WHY EGOTISM MORALLY FAILS THE SELF

Just as the superego tends, in what I like to think of as its brain-stem proximity to the spinal cord of the central nervous system, to be pro-superconscious and thus effectively pro-metaphysical, so the ego, in its brain-centred proximity to the eyes, tends to be pro-supersensuous and thus effectively pro-metachemical, deferring not to soul but to will, not to essence but to appearance, not to truth but to beauty.

With the ego, thoughts are too often conditioned by what is seen rather than by what is felt, and there is no surer way of spotting an egotist than by witnessing the extent to which his thoughts are conditioned by what he sees and, as though to derive a modicum of self-respect from his predilection or, rather, predicament, reinterpreted, usually in the most cynically gross and sarcastic fashion, for the benefit of his ego.

But his ego is a sham, with no real independence of external appearances; for it is not only a poor reflection of himself but, being a focal-point for personal selfhood, an obstacle whereby access to the true self, the Soul, is denied, and precisely because it remains beholden – one might even say loyal – to the Will and merely subject to its empirical rule and arbitrary selectivity.

Without the Will to rule it, as when thought is conditioned by what is seen, the ego would collapse into self-loathing through personal knowledge, and quickly cease to have any value. For the ego, unlike the Soul, is not an end-in-itself, but a means for the Will to rule over what it sees. The close proximity of the brain to the ego or, rather, the reliance of the ego upon the brain ensures that the ego has no real existence of its own independently of empirical knowledge, but is merely a means whereby such knowledge, initially perceptual, may be conceptually interpreted to the satisfaction of the Will.

The axial link between the ego and the Will is what guarantees that the egotist can never be saved (in the metaphysical sense) but must continue to remain enslaved, despite his pretensions to intellectual independence, to the senses in a kind of Faustian pact with the Devil, not Satan, however, but Devil the Mother, who more corresponds to the Creator-esque ‘First Mover’ than to any ‘fall guy for slag’ (denigration), after the fashion of the proverbial ‘red under the bed’.

The egotist is already damned by subservience to that which, as free will, is undamned (but not on that account saved), but can only be damned when that which is governed by spirit has been delivered from its lowly pseudo-egotistical estate to soul, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and that, correlatively, which is of free spirit has been counter-damned to pseudo-will, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, thereby depriving the wilfully metachemical and their pseudo-soulful pseudo-metaphysical underdogs of a captive audience for their manifold exemplifications of somatic licence, without which their ‘race is run’, both physically (economically) and metachemically (scientifically), once and for all, with pseudo-chemical damnable consequences for the metachemical and physical counter-saved consequences for the pseudo-metaphysical – at least temporarily and until the possibility of axial transference to church-hegemonic criteria from what is no longer a viable state-hegemonic axial polarity comes ideologically to pass.

Thus and only thus can the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father be defeated and effectively consigned to the ‘rubbish bin of history’. Until then, the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical will continue to rule over not only the physical/pseudo-chemical of their own axis but, indirectly and across the axial divide, the chemical/pseudo-physical, to the detriment of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, the detriment, in short, of free soul over bound will or, more correctly (for it only transpires from male hegemonic pressure) bound pseudo-will, the pseudo-will of pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother under, as pseudo-space under time at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on a stepped-up (resurrected) church-hegemonic axis, the free soul of Heaven the Holy Soul, the joyful soul of the superconscious as that which is One with soul, as God is One with Heaven and in no way a separate entity but merely the outer manifestation, so to speak, of Heaven, without which there would no more be any truth (god) than candlelight without a candleflame burning away in self-centred consumption.

HEART AND SPINAL CORD

Those who foolishly and superficially identify the heart with the Soul are either obliged, accepting that the heart is mortal, to reject any possibility of afterlife experience or, failing to realize the mortality of the heart, persist in identifying it with the Soul even though it fails to meet the criterion of eternity proper to the Soul, irregardless of whether such an ‘eternity’ is more of a permanent condition (of almost cannibalistic self-consumming by the spinal cord in an inner illumination or incandescence) than of indefinite duration due to the inevitability of the ‘petering out’ of the Self, the Soul, the spinal cord, the central nervous system, call it by what name you like, in due process of self-consumption, a process proceeding in tandem with – though eventually overhauled by – the extensive decomposition of one’s mortal remains, so that it could be said that the ‘inner light’ is fated to be smothered or overhauled by the darkness of its own negation.

But if this is the afterlife ‘in naturalis’ or, rather, ‘supernaturalis’, which those fated for burial rather than cremation are more likely to experience, particularly in the case of males, then it still leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of durational eternity, which, as I teach, can only transpire in the event of ‘man’s overcoming’ through substance-motivated (communal) cyborgization – such that, within the context of ‘Kingdom Come’, would preclude death and, hence, the need for birth through reproduction, allowing life to continue indefinitely on a basis parallel to that of what has been described above without risk of its ‘fizzling or petering out’, but with a controlling element that allows it to be switched on and off according to convenience.

MAN IS NOT BORN FREE

It has been said, and by no less a luminary than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that ‘man is born free’ … but that, I have to say, without wishing to drag in the rest of the quote, is manifestly untrue. The newborn child remains umbilically tied to its mother and, even after severance, remains directly dependent on her for several months and even years. One is not born free; one is born into maternal slavery, or dependence on one’s mother, and only gradually becomes free or, at any rate, freer, eventually going one’s separate way as a young adult individual who may or may not end up ‘in chains’ to a particular woman, having passed through sexual freedom or experimentation en route to familial responsibility and accountability, only to glory in the sight of somebody else – namely one’s offspring – even more enslaved than oneself.

BRITAIN AND THE JEWS

Anti-Semitism is not natural, one might say, to the British; they remain axially aligned with Jews both ‘on high’, Judaically, and ‘down below’, Bolshevistically (or what used to be such prior to a number of transmutations, including radical Social Democracy), that is, to Jews behind Anglican Monarchism and beyond Puritan Parliamentarianism, so that they could be described as being (or of having been) flanked by more extreme manifestations, up and down the axis, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, even, in radical Social Democracy, to a near-absolute degree.

In contrast to the Americans, however, the British would traditionally have been more drawn to Bolshevism than to Judaism, given the contrast of political emphasis with America which, in Britain, focuses on ‘the below’ rather than ‘the above’, the sensible/pseudo-sensual phenomenal as opposed to the sensual/pseudo-sensible noumenal, that is, physics/pseudo-chemistry as against metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, so that, to give a sporting analogy, the British favour association football rather than rugby football, whereas the Americans favour American football (their kind of rugby equivalent) to soccer.

INCIDENTALS

Woman – symbol of man’s shame.

****

Few would deny that classical music is a whole lot finer – and more subjective – than rock, despite its depressingly state-hegemonic orientation whenever dominated by either strings or brass if not, in many instances, by both, to the detriment of metaphysics (wind). Nonetheless, rock is axially relevant to church-hegemonic criteria, as, in a higher way, is new-age electronica, and therefore not a music that finds its sensible 'fineness' in physics over pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, in a neutron-like acoustic bowing remove from electron-dominated rock strumming/singing. Rock is also a music, despite its innate crudities, that allows the musician to express his feelings directly, not hampered by a score such that, in the classical context, always reflects a neutron-like physical predilection towards knowledge and thus the vitiation if not exclusion of soul as germane not to what is expressed on the printed score but to what resides within independently of outward show.

****

To be friends with a particular person, you need to have got away from people in general.

****

God or, as I prefer to say, godliness, is Heaven perceived from the outside, like candlelight from the flame, and the ratio of the one to the other can change, depending on the stage of metaphysical evolution and of one’s relationship to it. But there is no real distinction between God and Heaven, despite appearances to the contrary, since there would be no candlelight without candleflame, no evidence of superconscious joy (truth) without the joy of the superconscious (soul) to begin with. Therefore when we speak of the One ... we mean that metaphysical free psyche is centred in soul (heaven) and that the appearance of this soul from the outside (god) does not differ in any marked way from the soul as experienced within but, rather, confirms its beingful condition as a reflection of joy (truth). Thus God and Heaven, truth and joy, are one and the same superconscious reality - a reality which is noumenally transcendent in its universality and devoid of any physical or personal associations whatsoever.

****

With an autocracy there is only one ruler – namely the king or king-equivalent, more usually a military dictator. With a democracy, on the other hand, you get a choice of semi-autocratic collectivities called parties, only one of which – barring coalitions – will govern you. The Party elects its own leader, who acts as a kind of party autocrat, hiring and firing as he sees or, rather, thinks fit.

****

Trust is in what is; faith is in what could be.

Sunday 6th February, 2011 – started to copy some Gary Moore CDs onto my new laptop, having concentrated on other musicians during the previous 6-8 weeks since its purchase. Later on, that evening, heard over the Radio Four News that he had died in a hotel-room in Spain earlier that day. Shocked and amazed. He was my age – 58.

Gary Moore wouldn’t be my favourite guitarist; he wouldn’t even be my favourite singer; but as a leading guitarist who also sang and sometimes sang his heart out, I can think of none better.

A TABOO ON 'FATHERS'

To say ‘father’ to a priest is something I could never do, nor want to do. It would put me in the unenviable position of being a ‘son’, but that is merely, in relation to Christianity and, in particular, to Christ, the bound soma (crucifixional paradigm) of metaphysics, a shortfall from the free psyche of the ‘father’ – and more representatively of heavenly soul - in relation to a full complement of metaphysics, who and/or which doesn’t exist in the Western tradition except peripherally and on a surrogate basis in terms of ‘fathers’, i.e. Catholic priests.

But I am the intellectually-bovaryized personification – call it superpersonification – of free psyche, and to a degree beyond the comprehension, I wager, of most if not all priests. I am, in a sense, the ultimate free or, rather, superfree thinker, a veritable ‘philosopher king’ whom it would be difficult if not impossible to surpass. I could never kowtow to priests, whom I despise for being dominated, through the Old Testament, by Creatorism, i.e., by Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in and as the noumenally objective embodiment of metachemical free will, the very thing that precludes all but a resurrectional straining on the leash towards metaphysics in the crucifixional paradigm of the so-called ‘true Cross’ by what is an extrapolation, in Catholic Christianity, from the Judaic anchor, so to speak, of the Middle East, an extrapolation, moreover, that has to accommodate and, to a degree, transcend ‘the world’ of the mass Catholic position below before approximating – and then imperfectly – to an axial antithesis to the aforementioned ‘Creator’, whose fundamentally somatic basis in metachemistry ensures that the Christ ‘On High’ remains figurative and thus well short of signifying, in male-hegemonic abstraction, anything or, rather, anyone freely psychic and, hence, properly metaphysical.

Hence the Judeo-Christian anachronism vis-a-vis global civilization in its alpha-stemming or formative manifestation, which only the paradoxical exploitation of the democratic process in certain traditionally church-hegemonic countries to a religiously sovereign end will enable us not merely to overhaul but, with the emergence of the Social Theocratic Centre, effectively consign to the ‘rubbish heap of history’, where it will join all those other bovaryized religions rooted in Creatorism that can have no place in ‘Kingdom Come’, a kingdom centred, metaphysically, in Heaven the Holy Soul.

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

The alpha-oriented and alpha-stemming distinction between decadent bourgeois civilization (Protestant secularism) and proletarian barbarism, the degeneration of Western civilization (in relation, for instance, to female priests or, rather, vicars, ministers, etc.) and the inception of global civilization (in relation, for instance, to feminism), the former of which overhauled, in its inception, the medievalism of Catholic Christianity, the latter of which has still to be overhauled, democratically, by the inception of global civilization-proper in terms of the transcendentalism of Social Theocratic Centrism, the ‘Superchristianity’, as it were, of ‘Kingdom Come’, which presupposes a majority mandate for religious sovereignty conceived as the sovereign ne plus ultra and means whereby not only ‘man’ can be ‘overcome’ but, more importantly, transfigured towards his evolutionary successor, the cyborg, who will be completely beyond what passes for God, i.e. Devil the Mother, in his enhanced metaphysical capacity for Heaven.