Monday, December 18, 2006


I like to distinguish between the Few and the One at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass that I am always citing these days, and principally in terms of the Leaders and the Led or, more to the future point, the Served, who would appertain to the Saved and the Counter-Damned in a framework characterized by religious sovereignty. Hence the Servants of the People are more of the Few than of the One, since they would remain outside the sphere of religiously sovereign centro-complexification as so many personally cyborgized individuals whose duty it was to serve those earmarked, as religiously sovereign, for cyborg universality, that is, for transmutation from what they had been at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the Many, into what they were destined to become at its northeast point in relation to revolutionary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria - namely, the aforementioned One. For centro-complexification will require that the saved (male) and counter-damned (antifemale) masses be transformed, by degrees, into supra-human communes in which any given artificially supported and sustained individual will be germane to the One, however many brains or new brains or brain-stem/spinal-chord aspects of a given brain may happen to be simultaneously 'housed' in the supra-human commune of what, in the past, I have tended to term a superbeing, meaning the communal entity in general, including its support and sustain features. Such a superbeing would be germane to universal oneness even as its servants, in the administrative aside to the Centre proper of supra-human experience, continued to operate as, in effect, the Few. For, as intimated above, they would be personally cyborgized, not communally or universally cyborgized, and would always be at an administrative and protective remove from the focus of supra-human advancement, rather like shepherds tending their flock and overseeing its 'spiritual' grazing, so to speak. But such a superbeing entity, constitutive of a kind of communal unity of religious purpose, would still be germane to universal oneness even as it co-existed, on the earth and perhaps even in the same city and/or country, with other such superbeingful entities, who would also have their respective administrators and protectors. 'Heaven on earth', in this particular ideological context which I like to think of as being the most credible projection of evolutionary progress for the future, would always be relative, never absolute; for there would almost certainly be a number of superbeing communes in existence on different parts of the earth that only had the potential for definitive universality in a Oneness Supreme such that, by definition, could not emerge on the earth but only beyond it ... in space ... as the destiny of all earthly communes. Consequently while 'heaven on earth' is a precondition of Heaven per se, which can only be set in space in space centres or, more desirably, a definitive Space Centre, it is not something that can be regarded as an end-in-itself, but only as a means to a higher end such that earth centres can be transformed into over the course of eternity, being transported, via shuttle-like arrangements, to outer space where the possibility of their further centro-complexification can be fully realized in relation to an ultimate Space Centre the sum-product of all earth centres, which will be more absolutely representative of universal oneness and therefore be capable of sustaining and supporting a beingfulness in the metaphysically free which will be nothing short of ultimate and more properly germane, in consequence, to what could be termed ultrabeings, their antimetachemical antifemale counterparts less super-antidoings by then than ultra-antidoings in correlative bound somatic deference to the free psyche metaphysically obtaining above them on the plane not of antispace so much as of time, which will be less germane to Anti-Vanity Fair than to the Celestial City, and therefore constitute the higher aspect of that Oneness which will be led by theocracy though also embrace a degree of anti-aristocracy in its antimetachemical elements. Yet a core of what may be called the ultra-technocratic Few will continue, on an enhanced cyborg basis, to serve the interests of the theocratic/anti-aristocratic One - in complete contrast to the rule of the aristocratic/antitheocratic - if not, in free soma, autocratic/antitechnocratic - Few by the ultra-autocratic One of metachemical/antimetaphysical tradition on the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.


One thing the godly individual, who is metaphysical, can't be, and that is culturally or creatively in the liberal democrat's or the social democrat's economic pocket. I have not sought publication for my writings in book form because, quite apart from my lack of commercial appeal as a truth-oriented writer of Irish stock, I would only end up in the bourgeois humanist's or the proletarian humanist's economic pocket, and that is no place for the godly individual to be! Books, whether hardback or softback, liberally relativistic or socially absolutist, have no professional or commercial appeal for me. I despise them and their humanistic dupes and perpetrators! The book has no place in the sphere of godliness, and that includes the so-called Book of Books, the Bible which, as (I was going to say 'we all know', but that is evidently not necessarily the case) I have long maintained, is rooted in God's opposite, the Devil, meaning - contrary to popular if not populist presumption - Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, and extends, New Testament-wise, only as far as an extrapolation from such a Devil which is better known as the Son, though doubtfully of God! since this Son is unable to transcend himself (something, in any case, the Son is in no position to do), but is both the mark and the end of the Western road in religious terms. Frankly, this netherworldly alpha to worldly omega of things religious is not enough! Even the Catholic postulate of otherworldly omega in the Resurrected is a Son, and therefore significant of metaphysical bound soma rather than of free psyche which, in the West, has never existed independently of metachemistry (or Devil the Mother hyped as God), as, by elitist contrast, in parts of the TM-oriented East, where nothing like Jehovah has existed in the religious tradition to hold metaphysical ego back from expressing itself in the interests of soul. But all this is rather beside the initial point; which was about the incompatibility of books with godliness and the irrelevance of both liberal democratic and social democratic criteria to the sphere of metaphysics, which is rather to be thought of as social theocratic, even if it may have to pass through a comparatively liberal phase in which a degree of pluralism exists prior to long-term centro-complexification which may well be more totalitarian in character. We shall just have to wait and see! But the godly individual will continue to take books with a considerable pinch of salt as he pursues his internet-oriented e-book or, rather, e-scroll vocation independently of book publication and, hence, of market forces and/or commercial pressures. The Truth - or that which is properly germane to metaphysics, particularly to metaphysics of a synthetically artificial and therefore properly or definitively universal order - is not to be found in books, and those who are looking for it there are going, later if not sooner, to be sorely disappointed!


I have always maintained that Social Theocracy should only strive for a position of ideological influence through the democratic process, albeit in relation to countries where, like Eire, a majority Catholic tradition would make the prospect of a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria feasible, if only because the people concerned have been accustomed to such an axial reality and, in some cases, remain acquainted with it even in the face of a quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate lapsed Catholic decadence commensurate with Anglo-American - and particularly American - secular influence. But such a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria could only be Social Theocratic and therefore strictly revolutionary in character, extending the axis in relation to a post-worldly and therefore effectively global age. The paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to counter the contemporary paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference by those at the southwest to those at the northwest of the intercardinal axial compass would be intended to foster a desire, in the people, for a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria on the basis of a Social Theocratic revolution such that could only transpire in the event - however unlikely at present - of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, which I have been advocating for several years as the desirable alternative to political sovereignty and its worldly concomitants and implications. Therefore I am no advocate of republicanism, neither on the liberal basis of the Irish Republic nor on the radical basis of a more totalitarian approach to politics such that would lead to a socialistic/fascistic polarity in Eire analogous to that which prevailed, in the inter-war years, between Sinn Fein and the Blue Shirts. For me, the Republic is something that, in Nietzsche's memorable phrase, 'should be overcome', and the only way that this can happen is if a majority mandate for religious sovereignty were to transpire from a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process with a view to 'world overcoming' in relation to the prospect of 'otherworldly' criteria taking precedence over anything else. Then what I have called the Social Theocratic Centre would be born, and it would be akin, in my judgement, to 'Kingdom Come', insofar as it would be designed to accommodate the rights of a religiously sovereign people, including the right to be free from religious superstition and tyranny, with its basis in netherworldly tradition. For until the people are religiously sovereign they will not be free from the last bastion of tyranny, which is that of Jehovahesque Creatorism in respect of Old Testament criteria and the notion - no matter how nonsensical or infantile - of a cosmic Creator Who, in metaphorical parlance, was or remains responsible for everything that followed. But free from is not, as Nietzsche would doubtless agree, the same as free for, and more important than being free from religious superstition and tradition would be being free for religious self-realization through self-transcendence of a synthetically artificial character, the sort of character that would be necessary not only to global civilization as a synthetic actuality in the process of development, but to the defeat, through potent alternatives, of contemporary American-dominated synthetic artificiality such that more often than not takes a celluloid form in its associations with the film industry and camera-based media in general. But of course this could not transpire without recourse to a correlative process of what I have in the past called 'cyborgization' such that would enable the religiously sovereign people (earmarked for supra-human transmutation) to have recourse to enlightenment of a synthetically artificial character without fear of natural repercussions such that are only too prevalent on the human plane. For 'man is something that should be overcome' from the standpoint of godliness, call it superman or superbeing if you will, since godliness, when properly understood, could only be dangerous to man and we wouldn't want man to suffer from trying to play God without actually undergoing the necessary transformations that would render him, or his evolutionary successor, godly and thus capable of living on a properly or fully godly plane with virtual impunity. However, I am merely scratching the surface of the overall complexity of the problem in this blog - which is not a substitute for my works in general (see, for example, OPERA D'OEUVRE) - and therefore I have not mentioned the antimetachemical corollary of metaphysical godliness which, as an antifemale reality, would be antidevilishness, and therefore something that needs to be addressed as a quite separate category germane less to the Celestial City, to use Bunyanesque terms, than to what I have tended to equate with Anti-Vanity Fair. Unfortunately, conventional Western thinking is too inclined to subsume the sexes into one another rather than to differentiate between them in such fashion that criteria applying to the one sex are not applied to the other. All this will have to change in the more fully developed global future, once universality gets properly under way on a basis that requires an anti-polyversal corollary if it is not to be subversively undermined.


While on the subject of hoods and brollies (see previous entry), I should like to make a distinction between the free-standing singer of, say, a rock group and the one who also plays an instrument, particularly a guitar, on the basis of the distinction already drawn (see previous entry) between uncollapsible objectivistic hoods and collapsible subjectivistic hoods, as though the former were on the level of the free-standing singer and the latter parallel with the guitar-playing singer, whose disposition is arguably less unequivocally objective than equivocally subjective. Either way, singing, particularly in a rock-band context, is indicative, it seems to me, of a fiery or a watery female dominance of the male (as antimale), as with hoods, and therefore the 'male' singer appears to be one who is either antimetaphysically subordinate to metachemistry (free-standing singer) or antiphysically subordinate to chemistry (piano-playing singer), in hood-like vein. Naturally, there are female singers as well, but they tend to be either metachemical (and fiery) or chemical (and watery), with the piano arguably more applicable than the guitar in the latter context, as alluded to above.


It took me a long while to get around to seeing a parallel between hoods and stars and/or triangles on the one hand, and brollies and crosses on the other, whether on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace or, down below, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume, to divide each between, in general terms, its sensual and sensible alternatives. Previously I had tended to think of hoods as male and brollies as female, since there appeared to be a centripetal/centrifugal distinction between them, but then I began to realize that a sensual/sensible distinction could be discerned which was akin to the distinction between stars and crosses. The hood-wearer was in some sense heathenistic in his subordination, if male, to female criteria, to the female-like symbolism or implication of the hood which, in a manner of speaking, prevailed over him in metachemical (noumenal) or chemical (phenomenal) fashion, depending on the class standpoint, whereas the person utilizing an umbrella was more christianistic, as it were, in his holding aloft of a cross-like structure which, while shielding him from the rain, suggested a male symbolism in its phallic-like tubularity and erectness that connoted rather more with physical (phenomenal) or metaphysical (noumenal) criteria, again according to class. But of course there are two axes, one stretching from northwest to southeast and the other from southwest to northeast, on the intercardinal axial compass which I use to illustrate the distinction between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria on the one hand, and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on the other hand, and while the one is characterized by the dominance of female criteria in free to bound somatic and bound to free psychic fashion, the other is characterized by the dominance of male criteria in bound to free psychic and free to bound somatic fashion, as in a kind of British/Irish cultural and ethnic divide. For me, this means that both the sensuality of the northwest and sensibility of the southeast of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis will be dominated by objective criteria in unreflexive vein, whereas both the sensuality of the southwest and sensibility of the northeast of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will be dominated by subjective criteria in reflexive vein. In other words, a distinction between uncollapsibles in the one case and collapsibles in the other, whether with regard to hoods or umbrellas. Hence a descent from the uncollapsible hood of the northwest to the uncollapsible brolly of the southeast in the case of the female-dominated state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but an ascent, by contrast, from the collapsible (or fold-in) hood of the southwest to the collapsible brolly of the northeast on the male-dominated church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. A descent, in the one case, from the noumenal sensuality of metachemistry and the noumenal antisensibility of antimetaphysics to the phenomenal antisensuality of antichemistry and the phenomenal sensibility of physics, but an ascent, in the other case, from the phenomenal antisensibility of antiphysics and the phenomenal sensuality of chemistry to the noumenal sensibility of metaphysics and the noumenal antisensuality of antimetachemistry. Those dominated, in autocratic fashion, by the noumenal objectivity of metachemical sensuality will be unreflexive and thus given to uncollapsibles of one sort or another. Those dominated, in theocratic fashion, by the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical sensibility will be reflexive and thus given to collapsibles of one sort or another. The uncollapsible hood will find its antithesis, within an axis characterized by the dominance of objectivity, in the uncollapsible brolly; the collapsible hood ... its antithesis, within an axis characterized by the dominance of subjectivity, in the collapsible brolly. Therefore hoods are no more necessarily low than brollies high. Hoods, as argued above, can be high (and noumenal) or low (and phenomenal), pretty much like drama and poetry. Just so, across the sensual/sensible divide, brollies can be low (and phenomenal) or high (and noumenal), pretty much like fiction and philosophy. But a star and/or triangle vis-a-vis cross-like distinction between the two approaches to weather protection will continue, I believe, to prevail, as though in a contrast between left-wing (whether extreme or moderate, noumenal or phenomenal) and right-wing (whether moderate or extreme, phenomenal or noumenal) criteria, thereby suggesting that hoods are less christianistic than heathenistic and umbrellas, by contrast, more christianistic than heathenistic, despite appearances to the contrary.


In what I like to think of as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial distinction - southwest to northeast - between Gaelic football and hurling, the former would seem symptomatic of all that, rock 'n' roll-like, is sensually loose or centrifugal or extrovert, and the latter of all that, in the best traditions of Irish folk music, is sensibly tight or centripetal or introvert ... or is it? Well, yes, up to a point, I guess you could say it is. But even if hurling is morally superior to Gaelic football, it is merely symptomatic of the Irish Catholic status quo, with priests and bibles and churches and all the rest of it. It is good but - and here's the rub from a Social Theocratic standpoint - not good enough to pass muster in supra-Western - and therefore properly global - terms. There is a strong suggestion of the point over the bar having its idealism vitiated by the materialism of the hurley, as though the all-too-extrapolative Christian paradigm of bound metaphysical soma in the Crucified, postulated as resurrected to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, were being held in check by some free metachemical agent at its northwest, akin to what I have in the past called Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) in typically paradoxical Catholic fashion. In other words, such subjectivity as transpires, wine or even stout-like, in the idealistic point between the uprights over the crossbar is compromised by a whiskey-like factor in back of everything Christian that precludes its ever attaining to anything like true transcendence (for which, in any case, a metaphysically free psychic repudiation of all metachemical free soma is a prerequisite) and ensures that hurling, for all its idealistic pretensions at the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, remains firmly in the grip of northwest materialism as the rugby, so to speak, of Irish sport, with implications rather more Christian than heathen, to be sure, but nonetheless characteristic of what is un- in not anti-people. Frankly, I have little time for this! I am neither in favour of the RC elite, who represent the paradoxes of traditional values, nor of what they would call the sinful Catholic masses whose passion is for Gaelic football. What I do favour, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, is the salvation and counter-damnation (according to gender) of the latter to a position akin to that of the former, the RC elite, except that it would not be in relation to hurling but to an indoor transmutation of Gaelic which would enable 'the last' to be 'first', and in a completely new way such that the RC tradition was never able to achieve. Such is the logic of revolution, and I firmly believe in the desirability of a democratically-engineered Social Theocratic revolution such that takes noumenal sensibility to altogether new heights of idealism - heights that are actually open to transcendentalism and precisely because transcendentalism is the lead string in what would amount to a true Father whose 'Son' was in no degree a mere extrapolation from Devil the Mother hyped as God but, transcending Western criteria, the logical corollary, in metaphysical bound soma, of a freely psychic metaphysical precondition, the state-subordinate idealism to a church-hegemonic transcendentalism which would be free, for ever more, of all fundamentalist and materialist subversion or vitiation, and therefore properly universal within a global framework, as alluded to above.