Thursday, 3 March 2011


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment