AGE OF SCREEN ADDICTION

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'

‘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

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

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

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

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

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.