Preview OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM eBook
Op.
124
OPUS
POSTSCRIPTUM
VOL.2–
Incompatibility
of
the
Intercardinal
Axes
Metaphysical
Philosophy
as
Revised
and
Reformatted
Weblogs
Copyright
©
2011
John O’Loughlin
____________
CONTENTS
01. Debunking
‘Motherfucking’
02.
The
Typical
Manifestations
of
Each Intercardinal Point
03.
The
Representative
Somatic
and
Psychic Antipodes in Each Axial Case
04.
Examining
the
Relationships
between
Nature and Genetics and Nurture and Culture
05.
Primacy
and
Supremacy
Revaluated
06.
An
Investigation
of
Positivity
and Negativity in relation to ‘Pro’ and
‘Anti’
Elements
07.
The
Struggle
against
Moral
Relativism
08.
How
‘the
First’
will
be Last and ‘the Last’ First
09.
Revaluating
Gaelic
Football
and
Hurling
10.
The
Natural
and
Cultural
Alternatives of Sensuality and Sensibility
11.
Antitheses
Exclude,
Polarities
Attract
12.
Contrasting
Left-
and
Right-wing
Values
13.
Why
Beauty
is
not
Truth and Truth not Beauty
14.
Heat
and
Motion
vis-à-vis
Light and Force
15.
The
Incompatibility
of
Beauty
and Truth
16.
A
Deeper
Analysis
of
the Relationship between Beauty and Truth
17.
An
Analysis
of
the
Relationship between Strength and Knowledge
18.
A
More
Comprehensive
Assessment
of Heat, Light, Motion and Force
19.
Contrasting
Heat
with
Light
in Sensuality and Sensibility
________________
DEBUNKING
‘MOTHERFUCKING’. Just as
the expression 'sonofabitch' is somewhat logically dubious (as already
explained in a previous entry), so is the expression 'motherfucker'
likewise;
although used in the sense of someone who 'fucks' a 'mother', whoever
she may
be, it undoubtedly makes perfect sense. But in terms of a
position on the
intercardinal axial compass - forget it! Having already
identified the
position of 'mothers' with metachemistry in noumenal objectivity and
chemistry
in phenomenal objectivity, I can safely say that 'motherfucking' would
not be
verbally relevant to either, even if one could, in slang jargon, resort
to
expressions like 'motherfrigging', and hence 'motherfrigger' in the one
case,
that of metachemistry, and 'mothersucking', and hence 'mothersucker',
in the
other case, that of chemistry. For 'frigging' and 'sucking' are
no less
germane to noumenal and phenomenal objectivity than 'snogging' and
'fucking' to
their sensible counterparts in noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity,
where we
are concerned with metaphysics and physics, those male hegemonic
realities
identifiable with 'fathers' and 'sons' rather than with 'mothers' or
'daughters'. Obviously one could argue in favour of
anti-positions, as it
were, for any hegemonic position, be it sensual or sensible in noumenal
or
phenomenal class terms, but even then 'antimothers', for example, would
have to
be equated with either 'antifrigging' or 'antisucking', their antimale
counterparts with either 'antisnogging' or 'antifucking'. So,
other than
in terms of someone who 'fucks' a 'mother', the expression
'motherfucker' is as
inept as its verbal transmutation, and in no sense to be taken
literally.
THE
TYPICAL
MANIFESTATIONS
OF
EACH
INTERCARDINAL POINT. Although all four points of our intercardinal
axial compass, viz. northwest, southeast, northeast and southwest, are
divisible between soma and psyche (body and mind) on either a
mother/daughter
(coupled to antison/antifather) or a father/son (coupled to
antidaughter/antimother) basis, in practice each point is chiefly
characterized
by just two such metaphorical illustrations of soma or psyche, whether
free or
bound, in consequence of the prevailing influence, whether
unequivocally or
equivocally hegemonic, of the conditioning gender. Hence in the
case of
metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the
intercardinal
axial compass we find a context typified, in primary and secondary
vein, by a
mother/antison manifestation of state-hegemonic criteria; in the case
of
physics and antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass we
find a
context typified, in secondary and primary vein, by a son/antimother
manifestation of state-hegemonic criteria - the overall axial polarity
of
mother to antimother constitutive of primary and antison to son
secondary
state-hegemonic criteria. In the case of metaphysics over
antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
however, we find a context typified, in primary and secondary vein, by
a
father/antidaughter manifestation of church-hegemonic criteria; in the
case of chemistry
and antiphysics at the southwest point of the said compass we find a
context
typified, in secondary and primary vein, by a daughter/antifather
manifestation
of church-hegemonic criteria - the overall axial polarity of father to
antifather constitutive of primary and antidaughter to daughter
secondary
church-hegemonic criteria (at least in traditional terms). Hence
in
overall general terms, mother and antison line up against antimother
and son on
the state-hegemonic (but also church-subordinate) axis, whereas father
and
antidaughter line up against antifather and daughter on the
church-hegemonic
(but also state-subordinate) axis.
THE
REPRESENTATIVE
SOMATIC
AND
PSYCHIC
EXAMINING
THE
RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN
NATURE
AND GENETICS AND NURTURE AND CULTURE. Today I
want to say a few words about the relationships between nature and
genetics on
the one hand, and nurture and culture on the other. For it seems
to me
that while nature and nurture are common to all, genetics and culture
are more particular
or individualistic, pretty much as the male - as opposed to female -
input into
both soma and psyche. Anyway, let us say that while nature is the
basis
of genetic modifications, all arms being pretty much alike but each
person's
arms being unique to that person alone, so nurture, to move from soma
to
psyche, is the basis of culture, since while you can lead a horse to
water you
can't make him drink, as the saying goes, and no amount of instruction
in
reading and writing will inevitably turn a man, shall we say, into a
writer,
who is culturally more than the sum of his nurtured parts, so to
speak.
But if nature and nurture are more general than particular, more
objective than
subjective, then genetics and culture must owe more, as suggested
above, to the
male side of life than to its female side, in view of the extents to
which they
reflect the particular subjectively, being the product of
individualism.
My arm is not the same as your arm, even though all arms, as products
of
nature, are pretty much alike, and the reason for that is genetic
inheritance. Likewise, my thinking is not the same as your
thinking, even
though all thoughts, as products of nurture, are pretty similar in
their
cerebral fundamentals. Yet the distinction between nature and
genetics on
the one hand and nurture and culture on the other would indicate that
females
have an input into psyche no less than males into soma, even if on
opposite
terms such that we have identified with the general and the particular,
nature
and nurture in the case of females and genetics and culture in the case
of
males, the former options objectively general, and therefore
collective; the
latter ones subjectively particular, and therefore individual, a
particle/wavicle dichotomy between determinism and freedom (which is
genetic
and/or cultural freedom from determinism and therefore from nature
and/or
nurture, according as to whether somatic or psychic factors are
paramount).
PRIMACY
AND
SUPREMACY
REVALUATED. Just as we
distinguish between sensual and
sensible, alpha and omega, outer and inner, so we should distinguish
between
primal and supreme on a like basis, but with a further distinction
between
antisupremacy and antiprimacy, as in antisupremacy under primacy and
antiprimacy under supremacy, the former germane to either noumenal or
phenomenal sensuality, the latter to their sensible counterparts.
Hence
not only primacy and supremacy as alpha and omega, but antisupremacy as
anti-omega and antiprimacy as anti-alpha, with something like doing and
antibeing
lining up in noumenal sensuality and antisensibility against taking and
antigiving in phenomenal sensibility and antisensuality where
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria in respect of a polar
antithesis between the northwest and the southeast points of the
intercardinal
axial compass are concerned, and, conversely, giving and antitaking
lining up
in phenomenal sensuality and antisensibility against being and
antidoing in
noumenal sensibility and antisensuality where
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial criteria in respect of a polar antithesis between the southwest
and
northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass are
concerned. Hence
doing over antibeing as noumenal primacy over noumenal antisupremacy at
the
space/antitime northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, but
taking
over antigiving as phenomenal supremacy over phenomenal antiprimacy at
the
mass/antivolume southeast point of the said compass. Hence, too,
giving
over antitaking as phenomenal primacy over phenomenal antisupremacy at
the
volume/antimass southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, but
being
over antidoing as noumenal supremacy over noumenal antiprimacy at the
time/antispace northeast point of the said compass. Therefore
metachemical
primacy, in noumenally objective doing, over antimetaphysical
antisupremacy, in
noumenally antisubjective antibeing, will contrast with physical
supremacy, in
phenomenally subjective taking, over antichemical antiprimacy, in
phenomenally
anti-objective antigiving, where the northwest-southeast antithesis of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria is concerned, whereas
chemical primacy, in phenomenally objective giving, over antiphysical
antisupremacy, in phenomenally antisubjective antitaking, will contrast
with
metaphysical supremacy, in noumenally subjective being, over
antimetachemical
antiprimacy, in noumenally anti-objective antidoing, where the
southwest-northeast antithesis of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial
criteria is concerned. Today the latter axis is, thanks to the
post-worldly prevalence of the former one, much less prevalent than
previously;
but its revolutionary overhaul and 'resurrection' is just a matter of
time, and
one will then witness a growing trend towards metaphysical supremacy
and
antimetachemical antiprimacy as the antiphysical antisupreme are saved
and the
chemical primal counter-damned to their respective gender destinies at
the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, leaving their lowly
fates
at the southwest point of what, under the influence of contrary axial
pressures
in post-worldly society, was less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
than
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate far behind them.
AN
INVESTIGATION
OF
POSITIVITY
AND
NEGATIVITY IN RELATION TO ‘PRO’ AND ‘ANTI’ ELEMENTS. Formerly,
when I wrote about metachemistry over antimetaphysics vis-à-vis
metaphysics
over antimetachemistry on the one hand and, 'down below', chemistry
over
antiphysics vis-à-vis physics over antichemistry on the other hand, it
was on a
basis that was often overly partial to the inner at the expense of the
outer
forms of both the sensual and sensible antitheses. One might have
got the
impression that beauty and truth 'hung together' the way that God and
the Antidevil
were found to do in metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast
point
of the intercardinal axial compass or, antithetically, that ugliness
and
illusion did likewise in respect of the Devil and Antigod at its
northwest
point. But that would, I now believe, have been far from the
case!
For is not metachemistry over antimetaphysics symptomatic of a plus
over a
minus, so to speak, with metaphysics over antimetachemistry likewise
exemplifying, as in the contrast between God and the Antidevil, such a
dichotomy? But when we speak of pluses and minuses we must beware
of
making a simple positive/negative dichotomy, as though metachemistry or
metaphysics were always positive and their upended gender counterparts
negative. It seems to me that each element, whether hegemonic or
subordinate, as well as whether noumenal (as in the above-mentioned
examples)
or phenomenal, is divisible into a positive and a negative, whether in
soma or
psyche, and that we should therefore distinguish between what could be
called
pro-positive and pro-negative options in the hegemonic cases from
anti-positive
and anti-negative options in the cases of the subordinate elements or,
more
correctly, anti-elements, as though one were distinguishing between
pro-metachemistry and anti-metaphysics, pro-metaphysics and
anti-metachemistry,
as well as, in the phenomenal contexts, between pro-chemistry and
anti-physics,
pro-physics and anti-chemistry. For then one has two approaches,
as
before, to each element/anti-element, corresponding, again as before,
to soma
or psyche, but with a different emphasis depending on the gender
orientation of
the element/anti-element concerned. For is not this distinction
between
positivity and negativity really one of freedom and binding? Is
not that
which is free, whether somatically in sensuality or psychically in
sensibility,
positive, compared or, rather, contrasted to whatever is bound, whether
psychically in sensuality or somatically in sensibility, which then
becomes its
negative corollary? Let us investigate this hypothesis today,
since I
have spent most of the preceding evening and even much of the night
mulling
over this problem and have now convinced myself of its solution.
Metachemistry or, better, pro-metachemistry over anti-metaphysics is
the
context of free soma and bound psyche on the noumenal planes of space
and
anti-time, and therefore we should speak of beauty and love in
connection with
pro-metachemical free soma and ugliness and hatred in connection with
pro-metachemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer
and
inner sensual modes of pro-metachemical positivity and negativity,
while
contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of
anti-illusion and anti-woe in connection with anti-metaphysical free
soma and
anti-truth and anti-joy in connection with anti-metaphysical bound
psyche, as
though in a distinction between outer and inner sensual modes of
anti-metaphysical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair
of which
may well be quasi-beautiful and quasi-loving while the latter pair are
pseudo-ugly and pseudo-hateful. Be that as it may, metaphysics
or,
better, pro-metaphysics over anti-metachemistry is the context of free
psyche
and bound soma on the noumenal planes of time and anti-space, and
therefore we
should speak of truth and joy in connection with pro-metaphysical free
psyche
and illusion and woe in connection with pro-metaphysical bound soma, as
though
in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of
pro-metaphysical positivity
and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the
subordinate
anti-element of anti-ugliness and anti-hate in connection with
anti-metachemical free psyche and anti-beauty and anti-love in
connection with
anti-metachemical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner
and
outer sensible modes of anti-metachemical anti-negativity and
anti-positivity,
the former pair of which may well be quasi-truthful and quasi-joyful
while the
latter pair are pseudo-illusory and pseudo-woeful. However that
may be,
let us briefly turn from the noumenal planes to their phenomenal
counterparts,
beginning with chemistry or, better, pro-chemistry over anti-physics in
the
context of free soma and bound psyche on the phenomenal planes of
volume and anti-mass,
which should lead us to speak of strength and pride in connection with
pro-chemical free soma and weakness and humility in connection with
pro-chemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and
inner
modes of pro-chemical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this
hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-ignorance
and
anti-pain in connection with anti-physical free soma and anti-knowledge
and
anti-pleasure in connection with anti-physical bound psyche, as though
in a
distinction between outer and inner modes of anti-physical
anti-negativity and
anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-strong and
quasi-proud while the latter pair are pseudo-weak and pseudo-humble. Be
that as
it may, physics or, better, pro-physics over anti-chemistry is the
context of
free psyche and bound soma on the phenomenal planes of mass and
anti-volume,
and therefore we should speak of knowledge and pleasure in connection
with
pro-physical free psyche and ignorance and woe in connection with
pro-physical
bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer modes of
pro-physical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this
hegemonic
element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-weakness and
anti-humility in
connection with anti-chemical free psyche and anti-strength and
anti-pride in
connection with anti-chemical bound soma, as though in a distinction
between
inner and outer sensible modes of anti-chemical anti-negativity and
anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be
quasi-knowledgeable and
quasi-pleasurable while the latter pair are pseudo-ignorant and
pseudo-painful. Consequently we now have distinctions between
pro-positive soma and pro-negative psyche on the one hand and
anti-negative soma
and anti-positive psyche on the other in sensuality, whether on the
noumenal or
phenomenal planes, which contrast with the distinctions between
pro-positive
psyche and pro-negative soma on the one hand and anti-negative psyche
and
anti-positive soma on the other in sensibility, again whether on the
noumenal
or phenomenal planes. If pro-metachemistry is primarily
pro-positive in
relation to the beauty and love of its somatic freedom, it is also
pro-negative
in relation to the ugliness and hatred of its psychic binding; if,
correlatively, anti-metaphysics is, under pro-metachemical pressures,
primarily
anti-negative in relation to the anti-illusion and anti-woe of its
somatic
freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-truth and
anti-joy of
its psychic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender
subordinate
standpoint, one might say an anti-standpoint,
the
hegemonic
point
of view of
pro-metachemical freedom and binding. Conversely, if
pro-metaphysics is
primarily pro-positive in relation to the truth and joy of its psychic
freedom,
it is also pro-negative in relation to the illusion and woe of its
somatic
binding; if, correlatively, anti-metachemistry is primarily, under
pro-metaphysical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the
anti-ugliness and
anti-hatred of its psychic freedom, it is also anti-positive in
relation to the
anti-beauty and anti-love of its somatic binding, for it inversely
mirrors,
from a gender subordinate anti-point of view,
the
hegemonic
standpoint
of pro-metaphysical freedom and binding. Similarly, if
pro-chemistry is
primarily pro-positive in relation to the strength and pride of its
somatic
freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the weakness and
humility of
its psychic binding; if, correlatively, anti-physics is primarily,
under
pro-chemical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-ignorance
and
anti-pain of its somatic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation
to the
anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure of its psychic binding, for it
inversely mirrors,
from a gender subordinate anti-standpoint,
the
hegemonic
point
of view of pro-chemical freedom and binding.
Conversely, if
pro-physics is primarily pro-positive in relation to the knowledge and
pleasure
of its psychic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the
ignorance
and pain of its somatic binding; if, correlatively, anti-chemistry is
primarily, under pro-physical pressures, anti-negative in relation to
the
anti-weakness and anti-humility of its psychic freedom, it is also
anti-positive
in relation to the anti-strength and anti-pride of its somatic binding,
for it
inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-point
of
view,
the hegemonic standpoint of
pro-physical freedom and binding.
However, being equivocal, the phenomenal hegemonic positions, as
explained
often enough by me in the past, are subject to subversion at the hands
of their
subordinate counterparts when axial factors linking the northwest to
the
southeast or, conversely, the northeast to the southwest are taken into
account;
for the switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the case of the
southwest and
from psyche to soma in the case of the southeast also has to be born in
mind,
since this is what makes for either state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
or
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial continuity and consistency, as
determined by the unequivocally hegemonic elements 'on high'.
THE
STRUGGLE
AGAINST
MORAL
RELATIVISM. When I wrote, yesterday, about 'pro'
approaches to positivity and negativity, it soon became evident that
each
positive 'virtue', if you will, had an attendant 'vice' that was its
negative
shadow, and that the division of positivity/negativity into sensual and
sensible hegemonies on either noumenal or phenomenal planes quickly
became
identified with a gender distinction between objectivity and
subjectivity,
appearance and quantity, so to speak, vis-à-vis quality and essence, as
beauty
and love/ugliness and hatred together with strength and pride/weakness
and
humility 'squared up', as it were, against knowledge and
pleasure/ignorance and
pain together with truth and joy/illusion and woe. Such hegemonic
positions, along with their subordinate 'anti' approaches to positivity
and
negativity, meant that there would always be a conflict between
sensual, or
'once born', virtue and sensible, or 'reborn', virtue, as though in a
heathen/Christian struggle between free soma/bound psyche on the one
hand and
free psyche/bound soma on the other. Relativity in these matters
can be -
and often is - upheld. But those who are more or most committed
to
'Christian' criteria will tend to spurn heathen 'virtue' and, in their
fixation
on either knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain or truth and
joy/illusion
and woe, regard the 'once born' alternatives as vicious and therefore
as
unworthy of Christian endorsement. Beauty and love/ugliness and
hatred
are not acceptable from the standpoint of truth and joy/illusion and
woe, since
alpha tends to exclude omega and vice versa on the noumenal planes of
space and
time, and therefore the devotees of truth and joy/illusion and woe, who
are
metaphysical, will tend to spurn everything associated with beauty and
love/ugliness and hate in their determination to live a godly life, one
that,
in complete contrast to metachemical devility, requires an antidevilish
corollary in the 'anti' approaches to positivity and negativity that
have been
identified with antimetachemistry and, hence, with anti-beauty and
anti-love/anti-ugliness and anti-hatred such that reflect a noumenal
antifemale
rejection of noumenal female criteria and the possibility, in
consequence, of
deference to noumenal male hegemonic criteria in metaphysics.
Likewise
strength and pride/weakness and humility are not acceptable from the
standpoint
of knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain, since alpha tends to
exclude
omega and vice versa on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, and
therefore
the devotees of knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain, who are
physical,
will tend to spurn everything associated with strength and
pride/weakness and
humility in their determination to live a manly life, one that, in
complete
contrast to chemical femininity, requires an antifeminine corollary in
the
'anti' approaches to positivity and negativity that have been
identified with
antichemistry and, hence, with anti-strength and
anti-pride/anti-weakness and
anti-humility such that reflect a phenomenal antifemale rejection of
phenomenal
female criteria and the possibility, in consequence, of deference to
phenomenal
male hegemonic criteria in physics. Frankly, beauty and
love/ugliness and
hatred, together with their antimetaphysical subordinates, are vicious
from a
metaphysical and, by extrapolation, antimetachemical standpoint, since
they
heathenistically fly in the face of the sort of noumenally sensible
'reborn'
criteria with which metaphysics in particular is concerned. One
might say
that noumenal objectivity and its anti-subjective counterpart is
superheathenly
unacceptable from what effectively amounts to a superchristian
standpoint and
therefore something to be repudiated and, if possible, defeated.
Similarly strength and pride/weakness and humility, together with their
antiphysical subordinates, are vicious from a physical and, by
extrapolation,
antichemical standpoint, since they heathenistically fly in the face of
the
sort of phenomenally sensible 'reborn' criteria with which physics in
particular is concerned. One might say that phenomenal objectivity and
its
anti-subjective counterpart is heathenly unacceptable from what amounts
to a
Christian (puritan) standpoint and therefore something to be repudiated
and, if
possible, defeated or, at the very least, avoided, since that which, in
Catholicism, is pegged to its lowly southwest point of the
intercardinal axial
compass by some degree, if pseudo, of metaphysics and antimetachemistry
at its
northeast point is in no position to repudiate itself except insofar as
it
accepts a degree of grace and, for females, punishment through verbal
absolution for confession of its sinful and, for females,
pseudo-criminal
shortcomings. However, much as Catholicism would not be able to
make such
logical distinctions as I have noted (and not just here but over
several years
of writing), it upholds an axial integrity which is at complete
variance with
the puritanism of the southeast point of our intercardinal axial
compass, and
even Christianity, in that puritan sense, has to compete with and
acknowledge
its axial polarity at the Anglican northwest point of the said compass
which,
unlike Catholicism, is less affiliated to metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
than - dare I say it - to their opposites in view of its subordination
to
state-hegemonic criteria in relation, more specifically, to the
monarchy which,
in Britain, is anything but Roman Catholic in nature! Yet a
sensual
phenomenalism to a sensible noumenalism in the case of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria and a sensual noumenalism
to a
sensible phenomenalism in the case of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria do not permit of an unequivocal endorsement of sensible, or
'reborn',
criteria, and therefore there is always a degree of moral relativity at
large
in Christianity and, by definition, Western civilization which bedevils
any
attempt to establish, at least on Western terms, an entirely Christian,
much
less superchristian, moral dispensation. Even the Bible, the
so-called
Christian Bible, is torn between Old and New Testaments in response to
a degree
of moral relativity which pits the sensual against the sensible,
heathen against
Christian criteria, in such fashion that, no matter how much some
people may
uphold either knowledge and pleasure/ignorance and pain or truth and
joy/illusion and woe in sensible defiance of heathen virtue, there will
be
others only too ready to uphold their sensual opposites and to do so,
moreover,
with Biblical, and particularly Old Testament, sanction. For
beauty and
love/ugliness and hate together with strength and pride/weakness and
humility
are very much germane to the power and glory, will and spirit, of Old
Testament-based Biblical criteria which, as in the so-called Lord's
Prayer,
tends to exclude the form and contentment, ego and soul, of that which
makes
for what is fully and properly Christian and even more than Christian
in
repudiation of heathen values. Verily, a civilization that is
more
worldly than pre-worldly (netherworldly) or post-worldly (otherworldly)
can
only uphold moral relativism; for the meat of the female is the poison
of the
male and vice versa. Even these days, in what is by all accounts
an
American-dominated post-worldly age, it could be said that
materialistic and
realistic secularity is less about moral relativism than about an
almost
unequivocal endorsement, in the gullible wake of 'feminism', of
heathenistic
virtue in the guise if not always of beauty and love/ugliness and
weakness,
together with their 'fall guy' antimetaphysical subordinates in
anti-truth and
anti-joy/anti-illusion and anti-woe, then of strength and
pride/weakness and
humility, together with their 'fall guy' antiphysical subordinates in
anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure/anti-ignorance and anti-pain, such
that
antichristically fly in the face of ego and soul as they defer to their
respective mothers whose hegemonic will and spirit, in sensual
secularity,
seemingly knows no objective bounds. Hopefully that will not always be
the
case, since males (unlike females) cannot live by bread (or circuses)
alone,
and a time will surely come when the attempt to establish a morally
more
absolutist dispensation will resurrect sensible, if not necessarily
Christian,
values and bring to the earth or, more correctly, the antiphysical
anti-earthly
and chemical purgatorial the possibility of heavenly and antihellish
deliverance from their lowly plight to the metaphysical and
antimetachemical
heights of 'Kingdom Come', wherein truth and joy/illusion and woe,
coupled to
the anti-primacy of anti-beauty and anti-love/anti-ugliness and
anti-hate, will
reign supreme for ever more, putting a 'Celestial City' coupled to
'Anti-Vanity
Fair' end to all that is ungodly and, more to the point, vainly
devilish and
pseudo-meekly antigodly. For the omega, remember, excludes the
alpha, and
the triumph of God will ultimately entail the defeat of the Devil and
all that
metachemically pertains to beauty and love/ugliness and hatred, not to
mention
their antigodly concomitants.
HOW
‘THE
FIRST’
WILL
BE LAST AND ‘THE LAST’
FIRST. When we take into account our new
findings with regard to the respective points and positions of the
intercardinal axial compass, it soon becomes evident that salvation is
from an
'anti' approach to negativity and positivity to a 'pro' approach to
positivity
and negativity such that entails the deliverance of anti-knowledge and
anti-pleasure/anti-ignorance and anti-pain from antiphysics to the
truth and
joy/illusion and woe of metaphysics, as from antiphysical bound
psyche/free
soma (negative/positive) to metaphysical free psyche/bound soma
(positive/negative) in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.
Correlatively, it soon becomes evident that counter-damnation is from a
'pro'
approach to negativity and positivity to an 'anti' approach to
positivity and
negativity such that entails the deliverance of weakness and
humility/strength
and pride from chemistry to the anti-ugliness and anti-hate/anti-beauty
and
anti-love of antimetachemistry, as from chemical bound psyche/free soma
(negative/positive) to antimetachemical free psyche/bound soma
(positive/negative) in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.
Therefore there is a very real sense in which 'the first' in chemistry
shall be
'last' in antimetachemistry, and 'the last' in antiphysics 'first' in
metaphysics. For while males are transposed or transfigured from
an
'anti' approach to bound psyche/free soma in consequence of having been
upended
under feminine female hegemonic pressure at the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass to a 'pro' approach to free psyche/bound
soma in
sync with male gender actuality (of psyche preceding and preponderating
over
soma) at the metaphysical northeast point of the said compass, their
female
counterparts will be transposed or transfigured from a 'pro' approach
to bound
psyche/free soma in consequence of an equivocal hegemony in chemistry
subject,
however, to subversion at the hands of antiphysics linked, in polar
vein, to
some degree of metaphysics at the northeast point of the said compass
to an
'anti' approach to free psyche/bound soma at cross-purposes with female
gender
actuality (of soma preceding and predominating over psyche) in
consequence of
divine male hegemonic pressure in metaphysics. It is not that the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is overly heathen in
its
want of gender subversion; for somatic emphasis at the expense of
psychic
emphasis is not encouraged by a link, no matter how polar, with the
northeast
point of the said compass; rather, when
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria are properly in motion (as they are not, incidentally, in the
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate secularized present of
deference to
contrary axial pressures) somatic freedom is subordinated,
paradoxically, to
psychic binding (which appertains to the church) and the latter is very
decidedly the precondition, for males, of salvation to free psyche in
the
aforementioned metaphysical heights, as though from sin to grace and,
on
somatic and therefore state-subordinate terms, from folly to wisdom,
the
overall deliverance being from meekness to righteousness. Not so,
however, for females, whose counter-damnation is from pseudo-crime to
pseudo-punishment in psyche (bound to free) and from pseudo-evil to
pseudo-goodness in soma (free to bound), the overall deliverance being
from
pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice, bearing in mind that the vain and the
just
converse of anything pseudo and, by a like token, pseudo-meek and
pseudo-righteous converse of anything genuine (or approximately so)
appertains
to the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, where we only have a
right to
speak of damnation from vanity to punishment and of counter-salvation
from
pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness, and then only on condition
that the
salvation of the meek and counter-damnation of the pseudo-vain is so
radically
permanent ... that the vain and pseudo-meek are effectively put out of
predatory
business for want of pseudo-vain and meek prey down at the southwest
point of
the intercardinal axial compass. All this has been described by
me, in
some detail, before, so I shall not belabour the point again.
What
ultimately matters from the standpoint of godliness and what could be
called
the anti-point of view of antidevilishness at the northeast point of
our axial
compass is that the antimanly and womanly are saved and counter-damned
from
their lowly positions, in subverted heathenism, at the southwest point
to
something approaching divine and antidiabolic superchristianity at its
northeast point, without which no end to their exploitation at the
hands of the
predatory superheathen can be envisaged and no collapse, in
consequence, of the
secular fruit of schismatic heresy from northwest to southeast, as
though into
the hands of the subverted Christian who, in judging the damned and
counter-saved according to their own just and pseudo-righteous
criteria, will
subsequently have the benefit of axial transference and the long-term
possibility of salvation and counter-damnation in due course.
REVALUATING
GAELIC
FOOTBALL
AND
HURLING. For years I thought Gaelic football superior
to hurling as though it were the higher of the two Irish sports and the
one
that stood at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as
against
the southwest in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.
But
subsequent reflection led me to revaluate this assumption and to
perceive that
while both games allowed for a point over the bar, hurling was more
consistently the game in which the player was expected to keep the ball
or,
rather, sliothar off the ground with the use of his hurley, the hockey-
if not
club-like stick, and therefore, when other factors had been taken into
account,
including the hurley itself, I came to believe that hurling stood in
axial
polarity to Gaelic football in reverse terms to how I had supposed in
the
past. But that does not make me pro-hurling. On the
contrary, I
perceive in the hurley a parallel with Devil the Mother hyped as God
which has
the idealism, as it were, of a transcendent point over the bar 'by the
balls'
in the sense that such a point stems from a materialistic precondition
in the
hurley itself. Therefore there seems to me to be something
quintessentially Catholic in the noumenal context of the northeast
point of the
intercardinal axial compass which, despite rhetoric to the contrary, is
still
subject to the metachemical fundamentalism and, more to the point,
materialism
of its northwest point in typically alpha-stemming, Old-Testament
deferring,
extrapolative fashion. I am suspicious of this hurley
materialism, and I
feel that it could not be endorsed in a context led by a more complete
and
genuine order of metaphysics that sought to dispose of everything
metachemical
(not to mention antimetaphysical) as it enhanced the northeast point of
our
intercardinal axial compass in the interests of a more complete and
permanent
gender-based salvation and counter-damnation of those at its southwest
point,
who, in the relativity of these things, may well be more given to
Gaelic
football than to hurling. An aspect of raising the lowly up to a
position
of paramount metaphysics (and for females antimetachemistry) would be
the indoor
interiorization of sport, not least in respect of Gaelic football, and
I feel
that while Gaelic could be interiorized with benefit to all who both
play and
watch it, hurling, corresponding to the Roman Catholic noumenal status
quo,
would be less suited to such a transfiguration in view of the much
greater
noise that would surely result from the utilization of hurleys in an
indoor
context. But if Gaelic football was raised up in such fashion,
then it
would not be long before everything traditionally
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
in Ireland was adversely affected to a degree whereby rugby, the
higher, or
noumenal, British sport was brought crashing down to association
football and
football itself was deemed eligible for axial transposition and
subsequent elevation
in the wake of Gaelic football. In the end, only something
approximating
to football, and then to Gaelic football, duly transmuted, would exist,
as
though in parallel with the triumph of everything godly and
antidevilish at the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass. Now such a
hypothesis
may seem wildly fanciful and even a little crazy, but it only follows
the
general inter-axial schema of salvation and counter-damnation,
damnation and
counter-salvation already outlined in my writings and therefore
parallels, in
some degree, that more politically- and religiously-oriented sequence
of events
which I equate with moral and cultural progress. It may be that,
in the
event of a credible approximation to 'Kingdom Come' ever coming to
pass, no
sport will be given all that much encouragement. But that sounds
somewhat
idealistic and, as it were, too dismissive of reality and the slowness
and
difficulty with which significantly meaningful change can be
engineered.
If some accommodation with the sporting status quo has to be made, then
what I
have outlined above may not, after all, be that far off the provisional
mark,
even if, long term, the prospects for any physical sport surviving
could not be
too great. If the lowly are to be raised up, as from southwest to
northeast of the intercardinal axial compass, then those who are
already
representative of the noumenal heights will have to be if not cast down
then,
at the very least, removed and invalidated, since you can no more
establish an
ideology like Social Theocracy without getting rid, in due course, of
everything Catholic than bring the Gaelic footballers to indoor
salvation/counter-damnation without getting rid of that which is so
obviously
rooted in materialism and, hence, an outdoor allegiance which
apparently goes
all the way back, on sublimated terms, to Old Testament
fundamentalism.
Gaelic football and hurling, like rugby and association football in
Britain,
have their respective political and religious adherents in Ireland, and
it would
come as no surprise to me to discover that, when push comes to shove, a
blue
shirt stands behind every hurler that would be quick to pounce, in
defence of
hierarchical values, on radical republicanism. I am not, of
course, a
radical republican in that obviously Sinn Fein sense, but I do
subscribe to an
overhaul or, rather, to the supersession of Catholic tradition on my
own rather
more elevated metaphysical and antimetachemical terms, for which a
democratic
mandate of the concept of religious sovereignty would be
required. For
unless a paradoxical election or utilization of the democratic process
in Eire
does transpire at some future date, there can be no deliverance of the
people
not just from Catholic tradition but from that which has effectively
consigned
such a tradition to an obsolescent status in the background of
contemporary
American-inspired materialism, making them less
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate than deferentially
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-state-subordinate in a paradoxical limbo
from which
they can only be delivered via the successful prosecution of a contrary
order
of paradox such that, in the event of a majority mandate, would signify
the
dawn of a new order of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
criteria
commensurate, in Social Theocracy, with 'Kingdom Come', and thus with
the
restitution of salvation and counter-damnation on terms which, being
synthetically artificial, owed nothing to Catholicism and everything to
its
globally universal successor.
THE
NATURAL
AND
CULTURAL
ALTERNATIVES
OF SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY. Just as the distinction
between the noumenal and the phenomenal is one of space/time vis-à-vis
volume/mass, and therefore of the ethereal vis-à-vis the corporeal,
whether in
sensuality or in sensibility, so we have made distinctions between
metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the
intercardinal
axial compass, between metaphysics and antimetachemistry at its
northeast
point, between chemistry and antiphysics at its southwest point and
between physics
and antichemistry at its southeast point, this overall framework
further
divided into two distinct axes, church-hegemonic/state-subordinate from
southwest to northeast, and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate from
northwest
to southeast. Another way of defining these noumenal and
phenomenal
distinctions is to differentiate the noumenal from the phenomenal on
the basis
of 'super' from 'non-super' (standard), with the sensual differentiated
from
the sensible on a heathen/Christian-like basis which is commensurate
with a
distinction between nature and culture, 'once born' and 'reborn'
criteria. Hence at the sensual northwest point of the
intercardinal axial
compass we shall find that metachemistry is both superheathen and
supernatural
in its female-based noumenally objective hegemony (unequivocal),
whereas
antimetaphysics, its subordinate antimale counterpart, is effectively
anti-superchristian and anti-supercultural in its noumenal
anti-subjectivity. Down from noumenal sensuality, the sensuality
of chemistry
at the southwest point of the said compass will be both heathen and
natural in
its female-based phenomenally objective hegemony (equivocal), whereas
antiphysics, its subordinate antimale counterpart, will be
anti-Christian and
anti-cultural in its phenomenal anti-subjectivity. Across the
axial
divide to the sensibility of the southeast point of our intercardinal
axial
compass, it soon becomes evident that physics will be both Christian
and
cultural in its phenomenally subjective male-centred hegemony
(equivocal),
whereas antichemistry, its subordinate antifemale counterpart, will be
anti-heathen and anti-natural in its phenomenal anti-objectivity.
Finally, the sensibility of metaphysics at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass will be both superchristian and
supercultural in
its male-centred noumenally subjective hegemony (unequivocal), whereas
antimetachemistry, its subordinate antifemale counterpart, will be
anti-superheathen and anti-supernatural in its noumenal
anti-objectivity.
Hence a noumenal antithesis, across the axial divide, between
metachemistry and
metaphysics, supernatural superheathenism and supercultural
superchristianity,
with their subordinate counterparts antimetaphysics and
antimetachemistry
constitutive of an antithesis between anti-supercultural
anti-superchristianity
and anti-supernatural anti-superheathenism. Hence, too, a
phenomenal
antithesis, across the axial divide, between chemistry and physics,
natural
heathenism and cultural Christianity, with their subordinate
counterparts
antiphysics and antichemistry constitutive of an antithesis between
anti-cultural anti-Christianity and anti-natural anti-heathenism.
Of
course, the existence, at least traditionally, of inter-class polarity
between
the noumenal and phenomenal manifestations of either axis is enough to
ensure
that neither the heathen or anti-Christian on the one hand nor the
Christian or
anti-heathen on the other hand have it entirely their own way, since
the
anti-Christian antiphysical can be saved, as we have seen, to
superchristian
metaphysics and, correlatively, the heathen chemical counter-damned to
anti-superheathen antimetachemistry. Likewise, if conversely, the
superheathen metachemical can be damned, in the event of the other axis
getting
its act thoroughly together, to anti-heathen antichemistry and,
correlatively,
the anti-superchristian antimetaphysical counter-saved to Christian
physics. But that is to project into a potentially post-axial
future, and
does not take into account the influence of contemporary secularity on
each
axis, not least the traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
one, which
is in want of the possibility of substantive salvation and
counter-damnation in
view of the obsolescence of Catholic tradition vis-à-vis the burgeoning
plethora of exemplifications of somatic licence of a synthetically
artificial
nature which seduce the chemical and antiphysical from their axial
traditions
into quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference to the
prevailing
ethos. Yet somatic freedom and its corollary of psychic binding
are only
germane to the female-dominated sensual points of the intercardinal
axial
compass, namely metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest and
chemistry over antiphysics at the southwest, and will always be in
opposition
to that which strives to establish a cultural and christianly
alternative to
heathenistic naturalism, be it 'super' in the noumenal 'above' or
'non-super'
(standard) in the phenomenal 'below'. The male-led struggle for
psychic
freedom and its corollary of somatic binding can not now be Christian
but only
superchristian, since it is only from the vantage-point of an
unequivocal male
hegemony (over antimetachemistry) in sensibility that meaningful
deliverance of
the antiphysical and chemical from their lowly positions at the
southwest point
of the intercardinal axial compass can ultimately be effected, and for
that to
transpire nothing short of a democratically-mandated Social Theocratic
revolution in certain countries, including Eire, will suffice, since
the
restoration of the people to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
criteria
cannot be established on anything short of a basis capable of levelling
with
and eventually countering everything that now rains down upon them, in
contemporary synthetically artificial terms, from the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vantage-point of the northwest point
of the
said compass. If their paradoxical predicament of
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference is to be
countered it
will take the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to do
so, and
that will spell the end not only of heathenism in either of its
principal class
manifestations, but of everything that falls short of the
superchristian requirement
for the hegemonic establishment, on a Social Theocratic basis, of
superculture
and, subordinately to this, of an anti-superheathenism which will be
the
anti-supernatural corollary, in antidevilish antimetachemistry, of the
triumph
of metaphysics and, thus, of God.
ANTITHESES
EXCLUDE,
POLARITIES
ATTRACT. Appearance
excludes essence and vice versa to
what, on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace,
amounts to
something like an absolute degree, viz. 3:1, since either beauty and
love (coupled
to ugliness and hatred) triumph over anti-illusion and anti-woe
(coupled to
anti-truth and anti-joy) in the unequivocal hegemony of metachemistry
over
antimetaphysics or, across the sensual/sensible noumenal divide, truth
and joy
(coupled to illusion and woe) triumph over anti-ugliness and
anti-hatred
(coupled to anti-beauty and anti-love) in the unequivocal hegemony of
metaphysics over antimetachemistry. Similarly quantity excludes
quality
and vice versa to what, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and
mass/antivolume, amounts to something like a relative degree, viz.
2½:1½, since
either strength and pride (coupled to weakness and humility) triumph
over
anti-ignorance and anti-pain (coupled to anti-knowledge and
anti-pleasure) in
the equivocal hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics or, across the
sensual/sensible phenomenal divide, knowledge and pleasure (coupled to
ignorance and pain) triumph over anti-weakness and anti-humility
(coupled to
anti-strength and anti-pride) in the equivocal hegemony of physics over
antichemistry. Hence no more than metachemistry is acceptable
from a
metaphysical standpoint ... can chemistry be acceptable from a physical
standpoint. The one gender's hegemony necessarily excludes the
other's. However, the modification of the phenomenal positions
attendant
upon a polar link with the noumenal ones germane to a given axis
ensures that,
at any rate traditionally, the equivocal triumphs of chemistry over
antiphysics
and of physics over antichemistry are subverted in favour of psychic
emphasis
in the one case and somatic emphasis in the other, thereby resulting in
a
paradoxical upending of hegemonic priorities in favour of the
underplane
position, be it antimale in the case of antiphysics or antifemale in
the case
of antichemistry. For on this basis - and this basis alone - is
axial
continuity and consistency guaranteed, whether with regard to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria or, in complete contrast,
to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Hence the polarity
of
metachemistry and antichemistry is one of beauty and love (coupled to
ugliness
and hatred) vis-à-vis anti-strength and anti-pride (coupled to
anti-weakness
and anti-humility) on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms,
with
the polarity between antimetaphysics and physics being one of
anti-illusion and
anti-woe (coupled to anti-truth and anti-joy) vis-à-vis ignorance and
pain
(coupled to knowledge and pleasure) on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms. Hence, across the axial
divide,
the polarity of metaphysics and antiphysics is one of truth and joy
(coupled to
illusion and woe) vis-à-vis anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure (coupled
to
anti-ignorance and anti-pain) on primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
terms, with the polarity between antimetachemistry and chemistry being
one of
anti-ugliness and anti-hatred (coupled to anti-beauty and anti-love)
vis-à-vis
weakness and humility (coupled to strength and pride) on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms. Noumenal free soma
(coupled to
noumenal bound psyche) excludes noumenal free psyche (coupled to
noumenal bound
soma) and vice versa, but noumenal free soma vis-à-vis phenomenal bound
soma
constitutes state-hegemonic criteria and noumenal bound psyche
vis-à-vis
phenomenal free psyche church-subordinate criteria, whether on primary
or
secondary, female or male, terms. Conversely, phenomenal free
soma
(coupled to phenomenal bound psyche) excludes phenomenal free psyche
(coupled
to phenomenal bound soma) and vice versa, but noumenal free psyche
vis-à-vis
phenomenal bound psyche constitutes church-hegemonic criteria and
noumenal
bound soma vis-à-vis phenomenal free soma state-subordinate criteria,
whether
on primary or secondary, male or female, terms.
CONTRASTING
LEFT-
AND
RIGHT-WING
VALUES. Having categorically established a
sensual/sensible antithesis between heathen and Christian values,
whether
noumenal and 'super' or phenomenal and 'standard', I should like to
politicize
the issue, so to speak, by making what seems a commonsense distinction
between
the left-wing nature of everything heathen and the right-wing nature of
everything Christian, so that the dichotomy between, for instance,
superheathen
and superchristian on the noumenal planes and between heathen and
christian on
the phenomenal planes assumes a left/right distinction which will be
either
'extreme' or 'moderate', depending on the plane. Hence the
extreme
left-wing nature of metachemistry at the northwest point of the
intercardinal axial
compass has to be contrasted with the extreme right-wing nature of
metaphysics
at its northeast point. Hence, too, the moderate left-wing nature
of
chemistry at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass has
to be
contrasted with the moderate right-wing nature of physics at its
southeast
point. So far so good! The heathen side of things is, in
general
terms, sensual and the Christian side of them sensible, which boils
down to an
objective/subjective distinction between left- and right-wing
criteria.
The heathen is also, be it not forgotten, of a female and therefore
naturalistic character, whether supernaturally so in metachemistry or
naturally
so in chemistry, pretty much like fire and water, and thus contrasts
with
whatever is of a cultural character, whether culturally so in physics
or
superculturally so in metaphysics, as germane to male-dominated
Christian
criteria having more to do with vegetation (earth) and air than with
their
elemental opposites. But, as we have seen before, things are not
just
equivocally or unequivocally hegemonic at the main points of the
intercardinal
axial compass, with 'pro' approaches to positivity and negativity,
freedom and
binding (as discussed in a previous blog). There are also
subordinate
points germane to the upended gender to be considered, and those
points, whether antimetaphysical at the northwest, antiphysical at
the
southwest, antichemical at the southeast, or antimetachemical at the
northeast,
also require to be addressed in terms that do ample justice to their
'anti'
approaches to positivity and negativity, freedom and binding (as also
discussed
in a previous blog). For that which is antimetaphysical is less
supernatural than anti-supercultural and therefore we have a duty to
regard it
less as a manifestation of the Extreme Left than as one of what could
be called
the Extreme Anti-Right, as though in a distinction between noumenal
objectivity
in metachemistry and noumenal anti-subjectivity in
antimetaphysics.
Likewise that which is antiphysical is less natural than anti-cultural
and
therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the
moderate
left than as one of what could be called the moderate anti-right, as
though in
a distinction between phenomenal objectivity in chemistry and
phenomenal
anti-subjectivity in antiphysics. Across the sensual/sensible
axial
divide, that which is antichemical is less cultural than anti-natural
and
therefore we have a duty to regard it less as a manifestation of the
moderate
right than as one of what could be called the moderate anti-left, as
though in
a distinction between phenomenal subjectivity in physics and phenomenal
anti-objectivity in antichemistry. Finally that which is
antimetachemical
is less supercultural than anti-supernatural and therefore we have a
duty to
regard it less as a manifestation of the Extreme Right than as one of
what
could be called the Extreme Anti-Left, as though in a distinction
between
noumenal subjectivity in metaphysics and noumenal anti-objectivity in
antimetachemistry. Hence no less than superheathen and
anti-superchristian values hang together in devilish and antigodly vein
at the
northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so does that which
is
Extreme Left and Extreme Anti-Right. Hence no less than heathen
and
anti-christian values hang together in womanly and antimanly vein at
the
southwest point of the said compass, so does that which is moderate
left and
moderate anti-right. Conversely, no less than Christian (puritan)
and
anti-heathen values hang together in manly and antiwomanly vein at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, so does that which
is
moderate right and moderate anti-left. Finally, no less than
superchristian and anti-superheathen values hang together in godly and
antidevilish
vein at the northeast point of the said compass, so does that which is
Extreme
Right and Extreme Anti-Left. There is no point on this
intercardinal
compass which is only this or that, in noumenal extreme or phenomenal
moderate
terms. The genders always hang together at the various points of
the said
compass, but always in terms of the upending of the one gender under
the
hegemonic pressures of the other gender, be it female in sensuality or
male in
sensibility, so that both positions at any given point of the compass
have to
be considered and granted due articulation. In general terms, the
Left
would no more be capable of remaining in hegemonic positions without
the
complicity of the Anti-Right than the Right without the complicity of
the Anti-Left.
Therefore I have no doubt that the complicity of the Extreme Anti-Left
is
crucial to the hegemonic sway of the Extreme Right, since that which is
godly
in its superchristian and supercultural resolve cannot prevail unless
all that
is devilish has been antimetachemically repudiated in an
anti-superheathen and
anti-supernatural complementarity which is the antidevilish accomplice
of
godliness and, hence, of the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics at the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass. Without such
a
hegemony, however, antimetachemistry is inconceivable.
WHY
BEAUTY
IS
NOT
TRUTH AND TRUTH NOT BEAUTY. Since
nothing is more alpha and omega than
beauty and truth, it stands to reason that beauty is no more equivalent
to
truth than truth to beauty. But there will still be people who
paradoxically prefer to regard beauty in terms of outer truth and truth
in
terms of inner beauty. Are they wrong? I mean, does the
concept of
'outer essence' make any more sense than 'inner appearance'? For
appearance
and essence are certainly commensurate with alpha and omega on the
noumenal
planes of space and time. Why, then, do certain people persist in
regarding beauty and truth in such paradoxical terms? I think
part, if
not all, of the answer to that question must be: they are endeavouring
to
compensate for the absence of authentic truth and/or beauty from their
lives or
social experiences. And that suggests that the principal kind of
people
who indulge in such paradoxical estimations of beauty and truth are
more likely
to be of the upended gender in relation to each antithetical position
than of
the hegemonic gender. In other words, they are more likely to be
antimales in the case of beauty and antifemales in the case of truth,
the
former antimetaphysically subordinate to a metachemical hegemony
favouring
beauty, the latter antimetachemically subordinate to a metaphysical
hegemony
favouring truth. Hence those who, in antimetaphysics, are
anti-truth
(among other related things, including joy) may well prefer to regard
beauty as
outer truth if not, in plain terms, truth. Those, on the other
hand, who,
in antimetachemistry, are anti-beauty (among other related things,
including
love) may well prefer to regard truth as inner beauty if not, in plain
terms,
beauty. For each type of upended position is lacking in either
truth
proper or beauty proper, neither of which owes anything to beauty or
truth. In fact, beauty is so much outer heat that it is
completely
incompatible with inner light, which is truth. Outer light may be
a kind
of outer truth in the absence of truth proper and inner heat a kind of
inner
beauty in the absence of beauty proper, but it is as illogical to
identify
outer heat with the one as inner light with the other, especially since
the emphasis
will fall somatically on what could, with reservations, be called the
outer
form of illusion in the one case and psychically on what, with equal
reservations, could be called the inner form of ugliness in the other
case, the
former under hegemonic female pressures in metachemistry and the latter
under
hegemonic male pressures in metaphysics. That said, it is
precisely the
absence of truth from antimetaphysics that makes the hegemonic rule of
beauty
possible and, conversely, the absence of beauty from antimetachemistry
that
makes the hegemonic lead of truth possible. The hegemonic meat of
the one
gender is the subordinate poison of the other.
HEAT
AND
MOTION
VIS-À-VIS
LIGHT AND
FORCE. Females, corresponding to the element of
fire, are more heat than light and males, corresponding to the element
of air,
more light than heat, whether in outer or inner, sensual or sensible
terms. But that is only on the noumenal planes of, to speak
generally,
space and time. It does not apply to the phenomenal planes of
volume and
mass where, by contrast, females, corresponding to the element of
water, are
more motion than force and males, corresponding to the element of
vegetation
(earth), more force than motion, whether in outer or inner, sensual or
sensible
terms. Hence a class distinction - never absolute however -
between those
more given, in space and time, to heat and light and, down below, those
more
given, in volume and mass, to motion and force, as though in a further
distinction between will and soul on the noumenal planes and spirit and
ego on
the phenomenal ones. But if, in overall terms, females are more
heat and
motion, will and spirit, fire and water, than males and males, by
contrast,
more light and force, soul and ego, air and vegetation (earth) than
females,
then the genders are forever at loggerheads in a confrontation between
heat and
light on the one hand and motion and force on the other hand, neither
of which
are complementary. For, in sensuality, heat will get the better
of light
as metachemistry of antimetaphysics while, down below on the phenomenal
planes,
motion will get the better of force as chemistry of antiphysics.
Conversely, in sensibility, force will get the better of motion as
physics of
antichemistry, while, up above on the noumenal planes, light will get
the
better of heat as metaphysics of antimetachemistry. But while
this is
unequivocally so on the noumenal planes it tends, with axial
interrelativity,
to be only equivocally so on the phenomenal ones, where the hegemony of
chemistry
over antiphysics can be subverted to psychic emphasis at the behest of
a degree
of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on the one hand and, across the
axial
divide, the hegemony of physics over antichemistry can be subverted to
somatic
emphasis at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over
antimetaphysics on the
other hand, as explained in previous entries and, indeed, in the
pre-blog
philosophy, as it were, of Opera D'Oeuvre.
However
that
may
be,
the broad distinction between heat and motion as
representatively
female and light and force as representatively male continues to hold
true, and
whether females get the better of males or males of females will
determine the
nature of society and the kinds of ideals or virtues which tend to
prevail. Outer heat over outer light will make for a situation in
which
beauty (to stress the somatic virtue alone), with metachemistry, is
unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of truth proper with
antimetaphysics, appearance triumphant over what could be called
anti-essence.
Inner light over inner heat, on the other hand, will make for a
situation in
which truth (to stress the psychic virtue alone), with metaphysics, is
unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of beauty proper with
antimetachemistry, essence triumphant over what could be called
anti-appearance. Down below, on the phenomenal planes, outer
motion over
outer force will make for a situation in which strength (to stress the
somatic
virtue alone), with chemistry, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the
want of
knowledge proper with antiphysics, quantity triumphant over what could
be
called anti-quality. Inner force over inner motion, on the other
hand,
will make for a situation in which knowledge (to stress the psychic
virtue
alone), with physics, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of
strength
proper with antichemistry, quality triumphant over what could be called
anti-quantity. But, in overall class terms, heat and motion are
no less
incommensurate on the female side of the gender divide than force and
light on
its male side. Metachemistry excludes chemistry and vice versa,
while, in
sensibility, physics excludes metaphysics and vice versa. While
it could
be said that there is something of everything in everyone, it cannot be
maintained
that everyone has the same degree of everything in them, and therefore
class
and ethnic distinctions persist which harden into both axial polarities
and,
across the axial divide, antipathies and antagonisms which foster axial
exclusivity and mutual incompatibility.
THE
INCOMPATIBILITY
OF
BEAUTY
AND
TRUTH. Some say that beauty is truth and truth
beauty, but they couldn't be more wrong. Beauty and love, which hang
together
like will and spirit in metachemistry, are a product of noumenally
objective
appearances, whereas truth and joy, which hang together like ego and
soul in
metaphysics, are the product of noumenally subjective essences. Thus
there is
all the difference between alpha and omega, appearance and essence,
between
beauty and truth, love and joy, and incompatible they remain. Either
you defer
to the outer heat of metachemical free soma or, in rejecting it, you
cultivate
the inner light of metaphysical free psyche. The one is absolutely
female, the
other absolutely male. Outer heat is as incompatible with inner light
as
spatial space with repetitive time, for space and time are absolutely
antithetical, like alpha and omega. But outer heat can rule the outer
mode of
time, which I call antitime, and equate with an antimetaphysical
subjection to
the spatial space of metachemistry which takes the form of sequential
time.
Contrariwise, inner light can rule ('lead' would probably be too soft a
term
here, at least in relation to gender differentials) the inner mode of
space,
which I call antispace, and equate with an antimetachemical subjection
to the
repetitive time of metaphysics which takes the form of spaced space.
Either
females get the better of males, who become antimale, or males the
better of
females, who become antifemale. Yet to the truth-rejecting male, the
antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well seem like truth, for it is
what
rules him and keeps him in subjection to its metachemical appearance.
Likewise,
if from a contrary gender standpoint, truth may well seem like beauty
to the
beauty-rejecting female, the antimetachemical antifemale, since it is
what
rules over her and keeps her in subjection to its metaphysical essence.
Lacking
truth proper, which is inner, the antimetaphysical antimale may well
project
his sense of truth onto beauty and convince himself that beauty is
truth.
Lacking beauty proper, which is outer, the antimetachemical antifemale
may well
project her sense of beauty onto truth and convince herself that truth
is
beauty. Neither one of them is correct. There is no more any such thing
as
outer truth than there is inner beauty. Truth is by definition inner
and beauty
outer. The worship of beauty is only possible because of the absence of
truth,
while, conversely, the worship of truth is only possible because of the
absence
of beauty. It is the absence of truth from the antimetaphysical
antimales that
makes the worship of metachemical beauty possible to them and the
absence of
beauty from the antimetachemical antifemales, conversely, that makes
the
worship of metaphysical truth possible to them,
albeit in both cases the worship of the ruling, or
hegemonic, factor is not to be equated with that factor as such, but is
only a
symptom of subjection. Beauty does not worship itself but projects
itself
objectively as a metachemical expression of spatial space, which is the
appearance of outer heat. Neither does truth worship itself because,
being
intensely subjective, it is a metaphysical impression of repetitive
time, which
is the essence of inner light. Space and time are as incompatible as
appearance
and essence, and therefore beauty is never truth nor truth ever beauty.
Beauty
rules over the antitruth want of truth as space over antitime, spatial
appearance over sequential anti-essence, while, conversely, truth rules
over
the antibeauty want of beauty as time over antispace, repetitive
essence over
spaced anti-appearance. Either the noumenally objective heat of
metachemistry
rules over the noumenally antisubjective antilight of antimetaphysics
as Vanity
Fair over Anti-Celestial City or, across the upper-order planes of what
is an
axial divide, the noumenally subjective light of metaphysics rules over
the
noumenally anti-objective antiheat of antimetachemistry as the
Celestial City
over Anti-Vanity Fair. You can't have it both ways, for you cannot be
simultaneously superheathen and/or anti-superchristian and
superchristian
and/or anti-superheathen. Yet the latter is much harder, much more
difficult,
of attainment than the former, which is everywhere the alpha rather
than the
omega of civilization and therefore that which is most basic and, at
certain
epochs (of which the present is a case in point), by far the more
prevalent. In fact, so much is this now the case that one might
well
consider truth (as a precondition of joy) to be 'beyond the pale' and,
to all
intents and purposes, extraneous to contemporary civilization.
For it is
beauty and the worship of beauty which rules the roost, as it were, and
keeps
people in subjection to appearances and, hence, to the female
domination of
society. The struggle for truth is there to be waged, but it will
be a
long and complicated struggle which only a select few, identifying with
metaphysics, will be able to wage. For the enemy, for them, is
not
strength principally, nor even knowledge, but beauty, and therefore all
that,
being apparent, is most contrary to essence. Hitherto this has
been
equated with God but, in truth, it is the very devil, the devil not of
Satan or
any other equivalent antigodly 'fall guy' for sanctimonious denigration
from the
spatial 'on high', but of that metachemical 'first mover' which is
Devil the
Mother hyped as God and the ruler, in consequence, of those antigodly
antisons
- and hence antichrists - whose want of metaphysical truth keeps them
as much
in somatic subjection to the twin evils of beauty and love as their
antifatherly counterparts in psychic subjection to the twin crimes of
ugliness
and hate, crimes which issue from the psychic binding of the Daughter
of the
Devil to the somatic freedom of Devil the Mother, as of a noumenally
subordinate church to a noumenally hegemonic state, the former of which
negatively acquiesces, through fundamentalism, in the materialistic
liberties
of the latter, whose positivity is bounded only by the limits of its
own
somatic licence.
A
DEEPER
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEAUTY AND TRUTH. Carrying on from yesterday
and the previous entries, I can say for sure that the relationship
between, for
instance, beauty and truth is more complex than might at first seem to
be the
case. For it cannot be denied that the mutual exclusivity of
these two
ideals, the one superheathen and the other superchristian, ensures that
their
hegemonic rule is always at the expense of each other, not in
partnership. Yet, even so, it is plausible to suppose that the
absence of
truth in the context of metaphysical sensuality, or antimetaphysics,
with
specific regard to bound psyche, is compensated by a sense of outer
truth,
which is somatically deferential to beauty, while, conversely, the
absence of
beauty in the context of metachemical sensibility, or
antimetachemistry, with
specific regard to bound soma, is compensated by a sense of inner
beauty, which
is psychically deferential to truth. Put another way, if
antimetaphysics
is antitruth in bound psyche and anti-illusion in free soma, it will
have the
capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for outer truth in
free soma
and inner illusion in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of
whatever
properly appertains to metaphysics, where, by contrast, truth is inner
in free
psyche and illusion outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner
aspects of
antimetaphysics are sensual and the inner and outer aspects of
metaphysics
sensible. Similarly, if antimetachemistry is antibeauty in bound
soma and
anti-ugliness in free psyche, it will have the capacity, as though by
paradoxical compensation, for inner beauty in free psyche and outer
ugliness in
bound soma, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to
metachemistry, where, by contrast, beauty is outer in free soma and
ugliness
inner in bound psyche, albeit the inner and outer aspects of
antimetachemistry
are sensible and the outer and inner aspects of metachemistry
sensual. If all this is so, then being outer and inner,
somatically free
and psychically bound, is the sensual norm and being inner and outer,
psychically free and somatically bound, the sensible one, the former
ruled by
soma and the latter led by psyche. Metachemistry is both outer
and inner
in free soma and bound psyche, beauty and ugliness, and is thus
hegemonically
ascendant over antimetaphysics, which is again outer in free soma and
inner in
bound psyche, the anti-illusion of the former fostering a capacity for
outer
truth and the antitruth of the latter a capacity for inner
illusion.
Conversely, metaphysics is both inner and outer in free psyche and
bound soma,
truth and illusion, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over
antimetachemistry,
which is again inner in free psyche and outer in bound soma, the
anti-ugliness
of the former fostering a capacity for inner beauty and the antibeauty
of the
latter a capacity for outer ugliness. Thus, in overall
metachemical
terms, what is sensually beautiful in free soma is sensibly ugly in
bound soma,
while what is sensually ugly in bound psyche is sensibly beautiful in
free
psyche. Likewise, in overall metaphysical terms, what is sensibly
true in
free psyche is sensually illusory in bound psyche, while what is
sensibly
illusory in bound soma is sensually true in free soma. But inner
beauty
is no more genuine beauty from the standpoint of somatic sensuality
than outer
truth genuine truth from the standpoint of psychic sensibility.
Nor, by
extrapolation, would outer ugliness be genuine ugliness from the
standpoint of
psychic sensuality any more than inner illusion genuine illusion from
the
standpoint of somatic sensibility. Somatic beauty and psychic
ugliness
hang together in sensuality no less than psychic truth and somatic
illusion in
sensibility, but they do so as the genuine articles, not as their
pseudo
counterparts in antimetachemistry and antimetaphysics where, in the one
case,
psychic beauty and somatic ugliness sensibly hang together while, in
the other
case, somatic truth and psychic illusion sensually hang together.
For where
genuine beauty is somatic genuine ugliness will be its psychic shadow,
not, as
in sensibility, a somatic shadow to a psychic perversion of beauty
attendant
upon the metaphysical hegemony of truth and illusion. Conversely,
where
genuine truth is psychic genuine illusion will be its somatic shadow,
not, as
in sensuality, a psychic shadow to a somatic perversion of truth
attendant upon
the metachemical hegemony of beauty and ugliness. As to the
relationship
of all this to heat and light, that is another question, albeit I fancy
one
that affords an equally complex, because comprehensively exacting,
solution. Metachemistry is certainly heat, primarily in relation
to free
soma, but I can well believe that its bound psychic corollary, being
subordinate, is a species of light which would accord with an ugly
counterpart
to beauty proper. In contrast, metaphysics is certainly light,
primarily
in relation to free psyche, but I can well believe that its bound
somatic
corollary, being subordinate, is a species of heat which would accord
with an
illusory counterpart to truth proper. Hence whereas beauty proper
is
outer heat of a sensual disposition, truth proper is inner light of a
sensible
one, the sensual inner light of ugliness proper and the sensible outer
heat of
illusion proper standing in subordinate relationships to the prevailing
ideal,
be it superheathenistically beautiful or superchristianly true.
But all
this changes with the upended under-plane gender positions of
antimetaphysics
and antimetachemistry. For it would seem that if truth proper is
inner
light of a sensible disposition, then pseudo-truth, as we may call its
outer
counterpart, is outer light of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic
pseudo-illusory corollary of which will be inner heat of a sensual
disposition. Likewise, if beauty proper is outer heat of a
sensual
disposition, then pseudo-beauty, as we may call its inner counterpart,
can only
be inner heat of a sensible disposition, the bound-somatic pseudo-ugly
corollary of which will be outer light of a sensible disposition.
Thus do
the genders remain in contrary relationships even as they approximate a
complementarity on the basis of either hegemonic sensuality or
hegemonic
sensibility.
AN
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN STRENGTH AND KNOWLEDGE. Carrying on from
yesterday, I can say for sure that the relationship between strength
and
knowledge is, like that between beauty and truth above, more complex
than might
at first seem to be the case. For it cannot be denied that the
mutual
exclusivity of these two ideals, the one heathen and the other
Christian,
ensures that their hegemonic rule, no matter how equivocal, is always
at the
expense of each other, not in partnership. Yet, even so, it is
plausible
to suppose that the absence of knowledge in the context of physical
sensuality,
or antiphysics, with specific regard to bound psyche, is compensated by
a sense
of outer knowledge (carnal), which is somatically deferential to
strength,
while, conversely, the absence of strength in the context of chemical
sensibility, or antichemistry, with specific regard to bound soma, is
compensated by a sense of inner strength, which is psychically
deferential to
knowledge. Put another way, if antiphysics is antiknowledge in
bound psyche
and anti-ignorance in free soma, it will have the capacity, as though
by
paradoxical compensation, for outer knowledge in free soma and inner
ignorance
in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly
appertains to
physics, where, by contrast, knowledge is inner in free psyche and
ignorance
outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner aspects of antiphysics
are
sensual and the inner and outer aspects of physics sensible.
Similarly,
if antichemistry is antistrength in bound soma and antiweakness in free
psyche,
it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for
inner
strength in free psyche and outer weakness in bound soma, the converse,
in
effect, of whatever properly appertains to chemistry, where, by
contrast,
strength is outer in free soma and weakness inner in bound psyche,
albeit the
inner and outer aspects of antichemistry are sensible and the
outer and
inner aspects of chemistry sensual. If all this is so, then being
outer
and inner, somatically free and psychically bound, is the sensual norm
and
being inner and outer, psychically free and somatically bound, the
sensible
one, the former ruled by soma and the latter led by psyche.
Chemistry is
both outer and inner in free soma and bound psyche, strength and
weakness, and
is thus hegemonically ascendant over antiphysics, which, with gender
inversion,
is again outer in free soma and inner in bound psyche, the
anti-ignorance of
the former fostering a capacity for outer knowledge and the
antiknowledge of
the latter a capacity for inner ignorance. Conversely, physics is
both
inner and outer in free psyche and bound soma, knowledge and ignorance,
and is
thus hegemonically ascendant over antichemistry, which, with gender
inversion,
is again inner in free psyche and outer in bound soma, the
anti-weakness of the
former fostering a capacity for inner strength and the antistrength of
the
latter a capacity for outer weakness. Thus, in overall chemical
terms,
what is sensually strong in free soma is sensibly weak in bound soma,
while
what is sensually weak in bound psyche is sensibly strong in free
psyche.
Likewise, in overall physical terms, what is sensibly knowledgeable in
free
psyche is sensually ignorant in bound psyche, while what is sensibly
ignorant
in bound soma is sensually knowledgeable in free soma. But inner
strength
is no more genuine strength from the standpoint of somatic sensuality
than
outer knowledge genuine knowledge from the standpoint of psychic
sensibility. Nor, by extrapolation, would outer weakness be
genuine
weakness from the standpoint of psychic sensuality any more than inner
ignorance genuine ignorance from the standpoint of somatic
sensibility.
Somatic strength and psychic weakness hang together in sensuality no
less than
psychic knowledge and somatic ignorance in sensibility, but they do so
as the
genuine articles, not as their pseudo counterparts in antichemistry and
antiphysics where, in the one case, psychic strength and somatic
weakness
sensibly hang together while, in the other case, somatic knowledge and
psychic
ignorance sensually hang together. For where genuine strength is
somatic,
genuine weakness will be its psychic shadow, not, as in sensibility, a
somatic
shadow to a psychic perversion of strength attendant upon the physical
hegemony
of knowledge and ignorance. Conversely, where genuine knowledge
is
psychic, genuine ignorance will be its somatic shadow, not, as in
sensuality, a
psychic shadow to a somatic perversion of knowledge attendant upon the
chemical
hegemony of strength and weakness. As to the relationship of all
this to
motion and force (the phenomenal equivalents of heat and light), that
is
another question, albeit I fancy one that affords an equally complex,
because
comprehensively exacting, solution. Chemistry is certainly
motion,
primarily in relation to free soma, but I can well believe that its
bound
psychic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of force which would
accord
with a weak counterpart to strength proper. In contrast, physics
is
certainly force, primarily in relation to free psyche, but I can well
believe
that its bound somatic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of
motion
which would accord with an ignorant counterpart to knowledge
proper.
Hence whereas strength proper is outer motion of a sensual disposition,
knowledge proper is inner force of a sensible one, the sensual inner
force of
weakness proper and the sensible outer motion of ignorance proper
standing in
subordinate relationships to the prevailing ideal, be it
heathenistically
strong or christianly knowledgeable. But all this changes with
the
upended under-plane gender positions of antiphysics and
antichemistry.
For it would seem that if knowledge proper is inner force of a sensible
disposition, then pseudo-knowledge, as we may call its outer
counterpart, is
outer force of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic pseudo-ignorant
corollary of which will be inner motion
of a sensual disposition. Likewise, if strength proper is outer
motion of
a sensual disposition, then pseudo-strength, as we may call its inner
counterpart, can only be inner motion of a sensible disposition, the
bound-somatic pseudo-weak corollary of which will be outer force of a
sensible
disposition. Thus do the genders remain in contrary relationships
even as
they approximate a complementarity on the basis of either hegemonic
sensuality
or hegemonic sensibility, neither of which, on the phenomenal planes of
volume
and mass, is unequivocal and therefore, unlike their noumenal
counterparts in
space and time, subject to emphatic subversion at the hands of their
respective
under-plane complements at the behest of the overall controlling
element in the
noumenal above, be it state-hegemonically/church-subordinately
metachemical
over antimetaphysical vis-à-vis antichemical under physical or, in
traditional
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, metaphysical over
antimetachemical vis-à-vis antiphysical under chemical.
A
MORE
COMPREHENSIVE
ASSESSMENT
OF
HEAT, LIGHT, MOTION AND FORCE. If we allow for a
distinction between space and antitime, metachemistry and
antimetaphysics, it
seems only logically consistent to allow for one between heat and
antilight,
beauty and antitruth. Likewise, if we
allow for a distinction between time and antispace, metaphysics and
antimetachemistry, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one
between
light and antiheat, truth and antibeauty.
Similarly, if we allow for a distinction between volume and
antimass,
chemistry and antiphysics, it seems only logically consistent to allow
for one
between motion and antiforce, strength and antiknowledge.
Finally, if we allow for a distinction
between mass and antivolume, physics and antichemistry, it seems only
logically
consistent to allow for one between force and antimotion, knowledge and
antistrength. Therefore just as heat
proper, appertaining to metachemistry, would be sensual rather than
sensible
or, in broad terms, outer rather than inner, so, by metaphysical
contrast,
light proper would be sensible rather than sensual, inner rather than
outer. And just as motion proper,
appertaining to
chemistry, would be sensual rather than sensible or, in broad terms,
outer
rather than inner, so, by physical contrast, force proper would be
sensible
rather than sensual, inner rather than outer.
For heat and light are, in this regard, as much the alpha and
omega of
things noumenal, in space and time, as motion and force the alpha and
omega of
things phenomenal, in volume and mass.
But, in overall gender terms, heat and motion would be
hegemonically
female and force and light hegemonically male.
For females are more will and spirit than males, whose
correspondence
must be to ego and soul. Females are, in
simple elemental terms, more fire and water and males, by contrast,
more
vegetation (earth) and air, which means that the former are primary in
the
objectivity of fire and water, metachemistry and chemistry, will and
spirit,
heat and motion, whereas the latter are secondary in the subjectivity
of
vegetation and air, physics and metaphysics, ego and soul, force and
light. But just as metachemistry,
corresponding to fire, gets the better of antimetaphysics,
corresponding to
anti-air, in space/antitime, so metaphysics, corresponding to air, can
get the
better of antimetachemistry, corresponding to antifire, in
time/antispace. And just as chemistry,
corresponding to
water, gets the better of antiphysics, corresponding to
anti-vegetation, in
volume/antimass, so physics, corresponding to vegetation, can get the
better of
antichemistry, corresponding to antiwater, in mass/antivolume. For in sensibility it is the male positions
which are hegemonic and the female ones technically subordinate,
antichemistry
under physics as antivolume under mass, and antimetachemistry under
metaphysics
as antispace under time. Nevertheless,
despite gender and class differentials, I think it can be safely said
that
no-one and nobody is entirely any one thing, be it fire, water,
vegetation
(earth), or air, and that people are accordingly a combination, in
varying
degrees (dependent by and large on gender and class), of all of the
elements
and their respective concomitants.
Certainly some females will be more heat than motion and others,
lower-
rather than upper-class, more motion than heat, but even the former
will be
capable of motion and the latter of heat.
Likewise, quite apart from characteristics appertaining to the
opposite
gender, some males will be more force than light and others, classless
rather
than middle class, more light than force, but even the former will be
capable
of light and the latter of force. And
both genders can be modified, as logic would confirm, by ‘anti’
positions on
either the noumenal or phenomenal planes, when they become subject to
the
hegemonic control of the opposite gender.
Hence the antimale attributes of antilight in antimetaphysics
under
metachemical heat and of antiforce in antiphysics under chemical motion
have to
be contrasted with the antifemale attributes of antimotion in
antichemistry
under physical force and of antiheat in antimetachemistry under
metaphysical
light. Therefore there may be more
‘anti’ than ‘pro’ about males and females when they find themselves, as
so
often, under the hegemonic control of their noumenal or phenomenal
gender
counterparts, even with axial subversion of the equivocal hegemonies at
the
behest of the overall controlling element whose unequivocal hegemony in
the
noumenal ‘above’ ensures that axial continuity and consistency is
maintained on
the basis of a polar connection, so to speak, with its upended gender
counterpart,
metaphysics linking with antiphysics no less certainly than
metachemistry with
antichemistry on what become diametrically antithetical axes in which
the
emphasis is either on psyche or on soma, as germane to a
church-hegemonic/state-hegemonic dichotomy.
Therefore the connection between light and antiforce is crucial
to the
prospect of salvation of the latter and counter-damnation of those who
would
correspond, in secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate vein, to
the
connection between antimetachemistry and chemistry.
Contrariwise, the connection between heat and
antimotion is crucial to the maintenance of undamnation of the former
and
counter-unsalvation of those who would correspond, in secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
vein, to the connection between antimetaphysics and physics. Only the radical and more or less permanent
salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and correlative
counter-damnation
of the chemical to antimetachemistry can so affect the overall axial
balance
that the metachemical will be damned to antichemistry and the
antimetaphysical
counter-saved to physics. For nothing
short of the permanent removal (deliverance) of the antiphysical and
chemical
to metaphysics and antimetachemistry can bring the metachemical and
antimetaphysical down for want of prey at what in previous entries has
been
described as the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Until then, their exemplifications of somatic
licence will continue to bemuse and bedazzle the chemical and
antiphysical into
quasi-state-hegemonic deference to the prevailing modes of objectivity
and
antisubjectivity, rendering the prospect of salvation and
counter-damnation on
traditional terms not only anachronistic but patently ineffectual and
inadequate. Only the revolutionary
overhaul of the corrupted church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis can
return
the peoples concerned to God and the Antidevil and hold out to them the
prospect of lasting salvation and counter-damnation, according to
elemental
gender, to the metaphysical and antimetachemical heights
of
the
northeast
point of our
intercardinal axial compass. But for
this nothing short of the paradoxical utilization of the democratic
process to
a religiously sovereign end will suffice, and for that one will have
need of
Social Theocracy and its determination to establish Heaven at the
expense of
anti-earth and Antihell at the expense of purgatory, bringing light to
those
paradoxically trapped in an antilight-deferring antiforce and antiheat
to those
paradoxically trapped in a heat-deferring motion. For
only
when
light
and antiheat are
metaphysically and antimetachemically triumphant over the world … of
the
antiphysical and chemical … will what has traditionally been regarded
as
‘Kingdom Come’ actually have transpired, and divine and antidiabolic
vengeance
be wreaked on those whose heat-besotted diabolic and antilight-besotted
antidivine defiance of divine light and antidiabolic antiheat
continues, at
this point in time, to rule the world and keep it from heavenly
salvation and
antihellish counter-damnation in the time of noumenal subjectivity and
the
antispace of noumenal anti-objectivity, the Eternity of the Celestial
City and
the Anti-Infinity of Anti-Vanity Fair.
CONTRASTING
HEAT
WITH
LIGHT
IN
SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY. Aldous Huxley would write
of being beyond time in timeless bliss, and one thought he was on to
truth but,
in reality, nothing could have been further from the case! For
eternity
is the context of time par
excellence,
and
therefore
in
metaphysics, as in
godliness, one is beyond space in the timefulness of eternal
bliss. With
space, on the other hand, it is more a case of being behind time in
timeless
bliss or, more correctly, love, which, like beauty, owes nothing to God
and
everything to the Devil, which is to say, to Devil the Mother hyped as
God (the
Father), pretty much like the Cosmos hyped as Universal or, in
elemental terms,
metachemistry hyped as metaphysics. Huxley was simply an Anglican
Englishman who 'went to the dogs', as they say, of netherworldly
fundamentalism
and materialism, specifically with regard to a kind of Hindu (rather
than
Judaic) take on such Eastern things. For he also wrote of the
Clear Light
of the Void as though it were commensurate with God or, at any rate,
godliness,
the 'Ground' behind all appearances, etc. But is there really any
such
thing as the Clear Light? I don't think so. What one has,
in
stellar metachemistry, is the Clear Heat of the Void, and therefore
such a term
as Clear Heat would be commensurate not with God but with Devil the
Mother
hyped as God in metachemical back of everything ... antimetaphysical
and,
hence, to be associated with antilight, the Unholy Light, of our
proverbial
'fall guy' for diabolic denigration who, in antitruth, is less devilish
than
antigodly. Hence what hangs together at the northwest point of
the
intercardinal axial compass are metachemistry and antimetaphysics, viz.
the
Devil and the Antigod or, in other words, the Clear Heat and the Unholy
Light,
the former absolutely female and the latter absolutely antimale.
But this
is the noumenal sensuality and noumenal antisensibility of Vanity Fair
and the
Anti-Celestial City. It has no bearing on the converse of itself
in
anything approximating to the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair at
the
northeast point of the said compass. On the contrary, such
positions
would correspond to God and the Antidevil, being metaphysical and
antimetachemical, and one would have a right to equate them with the
Holy Light
and the antiheat of what can be called the Unclear Heat, the former
absolutely
male in its noumenal sensibility and the latter no less absolutely
antifemale
in its noumenal antisensuality, a sort of secondary sensibility which
is less
subjective than anti-objective in character. So far from the
Clear Light
having anything to do with God or godliness or metaphysics, it is not
even
antigodly, but a misnomer which has no bearing on anything
whatsoever!
For that which is of the Light is either unholy in antilight subjection
to the
clear heat of metachemical primacy or, across the axial divide, holy in
the
metaphysical supremacy of a noumenal sensibility that prevails over -
and at
the expense of - the antiprimacy, as it were, of the Unclear Heat, the
antiheat
of antimetachemistry. The Unholy Light is anti-eternal in its
subjection
to the clear-heat infinity of spatial space, being, by definition, the
antitime
of sequential time. By complete noumenal contrast, the Unclear
Heat is
anti-infinite in its subjection to the holy-light eternity of
repetitive time,
being, by definition, the antispace of spaced space. For where
Space and
Time are concerned, nothing could be more categorically indicative of a
distinction between the Devil and God, alpha and omega, than Heat and
Light, Fire
and Air. And that is a distinction, on overall noumenal terms,
between
the Clear Heat and the Unholy Light with regard to metachemistry and
antimetaphysics, Spatial Space and Sequential Time, and between the
Holy Spirit
and the Unclear Heat with regard to metaphysics and antimetachemistry,
Repetitive Time and Spaced Space. Either Heat gets the better of
Antilight, as the Devil of Antigod, or Light gets the better of
Antiheat, as
God of the Antidevil. Similar criteria apply, on a phenomenal
basis, to
motion and force within the framework of volume and mass, but that is
another
subject and one which need not concern us here except in passing.
Suffice
it to say that as in 'the above' so, to a moderate extent, in 'the
below',
where the generality of men and women are concerned, clearness and
unholiness
on the one hand and holiness and unclearness on the other being
relative rather
than absolute and therefore always to be thought of within the
phenomenal
contexts of the southwest or southeast points of the intercardinal
axial
compass where either volume prevails over antimass, as clear motion
over unholy
force (antiforce) or, in sensible contrast, mass prevails over
antivolume, as
holy force over unclear motion (antimotion), each equivocal hegemonic
position
subject as before, however, to emphatic subversion from either soma to
psyche
or psyche to soma at the hands of its subordinate gender counterpart in
polar
relation to the unequivocal hegemonic position of the noumenal 'above',
be it
metaphysical (over antimetachemical) in the case of antiphysics (under
chemistry) or metachemical (over antimetaphysical) in the case of
antichemistry
(under physics), as described elsewhere.
LONDON
2006
(Revised
2011)
