self of the Antispirit (whether externally or internally, in relation to idealist science or to corporate economics) with the positive noumenal self of the Holy Spirit (whether externally or internally, in relation to totalitarian politics or to transcendentalist religion).
284. Conversely, to contrast the negative noumenal not-self of the Antifather (whether externally or internally, in relation to naturalist science or to communist economics) with the positive noumenal not-self of the Father (whether externally or internally, in relation to authoritarian politics or to fundamentalist religion).
285. Likewise to contrast the negative phenomenal not-self of the Antison (whether externally or internally, in relation to materialist science or to capitalist economics) with the positive phenomenal not-self of the Son (whether externally or internally, in relation to parliamentary politics or to nonconformist religion).
286. Civilization is a manifestation of free will, as, to a greater extent, is barbarism. Nature, by contrast, is a manifestation of natural determinism, as, to a greater extent, is culture.
287. Christ presides over civilization and the Father over barbarism, while the Mother presides over nature and the Holy Spirit ... over culture.
288. Conversely, it could be argued that the Antichrist presides over anticivilization and the Antifather over antibarbarism, while the Antimother presides over antinature and the Antispirit over anticulture.
289. The civilization over which Christ presides, in both outer and inner manifestations, is parliamentary (politics) and nonconformist (religion), and is thus symptomatic of relative free will (phenomenal). By contrast, the barbarism over which the Father presides, both outer and inner, is authoritarian (politics) and fundamentalist (religion), and is thus symptomatic of absolute free will (noumenal).
290. The nature over which the Mother presides, in both outer and inner manifestations, is republican (politics) and humanist (religion), and is thus symptomatic of relative natural determinism (phenomenal). By contrast, the culture over which the Holy Spirit presides, both outer and inner, is totalitarian (politics) and transcendentalist (religion), and is thus symptomatic of absolute natural determinism (noumenal).
291. Conversely, the anticulture over which the Antispirit presides, in both outer and inner manifestations, is idealistic (science) and corporate (economics), and is thus symptomatic of absolute antinatural determinism (noumenal). By contrast, the antinature over which the Antimother presides, both outer and inner, is realistic (science) and socialistic (economics), and is thus symptomatic of relative antinatural determinism (phenomenal).
292. The antibarbarism over which the Antifather presides, in both outer and inner manifestations, is naturalistic (science) and communistic (economics), and is thus symptomatic of absolute free antiwill (noumenal). By contrast, the anticivilization over which the Antichrist presides, both outer and inner, is materialistic (science) and capitalistic (economics), and is thus symptomatic of relative free antiwill (phenomenal).
293. Both civilization and anticivilization, whether outer or inner, are germane to the phenomenal not-self, which is responsible for (the masculine essence of) relative free will. By contrast, both barbarism and antibarbarism, whether outer or inner, are germane to the noumenal not-self, which is responsible for (the diabolical essence of) absolute free will.
294. Both nature and antinature, whether outer or inner, are germane to the phenomenal self, which is responsible for (the feminine essence of) relative natural determinism. By contrast, both culture and anticulture, whether outer or inner, are germane to the noumenal self, which is responsible for (the divine essence of) absolute natural determinism.
295. The element of relative free will is the neutron, both particle and wavicle, with civilization appertaining to neutron wavicles on a molecular basis in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation to the inner (religion), but anticivilization appertaining to neutron particles on an elemental basis in relation to the outer (science) and on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
296. The element of absolute free will is the proton, both particle and wavicle, with barbarism appertaining to proton wavicles on a molecular basis in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation to the inner (religion), but antibarbarism appertaining to proton particles on an elemental basis in relation to the outer (science) and on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
297. The element of relative natural determinism is the electron, both particle and wavicle, with nature appertaining to electron wavicles on a molecular basis in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation to the inner (religion), but antinature appertaining to electron particles on an elemental basis in relation to the outer (science) and on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
298. The element of absolute natural determinism is the photon, both particle and wavicle, with culture appertaining to photon wavicles on a molecular basis in relation to the outer (politics) and on an elemental basis in relation to the inner (religion), but anticulture appertaining to photon particles on an elemental basis in relation to the outer (science) and on a molecular basis in relation to the inner (economics).
299. From the absolute free will of the Devil (Father) to the absolute natural determinism of God (Holy Spirit) via the relative free will of man (Christ) and the relative natural determinism of woman (Mother).
300. From the absolute free antiwill of the Antidevil (Satan) to the absolute antinatural determinism of Antigod (Jehovah) via the relative free antiwill of antiman (Antichrist) and the relative antinatural determinism of antiwoman (Antimother).