151. Although the death penalty is fundamentally an autocratic procedure deriving its justification from the tit-for-tat mentality of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', we can, I think, distinguish between applications of the death penalty which are bodily and applications which pertain, by contrast, to the head, thereby effectively distinguishing the world from the Diabolic and/or Divine - a distinction more often taking effect between one type of country or society and another ... than within the confines of any given country or society. Thus whilst it can be argued that some countries will favour executions which make a target of the head, other countries will favour executions which take immediate effect against the body, and this, I argue, is because such countries are inherently bodily rather than of the head, i.e. worldly as opposed to diabolic or divine. Consequently in the first category of executions we can place beheading (whether by sword or axe), hanging, and guillotining, the latter a kind of antithetical equivalent of the axe option, insofar as the head is actually removed, albeit by mechanical rather than manual means. In the second category, however, we shall find crucifying, shooting, and electrifying, as with the electric chair. Broadly, the first modes of execution in each category are parallel both in an historical and an evolutionary sense, as are the second and third respectively. Therefore we can posit a parallel progression from beheading/crucifying to guillotining/electrifying via hanging/shooting - at least in an approximate way, since overlappings between one mode of execution and another do of course occur, and some countries have shown a susceptibility towards more than one mode both in terms of horizontal and vertical distinctions - in other words, with regard to both the head and the body (Britain being a case in point, as between hanging and shooting, for which its inveterate dualistic integrity may be cited as a probable explanation).
152. However that may be, such options are usually with regard to adjacent modes of execution like beheading and hanging or shooting and electrifying, rather than with regard to what might be described as the historical extremes, like beheading and guillotining on the one hand, or crucifying and electrifying on the other hand. The Republican French may have guillotined people, but they didn't literally behead them with an axe. Similarly, while Americans may sentence people to death through electrocution, they are unlikely to crucify anyone. Such extremes are mutually exclusive and, hence, reserved for antithetical periods in historical time - as between autocratic antiquity and democratic modernity. Yet no matter how antithetical these methods of execution may happen to be, they have reference either vis-à-vis the head, as in the French case, or vis-à-vis the body, as in the American case, and this factor is symptomatic, it seems to me, of the peoples concerned and the type of society in which they happen to live. Just as the guillotine affects the head via the neck, so the electric chair affects the body via the limbs.
153. Now what applies to these latter-day modes of execution applies no less to the primitive modes such as beheading on the one hand and crucifying on the other hand. It even applies, in some degree, to the relatively bourgeois, or realistic, modes of execution coming in-between. For hanging predominantly has effect with regard to the head and shooting with regard to the body, the former a more idealistic method of execution than the latter ... to the extent that it focuses on the head or, more specifically, the neck as opposed to the body, while yet leaving the head intact. In effect, hanging is more moderate than either beheading or guillotining, just as shooting (in the chest) is more moderate than either crucifying or electrifying. Each of these pertains to a less extreme type of civilization, and one could argue that the replacement of hanging by shooting is indicative of a degenerate progression from idealism to materialism and is therefore symptomatic of a liberal rather than a Christian epoch in time - the head having been eclipsed, as it were, by the body.... As to the distinction I suggested earlier between the Diabolic and the Divine, both of which pertain rather more to the head than to the body, I think we should regard beheading by axe as a diabolic mode of execution and beheading by sword as a divine one, insofar as the axe suggests, in its truncated materialism, a particle equivalence, whereas the sword suggests, in its elongated idealism, a wavicle equivalence, and this is nothing less than the fundamental distinction between the Diabolic and the Divine. Accordingly, one could argue that the use of a small or short guillotine would signify a diabolic mode of execution, while the use of a large or tall one would amount to a comparatively divine mode of execution - the length of the blade also a determining factor, on the basis of the particle/wavicle distinction already drawn in relation to axes and swords. Since, in principle, I am against the death penalty, I am not here advocating its reinstatement in terms of either the guillotine or the electric chair, still less in terms of older and cruder methods of execution, but am simply endeavouring to provide a brief outline, necessarily partial, of the principal historical modes of execution as they bear upon God/Devil and world distinctions between the head and the body, and therefore in relation to the tripartite essence of my teachings.
154. The opposite of a gentleman is not a man but a rough man - in short, a lout. For the world isn't simply dualistic or antithetical, but is divisible between divine, diabolic, and worldly options, with the latter somewhat preponderant these days. Thus while the majority of men may be described as neither particularly gentle nor rough but as existing somewhere in between the two extremes, it can be inferred that they correspond to the mean and consequently are men in relation to the less populous categories of divinely-biased gentlemen on the one hand and diabolically-biased rough men on the other, both of which stand to the former as the head to the body and, hence, as God and Devil to the world. For a tripartite division on this basis is of the essence of life, and explains why it is so often riven with frictions not only between the Diabolic and the Divine, but between each of these and the worldly, the latter of which will often be divided against themselves (as in parliament). To establish approximate sartorial distinctions between each of our three principal categories of males (each of which has its female counterpart), we may posit a PVC zipper-jacket mean for those in the first, or divine, category; a leather-jacket mean for those in the second, or diabolic, category; and a cotton denim/cord-jacket mean for those in the third, or worldly, category.
155. However, as I have specifically selected
superphenomenal modes of jacket attire, I must qualify my selection in relation
to supermen rather than men, since we have to distinguish between contemporary
proletarian norms and the more conventional bourgeois norms ... if we are to do
proper justice to the present. Thus
males who regularly dress in such fashion will be less gentlemen, rough men,
and men than effectively supergents, super-roughs, and supermen - as
appertaining to an alternative society.
Obviously, in traditional terms, gentlemen have dressed in silk or some
other finer material than either rough men or men in general, and where
bourgeois gentlemen continue to exist, as in
156. Further to my earlier supernotational entry concerning the division of theism into monotheistic, polytheistic, and atheistic categories, I should now like to add a fourth category - namely that of pantheism, and to place this mode of theism, which identifies God with nature, in between polytheism and atheism in a chronological sequence reading as follows: monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, which I would like to equate with specific historical/ideological periods of time and/or civilization ... beginning with (idealistic) autocratic theocracy and ending, as before, with (superidealistic) democratic theocracy, all due gradations of devolution and evolution coming in-between. Thus to take the devolutionary series from autocratic theocracy to democratic autocracy first, we shall have a regression, so to speak, from autocratic theocracy to democratic autocracy via theocratic autocracy and autocratic autocracy, which can be illustrated, as before, in the following manner:-
1. autocratic theocracy (idealistic monotheism)
2. theocratic autocracy (naturalistic polytheism)
3. autocratic autocracy (materialistic pantheism)
4. democratic autocracy (realistic atheism)
with autocratic theocracy corresponding to idealistic monotheism, theocratic autocracy corresponding to naturalistic polytheism, autocratic autocracy corresponding to materialistic pantheism, and democratic autocracy corresponding to realistic atheism, the latter of which brings us to the possibility and, indeed, reality of a democratic transvaluation, as it were, and therefore of an evolutionary progression from autocratic democracy to democratic theocracy via democratic democracy and theocratic democracy, as follows:-
8. democratic theocracy (superidealistic monotheism)
7. theocratic democracy (supernaturalistic polytheism)
6. democratic democracy (supermaterialistic pantheism)
5. autocratic democracy (superrealistic atheism)
with autocratic democracy corresponding to superrealistic atheism, democratic democracy corresponding to supermaterialistic pantheism, theocratic democracy corresponding to supernaturalistic polytheism, and democratic theocracy corresponding to superidealistic monotheism - the ultimate divinity.
157. Thus if we once more bring the two series together into one devolutionary/evolutionary diagram, we shall find:-
ALPHA DEVOLUTION OMEGA EVOLUTION
1. monotheistic autocratic theocracy 8. monotheistic democratic theocracy
2. polytheistic theocratic autocracy 7. polytheistic theocratic democracy
3. pantheistic autocratic autocracy 6. pantheistic democratic democracy
4. atheistic democratic autocracy 5. atheistic autocratic democracy
which gives us a comprehensive outline of religious regression ... from the Creator to Catholic atheism via Satan and the Virgin Mary on the one hand, and of religious progression ... from Protestant atheism to the Holy Ghost via the Second Coming and the Antichrist on the other hand. For in relation to the monotheistic extremes of the Father and the Holy Ghost, the anthropomorphic middle-ground of Catholicism and Protestantism is distinctly atheistic, as befitting worldly humanism. In other words, the divine focus of Christianity is not the Creator, still less the Holy Spirit, but Christ ... regarded as the Son of God and therefore in effect as man. The only real difference between the Catholic Christ and the Protestant one is that whereas the former is autocratic, the latter is democratic ... as relative to the distinction between democratic autocracy and autocratic democracy, each of which corresponds to realistic periods of worldly time. Thus whereas the Catholic Christ is closer to the Father, both theologically and paternally, the Protestant Christ is relatively independent of the Father and consequently more democratically humanistic and religiously accessible. In the one case pessimistic atheism; in the other case optimistic atheism. But atheist they both remain, if for no other reason than that the religious focus is on man rather than on some theistic Creator of the Universe.
158 Hence Christianity is essentially idolatrous from a truly divine standpoint, and may be described as the religion of the world, as opposed to either God (monotheism) or the Devil (polytheism). Similarly, pantheism is also a worldly religion, if in the somewhat broader sense of identifying God with nature rather than with either the Cosmos, in one or more of its components, or man. Certainly polytheism and pantheism can and do overlap, as when the stars are regarded as being part of nature. But, strictly speaking, worldly pantheism will be confined to the earth. I have subsumed this under the Virgin Mary only because, like Venus before her, she can be equated with 'Mother Earth' and, hence, with nature as opposed to the Cosmos on the one hand and man on the other, coming in-between polytheistic and atheistic alternatives. Similarly, I have subsumed superpantheism, or the artificial pantheism of a democratic democracy, under the Second Coming ... not because I wish to identify it with Christ, but to point up a kind of sexual antithetical equivalent to the Virgin Mary which, taking America as our model, can be regarded as a symbol for worship of the machine - the form superpantheism more usually takes. Thus God as machine rather than God as nature, and, in a certain mythical sense, Superman, who may well approximate to the American equivalent of the Second Coming - an all-powerful doer of good.
159. However that may be, superpantheism accords
with a supermaterialistic age and society, the exact antithesis to autocratic
materialism, and whilst it, too, is of the world, it borders on superdiabolic
polytheism which, in the guise of Transcendental Socialism, threatens it from
an Antichristic and proletarian point-of-view, as pertaining to a
supernaturalistic age and society. For
the world doesn't have eternal validity, even on its most evolved level, and
beyond the machine are the People, polytheistically sovereign in a
160. Thus far religious evolution may be said to have progressed from worship of Christ to worship of the People via worship of the machine. Hence from superrealistic individualism to supernaturalistic collectivism via supermaterialistic collectivism. In the future, the new factor of an aspiration by the People towards a definitive transcendent unity will take its rightful place and, ultimately, eclipse everything else. For this is no mere worship of anything, but a transvaluated spiritual aspiration towards the ultimate individualism of the Holy Ghost, and may accordingly be described as superidealistic individualism ... insofar as the People will be collectively aspiring, whether indirectly (through contemplation) or directly (through meditation), towards that indivisible absolute which, as electron-electron attractions, is the ultimate indivisibility - the transcendent unity of the Omega Beyond. Therefore better than the Antichristic worship of the collective is the Superchristic aspiration by the collective towards a definitive unity. For that which is ultimately one is beyond collectivism, beyond polytheistic Communism in monotheistic Centrism. The collective is simply a means to that higher end. And in superidealistic Centrism the People will effectively be One, not a 'collection' of democratic individuals but an 'individual' of theocratic collectivism - in a word, God.
161. Should anyone mindful of Schopenhauer's criticisms of the atomic theories of the noumenon, propounded in his day by Cartesian materialists, regard my own theories as atomic, and therefore equally deserving of criticism from an idealistic standpoint, I should like to say this in their defence: that they are not atomic but subatomic as regards the alpha noumenon and supra-atomic as regards the omega noumenon, which I have also termed the supernoumenon. Thus my concept of the alpha noumenon as proton-proton reactions is no more atomic than the antithetical concept of the omega noumenon as electron-electron attractions, since in both cases we are dealing with elemental absolutes, necessarily formless, and not with formal atomic relativities, of which the world, in both its organic and inorganic manifestations, affords us a permanent example. To extrapolate the noumenon from the atom, on the other hand, would be to take a worldly, materialistic view of it commensurate with anthropomorphic predilections, of which ghosts, or the concept of bodily spirits, are among the best known. For electrons and protons joined together form atoms, and atoms are the building blocks of the material world. Thus an atomic view of the noumenon will be worldly, as Schopenhauer well-knew, and consequently far from being the primal view of the noumenon as something that lies at the back of the world ... as its subatomic precondition. It will also be far from the omega view of the noumenon which, according to my teachings, is diametrically antithetical to the alpha noumenon and therefore one dependent on the world as its precondition. In short, it will be a bourgeois view of the noumenon, and accordingly be neither subatomic nor supra-atomic but, rather, an atomic compromise between the two - a noumenon which is neither alpha nor omega but strictly of the world. Unfortunately, Schopenhauer was not prepared to admit to the validity of such a noumenon, or view thereof, since he was somewhat more aristocratic and monarchic than bourgeois and democratic, in consequence of which he spoke from an alpha-noumenal point of view. Yet much as I despise the atomic conception of the noumenon, I have to accept it as a precondition of a free-electron conception, since the subatomic conception, to which Schopenhauer related, leads nowhere because it is an end-in-itself. Without bourgeois materialism or, more correctly, realism ... there could be no proletarian idealism, but only the aristocratic idealism of a proton noumenon which defies change. And yet salvation is more than just a denial of the alpha noumenon; it is evolution towards the omega noumenon, conceived on a post-atomic basis. Schopenhauer may have been correct as regards the alpha noumenon, but the bourgeois philosophers were not incorrect to conceive of a worldly noumenon. They were simply more evolved.
162. Since a constitutional monarchy is democratically accountable, it cannot be a thing of the head (old brain) but, rather, a thing of the body (blood) and hence contiguous with democratic constraint, which is also bodily, if in a relatively more evolved way. Thus a constitutional monarchy is less solar than planetary, less diabolic than worldly, and may be regarded as an extrapolation from the earth's molten core, in contrast to monarchies which derive their authority from the sun and are accordingly diabolic. Traditionally it will be found that head peoples, including Slavs and Latins, have been more given to autocratic, or absolute, monarchies than bodily peoples, who, like the British, prefer a constitutional monarchy, since that alone accords with the body and, hence, a democratic compromise. It is a secular monarchy, more devolved than the diabolic monarchies that preceded it in the overall devolution of autocratic traditions.
163. Further to my entry on drugs, especially cannabis and hashish, I would like to add a new theory which, on balance, probably does more justice to truth than the old one. For I was wont to regard 'dope' as a continuation of smoking beyond tobacco and therefore as a kind of complement to LSD. Now, on further reflection, it seems to me that cannabis and hashish are not so much transcendental drugs beyond tobacco as transcendental, or head, drugs before it, and consequently symptomatic of pre-worldly theocratic societies, including the Islamic. For is it not the case that such drugs are natural, i.e. grown in plant form from the soil, rather than synthetic, and that they are accordingly more symptomatic of an alpha-stemming naturalistic age or society than of an omega-aspiring artificial age or society - in short, a traditional theocratic equivalent of tobacco. Hence their use would signify a sort of neo-pagan or theocratic alternative to democratic smoking norms, which are called into question in and by the decadence of worldly, or Western, society. Thus the democratic body could be regarded as being under threat, in its civilized decrepitude, from the theocratic head, albeit in old-brain/subconscious and, hence, traditional terms. Consequently, instead of signifying a progression beyond worldly norms, the use of hashish and cannabis may be regarded as constituting an assault upon those norms and, by implication, Western civilization ... from a traditionally theocratic angle, as though Islam were seeking to subvert and replace Christianity, now that Western civilization appears to be in rapid decline. One might say that smoking 'dope' instead of or in addition to tobacco is akin to embracing Islam or Buddhism or some other oriental religion at the expense of Christianity, and is therefore less a progression towards some new, higher religion than a regression towards some older, more sensual religion.
164. Now what applies to 'dope', or natural drugs that are smoked, could and probably does apply just as much to drugs that, like heroin and morphine, are injected, which, on account of their liquidity, suggest an alternative, albeit more lethal one, to alcohol, including spirits. For it does seem that just as a parallel exists between, say, hashish and tobacco, so a parallel likewise exists between heroin and alcohol, and that just as people are divisible into drinkers and smokers, so a like-division can be discerned between those who smoke 'dope' and those who inject 'smack'. It may even be that people who smoke are more susceptible to 'dope' or vice versa, whereas those who drink are more susceptible to 'smack' or vice versa - assuming the one habit doesn't automatically exclude the other. Whatever the case, it would seem that, like 'dope', injected drugs are more usually a resurrection of the past, or infiltration of traditional theocratic norms into Western civilization, than an indication of the future, contrary to synthetic drugs like LSD. It could be that such a phenomenon is inevitable in a civilization which has absorbed, through mass immigration, peoples from older, more theocracy-biased civilizations who may well, in some cases, have need for drugs of this order. For while tobacco and alcohol are endemic to the West, 'dope' and 'smack' stem from the East, both Middle (dope) and Far (smack), and should be regarded in a traditional light by dint of their naturalistic constitution and narcotic properties. Substituting the old-brain/subconscious head for the autocratic/democratic body does not indicate either evolutionary or moral progress. On the contrary, it creates a problem which the West has to solve, if civilized progress isn't to be set back hundreds if not thousands of years!
165. Regarding drugs from the standpoint of a divine/diabolic dichotomy, it seems feasible to contend that drugs which expand consciousness are entitled to a divine connotation, in contrast to those which, like heroin and morphine, reduce or contract it, and may therefore be presumed to connote with the Diabolic. Thus we can distinguish between 'divine' and 'diabolic' drugs on this fundamental basis, and it would seem that, as a rule, mind-expanding drugs are smoked whereas mind-contracting ones are injected. For hashish and cannabis are both mind-expanding in relation to, say, heroin and morphine. Furthermore, such a distinction to some extent also exists between tobacco and alcohol, since tobacco is a stimulant which slightly increases consciousness, whereas alcohol almost invariably results in a diminution of consciousness proportionate to the volume drunk and the alcoholic strength of the type of alcohol - be it wine, spirits, or beer. Consequently what 'dope' and 'smack' are to a pre-worldly context, namely mind-expanding and mind-contracting drugs respectively, tobacco and alcohol are to the worldly context itself, and thus, it could be argued, divine and diabolic alternatives within the world rather than outside of or before it.
166. Yet if we are to distinguish between pre-worldly divine and diabolic drugs and worldly drugs which assume a relatively divine or diabolic status, then we should also distinguish between divine and diabolic drugs on a post-worldly basis, the basis of the Holy Ghost and its diabolic counterpart, rather than of either the Father or Christ and their diabolic counterparts. Thus we should distinguish between mind-expanding drugs like LSD and mind-contracting ones like cocaine, regarding both in a post-worldly transcendental light by dint of their synthetic properties. For it does indeed seem that a kind of divine/diabolic dichotomy exists here which in the one case transcends smoking and in the other case transcends drinking, since LSD and cocaine are truly contemporary drugs, not merely age-old drugs which have acquired a pseudo-modern currency in the decadence of Western civilization, but contemporary in a way that suggests a Centrist and a Communist polarity - the one comparatively divine because mind-expanding and the other comparatively diabolic because mind-contracting or, more specifically, mind-numbing. If God desires the expansion of consciousness, would it not be logical for the Devil to reduce it or, at the very least, maintain it at a level of heat (emotion) as opposed to light (awareness)? Such a rhetorical question requires no answer, and if cocaine was not the diabolic drug of the late-twentieth century, then I would be at a loss to discover an alternative. After all, is there not a correspondence of sorts between LSD ('acid') and soda on the one hand, and cocaine ('coke') and cola on the other - a correspondence of names which, as I am sure many people would agree, is more than merely coincidental but, rather, indicative of an underlying Centrist/Communistic dichotomy?
167. However that may be, I should like to expand this basic dichotomy in terms of a Fascist/Social Transcendentalist distinction on the one hand, and of a Communist/Transcendental Socialist distinction on the other, reserving for the first category a distinction between capsule LSD and tablet LSD, and for the second category a distinction between injected cocaine and snorted cocaine. Thus Fascist capsule LSD and Social Transcendentalist tablet LSD in the one case, but Communist injected cocaine and Transcendental Socialist snorted cocaine in the other - a double distinction paralleling that between streamlined scooters and plain scooters on the one hand, but plain motorbikes and streamlined motorbikes on the other hand, which reflects a regression from idealism towards materialism in the Fascist/Social Transcendentalist case, but a progression from materialism towards idealism in the Communist/Transcendental Socialist case, both cases still essentially remaining apart and therefore indicative of a divine/diabolic dichotomy. Consequently while tablet LSD is less idealistic than capsule LSD, snorted cocaine (free basing) is more idealistic than injected cocaine. This is because in the one case we have a regression from a wavicle-suggesting (capsule) entity to a particle-suggesting (tablet) entity, whereas in the other case we have a progression from fluid cocaine intravenously injected to powdered cocaine nasally inhaled, the latter symptomatic of a higher approach to the use of this narcotic. Of course, I do not, as a self-pronounced Social Transcendentalist, recommend cocaine, since my ideological bias is towards LSD-type hallucinogens which, in the event of a Social Transcendentalist revolution, I would favour legalizing, though only within certain restricted terms and, hence, germane to the context of the Centre - both ideologically and spiritually. Not for me to expect LSD to be legalized in an open-society democratic context, since it would be irrelevant to the type of society in question! If LSD, or some such hallucinogen, was to be legalized in the future, it could only be under Social Transcendentalism for purposes of religious aspiration. Cocaine, however, would remain illegal - what it is in all democratic societies at present. (As an afterthought, I would like to contend that mescaline is an Ecological equivalence in between Fascist LSD and Communist cocaine. This is because it usually has the appearance of the latter but the essence of the former, comes in a powdered form but tends to expand consciousness ... making for artificially-induced visionary experience of an upward self-transcending order. In that respect, it can be regarded as a cross between cocaine and LSD, since having the appearance of a narcotic but the effect of an hallucinogen.)
168. Hegel teaches us that societies evolve from a state where a few are free to a state where all are free via a state where some are free. Thus from approximately autocratic to theocratic via democratic levels. Likewise, we can infer from this fact that in the first type of society 'the Few' make history, in the second type of society 'some' make history, while in the third type of society 'all' make history. Therefore the question: is history made by the Few or by the Many, by individuals or by the People in general, can be answered by reference to the type of society prevailing at any given historical time. If, formerly, the Few (the nobility) and, subsequently, some (bourgeois parliamentarians) made history, then these days it is increasingly the Many (the People) who are responsible for its making.
169. But what exactly do we mean by 'free'? Certainly freedom, or the concept thereof, changes from society to society, from age to age, and what is free to one age or society may appear unfree, or bound, to another. Yet, as a rule, men are neither free nor bound but, in greater or lesser degrees, both free and bound ... depending on the individual and the society or age to which he belongs. If we are to speak of a few being free at one point in history, with 'free' taken to mean independent or in a position of freedom from want or simply not enslaved, then we should qualify that freedom in terms of their independence, and without reference to moral or spiritual values, which can be assumed to have less applicability or to be relatively undeveloped. Thus in this basic respect 'being free' is simply the antithesis to 'being enslaved', or physically bound, and therefore merely relative, not absolute (or with regard, in other words, to spiritual values). One can be free and yet be a tyrant or a slave-driver at the same time. But this is hardly compatible with freedom in a moral or spiritual sense! For that is the ultimate freedom, far superior to physical freedom, and it tends to be less the concern of the State than of the Church, which interprets freedom spiritually - as freedom from sin or, in Schopenhauer's sense, the will and its sensual desires.
170. Thus one could argue that contraction of physical enslavement to a point of freedom, or seeming physical freedom, is the prerogative of political progress, whereas expansion of spiritual freedom to a point of binding ... is the prerogative of religious, or moral, progress. We cannot speak of freedom simply in physical terms; it must also be considered from the standpoint of the spirit. Now in terms of spirituality it is, above all, the idea of a new and higher binding which has to be borne in mind, since it is not enough to be free from physical enslavement, one must also be free for the new spiritual binding. For freedom is not an end-in-itself but simply a means to a higher end, which I conceive as the ultimate spiritual binding of and to the Centre. It is only in the struggle against physical binding that man is free, since freedom is not absolute but relative, as between protons and electrons in the atom. Indeed, it is atomic. For, being relative, there are options, and one must choose between them if one is to be free - in other words, if one is free to make such a choice. Only with pre-atomic societies is man truly bound, since in such autocratic societies there is no (democratic) relativity, but an approximation, derived from cosmic precedent, to proton-proton reactions. Such a society is absolutist, and therefore bound to alpha-stemming criteria. The bound man is not free and neither, in a moral sense, is the so-called freeman, whose physical freedom depends upon the enslavement of others. All men are, in effect, bound to the physical, whether as master or slave.
171. Now while some men are bound to the physical, whether as employer or employee, within a democratic society, others are free from the physical and bound to the spirit. There exists a balance between the bound and the free, and the struggle against the bound is waged by the free, whether in the name of freedom, as with Socialists and Communists, or in the name of a new binding, as with Fascists and Centrists. In the one case, freedom from physical enslavement to the bourgeoisie is regarded as an end-in-itself. In the other case, freedom from enslavement must lead to a new binding, since the bound is what is truly absolutist and, in post-atomic societies, it will amount to electron-electron attractions as an approximation - at any rate within a Social Transcendentalist context - to the Holy Spirit. For that is the ultimate spiritual binding, which makes for the Centre, and such a theocratic binding is no less absolute than the autocratic binding of pre-worldly societies. Beyond the atom there is no more a relativity (between protons and electrons) ... than there was before it. Both the Father and the Holy Ghost are bound - as, for that matter, are Satan and the Antichrist, though they or, rather, their devotees may proclaim themselves free. Only the world, however, is truly free because indeterminate, and therefore torn between antithetical options. Yet freedom is a passing phase of historical time. Even Communist freedom is, in effect, bound to a new centre - namely that of the totalitarian State. But because Communist society is more economic and political than religious and spiritual, it will proclaim itself free from autocratic bindings rather than bound to theocratic aspirations. And in this respect it is totally free, not partially free like Liberalism, whether of the centre or of the left. In other words, the difference between a proletarian democracy and a bourgeois democracy, particularly one with autocratic roots still nominally intact.
172. Yet it is not just adherence to autocracy that constitutes a binding, since the bourgeoisie are also bound to their own centre to the extent that they are capitalistic and parliamentarian, and if the Father is one binding, then Christ is very much another - a middle-ground, or worldly, binding in between antithetical absolutes. Thus freedom in a bourgeois democracy is relative to those who oppose such a Capitalist binding, whether from a Socialist or a Communist standpoint, and is necessarily decentralist and anti-Christian. For 'the free' are either a 'fall' from the centre or an opposition, in freedom, to the centre, whether it be autocratic or democratic, aristocratic or bourgeois. And freedom is a kind of damnation in relation to the centre, to those who are saved on whichever evolutionary level. Freedom is an alienation from and opposition to the centre, and therefore an imperfect condition which, except for those who revel in it, goads its protagonists towards the establishment of a new centre, superior to the old one. For some, this objective is eventually achieved. For others - perhaps the great majority of those caught between centres - there is no alternative but to languish in freedom or perish from it. That has certainly been the fate of most Western Socialists to-date!
173. I am not free to act if I am bound, but I am bound to act if I am free - whether against an old binding (Socialism), for the sake of acting (Anarchism), or for a new binding (Communism/Centrism). Broadly, freedom in the twentieth century was for the proletariat (an electron equivalence) to become free from aristocratic (proton) and bourgeois (neutron) constraints, and so achieve a proletarian absolutism within a uniquely People's society. One can trace the beginnings of this struggle to bourgeois liberalism (a neutron-centred atomicity), and from there a split developed between Democratic Socialism (a particle-biased atomic-electron equivalence) and Liberal Democracy (a wavicle-biased atomic-electron equivalence) - as between blue- and white-collar interests. These are relative to the world, or Western democracies, and can co-exist within the same political framework.
174. Beyond the world, however, no such relative co-existence is possible, since both the Divine and the Diabolic are absolute on post-worldly terms, and therefore can only exist independently of each other ... in different societies or countries, even though, in the paradoxical nature of contemporary life, each will uphold relativity within their respective ideological frameworks. Thus we get (or will do in the future) Transcendental Socialism (a particle-biased electron equivalence) on the one hand and Social Transcendentalism (a wavicle-biased electron equivalence) on the other - the former morally free and the latter bound to the Centre (conceived in its Social Transcendentalist context), as befitting a wavicle and, hence, idealistic bias. Alternatively, one could speak of Centristic Communism in the one case and of Communistic Centrism in the other. For whilst each ideology would exist in absolute independence, they are intrinsically relative, albeit with diametrically opposite biases. In the case of Transcendental Socialism an electron-particle freedom of the proletariat from bourgeois and/or aristocratic constraints, in the case of Social Transcendentalism an electron-wavicle binding of the proletariat to the ultimate Centre - the transcendent 'Kingdom of Heaven', wherein lies divine salvation for all Eternity.
175. To distinguish, on the one hand, between unfree binding (proton wavicles), bound unfreedom (proton particles), bound binding (atomic protons), and freedom-in-binding (proton-biased atomicity), as regards alpha-stemming idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism; and then to distinguish, on the other hand, between freedom-from-binding (electron-biased atomicity), free freedom (atomic electrons), bound freedom (electron particles), and free binding (electron wavicles), as regards omega-oriented realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism. Thus a devolutionary regression from unfree binding to freedom-in-binding via bound unfreedom and bound binding on the one hand, but an evolutionary progression from freedom-from-binding to free binding via free freedom and bound freedom on the other hand. Consequently, Transcendental Socialism may be defined in terms of bound freedom, Social Transcendentalism, by contrast, in terms of free binding - a distinction, one could argue, between the centralized State and the state-like Centre.
176. Not free from what but free for what (Nietzsche)? And the ultimate response to that is: For a new binding! Thus as the Diabolic contracts, and greater degrees of physical freedom from autocratic constraint are accordingly proclaimed, so the Divine expands, and greater degrees of binding to theocratic transcendentalism are likewise proclaimed. As the State withers, so the Church expands. The ultimate contraction of the State is a free, or socialist, society. The ultimate expansion of the Church is a bound or Centrist society. Freedom is diabolic, binding divine. The world achieves a balance between binding and freedom, and is therefore amoral. On the other hand, an imbalance on the side of binding, as in traditional secular autocracies, is relatively moral (albeit in an untransvaluated sense), whereas an imbalance on the side of freedom, as in republican democracies, is relatively immoral. For morality is proportionate to binding, and the more moral the society the greater the degree of binding. In the alpha-stemming case, a proton morality; in the omega-oriented case, an electron morality - the former false and the latter true.
177. Only in the case of an omega-oriented society can binding, and hence being, be not merely apparent (as in alpha-stemming societies) but essential, as regarding the wavicle indivisibility of electron-electron attractions - a truly indivisible absolutism in relation to the false absolutism of proton-proton reactions in the apparent 'indivisibility' of the Creator, viz. the central star of the Galaxy.
178. In relation to being, doing is always immoral, whether positive and constructive, like good acts, or negative and destructive, like evil acts. For, like the Divine, the Diabolic is both negative and positive, Satanic and Antichristic, and while, from a Christian standpoint, good acts may be preferable to bad ones, nonetheless they are immoral in relation to true morality, which is being-orientated and therefore not free but bound, whether the binding be negative or positive, to proton wavicles or to electron wavicles, to the Father or to Christ; as also, within an artificial and hence contemporary context, to the Superfather or to the Superchrist (both the latter of which can be generalized into an allegiance, temporary or otherwise, to violent films in the one case and to passive trips in the other case). Being should be associated, in its negative manifestations, with illusion and sadness, whilst in its positive manifestations it should be associated with happiness and truth. By contrast, doing should be associated, in its negative manifestations, with ugliness and hate, though in its positive manifestations it should be associated with beauty and love. Whether the qualitative attribute precedes the quantitative one, or vice versa, will depend upon whether the type of being or doing in question is naturalistic or artificial, which is to say upon whether it conforms to a noumenal-phenomenal regression or, by contrast, to a superphenomenal-supernoumenal progression, depending on both the individual and the age or society in which he happens to live. In the one case, a regression, for instance, from hate to ugliness at the negative pole of the naturalistic diabolic spectrum. In the other case, a progression from ugliness to hate at the negative pole of the artificial diabolic spectrum. Similarly a regression, for instance, from happiness to truth at the positive pole of the naturalistic divine spectrum, as, conversely, a progression from truth to joy at the positive pole of the artificial divine spectrum.
179. Thus whereas hate is a precondition of ugliness in the one context, ugliness is a precondition of hate in the artificial context antithetical to it. In the former case, an act could only be ugly if preceded or motivated by hate, whereas in the latter case hate, or a hateful feeling, follows upon the precondition of ugliness. For whereas in the natural context the noumenal precedes the phenomenal, of which the quantitative attribute is a phenomenal manifestation, in the artificial context antithetical to it, by contrast, the superphenomenal precedes the supernoumenal, of which the qualitative attribute is a noumenal manifestation. No less than the good act (beauty) is preceded by the positive diabolic feeling and the bad act (ugly) by the negative diabolic feeling in a naturalistic context, so the positive diabolic feeling (love) is preceded by the good act and the negative diabolic feeling (hate) by the bad act in an artificial context. And no less than the false being (illusion) is preceded by the negative divine feeling and the true being (truth) by the positive divine feeling in a naturalistic context, so the negative divine feeling (sadness) is preceded by the false being and the positive divine feeling (joy) by the true being in an artificial context. And so on, with due regard to the worldly spectra of strength/pride and weakness/ humiliation, evil/pain and goodness/pleasure, strife/fear and peace/hope, which I have characterized as bodily rather than of the head. In an alpha-stemming naturalistic context, pride will precede strength and humiliation likewise precede weakness, but in an omega-oriented artificial context strength is a prerequisite of pride and weakness a prerequisite of humiliation.
180. Returning to our moral/immoral distinctions, one should distinguish between worldly immorality and diabolic immorality on the basis of a pantheistic/polytheistic dichotomy. For whereas worldly immorality has to do with nature or some antithetical equivalence thereof ... like the city, diabolic immorality has to do with the stars or some antithetical equivalence, like the proletariat. Immorality is free rather than bound, is decentralized rather than centralized, and accordingly contrasts with divine morality, which, at its purest level, can only be monotheistic. Thus one should speak of an alpha-stemming regression from monotheistic morality to atheistic amorality via polytheistic and pantheistic immorality, while reserving for the omega orientation a progression from superatheistic amorality to supermonotheistic morality via superpantheistic and superpolytheistic immorality.
181. Correlated with the specific ideological and historical stages we have already touched upon, the devolutionary and evolutionary distinctions listed above will read as follows:-
ALPHA DEVOLUTION OMEGA EVOLUTION
1. monotheistic autocratic theocracy (moral) 8. supermonotheistic democratic theocracy (moral)
2. polytheistic theocratic autocracy (immoral) 7. superpolytheistic theocratic democracy (immoral)
3. pantheistic autocratic autocracy (immoral) 6. superpantheistic democratic democracy (immoral)
4. atheistic democratic autocracy (amoral) 5. superatheistic autocratic democracy (amoral)
with a devolutionary regression from alpha monotheistic morality to worldly atheistic amorality via alpha polytheistic immorality and worldly-alpha pantheistic immorality on the one hand, and an evolutionary progression from worldly superatheistic amorality to omega supermonotheistic morality via worldly-omega superpantheistic immorality and omega superpolytheistic immorality on the other hand.
182. As to the distinction between monotheistic and supermonotheistic morality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of divine binding ... commensurate with the Father and the Holy Ghost. As to the distinction between polytheistic and superpolytheistic immorality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of diabolic freedom ... commensurate with Satan and the Antichrist. As to the distinction between pantheistic and superpantheistic immorality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of worldly freedom ... commensurate with the Virgin Mary and the (Germanic) Second Coming. And finally, as to the distinction between atheistic and superatheistic amorality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of worldly binding ... commensurate with the Catholic Christ and the Protestant Christ - the former divisible between the Child and the Resurrection, the latter humanistic or, as one should say, adult, making for a neutron amorality in contrast to a proton/electron oscillation between antithetical extremes.
183. Put more concretely, we have an extrapolation, in the case of alpha morality, from the central star of the Galaxy, which is worshipped as Creator, while, in the case of omega morality, we have an aspiration towards the transcendent culmination of evolution in spiritual unity. In the case of polytheistic immorality we have a 'fall' from binding, or monotheism, into worship of the stars, or extrapolations thereof, as gods, whilst in the antithetical case of superpolytheistic immorality we have a worship or, rather, quasi-religious self-identification of the People, collectively, with ultimate sovereignty - at any rate, in democratic terms. In the case of pantheistic immorality we have an identification of nature, in all its diverse manifestations, with divinity, whereas in the superpantheistic immorality antithetical to it, the city and/or machine become the focus of a divine identification. Finally, in the case of atheistic amorality we have a worship of man as God which, in both Catholic and Protestant contexts, takes the form of Christ.
184. Thus whereas the bound is always individual, whether moral or amoral, the free is ever collective, whether in a worldly and, hence, pantheistic context, or in a diabolic and, hence, polytheistic one. Morality is rooted in the individual, immorality in the collective. Binding is to the One, freedom is for the Many. Whether the One be Father, Son, or Holy Ghost (depending on the type and stage of religion), a moral binding thereof will ensue, whereas in between, on both polytheistic and pantheistic levels, a decentralized freedom (from such a binding) will become the immoral norm. What makes adherence to Christianity, in a binding to Christ, amoral rather than strictly moral is that, being man, Christ is neither protonic nor electronic, the Father nor the Holy Ghost, but an atomic mid-point in between two purist extremes, and accordingly an impure realism appertaining to the world. For true morality is ever idealistic and, hence, bound to the absolute - in a word, monotheistic. Thus it happens that, traditionally, the Jews have shown themselves, through their refusal to compromise with worldly relativity, to be the most moral people, even in the face of worldly persecution. Doubtless once the Jewish people accept Social Transcendentalism as the true world (global) religion, they will become no less moral but, if anything, even more so ... as they take a lead in furthering the ultimate monotheism - the supermonotheism of an unequivocally transcendental aspiration which, unlike allegiance to the Creator, will be rooted in the people and tend towards the true indivisibility of an ultimate binding in electron-electron attractions. For centro-complexification leading towards the projected Omega Point is the way of divine evolution, and those of us who have an interest in furthering such evolution must champion the Social Transcendentalist Centre at the expense of the decentralized State.
185. True morality resides in the individual and adherence to the One through personal binding to a religious focal-point. No-one can trip or meditate for you, and even if you trip or meditate in a group ... you are essentially still alone with your spirit. For the group is not indivisible, like spirit, but divisible, like matter, and therefore any concept of divinity which is social in character is less moral than immoral - in fact, is polytheistically diabolic. Doubtless the world, or a certain part of it, must pass through this polytheism before any prospect of global monotheism on the ultimate spiritual level becomes possible. Now, paradoxically, such a diabolic immorality is preferable, from an omega-divine standpoint, to the worldly immorality that characterized the greater part of the Germanic West in the twentieth century. Being equivalent to the new-brain head rather than to the flesh/muscle body, it is closer to the superconscious than to the latter - indeed, so close as to be virtually contiguous. Only a standpoint which, like worldly amorality, was beneath worldly immorality would find the flesh/muscle body preferable to the new-brain head. For one part of the body, in this case that of the veins/nerves, is closer to another part of it than to the head, and when it comes to the crunch the body will stick together, as it were, to defend itself from encroachments of one kind or another from the head. The world is not interested in becoming either the Devil or God but only in remaining itself, and accordingly its end can only be at the expense of bodily will.
186. God helps his own, and can only do so through a divinely-biased publisher, like one affiliated to the Catholic Church. He cannot seek publication in the world, through commercial channels, and neither should he seek it through academic or university publishers, since publishers of that sort are the nearest Western approximation to the Devil or, at any rate, to a diabolic (brain-centred) order of publication. For let there be no doubt on this point: the commercial worldly and the academic diabolic types of publishers are not the channels through which divine truth should seek printed dissemination! Neither the body nor the brain is of direct use to God. Only the mind, and the mind will be given its due by religious rather than by academic or commercial publishers. The true equivalent to the Second-Coming appeals to the Church for recognition of his messianic revelations, since the Church is alone qualified to recognize divine truth when such truth is put before it, and for the Church the Second Coming is no mere myth or figment of the imagination but a centuries-old hope and waiting ... that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' may be proclaimed and established here on earth for those who deserve such a 'kingdom'. God calls His own, and those who deserve salvation from the world will surely receive it ... through Social Transcendentalism.
187. Traditionally the State is an instrument of
oppression, a means of defending the interests of the oppressor rather than of
the oppressed. It is only with the
Welfare State that the State becomes less an instrument of oppression than a
source of help to the oppressed. Yet the
Welfare State is not absolutist but, within the liberal contexts of Western
democracy, co-exists with the traditional bourgeois State of capitalist
oppression. Only in a
188. It is no less important to realize that there is a negative morality ... than to realize there is a positive one. There is no more a single kind of morality than a single kind of immorality. Being can be both negative and positive, like doing, and by 'negative' and 'positive' I mean active and passive or, alternatively, for and against. Thus, within the sphere of naturalistic morality, one can speak of the negative morality of the dream but the positive morality of visionary experience. In the more contemporary sphere of artificial morality, one can speak of the negative morality of film viewing but the positive morality of artificially-induced visionary experience. Indeed, films are to dreams what trips are to visions - their antithetical equivalence ... as relative to an omega-oriented age or society.
189. Likewise, within the sphere of naturalistic immorality, one can speak of the negative immorality of doing against others and/or the self, in contrast to the positive immorality of doing for others and/or the self ... where the former is Satanic and the latter Antichristic, with worldly and diabolic options depending upon whether the target of whichever kind of immorality is other people or the personal self. Now what applies to the sphere of naturalistic immorality applies no less to that of artificial immorality, in which doing for or against the self and/or others will be conducted rather more via mechanical or synthetic means than via natural means, including the human body.
190. Thus to recapitulate: being against my self - negative divine morality; being for my self - positive divine morality; doing against myself - negative diabolic immorality; doing for myself - positive diabolic immorality; doing against others - negative worldly immorality; doing for others - positive worldly immorality.
191. Although 'good' and 'evil' are relative terms usually employed in connection with worldly contexts, it is possible to employ them absolutely, in terms of distinctions outside the world, the way the Catholic Church has traditionally done, and on the basis that absolute good is divine and absolute evil diabolic, a distinction, I maintain, between wavicle proton-proton reactions on the one hand, and particle proton-proton reactions on the other - the former appertaining to the Father (central star of the Galaxy) and the latter to Satan (the sun).
192. Thus within a strictly cosmic framework, it is possible to differentiate between absolute good and evil, though only up to a certain point. For while we need not doubt that the particle proton-proton reactions of the sun are absolutely evil by dint of their infernal essence, the wavicle proton-proton reactions of the bigger, purer, central star of the Galaxy (from which, willy-nilly, the Creator was extrapolated) are only absolutely good to the extent that we have a wavicle being which contrasts with the particle doing, as it were, of stars in general, i.e. those which revolve around the central star of the Galaxy. Yet such being is merely apparent, since wavicle proton-proton reactions are no less reactive in their own context than ... particle proton-proton reactions in theirs, and while the central star has the appearance of stillness, and hence being, on account of its central position in a galaxy of revolving stars, nevertheless its essence is reactive and, consequently, this apparent being is negative, a negative morality of being-against-the-self or, rather, itself, which is the condition of alpha divinity.
193. Hence while we can infer absolute goodness from the apparent being of the Galaxy's central star, such goodness is merely negative in character, and therefore a poor second to the positive absolute goodness which can only arise with the Holy Spirit at the culmination of evolution when, from the utmost omega-aspiring life form, i.e. the Supra-being new-brain collectivizations, the wavicle electron-electron attractions of transcendent spirit are set free, in the guise of spiritual globes, to converge towards the long-term possibility of a definitive unity (of all such spiritual globes) in the Omega Point (de Chardin). Only in wavicle electron-electron attractions does positive being, or being-for-itself, come to pass, and such an essential being stands to the apparent being of the Creator as positive morality to negative morality, or ultimate Heaven to primal Heaven, or the purest bliss to the purest agony - in sum, as true absolute goodness to false absolute goodness.
194. The fact that, in contrast to Catholicism, the Protestant faith denies the existence of absolute good and evil outside the world may be attributed to the inherently worldly nature of this largely Germanic mode of Christianity. For Protestantism is, above all, concerned with man in the world, and therefore with good and evil conceived relatively, as worldly experiences. Doubtless this lack of a cosmic sense - at any rate, with regard to absolute good and evil on the alpha plane - is in large part due to the bodily nature of Germanic humanity, who, unlike both Slavic and Celtic humanity, have their kingdom in the world, that planetary correlation of the body, and not in either a cosmic hell or a cosmic heaven such as correlates with the head - at least on old-brain/subconscious terms. For the world is a revolt against the Cosmos, in some sense a more evolved orientation which, religiously speaking, fights shy of both the Father and Satan - much as bourgeois philosophy fought shy of the alpha noumenon by positing, to Schopenhauer's aristocratic displeasure, the thing-in-itself as in the material world rather than as its subatomic precondition. Thus while Protestant insistence on relative good and evil is no less incorrect from a Catholic standpoint than Kant's insistence on a worldly thing-in-itself, it is perfectly inevitable within the context of its time and society, not to mention the racial preconditions - in this case Germanic - of a bodily standpoint. True, to acquire a bias for positive absolute goodness and even (within the communist context) positive absolute evil, one has to turn one's back, so to speak, on the alpha negative absolutes. But, ironically, it is only the peoples whose religious traditions upheld these negative absolutes who would be qualified, both racially and morally, to acquire such a bias, since the Protestant peoples are ever worldly and, by themselves, incapable of transcending the worldly body for either the divine or the diabolic head. Thus the Resurrection, in both its diabolic and divine manifestations, has especial applicability to those very peoples for whom the truth of absolute good and evil outside the world was incontestable. Communism is one resurrection. Centrism has yet to establish the other!
195. Returning to the distinction between moral being and immoral doing, the former divine and the latter either diabolic or worldly, depending whether it is focused on the self or on others, I must now add amoral being to our calculations, since this is primarily the worldly equivalence which assumes a Christian status in relation to both immoral and moral alternatives. Indeed, just as we have distinguished between negative and positive morality on the basis of being against self on the one hand and being for self on the other (a distinction which also applied to each kind of immorality ... whether diabolic and self-centred or worldly and focused on others), so we must distinguish between negative and positive amorality, conceiving of the former in terms of being against others, and the latter in terms of being for others. Thus not only does doing have two modes of diabolic immorality, viz. doing against self and doing for self, as well as two modes of worldly immorality, viz. doing against others and doing for others, the same also applies to being, with being against self and being for self the negative and positive modes of divine morality, but being against others and being for others the negative and positive modes of worldly amorality. Hence a four-way division between negative and positive which, so I maintain, parallels our earlier divisions between devolutionary idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism on the one hand, and evolutionary realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism on the other, as regards monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, and atheism ... or vice versa, depending on whether we focus on alpha stemming or omega aspiring, devolution or evolution.
196. Using a similar schema, we can list our being/doing options as follows:-
1. negative divine morality of being against self 8. positive divine morality of being for self
2. negative diabolic immorality of doing against self 7. positive diabolic immorality of doing for self
3. negative worldly immorality of doing against others 6. positive worldly immorality of doing for others
4. negative worldly amorality of being against others 5. positive worldly amorality of being for others
1. idealistic being against self (monotheism) 8. superidealistic being for self (supermonotheism)
2. naturalistic doing against self (polytheism) 7. supernaturalistic doing for self (superpolytheism)
3. materialistic doing against others (pantheism) 6. supermaterialistic doing for others (superpantheism)
4. realistic being against others (atheism) 5. superrealistic being for others (superatheism)
which also corresponds, it should be remembered, to:-
1. proton-wavicle autocratic theocracy 8. electron-wavicle democratic theocracy
2. proton-particle theocratic autocracy 7. electron-particle theocratic democracy
3. atomic-proton autocratic autocracy 6. atomic-electron democratic democracy
4. proton-biased atomic democratic autocracy 5. electron-biased atomic autocratic democracy
Consequently, we have a journey, so to speak, which begins in the Father and regresses to the Catholic Christ via Satanic and Maternal (Virgin Mary) stages of devolution, but which then progresses from the Protestant Christ to the Holy Ghost via Messianic (Second Coming) and Antichristic stages of evolution.
197. At death both the spirit and soul die, which is to say are terminated by and through the body's mortality. Emotion and consciousness cease at death, since death is their end. It is not the body that dies, since, strictly speaking, the body had never lived but merely functioned like a machine. Yet the breakdown of this worldly machine puts an end to both diabolic emotions, whether negative or positive, and divine consciousness, whether negative or positive; to heat-will and light-will, soul and spirit. What was potentially eternal (certainly on the divine plane of conscious being) is thus prevented from being eternally, and so succumbs to death, or nothingness. One could say that the world, or the body, gains a victory over it, since the world is temporal and its temporality becomes an obstacle to eternity. Only when the body has been overcome ... through the gradual replacement of natural parts by artificial parts and the subsequent even more radical elevation of human brains to the post-human status of being artificially supported and no-less artificially sustained in collectivized contexts, analogous to a Christmas tree, will both the soul and the spirit, though particularly the latter, be freed from the threat of death and thereby enabled to realize their eternal potential. Then will God have achieved a definitive victory over the world.
198. Worldly will, or sensations; diabolic will, or emotions; divine will, or consciousness. A connection may accordingly be posited between worldly will and the body, diabolic will and the brain, and divine will and the mind, with blood in the body the essence of worldly will, blood in the brain the essence of diabolic will, and consciousness the essence of divine will. Thus whereas both worldly and diabolic will are centred in the blood, divine will is transcendently aloof from the blood, as light from heat or, more correctly, fire. In this regard, it is less a will than a will-less being. For will is indistinguishable, physically speaking, from the blood, and without blood there can be no will, which is to say sensations and emotions, both of which stand to will as feelings to consciousness. Thus whereas we have a quantitative distinction between will and consciousness, a qualitative distinction exists between emotions and feelings. The real difference, however, is that whereas will is subordinate in both body and brain to sensations and emotions respectively, feelings are subordinate in the mind to consciousness. Put analogically, one could argue that whereas light (will) is subsidiary to heat (sensations/emotions) in both electric cookers and electric fires, heat (feelings) is subsidiary to light (consciousness) in electric lights. For electric cookers and electric fires stand to bodily sensations and brain emotions as electric-light bulbs to mind consciousness, which is to say as worldly and diabolic parallels to a divine parallel. Now at death it could be argued, to extend our analogy, that the cooker overcomes both the electric fire and the electric light at once, precluding a diabolic and a divine eternity. For it is the electric cooker which parallels the world and, hence, bodily temporality.
199. However that may be, traditional theology has upheld three posthumous options for the dying: either Hell, Heaven, or, failing both, a sort of purgatorial no-man's-land in between. Doubtless these options correlate with the tripartite distinctions we have already drawn between diabolic emotions (soul), divine consciousness (spirit), and worldly sensations (will), so that, depending on the person, a bias one way or another in life could be expected to lead to a correlative, albeit more absolute, fate in death. The emotional man would be a candidate for Hell, the conscious man a candidate for Heaven, and the sensual man a candidate for Purgatory or, in Eastern terms, reincarnation. Thus to a certain extent people would be predestined for one or another of the three posthumous options, depending on which level they generally conducted their lives whilst alive. The divine man would go to Heaven, the diabolic man to Hell, and the worldly man to Purgatory. Strictly speaking, however, people went nowhere. For one cannot survive death, neither spiritually, soulfully, nor wilfully. Yet the fact that Christian theology distinguished between three options accords with the tripartite division of man into divine, diabolic, and worldly selves, a division, so I maintain, which can be extrapolated from the cosmic roots of life in the central star of the Galaxy (negative spirit), the sun (negative soul), and the fiery core of the planet (negative will) - the first and second eternal (Heaven and Hell), the third temporal (the world). Hence the Christian emphasis upon overcoming the will, if any possibility of salvation (from the world) is to be achieved.
200. Consequently the body, as the objectification of the will ... as taught by Schopenhauer, must be denied if salvation, and hence greater consciousness, is to become a reality. Thus not only sex but exercise, eating, drinking, etc., which conform to the world as opposed to God. Divine teaching is therefore profoundly anti-bodily and anti-populist. For it is the mass man who most accords with a bodily and therefore sensual predilection, in contrast to the intellectual or spiritual elites. A democratic society will accordingly be anti-divine, since such a society is precisely that in which the mass man, and hence the average bodily type, is king or, more literally, politically sovereign, and where the mass man is free to please himself ... there can be little denial of the will but, on the contrary, a maximum affirmation of it which, in democratic societies, will take a predominantly positive and therefore pleasure-oriented form rather than, as in worldly autocratic societies, a predominantly negative and therefore pain-oriented form more suggestive of a will-to-death than of a will-to-life. Such a wilful state-of-affairs can only continue so long as the world is free to please itself and do what it wants. For the world will not deny itself, since it isn't free to become other than what it is by nature. If the will is to be denied, then the world must be overcome and a new order of will, less worldly than diabolic, take its place, with one kind of democracy supplanting another. Yet from a divine standpoint, that would be less of a salvation than a damnation, since salvation ultimately rests with the Superchristic God rather than with the Super-antichristic Devil, and therefore isn't so much a higher and more attenuated order of will ... as a complete denial of the will achieved through will-less being in pure consciousness. Thus not positive soul but positive spirit, not love but joy. Such is the ultimate divine order, and it can only be achieved under Superchristic auspices, which is to say through the Social Transcendentalist Centre.