SUPERPHILOSOPHICAL (THEOSOPHICAL) WEBLOGS BY JOHN O'LOUGHLIN

CENTRETRUTHS - Journeys to the Centre of Truth

2011-07-09T09:19:00.000-07:00

CENTRETRUTHS - Journeys to the Centre of Truth

Elemental Axes

2011-06-09T02:51:00.000-07:00

TERMINOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF SOCIAL TRANSCENDENTALISM

2011-05-24T02:58:00.000-07:00

TERMINOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF SOCIAL TRANSCENDENTALISM

LITERARY PARADOXES

2011-04-08T06:35:00.000-07:00

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.

JEWS AND THE CROSS

2011-04-08T06:34:00.000-07:00

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?

WHY EGOTISM MORALLY FAILS THE SELF

2011-03-28T11:03:00.000-07:00

Just as the superego tends, in what I like to think of as its brain-stem proximity to the spinal cord of the central nervous system, to be pro-superconscious and thus effectively pro-metaphysical, so the ego, in its brain-centred proximity to the eyes, tends to be pro-supersensuous and thus effectively pro-metachemical, deferring not to soul but to will, not to essence but to appearance, not to truth but to beauty.

With the ego, thoughts are too often conditioned by what is seen rather than by what is felt, and there is no surer way of spotting an egotist than by witnessing the extent to which his thoughts are conditioned by what he sees and, as though to derive a modicum of self-respect from his predilection or, rather, predicament, reinterpreted, usually in the most cynically gross and sarcastic fashion, for the benefit of his ego.

But his ego is a sham, with no real independence of external appearances; for it is not only a poor reflection of himself but, being a focal-point for personal selfhood, an obstacle whereby access to the true self, the Soul, is denied, and precisely because it remains beholden – one might even say loyal – to the Will and merely subject to its empirical rule and arbitrary selectivity.

Without the Will to rule it, as when thought is conditioned by what is seen, the ego would collapse into self-loathing through personal knowledge, and quickly cease to have any value. For the ego, unlike the Soul, is not an end-in-itself, but a means for the Will to rule over what it sees. The close proximity of the brain to the ego or, rather, the reliance of the ego upon the brain ensures that the ego has no real existence of its own independently of empirical knowledge, but is merely a means whereby such knowledge, initially perceptual, may be conceptually interpreted to the satisfaction of the Will.

The axial link between the ego and the Will is what guarantees that the egotist can never be saved (in the metaphysical sense) but must continue to remain enslaved, despite his pretensions to intellectual independence, to the senses in a kind of Faustian pact with the Devil, not Satan, however, but Devil the Mother, who more corresponds to the Creator-esque ‘First Mover’ than to any ‘fall guy for slag’ (denigration), after the fashion of the proverbial ‘red under the bed’.

The egotist is already damned by subservience to that which, as free will, is undamned (but not on that account saved), but can only be damned when that which is governed by spirit has been delivered from its lowly pseudo-egotistical estate to soul, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and that, correlatively, which is of free spirit has been counter-damned to pseudo-will, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, thereby depriving the wilfully metachemical and their pseudo-soulful pseudo-metaphysical underdogs of a captive audience for their manifold exemplifications of somatic licence, without which their ‘race is run’, both physically (economically) and metachemically (scientifically), once and for all, with pseudo-chemical damnable consequences for the metachemical and physical counter-saved consequences for the pseudo-metaphysical – at least temporarily and until the possibility of axial transference to church-hegemonic criteria from what is no longer a viable state-hegemonic axial polarity comes ideologically to pass.

Thus and only thus can the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father be defeated and effectively consigned to the ‘rubbish bin of history’. Until then, the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical will continue to rule over not only the physical/pseudo-chemical of their own axis but, indirectly and across the axial divide, the chemical/pseudo-physical, to the detriment of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, the detriment, in short, of free soul over bound will or, more correctly (for it only transpires from male hegemonic pressure) bound pseudo-will, the pseudo-will of pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother under, as pseudo-space under time at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on a stepped-up (resurrected) church-hegemonic axis, the free soul of Heaven the Holy Soul, the joyful soul of the superconscious as that which is One with soul, as God is One with Heaven and in no way a separate entity but merely the outer manifestation, so to speak, of Heaven, without which there would no more be any truth (god) than candlelight without a candleflame burning away in self-centred consumption.

HEART AND SPINAL CORD

2011-03-28T11:02:00.000-07:00

Those who foolishly and superficially identify the heart with the Soul are either obliged, accepting that the heart is mortal, to reject any possibility of afterlife experience or, failing to realize the mortality of the heart, persist in identifying it with the Soul even though it fails to meet the criterion of eternity proper to the Soul, irregardless of whether such an ‘eternity’ is more of a permanent condition (of almost cannibalistic self-consumming by the spinal cord in an inner illumination or incandescence) than of indefinite duration due to the inevitability of the ‘petering out’ of the Self, the Soul, the spinal cord, the central nervous system, call it by what name you like, in due process of self-consumption, a process proceeding in tandem with – though eventually overhauled by – the extensive decomposition of one’s mortal remains, so that it could be said that the ‘inner light’ is fated to be smothered or overhauled by the darkness of its own negation.

But if this is the afterlife ‘in naturalis’ or, rather, ‘supernaturalis’, which those fated for burial rather than cremation are more likely to experience, particularly in the case of males, then it still leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of durational eternity, which, as I teach, can only transpire in the event of ‘man’s overcoming’ through substance-motivated (communal) cyborgization – such that, within the context of ‘Kingdom Come’, would preclude death and, hence, the need for birth through reproduction, allowing life to continue indefinitely on a basis parallel to that of what has been described above without risk of its ‘fizzling or petering out’, but with a controlling element that allows it to be switched on and off according to convenience.

MAN IS NOT BORN FREE

2011-03-15T10:01:00.000-07:00

It has been said, and by no less a luminary than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that ‘man is born free’ … but that, I have to say, without wishing to drag in the rest of the quote, is manifestly untrue. The newborn child remains umbilically tied to its mother and, even after severance, remains directly dependent on her for several months and even years. One is not born free; one is born into maternal slavery, or dependence on one’s mother, and only gradually becomes free or, at any rate, freer, eventually going one’s separate way as a young adult individual who may or may not end up ‘in chains’ to a particular woman, having passed through sexual freedom or experimentation en route to familial responsibility and accountability, only to glory in the sight of somebody else – namely one’s offspring – even more enslaved than oneself.

BRITAIN AND THE JEWS

2011-03-15T09:56:00.000-07:00

Anti-Semitism is not natural, one might say, to the British; they remain axially aligned with Jews both ‘on high’, Judaically, and ‘down below’, Bolshevistically (or what used to be such prior to a number of transmutations, including radical Social Democracy), that is, to Jews behind Anglican Monarchism and beyond Puritan Parliamentarianism, so that they could be described as being (or of having been) flanked by more extreme manifestations, up and down the axis, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, even, in radical Social Democracy, to a near-absolute degree.

In contrast to the Americans, however, the British would traditionally have been more drawn to Bolshevism than to Judaism, given the contrast of political emphasis with America which, in Britain, focuses on ‘the below’ rather than ‘the above’, the sensible/pseudo-sensual phenomenal as opposed to the sensual/pseudo-sensible noumenal, that is, physics/pseudo-chemistry as against metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, so that, to give a sporting analogy, the British favour association football rather than rugby football, whereas the Americans favour American football (their kind of rugby equivalent) to soccer.

INCIDENTALS

2011-03-13T07:38:00.000-07:00

Woman – symbol of man’s shame.

****

Few would deny that classical music is a whole lot finer – and more subjective – than rock, despite its depressingly state-hegemonic orientation whenever dominated by either strings or brass if not, in many instances, by both, to the detriment of metaphysics (wind). Nonetheless, rock is axially relevant to church-hegemonic criteria, as, in a higher way, is new-age electronica, and therefore not a music that finds its sensible 'fineness' in physics over pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, in a neutron-like acoustic bowing remove from electron-dominated rock strumming/singing. Rock is also a music, despite its innate crudities, that allows the musician to express his feelings directly, not hampered by a score such that, in the classical context, always reflects a neutron-like physical predilection towards knowledge and thus the vitiation if not exclusion of soul as germane not to what is expressed on the printed score but to what resides within independently of outward show.

****

To be friends with a particular person, you need to have got away from people in general.

****

God or, as I prefer to say, godliness, is Heaven perceived from the outside, like candlelight from the flame, and the ratio of the one to the other can change, depending on the stage of metaphysical evolution and of one’s relationship to it. But there is no real distinction between God and Heaven, despite appearances to the contrary, since there would be no candlelight without candleflame, no evidence of superconscious joy (truth) without the joy of the superconscious (soul) to begin with. Therefore when we speak of the One ... we mean that metaphysical free psyche is centred in soul (heaven) and that the appearance of this soul from the outside (god) does not differ in any marked way from the soul as experienced within but, rather, confirms its beingful condition as a reflection of joy (truth). Thus God and Heaven, truth and joy, are one and the same superconscious reality - a reality which is noumenally transcendent in its universality and devoid of any physical or personal associations whatsoever.

****

With an autocracy there is only one ruler – namely the king or king-equivalent, more usually a military dictator. With a democracy, on the other hand, you get a choice of semi-autocratic collectivities called parties, only one of which – barring coalitions – will govern you. The Party elects its own leader, who acts as a kind of party autocrat, hiring and firing as he sees or, rather, thinks fit.

****

Trust is in what is; faith is in what could be.

Sunday 6th February, 2011 – started to copy some Gary Moore CDs onto my new laptop, having concentrated on other musicians during the previous 6-8 weeks since its purchase. Later on, that evening, heard over the Radio Four News that he had died in a hotel-room in Spain earlier that day. Shocked and amazed. He was my age – 58.

Gary Moore wouldn’t be my favourite guitarist; he wouldn’t even be my favourite singer; but as a leading guitarist who also sang and sometimes sang his heart out, I can think of none better.

A TABOO ON 'FATHERS'

2011-03-13T07:35:00.000-07:00

To say ‘father’ to a priest is something I could never do, nor want to do. It would put me in the unenviable position of being a ‘son’, but that is merely, in relation to Christianity and, in particular, to Christ, the bound soma (crucifixional paradigm) of metaphysics, a shortfall from the free psyche of the ‘father’ – and more representatively of heavenly soul - in relation to a full complement of metaphysics, who and/or which doesn’t exist in the Western tradition except peripherally and on a surrogate basis in terms of ‘fathers’, i.e. Catholic priests.

But I am the intellectually-bovaryized personification – call it superpersonification – of free psyche, and to a degree beyond the comprehension, I wager, of most if not all priests. I am, in a sense, the ultimate free or, rather, superfree thinker, a veritable ‘philosopher king’ whom it would be difficult if not impossible to surpass. I could never kowtow to priests, whom I despise for being dominated, through the Old Testament, by Creatorism, i.e., by Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in and as the noumenally objective embodiment of metachemical free will, the very thing that precludes all but a resurrectional straining on the leash towards metaphysics in the crucifixional paradigm of the so-called ‘true Cross’ by what is an extrapolation, in Catholic Christianity, from the Judaic anchor, so to speak, of the Middle East, an extrapolation, moreover, that has to accommodate and, to a degree, transcend ‘the world’ of the mass Catholic position below before approximating – and then imperfectly – to an axial antithesis to the aforementioned ‘Creator’, whose fundamentally somatic basis in metachemistry ensures that the Christ ‘On High’ remains figurative and thus well short of signifying, in male-hegemonic abstraction, anything or, rather, anyone freely psychic and, hence, properly metaphysical.

Hence the Judeo-Christian anachronism vis-a-vis global civilization in its alpha-stemming or formative manifestation, which only the paradoxical exploitation of the democratic process in certain traditionally church-hegemonic countries to a religiously sovereign end will enable us not merely to overhaul but, with the emergence of the Social Theocratic Centre, effectively consign to the ‘rubbish heap of history’, where it will join all those other bovaryized religions rooted in Creatorism that can have no place in ‘Kingdom Come’, a kingdom centred, metaphysically, in Heaven the Holy Soul.

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

2011-03-11T10:45:00.000-08:00

The alpha-oriented and alpha-stemming distinction between decadent bourgeois civilization (Protestant secularism) and proletarian barbarism, the degeneration of Western civilization (in relation, for instance, to female priests or, rather, vicars, ministers, etc.) and the inception of global civilization (in relation, for instance, to feminism), the former of which overhauled, in its inception, the medievalism of Catholic Christianity, the latter of which has still to be overhauled, democratically, by the inception of global civilization-proper in terms of the transcendentalism of Social Theocratic Centrism, the ‘Superchristianity’, as it were, of ‘Kingdom Come’, which presupposes a majority mandate for religious sovereignty conceived as the sovereign ne plus ultra and means whereby not only ‘man’ can be ‘overcome’ but, more importantly, transfigured towards his evolutionary successor, the cyborg, who will be completely beyond what passes for God, i.e. Devil the Mother, in his enhanced metaphysical capacity for Heaven.

THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON

2011-03-10T10:30:00.000-08:00

Difficult not to see a connection between the Biblical 666 (Revelations), the so-called ‘number of the beast’, and 1666, the year of the ‘Great Fire of London’, which destroyed most of the city. To me, 1666, even more than 1066, the date of the ‘Battle of Hastings’, was the year par excellence of ‘the beast’, of the fire that ravaged and laid waste the capital of England. It was as though London became the Devil’s plaything on that hellish date.

PARADOX OF SUCCESS

2011-03-10T10:28:00.000-08:00

When everybody does the ‘right thing’ on the Internet, as advocated by the self-appointed 'gurus', few if any will make any money. The bandwagon upon which so many climb will simply sink beneath the weight of success-hungry entrepreneurs, who think not for themselves but according to a set of rules and principles laid down by somebody else – the few who actually make most of the money from exploiting their gullibility.

BODY-MIND SYMBIOSIS VIS-A-VIS MIND-BODY SYMBIOSIS

2011-03-10T10:25:00.000-08:00

To contrast the body-mind symbiosis of metachemistry and chemistry with the mind-body symbiosis of physics and metaphysics, as one would contrast the free soma and bound psyche of hegemonic females in metachemistry and chemistry with the free psyche and bound soma of hegemonic males in physics and metaphysics.

The delusion of only a body-mind symbiosis – all too contemporary – derives from the female hegemonies of metachemistry (fire) and chemistry (water), power and glory, wherein the ‘sonofabitch’ pseudo-male is upended in gender subordination from free psyche and bound soma (in physics and metaphysics) to bound psyche and free soma (in pseudo-physics and pseudo-metaphysics) in what would appear to be a pale reflection of the female hegemonic positions. In those particular elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts dominated by females, and hence ‘the star’, there is no place for a mind-body symbiosis, much to the disadvantage of males, whose form and contentment (in physics and metaphysics) takes an unpleasantly pseudo-formal and pseudo-contented nosedive.

STARS AND CROSSES

2011-03-10T10:24:00.000-08:00

The Bolsheviks repeated the Jewish or Judaic religiously scientific position in their combination of hegemonic star and subordinate cross-like emblem (hammer and scythe) which, in Judaism, is a kind of candlestick or candelabrum called a menorah. Both of these false religions, that of cosmos-based religious science and, in the case of the Bolsheviks and their Soviet successors, of Marx-based dialectical materialism, appertain to the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest (Judaism) to the southeast (Communism) poles of the intercardinal axial compass, extreme poles that in the one case are anterior to Anglican Monarchism and in the other case posterior to Puritan Parliamentarianism, though naturally sharing many values in common with the ‘Protestant’ polarities, which necessarily operate along less extremist lines.

But it would be difficult not to believe that English Protestants, not least, have a tolerance for Jews and even Communists, including radical Social Democrats, that derives from their common axial orientations, since Jews and Bolsheviks are simply more extremist manifestations, as noted above, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, manifestations that can become, as in Soviet Russia, state absolutist, and therefore against any form of religion, no matter how true or false.

In relation to what could be called the Judaic/Bolshevik polar parallelism, however, it needs to be remarked that a noumenal/phenomenal distinction exists between the two positions, or false religions, such that enables us to distinguish the absolute from the relative, not least in respect of the absolute star, or so-called ‘Star of David’ (which I believe to be a misnomer), with its six points deriving from two interlocked triangles, and the relative, or five-pointed star deriving, in its origins, from a lunar rather than a stellar paradigm, such that has more applicability to the corporeal than to the ethereal, and which, like its absolute counterpart ‘upstairs’, represents a female bias towards soma, a bias favouring the body – and hence in this particular case manual labour – at the expense of the mind.

The only ‘good star’, from a Social Theocratic standpoint, will be the contiguously-encircled absolute star (six-pointer) under the free-standing supercross of Y-chromosomal intimation and symbolism, the Saint-like supercross of metaphysics over the neutralized dragon-like pseudo-superstar of pseudo-metachemistry, which will remain forever subordinate as, in representative ratio terms, the pseudo-infinite pseudo-death that ‘lies down’ with or, rather, under Eternal Life – the eternity (in the preponderating ratio factor of free psyche) of metaphysical supremacy. That will be the opposite, in every respect, of Judaism, never mind Bolshevism and its subsequent communistic offshoots.

OBJECTION TO WORLDLY (Western) RELIGION

2011-03-08T10:17:00.000-08:00

I wouldn’t go anywhere near a Christian Church, to stand in a mixed congregation and listen to the androgynous waffle of world-deferring priests, but I make a distinction, even so, between the celibate priest of the Catholic Church, who at least has some religious credibility and authority, and the priest or, rather, vicar or minister of the Protestant churches, who may well have had sex with his wife (or mistress) only the night before or, at any rate, on a fairly regular basis over a period of years if not decades, producing offspring who only confirm his worldly standing as one who has little or no religious credibility and authority but is effectively a mirror of the world and its family values. I can’t tell you how much I despise such people, some of whom aren’t even male, but the living embodiment of everything that conduces towards the world and the worldly submission of males to a female agenda!

AGE OF SCREEN ADDICTION

2011-03-08T10:15:00.000-08:00

We live in an age of screen addiction, whether to TVs, PCs, mobile phones, DVD-players, hand-held devices, cinema screens, LEDs on electric keyboards, MIDIs, etc., GPR systems, or whatever – you just cannot get away, seemingly, from screens of one type of another. Poor eyes! Poor mind! A lethal addiction? Certainly demonstrative of the female-dominated nature of our times and the pressure to ‘keep up appearances’, not least, it would appear, in relation to spectacles, contact lenses, etc., in order to be able to see or view, clearly and in the greatest detail, whatever is digitally and electronically afoot! No wonder I came up with an alternative system and possible lifestyle to all that! Who that wasn’t an appearance-obsessed bitch or a crazy sonofabitch wouldn’t?

NOT 'AU FAIT' WITH 'LADIES AND GENTLEMEN'

2011-03-04T08:23:00.000-08:00

‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ – a definite no-no from a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical standpoint, which is orientated, in religion and pseudo-science, towards race and pseudo-class as opposed, in metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, to class and pseudo-race, or science and pseudo-religion.

Such a form of address as ‘ladies and gentlemen’ may be appropriate to the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical but not, assuredly not, to the metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical, who are brothers and sisters or, rather, pseudo-sisters, i.e., the pseudo-angels under the divines, the pseudo-dragons (neutralized dragons) under the saints, the pseudo-lions and/or wolves (neutralized lions and/or wolves) under the lambs, and so on, through equivalent metaphors.

However, now that I have written the above, I can see a counter-argument along the lines that if, in metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, one can have brothers and pseudo-sisters, then surely one can also have sisters and pseudo-brothers in metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics. In fact, what is to preclude one from contending that the terms ‘ladies and gentlemen’ can also be split along such lines, with ladies and pseudo-gentlemen in the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical context and gentlemen and pseudo-ladies in the context axially antithetical to that, wherein the notion of the gentleman saint and the pseudo-lady neutralized dragon (pseudo-dragon) would surely have some applicability?

Be that as it may - and excluding for the moment the irrelevance of class to the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical context - it can certainly be argued that ladies and gentlemen, as an expression, is as cohesively implausible as would be the terms Devil and God, and for the very sound reason that what hangs together at any point of the intercardinal axial compass is less antithetical, as I am contending both the above terms would be, than hegemonic and gender subordinate, in which case the proximity, on different noumenal planes, of Devil and pseudo-God in the one case and of God and pseudo-Devil in the other must have a parallel in the use of such terms as ladies and gentlemen or, for that matter, brothers and sisters.

Yet, in broad terms, I still find it difficult to dismiss the idea that ‘ladies and gentlemen’ has class implications whereas ‘brothers and sisters’ doesn’t, being, if anything, more racially oriented, as in the use of ‘brother’ among large sections of the black or coloured community to distinguish themselves from their white or non-soulful counterparts.

WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE/ARE NOT AND HAVE/HAVE NOT IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE

2011-03-04T08:10:00.000-08:00

Not Who You Are, nor What You Have. Not even Who You Have, but What You Are – this is what counts from a metaphysical (religious) standpoint.

Just as Who You Are requires a gender subordinate What You Are Not in the class/pseudo-race dichotomy of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, and What You Have a gender subordinate Who You Have Not in the occupation/pseudo-sex dichotomy of physics and pseudo-chemistry on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from northwest to southeast points on the intercardinal axial compass, so Who You Have requires a gender subordinate What You Have Not in the sex/pseudo-occupation dichotomy of chemistry and pseudo-physics, and What You Are a gender subordinate Who You Are Not in the race/pseudo-class dichotomy of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from southwest to northeast points on the intercardinal axial compass.

Science and pseudo-Religion vis-a-vis Economics and pseudo-Politics on the one axis; Politics and pseudo-Economics vis-a-vis Religion and pseudo-Science on the other axis. Or, in more philosophical language, noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity vis-a-vis phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity on the state-hegemonic axis; phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity vis-a-vis noumenal subjectivity and noumenal pseudo-objectivity on the church-hegemonic axis.

THOSE WHO ARE REPRESENTATIVELY IRISH

2011-03-04T07:59:00.000-08:00

The middle classes are not representatively Irish, any more than are the upper classes. Only the lower classes and their pseudo-middle-class counterparts in public sector service can be adjudged properly Irish – along with the quasi-classless (ethnic torch-bearers) and/or pseudo-upperclass priests, monks, nuns, etc., of the Roman Catholic tradition.

It is of course the lower classes/pseudo-middle classes approximating to chemistry/pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass who can be saved (pseudo-physical) and counter-damned (chemical) once the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in countries with the appropriate axial preconditions, like Ireland, has been resurrected on Social Theocratic (superchristian) terms in relation to a full complement of metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical factors, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty (and its pseudo-scientific corollary) from the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process by Social Theocrats with or without (though hopefully with) support from the Catholic Church in the necessity, amongst other things, of avoiding mass-movement associations to the detriment of world-overcoming and transcendental credibility.

For unless the relevant masses are saved and counter-damned, according to gender, they will never be released from the predatory clutches of the other axis, with its state-hegemonic disregard for religious idealism, and, no less importantly, those who appertain to it will never be damned and counter-saved to their respective polarities, pending a general re-alignment of the church-hegemonic axis on terms sympathetic to pluralism under a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical umbrella that, with centro-complexification (a de Chardinesque term) should allow for long-term totalitarianism as the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical goal of all evolution and counter-devolution in space-centre apotheosis, celestial city-like, ‘On High’.

SOCIAL THEOCRACY

2011-03-03T07:55:00.000-08:00

What is Social Theocracy? - Social Theocracy is like Judaism the other way around. That is, a kind of Y-chromosomal Supercross over a contiguously-encircled absolute star, significant of pseudo-metachemisty and thus of that which, in soma, is predominantly bound, like a neutralized dragon, lion, wolf, etc. under the proverbial lamb (of godliness) and/or saintly heel of righteousness, this latter of course synonymous with metaphysics and, hence, the hegemonic male position alluded to above whose disposition, in absolute contrast to that of his pseudo-female counterpart, is preponderantly one of free psyche.

CHRISTIAN PARADOX

2011-03-03T07:54:00.000-08:00

Wasn’t it Christ who is reputed to have said: ‘Love thy enemies”?

Frankly, it would have been no less daft had he said: ‘Hate thy friends’!

Loving your enemies would be the surest way of ensuring that you came to hate your friends. And then what would be the point of having any?

ABSTRACT CONTEMPLATION

2011-03-02T09:01:00.000-08:00

That which is only there to be looked at – say, a beach or country scene – works as a view. That which has particular uses rarely if ever does. Therefore for a satisfactory desktop photo, to take a single example, one needs to avoid the utilitarian in favour of the purely aesthetic. This necessarily excludes women, for instance, insofar as they may exist, in the mind, as sexual objects and not simply as objects to be contemplated, like a seascape or distant mountain. I accept that one can swim in the sea and climb mountains, but that is not necessarily what one would wish to do the way one might wish to make love to a beautiful woman, assuming one is of a romantic disposition. ]

With a picture or photo of a particular woman there will always be a certain unease in the mind that arises from the general concept of women as being more than objects of contemplation. One cannot contemplate that which is fundamentally utile for long without succumbing to this ambivalence over the aesthetic viability of the object of contemplation, and such ambivalence makes for psychological restlessness and a desire to change objects, which, of course, can continue infinitum if one is lacking insight into the underlying cause of such a desire.

THE IRISH REPUBLIC

2011-03-02T08:49:00.000-08:00

The Irish Republic, rather like the Weimar Republic before it, has become a fucking disgrace – fit only to be condemned to the rubbish bin of history.

I never much liked the Tonean tricolour anyway; it sharply suggests the divide-and-rule policy of perfidious Albion, keeping the Green and Orange Celts apart while feigning unity between the main ethnic traditions – Catholic, Anglican, and Dissenter (puritan). An Anglo-Irish Republic that, as modern history has shown, has been quick to abandon its republican socialist traditions in pursuance of capitalist gain and an effective sell-out to the WASPS. But that is at the roots of its current undoing and ... enslavement to Western and, in particular, European capital.

To me, this Irish Republic is nothing but an interim stage of political ideology between Ireland's colonial past and, hopefully, its theocratically-liberated future.

THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC

2011-03-02T08:43:00.000-08:00

The Weimar Republic, indubitably a female-dominated species of secular freedom, gave Germany the impetus to restock its population after the horrendous losses of the Great War. A paradoxical prelude to the rebirth of a male-oriented German nationalism and, ultimately, nation, who would follow a single leader rather than continue to be governed by people's representatives or regress to subservience before an autocracy such that, in any case, had plunged Germany into the First World War and subsequent bloodbath. Too bad the leadership was flawed.

THOUGHTS ON JAZZ

2011-03-02T08:35:00.000-08:00

A drum solo is the exemplification, purely and simply, of the Will, as an expression of metachemical dominance. It exemplifies the Life Force.

Jazz is the most backward kind of modern music – backward in the sense of exemplifying the Will in an alpha-stemming and/or alpha-oriented predilection towards percussion and … brass, that fiery ‘bovaryization’ of wind suited to a fundamentalist if not materialist disposition.

Jazz, fundamentally, is about space and pseudo-time – spatial pitch and sequential rhythm. That is what makes it materialist/fundamentalist and pseudo-idealist/pseudo-transcendentalist, as though a combination, to varying extents, of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, Will and pseudo-Soul, which appertain to the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be the ruling positions of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.

Jazz-rock, or 'fusion', is an accommodation of Jazz to 'the world' of that which, in rock or rock 'n' roll, properly appertains to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be the deferential positions of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. It is as though cinema were being accommodated, via film, to television.

STOUT AND BROWN ALE VIS-A-VIS LIGHT ALE AND LAGER

2008-08-25T04:55:00.000-07:00

I intimated in my weblog 'Ale and Stout' that I might give this intriguing subject some additional thought in order to clarify one or two outstanding issues and, lo and behold!, that is what I have done and, as usual, resolved the issue to my logical satisfaction.

For physics over pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass equals vegetation (or earth) over pseudo-water or, in common parlance, shit over pseudo-piss, and one has here not simply a can/bottle distinction but a distinction, moreover, between stout and brown ale, the latter a kind of shat-upon beer which accords, in tight skirt-like vein, with pseudo-piss, which, translated back into beer terminology, would equate with brown ale as a manifestation less of phenomenal subjectivity than of phenomenal pseudo-objectivity.

On the other hand, chemistry over pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass equals water over pseudo-vegetation (or pseudo-earth) or, in common parlance, piss over pseudo-shit, and here one has not simply a bottle/can distinction but a distinction, moreover, between light ale and lager, the latter a kind of pissed-upon beer which accords, in flared pants-like vein, with pseudo-shit, which, translated back into beer terminology, would equate with lager as a manifestation less of phenomenal objectivity than of phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity.

Therefore light ale over lager at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass has to be contrasted with stout over brown ale at the southeast point of the said compass, the former pairing commensurate with chemistry over pseudo-physics, or phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) females over phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) pseudo-males, and the latter pairing commensurate with physics over pseudo-chemistry, or phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) males over phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) pseudo-females.

That, then, is the logical underpinning of the distinctions between ale and lager and/or stout, and one can see that ale, whether light or dark, pale or brown, is on the female side of the gender fence and both lager and stout, germane as they should be to cans as against bottles, are on the male side of such a fence, one pertaining, as noted above, to separate axes of which the southwest is polar to the northeast on church-hegemonic terms and the southeast polar to the northwest of state-hegemonic terms.

LITERATURE AND THE INTERCARDINAL AXIAL COMPASS

2008-08-15T06:38:00.000-07:00

Using the intercardinal axial compass of bisecting diagonals as a model for sensual and sensible distinctions on both noumenal and phenomenal planes, we can plot a distinction between drama and poetry as female and pseudo-male options vis-a-vis philosophy and prose as male and pseudo-female options, as though the former pairing corresponded to the sensuality of noumenal and phenomenal objectivity coupled to pseudo-subjectivity at the northwest and southwest points of the said compass, while the latter pairing corresponded, by contrast, to the sensibility of noumenal and phenomenal subjectivity coupled to pseudo-objectivity at the northeast and southeast points of the compass in question.

As I tend to distinguish the northwest from the southwest in terms of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics (from out of antimetaphysics) vis-a-vis chemistry and pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics), I will allow for a noumenal contrast between elemental particles and pseudo-elemental wavicles in respect of the former pairing and for a phenomenal contrast between molecular particles and pseudo-molecular wavicles in respect of the latter pairing, the former commensurate with will and pseudo-soul, the latter with spirit and pseudo-ego.

Therefore in literary terms a distinction between the short (elemental particle) drama of metachemical will and the short (pseudo-elemental wavicle) poetry of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-soul must be contrasted with the long (molecular particle) drama of chemical spirit and the long (pseudo-molecular wavicle) poetry of pseudo-physical pseudo-ego, with female and pseudo-male distinctions in each category relative to the noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy that exists between the northwest and southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass.

Likewise as I tend to distinguish the northeast from the southeast in terms of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry (from out of antimetachemistry) vis-a-vis physics and pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry), I will allow for a noumenal contrast between elemental wavicles and pseudo-elemental particles in respect of the former pairing and for a phenomenal contrast between molecular wavicles and pseudo-molecular particles in respect of the latter pairing, the former commensurate with soul and pseudo-will, the latter with ego and pseudo-spirit.

Therefore in literary terms a distinction between the short (elemental wavicle) philosophy of metaphysical soul and the short (pseudo-elemental particle) prose of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-will must be contrasted with the long (molecular wavicle) philosophy of physical ego and the long (pseudo-molecular particle) prose of pseudo-chemical pseudo-spirit, with male and pseudo-female distinctions in each category relative to the noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy that exists between the northeast and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.

Doubtless the distinctions between 'short' and 'long', appertaining to elemental and molecular class or axial dichotomies, can be given more concrete interpretation than the above might suggest, with 'short drama' for instance decidedly wilful where the 'long' variety, equating with spirit, would be more verbal and voice-oriented, encouraging a correspondingly long-winded approach to poetry, on the other side of the gender fence, that is more likely to be of the free-verse variety than of anything overly lyrical and metric. But, whether 'long' or 'short', the drama would be female and concerned primarily with fact, the objective expression of female will and/or spirit, whereas the poetry would be pseudo-male and primarily concerned, lacking a capacity in the female-hegemonic circumstances for truth, with illusion or, more correctly, with falsity, being the pseudo-subjective impression of pseudo-male pseudo-soul and/or pseudo-ego.

Likewise, to extend our concrete interpretation into axial sensibility to the right of anything sensually hegemonic, one would have to argue that 'short philosophy', meaning an aphoristic approach to philosophising, will be decidedly soulful where the 'long' variety, equating essayistically with ego, will be more intellectual and knowledge-oriented, encouraging a long-winded approach to prose fiction, on the other side of the gender fence, that is more likely to be novelistic than concerned with telling stories on a short-prose basis, as, one suspects, would be that approach to prose fiction that is properly complementary to aphoristic philosophy. However, whether 'long' or 'short, the philosophy would be male and concerned primarily with truth, the subjective impression of male ego and/or soul, whereas the prose would be pseudo-female and primarily concerned, lacking a capacity in the male-hegemonic circumstances for fact, with fiction, being the pseudo-objective expression of pseudo-female pseudo-spirit and/or pseudo-will.

Thus a broad distinction in literature emerges between the free female fact of drama and the bound male illusion of poetry which contrasts, as sensuality with sensibility, with the free male truth of philosophy and the bound female fiction of prose - a pseudo-male incapacity for truth under female hegemonic fact making for falsity (and hence poetry) no less certainly than a pseudo-female incapacity for fact under male hegemonic truth makes for fiction (and hence prose).

I shall say little at this point of gender-bender cross-overs from poetry into drama and from philosophy into prose, the former sensually up and the latter sensibly down a plane, but clearly most such cross-overs have been the result, traditionally, of male perversity and ambition which, particularly in the case of drama-loving poets, would constitute the worst form of literary crime!

ON THE SUBJECT OF BLESSEDNESS

2008-08-11T09:38:00.000-07:00

The notion of God blessing oneself or others is false, since deriving from 'bovarized' notions of God which owe nothing to metaphysics, the elemental context of soul par excellence in which ego has no other business than to get itself, as something godly, into heaven. One might say that God is blessed with Heaven or, put differently, the grace of godly truth is blessed with the holiness of heavenly joy. That is it and that is all it ever could be, in truth.

Hence the graceful truth of metaphysical ego, which is godly, is blessed with the holy joy of metaphysical soul, which is heavenly, and therefore God the Father is blessed with Heaven the Holy Soul. It is even true to say that God the Son is blessed with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, since what metaphysically applies to free psyche also applies to its male gender corollary in bound soma, except that here it is the wisdom of metaphysical will, which is son-of-godly, that is blessed with the holy woe of metaphysical spirit, which is the heavenliness of metaphysical not-self, the spiritual heavenliness that, in relation to humankind, one could identify with the breath as against, for anything son-of-godly, the lungs. Therefore, in the bound somatic state-subordinate metaphysical corollary of a church-hegemonic psychic freedom, it could be said that the Son of God is blessed with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, even though such a spiritual heaven is a far cry from the soulful heaven of perfect self-harmony, which is less a thing of the breath issuing from son-of-godly lungs than of the spinal cord to which the self has attained in the transcendence of brain-stem ego.

However that may be - and we should not forget that, with me, psyche preceding soma as male actuality requires the metaphorical association of father preceding son -, metaphysics is the elemental context of most soul, more (in relation to most) ego, less (in relation to least) spirit, and least will, the 'more ego' and 'most soul' constitutive of psychic freedom and the 'less spirit' and 'least will' of somatic binding. And this ratio-like integrity of metaphysics would be true whether the metaphysics was cosmic and least evolved, natural and less (relative to least) evolved, human and more (relative to most) evolved or cyborg (to slightly anticipate the future) and most evolved, the 'most evolved' according with the definitive manifestation of metaphysics in which the holiness of perfect self-harmony will be most developed because not having to contend, as lesser manifestations of metaphysics do and have done in the past, with subversive vitiation at the hands, so to speak, of either metachemical, chemical, or physical 'bovaryizations' of religion - and hence of the concept of godliness - in relation to the Cosmos, nature, and mankind which have tended to marginalize metaphysics and undermine anything approaching true religion from standpoints rooted in either science, politics, or economics, as the prevailing case may be, often with one or more of these 'bovarized' religions prevailing, to different degrees, at once, and therefore further undermining the possibility of metaphysical self-realization.

For, contrary to metaphysics, metachemistry is the elemental context of most will, more (relative to most) spirit, less (relative to least) ego, and least soul, in consequence of which a society dominated by metachemical religion, in materialist/fundamentalist fiery vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to will at the expense of soul and therefore of anything metaphysical.

Similarly, chemistry is the elemental context of most spirit, more (relative to most) will, less (relative to least) soul, and least ego, in consequence of which a society dominated by chemical religion, in realist/nonconformist watery vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to spirit at the expense of ego and therefore of anything physical.

Likewise, physics is the elemental context of most ego, more (relative to most) soul, less (relative to least) will, and least spirit, in consequence of which a society dominated by physical religion, in humanist/naturalist vegetative (or earthy) vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to ego at the expense of spirit and therefore of anything chemical.

Obviously, although, as noted above, metaphysics is the elemental context of most soul, more (relative to most) ego, less (relative to least) spirit, and least will, it won't be able to achieve its definitive manifestation while the 'bovaryized' modes of religion still prevail and assail it from standpoints in which either will, spirit, or ego take precedence over soul. Only when it is fully self-conscious of what it is and of what it must do to reign supreme will it be able to triumph over the false religions of will (cosmic), spirit (natural), and ego (human), thereby inaugurating the age, commensurate with 'kingdom come', of genuine religion, in which everything will be subordinated to the attainment by males of perfect self-harmony in soul for a metaphysics that is beyond not only anything cosmic and natural, but human as well, a metaphysics, in short, which is effectively cyborgistic and therefore fully metaphysical, in the clear from vitiation at the proverbial hands of anything cosmic, natural, or human, unlike its least evolved, less (relative to least) evolved, and more (relative to most) evolved preceding manifestations.

For metaphysics, to repeat, is the elemental context in which the grace of godly truth in metaphysical ego is blessed with the holiness of heavenly joy in metaphysical soul, and self-transcendence from ego to soul, godliness to heavenliness, truth to joy, brain stem to spinal cord, is accordingly a prerequisite of metaphysical perfection. The true God-nurture does not bless others but is content with his own blessedness, which is to be blessed with the joyful redemption of godly ego in heavenly soul, that is to say, in the heavenliness of perfect self-centredness.

This is the destiny of the saintly, which institutionally will require the complementarity of pseudo-metachemical angels whose bound soma and free psyche, conditioned by metaphysical pressures, will nonetheless be at variance with the free psyche and bound soma of the metaphysical, since reflective of a female rather than male ratio of noumenal absolutism, as described by me in other writings, not least those associated with my philosophy-proper, whereby soma will always predominate over psyche and due attention must therefore be paid to the neutralization of will and spirit in relation to soma if a degree of free ego and soul is to materialize as the secondary church-hegemonic complement of the metaphysical ego and soul reigning a plane above in what would be time over pseudo-space, eternity over pseudo-infinity, like St George with his foot on the prostrate form of a slain dragon commensurate, in tight dress-like vein, with what is properly angelic.

But such angels are not blessed with gender sync, like their male counterparts, but are decidedly counter-cursed with the bound soma and free psyche of what results from a male hegemonic control. For the blessedness of the metaphysical can only be maintained at the expense of the cursedness, or, in relation to church-hegemonic axial criteria, counter-cursedness of the pseudo-metachemical. That which, in metaphysics, has been saved from the world of pseudo-physics is destined to prevail over the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry. Such is the logic of deliverance of the sinful/foolish meek and pseudo-criminal/pseudo-evil pseudo-vain from their worldly phenomenality to the otherworldly and pseudo-netherworldly noumenality of the graceful/wise righteous and the pseudo-punished/pseudo-good pseudo-just.

ALE AND STOUT

2008-08-11T09:27:00.000-07:00

Anyone familiar with my philosophy will know that I distinguish the southwest from the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass on the basis of an equivocal female hegemony in chemistry over an upended male position of antiphysics-cum-pseudo-physics (which from now on we shall simply refer to as pseudo-physics) from an equivocal male hegemony in physics over an upended female position of antichemistry-cum-pseudo-chemistry (which shall likewise be simplified to pseudo-chemistry), thus in effect distinguishing water over pseudo-earth (or pseudo-vegetation) from earth (or vegetation) over pseudo-water or, in vulgar parlance, piss over pseudo-shit from shit over pseudo-piss, the former pairing akin, in sartorial terms, to a flouncy skirt over flared pants and the latter akin to tapering pants over a tapering skirt, as though in a distinction, generally speaking, between sensuality and sensibility or, more correctly, sensuality and pseudo-sensibility on the one hand, and sensibility and pseudo-sensuality on the other, the centrifugal and the centripetal, a context governed by objectivity in female vein and one governed, in male vein, by subjectivity, even if the respective lower-plane positions have to be more representatively characterized as pseudo-subjective and pseudo-objective in keeping with their gender orientations.

So what does all this have to do with ale and stout beers? Let me answer that query in the following way. Taking our gender and sartorial parallels from the above, we should be able to argue, with some justification and overlooking for the moment populist notions that would tend to intuitively confirm this, that bottles parallel skirts and cans parallel pants (or jeans), since bottles tend to be transparent (and water-affirming) whereas cans are somewhat opaque (and earthy), a distinction, after all, between female and male criteria. Therefore we should be able to distinguish bottles over cans on the one hand, that of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, from cans over bottles on the other hand, that of the southeast point of the said compass, as though in a distinction, once again, between flared skirts and flared pants vis-a-vis tapering pants and tapering skirts.

But what is it, you may wonder, that leads one to infer a flared or a tapering parallel to the respective types of bottles and cans? Not necessarily the shape of the bottle or can, nor even of the top or widget. What seems to satisfy this requirement is less the medium in which beer is stored than the nature of the beer itself, i.e. whether it lends itself to a watery (piss) or to an earthy (shit) correlation, which, so far as I am concerned, is precisely the distinction between light ale and/or lager and stout and/or brown ale, to simplify the options.

In other words, chemistry over pseudo-physics = bottled light ale over canned light ale, whereas physics over pseudo-chemistry = canned stout over bottled stout, the former pairing exemplifying the overall influence of female criteria and the latter ... that of males, as, I would argue, would that between lager and brown ale.

Therefore a female-dominated distinction between, for instance, bottled light ale and canned light ale has to be distinguished from a male-dominated distinction between canned stout and bottled stout, the former pairing susceptible to identification with flared phenomenal (relative as opposed, like say dresses to absolute) clothing and the latter to what tapers as though from the hegemony not of water (piss) but of earthiness (shit).

Now what is particularly interesting about this finding, if I may so put it, is that traditionally the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, in which volume is hegemonic over pseudo-mass, would be identifiable, in overall axial terms, with church-hegemonic (catholic) criteria, whereas the southeast point of the said compass, in which mass is hegemonic over pseudo-volume, would be identifiable, in overall axial terms, with state-hegemonic (puritan or protestant) criteria, which is also, as far as these lower-order points of the axes in question are concerned, to make a distinction between Gaelic football and Association football, since the traditional noumenal, or upper-order, poles to these points tend to encompass hurling in the catholic case and rugby in the protestant one, where the religious correlations would be rather more Roman Catholic with, certainly in Eire, an Old English rather than Gaelic connotation and, in England and Britain generally, Anglican rather than Puritan.

Be that as it may, the British Isles has long been a rather paradoxical place, where people tend to be at cross-purposes with themselves in so many contexts, not least in terms of beer-drinking habits, which has seen people of Irish Catholic descent traditionally favouring stout (the beer of the parliamentary/puritan southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) and people of English Protestant, if not puritan, descent favouring ale, not least in its light or lager-like manifestation, which, as I have argued, is relative to the catholic southwest point of the said compass and not at all to anything dominated, in physical fashion, by male criteria.

So not only is it paradoxical but extremely ironic that so many Catholic Irish should identify their beer-drinking habits with an English-derived beer while many of their English and even British counterparts favour light ale or lager, as if it connoted with something puritan and male! I think I have shown, with correlations based in a degree of logic, that this is simply not the case, and I could also add to the misery of these 'where ignorance is bliss' people by pointing out that, in overall elemental terms, rock 'n' roll connotes with the catholic, or lapsed catholic, southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass while classical, not least in a strings-oriented symphonic mode, connotes with the protestant if not puritan southeast, and therefore with all that is axially contrary, on phenomenal (lower order) terms to female hegemonic criteria. Put simply, the southwest is about spirit and pseudo-ego, while the southeast is about ego and pseudo-spirit. This is precisely the distinction between chemistry and pseudo-physics on the one hand, and physics and pseudo-chemistry on the other, our flared skirt and pants pairing vis-a-vis their tapering counterparts in pants and skirts. So light ale is - or should be - the beer of piss-drenched singing rock 'n' rollers and stout the beer of shit-tight scroll-reading orchestral bow-scrapers. Wow!

Perhaps we should leave a more detailed examination of the distinctions between light ale and lager on the one hand and stout and brown ale on the other to another time, before things become way too complicated!

SARTORIAL PARALLELS TO ST GEORGE AND THE DRAGON DO NOT CHANGE PLACES

2008-07-19T13:20:00.000-07:00

In a society that was a combination, St George and the Dragon-like, of metaphysics and antimetchemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry, corresponding, in sartorial terms, to tapering zippersuits and tapering dresses, you would not find metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry changing places, still less would you find the antifemales of antimetachemistry being encouraged to become quasi-metaphysical, since the ratio of soma to psyche with them would be three:one, the reverse of what it would - or should - be for their metaphysical counterparts, the males proper, and therefore instead of three parts truth and joy to one part illusion and woe you would have three parts illusion and woe to one part truth and joy - an unacceptable ratio from the standpoint of the metaphysical proper, since likely to give metaphysics a bad name in relation to what would be the immoral forms of grace and wisdom, with the ratio emphasis decidedly on the latter in quasi-metaphysical guise.

So just as females would not be encouraged to get above themselves - the sartorial parallel for the metaphysical above is of course the zippersuit - in a genuinely metaphysically-led society, so they would be pinned to their rightful position as antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical corollaries of a metaphysical hegemony, the sartorial mean of this context being a tapering dress. One would not have the hype so often encountered in Western society traditionally, least of all from a standpoint that tends to allow females to play at being God and to assume, with brushed-back hair, subjective pretensions way above, in the event of male dominance, a more befitting anti-objective status. They would be encouraged to know their place and to keep to it. They would be the proverbial Dragon that, duly neutralized, the proverbial Saint has firmly under his foot, in order that the truth and joy of metaphysics can have its way without threat from without, from free females who, unlike their neutralized counterparts, will always seduce males from their Y chromosomal centre through beauty and love (coupled in bound psyche to a degree of ugliness and hate) in the long-term interests of maternal resolution in the world.

In contrast to the neutralized angel who is pseudo-metachemical, pseudo-female, one could say, with beauty and love in free psyche and ugliness and hate in bound soma, the free, or metachemical, female is decidedly the proverbial whore of free soma and bound psyche, with a three:one ratio of beauty and love to ugliness and hate, the positivistic basis of life that accords with the 'increase and multiply' ethos of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in Old Testament vein. And just as the angel is led and controlled by the Saint, so the whore holds dominion over the demonic 'fall guy' who is less a devil than an antigod, at least in antimetaphysics; though he can become quasi-metachemical and therefore quasi-devilish if he is of a disposition that prefers to outdo the female at her own game (though this will only be in ugliness and hate) rather than to accept his subordinate place in what we can describe as a pseudo-metaphysical position under metachemistry wherein truth and joy become identified with free soma and illusion and woe with bound psyche, the reverse, in other words, of the metaphysical position proper, and one whose ratio of three:one will favour the illusion and woe of bound psyche even as metachemical pressure from above is encouraging him to identify, falsely, with the truth and joy of free soma, a paradox that, in quasi-metachemical guise, becomes one part beauty and love to three parts ugliness and hate in the immoral forms of evil and crime, with a gender emphasis, as noted, on crime.

Be that as it may, a sensibly led society will never encourage people to identify with anything metachemical or antimetaphysical-cum-pseudo-metaphysical, still less quasi-metachemical, wherein sartorial distinctions between flouncy dresses and flared zipper- or boiler-suits would - or should - be the mean, since its own commitment, if noumenal, to metaphysics and antimetachemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry will ensure the opposite - namely, as stated above, a kind of tapering zippersuit vis-a-vis tapering dress sartorial mean in which the saintly are hegemonically in control of the angelic, like St George over the Dragon which, if prostrate and therefore pseudo-metachemically neutralized, will correspond to the angelic tapering-dress pseudo-female whose prostration is the guarantee of metaphysical freedom for the male.

Such a society, which I have long identified with 'Kingdom Come' and construe as exemplifying religious sovereignty as the ultimate form of sovereignty that the people of certain countries, avowedly church-hegemonic traditionally, will have to be given the opportunity of voting for in relation to a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process, can only be one in which the metaphysical and the antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical will begin the process of saving the antiphysical-cum-pseudo-physical and counter-damning the chemical, or delivering from the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to the northeast point of it those who would otherwise continue to languish, morally and culturally, under metachemical and antimetaphysical-cum-pseudo-metaphysical pressures, thereby hastening the day when their deliverance will be so permanent and irreversible (supra-human) that the others will be put out of business for want of sufficient prey and come crashing down their own axis, northwest to southeast on the intercardinal axial compass, to join those who had formerly financed their exemplifications of somatic license, namely the antichemical-cum-pseudo-chemical and the physical. Other changes will have to follow but, eventually, even they will find the prospect of axial transference and, with due modifications, salvation and counter-damnation from the southwest to the northeast points of the said compass attractive, if only because they will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

But that is getting a long way ahead of myself and of this particular weblog. Let me repeat its principal contention: that the saintly and angelic of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass are as far removed, in noumenal (or space/time) terms from the whorish and demonic of the northwest point ... as it is noumenally possible to be, and that the saintly is no less likely to be male and the angelic pseudo-female than the whorish is female and the demonic pseudo-male. Alpha and omega, to speak in general terms, are absolutely incommensurate, appertaining to different axes, the former state-hegemonic and the latter church-hegemonic, and therefore they remain as hegemonically far apart as evil/crime and grace/wisdom, both of which are moral in their opposite ways - the evil/crime metachemically so and the grace/wisdom metaphysically so, with a paired distinction, in consequence, between superheathen/subchristian vanity and superchristian/subheathen righteousness or, put in equivalent terms, supersensuous/subconscious vanity and superconscious/subsensuous righteousness, the moral vanity of the clear and the moral righteousness of the holy, the former female and the latter male.

Between those extremes there is no mutual respect, no seeing eye to eye, because it is a gender distinction, fundamentally, between the beauty and love of evil (coupled, on a subordinate ratio basis, to the ugliness and hatred of crime) and the truth and joy of grace (coupled, on a subordinate ratio basis, to the illusion and woe of wisdom), with Mother/Daughter vanity at alpha odds with Father/Son righteousness. Only the complete triumph, with 'Kingdom Come', of the latter can put an end to the former's reign. Only the saintly god and angelic pseudo-devil can 'see off' the whorish devil and demonic pseudo-god, but to do so they must save and counter-damn like never before; for the antiphysical-cum-pseudo-physical 'last' (under chemistry) must become the metaphysical 'first' (over antimetachemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry) if deliverance from the alpha-dominated world is truly to obtain, a deliverance rendered all the more imperative in view of what takes advantage of it not only in its immediate vicinity (i.e. the chemically hegemonic) but from the standpoint of what rules the other axis, the secular fruit, in this day and age, of the schismatic heresy that first spawned state-hegemonic criteria and gave rein to the aforementioned exemplification of somatic license which is everywhere the primary servant of the superheathen virtue of beauty and love which is the vanity of moral evil and born enemy of moral grace.

WHY EVIL CONDITIONS CRIME AND GRACE CONDITIONS WISDOM

2008-07-13T08:20:00.000-07:00

In general terms, the free conditions the bound, so that one can say that binding is determined by freedom, irrespective of gender, and therefore of whether, in female vein, soma conditions psyche or whether, in male vein, psyche conditions soma.

The conditioning of psyche by soma in both metachemistry and chemistry, the hegemonically female elements par excellence, means that crime is conditioned by evil and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of evil, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metachemistry, evil and crime, corresponding to beauty and love in free soma and to ugliness and hatred in bound psyche, are genuine, whereas in chemistry, more the element of spirit than of will, evil and crime, corresponding to strength and pride in free soma and to weakness and humility in bound psyche, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on psyche as opposed to soma, even with a relative predominance of soma over psyche in chemistry, due in large part to the antiphysical subversion of chemistry at the behest of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on what we have elsewhere described as, and know to be, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the south-west to the north-east points of the axis in question.

The conditioning of soma by psyche in both metaphysics and physics, the hegemonically male elements par excellence, means that wisdom is conditioned by grace and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of grace, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metaphysics, grace and wisdom, corresponding to truth and joy in free psyche and to illusion and woe in bound soma, are genuine, whereas in physics, more the element of ego than of soul, grace and wisdom, corresponding to knowledge and pleasure in free psyche and to ignorance and pain in bound soma, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on soma as opposed to psyche, even with a relative preponderance of psyche over soma in physics, due in large part to the antichemical subversion of physics at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics on what we have elsewhere described as, and know to be, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the north-west to the south-east points of the axis in question.

However, the upended subordinate gender corollaries of these mutually exclusive hegemonic elements follow the pattern, under pressure from the hegemonic gender, of their gender opposites, not of themselves, whether as soma apparently conditioning psyche in antimetaphysics and antiphysics respectively or, across the hegemonic gender divide, as psyche seemingly conditioning soma in antimetachemistry and antichemistry respectively, so that, irrespective of their respective gender ratios of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, the subordinate gender mimics, as far as possible, the criteria applying to their gender betters, pseudo-sin no less a corollary of pseudo-folly in antimetaphysics and sin no less a corollary of folly in antiphysics ... than pseudo-goodness is a corollary of pseudo-punishment in antimetachemistry and goodness corollary of punishment in antichemistry. For, speaking generally, there can no more be sin without folly than ... goodness without punishment, just as, from the standpoint of the hegemonic gender in any given elemental position, there can no more be crime without evil in free soma than, across the gender divide, wisdom could possibly exist or obtain without a gracious precondition in free psyche.

Notwithstanding the distinctions between moral evil and crime or, again generally, moral grace and wisdom and their immoral counterparts (already touched upon in a series of previous weblogs), the chief distinction between the hegemonic gender's conditioning of the bound by the free and their gender subordinate's conditioning of it under pressures from those a plane above them in either of the respective noumenal or phenomenal elemental positions will be that, in the former case, the ratio of free to bound will always favour the free, whether noumenally on a three-to-one basis or phenomenally on a two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half basis, whereas in the latter case the ratio of free to bound will always be contrary to the free, whether noumenally on a one-to-three basis or phenomenally on a one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half basis, with predictably unattractive consequences.

But this is effectivley a separate subject, so I shall leave it there for the time being, only remarking, in conclusion, that the subversion of chemistry by antiphysics at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry in the one axial case and the subversion of physics by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics in the other axial case provides a compromise solution whereby a male-oriented bound psyche, corresponding to sin, and a female-oriented bound soma, corresponding to goodness, will correspond to the greater part of each subordinate gender's respective ratio of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, i.e. the two-and-a-half (as opposed to the one-and-a-half), at the expense, axially speaking, of the hegemonic gender and without the benefit, traditionally, of either genuine salvation to free psyche in metaphysics or, in the case of the antichemical, genuine undamnation, to speak paradoxically and contrary to the will of godliness, to free soma in metachemistry, the reason being that neither axis can exist independently of the other while an elemental fudge at either pole continues to be the general rule and to keep them in some kind of axial relativity whose respective modes of consistency and stability are held up as guarantors of continuity, and therefore as justifying their respective poles. I do not doubt the credibility of such a claim, but I have a different mindset and approach to axial relativity which the reader may already have familiarized himself with in other writings by me and accordingly come to the conclusion that I am no apologist for the axial status quo.

PHYSICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-PHYSICAL IMMORALITY

2008-07-11T03:48:00.000-07:00

Morality, as we have seen, can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and moral vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and moral vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antichemistry under physics is an antimorality in anti-chemical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-chemical guise or, with some 'females' aspiring towards the physical, an immorality in quasi-physical guise, wherein the female ratio, duly upended under male hegemonic pressure, of two-and-a-half parts soma to one-and-a-half parts psyche becomes two-and-a-half parts ignorance and pain to one-and-a-half parts knowledge and pleasure - the opposite of the male position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral pseudo-grace and wisdom in physical free psyche and bound soma and, from the standpoint of the antifemale opting for a quasi-male rather than pseudo-female position, immoral pseudo-grace and wisdom in quasi-physical free psyche and bound soma, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'female' and the reason why, in this context, females outdo males in ignorance and pain while underdoing them, so to speak, in knowledge and pleasure - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the physical/antichemical southeast. The other three points could be addressed (as the chemical/antiphysical southwest already has been in a previous weblog) in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some physical males to become quasi-pseudo-chemical, entertaining pseudo-strength and pride in pseudo-chemical free psyche and pseudo-weakness and humility in pseudo-chemical bound soma, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their female or, rather, pseudo-female, counterparts - rather more two-and-a-half parts pseudo-strength and pride to one-and-a-half parts pseudo-weakness and humility than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring psyche over soma on an approximately two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half basis.

So rather than a relatively predominating emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-physical counterparts coming up from below, a relatively preponderating emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-chemical free psyche, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-physical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for ignorance and pain.

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a male standpoint, than the moral pseudo-grace and wisdom which characterizes their physical hegemony. Being morally physical is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-chemical, just as being pseudo-morally 'chemical' is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being immorally quasi-physical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally anti-chemical, the initial 'fall gal' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-chemistry (strength and pride falsely in free psyche and weakness and humiliation falsely in bound soma) or, if pretentiously righteous and insufficiently 'the anti-pseudo-vanity angel', to immorality in quasi-physics, seeking to become knowledgeable and pleasurable vis-a-vis ignorance and pain, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour ignorance and pain in bound soma at the expense of knowledge and pleasure in free psyche, the opposite not only of the physical male, but of those chemical females whose ratio of strength and pride in free soma to weakness and humility in bound psyche is most decidedly two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half, two-and-a-half parts realist pseudo-evil to one-and-a-half parts nonconformist pseudo-crime.

Let us leave it there, finally!

CHEMICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-CHEMICAL IMMORALITY

2008-07-11T03:43:00.000-07:00

Morality, as we have already argued, can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antiphysics under chemistry is an antimorality in anti-physical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-physical guise or, with some 'males' aspiring towards the chemical, an immorality in quasi-chemical guise, wherein the male ratio, duly upended under female hegemonic pressure, of two-and-a-half-parts psyche to one-and-a-half-parts soma becomes two-and-a-half-parts weakness and humiliation to one-and-a-half-parts strength and pride - the opposite of the female position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral pseudo-evil and crime in chemical free soma and bound psyche and, from the standpoint of the antimale opting for a quasi-female rather than pseudo-male alternative, immoral pseudo-evil and crime in quasi-chemical free soma and bound psyche, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'male' and the reason why, in this context, males outdo females in weakness and humiliation while underdoing them, so to speak, in strength and pride - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the chemical/antiphysical southwest. The other three points could be addressed (as the metaphysical/antimetachemical northeast already has been in the previous weblog), in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some chemical females to become quasi-pseudo-physical, entertaining pseudo-knowledge and pleasure in pseudo-physical free soma and pseudo-ignorance and pain in pseudo-physical bound psyche, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their male or, rather, pseudo-male, counterparts - rather more two-and-a-half parts pseudo-knowledge and pleasure to one-and-a-half parts pseudo-ignorance and pain than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring soma over psyche on an approximately two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half basis.

So rather than a relatively preponderating emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-chemical counterparts, a relatively predominating emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-physical free soma, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-chemical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for weakness and humiliation (the male equivalent, more often than not, of female humility). But this is still less viable than the moral pseudo-evil and crime which characterizes their chemical hegemony.

Being morally chemical is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-physical, just as being pseudo-morally 'physical' is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being immorally quasi-chemical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antiphysical, the initial 'fall guy' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-physics (knowledge and pleasure falsely in free soma and ignorance and pain falsely in bound psyche) or, if sufficiently pseudo-vain and insufficiently 'the pseudo-artist', to immorality in quasi-chemistry, seeking to become strong and proud vis-a-vis weak and humble but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour weakness and humiliation in bound psyche at the expense of strength and pride in free soma, the opposite not only of the chemical female, as noted above, but of those physical males whose ratio of knowledge and pleasure in free psyche to ignorance and pain in bound soma is most decidedly two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half, two-and-a-half parts humanist pseudo-grace to one-and-a-half parts inaturalist pseudo-wisdom.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention, in the next weblog, to the phenomenal antitheses of the above - namely, to mass and antivolume, physics and antichemistry.

METAPHYSICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-METAPHYSICAL IMMORALITY

2008-07-11T03:39:00.000-07:00

Morality, as noted in the previous weblog, can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antimetachemistry under metaphysics is an antimorality in anti-metachemical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-metachemical guise or, with some 'females' aspiring towards the metaphysical, an immorality in quasi-metaphysical guise, wherein the female ratio, duly upended under male hegemonic pressure, of three parts soma to one part psyche becomes three parts illusion and woe to one part truth and joy - the opposite of the male position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral grace and wisdom in metaphysical free psyche and bound soma and, from the standpoint of the antifemale opting for a quasi-male rather than pseudo-female position, immoral grace and wisdom in quasi-metaphysical free psyche and bound soma, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'female' and the reason why, in this context, females outdo males in illusion and woe while underdoing them, so to speak, in truth and joy - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the metaphysical/antimetachemical northeast. The other three points could be addressed (as the metachemical/antimetphysical northwest already has been in a previous weblog) in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some metaphysical males to become quasi-pseudo-metachemical, entertaining pseudo-beauty and love in pseudo-metachemical free psyche and pseudo-ugliness and hatred in pseudo-metachemical bound soma, but on a ratio basis that is the opposite of their female or, rather, pseudo-female, counterparts - rather more three parts pseudo-beauty and love to one part pseudo-ugliness and hatred than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring psyche over soma on an approximately three-to-one basis.

So rather than an overwhelming emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-metaphysical counterparts coming up from below, an overwhelming emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-metachemical free psyche, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-metaphysical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for illusion and woe.

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a male standpoint, than the moral grace and wisdom which characterizes their metaphysical hegemony. Being morally metaphysical is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-metachemical, just as being pseudo-morally 'metachemical' is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being immorally quasi-metaphysical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antimetachemical, the initial 'fall gal' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-metachemistry (beauty and love falsely in free psyche and ugliness and hatred falsely in bound soma) or, if pretentiously righteous and insufficiently 'the anti-vanity angel', to immorality in quasi-metaphysics, seeking to become true and joyful vis-a-vis illusory and woeful, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour illusion and woe in bound soma at the expense of truth and joy in free psyche, the opposite not only of the metaphysical male, but of those metachemical females whose ratio of beauty and love in free soma to ugliness and hatred in bound psyche is most decidedly three-to-one, three parts materialist evil to one part fundamentalist crime.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention, in the ensuing weblog, to the phenomenal planes below space and time, whether as space/antitime or time/antispace, to volume and mass, beginning with volume/antimass and proceeding, in the subsequent weblog, to mass/antivolume, so that are initial attention will be on chemistry and antiphysics.

METACHEMICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-METACHEMICAL IMMORALITY

2008-07-11T03:34:00.000-07:00

Morality can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antimetaphysics under metachemistry is an antimorality in anti-metaphysical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-metaphysical guise or, with some 'males' aspiring towards the metachemical, an immorality in quasi-metachemical guise, wherein the male ratio, duly upended under female hegemonic pressure, of three parts psyche to one part soma becomes three parts ugliness and hate to one part beauty and love - the opposite of the female position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral evil and crime in metachemical free soma and bound psyche and, from the standpoint of the antimale opting for a quasi-female rather than pseudo-male alternative, immoral evil and crime in quasi-metachemical free soma and bound psyche, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'male' and the reason why, in this context, males outdo females in ugliness and hate while underdoing them, so to speak, in beauty and love - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the metachemical/antimetaphysical northwest. The other three points could be addressed in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some metachemical females to become quasi-pseudo-metaphysical, entertaining pseudo-truth and joy in pseudo-metaphysical free soma and pseudo-illusion and woe in pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their male or, rather, pseudo-male, counterparts - rather more three parts pseudo-truth and joy to one part pseudo-illusion and woe than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring soma over psyche on an approximately three-to-one basis.

So rather than an overwhelming emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-metachemical counterparts, an overwhelming emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-metaphysical free soma, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which r,ather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-metachemical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for ugliness and hatred. But this is still less viable than the moral evil and crime which characterizes their metachemical hegemony.

Being morally metachemical is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-metaphysical, just as being pseudo-morally 'metaphysical' is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being immorally quasi-metachemical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antimetaphysical, the initial 'fall guy' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-metaphysics (truth and joy falsely in free soma and illusion and woe falsely in bound psyche) or, if sufficiently vain and insufficiently 'the artist', to immorality in quasi-metachemistry, seeking to become beautiful and loving vis-a-vis ugly and hateful but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour ugliness and hatred in bound psyche at the expense of beauty and love in free soma, the opposite not only of the metachemical female, as noted above, but of those metaphysical males whose ratio of truth and joy in free psyche to illusion and woe in bound soma is most decidedly three-to-one, three parts transcendental grace to one part idealistic wisdom.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention in the next weblog to the noumenal antitheses of metachemistry and antimetaphysics - namely, metaphysics and antimetachemistry.

RELATIONSHIPS OF PSYCHOLOGY TO PHYSIOLOGY AND VICE VERSA

2008-06-13T10:19:00.000-07:00

You cannot understand psychology without physiology or, conversely, physiology without psychology, since the two aspects of the totality of factors somatic and psychic 'hang together' as complementary entities, though with different ratios, depending on gender and class.

Females, I have long argued, are more physiology than psychology; males, by contrast, more psychology than physiology, since in the one case soma precedes psyche (and literally predominates over it) as, in metaphorical terms, mother preceding daughter, whereas in the other case, that of males, psyche precedes soma, (and consequently tends to preponderate over it) as, in metaphorical terms, father preceding son, thereby indicating that the genders are in effect opposites, with correspondingly opposite concepts of self.

Self for the female is basically somatic; for the male its is essentially psychic. Therein lies the roots of the gender friction and so-called 'war of the sexes'. Self is whatever is free and the female, if left to her own sensuous devices, will opt for somatic freedom and psychic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma or as chemical bound psyche to chemical free soma, the former element corresponding to fire and the latter to water. By contrast, the male, if left to his own devices, will more than likely opt for psychic freedom and somatic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as physical bound soma to physical free psyche or as metaphysical bound soma to metaphysical free psyche, the former element corresponding to earth (vegetation) and the latter to air.

Therefore self for the male is the opposite of what it is for the female, psyche taking precedence over soma as psychology or physiology in one of two class/elemental ways: either relatively (two-and-a-half:one-and-a-half) as more psyche/less soma, or absolutely (three:one) as most psyche/least soma, the former corresponding to a conscious/unsensuous (nurtural/unnatural) disposition in physics, the element of the ego par excellence, the latter to a superconscious/subsensuous (supernurtural/subnatural) disposition in metaphysics, the element of the soul par excellence.

With the female, on the other hand, soma takes precedence over psyche as physiology over psychology in one of two class/elemetal ways: either absolutely (three:one) as most soma/least psyche, or relatively (two-and-a-half:one-and-a-half) as more soma/less psyche, the former corresponding to a supersensuous/subconscious (supernatural/subnurtural) disposition in metachemistry, the element of the will par excellence, the latter to a sensuous/unconcious (natural/unnurtural) disposition in chemistry, the element of the spirit par excellence.

Of course, there are more than four elemental positions at stake when it comes to axial polarities of either a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate order, since the hegemonic triumph or prevalence of the one gender presupposes and necessitates the upending and subordination of the other, whether as antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (state-hegemonically polar to the southeast point of it), as antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass (church-hegemonically polar to the northeast point of it), as antichemistry under physics at the southeast point of the said compass (state-hegemonically polar to the northwest point of it), or as antimetachemistry under metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (church-hegemonically polar to the southwest point of it). But even the antipositions under the hegemonic ones, whether noumenally unequivocal or phenomenally equivocal, absolute or relative, reflect ratios of soma to psyche or of psyche to soma, depending on the upended gender, that correspond to their class/elemental positions, and are therefore distinct from the controlling gender a plane above them in each class/elemental instance.

Antimetaphysics is not a context, like metachemistry, of a supersensuous/subconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subsensuous and anti-superconscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to supersensuousness/subconsciousness to obtain from within a position that, being essentially male, would never be capable of such an integrity itself. Conversely antimetachemistry, across the noumenal axial divide, is not a context, like metaphysics, of a superconscious/subsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subconscious and anti-supersensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to superconsciousness/subsensuousness to obtain from a position that, being fundamentally female, would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

And what applies to the noumenal positions applies no less to their phenomenal counterparts, antiphysics not being a context, like chemistry, of a sensuous/unconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unsensuous and anti-conscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to sensusousness/unconsciousness to obtain from a position that, being essentially male, would never be capable of such an integrity itself. Conversely, antichemistry, across the phenomenal axial divide, is not a context, like physics, of a conscious/unsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unconscious and anti-sensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to consciousness/unsensuousness to obtain from a position that, being fundamentally female, would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

But, of course, subversion of the equivocally hegemonic positions by their upended subordinate counterparts at the behest of the axially polar unequivocally hegemonic positions results in a switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the chemical/antiphysical case and from psyche to soma in the physical/antichemical case, in order that either church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, by contrast, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics can be axially established and duly maintained, to the advantage of axial stability and continuity.

For the Catholic southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is no more heathenistic in somatic emphasis than the Puritan southeast point of it is overly christianistic, so to speak, in psychic emphasis. Free psyche to bound psyche in the one axial case, free soma to bound soma in the other, would seem to be the guarantors of either church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic criteria, for both genders.

But that is another subject and one I have said much about in the past and could say a lot more about in the present article, were I not minded of the principal topic of this weblog, which is of the ratios between psyche and soma or soma and psyche, according to gender and class. We do not understand female psychology unless we are aware of the physiology that conditions it, making for subconsciousness in relation to supersensuousness in metachemistry and for unconsciousness in relation to sensuousness in chemistry. Likewise, we shall not understand male physiology unless we are aware of the psychology that conditions it, making for unsensuousness in relation to consciousness in physics and for subsensuousness in relation to superconsciousness in metaphysics.

Needless to say, both these class positions are incompatible, since you cannot be conscious/unsensuous and superconscious/subsensuous at the same time or in the same person, any more than females could transcend their class distinctions and be both supersensuous/subconscious and sensuous/unconscious at the same time or in the same person.
But, then, compatibility is not an issue from an axial standpoint, which ensures that either antichemistry is polar to metachemistry and physics polar to antimetaphysics or, across the axial divide, that antiphysics is polar to metaphysics and chemistry polar to antimetachemistry. The physical and the metaphysical are not ethnically aligned. Nor are their chemical and metachemical counterparts. Rather, they are competitors for the sensible or, in the female case, sensual upper hand, excluding one another from their respective axial integrities.

ST GEORGE AND THE DRAGON THE WAY I SEE IT

2008-06-12T08:29:00.000-07:00

I am a great believer in St George and the Dragon, in what should be the metaphysical hegemony of the male over the female at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, pretty much like metaphysics over antimetachemistry, or a velcro-cum-zipper suit, to coin a sartorial parallel, over a tight, tapering dress, the zippersuit-wearing saintly metaphysician with his foot firmly on the prone dragon of the dress-wearer, as though keeping it/her down and in its/her proper place.

Unfortunately, St George can be - and often is - reduced by the Puritan manifestation of Protestantism, not least in England, to physics over antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass, in which case the sartorial paradigm is one of straight pants and tight skirt, as germane to phenomenal relativity, the lower-order parallel to noumenal absolutism.

But this George would be considerably less than saintly! For physics is subject to subversion to somatic emphasis at the expense of psyche by antichemistry in polarity to the unequivocally hegemonic factor on what is, after all, a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis - namely metachemistry, which, unlike its subordinate counterpart antimetaphysics, is also on the female side of the gender fence, so to speak, if from the standpoint of that which is sovereign in its free soma and bound psyche, corresponding, in sartorial terms, to a flouncy dress and, in religious terms, to Anglicanism (as does antimetaphysics). No, St George can only be a Roman Catholic emblem traditionally, and metaphor for something which England officially abandoned centuries ago, even as early as with Henry VIII, switching axes in the heretical process.

But even Catholicism doesn't really do justice to metaphysics, since it tends to fudge things down to antimetachemistry, making one aware of tapering dresses existing independently - and quite falsely - of zipper-suit pressures, so to speak, a plane above, and therefore as though that, the tapering dress, were the non plus ultra of things!

I'm afraid to say that above the Christian 'sacred heart' are the 'sacred lungs', so to speak, of metaphysical bound soma, roughly corresponding to the Crucifixional paradigm for what is, after all, a manifestation of bound soma in the Son (the metaphor of Father preceding Son having real value only in relation to the male actuality of psyche preceding soma), but such a parallel has never been encouraged probably from fear that TM, or transcendental meditation, would get out of the bag of 'sacred lungs' at the expense of that which anchors Western civilization to itself as a Son-like extrapolation, namely the middle-eastern take on God which is actually less metaphysical than metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in the sense of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the 'best of a bad job' and effective starting point of civilization.

Thus if you are anchored, as an extrapolation, to an ancient and rather primitivistic lie, the 'best of a bad job', in back, of Western civilization, you are not in a position to have the full gamut of metaphysics, which exists independently of things metachemical, including beauty and its spiritual corollary, love. You end up with this Christian, Catholic fudge of a truncated metaphysics (the bound soma of the Son) done down antimetachemically (to 'sacred heart') without the benefit of TM, which presupposes a rejection of 'Creatorism' ... in the sense of Devil the Mother (or free soma metachemically) in what some would regard as an atheistic (which it is not) independence of the Old Testament.

So, alas, the postulate of resurrection from below, say southwest to northeast on church-hegemonic axial terms, is a nonsense, since you don't get to metaphysics or become metaphysical on that basis. You are, as a male, metaphysical to begin with, at least when full of youthful idealism, but - philosopher exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - you can get picked off by beauty to antimetaphysics under metachemistry, deferring to beauty as from a 'fall guy' position a plane down from metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. This is the typical artist's position.

The typical male position, however, is a fall, following or accompanying female resolution in maternity, down to antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest and rather Marian (Woman the Mother) point of the said compass, and from there there is no way back to metaphysics bar salvation for the antiphysical by the metaphysical and, correlatively, counter-damnation for the chemical by the antimetachemical, a bit like the prone dragon that the proverbial Saint has his foot upon, as though keeping it down and in its place.

But this whole process of salvation coupled to counter-damnation is a drastic remedy for what is perceived to be a worldly imperfection for males, and one that has other than altruistic motives, since those who eventually get to do the saving and counter-damning of the respective gender positions at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass will have other things in mind than their prospective metaphysical and antimetachemical deliverance!

But that is another story. Suffice it to say that St George and the Dragon is a decent traditional metaphor, if interpreted in this way, for the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where one could even expect to find choppers (suitably badgeful rather than ringful) and jump jets, their - dare I say it? - antimetachemical counterparts, as though germane not merely to a mastered dragon but, to expand the metaphor, to a lion that lies down with the lamb in tight-dress under zipper-suit fashion, and serves to support and complement what must be, for all eternity, a metaphysical hegemony.

BITCHES AND BASTARDS

2007-09-01T13:13:00.000-07:00

Everyone is familiar with the terms 'bitches' and 'bastards', but until quite recently I hadn't realized just how indicative of an alpha/omega dichotomy they are, whether on the noumenal basis of diabolic and divine or, lower down, on the phenomenal basis of feminine and masculine - a sort of ethereal/corporeal distinction between the diabolic and divine 'above' (noumenal) and the feminine and masculine 'below' (phenomenal). Be that as it may I don't believe bitches and bastards 'hang together', like two aspects of the same sensual, or alpha-stemming, coin. For my philosophy has taught me that metachemistry and antimetaphysics 'hang together' at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so to speak, and that means that you don't have God and the Devil there but, on the contrary, Devil and Antigod, or Devil the Mother (hyped as God the Father) and the Antison of Antigod ('done down' as the Devil), to take the freely somatic (as opposed to bound psychic) aspects and terminological parallels of these two contexts, contexts corresponding, it will not be forgotten, to metachemistry and antimetaphysics, that is, to heat and antilight, to protons and antiphotons, to space and antitime, to Vanity Fair and Anti-Celestial City, to .... well, why not bitches and antibastards? For that is precisely the point I am making. It is not the proverbial 'bastard' that is ruled by 'the bitch' but, on the contrary, 'the antibastard', the lover-boy or mummies-boy or anti-rightist common type who knows, in his heart of hearts, that 'bastards' are right-wing, or sensibly removed from his own sensuality (or antisensibility) across the axial divide that divides the metachemical and antimetaphysical from the metaphysical and antimetachemical or, 'down below', the chemical and antiphysical from the physical and antichemical. Therefore 'the antibastard' does not like 'bastards', whether physical (and Christian) or metaphysical (and Superchristian). But which is worse - a world ruled by bitches (in which 'antibastards' have their subordinate positions corresponding to antimetaphysics and/or antiphysics) or a world lead by bastards (in which 'antibitches' have their subordinate positions corresponding to antimetachemistry and/or antichemistry)? I don't have any doubt as to the answer to that almost rhetorical question. The world ruled by bitches is fundamentally naturalistic and hence barbarous and philistine in its sensual bias; the world led by bastards, on the other hand, is essentially nurturalistic, as it were, and hence civil and cultural in its bias towards sensibility. The former is the basis out of which the latter emerges - precisely as civilization. Call me a bastard if you will, but just remember what the alternative to living under bastards is! If you are a son-of-a-bitch then you are not a bastard, neither physical (and phenomenal) nor metaphysical (and noumenal), but either an antiphysical subordinate of a chemical bitch or an antimetaphysical subordinate of a metachemical bitch, the former femine and the latter diabolic. Being an 'antibastard' isn't as cool as some people think but rather someone who, by allowing himself to be dominated by bitches, effectively acquiesces in the two worst of all possible worlds - the noumenal world ruled by metachemistry and/or the phenomenal world ruled by chemistry, the former superheathen (and anti-superchristian), the latter heathen (and antichristian). Of course, in axial terms the one is no less incompatible with the other than are the Christian and Superchristian worlds with each other, since what appertains to the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is polar to what appertains to its southeast point and therefore axially incompatible with the polarity between the southwest and northeast points of the said compass, the fomer polarity constitutive of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, the latter of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria. That, however, is another subject, so I won't belabour the point here. Suffice it to say that the only bitches and bastards that are truly incompatible are those across the axial divide that divides the noumenal northwest from the northeast and the phenomenal southwest from the southeast. For society cannot be ruled by bitches and led by bastards at the same time. Only on inter-class terms is there any compromise, as in relation to a given axis, but then the noumenal bitches tend to overrule the leadership of the phenomenal bastards on the one axis, while the phenomenal bitches tend to be overruled by the noumenal bastards on the other axis. Make sense? It does to me at any rate.