Sunday, January 14, 2007


Speaking in axial terms, one might note a fall, on the one hand, from synthetic naturalism (supernaturalism) to non-synthetic artificiality, as, in general terms, from metachemistry to physics, but a rise, on the other hand, from non-synthetic naturalism to synthetic artificiality (super-artificiality), as, in general terms, from chemistry to metaphysics. For the four main points, effectively hegemonic, of the intercardinal axial compass would seem to connote with synthetic naturalism at the northwest, non-synthetic naturalism at the southwest, non-synthetic artificiality at the southeast, and synthetic artificiality at the northest, the axes, of course, being determined according to a polarity between the northwest and the southeast on the one hand, and between the southwest and the northeast on the other hand, even with other - and subordinate - factors to consider in each case. However that may be, I have little doubt that the noumenal antitheses, in space and time, are equally synthetic, if in relation to supernature and super-artificiality respectively, which amounts to a distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics, superheathen objectivity and superchristian subjectivity, absolute alpha and absolute omega, whereas the phenomenal antitheses, in volume and mass, are equally non-synthetic, if in relation to nature and artificiality respectively, which amounts to a distinction between chemistry and physics, heathen objectivity and Christian subjectivity, relative alpha and relative omega. The pairings of metachemistry with antimetaphysics, of chemistry with antiphysics, of physics with antichemistry, and of metaphysics with antimetachemistry do not substantially alter this conclusion, although they modify the respective axial realities of what, in total, are state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate mutually exclusive traditions.


Post a Comment

<< Home