Preview the Centretruths eBook version of THE TRIUMPH OF BEING
Op.
76 THE
TRIUMPH
OF
BEING Cyclic
Philosophy Copyright
©
2011
John O'Loughlin _______________ CONTENTS 1.
The
Morality
of
Being 2.
Other
types
of
Morality 3.
The
Morality
of
Giving 4.
The
Morality
of
Taking 5.
The
Morality
of
Doing 6.
What
I
Think 7.
Some
Clarifications 8.
A
Biblical
Falsehood 9.
On the 'Natures' of the Elements 10.
Ideological
Definitions 11.
Some
Further
Correlations 12.
The
Subhumanity/Subnature of God 13.
Salvation
and
Redemption 14.
Star
and
'Cross' 15.
From Imagination to Individuation 16.
'Up
Above'
and
'Down Below' 17.
Beyond Nietzsche 18.
The
Triumph
of
Being Appendix
(Random
Thoughts) ___________ THE
MORALITY
OF
BEING 1. Am I being moral? Or,
rather,
what
is
moral being? Is it love or
pride or pleasure or joy? -
Yes, it is each of these qualities or, rather, essences, because they
are
states of positive being, and morality is always positive, never
negative! 2. Hence I am being moral when my being is
positive, whether the being in question be metachemical
(love), chemical (pride), physical (pleasure), or metaphysical (joy) -
that is,
whether my being is noumenally objective,
phenomenally objective, phenomenally subjective, or noumenally
subjective, associated, in other words, with fire, water, vegetation
(earth),
or with air. 3. Thus although I am being moral in all
four
elemental contexts provided the nature of my being is positive, I am
not being
equally moral in them; for there is a considerable difference between metachemical being at one end of the elemental
spectrum, so
to speak, and metaphysical being at the other end - all the difference,
in
fact, between positive manifestations of Hell and Heaven. 4. In point of fact, in terms of a scale of
being from fourth- to first-rates via third- and second-rates, it will
transpire that love is a fourth-rate order of being, that pride is
third-rate,
pleasure second-rate, and joy alone a first-rate order of being -
nothing
short, in truth, than the being-of-beings. 5. Thus compared to positive metaphysical
being,
which is the most beingful order of being,
positive
physical being is more (relative to most) beingful,
positive
chemical
being
less
(relative to least) beingful,
and
positive metachemical being least beingful, the beingfulness
of a noumenally objective disposition
which, with its fiery
correlation, smacks of Hell. 6. Thus Hell, like Heaven, can be moral,
since
morality is ever positive, and love is no less positive (in a manner of
speaking) than joy or, for that matter, the intermediate states of
pride
(chemical) and pleasure (physical), the former attaching, in religious
terms,
to that which is purgatorial, and the latter to whatever is earthly,
and hence
closer to vegetation than to water. 7. But if moral being can be hellish,
purgatorial, earthly, or heavenly, then so can immoral being, or the
condition
of being immoral, except that one will be into being negatively in one
of four
different ways, viz. hatefully, humbly, painfully, or woefully, with
hatred
corresponding to that which is most negative, humility corresponding to
that
which is more (relative to most) negative, pain corresponding to that
which is
less (relative to least) negative, and woe corresponding, in its noumenal subjectivity, to that which is least
negative, the
negativity of a sort of Antiheaven, or
negative
Heaven, which is no less metaphysical, in its peculiar way, than the
joy of
Heaven. But, of course, being negative
it is immoral, even if of a first-rate order of immoral being. 8. Thus metaphysical being is first-rate
being,
whether it is positive or negative; for being corresponds to
the essence
of things, and air, the metaphysical element, is the most essential,
being
neither apparent (like fire), quantitative (like water), nor
qualitative (like
vegetation). Being is essence, and the
essence of being is soul, which, as we have seen, can be metachemical
and fourth-rate, chemical and third-rate, physical and second-rate, or
metaphysical and first-rate, corresponding not to love, pride, or
pleasure, but
to joy, the condition of being when it is most essential and therefore
associated with air, whether externally in aural relation to the
airwaves or
internally in respiratory relation to the breath, the former sensual,
the
latter sensible. 9. Thus not only is being most essential
when
metaphysical, it is most moral when positively metaphysical and,
conversely,
least immoral when negatively metaphysical, the difference, in short,
between
joy and woe, Heaven and, for want of a better term, Antiheaven. Either
way, the order of being is first-rate;
for the elemental context in which metaphysical being takes place, viz.
air
(oxygen), is the only element with an essential correspondence to soul,
the
only element, that is, whose nature is such that being can attain to
its most
essential manifestation in what amounts to the quintessence of soul. Essence begets essence, and the being that
results from air, being metaphysical, is the ne
plus ultra
of soul, the soulful per se in both positive (supreme) and
negative
(primal) contexts. Only
positive
being,
however,
which
is rightly to be associated with supremacy, can
be moral. For it attaches to the
organic, and the organic is no less moral, in whatever element, than
the
inorganic is immoral, the primal backdrop or source from which
everything
organic, and hence moral, supremely springs. 10. There is no connection between inorganic
primacy and morality; on the contrary, morality is only possible on the
basis
of or, rather, in positive relation to organic supremacy.
It is for this reason that concepts of God(head)
rooted
in
the
Cosmos, the source of inorganic
primacy, are fundamentally immoral, and hence false or, at any rate,
merely
negative. Morality begins, by contrast,
in the most fundamental manifestation of the organic and culminates in
its most
transcendental manifestation, as germane to positive metaphysics. OTHER
TYPES
OF
MORALITY 1. Besides the morality of being, there are
of
course what may be termed the moralities of taking, of giving, and of
doing,
this latter equally, if antithetically, noumenal
to
being. 2. None of these alternative kinds of
morality
is - or ever can be - the principal concern of the philosopher, since
the
philosopher who is true to his vocation will sooner or later gravitate
to
being, thereby indicating that philosophy may well be the soul of
literature as
distinct from its ego (fiction), its spirit (drama), or its will
(poetry). Thus when moral being has been
accounted for
and properly understood, the philosopher's task is effectively over. He may theorize about taking, giving, or
doing, but always from the standpoint of one who is centred in being,
specifically metaphysical being, and preferably of a sensible, or
're-born',
order. For a literature that is centred
or, alternatively, rooted in that which is less than being, one must
turn to
the novelist, the dramatist, and the poet, whose chief literary
preserves are -
or should be - taking, giving, and doing respectively.
For while fiction is primarily a discipline
of the ego, drama is its spiritual counterpart, and poetry, rather more
noumenal than phenomenal, is that which
lies the furthest
removed from philosophy as the discipline, par
excellence, of the
will. 3. Thus as we have correlated being
with
soul, soul being the essence of beingfulness,
so
we
can
correlate
taking with ego, ego being the quality of taking;
giving
with spirit, spirit being the quantity of giving; and doing
with will,
doing being the appearance of will. If
drama and fiction are respectively feminine and masculine,
corresponding to
water and to vegetation (earth), then poetry and philosophy are their
diabolic
and divine counterparts, the former with a correspondence to fire and
the
latter having a no-less noumenal
correspondence to
air. 4. Of course, just as there is being
in
every element, from fire and water to vegetation and air, so doing,
giving,
and taking are likewise to be found everywhere, though not to
the same
extent or on identical terms. Just as
being is only in its per
se manifestation in air, so, conversely, doing is only such
in positive relation to fire, while the phenomenal conditions of giving
and
taking will have their respective per se manifestations in
water and
vegetation. Thus no less than the soul per
se will only be found in the metaphysical context of air, so the
will per
se, its doing-oriented antithesis, is only to be found in the metachemical context of fire; the spirit per
se in
the chemical context of water; and the ego per se in the
physical
context of vegetation. 5. Thus, in gender terms, will and spirit
are
primarily female attributes, whereas ego and soul are primarily male -
certainly when of a per
se nature. It is
this insight which enables us to distinguish the objective elements
(rooted in
a vacuum and tending towards direct [straight line] divergence and/or
convergence) of fire and water from the subjective elements (centred in
a
plenum and tending towards indirect [curved line] divergence and/or
convergence) of vegetation and air - the former pair female and the
latter pair
male. Metachemistry
and chemistry stand on one side of the gender fence, pretty much like
poetry
and drama, no less than physics and metaphysics on its other side, the
side
wherein fiction and philosophy are the principal literary concerns. Thus must doing and giving, the will and the spirit, be set aside, in elemental terms, from
taking and
being, the ego and the soul. THE
MORALITY
OF
GIVING 1. Just as being was characterized as
hellish,
purgatorial, earthly, or heavenly, depending on the kind of being, so
giving
can likewise be characterized in such terms; for it is the omega rather
than
the alpha of the self or, more correctly, not-self, as that which
emanates in
selfless fashion from a wilful, or will-based, precondition. Such selflessness is of course commensurate
with spirit, and therefore it could be said that spirit shares in
common with
soul a tendency to be either hellish, purgatorial, earthly, or
heavenly, if not
strictly in terms of love, pride, pleasure, and joy (at any rate where
its
positive manifestations are concerned), then certainly in terms of
brightness,
dimness, heaviness, and lightness. 2. Far from having a metaphysical per
se,
however, giving has a chemical one, largely on account of its
association with
spirit, spirit being most quantitative in water and least quantitative
in
vegetation, while in between are the noumenal
quantities of fiery spirit and airy spirit, the former more (relative
to most)
quantitative, and the latter less (relative to least) quantitative. Thus we may speak of moral giving as ranging
positively through the elements, from a first-rate manifestation in
water to a
fourth-rate manifestation in vegetation via second- and third-rate
manifestations in fire and air respectively, as though from the
spirituality of
dimness, necessarily feminine, to the spirituality of heaviness, its
masculine
antithesis, via the spiritualities of brightness and of lightness,
corresponding to diabolic and divine alternatives. 3. As with
being,
however, there is also a negative, or immoral, quadruplicity
of giving to be reckoned with, and such a quadruplicity
is no less inorganic, or inorganically-conditioned, than its positive
counterpart was organically-conditioned, being, by contrast, the
product of
primal modes of will. But even negative
dimness, so to speak, is still, in its watery correlation, the per
se
manifestation of giving, and hence of spirit, whose quantitative status
is most
as distinct from more (relative to most), less (relative to least), or
least
quantitative. Thus dimness remains the per
se manifestation of spirit even when it is negatively conditioned,
and such
dimness is commensurate with a spiritual antipurgatory,
the
sort
of
negative,
or primal, purgatory that stands to the purgatorial per
se of spirit as antigiving to giving. 4. Thus no less than being has a soulfully
heavenly per
se, whether it be positive or negative, so giving has a
spiritually purgatorial per se, the sort of purgatory which
owes less to
essence than to quantity, and which, certainly on the female side of
the gender
divide, is manifestly objective, issuing in watery and/or fiery fashion
from a
chemical and/or metachemical order of will. In this respect, it is a primary as opposed
to a secondary order of purgatory; for purgatory is primarily a
condition of
the spirit. 5. Before I proceed to briefly describe
taking
and doing, I should add that the primal modes of spirit are frankly
less
describable in terms of negative dimness, brightness, lightness, or
heaviness
... than in terms of coldness, hotness, thinness, and thickness, which
could be
regarded as the spiritual counterparts to the negative soulful states
of
humility, hatred, woe, and pain. For it
seems to me logically self-evident that the spiritual counterparts to
the
positive soulful states of pride, love, joy, and pleasure are indeed
dimness,
brightness, lightness, and heaviness.
Hence the primal giving of coldness, hotness, thinness, and
thickness,
as distinct from the supreme giving of dimness, brightness, lightness,
and
heaviness. THE
MORALITY
OF
TAKING 1. Unlike giving but like being, taking is
of
the self, albeit of the self conceived egocentrically, and is therefore
closely
associated with mind, which stands to soul as form to content(ment). Taking, as
we
have seen, is a qualitative condition, and the taking of morality,
moral
taking, is most qualitatively aligned with vegetation, the qualitative
element par
excellence, and least qualitatively aligned, by contrast, with
water, its
quantitative antithesis. The elements of
air and fire, on the other hand, provide us with second- and third-rate
manifestations of taking, and hence of egocentric mind, relative to
positions
intermediate between the qualitative extremes. 2. Thus one can take morally in positive
relation to either vegetation, in what is called knowledge; to air, in
what is
called truth; to fire, in what is called beauty; or to water, in what
is called
strength, as from first- to fourth-rate orders of taking.
If giving has a chemical per
se
in keeping with its quantitative nature, then the per se
manifestation
of taking, by contrast, is physical, with the egocentric knowledge of
vegetation. Receding from which is the
egocentric truth of airiness, the egocentric beauty of fieriness, and
the
egocentric strength of wateriness, corresponding to metaphysical, metachemical, and chemical 'bovaryizations'
of
taking. 3. All such rates of moral taking naturally
presuppose an organic precondition, such that logically adheres to
supremacy,
and further correspond, in their different elements, to masculine,
divine,
diabolic, and feminine standings. For taking
is the alpha as opposed to the omega of the self, and is therefore less
of the
earth, Heaven, Hell, or purgatory ... than of man, God, the Devil, and
woman. Knowledge leads to pleasure no
less than truth to joy, or beauty to love, or strength to pride. Before there can be a soul, or emotional
response, there must firstly be a mind, an egocentric starting-point -
form
duly leading (though not directly) to contentment. 4. The same of course applies to negative
taking, the immoral taking of that which, by and large, is
inorganically
conditioned by primal factors to take in relation to negative
vegetation, air,
fire, and water, wherein one is conscious not of knowledge but of
ignorance,
not of truth but of falsity (illusion), not of beauty but of ugliness,
and not
of strength but of weakness. It is in
such immoral taking that the antiman, the Antigod, the Antidevil,
and
the
antiwoman are revealed, as
negative modes of physics,
metaphysics, metachemistry, and chemistry
stake their
respective claims to first-, second-, third-, and fourth-rate orders of
antitaking, the antimind
inorganically paramount. Thus does
ignorance egocentrically become the vegetative precondition of pain,
falsity
the airy precondition of woe, ugliness the fiery precondition of
hatred, and
weakness the watery precondition of humility. THE
MORALITY
OF
DOING 1. Having dealt with taking, let us now
turn to
doing, whose will-based nature is rather more illustrative of
appearances than
of qualities or, for that matter, quantities and essences.
For will is that which is furthest removed
from soul, having its fulcrum, so to speak, in fire, wherein it is most
apparent. Closer to spirit than to ego,
will is ever of the not-self, the driving-force behind spiritual
selflessness,
and is never more itself than when noumenally
objective, and hence metachemical. Compared and/or contrasted to which, the
phenomenal objectivity of chemical doing is second-rate, the phenomenal
subjectivity of physical doing third-rate, and the noumenal
subjectivity of metaphysical doing fourth-rate, the least apparent
order of
doing and therefore the only order of will that can be used (by the
metaphysical ego) as a springboard to the deepest, most essential soul. Will per se, on the other hand, will
only
deliver the least essential soul which, as we have seen, is called love. 2. Thus it would be quite philosophically
incorrect to equate love with the will, even when the latter is metachemical, since the will is no less distinct
from the
soul than the spirit from the ego (mind), being affiliated to the
not-self -
or, in this case, to a specific not-self characterized as metachemical
- as opposed to the self. The ego may
direct the will, but the will is not commensurate with God or man or
woman or
the Devil on the basis of truth or knowledge or strength or beauty,
but,
rather, on a sort of secondary basis in which the nature of appearance,
the
doing of will, will be either quick or slow, excitable or calm,
depending on
its elemental bent. Quick,
and we have metachemical will. Slow, by contrast, and the elemental
correspondence will be chemical. Excitable, and we have physical will. Calm, and the will
can only be metaphysical. Thus does
moral doing reflect a positive relationship to either quickness or
slowness
when objective, while the subjective kinds of moral doing, being
physical and
metaphysical, can only be excitable or calm, bearing in mind their
relationship
to vegetation and to air. 3. As with giving, however, there are
negative
orders of doing to be reckoned with, and once again we may posit an
inorganic
precondition for them which would suggest the greater influence of
primacy over
supremacy in the unfolding of the various kinds of antiwill,
from
a
metachemical per
se
through the chemical, physical, and metaphysical 'bovaryizations'
of
negative
will. As we have distinguished
negative giving from positive giving, so we shall here make a
like-distinction,
with regard to doing, between the positivity
of
quickness and the negativity of loudness; the positivity
of slowness and the negativity of quietness; the positivity
of excitableness and the negativity of hardness; and the positivity
of calmness and the negativity of softness. 4. Thus no less than quickness is the
positive metachemical corollary of beauty,
its diabolical egocentric
counterpart in the alpha-based contexts of not-self and self, so
loudness (or
aggressiveness) is the negative metachemical
corollary of ugliness; and no less than slowness (or firmness) is the
positive
chemical corollary of strength, its feminine egocentric counterpart, so
quietness (or shyness) is the negative corollary of weakness; and no
less than
excitableness is the positive physical corollary of knowledge (whether
carnal
or mental), its masculine egocentric counterpart, so hardness (or
coarseness)
is the negative physical corollary of ignorance; and no less than
calmness is
the positive metaphysical corollary of truth, its divine egocentric
counterpart, so softness (or pliability) is the negative metaphysical
corollary
of falsity. WHAT
I
THINK 1. No less than soul is the essence of
being, so
holiness is the wisdom of metaphysics. 2. No less than ego is the quality of
taking, so
unholiness is the folly of physics. 3. No less than spirit is the quantity of
giving, so clearness is the goodness of chemistry. 4. No less than will is the appearance of
doing,
so unclearness is the evil of metachemistry. 5. The soul does not exist except in
relation to
the essence of being. Neither therefore
does holiness exist except in relation to the wisdom of metaphysics. 6. The ego does not exist except in
relation to
the quality of taking. Neither therefore
does unholiness exist except in relation
to the folly
of physics. 7. The spirit does not exist except in
relation
to the quantity of giving. Neither
therefore does clearness exist except in relation to the goodness of
chemistry. 8. The will does not exist except in
relation to
the appearance of doing. Neither
therefore does unclearness exist except in relation to the evil of metachemistry. 9. If metaphysics is holy because wise,
then so,
too, is the soul which, being noumenally
subjective,
is an impression of metaphysical being - the holy soul of Heaven. 10. If physics is unholy because foolish, then so,
too, is the ego which, being phenomenally subjective, is an impression
of
physical taking - the unholy ego of man. 11. If chemistry is clear because good, then so,
too, is the spirit which, being phenomenally objective, is an
expression of
chemical giving - the clear spirit of purgatory. 12. If metachemistry
is
unclear because evil, then so, too, is the will which, being noumenally objective, is an expression of metachemical doing - the unclear will of the
Devil. 13. The wisdom of
metaphysics, which is the essence of being, leads to the holiness of
grace,
which is the soul of Heaven. 14. The folly of
physics,
which is the quality of taking, leads to the unholiness
of sin, which is the ego of man. 15. The goodness of
chemistry, which is the quantity of giving, leads to the clearness of
punishment, which is the spirit of purgatory. 16. The evil of metachemistry, which is the appearance of doing,
leads to
the unclearness of crime, which is the will of the Devil. 17. The holy soul of Heaven (the universal
metaphysical
self) is no less superior to the holy spirit of Heaven (the universal
metaphysical not-self) than the holy ego of God (the personal
metaphysical
self) to the holy will of God (the personal metaphysical not-self). 18. The unholy ego of man (the personal physical
self) is no less superior to the unholy will of man (the personal
physical
not-self) than the unholy soul of earth (the universal physical self)
to the
unholy spirit of earth (the universal physical not-self). 19. The clear spirit of purgatory (the universal
chemical not-self) is no less superior to the clear soul of purgatory
(the
universal chemical self) than the clear will of woman (the personal
chemical
not-self) to the clear ego of woman (the personal chemical self). 20. The unclear will of the Devil (the personal metachemical not-self) is no less superior to
the unclear
ego of the Devil (the personal metachemical
self)
than the unclear spirit of Hell (the universal metachemical
not-self) to the unclear soul of Hell (the universal metachemical
self). 21. The self is only superior to the not-self in
the subjective elements of physics and metaphysics, vegetation and air. 22. The not-self is only superior to the self in
the objective elements of metachemistry
and
chemistry, fire and water. 23. Subjective elements,
being male, are those in which the self is primary, whether as ego or
soul, and
the not-self secondary, whether as will or spirit. 24. Objective elements, being female, are those in which the not-self is primary,
whether as will
or spirit, and the self secondary, whether as ego or soul. 25. Thus females are
characterized by the dominance, within not-self primacy, of will and
spirit -
with especial reference to their per
se manifestations in metachemistry and
chemistry, fire and water. 26. Conversely, males are characterized by the
dominance, within self primacy, of ego and soul - with especial
reference to
their per
se manifestations in physics and metaphysics, vegetation
and air. 27. In no respect are
the
genders equal but, rather, demonstrably dissimilar in their respective
elemental predilections. In fact,
insofar as fire and water are the primary elements,
and vegetation and air the secondary ones, deriving their subjectivity
from the
prior existence of the objective elements, so, too, are females primary
and
males secondary. 28. Males cannot, in their subjectivity, dominate
females the way or to the extent that females dominate males, though
they can
opt to 'turn their back' on females through the cultivation of either
vegetative or airy sensibility, becoming either Christian or, in the
latter
case, effectively Buddhist, and hence transcendentalist. 29. This distinction is not only between
phenomenal and noumenal modes of male
sensibility,
the former appertaining to volume and the latter to space, but is also
indicative of a class distinction between 'lower' and 'upper'
alternatives, in
which the former effectively excludes the latter, and vice versa. 30. Vegetative sensibility exists on the plane of
voluminous volume, and airy sensibility on
the plane
of spaced space - the former masculine and the latter divine. 31. In plane organic
terms, this is simply a distinction between the brain and the lungs,
cerebral
physics and respiratory metaphysics. 32. In religious terms,
such a distinction is reducible to prayer on the one hand, and to
meditation
(or transcendental meditation) on the other hand, with egocentric
(intellectual) and psychocentric
(emotional)
implications. 33. Sensibility gives males the delusion - and
nothing
more - of ascendancy over females; for, in reality, vegetation and air
remain
secondary to water and fire, subjectivity being by definition secondary
to
objectivity. 34. In most cases of male ascendancy through
sensibility, the sensibility in question loses ground, sooner or later,
to the
struggle by females to return to sensuality, wherein the female side of
things
is hegemonic. 35. Thus the confinement of females either to the
phenomenal sensibility of massed mass or to the noumenal
sensibility of repetitive time, to the chemical sensibility of the womb
or to
the metachemical sensibility of the heart,
is sure to
be at best intermittent and at worst temporary, since females have an
inbuilt -
one might even say genetically-programmed - tendency to return to the
higher
planes of either (depending on the circumstances) chemical or metachemical sensuality, the former definable in
terms of
the hegemony of volumetric volume (feminine) over massive mass
(masculine), and
the latter definable in terms of the hegemony of spatial space
(diabolic) over
sequential time (divine). 36. Females are saved to and by the planes of
sensual space (spatial) and sensual volume (volumetric), but damned to
and by
the planes of sensible time (repetitive) and sensible mass (massed). 37. Conversely, males are dammed to and by the
planes of sensual mass (massive) and sensual time (sequential), but
saved to
and by the planes of sensible volume (voluminous) and sensible space
(spaced). 38. Those affiliated to the objective elements of
fire and water will not, as females, tolerate damnation (to a
subordinate
status in sensibility under air and vegetation) for very long, since
the
primary natures of metachemistry and
chemistry
vis-à-vis metaphysics and physics are such that their maximum
satisfaction can
only be guaranteed by sensuality, wherein they are truly hegemonic. 39. Males are naturally resentful of their
'secondary' status as 'fall guys' in the 'once-born' contexts of
vegetative and
airy sensuality, but their sporadic endeavours to be saved (from
sensual
subjection to a sensible ascendancy over females) are bedevilled by the
inescapable fact that, being subjective, vegetation and air, the male
elements par
excellence, are ever secondary to water and fire, their objective
counterparts,
and unable, in consequence, to prevail in the ascendancy for very long. 40. Exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, it
would seem that unless steps were duly to be taken by males to
undermine if not
reduce the objectivity of females, salvation for them will remain at
best
problematic, at worst a rather intermittent or even temporary
achievement ...
steeped in delusion and hypocrisy. 41. For if life is a
gender tug-of-war, it is one in which, due to the primacy of
objectivity,
females (despite suggestions to the contrary) have the upper hand. 42. And that is an upper hand which makes a Devil
out of God and a Pan-like fool out of man - at any rate in sensual, or
'once-born', contexts. 43. Unfortunately for males, the world is not a
context
that greatly conduces towards the 'rebirth' of sensibility, least of
all in
metaphysical terms. 44. Even a physical 'rebirth' is about as relevant
or germane to the world as the planet Mars, bearing in mind its Christic nature in what amounts to a cerebral
parallel
beyond the phallic parallel of terrestrial vegetation. 45. Genuine religion, by which is meant
metaphysical religion, can only be tangential to the world; for the
world is
primarily a context of politics and economics, as befitting its mundane
nature. 46. Even science, when genuine, will be tangential
to the world, if rather more on a Venusian
than, say,
a Saturnian basis, bearing in mind
its materialist nature. 47. For the world is
primarily a context of woman and man, water and vegetation, and not
therefore a
place in which either the Devil or God, fire or air, can expect to
significantly flourish. 48. The Devil and/or
God
can only flourish in relation to woman and man, not independently of
them. 49. In like manner, science and/or religion can
only flourish in relation to politics and economics, not independently
of them. 50. This does not necessarily imply that science
and religion must be lowered to the level of the world and become
merely
worldly, even though science and religion can and are in fact obliged
to do
this; but, rather, that they must leave room for woman and man,
politics and
economics, whether in the event of science ruling the world through
materialism
or of religion leading it through transcendentalism. 51. The will of science contrasts absolutely with
the soul of religion, as absolute power with absolute content(ment). 52. The spirit of
politics contrasts relatively with the ego of economics, as relative
glory with
relative form. 53. The above would only of course apply to the
per se manifestations of the respective disciplines - from science and
politics
on the female (objective) side of the gender fence ... to economics and
religion on its male (subjective) side, as from fire and water to
vegetation
and air. 54. In literary terms, one would have to speak of
a distinction between poetry and drama on the one hand and ... fiction
and
philosophy on the other, the former disciplines corresponding to fire
and
water, the latter ones to vegetation and air. 55. Which is to distinguish, after all, between
appearance and quantity on the one hand and ... quality and essence on
the
other hand - the hand not of will and spirit, but of ego and soul. 56. As a philosopher,
my
principal concern is with soul, since I am the writer (sic.) of
essence, not of
quality (fiction), of quantity (drama), or of appearance (poetry),
wherein
knowledge, strength, and beauty rather than truth are - or should be -
the
respective means. 57. And I am an upper-class manifestation of
philosophy, a per
se manifestation of philosophy that has reference to
aphoristic space rather than to, say, essayistic volume. 58. Such philosophy, which is alone true and
genuine, can only be alien to a society rooted, democratically, in
lower-class
values, wherein the essayistic notion of philosophy tends to prevail. 59. But even then,
philosophy remains peripheral to the worldly norms of fiction and
drama,
corresponding to economics and to politics. 60. For philosophy is
closest of the literary branches to religion, and even religion of a
lower-class order, like Christianity, will remain, in the nature of
things,
peripheral to the world, with its politics and economics, its
novels/novelists
and plays/dramatists. 61. Being peripheral to the world, like the
essayistic philosopher, is one thing; being beyond the world in a
philosophical
Heaven is quite another! 62. And that is a
distinction between the philosopher of knowledge, an enlightened man,
and the
philosopher of truth, effectively a god. 63. It is the philosopher of truth who, in
proclaiming the truth, reveals himself as a divinity, a devotee of
space who
transcends volume as air transcends vegetation or as religion
transcends
economics or as grace transcends sin. 64. This philosopher cannot be bought and sold in
the market place; for he is above the market place and its economic
dominion. He lives not for physical
wealth but for metaphysical wealth, which is the proclamation of truth
and the
attainment of joy ... in the holy soul of Heaven. 65. In such
metaphysical
fashion is wealth duly transposed into health, the divine ego eclipsed
by the
sublime soul. 66. Soul is always essence, the being of things,
but it is not invariably wise or holy or graceful.
We can speak of the first-rate, because per
se,
soul of metaphysics; of the second-rate, because 'once bovaryized',
soul of physics; of the third-rate, because 'twice bovaryized',
soul
of
chemistry;
and
of the fourth-rate, because 'thrice bovaryized',
soul
of
metachemistry.
But we cannot logically speak of second-rate
wisdom or third-rate holiness or fourth-rate grace. 67. Wisdom, holiness, and grace are comparable
attributes not simply of being but, more particularly, of metaphysical
being,
the soul of souls. Thus the holy soul of
Heaven is alone wise, since its essence (as joy) is graceful. 68. Compared to the holy soul of Heaven, what may
be termed the unholy soul of (the) earth, the physical soul, is
foolish, since
its essence (as pleasure) is sinful. 69. Contrasted to the unholy soul of (the) earth,
we shall find that what may be called the clear soul of purgatory, the
chemical
soul, is good, since its essence (as pride) is just. 70. Compared to the clear
soul of purgatory, what may be termed the unclear soul of Hell, the metachemical soul, is evil, since its essence
(as love) is
criminal. 71. Thus not only do we find distinctions between
wise soul, foolish soul, good soul, and evil soul, but such
distinctions mirror
the elemental distances between metaphysics, physics, chemistry, and metachemistry, corresponding, in social terms,
to God, man,
woman, and the Devil. 72. Soul thereby recedes, in essence, from the
most essential soul of metaphysics, which is wise, to the least
essential soul
of metachemistry, which is evil, via the
more
(relative to most) essential soul of physics, which is foolish, and the
less
(relative to least) essential soul of chemistry, which is good, as from
first-
to fourth-rate via second- and third-rate orders of being. 73. Now what applies to positive soul applies no
less to negative soul, its primal counterpart, wherein not joy but woe,
not
pleasure but pain, not pride but humility, not love but hatred are the
prevailing passions - passions receding from wisdom and folly on the
male side
of the gender divide ... to goodness and evil on its female side, the
side not
of the holy antisoul of Antiheaven
and the unholy antisoul of anti-earth, but
of the
clear antisoul or antipurgatory
and the unclear antisoul of Antihell. 74. As there is wise soul, so there is wise ego,
wise spirit, and wise will - the holy (or metaphysical) ego of primary
God
(corresponding, in a manner of speaking, to God the Son), the holy (or
metaphysical) spirit of secondary Heaven, and the holy (or
metaphysical) will
of secondary God (corresponding, in a manner of speaking, to God the
Father),
all of which complement the holy (or metaphysical) soul of primary
Heaven. 75. Likewise, as there is foolish soul, so there
is foolish ego, foolish spirit, and foolish will - the unholy (or
physical) ego
of primary man, the unholy (or physical) spirit of secondary earth, and
the
unholy (or physical) will of secondary man, all of which complement the
unholy
(or physical) soul of primary earth. 76. Similarly, as there is good soul, so there is
good ego, good spirit, and good will - the clear (or chemical) ego of
secondary
woman, the clear (or chemical) spirit of primary purgatory, and the
clear (or
chemical) will of primary woman, all of which complement the clear (or
chemical) soul of secondary purgatory. 77. Finally, as there is evil soul, so there is
evil ego, evil spirit, and evil will - the unclear (or metachemical)
ego of secondary Devil, the unclear (or metachemical)
spirit
of
primary
Hell,
and the unclear (or metachemical)
will
of
primary Devil, all of which complement the unclear (or metachemical) soul of secondary Hell. 78. As we have distinguished the first-rate soul
of metaphysics from the second-rate soul of physics, the third-rate
soul of
chemistry, and the fourth-rate soul of metachemistry,
working
backwards
from
the
per
se manifestation of soul in the most
essential element (of air) to once, twice, and thrice 'bovaryized'
orders of soul in the more (relative to most), less (relative to
least), and
least essential elements (viz. earth, water and fire), so we shall do
the same
for ego, spirit, and will, starting with the qualitativeness
(in taking) of ego. 79. Thus as ego is in its per
se
manifestation in the most qualitative element of vegetation (earth), it
is
'once bovaryized' and second-rate in the
more
(relative to most) qualitative element of air, 'twice bovaryized'
and third-rate in the less (relative to least) qualitative element of
fire, and
'thrice bovaryized' and fourth-rate in the
least
qualitative element of water, thereby receding from physics to
chemistry via
metaphysics and metachemistry. Let us now turn to the quantitativeness
(in giving) of spirit. 80. Thus as spirit is in its per
se
manifestation in the most quantitative element of water, it is 'once bovaryized' and second-rate in the more
(relative to most)
quantitative element of fire, 'twice bovaryized'
and
third-rate
in
the
less (relative to least) quantitative element of air,
and
'thrice bovaryized' and fourth-rate in the
least
quantitative element of vegetation, thereby receding from chemistry to
physics
via metachemistry and metaphysics. Let us turn, finally, to the appearance (in
doing) of will. 81. Thus as will is in its per
se
manifestation in the most apparent element of fire, it is 'once bovaryized' and second-rate in the more
(relative to most)
apparent element of water, 'twice bovaryized'
and
third-rate
in
the
less (relative to least) apparent element of
vegetation, and
'thrice bovaryized' and fourth-rate in the
least
apparent element of air, thereby receding from metachemistry
to metaphysics via chemistry and physics. 82. What applies to the positivity
of supreme ego, spirit, and will applies no less to their negative, or
primal,
counterparts, whose folly, goodness, and evil will be per
se
or 'bovaryized' according to the element
with which
any one of these factors is individually associated. 83. Rather than dwell on negativity, I should like
to continue with a discussion of the positive manifestations of ego,
spirit,
will, and, indeed, soul, the chief concern, after all, of the
philosopher,
particularly the moral philosopher. 84. Metaphysics provides us with a distinction,
overall, between second-rate ego and first-rate soul in relation to the
self
(both personal and universal), and fourth-rate will and third-rate
spirit in
relation to the not-self (both personal and universal); for first-rate
being is
not possible on any other basis than that in which the doing is
fourth-rate,
the giving third-rate, and the taking second-rate. 85. Physics provides us with a distinction,
overall, between first-rate ego and second-rate soul in relation to the
self
(both personal and universal), and third-rate will and fourth-rate
spirit in
relation to the not-self (both personal and universal); for first-rate
taking
is not possible on any other basis than that in which the giving is
fourth-rate, the doing third-rate, and the being second-rate. 86. Chemistry provides us with a distinction,
overall, between second-rate will and first-rate spirit in relation to
the
not-self (both personal and universal), and fourth-rate ego and
third-rate soul
in relation to the self (both personal and universal); for first-rate
giving is
not possible on any other basis than that in which the doing is
second-rate,
the being third-rate, and the taking fourth-rate. 87. Metachemistry
provides us with a distinction, overall, between first-rate will and
second-rate spirit in relation to the not-self (both personal and
universal),
and third-rate ego and fourth-rate soul in relation to the self (both
personal
and universal); for first-rate doing is not possible on any other basis
than
that in which giving is second-rate, taking third-rate, and being
fourth-rate. 88. Thus in the airy context of metaphysics, the
holy soul (universal self) of primary Heaven, the first-rate soul of
metaphysical being, is only possible in relation to the holy ego
(personal
self) of primary God, the holy will (personal not-self) of secondary
God, and
the holy spirit (universal not-self) of secondary Heaven. 89. Thus in the vegetative context of physics, the
unholy ego (personal self) of primary man, the first-rate ego of
physical
taking, is only possible in relation to the unholy soul (universal
self) of
primary earth, the unholy will (personal not-self) of secondary man,
and the
unholy spirit (universal not-self) of secondary earth. 90. Thus in the watery context of chemistry, the
clear spirit (universal not-self) of primary purgatory, the first-rate
spirit
of chemical giving, is only possible in relation to the clear will
(personal
not-self) of primary woman, the clear ego (personal self) of secondary
woman,
and the clear soul (universal self) of secondary purgatory. 91. Thus in the fiery context of metachemistry, the unclear will (personal
not-self) of the
primary Devil, the first-rate will of metachemical
doing, is only possible in relation to the unclear spirit (universal
not-self)
of primary Hell, the unclear ego (personal self) of the secondary
Devil, and
the unclear soul (universal self) of secondary Hell. 92. In metaphysics, the
primary God and Heaven of truth and joy require the support of the
secondary
God and Heaven of calmness and lightness. 93. In physics, the
primary man and earth of knowledge and pleasure require the support of
the
secondary man and earth of excitableness and heaviness. 94. In chemistry, the
secondary woman and purgatory of strength and pride offer support to
the
primary woman and purgatory of slowness and dimness. 95. In metachemistry, the secondary Devil and Hell of
beauty and
love offer support to the primary Devil and Hell of quickness and
brightness. 96. Conversely, in negative metaphysics, the
primary God and Heaven of falsity and woe require the support of the
secondary
God and Heaven of softness and thinness. 97. In negative
physics,
the primary man and earth of ignorance and pain require the support of
the
secondary man and earth of hardness and thickness. 98. In negative
chemistry, the secondary woman and purgatory of weakness and humility
offer
support to the primary woman and purgatory of quietness and coldness. 99. In negative metachemistry, the secondary Devil and Hell of
ugliness and
hatred offer support to the primary Devil and Hell of loudness and
hotness. SOME
CLARIFICATIONS 1. Things proceed by degrees, and my
philosophy
is no exception, since refinements and corrections are only possible on
the
basis of prior undertakings, which logically pave the way for them. 2. Take the case, in metaphysics, of the
words
'holy', 'wise', and 'grace', which I have tended to use
interchangeably, as
though they were equivalent. In
actuality, they are different. 3. For 'wise' or 'wisdom' is a term that
should
only be applied to God, whether in the case of 'the Son' or 'the
Father', the
metaphysical ego, which is primary, or the metaphysical will, which is
secondary. 4. Thus we may speak of the wisdom of God,
since
God alone is wise in being metaphysical or, more specifically, in
taking
metaphysically in the case of 'God the Son' and in doing metaphysically
in the
case of 'God the Father', a distinction, after all, between the
personal
metaphysical self and the personal metaphysical not-self, the ego that
is into
either the ears (in sensuality) or the lungs (in sensibility). 5. Now just as 'wise' should only be
applied to
God, so the term 'holy' should only be applied to Heaven, since where
God is
wise in his grace, Heaven is holy in its peace, whether we are thinking
of the
primary Heaven of the metaphysical soul or the secondary Heaven of the
metaphysical spirit. 6. Thus we should speak of the holiness of
Heaven, since Heaven alone is holy in being metaphysical or, more
specifically,
in giving metaphysically in the case of the spirit and in being
metaphysical in the case, the per
se case, of the soul - a
distinction, after all, between the universal metaphysical not-self and
the
universal metaphysical self, the airwaves (in sensuality) and/or the
breath (in
sensibility) that enables the self to achieve redemption in soul, as it
rebounds from its accommodation with selflessness to a deeper
identification
with self than would otherwise be possible. 7. I mentioned the word 'peace' a little
while
ago, and peace it is that characterizes holiness, just as grace is
characteristic of wisdom. For grace and
peace are the attributes of wisdom and holiness, of God and Heaven,
whether in
the primary metaphysical contexts of the ego and the soul, or in the
secondary
metaphysical contexts of the will and the spirit. 8. Let us turn, briefly, to physics, the
elemental realm of vegetation, in which not wisdom and holiness but
folly and unholiness are the twin poles of
the self on the one hand,
and of the not-self on the other hand. 9. As wisdom and holiness correlate with
God and
Heaven, so folly and unholiness, their
physical
counterparts, correlate with man and the earth, whether in the primary
contexts
of ego and soul or, secondarily, in relation to will and spirit. 10. Hence we should speak of the foolish man in
relation to either the personal physical self (ego) or the personal
physical
not-self (will), but of the unholy spirit of earth in relation to the
universal
physical not-self and the unholy soul of earth in relation to the
universal
physical self, both of which have rather more to do with the giving and
being
of pleasure than with the taking and doing of knowledge. 11. Thus the ego that, being physical, is either
into the penis (symbol of the flesh) or the brain, the sensuality and
sensibility of organic vegetativeness, can
only be
categorized as foolish, since it is not associated with grace, like the
wise
ego, but with sin, the personal counterpart to the unholy universality
of
travail. 12. Thus not grace and peace, symptomatic of
wisdom and holiness, of God and Heaven, but sin and travail are the
foolish and
unholy corollaries of man and the earth. 13. Turning from the male side of the gender fence
in metaphysics and physics to its female side in chemistry and metachemistry, we shall find that chemistry, the
phenomenal
counterpart to physics, is divisible between the goodness of woman and
the
clearness of purgatory, whether in primary or secondary contexts, since
goodness attaches to the personal chemical not-self (will) and personal
chemical self (ego) in view of their censorious nature in punishment,
while
clearness, or clarity, attaches to the universal chemical not-self
(spirit) and
the universal chemical self (soul) in view of their justness, or the
adroitness
with which punishment is carried out. 14. Therefore we should speak of the good woman in
relation to either the personal chemical not-self or the personal
chemical
self, but of the clear spirit of purgatory in relation to the universal
chemical not-self and the clear soul of purgatory in relation to the
universal
chemical self, both of which have rather more to do with the giving and
being
of pride than with the doing and taking of strength. 15. Thus the ego that, being chemical, is either
into the tongue (sensuality) or the womb (sensibility),
can only be categorized as good, since its association is with
punishment, and
this is the personal counterpart to the clear universality of justness. 16. Let us turn, finally, to metachemistry,
the
elemental
realm
of
fire, in which not goodness and clearness but evil
and
unclearness are the twin poles of the self and the not-self. 17. As goodness and clearness correlate with woman
and purgatory, so evil and unclearness, their metachemical
counterparts, correlate with the Devil and Hell, both in the primary
contexts
of will and spirit, and in the secondary contexts of ego and soul. 18. Hence we should speak of the evil Devil in
relation to either the personal metachemical
not-self
(will) or the personal metachemical self
(ego), but
of the unclear spirit of Hell in relation to the universal metachemical
not-self and the unclear soul of Hell in relation to the universal metachemical self, both of which have rather
more to do
with the giving and being of love than with the doing and taking of
beauty. 19. Thus the ego that, being metachemical,
is
either
into
the
eyes (sensuality) or the heart (sensibility),
can only be categorized as evil, since it is
not
associated with punishment, like the good ego, but with crime, the
personal
counterpart to the unclear universality of turmoil. 20. Thus not punishment and justness, firmness and
adroitness, symptomatic of goodness and clearness, woman and purgatory,
but
crime and turmoil, cruelty and war, are the evil and unclear
correlations of
the Devil and Hell. 21. Obviously what applies to the positive, or
supreme, manifestations of each duality within any given quadruplicity
applies just as much to their negative, or primal, manifestations,
except that
instead of God and Heaven, one will be speaking of Antigod
and Antiheaven; instead of man and earth, antiman and anti-earth; instead of woman and
purgatory, antiwoman and antipurgatory; and
instead of the Devil and Hell, the Antidevil
and Antihell. 22. Thus instead of truth and joy in the
self-oriented contexts of supreme metaphysics, falsity and woe in the antiself-oriented contexts of primal
metaphysics; instead
of knowledge and pleasure in the self-oriented contexts of supreme
physics,
ignorance and pain in the antiself-oriented
contexts
of
primal
physics;
instead of strength and pride in the self-oriented
contexts
of supreme chemistry, weakness and humility in the antiself-oriented
contexts
of
primal
chemistry;
and instead of beauty and love in the
self-oriented
contexts of supreme metachemistry,
ugliness and
hatred in the antiself-oriented contexts
of primal metachemistry. 23. Thus instead of calmness and lightness in the
not-self contexts of supreme metaphysics, softness and thinness in the antinot-self contexts of primal metaphysics;
instead of
excitableness and heaviness in the not-self contexts of supreme
physics,
hardness and thickness in the antinot-self
contexts
of primal physics; instead of slowness and dimness in the not-self
contexts of
supreme chemistry, quietness and coldness in the antinot-self
contexts
of
primal
chemistry;
and instead of quickness and brightness in the
not-self contexts of supreme metachemistry,
loudness
and
hotness
in
the antinot-self contexts
of primal metachemistry. 24. For no less than
truth and joy are underlined by calmness and lightness in the supreme
metaphysical contexts of God and Heaven, so falsity (illusion) and woe
are
underlined by softness and thinness in the primal metaphysical contexts
of Antigod and Antiheaven. 25. And no less than
knowledge and pleasure are underlined by excitableness and heaviness in
the
supreme physical contexts of man and the earth, so ignorance and pain
are
underlined by hardness and thickness in the primal physical contexts of
antiman and the anti-earth. 26. And no less, on the female, or objective, side
of the gender fence, that strength and pride are underlined or, rather,
overlined (given the primacy of will and
spirit) by
slowness and dimness in the supreme chemical contexts of woman and
purgatory,
so weakness and humility are overlined by
quietness
and coldness in the primal chemical contexts of antiwoman
and antipurgatory. 27. And no less than
beauty and love are overlined by quickness
and
brightness in the supreme metachemical
contexts of
the Devil and Hell, so ugliness and hatred are overlined
by loudness and hotness in the primal metachemical
contexts of the Antidevil and Antihell. 28. In supreme
metaphysics, the truth of the egocentric self is only possible in
relation to
the calmness of the wilful not-self, just as the joy of the soulful
self is
only possible in relation to the lightness of the spiritual not-self. 29. In primal
metaphysics, the falsity of the egocentric antiself,
or
negative
self,
is
only possible in relation to the softness of the
wilful antinot-self, or negative not-self,
just as the woe of the
soulful antiself is only possible in
relation to the
thinness of the spiritual antinot-self. 30. In supreme physics,
the knowledge of the egocentric self is only possible in relation to
the
excitableness of the wilful not-self, just as the pleasure of the
soulful self
is only possible in relation to the heaviness of the spiritual not-self. 31. In primal physics,
the ignorance of the egocentric antiself
is only possible
in relation to the hardness of the wilful antinot-self,
just
as
the
pain
of the soulful antiself is
only
possible in relation to the thickness of the spiritual antinot-self. 32. In supreme
chemistry,
the strength of the egocentric self is only possible in relation to the
slowness of the wilful not-self, just as the pride of the soulful self
is only
possible in relation to the dimness of the spiritual not-self. 33. In primal
chemistry,
the weakness of the egocentric antiself is
only
possible in relation to the quietness of the wilful antinot-self,
just as the humility of the soulful antiself
is only
possible in relation to the coldness of the spiritual antinot-self. 34. In supreme metachemistry, the beauty of the egocentric self
is only
possible in relation to the quickness of the wilful not-self, just as
the love
of the soulful self is only possible in relation to the brightness of
the
spiritual not-self. 35. In primal metachemistry, the ugliness of the egocentric antiself is only possible in relation to the
loudness of
the wilful antinot-self, just as the
hatred of the
soulful antiself is only possible in
relation to the
hotness of the spiritual antinot-self. 36. All the above options, whether supreme or
primal,
are applicable in both sensuality and sensibility, the outer contexts
of
'once-born' metaphysics, physics, chemistry, and metachemistry
no less than their inner, or 're-born', counterparts. 37. Thus, in supreme contexts, they are as
applicable to the ears as to the lungs (metaphysical), to the phallus
as to the
brain (physical), to the tongue as to the womb (chemical), and to the
eyes as
to the heart (metachemical), not to mention
their
spiritual correlations. 38. In primal contexts, they are as applicable to
associations, no matter how tenuous, with the sun no less than with
Saturn
(metaphysical), with the terrestrial aspect of the earth no less than
with Mars
(physical), with the moon no less than with the oceanic aspect of the
earth
(chemical), and with the stellar plane - or a particular star, say the
central
star of the Galaxy - no less than with Venus (metachemical),
not
to
mention
their
spiritual correlations. A
BIBLICAL
FALSEHOOD 1. The notion
that
supreme being could or should be associated with the Cosmos, say the
stellar
plane, is, I contend, totally false and delusory. For
that
which
is
associated with the Cosmos,
the starry universe, can only be primal,
given its
inorganic, and therefore negative, properties. 2. Neither does the Cosmos begin with
primal
being but, rather, with primal doing, as germane to the stellar plane
and
therefore to that which precedes, in anterior space, the solar plane,
with its
primal being. 3. In such
fashion
Jehovah precedes Satan, the 'Creator of the Universe' or 'First Mover'
vis-à-vis the 'Fallen Angel', as primal doing preceding primal being,
stellar
primacy in spatial space vis-à-vis solar primacy in sequential time,
and does
so, moreover, as a negative Devil preceding a negative God, the sensual
Antidevil vis-à-vis the sensual Antigod. 4. In such fashion, too, it must be said
that
woman precedes man, the superfeminine
plane of
spatial space preceding the submasculine
plane of
sequential time, and long before (lower-class) women and men on the
comparatively
phenomenal planes of mass and volume. 5. Thus religions based on the false belief
of
God preceding the Devil, of man preceding woman, and the even falser
belief of
supremacy attaching to such a God, are fundamentally delusory, and
deserve to
be consigned to the rubbish heap of history - as, hopefully, will
democratically transpire in 'Kingdom Come', the time and society of the
Second
Coming, or ultimate Messiah. 6. For not until such delusory obstacles to
religious progress have been done away with in due democratic fashion,
and
people cease to be subject to Biblical falsehood and the utterly
preposterous
claims to which the Bible too often lays claim, can there be scope for
the
expansion of supreme being from sensual to sensible planes within the
context
of 'Kingdom Come', as outlined by me in previous texts. 7. And supreme being, whether sensual or
sensible, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Cosmos or, for that
matter, the
Solar System, least of all in terms of a superior creature deemed
responsible
for Creation, but is purely organic and affiliated to the metaphysical
soul,
the soul-of-souls. 8. Only, however, in the sensible
metaphysics of
the lung-centred 'kingdom within' is the highest and profoundest
supreme being
to be found, and he who advocates it at the expense of the ear-centred
sensual
metaphysics of the 'kingdom without' is truly a Second Coming
equivalence, for
whom sensibility takes precedence over sensuality not on physical terms
(as
with Christ, or the 'First Coming', the lower-class messiah), but on
metaphysical terms, such that portend an ultimate 'kingdom within'. 9. I say to you that metaphysical
salvation,
quite apart from other types of salvation, is from sensuality to
sensibility, so
that one rises from the aural sensuality of sequential time to the
respiratory
sensibility of spaced space, as from ears to lungs, the airwaves to the
breath,
and finds therein the most profound being and supremacy. 10. But only such men as are already effectively
gods of aural sensuality can truly be saved to respiratory sensibility,
abandoning the spirituality of the airwaves for that of the breath. This is not the salvation of men in Christ
from phallus to brain, nor is it intended for women and devils, or all
those
who pertain (in lower- and upper-class terms) to the female side of
life. My salvation of gods entails the
damnation of
devils, as from eyes to heart, spatial space to repetitive time. 11. But it also entails, on lower tiers of what,
in previous texts, I have called a triadic Beyond, the salvation of
(lower-class) men and the damnation of (lower-class) women, as from
sensuality
to sensibility on both physical and chemical axes of mass and volume. 12. For to rise
diagonally from sensuality to sensibility through two planes is to
gravitate
from vice to virtue, thereby achieving salvation, whereas to fall
diagonally
from sensuality to sensibility through two planes is to gravitate from
virtue
to vice, thereby undergoing damnation.
Only when males do the former does the latter come to pass for
females. In the meantime, males will
continue to be 'fall guys for slag' in true Biblical fashion, as the
'First
Mover' continues to play God at the expense of the 'Fallen Angel'. ON
THE
'NATURES'
OF
THE ELEMENTS 1. Of the four
elements, only one is prohibitive of life or, more correctly, of the
possibility of one's living in it - namely fire. 2. Fire prohibits life from directly living
in
it but is, paradoxically, the foundation of life, the root element from
which
each of the other elements, though particularly water, duly emerged. 3. There are life forms who live
predominantly
in each of the other elements besides fire - fish in water (the seas,
etc.);
animals on land (earth, vegetation, etc.); birds in the air (the sky). Thus they are definable primarily in terms of
their environmental relationship to water, vegetation, or air, as the
case may
be. 4. It could be said of mankind that they,
too,
are predominantly creatures who live on land, after the fashion of
animals, and
certainly this would seem to be the general case. 5. These days more than ever before,
however,
mankind live or spend considerable periods of time in the water and in
the air,
as well as on land; for submarines at one extreme and aircraft at the
other
guarantee that a significant number of people lead fish- and bird-like
existences in addition to animal-like ones. 6. Yet even mankind cannot live in fire,
which
remains for that reason an element more usually associated with death. 7. Water is closer to fire than are
vegetation
and air in the way that it, too, is a sort of death for all but fish
and those
who, lacking gills, have access to artificial breathing equipment or
submarines. Certainly it is ranged with
fire on the objective side of life as a primary element, the kind of
element I
have hitherto characterized as female or of female association. 8. In fact, I hold to the theory that
whereas
the 'nature' of fire, the metachemical
element, is
unnatural, bearing in mind that it is contrary to nature as the one
element in
which no living creature is to be found, the 'nature' of water, by
contrast, is
supernatural, since it stands to the left, as it were, of nature
conceived in
its most natural, or vegetative, terms, i.e. earth, as that which
originally
sprang from fire and continues, in a manner of speaking, to do so, like
a
geyser rushing up from the fiery bowels of the earth. 9. Thus out of the unnatural has sprung the
supernatural, as water from fire, and, in human terms, woman from the
Devil,
the feminine from the diabolic. For
women, in the broadest sense, are not only fiery, they are also
somewhat
watery, given to fits of temper followed by tearful remorse, and we
recognize
in this display of primary elementalism
the more
objective 'nature' of women as creatures from whom both evil and good
flow in
unnatural and supernatural torrents of metachemical
and chemical agitation. 10. But if water is supernatural in relation both
to the anterior unnatural 'nature' of fire and to the posterior natural
'nature' of vegetation (earth), the masculine element par
excellence, so that it could be said to stem from the former as it
gushes
over the latter, this supernaturalism has nothing whatsoever to do with
air,
the metaphysical element, but is rather less divine than feminine in
its
purgatorial association, an association at once phenomenal and
quantitative,
having more to do, in volume and mass, with chemical giving than with
metaphysical being. 11. Thus the association, so
popularly upheld, of supernature or the
supernatural
with metaphysical being is really quite false, since although
being does
of course accrue to the supernatural, it is more in terms of chemistry
than of
metaphysics, with, for example, pride rather than joy being the
essential
correlation. 12. Yet not only being but doing, taking, and
(especially) giving also accrue to the supernatural, as to all other
elements
in one degree or another. But giving
remains the principal characteristic of supernature,
just
as
doing,
its
apparent counterpart, remains principally characteristic
of unnature, the fiery 'nature' of which
renders everything
else of subordinate interest. 13. But if doing and
giving are the principal characteristics of fire and water, the
unnatural and
the supernatural, then the principal characteristic of vegetation, the
natural
element par
excellence, is taking, not least of all in relation to what
water, in particular, has to give. 14. For vegetation, being physical, is a
qualitative element, an element that should be associated, in its
subjective phenomenality, with the
masculine, and thus, in a sense,
with men - not, of course, the highest men, or gods (with their noumenal subjectivity in time and space), but
man in his
average or general permutation, as a creature who allows himself to be
prevailed upon by women, to take what the supernatural, aided and
abetted by
the unnatural, has to give. 15. Beyond vegetation, earth, the land, etc., lies
air, oxygen, the sky, etc., and it is with this fourth and last element
that
essence raises its metaphysical banner in the name not of nature, still
less of
supernature, but of subnature
- a noumenal advancement over the phenomenality
of nature, which stands to vegetation as God to man or grace to sin or
truth to
knowledge or soul to ego. 16. Yes, it is with the essential element, the
metaphysical element of air, unseen but nevertheless omnipresent, that
life
evolves to the subnatural, to that which
is deeper,
profounder, higher than nature, and antithetical, in the subjectivity
of its noumenal standing, to unnature,
as essence to appearance, soul to will. 17 Thus not the supernatural out of nature, as
popular delusion would have one believe, but the subnatural
out of nature, the wisdom of truth out of the folly of knowledge, the
holiness
of joy out of the unholiness of pleasure,
grace from
sin, and peace from travail. 18. Now both alike, being subjective, appertain to
the male side of life, and are only possible on the basis of the prior
existence, in unnatural and supernatural primacy, of its female side -
a side
rather closer, paradoxically, to death than to life, since fire and
water are
less conducive to life, as we have seen, than are vegetation and air,
even
though they have a primary elemental correspondence and the latter
merely a
secondary one - like, in a sense, the Church in relation to the State. 19. One could speak, in relation to the elements,
of the fire of death, the water of life-in-death, the vegetation of
death-in-life, and the air of life, since where the noumenal
elements of fire and air correspond to the absolute, the phenomenal
elements of
water and vegetation (earth) are correspondingly relative, having less
to do
with extremism than with moderation; less to do, in other words, with
the Devil
and God than with woman and man. 20. Thus whereas the fiery unnature
of metachemistry corresponds to (eternal)
death and
the airy subnature of metaphysics to
(eternal) life,
the watery supernature of chemistry
corresponds to
(temporal) life-in-death and the vegetative nature of physics to
(temporal)
death-in-life. 21. The evil of death contrasts with the goodness
of life-in-death ... as the Devil with woman, while the folly of
death-in-life
contrasts with the wisdom of life ... as man with God. 22. The immortality of devils and gods is premised
upon their association with the noumenal
elements of
fire and air, the one commensurate with Eternal Death and the other
with
Eternal Life - metachemical will and
metaphysical
soul in the absolute contrast of unnature
and subnature. 23. The mortality of women and men is premised
upon their association with the phenomenal elements of water and
vegetation,
the one commensurate with the temporality of life-in-death and the
other with
the temporality of death-in-life - chemical spirit and physical ego in
the
relative contrast of supernature and
nature. 24. The lower-class categories of women and men,
corresponding to water and vegetation, are mortal in their respective
temporalities, whereas the upper-class categories of devils and gods,
corresponding to fire and air, are immortal in their respective eternalities. 25. In such fashion,
mass
and volume are mortal, whether as volume-mass devolution (feminine) or
as
mass-volume evolution (masculine), whereas time and space are immortal,
whether
as space-time devolution (diabolic) or as time-space evolution (divine). 26. Likewise whereas the unnature
of noumenal objectivity, corresponding to
space-time
devolution, and the subnature of noumenal
subjectivity, corresponding to time-space evolution, are immortal (the
former
in terms of Eternal Death and the latter in terms of Eternal Life), the
supernature of phenomenal objectivity,
corresponding to volume-mass
devolution, and the nature of phenomenal subjectivity, corresponding to
mass-volume evolution, are mortal (the former in terms of life-in-death
and the
latter in terms of death-in-life). 27. Immortal are both the
unconscious and the subconscious, the former corresponding to unnature and the latter to subnature. 28. Mortal are both the superconscious
and the conscious (mind), the former corresponding to supernature
and the latter to nature. 29. Just as the unconscious (will) would be
inconceivable without reference to unnature
(fire),
so the subconscious (soul) would be inconceivable without reference to subnature (air). 30. Just as the superconscious
(spirit) would be inconceivable without reference to supernature
(water), so the conscious (ego) would be inconceivable without
reference to
nature (vegetation). 31. Only the will that is of fire, the unconscious
that is of metachemical unnature,
is of a per
se order of doing. 32. Only the soul that is of air, the subconscious
that is of metaphysical subnature, is of a
per
se
order of being. 33. Only the spirit that is of water, the superconscious that is of chemical supernature,
is of a per
se order of giving. 34. Only the ego that is of vegetation, the
conscious that is of physical nature, is of a per
se
order of taking. 35. All other wills, souls, spirits, and egos are
'bovaryizations' of doing, being, giving,
and taking
that accrue, in their respective degrees and ways, to any element but
that in
which will, soul, spirit, or ego is in its per
se mode. 36. Supernature
without unnature is as inconceivable as subnature
without nature. Water can no more exist
totally independently of fire ... than air of vegetation. 37. Similarly, spirit without will is as
inconceivable as soul without ego. Superconsciousness can no more exist totally
independently
of unconsciousness ... than subconsciousness
of
consciousness. 38. Woman without the Devil is as inconceivable as
God without man. Strength can no more
exist totally independently of beauty than truth ... of knowledge. 39. Purgatory without Hell is as inconceivable as
Heaven without the earth. Pride can no
more exist totally independently of love than joy ... of pleasure. 40. Just as woman needs the Devil to become
properly feminine, so God needs man to become properly divine. There can no more be punishment (for some)
without the crime (of others), than there can be grace (for some)
without the
sin (of others). 41. Just as punishment is only intelligible in
relation to crime, and vice versa, so grace is only intelligible in
relation to
sin, and vice versa. 42. It is for this reason that although the
genders are intelligible to themselves on the basis of a dichotomy
between evil
and good in the female case, and folly and wisdom in the male case,
they are
rarely intelligible to each other - crime and grace having as little in
common
as punishment and sin or, in broader terms, the State and the Church. IDEOLOGICAL
DEFINITIONS 1. Because metachemistry
is fundamental to chemistry, it is identifiable with fundamentalism, as
with
fire. 2. Because metaphysics transcends physics,
it is
identifiable with transcendentalism, as with air. 3. In between, and lower down, than
fundamentalism and transcendentalism come what may be called the nonconformism of chemistry and the humanism of physics, like water and vegetation in between
fire on the
one hand and air on the other. 4. Such broad-based definitions require to
be
clarified in terms of subdivisible
categories in
sensuality and sensibility, outer sense and inner sense, whether
negatively or
positively. 5. There are four ways of subdividing such definitions, and they are as follows: elemental
particles;
molecular particles; molecular wavicles;
and
elemental wavicles. 6. These subdivisions could more simply be
described in terms of materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism -
materialism correlating with elemental particles, realism with
molecular
particles, naturalism with molecular wavicles,
and
idealism
with
elemental
wavicles, so that
the first
and fourth are absolute, but the second and third relative. Now I hold to the view that they are
applicable to each of the general definitions in terms of a
correspondence to
science, politics, economics, and religion. 7. Thus a direct correlation may be
inferred to
exist between materialism and science in relation to the absolutism of
elemental particles; between realism and politics in relation to the
relativity
of molecular particles; between naturalism and economics in relation to
the
relativity of molecular wavicles; and
between
idealism and religion in relation to the absolutism of elemental wavicles. 8. Therefore I hold that just as a
Materialist
must be scientific, so a Realist can only be political. 9. Likewise I maintain that just as a
Naturalist
can only be economic, so an Idealist must be religious. 10. What the above categories do not tell us,
however, is what kind of Materialist or Realist or Naturalist or
Idealist. For if there are four
broad-based definitions
of ideology in relation to the elements, viz. fire, water, vegetation
(earth),
and air, then there are at least four different ways, in both
sensuality and
sensibility (not to mention with regard to negative as well as positive
contexts), of being either materialist, realist, naturalist, or
idealist. 11. Which is equivalent to saying that there are
at least four different ways of being scientific, political, economic,
or religious. 12. And such ways, as
we
have seen, are in terms of fundamentalism, nonconformism,
humanism,
and
transcendentalism. 13. Thus, to take a single example, that of
religion, one can be an Idealist, or religious person, in relation to
fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism,
or
transcendentalism, i.e. with regard to fire, water, vegetation, or air,
with metachemical, chemical, physical, and
metaphysical
implications. 14. Thus an Idealist is not a specific type of
religious person; he is simply a religious person as opposed to, say, a
scientific or even a political person. 15. And, being a religious person, he can be a
Fundamentalist, a Nonconformist, a Humanist, or a Transcendentalist,
and thus
be religious, or idealistic, in one of four different ways (in both
sensuality
and sensibility) - from fourth- to first-rate via third- and
second-rate orders
of idealism. 16. For the per se mode of religion, as of
idealism, is of course transcendentalism, the metaphysical mode of
religion,
and therefore only that man (a god) whose idealism is of the air can be
accounted a first-rate Idealist, since air, being essential, is the per
se
element of religion, and hence of idealism. 17. By contrast, the man whose idealism is of
vegetation (earth) is a second-rate Idealist (Humanist), since
vegetation is
the per
se element of economics, and hence of naturalism. 18. Contrariwise, the man or, better, woman whose
idealism is of water is a third-rate Idealist (Nonconformist), since
water is
the per
se element of politics, and hence of realism. 19. By contrast, the woman (a devil) whose
idealism is of fire is a fourth-rate Idealist (Fundamentalist), since
fire is
the per
se element of science, and hence of materialism. 20. Thus we may conclude that idealism, and
therefore religion, is only first-rate in metaphysics, whereas in
physics it is
second-rate, in chemistry third-rate, and in metachemistry
fourth-rate - the idealism, in this latter context, of fundamentalism
as
opposed, in ascending order, to the idealisms of nonconformism,
humanism,
and
transcendentalism. 21. Therefore idealism is germane to the religious
subdivision of any given element, the subdivision that correlates with
elemental wavicles, which is the essential
subdivision thereof. 22. Air being the essential element par
excellence, the element of being through soulful contentment, it
follows
that the most essential mode of idealism can only be metaphysical, the
idealism, as has been said, of transcendentalism, or the religious per
se,
wherein the soul, or essence of the self, is truly essential. 23. By contrast, vegetation being the qualitative
element par
excellence, the element of taking through egocentric form,
it follows that idealism associated with vegetation, which we term
religious
humanism, can only be more (relative to most) essential ... in view of
the
qualitative per se, in naturalism, of vegetation, the physical
element. 24. Contrariwise, water being the quantitative
element par
excellence, the element of giving through spiritual glory,
it follows that idealism associated with water, which we term religious
nonconformism, can only be less (relative
to least)
essential ... in view of the quantitative per se, in realism,
of water,
the chemical element. 25. By contrast, fire being the apparent element par
excellence, the element of doing through wilful power, it follows
that
idealism associated with fire, which we term religious fundamentalism,
can only
be least essential ... in view of the apparent per se, in
materialism,
of fire, the metachemical element. 26. Thus although elemental wavicles
are to be found in all elements, it is only in the metaphysical element
(of
air) that such a subdivision, corresponding to idealism, is fully
commensurate
with the nature, in essence, of the
element in question. 27. The physical element (of vegetation) has a
qualitative nature in which not elemental wavicles
but molecular wavicles are the principal
subdivision,
in keeping with its naturalistic bias, in humanism, towards economics. 28. The chemical element (of water) has a
quantitative nature (supernature) in which
not
molecular wavicles but molecular particles
are the
principal subdivision, in keeping with its realistic bias, in nonconformism, towards politics. 29. The metachemical
element (of fire) has an apparent nature (unnature)
in
which
not
molecular
particles but elemental particles are the principal
subdivision, in keeping with its materialistic bias, in fundamentalism,
towards
science. 30. Only the metaphysical element (of air) has an
essential nature (subnature) in which
elemental wavicles are the principal
subdivision, in keeping with its
idealistic bias, in transcendentalism, towards religion. 31. Whereas the materialism
of science affirms the will, the idealism of religion affirms the soul
- the
difference between appearance and essence, elemental particles and
elemental wavicles. 32. Whereas the realism of politics affirms the
spirit, the naturalism of economics affirms the ego (mind) - the
difference
between quantity and quality, molecular particles and molecular wavicles. 33. Since photons (in sensuality) and photinos (in sensibility) appertain to the noumenal objectivity, in metachemistry,
of
space-time
devolution,
or
the diagonal descent of noumenal
objectivity from spatial space to repetitive time, it could be said
that
photons/photinos are the elements/elementinos
par
excellence of materialism. 34. Since protons (in sensuality) and protinos (in sensibility) appertain to the noumenal subjectivity, in metaphysics, of
time-space
evolution, or the diagonal ascent of noumenal
subjectivity from sequential time to spaced space, it could be said
that
protons/protinos are the elements/elementinos
par
excellence of idealism. 35. Since electrons (in sensuality) and electrinos (in sensibility) appertain to the
phenomenal
objectivity, in chemistry, of volume-mass devolution, or the diagonal
descent
of phenomenal objectivity from volumetric volume to massed mass, it
could be
said that electrons/electrinos are the
elements/elementinos par
excellence of realism. 36. Since neutrons (in sensuality) and neutrinos
(in sensibility) appertain to the phenomenal subjectivity, in physics,
of
mass-volume evolution, or the diagonal ascent of phenomenal
subjectivity from
massive mass to voluminous volume, it could be said that
neutrons/neutrinos are
the elements/elementinos par
excellence of naturalism. 37. The elemental
particles of materialism conduce towards competitiveness, and never
more so
than in the metachemical contexts (in both
photon
sensuality and photino sensibility) of
fundamentalism. 38. The molecular
particles of realism conduce towards co-operativeness,
and
never
more
so
than in the chemical contexts (in both electron
sensuality
and electrino sensibility) of nonconformism. 39. The molecular wavicles of naturalism conduce towards
collectivism, and
never more so than in the physical contexts (in both neutron sensuality
and
neutrino sensibility) of humanism. 40. The elemental wavicles of idealism conduce towards
individualism, and
never more so than in the metaphysical contexts (in both proton
sensuality and protino sensibility) of
transcendentalism. 41. Thus it could be said that whereas it is of
the Devil's nature to be competitive, it is of woman's nature to be
co-operative - the former in relation to fire and the latter in
relation to
water. 42. Likewise it could be said that whereas it is
of man's nature to be collectivistic, it is of God's nature to be
individualistic - the former in relation to vegetation and the latter
in
relation to air. 43. From which it can be deduced that whereas fire
is the competitive element par
excellence, water, by contrast, is the
co-operative element par excellence. 44. And that whereas vegetation is the
collectivistic element par
excellence, air, by contrast, is the
individualistic element par excellence. 45. The metachemical competitiveness of the Devil
contrasts with
the chemical co-operativeness of woman, as
evil with
goodness. 46. The physical
collectivism of man contrasts with the metaphysical individualism of
God, as
folly with wisdom. 47. Every Materialist is competitive, but the
Fundamentalist is the most competitive, after the manner of the per
se
manifestation, in metachemistry, of
science. 48. Every Realist is
co-operative, but the Nonconformist is the most co-operative, after the
manner
of the per
se manifestation, in chemistry, of politics. 49. Every Naturalist is collectivistic, but the
Humanist is the most collectivistic, after the manner of the per
se
manifestation, in physics, of economics. 50. Every Idealist is individualistic, but the
Transcendentalist is the most individualistic, after the manner of the per
se
manifestation, in metaphysics, of religion. 51. To be against nature in the unnature of metachemical
materialism is the competitive fate of the scientific Fundamentalist. 52. By contrast, the political Nonconformist (to
scientific
fundamentalism) lives the supernatural nature of co-operation with his
or,
rather, her kind in chemical realism. 53. Contrariwise, the economic Humanist lives the
natural nature of collectivism with his kind in physical naturalism. 54. By contrast, the religious Transcendentalist
(of economic humanism) lives the subnatural
nature of
individualism with his self in metaphysical idealism. 55. Thus do the will per
se,
the spirit per se, the ego per se, and the soul per
se
pursue their respective fates in conjunction with the materialism of
fire, the
realism of water, the naturalism of vegetation (earth), and the
idealism of
air. 56. Competitiveness and co-operativeness
pertain, in their respective relationships
with the will and the spirit, to the female side of life, wherein the
not-self
is primary and the self secondary. 57. Collectivism and individualism pertain, in
their respective relationships with the ego and the soul, to the male
side of
life, wherein the self is primary and the not-self secondary. 58. Thus both competitiveness and co-operativeness are objective, in keeping with
their
respective associations with elemental particles and molecular
particles, as
specifically germane to metachemistry and
chemistry. 59. Thus both collectivism and individualism are
subjective, in keeping with their respective associations with
molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles,
as specifically germane to physics and metaphysics. 60. By and large the State encourages
competitiveness and/or co-operativeness,
whereas the
Church encourages collectivism and/or individualism - competitiveness
and
individualism appertaining to upper-class (noumenal)
manifestations
of
the
State
and the Church; co-operativeness
and collectivism, by contrast, appertaining to lower-class (phenomenal)
manifestations thereof. 61. Goodness triumphs over
evil when co-operativeness supersedes -
partially if
not, in the nature of things, entirely - competitiveness, like woman
superseding the Devil, or femininity superseding devility. 62. Wisdom triumphs over
folly when individualism supersedes - partially if not, in the nature
of
things, entirely - collectivism, like God superseding man, or divinity
superseding masculinity. 63. So it is that, as a writer, the wisdom of my
philosophy has triumphed over the folly of fiction, with its
collectivism of
characters bogged down in a narrative plot. 64. The Catholic
Confessional can be regarded as constituting a vehicle whereby moderate
individualism, commensurate with humanism, is given due ecclesiastical
encouragement. 65. Such moderate individualism is compatible with
the pseudo-grace of verbal absolution which the sinful penitent
receives via a
priest in due process of extricating himself, through confession, from
the collectivity, i.e. the general
church-going masses, or
congregation. 66. In contrast to confession, the Mass
celebrates, through the sublimated 'body of Christ', the collective,
for it is
available to the congregation in general and is not therefore
specifically
individualistic. 67. With its fulcrum in
sin, however, Christianity remains indubitably a lower-class religion
in which
folly tends to overshadow wisdom, the sinful collectivity
overshadowing the penitential individual, who, in any case, is anything
but a
wise individual per
se. 68. For man in the mass
is ever sinful, and the Mass, or Eucharist, is but a symbolic
confirmation -
and affirmation - of such a collectivistic condition. 69. Collectivistic religion is by definition
worldly and inferior, in its humanistic imperfections, to the
otherworldly
transcendentalism of genuine religion, which can only be
individualistic. 70. I would like to think that my own (Social
Transcendentalist) contribution to the development of individualistic
religion
will one day lead to a situation in which authentic grace is granted
every
encouragement to flourish on the wings of transcendental meditation,
such that
could only be cultivated in private, which is to say, in individual
cubicles
within any given meditation centre. 71. A special building that guarantees one peace
and quiet would be commensurate with the attainment of religious
sovereignty
and the right thereby to idealistic self-realization at a variety of
tier-levels - nonconformist, humanist, and transcendentalist - of the
triadic
Beyond within the overall parameters of Social Transcendentalism (as
described
in certain previous texts). 72. The higher one ascended in a meditation
centre, which I envisage as taking the form of a curvilinear tower, the
more
privacy one could expect to find, since individualism requires a
transcendentalist precondition, in contrast to the collectivism of
humanism and
the co-operativeness of nonconformism. 73. With regard to
transcendentalism generally, I should like to distinguish between the
competitive individualism of scientific transcendentalism; the
co-operative
individualism of political transcendentalism; the collectivistic
individualism
of economic transcendentalism; and the individualistic individualism,
or
individualism per
se, of religious transcendentalism. 74. With regard to humanism generally, I should
like to distinguish between the competitive collectivism of scientific
humanism; the co-operative collectivism of political humanism; the
collectivistic collectivism, or collectivism per
se, of economic
humanism; and the individualistic collectivism of religious humanism. 75. With regard to nonconformism
generally, I should like to distinguish between the competitive co-operativeness of scientific nonconformism;
the
co-operative
co-operativeness, or co-operativeness
per
se, of political nonconformism; the
collectivistic co-operativeness
of economic nonconformism; and the
individualistic
co-operativeness of religious nonconformism. 76. With regard to
fundamentalism generally, I should like to distinguish between the
competitive
competitiveness, or competitiveness per
se, of scientific
fundamentalism; the co-operative competitiveness of political
fundamentalism;
the collectivistic competitiveness of economic fundamentalism; and the
individualistic competitiveness of religious fundamentalism. 77. From the elemental proton and/or protino (in sensuality and/or sensibility)
particles of
competitive individualism to the elemental proton and/or protino
wavicles of individualistic individualism
via the
molecular proton and/or protino particles
of
co-operative individualism and the molecular proton and/or protino
wavicles of collectivistic individualism
... in
relation to the noumenal subjectivity,
within
time-space evolution, of transcendentalism, as from metaphysical
materialism to
idealism via realism and naturalism. 78. From the elemental neutron and/or neutrino (in
sensuality and/or sensibility) particles of competitive collectivism to
the
elemental neutron and/or neutrino wavicles
of
individualistic collectivism via the molecular neutron and/or neutrino
particles of co-operative collectivism and the molecular neutron and/or
neutrino wavicles of collectivistic
collectivism ...
in relation to the phenomenal subjectivity, within mass-volume
evolution, of
humanism, as from physical materialism to idealism via realism and
naturalism. 79. From the elemental electron and/or electrino (in sensuality and/or sensibility)
particles of
competitive co-operativeness to the
elemental
electron and/or electrino wavicles
of individualistic co-operativeness via the
molecular
electron and/or electrino particles of
co-operative
co-operativeness and the molecular electron
and/or electrino wavicles
of
collectivistic co-operativeness ... in
relation to
the phenomenal objectivity, within volume-mass devolution, of nonconformism, as from chemical materialism to
idealism via
realism and naturalism. 80. From the elemental photon and/or photino (in sensuality and/or sensibility)
particles of
competitive competitiveness to the elemental photon and/or photino
wavicles of individualistic competitiveness
via the
molecular photon and/or photino particles
of
co-operative competitiveness and the molecular photon and/or photino wavicles of
collectivistic competitiveness ... in relation to the noumenal
objectivity, within space-time devolution, of fundamentalism, as from metachemical materialism to idealism via realism
and
naturalism. 81. To contrast the
materialism
of metachemical competitiveness, which is
evil, with
the realism of chemical co-operativeness,
which is
good. 82. To contrast the
naturalism of physical collectivism, which is foolish, with the
idealism of
metaphysical individualism, which is wise. 83. Even co-operativeness,
collectivism,
and
individualism
are
evil, or noumenally
objective, when affiliated to metachemistry,
the
competitive
element
par
excellence. 84. Even competitiveness, collectivism, and
individualism are good, or phenomenally objective, when affiliated to
chemistry, the co-operative element par
excellence. 85. Even competitiveness, co-operativeness,
and
individualism
are
foolish,
or phenomenally subjective, when affiliated
to
physics, the collectivistic element par
excellence. 86. Even competitiveness, co-operativeness,
and
collectivism
are
wise,
or noumenally
subjective,
when affiliated to metaphysics, the individualistic element par
excellence. 87. More specifically, one should distinguish the
evil materialism (primary) and naturalism (secondary) of the metachemical will and ego from the unclear
realism
(primary) and idealism (secondary) of the metachemical
spirit and soul. 88. Likewise, one should distinguish the good
materialism (primary) and naturalism (secondary) of the chemical will
and ego
from the clear realism (primary) and idealism (secondary) of the
chemical
spirit and soul. 89. Contrariwise, one should distinguish the
foolish materialism (secondary) and naturalism (primary) of the
physical will
and ego from the unholy realism (secondary) and idealism (primary) of
the
physical spirit and soul. 90. Similarly, one should distinguish the wise
materialism (secondary) and naturalism (primary) of the metaphysical
will and
ego from the holy realism (secondary) and idealism (primary) of the
metaphysical spirit and soul. SOME
FURTHER
CORRELATIONS 1. In general terms, the will is that
aspect of
the not-self which we equate with doing, the appearance of power. 2. In general terms, the spirit is that
aspect
of the not-self which we equate with giving, the quantity of glory. 3. In general terms, the ego is that aspect
of
the self which we equate with taking, the quality of form. 4. In general terms, the soul is that
aspect of
the self which we equate with being, the essence of content(ment). 5. Power can be metachemical
(quick/loud), chemical (slow/quiet), physical (excitable/hard), or
metaphysical
(calm/soft), but its materialism is always apparent. 6. Glory can be metachemical
(bright/hot), chemical (dim/cold), physical (heavy/thick), or
metaphysical
(light/thin), but its realism is always quantitative. 7. Form can be metachemical
(beautiful/ugly), chemical (strong/weak), physical
(knowledgeable/ignorant), or
metaphysical (true/false), but its naturalism is always qualitative. 8. Contentment can be metachemical
(loving/hateful), chemical (proud/humble), physical
(pleasurable/painful), or
metaphysical (joyful/woeful), but its idealism is always essential. 9. Thus the materialism of doing contrasts
with
the realism of giving, as will with spirit, power with glory, in every
element. 10. Thus the naturalism of taking contrasts with
the idealism of being, as ego with soul, form with contentment, in
every
element. 11. And in every
element,
be it metachemical, chemical, physical, or
metaphysical, doing and giving are of the not-self, but taking and
being are of
the self. 12. The power of doing,
the materialism of the will, is first-rate (evil) in metachemistry,
second-rate (good) in chemistry, third-rate (foolish) in physics, and
fourth-rate (wise) in metaphysics. 13. The glory of
giving,
the realism of the spirit, is first-rate (clear) in chemistry,
second-rate
(unclear) in metachemistry, third-rate
(holy) in
metaphysics, and fourth-rate (unholy) in physics. 14. The form of taking,
the naturalism of the ego, is first-rate (foolish) in physics,
second-rate
(wise) in metaphysics, third-rate (evil) in metachemistry,
and
fourth-rate
(good)
in
chemistry. 15. The contentment of
being, the idealism of the soul, is first-rate (holy) in metaphysics,
second-rate (unholy) in physics, third-rate (clear) in chemistry, and
fourth-rate (unclear) in metachemistry. 16. Hence metachemistry
combines first-rate doing (primary evil) with second-rate giving
(primary
unclearness), third-rate taking (secondary evil), and fourth-rate being
(secondary unclearness). 17. Hence chemistry combines first-rate giving
(primary clearness) with second-rate doing (primary goodness),
third-rate being
(secondary clearness), and fourth-rate taking (secondary goodness). 18. Hence physics combines first-rate taking
(primary folly) with second-rate being (primary unholiness),
third-rate
doing
(secondary
folly),
and fourth-rate giving (secondary unholiness). 19. Hence metaphysics combines first-rate being
(primary holiness) with second-rate taking (primary wisdom), third-rate
giving
(secondary holiness), and fourth-rate doing (secondary wisdom). 20. Metachemistry,
being
noumenally objective, is a combination of
primary and
secondary permutations of the Devil and Hell - the primary permutations
in the
not-self (as will and spirit), the secondary ones in the self (as ego
and
soul). 21. Chemistry, being phenomenally objective, is a
combination of primary and secondary permutations of woman and
purgatory - the
primary permutations in the not-self (as will and spirit), the
secondary ones
in the self (as ego and soul). 22. Physics, being phenomenally subjective, is a
combination of primary and secondary permutations of man and the earth
- the
primary permutations in the self (as ego and soul), the secondary ones
in the
not-self (as will and spirit). 23. Metaphysics, being noumenally
subjective, is a combination of primary and secondary permutations of
God and
Heaven - the primary permutations in the self (as ego and soul), the
secondary
ones in the not-self (as will and spirit). 24. There are no devils and hells outside the metachemical parameters of space-time
devolution, and
therefore no evils and unclearnesses other
than in
relation to the spatial space (sensual) and repetitive time (sensible)
of noumenal objectivity. 25. There are no women and purgatories outside the
chemical parameters of volume-mass devolution, and therefore no goods
and clearnesses other than in relation to
the volumetric volume
(sensual) and massed mass (sensible) of phenomenal objectivity. 26. There are no men and earths outside the
physical parameters of mass-volume evolution, and therefore no follies
and unholinesses other than in relation to
the massive mass
(sensual) and voluminous volume (sensible) of phenomenal subjectivity. 27. There are no gods and heavens outside the
metaphysical parameters of time-space evolution, and therefore no
wisdoms and
holinesses other than in relation to the sequential time (sensual) and
spaced
space (sensible) of noumenal subjectivity. 28. This is so, in all the above instances, of
sensuality no less than of sensibility, as well as to the negative
counterparts, in primacy, of the positive options with their
comparative
supremacy. 29. Because every element is a combination of
doing, giving, taking, and being, it follows that will, spirit, ego,
and soul
can be found in all
the
elements
pretty
much
as one would expect to
find metachemical, chemical, physical, and
metaphysical manifestations of science, politics, economics, and
religion, even
though only one - and that a different one in each case - of these
disciplines
will be in its per
se manifestation in any given element. 30. There is accordingly a sense in which those
who specialize in doing as opposed to giving, in science as opposed to
politics, are more akin to creatures of the will than of the spirit,
and should
be thought of less in terms of human beings (setting aside, for the
moment,
conventional usage and understanding) than of human doings, whether in
relation
to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or
metaphysics,
though especially in relation to metachemistry. 31. Conversely, those who specialize in giving as
opposed to doing, in politics as opposed to science, should be thought
of less
in terms of human beings than of human givings,
since
they
function
more
as creatures of the spirit than of the will or,
indeed, the
soul (in relation to being), and especially in relation to chemistry. 32. There is also a sense in which those who
specialize in taking as opposed to being, in economics as opposed to
religion,
are more akin to creatures of the ego than of the soul, and should
accordingly
be thought of less in terms of human beings than of human takings,
whether in
relation to metachemistry, chemistry,
physics, or
metaphysics, though especially in relation to physics. 33. Conversely, those who specialize in being as
opposed to taking, in religion as opposed to economics, are the only
ones who
can properly be identified as human beings, since they function more as
creatures of the soul, wherein being has its home, than of the ego, and
especially in relation to metaphysics. 34. Now if religious people are the only genuine
human beings, the only creatures for whom being is the principal
concern, then
it is only through religion that one becomes fully human or, at any
rate,
achieves an accommodation with being such that confirms one's right to
be
considered a human being, rather than simply a human taking, a human
giving, or
a human doing. 35. Such could certainly not be said of
scientists, politicians, and economists, any more than it could be said
of
poets, dramatists, and novelists in relation to philosophers or, at
least, to
those philosophers who, being genuinely wise, really do relate to
soulful being
and not to something less - whether egocentric taking, spiritual
giving, or
wilful doing. 36. But the word 'human' is itself
problematical, since it suggests humanistic limitations which conflict,
in some
degree, with the concept of divinity, or even of devility. Even supposing we limit the term 'human' to
'being', are all human beings equal - equal, that is, in relation to
being? 37. And the answer to that has to be an emphatic
'no', since being exists, as we have discovered, in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and
metaphysics, and
therefore does so at a variety of levels or, as we have said, rates -
from the
fourth-rate being of love in metachemistry
to the
first-rate being of joy in metaphysics via the third-rate being of
pride in
chemistry and the second-rate being of pleasure in physics. 38. Therefore even religious people, whom we have
logically identified with the notion of a more beingful
humanity, are not equal, and we reserve for the admission of their
inequality
such differing and contrasting terms as Fundamentalist, Nonconformist,
Humanist, and Transcendentalist. 39. Now what applies to religious people, or those
who actually pursue a religious vocation, applies no less to economic
people,
political people, and scientific people - in short, to economists,
politicians,
and scientists in relation to the different levels and rates of taking,
giving,
and doing. 40. Thus no more than the being-orientated are
equal, so one cannot allow that the doing-orientated or the
giving-orientated
or the taking-orientated are equal - except, however, in relation to
those
(within reason) whose elemental correspondence is with their own kind
of being,
doing, giving, or taking, as the case may be. 41. How, then, should we attempt to describe or
define these inequalities in connection with the different elements -
other
than by recourse to the distinctions, drawn earlier, between the unnature of metachemistry,
the
supernature of chemistry, the nature
of physics, and the subnature of
metaphysics. 42. Or, more
comprehensively, between the unnature/unconsciousness
of
metachemistry, the supernature/superconsciousness
of chemistry, the nature/consciousness of physics, and the subnature/subconsciousness
of metaphysics. 43. Thus, in terms of the will, we can distinguish
the unnatural doing of metachemical will
from the
supernatural doing of chemical will, the natural doing of physical
will, and
the subnatural doing of metaphysical will. 44. Likewise, in terms of the spirit, we can
distinguish the unconscious giving of metachemical
spirit from the superconscious giving of
chemical
spirit, the conscious giving of physical spirit, and the subconscious
giving of
metaphysical spirit. 45. Similarly, in terms of the ego, we can
distinguish the unnatural taking of metachemical
ego
from the supernatural taking of chemical ego, the natural taking of
physical
ego, and the subnatural taking of
metaphysical ego. 46. Finally, in terms of the soul, we can
distinguish
the unconscious being of metachemical soul
from the superconscious being of chemical
soul, the conscious being
of physical soul, and the subconscious being of metaphysical soul. 47. Since I have found reason to question the
applicability of the term 'human' right across the board, so to speak,
of
elemental reference, even with regard to so-called 'human beings', I
should
like to posit a correlation between the unnatural and what I shall call
the unhuman (inhuman), between the
supernatural and the
superhuman, between the natural and the human, and, last but hardly
least,
between the subnatural and the subhuman. 48. I do so because there is a definite
correlation between 'human' and 'nature', as in 'human nature', and
this is
spite of the association - often rather questionable - of 'human' with
'being'. In short, it seems to me that
the word 'human' has more of a somatic than a psychic connotation, such
as
stands it in good stead with 'nature' ... as something that should be
distinguished from that which issues from it on a psychic, or
non-somatic,
basis. 49. Now if we correlate 'the natural' with 'the
human' in this elemental fashion, it seems logically sustainable to
correlate
'the conscious' with 'the astral', as that which, far from having a
somatic
connotation, is demonstrably psychic, and therefore more germane to
either
spirit or soul than to will and ego. 50. Thus, with the various elements in mind, we
shall be able to distinguish the unhuman
doing of metachemical will from the
superhuman doing of chemical
will, the human doing of physical will, and the subhuman doing of
metaphysical
will, as between first-, second-, third-, and fourth-rate levels of
power. 51. Likewise we shall be able to distinguish the superastral giving, so to speak, of chemical
spirit from
the unastral giving of metachemical
spirit, the subastral giving of
metaphysical spirit,
and the astral giving of physical spirit, as between first-, second-,
third-,
and fourth-rate levels of glory. 52. Contrariwise, we shall be able to distinguish
the human taking of physical ego from the subhuman taking of
metaphysical ego,
the unhuman taking of metachemical
ego, and the superhuman taking of chemical ego, as between first-,
second-,
third-, and fourth-rate levels of form. 53. Finally, we shall be able to distinguish the subastral being of metaphysical soul from the
astral being
of physical soul, the superastral being of
chemical
soul, and the unastral being of metachemical
soul, as between first-, second-, third-, and fourth-rate levels of
contentment. 54. Thus, contrary to conventional usage, being is
not here associated with 'human' at all but, rather, with 'astral', so
that we
are speaking rather more of different levels or rates of 'astral
being',
according to the elemental context, together, in connection with the
spirit, of
different levels of 'astral giving', both of which are identified, in
psychic
vein, with 'the conscious', whether in terms, elementally conditioned,
of
unconsciousness, superconsciousness,
consciousness,
or subconsciousness. 55. Thus the 'natural/human' options of will and
ego, power and form, doing and taking, are conceived as standing in a
somatic
relationship to the 'conscious/astral' options which, being psychic,
have
rather more applicability to spirit and soul, glory and contentment,
giving and
being. 56. Thus do the terms 'human nature' and 'astral
consciousness' prove to be tautological, since 'nature' is no less
'human' than
'consciousness' is 'astral', or related to the spirit and/or soul. 57. In this respect, it becomes feasible to speak
of a 'lower nature' in connection with the will and of a 'higher
nature' in
connection with the ego (associated not with consciousness but with
thought or,
at any rate, the possibility of knowledge of one kind or another),
whether in
relation to metachemistry, chemistry,
physics, or
metaphysics. 58. In like manner, it is now feasible to speak of
a 'lower consciousness' in connection with the spirit and of a 'higher
consciousness' in connection with the soul, again in relation to any or
all of
the elements. 59. It may even prove desirable to identify all
kinds of 'lower nature' with 'the natural' and all the 'higher' kinds
of
'nature', by contrast, with 'the human', so that the former is solely
identified with the will, whether as unnature,
supernature, nature, or subnature,
and the latter with the ego, whether as unhuman
(inhuman), superhuman, human, or subhuman. 60. Likewise, it may prove desirable to identify
all kinds of 'lower consciousness' with 'the astral' and all the
'higher' kinds
of 'consciousness', by contrast, with 'the conscious', so that the
former is
solely identified with the spirit, whether as unastral,
superastral, astral, or subastral,
and the latter with the soul, whether as unconscious, superconscious,
conscious, or subconscious. 61. Thus every time the will was at issue one
could resort to associations with 'the natural', reserving to the ego
associations with 'the human', to the spirit associations with 'the
astral',
and to the soul associations with 'the conscious', thereby simplifying
the
matter to a single type of definition subject, in the course of
elemental
differentiation, to fourfold transmutations. 62. However that may be, there can be no doubt, as
far as the not-self and the self are concerned, that each of the
elements has a
different pattern of correlations - from unnatural/unastral
and unhuman/unconscious on the metachemical
far left, as it were, of the elemental spectrum (noumenally
objective) ... to subnatural/subastral and
subhuman/subconscious on the metaphysical far right (noumenally
subjective). 63. And, likewise, from
supernatural/superastral and superhuman/superconscious on the chemical left of the
elemental spectrum
(phenomenally objective) ... to natural/astral and human/conscious on
the
physical right (phenomenally subjective), the position more usually
associated
with humanism, and hence nature. 64. Thus if we limit 'human' to the ego, we shall
find that whereas what may be called the secondary Devil's ego is unhuman (inhuman) in its metachemical
form, the secondary woman's ego is superhuman in its chemical form, the
primary
man's ego human in its physical form, and the primary God's ego
subhuman in its
metaphysical form. 65. Similarly, by limiting 'natural' to the will,
we shall find that what may be called the primary Devil's will is
unnatural in
its metachemical power, the primary
woman's will
supernatural in its chemical power, the secondary man's will natural in
its
physical power, and the secondary God's will subnatural
in its metaphysical power. 66. Likewise, by limiting 'astral' to the spirit,
we shall find that whereas the primary Hell's spirit, so to speak, is unastral in its metachemical
glory, the primary purgatory's spirit is superastral
in its chemical glory, the secondary earth's spirit astral in its
physical
glory, and the secondary Heaven's spirit subastral
in
its metaphysical glory. 67. Finally, by limiting 'conscious' to the soul,
we shall find that whereas the secondary Hell's soul, so to speak, is
unconscious in its metachemical
contentment, the
secondary purgatory's soul is superconscious
in its
chemical contentment, the primary earth's soul conscious in its
physical
contentment, and the primary Heaven's soul subconscious in its
metaphysical
contentment. 68. In the objective elemental contexts (of metachemistry and chemistry) the will and the
spirit are
primary but the ego and the soul ... secondary, whereas in the
subjective
elemental contexts (of physics and metaphysics) the ego and the soul
are
primary but the will and the spirit ... secondary. 69. Thus we have every right to distinguish
primary instances of the Devil, woman, man, and God from secondary
instances
thereof, together with similarly-based distinctions of primary
instances of
Hell, purgatory, earth, and Heaven from secondary instances, as
described
above. 70. And in all the
elemental contexts of will and ego, the Devil, woman, man, and God of
the
not-self (will) are distinct from the Devil, woman, man, and God of the
self
(ego), whether the latter be primary or secondary. 71. As in all the elemental contexts of spirit and
soul, the Hell, purgatory, earth, and Heaven of the not-self (spirit)
are
distinct from the Hell, purgatory, earth, and Heaven of the self
(soul),
whether the latter be primary or secondary. 72. Thus as we distinguish 'Son' from 'Father' in
relation to God, the former of the metaphysical ego (primary) and the
latter of
the metaphysical will (secondary), so we should distinguish 'son' from
'father'
in relation to man, the former of the physical ego (primary) and the
latter of
the physical will (secondary). 73. Contrariwise, it is no less logical to
distinguish
'daughter' from 'mother' in relation to woman, the former of the
chemical ego
(secondary) and the latter of the chemical will (primary) ... as to
distinguish
'Daughter' from 'Mother' in relation to the Devil, the former of the metachemical ego (secondary) and the latter of
the metachemical will (primary). 74. Whereas distinctions between the egocentric
and the wilful modes of God, metaphysical form and power, are
commensurate with
subhumanism and subnaturalism,
metaphysical
personal
self
and
personal not-self, those between the egocentric
and the wilful modes of man, physical form and power, are commensurate
with
humanism and naturalism, physical personal self and personal not-self. 75. Whereas distinctions between the egocentric
and the wilful modes of woman, chemical form and power, are
commensurate with superhumanism and
supernaturalism, chemical personal self
and personal not-self, those between the egocentric and the wilful
modes of the
Devil, metachemical form and power, are
commensurate
with unhumanism and unnature,
metachemical personal self and personal
not-self. 76. Just as it is logical to distinguish primary
God (in the self) from secondary God (in the not-self), so we should
distinguish the Son's Heaven, so to speak, from the Father's Heaven,
the former
of the metaphysical soul (primary) and the latter of the metaphysical
spirit
(secondary), not to mention the son's earth from the father's earth,
the former
of the physical soul (primary) and the latter of the physical spirit
(secondary). 77. Contrariwise, it is no less logical to
distinguish, on the objective side of the gender fence, the daughter's
purgatory from the mother's purgatory, the former of the chemical soul
(secondary) and the latter of the chemical spirit (primary), not to
mention the
Daughter's Hell from the Mother's Hell, the former of the metachemical
soul (secondary) and the latter of the metachemical
spirit (primary). 78. Whereas distinctions between the soulful and
the spiritual modes of Heaven, metaphysical contentment and glory, are
commensurate with the subconscious and the subastral,
metaphysical
universal
self
and
universal not-self, those between the soulful
and the spiritual modes of the earth, physical contentment and glory,
are
commensurate with the conscious and the astral, physical universal self
and
universal not-self. 79. Whereas distinctions between the soulful and
the spiritual modes of purgatory, chemical contentment and glory, are
commensurate with the superconscious and
the superastral, chemical universal self
and universal
not-self, those between the soulful and the spiritual modes of Hell, metachemical
contentment and glory, are commensurate with the unconscious and the unastral, metachemical
universal
self and universal not-self. 80. What applies to all the above contexts in
sensuality, which is commensurate with the outer, to the kingdoms
and/or queendoms 'without', applies no
less in sensibility, as
commensurate with the inner, to the kingdoms and/or queendoms
'within', in positive and negative, organic and inorganic, supreme and
primal,
manifestations thereof. THE
SUBHUMANITY/SUBNATURE
OF
GOD 1. Since the context of God, as of Heaven,
appertains to metaphysics, and does so in both primary (formal) and
secondary
(powerful) terms, we can be sure that the 'humanity' of the one is
subhuman and
the 'nature' of the other subnatural, and
that the
godly individual is accordingly a kind of subman,
whether
in
aural
sensuality
or, more definitively, in respiratory sensibility. 2. Thus whether aural or respiratory
metaphysics
is at issue, the subhumanity of 'God the
Son', so to
speak, and the subnaturalism of 'God the
Father'
would indicate the inevitability of a subman,
since
one
cannot
be
anything less than the deepest and highest of persons to
be identifiable
with God or, at any rate, with what is godly in its redemptive drive,
in both
ego and will, towards the universality of Heaven. 3. Clearly, the average man is not godly in
his
physical mean, but human and natural, one might almost say,
paraphrasing
Nietzsche, human-all-too-human and natural-all-too-natural, which,
admittedly,
is the next-best-thing to godliness, but emphatically no more identical
with
God than, say, vegetation with air, or sin with grace, or unholiness
with holiness, or the earth with Heaven, or travail with peace. 4. Thus although most men are
intermittently
capable of subhuman tendencies and not a few submen,
by
contrast,
no
less
intermittently capable of human ones, a distinction
nevertheless persists, in general terms, between the lower-class phenomenality, as it were, of mass-volume
subjectivity and
the noumenality, comparatively upper
class, of
time-space subjectivity, as between men and submen,
the
physical
collectivity and the metaphysical
individual who, in his graceful aloofness from the sinful, is akin to
God. 5. But if man is not commensurate, in
average
masculine terms, with God, then what about those men who approximate,
in their
bias towards strength, to women, albeit from a vegetative (and
therefore
muscular) as opposed to a watery (and thus properly feminine) point of
view? 6. Clearly, such 'men' are even further
removed
from the possibility of godliness than the generality of
humanistic/naturalistic men, since strength is not closer to truth than
knowledge, the masculine mean, but closer, in its objectivity, to
beauty, that
great antithesis of truth. 7. Therefore 'men' who are 'bovaryized',
or bent, away from their own gender in arguably superhuman/supernatural
terms,
the sort of terms in which strength has its watery - and womanly -
throne, are
less men than effective 'supermen', and therefore a perverse kind of
women,
employing the latter term strictly in relation to volume-mass
objectivity, and
therefore not to its upper-class counterpart in space-time objectivity. 8. Thus the term 'superman' is really
somewhat
paradoxical, since it would seem to be women who, in their superhumanity/supernaturalism,
more credibly approximate to a 'super' role - certainly in relation, as
mothers, to their families. 9. One could almost identify the term
'superwoman' with the feminine, as we have identified 'subman'
with the divine and 'man' with the masculine, but it seems to me that 'superfeminine' is a more appropriate
identification with
the objectivity of volume-mass devolution, and that 'feminine' may
well, in the
paradoxical nature of these things, lend itself to a womanly 'bovaryization' having more to do with knowledge
than with
strength, as though the female counterpart to 'supermasculine'. 10. Be that as it may, we are left with the
possibility of identifying 'unwoman' or the
'unfeminine' with the diabolic, since that which is into, say, beauty
in
space-time objectivity is less superhuman than unhuman
(inhuman), and correspondingly less supernatural than unnatural,
appearance
taking precedence over quantity in what amounts to a fixation on doing
at the
expense of giving. 11. Thus just as the male (subjective) side of
life provides us with human and subhuman options, corresponding to man
and God,
so its female side (objective) offers us proof of superhuman and unhuman options, corresponding to woman and the
Devil. 12. One could distinguish a per
se unhumanism in the unfeminine from a 'bovaryized'
unhumanism in the unmasculine,
since
the
Devil
is
never more genuine than when upper-class female. 13. Likewise one could distinguish a per
se superhumanism in the superfeminine
from a 'bovaryized' superhumanism
in the supermasculine, since woman is
never more
genuine than when lower-class female. 14. Similarly, one could distinguish a per
se
humanism in the masculine from a 'bovaryized'
humanism
in
the
feminine,
since man is never more genuine than when lower-class
male. 15. Finally, one could distinguish a per
se subhumanism in the submasculine
from a 'bovaryized' subhumanism
in the subfeminine, since God is never
more genuine
than when upper-class male. 16. In this respect,
one
might speak of the pseudo-evil of the unmasculine
as
against the genuine evil of the unfeminine, in connection with the noumenal objectivity of unhumanism/unnature. 17. In such fashion,
one
might speak of the pseudo-goodness of the supermasculine
as against the genuine goodness of the superfeminine,
in
connection
with
the
phenomenal objectivity of superhumanism/supernature. 18. In like manner, one might speak of the
pseudo-folly (foolishness) of the feminine as against the genuine folly
of the
masculine, in connection with the phenomenal subjectivity of
humanism/nature. 19. In similar vein,
one
might speak of the pseudo-wisdom of the subfeminine
as against the genuine wisdom of the submasculine,
in
connection
with
the
noumenal subjectivity
of subhumanism/subnature. 20. Whereas the humanism of man is attracted by
the unhumanism of the Devil, the superhumanism
of woman drives man towards the subhumanism
of God;
for co-option of the male mean by one extreme tends to result in its
transmutation towards the opposite extreme by the resulting female mean
which
ensues with the superhuman. 21. This of course applies to men in general, not
to those higher men, the submen, whom we
have
identified as gods, and who tend, in any case, to avoid compromising
with women
in the interests of a more genuine and lasting experience of the godly. 22. For whereas nature
is
drawn towards unnature, subnature
tends away from it, as though from the threat of metaphysical
annihilation. 23. For that which is against 'nature', being
unnatural, is more against nature in its vegetative mean than against
either supernature behind (anterior to)
such a mean or subnature beyond (posterior
to) it; for nature is the one
element it can really dominate. 24. Subnature cannot
be
dominated by unnature because it has too
much wisdom,
in its metaphysical depths, to fall for evil. 25. Only folly can fall for evil, which can only
be vanquished by goodness, thereby driving that which was foolish
towards
wisdom. 26. In such fashion
most
men are driven towards wisdom, not by evil as such, but by the goodness
that
results from the transmutation of evil by folly. 27. Were it not for folly it is debatable whether
goodness would exist at all, since goodness arises out of evil no less
than
wisdom out of folly. 28. In fact, folly can be justified on the basis
of the transmutation of evil towards good, even though the coming of
goodness
proves problematic for fools. 29. But the wisdom they are driven towards is not
commensurate with wisdom per
se, but is achieved rather more
vicariously than directly, whether in sensuality or in sensibility. 30. For true wisdom, to
repeat, is germane to one who, as a subhuman/subnatural
subman, lives metaphysics from the inside,
not from
the physical standpoint of those who, as men, find themselves
increasingly
driven towards the vicarious experience of metaphysics, whether in
terms of
music or yoga or whatever. 31. Men remain, at bottom, somewhat sceptical
towards and even fearful of the genuinely godly; for they do not want
to
sacrifice their worldly commitments, and, in any case, the masculine
and the submasculine are not
interchangeable but pertain to
different elements, as, indeed, to two distinct classes - lower and
upper -
which fact is usually underlined by distinctive genetic and ethnic
differences. 32. In sum, the
majority
of people are fated to remain as they are by nature, whether their
natures be metachemical (and evil),
chemical (and good), physical (and
foolish), or metaphysical (and wise); for class is no less unalterable,
as a
rule, than gender. 33. The genuine unwoman
is as uncharacteristic, in her way, of the world as the genuine subman, albeit from a contrary point of view -
that of the metachemical Behind, as
opposed to the metaphysical Beyond. 34. Yet whereas the genuine unwoman
is about competition behind the co-operative aspect (purgatorial) of
the world,
the genuine subman is about individualism
beyond the
collectivistic aspect (earthly) of the world. 35. For while competition is the evil of the
Devil, individualism is the wisdom of God, the former noumenally
aloof from the goodness of co-operation,
and the latter noumenally aloof from the
folly of
collectivism. 36. Thus do the genuinely Beautiful stand at the
farthest possible remove from the genuinely True, a comparative Few at
a noumenal elevation (in space and time)
over the worldly phenomenality (in volume
and mass) of 'the strong' and 'the
knowledgeable', who correspond, in their respective gender-based ways,
to the
Many. 37. But just as beauty is fundamentally anterior
to strength, as fire to water, so truth is transcendentally posterior
to
knowledge, as air to vegetation, and the distinction between the
competitive
evil of the one and the individualistic wisdom of the other is nothing
less
than the alpha (of metachemistry) and the
omega (of
metaphysics), appearance and essence. 38. In literary terms, it is the poet who
corresponds, in 'his' obsession with beauty, to the alpha and the
philosopher,
with his concern for truth, to the omega, while the dramatist and the
novelist,
the playwright and the writer, take intermediate positions, relative to
the
world, in which, in the one case, strength and, in the other case,
knowledge
(whether carnally or otherwise) are the principal concerns. 39. Thus do 'the good' and 'the foolish' stand
apart from 'the evil' and 'the wise', as women and men from devils and
gods,
chemistry and physics from metachemistry
and
metaphysics, co-operation and collectivism from competitiveness and individuality. 40. And what applies to positive, or supreme,
manifestations of the poet, the dramatist, the novelist, and the
philosopher
... applies no less to their negative, or primal, counterparts, for
whom,
whether in sensuality or sensibility, not beauty but ugliness, not
strength but
weakness, not knowledge but ignorance, and not truth but falsity
(illusion) are
the principal concerns. 41. Thus do negative devils, women, men, and gods
exist in the cosmic (noumenal) and/or
geologic
(phenomenal) shadow of their positive counterparts, like the inorganic
behind
the organic, primal manifestations of evil, goodness, folly, and wisdom
behind
those supreme manifestations thereof which are more usually associated
with
'high culture' or, at any rate, with a 'fine' rather than 'crude'
approach to
literature - as, indeed, to the Arts in general. 42. For, in more general terms, the artist
(painter) is vocationally more the type of the unhuman
than the poet, while the sculptor is vocationally more the type of the
human
than the novelist, and the musician vocationally more the type of the
subhuman
(in sensuality) than the philosopher - only the dramatist, of all the
literary
options, corresponding to the type of the superhuman per
se. 43. However, even the musician leaves something to
be desired from the standpoint of metaphysics, and that is the
respiratory
sensibility of the meditator, the
transcendental
meditation of the ultimate subman, the
deepest god
whose 'kingdom within' is salvation for submen
from
the 'kingdom without', based in aural sensuality, of the musician. 44. There is nothing higher or more profound than
the meditative subman, the God-of-Gods,
and it is
towards him that musical submen will have
to turn if
they desire metaphysical salvation, the salvation-of-salvations that
makes
possible for the God-of-Gods the redemption-of-redemptions in the
Heaven-of-Heavens,
the sensible metaphysical being, in inner joy, of the truly peaceful
soul. SALVATION
AND
REDEMPTION 1. The personal
is
always redeemed by the universal, whether in relation to the self or to
the
not-self, in sensuality no less than in sensibility. 2. In the case of the self,
be it metachemical, chemical, physical, or
metaphysical, the ego is redeemed by the soul. 3. In the case of the not-self, be it metachemical,
chemical,
physical, or metaphysical, the will is redeemed by the spirit. 4. Thus the Devil is redeemed by Hell,
woman by
purgatory, man by the earth, and God by Heaven, in both primary and
secondary
manifestations of each elemental context. 5. Put more abstractly (and therefore
philosophically), form is redeemed by content(ment)
in
the
case
of
the self, while power is redeemed by glory in the case of
the
not-self. 6. And in all
four
elements the ego and the will are personal, but the spirit and the soul
are
universal - universal in relation to the astral/conscious as opposed to
the
human/nature. 7. Salvation, on the other hand, is not
connected with the transcendence of the personal in the universal, of
the Devil
in Hell, woman in purgatory, man in the earth, or God in Heaven, but
with
deliverance of males from sensuality to sensibility in the elemental
contexts,
necessarily subjective, of physics and metaphysics, viz. vegetation and
air. 8. Thus salvation is limited to men (in
vegetation) and to submen (in air), as
they
diagonally ascend the physical and metaphysical axes from sensuality to
sensibility, vice to virtue. 9. For men, who
relate
(in their physical mean) to phenomenal subjectivity, deliverance from
sensuality to sensibility is from massive mass to voluminous volume
within
mass-volume evolution. 10. For submen, who relate (in their metaphysical mean)
to noumenal subjectivity, deliverance from
sensuality to
sensibility is from sequential time to spaced space within time-space
evolution. 11. Thus, in the supremacy of positivity,
it
could
be
said
that men, the vegetative males, ascend from the phallus
to the
brain, from carnal knowledge to mental (intellectual) knowledge, in the
process
of undergoing phenomenal salvation from physical sensuality to
sensibility. 12. Likewise it could be said of submen, the airy males, that they ascend, in the
supremacy
of positivity, from the ears to the lungs,
from aural
truth to respiratory truth, in the process of undergoing noumenal
salvation from metaphysical sensuality to sensibility. 13. The former context,
appertaining to men, is lower class and effectively Christian; the
latter
context, appertaining to submen, is upper
class and
effectively Buddhist. 14. But, in either
case,
salvation is a male solution, whether temporary or permanent, to the
problem,
from a male standpoint, of female dominion. 15. For that man/subman
who is not 're-born' into Christ/Buddha is fated to remain under the
virtuous
dominion, in sensuality, of females, his 'once-born' viciousness
condemning him
to an inferior status in which, not surprisingly, he gets to play 'fall
guy for
slag', even to the extent of 'the Devil' or 'Pan'-like beast. 16. With the achievement, via Christianity or
Buddhism or some such sensible religion, of salvation, however, it is
the male
who attains to virtue and the female, by contrast, who falls diagonally
to vice
... in what becomes, for her, the damnation of sensibility. 17. For the corollary of male salvation ... is
female damnation, whether in the upper-class terms of noumenal
objectivity, wherein the unwoman, so to
speak, falls
diagonally from spatial space to repetitive time in space-time
devolution, or
in the lower-class terms of phenomenal objectivity, wherein damnation
(for the
superwoman) is from volumetric volume to massed mass in volume-mass
devolution. 18. Thus, in relation to the supremacy of positivity, it could be said that
unwomen, the fiery
females, descend from the eyes to the heart, as from optical beauty to
romantic
beauty, in the process of undergoing noumenal
damnation from metachemical sensuality to
sensibility. 19. Likewise it could be said of superwomen, the
watery females, that they descend, in relation to the supremacy of positivity, from the tongue to the womb, verbal
strength to
reproductive strength, in the process of undergoing phenomenal
damnation from
chemical sensuality to sensibility. 20. Either way, females are damned from sensuality
to sensibility as they fall diagonally through two planes according to
their
class integrity and/or effective position at any given time, and this
usually
happens in response to the achievement, by males, of salvation from
sensuality
to sensibility in relation to the axes, bisecting two planes, with
which males
are specifically identifiable, viz. the physical axis of mass-volume
evolution
for men and the metaphysical axis of time-space evolution for submen. 21. But what is it that males are saved from and
females damned to? Or, more to the point, how are we to regard the 'once-born'
situations of
the genders in which the female is hegemonic over the male - simply in
terms of
virtue over vice? Clearly that is the
case, but it is also a fact that females are blessed with virtue in
relation to
metachemical and chemical sensuality, while
males are
cursed with vice in relation to physical and metaphysical sensuality. 22. Thus we can say that whereas it is a blessing
for females to be virtuously ascendant over males in sensual metachemistry and chemistry, it is the curse of
'once-born'
males to be viciously descendant, so to speak, under females in sensual
physics
and metaphysics. 23. Consequently, for males, salvation is from the
curse of sensual vice to the liberation of sensible virtue, rising
diagonally
through two planes on either phenomenal or noumenal
axes, as described above. 24. Conversely, for females, damnation is from the
blessing of sensual virtue to the enslavement of sensible vice, falling
diagonally through two planes on either noumenal
or
phenomenal axes, as above. 25. It could be said of males that salvation is an
evolutionary progression from sensual vice to sensible virtue in
physics and
metaphysics, as from enslavement (of male binding) to freedom ... to
liberation
from such enslavement through binding to subjective sensibility. 26. Contrariwise, it could
be said of females that damnation is a devolutionary regression from
sensual
virtue to sensible vice in metachemistry
and
chemistry, as from freedom (for female objectivity) ... to enslavement
to
binding via objective sensibility. 27. Thus from the binding, in sensual
subjectivity, that is enslaved to the sensual objectivity of female
freedom,
males rise, via salvation, to the binding, in sensible subjectivity,
that is
deliverance from enslavement to such freedom. 28. Thus from the freedom, in sensual objectivity,
that enslaves the sensual subjectivity of male binding, females fall,
via
damnation, to the freedom, in sensible objectivity, that is enslaved to
the
sensible subjectivity of male binding. 29. In either case,
females remain free (objective) and males remain bound (subjective),
but the
freedom that, in sensibility, is enslaved by binding is an entirely
different
proposition to the binding that, in sensuality, is enslaved by freedom. 30. The freedom (female) that is enslaved by
binding (male) is damned, whereas the binding (male) that is enslaved
by
freedom (female) is cursed. 31. 'The first' (blessed) shall be 'last'
(damned), and 'the last' (cursed) shall be 'first' (saved), with the
coming of
God's Kingdom. 32. For life, remember, is a gender struggle, in
which what is 'meat', or salvation, to the one gender spells, sooner or
later,
'poison', or damnation, to the other - deliverance of males from
subservience
to freedom being the 'meat' that condemns females to the 'poison' of
subservience before binding. 33. Leaving metaphors aside, we may be confident
that any society in which 'God's Kingdom' has officially come to pass
will not
be liberal or libertarian, but ultra-conservative, with a tendency, in
consequence,
to focus things in extreme right-wing terms, though not, however, to
the
exclusion of right- and left-wing alternatives. 34. For the 'Kingdom' that I have outlined in
previous texts does not exclude nonconformist and humanist tendencies,
but rather
seeks to integrate them, subordinately, into an overall structure in
which
transcendentalism is at the apex, as befitting a society led by God
rather than
represented by men or governed by women. 35. I have identified this structure with the
concept of a triadic Beyond, and it would be germane to a society in
which
religious sovereignty was the prevailing norm, as applicable to
'Kingdom Come',
and divine rights were accordingly of more relevance than human rights
or,
indeed, any kind of rights that fell short of a transcendentalist
fulcrum in
godliness. 36. But it would be the inner godliness, remember,
of that which had been saved from metaphysical sensuality to
metaphysical
sensibility, and therefore had no need of cosmic-based Creators,
whether negatively
parallel to aural sensuality or not. 37. Such inner godliness, of both the sensible Son
and Father of primary and secondary Godhead, would signify the
salvation-of-salvations, and make possible the
redemption-of-redemptions on
both secondary and primary levels of Heaven (holy
spirit
and holy soul) for those to whom it especially applied. 38. I have called these persons submen, and they are that which is higher and
deeper than
men - an ultimate type of male for whom taking is of far less
significance than
being, and accordingly for whom knowledge is much less important than
truth. 39. It is for submen
that the ultimate 'kingdom within', necessarily metaphysical, will come
to
pass, that the highest and best may reap the harvest they deserve and
no longer
be starved of religious justice or official recognition. 40. For the ultimate 'kingdom within' is beyond
Christ and his Church (with its Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or
Spirit), and
because of this it will only officially come to pass when Christianity
has been
consigned - democratically and officially - to the rubbish bin of
history,
making way for that Social Transcendentalism which I have identified,
all
along, with the effective Second Coming and 'Kingdom Come', as
described in
previous texts and requiring no further exegesis here!
Only when my 'will', the wise will of inner
metaphysics, is 'done' ... will there be an end to the world and a
beginning
made along that otherworldly path that leads to the 'Kingdom of Heaven'
and to
the triumph, in consequence, of the most moral being of the deepest
individualism. STAR
AND
'CROSS' 1. Just as we have distinguished between unnature, supernature,
nature,
and
subnature, as between unwoman,
superwoman,
man,
and
subman, so we may
likewise
distinguish between uncross (star), supercross,
cross,
and
subcross, the latter of which would be
rather more akin to what I have hitherto, in certain earlier texts,
described
as a supercross, viz. an inverted CND
emblem with feminine
and masculine signs attached. 2. Thus if the supercross
of certain earlier texts in my philosophical journey would, in fact, be
better
described as a subcross, an emblem
appropriate to the
subman and deeper than the cross (of man),
then the subcross it is which stands
beyond the Christian cross, as
that which epitomizes the triumph of individualism in
transcendentalism, as
germane to 'Kingdom Come'. 3. But if the
inverted
CND emblem with feminine and masculine signs attached would be better
described
as a subcross than a supercross,
how,
then,
do
we
distinguish between subcross
and supercross or, rather, between cross
and supercross, assuming such a
distinction still applies? 4. Clearly, if the Social Transcendentalist
emblem is not a supercross but a subcross,
as germane to metaphysics, then the cross will be germane to physics,
as to
nature, and have the figure of Christ upon it, as in the case of
Catholic and
Anglican crucifixes. The supercross, however, will have no such figure
upon it, and
will therefore stand aloof from the physical mean, as water from
vegetation, or
chemistry from physics. 5. Thus arises the notion of the Protestant
cross as supercross, or that which,
spurning bodily
imagery, is closer to water than to vegetation, to woman than to man,
to volume
than to mass, to punishment than to sin, to glory than to form, etc.,
etc. 6. And this would even apply, if to a
lesser
extent, with the so-called 'burning cross' of white supremacists, which
would
take the Protestant supercross to the
boundaries, in
quasi-unnatural fashion, of the uncross, viz. the star, wherein fire
rather
than water is the cardinal element. 7. Thus 'nature' twisted towards unnature becomes paradoxically unnatural, as the
supernature of the supercross
is
eclipsed by the unnature, in fire, of that
which is
properly germane to the star, the symbol of unnature
and, consequently, of that which is against 'nature', especially, be it
remembered, the vegetative nature of the Christian cross. 8. Thus from a Christian standpoint, be
that
standpoint Superchristian (and Puritan),
Christian
(and Catholic), or Subchristian (and
Social
Transcendentalist), the star is the great unnatural enemy, the
anti-natural
Devil that wages unceasing war on 'nature' in all its elemental
permutations,
through especially in the vegetative mean of nature per
se,
wherein the cross has its humanist throne. 9. Thus the star, being a kind of uncross,
stands fundamentally apart from the nonconformism
of
the supercross, the humanism of the cross,
and the
transcendentalism of the subcross, each
'cross'
having a different kind of star with which to contend, like a shadow
side to
'consciousness', since the star can no more be permanently vanquished
than
fire, even if intermittent victories over it are not so much the
exception as
the general rule. 10. Indeed, the existences of water, vegetation,
and air depend, in different ways, upon the prior existence of fire,
without
which there would be no life and therefore no 'nature' at all. 11. Therefore the star and the 'cross', unnature and 'nature', must continue to exist in
an uneasy
symbiosis of unconsciousness and 'consciousness' for as long as there
is life -
supernatural, natural, or subnatural. 12. For it is inconceivable that life could exist
without a foundation of death, even if this foundation itself undergoes
progressive modification in relation to the type of life prevailing at
any
given time - be it the life-in-death of supernature,
the
death-in-life
of
nature,
or the Eternal Life of subnature,
the
life-of-lives
which only gods can know or, more correctly, experience
...
as due reward for their truth, the egocentric form to which they
metaphysically
subscribe. FROM
IMAGINATION
TO
INDIVIDUATION 1. Imagine, imaginary, imagination,
imagery,
imagined - such variations on a common theme have reference to
appearances,
since that which is imagined from the imagination as an image is purely
apparent, and therefore of the will as opposed to the spirit, the ego,
or the
soul. 2. Imagination may be an adequate, even
crucial,
starting-point for literary creativity but, except possibly in the case
of
poetry, it would hardly be a suitable finishing-point, bearing in mind
its
confinement to images. 3. With
television one
is also confined to images, reduced to an appreciation of life from the
standpoint of appearances, the surface superficiality of materialism. 4. Thanks to media like television, modern
life
is obsessed by images, as by the imagination, which, being superficial,
is
capable of virtually anything ... in surrealist-like vein. 5. Painters are, like poets, obsessed by
images,
since imagination is their stock-in-trade, without which there would be
little
or no art. 6. But just as there is a painting of the
imagination, a painting of appearances, so, by a contrary token, there
exists a
painting of individuation, a painting of essences, which is no less
abstract,
or noumenal, than imaginative painting,
but
profoundly subjective rather than superficially objective - in a word,
round as
opposed to square. 7. And this individuational
painting, like its imaginative antithesis, stands absolutely above the
concrete, and therefore phenomenal, realm of representational painting,
be that
representation realistic or naturalistic, concerned, in watery vein,
with
civilization or concerned, in rather more vegetative vein, with nature,
including, not least of all, human nature. 8. If materialism is best characterized by
imagination, that faculty of the will, and the metachemical
will most especially, then the leading characteristic of idealism can
only be
individuation, that faculty of the soul. 9. Beneath the appearance-obsessed
materialism
of imagination and the essence-obsessed idealism of individuation,
however, stand
what may be called the quantity-obsessed realism of inspiration and the
quality-obsessed naturalism of intuition. 10. For if imagination is an attribute of the will
and individuation an attribute of the soul, then inspiration is most
assuredly
an attribute of the spirit, particularly of the chemical or per
se
spirit, and intuition an attribute of the ego, not least of all as it
bears
upon physics. 11. As one might associate materialistic painting
with the faculty of imagination and idealistic painting with the
faculty of
individuation, viz. the will and the soul, so one should associate
realistic
painting with the faculty of inspiration and naturalistic painting with
the
faculty of intuition, viz. the spirit and the ego (mind). 12. Thus imagination and inspiration line up
against intuition and individuation, pretty much as females against
males, the
will and the spirit against the ego and the soul, with appearance and
quantity
characterizing the objectivity of the one side, but quality and essence
characteristic
of the subjectivity of the other side. 13. Such, too, can be said, oddly enough, of the
distinction between scooters and conventional enclosed cars on the one
hand,
and ... open-topped cars and motorbikes on the other hand, since the
dichotomy
in this instance is also between female and male alternatives - the
former
objectively divisible, as with paintings, between materialism and
realism; the
latter no less subjectively divisible between naturalism and idealism. 14. Thus from the appearance-based materialism of
scooters to the essence-centred idealism of motorbikes via the
quantity-oriented realism of conventional enclosed (family) cars and
the
quality-oriented naturalism of open-topped (sports) cars, as from
imagination
to individuation via inspiration and intuition, or, in simple elemental
language, from fire to air via water and vegetation (earth). 15. Which would indicate that whereas scooters and
motorbikes, conforming to noumenal
abstraction, are
upper-class modes of road transportation, with scientific and religious
implications respectively, family cars and sports cars, conforming to
phenomenal concreteness, are lower-class modes of road transportation -
analogous, in their political and economic implications, to realistic
and naturalistic
kinds of painting. 16. And such kinds of painting, like their transportational counterparts, are of course
rather more
the worldly rule than the (otherworldly) exception, bearing in mind the
phenomenal natures of most people, less categorizable,
as
we
have
found,
as devils or gods than as women and men. 17. Although I consider myself first and foremost
a philosopher, I have striven, in my PC-based paintings, to develop noumenal abstraction as subjectively as
possible, and
therefore to symbolize the triumph of individuation on as consistently
metaphysical a basis as is commensurate with transcendentalism. 18. My PC-based paintings are, in that sense,
beyond imagery or imagination; for they are antithetical to the noumenally objective type of abstraction, in
which
appearance is king or, rather, queen. 19. With my paintings,
on
the other hand, essence is king, because they are emblematic of the
soul, not
the will. 20. And, being
emblematic
of the soul, they strive, whenever feasible, to symbolize
transcendentalism as
idealistically as possible, as due testimony to the ultimate 'kingdom
within',
the metaphysical kingdom of respiratory sensibility, wherein idealism
has its
transcendentalist throne. 'UP
ABOVE'
AND
'DOWN
BELOW' 1. The notion of God being 'up above' is
simply
reflective, it seems to me, of a lower-class point of view, whereby
somebody
who more generally relates, as a man, to vegetative (earthly) criteria
... will
be disposed to considering that which
pertains, in metaphysical vein, to air or airiness ... to be 'up above'. 2. Such could also be said, albeit from a
contrary point of view, of the notion of the Devil (more usually
identified, in
typical Biblical vein, with God) being 'up above', since anybody who,
having a
chemical bias, more generally relates, as a woman, to watery criteria
... will
be disposed to considering that which pertains, in metachemical
vein, to fire or fieriness to be 'up above'. 3. Thus both men and women, the generality
of
persons of a largely physical or chemical disposition, are logically
entitled
to posit God and the Devil, or gods and devils, as existing 'up above',
since
those who correspond to either a metaphysical (divine) or a metachemical
(diabolic) disposition or lifestyle, being effectively 'upper class',
really do
live 'up above', on what amount to higher planes. 4. Of course,
they
don't live 'up above' all the time; for no-one, not even the most
determinedly
upper-class person, can live on either a fiery or an airy basis to the
total
exclusion of water and vegetation! But
one can certainly live in such a fashion that one becomes identifiable,
on
properly upper-class terms, with either a fiery or an airy disposition
and/or
vocation, as germane to the noumenal
planes of time
and space. 5. And being identifiable with either a metachemical or a metaphysical orientation, such
upper-class persons, corresponding to devils and gods, are entitled to
regard
that which typifies the human mean, the generality of watery women and
vegetative men, as existing 'down below'. 6. For those who correspond, in watery or
vegetative fashion, to either a chemical (womanly) or a physical
(manly)
disposition, being lower class, really do exist 'down below', in what
amounts,
from an upper-class standpoint, to the lower planes of volume and mass. 7. Thus whether one's upper-class
affiliation be
to space-time devolution or to time-space evolution, noumenal
objectivity or noumenal subjectivity, one
lives 'up
above' from a lower-class point of view, the points of view, more
specifically,
of average women and men. 8. And whether one's lower-class
affiliation be
to volume-mass devolution or to mass-volume evolution, phenomenal
objectivity
or phenomenal subjectivity, one lives 'down below' from an upper-class
standpoint,
the standpoints, if genuine, of devils and gods. 9. So it is that those who live 'up above'
are
immortal in their metachemical and
metaphysical
dispositions, whereas those living 'down below' are merely mortal in
what
amount to chemical and physical dispositions. 10. 'The overworld'
towers above 'the world', like Hell and Heaven above purgatory and the
earth,
and those who are of the former can only look down upon the latter. 11. Conversely, 'the world' exists below 'the overworld', like purgatory and the earth below
Hell and
Heaven, and those who are of the former can only look up to the latter. 12. Rarely is it that mortals change places with
immortals or vice versa, since the majority of women and men are fated
to
remain mortal and not become devils or gods, abandoning chemistry for metachemistry in the one case and physics for
metaphysics
in the other. 13. The reasons for this are many and complex, but
genetic factors are of no small consequence in determining ... class,
even if
class cuts both ways where gender is concerned, albeit on antithetical
terms. 14. Social Transcendentalism, the ideological
philosophy to which I subscribe, does not believe in squeezing
everybody or
everyone into a single class, but is determined to allow for class
differentiation on the basis of the three-tier hierarchy of what has
been
called the triadic Beyond, with the strength of women, the knowledge of
men,
and the truth of gods being served, from the standpoint of 'Kingdom
Come', by
the beauty, albeit most refined and sublimated, of those chosen devils
whose
administrative acts will allow giving, taking, and (especially) being
to
flourish as never before. BEYOND
NIETZSCHE 1. Nietzsche's 'overman'
(übermensch), as described in Thus
Spoke
Zarathustra, is arguably more
diabolic than divine, more
metachemical than metaphysical, more
objectively free
than subjectively bound, more evil than wise, more will than soul, more
beauty
than truth, more fire than air. 2. I have shown that the 'overman',
the upper-class person, can be diabolic or divine, female or male, unwoman or subman,
free or bound,
and that only the latter is commensurate with truth and joy, and hence
the
wisdom of philosophy. 3. The Zarathustrian
'overman' seems to me more the product of
poetic imagination
than of philosophic individuation, a creature ruled by power rather
than led by
contentment. 4. For years - right from the dualistic
beginnings of my philosophical career to the recent transcendental
flowering of
it - I adhered to the identification of the Nietzschean
'overman' with the concept, widely
prevalent, of
'superman', never for a moment imagining that the superman could be
anything
but a godly individual (and this despite Nietzsche's identification of
him as
the meaning of the earth!), commensurate with the ne
plus ultra of human maturation. 5. Little did I realize that the superman
is not
even commensurate with upper-class or noumenal
criteria in space and time! That, on the
contrary, the superman is a paradoxical approach to strength which
could only
be secondary to the water-based (chemical) strength per
se
of the superwoman, of what is superfeminine,
and
that
both
alike
are lower-class and therefore phenomenal parallels. 6. Thus as a vegetative (muscular) paradox,
the
superman became for me the male equivalent, in volume and mass, of the
feminine
woman, the quasi-humanist woman for whom knowledge, if paradoxically
approached
via water, viz. the tongue, was more important than strength. 7. In other words, the muscular man, a
superman,
and the intellectual woman, a feminine woman, were equally distinct
from the
generality of lower-class females and males, the former superfeminine
in their watery strength and the latter masculine in their vegetative
knowledge. 8. Thus supermen, commensurate with the supermasculine, and women, commensurate with the
feminine,
stand apart from the generality of chemical females and physical males
as
paradoxical exceptions to the general rule of superwomen and men, the
former superfeminine and the latter
masculine. 9. Far from being upper class and 'overmen', both the superfeminine
superwoman and the supermasculine
superman, the
genuine and paradoxical manifestations, in strength, of supernaturalism/superhumanism, transpire to being lower class
and, in Nietzschean parlance, 'undermen'
(untermenschen), like water under fire, or
the
chemical under the metachemical. 10. Likewise feminine women and masculine men, the
paradoxical and genuine manifestations, in knowledge, of
naturalism/humanism, transpire to being
lower class and ... 'undermen',
like vegetation under air, or the physical under the metaphysical. 11. Thus the one kind of 'underman'
is
akin
to
woman
under the Devil, while the other kind is akin to man
under God
- the superfeminine/supermasculine under
the
unfeminine/unmasculine on the one hand and
the
feminine/masculine under the subfeminine/submasculine
on the other hand. 12. Thus my concept of the 'overman',
divisible
between
devils
and
gods, the unnatural/unhuman
and the subnatural/subhuman, bears no
relation to
anything supernatural/superhuman whatsoever, since more genuinely
representative, it seems to me, of what are in fact upper-class, and
hence noumenal, positions. 13. Far from the
superman, it is the subman who is the ne
plus ultra of human maturation, the type of the philosopher
rather than of the dramatist, and his principal concern, whether in
sensuality
or sensibility, can only be with metaphysical being. 14. Certainly the subman
is not to be thought of, in disparaging vein, as somehow sub-human,
meaning, I
would guess, less than human and therefore effectively pre-human. 15. On the contrary, the subman
is neither pre-human nor post-human, nor even human-all-too-human,
since deeper
and higher than the generality of humanistic men, with their
natural/human
shortcomings in relation to God, or to what is godly. 16. Both the subwoman,
corresponding
to
the
subfeminine, and the subman,
corresponding
to the submasculine,
are transcendentalist, given their respective gender-conditioned
approaches to
the subnaturalism/subhumanism of
metaphysics, with
its fulcrum in being. 17. Even the subhuman are divisible, as hinted
above, between chemical, physical, and metaphysical approaches to
transcendentalism, whether in the idealistic context of religion or
otherwise,
though only the metaphysical subman,
properly submasculine, is truly
commensurate with transcendentalism,
and thus with a first-hand commitment to either music (in sensuality)
or
meditation (in sensibility). 18. Certainly the meditating subman,
the
devotee
of
transcendental
meditation, is the ultimate type of
metaphysician, and it is for him that the greatest joy in the deepest
being
becomes the heavenly redemption of his godly taking, metaphysical soul
duly
eclipsing metaphysical ego with the assistance, in secondary vein, of
the
metaphysical will and spirit, the metaphysical doing and giving (in
lungs and
breath), of meditative praxis. THE
TRIUMPH
OF
BEING 1. I said at the beginning of this cyclical
project that the principal concern of philosophers was - or should be -
being,
and so it is to being that I shall now return at its ending, bearing in
mind
that being is characteristic of the essence, or soul, of things, as,
most
especially, of the self. 2. I have shown, contrary to the doubts and
moral ignorance of those all-too-modern philosophers who are apt to
dismiss
being or the possibility of knowledge thereof, exactly what being
is,
and I maintain that there is a hierarchy of being which stretches from
the
least essential being of love (in metachemistry)
to
the
most
essential
being of joy (in metaphysics) via the less (relative
to
least) essential being of pride (in chemistry) and the more (relative
to most)
essential being of pleasure (in physics). 3. Thus, because fire is the least
essential
(properly apparent) element and air the most essential, fiery being,
otherwise
known as love, is the least essential and airy being, otherwise known
as joy, the
most essential, while with the less (relative to least) essential
(properly
quantitative) element of water and the more (relative to most)
essential
(properly qualitative) element of vegetation in between, watery being
and
vegetative being, otherwise known as pride and pleasure, are
correspondingly
less essential and more essential respectively. 4. Such can also be said of the negative,
or
primary, counterparts to the above positive, or supreme, manifestations
of
being, viz. hatred, humility, pain, and woe, in sensuality no less than
in
sensibility. 5. However, since it has been my design to
dwell
on the positive manifestations of being, not their negative
counterparts, I
have focused most of my philosophic attention upon love, pride,
pleasure, and
joy, the respective idealisms, in religion, of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism. 6. For being
is
religious, and, being religious, it is ever idealistic, even if there
are
different kinds of idealism corresponding to the nature and/or unnature of the particular element with which it
is
associated. 7. Thus the idealism of love differs
demonstrably - one might say absolutely - from the idealism of joy, as
Hell
from Heaven, unnatural/unhuman
(inhuman) fundamentalism from subnatural/subhuman
transcendentalism,
and
these
in
turn differ from the purgatorial idealism of
pride and the earthly idealism of pleasure, both of which constitute a
worldly
antithesis, as germane to the nonconformism
of the
supernatural/superhuman on the one hand, and to the humanism of the
natural/human on the other hand. 8. However, while being is to be
found in
every elemental context, from metachemistry
and
chemistry on the objective, or female, side of life ... to physics and
metaphysics on its subjective, or male, side, it is only chiefly
characteristic
of metaphysics, wherein the noumenal
element of air
has its essential throne. 9. But if being
is chiefly characteristic of metaphysics, it is not chiefly
characteristic of
physics, wherein the phenomenal element of vegetation has its
qualitative
throne. Neither is it chiefly
characteristic of chemistry, wherein the phenomenal element of water
has its
quantitative throne, nor of metachemistry,
wherein
the noumenal element of fire has its
apparent throne. 10. On the contrary, if the being of soul most
characterizes metaphysics, then that which most characterizes physics,
by
contrast, is the taking of ego, while chemistry and metachemistry
would have to be chiefly characterized by the giving of spirit and the
doing of
will, as by glory and power as opposed, on the subjective side of the
gender
divide, to form and, in the case of metaphysics, contentment. 11. Thus metaphysics, corresponding in ideological
terms to transcendentalism, is the one element in which being (joy) can
truly
triumph, the one element in which, especially in the religious context
of
idealism, being is an end-in-itself rather than just an aside to some
other -
and false - end or (especially on the objective side of life) means, as
the
case may be. 12. In physics, by
contrast, being (pleasure) has to take second place to taking, as to
the ego;
in chemistry being (pride) has to take third place to giving, as to the
spirit;
and in metachemistry being (love) has to
take fourth
place to doing, as to the will. 13. Thus it would be illogical, to the point of
absurdity, to speak of being triumphing, or of the triumph of being,
in
any
other
element
than metaphysics, the concern par
excellence of philosophy, and hence of philosophers. 14. For physics, the concern par
excellence of fiction, as of novelists, exemplifies the triumph of
taking
(in the ego), while chemistry, the concern par excellence of
drama, as
of playwrights, exemplifies the triumph of giving (in the spirit), and metachemistry, the concern par excellence
of poetry,
as of poets, exemplifies, in unequivocal terms, the triumph of doing
(in the
will). 15. Therefore it would be as illogical for a poet
to speak of the triumph of being (in the soul) as for a philosopher -
and there
have, alas! been some highly prominent ones
in recent
times - to speak of the triumph of doing (in the will).
The soul (love) of metachemistry
can only be subordinate to the will (in noumenal
objectivity), just as the will (in noumenal
subjectivity) of metaphysics can only be subordinate to the soul (joy). 16. And what applies to the noumenal
elements applies in rather more phenomenal vein to the intermediate
elements,
as it were, of chemistry and physics, wherein the spirit will be
dominant in
the one and the ego dominant in the other, whether in relation to will
or soul
or, indeed, to ego (chemistry) and spirit (physics). 17. Rather than risk getting drawn back into a
discussion of will, spirit, or ego, I should like to stay with the
soul, and hence
the context of being which, as we have seen, is never more
idealistic,
or religious, than in metaphysics. 18. But metaphysics can
be either of time or space, of sequential time in sensuality (outer) or
of
spaced space in sensibility (inner), and therefore metaphysical being
has the
capacity to ascend, through time-space evolution, from sensuality to
sensibility, wherein it is saved. 19. Likewise metachemistry
can be either of space or time, of spatial space in sensuality (outer)
and of
repetitive time in sensibility (inner), and therefore metachemical
being has a fatality to descend, through space-time devolution, from
sensuality
to sensibility, wherein it is damned. 20. Contrariwise, physics can be either of mass or
volume, of massive mass in sensuality (outer) or of voluminous volume
in
sensibility (inner), and therefore physical being has the capacity to
ascend,
through mass-volume evolution, from sensuality to sensibility, wherein
it is
saved. 21. Similarly chemistry can be either of volume or
mass, of volumetric volume in sensuality (outer) or of massed mass in
sensibility (inner), and therefore chemical being has a fatality to
descend,
through volume-mass devolution, from sensuality to sensibility, wherein
it is
damned. 22. Whether being be of the sort which is
sensual or sensible, outer or inner, 'once born' or
're-born',
it descends in metachemistry through
space-time
devolution and in chemistry through volume-mass devolution, whereas in
physics
it ascends through mass-volume evolution and in metaphysics through
time-space
evolution. 23. Thus far from being exclusively of time or
space, noumenal being can be
of time and
space on
both space-time and time-space axes - the former objective and the
latter
subjective, whether in sensuality or in sensibility. 24. And far from being exclusively of volume or
mass, phenomenal being can be of volume and
mass on
both volume-mass and mass-volume axes - the former objective and the
latter
subjective, whether in sensuality or in sensibility. 25. Now just as being is never shallower,
or less deep, than in the spatial space of space-time devolution, so it
is
never deeper, or more profound, than in the spaced space of time-space
evolution, since space is the plane in which being is sensually
metachemical on the one hand, and sensibly
metaphysical on
the other hand. 26. In fact, just as being can only be
second-rate on a plane or axis in which taking (the ego) is cardinal,
and
third-rate on a plane or axis in which giving (the spirit) is cardinal,
so it
can only be fourth-rate on a plane or axis in which doing (the will) is
cardinal, as it most assuredly is on the space-time axis of noumenal
objectivity. 27. Thus the being (love) of space-time devolution
is not only of an inferior order of being to the being (joy) of
time-space evolution, whether in sensuality or sensibility, it is of an
inferior order of being to the being (pride) of volume-mass
devolution
and to the being (pleasure) of mass-volume evolution, since of an order
that is
not simply more essential in relation to most essential, i.e. physical
being in
relation to metaphysical being, nor even less essential in relation to
least
essential, i.e. chemical being in relation to metachemical
being, but least essential, because affiliated, in metachemistry,
with
that
element
which,
being noumenally
objective,
is most apparent, viz. fire. 28. Therefore only that being which, being
metaphysical, is affiliated to time-space evolution can be truly
profound, and
only in spaced space is that being sensibly supreme. 29. For while the joy accruing to aural
metaphysics is incontestably supreme (positive), it is the supremacy of
sensuality in sequential time, and therefore an inferior order (cursed)
of
metaphysical supremacy to the sensible order (saved) in spaced space. 30. Only respiratory metaphysics can deliver such
an ultimate supremacy, an ultimate positive essence, and for that the
ego, duly
metaphysical, must be attuned to transcendental meditation, in order
that the
personal self may reap the universal harvest it richly deserves ... of
the most
sensible soul in the triumph of inner being, not only the
being-of-beings in relation to other types of being, but the ultimate
type of
metaphysical being, in which the subconscious soul is saved for ever
more. So be it! APPENDIX
(RANDOM
THOUGHTS) 1. Fireworks strike me as a
species of sublimated barbarism, something that, as a rule, appeals to
only the
most superficial and extrovert of people. 2. Heathenistic
countries,
with their female bias, almost invariably have red, white, and blue in
their
flags. 3. Watching television is pretty much the
modern
equivalent of staring into the fire, and only really appeals to those
for whom
the fascination of evil is too powerful to resist. 4. Most people are not
interested in poetry or philosophy, because the majority of people are
men and
women, not devils and gods. 5. There is, at times, more philosophy in
Baudelaire's Intimate
Journals than in Nietzsche's Zarathustra,
and this
in spite of Baudelaire's reputation as a poet. 6. The twentieth
century was more receptive, by and large, to poets than to
philosophers, and
not a few of the latter, including T.S. Eliot, opted to become poets -
with
predictable consequences! 7 Unlike
Nietzsche,
who might be said to have twisted philosophy towards poetry, Ezra Pound
developed the knack of twisting poetry towards philosophy - without,
however,
ceasing to be a poet! 8. Just as a dramatist should, when
genuine, be
more biased towards poetry than towards philosophy, so a novelist
should, when
true, be more biased towards philosophy
than towards
poetry. 9. Examples of the former include
Shakespeare
and Oscar Wilde. Examples of the latter
include Aldous Huxley and John Fowles. 10. Poetic novelists, like Hesse,
are
as
paradoxical
as
philosophic dramatists, like Sartre. 11. Of course, Sartre was more than a dramatist,
but also considerably less than a philosopher, if by philosophy one
means the
aphoristic pursuit of truth in the interests of metaphysical being. 12. Civilization turns against barbarism as
strength against beauty, quantity against appearance, water against
fire; for
civilization is jealous of any threat posed by barbarism to nature
which might
detract from, if not effectively exclude, its own dominion over nature,
even to
the exclusion of culture.
