Friday, 8 April 2011


Just as fiction is sublimated drama, or theatre, the ‘drama’ of the within, the psyche, so philosophy tends to be sublimated peotry, the ‘poetry’ of the within, the psyche, of sensibility. That partly explains why there is a lot of confusion between drama and fiction on the one hand, and between poetry and philosophy on the other, usually in terms of those disposed to drama giving themselves fictional airs and those disposed, by contrast, to poetry giving themselves philosophic airs, irrespective of the fact that both dramatists and poets kowtow, from opposite gender standpoints, to free soma from a bound psychic standpoint, a standpoint at variance with the psychic freedoms, again from contrary gender standpoints, of fiction and philosophy.

Put in elemental terms, the dramatist corresponds to either metachemistry (acting) or chemistry (speaking), outsanity of either a noumenal or a phenomenal, an absolute or a relative, kind, whereas the poet’s correspondence is to either pseudo-metaphysics (rhymed stanzas) or pseudo-physics (free verse), pseudo-insanity of either a noumenal or a phenomenal, an absolute or a relative, kind.

All of this contrasts with the correspondence of the philosopher to either metaphysics (aphorisms) or physics (essays), insanity of either a noumenal or a phenomenal, an absolute or a relative, kind, and with the correspondence of the fiction-writer to either pseudo-metachemistry (short stories) or pseudo-chemistry (novels), pseudo-outsanity of either a noumenal or a phenomenal, an absolute or a relative kind.

In axial terms, the phenomenal fiction-writer (novelist) is no less polar to the noumenal dramatist (actor), as pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry, than the phenomenal philosopher or, rather, pseudo-philosopher (essayist) to the noumenal poet or, rather, pseudo-poet (rhymed stanzas), as physics to pseudo-metaphysics on what is the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.

Likewise, the phenomenal poet (free verse) is no less axially polar to the noumenal philosopher (aphorist), as pseudo-physics to metaphysics, than the phenomenal dramatist or, rather, pseudo-dramatist (spoken) to the noumenal fiction-writer or, rather, pseudo-fiction writer (short prose), as chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry on what is the church-hegemonic axis stretching from southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.

For, when axial relativity is taken into account, the male side, viz. poetry and philosophy, is always more genuine on the church-hegemonic axis than its female counterpart (in drama and fiction, both of which, as noted above, are pseudo), whereas the female side, viz. drama and fiction, is always more genuine on the state-hegemonic axis than its male counterpart (in poetry and philosophy, both of which, as noted above, are pseudo). That tells you a lot about the axial distinctions between the Irish and the British, even if such distinctions are rarely clear-cut.


The Jews have never been too fond of Christianity, with its reliance upon the Cross. One cannot blame them, since the Cross was the scourge of their ancestors under Roman rule and it is doubtful that any Jew with the slightest degree of self-respect could ever wish to identify, much less worship, anyone or anything associated with that!

They say that Christ died for the sins of the world, that is, took the sins of the world upon himself in order to save others from them or that others might go free. But this is nonsense or, at best, a rather grandiose interpretation of the crude reality of the fact that, quite apart from subversive political goings-on, Christ was crucified for being too omega-orientated and even Promethean for the liking of those (always a majority) who are either alpha-stemming bitches or alpha-oriented ‘sons-of-bitches’ and therefore ever more disposed to the female-worshipping Alpha than to the female-denying Omega of things. Get too anti-heathenistically progressive and there will be any number of people eager, one way or another, to have one crucified – not least in this day and age!

Yes, he died not to save them from ‘sin’, though that is always a concept dear to Christians, but because of their ‘sins’, their alpha-oriented limitations, as anyone would risk doing who goes too much against the ‘common grain’. On the other hand, the idea of a Messiah saving men from sins is at the core of Christian belief and deserves a degree of respect. However, it is more and less than just sin, which I identify with pseudo-physical bound psyche; it is also from the folly of pseudo-physical free soma, neither of which would properly exist (in the 2 1/2:1 1/2 corporeal ratio of psyche to soma their do) but for the female hegemonic pressure of pseudo-evil, which I equate with chemical free soma, coupled to the pseudo-crime of chemical bound psyche, neither of which (existing in a 2 1/2:1 1/2 corporeal ratio of soma to psyche) have anything to do with sin or folly. On the contrary, they have to be evaluated on their own terms and treated as a separate issue, one requiring counter-damnation to pseudo-metachemistry by a pseudo-female complement to the metaphysical Savior or Messiah, a kind of female pseudo-Devil whose responsibility is to oversee the counter-Damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry in conjunction with the Salvation of the pseudo-physical to Metaphysics by the Messianic individual. Only thus can a structure arise whereby one has the equivalent of lamb and pseudo-lion and/or wolf (neutralized lion and/or wolf) or, equally, Saint and pseudo-Dragon – the neutralized dragon of pseudo-metachemistry under the saintly heel, so to speak, of a metaphysical hegemony.

Now isn’t all that some step beyond Christianity?