Preview the Centretruths eBook version of MAGNUS DEI
Op.
82
MAGNUS
DEI
Cyclic
Philosophy
Copyright
©
2011
John O'Loughlin
______________
CONTENTS
1.
Introducing
Will-Spirit-Ego-Soul
2.
Doing-Giving-Taking-Being
3.
Power-Glory-Form-Content(ment)
4.
Some
General
Ideas
5.
Right
and
Wrong
Revisited
6.
From Clearness to Holiness
7.
Will-Spirit-Ego-Soul
Revisited
8.
The
Sensibility
of
Holiness
9.
The
Sensibility
of
Unclearness
10.
Alternative
Sensualities
11.
From Chaos to
12.
Religious
Categories
13.
Values
and
Antivalues
14.
The
Nature
of
Judgement
15.
The
Struggle
for
Sensibility
16.
Sensibility
and
Sanity
17.
Forms
of
Competition
and Co-operation
18.
Free
to
Prey
and Bound to Pray
19.
Significant
Racial
Distinctions
20.
Positive
Racial
Consciousness
21.
Nordic
and
Celtic
22.
Towards the Urban Centre
23.
Urban/Suburban
Patchwork
24.
Self-negation
through
External
Manipulation
25.
Godless
Impostor
26.
Power
and
Glory
vis-à-vis Form and Content(ment)
27.
Immanence
and
Transcendence
28.
Free
to
Enthral vis-à-vis Bound to
Enslave
____________
INTRODUCING
WILL-SPIRIT-EGO-SOUL
1. The Will,
according
to elemental disposition, can be evil, good, foolish, or wise, on both
relative
(phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal) terms. Chemical will can be evil (sensual) or good
(sensible), metachemical will likewise. Physical will can be foolish (sensual) or
wise (sensible), metaphysical will likewise.
2. The Spirit,
according to elemental disposition, can be clear, unclear, unholy, or
holy, on
both relative (phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal)
terms. Chemical spirit can be clear
(sensual) or unclear (sensible), metachemical
spirit
likewise. Physical spirit can be unholy
(sensual) or holy (sensible), metaphysical spirit likewise.
3. The Ego, according to elemental
disposition,
can be barbarous, civilized, natural, or cultural, on both relative
(phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal) terms. Chemical ego can be barbarous (sensual) or
civilized (sensible), metachemical ego
likewise. Physical ego can be natural
(sensual) or
cultural (sensible), metaphysical ego likewise.
4. The Soul,
according
to elemental disposition, can be cruel, punishing, sinful, or graceful,
on both
relative (phenomenal) and absolute (noumenal)
terms. Chemical soul can be cruel
(sensual) or punishing (sensible), metachemical
soul
likewise. Physical soul can be sinful
(sensual) or graceful (sensible), metaphysical soul likewise.
DOING-GIVING-TAKING-BEING
1. To do evilly,
goodly, foolishly, or wisely, according to whether one is sensually
chemical/metachemical, sensibly chemical/metachemical,
sensually physical/metaphysical, or sensibly physical/metaphysical.
2. To give
clearly, unclearly, unholily,
or
holily,
as
above.
3. To take
barbarously,
civilizedly, naturally, or culturally, as
above.
4. To be
cruelly, punishingly, sinfully, or
gracefully, as above.
POWER-GLORY-FORM-CONTENT(MENT)
1. The power of
evil,
good, folly, and wisdom.
2. The glory of
clearness,
unclearness, unholiness, and holiness.
3. The form of
barbarity, civility, nature, and culture.
4. The
contentment of
crime, punishment, sin, and grace.
SOME
GENERAL
IDEAS
1. Afterlife: Progression from 'Heaven' to
'Hell'
... as from 'Light' to 'Darkness'. For
the light of the self, the soul, must fade
in the
course of posthumous time (Eternity), whereupon the darkness of
extensive
decomposition comes to pass.
2. Music: Gender splits - masculine and
feminine
- across all the elements, viz. fire, water, vegetation (earth) and air. For example, Blues (masculine) and Jazz
(feminine) within fire; Rock (masculine) and Pop (feminine) within
water;
Classical (masculine) and Romantic (feminine) within vegetation; Gospel
(masculine)
and Soul (feminine) and/or Trad
(masculine) and Folk
(feminine) within air.
3. Individualism vis-à-vis Collectivism:
Gender
distinction between the objectivity of freedom (rooted in a vacuum) and
the
subjectivity of binding (centred in a plenum).
Therefore freedom of the individual (from
the self)
vis-à-vis binding of the individual (to the self) as a female/male
distinction.
4. Morality: Indirect (female) and direct
(male), both germane to sensibility according to conventional gender
distinctions,
i.e. the fire and water of female objectivity, as against the
vegetation and
air of male subjectivity.
5. Immorality: Direct (female) and indirect
(male), both germane to sensuality according to conventional gender
distinctions, as above.
6. Public vis-à-vis private is equivalent
to
sensuality vis-à-vis sensibility, whether objective (and female) or
subjective
(and male).
7. Freedom of the (female) individual from
the
self and/or for the not-self, relative to fire and water, tends to
result in
enslavement of the (male) individual to the (female) not-self, whereas
binding
of the (male) individual to the self tends to result in deliverance of
the
(female) individual from the not-self.
8. Freedom and enslavement are two
manifestations (female and male) of the public aspect of things,
whereas
binding and deliverance are two manifestations (male and female) of the
private
aspect of things.
9. The blessing of freedom
(for females), as against the curse of enslavement (for males) in
sensuality,
but the salvation of binding (for males), as against the damnation of
deliverance (for females)) via sensibility.
10. The male is cursed
when his self is enslaved, in sensuality, to the female not-self,
whereas the
female is damned when her not-self is so constrained, in sensibility,
as to
render her deferential to the male self.
11. Collectivism comes in between individualism as
molecular particles/wavicles in between
elemental
particles/wavicles, i.e. elemental
particles (ruling,
or scientific, individualism); molecular particles (ruling, or
political,
collectivism); molecular wavicles
(leading, or
economic, collectivism); elemental wavicles
(leading,
or religious, individualism).
12. Hence collectivism and individualism can be
either
public or private, sensual or sensible, outer or inner.
RIGHT
AND
WRONG
REVISITED
1. A simple distinction, in my view,
between
sensuality and sensibility, immorality and morality, whereby
immorality, and
hence wrongness, is premised upon sensuality, but morality, and hence
rightness, upon sensibility.
2. Rightness and wrongness can, however, be
direct or indirect - wrongness being direct when female but indirect
when male,
whereas rightness is direct when male but indirect when female.
3. When wrongness, or immorality, is direct
(female) it is objective and free, when it is indirect (male) it is
subjective
and enslaved (unbound), and this whether in noumenal
or phenomenal, absolute or relative, terms.
4. When rightness, or morality, is direct
(male),
it is subjective and bound, when it is indirect (female) it is
objective and
constrained (unfree), and this whether in
phenomenal
or noumenal, relative or absolute, terms.
5. Wrongness is a blessing
for females and a curse for males, whereas rightness is a salvation for
males
(from the curse of indirect wrongness) and a damnation for females
(from the
blessing of direct wrongness).
6. To be delivered, as a phenomenal male (a
man), from the curse of massive mass (in the phallus) to the salvation
of voluminous
volume (in the brain), rising diagonally from mass to volume in
mass-volume
subjectivity, which is physical and, hence, vegetative.
7. To be delivered, as a phenomenal female
(a
woman), in response to the above from the blessing of volumetric volume
(in the
tongue) to the damnation of massed mass (in the womb), falling
diagonally from
volume to mass in volume-mass objectivity, which is chemical and,
hence,
watery.
8. To be delivered, as a noumenal
male (a god), from the curse of sequential time (in the ears) to the
salvation
of spaced space (in the lungs), rising diagonally from time to space in
time-space subjectivity, which is metaphysical and, hence, airy.
9. To be delivered, as a noumenal
female (a devil), in response to the above from the blessing of spatial
space
(in the eyes) to the damnation of repetitive time (in the heart),
falling
diagonally from space to time in space-time objectivity, which is metachemical and, hence, fiery.
10. In either case, whether phenomenal or noumenal, relative or absolute, the female
'fall' follows
from a male 'rise', and the male rises precisely because he wishes to
progress
from indirect wrongness to direct rightness, as from sensuality to
sensibility,
thereby escaping the curse of under-plane subservience - and subjection
- to a
female hegemony.
FROM
CLEARNESS
TO
HOLINESS
1. In sensuality
the
female is blessed with clearness and the male cursed by unholiness,
whereas in sensibility the male is saved to holiness and the female
damned to
unclearness.
2. 'The unclear' defer to 'the holy' in
sensibility, no less than 'the unholy' defer to 'the clear' in
sensuality.
3. Culture and civility - and hence, in a
broader sense, civilization - are only genuinely possible in
sensibility; in
sensuality, by contrast, things remain beholden to or conditioned by
nature and
barbarity.
4. Just as the male rises, diagonally, from
nature to culture, as from sin to grace, so the female falls,
diagonally, from
barbarity to civility, as from crime to punishment.
5. To rise,
through
physical salvation, from mass to volume in mass-volume subjectivity is
the
masculine equivalent of the godly rise, through metaphysical salvation,
from
time to space in time-space subjectivity, which thereby achieves not
merely
relative but absolute culture.
6. To fall,
through
chemical damnation, from volume to mass in volume-mass objectivity is
the
feminine equivalent of the devilish fall, through metachemical
damnation, from space to time in space-time objectivity, which thereby
achieves
not merely relative but absolute civility.
7. Just as the male rises, in salvation,
from
folly to wisdom, as from self-freedom to self-binding, so the female
falls, in
damnation, from evil to good, not-self freedom to not-self binding.
8. The self-enhancement of males, whether
in
phenomenal or in noumenal contexts of
sensibility, is
attendant upon the self- or, rather, not-self debasement of females,
since a
diagonal rise to binding on the one hand is only possible on the basis
of a
diagonal fall from freedom on the other hand, the hand of female
damnation.
9. Freedom from self (indirect immorality)
through bewitchment by the female not-self is the male curse that can
only be
escaped from through binding to self (direct morality) in sensibility.
10. Freedom for not-self (direct immorality)
through domination of the male self is the female blessing that can
only be
undermined through binding of not-self (indirect morality) in
sensibility.
11. Thus the rise of males depends upon the fall
of females, and the deliverance from freedom to binding, whether
directly
(males) or indirectly (females) is what makes for culture and civility,
both of
which are morally right as opposed, like barbarity and nature, to
morally wrong
(and therefore immoral).
12. Freedom can therefore be directly wrong, or
primarily immoral, as in the case of females, or indirectly wrong, or
secondarily immoral, as in the case of males, whereby freedom centres
upon the
self as opposed, with females, to the not-self, and is accordingly
natural
rather than barbarous, or foolish rather than evil.
13. Binding can therefore be directly right, or
primarily moral, as in the case of males, or indirectly right, or
secondarily
moral, as in the case of females, whereby binding centres upon the
not-self as
opposed, with males, to the self, and is accordingly civilized rather
than
cultural, or good rather than wise.
14. Creatures rooted in objectivity, like females,
will always be primarily of the not-self, or organs of sensuality or
sensibility
germane to the objective elements of fire and water, whereas those
centred in
subjectivity, like males, will always be primarily of the self, or the
brain
stem and spinal column which, together, constitute the central nervous
system.
15. Hence not only do males and females differ in
respect of their selves, they differ in respect of the not-selves to
which they
relate - males having a secondary relationship, on account of their
self-oriented subjectivity, to their not-selves, which appertain to the
subjective
elements of vegetation (earth) and air.
WILL-SPIRIT-EGO-SOUL
REVISITED
1. The female is less selfish than the male
because more not-selfish, whereas the male is more selfish than the
female
because less not-selfish.
2. The will is always not-selfish and the
ego
selfish, since the will is based in the not-self and the ego in the
self. This applies to all four categories
of will
and ego, viz. metachemical, chemical,
physical, and
metaphysical, in both sensual and sensible, not to mention negative and
positive contexts.
3. That which issues from the not-self is
spiritual and comparatively selfless or, which amounts to the same, of
a
spiritual order of not-self, whereas that which issues from the self is
soulful
and comparatively selfish or, which amounts to the same, of a soulful
order of
self.
4. Just as the spirit
depends upon the will for its existence, so the soul depends upon the
ego,
whether in relation to metachemistry,
chemistry,
physics, or metaphysics.
5. Without will
there
can be no spirit, without ego no soul, and therefore there is no spirit
or soul
where will and ego are lacking - at least not in life.
6. In death, on the other hand, things
revert to
the id, or primitive instinctual will of the self, the nervous
reactions of
which engender not spirit but a more intrinsic order of soul such that
illumines the self in what has been described as Eternal Life.
7. The soul of such Eternal Life, a sort of
oversoul, should not, however, be
confounded with the soul
of diurnal life, which has intimate connections with the ego, being a
projection of egocentric recoil from the prospect of self-annihilation
at the
hands, so to speak, of the spirit.
8. In the soul
the self
finds its redemption and, in some sense, resurrection, since what was
ego is
now soul, and the soul is the nearest thing to the Afterlife.
9. But soul can
be metachemical, chemical, physical, or
metaphysical, like
ego, and therefore hellish, purgatorial, earthly, or heavenly,
depending
whether love, pride, pleasure, or joy is the reigning feeling.
10. Only the metaphysical soul is commensurate
with soul per
se, and thus with a heavenly end in which the self is
lifted up, or resurrected, in joy.
11. But for the soul per
se
to be holy rather than unholy, it must be associated with metaphysical
sensibility, and thus be the product of an ego which is into the will
of the
lungs to breathe and is carried forth upon the holy spirit of the
out-breath
before recoiling to self-as-soul in self-preservation under selfless
threat.
12. In metaphysical
sensuality, by contrast, soul, like spirit, is unholy, since affiliated
to the
ears and the airwaves, whereas the holiness of physical soul and spirit
is only
phenomenal and therefore relative, having to do with pleasure rather
than with
joy.
13. On the female side of life, on the other hand,
there is neither holiness nor unholiness,
but only
clearness and unclearness, which are the norms for soul and spirit in
relation
to the objective modes of ego and will, the former of the self and the
latter
of the not-self.
14. Creatures for whom the not-self is primary and
the self secondary can make do, by and large, with third- and
fourth-rate
orders of ego and soul, as in relation to pride (chemical) and love (metachemical), the former affiliated to a
purgatorial
disposition and the latter to a hellish one.
15. This is because, being objective, they are
driven to affirm first- and second-rate orders of will and spirit in
connection
with their metachemical and chemical
not-selflessness
- first- and second-rate orders of will and spirit complementing third-
and
fourth-rate orders of ego and soul in the space-time objectivity of metachemical sensuality and sensibility; first-
and
second-rate orders of spirit and will complementing third- and
fourth-rate
orders of soul and ego in the volume-mass objectivity of chemical
sensuality
and sensibility.
16. In contrast to males who, when 'true' to
themselves, will affirm first- and second-rate orders of ego and soul
in
connection with the physical and metaphysical selves - first- and
second-rate
orders of ego and soul complementing third- and fourth-rate orders of
will and
spirit in the mass-volume subjectivity of physical sensuality and
sensibility;
first- and second-rate orders of soul and ego complementing third- and
fourth-rate orders of spirit and will in the time-space subjectivity of
metaphysical sensuality and sensibility.
17. For males a progression from sensuality to
sensibility in either mass-volume subjectivity or time-space
subjectivity is
commensurate with deliverance from the curse of unholiness
to the redemption of holiness, which is salvation, whereas for females
a
'progression' from sensuality to sensibility in either space-time
objectivity
or volume-mass objectivity is commensurate with deliverance from the
blessing
of clearness to the perdition of unclearness, which is damnation.
18. In truth, the progress of males, up
diagonally, from sensuality to sensibility entails the regression of
females,
down diagonally, from sensuality to sensibility, so that the elevation
of the
one gender presupposes the relegation of the other, who will not be so
resigned
to sensibility as their male counterparts on account of their inferior
status
in under-plane damnation.
19. Females are more naturally disposed to
sensuality than to sensibility, given their hegemonic standing in the
blessed
freedom of space over time (noumenal) and
of volume
over mass (phenomenal), and it can therefore be safely presumed that
they will
struggle against sensibility in the interests of a return to
upper-plane
domination in sensuality.
20. Such a situation is, of course, commensurate
with barbarity for females and naturalism or even philistinism for
males, and
contrasts with the moral gains, especially for males, of culture on the
one
hand and of civility on the other, both of which appertain to
sensibility, and
thus to the reign not of evil and folly but of wisdom (male) and
goodness
(female).
THE
SENSIBILITY
OF
HOLINESS
1. The ratio of sensuality to sensibility
in
people is not fixed but tends to fluctuate according to a whole range
of
factors - gender, age, class, race, profession, environment,
nationality, and
so on, so that individual differences become modified in the course of
time.
2. In general terms, it is fair to say that
young people tend to display more sensuality than sensibility, and old
people
more sensibility than sensuality, with middle-aged people falling
somewhere in
between the two extremes.
3. All, however, are both sensual and
sensible
to greater or lesser extents; for human beings are a combination of
both and
cannot expect, even in countries or societies which purport to be
cultured and
civilized, to remain exclusively sensible.
Neither, on the other hand, are barbarous and natural countries
or
societies exclusively sensual, even when they are at their evil and/or
foolish
worst.
4. Certainly the individual can develop an
enhanced capacity for sensibility at the
expense of sensuality, and this is only likely to happen to any
appreciable
extent within societies or countries which encourage sensibility
because
recognizably cultural and civil.
5. Such countries or societies will be
Christian
and 'reborn' rather than Heathen and 'once born', tending to encourage
adherence to the 'kingdom within' as opposed to the 'kingdom without',
whether
the latter be stellar or solar or lunar or, indeed, terrestrial, which
is to
say, of nature.
6. However, there is the 'kingdom within'
which
is subjective (and male), and the 'kingdom within' which is objective
(and
female), as well as lower- and upper-class manifestations of each
according to
whether phenomenal or noumenal,
relativistic or
absolutist criteria happen to be paramount - the Christian West
traditionally
being an example of adherence to a phenomenal 'kingdom within' which,
whether
subjective or objective, directly moral or indirectly so, tended to
remain
partial to the sensibilities of volume and mass in Christic
and Marian means which, however sincere, would never do justice to
space and
time.
7. For space and time, and space in
particular,
are the only contexts of sensibility in which the 'kingdom within' has
to do
with truth and beauty in relation to the lungs and the heart, as
opposed, like
volume and mass, to knowledge and strength in relation to the brain and
the
womb, and to achieve the institutional embodiments of such a 'kingdom
within'
would be to go beyond culture and civilization as they have existed in
the West
in the past to an entirely new manifestation of culture and
civilization which,
while allowing for modified levels of traditional, or phenomenal,
culture and
civilization, was geared to the advancement of that which did the most
justice
to sensibility on noumenal terms, with
especial
reference to the lungs.
8. For only in connection with the lungs
can God
and Heaven come to wise and holy fruition, and therefore only in
connection
with a religious praxis based, like transcendental meditation, upon the
lungs
... can religion come properly and ultimately to pass.
For there is no wisdom in
godliness and no holiness in heavenliness prior to metaphysical
sensibility, as
I hope presently to explain.
9. Before I do, let it be said that
religion per
se,
and therefore God per se, is not about knowledge, still less
strength,
much less beauty, but about truth, and that truth it is which
distinguishes the
godly individual from men, women, and devils, or devilish individuals,
for whom
knowledge, strength, and beauty are - certainly in organic supremacy -
the
respective virtues.
10. That said, we can, I believe, establish that
the godly individual, being metaphysical rather than physical,
chemical, or metachemical, will be one for
whom truth is the means to a
joyful end, since his sole intention will be to achieve soulful
redemption of
his self by utilizing his ego to find a conscious accommodation with
the will
and spirit of his inner (sensible) metaphysical not-self, the lungs and
the
breath, in the interests of enhanced selfhood.
11. Now the ego that is into the will of the lungs
to breathe is conscious of meditating, and in meditating one is thrown
back
from the threat to self of the out-breath upon self more profoundly
than would
otherwise have been the case, thereby achieving what religion would
call a
resurrection of the self (ego) in the form or, rather, content(ment) of the soul, which is its redemption in
what amounts,
for the nonce, to heavenly joy, to what I elsewhere called the Holy
Soul of
Heaven.
12. For the Holy Soul of Heaven is the reward for
the Wise Ego of God-the-Son when it plunges, identity-wise, into the
Wise Will
of God-the-Father, the graceful will of the lungs to breathe, and is
transported upon the wings of the Holy Spirit of Heaven towards that
selfless
threat to self which necessitates recoil, in the interests of
self-preservation, to what becomes the redemption of the self in the
aforementioned Holy Soul of Heaven.
13. Heavenly holiness only exists, as I have said,
in relation to inner metaphysics, or metaphysical sensibility, and
therefore as
either the Holy Spirit of Heaven or the Holy Soul of Heaven, the former
secondary (to the self) and the latter primary, since affiliated with
the self
in what amounts to its soulful redemption.
14. However, there is such a thing as earthly
holiness, which is germane to physical sensibility, and it has to do
with the
utilization of the inner physical ego for purposes of achieving some
kind of
soulful redemption, via inner physical will and spirit, in the soul of
physical
sensibility.
15. Such a soul, however, which we can call the
Holy Soul of the Earth, is no true religious end but, rather, something
which,
being pleasurable, tends to be subordinated to a false end by dint of
the fact
that the per
se manifestation of physical sensibility is not soul but
ego, since ego corresponds to form and form is the attribute, in this
case
qualitative, that is most correlative with vegetation (earth), the
physical
element par excellence.
16. Hence the Holy Soul of the Earth tends to be
subordinate to what may be called the Wise Ego of Man-the-Son, for whom
not
truth but knowledge is the principal characteristic, with pleasurable
associations, as already noted.
17. Nevertheless it can be said that the
achievement, whether intermittently or otherwise, of the Holy Soul of
the Earth
necessitates a willingness by the Wise Ego of Man-the-Son to plunge,
identity-wise, into the Wise Will of Man-the-Father, the will of the
brain to
think, before recoil to soulful redemption can be anticipated in
connection
with the Holy Spirit of the Earth, the actual thoughts which issue, in
mental
cogitation, from the brain.
18. In general terms, the utilization of intellect
- for that is what we are actually alluding to here - for a
(necessarily false)
religious end is called prayer, and prayer it is that confirms a
person,
especially when male, as a Son-of-Man (like Christ), as opposed to a
Son-of-God
(like the Second Coming), for whom holiness can never be more than
earthly, and
hence relativistic.
19. However, inner physical ego and will, the
former primary (as germane to the masculine self) and the latter
secondary (as
germane to the not-self, i.e. brain) are wise after a relativistic
fashion, but
only in terms of the phenomenal, the physical, and therefore on a basis
that
falls short of absolute wisdom, the wisdom not of man (knowledge) but
of God
(truth), which is, of course, noumenal and
metaphysical, or noumenally metaphysical,
in relation
to an altogether higher order of sensibility such that only appeals, as
a rule,
to a superior type of human being, whom we have called godly and can
identify,
quite literally, with God - primarily in terms of the Wise Ego of
God-the-Son
and secondarily in terms of the Wise Will of God-the-Father, the will,
in other
words, of the lungs to breathe, and to breathe out what becomes, in
conscious
recognition, the Holy Spirit of Heaven from which the Wise Ego of
God-the-Son
must recoil, in self-preservation, to the Holy Soul of Heaven as the
profoundest manifestation of self and per
se manifestation of soul, as
germane to metaphysical sensibility.
20. For a per
se manifestation of soul,
being deeply essential in joy, can only exist in relation to the
essential
element, the air, and not in relation to the qualitative element of
vegetation
(earth) where, as pleasure, it is 'once bovaryized',
still
less
in
relation
to the quantitative element of water where, as pride,
it
is 'twice bovaryized', much less in
relation to the
apparent element of fire where, as love, it is 'thrice bovaryized'
and therefore neither of Heaven nor the earth, still less of purgatory,
but of
Hell, the positive, or organic, Hell whose egocentric and wilful
preconditions
have less to do with Sons and Fathers than with Daughters and Mothers.
THE
SENSIBILITY
OF
UNCLEARNESS
1. If the lungs are the focus of
metaphysical
sensibility, and hence the possibility of heavenly holiness, and the
brain is
the focus of physical sensibility, and hence the possibility of earthly
holiness, then the focal points of chemical and metachemical
sensibilities, both of which, being objective, appertain to the female
side of
life, will be the womb and the heart, sensibilities, in consequence,
that are
neither heavenly nor earthly but purgatorial in the case of
chemically-biased
females and hellish in the case of their metachemical
counterparts, whom we may characterize as devils rather than women.
2. In neither case, however, will we be
dealing
with holiness in the spirit and the soul, but with unclearness, since
that
which rises, in salvation, to holiness on the male side of life
necessarily
does so from unholiness, its sensual
antithesis,
whereas that which falls, in damnation, to unclearness on the female
side of
life necessarily does so from clearness, the sensual antithesis to
unclearness.
3. Another distinction that needs to be
drawn,
in connection with female deliverance from sensuality to sensibility,
is that
the fall of spirit and soul from clearness to unclearness is
accompanied by, or
correlates with, the fall of ego and will from evil to goodness, so
that, far
from a distinction between wisdom and holiness, whether relative
(phenomenal)
or absolute (noumenal), we shall find one
between
goodness and unclearness, the female counterparts, within chemical and metachemical sensibilities, to wisdom and
holiness.
4. Thus the enlightened male, whether
relatively
enlightened in Christ or absolutely enlightened in the Second Coming,
will not
be one to identify wisdom and holiness with females, but will be aware,
whether
knowledgeably or truthfully, that females, when properly damned, can
only be
good and unclear, since that is what accords with an objective
disposition.
5. But, of course, there are two ways of
being
good and unclear, just as there are two ways of being wise and holy,
and they
differ as the phenomenal from the noumenal,
or
chemical
sensibility
from
metachemical
sensibility,
the former of which properly pertains to women, and the latter of which
is
frankly more germane to devils, or the upper-class category of females.
5. The chemical context of sensibility is
of
course no less, in elemental terms, of water in relation to the womb
than the metachemical context is of fire,
so to speak, in relation
to the heart, and so spiritually we may infer contexts of amniotic
fluid and of
blood, or something to that effect.
6. Be that as it may, we have to
differentiate,
as before, ego from will, and spirit from soul, in each elemental
context of
female sensibility, so that we may be in no doubt that the good ego
and/or will
of the one will be no less pre-conditional to the unclear spirit and/or
soul of
the other than if both were exactly the same.
7. The fact that they differ, as between
water
and fire, however, means that the per
se manifestation of chemical
sensibility will not be the same as the per se manifestation of
metachemical sensibility, so that, quite
apart from false
religious ends accruing to each on account of neither element being
conducive
to a lifestyle under the soul, a properly religious lifestyle, we have
to
differentiate between a spiritual per se in connection with the
quantitative element of water and a wilful per se, or per
se
manifestation of will, in connection with the apparent element of fire,
the one
germane to chemical sensibility and the other to its metachemical
counterpart.
8. That said, it remains to be emphasized
that,
the female self being objective rather than subjective, since issuing
from a
vacuum rather than appertaining to a plenum, the not-self (relative to
fire
and/or water) takes precedence over the self, and that the division
between
primary and secondary orders of ego/soul on the one hand and
will/spirit on the
other will accordingly be the reverse of what it is on the male side of
life
where, as we have seen, the self, being subjective, is primary and the
relevant
not-self (and its spiritual emanation) secondary.
9. Therefore will and spirit are primary
but ego
and soul secondary where the female
distinction between self and not-self is concerned, and the Mother will
take
precedence, in consequence, over the Daughter, as, of course, will the
order of
unclearness appertaining to her in the sensible contexts under
discussion.
10. To distinguish, then, between the Good Ego of
Woman-the-Daughter and the Good Will of Woman-the-Mother, the latter of
which,
affiliated in chemical sensibility to the womb, will be directly
responsible
for what may be called the Unclear Spirit of Purgatory, from which the
Good Ego
of Woman-the-Daughter will recoil, if less sharply than in male
contexts, to
what becomes the Unclear Soul of Purgatory, the religiously false end
of
soulful pride which, frankly, will be subordinated to the spiritual per
se
of the Unclear Spirit of Purgatory, as germane to the contents, fluidal
or
otherwise, of the womb.
11. Where metachemical
sensibility is concerned, however, we shall be distinguishing between
the Good
Ego of Devil-the-Daughter and the Good Will of Devil-the-Mother, the
latter of
which, affiliated to the heart, will be directly responsible for what
may be
called the Unclear Spirit of Hell, from which the Good Ego of
Devil-the-Daughter will recoil, none too sharply, to what becomes the
Unclear
Soul of Hell, the religiously false end of soulful love which, frankly,
will be
subordinated to the wilful per
se of the Good Will of Devil-the-Mother,
as germane to the heart.
12. Since the good/unclear defers, in sensibility,
to the wise/holy, it follows that chemical sensibility will defer to
physical
sensibility, as womb to brain (the Christian norm, traditionally
symbolized by
Marian and Christic distinctions), whereas
metachemical sensibility will defer to
metaphysical
sensibility, as heart to lungs (the main though not exclusive bias of
our
prospective 'Kingdom Come', with its triadic Beyond), so that a
like-to-like
distinction between the phenomenal in relation to women and men, and
the noumenal in relation to devils and
gods is the sensible
consequence, as germane to the civilized support of culture.
ALTERNATIVE
SENSUALITIES
1. That which, in sensuality, is neither
good
nor unclear will, of necessity, be evil and clear, whether relatively
(in the
phenomenal context of chemical sensuality) or absolutely (in the noumenal context of metachemical
sensuality), whereas that which, likewise, is neither wise nor holy
will, of
necessity, be foolish and unholy, whether relatively (in the phenomenal
context
of physical sensuality) or absolutely (in the noumenal
context of metaphysical sensuality).
2. Hence we can distinguish the Evil Ego of
the
Daughter-of-Woman and the Evil Will of the Mother-of-Woman from the
Clear
Spirit of Purgatory and the Clear Soul of Purgatory in connection with
chemical
sensuality, while likewise distinguishing the Evil Ego of the
Daughter-of-the-Devil and the Evil Will of the Mother-of-the-Devil from
the
Clear Spirit of Hell and the Clear Soul of Hell in connection with metachemical sensuality, the former revolving
around the
not-self organ of the tongue and its saliva, the latter around the
not-self
organ of the eyes and their sight-light.
3. Similarly we can distinguish the Unwise
(foolish) Ego of the Son-of-Man and the Unwise (foolish) Will of the
Father-of-Man from the Unholy Spirit of Earth and the Unholy Soul of
Earth in
connection with physical sensuality, while likewise distinguishing the
Unwise
(foolish) Ego of God-the-Son and the Unwise (foolish) Will of
God-the-Father
from the Unholy Spirit of Heaven and the Unholy Soul of Heaven in
connection
with metaphysical sensuality, the former revolving around the not-self
organ of
the penis (flesh) and its sperm, the latter around the not-self organ
of the
ears and the airwaves.
4. Clearly, the distinction between the
Unwise/Unholy
and the Wise/Holy is between outer, or sensual, manifestations of
God/Heaven
and Man/Earth on the one hand, and inner, or sensible, manifestations
of
God/Heaven and Man/Earth on the other hand, so that salvation is always
from
the one to the other, as from penis to brain within mass-volume
subjectivity,
the contexts of Man/Earth, and from ears to lungs within time-space
subjectivity, the contexts of God/Heaven.
5. Likewise the distinction between the
Evil/Clear and the Good/Unclear is between outer, or sensual,
manifestations of
the Devil/Hell and Woman/Purgatory on the one hand, and inner, or
sensible,
manifestations of the Devil/Hell and Woman/Purgatory on the other hand,
so that
damnation is always from the one to the other, as from eyes to heart
within
space-time objectivity, the contexts of the Devil/Hell, and from tongue
to womb
within volume-mass objectivity, the contexts of Woman/Purgatory.
6. To be metaphysically saved, as from time
to
space, is to progress from a foolish God and an unholy Heaven to a wise
God and
a holy Heaven, on both primary and secondary terms, as from
ears/airwaves to
lungs/breath, whereas to be physically saved, as from mass to volume,
is to
progress from a foolish man and an unholy earth to a wise man and a
holy earth,
on both primary and secondary terms, as from penis/sperm to
brain/thought.
7. To be chemically damned, as from volume
to
mass, is to regress from an evil woman and a clear purgatory to a good
woman
and an unclear purgatory, on both primary and secondary terms, as from
tongue/saliva to womb/amniotic fluid, whereas to be metachemically
damned, as from space to time, is to regress from an evil Devil and a
clear
Hell to a good Devil and an unclear Hell, on both primary and secondary
terms,
as from eyes/sight-light to heart/blood.
8. To progress,
in the
above-mentioned subjective contexts, is to rise diagonally from
sensuality to
sensibility on either phenomenal (physical) or noumenal
(metaphysical) terms, thereby achieving salvation from the curse of
under-plane
subservience (to females) in sensuality.
9. To regress,
in the
above-mentioned objective contexts, is to fall diagonally from
sensuality to
sensibility on either phenomenal (chemical) or noumenal
(metachemical) terms, thereby suffering
damnation
from the blessing of over-plane hegemony (over males) in sensuality.
10. Hence males have more to gain from sensibility
than females, whose fate is to regress from the blessed hegemony of
chemical
and/or metachemical sensuality. Culture and, by sensible association,
civility and, hence, civilization (in the truest sense) require a male
lead or
resolve, whereas barbarity and, by sensual association, naturalism or
philistinism are the root conditions of a female rule.
11. The evil woman/Devil has clear manifestations
of spirit and soul to live with, whereas the good woman/Devil has to
live with
unclear manifestations of spirit and soul, the former blessed and the
latter
damned.
12. Conversely, the foolish man/God has to live
with unholy manifestations of spirit and soul, whereas the wise man/God
has
unholy manifestations of spirit and soul to live with, the former
cursed and
the latter saved.
13. Given the co-existence of both female and male
genders, life is a constant toing-and-froing
between
freedom and binding, immorality and morality, wrong and right, even
when steps
have been taken to ensure the institutionalization of both culture and
civilization at either a phenomenal or a noumenal
level, if not both at once.
14. For you cannot
indefinitely peg females to sensibility, nor reduce males to a
perpetual
subservience, in sensuality, before females.
Life, to repeat, is both sensual and sensible, and therefore
such
binding or morality as is sensibly achieved at the expense,
necessarily, of
freedom or immorality has to be paid for through periodic recourse to
sensuality, since rightness does not exist in a moral vacuum completely
independently of wrongness.
15. Rightness only exists because of wrongness,
morality
because of immorality, binding because of freedom, sensibility because
of
sensuality, and therefore it is inconceivable that right could continue
to
exist were there no wrong, just as it is inconceivable that one's
sensibilities
could exist without a sensual basis or platform upon which they stand.
16. Where there is scope for modification of this
dualism is in terms of the ratio of right to wrong or vice versa, and
this is
amenable to human control subject to a variety of influential factors -
age,
gender, class, environment, diet, climate, race, profession, genetic
constitution, drugs, law enforcement, and so on.
17. Ratios of right to wrong, of sensibility to
sensuality, can be modified to some extent in the interests of enhanced
sensibility, and therefore right, but such modifications presuppose a
wide
variety of influential factors taking place either separately or in
combination
over a period of time both personal (individual) and transpersonal
(social).
18. I do not wish to elaborate on such
possibilities here, but I can say that criteria which would not be
applicable
in humanistic societies might well become feasible in societies which
had
undergone revolutionary change in the direction of 'Kingdom Come', and
had
consequently embraced concepts of human transmutation towards
post-human life
forms as a matter of moral, and evolutionary, course.
19. For a stable culture/civilization complex
would obviously be more to mankind's long-term interests than one
which, in
time-honoured fashion, was subject to constant fluctuations at the
hands of
barbarous/natural or, more correctly, philistine opponents.
20. It would indeed be the mark of a higher
culture/civilization that it could withstand barbarous/philistine
backslidings
or counter-revolutionary threats and continue on its God-appointed
course
towards ever greater ends, ends transcending the earth as it became
ever more
heavenly and orientated towards the maximum of positive being, even if
(as in
the case of my projected triadic Beyond) with subordinate
manifestations of
positive taking (masculine) and giving (feminine).
FROM
CHAOS
TO
1. Chaos, anarchy, and other crude
manifestations of barbarism/philistinism, or undue naturalism, can have
no
place in a society unequivocally orientated towards the maximum of
positive, or
supreme, being. Rather are they symptoms
of pre-worldly societies whose primitivity
necessarily fell short of culture/civilization.
2. With culture/civilization and a positive
commitment, institutionally upheld, to sensibility, one enters the
world, which
is to say, those societies given, in greater or lesser degree, to a
sensible
alternative to sensuality, and thus to the possibility of knowing right
from
wrong.
3. Prior to the world of partial, or
humanistic,
adherence to culture/civilization, there was only the chaos and/or
anarchy of
unequivocally barbarous/philistine societies, which did not distinguish
between
right and wrong but effectively lived in the wrong as if it were right,
knowing
no better.
4. To call such
societies paradisiacal would indeed be to debase the concept of
paradise, and
to wrongly identify chaos with it!
5. In reality,
nothing
could be further from paradise than the sort of primitive pre-worldly
societies
based in the irrational and altogether unconstitutional rule of chaos!
6. If things proceed from alpha to omega,
as
from chaos to order, anarchy to polity, chance to determinism, freedom
to
binding, then they do so via the world and the transmutation of chaos
in line with
the development, on an alternative basis, of culture and civilization.
7. It may even be that
barbarism and philistinism are transmutations of chaos commensurate
with the
acceptance of culture and civilization, and are only properly
recognizable as such
in relation to the latter.
8. Thus if barbarism and philistinism are
only
recognizable as such from the standpoints of culture and civilization,
the
cultural rejection of nature and the civil rejection of barbarity, the
latter
will have to have come officially to pass before the former can be
evaluated
and condemned for their opposition to sensibility from an overly
sensual base,
whether barbarous or natural.
9. But worldly culture and civilization, as
we
have seen, will continue to be subject to periodic or intermittent
outbreaks of
barbarism and philistinism, to greater or lesser extents depending on
the
nature of the particular culture/civilization complex and the
individuals of
which it is composed.
10. Only in a post-worldly culture/civilization
complex,
commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', would the development of
cultural/civilized
stability and continuity be substantially different from the worldly
past, and
then because such an omega-oriented society was sufficiently
God-directed as to
have post-human aspirations and the desire and capacity, in
consequence, to
engineer, at both alpha and omega levels, the artificial transmutation
of life
towards a much less relativistic end.
11. And such societies would come, in the course
of cyborg-to-post-human time, to resemble
genuine
paradises which, in their stability and positivity,
were
as
far
removed
from the chaotic anarchy or anarchic chaos of primitive
societies as to be their complete antitheses.
12. They would even become antithetical to the
Cosmos itself, as they gravitated, under technological and moral
guidance, from
being 'paradises on earth' to being 'paradises in Heaven', which is to
say, set
in space centres at a discreet remove from earthly gravity and, by
implication,
gravitas.
13. One can speak, it seems to me, of devolution
from alpha chaos in the Cosmos (Hell) to unequivocal
barbarism/naturalism in
the pre-world, and from worldly relativity in cultural/civilized
opposition to
barbarity/philistinism to unequivocal post-worldly evolution towards
omega
paradise in the Universe (Heaven), or space as a setting for that
which,
equivalent to omega points, was antithetical to the Cosmos, and
therefore
properly universal.
14. One can contrast the convolutional
nature of devolution from cosmic chaos with the involutional
nature of evolution towards universal paradise, as one would contrast
the
centrifugal with the centripetal, whether objectively or subjectively,
in
relation to straight lines or to curves.
15. Were paradise to slide back into chaos, the
omega into the alpha, it would indeed be a grim joke and unfortunate
irony of
life, but I do not believe that it would or could, since it is
something at the
furthest possible remove from chaos, like an old person on the point of
death
from a baby on the point of birth. The
old person does not turn into the baby, or vice versa.
16. The circle of life
has gaps in it, both with regard to the furthest point of devolution
vis-à-vis
the hindmost point of evolution, and the furthermost point of evolution
vis-à-vis
the hinderleast point, so to speak, of
devolution.
17. Such gaps can only be bridged by revolution,
since that removes what exists to either side of itself, and in the
context of
the Cosmos/Universe such a procedure could only be
counter-revolutionary and
therefore morally impermissible and unjustifiable.
18. A revolution that leads from devolution to an
evolutionary alternative to it which yet co-exists with the
barbarous/philistine consequences of devolution is one thing; a
counter-revolution that reverses what has been gained by
culture/civilization
at the expense of barbarism/philistinism or which strives,
cold-bloodedly, to
return from omega to the alpha beginnings of things again, descending
from the
heights of reason and morality to the depths, the alpha-most
beginnings, of
unreason and immorality would be the product of insanity and
corruption, and
could never, under any circumstances, be encouraged or condoned.
19. One can only suppose the chances of that
happening in a highly advanced culture/civilization complex to be
extremely
remote, given the rule of morality and preponderance, under
evolutionary
involution, of paradisiacal reason.
20. For that which is
most rational or logical is most wise, and contrasts, absolutely, with
that
which, having no reason or logic at all, is most irrational and
illogical, and
avowedly most evil. God's
utmost
logicality
contrasts,
absolutely,
with the Devil's utmost illogicality,
as
the most evolved philosopher
with the
least devolved poet, or paradise with chaos.
RELIGIOUS
CATEGORIES
1. Some time ago, both here and in previous
texts, I came to the conclusion that cultural/civilized stability and,
by
implication, continuity ... would be most guaranteed, in relation to
post-worldly criteria, on the basis of what has been called the triadic
Beyond,
a three-tier structure, duly subdivided three ways, of religious praxis
that,
being of 'Kingdom Come', was beyond the world as we know it, in the
worldly present
... of the early twenty-first century.
2. Thus instead of a phenomenal
manifestation of
culture and civilization that, while benefiting the lower class
(including the
middle class), did less than justice to the upper class or, conversely,
instead
of a noumenal culture/civilization complex
that,
benefiting the upper class, did little or no justice to the lower
class, I
opted, in deference to both Western and Eastern traditions, for a
manifestation
of culture and civilization that was both phenomenal and
noumenal, of mass and volume on the one
hand, and of time
and space on the other hand.
3. The mass, volume, and space aspects of
this
culture/civilization complex I identified with the triadic Beyond, the
actual
contexts of religious praxis that, being of 'Kingdom Come' and
requiring the
democratically-mandated prior endorsement of religious sovereignty,
were as yet
beyond the world and its religious status quo.
4. The time aspect of this
culture/civilization
complex was identified by me with the administrative aside to the
triadic
Beyond - in short, with the more political, economic, and scientific
aspects of
'Kingdom Come' that, being of the utmost degree of noumenal
civilization, would minister not only to the space manifestation of the
triadic
Beyond, but to its mass and volume manifestations as well, if, in the
latter
case, to a lesser extent, given the extent to which mass would connote
with
phenomenal civilization vis-à-vis the phenomenal culture of volume, and
therefore also embrace what could be called local government.
5. Be that as it may, 'Kingdom Come' was
envisaged as a three-tier structure of phenomenal (lower two tiers) and
noumenal (upper tier) sensibilities, all of
whose
components would be served and protected from the time-based
administrative
aside of the Kingdom or, rather, Centre proper (which would, in effect,
be at
the furthermost remove from autocratic norms traditionally associated
with the
concept 'Kingdom').
6. In such fashion, it was believed that
stability would be guaranteed as never before, since the structure
contained
within itself the possibility of collateral development on every plane
of life
- mass, volume, time, and space, and not just in relation to one or two
planes,
as has tended to be the case with culture and civilization in the
worldly past.
7. Moreover, the inclusion of truth on the
top
tier of the triadic Beyond meant that not only would there be a basis
for
lasting contentment, as guaranteed by the possibility of genuine
soulfulness,
but that both the knowledge and strength of the lower tiers would be
influenced
and, to varying extents, conditioned by the prevailing value of the top
tier,
thereby sharing in the life of divine contentment to a degree that
would not
otherwise be possible, with predictably unstable consequences.
8. For divine
sensibility in relation to inner metaphysics has not, except to a
partial
extent in the East traditionally, figured in the religious reckoning of
worldly
culture and civilization, with a consequence that inferior, because
phenomenal,
orders of sensibility have been hyped beyond their real worth, allowing
divinity to be eclipsed and subverted by humanity.
9. One need only think of the calculated
avoidance of any kind of religious qualification attending, for
example, the Holy
Spirit ... to realize that such a term was kept purposely vague the
better to
avoid compromising it with wise truth or exposing it, on the other
hand, to a
less than heavenly correlation.
10. For, in truth, the
Holy Spirit as upheld in relation to Christ is anything but heavenly,
being
effectively of the earth and therefore something that, were it to be
qualified
as the Holy Spirit of (the) Earth, would fail to synchronize with
anything
godly, much less sensibly metaphysical.
11. Indeed, the Trinity is in itself a basically
irrational construct that, in leaving the soul out of account, fails to
do
justice to truth and, hence, the raison
d'être of genuine
religion, which is nothing less than realization of the metaphysical
soul on as
sensible a basis as possible - something which can only come to pass,
in any
case, with the assistance of both the relevant, or inner metaphysical,
will and
spirit, viz. the Father, so to speak, of the lungs and the Holy Spirit
of the
out-breath, from which the ego of the Son, the godly self, will recoil
in due
process of self-preservation and, by association, self-enhancement in
terms of
heavenly soul.
12. For such a soul is the redemption and
resurrection of the godly ego, and no such resurrection can come to
pass
without the assistance of both the godly will and the heavenly spirit,
as
germane to the inner metaphysical context of respiratory sensibility.
13. But where there is no meditation of a
transcendental order, no utilization of the lungs and breath, secondary
orders
of God (the Father) and Heaven (the Holy Spirit), by a primary order of
God
(the Son) determined to achieve a primary order of Heaven (the Holy
Soul),
there can be no true religion and hence no godliness that accords, in
its
wisdom, with holiness.
14. Rather there will be godliness according, in
its folly, with unholiness, as in the case
of the
outer noumenal context of metaphysical
sensuality, as
germane to the ears and the airwaves, or, in the case of physical
sensibility,
as germane to the brain and its thoughts, a prayerful shortfall from
godliness
in the manliness, so to speak, of primary (self) and secondary
(not-self, i.e.
brain) orders of man affiliated to earthly holiness of either a
spiritual
(secondary) or a soulful (primary) order, with humanistic consequences
of
religious subversion through man-hype, or the usurpation of God by man.
15. For, in reality, the masculine ego and will of
physical sensibility are germane, as already noted, to contexts of
Son-of-Man
and Father-of-Man, both of which have as little to do with God (in the
sensible
metaphysical contexts of God-the-Son and God-the-Father) as the Holy
Spirit of
Earth and the Holy Soul of Earth (to do) with Heaven (in the sensibly
metaphysical contexts of the Holy Soul of Heaven and the Holy Spirit of
Heaven).
16. Therefore godliness and holiness, whether
primary or secondary, do not come about, least of all positively, i.e.
in
relation to beingful supremacy, except
through the
practice of transcendental meditation, and any reference to such terms
which
does not have TM in mind is crooked and false, being guilty of
subverting
religion and, by implication, truth to suit some ulterior motive, be it
humanistic or cosmic or geologic or whatever.
17. In fact, the negative contexts of 'inner' God
and Heaven are only credible in relation to the metaphysical
manifestation of
cosmic sensibility, i.e. to the sphere of Saturn and its gaseous rings,
and
then in terms of beingful primacy, such
that carries
an antigodly and antiheavenly
correlation, in connection with antiwisdom
and antiholiness, as befitting its
inorganic nature.
18. Negative godliness and heavenliness attaching
to the cosmic sphere of metaphysical sensuality, on the other hand,
being
'outer', could only be logically conceived of in relation to antifolly and anti-unholiness,
and
then
less
with
reference to the stellar plane than to the solar one,
which
alone accords with the metaphysical, and thus the possibility of
negative
divinity.
19. For the stellar plane, affiliated to Venus on
the space-time axis, is metachemical, and
therefore
on the objective side of life, whereby negative orders of devility
in relation to clearness (sensuality) or unclearness (sensibility) are
the
cosmic consequences, with, 'down below', negative orders of femininity
in
relation to clearness (sensuality) and unclearness (sensibility)
characterizing
the inorganic (geologic) chemical axis of volume-mass objectivity, as
between
lunar and oceanic poles.
20. Likewise, nothing organically metachemical, having reference to an
eyes-to-heart axis, or
chemical, having reference to a tongue-to-womb axis, would accord with
masculinity, much less divinity; for here we are not dealing with male
alternatives in relation to Sons or Fathers of a masculine or divine
nature,
but with Daughters and Mothers of a feminine or diabolic nature, with
clear or
unclear orders of spirituality and soulfulness in female consequence.
21. Therefore while humanism errs from the truth
of transcendentalism in its masculine, or physical, concern with
knowledge, nonconformism and
fundamentalism are not even contexts
where association with Sons and Fathers or Holy Spirits and Holy Souls
can be
logically inferred but, on the contrary, contexts that appertain to the
female
side of the gender divide in which Mothers and Daughters in association
with
clear (sensual) or unclear (sensible) manifestations of spirit and soul
are the
objective correlations. They do not,
strictly speaking, relate to man or God but, rather, to woman or the
Devil,
depending on the element (i.e. water or fire).
22. For as surely as air is the metaphysical
element of godliness, whether for heavenly better (holy) or worse
(unholy), and
vegetation (earth) is the physical element of masculinity, likewise
whether in
connection with earthly sensuality or sensibility, so water is the
chemical
element of womanliness, and fire the metachemical
element of devility or devilishness,
whether in
sensuality (clear) or in sensibility (unclear), which is to say,
whether in
connection with purgatorial or hellish manifestations of spirit and
soul.
23. Therefore nonconformism
and fundamentalism are not even, like humanism, shortfalls from the
religious
truth of transcendentalism, but that which, being female in one way or
another,
is contrary to the path of male salvation.
24. In fact, nonconformism
is no less contrary, or antithetical, to humanism than ...
fundamentalism to
transcendentalism, woman being no less antithetical to man, as strength
to knowledge,
than the Devil is antithetical to God, as beauty to truth, both of
which
contexts have to do with contrary orders of organic supremacy rather
than with
anything inorganic, and hence affiliated to the negativity of primacy,
with its
cosmic and/or geologic primitivity.
VALUES
AND
ANTIVALUES
1. Just as fundamentalism is a false,
because
fiery, religion of beauty and love, the devil and hell of metachemical
ego/will and spirit/soul, so nonconformism
is a
false, because watery, religion of strength and pride, the woman and
purgatory
of chemical ego/will and spirit/soul.
2. But just as humanism is a false, because
vegetative, religion of knowledge and pleasure, the man and earth of
physical
ego/will and spirit/soul, so transcendentalism is the true, because
airy,
religion of truth and joy, the god and heaven of metaphysical ego/will
and
spirit/soul.
3. False religions tend to prevail less
because
people or peoples are incapable of grasping the truth (though that,
alas, is
certainly a factor) as because they have some alternative agenda which,
for
them, takes precedence over religion and requires, in consequence, a 'bovaryized' order of religion.
4. Such alternative agendas may be
economic, as
in the case of humanism or, rather, of societies centred in physics,
with a
humanist religious preference; political, as in the case of societies
based in
chemistry, with a nonconformist religious preference; or scientific, as
in the
case of societies based in metachemistry,
with a
fundamentalist religious preference.
5. Whatever the case, it is not God or
Heaven,
truth or joy, which comes first with them but man and the earth,
knowledge and
pleasure; woman and purgatory, strength and pride; or the Devil and
Hell,
beauty and love.
6. That is what
makes
them humanist, nonconformist, or fundamentalist, as opposed to or
distinct from
transcendentalist. But in all cases such
societies or people(s) are given to organic supremacy, and thus to
positive
orders of doing (metachemical), giving
(chemical),
taking (physical), or being (metaphysical), whether in relation to
religion or
otherwise.
7. They contrast, one could say, with
societies
or people(s) given to inorganic primacy, to negative orders of doing,
giving,
taking, or being, which have less to do with universal and personal
virtues or
vices than with cosmic (noumenal) and
geologic
(phenomenal) virtues (antivirtues) or vices
(antivices), depending whether sensibility
or sensuality is
the prevailing tendency.
8. Whichever the case, one would hesitate
to use
descriptive terms like fundamentalism, nonconformism,
humanism,
or
transcendentalism
in
relation to their disciplinary leanings,
whether in connection with science, politics, economics, or religion,
but
rather such terms as materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism;
for there
is all the difference in the world - and even without it - between
these two
sorts of terminology and their proper applicability.
9. Hence materialism is as far removed from
fundamentalism, its organic counterpart, as ugliness and hatred from
beauty and
love, or what could be called the Antidevil
and Antihell from the Devil and Hell, as
germane not to an
eyes-heart axis but to a stellar-Venusian
axis within
space-time objectivity.
10. Hence realism is as far removed from nonconformism, its organic counterpart, as
weakness and
humility from strength and pride, or what could be called antiwoman
and antipurgatory from woman and
purgatory, as
germane not to a tongue-womb axis but to a lunar-oceanic axis within
volume-mass objectivity.
11. Hence naturalism is as far removed from
humanism, its organic counterpart, as ignorance and pain from knowledge
and
pleasure, or what could be called antiman
and
anti-earth from man and earth, as germane not to a penis-brain axis but
to a
terrestrial-Martian axis within mass-volume subjectivity.
12. Hence, finally, idealism is as far removed
from transcendentalism, its organic counterpart, as falsity and woe
from truth
and joy, or what could be called Antigod
and Antiheaven from God and Heaven, as
germane not to an
ears-lungs axis but to a solar-Saturnian
axis
within time-space subjectivity.
13. One cannot therefore use terms like
fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism,
and
transcendentalism in relation to anything cosmic and/or geologic, since
such terms
have specific applicability to universal and/or personal factors having
reference to positive, or supreme, manifestations of doing, giving,
taking, and
being (in that order).
14. Conversely, one cannot use terms like
materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism in relation to anything
universal and/or personal, since such terms have specific applicability
to
cosmic and/or geologic factors having reference to negative, or primal,
manifestations of doing, giving, taking, and being (in that order).
15. Unfortunately, it has to be said that
industrial and post-industrial modernity is more sympathetic to
inorganic
primacy than to organic supremacy, in consequence of which materialism
tends to
prevail at fundamentalism's expense; realism to prevail at nonconformism's
expense; naturalism to prevail at humanism's expense; and idealism to
prevail
at transcendentalism's expense.
16. The social corollary of this is that antivalues in both vice (sensuality) and virtue
(sensibility) tend to prevail at the expense of everything organically
valuable, be it in sensuality or in sensibility, and that ugliness and
hatred
take precedence over beauty and love; that weakness and humility take
precedence over strength and pride; that ignorance and pain take
precedence over
knowledge and pleasure; and, last but hardly least, that falsity
(illusion) and
woe take precedence over truth and joy.
THE
NATURE
OF
JUDGEMENT
1. One could argue that the above is not
universally the case, neither in any given country nor in the world at
large,
but it would be difficult to seriously maintain that it didn't
characterize the
drift of, in particular, Western society and societies heavily
influenced by
the West, especially with reference to what could be called
Anglo-American
imperialism.
2. For the drift of Protestant countries
and
Protestant-dominated societies from sensual manifestations of organic
supremacy
to sensual manifestations of inorganic primacy is more characteristic
of the
past two-three hundred years than would be the consolidation of
supremacy, and
hence of religious sensibility, at primacy's expense.
3. On the contrary, everything points, in
the
secularization of Western society, towards a cosmic and/or geologic
primacy in
which the negativity of materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism
sits
enthroned, with materialism and realism especially characteristic, in
their
female objectivity, of
4. This is what characterizes the greater
proportion, one could say, of the modern world, and this is what makes
modern
life so difficult for creatures who, being organic, are supposed to be
positive, but so often find themselves succumbing, under inorganic
pressures,
to the negativity of primacy, with predictably divisive consequences.
5. For that which goes contrary to Nature,
to
the respective natures of fundamentalism (unnatural), nonconformism
(supernatural), humanism (natural), and transcendentalism (subnatural),
brings not the positivity of organic
supremacy, be it
in relation to beauty/love, strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, or
truth/joy,
but rather the negativity of inorganic primacy, be it in relation to
ugliness/hatred, weakness/humility, ignorance/pain, or falsity/woe.
6. Only countries and societies who still
cling,
no matter how tenuously, to organic supremacy can expect to progress to
'Kingdom Come', which is to say, to the holy/unclear positivity
of sensible manifestations of mass, volume, and space, as germane to
the triadic
Beyond, and to a sensible manifestation of time, as germane to its
administrative aside in the Centre proper.
7. At present,
such
countries and societies will be more sensually supreme than sensibly
supreme,
for sensual evil and folly is everywhere pretty much the order of the
day, and
few are those who can escape it or consistently live according to
superior
criteria.
8. But salvation
and/or
damnation, depending on gender, to the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come'
presupposes a sensual bias such that warrants rejection and
repudiation, come
Judgement.
9. For this to happen, the people of such
countries will have to be granted the opportunity, as electorate, to
vote for
religious sovereignty and thus, in effect, for an end to the type of
society
(worldly) which is responsible for encouraging and maintaining a
sensual bias,
a sensual hegemony in heathenistic
immorality, in
order that it may be effectively rejected and replaced by 'Kingdom
Come'.
10. The reader familiar with my works, especially
the highest and most progressive of them, will know that I equate
'Kingdom
Come' not only with a triadic Beyond and its administrative aside but,
more
concretely, with the coming together of certain countries into a
federation of
Social Transcendentalist Centres, or societies characterized by
religious
sovereignty.
11. Especially entitled to such a federation,
initially, would be the Gaelic countries of Ireland, Scotland, and
Wales, with
the possibility, in consequence, of what has been provisionally termed
a Gaelic
federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, should each, or two or more
of
these countries, democratically opt for religious sovereignty and an
end to the
'sins and/or punishments of the world' which political sovereignty, in
particular, but also judicial and economic sovereignties are largely
responsible for maintaining.
12. For only when the People elect, under Social
Transcendentalist guidance, to exchange political sovereignty for
religious
sovereignty will there be any prospect of deliverance from the sensual
bias of
the worldly status quo to the sensible bias of 'Kingdom Come', and the
beginnings, in consequence, of a new and altogether superior order of
civilization and culture such that would be, or become in due course,
beyond
the immoral backsliding to a barbarous/philistine hegemony which
characterizes
the contemporary West, both organically and, more viciously still,
inorganically, in relation, that is to say, to negative orders of
sensuality.
THE
STRUGGLE
FOR
SENSIBILITY
1. Of course, there is sensibility within
inorganic primacy no less than within organic supremacy, but there,
too,
sensibility - and therefore negative orders of morality, rightness,
binding,
etc. - tends to be the exception to the general rule, since the drift
of things
from organic supremacy to inorganic primacy was - and continues to be -
characterized by a sensual bias, as especially applicable to
Protestantism and
the gradual erosion of religious or, better, ecclesiastical values by
their
secular counterparts.
2. We who live in the modern, secular world
of
the early twenty-first century are subject to the prevalence of
sensuality -
and hence moral wrongness under the banner of freedom - over
sensibility in
both organic and, especially, inorganic terms.
3. It may even be that sensuality has
always, to
greater or lesser extents, had the better of sensibility, and that the
latter
only exists for most people as the exception to the general rule - a
rule in
which common sense, meaning sensuality, takes precedence over what
could be
called uncommon sensibility.
4. Be that as it may, and granted that I
have in
the past acknowledged a dichotomy between the lower-class nature
(phenomenal)
of common sense or, rather, sensuality and common sensibility, and the
upper-class nature (noumenal) of uncommon
sensuality
and uncommon sensibility, it seems that life is more typified, for most
people,
as an experience in which sensuality tends to prevail over sensibility,
irrespective of their class or, indeed, gender (although I believe
females are
more given by nature to sensuality than to sensibility, given its
hegemonic
advantages from their point of view).
5. Instances where sensibility prevails
over
sensuality, or outer sense, would be more exceptional, given their
'reborn' nature
and evident requirement of an introspective disposition, whether
physical or
metaphysical, and always as something more typifying males than
females, who
arrive at sensibility - and then more usually on their own necessarily
chemical
or metachemical terms - by default rather
than
through direct, conscious choice. (After
all, what female falls in love of gets pregnant consciously?)
6. Therefore those males who do arrive at a
sensible preference or hegemony will have done so, more usually, at the
expense
of females, and within the framework of a consciously-upheld, 'reborn'
disposition. Obviously such a
disposition would be easier or, at any rate, less difficult to uphold
in a
context or society consciously given to 'reborn' criteria - in short, a
Christian
or similar manifestation of cultural and civilized intent, whether or
not
institutionally underpinned.
7. But for
others,
perhaps the majority hitherto, matters would seem to have been
otherwise, and
it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a sensible hegemony or
prevalent
disposition can only be maintained, as a rule, by doing violence
against the
self, a thing which, for obvious reasons, most people are loathe to
entertain.
8. Which is not to say that most people
won't
endeavour to be sensible, or at the very least pay lip service to the
principle
of a sensible bias in society at large, but that, even with the best
will in
the world, they will be unable to depart the sensual rule to any
appreciable
extent while they remain recognizably human and, just as often, young
and,
especially, female.
9. Modifications, as I think I have already
argued, take time, literally years of pro-sensible pressure, and can
only go so
far on a human basis should there be - as at present - the lack of an
official alternative
will such that would strive, systematically and progressively, for
man's
'overcoming', to use a Nietzschean type of
word, and
for his supersession, gradually and
purposefully, by
post-human life forms with a greater capacity for sensibility.
10. When we look at the
present, and the all-too-prevalent inorganic present not least of all,
we
nevertheless find some progress towards sensibility in spite of the
overwhelming basis of things (inevitably) in sensuality.
Few of us would be content, these days, to
just watch television as though video recorders had never been invented. People may, in the nature of things, watch
more television than videos or DVDs, but they are now able, as was not
the case
before, to opt for a sensible alternative, comparatively speaking, to
the
sensual rule in connection with inorganic primacy.
11. And what applies to videos in relation to
television applies no less to CDs and/or cassettes in relation to
radio, or to
CD-ROMs and/or DVDs in relation to computers, the latter of which tend,
despite
sophisticated progress, to represent the sensual rule of things as the
basis,
needless to say, of the sensible, i.e. CD-ROM, etc., exception.
12. Doubtless it is possible to be able to live
one's life in such a way that sensibility, in relation to the above
media of
artificial sound and/or image reproduction, becomes more the rule than
the
exception, but I would hesitate to believe that most people preferred
to
utilize or were capable of utilizing videos, DVDs, cassettes, and CDs
to the
exclusion of their sensual preconditions in television, radio,
computers, or
whatever.
13. Yet even the small minority who might be
disposed to artificial sensibility to a greater extent than to
artificial
sensuality would only be living negatively, in relation to one form or
another
of inorganic primacy, and be subject, in consequence, to negative
manifestations of culture and civilization such that served as an
artificial or
technological parallel to cosmic and/or geologic primacy.
14. Certainly, such people would be more sensible
than their television, radio, and basic computer-utilizing counterparts
who
either lacked the will or the means to regularly play cassettes, CDs,
CD-ROMs,
DVDs, and such like, but they would still be effectively negative in
their
commitment to those materialistic or realistic or naturalistic or
idealistic
manifestations, necessarily artificial, of inorganic primacy.
15. Theirs would be the binding, the morality, the
rightness, within artificial terms, of the cosmically and/or
geologically sane,
not the comparable virtues of the universally and/or personally sane,
for whom
the sensibility of organic supremacy counted for more than anything
else,
including the morally flawed sensuality of organic supremacy in
relation to the
positive freedom of the 'once-born' fools and devils on whom they had
sensibly
elected to turn their backs, whether literally or in the sense of
having
gravitated from sensuality to sensibility in due process of being saved
and/or
damned (according to gender).
SENSIBILITY
AND
SANITY
1. Hitherto, in works previously dealing
with
this subject, I have tended to equate inorganic primacy, whether
'natural' or
artificial, with insanity, and organic supremacy, by contrast, with
sanity, thereby
correlating the inorganic with the insane and the organic with the sane.
2. Current reflection, however, convinces
me
that the context of insanity is more complex than that, because, quite
apart
from the difficulty of equating sanity with the barbarous and
philistine
manifestations, in sensuality, of organic supremacy, it would surely be
illogical to equate the civilized and cultural manifestations, in
sensibility,
of inorganic primacy with insanity.
3. In short, the distinction between
sensuality
and sensibility, freedom and binding, must surely be the chief
criterion for
enabling one to distinguish insanity from sanity or vice versa in
relation to
either inorganic primacy or organic supremacy, so that both contexts,
whether
'natural' or artificial, become subject to the dichotomy in question.
4. Hence we should
distinguish the negative insanity, as it were, of sensual
manifestations of
inorganic primacy from the negative sanity of those manifestations
thereof
which are sensible, as one would distinguish negative barbarism and
philistinism from negative civilization and culture.
5. Likewise, we should
distinguish the positive insanity, so to speak, of sensual
manifestations of
organic supremacy from the positive sanity of those manifestations
thereof
which are sensible, as one would distinguish positive barbarism and
philistinism from positive civilization and culture.
6. Thus just because something may, in metachemical manifestations of organic
supremacy, be
beautiful and loving ... does not necessarily guarantee that it will
also be
sane. The determinant of that will be
the distinction between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and
binding, wrong
and right, immorality and morality.
7. And what
applies to metachemical manifestations of
organic supremacy should
apply just as much to its chemical, physical, and metaphysical
manifestations,
where strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, and truth/joy can be adjudged
one way
or the other according to whether sensual (and insane) or sensible (and
sane) affiliations
are discernible in any given context.
8. Conversely, just because something may,
in metachemical manifestations of
inorganic primacy, be ugly or hateful ...
does not necessarily guarantee that
it will also be insane. The determinant
of that will be the distinction between sensuality and sensibility,
freedom and
binding, etc., as applicable to either a 'once-born' or a 'reborn'
disposition.
9. Now what applies to metachemical
manifestations of inorganic primacy should also apply to its chemical,
physical, and metaphysical manifestations, where not ugliness and
hatred so
much as weakness and humility, ignorance and pain, and falsity and woe
will be
the respective alternatives which can be adjudged in relation to
insanity or
sanity (negatively), according to whether sensual or sensible
affiliations are
discernible in any given context.
10. With no exception,
all elemental contexts reveal a dichotomy between sensuality and
sensibility,
freedom and binding, which should allow one - barring an amoral
confusion or
transmutation - to distinguish their insane manifestations from their
sane
manifestations precisely on the basis of sensuality and sensibility.
11. Thus salvation (male) and/or damnation
(female) will be from the insanity of sensual freedom to the sanity,
comparatively speaking, of sensible binding, whether in relation to the
negativity of inorganic primacy or to the positivity
of organic supremacy.
12. In general terms it could be argued that
insanity is centrifugal and convolutional,
whereas
sanity is centripetal and involutional,
the one
tending from a vacuum (directly insane) and/or from a plenum
(indirectly
insane) in what amounts to a female/male distinction in sensuality,
while the
other tends towards a plenum (directly sane) and/or towards a vacuum
(indirectly sane) in what amounts to a male/female distinction in
sensibility.
FORMS
OF
COMPETITION
AND
CO-OPERATION
1. Further to the above, one could - and
indeed
should - argue that the kind of dichotomy which exists, in inorganic no
less
than organic contexts, between the insanity of sensuality (outer sense)
and the
sanity of sensibility (inner sense) is also commensurate with a
distinction
between competition and co-operation, so that it would be difficult, to
the
point of impossible, not to deduce a correlation between competition
and
insanity on the one hand, and co-operation and sanity on the other
hand,
whether in negative or positive terms.
2. Certainly competition will be fiercer in
inorganic primacy than in organic supremacy, given the negativity of
primacy,
and one may be sure that objective competition, or competition rooted
in a
vacuum, will be more competitive than its subjective counterpart.
3. Conversely, co-operation will be less
close
in inorganic primacy than in organic supremacy, and we can take it that
subjective co-operation, or co-operation centred in a plenum, will be
more
co-operative than its objective counterpart.
4. Be that as it may, there can be no doubt
that
just as negative competition will be affiliated to inorganic primacy
and
positive competition to organic supremacy, so the female forms of each
mode of
competition, being objective, will be more fiercely competitive than
their male
counterparts, enabling us to distinguish a kind of direct mode of
competition
(freely extensive) on the one hand from an indirect mode of it (freely
intensive) on the other hand, according to whether freedom attaches
primarily
to the not-self (female) or to the self (male), with straight and
curved
distinctions respectively.
5. Likewise, there can be no doubt that
just as
negative co-operation will be affiliated to inorganic primacy and
positive
co-operation to organic supremacy, so the male forms of each mode of
co-operation, being subjective, will be more closely co-operative than
their
female counterparts, enabling us to distinguish a kind of direct mode
of
co-operation (boundly intensive) on the one
hand from
an indirect mode of it (boundly extensive)
on the
other hand, according to whether binding attaches primarily to the self
(male)
or to the not-self (female), with curved and straight distinctions
respectively.
6. Thus not only will female competition,
being
objective, be fiercer than its male counterpart, but it will also be at
its
most competitive in inorganic primacy and at its least (relative to
objective
criteria) competitive in organic supremacy.
7. Not only will male co-operation, being
subjective, be closer than its female counterpart, but it will also be
most
co-operative in organic supremacy and least (relative to subjective
criteria)
co-operative in inorganic primacy.
8. If we think in axial terms, i.e. the
female
axes of space-time objectivity and volume-mass objectivity vis-à-vis
the male
axes of mass-volume subjectivity and time-space subjectivity, we can
broadly
distinguish the inorganic forms of each from their organic counterparts
on the
following disciplinary terms: viz. war and peace in relation to the
female axes
and sport and dance in relation to the male axes of inorganic primacy,
but sex
and spirituality in relation to the male axes and art and fecundity in
relation
to the female axes of organic supremacy.
9. In other words, we shall find a
distinction
between war and peace on the one hand and sport and dance on the other,
in
relation to the negativity, overall, of inorganic primacy, but between
sex and
spirituality on the one hand and art and fecundity on the other, in
relation to
the positivity, overall, of organic
supremacy.
10. Hence not only is there a female/male
distinction, embracing both competition and co-operation, between war
and peace
on the one hand and sport and dance on the other, but war, being
objective,
will be more fiercely competitive than sport, while dance, being
subjective,
will be more closely co-operative than peace, or the sensible
alternative to
war. Both alike, however, will appertain
to the negativity of inorganic primacy.
11. Conversely, not only is there a male/female
distinction, embracing both competition and co-operation, between sex
and
spirituality on the one hand and art and fecundity on the other hand,
but sex,
being subjective, will be less fiercely competitive than art, while
fecundity,
being objective, will be less closely co-operative than spirituality. Both alike, however, will appertain to the positivity of organic supremacy.
12. But of course, in
general terms, war will be more competitive than art, and sport more
competitive than sex, while, conversely, peace will be less
co-operative than
fecundity and dance less co-operative than spirituality.
For competition peaks in
inorganic primacy, whereas co-operation peaks in organic supremacy.
13. What can be deduced from the forgoing is that
just as sanity is preferable, from a male standpoint, to insanity,
binding to
freedom, so co-operation is preferable to competition, and never more
so than
in relation to organic supremacy.
14. For while negative
co-operation is arguably preferable, from a male standpoint, to
negative
competition, it can only be inferior to positive co-operation (as dance
to
spirituality), whether relatively, in the phenomenal context of
physical
sensibility, or absolutely, in the noumenal
context
of metaphysical sensibility, as applicable to the brain and the lungs
respectively.
15. Whatever people may think, competition is
morally wrong (immoral) and co-operation alone morally right, and while
barbarism and philistinism will subscribe to the one, whether
negatively or
positively, or directly negatively (female) and indirectly negatively
(male) or
indirectly positively (female) and directly positively (male),
civilization and
culture will always uphold the other, since civilization and culture
are
symptomatic of sanity and thus of co-operation, and never more so than
in
relation to organic supremacy.
FREE
TO
PREY
AND
BOUND TO PRAY
1. Moral people, whether male (directly
moral)
or female (indirectly moral), will be predominantly co-operative, and
their
immoral counterparts, whether female (directly immoral) or male
(indirectly
immoral) predominantly competitive; for co-operation correlates with
binding
and competition with freedom.
2. Free societies, or societies primarily
identifiable with barbarism and philistinism, will accordingly be those
in
which there is most competition and least co-operation, whereas bound
societies, or societies primarily identifiable with civilization and
culture,
will be those in which there is most co-operation
and
least competition.
3. By contrast to bound societies, which
uphold
the virtues of sensibility, free societies will be awash with the vices
of
sensuality, and never more so than when they are more characterized by
inorganic primacy than by organic supremacy.
4. For while freedom is no more exclusively
inorganic than binding exclusively organic, the worst freedom will be
prevalent
in relation to inorganic primacy and the best binding, by contrast, in
relation
to organic supremacy, whether in terms of males or females.
5. One can well believe that free societies
will
be those in which free will is uppermost, and bound societies those, by
contrast, in which natural determinism predominates; for free will
differs from
natural determinism as immorality from morality, insanity from sanity,
competition from co-operation, wrong from right, and, in gender terms,
females
from males.
6. Thus the conflict between free will and
natural determinism is in large measure deducible to the gender
division
between females (whether diabolic or feminine, noumenal
or phenomenal) and males (whether masculine or divine, phenomenal or noumenal).
7. Females, on account of their objectivity
(as
pertaining to a vacuum) are directly given to free will, and hence
freedom,
while males, on account of their subjectivity (as pertaining to a
plenum) are
only indirectly given to free will, which is the difference, after all,
between
freedom for not-self objectivity and freedom from self subjectivity,
the former
appertaining to the evil of barbarism and the latter to the folly of
philistinism.
8. Males, on account of their subjective
dispositions, are directly given to binding, and hence natural
determinism,
while females, on account of their objective dispositions, are only
indirectly
given to binding, which is the difference, after all, between binding
to self
subjectivity and binding of not-self objectivity, the former
appertaining, in
enhanced selfhood, to the wisdom of culture and the latter to the
goodness of
civilization, as of civility, wherein the not-self is constrained.
9. A free female will, in sartorial terms,
be
garbed in a flounced, or centrifugal, dress (noumenal)
and/or
skirt
(phenomenal),
while
a bound female will be garbed in a tapering,
or centripetal, dress (noumenal) and/or
skirt
(phenomenal), both alike being convolutional,
in
keeping
with
the
objective nature (in not-self) of females.
10. A free male will, in sartorial terms, be
garbed in a flounced, or centrifugal, pair of pants (phenomenal) and/or
one-piece zippersuit (noumenal),
while
a
bound
male
will be garbed in a tapering, or centripetal, pair of
pants
(phenomenal) and/or one-piece zippersuit (noumenal), both alike being involutional,
in
keeping
with
the
subjective nature (in self) of males.
11. Straight attire of a convolutional
(female) or involutional (male) nature
would
doubtless constitute a kind of amoral equation in between the immoral
and moral
extremes of centrifugal and centripetal, flounced and tapering, attire.
12. The 'free', whether convolutional
or involutional, objective or subjective,
directly
immoral or indirectly immoral, female or male, are respectively of the
Blessed
and the Cursed, the former barbarously evil and the latter philistinely
foolish in their adherence to sensuality.
13. The 'bound', whether involutional
or convolutional, subjective or objective,
directly
moral or indirectly moral, male or female, are respectively of the
Saved and
the Damned, the former culturally wise and the latter civilly good in
their
adherence to sensibility.
14. Those who are neither particularly free nor
bound but 'straight', in the sense of dressing or living in between the
centrifugal and centripetal extremes, are effectively of a liberal
disposition
which fights shy of both heathenistic and
Christian
alternatives alike, preferring the amoral middle-ground of a worldly
compromise
in which nothing demonstrably blessed or cursed, still less saved or
damned, is
discernible.
15. To say that such people are hypocritical or
two-faced would be an overstatement, for normally they drift about in a
sort of
tepid limbo between Hell and Heaven, freedom and binding, in lifestyles
that
are neither characterized by free will nor natural determinism but by
the
amoral indeterminacy, so to speak, of worldly compromise, lacking
commitment
either way.
16. Both 'the free' and 'the bound' encroach upon
such people, but they do so from directly opposite points of view, with
totally
different agendas.
17. At the risk of oversimplifying, it could be
said that 'the free' will prey upon them, whereas 'the bound' will pray
for
them.
18. For in the one case, that of 'the free', these
people will be blessed and/or cursed (according to gender) with
freedom,
whereas in the other case, that of 'the bound', they will be saved
and/or
damned (according to gender) to binding, as the world is torn asunder
by heathenistic and Christian criteria,
sensuality and
sensibility, the chaff and the wheat.
SIGNIFICANT
RACIAL
DISTINCTIONS
1. If one takes a universal view of
humanity, it
will be evident, sooner or later, that most people on this planet are
not
blue-eyed, still less green- or grey-eyed, but brown-eyed to one degree
or
another, and that brown eyes are therefore more characteristic of the
human
race in general than any other colour, including blue.
2. I like to think of this racial
distinction
between a brown-eyed majority and a blue- and/or green-eyed minority as
akin to
an iceberg, the greater bulk of which remains submerged beneath the
surface of
the sea as its tip thrusts up into the sky.
3. Humanity, it seems, is
akin to an iceberg, in which the brown-eyed majority effectively live
beneath
the surface of life while the blue-eyed minority thrust up into the sky. In other words, the brown-eyed are akin to
the submerged bulk of the iceberg and the blue-eyed to the lofty tip of
it which
has climbed above the sea level towards the sky, as though from subconsciousness to consciousness.
4. This is, of course, an
oversimplification,
but it strikes me as a credible metaphor for the division of humanity
between a
brown-eyed majority and a blue-eyed minority, the former of which more
often
than not - and especially in the case of dark-skinned peoples - tend to
lead
and to respect a lifestyle that is closer to the earth, more earthly
and
mundane, one could say, than loftily aloof from the earth in some
sky-biased or
'ivory-tower' idealism or, better, transcendentalism which spurns the
flesh the
better to cultivate the spirit and/or soul.
5. Again I am of course generalizing,
which, as
a sort of artist-philosopher, I feel I have every right to do; but not,
I
believe, without due consideration to the facts of life as reflected in
the
world around me, not least of all in relation to north London, which
thereby
justifies me in taking this line.
6. So the airy blue-eyed are akin to the
tip of
a racial iceberg which, originating in
7. And these dark-eyed peoples are more
characteristic, I shall contend, of the world in general, and typify,
it seems
to me, a mundane mean which fights shy, even if unconsciously, of airy
transcendentalism, of too sky-biased an orientation, even of the
preconditions
of that in some crucifixional symbolism in
which the
flesh has been renounced.
8. Mysticism, with them, is never or rarely
pure
and simple in relation to the sky, and hence air. It
is
never
or
rarely - Far Eastern
exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - divorced from the earth, and
free from
some kind of mundane significance, whether sexual, animal, vegetative,
social,
or whatever.
9. It is not the traditional brown-eyed
regions
of the world which uphold the most exalted mysticism, such that fights
shy of
sexual or natural connotations, with or without the aid of the Cross,
but
rather the Christian West traditionally, and then more in relation to
the
blue-eyed regions of
10. For while Nordics and other North Europeans
may have divorced their mysticism, their spirituality, their
religiosity, from
the earth, the Latins and other South
Europeans have,
by and large, persisted in upholding some form of earth mysticism, not
least of
all sexually, which though distinct in its Marian connotations from the
more
deeply traditional earthiness of Africa and Asia nevertheless overlaps
with -
and necessarily blends-in to - those cultures which are more openly
sexual and
natural.
11. Thus the dichotomy between the blue-eyed North
and the brown-eyed South of Europe, while embracing two different
Christian
traditions, one of which overlaps with the heathenistic
world, is only part of a perspective which extends a lot farther south
and east
traditionally, to embrace peoples of non-European and non-Christian
descent,
most of whom would be, or have been, more deeply mundane, and heathen,
than
their Latin or Hellenistic counterparts.
12. Be that as it may, it seems racially
demonstrable to me that the brown-eyed are neither as transcendental
nor as
idealistic as their blue-eyed counterparts, and that wherever a
significant
percentage of blue-eyed humanity are gathered together, as in Northern
Europe
traditionally, there and there alone exist all that is most morally
elevated
and spiritually progressive, all that is capable of scaling the airy
heights of
genuine mysticism.
13. Elsewhere, the brown-eyed have their mundane,
earthly way, or ways (if we distinguish blacks from coloureds of one
persuasion
or another), in heathenistic defiance of
and/or
opposition to a more elevated spiritual order, call it Christian or
transcendental, or whatever.
14. Frankly, I can't see things changing very much
with them; but I can
see the threat to either the existence or the possibility of a
higher culture, a mystical and air-oriented culture, which such peoples
pose to
North Europeans, and blue-eyed North Europeans in particular, by living
among
them, especially if in such great numbers that they become a serious
genetic
threat to their very existence, and not simply an ethical or cultural
irrelevance the very presence of which confirms a moral relativism
which cannot
but undermine moral confidence.
15. For sooner or later interbreeding is likely to
occur - as, in fact, is already happening - and the offspring of such
mixed
relationships are more likely to be brown-eyed than blue-eyed, thereby
diminishing the racial pool of Nordic and/or Celtic humanity, and
turning the
society in which they live increasingly mundane and earth-centred.
16. I, for one, would prefer that, in a hundred
years' time, there were still blue-eyed people in the world, that they
hadn't been
bred out of existence through interbreeding with the brown-eyed
majority,
particularly persons of coloured origins, so that, contrary to my
liking, the
world of that time was even more earthly than today, with sexual and
natural
mysticism everywhere the prevailing ideology.
17. I fear that in some countries, including
England, this process (as it might be called) is already well under
way, and is
likely to gather momentum, both as the coloured peoples breed among
themselves
and subsequently interbreed with whites, in the foreseeable future. For such countries little or nothing can be
done, and they deserve the fate, in a manner of speaking, which they
have
imperialistically brought upon themselves.
18. For other countries, like Ireland, such a
process, for a variety of reasons, not least historically, is much less
advanced, and therefore there is still hope that the process as it
exists can
be controlled and regulated in a manner which will not only safeguard
their
existing culture but, more importantly, enable a new and higher culture
to
develop in relation to what I have elsewhere called 'Kingdom Come'. I include, besides
POSITIVE
RACIAL
CONSCIOUSNESS
1. It is said that the eyes are the windows
of
the soul, and certainly it is true that moods and emotions, not to
mention
certain thoughts, are often apparent to others from a casual observance
of
one's eyes at the time.
2. But such moods and emotions are more
usually
sensual, not sensible, for the more one develops the soul internally,
in
relation to sensibility, the less is it likely to show up externally,
in relation
to the eyes. In fact, the highest and
deepest emotions are best experienced with the eyes shut, since the one
extreme
tends to exclude the other, and sight would only be a distraction from
the
inner emotions of sensible soul.
3. Thus the more essential experiences like
emotions become, the less apparent they will be, and the harder to
detect from
an external standpoint in consequence.
The eyes may be the windows of superficial soul, but they are
more of an
obstacle than a conduit to profound soul!
4. Nevertheless, I have written, at the
risk of
being taken in some quarters for a devil's apologist, of the eyes in
relation
to colour (see the above cycle), and of that in relation to race, since
there
does seem to be a connection, universally demonstrable, between the two.
5. In fact, it would seem that eye colour
is not
merely arbitrary but so deeply connected to race, to racial types, that
it
would be difficult to the point of impossible to imagine no connection
between
the two, and foolish, moreover, to go about the world with a racial
blind spot,
so to speak, as to distinctions of eye colour.
For eye colour, like the colour of skin and hair, tells one
something,
though not everything, about other people, and enables one to formulate
opinions and judgements in relation to them.
6. Morally blind is that man who cannot
formulate opinions or judgements in relation to other people on this
basis,
whether through racial ignorance or political expedience or religious sanctimoniousness or moral cowardice, or
whatever.
7. Yet having well thought-out opinions and
basing one's life on them is one thing; turning against others because
they are
different and then racially and/or physically abusing them quite
another, and
while the former is a mark of wisdom, the latter is the height not
merely of
folly but of evil, and can never be condoned!
8. Whatever colour your eyes or, for that
matter, your skin and hair may happen to
be, others have as much natural right to exist as you do, even if they
are
higher or lower, as the case may be, since that which lives deserves to
live,
provided it is not a threat either to itself or to others.
9. In reality, of course, there are greater
and
lesser degrees of a right to exist, degrees subject to values which
transcend
nature, like income, environment, profession, class, but these are
subject to
different criteria than those applying to natural rights, and do not
revolve
around colour, neither of eyes, skin, nor hair.
10. However, since nature is all the time being
challenged and modified, as well as shamelessly exploited, by men,
there is no
guarantee that natural rights applying today will still be applicable
tomorrow,
whether the 'tomorrow' happens to be a hundred or a thousand years'
time.
11. There is no guarantee, in short, that mankind
will be the same in a hundred or a thousand years' time as it is today,
in the
early twenty-first century, and therefore we cannot safely assume that
differences of colour will continue to exist in a variety of contexts,
as they
have in the past.
12. But if we are determined to develop a higher
culture in countries where, due to both traditional and contemporary
factors,
such a development would seem feasible, then we have got to safeguard
the
criteria upon which such a development can be made, including those
appertaining to a logically-based racial consciousness which is aware
of itself
and certain of its capacities to achieve more.
13. A federation, involving Ireland, Scotland, and
Wales, of Social Transcendental Centres characterized by religious
sovereignty
and the reign of a Messianic 'God-King' (the effective Second Coming of
Christian eschatology), such as I have provisionally identified with
'Kingdom
Come', would have to be consciously Gaelic and aware of its capacities
to
develop ever more transcendentally on the basis of true spirituality.
14. If this is something that the Gael is not
capable of, then it is debatable whether Gaelic would have a cultural
right to
exist. But if, because of a blue-eyed
disposition in the race generally, the Gael is
capable of
such a transformation and enhancement of spirituality, then he should
be given
every encouragement to develop it and to lead the way into 'Kingdom
Come' for
others to follow, in due course. For
only higher races can take a lead in developing Social
Transcendentalism,
whatever the future may hold for humanity in general.
15. Not, then, to squander one's racial
inheritance, but to capitalize on it; such is my concept of positive
racism. For it is not directed against
others of a different race or racial disposition, but is integral to
oneself
and to how one behaves in consequence of positive racial consciousness.
NORDIC
AND
CELTIC
1. To my mind, Nordic and Celtic are the
alpha
and omega of an Aryan racial polarity appertaining, traditionally, to
Northern
Europe, in what is, by and large, a distinction between fair-haired and
dark-haired peoples.
2. Hence the Nordic could be characterized
as
being affiliated to a fair-haired disposition in which pale-blue and/or
pale-green eyes tend to prevail, whereas the Celtic would be characterizable as pertaining to a dark-haired
racial
disposition in which dark-blue and/or dark-green eyes tended to be the
mean -
at least in general terms.
3. Which is not to say that Celts can't be
fair
haired or pale eyed, any more than Nordics dark, while both can be
other than
as described above. But, for categorical
simplification, it helps to establish such a dichotomy, if only to
underline
the alpha/omega distinction which would seem to apply to them.
4. For it seems to me that, since race and
culture are deeply intertwined, and rather like alpha and omega, devil
and god,
it helps to distinguish contexts in which race is primary and culture
secondary
from those, by contrast, in which, granted an omega orientation
premised upon a
more subjective disposition, culture is primary and race secondary.
5. This suffices, I
believe, to distinguish the Nordic from the Celtic; for in the one case
race is
primary and culture secondary, whereas in the other case culture is
primary and
race secondary, the former being primarily Nordic and secondarily
Teutonic, but
the latter being primarily Gaelic and secondarily Celtic.
6. Thus it could be said that whereas
culture
exists as a Teutonic shadow to race in the case of Nordics, race exists
as a
Celtic shadow to culture in the case of Gaels, who are therefore
primarily of
God and only secondarily of the Devil.
7. For race, to repeat, stands to culture
pretty
much as alpha to omega, will to contentment, and accordingly any
triumph of the
will can only be achieved on a Nordic basis, never a Celtic one, since
the Celt
will naturally subordinate will to contentment in his bias for culture.
8. Now were Celts to achieve their
triumph,
it could only be in relation to culture, and then in terms of a Gaelic
espousal
of soulful contentment that necessarily subordinated the will (of the
Celt) to
a secondary position in the overall relationship of race to culture.
9. Hence the Gaelic triumph of cultural
contentment would be the Celtic retort to the Nordic triumph of racial
power
which the Nazis, in particular, were responsible for bringing to a head
at the
expense, necessarily, of Teutonic culture.
10. Such a Gaelic triumph of culture requires, it
seems to me, a Social Transcendentalist ideological precondition in
which
religion is advanced on the basis of religious sovereignty and the
concomitant
development of a triadic Beyond in relation to 'Kingdom Come', or a
Gaelic
federation of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, etc., that
would unite
not only Ireland, North and South, within the heavenly framework of
this
projected federation, but Gaels in general, thereby delivering them
from the
relativity of worldly factionalism and/or schism.
11. Thus in contrast to the Nordic triumph of the
will and subordination of soul which National Socialism was especially
responsible for furthering ... must come the Gaelic triumph of the soul
and
subordination of the will under the Messianic ideology of Social
Transcendentalism, in order that a 'Kingdom of Heaven' may come to pass
as the
effective historical antithesis, in Aryan European terms, to the
'Kingdom of
Hell', the Third Reich, which Hitler and his chief henchmen were
largely
responsible for creating on the basis of a Nordic racial hegemony.
12. Thus whereas the alpha of things European was
built upon a fair-haired, pale-blue eyed and avowedly Nordic racial
disposition
that necessarily favoured the power of will over the contentment of
(Teutonic)
soul, of race over culture, the coming omega of things European must be
built
upon a dark-haired, dark-blue eyed disposition, avowedly Celtic, that
will
necessarily favour the contentment of (Gaelic) soul over the power of
will, of
culture over race, since though race and culture are deeply intertwined
they
are not, as we have seen, of identical standing in every people. The Gael, who is first and foremost a
cultural being and only secondarily a Celt, will triumph over race, and
thus
the will, in his attainment of 'Kingdom Come', wherein soul will peak
at an
all-time contentment germane to heavenly transcendentalism.
TOWARDS
THE
URBAN
CENTRE
1. The suburbs are 'looser' than the urban
heart
of the city, not contrary to it, no, but less centripetal overall. Things are generally more spread out, houses
or dwellings often being detached or semidetached, with the corollary
of more
garden space.
2. But as one approaches the properly urban
areas of the city - and London is as good an example as any - the
buildings
generally stand closer together, and row after row of tenements is not
uncommon.
3. Now imagine what kind of effect this
distinction between the spaced-out suburbs and the up-tight urban areas
has on
people, or, rather, conceive of people as being divisible, according to
environment, between the 'looser' suburbs and the 'tighter' ('thicker')
urban
areas-proper, and you will quickly come to the realization that people
become
the mirror images, in effect, of where they live.
4. Thus suburban people, accustomed to more
space, will generally be less 'up tight' than urban people, or those
who live
in or near the heart of the city, and correspondingly 'looser' in their
morals.
5. For the more centro-complexified
things become, the more centripetal, by a corresponding degree, do
people
become, and, conversely, the less the degree of centro-complexification
the less centripetal, correspondingly, are people, and the greater the
likelihood, in consequence, that how they dress and behave will reflect
this
fact.
6. Therefore one would logically expect
more
evidence of sartorial looseness in the suburbs than in the city proper,
even to
the extent - though this is not commensurate with degrees of
centripetal
difference - of flounced dresses and/or skirts as distinct from
tapering ones,
or of straight or even flounced jeans as distinct from tapering ones.
7. Certainly the evidence would appear to
suggest that the pressures of urban centro-complexification
condition large numbers of people towards tapering attire of one kind
or
another, while their suburban counterparts, though not entirely exempt
from
such pressures themselves, demonstrate greater flexibility in their
sartorial
styles, even to the extent of favouring clothes which, in their
flounced or
flared 'looseness', are not so much less centripetal as patently
centrifugal,
and thus indicative of influences having less to do with the suburbs
than with
avowedly rural or provincial milieus.
8. Be that as it may, there are a number of
grounds (besides sartorial ones) for supposing or even concluding that
environment has an effect upon morals, and that where people live to
some
extent determines, through protracted conditioning, how
they live,
whether for better (city proper) or worse (outer suburbs).
9. Thus I will make no bones about the fact
that
inner-city people are generally more moral, because centripetal, than
their
suburban counterparts, and correspondingly less inclined to yobbish or
lax
behaviour.
10. My own experience would confirm that the city,
with its centro-complexifications, not
least of all
in respect of architecture, is the place to develop the centripetal
orientation
of an omega-point philosophy, and that only in such an environment can
such a
philosophy be developed to its logical conclusions, not in relation to
suburban
conditioning.
11. I was brought up in the suburbs and detested
the city, meaning
12. I have 'grown up' in London, in the best sense
of that term, and although I am far from endorsing the concept of
metropolis as
moral exemplar (least of all in relation to square and/or rectilinear
styles of
architecture), it is incontrovertible to me that London provided the
basis for
my transcendental philosophy, the centripetal orientation of which
would not, I
feel sure, have come to fruition in a markedly suburban environment.
URBAN/SUBURBAN
PATCHWORK
1. Despite the above, the distinction
between
urban and suburban can only be applied on a very general basis in
relation to
any large city; for, in reality, such places - and, once again, London
is as
good an example as any - tend to be a patchwork of urban and suburban
areas.
2. The Greater London Area is, in fact,
divisible into a great many urban and suburban areas, from Sutton and Croydon in the south to Wood Green and Enfield
in the north,
each borough having a principal town (Wood Green in the case of
Haringey) and a
number of smaller towns, each of which has its own suburbs.
3. Thus although on a general basis one can
distinguish
the urban centre of London from the suburban periphery, in particular
or
specific terms even the central parts of London have their suburbs and
the
outer or peripheral parts (as germane to the greater metropolitan area)
their
urban centres, of which Sutton and Croydon
are
outstanding examples.
4. It is not by mere coincidence that each
of
the major urban centres, from Sutton and Croydon
to
Wood Green and Enfield, boasts one or more indoor shopping centres,
thereby
confirming and even asserting their urban status.
5. The three-tier shopping centres at
Sutton (St
Nicholas) and Croydon (Whitgift)
put
most
other
shopping
centres to shame in terms of size and architectural
sophistication. Neither Wood Green (two
tiers) nor Enfield (ground level) can match the above, though Wood
Green is
fast improving.
6. Both Dublin (St Stephen's Green) and
Galway
(the Eyre Square Centre) boast impressive shopping centres, and it
seems to me
that no city or town worthy of the name can afford to be without at
least one
such centre in this day and age, especially as they are fast becoming
the
'heart' and - dare I say it? - 'soul' of urban
life.
SELF-NEGATION
THROUGH
EXTERNAL
MANIPULATION
1. On the subject of soul, or the soul, it
seems
to me that the man who can get emotions directly from himself or,
rather, his
self ... is wiser than the one who tends to rely on externals, like
television
or radio, since the latter habit would seem to reflect a lack of
self-esteem.
2. Few media are morally more dangerous or
corrupting
than television (cinema being one) in the extent to which it sucks the
life out
of viewers by jerking them off emotionally, reducing them to passive
playthings
of what so often transpire to be lurid images and vulgar sounds which
monopolize the mind to the exclusion of everything else, not just the
soul (in
any genuine sense of that term) but even the ego, which is unable to
function
in a sufficiently detached manner to remain critically independent and
aloof.
3. Divested of ego and soul, one is reduced
to
mere spirit and will, neither of which are strictly germane to the self
but
reflective, in female manner, of the subordination of self to not-self,
including not least of all the medium in question, which chiefly
panders, in
its fiery basis, to metachemical
sensuality and thus
to optical appreciation in the form of protracted viewing, which is to
say,
staring at artificial images.
4. Modern life is so greatly in the grip of
images, imagery, image, even imagination, that it is the friend of
appearances
and, by implication, enemy of essences or, at any rate, of those
essences which
thrive independently of imagery ... to the greater glory or, rather,
contentment, in the self, of genuine soul.
5. Alas, the souls which are so
image-friendly
are very shallow indeed, being of that metachemical
breed of essence that takes its cue from appearances and is only
intelligible
in relation to such appearances as the viewing mind ingests.
6. It is for this and related reasons
(environmental, social, sexual) that a majority of modern people are so
crassly
superficial, given the extents to which imagery has control over their
lives
and is able to dictate fashion. For
profundity does not issue from a television screen but is negated by
it, as, in
effect, is the self.
GODLESS
IMPOSTOR
1. Nietzsche's concept of the superman
(whom I
here deem unworthy of a capital 'S') as the successor to God and
'meaning of
the earth' shows fundamentally what a common, ignorant earth-grubber he
was, since
the earth and Heaven are as distinct as man and God, and he who is
bereft of
God or godliness cannot know Heaven, and thus the highest values.
2. Certainly the superman is not beyond
man,
even if he is distinct from the death of some kind of false (presumably
diabolic) God, since, as I have demonstrated in various of my writings,
that
which, as God, is beyond man is akin, in his affiliation with the subnatural element of air, to some kind of subman, for whom the subconscious (soul) is the
principal mode
of psyche.
3. Not only is the superman not
beyond man
but, in his dearth of godliness, in his opposition to godliness, he
even ranks
as inferior to man, certainly to man in his Catholic manifestation
traditionally, who, frankly, is much more the sinful 'meaning of the
earth'
than this godless impostor who, in his supernatural/superconscious
affiliation, is little more than a second-rate - compared to the female
mode of
supernaturalism - illustration of purgatorial glory.
4. Whatever false God or gods may have
'died' in
order that Nietzsche's superhuman 'meaning of the earth' might live,
the most
genuine gods are still, or perhaps only now, very much alive - namely
the
primary God of the inner metaphysical ego, equivalent to 'the Son', and
the
secondary God of the inner metaphysical will, equivalent to 'the
Father',
neither of whom would have any meaning except in relation to a primary
order of
Heaven, viz. the Holy Soul, and a secondary order of Heaven, viz. the
Holy
Spirit, which are their respective redemptions.
5. Thus the meditating 'subman',
the
deepest
and
highest
of men who is really, in his transcendentalism, a
god,
is not merely into the inner metaphysical ego, but uses the inner
metaphysical
will of the secondary God and the inner metaphysical spirit of the
secondary
Heaven, the lungs of 'the Father' and the out-breath of the Holy Spirit
to
transport his consciousness towards superconscious
quantification, from which selfless threat to self it must needs recoil
to self
more profoundly, which is precisely the subconscious essence of inner
metaphysical soul, the primary Heaven, in short of the Holy Soul.
6. Hence, within the inner metaphysical
context
of respiratory sensibility, it could be said that consciousness put
through
unconsciousness into superconsciousness
recoils to subconsciousness, from which
soulful redemption the self
must once again return to ego in order to plunge anew into the relevant
will
and be borne out towards selfless annihilation on the wings of the
relevant
order of spirit, the third-rate spirit, in truth, of the inner
metaphysical
context.
7. For spirituality is not, after all, what
counts for most with metaphysical praxis, but rather the redemptive
emotionality of the soul, which is the raison
d'être of genuine
religion and thus of the godly individual whom we have identified, in
defiance
of earth-grubbing Nietzsche, with the subman.
8. For the subman,
to
paraphrase
Nietzsche,
is
the meaning of Heaven or, rather, the meaning
of the subman, a godly individual, is
Heaven; for Heaven is found
in the subconsciousness of soul, and the
soul is
never so subconscious - and hence genuine - as when experienced in
relation to
the subnatural element of air, which is
the
metaphysical element par
excellence.
9. Thus the connection between the subnatural element of air, specifically with
regard to the
inner metaphysical context of the breath, and the subconscious
(soulful)
manifestation of psyche, enables us to infer not only a per
se
manifestation of soul, but a godly disposition in what has been termed
the subman, the man, par excellence,
of
metaphysical
truth
(God)
and joy (Heaven).
10. So it is the 'Son-God', a primary order of
God, who utilizes the 'Father-God', or the will of his lungs to
breathe, for
purposes of achieving, via the holy spirit of the out-breath, his
psychic
redemption in the holy soul of the profoundest (subconscious)
self-realization,
which is a primary order of Heaven, and meaning, or justification, of
the subman's existence.
11. Verily, the superman is neither beyond God nor
the 'meaning of the earth', but bereft of godliness and even of genuine
manliness, which, having to do with the earth, or vegetative realm, is
less a
thing of strength, still less of beauty, as of knowledge (whether
carnally or
mentally), together with its soulful corollary in pleasure, which is
the
meaning of man.
12. The meaning of the superman, on the other
hand, would have to be pride, since pride follows from a purgatorial
affiliation to first-rate spirituality which, contrary to popular
superstition
or common usage, is less a metaphysical and religious attribute than a
chemical
and political one, as germane to the feminine realm of woman or, more
correctly
in this case, to the supernatural element of water wherein the superconsciousness of spirit is in its per
se
manifestation, and a correlation with the superhuman accordingly comes
to pass,
though never more so than in relation to the superfeminine,
which
manifests
strength
and
pride in per se terms and not through
the distorting
lens, so to speak, of a vegetative (muscular) 'bovaryization'
as
germane
to
the
supermasculine, and hence
to what
passes for that traitor to man, rival of the Devil (false God), and
godless
impostor - the superman!
POWER
AND
GLORY
VIS-À-VIS
FORM AND CONTENTMENT
1. 'For Thine is the Power and the Glory for Ever and Ever ...'
- so runs
the so-called Lord's Prayer, which every Christian has driven into him
from
infancy. But what
power and glory - metachemical, chemical,
physical,
metaphysical? There would seem to
be no awareness of such distinctions.
2. Since 'the Lord's Prayer' has reference,
if
obliquely, to Christ, one can assume that the power and glory with
which He, as
'Lord', is identified is physical, since the God of Christians (Who is
not the
Father [in relation to the Mother and Son of the New Testament], still
less
Jehovah, that unequivocally Old Testament and pre-Christian 'Creator')
is
anything but metaphysical in His adherence, through prayer, to
vegetative
sensibility, the sensibility of the brain.
3. But even physical power and glory cannot
be
associated with one thing, like men, since while power is of the will
and
therefore germane in contexts of male subjectivity to a secondary order
of man
(if physical) or God (if metaphysical), glory is of the spirit, and
only
germane, in consequence, to either a secondary order of the earth (if
physical)
or Heaven (if metaphysical), where male subjectivity is concerned.
4. To associate
both
power and glory with God, as does 'the Lord's Prayer', is to leave
Heaven
without an attribute, since glory has no more to do with God than power
with
Heaven.
5. Power has to do with a secondary order
of God
(the Father) when it is metaphysical, and a secondary order of man (the
father)
when it is physical. Glory, by contrast,
has to do with a secondary order of Heaven (the Holy Spirit) when it is
metaphysical and a secondary order of the earth (holy
spirit)
when physical - at any rate, so far as sensible orders of male
subjectivity are
concerned.
6. Christianity has never been about
metaphysical sensibility, which implies transcendental meditation and a
sensibly godly disposition, but rather about physical sensibility, as
implying
prayer, and therefore Christ is no 'Son of God' but a 'son of man',
which is a
primary order of man, and therefore someone having less to do with
power than
with form, just as the primary order of the earth (as of Heaven) has
less to do
with glory than with contentment.
7. For just as power and glory are of the
not-self in both physics and metaphysics, not to mention chemistry and metachemistry on the objective (and female) side
of the
gender fence, so form and contentment are of the self, and it is the
self which
is primary and the not-self secondary in the male contexts of
plenum-conditioned subjectivity (curvilinear), in complete contrast to
the
female contexts of vacuum-conditioned objectivity (rectilinear) whose
self, and
therefore form and contentment, is secondary and whose not-self, and
therefore
power and glory, is primary.
8. It would seem that 'the Lord's Prayer'
is
given to a female bias in its identification of God with power and
glory, quite
apart from the illogicality of equating
both power
and glory with God, not to mention its failure to identify a specific
mode of
power or glory.
9. In truth, one
can no
more equate power and glory with God than with man (always more germane
to
Christianity, and hence Christ), woman, or the Devil.
One can only equate a secondary order of
absolute power with God (metaphysical) and a secondary order of
absolute glory
with Heaven (metaphysical), thereby affirming secondary orders of God
(the
Father) and Heaven (the Holy Spirit) in relation to airy sensibility,
the
sensibility of the lungs.
10. One can only equate a secondary order of
relative power with man (physical) and a secondary order of relative
glory with
the earth (physical), thereby affirming secondary orders of man (the
father)
and the earth (holy spirit) in relation to vegetative sensibility, the
sensibility, as already noted, of the brain.
11. One can only equate a primary order of
relative power with woman (chemical) and a primary order of relative
glory with
purgatory (chemical), thereby affirming primary orders of woman (the
mother)
and purgatory (the unclear spirit) in relation to watery sensibility,
the
sensibility of the womb.
12. One can only equate a primary order of
absolute power with the Devil (metachemical)
and
a
primary
order
of absolute glory with Hell (metachemical),
thereby
affirming
primary
orders of the Devil (the Mother) and Hell (the
Unclear Spirit) in relation to fiery sensibility, the sensibility of
the heart.
13. Since form and contentment appertain to the
self, which is primary in the male contexts (of physics and
metaphysics,
man/earth and God/Heaven) but secondary in the female contexts (of
chemistry
and metachemistry, woman/purgatory and the
Devil/Hell), one can only equate a primary order of absolute form with
God
(metaphysical) and a primary order of absolute contentment with Heaven
(metaphysical), thereby affirming primary orders of God (the Son) and
Heaven
(the Holy Soul) in relation to airy sensibility, the sensibility of the
consciousness that is into the lungs/breath.
14. One can only equate a primary order of
relative form with man (physical) and a primary order of relative
contentment
with the earth (physical), thereby affirming primary orders of man (the
son)
and the earth (holy soul) in relation to vegetative sensibility, the
sensibility of the consciousness that is into the brain/thought.
15. One can only equate a secondary order of
relative form with woman (chemical) and a secondary order of relative
contentment with purgatory (chemical), thereby affirming secondary
orders of
woman (the daughter) and purgatory (the unclear soul) in relation to
watery
sensibility, the sensibility of the consciousness that is into the
womb/amniotic fluid.
16. One can only equate a secondary order of
absolute form with the Devil (metachemical)
and a
secondary order of absolute contentment with Hell (metachemical),
thereby
affirming
secondary
orders
of the Devil (the Daughter) and Hell (the
Unclear Soul) in relation to fiery sensibility, the sensibility of the
consciousness that is into the heart/blood.
17. Sensible metaphysics therefore presents us
with a distinction between primary orders of absolute form and
contentment in
the self of God (the Son) and Heaven (the Holy Soul) and secondary
orders of
absolute power and glory in the not-self of God (the Father) and Heaven
(the
Holy Spirit), corresponding to inner metaphysical ego and soul on the
one hand,
and to inner metaphysical will and spirit on the other hand.
18. Sensible physics likewise presents us with a
distinction between primary orders of relative form and contentment in
the self
of man (the son) and the earth (holy soul) and secondary orders of
relative
power and glory in the not-self of man (the father) and the earth (holy
spirit), corresponding to inner physical ego and soul on the one hand,
and to
inner physical will and spirit on the other hand.
19. Sensible chemistry therefore presents us with
a distinction between secondary orders of relative form and contentment
in the
self of woman (the daughter) and purgatory (the unclear soul) and
primary
orders of relative power and glory in the not-self of woman (the
mother) and
purgatory (the unclear spirit), corresponding to inner chemical ego and
soul on
the one hand, and to inner chemical will and spirit on the other hand.
20. Sensible metachemistry
likewise presents us with a distinction between secondary orders of
absolute
form and contentment in the self of Devil (the Daughter) and Hell (the
Unclear
Soul) and primary orders of absolute power and glory in the not-self of
Devil
(the Mother) and Hell (the Unclear Spirit), corresponding to inner metachemical ego and soul on the one hand, and
to inner metachemical will and spirit on
the other hand.
21. The sensible secondary God (the Father) has
wise power absolutely, and the sensible primary God (the Son) wise form
absolutely, wise power leading to holy glory absolutely no less
inevitably than
wise form leads, via wise power and holy glory, to holy contentment
absolutely.
22. For the sensible metaphysical ego must plunge
into the sensible metaphysical will and be borne aloft by the sensible
metaphysical spirit before it can recoil, in self-preservation, to self
more
profoundly ... as sensible metaphysical soul, the soul of souls and
heaven of
heavens.
23. The sensible
metaphysical ego relates, as true Son of God, as primary God, to the
lungs and
their will to breathe. He is conscious,
through meditation, of the breath, the breathing power of the Lung-God,
the
secondary God Who has been identified with the Father, and allows
himself or
his ego to be borne aloft on the secondary Heaven of the out-breath,
which has
been identified with the Holy Spirit.
24. But he must recoil from the secondary Heaven
of the Holy Spirit to his self more profoundly, and thus achieve the
primary
Heaven of the Holy Soul, which is his redemption and resurrection (from
ego to
soul, God to Heaven, wisdom to holiness in metaphysical sensibility).
25. Both inner metaphysical power and glory are
for him but a means to the sublime end of the inner metaphysical
transformation
of his self from form to contentment.
For his joy is the ultimate contentment and raison
d'être in the utmost supreme being.
IMMANENCE
AND
TRANSCENDENCE
1. It is
often held that God is both immanent and transcendent, but such a
belief would
not hold with my philosophy, which distinguishes between primary and
secondary
orders of God, or godliness, in relation to the metaphysical self (ego)
and
not-self (will), with particular emphasis upon the inner, or sensible,
context
of metaphysics, wherein both primary and secondary gods are wise.
2. Hence
where wise gods are concerned, one can certainly distinguish, as I do,
between
a primary God and a secondary God, the former of the self
egocentrically or,
rather, egoistically (since consciousness is directed towards
subconscious
enhancement of self via both unconscious and superconscious
assistance from the relevant not-self), and the latter of the not-self
instinctively, which is to say in terms of will. But
this
is
not
equivalent to a distinction
between immanence and transcendence. For
how can the not-self transcend the self?
3. Rather is it
the case that godliness is immanent on both
primary and secondary terms, as God-the-Son in egoistic selfhood and as
God-the-Father in instinctive not-selfhood, both of which are equally
or, at
any rate, unequally immanent.
4. The
distinction between immanence and transcendence is not therefore
between one
type of God and another, 'the Son' and 'the Father' as interpreted by
me in
relation to inner metaphysics, but rather between God and Heaven, the
latter of
which transcends, i.e. goes beyond, the former, whether on primary or
on
secondary terms.
5. Hence
the Holy Spirit of Heaven transcends the Wise Will of God-the-Father in
the
secondary context of God and Heaven, as the breath transcends the
lungs, being
their raison
d'être and
redemption.
6. Likewise
the Holy Soul of Heaven transcends the Wise Ego of God-the-Son in the
primary
context of God and Heaven, as the inner metaphysical soul transcends
the inner
metaphysical ego, being its raison
d'être and redemption.
7. Heaven
is therefore the transcendence of God, whether in relation to the inner
metaphysical not-self or to the inner metaphysical self, for wisdom is
redeemed
in holiness, as joy vindicates truth.
8. The
ego that, become conscious of the breathing process through
transcendental
meditation, puts itself through the will and the spirit of the inner
metaphysical not-self is redeemed in the soul-of-souls, the per
se manifestation of soul, which is
commensurate with a primary order of transcendence.
9. The breath
that flows from out the lungs, as inner
metaphysical spirit from inner metaphysical will, the Holy Spirit from
'the
Father', is commensurate with a secondary order of transcendence, since
it is
germane to a secondary immanence.
10. Both
the secondary immanence of God-the-Father and the secondary
transcendence ...
of the Holy Spirit of Heaven are means for the primary immanence ... of
God-the-Son to achieve the primary transcendence ... of the Holy Soul
of
Heaven, which is the
transcendence-of-transcendences
and heaven-of-heavens.
11. One
meditates, as a primary God, in order to achieve resurrection of the
self from
ego to soul, thereby enhancing the self in terms of its attainment, on
a
cyclical basis, to primary Heaven.
12. This
is the ultimate self-interest, the ultimate egoism (as especially
applicable to
males of a metaphysical disposition), the Wise Ego of God-the-Son
destined to
be eclipsed by the Holy Soul of Heaven as the inner metaphysical self
consciously utilizes both the unconscious will and the superconscious
spirit of the inner metaphysical not-self (the Wise Will of
God-the-Father and
the Holy Spirit of Heaven) for purposes of self-transmutation from
godly
immanence to heavenly transcendence of that immanence, which is the
redemption
of ego in soulful resurrection of that which is primary.
FREE
TO
ENTHRAL
VIS-À-VIS
BOUND
TO ENSLAVE
1. The
female can only remain free to exploit her chemical and/or metachemical
not-self in sensuality so long as the male is resigned to being
enthralled by
what she does and/or gives. Should he
become disillusioned with his dependence in this respect he will
gravitate more
closely to self, to the sensibility of physics and/or metaphysics,
wherein he
is saved from the curse of freedom from self, which is enthralment.
2. Freedom
is a blessing and enthralment a curse, but that man who becomes
disillusioned
with enthralment and consciously gravitates, in salvation, to
self-binding will
seek the enslavement of females to his self via constrained not-self,
which is
damnation.
3. The
damned female, whether lower class (mass/phenomenal) or upper class
(time/noumenal), will find enslavement of
not-self to the bound
self of her male, as of males in general, no less contrary to her
nature than
the cursed male, whether upper class (time/noumenal)
or
lower
class
(mass/phenomenal)
will find enthralment of self by the free
not-self of his female, as of females in general, contrary to his
nature.
4. For
whereas females are primarily of the not-self and only secondarily of
the self,
on account of their objective dispositions in relation to a vacuum,
males are
primarily of the self and only secondarily of the not-self, on account
of their
subjective dispositions in relation to a plenum. Therefore
the
male
whose
self is enthralled
by female not-self, whether chemical or metachemical,
is
no
less
removed
from his self-interest than the female whose not-self
is
enslaved by male self ... from her not-self interest.
5. Self-interest
for the male entails binding to self in sensibility; not-self interest
for the
female entails freedom of not-self in sensuality. That
which
is
advantageous
to the one gender
becomes disadvantageous to the other, and vice versa.
6. Deliverance
from enslavement of not-self to binding to freedom for not-self
interest is
what most suits females; deliverance from enthralment of self to
freedom to
binding in self-interest is what most suits males.
For females prefer being blessed, in heathenistic
fashion, with freedom over males than being
delivered, contrary to not-self interest, to enslavement under males,
whereas
males prefer being saved, in Christian fashion, to binding over females
than
being cursed, contrary to self-interest, by enthralment under females.
7. Just
as enslavement for females is a binding of not-self, the paradoxical
placing of
constraints upon freedom of not-self action, so enthralment for males
is a
paradoxical freedom from self, an escape from self through the
dispersal,
centrifugally, of binding.
8. Since the
subjectivity of their disposition ensures that
self-interest is of more applicability to males than denial of self
through the
secondary freedom, the indirect freedom, of enthralment, the male who
denies
his self-interest in sensuality always risks being torn apart by the
objective
object of his enthralment.
9. Since
the objectivity of their disposition ensures that not-self interest is
of more
applicability to females than denial of not-self through the secondary
binding,
the indirect binding, of enslavement, the female who denies her
not-self in
sensibility always risks being eclipsed or upstaged by the subjective
subject
of her enslavement.
10. Females
are selfishly dominated by males in sensibility, becoming unto a
'second sex',
whereas males are not-selfishly dominated by females in sensuality,
whereupon
they likewise become akin to a 'second sex'.
11. Those who, as
females, are dominated by binding in
sensibility are damned, whereas those who, as males, are dominated by
freedom
in sensuality are cursed.
12. Conversely,
those who, as males, dominate through binding to self in sensibility
are saved,
whereas those who, as females, dominate through freedom of not-self in
sensuality are blessed.
13. Blessed
with freedom (for not-self) and damned by enslavement (of not-self),
females
will tend to prefer the former to the latter, even though this means
that the
evil of barbarism takes precedence, in freedom, over the goodness of
civilization with them, as of vice over virtue.
14. Saved
by binding (to self) and cursed with enthralment (of self), males will
tend to
prefer the former to the latter, thereby permitting the wisdom of
culture to
take precedence over the folly of philistinism, as of virtue over vice.
15. For
while freedom has intimate connections with barbarism (in relation to
not-self)
for females and with philistinism (in relation to self) for males, the
former
directly immoral and therefore criminal but the latter indirectly
immoral and
therefore sinful, binding has no less intimate connections with culture
(in
relation to self) for males and with civilization (in relation to
not-self) for
females, the former directly moral and therefore graceful but the
latter
indirectly moral and therefore punishing.
16. The
good female, whether phenomenally relative or noumenally
absolute, woman or devil, will be more identifiable with civilization
than with
barbarism, and thus with punishment than with crime, while the wise
male,
whether phenomenally relative or noumenally
absolute,
man or god, will be more identifiable with culture than with
philistinism, and
thus with grace than with sin.
17. Culture
requires the support of civilization, as wisdom of goodness, and
therefore the
oppression of females in terms of the paradoxical placement of sensible
constraints upon their not-self freedom-of-action, which is primary
with them
on account of their objective dispositions, as conditioned by a vacuum.
18. A society
which is dominated by females, through freedom, is one that is
immorally
removed from culture and civilization in barbarism and philistinism,
and
therefore more characterized by evil and folly than by wisdom and
goodness, by
crime and sin, in other words, than by
grace and punishment.
19. Such
a society, being sensually heathenistic,
is not just
at bottom evil and foolish, but predominantly evil and foolish, with an
incapacity, bordering on aversion, for wisdom and goodness.
20. A
society dominated or characterized by barbarism, a free society, will
make a
god out of evil and a devil out of folly, the curse of the 'free', or
enthralled, male, whose sinful disposition will be upstaged by the
criminality
of the blessed free.
21. A
society dominated or characterized by culture, a bound society, will
make a god
out of wisdom and a devil out of goodness, the damnation of the
'bound', or
enslaved, female, whose punishing disposition will be upstaged by the
grace of
the saved bound.
22. As a male, I would
have to prefer the latter type of
society, and will do what I can to help bring it to pass as a matter of
moral
necessity. For the
barbarous and philistine alternative is something to be delivered from,
not
something to esteem as an end-in-itself.
23. Let
the true end of life be culture and civilization, and may Social
Transcendentalism be the ideological focus for and means by which it
can come
to pass in relation to 'Kingdom Come', wherein wisdom and goodness will
sit
virtuously enthroned for all Eternity!
24. For
that is the promise of 'Kingdom Come', of a federation, initially, of
the
Gaels, and religious sovereignty is the means by which it can be
brought
democratically to pass come Judgement, or the decision as to whether to
be
saved and/or damned from freedom to binding, as from barbarism and
philistinism, evil and folly, to civilization and culture, goodness and
wisdom,
when the opportunity eventually comes to pass, as it surely must if a
morally
sensible alternative to the sensual immorality of the present is to
officially
become a reality and not remain a dream-wish of the disillusioned few.
LONDON
2001
(Revised
2011)
