ON GOD AND GODLINESS
Can you have godliness, or be godly, without God? Some people would like to think so, but, frankly, I don’t see how you can. After all, godliness is inseparable from God, even if to be godly doesn’t necessarily imply that one is God but, rather, one who is capable of understanding what God is, as, I believe, is the case with me.
So what, then, is God? God, or godliness, is a state of mind, more specifically it is a metaphysical ego, and metaphysical ego is not, unlike physical ego, egocentric, making an end out of knowledge, but, on the contrary, egoistic; that is to say, it knows itself to be true and it strives to vindicate its truth by self-transcending, via bound will and spirit (antiwill and antispirit) itself through joy, which is to metaphysical soul what truth is to metaphysical ego, its heavenly reward and justification, through metaphysical being, for metaphysical taking, the condition of divine, or metaphysical, ego.
The metaphysical ego of God the Father takes, not least of the metaphysical antiwill of the Son of God and the metaphysical antispirit of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, in order, through self-transcendence, to attain to the metaphysical being of Heaven the Holy Soul, which is even more profoundly of the universal self than the divine taking of metaphysical ego.
So an ego that wants to lose itself in soul or, rather, to lose itself in antiwill and antispirit in order to re-emerge in soul, an ego that, being godly, has only one objective in mind – namely the attainment of Heaven or, as I phrased it above, Heaven the Holy Soul, the goal and characteristic attribute of metaphysics.
For only in Heaven is God, or godliness, justified and vindicated; only in joy is the value of truth revealed. Therefore there is nothing wrong with the term ‘God’, provided one knows how to qualify it – an absolute necessity - in relation to metaphysical ego, and these days not so much in terms of metaphysical ego in the Cosmos (the least evolved stage or manifestation of metaphysics with arguably most god and least heaven), nor even of metaphysical ego in nature (the less – relative to least – evolved stage or manifestation of metaphysics with arguably more god and less heaven), still less of metaphysical ego in mankind (the more – relative to most – evolved stage or manifestation of metaphysics with, arguably, less god and more heaven), but, theoretically at least, in terms of metaphysical ego in cyborgkind (the most – and therefore definitive – stage or manifestation of metaphysics with, arguably, least god and most heaven), as a theoretical postulate that, hopefully, will see the light of day, so to speak, in ‘Kingdom Come’, about which subject, as indeed about the different and successive stages of metaphysics, I have theorized often enough in the past not to wish to further elaborate on it here.
Clearly, I am not an atheist, or someone who doesn’t believe in the existence or possibility of God, but neither am I one to acquiesce in anachronistic stages or manifestations of God, or godliness, from a global standpoint, deeming anything short of or anterior to the coming cyborg stage of metaphysics irrelevant to my concept of God, Buddhistic transcendental meditation not excepted.
But atheists aren’t usually people – let’s say males – who have limited patience with cosmic or natural or human metaphysics. Rather are they people who tend, for one reason or another, to lack a metaphysical dimension, often in consequence of some ethnic associations with a ‘religious bovaryization’, like fundamentalism or pantheism or humanism, with which, over a period of time, they have become disillusioned, turning against its characteristic concept of notion of God without the benefit of having seen thoroughly through it and moved on to ‘higher pastures’ of religious understanding.
They may, for instance, have turned against ‘Creatorism’, the Jehovah-esque God of the Old Testament, from disillusionment with the world and God’s ostensible role as its creator (nominally), without realizing that the fundamentalist God was never actually God in the first place but, among other things, Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, or the principal aspect of metachemical free soma, which is free will, hyped as what to one of my sort would be the egoistic aspect of metaphysical free psyche, as already described above.
Hence, quite apart from the other three aspects – free spirit, bound ego and bound soul (anti-ego and antisoul) - of metachemistry, they have become disillusioned with Beauty hyped as Truth without realizing that there was or is a hype of that nature there in the first place.
But a man who turns his back, as it were, on Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the ‘best of a bad job’ starting point of civilization, not least in its Judaic and Christian manifestations, has not really turned his back on God even if he thinks, through rejecting ‘the Creator’, that he has, any more than would one who had turned his back on Woman the Mother hyped if not exactly as God then, more usually, as Mother of God under the mistaken assumption that God was a kind of female pantheistic figure one could identify, like woman, with nature.
God, however, is neither metachemical and fundamentalist nor chemical and pantheist, beautiful nor proud, given that the most characteristic or representative aspect of chemistry, the Marian element (water), is spirit, and therefore maternal pride, not the strength of chemical free will which, though indubitably concomitant with spiritual pride, is no more chiefly representative, Woman the Mother-wise, of the element in question than would be spiritual love vis-à-vis wilful beauty in metachemistry.
Be that as it may, disillusionment with the chemical ‘bovaryization’ of religion would be no more a manifestation of disillusionment with God than with its metachemical counterpart, Devil the Mother, and in the chemical case the principal aspect or component thereof is, in any case, less Woman the Mother than what I have habitually called Purgatory the Clear Spirit, ‘clearness’ and not ‘holiness’ being a property of a hegemonic female element (objective) like chemistry.
Then there is the physical ‘bovaryization’ of religion which is less pantheistic than humanistic, tending, in the popular fancy, to revolve around the concept Son of Man, though, like Woman the Mother, that would be less representative of the physical fulcrum, as it were, than something associated with ego egocentrically, like Man the Father, or physical free ego for which knowledge is the principal - one might say the sovereign - factor.
Hah! So disillusionment with will, spirit, or ego hyped, variously and successively, as God is, I guess, quite understandable, and even if a person thought himself an atheist on that account, or any of those accounts, it would hardly qualify for disillusionment with God, or godliness, from the standpoint of metaphysics, quite apart from the various stages of metaphysics and thus of the ratio of God to Heaven. As I say, there are large numbers of persons who, for one ethnic reason or another, haven’t a clue what metaphysics is, and don’t even care to find out. If they think they are atheists simply because the Old Testament Creator or the New Testament Creations aren’t to their liking, they are a long way from convincing me that God doesn’t exist – at least as a metaphysical postulate, a state of mind which is true and capable of vindicating itself through joy, thereby transcending ego in soul and, hence, godliness in heavenliness, progressing from the one aspect of free metaphysical psyche to the other, even if via some degree of bound metaphysical soma, but never as a ‘thingful’ extrapolation from some free somatic religious ‘bovaryization’ whose female disposition is both powerful and glorious, wilful and spiritual, and therefore popularly associated with a whole lotta ‘thingful’ almightiness.
Yet this much I will concede: that God, in the aforementioned metaphysical sense, doesn’t now exist cyborgistically in relation to the universal unfolding of global civilization. He is still only a theory in a philosophic mind, a mind that sees itself as the ‘godfather’ of Social Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism, conceived by him as the ideological prerequisites of ‘Kingdom Come’ as a context or life-stage characterized not by political sovereignty, like the democratic present, nor even by economic interests capable of taking precedence over politics, but by religious sovereignty, something the people of (initially) certain countries would have to vote for if they wanted to become God (universally and globally) or, in the case of females, had no choice but to accept the pseudo-Devil, the pseudo-metachemical counterpart of God as the righteous destiny of metaphysical males.
For, ultimately, it is the People who must decide if they want to become God and/or the pseudo-Devil or not, since the self-appointed ‘Godfather of Kingdom Come’, the ‘inventor’ of religious sovereignty and ‘architect’ of Social Theocracy/Transcendentalism, is simply its theoretical precondition, not someone to be worshipped for himself, or his achievement, but used as a springboard to the practical implementation of Social Transcendentalism (religious praxis/church) through Social Theocracy (political front/state), whether or not he has any direct involvement in the process. For, like Marx before him in relation to Social Democracy, the ‘false communism’ of an economic mean, he can only do so much, being deeply theoretical, and may have to leave the practicalities of developing Social Theocracy to others who come after him and, like Lenin and Trotsky, make inroads into the political arena with a view to bringing the ‘true communism’ of Social Transcendentalism democratically to pass.
One thing is certain: a religiously sovereign proletariat or people will not come to pass of its own volition. It will require a degree of messianic intervention, if only to deliver them from their lowly mass or lapsed Catholic estates, and this in turn will require the politico-religious exploitation of the democratic framework in certain countries deemed axially ripe for church-hegemonic/state-subordinate upgrading in the near or not too distant future, if the dream of ‘Kingdom Come’ is to be turned into reality and bear all the hallmarks of a religiously-liberated populace, a populace for whom all the ‘old gods’ are truly ‘dead’ because they were never godly enough, but more usually God-defying ‘bovaryizations’ of religion that metaphysics had to live with simply because it could not, at that time or in relation to those other systems, ‘come out’ and proclaim itself and its right not only to exist but to supersede everything else, including chemistry and physics or, rather, pseudo-physics in the interests of a metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry, godliness over pseudo-devilishness, heaven over pseudo-hell, eternity over pseudo-infinity and, ultimately, celestial city over pseudo-vanity fair without mortal end.