One thing philosophy can do is to help one make sense of a variety of seemingly unrelated contexts and to perceive links or correlations between them. Take knives and handguns.
I have already distinguished the southwest from the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass in terms of chemistry over pseudo-physics vis-à-vis physics over pseudo-chemistry, the former pairing commensurate with phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, the latter with phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity.
So can knives and handguns be distinguished from one another, with conventional knives over straight-handled handguns on the one hand, and curve-handled handguns over retractable knives, or knives with a retractable blade, on the other hand.
Therefore a distinction between the phenomenal objectivity of straight knives, which have to be thrust forward into their object, and the phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of straight-handled handguns, which would parallel flared pants under flounced skirts or, for that matter, canned lager under bottled light ale, with the feminine-female pressures of phenomenal objectivity bearing down on the pseudo-physical in such fashion that some of these pressures, ever chemically objective, rub off onto them in the pseudo-subjective manner described.
Now if that is how things work out at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, which one would normally associate with a mass or lapsed catholic position, then they can only work out on a contrary basis across the axial – and ethnic – divide, at the southeast point of the said compass, where we would expect to find varying degrees of parliamentary/puritan criteria.
Hence we would find a distinction between the phenomenal subjectivity of curve-handled handguns and the phenomenal pseudo-objectivity of retractable knives, the blade of which is folded or hidden away in such fashion that it has to be released prior to being used, thereby paralleling tight skirts under tapering pants or, for that matter, bottled brown ale under canned stout, with the masculine-male pressures of phenomenal subjectivity bearing down on the pseudo-chemical in such fashion that some of these pressures, ever physically subjective, kind of rub off onto them in the pseudo-objective manner described above.
So, in overall terms, the phenomenal objectivity of knife thrusting, whether chemical or pseudo-chemical, has to be contrasted with the phenomenal subjectivity of trigger drawing, as the forefinger is wrapped around the trigger of the handgun and used to pull the latter towards the holder of the gun, whether physical or pseudo-physical, curved or straight.
As with literature and, I guess, ale and beer, gender-bender behaviour is not uncommon, especially among youths, and one finds male youths with knives and even a few females, from time to time, with handguns; which, in comparative terms, is probably more excusable if still far from acceptable from a gender representative point of view.
But if the pseudo-masculine male with a straight-handled knife is equivalent to the pseudo-masculine male dramatist in the immoral context of a quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physics (unmoral) and, hence, from straight-handled handguns and, analogously, free-verse poetry, then the feminine female with a straight-handled handgun would be equivalent to the pseudo-masculine male poet in the amoral context of a quasi pseudo-physical departure from chemistry (moral) and, hence, from straight-handled, non-retractable knives and, analogously, free-verse drama.
Conversely, if the pseudo-feminine female with the curve-handled handgun is equivalent to the masculine male philosopher in the immoral context of a quasi-physical departure from pseudo-chemistry (unmoral) and, hence, from retractable knives and, analogously, long-prose fiction (novels), then the masculine male with a retractable knife would be equivalent to the pseudo-feminine female novelist in the amoral context of a quasi pseudo-chemical departure from physics (moral) and, hence, from curve-handled handguns and, analogously, essayistic philosophy.
Hence whilst it is immoral for a pseudo-masculine male to carry a non-retractable knife in quasi-feminine female fashion, it would be only amoral for a feminine female to carry a straight-handled – and presumably straight-triggered – handgun, since that which is hegemonically moral, in this case heathenistically so, can only become amoral in descent, whereas whatever was unmoral in its unholy subordination to clearness will invariably become immoral once it steps over the gender line in relation to straight-handled knives, given the fact that it will be taking a 2½:1½ ratio of bound psyche to free soma into an elemental context, viz. chemistry, whose ratio of free soma to bound psyche is 2½:1½, viz. strength and pride to weakness and humility.
Hence with the gender likelihood of more weakness and humility (if not humiliation) in bound psyche than strength and pride in free soma, it is immorally undesirable for any pseudo-masculine male to step over the pseudo-physical/chemical line through a knife-carrying, if not wielding, proclivity.
Conversely, while it is immoral for a pseudo-feminine female to carry a curve-handled handgun in quasi-masculine male fashion, it will be only amoral for a masculine male to carry a retractable knife, since that which is hegemonically moral, in this case christianistically so, can only become amoral in descent, whereas whatever was unmoral, in its unclear subordination to holiness, will invariably become immoral once it steps over the gender line in relation to curve-handled handguns, given the fact that it will be taking a 2½:1½ ratio of bound soma to free psyche into an elemental context, viz. physics, whose ratio of free psyche to bound soma is 2½:1½, viz. knowledge and pleasure to ignorance and pain.
Hence with the gender likelihood of more ignorance and pain than knowledge and pleasure, it is immorally undesirable for any pseudo-feminine female to step over the pseudo-chemical/physical line through a handgun carrying, if not using, proclivity.
Of course, neither kinds of amorality, coming down from the opposite types of moral positions above, a plane up in each phenomenal case, would be greatly desirable either, since the want of adherence to either a chemical (if female) or a physical (if male) position only encourages the gender underdog to become immorally overreaching in an attempt to escape, under encroaching pressures, from his/her unmoral position, be that unholy in pseudo-physics or unclear in pseudo-chemistry, this latter of course the pseudo-feminine as opposed to pseudo-masculine position.
Naturally, what has been said about knives and handguns as phenomenal weapons could be said of their noumenal counterparts, swords and rifles, though with even more categorical assurance as to the undesirability of amoral or immoral gender cross-overs, given the 3:1 ratio which characterizes both metachemistry and metaphysics in their opposite ways, three times as much soma as psyche to metachemistry, three times as much psyche as soma to metaphysics, and therefore with similar criteria applying to pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry as to pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics at the northwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.
As regards retractable swords, I guess one cannot rule out the likelihood of bayonets as the most representative form of pseudo-metachemical complement to the metaphysical rifle, meaning one with a curved magazine if not handle which can fire several rounds a minute and will probably have telescopic sighting.
Such sophisticated rifles/submachine guns will have the metaphysical jump, so to speak, on retractable swords, or bayonets, pretty much as sophisticated modern helicopters, or choppers, on jump jets, both of which would conform to a kind of St. George and the Dragon parallel insofar as you imagine the Saint with his foot on a prone dragon, a slain objectivity which is then akin to an angel (not to mention, to switch metaphors, the proverbial lion that lays down with the lamb … of God) in a tight or straight dress, a pseudo-objective female, or pseudo-diabolic female, whose unclearness is the unmoral complement to the moral holiness standing triumphantly above her in the form of the blessed Saint, time with its repetitive foot on the spaced-out pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-space at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
In such fashion do latter-day choppers, as I prefer to call them, stand triumphantly above jump jets, conceived as a kind of pseudo-jet which has been subjected to repetitive pressures, that can hover in the manner of a chopper and whose technology thus effectively defers, in spaced fashion, to the hegemonic factor, like an avenging angel of the Lord, who just happens to be a godly saint.
Of course, one could argue, on the basis of my ‘short’/’long’ distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal, the ethereal and the corporeal, that knives and handguns correspond to the former while swords and rifles correspond to the latter, as though indicative of a fall from noumenal ethereality into phenomenal corporeality, from the elemental to the molecular, whether on particle-dominated (chemical/pseudo-physical) or wavicle-dominated (physical/pseudo-chemical) general terms.
In which case knives and handguns would be metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical or metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical, and, by contrast, swords and rifles chemical/pseudo-physical or physical/pseudo-chemical, depending on the axis and therefore the gender orientation in each case.
But although there appears to be a logical symmetry to such a theory, I don’t personally believe in it, if only because swords and rifles seem to be much more elevated types of weapons than knives and handguns, having upper-order associations that one would hesitate to identify with the masses.
Evidently the ‘short’/’long’ theory, which I initially cited in connection with the literary divisions of drama, poetry, prose and philosophy, only applies in certain contexts, not everywhere. In which case, the existing theory of knives and handguns vis-à-vis swords and rifles would stand, irrespective of its incompatibility with the ‘short’/’long’ theory cited above.
I shall continue to keep an open mind, however, in view of the conflict that often arises between common usage and philosophical logic, not to mention my categorical knowledge that elemental particles and elemental wavicles are ‘short’ and hence noumenal, whereas molecular particles and molecular wavicles are ‘long’ and hence phenomenal, the particle subatomic positions corresponding to the concrete, whether noumenal or phenomenal, and the wavicle subatomic positions to the abstract, again whether phenomenal or noumenal.
Swords and rifles, to return to our thesis, are incontestably ‘long’ vis-à-vis knives and handguns, like dresses and zipper-suits vis-à-vis skirts and pants, and yet the latter do not suggest – at least to me – a noumenal standing analogous to elemental particles and wavicles respectively. Perhaps that owes something to the fact that the relationship between beers and wines, normally identifiable with a lower-order/upper-order class dichotomy, is one in which the former are normally ‘short’ and the latter ‘long’, which is to say, are stored in tall as opposed to squat bottles so that, notwithstanding the parts played by kegs and cans, one can infer a parallel with swords and rifles in the case of wine bottles and possibly kegs, leaving to bottled ale a parallel with knives and to canned lager and/or stout a parallel with handguns, as already intimated.
One could also say, in returning to the start of this project, that the world sometimes defies philosophy’s attempt to understand it, or obliges philosophy to, as it were, wrap itself around it rather than subsume it into itself in the manner of an overarching ideology.
Sometimes the subsuming of the world can only be taken so far, others factors notwithstanding, because there remains a distinction between what can be understood of the world and what actually transcends it in terms of an overarching or transcendent ideology, whose viewpoint may sometimes be in conflict with the world and often simply lie beyond it.
Such is the case with Social Theocracy, which makes no claim to worldly approval, still less knowledge, but has only the overcoming of the world conceived in terms of the mass catholic position, traditional or lapsed, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass as its raison d’être, a world-overcoming that would deliver the aforementioned pseudo-physical/chemical people from their lowly estates to the otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly heights of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical Beyond, thereby saving and counter-damning them, according to gender, not only from themselves but from those who avail of their pseudo-masculine meekness and feminine pseudo-vanity to prey upon them from the vantage-point of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where somatic license is sovereign, one might even say ‘queen’ (as in England and the UK generally), and with the end in mind of bringing this predatory axis – the secular fruit of schismatic heresy – down for want of prey.
For only when the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis has been deprived of prey will it be brought down, as the modern-day version of Jehovah’s unequivocal reign over Satan, to face its judgement at the hands of those at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass for whom the Son of Man’s reign over what could be called Antiwoman the Antimother or, more representatively, pseudo-Woman the pseudo-Mother is the christianistic norm, with physical and pseudo-chemical implications for pseudo-righteousness and justice.
Thus will the damned and pseudo-saved, the fallen and counter-risen, be judged, and thus will the physical and pseudo-chemical earn the right to axial transference to the southwest point of the said intercardinal compass, where, duly made over in pseudo-physical and chemical terms, their salvation and counter-damnation to metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry will follow as a matter of course, enabling them to join with those who had already been delivered in such fashion and to give the process of metaphysical evolution and pseudo-metachemical counter-devolution a spur in the directions of increased purism or purity, whether with respect to the supersession of visionary substances like LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide, or ‘acid’) by unitive substances like cocaine (‘coke’) in the case of psychic expansion from ego to soul, godliness to heavenliness, truth to joy, brain stem to spinal cord, in metaphysics or, correlatively, with respect to the supersession of tranquillizers like morphine by narcotics like heroin (‘smack’) in the case of somatic contraction from pseudo-spirit to pseudo-will, pseudo-devilishness to pseudo-hellishness, ugliness to hatred (of somatic self, not least free soma), blood to heart, in pseudo-metachemistry.
Thus from out of the kind of ‘supercatholic’ ego/pseudo-spirit dichotomy will emerge the soul/pseudo-will dichotomy of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry writ large, so to speak, as the Centre (analogous to ‘Kingdom Come’) progresses and counter-regresses towards its totalitarian apotheosis, abandoning the relativity, one might even say the pluralism, of its Social Theocratic inception for the absolutism, still respectful of gender, of its Social Transcendentalist resolution and evolutionary/counter-devolutionary consummation in the utmost soul/pseudo-will of Heaven and pseudo-Hell.
Such will be the true Communism that emerges out of the socialistic theocracy as the culmination of the Centre, and it will require both the utmost communal cyborgization of the religiously sovereign and the utmost space-centre development in order that the Social Transcendentalist apotheosis may come to pass as the antithesis of everything cosmic.
For the Cosmos is rooted in whores and demons, stars and suns, or, more critically, superstars and pseudo-supercrosses (upended ‘supercrosses’ like the CND emblem), heat and pseudo-light, and this ultimate manifestation of ‘Kingdom Come’ will be centred, by contrast, in saints and angels, supercrosses and pseudo-superstars (contiguously encircled ‘superstars’), light and pseudo-heat, as though an ultimate manifestation of St. George and the Dragon, albeit a narcotically slain dragon that is only angelic, tight dress-wise, because of the extent to which it has been rendered senseless and thereby is unable to threaten the peace in grace and wisdom of the holy elect of metaphysical self-awareness, all those supra-human saints in the heavenliness of spinal-cord soul, for whom the persistence of perfect self-harmony in self-togetherness is the ultimate joy.
Thus one might well have a kind of ‘coked up’/’smacked down’ dichotomy between the metaphysically saved and the pseudo-metachemically counter-damned, the former delivered from their bound-psychic sin to the utmost expanded psychic self in soulful self-affirmation, the latter delivered from their free-somatic pseudo-evil to the utmost contracted somatic self in pseudo-wilful self-denial, a contrast not only between grace and pseudo-goodness, holiness and unclearness or, more correctly, pseudo-unclearness, but between blessedness and pseudo-cursedness (counter-cursedness), the blessedness of holy self-affirmation and the pseudo-cursedness of pseudo-unclear self-denial, since the freedom of the psychic self of males demands the enslavement of the somatic self of pseudo-females, without which there is no hegemonic triumph of holiness for St. George over his pseudo-metachemical counterpart in the eternity of metaphysical perfection, and therefore no ‘lying down’ of the neutralized ‘lion’ with the elevated ‘lamb’.
Thus the metaphysical perfection, in blessed holiness, of Eternity requires the pseudo-metachemical imperfection, in counter-cursed pseudo-unclearness, of pseudo-Infinity, whose pseudo-objectivity, constrained beyond all previously known bounds to the utmost pseudo-spiritual pseudo-giving and, ultimately, pseudo-wilful pseudo-doing, will enable the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics first of all to take and then, ultimately, to be as never before.
It is not as if one is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rather, it is Pauline who is being deprived of her somatic freedom in order that Peter may be all the psychically freer, may know the bliss of perfect self-harmony for all Eternity.
And know it cyborgistically, not humanly or naturally or even cosmically (the latter two subjected to analytical vitiation at the hands of more prevalent objectivities), as in the pre-centrist past, but within the synthetically artificial context of that substance-oriented communal cyborgization that will be his religiously sovereign right.
If one may cite a distinction between the superhuman and the supra-human, it will not only be within the cyborg communes as the progression and counter-regression, according to gender, from relativity to absolutism, pluralism to monism, ego/pseudo-spirit ‘liberalism’ to soul/pseudo-will ‘totalitarianism’, but, more generally, in relation to the ongoing dichotomy between the administrative aside to the Centre-proper and all those who had voted for religious sovereignty and were entitled to superhuman service in the interests of their supra-human godliness/heavenliness and pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness, entitled to be protected and advanced in their rights by those whose cyborgization would be less than communal, indeed intensely personal or individual, that they might better serve those whose communal cyborgization will be of the Centre-proper, meaning the ‘church’ rather than ‘state’ aspect of ‘Kingdom Come’, which we can increasingly identify with Social Transcendentalism at the expense of Social Theocracy (and a gradual Y-like supra-cross purism at the expense of the supercross), even though, initially, there will be more Social Theocracy than Social Transcendentalism, if only because revolutionary change is a difficult and protracted process that will have much to concern itself with outside the immediate confines of the Centre, not least in terms of the eradication of traditional political and religious obstacles to the advancement of political and religious or, more correctly, politico-religious progress, as defined by the coming to power of Social Theocracy and the furtherance of its Social Transcendentalist ambitions.
Yet Social Theocracy, the ‘state’ aspect of the Centre, will not come to power without a struggle with the political and religious status quo, which it must democratically vanquish by not only securing the right to operate within the political arena but, in so operating, to achieve from the electorate a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, in order that it may begin the process of removing anachronistic obstacles to the people’s religiously sovereign will the better to consolidate and develop, out of Social Theocratic revolution, what is properly Social Transcendentalist and, hence, quintessentially germane to the ‘church’ aspect of the Centre, which, as noted above, will appertain to the Centre-proper.