AN ABSOLUTE ASPIRATION
have a fatal tendency to confound the Diabolic Alpha with the Divine Omega, to
interchange the two as mood and circumstance dictate. Not that we need particularly blame them for
that, since Christianity is, after all, a dualistic religion. Christ was no transcendentalist but a dualist
to the core, that is to say, a man who taught that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' lay
within, in one's spiritual development, but who nonetheless remained loyal to
the Father, to what I call the alpha root of evolution, as when he pleaded with
the Father to 'forgive them', meaning the Jews, 'for they know not what they
do.' There could be no question of
Christ turning his back on the Father in the name of a more exclusive
orientation towards the Holy Spirit, or creation of the Divine Omega. Christ had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit,
only of the Father, which Jews would have identified, more fundamentally, with
Jehovah. But he differed from Judaists
by teaching that the '
However that may be, the '
I, however, am not a practising Christian, and neither do I write for dualists. That is why I speak freely about theological matters, including the distinction between Satan and the Creator, which is commensurate with a difference in degree, though not necessarily in kind, between the central star of the Galaxy and the small peripheral star that we recognize as the sun - one of millions of 'fallen angels' which an explosion of gas sent hurtling out in every direction, with the inception of the Galaxy. Probably there were millions of such explosions throughout the Universe, bearing in mind that we now recognize millions of galaxies, and their offshoots may have interwoven, so that differently-constituted balls of flame came into relative proximity with one another and thereby established the rudiments of a galactic integrity with its - dare I say it? - Newtonian tensions between force and mass. Else we must ascribe the integrity of galaxies to the quicker cooling of certain smaller stars, which went on to become planets vis-à-vis larger stars and eventually put a halt to the everywhichway divergence of stars in general. Gas was undoubtedly the creative force behind galaxies, but we cannot speak of gas out of nothing, or creation out of a void, which is a meaningless, not to say implausible, proposition. Certainly gas came into existence in the void, but that does not mean to say it was dependent on the void, that the void encouraged or needed it. Creation asserted itself against the indifferent backdrop of the void and did so, initially, in the form of gas or gases that went on, through explosive pressures, to become stars, doubtless very anarchic stars until brought into some kind of galactic order through the emergence of planets which, in cooling, hardened into some rudimentary manifestation of an atomic integrity, the electron aspect of which created an atomic tension between stars and planets, that is to say, between subatomic absolutism and atomic relativity.
All this speculation is, of course, at a far remove from theology. But theology is dependent on cosmic reality, it requires some concrete base from which to extrapolate gods and devils and demons. Now the base from which these theological symbols were extrapolated certainly existed, and necessarily continues to exist, but man can outgrow theology in his quest for the supra-atomic absolute. If the Creator (especially in the guise of Jehovah) is a figurative extrapolation from the central star of the Galaxy, and the Devil (as Satan) is a like-extrapolation from the sun, then it stands to reason that the distinction between the two is merely one of degree rather than kind, and that the Creator is therefore a more powerful 'devil', or alpha absolute, than Satan. How is it, then, that Christians, deriving the Father from Judaic precedent, have traditionally looked upon this diabolic absolute as divine, as a being of an altogether higher order than the Devil, whom they have regarded as the root of all evil in the world? The answer to this at first-sight insoluble problem seems to me rather straightforward: they have taken a better view of the Creator for the simple reason that He is not perceived as being directly responsible for all the misery of life, since existing at a farther remove from the world than the Devil. Translated from the figurative to the literal plane, or from theology to science, this means that the central star of the Galaxy, about which such smaller stars as the sun revolve, is at too great a cosmic remove from the earth to do much mischief there, whereas the sun, a mere ninety-three million miles away, directly influences and affects this planet, thereby being the source of all or much of the evil that Christians have traditionally seen fit to ascribe to the Devil's influence. It is therefore the 'Fallen Angel', and not the 'Almighty Creator', which is the root of all evil in the world, if in a comparative sense.
Considered from an absolute point of view, however, it is the Creator, and indeed the millions of Creators, or central stars of galaxies throughout the Universe, which are the literal roots of all evil. For what culminates, as evolution, in the future Divine Omega, or definitive globe of transcendent spirit, must begin in the Diabolic Alpha, with numerous explosions of what we now call central, or governing, stars. Scientists would not speak of numerous Creators but, more literally, of numerous First Causes; though for some obscure reason (probably not unconnected with monotheistic tradition), the single Big Bang theory of the Universe's origins still holds sway in conservative minds - as though the millions of galaxies now in existence could be traced to a single root out of which they all exploded! Granted an ignorance of the pluralistic nature of the Diabolic Alpha, it is still staggering that so many scientists should trace this immense multi-galactic Universe to just one single source! Are we to suppose that galaxies tend away from one another as from a central void in space, the origin-point of their creation? To be sure, diverge they do. But that is surely more from one another, in a sort of kaleidoscopic interaction, than from a central void which, so we are led to believe, was once an immense star before the Big Bang got to it!
Returning from cosmic speculation to Christians, perhaps it isn't altogether surprising that certain aspects of nature, such as the beauty of flowers, were claimed to glorify the Creator by their presence here, their raison d'être, as it were, being to glorify God and give men pleasure in the process. Now if the Devil is a convenient fiction for taking the blame for whatever evil is afoot in the world, then it logically follows that the Creator must be accredited with whatever natural good can be found there, including the beauty of nature. But, considered literally, it is not the central star of the Galaxy that causes flowers to grow but ... the star closest to us, which we recognize as the sun. And so, it is the Devil, to revert to the theological equivalent, rather than God (the Creator) that is glorified by the beauty of flowers, since such beauty is partly the handiwork, as it were, of one who, as a 'fallen angel' ... from stellar to solar planes, is by no means impartial to beauty himself!
Ah, himself! How beguiling is theology! 'Itself' would be a more accurate description of the subatomic absolute in question - namely, the sun, with its proton-proton reactions. Gender only applies to an atomic integrity, particularly to one in which protons and electrons are approximately in balance, as during the dualistic stage of human evolution. An 'it' is certainly at the root of nature considered in mineral, vegetable, or animal terms. The flowers would no more survive without sunlight than other manifestations of the natural world, and the sun, as already noted, is the source from which the Devil was originally extrapolated, in due process of theological abstraction. Nature depends on evil, is itself fundamentally evil, as the Church has traditionally taught, and would only be praised as glorifying the Creator by essentially pagan types, whose allegiance to Christianity was less than transcendental. With its 'survival-of-the-strongest' ethos, nature is precisely what must be overcome if evolution is to attain, via man, to a supernatural culmination in spiritual truth. Flowers can be an obstacle to that overcoming, as can vegetables, animals, and women. However, as a dualistic religious development, Christianity could not be expected to overcome nature in absolute terms, only relatively, with intent to curb the intensity and reduce the frequency of naturalistic indulgences. It could not turn against the Father; for Christ was Himself, to a degree, 'three in One', being soul, flesh, spirit, and therefore Man. One would have to turn against Christ, with his loyalty to the Father, in order to aspire towards transcendent spirit on an absolute basis, to absolutely turn away from nature.
Evolution on earth is still a long way from directly pending transcendence, but a day will surely come when life is set directly on course for ultimate salvation, as the new-brain collectivizations of the ultimate life form on earth, namely the Superbeings, hypermeditate towards free-electron absolutism in the supra-atomic Beyond. Of what consequence will all those who oppose utopian societies, from a humanistic standpoint, be then? Evolution would have overcome them long before, since men will arise who know that while human nature can only be relatively changed on human terms, it can be absolutely changed with the aid of the most advanced technology, a technology which won't merely upgrade man ... but transform him into a post-human life form, transcending his body in the process. As Nietzsche wrote: 'Man is something that should be overcome', and, thanks partly to my teachings, we are now, or soon shall be, in a position to know how to go about overcoming him ... in the interests of salvation and in opposition to any bourgeois humanism, such as would impede evolutionary progress by endeavouring to keep man chained to an atomic, dualistic, Christian integrity. Such an impediment cannot be endured for ever!
The men of the coming transcendental civilization cannot aim for Heaven conceived in literally transcendent terms, as did the Christians with their delusion concerning life after death, but will have to resign themselves to developing spirit and aspiring towards the goal of human evolution in the post-Human Millennium. The goal of human evolution and the goal of evolution per se, however, are two quite different things, and we should not confound the one with the other, nor treat them as identical. The post-Human Millennium is what lies beyond man in the life forms of, first, the Supermen and, then, the Superbeings (as brain collectivizations and new-brain collectivizations respectively), and is thus a goal for man to attain to - in short, a relative goal. But the absolute goal of evolution is Heaven, or the spatially transcendent Beyond, and that can only be attained to by the Superbeings, who will be far superior to man in spiritual striving!
This, needless to say, is not the teaching of Christ but of a wholly transcendental teacher who, in his omega-biased integrity, corresponds to a Second Coming. This man does not pay tribute to the Father, and neither does he confound alpha with omega. He is not 'God', in the sense that Christ was or became (on an anthropomorphic basis) God to Christians, but simply a teacher who points towards the literal creation of ultimate Godhead as transcendent spirit or, more specifically, the definitive globe of such spirit at the climax to all evolution. Such a climax may still be a long way off at present. Nonetheless, we are entering an age when an aspiration towards omega divinity will be the rule rather than, as at present, the exception!