Sunday, November 12, 2006


As a self-taught philosopher, or thinker, I have long maintained that being, metaphysical being, is inconceivable without the assistance, in antimetachemistry, of antidoing, its female or, more correctly, antifemale corollary. For unless doing is 'brought low', as from metachemistry to antimetachemistry, space to antispace, there can be no 'rising up' of being, as from antimetaphysics to metaphysics, antitime to time, and hence the repudiation of what can be called antibeing under doing. Being requires antidoing no less, across the axial divide, than doing, its metachemical antithesis, the antimetaphysical corollary of antibeing, since neither can be unequivocally hegemonic unless their respective gender complements are 'upended' and effectively subordinated to their control. Now what applies unequivocally on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace applies to an equivocal degree, with due axial subversion having to be borne in mind, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume, where the equivocal hegemony of physical taking requires the 'upended' subordination of antichemical antigiving, its 'antifemale' complement, in relative contrast to the subordination of antiphysical antitaking under an equivocally hegemonic chemical giving. For unless giving is 'brought low', as from chemistry to antichemistry, volume to antivolume, there can be no 'rising up' of taking, as from antiphysics to physics, antimass to mass, and hence the repudiation of what has been called antitaking under giving. But this is not universally established or encouraged, since these phenomenal positions are also subject, as intimated above, to axial interplay with their sensual or sensible (depending on the axis) noumenal counterparts, and this is what paradoxically precludes a simple switch from phenomenal sensuality/antisensibility to sensibility/antisensuality on the part of those who, under Catholic guidance traditionally, would more relate to the possibility of some degree of being and/or antidoing as the solution to their lowly predicament in giving and/or antitaking than a straightforward switch, across the axial divide, from that to taking and/or antigiving, as the gender case may be. For the Catholic Church, relative to Western civilization, is the 'one true' church, the one that offers a degree of being and/or antidoing to those who have not 'sold out', usually via some degree of puritanical rejection of Anglicanism, to taking and/or antigiving, but such a Church, being Western, is still a far cry from global universality, which transcends both the West and the East alike, and therefore its 'take' on being and/or antidoing is less than what could be and, hopefully, will be independently of such a church once the march of global civilization reaches its sensible/antisensual destiny in the light of a metaphysics that is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and not subject, as is Catholic Christianity and indeed Christianity in general, to the subversion of metaphysics by metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in time-honoured, alpha-stemming, Old Testament fashion, with Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) always precluding anything but a Son-like fulcrum in relation to itself which, even in the Catholic postulate of a resurrected Saviour, persists as a sort of paradoxical extrapolation to the detriment of metaphysical independence and, hence, freedom. For there can be no such independence in the 'Son', only in relation to a 'Father' who precedes 'His Son', as psyche precedes soma in male actuality, independently of metachemical subversion and therefore on the basis of metaphysical freedom and the repudiation, democratically and peaceably, of Devil the Mother hyped as God, without which there can be no authentic metaphysical being, much less beingful approach to antidoing, in metaphysical bound soma, of the Son, and therefore no authentic and fully universal truth. Catholicism may appertain to the 'one true church', but such a church, being Christian, i.e. centred in the 'Son', still falls short of global universality and, hence, the transcendence of everything rooted in Old Testament Creatorism, with its hype of Devil the Mother as God. We advocates of global universality, whom I have in the past identified with and continue to identify with Social Theocracy, can no more endorse the West than the East where religion is concerned. We are beyond both traditions in our revolutionary advocacy of the one true centre. And yet we are the profoundest theocrats. For Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father was never truly theocratic but autocracy in disguise, the sugar coating, as it were, of the bitter pill of metachemical autocracy, the 'best of a bad job', to speak colloquially, and we repudiate all autocracy and everything that pays tribute, in aediculated architectural vein, to Creatorism. If we refuse to regard ourselves as 'atheist' it is because that would be to pay too much credit to what was never properly theocratic to begin with, but effectively antitheocratic in its autocratic roots. There is nothing atheist about Social Theocracy, and for that reason it can only encourage true being and not the subversion of being by doing and, hence, the vitiation of being in relation to what fundamentally remains contrary to it. The real truth about being is that it has never really come to pass because doing has been hyped as being pretty much as the cosmos as universal and the first-mover She as He. We absolutely reject this fundamental lie from the standpoint of truth.


Post a Comment

<< Home