Peace does not come, as deluded males like to think, through compromise with females, but from being true to yourself, as a male, in relation to either the half-peace (phenomenal) of ego or the full peace (noumenal) of soul, neither of which can survive unscathed the onslaughts of the half-war (phenomenal) of spirit or the full war (noumenal) of will as waged by the gender enemies of ego and soul. When art is concrete, or figurative, it bears the hallmarks of female dominion through either if not both will and spirit. When, by contrast, art is abstract, or non-figurative, one gets the impression of male independence, via ego and/or soul, from the dominance of will and/or spirit and, hence, of female values generally. Hitherto, concrete art has tended to predominate over its abstract antithesis. For males, even as artists, are generally dominated by females, whether or not they realize the fact. Art that is in any degree credibly metaphysical, and hence truly religious, could only be abstract, never concrete! You do not figuratively represent God in Heaven, even if art, to be meaningful, must at least strive to represent such concepts or even actualities through abstract means. For abstraction, by contrast, that was an end-in-itself would not be art but decoration, whether in relation to craft or to some architectural structure. Art is not decoration because, unlike craft (say pottery) or, for that matter, architecture, it is non-utilitarian in character and therefore must be meaningful in its own right by signifying, whether through concrete or abstract means, some concept or actuality lying beyond the boundaries of mere craft. Now for this to truly succeed, it is better that art should be abstract or, at worst, pseudo-concrete, with impressive or pseudo-expressive attributes which are likely to do most justice to either the metaphysical or, in the case of pseudo-concretion, the pseudo-metachemical which, being pseudo-female rather than male, should not rise above the pseudo-expressive. Compared to music, however, art is the art form least likely, even when impressively abstract, to do most artistic justice to metaphysics, even if the justice or, more correctly, pseudo-justice done to pseudo-metachemistry (by pseudo-expressive pseudo-concretion) is likely to be more successful and somehow credible than could be achieved from its musical counterpart, given that music must be at a disadvantage to art when it comes to delineating or representing pseudo-space. Art and sculpture are the outer, or female, arts; literature and music the inner, or male, arts – an objective/subjective distinction which the bovaryization, or attenuated transmutation, of any given art form towards some other art form may obscure but which, in relation to the representative manifestation or actual fulcrum of any given art form, is nevertheless effectively the case.
1. In basic terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of a gender hegemonic polarity between art and literature, as between metachemistry and physics (corresponding, in simple elemental terms, to fire and vegetation), with a gender subordinate polarity between pseudo-music and pseudo-sculpture, pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to pseudo-air and pseudo-water, or air subverted by a fiery hegemony and water subverted by a vegetative one).
2. Contrariwise the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis presents us with evidence of a gender hegemonic polarity between sculpture and music, chemistry and metaphysics (corresponding, in simple elemental terms, to water and air), with a gender subordinate polarity between pseudo-literature and pseudo-art, pseudo-physics and pseudo-metachemistry (corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and pseudo-fire, or vegetation subverted by a watery hegemony and fire subverted by an airy one).
3. In the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, this gives us a primary (overall female) polarity between art and pseudo-sculpture, metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry (corresponding to fire and pseudo-water), with a secondary (overall male) polarity between pseudo-music and literature, pseudo-metaphysics and physics (corresponding to pseudo-air and vegetation).
4. In the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, on the other hand, we have a primary (overall male) polarity between pseudo-literature and music, pseudo-physics and metaphysics (corresponding to pseudo-vegetation and air), with a secondary (overall female) polarity between sculpture and pseudo-art, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry (corresponding to water and pseudo-fire).
When true to themselves, so to speak, as against being bovaryized towards one or another of the alternative elements/pseudo-elements, art and music are noumenal, or ethereal, art forms having upper-class connotations, while sculpture and literature, likewise when true to themselves, are phenomenal, or corporeal, art forms having lower-class connotations, bovaryized exceptions to the general rule in the case of both the former and latter art forms notwithstanding. But, in representatively gender terms, art and sculpture are, like will and spirit, power and glory, fundamentally on the female side of the gender divide due to their concrete absolute (elemental) and concrete relative (molecular) objectivity, whereas literature and music, like ego and soul, form and contentment, essentially appertain to the male side of the gender divide due to their abstract relative (molecular) and abstract absolute (elemental) subjectivity. No less than the concrete arts, like painting and sculpture, are objective because particular, or stemming from a particle bias normally to be associated with competitive individualism, as in relation to portraiture (painting) and figurative monuments (sculpture), so the abstract arts, like literature and music, are subjective because wavicular, or stemming from a wavicle bias normally to be associated with cooperative collectivism, as in relation to chapters (literature) and movements (music). No less than particles, being female, are rooted in a vacuum, so wavicles, being male, are centred in a plenum, a kind of negative/positive or, better, objective/subjective distinction which informs the Arts as much as it informs and characterizes life itself.
1. Art begins in metachemistry, to which, as a noumenally objective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in chemistry, twice bovaryized in phyiscs, and thrice bovaryized in metaphysics, regressing from the absolute concrete to the absolute abstract via the relative concrete and relative abstract.
2. Sculpture begins in chemistry, to which, as a phenomenally objective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in metachemistry, twice bovaryized in metaphysics, and thrice bovaryized in physics, regressing from the relative concrete to the relative abstract via the absolute concrete and absolute abstract.
3. Literature begins in physics, to which, as a phenomenally subjective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in metaphysics, twice bovaryized in metachemistry, and thrice bovaryized in chemistry, regressing from the relative abstract to the relative concrete via the absolute abstract and absolute concrete.
4. Music begins in metaphysics, to which, as a noumenally subjective art form, it properly pertains, and is once bovaryized in physics, twice bovaryized in chemistry and thrice bovaryized in metachemistry, regressing from the absolute abstract to the absolute concrete via the relative abstract and relative concrete.
The anti-forms of art, sculpture, literature, and music tend to begin in the 'pseudo' manifestation (under a hegemonic antithetical art form) of their proper element, be it pseudo-metaphysics vis-a-vis metaphysics in the case of music, pseudo-physics vis-a-vis physics in the case of literature, pseudo-chemistry vis-a-vis chemistry in the case of sculpture, or pseudo-metachemistry vis-a-vis metachemistry in the case of art, and regress to the same gender or, rather, pseudo-gender pseudo-elemental position before crossing the gender fence, as it were, in relation to the opposite pseudo-elemental positions, whether initially noumenal or phenomenal, depending on the point of axial departure. Therefore in relation to pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-metaphysics would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-art; in relation to pseudo-chemistry, pseudo-physics would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-sculpture; in relation to pseudo-physics, pseudo-chemistry would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-literature; and in relation to pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-metachemistry would constitute the most (thrice) bovaryized approach to pseudo-music, with 'less' and 'more' bovaryized approaches to any given pseudo-art form coming in between what could be described as the least bovaryized, or pseudo-representative mode of pseudo-art, and its most bovaryized mode. Do I need to explain all this in non-philosophical language, drawing attention to the respective concrete and abstract approaches (noumenal or phenomenal) to both the Arts and the Anti-Arts? No, I don't believe so, although there is nothing to stop other people attempting it. However, I will give you a clue as to what I mean and of the complexity of the overall task. Take music, for instance, which gives us a concrete/abstract dichotomy, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes, between pitch and melody on the one hand, and harmony and rhythm on the other, as between space and volume in the case of the concrete options, and mass and time in that of the abstract ones. In simple parlance, pitch is no less noumenally antithetical to rhythm than melody phenomenally antithetical to harmony. But there are also the 'pseudo' manifestations of musical characteristics to bear in mind, whether in terms of pseudo-rhythm under pitch, pseudo-harmony under melody, pseudo-melody under harmony, or pseudo-pitch under rhythm, a plane down from the hegemonic element in each pseudo-elemental and effectively subordinate case, like pseudo-time under space, pseudo-mass under volume, pseudo-volume under mass, and pseudo-space under time. Now, as I've argued before, if space is spatial (which on account of the elemental particles of its noumenally objective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-space is spaced; if volume is volumetric (which on account of the molecular particles of its phenomenally objective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-volume is voluminous; if mass is massive (which on account of the molecular wavicles of its phenomenally subjective nature it relatively is), then pseudo-mass is massed; and if time is repetitive (which on account of the elemental wavicles of its noumenally subjective nature it absolutely is), then pseudo-time is sequential. Hence the sequential nature or, rather, pseudo-nature of pseudo-time under space (which is spatial) is musically commensurate with pseudo-rhythm under pitch; hence the massed pseudo-nature of pseudo-mass under volume (which is volumetric) is musically commensurate with pseudo-harmony under melody; hence the voluminous pseudo-nature of pseudo-volume under mass (which is massive) is musically commensurate with pseudo-melody under harmony; and hence the spaced pseudo-nature of pseudo-space under time (which is repetitive) is musically commensurate with pseudo-pitch under rhythm.
Is architecture a high art form, a kind of fine
art? Some would contend that, in certain instances, like the Taj Mahal or the
The primary sex are usually if not invariably early and the secondary sex usually if not invariably late, as in getting up early and going to bed early in the case of adult females, and getting up late and going to bed late in the case of adult males. How often have I heard women grumbling about the difficulty of getting their husbands out of bed in the early morning! And yet, to their wives' annoyance, most husbands are no less reluctant to go to bed early and sacrifice the evening's late-night entertainment on the television or whatever. Following on from the above, when the First shall be last and the Last first, then the primary gender will be subordinate to the hegemonic sway of the secondary gender who, as free males, will have the peace that surpasses the half-peace of egocentric understanding (knowledge) and, hence, of a phenomenal hegemony axially beholden to the domination, or sovereignty, of noumenal primacy in the guise of the somatic licence appertaining to and characteristic of metachemistry. Would you expect original knowledge from a female, meaning somebody of the gender that embodies the primacy of beauty and strength (more correctly of pride in relation to the spirit fulcrum of chemistry)? That is, from a gender that receives much if not most of its knowledge second-hand, via the male it happens to have battened-on to for purposes of reproduction? Normally one wouldn't, because original knowledge, that product of egocentric deliberation within a free mind, is not germane to the female equation, and even such knowledge as they acquire via the male of their choosing is likely, sooner or later, to be subverted and twisted out of all recognition, not least to suit the utilitarian designs of beauty and strength (pride). Female liberation, or the liberation of females from male hegemonic (chauvinistic?) influence and, to varying extents, control, inevitably implies the subversion if not abandonment of knowledge and truth (to speak in parallel terms that overlooks the actual fulcrum of the metaphysical element) for strength (again using parallel terms at the expense of the actual fulcrum of the chemical element) and beauty, society thereby regressing from male hegemonic control to the dominance, in hegemonic vein, of females in terms of both beauty axially at the expense of knowledge and strength axially at the expense of truth, beauty excluding truth across the noumenal (ethereal) axial divide, and strength excluding knowledge across the phenomenal (corporeal) axial divide, so that pseudo-truth and pseudo-knowledge tend to be the concomitant metachemically-subverted and chemically-subverted subordinate gender complements, respectively, of beauty and strength.
With regards to literature, one should contrast the literary per se, as it were, of narrative prose, usually in the form of novels, with the once-bovaryized literature of philosophy, the twice-bovaryized literature of drama, and the thrice-bovaryized literature of poetry, the literary genre furthest removed from literature proper, as one regresses from prose to poetry (the 'sculpture' of literature) via philosophy and drama, as from physics to chemistry via metaphysics and metachemistry, whilst not overlooking the roles played by pseudo-prose, pseudo-drama, pseudo-philosophy, and pseudo-poetry, those anti-literature genres which would appear to regress from pseudo-physics to pseudo-chemistry via pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, as from pseudo-prose to pseudo-poetry via pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-drama. Hence, in overall terms, from the pairing of prose and pseudo-poetry to the pairing of poetry and pseudo-prose via the pairing of philosophy and pseudo-drama and the pairing of drama and pseudo-philosophy, as from physics/pseudo-chemistry to chemistry/pseudo-physics via metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, with the latter pseudo-elemental and/or pseudo-literary contexts in all paired cases conditioned by the hegemonic influence of the former elemental and/or literary contexts in such pairings. Unlike music, whose fulcrum is the soul, literature has its fulcrum in the ego, as in narrative prose, and is invariably bovaryized the further it departs from the ego, as in relation to philosophic soul, dramatic will, and poetic spirit, regressing from the masculine (prosodic) to the supermasculine (philosophic) before crossing the gender (and axial) divide with superfeminine (dramatic) and feminine (poetic) bovarizations of literature. How unlike music, its fellow subjective art-form, which has its fulcrum in the soul, and regresses to ego, spirit, and will, in that order, as though from rhythm (soul) to pitch (will) via harmony (ego) and melody (spirit), only true to itself in the rhythms of soul, but regressively bovaryized by the harmonies of ego, the melodies of spirit, and the pitch, or pitches, of will. In narrowly classical terms, this could be interpreted as a regression from ballet to the concerto via the symphony and opera, though in a supra-classical sense one might characterize such a regression as being from electronica/dance to jazz/blues via classical/romantic and pop/rock, with electronica/dance alone corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry; classical/romantic corresponding to physics/pseudo-chemistry; pop/rock corresponding to chemistry/pseudo-physics, and jazz/blues corresponding to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, music being in its soulful/pseudo-wilful paired fulcrum, as it were, with electronica/dance, but becoming regressively more bovaryized with the ego/pseudo-spirit pairing of classical/romantic, the spirit/pseudo-ego pairing of pop/rock, and the will/pseudo-soul pairing of jazz/blues, or something to that overall effect. Not forgetting, of course, what has already been said about the 'anti' forms of music that, appertaining to the subordinate gender positions, would seem to have more in common with dance, romantic, rock, and blues, regressing from blues to dance via rock and romantic, as from pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-metachemistry via pseudo-physics and pseudo-chemistry, which of course would contrast with the regression from metaphysics to metachemistry via physics and chemistry of the hegemonic genres of electronica, classical, pop, and jazz. Therefore, quite logically, the soulful per se, or musically representative genre which, in a sense, is also the least bovaryized genre of electronica is complemented by the most-bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) anti-genre of dance; the less (compared to least) bovaryized (once bovaryized) genre of classical is complemented by the more (compared to most) bovaryized (twice bovaryized) anti-genre of romantic; the more (compared to most) bovaryized (twice bovaryized) genre of pop is complemented by the less (compared to least) bovaryized (once bovaryized) anti-genre of rock; and the most bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) genre of jazz is complemented by the least bovaryized, or pseudo-soulful per se, anti-genre of blues.
1. Put differently, soul can only be hegemonic over pseudo-will, the weakest (contrasted with will per se) manifestation of will; as in the case of electronica over dance, metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.
2. Likewise ego can only be hegemonic over pseudo-spirit, the weakest (contrasted with spirit per se) manifestations of spirit, as in classical over romantic, physics over pseudo-chemistry.
3. Similarly spirit can only be hegemonic over pseudo-ego, the weakest (contrasted with ego per se) manifestation of ego, as in pop over rock, chemistry over pseudo-physics.
4. Finally will can only be hegemonic over pseudo-soul, the weakest (contrasted with soul per se) manifestation of soul, as in jazz over blues, metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics.
There is thus no way that will can be hegemonic over soul, the devil over god, or vice versa, since they are mutually exclusive, like jazz and electronica, to an absolute degree. Likewise, there is no way that spirit can be hegemonic over ego, woman over man, or vice versa, since they are mutually exclusive, like pop and classical, to a relative degree. Now the same of course applies to the absolute and relative, noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal modes of anti-music, viz. blues and dance in the one case (absolutely exclusive), and rock and romantic in the other case (relatively exclusive). But if this is true to a limited extent of music, how much more so will it be the case when we contrast art with music on the one hand, and sculpture with literature on the other, where in their most representative (non-bovaryized) genres or forms we really do have a mutually exclusive antithesis between will and soul in the one case (noumenal), and spirit and ego in the other case (phenomenal), because of the absolute/relative distinctions between the former and the latter antithesis, making it logical to contend that the metachemical per se of art will be even more incompatible with the metaphysical per se of music than the chemical per se of sculpture with the physical per se of literature, whatever this – and I have given some hints already – may actually turn out to be in practice, bearing in mind the incompatibility of noumenal objectivity with noumenal subjectivity on the one hand, and of phenomenal objectivity with phenomenal subjectivity on the other, an incompatibility having as much to do with gender as with class.
As also maintained by me in the past, the 'anti' manifestation of anything – including the overblown concept of Anti-Christ – is only a starting-point for the lock-in position under the hegemonic sway of the prevailing element, be it female or male, noumenal or phenomenal in either, and is therefore transmutable into what I call (and how I mostly tend to define) the 'pseudo' manifestation of any given element or, more correctly, anti-element. Therefore anti-music, as described above, lends itself, as a matter of course, to the definition of pseudo-music, as that manifestation of anti-music which is gender subordinate to the prevailing manifestation of music which, being hegemonic, takes precedence over it, whether or not the prevailing hegemony happens to accord with the representative genre or with some bovaryized manifestation of music.
1. In overall axial terms, one can therefore contrast the pairing, on a hegemonic/subordinate basis, of jazz and blues with the pairing, on a like basis, of classical and romantic on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, with jazz and romantic corresponding to the primary (overall female) state-hegemonic polarity of metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, but blues and classical corresponding to the secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic polarity of pseudo-metaphysics and physics, metachemistry of course being hegemonic over pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand, and physics hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry on the other.
2. By axial contrast, the pairing of pop and rock at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass with the pairing of electronica (trance) and dance at the northeast point thereof on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis affords us a primary (overall male) polarity between rock and electronica, corresponding to pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall female) polarity between pop and dance, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry, chemistry of course being hegemonic over pseudo-physics on the one hand, and metaphysics hegemonic over pseudo-metachemistry on the other.
In that respect, the First (chemical) would indeed become last (pseudo-metachemical) and the Last (pseudo-physical) become first (metaphysical) … in the event of the salvation to metaphysics of those identifiable with pseudo-physics and the correlative counter-damnation to pseudo-metachemistry of those identifiable with chemistry, since chemistry is no less equivocally hegemonic, in its phenomenal relativity, over pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass than metaphysics (is) unequivocally hegemonic, in its noumenal absolutism, over pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point thereof, the point that, in the event of a Social Theocratic overhaul of conventional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, would be constitutive of the true apex, in free psyche as well as bound soma, of the church-hegemonic axis, with, in musical terms, an electronica/dance-like pairing that would somewhat contrast, in otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly vein, with the pop/rock pairing already alluded to in connection with what I hold to be mainstream worldliness, which is effectively divisible, unlike its physical/pseudo-chemical counterpart, between purgatorial and pseudo-earthly criteria appertaining to the chemical/pseudo-physical complementarity. Of course, when I subordinately associate dance with electronica, I am not referring to dance per se, as to the somatically-unrestrained spatial licence of, say, jazz dancing, with the likelihood of flouncy dresses as the most appropriate sartorial adjunct to a metachemical disposition favouring female freedom on noumenal terms. On the contrary, such dance as is properly and even unequivocally subordinate, in its noumenal absolutism, to electronica of a trance-like order would be of a constrained, hemmed-in, almost straight-dress character that warrants identification with pseudo-space under time, the spaced space of the one a consequence, in no small part, of the repetitive time, or time per se, of the other, which therefore hegemonically obliges it to take on the character of what should really be termed pseudo-dance, as subordinate, from a pseudo-female standpoint, to the regular rhythms of trance-like electronica as, in contrary vein, the by and large pseudo-male pseudo-music of the blues would be subordinate – and to a well-nigh absolute degree – to the spatial and altogether pitchful liberties of jazz in the hegemonic position at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be a state-hegemonic pairing of metachemistry with pseudo-metaphysics or, in simple musical terms, jazz with the blues. Obviously I am not going to recommend such an unequivocal subordination as is evinced by the pseudo-male (sonofabitch-like) pseudo-music of the blues. But I do believe that those who, in their pseudo-harmonic broken chords, are equivocally subordinate to the melodies of pop, can and should, as purveyors of the usually more instrumentally-oriented bias of rock, be in the kind of pseudo-musical position from which deliverance to the regular rhythms of electronica, with its synthetically artificial approach to soul, can be engineered, with effect to saving them from the (chemical) domination of spirit, as of vocal melody, that the latter may be counter-damned to the pseudo-space of pseudo-will in gender subordination, for ever more, to a metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry, the musical equivalent of the time-honoured saint and (neutralized) dragon paradigm or, for that matter, of the lamb and (neutralized) wolf and/or lion metaphor for intimating of such a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical pairing, corresponding to electronica and dance, which is to say, to the cyborgistic – and therefore globally universal – most representative form of music, or music per se, and the most bovaryized (thrice bovaryized) pseudo-form of pseudo-music, the weakest manifestation of pseudo-music (out of anti-music) that would be no less pseudo-expressive of pseudo-will than its hegemonic partner, in the electronica/dance pairing, would be impressive of soul, the impressive rhythms of metaphysical subjectivity which it will be the prerogative of a certain type of higher male, effectively supermasculine, to produce, and to do so using the most synthetically artificial means in the artful utilization of synthesizers to a rhythmic end, transcending the externalized rhythmic bovaryizations of manual percussion instruments, including drum kits.
If I have focused on music at the expense of literature, it is because, notwithstanding my own philosophical bovaryization of literature towards eternity, music is – or has the capacity to be – the most metaphysical art form, one that, when true to itself, will be rhythmically metaphysical, and therefore significant of the noumenal subjectivity of repetitive time, or time per se – the only form of time commensurate with eternity, the eternity that must needs rule over the pseudo-infinity of pseudo-space, and therefore of that which, as so-called dance, will remain forever subordinate to the trance-like pulse of so-called electronica, which may well, in the not-too-distant future, be re-evaluated in terms of its essentially protonic significance vis-a-vis the pseudo-photonic subordination of pseudo-space to time.
As with music, literature can be axially divided between state-hegemonic and church-hegemonic alternatives:-
1. In the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis one would have a primary (overall female) state-hegemonic polarity between drama and pseudo-poetry, metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, but a secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-philosophy and prose, pseudo-metaphysics and physics, so that one could contrast the pairing of drama and pseudo-philosophy, metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, with that of prose and pseudo-poetry, physics and pseudo-chemistry – pseudo-philosophy being as much subject to the hegemonic influence of drama as pseudo-poetry to the hegemonic influence of prose.
2. In the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, one would have a primary (overall male) church-hegemonic polarity between pseudo-prose and philosophy, pseudo-physics and metaphysics, but a secondary (overall female) church-hegemonic polarity between poetry and pseudo-drama, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry, so that one could contrast the pairing of poetry and pseudo-prose, chemistry and pseudo-physics, with that of philosophy and pseudo-drama, metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry – pseudo-prose being as much subject to the hegemonic influence of poetry as pseudo-drama to the hegemonic influence of philosophy.
In terms of the First becoming last and the Last … first, this would effectively correspond to those given to pseudo-prose under poetry being in line, axially speaking, for deliverance to philosophy over pseudo-drama, with those earmarked for counter-damnation to pseudo-drama thereby being delivered from an equivocally hegemonic position (in chemistry over pseudo-physics) to an unequivocally subordinate one (in pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics), as counter-damnation followed in the wake of salvation in terms of deliverance from the phenomenal to the noumenal, corporeal relativity to ethereal absolutism, with those who had been equivocally first in the former context inevitably becoming unequivocally last in the latter one. That, at any rate, would be the literary parallel, I believe, to the music fates already outlined above, with that which was 'pseudo' becoming 'genuine' and that, conversely, which was 'genuine' becoming 'pseudo'. What then happens to the state-hegemonic genres – literary, musical, or anything else – will be contingent upon the extents to which salvation/counter-damnation transpires on the church-hegemonic axis. But, again, it is obvious that the 'genuine' would become 'pseudo', as in the case of the damnation of drama to pseudo-poetry, and the 'pseudo' become 'genuine', as in the case of the counter-salvation of pseudo-philosophy to prose, neither of which would then be viable alternatives to drama/pseudo-philosophy in view of the absence of polarity consequent upon a collapse of the said axis for want of poetic/pseudo-prosodic prey, so to speak, and its inevitable slide, following damnation/counter-salvation, towards some kind of radical Social Democracy (Bolshevism-like) in the event of no alternative, in the guise of Social Theocracy, being available to it or, rather, to those who had not been instrumental in the production of either drama/pseudo-philosophy above or prose/pseudo-poetry below but, finding common cause with the church-hegemonic masses (of lapsed Catholics, republican socialists, etc), preferred to opt, following a kind of judgement, for lower-tier positions, successively, under the Saved and Counter-Damned on what would be a stepped-up, or 'resurrected', church-hegemonic axis. But they would need to acquire the moral entitlement, the ethnic credibility, as it were, by being instrumental in judging both the prime movers in somatic licence 'upstairs' and the profiteers from the financing of said licence 'downstairs', on what had been the state-hegemonic axis, as they deserved, in order to prove worthy of joining, on the aforementioned basis, with those who were already subject to 'resurrected' church-hegemonic criteria, and subject to it, moreover, in terms of salvation and counter-damnation, according to gender. For the triumph of philosophy over pseudo-drama cannot ultimately transpire if others are still clinging, in drama/pseudo-philosophy, to their converse, any more than the ongoing acceptance of prose over pseudo-poetry has anything to do with the prospect of being delivered from poetry/pseudo-prose to that very metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical apotheosis, as it were, of the literary pairing, in effect, of philosophy with pseudo-drama in what would be a literary/pseudo-literary equivalence of the musical/pseudo-musical pairing of electronica (trance) with dance. As for art and sculpture, I do not feel qualified, not least gender-wise, to outline their various genres and pseudo-genres (out of anti-genres); though there would undoubtedly be types and degrees of bovaryization away from representative portraiture in the one case and figurative representation in the other that accorded, like music and literature (in that order), with some kind of metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical pairing, with the art parallels to such radical bovaryizations ranking beneath their sculptural counterparts in terms of thrice bovaryized to twice bovaryized under, in the case of literature, a once-bovaryized manifestation of literary production. Yet all these scenarios, or possible eventualities, would be contingent, needless to say, upon the 'will of the people' and could only transpire, if at all, following the express wish of the electorates of countries with a church-hegemonic disposition or tradition to exchange political sovereignty – together with its judicial and/or economic concomitant – for religious sovereignty, and thus elect for the possibility, under Social Theocracy, of deliverance from 'the world' of their lowly chemical/pseudo-physical phenomenal estates to the salvation/counter-damnation of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry noumenally 'On High', thereby acceding to the rights that would characterize such an ultimate sovereignty in a context equivalent, in a manner of speaking, to 'Kingdom Come'. Everything else would follow from this, including an end to the secular domination of state-hegemonic axial criteria and the push towards a more genuinely global universality capable of culminating in some 'Celestial City'-like arrangement as the goal of evolution or, more correctly and comprehensively, of evolution coupled to the utmost counter-devolution, of eternity in partnership, in other words, with pseudo-infinity, the pseudo-space that 'lies down' with the time of eternity because, like the proverbial lion, wolf, or dragon, it is not, following neutralization, in a position to do anything else. Just, as we have argued, like pseudo-drama under philosophy or, in relation to music, pseudo-dance under the trance of an electronica that, in truth, could well be closer to some kind of protonica, so to speak, of the true centre, to which this pseudo-photonica would be forever subordinate.
In general subatomic terms, it could be said that the pairing of protons with pseudo-photons is polar to that of electrons with pseudo-neutrons on the church-hegemonic axis, with salvation being from pseudo-neutrons to protons, and counter-damnation being from electrons to pseudo-photons, the equivocally hegemonic electronic First becoming the unequivocally subordinate pseudo-photonic last, and the equivocally subordinate pseudo-neutronic last becoming, by contrast, the unequivocally hegemonic protonic First, or something to that overall subatomic effect. And all this in contrast to the state-hegemonic polarity between photons/pseudo-protons and neutrons/pseudo-electrons, photons no less polar to pseudo-electrons on primary (overall female) state-hegemonic terms than pseudo-protons to neutrons on secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic terms, thereby enabling us to infer a cross-axial antithesis between photons/pseudo-protons and protons/pseudo-photons in the case of the ethereal absolutism of the noumenal, but such an antithesis between electrons/pseudo-neutrons and neutrons/pseudo-electrons in the case of the corporeal relativity of the phenomenal, the kind of relativity that is less elemental than molecular, with a closer relationship between electrons and pseudo-neutrons on the one hand, and neutrons and pseudo-electrons on the other hand, than could ever be inferred to exist between their noumenal counterparts, photons/pseudo-protons and protons/pseudo-photons, where the relationship of particles to wavicles, of soma to psyche, or of wavicles to particles, of psyche to soma, will be 3:1 as against 2½:1½, and therefore somewhere in the region of most particle to least wavicle or, by axial contrast, most wavicle to least particle, as opposed, with phenomenal relativity, to more (compared to most) particle and less (compared to least) wavicle or, in axially antithetical terms, more (compared to most) wavicle and less (compared to least) particle, as the subatomic case may be.
1. Logically, I like to think that the photon is most particle and least wavicle, corresponding to most soma, as it were, and least psyche, whereas the proton, by contrast, I would conceive to be most wavicle and least particle, corresponding to most psyche and least soma, since such an elemental dichotomy would underpin the noumenal objective/subjective antithesis between metachemistry and metaphysics, or absolute vacuum and absolute plenum, corresponding, on a more evolved basis, not just to the respective absolute ratio distinctions between soma and psyche, as noted above, but to the aforementioned distinctions between the representative, or non-bovaryized, forms of art and music, space and time, commensurate, at any stage of devolution/evolution, with what is most alpha on the one hand and most omega on the other.
2. Descending from the elemental to the molecular, I would argue that the electron was more (compared to most) particle and less (compared to least) wavicle, corresponding to more soma and less psyche, but that the neutron, by contrast, was more (compared to most) wavicle and less (compared to least) particle, corresponding to more psyche and less soma, since such a molecular dichotomy would underpin the phenomenal objective/subjective antithesis between chemistry and physics, or relative vacuum and relative plenum, corresponding, on a more evolved basis, not just to the respective relative ratio distinctions between soma and psyche, as noted above, but to the aforementioned distinctions between the representative, or non-bovaryized, forms of sculpture and literature, volume and mass, commensurate, at any stage of devolution/evolution, with what is more (compared to most) alpha on the one hand and more (compared to most) omega on the other.
Therefore in the case of the art/music antithesis, the alpha and omega of the noumenal planes of space and time, one would have a distinction between that form of art which most accorded with spatial space and that form of music most according with repetitive time, whether in ancient, modern, or indeed intermediate (worldly) formal manifestations, whereas in the case of the sculpture/literature antithesis, the alpha and omega of the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, one has a distinction between that form of sculpture most according with volumetric volume and that form of literature that most accorded with massive mass, again in relation to ancient, modern, or intermediate formal manifestations, given the need for and logical justification of alpha/omega qualification in relation to this or that age or type of civilization, bearing in mind the immense distinctions which indubitably do exist between what could be called the natural and the artificial, not to mention super-artificial and synthetic approaches to any given art form, be it painterly, sculptural, literary, or musical, with considerable differences, even in the latter context, between, say, acoustic and electric and/or electronic approaches to musical composition or performance. One simply cannot overemphasize the complexity of this matter, since one man's alpha meat is another's alpha poison, one man's omega meat another's omega poison, and so on, through a variety of permutations that derive, in no small part, from specific epochal and ethnic predilections. Clearly, an alpha/omega antithesis that was only natural, or conceived within natural boundaries, would hardly suffice to delineate such an antithesis within artificial boundaries deriving from nature, never mind, at the opposite extreme from nature, within synthetic boundaries either deriving from the artificial (super-artificial) or even purely synthetic in character such that more readily lend themselves to a post-modern if not futuristic concept of how the alpha/omega antithesis plays out in the Arts and may one day even be transcended in favour of an omega-dominated pairing. Nor should one overlook, in relation to the above, the 'pseudo' forms or, more correctly, anti-forms of creativity which complement, on subordinate gender terms, the hegemonic art forms, as pseudo-omega to alpha or, by contrast, pseudo-alpha to omega, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes. For they are just as important in enabling us to understand how elements and pseudo-elements (out of anti-elements) pair off and form polarities in one direction or another with axial implications, be they church-hegemonic/state-subordinate or, in an age dominated by devolution at the expense of evolution, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate. Probably the ultimate alpha and omega, noumenal or phenomenal, would be across not merely an artificial or synthetic divide, but rather across a natural/synthetic divide that, in the case of the natural alpha, preceded worldly relativity and, in the case of the synthetic omega, succeeded such relativity, thereby taking the overall antithesis in relation to the respective representative (not bovaryized) forms of art and music in the case of the noumenal, and sculpture and literature in that of the phenomenal, to their utmost pre- and post-historical manifestations, whereby one is logically entitled to speculate, even without existing or easily discoverable proof, that the alpha of the one context will do, or have done, the most justice, as it were, to spatial space, and the omega of the other – and possibly coming – context most justice to repetitive time, with other degrees of either devolutionary or evolutionary justice coming somewhere in-between.
The male is protonically self-centred, but can – and usually does – become seduced by photonic distractions which result in his 'fall from grace' to a pseudo-protonic deference to beauty and its loving wiles, a deference that, under counter-pressures, sometimes leads to the angry externalization of soul when that which is not of the Self but decidedly 'other oriented' places demands on the pseudo-protonic position which, emanating from the predominantly free somatic standpoint of a photon hegemony, are contrary to male self-interest. Nevertheless, barring a 'prodigal son'-like return to grace (and thus to protonic self-centredness), the pseudo-protonic pseudo-male risks being dragged down, in a further and more drastic fall, into a pseudo-neutronic subordination to an electron hegemony, from which position any return to grace, being further away, is even more problematic, albeit axially polar, in metaphysics, to his pseudo-physical predicament and therefore within the scope of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate influence. The main danger here, however, is not the remoteness of protonic renewal, nor even the pseudo-masculine deference to a feminine hegemony in chemistry, but the equally corporeal alternative of a neutronic pseudo-salvation across the lower-order axial divide, as it were, which will compound his fall by making him one with man to the exclusion, totally and utterly, of godly aspiration, as he settles for some degree of egocentric self-centredness at the expense of the soul and therefore of any possibility of metaphysical redemption. Man, by being egocentrically self-centred, is the real enemy of God, as of godliness, since one who is neutronically open, via pseudo-protonic polarity, to photonic domination and, hence, to the reign of beauty over both pseudo-protonic pseudo-truth and neutronic knowledge via its own polarity with pseudo-electronic pseudo-strength, to speak in parallel terms for ease of overall comprehension. The more neutronic a male becomes, the less pseudo-neutronic vis-a-vis an electronic hegemony, and therefore the more will he be shut out from the possibility of protonic salvation in metaphysics, which requires, barring the 'prodigal son'-like return from pseudo-protonic deference to photonic beauty, a pseudo-neutronic polarity which, understandably in view of its paradoxical predicament, does not and should not take itself for granted, but will remain open, in the pseudo-egotistical fashion typifying the sinfulness of pseudo-man, to the possibility of some degree of metaphysical redemption, if it is not to succumb, as hinted at above, to the pseudo-salvation, across the axial divide, of neutron egocentricity. For the half-salvation, as one could also term it, though obviously attractive from a pseudo-neutronic point-of-view, is no compensation for salvation proper, that is, for the salvation (from pseudo-neutronic subordination to an electronic hegemony) of the soul in protonic self-centredness, the return to the Centre which is the source of all grace and guarantor of wisdom for males, a free psychic grace and bound somatic wisdom unlikely to succumb, ever again, to the blandishments of photonic will as it goes about its worldly designs which, if successful, will culminate in an electronic resolution through the surrogate plenum of maternity, a resolution requiring the concomitant 'fall of man' from godliness to a status that, at least initially, is not even neutronic but, as described above, demonstrably pseudo-neutronic and therefore pseudo-egocentric, with a pseudo-free somatic, pseudo-knowledgeable predilection towards 'carnal knowledge', which is ever the folly correlative with the pseudo-bound psychic preponderance (2½:1½ pseudo-bound psyche to pseudo-free soma) of sin … in the pseudo-ignorance thereof, forever needful of deliverance, in truth, to the joyful grace of heavenly soul, which is alone free of pseudo-earthly deference (to purgatory) and able, in consequence, to be true to itself in perfect self-unity, as he who repents of sin is entitled to grace in the free psyche of metaphysical self, with the bound soma of metaphysical not-self a wise deliverance from that folly which makes a carnal mockery of knowledge even as knowledge itself is no guarantor of truth but, rather, its main rival in the male sense of self which, having nothing to do with God or godliness, derives from the 'fall of man' to pseudo-man as he perceives what I have described as a half-rise, a half-salvation, in the egocentric possibilities that lie across the lower-order axial divide and accordingly settles for some degree of neutronic release from his pseudo-neutronic, pseudo-physical predicament under electronic pressure from chemical females. In which case he may well become physically hegemonic over a pseudo-electronic, pseudo-chemical pseudo-female, but metaphysically hegemonic over a pseudo-photonic, pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female from a protonic standpoint – he will never be! Even if neutronic egocentricity, the physical form of subjectivity, does not exactly correspond to 'the forbidden tree of knowledge' of Biblical reference, if only because we can logically presume that the latter would have more to do with the less predominant (1½) pseudo-free somatic ratio of carnal knowledge vis-a-vis its pseudo-bound psychic counterpart than with the more preponderant (2½) free psychic ratio of intellectual knowledge vis-a-vis its bound somatic counterpart, the pseudo-righteousness of physical free psyche is still a phenomenal (corporeal) shortfall from genuine righteousness which, being noumenal (ethereal), can only be metaphysical. But there is a certain class of male persons for whom the sensibility of metaphysics would be too psychologically if not physiologically elevated for their liking and who, in consequence of a more down-to-earth disposition, are resigned to egocentric selfhood and would not be happy with anything other than an intellectual approach to religion which, being religiously once-bovaryized, is not incompatible with an economic per se, such that usually takes the form of private enterprise or, in a word, capitalism. Such persons normally oppose socialism, but those who, for similar reasons, espouse socialism as the alternative to capitalism are still well short of the requirements for a metaphysical predilection or aspiration which, being religious, take their primary cue from a sense of sin and of a desire for repentance on the part, more especially, of the pseudo-physical pseudo-males whose guilt-ridden yearning for redemption, especially within the confines of the Church, is their saving grace and guarantor, long term, of hope in the possibility of a more complete and permanent redemption such that could only transpire within the supra-church context of what has been termed 'Kingdom Come', with its enhanced sense of 'the Centre'.
I could never believe, even as a youth, in a god that created woman, who, when superfeminine, is the metachemical opposite of anything metaphysically godly and, when feminine, the chemical opposite of anything physically manly. That, for me, was the start of my repudiation of the Bible and of its account of Creation, never mind the ascription of the fulcra of each of those elemental contexts, viz. power and glory respectively deriving from will and spirit, to God in the so-called 'Lord's Prayer' – attributes that are in the one case absolutely and in the other relatively incompatible with godliness, and with godliness, moreover, as a super-intellectual concomitant of heavenly contentment in the metaphysical soul that, in comparison with the physical ego, could never amount to other than a once-bovaryized order of form in relation to that definitive emotional contentment which is the joyful fulcrum of metaphysics.
Gender equality is a secular ideal that has no place in religion, least of all in any religion which purports to be true and therefore orientated, no matter how imperfectly or partially, towards metaphysics and its gender-subordinate corollary in pseudo-metachemistry, the necessary corollary of a metaphysical supremacy favouring males.
The underlying difference between adult males and females, or in common parlance men and women, is that whereas the former tend to be minds that also have bodies, the latter are more usually bodies that also have minds. No small difference! Particularly when each gender is being 'true to itself' in either free mind and bound body (male), corresponding to my habitual reference to free psyche/bound soma, or free body and bound mind (female), corresponding to my habitual reference to free soma/bound psyche.
The alarming sensitivity of women to thought is proof enough of just how different – and therefore unequal – the genders actually are.
The secular decadence of gender equalitarianism always leads, in any case, to female domination almost as a matter of course, since women are by nature vacuously objectivistic, or outgoing, with little time or inclination for reflection.
A reproductive need will always be at variance if not loggerheads with a productive desire.
Heretical denominations compound their falsity by allowing women to become so-called priests and take over the pulpit, to the detriment of truth. Not that, if defined metaphysically, there would have been that much of a predilection towards truth from such denominations anyway, since their hegemonic polarities tend to be beauty and knowledge.
But even Catholic churches are host to mixed-gender congregations, and therefore fail to meet the gender-discriminatory requirements of true religion, which aims – and by definition can only aim – at the liberation of males from female domination through the practice, in religious contexts, of gender segregation. Catholicism may be closer, in view of its axial predilections, to the truth than its Protestant counterparts, but notwithstanding the fact that the masses tend to remain bogged down in the Marian worship of strength, it is still some way from actually being true, which seems to me to be the prerogative of 'Kingdom Come' and a shift of focus, if not fulcrum, from the below to the above.
The 'fallen' neutronic male may be at the centre of family life, with wife and children taking his surname and deferring to his judgement in certain matters, but no truly protonic male could ever be the centre of anything but himself, that is, his soul, the sanctity of which he will be vigilant in guarding against external encroachments.
That which is most evolved towards noumenal subjectivity as opposed to least devolved from noumenal objectivity corresponds to what is godly, and it can only, by going against the grain of female objectivity, be male. Put another way, that which is most centred in the absolute badgefulness (curvilinear), as it were, of noumenal subjectivity, as opposed to least removed from the absolute ringfulness (rectilinear) of noumenal objectivty, would correspond to what is godly, and the godly, which is one with heaven, or centred in metaphysical self, can only be omega, never alpha! It is not the First Doing (of will), but the Last Being (of soul). And never will metaphysical heavenliness/godliness be more itself than when antithetical to such cosmic manifestations of it as may exist in a coming cyborgistic manifestation as much beyond , or posterior to, human manifestations of godliness/heavenliness as the cosmic variety was behind, or anterior to, its natural manifestations, as outlined by me in certain earlier works.
A wavicle preponderance, such as characterizes the proton and/or neutron bias of representative males (as opposed to the unrepresentative pseudo-particle emphasis under female hegemonic pressure of pseudo-males) ensures degrees of subjectivity, whether absolute (protonic) or relative (neutronic), that cannot but be at the centre of objective attention, such that derives from precisely the opposite tendency, namely a particle predominance characteristic, by contrast, of the photon and/or electron bias of representative females (as opposed to the unrepresentative pseudo-wavicle emphasis under male hegemonic pressure of pseudo-females), who will dominate and bind male subjectivity to a subordination to hegemonic female criteria favouring particle objectivity or, failing that, risk being dominated and bound by it in terms of pseudo-female subordination to hegemonic male criteria, be those wavicle-oriented criteria religious or secular, ethereal or corporeal, depending on the degree and type of wavicle subjectivity obtaining in the male or males to which, somewhat like filings to a magnet, they become paradoxically attracted. Attraction is, of course, a two-way thing. But, barring the paradoxical attraction of mentally weak males (pseudo-males) to females and, hence, to the dominion of bodily criteria, it seems to be a law of nature that the attraction of particles to wavicles is greater than that of wavicles to particles in view of the extent to which the one bias is objective and the other subjective, so that it is the gender with the subjective bias that becomes, by and by, the focus of much if not – at least for a pre-maternal time – most female attraction, the centre drawing-in the periphery, as it were, as that which, in one way or another (ego or soul) and to one degree or another (relatively or absolutely), is self-centred, becomes, not least through worship, the focus of other-oriented attraction. The man of truth, a philosopher shall we say, is not disposed to being or becoming the man of power, like a politician or ruler. For power and contentment, domination of others and self-determination, are as alpha and omega, and it would be wrong, morally and ethically wrong, for a champion of metaphysical truth, a philosopher, to seek, through politics or science, power over others. Christ's claim to have brought a sword … to cleave the faithless from the faithful, the chaff from the wheat, as it were, doesn't sit well with metaphysical truth, and we may believe that such a claim, if actually made, was simply rhetorical and not expressive of a desire for political, much less martial, glory or, worse, power. A certain type of power is all very well in the right hands, but the best form of power, from a religious standpoint, will be that which, as pseudo-power, is subordinate to contentment, as pseudo-science to religion or, in narrowly parallel terms, pseudo-beauty to truth, the pseudo-free psychic aspect (together with pseudo-love) of pseudo-metachemistry subordinated to the free psychic aspect (together with joy) of metaphysics, in a 3:1 primary/secondary church-hegemonic psychic differential the corollary of the 1:3 secondary/primary (to correct past errors of parallel judgement) state-subordinate somatic differential in which the actual representative fulcra are pseudo-ugliness and joy, pseudo-bound will and free soul in a 3:3 somatic/psychic differential between pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother and Heaven the Holy Soul, akin, in a manner of speaking, to the (neutralized) dragon and hegemonic saint, a plane up from the former in time over pseudo-space, of proverbial metaphorical usage. With pseudo-truth subordinate to beauty, on the other hand, you have a situation where pseudo-religion is (understandably) subordinate to science and, hence, the dominion of objectivity, not least empirically, will accordingly be taken for granted in relation to the rule of autocracy in what will be a society fundamentally so materialist as to be without an idealist, never mind transcendentalist, dimension. In short, the most basic form of civilization that, with a scientific/pseudo-religious basis, will rule over an economic/pseudo-political polarity on patently state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms. From a philosophical standpoint, true to metaphysics, I cannot endorse, much less identify with, such a society, which is fundamentally opposed to metaphysics and, hence, to the lead of a transcendentalist/idealist integrity commensurate with the triumph of religious truth and of the hegemony of religion over what may be called the pseudo-fundamentalism/pseudo-materialism of pseudo-science, pseudo-power bowing before the throne of contentment, as before the leadership of truth. Hitherto this religious/pseudo-scientific pairing has had to live in a kind of uneasy co-existence with a political/pseudo-economic polarity that, like the economic/pseudo-political one characterizing the state-hegemonic axis, is of 'the world' in one of its two principal axial manifestations, as opposed to being either netherworldly or otherworldly, metachemical or metaphysical. But the time is surely approaching when the salvation of the pseudo-economic to religion, the pseudo-physical to metaphysics, and the counter-damnation, correlatively, of the political to pseudo-science, the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, will be conducted as never before … when 'the world' mostly held – and had every corporeal right to hold – the balance of power if not, exactly, the moral 'high ground' and – notwithstanding the plutocratic opposition to autocracy of the state-hegemonic axis – the religious/pseudo-scientific aspects of life were accordingly fated to remain largely peripheral to it in consequence of their otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly status. Should this situation ever be modified by post-worldly criteria, then it is not inconceivable that 'world overcoming', to use a Nietzschean expression, will not only be possible but morally and ethnically desirable, with consequences that point to the possibility of 'Kingdom Come' and thus of a society much more orientated towards otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly criteria in religion and pseudo-science, in theocracy and technocracy, as it were, than had ever been possible – or indeed feasible – in the past, not excepting the medieval past of the Roman Catholic Middle Ages (which was the high point of Western civilization, the point preceding the switch of axis to state-hegemonic criteria following the Reformation and its gradual slide towards secular decadence and worse). If so, then contentment hegemonic over pseudo-power will no longer be the prerogative of the Few (in monk/nun-like vein) but will become the right of the Many, whether through salvation (from pseudo-physics to metaphysics) or through counter-damnation (from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry) on what would necessarily have to be a stepped-up, or 'resurrected', church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis under the aegis of messianic enlightenment if not, at the end of the day, some form or degree of messianic intervention such that will enable contentment to triumph over power or, more correctly, the pseudo-power of the deferential and altogether pseudo-scientifically subordinate caryatid-like supporters of true religion a plane down, in pseudo-metachemistry, from the metaphysical hegemony characterizing life at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
If there's one thing worse than an idiot, who is bound to be human, it's a malfunctioning machine, like a computer, which doesn't even know it is doing wrong or being a nuisance.
Let it not be said of him that he was too godly for his own good lest, in his quest for inner sanity, he be judged insane by the profane.