101. Having spoken of the senses of sight and hearing, of eyes and ears in relation to superficially divine and diabolic parallels, I should now like to expatiate on the senses of smell and taste, of nose and tongue in relation to the world, since, in contrast to the aforementioned ones, these senses overlap with the body - indeed, are connected to bodily organs in the form of the lungs and the stomach respectively.  Whereas sight and hearing solely have reference to the head and are therefore comparatively transcendent senses, indirectly connected via eyes and ears to the Divine and to the Diabolic (which find their true parallels in mind and brain), smell and taste, although situated in the head, have reference to the body, since whatever is smelled as scent or perfume soon passes, if inhaled, into the lungs with air, while whatever is tasted as food or drink soon passes, if swallowed, into the stomach with saliva.  Thus although the senses of smell and taste only have effect with regard to the nose and the tongue respectively, these latter organs lead, via bronchial tubes and throat, to the lungs and the stomach, and thereby compromise the senses in question, rendering them less transcendental than mundane, and hence comparatively worldly.  Indeed, just as sight may be identified with sadness and happiness, depending on the nature of what is seen, and hearing likewise be identified with hate and love, depending on the nature of what is heard, so smell and taste can be ascribed a qualitative dichotomy on the basis of what is smelt or tasted, whether negative or positive.  Now if humiliation and pride are the twin poles around which the former revolves, then we shall have to ascribe to the latter the poles of disgust and pleasure, as befitting such a worldly and, indeed, democratic sense as taste.  A sweet scent causes one to feel pride; no less than a savoury meal gives one pleasure.  Conversely, a bad smell, like B.O. or halitosis, will cause its perpetrator humiliation, no less than rotten or stale food will bring him disgust.  Disgust at other people's bad smells is the converse of humiliation at one's own, and to disgust with bad food can be added humiliation at the prospect of having to eat it!  Nevertheless, whilst emotional reactions do overlap, depending on the context and the relation of subject to object or vice versa, it seems feasible to attribute an autocratic axis to smell and a democratic axis to taste, so that the one is perceived as worldly with a diabolic bias, whether negative (humiliation) or positive (pride), whereas the other is perceived as worldly with a divine bias, whether negative (disgust) or positive (pleasure).


102. However, in between we shall find the uniquely worldly, and hence middle-ground, sense of touch, which pertains to the body and, in particular, to the hands, that focal-point of the will to touch.  Now if a qualitative dichotomy is to be reserved for this last and most basic sense, then I can think of none better than fear on the one hand and hope on the other, the latter of which may also embrace trust and mutual goodwill, as between one handshaker and another.  Touch, then, is not so much autocratic or democratic as plutocratic, one might even say parliamentarian, taking that term to signify something coming in-between authoritarianism and republicanism, and I define the quantitative attributes of this sense in terms of war and peace, which strike me as constituting a quintessentially worldly dichotomy - the phenomenal consequences of fear and hope respectively.


103. Anyone who is conscious of a distinction between the body and the head, who doesn't treat the head as a part of the body but perceives it in relation to divine and diabolic realities above the world, of which the body is a microcosm, will have noticed that whereas the body is basically rectilinear in shape, the head, by contrast, is usually of a curvilinear design, and that this is relative to the fundamental distinction between the world on the one hand, and the Divine and/or Diabolic on the other hand.  Thus even when caste and racial exceptions have been taken into account, the fundamental dichotomy between body and head is generally based on a rectilinear/curvilinear distinction.  We see this distinction clearly enough when comparing stereo speakers with headphones, whether of the ring-like conventional design or of the centralized micro design.  For speakers are rectilinear and therefore bodily, whereas headphones are curvilinear and thus of the head ... in more than an obvious sense.  I have discussed this subject elsewhere, so will now proceed to analogous distinctions between cars, which are usually rectilinear in design (the old-style, or 'Beetle', Volkswagen being a paradoxical exception to the rule), and motorbikes and/or scooters, where we are conscious of a predominantly curvilinear impression which is partly attributable to the wheels and partly to the engine and/or panelling.  Likewise between paintings in the rectilinear case and light art, whether relatively materialistic or spiritualistic, in that of the curvilinear.  And, most especially, between modern rectilinear architecture on the one hand and modern curvilinear architecture on the other - a conspicuous instance of our basic body/head dichotomy, and no small indication as to the nature of any given contemporary society - the rectilinear variety preponderating in the democratic West where, not surprisingly, bodily criteria take precedence over those of the head, especially in cities like New York and Chicago, which abound in rectilinear skyscrapers of a superworldly order, a blatant testimony to the body's rule even when, as often transpires, the architecture concerned is so towering and stylistically indivisible as to appear highly idealistic in character.  Such a paradoxical idealism of the body is particularly characteristic of America, which abounds in Nazi overtones.


104. However that may be, ring-like curvilinear architecture is, by contrast, communistic and therefore comparatively naturalistic in character; though we should take pains to distinguish between the relatively low, pure Communist architecture and the higher, less naturalistic architecture which, while still of a ring-like design, may be described as Transcendental Socialist.  For the reader will be aware that such a Communist/Transcendental Socialist distinction has been encountered in my work before, and has its divine counterpart in the Fascist/Social Transcendentalist one which, in architecture, takes the form of tall, highly centralized, and hence idealistic, curvilinear buildings on the one hand, and of less tall and highly centralized, though still idealistic, curvilinear buildings on the other hand, this latter option directly paralleling the taller, less ring-like, and therefore naturalistic, curvilinear buildings of a Transcendental Socialist design.  Consequently, with 'head' architecture our basic distinction, already noted with regard to motorbikes and scooters, not to mention conventional and micro headphones, between a ring-like and a centralized design also holds true, and is precisely that which distinguishes the Diabolic from the Divine, or curvilinear naturalism from its idealistic counterpart.  Doubtless in the future, most if not all buildings will be curvilinear, since the head alone will count ... as the body, and hence the world, is overcome.  But it is to be hoped that, ultimately, the centralized variety of curvilinear architecture will preponderate over the ring-like variety, as divine criteria displace the diabolic in a world tending ever more closely towards the heavenly Beyond.  We may not yet have seen the last of the rectilinear mode of architecture, but the future belongs to the curvilinear - of that there can be little doubt!


105. Smoking, which involves the sense of smell and possibility of inhalation into the lungs, corresponds to the diabolic-in-the-world and is therefore a relatively autocratic habit, having strong overtones with both weakness and strength, humiliation and pride, depending on the smoker and his mode of smoking, viz. pipe, cigar, or cigarette, with class and even evolutionary implications between them.  By contrast, drinking, which involves the sense of taste and necessarily has reference to the stomach, corresponds to the divine-in-the-world and is therefore a relatively democratic habit, having strong overtones with both evil and good, pain and pleasure, depending, once again, on the drinker and his mode of drinking, viz. bottle, glass, or can, with class and evolutionary implications between them, as before.  Generally speaking, the pipe is to the bottle what the cigar is to the glass, and we may regard them as constituting a negative/positive dichotomy on the basis of noumenal and phenomenal distinctions.  Thus pipe to cigar on the one hand, and bottle to glass on the other - at any rate, such is the case with regard to the natural part of each spectrum.  For when it comes to the artificial, or supernatural, part ... we have a dichotomy between small cigars (cheroots) and cigarettes on the one hand, and between small glasses (half-pints) and cans on the other hand, which constitutes a superphenomenal/supernoumenal distinction, albeit within a strictly worldly framework.  For it should be emphasized that smoking and drinking are essentially bodily habits, and that 'heads', whether divine or diabolic, will either smoke or drink only in moderation or, more usually, not smoke or drink at all.  Those, on the other hand, who both drink and smoke regularly … are worldly on both democratic and autocratic terms, whether or not they are also disposed to the sense of touch and therefore highly sensual.  Considered politically, if bottles and pipes correspond to the autocratic and cans and cigarettes to the democratic, then glasses and cigars should correspond to the plutocratic, and so be more strictly of the world.  One might say, using a perceptual-conceptual axis, that whereas bottles and pipes, together with cans and cigarettes, are perceptual and therefore noumenal, albeit in diametrically opposite ways, glasses and cigars are conceptual, and therefore relatively phenomenal.  From worldly alpha to worldly omega via the world.


106. A similar tripartite distinction to the above is to be found in the progression from umbrellas to hooded jackets via raincoats, with umbrellas corresponding to pipes and bottles, hooded jackets to cigarettes and cans, and raincoats to cigars and glasses.  Head - body - head.


107. Since we have ascertained that, in relation to eyes, cameras are an artificial mode of optical perception and that, in relation to ears, microphones are an artificial mode of aural perception, both of which stand as artificial senses to the natural senses of seeing and hearing, we should now take our investigation a stage further and contend that, in relation to internal visionary perception, i.e. dreams, televisions are an artificial mode of visionary perception and therefore antithetical to natural dreams, whereas in relation to internal auditory perception, i.e. audible hallucinations, radios are an artificial mode of auditory perception and therefore antithetical to natural thoughts, or thoughts which occur on an hallucinatory or dream-like basis, as though spontaneously generated.  In other words, televisions and radios are to the psyche what cameras and microphones are to the senses - their antithetical equivalents, which lead an autonomous, or quasi-autonomous, existence of their own and, in a certain sense, take the place of natural autonomous psychic experience.  Thus televisions are dreaming artificial brains, just as radios are artificial brains that render the auditory equivalent of visionary dreaming, which is a kind of artificial audible hallucination - an audible dreaming.  Not that I wish to imply this is all radios and televisions amount to - since there is obviously a great deal more to them than that! - but simply that when they are employed in a literary or a dramatic way, as with the transmission of plays, stories, serials, etc., their function is rather more analogous to dreaming than to thinking, to fantasy than to fact.  Thus if they are the artificial equivalents of internal modes of perception, whether visionary or auditory, and cameras and microphones are the artificial equivalents of external modes of perception, both optical and aural, then computers are the artificial equivalent of conceptual thinking, which stands in between the sensory external and the psychic internal modes of perception as a bridge and link from the one to the other.  Hence for the full complement to the natural head, with its senses and psyche, it is necessary to be in possession not only of camera and microphone but of computer, radio, and television as well, all of which, taken together, constitute an artificial head whose parts function on an equivalent, if antithetical, basis to what we are all, or at any rate most of us, endowed with by nature.  Add to fantasies and natural visions the artificial fantasies of video, particularly of the home-made variety, and the artificial visions, or artificially-induced visionary experience, of hallucinogens like LSD, and one has an even fuller antithetical complement to the natural psyche - a complement stretching into the truly divine realms of the supertrue.


108.   'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God'. - Such a claim is not so much pagan as proto-Christian or simply Judaic.  For it places God in the conceptual and therefore attests to a relatively worldly approach to divinity which finds its Christian complement in the New Testament.  But before the conceptual there was the perceptual, and after the conceptual there is, or will be, the perceptual again, albeit on artificial rather than naturalistic terms.  Hence a more comprehensive account of divinity, which would in some measure correspond to the Blessed Trinity of divinities ... from the Father to the Holy Ghost via Christ, would read as follows: In the beginning was the Star and the Star was God; in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God; in the beginning was the Film and the Film was God (at any rate, on a somewhat rudimentary basis).  Thus pagan - Judeo-Christian - transcendental.  However, for the modern post-Christian age, God's origin can neither be traced to the Star nor to the Word but simply to the Film, Video, Trip, etc., in increasing degrees of spiritual refinement.  To the extent that we watch the Film or, rather, films ... we partake of and become God (Superfather).  Such a crude level and manifestation of divinity will gradually be transmuted into higher and more genuine levels (Superchristic) as the contemplating head progresses, over the decades, from films to trips via videos, and so draws ever closer to the ultimate level of divinity (Supertranscendent) in pure contemplation achieved through dynamic meditation.  In the meantime, film stars (as opposed to cosmic ones) will be the Superfatheristic norm for most contemplating heads.  The Superchristic can only come later, as the Son followed the Father and truth eclipsed falsity.  Those of us who prefer the positive Divine to the negative Divine, and hence truth to falsity, will welcome the inevitable eclipse of the mechanical, external, superfalse divinity by the chemical, internal, supertrue divinity, and thus the real coming of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' under Social Transcendentalist auspices.  For the Superpagan must be superseded by the Superchristian, if salvation is truly to be achieved.  To the extent that video paves the way for the Superchristic ... it should be encouraged, even though it pertains, as film, to the Superfather and, hence, to superfalsity.


109. To the extent that a wavicle/particle and, hence, divine/diabolic distinction can be drawn, on the level of what may be called theocratic smoking, between cannabis and hashish ('grass' and 'shit'), we should also distinguish between capsule vision-engendering LSD and tablet audio-engendering LSD on a similar basis, which, taken in conjunction with 'dope', will furnish us with the basis of a working dichotomy between Social Transcendentalism and Transcendental Socialism.  Thus in the one case a cannabis/capsule LSD integrity, with cannabis corresponding to the 'Social' and capsule LSD to the 'Transcendentalism', whilst, in the other case, a tablet LSD/hashish integrity, with tablet LSD corresponding to the 'Transcendental' and hashish to the 'Socialism'.  In the case of Social Transcendentalism, the emphasis would be on capsule LSD; in the case of Transcendental Socialism, by contrast, the emphasis would be on hashish.  That follows, needless to say, from the divine/diabolic distinction between the two ideologies which, though not absolutely divisible, yet maintain a relative bias one way or the other, depending on the ideology in question.  Thus a lesser emphasis on cannabis and a greater one on capsule LSD would be juxtaposed with a lesser emphasis on tablet LSD and a greater one on hashish.  Accordingly, capsule LSD and hashish are the two main adversaries or, as I should say, parallel alternatives, with cannabis and tablet LSD constituting subordinate options within the overall framework of each ideology.  Yet if cannabis is subordinate to capsule LSD within the Social Transcendentalist context, and to the extent, I wager, of being confined to particular rather than general use, then tablet LSD should be no less subordinate to hashish within the Transcendental Socialist context, and to the extent, once again, of being confined to particular rather than general use.  Should time or circumstances prove me wrong, then so be it!  But as the principal architect of Social Transcendentalism, I reserve the right to define ideological priorities as I see fit.  For how else can a divine/diabolic distinction be maintained?  Transcendental Socialist tendencies may be unquestionably bad, or immoral, in relation to Social Transcendentalist ones, though this fact would not render the latter ideology perfect - least of all where the subordinate possibility of cannabis was concerned.  Were men capable of only the divine, we could ban or eliminate the 'dope' element outright.  But even where and when they have a divine bias, the capacity for the diabolic will still exist, albeit in a transmuted and relatively innocuous guise.  And yet, if cannabis is paradoxically preferable to hashish from a moral, or divine, standpoint, it can hardly be deemed superior to tablet LSD.  Certainly it is better to be an 'acid head' than a 'shit head'; but if a 'shit head' is all one can be, there will at least be the consolation, within a Transcendental Socialist context, that one is not a tobacco head or, rather, body, insofar as tobacco is arguably to the body what hashish and cannabis are to the head - the relatively diabolic, or smoking, side of a worldly dichotomy which finds its relatively divine, or drinking, side in alcohol.


110. Of course the world opposes what threatens its own tobacco/alcohol integrity, whether such a threat comes from beyond ... in the forms of 'dope' and 'acid', or from behind ... in the neo-pagan forms of hard drugs like heroin, opium, morphine, etc., which, whether smoked or injected, threaten to resurrect the alpha-stemming (old-brain/subconscious) head at the expense not only of the body but, from an omega-oriented standpoint, the (new-brain/superconscious) head as well.  For in a transitional age, when body civilization is in decline but the ultimate head civilization hasn't yet officially arisen, it is all too easy for neo-pagan tendencies associated with the old-brain/subconscious mind to come out of hibernation, as it were, and seek to gain a footing at the expense of traditional worldly norms, including alcohol and tobacco.  Such traditional hard drugs correspond, in their own context, to neo-royalism in politics, and will be vigorously opposed - and rightly - by those bent on defending the worldly status quo.  Whether, however, such people have as much justification in opposing post-worldly drugs like LSD ... is another thing - at any rate, from a new-brain/superconscious standpoint, though they doubtless act correctly from a worldly standpoint and, hence, in opposition not only to the Super-antichristic diabolic, but to the Superchristic divine as well, i.e. with reference to both Transcendental Socialism and Social Transcendentalism, not forgetting their respective 'dope' and 'acid' concomitants.  Thus the body has to defend itself against a fourfold encroachment upon its democratic integrity by both divine and diabolic alpha-stemming and omega-oriented head alternatives.  Ultimately both the body and the alpha-stemming (old-brain/subconscious) head should lose, though not before the omega-oriented head, in both its diabolic and divine aspects, proves worthy of global victory, thereby initiating an age of exclusively new-brain and superconscious drugs.  For salvation is not only at the expense of the world, and therefore of tobacco and alcohol, but of everything pertaining to the pre-worldly divine and diabolic options as well.  Now from a Social Transcendentalist and hence truly divine  standpoint, it is from the possibility of post-worldly drugs like hashish and tablet LSD too, since what pertains to Transcendental Socialism must, of necessity, be irrelevant to Social Transcendentalism.


111. If cocaine is relevant to some kind of superworldly ideological bias, then that, too, would prove irrelevant from both divine and diabolic standpoints.  Broadly speaking, if the cannabis/capsule LSD equation pertains to rock-jazz (a Social Transcendentalist equivalent), and the tablet LSD/hashish equation ... to jazz-rock (a Transcendental Socialist equivalent), then cocaine should pertain to electric blues, that middle-ground theocratic musical form (whose political analogue is Ecology) in between centristic jazz and communistic rock.  So if the future turns out anything like I imagine, which is not inconceivable, then cocaine will go the way of all the other drugs not strictly relevant to either of the two main ideological alternatives under discussion.


112. As a sort of footnote to the above, I should like to draw attention to the superphenomenal nature of 'dope', whether cannabis or hashish, as opposed to the supernoumenal nature of 'acid', whether capsule or tablet.  Cocaine is also superphenomenal, though from a different standpoint than either cannabis or hashish, whereas untipped cigarettes and/or roll-ups on the one hand, and fizzy beer on the other hand are superphenomenal from a strictly worldly and, hence, bodily standpoint.  Musically speaking, they stand to the head drugs in the manner of pop and/or soul to rock, jazz, and blues.  Both rhythm 'n' blues and rock 'n' roll pertain to a mid-point in between pop and soul - the former with a bias towards soul and the latter with a bias towards pop.  Such a mid-point corresponds, as already noted, to a moderately worldly integrity as characterized by touch, that uniquely worldly sense, and finds its chief drug neither in alcohol nor tobacco, but simply and purely in sex.  For sex is to touch what alcohol is to taste and tobacco to smell.


113. Writing or, more specifically, the technique of writing will correspond to phenomenal, superphenomenal, or to supernoumenal categories according to whether it is divisibly relative, divisibly absolute, or indivisibly absolute.  In the first case, we are dealing with word pairs, for example pronouns and verbs like 'I am', 'you are', 'they are', as well as with negative verbs like 'do not', 'will not', 'shall not', 'cannot'.  In the second case, we are dealing with the contraction of such word pairs into one word divided by an apostrophe, as in 'I'm', 'you're', 'they're', 'don't', 'won't', 'shan't', 'can't'.  In the third case, however, we are dealing with the further contraction (centro-complexification) of such words by elimination of the apostrophe, as in 'Im', 'youre', 'theyre', 'dont', 'wont', 'shant', 'cant'.  Thus we have an overall progression from worldly relativity, which is bourgeois, to divine absolutism, which is classless, via diabolic absolutism, which is proletarian.  A progression, in other words, from divisible relativity to indivisible absolutism via divisible absolutism, which corresponds, so I maintain, to phenomenal, superphenomenal, and supernoumenal distinctions.  In a bourgeois society, the phenomenal mode of writing will be the accepted norm, while superphenomenal contractions will accord with a proletarian alternative or opposition to it.  There will be scarcely any writing conceived on a supernoumenal basis, since that presupposes a classless society and, hence, the supersession of State divisibility by Centrist indivisibility - in a word, the transcendence of bourgeois/proletarian or, in the case of liberal republics, white- and blue-collar distinctions ... through a social homogeneity aimed at the creation of a truly divine society, one which is neither plutocratic nor democratic but theocratic and therefore socially indivisible.  In such a society, where the great majority of people are programmed for spiritual transcendence by a politico-religious elite assisted by special police, supernoumenal writing would become the accepted norm, and consequently something approximating to what G.B. Shaw pioneered would take the place of all phenomenal and superphenomenal modes of writing in the name of absolutist indivisibility.  For in writing, no less than everything else, centro-complexification is both a mark and a standard of evolutionary progress.  'I have' - 'I've' - 'Ive', or 'do not' - 'don't' - 'dont' ... attest to just such a centro-complexification, and any writer worthy of the claim 'progressive' will doubtless be more disposed to one or other of the two absolutist technical approaches to writing than to conventional relativity.  But a radical technique is of little use or justification if it does not serve an equally radical subject-matter, the thematic treatment of which should be no less radical.  One cannot and should not marry superphenomenal contractions to a worldly, or democratic, subject-matter, and neither should a post-worldly, or transcendental, subject-matter, treated positively and with sincerity, be married to phenomenal relativity.  Getting sorted out in this regard and remaining both technically and thematically congruous ... is the test of a great writer.  It is also the mark of one!


114. Other examples of phenomenal vis-à-vis superphenomenal vis-à-vis supernoumenal distinctions are afforded us by time and money.  In the case of time, we are speaking of a progression, as it were, from conventional alphanumeric relativity to noumenal absolutism, whether this latter be divisible, as between a.m. and p.m., or indivisible, and hence 24 hrs.  Thus 'five past six' or 'two minutes to eight' or 'half-past twelve' will accord with phenomenal relativity by dint of the compromise between numerals and words, even when, as in the examples cited, numerals are written as words (for, in reality, they are read as numbers from conventional wind-up watches).  However, superphenomenal time-reading will only entail numbers, as from a twelve-hour digital watch, and it is the division of such time into a.m. and p.m. which makes for a divisible absolutism.  With a 24 hr. digital, on the other hand, no such division exists, and therefore the indivisible absolutism which results from a 24 hr. mode accords with a supernoumenal status - the ultimate mode of time-reading, especially pertinent to a Social Transcendentalist society and ideological bias.


115. As to money, a similar progression from the phenomenal to the supernoumenal via the superphenomenal can be inferred with regard to the distinctions between traditional pounds/shillings/ pence counting and decimal counting which either divides pounds from pence, as in superphenomenal usage, or counts in pence alone, as with the supernoumenal alternative.  Thus whereas '£5 - 2s - 6p' accords with phenomenal relativity by dint of its fulcrum, so to speak, being shillings rather than pounds or pence, and therefore having a worldly and, indeed, atomic significance in between larger and smaller units (not to mention entailing a compromise, as with phenomenal time-reading, between words and numbers), '£6 - 50p' accords with a superphenomenal, or divisible, absolutism by dint of being pounds and fractions of pounds, i.e. pence, in contrast to the indivisible absolutism of '650p' which accords with a supernoumenal counting by dint of its exclusive emphasis on pence - a more idealistic emphasis, given the indivisible character of pence in relation to pounds.  Of course, in speaking of pounds, I am alluding to pound pieces rather than to notes.  For the superphenomenal can only be established on the basis of a coin absolutism, and would not be possible with notes and old-style (large) pennies, both of which accord with the phenomenal in its extreme manifestations.  It is just that with the superphenomenal this coin absolutism is divisible, as between pounds and pence.  With the supernoumenal, by contrast, it is only in pence and therefore indivisible.


116. Similarly, in respect of length measurement, yards, feet, and inches accord with the phenomenal, feet standing in between the two extremes in the way that shillings may be said to stand in between pounds and pence or, for that matter, minutes in between hours and seconds.  With metres and centimetres, however, one enters the realm of superphenomenal length measurement, the metric absolutism divisible between metres and centimetres, which can be transcended only on the supernoumenal basis of centimetre indivisibility.  Nowadays we deal in metric units rather than imperial ones and accordingly measure on a superphenomenal basis.  The same is true of weighing (grams, kilograms), solid volume (cubic metres, cubic centimetres), and so on ... through all the possible metric modes of quantification, and to that extent it is fair to say that phenomenal, i.e. imperial, standards of quantification no longer have any relevance.  In my view, telling the time on a conventional alphanumeric basis is no less obsolete than imperial measurements.  The man for whom the time is 'half-past twelve' (instead of 12.30) or 'five to six' (instead of 5.55) is living on the level of imperial measurements and is accordingly lagging behind the times.  Even the superphenomenal will one day be eclipsed as indivisible absolutism puts divisible absolutism in the shadow of its supernoumenal light.


117. Devolution from autocratic theocracy (the Father) to theocratic autocracy (Satan), with further devolution from autocratic autocracy (worldly alpha) to democratic autocracy (alpha world).  Evolution from autocratic democracy (omega world) to democratic democracy (worldly omega), with further evolution from theocratic democracy (the Antichrist) to democratic theocracy (the Holy Ghost).  Thus a 'fall', on the one hand, from alpha theocracy to the worldly alpha/alpha world via diabolic autocracy, and a 'rise', on the other hand, from the omega world/worldly omega to omega theocracy via diabolic democracy.  God - Devil - world; world - Devil - God, with the head, on both subconscious and old-brain terms, eclipsed by the worldly body on both autocratic and democratic terms, prior to the possibility of the head being resurrected, on both new-brain and superconscious terms, with the return of Devil and God on an omega basis.


118. Similarly, one could speak of a regression from alpha idealism to worldly realism via alpha naturalism and worldly materialism on the one hand, but of a progression from worldly superrealism to omega superidealism via worldly supermaterialism and omega supernaturalism on the other hand.  Thus from (idealistic) autocratic theocracy to (realistic) democratic autocracy via (naturalistic) theocratic autocracy and (materialistic) autocratic autocracy.  And thus from (superrealistic) autocratic democracy to (superidealistic) democratic theocracy via (supermaterialistic) democratic democracy and (supernaturalistic) theocratic democracy.  On the one hand, noumenal to subphenomenal regressions; on the other hand, phenomenal to supernoumenal progressions.  Devolution from the noumenal head to the subphenomenal body in the case of the regressive distinctions.  Evolution from the phenomenal body to the supernoumenal head in the case of the progressive distinctions.  Treated graphically, this will read as follows:-


         ALPHA DEVOLUTION                                      OMEGA EVOLUTION


    1.  autocratic theocracy  (noumenal)                                8.  democratic theocracy (supernoumenal)

    2.  theocratic autocracy (noumenal-subphenomenal)                7.  theocratic democracy (superphenomenal-supernoumenal)                  

   3.  autocratic autocracy (subphenomenal)                           6.  democratic democracy (superphenomenal)  

    4.  democratic autocracy (phenomenal-subphenomenal)             5.  autocratic democracy (subphenomenal-phenomenal)


Such a procedure is rather more complex and, I trust, accurate than would be the use of comparatively simple noumenal/phenomenal or superphenomenal/supernoumenal distinctions, given the necessary gradations of alpha devolution on the one hand and of omega evolution on the other hand which, considered with regard to the head in each of its dual extremities, flank worldly phenomenalism in regard to the body.


119. Thus we can pinpoint antithetical equivalents between idealistic autocratic theocracy, which is noumenal, and superidealistic democratic theocracy, which is supernoumenal; between naturalistic theocratic autocracy, which is noumenal-subphenomenal, and supernaturalistic theocratic democracy, which is superphenomenal-supernoumenal; between materialistic autocratic autocracy, which is subphenomenal, and supermaterialistic democratic democracy, which is superphenomenal; and between realistic democratic autocracy, which is phenomenal-subphenomenal, and superrealistic autocratic democracy, which is subphenomenal-phenomenal.  On the one hand, a devolutionary regression, as we have seen, from idealism to realism via naturalism and materialism; on the other hand, an evolutionary progression from superrealism to superidealism via supermaterialism and supernaturalism, with antithetical correlations between alpha idealism and omega superidealism, alpha naturalism and omega supernaturalism, alpha-worldly materialism and omega-worldly supermaterialism, worldly realism and worldly superrealism.  Thus the realistic body is flanked by the materialistic body, while the naturalistic head is flanked by the idealistic head.  Worldly relativity and worldly absolutism; diabolic relativity and divine absolutism.


120. Defining each historical distinction separately, we have in autocratic theocracy the subconsciously-dominated, Creator-oriented societies of pagan antiquity, including the Egyptian and early Irish, which may be defined as proto-papal by dint of their cosmic religious essence, an essence shared, though on a less elevated plane, by the succeeding theocratic autocracies which, again like the Egyptian and Irish, were rather more disposed to god-kings than to kingly gods ... to the extent that the latter lost power in proportion to the increase in power of the former, who thus ruled on the basis of diabolic and, hence, old-brain autocracy.  Contrasted to which we shall find the autocratic autocracies of alpha-worldly societies like the ancient Greek and Roman, whose chief characteristic is a secular ruling elite of kings and tyrants - an autocracy of the body as opposed to the head.  This is also true of the succeeding democratic autocracies, including the late Roman and early English, except that in their case the tyrant or monarch is accountable to his nobles through some agreement such as the Magna Carta, which effectively curbs his autocratic power.  One might say that autocratic devolution has gone as far as it is possible to go at this point without ceasing to be autocracy, and that such an autocratic nadir is a precondition of subsequent democratic transformation, following a Cromwell-type parliamentary revolution which shifts the balance of power from the monarch and his nobles to the People or, at any rate, the bourgeoisie in what I have termed an autocratic democracy - the parliamentary democracy upon which Britain built its greatness as a world power of the first rank, a democracy in which not the People but parliament is sovereign, an essential representational sovereignty which contrasts with, though exists in the service of, the apparent sovereignty of the reigning monarch within the constitutional framework of a United Kingdom.


121. And yet, if a parliamentary democracy is, by definition, bourgeois on account of its semi-autocratic nature, then the succeeding republican democracies of, for example, France and the United States may be regarded (somewhat contrary to accepted opinion) as proletarian democracies within a Western, or Germanic, context, which is necessarily bodily rather than of the head (in its new-brain aspect) and therefore inherently relative or, as we usually say, pluralistic.  For the body is politically divisible not just in the autocratic and democratic parts, as between blood and bone on the one hand and muscle and flesh on the other, but - as just indicated - in both its autocratic and its democratic aspects.  Now if this is not to push the metaphor too far, then I would say that in between such a division we can posit a bodily parallel to parliamentary democracy on the basis of a vein/nerve compromise, which is relatively middle-ground in relation to autocratic blood and bone on the one hand and to democratic muscle and flesh on the other, and therefore suitable to something which, strictly speaking, is neither of the one nor of the other but ... a sort of half-way house in between the two.  Thus if we are to equate blood with royalty, and hence a secular or bodily monarchy, while reserving for the nobility in general a connection with bones, both of which accord with an alpha-worldly autocracy, then the antithetical equivalent to this, namely an omega-worldly democracy, should be conceived in terms of the equation of bodily muscles with one part of the democratic democracy and flesh with the other, so that a kind of antagonism between muscles and flesh is envisaged, which, so I contend, would typify a Western-style People's democracy.


122. Taking the American democracy as our model, it seems feasible to equate muscles with the Democrats and flesh with the Republicans, which gives us a kind of pain/pleasure distinction between workers and players or, in popular parlance, the poor and the rich, the have-nots and the haves.  In a parliamentary democracy, on the other hand, no such political distinction really exists, because we are speaking rather more on the level of veins in the one case and of nerves in the other, neither of which has any real connection with proletarian extremes within a bodily context.  Indeed, such a division, being relative to an autocratic democracy, is somewhat more bourgeois than proletarian, as between plutocratic conservatism on the one side and laissez-faire liberalism on the other, and, so far as the British example of parliamentary democracy is concerned, no longer exists in its traditional mould but has been superseded by a kind of vein/muscle dichotomy between Low Toryism and Democratic Socialism (Labour), a dichotomy between disjunctive adversaries which is neither bourgeois nor proletarian but effectively grand bourgeois in the Tory case and petty bourgeois in that of the Democratic Socialists, so that each side pulls in obliquely opposite directions rather than, as with republican democracies, at approximately parallel points to each other.  The only way anything approximating to the American type of democracy could arise in Britain would be if the Labour Party, as the party correlative with muscles, found itself in opposition to a Liberal and/or Social Democratic party which, correlating with the flesh, sought to stay in government or to become the government at Labour's expense.  In other words, if the only two main contenders for political power in Britain were the Democratic Socialists and the Liberal Democrats - the former broadly representative of blue-collar interests and the latter of white-collar interests, neither of them much interested in either bourgeois or grand-bourgeois interests.


123. Yet such a dichotomy between alternative working-class parties is hardly likely to arise in a parliamentary democracy like Britain's where, one way or another, the Tories will always be a major, if not the main, contender for office, given British plutocratic traditions, and only one 'working-class' party can ever hope to seriously rival them as an effective alternative.  Two 'working-class' parties in competition for the majority vote may be a fact of life in republican democracies, but it certainly doesn't and can't have any reality in a parliamentary democracy, where one of the contending parties will always be bourgeois or, more correctly, grand bourgeois, and therefore constitute a direct link with the aristocracy and monarchy, the Lords and the reigning sovereign.  It is for this reason that any party to the right of the Conservatives will be not so much fascist, in the accepted latin sense, as neo-royalist, since blue blood in Conservative veins can be replaced, if necessary, by a transfusion of red blood in the event of the monarchy being seriously called into question or put under threat from the Extreme Left, no matter how unlikely such a prospect may seem in reality.  For just as the Extreme Right in a parliamentary democracy like Britain's can only be of the body, and hence a resurrection of royalist blood, so the Extreme Left will also be merely bodily, and hence muscular.  In both cases, the head is beyond the pale, as it must be in any parliamentary democracy, where either neo-royalism or socialist anarchism will be the alternative extremes, never genuine Fascism or Communism, which pertain to the head, but only something bodily.


124. And yet in a republican democracy, which is rather more extreme than a parliamentary one, head alternatives to the bodily rule will encroach upon the democratic status quo from time to time and threaten to destabilize it, as in France, where communistic opposition to democracy is not unheard of, even if such opposition hasn't had any appreciable effect in undermining or supplanting it.  For even the French remain by and large democratic in a Western mould, which, being bodily, is inherently superphenomenal and therefore relative.  Like their American counterparts, they fall short of the head and, consequently, France is not on that account a bourgeois democracy like Britain or Holland, even if it is less of a proletarian democracy, in the Western mould, than the United States of America, which is far more Germanic and accordingly more bodily and materialistic than France.  If France is ideologically contiguous with the lesser East European states like Poland and Hungary, then America is ideologically contiguous with the Commonwealth of Independent States (formerly the Soviet Union), that great supra-national entity which signifies a full-blown theocratic democracy, a democracy not of the body but the head and, needless to say, in terms of the new brain, which, in contrast to the democratic body, is indivisible and accordingly aligned with absolute political criteria, as congenial to the Slavic race.  For the Slav is less bodily in proportion as he is more brainy, using the word in an ideological sense.  Consequently he leads the ideological field and will continue to do so until the superconscious has its ideology and democratic theocracy, in the form of Social Transcendentalism, stakes its claim on a variety of, for the most part, Third World peoples in the name of a divine alternative to Transcendental Socialism.


125. Such an alternative, no less supra-national, would not be Fascist but, as I define it, Centrist, and therefore no mere resurrection of the subconscious or collective unconscious such as Nazism and, to a lesser extent, Italian Fascism tended to be.  These latter ideologies are no more identical to Social Transcendentalism than a military dictatorship is identical to Transcendental Socialism.  For whereas Fascism resurrects the subconscious, military dictatorships to some extent resurrect the old brain, and accordingly stand to Communism as Fascism to Centrism or, for that matter, bodily neo-royalism to socialism - mere rehashes of the alpha-stemming past rather than genuinely omega-oriented proletarian ideologies.  Now, obviously, for a head people like the Italians, the resurrection of subconscious idealism is no closer to true progress than the resurrection of Mosleyite neo-royalism for a bodily people like the British.  Either way - and with regard to neo-autocratic militarism as well - we are not seeing anything new but, rather, a kind of archreactionary obstacle to transcendental progress.  As history dealt with neo-royalism, so it has dealt with Fascism and military dictatorships.


126. Which leaves three contemporary alternatives, viz. Socialism, Communism, and Centrism, approximately paralleling the omega world, the omega Devil, and the omega God, whether or not subdivisions can be adduced in the case of the world, as between muscular Democratic Socialism and fleshy Liberal Democracy in Britain, or the muscular Democrats and the fleshy Republicans in the United States, or, indeed, any other Western equivalents of a two-party proletarian option which suggests if not an alternative approach to Socialism then certainly an alternative approach to Capitalism - one either State Capitalist, as in the British Labour movement traditionally, or Corporate, as in the American system, where Socialism in any strict sense of the word, i.e. with reference to public ownership of the (artificial) means of production, is strictly taboo.  For it does seem that Socialism in the West is interpreted far more with regard to a wider distribution of wealth on a capitalistic basis than in terms of a Socialist economy as such, which, within the bodily context relative to the germanic democracies of the West, could all too easily be interpreted too literally and materialistically, as in the case of fringe Socialist parties in which ownership is conceived on the basis of worker collectivism, or literal ownership by workers of the means of production at their factory, rather than in the more elevated, and hence idealistic, sense of public ownership through the State.


127. And yet ownership of the means of production by the People through the State should not be confused with State ownership as such.  For whereas the former is Socialism on a theocratic and therefore head (new-brain) basis, the latter is State Capitalism, and it is this rather than State Socialism which obtains in the West, particularly in countries like Britain.  For the People aren't strictly politically sovereign in the United Kingdom, which is a constitutional monarchy, and consequently they cannot own the means of production through the State.  On the contrary, it is the State which, in the guise of the sovereign parliament, takes over or buys-out industry, public services, etc., in the national interest, and accordingly on a State Capitalist basis.  Naturally, this procedure can be called Socialist by its practitioners, but in reality it is a very long way from actually being such!  For one cannot have State Socialism in a State which is patently capitalistic, democratic, Germanic, parliamentary, and therefore bodily through and through!  One can only have - short of selling-out to the most decentralized mode of public ownership, which is a formula for chaos - State Capitalism and, needless to say, in competition with Private Capitalism.  Thus the Capitalist/'Socialist' dichotomy is really a distinction between Private Capitalism on the one hand and State Capitalism on the other, which exists as a kind of tug-of-war between antithetical bodily interests: quasi-autocratic in the one case and democratic in the other, each of which is a component of parliamentary relativity within the context of the Nation State, so that there are, in effect, two competing centralized economic norms.


128. Now this is no less true of those Western societies where Corporatism tends to prevail over State Capitalism and consequently provides the main alternative to Private Capitalism, that is to say, to Capitalism pursued on an individualistic or traditional basis.  One could argue that whereas Private Capitalism is Republican and therefore aligned with the flesh, Corporate Capitalism is Democratic and accordingly more aligned with the muscles.  In each case, we have a post-parliamentary democratic antagonism between Private and Corporate Capitalism, which is not so much horizontal as vertical, and therefore constitutive of a proletarian polarity rather than of a grand-bourgeois/petty-bourgeois antagonism on the parliamentary model, as in Britain.  In this sense, the American democracy is too extreme to be State Capitalist, which is why, although nationalization does occur, Corporatism is the logical alternative to the private mode of Capitalism.  Furthermore, Capitalism in America is associated with an industrially more advanced society than is Capitalism in Britain or, for that matter, most other Western states, which is why I had no hesitation in associating Private Capitalism with the flesh instead of, as in Britain, with veins in the Tory case and nerves in that of the Liberals (latterly Liberal Democrats), both of which appertain to a less advanced or, depending on your point of view, older industrial society than the American.  If the Tories are traditionally about Private Capitalism on this middle-ground (veins) basis ... with strings, or import tariffs, then Liberals (including Thatcherite Tories) simply represent Private Capitalism without such strings, i.e. laissez faire, and therefore conducted on a freer, less harshly nationalistic basis.  They in no way signify State Capitalism, but simply a different and more egalitarian approach to Capitalism on a private basis.


129. Yet such an approach paves the way for State Capitalism which, masquerading as Socialism, seeks under Labour, traditionally, to supplant private-owned industry by nationalized industry whenever possible - at any rate, provided the Labour Party is being true to its petty-bourgeois colours and is not playing either the grand-bourgeois tariff capitalists' or the middle-bourgeois laissez-faire capitalists' games.  Should either of the latter subsequently change their tune slightly - the Tory capitalist becoming less obstructive of foreign imports and the Liberal capitalist partial to a degree of nationalized industry, services, etc., then that is no reason for Labour to sell-out to the private sector, but, rather, all the more reason for it to remain State Capitalist until such time, if ever, as politicians of a genuinely Socialist stamp begin to infiltrate the Labour movement and - dare I say it? - introduce notions of public ownership of the means of production on a Western and, hence, literal basis, the very basis that would undermine democratic centrality and threaten Labour's elected status as a parliamentary party.  For one cannot advocate decentralist economic policies without calling into question the entire future of State Capitalism, and to advocate such policies from a centralist, i.e. parliamentary, point of view, is both hypocritical and illogical, particularly when there cannot be the slightest chance of their implementation, least of all in terms of the basis in question!  Therefore, much as some people in the Labour Party may traditionally have entertained genuine ideals with regard to Socialist economics, there is no way those ideals could bear practical fruit without that party becoming torn apart and effectively committing political suicide.  For such ideals undermine the very basis on which the parliamentary Labour Party is elected, since they run contrary to its centralized grain.  Consequently the Labour Party, true to its state-capitalist colours, has no option but to oppose all those who would take power away from the centre in pursuance of Socialist economics.  For such people are wittingly or unwittingly a socialist 'fifth column' within the Labour movement and, like the Trojan Horse, their decentralist predilections can only lead to Labour's downfall!


130. However, despite militant-type infiltration, it has to be admitted that most decentralist economic thinking takes place outside the Labour Movement by Socialist parties that bitterly oppose what Labour stands for and see themselves as the vanguard or, at any rate, focal-point of Socialist opposition to Capitalism, both private and state.  Such parties are not interested in political centrality, with its socialistic politics of distributing wealth as widely and fairly as possible on the basis of State Capitalism, but represent economic decentralization and are accordingly economically Socialist (on the Western bodily model) where Labour is politically Socialist.  Thus they signify a 'fall' from political centrality to the economic fringes where, invariably, they languish in verbal opposition to the Capitalist status quo.  Frankly, there is scant chance of any hard-line extra-parliamentary party influencing the course of British political or economic thinking, and I wager that if, at some future time, the East became responsible for the political and economic direction of the West (as to some extent it already has done in regard to Japan), it would oppose the kind of economic thinking that advocates literal worker ownership of the means of production and introduce its own theory and, indeed, practice of a sort of sublimated ownership of those means by the workers through the State, so that State Socialism rather than Utopian Socialism became the economic norm, and the head, in its new-brain manifestation, accordingly prevailed over the body, whether as flesh or muscle.  For it is most unlikely that a highly centralized people like, for example, the Chinese would encourage decentralization, particularly in view of the fact that what they upheld, as State Socialism, was superior - as superior as the head to the body, and therefore not a materialistic but an idealistic approach to Socialist economics.


131. And yet State Socialism is not the ultimate form of economic management, no more than the new brain is the ultimate form of the head.  If it is superior to Utopian Socialism, it is distinctly inferior to theocratic Centrism, or trusteeship of the means of production by the Centre for the People, which pertains not to the Transcendental Socialist stage of evolution or mode of democracy, but to the Social Transcendentalist stage of evolution and mode of theocracy beyond, whether or not co-existence between the two becomes a temporary fact of life.  For just as what I have described as theocratic democracy, analogous to Transcendental Socialism, comes after democratic democracy in evolutionary terms, so democratic theocracy comes after theocratic democracy ... to usher in not the kingdom of superhell but the kingdom of superheaven, the Social Transcendentalist heaven in which trusteeship of the means of production by the Centre relieves the People of responsibility in respect of public ownership, and thereby renders them, through Superchristic auspices, all the more credible as collective, albeit rudimentary, Holy Ghost.  For one cannot own the means of production and be saved to the Holy Spirit at the same time, and if the People are to be saved (from the State and, hence, the materialistic worldly responsibilities which accrue to a republican status), then they must be freed from public ownership and elevated to the divine status of so many units of potential transcendence.  This can only happen by and through the Centre, which is my principal contribution to ideological evolution, and thus on the basis of a Social Transcendentalist revolution, democratically achieved, in those countries where the establishment of 'Kingdom Come' would be both logical and just.


132. For other countries - and I have gone into this subject often enough elsewhere in my writings without wishing to repeat myself here - Transcendental Socialism, with its state-socialist control of the means of production, would continue to be valid for quite some time, if only because the superdiabolic destiny is required if the world is to be overcome and all forms of Capitalism be consigned to the rubbish heap of history.  Doubtless the head in both its new brain and superconscious aspects will work together to this end, since such aspects have more in common and are closer to each other than to the body against which they must struggle, if the world is eventually to be overcome.  For the goal of history is not the perpetual co-existence of the world (with its autocracies and democracies), the Devil, and God, but the overcoming of the world by the Devil (theocratic democracy), and, finally, the overcoming of the Devil by God (democratic theocracy), in order that only the Divine may ultimately prevail and the 'Kingdom of Heaven' be globally established as the necessary precondition of post-millennial transcendence.  Thus if State Socialism corresponds to a superphenomenal-supernoumenal integrity commensurate with theocratic democracy, then Centre trusteeship corresponds to a supernoumenal integrity commensurate with democratic theocracy, that ultimate ideological standpoint which must eventually eclipse the penultimate ... if divine justice is to be done.  Verily, we have come a long way from the age of autocratic theocracy, both in terms of devolution and evolution, but haven't yet arrived at the age of democratic theocracy.  Only when we do, will 'heaven on earth' be more than just a dream or hope of the pious millions!


133. Strictly speaking, we should speak of the devolution of ape to pagan man, and then of the evolution of Christian man, and Christian-equivalent men in other (so-called) world religions, from pagan man.  For the necessary corollary of evolution towards the Omega Absolute is devolution from the Alpha Absolute, and in Christian man devolution and evolution balance out between the Devil on the one hand and Christ on the other, that is to say, between Hell and Heaven in relative terms.  The evolution of transcendental man from Christian man, however, takes man beyond such relativity into an aspiration towards the absolute Heaven of pure spirit, i.e. the Holy Ghost.  Transcendental man is thus wholly evolutionary and therefore antithetical to the devolutionary integrity of pagan man.  If the former can be described as superhuman, then the latter may be regarded as subhuman.  Only Christian, or relative, man was purely human, and thus balanced between devolutionary and evolutionary extremes in a kind of worldly purgatory of bodily humanism.  One might say that with this stage of life there is neither a dress absolutism nor a zipper suit absolutism, as between alpha and omega sartorial extremes, but a sort of compromise in the form of skirts on the one hand and trousers on the other hand.  Transvaluated devolution and untransvaluated evolution (since trousers are usually worn in conjunction with an overlapping jacket - a phenomenon rather more feminine than masculine).


134. Thus we should think in terms of devolution from planets and trees to animals, including apes, and early man, who himself underwent a further series of devolutions from autocratic theocracy and theocratic autocracy to autocratic autocracy and democratic autocracy, as already described.  The fact that early man tended to look-up to certain animals and even to worship trees can only be fully comprehended on the basis that he felt himself to be at a further remove from the noumenal than those animals or trees and consequently, in a very real sense, their inferior, so untransvaluated, and hence merely devolutionary, was his point of view.  Therefore it need not surprise us that women and children also held - and to some extent still hold - a special place in the estimation of men by dint of being closer to nature and accordingly more alpha-orientated in themselves.  The disparity in status between women and men was amply reflected in their respective modes of attire - the women garbed, as a rule, in full-length dresses ... suggestive of an alpha-noumenal absolutism, the men, by contrast, restricted to shorter-length dresses or, rather, tunics by dint of their inferior feminine status, not quite men but more akin to women in their psychological stance before the world.  In fact, we should distinguish men from women at this early juncture in time on the basis of a submasculine/superfeminine dichotomy, since if men were neither sartorially nor psychologically quite masculine, they were nevertheless not women in any clinical sense, and therefore deserve at least a submasculine status, which contrasts quite sharply with the full-blown femininity, as it were, of women, whom I have accordingly described as superfeminine.  For if we think of men in this way, it enables us to pit an evolution from submasculine to supermasculine via masculine levels against a devolution from superfeminine to subfeminine via feminine levels, as between submen and superwomen in a devolutionary stage of history, men and women in a balanced devolutionary/ evolutionary stage, and subwomen and supermen in an evolutionary stage such as we are currently embarked upon.  For what devolves on the one side must evolve on the other.  A contemporary female in miniskirt is rather more a subwoman than a woman, for whom a knee-length skirt would be the norm, whereas a male in a one-piece zipper suit is rather more a Superman than a man, for whom trousers would be the norm.  Yet just as women can now dress beyond miniskirts in jeans, one-piece zipper suits, etc., and so become effectively quasi-supermasculine, so men once dressed beneath pantaloons, breeches, leggings, etc., in gowns or tunics, and thus appeared effectively quasi-superfeminine.  Sartorial dichotomies between male and female are to all intents and purposes cancelled out at the very extremes of devolution and evolution.  There is only noumenon in the one case and supernoumenon in the other.  But as soon as the phenomenon enters into account, no matter how modestly initially, i.e. in subphenomenal terms, we have a 'fall' from noumenal indivisibility into noumenal/phenomenal divisibility which, contrary to appearances, continues as devolution until such time as a transvaluation along Christian lines ('rebirth') establishes the phenomenal in an evolutionary light, and consequently it assumes an independence from the noumenal which paves the way for true evolution in due course, that is to say on the basis of a superphenomenal/supernoumenal dichotomy, pending the eventual eclipse of the superphenomenal and subsequent attainment of a supernoumenal indivisibility.  For we must pass through the relative in order to attain to the absolute, and the world is but a phenomenal precondition of supernoumenal salvation.


135. Applying my devolutionary/evolutionary theories to Darwin and, indeed, to the creation-verses-evolution argument which persists even now in some quarters, I would maintain that while the evolutionists are not entirely right, the creationists are far from being entirely wrong.  Or, put like this, it should be apparent that while man wasn't literally created by God (the Father), he didn't evolve from apes either but, rather, devolved from them to become not man as we understand him, but a subhuman creature with no concept of evolution and no desire, initially, to break with the alpha-stemming system of things.  It is only because and to the extent that we are evolutionary that we tend to regard man's emergence from apes in an evolutionary light.  An untransvaluated point of view, strongly autocratic in character, would regard it in an entirely different light - indeed, in terms of creationism, which is nothing less than a mythical concept of devolution, i.e. devolution in a noumenal age, when gods rather than stars ruled human consciousness and man sought an explanation for life not in science but in religion.  Of course, this is still true of some men even these days, which is why they oppose evolutionary theories from a creationist point of view.  Yet two wrongs don't make a right!  Both creation and evolution must go, the one because alpha-stemming metaphysics is no longer relevant, and the other because it imposes where it doesn't belong.  Only devolution can adequately explain the link between ape and man, and the more devolved man became from nature, the less sway alpha-noumenal criteria had upon him and the closer he grew to an evolutionary possibility, the very possibility to which we, in this post-Christian age, are logical heirs.


136. To my mind, the Big Bang theory of the origins of the Universe is merely a secular extrapolation from monotheism and, consequently, no nearer the truth as to how the Universe began than monotheism.  For as most people will know, monotheism was not the original state of religious observance but a Judaic creation established in defiance of pagan polytheism, as sanctioned by virtually all of the ancient world, including the Greeks and Romans.  Thus polytheism is the original mode of religious observance, monotheism a revolt against pagan precedent and therefore a worldly, anthropomorphic development which sought to eclipse the Many by the One, the Gods by God.  But polytheism is closer, by dint of its primal nature, to the truth of the origins of the Universe than monotheism, if by 'truth' we mean that which accords with a proton-constituted diabolic order or, rather, disorder of flaming stars flying everywhichway.  Consequently ‘Big Bangs’ would likewise be closer to the truth of the origins of the Universe than the monotheistic Big-Bang theory currently in vogue in the Judeo-Christian West.  For what begins in proton-proton reactions does not begin in unity but, rather, in disunity and, hence, friction, and such a beginning is less divine than diabolic, even though it will be perceived as divine by pagan humanity, who are polytheistic in consequence.  Divinizing the diabolic, or replacing polytheism by monotheism, comes later ... at a more devolved juncture in time when, as with the ancient Hebrews, the desire for a unitary explanation of creation took precedence over polytheistic diversity, and the One God was accordingly proclaimed.  It could be said that at this monotheistic point in time, the universal has been eclipsed by the galactic, that the Galaxy has, in effect, replaced the Universe, and the divine reference-point accordingly become more centralized, as though a macrocosmic centrifugal bias has been superseded by a microcosmic centripetal one, which could only signify progress away from the Many towards the One.


137. It has long been a contention of my philosophy that the central star of the Galaxy, as of any galaxy, is the God-equivalent star (the Almighty), and if we devolve from galaxies in general to this galaxy in particular, then the inevitable religious concomitance of doing so is a devolution from gods in general to the particular god which, as the central star of the Galaxy, serves a monotheistic purpose.  Furthermore, devolutionary progress is also guaranteed by citing an unseen First Mover (the central star of this galaxy) at the expense of stars in general, irrespective of their galactic positions, so that, contrary to polytheistic precedent, only this First Mover, or Creator-star, is accorded a divine status, not the small or peripheral stars which, in reality, are diabolic by dint of their decentralized, revolving, and (in relation to the central star) cruder proton formations.  For the largest stars will be the purest as well as the oldest, and therefore be wavicle proton-proton reactions as opposed to particle proton-proton reactions, which is nothing less than a distinction, on an alpha-cosmic basis, between the Divine and the Diabolic, the large central star of any given galaxy and the host of smaller peripheral stars which revolve around it.  Thus not only is monotheism an improvement on polytheism by dint of singling out one galaxy, namely the one in which we happen to live, and effectively attributing divinity to its principal star; it improves on polytheism by avoiding the error of attributing divinity to stars in general, irrespective of their galactic positions, with a consequence that only that which is relatively divine in relation to lesser stars (inherently diabolic) is acknowledged as such, and no confusion of the Divine with the Diabolic, or vice versa, can result.


138. If monotheism refers back, willy-nilly, knowingly or unknowingly, to the central star of the Galaxy, then it seems to me that atheism, or the refusal to acknowledge God's existence, whether monotheistically or polytheistically, is inherently worldly and therefore a step down, as it were, from the head to the body or, more literally, from the Cosmos to the planet, so that earth-centrism comes to replace star-centrism, and man accordingly becomes the measure of all things, including divinity, which no longer exists transcendently but anthropomorphically and, consequently, in the guise of man, in accordance with humanistic criteria.  Such a humanized God is hardly God in any true, or formless, sense, but a worldly figure whose reign will only last while the world, and hence the body, has its day.  For He is relative to the world and must end with it, once it is overcome by the superdiabolic Antichrist.  Of all churches, the Protestant Church is the most purely Christic and therefore worldly, since it is effectively atheistic with regard to the Father, or Creator-God, having no allegiance whatsoever to the papacy, that symbol and representative on earth of the Father.  Yet if bourgeois liberal humanism is centred in a false, or worldly, God, then proletarian socialist humanism is centred in the Antichrist, which is to say, the superdiabolic.  It is not only atheist with regard to the Father, but also with regard to the Son, whom it looks down upon from a head (new-brain) standpoint.  One might almost say that it is polytheistic in respect of the People who, as proletariat, are democratically sovereign, sovereign diabolically rather than divinely.  For this latter sovereignty can only exist in and through the Centre ... in which not the new brain but the superconscious prevails, making for a theocratic sovereignty in the People which is monotheistic to the extent that it can be associated with a collective spiritual aspiration towards divinity, conceived as the omega goal and culmination of evolution.


139. Thus from atheistic worldly sovereignty to monotheistic divine sovereignty via polytheistic diabolic sovereignty - three stages and manifestations of popular sovereignty, two of which have already come to pass, the third of which awaits its coming largely in and for the Third World, that truly godly part of the globe.  For just as the so-called First World, meaning the West, is the truly atheistic, and hence capitalistic, part of the globe, so the Second World is the polytheistic, and hence socialistic, part of it.  The Third World, which has yet to become monotheistic in the transcendental sense I imply, will be Centrist and therefore beyond democratic sovereignty both in terms of the body (First World) and the head (Second World).  Its sovereignty will be theocratic and thus of the superconscious.  Such sovereignty is not only the highest of the three popular alternatives, it is the ultimate sovereignty, and once the globe has been brought to it, mankind will be set directly on course for the Omega Beyond.  But before God in this ultimate sense can eclipse the Devil, the Devil must eclipse the world.  For that is the logic of historical evolution!


140. Traditionally, man stands to woman as the sun to the earth, which is to say as the Diabolic to the world.  Woman is physical, whereas man is wilful.  Woman is mundane, whereas man is transcendental.  He is 'will' in the Schopenhaurian sense of the word, and it is the exercise of this will which, in connection with woman, results in sexual conquest.  For the bigger, more powerful body that is man goes in search of the smaller, weaker body that is woman and strives to bend it to its will.  Sex is therefore akin to a union of the sun with the earth, and the child that ultimately results from this union is akin to the moon, is effectively a kind of human satellite, dependent upon and hence revolving around its mother, who is akin to the earth.  It shines, like the moon, with a borrowed or reflected light, the light of parental, though especially maternal, authority.  Now this light is chaste and intellectual, not unchaste and sensual, like the sun and, by implication, emotional love of the husband for his wife.


141. Thus the family is but a microcosmic reflection of and extrapolation from the Solar System, is effectively a mini solar system ... with sun, earth, and moon(s), the father giving, like the sun, to his wife and child, who revolve around him - the one directly (as planet) and the other indirectly (as moon).  Originally man had many wives, the principle of polygamy more closely paralleling the Solar System than monogamy, which is really an attenuation of it consequent upon solar devolution.  In other words, the more primitive the age or society, the more likely it is to reflect the Solar System in terms of one sun and several planets or, translated into human terms, one husband and several wives, each of whom have children (satellites) of their own who, naturally enough, revolve around them.  Thus the modern monogamous family is but the furthermost contraction of a cosmic principle, the utmost point of galactic devolution.  Father, mother, and child - sun, earth, and moon.  Add a godfather, and one has the equivalent of the central star of the Galaxy, the First Mover in the family cosmos, who remains somewhat aloof from the family unit itself, as godfathers should, just as the central star remains at a constant, almost aloof distance from the Solar System of which the sun is the principal mover.  For the father-proper, corresponding to the sun, is effectively a devilfather in relation to the godfather and, hence, someone who directly imposes, through masculine will, upon his wife, who, as mother of her child, corresponds to the earth, with its moon in attendance.


142. Yet just as the sun is a larger and more powerful body than the earth, and the earth in turn is a larger and more powerful body than the moon, so the husband is a larger and more powerful body, as a rule, than his wife, who, in turn, is a larger and more powerful body than her child, be it son or daughter.  In relation to his wife, the husband, or devilfather, stands, like the sun, in an immoral light, since he imposes upon her for his own sexual self-gratification.  On the other hand, the wife, or earthmother, stands to her husband in an amoral light, like the earth to the sun, prepared to bow to his will when required to do so but not, in herself, sexually self-assertive.  Thus she stands in between husband and child, since only on this amoral basis can the latter be accredited a moral standing in relation to herself.  For the child shines, it will be remembered, with a borrowed light, like the moon, and is therefore anything but amoral itself, still less immoral and, hence, self-assertive like its father.  On the contrary, the child is innocent and therefore sexually moral, shielded from the immorality of the father by the amorality of the mother, who is the intermediary making the child's existence possible, just as the earth makes the existence of the moon possible and, in a sense, shields it from the sun.  Thus children were regarded by Christ as epitomizing, in their innocence and purity, the 'Kingdom of Heaven', since they are not consumed, like husbands and fathers, with sexual lust, but exist at a transcendent or, at any rate, moral remove from any such possibility, shining with the light of intellectual curiosity, which includes curiosity as to the nature of sexuality, particularly as it bears upon parental distinctions.


143. Such curiosity, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with lustful fantasies concerning sex itself.  For these only emerge, as a rule, following puberty, when the moral innocence of childhood is undermined and besieged by creeping adulthood, and one of two things generally happens, depending on one's sex: either, as a female, one becomes amoral, like the earth, and accepts the possibility of being sexually imposed upon or, as a male, one become immoral, like the sun, and actually proceeds to sexually impose oneself upon others.  There is, however, a third possibility, which is considerably rarer and only found, as a rule, among people - and in particular men - of genius, and that is a refusal to consider oneself in either a sexually amoral or an immoral light but, on the contrary, a determination to remain celibate and therefore moral.  As I say, it is usually only men of genius or religious vocation who are like this, and they may be regarded as very much an exception to the rule, a kind of adult children who, willy-nilly, aspire to following in Christ's footsteps and becoming as little children in their own creative or contemplative 'Kingdoms of Heaven', wherein the pursuit of truth is the principal aim, the raison d'être of their moral existence.  On the other hand, the great majority of men are drawn towards the sun, as it were, and effectively function towards women in a diabolic and, hence, immoral fashion, albeit one regulated by social conditioning.  Where marriage does not take place, it can be assumed, I think, that the couple concerned are more evolved than to fall for a social pattern which derives, in all its essentials, from cosmic precedent and is therefore inherently alpha-stemming and atomic.  Yet cohabitation is still hardly a transvaluation along the lines of a social rebirth, but more a symptom of the breakdown or decay of traditional values.  For as often as not the male partner in such a relationship has imposed himself upon the female and thereby functions, in effect, as a sun vis-à-vis a planet, or as the sun to the earth.  Now if a child results from their relationship, it is no less a kind of moon equivalent than if they had been married.  The only real difference is that it is then more of an unofficial moon equivalent than an official one, just as its progenitors may be described as unofficially paralleling the sun and the earth respectively.


144. No, while the degeneration of an age-old system of familial relationships is one thing, a true transvaluation is quite another!  For whereas the former is the utmost point of devolution, a truly evolutionary stance can only be maintained outside of and beyond all heterosexual cohabitations, whether official or unofficial, bound or free.  Yet by this I do not mean through homosexual cohabitation, which is less omega-orientated than worldly or, rather, antiworldly, but through the establishment, under Social Transcendentalism, of a transcendent process of propagation which is designed to free both men and women alike from atomic interdependence and thereby allow for a free-electron society commensurate with divine criteria.  For men and women cannot live together and be saved.  Even Christ taught that to follow Him and set-up the 'Kingdom of Heaven' one would have to abandon family, wife, girlfriends, etc., since such a 'Kingdom' can only be established on a supermasculine basis, and so long as atomic compromises between males and females continue to exist, it is not Heaven but the world that prevails, as at present, for the great majority of people, who maintain familial relationships.


145. Consequently the 'Kingdom of Heaven', which I interpret in Social Transcendentalist and hence Centrist terms, cannot be established while families, patterned on the Solar System, continue to exist, and therefore the family, which is already under threat from the winds of change, will have to be consigned to the rubbish heap of social history ... if the free-electron Heaven is ever to be born.  For Heaven and the world are incommensurate, cannot co-exist, and if Heaven is to become more than a wishful dream but a sort of concrete reality, then the world, in all its permutations, must die - whether naturally or violently.  Those of us who wish to further Heaven have no option but to oppose the world.  For unless we do so, the world, and hence the family, will continue to exist indefinitely, to the detriment of Heaven.


146. Thus Social Transcendentalism will be pledged, in the future, to rejection of the family and to the furtherance of artificial methods of propagation, including sperm banks, artificial insemination, test-tube reproduction, incubators, State- or, rather, Centre-sponsored collective nurturing and upbringing of children, and so on ... in order that the need for family relations, and thus by implication the cohabitation of men and women, can become a thing of the past, as relative to an alpha-stemming or atomic phase of social experience.  For where the People are concerned, we are dealing less with atomic man and woman than - potentially if not literally at this juncture in time - with electron Superman and quasi-Superman respectively, at any rate within the republican context, and it would be both morally and socially wrong to regard them in a strongly atomic and, hence, familial light.  Everything should be geared to the absolute, to absolutist criteria, and this includes sexual behaviour no less than any other pattern of social behaviour.  Where a more sublimated, pornographic sexuality is neither possible nor desirable ... by dint of an individual's comparative spiritual or psychological limitations, then plastic-inflatable ('sex doll') or vibrator sexuality should obtain, thereby lifting sex from the natural to the artificial plane and providing a release from sexual tensions which might otherwise seek traditional and therefore worldly outlets, to the detriment of spiritual progress.  For, in the future, people will not behave like animals but like gods - indeed, the People will be God ... the Holy Ghost and consequently be above natural patterns of sexual behaviour, even if only as far above, initially, as is compatible with the use of either plastic inflatables or vibrators, depending on one's gender.  Life will not be relative and dualistic, as at present, but absolute and transcendental, with a much more radical swing between solitude and multitude, which is to say, between sensual obligations conducted in private and spiritual aspirations carried out in public.  Thus while people will live alone in single rooms or cubicles, and so sleep, eat, drink alone (non-alcoholically), and have solitary sex, they will be far more public and collective as regards the spiritual, cultural, and educational aspects of life.  For the public face will be entirely religious in character, and such a face can only achieve a blissful smile when it no longer has to compete with public sensuality, of whatever description.  To all appearances, it will be as though the sensual side of life didn't exist, since only the spiritual side would obtain a public airing.  Truly, the Social Transcendentalist 'Kingdom of Heaven' would be a very different proposition from the Liberal world!  The Solar System would not enter into account, being, to all intents and purposes, a taboo subject - like astronomy.


147. Masculinity and femininity are of the world rather than of that which precedes or succeeds it.  Strictly speaking, it cannot be said that the stars are either masculine or feminine, since they are less masculine or feminine than pre- or sub-masculine/feminine ... in that their existence is on the plane of a subatomic absolute, i.e. proton-proton reactions, and therefore it cannot be accorded gender.  Yet just as the stars are beneath gender, so pure spirit of a transcendent order, i.e. electron-electron attractions, would be above gender and therefore supra-atomic in constitution, no less absolute in its own fashion than the stars or, at any rate, the biggest and purest of them are in theirs.  For the smaller stars may be regarded as having devolved from proton purity to a crude atomicity which, in the case of planets like the earth, assumes an inorganic materialistic status commensurate with the atom as such and, hence, with a combination of protons and electrons.  Doubtless there are degrees of devolution from the utmost, or wavicle, proton purity to a very crude, or particle, proton purity, which is nothing less than a distinction between the Divine and the Diabolic, or the central star of the Galaxy and peripheral stars like the sun, while further devolution will entail the formation of inorganic materialism on the basis of planetary atomicity.


148. However that may be, we would have no more right to consider a proton star masculine than an electron globe of pure spirit feminine.  Gender only obtains in the world, and it does so both simultaneously and successively, the former literally and the latter effectively, since the world passes from a predominantly centrifugal phase to a predominantly centripetal one in the course of its historical unfolding, and this is approximately commensurate with the distinction between autocracy and democracy - the one preceding the other, just as dresses precede trousers and bottles precede cans.  Thus whilst it obviously goes without saying that men exist in an autocratic age no less than women in a democratic one, it nevertheless has to be said that in the former context the female element predominates, whereas in the latter context it is the male element which is ascendant, and to such an extent that the female element becomes threatened with total eclipse, a fact which in large measure explains the paradoxical phenomenon of feminism - really quite the opposite of what it at first appears to be, since less a defence of woman as woman than a manifestation of masculine criteria or, more correctly, a symptom of the ongoing 'masculinization' of the female to a point where she no longer regards herself in traditional feminine terms but, rather, in relation to a liberation from them.  Through Feminism woman is effectively pursuing her right, in this incipiently post-atomic age, to be treated like a man and granted equal opportunity with men.  For, as I have often maintained in the past, women who effectively function like men deserve to be treated like men, and this is the only workable basis for equality between the sexes, an equality founded upon the post-dualistic nature of an advanced democratic society, wherein distinctions between male and female gradually cease to apply, as ongoing masculine progress eclipses the feminine element in life.


149. Of course, there are women and women, just as there are men and men ... on each side, one might say, of the political divide, and while some women are determined to socially progress and to see that justice, on the basis of sexual equality, is done, there are others who, inherently more conservative or intellectually less-evolved, seek to impede post-sexist progress as much as possible and thereby stand-up for traditional female norms, whether in terms of sex or motherhood or domestic responsibility or whatever ... to the detriment of women's liberation.  Whether or not they realize it, such women are fighting a losing battle - like their male counterparts.  For the pressure of evolution is decidedly away from female/male distinctions, which are merely bourgeois, towards a unisexual uniformity in which, instead of a skirt/trousers dichotomy, one finds a jeans and, eventually, one-piece zipper suit absolutism indicative of a free-electron homogeneity.  The world may be balanced between female and male elements, not to mention autocratic and democratic political norms, but that which supersedes it, whether as Devil or God, Transcendental Socialism or Social Transcendentalism, is less concerned with such a balance than with establishing, on a unisexual basis, free societies in which everything sexist has been consigned to the rubbish heap of world history, including the traditional maternal and sexual status of women.


150. Yet while such societies - and in particular that which pertains to the Superdivine rather than to its superdiabolic counterpart - would maintain a unisexual bias, the eventual outcome of evolution should be no less post-feminine than the inception of devolution was pre-masculine, and accordingly aspirations towards the culmination-point in Eternity would be beyond gender and therefore manifestations of a free-electron absolutism which, being neither male nor female, could only be defined in terms of a blissful 'it'.  This would be especially true of those aspirations which were conducted on a post-human basis within the millennial context of the Supra-beings, or new-brain collectivizations, which I have hitherto characterized as the second (after the Superbeings) and final post-human life form beyond man.  For a Supra-being would be as much above man, and hence gender, as a tree is beneath him, and in this totally classless, genderless society of hypermeditating new-brain collectivizations, the development of pure spirit would be taken to such a point that transcendence, or the achievement of pure electron-electron attractions, would automatically ensue ... to signal the beginnings of a truly heavenly phase of evolution.  Such electron-electron attractions, antithetical to the proton-proton reactions which characterize the alpha noumenal, would bring evolution to a supernoumenal culmination, which would be as far above masculine superphenomenalism as the inception of devolution was beneath feminine subphenomenalism.  Verily, at whichever extreme of the Universe one cares to dwell, there is neither 'she' nor 'he', but only 'it'.