ST GEORGE AND THE DRAGON THE WAY I SEE IT

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

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.