NOUMENAL AND PHENOMENAL CONTRASTS IN HEGEMONIC AND SUBORDINATE MODES

The Apparent Doing of the Will in Space.

The Quantitative Giving of the Spirit in Volume.

The Qualitative Taking of the Ego in Mass.

The Essential Being of the Soul in Time.

To contrast the Apparent Doing of Will in the Protonic Heat of Space with the Essential Being of Soul in the Photonic Light of Time, as one would contrast the Noumenal Objectivity of Metachemistry in the Elemental Particle Absolutism of Spatial Space with the Noumenal Subjectivity of Metaphysics in the Elemental Wavicle Absolutism of Repetitive Time.

To contrast the Quantitative Giving of Spirit in the Electronic Motion of Volume with the Qualitative Taking of Ego in the Neutronic Force of Mass, as one would contrast the Phenomenal Objectivity of Chemistry in the Molecular Particle Relativity of Volumetric Volume with the Phenomenal Subjectivity of Physics in the Molecular Wavicle Relativity of Massive Mass.

The pseudo-Apparent pseudo-Doing of the pseudo-Will in pseudo-Space.

The pseudo-Quantitative pseudo-Giving of the pseudo-Spirit in pseudo-Volume.

The pseudo-Qualitative pseudo-Taking of the pseudo-Ego in pseudo-Mass.

The pseudo-Essential pseudo-Being of the pseudo-Soul in pseudo-Time.

To contrast the pseudo-Apparent pseudo-Doing of the pseudo-Will in the pseudo-Protonic pseudo-Heat of pseudo-Space with the pseudo-Essential pseudo-Being of the pseudo-Soul in the pseudo-Photonic pseudo-Light of pseudo-Time, as one would contrast the Noumenal pseudo-Objectivity of pseudo-Metachemistry in the Elemental pseudo-Particle Absolutism of Spaced Space with the Noumenal pseudo-Subjectivity of pseudo-Metaphysics in the Elemental pseudo-Wavicle Absolutism of Sequential Time.

To contrast the pseudo-Quantitative pseudo-Giving of the pseudo-Spirit in the pseudo-Electronic pseudo-Motion of pseudo-Volume with the pseudo-Qualitative pseudo-Taking of the pseudo-Ego in the pseudo-Neutronic pseudo-Force of pseudo-Mass, as one would contrast the Phenomenal pseudo-Objectivity of pseudo-Chemistry in the Molecular pseudo-Particle Relativity of Voluminous Volume with the Phenomenal pseudo-Subjectivity of pseudo-Physics in the Molecular pseudo-Wavicle Relativity of Massed Mass.

With Metachemistry and pseudo-Metaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, the Apparent Doing of Will in the Protonic Heat of Space is hegemonic over the pseudo-Essential pseudo-Being of pseudo-Soul in the pseudo-Photonic pseudo-Light of pseudo-Time, like Vanity over pseudo-Meekness.

With Chemistry and pseudo-Physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, the Quantitative Giving of Spirit in the Electronic Motion of Volume is hegemonic over the pseudo-Qualitative pseudo-Taking of pseudo-Ego in the pseudo-Neutronic pseudo-Force of pseudo-Mass, like pseudo-Vanity over Meekness.

With Physics and pseudo-Chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, the Qualitative Taking of Ego in the Neutronic Force of Mass is hegemonic over the pseudo-Quantitative pseudo-Giving of pseudo-Spirit in the pseudo-Electronic pseudo-Motion of pseudo-Volume, like pseudo-Righteousness over Justice.

With Metaphysics and pseudo-Metachemistry at the northeast point of the inercardinal axial compass, the Essential Being of Soul in the Photonic Light of Time is hegemonic over the pseudo-Apparent pseudo-Doing of pseudo-Will in the pseudo-Protonic pseudo-Heat of pseudo-Space, like Righteousness over pseudo-Justice.

SPACE CENTRE SPECULATIONS

I envisage the Space Centre of the Social Theocratic or, rather, Transcendental future as a large mainly two-part structure, the upper and smaller part of which would be designed on an absolute curvilinear basis (circular) and the lower and larger part on an absolute rectilinear basis (square), the former intended for the metaphysically Saved and the latter for the pseudo-metachemically counter-Damned, both of which would be served by the 'administrative aside' (of the Social Theocratic Party and/or Movement leadership and/or members) in such fashion that numerous curvilinear or rectilinear passageways would lead from each of the main aspects of the Centre-proper (church-equivalent) to the surrounding circular or square structures (state-equivalent), depending on the tier being served, and of course from those structures, somewhat akin to halos or rings (in the sense of what surrounds planets like Saturn), back into the Centre-proper, so that the serving leadership could easily go to-and-fro to their respective tier charges, whether metaphysically elect or pseudo-metachemically gender subordinate in order to ensure their religiously-sovereign entitlements were being met and even advanced where some advancement was still possible or desirable.

The surrounding structures to the Centre-proper would be large enough to house the living quarters and relaxational or entertainment areas of the servants of the religiously sovereign, as well as being able to support store rooms and landing bays for shuttle services to and from the Earth.

There could also be smaller curvilinear and rectilinear structures above and below the main components of the Centre-proper that would have a police and/or military aspect in the protection of the Centre, both main and peripheral, church- and state-equivalents, from alien or reactionary aggression, and perhaps even a small superstructure for the overall leader of the Social Theocratic Centre, who would have to co-ordinate policy and procedures. All such centralized structures, whatever their function, would be joined by vertical columns that included lifts or other means of ascending or descending from one tier and/or structure to another.

Whatever the eventual outcome, this kind of structure which I have termed a Space Centre would be large enough to house all the individual tier structures (top, middle, and bottom of the so-called triadic Beyond), including their respective type of gender differentiation or segregation, of the Earth Centres, as we may call those centres that are developed on the Earth prior to any more advanced Centre set in space, and to house them in such fashion that it signified, for them, a convergence to the Omega Point (de Chardin) of the One, Ultimate Centre, a veritable 'Celestial City' of definitive salvation and counter-damnation of the metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical for all Eternity and pseudo-Infinity, Heaven and pseudo-Devil, free soul and bound will without gender-differentiated end.

ESCHATOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS CONCERNING THE TRIADIC BEYOND

I have spoken often enough in the past of the triadic Beyond as not only the stepped-up (resurrected) church-hegemonic axis that would gradually transpire in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty (conceived as the ultimate sovereignty, germane to 'Kingdom Come') in countries with the right kind of axial preconditions traditionally, but as the result, thereafter, of the collapsed state-hegemonic axis and of the need to accommodate ex-Protestants, including Puritans and Anglicans, to middle and bottom tiers of the said Beyond, as though under the ex-Catholics who had initially been saved (pseudo-physical to metaphysics) and counter-damned (chemical to pseudo-metachemistry) to what would effectively be the top tier.

Such a triadic Beyond would therefore become pluralist after people primarily affiliated to the state-hegemonic axis had been accommodated to it in the wake of their ex-Catholic counterparts, and such pluralism, deferential from the bottom up to what leads it at the top, namely metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, would probably remain the triadic norm, with due gender differentiation on each tier, for several decades if not centuries to come, bearing in mind the need for structural stability in the interests of consistency and continuity, even if those on the middle and bottom tiers were necessarily less metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical than their properly saved and counter-damned counterparts 'upstairs', so to speak, on the top tier, and to a degree whereby some physical/pseudo-chemical and even chemical/pseudo-physical elements persisted, in attenuated to transmuted vein, within the overall framework.

But if, over the course of time or, rather, eternity, a progression towards some kind of metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical totalitarianism were to emerge from out of the initial pluralism, in keeping with the general need to step things up and effect a more centro-complexified (de Chardin) resolution to proceedings properly commensurate with the gradual unfolding of evolutionary/counter-devolutionary criteria, then it seems to me that the best, most sensible way of effecting such a totalitarian outcome would be from 'on high', that is, not within the earth-bound - and maybe missile-silo-like - triadic structures of the Social Theocratic Centre itself, however many such 'centres' there would be across the planet (for Social Theocracy has global aspirations in its ideological universality), but from having designed the Space Centre of the potential culmination point of all such evolution/counter-devolution on a more totalitarian basis, so that it would be structured along lines primarily if not exclusively designed to facilitate a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical culmination-point, together with a built-in administrative aside, or serving capacity, intended to accommodate the servants of the religiously sovereign and to ensure that the latter are properly addressed in their various, gender-conditoned entitlements.

Thus with a more advanced design of the Centre 'on high', it should be possible to transplant by special shuttles each of the gender-segregated tiers of the triadic Beyond up to the one centralized metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical tier structure of the Space Centre, conceiving of the latter as equivalent to Bunyan's 'Celestial City' or to de Chardin's 'Omega Point', the resolution, in short, of all evolutionary/counter-devolutionary progress/counter-regress in 'Kingdom Come', that is, within the overall umbrella of the Social Theocratic Centre.

Hence that which finally made it into space in relation to the ultimate Centre - beyond even Space Mortuaries for those who continuied to die 'in naturalis' for want of a sufficiently advanced cyborgization - would not only be more totalitarian than any previous centre structure; it would be appropriate to the noumenal heights of an antithesis, on synthetically artificial terms, to stellar/solar bodies in cosmic space, and to a parallel antithesis, as it were, to planets like Saturn and Venus, which can be equated, vis-a-vis anything metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical, with a rudimentary metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical status, the kind of status that our projected Space Centre (very different to contemporary scientifically-oriented space stations) would signify to an ultimate, unsurpassable degree.

Only then would totalitarianism, ever respectful of the fundamental gender divisions, be fully justifiable and, more to the point, completely desirable from the standpoint of the hegemonic gender, equivalent to the 'lamb' whose peace of mind is guaranteed by the 'wolf' and/or 'lion' that, properly neutralized, is obliged to 'lie down' with him for all eternity, thereby perpetuating the noumenal parameters of time (eternity) and pseudo-space (pseudo-infinity), repetitive time as the mode of time per se and spaced space as a subordinate mode of space commensurate with the influence of repetitive time upon itself, making for that parallel with pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics or, to return to an earlier analogy, the neutralized dragon (pseudo-dragon) under the saintly heel of he who, in his divine blessedness, appertains to noumenal subjectivity over noumenal pseudo-objectivity at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass at what would be the transcendent apex of the church-hegemonic axis.

DISTINCTIONS IN METAPHYSICS AND PHYSICS

To distinguish, as I believe I have done to some extent before, a metaphysical ratio in free psyche (never mind bound soma) of least heaven and most god from less (in relation to least) heaven and more (in relation to most) god, and this in turn from more (in relation to most) heaven and less (in relation to least) god, and most heaven and least god, as one might distinguish, from our point of view, metaphysics in the cosmos from metaphysics in nature, and that in turn from metaphysics in mankind and metaphysics in cyborgkind (to slightly anticipate the future), or, more specifically, planets like Saturn (cosmos) from winged seedpods (nature), and this in turn from prayer and/or meditation (mankind) and substance entitlement (cyborgkind), the latter of which, corresponding to most heaven and least god, would be the definitive manifestation of metaphysics and therefore the most internalized stage of all.

But although I have said pretty much the same thing before, also allowing for man, in general terms, to approach cosmic metaphysics smokingly and natural metaphysics sexually, I did not distinguish, as I can now, between the heavenly and godly aspects of metaphysical free psyche in terms of the inner experience of Heaven and that experience perceived (by us) from the outside, which is effectively where the concept of God, or godliness, comes into play, since that is no more and no less than a superficial, or external, take on Heaven, not a separate entity that stands apart from Heaven like some kind of person.

Between the Soul and its superconscious self-realization there is no distinction, even though a distinction indubitably exists between the basis of the Soul in the brain stem and spinal cord of the central nervous system and the experiencing, all-too-sentient soul itself, which is superconscious and never more so, I shall contend, than when self-absorbed rather than distracted, via the senses, by external phenomena and even noumena, as in the case, for example, of the stars.

There is also a distinction, touched upon in an earlier entry, between this superconscious and what I have termed superego, which owes more to the brain – and possibly even to the brain stem as that part of the brain closest to the spinal cord – on an intellectually-bovaryized basis than ever it does to the Soul, since it is used to understand metaphysics and to be pro-metaphysical even as it necessarily falls short of metaphysics-proper, in which the Soul’s superconscious experience of itself precludes thought, being pertinent to the ‘peace that suprasses all understanding’.

One should also note, in dropping from metaphysics to physics, that between the Ego and its conscious self-realization there is no appreciable distinction either, even though one indubitably exists between the basis of the Ego in the brain and the thoughts of the Ego itself, which is conscious, and never more so, I shall argue, than when self-absorbed rather than distracted by externals, most of which will register as phenomena rather than as noumena to a person centred in the Ego and therefore more disposed to what could be called a corporeal view of life.

Thus no less than feelings are germane to superconsciousness, so thoughts are germane to consciousness, both of which tend, barring bovaryized thoughts (pro-spiritual superego) and bovaryized feelings (pro-intellectual subsoul) to be mutually exclusive, since effectively appertaining to the sensibilities, noumenal and phenomenal, metaphysical and physical, of contrary axes, with correspondingly disparate ethnic implications.

Ego and soul do not inhabit the same person, but only either ego and bovaryized soul (pro-intellectual subsoul) on the one hand, or soul and bovaryized ego (pro-spiritual superego) on the other hand, the former centred in knowledge (with a correlative manifestation of pleasure) and the latter in truth or, rather joy (with a correlative manifestation of truth), so that the disitinction is rather akin to economics and religion, form and contentment, a humanistic world and a transcendental otherworld, neither of which are – or ever could be – compatible.

A DISTINCTION OF MINDS

There is no other male freedom than freedom from woman and bodily domination. The idea of freedom through woman is a delusion, because sex is a woman's freedom, not a man's, given the inherent foreignness, with males, of a predominating somatic ratio in both noumenal and phenomenal contexts.

Men are only free when psychically free, whether through ego or, preferably, through soul, which makes for superconscious freedom and thus for that which is a product, as superconsciouly free mind (soul) actually is, of the central nervous system. Mind which is not true to itself but knowledgeable and effectively false, having been corrupted by education, is less a product of the central nervous system metaphysically than of the brain physically, and is thus identifiable with ego. Ego-mind is what you think, not what you feel (and I don't mean touch or sense or even see and hear). For what you see and hear, not to mention smell and taste, through the senses can be channelled in either direction - either down, with intellectual corruption of the Self, towards the thoughts of the Ego or up, given sufficient avoidance of such corruption, towards the feelings of the Soul.

But ego-mind is generally more dependent on externals than soul-mind, as we may call that which, when more or less left to its own devices, is superconscious rather than merely conscious. One might say that the Ego is more heavily indebted to sense than the Soul, given its association with the brain rather than with the core of the Self (not to be confused with the heart), which I have for many years tended to identify with the brain stem and, especially, spinal cord of the central nervous system, that repository of all higher sensibility which, if truly left to itself, would cannibalistically self-consume rather than respond to external sense stimuli and a plethora of organic demands, and thus enter into what Christians - and Catholics in particular - would equate with afterlife experience ... at least until it had self-consumed or self-combusted to a degree whereby it could only fade and, ultimately, succumb to quiescence for want of nervous stimulation - the second death, as it were, that follows upon the initial one of organic failure and is tied up, barring cremation, with ongoing decomposition of the corpse.

Finally, I should like to maintain that the distinction between ego-mind and soul-mind is largely axially and therefore ethnically conditioned, and that if some people or peoples are less prone to the former than to the latter, it is because they have not been ethnically conditioned in the same way as those for whom education is a human right and virtual ne plus ultra of respectability, and this despite the discouragement placed upon it through such metaphors as the 'forbidden tree of knowledge' and religious teachings conducive to the life - the higher life in its superconsciousness - of the Soul.

As someone born an Irish Catholic, I, too, go along with those teachings, but, living my whole life long in a Protestant country (England) with Protestant criteria never very far away, I have tended to bovaryize ego - and thus knowledge - towards Truth in relation to what I call superego, which is indubitably pro-superconscious in its 'understanding' of metaphysics and of what metaphysics should - and one day could - be all about if granted the opportunity of, if you will pardon the metaphor, 'coming out' in a stepped-up form commensurate with Social Theocracy and a whole new approach to Eternal Life than that to which the Christian - and in particular Roman Catholic - tradition has been partial, an approach founded on synthetically artificial criteria that would allow the term 'eternity' a longevity way beyond anything subject, in death, to human limitations, and precisely because those limitations would cease to apply as man was systematically 'overcome', as described by me in a variety of previous entries and, indeed, major texts, following 'judgement' and the possibility, thereafter, of 'Kingdom Come', two traditional terms which, for me, imply the utilization of the democratic process to a religiously sovereign end and the implementation of that end, under Social Theocracy, when once a majority mandate for religious sovereignty is forthcoming, without which there can be no such 'kingdom' and no advancement, via the 'resurrection' of the church-hegemonic axis, not to mention, in countries like the Republic of Ireland, the republican 'dead' (to the possibility of Life Eternal), towards the eternal life of the Soul, a life that centres not on organic matter, still less on inorganic matter, but on the psychic freedom of the central nervous system (brain stem and spinal chord) from all that is naturally or organically somatic, and precisely because of the synthetically artificial criteria that will take over from where nature left off the business of advancing life to unprecedented levels of both artificially psychic freedom and artifically somatic binding, the latter of course determined by the experiences of the former.

For in this male-dominated world of a metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry (which is contrary to how Sartre, for instance, viewed life from a left-wing and therefore female-dominated perspective), experience or essence of course precedes - and conditions the nature of - existence in the form of what I have tended, in the past, to call a substance-motivated drive towards communal cyborgization of the religiously sovereign, whether metaphysically hegemonic or pseudo-metachemically-subordinate, lamb or (neutralized) lion and/or wolf, saint or (neutralized) dragon, as you prefer.

For the nurture-oriented male reality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma in a mind-body symbiosis is the only retort to the nature-fuelled female reality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche in the body-mind symbiosis which is still, alas, the prevailing wisdom of contemporary female-dominated state-hegemonic society, as in the WASP-dominated West, where of course not soul-mind but ego-mind, in its contemporary pro-technological guise, is the only mind that the twin female tyrannies of will and spirit will allow.

RESURRECTING 'THE DEAD'

They speak of the coming ‘resurrection of the dead’ within ‘Kingdom Come’, but who are ‘the dead’? Precisely and only, I maintain, the pseudo-physical pseudo-males under chemical females at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass at the foot of what used to be – and to some extent still is in countries like Eire (Republic of Ireland) – the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, where they exist, as it were, as pseudo-mass (massive) under volume (volumetric).

But why are they ‘dead’? Because, the straightforward answer must be, they are 2 1/2:1 1/2 bound psyche (sin) to free soma (folly) under female hegemonic pressure (in chemistry) of 2 1/2:1 1/2 free soma (pseudo-evil) to bound psyche (pseudo-crime). The authentic evil and crime would, of course, be a 3:1 free soma/bound psyche metachemical dichotomy at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass ruling the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but this variety is less noumenal than phenomenal, less ethereal on elemental objective terms than corporeal on molecular objective terms.

So, conditioned to bound psyche and free soma in the aforementioned ratio (phenomenal) by hegemonic females, these pseudo-physical pseudo-males are effectively ‘the dead’ to the extent that they are more bound psyche (2 1/2) than free soma (1 1/2), and are only such, in any case (quite apart from the phenomenal relativity of such a ratio as opposed to the 3:1 absolutism of its noumenal counterpart), because of the chemical females who represent a maternal resolution of the female predicament in effectively Marian vein, with the acquirement of a surrogate plenum (the child) to relieve them from the strain – and shame – of a non-maternal vacuum, as germane to their root metachemical condition.

Only the pseudo-physical can be saved from 2 1/2:1 1/2 bound psyche/free soma or, more correctly, pseudo-bound psyche/pseudo-free soma in sin and folly to 3:1 free psyche/bound soma in grace and wisdom, from meekness (vis-a-vis chemical pseudo-vanity) to righteousness (vis-a-vis pseudo-metachemical pseudo-justice), as from pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-primacy/pseudo-supremacy in pseudo-physics to noumenal supremacy/primacy in metaphysics. That, in a nutshell, is the ‘resurrectoin of the dead’, and for it to transpire, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty from the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process by Social Theocracy in countries with the right (church-hegemonic) kind of axial preconditions, the chemical females would have to be counter-damned, on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, from 1 1/2:2 1/2 bound psyche/free soma in pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil to 1:3 pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma in pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness, from pseudo-vanity (vis-a-vis pseudo-physical meekness) to pseudo-justice (vis-a-vis metaphysical righteousness), as from phenomenal primacy/supremacy in chemistry to pseudo-noumenal pseudo-supremacy/pseudo-primacy in pseudo-metachemistry, becoming, thereby, the proverbial ‘lion’ and/or ‘wolf’ that, in a predominating pseudo-bound soma, ‘lies down’ with ‘the lamb’, and only because, as pseudo-females, they had been neutralized with a kind of substance entitlement at variance with that to which the metaphysical would be entitled as free, hegemonic males, males akin, to cite another metaphor, to the saint who has his metaphorical foot firmly upon a pseudo-metachemical pseudo-dragon, a neutralized dragon that can never again, like a free female, wield an XX-chromosomal cosh at the male’s expense, and eventually, via pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry, comdemn him to ‘the world’, meaning, in the case of that which might have been superficially metaphysical (as a more intelligent Catholic male), as a pseudo-physical subordinate corollary of a chemical hegemony, the fruit of maternal resolution.

But if this substance entitlement is to work, either way for either gender, ‘man’ will have to be ‘overcome’, to use a Nietzschean kind of expression, and the cyborgization of both the metaphysical (subjectively) and the pseudo-metachemical (pseudo-objectively), that is, in centripetal and pseudo-centrifugal vein, will accordingly have to ensue, and on increasingly communal terms as the need to serve a large number of religiously sovereign citizens would surely dictate. Therein lies the challenge, it seems to me, of ‘Kingdom Come’, a society in which the pseudo-physical have been saved from their relatively preponderating bound-psychic sinful death to an absolutely preponderating free-psychic graceful Life, the Eternal Life of the metaphysical Elect of Soul, while their chemical counterparts – who would be the equivocally hegemonic ‘first’ destined to become unequivocally subordinate ‘last’ - would have to have been counter-damned from their relatively predominating free-somatic pseudo-evil pseudo-life to an absolutely predominating bound-somatic pseudo-good pseudo-Death, the pseudo-Infinite Death that, in representative ratio terms, would be the ‘neutralized’ corollary of the free-psychic Eternal Life of the metaphysical.

UNDERSTANDING SUPREMACY AND PRIMACY

We should think of supremacy and primacy, two terms I have often used in the past, as equivalent to free and bound, virtue and vice, positive and negative, etc., whether in relation to soma or to psyche or, rather, whether in relation to female or male gender criteria – the former exemplifying, when hegemonic, free soma and bound psyche, the latter … free psyche and bound soma, so that supremacy can be freely somatic or freely psychic, and primacy, by contrast, unfreely (bound) psychic or unfreely (bound) somatic, depending on the gender context.

Therefore, in metachemistry, which is a female element in the vacuousness of its noumenal objectivity, the free soma of beauty and love would correspond to metachemical supremacy, the bound psyche of ugliness and hatred, by contrast, to metachemical primacy, the ratio of the one to the other in this objectively absolute, or ethereal, context being 3:1.

Contrariwise, in metaphysics, which is a male element in the plenumousness, so to speak, of its noumenal subjectivity, the free psyche of joy and truth would correspond to metaphysical supremacy, the bound soma of woe and illusion, by contrast, to metaphysical primacy, the ratio of the one to the other in this subjectively absolute, or ethereal, context being 3:1.

However, in chemistry, which is a female element in the vacuousness of its phenomenal objectivity, the free soma of pride and strength would correspond to chemical supremacy, the bound psyche of humility and weakness, by contrast, to chemical primacy, the ratio of the one to the other in this objectively relative, or corporeal, context being 2 1/2:1 1/2.

Finally, in physics, which is a male element in the plenumousness, so to speak, of its phenomenal subjectivity, the free psyche of knowledge and pleasure would correspond to physical supremacy, the bound soma of ignorance and pain, by contrast, to physical primacy, the ratio of the one to the other in this subjectively relative, or corporeal, context being 2 1/2:1 1/2.

When the female is hegemonic, whether in metachemistry or in chemistry, the male will be more pseudo-primal than pseudo-supreme, whether to an absolute (pseudo-metaphysical) or to a relative (pseudo-physical) degree. Contrariwise, when the male is hegemonic, whether in physics or in metaphysics, the female will be more pseudo-primal than pseudo-supreme, whether to a relative (pseudo-chemical) or to an absolute (pseudo-metachemical) degree. Supremacy and primacy proper only exist for the hegemonic gender, never for the subordinate one.

STARS AND CROSSES

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.

Incidentally, the all-too-prevalent use of 'relative' stars to denote value or merit, as with films and discs, is sadly reminiscent of my experiences at infant school, when teacher - usually if not invariably female - gave one a star of one colour or another as the equivalent of a mark or tick, so that one's product or behaviour was graded accordingly. It seems that the age has infantile predilections in this regard, insofar as the ubiquitous marking system of the star has continued - in a sense rightly - to characterize what are more usually female-dominated products and lifestyles.

THE METHODOLOGIES OF SALUTING

The methodologies of saluting from metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics (state-hegemonic axis) to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry (church-hegemonic axis) via physics/pseudo-chemistry (state-hegemonic axis) and chemistry/pseudo-physics (church-hegemonic axis), are as follows:-

1. Raised arm open-hand salute (with palm of hand facing outwards) in the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry over the bent arm clenched-fist salute (with fist facing inwards) in the noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-metaphysics, the former moral (superheathen) and the latter unmoral (pseudo-superchristian).

However, an amoral descent of the one in the form of a bent arm clenched-fist salute (with fist facing outwards) should logically provoke an immoral retort in the form of a raised arm open-hand salute (with palm turned inwards) which can only diminish the objectivity of the metachemical salute-proper, insofar as it will have a pseudo-subjective dimension (inwards-turned open hand) not proper to the context in question but stemming from an unlocked pseudo-metaphysics (antimetaphysics) in quasi-metachemical vein.

Thus the quadruplicity of options (moral, amoral, unmoral, and immoral) attaching to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass as the ruling principle of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.

2. Let us examine the polarity to such a principle in the physics/pseudo-chemistry of the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass which defers, as in a kind of Faustian pact, to it, i.e., in terms of the female gender polarity of pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry (primary) and of the male gender polarity of physics to pseudo-metaphysics (secondary).

Hence the clenched fist to brow salute (with fingers of said fist turned inwards towards the brow) in the phenomenal subjectivity of physics over the bent arm to chest open-hand salute (with hand parallel to the forearm at right-angles to the chest such that allows only thumb and forefinger any contact thereof) in the phenomenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-chemistry, the former moral (christian) and the latter unmoral (pseudo-unheathen).

However, an amoral descent of the one in the form of a bent arm to chest open-hand salute (with inwards-turned hand upon the chest) should logically provoke an immoral retort in the form of a clenched-fist to brow salute (with fist held at right angles to the brow such that allows only contact of thumb and forefinger thereof) which can only diminish the subjectivity of the physical salute-proper, insofar as it will have a pseudo-objective dimension (outwards-turned clenched fist) not proper to the context in question but stemming from an unlocked pseudo-chemistry (antichemistry) in quasi-physical vein.

Thus the quadruplicity of options (moral, amoral, unmoral, and immoral) attaching to physics/pseudo-chemistry as the defining principle of lower order (phenomenal) state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.

3. Let us now examine the axial antithesis to such a principle in the chemistry/pseudo-physics of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass which defers, as in a kind of divine pact, to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point of the said compass, i.e., the male gender polarity of pseudo-physics to metaphysics (primary) and the female gender polarity of chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry (secondary).

Hence the open hand to brow salute (with palm facing outwards) of conventional (British) military saluting in the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry over the clenched-fist to breast salute (with inwards-turned fist of fingers pressed against chest) in the phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-physics, the former moral (heathen) and the latter unmoral (pseudo-unchristian).

However, an amoral descent of the one in the form of a clenched-fist to breast salute (with fist at right angles to the chest such that allows only thumb and forefinger any contact thereof) should logically provoke an immoral retort in the form of an open hand to brow salute (with inwards and downwards turning palm) which can only diminish the objectivity of the chemical salute-proper, insofar as it will have a pseudo-subjective dimension (inwards-turned open hand) not proper to the context in question but stemming from an unlocked pseudo-physics (antiphysics) in quasi-chemical vein.

Thus the quaduplicity of options (moral, amoral, unmoral, and immoral) attaching to chemistry/pseudo-physics as the defining principle of lower order (phenomenal) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.

4. Let us finally examine the axial polarity to such a principle in the metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry of the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass which leads it towards the possibility of ‘Kingdom Come’, with the aforementioned gender polarities (see section 3 above).

Hence thr raised arm clenched-fist salute (with fist turned inwards on a not-too-rigid arm) in the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics over the bent arm open-hand salute (with palm facing outwards) in the pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemistry, the former moral (superchristian) and the latter unmoral (pseudo-superheathen).

However, an amoral descent of the one in the form of a bent arm open-hand salute (with palm turned inwards) should logically provoke an immoral retort in the form of a raised arm clenched-fist salute (with fist facing outwards) which can only diminish the subjectivity of the metaphysical salute-proper, insofar as it will have a pseudo-objective dimension (outwards-turned clenched fist on more rigidedly-raised arm) not proper to the context in question but stemming from an unlocked pseudo-metachemistry (antimetachemistry) in quasi-metaphysical vein.

Thus the quadruplicity of options (moral, amoral, unmoral, and immoral) attaching to metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as the leading principle of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.

In all four cases of morality and unmorality adumbrated above, I have limited myself to a single term in each case, that being the majority ratio aspect of each position and therefore the correct basis for a credible generalization or, in this instance, series of generalizations.

It should also be noted that the phrase 'to the brow' always denotes the side of the brow or head, not the centre of the brow, since no salute can be conducted on the latter basis; although in the case of the chest saluting is always 'to the centre', as though to the heart.

RATIOS OF SOMA TO PSYCHE AND OF PSYCHE TO SOMA IN THE ELEMENTS AND PSEUDO-ELEMENTS

The Supersensuous/Subconscious in Metachemistry over the pseudo-Subsensuous/pseudo-Superconscious in pseudo-Metaphysics = 3:1 free soma/bound psyche over 1:3 pseudo-free soma/pseudo-bound psyche in the noumenal objectivity of spatial space over the noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of sequential time or, in simple parlance, space over pseudo-time at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.

The Conscious/Unsensuous in Physics over the pseudo-Conscious/pseudo-Unsensuous in pseudo-Chemistry = 2 1/2:1 1/2 free psyche/bound soma over 1 1/2:2 1/2 pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma in the phenomenal subjectivity of massive mass over the phenomenal pseudo-objectivity of voluminous volume or, in simple parlance, mass over pseudo-volume at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is, in relation to the above, a pseudo-chemical polarity to metachemistry on primary (female) state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms and a physical polarity to pseudo-metaphysics on secondary (male) state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms.

The Sensuous/Unconscious in Chemistry over the pseudo-Sensuous/pseudo-Unconscious in pseudo-Physics = 2 1/2:1 1/2 free soma/bound psyche over 1 1/2:2 1/2 pseudo-free soma/pseudo-bound psyche in the phenomenal objectivity of volumetric volume over the phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of massed mass or, in simple parlance, volume over pseudo-mass at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.

The Superconscious/Subsensuous in Metaphysics over the pseudo-Subconscious/pseudo-Supersensuous in pseudo-Metachemistry = 3:1 free psyche/bound soma over 1:3 pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma in the noumenal subjectivity of repetitive time over the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of spaced space or, in simple parlance, time over pseudo-space at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on what is, in relation to the above, a metaphysical polarity to pseudo-physics on primary (male) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms and a pseudo-metachemical polarity to chemistry on secondary (female) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.

One should note the parallelism of psyche and pseudo-psyche, whether absolute or relative, noumenal or phenomenal, vis-a-vis the parallelism of soma and pseudo-soma in the hegemonic/subordinate gender dichotomous norm.

PSYCHIC TRUTH AND INTELLECTUAL TRUTH

There is no God(liness) except in relation to Heaven, no Truth(fulness) except in relation to Joy, no Superconsciousness except in relation to Soul, no Higher Form except in relation to Higher Contentment.

Intellectual truth, even when avowedly ‘metaphysical’, is not Truth per se but the ‘bovaryization’ of ego or, more correctly, of knowledge towards metaphysics and, hence, the possibility of understanding, from outside the true Self, what Truth really is.

Similarly, the man who is capable of understanding Truth intellectually is not God but a bovaryized kind of man who will be in favour of godliness and, more importantly from a metaphysical point of view, its heavenly precondition … from a kind of messianic or pro-godly standpoint.

It has been claimed that ‘In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God’ … but such a Biblical claim is patently false, like so much else in the Bible.  You can be in favour of God and, more importantly, Heaven from the standpoint of ‘the Word’, as a Truth-oriented ‘bovaryization’ of ego (knowledge), but that does not make ‘the Word’ God, still less Heaven, which precedes God, or godliness, and is thus directly responsible  for His existence … as a ‘bovaryized’ mode of ego (superego) or, more correctly (for this is not the same as intellectual Truth, or Truth grasped intellectually) a mode of consciousness which, compared to superego, has a right to be called superconscious, the halo-like reflection of heavenly Soul (joy).

Thus we need to distinguish between superego as intellectual Truth germane to ‘bovaryized’ ego, and superconsciousness as the properly metaphysical psychic reflection of heavenly Joy in the Soul, if we are not to confound ‘the Word’ (including mine) that purports to be pro-godly with God, or ‘bovaryized’ knowledge with Truth-proper.  Else you risk intellectual hype and even the kind of sublimated idolatry of ‘the Word’, not to mention any person associated with it, which tends to be more Protestant than Catholic, given the greater Catholic predilection for images.

I am not – and never could be – God, but an advocate of Heaven, as a metaphysical condition that engenders a godly penumbra, or halo-like reflection of itself, as outer proof (existence, or form) of its inner experience (being, or essence).  Thus I sharply distinguish superego from superconscious, since intellect, even when ‘bovaryized’, is less a manifestation of psyche (mind) than a function of the brain.

All this God-thingfulness is simply idolatrous and just plain false (untrue), and for that reason it deserves to be swept onto the rubbish heap of history, together with those who uphold it to the detriment of true religion, which is metaphysical and only metaphysical.

The Social Theocratic mission, as I conceive of it, is to deliver the people from falsehood and lead them onto the path of supra-human (cyborgistic) righteousness (males) and pseudo-justice (pseudo-females), the respective ethereal destinies of those earmarked through salvation for metaphysics (the pseudo-physical pseudo-males) and those, by contrast, earmarked through counter-damnation for pseudo-metachemistry (chemical females), so that the chemical ‘first’ (equivocally hegemonic over the  pseudo-physical at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass) will become pseudo-metachemical ‘last’ (unequivocally subordinate to the metaphysical at the northeast point of said compass) and the pseudo-physical ‘last’ (equivocally subordinate to the  chemical at the southwest point of said compass) will become metaphysically ‘fist’ (unequivocally hegemonic over the  pseudo-metachemical at the northeast point of said compass), like the metaphorical ‘lamb’ over the (neutralized) ‘lion’ and/or ‘wolf’, or, alternatively, the proverbial Saint (St George) over the (neutralized) Dragon … at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass upon what is the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in polar remove from anything chemical and pseudo-physical at the foot of the said axis.

In every traditional (‘bovaryized’) religion one finds only error and superstition or, at best, some accommodation with the corporeal limitations of the people, the masses of the supposed faithful, most of whom, being female, are the natural enemies of religion and, hence, heavenliness/godliness, conceived in properly metaphysical terms.

Judaism is even more ‘bovaryized’ than Christianity, and largely on a scientific (cosmic) rather than a political or an economic (opposing kinds of worldliness) basis, notwithstanding the contrary deference of Catholicism and Puritanism towards either otherworldly (quasi-religion done down pseudo-scientifically) or netherworldly (science tending to rule and subvert pseudo-religion) positions at the northeast and northwest points of the intercardinal axial compass on respectively opposite – and incompatible – types of  axis.

The difference, to return to my opening theme, between Truth cogitated and Truth experienced is precisely that between superego and superconscious, brain at its most quasi-ethereal and mind when most ethereally true to the Soul.

One may contrast the quasi-godly ‘intellectual’ understanding of Truth in relation to metaphysics with the actual godly reflection of heavenly Joy through experienced Truth which, in relation to males capable of metaphysics, is universal, not personal or, rather, superpersonal (like superego and superman) … as a ‘bovaryization’ of ego which, to be sure, not everyone would be capable of to the same degree, since requiring a certain philosophical disposition that, to judge by the majority of people and their beliefs, is anything but widespread, much less universal.

If it is possible to blaspheme against God, or godliness (as I prefer to say in view of the deplorable extent to which that term has been hijacked by the various ‘bovaryized’ religions in thingful vein), it would have to be in terms of the faking of a joyous smile (closed lipped), when the Soul has not actually given rise to one.  That would not do God, much less Heaven, any favours.

But of course one needs to get away from a God-centred emphasis even in metaphysics, which is the context, the element of Soul, and hence of Heaven par excellence.

By far the greater proportion of God-centredness derives from falsity and superstition – the twin pillars, one could say, of conventional religions.

Exposing the ‘false gods’ for what they are should not be regarded as a species of blasphemy, still less as the end game in the evolution of thought, but, rather, as the consequence of intellectual enlightenment, which, through higher knowledge, tends to liberate the mind from falsehoods as  the brain is utilized  in a logical, one might even say a superlogical fashion, after the fashion of someone superhuman.  And it is that enlightenment which gives us - and I mean only persons like myself - the right to challenge conventional religion and the world as it stands in the name of otherworldly criteria and the possibility of non-bovaryized religion – in a word, of true religion, or religion which is truly centred in the Soul. For such religion is beyond all falsehoods and is thus the prerogative of the metaphysical.

THINGFUL DEITIES OF THE COMMON MAN

None of those males who succumb to the beauty of females, who marry and beget children, have a right to speak out against the idols of their church, or indeed to deride the Creator-equivalent star in back of them; for such images of the deities they worship simply reflect their own limitations as average men.  Only a ‘philosopher king’, aloof from the world like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, has the right, granted by his celibacy and non-familial solitude, to oppose thingful deities from his vantage-point in metaphysical sensibility, even if he knows, in his heart of hearts, that they remain – and will continue to remain until ‘Kingdom Come’ – relevant to the common woman-oriented man.

Of course, the above would have more reference to Catholics than to Protestants who, at least in the case of Puritans, tend to eschew images or carvings or statues in favour of 'the Word of God', with reference in particular to the New Testament.  But even they have never managed to completely dissociate themselves from what exists 'in back' as 'Creator' or 'Father' or 'God', and are thus beholden, even if more via Anglicans, to the root star-like concreteness, so to speak, of Christianity as an extrapolation from Judaism.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE GREAT PHILOSOPHICAL WRITER TO THE WORLD

The great writer, artist, philosopher … who is in the world but not of it – celibate, solitary, non-familial, capable of messianic insight and – who knows? – resolve.  Someone who, in his self-determined aloofness from the world and its social obligations and/or limitations, is really against it, a kind of enemy of the world and, for that very reason, a friend of otherworldly possibilities, of Heaven and godliness (in relation to Heaven) as an approximation to the form of Heaven, to heavenly soul (joy) perceived, as it were, from outside, as proof of its metaphysical existence from a strictly male standpoint – like a close-lipped smile, the godly proof of heavenly being (joy) which both precedes and defines it.  Impossible to conceive of such a universal condition existing in any but the highest (male) mind, whether now or in the (cyborgistic) future, when metaphysics will attain to perfect universality without hindrance from female or, indeed, any other distractions.