Some maintain that music isn't a necessity, like food and drink, but a luxury, and I have to say that I believe such people to be body-over-mind types who fail to understand that for certain others, usually those of a mind-over-body disposition, music is necessary and therefore a necessity because, quite apart from the possibility of professional or vocational commitments, the soul requires to be fed since man, particularly in the case of males, does not live by bread alone. Starved of cultural nourishment, not least in respect of music, the soul of those who are mind-over-body would succumb to depression and lethargy to an extent that could well lead to a loss of appetite and, hence, pose a danger to life and limb. Music is not simply a luxury for those who, more usually as males, are mind-over-body, as it may well be for those, on the contrary, who are body-over-mind, the great majority of whom I would suppose to be female. Rather it is a cultural necessity that helps keep the soul alive and well, that is, capable of responsive feeling in consequence of a more positive attitude to life. Starved of music the soul would die and, with it, the body would cease to be soulfully animated but become a mere self-perpetuating automaton, bereft of sensibility and the possibility of higher feeling. But that would still contrast with those whose healthy bodies, bolstered by carnal appetites, are not incompatible with dead minds, the sort of people who, being body-over-mind, don't really need music because their sense of life derives from the body and its sensual nourishment. And so much so that the absence of music, at least in any recognizably soul-oriented mode, would not necessarily impair their bodily well-being.
To claim that all people are the same, irrespective of gender and its vacuous/plenemous, objective/subjective, somatic/psychic, individual/collective, competitive/cooperative, particle/wavicle distinctions, broadly speaking, between females and males, would be grossly mistaken, since any androgynous approach to mankind, such as is evidenced by the exponents of unisexual liberalism, with its gender neutrality, can only do a disservice to gender and, hence, to life conceived in terms of a gender struggle, or struggle between the genders. Quite apart from the gender-extrapolative distinctions of class, race, ethnicity (culture & religion), and occupation, mankind is subject to a constant struggle of opposing forces that can never be reconciled because whatever common ground there is between them is undermined by their antithetical natures as female and male, making it as though peripheral to their respective inclinations. I believe the attempt to achieve a common ground between people irrespective of their gender, to emphasize their common humanity, as it were, derives from a liberal perspective on life which is quintessentially worldly and, hence, atomic, with androgynous predilections that fight shy of gender differences from a kind of neutral standpoint designed to accommodate both genders, as far as possible, to a middle-ground position in which, paradoxically, gender ceases, in almost unisexual vein, to be an issue. One can see how the English language, in avoiding gender in its treatment of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and so on, facilitates this tendency through a process of gender neutralization congenial to a liberal view of life and the avoidance thereby of certain moral issues, not least those presented by religion from the standpoint of a type of gender discrimination going back to the concept of 'original sin' and on towards Christ's advice to male followers of his to leave females of one sort or another behind in order to 'take up the Cross', as it were, and climb the hill towards salvation from female domination, and hence heathen values generally, that leads to paradise or, in eschatological terminology, to the gender-based divisions of 'Kingdom Come' in which metaphysical values would be hegemonic over pseudo-metachemical ones in a structural paradigm of saint and neutralized dragon, or lamb and neutralized wolf.
The dominance of females over males is aided and abetted by science and politics, the dominance of males over females … by economics and religion. If religion is undermined by science or economics by politics, then the only consequence, whether with a noumenal (scientific) or a phenomenal (political) bias, will be the dominance of males by females and a form of civilization characterized by outer and sensual values in relation to a predatory impulse. Just as science is the enemy of religion and politics the enemy of economics, so there are philosophers who, espousing science over religion or politics over economics, are the enemies of economic or religious philosophers, serving only to advocate superficial approaches to civilization characterized by female dominion which effectively subvert philosophy from standpoints contrary to a love of wisdom and the pursuit, thereby, of truth. If scientific philosophers are the most false and political philosophers the more (relative to most) false type of philosopher, then economic philosophers are the more (relative to most) true and religious philosophers the most true type of philosopher. In fact, the religious philosopher, being most true, is alone he for whom metaphysics takes positive precedence over physics and chemistry negative precedence over metachemistry, the element of the scientific philosopher par excellence. For metaphysics and chemistry, being elementally hegemonic, are axially polar (on opposite gender terms), and therefore both separate from and contrary to the axial polarity established (likewise on opposite gender terms) between metachemistry and physics, which are also elementally hegemonic.
1. Just as metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics is axially polar, on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, to physics over pseudo-chemistry, with a same gender polarity between metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry on the one hand (overall female) and pseudo-metaphysics and physics on the other hand (overall male), the former primary and the latter secondary, so a like polarity exists, in overall axial terms, between autocracy over aristocracy and plutocracy over meritocracy, with autocracy and meritocracy polar on overall female terms (primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) and aristocracy and plutocracy polar on overall male terms (secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate).
2. Similarly, just as metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry is axially polar, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, to chemistry over pseudo-physics, with a same gender polarity between metaphysics and pseudo-physics on the one hand (overall male) and pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry on the other hand (overall female), the former primary and the latter secondary, so a like polarity exists, in overall axial terms, between theocracy over technocracy and democracy over bureaucracy, with theocracy and bureaucracy polar on overall male terms (primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate) and technocracy and democracy polar on overall female terms (secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate).
Therefore the overall polarity between autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy, corresponding to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and physics/pseudo-chemistry, necessarily excludes that between theocracy/technocracy and democracy/bureaucracy, corresponding to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry/pseudo-physics, since the more of the one type of polarity the less of the other, and vice versa.
1. The more autocracy/aristocracy the less, on similar albeit lower-order gender structural terms, democracy/bureaucracy, and, correlatively, the more plutocracy/meritocracy the less, on similar albeit higher-order gender structural terms, theocracy/technocracy, since the one type of structure necessarily excludes the other.
2. Similarly if conversely, the more theocracy/technocracy the less, on similar albeit lower-order gender structural terms, plutocracy/meritocracy, and, correlatively, the more democracy/bureaucracy the less, on similar albeit higher-order gender structural terms, autocracy/aristocracy, since the one type of structure necessarily excludes the other.
3. Hence it is logical that metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics should form an axial polarity with physics/pseudo-chemistry, in order to guarantee for both autocracy/aristocracy and plutocracy/meritocracy as little interference or competition as possible from their respective lower- or higher-order structural counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental parallels happen, in the one case, to be female over pseudo-male or, in the other case, male over pseudo-female.
4. Likewise it is logical that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry should form an axial polarity with chemistry/pseudo-physics, in order to guarantee for both theocracy/technocracy and democracy/plutocracy as little interference or competition as possible from their respective lower- or higher-order structural counterparts, whether the disciplinary or elemental parallels happen, in the one case, to be male over pseudo-female or, in the other case, female over pseudo-male.
1. In the past I have tended to equate aristocracy with pseudo-theocracy and technocracy with pseudo-autocracy, so that we have had an antithesis between autocracy/pseudo-theocracy and theocracy/pseudo-autocracy, which would correspond to the above distinctions between autocracy/aristocracy and theocracy/technocracy.
2. Similarly I have tended, in the past, to equate bureaucracy with pseudo-plutocracy and meritocracy with pseudo-democracy, with a cross-axial antithesis between democracy/pseudo-plutocracy and plutocracy/pseudo-democracy corresponding to the above distinctions between democracy/bureaucracy and plutocracy/meritocracy.
3. Another way of making such distinctions would be to equate autocracy with science and aristocracy with pseudo-religion on the one hand, and theocracy with religion and technocracy with pseudo-science on the other hand, which would neatly tie-in with our long-established antithesis between metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry.
4. Likewise one could equate democracy with politics and bureaucracy with pseudo-economics on the one hand, and plutocracy with economics and meritocracy with pseudo-politics on the other hand, which would just as neatly tie-in with the long-established antithesis between chemistry/pseudo-physics and physics/pseudo-chemistry.
Be that as it may, I have no doubt that just as the hegemonic elements on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are democracy and theocracy, or politics and religion, with subordinate corollaries in bureaucracy and technocracy, or pseudo-economics and pseudo-science, so the hegemonic elements on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are autocracy and plutocracy, or science and economics, with subordinate corollaries in aristocracy and meritocracy, or pseudo-religion and pseudo-politics. For if you have genuine science in one context (metachemistry), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-metachemical); if you have genuine politics in one context (chemistry), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-chemical); if you have genuine economics in one context (physics), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-physical); and if you have genuine religion in one context (metaphysics), it can only be pseudo in another (pseudo-metaphysical). That, it seems to me, is logically incontrovertible and subject to proof by example of the way in which each axis operates according to which gender is hegemonic in any given context, be it noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, absolute or relative.
1. Hence autocracy is only genuine in a metachemical context characterized by scientific freedom, not in a pseudo-metachemical context characterized by the binding of science pseudo-scientifically, or technocratically, to religious freedom in metaphysics. Or put the other way around, theocracy is only genuine in a metaphysical context characterized by religious freedom, not in a pseudo-metaphysical context characterized by the binding of religion pseudo-religiously, or aristocratically, to scientific freedom in metachemistry.
2. Likewise democracy is only genuine in a chemical context characterized by political freedom, not in a pseudo-chemical context characterized by the binding of politics pseudo-politically, or meritocratically, to economic freedom in physics. Or put the other way around, plutocracy is only genuine in a physical context characterized by economic freedom, not in a pseudo-physical context characterized by the binding of economics pseudo-economically, or bureaucratically, to political freedom in chemistry.
So just as the distinction between genuine science and pseudo-science is an autocratic/technocratic one, so the distinction between genuine religion and pseudo-religion is a theocratic/aristocratic one; and just as the distinction between genuine politics and pseudo-politics is a democratic/meritocratic one, so the distinction between genuine economics and pseudo-economics is a plutocratic/bureaucratic one, with autocracy/aristocracy polar to plutocracy/meritocracy on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, and theocracy/technocracy polar to democracy/bureaucracy on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the former polarity or, more correctly, polarities effectively excluding, on all but a kind of dotted-line peripheral axial basis, the latter ones from the mainstream functioning of representative state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, and the latter polarities likewise effectively excluding, on all but a kind of dotted-line peripheral axial basis, the former ones from the mainstream functioning of representative church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Which is a credible enough explanation of the distinctions between Britain and Ireland or, more pedantically at this point in time, of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, even without axially unrepresentative trends or tendencies at large in each case.
1. Metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, corresponding to autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to science over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-religion.
2. Metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, corresponding to theocracy//pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of cooperative collectivism in relation to religion over pseudo-competitive individualism in relation to pseudo-science.
3. Chemistry/pseudo-physics, corresponding to democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of competitive individualism in relation to politics over pseudo-cooperative collectivism in relation to pseudo-economics.
4. Physics/pseudo-chemistry, corresponding to plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), is a pairing characterized by the dominance of cooperative collectivism in relation to economics over pseudo-competitive individualism in relation to pseudo-politics.
1. In analogous terms, spatial space, or space per se, over sequential time, or pseudo-time, is equivalent to science over pseudo-religion, which is in turn equivalent to autocracy over pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), and that is of course equivalent to metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics.
2. Conversely repetitive time, or time per se, over spaced space, or pseudo-space, is equivalent to religion over pseudo-science, which is in turn equivalent to theocracy over pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and that is of course equivalent to metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.
3. Similarly, volumetric volume, or volume per se, over massed mass, or pseudo-mass, is equivalent to politics over pseudo-economics, which is in turn equivalent to democracy over pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), and that is of course equivalent to chemistry over pseudo-physics.
4. Conversely massive mass, or mass per se, over voluminous volume, or pseudo-volume, is equivalent to economics over pseudo-politics, which is in turn equivalent to plutocracy over pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), and that is of course equivalent to physics over pseudo-chemistry.
One fancies that just as theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) would look askance, back across the upper-order axial divide, at autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), so plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) would look askance, back across the lower-order axial divide, at democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), since sensibility over pseudo-sensuality must regard itself as being in some sense morally superior to sensuality over pseudo-sensibility, whether with regard to noumenal (ethereal) or phenomenal (corporeal) antitheses. Yet, in overall axial terms, theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy) is prepared to exist in polarity with democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy), as noumenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity with phenomenal sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue interference or parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of phenomenal cooperative collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), while, likewise, plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is prepared to exist in polarity with autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy), as phenomenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality in polarity with noumenal sensuality/pseudo-sensibility, for the sake of excluding undue interference or parallel competition (in relation to the hegemony of noumenal cooperative collectivism over pseudo-competitive individualism) from theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy). Hence both the ideologies of the celestial city and the terrestrial city are prepared and even perforce obliged to accommodate polarities with not parallel but opposites types of nature, viz. the terrestrial nature, as it were, of democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) in the case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and the celestial nature, or supernature, of autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy) in the case of plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy), so that competition from their parallel types of nature, viz. autocracy/pseudo-theocracy (aristocracy) in the case of theocracy/pseudo-autocracy (technocracy), and democracy/pseudo-plutocracy (bureaucracy) in the case of plutocracy/pseudo-democracy (meritocracy) is minimized if not effectively excluded.
1. Logically, I can find no reason to contest the contention that the competitive individualism of science and the cooperative collectivism of religion are noumenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as space per se and time per se, the former spatial and the latter repetitive.
2. Likewise I can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the pseudo-cooperative collectivism of pseudo-religion and the pseudo-competitive individualism of pseudo-science, the former subordinate to science and the latter to religion, are pseudo-noumenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as pseudo-time and pseudo-space, the former sequential and the latter spaced.
3. Similarly, there is no logical reason to contest the contention that the competitive individualism of politics and the cooperative collectivism of economics are phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as volume per se and mass per se, the former volumetric and the latter massive.
4. Likewise I can find no logical reason to contest the contention that the pseudo-cooperative collectivism of pseudo-economics and the pseudo-competitive individualism of pseudo-politics, the former subordinate to politics and the latter to economics, are pseudo-phenomenally incompatible, as incompatible, in effect, as pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume, the former massed and the latter voluminous.
As noted above, competitive individualism is chiefly characteristic of the female side of life, as in general terms of females, who have to compete on an individual basis for males, while cooperative collectivism is chiefly characteristic of the male side of life, as in general terms of males, who profit more from cooperating on a collective basis than from competing on such a basis, never mind on an individual basis, though of course what I have termed pseudo-cooperative collectivism can be interpreted as implying a degree of competitiveness under pressure from competitive individualism, whether noumenal or phenomenal, the converse of pseudo-competitive individualism implying a degree of cooperation under pressure from cooperative collectivism, again whether in relation to the noumenal or the phenomenal planes.
Democracy, which is republican, will tend to favour proportional representation, in contrast to the 'first past the post' preference of pseudo-democracy which, being meritocratic, favours the retention of a parliamentary oligarchy in the interests of plutocratic continuity under the hegemony of economics over pseudo-politics, or physics over pseudo-chemistry. That is why, in Britain, proportional representation, like its pseudo-economic corollary, socialism, is effectively a 'dead letter', the product of delusion or naivety on the part of certain politicians, since the hegemony of economics over politics ensures that only a pseudo-political outcome is possible, the converse of the pseudo-economic subordination to politics more characteristic of countries, like the Republic of Ireland, which favour some degree of socialism in relation to proportional representation within a republican context, a context governed by the hegemony of democracy over bureaucratic pseudo-plutocracy in reflection of a chemical/pseudo-physical pairing traditionally standing at the foot of the metaphysically- and pseudo-metachemically-dominated church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. Yet this, in contrast to Britain, is also the tradition, extending into religion on the mass Catholic level, of competitive individualism being hegemonic over pseudo-cooperative collectivism, as volumetric volume over massed mass, which tends to favour the politically competitive individual at the expense of the pseudo-economically pseudo-cooperative collective, so that political republicanism is more prominent, in its hegemonic sway, than socialism or any analogous form of pseudo-economic subservience. Small wonder that the plutocratic/meritocratic British look askance, across the lower-order axial divide, at the democratic/bureaucratic Irish! Which is only, after all, the phenomenal parallel to the theocratic/technocratic Irish looking askance at the autocratic/aristocratic British where noumenal, or upper-order, axial antitheses are concerned. For neither people are, or ever could be, simply phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal. And, as noted above, axial polarity across the noumenal-phenomenal divide ensures that both the British and the Irish are compromised by their respective noumenal or phenomenal opposites. The phenomenal British may look askance at the democracy/bureaucracy of the phenomenal Irish, but their own plutocracy/meritocracy is compromised by axial co-existence with the autocracy/aristocracy of the noumenal British, thereby ensuring a minimum of interference from the axially subversive threats posed by theocracy/technocracy. And no matter how morally contemptuous of autocracy/aristocracy the noumenal Irish may be, their own theocracy/technocracy is compromised by axial co-existence with the democracy/bureaucracy of the phenomenal Irish, thereby ensuring a minimum of interference from the axially subversive threats posed by plutocracy/meritocracy. What could be more paradoxical? And yet that is how the British/Irish divide traditionally stacks up, and there is no reason, short of a major revolution in ethnicity, to anticipate any change.