THE TRUE END OF RELIGION
So much is the elemental wavicle context of metaphysics characterized by soul, and thus heavenly joy, that it could reasonably be said that ego, being egoistic rather than egocentric here, is complementary to or affiliated with soul to such an extent that it does not have an independent existence but is consciously or, rather, superconsciously disposed to subsume itself into soul as its proper goal and resolution.
It is not as though we are dealing with ego per se, a molecular wavicle entity associated, neutronically, with physics, which, being egocentric, would regard itself as an end-in-itself. On the contrary, the ‘bovaryized’ ego of metaphysics, which can be termed godly or even, with due qualification, God, is the child or consequence of an elemental wavicle subatomicity dominated by photons, and therefore only exists in relation to soul, as though soul, which is inner feeling (emotion) had permitted a consciousness to exist superconsciously whose sole raison d’ętre was to understand and develop, through what is called metaphysical truth, the knowledge necessary to the achievement, for itself or, more correctly, for that to which it is affiliated, the maximum degree and extent of soul.
Thus truth in this higher sense is not only the godchild of joy, as God of Heaven, but it is the means that soul requires in order for it, against all the odds and alternative distractions or even impositions, to attain to its maximum self-realization, truth vindicated by joy as godliness by heavenliness.
If, then, God or godliness, viz. metaphysical ego, is of less significance than Heaven or heavenliness, viz. metaphysical soul, why is it that, almost without exception, traditional and conventional religions have stressed God at the expense of Heaven and thus, by implication, ego at the expense of soul?
Obviously, early or formative metaphysics, which I equate with cosmic and natural environments or, at any rate, with the metaphysical aspect of such environments, would have acknowledged and actually represented more God than Heaven, more ego than soul, more form than contentment, but that would owe something if not everything to the more representative cosmic and natural bodies that, leading to ‘bovaryized religions’, had less to do with ego or soul than with will and spirit, contexts dominated, I mean, by metachemistry (fire) and chemistry (water) to the detriment of physics (vegetation and/or earth) and metaphysics (gas and/or air).
Even mankind conceived, humanistically, as a particular environment or life-stage, would, in physics, be a context dominated not by soul but by ego, and so much so that, proto-cyborgistic intimations of soul through disciplines like transcendental meditation notwithstanding, religions centred around ego must indubitably grant pride of place to knowledge, not only in terms of Bible-study or scriptural exegesis but, through intellect (the vegetative essence of egocentric mankind) prayer, whether learned or improvised, recited or personal.
But even ego, though manifestly inferior to soul from a religious standpoint, is beyond will and spirit, the representative cosmic and natural approaches to religion which are in effect the least religious because the most scientific or political, as the case may be, as also, of course, the most female in character, with elemental particle (will) and molecular particle (spirit) subatomic implications tending to favour protons and electrons over neutrons and photons.
But when religion is associated, in fundamentalist and pantheist terms, with will and spirit, power and glory, one gets an emphasis on God as a ‘thingfulness’ that derives from the somatic, or bodily, basis of female-dominated elemental contexts like metachemistry and chemistry, and such an ascription of ‘thingfulness’ to God, even unto the extent of ‘the Almighty’, precludes the term from being interpreted in a physical, much less metaphysical, light, whereby, in relation to the male side of things, psyche takes precedence over soma, as mind over body, and form and contentment, corresponding to ego and soul, are accordingly the focal-points of ‘divine’ reference.
Yet, as we have seen, ego is less godly when physical than manly, less egoistic than egocentric, with humanist rather than transcendentalist implications, and therefore only another stage of ‘religious bovaryization’. By the time one gets to metaphysics, and particularly to a metaphysics unhampered or simply not compromised by metachemical, chemical, or physical, i.e. fundamentalist, pantheist, or humanist impositions or influences tending towards metaphysical vitiation, but, rather, a properly universal metaphysics germane to a cyborgistic stage of life beyond, potentially if not actually, all of the other stages, it should be evident that ego counts for much less than soul, and that even if and when we use the term ‘God’ in relation to metaphysical ego we are aware that it has absolutely no somatic correlations whatsoever, that it is a ‘no-thing’ (but not on that account ‘nothing’) in relation to the successive orders of ‘thingfulness’ especially characterizing metachemical and chemical approaches to religion, and that, as a state of mind, a state less of supreme beingfulness, by the way, than of a supreme-beingfully-oriented form of supreme taking, it has no other business than to bring about, through superconsciousness of what needs to be done or rather taken account of, the maxim extent of supreme beingfulness to which such ego can aspire, thereby transcending itself in the achievement of that supreme kind of being which is of the metaphysical soul and a condition less of God than of Heaven, less of truth than of joy, less of form than of contentment, and therefore at the furthest possible remove from anything powerfully supreme in the elemental particle subatomicity (protonic) of metachemical free will, viz. of what has traditionally been identified, as the Creator, the Father, the Almighty, Jehovah, etc. with God!
Although conventionally identified with a Supreme Being, such a ‘bovaryized’ religious entity is less joyfully beingful than beautifully doingful, a kind of Supreme Doing, and therefore the Devil-the-Mother alpha beginning of things as opposed, with metaphysical free soul, to their Heaven-the-Holy-Soul omega ending of things through a god-transcending ‘thinglessness’ that, being joyfully supreme, is the true end or goal of religious evolution.
And by ‘true end’ of religious evolution I allude less to the successive stages of ‘bovaryized religion’, i.e. metachemical, chemical, and physical, than of the successive stages of metaphysics, from cosmic and natural to human and, to anticipate the coming ‘kingdom’, cyborg, in which the ratios of God to Heaven, as of ego to soul, would have continued to evolve from most god and least heaven cosmically to, hypothetically, most heaven and least god cyborgistically via the intermediate, or natural and human, stages of more (relative to most) god and less (relative to least) heaven vis-ŕ-vis less (relative to least) god and more (relative to most) heaven, all but the cyborg stage of which no longer have any metaphysical credibility in what is, by any accounts, an age of global advancement towards the maximum universality in the utmost metaphysical centro-complexification.