BRIAN: If I understand you correctly, the Universe began with explosions of gas that gave rise to the proton-proton reactions of stars and only formed itself into galaxies when some of those stars, evidently smaller and weaker than others, cooled to the point of becoming partly material, and thus were attracted by the larger subatomic stars on account of their atomic constitution.

SHANE: Precisely!  As soon as the smaller stars began to harden into planets, the everywhichway divergence of stars that had hitherto prevailed in the Universe was halted, because the larger stars now found themselves competing for planets in a mutual attraction that kept them pinned, as it were, to circumscribed cosmic bounds.

BRIAN: So stars and planets weren't born simultaneously.

SHANE: No, of course not!  A planet presupposes a certain atomic integrity and cannot arrive at such an integrity without having first existed on the purely or predominantly subatomic level of a star.  The subatomic leads to the atomic, so planets would have evolved somewhat later than stars, originally being small stars that were destined to cool, at least in part, into matter.

BRIAN: I agree when you say 'at least in part'.  For the earth is itself a star in the process of cooling, one that possesses a subatomic core which is encased within an atomic crust.  It is divided, so to speak, between the subatomic and the atomic.

SHANE: One could alternatively describe it as being somewhere in-between a star and a moon, since a moon is a dead star, or a star which has completely cooled.  That, I think, would constitute the definitive definition of a planet.

BRIAN: Yet why is it that planets revolve around the sun?  What is it about these cooling stars that brought the everywhichway divergence of stars in general to a halt, and thus created the basis of a galactic integrity?

SHANE: Precisely the fact that they were and remain partly atomic, and so became attracted to the nearest stars.  For protons attract electrons, and since there were plenty of electrons in the atomic integrity of the earth's crust it followed that, in conjunction with other planets, the earth would be attracted to the nearest 'anarchic' star.  What prevented the earth from being sucked-in to the sun, as we may now call the star in question, was the fact that it wasn't entirely atomic but contained a large subatomic core which reacted against the sun's attractive force, and thereby established a tension the nature of which was to contribute towards its revolution around the sun.  For whilst one part of the planet was attracted to the sun, the other part reacted against it, while simultaneously attracting the earth's atomic crust.  This tension between attraction and repellence is precisely what caused our planet, and by implication other nearby planets, to revolve around the sun, and it keeps the earth intact.  For it is quite probable that the subatomic core would exert a stronger attractive influence on the crust, were it not balanced-out by the competing attraction of the sun.

BRIAN: An equilibrium of mutually attractive and repellent tensions!  But does this also explain the revolution of the moon around the earth?

SHANE: Indeed it does, since the atomic relativity of the moon is attracted by the subatomic absolutism of the earth's core while simultaneously being repelled by the atomic relativity of its crust - the protons in each of these relativities chiefly being responsible for the repelling.  Yet the moon is also attracted by the subatomic absolutism of the sun and revolves around the earth more in consequence of the competition between core and sun than in response to any repellent influence solely stemming from the earth's crust.

BRIAN: In other words, it is torn between two mutually exclusive attractions.

SHANE: Just as the earth's crust is torn between the mutually exclusive attractions of its own core and the sun, and the planet is thereby kept spinning on its axis around the sun, which is unable to pull the crust into itself from without ... for the simple reason that the earth's core is exerting a similar attraction on it from within.

BRIAN: And yet, what about the sun - what is there that keeps it revolving around the central star of the Galaxy?

SHANE: Certainly not the fact that the central star attracts the sun to itself, but, rather, because, being large and powerful, it attracts the numerous planets which revolve around smaller stars and would probably succeed in sucking them into itself, were it not for the fact that these smaller stars, one to each solar system, exert an attractive influence of their own on the planets as well.

BRIAN: So just as a moon is kept in revolution around a planet because of the competing attractions of core and sun, and a planet is likewise kept in revolution around a sun, so a peripheral star is kept in rotation around the central star of the Galaxy because of their mutually exclusive interest in planets and moons.

SHANE: That must be approximately correct.  And it should mean that part of the reason why a planet revolves around a sun is that the more distant central star of the Galaxy also exerts an attractive influence on it, an influence which is counterweighted, however, by the small star at the heart of any given solar system, as well, of course, as by its own subatomic core.

BRIAN: So the central star in each galaxy and the small peripheral stars are fundamentally the same - at least in constitution, if not in size and strength.

SHANE: Yes, for anything that is subatomic can only be such on approximately identical terms, i.e. as implying some degree of proton-proton reaction.  The central star, from which it appears the smaller ones emerged, would be no less subatomic than the others.  Only with planets does evolution attain to an atomic integrity.

BRIAN: And it is this integrity, this matter, that a sun attracts to itself.

SHANE: Yes, certainly not the electrons by themselves!  For electrons cannot be divorced from matter at such an early stage of evolution as planetary formations.  Rock does not burn, because the atomic integrity of such matter is too densely proton-packed.  It was once molten lava that cooled and hardened into rock, from which state it cannot return to fire again, having already burnt itself out.  But it can be attracted, in a kind of magnetic reciprocity, by the subatomic absolute, which exerts a force on its mass.

BRIAN: Here you are speaking of gravity.

SHANE: True, and the gravitational force exerted by the subatomic absolute acts as though that absolute would like to reclaim the mass, derived from its partial cooling, back into itself out of a wilful desire to prevent further evolution.

BRIAN: But why, if the sun attracts this mass to itself, does a stone return to earth when thrown into the air instead of continuing in the sun's direction, from which an attractive force is apparently all the time emanating?

SHANE: Precisely because the earth's molten core also exerts an attractive force on the stone which causes it to return to the surface, this force being closer to the stone than the sun and therefore exerting more authority over it.  And for that reason the earth's crust, composed of rocks and mineral formations, is prevented from being sucked-in to the sun; though, because an attractive force still emanates from it, the planet, caught in a tug-of-war between core and sun, not to mention sun and central star, is obliged to revolve around it.

BRIAN: Granted that the sun acts as a kind of magnet on the earth's crust, what happens as regards, say, wood and vegetables?

SHANE: They are also attracted by the sun, if in a heliotropic rather than a magnetic way, since no magnet has ever been made out of wood or vegetable life!  The sun doesn't attract plants to the degree it attracts rock or crystal formations, though some attraction does in fact occur, else they would be unable to grow.  Indeed, were there not a simultaneous attraction from the earth's core, they wouldn't grow anyway, since unable to remain rooted.  For a plant's growth isn't just upwards into air; it is also downwards into soil, and we may believe that the roots are encouraged to grow by the earth's core and the stalk, in contrast, by the sun, so that a plant grows simultaneously downwards and upwards, is the result of a tension of competing gravitational forces which, at some point in any particular plant's growth, are obliged to call it quits, so to speak, and leave the plant as testimony to a gravitational compromise between the competing attractions.  Even a sunflower, which is taller than other flowers and thereby suggests a bias towards the sun, has roots that go down deeply into the soil and thus testify to the simultaneous competing influence of the earth's core.  Even animals and men are subject to this tension of gravitational forces between the two main subatomic protagonists in the Solar System.

BRIAN: But they don't possess roots that go down into the soil.

SHANE: Not literally!  But, then, legs are root equivalents in autonomous life forms and lead, particularly in the case of Homo sapiens, to an upright, stalk-like entity that we call the torso, which in turn leads to what may be regarded as a blossom equivalent - namely the head.  Considered biologically, man is a kind of walking plant, and, believe me, he wouldn't walk long on this planet's surface were he not subject, like a plant, to the attractive force of the earth's subatomic core!  He would be more like a spaceman, gliding about in space, and always at the risk, if he ventured too far from the earth's gravitational field, of being sucked-in to the sun.

BRIAN: So our stability is to some extent determined by the competing gravitational forces of sun and core.

SHANE: Yes.  And that applies to every life form on this planet, from a tiny plant to a huge elephant.  It also determines, in some measure, our height and weight.

BRIAN: You mean a person's height is determined, in part, by the competing attractive forces simultaneously at work on him from opposite directions?

SHANE: Only from a species point of view, since individual variations are primarily determined by hereditary factors.  But as weight is generally proportionate to height, so height is dependent on the particular tension of competing subatomic forces that simultaneously exert themselves on the world.  Were there less attraction from below, in the earth's core, we would probably be a good deal taller, as a species, than we generally are.  In the case of pygmies, however, it will be found, I think, that they are shorter in height than the average of humanity because more subject to the attractive force of the earth's core than to that of the sun, and largely on account of the fact that they live in jungle regions which, while not totally shutting out the latter's attractive force, somewhat weaken it by dint of the density of plant life to be found there.  So they grow less tall than those of us accustomed to regular exposure to the sun.

BRIAN: A theory which should imply that the tallest men, by contrast, will live in regions of the world most exposed to the sun, like the Middle East.

SHANE: Indeed, and I think you will find that Arabs are taller, on average, than those of us who live in temperate regions.

BRIAN: Getting back to the attractive force which the subatomic absolute exerts on matter, we must distinguish, I take it, between this matter and its electron content.  In other words, the attraction is primarily on matter rather than on the electrons inside it.

SHANE: Absolutely!  And the more dense the matter, the more tightly proton-packed it is, the stronger is the attraction of the subatomic upon it, as in the case of rocks and mineral formations generally.

BRIAN: So there could be no question of free electrons, of transcendent spirit, being attracted by, say, the sun, in the event of transcendence occurring on earth.

SHANE: None whatsoever, because the distinction between the subatomic and the supra-atomic is absolute, and no attraction can possibly occur between absolutes.  It would be absurd to suppose that, in escaping from the atomic constraint of new-brain matter at the culmination of millennial evolution, transcendent spirit would straightaway be attracted by the sun and eventually merge into it.  The sun would be the last thing, metaphorically speaking, that pure spirit would be attracted by, since its sole predilection would be to converge towards other transcendences, other globes of pure spirit, and expand into larger wholes in consequence, a process that, repeated possibly millions of times throughout the course of supra-atomic evolution, would eventually culminate in a definitive globe of pure spirit - namely, the Omega Point, as defined by Teilhard de Chardin in terms of the spiritual culmination of evolution.  Now just suppose, for the sake of argument, that all transcendences, from whichever part of the Universe, were attracted to the nearest stars instead of to one another - what do you suppose would happen?

BRIAN: Provided enough large transcendences entered a star, the proton-proton reactions of the subatomic would be confronted by electron-electron attractions of the supra-atomic, which could lead to its being elevated above pure soul into matter, becoming, in the process, akin to a planet with some degree of atomic integrity.

SHANE: In theory.  But, in practice, I rather doubt it!  For stars only became planets through cooling, and matter was thus created, on its most rudimentary level, from a subatomic base, not through a sudden fusion of protons with free electrons entering the subatomic from without!  No, pure spirit would never be attracted by the stars, not even slightly.  Rather, it would fulfil its own destiny in loyalty to the divine principles of a convergence and expansion of separate transcendences towards total unity.

BRIAN: Then matter is only attracted by the subatomic so long as it is naturalistic and, as it were, rooted in the Diabolic Alpha.

SHANE: Yes, as soon as spirit begins to get the upper hand over soul, as it will do in man at a relatively advanced stage of his evolution, then life aspires towards the Divine Omega, towards transcendence, even if only relatively so at first, as in Christianity, rather than with absolute intent.  Atomic, or dualistic, man, who is part mundane and part transcendental, physically stemming from the Diabolic Alpha but psychically aspiring towards the Divine Omega, is still to a certain extent attracted by the subatomic.  But transcendental man, while possessing a natural body, will exclusively turn towards the Divine Omega, that is to say, towards creating the Supernatural, and thus cease to affirm a link with the Creator.  He will be set on course for the post-Human Millennium and, hence, the practical implementation of an exclusively omega-oriented aspiration through the supersession of man by largely artificial, or post-human life forms, the second and last of which, namely the Superbeings, will have no connection with the Diabolic Alpha whatsoever!

BRIAN: Thus evolution proceeds from pure soul to matter, and from matter to pure spirit, not back, as some people seem to imagine, into pure soul.

SHANE: Correct!  There would be no logic or sense to life if evolution were destined to return to the subatomic after it had attained to the atomic, instead of progressing to the supra-atomic.  There can be no greater distinction than that between Hell and Heaven!  We are set on course for Heaven, if from a kind of purgatorial compromise in the atomic.

BRIAN: And this despite the diabolical workings of the physical cosmos, in which the law of gravity holds sway and planets are accordingly obliged to rotate around suns.

SHANE: To be sure!  A literal knowledge of how the physical cosmos works is the prerogative of people like us, who are beyond the confines of Western civilization, with its petty-bourgeois transcendentalism demanding a subjective, quasi-mystical interpretation of how it works, as exemplified by the Einsteinian concept of curved space.  Such a civilization must kow-tow to transcendental sensibilities, and thus uphold a quasi-mystical interpretation at the expense of force and mass.  It will claim that Newton was wrong and Einstein right.

BRIAN: But won't proletarian civilization uphold a similar if not more radical quasi-mystical interpretation of how the Cosmos works, in due course?

SHANE: Oh yes, absolutely!  But, in the meantime, proletarian states will prefer the literal, objective 'truth' about the physical universe, since that accords with their materialistic integrity beyond the boundaries of bourgeois/proletarian civilization, which isn't, after all, the ultimate civilization but only a stage on the evolutionary road to something higher - namely, proletarian civilization.  Marxist states, as upholders of dialectical materialism, certainly won't venture into the realm of petty-bourgeois transcendentalism, but will remain partial to Newtonian explanations of the Cosmos.  I, too, am partial to such explanations, as this dialogue should indicate, but only on a relative basis!  For whilst it is useful for a proletarian thinker to get to the bottom of how things really work and why, it is even more useful to know why a quasi-mystical interpretation of such workings should be endorsed, if not now then certainly in the future.  Petty-bourgeois transcendentalism may be good but, believe me, proletarian transcendentalism will be a good deal better!  That I can assure you!  In the meantime, let us exploit our status as 'barbarous' outsiders in order to put our more comprehensive knowledge of the literal workings of the physical cosmos down on record once and for all!

BRIAN: I agree.  But don't you think you exaggerate the transcendental integrity of bourgeois/proletarian civilization, which, after all, isn't absolute but decidedly relative?  I mean, Einstein may be de rigueur for the scientific avant-garde, but Newton has by no means been outlawed, as he surely would be in an absolute proletarian civilization.

SHANE: You are right, and consequently a literal explanation of how the Cosmos works would still find sympathetic ears in the West, since the pagan root remains intact in a relative civilization, and that allows not only the relatively uncivilized masses, but the more conservative-thinking people to regard the Cosmos from a traditional force/mass point-of-view, if they so desire.  Probably a majority of the aristocracy and the grand bourgeoisie would be inclined to uphold a literal rather than a quasi-mystical view of the Cosmos, since they don't live on the same plane, generally speaking, as the petty bourgeoisie, particularly those who constitute the scientific avant-garde.  So while curved space may be de rigueur for petty-bourgeois pace setters, force-and-mass cannot be outlawed, since there will be those who, on class or religious grounds, relate more to a literal explanation of how the Cosmos works than to a quasi-mystical one largely conducted, one suspects, in the interests of transcendental complacency.  For this reason, anyone who chooses to walk into a book shop and buy the works of Newton is perfectly free to do so.  That wouldn't be the case, however, in the next civilization, which, being absolute, could hardly allow people to purchase and read anyone who explained the workings of the stars and planets in objectively diabolical terms!  A free-electron civilization would automatically proscribe proton explanations in loyalty to its post-atomic status.  Only the curved-space theory of the Cosmos would prevail.  Only Einstein-type works would be on sale.

BRIAN: Ah, how absolutely right you are!