51. Although Western societies tend to be rooted in autocracy, not all countries share the same bias. For it is clear that while some, like Britain, have an autocratic bias, others, like Ireland, a theocratic bias, and still others, like France, profess to a bias for democracy. This means that while Britain, for example, will be partial to science and thus, by implication, to empirical objectivity, Ireland will be partial to religion and, thus, by implication, to faithful subjectivity. For science is no less autocratic than religion theocratic, and a bias for the one will tend to preclude the other from being taken particularly seriously - religion being no less alien to the British empirical bias than science to the Irish faithful one, given the subjective/objective, individual/collective distinctions between the two extremes, the former idealistic and the latter naturalistic. Hence while religion gets a comparatively raw deal in England, where the grain is ever objective and empiricism accordingly rules the roost, science will be given comparatively short shrift in Ireland where, by contrast, the grain is ever subjective and faith accordingly takes considerable precedence. Were the two countries identical, Britain would not be a Constitutional Monarchy nor Ireland a Catholic Republic. But, as history attests, they are and remain antithetical, and religious subjectivity has as much chance of being taken seriously in England, with its autocratic traditions, as scientific empiricism in Ireland, the theocratic traditions of which minister to faith to a degree which, outside Catholic circles, would be inconceivable in Britain. Hence Britain is ever conservative and right wing, whilst Ireland is ever radical and effectively left wing - at any rate, as regards theocracy. For theocracy in Britain, which is Protestant, tends to be compromised by the autocratic traditions of British monarchism, especially in its English manifestation, and is consequently intensely conservative, deferring to scientific objectivity in a way and to an extent that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland never would nor ever could, bearing in mind its radical commitment to faith and thus to the task of keeping alive the People's hope of Messianic redemption in the 'Kingdom of Heaven', which the Saviour will establish at His Second Coming. Such faith will, no doubt, be vindicated, but not in a way that an overly objective 'Bible-punching' fundamentalist would expect, assuming he were capable of any faith in the Second Coming, which seems to me rather doubtful in view of the connection between objectivity and science.

 

52. If I were asked to define sexuality in relation to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or the historical periods thereof, I would have no hesitation in ascribing a horizontal bias to sexuality within the context of the Father, whether autocratically, democratically, or theocratically; a seated bias to sexuality within the context of the Son, whether autocratically, democratically, or theocratically; and a vertical bias to sexuality within the context of the Holy Ghost, whether autocratically, democratically, or theocratically. Since the autocratic tends to be masturbatory and the theocratic voyeuristic, the democratic may be ascribed a coital status within a broadly heterosexual framework, in contrast to the coital status of bureaucratic sex, or sex within basically worldly terms, which is homosexual on both feminine (lesbian) and masculine (gay) terms, albeit the former tends to predominate within the bureaucracy of the Father and the latter within the bureaucracy of the Holy Ghost, whereas the bureaucracy of Christ would indicate, in its bourgeois relativity, the likelihood of a balance between lesbian and gay modes of homosexuality. Now since my interest is more with the democratic modes of coital sex than with the bureaucratic in this entry, I shall concentrate on heterosexuality to the exclusion of homosexuality, and draw distinctions, over and above the horizontal, seated, and vertical ones to which I have already alluded, between the different approaches to coital heterosexuality. To begin with, there is what I would call the right-wing approach to copulation between a man and a woman in which the man inserts his penis into the woman's vagina from behind, the man being the sexually active, or aggressive, partner. Contrasted to which we shall find the left-wing approach to heterosexual copulation in which the woman takes sexual control of the man's penis with her back turned on him. In between these extreme democratic positions we shall find the liberal, or centrist, positions of face-to-face heterosexuality, with the man active in the right-liberal context but the woman active in the left-liberal context, the possibility of simultaneous or alternate sexual activity being reserved a centre-liberal status, as befitting its balanced integrity. Hence from the extreme right to the extreme left via a liberal compromise in between, heterosexuality will be masculine-dominated on the Right, feminine-dominated on the Left, and androgynous in the Centre. However, whether these different approaches to heterosexuality are conducted on a horizontal, a seated, or a vertical basis should depend, in my view, on the type of democracy to which their participants relate and the degree of their fidelity, consciously or unconsciously, to a class-conscious identity; though I have no doubt that most people do not consciously draw parallels between their sexual preferences and their politics. However that may be, it is my duty, as a self-taught philosopher, to attempt to draw such parallels, if only to clarify the matter in my own eyes and bring order to the possible chaos of choices and options which, if not understood metaphysically, will remain merely physical, without deeper meaning or significance. Since we are men and not animals, it behoves us to ascribe meaning to our acts and thus to lift them above the merely physical realm in which they would otherwise languish, like soulless automata, to a realm where they may be morally evaluated. Clearly then, since horizontal heterosexuality appertains to the democracy of the Father, we have no logical alternative but to ascribe a Conservative peer significance to horizontal right-wing heterosexuality, a Labour peer significance to horizontal left-wing heterosexuality, and a Liberal and/or Liberal-Democratic peer significance to horizontal centrist heterosexuality, so that anyone who has intercourse with the opposite sex in a horizontal position is effectively having sex that finds its political parallel in the House of Lords and is accordingly aristocratic. Compared to which we shall find that, as seated heterosexuality appertains to the democracy of Christ, we have no alternative but to ascribe a Conservative significance to seated right-wing heterosexuality, a Labour significance to seated left-wing heterosexuality, and a Liberal Democratic significance to seated centrist heterosexuality, so that anyone who regularly has intercourse in a seated position is effectively having sex that finds its political parallel in the House of Commons, and is accordingly bourgeois. After which we shall find that, since vertical heterosexuality appertains to the democracy of the Holy Ghost, we have no alternative but to ascribe a Social Democratic significance to vertical right-wing heterosexuality, a Social Radical significance to vertical left-wing heterosexuality, and a 'Social Liberal' significance to vertical centrist heterosexuality, so that anyone who regularly has heterosexual intercourse in a vertical position is effectively having sex that finds its political parallel in the 'Social Democratic' parliaments of the former East-European Communist countries, and is accordingly proletarian. In fact, treating our aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian distinctions economically, one could say that the heterosexuality of the Father is effectively feudal, the heterosexuality of the Son effectively capitalist, and the heterosexuality of the Holy Ghost effectively socialist, as relative to the different class societies corresponding to each of the aforementioned stages of civilized evolution. Therefore it ought to be logically possible to infer that a person who considers himself socialistic should prefer vertical heterosexuality to either of the other kinds, whereas a capitalist ought logically to find seated heterosexuality more congenial, etc. Once again, I would have to doubt that total consistency between one's sexuality and politics was a matter of principle for most people, who are less godlike than animalistic in their comparative thoughtlessness. Only a select few within each class or stage of Western civilization would strive after such consistency, which is, after all, the mark of true civilization.

 

53. In reference to the above, I should like to draw attention to the fact that, for women, dresses and skirts can be either flounced, straight, or tapered, and that a correlation can indeed be inferred to exist between flounced dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Father; straight dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Son; and tapered dresses/skirts and the civilization/class of the Holy Ghost, so that what a woman wears will inevitably tell one something about her class/civilized allegiance and the type of heterosexuality to which she should relate and/or be subjected. For the flounce, being centrifugal, conveys a proton-biased significance commensurate with the civilization/class of the Father, whereas the taper, being centripetal, conveys an electron-biased significance commensurate with the civilization/class of the Holy Ghost, and the straight, being neither centrifugal nor centripetal but neutral, conveys a neutron significance commensurate with the civilization/class of the Son. Hence the nature of a woman's dress/skirt will reveal to the interested male more than simply meets the eye, and she can be known accordingly. To my way of thinking, dresses are right wing and skirts left wing, so that a woman who habitually dresses in one or the other can be known in relation to either right- or left-wing politics and should be treated accordingly, i.e. approached from either a right- or a left-wing point of view. On the other hand, a woman who regularly alternates between dresses and skirts is effectively liberal, and should be regarded/sexually approached from a centrist point of view, the exact approach depending on the nature of her clothing at any given time. Hence the use of a dress would entitle the male to take face-to-face sexual initiative, whereas the use of a skirt would entitle the female to take such initiative within the face-to-face parameters of liberal heterosexuality, irrespective of the class stage to which the partners ordinarily relate. A tapering dress and one is in the context of Social Democracy. A tapering skirt and one is in the context of Social Radicalism. Some women will tend to be one or the other, and should be treated accordingly, whereas others will prefer to alternate between such dresses and skirts in response to a Social Liberal persuasion which would indicate a preference for face-to-face heterosexuality within the vertical context of the democracy of the Holy Ghost. I needn't list the other class stages or allegiances here, since what applies in this tapered context applies no less in the flounced and straight contexts which precede it and are just as subject to right- and left-wing options, as well as to a compromise between the two. On the other hand, a woman is more likely to transcend her gender in the electron-biased context of the Holy Ghost than in the proton-biased context of the Father or in the proton/electron oscillation of Christ, given the evolutionary pressures towards liberation which particularly affect proletarian women these days.... Though that is not to say that bourgeois and aristocratic women can't also seek liberation from their gender in a theocratic alternative which will take the form of trousers or jeans rather than, say, tights. For it should be apparent that flared, straight, and tapered trousers, jeans, etc., will correspond no less to the centrifugal, neutral, and centripetal alternatives of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost than in the case of dresses and skirts, and that a woman in tapered jeans and/or tights can be said to have transcended her gender in a much more radically centripetal, and hence theocratic, way than one who wears flared pants or straight jeans, and thus corresponds to a theocratic complement to the Father or to the Son, as the case may be. The 'woman' in tapered jeans is effectively proletarian and corresponds to the theocracy of the Holy Ghost, which, being the ultimate theocracy, is beyond gender, masculine as well as feminine, and thus transcendental through and through. However, much as there are women who have transcended their gender on a more or less permanent basis, most women are as yet neither so liberated nor so radical as to prefer pants of one description or another all of the time, and thus be effectively above and beyond heterosexuality in a private voyeuristic sexuality of their own. The majority still cling, if intermittently, to skirts, if not to dresses as well, and are consequently open, in worldly femininity, to heterosexual imposition by men.

 

54. Further to my entry on drinks, both trinitarian and bureaucratic, I should like to add a contention that water and spirits correspond to the civilization/class of Jehovah, which is to say, the alpha-of-alphas, with, for example, whisky corresponding to the theocracy, democracy, and autocracy (in that devolutionary order) of Jehovah, but water corresponding to the bureaucracy of Jehovah. Thus, unlike wine, beer, and cola, whisky would correspond to the untransvaluated 'ancient world', as would water in relation to fruit juices, milk, and milk shakes ... in that ascending, or evolutionary order. Since the untransvaluated civilization begins in theocracy and proceeds via a type of royalist democracy to autocracy, it would seem feasible to contend that whisky in a box and/or jar corresponds to the theocratic, whereas whisky in a bottle corresponds to the autocratic, and whisky in a glass to the democratic ... so that we proceed from a sort of can equivalent to bottles via glasses. Thus a small bottle of whisky in, say, a cardboard box would correspond to the alpha theocratic ... which, unlike the omega theocratic correspondence of, say, a can of cola, is fundamentally centrifugal (and, hence, relative to bottles as opposed to cans), even if appearances would suggest the contrary, as with the addition of a cardboard box. For, of course, in relating alpha theocracy to the Cosmos, we are obliged to accept that the central star of the Galaxy, from which monotheistic alpha divinity would seem to have been extrapolated, is still a star, despite its central position, and therefore subject, like the other alpha stars of the Galaxy, to proton-proton reactions. As to the bureaucracy of Jehovah, the feminine drink of the world, water can be consumed via bottles or cans, from a left- or a right-wing standpoint, as well as from the more middle-ground position of glasses, except that the can will be closer to the right-wing theocratic and the bottle closer to the left-wing autocratic, as germane to the untransvaluated standing of Eastern civilization. For whereas theocracy is Left in the West, it is Right in the East, or 'ancient world', since theocracy is everywhere the root condition. As regards water, I include, besides ordinary drinking water, mineral and soda water, as well as, to a lesser extent, cream soda.

 

55. Since theocracy is Right in the 'ancient world', of which Islam is the most conspicuous contemporary example, autocracy is comparatively Left, particularly when, as in the case [formerly] of Sadam Hussein's Iraq, it tends to liberalize Islamic society along relatively secular lines, a tendency which can only be anathema to the hard-line clerical Right. In fact, the war between President Sadam's Iraq and the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran was effectively a struggle, within Islamic civilization, between the autocratic Left and the theocratic Right, autocratic liberalism and theocratic conservatism, with Iraq broadly representative of secular freedom and Iran of religious binding. Yet such freedom is a far cry from Western notions of freedom, which are rather more democratic than autocratic, insofar as freedom is from autocratic binding and has, as its ultimate end, a theocratic salvation which is the omega-of-omegas: a theocratic Left as opposed to an autocratic Right, an evolutionary culmination as opposed to an evolutionary inception. What a contrast with the devolutionary culmination of Eastern autocracy vis--vis the devolutionary inception of theocratic fundamentalism! For such a devolutionary culmination is not a means to a new end, an evolutionary inception, so much as an end-in-itself: one necessarily hostile to Western notions of democracy, with their anti-autocratic essence. Such a devolutionary culmination remains loyal to theocratic fundamentalism even as it opposes theocratic control of society. In this it is in complete contrast to Western autocracy which, no matter how right-wing, remains loyal to Christianity and its theocratic hope. For the progression from the Father to the Holy Ghost via the Son is a logical one, and must pass through autocratic, democratic, and theocratic stages in each case.

 

56. Probably the term 'Holy Ghost' is inadequate to define divinity on the level of the omega-of-omegas, given its Christian relativity as the 'Third Person' of the Blessed Trinity. If, as I have contended, Jehovah/Allah and the Father are not really one-and-the-same but indicative of an ancient/modern distinction between that which, as Jehovah/Allah, was effectively extrapolated from the central star of the Galaxy, and that which, as the Father, was partly extrapolated from the sun and partly from pagan phallic precedent, so that we have a divine/diabolic - worldly distinction relative to devolutionary and (at least in part) evolutionary positions, the former wholly devolutionary and the latter devolutionary in regard to the sun (diabolic alpha) but evolutionary in regard to the phallus (worldly omega), then one would have no logical justification in believing that the Holy Ghost was truly commensurate with superconscious mind and thus effectively equivalent to the omega-of-omegas. On the contrary, it would appear to be the nearest Western model to such a possibility and therefore inadequate for a truly global civilization which, as the term suggests, will be neither Eastern nor Western but beyond both the ancient East and the modern West in an omega futurity of superconscious divinity, a divinity as much omega as Jehovah/Allah is alpha. This ultimate divinity, corresponding to superconscious mind, could be described as pure spirit, superconsciousness, or indeed the omega-of-omegas, and probably such a description would be closer to Teilhard de Chardin's 'Omega Point' than the term 'Holy Ghost'. For it seems to me that the Holy Ghost is less superconscious mind per se than mind, including thoughts and fantasies, and is therefore no less a Western definition of omega divinity than the Father is, at any rate partly, a Western definition of alpha divinity - assuming the terms 'alpha' and 'omega' really do have any applicability here and we are not, rather, dealing with equally humanistic definitions which, together with Christ, pertain to a co-existential 'Three in One', the Father having bodily implications (with especial reference to the phallus), the Son soulful implications (with especial reference to the heart), and the Holy Ghost spiritual implications (with especial reference to the mind), so that body, soul, and mind are equally acknowledged, within the parameters of this Western civilization, on a co-existentially humanistic basis, a basis which inevitably falls short or, depending on your standpoint, fights shy of alpha and omega divine extremes, as relative to Jehovah/Allah on the one hand, that of the ancient cosmic-oriented civilizations, and to some as-yet-unarticulated superconscious divinity on the other hand, that of the coming global civilization which will be completely beyond both alpha and worldly alternatives ... in its own unequivocally omega-oriented integrity. Clearly, trinitarian terminology would be no less irrelevant to this future global civilization than Jehovah or Allah is irrelevant to the Christian civilization of humanistic modernity. This future global civilization will be as posterior to humanism as the civilizations of the 'ancient world', and the Near East in particular, were anterior to it. Hence neither the Father and the Son nor the Holy Ghost, but only that which is correlative with superconscious mind and, hence, ultimate divinity.

 

57. It would seem that, in relation to the mind as described above, the subconscious is no less anterior to the Holy Ghost than the superconscious posterior to it. And yet, if the Father is not solely a phallic extrapolation but was also extrapolated from the sun, then we can argue in terms of an alpha definition to the extent that a solar extrapolation is being inferred, which would suggest, contrary to the above, that the Father can pertain to the subconscious to a degree - namely to the degree of ordinary dreams as opposed to pure subconsciousness. Now if the Father can pertain to the subconscious to a degree, then it seems not unlikely that the Holy Ghost can pertain to the superconscious to a degree, and thus be relatively omega orientated on lines, antithetical to dreams, which approximate to the artificial visionary experience of, say, an LSD trip. Yet such a relative omega orientation would fall no less short of pure superconsciousness, and hence omega purism, than the relative alpha-oriented subconsciousness of dreams falls short of pure subconsciousness, and hence alpha purism, as germane to Allah/Jehovah, which may embrace those dreams of exceptional clarity and significance. Logically, I have of course been inconsistent to speak of the Father as extrapolated from the sun on the one hand and from the phallus of pagan precedent on the other; for the sun and the phallus are no more in parallel alignment than would be the subconscious and the fiery core of the earth. It would be more consistently logical to speak in terms of the Father either as an extrapolation from the sun and the fiery core of the earth or as an extrapolation from the subconscious and the phallus, since the former terms are no less cosmic than the latter are humanistic, and one should aim for consistency in these matters if one is not to be at cross-purposes with oneself. Clearly, either the cosmic or the humanistic correlations will suffice for such a theological extrapolation as the Father, though I fancy that the latter will have more relevance to a specifically humanistic age and civilization than the former, if only because they are indicative of a more evolved viewpoint. Of course, some people would question whether the Father, as indeed Christ and the Holy Ghost, need be extrapolated from anywhere. But such scepticism would fail to take cognizance of the fact that without some anterior source from which to extrapolate theological postulates, such postulates would lack both credibility and substance. In fact, they would be no more than mere figments of the imagination, and you cannot base a religion or religious observance on insubstantial figments! Unless there is a real correspondence to cosmic and/or natural precedent, such postulates would be meaningless.

 

58. If there is a parallel between the male orgasm and an active volcano, then we can believe that that aspect of the Father which is a phallic extrapolation (from pagan precedent) would have more relevance to the core of the earth than to nature generally, and so much so that, diabolic asides notwithstanding, one would have difficulty not associating the Mother (Blessed Virgin) with the latter in view of its comparatively superficial, and hence apparent, standing in relation to the masculine core - a standing which parallels that of the vagina to the penis in heterosexual relations. Hence 'Mother Nature' would indeed be confined to nature and not to the rather more cosmic core of the earth, which, in its fiery essence, would seem to have masculine connotations which make it logical to infer a phallic and, in particular, scrotal extrapolation in regard to the male pudenda. Thus fiery core vis--vis nature as a blueprint for scrotal phallus vis--vis vagina, and we may well believe that where the phallus is in harmony with the heart in a loving partnership between the two, its relationship to the vagina will be akin to that of the Father towards the Son in a loving relationship with the Mother. Conversely, the absence of love from the heart will reduce sexual relations between the phallus and the vagina, and thus by implication men and women, to one of lust, and thereby signify a diabolic rather than a divine situation in which, effectively, the Devil (rather than the Father) is imposing upon the world, the fiery core upon nature ... without reference to the moon and, hence, the loving Christ. Hence while the loving heart grants to the scrotal phallus a subworldly divine standing in relation to the Father, a sexually active phallus untempered by love is simply subworldly on a diabolic basis - the Devil as opposed to the Father, since lust, being cold-hearted, has no connection with love and therefore no relationship of Father to Son, alias the earth's core to the moon.

 

59. Just as I discussed drinks in relation to the Trinity/Virgin and then returned to the subject at a later juncture in order to fill-in the drinks relative, as I saw it, to Jehovah and thus, by implication, the 'ancient world', viz. spirits in relation to theocratic, democratic, and autocratic alternatives, but water in relation to the bureaucratic position underneath, so I will now return to the subject of sex and fill-in the sexuality relative to that world, with particular reference to its 'democratic' manifestations on account of their heterosexual nature. But before I do so I must point out that the sartorial norm for women in the context in question is of a wrap-around mode of attire akin to saris. Hence not only will the attire be ring-like ... to the extent that it is wrapped around the woman's body, but so too, I contend, will the approach to heterosexuality, by which is meant that one or both partner's legs will be wrapped around the other's body in a ring-like manner, reflective of the centrifugal nature of alpha-stemming, fundamentalist civilization. Hence for the right-wing 'democratic' approach to heterosexuality, the man will insert himself into the woman from behind while holding her by the thighs in a roughly horizontal position, the greater length of her legs thereby extending beyond his waist in a loose ring-like formation. In the case of the right-wing liberal position, however, the couple will be horizontally face-to-face with the man on top but the legs of the woman wrapped around his back, thereby establishing a ring-like impression. In the case of the left-wing liberal position, by contrast, the woman will be on top and the man's legs will be wrapped around her back. Finally, in the left-wing 'democratic' approach to heterosexuality, the woman will have her back turned on the man while his legs are wrapped around her stomach or even the underside of her thighs if she has her legs drawn up and, as in the left-liberal position, she will be the dominant partner. In all cases, however, the ring-like connotation of legs wrapped around one's partner will indicate the fundamentalist nature of this sexuality, which, so I contend, pertains to the centrifugal civilization of the 'ancient world' and not to any of the stages - Father, Son, or Holy Ghost - of Western civilization. As to theocratic and autocratic alternatives to the 'democratic' sexuality discussed above, I would argue that wet dreams pertain to the theocratic as the most alpha mode of voyeuristic sexuality, whereas masturbatory stimulation of the penis by a woman's hand would correspond to the devolutionary autocracy of oriental civilization, given the autocratic nature of masturbatory sexuality and the probability of a woman's involvement in view of the comparatively left-wing standing of autocracy in the ancient Islamic and oriental world, a standing in marked contrast to the right-wing theocracy, for example, of Islamic fundamentalism and its alpha-oriented conservatism. Hence involvement of the female in this autocratic mode of sexuality would confirm, it seems to me, the leftwards drift of sexuality from female-dominated intercourse to female-dominated masturbation. In contrast, it should be noted, to Western masturbatory sexual practices which, pertaining to an autocracy which is fundamentally alpha instead of omega (and therefore right wing instead of left), will be solely a male preserve, i.e. something indulged in by the male himself.

 

60. Broadly, thus far, I have argued as follows: that heterosexuality is essentially a democratic mode of sexuality which is flanked, as it were, by masturbatory and voyeuristic extremes - the former autocratic and the latter theocratic, whilst under this 'trinity' of sexual alternatives will be found the bureaucratic sexuality of lesbians and/or gays, pretty much as the Virgin under the Trinity - at least as far as lesbians are concerned. Though with gays I would argue that the rather more liberal (than Catholic) parallel of an Antivirgin under an Antitrinity would be the more relevant description, since one is dealing less with the religious than with the secular, less with wavicles than with particles, and therefore less with love than lust. Hence, for example, both the Antichristic and the Antivirginal modes of heterosexuality and homosexuality, respectively, would be comparatively diabolic because uninformed by love. Which is not to say that gays are invariably loveless, any more than lesbians invariably love each other, but that homosexuality is more often an expression of self-love than of love for another person, the fiery core turned back upon itself in defiance or rejection of nature. Yet both the Virginal and Antivirginal manifestations of homosexuality remain worldly or, rather, worldly in the case of lesbians (nature) but subworldly in the case of gays (fiery core), and hence modes of sexuality more appropriate to 'bodies' than to 'heads', which is to say to feminine bureaucrats rather than to masculine autocrats, democrats, or theocrats. Now in the case of the latter it will usually be found that voyeurism takes an oral turn, since oral sex is the most voyeuristic mode of sexuality, whether the vagina or the penis or, indeed, both at once be the focus of attention. As I see it, cunnilingus is relative to the theocracy of the Father (the theocracy of Jehovah having more intimate connections with wet dreams, as already discussed), and fellatio to both the theocracy of the Son and the Holy Ghost, depending on the context. In the case of cunnilingus, it is as though the sun rather than the core of the earth were imposing upon nature, a voyeuristic imposition upon the Mother by a transcendent Father, whereas in the case of fellatio it is as though the fiery core was being voyeuristically imposed upon by a flaming nature, a voyeuristic imposition upon the subworldly Father by a transcendent Mother. However, in the case of homosexual fellatio we are rather more in the context of the Holy Ghost, with a transcendent Father voyeuristically imposing upon the fiery core of the earth. Yet lesbian and gay oral sex is less theocratic than personally bureaucratic, or bureaucratic in a theocratic way, and should not be equated with genuinely theocratic sex. And even fellatio is less radically theocratic when indulged in by couples of the same race than when mixed-race couples are involved. For whereas the one pertains to the Son, the other pertains to the theocracy of the Holy Ghost and is therefore the most radical mode of fellatio, a mode which contrasts with the ring-like voyeurism of a cunnilingus/fellatio balance, as relative, so I contend, to the less extreme form of alpha theocracy within the context of Eastern civilization. But no less than a balanced ring-like oral indulgence is less extreme than wet dreams, so mixed-race fellatio is less extreme than gadget and/or video-induced phallic stimulation, which may or may not result in orgasm. This is the omega-of-omegas in theocratic sexual terms, the antithesis to wet dreams, and something which is effectively beyond reference to Western theocracy (of the Holy Ghost) in a context of sexual omega.

 

61. If masturbation is broadly autocratic in relation to coitus on the one hand and to oral sex on the other, then we still have to clarify the different class stages of masturbation (no less than of coitus and oral sex formerly) ... on the basis of a horizontal position for both ancient and modern aristocratic autocracies (the former with female assistance and the latter without), a seated position for bourgeois autocracy, and a standing position for proletarian autocracy, bearing in mind the contentions already put forward in relation to both coitus and oral sex. A man who masturbates himself while lying down would suggest, irrespective of his perceived class, a sexual affinity with the autocracy of the Father and thus, by implication, Royalism. A man who masturbates himself while seated in a chair and/or kneeling down would suggest a sexual affinity with the autocracy of Christ and thus, by implication, Parliamentarianism (Cromwell). A man who masturbates himself while standing up would suggest a sexual affinity with the autocracy of the Holy Ghost and thus, by implication, Communism. In each case, however, the centrifugal nature of his sexuality would confirm an autocratic bias, though it is more likely that the stimulus employed would differ as we progressed, as it were, from aristocratic naturalism to proletarian idealism via bourgeois materialism, the erotic stimulus becoming more artificial the higher the class stage of masturbation, so that whereas the man who prefers to masturbate while lying down would probably rely on fantasy to stimulate his masturbation, the man who habitually masturbates while standing up will more than likely rely on pornographic images of the sort to be found in men's magazines. Whether the man in between, the seated and/or kneeling one, would prefer to avail himself of the assistance of pornographic writings and/or drawings in books ... is perhaps a moot point. Though it does seem the most likely alternative, in view of the bourgeois status of seated masturbation and the inevitable corollary with books that leaps to mind whenever bourgeois criteria are under discussion. However that may be, we need not doubt that the masturbator is more a creature of orgasmic heat than of voyeuristic light, and that, no matter what the superficial stimulus may happen to be, his primary motivation for masturbating is to experience the thrill of orgasm within the fiery context of an autocratic bent. In this respect, he is the antithesis of the voyeur, whose principal motivation for having oral sex is the voyeuristic thrill of looking at his partner's face and/or scrutinizing her sex at close range, as the case may be. Yet more extreme than either the orgasmic masturbator or the oral voyeur is the theocratic contemplative who, whether in the naturalistic context of erotic dreams or in the artificial context of erotic videos, allows himself to be stimulated by the erotic spectacle alone, without reference to masturbatory or oral means. Such men, relative to the alpha and omega of theocratic sexuality, are above the body, and thus relate to the mind, whether anterior or posterior to the flesh.

 

62. It should be possible to distinguish between American-style baseball caps with emblem and those with logo on the front on the basis of a perceptual/conceptual dichotomy, and to accord to the former a Social Democratic status while reserving for the latter a Social Radical one, since it seems to me that these peaked caps are broadly democratic in terms of the democracy of the Holy Ghost, i.e. Social Democracy, and therefore correspond to a proletarian middle-ground in between 'autocratic' collapsibles and 'theocratic' hoods, the former communistic on account of their centrifugal construction and the latter transcendentalist on account of their centripetal construction - at least within the recognizably proletarian context of waist-length zipper jackets. Yet if emblematic baseball caps are right wing and logo-sporting ones left wing within broadly democratic terms, then it seems to me that those peaked caps which have neither emblem nor logo on the front are centrist and thus effectively Social Liberal. Hence one can distinguish between Social Democratic, Social Liberal, and Social Radical caps, which are rivalled by collapsible umbrellas and fold-in hoods ... on the autocratic and theocratic flanks of proletarian civilization, the civilization, I need hardly stress, of the Holy Ghost. Beneath this 'trinity', however, we shall find the bureaucracy of the Holy Ghost, and that those who relate more to bureaucracy than to autocracy, democracy, or theocracy will generally prefer not to wear headgear and/or protect their heads from the rain, being, by nature, more bodily than of the head.

 

63. A generic definition of Communism would be Social Autocracy, thereby bringing it into line with notions of Social Democracy and Social Theocracy in the autocracy, democracy, and theocracy, respectively, of the Holy Ghost. In contrast to which we of course have the liberal, or capitalist, autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the Son, viz., in England, Cromwellian autocracy, parliamentary democracy, and Puritan theocracy, not to mention the royalist, or feudal, autocracy, democracy, and theocracy of the Father, viz., in England, monarchic autocracy, peerist democracy (the House of Lords being the focal-point of this democracy), and Anglican/Catholic theocracy. Hence three stages of Western society with their trinitarian subdivisions - stages which can be regarded from a variety of angles, such as, for example, feudal, capitalist, and socialist (economic); aristocratic, bourgeois, and proletarian (social class); royalist, liberal, and communist (political); the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (religious); body, soul, and mind (physical/metaphysical); protons, neutrons, and electrons (elemental); realism, materialism, and idealism (ideological); beauty, goodness, and truth (moral). Such definitions, however, exclude the theocracy-democracy-autocracy divisions of traditional oriental civilization, which are rather more naturalistic, and hence cosmic orientated, than worldly or humanistic.

 

64. There seems to be a sense in which each decade aspires to reflecting a different ideological tendency, be it naturalistic, realistic, materialistic, or idealistic. Thus, for example, the idealistic 1950s (time of anti-Communist witch hunts and sci-fi films), but the naturalistic 1960s (time of hippy paganism and left-wing subversion). Contrasted to which the 1970s (with their grim strikes and class struggles) may well appear realistic, and the 1980s (time of Thatcherite enterprise culture) comparatively materialistic. In which case, we need not doubt that, like the '50s, the 1990s were an idealistic decade (the decade of the collapse of Communism and affirmation of spiritual values). In fact, if decades do follow a sort of naturalistic-realistic-materialistic-idealistic progression, then we could draw up a list stretching back into the nineteenth century and forwards into the twenty-first century, as follows: naturalistic 1880s, realistic 1890s, materialistic 1900s, idealistic 1910s; naturalistic 1920s, realistic 1930s, materialistic 1940s, idealistic 1950s; naturalistic 1960s, realistic 1970s, materialistic 1980s, idealistic 1990s; naturalistic 2000s, realistic 2010s, materialistic 2020s, idealistic 2030s, and so on.

 

65. The philosopher, the ultimate type of writer because the most idealistic, can only be 'king', in Plato's legendary sense, when society itself is ready to make an accommodation with idealism, and hence philosophy. So long as society is more given to either naturalism, realism, or materialism, the dramatist, poet, and novelist respectively will be 'king', in accordance with autocratic, bureaucratic, and democratic criteria, which necessarily exclude or marginalize the theocratic. For, ultimately, the philosopher is theocratic, and if he is excluded in an age of drama, he will be marginalized in an age of poetry or fiction. Conversely, it is the dramatist who will be excluded in an age of philosophy, and the poet and novelist marginalized, since idealism excludes naturalism no less than naturalism excludes idealism, and therefore truth will eclipse strength as literature, the most idealistic of the arts, comes properly into its own on the most idealistic and hence philosophical terms. But if truth must ultimately eclipse strength, neither beauty nor goodness can expect the same recognition or standing as would have been theirs in a less idealistic age, an age, as we have seen, of realism and materialism. Philosophy is assuredly as much 'beyond good and evil' as the Holy Spirit is beyond Christ. But it is also above beauty and ugliness, and consequently antithetical to strength and weakness. Alpha and omega cannot co-exist, unlike, to some extent, the world and purgatory, poetry and fiction. Omega must triumph utterly over alpha if the philosopher is truly to become 'king', and thus the most respected and beloved of writers. Literally the leader and teacher of the ultimate society.

 

66. When true to itself literature has no other business than the pursuit of truth, the meaning and purpose of life, and that literature which pursues the True most truly and comprehensively is the ultimate literature - the philosophy of philosophies, beyond which it is impossible to progress. That literature which, in novels, is more concerned with the Good than the True, with love than joy, is inferior to this ultimate literature, as, to a greater extent, is that literature which, in poetry, is more concerned with beauty, and hence pleasure, or that literature which, in drama, is more concerned with strength, and hence pride - the least truth-oriented literature and therefore the least moral and idealistic form of literary endeavour. No less than poetry and fiction are polar on a realistic/materialistic basis, so drama and philosophy would seem to be polar on a naturalistic/idealistic basis - the former polarity equivalent to earth and water, the latter polarity to fire and air. Now in a society which is omega orientated, the less drama and the more philosophy there will be ... in contrast to alpha-stemming societies, in which drama takes precedence over philosophy, and therefore strength over truth. The writer who affirms both drama and philosophy is neither fish nor fowl but a kind of amoral paradox who seemingly swings between alpha and omega extremes, and probably in such a fashion as to do justice neither to the one nor to the other. Similarly the man who swings between fictional and poetic extremes, purgatorial materialism and worldly realism, is neither fish nor fowl, Protestant nor Catholic, but a kind of paradoxical combination of the two, who may well be less of a poet or more of a novelist than he imagines himself to be. For one can no more serve goodness and beauty, love and pleasure, equally than ... serve strength and truth, pride and joy. Ethics is a Protestant concern, aesthetics a Catholic one, and in this polarity lies all the difference between Christ and the Blessed Virgin. Of course, fiction and poetry can also deal primarily with evil and ugliness, just as drama and philosophy can be primarily concerned with weakness and illusion, though these negative forms of the literary arts will be less literary than anti-literary and, hence, decadent and/or bogus, as relative to those who pertain not to the wavicle but to the particle aspect of any given atomicity, and may thus be identified, in theological parlance, with a fall from (wavicle) grace. Such 'antiliterature' is rather more characteristic of a secular than of a religious age, of 'the Civilization' as opposed to 'the Culture', to revert to Spengler again, and will therefore be more at home within the particle confines of journalistic media, including newspapers and magazines, than within the wavicle confines of literary media, such as paperbacks and hardbacks, irrespective of the fact that books are often subverted by material of an anti-literary nature, which, in relation to journalistic media, would seem to indicate an intrinsic as opposed to an extrinsic form of decadence, the subversion of 'the Culture' rather than the outright philistinism of 'the Civilization', which, contrary to what that term may suggest, is rather more barbarous than civilized, given its particle bias.

 

67. It is not that realism is biased towards the particle and materialism biased towards the wavicle, since both realism and materialism can be either religious or secular, Catholic/ Protestant or Liberal/Republican, as, of course, can naturalism and idealism, paganism and transcendentalism, alpha and omega of pre- and post-Western civilizations. Beauty and goodness, appertaining to realism and to materialism respectively, are biased towards the wavicle, whereas ugliness and evil, their negative concomitants, are biased towards the particle. Therefore while pleasure is the essence of Catholicism and love the essence of Protestantism, ugliness is the appearance of Liberalism and evil the appearance of Republicanism. For no more do wavicles have a primary appearance than particles a primary essence, and it would be no less contradictory to speak of the will of Liberalism than ... the body of Catholicism or the soul of Republicanism than ... the heart of Puritanism. With wavicles the essence is primary and the appearance secondary - pleasure before beauty, love before goodness, whereas with particles the appearance is primary and the essence secondary - ugliness before pain, evil before hate. We can no more judge a book (essential) by its cover (appearance) than a magazine (appearance) by its contents (essence). In the case of wavicle realism, the essence takes precedence over the appearance - say, pleasure over beauty in a volume of poetry (not antipoetry). In the case of particle realism, however, the appearance takes precedence over the essence - say, ugliness over pain in a liberal magazine. We read for pleasure (or love, pride, joy). We look for ugliness (or evil, weakness, illusion). Hence pleasure before beauty, but ugliness before pain; love before goodness, but evil before hate; pride before strength, but weakness before humiliation; joy before truth, but illusion before woe.

 

68. The essence of wavicles conditions their appearance. The appearance of particles conditions their essence. Wavicles - and, by extrapolation, wavicle-biased people - have the grace of the Elect. Particles - and, by extrapolation, particle-biased people - have the shame of the Fallen. The former, within their respective contexts, are saved, the latter ... damned. The most saved are the joyful and the least saved the proud. The most damned are the weak and the least damned the illusory. The others are saved and damned somewhere in between.

 

69. If strength/pride is the characteristic expression of rock music, particularly hard rock, then it would seem that rock is alpha, and hence autocratic. If truth/joy is the characteristic expression of jazz music, particularly modern jazz, then it would seem that jazz is omega, and hence theocratic. If goodness/love is the characteristic expression of soul music, then it would seem that soul is lunar, and hence democratic. If beauty/pleasure is the characteristic expression of pop music, then it would seem that pop is worldly, and hence bureaucratic. Put theologically, one could argue that rock is of the Father, soul of the Son, jazz of the Holy Ghost, and pop of the Virgin Mary. One could also argue that, instrumentally speaking, rock music is typified by drums, soul by keyboards, jazz by wind, and pop by guitars, since drums correspond to fire, keyboards to water, wind to air, and guitars to earth, and fire, water, air, and earth are the respective elements of alpha, purgatory, omega, and the world, or, put more bluntly and sweepingly, of the diabolic, the purgatorial, the divine, and the mundane, always bearing in mind, however, that wavicle/particle distinctions do exist within each category which are more symptomatic of positive and negative alternatives. Thus it could be argued that punk is more literally particle orientated, and hence diabolic, than rock, just as rap is more particle orientated than soul, blues more particle orientated than jazz, and funk more particle orientated than pop, so that we have anti-manifestations of their respective contexts which testify to a fallen status analogous to, though not necessarily commensurate with, the secular and diabolic. Of course, we also have in-between contexts, like soft rock in between hard rock and soul, rhythm 'n' blues in between soul and jazz, heavy metal in between punk and rap, house in between rap and blues, reggae in between pop and soul, hip-hop in between funk and rap, which somewhat complexify the issue and suggest that whether the spectrum be wavicle or particle, the axis vertical or horizontal, intermediate musical forms also have to be taken into account and accorded their ideological or moral dues. Yet it would seem that, broadly, rock is strength orientated, and therefore autocratic; soul goodness orientated, and therefore democratic; jazz truth orientated, and therefore theocratic; and pop beauty orientated, and therefore bureaucratic. Put in diagrammatic form, this would indicate, contrary to my previous speculations, that rock was alpha and soul purgatorial, with pop and jazz staying in their respective worldly and omega positions, as follows:-

 

ROCK/SOUL/JAZZ

(strength/pride)(goodness/love)(truth/joy)

|

|

|

|

|

|

POP

(beauty/pleasure)

 

 

with the particle (as opposed to wavicle) complementary forms listed in similar fashion, viz:-

 

PUNK/RAP/BLUES

(weakness/humiliation)(evil/hate)(illusion/woe)

|

|

|

|

|

|

FUNK

(ugliness/pain)

 

Should I be nearer the truth now, with regard to this particular subject, it could be that I can at last lay it to rest and conclude by saying that soul and pop are no less antithetical on a vertical axis than rock and jazz on a horizontal one, with soul being every bit as superior to pop as love to pleasure, or goodness to beauty, and jazz being every bit as superior to rock as joy to pride, or truth to strength.

 

70. From the external apparent (the Father, naturalism, 'Historyless Chaos') to the external essential (the Blessed Virgin, realism, 'the Culture') on the one hand, and from the internal apparent (Christ, materialism, 'the Civilization') to the internal essential (the Holy Spirit, idealism, 'Second Religiousness') on the other hand. Such, it would seem, is the course of evolution, which progresses from strength to beauty on the one hand (that of the external apparent and essential), and from goodness to truth on the other hand (that of the internal apparent and essential), with emblematic implications of the superstar and star in the cases of strength and beauty, but of the cross and supercross in the cases of goodness and truth. Put in terms of literary genres, it would seem that this evolution reflects a progression from drama to poetry on the one side (that of the superstar and star), but from narrative literature (fiction) to philosophy on the other side (that of the cross and supercross), so that drama and philosophy are polarized along an axis with the Father as its alpha and the Holy Spirit as its omega - strength and truth, the superstar and the supercross.

 

71. If the sixteenth century was an age of drama par excellence (Shakespeare), then it would seem logical to describe the seventeenth century as an age of poetry (Milton), the eighteenth century as an age of fiction (Swift), and the nineteenth century as an age of philosophy (Marx). For the twentieth century was most emphatically an age of film, and hence celluloid drama, and thereby resembled the sixteenth century - the first Elizabethan age. Probably the twelfth century was also, comparatively speaking, an age of drama ... as regards the enactment of medieval masks, nativity plays, etc., with the thirteenth century being an age of poetry (Chaucer), the fourteenth century an age of narrative literature (Boccaccio), and the fifteenth century an age of philosophy (Medieval scholasticism). Would it be stretching the imagination too far, I wonder, to contend that, the twentieth century being an age of film and hence artificial drama, the twenty-first century will be an age of poetry, the twenty-second century an age of fiction, and the twenty-third century an age of philosophy, albeit on equally artificial, or synthetic, terms? Only time will tell!

 

72. To speak of theism, deism, and atheism in a trinitarian light, viz. theism of the Father, deism of the Son, and atheism of the Holy Spirit, so that the Father is identified with Creation, the Son with a personalized non-revelationary deity, and the Holy Spirit with an atheistic rejection of theism and deism in the name of self-realization - internal essence at the expense of (the worship of) external and internal appearances, superstar and cross.

 

73. Rock being the alpha and jazz the omega of contemporary music (supermusic), one can logically speak of rock superstars, pop stars, soul crosses, and jazz supercrosses (not of soul stars and jazz stars), with an absolutist implication to both rock and jazz, but a relativistic implication to pop and soul, which are rather more worldly and lunar respectively. Likewise, one could also speak, if rather slangfully, of rock 'supercunts', pop 'cunts', soul 'pricks', and jazz 'superpricks', though the use of the prefixes in relation to the alpha and omega of contemporary music carries an ideological (autocratic/theocratic) implication rather than a sexual one, having less to do with a distinction between (good) males and (beautiful) females than between centrifugal and centripetal antitheses (strength and truth). In a sense, this reflects the head/body dichotomy relative to the 'super' and 'worldly' alternatives.

 

74. Just as there is a perceptual/conceptual distinction in literature between oral and literate traditions, the former uncivilized and the latter civilized, so this distinction can be found in music, with 'civilized' music being read from scores and 'uncivilized' music simply made up and played by ear - the former conceptual and the latter perceptual. For until and unless music is conceptualized through symbolic representation, it is not civilized but ... popular, populist, uncivilized. Traditionally, conceptual music, otherwise definable as 'classical', is on a par with literary books, whereas perceptual music, otherwise definable as 'pop', is on a par with films, so that one has a kind of bourgeois/proletarian distinction. Increasingly, in the future, conceptual music will be on a par with computer discs used for literary purposes, since its conceptualization will take the form of computers rather than music scores, and it will have grown out of and overhauled pop music (just as classical music grew out of folk music). Hence a sort of civilized proletarian music with 'superclassical' implications ... reminiscent of Jean-Michel Jarre in the late-twentieth century.

 

75. The conceptualization of music not only has the effect of centralizing it in symbolic representation, but also of elevating it from the aural to the optical, as from heat to light, alpha to omega, and thus rendering it truly civilized. It is in and through conceptualization that, like literature, music is 'divinized', i.e. elevated above the diabolic alpha of a purely aural heat. Not only is it given a centripetal focus, it is simultaneously eternalized through a symbolic representation which is optically accessible to all or, at any rate, to those who can read music. If folk music is uncivilized because purely aural, then classical is civilized because elevated to the optical. If pop is uncivilized because purely aural, then what may be termed superclassical is civilized because elevated to the optical. In fact, music availing itself of computerized scores would be 'supercivilized', in view of the connection between computers and electricity, a sort of artificial rather than naturalistic conceptualization which manifests through the medium of computer light. Hence while pop is artificial, or electric, in relation to folk, superclassical will be artificial, or electronic, in relation to classical, and we may hold that while folk and classical appertain to Christic naturalism, pop and superclassical appertain to transcendental supernaturalism, effectively being aligned with the Holy Spirit, whether autocratically (as in pop), democratically (as in pop/superclassical), or theocratically (as in superclassical), in which third context it is at an optical-light remove from aural heat and, hence, truly civilized or, what amounts to the same thing, saved. Probably the music of Jean-Michel Jarre pertains more to the democratic pop/superclassical compromise than to theocratic superclassicism, given its accommodation of drums, bass guitar, occasional electric guitar, etc. which are the sort of instruments more prevalent in pop (using that term in its widest, most generalized sense). A truly theocratic superclassicism would, one feels, be beyond any such compromise with alpha-stemming reactive instruments, i.e. instruments that are plucked, banged, etc., and to such an extent of being wholly synthesized and computerized, with percussion and rhythm electronically generated, in civilized autonomy.