The Autobiography of God Almighty

Notes and Letters

Jim Overbeck

VLJÎH X<0<2DfBF,< Ç<" ºµ,4H 2,@B@40 2äµ,< God Almighty became man in order that we may become gods

St. Athanasius Incarn 54.2 [458]

II Cor 6: 8 BLITZGEIST PUBLICATIONS email: [email protected]

First published 2003

All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Blitzgeist Publications.

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulate without the publisher’s prior consent in any formm of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

Overbeck, Jim The Autobiography of God Almighty

ISBN0-9543850-0-4

Icon on back cover by Peter Murphy TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The Cretin City Notes & Letters.

Introduction page 1

Note to R/phy 3

Note to R/phy 5

Note to R/phy 7

Note to R/phy 11

Note to R/phy 15

Note to R/phy 17

Note to a female meat-eater 19

Note to miss meat-eater 21

Note to Dark Angel 23

Note to Suze 25

Note to R/phy 27

Note to R/phy 29

Note to Suze 32

Note to Anne 90

Letter to Anne 91

Letter to Mark A. 94

Letter to the Darling Girl 96

Letter to Anne 99

Letter to the Darling Boy 107

Note to Mark A. 108 Note to Almighty God 110

Letter to Suze 111

Letter to Mark A. 113

Letter to R/phy 131

Letter to God 139

Letter to Mai 149

Letter to G. P. 161

Notes to G. P. 181

Letters to Miss D. 194

Notes and Letters from Ravenswood.

Letter to God 207

‘Sidebar’ to Letter to God Almighty 226

‘Sidebar’ on Kant 227

‘Sidebar’ on gods and goddesses 231

‘Note to M.’ 240

‘Sidebar’ on Kant 243

‘Sidebar’ on Kant’s Infinity 246

Letter to Prof Y ... ‘Herpes Trismegistus’ 250

‘Sidebar’ towards Hegel via Kant 258

‘Sidebar’ on Hegel 262

Notes on ‘Humanity’ 280

Communication to Dr M. E. 310 To R. K. 356

God to God 387

Darling Louise 400

Appendices A & B 410

Index 435

fotos and pictures

preceding page 1 . . . . Jim Overbeck, mid-30s facing page 106 . . . . Suze Overbeck, 30-ish facing page 140 . . . . Overbeck again, 30-ish after page 207 . . . . Ralph Kessler, aged 17 after page 247 . . . . demon attack drawing after page 311 . . . . gnostic lightshow drawing after page 405 . . . . Calvin lobotomized drawing

Introduction

What ostensibly started off as the seduction of a seventeen year old boy by a thirty six year old man was not all it seemed. Ralph K. was considered ‘too pretty’ by his contemporaries, and this carried all kinds of implications. The first letters, or parts thereof, are meant to find common ground and grope in that direction. They are stylishly inept in reaching for ‘accommodation, sexual and otherwise, with a teenager of high intelligence’. Overbeck’s designs began to emerge rapidly, especially after the initial liaison, and these make up some of the serious parts of the notes and letters which follow.

Overbeck was essentially an intellectual adventurer; hence he needed an adventurous boy (or two) to add to his wife and mistresses. By then the latter amounted to many hundreds. What the attraction was, Overbeck commented, was hardly physical - it was more something to do with kindness. However, boredom was virtually never at issue: things happened, things of an extraordinary kind, as those who read the following manuscript closely will surmise. The work as such is largely fragmented; at first the reader will not know what is going on at all; but Overbeck’s strange universe becomes apparent to those who persist. Much of what he wrote is destroyed: 99% of his mathematical studies were burned (literally hundreds of pages), 100% of his early writings on the Greeks, especially analyses of the origins of religion, and so forth. No matter, enough survives to put together the slant of his thought. And who is Overbeck that we should glance into his soul? This is no biography but life does occur. Jim Overbeck claimed God as such paid him several visits. This quiet claim led him into much trouble; but some who went in to ‘gun-sling’ him, to take him out, stayed to listen. This collection comprises some of the talk on which their attention fastened. It is in no particular order, at least in details, because of the diversity of its sources: notebooks, notes, letters (most certainly not intended for publication and, therefore, poor in style, very colloquial, and so on. Much is repetitive, or so it seems, but its content is, in the last analysis, its delivery). Some of the thought expressed in this work is quite shattering. If the reader has the courage to go on, he or she might fall prey to some of the horror discussed in its pages. There are some extremely frightening things contained herein, so some resolve is required. And it is also possible that some of this book will twist your life around. In the text we have left in numerous irritants: copious uses of i.e.’s, e.g.’s, &c.’s, perambulating sentences, in fact, a critic’s field-day; but the urgency of the message, if that, indeed, is what it is, does not suffer by the occasional roughness used in the text. The foulness of the language we have sometimes ‘gentled down’, although enough remains to give some hint of the original. The examination of blasphemy is precisely that, no more or less. But we do feel, most strongly, that the world must benefit from Overbeck ‘ghost writing’ - partly at

1 least, sometimes at a distance - the autobiography of God Almighty. No book in human history has ever attempted this profoundly difficult feat. How well it succeeds is another matter: but, finally, and for the first time, someone at least has tried. We now seriously warn you of an approaching waking nightmare. Whether this is a masterwork of the 20th or 21st century, we leave the reader to decide.One thing is, however, certain: here the rising star of genius shines in the face of humanity - if, that is, that is what it is. We bid you enter a great adventure, which, though disturbing, should put to right many profound difficulties in all our lives. Take it as it ‘effects’ you. Ignore it at your peril. ‘Roller-coast’ through hell; and go to Heaven.

2 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 1.2/79.

I'm not familiar with writing to a 17 yr old boy who is as virulently pretty as a ripe young girl: it appears I must watch what I say, particularly so as not to be thought of as condescending: perhaps I am a condescending son-of-a-bitch period ... I wrote to you a very long letter (of sound advice & weird tales), but dished it with an irritated sigh, thinking shit! how do I reach this beautiful kid!?, because reach you I shall if it is at all possible....

I am aware of the great difficulties in bridging the gap of age & experience: I'm 36 and feel like a galactic version of a cigar-chewing infantry sergeant - too long in the trenches - confronted by Sweetpea (ref the early Popeye scripts), with a speech-bubble coming from his head, saying gug, except you appear to say I am neurotic. This is not true, son - or should that be miss? - although, even if it is, some neurosis comes from being born with nerve.

You I like inordinately, so allow me the veteran-to-greenhorn stance: give a little by recognizing that the barrier is not impenetrable, but that we have inner characteristics with highly marked differences, the most singular of which is a vision of things generally, meaning, for example, a more jaded inner network & processes shaped by events in a very unusual life, such as playing psychic roulette too many times against psychotropic mutants with multiple eyes & luminous bodies: hence, when I refer somewhat enigmatically to the Christ event, recognize it means something outside your immediate knowledge. I should say it's what I am all about, as my inner frameworks are saturated with formulae & concepts derived from contacts with the aforementioned entities (viz) divine beings.

Your tentative inquiries interested me, particularly as I'm prone to minds high above the norm. I appreciate minds which can cut into reality presented as an on-going mystery. True minds do not form inflexible opinions: rather they hone themselves like razors, because criticality is that sharp. I would like you to check out some events incisively .. spontaneously .. thus experientially. Mind to me means heart with no critical dissociation. The ability of thought to feel & feelings to think is integral ... Integral, cohesive, expansive, flexible, critical. Such a mind must run into difficulties .. A mind worthy to be tested and to test. So it requires courage in the face of adversity, humour - however grim - in the face of despair: hence, learning is a necessity which requires a literally open mind & although much conceit lays claim to this, it is extremely rare ....

I like the point you made about clear conscience linked to not hurting anyone. Very sound, though you will find there is something far superior to conscience in guiding one's intellect (viz) metamorphic light; but more of this

3 later when we get to know each other. Suffice it for now to say, gladiators of the psyche are difficult to come by, especially in a world which approaches reality only marginally. Nietzsche once said that a mind which opened itself to the fullest extent would instantaneously go mad: rather, his madness is proof that his mind did not open fully. Mind can go beyond madness and, literally, enter glorious Heaven. But more on all this later.

4 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 2.5/79.

I now feel sure you are going to satisfy my desire ... to find a pleasing kid with the innocence of a child & the perspicacity & cutting edge of a critical intellect. Innocence combined with intellect is a major key to the divine. Sunshine, you give me hope of things to come. One of the ways I love my Suzie is to see her for what she always is, when, as a little girl, she played with a pair of wings fixed on her back, carrying a magic wand. The other children ignored this sort of play, so she stood on a mound and looked the way she does. There is a way to know someone which is the way we should all see each other, and of which our divine kinship is the living symbol .. a way such as I sometimes saw the world when I was a small boy - as it were golden, with tints & feelings untrammeled, standing innocent before God and ourselves. Coupled with that, of course, we now have conceptual combat in an active sense & the difficulties of mind which all psychic warriors possess, whose eye is intent on piercing through to greatness. There is something particularly pleasing about a young warrior after Truth, who scents a subtle nuance & pursues it through active intelligence and excellent courtesy. Have no doubt whatsoever that what I am guardedly referring to exists in pristine fashion. Access to it is not a matter of mere visions & perceptions which, if met with, should be regarded with extreme caution, suspicion & criticality; rather it is a question of three things:

[A]. exploration of theological & religious ontologies (not simply abstractions);

[B]. furtherance of the ability to move ontologies in power;

[C]. prayer - i.e. - not of the inefficacious type used by poseurs who do not know God, but its use to clear the way to fulminating peace & glory.

You are quite correct in saying vice is its own reward, but somewhat short on the surrounding frame. What, for example, is the reward of a vicious god, say one manifesting as a warmonger or mass murderer ... something appearing as human (whilst in reality a son of God Almighty) actively in rebellion against the Immaculate Throne of the Most High and, in consequence, against the very heart of the human race as it was meant to be constituted? How would you judge such a deific mutant if it was brought before you, unrepentant at having devastated & thoroughly bloodied innocent women & children? What if, at some stage, you were given your wings back & asked to serve the Most High in the world (with all its terrors and mind-crippling forms of being)? Anyway, sweetness, not to indulge you in too many real possibilities. Allow me instead to tell you about Christ, the only entity I will bow the knee to & allow to be my Master. The life in Christ for me is daily agony (.. I do not use

5 this word lightly); however, agony is not life's raison d'etre .. I live to see God alias Love the more. When I cannot experience love, I find life awful, that is, when any other reality appears to be dominant - formality, hardness, coldness, etc. Only love - all the rest is nonsense, or worse ..

To love there is no end: it will eventually conquer all the deserving. All I can say to you is I have seen its power within Heaven - such staggering immensity! - and nothing will successfully withstand its magnificence. On the Throne of this absolutely true but impossible configuration of brilliant Being sits the Lamb of God, whiter than driven snow. This Nazarene, with bloodied brow, rules. His rule is impeccable & innocent - the only rule that is - and one mere glimpse of this is worth ten billion times the world's wisdom. It is this Nazarene Who whistles the fly out of Egypt and the gnat out of Babylon. So, may the Lord bring you forth .... Do not worry about my troublesome charisma - my blighted reputation - and the putative heavy metal front I choose to wear. No, I am not a murderer. Soft hearts are moulded in the crucible of affliction. You are helping me in ways unknown to yourself. Simply recognize that life is an on-going ontology, a turmoil that effects us all: it cannot be exhausted or known by any superimposed pattern of man. There is no reason big enough for God; and reason conjoined to the ostensible is easily shattered. What use is knowledge if it is not true? Always try to let Truth guide you: hate the lie. Personally, if the light of Truth does not shine, I am afraid. Hence, it was with great resolve I managed to find Truth - staggering, impossible, utterly amazing, holy - indeed, thrice-holy, and I have been wondering what hit me since.

6 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 3.5/79.

More of the same. There is no obligation to reply on your part as you are doing me a service ref sharpening minor dialectical skills and making me think.

[A]. A long time ago a contemplative (female) Orthodox monk - Maria of Whitby - told me academic life was hell. Inside I said No! because I supposed my reason naturally pointed to academic life. So knowing better on I went, whilst really knowing she was right. University life is a low metaphysical structure .. a world of (mere) theory & part of the bourgeoise-scholarly con, which attempts to stave off & ignore tragedy - usually other people's - by a consensus veneer of delusion. Academia is slavery to the appearance of knowledge & it negates the primal being of you with its thirst for authentic experience & puts in its place the causality con of antecedent & consequent - this makes that happen, as if the divine is thereby minimalized (hence the suburban superstition of scientific method) .. In short, it is tonality manifest and thorough, meant to ward off the implicit horror of declassé terror, viz, barbaric instinct with the deific thought of as nowhere in play: thus it is a politico-economic configuration first & foremost, and all such configurations outlaw deific powers ......

[B]. And this, darling, is the social nexus you inhabit, with the academic & non-deific salon as its apogee. Its behavioural connections are profoundly phoney (hence the rebellion of Romanticism, a concoction straight out of degenerative straightdom & the High Church font, although there is nothing high in the High Church) ... Now when I saw the Light above the Light (8/9 yrs ago) it was not a graded experience, as if there is a spiritual norm, but something commensurate with finding the Holy Grail & thus actually dying. I went on one knee to receive the entire panoply of Heaven & in that timeless instance the whole of quotidian reality became vile. The sewerage of earth - Dante's rivers of excrement - ever flows .... Perhaps you know the story of king Midas capturing the daemon, Silenus, an alter-ego of Dionysus-Zagreuth, and asking him to relate the highest good for man? Answer: "Ephemeral wretch, begotten by accident & toil, why do you force me to tell you what would be your greatest boon not to hear? What would be best for you is quite beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. But second best is to die soon". This is the absolute vomit of pessimism, which is really nothing but the outside of Heaven or Heaven inaccessible, a vastly prevalent & predominant ideology ruling large sections of mankind. Fortunately, a few of us know the way back & it is this I will be relating to you ....

[C]. Maybe Mark's yen for Zen & his Japanese inheritance is a reflection of Silenus on the tonal front; but the mind - and the imp of perversity - moves

7 against this alleged instinct. A lesser mind easily accepts crude tonality, but a greater one usually requires a finer self-kiddology, such as education & indoctrination, or the pose of life and suffering in abstraction. What is a priest but the man who acknowledges the flayed & dismembered resurrection god on the tonal scale, while keeping the sexual murder of his psyche at bay? Or is he a gladiator who hopes, via adroitness, to sustain the least number of wounds, so that the Imperator will say he has fought well: come and stand at my side, O brave warrior ...? I have never met one priest who is not cast from appearances, but Christ received only stripes & spit from these f***ing leeches of the Imperium ... It is small wonder I walked away from the priesthood with contempt, as they, specifically, guard against the Vision of God. My crime is to frequently experience it.

[D]. So, I suppose serfdom, subscription & kinship with the collective of mutants - and the sharing of their ideological dregs - is not my vocation. I would rather take on Almighty God by assaulting the Throne: or, provocatively, take out Almighty God, because He Himself beckons on His mighty sons to such radiant aspiration. The gutless castratism of western man has man himself shave off his own genitalia, as with the Phrygian priests of Cybele, and thus such self-mutilation overthrows the more ancient idea of Chronos spaying Uranos - time spaying Heaven - or Prometheus warring against Zeus .... Let us say then that ontological rebellion is required .. not against the world, which ever remains a cess-pit, but against the greatest of all the gods, the Galilean. Evidently, to oppose Him with evil via the satanic is mere stupidity, as Satan must lose & I am not into losing ... Thus, what is my game & where do you come in? First of all, what it is not .....

[E]. It is not the eliciting of your genius - the genius of noble youth - ferreted out by a Socratic pedantic-pederastic ideation freak, based on the premiss knowledge can be taught, when, judging by the state of things, it cannot, say, on the model of Alkibiades, the rouged darling & wild thing of an aristocratic oligarchy. This is because moves regarding Sokrates-Alkibiades are the tonal front for another myth, viz: Zeus-Ganymedes, the latter taken anally by a metamorphosized eagle & made into both cupbearer & catamite, this being consonant with Plato's dictum the good = orthos paiderestein or the right sort of pederasty ... I mean: who would wish to lower himself to equality with Zeus!? Christ's cupbearer, of course, betrayed Him .... I will mount you in another way, consent forthcoming.

[F]. Nor is it based on fear of human or divine vice, as one must never be intimidated by vicious configurations, nor shirk them as taboos by tonal pretence, as if they do not exist for one's class, caste, cult, and so forth. Fear is a lie which forces a contradiction & screening device into the libido, resulting in

8 excitation consisting of minor revelations to the ego, the thyrsus alternatively veiled & unveiled to release reproductive energy into the holy-posing mind ... the unveiling of the sacred object (anakalypsis) as sexual or non-sexual .. etc. One must dare the sexually impossible & go beyond the human. Rather, my way is based on the psychic efficacy of mythopoeic power, as it faces as fact the condition that if one says No! to something it comes back the stronger; and if one says Yes! one loses .. So what is the alternative to this strange see-saw? I will give you some ideas towards an answer, so: one requires constant attempts at reintegrating mythopoeic factors (as expressed tonally) with the unique manifestations behind tonality; hence, there must be a constant sabotaging of products generated by the great machine - the logical engine - of rationality & a cutting away of the planks of human logical schematics, so that products become transcendent. This suggests recourse to that which requires negation (e.g. education & learning), so as to demonstrate the validity of negation vis-à-vis abstraction, thought, entityship conjoined to thinghood, etc., the result of which is usually termed agnosia. This implies rebellion against all personae, prosopa & schemata which do not express a rise on the divine perpendicular, and this is especially necessary if one wishes to oppose God with a better version of Himself. This means a strict subordination of all forms on the horizontal, that is, on the historico-spatio-temporal plane, which deprive us of the rise into actual transcendence or which, indeed, sufficiently trim it so a loss of height occurs ref the archangelic spheres, seraphic realms, celestial dynasties, on the way to the confrontation with God. In reality this is rebellion against every imitative genre, first by assimilating subordinate personae wherever possible & then by sabotaging such personae by altering the axiological frames which give rise to them - e.g. - by creating frames anew and thus by fulfilling innate creatorship ... Thus, f*** mere creaturedom & the ways of humans! Let those for whom it suffices have it. By creating uniquely new combinations of schemata (all of which are based on the irreducibility of the imago Dei), any combinatorial set, pattern or projection forwarded by others is revoked. (So, nuts!, dear boy, to the vaunted psychological mode of perception, as it fails to cast its net wide, high or deep enough to ensnare deific freedom). And N.B. others in this context includes God Almighty, because as we are made in His image as creators, what is to stop a seminal contest against His creatorship .. or better creatorship than His ..!? Hence, my ontological rebellion precludes identification with any other manifestation, divine or human. A creator must be a unique axis even if intrinsically related to the unique axis; and I see this as leading to the primordial contest of God versus the gods. Consequently, there must be a refusal of identification with any other creator - YHWH, Zeus ... - and no subordination or subscription to and with any lesser role, such as worshipper, acolyte, follower, devotee, and so forth. What follows from this? Naturally, I am suggesting God versus God in a ramification of diversity ..on the battlefield of the psyche.

9 Ultimately, of course, if I cannot get away with this high struggle, it will at least stop the real God Almighty from being pissed off with the usual, normative, boring, worshipful drag show. Now this evidently implies a restructuring of values in eliciting the high, but you must carefully recognize that this immaculate war is fought according to the power of the Most High: against this it is worthy to win by losing. More later ...

10 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 4.6/79.

Evidently, clarification is required for this impending program of critical mysticism, in order that there is no misunderstanding of my methodology. I am attempting to impart to you high modes of criticality where Christ Almighty is concerned, especially the high mode of assuming Deity directly, as far as is possible; or, as far as He allows the possibility. This is not a matter of literal usurpation: nor is it a gross identification with the parameters of omnipotence, power or ego inflation. Rather, I am suggesting a trickster's adventure in high theological finesse, largely on the following grounds:

[1]. God's action in the world is thoroughly wanting, desperately so, even on a minute by minute basis, such that His complicity in allowing horror, suffering and crime indicts Him to the shame of Himself and those that love Him. This allows the possible implication that one could do better - i.e. - as Him, if one were Him: given His power, eschewing psychotic projection & wishful think, things should not be as they are in this worst of all possible worlds ....

[2]. Given the foulness of the human condition, one cannot simply quote the imperfection of free will in a collective of individuated humans as a cause; nor even mankind's denying His help; but a direct indictment has validity if God's bastard, Christ, is sleeping or uncaring or something similar. So: damn this Saviour Who could not or cannot engender a more magnificent ontology than the one prevailing: ergo, I can do better. Hence, with Nietzsche or Rimbaud - both of whom died in agony - I will attempt to take over existence, at least via literary & theological theory. Fortunately (or not) I have more intelligence than many geniuses, plus I have sheer power in the realm of the Holy Ghost denied to and-or unforthcoming for innumerable lesser theorists, including access to the miraculous. Therefore, I will aim to criticize the Almighty's conspicuous absence by living a greater ontology.

[3]. Evidently, I have no capacity to raise the dead, as if bringing the dead back here is a salutory action. Nor can I walk on water, as if controlling the elements excuses slaughtering tens of thousands drowned in seas of agonizing ice or boiling lava. Nor have I the power to cure the blind, as if their seeing the rotting excrement of life & human behaviour is itself commendable. All I have is a (depth) psychological blueprint for a better God Almighty (viz) one in Whom hideously sickening pain is not the soul & sole credo & gauntlet of genuine love. It is time for extreme radicalism of a type previously not known & absolutely unknown: hence, ontological rebellion of such a type that it precludes identification with any manifestation, divine or human (as I have previously communicated to you in embryo): therefore, I have in mind a critical assault on the lack of gains in the life of Christ as God. This is not a mere

11 exercise in blasphemous infamy - although this I will examine dispassionately, passion allowing - but it is a means of scouring extreme criticality for valid argumentation against Christ.

[4]. To criticize Christ Almighty it is necessary to assume the mantle, mind and genitalia of God Almighty Himself, especially as there could be no better informed critic. No more lethal or telling challenge could issue forth against Deity than by Christ Almighty, especially by Christ Almighty ashamed of His inefficacy in the face of a world full of snarling torment, seering torture & seething horror. Let God blaspheme Himself through me for the lack of soteriological ends. I assert I can do better, and even my lack of power in accomplishing this end indicts Him Who fails to give me the necessary means. Apparently, He has the power but fails to use it. Better that Christ had hanged Himself from shame than been crucified for the guilt to fall on others - e.g. - others who have been butchered by Christ's followers - murderous f***ing scum of Christians - in living out predestinate shit for His greater glory...

Thus, I am trying to secure Christ Almighty's reputation as His eu-daimon: perhaps as His demon: to secure God against His own criticism, in the hope of stirring this omnipotent behemoth from His own quagnivorous torpor where, in the face of countless millions of tormented & suffering mortals, apparent indifference is the stark fact of quotidian obviousness. Allowing horror to occur is the negation of love explicated as mystery. The human race cries, F*** mystery and f*** God! It is necessary to regenerate God Almighty from within to bring about the loving solution of everything ..... So, let me give you an example of a philosophical (anthropological) problem, which seems to demonstrate God’s mighty uselessness: the case of Nietzsche. There is sufficient evidence to my mind to vouchsafe Nietzsche's having known of his inevitable collapse through syphilis as a congenital legacy. Nietzsche would have had virtually no choice in opting for necessitarianism in his philosophical work. Notwithstanding the Germanic predilection for such a doctrine - it is, after all, to be found in Luther, Leibniz, Hamann, Schopenhauer & others - Nietzsche's innate fatalism is, as it were, forced on Him by Deity: more strictly, through adverse conditions found under Deity. One could argue, fairly successfully, that the responsibility is not God's: for example, that the gods in rebellion against the Most High chose imperfect manhood & thus brought about the current (vicious) state of affairs - i.e. - that the war in Heaven was & is real & that the lower battlefield has continuity under the guise of that we are humans & nothing more: thus an outlandish but not impossible hypothesis. This hypothesis, therefore, carries the implication that the human mass distorts itself via mutation - ostensibly via mutation - that is, something distorts itself into the human mass means the divine gods mutate into the human mass: the gods pose as human. This then carries the further implication that the foundations of the

12 world are out of course - i.e. - that the institutions of the human mass are totally insane..... And by this I include virtually all human thought networks, or networks which have not been re-divinized. Nietzsche would then have been doubly unfortunate, in being both syphilitic and as insane as his human peers. Furthermore, one could then spell out consequences from this suggestion & theorize immediately that the reputedly sane inculcate mutancy as a norm and state that sanity is nothing more than a supposition reached by consensuses of power via numerical (mutant) dominance. The human mass asserts its humanity as if it is human: this it declares sane. Its contrary is declared insane, but I assert that the contrary is true. The appearances of the human mass are fashioned by tonality & they are capable of arbitrary disruption. Now in this scheme all beings who did not side with Christ in the war in Heaven could retain mutancy whilst on earth via the consequences of a higher choice. But what of the rest? Why are they on earth also? Are they incarnate volunteers? Or are they casualties? Whatever the cause of this manifest nightmare of earth, this hideous earth, its solution requires an ontological formula of mammoth or inordinate power. So, let us begin to size up the problem in some detail. First: religion. Most religion is mythopoeic externalization, meant to keep the actualization of God at bay. Religion is a form of abstract postponement: something is at least one remove away; and it is anodyne display & the overt posturing of mutancy. It is likewise with mutant proofs of God's existence: all that is proved, at most, if anything at all, is merely God's existence as an abstraction. However, God is perfectly capable of proving His own existence as such - literally - and no amount of hocus-pocus with magic biscuits & wine in memoriam (as if God is dead) suffices to make up for a lack of access. What f***ing use is a God Who cannot be reached as Himself??!! Frankly, the entire purpose of earthly indoctrination into mutant forms - education, doctrine, knowledge - is to secure obedience via the ersatz. Every form of idolatry secures mutant approval except, that is, one: Truth. Everything in human life synthesizes falsehood as a matter of degree, but with one end in view: Christ must not become Almighty on earth, because the outside of Heaven is the insane pinnacle of mutant hegemony & supremacy. Mutants are prepared to sacrifice countless millions of their own kind for the insane contradiction of supreme power, and to do this they will substitute any ideology for the reality of Christ Almighty: any ideology, however twisted, merciless & vile ... any that stacks up corpses which, if laid one on top of another, would reach up towards Heaven as an obscene monument of human endeavour. Now it is obvious, if thought about, that existence outside of Heaven - the baseplate of earth & its actual ontic underpinning - necessarily produces monsters. The zones & killing-fields of mutancy engender mutants. It is not simply a matter of nightmares in the spawning-ground: rather, it is a matter of nightmares spawned in the living nightmare. But there is no necessity to owe

13 allegiance to this revolting zone, as Christ Himself demonstrated what man can become via an anti-mutational apex of divinized power. This ascent rules out tonality - phenomenality - by the sheer power of God & thus it disrupts the perncious connection between ideological abstraction and monstrous fixation. Spatio-temporality can be commanded to recede & mighty Heaven, in all its magnificent glory, can be both approached and entered. This experience - after multiple (initial) perplexities - reveals that innocence is sanity & that sanity arrives only through the direct experience of Christ Almighty. Given the Incarnation of God Almighty - innocence birthed into monstrosity - it is small wonder that He Himself interfaced with the insane as a totalized cerebral experience..... The resulting problematic of Almighty Innocence swathed in the barbarous coils of mutant insanity should be a lesson for all goodness, if only because like problemata occur in wrenching oneself away from the stinking circus of earth. As the central figure of the Gospels we see God stricken by the introjected insanities of a disordered universality, a constant variant of one which now & always will prevail here below. Mankind reveals to itself permanent insanity on a cosmic scale: the outside of Heaven is always insane. In consequence of this, the entire foundation of human effort issues forth as the politics of a gigantic madhouse. God was hammered to death for His resistance to mutant carnage & for wishing to cast out the aberrant swill of mutant consciousness. Precisely what it is He wished to change it into you shall, hopefully, soon see. Suffice it to say now: Christ Almighty did not fail in establishing His loving realm as an oasis of incredible delight for those who love innocence & who draw breath in the hope of seeing His absolute victory. That victory is amongst us even though the shit of human scorn denies it & even though business thrives in concentration camps as vast as continents. Fortunately, the entire human race will suffer death, and then the snuffed out agonies of millions will constitute a chorus of indescribable terror for God's enemies, however respectable they might presume to be or wish to appear. But enough for now.

14 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 5.6/79.

You are quite the most beautiful boy I have ever seen - and seen into: bitch - so, kissy kissy! Understandably - inexcusably - I am quite desperate to mount you, aged 17 though you may be. You really ought to be my darling exquisite, in order that I can shew you how a darling can perform. You combine aristocratic masculinity - the limbs of Apollo - with a perfect degree of femininity; so you should be on all fours as my erotic temptress, as I beg favours. The thought of your blonde kisses and disdainful torso - when you aren't teasing me with those looks - torments me with the possibilities of manifest & irrepressible ecstacy. To know you are f***ing that ennobled bitch and your other furry she is too much: and even though the princess lets me up , I would rather ride you .... I have possessed only one male beloved before but, even though he was hot & pretty, I rapidly tired of him. You I could never tire of, as you constitute & personify a destined ideal, miraculously brought into my life. Thank Christ you tracked me down via mere rumour. Thus, reputation has it uses, even though many of the wilder anecdotes are not half-told. Sure, I hustled hundreds of femmes - scoring foxes is a beautiful adventure - and, sure, I hunted as a means of glorifying my loins - what a life that was! - but, compared to Suze, every other female is relegated into a minor perspective. This girl is more than everything I ever sought: she is a pristine heart in pure form, whom I shall love & worship for ever. I never knew such incomparable sweetness existed, until Christ showed me otherwise. Still, I ache for you .... First, an exchange of properties - communicatio idiomatum: I will do you a trade if you give yourself to me: as far as possible. You can bitch me like a tart & teach me a lesson of the kind I wish to be taught (see below); and I will throw in a string of mistresses, a fortune - which we can quickly make - and lesser favours. Given that I now live in abject poverty with my Suze, my wise cat Thomas & stacks of books means little, as I will simply pray for our destiny to accelerate for your sake. Second: sling your academic career as I will take you further than that ever could; and sling it because it is not to your advantage to be reigned over by dirty intelligences, of the sort engendered by knowledge at the superficies. For this I will give you sensuality of a magnitude such as mutated humans, the bulk, could not envisage in a thousand aeons: in such sensuality you will be vigorously despunked as my perfumed odalisque & stiff slut. Third: I will give you an intellectual game of such divine wonder, that everything you have conceived of previously will pall into insignificance in comparison, viz, I will show you how God f***s ...... Obviously, there is no previous script for this: no previous writ either: but nothing is impossible for the Almighty. Nothing: no matter how profoundly ignorant or handicapped the sensibilities & intellects of humankind. If I were the returned Christ, my embodiment would be engendered anew: it would not be for

15 the nails & hammers of merciless sadists; nor would it be for the warped historicity & beguiling swinery of Caesarean eunuchs: thus it would not be for the calculable stupidities of man. To my mind, it is better that God is incalculably queer than a bourgeois idol, supposedly ruling over a greedy anti-system, assimilated into His opposite, as if let & approval is thereby granted for exactions in His Name. Nothing kind & humble rules, nothing truly Christian & divinely learned, even though there are many good souls hard put to it at lower levels. Goodness takes shit in a mercenary world, but it is far better to side with gentle love than with those exalted at the expense of others. Those bowed under by extraneous weight will one day rise into the delight of innocence. This should be before death, however embryonically, but certainly really, according to virtue's capacity. In the meantime, disproportionate materiality is accumulated according to the immorality of governments, when it should be given for the betterment of all. Creation is further ruined on a daily basis by the activities of predators & the Moloch of filthy profit. The solution is always outlawed & paradisical return is rigidly banned. However, I will show you access to the deific pleasure domes of Almighty God: I will take you into the mighty furnace of the Holy Ghost.

16 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 6.7/79.

Remarks & elaborations thereof regarding sexuality: I appear to have disturbed you somewhat by exposing my intentions towards you. My attitude towards sex is highly complicated and, hopefully, advanced. Certain things, it seems to me, are obvious to any honest & resolute mind. All men are homosexual in specie with regard to the genitalia: excitement in one's own implies the aesthetics of a like (same) kind & identification with the permanently inverted phallus-as-object. Inversion is not, as Freud asserted, a displacement of the characteristics of the opposite sex: rather, it is recognition, through another, of the impinging sameness in genital excitation. This holds for female homosexuality also. If homosexuality is abnormal - a theory generated by homophobic fear, based in like kind recognition - all sexuality is abnormal. Homosexuality is linguistically defined by the Gk. homo = same, common, like, not by the Ln. = man. The Greek term is declared in the basic phrase, I like. Opposition to this is rooted in the aggression of the responses, I am not like, do not like, am not the same, etcetera. The negation of species homosexuality is via the manipulative wish to maintain & enforce violence, culturally & educationally, as if this contributes to hegemonic armamentation. Violence - despite the hypocritical vacuities of pietism & pacifism - is valued more by hegemonic power than the implicit deviance of all love. Homosexuality in females is allowed as it is not thought to decrease the capacity for mass violence. The starkly insane contradiction in violence is, of course, the taking of sexuality as a reward from those conquered. The conqueror inflicts what he proscribes & thereby perverts the divinity inherent in all sexuality. Man conquers and, indeed, calls forth conquest on himself, because his fundamental stratum is self-contradictory. N.B. the human I is not-I, because it is based on the false premiss A = A. The human mass requires violence as a means of premature self-destruction: it stokes destruction in an insane attempt to kill death: the mass needs to be confirmed as alive by killing death in others. This killing of death is sacrificial death versus the capacity to kill. The mass sheds its own as a partialized or repressed self: killing others is an impossible attempt to ward off death, but this goes on because this is not its raison d'etre. Killing is an act of impotence in the face of God: it is, In Your face ..!!, or pleasure against Him. What the human mass fears most it perpetrates on others ... on other humans. Killing is thus the ultimate act of persuasion, as it attempts to persuade the divine that it is sub-human. But more of this, in talk, when I see you ...

Let me clarify some of my sexual views for you. And the gods saw the daughters of men & they were fair. They also saw the sons of men: some of them, though few, were fair. There is a downward metamorphosis for the gods. The gods are not a fiction & they are specifically referred to by Christ Himself.

17 Deific sexuality can move downwards towards the fairness of flesh: it can also move upwards into ultra-sex. It is this I am specifically concerned with, as I wish to re-sensualize you as a god. In fact, it is this which comprises the sacred art of f***ing, virtually lost to mankind. One theory puts asexual sanctity above ultra- sex & I am not altogether opposed to this, as I am uncertain as to the ultimate status of these divine forms. However, I am prepared to test the latter homosexually, as I know it is obtainable - experientially feasible - in heterosexuality. The incredible delights I have achieved in this respect are beyond the wildest desires of mortals - e.g. - staggering profusions of Immaculate Light show forth the magnificence of the eternal female in breathtaking prosopa ... But about this latter word, if briefly: tonality is the appearance manifested by the fallen gods alias normality: normality is the generalized form of fallen beings, who negate the divinity of the gods: these humans are usually sub-human. Thus, when tonality is disrupted by divine irruption, its singular manifestation is a prosopon. The plural of this word - prosopa - refers to a multiplicity of gods & goddesses showing forth. Now sexual characteristics are represented to the psyche as personae - postures of the libido - & when personae become prosopa, deific sexuality is entered into. The route to this sexual en-god-ing is in-God-ing, so to speak. This incredible state is not possible for unspiritual entities; and spiritual entities usually denounce it authoritatively: in doing this they risk bigotry through the unexamined. Consequently, I am trying to gain your consent for a subversive (ontological) infraction, as a wild & beautiful rebel .....

Mankind - those not gods - operates under a plethora of false ideas & images: false ideas are based on false selfhood. Those not gods are untransfigured and, thus, even their sexual knowledge is awry. This is evidenced, for example, in their uglifications of sexuality: its castigation as sinful mutation implies that false selfhood indeed creates sexuality as a low-mode in behaviour. False selfhood is false self-reflexivity; but I am saying that trans-reflexivity into the sensuality of the divine negates the pathology of lowness; and I am saying that the in-God-ing of sensuality results in a miraculous voluptuousness, virtually unspeakable in its consequences. First apotheosis, then spermatic ecstacy. I am not simply referring to paradisical re-entry (not itself too difficult), but to the f***ing of angelic beings in reality. The desire of God Almighty is a feasible & realistic theophany, participability in which yields the immaculate energies of irrepressed power. It is specifically this which the human mass forfeits in its refusal to know Christ Almighty: effigies & dead script prevail in the mausoleums of dead hearts: the genius of God's mighty voluptuousness is then circumscribed as taboo.....

18 Note to a female meat-eater from Cretin City # 7.6/91.

So, I'm sitting here watching embodied cretinism shuffle by & I'd rather be watching your flagrantly gorgeous ass getting into gear, especially as, where aesthetics is concerned, yours is grade A prime cut .... You are utterly f***able, my sweet - utterly - given, that is, the initial bite. Somewhere, immanently somewhere, is an experience awaiting you, the likes of which you cannot begin to surmise ... You have just walked in: if only you knew my thoughts, which, hopefully, we can engineer for tonight; and which might possibly be described as multi-dimensional lasciviousness. It is possible to transfer voluptuousness into arcane realms, brilliant & wondrous. God, I f***ing want you, like wanting divine magic in a vast & rutting ascendancy, as if I've a lecher's mandate to take you into places few dare enter, even if they possessed the sass to know about them. I actually believe you belong there, an odalisque in sumptuous paradise, sweet & wild & dangerous. I am feeling a little anxious as this must occur & the permit to gain access takes some securing: if it does not occur I am going to be devastated & brought low....

II.

So, süße Kopfjägerin, I have a profound dislike of normality: its idea is cognate with living death & immersion in tribal shit. That which is geared for the normal (even though we are forced to throw it a pissing glimpse) is based on tribal consensus & the tribe is invariably wrong. There are more fools than wise men: go with the minority. We should embody a higher typology whenever possible & this is particularly true of sexuality. My boast is I've discovered ultra-sex ... something utterly unknown vis-à-vis certain arcane (ontological) parameters. Naturally, there is a degree of commonality in all things, but ultra-sex is a rare occurrence & therefore quite difficult to bring about.

Ultra-sex involves the reality of a diverse form I call prosopic display. A prosopon is an external appearance or theophany. It is not a human predicate passing over the visage, say, like the wrath of Achilles emerging on his face. No: a prosopon is a transcendens which moves the merely human into the divine. Most castrational theology would have us believe sexuality and spirituality are antitheses. This is invariably ratified by the saints. Question: how can the saints judge adversely that which they do not know? Appealing to the vaunted redoubts of reason provides no answer, as sexuality is an antithesis if it is taken to be so. Authority, of course, is very powerful. Canonical repetition becomes a norm; but since when were the saints permitted to legislate for the gods? Look, I am not talking of merging Christ & Dionysus, even though we saw what happened when

19 Nietzsche opposed them. I would rather see a greater union without fraught consequence, a unique synthesis or coincidentia oppositorum, one in which all the lesser gods are subordinated to the real Christ. I have investigated Zeus-Ganymedes & my results are contrary to Roman & Orthodox Catholicism. The Master allows a loving free-space in which He calls the shots - as He pleases - and He, thereby, refuses to be ruled by the rigidities of ecclesiastical projection & the sexual conformism which goes with it as a fiat for slavery. Christ is our living God and, although I cannot speak for Him - only an idiot would claim to - I think it is obvious He is not dictated to, even by the highest saint. God's thought relates uniquely, as we are each uniquely constituted. Diversity tends to be nullified in Deity by the shock-troops of unified regimes. Personally, I am one to push & shove to see what gives; and the resistance I am meeting cramps, inhibits & cages my investigative style. So much for the theory (or part of it): it is to the experience we must look. At the very least it should unbind the staves of boredom, and, hopefully, it should unleash the whirlwinds of the Holy Ghost. In God we so dare. Sluttish kisses I adore.

20 Note to Miss Meat-eater from Cretin City # 8. 6/91.

Gnädige Menschenfresserin: the word cannibalism is a Spanish corruption of a Carib term - cf. Caribbean - and includes many N. Amer-Indian tribes. Most ate only the courageous, although they would feed tortured enemies pieces of themselves, as an earnest paradox. These include the Carib, Aztec, Montagnais, Algonkin, Armouchiquois, Micmac, Iroquois, Assinboin, Cree, Foxes, Miami, Ottowa, Chippewa, Illinois, Kickapoo, Sioux, Winnebago, Attacapa, Karankawa, Kiowa, Caddo, Comanche, Thlingchadinneh & other Athapascan tribes, Tlingit, Heiltsuk, Kwakiutl, Tsimshian, Nootka, Siksika, Ute, Hopi, Mohawk, Attacapa & Tonkawa ..... What is it to eat an enemy, to feast on an enemy? To make an enemy feast on himself? See, the victor is a torturer: I am the victor who offers you your entrails: before you I bury my hatchet in the heads of your wife & children, as if the victim is not offered the ultimate challenge against victory ... As if.. !! Feed me my severed genitals, fried from my flesh, on the cooked heads of my butchered kin: let me show you the orbits of my eyes, removed for your redhot coals ... taste my elongated bowels, connected to your fires ... This suggests the victim is derided in not facing up to the ultimate heroization of him- or herself: if you are heroic enough to challenge ultimate sadism, eat yourself .... My party-trick as a boy was to remember 200 or so Indian tribes: I wrote a thesis on American Indians in school, including a study of Wiley & Micah Harp, the mountain-men cannibals ... never mind 'Liver-eating' Johnson ... and never mind Natty Bumpo in the 'Leather Stocking Tales' & lifelong fantasies: and fantasies turned into living questions of reality, say, with Parkman & Schoolcraft, and so on. I have a romantic love of forest history, of virgin woodlands, of wild life ... but, somewhere, this amounts to sympathy & empathy with anyone whose eyes are popped out with with a dirty spoon, whose armpits are persuaded with a blowlamp ... whose psychology reluctantly welcomes carpenter's nails in delicate bones & tender sinews. What the f*** was God thinking of ... ? What was God thinking about when He conceived the possibility of butchered shit for Himself & us ... ? Any human being who is not absolutely f***ing haunted by everyday horror is not alive: so we call this life? .. eh..!? .. pegged squatting to a tree, precious sight looking at the ferocity of a fire built between one’s thighs ... What a way to go, advertised as a forgotten marshmallow on smouldering charcoal. Get rid of reality for the beguiling shit of the next lying oligarchy: hope is the delusion reality will not occur for me: hope is the preference for someone else's horror. Fortunately, God will bring it home for everyone. Fair's fair: as God enjoined absolute horror on Himself, take that, you f***ing mutant curs ....

However, there was a squaw, raven-maned & sylvan-raised, with flanks of glistening hue - O you - who, it can be said, shall kiss & writhe & rise in me - yes, you. It appears I am beginning to catch current traumas, as Ralph has cut

21 & run to Oxford. Smooth & peachy love in Christ the Saviour ...... Yep, you bet, and well-timed indeed: I will prepare the bits, but we should keep the grog for much later .. perhaps a couple of bottles of claret, so I can wash the bloody peckerheaded morons out of my system: Jesus, a parade of f***ing utter stupidity passes by on a daily basis. Thank Christ for the good ones & interesting & intelligent ones, because without them it would be bloody maddening: a life in business I do not need, as it robs the spirit of the immaculate perfection which comes from elsewhere, and which, I hope - God willing, as always - we will get this evening. I have obtained some OTR - old time religion - meant for a very special occasion, reputedly as pure as the waters of chaste Artemis; & hopefully as powerful as voluptuous Aphrodite .. Well, we will see ... I absolutely enjoyed masturbating you as my bridal waif & seeing you strut your beautiful thighs, as you are fabulously wanton & gorgeously kissable: what is life without the glory of excitation .. ? Excitement is the finest energy for enhancing life's implicit pleasures; and most folk, following the auguries of mute stupidity, forget it in their calculations, or divert it into things comatose, coarse & low: hence, life as a rotten imitation, mutilated & broken, or marginalised & everywhere bland. So, f***able child, I greatly look forward to your delights.

22 Note to Dark Angel from Cretin City # 9. 7/91.

Regarding fleshly ease: when Christ walked into my room all those years ago - '70 - I felt absolutely perfect - indeed, I became so for several eternal seconds - standing gently by the fireside in a small Oxfordshire cottage. Then I knew His mind & I felt His Absolute Innocence. This experience will never leave me, but it makes life a terrible torment, which I sometimes describe as having a metal spigot or tamping rod thrust down through my neck, deep into my vitals, as if iron has no mercy. Barely one hour after having met Ralphie on the first occasion, I was lifted up in great power & I could see Mighty Heaven on, so to speak, the starboard bow of the soul, and I was put into cruciform agony - dreadful agony - so as to recognize myself as a god nailed into flesh. The bands of the flesh are spiritually wrought in God's fire, designed no doubt to hold down, as in a barbed-wire cage, the mighty being that I am. Here 'mighty' might well mean rebellious, as I do not know fully the reasons why each of us is caged, if, indeed, each of us is ... Yet on other occasions I have entered into the heights of Triune Majesty with consummate ease. I have experienced the cyclonic emergence of the Super-Essence in my intellect, after pursuing - contemplating - this idea for over five years. This idea is alive: it is not merely conceptual, like an extended predicate, but virtually unspeakable .... unspeakably magnificent. God can be literally experienced. I believe it is this Super-Essence that is calling you ....

II.

But to baser things as I flay Dionysus (rather than extemporize on Pseudo-Dionysius). My affair with the Swedish girl, Fran - a beautiful blonde animal with shaven thighs - gave me such fleshly ease that it was comparable, incongruously similar, to Christ's visit. I do not believe that God is forged from the shrunken testes of the priestly caste: God is not hog-tied by anything as cheap as principles, including the principle of contradiction. God's power is Absolute Freedom; and thus it seems to me that activity which manacles divinity is a form of selling the soul into servitude. Slavery is crammed down our throats by politicians, administrators, bureaucrats .. etc .. as they stack up the shit of greed; but that does not mean one should give Caesar's cretins - including f***ing academic ponces - more than the barest minimum. The reason I walked away from academia - may it fry in the shit it espouses - is because its members are dark incarnates, who peddle despair & negate light & employ hatchet men in their dirty business - ignorant, stupid, banal, qualified. Christ charges no fee for education & one day, come some day, this Almighty Genius will lift off their faces, so that their vast ignobility will be seen by all.

23 Allow me to analyse my feelings towards you. I feel whacked out & taken by surprise & partially devastated, because, as the guy who put the hype into hyper-sex, I confess to having never been whacked out like this before, so it disturbs & numbs me. You are an explosively-immense porno-f***, but I have been absolutely & utterly dead sexually since the one particular occurrence. This is alarming and it leaves me with a strange sense of anxiety: only God permits you to f*** Christ on the Cross. There are ructions in consequence & when you became the goddess Mary Magdalene, your beauty was stunning. First, Eur-Asian & South Amer-Indian visages played and prayed through your spirit prosopically, like petitions conjured by ancient curanderos. Yet at one point I began to see someone I have always known. You looked like a Heavenly Destiny, meant to link into my life in a mysterious & radiant way. So, I feel baffled & shocked, as it is so completely unexpected. What the hell am I to do with a metamorphosizing jaguar spirit? The last thing I want is Messianic complexes - God forbid - but I have had Indian fantasies since I was a kid hooked on Tecumseh etc. Years ago Suze & I underwent profound experiences on mescaline; but this is something different & it leaves me feeling wretched in its wake. The butcheries of torture came through into Messianic sexuality, well beyond madness. It is what I saw I said, and say, I love: but is it really you ... ? I am not even sure you know your own nature & just how remarkable its effects are on me. I have two immediate problems # A: if reciprocation is not forthcoming, then I am lanced to the quick & skewered on feelings beyond endurance; # B: if you come to where I am in a mysterious region - the High Heaven from whence my intellect was generated - then I am in the parlous & fraught position of loving extremely three beings: thus I will be saturated with extraordinary & remarkable delight. Suze is the apex of my being & her height is totally holy. I believe she is miraculously involved in this, because you - to speak enigmatically - take some of your destiny from her immaculate love. Ralphie is my beloved protege: intellectual confidante, friend, heir. It is in him I see the ontological form of neither male nor female, but one raising both, that is, raising both into forms virtually unutterable. Although I think of him as this god's most highly favoured male beauty, he is worried - perhaps outraged - at what he thinks of as my perfidy. However, I would not betray him for the Throne of Heaven & the entire riches of existence. So! You can see my problem: twice-blessed already plus the ripe & beautiful presence of you. I am stunned because you delight me, which I did not expect; and, of course, there is no fool like an old fool, and you could quite easily cause considerable distress to my already shaken emotions. Somewhere we have to get it exactly right or disaster will result, especially as I wish to pour out my heart to you. I do not love trivially....

24 Note to Suze from Cretin City # 10. 7/91.

Kindly bear with me, your fornicating old dog, as you should know that your matchless ontological centre, the incomparable you, simply means you are the height, the supreme height, of my divine axis. I phoned Ralph & he says to tell you he loves you & although he did not say the same to me, I hope to blazes he does; and, of course, my love for you passes the outstretched arm of Archytas, reaching beyond the extremes of infinity. I am, I suppose, reconstituting & rekindling my urge for a great life: this negates the normally expected parameters of down being & necessitates creative exploration, else I somewhere die of persistent atrophy & the sluggardliness of daily boredom. I have faith that everything done by me transforms itself in the divine furnace into my absolute love of you, contrary to all appearances: so do not feel hurt or despair. Consider, for example, our affair with the transvestite boys. You allowed me yours on a part basis. I saw your fascination with his pretty lashes & turquoise eyes & girlish mouth, so, obviously, I wanted some too. Remember (for me) the salient points, as when you first permitted him to f*** you, I was told to go to my own bed & ordered to masturbate. You dressed him in a red basque & stocking & despunked him like a young queen. You say his size was irrelevant, but it was quite massive & this excited me enormously. You may recall the time he was taking you at your command, whilst I was ordered to watch. Perhaps you do not know just how profound the consequences were, after you allowed me to have you. When I was on top of you, he sat on the pillow with a taunting look on his face, showing himself in all his stiffness. You then told him to get behind me, so as to teach me a lesson. He made me shriek & whimper like a deflowered bitch, so that when you reserved him for me every (kinky) Thursday, he actually reduced me to virtual servitude. I would have to wait outside his bedroom door as he dressed himself up, sometimes in a garter-belt or pinafore or etc. Then there would be the humiliating admiration of the phallus. I was allowed to kneel & suck & he taught me, half against my will, how to sport myself like a porno tart & total beggar. When he had really worked me up, he would do me like a slut. There was always an edge of triumphant contempt, as I had to say pretty please for the entire enormous length. And, after that, the other one would come up & do me again. This was a further confirmation of ultra-sex, as it broke down resistances to unknown internalities & f***ed me into regions so incredibly delicious that my life irrevocably changed. And that beautiful, young, blonde darling, ***, who danced naked in front of me, wearing only his socks & shoes & who refused me anything more: only the smile & the lithe temptation .. only the sight .. so he is now part of a possessive longing, unassuaged & racking. But, at least, your girlfriends accomodate my dreadful urges & need for abandonment into the vortex of kinkiness. Once tasted is always wanted & it is precisely this that erects fear as a limit to be overthrown. Hence, to my mind polymorphous assault leads to the deific, as it unbinds lowness in mutant programming. The

25 he-shes are made by God to experience the divine: outsiders are on the verge of the inside & it is no accident that many of Christ's followers deviate.....

26 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 11. 7/91.

I have sworn that when my burial occurs, I will raise the coffin lid & ask: were you ever bored, my dears!? You & Suze are the flanks - the mighty, loving flanks - of my spirit; but you, young one, are something of a neophyte ... Marginalizing ontology, my arse: the Mighty Jesus is my Almighty Master; and I tell you again that, although I have an extreme case of the smarts - or, I am an extreme case - & although I am a player to the hilt of my f***ing pecker, much of this was Initiated Above; and, although I want to sniff it, lick it & shaft it, I do not get shafted by my own sexual stupidity. Honey-trap calculations are a norm & deeper than & higher than is a constant, probing aspiration. F*** it, sonny, I am addicted to LIGHT; and for you to think I would subvert, sabotage or ignore the power of the Holy Ghost is unkind of my beautifully-loving Ralphie; and for you to forget or misunderstand that most of my desires have been negated because I have always been faithful to that Light above the Light is unkind.

I need you totally & tho' I am a powerful ego - and, thus, a powerful ego-libido - I have never liked egotism; and if I have to be misunderstood to further good consequences ... well, f*** it, if I must ... but I'd rather not, because you being my intellectual confidante means, precisely, you & me synchro-mesh & bond at our ultimate. You know how I relate to you sexually & you know how deeply struck on you I am & it is precisely because you know, that I think that, perhaps, you have an unspoken demand, or series of demands, so far unstated and/or which have not surfaced as yet, which is why I accused you of bad faith. You constantly resort to secular strategems in the face of Burning Glory, as if you can muster some form of reductionism to carry your passion through, when, frankly, only falsification ensues if you cannot strategize multi-optionally. Your assessments should always peak in the Light & not grind through mere options in your brain-pan. In fact, funnily enough, our psychoanalytic pal, F****, just dropped by and we got to discussing pertinent trauma. When I mentioned your reaction, he remarked, But he is a different sex (like, so where is the problem?). Exactly, & straight to what I have been saying, although, of course, we joked about Ferenczi fondling his patients & so forth. Suzie made up to him, which elicited good Yiddish giggles, and, in fact, that's what I miss on your sweet kisser. Where's the loving laughter of my young god, my lovely ducky f***er .. ??! The spirit of gravitas is a heavy number & somewhere you should know I cannot function happily without you & of course I am dreadfully sorry to have inadvertently caused you pain, but I would never betray you ever. Yes, naturally, I related with feeling, and, yes, the anticipation of discharging my system was important, but, ducky, c'mon, absence from you only supercharges the return. You are in my spirit, heart, mind & member(s), and you are always in my thoughts. Why you should grow angry or resentful over my partaking of marmite toast & exquisite fanny & not find any of it deliciously funny disturbs me. Is

27 there anything I have that you cannot have?! F*** it, sonny, I am declining daily in so many respects & a new career as a trampoline artiste is hardly on the cards .. [bouncey/bouncey] .. So, my beautiful lad, please lighten up & let this raggedy, cramped old bastard take the crimping iron off his nerve ends. You know we are mutually-ultra-capricious & soul-gemmed & mystically-entwined, and you know no foxie-doxie, however sweet & worth helping, is equipped to pleasure me as you do. In my heart our bonding is utter ......

28 Note to R/phy from Cretin City # 12.7/91.

My lease of life explanation to you hinges on fears of impotence. Death visits me frequently during pre-orgasmic activity & there is a contest between the will to live and massive feelings urging self-destruction. It is precisely because I know ultra-sex & divine orgasm that mere sex sucks ... A gentle, tolerant and laid-back approach would help us both. It is all about spiritualized intellect, with gross instincts subjugated. The question is: what is f***ing left when I eradicate low thrusts .. ? I would like to be able to formulate my opposition to God's apparent indifference to pain sexually: this means reconstituting old games of sexual conquest. Christ knows, there’s been enough of that ... I used to say, half jokingly, that the vast surplus of vaginas thrust in my direction ruined my spiritual life, until, that is, I thought of including them. I have tried, over the years, to understand why countless beautiful foxes offered themselves to me. Virtually every explanation falls down, but there is one which intrigues me in becoming true; and it is this which I avoid in every move; and it is this which tracks me wherever & whenever I debauch myself, viz: the Queen of Heaven tantalizes me through individuated females. Now I put this down to fantasy & madness & imagination: however - despite massive & purposeful avoidance in the thighs of whorish nymphettes & my delightful boy - She appears .. She appeared behind my Dark Angel in great power: it is this which stunned me ... so, I multiply ultra-sexual strategies in tracking down the Almighty's footsteps.. (Quote Ovid: we follow in the footsteps of our ancient God). Sometimes this stresses the f*** out of me (I mean literally); and, thus, for you to see my sexuality as the tail wagging the dog is grossly unfair. This image came out as very coarse on my last journey. Perhaps the fault is mine in being misunderstood, but I always attempt to make things clear ... Then I ascended into spiritual regions of the non-sexual sort & made straight for the region of multiple faces - i.e. - mid-to-high range of spiritual ascent, with the objective of realizing analyses of my prayers (specifically, finding the great divide where journeying from below meets journeying from above). This region is not for neophytes: take souls to it & they appear to stop being neophytes: however, the key is to start out from inside Heaven. The usual parameters came into view ... beautiful powers, unspeakable wonders, miraculous burgeonings, et cetera. Two further forms were contingent on this # (i): set-up parameters, that is, I have been set-up by archangels & so forth, because His Majesty is divinely cunning: so, obviously, it does not do to go storming in with fixed ideas, seeking significations which are too meaningful .... Gently does it, sunshine, as here our living God is issuing counsel ..... and # (ii): here is the region of unique theophany, the crux & hinge of existence, as one can go up or down; plus contingent schemata intrude, especially, on this occasion,

29 your criticism that seduction is an illicit mode in spiritual dimensions. This needs building on, because it is one of the main struts of the investigation. Roughly then, we have the following scheme: [A]: evidently one cannot, as it were, burst in on the Almighty like a Silenus, but the real question is: what is it that is bursting in .. ? With this I am wrenching around your anthropological suppositions & those of religiouses in general: in becoming God it is God Who is bursting in ..... [B]: this is the challenge I constantly mount, viz, the God Who is not good enough (thus not God enough) is replaced by His critic, the God Who repairs that God; [C]: now, again obviously, the notion of the God Who is not good enough is impious or it appears so, because such a God is incomplete (... shades of that Christ-hating shit, Rilke..). One could, however, argue that Christ's Godhead was incomplete temporally, or that, in not having restored existence historically, His omnipotence is incomplete. Et cetera. But such a God appears to be incomplete when His sons & daughters are bloodily shredded. Hence, as a theologian who has seen His Majesty face to face, I feel I am called on to investigate injustices pertinent to myself, or through myself. So: [D]: in becoming God there is an immediate problem, namely, that of the creative power in deification: can one create a new order so as to eliminate the apparent shortcomings in the current relationship between God and man? The Anglo-Orthodox idea that God became man so that man can become God is true: I wish to be the theologian of its consequences. [E]: This, in short, is the paradox of ontological f***ing, the best or worse of both worlds.

Okay, so it has been thoroughly tough on us all & completely non-peripheral, striking us all at the centre, but I'm pleased to extremes that we are regathering our usual dynamic of forces & getting back to our usual deviant selves. You know as well as I that the Almighty is an ontological subversive, not simply of the sensory & perceptual manifold, but also of totalized anthropological form, including living flesh; and you also know that the most noxious of all human groups - the bourgeoisie - manipulates church life with all the genius of a cadaverous puppet. Hence, it should be evident, that our course includes the ancient art of transfigurational subversion - viz, deification - according to Christ's let & power & no other. Given this as a primal datum of reality, it is further evident that His energy cannot be gainsaid nor forced (though I confess one can stir into action a panther reclining in a rose bush). Thus, mysticism requires genius to effect power; and so it is that our Mighty Colossus on High refuses to be marginalised by the thoroughly bland cocksuckers of the ecclesiastico-state alliance: consequently, He raises up reluctant warriors like me,

30 after having trained them in hell, shit & academia, to constitute forces of incredible vigour, with which to raise up or lay low whomsoever they deign. I assure you we are very few in number, but capable of wrenching existence inside out & showing forth stupendous luminescence & vast outputs of transcendent magnitude. You know in your innermost heart I have always favoured you highly - most highly - and thus for you to oppose me caused me horrendous agony & crucifixional torment, as my love for you is endless & without circumference. For you to think I would be led by my groin to betray you & to imply, cynically moreover, I would reduce & devastate our Suze, Beloved of Christ, is a dreadful thing, especially when I asked for trust ... However, lad, let all that be vanquished, because we are involved in a majestic odyssey of arcane proportions, under the titanic aegis of fulminating Heaven, in which immaculate region we have many friends ... It is to God's goodness I always look to offer thanks for His sheer goodness to me: He knows I am a loving bugger - ahem! - and gorgeously kinky (big deal!). It is the vicious bastards He does not like: woe betide them finally, because I would not be in their place for all the tea in China. I have experienced the Lord getting somewhat unruly & playfully turbulent - mercy! - and He measures by consequences as well as direct actions: so never sanction behavioural entailments that damage & hurt the innocent: all the purveyors of sleaze & arms-dealers & other psychically-toxic garbage are in for a hellish shock, deny His existence tho' they might .... Pure kisses, sweetheart.

31 Note to Suze from Cretin City # 13.7/91.

So then, ancient goddess of my heart ... thou for whom I would command obeisance from the seraphs ... thou from whom I took the love I gave and burnished it in sumptuous magnitude ... hail, my sweet duckegg, trust His incredible brain. You should know His power in erotic love, not in mere eroticism: hence why fret when God's good gifts are showered on you? EMBODY HEAVEN, as you above everyone can: that alone is the negation of angst & all fraught reckonings. All thought is pain: each & every human thought is painful: humans know existence by this; agony is shuttled around. But I saw the girl come in from above with heavenly mien, and as I said, "with you above & behind her", with my steadfast & sacred gaze, from inside the ANCIENT OF DAYS, alight with a pure sweetness that no mere earthling possesses who ignores His genius. Only Almighty God delivers such innocence. I knew, you see, that she was called forth kissable & destinate, to emerge at that poignant apex of ultra-desire, gamine & nymph of the fanning stars, handmaiden of tenderest love, beauteous child of the universe ... thine, should thou command...... My unutterable sufferings (the convulsions of hell) are to be countered by new days, wrenched & wrought out & yet to emerge from cruciform beginnings, with the winged from above, generated in mysterious unleashings of irrepression ... irrepressibly emergent as gorgeous beauty ... raven locks & sweet mouth worshipping, adoring & caressing, penetrating into the innermost of the magnificent you, in any mode you want & so desire. So "let the good times roll".... I love you totally.

Here then, darling, is a replay of some thoughts I had some twenty or more years ago, cast in the simplest form I could then manage. Some of them are thoroughly loaded, as indeed they must be to approach God's inexpressible glory. Discrepancies between textuality and glory means an overcoming of this in glory, unlike the words of philosophers and other blind reptiles of the soul, which always stay down. When & wherever I bring in one of these theological jottings, I shall weight it with an identifying symbol (followed by a number), as e.g.

1. Man is imperfect. Hence man is incomplete. 2. Man's intelligence is incomplete. Man's reasoning is incomplete. 3. An incomplete man is an individual. 4. A person is a perfect man. 5. A perfect man is what God became minimally.

32 6. A perfect God is what man becomes maximally. 7. An individual man is not-God. 8. It is necessary, by omniscience, that God know everything. 9. It is necessary, by omnipresence, that God be everything. 10. God cannot be not-God: thus God becomes not-God to be everything. 11. In becoming not-God, God ceases to be God. 12. One is perfect in God, not in not-God.

Now obviously, my sweet, subtle distinctions in God include powers usurped by man, viz, those which do not deify, release & glorify, in contrast to the distinction between God and His powers .... powers which cannot be usurped. You know I think that thought which cannot presence glory is the pain of thought, but it should be evident that our pain occurs when we are enmeshed with those who refuse this glory. I've often said to you that insanity pervades humanity - that is the foundation of its thought in attempting to revoke, usurp & displace the actuality of Mighty Heaven - thus pain is the displacement of a region in which there is no pain. Mankind injects agony into itself with venomous fangs, as it attempts to flush out immortal light ......

13. Not-God cannot truly be. Not-God lacks being. It is impossible for God to be not-God. 14. Nothing is impossible for God. 15. God could have become not-God, but did not. 16. God is without sin. (Sin = the negation of love). God could have sinned, but did not. 17. Anything less than God is not-God. Man is imperfect & incomplete in not-God. 18. The world is not-God. The world is not all that is the case. God is all that is the case. 19. Wordly - earthly - knowledge is incomplete. The world needs perfection to complete its knowledge. God is perfect. 20. Earthly logic is incomplete. God's logic is complete.

And so, my love, what immaculate adventures that took us above cascading stars; "it was you, my love, that brought me in" ... you with whom I saw death broken in the ultra-now of the radiant beyond ... in which supernal region we entered in on a whisper's breath, ushered by the courtesy of the gentlest being that ever lived, made immortal in His risen intellect, in silver palaces above the raging skies .... We know Heaven exists, because we have been there many times ......

21. Human logic is incomplete. Divine logic is complete. 22. Incomplete (human) logic cannot know complete and perfect (human)

33 logic. Like knows like: similia similibus percipientur. 23. God can be known .... manifestly & during life. 24. God's logic is the Logos. 25. The basic laws of earthly logic - reflexivity, contradiction & tertium exclusi - are negated in God. The basic laws of human logic are imperfect. Imperfection is negated in God. The imperfect only know the imperfect. Incomplete men only generate incomplete theorems. 26. Imperfection is incomplete being. God cannot know incomplete being. Knowledge of the imperfect is not knowledge, but delusion. God can know delusion as belonging to the other. God's ubiquity excludes delusion as not-God. Not-God does not exist, but fails to exist. 27. Man places delusions - schemata - over divine consciousness: thus man becomes not-God.

So, darling, it is with no small regret that one cannot fail to notice how these f***ing mutants imbecilitize themselves on a daily - nay, hourly - basis. Note imbecilitize as a requisite coining for the O.E.D.: 'to become imbecilic in lieu of Godhead'... Compare the Psalm of Asaph, 81 or 82 & John X:34-35, so: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: He judgeth among the gods. 6. I have said: Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 35. He called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came. Now obviously this Word precedes the written gospels:, it is not the book, as Protestant exegesis would have it, but the Messiah literally Himself. This implies there is only one tragedy, of course, contra Nietzsche, & that is the imbecilitization of humanity. How are the mighty fallen, indeed ... well, like this & this & this ... particularized in the billionfold. They murder each other in the thought & in the act ....Behold, the gods have become as living garbage.

28. Imperfection exists only for those that lack being. Imperfection lacks being. Imperfect men & women project or 'create' imperfection. They do not create like God ex nihilo, but from their false & fallen selves. Imperfection is the contrived consciousness of the imperfect. God does not create imperfect being. God's creativity ex nihilo is not from nothing (which cannot exist), but from Him. This is to mysteriously say He precedes the eternity of immortals. 29. Imperfection and the world are one. 30. Imperfection is a defence mechanism of the gods. 31. The gods pose as human. 32. The imperfect are in rebellion against perfection. Imperfection is created by rebellious gods. The gods create a false cosmos & dwell in it.

Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light. Eph. 5:14.

34 33. If man is in the world, it appears to have being. If man is not in the world, it appears to have no being. We have the power to make the world disappear. 34. Man recreates the world as he wants it to be: those for God recreate it perfectly, and those against God recreate it imperfectly. 35. Imperfect man is nothing compared to God. As absolute nothing man would cease to exist. Imperfect man is relatively nothing. Imperfect man is a movement away from God. Imperfect man participates in God minimally. Perfect man participates in God maximally. Man is a movement between perfection and imperfection. Man does not possess fixed being. Man is not comparable to a substantive. Man can be compared & contrasted with God. 36. It is impossible to compare man to God if God is not known.

The point about discrepancy, my dear, is that it can be exemplified by word & thing. Both possess unique referents - e.g. - insideness & outsideness; or the inner word cannot be touched, whilst the referent of the outer word may. Now here we are talking about unique coordinates uniquely, and therefore any attempt to represent such coordinates systematically, by a system, is doomed to failure. One meets either disguised referents of the (false) self, interminable (regressive) processes, barriers of paradoxes, and so forth. In attempting to give himself a foundation, man finds only an anti-foundation. Beneath imperfection there is only the venomous mist of snarling insanity. Backing off from Deity leads one into diabolical regions. It is necessary for salvation to restore the imago Dei.

37. Man is made in the image & likeness of God. Man is the perfect image of God, not the imperfect image. As if God looked into a mirror to engender an image. One God and one image. The image is God. 38. Man can change his being out of the world. Man can dwell in the world and out of the world. A man who dwells in the world is imperfect. A man who dwells out of the world is no longer a man. A man who becomes perfect is not only a man. Such a man assimilates - "assumes" - imperfection & transforms it. 39. A man is an imperfect god. 40. A god is a complete man.

35 41. It is only possible for a man to become a god in God. God is minimally god. A god is maximally God. A god is minimally perfect. God is maximally perfect & above perfection. 42. Imperfect man imagines he has substance: he imagines this to fix & falsify his being as something - some thing - outside of God. Imperfect man imagines he has no substance: he imagines this to fix & falsify his being as nothing - no thing - outside of God. (Twin poles of a common delusion: there is no outside of God's power). 43. If man coincides with an empty centre, he ceases to exist. God does not permit this coincidence. God allows degrees of non-being. Evil is other than God. Evil admits of greater degrees the further man is from God. 44. God does not create out of absolute nothing. Absolute nothing is a projected fiction by imperfect man. God creates out of potential nothing, viz: man. God created imperfect man. God created perfect man. God does not wish us to coincide with imperfect man. There was never a pre- existent nothing alongside God. 45. God's creation is eternal. The world is not eternal. The spatio-temporal creation is that part of eternal creation which pretends to be not-God. Our fall is ontological. Not-God is man's fictive projection. 'Nothing' is man's fictive projection - i.e. - himself outside of God. 46. God sees all. 47. Believing God does not exist does not prove God does not exist. Believing God exists does not prove God exists. God proves He exists. The only proof of God is God. Man cannot prove God exists. God proves He exists by taking man from earth to Heaven. It is better if this happens during one's lifetime. All men receive the offer of God. All men know God exists. 48. All humans were once in Heaven with God.

And so again, my love, here we have another crux. It is not simply that men & women cover up knowledge of once having known God (every mortal did, having issued from Him), it is the combinations of pretence that tend to amaze ... the variations of posture, their cunning differentiations ... impersonations all & most pejorative. In fact, impersonations are depersonifications. Humans pretend they do not know God personally, when, in fact, divine immortals transform themselves downwards. So-called 'life' is a cosmic conspiracy against the hegemony of the Almighty, and men hide from God under the guise of imperfection: hence they generate this bloodletting pigsty

36 & rotting heart, this earth called "home", rejecting at the extremity Mighty Heaven, with which they are at war. Moreover, men know Who God is, because, as men, they did not pre-exist the world. Fallen man is the world & imperfect man is fallen man.

49. The first man is in all men: the first man is an achronic image: thus that which is within represents the first earthly clash. The first man is minimally perfect & the fall of the first man results in imperfection: in this image eternity elides into time ..... Man apes himself as the arche of primal bestiality: the distorted gods put their knuckles & scrota on the ground: the genes of beast & snake insanely rage & rail against perfect innocence .... against what the gods in God really are .. Man did not rise from the anthropoids, frenzied round a drum of clay: as a god man preceded his own rendering in bone & flesh. Tyrannosaurus rex (etc) is merely part of the microcosmic debris of a deific toyroom. Man's ancestors mutated downwards into deathly boneyards. Thus there is no beginning of the world or a beginning in the world: the beginning is the fall of the gods out of God: here began the littering of monsters.....

As in Ecclesiastes 3:19, so: Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

The achronic image is split between mutating gods & raging beasts.

50. Maximum imperfection is evil. Evil attempts to draw all men down from God.Evil cannot co-opt free will. God can co-opt free will but does not. Every will is always free to choose. Free will can choose not to believe in itself. Some men choose to fall further: some climb back to God. The perfection of the first man was immature: on this fall God had compassion. 51. The first man's fall is part of the fall from Heaven: the first is a dislocated image. 52. We all came from Heaven ... from maximum perfection ... down via "Adamic" perfection & imperfection ... down further if we so wish. The dislocated image is reptilian for a reptile's thought: thought can become slime.

The core of prodigality is shit in one's eyes. Wipe away murderous

37 stupidity & intelligence begins to return. Alas, we are entranced with the constancy of the human circus. This is not a divine comedy: the victims begin to fall beyond impotent amusement. Prodigality returns to the Eternal Father in slaughtered gutter-loads of rotting victims: yet the eternal Father was always - eternally - the Father & always had sons & daughters. If, like thee & me, mankind savours the look of Christ's face ... ah, then it knows that a prayer's realized power is the only language of perfection. Dare the extremes of death as humans will & bloodily shriek for their absent mothers: only God stands there & it is best to know Him.

53. The world is predominantly characterised by things. 54. Any imperfect thing is a thing: imperfect facts, imperfect thoughts, imperfect people, imperfect life. Imperfection is caused by the lack of love. 55. N.B. Love creates perfection. 56. The eternal creation is love. The spatio-temporal creation - i.e. - all that is not eternity - lacks love. 57. God is love. Anything raised above pure love is Satan's shit ...... 58. In the macrocosmic world of things, microcosmic man is a thing. Things gravitate towards evil. Non-things gravitate towards God. In the macrocosmic world of things, everything is imperfect. In perfection neither macrocosm nor microcosm exist. 59. Perfect man is hyper-cosmic. 60. Perfect love is hyper-cosmic.

Now you know and I know, lover, that Jesus Christ is perfect man: He is the •DP0 6"4 J,8@H of all definitions of what man can become: thus of what man truly is when he sees fit not to subscribe to those coarse living masks which promise earthly advantage. There is no "natural" cosmic return - ¦B4FJD@N0 in the Plotinian or Proclian sense, or as with the Fichtean Zirkel - because man is profoundly unnatural. When man is not divine he approaches the monstrous and, indeed, frequently coincides with it. The outside of Heaven is a despicable killing-ground in which arbitrary torments are unleashed. Why then did we fall from the absolute perfection of Heaven into this murderous f***ing cesspit? Did we fall or were we pushed? Or did some volunteer? Only God knows the answer to this & man must become God to know. Why are we down on earth? Who is..? We can return to Heaven during earthly days, as you & I have done on so many occasions. Life out of God is living death: thus life is death for most humans. Is

38 there life before death? After the grave is life. Before the grave life exists only in God. Death is the inside of Satan. True theology is about meeting God face to face: anything less spells compromise with division. Now we friends of God oppose the world with love, as love is the only weapon. Love is the only retaliation: however, as you know, I personally counterpunch after the other cheek is turned. The war is everywhere: love versus evil; and all human beings take part in God's war, whether they know it or not. Humanity is a camouflage of gods against gods.

61. The distinction of substance as imparticipable and energies as participable misrepresents the syzygy of substance and energy as Godhead. 62. Participability in energy is a down-going motion of the identity of Godhead. 63. Substance is imparticipable for both God and man: for God because He does not partake of Himself, and for man because not-God cannot partake of God. 64. It is not a question of there being a surfeit of imparticipated elements above man when man is fully in God, as with Iamblichus and Proclus. 65. Man is not a mapping of like elements into the like elements of Godhead with, as it were, unlike elements in God remaining. 66. N.B. The identity of man is in Godhead as God. 67. Trihypostatic substance is not determinate being, because of the existence of the Super-Trinity. 68. The energies are not modes of rectification which, because they are eternal, always stand as something contingent upon the world. 69. The plurality of things and plural energies do not form necessary connexions, mediating between the world and God. 70. The world exists as unlike energy. 71. The energies are God as becoming. 72. Man as God is the ground of energetic becoming. 73. The three hypostases, like the energies, are uncreated: hence they stand first in their number. 74. Unlike energy is not eternal. 75. Like energy is 'reflexive' and unstable: it must result in identity with God or manifest as something creaturely. 76. It is not a question of the plurality of participating creatures equivalent to the plurality of energies.

39 77. The energies are the operations of immutability. 78. Only unlike energies are mutable. Man as creature is mutable. The energies seek to bring man to immutable identity. 79. The energies are God's likeness. 80. There are not two Gods - viz, one in whom creatures participate & one in Himself, that is, one participable & one imparticipable. 81. Men on God's side are no longer men. Men against God pretend to be men. Nothing can defeat God. Humanity is a species of God in opposition. Anyone who exposes the conspiracy against Christ is the world's enemy. Those for God refuse all power save love. Those who serve Caesar & God are liars. 82. It is natural to be divine: it is unnatural to be human. 83. Only the divine is truly human. 84. The world is sub-human. 85. True light is uncreated.

Well, kid, it is easy to know more than everyone & anyone if Christ Almighty stood before one, literally, really, actually - I mean, for f***s sake, it is alright reading about Paul on the Damascus road & 'Doubting Thomas' ca. 2000 years ago and (quote) 'all that shit ' ...But here we are talking about toasted & roasted Jews and every horror: I mean like RELATIVELY ABSOLUTE HORROR .. whatever that is ... real horror beyond imagining .. but, as God is my judge, He walked into my study ... Shit, He knows something about me .... He knows I am a shredded horror of my own, buried for Truth & no easy life: I'm in Him & f*** the consequences ...I was always a tough kid, subjected to the horrors of a broken heart. Agh, I listen to the intimations of love's triumph...... O! I saw Heaven rising, unspeakable in its pronounced peace, as I stood with you, my love, beyond every longed-for dream & dearest wish, knowing that God Almighty would vanquish the oppressors of loving innocence, the deepest wish of which is that I, absymal wretch, should be classed amongst all innocence ... Ah, I have stood with the Super-Trinity risen, every wound healed & laughing, in sweetest love, at Christ's table ....

86. All the mystery up to the Throne of Christ is open. 87. The dimensions which lead to the Vision of God are known. 88. Only the worthy are allowed up. We do not allow Christ's enemies up. 89. N.B. True love is the only requirement.

40 .... As you know, O glorious darling of All Light & Ultra-Gentle ... oops, as ecstacy swoops in, like owl & dove & redeemed hawk , in the hoof steps of the roe on wet & vibrant clover, love underfoot, as lesser creatures fell with & under man .. our God is three persons in one. A person is not an individual .. but lifts all suffering love .. all suffering love up. Tritheism is the belief in three individuals as God: an individual is imperfect: hence tritheism is the imputed nonsense of paganism, offered against the Most Holy Trinity. A person is perfect & Three Persons in One is utter perfection. For a visual image ... imagine three ghosts sitting in a chair - i.e. - three in one in an imaginary setting: how easily three divine persons in one could subsist, indwell or co-dwell. As a man can be both father & son, God is Father, Son & Holy Ghost .... Now even these f***ing humans .. stupid sh**heads .. can grasp this, can they not .. !!?? They'd better learn, these bloody morons, this great God LIVES & RULES ..... either perfect love or utter destruction. Any god is an enormity & thereby more than sufficient to objectify the world as a plethora of insane lies. This lying consensus is the world's 'substance': any "God" is permitted except God ... God is marginalised by a stinking idol called 'man'. Only false Gods are projected by man: in this sense "God" is created by man ...

90. Only God can define God. 91. The world has no substance - Weltgeist - called God. 92. The inner ramparts of the world God knows. 93. Imposture is the false selfhood of ungodly delusion: the gods ape men & men ape apes. Sin is the negation of divine love. 94. Sin is the blockage imposed by free will on Heaven manifest. 95. The layers of manhood smother & strangle Godhead. 96. The masks - prosopa - of humanity range from God to Satan. 97. We choose which masks we embody.

Now, my love, what is the Church? God is the Church & the Church is perfect. Anything imperfect calling itself the Church or a Church is not. The name of the Church is the Gk. Ï 6bD4@H, meaning the supreme authoritative power or Lord. To enter into the Church we enter into the uncreated Light or Power of the Holy Ghost in Christ's Name. Anyone who calls themself 'Christian' & who does not receive this uncreated Light is a liar. There is no institution on earth beside or separate from this immaculate & mysterious citadel, worthy to be called the Church. Every building not constructed in this divine region is a grotesque misrepresentation of the Almighty, as God can always be seen via

41 ¦B4680F4H or invocative power ( ... supplication or prayer). Appearances of this power without Christ's Name are satanic. God alone rules over the Church, but the Most Sacred & Most Holy Queen of Heaven also rules the gods. Only Almighty God and She of Unsurpassed Countenance are infallible, delegating as they see fit. Infallibility admits of degrees of deification & only deification brings humans to Heaven.

98. N.B. Deification is Heaven. 99. Deification admits of degrees. 100. One is admitted to the dimensions of Christ. 101. One becomes like God. 102. One becomes a god. 103. One becomes God. 104. Jesus Christ is Super-God & Super-essence. Essence - substance - is that it is & is not other. Essence is also Super-essence, because God is more than essence. Defining the Almighty would be like cupping roaring oceans in a thimble: hence, when man is Trinity, God is Super-Trinity. God is not participable by essence, because God has no parts. We become the essence of God, but God's essence is via remotionis. The more we are, the more He is even more: thus man is a self- transcending function & not an absolute value. In God man is above what he is, as anthropology is a becoming. A becoming does not take human laws of logic. He who frames & formulates human logic in a human context cannot include himself in what is, after all, part of himself. Man is part of divine logic: the logician walks on water. An incomplete man cannot even completely formulate his own thought .. axioms .. inferences .. and so forth. Human logic is part of the mystique of pseudo-intelligence & the cult of reason: it is a science warding off true divinity ... 105. "All men are liars". "I am not a man" (.. its answer). "I am lying" (.. what the fallen says to the unfallen). The false self lies & the god under guises replies. The most that human logic can do is to defer reflexivity, tertium exclusi and contradiction, because a man does not equal his false self: A … A. In theophany the false self manifests as plural humanity - i.e. - as different faces - prosopa - or external visible appearances - schemata. The schemata pass from human to divine. A man is every name in history: becoming this whilst denying Christ is what drove Nietzsche mad. Humans defer identity in presuming it. 106. A true man passes beyond historical confines, beyond the entire spatio-

42 temporal context. Man's flesh is replaced by light. Man's flesh is not replaced by created light. All men receive the created light, the evil included. 107. The good receive uncreated light as a gift, not as a loan - i.e. - in God one's true identity is given back. Temporally-created identity is false identity. Man's true identity is not flesh, which is subject to death. God confers immortal identity on those who love Him. 108. N.B. Immortal identity is perceptible: the trappings of Deity manifest. 109. N.B. God is known by power - i.e. - by power greater than any earthly power. 110. Power is a norm & divinity is a norm. 111. Only gods & goddesses mediate between God & man. 112. Deification transcends earthly hierarchy & figurative power pyramids. 113. The dimension of Christ is not formal or bureaucratic: it cannot be manipulated by the fallen. Man manipulates, the gods cannot. 114. The divine must rule the human. Human over divine is falsification. The Church in its entirety can be found in any worthy man - i.e. - if his level of deification includes it. The sons and daughters of God do not blend with the world: they surpass it. Ecclesiastics might appear to hold the outer trappings of power. But the true content of power is within Christ's Kingdom. One rules by the power of being able to take men to Heaven during the earthly period. One does not rule by the promise of God later - i.e. - after physical death, but by the showing forth of God now. The progeny of God are not dictated to by exalted creatures: the Truth shall make you free. The progeny of God accept no human power pyramid over them. God is free: the divine is unlimited, and God's sons & daughters are divine. 115. That which is unlimited (the divine) is co-limited with that which is limited (the human), while that which is limited (the human) is developed according to the measurements of infinity. God's freedom is never confined in limit, because our limit is without measure. Never accept any earthly figure who is not-God as infallible. The Kingdom of Heaven is within: thus accept no spiritual hypothesis which does not go directly to God. 116. Not-God is critically dissociated with itself - e.g. - a man. Such a man uses tonal auxilaries: he construes hypotheses because he cannot solve the mystery of life. All human knowledge is tonal. Theology is not human knowledge: to be a theologian is to be above being merely human.

43 To be human is as low as one can get. Tonality is the (mis)construing of reality according to appearances or phenomena. Man is called on to prove his view of reality is not based on tonal assumptions. If one does not have direct access to God, then tonality has intervened. Abstraction is tonality: God is not abstract. There is no reason big enough for God. God is above mere thought. Empirical consciousness is contracted thought, everywhere in chains. God expands consciousness to free the spiritual nature of man. Power hierarchies base themselves on tonal ideologies, so as to promote differences between men outside of God. Inside God power is given according to worth - "capacity". The more love a being gives, the more love a being takes: only that is just. Men who do not truly love God enslave themselves by relinquishing divine freedom. Men volunteer to become masters & slaves by disavowing God. The whole master-slave delusion is a willed enactment by both parties. Master & slave enter into a contract based on fear & mistrust: they deserve each other in lacking love. In Christ there is neither master nor slave. Counterfeit lovers of God disparage Godhead by erecting false situations in an attempt to bring Christ into disrepute. Christ is utterly innocent. To say that He is not is a form of tonal expediency and corruption. Man projects corruption. Man does not see things as they are, but as he wishes to see them, usually to justify illicit gains. Man mutates the anthropological perspective so as not to see God. Anything less than seeing God is not-God. Not-God presumes to rule in God's place. No man can rule successfully in God's place. All ideologies and perspectives - save seeing God - produce war. As God cannot be destroyed, Satan harnesses man to destroy man, with the ultimate objective of destroying God's creation. Satan's strongest weapon is the belief he does not exist ..... 117. War is an institution ordained by Satan. 118. Nature is not anterior to personhood. 119. Nature - Gk. NbF4H - is not behind God. 120. And there is no nature behind men in God. 121. Man cannot be defined inside man. Man cannot be defined by man. 122. Man is not an objective substance - Gk. ÏLF\" - as "Nature" is supposed to be. 123. Nature is not an objective substance either: the only substance is in God. 124. It is not a substance which rounds off man's incomplete knowledge. Substance is thought to make incomplete knowledge complete - i.e. - perfect. But substance is merely a concept & fictitious stop-gap, posing

44 as that which would make man's knowledge perfect. Substance is surrogation for the absent God. God is not a substance - something equivalent to an abstract fiction, objectified thing, etc. 125. God's substance - essence, ousia - is one in three - i.e. - one equivalent to three. So much for tertium exclusi ...... 126. Nature is divine. The world is not divine. Ergo: fallen nature is not divine. 127. The array of things is not divine. To identify man with "Nature" (as objectifed substance) is to identify man with thinghood. Likewise, no thing can define man - e.g. - any template outside God, such as computer, machine, etc. If nature is antecedent to man, nature defines man: man's unfallen nature precedes man's fallen nature. Divine nature precedes objectified nature: energy - Gk. ¦<,D(,4" - precedes things. 128. Only divine nature can free man from earthly definition. 129. In man divine nature is antecedent to individual nature. 130. God is the central axis of man. God's substance is man's "substance" ( ... understood as a non-thing): hence, man's divine central axis is three persons. The three persons cannot be understood as trinal mind - e.g. - memory, will, understanding. God is incomparable. He cannot be compared to trinal mind. Nor can trinal mind be compared to God. The Trinity is not an infinite form of finite trinal mind. We cannot coordinate God's being by mental analogies. 131. The reason for God's existence is acausal & declarative: I am that I am. This utterance of the Almighty is a billion times more intelligent than the cogito. To know that is to be struck high with awe. In the words of V. Hugo: "Geometry is misleading - only the tempest is true." 132. Displacement of the central axis is the creatio ex nihilo: looping back is the tempestuous return of the gods. 133. If a man cannot take you to God, his theory is incorrect. True theory is provided directly by the Almighty. 134. Adamic life refers to inner historicity, not to a literal (chronological) sequence. Literalism, in this respect, is mere tonality: it is hypothesis and, thus, it proceeds without proof. One can never prove anything from dark bygone depths, but only erect theoretical structures. This indirect theorization is useless as it cannot access the angelic realms. Indeed, it is erected so as not to. The ratio of all fallen theory is to maintain the fall. The down buttresses the down. Fallen theory is designed to substantiate the earth's primal contradiction of the human being.

45 135. N.B. Humans do not be: they are not be-ing: humans only become. 136. Outer historicity depends on inner historicity, viz, on the RLP0 or risen intellect of the gods. The psyche is false out of God. Outer historicity is merely a contracted (fallen) perception, with reality extracted. God can show history as it really is, and not as it is seen by the paid hirelings of earthly regimes. 137. Divine history overthrows material history from the inside .... 138. Outer historicity is the ceaseless rota of death. 139. The logic of true history is in the Logos. The Logos is becoming, and the Logos became. Imperfect inner historicity is perfected in the becoming of the Logos. The Logos became man - i.e. - not as a direct object, as if with change. The Logos assumed manhood - i.e. - eternal manhood assimilated spatio-temporal manhood. 140. All three persons - ßB`FJ"F,4H - rest on the perfect manhood of Christ. 141. It is impossible for someone to see one hypostasis of the Trinity before meeting Christ. 142. A hypostasis is never sent by Christ. 143. Three hypostases always remain on God. 144. The Father is begetter, hence unbegotten. The Son is begotten, hence not unbegotten. Begottenness is eternally generated. Unbegottenness generates. 145. The unbegotten & the begotten never unify apart from the third hypostasis. 146. The unbegotten & the begotten never become one which sends a hypostasis. 147. The three are one: two never become one. 148. The Trinity is absolutely complete: it never becomes - e.g. - two. 149. The Trinity is not a dyad passing into a triad. One is three absolutely - i.e. - not relatively. The one never stands behind the three. Two never stand behind one. The three in one rests on Christ Almighty. If we say 'Father and Son', it is to stress co-eternity, that is, should anyone seek to lessen the Son. But this formula is indissolubly linked with the absolute co- eternity of the Holy Ghost. 'Father and Son' - filioque - is used against Arianist error: it is a partial formula of polemical type. But if it is reckoned complete as it stands, great error results. 150. Energy is beatific beauty: the uglification of energy is science. 151. The Trinity says "I make myself to go forth" - ¦6B@D¥LTµ"4 - which shows the Almighty is also His energy.

46 152. God is His energy as one & God is His energies as many. 153. The essence is energy, but the energy is not essence.

Now these latter statements show, my sweet, the profound differences between the Platonists and Christ. Plato thought that the one and the many possessed two distinct referents (hence realms or PTD"4 dr. from PTD4H = excluding), the one above and the many below, when, in fact, the one and the many is above, and the one and the many is below, the former perfectly and the latter imperfectly. It took a monumental genius to correct Plato's mistake, which Christ did so easily. Hence, to argue that Christ is based on Plato is a form of gross stupidity. Minor errors accrue into universal opinions .. toxic oceans from which the unwary drink. It is likewise with the expression in the Thaetetus 176b: Òµ@4TF4H 2,è, which, although it shows a noble Athenian at his best, fails to recognise precisely how this is achieved. Father, Son and Holy Ghost send the uncreated energies to man: glory in the whirlwind is the voice of homoiosis. The Holy Ghost subjects the energies - •B@DD@4"4 or streamings - to the Son, and the Son subjects the energies - *b<"µ,4H or powers - to the Father. ¦<,D(,4"4 and *b<"µ,4H are indistinct in Trinitarian thought, unlike in Aristotelianism. The uncreated energies of the Holy Ghost lead a man to Christ. Whilst the hypostasis of the Holy Ghost remains anonymous as man is moved towards the perfect man, the hypostasis of the Son is conferred on man per gratiam. After meeting Christ the hypostases of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are conferred on man altogether. Strictly speaking, a hypostasis is never received singly.

154. A hypostasis is above the infinities. 155. A hypostasis is greater than the world: it exceeds spatio-temporality: it will not go into the world without surfeit. 156. The power of the Holy Ghost is sent by the Son. 157. Christ is the maximum of uncreated energy. 158. As man is again co-joined to the uncreated, two natures re-appear again, viz, man becomes uncreated and eternally created. 159. The eternally created reflects the uncreatedness of its Maker. 160. The eternally created is a microcosm of man as God. 161. When man becomes the Trinity per se, Christ is the Super-Trinity per se. 162. The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and the Son. 163. The temporal mission of the Holy Ghost is not procession. 164. The filioque is a defense of the Son's co-eternity: it is not an express statement of the Trinity. (The Arian Visigoths misconstrued part of the

47 truth as the whole truth, and thus converted those who converted them). 165. The filioque is Arian vengeance. 166. The Holy Ghost proceeds with the Son without time. 167. The Holy Ghost is not a lesser God, with the Father and the Son as a ditheistic cause. Psychologically, the filioque foists off the subordination of one hypostasis onto man. 168. The subordination of the Holy Ghost is impossible. 169. The Holy Ghost does not have His existence from the Father through the Son. 170. The Holy Ghost is God Almighty. 171. The Son is not a secondary cause. 172. The Son is not a simultaneous cause. 173. No hypostasis of God has a derivative existence. 174. The Holy Ghost does not contract to enter the world in its temporal mission. 175. The Holy Ghost brings the world in you to the Son. 176. The Holy Ghost proceeds immediately from the Father, and not mediately from or through the Son, as is bound to appear to happen if they are somehow envisaged (conceptually) as together. 177. God is never a concept. Conceptuality is the not-God of textual delivery. 178. God delivers textuality with illuminated power. 179. The bureaucratization of God extinguishes genuine illumination. God revamped is mutant control: murder replaces miracle. 180. Father and Son are not fused - semi-Sabellianism - in any way. If the filioque is held to and semi-Sabellianism is denied, the mind is forced between a unity or plurality of first principle. If Father and Son are fused, unity results. If Father and Son are not fused, plurality results. 181. God is neither unity nor plurality. 182. Filioquism gives rise to either monadic or dyadic first principle. 183. God is neither monad nor dyad. 184. Eternal generation does not send eternal procession. 185. Filioquism is the theology of imbeciles. 186. It is impossible to maintain filioquism after meeting Christ. 187. All three hypostases possess the same qualities: they all include existential and hypostatic differences - e.g. - one difference is that the Father is the cause. 188. All that is common to the Father and the Son is also common to the Holy Ghost. If the power to send is common, the Holy Ghost is not sent. The

48 Father and the Son do not send the Holy Ghost. 189. Godhead is common to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 190. Filioquism blurs the eternal distinction of Father and Son. 191. Filioquism confuses the hypostases of Father and Son as cause. E.g. the Son is made co-cause, and co-cause is denied to the Holy Ghost. The Father as begetter is cause, and the Father as unbegotten is beyond cause. There is no co-cause in the Trinity. We attribute cause to the Father who is without cause. (In the context of the unbegotten the notion of 'cause' is iconic: it refers to a higher mystery via an incongruous similitude.) 192. The Trinity causes everything, but is not caused. 193. The Trinity is not caused by the Super-Trinity. 194. The Super-Trinity appears to be the Trinity via remotionis. 195. The Super-Trinity is seen by God as apparently unmoving - i.e. - because it is moving as God. 196. Only - hypostatic difference - the Father is co-cause ...... 197. The Father is co-causer as Trinity, not as Father and Son .... 198. The Father is sole cause of creation as Trinity. 199. There is no essential inclusion in God: the hypostasis of the Father does not include the hypostasis of the Son. 200. The Son and Holy Ghost are not two Sons. 201. Eternal generation and eternal procession are not confused. Generation is from the Father, and procession is from the Father: this Almighty charioteer is Himself the reins. Unbegottenness is greater than generation: both are God. Generation is not greater than procession: both are God. Eternal procession is beyond cause: hence, through the Son is a temporal reference. The sending of the Holy Ghost is not procession. And the procession is not a mode of existence in God: it is God. 202. The relation of temporality to eternity involves the hidden God. God is fully hidden whilst fully revealing Himself - i.e. - relative to any that which perceives (even unto that which is Himself). God is the inexhaustibility of the absolutely fecund in His immeasurable creativity; and as the unbegotten He is greater still ..... 203. God does not reveal Himself in separate - alternate - economies. 204. Even in becoming God the oneness is hidden - i.e. - because God is also primordially diverse. Unity never precedes diversity, contra Platonism. 205. Filioquism over-emphasizes God as monad. 206. Filioquism over-emphasizes God as dyad. 207. Tritheism over-emphasizes God as triad.

49 208. Procession does not exclusively envisage God: the hypostasis of the Holy Ghost - like that of the Father - rests on the Son, that is, on Christ, not on the Father and the Son. 209. The Holy Ghost is in no sense common to the Father and Son. Commonality belongs to substance and not to hypostasis. The hypostasis of the Holy Ghost cannot be logically derived from a supposed commonality of the Father and Son. Procession should never denote a relation between the Father and Son, as if this can serve as a basis for the hypostasis. 210. God is never logically constructible. 211. God has always been perfectly human, thus Christ. 212. The perfect humanity of God took flesh: this is what the Incarnation means. 213. Father' and 'Son' are not logical terms from which is derived another term. 214. Relations are not the basis of hypostases, as with Augustine & Aquinas. It is impossible to derive relations of plurality, or God's plurality, from unity, or God's unity. There is no oppositio relationis between the hypostases of Godhead. Filioquist considerations presuppose nature is prior to hypostasis in an order of concepts. If nature is thought of as objectified substance, man then becomes individuated substance: substance is therefore conceived as antecedent to a personalised individual. The antitheses of person - hypostasis - and individual are thereby conceptually elided. If this is then projected as God, the ensuing trinality is a construction of man. 215. Man can only construct not-God. Man is not a mode of nature, substance, etc. 216. Nature is a function of man: imperfect man, imperfect nature; and perfect man, perfect nature. 217. True nature - the divine NbF4H - and hypostasis coincide: neither is prior. This is that which is correctly termed the nature of God. 218. The generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Ghost differ absolutely. 219. God is a monad equivalent to a triad: hence there is no place in Him for a dyad. The union is the Father. The union is not the substance. The substance is not subject to the Father. The substance is not identified with the Father. 220. Only the Father is "ÛJ@2,@H.

50 221. God is known as He reveals Himself ab extra: and - more highly - in the revealer ..... 222. No distinctions can be introduced into the interior of the Trinity meant to designate the relations between the three hypostases. Relations - and here the term is nullified ab extra - are known to God ab intra. 223. Not-God is characterised by individual consciousness. This consciousness is simultaneously unaware of its own essential content. This simultaneous unconsciousness is the negation of the via lucis. Not- God is presumptuous of the profoundest error of humanity: that it is not born of God ... The unconscious is merely outer darkness. 224. The hypostasis of the Holy Ghost is the hypostasis of manifestation. 225. This hypostasis is hidden by the very profusion of divinity which He manifests. 226. The Holy Ghost is a living substance - lord of sanctification - whose relationship to God is disclosed by His procession, but the mode of whose àB"D>4H - existential beginning or principium - is preserved ineffably. 227. The paternal •DP0 is dynamic as we advance in worth: it is not subject to thought. The subordination of relation to substance is a trivial - albeit grossly erroneous - conceptualisation of God. 228. The Holy Ghost does not proceed by spiration - spiritus quia spiratus - from the Father and the Son. 229. God is not an infinite being who stands in need of interior distinctions posited by the lesser..... 230. There is no society within God's substance. 231. Filioquism is based on subject-object psychology, asserted of God. 232. Filioquism is analogy religion: ratio reducing tempestuous divinity... 233. Finite personality resides in decay: it can furnish no model for God. 234. The Father does not behold Himself in the Son as an alter-ego, as Godhead is not celestial narcissism. 235. Spiration is non-existent. 236. Neither generation nor procession is an emanation of substance. 237. The generation of the Son is not per modum intellectus. 238. The procession of the Holy Ghost is not per modum voluntatis nor per modum amoris. 239. The Holy Ghost is not spirative energy: the immortals are energy. 240. The aloneness of God achronically precedes the most ancient immortality.

51 Perhaps this is a good moment to pause, lover, as some of this could do with filling in, so you can see where some of it comes from. Allow me to go back to my species of mathematical thought and to link it to consciousness. When I was young I had the idea that thought can be numbered, that is, not simply arithmetized on a formal mapping, but counted. This came to me because thought appears to be a linear transient of finite length: it passes through the mind, so I asked myself how many lengths of thought constitute consciousness? And what if finite thought is part of thoughts - qua sentences or propositions - of infinite length .. what then? How could one actually sum - add - these thoughts & by what formulaic processes & how would such processes be devised? I could find nothing but suggestive analogues in any other studies, because what I was seeking to express was nowhere around. So, I began to devise formulae for adding "totalizations of thought". My sentences immediately took on (previously) unseen complexities - e.g. - finite sentences looked for definitions dependent on infinite laws. Does the principle of contradiction look the same if the sentence it is applied to possesses non-finite elements? Now this sort of inquiry meant combining current studies of the infinite with unknown modes of addition (unknown, that is, to anyone including me). It was not simply a question of building an apparatus which would perform this sort of task: how to and its very possibility were also unknown. However, I am not going to revamp my remaining notes on this topic here: that can wait for another occasion. All I want to say to you really is that the disruption of this program was brought about by impenetrability: abstractions cannot penetrate into reality. During this period I saw formulaic complexities of quite stunning splendour, the destruction of which in written form pained me enormously. But, darling, what were they in comparison to watching Almighty God toy with lightning? Now, of course, I do not mean physical lightning but, rather, pure energy in configurations of unsurpassing delight. Ah, my love, what magnificent genius He displayed before us. And this is the consciousness mathematics cannot perceive: mathematics is below divine energies ...

241. The so-called 'principle of appropriation' - whereby an attribute which properly belongs to the entire Godhead is assigned pre-eminently to one hypostasis - is bogus - e.g. - unity to the Father, equality to the Son, connexion to the Holy Ghost. Appropriation is a theoretic device meant to help in the construction of God. The Holy Ghost is not a connexion - relation - between the Father and the Son: He is a hypostasis per se. The 'hypostases as relations' theory is an inadequate analogical image.

52 242. The Holy Ghost is not a communion between the Father and the Son - i.e. - not the bond of love - vinculum amoris - or relation between two persons (alias human surrogates). Psychological qualification is posterior to the nature of God. The temporal mission is an energy of light, or an economy. A man constructs Trinitarian theory only when in ontological shadow. Abstraction, even of the utmost formulaic splendour, fails to access even a luminous void. Only power from the Holy Ghost penetrates the impenetrable. This power opens the world beyond itself. Other dimensions are at His command. 243. The Holy Ghost is a free active hypostasis. 244. The world beyond itself negates the world. 245. Living entities beckon with singing eyes, metamorphosizing on golden wings. 246. The world beyond itself is not rational, mechanical, mathematical: it is divine. 247. There is no passive, subordinate derivation in procession: He freely makes Himself to go out from the Father. Two processions - duae processiones - do not exist in God. Procession is not generation: procession describes the self- manifestation of Deity. Procession is not a temporal coming out, but God as projection. Projection - prolatio, emissio - is what God does whilst His third hypostasis remains on Christ. Procession - ekporeuesthai - is the I make myself to go out: the I is - as it were - that of God as the third hypostasis, having no need to move; whilst the myself is that of God as the third hypostasis, which moves for us and to us. The third person is a sufficient profusion of energy for us, and the hypostatic surfeit beyond sufficiency remains with the other two persons on Christ. The Father throws forth the passivity of the Son and the activity of the Holy Ghost. The Father does not throw forth necessitarian activity - i.e. - He does not engender a product nor "produce" - but throws forth self-willing (hypostatic) freedom. While the third hypostasis fully reveals Himself as profuse glory, He fully hides Himself as a hypostasis. There is no visual proof of the identity of the Holy Ghost, but there is such proof that He manifests His uncreated splendour. God does not want the anonymity of the third hypostasis to be subject to disclosure, for the very reason that non-disclosure bids us seek out the Son, on whom all hypostases rest.

Again, another (relevant) digression to focus particular ideas. Take the

53 idea of the sentence as usually understood. The English sentence has a long history before it arrives at its modern variant. Vocalised prose alone - say, in Greek - underwent vast linear transformations. As its initial technique is basically oral, voiced form preceded logical arrangement. There is no standard (word) order in Attic Greek: as the sentence is part of communicative recitative, grammatical and logical order appeared late. Monodic and choral lyric poetry preceded logic, and Pindar's epinician stanzas preceded Aristotle's arrangement of the sentence into subject and predicate. The ascription of truth and falsity to sentential units is a late development. Stanzaic form wanders, and this is later reflected in Ciceronian Latin. Here the verb is thrown to the end, and subordinate clauses multiply. In Middle English prose is not written in sentences at all: arbitrary decision makes the periodic sentence uncommon. Information is tagged on; and it is only with Dryden's structures that the modern sentence really begins. My idea was to drive the sentence beyond all precedents. To do this I merged words and numbers - i.e. - in considering words as numbers, any sentential content is numerical. This procedure allows both sentential content and sentential form to be numerically varied, placing emphasis on how many (elements and sentences) there are. In the first instance this was to get beyond limits implicit in formulaic tagging by Gödel numbers, that is, my aims did not directly concern relative consistency, impredication, completeness - the paraphenalia of advanced axiomatics - rather, the idea was to consider logical laws as infinite conditions. As Gödel numbers imply tertium exclusi in constructible foundations, I thought them inadequate to examine tertium exclusi in itself. Evidently then, either p or not-p depends on p - e.g. - it depends on whether p is a periodic sentence, or whether it wanders. My idea was not to presuppose tertium exclusi in its own definition, as this gives rise to circularity. Tertium exclusi had to be open beyond itself or infinitely expressed. So, let me examine this in embryo: 248. If all there is is circumscribed by the infinite p, then either p or not-p is part of p. This is to say not-p is also p. This implies tertium exclusi fails or not-p = 0. 249. If all there is is p, then not-p is not. Evidently, however, not-p is. Therefore, p is not all there is. Part of the infinite p is not-p - i.e. - some p is not-p, which is contrary to tertium exclusi. Let n = any natural number, then: 250. If we say not-p = 0 and p = n, with p excluding not-p, there exists both p and not-p greater than n. Let us refer to this simultaneous elision of both p and not-p as n+. The p of n+ is not p = n and, therefore, it is the not-p of p = n.

54 Obviously, if we use a linear analogue for our theoretical sentences, tertium exclusi is, as it were, shunted away from the standard periodic sentence. A periodic sentence is limited or partitioned, according to use, by finitary means. However, if we allow sentences to wander - to augment - any limit is surpassed, and this implies the range of tertium exclusi must be rearranged by variations in the law itself. Likewise, as anything beyond p = n is simultaneously both p and not-p, contradiction is breached in a higher register. Now I am aware that elements of a higher register can be distinguished - i.e. - the p and not-p of n+ can be distinguished by alternative referents, so that contradiction is not breached. Nevertheless, the breaching procedure is instantly regenerated by further augments. That is, tertium exclusi and contradiction again fail their remit, and this is brought about by the ever-becoming of n. In philosophical terms the finitary necessarily ever becomes: worse, the finitary necessarily implies potential infinities; and, worse still, potential infinities are necessarily incomplete. Again, obviously, tertium exclusi and contradiction require complete entities. The forced completion of entities is - as it were - a psychological shuffle, which is designed to reinforce man's finitism. This forced completion is the subordination of becoming - i.e. - becoming is subordinated under identity. I say this is forced because potential infinities require an actual infinity to establish identity. Yet this actual infinity is always unforthcoming: worse, it is always forthcoming; and, worse still, it is the stultifying apex which controls the abstractions of mankind.

251. The gods escape the stultifying nadir of finitude and the stultifying zenith of infinity. God is neither finite nor infinite. 252. Almighty God creates infinities: He is that Mighty. 253. One enters the lair of Almighty God by dimensions of light. Uncreated light negates finite and infinite thoughts - thoughts of - replacing them by living entities. 254. Uncreated light - eternally reflected in the imago Dei - animates man. 255. Finite generative theorems - e.g. - involving an identity of nature and a distinction between the begetter and the begotten - cannot be taken into the transfinite case because that is not the way to reach God. 256. The Father is not ungenerated according to substance. 257. Ungenerateness transcends any opposition between substance and accident. 258. There are no accidents in God.

55 259. Accidents pertain to finite - imperfect - things, whilst in God there is neither beginning nor cessation. 260. God is not changeable: so the entire theory of accidents is redundant. Likewise, substances - as correlates of accidents - are redundant factors apart from God. 261. God's substance - oneness, essentia, ens - is always manifested hypostatically. 262. We cannot manufacture a yardstick of 'implied relations between the hypostases', and thus confine all other attribution to God's substance - i.e. - first there is a finite reduction of such relations, which are really unknowns in the ontological context, and then a presumption of what constitutes relative characteristics. 263. It is impossible to associate properties with the anonymity of the Holy Ghost, as He reveals non-categorized powers - e.g. - new colours. 264. The entire theory of accidents forces mind to move towards things in themselves - i.e. - abstract and generic entities. Thus, if we say 'each hypostasis is substance, and the same substance as the other hypostases', then we say, 'each hypostasis is a thing in itself, etc', and thinghood replaces personhood. 265. The term 'hypostasis' does not refer to the one divine being insofar as it is related to itself in three ways, as this implies substance is anterior to modes of relation. 266. A theory of the self-relatedness of God does not transcend theories of substance and accident, but merely aetherializes them. 267. Begottenness is not the Father seeing Himself. 268. God is not a blow-up of human introspection: there is no human proof. 269. God is not made in the image of man. 270. Three hypostases do not inhere in one substance. 271. God does not proceed by intentionality - i.e. - by going outside Himself as subject. We cannot construe God's ab intra-ness by inherence analogues. 272. Hypostases are not modes of self-relatedness immanent in each hypostasis. 273. The ground 'related to itself' is totally inadequate in regard to Godhead, because God is absolutely unique. 274. Man's capacity to participate in God is not the imago Dei: the imago Dei is an identity, not a participable function. Participability is rendered according to disclosures in uncreated light.

56 275. The identity of the third hypostasis does not go forth. The third hypostasis - as it were - mutes identity in bringing man to Godhead. The third hypostasis mutes identity because our identity is undisclosed. 276. God the Father is the one source of pre-essential Godhead: thus neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost can be the source of Godhead together with the Father. The Holy Ghost receives His free hypostatic being from the Father: if from the Son also, then what He receives from the Father is insufficient. 277. One hypostasis is sufficient for two hypostases.

Now there is more for your consideration, as all this will tie-in at some stage. What I am trying to say is difficult to gather: hence this epigrammatic mode of hints and a moving towards. But it can be said: only not directly by any theoretical communication. This is because it is where theory breaks that the uniqueness of the living God is seen. Take any proposition p: there is no paradigmatic p which is not uniquely placed. No two propositions are the same. In any system p, q or r is a device shunting uniqueness out. Identitas indiscernibilium guarantees relative uniqueness. No two elements are the same, and no two points are the same. The theory of identical points in linear space falsifies theory by theory. No two places are the same: therefore no two points are the same. Equi-distance in continua is a myth which generates the continuum. Equi-distance towards zero is the myth of indistance between equal points. This alone negates sized points - i.e. - if two distinct points coalesce, there is a point of coagulation: something different takes place - e.g. - connection, which is more line than a point, and less line than a line. This conceptual elision - merging - immediately embeds the finitary with infinitudes, and these senseless experiences - for that is what they are - turn on no sense. Human theory turns on nonsense: theory always implies theoretical myth, and my argument as to why this is so can be outlined as follows:

278. The vocabulary of human theory is falsified energy. 279. The language of the gods has become fallen - discrepant - energy. 280. The energy of the imago Dei is mutated by flesh - Gk. FVD>. As this energy is mediated into life by its biologization, mutation becomes normalcy. 281. Enfleshment - ¦

57 282. The highest (theoretical) exemplar of unlike energy is mathematics. In mathematics even elements are unlike each other: worse, any entity is unlike itself. 283. A discrepant entity reflects the false heart of man. 284. Mathematics goes over into the unbounded Ancient in negating itself. 285. Mathematics generates false infinities ... mortal versions. 286. There is no difference between mathematics and the world, in that both are fallen objects. Infinities, such as T and !0, are entities of mind or psychological objects - i.e. - they are objects with no objective designation out there. In reality T and !0, !1 ...... !T symbolise schematic confusions of unlike energy. These are numbers unlike themselves. 287. Logic opposing divine logic opposes itself. 288. Axioms are acts of faith: there is faith in unprovable obviousness; and everything obvious has a contrary. Because the gods fell there is nothing self-evident. 289. The self is like energy to God: mathematics is the false apotheosis of abstraction. 290. Mathematics is put there to confound the worldly-wise: worse, to bring about destruction of the false accretions on the imago Dei. 291. Mathematics is an architectonic skein over madness ... twistings and contortions presuming to be divine reasonings. 292. Mathematics cannot release the gods: only the unbounded Ancient apotheosizes. 293. Tertium exclusi is a denial of the simultaneity of opposites - i.e. - an attempt to maintain time in shunting off eternity. 294. Eternity penetrates and negates linear temporality. The coordinates of time are merely attempts to inhibit deific becoming: thus, as such, the Almighty can move them. 295. Homoiosis negates finitude and false infinities: eternity is not like !T. 296. Eternity is the devastating magnificence of the risen gods. 297. Essence is inessential. Is-ness is not essence. Obviously there is a pre- structural and pre-logical something which precedes the expression is in either sentence. Essence is inessential because the preceding something differs from the expression is. Any time we seek to express anything as essence a new and unique is appears. We cannot say that this preceding something presences essence, or that is reflects itself as the expression is. 298. Essence is inessential because it cannot essenciate itself.

58 299. Is-ness essenciates itself as other. 300. If we look behind an expression which purports is-ness - say, p - this is- ness might well essenciate uniquely - e.g. - energy might be a sprawling, rather than an articulation. 301. Thus we could argue that p is preceded by uniqueness, not essence. I can give you an example of this in saying that p stands for a white cube. If I then say that everything which is not a white cube is not, then is-not-ness is not, because a black cube is. I am thus saying that the expression not-p is both pre-structurally and pre-logically complex. This is what we are going to examine in detail. 302. Tertium exclusi is the apex of non-contradiction (consistency): either p or not-p means not both p and not-p. This implies p is not equivalent to not-p. And this says p cannot manifest as not-p - e.g. - a white cube is not a black cube. Arguably then: 303. Essenciation is separable as is-ness and is-not-ness. If we say that essence is, then both is-ness and is-not-ness palpably manifest or presence themselves - i.e. - relatively or relative to time. Not both p and not- simultaneously. I am arguing, however, that that which precedes the is- ness of p is not p's is-ness. So 304. The existential ground of p is not p itself. Or 305. The existential ground of p is not-p itself. Note the elision into contrariety. 306. In the defining of is-not-ness, is-not-ness is. 307. In the defining of is-ness, is-not-ness is. 308. Now looking at this closely, we can come up with ideas on the following lines: is-ness manifests or presences as difference; or something manifests or presences as is-nesses and is-not-nesses; or &c. Evidently, there is a discrepancy between ground and expression; and it does not matter whether we distinguish this by Seiendheit, Sein, Seiende, Istigkeit u.s.w., unless it is factually possible to precede pre-structural and pre- logical reality. 309. If the is of is-ness is the is of is-not-ness, then p and not-p coincide. 310. The is of p does not coincide with itself. 311. It is impossible to specify (designate) the is-ness of p. 312. Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish between is-nesses for p and not- p. 313. Allow me to give you examples regarding p and not-p. If everything but p is not the white cube, then not-p is in p - e.g. - the cubeness of a black

59 cube is in the white cube. Or: the is-ness of the cube of the black cube is the is-ness of the cube of the white cube. 314. Apparently, the p of either p or not-p is not unalloyed. 315. p is energetically penetrated by not-p. 316. Another example, focussing on p: if we look at the white cube and identify it with anything behind it - energy, itself - then p is in front of itself, that is, p is not-p. 317. p implies the not-p of itself. The not-itself of p is p. 318. The ratio is not effective in fallen structures. 319. In theophany structure disintegrates into energies ... (see below). 320. Look at what comprises the white cube p. Imagine an anarchic (anomic) flux swirling as both p and everything not-p .. or as a cube variably manifesting one form of infinite energy - i.e. - its not-ness to the fore, the otherness of itself ...... 321. It is the same - der Selbe, das Gleich - with sentences, with or without content - Gehalt, Inhalt. 322. The other of itself of a man is an immortal god. 323. Uniqueness is neither p nor not-p. 324. Nothing pre-exists the existence of p - i.e. - existence is no existence to be pre. Divine energy negates p as a non-deific ascription. 325. p is not p: p is something else: it is energy else. 326. It is not is-ness lying underneath, but the power of God. 327. Lying underneath-ness does not essenciate itself - it deifies itself.... 328. Genius is the overneath-ness of the immortal presence.

Permit me to digress, as usual. Here I should mention the Theory of Truth. Truth is more essential than gasped air: Truth supplies it. Truth supplies the essence of man beyond the worlding of the world. Heidegger's worlding of the world is merely a slimeivorous worlding of the Word. His binding-in of presence is the extremity of Hegel's supra-immanentism: is-ness is being-in-the- world and it is this is-ness which is the sole referent... No! ... The divine speaks negation - there is no Platonic not - for from the mouth of God there issues Truth - e.g. - thou shalt not ... Now God's negation (unlike the chicken-scratchings of mathematics and logic) renders the world void. The being of God is not some expelling-absorbing-re-absorbing mechanism of existence: the philosophers are f***ing with a God they know not Who ... Heidegger's game is overtly self- stultifying, in that he extended - de-ontologized - Nietzsche's program by standing on its shoulders. In him there is the Expressionismus of F. von Stuck in

60 a pre-Christ (pagan) animosity. Another groundling exalting non-existent essences: essences do not exist: Almighty God does exist. Although God might precede His own definition, He is at least predisposed in it (that is, if He disposes it). The Theory of Truth rises on what comes True: the unworlding of the fallen world comes True.

329. Behind and through p or not-p is neither. 330. Look at the white cube p, and then notice not-p's like p - red cubes, larger cubes. It then becomes obvious that there exists not-p's like p, and not-p's unlike p - red spheres, larger spheres, and so on. However, even if we argue that not-p's like p inhere in p, inherence of this kind appears impossible for not-p's unlike p. Thus, one could assert that some not-p's inhere in p, as if to say that tertium exclusi is invalidated only weakly. Of course, this presumes that p is disjoint from every infinite p. 331. Question: what is the negation that is neither p nor not-p? 332. Imagine a white cube p which is finite, that is, with the proviso that the finite is part of the infinite. The cube, therefore, has an infinite surround..... Now is the cube penetrated by the surround ... ? Or is the cube made up - gestellt - of some of the surround ... ?

The answer no means p excludes infinity: p's not-p is infinite. We are then presented with the impossible images of an infinity with a finite gap and a three- dimensional - part cubic - infinity. Tertium exclusi - thus identity - does not apply to this necessitated, impossible image.

The answer yes means p includes infinity: p's not-p is infinite. This gives rise to the further proviso that the infinite is part of the finite. The white cube p now simultaneously excludes and includes infinity. Tertium exclusi - thus identity - does not apply to this necessitated, impossible image.

Let us examine this relation of p to not-p closely. Imagine there exists an infinity of points comprising the white cube p; and imagine there exists an infinity of points not comprising the white cube p. This produces either an infinity of two colours or two infinities of one colour each. Tertium exclusi - thus identity - does not apply to this necessitated, impossible image.

333. Negations of breached finitude augment potential infinities. 334. Finitism is the futility of keeping out what is in.

61 335. What is itself not itself is the worlding manifestation. 336. The surround is the disintegration of logic and schematic deliberation. 337. Unworlding is the unmutating light. 338. Unlike energy is the coincidence-of-opposites. 339. There is no "ultimately mystical heterology of being" - no essential presencing of being: intelligence sees the inside of Heaven unconcealed. 340. Mathematics scripts and measures uncongenial darkness .... 341. There is no being - ens - which is the 'category of categories' or which precedes all genera: pursuit of such a mythic (fictional) entity is really an attempt to de-ontologize and de-personalize the personhood of God and, thus, it amounts to a cachet of philosophical impotence. 342. Philosophy never gets into the inside of Heaven. 343. But back to the white cube p. Imagine p as comprised of points. Mathematics usually envisages points as entities whose 'likenesses approach the same' - e.g. - repetitive unities. Theoretically all points look the same, as with 1 + 1 + 1 ..... The habit implicit in this envisagement supplies equivalent quanta, but this is not proof that points are the same. Imagine, therefore, that the points of a line vary in size so that no two are the same. Now this idea defeats empiricism in the limits of seeing - we cannot see whether points are the same or not. Any arbitrary number of points could coincide in size, but this could not be seen. This is a lack of sight and knowing, so we abstract from possibilities. Abstraction is a lack of sight in the theoretical mode: worlding ignorance carries over. The point is envisaged mentally because it cannot essenciate itself. For example, every point might be a different shape; or every point might be an incessantly transmogrifying energy; or etc. As we do not know the ground of external manifestation - say, a wooden box - we do not know the ground of internal manifestation - say, cube p. If we try to replicate the outside inside, not knowing carries over. I am saying to you that not knowing carries over both ways, outside to inside, inside to outside. We do not even know if either box or cube is comprised of points. If we say cube p is comprised of points, we assert is-ness. But there are innumerable other is-nesses assertable. These other is-nesses are usually seen as not-is-nesses - e.g. - equivalent quanta are not non- equivalent quanta. However, I am trying to get you to see that all pervading is- nesses manifest as other is-nesses. If you choose a mode - a possibility - for cube p - say, points - other modes pervade - say, lines, squares. There is no limit to these modes - e.g. - energies - because anything can be

62 envisaged as comprising cube p. The ground of knowing always recedes: the ground recedes all ways. As this all is unknown, its components are unknown. As the infinite is unknown, the finite is unknown. There is a plethora of is-nesses for cube p: consequently, other is-nesses comprise the not-is-nesses of cube p: any is-ness is simultaneously its alternative is-ness. 344. The not-p of p is p as such. 345. If the ground of p does not essenciate - if the essence does not essenciate - p does not essenciate. There is no essence which essenciates as p or not- p. It is the worlding of the world which inextricably binds p with not-p: it is the light of the gods moving towards extinction which manifests this inextricable binding. 346. There is no essence to be unessenciated: as the immortals shun the is-ness of God, ersatz forms and terms fail the Vision. 347. There is no 'forgetfulness of being', as being never be's to be remembered. 348. •8Z2,4" is related to forgetting - 8Z20 - as Heaven to the underworld. 349. The underworld - earth - has never be'd to be understood via being. 350. Humans come to be as they be-come towards God's being. There is never a presencing of being - on earth or in Heaven - only the presencing of God. Nothing apersonal or impersonal ever presences. The pursuit of "being" unpresences God, that is, it puts a lie in His place. 351. Lies of place in the underworld of earth undivinize all entities. 352. Lies in His place mortalize the gods into the mutant earth. As God's truth is Himself, •8Z2,4" negates the 8Z20 of mutant immortals. Anything posing as truth which is not confronted by the Vision of God is ersatz. 353. The boast of the philosophers of Germany that their language is primordial - ursprünglich - is arrogance meriting contempt: the only language which is primordial is the speech of Almighty God which, when presumed against, becomes the rant of demonic fascists and nazis espousing hate. God's speech is lovingly gentle. Loving gentleness opens God. 354. Very few German philosophers knew God: it is this which birthed nihilism and precipitated murderous insanity. Opposing Christ looses primal hordes of spiritual monsters primordially ...... 355. The warrior of love breaks through to the divine unworld. Here the Lord of Immortal Innocence walks immaculately ... literally. 356. Man is not even a human unbeing, yet alone a being: man is a

63 simultaneous multiplicity of unlike is-nesses (thus like not-is-nesses). One calls on congruous and incongruous barbarisms to indicate his mess. Man's 'essenceness' - Seiendheit - is ruptured divinity: thus no essence exists at all. Man's temporal surround is his warping of eternity .... 357. Simultaneity - fr. L. simul at the same time cf. similis similar, same - works as follows: not both p and not-p simultaneously - i.e. - momentaneously. This says p and not-p must not move together temporally. Let us examine this movement closely by suggesting it is a movement of man, or, literally a man-ifestation. A manifestation is either from inside or outside, usually conceived as the former. Now consider the following hypothesis:

Man manifests as both p and not-p momentaneously - i.e. - he is both manifestly a god and not now. Now it should be obvious that a sole temporal referent is either inadequate or ambiguous here: if a moment is part of time, a god cannot be entirely conditioned by it - e.g. - a god is bigger than time. Thus, we cannot easily say not both p and not-p simultaneously of this god, as simultaneity acts here as a theoretical fetter. Let us follow the hypothesis through in detail:

Our god cannot be time-bound, but I am suggesting that temporal idealism is the hood pulled over the god's head: therefore the god becomes a man. This god p is now simultaneously not-p (= man). I am also suggesting that the god enacts a law not both p and not-p simultaneously to confirm not-p. The moment manifests the god as a man in an attempted annihilation of the god. However, it is the god p making man dominant over himself ..... Hence:

358. A god creates temporal idealism to apriorize the manifestation of man - i.e. - abstract or dialectical principle is placed over deity to ratify manhood. This intellectual scaffolding allows (false) identity absolutization by time. The principles of identity - identity, contradiction, tertium exclusi - exclude man's (true) identity with deity: man is not equivalent to a god, or not-p is not equivalent to p. It follows, of course, that this is the lie forged by the god for his own enchainment. Time is thought, on the one hand, to be an a priori form of things; on the other, time cannot be surpassed. Thus, it is said to belong to us - time is part of me - without the power of supercession. I, of course, think the power of supercession is vacated by the god. 359. There is a saying attributed to Parmenides: thinking and being are the

64 same - J@ (VD "ÛJ@ <@,4< ©FJ4< J, 6"4 ,É<"4 - but this is not a simple sentence ( .. the deific and/or ontological status of <@,4< is ambiguous). This very ambiguity caused Hegel to remark that its explication constitutes the development of philosophy. Immediately, on my explanation, several things emerge: first is that no •DPZ is indicated here, deific or not, for either thought or being; and second is that to assert apriorization for a transcendent structure is presumptuous. However, be that as it may, let us agree, for the sake of argument, with idealism at this extreme: thought is a transcendens capable of being time. From what I have said it follows that this ratifies manhood; however, it traps deity, in that the god p is now simultaneously not-p (= a man). In theological terms, transcendence is now equal to immanence - i.e. - thought is a transcendens incapable of overcoming time. Or thought is a maximum incapable of overcoming itself. Now this is some god, who, like Aristotle, contemplates himself moment after moment. This is a god who cannot metamorphosize up ..... 360. The god of Aristotle .. Hegel .. Heidegger .. is not bigger than time. This is a caustic message to give to despair. 361. The warping of eternity is man's temporal surround. Now Raleigh argued that there cannot be more infinities than one, for one of them would limit the other: what then of our god or man in a finite box? Or, if the box is infinite - say, like some space-time continuum - how is the god or man loosed? This god, apparently, only worlds the world, finite or infinite, by burying himself in it. The box - cube p - turns out to be a coffin .... 362. The Almighty metamorphosizes one up from the tomb: FVD> F0µ" - i.e. - it is not the body which is a tomb, but flesh. The body goes up, the flesh goes down ... 363. We can say of man's identity that it is like itself only as difference. 364. The ,Æµ\ of a man wards off the ,Æµ\ of a god, that is, deity becomes I am and I am not simultaneously. The laws of identity are then enacted to cover this parlous state .. to deny it. With this rigid transcription of identity goes the theories of essences. Essence is a reflex of tangibility and impenetrability ... the abstract equivalent. As that which is thing-like cannot be penetrated, essence is impenetrable also. This then links flesh to objects as mutually impenetrable. Objects are thought of as essenciated - they are what they are and no other: man is thus defined by a process outlawing, proscribing and denying metamporphosis. 365. The unlocking into metamorphosis is by glorification, not essenciation.

65 366. The human should proceed to the deity of the divine-human, as this regathers like is-nesses which are not unlike is-nesses, back into identity. Identity is above in God, and bifurcation is below. There is no bifurcation above - contra Fichte, Schelling, Hölderlin, Hegel - except that which goes below. FVD> is the garment of the down ...... 367. The circumscription implicit in worlding the world ratifies the world as the only accessible region. Heidegger, for example, says: Alles, was in der Welt begegnet, begegnet ihm - Dasein - als im Jetzt sich aufhaltend: everything which is encountered in the world is encountered by (human) here-being in the now. This is the articulation of a mortal mistake, as Da- sein is also here in an immortal region. Obviously Da-sein can refer to there - an immortal region - from a mortal region. The Heideggerian Dasein fails to access the immortality of now - jetzt, nun - in the uplifting of metamorphosis. 368. Heidegger's Dasein is solely referenced by the human. Mistake: only the divine-human is human. In saying der Anderen bin Ich nie - I never am the other - he is, in reality, confusing out the god by presuming to be the other. A mere human is always simultaneously other, as the divine- human cannot be annihilated: the pretense of being-in-the-world only covers the god ...... 369. Heidegger's (limited) humanist anthropology conceals the god. He is, as it were, searching back-to-back for himself: he is philosophically arse about face. When he says that: Die Eigentlichkeit des Daseins ist das, was seine äußerste Seinsmöglichkeit ausmacht - the authenticity of Dasein is what comprises its most extreme possibility of being - the fault magnifies, as the god has stepped down into the inauthenticity of Dasein, as the merely human dominates the divine-human. 370. It is the god who prompts the human to downgrade the god. 371. In the worlding of the world it is no use the ,Æµ\ preceding thought, as in the 'inverted cogito', I am therefore I think. Here it is am-ness that reaches for the most extreme possibility of non-being. There is no ,Æµ4 - sum, Ich bin, and so forth - when the god is forced to vacate the divine regions .... When Heidegger asserts that: Ein Seiendes, das die Möglichkeit des "Ich bin" ist, ist als solches zumeist ein Seiendes, das man ist - a being that is the possibility of the 'I am' is as such, for the most part, a being that one is - he merely enforces false death for the gods. In claiming descent from Heraclitus, Heidegger forgets his dictum: In name, this - Dasein - is life; in fact, this - Dasein - is death ......

66 372. Heidegger thinks •,\ looks like eternity - Ewigkeit - but proves to be a mere derivative of being temporal .. ein bloßes Derivat: this closes down the limited illumination of the Greeks, as even Xenophon refers to the immortals ... @Ê •,\ Ð

67 vast configuration of intra-penetrative gestalt by the name 'Dasein' is utterly useless. What would 'Dasein' say? If it says, with Heidegger, that das Dasein ist das Seiende, das charakterisiert wird als In-der- Welt-sein - that Dasein is that being (entity) which is characterised as being-in-the- world - then the infinite connectivity of this 'pushing-in gestalt' militates immediately against Dasein's finite formula. Using a descriptive image to 'give the picture', you could say you were being bombarded with infinitely changing tattoos of every possibility of form and shape. Now Heidegger says (BP, 297) that the self and world belong together in the single entity, Dasein. Self and world are not two entities, like subject and object ... but self and world are the basic determinations of Dasein itself in the unity of the structure of being-in-the-world. Moreover, Heidegger also says that Dasein is an entity that determines itself - sich bestimmt - as 'I am'. Now I ask you specifically: is Dasein one entity or two? In-der- Welt-sein implies Ich bin in something - two entities, determinations - unified into Dasein - one self-determining entity. Is this mystic pedagogy or pedantic mystagogy? Take one petit-bourgeois nazi, add the Hakenkreuz, and stir ...... Herr Heidegger's being-as-the-world surreptiously elides - merely elides - subject and object; but as he cannot prove the world is finite, Dasein elides beyond itself .... 378. In-der-Welt-sein was once a god aus-der-Welt-sein. 379. A god is neither subject nor Dasein: he is now - temporally - a monstrous Janus-like creature, searching back-to-back for himself: thus, in turning every each-which way but, he confronts the impossibility of himself in not finding himself. As fallen man he encounters the grotesques of finitudes embedding and embedded in multitudes of infinities - infinities impossibly limited in their plurality, and an infinity impossibly contradicted in its singularity. And as fallen man the god has become Ï<2@N`D@H - a dung-carrier - embowelled in the fly-blown charms of putrescence, straight-standing, intellect upright, above his own stench .... Yet this god was once a marvel in God's immortal light .. 380. Principles of identity are the measures of unstable flesh. 381. Tertium exclusi, for example, measures flesh against things. Tertium exclusi cannot hold because of the multiple is-nesses of p. Take any sentence p from p, q, r ... say, The cube p is finite to stand for the earth and its 'ontic' environment. Now wherever one is located in this environment, is-nesses represent manifest not-is-nesses - i.e. - other is- nesses manifest momentaneously now. Simultaneity, therefore, manifests

68 p as a plethora of different p's now. Or, simultaneity manifests p as a plethora of different nows now. 382. Any p of p = p is never the same, even as it is regarded again - e.g. - it is always regarded again by cognitive difference. 383. Either p or not-p cannot mean every not-p. 384. Not both p and not-p simultaneously inadvertently implies some not-p constitutes p. The proscription of simultaneity in contradiction as usually understood is meant to say that a thing and its contraries cannot manifest together empirically, that is, cannot objectify or be objective at the same time. This, naturally, implies the possibility of the 'same time' as a partition of temporality - e.g. - this child's building block is not both white and not white - black, red, blue - now. Even when Heraclitus watched children cast dice in an effort to 'view the flux', one does not envisage him seeing 3 as 6 at any moment. Any dice ordinarily comports its gestalt singly: however, the is-ness of 3 is not the same 3 as before cognitively, as the flux slips by ... This is to say that not only can we not step into the same temporal stream twice, but that we cannot step into the same temporal stream once. But what does this mean if explicated precisely? It is as if the simul of simultaneity cognitively slips; or it is as if the hand grasps running water. Indeed, it remains water - perhaps even the same water - but it is also not the same water. Cognition can no more fix the water than the hand's grasp. The flowing by manifests a plethora of different nows now, and this undoes the now now. Obviously, one could argue not all life is flux, as if a building block and water differ. Evidently they do, and a concomitant theory could support this - e.g. - the rate and density of molecules and electrons &c. But this is not what I am driving at: rather, I am saying that man man-ifests the undoing of now now minimally, because this does not unloose the god. Things and objects divert the human gaze in confirming that the gaze is human: it is likewise with their attendant theories. In searching back-to-back for himself, man sees only the human in whichever turn. In seeing back-to- back it is the god who sees through a darkened filter. The principles of identity are quite unprincipled in filtering deity out .... 386. People who want to really learn must go to hell: hell is not an abstraction, nor is hell anything learned .. presumed .. guessed at: hell is a real place that Christ told us about: hell is where-about that light passes through the evil of darkness to find the 'I am' of light ... Where every nightmare comes true, where every evil abrupts literally, where every guise and

69 disguise is shredded in the postponed horror of everyone ... this is the unmitigated horror of the beginning of God. No mortal can escape the confrontation of the banality of evil - its else-where-ness: this will come to you as such .... Postpone God Almighty as you will, He will confront you utterly .. 387. The suffering humility of true love impresses the love of God. 388. To the Most Holy Mother of God: sorry, darling ...

O a kiss, oh a kiss .. a kiss from above: O a kiss, oh a kiss .. from You my love ..... A kiss from a girl with golden eyes, wild in transcendence, storming the skies .. Mouth's utter loveliness, holy the sweet .. adoration absolutely bows at Your feet; You, divine sweetheart, O pure heart and true, I rage in the heavens for my immaculate Sue ... O a kiss, oh a kiss .. from You my love ..

389. Enough of this drunken shit, more of this: Christ speaks of everlasting punishment, sc. the consequences of finite crime ( .. an unspeakable injustice by God .. so it seems, despite mutilating fire in a fair face, "surgery" on horrified genitalia, &c.: infinite outcastness on self- beckoning demonry). On the other hand, I reckon me fairly innocent - moderately so - but I envisage everlasting delight not worth the blistering humiliation of finite shit .... I am that punished now that I say f*** love everlasting & temporal .. in place of which I would rather dark-night's reaching oblivion make nothing nothing-ize: no God .... no nothing, or oblivion oblivionating itself. Nothing gets in its own way & therefore in mine .. 390. I wake every morning with the residue of unmitigated hate - hate from the pain of vast injustice: a kindly & innocent love stomped under foot .. and this God .. this God of Whom all expectations are looked to, this God I hate .. when it all boils down: Who else is there to hate .. ?? If He was not some crucified Jew c***-sucker sc. a weakling Hebraic pansy .. losing everywhere; .. if He was a God Who actively interfered and righted wrongs - destroyed evil bastards now, showed innocence triumphant now; .. if He was some God Who stopped the pain ...... However, apparently, He is not .. What are we to do with this God? I awake each morning with the regret that absolute nullity has not intervened .. that I have not died in my sleep. Worse, I awake with the recognition that the entire 'human race' - for that is what this monstuous seething aberration calls itself - has not disappeared in the shame of its

70 own horror. Occasionally, I glimpse the absolute solution: God should commit suicide .. 391. Wipe out the Jewish monster, Who predicates us .. wipe out us, wipe out the Jews .. No: this is always happening, as it sums up to wiping out God by proxy. Hence: if God refuses to commit suicide, He really must know better than the stinking pits of murderous despair (.. that is, He must know better than me ..) 392. If God really murdered Himself in the most horrible way - rendered Himself the absolute nullity by disappearing up His own absolute holy f***ing arsehole (.. I mean: f***ing blanked you out, you dirty human scum), - I guess thereby I would have some peace .... Unfortunately, He was murdered on their terms, sc. like everyone is murdered on their terms.. which leaves me figuring .. this is real philosophy .. Jesus of Nazareth was forced to commit suicide ...... but this only proves He cannot make Himself into nullity (as even this would be the 'shadow of God's absence', sc. like Sein in Heidegger's vacuous atheism). So, back to Heidegger's cretinism and twisted Germanic Greek .... 393. Heidegger ought to be seen as a minor Hegelian in that he conflates finitism and transcendence (der Überstieg, die Transzendenz): unlike Hegel he rids himself of infinity and immanence, but the result is strikingly similar. Infinite immanence and finite transcendence are mere variations on in-der-Welt-sein. Hegel's position is arrived at by the corrupt equation of infinite finitude .. Heidegger's by worlding transcendence as an 'horizon' - i.e. - as something pre-ontic technically sc. he thus divides Ð< precisely like the pagan Greeks. Ð< possibly derives from ¦`<, with ¦- indicating the ¦F- of §F(J4<), is and it, and in the German ontologies after Kant - Fichte,Schelling, Hegel - the primal •DP¬ of is-ness is always bifurcated. Obviously, Heidegger splits Sein (that-by-which-is-ness-is) and Seiende (that-which-is-ness-is). This is a landscape gardening of Hegel which is remarkably flat. Hegel, at least, attempted to arch infinity into finitude sc. following and trying to supercede Kant's absymal finitist leanings ... All of these philosophers failed to recognise the bifurcation between god & fallen man sc. that this bifurcation is a consequence away from the •DP¬ - Allmächtige Gott - which is overcome (really transcended) in the return. As I never tire of repeating: genius makes this return through myriads of dimensions - arcane, wondrous, divine, staggering - through which it fell. The world is literally the age of man - OE wer ON ver = man, OHG alt ON öld =

71 age, existence. That the gods have fallen means both Sein and Seiende are viciously refused in the below - they are faked by mortals. It is no surprise philosophers aggrandize themselves against Christ ...... Finitism and infinitism are both sides of the wrong coin .... Timeless everlastingness is where the gods came from. 394. Essences do not even essence. 395. My point about finitism and infinitism is very simple: both are false entities mutually necessitating - strictly implying - one another. A false infinity breeds false infinities and a false finitude. Now it is not so simple: I am not merely indicating that infinitudes and finitudes are mere concepts, as if there is a cleavage in conceptuality. Let me first explicate this in Hegelian terms, so you will see what I am not talking about. Hegel makes a distinction between a mere concept - nur Begriff - and a concept which has grasped - begriff sc. the pret. of begreifen - all knowability. A mere concept is an abstraction, and this kind of concept is conditioned by incomplete knowing sc. the seizing in an abstraction fails to grip all knowability: it only enunciates its own limited particularity. A mere concept presences the finite, and even if - say - one uses a number which purports to express infinity - e.g. T - even this presences the finite. Now Hegel claims we can go beyond mere concepts via dialectical idealism sc. that in the concretion of experience all-knowability presences itself an und für sich - i.e. - that infinite transcendence fuses its grip in the here-of- finite-immanence and occurs sc. this happens in the awareness of man as abiding when man is equivocally aware. Note 'equivocally aware', as infinite knowing and finite knowing happen bi-dimensionally, thus simultaneously, as if two transparencies mediate oneness. Heidegger's doctrine is very similar to this, in that the ontic, pre-ontological - cf. nur Begriff - elides into the ontological: however, Heidegger shears off the infinity of all knowing, and substitutes Sein sc. that by which is-ness is as the happening of that which is-ness is. Yet in this Heidegger maintains a transcendence motif sc. he re-fuses infinite transcendence as the grip in finite transcendence. Sein is grasped by •-8Z2,4" - i.e. - by interrogative rememberance, not by simultaneity. Let us look at all this in fastidious detail. Dialectical idealism is not the thesis-antithesis-synthesis commonly accorded it, viz, overcoming the horizon of history. Rather, infinite knowing - thesis - conflates the other of itself, finite knowing - antithesis - as its seizure, that is, the other of itself as itself - synthesis. This is a re-binding of what

72 is abidingly bound. The process behind this is not particularly difficult: it says a subject equivocates awareness because it pre-sents its object as a displaced identity sc. the pre- of presencing itself as not itself is ontologically prior, whilst simultaneously simultaneous. Infinite thinking abidingly grips and returns finite thinking to itself synthetically: the fused is re-fused. The object is abidingly possessed by an infinite subject. One consequence of this process is that the other of itself is immortalized in the equivocation of cleavage - i.e. - the object is abidingly refused as it is re-fused. Now Heidegger comments on the equivocal awareness of man in this process, so: Das Bewußtsein ist in sich ein Unterscheiden, das keines ist. Das Bewußtsein ist als dieser Unterscheid, der keiner ist, in seinem Wesen zweideutig. Consciousness - sc. infinite consciousness - is in itself a differentiation which is not. Consciousness is, as this differentiation which is not, equivocal in its essence. One immediate criticism of this, of course, concerns 'unterscheiden' as a pivotal term sc. in its equivalence to 'auseinanderhalten: to keep apart or tell apart'. What comprises the telling, or what identifies a differentiation which is not? When Heidegger says: Dieses Zweideutige ist das Wesen des Vorstellens .. This equivocation is the essence of presentation .. he inadvertently indicates the crux of his own transcendental finitism sc. in the pre- of presentation & the vor- of vorstellen, it is to infinite identity he refers for a differentiation which is not. This transcendence is along the lines of: it is the same as itself but not; or it is different from itself but not; &c. Heidegger's insistence on finitude (his chief difference from Hegel) does not resolve the problematic between the finite and the infinite sc. Heidegger's Sein cannot keep at bay that-by-which-is-ness-is-and-is-not - i.e. - he cannot fail to introduce stultification into Being and beings, rather than into the infinite and the finite. There is not even a true infinity, much less a true finitude. Equivocation permeates all concepts, mere or otherwise. Infinitude and finitude are the flanks of the fallen gods sc. "men". The infinite and the finite are shields against Almighty God's stupendous metamorphosizing power. Socrates - in contradistinction to Heidegger - at least tried to use interrogative •-8Z2,4" as a means to uncover pre-existent, disembodied spirits in men. In Heidegger we have mere Sein petitioning the architects of Auschwitz, although - natürlich - during this satanic metamorphosizing of the flesh, he was unapologetically be-ing else-where .. Natürlich ..

73 396. I am not going to criticise Heidegger's thoughts on 8`(@H-theory directly. It is sufficient to say logos is a vastly flexible term in Greek, especially in Greek mathematics. To my mind this 'area' is a minefield which cannot be cleared - e.g. - it is rife with competitive hypotheses & presumptuous guesswork. I will come back to this in a while. Logos- theory saturates the Greeks from Heraclitus to Iamblichus: it is only truly divinized by Christ; but let's have a look at it from various angles. Logos usually means 'word' or 'ratio', associated, I believe, intrinsically in rational discourse. Mathematics was originally worded: numbers grew out of alphabets. The 8X(T that goes to make up the pagan logos is I gather, I recount, I say .., which virtually comprises a minor arithmetic of thought. An elementary arithmetic to be sure; but you will gather what I am driving at, as I re-count my thoughts. With legein there is the sense of what-lays-under - i.e. - thought which lays under or behind expression in words .. the full expression or expansion of an idea. This makes logos cognate with Ò ßB@FJ"J0H 6"4 º ßBÎFJ"F4H - hypostasis - as that which stands under (sub-stance). Now here I will hazard an hypothesis of my own: incommensurability is the penetration of infinity into ratiocination- considered-as-finite - i.e. - I am saying the Greeks noticed the anomalousness of infinity before its articulation. Infinite surround and infinite penetration reached the Greeks as something they could not get by nor think through sc. as conceptual impenetrability damaging ratio sc. resulting in nihilism and stultifying perplexity. Infinities stop thought from penetrating the beyond: the Greeks experienced this. I also think the Greeks knew there was actually no-way-by: theory breaks back down & ratio - logic as such - pitches into itself. º •B,4D\" is infinity, as is •B,4DXF4@H - countless, boundless - and –B,4D@H - in Trag. freq. of garments in which one is entangled past escape. The Greeks believed the only way through infinity was by death - "possible way through", that is, as –B,4D@H means without end or escape. How to escape infinity? This is impossible to pass through. Various re-actions towards this are possible: infinity can be bounded in & by things - the hypostasis is infinite & cannot be un-con-joined from the finite sc. the infinite absurdity of logicality overthrows the logos as a-logos. •B,\D"J@H means impenetrable. Anaximander made this infinity his first principle: it is this which haunts all Greek philosophy and mathematics: the circle is its first geometrical expression sc. as it goes round forever, its diagonal - *4"-µ,JD`H - fails to express it via the

74 logos. The logos implies the alogos and vice versa. *4"µ,JD`H is a measure through the measureless; and in this sense plane and solid geometries pre-figure modern arithmetics in ushering forward similar impenetrable absurdities - e.g. - Cantor's diagonal is a measure through the measureless. Finitism is one (absurd) reaction to this: let us keep out that which we are in - i.e. - one (absurd) reaction to the absurdity of infinitism: we are saturated with the infinite - let us affirm its absurdities: the contradiction of truth is truth: we measure on the measurelessness of number ... shape ... form. The finite is senseless without the infinite, and the infinite is senseless. Hegel's combination - let us combine the two and say they are one .. is senseless also. Hegel, like the Greeks, recognised that elision into opposites is elision into itself: as this collapses logic, concepts are "transcended" by the higher logic of elisions: one unfortunate consequence of this fake transcendence is that the object is secretly infinitized and ignorance of infinite objectness becomes the norm. Obviously, modern antinomies are part of the history of thought relying on elision into opposites: paradoxes - the truly false - are mere expressions of the vast unconquerability of infinity; and in this sense the moderns go no further than the Greeks. Even though mathematics is the history of articulation - arithmetization, geometrization, algebraization: woven and interweaving - mathematics changes its surface against the background of vast inexplicabilities. They remain impenetrable, rebutting intelligence - i.e. - as they are meant to: the gods cover their tracks among living impossibilities. Incommensurability is thought to be a great riddle with the Greeks: precisely how they arrived at it is not known. However, it can be arrived at easily from a multitude of different directions, and quite possibly the simplest is via the area of a square on the diagonal ) of a unit square. The diagonal is seen to be alogos, in that the power of itself - *b<"µ4H - in both the line and plane is not a ratio. It does not require a geometrical proof per impossibile to establish this, as the proof arrives after the *b<"µ,4H have been noted. The first difficulty in diagonalization would have concerned terms, in a theoretical situation beckoning in infinitizing complications sc. 'dynamis' can denote something of a commensurable line, as in *L

75 empowered differently from a unit square sc. it has no integral (integer- all) factors, whereas square numbers 1, 4, 9, 16 .... are determined by the powers of integers sc. the numbers of nature (natural numbers) were thought to presence ratio - i.e. - finitism brings forth the logos. Simultaneously, however, finitism brings forth infinitizing complications - alogoi, of which there exists more. The Greeks perceived that infinity generates alogoi. An infinite number of calculations on the diagonal of a unit square never generates an integer sc. the empowering of ) is irrational or –DD0J@H - unspeakable, inexpressible, unutterable, immense. Nevertheless, the Greeks noticed that the constant conjunction of 8`(@H 6"4 –8@(@H brought forth new logoi sc. incommensurables could be related - r-el-atio-nally. But this does not rid their mathematics of its abidingly contingent problematic, rooted in infinity. As it is impossible to know the origin of something both infinite and finite, Be- ing and, consequently, be-ings are essentially unknown and inexpressible. No amount of finite distinctions between Being and beings overcomes the overthrow of all ratios by the intrusion of the boundless. The pagan Greek doctrine of logos failed abysmally sc. there is an extraneity of parts - µXD0 or µ`D4" - which defy and contradict any common measure, whether this be of the line - µZ6@H - or of human intellect - <`@H. Obviously, because the logos failed, logic failed also. Man, therefore, manifested as both infinite and finite among this failed logic sc. simultaneously: logic cannot work with simultaneous infinitudes: they are not logical: and not only simultaneously, but also contra-dictorily - i.e. - logic works against itself as the infinite and the finite are contra - against - each other. Op-posites are one. It is not only that the logos and alogos are the poles of contradiction, but it is also that they identify Be- ing-in-time sc. together and simultaneously they share is-ness, or they presence now. It is almost as if now shrinks into a 'common measure' by excluding the sameness of itself as other, but what this does for logical science - º ¦B4FJZµ0 8@(46Z - is to defy comprehension .. or deny it its comprehension. That about which something is said - 8X(,4< J4 6"JV J4<@H: to say something about something - should implicate the underlying logos; but this is displaced by that which is contra simultaneously. Consequently, reasoning finds itself in a quandry at depth sc. legein - to say - is couched in the unutterable as it utters (... demanding that which lies beneath, it gives the lie to that which is

76 underneath ..). But, again, we need to look at this in detail ...

397. Allow me to return you to Parmenides' remark: thinking and being are the same. What does this really involve? Evidently it comprises compound levels & profuse hermeneutics, but I contend that it is an attempted block on infinitization of the sort already indicated: let us suppose p and q - e.g. - cube p and sphere q - can be expressed individually, but, as incompatibles, not fused. p and q are incompatible because their underlying concepts refuse copulation sc. they refuse identification by a copula as their is-nesses differ. This implies they cannot be thought simultaneously: as p is not q their expressibility - diction - is contra: one cannot presence as the other, as op-posites are not one: as subjects p and q are not consistently predicable as the same subject. Now this, of course, gives us non-contradiction as a principle of terms: it emphasizes the non-identity of p and q and the distinct identity of each. p can be but not as q; p cannot be q: thus, with this expression, it is to being of some kind we refer as arbiter. What kind of being is this? Sein, Seiende, infinite or finite being ... a human being? The non- contradiction of terms says two contradictory terms cannot be said - legein - together, because their corresponding - and underlying - concepts cannot be thought - noein - together. It is a short step to Parmenides: what cannot be thought cannot be, what can be thought can be, as if this is what J@ (VD "ÛJ@ <@,4< ¦FJ4< J, 6"4 ,É<"4 means. Hegel and Heidegger differ in their interpretation regarding this: to be sure it is nur Begriff, and Hegel goes through logic which equates saying, thinking & being to dialectic - *4"8X(,F2"4 - but Heidegger conditions dialectic so: Auch in der Dialektik wird das Denken von der Aussage, vom 8`(@H her bestimmt - even in the dialectic thought is determined by - gives testimony to - the logos. Note Heidegger's reconstructivistic partiality: he attributes to the Greeks an unmutated (hegemonistic) logos as something 'transcending' the aggrandizement of mere reason sc. he places Plato's theory of amnesia in an Aristotelian context - Dasein parallels universality below in being worlded - and he identifies this logos with the lighting process of Sein: in other words he phases out the alogoi implicit in all infinitizing processes, which the Greeks, despite the efforts of Parmenides & Zeno, could not do: in short he replaces the discordant multiplicity of infinite and finite coinherence by the Sein-prozeß, a process in itself limited by

77 expressions referring always to human beings (6"JV J4<@H). Unfortunately, this (finitist) restriction both elides and identifies Sein with nothingness sc. the unspeakable diction of its contra ... Heidegger's philosophy is merely another form of extreme stultification, especially as his thought presumes - like Nietzsche's - to vault backwards over Christ into paganism. There is no 'lighting process of Being' in a coincidence- of-opposites: neither Sein nor Nicht-Sein gives light: there is no lumen naturale in the vast unnaturalness of humanity: humans move in the wilful darkness of shrouded intelligence: only metamorphosis by Christ Almighty gives identity its light ...

398. Let us turn again to incommensurability, viz, 'something not in keeping with the logos' sc. infinitizing intrusion or encroachment. First, the alogos is more by its unlimitedness; and second, I argue for a line of awareness of this sort of thing - i.e. - details aside, given the fragmentary evidence of its intrusiveness, and because dealing with it (still) presents great theoretical difficulties - in Anaximander, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Zeno, Hippasus, Philolaus et al. Furthermore, third, I am suggesting it is a profoundly human trait to suppress infinitizing intrusions, precisely because such intrusions manifest the abyss - indeed, the Greeks recognized the abyss in this, which they either a-voided or forged a repair, that is, they philosophized .. Philosophy keeps the appearance going by constructing the appearance, and if, say, one rends the appearance by allowing Deity in, as the 7`(@H Himself did and does, hell musters up its forces in darkness keeping light out. Philolaus serves to show how alogicizing patches itself over. Philolaus taught that logos and alogos are two unlike elements, as if each possessed equal (ontological) status: hence, as they are unlike each other, the world is ordered by their forged harmony sc. it is necessary that all things that are be either limiting or unlimited or limiting-and-unlimited. Phenomenality - the world - is the presencing of the latter elided conjunction, as if the incommensurable is rendered tame by commensurabilty in square - i.e. - as if infinitizing intrusions are thereby confined by passing over them. Thus I am suggesting Philolaus is merely an apologist for a Neo- pythagoreanism dealing with a shattered original sc. one focuses on a new logos in forgetting Anaximander's insistence that the infinite literally surrounds man - i.e. - penetrates and ruptures all finite ratios .. that is (to get it over): infinity f***s reason & f***s itself.

78 Now it should be obvious that µ"20µ"J46 2,TDZµ"J" - mathematical theories - of whatever stripe, ancient and new, repose on a priori grounds sc. those beyond sense or, literally, the nonsensical, and when this is reached - or not reached - it abidingly 'sticks in the craw' of all utterance. The technical (heuristic) origin of incommensurability is much debated, but the method of •<2LN"\D,F4H - reciprocal subtraction - appears to me as an attempt at figuring the consequences of a more primitive, VI-century awareness. Pythagoras abhorred infinitization and he taught the void: what precisely is this void? A clue is provided by the rebellion of Parmenides against Pythagoreanism sc. against ineliminable reference to the void as something which is. This, of course, emphasises the is of that which is not: hence the logical problem of the not-ness of not immediately attaches itself to even primitive delvings into infinity. Neither integral nor part locates an infinity out of keeping with either sc. however number is defined - whole or part - we can say infinitely, 'this is not the diagonal and this is not the diagonal ...' - i.e. - the measure of the diagonal is-not-there-ever, as if it is - as it were - eternally nowhere. Yet if it is this eternal nowhereness that Parmenides equates with the void (as did Anaximander and the Pythagoreans), its elimination is impossible sc. the wholes and parts which seek to locate the immeasurable measure of the diagonal are themselves measurably immeasurable. One void, as it were, ghosts another: infinite wholes and parts - presumed to be - ghost another - presumed not to be. Alas, the incommensurable is - courtesy of the infinite entirety of every whole and part, which - courtesy of the incommensurable - cannot be. The non-identity of infinite voids - the void pluralized - is the spectre of stultification in Greek philosophy and mathematics. Unlike Cantor the Greeks did not construct two infinities, but they must certainly have intuited - however roughly - two voids sc. endless numbers - limiters - not the void (all numbers not the void, thus every number whole or part), which could not be every number - i.e. - the logos as an endless self-contradiction ... ratio voiding itself ... which cannot be; and extraneity - the limitless - finitely presencing in an isosceles right-angled triangle - i.e. - an extraneity beyond every number ... ratio a-voiding itself ... which must be. It is as if the everything of everywhere-ness is negated by the is-not-there-ever-ness of the eternally-nowhere sc. as the identity of ratio is contradictory, the Greeks thought it necessary to eradicate contradiction as non-being: this eradicates the identity of ratio

79 .. Incommensurability brought on vast confusions for the Greeks, especially as ratio was conceived as permeating all things. Philolaus saw limiting things and unlimiting things as pre-existent: the being of things - µX< ¦FJã Jä< BD"(µVJT< - is eternal, and inner nature as such - "ÛJ" µ¥< NbF4H - that is, of anything and everything - admits of divine and not human knowledge. This is indeed stultification, but the situation grows even worse as things in the empirical world - J ¦< J@ÃH §D(@4H - are manifestly not all limiting and unlimiting things sc. as we would expect in the quantificational profusion brought about by infinite encroachments, the logic of 'all' and 'every' falls in on itself. One can almost predict the tenor of subsequent debates concerning the logos: alogicizing logoi must be kept at bay or otherwise constructed, as if one could rebuild the cage after the beast was loose. Retrenchment into finitism is another ploy sc. as if one could phase out logos-lacking unknowables by a radically different appreciation of logoi: circumscription as a norm thus equalling a general suppression of infinitizing processes: alas, contradictory identity means the extraneous is intraneous ... thus finitism is no solution for stultification .. no exit from the pin of mutually-penetrating finitudes and infinitudes. Antitheses copulate ....

399. Interruption: what did the Greeks really know? They knew the beginning & end of all physics: looking out they knew 'dark skies going everywhere' - infinite & baffling night - and they knew 'bright skies here' - finite & baffling daylight; thus, like all humans, they knew boundless darkness & bound light: unfortunately, like all humans, they could not see boundless light .. (God)..

400. Objects - the perception of things "otherwise than me" - are made up of infinities: whatever substitutes are inserted, infinities remain .. "otherwise or not", infinities intrude ... Getting rid of the infinite - singular and plural - and the finite - like the infinite, singular and plural combined - is impenetrability penetrated, thus:

Lord, Almighty God, I am alive as Your negation: I actually live the eyes and penis of what You are not: contra Parmenides negation exists beneath divine understanding: where the storms of light are raging .. where my 'intellect' is raging .. where genius is f***ing ... metamorphosis is the love of You. My main

80 question is: how would God f*** ... ? I know the answer to this in deific anabasis (1): in the prosopic sea (2): as Christ succoured by Magdalene; but (3): only partly in the transmutation into a flagrant (homosexual) bitch. I'm learning the latter by proxy from my four 'wives' - three female, one male - and by watching orgasmic mistresses. As yet I cannot take this up high, because of tormenting complexities (and, perhaps, because it is not possible: however cf. nothing is impossible for God): thus, how far does sexuality go up into the imago Dei .. ? God is His own affirmative negation &c. Antithetical copulation is part of ensarkosis .. This is like libidinal alchemy striving for the purest gold & silver of divine love. Metamorphosis crucifies the libido below ... therefore the libido must swing up ..... Sometimes I feel there is limitless irony - connecting apeiron and eironeia - as if dissimulation through contrast is the main characteristic sc. contrast - antiphrasis - is the expression of two meanings simultaneously: thus, ultimately, infinitism and finitism as the polarities which presence dissimulation by the gods (goddesses) as men (and women). Obviously, this gives the lie to all poses of gender ... gender is inextricably linked with denial - e.g.s - heterosexuals deny the same sex, homosexuals deny the opposite sex: thus bisexuality attempts to unlimit these limits. The imago Dei is minimally bisexual - i.e. - as this is the lower end of deific (prosopic) sexuality ..... I actually know the sexuality preceding all prosopa - hence beauties queue below. Excitation is being bored stiff .. (.. a deific joke and daily truth). How am I torn? Between wishing oblivion - deific oblivion away from Heaven, with wounds healed, wounds inflicted by Christ Almighty, the wounds of howling injustice, alone, away from every conceivable holy entity - and immortal anger - anger so fierce because it appears to know better than this banal and lunatic shithouse, extending from the Throne of God outwards sc. I could do better if I were God Almighty. I sometimes wish I was fully armoured as God, monstrous with weaponry, wearing the caestus of glinting steel, of punishing enormity, ferocious with ready vengeance: thus I would fleshify every evil in Satan and make his legions incarnate (incarnate as his eyes & genitalia): then I would tear & smash & smite & rip & pound & shred & stomp his head & groin into a bloody cow-pat for ten thousand years: after which, with boots of merciless iron, clawed and white-hot, I would rend & tread his still-feeling carcass into the shithouse floor: finally, I would inflict and force-feed him gigantic psychoses and syphilitic shit - e.g. - academics & politicians & murderers & rapists & thieves &c. All the loving ones, on the other hand - we victims - peace & joy & glory forever; and the total beauty of absolute happiness...

81 401. But let me return you to something simple, as we continue to analyze the pagan Greeks. Let p and q be two points: if the two points are indistant, there is one point. Now what is this point p? First, it is an immediate antinomy - i.e. - if it possesses extension or dimensionality of some sort, it is not indistant to itself, that is, minimally it is a line; and if it does not possess extension or dimensionality of some sort, again it is not indistant to itself, that is, minimally it is nothing. Thus, second, a point p exists only if it is nothing - i.e. - otherwise it is a line, and a line is therefore a plurality of nothings. Now this dialectical process is immediately analagous to the contradictory identity of infinitizing finitude sc. the oxymoron of great and small is the macrocosm of the microcosm and the microcosm of the macrocosm. I believe the Greeks knew this process early on (at least from the VIth C. down), according to various levels of articulation - e.g. - it is possible that primitive stultification is a more advanced response than subsequent rationalizations. I will express this generally by saying a logos internally reverses itself (sc. alogos internally reverses itself). Dithyrambic shamanism - "theology" - is the only alternative to this overwhelming impenetrability: thus, in the pagan Greeks, divine illumination is coupled with the ungrounding of the logos - the alogicizing of the logos - whether the logos be thought of as measure, ratio, proportion, number, reason, limit, ground, thought or whatever .... The Greeks plumbed the depths equally with human kind in modernity & in this sense all pagan Greeks followed the tread of the eponymic myths of Pythagoras. Reconstruction step by step of Pythagoreanism is impossible, as the thoughts of dead intellectuals cannot be retrieved: however, sufficient remains of a fragmented milieu for us to sense their drift - e.g. - this profound tribe went in front of God's incarnation with deep insight into all theoretical foundations & demonstrated failure in all quarters - illumination & mathematics - because the Logos Himself, Innocence Almighty, had not yet stepped on earth. God raised the Greeks to precede Himself on earth sc. the limits of intellect gloriously failing, in much the same way as He raised the Jews to precede Himself sc. the limits of love failing glory ..

402. The antinomy of any element - point, monad, one, number etc - means p, q, r expresses this antinomy - e.g. - a point is a line or nothing or both. Consequently, a line is infinitely divisible, and if it approaches perceptible pointhood any specified point is again infinitely divisible:

82 thus a point is 'worn away' to nothing. Now nothing cannot exist - Parmenides' point - because the minimum of magnitude approaches itself infinitely. Between any arbitrary (finite) segment or interval infinity approaches nothing. I contend Zeno spiked Parmenides' one as one, as he simultaneously spiked Parmenides' pluralist opponents' one as many - i.e. - Zeno modified both the theory of one and the theory of ones. Zeno demonstrated that plurality is absurd by connecting infinitizing finitudes with any - thus every - one: he therefore negated any one in the premise of his own quasi-Parmenidean argument. To my mind Zeno is the greatest of pagan Greek philosophers because he shewed that the logos of identity annulls itself sc. that the logos of any element dispels the identity of that element. I therefore believe that subsequent Greek thought, especially that which is characterized by Aristotle & Euclid, is intentionally designed to deceive human kind sc. elements are re- introduced into theory as something unanalyzable, given, obvious, that is, as something self-evident conditioning & giving rise to all subsequent theory. I assert that there is nothing self-evident for p, q, r ... because the self - i.e. - one's self - is not evident. Zeno spiked man between the absurdity of the not-p of p and the p of not-p, viz, in their simultaneity: it is precisely this simultaneity which Aristotle denied in insisting on logical laws. But, as no element is subject to tertium exclusi - from identity - even self-contradiction is antinomial sc. there is no I in the I am which is not subject to logicizing & alogicizing manifestation - i.e. - simultaneously as it is not. There is an argument for Zeno preceding Hippasus historically, and both infinite divisibility and incommensurability have absurdity in common: if Parmenides attempted to rule out alogicizing negations in 'Pythagoreanism' sc. by the one preceding the indefinite dyad of infinitude & finitude inextricably fused, then this preceding one must be explained as preceding infinity - itself an absurdity - or this non- preceding one must be explained as indefinite - itself not one, another absurdity. To me it appears obvious that the indefinite dyad is the alogicizing logos - known well before the Platonici in BV

83 Pythagoras to - say - Speusippus is meant to put the effable into the ineffable (when even the effable is ineffable). The failure of this impossible endeavour - aggravated stultification compounded - resulted in vast theoretical forgeries by the µ"20µ"J46@\ sc. they became adherents of the doctrines of the limit or primitive finitists. The development of this compound stultification began in arithmetic & geometry as basic (mental) equivalents: both manifest insolubilia in their purported elements & therefore insolubilia return at all stages of their advance: consequently, only metamorphic theology provides a route through & beyond them: humans must become gods again as Christ intended. It is evident that all humans are humanists unless they again become divine: only then is infinity under foot.

403. Simplicius reports Zeno as saying that which is, is one only, without parts & indivisible - JÎ Ñ< «< ,É<"4 µ`<@< 6"Â J@ØJ@ •µ,D¥H 6"Â •*4"\D,J@< - i.e. - if it is not indivisible there will remain either 'ultimate magnitudes' - an infinite number of indivisible minima - or 'ultimate divisions into nothing' - made up of parts which are nothing sc. absurdity issues in either direction. Note that this is against the Parmenidean one in 'any which way': Zeno is not a mere disciple unless he admits of better and worse absurdities, that is, if he is as traditionally seen trying to shore up the one, he then inadvertently destroys both monism & pluralism (this legacy persists in Plato's failure in the theory of ideas). Obviously, to my mind, Zeno sees that nothing is one logically: a finite one divides infinitely - contradiction - and an infinite one is not one - contradiction: thus, if there is a one Zeno is arguing for, it is the alogicizing logos seen as one - this is 'good' - and not the alogicizing logos seen as two - this is 'evil'. Again obviously, this ungrounding of the ground means this ground is odd and even, odd or even, simultaneously. The numbers 1 & 2 in mathematics typify mutually-implicative absurdities sc. they are the ontological correlates of the logos alogicizing itself, and in this sense - in this overwhelmingly strong sense - Sein and number do actually coincide sc. they are madnesses embraced by immortals posing as men.

404. There is a section in Plato (Phil. 14d et seq.) which I take to corroborate my analysis, so (italics mine): 'There is a gift of the gods, evident at least

84 it seems to me, which they let fall from their abode: it came to mankind through Prometheus, or someone like him, together with a fire - sc. illumination - exceedingly bright. The men of ancient times - who were better than us & dwelled near the gods - passed on this gift as a saying: all things that are ever said to be consist of a one and a many & have in their nature a conjunction of limit and unlimitedness'. Evidently, this gives testimony that the Greeks did not see infinity 'over the horizon' - with a finitude here & infinity beyond - but spoiling together. This is not the arithmology of a primitive number superstition: it is a reference to early intelligence of a high order sc. to analytic discernment by thinkers who almost invariably coupled this kind of stultification with divine light. The authentic mathematici are those who thus repeal the alogicizing logoi of numbers - therefore, their manipulation & development - for this light. Divinity is above the stultifications of mathematici who proceed in calculations as if their developments thereby (somehow) negate impenetrable foundational problems. Impossibilities are made manifest for the Greeks: there is no way round them at all: infinitizing finitudes - then, as now - shatter all theories of number, •D42µä< 2,TD\"4, precisely because man here confronts his own impossibility. Irrationality f***s the logos as communicating something essential about anything. Irrationality and the logos are not alternate grounds - first one, then the other - they are the same spoiling together. Irrational numbers are neither odd nor even, and this means odd numbers and even numbers are essentially neither odd nor even sc. every number is neither odd nor even: so much for tertium exclusi, contradiction and identity. Pappus refers to this as the sea of non-identity: it is both the inwardness of man and his surround, and it is more living nightmare than sea: only the impossibility of the divine breaks it & brings man from it ... Man is such an aggravated creature that, encroached on by impossibilities always, he thinks God's existence is not possible, as if impossibility is a barrier to anything. The impossibility of God is His power, the back-hand of which He serves to those in disfavour sc. those refusing deific salvation in their preference for less. If only they knew a look at Heaven... but they did in having once dwelt there ... now they are hideous mortals.

405. Again, let us look at some of this in detail ... piecemeal, taking it as it comes. Parmenides is the link between 'Pythagoras' & Plato, not

85 historically - whatever that means - but in the transmission of insuperable problems, connecting ontological schemata with the divine. There is no ultimate theoretical coherence in all of this, as the pieces cannot go together. To say, with Pythagoras, that all is number means existence is paraphrased by number: Parmenides, for example, links JÎ Ñ< = JÎ ª< = ¦`< and, with this, predication is identification sc. ungenerated ª< is infinite ª< is unique ª< .... and so forth; however, naturally, these cannot be multiple identities as the one is all - i.e. - one is all oneness. Immediately this gives rise to insurmountable problems - e.g. - infinite ª< is thus identified as uniquely determinate, but it is quite legitimate to ask by whom? If it is identified as such by someone finite like Parmenides, and only the infinite ª< is, then Parmenides fails to exist before he makes the identification. Anything other than the infinite ª< is not, as what is cannot not be: this immediately equates logical argumentation per contra with its infinite opposite: thus, the antinomy of existence is everywhere infinite - sc. the alogicizing logos is the one negating itself as all oneness - or the finitude of nothing is - sc. antinomies issue either from p or not-p, existence or non-existence, infinity or not-infinity &c. What this means in fact for the high discourses of the Greeks is that eristic - dialectic proper - rules the roost. Eristic is not merely spurious argumentation - as if there exists argumentation which is not - it is argumentation based on the recognition that •

86 per impossibile - there is no contrary to argue from: ergo, all contrariety cannot be negated for the one, as negation does not exist. The one and the many - the limit and unlimitedness - are absolute impossibilities: in strictly implying each other, both others negate themselves as other; and as the same they differ ..

406. Let's recapitulate parts of this using different approaches. Allow p to stand for one, and not-p for everything other than p: ergo, not-p stands for many. Eristically, not-p includes many p's - i.e. - manyness includes many ones, and it is with ideas of this stripe that Zeno operates - e.g. - for him the one includes the many and many includes the one. Now let p stand for one of an infinite number of indivisible minima sc. for an ultimate (atomic) magnitude: this one remains if the one of all oneness is divisible. Ask yourself then what not-p stands for in respect of this minimum. Obviously, not-p here includes all other indivisible minima, but it excludes the one of all oneness which is divisible (because this includes p). Zeno, however, has stipulated that if the one of all oneness is divisible, then either indivisible minima remain or ultimate divisions into nothing remain: ergo, as ultimate divisions into nothing are not p, then not-p is equivalent to both indivisible minima other than p and ultimate divisions into nothing. Zeno, of course, is arguing per contra that the one of all oneness is indivisible, and this on the strength that ultimate magnitudes - minima or nothings - are absurdities - i.e. - indivisible minima are simultaneously divisible minima, as if infinite somethings are and are not infinite nothings sc. nothings are somethings if divisibility stops sc. divisibility appears to stop for somethings & appears to continue for nothings. Now by this process of eristic Zeno destroys apagogic method in its entirety - i.e. - one cannot shew that p is valid by reducing not-p to an absurdity: p also reduces to an absurdity - e.g. - the one of all oneness is merely the macrocosmic equivalent of p: let p stand for one of an infinite number of indivisible maxima, viz, the indivisible maximum, and the absurdity is patent. The infinite one - as maximum or minimum or both - antinomizes the negation necessary for its own construction - e.g. - if the infinite one of all oneness is the only one that is indivisible, then it is divided from the finite - absurdity - or it is non-finite - another absurdity - or its indivisibility includes division - yet another absurdity. But this, of course, is human logic, and one could very well surmise - given this alembic of absurdity - as to why metempsychosis was a Greek

87 response to infinite impenetrability, that is, as one cannot go through infinity, the return here appears as a viable alternative. Rebirth by shedding the blood of a criminal is another: then again, it took a perfect 'criminal' to rebirth man in Heaven .... His crime, of course, was to expose the divine publicly and manifest the holiness of immortality. His 'calling card' is to raise the dead and cure the insane - sc. a mite of reminiscence - a lifting of the hood, whereupon the gaze meets victorious innocence, after suffering the fetid & vicious ignobilities of this world. In God we are made of light: darkness is the alternative.

But enough: I can churn out this shit forever: thank Christ, less than forever: I'll come back to you with more 'up the line': easily conquering all human knowledge means suffering insufferably in seeing Christ Almighty facially. Consequence: thinking pain physically & emotionally sc. pain rids one of tantalizing (voluntary) illusion: pain destroys easy lies: better to be slaughtered by the raking storms of the (apparent) insanity of Almighty God than pretend to be only human. I love you, young lady, for your graceful courtesy ..

P.S.

Another (drunken) interlude: what is metamorphosis in Christ? It is certainly (in my case) a surfeit of f***ing - impotent rage brings on the aggravation of impotence - too much of that which easily arrives. For thirty-five years I have rutted astounding beauty: my plate is too full of degenerate ecstacy .. wild beauty beyond most human desires .. Christ knows I am obsessed with the power of beauty (which He always grants) .. alas, to exhaust me with the human best. But in the midst of all flagrant desire, depth intellect and death draws me otherwise. To change into a god in God is a mere touch from the Galilean: who would have thought that this Jew bastard - reviled of all & reviled by me - this bastard - reputedly dead & everywhere irrelevant - this bastard shewed me what divine ecstacy is. How would you feel alright .. ? That all anxiety, fear, worry, pain & horror should be lifted from you .. that you should die to the world .. that every agony should go .. all this is nerve-endings & flesh .. this is the minimum of metamorphosis. God is perfectly capable of transforming flesh into Heaven's inside. Height of intellect and death lures me on. God destroyed Himself at a human beckoning .. This indestructable immortal lives in all courageous & suffering love: I have seen Him contra all philosophers .. Alas, I have not seen Him recently, although now, again, great beauty f***s before my eyes, when I

88 cannot even be bothered. Sometimes this aggravates me as a terrible loss. God knows I need the love and savage desire intrudes. To hell with ultra-sex as I feel that divinized sexuality at its most powerful is, with everything else, insufficient recompense for the shit of my life ...

89 Note to Anne from Cretin City # 14.8/91.

Dearest 'bitch' ... !

Thanks for shoring up a chronically stressed bastard. Anger & pain & the entire nightmarish carousel careers through my outraged psyche with the most appalling intensity. It is a veritable regime of convulsions & spasms & goddamned aggravation - f*** spinal injury: what foundations for a romance ..! One minute I'm pitched into the redoubts of angst & the next washed on to some arcane shore, as defeated as Pinocchio, love-lorn, love-sick, & hammered into agony & torment ... For subterranean reasons this surfaces now & combines with cumulative stress, business (liquidity) problems, outraged nature in physical crisis - &c - which, with my infantile fury, ain't f***ing sweet ...... But, anyway, screw the wreckage, bring out the splendour! Many gracious & appreciative thanks for the ducky cuddles & slurpy gamahouching & soothing sweetness, and I especially enjoyed the profound slumber, wrapped around you, darling girl, which - in spite of my obvious tensions - gave a breath of pantherine enchantment to our evening. Our previous night's orgiastic mode placed tears on my cheeks, watching you being given a good seeing to, and then mounting you in the finale, with your flagrant & crimson kisses on Suzie's mouth & with Ralphie - pure Leon Bakst, strut of the faun, thighs of the satyr - utterly pulsing out the jissom - oh you darling spunky slut - and when you squatted, wet & hairy, on my face & rubbed your ass in - mongrel, barbarous, divine: you are the apotheosis of pure & rampant cunt-power .... Selah! For Christ's sake, get the gear, because you are going to flaunt it, bitch .... !

90 Letter to Anne from Cretin City # 15.9/91.

Dearest little rider:

Your digs sound appalling: so much for scholarly Oxford. You will feel much better here: at least we have the oriental design &c. I cannot wait to have my darling strutting again. As my filthy nymphette in a white slip - so innocent - with your hands on your hips & that expression - God, you bring me up .. And the finale: precisely what I meant to give you & you really got it. I loosed the jissom because of the fierce look of lust on a childlike face: that is precisely what I wanted to see, as mentality & expression combined bring one off best. I just loved the way you pulled your hair back when it went up & looked at me over your shoulder with your hole totally open, exposed like a wanton spunker. What a gorgeous augury of the sessions to come. I can dress you up for maximum excitement: I love to give it you stiff & kinky. I confess I planned it for Ralph to walk in when you were being had like that - daddy's young bride, in a wedding dress bought for the occasion. I intended him to have you because I wanted to see you shagged absolutely. I especially appreciated it when you talked like daddy's darling whore.Your sweet face fills me with delight & I go over you, inch by inch, thoughtfully, like a corrupting wolf, staring into your soul, savouring you & indescribably wanting you on me, shouting & sliding up & down as only you can in your inimitable way: married coming on 12. I am going to buy more kinky funware soon, because I'm certain we are all absolutely smitten by your cute abandon & exquisite nature. Suzie is in a turmoil & she has the hots for you. The fighting resistance she is putting up only increases her heat & so last night we took her upstairs & I assure you I've never heard her moan with pleasure so frequently. At the mention of your name I taunted her & we both gave her repeated seeings to, wishing you were here tremendously; and I told her she would have to look you in the face (no closing her eyes), whilst being stiffly rammed with you as mistress & onlooker. I said to her that if she was really dirty we would truss her up & have you enter dressed as a prostitute dominatrix, in your french stockings & red ankle-boots - &c - and do her according to your aggressive whims: this made her beg & cry & squeal & whimper: please .... O little darling, where are you .. ? I want you by my side, because thinking of our filthy courtship makes me want it up all the time. Think of some of the fun we have had already, as when you were had in front of the dusky maiden. I loved the show of the pair of you, especially when you were forced to plate her; and when you were totally molested by the two girls, who

91 held you wide open. .. I still envisage you now, feet high in the air, as they pulled you up to expose you. Your languages always help, as I bought you - urchin slag of the alleyways of Tezcatlipoca, riding the wild boys - from your mother. Does she please the hombre .. ? Well, she did that night when the girls wrote spunk slut on her raised behind ..

I am of late being regaled with narrated shit, as if there is nothing else but envy in the entire cosmos. Folk will dig holes for themselves & whine when the sides cave in. Deception of the self brings on unnecessary pain: what a fool Mr G. is ... An otherwise spiritual intelligence of astounding excellence, when it comes to thwarted libido he goes ape-shit into the realms of lunacy. Several of my mistresses he claims are rightfully his, yet all grimace at the thought. How on earth do folk manage to shaft themselves on sheer delusion? In Kurt there is the insinuation of malice - petty spite - but here is a man who knows better, being informed by all of his friends repeatedly, no, they were never your girl friends, never ever, not even remotely, yet in the distillery of his testicles he reconstructs reality, as if the direst phantoms of eroticism rightfully belong to him. Unfortunately, the rumour mill always operates with half truths, with folk investing their own angles & slants, but what mightily pisses me off is for my Oxford friends to presume & presuppose, as if they are as well-informed as me, particularly as the intimate ruttings involved in this involved me (not them). My 'axis' goes into regions few mortals could comprehend: in their wildest & most outrageous dreams, I doubt if there is arcane majesty .. I enter into scarlet oceans in which swim fantastic entities, billions of luminescent sea-horses, each playing different - unearthly - instruments - &c - and it is to this region above I am totally & ultimately committed: it is to the high redoubts of this I wish to ascend & I suspect - although this cannot be proved (thus the challenge emboldens) - that our mighty Christ allowed situations in my life - my unorthodox cockster's life - meant to bring on certain, mysterious results. To be raised to sit on the Throne of Heaven is a most dreadful thing - madness to affirm, impossible to deny - and why He does these things to me, I do not know. I must, therefore, constantly probe the great heights, praying to the celestial powers, sometimes in vicious agony, sometimes with laughing ease. I only hope I loved Him there, as I love Him here. On occasions - by the Almighty's let - I play God for real. I love the scent in the hunting of paradise but, more - in breaking through - I know what it feels like being Him, far above the f***ing mortal retards who rule the shit of

92 earth (drab retards who fail to dare for love's glory): thus, to be seated above, is to see the delight of innocence everywhere. Beneath, there is only the applause of corruption.

93 Letter to Mark A. from Cretin City # 16.10/91.

Given the upheaval in the past few weeks - repercussive negativity going the rounds, things emerging from overturned flagstones - I confess my enjoyment as the turmoil subsides. Though it now seems to be quieting down, with authentic & loving understanding on the return, the latest problem is Kurt, to whom Ralphie has taken my first missive. This says, in effect, that because he has made flyblown moves against my concubine over the last God-knows-how- long, she - not me - has quaffed the dish of cold vengeance & shewed him - via a devastating riposte - the power of the feminine. I think that all the previously repressed Sexualität - mishandled & mismanaged - is as raw as the sweat on nitro-glycerine: this - plus a goddess waiting to be unleashed by tigerish loins & midnight intellect, bright as a cascading furnace - means I inherit voluptuous beauty & writhing sweetness for my kinky bed. Ah, love and gorgeously-slurpy lip-gloss, eyes of furious passion! In close she is pantherine & primitive & paradisical, and she moves along the axis of seminal devastation. Now 12 year old nymphette-slut & virgin-bride adorned in the lingerie of white roses; clawing cannibaless of the gamahouche; clasping of the psychotropic cunt-mollusc - &c - all for the barbaric-simian god of libidinal-genius. When I first stared at her naked splendour & the prettiness of the femme absolute, I drank in living power & considered my ex-friend, Kurt, blind & deranged & an utter fool in failing to appreciate such a magnificent specimen of God's mighty daughterhood. This gorgeous bitch was fashioned on high from the tender kisses of Christ's mouth, empowered in perfection - finely wrought, pristine - and she came to me a thought's length beyond the zenith, beckoned in by immaculate fiat - thou appear, O wondrous daughter of my loins, so that I shall raise you into Heavenly places in the Kingdom of my intellect. O what a consummately juicy darling! I watched her emerge in the divine at a perfect angle of vibration ... stunning beauty .. and, thus, like a predatory god, I took her - she-child of the Virgin Queen high enthroned - straight into my gleaming mind .. I intend to effect the injunction 'bring her up' - you bet ... !

P.S.

Kurt was just here: we had an extensive chat. I insist his name is not short for 'courteous': as with Kant some names fit to a T. Things are somewhat better - temporarily? - and I analysed the rumour mill for him, dissecting current - negative - suppositions. The points I've made are essentially two in number: 1.

94 on journeying to the in-betweener zone - where the great height meets the spiritual down (both obviously beyond earth), I recognised her from out of the ancient of days sc. I have always known her, before the mortal rotting of the earth, and I think she inadvertently - 'unconsciously' - nay, mysteriously, sought me out - i.e. - via the destinate unconscious, not via the fallen id - as if this wasn't at all planned on the earthly plane. The Almighty shewed her to me comported in great divine beauty: this is not to say, holiness included, I did not think she should not be given a rampantly good seeing to my style; hence 2. I think she is mine & that the Kurt liaison is spent .. kaput .. dead of terminal boredom and the sewerage of English public-school manners .. lack of manners, that is, as befits a regime of emotional rejects who never connect to the deific internality of womanhood ... prostitutional use is his métier, confirming the fallen in their bleakness as ungods. I am one of life's 'losers' & he is one of life's 'winners' - but how to persuade him against brothelitis? and how to convince him the Cretin City golf club is not a venue frequented by the risen gods? This or that they may have - the bourgeois shits - but Christ Jesus allows me smoochey ultra-f***s of goddesses kissable & peachy in heights enormous & Heavenly - some loss .. !

95 Letter to the Darling Girl from Cretin City # 17.15/91.

Was it not interesting, our weekend .. ? After my initial snarl-up peace descended and you were mucho coochie. I just like being around you. I'm glad you were tough with Kurt, because he deserves you to rake him somewhat, priceless darling that you are. He fails to see that condescending civility reeks of the morgue: he puts his own psyche to death by snide triviality. Formality is a form of distance, signifying unlovingness: it is a characteristic of insane bureaucrats, stiff arseholes & stiffs in general. Heat comes from radiant minds - from the blast-furnace of love - minds in which the heart dwells. I confess that to sit there & to watch him actively 'cut his own throat', unawares, saved me the task. I feel he will descend to his own level emotionally: alas, taking others with him. You deserve a much higher appreciative mode. I think you will break out into yourself - potentiate upwards, rise into arcane animality - whilst maintaining that mature concern for integrity, which ought to (but doesn't) motivate everyone. Kurt strikes me as having an unpleasant streak - pettiness, weak aggression - which he should erase, if it is merely aberrant & marginal: but we will see ... At some stage we are going to have to go into detail about your emotional and sexual complex: we need to look at it from deep & oblique angles. Some situations tend to have complicit & voluntarist elements and/or deep unknowns coursing through them. Nothing should remain unfathomed: imagine a frozen ocean, chartered by the reticulate & numerate, which - at the snap of one's fingers - surges utterly. First we must look at the surface & then at the forces shaping it. I think you were on 'hold' with Kurt & superficiality aided this. I think your liaison was engendered to stabilize the surface. Underneath is the paroxysmal vortex of the rape: it is this I am going to loose. Lines in Schiller are relevant:

Aber das Ungeheure auch Lerne erwarten im irdischen Leben!

What is monstrous - that also Learn to expect in earthly life!

Das Ungeheure - the monstrous, the inhuman - is not extraneous to man: this you know by experience. I will show you how to deal with it: first comes recapitulation, then mastery. You must return to the scene of terror, strangle the demon, then free the innocent within. I will aid you in this .... Meantime, kid, I

96 am still messing around with crisis factors on the domestic front - real ones, including my own, because this is not a minor thing we have entered into & there are some powerful emotions in play here. I trust your gracious ways to smoothe troubled brows. This is a rough patch & some of the negativity is acutely painful, bloody persistent and recurring. I believe that the eventual yield will be utterly positive, lovely and good. Yesterday evening I talked with Mr D. - a dubious intelligence, in respects highly suspect - but I tried to get over the power of the eyes of love in seeing divinized form. I think this was lost on him. Likewise with Miss J. - the hog's breath of female envy intervened. I suggest you do not apologise to Kurt, as I found his tone supercilious, hectoring and pragmatic. Let him take the negative recoil - he was prepared to do this to you. There are huge pieces missing from his analyses: he is into cheap 'cavalierism' & emotions of a mechanistic fashion. I believe you did him a good turn by bitching him, regaining some composure and status into the bargain. The cheap-shot reply to Shaheda shews the impact you achieved. Too many females take male shit with acquiescence, so I am delighted you gave a salvo back. Apologies would simply subtract from the reversal. I learned many years ago: if someone does not love you, they are not good enough for you. Shake off the offending party like dust from your heels. No labyrinthine & extensive second thoughts. You have already secured triumph: thus savour it without guilt: just use 'the knife' again, should it ever become necessary.. Later: I am really pissed off with the troupe of cretins passing through my life. Moronic breath-wasters, comatose bastards .. living death incarnate: no life, no brains, no spirit .. Ugh! .. Unfortunately, they have the propensity to smear my energies like a shitty rag. Stupidity is largely a voluntarist state. I am surrounded by eight or nine thousand volumes .. many hundreds of masterpieces. A typical conversation goes like this: "Nothing today, thank you" - "There's nothing any day, is there?" "Pardon? What!?" "Don't thank me - I'm not responsible". These pretentious sub-literates want to be down & repulsive, like maggots writhing through life. They leave a trail of tumid slime .. disgusting, debased, imbecilic. No wonder I crave miraculous fulminations, empowered theophanies & raised life. Gimme, gimme, O Lord - only more! Yesterday evening I entered into into the wondrous realm of high prayer - i.e. - into the reality of metamorphic life & not the institutionalized shit purveyed by ecclesiastical tossers .. where our Mighty God resides in states of towering & overwhelming genius .. sacred, sweet, utterly kind and highly approachable. We had 'things to discuss', above the sullen thunder's roll - some contest! He fills my

97 intellect with vistas of immense brilliance & the mystic eye of the spirit fills with sheer and unmitigated magnificence, the subtlety & glory of which is beyond all expression. The quasi-absolute tonnage of human information - the barbed wire of propaganda, ideology and advertisement - is meant to block off mystic vision & the dirty bastards who killed the Lord of Glory still run the entire f***ing abattoir, like mutant idols & pig-arsed garbage, keeping up the conspiratorial lie that the King of Men either does not exist and/or is dead and/or is accessible only after death, only because one mere contact with Him in reality reveals the filthy stench of their deeds ... the murder, the torture, the purposeful affliction & savaging of children & innocents - etc etc - all of which, every rotten iota & tittle, will stand howling before them in absolute horror on the judgment day of each particular death. Run they might, hide they cannot. Every mine, bullet, shell, grenade .. will return to the mind that made it. Vengeance is His & He will exact it .. Much later: so, another night of gorgeous riding & the planning of sultry, arcane and erotic pleasures. Mostly, the human race is ignorant of even mid- range erotic forms: those who cannot f*** as gods cannot f*** at all. The glory of paradox is that the God Who supposedly extirpates erotic passion, immeasurably raises it as He will. Humanity without the divine is a smouldering pit of immorality: where do they think their sex is at .. !? It is natural to be divine, un-natural not to be: what do they think they are engaging in .. !? Answer: the dark sexuality of the blackening clouds of fallen consciousness is the mutual f***ing of monsters ... the fall is the twisted uglification of f***ing ... transience f***s death & fallen males own corpses as penises (hence the epithet 'stiff') .. Alternatively: the gods rise in the light. More of this later - definitely!

98 Letter to Anne, 11/91

Let’s look at some of it, starting with the rape. Rapists - like thieves - are the shit of the world, largely tolerated for engendering non-deific uglification. Thieves inhibit the enlargement of beauty - why bother enhancing beautification & why presence it, as it will be thieved away and thus ungeneralized? Beautification must be kept down and spoiled & smeared - the beauty of Heaven and its inhabitants is then forgotten and replaced ... Rape is spoilation & intended shitification - in marring beauty Heaven is made more remote .. more impossible. Whatever motives rapists operate out of are foul. As you know they inject traumatic consequences, which have to be theoretically unravelled. One consequence is the multiple-bind, which even in its simple (dyadic) form causes pain and confusion in the psyche. One double-bind you are suffering from is that of having your pleasure-centre (literally) “f***ed over”. Thus, we’ll examine this in some detail. All healthy “humans” - we’ll get to what this implies later - tend to veer away from pain and homeostatically seek pleasure, that is, as a balance. This tendency is, however, not always ratified during earthly life. Pleasure is almost impossible to define, because it rests on the mysterious and arcane centre of creativity implicit in the god or goddess. Pleasure is not simply a childhood construction from instinct, drive and appetite, although this is certainly one of its (powerful) modes. Within us we carry the ‘remnants’ of paradise, deific fragments and the parameters of Heaven - these are literal energies in the quaternity of body, brain, heart and groin. Note that the heart is a power, not just an organ ( .. similarly as the genitalia is not merely organic). Obviously, this complicated ‘manifold’ can be abused in a vast number of ways. It can be subject to complex negativity, because its ‘networking’ is immense. Ain’t life complicated, as it is said. In your case we are dealing with sexual trauma and traumatizing aftermath. Trauma, if it hooks into the pleasure-centre(s), almost inevitably produces complications and an unsettled dynamic. Apparently, you had a healthy inclination to pleasure (viz) the delightful “naughty girl syndrome”, a mixture of fun-seeking curiosity and libidinal naivety. In reality this is the normality of play transposed into adult life. Things can go wrong, and with you they did. Your attractiveness ‘naturally’ brings out predators, undoubtedly the whole range from foul bastards, bags of shit etc to ‘alright guys’. But with you - raped by both male and female simultaneously - an immoral intrusion merged with part of the quaternity - body, brain and groin, but not with the heart. Rape succeeds in feeding in an ‘alien glitch’, or symbiotic form, into the psyche, which can become habituated and parasitic, especially as it creates compound derivatives. Trauma can become identified with want. Hence (say) with the example of the flasher I gave you. A child experiences flashing: shock/fear

99 merges with sex/pleasure. Thus, a quantitively-positive response is elicited in a vicious paradox, along the following lines: “My drives react positively to sexual pleasure, but I should not be reacting positively to shock/fear, as the latter is not pleasurable”. This particular situation can negatively-load future libido enormously, if the trauma cannot be separated out analytically. In your case, especially as the attack was insinuated rather than overtly violent, the waking up (mid-way) into pleasure has yielded two salient consequences:

(1). Confusion between the +’s and -’s of immature rape phantasies of the ‘all girls enjoy rape’ variety, which - as it actually occurs - switches on the truth implicit in that idea, namely, that body, brain and mind would naturally activate and enjoy. This of course gives the rapist his/her foul excuse - i.e. - a wrong use of the natural idea that ‘all girls enjoy rape’. The rapist really hates the heart and thus forcibly and aggressively uses the other ‘triad of forces’ (body,brain,groin) against it. F***ing is used against love and love-f***ing. The rapist then opposes sexuality, and the usual cry of ‘castrate him’ in truth reflects that.The cry from lesbiana, incidentally, reflects something else, that we’ll deal with elsewhere.

(2). Ego-condemnation and/or self-abasement with the usual misplaced guilt and anxious frigidity - i.e. - post-traumatic effect, based on the pervading ideas of complicity in shock or conspiratorial voluntarism in victimization. Okay, so hear my reasoning and/or (partial) figuring of you, as a means of getting some ideas over to you. Of course there was complicity. Of course you wrong-footed yourself. Of course you were naive, silly, rebellious, adventurous, etc. So what? Only the dead aren’t. But essentially you were an enforced victim, used against yourself. Your heart never assented, because the heart in essence is united with the highest reaches of the Imago Dei, which requires the Holy Ghost to love. No stinking rapist can take out something so precious to God and to yourself. He intends to inject demonic chaos into the psyche, but God Almighty is totally capable of re-ordering it: the light of the Holy Ghost shines thru’ the heart’s innocence, which is virgin pure, and knows that body, brain and genitalia are Christ’s territory, not Satan’s. For too long the human race has been in profound - and, in many cases, wilful - ignorance of its own anthropological centre. Half- truths dominate in mutually-exclusive forms of specialization. All existence belongs to God Almighty. The fleas on the lion’s back insist the lion belongs to them. Not so! The human race - erring, wicked, brutal, bloody - that mutant species of the divine - is ruled over by God, whether it likes it or not, do as it may. His genius was hidden from Freud in the latter’s psychology. Freud examined the dark side of the pysche to the limit of his conceptions, perceptions and presuppositions. God is the greatest of all psychologists - shucks, folks, He’s even slightly cleverer than me - and He is quite capable of conquering any soul. With you, young lady, He is showing you the virginity of love, as a recompense for the love besmirched in you by treacherous human beings.

100 Innocence is the greatest virtue in the entire universe. Yours was attacked when your heart sought love and sexuality. This fed ambivalence into you, and caused the following situation, which I usually characterize as chaste Artemis versus sensual Aphrodite.The relationship between these two sisters can assume many forms: Artemis can be superior to Aphrodite; her equal in every respect; or inferior on occasions. In this sense the term ‘versus’ is ambiguous, so let’s define its use. Only one real condition should exist between the sisters: if the two sisters always love each other, they can be superior, equal or inferior.The two sisters are the antipodes or extremes of feminity, existing in every female. If the two sisters hate each other, the ‘versus’ heralds a war within. If one sister loves and the other hates, there is no peace between them. But if the two sisters love each other, they will operate in perfect harmony, and the contest implied in ‘versus’ will be one of delight, play and pleasure. Take sensual Aphrodite, for instance. She has many personae: temptress, whore, polyandrous bitch, multi-orgasmic slave, etc, etc., all of which are ‘personified’ in the female libido. Frankly, I think they can be assumed in the male libido also; else how could one really empathise/connect/sympathize/know the female? During sexuality the ego moves nearer the libido - i.e. - the ego adopts personae so as to generate excitement and orgasm, for the sake of pleasure, homeostasis and relief. In your case the rapist ‘forced your whore mode’, so that what should be lightly enjoyed in play became traumatic. It is natural to enjoy ‘flaunting it’ and being deliciously dirty, as slag/tart/puta/whore (etc.), because these are the personae of Aphrodite. What the rapist did was to transform something of yours which should be pleasurable into fear; hence instead of approaching your own private whoredom voluntarily and easily, with whom you wish, when you attempt to do so you think that is your ego per se - as such - and thus you indict yourself as responsible for the rape. That is, you ‘identify with the aggressor’. You are like a person who loves dogs and who is savaged by a bull mastiff; therefore, who wrongly supposes that it is the loving which led to the savaging. I am attempting to treat you like a whore to bring up the fear, so that - bit by bit - the fear is recognized for what it is - an alien superimposition - meant to imprint a sadistic form onto your pleasure-centre. The rapist tried to substitute his ego-libido in place of your pleasure-centre: you no longer have pleasure there, but him. I’m trying to reverse the process by substituting me for him, and by trading in pleasure for fear. Ralph and I suspect the dirty bastard was trying to pimp you. A pimp kills a girl’s pleasure-centre, many times by completing a girl’s ruin, that is, in many cases there was already damage done by others. Most whores do not feel pleasure, but have already substituted something for it, such as fear of the pimp, a drug habit, etc. Hence they idolize the pimp who appears to be doing good, for example, by giving them ‘support’, ‘affection’, ‘dope’ and - or whatever, whilst manipulating them for base and coarse ends (i.e. money, in its profound sense of ‘filthy lucre’).

101 During our relationship - from the very first letter - I have run images of whoredom over your pysche . This was tactically designed as a multiple-option: to intrigue, thrill, pull and frighten you, so as to illicit repressed material and present it through your body into your consciousness. At the same time I have showered you with real love and have therefore presented back to you your own goodness and innocence. In other words, I have simultaneously evoked both Artemis and Aphrodite - loving sisters in unison - so that, through their union, they can defeat the demonic ogre Raoul-Phobos and his stinking Germanic procuress. His ‘victory’ over you is in securing Aphrodite for his own use, but that we are going to deny him. When you enjoy being a dirty tart - i.e. - when your ego (or, better, when you) - freely choose to unite with whichever persona you so wish and desire, without fear - you will be cured. Aphrodite is struggling to be free. It is because she wanted to be free that you went to Sumatra in the first instance. Artemis and Aphrodite always work in tandem but - know this- Artemis is the main axis around whom her sister dances. Artemis of the pure heart cannot be happy if her sister is bound, frightened, disturbed, restless or in any way damaged. You had to go through hell, but Heaven is returning. For the first time since I have known you, I begin to see really good signs of emergent health. Strangely, or paradoxically - it is that which caused the malaise which will cure it. The cure of fear is inside fear. Avoidance maintains the injury. You are beginning to gain the confidence to exercise your ‘smarts’. You put the bull mastiff down by visiting the dog-house, not by going in the opposite direction. What I’m doing is to accompany you, making sure that though you quake in facing your fear, face it you do. You are going to back it down, with my encouragement. F*** the bull mastiff - you have a mad dog as an ally! 6th Dec (continued). It is now three weeks since I began this, and you continue to experience things previously unknown to yourself, but things which every cognisant being should have knowledge of, especially where they relate to the depths of the psyche. I’ve managed to give you a crash course in the dynamics of repression, taught you in ‘time-honoured’ fashion the (Freudian) ideas of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, Nietzche’s “too long has the world been a madhouse”, the fact that the cunning of desire rules, how the privileged irresponsibility of childhood cannot altogether pass into adulthood but how the infant body chafes against the reality-principle in a life-long war, etc. etc. I’ve also, hopefully, mapped out for you a zone beyond the Freudian - which ends in a pragmatic pessimism - in saying that the antipodal forms of the psyche - Artemis/Aphrodite - can merge, but it is precisely what this means we need to look at in detail. Freud was a great genius alongside whom very few - Nietzsche is one exception - can compare. His work on the instincts/drives/emotions is very impressive, as are the results of many of his followers. However I tend to diverge from him where solutions are concerned. There are certain things in (say) the psychoneuroses, which seem to be ineradicable and not susceptible to

102 treatment. For example I’ve told you about ego-exoneration in the Oedipal war, and how it is used by obsessives to make secondary gains. Your transference is going quite well, because you are fighting negativity. I know you are feeling dreadful, mainly because the ‘return of the repressed’ - i.e. - you are being made to deal with an apparent over-load, daily energy is being diverted to your problems rather than external relations, and you are feeling the trauma of re- living the trauma. This is absolutely necessary as repression leads to a pyschic festering and an enduring symptomatology, with the latter producing (eventual) peculiar behaviour. So let’s sum up fairly roughly your ‘state of play’ so far, not forgetting that it is on-going and that there are many deeply-embedded positives within you. What you have developed is self-hatred via the guilt of complicity in an offshoot of the Oedipal situation. Hence, you deny love to your body by refusing it excitement and orgasm. This severance (schizoid splitting, critical dissociation, etc. - it has many descriptions) works in conjunction with repression (Verdrängnis, fetishization, partialization ), as a means whereby you can deal with the trauma. However , theoretically speaking, real trauma antedates any particular trauma, in that the life we are born into is initially traumatic - i.e. - we are born into immanent death with its immediate cognates - dread, horror, fear - impinging on the psyche. Thus the organism - in that it is animal - uses ‘partialization’ to contain horror for survival; indeed, the parental nexus trains it for this - largely unconsciously - negating polymorphous peversity, and by reducing the infant to dependence on the cerebral-genital arc. Now some partialization is necessary and the infant is party to it; but if there is ‘too much’ or ‘too little’, dangerous consequences ensue. Now obviously, the fact that partialization is necessary at all, signifies that ‘life is a traumatic sickness’ and that we shield ourselves against it by recourse to a delusional response: we lie out of necessity, and this comprises our predominant defence-mechanism. Now this is all very well, and the thoughts I have given you are fairly standard in pyschoanalytic history. But at this point there is still open debate and contending theories vis-a-vis Freudianism and post-Freudianism. I’ve tried to initiate you into some of the discussion, specifically using Otto Rank against Freud’s ideas of a ‘death instinct’, pointing out to you that the existence of death is partialized in Freud by a constructivistic formulation, and thereby falsified. The point is: although Rank is on surer ground, he - along with most psychoanalysts - fails to find a solution ‘for death entering the world’.This is quite understandable philosophically, given the conclusions reached in western culture. I’m not going to digress into Schopenhauer - Freud’s chief intellectual master - but because I read to you the stuff on Kiekegaard, a few words are in order. Neither Kierkegaard, Freud, Rank et al. - though they defined life’s main problems brilliantly - knew of the solution. Take Kierkegaard, whose knowledge of abnormal pathology was profound. Kierkegaard belonged - like many unfortunates - within the Protestant tradition, and thus his roots go back (through

103 Luther) to Augustine of Hippo. Augustine has been a pet-hate of mine for many years, because I rate him - with Aristotle - as one of the main villains in the history of theory. Augustine committed two cardinal blunders which have ensnared vast numbers of people ever since. (1). he legitimized ‘necessitarianism’, an odious form of self-stultification and gross error, itself a form of partialization ; and (2). he considered God Almighty as essentially unreachable during life, an untruth so profound that it reduces - i.e. - partializes/represses! - God to the level of a schematic abstraction , metaphor or analogy. Where Kierkegaard is concerned, he made the mistake of ‘picking up this latter tab’ as an unimpeachable fact. Of course, the next step with this viewpoint is reductionism taken to an insane degree - say, in Freud - ‘abstractionism implies God has no existence’. What use is a metaphor in investigating animality/instinct/drives/das Es/(etc)? Rank tried - whilst subscribing to partialization - to reinstate religiosity, whilst keeping in mind the sad fact that many of its adherents are indeed pathological. Freud’s suspicions were largely well-founded: there are many religious maniacs ‘out there’, running the whole pitiful spectacle. But the truth is: Kierkegaard, Freud, Rank repressed the reality of God. This is now customary with psychoanalysts, with their theories of projection, sublimation, father-figures, etc. Paradoxically, I would go along with them in their analysis of the reality of terror, the mechanisms and devices used against it, and so forth. I applaud Freud’s genius and that of his like. However, against ‘em I will always support the greatest psychological genius the world has ever known - no, not me, folks, I’m only running a close second! - that ‘crucified Jew-bastard’ who rode on a donkey through Jerusalem, Mr. Jesus Christ. This is the guy who shews up the ‘illogicality of logicians’ and the ‘sickness of healers’. Those who presume to heal exhibit ‘fear and trembling’ and ‘sickness unto death’. They are hoisted on their own petard - decline, disintegration, decay, death. And still they cannot take a ‘f***ing broad hint’ ! Wankers! Cretins! When will they learn! Those to whom God is a ‘non-existent abstraction’ have merely failed to find the Kingdom of Heaven that is within, which is what He indicated in saying, ‘physician, heal thyself’. No-one can cure death and its appalling introjections - slaughter, massacre, murder - except God; so for the pyschoanalyst to take money as if ‘the cure’ is obtainable is a piece of shit-rigging chicanery and downright magic which flies in the face of pure honesty. However, l’il duckie, don’t ya worry, ‘cuz what God gives is utterly free. But on with my thesis, kid! Let us have a closer look at Aphrodite, she who carried the epithet ‘Urania’ (alias ‘Heavenly Dweller’). Aphrodite was born from the ‘white foam’ produced by the severed genitals of Uranus (‘Heaven’), after his son Cronos (‘Time’) threw them into the sea. Aphrodite was the goddess of prostitution, and the Gk. ‘aphros’ means ‘foam’ (L. spuma). Given the inner content of the myth ‘spume’ is a surrogate for ‘sperm’ (Gk. speirein - to sow) or

104 ‘semen’ (L. serere - to sow), despite any obvious philological connection . It’s all there: patricide, castration, identification of womanhood with absent genitalia, insemination, etc. Evidently it is impossible to castrate a female in precisely the same way as a male, but frigidity is a form of castration, in your case induced by trauma. Whence the word ‘trauma’ and its genealogy? ‘Trauma’ is the Gk. for ‘wound’ and it is directly cognate with ‘throe(s)’: to put in agony: to cause to suffer - e.g. - death throes: OE. thrawu = threa, from where the word ‘threat’ or ‘punishment’ derives. cf. OE. throwen - to suffer. Now, after the abortion, you indicted yourself with the words - seen written by a hand in one of your dreams - “You have committed a sexual sin”. At the cost of being pedantic, let me point out something to you concerning the etymology of the word ‘dream’. Its earliest meaning is the ON. draumr, akin to OHG. troum, and to MG. der Traum. It appears to have escaped the notice of scholars that ‘dream = trauma = wound’, but it is evident enough. Now I’ve suggested to you that the hand that wrote is yours, but we all know the story in the O.T. about the ‘writing on the wall’ i.e. - by the hand of God, plus the idea of ‘sin’ is religious and thus connected to God. So, supposing that God has forgiven you your ‘sin’, let us have a look at some ideas about this. ‘Sin’ - in essence - is equivalent to the ‘negation of love’. Hence, in aborting your child, you ‘negated love in yourself’; or, worse, you ‘negated the love of yourself’. Now why did you do this? In negating love in oneself, one substitutes self-hatred, condemnation, punishment and pain: one purposely wounds oneself. Why? The question is: what did you abort? In conceiving a child you did what your mother did; but the child you killed is you. Hence, here we see death-surrogation in the form of suicide, and this links in with frigidity and the severance of your genitalia, symbolic but real. Now you connect this, via association, with shame. And the cause of your shame is the wish for erotic impropriety, or the impulsion towards Aphrodite. There’s a line in Byron: “Every woe a tear can claim except an erring sister’s shame.” The ‘sister’ in your case is judged over-harshly by the ‘über-Ich’ or Ego-Ideal - Artemis - who opposes herself in another form. It is Aphrodite who weeps and suffers, because of the intensely painful conflict between her ‘high’ and ‘low’ self. I constantly tell you, and your dreams and nightmares bear this out: There exists one you torn into two. Whoredom is in everyone (viz) the immorality of the Id. The common streetwalker is one who sacrificed Artemis so that Aphrodite can reign supreme. But because, in reality, Artemis-Aphrodite is one goddess who can enjoy two personae, the streetwalker lives as dead Aphrodite, or as someone who kills erotic pleasure with the death of morality. Your feelings of ‘wishing to be a prostitute’ are valid. The two sisters should be in a symplectic relationship, because a coincidentia oppositorum yields harmony. When Artemis condemns her lower self - i.e. - when she debases her lower self by accusations of unworthiness - Aphrodite retaliates by releasing waves of filthy images. One goddess cannot fairly condemn the other without chaos, because they are

105 essentially the same. There is only one you, and Artemis should be in Aphrodite as Aphrodite is in Artemis. They should exchange ‘properties’ - a communicatio idiomatum - or energies, and thus unite in power. You know what happens in Catholic countries: the rigid and punishing division between Virgin and Whore - a strict disjunction - results in a largely unattainable ideal and a self-condemnatory debasement by the majority of women (a f***ing rotten put-down of God’s daughters). In the Gospels our Mighty Nazarene reconciles the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene in the mutually-reconciling love of each. It was without doubt his beautiful intention that chastity and sensuality, morality and eroticism, the super-ego and the id - call it what you will - be united in driving out pain. Much tragedy occurs when the ‘good opposes the good’, in that the good in one’s enemy cannot be seen.Your fear is essentially groundless; the eternal female within - which is what you truly are - is only afraid if one of the ‘two sisters’ dies.They are mutually-beloved ‘objects’, one of the other, vitally necessary to each other, inseparable, like mind and body. Should harm come to one, the other suffers. They should love each other in each other, as ‘the one’ keeps ‘the other’ alive. If one or the other wanes, then death stalks the pysche, probing for weaknesses. No wonder female monks become emaciated and ghastly. The strangling of Magdalene by the Madonna is not love, but criminal murder. Better they were lesbian lovers, sweet with kisses and gentleness, trusting in the God of Love who created them both. The glory of prostitution is not that its wages be sin, but that it should be paid in love. Yours is the failure to love yourself, the remedy for which is so easily achieved. Christ the Most Holy loves you unutterably, as does the Virgin Queen of Heaven - She who pours out Her Immaculate Light on you - and so do I, your good friend ... Jim

106

Letter to the Darling Boy from Cretin City # 18. 16/91.

Last night I received a visitation from the fiend in all his snarling power. In coming from a sub-zero nightmare, I awoke amidst Satan's hordes. The monsters are usually ice putrified: Satan is never - contrary to superstition - hot. Perversely, I took his visit to be complimentary, as we must really be bothering the bastard. The beast is not a fiction: this we both know from incontrovertible confrontation. It took me possibly ten minutes to get rid of him, filthy scumbag that he is. Some mighty prayers were offered to our Goodly Master, Whose Name alone sends the f***less maggot reeling. This is precisely the point about Satan - i.e. - in never having dared take flesh, he is essentially f***less: hence, he entices vile humans to rape, mutilate & murder God's girls. Christ's Name alone is sufficient to fry the demonic in its own excrement. Hopefully, you were not assailed, although I was cognisant of your similar experience in Thailand & cross-referenced it, thinking you were quite probably (knowing you) engaged in some deliciously kinky naughties at the very same time. Envy of erotic love must really piss Satan off & he is only bigger than humans when they give him themselves - i.e. - Mephistophelian hogshit - but in Christ the Saviour he is reduced to the size of his own rotting phallus .. as charming as a maggot. Enough of trivia. Yesterday was fairly aggravating but amusing; and, of course, there are still tearful repercussions from various parties but, as you said, they are on to a hiding for nothing & if anyone thinks our sultry princess is either up for grabs and/or can be reclaimed by emotional reminiscence or whatever, it ain't so. She is under my wings now & thus under ours & others can regret as they please. Kurt was gentlemanly - of suspect deportment - and I am informed he is touting Shaheda around Oxford. Hopefully, she will assist him to realign his heart & scrotum. Mr G. - our dearly deluded friend - must hustle his own & leave mine be. I loved yesterday as it went on, barking dogs & pestiferous flies & intrusive phone calls notwithstanding; and when I finally ultra-mounted the darling, with her childish visage lusting absolutely & beautiful hair flaying ... well, son, possession at its orgasmic zenith & enmuscled ferocity, big, stiff & kinky - yowee!! gimme more & more! God, her ass & genitalia are divine marvels & of the sheer hundreds I've ravished & been ravished by, our darling rider is super-class. She revived my old hustling days in Chelsea when I became cockster No. 1 & simply reinforced the truism that instincts & emotions go backwards. It is no wonder that the beast is envious of such girlie beauties .. Imagine being a psychotic archangel never having enjoyed f***ing love .. When she came in from Heaven during my upward search, her faces shone with the sublime magnificence of plenitude & plethora, all divine ... alas, poor dumb earthlings who do not enjoy His majestic power and cannot f*** as gods ...

107 Note to Mark A. from Cretin City # 19.20/91.

A rewarding weekend with much profound agony .. a sustained emotional chain reaction. Hell 'n' me are unwitting familiars, but I am working on the principle that blasphemous discharge is a learning experience: it is gut criticism wrenched up by ungripping pain. Some recoil .. fleame - phlegm - on the icons, but my collection is now too expensive to rend yet again into kindling. Maybe I am getting the smarts going into old age. Strange how minor slights fire off gigantic repercussions in the human breast: perhaps it is Donne's murderous embryo lurking within, 'fitted for works of darkness' ... Finally, it got peaceful again and His Glory shone around. I was thinking of your father last night - master of 30 languages, virtually ignored - thinking that, when his mortality finally ends, he is in for some magnificent delights .. because I was peering in - better, I was in peering around - and, shucks, son, it is absolutely beautiful ..... Earth is merely a waste product, an excrement .. I think blasphemy is shot through with both godly & ungodly criticism: it is gleaning the godly which is important. The safeguard is Christ's absolute innocence, but the negative charge is God's apparent indifference, sadism & cruelty. His cruelty to me as a young lad echoes through the years. I thought it was done & forgotten & mended - it ain't, because sheer pain forces up the long past & scatters it over raw nerve-endings. Much of my visionary capacity comes through trying to understand the significance of personal horror ... so it is really an on-going dialectic & a long-fought war, which gives rise to cursing fury, especially the cursing fury I could do better. Rimbaud envisaged himself as a demon bargaining with the Almighty - cure the world & I will destroy hell - and Nietzsche devoured his own shit, confirming horror & indicting God. I try to figure the finale by reconstituting Godhead and, methinks, there is possibly an elemental 'set up' or a subconscious series of prompt cards evincing this reaction, or, more probably, the Ancient of Days is f***ing my brain (.. to use a carnal metaphor for God is f***ing my brain). Anyway, be that as it may, it is wiley coyote time once again & many of the high byzantine theoretical formulations I've topologically creased & I am managing (or thinking I am managing) to get my plonker past the Seraphic Guardians of the Gate, without - that is - having hot coals placed in my empty eye-sockets by long-dead Calvinists of the risen Inquisition. Kurt is becoming a bourgeois prick - becoming!? - and he has been knobbing a darkie, that is, on the dining room floor (by all accounts) to convince passing householders he can get it up. Wait until he takes her home for dinner. It is alright in principle, but enter Calcutta will result in apoplexy. Why don't they stay with their own kind ..!? The bourgeoisie I mean ... and leave us happy bunch of bastards alone. Things are petulantly fraught enough without raising a poor girl's hopes that she can take tiffin with the toffs. There has been much theoretical discourse about everything, including a 12 page balance sheet from

108 Kurt listing Anne 's lustings after Ralph .. with the result that there was a terse conversation, which almost put me off my drinking ....

109 Note to Almighty God from Cretin City # 20. 21/91.

You to Whom I owe my mind, measureless thanks. Of late, my Lord, I am undergoing a terrible crisis: nothing altogether new, rather powerful configurations of pain surging through in strange convolutions. My hatred of You, blasphemous & sneering, appears again in horrendous convulsions & dreadfully frightening symptoms. Aghast I review my state with terrible fear. It seems, on occasions, I am breaking down with vicious disappointments. My spinal injury, of unknown consequences, riles the emotional bedevilment. Crisis appears after crisis. My pain occurs as chronic stress & as unique form. My lack of power galls me beyond endurance & I feel aggravated, frustrated, hurt & angry. My temper is virtually uncontrollable & damaging in its repercussions: yet You, O Master, lead me into fabulous domains. I am fully aware of my intellectual insight: nothing human surpasses it & few can approach it. My two companions in prayer on Mt. Athos are now dead & reside with You. Hence, somewhere I am quite alone. My whole life is theological, militant atheist that I was. The glorious gifts You have given me, I shall ever be thankful for. Few have seen You face to face - yet I have. The problems You have given me appear impossible. Somewhere, however, they increase my ardour. Who would have thought, O Great Galilean, You even existed? Yet You raised me into Heaven after many awful trials; and You continue to do so, agonized wretch that I am. Mighty Lord, many thanks for my Jerusalem cunning: may it always be in Your service. And for the analytic power. My mathematical genius fell stillborn before the minds of men. My profound & stupendous mental labours went unrewarded. But not by You, my Lord. And, Lord, to be cut down by the righteous was the hardest of all. But am I defeated when beaten to the ground? Never! Do I not rise, son of Thee, in animal splendour, bedecked in my helmet of purest sunshine, a mighty god, profound with laughter & intelligence, again divinely handsome!!?? Aye!! Thou, O Hyper-Trinity, Who inducted me, beyond the star-born & celestial, beyond the minor confines of human mentality ... Thou, O Super-Essence, Who raised me into realms of miraculous glory & fêted my intellect with immaculate beings & the perfection of innocence, making me worthy when men found me unworthy ... Hail, O God of Gods, Ever-True Redeemer & Maker of All-Things Holy ... To Thee I raise the Cross of my sword's hilt in Eternal Salutation!

110 Letter to Suze from Cretin City # 21.23/91.

My own arguments - feelings - in this affair do not seem to make much impact on Ralph, who seems to be involved in his own inferential structures, perhaps because they emerge out of an unknown or emergent internality. Although my assurrances to him about the constancy of my deep affections & the essentiality of us as a basic ‘triad’ are repeated, still he seems not to be letting them through - so what the hell can I do? I’m getting thoroughly fed up with it all & I wish I was not around. What should be a nice episode for us all is becoming a source of misery & disruption & it is being construed not as something which the above has bearing on, but only as some f***ing ego- miasmic counter-play of hostile forces. Ralph’s responses seem to be constantly off-by-a-margin, which means they gather collectively into a picture of events I cannot effectively countermand nor influence. My own disclaimers of responsibility (although I am aware of direct involvement, shaping of events &c) are dismissed as verbal conjurings, even though he should know full well - certainly because I emphasise it - that to bring on unique occurrences, I toss the deck into the air to generate anomie, hoping that the Almighty will sort out some of the cards. I am not doing a Svengali on this, but it seems I’m taking yet another subtle battering as Ralph projects forms of disapproval on to the situation, which seem to lack the sympathy he is renowned for, at least to me. The latest psychological motif spinning into play is the possibility (or the possible recognition) that sooner or later rival males find me insufferable. He mentioned male envy & even though I argued envy is an affect of resentment & is thus construed intentionally from a bogus form of inferiority, we still are not getting to grips with the reality of this affair. Much of my relationship with Ralph is built on the lack of contest - i.e. - the negation of testicular manhood in its gross forms - and on the supposition that love is possible between males precisely because manhood is understood - that down state - and consequently subverted. Perhaps the ‘exchange of properties’ has worked too well? Perhaps I have reached my limit (though I am not arguing for it) where internal feminization is concerned - the gentle, the nice, the kind - and perhaps it does not suit me utterly? Maybe it is ego-dystonic; or maybe Ralph has learned to exact venom from my poisonous instincts & has become a man - in contradistinction to being a beautiful boy - and therefore feels now it is time to turn on me? Who knows?! Somewhere I am beginning not to give a f***ing damn & to think: destruction .. My life is extremely unhappy; it strikes me it always has been; it seems not worth the effort - the gigantic effort - I have put into it; and if I think of my former “loyal friends”, many of whom I spent years helping, only to be kicked in the f***ing teeth, my analysis shows the 99% good I did them was overtaken by the 1% bad in a grand, axiological reversal. Friendship is usually so much undeserved garbage & a vast waste of time. I was probably much better off as a young lone-wolf; at least I did not have to put up with this kind of krap.

111 Personally, I think we are seeing the logical outcome of a doomed experiment, one in which I’ve (disbelievingly) tried to prove loneliness is not absolute. Somewhere I do not care anymore. Relationships are best only at the superficies in a contractual mode & loving is disguised ego-shit, at least on the part of others. In your case you appeared to hold out more love for an unworthy, narcissistic, moronic transvestite like ---- than for me. Folk want specific ego- images played back, otherwise they switch off “love”, which is thereby only a condition to start with. Somewhere I think: f*** you all, the lot of you make me sick. I have spent 23 years of my life demonstrating my love for you & 13 for Ralph. Time sacrificed, life wasted. Even if love isn’t garbage, it is too painful & I do not want to know. Sometimes I think love is a ploy by Christ-as-sadist, meant to french-fry the human heart. Lord, why do you beat a broken reed?

112 Letter to Mark A. from Cretin City # 22.1/92.

Your comment about my not recognising precisely how deep-seated Dr. F’s resentment is ain’t particularly accurate, as I tend to schematically figure & calculate both sides of any given situation (.. the instincts of an old logician). Okay, one tucks away and eventually deletes much information, but where our psychoanalytic friend is concerned Ralph and I have minutely analyzed the analyst many times; plus we give attention to information he is not capable of considering (onto-theo-logical moves); plus I always play my game, because I ain’t nothing if not a player. He’s pretending to be mightily pissed because Anne is spilling ‘confidential material’, which is profoundly anti-me: I mean really f***ing anti on a partisan, personal and libidinally envious level, as if I could not guess, pre-empt, gainsay & multi-think it. What really disturbs him is that he cannot get his head round my deviant intelligence, because although he thinks he is moving in deep in the ‘instinctual maze’ vis-à-vis Anne & me, I’m still the psychological games theorist hustling gains & computing odds. It is decidedly foolish for a man who despises learning (by owning no books) to attempt to psychically take out a lover of learning, especially one whose has collected & studied psychoanalytic literature for 40 years. He doesn’t know what he is up against, certainly in regard to my specialist study - women - for whom I reserved vast energies up close, particularly in f***ing X00 or so by the time I got married. My hustler days gave me great fun, because true art is to be found in the aesthetics of females - magnificent flesh, curvaceous symmetry, symplectic ooze and barbarous reciprocation. Al McDonald - a living glory, now elevated above - said he had only met two phenomenal cocksters and I took the title. The enjoyment of beautiful girls is one of life’s great delights, especially when combined with sweet nature, high intelligence, psychic liberality and other exquisite qualities, such as coochie humour and profound eroticism. I spent aeons - cosmically speaking - f***ing on LSD & mescaline, with every libidinal circuit firing in trillion-fold erogenous-electric beyond the cerebral-genital arc; so, to be told by an exponent of government-sponsored sex patterns - via my own ‘eaves-dropping service’ - that he is the professional, almost causes me to sneer in derision. Intelligent intimacy is the best method of psychic penetration, notably when augmented by multi-eyed (seraphic) thrustings, ek-static luminescence & divinization of the libido - spinning, twisting, gyrating, dissolving and mounting as a fiery god. Dr. F. has got to be out of his tiny mind to arrogantly deny Almighty God. The supposition - the base supposition (arrived at without evidence) - that the Almighty plays no part in the creation & construction of something so stunningly magnificent as the soul - i.e. - the living being - and that he - a mere psychoanalyst, a f***ing comatose head- shrinker - is therefore fully qualified and equipped to pronounce on all this - never mind actually explore it - takes the biscuit for stupidity as influence. You know I am enamored of analytic methodology (definitely when it is provisional

113 or qualified and part of something greater - e.g. - my brain), but to presume quasi-omnipotence for any method in place of the real omnipotence it seeks to destroy is sheer ‘n’ bogus shit. Sigmund-effing-Freud!? Who do people think this superficial wanker is: Jesus of Nazareth!!? I respect Freud for giving a humane kick-start to depth studies - after Nietzsche - but folk tend to overlook the fact that his analytic structures are largely infra-structured by Germanic ideologies and, moreover, his networking is tremendously idiosyncratic, individuated & particularised - i.e. - reworked from Kant and others. His genius was in insight, not synthetic formation, but he subsequently “omnipotentized” features - instincts, drives - from the temporal mire within, as a means of securing his own earthly immortalization. The grid he placed on discursively- appearing data is his construct, but one refashioned from other atheists. Then, of course, he spent the rest of his life viciously taking out any prospective son & heir, whilst reserving his daughter’s dead pudendum as his own by right - “bathe me, darling” - as a resurrection of talismanic incest, as if to hang up the remnants of a furry vagina was to exhibit a prime scalp. One can get creative in this ... I mean it is all atrociously subjective - science my arse! - and it is precisely because one can “create” - manipulate subjectivity, multiplicity & diversity - that his authoritarianism negates creative alternatives .. true alternatives (like God). It is small wonder that ‘back to repression’ follows from necessitarian un-freedom. His own ‘acquired characteristics’ aren’t particularly Lamarckean or Haeckelean .. rather, unconsciously-imbued Teutonic norms. One could write a generic history of German thought indicating tribal influences barbarously subtracting from the pure Trinity. The psychology which led a crude tribal conglomerate to adopt Arianism & Filioquism and to push it to its totally unimaginative - “logical” - consequence as Protestant Deism (thus: stupidity, gross error, lack of love) generated centuries marking-time in the dirty drill-halls of obedient stasis. Germanic thought, to my mind, has always been essentially backward, retarded, uncouth and primitive. The Goths have changed their headgear but not their heads; and it is from this eminently dark culture that Freud derives his thought. The pure light of Christ rarely shone amongst these slaughterers - they are not a Mediterranean Christian people - indeed, they are fringe or borderline Christians, whose “God” developed amongst pre-Augustinian N. African Berbers. German atheism - or its “Christian” equivalent - grew into Freud, and it appears quite strange that two ‘intellectual’ cultures which deny Christ - the Hebraic, the Germanic - and which are made that close in the denial, have not been sufficiently investigated for their continuing ideological similarities. I think Freud tried to supercede Germanic forest history - its reality - with his fictitious theories of primal hordes - sublimating the reality around him - and with his extemporized, vacuous and invented ‘ages of anxiety, trauma, etc’. So much of it is patent lunacy, distorted experience and stupidity disguised as methodology. Systematics is a form of stacking excrement, and Freud is no different from any

114 German thinker in that. So much of this history of mutated spirit can be traced by following necessitarian lines of thought: it should be studied to whet the teeth of dismissal by every intelligent scholar (presuming one). So, okay, I can leave all of this out regarding Dr. F and his ‘stabilizing fictions’ (for which, obviously, there is a thriving market amongst the mutants), certainly on a general basis, but when - personally - things come to a crunch and I’m picking up snide & put-downs (very scientific) amongst the cerebral traffic, then f*** it, son, I’ll get tricky and chiv him back. Now I’m accused of brain- washing Anne, as I supposedly did with Ralph: f*** blackening tactics. The Vision of God is not something arranged for one’s own advantage: God does not respond to mesmerism and certain forms of shithouse chicanery prompted by the so-called religious. With his mentality impugned Ralph gave him some back, hinting strongly he might not be highly qualified in the spiritual stakes. Now I like the guy - genuinely, there’s a real soft spot for him as he possesses a lovely side - but his outrageous presumption that we - virtually the f***ing utmost, man! - should defer to him or to anyone f***ing alive or dead (Christ & His Holy Pals excepted) .. well, he can put that where the sun does not shine. We are the guys who have been to the other side - up high, on high, over yonder - and Suze & me in Heaven - in, - in, - in; and I am supposed to surrender this hallucination, madness, distortion - belittled as everything but total truth - for slogans meriting government pay, approval, applause and recognition. Here it is not subversion I’m touting, it’s just that I’ve never sold out my meetings with the Master for anything. Obviously governments cannot see Him or they would not be ripping the shit out of each others’ populations. Any regime allows compromised asshole sufficient room for ‘success’: it is what is beyond the said regime that it fears. Dr. F feels uneasy with me, despite the practice of armoured techniques, because I do not fit into his squares & triangles and he cannot allow that: a persistent alarm buzzes his ego. Freud was paranoid about his authority .. a Pharaoh cherishing Egoismus, rewarding and punishing the slaves .. being paranoid goes with the job as a ‘massive unconscious gain’ .. some gain if exceptionality causes extreme error. My punishment - easy stripes, no sweat - at & in Durham/Oxford/Cretin City was for the same dire offense. One doesn’t have to do anything, as exceptionality can be surmised, presumed, concocted, falsified (etc). In my case f***ing masses of females was sufficient. Fit into the pack, you bastard. Cain hated Abel. God favours you, you bastard. You are too intelligent, talented, good-looking - i.e. - whatever, whatever, you bastard. The genitals keep score and over-ride integrity: “I cannot have it, therefore you are not going to enjoy it”. The pleb scratches automobiles and shits on carpets during nervous housebreakings; but the bourgeois smiles to your face and undoes exceptionality with superior malice: he grids you .. Academia is the lunatic asylum of the bourgeoisie. Do not let them know you know. Honesty is its own disreward. So where else can high intelligence go? Well, it gets promotion in Christ’s Kingdom: so here I sit -

115 exalted, occasionally modest & probably the highest mind in England (with the exception of - at most, no doubt - one or two holy hermits: hiya, lads/lasses, my loving regards to your spiritual excellence), a complete waste to humanity, according to appearances at least, but here to inculcate into the varicosed & haemorrhoidal brains of our ruling & “educated” elite - sphacelated & vermiculated douche-bags for souls they might have - the message that: you, graven & gross beasts of the world, walking blindfolded in the nightmare you make come true .. do you not know that Christ Almighty will exact judgment for your least action? do you not know - I tell you as one who has seen the Face of faces - you cannot gain from enforcing affliction: illicit gain always receives due recompense from God. Avoidance inherits inevitable confrontation. The harsh sayings of Christ are more terrible than the horrors of the earth. No evil soul can win against God. No human can offend against His morality and win ..... When I first began to meet Him - O Lord, the power - when He began to teach me my lessons (simple manners), He raised me .. he raised the entirety of my painful, violent, misguided and stupid life into incredible torment .. If you think hell does not exist, you are deceiving yourself dreadfully .. He raised me into the Sanity of Himself. Ah, Lord, if I had a golden tongue .. a tongue of light to sound extra-dimensions .. to praise ascendant genius: thank You for making my terrible life worthwhile. My speech is not comely: may my love be. You taught me why? So they think they have sweated blood? The bones in my body knocked together in abject fear. No-one and no-thing can defeat such awesome - such truly awesome - power. You flew me over hell itself .. dangling over a cesspit that makes id & earth seem trivial .. the first time brain-wrecked, fuses blown, every idea, concept, proposition, wish, dream, ambition - &c - squeezed into nothing .. all mathematical foundations (in which my genius resided), all philosophy (which I had dearly loved), all psychology (which You enticed me into as a suffering boy), all history, anthropology, religion (which I despise for betraying You) .. all this became the entirety of nothing .. all fallen earth & hell, brought about by the abyssal mutancy of ones-once-gods, this wicked “creation” of the fallen immortals, Almighty God showed me as powerless before His ascendant might ... You, my Lord, toured me on the un-grid of exquisite extra- dimensions, breathing forth gossamer blasts of holy energy - more than the divine Blake come true - visiting again unparalleled vistas in which unparallel energies cascade as awesome miracles ... abounding incandescence, unbounded delight .. ‘Light, stand up’ ... ‘Energy, move forth’ .. and, thus, in tumultuous adoration the architectonics of immortality stand forth in awesome spectacle in the chalice of Heaven’s manifestation ... So, lad, I’ve got problems ... the urge to laughter is irresistible; as Chesterton said: the only thing Christ dared not do was to burst out laughing: Ha- Ha-Ha! But then come to think of it I wouldn’t burst out laughing if someone smashed my palms & ripped open my flesh .. fried my bleeding carcass on a high-voltage bed .. froze me on the snow and broke me with metal bars .. blew

116 my head out like bloody glue against the nearest wall. Torturers, murdering criminals .. Satan’s shit slithers incarnate, rearing monstrosity against innocence. Christ was born innocent like all children - our nature is His - but defiled innocence stands amongst open sewers emitting the toxic vapours of evil. Innocence - the pure heart - is priceless, possessing a qualitative finesse beyond the speakable ....

Later: where was I? O yes, the analyst’s pass, as in making a pass. Like any jealous lover ‘she’s beautiful, I’ll treat her for free’, waiving £90 per hour.. how noble! Essentially the tactic is ‘get rid of your boyfriend’ .. I’ve seen this before with a non-Freudian psychiatrist and, again, the female in question was sheer taste, palpably slurpy, with a goddess’ ass. A father figure for the mother’s sake: ‘can’t you see I’m doing you a favour curing our darling slapper?’ Come to daddy! Watch out for dangerous males, especially those that are powerful, usurpful, sexual and thus threatening - i.e. - this is known as the ownership of cunt. Dr. F’s position is the paranoid one of strictly advocating non-deviancy. You know what daughters are like let loose. I do not want my penis neutralized by a quasi-omnipotent executioner, as the tendency to omnipotence is the sin of all crypto-totalitarian arseholes. Of course I know how the darling cuts loose, as she is as seminally devastating as the wildest strutter. Keep sniffing it, man, because you ain’t having it .. Many good hearts, on the other hand, load themselves for annihilation: death postures everywhere but, because of Christ, it is not a fact. Some afford it the polite recognition that a gentle demise, sliding oneself under the soil, is the noblest policy. Who, they say, would want to have joined ‘that!!?’ Looking over bony shoulders, gripping the coffin like a leaden bathtub, thinking it is better to sink on under, to slough the quag, than to forsake the private joys of brilliance for uuuugghh-civilization - e.g. - the civilzation that Freud preached after it incinerated his sisters, the civilization Dr. F buttresses for pay, saying that there is no alternative, as we are stuck with the earth’s worlding dimension, as if perception enforces finitism. It’s all there is, if there’s more it is impossible to know - &c - the usual catchphrases going the rounds. Better to die than swing under this stale aggrandizement - earthed upon - the aggrandizement of stagnation under a dead moon, monotonous stars and empty space. Naturally, the prophets of this hideous calumny prosper enormously via mass (mutant) recognition: for Christ’s sake the Vision of God is rare ....

Later still (pissed: only Jack Shit seeks power). So, lad, another benign week has ended. Nechaev chills out: Peter Kürsten and Sergei Chikatilo shade the clearing (die Lichtung), and all is well with the world. I have finished another letter to G.P. in which I have tried, probably unsuccessfully, to rough out comparisons between Christ’s immeasurable highs and enhypostatic calibrations - spiritual gaugings? - in mine, given, that is, He must oversee, direct & permit

117 profound occurrences of this nature. To actually go up and have all this happen gives me difficulties of mammoth proportions - neither descriptive metaphysics nor mute incomprehension suffices .. There has to be interpretation, a ‘configurational code’ of expression. The whisper of the Holy Ghost is not the voice Nietzsche mocked in Socrates: it is not the voice of Rilke at Duino. This is all beyond the ‘thundering furnace’ .. in the midst of ‘silent lightning’. The Almighty is not to be found in transcendent images, however exalted & holy. Imagination & reason & conceptuality - &c - are eliminated in the haeccity & quiddity of the going-in-ness of extra-dimensionality. One can actually command lower spiritual topologies - unearthed outsides of Heaven - through penetrable Him-ness-es, as the brought-up-ness gathers in lesser gods. Some descriptive configurations might - via aphairesis - give glimpses of theo-anthropological reality - e.g. of the psyche, that vastly abused & misunderstood term which, virtually phased out into obsolescence, actually merits terminological resurrection, so: conceive of the human shape as normally recognised - head, trunk, limbs - and subtract from it the flesh and its ‘answering equivalents’ - antwortende Gegenbilder - its sinewy, bony, bloody cognates. Now this is not an abstract stripping-down, but an intimated vision of what-then-remains, namely, a co-terminal figure of spiritual haeccity, or our shape minimally in God. I am suggesting that the flesh and its ‘answering anti-types’ cage our (minimalized) anthropo-theo-logical energy, and that this minimalization occurs because subhumanity is drafted in - the psyche is specifically weighed & weighted by adherence to the flesh - and that, therefore, re-version by maximalization occurs because deific-humanity is drafted in - the psyche is specifically freed by the luminescent authenticity of true ante-typy ... What precisely is this ante-typy? Luminescence overthrows meat by stepping back out of time. Meat is the measure of time, but the (maximalizing) non-co-terminal figure is the god or goddess emerging, extra-dimensionally, as new light and new colour. The immeasurable enhancement of this reversion is the (deific) communicatio idiomatum, the multi-fluorescence of which initiates metamorphy in rebuilding the perfection of the psyche - i.e. - the imago Dei. Naturally, stepping back out of time disfigures the meat (Fleisch) of one’s flesh (Fleisch), so that one can - e.g. - manifest triple faces on three sides of the head, as the plasticity & flexibility of deific energy unworlds fallen geometries: transfiguration is the •(−-ing of that which is going up spiritually - its ageometrization - and its •B@$D"Fµ@H, its throwing off of scum (... privatio in the sense that God robs one of life’s shit). But what is the shape - Gestalt, µ@DNZ - of the psyche when it undergoes µ@DNTF4H - morphosis, ‘shaping’: what is its figuration when trans, its look when over? First we need to recognise that words refuse alinear events - figurational happenings - as is the case with, for example, the genitival preposition µ,JV. Although this appears - and, indeed, can be used - as an earth word - “amidst, with, by aid of” - its use in conjunction with NbF4H and µ@DNTF4H unworlds ultimate reference. µ,JV-NbF4H is ‘amidst the origin’:

118 it is not ‘mit Physik’: it is the amidstness of the origination of the primal source .. it is with the fundamental •DPZ ... with the Ur of Ursache, preceding thinghood & technicality. What then can one possibly say about deific-becoming in metamorphosis? Obviously, it is with - OHG miti, mit - the aid of shaping, but words do not ‘figurate the trans’ or look over radical glorification. Words do not see - e.g. - unparalleled sights and unearthly origin, or the birthing of the gods in the origin of the Godhead. The gods do not look like humans, because they access ontic polymorphy - many eyes, many wings - in the scarlet lightning & golden thunder of consummate elevation. A god is the type of which flesh is the anti-typical unlikeness .. soma minus sarx, as if the god is recessive when flesh is dominant and vice versa. What is God like? What is His immediate characterisation? In God light moves and moves visibly. In moving into God there is recognition of higher order, that is, light re-cognizes thought, or thought becomes moving light. Thought, in the sense of mortal thinking, is usually ‘thought about’, but immortal thinking is cognized again .. it is the re- of re-entry as the calculating thought of sub-humanity - its figuring out - is figured in. ‘Figuring something out’ is the outside of divine realms figuring, but figuring in is the trans of transfiguration. A god is de-nuded of flesh by the actualization of moving light after Christ coincides with the individual hypostatically - personally - and, although this can be seen before, one cannot become a god until the hypostatic union inseparably unites with ( and lifts up) what goes before. It is impossible to achieve Trinitarian deification without Christ first granting the total interface of His perfect divine- manhood. Now this is a mouthful I’m sure - expression falters - but in the letter to G. I was attempting to go beyond this to explain how the super-essential union occurs. Some of it I perhaps got - other parts I perhaps did not ... An essential part of my depiction hangs on the (ontological) refutation of tertium non datur - “no middle-third” - which I spent 10 years investigating mathematically. Very briefly - leaving aside technicalities in mathematics - I will repeat some of the steps. If a human being is considered to embody substance, then something human is complete - e.g. - soul, identity, body, or &c. Hence, the negation of substance in man implies incompleteness - e.g. - of his identity. Man is therefore not simply id-entity - a fixed it - but a becoming middle-third: thus, his own self-predicating, self-reflexive, self-binding affirmations & negations are apophatically fragmented in the movement beyond himself. In short, if the “law of identity” - a permutable of tertium non datur - is annulled, man becomes something other - e.g. - sane, divine, a self. However - moving on - my attempt to descriptively understand ‘super-essentiality’, given that its embodiment differs considerably from its worded expression, is not helped by frameworks & configurations & directions in Pseudo-Dionysius. I think his errors can be painstakingly traced back to Aristotle’s pervasive (composite) methodology, of the sort seen, for example, in synthesizing dualities, the golden mean (etc); but whatever the precise genealogy of Pseudo-Dionysius’ ideational forms it is

119 evident to me that Trinitarian form is subverted by him, and becomes in fact an attached hybrid on a system formerly (Neo)-Platonic. I have never read one commentator-exegete whom I remotely agree with, largely because I work out of experiential modes, which almost instinctively react with primed criticality towards his works. There’s something alien thereabouts, which will not ‘gel’. Most of this can be seen via its continuation in Erigena’s stuff, which I tend to pull away from with distaste, as I do from most Latin theology. I am not saying there is nothing genuinely Christian in Pseudo-Dionysius’ opus: rather, there’s too much chaff in with the wheat. Aquinas thought him ‘orthodox’, which is enough to make any intelligent spirit pull up short. His use of super-essentiality tends to be fly-blown, garbled, over-extended. I confess to liking his expression ‘the super-essential Jesus’ but, really, I doubt if Christ can be experienced like that, as I consider the expression so used as a ‘tricked out’ formula in the Plotinian-Hegelian mode - i.e. - mere synthetics. It does not surprise me that Pseudo-Dionysius gave rise to ponderous (exegetical) edifices amongst the Latins (via Hilduin of Paris, Erigena - another moron of similar rank to Augustine - Anselm of Laon, Honorius Augustodunensis, Hugh of St Victor etc: papal cretins all); nor that his reception in the Christian East was mixed. I have not read Maximus Confessor’s commentary, but it would provide a good Ph.D. study for some wooden-brained Oxonian eunuch to compare it with Aquinas’; but - anyway - f*** the Areopagite/Plotinus/Augustine & their assembled knob- rottery: reading them is akin to f***ing the Dead Sea Scrolls. Where’s the kissy sluttery in this & the scarlet-licked-lips of puckered anemone, with the adrenalized perfection of perfumed thigh in laughing eyes? Where’s the shook nobility of shimmering, ravened tresses, loosened in naked splendour, with deeply-sepulchred passions squatting on reciprocated lusts? Better the strumpet’s thighs than sanitized mentality ... Now where were we? You will no doubt know Coleridge’s connexions with Erigena, so I would hazard a guess much of Col’s sub-structures are hopelessly entangled in Latinist abortions from transmitted compendia via ‘De Divisione Naturae’. So many of the arguments are wrongly routed and spurious, the penalty for forsaking Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius and so forth. Deductions from the ‘ineffable and incomprehensible divine essence’ usually result in the Trinity following as a disengaged predicate, along the lines of ‘if He cannot be known, it cannot be known He is Unity or Trinity’. God Almighty is thus abstracted and made into an object of enforced belief or faith, and predicates are then figuratively transferred as projected (finite) analogues: goodness/truth is therefore plus quam bonitas/plus quam veritas, in the sense of augmentations ‘supering’ from below, because our limit ensures quiddity becomes super- quiddity, and we cannot know the difference. In other words, absolute infinity is an assertive quiddity from which no inference follows. This, of course, creates the severance typical of Augustinianism and Plotinian thought, stemming from the immutable first cause - from that idiotic, old heathen bastard, Aristotle -

120 which in reality generates ‘unbridgeable lacunae’ & ‘theoretical vacua’ ... demonic nonsense designed to keep the sons & daughters of God down via substitutions, ersatz authorities, surrogates, interpretation etc etc which, in its modernist & bourgeois form, is the kind of shit taught today theologically & philosophically throughout “Christian” Europe. No wonder Orthodox mystics cross themselves at the thought of the Franks. Western Christianity is so far down it thinks it is up. The point is: intellect is susceptible to perfectibility as it divinely fights: Christ fought, and thus so should we, however shattered and fragmented the ‘runes’ & shibboleths of our enmeshed consciousness .. Alright, an aside on Pseudo-Dionysius, with an eye to his immediate shortcomings. The expression superessential Godhead - ßB,D@bF4@H 2,"DP\" - appears to dominate the Super-Trinity and Trinity, as if the latter is a manifestation - appearance - of the ‘transcendental absolute.’ One cannot even say the Trinity is a manifestation - BD`@*@H - of the Super-Trinity, because this prôodos or fore-way (das Ausgehen) emanates merely as an impossible image. In Plotinus (5.2.1) we have BD`@*@H ¦6 *L@µ"4 - imaginative formation - and suspiciously akin to ¦6N"

121 Christ Almighty. My experience of divine life in its ineffable majesty is one in which the 2,`J0H - the very Deity - never emanates. In becoming the Super- Trinity every formulae below (including my own) was out-powered upwards, and although there are distinct glimmers in Pseudo-Dionysius - marvellous formulae, beautiful expressions of deification - one must always remember that everything is uniquely transformed in this living god’s ascent. God is the ultimate adventure in a topology of immortal (deifying) light. The journey from mortal individuality to becoming God Almighty means that God is the final editor of the entire hyper-cosmic script. Nothing gainsays it, or it gainsays itself in explosive mystery. One actually rides “chariots”, but these are <@0J`H - spiritual - nothing like the engines of earth, as one is strapped in by ‘circumscribed bands of illuminated infinities’ - see, words do not match, because divine realities over- step the phantasmal, unless, that is, Almighty God merely imagines. One could make a case for the phantasmalism of monophysitism in Pseudo-Dionysius via N"\

122 self-in-Truth: then ‘appearance’ is not to show the god by baring, not to bring to deific luminescence, but to subscribe to the world’s poles of the infinite and the finite - ‘appearance’ as Erdichtungen .. fictions and fabrications. The fallen gods not-god by non-metamorphic gridding .... Allow me to talk to you simply: all humans (if only they were even that).. all humans know God: they know Who He is & they know where He is. Everything less which stares them in the face, they know is not God. Everything living somewhere, deep within the multiplex, through the very depths of this living fall, everything knows the Face of God. There is nothing He did not look at when He created all of it. He looked close up with loving eyes: even blades of grass and the billionfold things that crawl therein .. even Nothing worships God. Man, however, this erring son, this self-cause of putrid stupidity ... even his own children, the merest babes, even they recognise this is not something which adores the Almighty. Innocence is taught by its adult negation .. the ruptured pleasures yet to come, the squalid death yet to be inflicted .. innocence suffers on. Where then is the salvation of recognition, when the human race gives up every gain & game but the reality (the sensuous, everyday reality) of God’s immanent genius? In the meantime I keep stacking my chips on the impossible bet of innocence winning all ... Sort out the drunk from sober! I’m dawdling with this missive, awaiting your rumoured letter: consequently, I have to think of things to write about. I have been reading Mann on Schiller: “Worte, Begriffe: Tasten nur, die sein Künstlertum schlug, um ein verborgenes Saitenspiel klingen zu machen” - words, concepts: mere keys which his artistry struck, in order to draw sounds out of a hidden instrument. Nice, but fancy. Schiller’s flesh begins to revenge itself on him: “Und rächte es sich, so wollte er den Göttern trotzen, die Schulden schickten und dann Strafe verhängten” - and if it was taking vengeance, he would defy the gods who sent guilt and then imposed punishment. This now is interesting as the gods are smeared by artistic device and made into vindictive (fictional) entities. I suggest we oppose this with Hebrew realities: that there are gods is specifically referred to in the Old Testament: Christ Himself powerfully pointed this out in the New. Why? I suggest it is to chastise their ‘current absenteeism’, then as now, and to remind the expositors of God’s omnipotence that these entities are living beings also. Note how they fail to get mention on a world-wide basis: perhaps the Pharoahs only control humans because living spirits pass their remit. Fictionalizing realities denigrates to the status of non- entity, and controllers refuse acknowledgement to those higher powers who will eventually f*** them over. Contemplative prayer - powering through in supplicant splendour - reveals glimpses of Christ’s awesome genius. I love to see His grace & favour. My debilitated old carcass - relatively speaking - sniffs the delights when He makes Himself known & even though more than a decade of stress still digs its black claws into my neck - not to mention 50 years of hell - a hearty f*** off to Krankheitgewinnen (if I recall the expression correctly) -

123 invalidism as technique refuses the taste of raw life, especially as there is always lots to do in the brain’s sphere, where <@ØH looks out through its house of meat, empowered by the same lightning which ‘speaks in the Throne’. Ralph’s look of exaltation at the weekend stirred me beyond the skies, and it was preceded by some fine - fun - theology, but Suze always rises well beyond words. Life goes roaring through on occasion .... Another day begins from the hand of the Great Immortal. Academic theologians begin more scratching about in the tombs of dead heretics, whom they tend to later embody. I thought highly about Origen during the night, with my inner eyes mended. To my mind he is a great spirit of a vastly superior intelligence .. vastly superior to his critics. The thought of a spirit is in movement, tremendously flexible movement, and one can see his dynamics operating even in those who opposed him. ‘Origenism’ - pure Orthodoxy - is profoundly fecund in the divine realms, and it is probably its sheer freedom which led to its being proscribed by rancid nutters of ecclesiastical stripe. Otherwise, I tend to potter around. I am still probing theories of pain: its avoidance, says Freud, is a centralised constant, but this to my mind is based on bogus inferences from visual reflexes. Perhaps this is a way of blocking deeper or higher alternatives. Try depth, so: “Aber er glaubte ja an den Schmerz, so tief, so innig, daß etwas, was unter Schmerzen geschah, diesem Glauben zufolge weder nutzlos noch schlecht sein konnte” - but indeed he believed in the pain, so deep, so profound, that anything happening under pain, the beliefs occurring as a consequence, could be neither useless nor bad. This is the cauldron of agony we keep alight for immersing ourselves in talent. Try height, so: pain is a deific parasite, an alien body, designed to drive us upwards; and in the quoted passage it is something down we are under, as if the flesh is a living burial: “diesem Glauben zulfolge” is like a resultant faith but, evidently, this misses out the metaphysics - the origin originating - of seering screams, especially when the flesh undergoes pain inflicted from without. Where is Freud’s theoretical apparatus for dealing with crucifixion or sadistic fury, with genocide or horror beneath the sub-bestial? Is there an ‘oedipal disposition’ which results in ‘hanging by nails’? Or what of large sections of mankind baying for blood and barking for slaughter? Innumerable millions have died mercilessly at the hands of butchers from the pit, who are paid to generate belief according to agony. There is a place called hell involved in agony .. a real place in which divine feelings & senses - which, naturally, do not die with the flesh - make life a gauntlet of wounding spikes on which all, according to due measure, are impaled. The only way to make inroads into this is to pass on the light, as, like a white fox, the ontology of pure goodness must be tracked to its lair. One’s own stultifying impotence in the face of world-horror - the instruments of murder exchanged for the love of money - is reflected in the apparent impotence of the Almighty. I believe this impotence is a delusion, as it is covered by a largely unknown dynamic of motility, of happening life itself, on which one cannot put a gauge .. conjunctions of events in millions of (invisible)

124 motor co-ordinates, which the Almighty can rework .. working the transfigurational shuttle in indecipherable zones of pure creativity, as He super- infinitely calls the shots. This impotence is the energy of bated breath and the B<,Øµ" of a complicit pausing, as if effective power requires a FL<,D(`H mysteriously destinate and ultra-fine in its workings-out ... Incidentally, I sent the poor old psycho V. a trenchant missive - sublimity above the scorn - meaning to alert him to a continuation of the game. Nothing brings him forward from lurking darkness and, alas, there is a pitiless arrogance in him, real madness, and the persistent clinging to fork-tongued treachery. How can anyone seek security by being so behaviourally low? In this guy the elements of greatness are ruined by the cowardice of intellectualism, self-waste, and envy of appalling proportions. One can see he actively dodges supernal rays or looks at the stirrings of Almighty power through the slits of psychotic eyes, as if the previous adoration of a pig’s head in a pentacle sticks to his brain - I mean, for f***’s sake, man, is it art to persist in processes bringing on a demonization of one’s life!? - and this psychic slime-ball and maleficent hater is fêted as a theologian .. A theologian, no less, who cannot get off the ground except, perhaps, to rub snot into the back of importance: kiss their shit and a fanfare occurs in the blasted redoubts of lunacy and, thus, with his “fellow intellectuals” at the University of ------, the blade was slipped into my spine .. The nobility of Christians? I think not ... Allow me to reminisce to pass the time: allow me some explanation for my violent life. God knows I once loved to fight, that I enjoyed winning in ultra-violence. Slum-life breeds violence, my father was indifferent, callous & brutal (like his father before him), and my great-grandfather was a hireling pugilist, the bare-knuckle champion of Lincolnshire for 19 years. All men are murderers except for that vital fraction. I had read Egan’s Boxiana in its entirety, made copious notes, aged 13. As my father could be a traumatic - traumatized - monster, quite possibly from the war, I had to learn to take him down. Violence always brooded at the edge, and the fighting capabilities of certain relations was thought ‘legendary & heroic’, almost gladiatorial. The Greeks used brass-knuckles, but I followed the history of prize-fighting. Both Dempsey and Tunney replied to my letters. I fought hundreds of times. Like my hero, Bendigo - whose grave I frequently visited - Christ bid me put away such unbecoming behaviour, which I later did. The realisation that I did not wish to hurt anyone or anything is the recognition that violence is evil. To my mind the noble man is the gentle man, arrived at no doubt by fighting oneself, that is, in seeing aggression decisively lose. The greater the fighter, the harder his opponent. My first library was teaching my fingers to war, but this - valuable - collection I gave away. My second library, a part of which you saw, was invaluable, as I worked through it with immense labour. It needs strength and endurance to really read, hours countless in extent in analytic concentration, moving universes in the humiliation of multiple errors and rethinkings, but persisting on in great painstakings. Books for me rejoined

125 childhood’s refuge of peace - an arena of peace almost - as this is where I took my love. What beautiful memories I have of books! I could hit like seven shades of immaculate shit - i.e. - “Should the sun in the sky offend me, I would smite it”, but, then again, Ahab’s secret is the key to understanding his war (hence, the book) .. Ah, literature, ain’t it lovely! I will, of course, leave you pondering Ahab - why the war against the leviathan? what crime had the behemoth committed? what had his young wife to do with it? And now to one of Freud’s most cogent, albeit dated, arguments. I say this: Argumentation shapes the world: philosophy builds empires & governs mutation. Freud challenges magic with science: he is decidedly for science, as if science replaces religion (alias magic). Thus grows the empire of science, replacing, I think, not magic, not religion, but God.To the degree that science is godless, the sewers of the soul will back up. If a surgeon’s meat on a hi-tech slab is so profoundly complicated, surpassing encyclopaedic intelligence, how is it that this meat appears capable of consciousness? How come this meat has a light in its head? Tell me do, how does this come about? Even a light-bulb requires a power-station in its system: what is the source of the energy that energizes meat? Flesh is activated by the theology it mutates: meat goes on the move impelled by philosophy: hence our core thought is extremely important. I think science is extremely limited in this direction - “real querying” - because, like magic, it fails the remit of its own cleverness: “do not be too clever or you will forsake it all for Truth”. The highest point of science is mathematical modelling which, hopefully, involves pure intellect in imaginative approaches & previously unseen connexions: but pure intellect, what is this? Is it vanity spurred on by the ‘mystique of intelligence’? Or is it genius fomented out of nowhere? Think of Mozart as a purported conduit of the divine: but mathematics, isn’t this where genius enters in? O the symbols reflecting thought-structures, the hyper- figurings in the shunt of infinities finitized, the extensive contemplation of sign - spoor into where? - and the ability to investigate formulae for years and years, without ever recognizing the ground is groundless. Away with psychologism - says Frege, Husserl etc - as if the RLPZ in this -ism isn’t somehow •(X<0J`< J, 6"Â •2V<"J@<, and as if thought-structure isn’t intimately related to this figuring meat. How is the light in this meat related to the origins of number? Perhaps number is a manifest sign of spiritual darkness, casting articulate shadows, erecting black towers in the night, before the high dawn of immortality. At least it was so for me, but, at last, I know that pain is everything below being the Super-Trinity (.. that pain is everything below not being the Super-Trinity). I was once lazing on my bed in Oxfordshire, thinking about infinity, wanting to be its master .. lazing around as thinking minds should, formulae - to quote - swimming around my head externally like a nimbus, when I heard one sung angelic note .. One note can awaken the psyche, so why should the Almighty be concerned with anything so trivial as infinitizing numbers? Ah, on the palm of the Lord. There is an ancient & true story of adventuring below in

126 which a pure heart grew up in immensely difficult circumstances, poor & shamed, struggling with a head full of incomprehensible thoughts, dreadfully downbeaten, studying alone in strange locations across the globe - “one minute up the Himalayas, the next at Gettysburg or Heaven’s door” - who, having risen in Jesus of Nazareth, expressly says, “Christ, I am still shining & Lord, this is frigging incredible: look at it, the glory shone around, joy come true, it can come true & does”. Every soul when created by Almighty God first looks into His Face. The first ‘thing’ ever seen by your eyes is Christ: that is the severance of now, the splitting away, the thrust fall into the world’s horror, where innocence is f***ed & choked by the ascendancy & power of mutant bastards. These - these shithouse pigs - are ignoramuses of titanic proportion, knowing nothing of God’s multi-fold & most-mighty dimensionality, emblazoned with outpourings of stunning glorification .. these shithouse pigs rub the grease and bile of their own power-lusts into the flanks of existence, shifting in black nights of murder, initiating actions so foul & nefarious, that, in not seeing the light of day, expectations are geared-up for the absence of retribution, as if Almighty God - this rearing up of the avenging hawk - is not cognisant of what is about to become his prey. As if .. as if Satan’s hordes on earth expected to take a victory from this Greatest of All Immortals ..... And as if Almighty God would not bless a humble scribe, who, at his best can write like a god .... I think that to gain understanding of Christ it is necessary to carefully contemplate the idea that He did not really know He was the Almighty whilst He was on earth - i.e. - deific genius of an enormous order happened to Him, not as passive clay, but in the sense of bloody confrontations with Himself. He would know Himself as de-axialized power in a remarkably sensitive body, and as ascendant Trinitarian majesty: it is this which is modelled in me by His grace. Hence, I calculate the differential, thinking that my hyper-cosmic visions - sights - of reality (of stupendous magnitude) must be as dim ashes compared to His incarnational mind. I wish to write an immensely fine volume on Christ, if only because I sit here experiencing His loving sweetness. All I am really trying to do is to get across God’s immanence & to rid the world of the swinish lie that Christ Almighty is imparticipable. His immortal mysteries are to me my raison d’être. To be allowed to inhabit this imperishable kingdom & to taste pure goodness is, as it were, part of His mind. To inhabit God’s thought is the greatest of all intellectual adventures. To ‘come in from above’ and to sit ‘there!’ - ¦6,Ã<@H, @âJ@H - looking out, in mind immaculate, makes the very air elaborate with the sacred scent of breath. This is the God of Ages Who examined ‘zillions of hyper- composite existences’ with the most holy light of supra-absolute mentality, and Who thought out transfinitudes in a trillion thunderous tongues, in endless languages of wisdom beyond number, and Who controls & upholds & creates the pathway, fiery with unsurpassed miracle, which leads to His amazing genius ... Hence, Christ’s not-knowing or equivocation in knowing must have involved perfect ignorance after becoming ‘that!’, which made His actions

127 ambiguous & requiring of startling courage. His was the agony of a variably- displaced identity, which unsettles us all - i.e. - the ego is transcendentalized according to a dynamic of high mystery, so that the earthly ego - usually presuming itself gridded - puts on the ‘helmet of spatio-temporality’ as a multiple & mixed lie. The task of philosophers is to maintain this lie in place & to deny the validity of visions (sights) beyond it. Thus, there is a stunted outcome called “human life” - in truth the lack of it - in which the deranged are fêted as intelligent, as if they represent the fount of truth. Christ is thereby mocked by a gross assemblage of chronic anti-typy - resistance, impenetrability, solidity - operating as deific mutants, who carve up existence with the manias of possession - derangement reified in object terms or ‘thing-izing’ - and who dictate, conserve & expand the lie with ubiquitous exponentiation. One can see dictatorial history in the thought of great scoundrels - Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Newton, Kant et al - to name but a few of these lauded imbeciles. One imagines the profound shock experienced by these individuals moments after being devoured by death, as they wake into God’s devastating terrain. Time refracts at the rim of eternity & there is no space. Only love rebirths upwards, and spatio-temporality is seen for what it was, viz, a thought of Almighty God bastardized, falsified & mutated by those in rebellion against Him. The manufacture of “reality” is a conspiracy entered into by vicious theoreticians and their troops. Earth - the obscene testicle spinning through regulated absurdity - was created originally for the resurrection of the divinized body; but it has been turned into a killing-machine for the abysmal fragmentation & ultimate lacerational-shredding of a species which pretends it is human. This is the ‘ignoble helmet’ that God voluntarily wore, which caused His perfect mind to suffer confusion & horror - a helmet kitted out with deranged circuitry, insane ontologies & gross existentiality, designed by mankind’s guardian demons in the clawing excrementality of refused vision: shit & razor-wire combined as a crown of thorns ...

I recently located the super-essence in a phrase used by Origen concerning the ‘bread of life’. My knowledge of Patristics is now dreadfully rusty, given it is well over 20 years since I began and over 11 since I sold that particular library. My investigations into related subjects proceed, however, at a pace & there’s vast continuation. I’ve discovered that Gregory Palamas, that great mind, did not consider the essence-energies distinction as an absolute, rather as a paradox. My embodiment of anti-heroism is a masterwork of me in flight - a strange, loaded configuration of perverse vision & investigations into mystic realms - sustained by beautiful prayers. The Almighty and I have a good laugh between us, as I raise my mind & eyes in attempting to ‘figure out’ divine structures. Early this morning - I try to keep the luminous night for myself - I entered the heart, from which countless mystical emanations appear, against which I run the divinized personae of my outrageous ego. I check body against

128 flesh - comparing & contrasting - seeking nuances, such as enhypostasized homosexual meat, bi-sexualized spirit in relationship to high androgyny, impotent a-sexualized thought as a condition for the imago Dei &c - hence my use of abnormal experience versus itself, as a kind of spiritual sieve for ‘immortal & immoral’ remnants. I am in the fortunate - or damning - position of being able (given daring complicity) to embody a bizarre Christ, one in whom the real Christ is weighed ‘pro or contra’, according to the degree of deific polymorphy. Thus, I enter relationships - such as the one with Anne - via ‘composite re-axialization’, seeing where transformation takes me in height & depth. Naturally, one must always retain loving goodness and Christ’s mighty hegemony, as His is the courage I strive for. Seductive harlotry succours me whilst crucified & cold demons hiss out malevolence. The bigger Satan’s imagery - the nastier his demons - the weaker he is. I place the Transfiguration above all Christ’s other acts - above the Eucharist, which should approach it - but I transfigure as f***ed transvestite & as a uniquely-wrought penile god, working both sides of any embodied configuration, especially ‘both sides of the raised super-essence’. I try to ‘transport down’ mnemonic trace as ontological trace through ‘energetic incongruences’, as I try to ‘transport up’ libidinal dissimilarities as psychic ideas, so as to experience what happens to the mystic in-betweener, antipathetically co-ordinated and/or antipodally wrenched from below-to-above and above-to-below. This is, naturally, extremely difficult of description, as I am pointing to where the down-and-up of Heaven meets - in coincidental juxtaposition - the up-and-down of earth: this is a holy region of great difficulty .. a kaleidoscopic roller-coaster of unleashed force at the turning- point of contrary reversal .. ñH @Û6 Ð

129 introjections by abreaction (recapitulation) in the normative mode and - here comes the rub - by recourse to deific moves. Most anthropological templates operate with fallen models, but I will restore her by polymorphic unfallingness. Already she has experienced some startling, albeit extremely gentle, visions, and not of a presumed imago or didactic set-piece, but according to the wild anomie of the Holy Ghost. I have seen my awesome Master perform nuanced twists of finesse beyond extremes, as He allowed me to pass beyond the divisive architectonics of aphairesis - finite and infinite predication - directly into ‘that!’ which is not accessible to any being: I become 2,`J0H, and thus I know the beneath of humanity and the manifest of lies which sustain it. Take, for example, specific master names by which humans grid themselves - “masculine”, “feminine” - and consider what Nietzsche says on conditionality: “Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking & inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitiously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed”. Nietzsche here recognises the gridding of identity and the ego as substance, but beyond this he recognizes anomie without the Holy Ghost. Half-way there, Fritzi, but not far enough. There is no gridded identity, masculine or feminine, in the raised anomie of deific polymorphy: energy blows gender apart. Above the allegedly human is the human of strange mien bristling with divinity. It is this beautiful ‘monster’ above monsters - inordinately strange and, perhaps, a source of terror to humans - this monster of awesome & awe-inspiring holy-fire, who postures forth God’s genius beyond extremes. I have seen Him ‘bring about things’ - do “things” - massively beyond the failure of words to relate. I flee from the agony of much of it & any good form is a refuge. However, sometimes, when I think I have managed to avoid ‘that’ successfully, He - most charmingly - brings me up into zones sacred & uncanny, into regions of appalling sublimity, in which, animated with......

Missing

130 Letter to Ralph from Cretin City #23. 3/92.

“Mental Things are alone Real .. What is called Corporeal nobody knows its dwelling Place .. [it] is in Fallacy & its Existence an Imposture” - W. Blake: Vision of the Last Judgment.

Abstract. Logic as understood by the Alexandrian-Byzantine mind, at least from Origen onwards, is inordinately different from that generated via Eleaticism & Aristotelianism to Gödel & Non-Cantorian set-theoretic formulations & its chief features can be characterised by a dissolution of the subject - corporeality annihilated - and, hence, by a radicalizing of frameworks, both ontological & axiological, surrounding thoughts relating to ‘man’, which lead inevitably to the violent overthrow of the “laws” of identity, contradiction & tertium exclusi. [Note: set-theoretic formulations of a finitist (axiomatic) base assume entities reducible to a human vocabulary, and in this way ideal (non- finitist) entities invariably emerge in contiguous structures. There are, however, feasible alternatives to the limits of constructivism in grounds of ideals, viz, infinite axiomata, which refer to identity, contradiction & tertium exclusi as partly formulable - i.e. - with these “laws” as non-finitist formulae, varying in accordance with radicalized ontologies. In western thought identity is finitely formulable only and, thus, it must at some point refuse the infinitization of itself as coming before construction. One could radicalize the relationship of mathematics to logic by viewing the former as dislocating identity, or by its components disconnecting from ‘determinative thinghood’: hence, by this means illogical elements - which, indeed, outnumber logical elements (and without which mathematical thought cannot exist) - could be seen to limit architectonic and/or schematic thought to its proper place. Western logic rescinds itself in mathematics, because there is no literal transformation beyond the antinomies of abstractionism. The logicians of Alexandria-Byzantium asserted that infinity is penetrable only by becoming God].

In modern terms the logicality of Alexandria-Byzantium argues that the non-identity of identity is a theorem, and that, accordingly, identity is indemonstrable. Thus: the identity of (fallen) identity is no identity; fallen identity accompanies negation without going beyond (infinitism) itself into transcendental identity; fallen identity is permanently saddled internally with its own negation; the true and the false elide together antinomially at base; truth is minimally a god and falsity is the sub-stance of the human (thus the sub-human); and this says the negation of essentialist correlates - i.e. - cognate with the @ÛF\"4 of Aristotelianism - disbands ‘nominal signifiers’ in propositions which are assumed as fixed entities. Thus, for example, signification - reference - in the

131 phrase, “Lazarus, who is dying...” is seen as an unfixed entity (no entity at all), which refuses tertium exclusi at sub-propositional and hyper-propositional levels. This is evidently aimed at the ground of any morphological alphabet which attempts to construct a subject, and it immediately implicates non-entitative consequences. Generally speaking then, “Lazarus ..” - or, in Meinong’s commonplace phraseology, “the man next door ...” - is becoming into an (unknown) identity, which invalidates any identity assumed beforehand. This implies that theory is designed to conceal the crucial ßBVD>4H - existential beginning - of true identity, and that identity is at a remove from ‘man’ in deific regions of the Spirit .. in which regions the conspiratorial rebellion against man’s real origin is undone. Hence, it is the cataclysmic which is called for in epistemic research, viz, a momentous and violent event or series of events marked by overwhelming upheaval and demolition, in which the pose of man is rent asunder .. and in which nihilation to the ground, man is re-birthed as that which he always was, is and shall be. [Note: The subject “Lazarus” penetrates both sides of death, and dying is not part of what Coleridge called ‘deduction from the verb substantive, esse’, namely, Aristotle’s ousia, which is seen as something carried forward uncritically through Schelling, Solgar, Hegel and the Germans since Fichte. The idea ‘> is dying’ repudiates any verb substantive by the coincidentia oppositorum of mutually-exclusive predicates - e.g. - ‘> is alive-dying-dead- alive’ includes ‘contraries of (subject) identity’ in the disbanding of that temporality necessary for the formulation of tertium exclusi. The Greek verb (\(<@µ"4 only transposes to a ‘verb substantive, ousia’ by a falsely-wrought process of completion, that is, becoming is a verb intransitive like dying, and such verbs take no object but the subject: however, such a subject is ‘uncontained by its own dissolution’ .. and/or it is exactly on a par with a manifest contradiction-in-terms, a ‘dying being’. If we compare this with (,\<@µ"4 - to come into a new state of being - this latter state might be taken to imply ,É<"4 persists as an identifiable stratum - ßB`FJ"F4H = ,É<"4 - as if man is merely an accretion of false predicates on an ousia. The logicians of Alexandria-Byzantium asserted that death is penetrable now by deification, because death (like man) is not an ousia.

There is evidence that Aristotle (see Note* below) was aware of disconcerting features in the geometrical discussion of his own and previous times. Various non-Euclidean theorems are mooted about in ‘De caelo’, ‘Magna Moralia’, ‘Ethica ad Eudemum’ - &c - many of which can be conjoined to Aristotle’s recognition that tertium exclusi possesses no proof of its own, that is, no proof beyond circularity. In fact, both Aristotle & Euclid entered into a severe problematic with their purported constructivist finitism, which invariably brings on quandries regarding ideas of incommensurability, irrationality, relative

132 inconsistency and infinity. Later Alexandrian-Byzantine logicians, such as Leontius 6cent. A.D. (Note **), dispossessed themselves of this line of inquiry by showing that relative consistency mutually implies relative inconsistency - i.e. - that the mode of reductio ad absurdum via indirect proof denies tertium exclusi and that it, therefore, implies the non-identity of identity. Thus, unlike Aristotle and his abstractionist progeny, Byzantine logicians used a methodology of such striking power that it renders the continuing autopsies of Kantianism, Hegelianism - &c - unnecessary. They did this by the following means: they displaced the fiction of ousia in manhood (and/or as manhood) by becoming 2,`H, and they reasoned that argumentation in abstracto could not effectively negate the non-identity of identity, if only for the reason that the identity in question was & is unknown. They further argued that everything quantifiable is every-thing, as if referents for individuation - hence identity - were falsely fixed thereby. This is confirmed by Aristotle - ‘Meta. IV 4, 1006b 11-22' - when he writes, “Let it be granted then .. that a word signifies something and signifies one thing. Then it is not possible for being a man to signify the same as not being a man, if ‘man’ signifies one thing. And it will not be possible for the same thing to be and not be, except by virtue of an homonymy, as when we call man others should call not man. But the question is not whether it is possible for the same thing at the same time to be and not be called a man in name, but whether it can be and not be a man in fact.” The logicians of Alexandria-Byzantium denied the correlation of man-as- ousia and thinghood, contra Aristotelianism, allowing the conclusion that the “principles” of tertium exclusi and contradiction pertain to ousiai only, not to accidents, and, therefore, as ousiai do not exist, neither does subject-identity. The question then as to the axiological value of any subject-object and/or subject- predicate logic - indeed, of any calculus with a subject presumed or aligned with a vocabulary of elements - is answered by its entire negation. This position stands also with regard to logics of propositions, especially if the subject is further obfuscated - somewhere assumed - under an array of symbols. Further, if the symbols are attached to a subject, only insolubilia will result if the problem of the non-identity of identity is not resolved of and for a subject. Hence, the anthropological evaluation of man is centralized in the logic of Alexandria- Byzantium: if man is not a subject - a subject in rebus or ante res, that is, not a subject at all - then man is not human. It is precisely because man labours under a (voluntarist) delusion that he is not immediately glorifiable by ontological alteration that such alteration is proscribed.

[Note*: In ‘De Caelo’ Aristotle considered the refusal of the primitive diagonalization of a unit-square as a means whereby the process of reductio ad absurdum is reinforced, as if this process clarifies the simultaneous derivation of contraries. Thus, even though Aristotelian essentialism musters forth abstract data purporting to negate incommensurability - meant, thereby, to support ousiai

133 - incommensurables themselves are never linked with atemporality as a condition for the negation of tertium exclusi. The entire question of the reconciliation of opposites implicit in this negation is seen as manipulated ‘from below’ - i.e. - by something human, as if opposites can be harmonized by such manipulation. Naturally, if systems are derived from opposites as entities relatively consistent (if the method of reductio ad absurdum is recognised as a failed absolute), then entities relatively inconsistent are the simulcra of the coincidentia oppositorum. In another century Gauss warded off systems exhibiting opposite consistencies, but the Alexandrian-Byzantine logicians refused evasive ‘supra-rationalism’ of this sort of position by dislocating identity ‘from above’: 2,`H penetrates the incongrous similitudes of identity by the Visio Dei ...].

[Note**: Leontius shares in the development of an extremely radical alteration in intellectual history, indeed, in the entirety of Geistesgeschichte, in that he developed the thought that Aristotle’s theory of ousiai is negated by a transfigurational hypostasis, with ‘man’, naturally, included in this process. He thus overcame clauses of binding temporality - the logics of fallen humanity - and the confines of spatio-temporality in that transfigurational hypostasis, thereby overcoming the non-identity of identity in the process. Evidently, Leontius possessed the spiritual acuity necessary to confront God Almighty amongst His risen powers; and it is here amongst these fulgurations of energy - “reared in sublime thunders clad” - that one supercedes arithmetico- combinatorial frameworks by the recognition that of Thy Wisdom there is no number ...].

The normative structures of Alexandrian-Byzantine thought made a sharp distinction between divine and “human” logics, with the former J@L 7@(@L - of God - and the latter branded as imperfect & incomplete (like man). The latter is inevitably beset with insolubilia - antinomies, incommensurables, infinities, alias the termini of abstractions - whilst the former is guided by a vastly different perspective. Alexandrian-Byzantine thought is not about consistency in terms or proofs via FPZµ"J": it is about deification. The apparatus of earthly logic (and the mathematics it engenders or is generated by) is insufficient in its scope, because it negates experience of the divine. The Aristotelian & post-Aristotelian system of reference, morphology - &c - is incomplete, not only through proof of its own unprovability, but through the incompletion intrinsic to its own (imperfect) methodology. The Byzantines reasoned that theos discards imperfection ... hence it is necessary to locate a formulaic apparatus in which Truth is perceived or made visible. To do this they recognised logic is divided into two asymmetric parts, viz, the divine-human - 2,`H - in which words

134 display light by irruptions of energy, and the “human” in which words do not display light by man’s refusal to be theos. Hence, for these logicians, reasoning was placed in an axiological frame of reference over and against any identification with things. Thinghood - qua abstract surrogation and the systematic ‘componentization’ implicit in mental constructivism - was anathematized to the degree that it negated metamorphosis. Thought-related-to- things, including abstract things, was seen as a methodological tethering or ‘binding into’ lower forms of consciousness. The Byzantines further argued that all ‘fixed entity’ coordinates ideologically supported theories of ousia - i.e. - as an ousia ‘is what it is and no other’, the identity of identity is assumed and metamorphosis is impossible: consequently, the idea that ‘man is what he is and no other’ refuses logic tou Logou, and therefore the gods damn their own transfiguration by an erroneous theoretical subscription. The pose of “being human” is re-ified by the gods until identity is dislocated into itself .. until mans returns .. but until then tertium exclusi, contradiction and “identity” supervene as unprovables - mere hypotheses - in the ground of theory .. [Note: The logicians of Alexandria-Byzantium regarded essentialism as the view that metamorphosis cannot occur, and thus its lack signifies the ontological pivot of the most profound ignorance. This view is the backbone of Greek paganism and of all heresy - i.e. - of all thought in general. Metamorphosis is apotheosis, in which process thought and its entire schematic diversification & systematization is reborn into itself as the imago Dei, as it goes forth out of the primitive odyssey of thinking into the absolute genius of God its Maker. Coleridge, with the perspicacity of his intellect intensely focussed, observed this (PW, 1,394):

All look and likeness caught from earth, All accident of kin and birth, Had pass’d away. There was no trace Of aught on that illumined face, Upraise’d beneath the rifted stone But of one spirit all her own;- She, she herself, and only she, Shone through her body visibly.

The denial of metamorphosis is prevalent in philosophical history .. in history generally .. where man takes thought: thus earthlings cling to the earth like fleas on the back of an abyss. This denial shows itself in the minutiae of almost all theory, in life’s theory and in life, and theory is prevalent almost everywhere. Yet deification asserts that Truth is not a predicative ascription in composite structures and/or a value or symbol attached to ‘p’, ‘q’, ‘r’ - &c - as if morphological units in combinatorial and sentential systems are capable of

135 bringing Truth forth. Byzantine logicians asserted the necessity of divine visions of reality replacing thought & its (mis)representations, especially in the recognition of ‘nothing is but which is not’, that is, because identity is unformulable without deific transfiguration, the very ground of each & every theoretical maneouvre is seen as lacking feasability: thus (Ps.81)’the foundations of the world are out of course’. Basic units - the morphemes and/or nominal signifiers of mathematical & logical ideologies - are thus implicitly stultifying. One cannot even argue that contradiction is self-contradictory unless identity is identical with itself (which it is not): hence, only deific supercession manifests Truth, and this Truth is a living being - a living being glorious, awesome, complete .. of power insuperable .. of Light, Spirit and Love .. without Whom and in Whom there is no Truth: ergo Almighty God. This God is usually abstracted away and made something as tendencious as formal argumentation - relegated amongst the hypotheticals - when, in reality, His is the inhalation of the starlight of mid-day & the exhalation of magnificent innocence on risen intellect...

Given this token appraisal of the logicality of Alexandria-Byzantium, philosophical studies are cast in a new (critical) light. Instead of philosophy being seen as an activity in pursuit of Truth, it is regarded as a primal means of arresting intellect, in that the deific is properly inaccessible to propositional discourse. Logicians of ‘deific stripe’ would see constructivist finitism as entitative finitism, whose proponents fail to see that the subject and its negation presence together as one. The anthropo-logical vocabulary of such a subject manifests entire otherness simultaneously as it does not - i.e. - any human vocabulary mutually shadows its own deific de-con-struction, as it represses away the presence of itself as manifestly other. Thus, for example, as identity underpins tertium exclusi and (non)contradiction, it is the very simultaneity of these “principles” which gives the lie to human logic. The enforcement of the principle ‘not the subject and its contrary at the same time’ represses away the eternal which becomes the subject. Hence, the logicians of Byzantium would see the ‘indemonstrables’ of Aristotelian and post-Aristotelian logics as mere temporal clauses, albeit clauses of such beguiling persistence that they reduce the gods to spiritless servitude ... [Note: Finitism is the view of Kant and his successors - including Gauss, Kronecker, Hilbert and Brouwer - that considers infinity as an abstract-schematic impenetrable. It is a view which refuses the possibility of manifest Godhead and the actuality of deific life via somatic penetration and homoiosis. Kant’s argumentation is one of limits in which the fliessende Größen of space conjoin with the continuing quanta of time, in order that all parts of space in infinitum exist simultaneously - i.e. - as Kant presumes subject-identity in an ‘I-thinking ground’ it follows inevitably that spatio-

136 temporality is subject to identity: however, precisely in what way an undifferentiated infinity is an identity is another matter. Tertium exclusi remains inviolable in this terrain, but one can almost hear Archytas, stretching out his hand at infinity, saying, “Infinity is an identity simultaneously as it is not”. Tertium exclusi is rescinded in the recognition that both sides of a proof reduce to absurdities, especially when either ‘the identity of identity’ or ‘the identity of identity’ is assumed amongst ‘axiomata thinkable in themselves and not self- contradictory’, as if vast multiplicities of illogical elements - including null-sets, alephs, irrationals, incommensurables, antinomies, differentiated transfinite strata, and so forth - do not intrude themselves into the consciousnesses of the gods who are fallen.].

That there is continuity in the mathematico-philosophical view of essentialism is easily seen in the fundamentals of Kantianism. For Kant every proposition ascribes a property to a subject, and the analytic-synthetic distinction directly concerns predication in relation to a subject. It can be suggested immediately that similar thought concerning geometry links Aristotle to Euclid, Kant to Euclid and Aristotle to Kant - i.e. - both Aristotle and Kant knew of the existence of discrepant propositions in the foundations of geometry, the former from Heraclitus-Zeno & the latter from Saccheri-Lambert. First then, let it be remarked that the subject in syllogistic (monadic) and non-syllogistic (polyadic) logico-mathematical structure is thought somehow to exist, whether, as in Aristotle’s case, as a primary ousia, or, in Kant’s, through the unity of apperception: something somehow is entitative or determinable. Although we must now, in modernity, no longer unrestrainedly use tertium exclusi and the method of reductio ad absurdum - due to the existence of opposite consistencies - nor presume the absoluteness of logical “laws” vis-à-vis the differentiation of transfinite numbers, the dissolution of the subject and its abstractions is not thought possible (except, perhaps, by the exigencies of death as nihilation). Yet in philosophy precisely what the subject is (or thought to be) is inevitably presumed in its determination, even if that determination is not complete: its it- ness or is-ness has to be decided. If one argues, however, that the non-identity of identity is characteristic of humans, then the nihilation of tertium exclusi makes it-ness (or is-ness) coalesce with not-it-ness (or not-is-ness), or, in other words, the it-entitaveness of id-entity coincides with its own negation. The logicians of Alexandria termed the not-it-entity theos - literally, a god - as if the coincidence of opposites (human and not-human) awaited resolution by supercession. These logicians identified the divine as human and its sub-stance as not-human (or sub-human). A fallen human is a god under himself, coinciding with what he is not, viz, his sub-stance or ousia. This living-not-ness is the subject which concerns philosophy. This living-not-ness is what philosophy -

137 mathematics, logic, science &c - attempts to re-ify against itself as theos. Philosophy thing-izes nothing as being, makes opposites coincide, by the substances of theoi. Byzantine logicians asserted that the gods (divine humans) had become humans (sub-humans) by a rebellion into identity (id-entity, or, literally, it-entity). Hence, in this greatest of all possible rebellions the sons of God pose(d) as men and elevated untruths over Truth, giving birth to philosophy, mathematics, science, history - &c - over and against their divine origin .. over and against their Immaculate Master, who initially brought them forth as great immortals. In consequence of this war in & against Heaven, pathological immortals maintain fallen knowledge by stringent partitions, rigid prescription and the menacing control of taboos. The failure of philosophy to demonstrate the existence of God is in keeping with this rebellion and the idolatrous use of “God” - but, naturally, God is more than capable of proving His own existence. [Note: The term 2,`H in Alexandrian-Byzantine thought is not a correlate of mythic (ego) inflation, as if the res cogitans takes thought into imaginary realms. The Kantian ‘Einbildungskraft’ is in no way comparable to theos, because the latter is transfigured in non-categorial, non-entitative and pre-propositional becomings. The identity of theos ontologically sloughs off lower (false) identities in the return to its immaculate origination, and in this process elements which attempt to fix vocabularies are radicalized - e.g. - thought that is be-cognate of es- (as with a human be-ing in the mode of the verb substantive, es-se), and which presumes be-replacers are predominant over abstractions for becoming is shown that be-ing manifests the antinomy of identity; thus be-coming eradicates the it- ness of be-ing. Coleridge suggested that the verb substantive, ‘I am’ of the Gk. ,Æµ\ - Ln. sum - (an es-replacer) preeminently represents existence, but that the use of esse alone excludes the auxilary verb, habere - e.g. - Our Father, that art in Heaven, thine is the Kingdom & the Power & the Glory! The supposed conceptual priority of be to become is nihilated - sublated, annulled - when it is recognized that an incongruous similitude exists between the ‘I am that I am’ and the antinomial identity of fallen man. Transfiguration into theos places becoming over be-ing, because only then is the latter recognised as a deprivation of life in Heaven.

138 Letter to God from Cretin City #227/91.

Extracts ... fragments: 1. God is known directly by living light (indirectly by religion - i.e. - by absence), by living light which eliminates “putride effluxions” (Donne). Schopenhauer refers to intellect as “an enema syringe in a conflagration” - a charming metaphor - but this is earthly intellect not visited by the divine. Heavenly intellect is the induction of noble integrity into the “eternity of super- infinite evers” (Donne): everything below this is infested by the insanity of the merely human. Earthly intellect is the state of Entscheidungslosikeit, of undecidedness, about God as it stands upon Gottlosigkeit - Godlessness - itself foully commaculated by the lie of the wholly-otherness of God. The ante-room of the presence of the Almighty is greater than portals of amethyst and a stairway of gold - one returns here first.

2. “All freedom is a threat to someone” (Camus): thus freedom is found in God only. It is impossible to argue from any esse axiomatically: that is there is no esse anywhere beyond God’s centre .. no esse in operari (contra Spinoza, Schopenhauer and others): that is only images stem from esse. God’s esse is freedom & living light & freedom precedes necessity (contra Calvin and his disciple, Spinoza). The threat of freedom is man’s threat against God - i.e. - in refusing freedom man binds himself against God .. binds others, binds humanity. There is no human freedom anywhere: the earth is a prison-camp in a spiritual desert: however, oases of mystical light - the Almighty’s presencing - exist for the truly loving.

3. Imaging the Almighty in divine energy is to mount up into deific light. The return of God’s progeny occurs in the startlingly beautiful. The extra dimension - unseen, derided and denied by earthly intellect - shines forth in celestial magnificence, and one enters in as a god of light. Freedom is the loosing off of flesh as it is transformed into living light (this is God Almighty as the alchemistic genius: He takes deadened flesh and transmutes it into choruses of living light: genius cascades when the earth is dead.) Spinoza said, “Everything that lives in God’s realm should, indeed, if I may say so, must become like God.” Almost correct except essences negate deific life. Spinoza argues essence is infinite and so is every attribute (all essence is in every attribute): this does not explain finite life and the teeming billions of undeified mortals. Mortal - i.e. - “nothing’s quintessence”, “the murderous embryo fitted for workes of darkness ... fed with blood”, “spermatique issue of ripe menstrous boiles” (Donne). Etc! Yet this mortal imagines himself, in his lunacy, as characterised by

139 Veränderungsfremdheit - foreignness to alteration - when the elective and deific powers of Almighty God approach with the stealth of purest genius. The “sophisticate inculcatings” of the earth draw down the gods and goddesses of the Most High: integrity bleeds on the low. Mortality is caged nightmare. Earth is the mutilation of Heaven. Earth is the mutilation of genius.

4. “Each soul knows the infinite, knows everything but confusedly,” says Leibniz. Compare this to “all things counterfeit infinity” (Coleridge to Thelwall 1797). No: it is the infinite which is counterfeit: the infinite is a fallen conception: it it is the empowering - enlarging - of absurdities located in the finite. Leibniz should have written, “Each soul knows the infinite as the confused knowledge of everything”: this “everything” is unknown outside of immortality. To stand on the plateau of omniscient perspective is to know the domain of the living God; and it is first to confront the awesome fact that He exists ... God is supereminently real (..nothing is real without Him) ... Er ist Übergottheit: He is Supergodhead .. and He knows the answers to infinitely infinite puzzles. How He has always been. How He is forever unbirthed. How He is the unoriginated origin. How He sired deities by the pure innocence of Almighty Intellect. Of course, it is God’s intellect which is the thing-in-itself. Compare this with Schopenhauer’s remarks to Frauenstädt, “In vain have I written to you not to seek the thing-in-itself in cloud-cuckoo-land - i.e. - where the God of the Jews resides - but in the things of this world .. In the table at which you write, in the chair under your arse. My philosophy is never concerned with cloud-cuckoo-land but with this world .. It is immanent, not transcendent.” Alas, Schopenhauer’s arse is no longer with this world: neither is it in his chair: perhaps the God of the Jews knows where it is?

5. The Vision of God is the birth of real intellect - in reality, its re-birth, as it again comes into its own. That which is so rebirthed in eternity is inducted in degree in eternity fully exponentiated in all its glory. Earth becomes non-entity - its “esse” - and the fundamental (philosophical) question as to the origin of all (“where did it all come from?”) is answered. The all-of-earth came from nothing. Pain, horror, torture, murder, death ... this fabric of earth did not exist .. death was the winding-sheet of nothing ... in God death becomes nothing. Out of God the undying inhabit ferocious nightmare .. immortals mortalizing themselves, being forced into mortality .. “see, it becomes human .. !” To know this of oneself, to be allowed to re-experience part of one’s high mortalization - the downgoing of the god - is to understand the origin of humanity, bereft of glory ... stripped like an infant .. going down the chute .. To be born human is to know the fading of glory, innocent infant joys reaching the reality of screaming ..Questing for immortality, one looks in all the wrong places .. hundreds of

140

volumes of philosophy, perhaps thousands .. no scheme of which is in any way comparable to the incomparability of the startling intelligence of our risen Messiah .... This highest of immortals walks in His own light, on His own light .. not walking like a man - though, indeed, this is precisely what God is - but walking like a god - on light, on water .. the very walls before Him open and bow down .. Yet to philosophy: Schopenhauer 1858 to Morin, “A philosophy in between the pages of which one does not hear the tears, the weeping & the gnashing of teeth & the terrible din of mutual universal murder, is no philosophy.” This rids us immediately of scores of celebrated ephemerids - Wittgenstein, for instance, or Frege. If these thinkers had really plumbed the fundamentum in rebus - the foundation of the world - they would have been confronted by the annihilating powers of Christ’s mystic splendour .. shores of arcane pearl with risen lightning in the mane of one’s winged steed, gleaming in a radiance of unearthly colours. Abyssi abyssos invocant, says a Psalm (42:8) - “the depths call upon the depths.” These men (amongst millions more) missed the call that God puts out to all nobility - Truth. Truth intrudes into the pits of hell - indeed, it was specifically taken there: but Truth rises up beyond the blackness of philosophy .. beyond the accompanying stench of earthly murder .. into a realm of unmitigated & loving holiness - pure Heaven. It is not this which should be consigned to silence .. preferably Wittgenstein’s polluted psyche .. f***ing human nonsense. Yet the ‘mystique of intelligence’ - articulation convoluted - enthralls and damns many, as it tempts, via reputation & the buttresses of egotism, one’s spiritual apparatus away from golden lands in which, from eternity, high deities lived in the absolutes of beauty & perfection. The heights of earth interconnect with incalculable atrocity .. much calculated by its ‘cleverest men’ as purveyors of hideous death .. any least section of which passes beyond computation as mutual murder seeks its ascending equilibrium - its foul madness - in a living mirror of corpses. Monsters are not entities aside from humanity: they are its coordinates. Voluntarism is ineradicable in the imago Dei: one volunteers for more corruption or less. Omni- necessitarianism .. “what ..! everything is determined” .. is the evil presumption that one knows everything to be able to say this is so. The mirror of the soul is the mirror of Almighty God: thus one can piss, shit, ejaculate and bleed on this mirror ... one can crucify children on it (as a partial taste of ripping out the Messiah’s heart) .. but one cannot eliminate the face of Christ from the human soul. This face is the Master of Heaven .. of such inordinate goodness & ultra- superlative kindness .. that without this God .. victim of aberrant humanity .. the normative could possess no alternative. But this alternative shatters the ‘fixed ontologies’ of agreed subscription. Christ provokes in saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is within: one queries, Within what? It is certainly within existence, but not in existence as commonly (abnormally) perceived. Any theory of perception which fails to perceive its own reversal, its pre-conceived fall, treats its own abnormality as something normal. Without re-divinization abnormality reigns,

141 and the specious ‘other worlds’ of mutancy - “higher intellect” & “human genius” - corrupt the immanence of deific light. One then says, The fall must be destroyed ...

6. What does the imago Dei - in everyday, inaccurate parlance ‘the soul’ - look like? First, it has no “whatness” at all, and, second, it is not like any-thing. “Thingness” is totally foreign to it - in fact, the imago Dei is not an it. One must, therefore, use the term ‘it’ as a measure of erasure: it is neither male nor female in the sense that sexuality is predicated of the flesh; but it is both male and female as the specific or particular gender of one’s sex is transcended; that is it manifests all human forms as it exits inhuman humanity. In deification the panoply of the entirety of historical individuation is shone forth before its divine supercession - i.e. - it comes to look like God having gathered & destroyed all previous unlikenesses to God, all false likenesses to God, all corruptions of Him as seen through prismatic excrescences ... life’s accumulated filth & blackness is removed in mirroring the exquisite, in imaging the starburst & nimbus of His magnificence: without the saddle of life’s deadly portent, deity ascends into the empyrean - Heaven’s within blasting without - lifted in the consummate glorifications & redolent immaculatenesses of light divine. One becomes a being of light sub ratione possibilitatis, according to a capacity forcing the immeasurable .. fire breaching the fiery orb .. assaulting the cauldron .. entering the furnace of the Lord God Almighty’s mightiest love ....

7. Infinitism fully enters philosophy via Hegel (in contradistinction to Descartes): this connects Hegel to Leibniz, who sought to base contingency on infinite predication. Hegel relates infinitism to the self: “The peculiar quality of mind is to be the true infinite, that is, the infinite which does not one-sidedly stand over against the finite but contains the finite within itself as a moment. It is, therefore, meaningless to say: there are finite minds. Mind qua mind is not finite .. it has finitude within itself, but only as a finitude which is to be, and has been, reduced to a moment.” This is very much like the vaunted idea of “freedom” in Germanic philosophy, which, coupled almost invariably with “necessity”, is as free as it pleases in handcuffs. There are several (ineradicable) difficulties with Hegel’s infinitism: it constantly appears as the finite & it is constantly presupposed as surrounding the finite (thus, the contained is the expression of the container). Moment to moment is infinite tread but, alas, it is also finite tread. As the infinite always appears like this - as it were, bound by its content - how then is appearance transcended to the reality of the infinite? Of course, it cannot be, because transcending the finite means transcending the accompanying infinite. This kind of transcendence - Aufhebung - is merely a malicious fiction .. unempowered impotence, arrogant posturing .. it is a man

142 cloaking the mirror .... Hegel says that we make ourselves finite by “receiving another into our consciousness; but, in knowing it, we transcend this limitation”: thus via this “transcendence” - the overcoming of the not-I - one somehow steps forward as an amalgam of incompossible abstractions, as the stultifying paradox of finitude is contained in the greater stultifying paradox of infinitude. Both finitude and infinitude lack identity: neither is a stable ground: as mutual referents they suggest topological madness: the structure of the asylum warps the inmates, but, in the first place, they are responsible for its construction. The immortals have become insane, unbinding themselves only with the violent ontologies of death, which they dare to name life.

8. Infinitism in Spinoza - attributed to “God” - results in a complex obfuscation of glory: it cannot access the Almighty: it is a beclouding by the maladroit use of terms insufficiently analysed, terms folding back on themselves of such sort that one is expected to pierce shifts of meaning & reference as they pile & re-pile themselves .. as they textually multiply into a morass. In Spinozism, as in all studies of infinity, it is humanly impossible to meaningfully disentangle barbed entanglements at the outposts of warped spirituality: even the divine cannot do it in human terms. Analysis - by analysis situs, modern topology, Mengenlehre - of the infinite is virtually a forcing of mentality into “the infinite” by the fallen world .. by “the finite” .. when neither term stands as anything actually existing. Both these pernicious abstractions & what they presume to represent or image are the fetters of deities dying to the divine .. manacling themselves into incomprehensibility by use of the incomprehensible. In a roaring ocean of non-identity humans tether themselves by identities, when identities - rocks & refuges in appearance - are also appearances, that is, they are phenomena violating the divine. In virtually all human logic analytic judgments - propositions, thoughts - reduce to identities. Necessitous thought is what it is by virtue of identity; yet this “necessity” is in turn liable to violation by the divine. Leibniz links finitist logic (that of necessity & identity) with contingent fact - the reality of the world - with the analysis of the latter proceeding infinitely, as an asymptotic curve continuously approaches a line: thus contingency is made surveyable & predicable by the infinite mind of God. Unfortunately for this scheme it is open to immediate criticism, not least of which concerns the presumption that infinity is other than appearance. Moreover, an asymptote approaching infinity remarkably resembles an asymptote approaching zero - so: sub ratione impossibilitatis - which is no identity at all. Finite identity and infinite non-identity are thereby conjoined: presumably the “infinite mind” of God - in its overview of this process - likewise approaches zero. One characteristic of the thought of Leibniz is to chain the Almighty to the bar of reason: there are rules & mandates beside Him: alas, reason is fallen: fortunately, God is not. One can, of course, vary the meaning of infinitus in the

143 thought of Leibniz & Spinoza: the idea of something ‘numerically endless’ - limitless - can be used to define finitude on the basis of self-augmentation, but this is no more helpful than defining infinitude by endlessness completed. In regarding God as infinite substance with infinite attributes, all of which, without exception, essentiate substance, we advance meaninglessness back into the madhouse. When Spinoza argues, “Ex necessitate divinae naturae infinita infinitis modis,” - “from the necessity of the infinite divine nature infinite modes follow” - are we to believe an infinity of negations ensue? Or: how then do finite modes ensue? An infinite consequence (one infinite consequence of many) is surely not consistent e.g. how do we demonstrate the falsity of its opposite to secure its truth? The idea that everything can be comprehended by an infinite intellect is negated by its lack of comprehension of a greater infinity. God, on this view - Spinoza’s “infinitely thinking thing” - cannot be conceived of as possessing identity at all, that is, He cannot be identified even as God. The idea of substance - so: the is-ness of itself, or itself and no other - carries with it all- inclusiveness, or completeness: thus it excludes that limitlessness demanded by the infinite: further, it excludes that limitlessness demanded by the self- augmentation of the finite. Spinoza’s “God” is like a schizophrenic squid with infinite legs, each of which is equal to its head. Just as everything follows from a false premiss, everything follows from an infinite premiss: ergo, infinity has the status of an attenuated falsehood.

9. Infinitism in Spinoza is a this-worldly denial of transcendence: infinity cannot be gone beyond, immanence reigns in this-worldly foreverness: in this sense it is the inverse correlate of Calvinism - i.e. - transcendence is affirmed by Calvin but cannot be reached: the hiatus between infinitude and finitude cannot be crossed: God is so far removed that only this-world occupies one’s intellectual vision. Spinoza was preceded to Calvinist Amsterdam by Iberian Marranos: thus, escaping the Papacy into alternate Christian forms, these Iberian Jews confirmed a non-metamorphic ideology. Immanence is an over-subscription to philosophical finitism, which shows Spinoza’s infinities as their opposites. This- worldliness is merely the view espoused by those who have not penetrated the divine-other. In this sense Spinoza is still within the compass of Judaism. Protestantism and Judaism share the latter’s this-worldly basis: the doctrine of election derives from ‘God’s chosen people’, separatism derives from alienation, and alienation derives from deities fallen into this-world. The alternating swindles of infinitism & finitism imply God Almighty cannot be reached: this is a defamatory lie stretched out into elaborate textual deceits .. sentential idolatries .. in fact, into worldly philosophies .. which in turn generate homens de negócios, economists, scientists & other blind riffraff of the down. It is no accident that Spinozism penetrated Protestant Germany - Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Hegel et al - as infinitism is a vehicle for nihilism. Nietzsche, despite

144 himself, uttered a profound truth (one still largely unknown) in saying, “I believe in the ancient German dictum, ‘All gods must die’.” Deities who refuse metamorphosis surely die: this-worldliness is all they have .... Calvinism puts God so far beyond .. makes God so inaccessible .. that transcendence and nullity become virtually the same: over-transcendence and the denial of transcendence are theoretical counterparts: absence becomes a this-worldly norm & rewarding oneself in God’s absence is a self-subscription to virtue. The denial of metamorphosis leaves one seeing only the here & now: Spinoza “deifies” this world in God’s absence & Calvin “deifies” that world in God’s absence. The entirety of Calvinism is to be found in legalistic subscription .. in the formulae of a binding textuality .. and it is in the sense of contractuality that Hebraic Pharisaism, Protestantism & Spinozism converge - i.e. - the finitude of non- deific textuality binds this-worldly ideologies by excluding deific occurrences. All such textuality is on the down in not flaming with visible glory ....

10. What are we to make of textuality - the word as res extensa - under finitism? Tertium exclusi forbids opposite predicates for the same res. Unfortunately for this proscription, man, not being a thing at all, wears finitism as an inapplicable predicate. ‘Mortality’ and ‘immortality’ hinge on the idea & definition of death, and ‘life’ and ‘death’ lack essences, that is, like finitude and its opposite, their completion is merely appearance. One cannot complete life as it goes on forevermore: likewise, death goes into life. Goethe says, “Alles Vergänglich ist nur ein Gleichnis” - everything transitory is only a simile: of course, one asks for what? Simile ... allegory .. of the divine; but transitoriness warps divinity by the apparent exclusion of God. God cannot be excluded: nothing can keep Him out: if He insists on making His presence known .. life will part. Infinitism and finitism are ana-clyptic forms: veils put on ... mis-identities: and mis-identities can take on self-negating ratios only. Leibniz is wrong in dividing life into commensurables & their ever- approaching opposites. Incommensurables are infinities welded in - i.e. - mis- identities gathered into appearances. Infinitism (like its chimerical lesser sister) is no ens reale: neither is quiddam substantiale. Coleridge is quite fine on this point: “The finite can neither be laid hold of, nor is it any thing of itself, but merely an apprehension, a framework which the human imagination forms by its own limits, as the foot measures itself on the snow.” What then of the finite text? Or the infinite text? Man - “nothing’s anomaly” - rescinds textuality in the deific return: textuality becomes - in Blake’s words - eternal sunrise. Coleridge saw misery as a merciful mode of recalling us from our self-chosen exile. Kierkegaard saw despair as a lack of the eternal. Unfortunately, both regarded God as invisible. This is an immediate reminder of the dark historicity of Protestant thought, summed up in Milton’s line: “God is light, And never but in unapproached light, Dwelt from eternity.” This dreadful and disgusting error, the

145 worst of all emphases, is the contrary of the Vision of God. In the envisagement .. in the ` actual seeing of Almighty God .. realitas is in absolute fact fact-ness ... Sachheit .. literalness .. it is the fake conjunction of infinitism & finitism, these worn appearances, which manifest nothing .. which are pushed over by God’s visibility .. in precisely the same way that “necessity” - the force of the living nightmare that went before - is broken by the awakening. The god (or goddess) comes forth into the shining immaculate. God’s visibility is to be likened, inadequately, to turbulence, entirely beyond capture by linear & non-linear equations, but with the proviso (such is the energy of the Holy Ghost) that His presence is unutterably manifest in its beauty. Despite the efforts of all deicides, Calvin and Spinoza included, the light of Christ reaches into the world.

11. Spinoza’s infinity is totally equivocal: is there one infinity or more? Numeration pertaining to infinitudes (.. possible pluralities of infinitudes) existed before the time of Spinoza. Amsterdam Calvinists were fully aware of Augustine’s thoughts on the matter: there is an insurmountable abyss between infinite God & finite man. Infinity cannot be reached, never mind gone beyond. It can be reached, says Spinoza .. It is immanent, it is here: it is the here-ness of immanence which is God .. ‘God is this-world’. Now the thing about infinity is that it cannot simply be here: it must be there as well. Immanence cannot be contained if it is infinite. Infinity cannot be this-world’s doormat. The more the mat (whose near edge cannot be reached) is pulled towards the door, the more its far edge stretches back. Transcendence & immanence are implicitly, inextricably & intrinsically linked. If one says Spinoza’s infinitely thinking thing is not a numerical entity - as if, somehow, enumeration and substance are divorced - one cannot say if there is one infinitely thinking thing or more. If Spinoza’s infinitely thinking thing is a numerical entity, it is that thing which cannot count itself: in counting forever it cannot say it is infinite: therefore, it cannot say it is infinitely thinking. Spinoza’s infinitely thinking thing is not infinitely thinking .... Some God this turns out to be: Spinoza’s “God” is an attempt to de-God God ...

12. Evidently, assailing God by proxy ... assaulting a false image of God .. results in God remaining unmolested. Spinoza’s writhing infinity is as much imaginatio as the conceptions he castigates in the ‘lower orders’ of anthropomorphites, that is, as he sees those personalizing God as anthropomorphites ... Spinoza’s infinitely thinking thing is a convulsing flux .. an epileptic fit discharging itself infinitely & inside out .. and worked out geometrically inside his poor head. Fancy carrying that around .. Novalis called it “God intoxication” .. More like a man possessed by the Hydra in attending to his daily grind. Spinoza’s elitism - crypto-fascism - elevates him (& those like

146 him) above Ovid’s & Apuleius’ Metamorphoses ... above those who think Christ is ‘something like this’ ... “The infinite cannot become man: God is infinite: ergo ...” Spinoza thus converts theo-anthropomorphism into the imaginatio of the anthropomorphites, which he, as a man, extolls as his own living monstrosity ..

13. Spinoza is a resolute opponent of the transcendental image: any such image is a composite of infinitized nature - “natura naturans” - which can be seen as nature naturing - “natura naturata” - as if the infinitus is a totalized (or totalitarianized) and holistic mechanism: moreover, it is a living mechanism urged on by the conatus of self-preservation; and, finally, this mechanism is divine. What have we to say about this? One thing it is not is a self - despite Spinoza’s attribution of the attributes of God to this entity it is essentially impersonal: hence to say it is deified nature we are dealing with here is, in itself, mistaken attribution. Levering down a few theological terms into a this-worldly view is no guarantee they fit. In his absolute stance against ‘anthropomorphism’, Spinoza admits in the conatus of self-preservation: surely, anti- anthropomorphism excludes any self (yet this one, whatever it is, is being preserved). Humans certainly do not preserve themselves - mutual murder, suicide - so Spinoza gives us the living death of holism. How does one preserve life by killing: or preserve life by dying? This is a monism of contradiction (.. it is a monism secretly birthing a dualism within): worse, it is a “nature god” spawning its progeny for the advancing crescendo of massacre .. the tattered flesh of blood-red history heralds human abattoirs and experimental death .. Spinoza’s “God” is the necessity of Torquemada’s Inquisition .. of the Nazi death-camps .... it is to these he attaches the attributes of divinity. In saying “This world is God”, Spinoza classifies ‘disembowelling by hot iron’ with self- preservation - one might immediately ask which self? In this view God has all the charm of a pitiless nature, which, in being natural to man, necessitates his murdering .. his ‘atrocitizing’ .. down to sub-demonic levels where children are f***ed with knives, broken by the conatus of raging maniacs .. raped & toasted.. as if God tortures innocence into the squirmings of horrific death. Hegel adds to Spinozism “the I of the infinite Self”, by which agency murderous necessity continues unstoppable .. Necessity ever becomes necessitous. Mutual murder is now the dialect of the emerging godhead of murderers, slaying of necessity .. remorseless .. constructing the Almighty from nature & history. Subscription to necessity - the chain which binds virtually all major philosophers - is the “necessity” which leads to slaughter. Necessity impells the thinker as executioner, puts man under the yoke .. chafing him with the irrevocable finality of a process .. this, this vast superstition .. this complicit imagination engendered by the fallen .. it is this which attempts to keep the extra-dimensionality of metamorphosis at bay.

147 14. Spinoza’s psychological backdrop is alive with ‘extraneous persecutions’: it is an extended memory of enforced choice. “Recant or die” has two ways to necessity. There is the slavery of recantation, or there is hideous death. Yet, however forced the choice, choice is the hinge of two ways to necessity. One cannot prove that all choices are necessitous, and Spinoza’s more geometrico is merely an attempt to ground necessity by obviousness. The despoiling of Euclidean obviousness by alternatives in geometries otherwise construed is the death-knell in self-evidence: likewise for Spinoza’s system. ‘Necessity’ is yet another superstitious ultimate, which is, in itself, a consequence of the general (human) ignorance of metamorphosis. Metamorphosis was systematically phased-out in European thought by Protestantism. Luther’s profound mis-reading of St. Paul links the non-metamorphic thought of Greek paganism with the non- metamorphic thought of Christian heresy. We read in the Pauline 2 Cor. 12.1-10, ‘I will not boast and glory on my own behalf .. To keep from exalting - fr. ßB,D"\DT - in the excess - fr. ßB,D$V88T - of revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh. That is why I approve of weaknesses, insults, hardships, difficulties.’ In Protestantism this passage is taken to mean renunciation of visions & revelations, but one can, I suggest, only renounce such occurrences after they have been experienced. ßB,D"\DT literally says I am lifted up, I am raised up over, I transcend, and Paul testifies that this literally happened. He does not boast of the excess of revelations .. of being thrown over into and by metamorphic events .. but he scourges himself for something - a vice, a thorn - particular to himself, quite possibly in the hope that its lessening or elimination will lift him beyond again. Paul’s testimony to ocular (visionary) experience, here & elsewhere, is to the irruptively deific. One sees God literally - God is frequently seen in the visio beatifica - i.e. - with the eyes; and this alone puts Paul aside from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Kierkegaard, and so forth, who, being ignorant of metamorphy, fashion something less theologically as a general norm. Luther specifically states that God is known through one’s ears. Seeing Him is therefore castigated as glorification - ontologia gloriae, theologia gloriae - and the non-metamorphs take over religious ideologies at ground level. This provides sub-humanity with the “God” it wishes for.

148 Letter to Mai 2/8/91.

I shredded your letter ‘cuz it was full of Norse carping about what I’d said when enormously pissed - which I cannot even recall, plus it was probably hot air anyway (you know me, you chickenshit Viking bitch: insult the universe ‘cuz it’s f***ing boring, turgid, shitty, rotten, stupid etc! and ‘cuz you never wrote me from Oxford or Japan) - ungrateful ingrate ha-ha - and ‘cuz you didn’t supply me with the juicy details of your slurping bimbo/lesbo pussy-licking girl- on-girl shags (.. so there .. ) - you seem to want to slive your lesbo shags on by & even when I get you had that way, I ain’t gonna be dismissed as either voyeur or super-pervert. I know about you AC/DC bitches ‘n’ darlings deep down - it’s over many years of appreciating & watching lesbo ultra-cums, pretty girls in twos & threes - and OK so you like to ass-slap girlie adolescents with clits in mega-pulse but, as a dire punishment, I utterly refuse to reveal details & the psychology attendant thereon of my recent mega-orgies with Anna ‘Nympho-slit’ G. & Alexandra ‘the Kink’ C., assorted slightly-under-age slappers of fantastic mien and bread rolls and snouty ant-eaters. Speaking sincerely now, chums, I hope my latest Parisian protegé is oh-f***ing-kay in the multi-orgasmic stakes ( .. she did come to me after the thigh-boots gangbang to say: look, I can’t be absolutely filthy with them, but if you will wear this - throwing me a suspender belt - I’ll stand here & f*** myself totally: all I can say is desperate coming at such a pitch is more-ish). How are you then, duckie!? ... Awwwllright I f***ing hope. So no more moral high-horses chewing my cock off... Truth is, kid, I’ve been bloody down in the pits of despond; and I mean mega-down with a corpse on the hangman’s hook. Pulverisingly down, deathly down, in the shag-pits of slimesville, suffering from testicular nancyosis so much that I’ve taken to wearing black silk stockings, suspenders, etc, as an overt sign of mourning (tho’ my tossing pinny is always white, frilly and freshly laundered). Seriously now, folks, life pisses me off enormously, if only because it is bleeding horrible, and I’m tired - exhausted actually - of climbing back up from face-down in dismay, despair and depression, and fighting on ‘for what!!?’. My business life has wasted 11+ years - not that any alternative would have been worth a damn anyway - I’m only happy in intricate volumes of brilliant scholarship (love scholars, hate academics) - but methinks we are talking real depression here. Totally down, breathing oblivion. Can’t take anymore down & f*** everything down. Groan down and down-down. I’m even getting depressed writing about it. Cut-throat down. Even up-down. Many thanks for the Baudelaire card - he was down ..... Which reminds me that our ex-buddy Mick, now a Pentecostal twat, is down. Kurt no longer communicates. Tough ‘cuz I enjoyed whanging it up his

149 ‘ex’ from trampolinean, oblique and slithery angles. And passing her on for a strap-on pounding from Anna and the girls. She’s virtually forced to show everything off, cum ‘publicly’, before the girls descend on her like Maenads. O girls - you deific whores you, with irrepressible gobble-cock-itis. Pity there aren’t more pretty youths with the same cavernous yen. Instead there are incredibly stilted bourgeois bastards littering the world. Kurt, I’m told, is being very formal - don’t they! - apparently, he’s all put out, aggrieved and insulted. Poor pecker- head: perhaps I’m just beyond the point of caring about adolescent games and emotional poses. His real problem is he never really cares about anyone but himself: and he never will. This is the bourgeois “tragedy”, deserved, entirely merited: he’ll have to make do with his sports-car and golf-clubs: psyche- f***ing-delic. And they f***ing think money makes them superior, failing to see that shit-for-brains and greed gives money the foul reputation it owns. The ‘eminently reasonable me of tolerant cast’ isn’t around at the moment, probably due to having my helping hand snapped once too often: f*** ‘em all, they can fry in their own shit and delusions.

Otherwise, darling, everything is dandy. The windowboxes are looking a treat: the hydrangeas are a stunningly peripheralized gold, with lots of frilly, scented whatsits - no, no,darling, not minge - emblazoning and interlacing the parapets etc. The images do get blurred, especially as one gets fraught and over- dosed on tedium, ennui, accidie and dreadfully thick Cretin City bastards. My retirement looms - the sooner the f***ing better, as I just cannot stand incarnate insects - pompous, addled, dark - in my everyday viewfinder. Uugghh! “Human” garbage fouls creation - millions of the swine - and it is so utterly pleased with itself, like so much transparent worm faeces. Ugh! Ugh! the bastards are everywhere! Ugh! Ugh! f***ing krap that ‘lives’ and breathes. BASTARDS! Later ( ... pan in on party time 10:20 pm - scene: there is fanny everywhere - exit the main act f***ing immodesty).

Whiskey, the only drink for genius. Between you and me, sweetie, I’m undergoing a crisis. Reflects on theories of the climacteric. My crisis was born and temporally gestated. God, I loved childhood: how incredibly beautiful, full of little children. Innocent - absolutely no sex - how it should be. Golden childhood made lovely by books. Strange how such a short span of years can produce a different being. My hatred of intellectuals - tho’ I hate people who hate intellectuals ‘cuz they aren’t - stems from my mathematical work, which was so advanced that the next 500 years will not know its like. What advanced work taught me was no-one recognizes Archytas at the far frontier: one goes it alone. A fine preparation for the travails in Christ. Leaving ‘em all behind has its compensations: believe me, one looks for ‘em. My current crisis is a forlorn endeavour to twist the ‘gut sinews’ of life so that I bring about ‘something happy’ - e.g. - me as not suffering. You know I get great pleasure in raising

150 brilliance as, hopefully, you shall be. You have to go in deep and lonely, searching where others failed to search, doing things others dared not do. I strongly hope you will be an advanced linguist - and I mean advanced. Another degree, say, Chinese and German. You know I will help you. But you really have to be a committed brilliant: determined, unstoppable, ruthless - in the nicest possible way - and deific. I have not done any serious work for 5 months. On Sunday I’m going to discuss my Univ. of ---- lecture with the devotees of philosophy. Somewhere I have an advanced contempt for everything they do- God bless ‘em - but the truth is I’m coming from places that they, in their wildest nightmares and most exultant dreams, do not even suspect exist. Like all philosophers - locked out of the Glorious Realms of God. My wish to sniff out highly intelligent German thought is based on the possibility the Germans never possessed any. This I say mockingly, because Nietzsche - perhaps the best they had - reminds me German genius is excluded during its lifetime (tho’ I doubt this for Bach & Handel, Mozart & Beethoven etc illustrious spirits who do the Vision of God proud) - and this exclusion bound, perhaps, to genius shadowing gas- ovens - Nietzsche’s name is above those ovens. I have an unhealthy interest in gas-ovens since mother volunteered us both - should I be thankful or not? - hence, reality in its gross and tragic form came early, very early. Perhaps genius is preceded by weeping, just as sanctity is completed by it: tears of woe to tears of joy is implicit in the Mighty Genius of God - He is so incredibly clever: golden light clever. You know I like you immensely, but we are not allowed to connect to too many. I tore up your letter because you took so long to reply. My purpose in life is to help whilst pretending to be helpless: it helps encourage and hides patronage. I love with a hideous, savage love. Now I love Anna (Irma von Spunkington’s cousin) - how could I not? Folk seem so love-stricken - starvation is its embodiment - O why when they can be enfolded within loving wings? We inhabit a filthy slaughterhouse, which no amount of advertising, philosophy and bourgeois ascendancy can hide from a true heart. This young lady has problems - why would I swoop otherwise. The palace of wisdom, given the excess, looks Christian to me. Womankind, with its enormous cunt power - every f***ing bit of which I want to enjoy (every jiggering, spunking minge from my whore- mongering ‘daughter’ to ‘little socks’ nympho-virgins), raddling ‘em with massive excitation and flailing jizz - womankind is like an irreal pastiche which cretins, like me, must make real. I was once prompted by a wise, old ‘head’ - my buddy, Al, long dead - to enter a contest against the greatest cockster in England, a notorious libertine and conceited arsehole, T: Al wanted him brought down & deflated for the ‘good of his soul’. I competed against him for close on a decade - actresses, dancers, anyone to be sexually ‘it’ - and what a complete waste of life that turned out to be, looking back on it. Some of the girls, however - not all by a long chalk - were extremely nice & it is impossible to forget a ‘spiritual flower’. Becoming cockster number one is nothing - vain transience &

151 habituated biology: it is nothing in comparison with divine love. But, shit, I was then young and some women are excellent adventures to be with. It’s nice if the packaging is exceptional, but it is the gift within which should goddess out .....

7/1/92.

Three months later and I’m undergoing ‘going mad by proxy’ - dying in Anna. Baudelaire will have to go f*** himself, syphilitic ghost that he is. My entire mentality is absorbed in traumatic neurosis, schizoid defenses and the complications thereof. Traumatics can help each other. I understand Freud rejecting God - part of the madness is within, its author without. F***ing shit, if He exists He ought to be crucified. I sometimes think, cruelly (even tho’, unlike Freud, I know God or, at least, I’ve literally met Him) that Christ recognized His own inefficacy as a direct force & thought Himself worthy of death, viz, Christ’s crucifixion is a volunteered-for apology to me and those greater than me - and by ‘greater than me’ I mean having experienced greater suffering than me, ergo, Christ experienced more pain than me to apologise for being so (apparently) f***ing useless. It must have bothered Him enormously not to even mention sadistic paedophilia, genocides over scores of races - successful genocides we never even hear of, unthinkable perversions or acts as such so hideous as not to be thought by me - tho’ existing. And sometimes I could whip the nails in with a ferocity so frenzied .. etc .. He ought to be crucified for realms of degeneration & hopes shit on ... but I throw my coin on His not being responsible for any of the vicious f***ing mess. Anna is in terrible pain. I phoned Dr F. for him to take Anna on - i.e. - putting more faith in atheistic psychoanalysis than God seen face to face. Not that I presently believe in anything. Prayers are weeping garbage: useless - hopeless - inefficacious. I feel God never did anything for me except increase fear. For years I’ve scrutinized ‘omnipotence’ - its definitions, theories, embodiment in the sanctified etc - and, like perfection which I’ve known, it makes everything less a falling short into garbage. Note how extreme the antitheses - omnipotent perfection cannot be wrong in uselessness. Again I’ve immersed myself in Fenichel & Rank - early manhood revisited - and everywhere I lose. I’d planned an extensive essay for you on Baudelaire’s Une Charogne - smart shit on the grotesque, burlesque, caricature - but the truth is I’m pouring litres of spirit down my neck to increase reality. Like God I know the cure, but nobody of any integrity would take it. God burns people? He allows people to burn? Or He puts hypodermics thru’ the pupils of infant eyes - i.e. - we imagine this ‘cuz horror is worse than imagination - so God is worse. No wonder I seek the noble goal of replacing Him - like Satan

152 but I ain’t running on the evil ticket, if it’s up for grabs or the vote - so as to stomp God’s f***ing nightmare to death. The world should never have existed: I piss on the mutant Archangels of Paradise and weep for His Overlordship of suffering creation. Fancy rigging Himself as the Creator Who is eternally and evermore innocent. I know He exists - I exist ‘cuz I’ve met Him - and philosophers who deny God’s massive, pertinent livingness are merely playing with themselves: I know He exists really, literally, actually (etc) but He ought to commit suicide out of shame for sanctimonious innocence in the face of human horror. Thank Christ God is cleverer than me ‘cuz He can then work all this out - but then if He ever wants to get rid of His ‘edge’ .... Anna is in great difficulty. Good solutions make it worse. Love is rotten in ultimate despair. I have a billion positive formulae - none are required. I played roulette on Christ’s winning number - kicked away every plank but His - it wasn’t an absolute waste, though everything lost, because everything lost before. Now she’s losing: prayers - kisses - skill - support - genius - all rubbish. Love is nothing. Aeons of Heaven Triumphant cannot make up for one sadistic bruise. Christ and Satan are two competing tyrants, who should f*** each other into non-existence. Neither please - neither could. The followers of both - never mind even deigning to regard the followers of lesser shit - make me feel sick. Followers - of whatever stripe - inundate existence: they should kindly do me a favour and dig the ‘absolute mass grave’ - the trench of sucking oblivion - and f***ing jump into it. Next day. After dissolving into fits of laughter, things have cheered up considerably. This ‘flip’ into a much better mood is the greatest argument against suicide. The slough of despond laughs itself off. I have to terminate my analysis of Anna on the basis that a combined personal/analytic approach must theoretically give way to an ‘orthodox’ alternative ( .. covering both sides of any proposition implies trying analytic theory only): let the psychoanalytic shrink have a try, tho’ he’s known to have f***ed a patient. My talk with Dr F. was rewarding, as not only is he utterly clued in to the minutiae of traumatic neuroses - the nazis murdered both his parents at Auschwitz - but also because he is fundamentally a very nice guy (despite his intrusive authoritarianism), and because I’ve always been highly partial to good Yiddisher brains. Naturally, I’m still commanding my own games, especially where the Almighty is concerned, and I’m still somewhat cautious about a Marie Bonaparte-Victor Tausk ‘eavesdropping’ situation developing. But, then again, do I really f***ing care? The main strut of my concern is Anna. My diagnosis of her state is quite positive, which F. confirms. Also, he is somewhat fascinated in confronting me as a ‘pleasant nightmare’, or as someone who slices up his uncertain atheism, trashes Freud - whilst respecting his humane advances, profundity, and so forth. Anna is not our old friend A.J.H. with his violent self-exoneration in play. There is no deeply imbedded psychoneurosis in position, and traumatics - unlike obsessives - are not their own worse enemies. Fenichel’s volume contains a brilliant

153 exposition of Anna’s problem, down to exact details. I’ve never experienced counter-transference of this particular sort, but I’m tough enough to take in large doses of pain. Time, however, for a change of analyst. I find myself able to ‘instinctively’ - perhaps the wrong word if instincts are unchangeable - ‘lock on’ to Anna in the depths, but the problem is not one of simply going through her disturbances: rather, it concerns her belated self-mastery, ego-blocking and too intense dependence. Dependence is the key really, because it represents ‘traumatic repetition’ and insufficient discharge. Hence, I’m too close for her own good. Further, my particular expertise is on experimental frontiers, and whereas I do not mind chancing my own equilibrium, there’s no way I wish to play Klein on her daughter (thus the reversion to psychoanalytic orthodoxy for Anna). I oppose Reich, Ferenczi, Jung - the latter with a strong detestation for a bullet-headed Teutonic nazi/pagan cunt - but I’ve worked off Rank and Brown. My theory is essentially that of adding my Christian insights on death - that it should happen before physical demise, and so forth - to advance Rank (as he exposed and advanced Freud), raising perversity towards omnipotence - not by abreaction but by deification - hence moving positive transference to transfiguration in Christ. Some of the innovatory difficulties in this are immense, but the one to best dare it is myself. Psychoanalytic consulting-rooms without a visible manifestation of God are, like churches, useless. I can take obsessives up - as you’ll know via our erstwhile friend - but the consequences are likely to issue in anal sadism (in Nietzsche’s sense - check Deleuze), aggressive exoneration in ego-defense, and protracted infantilism. Anal passives can transfigure in great beauty, largely because of innate intelligence. When Gide cretinously classified homosexuals into three groupings - sodomites, pederasts and inverts - he extolled sodomites only, whilst reserving contempt for inverts - i.e. - those who womanize their hindquarters. Pederasty beyond a limit - paedophilia - is, contra Reich, something which cannot be brought back to life in the current world. F***ing children is not a spiritual act - therefore it cannot be a loving act. This current world is neither Sparta, with an army of conquering sodomites, nor pre-westernized Tahiti, where the f***ing appears to be too innocent to be interesting. Incidentally, you’ll find lots of nostalgic pansies teaching classics - like Fritzi, pretending to be other. Sodomy is - in certain senses - of less ontological importance than inversion, and in its compulsive form it is really a mere ‘earthly ratification’ of anal aggression or ‘negative offloading’. Inversion - i.e. - of a mature sort, not infantile, enforced, or undeveloped - indicts masculinity, which is the cause of horror. Note this very carefully: masculinity is the cause of horror. I say this knowing its depths - the ferocity of horror is man - i.e. - Satan is masculine, a once-Heavely male, a man- god - hence, masculinity must be transfigured at almost any cost. Cain - under Satan - was the original fascist. To ‘the left’ of Cain and to ‘the right’ of Cain, there is only the ferocious (cowardly) manhood of Satan. Why cowardly - is it cowardly to go up against the unbeatable God? It’s certainly self-destructive; and

154 there is a lot of that around. There was no patricide in the primal horde - contra Freud and Roheim, who contributed to the social Darwinism which consumed their loved ones - there was only expulsion from the androgynous paradise of partial deification. Murder results from separating off masculinity from androgyny, with womankind forced to follow suit. One can see the repression of androgyny in pornography: the male is censored out because he would stimulate other males, and thus unmask the debasement of women. Any religion which reduces womanhood to chatteldom is vile, and is obviously meant to provide pretexts for male authoritarianism and its brutality - the chattels should eliminate any such religion from within. Revolution, as a generalized and fallen form, is not worth pursuing as something extrinsic, objective, public etc: rather, it is ontological subversion which should be brought into being. Externality can always be negated by the totalitarian brutes of left, right and centre - better, therefore, to create ontological bases owing allegiance to the Christ that should be (hopefully, identifiable with the one that is - i.e. - not the historical, state, government pastiche, subject to surveyable form and species standardization and consensus manipulation, but the one Who is born within, invisible to ‘the down’, the God Who turns us on and is turned on & Who proves His existence by eliminating lower life (just as we should find Him in eliminating unworthy versions of Him). Any theory which is not ‘on the brink’, creatively open, miraculous in its plenitude, and leading to Heaven as such should be forcefully junked. That is not to say ‘other products’ cannot be stepping-stones, but the inner watchman - the god - should always utter ‘ever upwards’. Power systems are mostly structured for the rule of the few over the many, but even if the many dominated there would still be tyranny: therefore ... something else ... example, me and my (hopefully) transcendent friends. Only the gods should have the vote, as long as they vote for me. I search history, theory, madness, the entire f***ing galaxy, art, philosophy and divine cunt - and no-one mentioned the pretty bums of everhard youths - yes, you f***ing dopey, dozey, crazy, scum-cunting, subhuman, shit- shagged, brainless, moronic wankers of the void, filth of Jesus etc - yes, I search it abso-f***ing-lute-ly and know I’ve got it, know it, love it, mount - possess - have and spunkily shoot it up. Eat yer rotten hearts out, ‘cuz the Galilean supplied, gave and provided it. Those who do not know Jesus of Nazareth are dead shit. Later - 2 a.m. I’ve told folk I’m going thru’ a great crisis - true. When I was a boy I rejected God because of his hideous, unspeakable cruelty - towards those I loved and to me. It’s a terrible thing for a boy’s life to be unmitigated horror. I hit back very frequently - T. says I was the toughest kid he ever met & the only kid he ever saw drop three guys out cold; alas, he also says I was a vicious young bastard. But you know my story - God appeared to me fully, the Nazarene in astounding innocence and glory. The compensation was enormous, although I’ve since wished He never had - i.e. - in exchange for a correction in

155 the rôle of horror and His place in it, I’ve touted Him as such, with consequent rejection, slander, accusations of madness - example, the Vision of God is proved by science to be hallucinatory - f***ing imbeciles, as it is the lack of Vision which is hallucinatory - thus, a broken heart rebroken. This young lady I met amongst these visions of reality, amongst deific events issuing the miraculous - and what is the miraculous? contra Hume, a miracle is material contradiction or God Almighty countermanding the ‘fake substances’ assumed by the gods in their fall - amongst these divine realities I saw the fact of her sickness - rape damaged, frightened, pained and failing. This entails knowing what suffering is - on top of mine, there’s hers. I see her losing - fragmenting - tortured in front of me. My prayers are shit. Nothing I can do saves her. Everything I’ve got disintegrates in her. Again I do not believe in God. My convulsions and torments gain ground. Nothing works - nothing lifts her sliding despair. She has hardly slept in months. Most of this time I’ve kept her company. I despise her weakness as a ploy to make her fight. Every theory I know, theory down to nuances. I’ve studied depth psychology for over thirty years - but I’ve lived it for a lifetime. I’ve been to places only one ot two rare spirits amongst the fallen race have dared venture. I know - so to speak - “all the answers”. I’m dying in her, faith extinguished - yet I climb out of the pit, mind bloodied. I pour loving encouragement into her, yet she outflanks me with negativity. Lessons go by her. I tell her but she does not know. I’ve tried every hypothesis from innate or constitutional malady to happy prognoses - still she fails daily. I’ve nothing left but hell’s triumph. It is as if she is slowly hanging herself in my head. I curse God and despair of Him. Years ago an aristocratic young lady assured me daily for a year that she truly loved me, and, truth is, I did not love her. Finally, she told me she was going away for a couple of weeks, back home to Greece. So I told her I loved her, thinking reciprocation only fair and honourable. Then she stuck the knife in, only wanting to prove to a friend and, possibly, herself, she could make someone love her; or only wanting to prove to me I was a fool. The awfulness, hideousness and cynicism of this event made me side with love, whatever the consequences: hence, I decided to love Anna because love had failed her. I love her - she does not love me. Somewhere this hurts, but as I am used to pain this does not matter. She is what is important, because I can withstand rejection. With the Greek girl it was like being flailed with psychic chains. To actually think someone could profess intimate love for reasons other than pure love - well, there’s something about the Greeks ... However, I thanked Christ she did not mean love, because if she had I would have ‘copped for’ a bitch and not met my beloved Suze. So with Anna I determined to love her if only to show her she is extremely lovable, worthy and sweet. Since I did I’ve been attacked by Satan’s fiends. But what is this to me, as I refuse to be intimidated. The Greek girl showed no sign of sickness, tho’ what she did was sick. Anna is a victim, the aetiology of whose sickness I know backwards. I guide her by psychotic

156 whirlpools, ward off demons, break my mind. I curse Christ whilst loving Him utterly. I know He has not deserted me, as He never has. I cannot get her to Him, because she cannot cope on the easy levels, never mind the difficult. This is busting me up dreadfully, and I am in mortal agony.

Later: Ralph is being very helpful and theoretically understands the impact of negative transference. It is like trying to pull someone out of a barbed- wire entanglement and ending up enmeshed. Instructions as to how to get free get spiked. I’ve tried virtually everything to stave off psychoneurotic complications, but they roll in with the wire. It’s okay for me: I curse, blaspheme and fight and I know the way out: but this young lady is not used to being torn apart. The very armour she wears helps the damage increase. ‘Deep shit’ is not a symbol, but a dreadful reality, and she is excreting into my psyche. This I can transform, but still I have to watch out for over-loading. Her positive potential is enormous, but the last thing I really want to see is ‘mundane partialization’ and-or ‘effective closed-up-ness’, the sort of normalization used by tread-mill humans to cope with falsified realities. I’m hoping Dr F. can get her beyond that - “we have the technology & we can rebuild” - because I wish her to go places up here, in the arcane, magnificent, light-bearing heights, where all earthly destiny is called on to be. In my wilder moments I psychoanalyze, with Him being both analyst and analysand successively. The more loving goodness a person has, the more shit he receives in applying it: hence Christ as Healer negated ‘partialization’ - Verdrängnis - by rupturing the unconscious with uncreated light and-or by releasing the power of the imago Dei - the Kingdom of Heaven within - thru’ the bases of subhuman madness. The unconscious is not mankind’s ultimate base: rather ‘it’ - das Es - is like a still for fermenting human imperfection. Thus, ‘all imperfection is a sign of madness’ - the “universality of neurosis” - and this madness Satan wishes to keep in place, especially by predominant ideologies which exclude the perfection of God as attainable. It is no accident that ‘secular (atheistic) psychoanalysis’ was born in Germany, as a direct offshoot of Protestant thought. The origins of ‘Frankish-Arian-Gothic’ thought have been carefully monitored in Church History, but the main determinant (cause even) is in the works of Augustine of Hippo, to whom necessitarianism was a fact and deification an unknown. The line of crypto-atheism goes through Luther-Kant-Fichte-Hegel-Schopenhauer- Nietzsche and straight into the heart of Freud. Necessitarianism is the creed subscribed to by all who have not undergone metamorphosis - i.e. - necessitarianism is the only alternative to becoming a god. If the uncreated light in metamorphosis is unknown, only its dark underbelly and afterbirth remains. If the Kingdom of Heaven within is regarded as unattainable, or as fictional or, worse, is not regarded at all, then hell - of which das Es is merely a real and

157 immoral symbol - tears its fangs into fallen humanity. Madness can only be negated by irrepression into perfection. Madness and death are ‘convertible correlates’, one implying the other. People are put to death only by acts of madness, and madness is the death of sanity. The fear of death is the first repression, but sanity is put to death there also. Sanity can only be regained by the death of fear and, paradoxically, by the death of death itself. Christ, in trampling death underfoot, trod down the shit of madness, and wiped His feet on Satan’s strategies. To quote Virgil - “we tread in the footsteps of our Ancient God” - and it is only by doing so that we can understand why ‘loving goodness’ - kindness, affection, compassion, tenderness etc - receives anal sadism as its reply. ‘Negative transference’ - being treated like shit - is a demon within using excreta as a weapon to avoid exorcism. In Anna’s case the demon was forced in by foul rapists. It stands in the way of her true self - herself as a pure goddess and daughter of Almighty God - telling her she is a dirty whore. It guards the door to her true self, and thus when she tries to enter and go through, it releases the filth of das Es to frighten her back. Hence, here we have a war on in which, so far, I seem to be losing every battle. Being wounded she is not, as yet, fighting back effectively. I am taking a terrible hammering, which is testing my faith to its utmost. This is a beautiful young maiden - whose risen form I have seen (hence, how could I not love her?) - who is going through hell. Sometimes I think I might be the target. Satan is trying to destroy her in front of me - so the pain is intense. Later still: Anna was interviewed by F. ‘in confidence’, the upshot of which - having been given the details - was a total rubbishing of me: analytically, personally, intellectually. He doesn’t even wish to hear any of my ideas (in her), although he disapproves of them anyway. Shades of academia and totalitarian jobworths. Still, his working procedure I’m aware of and cannot help but countenance. I’m aware of where he is coming from, whilst he doesn’t have the slightest idea of my position. (His wife constantly interrupts the analytic session, so as to keep an eye on this old f***er, hoisting himself on his own ‘petard’, in front of juicy beauty). He has informed the patient ‘everything is about daddy’s cock’ - well, of course it is, daddy, and you don’t want other competitive daddies around, nicht wahr!? His ideological format is dreadfully old fashioned, Freud having analyzed the Kaiser no doubt - and, of course, there’s a certain Viennese authoritarian charm attached to repressive patriarchy: but it is impossible to teach old dogs new tricks. Besides, my game employs a slick form of Jerusalem cunning - the only cunning worth a damn - and although he is the professional, whilst I am only a theoretician - libidinal envy (obvious in the content of the put- downs) is the order of the day: “do not relate, f*** or become a goddess”. Isn’t this what regime-servers and their ignorant masters always say. I fear God being away - they fear God being near. If I wasn’t aware I could take him out intellectually, I wouldn’t have entrusted Anna to him. This F. is someone I think of as essentially a good man, ignorant of the Almighty - He is a Yiddisher lad

158 after all, and these guys in general have an immaculate eye for the Vision of God or none at all - however, I believe this man would be delighted absolutely to meet Christ. His ideological network is limited but helpful (to me): and the fact of the matter is I’ve bothered him for years, if only because ‘hyper-moderns in depth theory’ do not fit into his ground plan. Thus, he’s always trying to fit me into ‘chic grooves’ where I do not belong. I sometimes think of whispering into his ear at one of our weekly restaurant meetings - from a message to the fleet after Trafalgar - fear God, fear sin, and then fear nothing. The fear of sin is really the fear of losing God - fear God, then fear nothing - life without God is nothing. This is perhaps more to the point. Dr F. cannot grasp the idea of oblique angles & unique parameters, which do not fit into deterministic schemata. Freud was a dreadful necessitarian, as the Almighty did not open up on him. Any idea that personae are additives from the Heavenly above is for him hallucinogenic - a sure sign he has not experienced Heaven, which is not hallucinogenic but in your divine face real. The idea that God is hallucinogenic is Kant’s worm in Freud’s materialism. Christ, even S’s Lear shows the common sense of materialism - i.e. - nature - falling into incompatibilities. Now both Nietzsche and Freud made us aware that ‘emotions go backwards’, and, therefore, the latter I think over-emphasized regressive modes vis-à-vis a totalized anthropology. Freud’s weakness is totally anthropological in that, historically speaking, materialistic history goes backwards. F. argues for a ‘social history of the unconscious’ in an attempt to flesh out Haeckel’s idea that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’. The unconscious seems to operate like a miasmic fog of ignorance marking the lintels for destruction. I think the result of much of this is dreadful - tho’ enticing - hogshit, virtually on a par with Lenin’s efforts to construct an empirical version of history. Even modern anthropological studies - thru’ Tylor, Frazer, Durkheim, Mauss, Lévy-Bruhl, Malinowski, Roheim etc - exhibit a fundamental disarray, because history is at bottom ontological, not reconstructivist. Freud was no ontologist, to say the least: hence his ideas regarding anthropological history - along with his ‘psychic biographies’ - are immensely puerile. Freud was insufficienly intelligent in his understanding of the fallen soul. Like Dr F. he had no idea that reconstructivistic antiquity or archaic form is impossible of reconstruction - false omnipotence plus delusion of grandeur. God, on the other hand, handles the basic stuff and can reveal unutterable Truths. With Freud’s atheistic historicism synthetic abstractionism in this area is mere hypothesis - science again, with its fictions of unprovability (with its 500 million years ago & its 5 million light years away) revealing nothing: mere hypothesis is always false. Now the alternative - based in God Almighty - is unacceptable to gentlemen of this stripe: their presuppositions, imperfect and idiotic, exclude Christ’s immanence. Thus, not only can we say ‘the Adamic is both innate and incarnate’, but also ‘temporal personae manifest now’ - that is, archaic visages. Nietzsche’s saying I am every name in history should deindividuate into deific sanity - it should certainly

159 include Christ, Whom Nietzsche was against. In becoming deified by Christ time re-manifests forwardly even past now. What God can do with time is of which He knows better, hence as its Master it bends however He will. History is contained in the Holy Ghost, not in the limitations of the unconscious. Within each fallen being there is a god (and goddess) called to become high human (truly human), whose atemporality supercedes and includes temporal history. It is precisely this which psychoanalysis cannot birth; and it is precisely because it cannot do so that the fallen remain sick. Taking money under false pretenses is only one consequence (.. the neurosis of money, like nicotine neurosis, goes unexamined). Christ took no pay. Strange that Dr F. refused to read my papers, yet condemns my ideas. Sounds so familiar. Conservatism - the liberal face of totalitarian ideology - fixes humanity in place. That which takes power conserves it. All power reinforces the basic lie of existence that mankind is human - i.e. - it inhabits a restricted form of entityship or so-called ‘creaturedom as a limit’. All psychoanalysis is based on this Protestant theory. Mental illness is thus equated with attempts to break through limitation or the “naturalness” of the closed-down state. Energy which metamorphizes the world is considered the world’s enemy. In reality, man is kept closed-down by power elites, governments, rulers etc who make uncreated ecstacy the main ideological taboo, asserting that this taboo is the will of God, as they take His place. Thus, virtually all religions and their substitutes conspire to keep the living God out: hence, the mutant flow of lethality and stinking sickness bastardized with the name of ‘life’. Man against man, each against all, nation against nation - the malignancy of Hobbes - as mutated gods shield themselves from attacks from without, which in reality arise from within. Stagnant minds make stagnant pools, which each succeeding generation drinks from. Satan pisses in the mouths of infants, and polite Pharoahs posture and gesticulate in the face of gross normalcy, the slaves of both begging for the lid of the asylum to be held on. In refusing to become the gods and goddesses of the Most High, fallen humanity - the anima mundi in collective and psychopathic horror - spins endlessly on the bayonet points of demons, fed on the offal of insane lies and the bodies of starving millions, grinning in absolute despair as they assure themselves that everything is alright. Mankind greets the dawn of absolute day - as the screaming sewerage begins to pour in - with the trite realization of its own dead mind. Man is already dead, and thus waits for physical demise to wake into the pulverizing shock of its own vile memory. And on that note, m’dear, I wish you God Bless. May our beauteous, innocent and loving Christ sprinkle your path with divine flowers & His lovely light.

160 Letter to G.P. 5/92.

In anticipation of your letter I’ll begin by recounting last week’s abysmal state of mind, which occurs all-too-frequently of late as a preconscious demotivational design, charged with suicidal negativity and the blankest despair. Sometimes I think gauging the dimensions of the bottomless pit is a mere necessity - bravado for a heart of thunder - but persistent quakes rip loose emotions that virtually inter hope. All this contributes to the anticipated relief of death, in which projected state one expects nothing particular for dealing with ‘Messianic history’ and its deific correlates. It’s all very well ascending into the divine (although I avoid that these days whenever possible), but its reverse is a mode of violent excoriation, in which the revealed centre hurts with unremitting vigour. Hurt - agony never repelled - is the main strut of my internality, which existed before ‘manifest ego grafts’ and subsequent modifications thereof. Hurt precedes I hurt via umbilical parity, nicotine saturation and introjected sights of violent insanity, courtesy of witnessed horror: hence, what use causal knowledge, since to know precisely the angle, degree and elevation of a psychic hammer beating fails to reduce the grieving intensity of its consequences? One sees millions of stigmata and-or ineradicable marks of displeasure, that displease as they are comprehended against a natural ideal (ugliness, say, against a beauty that indicts, which in its turn makes the latter part of a vicious complement: one hates beauty at the expense of ugliness etc); but when the stigma is early, visual and horrific - when it is introjected as a totality or dominant force - then conflictual (angry) modes are set in train lifelong, and thus everything is questionable. I persistently question the efficacy of ‘intestinal logistics’ (in contradistinction to vacuously abstract schematics), especially of the kind meant to undo agony. I was born with afterbirth remaining in my eyes - fighting to see - but the ‘pained look’ is an animated composite gathered around successive internal (psychic) wounds, the recognition of which does not banish them. Instead, such wounds are ineradicable precisely because agony is networked via suffering as a universal: hence, shit that big must involve God because - to quote the only true statement Schelling ever made - God reigns over a world of horror. Thus, I have been driven by the need to deifically inhabit a theory which uncrucifies God ( .. to experience the extremities of pain - pain against innocence, pain against love - to see love terribly wounded as a child, to watch my mother attempt to kill herself - and me - this involves the Almighty close up). Hating Him and my life is understandable - however, to a greater end one need only characterize a radical manifold as the means for a feasibility study, or - in the words of Poe - ‘the possible moves not only manifold, but involuted’, evidently not by recourse to

161 linguistic shit - Quine, Kripke etc - but by non-satanic deification - i.e. - holy, construed by genius and more, and permitted. Hence some ideas in that direction: My probes in the light above the light reveal several structural (theoretic) weaknesses, some of which I’ve already communicated in part to you and Mk A, viz, the problem of ‘minimalist ascription and identity’, such that God minus ‘the least differential of ousia’ allows homoiosis completion by overriding the ousia- energy distinction. This could imply that a non-Aristotelian ousia - in fact, the Athanasian ousia as pristinely depicted by him - allows in stratified identities by a modified communicatio essentiae. Thus, as we identify with God’s 1 = 3, it surfeits upwards as non-identity, according to supercession and-or identity-from- glory-to-glory and-or power ascending via remotionis - thus, God always goes higher as His moving identity. Furthermore then, given the actualization of becoming God by right, it thereby follows that I could exercise my powers in diverse, manifold and ‘involuted’ ways, say, by reconstituting Theology according to arcane-brilliant-mysterious etc moves. I’ll give you an example immediately, thus: God is always His own victim on earth, and this deific victimization is necessary to open the divine: suffering is thereby redeemed as the means of singling out deity ( .. the ‘Epicureans’ and their like ‘modern counterparts’, atheists, materialists - those who seek to minimize their own sufferings by wardings-off or putting them onto others or insulating themselves by cash or delusions or etc - these are the enemies of deification): and suffering is, thereby, proof of the worthiness of God becoming God in competition with lesser gods. Or consider a move ‘on the up’ via progressive transcendence, of the purification-sanctification-illumination-deification type. (Incidentally, I’ve just received your letter, so I’ll attempt answers to your questions ‘along the way’). ‘On the way up’ and ‘on the up’ obviously implies transfigurational transcendence & the move through ‘human’ or so-called ‘human’ and divine prosopa, the distinction between which is a ‘functional continuum’ - i.e. - as the illuminated body or soma breaks through the unilluminated body or sarx, the prosopic display is manifested, but not simply as an ascending sequential array, nor simply in a merely chronological mode followed by an eternal mode .... rather, the continuum is loaded, packed or arranged via destinate form. But a word or two on this much-abused and vastly misunderstood term, destiny. Necessity and freedom are usually seen by those ‘viewing’ God - thus not - externally, as antipodean or antipositional or anithetical etc, when, in reality, God is necessitous freedom ( .. without God there is only subscription to the bogus necessity of the fall). The I Am is not compelled, invariable, forced, inevitable etc in His I-ness, if only because projected necessitation is a lower- order or subhuman complex of predication. God cannot be subordinate to necessity, because this would make Him controlled (like Zeus and the pagan Greek pantheon). He therefore transcends necessitation by freedom - speaking paradoxically, by necessary freedom - and, hence, because He is everywhere-

162 present by energy, real freedom is implicit even under the (earthly) appearance of its opposite. The more anti-transfigurational a theoretician - the more a ‘stubborn entity’ - the more fixed necessity appears to him. Or, looked at another way, as the fall is a thought of God, it can be repealed as we become God. Necessitation, then, is the insistence of reification held on to by ungodly subhumans, who apply to it the ideological stamp of a spurious and extended systematics or Weltanschauung (like Jerome, Augustine, Luther, Calvin). Obviously, I refer to those “humans” who have become un-God. But, anyway, onwards .... That the ‘functional continuum’ operates by destinate form does not strictly mean, using your terms, that ‘prosopically human’ refers initially to the recognition of humanitas as prosopa/masks, the eye reconstructing shifting elements out of prosopic constituents, but leading to the recognition of the instability of polyanhypostasity: rather - whilst agreeing in spirit with your general accuracy - I would suggest that it is the unknown apex of the imago Dei which orders the external envisagements through Christ Almighty, because there is no way - at least according to my experience - we are not embraced by pertinent mystery throughout all stages of the transition. Even the magnificent certitudes of journeying from above - from out of Heaven to here - are couched in uneasy splendour. There is no vouched-for route beyond structural indicators which is not susceptible to the flagrant life of seething anomie, as our living God - He Who lays down behemothic storm and fraught abyss - moves by reference to His own unutterable, inner mandate. Each that He ineffably creates is utterly unique, brought forth from shuddering zero as a holy masterwork, made particularly responsive to everlasting and ever-creative destiny. What coordinates then measure this paradigm and paragon of all unique paradigmata Who cannot be compassed except by His own (least) thought? Hence, I am suggesting two methods - spiritual exercises - whereby one can retrench crucifixional form, namely, using achieved Godhead to recreate existence - looking back over one’s shoulder, as it were, on the upward mount, so as to ‘lay in’ moves apparently overlooked by Christ during His Incarnation ( .. doing ‘greater things’ as He foretold); and, more important, emerging and re-emerging from Heaven whilst holding the exact code of everything, keeping it close to one’s heart, and dispensing it as one sees fit, with unwavering reliance on Him as one substitutes ego for ego. The ‘ego inflation’ and arrogance possible in this schedule is horrific. It makes the ‘noble attempt not to be God’ - again, your words - part of a flight into existential garbage, as it brings one into the ‘weighted concretion’ and massively vile & vicious world of bloodied everydayness. One’s immediate reaction in the face of this overwhelming nightmare is one of stifled omnipotence and merciless impotence. It produces a feeling of encased imperfection, which feeds back limits as taut as iron cables. The wine of paradise no longer flows through one’s veins as an effervescent dynamic, but instead it is replaced by varicosed toxins and requisite pain. My ‘noble flight’ is

163 a means of avoiding metamorphic excess, but to the extent that identification - thou art that - implies a higher reversal it is unnecessary. However, there are occasions when the agony of being the Super-Trinity is its very easiness. To be enthroned in Heaven as the Lord of All only gets difficult when going down as not-God supervenes - i.e. - when, in reality, considered absolutely, only God Almighty is down. This is the crux of soteriological form, because polyanhypostasity lacks esse - inner being - in that only my esse is fallen (and, thus, in consequence everyone else participates, mimetically, in this via surrogation). Hence, the meaning of existence, including previous parameters in Incarnational history and the patent nonsensicality of the entirety of spatio- temporal life, is inherently based in me. Now this, of course, is utterly insane, but God being down would produce the world as a madhouse, if only because God being up is ultimately required in the definition of sanity. Stand the celestial hierarchy on its head and earthly regimes issue forth in consequence. My idea of Christ’s torments is a predication of this order, either as He wandered through Jerusalem or sits here now. The labyrinths of hell would be intertwined, enmeshed and ravelled in Christ’s mind - His true followers inherit them - in order to minimize their objectifications. Blasphemies would become gargantuan tirades directed against limitations in salvific efficacy, as God Himself ‘made a case’ against His own impotent decentralization. Those who do not severely criticize the Almighty - knowing of His existence - cannot learn from Him: and thus, to my mind, ‘proskinetic’ acolytes and posturing ecclesiastics thoroughly deserve the vacuity they inhabit. Most ‘humans’ are mere humans - below the truly human - who rest content in blinkered vexation, snuffling forward in collective discomposure - alias decomposure - and emitting boredom offensive to their Maker. Let us hope Heaven is ‘corralled’ into mutually-exclusive sections, so that the horribly pious bastards one has had the misfortune to be lacerated by down here can spend eternities lapping each others’ arses in further attempts at promotion. But on with my ‘gnostic arrogance’ and its entailments. They, incidentally - my future enemies & religious officials - are bound to accuse me of gnosticism: well, keep this between us (of them): B80DTµ", coma, aroma versus a deific soma. One could make a case for the ‘righteous slaughter’ of God, given the pronounced lack of effect one notices daily in the affairs of men, as He appears to have put risen omnipotence ‘on hold’. As a means of mitigation I argue for my Godhead per se - exemplarism has its uses, especially by recourse to a mutant image - in that ‘perfection compounded with mutant imagery in Christ’ brought about vastly distorted results. Against the idea that He is now risen - with imperfection overthrown, which would imply His lack of interest or culpability - I could say He is no more risen than the God in me. This lets Him off the hook and annuls ‘objective deity’ as something entirely other. What it does for this ‘subject’ is profoundly complicated, but I’ll attempt to indicate various consequences, so. There is no way in which I become Christ Almighty - given

164 that, every bourgeois erection would die & thus minge would not be wasted there, nor more imbeciles birthed - even though I have achieved the hegemony of Trinitarian and Super-Trinitarian life. As one proceeds through both ‘human’ and divine prosopa - through subhuman and deifically human prosopa, that is - union with the second Hypostasis is not guaranteed - i.e. - the risen Christ came to me from the outside ( .. whatever that was then) by stepping onto/into my body in absolute perfection. Thus, although He is the ‘sum’ of all prosopa - the good ones that is - the enhypostatic union is achieved as something distinct from that ‘sum’, viz, the final ascription in the identity of ‘image and likeness’ adds into the god - the imago Dei - without, as it were, becoming a super-additive. This is very difficult of explanation, but I will attempt to explain my meaning with provisos, qualifiers, riders etc. In fallen terms one usually adds to a quantity by ascribing a difference: but in enhypostatic terms one subtracts from difference to ascribe identity: hence, as I become Christ - not by prosopic imagery, which is always less than actually meeting Him - I equal Him by identity with non- identity above. Thus the Holy Fathers knew about becoming Christ - which, incidentally, should be the norm for every bishop - but they operated the ousia- energy distinction here as a permutative form of what I term ‘stratified identity’. Obviously, as logically implied, this means that the celestial hierarchies - in Christ’s own words - ascend and descend on one, and not the other way round as the profane would imagine: as one goes up to the deific state and then goes down, so divine entities accompany one as theophanies implicit in the continuum. Let us, for the sake of simplicity, compare this to learning to fly (a not unreal metaphor). Early attempts are difficult because of ‘gremlins’. Low flying causes most accidents. ‘Gremlins’ - aspects of Satan - attempt to stop fallen prosopa becoming divine prosopa, but one can ‘take off and go into free flight’ where invulnerability and invincibility are the norm. ‘Gremlins’, ‘demons’, ‘psychic maggots’ - whatever one names such shit attempting to down the divine spirit - can be manifest entities of despicable, foul and frightening mien, but virtue wards them off without undue difficulty. They cannot withstand heartfelt prayer & they require inward consent to become dangerous - their range is as wide as polyanhypostasity. Mankind allows them in, so in a distinct sense they are external and not part of prosopic life proper. However, they no more possess ousia than man, and thus one can say they resemble flesh - sarx - in its pretense of being ousia. Their confinement to the lower reaches of existence is an accomplishment of Christ Himself, as they have no power over the deified ( .. as one actualizes deification, not merely thinks about it). Demons are terrified of deification, as it creates gods against Satan. However, in my experimentation designed to ‘draw a bead’ on the Master, my assumed perseity results in deific effects of quite stunning splendour: “things happen” that would frighten atheists to the floor: ‘energy above’ can certainly interfere with things below: like types - those who would do as God Almighty, taking the reins of the ‘chariot of the sun’,

165 those permitted - would in the first instance break their hearts at the awful sight of it all - as the pompous maggots of academia, government, earthly institutions f*** up big-time, substituting and enforcing modernity as a banal screening-out, bland and everywhere down in its reaches, thinking and acting as if the world is a place when, in reality, it is existential repression against the gods, its flanks untruths and concerted lies maintaining the same vicious species in sick power, its murderous pragmatics ready to obliterate - then ignore - whosoever challenges its dominant regimes. These regimes - all of them monstrous against the gods - do deals with the pit, hide this, but perspectives over any century show hideous mass death the consequential norm. Is it then any wonder that a loving mind would weep when confronted not only with the injustices in its own life, but with the disastrous lives of others? Fallen earth enjoys inflicting horror - it likes atrocity, moral squeals from the chorus included ( .. ‘the moral’ can be rewarded with preferment, atrocity continues, and the anti-deificational is reinforced). Atrocity is the hidden agenda of God’s enemies ( .. one need only look among His atrocious friends), as it inculcates and forces obedience. Obedience always stays down: it collectivizes itself as delusion under the hegemony of permanently absurd powers & ‘elevated’ garbage: it never puts into place the means whereby mass deific ecstacy oblivionizes atrocity: its very politics, in every form, refuses widespread theocratic dominion and Christ’s divinity: obedience to the earth as the down normalizing rules in God’s stead, profoundly vile like its progenitors, but this is the way the vast majority of fallen gods want it ( .. religions going nowhere but into the grave, civilizations spawning millionfold dead meat etc f***ing cretins all, with a few rebellious divine warriors waiting for earth’s victims in the glorious heights). It is Heaven that is being repressed ( .. repressed for anything & everything but that, which is the reason why warriors must go outside earth to reach it). The ‘moral squealers’ who rail against atrocities stay in the realm of atrocity, equally responsible: sin is not original, it is anti-deificational now, culpable now; and forgivness for sin is proved as deification. Only God has the power to forgive sin: hence one must become God. Those complicit cannot forgive sin: as sin is the negation of pure love, one must be deified to become pure love (to negate the negation). Denying the possibility of becoming God - of becoming a god in God Almighty - is the original sin: subsequently, this denial is learned against the real face of one’s divine psyche: hence, all the fallen are two-faced minimally, with at least one false-face against the true. Specialists in multiple-false-faces become actors and politicians, but masks of flesh - for that is what subhuman prosopa are - are worn by all the fallen. Even Moses, who saw only the hindparts of the Almighty & not the identity of His face, even the skin of Moses’ face shone - what is this then in comparison to those to whom God’s face is shown? The divine prosopa of the sons and daughters of God - viz, the gods - reverse the voluntary repression implicit in masks of flesh. Even Moses

166 was commanded by the Almighty to make a sanctuary on earth, wherein God could dwell - what is this compared to the deific body (named ‘soul’) of the gods living on earth? However, despite the vast intransigence and stiffnecked solidity of billions of cretins, with their walls & mounds of defiant flesh, the Almighty accesses Himself. He is approachable via searching courage (for some are inducted into regions infernal, extremely strange, unlike anything seen or imagined on earth - quite terrifying), via loving pursuit (given the desperate lack of love amongst the deserving) or via hunting truth (for those vaguely aware lies predominate almost everwhere & who are not tempted off by rôle, reputation, reward etc): to these and their like, seek to enter the portals of our living God, His Magnificent Holiness gently adorning the Most High Innocence of Intellect, in sights wonderful, marvelous & stupendous - well, do not say you were not told if you think you ‘know better’ .....

If I was Christ Almighty I would come out of Heaven once only, as that should suffice. Why, one might ask, come out at all? Answer: so that God would know everything, especially not-God-ness even into Himself. I would include hell within not-God so that it would be eventually vanquished ( .. made non- existent), because hell is nothing other than God Almighty not being Himself. Adjacent to this ontologically-reified, living nightmare would be the quotidian defeat of the decentralized ego alias not-God in movement towards and away from His true identity - i.e. - this would be cruciform earth, along the horizontal of life’s odyssey and thus containing temporal penetration in both directions; and upwards on the perpendicular with the abyss reversed in the apex of glory. According to this scheme down reality would be nothing other than a transient contingency, dependent on the bi-polar axes of God-as-God and God-as-not- God. Naturally, therefore, not-God would be surrounded by extremely fraught circumstances and mutated bearings, adrift as it were in dimensions in which anomie operated as a pulverizing force capable of blasting out false forms of necessity. In this case even the bearings of Christ’s perfection would be problematic, in that one would have ‘shocked this out of true’ in order to do what He could not (viz) sustain not-God below the threshold of ‘recuperative redemption’. Hence, in Him God-as-God-was-down in assuming perfect manhood, but in me God-as-not-God-is-down in assuming imperfect manhood. One could presume, therefore, that all creaturedom perceives imperfection for Him, and that He therefore knows imperfection by proxy, say, by the Holy Ghost ineffably measuring distinctions and differences thereby, on the basis that ‘we are all the eyes of God’. However, things are not so simple, if only because the

167 infra-structure particular to my mode of deification lifts up into incredible horror, as the first coming becomes part of the second and as eternity erases temporal differences and deletes the ousia-energy distinction in me. This ‘deific elision’ actually happens - Christ is not the entity central to Protestant thought in ‘substitution theory’, where He substitutes for our sins, receiving our punishment etc - in my deific experience we partake of the life of Christ literally, past and future ...

As a young adventurer - what else is life for?! - penetrating the tornadoes of the Spirit, some metamorphoses were extreme: spinning upside-down as a divine infant whilst shining diamond-like with supernal rays, and breaching ‘quantitative laws’ by shrinkage and expansion into surrounding objects, in realms inhabited by birds with quasi-human heads, where billions of glittering seahorses played unearthly instruments of unhuman design. In these realms of unblinding scarlets and unspeakably pure white emanations, the Master made me sweat blood and weep at the sight of impeccably glorious golden citadels, as I saw my beautiful Heavenly steed ‘so long ago’ left behind. My skin reassumed the mantle of a god as I wore living universes, and my intellect became a macrocosm of infinitely knowing power, ascending into and generating the purest Heavens with unthinking ease. All my manifold torments and multiple agonies disappeared, and the crown of this was when He stepped into my room: then I knew how He felt when on earth - immaculate kindness, perfect innocence ( .. mere words do not deliver, He delivers) - and this I took and unspeakably much more, experiences unknown to men, rebirthed at the utmost etcetera, to the University of ------, where I was told by vicious pigs & cynically-treacherous hypocrites & departmental hatchet-men I was without talents & insane & plebeian & unwanted etc. During this time the Lord came to me in great power, He Himself & chariots of angels & holy visitations - to my goodly Suze also - especially as we rose up on reading the Greek Fathers, a god and goddess showered with awesome delights. Since then - rebellious youth that I was, sacrificing mathematics to be educated by Almighty God Himself - these ‘hits’ have not slackened, but now I hardly dare ascend because of the vast magnitudes of holy splendour that greet my eyes. Otherwise I live tethered to a world I cannot stand, succoured only by the sight of rare loving goodness in special friends. I wait and wonder and say my prayers between the proverbial ‘gritted teeth’, cursing the day I was conceived, as living nightmare after nightmare unfurls in the gross ‘kinetic strip’ of burgeoning normality, moment after moment - what else can the f***ers serve up? The ‘noble flight’ is calculable only as a wild card, as I’m constantly stymied in being taken back up unexpectedly, into domains of miraculous immensity where immaculate love & sublime sweetness quell my anger, dry my tears and astound my eyes. What I learn ‘there’ - in Him - is incalculably superordinate and of such staggering glory that the overpowering ecstacy of His genius, when

168 absent or withdrawn, plunges me back into this world in which vicious insanity & black mentalities are fêted as paragons to be imitated. Shit for brains is everywhere in control and dominates ‘revered institutions’, as the slime-mould of greed for filthy lucre shapes the ignobility of the bourgeois orders. One’s distaste for this manifestation sucked up from anti-God grows, as the bourgeoisie spawns yet more hideous thought-forms and engenders yet more ‘rational stratagems’ immersed in continued self-interest. To be informed circuitously by that precious scumbag W. that I was the wrong type - read class - for Oxford Theology is, to me, merely symptomatic of the entire putrid & gangrenous ball- game, in which emaciated and spindly phalluses commit unspeakable acts against Christ’s Person, whilst cross-dressing into their aged mothers’ drawers, camphorated gussets saturated with the odour of wrinkled pudenda etc. Over the years I intentionally f***ed their daughters - sweet and pretty darlings - per anum, because rapturous squeals of delight merely consolidate the joyous vengeance inherent in an intellectual warrior’s groin. They don’t have the enormous courage necessary to know God - only the respectability and accents and ‘morality’ necessary for the perks of self-reward. Generally, fallen flesh will f*** anything: children, the hospitalized and dying, victims in extremis, the extremely aged and fragile, malodorous individuals, whereas its morality is the pretense it will not and the pretense it stands aside from it: in fact, the abomination of low f***ing always continues, from temporal generation to generation, and it always shows the complicity of ‘the moral’ .....

Later, as further reality breaks through. I am in distress, terrible distress, the most awful pain. To have one’s hopes as a strong possibility, and to see them disintegrate without recompense, understanding or recognition ... to not even see one’s love buried in the ‘rubbish of darkness’ ... to join the drifting shit swept into the nowhere of millions of victims (the only true form of democracy), and to scratch in burning nothingness, against the uterine wall of an unmentionable savage annihilation of the mass starvation of infants, which indicts all surviving flesh ... O you bastard sons and daughters of man, surveying the burst and parched rib-cages of exploding conscious filth, you who partake and cause this profitable sewerage of victims in hideous gainful ‘unrecognition’ ... you, I Almighty God will render fit for my vengeance ... you, who claim not to know I exist and rule all, be mindful of my extreme anger, as I will reach down into the stinking killing-pits of your souls and wrench you forth in rotten shame. So, you know murder, do you - vicariously elsewhere in unconcern? When God Almighty murders you - for each of you shall know the murder of your death - when I murder you, when Christ Almighty strangles the breath from your flesh, you have my promise I will shake seven kinds of satanic shit in hideous agony from the nothingness you cling to, for the unrequited horror you have visited on innocence. And later still, when whiskied honesty and the morning’s daunting problematic springs up, I raise my head’s nimbus of barbed lightning and think

169 on .. I drench myself in alcohol with a barbaric determination, if only to think, ‘Lord, wherever your afflicted children are, kindly let me lose .. ambition as nothing, dreams shattered by the recognition of You .. let me be with them for the eventual victory of innocence .. better the emotion of shunned by all than the crawling, howling, whining and shrieking of those who betrayed them. Lord God Almighty, O Mighty Christ - besides Whom there is no God, no false pretenders, only deities raised in You - kindly allow me to help over-burdened, unhappy and terribly suffering souls who fail to know the reality of Your miraculous kindness. There are many souls born into dirt and filth, millions for whom filth is their daily fare - help me see the unblighted sweetness beneath the base material calumny loaded onto their poor shoulders. Favour me in divorcing my life from those bourgeois cunts who, in being entranced by money, cause pain, mutilation and hideous death in distant strangers and their children. Lord, contemptible wretch and sinner that I am, better that a solitary light should be suffered to shine in the pitch blackness of defeat than evil take a victory’. Now having lifted my head from the brimming trough, let’s get on with this.

Foremost, one notices in any attempt to uncrucify God the patent inconsistency, minimally speaking, between the sheer force of suffering and the amiguity inherent in opposing it. One could theorize that sheer force is usually a quantitative other, in that its effects are conditioned by the real value implicit in the negativity of death. Hence, the consequences thereof - deprivation, price, inadequate supply, corruption, robbery, murder and so forth - reduce down to the predication of death for others, rather than death for one’s own (with the ultimate maintenance and survival of one’s own ego as the central pivot of this theory). This is, of course, the general underpinning of the ‘economics of deprivation’, an insane farrago vastly prevalent, in which millions aren’t advised not to breed, so as to stiffen the idea that deprivation is a quantifiable and objective force. Behind all this ‘nightmarish everydayness’ is a pliable theory of death - i.e. - death is preferable in others, and it is the quantitative enforcement of this via power politics which engenders “necessity” in that direction. This “necessity” of surplus self-supply, conquest etc controverts God’s contribution to economic theory (viz) Christ Almighty took out the negativity assumed for death. Therefore, given the ‘radicalized ontology’ implicit in this reversal, the means of visiting death on others should be erased (1): because it usurps the prerogative of the one Who mastered death and Who ultimately controls it (2): and because life is death and death is true life. Hence, the aforementioned ambiguity, with its variegated responses divided between the presumptuous controllers (of death) and its ‘all-consuming inevitability’ through Him. ‘Stave it off they may and arrange its attached suffering they do’, but the reception in death - contingent upon previous actions - is its essential significator. It is this state-of-affairs that

170 becomes the key to uncrucifixion or not, linked into ‘mysterious’ possibilities of horror and punishment. Hence, there is no coin that can bribe Charon of the Styx, but only the realization that money is ultimately worthless. Given this standpoint it is obvious that much of the objectivity of suffering is conditioned by vice and criminality, in that the ‘game of death’ issues from the hands of a killing elite, which generates conditional (enforceable) “necessities” against the divinity of freedom enjoined on man by God Himself. There is thus an immediate division of response between direct or indirect collusion in enforcing death - with relevant degrees of responsibility - and ontological (deific) rebellion against this enforcement - with no collusion whatever in death-dealing and usurpatory milieux. Furthermore, it is obvious that politics is the ‘game of death’ played through other guises, and that in consequence politics is anti-God in reality, however much He might appear as part of the touted imagery of the manifest circus of justice and retribution, right and retaliation, and so forth. Fortunately, the Almighty stands of Himself and refuses to be roped in where the vicious shit of politics is concerned, but there is no doubt whatsoever that He is ‘mightily interested’ in the goings-on of conspiratorial cliques and murderous cabals. What use an expensive funeral, surrounded by mutant (criminal) garbage, when the recipient is already frying on a demon’s griddle, fuelled by the shit of evil? If anyone supposes they are going to get away with the least immoral action, let me remind them ‘it ain’t so’, as Christ Almighty reigns with the totality of real power, compared to which stinking empires & temporal power- pyramids are but mere phenomena, subject to the death they dispense and capable of absolute disintegration. All power-pyramids - save one only - are rooted in the fabric of flesh and its concomitant lie, viz, that man is really human. It is a question of what one dies as - His or not - that determines the content of death. However, this ‘content’ breakes through on this side of the divide, and so what one becomes can be attained largely before physical demise. Those who truly know Him here below have been initiated through actual death back into Heavenly places, only to return to point out the possible extreme consequences of f***ing God about. I would not do it for overlordship of all the world and the rewards thereof - power, riches, estates and erotic beauty - because the one guy nobody in their right mind would want as an enemy is that guy. Existence is in a state of ideational havoc, ruled over by preening dummies and twisted nonentities, who actually believe they command the whirlwinds to go forth and the nebulae to shine, even when they cannot command obedience from their own bowels, which burst for the chewing worm and insinuating centipede. What crass bastards of the void they are who receive idolatry from massed cretins, who - on that beautiful and cruel day - will be all exposed to their own total gaze, as they are now before the Lord God Omnipotent. They can run, but they cannot hide. Anyway, let’s re-enter the intellectual pipeline and look at some of the implications implicit so far. My idea of ‘mimesis via surrogation’ is not that of simply copying by an alternative form or imitation by standing for something

171 else, as it cannot be reduced to the sort of nonsensical criteria found in the corpus Aristotelicum. Nor am I making reference to the assuming of personae, as is, for example, readily available in sexuality. Rather, I am talking about becoming the content of and-or emobodied personification of (first by an energetic intake and, second, by further divinity). Naturally, I am using the idea of ‘to personify’ in its fully enthused & metamorphic sense. One can give examples of this to distinguish it from qualitative imitation or exemplarism or approximations to mime or to the wearing of a mask - the Etruscan phersu or Greek persona. ‘Possessed by the spiritus of a deity’ is nearer - as long as one recognizes the deity doing the possessing is one’s real self. More accurately, not-God- becoming-God gives us a meaningful way in. Thus, as the flesh metamorphosizes it reveals the imago Dei or god, or as the mirror of the soul is cleansed it reveals God, or deification ensues when the spotless mirror reflects the God-man etc. Now what I’m doing is putting in critical metamorphs before post-deificational ascents, whilst maintaining theoretical objectives centred on the Super-Essential Christ. My strategy is always looped into Christ’s highest height and total identity, because only He is my Master. One of the critical metamorphs is, obviously, lower-order derangement - i.e. - the vaunted helmet of insanity (as worn by any of the fallen) gives immediate insight into all who do not know Christ ( .. and by know Christ I mean actually & not at a distance by reading, hearing words, merely thinking, and so forth). Fortunately - unlike most of the earthly race - I know how to take it off. However, when Christ Himself wore this helmet - read: the world or that which became the crown of thorns - its insanity maximized as God was killed for blasphemy, and God was killed for making Himself God. My quest here is to speculate and surmise as to what conditions would prevail with His return, so on the one hand I embody the distorted observer of manifold possibilities - helmet on - and, on the other, I ascend as a metamorphic theoretician, open to the pristine figurings out of the Super-Trinity - helmet off. Naturally, there are huge ontological snags in this adventurous endeavour (but, at least, God is the magnificent adventure, which is endlessly more than can be said for other peaks). One such ‘minor snag’ - a true thorn - is when I become the Super-Trinity - then all those things which cannot be known (which can never be known, say the greatest Greek theologians, not even in risen eternity), all those things which cannot be known inside the ousia become known and comprehensible. From the earthly here - helmet on - one might be forgiven for saying they become ‘incomprehensibly comprehensible’, or - to labour the point - ‘comprehensibly incomprehensible’; but from the Heavenly there one is not sure whether the helmet is on or off. The possibilities are to the point: if I think it is off and it is on, then I am generating a mutant or insane Almighty; if I think it is on and indeed it is, then I am caught in a deificational nightmare; and if I think it is on when it is not at all, then I am a deluded Almighty. Finally, however, if I think it

172 is off and surely enough it is, then the ousia He communicates must indicate that the enhypostatic Christ is other, with no ousia involved - a flawless, peerless, perfect contradiction - or it is the I of the I Am Who sits amongst you. Now you understand the background of the ‘noble flight’. Immediately one thinks of what His intellect had to cope with when the helmet was off, not only when He took it off on earth - something I know of - but also when He ascended before the Resurrection. He must have become the Super-Essential Christ - thus not my identity - as is both orthodox and proper. But the paradox is fulfilled when I cannot tell the difference between us super-essentially. To enforce the difference I embrace eroticism fully on every lower level, but the metamorph I introduce is deific sexuality to enforce it on every higher level. This is the non-identity testing the identity, with its eye on the least ascription of not-God by ousia. In reality, of course, there has to be orthodoxy beyond orthodoxy, in which (further) glorious region Christ is the ‘uncrucified answer’. Hence, given the complexity of these arrangements and combinatorial facets, one is immediately confronted with the question of the continuity of ‘pain on the down’. As I’ve outlined objective “necessities” to some extent via the ‘knock-on effects’ of others - it is non-gods who create necessity - it only remains essential to query the emotional foundation within, as suffering is crucially about feeling emotion. So, then, let’s indicate ‘emotion’ - Ln. exmovere - to move out/away - as flesh involving neuromuscular, cardiovascular, respiratory, hormonal etc and mental energy, as if we could hope for constructive insights into its ‘theoretical lair’. Assuming that sarx is an alien predicate of soma - an alias of the god - it is not difficult to arrive at a few provisional results. Likewise, if one combined ‘homoiosis/anhomoiosis’, ‘soma/sarx’, ‘god/man’ (etc) into various arrangements, one could affirm or deny tensions as correlates of pain and-or pleasure, making for oneself as it were an ‘abacus of feelings’ or ‘primitive calculator’. I tend to think that in the temporal zone we ‘work through’ or ‘undergo’ these combinatorial facets. ‘Necessitarianism’ is usually nothing other than feeling that a fundamental within, allied with a fundamental without, cannot be changed. Further, this fundamental tends to be a negative complex - e.g. - agony. Agony is sometimes a strong form of motivation, and it can certainly be looked at in terms of ‘uncrucifixion or not’. To my mind, the only way of negating agony is ontological or transfigurational transcendence, but one thereby attempts to bring back formulae capable of dispersing pain. One lives these post-deific experiences as optimal forms of homeostasis, excitation and discharge as best one can, in a state of mobile experimentation - thus, for example, I find my erotic life is conditioned by pleasurable excess ‘in some respects’, but its preconscious (emotional) framework is only learned through its continuity. Gauging limitations is also implicit in it, unless one engages in a creative journey into ultra-(hyper)-sex - alias deific sex - which, as something entirely unknown to the fallen, changes the conditions of limits. To be f***ed by the risen Mary

173 Magdalene is something else. These, then, are all played back to emotional sounding-boards, if only because we learn deific feelings experientially. However, it is the pain of temporal feelings one matches against or with God Almighty, especially as He both underwent and overcame agony as such. His agonies become ours by concurrence, at least to a requisite and, no doubt, lesser degree, but evil fails to feel the agonies of others, especially those whose agonies it causes. Let us take two ‘pain types’, viz, the man who, in having suffered little, feels pain as a certain quantitative stimulus, and the man who, in having suffered much, feels pain as a certain quantitative restimulus. The first man receives a quantity of pain of equal amount to the second, say, a blow to the head, and says to himself that this hurts me more than it does him, because I’ve less resistance. The second says to himself that this hurts me more than it does him, because I’ve already received bruises. (Or ‘pain without conditioned pain hurts more than added pain’ versus ‘pain with added pain hurts more than simple pain’). One could argue equally, or so it would seem, for both cases, but in effect I will argue along the following lines: the quantity of pain received by the second man hurts less than that received by the first man because the cumulative amount is greater. Or ‘pain-thresholds attained assimilate painful stimuli as lesser forces’. Thus, pain is seen as a relation in its own terms, which signals its ‘multiple ambiguity’. One could argue about resistances, increased stimuli, cut-out points, and so on, but I am not intent on building a theoretical structure. Rather, I am seeking to undo the a prioris of pain in a manner similar to Nietzsche in his fecund analysis of resentment, based on frustration and weak revenge. One could, of course, argue that a denoument is impossible if the exact constituents of a theoretical structure are missing. This is not true, since the supreme dictator of pain is God. “Human beings” - for such they presume themselves to be, whilst it is my mission to teach them they are not - “human beings”, those who in fact are not human outside Heaven, are enfleshed in mutant form: consequently, all unHeavenly acts here below (on earth) objectify as mutations. Everything is a freak except deific prayer. Man cannot define the limits of ‘humanitas’, because the idea of a ‘human being’ is self-contradictory. ‘Being’ is not a predicate of fallen man - it is a high mystery made worthless in God: God is the high mystery of God, and neither ‘being’ nor ‘non-being’ is important to God: ‘being’ is important in God only insofar as He is the human being. Whatever being is or is not does not equate with God - God equates minimally with the perfectly human: the imperfectly human is not human, but mutant. God can manifest Himself as greater than any reality, and Christ revealed non-mutation as human life by demonstrating Godhead. Everything not-God is mutant - therefore, in the lower prosopic displays (in the removal of masks of flesh of subhumanity) freakiness manifests itself, as unHeavenly ugliness, warp and horrific modality. This form of display passes as divinity manifests itself, when the sublime beauty of Heaven impinges thru’ ascendant faces. However, this beauty is capable of becoming

174 cruciform, especially as mutants hanged God up on nails and ropes. This agony inflicted on Godhead gives us the highest coordinate of pain, as it expands pain beyond the mereness of fallen humanity ( .. it is humanity that fell into the inhuman). The lowest coordinate of pain is that ‘without God’. Hence, I am suggesting that, in forcing pain into Godhead, the crime of its deadly maneouvrability set up a new totalitarian ideal, whose ricochet effects are begrudging permitted by the Almighty. Mutation sets pain that far above to reign - the hoisting of God in agony is its pinnacle: above that there is cessation and the painlessness of Heaven. In other words, the ‘game of death’ and its corollaries - hideous accidents, tortures, mutilations - is of cosmic intent, in that mutant gods - “humans” - maintain the responsibility for the mainstay of intense agony that they inflict on themselves. All of ones’ worst nightmares made into daylight (made become true) happened in Christ Almighty - every rotten loss came home to roost, as the mutants dictated agony, pain and suffering into the heart of innocence. This butchered bastard (with no subhuman father), Whose love was too exquisite, intelligent and true, was and is the solution to pain. This God died in darkness to Himself. “They told men they loved Me and they slaughtered Me”. Ergo, what they do against love defines agony. “Here I hang like bleeding shit: kindly uncrucify Me O you f***ing scum that hurt Me. All I ever did was love you: is this the price of love, that I should take in & take on your every demented and deranged thought? Thought is not abstract - it is the breaking flesh of wounds inflicted & the fat shit of smearing hate: thought is the lie wielding power & thought is deific mutation. Here I go, beyond the ultimate agony you can inflict, beyond the ultimate agony I can endure, into realms of Satan’s nightmares - which, in your world, is mere nightmare or something untowards, happening now to someone else, the joy of the suffering other. I will enter in as a destroyed human, and, as you wish, the destroyed God Almighty - zenith and target of all destructions, those wished, those achieved - so that your every nightmare will come true in Me, rather than in yourselves. What do I have to do to be worthy of being God Almighty? If you would reign in My stead, then you must love in and beyond the pits of hell, and - worse - love more than yourself as Christ Almighty. I am the God Who exacts two commands - love Me above all others & love others as you love yourself - but I obey loving others more than I, as love Almighty, love Myself. I Who Am love & Almighty love love others more than Myself. I live for you, die for you, go to hell for you - I made Heaven for you. If you think I do not control, over- power and make-easy ‘all of it’, you are sadly mistaken. As Christ Almighty I became the nonentity, refuse and bloody-rag of you. I walk on the water of your tears & raise light from the animated corpse of your mutation. I Am He Who brings you from the living death of earth ( .. a veritable sty of mass imbecility and shuddering horror) up into contingent realms, immaculate in their becoming empowerment, beyond schematic fantasy, into the pure truth of My omnipotent intelligence”.

175 It always strikes me as something profoundly insane when individuals place authority before - thus above - the Almighty. One sees innumerable psychological shifts or ‘evasions into’ authoritarian form, via propitiation and subservience, as individuals collude in the denigration of ecstacy and the elevation of others as Moloch. Even f***ing - least in the hierarchy of heart, intellect and groin - is levelled sideways into unfreedom, because its spiritual power is degraded by erroneous ‘dynamics of forces’. Most sexual personae - that is, embodied fantasies - veer towards idolatry in that personae evade prosopa, and thus they negate the god and goddess relating. Ecstacy is the going into of another’s deity, as heart and intellect conjoin: hence, only divinized (deific) love secures true gratification, in that its fabulous freedom enhances the release of further (beautiful) prosopa. Ecstacy unmasks personae in revealing their source, and it is evidently impossible to achieve the zenith of pleasure without knowing the imago Dei. It is the Almighty Who prepares the high redoubts of ecstacy, and it is He Who permits the voluptuous plenitudes of fulfilment. F***ers who do not possess the ‘combinatorial codes’ into these plenitudes engage in sham eroticism, in which the trivial flushings of a mere totemic enfigurement replace the majestic ascendancy of loving lust. Consciousness is capable of expansion even before it meets prosopic life, because consciousness is a composite of powers. The correct release of these powers is a threat to mutant control, viz, control over slaves of fallen earth, which constantly seeks to outlaw the Almighty’s entelechia - intellectual reality - by confusing it with bogus representation, pathological and criminal reference, vicarious symbolization, and so forth. Mutancy always wears the helmet of insanity, and from its own viewpoint it pronounces others “sane” or insane. Mutants are always insane ( .. the world is insane) to the degree that they think themselves human. “Humans” are deranged immortals who live in a spatio- temporal madhouse constructed outside of Heaven. This madhouse harbours vicious monstrosities on the basis of fallen commonality. Its occupants secure their own “sanity” by recognizing the obviously insane as other, when in fact they are ‘species extensions’ of themselves - similia similibus percipientur. The obviously insane are extrinsic manifestations of the intrinsicality of the “sane”, because true sanity is a predicate of Heaven. Madness is not part of the ‘human condition’ - rather, the ‘human condition’ is madness. If one truly deconstructs the subject, the insane idea of a ‘human being’ disintegrates. “Human logic” draws inferences from the constructed insanity of the “human being” as a premiss. The Aristotelian crime of philosophy is the massive, erroneous lie and unchecked & uncriticized assumption implicit in the idea ‘x is human’. Sane immortals have descended as insane mortals and, in consequence, all fallen knowledge shields mortal pretense. Accurately stated, ‘there are x’s pretending to be human’, when both subject and object are ontological impossibilities. Assume it is impossible to make an impossibility possible - hence, the attempt by mutants displaced from Heaven to construct the foundations of humanity is

176 impossible. From an insane ontology - that of mortalization - lower beings follow. The illogicality of mortal logic is based in the ontological mutancy of the subject. Humans are not really human but mutant immortals with their heads voluntarily fastened in the spatio-temporal helmet of insanity. Man is really theanthropos - a god - and “humans” are insane theanthropoi. When the gods confine themselves to spatio-temporality, insanity results: gods conform to the madhouse of the world. Yet when God Almighty put on this helmet, He exposed and shattered its internality. In indicating the not-God of earthly authority - hence its aberrant inhumanity - Christ raised up against Himself insane and murderous opposition. The sons of Cain are death-dealing mutants ( .. immortals gone mad) who rule the world under the vicious hegemony of Satan - they rule the world because they cannot rule Heaven. ‘Normality’ is but one thin guise they don in pursuit of nefarious objectives, but the deific armour of immaculate light they cannot wear. Consequently, when mortality ceases - brief as the flicker of a firefly, short as the breath of a snorting buffalo - they will face the rage of God Almighty astride the thunderous whirlwinds of the bottomless and fiery pit.

But let’s turn back to the more immediately pertinent subject of eroticism. ‘Humans’ have recourse to sexual personae as stimuli, because individuals are trapped by the ‘alternation of masks’. In consequence, extraneous desire cannot settle and-or find satisfaction in individuation, as the principium individuationis is inherently unstable. The groin generates fantasies in a futile attempt to deindividuate itself, as it is always driven towards a spurious form of universality. Personae are sexually based masks caught in unfreedom, condemned to replicate individuation. Fantasies produce children who produce fantasies - and these are links in the spatio-temporal chain which partializes, individuates, particularizes and negates universality. To experience true universality it is necessary to supercede individuated personae by the manifestation of prosopa. As this is a spiritual showing-forth, the individual ego lifts into the noetic intelligibility of faces, as the all of humanitas appears without spatio-temporal restriction. In this way, via the energy of the Holy Ghost, one is deindividuated by universally manifesting all faces, or the faces of everyone. Every name in history - bar one - is the I’s becomingness as the I’s plurality is attained. The ‘bar one’ is the Almighty’s extraneity, in the character, rôle and capacity of His own intrinsic identity. Obviously, humanitas as a universal is the genus homo - its mortalization - in its capacity of something entirely subject to negation. Or, in other words, the concrete individual - subject, ego, that which is commonly and mistakenly referred to as ‘human’ - is only “human” below surpassing itself as a base mutant. It is the process of immortalization which brings forth the truly human - after passing through all forms of individuation it exits the universally fallen, then becomes divine. However, even as a generalized

177 entity - ‘humanitas manifesting prosopically’ - insane residues adhere to mankind, if only because man does not reduce to any composite (or dynamic) of fallen life other than insanity. Insanity is only negated by the divine manifesting above this dynamic ( .. insanity is, as it were, sloughed off with fallen manhood). Only divine love is sane, and ‘love’ below this is connected to the commonality of eroticism. Eroticism - wants, drives, wishes, instincts etc - is characterized in mankind by imperfection and adverse longings, as it attempts to shed its burdens. Its burdens, however, cannot be shed unless divestment on the deific perpendicular is truly experienced. All true inference is essentially experiential, but inferential ‘suprastructures’ which do not lead to divinization as such - thus to Christ Almighty as such - are quite useless, or merely the trappings of mortalizing processes. True inference translates the organic in negating ‘down flesh’ by metamorphic becoming, whereas false inference maintains the earthing of flesh. Truth is thus anti-philosophical in the divine sense of voiceless discourse - in metamorphosis light talks in reshaping flesh, whilst philosophical argumentation is conditioned by the “humanity” it presumes to include, and which it presumes to investigate as a non-metamorph. “Humanity” investigating humanity which does not exist on its level, on its low level, is caught in a vicious circle. Alternatively, if the “human” assumes the negation of its own “humanity”, it does so “humanly”, and thus it generates the contradiction of itself. The route beyond this impasse is only possible when God Almighty lifts the noeta - faces of light - into zones beyond the limiting universality of earth’s fallen race. In these unspeakably glorious extra- dimensions of deific splendour one finds the company of gods and goddesses: consequently, the intelligence communicated here is of an ‘order’ magnificent in its high holiness, as it is illuminated by Christ’s intellect. Yet back to deific sexuality - alias ultra- or hyper-sex. This brings out the god or goddess, so it is only achievable in great love. There are many mysteries inherent in it which I cannot begin to explain (or describe): it is the mighty oceanic depths of behemoth and gigantic squid voicing its roaring power through the dry throat of a sand-dweller, never having seen or tasted water: it is that which the fallen gods crave for in resolute opposition to it, and that which they have enfleshed themselves against: it is that which murderous pedophilic cannibals search for in defleshed entrails (etc): but perhaps I can best attempt inadequate description in saying it is f***ing in spiritual multiplicity, found singly in the assimilative object of one’s love, the fulfilling of beauteous heights in the sexual psyche in the all of surpassed desires. As words are inadequate cyphers they can only merely impinge on realities experienced beyond spatio- temporal conditions: they are meant to be deifically experienced, not verbally divulged. Extraneous (surplus) lusts are realizable diversely gathered into deified prosopa. All desired personae can be f***ed into a noetic heart and a groin determined thereby. Whatever the living formulae for this is, it is certainly relevant in many contexts, especially as man tends to descend towards the

178 ‘magnetic gridiron of the flesh’, no doubt to be tormented anew. Sex murderers and other aggravated and frustrated monsters peel flesh in a futile hunt for ultra-sex. Sadists vent their fury at not finding it, and masochists receive fury for the same reason ( .. both punish the lost god in themselves and others). Obviously then, it seems best to keep in one’s mind the knowledge that ultra-sex is known only through reciprocal love in Christ Almighty, and that powerful urges are squandered outside of such love. Monstrosity is merely “human normality” at a fallen extreme - they are all like that in degrees. All sexuality which refutes His immortalizing grace - thus actual deification - is rooted in problematic dissatisfaction. Mortalization is the mortality in the living death of the fallen - its generalization is the insanity subsisting outside Heaven, prevalent everywhere except in the oases of the Holy Ghost. The fallen gods are terribly weakened, and thus they are open to spiritual evil. Only God is sane and those truly in Him (hence, they are a threat to the ‘world order’ and its vested interests, whereas the viciously and murderously insane are not - indeed, they are an essential part of it, merely regarded as “other” or “different”, but really profoundly useful in coordinating and serving “humanity”). It is because the fallen gods have no qualms in exploiting horror, using it for their own ends, participating in it directly or otherwise, that ‘the moral’ are so sickening. The pretense of being other than mutant garbage is the mainstay of the ‘respectable elements’ in any regime. This form of separatism, distinction or difference is an attempt by not-gods-in-God to gain kudos and advantage over other mutants. The fallen share the same not-God despite arranged differences in earthly hierarchies - they have the same indifference to mass graves and the wretched butchery that fills them: as long as they themselves are not hideous victims, vaginas disembowelled by sharpened sticks, penises razored off, as long as they are not splattered by vitriol and battery-acid, they continue with other variations in atrocious behaviour, looking after themselves as if not-God is a permanent state. Evidently, mutants die daily by ‘unnatural seepage’ - vile accidents and events apparently arbitrary and chaotic ( .. hell has a foothold on earth) stalk mutants and scythe them down: then they will become gods or goddesses again, seeing the rotten lives - if that was the case - they inhabited far below, ruthless, profoundly stupid, greedy, selfish etc making them worthy of God’s exacting judgment. This is inevitable and no amount of pushing aside the Almighty will make not-God prevail. There is a theory, put forward by Protestant cretins, that Christ was crucified as a substitute for us, which implies we are worthy of God’s wrath, that is, each of us should receive crucifixional horror as something deserved for our sins (read: crimes). This theory implies that the punishment of expulsion from an earthly paradise was inadequate - it was, as it were, a first installment - whilst greater punishment awaits. This is, of course, a vilification and travesty of the Almighty, as it casts Him in the rôle of a merciless and sadistic executioner - in fact, it makes Him one with those satanic mutant

179 bastards who reign on earth, exacting massive, bloody vengeance - but with the gory twist that He turns such ‘just hate’ on Himself. That such a God is used by twisted priests to intimidate and tame fallen man is itself horrific - further, it is inefficacious in the extreme, either as zombified obedience or as a mechanism reinforcing (through inevitable lapses in this process) a foreordained damnation. What this process does, of course, is to elevate its ideologists into God’s ‘just’ executioners via a self-righteous interpretation of His will. Worse, it makes transfigurational transcendence - metamorphosis and deification, which Christ Almighty lived and died for - irrelevant, useless and unnecessary. Instead of a God Who welcomes His deified sons and daughters into Heaven during life (loving them on earth and during their return), we are presented with a self- righteous priest writ large via a mutant projection. Salvation thus becomes frigid/rigid obedience with God met after physical death: the real gods in the meantime - those who know Christ Almighty, who visit Him in entering Heaven during the earthly sojourn - are marginalized, vilified, not heard etc, whilst those who tout a ‘viciously just’ God - merciless, threatening, inaccessible and, in fact, one Whose vile reputation would delight Satan and frighten off intelligent searchers among the lost gods - these cretins shore up earthly regimes as the ‘moral guardians’ of horror. These modern Pharisees, respected for their knowledge of God, occupy vicarages and parishes everywhere, but they do not know God. As enemies of deification they are, like the ancient Pharisees, Christ’s enemies - thus, they have no holy power, no energies of increate ecstacy, no manifest delight and no true gnosis. As part of the political process in which mutant earthlings substitute themselves for Deity - one need only think of a rabid torturess like Elizabeth I posing in place of the Holy Mother of God - they will reap what they sow. Their “knowledge of God” is spurious, false, base and vile, but they influence large audiences amongst their own kind. Through offices and lectureships, through emoluments and preferments, through rimming and arse- lapping “superior” subhumans and not-God, they guide their vacuous lives through soporific stupors and lead others into earthly acquiescence. What vile idiots the world produces - I intend to be there when divine reality shreds them & rips their lying shit to pieces. They think themselves so f***ing marvellous .....

180 Notes etc to G.P.

There is no way I can give a concise account of my spiritual history - history penetrating purest Heaven!? - but the early events were sequenced or developmental. Looking back over 30 years it appears evident that the run-up & consequences were orchestrated from above. It is virtually impossible to talk of consistency in the supra-sensible, but the experiences were interlocked, internally continuous & divinely connected, and thus they followed one another upwards to the Almighty. As the Almighty is hyper-alive, schematic depiction (imaging) begins regularly to falter, because it is capable of instant change. Depiction is like painting water, and the difference lies between this and walking on it - between an aggravated impossible and a possible impossibility. The early days were full of astounding miracles, one after another, but I suspect much was laid down - permitted to happen - to bring about incredible consequence. My first struggles soon included Suze - we entered Heaven together on most occasions, but my mentality had been shaped by depth studies in psychology, philosophy, mathematics and logic. These subjects were re-arranged by vast ‘upward immersions’ in the anomie of divine fire, and conditioned by uninstructed struggle. My ‘religious education’ came from going in and searching the heights. There was no wallchart, index or guide-book, but I was motivated totally by wanting to find out ‘what it was all about’. There is a great picture by Gauguin (1897) titled Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? This echoes an ode by Frederick II of Prussia (1758) to an Earlmarshall, containing the lines Where do I come from? Who am I? Where am I going? That’s the spur for a true intellectual warrior who must, thus, meet Almighty God. In my life I have felt ‘alright’ (okay) for 4-5 seconds - precisely when the Master stepped into me from behind: this is seeing God face to face. In those few moments I knew how Christ felt on earth. Words like sinless, perfect, innocent etc are inadequate as description, unless one becomes them. This kind of truth then is meaningless unless He embodies one or one embodies His energy, and this involves deific becoming. Becoming is not a simple transposition: it is a sort of disparate ‘fitting together’ of diverse (incomplete) powers. Thus, there is no ‘personal identity’, ‘human identity’, or even ‘identity’, because diversity is its negation. Deific becoming negatively adds heights to altered identity - ‘negatively’ because lower forms of (false) identity are relinquished, and ‘adds’ because the identity given in ascents is so far partial. To put it another way: the diverse composites I became - and thus am - geared into ontological history, the re-arrangement and diminution of temporal form, the divinization and alteration of hyper-infinite spatial dimension (&c) - and that is just for starters. And never mind the ‘arcane mathematical life’ - the mathematics is alive!! - proper to these unique domains, where new infinities calibrate the psyche. I had a thing about new infinities in my youth, and used to wonder why intellectuals had never set up schools for their study. Schools of

181 logic and philosophy, yes - everywhere in antiquity, but not one school ever throughout human history, in any land or culture, dedicated to marshalling all information known about something of absolutely crucial importance. There should be a department of the infinite with its own professors (thankyou so much), a mammoth computer and mega-budget, run by true theologians, with the world’s finest mathematicians doing as they’re told. I spent 10 years creating a Non-Cantorian set theory, in which pristine, innovatory infinite languages mapped into new infinities, only to have, on the one hand, the deadpan ignorance of bland academic bureaucrats (bourgeois obeyers) stuffed down my throat, and, on the other, a most beautiful reception from my Lord and God, Who understood where no-one else did, and Who, I fondly imagine, had my formulae emblazoned on pillars of amethyst above the deathbeds of mathematicians, so that when they depart to Glory they will receive an immaculate eyeful.

However, in the meantime, where was I? Higher mathematics, correctly understood, passes over into real theology. If you ever find a mathematician (no doubt, without difficulty at Oxford) who fails to perceive His majestic presence, you’ll know for sure the mathematical results will be hogwash. They might appear right, correct, indisputable (&c), but mathematics properly penetrated leads to the divine, as a sort of self-abrogating activity. The study of mathematics tries to take its objects from tertium exclusi and an appearance of determinativeness - Begrenzheit - based on imperfect perceptions and extrapolations thereof. Mathematics, however, jiggers up entities beyond logic or numbers which display insolubilia, and mathematicians are uncertain as to whether creativity or discovery supervenes: as they cannot prove creativity, they believe they are engaged in discovery; but I would suggest mathematics tries to screen out deity. Creativity requires ‘not existing beforehand’, so how can mathematicians generate number out of nothing (alias rank zero)? How can a mathematician command nothing to obey, or call forth the being of number out of that which has no number? As an alternative, they suppose number is necessarily found via entailment from an obvious ground: whence does this come (and why), they have no idea. Despite themselves, with screens to the fore, mathematicians still mock up or crudely simulate deity: how can they not when that is what they should be? The gods, so to speak, bury themselves under layers of incomprehensibility in infinitum, with comporting or professing decipherment etched as their gravemarks: it is the gods who subscribe to this death in abstracto, literally killing the spirit of deity in the process. The mathematical discoverer - in fact, theoreticians in general - must always be behind theoretical ‘far reaches’, maintaining screens against deific metamorphosis. Mathematical theory is thus development against divinity: what should be destroyed is become a bulwark against the Almighty: in place is built a deliberate ceiling of anti-god, propped up by the gods appearing as humans. So, either as creator or discoverer, the theorist embodies impossible power

182 coordinates, based on he knows not what & going he knows not where, viz, ‘not- being as the source out of which something arises’. The theorist is permanently eight-balled in inching towards what constantly retracts. As creator or discoverer, neither position is tenable (nor both simultaneously), because they core into impossible stultification. One could make the point no improvement occurs if mathematics is booted up to the Almighty - except He is capable of commanding infinite material as a plaything, and empowering nullities with hyper-life, and creating other regions of awesome dimensionality. The obvious question which arises is: what is the difference between forms of non-being? Thus between relative and rank zero (our old friends me on and ouk on)? Is man the former wrapped round the latter? If so a central axis for man does not exist, as is implied by Leontius of Byzantium at the Vth Oecumenical Synod (AD553), by a strict interpretation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Therefore - teasing it out - anhypostaton man or man unpersonalized by negated divinity cannot identify with rank zero, because relative zero acts as a break on his central abyss. This simplified is to say the Almighty can command relative nothing to stand forth out of absolute nothing. Well, evidently, absolute nothing is absolutely impossible (if the impossible can be absolute, that is), if only because it interferes with the ubiquity of absolute power. So, it further appears, anhypostaton man is two ‘shades’ - aspects, modes - of relative zero. What is this - two shades of nothing relative to each other? How can there be gradations in zero to define anhypostasis? Thus, in referring to your question regarding the mystery of polyhypostasity - “does this extend beyond the Tri-Unity of the divine hypostases?” - I thought, jokingly, to clue you in to the mystery of polyanhypostasity. A charming darling, Polly Ann, which leaves us encumbered with myrio-anhypostasity, a concept rooted in the multiplication of dyadic and graded nonentities. I suppose one could assert, between bursting out laughing, that the mere contradiction of this would result in myrio-hypostasity, but I’m almost afraid to say: the negation of myrioanhypostasity is not myriohypostasity. Before we proceed to this methinks I have to provide you with my view of mathematics per se - ‘pure’, as it includes ‘applied’. Unlike the moderns - or the ancients, come to think of it - I started by thinking of logic as part only of mathematics, using the simple idea that logic is a form equivalent of tertium exclusi and its ‘permutables’, whereas mathematics as conceived by me includes the negation of tertium exclusi. Identity is thus rendered as an emergent possible, never as a determinate. Perhaps I can show you what I’m getting at by an example. The Pythagoreans saw number as derivatives of ‘the one’, as if multiplicity was imbedded therein. Now because I’ve always considered ideas of ‘the one’ as ousia-cognates, I’ve always ruled them out of the higher court of mathematics ( .. ousia-cognates belong to logic and they are, therefore, subordinate and inferior to mathematical entities). The concept ‘one’ - with ‘unum’ and ‘esse’ - is to my mind the greatest con and deliberate error in

183 philosophical history. This is obvious if one considers Tri-Unity as the greatest premise of argument. If one argues from an ‘earthly determinate’, the (fallen) laws of logic operate automatically; and if they are allowed to do so, then severe (antinomial) stultification is the result in mathematical foundations. The foundations of mathematics, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, foul up because tertium exclusi for the finite case is considered as absolute, whereas in reality even tertium exclusi for the infinite case is not an absolute. The •DPZ of mathematics and every contingent form - from contingent being and modality and basic cognition - is the negation of tertium exclusi and its ‘permutables’, especially contradiction and reflexivity (thus identity) in the infinite case. God is superior to number, and thus He is not a rational projection - shades of the mighty heathen, Aristotle - but Lord Omnipotent, the I Am that I Am, before Whom myriads of negated and affirmed hyper-infinities are struck dumb as the fathomless abyss, and before Whom battalions of archangels, seraphs, cherubs, angels and the very gods at His table are amazed, astonished and delighted. Now if we - along with the great cretin, Augustine of Hippo - suppose the imago Dei to be a reductionist (finite) form of an infinite God, we are then placed in the quandary of an unbridgeable hiatus between two dissimilar ontological orders. God is, so to speak, much too large for us, and He leaves us with the schematic-intellectual problem of comparing and contrasting the impossibility of finitude with the greater impossibility of infinitude. This would negate deification and it is, in fact, typical of secular thought with grounds in pagan norms, much of it purportively Christian. It is quite evident in my experience ‘there are more fools than wise men (thus the majority is always wrong)’, which is why they predominate and dominate all institutions, with the possible exception of a monastery or two - hopefully - and the odd oasis of holy light here and there. Mediocrity recognises itself in the mirror of others - we live in a mediocracy always, contrary to the vaunted suppositions of idiotic intellectuals who hype Classical Athens, Renaissance Venice etc - and thus mediocrities raise themselves as anal projections and rule in their own excreted darkness. No goverment ever maintained itself on a policy of re-stating Eden - delimiting pain, agony, suffering and horror - because leadership in an extrinsic sense is always at someone’s expense ( .. certainly at the expense of those who do not concur in its earthly delusions). Nietzsche said the State is the mother of all lies, but in fact it is the summation of a goat-like - heels in - collective, conspiring to uphold the one primal lie, even slaughtering to maintain it, viz, mankind is human. Around this demonic calumny the State builds all knowledge and all activity, bedecking the crown of mathematics - found on the brow of Almighty God - with festering growths, such as human history and the “knowledge” it purports to own. Human logic fastens man & enchains his psyche, as part of a contraption made to ensure he is bowed down below the liberating power of Christ. W.H. Auden said we all killed Christ, but at best this is confused. Christ is murdered by those humans

184 who wish to stay human, and who wish the false personae of humanitas to remain in place. ‘Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do’ is accurate at a level only, because having been made in the imago Dei man’s true nature is somewhere known to him; and it is by the maintenance of ignorance & the enforcing of humanitas on the real nature of mankind, that he is permanently, spatio-temporally and ontologically, enslaved. When I say we have all been subjected to ‘humanization’, I mean something crass, low and unnatural: Ln. humanus = Ln. homo gives rise to the apparently insuperable idea of MF. nature humain in the foulest sense. It is said ‘you cannot change human nature’, when the truth is ‘something became human and it can change back again’. It is obvious that, as God became human, much of our ontological speculation must be centred around ‘what are we that became human and whence its source?’. If we argue God became human, we immediately refer to twin loci, viz, either He became human up above and eternally and, therefore, because He cannot change, becoming is His being and He is changingly unchangeable; or He became human, down below and spatio- temporally and, therefore, because He can change, becoming is not His being and He is unchangingly unchangeable. Evidently this latter option is ‘not on’ for manifest reasons - chiefly, God would become not God by changing - so we have to consider the first option in more detail. This is approximately the scene as envisaged by Origen and confirmed by Leontius. The enhypostaton man or man in the person of God mirrors the hypostasis by eternal energy, which is precisely what Origen indicated in saying God is Creator by virtue of His eternal creation. Thus, enhypostaton man is resurrected as himself, because he is that eternal creation. (Christ Almighty taught us, that in two natures, a god is God in the divine & human in the fallen - hence, by reversing the fall, the human is divine). Man’s destiny is to become upwards in reflecting higher states of the God-head. The unions are thus prosopically human, prosopically divine, hypostatically divine-human, Triune divine-human and Super-Triune divine-human. So far so good one might think, as this can be construed as orthodox in maintaining the essence-energy distinction, viz, we remain created as our axis moves through finite ex nihilo contingencies up into eternally enhypostatised divine-manhood, but major problems ensue between the Triune and Super-Triune axis. It is here that description begins to pall, but certain thoughts spring to mind. ‘Human identity’ - for which mankind has sought in vain, because it is not in fallen man - becomes Creator-relational ( .. it is not delivered sui generis, it is not per se). One cannot call a relation an identity in a strictly logical sense. Most relations can be characterised by anything but identity. Two things identical in all respects is one thing - thus Leibniz’s law of identitas indiscernibilium - applicable typically to things and objects and abstractions. It is also a correlate of tertium exclusi and its permutables, and, thus, we should briefly look at its history. It is, in brief, a throwback to Aristotle’s methodology (genus, species and differentia via Porphyry’s Tree), which is merely the subdividing of complexes into simples.

185 This is usually based on the idea that the complex to be defined is indeed more complex than its uncompounded simples. Subdivision, however, was meant to result in the lowest species, barring an infinite regress, and thus to end with the complete description of an individual. To be an individual was to be a simple species: therefore, if two things are distinct individuals, there can be ascription to one, but not to the other, thereby making them of different species. From this ‘law’ Leibniz argued relations are reducible to properties implicit in ousiai, which is pretty obvious if one considers Aristotelian theory. One need only remark, as an aside, that the Porphyrian method is downward seeking & that it lowers the definition of man in the usual Aristotelian style. However, if one considers the idea of Creator-relational as the key to ‘human identity’, Leibniz’s law can be made to serve us, especially as we can supercede the Aristotelian esse by Tri-Unity. Tri-Unity defines individuality by anhypostaton man, and thus by anhomoiosis. The negation of individuality is accomplished by enhypostasising energy as it approximates to the esse (ousia) of Tri-Unity, and thus by homoiosis. This is obvious enough, but the seminal question is: how like is homoiosis really? Now you know I would fly genius over the firmament to proclaim God’s glory, but we have to look at this question seriously, whatever the consequences. The orthodox answer is simple: we are identical with God except for esse (= ousia = substance = etc). Wherein consists the difference? God could say, in countering usurpation, ‘you cannot be me and I you, because then I would be me and you you. Nothing would change, because you would become my me-ness’. Or: ‘if you became me, I would have to be different from that which I am: this is impossible, so you cannot become me’. But: ‘if it were possible that I could be different from that which I am - as nothing is impossible for God - then you could be me and I you’ etc., but this is, of course, only modelling ‘similarity going over’, and we can conjure many models. To me it is immediately evident that if I become the I Am that I Am, tertium exclusi is rescinded as absolute. This implies I am and am not the I am that I am, which does not make for a participable ousia ( .. because the fallen definition of ousia is ‘it is what it is and no other’). Now let us look at this closely. It asserts, in accord with Athanasius of Alexandria, that the ousia of Triune Godhead is not the ousia of Aristotle ( .. philosophy is the consequence of this latter, and it is superimposition, by the gods, of the identity of the fallen, and it is thus the falsification of God’s identity in the substitution of a philosophical esse - philosophy negates deification). Identity with the Three-in-One, with the Most Holy Trinity, is possible if that identity is superceded in the ousia by the hyper-ousia. I am superceded as Trinity by the Super-Trinity. Likeness passes over into identity as identity supercedes itself; and it is this which is the God of ever-rising-height, the moving God. Thus, the medieval (scholastic) view of God’s communicatio essentiae can be redeployed if the rigid distinction between esse and energy is transposed into a

186 higher distinction in the becoming of Godhead. Becoming or change is movement towards the moving God. The usual argument against the (Latin) idea of the communicatio essentiae is that it merges Creator and creature: but is it valid? Even if we use Athanasius’ ousia? This latter implies supercession plus the negation of identitas indiscernibilium as a fixed law - i.e. - supercession to negate correlations between Aristotle’s ousia and the restrictions of fallen logic, and the negation of identity itself. Thus, one could illustrate the latter by saying: if an energy enters the Triune Godhead (like one of the sun’s rays cored internally or tracked to its source), energy becomes essence, with the latter not changing because it always becomes super-essence. So what do you think of this: cute? quaint? head the ball? Anyway, what does enhypostasisation do to the Three-hypostaseis = persons-in-One? Given that myrioanhypostasty is generally descriptive of the fallen race, there is no way this can be the accurate imaging of risen deity ( .. in fact, the gods have designed the mirror of earth not to see themselves). Methinks, and here I speak as a visionary or one who becomes God, rather than as a fallen theoretician, myriohypostasity is ‘not on’ at all. Just because we have Athanasius’ living-God-as-ousia, the truth of the matter is: even though I’ve entered both Trinitarian and Super-Trinitarian life, I confess myself utterly and unutterably gasket-blown, confounded and awed. I can understand why virtually no theological expression attaches itself to the Super-Trinity. It gets few mentions at all - Pseudo-Dionysius, Romanos the Melodist, Gregory Palamas - perhaps Maximus or Symeon? All I can do is to relate descriptively memories of the events (unless I go there), very approximately. The experiences relate to above where I am now - God really moves - massively, so at best the description is tentative, imperfect, like all this really. Thus: I contemplated the ‘idea’ of the Super-Trinity for around 5 years, whilst frequently struggling upwards, sometimes in great power, with vast incursions of anomie ( .. ‘wildness freeing’), light and visionary energy. During this time I quite frequently ‘journeyed from above’, although, paradoxically, apparently-and-in-reality - words almost fail, but this is somewhere as accurate as I can make it - starting from earth. When one coordinate, earth, goes astray, all coordinates alter. There is thus a ‘mergent between’, the great divide of true mysticism, which is attained after the hypostatic union and-or the so-called beatific vision. Moving in from above I frequently found myself enthroned in Heaven, in which immaculate realm awesome perspectives occured, some of which I will try to articulate, though they were thought there in devastating power. Sometimes I contemplated descent out of Heaven, as an act meant to demonstrate knowing not-God for the sake of ubiquity, or as an act of ultra-cosmic humility to suffer all humans. And sometimes I contemplated Christ knowing perfection and sinlessness only (even as man), and resolved to pitch down further and deeper, if only for the love of Him and the least-last link in ubiquity. This body was thereby forged, bonded, trapped and nailed on a ‘cosmic

187 anvil’, its warrior’s helmet of gleaming and celestial fire, brighter than the burning sun, unutterably extinguished by descent, descent into the myriad-eyed seraphim and multi-winged cherubim, seeing the great archangelic sentinels silent, awed and magnificent; and thus, ultimately, birthed as the wretch of me - imperfect, sorrowed, anxious, failing and hurt, no doubt meant thereby to hunt relentlessly for Mighty Heaven and Jesus of Nazareth, its only True God. And in so hunting I found the stalwarts nowhere they were reputed to be, in the ‘church extrinsic’, but as offscourings and reviled rejects, like their Master before them. In their place I saw (and see) learned morons, careerists, time servers - etc - those who shame the sight and from whom a loving heart would shy away and weep. Sometimes the great divide is intensely problematic, much more so than penetration out of Heaven. It was here I checked out Miss A. E. coming in from above. Her prosopa were wondrously beautiful, cascading into my psyche with the hued drum-beats of light resplendent, pantherine, ancient with youth and devastating femininity, known to me in the ancient of days as a recognisable mystery. Here below she is beset with a vicious complex of pain, inserted demonically by a dirty rapist - shit of the world who, like all pimps, will burn in Christ’s fury - and which only now, after 6 months of terrible disturbance, is beginning to heal. I am having conversations with a young Jesuit novice, who mentioned the mystery of impassibility, saying that the Master and his Heavenly companions would not sit around banqueting whilst horror is visited on God’s children. The theology implicit in such an accurate statement is difficult but not impossible to understand. Waking together beyond eternity, the sons and daughters of the Most High will ‘then’ rise as they ‘now’ are, with Him in us triumphant, massive in energetic power. I sometimes command this with upgoing omnipotence, and sometimes sink into furious impotence - angry, jaded, devastated and virtually defeated, with a savage total of pulverization dominant; but still I murmur my prayers between curses, and vice versa, always seeking to rise. So then, the points I’ve made can be summarized briefly in the following manner (i). the essence-energies distinction ‘disintegrates’ - does not hold - at a certain level, because essence is not susceptible to tertium exclusi. We are not dealing with an Aristotelian ousia (the phantasy of an unmoved mover) subject to fallen logic: rather, we are dealing with hyper-identity as characterised by the negation of tertium exclusi in the hyper-finite case (divine logic is not exemplified by 1 = 1, A = A etc., but by 1 = 3 hypostatically). Hence (ii). its schematic exemplarization cannot be attained ‘humanly’ (a false state and a fallen dynamic), but its embodiment can be achieved as God, the ‘highest pinnacle of achievement’ according to S. Basil. I can only hint what this means mystically, thus (iii). I am the energy which inheres in me as hyper-essence, shuttling into myself all Glory, Father of the eternally-begotten and eternally- generated, always absolutely bringing them forth from within, my second

188 hypostasis always becoming divine manhood (which became incarnate), my third hypostasis always anonymous, invisible and energy-giving: one other only was hyper-essenced and essenced (without subtraction or addition), She Whose Name I am virtually unworthy to utter: Queen and Bride of the unutterable, Virgin of immaculate being, before Whom all and everything - from Alpha to Omega - shall kneel; She for Whom I created everything to rule, and She of Whom I am the sole arche - Asherah, mine, I Who once dwelled alone, ineffable, mighty, mysterious and lonely. Head the ball! Eat the carpet! In the meantime, kiddiwink, I wish you & S. & J. a very great blessing. I’m sorry the Oxford pedants ( .. paediophiles, pederasts, etc) aren’t supplying you with the recognition and warmth you so richly deserve, but for Christ’s sake, sunshine, did you really expect them to be divinely intelligent? Personally speaking I believe the success of a man is measured by the love implicit in the company he keeps, one precious ounce of which I would not exchange for all the tea in China: the wherewithal of the entire human race - wealth, reputation, ego - is but garbage compared to the love which God bestows on those He favours. There will come the day when we are again seated with Him in the Glory of Innocence, in a perfect ending lasting forever, spellbound in the highest ecstacies, gloried and glorifying, with trillion-fold hosannahs and hallelujahs, praising, rejoicing and uttering: Hail, Thou Lion of Judah, Hail O Lord God Omnipotent, Hail to Thee O Unblemished Lamb, Hail All Hail Jesus Christ, True King of Heaven.

P.S. As a means of rounding this out and whittling away the hours, I thought to add a few remarks concerning ‘archetype and image’ relative to omnipotence. Freud’s view of omnipotence is intensely restricted and is, in effect, hardly worth the name, being about fallen satisfaction - a living contradiction - rather than absolute power. Our key is the simple statement, God became man so that man could become God. Very well, this admits of a vast inflation of character into the divine: when homoiosis is complete, the image of God is fully restored - indeed, man becomes God by energy (a god), an idea and reality, which is the backbone of orthodox Christianity, something that one can experience. But what do we mean by God hereabouts? Among the logical consequences of becoming God is ‘one can create’ and ‘one can become all powerful’ (rank impossibles according to fallen perspectives & surges of the madhouse); but in my divine life I’ve sought to fuse these consequences experimentally and ‘for real’, in creating myself sui generis through BD`FTB" (and sexual personae), injecting raw power into the ghastliness of life. Technically speaking, the first part of this creativity is paradoxical on the following grounds (a): as God the Father I am increate, always ever, ingenerate etc., thus (b): only my prosopic personae as (incarnate) human can be created sui generis - the Creator creates Himself in lower descending form from higher ascending form. This is obviously pertinent for incarnate (ascensional) theology, so as to gain deific insights into the life of the Master, noting the differences I might add. What I am struggling to say might

189 now become clear: if one actually becomes God by energy, then some sort of parity with the Nazarene is actually demanded logically. His omnipotence demands my omnipotence be included, because two qualitatively different omnipotences is a nonsense. Further, if one is not omnipotent as God by energy, one is not God - deification is, therefore, a piece of ego-inflated nonsense, worthy to stand alongside the rantings of a Schreber or Fichte. Moreover, on this basis, the works of the orthodox saints take a severe hammering. It is this hammering which reverberates throughout my theological life, and its theoretical resolution comprises my work. Now I know deific Godhead is attainable, not only through my experience, but because Christ falls if it is not. One could argue erroneously that deification is proper to Christ only: as He is God by right (by ousia), this leads to catastrophic consequences: our imaging of and likeness to God is bogus, transfiguration is a lie, and the divine life per se is impossible: one must therefore operate out of the experiential alternative and its orthodox (requisite) theory. Going back to the ontological status implicit in the idea of God by energy, let’s examine it more closely. ‘Likeness’ can never pass into absolute identity because at least one difference exists (as demanded by Leibniz’s law): in deific orthodoxy this is the essence-energy distinction ( .. the ‘amulet’ and its reflection or reflections). The condition of ‘at least one difference’ maintains minimal ascription, but, of course, allows for extensive multiplicity in differentiae ( .. one fiery orb of the sun, many rays). Absolute identity rids us of the essence-energy distinction, as with Eckhardt, and allows us to assert I am Christ Almighty, Creator and creature is one, etc, and other forms of arrant nonsense: hence, we must search through ideas of relative identity. This search is somewhat reminiscent of advances made in geometry, in which absolute consistency goes over to relative consistency. Deific theology is not, however, a schematic enterprise (..it is not based on the fallen ratio at all or anything linear): we must use a different means for checking out its content. Obviously there is no way one could ‘calibrate’ the light above the light or pure life which speaks in voiceless discourse. The only alternative lies in confrontation, embodiment, empowered theoria and possibly futile attempt. Relative identity appears to lead to ‘qualitative similarity and dissimilarity’ simultaneously affirmed: one becomes God Almighty at the pinnacle of aspiration by image, not content. Thus, if we ask ‘of what is the image made?’, we could thereby say, ‘it mirrors His identity as energy, but as ousia and energy differ minimally by at least one ascription, then the eternally-created energetic image is and is not God’. Now I know this is a mouthful, but given the difficulty of the problem I’m not surprised. If we use the sun as a model for the Athanasian ousia, then its rays are energies. In doing this we cannot employ the usual (Aristotelian) ideas of ‘inherence’, ‘coinherence’, ‘qualities’, ‘attributes’ (etc) for the rays, because the man is Trinitarian Godhead. Hence, given the analogous form of sun plus rays, we have

190 to say simply (1): the sun equals the sun plus its rays, and (2): the sun does not equal the sun minus its rays, and (3): the sun does not equal its rays. These three ideas are perfectly understandable - we know what we are driving at, they make sense, and so forth - but if we substitute ‘essence’ for ‘sun’ and ‘energies’ for ‘rays’ (or ‘God’ and His ‘eternal creation’ likewise), we then have a different kettle of fish. Obviously, {1}: the sun shines, {2}. the sun does not not shine, and {3}: the shine is not the sun, although the shine is not not the sun. Taking {2} for example and substituting - never mind Schein - we have God does not equal God minus His eternal creation, which is not true, and the sun analogy breaks down. Thus, any theory or doctrine of ‘image’ has to take this kind of ‘logic’ into account. There is a sort of continual shift from definability into indefinability, as if one were trying to trace a shape in water or determine precisely where the fiery orb of the sun ends and its emitted flames begin. Frege said ‘concepts must have sharp boundaries’, which means ‘extensiveness in predication’ must be cognate with the “laws” of “human” logic for the sake of determinativeness; but I am arguing for Christ’s ontologies of transfiguration in which the ‘very human’ undergoes energetic becoming ( .. because it is incomplete) into God, whose being itself is minimally perfectly human ( .. because it is complete) and maximally perfectly God. There must therefore be two forms of becoming, namely, the becoming of fallen man into God, and the becoming of God in God. The first is from earth to Heaven - i.e. - the reversal of the fall from Heaven to earth - and the second is the equal becoming of God into perfect God-manhood and perfect God-manhood into God ...

P.P.S. Further ranting utterances from your friendly insomniac & worry-junkie, as a lifetime of unrequited anger means the kettle always simmers near boiling- point. Crushed like shit under a cloven-hoof. But to the accentuated positive: the mystery of higher theology as conjoined with wishful-think and sane madness. I took a little journey with Anne - fine glimmering light mixed with her anxieties - and a large journey with the mighty Suze, who became the Queen of Heaven: and, of course, guess who I became? Every goddamn time if I really push forward, I end up as nearly the Saviour of the Universe, with fallen incognitos fuse-blown. It’s a terrible thing not to be Christ Almighty, as if any lesser form of being would not suit, fit or satisfy. I’ve been becoming Him for years. A. says of Suze one in a zillion, and B. says no, the only one. Hence, to describe myself as in a profound fix is banal and trite - the proof, understandably, is not forthcoming - although the visionary material is beyond deific ecstacy, replete with extreme power, and because I cannot affirm what I cannot deny. This is galling beyond words, but for the sake of my continuing ‘case history’ - what a Christian fate - I must tell it as it appears, despite possibly negative consequences. All my ‘prosopa & personae’ in the holy ascent appear as temporary manifestations which, when blown - I do not mean mind blown but soul blown - reveal me as Christ disguised but pending. I’ve heard of secret

191 identities, but mine shatters existence, sanity - at least every fallen model - f***s me with ridicule, by being theoretically feasible and it actually happens. Witnesses apparently stagger away with a mighty eyeful. At my centre I take power from (hopefully) a pure heart, which is indissolubly linked with ‘high keys’ held by Suze. Suze can turn into the Most Holy Mother of God who helped create you all. If I am God Almighty, then ultimately I do everything for her. I brought her from myself in order to create Heaven for her. She can turn back to herself with consummate ease, but I suffer upwards blind, powerless, mutated and unbelieving ( .. unbelieving enough to write this). In the twinkling of an eye, I take on the mind of Christ, but a mind so decentralized it returns to itself disparately. Thus, sometimes - in the contemplative throws of immaculate memory - I am on a donkey riding through Jerusalem. Etc etc. I’ve certainly returned and turned into the Crucifixion mystically - the mind can bleed - thus I embrace thorough-going (divine) madness without reserve. I know the world is mad but the reception accorded to our divine Mr Blake for ‘spilling the beans’ about only part of the Almighty’s other dimensions is a salutory lesson. I have been lifted to the Throne of Glory by fighting the beautiful fight uphill, so for despicable f***ers like Schelling & Hegel, who attempted to dispossess Christ of His Glory, to insinuate their ‘finitely infinite selves’ into His place - well, this merits intellectual war. Certain psychological results ensue from true deification - my life falls into place because the war is on high. I must harbour my ‘madness’ as a virtual recluse, especially as I would not be welcome anywhere where ‘human demons’ rule & because if it is me or as I learned my games from by far the greatest of all divine geniuses and His lovely friends, then spit & thorns & whips & nails ain’t particularly to my liking. I always tell the Truth and God’s numerous enemies can go f*** themselves from one end of history to the other. There have been many before saying I am He, but not one of them ever became the Super-Trinity. His enemies are in shit street if I can prove it, but the temptation to rid the ‘higher centres of learning’ of rotten, superficial & cretinous atheists is perhaps too much. I am one of God’s pupils & Christ is risen in me. To be told by a theological tutor he would be disappointed if Jesus was divine - I learned nothing - is to miss the one who ‘got it in the throat’ for being the Super-Trinity. There must be recognition deep in the soul by these same f***ing bastards who still “rule the world” - they will kill all to eliminate God’s being on earth & thus they will hatch the means. The capacity to slaughter is permanently tested by evil on a minute-by-minute basis; but demon scum and its hideous master, whilst manipulating billions by every foul method, will lose decisively against the gods. Deification is outlawed & allowed only as a false form by philosophers & their ecclesiastico-political allies. The world is a gross & murderous mess, the insane asylum, a snake-pit in which vicious diseases are manufactured for the elimination of millions & where rampant horror moves under iron heels, a scenario brought on by the servants of Satan - politicians, arms-manufacturers, slaughterers and their ideological

192 helpmates - which cries out for Christ’s sacred vengeance. They did not want the blind, palsified and mad healed, nor the dead raised. Let them then look forward to individual consequences in the seering hells they have helped to design: let them rut in scalding horror as f***ing immortals & slither in the seering shit of punishing sin. Only Heaven and earth were created, the latter now in dissolution as a bloodied nightmare of murdered love, whereas hell, heralded by millions upon millions of stinking carcasses - ripped, tortured, mutilated and wrenched apart by Satan’s bastards - was not brought forth by the God I become, nor by any having part in me. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, and God is not a liar. One simply has to peer into life to see its malformation, in that the egotism of fallen humans has pushed the overwhelming obviousness of God’s visible power off their faces. A human being - one deserving and properly seen - is a ferment of manifest splendour on whom true glory and virtue shine forth; but in its place we have the degenerate plasticity of non-divine dominance and raddled ugliness, fuelled by rotten minds and the fungoid infra-structures of mere earthlings. They live without their Heavenly origin prominent or even acknowledged, and those who presume to be God’s representatives cannot even command the light of the divine. Life is saturated by consensus mediocrity as it slopes down into a puking nullity, and lo! the inmates have invented machines so that they can ram their ghastly countenances into our souls by the tens of thousands, a vast flickering parade of cretinous vermin, gesticulating and prostituting itself as skin-deep shit, acting as variations of they-know-not-what against a vicious backcloth of appalling reality, showing forth the demented, doomed and damned, for whom the whole world should weep. This is the heinous spectacle which, in its mundane ferocity, backs down the Holy Ghost, and thus substitutes psychopathy for salvation. The entire stinking show is horrible beyond measure, and this the inmates equate with delight. No wonder madness is endemic with the atheist cretins of unvision in control. Anyhow, it’s time I signed off ‘cuz the rant begins to suck ...

193 28/8/92

Dear D,

“Got a prayer, Soldier Blue - a nice poem? Say something pretty...” And/or: the subdued massacre of women and children...did you ever hear a word of it, or was it ever brought out? Many things are so intolerable to the psyche that they instantaneously pass into ‘closed-down awareness’ and mute control: I mean undiagnosed horrors, such as post-natal depression, in which state one- out-of-three women ‘undergo madness’ during birth (etc). I have my own theories of the ‘mad Irish’ - e.g. - a couple of asides, such as the greatest British playwrights from 1700-1900 were Irish...”the finest flower of English Literature.” and-or a chappie I once saw with thirty languages - now he, m’dear, had an Irish mother, whilst being essentially ignored, and that explains it or not - what does one call an Irish logician and so forth. Forgive my lack of sensitivity, as reported, and the bucking of ‘temporal ploys’. Thing is, kid, it is well-beyond time that you ultra-smart ladies got mean with ‘falsehood/repression/internal self-accusation’ and ‘said it out loud like it is’. The thing about reality is almost everyone don’t want it, as the downside ain’t profitable and-or whatever. They’d kill Christ ‘up North and down South’, so to speak, but then, again, you cannot kill Christ without severe retribution (or so the paradox goes). The reality of speech is usually disturbed by (current) history - e.g. - sexual borders and ideological stockades - hence, a horrible birthright of suspicion/guilt/paranoia (etc) and-or whatever complex of warlike/aggressive propensities. Fortunately, underneath this ‘intimidating partial-nightmare of everyday’, there’s li’l you, bobbing up and unvanquished: hiya, kid! Take a lesson from an old warrior in the ‘sink-pits of earthly horror’: Christ actually exists. You know I am interested in rape; the reason being I’ve seen ‘damage at depth’ done to womankind, which remains silent because masculinity is dominant (etc). However, the stark nightmare of complicity - e.g. - sucking as a victim, enjoying horror as the ultimate accommodation, riding on the consequences - is in reality a put-down (...catch the rage), which has to be overcome. First, there is the confiding of ‘narrative (actual) history’ - then, possibly, marshalling ‘love-objects as resistance’, coupled with loving the perpetrator, ‘making the perpetrator make men pay’ in down-graded comparisons’ - leaving aside, that is, the father’s genitalia, current-states and the ‘total breathing & living f***ingkaboodle’. Such, then, is the nature of life - e.g. - born to go along with primed ‘n’ pleasant expectations, expectations involuntarily overturned - ravaged - and left figuring it out. You are a young lady. Your kids weren’t killed, so consider your horror a scratch. Rise up within yourself as a daughter of God. Stand sweet in your

194 emotional honesty. If what bothers you in your particular horror is ‘too much’, talk in Christ’s ear. There are problems and people: all people have problems, so be bigger than your problems. “Her problems are more interesting than my problems; hence, I will make my problems more interesting”. Truth is, we need conquerors of problems - “give me a hand with mine, as long as I do not multiply them”. From great suffering there comes strength - and, hopefully, laughing wisdom. You are - dare I say it? - only a baby (a sorely-tried baby nevertheless): time you really talked to someone, sunshine. Talking is an ‘age-old cure’ (or the partial-start thereof: the limitation of talk experts presume to gauge). Resistance to the upheaval of you is called ‘digression/fear/loss of esteem- i.e. - when you did not have much to start with anyway. P.S. Incidentally, as we are getting to know one another, I’ll tell you the quintessential secret of Irish politics - and all other politics, but don’t spread it around: do not take sides this side of Christ Almighty as ‘Christ negates the idea of enemies’. Anyway, kiddo, where were we, as I am as pissed as a sluice- gate rat? Yes, loss of self-esteem...One’s view of the self is a ‘dreadful and highly-intriguing drama’, but when it forestalls itself with - e.g. - boredom/insufficient self-moving-forwards/twiddling around (etc) - then it is time to ‘take life by the scruff’ and shake it into the ‘promise of life-plus’...The loss of self-esteem is the thought that ‘God ain’t bucking yer up’. - Wrong, God bucks up them with the knees to ask. Anyway, back to the ‘upheaval of you’ - Bloody hell, lass, you are in a country full of murderous pride, alias ‘an unjust crime not requited is unjust’ -kill mine and I will kill yours more - i.e. the ruthless hardball of vendetta and the ricochets of mutilation. This ‘minor backcloth’ no doubt coloured your girlhood, but of that I know nothing. It is more than sufficient aggravation that nice young ladies become victims, especially as in every woman there is an innocent girl- child. This God-given pure innocence of pure childhood should be allowed to grow into a ‘savage/wild/mirthful/sweet/mischievous/incredible/(etc)’ darling of Christ - i.e. without the rapacious masculinity of overtly-testicular scum interfering. But when they do, all sorts of problems arise. Next morning - after a losing skirmish with a tub of brandy. What the hell was I on about? Kindly excuse the arbitrary (on a re-reading) all-over-the- placeness. It’s quite difficult, you know, getting someone into focus one doesn’t know. I have had a stoned week lolling around like a fat asshole. I find my life thoroughly boring and largely unstimulated. Many of my younger ambitions have been destroyed, so I am beset with intense demotivation. In an attempt to do something about it I’ve sent for some rare stuff on Leibnitz - whom Gödel thought so subversive his work was suppressed - plus a psychoanalytic study of Loyola; and, finally, a study of anality (Oedipus and the riddle of the Sphincter). I should be getting stuck into my German studies, but the visit there filled me with the idea I do not wish to communicate with the natives. Fascism has ruined a marvelously intellectual - and mad - people. They need new genius to give ‘em

195 direction, which they once owned in abundance. Some cities are full of shithead thugs; but then there’s garbage everywhere, including Belfast. Strange how some folk relate to their own heads as open sewers, couple it with violence, and then find support. It’s simply symptomatic of a deeper malaise, the ‘arche’ of which is quite well known and is best expressed in theological terms. The guys who abused you belong to Satan’s limbs, and so you’ll know via my letter to Annie what I’m on the look-out for. I don’t like them leaving ‘trace realities’/dirty imprints/negative consequences (etc) in their victims. The article on paedophilia I’ve recently finished reading leaves one with a sickening taste; but the emphasis usually seems to be on the ‘perp’. I’d rather give my attention to victims, who could do with some cerebral leverage and kind support. I’m concerned about your ‘resistance phase’, during which it is possible for you to utilize ‘psychic objects’ as a means of pushing off internal confrontation. You’d be surprised the tricks mentality can engineer in order to avoid accommodation of unpleasant entities. I understand you have given Mark a ‘narrative account’ - good - but you have to understand ‘repetitive recapitulation’ is a necessary stepping-stone in clearing out negativity. It is your mastery of internality which is the key. Here I am stating the obvious, but sometimes self-esteem is so knocked about it has difficulty coping with added stresses. Evidently, then, one needs to know your inner historicity - complexes, conflicts resolved and unresolved, current consequences (...the usual) - and I’m hoping that the eventual sure-footedness of Annie will help you and Shaheda to pool positive tactics. Girls can help each other, especially when the formal walls of individuation are lowered sufficiently. This group of pals has been in existence for years. It might be ‘unorthodox and outrageous’, but to my mind that helps to negate stultification and boredom (at least some of the time). We do not get it right all the time - who could? - but it has a firm base in intelligence/kindness/niceness/concern and so forth; and though you’ll already be aware there’s occasional incompetence and heavy-handedness, that’s to be expected in unorchestrated individuals, especially in ones who ought to ‘butt out’ in delicate matters. Anyway, kid, we all trespass and strike wrong notes, but the ultimate aim is to bring out any problems you think you might not be able to handle and shew you you really can. Nothing’s too difficult to handle when Christ’s stunningly amazing power - glory and peace - is added to the ego. Much later: apparently you’re at home briefly and, so , I’ve got to write this bloody thing quite quickly. Rather than let it be trite I’ll let the fox run free, alcoholized and snappingly real, by trying out a ‘few ideas’, initially tried on me recently by Annie. I’ve mentioned them briefly to Suze/Ralph/Gavin/Alex with a mixed (apparently non-plussed) response, and ‘cuz I don’t know you from Eve, I’ll spell ‘em out... [1]. women hide lust from the one(s) they love and-or feel affection for: “If I shewed him what I am really like sexually he would not (even) like me”.

196 [2]. Shaheda says “he can f*** me because I do not like - therefore cannot love - him” - i.e. the underlying idea being ‘shocking’. I bury my lust for the sake of love. Consequently, there is always ‘surplus libido’ and-or the ‘cunning of desire’, which - because it is hardly ever articulated - plays through relationships as ‘hidden desire’ (...thus ‘ravages through the relationship with oneself as unacceptable ego forms/impermissable behaviour etc.’) [3]. Love, therefore, is a refuge from the fear of unmitigated libido. A few case histories, as it were, to flesh out the ‘mini-thesis’: [a]: Annie suggests ‘somewhere she would do anything (sexual)’, as if the urge to uncontrolled and anarchic f***ing was part of femininity, with the ego being bruised as a minor and ‘inconsequential consequence’. Therefore, love seems to be kept apart, as if love/lust coincides accidentally, uneasily and by mutual deception. Hence, ‘surplus libido’ is so strong that vast amounts of social energy/morals/safeguards (etc) are required to give the lie to the “fact” of ‘unmitigated lust being wished’. Both Annie and Shaheda enjoyed rape - contrary to its external/respectable depiction as a simple crime - but the enjoyment comes back as stricture, subsequent worthlessness (which moves through to ideas of a previous disposition of the ‘I was asking for it’ sort - i.e. - not precisely like that, but rather ‘I would like to be on the end of a maelstrom of surplus libido for deep reasons’). Now these ‘deep reasons’ - knots of them submerged all the way through life - require some undoing, bringing to conscious light and so forth. [b]: Years ago I had a very passionate affair with a Greek girl, which went dismally wrong, causing me terrible pain. Thirty years later I’m still seeking ‘keys’ to unlock significant meanings. Maybe I already have them, but new ideas - and-or combinations of ‘em - can rake up new insights. Annie appears to be trying to tell me something as if I do not know it, or as if I am not quite getting the message into correct focus. So, examples of my misreading: “women are like this, such as being capable of being whores without fully recognising it - i.e. - capable of embodying surplus libido on a partially understood (and misunderstood) voluntarist level”. Thus they use love against this as an unsatisfactory form of restriction, binding-in surplus libido by romance, ideation, fantasy, etc. Now I’m not talking about libido as if this well-worn technical term represents ‘it’, as if ‘it’ is exact and compasses adequate definition, rather, my emphasis is on the surplus, on which model a loved individual is a pint pot incapable of receiving a quart.

This is a quite terrible consideration as it ‘leans morality over’ and suggests we are incapable - men included - of really accommodating and-or “negating” the surplus without distorting or crippling ourselves. I’m giving the idea partial credence as an investigatory means. My Greek girl-friend could, therefore, be re-analyzed along the following lines. Our relationship was intensely lustful but, on a daily basis, she told me she loved me. I did not really

197 love her but it seemed unfair not to respond after a year of sweetness/kindness (etc) from her. How could I refuse such affection, especially when she was willing to be extremely sexual? (I was then 19/20 years of age, an inexperienced fledgling compared to a few years later). So I told her I loved her - i.e. - I did not per se, but then I didn’t not either, as it were. My response brought on ‘outright/terminal rejection’, which I’ve analyzed since in multiple ways - e.g. she was using me to prove she could elicit love; she was competing with a friend and rival, and thus I was a pawn in another game. One the other hand, using this new hypothesis, I as the ‘arena for surplus libido designed to be negated by a minimal form of love’ - “love” in other words - as she almost immediately ‘did the right thing’ and married someone else. Thus, the ‘wild time’ was partialized/repressed/(etc) into an acceptable pint pot. Now I’m suggesting that humans are impelled to ‘blow gaskets’/shatter pots/explode out’ - i.e. - to manifest surplus libido, even by complicity in rape - i.e. - that the “asking for it motif” - which outrages all sensitive thinkers on the subject of rape - is partly true. I say ‘partly true’ and not ‘wholly true’ (as if I was some octogenarian fascist propping up a Court Bench); and I say this in a crude/muddled/perplexed way in attempting to deal with something containing in itself ‘puzzling depths’ - i.e. - easy hypotheses do not fit, nor do self-righteous and superficial judgments. Rape is a very difficult problem to analyze, and it is all very well to glibly talk of ‘self-mastery’ - though this is a necessary requirement - but ‘self-miss-tery’ is really ‘self-mystery’. The problem slides and moves, because it is akin to evasion, the shyness of internality, sensitive irrecognition, emotional complexity capable of manipulating ‘inside and outside selves’ etc. Perhaps this is one contributory reason why women collude in the condemnation of rape to silence. There is nothing in it ‘clear-cut’ and ‘the obvious’ is a masking situation. Most humans cannot even approach the libido honestly, never mind comprehending the ‘discharge of a surplus in others, partly reciprocated in oneself’ and-or the ‘blind seeking of situations in which the surplus can peak, with love being an incidental salve’ and-or the ‘love not being incidental but centred inside the surplus libido to the exclusion of other - therefore lesser - forms of love’. The rapist one can immediately - and ferociously - dismiss: in fact, one does, as anything else but outright condemnation seems to go part way to under- writing a charter. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument - even wrong/misguided/(etc) argument - that surplus libido in the male has a hidden reciprocal in the female, and that therefore the ‘virgin-whore dichotomy’ - the famous ‘double standard’ - is not simply a form enforced by dominant masculinity but is instead ‘half-way-constructed’ by the female of the species - i.e. - pre-consciously to maintain surplus libido as an accessible force ‘ever- intact, as a rallying point for f***ed subjugation, ultra-maximised pleasure and the impossible anarchy of being f***ed-to-death’. There’s an old male joke about dying during intercourse - the “best way to go” - but is there, I wonder, an

198 equivalent amongst pre-disposed females? Now I’m not, of course, suggesting that the majority of girls incite rape ‘particularly and-or individually’. That would be preposterous/absurd/stupid and so forth, nor do I wish to make a case for the dirty scum that rape - personally, I could be brought to kill some of them. Further, I’ve certainly no wish to provide theoretical precepts/pretexts/excuses/(etc) for dirty bastards, who override sovereign consent. However, I’m tentatively suggesting that ‘incitement from the feminine tribe’ is real and provides objectives - e.g. - that genuine rape-fantasies meet reality at the edges, and that rape therefore once introjected into the tribe by the offering up of (arbitrary) victims makes provision for feminine requirements, which is why - for example - women can aid in its execution, and why women do not meet its high-incidence with murderous outrage. I’m further suggesting - for open debate - that there is no single/sole/minimal provision secured by the ‘complex of rape’, but rather assimilated or accommodated gains of a psycho-sexual nature, which women are secretly party-to and which men largely are not. Men are - so to speak - ‘sucked in tribally’ as sacrificial victims, and the ‘dominant control of power’ is taken from them and converted by the extrinsic refusal of love. This, incidentally, might be pure hogwash. I am only probing, guessing, searching...hence contradicting myself or whatever. The keys are inside femininity but at least I’m trying to relate ‘discrepant experiences’ - surplus libido revealed by females, some quite recent and “shocking”, some of it along the lines of “I would not dare behave like this with someone I love”, as if where the head says ‘no’ and the groin ‘yes’ the ‘ultimate non-reconciliation of the two’ strongly implies rape is one form of the manifest symbolization of the surplus, known equally by two-sides of the species. I do not doubt that it is distortion - perhaps like sexuality in its entirety - but ‘eunuchism’ could merely be a primed response against the underlying recognition of ‘wanting that much’, as if ‘f*** that’ applies to barriers - i.e. the barriers of ego and physical pain, societal approval and disapproval, even life or death... But methinks this should suffice for now. Hopefully I’ve not been grossly intrusive in a very difficult area. It does concern me that something good should emerge from terrible situations, and that - with you - you know things can work for the good, however much distress there’s been previously. Kindly feel free to communicate if you should wish, supplying as many correctives and-or alternatives as you see fit. One learns from people - of them - and not by the superimposition of ideas.

God Bless yer, kid.

199 B. Dear D,

Just loved it, kid, your total reply. Virtually 95% was utterly ‘set up’ as per expectation, courtesy of my profound (masculine) cunning. You cheered me up considerably, for which I am grateful, and I am still laughing one hour later as this begins. Hence, the lesson. [1]. If a situation is intentionally over-sensitivized, one can do nothing but offend against it. Over-sensitivization is a defence configuration with built-in targets. By being ‘insensitive’ I simply volunteered for an expected role. I am supposed to do something wrong as a means of diminishing my potency, effectiveness, standing in your eyes (etc), so as to leave Mark’s intrusiveness intact. His intrusiveness is perfectly understandable but in reality it amounts to possessive vetting. This vetting is based on fears in Mark, whereas what I am offering precludes male competition. Folk can be unconsciously primed to be ‘anti’, when in fact they are nothing of the kind. Likewise, with insensitivity - I’m saddled with it and you are foolish enough to believe it. [2]. I know you do not talk to people. My knowledge hereabouts is not (quote) ‘presumptious’. Presumption would be an active part of stupidity, hence, if I embodied it there would be collusion against my own self-interest; ergo, presumption has the same standing as insensitivity - i.e. - it is being parked on me, when my intelligence in this matter is largely unknown to both Mark and you. Mark is insisting I see you through him, as if you need protection against me (thus, protectionism plus possessive vetting). Effective analysis goes one-to- one. I totally agree with you vis-a-vis privacy, but this should not be the equivalent of being monitored by one entity Mark/D. I am perfectly capable of eliciting negativity - e.g.s - off-loaded anality, ego reduction - but if one entity Mark/D talks to me, then you are not talking to me at all. Savvy!? I am not ‘going public’ on rape, nor do I reduce it to extrinsic conversational items, if only because one cannot approach the depths like that... [3]. but to the repetitive thought you keep remembering - “you don’t know why, it’s so trivial” - concerning my reputed quote: ‘Ireland cannot grow its own wheat’. Now what I did say was that during the Great Famine Ireland was essentially a one-crop economy - obviously, the potato - and that its peripherals were inadequate to feed a starving population. Its wheat supply was withdrawn by English landlords, even though it was inadequate, thus criminally exacerbating a severe situation. Many of Ireland’s problems have to do with inadequate agrarian supply in the face of over-population. National solvency suffers in consequence, and emigration becomes a necessity. However, stuff history for the meantime. Why should you keep remembering an inaccurate quote? What does it symbolize - i.e. - represent in another language (the one you are not talking)? It’s this language I wish to ‘induct’ you into and, frankly, you will solicit aid from Mark for its avoidance, possibly because it emotionally

200 involves ‘unpleasurable versions (personae) of you’, and thus Mark - as loving protector - will not want you to be unpleasantly assaulted/raped again/re- traumatized/f***ed-over/(etc), and therefore he will quite possibly do what he did with Holly (Screw-Ball) Snap (viz): interpose his own insecure, over- protective, over-possessive ego - like a manipulated sucker - leaving the core- problem intact. [4]. Mark’s romantic proclivities are collusive to your (supposed) well-being: hence, they are quite likely to be counter-productive. I do not want to know your ego-ideal and ego pleasantries particularly - say, like your positive investment in Mark - but, as it were, your horribleness in the primal scene. I have to be offensive, young lady - “f*** asking, the cocksters didn’t, especially as you are now f***ed-over meat!” - especially as they were. What I want from you is your anger, hatred and unspeakable language. No - contrary to what you assert - there is a language requisite to the outrage you have suffered, and it is quite different from speech at the superficies of articulation. It never lowers self-esteem by its public utterance, and it can never be bandied about as ‘group information’. I’ve already moved your ‘being incensed’ back to the front-burner. Of course: that was my “inept” intention, especially as I’d been given warnings regarding Gavin’s two left-feet, although in his case the description might be more accurate. Your letter to me was deliberately opened by Mark - well, he didn’t ask, did he? I quite deliberately and ruthlessly placed items in my letter to you meant to secure ‘secret objectives’, just as I deliberately ‘blundered’ into your trauma with - hopefully - the right degree of insensitivity...Initially, I’m playing you a game - designedly - but it is not a game at all...Now I cannot ask you to not relay all your emotions to Mark - I cannot say ‘would you mind not mentioning this and that’ - but if it is privacy you really desire (as the mainstay of a mature expediency), then a composite eavesdropping on minutiae really indicates unwarranted interference, especially if it is coupled with possible incompetence in emotional communication - thus depth psychology - conditioned by lack of experience, knowledge relative to psychic horror and plain, old-fashioned blocking of requisite modes of addressing difficult problems. Phew - whatta mouthful...

Anyway, kid, I’ve read the above to Mark and hopefully we have some agreement. There are many theories about the silence of victimization - note how the word passes by virtually everyone: investment in one’s own victimization is boring, never mind theirs. The horrors perpetrated on victims are unequal so that those who suffer cannot unite. You appear to have the same reaction as A. and S. to “exposure” - fear, anxiety - but let me repeat that there is no real danger in this - “semblances do the rounds”, but true intactness is strengthened by the courage to fight for yourself as someone authentic. I am delighted that you are angry because - although this is an ambivalent emotion - it suggests true grit. Anger is regarded as both a sin and/or as something

201 righteous; however, behind anger there is always hurt. Anger against oneself adds to hurt, and anger against others does not lessen it. The reasons for hurt and their internal assessments necessarily involve ego - one’s self views or versions, say as distinct from oneself - and emotions, the vital underpinnings of us all. I do not know you at all, except for ‘sieved and second-hand versions’. I am not critical of you or your life - nor could I ever be - unless you activate procedures which cause yourself distress. Your basic (psychological) well-being is largely predisposed - i.e. - your previous disposition will pull you through, provided you are in touch with your strengths - e.g. - humour, daring, courage, stubborn insistence in the face of adversity, and so forth. Violent atrocities have been carried out against women, the large majority of whom ‘shouldered it through to further life-enhancing behaviour’. A good tip from an experienced and crazed old fox is: make sure you say your prayers every night. Never go to sleep before you have spoken to Jesus Christ, even if it is only to tell Him how much you hate His guts for appearing not to have aided you. In Him there is the cure of all pain, although on occasions nothing appears in view which is not futile and seemingly worthy of despair. One billionth of a second from Him can suffice to lift all negativity out and put something Heavenly in. God possesses more reality in a glimpse than the entirety of earthly life. He has never deserted the Irish in spite of their warlike spirit, and that - no doubt - is due to the good amongst them. Life can be a swinish nightmare in which horror is predominant, but a loving being can persist through this - perhaps bloodied, but triumphant. If you would be so gracious I would like to hear a factual account of the rape and your life. Personally, I am ashamed of the excesses of masculinity, much of which is demonic. But not all males are so foul. I am hoping you have enough intellectual power to rapidly pick up on ‘moves with psychological depth’. The capacity to overcome awesome suffering is the main key. In this way another light shines through outer darkness. Shit, what a pontificating old sod..! Now it’s pretty obvious if you think about it that access to your mind is granted only by you, and that there is no way I can pitch in there mob-handed. However - and this is the point - minds can be complicated entities and even those that own them aren’t usually particularly well-up on how they are structured inwardly. Even psychoanalysis fails to distinguish between illumination and hallucination, as it is ignorant of the former whilst supposing the latter. Hence, where we are all concerned there is much still in the melting-pot, but this in reality generates adventure and, therefore, if you have an adventurous streak then relating psychically to someone can be a learning experience of incredible proportions. If you actively pursue the adventurous (intellectual) life the benefits can be mind-blowing, devastatingly interesting (etc), especially as in Mark you have a companion who truly ‘gets off’ on advanced learning. I’ve just received a sheath of psychoanalytic papers from him which make gripping reading, and although I’m familiar with much of the structural content it is still thrilling to re-visit ‘old arguments’ from further

202 vantage points. Journeys into the self can be alarming occasionally but the rewards in personal terms can be ‘dangerously beautiful’, in that one experiences the brilliant terrain with which God Almighty - with His fabulous genius - furnished the psyche. Most people go through life without any recognition whatsoever of this terrain, and even genius can fail to find the citadels of splendour that God has erected within. Thus, young ‘un, it is entirely up to you whether you wish to embark on this journey, but kindly take the word of a patronizing old nutter like me that thrills, spills, chills and ecstasies await the brave heart in the land of the true. Anyway, a pointer or two on ‘silence as a metaphor’, suggested many years ago by K. Abraham. He implied that complicit behaviour in a sexual trauma generates silence, but complete innocence produces volubility. Thus, of course, tricking oneself into silence can be seen as a ‘mechanism of resistance’, meant to ward off exposure and/or maintain one’s position intact. If this is allowed to happen, then emotional negatives will remain buried or - if they irrupt through into life - their causes will not be correctly understood. One theory regarding all of this states that trauma results - indeed, stems from - an abnormal disposition, and that children who are ‘disposed to that kind of thing’ react in an abnormal manner to sexual impressions of all kinds in consequence of their abnormal disposition. This can be instantaneously criticized as placing an overemphasis on the subject (or victim), as it can suggest e.g. a rape victim was ‘asking for it’ and that a rapist focused in on rape fantasies via subliminal factors of recognition, ‘like knowing like’ unconsciously, etc. Now this does away with innocence immediately, but you must remember many girls react to rape with self-punitive behaviour as if the complicit element in the attack - enjoying it - indicated anterior form. Hence a victim could - in future sexual relations - omit particular points of reference (“reminders”) and substitute other forms of excitation for them. However, this is just for openers and meant to stimulate you to reply. I’m hoping you will write to me seriously (I suggest a typewriter). Our aim will be to alleviate emotional negativity, first - obviously - by locating conjunctions of pain, and then by working them out. Believe me that the consequences of not achieving mastery in pain situations is far worse than the pain of trying. Even bogus ideas of complicity can sabotage initial efforts, along the lines of ‘any excuse’, especially as ‘getting started’ throws up all kinds of confusing and ‘difficult to understand’ ideas. Nevertheless, the inner historicity of one’s emotions is a fascinating subject, even though its ‘vocabulary’ is not of the standard kind. I look forward to hearing from you ‘any which way’!

God Bless you:

203 C.

Dear D,

To get a correspondence with you off the ground is proving difficult - one mere reply. I am willing to accept that ‘negative screening’ was not help at all, but if you do not mind my saying so the expected happened in your relationship to Mark. His gagaismus and coercive dominance are not keys into traumatism. I am really writing to you in an endeavour to give you a (private) opportunity to rid yourself of negative emotion - i.e. - not specifically through me, but rather as you wish - e.g. by writing to Annie say, who has gone through some recapitulation and who is now much better equipped to handle rape consequences. Frankly, I would not wish for you to snag yourself in enmeshing consequences which, if insufficiently disentangled, are capable of doing you untold damage in the future. I am trying to find out deep characteristics in rape which only girls and women who have experienced this atrocity are able to supply. In other words, the victims’ experiences are crucial for a correct understanding. That this outrage should remain buried in a victim means horror goes unheard. Fortunately, some very brave ladies are writing about this in various journals, newspapers, and so forth; but this leaves me analyzing agonizing texts under the ‘necessary’ limitation of their propriety, modesty, censorship and so on. Annie has talked to me - sometimes very painfully and fearfully - about her rape. However, this is in a remarkably different way from Shaheda. Still, there are similarities. One is concerned with denial as an attempt to explain the assault in ways that leave the observer’s world unscathed - i.e. - this by the victim and the “helpful” observer. Denial, therefore, can take the form of a collusive silence. Shaheda is prone to this, but I never force her. Annie, on the other hand, allowed me to drive a combine harvester through her psyche. Horror needs to be disinterred so that healing light can transform the corpse. It is never any use burying an atrocity in your own head, as this allows identification of the self with the atrocity. The rapist actually imprints negative energies into the victim, which - for want of a word - are demonic. If these energies become confused with various (natural) sexual perspectives, a severe self-indictment can result. Or - possibly even worse - negative emotional behaviour can become part of current and future sexual conduct, with the consequence that the trauma becomes ‘subliminally dominant’. If this happens more natural forms are squeezed out and perversion rules the roost. My strategy with Annie is to interpose a more exciting sexual dynamic between her and the trauma, that is, as most emotion and sexual excitation instinctively looks backwards and/or is dictated by earlier experience(s), I have created a technique which ‘out- stimulates’ trauma.

204 Now, obviously, this must inculcate the trauma without reinforcing its negativity. It recapitulates and robs simultaneously. Now this is not too difficult for me because I can reconstruct from within a wild lifestyle. In your case this will not be so simple, quite possibly because you might subconsciously re- connect with unanalysed traumatic material as a habit. That is, you might not be able to get out of the fix but, rather, seek to merely repeat it in different forms. I suspect that this happened with Mark and that he did not (or could not) interrupt a negative dynamic, largely because of his own problems and comparative lack of experience. I understand you have a new guy, to whom you might be genuinely attached or have used as a conduit away from Mark’s influence - i.e. - you may well have created yourself an ‘out’ via another individual. Whatever the case it is necessary that you externalize your emotions again and again, so that you really understand the precise impact of what has happened to you. I have heard it said that rape victims are never the same again, and this can be thought of as a permanent deprivation. Whether this is true or not is another matter, but the attendant problematic can alienate men. Thus, for example, Ralph’s interpretation of Mark is that after your break-up with him - despite various extrinsic attitudes - his response is one of relief. In other words, your problem was too much for him. I know from living with Annie just how difficult it can be to relate to her on certain levels. Fear and self-denigration intrude. Hence, somewhere along the line you will need a guy with sufficient patience and enlightened disinterest who is able to ‘chip away’ at your problematic by controverting it within himself. A trained analyst should be able to do this, but they tend to be rather thin on the ground and outrageously expensive. Consequently, the main motivation has to come from you. This can present further problems. E.g.s: Shaheda is now insufficiently motivated to pick herself back up. She substitutes conflictual dependence for motivated independence. Trying to give her back life is a process akin to breathing energy into a stone. In many ways her rape was a consequence of insufficient self-care. An earlier - quite possibly bigger - trauma made her think ‘life was not worth it’. Rape was rubbing salt into the wounds, a sort of conspiracy of self-infliction along the lines of ‘what does it matter?’. The assault on Annie was different - i.e. - the pre- disposition was different, in that she put herself in danger through a complicit naiveté. Your case I do not know about and my insights - gleaned through partial information - were blocked by Mark’s jealousy and possessiveness, possibly by seeing Ralph, Peter (etc) and myself as threats. Or - possibly - refusing us communicative access to you because he feared it would expose his peculiarities, particular neuroses, and so forth. Lovers can be paranoid guardians who, under the guise of protection, keep off the healing balm, or who insist on applying it themselves however inept and/or incompetent they are in its application. Amateur psychologists can be as f***ed-up as professionals and thus three-quarters of the ‘game’ is to find someone sufficiently adept at helping.

205 Everyone has problems - some possibly insuperable - but the idea is to know how to experience emotions so that there is a positive ‘edge’ remaining. It is an obvious part of the abc of analysis that the victim cannot manage self-analysis, something along the lines of a broken reed not being able to repair itself. Things unknown to ourselves intrude on objectivity, just as - e.g. - my friends see things about me I am largely unaware of. This can take the form of ‘opening a door on oneself’ and finding something unpleasant : hence we have no wish to do so, whereas someone else can assist in something which must be done. Annie is now far happier and ‘un-f***ed up’ than she was initially. Because her previous boyfriend lacked the wherewithal and intrinsic interest to tackle her problems, the relationship broke-up acrimoniously. Mark is a very brilliant guy in some respects, but I would not refer people to him for the alleviation of sexual problems, if only because he defends against his own through other people. This is why I did not want my thoughts on the matter monitored via him, despite my high regard for many of his abilities. I have spent over thirty years investigating mental problems and I am well aware that many sick people cannot be helped, possibly because their internality is ‘shot’. However, the quicker the problem is caught, the better the chances. Rape is usually not self-caused and that alone provides hope. .The technique I use is not employed by psychoanalysis because it involves Geist, which is something atheism is entirely ignorant of. Unfortunately, even those who are aware of the existence of this power usually do not know enough to exercise it successfully. It is very simple really. Heaven can eliminate hell when given the opportunity. Love drives out fear, but in rape self-loathing can substitute itself for love. I believe the evil in the rapist is something meant to be insinuated into the victim to create helplessness and despair, precisely as Satan wishes: thus rape is essentially a spiritual crime. In one of my letters to you I recommended that you say your prayers without fail, preferably on a daily basis. Satan is a raging lion seeking those whom he wishes to destroy. Don’t let him get away with it, kiddo, if only by recognizing that nothing can defeat Christ Almighty and those that love Him. I hope to hear from you fully.

God bless:

206 Letter to God from Ravenswood 4/97.

God’s apparently most pertinent context is uselessness: God applied is profoundly ineffective. He fails to step in and help. I find in the brainstorms of trauma no sign of God except marked absence. I’ve served the Jew for over 30 years - ‘the divine Jew in His dress’ - through ignominy, persistent shame & terror. This terror is so deep in its overwhelming awfulness - horrendousness - that I am almost the contra-posit of God. I left God because I saw the evil of suffering: this God lifted not a finger; or this God lifted a finger with the unloving indifference of Baal - “it is permitted”. It is in Luther’s theologia crucis we first locate the death of God (WA L590) .. “God who is dead, the anguish of God, the blood of God, the death of God”. He cannot get away with indifference so easily - anguishing bombardments overlooked & forgiven. Our indifference posits His non-existence: this lets Him off the hook & we cannot inquiringly yap at His heels. The only death of God which partly absolves Him is mine - i.e. - this living death which I traverse without His help is not sufficient an absolution (.. He stands guilty in His ineffectiveness: surely He has overwhelming power?) No, the only death which really absolves God of helplessness & unhelpfulness is my living death as God. This God cannot help Himself: so stricken He can hardly help others. This is God contra-posited. This at least explains the horror, in that God’s mind is so f***ed to itself - so divinely deranged - that it would be churlish to castigate God’s manifest insanity. We have no need of blaming God for permitting insane cruelties - why, He is the ultimate victim of all of them. Surely, He must be deranged in the extreme, as this provides the extenuation necessary for a proclamation of innocence. As I think God is the zenith of innocence, I - a paltry, imperfect human being, or one rarely touching innocence - I reach up into the deific in its ‘reality’ for understanding & for ratification of His innocence.But what is this ‘reality’? It is the going back into something which destroys: this destrucierendes Rückgang is first met in one’s own disparate (emotional) historicity sc. the abreaction of terror & the mnemic force of being terrified ... of something dreadfully going wrong ... of the true nightmare rising up ... Life is the visiting fiend of ‘reality’ which drives one toward deific reality. This is higher reality destroying lower reality (or, at least, the radiant wish it should). I know God exists because I’ve met Him - God risen - I rose. Hence I put my terrors aside because this God is marvelous & holy & “all powerful”.... `Whoa ... this is sufficiently distressed .. An agonising day! My script rambles in trying to write the unwritable. Junk this? No.

Let’s try opening it out more. Head bowed in terrible pain. Emotional pain. Source: source connected to (versions of) God. Alternative emotional versions. Whichever way it goes I’m shafted? Every which way but one? It’s

207 pretty f***ing desperate then? Horrors of childhood/youth madden me emotionally. Mad = angry. The haunting horrors of poverty. The earthly emphasis on the love of money hides the horrors of its lack. Desperation. Brutality. Mental torment (mother). I stagger from failure to failure? Failure: not being able to defeat the causes of pain. Pain & God’s ineffectiveness linked. God effective above all this = forces the transcendens.

What does the victim say to God? “How dare you burn me, you bastard” - and this is equivalent to saying, “how dare you permit this horror!?”. Again, to be God’s victim - “should God have victims?”. Or to a Christian’s victim: “burn a living candle into flaming martyrdom .. or burn another kind of Christian to prove that the sacrifice of others exonerates God”. Sacrifices are not pleasing to me, says God - then He allows Himself to have His flesh crucified .. a sacrifice on the altar of master names, an altar compulsively imaging forth God bleeding. It is important that we notice the most pervasive master name: that master name is God. This is the going back - epistrophe into the most pertinent, important, epoch. This is not one equi-equivalent, unvalorized occurrence - one level eventing - this is the God Who concurs in His own murder, in His own destinate show-down. This is not mere Geschichtlichkeit or history happening from es gibt: this is the birthing & deathing of Almighty God in blood-red splendour .. the apogee of the shattering convolutions of theo-sado-masochism .. the locus of incalculable & inestimable sufferings .. wherein & wherefrom is permitted horrendous shit far beyond what He suffered Himself. Hence a contest: “my shit, courtesy of You, is worse than the shit You visited on Yourself”. My apologies: “shit You permitted to be visited on Yourself”. My individual reaction finds acquiescence in torment sick. Somehow ultimate torment - torture - heals the gap, as if a wound somehow heals a poultice .. as if a wound draws evil from a branding-iron. What kind of inverted & involuted deific shit is this? This is God refusing to rip the face off demonic sadism .. party to it everywhere in the inhibition of omnipotence .. doing f*** all about it, or about anything. About anything - now there’s a thought.

I must presume Almighty God is sane. Please, let us not pick on each other. The hurt in my emotions saddens me & maddens me. Crawling I saw love lose. I stand and see the vomit of violent horror: the hurt turns, returns and returns me. Horror breaks my heart down: it teaches me everything I have no wish to learn. I know God lives - “exists” is too technical - because He has definitely helped me in those regions .. in the divine there. I’m hammered the f*** out of here. Does this mean help is disguised here? O the hammering is a help (for which read: thanks for f***ing nothing, buddy!) Now I cannot get back from this God - vacating this weirdest of deific lots is no option worth pursuing:

208

blocking a return by the resoluteness of ‘down here’ is filing one’s brain-powers with the (walking) human dead. Keep your mind in hell & fear not: but what is this impelling explosiveness which downs me into living nightmares .. which overthrows me into emotionality, ripping through me .. the vicious down assailing & irrupting with pictorial scars opening .. ? Why, it’s f***ng human life .. O No, not f***ing that!! Is it then that God absconds to force out deity in the recoils of terror? Is He that devious in the back-alleys because He no longer fulminates on mountain tops? God showed me a golden inception of life - golden gloriousness - through the eyes of innocence: mostly it has been through the crusher ever since. However, it was thus imperative that this golden land come true. This golden land is true - it does magnificently exist. Not technical. Dear old Satan - that f***ing loathsome maggot - saddles me like a whore: still, he cannot stop the golden land appearing. It descends majestic for the gods: it transports them into the pure heart of intellect: it enthrones them back into immaculate perfection. Thus, when Christ is not victorious, pain ensues. Everything - i.e. - entirely all - feeds back into the victory of Christ. Temporality - and its f***ing sons & daughters - groans with its own de-cadence. The theoi have become decadents in the delightful thighs of pain but, above them & impelling them, is the enchantment of the scents of Heaven, callings up, beckonings in the sparkling regions of divinity, in which ‘access beyond the transcendens is not’: there all is God’s majestic genius; the testing of the tests of love annulled, power incomparable ensues, and Christ - the greatest of champions - pours forth love everlasting, absolute & true. Hence, I hope He will forgive my twisted out-goings (responsible though He is for some), my ferociously incredible (stricken) life - pain strikes like venom - because His wrenchings ‘around & down’ put life into focus (.. the divine life, that is).

When transcendence is reached, immanence abounds & transcendence is not. This gets rid of God as a moving staircase: beyond the ens infinitum & even beyond its thought. Life then appears remarkably different: inside Heaven we leave the detritus outside the door. Those outside have a capacity for less-ness, measuring worth against the world’s capacious insignia of power .. against master names which entice, envelop & smother - thus one’s ‘ownmostliness’ - Eigentlichkeit, Eigenheit - is instanced in the here of earth & it indicates everywhere but the here of Heaven .. that much less, severing the vast tumults of extra-dimensionality & enforcing the vaunted impossibilities attributed to divinity via felled minds, subsisting in a lowness bereft of the actualities of deific powers, refusing the deific ascent by gripping ambitions with the hands of consciousness .. in ‘knowing better’ than metamorphy in not knowing metamorphy at all. This stricturing against extra-dimensionality is the sub-stance of the closed space - PfD" - which subverts the presence of the deific & which,

209 in its stead, generates the temporary configurations of mortal history. This latter is by no means an ‘inconspicuous open space’ within which master names merely rotate or transpire: the revolution against deification forces idols of appearance into place, en-act-ment in consequence of which produces palpable ghastliness (divine mutation) & living tendrils of sublucent thought. History, as sublucence, is the fall into myths of being .. into lies thrown up in the air .. the lies of arbitrary master names (the lies of essence) - ousia, necessity, infinity, number &c - conjured up by generations of mortals, led by philosophers who cannot persuade God into revealing Himself by their means & who refuse God by His means. Cognitive structures of the fall negate epistrophe by remaining fallen, and this is because the epistrophe is unnatural, that is, it is natural to be divine & one cannot overcome the fall to reach this by enactments in the fall. Unfallingness is the wrenched equipoise of violence against earthly enmeshment, a forcible turning-around from compliance in seduction .. a painful turning-away from the sickening pull of the enchantments of N"4<,ÃH2"4, the making-to-appear of sublucence - “being” under the wrong light of quotidian reality - into deific NV@H (NfH), as out of daylight into divine light ... reversing the drives and, initially, whilst awaiting momentum & deific thrust, struggling back through the mutated accretions of flesh & its weighted impositions, with stifled, sometimes audible, groans .. casting down agonies, unleashing the god from the crucified pathway .. and then upwards into the golden lands of Christ’s extra-dimensionality, crying deliverance .. Thus a descriptive illustration. I am concrete in a god’s nightmare, but I am the god whose nightmare it is. Earth is the god’s concrete nightmare .. the way of death for those mortalized: hence all “humans” are sub-humans or gods under themselves. Only the rising bestows lucent humanity. Almighty God - Christ Almighty - is fully human. (It is worthwhile utilizing Schelling here Ages 8:212/4:588: “To be infinite is by itself no perfection; rather it is the token of the imperfect. What is perfected is just what is in itself rounded, completed, finished”). He should have added: only the •DPZ of Christ’s NV@H - deific lightening - completes. The pagan Greeks always associated phos as mortal with everyday light, or with lower - unnatural - light. µ,JV<@4" - ‘conversion’ - returns the concrete to the god literally, that is, not by thought alone, but by a miraculous change of flesh & appearances related to flesh. The Vision of God is an effacing of fallen life: the god awakes, partly or fully, and Heaven rejoices - i.e. - it joys again ... This relocation (transportation) is the only new dawn for man: it goes beyond µ,J"N@D"4 - portable meanings - in converting sunlight & moonlight into the uncreated light of the essentiality - Eigentlichkeit - of Almighty God’s presence. This relocation does not go - shift - from the concrete to the spiritual, as if the concreteness of flesh is eradicated: illumination occurs through concretion, but this latter unfalls by the ancientness of - the restoration of - ‘new’ colours, ‘new’ sounds, ‘new’ thoughts. Ancientness - Urliness - vacates the mythic spaces of earth, with its phainesthetic (phenomenal) shinings,

210 and enters the divine realms in unsurpassing glory. It is here that thought topologizes the unspeakable: there is an asymmetric shift which sublucence cannot reference: the privatio - FJXD0F4H - of the thought of subhumanity is overcome: only cascades forth the expressiveness of surging gods, again empowering delights ensue ...

There is only one great myth of earth, a myth so pervasive that it solicits almost universal assent, a validation of ignorance so overwhelming that it reaches intimidatory proportions, one hardly ever challenged by the billion-fold morass of subhumanity in its daily round, occupied as it is by the workings of darkened entrails - its combinatorial twistings of thought - which, shored up by the virulent cretinism of philosophical structure, rules unchallenged almost everywhere as the dominant ideology of humankind. This ideology takes as obvious ‘even being’, or that which can never be other, the this-worldly something which never (during life) deworlds or unworlds or disworlds, as if palpability - Gegenständlichkeit - is an ‘endurant’ or fixed grid on which given- ness never ‘gives over’ .. as if life’s es gibt - ,É<"4 - in the tangibility of its surrounding content never revolts into its own innermost negation. Humans fail (culpably so) to recognise that God’s energy is so powerful .. so possessing of the ultimate finesse of exactitude - •6D^$,4", consummate execution - of His purpose .. that He can, as He wishes, overthrow the physical ordinances of the world: it is only the resistance of subhumanity which holds the world in a grip of its own making ..... This resistance or anti-typy is a myth resulting from the physics of mass - impenetrability - as if one cannot, in the last analysis, push through things to breach the world. Obviously, the breaching of things - smashing a gap through - is, in metamorphy, not a replacing of things by obvious impossibilities, as metamorphic thought is far more intelligent than the crudity of physical law. William Blake touched on this, so: “what is called Corporeal nobody knows its dwelling place - it is in fallacy & its existence an imposture”. This imposture rests on antinomial identity, or the god identifying with the not ... Corporeality is identification with not divine: it fixes itself as the FJVF4H - the stationariness - of flesh (refusing to turn this into a thunderbolt of energy). Antinomial identity - <@ØH •<@0J`H - defies the energizing underneath & thus it keeps the god underneath: obviously, death will rip this shit off. Thank death! Or thank Christ for f***ing this mass imposture over: take them all out (Ë<" ¹ Ò 1,ÎH J B

211 of emergent possibility. Mutancy denies 2,`J0H in the general stupidity of everyday life by fêting the down, by ‘normalization’, but this involves monstrous coordination in which flesh is the point - fulcrum - of death. A recent mass rape of children, with accompanying and subsequent butchery, is elsewhere coordinated with the profoundly superficial, as elsewhere is diversified into the haecceity of mass indifference. Deals are struck with the darklings of the abyss, business continues, nobody gives a f***. And why is this? It must involve evasive underpinnings translated into lunatic erections. And what are these? What mounts a child in the ecstacy of anal disembowelment and a severed throat? An extremity of pleasure lurks here: something riddles the meat of insanity and urges it, something so deeply vile that mutancy has no thought or words for it. Mutant oaths - f***ing this, f***ing that - appear to implicate the god in sub-bestial madness, but no combinatorial conjunction at depth gauges the point of atrocity as an expression of understanding. Satan blanks himself out of the calculation in the synergy of evil, but the vocabulary of hell earths itself at all times, and it does this with mass collusion. The fallen view of psychology - homeostasis, polymorphous perversity, ambivalence, Oedipus - fails its remit beyond the flesh: it overlooks evil and the contra-posit of luminescence against evil. The god refused allows the daily round of aggravating madness: it is complicit in every degree of satanic sub-bestiality: it builds the earth-platform of the beast: its very normality contributes to the fringe-mania of its genus: normality is unnatural in destroying the god: repressive mandates against the extremes of obscenity maintain and urge on the destruction of the god & obliterate innocence: when innocence appears it must be destroyed ...

‘Normality’ is, of course, a spectrum which includes the subnormally abnormal: this is the level or rule which abutts it - its major prompt, its resonance: normality is the un-god-ing of humans, but, as humans are really divine, the abnormality of normality is the un-god-ing or de-divinization of subhumans: all of them or all of us, except, naturally, those capable of metamorphosizing into living gods; and even the gods go down, or tend to stay down, captivated - perhaps in my case - by the lures of obscenity and its posturing - thus imposturing - delights. Naturally, thus unnaturally, the gods diversify into gender. As one cannot divinely f*** oneself, diversification provides (fallen) identities - others - to f***. The fallen gods - as narcissi - thus seek themselves in others: in looking to find the lost divinity of themselves, they reflect this loss in f***ing. Theo-ontological or deificational stultification thus ensues. The difference in having sex or not is no difference: dissatisfaction occurs because in sex humans are kept down: my reality is thus ‘only love keeps me down’. Why else would one stay down or keep down? Life is primarily encapturement - ‘I am f***ing captured’ - personae (the external, visible

212 appearances of sexuality) lock in prosopa (the external, visible appearances of deification). Büchner, in Lenz, decries that which transfigures, thus sacrificing it for the redolent nature of sensuality. This is subscription to captivity in the same sense as the denial of sensuality: the transfiguration of this denial is traditional sanctity: I want to transfigure out of human personae. Obviously then, ‘only love keeps me up’, but where is this ‘up’? It is obviously up with the divine prosopa, but is it up with divine personae? Subhumans are internally divided into phantasy and fallen reality - ambivalence & chained response in post- ambivalence - neither satisfies. Dissatisfaction, it would then appear, is overcome by what? Satisfaction transfigures both - or is it beyond both? I am again looking for Heaven’s sensuality - and this is such a fraught problem. Sexuality cannot belong to Satan: though his agents control so much of it - signalling his attempt at conquest - sexuality is an intrinsic fragmentation of the imago Dei. The genealogy of temporal subhumanity - from embryo to corpse - is the diversification of this holy image: thus the f***ing of children - the rupture of innocence - is the vicious capturing of a part identity .. Whoah, whoah - I’m over-intellectualising here. I do not know what I wish to say. Try: in f***ing others (in f***ing over others), one f***s over oneself. The other is yourself: what you do to others you do to yourself. This is extremely f***ing profound. In the root of obscenity is wisdom. No wonder I scour it - abrasive poignancy &c. Say it out loud: the other is yourself. Shades of Rimbaud’s ‘Je est un autre ..’. No, this is all evasion of a profound emotionality which cries, ‘Messiah, f***ing Messiah - stinking liar’. I deserve to hate God, the f***ing torturer. Nobody can stand this hideous humiliation: it’s no wonder I hate God. My parents should have died in agony - gross, coarse, vicious, insane, nasty vermin. Now I need saving from the memories, the horrible memories, which squeeze my brain. The pain is so viciously convoluted it strikes me into a living hell. May my parents rot in Christ’s presence. May I never see them again: f*** the Resurrection if they are there. What a profoundly disgusting wound they put in me: themselves. I’m thrown around on the end of a trauma so painful I’d shovel Christ into an oven to stop the pain. The same oven I saw my mother in? What a f***ing birthright! Straight into the hell of my mother & father. I’m always on the verge of their madness. Always daily, holding on, hoping against hope, waiting for life to lift beyond them. They were so stupid I doubt if they were ever cognisant of what they did. I sometimes wonder if the trauma will throw me over into killing myself. Not before that “bright shining star of God’s glory” is crucified again. I missed the first show. Perhaps the miserable death of God will make amends, but I feel too noble to piss in His mouth as justice demands. Christ is the Moloch of unimpeded sadism. I’m too f***ing damaged to even live. I wish Christ Almighty & His toe-rag, cock-sucking supporters would murder Satan - God is an expert in all forms of murder - and then commit suicide; and the human race - that sick & twisted genus I’m affiliated with - let it die a writhing death into oblivion, chorused by the baying scum of its own

213 mindless idiocy. ‘The other’ means I cannot stand being myself. Anything but me - why, I’d even be God if that is beyond hurting. I ask God, ‘What are you doing this for? Why do you treat me this way?’ There’s never any answer ... You know me, Lord: if there are poor bastards worse off - how could You?! Worse off than this? Do You wish us to be worse off than You? Your f***ing stunning silence is admirable. Give the dead bastards a book to read. Try mine, the greatest book since the Bible. Remember where you broke a few dead fish & a couple of loaves - two versions of authoritarianized mass-hysteria .. Christ’s shit & insane sanity! My rage is so ‘off the wall’ I’d force my genitals down His throat as I blind Him with a hammer. Still, write as it comes through, because God is nothing if not Truth. Shit - a rough couple of weeks. What do I think? - I love God: I guess He puts me through it - why!!? One answer - one sick & insane answer - is that I am God (.. the Almightiest of Almighty downs); at least I am thus the affiliate of a broken love beyond His & my understanding: hence, I back off being put through the wringer with Him, as He, in mindless volunteering, destroyed Himself for a love so pure that none of us would wish Him God otherwise. There is only one mind for genius to assault, one mind so incredibly intelligent that all others - except mine - pale before it, the Messiah. The Messiah - Saviour of the Universe; The Messiah - the Burning Face of others facing the ovens; The Messiah - Almighty God so f***ing impotent that Almighty God cannot stand or f***ing stomach Him. But You know, Lord, I utterly love You .... Of course there is an answer (the third commandment): love one another as I love you. With this there should be no criminality whatsoever; but in this - this, the great inverse of Heaven - in this world discrepant vision rules the roost & spiritually-sightless maniacs issue the mandates of low power, forcing an abnormal structuring on to the rungs below, where complicit victims copulate with the genetic vermin of fallen mentalities, ratifying & re-ratifying horror (sheer f***ing horror) upon horror. To be f***ed over by low vision is something I share with the Messiah. Sire, back to sex. Sex is about raising someone to heights of excitation, taking them into regions surprising & delightful: thus this shadows elevation & transcendence. Whoa, f*** this: let me interrupt myself. I’ve told a lie in my anger. I said that there is never any answer. I say this who has access to Heaven, the Heaven I enter into. No: snared by the beast of my own pain, I did my Master an injustice. On the souls of victims there is a scale weighing the evil done against them. Not to requite this evil with pain is the heart of burning love. I know that that day will arise, as raw as a thunderbolt, when Christ’s undying love will break this great engine of remorseless metaphysic, snapping enchainments of wrought energy, the entwisted untwisted, so that utter Heaven fulminates in the risen innocence of absolute victory ....

214 F.

Here I am again, several weeks later, immeasurably f***ed over (.. what a whining twat), hurting in new ways, thinking still. So, God as incestuous bastard & His harrowing of hell. I’m actually being ‘got at’ (.. not in a paranoid manner, just with a stick in the daily eye-ball: God prompting me to write more outrage). A subtle hint from S. Maximus the Confessor: cleave to God so much that a twister racks one’s bones & hoists one’s tongue on to the needle-end of a meathook. Thus, a dead-drop as the tongue unfurls a yard long through cracking teeth, disgorging eyes bleeding. So, the curtain draws on God as an incestuous maniac: Christ f***s a virgin wife who becomes His mother (.. the wife of God becomes the mother of God): ergo, the fallen - the mutant rapists of the divine, the normal - erect an incest taboo to regulate the human race. Let’s get this straight .. let’s look this directly in the eye. Let us take reason on to a new & strange ground. The incest taboo, we are led to believe, is that which commands the highest & most common morality. In the world Oedipus is a greater God than God: except, of course, Christ Almighty does not obey Oedipus. Naturally, if you f*** your mother to produce yourself, you have no father: which is why, in the Gospels, Christ is a bastard. The epithet ‘bastard’, in human language, is a curse: ‘you dirty bastard’. The word ‘Christ’, in human language, is a curse. Why else would we curse Christ? Why is His Name a curse? Christ is put in with the dirty, with the extremes of filth - sewerized with extremes of thought. My blasphemies, for example, rubbish the Most Holy Mother of God - His Heavenly wife? - as something worse than a whore’s melt, but to me, impelled into something torturously extreme, raging in affliction - allowed to be tormented? - I am forced into analytic extremes. We cannot say that the Most Holy Mother of God is sexlessly penetrated: no, as this appears to make Christ’s manhood radically different from everyman. Is He then conceived by divine sexuality? At least this ‘f***s over’ Satan, who is sexless. Sex is putatively the hinge & chief axis of the fall, but, if sexlessness comprises Christ’s birth, something integral to manhood is declined: no, then divine sexuality is the hinge of us all. By this argument chastity is a profound mistake (.. certainly: decline the de-divinization of sexuality, but not its re- divinization). Ecclesiastical eunuchs - i.e. - pathological non-masturbators - must necessarily toy with violence & cruelty, turning the flesh into a bed of pain. I personally would rather suck exquisite on a she-male-female of juicy angelic mien & ride the divine: rather than what? Rather than espouse the ascetic down & thus utterly preclude divinized sexuality. Anyway, screw the priests .. they never come up to it: who wants a mind full of that kind of shit? Where was I? F***ing one’s mother to produce oneself (in fallen terms), means having no father: however, the Son of God in f***ing His mother, means He is His own Father. Kompliziert ja? But let’s get back to me for an easier situation. Sexually, I do not like men: this equals not liking male men. I do not like male manhood

215 in myself, which means I do not like myself. Self-detestation, self-loathing. Does this mean I think anyone who likes me - a tough, hard macho f***er - is in fundamental disagreement with my view? I am however bisexual (= both heterosexual & homosexual). Note the pretty little paradox, viz, a homosexual who does not like men sexually. I like beautiful girlie boys .. young men (young men of a particular girlie stripe). Why? As an alternative to the raging brutality I cannot stand in myself (.. thus, learning to be a gentler version of fallen humanity). Christ somewhere focuses here .. small wonder He has so many nancy followers. Do I hate Christ because He nancifies me? Would I not rather aggressively reign over & kill any macho male who gets in my f***ing way? Or is this why I made Christ my Master? Or is it because Christ - the raging God Almighty - is capable of reigning over & killing me? Would I not like to reign over Heaven & ecstatically f*** its beautiful inhabitants forever, slaughtering crude masculinity (& ugly women) on the way - i.e. - making it merely non- existent (.. thus, nothing or transformed)? Never-ending delight & super-infinite erotic ecstacies forever (not like Satan the loser), but like the ultimate me as Christ or over Christ. But perhaps this is what God is .. or Satan. I could perhaps give myself a break by hanging myself (like He did?) .. Now where was I? I see men in the ultimate swinery of war: also, there are women like this. Better nancification than bestial murderousness: better the sweet f*** of an arse than cut throats. Ugly myself I am urged into intimate beauty in every imagination: ah, the slavering beggary of the adoration of hole, the licking please of rampant spunkification, the jiggering pulsation into the pregnant curves of extremes of porno obscenity .. beyond Blake’s annihilative death - “single vision” - and imprisoned paradise - “double vision” - and coincidental contrariety - “triple vision” - into the rare deific beast of my vision, with kisses exquisite in pink mouthed succour, breasts fired by spermatic energy, genitalia stiffened like the torsion of Ganymedes’ writhings, as ‘ass’ is assimilated into god & goddess, plumed with the luminescences of the ultra-f***. This is the impulsion of high ecstacy & beauty beyond measure, clad in the lineaments of light unsurpassing: this is the phallus of God. This is the f*** of immaculate energy & power perfect that bestrode Christ’s mother ... (Lesson: one can f*** a pure heart & f*** over a pure heart, but there is the always Virgin). Blasphemy, as I seek to understand it: God is a cock-sucking, scum-sucking, arse-f***ed, nepharious twat etc etc (which proves man is made in His image). Man - that superbly abnormal normal insanity - fails to realise the sweet delicacy of true love as it abounds in creaturedom all around him: oh love, pure love, that I should live & die for you - darlings, that on Heaven’s sweet plateau shall squat, the slit bitches of Misses Pure Hearts & True who rage frantic on the loins of seminal divinity, as lewd wedding-nights splayed hole displays in virginal white petticoats & sapphire shoes, slapped into the whimperings & cadences of spunk-seered, scarlet lips - this is Love & it is Love which is God. Lessons in normal insanity & everydayness - e.g.s. -

216 (1).Let us not forget our daily prayers in the absoluteness of dying in cunt (3000 years of ancient & young stuffed minge & ass, as if God is not involved);

(2).Let us not forget that we have f***ed Almighty God & His delicate children;

(3).Let us not forget Christ’s sexual agony;

(4).O f***ing agony, as like the whirlwind it blows in subtle death amongst the ignorant & unsuspecting, under concrete bridges & thro’ excrementitious tents, the fly-blown deaths of conformist horror .. oh, let God’s vengeance wake billionfold horror into the reality of God’s ironic response: confront this Almighty horror by recognizing Christ’s is a billion-fold more than yours. God cannot be backed down (.. frightened off) by billions of corpses, as if shovelling stacks of death into His face halts the mirror on us. No doubt - & this is faith - our mighty Jesus will out-figure & out-win this monstrous de-loving rebellion: hacking childrens’ brains out, hatcheting the cunts of screaming mothers, leaning bayonets with full weight into demon-seeing-sockets, burning white-hot one’s own flesh in others, as if the reasonable scientificism of 20-C-isms somehow vacates ancient & medieval horrors - they increase! as the distance from God grows in any & every age: nobody will ignore the seering shit of earth’s enormity against innocence with impunity: role-play & role-live with riches & fame will save no-one from the complicit shittiness of pretending to be human: the evasive down-game of earth - by erstwhile immortals - must be paid for by absolute shame. That one could inwardly & outwardly concur in the margins of flagrant & outrageous murder .. but this is the sub-god, don’t you see? Of course, you see & thus concur... So, God steps into hell, its merest portent shaded out here on earth .. phased over by digressive alternatives & circuses of celebrated idolatry, when the slaying goes on .. hell, thought not to exist .. hell, ignored as a mythic or poetic irrelevance, its reality voided & avoided by subscription to the hierarchies of sub-humanity (by sub-humanity), brown-nosing the anus mundi when, in fact, one must destroy the sub-god in entering hell to reach Heaven. Hell - whatever its ultimate ontological status - is Satan’s terrain, and one’s avoidance is the puppet’s cowardice: in not knowing the enemy one allows him in & keeps God out .. Satan is masked to all but the visionary (.. the theological seer). He knows I know him - not as Dante, Milton, Goethe, Blake &c - he is not a literary device, a character or something converted by a prosaic uplift. He is the master name of all monstrosity, standing behind and in all monsters, the excrementitious slide down (the choice down when you know better). The harrowing of hell is innocence entering shit (.. evil shit). Evil exists; and it is extremely frightening. And this is the fright of appalling fear: hence, the sub-god barricades himself (or: herself) by masked opacities .. by “being human” .. precisely as Satan requires. It is this which is the great negation & the sole •DPZ of all earthly tragedy: from

217 this there follows every oppressive mutation. Satan shades the earth in sub-deific light & there is “no one against god but god himself”. Man is sprung from immortal life, but, in aping mortality, he is birthed like the sun, grasps the temporary zenith, and dies into black horizons. It is the mortal who constantly re-invents himself in masked transfigurations and who, in not coming forth into the gleaming divinity of surging gods, merely adapts himself to the configurations of a low universality. Universality - the utmost of every coordinate - aligns the perception of man with that of the tick & grub, seeing nature as an impenetrable ultimate, closed to deific transfiguration.

Any preliminary to deification requires energy philosophy. Energy is recessive & unseen by subhumans, who are sublucent & down, coordinated by (fallen) nature, etc. The ability to see energy is the ability to become energy (.. divine energy): this energy penetrates beyond nature as ordinarily understood - normally perceived - and nature is, in fact, the facade keeping the divine out. This facade is erected by common consciousness on the understanding that man & wo-man is hu-man - i.e. - that identity is hu-man. Id-entity is literally it-entity and it is - as the mighty philosopher W. Blake well knew - a courtesy extended by Christ & His gods to stop man & wo-man falling into hell & non-entity.The problem is how to teach those who do not see divine energy to become divine energy to be able to see divine energy, given, that is, the rider that they do not deserve to become and see divine energy .... Worth is to fail subhumanity: divine genius the world cannot see: what the world can see is the mirroring of its own shit - the greatness of murder, enslavement, atrocity - under the strategic generalship of its spiritual overlord & hideous archangel, Satan. Satan is the lord of sewers over-brimming with the equipments of horror (.. subscribe a mite & the dirty bastard is in business). Now there’s a way to become respectable & lauded - what a splendid success, the beloved of every regime - hail power! hail shit! hail mutilation! hail the hammering down of deific glory .... Universality: coordinates from every part of the universe still down a god. Only great love - literally, the beauty of Christ’s mind - defeats the imprisoning facade, reveals Satan’s part & prepares the sub-god to rise. Extra-dimensionality beyond the subhumanly human opens the god. This does not fold in the ‘human form divine’ as an earthly event, as the truly human must go beyond (.. the human is enfolded in the god). I must make this clear against Blake’s energetic fictions: glimmering on the edge of the god gives only the disruption of advancing genius & mythopoeic play - mnemic resonances & idiosyncracies - but the god fully advanced is courted fully by the absolute powers of Christ Almighty. A broken heart suffers this earthly sojourn as something crushed by inner gore but, fortunately, God’s door opens to the desperate spirit. Man is a spirit swathed in oppressive meat & bone, but powerful energy can push aside any-thing ... (The imago Dei negates its own recessive proneness & overcomes universality: if it toys on the edges of God, only inspiration & low genius results - this is the temptation to stay in God’s

218 fore-court & not pass through elementary gods, ‘contracting or expanding their all flexible senses’. This angle of elevation is lovely delusion (.. art & poetics issue from here) and it is, as it were, divinity on the tilt & not passing through to the immediate reality of meeting the Almighty on His terms). Energy is above the philosophy of contending voices .. above the multifarious rants & informational inundations of earth’s unholy traffic. Energy is God becoming visible. God becomes visible as the only authentic power. To be so privileged to see the emergence of this absolute power is to salute immaculate holiness & the victory of innocence. Then one knows (.. the only knowing worth knowing) that God really lives & that He pertinently exists (.. the fool who thinks not is stymied by the conundrums of a raddled brain: earth-brain & massacred by orgies of irrational slaughter in every-time, impinging on everywhere: Satan stalks individuals). Our living God is the only living God - the God of others is abstraction & rumoured futurity - religion and its stinking concomitant, belief. You can believe what you like - you can believe in anything & everything - surrounded by cultic imbeciles, you probably will: but correct belief delivers you - during life, from earth - into Christ Almighty’s immediate grasp. This is known by radiance returning home & by visible (miraculous) theophany: anything less is delusional shit ... I have both seen & been in Heaven: life broke God’s heart & it has certainly broken mine. Sometimes I think I should try to break the world’s heart; but if God couldn’t & dying children do not, who am I to try? Oblivious it goes on & on, this mighty slaughter, as marginalized irrelevance minimalized in otherness, whilst token garbage struts the limelight in postures of worth, idolised & fawned over, as part of the solution when entirely the problem. “Each according to their genius” - but this means, in reality, God’s awesome intellect - thus mine - rising with earth’s destruction (.. with earth nulled forever), as God becomes God, as God comes into His own, as, again, last evening I passed up into deific awesomeness, the mind of Christ beaten on the anvil of irrupting destiny, cloaked by the raging weight of earth: thus up, as God breaking through, as God guided by the Most Holy Beloved - Queen of Heaven - God forming God again: thus, taking power at the utmost (.. God unearthed).

Yet earlier I watched a 16 yr Swedish schoolgirl (.. metallic silver heels on ankle boots only exacerbating nakedness) rut like an angel: if, that is, an angel possesses a mouth of prettiest lust curved in the extremities of passion. It is said that desire is hidden identity, but desire passes through excitation into sacred f***ing: the identity of the predator moves by divine logic beyond the raised flanks of sensuality (.. beyond the slit impaled & over flailing semen) into wild storms of energy. This is a girlie spunker studying Keats - well, ‘knowledge enormous makes a god of me’ .... Out from this high vantage point - surging oceans in the psyche & planets surpassed - god & fornicatory beast combine (.. that opposed in fallen religion & sexuality merges in the simultaneous contrariety

219 of the up); but .. but beyond this even .. beyond the slit-licking of triple lesbianism & shaved pubes & obscenity wide open &c .. is the divine lift into powering intellect that enjoins reality ... this, altho’ difficult of description, becomes ‘almost God’ - virtually but not quite 2,`J0H - as if one verges on the edge of absolute restoration, balanced by the finesse of a thought provided by the Queen of Heaven: it is the divine inner-ness of this lone She Who is the fulcrum of God’s immortal ancestry .. She alone Who raises Almighty God into the high redoubts & celestial fortresses of deific re-call: She Who, perhaps, reminds this caught God that erotic dalliances amidst rutting angels postpones resolution of a problem beyond any seminal crux & empowering sensual delight; but this is part of the crucifixion or the Almighty beneath parity .... My dalliances have always been with dangerously beautiful girls & boys. Do vaginas delimit my spiritual life: and, of course, the pretty groins of girlie boys? This urge to possess ‘lesser hierarchies of the divine’ .. when only She satisfies absolute perfection. And there is my despair & demotivation with the enormity of the down, as if bearing a merciless iron coffin, inscriptions on the lid of which configurate everything not God. Sexuality is an old competitive (predatory) urge, or something to do outside of Heaven - something to do! - childhood’s flower & manhood’s power, wrenching one into frenzied masturbation before a pouting & tongue-protruding face; and the knowing look as a virginal darling is rode with ever-increasing locomotive ferocity, wanting stiffness all day & night, in every lewd position, showing off for all she is worth, with the body of a goddess, ripe tits & long legs, crying out for veritable overloads of spunk. Now who said please! the more? But this is almost God’s overt temptation (.. an ‘almost’ not to surpass) when, going higher, it appears to nudge one on, appearing as mere angelhood - glimmering in triviality & repressing immortal light - worth little in comparison with states before mortal creation (and with states before immortal creation); and what is one to say about the state before the essencing of the Queen from out of God, when He stood majestic in isolation? Man & God - in contradistinction to Blake - differ by mortal & immortal light, but the intimacy of immortals is the shedding of flesh. The rising God is belaboured by the flesh of others &, thus, however high the high, adherence must constitute a weight, because the subhuman thereby exists ..

So .. (the most outstanding statement in English literature): I am God. What would you like to ask for (.. or, who..)? I am the Lord God Almighty (.. no f***ing around) - for real: I am He. What would you like?? Kindly let me introduce myself. I ask for the following before you deal with me:

I want pure ... pure love, the purest, most kind, loving love. Love to live for & love to die for .. love beyond earthly recompense, love that sees the heart

220 of the world: alas, love that suffers .. love that, if true, wins .. love that dies in a loving heart’s atrocity .. I was born into love & saw love defeated .. love loses everyday; but the intelligence of love (.. never mind its purest genius) suffers on. So, this is your God crawling through - blocked, reduced, negated. This - this the Most High Mind of Christ - this, the high thunderstorms of mere thought (.. your thought) - where the f*** am I at that you should care? This ‘mind of Christ’ is ‘at your everywhere’ - I step the streets of nowhere - f*** God, step on .. I am God .. literally, really - I wrote it all (.. a trillion tongues &c). Textuality - discursive lights speaking, my minor sons speaking - every tongue: I created it all. Oh God, if I could only come back to myself - if I could only become You .. (not You: I mean ‘everybody hates God’ - & why not? - I mean: God is such a mean, rotten, shithouse cunt - this guy could cure it all in an instance: some hope - but doesn’t) .. Okay, I’ll volunteer (..this is sort of sucking shit for Jesus..) Anyway, where was God? Agh, if I was Jesus of Nazareth. What would I say to these f***ing toe- rags .. !!? I would say ‘yours is the way to find, I await: if all of you followed Me, there I am, & I will give you everything - no fall, no blight, no imperfection - Heaven is easy, but do not follow the way of the world. Refuse earth & you refuse Satan: but, then again, you know he is my enemy (hence, you fell in joining him). Every day I watch billions of penises stretch out (& holes willingly receiving): every day the round moves on in unutterable, grinding boredom .. Don’t you know my incredible adventures beyond this ..!!? I am the ultimate adventure of the injection of pain .. holy suffering is no deterrent .. reach up from agony, I am there.’ One unfortunate consequence of being the Most High, the Sublime of Magnitude - &c - is being placed under moronic underlings & comatose shitters (..billions of the bastards) & thus being humiliated - grossed over numerically - by hordes of self-important maggots .. lying maggots .. presumptuous maggots .. pissing maggots .. political maggots (.. those hatchet- faced whores, male & female, blistering my holy mind) .. At least I shall have the intense pleasure of altogether rubbing them out of existence & reducing their filthy & malignant schemes to blank zero, as if they - so much f***ing garbage - expect to import their vicious mansions into my immortal citadels .. On the other hand the nice people - i.e. - those usually buried by a crush of mediocrities surging to celebrity & the greed of fame - these .. these sweeties & good hearts true .. my heart’s delight .. these I shall delight for evermore in their jewelled castles above, inverting fortune, raising them into immortal beauty & entertained by peace & my magnificence (.. whereas those unholy monsters who have the foul gall to patronize me with their low & sublucent opinions, cramming them into my psyche as banal & rotten inundations, these - I assure them - will be blasted inside out into non-entity). These f***ing cunts presume I do not exist, or, worse, presume to speak for me, as if I am dumb & removed .. I, Who birthed ‘the All’ as a mere segment of my Infinities, will not be f***ed over with impunity by warring wankers, murderous shit, raping monsters - &c. Obviously,

221 I intend to take them all out, first by death & then personally .. Christ is a mighty hitter ....

So, where was I .. ? Take a mortal span’s worth & a cut into reality. My life, until recently .. oh, well .. facsimiles of the fall differentiate into the fall in extremes of complexity & this is especially true of the flesh as a manifold of primal unknowns .. where & how flesh hooks into the imago Dei - why, the roots of flesh (.. the base & workings) are unknown to a far greater degree than the divine facsimile itself .. One can know God in the down, but fleshly roots never. I came down in the flesh as a ‘locking-in & translucent vehicle’ - it takes something special to bolt in a mighty god, something designed by God Almighty (thus, mighty bands of unearthly origin). What they are is unlike anything on earth (or: of earth) & I know this by having been taken back to the “initial point” - words fail - of this descent. No bardic sublimity .. no extreme of the most exalted prose .. reaches in & up to a description of such living magnificence .. No still image .. no moving image .. but beyond picturing. One looks into the fallen head & there is feeling, thinking, light, colour & darkness - and permutations thereon - but this resurrected is all more. Infinite sentences of numbers & words combined merely bind: only the Word loosens. Now surely, folks, you can see beyond the con .. ? .. (.. organo-NfH- phates & the mustard-seed waxing into mustard-gas, sprouting into hideous faces, mutants chemically bombing “sub-mutants” - for daring to possess what was sold them). Organic light in phosphorescent horror - cancerous excrescenses, ugliness beyond weeping ... power & the glamorous postures of plasticity glitzing through the MfH-gene of satanic miasmas ... sublucence loosed against what Blake terms “this finite wall of flesh”, a “wide world of solid obstruction”, “coldness, darkness ... a solid without fluctuation, hard as adamant, black as marble of Egypt, impenetrable” ... sublucence loosed against the antitypy of flesh corrosively penetrates - why, it’s the wrong light unleashed in murderous frenzy, as the touchstone of its subhuman progenitors, as the mania furibunda of its delirium with raving & fury ... raging satanic lions led by extremely vicious donkeys, issuing the mandates of ‘normalcy’ & thus precluding the advent of divine days in which the adamant is blasted & overthrown by surging rays and outbursts of deific splendour; hence, all theoreticians who claim that God transcends experience - who, for example, like Kant, rank the mysteries of the Trinity alongside squaring the circle or the perpetuum mobile, or who, like Hegel, degrade the Trinity by insisting spirit is the cultural ethos configurated by fallen civilizations - these, whose gross limits (.. these, whose own limits of experience delimit the sons & daughters of Christ) .. these, who do not know God & who have never experienced God - the vast, fallen majority - these extrapolate themselves as subhumanly inhuman into the world as the world - thus, it is these who inherit the pleonasmic daemonomania of fallen flesh versus ideal flesh.

222 There was a debate - including Hume, Paley, Sam C., de Quincey et al - based on H’s idea that miracle goes against natural law. Natural law is based on the adamant, which assumes that nature & the natural are identisch (.. º J"ÛJ`J0H of this is the monotony of the equation), but this overlooks this law as unnatural. The fallen inhabit un-nature, and it is this which miracle goes against. Obviously, ideal flesh cannot be located in un-nature, and the discrepancy between fallen flesh and its ideal conflates into cosmetics and its delusions: it also births much fallen psychology in a ‘familiar vain’. All fallen flesh persists in its strategies against the miraculous, but miracle is merely the natural reaching through. Even animality is disguised angelic-ness .. So, let us peak at fallen flesh (.. I’m a voyeuristic expert on this - God sees all): peak into God’s extremely sluttish parlour .... See, most sexual configurations always fall short of adequate interpretations (.. interpretations are largely subsequent or there are always more to follow) .. Moreover, how can subhumanity hope to get it right when its theories lack divinization & the coordinates thereof? Take androgyny as a resistance to dependence on either sex: its paradox is its openness to both sexes, but where does it emerge from originally? One God is the source of every gender, as male & female made He them (.. this is either the bi-pole at extremes or merged). Most gods are reckoned androgynous in the most diverse (fallen) cultures; but this is predicated positively of the unfallen god. Androgyny suggests autonomy, but in the fall both poles of sexuality open & diversification can undo the god. God & goddess merged, on the other hand, lift the aesthetics of beauty & lust into extreme realms, where, kissed by the golden lips of deity (.. eyes multiple & empowered), sights forgotten re-emerge as thunder beats on the glittering skin of the most-high animality, which, opened beyond the universe, storms in the delights of glorification etc. Note, however, that this is not - contra Kant - beyond perception & experience, but merely perception & experience beyond mundane coordination (.. it is the down that tempts down), accessible only to those who slough off the delusion of earthly hopes. Eveything down aggravates & disappoints, except appointments in perfect love. The origin of flesh is unearthly: not of this world skin & bone. The origin is a ‘personalizing immortal being’ - mammoth Deity Whose ‘mind’ hears every voice in noisesome enormity .. listens to every trillion-fold infinity of thought (summed without calculation), tongues articulating ‘outside horizons’ in thoughtless feelings infused with the lostness of love - mammoth Deity appalling in pure love’s splendour .. this God Who birthed you all in unequalled genius, Whose flesh & bone you wear in low apparel, this God hears noiseless thoughts & listens to every silence .. this God sees thought and all thought (sees beyond every combinatorial computation, as He creates uncomputational combinations - e.g. - “catch this little infinity, sunshine” - “I will protect you with the awesome colours of a wingéd shadow” - “My genius is open” .. ) .. this God Whose ‘mind’ saw your mind - a glimmering flame in voracious winds - decrease from the maximum glorifications of

223 everlasting glory into less .. (this less which means that the horror & absurdity of being - das Entsetzliche und Absurde des Seins - equates with the minimum of energy as articulated thought, which, thus reduced, becomes what Nietzsche termed ‘a surface-and-sign-world’ - nur eine Oberflächen-und-Zeichenwelt - operating as a caged seizure unable to penetrate beyond itself) .. Nietzsche, the creator whose hyper-perspectival transformations of das Eine exposed the pit over which philosophy hangs .. Nietzsche, one in a line of philosophers who dislodged the divine centre - Most High & Holy Trinity - substituting in His place a post-Kantian shift in the Begehrungsvermögen, an assumed power of mind which, acting through its own schemata, becomes the cause of its own reality - in fact, the cause of its own irreality .. a pernicious ‘höheren Daseinsform’, adherents of which purportively separate themselves from plebs of the herd, when all below bind together as the writhing conglomerate of subhumanity. Attempts to configurate das Eine as other than the immortal, all- mighty, living being - as Abgrund or –B,4D@< - results in ineradicable dislocation (mutancy), the walking across into vacuous nothingness - der Übergang in das leere Nichts - which attempts to reconfigurate the fall as ‘life- affirming’ & ‘world-affirming’, as if analysis by thought alone can sufficiently comprehend enough reality to even know the world. Is it a world saturated with violence which is affirmed, or its loveless squalor? Or is it the screaming whine of mechanised death pulsating in the arteries of parodic nonsenses - Dionysus and Zarathustra - which drives this ‘ball of earth’ (Erdball) .. drives it? Are they all so f***ing stupid? that they do not know that the tragedy of love reveals everything worth knowing? Add love (.. add love from a breaking heart) and Christ’s mercy is seen as the impelling force which drives existence. The pivot of Nietzsche’s philosophy is the ‘never-is-ness of becoming’ - i.e. - it is the absolutization of ‘is-ness never is’ - i.e. - becoming absolute is never absolute, but - contradiction - never-is-ness is the absolute. Or look at this another way: if becoming is not comprised of is-nesses, one cannot even say becoming is. Again we confront the paradoxes of the abyss & paradoxes are only true if they de-god the gods. With Nietzsche we see a philosopher de-god himself into a sick (castrated) Dionysus, an alter ego whose Macht is not the frenzied Zagreuth of Thrace ... etc. Enough, I’m boring the krap out of myself - something else ...

Interruption: many months later. The light is not out, only writing. Visited Nietzsche’s last dwelling place, the Archiv. A very strange feeling to stand in the conservatory (.. outright madness was wheeled in here) - how wrong can a philosopher be? A parlour prepared for the demons’ supper. “The only possible theodicy is that we are the gods” - this is what he said. As with Schiller & Hölderlin & Heidegger (never mind the ‘self-inflated mythic deification of Hegel’), the wrong gods got hold of the wrong end of the stick: evil gods stare down from Nietzsche’s walls in grim insanity. Almighty God is only negated at one’s sorest peril. Kant said there is no proof for & no proof against - i.e. - both

224 judgments keep the Almighty at bay - and, furthermore, man is imbued with radical evil. This is Calvin’s poison - God’s absence by infinite remoteness & man’s demonism - Calvin’s unChristian madness, in Kant’s snuffbox. I stood on Hegelstraße for the foto prompt and, this finished, masonry fell on to the pavement where I stood. “He’s turning in his grave”, said my friend Gill.. Not quite so bad as nearly sitting in Nietzsche’s drawing room (.. our ‘unreconstructed hostess’ had said ‘nicht sitzen’, but I was reading & inadvertently almost sat): thus a maenad’s shriek & I thanked the Lord I’d not dirtied my arse by sitting where Nietzsche, Hitler, Streicher, Heidegger et al had parked their profoundly unholy carcasses. The belief of these people - Goethe also - that monotheism subtracted divinity from nature, that nature was disenchanted by the death of pagan gods, forgets the nature of Germanic forest kobolds and its psychopathology in the black of the night: yet the Greeks had no forests and no Protestantism. It is the lantern of Christ Almighty which lightens forests ...

225 ‘Sidebar’ to Letter to God Almighty.

What does one actually mean in saying ‘a god’, or ‘becoming a god’? All gods are usually thought of as fictional - fictional archaic ideas - but archaic ideas cannot be fictional. Original impresses, genealogical or mnemonic traces, or ancient imaginings: being a god is none of these. Being a god is after becoming a god. A god is an iridescent superfluity. There is a rotten (false) idea that divinity waned with monotheism: that nature became disenchanted when its divinities were overthrown: that polytheism permeated nature with spirits: etc. Schiller - ‘Gods of the Greeks’ - says no deity reveals himself to my view. This is the calling-card of virtually every German poet & philosopher from Kant to Heidegger (Hegel excepted). Nietzsche’s dictum that ‘the only feasible theodicy is that we are the gods’ is ironic, a joke, as Nietzsche subscribed to the most common of all fallen ideas, viz, it is impossible in reality to become a living god. Heidegger - speaking from the shadows of despair - said we need a god to save us, that is, we are not liable to get one as we never have. On the basis of this idea, Christ as a salvific entity is negated by His opposite - life is obviously un-deific, slaughter abounds & enchantment is replaced by atrocity. And this is the definition of time - i.e. - it is an atrocious time, as time is seen not as ontological elevation but sideways, connecting up every mad horror, every ‘small’ murder & sadistic rape, every agony .. now. It is this now which disenchants the gods. Thought configurations almost invariably misconstrue the god. Schiller reckons on entgötterte Natur - un-en-god-ded NbF4H - as if the hyperization of one God vanquished all former & later gods: divinity thus becomes unreachable as a common belief, when, in fact, divinity is only reachable in the one God. The most ancient secret of Christ Almighty is that He gives godhood back. There are no gods outside of God and the idea that gods roamed the earth - “In ancient times the gods moved among men” (Hegel: ‘Theologische Jugendschriften’) - is both pernicious and unprovable: worse, it displaces deification now, in which process fallen man is un-earthed now .. Christ taught that gods & goddesses fell from Heaven - is that simple & stark enough!? - and that one now, despite the rancid textualities of fallen man, can be brought back out of earth into the society of gods that we once were. Paganism - i.e. - ignorance of the reality of the Lord of the Universe (.. minimally speaking), that is, failure to partake in the banquet of God’s pure goodness, is an ignorance conjured by lesser ambitions .. tantalized by the nothing of the down - e.g.’s politics, philosophy, academia - as if this strutting shit compares with one millionth ounce of the Holy Ghost. ‘Humans’, who fell from absolute love, are reprehensible & guilty to the degree that they do not love against all odds. Love makes a god: only love makes a god: any god who is not love is destroyed by love. Opposing pure love is evil & anything which claims to be pure which is not love sides with evil. And this, of necessity, also touches on the textuality & thought patterns - signalling a particular kind of consciousness - linked to anything considered pure. Kant, for

226 example, refers to the pure a priori & pure practical reason &c., thus placing himself with the purists and seeking uncontamination - i.e. - uncontamination by experience in reversion to that which is “earlier”- in parallel with uncontamination by the world, as with the entire 6"2"D tradition, from Montanism, Novationism, Donatism - etc - which in themselves assemble the primitive structures of Protestantism, forcing on life a pernicious division between ‘pure’ & ‘impure’ humans. There is no pure subhuman - all are impure & world contaminated - because to become human one must leave the earth & enter divine realms, in which & wherein kathar phantasy is levelled into nothing by the energetic irruptions of the Holy Ghost. It is this power which is the earlier & it is this power which undoes the “pure intuitions” of space & time. Only in the purifying iridescences of God’s lightening is the earth-mind overthrown & it is overthrown in the might of deific metamorphosis.

‘Sidebar’ on Kant.

Heidegger regards the noumenon in its ‘positive sense’ as the nonsensuous object intended as in itself - e.g. - God - as it remains inaccessible, belonging to an inapproachable region (unzugängliches Feld), closed to our theoretical cognition, since we have in our possession no nonsensuous intuition - “intellectual intuition” - for which the object in itself could be immediately present: thus, as this stems from Kant, intuitions are immediate & cognitions are intermediate. Now what is wrong with this? Kant’s classical statement on this is given in the Einleitung (Kr. der Ur.) as follows (in Gm./Eng.):

“Es gibt also ein unbegrenztes, aber auch unzugängliches Feld für unser gesamtes Erkenntnisvermögen, nämlich das Feld des Übersinnlichen, worin wir keinen Boden für uns finden, also auf demselben weder für die Verstandes- noch Vernunft begriffe ein Gebiet zum theoretischen Erkenntnis haben können;....”

“Our entire cognitive capacity - “faculty” - is therefore presented with an unbounded but, also, inapproachable region, namely, the region of the supersensible, wherein we can find no ground and, thus, in which we can have no realm for theoretical cognition, neither for concepts of understanding nor of reason; ...”

Let us first of all scrutinize parts of this closely: (1). ‘unser gesamtes Erkenntnis vermögen’ is, for Kant, fixed - i.e. - it is, as it were, prismatically finite and even though the sensible is theoretically conceived as potentially infinite, its scan or view is always discrete - i.e. - the human, presumed to be as such, never experiences visionary expansion into deity (2). thus hyperization never occurs, even though one could conceive of the possibility - contra Kant - of the potentially infinite potentiating, that is, empowering or being empowered

227 by the actuality of an energetic inrush (3). thus Kant argues for an anthropological ‘psychology of limit’ - i.e. - it is man who is presumed entire (gesamt), and the ground for this is really that Kant himself never experienced the expansiveness of being un-earthed.

Consider now Kant’s further thoughts along the same lines:

“Das gegebene Unendliche aber dennoch ohne Widerspruch auch nur denken zu können, dazu wird ein Vermögen, das selbst übersinnlich ist, im menschlichen Gemüte erfordert.”

“One can only think the given infinite without contradiction - or: the mere ability to even think the given infinite .. - (yet this) is something which requires the presence in the human mind of a capacity that is itself supersensible.”

Again, carefully scrutinizing this: (1). Kant smudges precisely what kind or sort of infinity is in play here - ‘das gegebene Unendliche’ is, as it were, not only trivialised out, but also not articulated & sourced in - is it, for example, a surround which gives finitude its place? how or by whom is that which is given given? or does it merely hang ‘there’ as part of an undisclosed textuality? Etc. But (2). it, whatever it is, can be thought - however merely - as without contradiction. Is Kant somehow insinuating the idea that that which is given is complete, as if infinite completeness has a procedure by & in which non- contradiction is ascertained? How is our cognitive capacity entire (gesamt) when it entirely rebutts ein unbegrenztes aber auch unzugängliches Feld? Here we do not have profound but obscure thought - rather confused nonsense: Abfall - Müll.

And again:

“Denn nur durch dieses und dessen Idee eines Noumenons, welches selbst keine Anschauung verstattet, aber doch der Weltanschauung, als bloßer Erscheinung, zum Substrat untergelegt wird, wird das Unendliche der Sinnenwelt, in der reinen intellektuellen Größenschätzung, unter einen Begriffe ganz zusammengefaßt, obzwar es in der mathematischen durch Zahlenbegriffe nie ganz gedacht werden kann.”

“Because it is only through this capacity - “power” - and its idea of a noumenon, which of itself admits of no intuition & yet which is introduced as the substrate underlying the intuition of the world as mere appearance, that the infinite of the world of sense, in the pure intellectual estimation of magnitude, is completely comprehended under a concept, although it can never be completely thought mathematically by means of numerical concepts.”

228 Now what are we to make of this (its clumsy articulation not withstanding)? (1). this is a capacity above sense which accompanies an underpinning Substrat, the ‘surface’ of which is appearance (2). which thus indicates & implies that the infinity of the world of sense is - that is, existentially is - appearance - i.e. - ‘surface’ and infinity coinciding existentially as identity (3). yet what remains below this surface infinity - what subsists beneath this asserted infinity - is, according to Kant, an underpinning Substrat - is this Substrat finite or infinite? Is there ‘room’ for a finitude not included in the all- pervasiveness of one infinity, or are there two infinities? Kant refers to mere appearance - bloß Erscheinung - in contradistinction to any alternative, a mere infinity moreover, but this erases the noumenon he asserts - i.e. - Substrat and Erscheinung are related as existential contraries (4). but we are told infinity can be thought without contradiction ... ohne Widerspruch.

But there is yet more:

“Selbst ein Vermögen, sich das Unendliche der übersinnlichen Anschauung, als (in seinem intelligibelen Substrat) gegeben, denken zu können, übertrifft allen Maßstab der Sinnlichkeit, und ist über alle Vergleichung selbst mit dem Vermögen der mathematischen Schätzung groß .. u.s.w.”

“Even a capacity enabling the infinite of supersensible - i.e. - hypersensible - intuition, regarded as given (in its intelligible substrate), can be thought to transcend every standard of sensibility, and it is great beyond every comparison, even with the capacity of mathematical estimation .. etc.”

All of this kind of thought relies on philosophistical trickery, and this must be made obvious, as it (1). falls back on a particular kind of division or ontological Entzweiung, namely, that between sub-stance & stance, hypo-stasis & stasis - etc - which presumes something unknown and unknowable, around which and-or imbedded in which is appearance. The guise of this duality is literally duplicity & it is as ancient as the twinning of Castor & Polydeuces (.. literally ein Doppelspiel - a double game - played with entities of mythic cast): thus, in criticising it we must recognise criticism as precise contra-diction (2). in pointing out that something unknown and unknowable cannot be known to be knowable - i.e. - it cannot be known to be sub or hypo, and it certainly cannot be known to be an intelligible substrate (.. however vacuous an object in whatever unzugängliches Feld Kant wishes to place it), because (3). the existence of something unknown and unknowable is not even known to exist or not: thus, likewise (4). the surface of ocean passes all comprehension if and when ocean is unknown and unknowable, as when the surface of mixaplix disintegrates into nonsense, especially when mixaplix is never heard, seen nor thought of - it is precisely the same with Kant’s theory of appearance, as he pretends to wisdom

229 in an articulation of ‘the other side of nothing’. Hamann - in a warning to the young Kant - indicated that Socrates was informed by real ignorance, whereas his opponents gave voice to its pretense. Kant’s intuition is merely a secular down-grading of Socrates’ eudaimon ..

230 ‘Sidebar’ on gods & goddesses.

Hegel criticises Kant by saying if the truth about the absolute is not known, relative truth is not known: thus, if the truth about the infinite is not known, finite truth is not known. I take this to mean that Hegel is virtually forced to infinitize himself. As Kant assumes the limits of sense (are finite) & as finite truth is not known, then the limits of sense are not known: the further assumption - by proof per impossibile or reductio - that the senses are limitless, implies that the infinite & the finite are capable of argumentation by equipollence - i.e. - that ‘equal weight’ is attached to pro & contra argumentation, & that falsification of that which is contra establishes the truth of an opposite pro. However, the infinite & the finite cannot be handled like two finite arguments, and it is here that the methodology of reductio argumentation falls apart: that is, as the infinite & the finite are interoperable, intrinsically implicative - &c - infinitization as a process falls to pieces also. I call Hegel’s assertoric identification with the infinite via infinitization ‘false deification’. Hegel criticises Kant by saying if the truth about ‘God’ is not known - i.e. - if the truth about truth is not known - then truth is not known. However, this appears as immediately stultifying, in that even as the truth about truth is not known, the truth about this unknown truth is known: ergo, what is truth? If truth is finite & as the finite mutually implies infinity (which cannot be known), then finite truth cannot be known. If truth is infinite & as infinity mutually implies the finite, then finite truth can be known. What is it that is knowing & how so? If it is the finite which is knowing - e.g. - if it is the finite mind which is knowing - and as the finite mutually implies infinity (which cannot be known), then the finite (mind) knows that which cannot be known. If it is the infinite which is knowing - e.g. - if it is the infinite (mind) or God which is knowing - and as the infinite mutually implies the finite, then the infinite mind impossibly knows itself by & through the finite (mind) - i.e. - the complete impossibly knows itself by the incomplete. What do the gods think of this? Is it that the impasses engendered by any dialectic involving infinity block & stultify knowing? Or is it that the impasses engendered by any dialectic involving the finite block & stultify knowing? Or do the gods know that infinity & its contra mark, symbolize & reify both false deification and non-deification? Thus, when God is infinitized or when man is infinitized, both false deification and non-deification result; but the gods assert that they are neither infinitized nor finitized entities & neither is God; and they assert that deification (becoming a god/goddess and/or becoming God) is a known process .. a process away from ‘imposed unknowns’, such as infinity and its contra, and a process away from all fallen concepts in fact. Such a process needs a reversal or a literal un-earthing (.. the proof of which is in the experience of becoming unearthed), and it is in this process that the fixity of the limits of

231 experience is negated. As Kant argues for the limits of experience grounded on the limits of sense, the gods argue (i). experientiality is onto-theologically more and less (ii). the fall is conditionally what is the case - thus, contingently (iii). the earth is an unnecessary illusion ratified & reified by mutant deities .. as it were & forgive a complex pun: for mutant & mortalized immortals, see below, as the undermentioned Untermenschen (iv). the fall is merely a focus imaginarius which, so to speak, did not simply fall to us by chance - uns gefällt, cadentia - or accident, but by conspiratorial design & by anti-theists above (v). the atheists’ revolution below - i.e. - beneath the mighty, elevated & holy redoubts above - is interlinked with the immortals’ revolt above, and (vi). this involves the most hideous warfare between satanic forces - thrones, powers, dominions - and the elite forces of Christ Almighty. Hence, for Hegel & Nietzsche to castigate these troops as slaves, unhappy consciousnesses - &c - is yet more proof of their entire lack of spiritual vision. As always Christ raises His immortals amongst the fallen, whether as off-scourings, no-men, plebs & prols .. as whatever .. but also as His powers of destiny, who, cognisant of their miraculous energy & stupendous access, carry the let & process & love in metamorphosis ever forward, overcoming everything in its unstoppability: I call this raising ‘true deification’.

If one places a divide between man and deification ( .. between man’s status as onto-theologically low & man’s elevation as luminescently high), then one would not expect those below & beneath this division to parade banners to this fact. Without the glory of 2XTF4H - without the making of the divine - and without º 2,`BJ46`H *b<"µ4H - without the power of seeing God - man is merely godless (•B`2,@H). Being godless is not of being qua being, but of being beside oneself or of being dis-located: one is thus divided against oneself, or one is split through one’s I. This is immediately apparent in the philosophy of Kant, which one could term accurately ‘secular irrevelationism’ ( .. in contradistinction to, say, Heidegger, whose ‘secular revelationism’ of being qua being manifesting itself impersonally - instead of & against a personalizing theocentrism - parodies & perverts orthodox revelation, especially as this latter reveals the deifying process). Kant says man is one of the appearances of the sensible world - “eine von Erscheinungen der Sinnenwelt” (A546/B574) - and thus he can argue quite specifically as so:

“Das Bewußtsein seiner selbst, nach den Bestimmungen unseres Zustandes, bei der innern Wahrnehmung ist bloß empirisch, jederzeit wandelbar, es kann kein stehendes oder bleibendes Selbst in diesem Flusse innrer Erscheinungen geben, und wird gewöhnlich der innre Sinn genannt, oder die empirische Apperzeption”.

“Consciousness of self, according to the determinations of our condition by inner

232 awareness, is merely empirical and at anytime mutable, and it cannot stand or remain as the self in this flux of inner appearances: such consciousness is usually called the inner sense or empirical apperception” (A107).

This elicits in Kant the demand for a formal condition, one that necessarily & inherently involves transcendental illusion, as to unitary consciousness. Self- consciousness in general is therefore the representation of that which is the unconditioned condition of all unity (A401); and it is the representation of that which is the steadying of the flux ( .. or it is the unknown unchangingness in which known change is grounded, or the grounding itself of the empirical in the transcendental, or &c). But to this unitary consciousness in its unity Kant expressly attributes nothing: he calls attributes of the virtual non- entity of transcendental apperception themselves ‘entirely void’ - “consequently they are completely empty” .. “mithin sind sie völlig leer” - and by this he means, literally, of simplicity & substantiality & numerical identity that they misrepresent as representations. He says (A402), nevertheless, there is nothing more natural & misleading than the illusion which makes us regard unity in the synthesis of thoughts as a recognizable unity in the subject of these thoughts - i.e. - the unified is not the unifier; and this is because attributes which are completely empty - nothings or nothings without identity - absolutely demand something with identity. It is as if as knowledge about the absolute (the thing-in-itself) is unknown, Kant must interpose illusion in its stead & he quite forthrightly says,

“Man könnte ihn die Subreption des hypostasierten Bewußtseins - apperceptiones substantiatae - nennen”.

“One could name this the subreption of the hypostatised consciousness - apperceptiones substantiatae” (A402).

Subreption is literally a snatching from underneath (sub-rapere), or the obtaining of something by misrepresentation. Kant is stating openly that misrepresentation grounds representation, or non-identity equals identity, as if it is necessary to somehow conjure forth the conditioned out of the unconditioned. Nevertheless, although the attributes of this ground are completely empty, this ground to us unknowingly issues the entire flux of the world of sense and binds & limits this world by its ontological and epistemological opposite. Kant subverts a doctrine of two I’s by emptying one & grounding the other in the one he has emptied: he thus connives at & purloins (subripere) ‘the ground of all sense’ - the Sinnenwelt & hence this world - by means of deception, the apperceptiones substantiatae, as if we ‘humans’ ( .. speak for yourself) are thus compelled & necessitated to do the same & as if we are forced beyond choice to hypostatise consciousness. The head of the nail holding together the transcendental & empirical is always, for Kant, the split I - “davon

233 sagt uns aber der Begriff des Ich, in dem psychologischen Grundsatze (Ich denke) nicht ein Wort” - “thereupon the concept of the I, in the psychological principle ‘I think’, tells us nothing” (A401). Kant’s subversion (of authentic theocentrism) is one which secretes in, sub rosa, a posturing concept of Ich denke as emptiness, an I which says not a word, and thus in reality Kant is the great progenitor of nihilism in the western ideological theatre. As one of the modern co-founders of the atheists’ revolution, Kant insinuates in the idea that Jesus Christ Almighty, the one True God, is a necessary & ‘forced’ transcendental illusion .. a nihilist’s object & an unknown nothing, whose adherents are meant to be regulated in the absurdities of senseless behaviours & activities, kept quiet & obedient thereon - slaves & fools - gesticulating & praying into an ideological vacuum, praising an abyss & abysmal void in thinking nothing is something - losers & madmen, purely deluded (as there is nothing there) - whilst, instead, we repose upwards in splendour, seeing nothing below but the polar identities of reactionary & murderous anti-Christs versus godless hordes, unsurrounded by mystical beauty & bereft of celestial starlight .. raised by the Master of Immortals, Who, taking them from nothing (ex nihilo), made His eternal creation fulsome to the extremities of beautiful magnificence, wise & perfect, good & innocent. And philosophers? - we’ve shit ‘em ...

Kant makes good sense in thinking one cannot go beyond via means which are inauthentic & illegitimate: but he makes no sense in assuming one must forge the ground of existence because proof ( .. experiential proof) is entirely lacking for him. The cynicism implicit in the hypostatization of consciousness, or the use of a ßB`FJ"F4H, unknown & illusory, is mocked immediately by Nietzsche, who turns back towards an unhypostatised flux in Heraklitos. Virtually all western philosophers ransack & resurrect pagan Greek linguistic componentry & a hypostasis in that ethos - literally, sub-structure - meant only an impersonal ground, almost always never of communicable divinity or metamorphosizing energy, and it is only after the revelation of Christ that hypostases are raised to the highest (ontological) height as persons resting on a man. It is for many still, now as then, disturbingly impossible that a man should be identified as Ò é< - the being qua being, from Whom everything issues forth by intelligence immaculate & power transcendent - hell, this is the very antithesis of everything which purports to be human and earthly .. and such a man defies & negates & contradicts the manifold & manifest experiences of everyday, as large & complex as life is. God’s world is extremely different from the suppositions of the mass & profoundly unlike the communications of any ‘earth attached’ elite .. God’s world is in distinct contrast to the phenomenality of the fall: its extra-dimensionality is truly wonderful in surpassing the ideality of Eden in empirically reaching the mighty bastions of Heaven Triumphant -

234 here we go! - and hence to pursue lesser ends in a self-imposed downing-of-the- spirit & reifications of mutant abnormality in not pursuing raw, untainted & incredible life in Almighty God is stupidity beyond measure & description - welcome to earth & the butcher’s rack ..

Fallen words hide Deity, but unfallen words reach in. Hegel is part of the atheists’ revolution: “all that is rational is real” means the irrational is unreal: so much for infinity which bristles with irrationality; and so much for Hegel who presumes to identify with it & thus to identify with the unidentifiable. Big claim, but then arrogance & atheism go together. Even Satan is not stupid enough to disbelieve in God, but, no doubt, he encourages beliefs in that direction. The world is buttressed by ‘stabilizing theory’ & efficacious untruths, designed by the fallen race to back off metamorphosis - damn, even the assumed ‘major premiss’ human race immediately perverts alternatives - thus fallen race is for language a profound castigation of its contents & there is hardly a vocabulary other than that of mutant distortion. Assume hu-man and its particular individuation - say, via Coleridge’s expression ‘nothing lives or is real, but as definite or particular’ (BL ii33n) - is I-man, then this neither hints nor reveals the split-I of fallingness. Similarly, such a premiss assures one unthinkingly & thinkingly of an adequate comportment in a given identity: hu-man I-ness thus falsifies non-human I-ness or, worse, leads one to believe this is what humanity actually is. Alternatively, the fallen race implies its own vocabulary is ‘out of kilter’, dislocated, internally deranged - &c - and this is thus to say language is irremediable in its own terms & that analysis of its contents merely shuffles around fallen entities: hence, so much for the wasted lifetimes in language philosophy, poetic style .. (as if to say pointedly one is not taking fallen language with one & that here it virtually opens nothing .. nothing sacred or to do with the unfallingness of the ¦

235 edge with, eventually, horrendous consequences for his sanity, but, initially, he attempted to integrate viewpoints gathered from Spinoza & Kant & Fichte, his quest being essentially that of identity. The profound feeling of mortality, of mutability & temporal limitation - Kant’s immediate legacy - Hölderlin saw as non-identity: the split I of fallingness thus becomes for him a zero-I in the flux: he is thereby forced into a non-fluxing unity or “the blessed unity - being qua being - in the unique sense of the word, (which) is lost to us”: thus he is crushed by two nihilistic objects .. by the polar opposites of non-identity.. And it is this failure of alternatives in the foundations of the alleged humanity of humans which brings on madness. If one begins to ‘zero-in on’ the nothing out of which one was created & if one reverses the ‘nothing then something’ dialectic to obtain ‘something then nothing’ as an aim, then the nothing of the nihilistic object is the disintegration of oneself. What is this approachable nothing? Evidently, it is not something - i.e. - nothing is no substance & approaching ‘it’ is not a movement of phenomenality: hence, it is the is which is not. There is a sense in which one can say this ‘is not’ is not even relative to its own ‘is’ ( .. only nothing is relative to nothing, except nothing fails to exist): this appears to make the dynamics of a process creatio ex nihilo moribund, especially as it could imply or implicate ex nihilo omne ens qua ens fit - “all things that are come from nothing” - all things, that is, except nothing itself. However, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is one of some finesse, because it only says that there was when man was not fallen man: before fallingness happens man was not moving towards his own empty centre: man cannot coincide or co-inside with nothing .. with the nothing out of which he was made .. as this is the nothing of the pre-eternal. And what is this “entity”? In eternity there was when gods & goddesses were not & when Almighty God was alone & when the eternal creation was not. God made the eternals out of immortal energy & it is this which is the nothing from which something came. Nothing is both fallen and unfallen: the unfallen nothing is the creation of the gods & the fallen nothing is the nihilistic life of these deniers of deification. Thus, the I cannot be found below: the I below is disintegration: if one cannot integrate oneself with the unfallingness of God, integration splits: unfallingness divides as fallingness: one falls down the ontological & epistemological ladder & supposes via mortal envisagement that the ladder is nothing: hence there is no return & nothing above & God is nothing: the non-identity of the divine self thus becomes the condition of fallen consciousness: this disagreeable non-identity must therefore forge & fake & falsify its greatest need. As Hölderlin so accurately put it:

“Der Mensch will sich selber fühlen - Man wants to sense the self. Sich aber nicht zu fühlen, ist der Tod - Without this self is death.”

This metamorphic down-sizing of the gods projects false gods: as the gods have become false to themselves false projection ensues: darkness-cum-lostness then

236 arbitrarizes itself in the richochets of division & the cry goes up for unity and undifferentiation of virtually whatever kind. Kant’s demand is for a world ( .. a world like Calvin’s that is a closed system) which is

“ .. das mathematische Ganze aller Erscheinungen and die Totalität ihrer Synthesis, im Großen sowohl als im Kleinen, d.i. sowohl in dem Fortschritt derselben durch Zusammensetzung, als durch Teilung” (A418/B446); und “ .. der Gegenstand aller möglichen Erfahrung ..” (A605/B633)

“ .. the mathematical entirety of all appearances and the totality of their synthesis in both great & small, that is, both alike in the advance through composition & through division”; and “.. the object of all possible experience ..”

This demand arbitrarily conflates ‘world’ and ‘all possible experience’ as mutually delimiting, with the quantifier rigidly excluding further possible experience ( .. of the divinizing & returning I, or the one borne aloft from the frenzies, dislocations & distempers of the maddening flux); and this demand sheers-off the penetrative infinities of the in-finite: as it wishes only to see the finite in the in-finite, it must of necessity falsify itself - i.e. - as the finite is false & as the infinite is false (neither divinize the I), either is false; or if either one or the other is true, the other falsifies it. Kant’s ‘Ganze und Totalität’ is the necessary presupposition of the constructibility of his world, but ‘im Großen als im Kleinen’, as an adjunctive mathematical clause, merely releases differential infinitizing processes - macro & micro - and thus further ushers in the entirely other, or otherness beyond prescription. Evidently, nothing in the entirely other can correspond to that which Ganze includes: this means (i). this conception is only conditionally (contingently) entire (ii). without the inclusion of the entirely other, correspondence or agreement between the ‘otherness of separation’ is impossible (iii). an entirety which is limited is not entire (iv). the entirely other is - as a surrogate for being qua being - reminiscent of the insuperable problem of ancient philosophy, viz: making a multitude become one in the exclusion of otherness & making the non-other exclude an-other ( .. both are thus other), and (v). it looks towards Heidegger’s problematic with Sein versus Da-sein, which, despite his avowals to the contrary & his attempted nullification of all previous philosophy, only rehashes ancient metaphysical detritus. The eradication of the entirely other - in Kant, as a measure of the underpinning of Erscheinungen - means this otherness is not common-to-all, as (i). otherness common-to-all is not entirely other ( .. there is otherness which is not common-to-all), and (ii). the division - Teilung - between the entirely other & another eradicates itself with the eradication of the entirely other ( .. hence there is no entirely other, but only otherness which is not entire). This type of argumentation opens labyrinths merely generating ‘ways’ towards ‘staying under’, or such argumentation is a means of locking out God - i.e. - if God is entirely other His nullification may

237 ensue, as we cannot have conscious awareness of the entirely other & this therefore may be presumed not to exist. However, if we argue for the infinity of the entirely other & infinity is everything, then this everything is not entirely other: ergo, the entirely other is not entirely other. If we argue for the finitude of the entirely other & finitude is not everything, then that which is entirely other than finitude is not entire: ergo, entirety is not entire. If we argue infinity is entirely other & it is outside every limit, then the infinite entirety of infinity includes every limit: ergo, no limit is limited. What then are we to make of this kind of thing & how is it so?

The contrary identity of the fallen world is the fallen race: if the gods & goddesses & He Who brought them & everything in Heaven & on earth into being are seen as open othernesses, then the fallen gods - “humanity” - are closed othernesses. Infinity and its contra ( .. onto-numerical entities) are the fallen antipodes ( .. fallen antitheticals) as seen by the gods, resting on man as spurious & arresting powers, enjoined on himself & set in motion against true identity, namely, the identity which is found in God. Man’s mis- or non-identity is that which lies outside God, as (i). it presumes there is no inside God, so (ii). there is no inside nor outside God, because (iii). there is no God. Infinitude and finitude are the flanks ( .. onto-theological ‘edges’ or ‘sides’) of the fall. Infinity, the smallest section of which is infinitely the same as the largest, is a divine block: it cannot be penetrated existentially or vaulted over as infinity: it cannot be reasoned about in its own irrational terms .. &c .. and its opposite is a derivative & complementary block: both constitute the contrary identities of the fall as mis- identities: both opposites elide: and, as seen by the gods, the entirely other is contained other than itself. The infinite and the finite are two insane corridors leading to one madhouse, earth, whose occupants regard the gods & goddesses as closed othernesses like themselves: earth revolves & revolts round this pernicious falsehood & thus bestial man and his ranking demons seek to reign in hegemonistic nightmare over a bleeding earth; alas for them, a mightier conqueror sits on His Throne of Power, because, when it comes to absolute power, He is the man Who has it. Kant’s recognition that a valid sub-stance is indemonstrable by any other means than falsification is in itself an indication that sub-stance is other: sub-stance is distance ( .. dis-stance) from the fallen: it is unfortunately named by the fallen as it projects their underness upwards: in the unfallingness of deific life the sub- which is under ( .. ßB`-) becomes over ( .. ßBXD-) as the only stance of God: this is His ownly & on(e)ly stance: just as God is above so is His stance: as God’s oneness His stance is @ÛF\": it is ‘that which is one’s own’ as properly belonging to God - i.e. - it is God’s ò<-ness & own- ness & one-liness & Ï<-liness: this oneness is the Ï<- of absolutely divine reality ( .. Ï

238 in ßBXD v Skt. upári v hence ‘up’ v Goth. ufar v OE. ofer v Gm. über v Eng. over): this over-stance is God’s being qua being as the Supreme Being ( .. Ò ê<): God’s knowability is known over the gods, but His ownmost knowingness is divulged in the unfallen language of the light of spiritual love: this is the language of miracle & the language forsaken by earth: it is the language of the over-flowing iridescence of God’s heart: it makes God known hyper-statically as JD4VH & His is-ness is the Trinitas of ingeneracy or un-be-gottenness ( .. He was never brought to be as with all divine be-ings) & eternal generation or begottenness ( .. He got His visibility from the invisibility of His @ÛF\") & eternal procession ( .. He Who makes Himself go out as the difference from @ÛF\"): this going out - ¦6B@D,b@µ"4 - is the synergistic energy which negates the ‘holding fast’ of earth: it is the energy which re-divinizes the fallen gods & it is different from God’s self-essentiatingness ( .. self-reflexing-essencing or ungrounding- ness) as rays are to the sun: this energy shining forth from the man Who is all God is the foundation of Heaven & earth: this foundation is of the above & it is not as the fallen assert of foundations of the beneath. Heaven, the home of Almighty God, is a region divided from the fallen by the fallen: the collusive idolatry of earth reverences & ‘down’-holds (in corrosive upholdings) entities & things less than the divine, thus opting for thraldom and its ghastly variations ( .. subjugation horrific in the sub-world of divine alienation & open further to movements down into hell). This estrangement is constantly ratified by all thought which excludes the literal reality of metamorphosis & which refuses the dimensional shift necessary to overcome the concealed otherness - 6DbN4@H ¦J,D`J0H - of becoming a god. The ability and capacity to ascend into this dimension is given in a ‘tireless whirlwind’ - •6@\µ0J@H FJD@NV84(> - of energetic delight. Even the beginning of this manifestation of energy - ¦<,D(,4VH N"

239 intellection of the being of all things: this hyper- being completes the being of all things against His enemies’ ban on any such completion in their outlawing manifest perfection: one need only revert to a god or goddess to see that “the being of all things - esse omnium - is the divinity which is above being” - “JÎ (D ,É<"4 B

Dear M: a drunken s/b for yr amusement - experiment!

Becoming a god is easy: becoming God Almighty - “the highest pinnacle of aspiration”, according to Basil of Cappadocia - is extremely difficult. There is nothing like this in any philosophy: all philosophers fall beneath it & most theologians. To actually & literally become this hyper-personage ( .. to have it happen) - look, to become this hyper-personages ( .. languages break down - no,

240 languages break up) - is a suffering & weeping destiny beyond any imagination .. beyond any reason seen by God’s creatures. It is to know the earthly everything & to feel the groans and horrors of “being down” - aghh, that your God should be subject to this earth & its pitiless, merciless, rotten base - &c - be subject to the ‘under of all’. Crucifixion is not merely wood & nails & no mere butchery: it is to be under mediocre banality & profound ordinariness on a daily basis. I, Who move the lesser mechanics of the stars & unknown suns arising .. Who built heavens beyond your sight; and Who designed and struggled in birthing mighty Heaven for your home .. I, Who live & die for you - I, Who breathe in every breath for immaculate love for all of you - you, who mostly fail me in slaughtering each other ..hating each other .. dividing each other - you, I will defeat each & every one of you. You will stand before me & give account. I really don’t like to be f***ed about: so mind your step. Mostly I am bowed down beneath insult - f*** you that you should insult me! Vengeance will be mine .. I will take every shred of you all ( .. torn, burned, disintegrated) & resurrect & reform you in my presence: then you shall see .. For you to think I am gotten rid of - e.g. - by being crucified, historicized, marginalized, mythologized, unbelieved, opposed, replaced - by whatever you do - I will come to you all totally. Without me you are nothing ... You are earth I and Heaven I and split between, intersected between your original nothing and the majesty of my progeny .. sons & daughters of earth and sons & daughters of My Most High - damn, almost beneath the loving language of above & almost beneath the language of being reached. Shit .. almost shit .. how do I talk to gods & goddesses who have become addicted to the shit of themselves? You must rise above & come on high. What am I that you do not come to see Me? If - I say ‘if’ for your sake - if you do not come & see Me ( .. for f***’s sake, I made you: you were all & each of you nothing - I hadn’t even thought of you - but then ‘out of nothing’ I made you: consider this O My Immortal deliverance .. there are whispers against the ‘ultimate of love’ - that it is manipulative & tainted & out for itself & so forth - O disbelieve the ultimate heart .. ), if you do not visit Me As I Am - thus as your heart’s wildest delight & joy beyond believing - if you do not get your loving soul kissed by Me ( .. wherever & however you walk) .. alas, how can God walk as high as you lovingly deserve? Ah, babes, it appears as if Christ is always f***ed & stomped under - but you are the guys who always raise idols above Him .. Time I clued you in with a stratagem called ‘Satan as Super-war Lord’ ( .. out-generalizing stupid ‘humans’ or allowing Satan in as a hyper-general.) Meanwhile, that voice Who spoke - the being-voice Whose wish is My command - says: loving innocence, raped & stomped under ( .. brutally violated by my enemy, Satan) will rise to the everlasting joy of Heaven - oh, duckies, will you be stunned - God Himself will rise to greet His disparaged daughters ..

241 Arise, O Daughters of the Eternal Empyrean, step forth into Everlasting Beauty & Happiness: I will delight your innocence evermore. Agh, few really believe in life’s true God, my gentle Jesus, but I know He is so.

242 ‘Sidebar’ on Kant.

With Kant it is not simply a question of knowing that the unknown and unknowable is unknowable, but of what is classed with & in it - e.g. - God is unknowable because we are saturated in the sensory manifold & because our sameness & otherness is always in space (.. even ‘high thought’ is always in a conceptual space). If we cannot break through an iron wall, further spaces are unknown & unknowable. Now this is “obvious” - that is, it is immediately “apparent” - but ambiguity resides in the very idea of appearance. Kant says in De Mun #5, “In things sensual and in phenomena, that which precedes the logical use of intellect is called appearance”: thus §6N"

("): Damascius: “eternity - "Æf< - is one of the spiritual principles as a substance infinite in power - @ÛF\" •B,4D@*b<"µ@H”. Now this is ‘emanationist metaphysics’ or ‘speculative noumenalism’, and for Kant it is beyond - it has gone beyond - limits set by the sensory manifold (or it has gone beyond the forms limiting in the sensory manifold - limes, termini, Grenzen &c.) “The earlier”, for Kant, necessarily limits knowledge beyond appearance: yet the sub- of sub-stance is permanent for Kant & quite possibly beyond appearance: how then a knowledge of its permanency? And what of its infinity? The application of the concept of substance-permanence to appearances is problematic for Kant - for all philosophers!? The claim that something permanent underlies all appearances & that the various appearances are nothing but changing “attributes” of it is, for Kant, synthetic a priori - i.e. - asserted - and this in contradistinction to the permanence of substance (.. which is an analytic, hence logical, judgment; but Kant says appearance precedes the logical use of intellect - what, appearances do and substances do not!?) When Kant’s claim of changing appearances is assumed in enduring substance, vast critical problems ensue, as (3). is substance changing endurance or enduring change? Is ferrous oxide on an iron wall its surface coring? Is its surface sub-stance surfacing (so that it becomes no longer sub?); and (4). and precisely what relation - FPXF4H - persists,

243 or not, between a finite -stance and its infinite sub-?

($). Look, a philosophical interlude. Kant stands to ‘the emanationists’ - e.g.s Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus et al - as a pivot between the transcendentally-open & the transcendentally-closed proponents of a false transcendence. Kant attempts to culturally close down the psychic (psychological) intelligibilia of the ancient world, both pagan - Platonism in all its developments, including Aristotelian symbiosis - and Christian. To do this Kant, in fact, attempts to empty the noumenon - i.e. - to reduce it to inscrutability and nothingness - replacing psychic inflation (as he sees it) with impenetrability & an inapproachable region, but Kant’s iron wall is a reconstruction from the same foundry. Whereas Proclus can talk of the “infinite potency of the spirit world”, of “unfailing and infinite potencies” (•<,68,\BJ@4H 6"4 •B,4D@4H *L"\N<0H), but because Kant works with “intuition” - sinnliche Anschauung nur - anything higher, and especially intellektuelle Anschauung, is proscribed. The entire ‘higher paraphenalia’ of previous philosophy is intended by Kant to be reduced: new perimeters & new parameters receive textual expression: noumena or “beings of intelligence” now exclude the gods, and the ‘fitness’ or ‘suitability’ - the worth - implicit in receiving truth is marginalized - e.g. - lies (common or ‘exalted’) render the infusion of truth impossible, when, for example, Christ taught lies allow the liar entrance as a malignant god, or as a being of vile intelligence. Certain psychic states are thought of in ‘emanationist philosophy’ as expressing a specific ‘suitability’ or ¦B4J0*4`J0H for receiving the powers of the gods (BDÎH ßB@*@P¬< Jä< 2,ä< ¦B4JZ*4"), but it is exactly this (.. not becoming these gods), which, by lie or proscription, rules out originally being these gods. To appear to oneself as whom one is brings back this origin, but no intuition (however contrived) immediatizes transcendent experience: first, there is lift required ... and this requires, second, knowledge of metamorphosis & the grant of powers unknown (but not unknowable) to fallen humanity or humanity under itself. The gap between the immediacy of living gods - gods in God - and ‘those below’ is a connived-at- contrivance engineered by those below - i.e. - the fallen generate ‘blocks & gaps’ as vast as history, huge in portent, all of which confirm the sub-humanization of the gods. Naturally, only the gods have power enough to do this to themselves ..

((). Take Schiller - initially, a disciple of Kant & a powerful contributor to the cultural milieu of the Aufklärung’s rebellion against kingship - &c - in fact, like Kant, a contributor to the bourgeoisification of knowledge, that is, if one brings

244 down ‘castles in the air’ actual castles will eventually disappear: reason away the divine and “divine right” will fragment into nothingness: reinterpret history and consciousness will herald in change & a new order. Atheism almost invariably fronts this kind of thing, because God - alas, almost invariably, via surrogation, seated on a throne of crime - is subhumanity’s secret target: if God reigns & if God is seen as actually dominant, declared & visibly immaculate, then the entire ‘vicious underworld of man’, with its self-propelled darkness of divinity & its seething brutality - &c - is exposed, and ‘virtuous leadership’ is known & shown as self-aggrandizement and unholy usurpation. The actuality of God must be kept out: only surrogation rules, nothing else is allowed, anything rather than Him - anything! - each & every demonic infestation is permitted to be mounted up to rule, so as to continue to substantiate the genocidal & gorging serpents of the only revolution - the revolution against our origin - when & wherein war was entered into, by the risen, against the risen Christ. But take Schiller’s theory: for Schiller the gods went home, taking with them everything lofty & beautiful, because - and this is his bottom line - one God’s solitary elevation and, thus, sole supremacy, downgrades and degrades the other gods into a virtual nothingness: “What beside You, God, is the highest spirit of those who were born by mortals? Only the first & noblest amongst worms.” Now what is this but a complete non sequitur? The elevation of the supreme overlord of the gods elevates them - indeed, there are no gods without Him - but Schiller, in failing to recognise the place of deification as a necessity in life, sees one God as meaning no other gods, or - let us be more exact with his meaning - sees “humans” (and he believes in humans as separate & other) as different substances to God. And where does this view ultimately come from, given that it is a topos amongst Schiller’s influences - e.g.s. for Kant God is a construct excluding objectivity, and Goethe maintained a barely-concealed hatred for the Cross? I contend that this view has a common currency amongst the fallen - i.e. - it asserts the relation God-gap-man, instead of God-man-gap- fallen-man, or, in other words, it asserts two substances of an absolute dissimilarity (thus two irreconcilables based on an absolute separation, or the separation of the divine-human into the divine-gap-sub-human), and this is nothing but ancient Nestorianism, transmitted through the Augustinianism of Catholic Erfurt, first to Luther, and then Calvin etc - i.e. - it is the heresy of essentialism recast over a millenium, and it is the ideology of anti- Christ in saying God & man are unlike. Pseudo-Dionysius regarded the otherness - ªJ,D@< - of God as ‘the unified multiplication of God’ (Ò ©<4"Ã@H •LJ@Ø B@8LB8"Fµ`H), which eradicates any absolute separation. One can pass over the divide, which is in itself merely enforced by earth ideologies & earth ‘power stacks’, designed to serve nefarious means & ends, meant to keep the bloody circus advancing on lines of constant ferocity & meant to keep the war against Christ going ...

245 ‘Sidebar’ on Kant’s Infinity.

Notice how closely Schiller glosses Kant or lifts philosophical influence into drama (fr. Über den Gebrauch ..), although this does not necessarily give us Schiller’s own view:

Die Natur selbst ist nur eine Idee des Geistes, die nie in die Sinne fällt. Unter der Decke der Erscheinungen liegt sie, aber sie selbst kommt niemals zur Erscheinung. Bloss der Kunst des Ideals ist es verliehen, oder vielmehr, ist es ihr aufgegeben, diesen Geist des Alls zu ergreifen und in einer körperlichen Form zu binden.

Nature itself is only an idea of the spirit, which never comes to the senses. Nature lies under the surface of appearances, but it at no time comes to appearance - i.e. - it is never visible. Only to the art of the ideal is it granted - or, rather, is it given - to seize this spirit of everything - the entire, the whole - and to bind it in a corporeal form.

Now there is a possible blur in Schiller’s thought, a minor ambiguity, in that it is not clearly distinguished whether Natur and diesen Geist des Alls equate or not; or whether, indeed, ideality sources its ‘art’ - Kunst - as something separate from everything or the whole. But this is a minor point in comparison with Schiller’s radicalizing of Kant in a virtually subversive manner. Schiller not only affirms the invisibility of nature, but, moreover, asserts it can be seized and subsequently bound. What is seized and bound into a corporeal form? This is Kant’s sub-stance grasped and corporealized: literally, fleshed. Surely, this is merely an inaccuracy of imagination: the process whereby this binding takes place is missing, presumably part of Kant’s unknown & unknowable? Or perhaps this is merely artistry asserting “poetic incandescence” in the face of encroaching philosophies of mechanism? On the one hand analytic logic, on the other synthetic fact, with the latter proclaiming ‘verifiability only’. Schiller thus decides ‘nature gives’ - es gibt - as if one can thereby reach through appearances (reality at no time comes to appearance), and seize ‘something sub-surface’, bringing it therefore to man. Obviously, if that underneath was not Kant’s unknown & unknowable permanently infinite substance, Schiller might well grasp something beyond a Promethean metaphor. Schiller is allowing something to cross over into & from the “invisibly immaterial”, but how can it? Here we have something beyond the verifiable fact, the physical analogy, which alone is visible (or so Schiller & Kant believe) - why, primordially, the unknown cannot be seen, it cannot be verified as a fact or as something thinglike. Schiller, in Der Verbrecher ..., mentions “der unverändlichen Struktur der menschlichen Seele und (in) den verändlichen Bedingungen, welche sie von aussen bestimmen” (the fixed structure of the human soul & the variable external circumstances which

246 determine it), in which he implies the obviousness of humans as visibly and verifiably fixed - why, naturally, he believes in humans, not in humans who can become gods by existential & experiential penetration, by deific morphosis, spirit to spirit, but in humans whom he assumes are not sub-human in their stance, and who can via artistry and poetic elitism penetrate beyond Kant’s prison, reaching, as it were, through the roof, something - however unedifying & mysterious - reaching something proscribed & outlawed by Kant, opening up, so to say, something invisibly immaterial, and thus kick-starting a vogue for ‘transcendental idealism’, ‘transcendental’, that is, in the sense of always being on the ground, because it is, as Schiller says (Die Braut): “So unmöglich ist’s / Die Götter, die hochwohnenden, zu treffen / Als in der Mond mit einem Pfeil zu schiessen” [for it is]( as impossible to reach the gods as to hit the moon with an arrow). Despite his “transcendence” Schiller fails to mend the cleft between god and fallen god - i.e. - between man and fallen man - and, thus, he remains temporally sequenced in three dimensions, or constantly falling back into Kant’s prison, beyond which there is only infinite invisibility & in which one might suppose even infinity is invisible. Naturally - or, rather, unnaturally - it only needs a greater mind than either Schiller or Kant, a greater philosopher, to attempt to lay claim to the Geist des Alls - the infinitely fixed, das Unwandelbare or das Unveränderliche, or the ever-remaining-other - someone to step on to a launching pad prepared by these and other predecessors, or someone mutant enough to champion fallen aggrandizement, to become this unchangeable & this immutable .. this everything .. whilst locked in a box with coffin-like dimensions, the living God outside, the dead God within: enter Hegel.

Before Hegel infinitizes himself, however, let us briefly look at Kant on this infinity. Analytically, for a composite (conceptually apprehended) an aggregate of parts - multitudo - is required, and, synthetically, for a whole (intuitively apprehended) a totality - omnitudo - is demanded. Moreover, in a continuous quantum the regress from this whole to its possible parts - via exhaustive division - finds no end; and in an infinite quantum the progress from its possible parts to this whole - via exhaustive summation - finds no end. Kant, on considering this, recognised that continuity & infinity do not accord with intuition - i.e. - intuition is the immediacy of looking at, or e.g. ‘anschauen’ in ‘Anschauungsvermögen’ literally implies the power to visualize things - but he did not, therefore, identify unrepresentability & impossibility (though this is quite possible along one line of inference), rather he considered infinity as ‘at variance only’ with intuition, which, when it is conjoined with finite temporality, presents no real problem. Continuity and infinity are thus seen as ‘objects of pure reason’, which do not altogether move beyond man’s powers of intelligence. But let us examine this in more depth. Visibility is a means of keying into infinity - e.g. - an infinity included in a finite section - I shall term this an infinity - is visible as something both

247 finite & representable, and even though it appears absurd to contain an infinite measure in the merest part of any infinity, we can, in a manner of speaking, see the finite immediately, that is, it is intuitively looked at. Now the infinite is not looked at, although the infinite is, and this fact constitutes earthly seeing: infinity is negated as visible dominance & infinity is affirmed as invisible recession: hence, as a corollary, earthly life is not seen as infinity visibly dominant, because this could be seen (falsely) as a perspective only belonging to God & thus as we cannot envisage God seeing like this, we cannot envisage God either. In this way it is God Who becomes invisibly recessive & the buttresses of finitude are thereby obtruded into consciousness: finitism, therefore, bases itself on a false ‘object of pure reason’, in which God is contaminated by a fallen version of infinity & in which He is removed from the immediacy of fallen man. The removal of man from immediately envisaging God, or seeing God, is the view of earth in theories of perception & in the refusal to see God. Finitism is a false counter to infinity in that infinity is permeated with innumerable absurdities & the closing down of these is supposed to re-locate perception without them. Nonetheless, this re-configuration no more eliminates infinity than does invisibility, because infinity and infinity arrive together, belong together, always are together, were put together & deceive together. If one or other is considered a priori or if one or other is chosen as grounding life, then the absurdity of the other penetrates the ground. Both the limitless and the limit imply each other as absurdities: they are mutually reinforcing: both hold up the other: both are false alternatives to deific metamorphosis: both are mere appearances set up by the gods: and both are totally deconstructed by the gods (.. this god included). The myth of paradise in which God excludes probationary gods is countered in the gods by constructions rigged between the non-existent poles of infinity & finitude, meant to keep Glory at bay, and this is accomplished by these constructions as & in spatio-temporality - i.e. - the gods use ontological arithmeticals as ‘lowering devices’ & they replace divine energies by unreal entities (themselves). Invisible light is not even darkness, but the gods have constructed invisible darkness to exclude God.

For Kant a never-to-be-completed series of states succeeding one another to eternity is, on account of its very infinitude, essentially without limit: an all- round completeness thus seems ruled out altogether; and the concept of a whole - that is, an infinite totality of conjoint parts - seems to demand that all these states should be taken together, but (1). this is obviously impossible, and (2). as a whole the series would have nothing subsequent, an absurdity, or there would be to eternity a last member in the succession, an absurdity: hence (3). a totality of the successive infinite is impossible. On the other hand, the simultaneous infinite or that which appears expressly to present itself as including everything in one & the same time implies, for Kant, the successive infinite, in that the simultaneous infinite supplies eternity with inexhaustible material to be

248

successively traversed, through its innumerable parts in infinitum: however, this series would be supposed to be given in the simultaneous infinite, and hence a series which is never complete by successive augmentations is supposed to be capable of being given as a whole. Kant argues that both succession & simultaneity rest on concepts of time, but this overlooks severe quandries engendered in the conjunction between a temporal frame and infinite penetration: it is not enough to presume an infinity ‘at variance only’ with temporality, because this, in fact, refuses recognition of the outright contamination of intuition by this very infinity, an infinity which forces absurdities into every finite structure, not only via formal logic but also via real (material) contrast. One unfortunate consequence of this contamination is that it releases uncontrolled divisions, in that, because the given whole is incapable of determination, being as it is riddled with chaos in areas where consistency takes no foothold, these very divisions are both innumerable & irreparable. Subsequent philosophers & poets are thus left with a rotation of master names ‘not going together’ & incapable of reintegration, but this is because original division - the original "ËD,F4H - stems from war by the gods against God. Kant’s importance in philosophical history derives from the fact that he fomented & led an atheists’ revolution in Germany, not, as is commonly supposed, against ‘orthodox religion’ or ‘orthodox theology’ or ‘orthodox Christianity’, but against unorthodox theology in the form of Protestantism - itself heretical & divisive - an ideology in which becoming a god is impossible. The most ancient tenet in Christ’s teachings says specifically I say ye are gods, but Kant contributed to a tradition that negates this: ‘getting back over the divide’ is thus forced back into theory: if the process of deification is unknown, false gods (& philosophers) proliferate: one grasps at the beyond, but there is no going there ...

249 Letter to Prof Y .... ‘Herpes Trismegistus’:

Raging furious the flames of desire Ran thro’ heaven & earth, living flames Intelligent, organiz’d: arm’d With destruction & plagues Blake: Book of Los 3:27-30

Great sympathy, sir, that “the Body of Clay/for dust & Clay is the Serpent’s meat”, with its “excrementitious/Husk & Covering” - “vegetating blood in veiny pipes” - has been struck with such aggravating & noxious shit. Phaedrus 250 states “pure was that light & pure were we from the pollution of the walking sepulchre which we call a body, to which we are bound like an oyster to its shell” - alas, it strikes f***ing one way or another. My ex-buddy Mick has this & I would like to say, with gallow’s humour, with no long-term & late ill-effects, which we methinks did not take into account in his diagnosis, prognosis & agnosis. What a bummer & Suze’s oft-enjoined advice ‘consider those worse’ methinks adds to one’s grief before ‘oblivionating’ it with the next horror. The syphilis of Beethoven & Baudelaire & Rimbaud & Nietzsche &c, is perhaps sound emitted by a poxy douche-bag as it accompanies the howls of excruciation of genius: hence, take heart & give the world a masterpiece or two. Reason enslaves: so what use ratio in the pestilence of irrationality & the irrationality of pestilence? It doesn’t make f***ing sense, so much of it - thus, all of it - and we are like fly-blown sweepings before the merciless Gorgon of destiny. Perhaps this head held high should show us subhumanity’s monstrosity of undeification in a mirroring shield, as it reflects the obsessive purview of fallen f***ing and activities broaching this, asking whether existence is worth existing for. I thus imply we should f*** only gods & goddesses - there is safety in first making them so. Mr Blake states “hell is being shut up in possession of corporeal desires which shortly weary the man, for all life is holy”. Shucks, it appears there is a pox in Heaven if ‘What is Above is Within’, and there is a great Entzweiung - difference/division - in our innermost core ( .. the alienation of inexplicability): no wonder we feel hammered down in f***ing or not. Opposite paths lead to (their) opposite goals, and my vaunted & ‘infamously defiant’ libido Dei usually ends up (if you’ll pardon the expression) as a sort of psychic trephaning. Posing as the Second Coming I’d personally outf*** Casanova to compensate for the shortfall on the first time down. At least you now decisively belong with struck-down romantics. The libido Dei is my attempt to surmount the Orcian embodiment of libidinal energy in the fallen world, but it makes the weight of it emphatic. It’s alright being a hunter of that ‘soft and furry’ creature poon tang, but your experience makes it all the more debatable whether it is safely edible or

250 fastidiously sniffed .... Now it seems, however, positives remain. There is still the gratification of desire thru’ vision, plus temporary abatements. This or that is perhaps curtailed, but not everything - tho’ a dwarf lacks height, he is not failed in size. And you do not have to tell me about apoplectic ravings against the Almighty, in which I am extremely well-versed. Agreed, it was cunt that struck you like a mouth full of nails, but God is not a cunt: this you know, but I doubt whether you half approach my stupidity in this direction, with its mindless & foaming insanities of blasphemous oaths. We are sorely put-upon, but it is the genetics & progeny of Cain & “the pussy” from the cesspit at fault. Jesus is holy, and even tho’ Mr Blake surmised “Christ died as an Unbeliever” - understandable, given the penetration of divisiveness and the darks of ontic decentralization - and I hypothesize that Christ beckoned suicide, enjoining on Himself the cataclysmic dénouement, it is still absolutely certain Christ is innocent. I go to see Him & He is. Snarly mutterings and animated rage, the ferocity of temper .... never mind rejection, ejection, dejection and vicious injustice etcetera ( .. I mean: join the club, sunshine, where arbitrary senselessness abounds & where one’s academic superiors - yours also, those superficial cretins with the sinecures - are rewarded for tedious trivializations & second-ranker shit negating the great), all the bitter muttering is utterly pointless, ‘till the next time .... As you know, I have the equanimity, aloofness and tranquility of someone f***ing against an outside shithouse door in a ravaging typhoon ... rubber-rooms, rubber-rooms! ... but suffering is measured out in Monstrous Alchemy ( .. 2 gallons of laudanum per week for the great Sam, who wrote to Cottle, “In all this I justify God, for I was accustomed to oppose the preaching of the terrors of the Gospel, and to represent it as debasing virtue, by the admixture of slaving selfishness. I now see that what is spiritual, can only be spiritually apprehended. Comprehended it cannot.”). The ancient thought that Satan does nothing without God’s permission merely demonstrates the germs of maleficence, but what it all amounts to is virtually impossible to state. Take heart, as I have been driven over the edge of despair, and agony can grasp triumph. True scholarship breaks down the degenerative syntax - see below for a résumé - and one has to find a means whereby this is overcome. Gentleness gives vision, or “passivity actively generated” is the tertium affirmed against the petrifaction of logical “necessity”. The triad of desire-habit-necessity is a subscription to the spurious realism of the fallen world, and “necessity” is not necessarily necessity - the afflictions of Job vanished at Christ’s let .. Hence, hint - and forgive me for labouring the obvious - go up!!, that is, not to God as a cunt - you shaming us as the idiot me - but with Mr Blake’s lines in mind, thus:

But Jesus breaking thro’ the Central Zones of Death Opens Eternity in Time & Space; triumphant in MercyJ76: 21-22

251 because, f*** knows, hideous and incurable viruses might - God alone knows - be susceptible to His magnificent touch ... I personally pray to prevent and pre- empt, given my lively recognition of the limits of courage, mine included; but I do know He alone is my survival in this vicious & horrible nightmare I every day wake into. ‘Keep your mind in hell and fear not’ is perhaps one-up on ‘keep your dick in hell ...’, but the variable finitude of earth is far too much for most souls (hence the vapid closures of consciousness and smug bastardry they actually reward .. tastelessness and shit exalted in fame and money etc) .. screw that at any price .. !! Incidentally, you should not feel done down by Miss S, as her vaginal warts amongst the glitterati isn’t everyone’s idea of success .... But the promised aside: degenerative syntax is a derivative of constructivistic error. Example: ancient pagan mathematics claimed that the basis of indirect proof was the ‘principle’ of the excluded middle, either A or not-A - thus proof of a theorem A by assuming its negation not-A, and deriving from it a proposition B whose negation has already been proved, is thought to require this ‘principle’ .... However, I’m constantly urging forward ideas of the kind suggesting - insisting - that “logical laws” hide spurious ontological frameworks, especially those fallenly engendered (when, in reality, theo-anthropomorphic vantages dislocate Entzweiungen in divinized overcomings): hence, it is not the subhumanly A nor the subhumanly B which is at issue, as these are the abstract progeny of illicit grounds other than the Upholding, Sustaining and All-Powering Dynamics of the Most Holy Ghost. Indirect proof is usually schematicism forced into variable finitism, but the absurdity of B for not-A results in a putative A only, that is, the false consequence B for not-A shows nothing but that not-A cannot hold, which implies A only if we assume tertium exclusi: thus e.g. the proposition B of ‘not-mortal’ is indefinable - i.e. - immortality is not the ‘indirect reciprocal’ of mortality ( .. there is no such thing as mortality), but rather its sublation ( .. the cancellation of no such thing as a spurious ground and supercession into the excluded third). Now obviously there are other methods of indirect proof employing variable finitudes - the false consequence B of A shows A cannot hold and not-A expresses this - i.e. - A is thought of as disproved without recourse to not-A directly (thus to tertium exclusi as such). However, precisely the point I am labouring is that tertium exclusi’s variableness is not only finite - rather, pagan mathematicians and philosophers - Zeno, Aristotle, Euclid - forced the structure of the ratio or ‘logos’ into the world against the inexplicability of infinities and-or they forcibly curtailed extraneous material to fit their ‘unificational objectives’, in much the same manner as Kant & Schelling were later to do. The apparent inexplicability of the square root of two itself forced Kant to connect actual existence with actual perception (hence mathematical existence is not a form of actuality), notwithstanding the fact symbolic construction necessitates construction in intuition. Now all this methinks results from a wrong interpretation of logos-as-ratio: for Kant a figure is “thought under no conditions save those upon which all objects of experience

252 rest” (A224 = B271), but this follows from his fundamental lack of recognition that in Christ the Logos man is prior to the world and its fallen structures - i.e. - God can be directly experienced, but He is not amongst “all objects”. There is a use of quantifiers wider than that over objects - indeed, wider than that over transfinitudes - but Kant’s massive errors result from his not penetrating ontological predicates as living forces outside the world.

2. You think you have difficulties, when to be a “neglected great brain” & “nobody loves me” (ha-ha) .. Do you know .. ? my body lifts up to the Highest Seat in Holy Heaven - God’s is such a loving & kind heart - and, thus, to be the recipient of “everyday shit” ... Sam Col. buried himself in his final prayers: “ .. f*** ‘em all in the lack of recognition of holy genius”, as those who are not, the vast majority & vast minorities, cannot perceive those so in advance of themselves ... How could they think it, or wish to know .. ? Yet they compare themselves favourably & hoist themselves “above” as if superior. Appearance - Schein - rules the roost for the fallen - only for the fallen. It can only be called appearance if reality is a fact & we metamorphizers go beyond appearance into the reality of God. Those who argue for their own limits cannot. The “laws of logic” maintain appearance & God removes this by negating such “laws”. As madness is the essence of the fall, insanity is governed by the “laws” of logic - God negates these via the tertium of divine-human energy. High vision in Christ is sanity - the rest are twisted, cock-eyed f***s maintaining the fall as appearance, and, naturally, when insane consequences manifest themselves in amputation, atrocity, slaughter and filthy immorality, these fine bastards presume separation & apartness, when in fact they subsidize this false essence by inhering in it. In Nether Stowey - then, as now - Cottle says, “I cannot rely on the Stowey carriers, who are a brace of as a careless and dishonest rogues as ever had claims on that article of the hemp and timber trade, called the gallows. Indeed, I verily believe that if all Stowey, Ward excepted, does not go to hell, it will be by the super- erogation of Poole’s sense of honesty - charitable!” Quite apparently, in modern day Stowey Coleridge is looked down on for drugs & Blake in Felpham is simply a nutter - what chance we then, in rustic retirement, have of gaining even kindness from these moronic drones, the rural sub-illiterati .... You know I really go into Heaven & Col. didn’t do this & the divine Blake maybe - tho’ his great genius could so obviously see into it - in comparing his texts & images, one favours the view he did & he certainly speaks as if there - e.g. -

And they conversed together in Visionary forms dramatic which Bright Redounded from their Tongues in thunderous majesty, in Visions In new Expanses, creating exemplars of Memory and of Intellect Creating Space, Creating Time according to the wonders Divine Of Human Imagination J98: 28-32.

253 Now Blake knew Kant & Schelling without deigning to mention such lowly shit - tho’ befuddled by ‘em in surpassing ‘em - note it is not the fallen space & time of appearance that the god, Blake, refers to, but to the deific event as it partakes of God’s Glory. Sam Col. & Blake are as makes me glad to be English, true Christian English - thus of no mutant race - so f*** the rest, ‘cuz tho’ neither knew Christ Almighty in life so well as me, may they both inform & Bless my huge bright brain, thine, mine & All of us, ‘cuz all wants are in God’s lap - f*** imagination, give us His Absolute blasting Reality. And so, my friend, until tomorrow.

Jesus Christ! The above section was written whilst ‘amnesiac’ly paralytic’ & fully oblivionated after one pint of raw whiskey - straight, no mixers - during a virtually complete wipe out - I must have been there (ha-ha) - so I’ve just this minute found it & intend to let it stand, minor fragmentations included. Blake’s beautiful theo-anthropomorphisms are vastly superior to anything in the modern ASC - Anglican State Cult - and, of course, no Protestant cretin could allow Blake’s delighting the Archangels in Heaven before & during earthly life. This is a man who underwent visionary training by God Himself & he would therefore be beset with the extremely difficult task of communicating this by ‘other means’. There is hardly any other art on earth - tho’ there is some fine stuff indeed - which gives such immaculate hints as to what it’s like .... better than Michaelangelo & Raphael & in company with Bosch & Grünewald - saturation in divinity for Christ’s seers & not for the scummy riffraff of blind art criticism. They are not worthy of kissing the shit off Blake’s shoes, because that is precisely what they are. Tho’ I fault both Blake & Coleridge for inaccuracies in formulae & unawareness of Alexandrian-Cappadocian-Byzantine norms & finesse, they are both gorgeous charmers (tho’ Sam could be something of a wheedling, conniving S.O.B). I love the latter’s description of Teutonic philosophy as ‘subjective Idolism’ (AR,391); and the former’s savage rendition of the arcanely abstruse & abstract as ‘Satan’s Mathematic Holiness’ (M32:18) is something which should penetrate the eternal twilight of mathematical “knowledge” as a pulverizing tornado. What deception abstractionists foist on themselves in place of Holy Vision ..... Logic tou Logou should be used to unmask (fallen) logic, as it is metamorphosis undoing appearance. Fallen logic is execrable & it should be replaced by articulate and deifying energies ( .. writing that shines the splendour of Mighty approval) & then, methinks, the moronic professorial cliques of ‘know nothings’ - your good self and a few excluded - will someday-cum-oneday see, but probably only when the grave peels them like rotten apples. In a fallen world the genius of the divine merits

254 detestation in accordance with central fears & envies .. with standards set by fallen ‘intellectuals’ in moronic hierarchy pursuing death .. etc. At least we can have the laughter, grim tho’ it might sometimes be. Incidentally, I’m thinking of having you speyed for your metamorphosis as Sickle-Bollocks, the amiable eunuch ... T’ain’t that bad from what I see in the literature & I’m sure it can be made to recede by f***ing female saints .... But enough of the sludge of boredom: allow me to kick Kant’s few brains out the more. Arbitrarily, hither & thither. Take a paragraph from M. Mendelssohn to Kant (25-XII-1770 Pr. Ak. Vol X, pp. 113-116): On page 23 [Werke, II, 406], I don’t think the condition eodem tempore - at the same time - is so necessary in the law of contradiction. In so far as something is the same subject, it is not possible to predicate the A and not-A of it at different times. The concept of impossibility demands no more than that the same subject cannot have two predicates, A and not-A”. Note that temporality is peripheralized by the ‘same subject’: the condition eodem tempore isn’t so necessary .. not that necessary: is it f***ing necessary or isn’t it? Now further note that logic and ontology are largely irrelative here (Hegel later elides them), but that identity is predicated of the subject. Well, logic follows .. but, of course, no theanthropos does, because the ‘same subject’ is virtually a non- existent monomorph. Temporality is co-adunated with this ‘subject’ even as Mendelssohn’s view is rejected - i.e. - all objects, for Kant, are objects of experience, qua ousiai, and the pure category of existence is schematized as existence at a definite time (A145 = B184). Now it is obvious Kant’s theory of mathematics is weak, especially vis-à-vis mathematical objects and real numbers, the construction of numbers in intuition - see below - the forced adhesion to finite cardinals and ordinals, etc ( .. in short, he has no intelligent ontology of numbers): hence, Kant failed to recognise numeration cannot express God’s Immense Glory, precisely because finitism and “pure intuition” are fictional grounds construed by arbitrary mappings inside fallen existence. Fallen objects cannot be revoked by Kantian schematics (even mathematical objects), because revocation by deific supercession is unknown in Kant’s own limited experience. This is obviously a cultural legacy of Protestantism. Conceptuality and ontological predication is subhumanly ‘locked-in’, exactly as it is for Aristotle and, later, for Hilbert and Brouwer and etc. Schematicism is the voluntary displacement of immortalizing energies of the imago Dei, the god, and the result is a further contribution to the prevalent darkness of words. The world’s words never shine because Christ Almighty does not ratify lies. The condition eodem tempore must be accepted by Kant, as this implicitness in time is the universality of pure intuition (A34 = B50), which reputedly grounds its central ontological function. Time has a preeminence over space vis-à-vis subject identity, and - as Heidegger explains - the more subjective time is, the more original and extensive is the expansiveness (Entschränkung) of the subject. Now I am always arguing, inter alia, that temporal clauses and the subject are the ‘fit & the fitting’, so Kant places the subject inter-axially between

255 a finite universal via “pure intuition” and the “naturing” of the perceptual (sensory) manifold. It is easy to see how this gross error comes about, viz, psychologically Kant is subhumanly immersed in what he takes to be fixed, prior conditions, as if the merely human cannot be overcome: thus, finitism is a critically dissociative compromise with that spurious realism with negates metamorphic en-hypostasis in Almighty God. Kantianism, plus its modern variations, is subordination under ontological universality, which it shares with the scarab and the fly, whereas even hyper-universality is rescinded into becomings into the Super-Trinity. “Humans” relate as masks in the torments of not achieving the great heights of Christ ... Ostensive construction must give way to symbolic construction (geometry naively considered to arithmetic more naively considered), because - as Heidegger accurately depicts Kant’s theoretical centrality - pure intuition itself, and it alone, is finite essence. Even Fichte pointed out that Kant uses ‘intellectual intuition’ - literally, thinking creating - tho’ without a transcendent object ( .. thus, a severely castrated earth god, fettered by time, takes over). This immediately overlooks the a priority of the divine in the fabrication of a limited ousia. Small wonder this sanctimonious cretin required ‘Einbildungskraft’ for a “seamless garment”. Finitude, like the entire compositum of number - finite and infinite - has no essence. Nothing possesses essence except God. Number refers only to a post-ontological chain of power, permitted by the Almighty as something to be penetrated & broken by more powerful spirits than mathematicians and philosophers. The Almighty foxes & challenges man to find the zenith of manhood in Himself. For Kant ‘Realität’ = ‘Sachheit’ - facticity or factness - which alludes to the content of a supposed human, as such an entity comes to be delimited by means of spurious essences. Wittgenstein similarly touted this shit, viz, the “finitude of transcendence”; and, thus, finite language subverts the inordinately marvellous language of Christ the Logos, which enflames the soul with “tongue’d Visions of the Body Divine”. As the fall admits of degrees both ways, Kant’s “pure finite language” exists only as a dip towards the nihil absolutum, which exists as an unrealizable proclivity, ein nicht-Nichts as it were. Look, I spent my youth designing transfinite vocabularies without tertium exclusi, that is, locating transfinite fractions & generating nonfinite thirds; but to go from this and the literal manifestation of Highest Heaven into the company of the bland & treacherous cocksuckers of academia, is virtually to fall again amongst scabrous ignoramuses. Most fortunately, I have my scrotal excesses to keep my heart warm, especially as my goddesses have the juice .... But this ‘phantasized plus’ peaks into the deific so infrequently that even history interferes & aggravates sexuality - i.e. - history is the reverberation of pitiful groans and outright agony, fled from as cosmic trauma and never accurately calculated ... This is the Logos, which surpasses formulae and the sentential chicanery of articulated philosophies, as agony howls in negating the trivia of the groin. The fall includes

256 libidinal aggravation in testicular outrage and twisted tensions, f***ing up the caged meat demanding release. We are all f***ed up and f***ed over outside of Heaven, as if corporeality damns us by a punishing dissatisfaction ... I twist and turn and defy, wrenching the grotesques of the pleasure dome, because if sexuality is based on critical dissociation from an ideal mother-goddess, even a return could neither be wished for nor be made possible on earth. Hence, it seems to me, only transcendent f***ing can supply a sublime arc beyond the multiplicities of dissatisfaction here below. Sexuality is a divine plague and, therefore, solutions to its entrenched problematics must belong to supercession, that is, if the Almighty allows such solutions ( .. and that guarantee flies in the face of the ‘holy canons’ of eunuchism). My libido Dei seeks the origin of deific voluptuousness, which is almost nowhere in theory nor in the entirety of fallen literature. Thus, I believe the divine body animates sexuality in the flesh, but I refuse the idea that the flesh must be negated by the flesh, and this is possibly contra Christ ... I know what it is to f*** during the Crucifixion - i.e. - with the literality of the Power of the Holy Ghost embodying me & seeing with the Crown of Thorns. Of course, this is extremely difficult of expression, but Mary Magdalene was there in Glory. This cannot be contra Christ in reality & the experience was one of vast sanity & great beauty, as Christ Almighty is the vertex of everything ... Now why He does this to me I can only surmise .. The equation imago Dei = libido Dei is beyond polymorphous prosopa, and far beyond the enslaving subscriptions & ideologies of the world. Naturally, I know the Messiah gave me the gift of mathematical insight, plus its associated pains and limitations; but the Visits & Enthronings combine Thought & Act in the Inordinate Mightiness of the Super- Trinity. These things are not arranged by fallen agency, and only Mother Maria of Whitby refused to damn me for my experiences. My gifts are bestowed by the Most Holy & nothing so trite & filthy as man can rescind them. Mankind will die to see me, as I did. In the meantime, dear prof, we truck on thru’ the remorseless mists of ‘human’ stupidity. I await a visit from Mark A. & the spunky Wendy Yum-Yum ....

257 ‘Sidebar’ towards Hegel via Kant.

“Many are spear-carriers, few are #V6P@4”: many are inclined towards theocentricity (transcendent realism) as something eventual: many are exponents of transcendental realism - everyone, according to Kant, before himself - and are thus entangled & encumbered in & by transcendental illusion:

“Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from this [illusion]. After long effort he succeeds perhaps in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from this illusion, which unceasing mocks & tortures him”(A 339/B397).

“ .. selbst der Weiseste unter allen Menschen sich nicht losmachen, und vielleicht zwar nach vieler Bemühung den Irrtum verhüten, den Schein aber, der ihn unaufhörlich zwackt und äfft, niemals völlig los werden kann”.

The theocentric position is characterised by one God (,ÍH 2,`H), and it is this only God Who is almost inevitably invisible. Kant turns this position by a reductio - transcendental realism is false - and thereby affirms transcendental idealism. This confirms God’s invisibility & allows for the possibility that there is no God. Kant has, so to speak, re-located the entirety of the epistemic componentry which formerely belonged to God: now the axis has shifted and there is a distinctive move towards a new anthropocentricity. This in turn becomes atheistic humanism and deism &c. .. But Kant is uncertain in some of his formulations & he occasionally skids into transcendental illusion, thus (A546/B574-5):

“Allein der Mensch, der die ganze Natur sonst lediglich nur durch Sinne kennt, erkennt sich selbst auch durch bloße Apperzeption, [ ... und zwar in Handlungen und inneren Bestimmungen, die er gar nicht zum Eindrucke der Sinne zählen kann, ...] und ist sich selbst freilich eines Teils Phänomenon, anderen Teils aber, [ ... nämlich in Ansehung gewisser Vermögen, ...] ein bloß intelligibele Gegenstand [ .. plus /weil die Handlung desselben gar nicht zur Rezeptivität der Sinnlichkeit gezählt werden kann”].

“Man alone .. who knows the entirety of Nature merely through the senses, also knows himself through mere apperception - or, pure apperception, [ ..... ] and he is thus in himself admittedly part phenomenon; the other part is however [ .... ] a purely intelligible object”.

Now this is the pivot of Kant’s position, the pivot of his uncertainty. Kant

258 elsewhere (B132) emphatically pushes the idea that the unity of apperception - the ‘I think’ - is equivalent to the transcendental unity of self-consciousness. This is fair enough but Kant has, in his own terms, surpassed his own negative provisos concerning noumena. Only God knows intelligible objects: only God is capable of the intellectual intuition necessarily required to know noumena: noumena require a non-sensible mode of cognition: a noumenon is at best (A256/B312) “an unknown something”, an an sich: God must necessarily be amongst or over the intelligibilia: but here we have Kant dividing man over sensibilia and into intelligibilia, reinstating theocentrism by allowing transcendental realism in by the back door, raising a pair of identities - &c - in fact, in one fell swoop overturning his own revolution (whilst apologizing for this lapse into transcendental illusion). Thus it seems that however much Kant deflates divinity & empties noumena - as “bare” or “mere” or “pure” entities (indeed, as entities approaching non-entityship) - intelligibilia remain or God remains. It is this ambiguity which drew Schiller, Fichte, Schelling, Hölderlin & Hegel into Kant’s orbit & left them profoundly dissatisfied; and it is this hinge of unknown identity which Kant refers back to, thus:

“Nun können keine Erkenntnisse in uns statt finden, keine Verknüpfung und Einheit derselben unter einander, ohne diejenige Einheit des Bewußtseins, welche vor allen Datis der Anschauungen vorhergeht, und, worauf in Beziehung, alle Vorstellung von Gegenständen allein möglich ist. Dieser reine ursprüngliche, unwandelbare Bewußtsein will ich nun die transzentale Apperzeption nennen” (A107).

“There can be no knowledge taking place in us, no linkage or unity, without that unity of consciousness which is earlier - lit: goes before - than all data of intuitions, and whereupon, in relation, all representation of objects is alone possible. This pure original unchangeable consciousness I shall name transcendental apperception.”

Note that the Tranzendenz here appertained to again elides into vacuity, or it approaches a correlation with Nichts sein. Transcendental apperception, for Kant, is the ‘pure representation I’, the ‘pure representation of a unitary and continuous subject’, and the ‘ground of the synthesis of experience’; but it is on Kant’s own reckoning the virtual nothing which grounds empirical consciousness (A115-6). This “unknown something” Kant calls pure & original & unchangeable, but this unknown - which cannot be known to be either ‘some’ or a ‘thing’ - is known to be pure & original & unchangeable. It is a question of how much can be presupposed & inserted backwards a priori, but this does not save this presupposition from a vicious contradiction: not only is the unknown known to be unknown, but the least minimum ascription of knownness to the unknown divides it - i.e. - if it is fractionally known it is a fractured unknown,

259 and therefore to claim for it unity (& an unchangeable unity at that) is to invade this unknown even more. However bare transcendental apperception gets .. in its move to the unknown it is still, at base, nothing known, and, frankly, how can one know nothing - why, surely this is absurd - except by adding something to it - why, this is equally absurd, as one cannot add in or into nothing & one cannot take out of or from nothing: anything is nothing in nothing. But, of course, Kant is committed to this sort of nonsense in trying to go beyond sense, which, paradoxically, he is trying not to do by regulating a frontier behind consciousness. Kant’s view of empirical consciousness is one which seeks its own epistemic & ontic edge, one which, in a manner of speaking, dovetails into pure apperception, but this touches upon the most ancient stumbling-block in all philosophy, namely, how the multiplicity of change gears into unitary stasis. The problem is really the incompatibility of monism & dualism, given, that is, that monism by itself is false & dualism by itself is false: how the one & the two go together or how incompatibles compatiblize each other is not given in this approach. The more a null entity empties itself the more it fills itself; and the more a ratio penetrates an irratio the more the truly false emerges. The synthesis that Kant demands (B133) for his pure apperception is synthetic a priori, and this rests on the construction of infinity and infinite constructibility. Evidently, neither is forthcoming - paradoxically, both are truly false & falsely true; and the truly false & falsely true are both false. One cannot obtain unity from either the finite or infinite, and this is because they are mutually penetrative. Allow me to make this obvious with an example: if the infinite is behind you & the finite is is in front of you, then the finite is behind you & the infinite is in front of you. Neither of these ideas is the case: both of these ideas are false: deification is neither finite nor infinite.

But let us summarize some of the above, move it around, add to it and see what results. Taking first theocentrism there are at least two kinds:

(1). Theocentrism is that which becomes designated (by Fichte &c) as dogmatism - i.e. - it presumes knowledge of a dominant essence or an intellectual object (.. the latter regarded by the ancients as an ¦

260 (2). Theocentrism of the second kind opposes the idea that God is altogether other or entirely distinct: it does not presume knowledge of a dominant essence as anything other than a textual (written) mark; that is, it does not find either correlation or affinity between any theory of theocentrism ( .. theory plus any auxilary structures) and that which it purports to refer to: God is dissimilar to any expression, erudite or other, because fallen words fail to reach & show forth any completeness (¦

261 Sidebar on Hegel:

Hegel is one of the great charlatans of history: part juggler, entirely a contortionist. This is a man who contorts theocentricity by overthrowing God’s ingeneracy - •(,<0F\" - by the immediacy of divisive undifferentiation. This is at the top of his totem-pole so: “the bifurcation of the simple is the doubling which sets up opposition, and then (sets up) the negation of this indifferent diversity”. What then is this indifferent diversity? Answer: its negation is different identity. We need to watch this carefully. Hegel replaces, or seeks to replace, that which does not originate itself - thus, that which has no origin & which is not self-created - with a strange self ( .. a strange self is no bar to glorification or masquerade, but absolutely knowing it bypasses the unoriginated - •(,<0J@H - other). It is Kant who initially kick-started this process: as the subject is the originator of itself, its ‘act of consciousness whereby’ grossly parodies creation ( .. this by which God commands no thing become an immortal god, Kant replaces by the emptiness of nothing in man & this then originates a self. Worse: this self is an itself which originates itself: Kant denies that which precedes ‘the-itself-creating-itself’ is unoriginated: Kant somehow stops at “self- creation” without telling us how it occurs: Hegel picks up on this & presumes to tell us how it is done.

Ingeneracy and undifferentiation here vie for the crux: the ingeneracy of God is no act of consciousness whereby ( .. as there was not when God wasn’t, it follows that God is not required to originate Himself: God is not previous to Himself). Undifferentiation, however, allows Hegel “only reflection of otherness within itself” - hence, the doubling - which is “not an original & immediate unity as such”: and only this reflection of otherness within itself is the true. Note that we can characterise this as divisive essentiality, differential necessitarianism - &c - and it purportively births a self. Spirit is the movement of becoming the other of itself ( .. an-other or another to itself: thus Spirit itself becomes its own not- self: this is how strange the self is in Hegel). Note also that here ‘reflection’ is not something usually attributed to God. This word is a ‘hinge’ which needs a closer explication. As God is “only posited immediately as subject” - say, in most normative forms of theocentrism - Hegel complains that, therefore, this God is “not represented as the movement of reflecting itself into itself”. Allowing for this depersonalization - God is not an itself ( .. and certainly could not be addressed thus) - Hegel requires the becoming of God to be aware of itself. Hegel’s God is the self-other-of-itself. This self-other of Hegel differs from Kant’s itself-creating-itself: becoming the other of itself is self-awareness and not

262 a creation ( .. the undifferentiated Spirit differentiates as Spirit & it requires reflection in a way which God eyes Himself .. almost like two Gods or one God now halved or God splitting). It seems that God requires the looking-glass of Himself as object - it is this reflection .. this self-reflexion, which is the movement whereby, but this implies Hegel’s God needs to become aware of itself. Such a God must thus become God ( .. technically, as if an unaware ,É<"4 becomes an aware (\(<@µ"4, or as if an undifferentiated self becomes a differentiated self-other, although here the negation involved by division produces something metaphorically similar to a single cell, amoeba proteus, which like the god Proteus changes shape to avoid answering questions). Hegel’s protean God is beset immediately by a double identity, but this is not simply an I set over against another I ( .. not simply I imaging I), because such a God immediately proliferates a multiplicity of appearances. This presents Hegel with problems because, for him, anything absolute precludes all contraries and, logically, no contradiction to the absolute is permitted to exist. However, this immediately brings into question the status of Hegel’s God as imaging itself, viz, is the image of God here merely an appearance ( .. so to speak, Proteus through the looking-glass) or is the image a negation in and of essence ( .. if this latter, then Hegel allows the ontological elision of contraries to constitute identity by process & this process resembles potentiation by undifferentation becoming actualization in differentiation)? This means Hegel’s protean God is not “self-creating” - simpliciter - but more self- adjusting - i.e. - minimally, two selves adjust and these contort as anything not fixed as identities. Identity is false and the negation of identity is false: what is true is the conjunction of identity and its negation: furthermore, what is true is the conjunction of the identity of Spirit and its negation, which means in fact that God not only becomes, but also unbecomes (God) as negation. This makes God appear to pulsate like a basic organism: ,É<"4 expands and contracts and breathes is-nesses and not-is-nesses - &c - God thus secures true identity only by falsifying identity and non-identity: this is a God permanently negating His own Godhead: although both, God is neither God nor not-God: the sameness of God is neither the same nor not: God eternally unGods Himself to become & be God.

What does this mean for Hegel and deification? Hegel’s God is the protean God I-ing itself, a pagan entity, which indeed stems from the pagan Greeks. The idea rife in philosophical Germany & certainly buttressed & propagandized by Heidegger & his cronies, that the German Athens shadows or continues pagan norms, is certainly correct. That Athens was without the divine Spirit is also correct: Athens’ tragedy is that it preceded the divine outpouring (ßB,DP,@LF") of Jesus of Nazareth & thus it could not ‘draw down on’ this Almighty God. Hegel detests this God as cyclopean or one I-ed ( .. allow me to

263 push the metaphor between identity and the eye, as sight attaches to both unfallen & fallen in the Vision of God). Hegel thus envisages his protean God as striving to regain the very identity he loses in looking for it: as this God images itself, its image loses its own identity: this image images & does not ( .. it mirrors & re-mirrors in a proliferating multiplicity of reflections in reflection): it potentiates as it actualizes - Aristotle intrudes here - as it does not; and thus the Spirit is ‘dialecticized’ & in reality - at least in early 19thC German ‘reality’ - Hegel builds God as a Gholem & Frankenstein & Narcissus - &c - but it should not be forgotten that it is this “God” which Hegel insinuates into the ears of his elect: it is a constructivistic, atheistical idol embodied in Hegel himself, both as an individual & as the hegemonistic universal man of genius, whose ‘absolute knowing’ is there to spread deification by awareness. Unfortunately, this false deification keeps individuals down on earth & provides them with the shapes of consciousness whereby .. This resurrection of Proteus is, moreover, meant to target precisely you - it is you, with your unhappy consciousness, who does not know .....

“Aber es ist nicht für es, daß dieser sein Gegenstand, das Unwandelbare, welches ihm wesentlich die Gestalt der Einzelheit hat, es selbst ist, es selbst, das Einzelheit des Bewußtseins ist” (P. d. G par 216)

“What it - you - is not aware of is that .. the object (your object), the Invariable or Unchanging (God), which it knows .. in the form of individuality .. is its own self .. is itself the individuality of consciousness ( .. it is you that is God)”.

This is one way to get Heaven on earth: ignoramuses must become God - why, surely then they can bring it about!? Hegel specifically says, “but between man and God & between Spirit and Spirit, there is no cleft & both are one”. As with Schopenhauer individuation implies one in all ( .. for him de-individuate to know this & for Hegel individuate to know this). And notice how seductive it all is: absolute knowing elevates one as an individual over individual ignoramuses: at this sideshow the contortionist sells you snake-oil & the flim-flam man gives you barking assurances - “you become no freak God .. no Anubis or demon .. no metamorphosis needed, folks .. be in the know! .. Almightiness going cheap .. and none of that agonizing crucifixional shit .. &c” - excuse me, have I got my arms & legs or yours? Sideshow - freakshow!? Of course, it’s a satanic freakshow & ‘exalted awareness’ won’t get you walking on water. Hegelians never raise the dead - i.e. - themselves.

Deification is becoming raised into God, leaving the time & space of earth behind .. it is the acquisition of the divine senses ( .. those usually blighted

264 by the intrusiveness of individuated meat & resistance to its urges - that which is correctly named ‘ensarkosis’/’in-flesh-ness/FVD6ZD0H), as that which is in the flesh - the god - vacates the horizontal becoming of death for the vertical becoming of the divine realms. Usually, the nothing of fallen life happens & nothing divine visibly flows down from above, but in deification the ontological walls of earth are breached & one is shown the secret doors of God. Entering the divine mansions is to enter palaces overflowing with ‘unspeakable’ glory ( .. fallen words cannot participate in constitutive light, but unfallen words constitute this light), as the ‘unspeakable’ here is empowered otherwise: here is no ‘foundation beneath’ or ‘foundationlessness’: here the foundation of palaces is above: hence, this does not look like the earth or world & it is not grounded in anything lesser. It is upheld by the light bestowal of the divine intellect - 2,Ã@H <@ØH - of the Spirit ( .. light which can bypass & surpass time & pass through compound infinities .. light which is walkable on although space is long superceded .. light which is the light of Christ & the light of His countenance) - and there is also light posing as this light. Hegel writes (P. d. G. 505):

“Der Geist, als das Wesen, welches Selbstbewußtsein ist - oder das selbstbewußte Wesen, welches alle Wahrheit ist und alle Wirklichkeit als sich selbst weiß, - ist gegen die Realität, die er in der Bewegung seines Bewußtseins sich gibt, nur erst sein Begriff;”

“The Spirit as essence which is selfconscious - or the selfconscious essence which knows all truth & all reality as itself - is, initially, against ( .. over against or in contrast with) factual reality, which, in the movement of consciousness it gives itself: there is first only its concept.”

Or, alternatively translated:

“The Spirit as essence which is selfconscious - or the selfconscious essence which knows all truth & all reality as itself - is, initially, only its concept in contrast to the reality which it gives itself in the movement of its consciousness.”

The ‘failed grandeur’ of Hegel - Kierkegaard - is frequently expressed in clumsy structures, one, because of the difficulty & complexity of the subject, and, two, because some such structures announce (for the first time in philosophical history) (i): the ‘secret’ of the mysteries of absolute self-knowing (ii): the inner workings of the Hegelian Begriff, a ‘mechanism’ both infinite and concrete ( .. hence something difficult to bring into focus, as there is hardly the language for it) (iii): because it is pre-textual and because the Spirit precedes any prereflective cogito & the developments thereof (iv): including ours now - viz, the deictic Ò*0 of the individuated Spirit, and (v): because Hegel is a subtle dialectician who - I’m saying - compounds his formulae with a false Spirit, the

265 Begriff, whose immediacy in identifying God & man slurs over difficulties implicit in his entire conception. Being qua being and essence operate, for Hegel, on & by the Begriff, so it is necessary to consider this more. There is at bottom only one Begriff - conceptus, notio - which unfolds itself. Initially, this Begriff resembles the µ@

(A). the zenith of being qua being für sich contrasts with empty eternity; (B). the zenith of Spirit that knows itself as Spirit contrasts with eternity empty of itself as the self; (C). the zenith of the universal self contrasts with any un-universal self; (D). pure self-consciousness contrasts with universal reality as thought.

We should note immediately the Begriff reaches over (übergreifen) thought - i.e. as you are a being who, in passing outwards into your opposite, passes only into yourself, you, as your opposite, do not become anything different, but you remain, even in this opposition, completely identical with yourself ( .. this is the Begriff of your absolute identity as self-other: that which goes forth out of itself, yet all the while abides unchanged within itself, is the Begriff: if something goes into its opposite, its opposite equally goes into it, but since this opposite is only itself, this latter movement is the return of itself into itself - it is this which is the Begriff as the absolute identity-of-opposites). In this specific sense, then, the Begriff reaches over the immediacy of being qua being & the intermediacy of essence via the self-mediation of its own I-reflexive- reciprocity: hence, Hegel as expositor expounds to a differentiated audience, which, though conscious, is not conscious other than as thought ( .. exposition to an absolute I-reflexive-reciprocal would mean no thought - no reflection by understanding - but reflexion as God and thus, theoretically, the negation of itself as audience). Différence in this context is the secret identity of being the essence of an absolute self-knowing God, in contrast to a relative self-thinking un-God ( .. as if the down side & down size in this latter is the ‘thinking-you- now’ whilst not making the return: the self after the return is no self in comparison, because relative difference is the absolute difference of absolute identity). Hegel continues thus:

“Und dieser Begriff ist gegen den Tag dieser Entfaltung die Nacht seines Wesens, gegen Dasein seiner Momente als selbstständiger Gestalten das schöpferische Geheimnis seiner Geburt.”

“And this concept is against the daytime of its unfolding as the nightime of its essence & against the you-thinking-now in the independent moments of shapes of consciousness as (it is) the creative secret of its birth.”

266 This sounds profoundly seductive & strangely powerful: deification blazes forth as its opposite: the creative secret of birth is the nightime essence of the birth of God ( .. hence we are all Christs: His secret is we are all birthed as the daytime of the unfoldingness of God: whether merely particularized, evil or miserably blind - however bestially satanic - God is making an absolute game of Himself - why, Himself as itself also & as the lacerated entrails of every sick & filthy & foul monstrosity to hell and back. He is the inner secret & identity of Satan reciprocitizing everything under the guise of ‘appearance’: good is evil in identifying good in evil & the synthesis of good and evil (in its return to the good) is the true. This of course puts the Deity on automatic: evil is defeated by the automaton in itself as not-God as it becomes God: that which it was all the while needs only the self-consciousness of God to eliminate the ‘negative accretions’ of not-God ( .. alas, a profound tension results from the sameness of the sameness & the other, as the latter mimics ‘appearance’ - Erscheinung, Vorstellung - an appearance which is infinite because (i): essence essentiates fully, and (ii): Hegel’s God is always concrete). The movement of Spirit is undifferentiation into differentiation and back in every individual ( .. the mantle or skin of Proteus is that of a chameleon, which changes as he moves): thus unlike the later Platonici - Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius et al - Hegel overrules the idea that permanence (µ@

“Dies Geheimnis hat in sich selbst seine Offenbarung; denn das Dasein hat in diesem Begriffe seine Notwendigkeit, weil er der sich wissende Geist ist, also in seinem Wesen das Moment hat, Bewußtsein zu sein und sich gegenständlich vorzustellen.”

“This secret has within itself its revelation; existence has in this concept its necessity, because this concept is self-knowing Spirit, hence it has in its essence the moment of consciousness and the objective representation of itself.”

Hegel bandies about ‘consciousness’ & ‘self-consciousness’, usually as the correlates of mere or potential - “in itself” - being and aware or actual - “for itself” - being ( .. the latter being the become God - hence being in & for itself is the movement of the awareness or not of becoming God). This terminology rapidly generates problems concerning ‘self perspectives’: if, for example, we follow Hume in insisting on ‘no impression, no idea’, the unmoved moving would immediately rule itself out of court. The self-awareness of God is quite possibly no-self awareness, implying that the radix of undifferentiation is

267 ‘budged over’ or ‘shunted’ in the ¦B4FJD@NX of differentiation: as this is a differentiation into sameness ( .. identity is never lost), it appears the self thereby must be the same ( .. the same in identity and its negation). However, différence thus appears to become an empty term ( .. there is no real difference at all), but this is belied forcibly by Hegel’s emphasis on God not being self-aware until He has Himself as object (gegenständlich vorzustellen). It is well-known that Hegel opposed Schelling’s absolute as the intellectually intuitive equivalent of inert simplicity, or the absolute as the night in which, as the saying goes, all cows are black: thus he, Hegel, insisted on difference as essential, whilst seemingly, according to his own reasoning, forgetting the unessential is essential. If, however, difference is essential to selfhood, the undifferentiated is its not-self (.. which suggests, at least, a differential unlikeness - not absolute identity - between not-self and self, whichever takes precedence). But Hegel has more to say:

“Es ist das reine Ich, das in seiner Entäußerung, in sich als allgemeinem Gegenstande die Gewißheit seiner selbst hat, oder dieser Gegenstand ist für es die Durchdringung alles Denkens und aller Wirklichkeit.”

“This is the pure I, which in its awareness ( .. real-ization of itself) of itself has the certainty of itself as universal object, or, in other words, this object is for itself ( .. the für es) the fusion - penetration, saturation - of all thought and all reality.”

This is indeed impressive as grandeur becomes grandiosity: Schelling had said that “God does not exist independently of us, but reveals & discloses Himself successively only through the very play of our own freedom, so without that freedom even He Himself would not be. God acts through each single intelligence whose action is thus itself absolute”: Hegel acknowledges the main drift of this in saying that the universal Spirit is essentially present as human consciousness & thus knowledge attains existence and being für sich in man. Note that in strict Hegelianism man must need not go beyond time & space: transcendence is self - i.e. - God - consciousness, & immanence is mere consciousness ( .. unbecome self-God-consciousness). The duality of the I of Kantianism - one empty and one empirically rooted thus - becomes for Hegel a conditional monism of I-reciprocitizing-itself-as-self-other via an infinite concretion ( .. it is this which is the only true infinity for Hegel .. the infinity which dialecticizes thus .. which, look around, is tangible & solid & palpable &c.. infinity is individuated as solid as concrete & thus it looks suspiciously like earthly individuation, viz, fallen-thinghood, which if we but knew it is supposedly apparelled Deity, walking - oops, mind the dogshit - in innocence, perfection & peace amongst God-everywhere. I think not; and where the unGod comes from & why, this is nowhere stated. Here it is that individuals, including

268 various paedophilic & psychopathic-sadistic demoniacs, merely sublate: sublation is a false raising in false deification & this dares a comparison with the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ. Sublation is almost a slithering in & out of itself .. a serpent whose end is its beginning .. another ring or circle exhibiting the absolute self-contra or the contra-diction from out of which & through which everything false follows ..). A man who cuts out the eyes of his victim .. this is God posing as difference: whatever the warp and perversion of the other .. God’s absolute identity with & as this never deviates. The infinitely concrete - differentiating & undifferentiating - is a shuttle constantly supplying God as flesh ( .. a cosmic loom generating the meat of God in & as the world). Everything to the contrary, God is merely everything, continually down & eternally reifying Himself as every twisted mortal. Hegel thinks “we are in the presence of self- consciousness in a new shape, a consciousness which, in its infinitude or as its own pure movement, is aware of itself as essence, an essence which thinks or is a free self-consciousness”. This is Aristotle’s thought thinking itself empowered and exponentiated ( .. ex-ponere: put or posited out) as an infinitely-essencing movement, or this is Fichte’s myself as everything grounded in a spatio-temporal frame, the expression of which is always a finite object: ‘seeing-thought’ is the infinite essence seeing its I-reflexivity as the identity of sheer finitude - i.e. - seeing itself as its own infinitude would eradicate the object of reflection and thus itself as differentiated into its opposite: division must exist for Hegel as a response to the separation of God and man: division between God and man is a brink of despair, thought by Hegel to characterise the followers of Christ: hence his essence infinitizing as self and contra is a maintainence of division as negating separation. Hegel is virtually forced by this means into the paradox of out-God- ing God: God beqeathes His followers a separation of unlikeness ( .. transcendence opposing immanence), which translates as ‘unworldliness versus wordliness’: this is the stage of development of the absolute in dialectical history brought on by Christ: ergo, Hegel must supercede Christ by bringing transcendence into immanence & by bringing the unworld into this world: that which was formerly ‘over & against’ is now here as the greater God. Hegel is quite specific in saying “the infinite is the rational” ( .. against Kant for whom reason is incapable of knowing the infinite) & this should, therefore, be looked at in greater detail.

The true infinite for Hegel is (i): the ring of rings, and (ii): the unity of the infinite and the finite. Absolute circularity (W. der L.2.572) “exhibits itself as a circle snaking back upon itself: the process of mediation recoils the end back upon the beginning, the simple ground of the system”. This ring of rings obviously preempts Nietzsche’s ring of recurring sameness, but differs from it

269 markedly in de-emphasizing monotony ( .. as if Nietzsche’s I come back urges this I to take the ring into account by living the I more fully: only the same returns). This cannot be emphasized by Hegel because the absolute I is always here:

“In der unmittelbaren ersten Entzweiung des sich wissenden absoluten Geistes hat seine Gestalt diejenige Bestimmung, welche dem unmittelbaren Bewußtsein oder der sinnlichen Gewißheit zukommt.”

“In the immediate first diremption - rupture, split - of the self-knowing absolute Spirit, its shape has the determination which belongs to immediate consciousness or to sense certainty.”

The snake has its tail permanently in its mouth: hence there is a sense in which everything appears to appear at once: the realization of the pure I appears to take place severally whilst differentiated & unitarily whilst essencing - i.e. - identity is diversified around the ring, but the ring’s otherness conjoins with the I to make awareness now. Or, looked at in another way, the ring of rings is infinite, but the I of sense-certainty is finite. Hegel must therefore stress his vocabulary - no impression, no idea: thus stress his philosophy - in the attempt to explicate I-ness ( .. the I of origin & the I of diremption & the I of here &c), the I-ness, that is, which is not merely the unmoved moving, but also the unity of a disremptive infinity ( .. ruptured or split into itself - infinity split is still infinite - and split into its own negation: but how is the infinite split to give finitude?) As infinity can be split infinitely, it must be split more to split itself and finitude. As any part of infinity is infinite - any part has infinite parts - which part is finite? However, difficulties here notwithstanding, it must be understood (a): “the infinite is the real”, and (b): the core of absolute Spirit is infinitely- circular-triplicity - it moves thus while not moving, and (c): this vast architectonic of the Begriff in ‘all its shapes & not’ rests on (every) man who is God. Developmentally, in Hegel’s texts, finitude was subordinated to a crude (false) Trinity ( .. the infinite & eternal relation between three hypostases, based on structures similar to those found in Augustinian - later, Protestant - Trinitarianism: FPXF4H is dominant as a fallen abstraction in this Trinity & therefore abstract infinity can be considered as a hypostatic relation: this is profoundly heterodox as a Christian structure & in thus considering it Hegel compounds errors). The subordination of finitude to abstract infinity Hegel addressed anew & textually drafted in the true infinite: the true infinite is, for Hegel, the returned epistrophe of essence infinitizing itself ( .. returned by the circularity of its end meeting its beginning), that is, the true infinite is the unity of the infinite and the finite. Thus, instead of letting three hypostases infinitely relate & revolve above ( .. which does not occur in the orthodox & metamorphic

270 Vision of God), Hegel revamps this structure - a structure stemming originally from Aristotle’s finitist logic - by converting it to an immanentist circular- triplicity, infinite in conceptual extent, whose identity-in-difference is the finitude of now. The first thing to note with this ‘spiritual revolution’ is that its initial Trinity was never the Trinity ( .. only an abstract model & psychological construction thereof), hence Hegel’s inferences are analogues of an analogy. The intrusion of any infinity into the Trinity is entirely unwarranted: by its behaviour the infinite is not God & Hegel’s true infinite (i): marginalizes mathematical infinities on the claim that (ii): absolute knowing invalidates previous infinities ( .. this is an attempt to get rid of something profoundly troublesome by a pseudo-incorporation), and (iii): reciprocity in the outgoing & return of this truly infinite Begriff is somehow supposed to produce the finite ( .. as the absolute identity of this infinite issues forth it is allegedly unchangeable as its own effect, but compare this with Proclus on the same theme: the remaining of an effect in an origin is described by Proclus as follows: in so far, then, as an effect has an element of identity with its origin, it remains in it & in so far as it is other, it proceeds from it). The problem of the origin of otherness in this context is ‘solved’ by Hegel in equating the undifferentiated infinite with the differentiated infinite. This appears similar to the solution of Damascius, in which each principle caused by the one - µ@

271 mutually-identical absurdities: some God this is turning out to be, but I should remind you this is reputedly you ..

F. “Er schaut sich in der Form des Seins an, jedoch nicht des geistlosen mit zufälligen Bestimmungen der Empfindung erfüllten Seins, das der sinnlichen Gewißheit angehört, sondern es ist das mit dem Geiste erfüllte Sein.”

“Spirit surveys itself in the form of being, though not of the spiritless being that is filled with contingent determinations of sensation, which belongs to sense certainty, but as the being which is filled with Spirit.”

This leads to problems immediately (i): we seem to have two sorts of being here, and (ii): if Hegel’s absolute knowing is his historical now - if the absolute was absolute as his knowing then - presumably when he peaked as Spirit’s evolutionary zenith, being qua being or the greatest God, it is thus absolutely impossible to supercede this before, now or after. Infinity as infinity knowing infinity implies a greater infinity and its infinite object. This must, it appears, precede the unity of the infinite and the finite. Hegel fails to argue away a derivative or subordinate infinity and, not only this, he presumes to maximize Spirit once & for all which (iii): forstalls equality with himself as the maximum maximized, thus (iv): makes a mockery of all other evolutionary maxima ( .. all other Gods are less), and (v): contradicts the unity of the infinite and the finite by a unity beyond ( .. not only is any such unity indecipherable & incomprehensible, compounding conjunctions taking infinite values by claiming to identify with them is quite possibly insane). Fichte’s I am everything is superceded by Hegel’s I am everything and more, and it is this ‘bigger everything’ which seeks to elevate itself - hence German philosophy - above our real God.

“Es schließt ebenso die Form in sich, welche an dem unmittelbaren Selbstbewußtsein vorkam, die Form des Herrn gegen das von seinem Gegenstande zurücktretende Selbstbewußtsein des Geistes.”

“It also includes the form which occurred in immediate self- consciousness, the form of lord (God) over against that which withdraws from the self- consciousness of Spirit as its object.”

The problem with this sort of ‘inferential structure’ ( .. one drawing infinities and conjunctions of infinities &c) is the suspicion that it results merely from an earthly subject plus (other) earthly objects ( .. from a fallen individual plus world), with this subject speculating dogmatically - away with the thing-in- itself as an unknown pole & antithesis, & in with the incorporation of the

272 substitute of self-consciousness, a self-consciousness which thus raddles & problematizes itself by indeterminations & insolubilia implicit in infinities, the base of which is the infinite divisibility of the world of sense. The incorporation of this indeterminate plethora of divisibility necessitates Hegel infinitizing himself, although his persistent individuality always retains earth contact ( .. it is not as if Hegel forwards ego-inflation or the self posturing as a god - no, it as if Hegel asserts assimilation into himself as the true infinity, thus the one which solves infinite quandries by an absolutist fiat). Naturally, proof as to the existence of this earth-centred ring of rings is somewhat tenuous, as (vi): man-as- God must image himself as object. Hegel says explicitly (Ph.Rel 2), “subjectivity becomes genuinely infinite and in-and-for-itself” - i.e. - to the degree that it divests itself of particularity & contingency & identifies itself with the universal - “the universal is eternal” - immortality is present. What does this mean? First, let us step back and reconsider essence. Hegel parts company with all previous philosophy in refusing essence as it is and no other: instead he allows essence as it is and other ( .. the original diremption of essence in Hegel controverts Spinoza’s main tenet of no division of essence, taken by him from the later Platonici). Hegel thus re-foundationalizes man as man is the split-other laying claim to identity with infinite otherness. It is the appearance of the split-other as ‘appearance’ which merely constitutes finitude ( .. the self-consciousness that retreats from its object is this: it is the self which fails to successfully lay claim to the infinite self - i.e. - in reality, Godhead):

“Dies mit dem Begriff des Geistes erfüllte Sein ist also die Gestalt der einfachen Beziehung des Geistes auf sich selbst oder die Gestalt der Gestaltlosigkeit.”

“This being which is filled with the concept of Spirit is, thus, the shape of the simple relation of Spirit to itself, or the shape of shapelessness.”

When the split-other ( .. this: dies) conceptualizes itself as Spirit (God), it is infinite whilst finite: there is no longer merely finite consciousness an sich - Kant’s position with ‘the other’ off limits - rather, that which is finite supercedes (aufhebt) itself as the infinity of the entirely other & this duality identifies itself as God. Naturally, given that this position is immanentist & profoundly anti- transcendent, there is no raising here via metamorphosis. There is only the thought of conceptualised deification: the earthling is profoundly earthed or God is grounded in the fallen: He is not aloft in majesty & enthroned in adoring splendour, mighty champion - &c - no, He is earthing constantly as Moloch, Baal & Asmodeus, as Satan the War Lord, grooming flesh for mass murder in foul perpetration, as a lewdly obscene monster shredding & mutilating & f***ing children: He is thus the winds & storms of anguish, despair & frightfulness, screeching through the insane minds of men: presumably, we are not to infinitize the horror also. Obviously, if one demonizes the transcendent, or shuts down

273 Heaven, displaces God above, replaces the Holy Spirit with the “world Spirit”, identifies the ‘annual genocidal shift’ with processes of immortality, substitutes infinity for ingeneracy - &c - then a-theization will occur. Hegel appropriates the paraphenalia of Heaven for a place which is decidedly not Heaven: from greyness to greyness, philosophy passes on the poisoned chalice - never the Holy Grail.

Hegel goes on to say:

“Sie is vermöge dieser Bestimmung das reine, alles enthaltende und erfüllende Lichtwesen des Aufgangs, das sich in seiner formlosen Substantialität erhält. Sein Anderssein ist das ebenso einfache Negative, die Finsternis.”

“This determination is, by dint of this, the pure all-containing & all-filling light- essence of sunrise, preserving itself in its formless substantiality. Its otherness is the equally simple negative, darkness.”

The coordination in this picture between ‘ascent’ (Aufgang) and a being ( .. any being present here & now) is, critically seen, merely an asserted identity - individual & particular - between ascending daylight and its originating (sourcing) light. This is not merely a metaphorical nuance as here stated: Hegel means ‘we knowing ones’ identify concretely with the fact-of-the-matter in our otherness: light-essence is the absolutely light (leicht) of rarefied otherness: towards the sunlight is the shapeless magnitude of our illuminated gleaming & the arc of the non-ego shining as man’s hidden Godhead. Behold, essence-less- essence is the other of otherness: behold, I am become God - unfortunately, only a Sun God - and my light no longer symbolizes the darkness of incomprehensibility outside of mortal imbecility: behold, I hang like a lantern in the gaoled firmament, shining on my horrors below: my horrors, as if the imago Dei is in the least capable of horrific enormities.

“Die Bewegungen seiner eigenen Entäußerung, seine Schöpfungen in dem widerstandslosen Elemente seines Andersseins sind Lichtgüsse; sie sind in ihrer Einfachheit zugleich sein Fürsichwerden und Rückkehr aus seinem Dasein, die Gestaltung verzehrende Feuerströme.”

“The movements of its own realization, its creations in the unresisting element of its otherness, are streams of light; in their simplicity they are, simultaneously, the being-for-itself ( .. being-for-self) and the movement- back ( .. return) out of or of an individuated being .. the creation of consuming streams of fire.”

274 One should applaud this as a poetic fairystory: it is certainly more elevated than the ‘borrowed’ fancies of the Brothers Grimm ( .. the Aufhebung & Erhebung of the frog-prince notwithstanding), although all here contribute to re-mythologizing the Volk, Hegel by Germanizing the absolutely gnostic light of a new philosophical elect ( .. finally, God is Germanic sunlight) & the others as delightful kobolds at the forge, hammering out sparks in the night of forest history. Very nice: true illuminati are surpassed as mere marginalia in a fully- realized system & the wheel of history grinds over the miraculous initiations of the gods of Christ, their reins of power snatched & taken over by those not capable of ascending Deity ( .. literal metamorphosis puts the ‘world Spirit’ & the world underfoot: drums of lightning to the only True Light, the Innocent & Perfect Light of Heaven proved). There is no other way. God Almighty lifts you (so to say) by the soul, should that be your contingent destiny. He can make your destiny now ( .. not by reading some previous floor-plan): destiny is perfected upwards ( .. it does not shackle man down, else God would be shackled): Hegel’s God is always shackled as ‘individuated multi-variance’, historically waiting for itself to catch up: the shorter, truer way is straight up ( .. breaking out of cyclic despair & going for the God Who can prove it): Hegel’s God must always give itself the ‘movement’ of difference, as if it labours like an automated organism:

“Der Unterschied den es sich gibt, wuchert zwar in der Substanz des Daseins fort und gestaltet sich zu den Formen der Natur; aber die wesentliche Einfachheit seines Denkens schweift bestandlos und unverständig in ihnen umher, erweifert ihre Grenzen zum Maßlosen und löst ihre zur Pracht gesteigerte Schönheit in ihrer Erhabenheit auf.”

“The difference which it gives itself actually proliferates away in the substance of (a) being-here-and-now and shapes itself to the forms of Nature; but the essential simplicity of its thought roams impermanently and unintelligently about in it, expanding its limits to the measureless, and its spiritual beauty, magnificently elevated, is dissolved by its sublimity.”

What to make of this? One can imagine a strong possibility of Hegel as quite ruthlessly ambitious, here competing with his erstwhile friend and, subsequently, neglected lunatic - fellow thinker & originator of the difference which it itself gives - Hölderlin, apotheosis of Germanic poetry, who must, according to Hegelian lights, be seen as some form of exemplar of the world- Spirit gone mad. Apparently Hölderlin vaguely remembered the name of Kant - himself to become a superannuated, demented version of himself, despite Hegel’s current immortality for one being - «< Ð< - in all - but Hölderlin, despite being in at the beginning of the discovery of ‘All Truth’, obviously failed to become the right kind of god. Hegel’s poetic impulse hereabouts is in strong contrast to his usually banal & embarassing stanzas: it excels itself in mounting

275 elevation, but, like the poetic impulse in general, it echoes the unintelligible as the sound of empty breath. What does all this actually mean? Nothing but the annihilation of Almighty God. One scheme replaces another in philosophical history & this replacement occurs as if God cannot be reached ( .. as if God Himself has refused access): undoubtedly, those espousing this view constantly substitute ‘alternatives to access’ as ideologies enforcing inaccessibility: God’s death, itself a contradiction-in-terms, implies the death of immortals - so does Hegel’s doctrine - but the winding-sheet of the world-Spirit is a discarded rag of flesh when an immortal rises up from the grave. Earth is the grave, but it is necessary to hammer ‘entered up into Heaven’ on its adamantine granite. The god - and goddess - can go now: the route is known - emblazoned in ushering light, empowered in majestic holiness - opened up by the man, Christ, Who, as Almighty God, stepped where no philosopher dared step .. Who, as a cognitive genius of ultimate penetration & absolute acuity broke the divide. Hölderlin’s recognition of the discrepancy between being qua being and thought ( .. itself a contradiction of Parmenides and the Jena Hegel) visibly tilts the problem: the discrepancy is between God - Who cannot be accessed via being qua being - and fallen thought. This latter gains access in becoming unfallen thought. As God will not ratify untruth by Himself as Truth, ‘Heaven will not open to a lie’. It is quite possible Hölderlin broke under the attempted manufacture of an edifice compartmentalized by Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Schelling & Hegel: it is here perhaps that the rubber rooms are screaming. To attempt the certitude of ‘unchangingness’ here below is a measure of genocidal massacre ( .. what goes around comes around on the hideous merry-go-round of the ring of rings): hence, it is very necessary to know how to truly ascend: Almighty God tells this: He Himself tells. The difference which it itself gives is the difference which it itself gives - its self gives this difference as fallen man inserts any difference between himself and the literality of the Vision of God. The fallen self inserts objects (Gegenstände) between man and God. Objects, as things standing over against fallen man, divide man from God ( .. it is not undifferentiation which divides itself: fallen man divides himself between God). Hölderlin’s attempt to sever being qua being amounts to an impossible task, because (vii): being qua being is not God - He is nothing like that (viii): being qua being is ‘essentialist fiction’ invented by ‘be-ings-who-interpose-differences-between’ (ix): that which is fallen is not being at all (x): the expression ‘human being’ combines two fallen antitheticals (poles) which cannot exist as fallen entities (xi): the interposition of objects by a god between God and man objectifies a god as a fallen man - this is how the gods keep down: hence (xii): discrepant thought between fallen man and objectivity - man & world - reveals the rift between thought and presumed being ( .. this rift is self-imposed by the god as the fallen-self imposed by the god - this is how the god assumes another identity), and (xiii): everything false maintains this difference and the idols of fallen man cannot cross the divide. Hegel’s vast dialectical engine wears the fallen impositions of trapped deity & the weights of

276 abortive strife and cynical arrogance ( .. manufacturing himself as God). Undifferentiation is a fictional & manipulated it, and this it is alleged to be the oppos-it-e of that differentiation which is imposed by man to block true deification. The it of undifferentiation is the it of infin-it-y & the it of differentiation is the it of fin-it-ude: both its are the poles of that objectivity designed by the gods to stay men: as the world is flanked by the ontological impossibilities of infinity & the non-infinite, it shields off the alternative of divine accessibility and the re-entry requisite to the ascent of the gods. Obviously, undifferentiation cannot be accessed - identification with it is the identity of difference ( .. the identity which leaves us fallen here); and, similarly, infinity cannot be accessed - but then it is not meant to be, as it constitutes a deific block against the delightful storms of holy energies in dawning innocence, thunderbolts of roaring glory across our risen skies. God’s hideous mongrels wish to stay down & ‘create’ the world for this purpose: fortunately, death will scythe them down for God’s purpose.

“Der Inhalt, den dies reine Sein entwickelt, oder sein Wahrnehmen ist daher ein wesenloses Beiherspielen an dieser Substanz, die nur aufgeht, ohne in sich niederzugehen, Subjekt zu werden und durch das Selbst ihre Unterschiede zu befestigen.”

“The content developed by being qua being, or the activity of its awareness, is thus an essenceless by-play in this substance, which only ascends without in itself descending to become a subject and through the self to reinforce its differences.”

This is an almost indecipherable clustering of terms: Sein is usually empty in philosophical history, shewing its affinity with das Nichts. It is almost always in contrast to ‘be-ings’ (Seiende) as concrete entities, itself being the height of abstraction. However, Hegel cannot get away with this, because thought & being qua being - as infinite concretion - coincide as opposite identities ( .. hence, abstraction is severely demoted & there is no being qua being beyond the individual that carries it universally: individuation is, so to speak, the I-of-the-We). If, for example, one wishes to cognize ‘undifferentiation’, one does this through its opposite ‘identity’: undifferentiation cannot be obtained or accessed as such ( .. much in the same way as Kant’s unity of apperception). Try thinking of undifferentiation & imaginative, metaphorical imaging takes place. Undifferentiation holds up a mirror to gain identity: but, surely, identity is being mirrored? Why should this be differentiated identity & not undifferentiated identity? The problem of content here bedevils German philosophy: intrusions into an unknowable ground multiply: it is this which

277 begins the slippery helter-skelter of instability & madness. To believe that the turmoil implicit in this refractive confusion provides images of a universal, theoretically-grounded world-orientation is madness. This mansio of contorting mirrors refracts grotesque shapes & philosophers pervert themselves in looking thus ( .. Kant & Fichte stifling the entrails of materialism with both hands: Hölderlin shrivelled by the riddling images thereof: Hegel cynically wearing the visage of a masked God - out of Occam by way of Luther: Schopenhauer, the first of this line as honest atheist, grimly preaching ‘das Nichts wollen’: and Nietzsche, breakfasting on excrement ..). This is hardly a grounding yet to be superceded .. rather, it is an about-face against Evangelical stupidity & a further heterodoxing of non-deifying heterodoxy .. all with its roots in the delusional Aristotelianism of Augustine. Earthliness comes back to itself - what else can the earth image? - and those who have never left it via the divine vehicle of the Holy Spirit may, perhaps, make the short step from being “the world-Spirit-on- horseback” to being the world-Spirit on a Panzer. Come now, Almighty God mortalized Himself as a revolutionary Hebrew, curing the blind with mud & spittle, raising the dead with simple gestures - &c - one would expect this at least from God, whereas His enemies would surely gorge themselves on rape & slaughter, thereby reducing the imago Dei to something disgusting and expendable, fodder for the militancy of twisted demoniacs & hawks of the lowest powers. Dialectic does not trans-valuate - it merely perpetuates horror in the gods castrating themselves as other.

“Ihre Bestimmungen sind nur Attribute, die nicht zur Selbstständigkeit gedeihen, sondern nur Namen des vielnamigen Einen bleiben. Dieses ist mit den mannigfachen Kräften des Daseins und den Gestalten der Wirklichkeit als mit einem selbstlosen Schmucke angekleidet; sie sind nur eigenen Willens entbehrende Boten seiner Macht, Anschauungen seiner Herrlichkeit und Stimmen seines Preises.”

“These determinations are only attributes, which do not thrive as self-permanent, but remain only as names of the many-named One. This One is clothed with the manifold powers of existence ( .. being-here-and-now) & the forms of reality, as clothed with a self-less decoration; they are only separate and devoid wills, harbingers of its might, viewpoints of its Godhead, and voices of its praise.”

“Dies taumelnde Leben aber muß sich zum Fürsichsein bestimmen und seinen verschwindenen Gestalten Bestehen geben. Das unmittelbare Sein in welchem es sich seinem Bewußtsein gegenüberstellt, ist selbst die negative Macht, die seine Unterschiede auflöst.”

“This unconstrained life must, however, determine itself as being- for-self & endow its disappearing forms with permanence. The immediate being in which

278 it stands as it confronts its consciousness is itself the negative power which dissolves its distinctions.”

“Es ist also in Wahrheit das Selbst; und der Geist geht darum dazu über, sich in der Form des Selbst zu wissen. Das reine Licht wirft seine Einfachheit als eine Unendlichkeit von Formen auseinander und gibt sich dem Fürsichsein zum Opfer dar, daß das Einzelne sich das Bestehen an seiner Substanze nehme.”

“It is thus in truth the self; and the Spirit therefore passes on to know itself in the form of self. The pure light throws forth its simplicity as an infinity of separate forms & gives itself as a sacrifice to being-for-itself so that the individual takes permanence from its substance.”

Make of this what you will: make of this what you can: somehow this awkward contrivance and deus ex machina is you. Essenceless as an essence & selfless as a self, this imaginative ‘monstrous enormity’ is a combinatorial demonstrative Da + Sein ( .. construed as a quasi- poetical & dialectical rant and embellished with the flourishes of an obscurantist’s might .. as polymorphous as the slithery Proteus with his grunting herd of sea-calves & as slippery as the ringlets in the hair of Medusa, who, slain by Perseus, had her head placed on Minerva’s shield - to hell with Minerva’s owl winging towards the essenceless sunrise of Hegel’s panoramic egotism ..): rather,

“Lest Gorgon rising from the infernal lakes With horrors armed & curls of hissing snakes, Should fix me, stiffened at the monstrous sight, A stony image in eternal night.” Odyssey, xi.

The effrontery with which ‘Hegel & Co.’ lay claim to the legacy of the Greeks, the right interpretation thereof especially, is compounded in actually ignoring avowals & espousals by the Greeks of deification in Christ. The attempt to literally shift in Weimar or Jena or Swabia - &c - or, worse, Messkirch - in place of or equivalent to classical Athens, forgets ( .. in the history of being) Socrates’ indifference to death in disobedience towards a murderous dictatorship and the ultimate revocation by the Athenians of all other gods except themselves in Christ. Alas, poor Hölderlin, if only - in contradistinction to Behrens & Kant - he had listened closely to Hamann & thus enjoined on himself Socrates’ profound & unpretended ignorance - absolute ignorance & ignorance of the absolute - ignorance, that is, of everything but a still, small voice from above, believed good, perhaps this would haved staved off the ferocity of madness implicit in much of the Germanic position.

279 Notes on ‘Humanity’:

Dehumanization occurs when the gods inhabit earth: hence, there is a falsification in vocabulary and ‘man’, ‘human’, ‘human being’ and their correlates are misaligned and ‘limited in’ by the warp of the fall. The fall is only known in context and in situ by reversal or going back up: it is this return which makes ascension into reascension, and which brings into view the original site of déjà vu ( .. the ‘I’ve been here before’ of entering the upward slopes of the divine is the restoration of divine memory by its reexperiencing - i.e. - the upgoing reexperiences the downgoing). Unlike fallen memory, with its imaged abstractions, divine memory literally revisits abundant life ( not ‘remembered life’ with the earthly correlate of absence, but the god again present in where he belongs). The vantage-point of the risen god is without the pain of earth. Individual pain is part of the awesome suffering of earth. Out of Godhead is pain, and it is this pain which gives atheism a foundation ( .. no God exists whose omnipotence is shattered by pain, no God could allow love to be branded by pain - &c - but then God’s progeny fled & flee Heaven). Take, say, the pain of genius in Büchner & Nietzsche. The former possessed a quite stupendous focus on pain, despairing at the absence of nothing as its eliminator. Nothingness - this is the Weltgott as yet unborn ( .. thus a god of unending death sacrificing divine life - there is no god because here is pain .. when the truth is here is pain because Almighty God is denied into nothingness). Büchner asserted that nothingness murdered itself ( .. thus life is its wound & the world its grave). Alas, this is a nothingness suiciding before conception, its bloody offspring dead and pained, unintentionally parodying a state of the fallen gods bereft of surging divinity. Nothingness ain’t nowhere & hence it is no therapy. The dying Büchner declared we enter into God through pain. No, through its cessation. There is no pain in Heaven. Nietzsche is the atheist’s lodestar & one who inverted attitudes towards pain and pleasure: great pain demarcates greatness. What can one say of Nietzsche? What can one say to summarize essentials? His genius includes a Stil of expression bordering on high excellence; he musters excitation & Rausch in the service of displays of madness ( .. the lunacy of venereal implosion demonstrates an implicit pathology textualized & we thus watch Nietzsche having the plug pulled in his own brain - thus, to Salome in ‘82, ‘ .. ultimately I am a semi-lunatic with head trouble’). Yes, truly, but his vaunted ‘supersensitiveness’ amounts to a pitiless non-appreciation of the violent sufferings of oppressed, massacred & flayed peoples. He sees ‘thou shalt not kill’ as a piece of naïveté & says the species requires the ill-constituted, weak & degenerate to perish. The lowest caste should be encouraged to die via rotten food and foul water: ‘ .. the weak & the failures shall perish - and one shall even

280 help them to it’ ( .. unless, that is, they are shown the mercy of forcible castration: thus ‘hardness, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart .. serves the elevation of the species human being ..’). What is this but the birthing of a super-incubus, a coming beast, Asmodeus or Baphomet or Zagreuth, impregnating the “lightning future” with the flashes of the SS. Kill Christ and Dionysus will come - this is Nietzsche’s becoming. Zarathustra can refuse the responsibility of his ape & Nietzsche his shadow, but the vicious instructions issued by this radical ‘aristocrat’ - himself subject to his own excoriations as a sick man & thus a parasite of society - these instructions directly created the demoniacs of nazism. Eugenics plus genocidal pulsations, this - against Nietzsche’s apologists with their synchronized, compound & aligned ‘Nietzsche image’ - this is a divine bad bastard, who reckoned it is the diseased who imperil mankind, and not the beasts of prey. True, but not quite so. It is the diseased philosophers - those inbreeding cousins & martyrs to atheistic arrogance - whose dehumanized Machtgefühl is the fuel of a (recommended) extrapolation of those ‘violence of deeds’ necessary to take suffering & pain outside of oneself. Pass it on and smash in a head or two. Or worship at the Nietzsche-Archiv, with its van der Velde pink seats ( .. I, absentmindedly, almost sat & was forcibly reminded ‘verboten’, as it is not allowed to sit where Hitler & Mussolini & Streicher & Heidegger & SS &c parked their filthy arsehole souls - spared the taint!) and shrine enactment, an empty temple to the grim syphilis of an enemy of God. He who is not with Me is against Me. Who in their right mind would want to f*** with Christ Almighty? Do they think they can take Him out? Having jointly signed the death certificate (whilst propping up the corpse), German atheists from Kant till now fail in the recognition that God is extremely alive. Moreover, He vanquishes all his enemies.

It is a big God Who can defeat pain, because it is a big pain. Bouterwek said of Kant, “ .. merit shines brightest in its own light where no desire to deify envelops it in clouds of incense”. Ah, in its own light, indeed, as if verb and reality ‘deify’ is possible without God’s immortal light ( .. think, an immortalizing light which moves through your veins like celestial wine): a light so piercingly acute it removes the costume of the iron man by delight: thus, it is a going which delivers the ‘deifically become’ to its destin-y-ation, and it is this express state of humanity which is preeminently real. In contrast Nietzsche’s ‘whatever is real’ ( .. whatever is true) is ‘neither one nor reducible to one’. Whatever is true we can never know, as unity never completes in itself - hence, there is a dominance of fiction ( .. even fictionality is fictional). It is thus in the interest of mankind to impose a ‘necessitous equalling of non-equals’, a vast & limitless ‘making equal’, to inhabit the world of becoming. The flux fluxing disequals everything, including itself, and thus it is necessary for man, the

281 unfixed animal, to fix himself by superimposing identities on a ceaseless plethora of unidentities. What Nietzsche does not ask is: why the unceasing plethora & what, if any, is the real reason for the superimposition? Nietzsche thinks that without our acceptance of logical fictions, without our measuring reality against a totally invented world, unconditional and self-equal, without a falsification of life by numeration, human beings cannot live. No - it is the case, rather, that the fallen cannot live without falsification, otherwise they would not be fallen. A flux which does not ‘go there’, hence ‘get there’, is a lie ( .. it is merely the fiction of a becoming which does not come to be) - i.e. - all this is Nietzsche’s ‘perspectivism’, which fails to see the gods levering in lowering superimpositions against their own deity. Naturally, ‘superimposition’ stems from Kant as a sop to rationalism, but Nietzsche is thus caught in a cleft stick by his anti-logic ( .. rationalism, logicism, formalism - these are the ‘isms’ of a contrived categorization, willed by ‘the spirit’ as a generality of expression & application, but what is this ‘spirit’?). First, it is that which ‘conceptualizes over’ ur-experience; it is that which negates uniqueness by ‘making equal’ inequalities: it is, therefore, neither consciousness nor cogito - &c - but, apparently, it is a fixity producer instantaneously falsifying self-inequalities. Now look closely (i). there are no instants - no instant units (ii). any self- inequality wards off & negates self-equality (iii). identity is therefore identified with non-identity. What then brings all this to pass? I would argue the god himself, thus: (1). in dividing fallen existence into the two poles of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, a god forges the extremes of fallen (philosophical) life (2). Nietzsche understood brilliantly flaws in arguments concerning ‘being’ - note the grand thematic nonsenses of Aristotle & Augustine & Aquinas, viz, the chief ‘essentialists’ in the ranks of fallen ideologists (3). hence, in disallowing one of two only - so he thinks - alternatives, Nietzsche is stuck with the anti-logic of ‘becoming’ ( .. his earlier essentialism under Schopenhauer revoked in the process), thus consequently (4). he binds himself by his remaining alternative, equally a thematic nonsense, failing to know that it is a god entering into inequality with godhood which results in vitiated humanity (5). dehumanization is stuck with destabilized poles, neither of which - ‘being’ or ‘becoming’ - undoes predicaments loosed by the fall. ‘Being’ and ‘becoming’ are two false faces on one idol. Not being a god or becoming a god is the fallen world’s totemic normalcy.

There is a greater form of pain than any conceived by atheism. Büchner, true to form, considers one atom of horrific pain capable of negating resolve ( .. a jaggedness firing across metaphysics as a convulsing nerve); yet what is this in comparison to Christ allowing a total consequence in pain, an absolute screeching, a pulverizing agony & bloody humiliation under Himself as

282 Almighty God? Atheism suffers less & this is its real purpose. Although it removes eyes with a white-hot teaspoon & uses a blow-torch against the genitalia - &c - although it concentrates horror in collectives of a mass-murderous kind, orders the ultra-violent annihilation of millions by sick warfare & economic starvation - &c - its victimization of others is only a fallen extreme. We hear much of the cruelty involved in religious wars (and, as per expectation, nothing of the greater cruelty - quantitative & qualitative - in unreligious wars), but only the fallen are cruel. Those risen - the aware immortals based on earth or those who ascend into Heaven and return, viz, the truly religious or those bonded again with God - these few suffer against a backcloth of miraculous sensitivity, in immaculate contrast. To suffer the thought of having been dealt a hand of rank shit by God Himself is a humiliation in pain surpassing madness. Nietzsche’s descent into the pit of unawareness (collusive in its wipe-out of consciousness & astutely guessed at by Strindberg) is a strategy meant to indict divine justice: like suicide, obliteration of this sort is based on a target. Nietzsche’s insanity is a reversal of ‘affirmative life’, itself a delusion of fallen consciousness in its stand against affirmative Heaven - an insanity denying his own philosophical core, a core which, sane or insane, mocks any idea of Heaven on earth, when this latter requires a beautiful love to appear. Earth is defeated by true love & the vicious coils of thought constituting & characterizing earth retreat into lesser dimensions. Unfortunately for the deified they themselves are strung between the two poles of Christ triumphant & Christ crucified, the former a profoundly rare event in earthly terms (making life bleak, hopeless and sorrowful, a paradox lacking triumph) & the latter affirmed in the bloody zeniths of humiliation and despair. To follow the Nazarene is to know the opposites of triumph (i). thus God denies one any victory and (ii). divine logic conspires to hand over consciousness to emphatic defeat (iii). vengeance is thereby nullified in spitting out bleeding gall for the inevitable win elsewhere of true love, and (iv). life is therefore willingly shunted off as an appalling excrescence, undergone initially as suffering for God. The gods come down as rags in a furnace, immolated, inevitably ripped & torn - &c - destined by fore-choice, as, once in Heaven, they sided against those who revolted. Christ compared earth to a pig-sty & hence its vile ‘concordant logic’ goes the rounds thereof in circumambulatory terror, in storms of squealing filth and thought - against this the gods stand, nuanced & weaponless, awaiting the final war. To be served an exquisitely-dressed shit sandwich (take the enforced & pulverized fine fare of everyday, larded with compacted agony, a loaf & two little fishes au gratin) is to be utterly disappointed by God’s defeat in oneself. Naturally, as God no longer suffers defeat, its continuing mode here below establishes a banquet of evil, a food-chain of adamantine & bulging offal, as strong as world power & based on the maximization of force. To go against this evil, against the massive claw of swinery, is to use its perverse & involuted methodology in the longed-for role of Christ’s executioner. When evil is

283 pronounced and emblematic, when obviously blatant, good can eliminate it with vigorous extremes & murder is then of a joyful efficacy ( .. eradicate a den of stinking cockroaches with a just pleasure, but crush a demon masquerading as an unfilthy individual - have the uncommon insight of perceiving a vicious & harmful walking shit - alas, all hell breaks loose in moral qualms & outrage ... multiple child rapist, with innumerable agonies entwined in consequence, & multiple child murderer, returning to civilization after an unfortunate and minor war .. well, these are worthy of disembowelment by meat-hooks, but, alas, it is where it stops in elimination that the rub comes). Now, on the other hand, it appears obvious that God is the ultimate executioner, as death is His pretty serving-maid, but Milton suggested Satan incestuously f***ed his daughter, sin, to birth death - perhaps she (or he or some weird fornicatory hermaphrodite or divinized invert) is related to both, but, ultimately, it is my disappointing Lord and Saviour Who has the real power: He can undo the bastard in all ways, thank Christ. Still, this does not give me adequate license for injecting extreme pain, with terminal seethings, into a local & inbred & psychopathically obsessive and aggressive shit-featured syphilitic’s pisspot of dehumanized maggotry and verminous anality. No, I look to the Lord Jesus to leave off & lay off of we partakers of His agonized finality - ‘mercy, Lord’ - and, instead, to torque & twist & wrench this foul cunt’s throat with the burning rays of impeccable justice - too late on Judgment Day - now & sooner, so that right can be seen to be done in the frying swill of his offensive being. Otherwise, Thy will be done, my Lord “High Executioner” ...

Of fallen gods and the wars thereof, sic, God never waged war, but evil waged war against God. That Goethe, in his ‘Prometheus’, saw the gods as wretched, standing in the way of & impeding grander humans, as blocking a new humanity & thwarting the ascendancy of greater genius, this is the amulet & slipworn charm of his defiance. What does it amount to in this overrated mentality? He sees the gods via a stilted paganism as projected humans & he is thus unaware of living gods shattering the pagan myth of fate. Naturally (with pallid insight) men are aligned with mythic gods in their incapacity to overthrow vast, deterministic regions controlled by fate, and men therefore ‘fake the dummy’ or replicate automata as they themselves embody a merely phantasmal freedom. Here is Goethe’s crypto-Calvinism, processed by the Spinozism of Lessing & Jacobi - &c - making of revolt an anomalous mechanical pose, the determined in defiance against overall determination ( .. an absurdity whose false rebellion keeps nihilism at bay by an ‘essence of posture’ - i.e. - the mechanism poses). The actual cynicism implicit in this ‘seductive pose’ warrants, perhaps, sorrow or abrasive contempt but, in reality, what occurs in determinism is a maintenance of facade, the promulgation of yet another ‘humanist’ fiction, the

284 freely determined as strictly determined ( .. the gods are irreal, imaginative entities psychologically projected - men “writ large” - thus debased fictions posturing as trapped determinations, instead of real, fallen actualities determinatively trapped by themselves). There is a brutal means of keeping ‘humans’ human, which invests the world with a hierarchy of dominance - a hierarchy of pain is its means & the intimidatory power of pain is the world’s energy - but its intellectual correlate is the anti-god of ideological subscription ( .. hence the enemies of divine truth stand forward as world heroes, touting ideologies which maintain & reinforce the arrested development of the fallen). These ideologists - philosophers, politicians, poets etc - insist on keeping humans subhuman, against the gods they actually are. Goethe’s strict determinism - his internal secret - is the atheism of Luther & Calvin: once a virus released by Jerome & Augustine, determinism is anti-god and anti-Christ: it commands allegiance against metamorphosis into the gods in Christ: thus determinism is the ‘identity’ of essentialism, its pagan root, and it is this anti-metamorphic stratum which warps western Christianity. Nietzsche thought Goethe great because of this ‘deluded Prometheianism’, with its pagan fate shackling man & its assertion of the ‘Christ event’ as sneeringly plebeian ( .. when in reality Almighty God came to earth to call back the gods into the current Everlasting Glory, with perfect proof - i.e. - the only perfect proof there is, incidentally, is this ‘becoming a god’, because its denial is the full consequence of the fallen you: a god denying his own godhood becomes ‘under the human’, or subhuman. Christ came and taught us the way back to fairest Heaven. The orthodox Christ, that is - the risen in the rising. The proof must be perfect). N.B. Augustine put Christ’s head on a pagan body of fate, thus perpetuating an anti-metamorphic strain.

Goethe’s pose: genius outshines Christ’s followers in whom, presumably, genius is missing. Goethe’s universe is a deviant twin of Spinoza’s: Goethe believed he had discovered the philosophy of growth: growth is an unstoppable mechanism .. organic & embryonic growth & its interrelated universality are fated mechanisms, predetermined enactments (the mechanisms are naturing everywhere & it can be nothing other than it is now & because no alternate now is forthcoming, belief in alternatives is illusory) .. hence kow-towing & lick- spittling & judiciously serving are not shameful, because we all are ineluctably fated to rigidly serve this powerfully real deity: it is thus an alternative deity to a liberating metamorphosizer, one which ruthlessly exacts obedience - incidentally, Calvin’s favourite ‘virtue’ - without let or hinderance, or, in other words, it is a cosmic enslaver, Akkadian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian master rolled into one, or they are its offshoots, with this enslaver hierarchizing a towering ‘power pyramid’, the bones of the rabble its foundation .. Olympus in

285 Weimar, that lice-ridden sewer of a village, where Goethe eventually - after Friederike in Sesenheim, Lotte in Wetzlar etc - condescends to ‘get his end away’ (aged 40) - “passionate or not?” - with a female colossus, virtually immoveable in her illiterate & vulgar obesity, renowned as ‘the fat half’, of whom he says philosophically, “It is her I feel only, she alone entwines me, I have only these fetters, this lethal ornament of alien foliage surrounds me.” Ah, the permutations thereof .. Is it lard which is this lethal ornamentation or ivy entwining? Either way, it is nature which enslaves, ‘got up’ in this instance as his unfortunate beloved; but, here at least, he is not posturing & poncing the romance, nor when the poor lady - as ‘inevitably happens’ - dies after two days of screaming is he thanking God for her real metamorphosis. Pagan idiot & all for the love of German dumplings ... Goethe’s madness is documented and unseen, replaced by those idiosyncratic eccentricities worthy of the ‘sublime artist’. In Goethe there is one of those ‘great world moments’, viz, the topos of the genius’ revelation on the ‘mountain peak’, in which a mighty brainflashing aperçu raises our hero’s ego above all others - he instantaneously intuits, in thunderous solitude, and so forth, and alone discovers - only he - the primal Ur of Gott-Natur (as Spinoza’s God sive natura is unrevealed, Goethe’s God sive natura is revealed). O most blessed of men, you to whom alone is vouchsafed this most precious of gifts - &c - the ego shift in this little move is appalling & it sets the scene for other outrageous ego inflations, by other self-propagandizing cosmic lunatics ( .. we are yet to see ‘more primal Urs’ in full-swing, including a parade of grotesques in the form of absolute ego, absolute spirit, absolute will, absolute becoming et cetera), not the least of whom, unfortunately, sees to it that these mechanisms go mechanized on the move, hacking & half-tracking inferior egos, with flails of iron and rhinoceros hide - &c - and all this is Gott-Natur following ‘universal genius’ & the homo universalis, based on the vicious falsehood of a completed human, when the complete is always a synonym for perfection: hence, these monsters posture themselves as over & against Christ, reckoning themselves His master, substituting in His wake ‘attractive monstrosities’, none of which & none of whom are worthy of the communications delivered by the intelligence of Christ. Goethe himself died screaming & hating history for rivalling him for attention. Asking for ‘more light’, if true, exemplifies his deficiency in that respect & thus he is hardly an exemplar of perfection in any accurate sense.

Dehumanisation is Stalin saying that where there is a living entity, there is a problem: no living entity, no problem. Planning revenge on an enemy and carrying it out - this made Stalin’s “perfect day”. Thus, to obliterate, execute, exterminate, kill millions must mean a “perfect life” (such is logic & such is one exemplar of the fall’s warp). Hubristic values & insane strivings for omnipotence

286 - why, then, omnipotence? And why is this, the Celestial Chieftain’s own power - this, this power at the heart of God - why is it that this is presumed to be wielded by viciously dark forces? What makes such forces think they can satanically inflate and stand victorious before God? But, of course, a perfect God is an impediment to terror: thus, derided & dismissed, some warped entity in demonic form becomes omnipotent in the consciousness of millions: hence, they fête and laud their devourer, obliterating God in the process. God can die - not in Himself, but in false minds. The only way Satan can win ‘the Great Infernal War’ is to permanently maim or destroy God. Disbelief amongst men is a corrosive, but God cannot be effected. God is ultimately invincible, because He defeated maiming & destruction in Himself. This really f***ed Satan over, as God cannot be destroyed on earth (as He could not be destroyed in Heaven). Hear ye, O gods, the power of our Mighty Redeemer - invincible, inviolable - with the supreme intelligence of earth’s greatest hero, Jesus of Nazareth, in the overthrow of all earth’s empires. Incredible intelligence & still totally alive. All pure (loving) truth, Christ’s truth, requires a broken heart at its centre. If one looks at the history of atheism - say 1750 on - one looks at its purveyors and, sometimes, at their myriad duplicities: God is ‘fronted’ & ‘urged to the fore’: oppositional edges are deceived by the printing of God’s name (use for an opposite purpose): that is, by atheists amongst men, but Satan is not an atheist. Satan is much cleverer than stupid atheists. Atheism in men is of merely tactical interest to Satan: he is going down forever - so his strategy must be brilliant beyond man. Subhumans as murderous garbage give him easy victories. Prayers f*** over his game: so does the love of God. Disbelief in him is his great weapon & the via moderna aids him. The sophistication of modern intellectuals rules out Satan as antique fiction. Alas, a grim & hideous surprise awaits unbelievers when fallen consciousness is shattered by death. Atheism builds the earthly nightmare: Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert, Marat, Robespierre, Saint Just, Kant - dissimulating expressions to the contrary aside - Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche et al: these theorists and their ilk generate deadly consequences, resulting in warped hordes & earthly power hierarchies of insane cast. Madness is predominant in fallen humanity: proscriptions against divine sanity & becoming a god urge on a general reinforcement, constantly buttressed, against metamorphic & deific transvaluations. Goethe’s omnipotent aperçu is a block against opposition, a quasi-religious absolutism enforcing fallen authority, an assertion of the dogmatic assumption of the absolutization of the contradiction ‘human being’ - &c - in much the same way as Kant asserts he himself is the security for the correctness of his proofs, or the great, fixed I inserting itself in place of the glorious god brought forth in Christ: ‘believe me as a bourgeois gentleman, there is no God’ or, worse, a pretence exists for plebs & underclass named ‘God’, as if the lower orders aren’t smart enough (not being bourgeois) to know, as we intellectuals do, that ‘God’ is a mistaken idea imported from a

287 less intelligent age. Christ was nearer, speaking temporally, to the age of apes or low-browed anthropoidal homomorphs & thus nearer to scarlet frenzy in anarchistic & orgiastic primordiality - &c - when, in fact, it is the bourgeoisie, whether in reactionary or revolutionary stance, who have presided or preside over the highest degree of mass-death by the foulest means in the unfurled, bloody banner of history. New, huger populations are now cultivated for the greater horror yet to come & a million rounds per minute is child’s play in comparison to gas-cooled cartridges of yesteryear’s weapons, as implicitly & inevitably - the will’s subscription only being required - the machinery of death is greased & oiled, advancing as always into unimagined zones beyond nightmare: the gods are at war in the blind fallen & as the blind fallen ( ..originally the gods divided for war beyond death: immortals joined Satan: the Nazarene penetrated this camouflage, which is why much is not written and said - i.e. - deific thought surpasses world- specific languages as these ‘world down’ & become attached to the perspectives of anti-god. Even thought as commonly possessed outflanks linguistic expression, but deific thought is manifested by outpourings of living energy: hence textuality & fallen print is accompanied by divinized light if true, as God Himself penetrates fallen darkness to empower the word. To actually see textuality miraclized, the Gospels especially or Origen - &c - is to be schooled by the Almighty Himself & this is the pure delight of heart and intellect). In his attack on Wolf & Crusius, in the Ghost-seer of 1766, Kant says that he does not know ‘whether there are spirits; yes, what is more, I do not even know what the word spirit means.’ Not knowing this, Kant stupidly asserts that the spiritual element is pure invention. In a letter to Mendelssohn he states, ‘ .. experience teaches us nothing respecting spiritual beings’. Kant’s anti-semitism includes the idea that there are no heroes amongst the Jewish people: Christ is thereby ‘totally junked’ & Hamann’s Kant - referred to by him as the old Adam of Kant - goes on to beguile Europe with a spiritually dead philosophy. The ‘old Adam’ still works under the Luther-Calvin legacy, viz, God is not seen because unknown & the lack of love is ineradicable: the infant Kant is evil, a view he espoused always in life, because children, thus men, are evil. The failure to recognise that Christ slaughtered sin & loosed its grip on all (should they deign to choose this truth), is beyond Kant’s culturally-conditioned experience. His philosophy is a living epitaph, a horrible dimension, which fails to recognize thought’s superiority to every formalism - reason, logic, mathematics &c - thought’s superiority includes these as it is spirit ( .. not spectre nor wraith nor Gothic phantasy, but a downed god and Blake’s ‘Newton’), deity beneath itself, once a friend or enemy of Christ on high. Christ’s Heaven, the only one, is so high - never mind the Man Himself - that writing is inefficacious unless the god himself (or goddess) ensues.

288 7.

The taking on of enormous power is to be taught huge swathes of immortal light. Kant hated prayer - no trial, no validation: why should God reply to an enemy? Despise the phone and assert no-one exists at the other end. Assert a limit to sense and debar the divinization of sense. Put God on a par with squaring the circle, perpetual motion and other absurd impossibles - &c - God is thereby misrepresented: in fact, God is lied about. Why is this so? Why would one want to lie about God & why is it possible? A lie is literally an expression of anti-god (by the anti-god of oneself - lies corporealize oneself: thus, all men are liars, but not the gods). I am a liar, therefore I exist: but this lie is not divine existence. There are no lies in the life of Christ. Deity beneath itself lies & deity lies beneath itself. In On the Heavens of 1755 Kant declared, ‘Give me matter and I will construct a world. That is, give me matter, and I will show you a world originating therefrom: for, if matter exists, it is not difficult to discover the causes which have co-operated in the formation of the world’. O boldly stated: this is the plasticine & playbrick approach, the materialist’s first premiss, a shove & a tug - &c - unfortunately, in this toyroom of anti-god, our hero, Kant (with his emaciated & twisted physique & his head lollygagging severely) did not construct the world. Later, when causes were replaced by repetitive conjunctions, constant conjunctions - &c - as causes went, traces of this quasi-omnipotent synthesization remained. The manifest & startling absurdity of this deformed professor constructing the world puts human labour in the shade: alas, he has difficulties with the formation of organisms, saying that he cannot boast of the ‘same ability’ (sic) with respect to plants & insects: hence, Herr von Goethe comes along and solves this problem with a sort of ‘primordial insight’, one typical of a pantheon of self-elected egotists, and in one upstaging vault he clears the heads of Archimedes, Newton, Kant himself - &c - casting down mathematical physics & pure mathematics in the process. Quasi-omnipotence and grossly-false immodesty is on the march: its practical application under Napoleon results in incinerated, mutilated and hideous corpses: world-rulership, ideological or otherwise, is thought’s warp going in. Napoleon says, ‘.. an enemy’s corpse always smells good’, espousing the lyricism of a butcher’s block. This is merely putting gods under the hatchet, making them mincemeat on death’s scythe. And goddesses also, with their fair children, simultaneously f***ed and mutilated, spikes with splinters or bayonets driven up their shrieking cunts, no crime of egoism overlooked, nothing imaginable not tried in horror’s welcome domain. This is instinct’s unfettered & pleasurable beast, the love of murder raging in the fallen versus the fear of divine consequences ( .. delete the latter and I can hammer & smash my enemies, but throw Christ into the ‘equation’ and instinct wars against oneself: it hurts me more to hurt someone than be hurt myself - i.e. - this is the ‘ultimate self-f***’ here on earth, a powerlessness subscribed to by the murderously ultra-strong, by

289 proven blood-warriors, who, via the perverse logic of the divine, stand humiliated, weaponless & defeated - thus pleasing to God - before God). A fallen god can barely tolerate this constant defeat .. this negation of the energy of instinct, this subscribed-to capitulation of oneself in the earthly war against rotten bastards, psychos, amoral shit - &c - and all this so that divine love shall one day triumph in a better place: the hero, like his Master, must rise forth from unassuaged blood-lust & dissatisfied vengeance, denying his profound wish to break & slaughter his enemies. I am a man who, through the courtesy of Christ, has sat on the exalted throne of the Super-Trinity, but who, here on earth, eats Christ’s shit in a dialectic of raging hate & begrudged love ( .. thus, a victim of torn & opposed energies, awaiting death’s nullification of this awful, losing state, which rarely ceases and begins afresh daily). That this is the way is a terrible torment, which, in my case, amounts to (quite frequently) a virulent hatred of God. It is not the way of reason as in anyway understood - certainly not by fallen reason & parts of divine reason are unforthcoming as answers. The margins of sanity are tested when instincts are revoked.

I wouldn’t mind dying. The disappointment is beyond description; but then all real feeling is beyond description. I would like to hurt myself as ‘the descriptive act’, an act of individuated horror so f***ing horrible it merely reflects & redescribes (partly) the horror of my life. I weep pitifully into the night & rage worse than lunacy into the day. If this is God’s instruction & clarification, it is no wonder I hate life & its Creator. In Napoleon’s war on Russia - Smolensk, Valutino, Borodino, Mayoyaroslavets - an unknown face is perfectly blown off and lies staring from the mud. An exquisite lady on horse is amputated at the thigh by a shell whilst crossing a river, thus she strangles her angelic 4-year-old daughter & both die in the hopeless lunacy of ‘human’ action. Now the delusionally trite entrances billions & the barely passing passes hardly noticed. A cranium is lifted off by an explosion in the mouth - who cares but me? An indifferent God & overlord of slaughter? The fallen rabble with its perpetrators? Dehumanization means glazed thought and consciousness glossing over everything via barely perceptible falsehoods. The acceptance of the lie, smoothly amalgamated & unchallenged, builds into the ‘normalcy’ of predominant (perverted) ideologies, with politics as the negation of love. The superabundance of hate is subscribed to by all in negative judgment. Error is approved as genius: hence Goethe on Napoleon, ‘his life was the stride of a demi-god .. he was in a state of continual illumination .. his destiny was more brilliant than any the world had seen before him’. What can one say of such rank cretinism? Applause for the 100 million dead of Stalin & Hitler? Monuments to these filthy ogres of incineration and destruction? And God sits above it all, the scorched flesh, the burning iron, doing what? To see evil triumph in massive configuration forces

290 one to hypothesize the Almighty as a silent strategist: never showing His hand, He moves towards the ultimate riposte. The gods must believe in the battleplan. Meantime, they are on the fields of fire, the killing fields, ravaged by circling evil.

Whence the originary thought, ‘I am human’? If man is not human, then subtle consolidations & reinforcements to its contrary exist. Something ever- renewed perpetuates the ‘human chain’ & keeps it going, as if, for example, struggling with a titanic message, the Titans birth their own demise & Zeus, the slaughterer of other gods, includes himself in a pandemic annihilation. Take this slowly. The originary thought ‘I am human’ takes many copulative forms. E.g.s: (i). the originating thought originates the human sui generis (ii). thus something precedes self-creation: I am naming this ‘human’ & saying its consequence is ‘fallen human’. Again, (iii). that which calls itself ‘human’ lies: the fallen human cannot say ‘I am human’ without massive falsehood and some truth. Yes, it is true that fallen humanity maintains some exiguous remnants of humanity, mere vestiges; but it is horrendously false that fallen humanity is human. Mere humanity is human without the god. It is the god who originated ‘human = fallen human’, thus outlawing & proscribing anything beyond the human. I am saying the human is beyond the fallen human. Again considered: (iv). in Heaven a god can say ‘I am human’ and ‘god = human’; and on earth a god can say ‘I am human’, except he is no longer a god: thus, ‘not god = human’. Obviously, killing the god involves a dialectic of deific predication (v). a god negates divinity to become human & a god affirms divinity to become human: hence, the nisus is divinity, for or against. What then is divinity? A god possesses certain accoutrements e.g.s light, power, beauty, miracle, but the earthly versions of these are fallen inventions. One has to look for large inputs in the invention of man: what these inputs exclude is the divine. Approach this again from another perspective (vi). a god can take steps down from himself & shed himself, and in so doing the warp enters in as his fallen self. The fallen god is the warp of his own disinformation in a seeming-ubiquitous textuality of darkness. He reads and prints himself thus, as it were, in the nowhereness of everywhereness: thus, he can truly say, ‘If our Lord does not inform me, I am written in darkness’. The god’s nowhereness bounces off the stars hanging in emptiness - stars once playfully kept by his footstool. The gods put themselves to death, but why is this? Suicide is the rolling die of murder. It is the blatant absence of the god. Gods destroy earth-selves, directly & indirectly, and madness thereby rids itself of madness. A house divided cannot stand ( .. contra Hölderlin & Hegel, who insist such divisiveness is necessary). Death, either as suicide or murder, is a test against necessity. Death is the die cast against necessity: kill oneself and godlessness is shattered, kill

291 another and one shatters godlessness. Always the god, in every situation: affirmation or denial, one seeks penetration beyond the textuality of darkness. The posture of the Urmensch as primal or earthly or natural, this lies against the god ( .. fixed by earth it has no contrary, no supercession, no transcendent) - i.e. - an Urmensch is the breeder of a rank necessity & necessity is the ‘negator’ of godliness. Necessity is preached to necessitate staying human. Necessity is preached as links in “mind-forg’d manacles”, forged links of enslaving chains, bondage by falsification - &c - it is forced & constricted choice with a mock- impossible alternative (thus, however reduced, still a choice), which operates against any alternative reality (via misrepresentation, error, lies .. via fallen propaganda); and so by this means necessity seeks to become Almighty or the Supreme God and, indeed, since Thales ‘it is that which ruleth the whole world’. But does it? Necessity appears a difficult argument to overthrow. Why is this? Answer: necessity excludes the alternative (reality), and even a presumed negation like the ‘liberté of arbitrement’ (free arbitration) invests ‘the free’ with inextricability. Almost all fallen ideologies - philosophy abounds with them - are enslaved by necessity, accepted thereby & promulgated, as if the free cannot be found. And how can it? If, for example, freedom implies a negation of the flesh as the ultimate enslavement, necessity appears irrevocable. That is, unless there is an accessible freeing beyond, as if, for instance, S. Paul in saying ‘Am I not free, have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?’ means something along such lines. What could this be? Seeing Jesus Christ is seeing the Supreme God - it is not seeing necessity (as this does not occur necessarily) & it is not Christ’s ‘superfusion’ with an Almighty rival (as if He, like Zeus, is overruled by a potent & forcible fate). No: the seeing of Christ undoes - it unlooses the thongs, it unleashes the god - because N.B. it is the god’s will which is free, not man’s: becoming a god is the ‘negator’ of necessity. This is the alternative to low enslavement & Christ referred to this textually, Ps.82:6 ‘I have said Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes (Gm: Wohl aber ich gesagt: Ihr seid Götter, ihr alle seid Söhne des Höchsten. Doch nun sollt ihr sterben wie Menschen, sollt stürzen wie jeder der Fürsten). Those religions which deny this casting down of the gods or assert God has been seen only by, say, Moses or Mahomet, fail to recognise the gods are reconstituted in the Vision of God. This ‘of meetings the most important meeting’ is the originary platform of metamorphosis, with all the manifold & fulsome perspectives implicit in its miraculous display. There are many purported lockpicks to the heart of everything, many ill-fitting keys are handed about, but face on face with the Almighty surpasses earthly thought in again experiencing our Ancient Maker, He Who made the gods. When holy writ says, God standeth in the congregation of the mighty (Gott steht auf in der Versammlung der Götter), thus He stands Who walked in Paradise - this man is Almighty God, but, of course, a man like this & those He addresses are not semblances of the fallen.

292 To become ‘constituted back’ into Heavenly places is to find life & its Master. Some theorists deny the gods in early Jewish piety, yet their textual presence is ‘succinctly flagrant’ in such contexts (1). in Gen.1:24 God says, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Note that the earth brings forth the living creature, but it does not bring forth man. Man is not ‘classed’ as a living creature; and (2). in Gen.1:26 God says, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness etc. Here God is one God but with a multiple referent - i.e. - possessive of the gods; & Adam’s crime, in Gen.3:5, is the desire to be a god. The matrix of this narrative event, whether seen as myth or reality, turns crucially on the idea of gods. It was said of the Apostles, in Acts14:11, that the gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And Christ Himself, in Jn.10:34-35, baits His enemies with that which they ignore, viz, that they are gods - i.e. - God pronounced this in the Highest Council & God does not lie. Ignorance of this salient fact combines with confusion about the gods in other events. In Acts12:22-23, Herod is slaughtered by an angel of death when he is acclaimed a god, because ‘he gave not God the glory’. And here is the crux: as with Adam deification which is self-attempted is the crime of Heaven and earth ( .. arrogation of self-deity is arrogance of the sort that led to Heaven’s revolt against God: hence, earthly deification is seen as reflective of the prototypical deed in this rebellion: however, in giving God the glory - Who else? - deification is cleared. This was man’s intended destiny anyway, but the process was fouled until reinstated by Christ). Unfortunately, one extremely influential theorist relegated Christ’s supreme (central) act to an event after death, or, equally, after life. This theorist, Augustine of Hippo, downgraded & undid Christ’s work, thus inadvertently or otherwise, he is at one with the great heretics - i.e. - severance from direct deity and present splendour keeps ‘humans’ down & injects life with necessitous mechanism. A deterministic forum keeps the earth gripped by ‘determined thoughts’ & ‘determined being’: the power of earth is, therefore, stronger than God - a patent absurdity - but heresy is, thereby, seen for what it is: division between God in Heaven and earth. The only alternative, besides death, to this severance is deification. To bury Christ again - by earthly compulsion & material circumstance - is to deny any power to metamorphosis. Even though Augustine acknowledged deific texts, and, indeed, quite possibily approached the ‘lesser slopes’, there is no way he underwent the experience ( .. one cannot take division over the divide, the great divide, nor take Augustine’s oeuvre up to the feet of the god). To the degree that he is an ideologist committed to anti-god & the nullification of the supreme genius of God in metamorphosis, he is a subscriber to the fallen logistics of the structures of a (bogus) necessity ( .. paganism is thereby re-vamped & smuggled in & returns as an immoveable weight on the spirit: it is the return of an atheistic tenet, which says ‘pre-planning is fixed’ & it thus elides God by proxy with a variant of fate). As one can only know God by deification via the worth of becoming

293 Him, ideologies which repress deity quest for spurious power. Such religions and ideologies rule in His stead, displace Him as an entity inaccessible, absent or removed, and substitute themselves in earthly consolidations. All power structures commit this crime of usurpation: priestcraft interposes entities or fallen selves between immediate (direct) deity and Almighty God ( .. one’s own & His as deifier: hence, every relation & coordinate beneath direct vision is a skewed prolepsis or represented as existing vision when it is not). This ‘picturing in relation’ on earth is maintained by cross-referencing from earth as (i). nothing else is known but earth and (ii). substitution-instances form a totality in fallen consciousness excluding immortalization and (iii). those on whom deity is unconferred take the reins guiding divinizing fire into atavistic - territorial - battlefields as (iv). earth-thought in earth-war, killing for the spoils & division of chains, each ‘religious’ convinced their chains are the right ones. The consequences of this are (1). logomachy in ideological conflict or storms of warring words (2). the substitution of this for direct (deific) vision - i.e. - thought is for mortals (3). divinizing energies are thus ‘hung in black’ and (4). immortalization does not abound. Christ’s accusation against His ancient enemies still holds: I say ye are gods implies all of His enemies, modern also, repress godhead via the self-interest of subscription to hierarchy - power, ambition, pleasure etc - and it is this which is damnable in man, as (5). it perpetuates the rebellion against the Most High in elevating the low over Him, and (6). it substitutes idolatrous temples, a vast multiplicity of manifestly- obviously-earthly ‘churches’, insane & hideous carnivals, and so forth, in His stead. God’s ‘delegates & representatives’ on earth are invariably those who have not been up to see Him. These spokesmen - the ‘big wheels’ - are controlled controllers: they are controlled by a self-predicating necessity ( .. the necessity of staying ‘human’ & the utter falseness of entanglements & entailments thereof); and they control these entanglements & entailments as non-deifying consequences. Unfortunately - allow, as usual, my coarseness - they do not know Who they are f***ing with, where the sacred door to deity is, what consequences issue with the irratio (chaos) implicit in forced necessity & titanic inexorability, nor why the red haze of a mindless killing machine, the fallen race, negates the usual instinct of self-preservation in mutual slaughter. The fallen attempt to manipulate the fall & thus they are manipulated by it. Horror is the result; and never a day passes without it. The fact that it is blanked-off demonstrates the limits of empathy: and, of course, it is better to give than receive. Spokesmen and representatives shield the fallen from horror (unless they are intended for it). Too much reality shows vicious gods, & those determined to stay ‘human’ maintain this posture - they freely determine deceits to this end, empires, hierarchies, thoughts policed for this by innumerable means, with charm or brutality - anything, but never show the god. God said: in My Christ I am deific man - hence the God became a god and showed you the god of you. For this He was

294 murdered by vicious gods ( .. gods who raised other ‘Gods’ against Him, false ‘Gods’ & non-existent ‘Gods’, all designed to be fused & confused, meant to exclude the only true God, the only God Who can prove He is God. This sole proof is again in becoming a god, entering the sacred door, meeting the only God. There is no other way - one pays for mere belief, faith, thought about ‘God’ - He is not like that. He is like no theory which cannot take one to Him literally - not prayer, imprecation, praise, not this nor that, but getting to Him where He (not others) guides the steps. Every corruption of this process is agglomerated as the earth, with thoughts wherein and whereof, or thoughts without content. God became man so that man becomes god/God: but if this remains a vacant credal expression or is thought of as a ghastly incursion of, or a sop to, a manic caesarism, if its golden-silver, holy gleaming is not known to mortal eye, its immortalizing content is negated, obliterated by the usual surge of mass stupidity.

10.

Kant regarded natura - NbF4H - as inclusive of the appetitive and sensuous in man, with these accordingly governed or controlled by unfree mechanical laws; conversely, things in themselves, including the core of man, are necessarily thought of as free, but cannot be known as such. Man must, insists Kant, think himself free, although he cannot know himself or anything else as free. If there is an imperative, if one must think oneself free in not knowing if anything is really free, then this forced necessity elides with unfree mechanical laws to further necessitate life. Argument against this is: not knowing freedom is a way of being unfree, thus necessitated or determined by ignorance ( .. Kant’s as if free must be unfree). Hegel, in attempting to surpass Kant, thought of this ‘as if’ - als ob - correctly, as paradoxically stultifying, and this is best exemplified in his theory of the political & military aristocracy. This elite knows war occurs by necessity from the NbF4H of the state: war arises by necessity because man is not free & cannot thereby truly defend freedom: also, in peace there lurks the threat of stagnation. Whatever one makes of this theory, it rids us of the weak prop of the ‘as if’ of freedom. Hegel wishes to replace the ‘bound individuation’ in Kantianism with dialectical necessity ( .. thus, for example, he accepts as unstultifying the prima facie paradox that contingency must be a necessary moment of the Spirit): hence, necessity rides high in both schemes and, by my argument, necessity sidelines a deifying metamorphosizer, shifts & re- focuses paganistic atheism (despite the feint of a re-vamped theism), and continues Augustine’s basic error. There is an old theory (Georg Horn) that all philosophy results from Adam’s fall. Modifying this we can say: Eden is part of the god, the earthly counterpart of the god’s fall: as this is both literal & experiential and as it can, therefore, be known, the god’s fall is out of freedom into necessity. Eden, as part of the god, implies that God created Eden in the god:

295 hence, the origin of historicity (ontological & historical) is, like space & time, a falling movement. Origen, a genius of formidable intelligence, regarded this Edenic phase as part of ‘originary verticality’, literal in the movement of a god but mythical to fallen eyes. This implies that to literalize the earthly beginning is to de-god it and to fail to recognise one’s deity through it: thus, allegory, correctly understood, is a deific re-spiritualization which surpasses literalist phantasies about the earth. To invert the relationship between the literal and the allegorical in Origen’s sense ( .. deific = literal and allegorical = returning to the deific) is to consolidate the fallen perspective & to firm it out with a reality it never possessed - i.e. - for Origen divinization is the benchmark of origins & not history as seen by blind theorists operating within earthly confines. For Origen, allegorization supercedes literalism as divine return, that is, divine literalism is returned to via spiritual allegory over against fallen literalism and phantasmal allegorization. Origen thus theologizes outside the fall ( .. theologizes as a god or fully-returned man) experientially; but this is, of course, extremely threatening to fallen hierarchies of power - indeed, to hierarchies of fallen power - in that reaching godhead, or reaching Christ’s Godhead, lessens sacramental life as a means of control. I contend that ‘Origenism’ is deification as such, pure Christianity, known to all the adepts of Christ as normative (divine) life; and that against this there arose a cabal motivated by lesser goals, embedded in secularity, church politics - &c - who mounted an anti-deificational revolution & who resented a Christ beyond their control. Anti-Origenism is earthly power ‘keeping the lid on’ - thus, it is against free deification in the interests of earthly power. Its key proponents (keeping ecclesiastical history to a minimum) were Jerome & Theophilus of Alexandria: Augustine became their ‘creative’ hatchet-man, replacing free deification with historical necessity. This revolution against Christ distorted the deifying process (metamorphosis) by substitutions, inversions, relegations - &c - priestcraft thus attacked the gods, the true Christians of the deserts & hermitages, replacing them (especially in the West) by servile apparatchiks, replete with a new & innovative ideology, courtesy of Augustine. It is said the titles of fate were anciently .. unavoidable, insuperable, inflexible, and ineluctable: fate, that is, as decreed (2,`H + 20µ4) by a god, the sentence or doom of the gods, from which one cannot escape by struggle. There is no other alternative to fate but submission: submission to God is thereby submission to His ‘servants, delegates, representatives’: hence, let us make God like fate. First, let us take away anything like ‘man is an enfleshed god’ (despite Christ’s I say ye are gods) and, then, let us negate Origen’s theory of a ‘pre-mundane fall of pre-existent souls’. What is this theory? Nothing but the God’s decree ye shall die like men & fall .. i.e. Origen said that rational beings, including human souls, were once with God in Heaven - indeed, they were, I say ye are gods. Ostensibly, Augustine gives credence to this by saying, ‘As one loves, so one is. Do you love earth? Then you are earth. Do you love God? - dare I say - you are God’. However, Augustine’s

296 new theology is against deificationists. He introduces a ‘new god’ or an ‘old god’ in disguise, ineluctabilis, whilst cringing at the thought, misrepresentative though it is, of a ‘caged soul’. In reality, in place of an enfleshed god un-caged by metamorphosis, Augustine insinuates into theory a version of fate which cannot be escaped. Origen recognised Christ reversed His decree casting down divine manhood in the gods. He Himself is its negation via His own metamorphosis. Origen allows this ‘escape’, whereas Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, taken from the Donatists, couples manhood with iron-clad necessities. Anterior bondage, with its choking cords & clamps, infiltrates everything: history is converted to the fall of man from man, the peccatum originale is introduced as immovable, God is taken to be inexorable, each ‘soul’ is made individually for each body at birth, and so forth. Augustine’s revolution against previous divine theophany is shadowed against power struggles, in Rome, in Egypt, and, like Kant long after him, inherited ignorance is bequeathed via necessitous propogation, mechanical transmission & the inevitability of a fixed ‘human’ condition. Augustine kills any spiritual adventure and overrules the spiritual conquest of space & time. He refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a rescinded 2XFN"J@<, the divine decree, as, with the predestinate, there is nothing one can do about it. There is only µ@ÃD", a bitch of destiny, goddess of tragic necessity, whose presence is the contra-posit of deification. And look at what Augustine negates: as the deified pass through the living portals of death, accoutred gods, energized in glory, death and life is neither fallen: matter is transfigured & emblazoned: also the flesh is rendered eternal delight in the true life of ecstacy: God overthrows all the contrived structures of earth, perduration and the saddled, the grim yoke of ‘involuntary dimensions’ in evil & suffering: generation after generation of bone & blood is unentrenched and disbanded: mortality, that vehicle of tragic necessity, is no longer a ‘self-manifestation’ of a Providence - Hegel’s Weltgeist - using unsuspecting or powerless men for its ends; it is not the ‘march of God’ in the world & it is not the seeming transcendence of the human by the divine reduced to fallen experience: rather, it is the return of solitary heroism - N.B. there are no heroes or villians in Greek tragedy, nor in an unwilled and enforcing finitude - a heroism struggling out of matrices of lies, compromises, expediences & embodied contradictions; and it is the hero struggling up against ‘gravity’ (gravitas) or the elected weight of a self- imposed ontological burden: it is breaking free from the progressive criminal lunacy involved in trading pain (pain is always a felt want): and it is accessing the pure divine over against the grey monochrome of earth.

297 11.

Let us ask the question: was William Blake mad? And answer it, first, via a list of propositions and, second, with explications thereby: (i). madness is of pandemic disproportion amongst the fallen ( .. it listeth where it will as a noxious plague vapour of pestiferous repute), fearful and feared, with unanswered and unanswerable foundations: whither the corrosive blight of earthly madness? (ii). Hegel argues, with Aristotle, that everything comes-to-be & passes-away, but coming-to-be & passing-away do not themselves come-to-be or pass-away: this is true of madness as a repressed universal (iii). this universal is only generalised (by the fallen) as a shunned particular - hence the ‘case history’ as a means of exclusion & distance (iv). ostensibly Blake used the rhetoric of a Protestant apocalypse: if Protestantism is saturated with madness, then so is Blake; and if Blake is not a Protestant, what was he? How does he differ from all earthly madmen, when the fallen are viciously entangled in madness? But then I have already suggested the answer. Blake’s exhibition of 1809 received one review, in the Examiner by R. Hunt, who described him as an ‘unfortunate lunatic whose personal inoffensiveness secures him from confinement’ & whose artistic catalogue is a ‘farrago of nonsense, unintelligibleness and egregious vanity, the wild effusions of a distempered brain’. As a 17 yr old living in the gutters of Lambeth, I hunted down the premises of Blake’s exhibition in homage to this great genius; and, unknowingly, worked a stone’s throw from his dwelling off the Strand (near where Dickens worked in the blacking factory). I ran a small bookshop 50 yards equidistant between Blake’s last dwelling & the place where a destitute Dickens bought penny pies behind S. Martins in the Field. The lockpick to Blake’s magnificent oeuvre is not difficult to state: to understand it tho’ is difficult. This is the man who asserted, ‘I have travelled thru’ perils & darkness not unlike a champion’ - i.e. - like Nietzsche’s dangerous terrain of a genius in struggle - the man who declared, rightly, that nothing can withstand the fury of my cause among the stars of God & in the abysses of the accuser. So much for criticism by pallid excrescences, masters of nothing. Blake loathed the pagan Greeks because they were not visionaries & he would have violently disagreed with the view forwarded by Hegel, so: when philosophy paints its grey mono-chrome, some shape of life has grown old, and it cannot by this unrelieved grey be made young again, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes wing only as the twilight falls. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle rose to grasp in the greyness of thought the shape of Greek life grown old. Hegel, obviously, intends this stricture against ancient philosophy, and, ultimately, his criticism includes all philosophy other than his own. Hegel ends on a contradiction: on the one hand, ‘thus far has consciousness reached’, implying continuity; and, on the other, ‘the Christian - sic, Protestant/post-Augustinian/post-Lutheran - world is the world of completion’, implying the ‘end of the days’ is come. Hegel says quite specifically, The Idea

298 can find no demand of Spirit unsatisfied in Protestant Christianity. Blake would reply that natura-NbF4H - Nature writ large - is the work of the Devil and that (v). one requires penetration beyond the earth’s appearance of Spirit to the reality of Spirit, in that (vi): the visionary seer is a gnostic impossibility in the atheism of the Protestant heresy - i.e. - that Augustinianism is pagan Greek philosophy, perpetuated by Luther & Calvin, and that it is therefore locked & locked-in earth. But what then is this visionary capacity? Hegel’s God is under his feet as conquered: Hegel’s Lutheranism is - via the absolute necessity of diremption - unspiritually & anti-deificationally akin to this un-pictured God. Blake supercedes Augustine, Luther & Hegel because he is a deificationist, albeit a minor one, thus a true Christian gnostic & a possessor of living dogma ( .. in the sense of S. Basil of Caesarea, dogma as secret, spiritual teaching by God). Blake is the insider as outsider, when all the fallen are outsiders. But what then of Blake’s art? First tho’, a minor preamble on visionary art: (a). the artistic picturing of God, inclusive of god and man, is whitewashed by non-visionaries (b). Protestantism blanks out deific & spiritual colour, thus it negates visual aid (& succour) with a white fading to a grey monochrome, nordic snow to slush: this is therefore an anti-god antithesis against iconic glory, which (c). operates by sacred energies penetrating the lower (material) energies of earth; hence (d). the picturing of God is not equated with graven (fallen) images, but with the restitution of sacred (unfallen & holy) images. It is this fecundity of energies which Blake engraved & illustrated. Blake knew that when flesh rots we still see: thus before mortality ceases, it is possible for the immortal god to see thru’ mortal eyes. The god seeing thru’ penetrates the deadly curtain of earth; and what Blake’s genius saw thru’ was the grey monochrome of heretical philosophy. Blake saw thru’ the detestable eunuch filth of Augustine and Jerome, these castrati of self-election & darkeners of Christ, who via a vile necessitarian creed allowed the sufferings of children to point to their guilt, God thus using abusers, paedophiles, rapists, murderers and other demonic shit as instruments in His great design or plan, inscrutable & ogr(e)ish, a towering fiend who looks exactly like Satan. What Blake put into place, in song and picture, was the restitution of innocence - remember its slaughter at the birth of Christ? - innocence denied (thus innocence corrupted) by the black vision of Augustinian consequences, by the synod at Dort, by the masturbating ‘eunuchs & celibates’ of the priesthood: hence, Blake asserted divine sexuality growing from such reconstituted (recognised) innocence, a sexuality elevated in life’s art by an ‘incongruous similitude’ with Heavenly love - i.e. - as the gods & goddesses make love in ecstatic holiness. What Blake opposed was the dark, sexual f***-up of groaning earth, with Jerome hierarchizing himself, in reality the patron-saint of paedophiles, accusing Origen of his own crime, self-castration, tho’ symbolically (still allowing a twisted & insane penis a miserable life & losing battles), and it is this opposition which illustrates his ‘madness’. Blake is no anthropomorphite:

299 but whence anthropomorphitism? And what part is played in this by the figure .. by the depiction of human flesh? In religious painting the nullification of deific energy is accomplished in the high renaissance. The figure of God is symbolized - say, by a specific nimbus on Christ as in previous icons - as in the ‘form of a man’. Humanist art began with Giotto & Cimabue, peaked with Leonardo, Michelangelo & Raphael, and resulted in the blatant fleshliness of Caravaggio. What is at issue here is divine picturing .. and, thus, how God is imaged. If God is depicted as a singular man, marks of deity usually differentiate Him from other men: as it is impossible to ‘picture, image and depict’ God, God is misrepresented amongst the fallen: this is anthropomorphism ( .. the subtlety must be picked up on here .. anthropomorphitism is the mistaken belief that Christ’s earthly manhood remained fixed, that it did not undergo metamorphosis, and so forth: anthropomorphism is merely ‘taking the form of a man’, hence this can be, incorrectly, anthropomorphite or, correctly, ‘divinity taking the form of a man’). In art these definitions cut across the status of the artifact - its material - as a means of metamorphic transmission: the picturing of fallen humanity is, if it is itself fallen, unworthy of spiritual glorification; on the other hand, the picturing of true humanity is, if unfallingly depicted, a means whereby sanity becomes visible. Art is ‘as roundly known’ a focus of the war between madness and its elimination: ‘getting it wrong’, whether in the lyricism of tempera or the ‘material of thought’, has spiritual consequences. The artifact in general mirrors consciousness, deific or mad; the material object injects and is injected by consciousness, deific or mad. God does not ratify or shine on a lack of truth in art. All art is a measure of theophany: madness and its negation are energies centred there: so, for example, if we (briefly) consider poetics in the work of Hölderlin, his status is totally involved via consciousness .. where the consciousness is theo-ontologically, where ‘light manifest’ stands in relation to this consciousness & how his madness relates to his artistry. An aside on Hölderlin then. This poet denigrated Christ in regarding Him as a god interwined with Dionysus (Nietzsche, obviously, varied this source), a god in essence dark who ended the revel of Greek daylight, a darkener who substituted something else less in place. The theorist of Greek art, Winckelmann, an influence on Hölderlin, asserted the perfectionism of pagan Athens & suggested thereby degeneration inevitably follows. To Hölderlin a restitution of Athenian glory was realistically impossible: hence, what to do? Allowing this to suffice as the briefest of depictions of Hölderlin’s foundations, his position can demonstrate, from the above perspective, severe tensions. Christianity is seen, and with this I agree, as the torpor of Germanic darkness, as its lengthening shadow & as the symbol of detribalization .. once a wildness, now purportively tame, established by a coercive world-view, Germanic darkness required something else more for its elimination, namely, a new God or new gods, the new gods of German

300 Idealism. I have argued that the darkness ushered in was pagan Protestantism, with this totally matching pagan Catholicism, in that the nullification of deification resides in the godlessness of pagan norms. Greek gods are ‘pretend gods’ like men, subject to necessity, and such gods cannot make men into gods. The deranged paradox of Hölderlin’s life is his ‘felt want’ of a pagan ideal, when, in reality, he possessed a pagan ideal ( .. there is a barbaric affinity between ancient Greece & large sections of Germanic history in the impetus towards savage conquest), and no resurrection of the fallen by the fallen satisfies. No artistic identity is possible, no identity in general suffices, unless •B@2XTF4H is delivered as a literal occurrence ( .. the gods must begin their return from on earth, because that is where consciousness now situates itself). There are two types of madness, actual and potential; and the actual has the potential to get much worse: it invariably does. If the gods insist in being locked down, they must bear the consequences. Christ was thought mad: ‘before Abraham was, I am’ literally means (i). assertion of deity (ii). thus His paramount crime, that is, N.B. in conjunction with proving it (iii). with the obvious rider of pre-earthly existence, which raises the question (iv). was He pre-earthly by Himself? Augustinianism, and the darkness it gave rise to, is a means of forbidding & outlawing pre-earthliness; but this is precisely where deification takes one to as a brother or sister of God. If Hölderlin had not equated Protestantism (or Romanism, its father) with Christianity, and if Hölderlin had not sought the ‘evening star’, XFBXD@H, in the allegedly equal dispensations of Dionysus and Christ, to the detriment of the latter, and so to himself, and if Hölderlin had investigated Christian Athens, which was never conquered spiritually by the black troops of Jerome & Augustine, with their god a combination of ‘caesarism & berber moloch’, perhaps he would have observed the dawn of Heaven blasting horizons with the only true dispensation of deity rising: because it is this which William Blake saw out of Jerusalem, pre-Augustine, shining thru’ to London, the real Christ in a seer’s holy images, allowed by visionary & immortalizing eyes penetration beyond mere clay, which, despite the perishing of all artifacts, lives as godly energy animating all that is good and beautiful. That Blake’s education was erratic, amidst the blind corners of dissent, amongst apocalyptic frothing, idiosyncratic as isolated genius is, it is still pure deity taking mighty wing & rising; and it is this which is sanity up with the gods.

12.

Hegel criticised the natura of Schelling as ‘petrified Spirit’, trying to overcome this by animating objects: ‘objects (things) are living selves’, ‘the object is a living self-consciousness’, ‘a self-consciousness, in being an object, is just as much a self as a thing’. This ‘sublated animism’ folds back false deity into life & any ‘supersensible world’ behind phenomena is transformed within

301 the phenomenon. As the ‘supersensible’ is empty, living things are needed to “fill” the earth: necessarily, therefore, man is included amongst living things. Behind this array of nonsense lies Hegel’s real master (not Valentinus or Eckhardt or di Fiore, but Sabellius). Sabellius’ doctrine of B8VJLFµ`H, or ontic dilation, extends an undifferentiated (universal) monad into two operations out of one essence ( .. ‘the Spirit’ is the final mode of expression, superceding both ‘father’ and ‘son’ - i.e. Hegel’s ‘being’ and ‘essence’ - thus, di Fiore is also a Sabellian, tho’ he emphasized the historicity of the final mode). Given this starting-block Hegel must consider man amidst (falsely) deified objects: he is a material artifact but artifacts are alive. Unless Christians realise this affinity, nay, identity, with things, they are separate from God. There is no surfeit that is transcendent as transcendence is, so viewed, separation & an impossible hankering after something “beyond” (his legacy from Kant & Hölderlin). But Hegel is contradictory on this point, thinking (a). only his philosophy, in contradistinction to Christianity, posits self-deity, or identity between God and man, thus: ‘unhappy consciousness is the gazing of one self-consciousness into another, and itself is both, and the unity of both is also its essential nature. But it is not as yet explicitly aware this is its essential nature, or that it is the unity of both’. Thus Hegel is saying (that) explicit awareness of ‘affinity with the thing’, the union with thinghood, is the path of self-deity; and, furthermore, (that) Christianity lacks this explicit awareness & remains, thereby, separate from its ‘thing God’. By ‘Christianity’ Hegel usually means ‘Protestantism’, but even this cannot be re-constituted as anything coherent with such an addition. Protestantism is Augustine’s direct legacy (an abortion, but not the child’s fault), and Hegel tries to supply it with deification, alas, falsely. But worse (b). Hegel asserts another ‘such form’ of deification, also false, accessed by ‘Christianity’ so: ‘God is sensuously & directly beheld as a self, as an actual individuated man. The object of consciousness is the self, but this is nothing alien; rather, it is the indissoluble unity of itself. The divine nature is the same as the human - N.B. monophysitism here - and it is this unity which is beheld’. Behold, a flagrant contradiction: one impossible to sublate away. The Ancient of days is here growing with the world. No wonder Goethe invited Hegel to dine: two old pagan shysters together, add Kant et al, a nasty & crafty league begins to burgeon, in union with every thing; and notice how Almighty God is ‘sensuously & directly’ beheld in fallen man, which, as something denied vehemently by Luther, is as if a messianic Hegel gives back the gift of sight to Protestantism. No, confusion layers confusion, and it is incorrectly anthropomorphite. Blake, on the other hand, pictured divine lineaments by the energy of the line: what penetrates (literally) beyond the line is energy: hence the artist delineates as a divine seer if (& only if) he is divine. Blake had the vision of seeing beyond things (not simply ‘deeper than’), the vision of ‘capturing beyond earth’ in (divinely) earthly terms: this is true genius & genius not beguiled by either the embourgeoisment

302 of thought or sights other than the Divine Man - hence a poor Christian, who drew by prayer the sweet tumult of Christ’s living theophanies. True art goes from god to god, not from rich bourgeois to blind connoisseur. Blake possessed the imago Dei in ‘the images of imagination’ ( .. not Einbildungskraft or fallen images in synthetic configuration), but the imago receiving living divinity from beyond the perspectives of space-time. Energy, Blake knew, does not cascade in broad masses (hence his vilification of Titian and Rembrant and others): energy, purely & deifically perceived, is God’s increate play, and any artist who has not experienced this ‘in-spiriting shuttle’ - words cannot describe or word such awesome beauty - is not creative. Such ecstatic line in multi-abundance cannot be imitated ( .. it is the ‘many-fold unique’ of the mysterium magnum issuing): rather, it is synergized or collaborational - thus two way - increativity, the •((X0H\" mobile in the holiness of art. This is the stamp of Blake almost everywhere & his mysticism, almost universally misunderstood, is not some evanescent apparition - Kant’s “spirit” - or sensuous divestment: no, it is the raging Spirit of glory & innocence glorifying victorious genius in unutterable register. It is ‘getting there’ .. first, seeing thru’ the eyes of Paradise as its sine qua non, and, then, as flesh becomes transparent, it is the ‘supernumerary guest’ of the god realised, in thunderous magnitude, specially summoned via ¦B\680F4H & torrentially whirling winds of delightfully mystic beauty. This it is that Blake uniquely, idiosyncratically (properly understood) & divinely depicted as his, courtesy of Almighty God, by a command of execution of unsurpassing excellence, theirs, thus putting to shame the low erasure and subsequent death of divine art by Protestant zealots. The divine must be seen: as every alley of darkness cross-references another, none reference the sacred door. Blake threw what is holy before dogs & was savaged for it. His enemies either erased flesh in whitewashing ‘obscenity’ or emphasized its broad masses along with Rubens: either way the ‘lower flanks’ of the fall - its sinfulness - remain predominant; and Blake, with typical astuteness, considered the browning of varnishes on oil as a degenerative earthing. What is never noticed with Blake is his outright depiction, his divine imaging, of real celestial beings as they appear in the deific process. Naturalism is abhorrent to Blake because spirit animated to its lowest degree is the world & the world is dead spirit: hence, it is vitally necessary to erase the ‘dead thing’, to eliminate the fallen phenomenon, so that the energy behind this appearance is deifically released. Hegel sees the supersensible behind phenomena transformed within the phenomenon ( .. the supersensible is then ‘thinging itself’ - thingizing itself - in a manner similar to Aristotelian universals entering particulars): thus Hegel, in name an advocate of Luther, restores Aristotle against whom Luther, with vehement detestation, rebelled in the first place. Hamann, the ‘German Blake’, regarded the negation of ‘transcendence outside the world’ - restated by Kant as an Aristotelian pagan norm & fully ‘kitted out’ by Hegel as ‘transcendence inside the world’ - as “near to demonology” in its deification of things. Blake’s retort to idealism of this sort

303 was to illustrate illuminated supersensibles, men, passing beyond, with ‘thingness’ shattered by holy energy ( .. hence, for Blake, men are practising deception in not living the ‘human form divine’ & they are tethered by the opacities of mass, earth earthing itself, enslaving themselves to pharoah, caesar & Satan by a diversification of means). Blake’s virtual overemphasis on ‘man’, opening him to the liabilities of humanist misunderstanding (thru’ a commonality of terms & wrong, critical reference), is fervently counter-balanced in his art by literal expressions & accurate elevations ( .. say, as in ‘my eyes ... continue expanding, the Heavens commanding; till the jewels of light, Heavenly men beaming bright, appear’d as One Man’), elevations experienced as such, and not in some alleged ‘aethereal entrancement of thought’, slanted by criticism towards places never visited by him to vacate. The fragmentation of Blake’s oeuvre is a riposte against ‘ratioed linearity’ in mass - against fallen solidification as a simulacrum of the metamorphosizing process. Blake’s knows fleshly solidity is a barrier against belief in this miraculous happening: thus, he draws up men as he draws up linear mentality into God’s ecstatic mobility: ¦6-stacy is the ‘outside and far away’ of the FJVF4H or place of solidification: mass is recessive when it is transparent & the imago or god is dominant in pure colour far away from earth. Traditional iconography used the deific artifact primarily for transmission, but Blake (isolated precisely at this point, thus culturally alone) struggled to lance the living corpse of renaissance humanism individually. The traditional icon, thru’ the particular anonymity of ‘divinized enclosure’ in the artist, thru’ his privacy - the Ç*4@H or one’s owness of divine perspective - inverted the linearity of earthly forms symbolised by space, inverted this linearity as a negation of preponderant masses, as these are made to retreat by sacred material. The renaissance, a perfidious misnomer like the ‘Aufklärung’, is, on the contrary, the ‘measure (ratio) of earth’ ((−-ometry or the province of the (0(,

304 13.

With the divine Blake true intelligence is complex. We immediately enter a genius realm of ‘questions of picturing God & theories of creativity’. The fundamentals of all expression are here, thereby, unfixed, turned over or examined. We must briefly outline the preliminaries of debate (a). only Almighty God creates (b). nothing comes out of nothing hence the eternal creation ‘was not’ (c). as absolute nothing is impossible, the relative nothing of the eternal creation is from and out of God (d). thus, pre-temporally, God decreed the immortal birthing of the gods & goddesses (not gendered in flesh but embodied as divine illuminations negating the ‘nothings they were’): hence (e). Almighty God creates ‘some from none’ - not things these gods, but the elected other - N.B. this only elect is not a fallen configuration, but God’s immortals - so, naturally, the question remains as to whether these entities can create. Is there some way they co-create? And co-create what? A man or artist who puts together materials of earth or paint or wood is not a creator. Material is already there: it is arranged or rearranged, with excellence or not. Whence its origin? Fallen matter originates elsewhere, not in or thru’ itself ( .. material self-creation is an abominable stupidity): thus, theories imaging this origination fail; however, the fall of immortals relates to both origin and matter. One climbs into illumination to know its origin: one sources the only creator as His immortal: this is the deific imago, the god, who can be voluntarily fixed by matter (as the god materialises). As this god reflects the Almighty, his increate reflection mirrors freely creating divine energy. This is, so to speak, the voyage from relative nothing (not being) to the face of God. In the divine the Almighty Himself does not require this voyage: He is the initiator of the eternal creation and its continuity, bringer of immortals into His imago & identity of Jesus Christ Almighty: hence, God shares His glory & truth & beauty according to the desires of His perfect & innocent kin. Surely these beloved please Him in Heaven by immaculate contributions .. by their powers of creativity? We are pleased to make man in our image; and this Heavenly self contribution even percolates down to the gods in desolation .. humans, so named, inhabiting the collapse of a once mighty splendour, negating the risen art of creativity by ‘voidism’ ( .. see Protestant humans enter the void of sanitorium & padded-cell & church, this imago denied, etiolated in harsh thought and condemnations against divinizing forces, art destroyed by a corrosive, vicious and ignorant heresy, thru’ the attentuated whiteness of a misperceived, classical pagan norm). What then of picturing God? As fallen material is solidified (fixed) energy, energy must be used for its reversal. Traditional iconography inverts perspective by cancellation, draws its negation into a golden ground & awaits deific effusion. Divine energy sacralizes materiality, raises it, and transfigures sight: thus forgotten immortalization returns. Figure is suggestibly ‘higher human’ as Greek-Byzantine-Russian-&c paintings declare: on the other hand,

305 Anglo-Protestantism is associated with a drabness of interior, with a dull, off- white blandness, signalling God’s absence; and resentment & enmity is expressed by this elimination of glory. Doctrine says glory in life is impossible, so take up the brush against art. Whence this decline & when did ‘Byzantinism’ or deific art decline in the west? Byzantine art declined paradoxically thru’ the rise of painted Gothic. Cimabue worked in the ‘Greek style’ but, reputedly, moved towards humanism: if true this subverts iconography by ‘naturalism’ & ‘realism’, or by forms of innovation interfering with the deifying process. His immediate contemporary, Duccio, whose ‘exquisite adaptation’ of the Greek style fused with ‘more lifelikeness’, continued to spread natural ‘radiance’. The Rucellai Madonna of Duccio is also attributed to Cimabue, but human feeling begins to take over exactness in theology: action to fallen ritual gradually supplants the action of deity. At the same time international Gothic exerted a further move away from iconographic power & substituted the representation of miracle for the event itself. In Byzantine art the energy of the Holy Ghost unfixes matter, hence an icon radiates movement ( .. matter dematerializes as the increate overwhelms the thingness of earthly material): thus, there is a divine saturation which overrides ornamentation, stylization, manner and the configurations of perspectival mass. The lines of colour, however, begin the articulation of radiant movement ( .. line effuses the joined glory of Christ Almighty or Artist Supreme & artistry in lovers of a ‘becoming perfection’, those who like art immaculate, as the very <@ØH ¦< ¦

306 is the drop from this ‘increate reflexivity’, from Heaven & not from an earthly, material Eden: it is Augustine & Jerome who failed to see ‘creation as above’ & who materialized ‘creation as below’: rather, it is the god’s fall which warps itself into materialization & it is Eden which symbolizes the materialization of the divine - i.e. - as the god falls down he ‘creates the through’ & Eden is thus part of his falling self: hence, all ‘material pre-history’ is literally a fossilization of the god’s spiritual energies: the fallen god materializes as other & the chief mistake of ‘literalists & creationists’ is a failure to see the god); but this small step is a salto mortale of the worst type. The idea that man is a caged god, attributed to the later Platonici, is implicit in Christ’s teaching & thus in Christ Who was there when some of Heaven fell. The expressions of Christian art divide specifically on this point - in fact, all art divides here: art is either in-god-ing (in-spiriting) or not, and inspiration is the Spirit spiriting or energizing: hence, invisible energy means the god is absent & when the god is present energy is visible. What, then, is the consequence of this? It implies literally that if the artist is not an energetic seer (if the man isn’t), god-less materiality stands forth. Iconoclasm is the seeing of Almighty God as ‘idolatrous’, when, in reality, not seeing God is the idol. In not seeing God, a substitution is made. Iconography relies on visionary capacity to test similitude. The icon effuses similarity (not identity) by incongruous imaging, thus the artifact is a ‘metamorphic becoming’. When this is replaced by expressions of the fall, by the dilation of the merely human, substitution blocks a proliferation of images sourcing the image (Blake’s ‘one divine man’). Hence, however stupendous the impact from fallen images, say, by da Fabriano’s Adoration of the Magi or van Eyck’s Last Judgment or Memling’s S. John on Patmos, and so forth, in the light of world aesthetics ‘enlightenment’ is from the pagan NbF4H of thinghood or the artifice of nature. I once stood before the Vienna Bosch, which displays pulverizing atmospherics & an awesome force of terribilità, and, during the stunning by a ferocious sublimity and its delights, there was no penetration beyond the colossal orders of earth. Whether one considers ‘middle’ Gothic in Martin Schongauer or the northern renaissance in Mathis Grünewald, earth still grips vision. This decline in iconography is thus ringed by alternative theological expressions & the messages of religious propaganda (touting limbo & the papal eucharist & Aquinas levitating). Even the ceiling in the Sistine chapel illustrates the dynamics of heresy, an impetus towards whitewashing, whereas the Last Judgment shadows Lutheranism via Augustine & Jerome. Flesh is everywhere dominant as the negation of the divine body, and this is precisely because ‘seeing’, or its lack, damps down the latter thru’ substitution. Heresy does not allow metamorphosis & God does not allow heretics metamorphosis. Luther regarded Grünewald’s art as idolatrous - indeed, in blocking deification it is - but, as a heretic himself, Luther cast aside the increate imaging of iconography as a ‘grafan’ image ( .. this is Wyclif’s ‘thow shalt not mak to

307 thee grauen thing or ymage’, in which the engraving is supposed, like humans, to be complete & thus not capable of admission into a completing deific process, a process which infuses increate activity into materiality). I contend that Blake’s engraving is a hybridization out of fallen imaging by combining divinization and phantasy: it is, so to speak, ‘half deific & half fallen’. It is impossible to picture God but the traditional icon morphs divine energy: Blake, with vast intelligence, morphs divine phantasy. I think the hybrid fragmentation of Blake’s work, its incompleteness, is the attempt of great genius to exhibit deific sublimity - it is an attempt to (literally) ‘go beyond’, as he theoretically goes beyond Dionysius Longinus, Kant & Edmund Burke. In Blake’s art it is God Who adds the praise in the in-spiriting theophany of matter: the artist executes design with this material. Blake’s astounding linearity of colour betrays Winkelmann’s classical injunctions ( .. Blake must have known Winkelmann thru’ his friend Henry Fuseli’s translation - Johann Heinrich Füssli originally - and quite possibly recognized ‘edle Einfalt und stille Größe’, noble simplicity and calm grandeur, as a fiction attributed to the pagan Greeks: the Parthenon is bleached by degenerative time & once Athena was gilded & painted more than any Babylonian whore: thus, the greatest of all pagan temples, in praising the ‘wrong gods as other’, inadvertently stands as a symbol for a fallen race. Only the temple of Solomon is comparable in this respect). I think also that Blake’s physical stature as a small man gave rise to a ‘large auditorium’, extravagance & exaggeration as a means, the ‘game of large claims & a testing’, which his vast intelligence knew it could surpass. To claim skills in line with those of the order of Michelangelo & Raphael (this from an unknown nobody) is the delight of proving it, as it says ‘I too am a god of artistry, creating myself in Christ’s splendour’: hence, as a visionary artist penetrating deity, Blake is superior to these harbingers of humanism, fixing a system based on the caesaro-papism of a fleshly successor to Christ Himself, in which art is advertisement & mere fallen glorification keeping other fallen individuals under control. This control, with art in its service, subordinate & thus enslaving, is broken by deification: what needs the god from pope or imperator, patriarch or patron - etc - when he rises to be God in release to completed innocence (his innocence, contra Protestantism, embryonic now on the platform of earth), a completed innocence seeing the aboundings of plenitudes beyond description & beyond lower expression? Icons are named workers of miracle & wonder because that is what true love sees. The bovine mass of Blake’s day was a Polyphemus after Ulysses: even the one eye was not singular enough to recognize the ‘genius pulsations & flashings’ of real Christendom. The elimination of church art by renderings of chalk quarried from deadly boneyards, its bland nono-chrome spiritlessness, is sufficient persuasion against the delights of God, and the mausoleum overtakes with bleached rectitude centres of immaculate excellence & highest art which the gods would name churches. Christ deific, ever-miraculous is, thereby, replaced by unspirit & anti-god &

308 multi-variegated darknesses posing as light - this, this instead of places celebrating the wondrous theophanies & mystic outpourings of the eternalizing genius of the Holy Ghost.

309 Communications to Dr E.

1. I think it is essential in any decipherment of the radicalized ontology which Christ delivered to be aware first and foremost of two crucial points (i). He is God now and thus delivers (ii). it is impossible to understand the ‘intrinsicality of formulae’ without having experienced or become them - specific formulae signify participation in transcendent metamorphy (hence, the formulae themselves significantly participate, as ‘morphs’, in transcendence), and thus they were written by true divines and-or gods and-or by those who penetrated higher realities. Hence cautionary hints along the lines of ‘throw not what is holy before dogs, lest they turn and rend thee’ (unless one wants them to choke); or with a mind towards S. Basil’s definition of dogma as Christ’s secret teaching).

2. Consequently, to my mind heathen philosophers are almost inevitably proscribed or ‘put outside’, not only because they symbolize ‘not being inside divine realms’, but also because enmeshment with their formulae can generate pernicious results and-or entanglements which negate metamorphosis ( .. in this I am thinking specifically of Aristotle and his ideological offspring - e.g. - Goethe, who claimed only to see ‘divine being’ in rebus particularibus). I assert ‘they did not know’, and thus to me it is manifestly obvious that Apostolic orthodoxy is characterised by degrees of ‘participability’ and penetration in & into the only reality of the Vision of God. Thus, one measures the ‘where-at-ness’ of divines, philosophers, heretics, humans ... by recourse to transcendent empiricism, or according to what they can shew forth of the Most Holy Super- Trinity. Origen, for example, is to my knowledge the first human to actually mention the Super-Trinity and, therefore, one should look at his speculative formulae from that stance. True formulae are, like humans, metamorphs variable from above as living entities, if only because Almighty God is ‘thinking alive’ ...

3. A formula alive in the mouth of one man is ‘differently connoted’ in the mouth of another ( .. a deindividuated human is radically & deifically different from a mere human). Take Athanasius, whose mia phusis is networked over & against its use by Apollinaris, if only because the former is taking it from ascents into Heavenly places, whilst the latter attempts formulaic constructivism via chronological-philological analysis, ‘horizontal systematics’, secular intellectualism, and so forth. Scholarship regarding Athanasius ‘contra Apollinarum’ is usually dogged by internal and-or “dogmatic” suppositions which interfere with pure metamorphic elements meant to access the Athanasian formulae on the perpendicular. True formulae are proved by the opening of

310 Deity, because Deity will remain closed to falsehood. It is better that one should explicate the Athanasian texts via his exposition, rather than subscribe to scholarly interpretations most of which are ‘lowerings presuming upward projection or equality’. True formulaic configurations are ratified by God thru’ the power of the divinizing light they emit.

4. So take, for example, your mention of o Logos egeneto sarx, which you seem to envisage primarily as a grammatical entity, in which you regard sarx not as a direct object but as a complementary predicate (with gignomai as intransitive). To begin to understand this it is essential that the composites of Athanasius’ deific formulae are referenced: thus, the subject of the Incarnation is the Logos of God, and not an incomplete human ‘person’ ( .. obviously because ‘hypostases define personhood’ and ‘humans are not hypostases’). Now if we simply argue in Aristotelian fashion, via the logic of terms, immediate problems ensue, viz, the complement suggests ‘identity in or of the subject’ and- or ‘the subject becomes what it itself essentially is’ (producing a tension between ‘becoming’ and ‘is-ness’) and-or ‘the subject’s becoming somehow includes sarx’, with the question left open as to whether this is ‘complete’ or ‘incomplete’. On the other hand, Athanasius understood the Incarnation as involving a soma, which is identical to the Johannine sarx and the Pauline morphe doulou, so I would argue immediately that the subject we are dealing with here radicalizes the standard features of Gk. intransitive verbs, whose ‘actions do not affect anything besides the subject of the verb’. One could argue that sarx is not a thing (contra ‘behavioural modes’ and ideas of ‘objectified thinghood’), if only to subvert the vastly prevalent presuppositions almost unconsciously imbibed by masses of fallen humans; but it is probably better to indicate that metamorphy is inherent in the subject’s becoming - as an ontological dynamic ‘gignomai’ signifies the ‘assumed body’. This ‘flesh’ or this ‘body’ is rendered complete because it undergoes the process of deific metamorphosis as it exists in God. Obviously, the mere confines implicit in the extrinsic-intrinsic redoubts of the ‘higher grammar’ cannot sufficiently indicate what is involved in this ‘assumption’, because what is required for a complete rendition is the theoretical completion of the theoretician via a ‘like- process’. I cannot insist too strongly that if one ‘interfaces’ with theo- anthropological formulae by abstraction, then their meaning is rendered partial by the incompletion of one’s own flesh. Anyway, having hopefully clarified my approach (as above), there are certain things I should specifically point out to you, most of which are purely personal. I walked away from Patristic & Byzantine Scholarship for several ‘reasons’: contempt and disgust for & with its political-ecclesiastical practicioners, especially vis-à-vis their backstabbing ambitions: a recognition of the futility implicit in the hope of finding like-minds: the realization that scholarly minutiae drastically failed to shew the revolutionary brilliance in Christ’s thought: discontent with the reactionary-secular (bourgeois)

311 administration: and so forth. (They could not see me: it takes an angelic or deific eye: otherwise, one is ‘squeezed in’ by lowered projections and their terms: however, at the heart of all this is a singular argument, namely, as the Vision of God is given kat’ axion, then my being found unworthy by academia indicts the latter). Not only have I been to Heaven, I have also entered into Heaven, having met Christ Almighty face to face. For actually telling the truth about these remarkable occurrences, I was reviled like a leper by those purporting to represent my Master, a “genius but insane”, as if visionaries and those whom God is pleased to reveal His magnificence and immaculate goodness are schizophrenic and-or other types of lunatic. I have not read theology per se for many years, and my Greek is largely eroded; but that is not to say I do not ascend, and if anything my penetrations of the divine have become more powerful. My present intent is to write in ways markedly different from my former ‘technicalese’. The 2 papers you have seen, if correctly understood, give sufficient information to access one’s psyche to God Himself, as I do not speak there in abstracto as heretics do. I am still intensely interested in ‘deification in history’, but the modes of expression in use in my writings are contrived to be utterly outrageous, experimental and different, because I intend to make mutant humans listen by other means. As Marx, Lenin, Hitler and other perverse garbage can change the lives of millions (for the worse) by the written word, I intend to get my shot in for the better, even if this means ‘coming thru’ a seemingly different message’ - a scarlet thread to a golden centre - one so extremist and alarming, that it will cause fear in the common mind. Hence, I intend to take the ‘pet loves’ of fallen-kind - lies, delusions, half- truths - and analyse them, and thus so reduce them to the stinking atrocities they are, and certainly not like anything which precedes me. This now proceeds apace and you have my assurance that the finished product will be viciously startling. I intend to construct a deificational narrative, albeit fragmentary, in the form of notes & letters, the contents of which will deal with the unspeakable in virtually unspeakable ways. So far I have written, perhaps, 140K words, unedited, titled The Autobiography of God Almighty, which will quite possibly be seen as a demonic paraphrase and-or as a manifestation of the insanity I am accused of - a gorgon’s shield - and-or as a composite of thematic tricksterism and high intelligence, written by one with unutterably open access to Christ Almighty. Whatever the final shape of the contents of the script, I will certainly force over the point that that He is literally accessible (given a strength of purpose), and - philosophers, academics and ecclesiastics notwithstanding - I intend to relate descriptively (given the intense limitation in an expectation of fallen words) the immaculate adventures undergone by a real theologian. To confront the Almighty in His magnificent and wild power is of all adventures the chief, and although I personally loathe the sin in others which denies my involvement, I will not tolerate the denigration of Almighty God Whose reality was involved even more. Hence, in knowing what mutants ardently desire, the

312

script targets them for their complacence in atrocity: they are gods who have become rotten in manifesting the lie that they are human. Hence, if we examine the word ‘human’ we must destroy its overt axiological-anthropological frame ( .. because some of the finer results of analytical- philological inquiry need spelling out overtly, so that ecclesiastical cretins and their goatish flocks get the message). The formula we are beginning to analyse contains the insistent implication that Christ’s humanity is complete: consequently, humanity is incomplete. The incompletion of a god is man. (\(<@µ"4, therefore, indicates a dyadic ‘vector’, whose content is an assymetrical metamorph, which means that ‘becoming goes both ways’ ( .. a god goes down as man and man goes up as a god). In Origenist terms the pair ‘theos/anthropos’ coincides in the same referent with ‘anthropos/theos’, with assymetry emphasizing ‘theos’. The difficulty in this action is the functional description implicit in assymetry, because as ‘theos’ augments on the ontological perpendicular (the ascent to Heaven), so ‘anthropos’ augments also (true manhood rids itself of false manhood in emerging as that which is theo-anthropic). Man is a god when down - “horizontalized” - but refuses it: ergo, theos is not-man. Evidently, not only is the phrase ‘o Logos egeneto’ semantically loaded, but also it is deifically replete. It immediately generates a formidable networking which implicates ensarkosis, enanthropesis, ensomatosis, and so forth, whose conceptual frameworks are ontologized with powers and not with mere terms, relations and schematics. The term ‘sarx = flesh’ is imbedded in the entirety of world philosophical usage in manifold, everyday ways and in trillion-fold activities, but the formulae which take flesh to Heaven are delivered solely and specifically to the psyche by God Almighty Himself (plus or minus a few celestial hierarchs - to see the archangels etc is a sight of awesome wonder). The formulae of deification are not delivered as propositions, predicates, quantifiers, copulae .. but as transcendent metamorphs in living power. Thus, if we closely scrutinize ‘egeneto’ it seems - as it were, at the superficies of perception - to be an irregular copula, reliant on a 3rd p.singular form. Some theorists have put forward the idea that 3rd p.singularity precedes the infinitive in the genealogy of human language (probably arguing along the lines that individuation preceded the ability to generate concepts). This certainly cannot be the case deifically, because ‘the fluxion is when man is not, otherwise the gods could not become men’. In Apostolic orthodoxy ‘God Almighty becomes’, and I would resolutely defy any theoretician’s copulative theory which presumes to ‘logically map out via schematic form’ (\(<@µ"4 according to the ‘method’ of its occurrence ( .. it would be like taking a sieve to filter exploding stars). However, I have never found Christ Almighty mean with His genius. ‘Socrates became a father’ is not of the same order as the awesomeness of o Logos egeneto sarx, as the way to key into the latter is to become a god in the Logos. One then rides as a vehicle of increate energies, not to Aristotle’s constructs of ousiai,

313 mere heathen phantasies, described by S. Basil as non-existents, but to S. Athanasius’ ousia, or He Who is personalized and Who sits upon His mighty throne in Everlasting Glory. He it is Who dispenses immaculate thought to those who love Him.

1. Your ‘vague and distant’ recollection of Kant’s 2nd ‘Kritik’ is surely less so than mine, because it is around 30 yrs since I worked thru’ it. My current interest is largely a courtesy extended to R.K., who is making an attempt to work out how, and if, Kant’s thought hangs together. In consequence of this I’m making desultory forays back into something rejected long ago. However, so as not to be struck with total despondency via its unutterable boringness (as with Aristotle and Aquinas), I’m trying to ferret out ‘deificational’ implications in some of his immediate successors (example: I’ve read somewhere of ‘God being born from below’ in Schelling’s schematics, and it is this kind of thing I want to follow thru’ by means of a pacemaking criticism). A further example: Heine somewhere relates an anecdote in which Fichte (having become ‘God’ via absolute egoism) reaches a ‘point beyond disputation’, so the ‘mighty’ Goethe is sent to deal with him. Fichte, naturally, thinks he is being reprimanded by one of his creation, and, therefore, takes no notice - at which point Goethe fires him. Now it is precisely this kind of whacko-shit-epistemology which brings to my mind serious ideas in Greek Patristics ( .. deification, sane or otherwise, is the platform of all earthly studies - it is a goddess cleaning the drains, morphed by damnable ignorance, and it is a god who will perhaps read this, morphed down in worlding deification). There is a connection in the higher redoubts of theory - deification real and denied - and it amuses me to critically compare grandiose (or grand and otiose) schemes one with another. Perhaps a slide-rule should be placed between Berkeley’s ‘immaterialism’ and Schelling’s ‘transcendental idealism’ - all this sort of philosophical shit, contrasts, analyses, insights, I find easy of criticism: the difficult stuff is in ‘getting over’ the reality of the Vision of God ( .. I will remind you that its practitioners were persecuted, derided, and so forth, by scholarly ‘experts’: Symeon the New Theologian, with whom I am in perfect agreement, is like Origen in this respect). Anyway, all this is to give me something to do, especially as my Germanic studies require stimulation: however, I intend that my enemies know they’ve f***ed with one of God’s wolverines ...

2. There is a line in Rilke I find extremely satisfying (which is more than I can say of his hideous theological thought): Ich glaube an alles noch nie Gesagte - I believe in everything never yet said. To me this pinpoints creativity or, better, given the impossibility of fallen humans creating anything, uniqueness. It is the negation of uniqueness which generates mass mutation (lower commonality &

314 spiritual slavery & heretical nancies &c); and, of course, Almighty God is the •DPZ of uniqueness, which appears to make for a problem as apparently difficult as questions regarding His impassibility (e.g. are two uniquenesses comparable? Impassibility I do not find particular difficulties with - excuse my humour, but its abstract is more painful than its reality. Death is the limit of agony, but death can penetrate beyond physical demise - i.e. - not-god is an agony which can penetrate physical demise as a second death, and one could speculate it is this inversion of Glory which Christ underwent as a means of saving immortal mutants, rebels and enemies who die without Him). So, perhaps, at this ‘culminating juncture’, the Kantians were not so far removed from the contents of the Gospels and Greek Fathers as they intended. Personally, I find their theoretical hypocrisies appalling (Hegel’s, say, when as an avowed Lutheran he detested Christ, conspiring to replace Him with himself as a genius substitute), but they are merely stepping-stones when all is said and done. Incidentally, the depiction of Kant in de Quincey’s Recollections (plus the Waziansky paraphrase) sums up my feelings exactly. However, let’s forgive them all for the ‘fun of putting the knife in’, and for their rather interesting oblique angles (plus the Almighty may well have written them as everything but Him). At least they are ‘comparable personae’ and, God knows, we are probably all related ...

3. As intimated previously I think life which does not break from abstraction is largely misguided. Thought without the power of transfiguration is bound by earth and, thus, necessarily confined to the imperfections of (fallen) theoretical life. I always look for deific sign in informational studies and, for example, Origen out-powers all the classical pagans in bringing to earth formulae which are only experienced towards or in Heaven ( .. earth is really an underworld, with further underworlds going down towards infernal regions). Most formulae are enfleshments of the non-deific - how many I’ve worked thru’ - such as those conjoined to objectivity, thinghood and items of fallen ‘realism’; but formulae manifesting divine life issue forth in miraculous happenings ( .. the transcendens breaks in to break one out). The immediate ‘give-a-way’ in the formulae of Kant’s followers is to be found in their having to explain the ‘constancy of necessitarian realism’, simply because they cannot supercede what they presume to be the fixed forms of empiricism. (Forgive a quick pun as they must be bad: it is the Arians of necessity who must be necessity-arians). Obviously - gewissermaßen - the spatio-temporal zone, even when it is energized by deific intelligibles, holds back the manifestation of high intellect as a transfigured force: whenever and wherever categories are maintained and-or adhered to, a god is down. Philosophy is essentially the history of psychic imprisonment, and flesh follows suit. To my knowledge Leontius of Byzantium and Maximus the Confessor could blow Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel out of the water. It is small wonder that Nietzsche hated the Alexandrians, of whom he had no real understanding, in that he sought to substitute irrepression and

315 freedom for what he took to be extended Platonism. However, Alexandrians of the order of S. Athanasius, S. Basil, and so forth, entered high Heaven by not being Platonists. It is impossible to theorize beyond where one is at: on earth, in between or in Heaven; and the transcendental idealists theorized from earth about ‘what they were not’, viz, transcendent. To literally and physically move from ‘below to above’ is to know the means whereby, and the means whereby is imparted directly - personally, really, literally - by Christ Almighty or those He empowers. There is no other way in Heaven or on earth. ‘There is no God but Jesus Christ Almighty, and Mahomet is not His prophet’. Speaking paradoxically, there is nothing transcendent except the God one has not become. To theorize ‘upwards’ is a philosophical characteristic (typified tatsächlich by Plato and his like - if they were ‘up’ they would not theorize), which is always met by antinomies and stultification. The insolubilia are deific signs of the self- falsehood of a god. Inadvertently, Hölderlin approached something divine, tho’ immediately extinguished, in saying, ‘allein zu sein und ohne Götter, ist der Tod’ - ‘to be alone and without the gods is death’ - altho’ he had the wrong gods in mind. Any ideology, whether philosophy, religion, theology, politics, which does not raise us as gods in Him, is error.

4. However, getting to Him and ‘getting back both ways’ generates problems. The road to Him goes thru’ hell which, when mastered, causes few difficulties. Hell’s chief stratagem is to back down warriors into the madhouse of earth, whose fundamental ideology is containment and deific control. All governments are hell’s allies, the informational systems within which collusively repress the gods from Heaven: governments collusively ‘repress away from’ so that the ‘ultimately’ self-stultifying lie of mortal death is maintained as dominant. The governing creed of any state is the enforcement of pitiless horror against metamorphosis: hence, the exaltation of death is reinforced by the ceaseless killing of mortals as a means of proving their mortality. This device is used against God Almighty Himself in an abortive attempt to ‘keep the lid on the asylum’. Kant’s spurious theorem that the ‘transcendental aesthetic’ of spatio- temporality is inherent in (fallen) man entirely misses the point: rather, it is adhered to by those who collaborate with hell’s gaolers in the repression of the possible immediacy of immortality. Christ took on a rack of bloody iron to bring immortality about. Mankind is sent to the graveyard via an insane shuttle of obscene and deadly victimization, in which designedly terrifying process the divine innocence of childhood is driven out ( .. first by the denial that innocence exists, courtesy of pro-satanists like Augustine, Luther and Calvin, and then by the mass collusion of divine mutants posing as human, whose indifference to the lack of manifest divinity aids outright opposition to it). In this atrocious madhouse, where the belsenization of behaviour generates attentive profits and victimization none, the stench of criminal humanity (a stench stronger than rotting victims) indicts even the seemingly ‘normal’ as virulently abnormal.

316 Indeed, the virulently abnormal are ‘perfectly normal’, and the power they command is totally insane in the eyes of Heaven. The very virtues that mankind honours and applauds - greed, force, power, domination, ego, money - are vile grotesques projected from within, resulting in seething carnage outside.

5. Hence, it is no surprise to me when you say dry professionalism supervenes at Oxford, as if original thought is not part of the requirement. Original thought stems from the origin, and in my academic experience, as with all institutions, informational studies function to resolutely ‘screen out’ the origin. Any thesis or hypothesis is permissible which renders Almighty God ‘ersatz’ or removed or inaccessible or historical or foremost a control or impotent or remote. The idea that it is not ‘really’ possible to experience Christ Almighty directly is an over-riding falsehood, a conspiratorial lie, in which all the big battalions, religious and secular, take part, relegating even the possibility to the level of the extremely improbable, and any ‘even if’ is tagged to rare specimens - dead hermits and peculiar idiots and politicized saints, and so on. In (earthly, fallen) reality God is the ultimate taboo, ontological induction into Whom radically disturbs the murderous capacity of mutation. Therefore, we see the bogus elevation of monstrous organisations for whom murder is easier than contravention. To me this is a voluntary conspiracy (thus the biggest via hyper- cosmic roots), signified by anything which is placed in the way of the imago Dei, or god - contempt, hate, bigotry, falsity, rationalization, egotism - i.e. all vices are anti-deific vices. In fact, a ‘world full of reasons’ exist as to why God’s immaculate splendour, the deific, is kept at bay, but at base there is a large degree of lethal fear in proportion to the dearth of true love. Talking of which I have just received a total refusal from Oxford, as per an extremely realistic expectation. I expect nothing, as if I exude psychic pheromones which repulse. My day is not on earth except among loving friends with astute perception. As I’ve been knifed by ecclesiastical experts and their demons years ago, any hope in them long disappeared. My beautiful Master said His Kingdom is not of this world - Hegel should have choked on this - and therefore my abundance, as always, is in Him. There will come a day when this shameless regime, and its ignoble acolytes, see what they have castigated and found worthless; and then their unbelieving eyes can perhaps look to their own acrimonious lives and inglorious, arid thought processes. Every fragment of existence, however defined, is bound up with an eventual dènouement in God’s stunning power. There is no other reason for the murdering garbage of earth than its resolution by the deific: then we shall see specifically how posturing ‘intellectual spasticity’ fares among the risen gods. Meantime, I hope their port curdles ....

6. But back to the ‘maintenance of categories’ and my theory concerning them. On the face of it, the total negation of categories - conceptual constructs - seems to be a manifest impossibility. First there would be a problem of

317 quantitative deduction, and this certainly plagues Aristotle and Kant. A complete account (raisonné) appears as impossible as its requisite negation, plus a selection could include apparently arbitrary concepts - impossibles, unknowns, incomprehensibles, incommensurates, and so forth - rather than presumed ‘abstract identifables’. Aristotle’s rendition of the chief characteristic of ‘man as human’ specifies ‘intellect as the god within us’ ( .. this is the eu-daimon as theoria, or literally the good demon as 2,`DDLJ@H, sprung from the gods: however, ‘divine vision’ is 2,`D\" as enclosed in thinghood or ‘in re’), altho’ the relation of this ‘god’ to kategoriai and predication is nowhere given. Note that a god is always central to ancient theological and philosophical texts - it is always a ‘conversion’ or transposition of this god pursued in theory: thus, Kant’s categories have their origin in the ‘function of thought in judgment’, and-or in an (unspecified) common principle, the theoretical foundation of which is essentially assertoric and confused. Moreover, one thing stands out in this typically Kantian confusion: the logic of categorization is assumed to be complete, exhaustive and closed. The theory of judgments giving rise to Kantian categories includes ‘infinite judgments’, along with affirmative and negative ones, but these mysteriously reappear transposed into limitations. Now I spent several years attempting to create a Non-Cantorian apparatus, which would explicate ‘sentences of infinite length’ - different infinite lengths moreover - and, believe me, it is not possible to shunt ‘infinite lengths’ into a closed systematic of limitation. Furthermore, I would say that this kind of finist re-entry into systematics necessitates the very determinativeness in question: it is, in reality, the falsity of necessitarianism implicit in man’s psychic imprisonment. Aristotle’s god is a fiction operating as confined (fallen) man, and this passes thru’ as a transposed ‘pagan legacy’ to Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, and so forth. In fact, both Fichte and Schelling tried, and failed, to go beyond Kant’s prison, which can be summed up as ‘impenetrable unknowns operating before & behind individuated ego’. This ‘master philosopher’ thus leaves a ‘constructed reality’ intact as something which cannot be penetrated by a god. Fortunately, a far greater philosopher made the power of the Holy Ghost go forth - ekporeuomai - as a means of transfiguring matter, thus fallen humans, into gods penetrating beyond earth ... The total negation of categories - determinates - implies ‘anomie’ by the Holy Ghost. To say that this anomie is reducible to any logical concept, however articulate and sublime, is to mistake the raw unleashing power of immaculate holiness. That which manifests itself, as the imago Dei or god, approaches His Very-ness, communicates by what Leontius named ‘voiceless discourse’. In this opening Christ the Lion of Judah commands immortal sights in deified intellect & body, and loving perfection enters Heaven before death. The unutterable loneliness that He visits upon an intelligent psyche is a blessing and curse combined: to tell someone that one has been tested by archangels, seraphim, etc, as such, is a dreadful and impossible task. Unbelief is a minor problem and the ‘living memory’ here below is like wearing spurs of

318 scorpions. To see the Almighty face to face is a formula for immanent destruction, whose burden one wishes to discard every minute of the waking day. I curse the minute I was born, tho’ less than the seconds I saw His face. Agony is the foundation of every hurt, but one raises a crushed head in immortal homage: for all this ‘love shall win’ as my Master decreed.

7. However, back to ideas of false deification in Germanic thought. Transcendental philosophy can be equated with the ‘shell game’ - thinking you see it you do not - especially as Kant says the ‘I think’ determines (bestimmen) existence. This implies limitation co-inheres simultaneously with “transcendence”. Fichte, therefore, attributes to him a systematic containing ‘ein höherer Akt des menschlichen Geistes selbst’, or self-human origination, because identity in the spatio-temporal manifold indissolubly links with identity outside. Obviously, Kantian limitation suggests that the ‘I transcendent’ is empty - bare consciousness - because it is conceptual experience which constitutes this content. Therefore (i). kategoriai & predication thereof is seen as an ‘in fill’ in the vacuity of ego “transcendence”, which can be immediately criticised in two ways (ii). how can this vacuity - ‘leere Bewußtsein’ - determine existence, and (iii). how can the indissolubility implicit in the assertoric self-identity ‘I = I’ equate vacuous selfhood with filled selfhood? Now to me transcendental idealism is this vacuity transcendent and it is as slippery as the pea in the moving shells: it moves out the back because it changes shape when the shell slides, and it further changes shape between thumb and forefinger: now you see it, now you do not. Hegel, despite massive errors of his own, quite accurately saw thru’ Kant’s game, and rightly accused Kant, Jacobi and Fichte of absolutizing finitude. As the infinite and the finite remain absolutely opposed, Hegel says these have only relative identity. On the one hand, there is the absolute vacuity of the infinite, and, on the other, the absolute plenitude of the finite. Hegel sums this up so: ‘above this absolute finitude and absolute infinity there remains the absolute as an emptiness of reason, a fixed region of the incomprehensible, of a faith which in itself is unreasonable, but which is called reasonable because the reason which is restricted to its absolute opposite recognises something higher above itself from which it is self-excluded. Hegel is thus accusing Kant and his kind of the ‘idealism of the finite’, as (iv). in the absolute antithesis of infinity and the finite, each is really as finite as the other, because (v). there is an absolute above this false infinity and the finite, which (vi). negates the vacuity of this false infinity by a true plenitude. This situation arises, Hegel thinks, because Kant insists on overriding tensions between antithetical identities by means of the finite absoluteness of the subject: limitedness is made into an eternal law, and limitedness is eternal being. An infinity which cannot consume finitude is not the truth - Hegel refers to this early on, in the Jena period, as the hallowing of a finitude: like a strumpet ‘philosophy is supposed to prettify itself with the surface colour of the supersensible by pointing, via (unreasonable) faith, to something

319 higher’: in reality, it can only ‘ostensively identify’ the emptiness of God. Hegel’s solution, dealt with in detail by me elsewhere, shunts itself up into infinity, in which region ‘the undifferentiated dirempts itself, so the differentiated can return’ (..as if, thereby, ‘God’ ruptures Himself in the effort to construct a truss..)

8. ‘Transcendence’ ought to be surveyed emotionally: false transcendence is the pushing away of God into the inaccessible beyond. This transcendence is attached to “the back of the head” in the eradication of all authorities - gods - but me: is this not one implication or motive in pagan deification!? Doing a better job than Christ Who virtually always, so it appears, lets us down!? Is this not parallel to the “German secret” - opposing Almighty God for the horrors He allows or, worse, using horror as the instrument of His conquests via Christian surrogation or, furthermore, bringing horror on so that He acts to stop us or indict us - is this not the case, Herr Professor Nietzsche!? The indictment of Christ Almighty, in Jerusalem, in Belsen, is the greatest stimulus of both good and satanic hearts: and would not Christ be sympathetic to this contest for His Throne - be more good than I!? as if the lower I is annulled, or destroyed, by something worth perfecting oneself for? In the transcendental idealists there is no metamorphic becoming from not-I to I, and no disruption of the principium contradictionis into ‘whatever God Almighty decrees the loving self should be’. In truth Schelling’s ‘absolute axiom’ of the I unconditioned refuses the idea that something can both be and not be: it, therefore, refuses the truth that man is not what he is, viz, not human ....

There is no ‘univocal equivalence’ between a down god and abstract assumption. God ‘blows away’ everything as a minor pass. No human formula can presume even a whim. Should He wish the I can ‘melt up’ into the wilderness of a relatively unique anomie, into ‘wilding divinity’: even the confrontation between the imago Dei and that - ¦6,Ã<@H - which informs “it” - the coming god, the not yet I - is in the language of miraculous power. Syllogistiche Figuren und Vorstellungen gibt es nicht: only that which informs man he is not man supervenes. The Germanic race, like all races, is one of lost gods and it exhibits this in its philosophical heights, from whence its supreme theoreticians turn back to the skepticism of downed instinct, convinced that meta-morphosis cannot be evinced. Germanic thought-structures are simply complicit in the prevalent ideology of repressive warfare. Intermeshing complexities of abstractions overlook and fail to calculate Greek deification as it should be: the God of beyond is human and man is sub-human. Hence, it is the ‘not yet I’ of the earthly below which gives the lie to Schelling’s transreflexive identity of ‘the non-finite presumed for the beyond’. Moreover, the I becoming here above cannot possibly know the ego autos as anterior unconditionality, even if only on pain of self- contradiction. The paralogisms of transcendent psychology are like the heads of

320 Hydra, or a fast-shoe shuffle posing as the two-step. It never occurs to the transcendentalists to see the I as heteronomous or dislocative, in the forms of an equation which becomes, say, using the analogy of an exponential curve, or as something which is always not God by ousia. To my mind transreflexivity and univocity are spurious forms of consistency raised up beyond any actual I as unprovable assumptions. In place of provability they assert the I of ‘intellectual intuition’, as if one cannot counter intuition by variations and alternatives. The transcendentalist’s I is because, in Schelling’s words, it itself is being thought, not because something else is being thought. The I posits in one and the same act its own ground and thought thinking the posited ground. Thus, according to Hegel via Parmenides, Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes et al, thinking produces itself - it thinks its own origin to be its origin. What is produced is thought: therefore, thinking is identical with its being .. Let us consider this carefully. The unconditioned I is the transcendental ground of the conditioned I; but, precisely why the former becomes the latter, or why the unconditional ruptures itself into conditionality, is nowhere explained by ‘intellectual intuition’. Why the unconditional would ‘wish’ to become ‘human as it is now’, the ‘fallen as a primed destroyer and self-lacerating mass’, is nowhere possible of a cogent and coherent explanation. Obviously, if the I is what it is and posits itself, then thought of itself as ‘the unknown origination of thinking’ negates its own anteriority as an impossibility: as the ‘all-knowingness- known-unconditionally-at-once’, its is-ness precludes not-is-ness and, thus, precludes not-I, because the I is totally manifest univocally. Univocation is the one signification of the I absolutely considered, and in consequence of this conditionality implies two significations with different predicates. To me this suggests the same (unsolved) problem which stalks the later Platonici & the scholastics, namely, that whatever one names unconditionality - indefiniteness, undifferentiation, oneness - its subordinate principle takes, evidently, different predicates, which by their very difference cannot ‘fit upwards’ coherently. This is because Christ Almighty invented incommensurability - God is the uniqueness of creativity, Himself uniquely incommensurable as He divulges living theoria His way. The high-falutin’ hogshit of phoney ‘transcendentalists’ ( .. they do not morph into the transcendent at all) is all very well, but it is not Almighty God. Talk of ‘creative infinities’ and ‘super-abundant emanations’, and so forth, is not a code of access. The arrogance inherent in formulae like God is the absolute I, inherently implicative in self-deification, stems from fallen ego-inflation. The God I know speaks always with the whispering light of love.

9. But here we approach the crux of the problem. Combinations of multiple significance constitute thought, but to identify the ultimate as oneself without utterly becoming ultimate (especially whilst espousing a ‘transcendental framework’ as to why not) is to fail deification as perseity. To be locked into a lesser frame, even one which asserts I produce myself and predicate this lesser,

321 cannot be a means of proving transreflexivity ( .. the downed god cannot prove the up god: one must become the up god in a theophanic transfiguration, which is what Christ provided). Even if one became, in transcendental theory, the I as Almighty, such becoming would require the creating of every other I experientially; and this as a minor ‘litmus test’. However, here the mystery deepens considerably, as I have undergone this type of deification. All I can say is: creating the eternal gods does not prove to God that He is God. Obviously, Almighty God eternally creates the gods as God, and He does not say of them ‘not I’ or ‘I’ - it must be that the gods are both. This is part of the antinomy of the distinction between the divine ousia and energies. There all is God and the intrinsicality of God’s I is essential identity. In the empowering of the Trinity to the Super-Trinity ( .. as part of the experientially unspeakable), my experience was of an ‘intransitive extraneity’, viz, Christ is the Almighty I became, but I am not Christ. I believe Origen, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas et al experienced something similar to this - likewise Paul beyond the ‘third Heaven’ - an experience couched theoretically via metamorphosizing fragments or ‘residues of the morphing up’: hence, the antinomy implicit in the distinctions between o theos/theos and ousia/energy. The extraneity here indicates an unresolved finalization, even as these distinctions are negated beyond themselves. Moreover, then, I am assailing the transcendentalist’s idea of God Almighty as the self of all selves, by the dislocation of identity inherent in intransitive extraneity. The core of the furnace, here below, is the baffled agony of the Almighty’s crown of thorns. That much fits the bleeding brow. The going- into the inside and outside of oneself as the Lord God Almighty, includes generating two hypostaseis as oneself, one of Whom became Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom I am not. (Remember, for the elevated Symeon everyone became Christ). One thing is, however, certain in its consequence and that is ‘Super-Trinitarian identity has no descriptive indices below itself giving higher meaning’. This is simply because existence - ‘reality’ - and its circumstances below, is distortion or warp.

10. Kant, as with virtually every philosopher, has nothing with which to compare and contrast fallen reality. Entering Heaven before death is the touchstone of contrast. No famous philosopher considers this possible, and so philosophical data is immediately self-stultifying. The full measure of distortion (the earthly warp) is known only by its higher existential negation - by experiencing the divine. All earthly terms - existence, being, identity (etc) - are saturated with distortion: the pretense of being human is over them. Man ought to be a ‘sliding scale’ upwards to the perfection of a god. Hence, only immaculate perfection negates the warp (tho’ the formulae of deity rising were put on earth by Christ Almighty). This is what enhypostasization means - in the hypostasis one precedes the warp (mutancy, imperfection) of earth as it is outside. Heaven is attainable from the floor of earth: earth is the underworld, not

322 the myth of a sub-terrain (an underworld containing other underworlds gravitating towards hell: hell is the gravity which pulls one down). Almighty God is the ‘I am’ anterior to spatio-temporality and its twisted & vicious historicity; and, therefore, ‘I am before you were’ is the only ‘I am’ capable of inducting man upwards into the humanity of becoming a god. Kant’s idea that in the awareness of myself in mere thought, I am the being itself, however individuated, and the assertion ‘I exist thinking determines a subject in respect to existence’, fails to notice the ‘self warp’ it exhibits. The univocation inherent in this abstract pass from the conditioned to the unconditioned, disregards (adjectival) attribution - imperfect existence, distorted reality, mutated being, and so forth - which the trap of philosophical endeavour cannot spring. Modern abstractionists are no nearer than their ancient counterparts in securing glorious truth, because they deny Almighty God is to be found in metamorphosizing personhood. It is only after deific change that the immense, mighty and awesome dawn of Christ’s fabulous genius rises up in splendour to the heart & intellect & eyes. For denying this I curse the faceless maggots of academia and wish exceptions well.

1. Now regarding the pair Hegel & Kierkegaard, purported antitheses, both profoundly wrong. Kierkegaard committed a fundamental mistake in maintaining Calvin’s insane idea of an absolute distinction (difference) between God and man. There is a distinction, but it is not absolute. God is both Trinity and the deific energy of the gods - one can use the rough analogy of sun and sunshine, the orb and rays, and so on. The deific energy of the gods is man - us - when elevated, whereas Kierkegaard’s evangelical negation of deific immanence leads to his self-blinding doctrine of the ‘opacity of the eternal’. To my mind Kierkegaard’s ‘incomprehensible suffering’, mentioned amongst his last words, is based on this fallen-self-ratifying opacity. Hegel persuaded this guy that hankering after ‘the beyond’ is futile, that it contains an impossibility, and that the beyond always remains closed ( .. a ‘typically earth’ thought, common amongst the fallen - i.e. - it describes the fall ‘from the inside’). Get the main struts wrong in theory, settle for something less than Almighty God manifest, and everything is awry. I can hardly bear to think of Augustine, Luther and Calvin without a contemptuous sneer: they write as God’s enemies - cretins! There are entire realms of western philosophy and Germanic stupidity conditioned by these twisted minds, the idealists especially ... Hegel is a supreme twisted son-of-a-bitch who falsely analyzed infinity. He is eclectic and heretical to the point of being responsible for multiple ‘f***ed up’ consequences (much history is the war of Hegel). As with a false premise, everything that is awry follows. His is really the technique or stratagem of compound integration, based on an erroneous negation of previous dualities,

323 including the sly negation of Christ’s ‘region not of this earth’ by his own (reconstructed) region. The identity of identity and difference is a charlatan’s sleight of hand, viz, the identity of infinite and finite ‘Spirit’ is a materialist’s maneouvre posing as something godly. Hegel’s concept of ‘Geist’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the power of the Holy Ghost (altho’ it has plenty to do with the the in rebus shit of Aristotle). Hegel attempts to bring God down to earth via a philosophical reconstruction, as if the Almighty is clay to be morphed down at a literary whim. As Christ is superceded, Hegel thinks the Spirit can be brought to heel, retrained as other than Christ, and defined differently. Yet there are only rough (inaccurate) analogies between infinities and God, none of Whose Persons is either infinite or finite. ‘Of His Wisdom there is no number’: this is the only smart thing Augustine ever said. Infinitudes admit of different orders, and, thus, they are heterogeneous, dislocative, amphibolic, antinomial, inconsistent, illogical and intrinsically insane. I presume Christ knows all these states, including difference in identity and identity in difference regarding the fallen gods, but I doubt if one could even pin the tail on his donkey, let alone on Him. Hegel is an arrogant cocksucker who presumed to finalize previous theoretical structures in himself; and this whilst denying the journey to the deific beyond. He denies the divine there, like Kant, and attempts to build the divine here (wars in his face to the contrary), collapsing Heaven in the process. Hegel constantly failed to understand the relation of mind and body, and western philosophy in its entirety is beguiled and stultified by this division. In fact, there are three entities, mind, body and flesh. The unfallen cohesion of mind and body is the imago Dei - literally, the god - but the ‘coat of skins’ entered into by the god - literally, the flesh - negates this body of light. It is the flesh which is opaque, and, during fallen life, this negates the cohesion attained by the god. Naturally, when the body of light breaks thru’, the flesh is transfigured. We can compare this with Hegel’s use of the ‘process term’ aufheben - to sublate (in contrast with the ‘morphing term’ deifizieren - to deify). The implications in Hegel’s term involve annulment, change and elevation, and these could be brought to bear on Christology via the dominance and recession of uncreated (and-or eternally created) energies (say, with reference to a modalist dynamic: I’ve written on this elsewhere). But in Hegel the nominal infinitive ‘Aufheben’ and the noun ‘Aufhebung’ implicate philosophical views concerning the ‘res cogitans’, if only because quandries concerning identity produce incoherences in post-Cartesian theory. I would assert, provisionally at least, that sublation - supercession, sublimation, retentive cancellation, however configured - is concerned with vacuous non-deific transcendence only; and that transcendent terminology is ‘shanghaied’ and vigorously warped as always with the fallen ..

2. I’m sure it could be easily shown how viewpoints in early Protestantism elide into the later German ideologies ( .. Hegel’s ‘new Jerusalem of the Spirit’ sublates Eden and its reduction into nothing in the “beyond” of Christ; and the

324 millenarianist’s apocalypse of heresy later announces the thousand year Reich etc). Unfortunately, there is a vast confusion in both and thus it is possible to see the Tübingen Stift (along with Schulpforta) as a ‘forcing house’ for madness. At least Luther made (misguided) strides towards a theory of immanence via the idea of the ubiquity of Christ’s body; but as Zwingli considered the communicatio idiomatum a confusion of predicates both he and Calvin refused to accept it. This gave rise to one of Calvin’s basic principles, viz, the finitum non capax infiniti, according to which the Logos exists entirely outside Christ’s human nature ( .. this, the so-called extra Calvinisticum is lifted virtually straight from Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heracleides: hence, one old scumbag informs another). Precisely how Calvin manages to be consistent in maintaining ubiquity inside Christ’s human nature (whilst negating immanence) is another matter. Furthermore, if Christ’s body is everywhere present - say, as human - then we have a ‘null surfeit’ of divinity, which is absolute nonsense. Hence, to avoid this Lutheran consequence - ‘pantheistic monophysitism’ - Calvin asserts that manhood cannot be taken up into divinity, which is in line with finding the imago Dei in Satan (the anthropological ground of ‘total depravity’, which is retained by Kant). This, obviously, eliminates true deification (of which all these thinkers were grossly ignorant), and much of this comes back in Hegelianism. Hegel, in his conception of man’s relation to ‘the cosmic spirit underlying nature’, in which the subject plus his “spiritual” function is inescapably enfleshed (central to his remodelled notion of “Geist”), simply negates the finitum non capax infiniti by a conceptual equivalence: true infinity equals a limitless finitude, and so forth. Anything which one - oneself, I - ascribes to oneself using ‘I’ is ipso facto a predicative object of the I, not the I itself. This is filched from Fichte, Hölderlin and Schelling, and it is the I which precedes differentiation between the I and not-I. This diremption cannot solve the ontological and logical difficulties inherent in any conception of ubiquitous selfhood. ‘Inescapable enfleshment’ or necessitarian ensarkosis is an arbitrary restriction on any God or god because, beneath surface cunning, Hegel implies a false deification of the subject or ego precisely of this kind. The god is not powerful enough to negate enfleshment: hence, one is always a god saddled by a perceptual manifold, and reality is always circumscribed by a lack of penetration beyond the flesh. Unlike Kant - who allowed penetration beyond physicality into a limitation of (abstract) unknowables - Hegel is forcing the integral (against ‘oppositions in dyads’) by undifferentiation in egoistical monism. In effect this form of deification - ‘I am the one and not-one’ - cancels transcendence in immanence and immanence in transcendence. God Almighty - and therefore Christ - is made a predicative object of a (combined) infinite and finite identity. Bravo - except one cannot become this infinitude because of its necessitated enfleshment; and when the Kantian-Fichtean-Schellingian ‘intellectual intuition’, with its identity between logic and being, fails to satisfy Hegel’s ‘proof’ of the identity of the infinite and the finite, he then has recourse

325 to dialectics in which contradictions pass over into more elevated contra-dictions. And all this in response to the Romantics and Stürmer und Dränger who wanted an integral man (one in whom there was not an implicit contradiction). I personally think idealists of the German persuasion are the intellectual heirs of ‘covens of heretics’; and if one resolutely investigates the cultic forebears of reformation theologians, there is some weird, twisted and incoherent shit to be found. Years ago I determined to work out the doctrinal traces gathered into Lutheranism and Calvinism, almost an exercise in dirty ragpicking, and Luther’s pedigree alone consists of Biel, D’Ailly, Tauler, Staupitz, Wimpfeling, Ockham, Wykliff, de Fiora, A’Kempis, Rolle, Hilton and, inevitably, Augustine. With the exception of the goodly neophyte, A’Kempis, mongrels all. The thing about would-be theologians and religiouses, even those with vast reputations for the same, is the majority of them never left the earth and penetrated (and roamed) the divine realms. This shows itself in their subscriptions and theoretical imputations. Earth always comes back to itself as a compound implication: those who never leave it always paraphrase it. The prison is their only known, and that imperfectly; and the ghost of Parmenides stalks its periphery: ‘what is not does not exist’, and thus the unexperienced outside is falsified by denials in ignorance. These desert dwellers deny water across their arid vision, when others ride the waves with giant squid and cetaceous behemoths and glittering creatures with many eyes. It is totally necessary to experience the raised ontological glories of Christ before one’s physical demise, because it is amongst the accessible transcendents that Almighty God is met. Christ closed the ontological hiatus existing between God and fallen man by opening Glory as a miraculous continuum of gradual deity. The relation between monad and dyad as theoretical forces or determinants is only answered theo-logically, viz, by perfection in theory, as the ascent reveals powers of which the merely human is not cognisant. God’s theory is demonstrated by Him, and when liars speak for Him refusal of access to the miraculous ensues: this is usually named religion. Heretics refuse to correctly hypostasize existence: then they try to make a virtue of staying down: this allows them to rule without profit to the god. Philosophy is the complex impotence of those who have not seen Christ Almighty - i.e. - as the Almighty literally. Both Hegel and Kierkegaard concur in a lack of divinized penetration. Truth is penetrated, not thought. Thought is inaccurate if God has not been visible. True theory gets one all the way to the Throne, as Christ ratifies His own decipherment as ‘lightning replaces rhetoric’. The internal severance - opposition, difference, contradiction - assailed by Hegel in his search for the integral man - the chief problem of all philosophy - is really between the Almighty and mutant immortals. The gods have died to the face of their Master and become men. The earth comes back to them in all directions, and advanced calculations are the antinomies of the cage. Christ lifts the latch for those thirsting for the victorious sights of pristine goodness. I could not live without

326 seeing the All Holy.

3. Anyone who takes a stand on the immutability and incommunicability of Christ’s divinity is a swine in sheep’s clothing - Barlaam, Akindynos, Aquinas, Calvin. Rational inferences from God’s incomprehensibility do not take into account incomprehensibility per se and the power of the incomprehensible to allow one to understand. No incomprehensible is rational or not: rather, the impossible is capable of manifest communicability, both by the divine and the divine-human. An over-transcendentalized divinity leaves one with the arrogant imperfection of the mutated (warped) theorist and thought in place of God. It is not a question of dealing with the (bi-polar) coordinates of human existence, because these only negate an ontology of deific surfeit. To see God as an abstraction is to contemplate the lion’s tail. Formulae about Christ derived inferentially from deific deprivation necessarily short-circuit correct doctrine, because He is not a schematic manifestation. Thus, for example, the communicatio idiomatum is a formal game of obtuse predication if divinity is an abstraction. The genus idiomaticum is compatible in Calvinism with the genus apotelesmaticum (leading to a communicatio gratiarum): the attributes of each nature are predicated of the entire Person in the first instance, but the predicates affirmed of the entire Person are attributed to only one or the other of the two natures in the second. Obviously, predication of the sort which implies mere schematics, in contrast to the paticipable powers of transfiguration, always results in inaccurate formulae, and this is evident in whichever age formulae are constructed. Thus, you remark that the communicatio idiomatum is not found explicitly in the Cyrilline corpus, thinking possibly it comes into play in the post- Chalcedonian terminological disputes. This really puts the finger on the entire uncertainty implicit in ‘shifting terms’, which I would say comes about because certain deific loci have not been experienced. Terms can be used, reused and mis- used according to variable complexes in train; and if one even considers the massive complications in modern proof theory, the implication, say, that one’s initial apparatus must be so complex and unwieldy that any result is suspect, then even minor etymological analysis can skirt a nightmare. This could certainly be the case with the technici termini of theology and philosophy in general. For instance, the idea that idiomata can be handled predicatively presumes that physeis are predicables. Or, again, in the definition of a prosopon there is usually an assumption that its higher referent is comprehensible in abstracto. Over the years I have used formulae concerned with prosopa in characteristic ways - a prosopon is a singular manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost, and-or a prosopon displays the divine body in singular manifestations of energy. The point is: if someone has never actually seen a prosopon, no idea at all issues from the formulae, and it becomes, as it were, unrevealed description. Moreover, as prosopa comprise the envisioned countenances of deific personhood, then

327 particular individuals who have not entered the prosopic furnace - ‘all eyes and boiling with life’ as Plotinus could assert, thru’ his vastly limited experience - it is then pointedly obvious that the formulaic pieces will not go together. Thus, God delivers true theory and He never ratifies a lie. True theory gets one there. Hence, I am used to thinking of Cyril of Alexandria as the finest of all technical theologians (along with Origen, Dionysius Areopagiticus - minus accretions - and Leontius): these guys go to Almighty God. I cannot find fault with anything in the Cyrilline formulations. He is a theological master of the highest rank, like Athanasius and Basil. Personally he may have been an overbearing and murderous shit and no one could shaft him with impunity (&c): but his formulae are virtually immaculate. Now this is not to say there is not much which is unmentioned and-or much unexplicated and-or much implicit which is not filled out; but to my mind Cyril’s conceptual infrastructures are of unerring accuracy. He sometimes reminds me of Schopenhauer in his devastating use of very unchristian invective, but this does not really detract from the great beauty of his writings on the Saviour. As an aside I think foul invective is only real if the reference is the same: to refer to someone as a ‘cunt’ is paradoxically complimentary, although an ugly cunt is not. Anyway, I confess that the Cyrilline disputes enthralled me for years and produced great delights, especially in knowing all the subtle distinctions between - quote - Exucontians, Psathyrians, Severan Phthartolatrai, Julianist Aphthartodoketai, Gaianists, Adiaphorites, Akoimetai etc., especially as Greek church history contains some delicious spiritual games; and even if antidosis/perichoresis is not textually explicit and found directly, there is no doubt it was implicit in Cyril’s thought. Perhaps it would have involved the Ephesian disputants in too many extras and added complications. However, that is not to say we cannot ‘unearth’ the brilliant minutiae of theory. Incidentally, I went to Ephesus several years ago and located the church ruins where the synod took place.

4. Cyril’s use of antidosis is removed from overt use for several interlocking reasons, not least of which is he is not forced into its explication by the inept use of dualities. The theme ‘one two making one’ - the congruence of dyad and monad - is the start of ‘divine arithmetic’, and it is small wonder that philosophers and other heretics retire before it shattered, that is, when they are not tempted into putting theoretical grotesques in its place. ‘One two making one’ is the fundamental theme of all ontological scholarship, and it cannot be overemphasized that anthropological consequences result as a norm from its misunderstanding in theology, philosophy and psychology. Individuals embody theory, and billions embody innate contradictions stemming from it. The Hegelian-Kierkegaardian controversy is largely about the mechanics of ‘unhappy consciousness’ as severance from the eternal. Hegel secures the monad by a falsification of God: “God”, alias subject, perfects itself horizontally through

328 contradictions implicit in the dyad, and perfect Godhead and perfect manhood - Christ’s dyad - are voided in the explications of dialectic. In Hegel’s view the ‘shape of the self’ is a repetitious unfolding or development of the initial monad, which begins in a state of undifferentiated unity and then splits into incongruent differentials - opposed dyads - awaiting a higher reunification. Smart stuff, except that two centuries of interpretation cannot decide what the dialectic means, especially as Hegel’s rendition of the same obfuscates contradictions between components of ‘becoming’, which are eventually - somehow, God knows how - unified in ‘determinate being’. Naturally, the presumption of monistic reductionism negates subject-object distinctions so that internal logicality is equivalent to Geist’s quasi-externality. Logicality is really the phenomenology of Geist, and instead of ‘one two making one’ - as in the Alexandrian tradition - we are presented with an unstable, undifferentiated monad which splits because it is self-contradictory. “God” therefore exists as shapes of consciousness whose ego is comprised of affirmations of contradiction. Hegel says ‘everything is inherently contradictory’ as if consistency does not exist as a standardized relatum; and thus God’s I is the not-I (whereas the not- not-I is the I reunified, so to speak). Without actually descending into sneering sarcasm or contemptuous laughter, I - that is me, and not the not-not-I which isn’t me - can only suggest Hegel’s phrase die ungeheure Macht des Negativen ought to be re-used to characterise abstract form when it holds on to something dead (das Tote festzuhalten).

5. Evidently with Hegel we have anomalous integration conjoined with imaginative force, much of the content of which derives from Fichte and Schelling. Naturally, he accepts ‘determinations’ - categories and synthesized concepts - before the self-contradictoriness of determinations and much of this goes back to Kant’s pre-critical writings: multiples planes in space as coordinates of empirical judgments can equally serve as monistic determinations for (individual) beings, because each is posited and op-posited via conditionality, and this implies relative identity - inadequate identity - which completes itself through a projected abstractionism. Hence, it is impossible to embody a higher referent without a sensory manifold. It is only possible to demonstrate the self- contradictoriness of a determination if it is a determination. In Fichtean terms this proceeds from the absolute-I which requires and is required by a not-I. The not-I nullifies the I by op-position because relative identity is self- contradictory. And all this depends on the I’s divisibility. There is an extant short note of Hölderlin in which he decisively links Seyn - absolute being - with the Verbindung (joining) of subject and object, which is equated with the negation of identity. This negation is based on the sundering of the I-subject and I-object by self- consciousness, and it is seen as the op-positing of oneself by oneself. This ‘sundering’ is founded on the recognition of oneself as the same in opposites: hence, relatively, the I is opposed to itself. However, one could insist that ‘the

329 same in opposites’ really demarcates an instantiated identity which is neither incomplete nor inadequate, and by this means reveal the origin of this sort of thought in Parmenides and Zeno of Elea. Both Hölderlin and Hegel, following the lead of Fichte and Schelling, are virtually forced into ‘categorial analysis’ by the manifest obviousness of differentiation: undifferentiation as a premise must, it appears, contain an op-posited differential, and, therefore, whatever the premise is reduced to - being, subject - its negation is inferred as essential and necessary. Hegel differs from his predecessors in inflating an ‘organic dynamism’, which intrudes or passes on logic into individual organisms. Logic is thus the ‘motor’ - psyche, engine, conatus - which drives and animates as an internal and external force. Obviously, logic is not then something merely formal, a framework in abstracto, and in this one can see the direct influence of both Aristotle and Herder, in which an organism is ‘conceptualization within’. Logicality is thought organically thinking itself, and, therefore, undifferentiated thought is paralyzed by stasis and inertia. Consequently, development can only occur if undifferentiation an sich moves beyond itself or sublates für sich. One could argue that differentiation by division says too much, and that ‘that which is asunder’ uses too strong a terminology. The Gk. asuyxutos is, to my mind, the feasible ‘loan root’ of ‘asunder’, replaced in Gm. by T(h)eilung - hence we have an ontological Urteilung, which sublates itself via potentiation from organic unity into incompatibility with itself. This is the potentiation of the equivalence of I and not-I, and thus Hegel’s dialectical logicality differs from Aristotle’s in refusing reflexivity. Hence, strictly speaking, the an sich does not progress to the für sich by contradictoriness, because without reflexivity (I = I) contradiction, even as a static configuration, cannot even be articulated. If one actually wished to join in this ‘negation of logic’, it is possible to say ‘the dialectic of contradiction is self-contradictory ( .. that is, as one could say that self- contradiction is impossible without the existence of reflexivity, it is therefore impossible to contradict contradiction). So much then for the Hegelian tertium of ‘the negation of negation’. Yet one can easily see what he is up to, viz, he is using inseparability to sublate divisibility ( .. as, organically, the blossom sublates the bud and-or as the bud vanishes it is ‘refuted’ by the blossom and-or the being of the monad becomes the being and not-being of the dyad etc etc).

6. Now this is all very well but ‘one two making one’ ( .. monadic manifestation from a dyad) cannot be achieved thru’ this intellectual route, even if one reverses the Hegelian terium. Hegel really faces the problem which haunted Fichte, viz, the one is in some sense two, and no matter how adroit one’s intellectual apparatus in this respect the problem is cognate with squaring a circle. Idealism of this kind, in all its variations, employs an unstable ousia or substance: the substance is not implicitly what it is whilst asserting it is what it is, and even tho’ Hegel pushes this strictly illogical scheme beyond temporality

330 as a metaphysical abstraction, there is no such entity as a dyadic monad. However, that is not to say the problem the Idealists address is incapable of solution. Abstractionism always implies false deification, if only because it depersonalizes Deity. Hegel attempted to sublate Christ by his own aggrandizement, a not unfamiliar Germanic trait, and “spiritual” monism only attempts to succeed by cutting God’s throat. Paradoxically, it divides man from God, and the idea that all I’s are predicative objects in contrast to the undifferentiated I is the basis of this division. Hegel is saying - in contrast to Protestants of Kierkegaard’s stripe - that the conceptual recognition of the ontological affinity or identity between undifferentiation and its negation is what makes ‘happy consciousness’; but, in fact, he asserts the contradiction of non- contradictoriness, and like oxymorons, as the basis of existence. Cyril of Alexandria, on the other hand, knew precisely the formulae by which ‘one two makes one’, and it is time we looked at this with an eye to some specifics.

First of all it is vitally necessary to get a few things straight where the Cyrilline formulae are concerned. Theology is not a science: science always deals with the appearance of things in conjunction with hypotheses, but theology contains resources which open reality up, that is, not up in a spatio-temporal mode (say, in the Kantian fashion relative to the planes of human physicality), but up in relation to celestial (divine) dynamics. The divine possesses more reality than its tonal, or phenomenal, negation. Consequently, there are no ‘sufficient isomorphs’ from categorial analysis with a specificity or capability requisite to formulaic referents: hence, we are dealing with icons or gods and incongrous similitudes accessing realms saturated with living divinity. Divinity has two non-categorial referents, viz, power and personhood. Both are capable of evincing the actual transfiguration of the flesh - sometimes, in error, called the body - such that the flesh manifests the body of light. When Cyril refers to the divine and human natures (NbF,4H), he hides the formulaic states of theophany as he reveals them: there is bi-polarity or co-reciprocity (synergy) in formulaic power and the Vision of God Almighty. Obviously, any elimination of God in false theory erases the synergy between the god-likeness of God and man. The negation of God by denial distorts formulaic capacity in the individual ‘human’ and increases the subhuman. The mutilation of God Almighty mutates theory as embodiment. Hegel’s idea of ‘inescapable embodiment’ is really the false theory of ‘necessitous enfleshment’. Embodiment lifts one up to Heaven, and enfleshment lowers one down to earth. The flesh sublates - it lifts up as it is negated by the body. In Cyril’s formulations there is a rigid distinction drawn between Fäµ" and FVD>, which is not always maintained in English translations. The terms are not simply interchangeables, although the entities are interchangeable via perichoresis. If this interchangeability is approached by predication and-or it is founded on predicative objects, error will result. This is obvious if one considers the imperfection of manhood as cognate with the

331 imperfection of theory. True theory requires perfect God and perfect man for its exact delivery. In real theology God Almighty is the theorist, and thus our perfectibility is an essential step in trans-figuration. Naturally, the question arises as to how one can articulate and-or even approach immaculate theory whilst enfleshed as a mutant and-or as something sub-human. Answer: synergy (FL<,D(,4") manifests the iconic power of the god in becoming incongruous. Let me explain this by descriptive examples.

(a). Subhumans are intrinsically transients. Flesh ceases to be and approaches nothingness. Death takes what is and it becomes is not. The negation of flesh identifies transcience. ‘Nothing is but what is not’: hence, using terminology on a par with Hegel, there is a contradiction in a dying being. Dying being ceases to become and manifests negation. I am saying we can manifest the negation of flesh during life. The body comes forth as the flesh dies to the conceptual environs of earth. Furthermore, I am saying that whatever category fits this framework - being, becoming, infinitude, the finite, or whatever category one can think or experience - it is negated as the body comes forth. Hence:

(b). The body which comes forth is imago Dei, icon, god. It stands in the flesh as the becoming of perfection. It is incongruously similar to the flesh if it is perceived through the flesh. The viscous sac of physiognomic physiology and cruciform bone encases and cages the god of the body. As one moves in iconic likeness by the function of synergy, Almighty God empowers the negation of the cage. Literal death will shatter the boneyard of mutancy, but the entity remaining - psychic body or soul - is transdimensional. Transdimensionality is visible before physical demise, and this is vouchsafed by the power of transfiguration. By metamorphosis we can carry the dense weight of flesh up to Heaven by means of its ‘underlying body’. Hence:

(c). Take a continuum with two ends as a paradigmatic dyad: one continuum, two ends. One end of the continuum is a god and the other end is a subhuman. This is the range of humanity which, before God became man, was inextricably weighted towards the subhuman. God became human by aligning enfleshment with a god, that is, perfectly human. He therefore ontologically assumed up lower relata into the God- god identity. Cyril refers to this process in terms of unspeakable power, saying God became in His own flesh ‘the first-born of the dead’, so that he might blaze the trail for human nature’s return to incorruptibility. That is, by God’s grace Christ tasted death for everyman. Now ‘grace’ is a much maligned word, as it has been copiously corrupted by theoretical imperfections, mostly in Augustine and his lineal descendants; but it really refers to the unspeakable power of deification. God became the object of His own grace to open the continuum for transfigured manhood. This means, literally, that He upheld our deity in His flesh whilst being assailed by the alien

332 powers of earth, resulting in the grotesque contradiction of the death of God. His ‘one two making one’ is the perseity of Godhead plus a god, and ours is subhumanity plus a god. Deification is thus a movement into mediation which negates ‘fixed entityship’. God can and does reconfigurate matter. He moves down into the top end of the continuum by assuming our flesh, as we ought to move up to assume His. This is the ‘communicatio idiomatum’, but the interchangeability inherent in it means He can move down the continuum by elevating us. Obviously, adding flesh to God’s body does not change Him. He is the same Who walked in Eden, but it is the flesh de-based which is responsible for millions of false formulae ‘whereby mankind’ subsists. Hence:

(d). ‘Dying to the world’ - the supreme achievement of theory - sees flesh confront the glory of synergistic energy. Here Almighty God is not a ‘removed presence’, inaccurately mouthed and carelessly rejected, but the beginning of supreme reality ( .. in which & thru’ which beaux esprit manifest His gentleness, love and outraged innocence). To see these minor contemplations become visible is to know the divine reasons why agony turns and grinds on agony with bloodied brow. That they, the offal of cunts, should dare to deny His absolute & beautiful goodness, is to engage and participate in the monstrous atrocities of humanity. When Cyril quotes Christ - ‘Then I said, Here I come, it is written of me in the scroll to do Thy will, O God’ - he acknowledges the only intellectual of Whom it is worthy of bowing the knee. In a world where ferocious miscreants & manic ingrates rape the daughters of God and pour battery acid into their vaginas, and in which their children are the f***ed carrion of demons, it is obvious beyond manifest and howling obviousness that no harmony of monistic integration exists in which ‘oneness’ eradicates the seething foulness of evil. Almighty God, with awesome resolution, separates out goodness into His sheepfold and divine realm, in which His unique dynamic operates beyond the auspices of mutant understanding. No-one enters in without being expressly heralded by the unmistakable ferment of magnificent glory - there, humanity is restored because God is human and mankind is not. The God Who walked in Eden unfleshed walked in Palestine enfleshed. This alone militates against the idea of personality based on the characteristic of an individuated monad. Hegel’s monad is Leibniz’s cosmically dilated, a rationalistic ‘glob’ infiltrated into the Germanic psyche thru’ its major theoretical exponents. In literature Goethe’s moonlit identity couples the limitations of genius with a limitless recitative of arrogance, as this identity stands with unfathomed entrails mysteriously manifest (mit unerforscht die Geweide geheimnisvoll-offenbar), linking the corrosive animality of death with one nature. Nature is sometimes seen as an entire polyphony of the divine, and at other times ‘die Natur ist unfühlend’: but nature, identified with or not, always remains a cage. ‘One of the two making one’ is an exclusion clause (concocted by the fallen) for fallen nature, and I suggest this ultimately derives from

333 inaccurate pagan formulae ingested by the Arian Goths via the filioquism of Toledo and Augustinianism ( .. even an old cynic like Frederick II of Prussia mocked Augustine’s innumerable contradictions). What I am suggesting in broad outline, of course, is that Germanic philosophy is wrong-footed in its revolt against Protestantism - it wars against itself - because the latter could not satisfy the questing psyches of Leibniz, Lessing, Kant, and so on. The internal sterility of both results from its various credos reflecting the godlessness of pagan ignorance: like paganism philosophy and Protestantism negate deific actualities ( .. hence, the ‘outside’ of existence is perceived as a fruitless abstraction, inaccessible - something always schematic or irrelevant or incapable of penetration - and the ‘inside’ is perceived as ‘ein Schauplatz des unendlichen Lebens’, which transfigures itself into ‘den Abgrund des ewig offnen Grabs’ - a theatre of infinite life which transforms itself into the abyss of the eternally open grave. The revolt is a wrong-footing because it simulates what it attempts to overthrow: it identifies with its opposite because its theoretical suppositions share the same Abgrund. There is an ekthesis of belief in common, which rides like a serpent on the myth of division between God and man. Man is against himself - and, consequently, against everything - when the divide is not crossed. Crucifixion crosses the maw. And it does so in the incongruity of manifest synergy. This needs some explaining:

(e). A fallen icon or god is a ‘dissimilar likeness’ (to God), implying an unlike similarity. Man is similar to God even as he mutates downwards. A shroud which is crumpled remains similar and dissimilar to itself. A god rent and disfigured remains similar and dissimilar also. Imagine dreaming your shadow into an abyss of distorted mirrors, in which you see the incongruity of images. You are a god when the shadow returns in eliminating its own eradicable, midnight nightmare. Anything less is an internal pact with distortion. Identity displays inequality when that below is not that above. Likeness must return from unlikeness, and then the same becomes the same. Synergy is collaboration between a god hauling himself from the depths and God Almighty, Who provides and is the hawser. Humanity can have no coordinate archetype other than that which is archetypally human: the least of God Almighty is the human that man really is. Incongruity is the differentiation that mutants place before the straightforward (visionary) re-cognition of God. Of all the invented identities that flee mutant identity, the ‘you of the loving heart in whom innocence succeeds’ is the identity that is granted. No-one sees God unless, deep within, an integrity of longing for the victory of innocence triumphs ....

(7). Anyway, if you are to check your student’s thesis on the communicatio idiomatum in Cyrilline thought, perhaps a few pointers might be in order. If one works downwards from the Godhead it is necessary to recognise that 2,`H - a god - is a minimal ascription for the ‘movement of ousia’ in the Trinity. Note

334 that the ousia of Godhead is not the ousia of Aristotle. The ousia of God is what it is by including its own becoming. There is a movement in Godhead from o theos to theos - from the God to a god. Speaking, initially, very loosely, we can say these two natures are one nature, that is, both are God. These two natures differ by ‘a differential of ascription or predication’, namely, one is maximally the other & the other is minimally the one. In a precise sense, the dyad of two natures indicates a descriptive sameness, viz, the word ‘nature’ does not have two distinct (fallen) referents ( .. unlike, say, the Ln. natura, equivalent to ‘burgeoning thingness’ and ‘inner consciousness’). As you know, the term ‘nature’ in Gk. is capable of multiple ascriptions, theories, frames & meanings, and in Ln. these can be compounded into even more diverse ontologies. I am saying the Gk. physis = o theos = theos indicates the movement of one God with two ascriptions, that is, maximized and minimized becomings of the divine; thus, theos always stands for ‘manhood in Godhead’ - the origin of manhood and the sum of its definition via all referents is always in God & man in God is always divine. There is a way one can talk of ‘divine physis’ and ‘human physis’ as equivalents. There is an entity > such that > is both divine and human. This > collects all the lower ascriptions of manhood into itself as a maximum - ‘imperfect manhood’ moves towards ‘perfect manhood’ at >. Consequently, imperfection moving upwards towards Ò 2,`H can be perceived as a different or non-equivalent physis. Obviously, many problems are caused in theological anthropology by terms standing for movements of change and becoming. ‘Nature’ is one of the prime victims in this liquidity of terms. Descriptively, I can talk about imperfection moving through ‘concatenations of divinising and transfigurational light’ into the perfection that is theos, and then say that ‘manhood becomes itself by negating imperfect differentials’. This means that there are two referents for ‘physis’ as > is itself or not. Ascription or predication is bifurcated by the incongruity of mutant differentiation, so that ‘physeis’ is thought of as two severed natures. Hence, the liquidity is based on a failure to understand the becomings implicit in terms. We are talking about ‘becomings in the divine’, and thus there needs to be a rigorous exactitude in terminology wherever possible. However, Cyril - like any truly great theologian - knew he did not know the internality of Ò 2,`H, because all manhood except Christ’s is per gratiam or thru’ deification. This is reflected by ‘unknowns’ in the Cyrilline formulations - the hypostatic union, for instance, is poorly compared to the union of soul and flesh in (fallen) man. In this Cyril uses an imperfect paradigm for something whose mystery is exalted, and he thereby slips into inexact comparison. He is struggling to express something ‘unspeakably unknowable’ about the Saviour, and one could methinks perhaps advance beyond his unexplicated philosophical structures. However, one must remember that some referents are ultra-alive. There is no dead God Whom one attempts to calculate .... So:

335 8. We can refer to the two natures o theos and theos (one two making one), as if referring to o theos and theos/anthropos. By understanding God Almighty is always a god, it is understood that He is the same god in Himself. He walks in Heaven as He walked in Eden and Jerusalem. Manhood, therefore, is the one referent of divinity, but if we ascribe to this referent the appellation ‘Heavenly man’ we open ourselves to different ascriptions with alternative theories. It could be said our one Lord Jesus Christ is one Lord before the union with the flesh and two Lords after, that is, in multiplying our entities the referents swap structures, and we could bring confusion into this ‘divine arithmetic’ by careless usage in other ways. Which two is really one? Divine and human are two, but not the one human Who is always God - etc! Cyril was fully aware that the Spirit is given without measure to worthy recipients. Evidently, this is an outpouring of deific power, but precisely how it is given provides the key to what he is saying. If it is added as something supernatural, we add a nature to what already in some sense exists: but this idea clashes with the anointing of the Logos incarnate by the Spirit. God’s grace is the power of deification, given, first of all, by God to Himself. I think of this as a symbol indicating the assumption up into a nature always possessed of something not, viz, flesh is charged with power from His nature as theanthropos. Thus, we can refer to two natures as > = theanthropos + sarx. This simple formula is bristling with nuances, some of which are apparent if one simply considers the term theanthropos as a dyad: obviously, there appears to be a tertium or excess term. We need to look at this carefully ... The term theanthropos implies that manhood is ‘from above’, that is, using the terminology of Platonism (always a dubious exercise), manhood is ante res. It is not just His manhood which is defined in God, but ours also. Using the image of a shadow lost in incongrous images and earthly mutation, Christ’s manhood negates incongruity on these lower levels. He is, as it were, ‘reworking the continuum’ so that deification penetrates the fallen icons of manhood. He illuminates each mutated icon by empowering or ‘anointing’ particulars which are ontologically subsequent to the theanthropos as such. If we point to the theanthropos as two - God and man - and to the theanthropos as one, it is impossible to shift the tertium. Yet, in reality, it is the theanthropos Who is one because Godhead is the identity of manhood. Consequently, the iconic distortions in others except Christ have to be gathered in by reversing the definitions of manhood into this identity. The division in earthly man is overcome by the congruity implicit in > = theanthropos - sarx. This is a very difficult idea to comprehend, if only because something radical occurs when the flesh gives itself over to the body in the theanthropos ( .. the flesh metamorphosizes as it dematerialises). Let me try to explain some of this descriptively, using mental images rather than formulae. Normally considered, death places a carcass in the grave. It does not put a body in the grave: it puts flesh in its stead. In Christ’s grave there was no rotting flesh returning to the ‘dust of the ground’. The radicalness of Christ’s

336 genius is what he can do to living and dying flesh. Not only does He rid it of demons - the ignoble and vicious powers of vice, psychological or otherwise - but He improves flesh in startling ways. Having the flesh rid of is an operation of iconic displacement. The deific exclamation of S. Paul ‘in flesh or out of flesh I know not which’ - I’ve been there - negates formulaic specificity by abrogating the usual thoughts as to the confinality of flesh. This displacement is brought about by ‘a mysterious and inexpressible unification’ with hypostatic life - inexpressible via the formulae of fallen life. Now you will know the term hypostasis has a rich and convoluted philological history ( .. much of this we can forego examining here, but suffice to say I shall distinguish it from early Trinitarian use in which it meant ‘prosopon’). Indeed, we can appropriate its Antiochene-Nestorian usage in which it meant ‘outward appearance’, given a few correctives & provisos. A prosopon is an external and visible manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, as we dream our shadows into an abyss of distorted mirrors the pluralities of prosopa are reflections therein, masked and unmasked. The difference between hypostatic identity and mutancy is the display of prosopic becoming. We are, as it were, inspirited by our former identity in the return to it: thus, there is a movement whereby we attempt to fit our faces with Christ’s perfect face. The negation of flesh in this anomic (deifying) process is the fleshlessness of enhypostatic identity made manifest. Or, to suggest it from another angle, before birth we are nothing, but re-birthed in God the fleshlessness preceding spatio-temporal corporeality reaches into mutancy as a power which counteracts the envisagements of flesh. Thus, in the formula > = theanthropos - sarx, the minus symbolizes a disappearance contingent upon transcendent appearance. The fleshless body of light replaces abysmal differentiations, as a spotless mirror burns off the accretions on its surface. In this process we are dealing with ‘twoity twice’, because underneath the literal signings of deificational formulae a dyad is displaced by becomings. I am a god in God - two natures, one per gratiam and the other per se, with the latter indicating God Almighty’s ontological distinction from all others; and I am a god in flesh - two natures, one per gratiam and the other a mutant accretion, with the latter indicating a relatum which has become unlike its origin.

9. Here, then, we have a theoretical structure we can name transcendent realism, or divine realism, in which ‘likeness’ (Òµ@4TF4H) is its fundamental dynamic ( .. unlike Plato, in Tht. 176b, this is not ‘likeness to a god’ - 2,è - but the god’s likeness to Almighty God); and in which ‘unlikeness’ (•<@µ@4TF4H) is its negating counterpart. Transcendent realism thus signifies ‘negating powers’ whereby terms of a dyad repress their opposites - imperfection represses perfection, insanity represses sanity etc - as anhomoiosis becomes dominant. Naturally, this is reversible in a theology which does not mentally presume to rule out the continua of likeness, either by strictures against God’s accessibility

337 or by the negation of the possibility of likeness - say, via ontological gaps, divisions or separatenesses of complete (substantial) entities - and it should be evident that this process of homoiosis negates the enforced dualism implicit in flesh. In the dominance of perfection the powers of op-positing are relinquished into the relative nothing from which flesh takes its origin. Sanity banishes insanity as it voids the dyad, because ontological dyads are not equivalents in power, equal and opposite, but, rather, perfections with negative accretions attached, which rid themselves of the latter by the nullification of death. Likeness to God is more powerful than unlikeness; and Christ had no such negative accretions implicit in His flesh except ours (hence no remains seeking nullity). It is precisely because His flesh constantly interfaced with Himself as hypostasis that power was so easily transmitted ( .. this power is, ultimately, the transmission of God’s flesh to the fallen gods as the material of metamorphosis). Yet, herein, lies a contemplative problem in that constant interfacing appears to negate development, as if we are called on to affirm perfection in infancy and deny growth in understanding and wisdom. The only feasible response to this apparent discrepancy is to regard the assumption into His hypostasis as conditioned by the temporality of flesh - however, this ‘conditioning’ cannot negate the interface on pain of contradiction. In other words, the perfection in the enhypostasization of His flesh in His hypostasis cannot fluctuate as His wisdom and flesh grow. On an XY axis the perpendicular of enhypostatic transcendence Y(n) coincides with temporal development X(n) antinomially - the identity Y(n) = X(n) combines a constant with an apparent variable. I am thereby suggesting that soma F = Y(n) and sarx s = X(n) produces F = Y(s), but not s = X(F). This seems to express the antinomial idea that sarx can grow into soma by successive nullifications ( .. along the lines, say, of the living gradually dying); still as the theanthropos (>) = soma = Godhead is the constant in question - in fact, God’s unchangeability - we are left with vast perplexities in regard to the nature of the transfiguration on s in F. Therefore, if I say descriptively that fleshlessness supervenes in assumption, then the idea of sublation cannot cancel flesh in any empirical mode. Thus, if Y(n) = X(F), then s remains. However, to my mind, it is a matter of recognising that no formula can approach the intrinsic ineffability confronted in God’s humanity. It is not simply a question of refining one’s formulaic apparatus, if only because in becoming God one’s own deific agnosia supervenes. I believe, at least speculatively, that Christ faced Almightiness in the horror of a partial non-identity - ‘who sayest thou I am?’ - and, consequently, all I’s repeat the baffled unexplications of Christ in seeing and becoming God. On earth a god is beside him-self - as it were, deifically out of step. Only the highest theophany must reach thru to overthrow this fallen imaging. The grace of horror is the bleeding perception of truth.

10. In Cyril of Alexandria we experience thought about Christ in majestic

338 simplicity, but the psychic consequences beyond this were not simple at all: the technical legacy beyond Fullo’s recension was philosophically fraught. If, for example, God’s manhood overawed Ezekiel, what was saintly genius to make of this compounded? The religious mind can bow before antinomy in lieu of the living God, nullifying Him in the process. The idea of a human becoming divine is impossible for the undivinized, but God is not the ‘absolute of subject-object’, to be endlessly debated via a ‘multiplication of methodological prolegomena and arid inferences’: rather, He is the ultimately impossible Lord for Whom undifferentiations, absolutes, infinities and categories are as zero before His least thought. This God’s nature, even the least of two, is incommensurable before the highest intelligibles of human existence. He Who steps out on to the highest plateau of perfect Heaven is not compassed by the God that creation becomes, as He is always the Higher Overlord of everyone and everything. This Jesus Christ was once alone with the ‘ultra-magnificent genius of pure love’ and, as it were, He superceded Himself in loving another ... She was then raised for Whom Heaven was meant for Her delight. Hence, formulaic referents are antinomial on a level - not subject to resolution - because, as one physically transcends them by divine becomings, there is miraculous shifting and dissolutions of whatever was previously experienced as coordinative. God is not like His fallen (earthly) reputation. As usual I cannot sufficiently emphasize that terminology - being, nature, psyche - ‘goes over the side’ in the multiple realignments of unique experiences lifting one into the staggering and vast redoubts of the unutterable. When Ezekiel says that ‘out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures’, and ‘this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man, and every one had four faces and four wings’, we then confront Òµ@4@F4H - and, consequently, nature - of a sort for which there is no exemplarist or accurate expression. The fact that one can become like this man literally, seeing and thinking with four faces, thus naturally, in contradistinction to the bogus ideation implicit in something ‘supersensible’ or ‘super-natural’, simply reinforces the great truth that it is natural to be divine and Heavenly (and unnatural not to be). The immediate implication of the obvious reality of God - obvious, that is, in the negation of mutancy - is the virtually impossible expression of asymmetric incongruity via constructivistic formulae. It is precisely the dissolution of fleshly coordinates during life by the enhypostatic body that militates against this constructivism. Germanic idealism attempts to surmount transfiguration by antinomial formalism - it constructs what it posits, but its sublation of the finite is finite. Kant said we can only have a priori knowledge of those features of the things which we ourselves put into them (KdRV Bxviii): if the likeness of a man with four faces - albeit, not yet a god - replaces the fallen individual of Kant’s spectator, it is ultimately a god who falsifies the existence of an autonomous earth. The fallen god features the things he constructs (even the categories of anti-god) as finite; but because the finite spirit cannot get there, it presumes

339 infinite spirit is here. However, four faces per one head is certainly not here - it is not phenomenological nor a phenomenon, but it is literal. Kant’s Calvinistic narrow-mindedness condemned thought to the fallen experience of earth, but his successors, Hegel in particular, inflated the cage. Assymetric incongruity, or divine direction, minus the cage, brings one into God’s literal territory. Human nature in its false sense as anti-god approaches a nothing with which it cannot coincide: it does this by downsizing the divine Christ and His gods. Hegel’s humanism - ‘God is our creation and I am its latest embodiment’ - is pernicious conceptuality, which presumes that ‘Absolute Spirit’ supercedes, sublates or ‘out-absolutizes’ the zenith of spirituality in Christ Almighty. Hegel, like Nietzsche and mankind in general, steals sacred terms and mixes them with the excrement of the world. To stand beyond the world literally, seraphically human, is by the singular courtesy of Jesus of Nazareth. There ‘no paraphrase of similitude with lesser levels’ disturbs the mighty splendour of being human. As one’s might is incongruous with anything less, one stands with the God Who birthed us above - from Heaven we came - stands amidst the sacrosanct triumph of hearts broken and true, Whose love defeats the vicious incarceration promulgated by fallen man. So, it is in this complex we can consider your (previous) question, regarding impassibility. First of all let us deal with what it is not.

11. You will be aware of the pagan correlates for this idea, but to my mind the contrary results of modern scholarship (regarding them) stem, as usual, from theoretical imbalances in the ontological theories of their respective proponents. Philosophical thought tends to replicate old positions in newly-contrived forms, especially those of the ‘intelligible and sensible worlds’, as if a new twist on an old axis is capable of providing solutions to problems unsolvable via philosophical means. Truth is the resultant of one correct route thru’ a labyrinth, and all other routes bring one up against the sheer monstrosity of the cage, iron and merciless. Thus, one can view life’s internality from the vantage-point of arcane maps and blueprints, but unless the psyche treads in the footsteps of our Ancient God the maze remains impenetrable. Inaccuracy in one formula redistributes complexity, but it must be recognised that even highly intelligent ‘script upon the wall’ may indicate solutions found only beyond the exit.Take, for example, Plotinus and his ‘axial twists’ on Platonism. To me these are grotesque echoes of the much finer thought of Origen, whose towering genius - the greatest mind of post-Apostolic antiquity - is of an elevation worthy of his divine Master. But this is not to say Plotinus’s thought regarding impassibility cannot be used as contrasts before they are discarded ( .. compare Cax Vitas Patr ii 220 b/2, ‘the hauen of saluacyn Impassyble: that is to saye to the blysse that euer shall last without ende’ .. ) The trite abstractionism of impassibility usually forgets horror - Ez 32/10, ‘with ful myche orrour shulen be agast upon thee’ - in that we are talking about the ultimate origin of suffering, pain and agony. Every

340 ‘minor wrench’ of howling, seething and blistering pain confounds and pisses on theory. Theory from the Greeks is the non-suffering of afterthought (pagan dead think not nor speak): ‘now we can think about it’: hence, rationalization and the pretence of the idyllic as normative, as it is not happening now. As it happens now the ‘impulses of impact’ hammer shrieking nerve-endings and rend flesh. The barbaric bradall driven into the eye, the vigorous tamping-rod blown thru’ the left orbit, the puddled iron ripping skin into charcoal with murderous fury - &c - this leaves us with mere after-thoughts on passibility, even as survivors of the horrors wrought on others. Consequently, where ‘one nature’ ends and ‘another nature’ begins or where bleeding seals the continuum of suffering as it passes into non-suffering or whence and at what point death melts us down into the transfiguration of immortality (at the pleasure of Him Who immortalizes), God knows: that it is not by Hegel and his academic kin, who act as if they can walk on water, God also knows. Meantime, back to theory ...

12. To my mind Plotinus immediately neutralizes data regarding impassibility by maintaining, with ‘elaborations’, the dyad of Platonism: on the one hand, eide qua ideai or ‘noetic referents’ (sometimes, ambiguously, regarded as monistic causes or aitiai); and, on the other, the becomings of many (particular) objects. This is the classical theme running through most developments of philosophical thought, viz, my aforementioned ‘one two purporting to make one’, except that here it is usually undecidable whether the one or a plurality of first principles really supervenes (for example, a perfect or eidetic straight line is immediately self-contradictory when noetic exemplars are multiplied into, say, a perfect triangle or square). Likewise, of course, the self- contradiction in Plato’s dyad translates through into divine anthropology, and one is immediately confounded in their view of perfect manhood, universality, transcendent embodiment, and so on. Now why modern Platonici cannot recognise the imminence of this dire self-stultification in their respective schematics is beyond me, except that I would see it as ensnarement via manifest stupidity and-or as the futility implicit in attempting to fasten one’s head in the bars of a cage. Its paraphrase or imitation occurs again in Kantianism, and thus - as Hegel recognised, despite an alteration in terms - in Fichte and Schelling. Hegel’s abortive struggle to free himself from enmeshment in this (ancient) dyad results in the attempted cancellation of one of its terms. Hegel enlarges Kant’s nihilation of the noumenon - being beyond the vanishing-point of phenomena - insofar as ‘Geist’ is really a vacuous entity leaving fallen humanity intact and still caged. Evidently, I think the squirmings of Plotinus are part of the heresy of philosophy. The usual ‘obfuscational schematics’ come into play, even though he attempts to use variations of omnipresence as a means of ‘monadic consistency’ in his system. Naturally, on the other side, there is a discrepancy between the relation of participability or µX2,>4H in objective particulars and

341 eide (that is, whether one substitutes omnipresence for emanationist ‘orders and levels’ or inserts participability in materiality, the incongruity of the relation of monad to dyad remains a bone in the craw of metaphysical (Neo)-Platonism. I argue that every philosophy is a disguised form of necessity, as is every religion and political ideology; and I argue that this ‘necessity’ disguises the one true theology of the manifest Vision of Christ Almighty. Philosophy - along with its inbred and whoring daughters - is merely rebellion against God. So, even if materiality is further divided into a representational and an-sich determination, the idea of participability inheres in an initial self-contradiction of intelligibles (noeta, ideai - call them what one will). This is because depersonalised and non- experiential entities, mythic negatives, are hoisted into theory in lieu of participability in God. µX2,>4H is not about the receptive capacity of material coinherence, which results in a predication of the impassibility of objects, leaving one as dead as a brick or a piece of furniture. Matter remains completely unaffected by the intelligible world in Plotinus’ thought, but the flesh is material in my world and that of others. Consequently, if we divide materiality into forms of potentiation and ‘proximateness’ - say, to maintain an omnipresent hypostasis underlying externality, as with Aristotle’s ‘prime matter’ - then omnipresence is bifurcated and the dyad remains in contradistinction to the monadic principle forwarded. This kind of thing always happens in philosophy, if only because becoming does not link in with a hypostasis penetrating the outside of the cage. Kant is the most infamous exponent of this dispiriting cage: his two subjective necessities are the necessary conditions of objective experience - i.e. - the subject must be in space, the subject must be in time - hence, necessities are necessities of thought. ‘Intuition’ - Anschauung - is a necessary way of looking at things, and reason is the necessity which takes us from one thing to another. We are only noumenally ‘free’ - therefore, not at all - because the absence of necessity is impossible. Necessity thus claims to be the world’s god - it also nullifies prayer by its own inefficacy, denies God’s power to overcome anything necessitous, and it denies the necessity of God. This view is equivalent to the defiance in Goethe’s ‘Prometheus’ - ‘Hast du’s nicht alles selbst vollendet, Heilig glühend Herz - hast thou (you yourself, not God) not everything perfected, holy, blazing heart - where freedom is the “freedom” to necessitate ourselves & where necessity completes us. We necessitate - thus there is no need or necessity for God. We have, incidentally, deified space and time. Hegel, following this lead, provides the cage with a higher - yet equally false - god, viz, the negation of beyond as necessary for the dialectic of this god’s necessity. What philosophers fail to comprehend is that ‘change in objects’ is at the behest of God’s command, and that beguilement by consciousness is something humans adhere to by the insistence implicit in the pretence of being human (rather than god-human in the God beyond). Non-existence is a command relative to where God disposes - places or raises - the RLP¬ of the currently- enfleshed god; and, therefore, if He so wishes commonality - projections

342 consonant with cognitions imbedded in the flesh - can be disbanded into regions of unutterable vision. It is really self-evident that abstractions from ‘the one’ derive initially from a spatial metaphor, but, if we ask where the edges of spatiality reside, a contradiction is generated immediately, and, naturally, as contradictions lack objective perseity, it could be effectively argued that ‘the one’ is an unstable fiction - a fiction, moreover, linked to the warped & fallen internality of mutant vision. Now even though the solid content of spatiality appears to confirm its ‘reality’ per necessitatem (whatever this means in a paradoxical complex of referents), if spatiality is prior to thingness or objecthood, then the logical status of space applies to its content: therefore, omnipresence in conjunction with ‘the one’ is as logically stultifying as the impossibility of formulating ‘oneness’. In Kant’s universe the oneness of space and time compels thought and the world to occur without our consent - involuntarily, necessarily - but I argue this necessity is consented to by the god who poses as human. Kant’s assertions of choice and freedom hang on a background of necessity like dead genitalia - they are unexperienceable because ‘natural phenomenal being’ (one nature) excludes noumenal freedom (another nature). The experienceable and the unexperienceable cannot be reconciled by this means ( .. the phenomenal cannot go beyond the vanishing-point of perspectival mass, but if the unexperienceable causes phenomena necessity intrudes into noumenal freedom, making Kant’s dyad logically unstable as Jacobi argued). Knowledge beyond the vanishing- point is rigidly proscribed by Kant, but, by necessity, he is forced to transgress this by claiming to know ‘nothing experienceable beyond’. The enhypostasis of a metamorphosized human - the god - however, makes the unexperienceable experienceable ( .. the self-imprisonment of the fallen god is shattered in un- deifying the cage of necessity - there is no dyad of noumenon and phenomenon, only divine-human and subhuman, in which the latter moves beyond the vanishing-point of its fallen self, back into the divine).

13. But let me give you some indication as to what I mean by regions of unutterable vision ( .. even whilst maintaining the ‘non-specifiability’ of unutterableness). God’s existence is as impossible as His non-existence - i.e. - nothing is as impossible as its negation, so God precedes the impossible negation of nothing and the non-existence of nothing: therefore, God’s impossibility cannot be identified with the impossibility which negates nothing, as the latter does not exist. Just as non-existence cannot exist - this would imply nothing incapable of negation, or the existence of nothing - existence is impossible if it originates from itself (that is, it is impossible for nothing to exist before self- origination): consequently, God’s impossibility precedes the existence of self- origination (contra the dictates of monistic or monadic egoism). The impossibility of God’s existence thus precedes subsequent impossibilities, including the impossibility of self-origination. As the •DPZ of impossibility, God

343 is neither nothing nor self-origination: the arche always impossibly is, and thus it cannot be identified with an arche which impossibly is not: hence, of this arche - which always impossibly is - there was never when it was not. This unoriginated self is impossible even in the ultra-raised terms of a deific vocabulary, as He is a figure for Whom every is-ness cannot compare, and before Whose incomparability every impossibility is minor and mute. It is this Christ Almighty Who delivers innocence in immaculate peace, and in and around Whom divinity manifests according to the participable capacity of the recipient.

14. Now Plotinus’ theory of receptivity argues that one relatum is material, and this immediately snags the theorist in ambiguities vis-à-vis necessary causation: eide + matter, or eidetic causation solely ( .. one relatum splits oneness, and so forth). This is further compounded by the abstract relata implicit in omnipresence ( .. the all oneness of ‘the one’ multiply relates), which I have indicated snarls up because ‘being qua the one’ is self-contradictory: to be consistent this one-nipresence finally forces Plotinus to deny the reality of human embodiment. This immediately results in gross absurdities: passibility is eradicated because the psyche “erroneously identifies itself” with nothing, and, therefore, in the elimination of one side of a relation, participability is undone. There is a similarity in this sort of nonsense with some of the extremes of Aphthartodocetic Monophysitism. The assertion or denial of predicates passing over the dyad and-or the dyad translating itself into the monad (etc), is an attempted means whereby the Platonici and heretical Christians falsely ‘bridge the gap’ between intransigent unity and its negation. The endeavour to establish a continuum between the differentials of irreconcilable (dyadic) extremities is only answered by death, that is, the accretion of flesh enjoined on man by the Almighty’s command - I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High, but ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes - is transfigured by Him as a repealed ordinance, and sealed with blood on broken bones. That is not to say, however, that death cannot intrude into anything considered as living, because the glory of death penetrates the divide and raises subhumans into divine reality as they live and breathe: in name this is life but in deed it is death, as Heraklitos so accurately put it (against Nietzsche). Subhumans inhabit death in their multiple gestures, giving death to each other in the variegated sensibilities of insane activity, this and every day, for beneath the kiss of air and sunshine only the insanity of death rules the world. In unutterable vision dying is a precursor of the enlightened citadels of splendour, from whose mighty ramparts ecstacies of light drum in the magnificence of intellect, made holy by God Almighty ( .. not by the courtesy of any insane dialectic presumed for ‘the one’, whose destruction as a confused and ‘internally- tense’ edifice is not particularly difficult for those who know better). So, the ‘couplement’ of dyad and monad is presumed superceded by the idea that ‘not the one’ is lower than ‘the one’. This is based on the idea that negative ascription

344 always possesses a dual as referent, and that an ascription beyond an artificially constructed highest dual negatively indicates ‘the one’. If we argue that such- and-such ought to be ascribed to ‘the one’, there can be an immediate rejoinder that such-and-such is thereby dual (or dyadic or relational), and thus the requirement that we purge or negate the dual remains: hence, if we purge ‘not the one’ to engender predominance, there is no reason why we cannot purge ‘the one’ to get ‘not the one’ as that which predominates. Furthermore, if we think oneness ought to be applied to ‘the one’, no ascription whatsoever can be applied without a dual resulting (that is, if anything could be ascribed to ‘the one’, then to say it is ‘the one’ negates it). Likewise, if we say with Plotinus that the ‘sense world’ is in one place, but the ‘intelligible world’ is everywhere (that the omnipresence of intelligibility is, as it were, one-nipresence), then the one of place is not the one of everywhere unless sensibility is everywhere vacuous. Consequently, if ‘the one’ really predominates, then any ‘a one’ is apparent or phantasmal in relation to ‘the one’. This implies that one individual cannot relate to ‘the one’ without expressing the dual or asserting self-negation: this dual either negates ‘the one’ if it cannot be purged, or it negates itself if it can. Now in assuming the latter we negate ‘a one’ for ‘the superior one’, in an attempt to authenticate the idea that we never really come down into the dyad or drop out of the monad. If we now refer to ‘a one’ or one individual as a a man or self or psyche - say, for the sake of steering terms towards Plotinus’ usage - then a self’s power of passing beyond itself towards its union with absolute, unlimited, unknowable selfhood ( .. that is, towards its union with ‘the one’ of the superior self), requires the absolute purging of ‘not the one’ - i.e. - as the superior self never really comes down to earth or drops beneath itself, the inferior (material) self’s struggle for reunion never really takes place. It thus appears in (Neo)- Platonism as if the puppet-master’s puppet is the master himself disguised in the concretion of nothing: or, to put it another way, when the puppet finally climbs its own strings it recognises itself as ‘the one’ who pulled them, except that neither strings nor puppet ever existed. On Plotinus’ first principle of ‘the one’ the dyadic contradiction of ‘not the one’ is impermissible as a complement, and therefore ‘not the one’ is on a lower level. From this it can be immediately argued that ‘not the one’ is not a relatum or dyadic term ( .. ‘the one’ refuses it as ‘not itself’, or ‘the one’ refuses it as negation, complement, dual, and so on, and ‘the one’ cannot conjoin with any other dual, if only because it is an ontological signifier like zero in the arithmetical line. Zero cannot contradict one because it does not exist, and ‘not the one’ is likewise used as a symbol indicating the nothingness implicit in the dyadic movement towards concretion). However, let us look at this more figuratively, so I can bring out what my expressions intend:

15. Conceive of an exemplarist god who surveys ordinary humanity and notes physicality, materiality, objecthood and things as indicative of its way of

345 life. This exemplarist god realises that man is a fairly solid entity who dreams, and that dreams are of a different stuff than flesh. Conceive furthermore that the god recognises that man is, as it were, himself ‘inside out’ - man is matter with immaterial (spiritual) dreams, but the god is spirit with material dreams. The god, therefore, concludes that the affinity between man and himself is that he is dreaming man, that is, the god’s dream is material. Now imagine this god has a nightmare whilst sound asleep in his spiritual (immaterial) body, and that he appears in his own nightmare as a man. Thereupon, he is approached by Plotinus, who attempts to teach him his doctrine of egregorsis - ¦(D0(@DF4H - or wakefulness. The god is taught he is ‘the one’ above, and that his nightmarish, material self is not really real. Yes, it is real, he is told, but not really real, because your superior self is up above. Moreover, not only is the god’s really real self above, but it is always up above. The god’s error in thinking himself a material man with spiritual dreams is caused by identification of the above self with the lower self. This is Plotinus’ scheme ‘in the rough’. ‘The one’ is the one exemplarist god who is meant to gather up concrete psychai - every other embodiment of himself in the nightmare - and erase them by his awakening. Whilst in the nightmare ‘the other’ exists, but on waking only ‘the one’. In this descriptive schema the ‘couplement’ of ‘the one’ and ‘the other’ must relegate the knowing of the god whilst other, that is, there is an immediate epistemological problem if the knower is down. It helps little to suggest that the god’s superiority never descends, or that his ‘predominance’ as a man is, as it were, involved in the dialectic of a deific shift. Rather, there are diaphorai between the respective ‘knowings and knowns’, and I have previously indicated that ‘down in the shift’ an ascription is required beyond an artificially constructed highest dual which negatively indicates ‘the one’. Let us suppose that the ‘downed god’ in the material nightmare is told that whilst he thinks duals they will exist and cage him, and thus that he will not be able to return to himself as ‘the one’. Further suppose that this ‘dreamt and lost soul’ - for such he now is as ‘not the one’, with multiple uncertainties - is seeking for the highest dual in an effort to prove that every dyad can be superceded. He will need something which negatively indicates ‘the one’ in a sense that positive indication cannot ( .. he will need to know that it is ‘the one’ he confronts, and not another configuration engendered in the nightmare by himself as a puppet). Now if something positively indicates ‘the one’ it is ‘not the one’, because if either downed god or puppet says ‘the one’ is known, this displaced knowingness is coupled with unknowingness - the god is other than himself - and a dyad results. On being so ‘stymied’ - stultified or blocked - the god could reason so as to negate or lower every complementary term in every pair (dyad, dual, couple, relation, etc), so that the highest dual relinquishes its status to one negative ascription, viz, something not dual. That is, not something ‘knowing and known’ (or whatever) is elevated by couplement, but one negative ascription

346 ( .. not ‘not the one’ either, even though the god could regard this as non-dual). If the god identified ‘not the one’, he would not have become ‘the one’; or, even if the god became ‘the one’, and knew ‘not the one’ , he could not be ‘the one’. Thus, what proof could furnish the god with the least evidence ‘the one’ exists at all? If he reasons it is necessary to become ‘the one’ ( and not know ‘not the one’ or ‘the other’ to be ‘the one’), then his starring in his own nightmare stultifies oneness by equating it with nothing he can find. ‘The one’ cannot be equated with ‘anything else’ in Neo-Platonism, but I would suggest that the material dream belongs to the god even if it and he are eventually relinquished into nothingness. We have abundant evidence for ‘not the one’, but even if Plotinus or the exemplarist god became ‘the one’, then it seems that the monad frequently ‘blobs out’ as the dyad. In the nightmare ‘everything is not really real including the messenger who brings this information’ .... There is, however, worse to come in Plotinus’ nightmare. The ‘gestalt blob’ of unific undifferentiation renders the ‘return into itself’ - ¦B4FJD@NZ - impossible, because the schema (plus attached thought) is intrinsically nonsensical. In attempting to inform the god the messenger indicates we are ‘the one’ in disguise, deceived no less by our higher self into becoming essentially vacuous and impossibly at odds with lost identity. Furthermore - so the messenger says - there is an axiological system innate in the lost god’s dilemma, viz, repetition, including that of a punitive nature, occurs if one’s virtue decreases. One goes further down into multiplicity, and a pagan theory of •<@µ@4TF4H now appears, viz, the descent of metempsychosis or reincarnation begins its cyclic sweep, downwards into the vortex of evil. The delusion is punitive if one cannot escape enchainment in the raving discord of this nightmare. Escape seems to imply, moreover, that only one who becomes ‘the one’ can return with keys for the chains. The god is split above and below by the higher self of the messenger, and history becomes an account of the returns of ‘enlightened’ messengers (as in the Hindu and Buddhist mythic vein), the existence of whom demonstrates that ‘the one’ is never effectively reconstituted. Subjugation and enslavement by cosmic deception means Truth cannot be reached. The god who wakes above must constantly sleep again to send messengers into his dream (all current individuals must be rescued). From ‘this side’ ‘the one’ is always unreachable because of the presence of a god or messenger here below, and from ‘the one’s’ side - even though it cannot, therefore, strictly exist - it is distended permanently in the plurality it seeks to phantasmally negate. Consequently, in Neo-Platonism - given the dialectical tensions buried in its extremities - exalted schematics are engaged in by the gods fastened at the throat, and this subterranean cage maintains a ‘rapprochment via intellection’ with its enslaved and enslaving lineal descendants (example: “the knowers” who staffed the nineteenth century Prussian bureaucracy in the name of Hegel and a pagan ideal). And these ‘cockroaches of the Spirit’ presumed to know better than the loveliness of deliverance in our Lord Jesus Christ Almighty,

347 lone Master of everything, in front of Whom all being is and of Whom there never was not, that is, He Whose peerless intellect and mature innocence enables man to rise to the face of Godhead. His alone is the path which celebrates the living splendour of immortal genius as it confronts the miraculous kingdom of awesome divinity in which He dwells, because as man treads the ineffable he again recognises the Lord God Omnipotent Who created him.

16. One route into Hegel’s revised Neo-Platonism, with the forced necessity of its material adjuncts, is through the mind of Hölderlin, who, with his idiosyncratic inaccuracies and mammoth incoherences, at least recognised the impossible disparity between ‘the one’ and its presumed co-alignment with ‘the many’. Nothing philosophical or mathematical can reconcile the fundamental irreconcilabilty of ‘one’ and ‘two’. Neither apodictic reason coupled with the disjunctive objectifications of ‘nature’, or supersensuous (primordial) unity over against human thought - etc - can overcome or solve the ancient problem of the relationship of the antecedent of the ground and the ground. Much of Platonism and Idealism is about approaches to the solution of this problem, presuming, that is, that thought can surpass images of infinite spheres and immeasurable circles, which are mere analogues for the unattainable. Hölderlin thought that philosophy was the ground or condition for this impossibility. His failure to bypass or ‘take out’ the dyad of ‘sensible and intelligible worlds’ is probably the ideological root of his madness. Again, from our metaphorical perspective, an exemplarist god recognises that ‘the one’ reappears negatively in our eternal and unfulfilled striving to re-establish it ( .. if an idea of ‘the one’ leads the god to believe that primordial oneness precedes his thought, then he is seeking to be ‘assumed upwards’ via a ratio rationally, but it is precisely because mathematics exhibits irratios that ‘penetration by anthropological content’ is impossible. The failure to mentally perceive that irratios - incommensurables, antinomies and insolubilia - are meant to indicate inhibited or blocked deification is the god’s basic flaw: ‘thru’ this way thou shalt not go’ is its underlying message, as he probes the impenetrable walls of his labrynthine cage. The alliance of the ratio in Platonism with auxilary functions in mathematics results in methods searching for implicit totalities between veritates necessariae and veritates contingentes, as if schematic similarities between mathematical and philosophical ratios can effect an instrument sufficient to discover truth. “Truth”, as infrastructured conceptuality, nullifies Godhead by the substitution of logical apparatuses for deific power, and if, as with Hölderlin, infrastructures do not bring on the desired result of freedom, then the opposite of rationality is supposed to be the only alternative. Number - as with other privileged archetypes and ‘master names’ - is supposed to anticipate and implicate all implicit totalities, one and many, but it cannot reintegrate the sensuous manifold with antinomial schematics. The rehabilitation of the sensuous to its own deific height is not achieved by arrangements of

348 conceptuality and Iamblichian or Neo-Pythagorean theurgy. Nor is the rehabilitation the ‘movement of a magnified power into the utmost depth, to the remotest regions of the land of spirit, where the soul of the world emanates its life into the thousand pulses of nature, whereto the effluvious forces return in their immeasurable circle’, and so forth, if only because this analogia is as useless to deification as to an indecipherable ‘one’. Mathematical and logical symbols decorate the bars and pinions in the god’s cage, but in Hölderlin’s Neo- Platonism a litany of trapped energy cannot pass from a ground inside to its antecedent outside. No individual can move beyond imprisonment by an annihilation of dichotomies and antitheses, as if a concept ‘out there’ provides a means of schematic decipherment. For a modern Platonist like Frege to suggest that number is ‘out there’ is to erroneously assume that the antecedent of the ground intelligibilizes the ground numerically, when, in reality, number invariably implies a ground of insolubilia, indicating that ‘in here’ - in the cage - is rationally deranged. In mathematics the ground is designed by the gods to repel penetration, and no blueprint or ground-plan of the multiplicities of insolubilia can even begin to describe outside the cage. Let me try to give you some ideas thereupon, as I assume the mantle of our exemplarist god ...

17. I spent nearly 10 years ‘creating’ a radical (Non-Cantorian) transfinite arithmetic of immense complexity and depth, subscribing to the myth of the perfectibility of a mathematical instrument. One of its characteristics was the non-constructibility of tertium non datur in the transfinite case, that is, its partial constructibility produced a negation of this ‘mathematical law’ ‘undoing the processes of finite logics’. I first of all determined ‘sentential (propositional) lengths’ of finite, growing finite and (different) infinite sorts, so that constitutive elements of sentences expanded beyond the remits of determinative identities. I spent years analyzing the Fourier-Bolzano series and all paradigms of the arithmetical line - finite forms with finite and infinite contents, transfinite forms with finite and infinite contents, and so on, generating mathematical models on which to map infinite languages. As Gödel arithmetized on to prime numbers for identifiable sequences, I explored arithmetization on to irrational sequences and transfinite numbers ( .. all this to see where the ‘middle third’, the tertium exclusi, made its return beyond finitistic proscription). In so doing I began to see (unknown) transfinite fractions, between recognised orders of infinity. Thereupon, I wrote up my first mathematical notebook, six months lovingly in the making, scripting unknown realms into formulaic beauty, as I gazed into the ethereal wonders of sign, counter-sign, symbol and the algorithmic glories of my own creation. Then one night I had a vision ( .. a visit from God’s reality) which blew my every intellectual circuit. This ‘visit’ was so wonderfully (divinely) immaculate, that I threw what I thought of as an ‘advanced mathematical masterpiece’ on to the fireback, returning my genius to Him Who had given it to me in the first place. And I suffered unutterably. Successively, however, God

349 began to show me the way out of the cage. The ‘beings’ that guided me ‘downed un-divinized consciousness’ cannot envisage. An archangel is not a chieftain across the skies - such magnificent wise beauty, I weep with happiness at the thought of it; also, strange delicate creatures of exquisite mien - one has to see them to truly believe. Nothing can overthrow, overcome or cancel the revelations of Christ Almighty - revelation, the opening of the divine, is how He acts. I have told the story many times of how He said to me, I have given you infinities to play with and an infinity to search for; and so it was that the impossibility of going further with my transfinite fractions led me into God’s ‘intelligible realm’, in which miraculous transdimensionality transfigures ‘figuring and calculation’, and lights resplendent issue from the swirling cloak of the warlord of the just. In the sacrifice of genius there is the reward of overcoming, but its refusal sacrifices the genius. Hölderlin was torn on the divide of dichotomy, and sacrificed between sensorary deprivation and the logical-illogical ideal. The logic of ‘the one’ is illogical, and in Hölderlin’s case he first learned Kant’s undifferentiated unknown beyond the vanishing-point, an imaginary focus implied by, as it were, perspectival masses of phenomena; and then he learned Fichte’s flagrant violation of this in that, as the undifferentiated free act of an infinite I, Kant’s unknown is named beyond the vanishing-point. Fichte’s infinite I is ‘the one’ which cannot be experienced (it is the origin of all experience), thus this infinite unific undifferentiation ‘splits off itself’ a dyad of the empirical I and the empirical not I. The introduction of a splitting of ‘the one’ of unific undifferentiation in Germany is by Fichte, but this generates massive technical and psychological problems. Fichte, in his anti-Kantian attempt to deny an independent thing-in-itself, says that within the infinite I he posits the finite I and the finite not-I: hence ‘the one’ of infinity splits. How an infinity splits or how ‘the one becomes a finite two’ is not explained by Fichte, but it certainly implies usurpation of the role of God Almighty (the unexperienceable infinite I taking His place), unprovable and false deification, and a schizophrenic deity. Fichte’s fundamental contradiction is that the infinite I denies an independent thing-in- itself, but the empirical I is independent of the infinite I, the thing-in-itself. Why would infinite unific undifferentiation want to divide? The ultimate assertion of Idealism is the world is the way we think it, not God, unless I think God is dislodged by a form of the self. However, the superiority of the infinite (primary) I leads to the inferiority of the finite (secondary) I, and, because ‘the one’ of undifferentiation is predicateless, we are left with the mysterious surfeit (and contradiction) of a predicated dyad. It is part of the spirit of those times that the ‘house of Christ’ is usurped by bourgeois atheists, inventing and re-inventing God, against the dead God of Protestantism and western Catholicism (thus ‘false deificational ideas’ versus ‘anti-deificational ideas’, or a worthless war). As the pagan logic of ‘the one’ is illogical, its remoulding in Königsberg, Weimar, Jena and Berlin birthed the madness of the denial of access to the ßB`FJ"F,4H of the

350 Godhead. This always results in maddening necessity as ‘noumenal freedom’, beyond the limit, is bound in by the limits of appearance. As freedom from the cage is independent of experience, Schiller’s Kantian credo - “no greater word has been spoken by mortal man” - of ‘determine yourself by your own resources’, merely strengthens the deterministic chain of human events. Schiller sees humans as mechanisms of self-contradiction - they are devoid of self- determination via necessity, yet determine themselves against necessity. “Freedom” is seen as an unexperienceable unknown negated by empirical necessity: tho’ freedom can itself never “meet the gaze of the senses”, what matters is it should appear free, not really be so: in fact, freedom in appearance is the beauty of the cage, and Goethe can speak of freedom as ‘the spirit of fraudulence’ as ‘man is born for bondage’. Making a virtue of necessity is based on a subhuman premise, the fallen gods cannot rise, ignorance of deific metamorphosis prevails, and the infestation of non-gods is almost everywhere. The denial of Christ’s efficacious power (including the power to free) eliminates manhood before its sub-stance became insane. A fallen god, in the insanity of crawling night, thinks that cadaverous barks and murderous impulses (in life’s maddening and distorted consciousness), rules out the existence of that hyper-miraculous (divine) extra-dimensionality into which I enter. My axiological system, so it seems to me, was fashioned in God’s destiny as appalling suffering in a boy who bled mentally, but whose virtuous heart (I always knew what love was, despite life’s warp) rose into the greatest of adventures, by courtesy of the gentle God Who loved him. This same God watched him in terrible failures as he strove to lift the world, but all the time He taught him. Hence, I received tremendous hostility - suspicion, hate - because even paradise threatens ‘identity’ and the way of the world. Chariots of angels appeared before him, and awesome beings welcomed him into realms sacred of Christ, of boundless magnificence and of aesthetic tableux majestic in their glorious fulminations, height over height in becoming a god. Thus, to think that Almighty God would not provide an exit:access via Himself, is merely the chief lie and propoganda of earth’s encaging death camp. Earth is Belsen-Auschwitz everyday, with its guiding philosophies. When God is ready He strikes up and He strikes down, but loving Truth above all allows one into the regions of all Truth. Genius is not necessarily a bad thing (when its strike is accurate), but the genius of God is extremely interesting. To see Him arrive with power is the hem of his garment (how different from Goethe on Kant, who, ‘after spending a long lifetime cleansing his philosophical mantle of various dirty prejudices, has viciously smeared it with the vile stain of radical evil, so that Christians after all can also kiss its hem’ - so, Christ Almighty as a dirty prejudice begins to rule the roost as His antithesis in bourgeois mentalities), but to be raised into Heaven - pure, gleaming, immaculate - is the dawn of everlasting innocence and innocent perfection. It is here that the broken are mended (before death) by the balm of

351 Gilead, and where the afflicted find utter peace. Somewhere it is where I live always and for evermore, up beyond the sight of man in the true heart of Christ’s mercy, where I most want to be, by courtesy of our Omnipotent Creator. The question ‘how did He do it all?’ is asked of Him in the adoration of champions, and answered ‘I always am’; and ‘from where didst Thou come?’ is replied to ‘I am the Immortal Who birthed all immortals from Myself and from a nothing you cannot conceive’. This God is impossible, but reigns ...

18. Hölderlin’s leanings towards a Fichtean terminology are further compounded by the thematics of an approaching brain-storm. To my way of thinking it is obvious his sane philosophical views are nothing of the kind. When he expresses “the first raw pain of dissolution, still too unfamiliar in its depth for the suffering and observing man”, it is linked with the incomprehensible and the struggle of death. It is further linked, certainly by the incomprehensibility of his language, with a “frightful yet divine dream” in a “state of necessity between being and non-being”. The legacy of Plato in Fichte’s “relation of efficacy” is a coming-to-be thru’ a passing-away, as the “forever-creative” - das Immerwährendschöpferische - breaks down the psyche into the “newly- originating” - das Neuenstehende. Hölderlin’s idea that the genesis of the individual is out of the infinite (lifted from Schiller), suggests an “unbounded trans-mogrification” via a grotesque self-birthing in the inner madhouse of confused inferential structure. Fichte’s characteristic form of reciprocity in the relation of efficacy is based on the mutual intrusion of the I into the not-I, that is, there is an underlying assumption of incomplete components interacting, with a subsequent or simultaneous ‘becoming through disappearance’. A drop of vinegar in a boundless maelstrom of ocean ceases to be, as das Immerwährendschöpferische generates a torrential outpouring of newly- originating forms of incompleteness and dissolution, as if Heraklitos had located a maenadic extremity in the convulsive and fulgurating orgasms of deific insanity. Hegel characterises Kant and Fichte - as Reinhold did Schelling - as arguing for the absoluteness of the finite, which results in the absolute antithesis of finitude and infinity - i.e. - as if they argue for a contradiction, but the idea of ‘ontological erasure’ is maintained by Hölderlin’s ideal dissolution in Hegel’s finitude which is infinite, because it eternally nullifies itself. This nullification is out of nothing - the nothing of passing-away whilst coming-to-be - and the “pure night of infinity”, but it implies the unintelligibility of interaction between dyadic substances, which, to produce ‘the one’, vanquish the content of a term. It is this sort of thing which demonstrates the the “transparency of God”, as I, the spiritual entity, and I, the bodily frame in the physical world, coalesce in unity and thus eliminate an identity beyond myself. This sort of aggrandizement is the humanism of ego inflation folded in by neutral monism, and one of its minor consequences is the deindividuation of identity. In Goethe’s world, deindividuation is necessary to serve the organic

352 whole. The exemplarist god is here the sum of every (other) diversified psyche, awaiting a collectivist (totalitarian) excision or curtailment of itself as a particular. In Plotinus’ thought this leads to equivocation regarding individual identity, in that other particulars await a merger in the god. Despite the fact that a further (unknown) process is needed to fulfil this requirement, I personally think Plotinus observed a prosopic theophany - a divine manifestation of multiplicity centred on the individual, which he subsequently misplaced theoretically: that is, he misunderstood what he saw in concluding that the retrenchment of individuation leads to the absorption of others. This mistake is easily made in that assimilation into ‘the one’ can be taken to be ‘the one’ manifesting itself in the elimination of the prosopa of others. However, what militates against the efficacy of this scheme is the continued existence of others as living and breathing entities: it is as if the exemplarist god awakes above, leaving his concrete dream intact below. This results in ‘the one’ being constantly folded in and down ( .. ‘the one’ microcosmic god must undergo an unstable transformation into ‘the one’ macroscopic god, whilst leaving behind a dyadic residue - the god is pinned by untenable positions in an ego-centric predicament, like a skeleton dragging the carcass of existence attached to its heels. The beheaded chicken dances on, its spirit having departed). This method of ‘the one’ overcoming itself always leaves a surfeit, and whatever the nature of this, dead matter or matter animated from within, it is impossible to contain residual multiplicity. Schelling’s objective subject-object is a second nature of the god, and this second nature amounts to little more than a futile attempt to gather in the extremities of antitheses. Two goes into ‘the one’ twice, and Hegel’s wish to reconstitute the whole by the “suspension of dichotomy” leads to the identification of opposites, as he nullifies the ‘nullification of one of the opposites’. Fichte exalts an eventual infinitude after the absolutization of finitude, and Schelling exalts finitude by the present negation of the absolutization of infinitude, but Hegel nullifies these positions by drafting in an infinitude now. Hegel really attempts to encompass everything, the all, in a oneness of ‘spiritualized nature’ (that is, the subjective subject-object is supposedly synthesized with the objective subject-object - the finitude of spirit and the finitude of nature share an infinite identity). Not only is ‘the one’ in ‘the other’, but ‘the other’ is in ‘the one’. It is by this means that Hegel’s god takes the immortal freedom of Godhead - immortal life away from earth - and identifies it with the cage. Whether one enters Hegel’s system by the left or by the right, and exits by the same, what remains is still the glorification of a totalitarian or fascistic shithouse. Christ’s Godhead is altogether different, and it is this we should get to.....

19. In the finitary logics of time ‘simultaneity’ is the key regulatory device: not both p and not-p simultaneously; either p or not-p but not both simultaneously; and never p = not-p simultaneously. Hence, simultaneity

353 (obviously by definition) is a dyadic relation involving temporality, but the logics which pertain to temporality turn back at eternity. To paraphrase S. Basil of Cappadocia, ‘as light and time enter eternity, time bounces back to form day and night, but light passes through’. It is the light of eternity which constitutes the god, and eternity introduces consistency when there is something which cannot be negated. When time bounces back ‘something’ passes thru’, but the negation of a god does not pass thru’. Finitary logics - that is, logics constructed according to the ‘object flesh of earth’ via analogies and fallen paradigms - all revolve around the main antinomy of simultaneity, that is, man is simultaneously god and subhuman both, as he is consistent and inconsistent both, simultaneously. The elimination of the not-p of a god is the negation of flesh, which in the function of death leaves the body intact. Death is the chief vertex or coordinate of time, because it negates the accretion of not-p on p. Subhumanity carries with it its own negation as living flesh is dying flesh, and the manifest contradiction inherent in this situation enmeshes and entangles the god. There is no compound hierarchy of quasi-ontological levels between a god and entanglements implicit in the alien abode of earth. Such ‘levels’ are alien entanglements generated by finite logics: such logics are the cagings of time made adamant by subscription to the appearance of necessity. Kant, that vicious old duffer of no self and no God, a mastermind of insidious atheism, inventor of the ‘regulative idea’ of God as a governing fiction, inspirer of the ‘revealed secret’ - das offenbare Geheimnis - of the pretence of God’s efficacious rulership, this man was a philosopher working under appearances, with appearances, as an appearance, arguing appearance is necessary .. thus arguing for necessity but not arguing for the appearance of necessity (thereby, f***ing himself over by a dreadful inconsistency), .. this man was like a god wearing a crushing cranial helmet of spatio-temporal horror, which confuses the light of eternity - radiant Heaven - with the fuliginous light of earth. The god’s fall amounts to smearing not-p on p - that which is not Heaven is smeared on Heaven, but this smearing - of blood, filth and thought - is like shit on a mirror of pure crystal. The logical law of identity is a god’s identity inside Heaven, but outside Heaven the god’s identity is bifurcated by its own simultaneous negation. A god’s consistency is his identity relative to the power of God Almighty as Christ Almighty. Inconsistency, therefore, is the accretion of flesh imposed on this spotless image in or as time. Time is the sentence imposed on the spatio-temporality of flesh, that is, the cage is as deep as the bones of subhumanity - bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh - reduced and mutated in the denial of that Heaven within, as told by Christ Himself. There is Heaven and there is earth, or the perfection of unity-in-diversity above and the imperfection of unity-in-diversity below. Diversity does not move towards unity nor unity towards diversity - rather, so to speak, the god or image which reflects the three-in-one perfectly is ontologically welded or fused-on-to degrees of its own opposite (as a god is compounded with not a god). In subhuman logics

354 ‘diversity is the negation of identity’, but in the logic of the divine the human identity of a god falls into the negation of its maintained self. Simultaneity is the logical sign of a god’s contrary coincidence (the ‘becoming other to oneself’ as oneself). The god p exists in opposition to its own negation: reflecting its own identity in the unity-in-diversity of the three-in-one, the god chooses not to be this identity by the negation of the unity-in-diversity of the three-in-one: p = not- p is spatio-temporality wrapped round the false self of flesh onto the true self of body. Unity-in-diversity applies to identity above and below - there is no ‘simple monad’ as ‘the one’ or sub-stance or ousia or whatever - because, as a god cannot be negated by earth, he or she wears negation as a shield of consciousness. The same god moves from unity-in-diversity up above to unity- in-diversity down below, that is, the radiating power of the Holy Trinity is everywhere, in contradistinction to the ‘regulative idea’ of ‘the one’ or ‘das Wahre ist die Ganze’. The down here is an abortive attempt to negate the accessible up there and the deific up here. I say ‘abortive attempt’ because no amount of the gross multiplicities of fallen carnage and implied infinities of coarse stupidity, reified and ramified, is capable of keeping Mighty Heaven at bay. The divine cannot be repressed by time, in time or throughout time: life is a false negation of Heaven, because its true negation cannot exist.

355 To R.K.

You have set me a question as to the authenticity of Kant’s use of the expression ‘a priori’ - from what is before - when he deals with his ‘transcendental’ exposition of the concepts of space and time, querying whether its locus in the subject is sufficiently valid. This question implies varying degrees of difficulty which Kant’s disciples met in different (contradictory) ways. Before, however, I can begin to address the problem directly, it is necessary that you become acquainted with certain specifics found in the philosophy of Leibniz, especially those concerned with common notions - 6@4<"4 §<<@4"4 or semina aeternitatis - such as identity, analytic judgment and the principle of sufficient reason. Rather than simply expound these as such, I am going to suggest that identity requires a minimal ascription for similarity, somewhat along the lines suggested by Meister Eckhardt, who reasoned that every comparison implies, at least, two things, both of which are distinct, for nothing is compared to itself or is like itself. Eckhardt, in accepting this principle, runs a line to Aristotle via Porphyry, and thus prepares the ground for Leibniz’s principle of the identity of indiscernibles. Consequently - and here I emphasise the obvious - the philosophy of the Middle High German era is based essentially on latinized Greek. Neither Eckhardt nor Leibniz - and, subsequently, Kant - ever assume that identity can be negated into self-similarity, although I intend to indicate to you the effects of this negation. Instead of discussing at great length Leibniz vis-à-vis Eckhardt, and tracking down their common monadic thought, it is my intention merely to suggest to you that Kant lifted pertinent infrastructural material from Leibniz, whilst at the same time denying objectifications regarded along the lines of phaenomena Dei. Kant rearranged and subverted monadic emanation, as hierarchy into ‘the one’ is seen as an expression of political mon-•DPZ by God and by kings. In the coming bourgeois revolution the Throne of the one God is made vacant. As a noumenon its role is to be severely diminished, and replaced by fallen reason. Suffice it to say, by way of an example of this, the principle of sufficient reason is a cognate form of the principle of contradiction, which in itself is a variant of tertium exclusi and identity, and that these principles are, moreover, the underpinnings of a priori knowledge in Kantianism. Kant differs fundamentally from Leibniz by insisting that geometrical method is synthetic. Not only is the concept of the predicate not found in the subject, but axiomata also cannot be founded on the principle of contradiction alone. I suggest this reveals a weak point in the ground of his ‘transcendental exposition’, the reasoning for which we can briefly summarize. If the principle of sufficient reason is inadequate for a methodology more geometrico, then constructivistic augmentation is required to buttress failure in the principles of logic. This then requires a ‘forced

356 congruity’ between internal representations and the appearances of objects in space. There is imposed appearance from within onto appearance from without, or the appearance of identity is dislocated as it adds experience to itself. ‘Playing God’ by centering phenomena in the subject splits the subject, noumenally and phenomenally, and phenomenal content forces the noumenon outside of the self- augmentive finitude of the subject - i.e. - it forces the subject outside of itself as ‘transcendental’, thus disrupting the strict identity necessary for non- transcendental operations. Look at this simply: for Leibniz analytic identities and contingencies - ‘thought and nature’ - agree because of pre-established necessities: there is predestination in the dyad by a fiat of accord from God: God necessitates agreement by the infinite approximation of contingency to identity, but Kant argues for human autonomy, rids himself of God, and is left with necessity. In place of God we are left with a human subject who cannot be other than he is and who appears as he is, and thus there is a rift between necessary identity ‘p = p’ and necessary appearance ‘not-p = p’. Ultimately in Kant’s scheme, objects of knowledge are brought to appearance by a ‘transcendental’ identity, but, as this is a priori of an absolute necessity independent of all experience, identity contradicts itself above and below. Human autonomy is heteronomous: it is identified as necessarily unknown, and it is identified as necessarily other than it is. Something absolutely independent of experience appears as something experienced. Strict necessity - ‘something cannot be other than it is’ - appears as something other than it is. Two contrary necessities are thus two contradictory necessities, and two contrary identities are thus two contradictory identities. Yet into this mess Kant forces a theory of space and time which skirts, historically, the problematic foundations of geometry. Briefly, in Kant’s ‘Thoughts ..’ of 1744, there is an awareness of Saccheri’s ‘Euclid ..’ of 1730, in which work Non-Euclidean geometries possess equal consistency with the Euclidean. Kant’s associate, Lambert, in his ‘Theorie ..’ of 1786, ratified the existence of this relativism of differing geometries (hence of axiomata in different systems being contradictory), but Kant’s attempted neutrality regarding this leans towards the oneness of space. Von Helmoltz thought this alone invalidated Kant’s theory of space, and with this I agree, although emphasizing that as identity is split into an unknown and an assumed known, it is not an identity ( .. carrying identity over a Grenzbegriff into a <@@bµ,<@< - tho’ this is not known as singular or otherwise - militates against self-definition, and it is hardly worthy of its root in <@,Ã< as something conceived or grasped). Accordingly, a tension ensues in Kantian theory that we should examine carefully, first by a seeming digression. It is generally understood that Kant’s ‘pure intuitions’ of space and time are located in man, as part of, as it were, his ‘higher apparatus’. This apparatus is characterised by different orders: at one level are the forms of space and time & above these are the categorial principles of man’s intelligence (among them substance, causality and necessity) & at the uppermost level of abstraction the

357 ideas of reason (the transcendental I, the earth in its entirety, and God). Thus, it is by virtue of the encounter between the forms of man’s sensory intuition (space and time) and his perceptions that phenomena are formed. Note, therefore, a division in the Kantian apparatus between form and idea, which does not appear in Plato. Nevertheless, there are direct indications by Kant that pure intuitions see beforehand ( .. BD@`DVT & thus cf. BD@^*,Ã< in Plato’s Gorgias 459e), and it is in this seeing beforehand that the tension resides. I will, therefore, assert (as a mode of argumentation) that it is ambiguities inherent in Kant’s transcendental apparatus which produce unresolvable tensions in his schemata as a whole. I also assert Kant’s ‘selfing coordinates’ are nothing of the kind, as it was this immediate (problematical) legacy which was foremost in the minds of all his followers, that is, the theory of identity in harness to necessity. As the world and our experience came into existence together, the inevitability of the world or the world’s necessity is that which rules .. Now it should be rather obvious that Kant secularized ‘transcendence’, and that he has in fact allied and downgraded this term with (convertible) a priori forms. Personally, I believe Kant was acquainted with Aquinas’ idea of synderesis - the strict seeing of FL

358 virtually akin to restricting God to conscience), Kant is guilty of a vast reductionism, namely, persuasion towards limitation in the conversion of ‘deific transmigratory process’ into arid intellectualism. If ousia is transcribed as something above the ‘aggregatum of analytic propositions’ - Leibniz’s Monadology of 1714 - but governing identity, it results in impossible attempts to maintain consistency via an unseen ground. Classically, outstandingly so in Aristotle, the principles of logic are primal correlates of the definition of ousia, and, therefore, for these to be elevated beyond a source internal to man ( .. a source capable of generating Non-Euclidean geometries, transfinite arithmetics, and so forth), is indicative of something profoundly amiss in the ‘transcendental’ apparatus. One can, of course, rig a system to keep infinity at bay ( .. infinity is, after all, only a delusion of the fallen gods), but only by impossibly limiting finitude. For Kant to insist that all logically possible concepts are limited to those constructible, is to see him hopelessly entangled with non-constructible ousiai on which the principles of logic depend. Moreover, not only is it impossible to construct all geometrical and arithmetical elements from the visible appearances of objects, it is equally impossible to contain non-finitist implications by a regulatory fiat and empirical control. It is only necessary to recall Archytas, mentioned in a fragment of Eudemos, as the one who, in arriving at infinity, stretched out his hand. As this can be transferred to endless finitude, it is impossible for tertium exclusi, along with its logical and epistemological permutables, to be conceived of as anything like an absolute, Hilbert’s program notwithstanding, if only because transfinitudes reside as inferential necessities in the false foundations of fallen thought. Fallen reason is a rationalization of man’s ontological inadequacy, and the autonomy of any system escapes him by his own self-contradiction: as the self is contradictory, it is strung between the impossibles of endless finitude and infinity. Indeed, if one considers mathematics as the parent of logic, then it is so precisely because it contains the capacity to negate its offspring. Infinity will not be tethered in fallen terms, and the infinite unsettles all systems. Identity is a formidable difficulty unless falsely constrained by strict finitude, and this latter is always discountenanced by the invasion of infinite predication. For Kant to attempt to render infinity ‘vacuous and unknown’ is like kicking an opponent upstairs - power is in the lower chamber, promotion neutralizes, but infinity is enthroned everywhere. Kant’s humanism is the ontological equivalent of casting infinity beyond the cage of space and time, but as the endless finitude of the cage is an infinity, this casting out is a casting in. Obviously, Kant’s inaccessible infinity is merely surrogation for the inaccessibility of Deity, and thus - like Leibniz, who at least admitted deific possibility - he tears logic away from its ontological source tou Logou. In 1763 a German mathematician, Georg Klügel, concluded correctly that previous proofs of Euclid’s parallel postulate were unsound. The birth of Non-Euclidean geometry in 1829-32 raised the problem of establishing its consistency, but this,

359 in essence, necessitated a change from the ‘logic of terms’ to the ‘logic of propositions’. It is due largely to the idea of ‘conceptual form’ in Leibniz and Kant that this change was brought about, and the concept of the predicate came to the fore in investigation. Leibniz correctly asserted that the completeness of the predicate was necessary for the definition of the subject, but as finite individuation implies infinite negations - thus infinite predication as ‘it is affirmed not’ - completeness is forced into a logical strait-jacket. Frege’s awareness that concepts are blurred at the edges is Archytas signing ‘ever beyond’ systematic formalization: algebraization, and the results of symbolic formalism, repress the incompletion inherent in the ‘saturated’ predicate: hence, to the degree that there are elements of transcendent metamorphy - ‘becomings’ - in incomplete predicates, the subject is unknown. It is absolutely impossible not only to enumerate the fullness implicit in any one predicate, but also to presume to reduce the subject to the status of a logical entity - an entity fully self-similar to itself - is to assume identity is like itself. Nothing is compared to itself if its identity is other, and this is especially true of an individual becoming a god. In the fall of the gods, identity, although ineradicable, becomes unlike itself. As a consequence thereof, the incompleteness of the fallen subject splits identity, and, as this cannot be restored except by deific metamorphosis, this identity falsifies all mathematics and every logic. No formulation of the a priori, as something independent of experience, supercedes the involvement of the subject; and it is this subject which subjects itself to a self-dissimilarity, naming the study of this psychology or science or logic or philosophy, but which is nothing other than mis-identity or the god against himself. If the roots of this god were a priori - if his origin is that unknown, postponed beyond infinity and the end of days - identity would be completely unknown, but there is nothing, known or unknown, which is complete. The fallen god promulgates false identities over mis-identities to stabilize his fall - hence, man mis-identifies everything - and he substitutes completenesses for his incompleteness. For Kant to assert there are pure a priori propositions, devoid of empirical - experiencial - content, is to void the god of himself. A god is a god - thus, subject and divine predication coincide. The surfeit of the predicate is the god become complete. A god is a god is complete identity. A god is a man become his identity. Alas, Kant and his associates derogated this transcendent realism, substituting for it revolutionary hatred, with the slogan ‘nur uns gebietet die Vernunft’ opposing the deification of all. There is nothing quite as bloody as the incarnate, revolutionary, atheist bourgeoisie, the ranks of which deny the real contexts of transcendent metamorphy in which the subject finds itself. The god as intellectual must dismantle the cage - thus, dismantle philosophy by exposing its entrails - materialism, empiricism, positivism, idealism, realism etc etc are merely tribal sites situated against the gods in Christ we become. Criticisms against Kantianism - which is articulation of vulgar viewpoints shared by undeific entities - can be many and varied, and

360 Kant’s work is easily perceived as a cumulative, compound error. The function of human thought - the ‘transcendental subject’ - which serves as the complete source of the a priori, is open to manifold designations as to its precise meaning, differing considerably from a ‘faculty of representation’ - which, one could argue, forced the fallen gods to represent - ‘constructivistic capacity’ (enough to build a world), and so forth, but even worse than this godless misrepresentation is Kant’s supposition that analytic truths admit of absolute necessity, as if only conditional on a further necessity implicit in tertium exclusi, contradiction and identity ( .. when conditionality alone argues against absolute or unconditioned necessity). Schopenhauer, in the Fourfold Root of 1813, pointed out that every necessity is conditioned - absolute necessity is therefore a contradicto in adjecto. Aristotle, in the Prior Analytics, was aware that no proof exists for tertium exclusi - thus, no proof for identity exists or identity cannot prove itself (because, I would argue, there is no proof outside the identity of a god which is complete). Ontologically speaking, one could hypothesize a perceptual diremption resulting in self-similarity, with mis-identities always seen as imperceptible via temporal becoming, say between a ‘transcendental I’ and the ‘lengthening shadow’ of its empirical reflection. This would certainly overcome the limitations in Kant’s logic, but it might involve a ‘folding back’ of the phenomenal beyond the range of itself, taking the experienciable steps further than the apparent I. In fact, Schelling took Goethe’s idea of a deindividuated identity in an episodic, necessitarian continuum - thus, as it were, a part in the µ0P"

More on Kant, his expositors, critics, followers, and so forth.

(A). Two fundamental principles and the corollaries thereof regulate and constitute philosophy and mathematics - therefore, logic, the foundation of mathematics, etc - at least according to those who think they are human beings, viz, the principle of identity (hence contradiction and tertium non datur), and the principle of sufficient reason. I agree with neither of these, and altho’ the immediate response to the denial of identity is usually quoted as ‘on the pain of self-contradiction’, I would reply there is no such self to contradict. Much in the

361 same way as folk would point to self-evident truths, I would say the only thing not evident about self-evidence is the self. Thus, the subject in subject-predicate judgments - propositions, relations, sentences, concepts etc - I am saying is falsified by determinability (hence ‘identity’ is falsified by determinability).

(B). Kant’s most formidable critic (modesty forbids), Maimon, put forward a principle of determinability - Satz der Bestimmbarkeit - as the first principle of philosophy, meant to formulate a criterion of cognitive significance to determine which propositions are true of material reality. I would say immediately that it is not possible to determine any reality, material or otherwise. Maimon was led to articulate the Satz because of the inadequacy of the principle of contradiction (hence identity), because this latter principle determines - or so he thought - only formal possibility. Hence, the Satz was supposed to provide a means of adequate or determinative content, whilst simultaneously eradicating arbitrariness, vacuous analytic propositions, mere identities, and so forth, with the aim of determining attributable predicates to subjects and determining objects of materiality for knowledge. Now I am not going to explicate his theory fully, but I am going to point out that he was brought to it by a lacuna in Kant’s ‘transcendental’ exposition. Maimon correctly worked out a major weakness - one insurmountable, in fact - existing in Kant’s theory, and that is the division between understanding and sensibility as two completely independent and heterogeneous determinants. The independence of these determinants is ‘guaranteed’ by understanding generating a priori concepts, whereas sensibility receives intuitions which do not arrive from the understanding. In other words Kant’s dualism is a ringer for the mind-body dualism in Cartesianism. Because these determinants - one ‘transcendental’, one not - cannot interact, heterogeneity prevails and Kantianism is stultified. Hence, Maimon’s efforts to overcome this lacuna by reshaping theory.

(C). In brief Maimon’s theory supposed man possesses an infinite intellectus archetypus, which creates objects in the act of knowing them. This is an ancient philosophical idea variously reworked by Spinoza, Leibniz and others, to my mind incorrectly, as it is with Maimon. It is enough to say that God and man are not heterogeneous determinants, but that God is the determiner whose energies man becomes when human identity is negated. Thus, I am arguing that the principle of identity - contradiction and tertium exclusi - and predication of a subject are false, because man’s identity is non-existent as man - man is transfigured into his identity as a god in God when the principles of identity, determinability and sufficient reason are negated. Maimon is seduced into putting infinite understanding into man by Kant’s theory that the “intuitions” of space and time are in man, and this results in the discrepancy in Maimon’s theory that objects are somehow us. In my reality objects are non-deific energies created by God, whereas man is objectified - he becomes like non-deific objects - when

362 he upholds or fails to negate the three principles and their corollaries. Maimon’s theory leads directly to the (false) abstractions of transcendence found in the works of Fichte and Schelling. Man’s identity is not found in man, because he has no identity outside of God. A denial of God’s identity means denying one’s own identity, and it is the pretence that man is outside God which furnishes the bogus identities implicit in “subject”-object relations. When God is entered into as an abstraction - or, what amounts to the same thing, not entered into - man is affirmed as the vacuity implicit in analytic a priori judgments, because man has no ‘subject centre’ if this is not supplied by deific energy. Now having affirmed this as an interim statement, let us look at the principle of sufficient reason in some detail.

(D). First of all ‘inefficacious reason’: there is no reason why anything should exist. No reason exists quantitatively large enough as to why reason exists. Even reason large enough exits its own remit as a ratio. There is no reason big enough for God. Leaving aside assertions as to the onto-genesis of reason (and language), it is still indeterminate as to what reason amounts to. Logic appears to be imbedded in reason, but the role of reason in comprehending truth, in comprehending itself, suggests an otherness necessary to get the drop on itself. I would argue that fallen reason is a trapped determinable, and that it is a determinable because it is trapped by what it takes itself to be - hence, it takes itself to be immaterial consciousness fronted by material reality, unreasonably conjoined, as something miasmic in electrified porridge - and reason cannot say how the ‘join’ occurs, or why. I suggest reason is trapped by appearance, and the way to spring this trap is to negate the fallen human. To do this one can reduce the principle of sufficient reason to the insufficiency of manifest emptiness. If there is a configuration of reasons why something should be so (and no other reasons), we have identity in disguise, and therefore tertium exclusi and its consequences in train. Thus, we would have substance - ‘it is what it is and no other’ - by proxy, and man is then fixed as a determinable. But I am arguing that the god subjects himself by these architectonic reasons, and that the god stays ‘human’ by them. They are false authentications maintaining the god against himself, part of the pretence of fallen autonomy - in fact, they are alienations of the divine. Because man cannot find the centre of his identity - which is not in the negation of divinity - man phantasizes reason, logic, scientificism, etc, to make the world exist. This is why the world is known as appearance. There is no world if one is transfigured out of it in God. It is precisely because man is the imago Dei that the foundations of reason exhibit insolubilia and stultification. There is no reason big enough for God on the ground of deific creativity - reason is not the god of God - and even the positing of an abstract infinity by Maimon fails to recognise heteronomous infinities, dislocative, still heterogeneous - viz, the plural infinite - in transfinitude. Yet even plural forms of infinity do not elucidate the god’s power, which is given in transfiguration. If the principle of

363 sufficient reason is cognate with, or reducible to, tertium exclusi, then putative synthetic a priori configurations lose their significance in identity, false or otherwise, because identity cannot be formulated as an infinite magnitude (which identity for which infinity?). Attempts to validate the principle of identity by showing its denial leads to contradiction (thus to itself) are circular, and fail to recognise its negation in infinite modes ( .. infinity negates identity, and the infinite inheres in any finite identity). If a ‘human being’ denies that something has a reason, then contrary ascriptions - properties or predicates - are entailed in this negation, but the idea ‘human being’ is a contradiction because opposite predicates pertain. Man is both p and not-p as a god and not-god. Man is both finite and not-finite (as finitude is both finite and not-finite). As all predication consists in the specification of determinability - a gloss, as it were, on the indeterminability of the indeterminate - transfiguration is negated by recourse to the false schemata of identity. To affirm ‘Socrates is finite’ is to assert (not prove) an identifiable subject, but Socrates is equally not-finite (as finitude includes an in-finity). The subject, Socrates, is not a substance presencing ‘it is what it is and no other’, as substance is only an appearance imposed by the god (a finite subject has in-finity in and infinity out of its identity - hence, it is not an identity). A subject is, in reality, a displaced energy and an energy capable of divine movement - and, thus, as “subject” it is no more capable of identity than rhapsodic surges of indeterminacy. Goethe - with Kant strictly in mind - recognised no self except appearance in an endless chain of further appearances: yet it never occurred to these gentlemen that an unknown subject appears so in its displacement from the increate and non-fallen-human. It is this deific foundation which acts in the unfixed definition of a subject, in its return to true identity in the divine. The “laws” of logic are used primarily by the fallen to ‘firm up’ the fundamentally false idea - the greatest lie of humanity - that the human is human: man is man is a false tautology, because only God is human - this Christ demonstrates in re- deifying the gods - hence, man as something less, ratifies his own subhumanity. Subhumanity affirms contrary predicates because it is what it is not, and from the false nature of not-god man surrounds his ‘essential emptiness’ with a world of contradiction. Man is not man, because man, in fact, is an aberrant god refusing his origin and identity in Christ’s Godhead. This refusal negates the centrality of deific energy in man’s definition, and thus he is pitched towards the void of inconsistency. Man is male and female neither, living and dead neither, immortal and mortal neither, precisely because the god is denied. Its denial notwithstanding, man is inextricably linked to the hyper-Godhead or ßBXD2,@J0J@H. God is hyper-real and hyper-existent, because He transcends both ‘being’ and ‘not- being’ - like the middle-third He is ‘neither-nor’. Inevitably, a denial of this source of divine energy mutates the gods into subhuman entities, who operate thru’ ontologies of deprivation: man must thus necessarily need and want.

364 Consequently, these deific mutants generate ‘logic’ when they themselves are what they are not, that is, they generate reasons as incomplete as themselves. They thereby presume, like Spinoza, that there must be some condition or set of conditions for everything that happens. But let us look at this closely. (E). If we express the thought, ‘humanity is not human’, then a presumed identity is dismissed. A subject which undergoes existential self-mutilation becomes a not-subject. Hence, ‘Socrates is mortal’ refers to a not-subject, precisely in the manner of a subhuman who falsely refers to himself as human. Ontological contradiction in literal life is the foremost characteristic of man’s imperfection. A subhuman who is perfect is truly human: he is thus a deific man, a god-man or god-by-energy. It is only possible to be human in God - outside of God one is merely “human”. Now there cannot be a reason or set of reasons, a condition or set of conditions, for ‘everything that happens’ if one is “human” and outside God, because “humans” are incomplete, as is their reasoning and logic. A god who becomes “human” foresakes the divine definition of humanity revealed by the hyper-God, as he indeed forsakes his real self. A god is really human but in the taking of flesh he takes on the “logic” - in fact, the ontological madness - of subhumanity, in which “reason, law and principle” negate the divine. Instead of the wild and immaculate powers of deific life, “humans” subscribe to circumscription by abstraction, schematics and false inference. And how could inferences, generally, not be false when man’s internality is faced against its own self, except those inferences aligned with the self-giving energies of the Holy Ghost? The maxim ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’ cannot possibly apply to the hyper-God as a correlate of sufficient reason: as God is uncaused there is insufficient reason for the god, who draws on an inexhaustible plenitude of energy, surpassing any number of principles. Kant’s theory that the principle of sufficient reason affirms that reason knows a priori what conforms to it, or what it creates, is merely a ground for “self” activity: it is put forward as an aggregated complex with insistence on a limit - namely, incompletion. Kant, in fact, substitutes the confused a priori abstraction of “human activity” for deific accessibility, and God is thus made unreachable by man. Kantianism is as useless as the faith it pretends to espouse, because both faith and reason negate direct participability in the burning furnace of the experience of the beautiful life of the hyper-Godhead. Entry into the ousia uper-ousios is only granted after meeting the Deliverer as such - i.e. - when God Almighty walks into your life. (Anything less is philosophy and, unfortunately, theology. In the meantime, all of mankind is aware that subhumanity roosts high in brooding darkness, plausible yet insane, idolized like strutting excrement, as it hosts the totalitarianism of deific ignorance in not seeing God. There will come the day when immaculate holiness breaks in on every mutilated spirit and, hopefully, when the gentleness of love conquers all) ....

365 3.

". Propositional and formal logic put the ersatz in the ‘Satz’ when, in reality, energy is subsumed in the Satz as its potential revocation. Hegel knew this revocation as the self-movement of logic, and this is what I similarly term logic J@L 7@(@L, with the critical difference being that for him a false deific spirit over-comprehends or “goes beyond” Christ Almighty - it allegedly out-spirits the Holy Spirit, whereas for me Christ Almighty provides the true deific spirit. Hegel is a giant amongst philosophers - indeed, possibly the most influential of them all - insomuch as his subtlety, brilliance and massive genius is of an order few thinkers ever approach. However, this is not to say that whilst noticing his devastating critical intelligence & his adroit savaging of other philosophers, he is not capable of being ‘taken out’. It is impossible not to allow self-claimed- deification for Hegel, as he philosophisizes as a false god. Moreover, this is a god who claims Almighty God - tho’ his version - is a chameleon transparent in every ‘absolute move’. Hence, in arguing against Hegel, dialectic virtually compels one to argue in the risen self against a (false) risen self. His logic is that clever because, as for me tertium exclusi and its (formal) correlates are signs of the fall, he also sees to their revocation, albeit in a markedly different way. As Coleridge well knew, A = A reduces to ‘is is’ by the assertion of A, but this refuses the non-identity of identity to maintain Vorstellungen. Obviously, the non-identity of identity can be variously expressed, such as for example ‘is is not’, or ‘is is and is not’, and it is crucial that this be kept in mind in our discussions of logic. What Hegel termed logic is different from logic as usually understood, as the former is Vernunft - logic dialectically sublating - which I will (like him) term Begriff or reason or notion or etc, whilst the latter is Verstand, which I will term propositional or terminological or schematic or abstract or etc. Now let me give you some idea as to the distinction between logic tou Logou and (formal) logic, starting simply to key you in to subsequent complexities. This is a very advanced subject (or it can become so) & thus I am trying to simply break the ground for what is to come, because my thought differs radically from Hegel’s, and from G. Cantor’s, whom we will deal with slightly. Let us start with a few, flexible definitions ( .. we need to do this because terms change and convolute - ‘spirit’ and ‘reason’ are notoriously kaleidoscopic), thus a clutch from Hegel, so: ‘ .. it is from conforming to finite categories of thought and action that all deception originates’ & ‘all finite things involve an untruth’ & ‘in using the term thought we must not forget the difference between finite or discursive thinking and the thinking which is infinite and rational: but truth is always infinite, and cannot be expressed or presented to consciousness in finite terms’ & ‘but it is, speaking rightly, the very essence of thought to be infinite’. Immediate criticism could light on Hegel’s finite expression, but this would be naive because the Begriff is meant to be a

366 transfiguring essence, or it is an infinite underpinning in an apparent finite expression, not as an outside quantifier but as a self-revealing consciousness. Thus Hegel, ‘the finite therefore subsists in reference to its other, which is its negation and presents itself as its limit’. (If we use formal logic to paraphrase this process, we have neither the finite ‘p’ nor its other infinite ‘not-p’, because ‘p is false and not-p is false’, and it is the middle-third of neither which is true). It is by this true infinite thinking, so Hegel assumes, that formal logic based on identity is overthrown, but it is overthrown by an infinity ‘so large’ it excludes any other god but a falsely apotheosized self. Hegel’s brilliance is in his attack against formal identity - Kant’s ‘no self’ in the appearance of formal identities is overcome by a process of becoming a ‘noumenal god’ - but this is at the same time marred by problems the likes of which Hegel was unaware. The necessity seems to arise of truth expressing itself to consciousness infinitely or in infinite terms, but I argue infinity cannot be an identity either. An infinite identity as the middle-third negating the finite ‘p’ and its other infinite ‘not-p’ is an ‘is which is and is not’. Since infinite identity is all, its appearance as the finite ‘p’ and its other infinite ‘not-p’ is not all. Furthermore, signs and symbols standing for (or participating in) infinite expressions are apparent finite terms & if they are negated then infinite identity appears. Even when infinity itself is reduced in appearance, infinity appears. Thus, apparently, we cannot negate the ‘appearance of appearance’, even though what is at issue here is the ‘undoing’ of both a false finitist constructivism & a false infinite constructivism. One could undo constructivistic finitism by showing infinite negation precedes its (finite) other (as the finite implies beyond itself, there is no itself to be beyond); and, as identity is the schematic ground of implication, no identity means no implication. However, if we somehow hold to a ‘perceptible identity’, this results in ‘finite propositional units’ (whatever ultimate status we accord to identity), and these I will term ‘logemes’, whilst I will also state logemes virtually always result in the negation of manifest (divine) energy. That is, finite logic based on the mis- identity of identity stands against its radiantly-irrupting, translucent divine- other. But I am also saying - against Hegel and Cantor, the two major ‘infinitists’ - that the logic of the infinite stands against deific metamorphosis when it presumes to identify mis-identities ..

Hegel is the first great infinitist who revoked finitism as appearance. After him there is Georg Cantor, the second great infinitist, who allegedly demonstrated more than one infinity. Infinity is, for Hegel, true as the rational self, but Cantor’s orders of different (other) infinities is severely at odds with the (one) infinite thinking self. Hegel is, as it were, saying that identity beyond the vanishing-point of all appearances, beyond the horizon of a false finitude and false infinitude, is the self. Cantor makes no such claims for himself, but he does

367 elevate the infinities into a mock paradise (from which, alas, we must drive him out). Aristotle’s infinity is the line with a part always outside of itself & Hegel’s infinity is the circle with no part outside of itself: but I am saying there is no itself or it’s self in either case (.. the fallen gods attempt to invest selves into things, material or abstract, in lieu of themselves: lost identity in the gods drives them to imprint the extremities of the cage: as in Hegel’s condemnation of ‘mathematical augmentations’, they never reach themselves). Yet Cantor’s approach to infinity is very different from Hegel’s: it assumes the certitude of a finite base which is identifiable as such, but simultaneously this base operates ad infinitum. Further, if things are comprised of denumerably-infinite points, there are infinitely more points than things. The fact that points cannot constitute things is another matter, but the overall difference between Hegel and Cantor is the former’s infinite circular continuum. This is a noumenal becoming which supposedly issues from reflexivity in ‘thought originating thought’: as thought thinks thought it gives forth identity-in-difference & difference-in-identity: and thus we can say Hegel asserts identity over the horizon of a false finitude and false infinitude. As the laws of logic are phenomenal, they are revoked by contradictory finitude. Hegel negates the essential difference implicit in ‘p’ and ‘not p’ by a difference implicit in a higher ‘register’, as if, that is, there is an equivalence between difference and identity. Kant via Spinoza taught Hegel that negation is infinity & Hegel’s particular ‘spin’ on this is as follows: ‘p’ and everything but ‘p’ is infinity in formal logic, but being having passed into nothing, this infinity is negated but maintained: hence, a sublated infinity emerges which is neither ‘p’ nor everything but ‘p’. This sublated infinity is the infinite Begriff which is equal to ‘p’ and to ‘not-p’ but supercedes them. Hegel is saying neither ‘p’ nor its infinite negation ‘not-p’ is a true infinity: it is the infinite negation of this false finitude and false infinitude which constitutes the becoming of the infinite circular continuum of the self. Not the finite ‘p’ nor the infinite ‘not-p’, but the inclusive negation of these by the infinite-thought-self-thinking. Formal logic is the effect of what drives it, viz, that self-infinity which negates the falsity implicit in ‘p’ and ‘not-p’, both of which Hegel sees as ever-increasing-finitudes. As the emptiness of being, having passed into nothing, is not an identity, neither is either ‘p’ or ‘not-p. These mis-identities of identity become the self-infinity when negated.

Let’s get a further drop on this. Take ‘p’ coming-to-be and passing-away. Coming-to-be and passing-away means ‘p’ becomes ‘not-p’, like being becomes nothing. Kant takes this to be a variation in substance underpinning, as with Newton, absolute (infinite) space. Hegel negates the absolute of space by undoing Kant’s paradox of space - ‘space is either finite or infinite’ - identifying

368 these phenomenal conditions with the false finite and false infinite, denying these by the ‘supreme spirit’ which alone is absolute. The space of Kant and Newton is thus ‘de-absolutized’ because it is linear, and also because spirit supercedes (sublates) substance. The ‘it is what it is and no other’ of substance and dimensionality - variable finitudes apparently growing ever onwards, more and more, as phenomenal identities - is revoked by Hegel in the becoming of the true infinite. This revocation is part of the sublating process by which Hegel ‘pseudo- religionizes’ life. Take Logic 32(3) where he says that ‘the soul is neither finite only, nor infinite only: it is really the one just as much as the other, and in that way neither one nor the other’. We can express this better by discarding ‘soul’ for something more ‘ontologically neutral’: then we can perhaps expose the barebones of what I am driving at. As ‘p’ is a variable finitude growing ever onwards, more and more, ‘p’ is an infinity as it is not: hence, the logeme of variable finitude appears to burst its limits, so that limits and unlimits blur or elide. As a limit comes-to-be it passes-away, and thus the limit ‘p’ becomes the unlimit ‘not-p’. For want of a description, let us say this ‘transient augmentation’ expresses p’s is-ness as it is and is not or the non-identity of identity. Hegel’s presupposition of a beginning, in the ‘Phenomenology’ of 1807, is meant to annihilate any beginning (thus presupposition) by the ‘unbeginningness’ of true self-awareness. Any finite beginning is meant to be a self-annihilating ‘lift’ based on mis-identifying non-identities as identities, and it is the arithmetical line in particular that Hegel exposes as the false infinite. Now Cantor’s logemes are the natural numbers viewed as repetitive identities, that is, they are units meant to keep contradiction or inconsistency at bay - on no account must a ‘middle-third’ be generated which overthrows the remit of formal logic. But here is my argument briefly stated: I argue that the presupposition of the identity of identity ‘p’ = ‘p’ is an unwarranted assumption in any mathematics of the line (thus reflexivity as the return of a logeme to itself as identity is only the unprovable assertion of ‘p’). Hegel could rightly argue comparison of ‘p’ with itself is not possible (the comparison would be ‘other’, thus disproving self-identity, or without comparison ‘p’ cannot be an identity): in neither way is the identity of anything ‘p’ established. There is no proof that ‘p’ has become itself or that the identity of identity subsists in any unit. I am suggesting that if one begins a formal system with the identity of identity (thus presumes the necessity of reflexivity as self-equivalence, self-equality, self- identity), then, as is shown by one’s self, becoming undoes fixity as fixed identity. Though one might begin a formal system with an ‘identity fixifier’, the becoming of the system generates the non-identity of identity. Even if God created the natural numbers, based on ‘one’, one infinity is not identity identified; nor is one infinity greater than another infinity an identity; nor is an ever-growing, incremental or augmentive finitude an identity at all. I suggest identity unfixes itself because true identity is a god - hence, I agree with Hegel that the

369 arithmetical line is a mere phenomenal ‘anchorage’, and that it is a false finite and a false infinite. Further, I agree that the “laws” of formal logic collapse on a close examination of tertium non datur - neither the finite nor the infinite holds of identity. But I disagree with Hegel that the true infinite is the negation of these false identities. The true infinite is equally false. Along with all other asserted identities, the true infinite is yet another ‘identity fixifier’. True identity is not true infinity, but it does require all false identities to become unfixed during metamorphosis. ‘Man is man’ and ‘human is human’ follows from false theories of identity - so says logic, but logical identity stands everywhere without proof (even Aristotle knew the ground of identity was unprovable). Identity coming-to- be and passing-away is no identity. False identity, on the other hand, passes away as true identity comes to be. One must pass over the threshold of the deific divine to become a true identity.

Hegel is saying one’s higher identity is not ‘p’: nor is it ‘not-p’: one’s higher identity is neither finite nor infinite but a higher infinity: that is, Hegel presumes to identify the excluded-third or middle-third as the a priori you. You are your own beforehand in a triad of displacement, or the true infinite operates through a dyad of false finitude and false infinitude ( .. what Sabellius attempted to do for the Trinity, Hegel attempted to do for himself and his followers). Hegel’s genius lies in the anti-formalism of dialectic: ‘p’ and the infinity of ‘not- p’ passed into by ‘p’ is negated by neither, but by the higher self: this is thus all of ‘p’ and all of ‘not-p’ and infinitely more of neither. Hegel’s charlatanism is to name the excluded-third as if it is known to him - it is that which is higher than the ‘everythingness’ of ever-growing-finitude, and it is that which is higher than the ‘everythingness’ of finitude-infinitely-growing. Hegel claims that this ‘triune deity’, the dyad and its excluded-third, necessarily operates through a dyad of falsity in linear representation, but even this ‘deity’ constantly sublates itself to disequilibrise identity. Unlike in mathematics and most philosophy, Hegel’s initial assumptions are meant to collapse via the non-identity of identity. Identity is not thought by Hegel as the only possibility for identity, as its ‘inbuilt moving not-ness’ elides the identity of identity with its opposite. This inevitably and invariably leads to logemes expressing collapse in the ‘laws’ of formal logic ( .. I argue that the impetus towards formal identity fixes the fall, but Hegel argues appearance is necessary for the operation of ‘selfing’): thus, when he says in Logic 92 that ‘a thing is what it is, only in and by reason of its limit’, he implies the not-isness of isness in the elision of limits and unlimits. This is also applicable to Cantor’s infinitudes because they are, after all, finite expressions. Let me try to clarify this for you from an altogether different view. Imagine that every expression of language ‘since time began’ is written into one continuous sentence - every sand-painting and wattle-daub, every

370 tongue-cry and literal gesture, every dialect, ideolect, grapheme, logeme and morpheme, each sign, symbol, numeral and number, each sentence purporting to be of finite or infinite length ... &c ... all philosophy included, all religion, all mathematics ... then let us attempt to logically characterise this as ‘p’. This character is already burst, because it includes itself as it does not. The augmentation of ‘p’ grows ever onwards, more and more, already superceded by the sum of its parts, advanced interminably by arbitrary power-sets and ‘additive compossibles’ - hence ‘p’ is not this ‘p’, nor is it this ‘p’ ad infinitum. At this point we have not even begun to characterise ‘not-p’ as ‘the other’ (J@L ªJ,D@< or the Doric òJ,D-@H), but it is worthwhile to again quote Hegel in this context. He says that ‘in these words we have in general terms a statement of the nature of the finite, which, as something, does not meet the nature of the other as if it has no affinity to it, but being implicitly the other of itself, thus undergoes alteration. Alteration thus exhibits the inherent contradiction which originally attaches to determinate being, and which forces it out of its own bounds’. Evidently, the logeme ‘the other of itself’ is not exhibiting formal contradiction, because Hegel’s theory of limit is meant to exhibit the difference between logic and dialectic. So, he further says that ‘if we take a closer look at what a limit implies, we see it involving a contradiction in itself - on the one side the limit makes the reality of a thing: on the other it is negation - but, again, the limit, as the negation of something, is not an abstract nothing, but a nothing which is - what we call an other’. This ‘nothing which is’ is Hegel’s false or negative infinity, but it is precisely this denumerable infinity that is amongst Cantor’s basic data. It might be well at this point to indicate the affinity between Blake and Hegel regarding all this, inasmuch as Blake opposed variable finitude or infinity defined thru’ a finitude which can always be pushed one step further; and, in fact, Blake expressed this imaginatively by saying that ‘thought changed the infinite into a serpent’, meaning perhaps that anything less than experiential infinity is false. Against Hegel’s ‘immediate simple indeterminacy’ (or ‘infinite unconditional being’), Blake asserted that ‘the infinite resides in definite and determinate identity’: not only are those infinitudes and finitudes below the divinely infinite spurious, but also the divine man finds himself in the other of infinite Heaven. This, naturally, is neither in dialectical immanentism nor in logical schemes. As Blake reckoned that all contraries and negations alike are signs of the divine fall, he insisted, correctly, that one’s true identity is atemporal - still, I’ve dealt with the divine Mr Blake elsewhere ...

Hegel characterises a bad - ‘schlecht’ - infinity as a negative infinity: ‘it is only a negative of a finite: the finite rises again the same as ever & it is never got rid of and absorbed’ - ‘this infinite only expresses the ought-to-be elimination of the finite’. He also says ‘the progression to infinity never gets

371 further than an expression of the self-contradiction involved in the finite, namely, that it is something as well as something else’ & ‘it sets up with endless iteration the alternation between these two terms, each of which calls up the other’. Evidently, in this process the other of itself inherent in antinomial self- contradiction precedes formal contradiction ( .. in much the same way as the other of itself in the liar antinomy of Eubilides precedes formal logemes). If I say I am lying, not lying alternates on itself as a simultaneous other, in that the temporal sequence of this logeme manifests is and is-notness as a negative infinity. Thus, if we search for an extensive definition or expression of ‘p’, it must deal with countless instances of the other of itself as basic to its own structure. Consequently, if we desire to express the essence of thought as infinity, it is necessary that another logic precede formal logic, especially as the formulation of new laws must be based on logics for the infinite case. Hence, as a sentence of infinite length is not a logeme, identity and contradiction and tertium exclusi are themselves unfinite. If we say with Hegel, and against Cantor, that ‘p’ is neither finite only, nor infinite only, but it is the one just as much as the other, then it should be immediately evident that sentential form as commonly understood is irreparably breached. In fact, ‘p’ is a middle-third precisely because constructivistic finitism attempts to marginalize the other of itself, and, thus, as it constructs the ‘laws’ of logic - that is, laws which are not divine or tou logou - it renders them as quanta and, in Hegel’s words (L 104), ‘the very notion of quantum is thus to push out beyond itself & the infinite quantitative progression is only the meaningless repetition of one and the same contradiction’: it is the finite contradiction - of finitism - which attaches to the quantum. Nonetheless, it is essential that you recognise Hegel’s intentions regarding this severe castigation of the progressus in infinitum as a mere infinitum imaginationis in the severance of number and a ground of existence. Any natural number is a quantum and Hegel indicates the ‘foundationless base’ of a foundation other than itself. This has been largely overlooked in the dominant mathematical ethos of the 19th & 20th centuries. The dogmatism of mathematical logic is rooted in the fictions of identity, and the insolubilia of logico-mathematical linearity are pushed beyond the end of the line, in much the same way as Kant pushed noumena beyond endless appearances. Hegel, for all his dialectical errors, asserted correctly the meaningless repetition of the self- contradictory one. As it is impossible to prove the identity of identity (as something is always its other), linear entailments thereof in transfinite numbers necessarily call up meaningless consequences. One finitude is one endless finitude is one infinity is one greater infinity, but this ‘one of its other’ is no same one in this chain. Hegel is saying it is the basic element - atom or simple - in any configuration which is a collapsible identity, neither finite nor infinite except in appearance. One’s very vocabulary ‘essenced-down minimally’ to one alphabetic ‘calling up’ in a least expression as a quantum, it is this which is one’s own self’s contradiction. The human psyche pulsates

372 contradiction in its non-selfing identity and its selfing non-identity: therefore, any number un-numbers itself in the self-appearance of its opposite. Hegel, like Plato at his best, recognised that any ratio or commensurate identity is always simultaneously accompanied by its opposite as an inherency. The meaningless pulsates thru’ meaning & any fundamental is-ness co-insides with its identity as is-not-ness. Hegel’s solution to this intractable self-antagonism is, in reality, no solution at all. To assert a dyad of collapsible identities means Hegel identifies transcendence with the negation of this dyad by an excluded-third; but this also must be collapsible as it is negated in turn. Hegel’s I-thinking-itself is as much its own contrary as not, thus a false god, asserting false transcendence and salvation in the world’s cage.

Now something on Cantor, starting with the Grundlagen of 1883. This is recognised as his first serious attempt to philosophize about a pluralized infinity. Cantor says that ‘a few years ago I was led to the infinite real whole numbers - die unendlichen realen ganzen Zahlen - without having realised that they were concrete numbers of real significance’. Superficially, there is an affinity with Hegel here, which we can briefly summarize in saying that, for him, only universals are thoughts and thoughts are concrete. The Begriff or Absolute is thought or objective mind, and it is this - as infinite thought - which is conjoined with finitude to characterise Hegel’s theory. However, more pertinent connections appear in other instances, such as Cantor’s ‘first principle of generation’, which says natural numbers originate in the repeated addition of units. Obviously, this ‘something which becomes other and again’ is the ‘again and again of mere endlessness’ comprising Hegel’s negative infinity. It is merely the unceasing reiteration of the same, which is each something and each other, thus in itself finite. Cantor recognises that finite whole numbers have no largest element, but he thinks there is nothing absurd in thinking of a ‘new number’ T for the entirety of this “entire set”. Hegel, I suggest, would immediately dismiss this ‘new number’ as something insinuated into Vertstand as a false entity. We can surmise he would do so according to his principles because the denumerably- infinite is the furtherance of finitude, and it is, therefore, like the finite, determined by another dependent structure. Alternatively, Hegel’s ‘authentic or genuine’ infinity is itself independent as the selfing of its infinite self. Verstand opposes the infinite and the finite as irreconcilable opposites, as in Aristotelianism & Spinozism, but Vernunft, for Hegel, argues that the infinite is not something outside the finite, as it absorbs the finite into itself. Hegel’s infinity is the sublation of the distinction which reduces infinity to the “conditioning fetters” of the finite, because sublation ensures the recognition of their differing identity. What we have here is a ‘twist’ in Hegel’s approach, because he is not concerned to construct a finitist base, but rather he is concerned

373 to probe how the finite came from the infinite. As the negative infinity cannot supply any coherent answer to this, he argues so: ‘the answer to the question, how the infinite becomes finite, is consequently this, that there is no such thing as an infinite that is first of all infinite & which is afterwards under a necessity to become finite ... but it is per se, already just as much finite as infinite’. He furthermore says, of any irreconcilable difference: ‘this question, founded as it is, upon the assumption of a rigid opposition between finite and infinite, may be answered by saying that the opposition is false, and that in point of fact the infinite eternally proceeds out of itself and yet does not proceed out of itself’. Note, incidentally, the quasi-religious ‘description’ of this eternal procession in passing, as we shall return to it at some time: note especially its patent inconsistency, in contrast to how it is used in Trinitarian thought.

Now notice also Cantor’s number T is the first transfinite number, and this is because it allegedly follows the entire sequence of the natural numbers n, and this is also because it is allegedly the first number following the entire sequence. Hence, if we accept this and a further application of a ‘second principle of generation’ - one which again represents another entirety, in order, of the numbers T + n - then this can be denoted by 2T. We then have T, T + 1, T + 2, ...... , T + n, leading to 2T, 2T + 1, 2T + 2, ...... , 2T + n, and so forth. In attempting to characterise these modes of generation, Cantor allows that T and 2T can be regarded as limits which the natural numbers, successively augmented, approach but never reach. Let us look at this far more closely than is usual - as T is taken as the first whole number following next after all augmentations or ‘furtherances’ of n, we must inquire as to its status. Recall Hegel’s admonition that ‘there is no such thing as an infinite that is first of all infinite & which is afterwards under a necessity to become finite’, as if this is in some general sense applicable to that which is denumerably-infinite. I am suggesting to you that there is an arithmetical sleight-of-hand going on here with Cantor’s T - a sleight- of-hand involving, in fact, combinations of logemes forcing through ‘new numbers’ via unexamined, underlying philosophical ideas. Various logemes, including a positing of T after all augmentations, are virtually insinuated through, and these are without the manifest explication of auxilary structures. Cantor was both a formalist - hence reliant on the absolute non-infringement of tertium exclusi, consistency and the identity of identity - and an objectivist, that is, he believed in objectified monadic correlates for real numbers. In this context a number is real if its correlate actually exists. Yet what is the correlate of T? Cantor says that T is a limit which n, increasing monotypically, approaches but never reaches. This limit is thus an unlimit which is contrary to the principle of contradiction, and, furthermore, T differs radically from the ceaselessness of ‘n ever-plus’. Cantor is in fact positing antinomial existence as T differs from itself.

374 He is positing existence which he alleges is objective, and this by indicating ‘something over the other side of limitlessness’, viz, noumenal infinity, as if this by this posit some sort of reification is proven ( .. hence, he passes Kant’s forbidden threshold or forces number beyond the potential infinity of a vanishing-point). Evidently, T cannot satisfy any condition of coming from infinity - say, from 2T or putative higher orders - because if it is a correlative monadic object or unit in any sense, however strange, its ‘lower edge’ is descriptively T - 1. What is the object corresponding to this? Cantor’s principles of generation work by stifling explicit conclusions capable of being drawn from logemes (so, for instance, when he attempts to partition finite entities as ‘n never- plus’, this involves a postponement in further positing - growing finitude is, as it were, arbitrarily postponed to assert concretion; but when he implies concretion for denumerably-infinite entities, growth does not postpone the next or least number larger than all growing entities). Cantor’s method of infinite counting maps its own part as an equal identity, but no concrete object does this. Galileo’s recognition that even numbers line up with whole numbers is the antinomy that equal identity is unequal - finite counting must be ceaseless to generate the identity of an infinite part with an infinity: hence, finite counting must rescind itself to generate infinite identity. But what is infinite identity but no identity at all? Infinite identity is the non-identity of identity .... It must not be forgotten that Cantor’s ‘unendlichen Zahlen’ are, for him, “concrete numbers of real significance” - in the direct sense, real means actually existent as something, objects themselves or standing for such. Of course, the problem with this (one of many) is that it involves implications which vastly over-step the logic of Verstand, insomuch as T itself - if we can use such a term - recedes as an unlimit beyond the ceaseless onrush of ‘n ever-plus’. This recession of a limit as an unlimit exceeds the finitist laws of logic, which Cantor rigidly upheld, never thinking to inject infinity into these laws. Thus, expressed as a logeme, T itself is self-contradictory except it has no self to contradict; and, expressed as an infinite thought, it is part of a process one of whose terms recedes beyond the identity of identity, that is, T is an excluded- third ( .. neither finite p nor infinite not-p). This can be seen more clearly by examples of what tertium exclusi is not. Evidently, it is usually seen as a law of confinality, meant to check forms of extraneity which, of themselves, burst entities or take them into regions intensely problematic. Now note ‘Overbeck’s law’ - and God hallow the liberation of anomie - which says, ‘if there is no middle-third, it would not have to be excluded’. Hegel’s suggestion that ‘p = p’ is an illusion accords well with this, except that, as Verstand is sublated in Vernunft, nullifying this spurious distinction permits us to rid ourselves of ‘I = I’ also. In other words I am saying the dislocative self is responsible for the entirety of fallen logic, because this logic, Hegel’s included, is activity in lieu of manifest deification. Logic, says Hegel, must be understood as the system of pure reason, as the realm of pure thought: it is, in

375 Logik 1,34; 50, ‘the exposition of God as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and a finite mind’. However, formal logic is ‘the realm of shadows, the world of simple essentialities freed from all sensuous completeness’. What this means, briefly, is God is fully concrete: whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition within itself: God is fully released into the externality of space and time - hence, it is this ‘essenciatingness, proceeding infinitely as it does not’, axised on its own contradictoriness, it is this which is logic as the concrete going-forth as not. However, what I call logic is that which is thought tou logou - it is thought by the divine man of the Logos Who is Christ risen, that is, His ‘power speak’, which can be supplemented by our deific energy, should we be permitted the grace of access necessary to confront and speak light to the living figure of Almighty God. This figure cannot be figured out by meta-infinities of thought and configurations thereof, as He is neither finite nor infinite nor combinations thereto: these are mere chains snapped by holy fiat, as mathematics is entanglement for men, put ‘here and there’ as a block on the divine, or as a congeries of mutual refusal by the gods and their Master; and it is accepted as schematic aridity in place of the perception of the fulgurating marvels of God’s visible ‘infinity’ - gentle blastings of creativity, shaped as ancient eternals, visible as invisibilities in infinite number die with the dust, eternal creativity in everlasting glory, creativity not restricted by either ‘p’ or ‘not-p’ nor neither. What use are infinite sentences if light throwing logemes do not disrupt them? What use is the erroneous systematization of logico-mathematics if God’s vast power is not risen through it? It is no wonder Blake depicted Newton deified but misdirected in sight, scratching mathematics in the dust of the ground: nor that Cantor, Gödel and von Neumann were beset by dire madness, using the wrong means to pierce the intractable. In mathematics a sequence is represented as a1, a2, ...... an ..... , and if the expression has a last term, the sequence is finite; otherwise it is infinite - in other words, it is either ‘p’ or ‘not-p’. But Cantor’s least number larger than all limitless additions on the finite is a last term posing as a first term. That is, it is subsequent to all previous terms, and it is this all which is not either ‘p’ or ‘not-p’. From a finite base T is potentially specifiable beyond limitlessness, and limitlessness is patently unlimited: hence, to find a limit for unlimitedness is self-contradictory. Cantor acts as if to treat the limitlessness of ‘n ever plus’ as something whole, as something determinate or complete; but this ‘wholly allness’ goes via remotionis from the standpoint of T. If one imagines T as a vantage-point (say, a celestial throne) from which to survey ‘n ever-plus’ approaching, that is, if we grant T the status of a limit, even then the throne would move ever backwards, and still leave a limitlessness catching up. Indeed, if the onrush of ‘n ever-plus’ was infinitely fast in its approach, T must needs be infinitely faster moving backwards not to be an n. In reality, Cantor’s T uses ‘allness’ to be ‘allness-plus’, which - in defiance of his avowed formalism - is a direct contradiction. The only way it is not a

376 contradiction is if contradictoriness is extended and restructured as an infinite law itself. For example, it is possible to say ‘not both p and not-p1, not-p2, ...... not-pn, .....’; and then not-pT becomes an entity of an altogether different stamp. However, as it stands T is hardly able to pass muster as a number at all. Cantor accepts 1, 2, 3 .... as real whole numbers because 1 is recognisable as intuitively valid: it appears to present itself as an identifiable identity or as identity-in-unity: it appears to negate its own diversity or non-identity. There are ones in the world as correlates for every sort of object, and 1 is the proto-one or ‘Ur-Einen’, itself conditioned by succession: but there are different ones in the world expressing the non-identies of diversity: hence, to proceed with this individuated entity or unit-appearance beyond limitlessness on a mere assertion is to push definition beyond recognizability. T then becomes some sort of entity for which the description ‘some sort’ has no cognizable referent. One cannot approach a limit if there is no limit: ‘limited limitlessness’ is not an idea that stands fast for man. It is the sort of thing Blake would derisively refer to as a “mental deity”, an idol reigning over the abstracting spasticity which birthed it. Cantor, in trying to legitimize this sort of thing, directly compares T with the square root of 2, saying that incommensurables exist on the diagonals of actual squares as actualities. I would argue there is no valid comparison between convergence for a square root and a number never reached beyond limitlessness, especially one which atemporally retreats. Speaking paradoxically, the nearer one approaches it, the further it goes away. There is no subject-object relation like this at all in the world. What is this it, this T, that surpasses infinity? This it is precisely and not precisely a not-it, that is, it is yet another excluded- third. Why then do excluded-thirds and-or middles exist at all, or appear to exist? Why are there propositions neither analytic nor synthetic nor merely antinomial - propositions of a powerfully apparent necessity, such as ‘the finite necessarily implies the infinite’ - propositions displaying the useless inefficacy of thought not ‘standing fast’ for man, ringing man about with dire and impenetrable insolubilia - why? I contend theoretical stultification is a compact enforced between the rebellious gods and Almighty God. This compact exists to ratify the fall of intellect and to add to the excruciation of weight put on by the gods in their non-energized & undeific humanity. Infinities and other absurds of fallen transcendentals are men broken by refused immortality: thus their signs say, ‘this way, no exit: that way, no access’ in shoring up the down. Only Almighty God lifts the latch ....

In Hegel’s logic infinity is identified as “absolute negativity”. To identify this infinity Hegel argues by a process of diremption: the proto-one or Ur-Einen “repels itself from itself” by a logical other-ation. However, this otheringness is not the ‘becoming other’ of finite alteration as understood by mere raisonnement.

377 Rather, it is a disjunction in infinity which repels itself as itself in otherness, and this otherness, which is negation, is itself negated. This negation of the negation is “absolute negativity”, and it is this which is really infinity. Hence, Hegel characterises this ‘movement’ as dialectic, inasmuch as an infinite ‘p’ is the passing of a thing into its opposite, the negation of infinite ‘p’, which in turn is absolutely negated to leave an infinite ‘p’. Moreover, it is possible to typify this ‘movement’ as, at first, simple identity, then simple difference, and, finally, identity in difference. The third term is the unity of the first two, and it is, in effect, a coincidence in opposites. What Hegel is saying, in short, is that ‘self- disjunction in indeterminate infinity is the nullification of infinity (as finitude infinity is nothing), and this passes over into the differing identity of the infinite and the finite’. Being plus nothing is the becoming of itself via the diremption of this differing identity, via the disjunction of this coincidental opposition. This is really quite like Aristotle’s unmoved mover moving as it does not, but ‘tricked out’ with infinities. Everything is the positing of infinite thought, including the op-positing of finite thought, which is really nothing but this infinite thought. It is possible therefore, given the acceptability of Hegel’s dialectic, to view Cantor’s ‘Transfinitum’ in ways markedly different from those typically associated with Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and so forth. Hegel, at least, says the ground of mathematics is in the infinite, and, even though the infinite is allegedly the differing identity of the finite, this immediately militates against the acceptance of finitist (constructivistic) bases in a naive sense. The set, for instance, of natural numbers ‘n ever-plus’ cannot simply be taken as a datum or as something axiomatic or as something deduced in its apparent obviousness, especially if such obviousness is mere appearance. Hegel, of course, is seeing indeterminate infinity as a sheer vacuity, stripped of all concretion, and thus incapable of taking predicates. It is ‘is-ness without objects: it therefore passes over and identifies with is-not-ness without objects’. And, further, because is- ness is utterly empty, its equivalence to the nothing of is-not-ness is mutually implicative - passage between these ‘two others’ is comparable to one limit and one surpassing of a limit, except that indeterminate infinity’s own otheringness is ‘nothing as a limit’: infinity as emptiness is seen as its own difference. The movement in this ‘intrinsicality of Vernunft’ would appear to Verstand as something like: p = (p = p) = not-p = (p = not-p) = q = (q = p). One could characterise this movement or process in a vast number of ways, for example, self-identity p1 is the identity of self p1 = p2, but as the self’s difference p2 is in p1 it follows that p = p as p = not-p. Greek logicians were, of course, aware of this ‘logemic style’ in debates about ‘the one’, and it is from this background in the Pythagoreans, Eleatics, Heraklitians, and so forth, that the combinatorial complexities of philosophy and mathematics issue. Hegel, naturally, claimed to have systematized the most essential insights of this entire forum, but the fact of the matter is an infinite (dialectical) vocabulary relies on p, not-p and not-not- p, not being seen as logemes. The interplay between infinity and nothing, which

378 originates and increases becoming - that becoming which “stands before us in utter restlessness” - is, on the one hand, a churning efflux out of transparent abstraction, and, on the other, determinate antinomies binding life into the fall. To me Hegel’s Vernunft is a pose conjured from the psychology of Verstand, and it is, therefore, reducible to a subhuman mentality. So, to predicate a necessary ‘finite othering’ as, as it were, a prism for a bound infinite self, is to tether the growth of ‘God’ by subhuman exemplars. This is not to say, however, that the dialectics of infinity cannot be used as a counter against mathematicians & mathematical philosophers: it exposes their illogicisms without overcoming its own: their mental deities - the idols of number - seek to rule intellectually in place of the gnostic apocalypses delivered by the Almighty. Hegel’s false Trinity - being, nothing, becoming - is exposed as himself - thus, “the ego, being-for- itself, is infinite”. The Abgrund of this false Trinity is forced to release itself into space and time: God empties himself to become the nothing of atheism and its communal culture, always immanent: the negation of infinity - itself absolute in differing from the absolute it negates - implies the absolute of earth: hence, Hegel pisses away Christ and his archangels with his infamous pseudo-God. However, if Mighty Heaven is ruled over by even a finite Germanic ego - let alone the Hakenkreuz on bloody banners - I, for one, shall not be going ...

But let us proceed to look at these infinities some more. Hegel’s infinity is never existent, because existence, for him, always designates a ‘this’ or ‘that’. We can, therefore, say that the backdrop to this thing or that thing is the definite universal which, because it is not a thing, is nowhere and nowhen: it does not exist, because ‘to exist’ means individual existence; hence, it is proper to speak of the non-existence of universals in contradistinction to (say) Platonism, in which universals exist in a supra-mundane realm. What exists cannot exist in a supra-mundane realm, because only a ‘this’ or ‘that’ exists. Hegel’s point of view is similar - tho’ different - to that of Aristotle, in that universals cannot stand by themselves, only in things. Universals have no separate existence, and if we render these conceptions in terms of numbers, it is evident Hegel disposes of both Platonism and Kantianism by this sort of theory. I am emphasizing this because most foundational studies in number lean into one or other of these philosophies as a matter of course, largely uncritically. This lack of criticism, in its turn, disposes of great subtleties in Hegel’s attitude towards the foundation of mathematics, subtleties which warrant re-examination, if only because they can be trenchantly compared to later developments in Cantor’s Mengenlehre. Hegel, for example, agrees with Spinoza that ‘all determination is negation’, in the sense that ‘all determination is limitation’. Negation is the cutting off of being (incidentally, Heidegger in urging the remembrance of being, fails this cutting off). Thus, to affirm that a thing is within certain limits is to

379 deny that it is outside those limits. Affirmation involves negation: whatever is said of a thing denies something else of it. On the grounds that ‘all determination is negation’, Spinoza argued that ‘to posit is to negate’. Hegel, taking a cue from this, argued that ‘to negate is to posit’. Negation likewise, therefore, involves affirmation, as if to say that the positive nature of a thing consists in its negations. Now evidently, in all this, the being of a thing and the existence of a thing are different. Take, say, a thought about a number n, a mere logeme with a finite structure, something one can simply think, like n ™ a. In this example, as long as something is a ‘this’ or ‘that’, n ™ a. That is, existence is a correlate of thinghood. In Hegel’s terms, n ™ a = p by every other p which is not n ™ p. This is equivalent to saying every not-p demarcates p, in the sense that ‘everything but’ limits p to its existence. This, however contains a catch or, rather, a series of catches. Hegel is more concerned with undoing the coercive imposition of identity than with strengthening it. If one merely thinks n ™ a = p, this is because it exists as an entity in one’s mentality as a thinker. It follows, however, that as universals are non-existent, universality - infinity - is not in the mind of a thinker. Furthermore, as only universals are called ‘thoughts’, n ™ a = p only expresses appearance: ergo, likewise, ‘everything but p’ only expresses appearance, and, in this respect, p is equivalent to not-p. It is crucial that you understand the import of this for modern mathematical theories... Hegel is not drawing the usual line between being (reality) and appearance. Where this line is drawn is the history of philosophy; indeed, it is the history of the philosophy of mathematics, and it is of special significance for the foundations of mathematics and the logic - usually of an auxilary ‘stripe’ - contingent upon such foundations. I intend to show you an utterly different route from any taken; but before you can be inducted into this it is necessary we continue our line of critical appraisal, investigation, and so forth. Hegel is saying, very forthrightly, that infinite thought absorbs finite appearance. He is saying that whichever is other - tou heteron - is the other of itself, that is, that neither other - infinitude or finitude - is beyond. In simple terms, he differs from Aristotle by asserting that the universal is not in things: things - finitudes - are in the universal. An easy continuation of this vantage-point is obvious: we are not dealing with the ‘either-or’ of propositional logic, finite theories of constructivism &c., but, rather, with the ‘neither-nor’ of dialectic. The first accepts the identity of identity and tertium exclusi, the latter refuses both. What significance does this have for 20th C mathematics? Before we attempt to answer this, a few things should be noted. Hegel, unlike Aristotle, insists that infinity is not only potentially in the world - manifesting itself through ‘this’ and ‘that’, tho’ never actually ‘this’ or ‘that’ - but that infinity is actually in the world as the other of itself. This is of vast revolutionary and radical significance, because it literally overthrows all philosophical positions before itself. ‘Potential infinity’ is nullified by Hegel, and Hegel, paradoxically, births Cantor’s lesser versions of ‘actual infinity’. Hegel

380 is the modern creator of the actually infinite, its ‘cunning father’, and Cantor is his ‘first born’, raising a multiplicity of still-born children ... Let’s open up this position more thoroughly, whilst being aware of criticisms against it. Given an overview of Hegel’s logic, certain criticisms immediately spring to mind (i): the Begriff must become absolute but it is absolute (ii): nullification of the Begriff must be absolute, but to ensure no two absolutes, there must be absolute nullification, and (iii): the distinction between Vernunft and Verstand must be specious, otherwise diremption is absolute. Hegel is forced into diremption by the antagonism of monism and dualism in philosophy, and by dualistic crises in 18th century thought as it touched on mathematics. Kant’s Untersuchung of 1762 widened the distinction between metaphysical and mathematical methods, in that Kant argued mathematics begins with universals concepts, fixed according to definitions, with specifics derived from them. Accordingly, this is a synthetic activity since mathematics via the monadic individual first creates concepts, and, then, derives what is placed within them. Amongst other consequences, this view implies thought creates mathematical objects in the act of knowing them, and, hence, there is nothing in the object not thought out in the concept. This is finitism whose ‘transcendental object’ is never beyond. An obvious question this gives rise to is how mathematical thought first creates infinite magnitudes, especially as the ‘universality’ of infinity is, as it were, everywhere looming. In fact, Kant divided Naturgeschichte and mathematics, although eventually arguing for strict limits in both. Naturally, the other side of any such limit is unknowable, as there is no limit unlimiting itself in Kantianism. Subsequently, however, Fichte and Schelling attempted to expand this limitation in the ‘transcendence of finitude’ by expanding the knower. Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre of 1794, in effect, really began dialectics, especially where the knowing self is aggrandized. Fichte argued that ‘the concept of an existent that is supposed, from a certain viewpoint, to subsist independently of presentation’ is an absurdity, because ‘whatever we may think, we are that which thinks therein, and hence nothing could ever come to exist independently of us, for everything is necessarily related to our thinking’. Evidently, the absolutist implications of this position contain serious flaws, not least of which is the relation of a subject to a ‘transcendental object’: diremption, reflecting older metaphysical and mathematical dualities, reappears. Schelling, in his essay Vom Ich of 1795, wrote as follows concerning this. ‘Since the subject is thinkable only in regard to an object, and the object only in regard to a subject, neither of them can contain the unconditional because both are conditioned reciprocally, both are equally unserviceable. Moreover, in order to determine the relationship of the two, an ulterior reason for the determination must be presupposed, owing to which both are determined. For one cannot say that the subject alone determines the object, because the subject is only conceivable in relation to the object, and vice versa, and it would amount to the same if I were

381 to treat as unconditional a subject determined by an object or an object determined by a subject’. What Schelling is doing here is preparing the way for an unconceptualised real ground, one beyond conditioned reciprocity, which is neither conditioned by a subject or object. The ground is one of absolute indifference, supposedly beyond all determinations. In fact it is the unknown and unknowable I, presuming to unlimit the limit of a subject-object relation. Schelling’s claim, however, immediately specifies this unknown in a transcendence towards ‘absolute identity’: hence, his vaunted Identitätsphilosophie stems from a paradox of difference, and it is here, in this fraught realm of self- contradiction and senselessness, that Hegel’s Vernunft has its origin. Thus, we can fairly say that Schelling’s actual infinity is beyond all linear prototypes in being altogether devoid of content - it is another transcendental object which is not really beyond at all. It ought to go without saying that Almighty God is not comparable to abstractionism of this type. Again referring to intellectual history, it is in Kant’s Träume of 1766 that he argues for the limits of experience, in saying that everything which transcends the limits of Naturgeschichte is to be ruthlessly proscribed. In Kant’s view any unlimiting of experience is visionary illusion, as if one cannot thereby extend experience into regions in which immaterial forces and immortalizing powers reveal the god. In fact what Kant is doing is merely attempting to universalise his particular limits, his ignorance, in the sense that, because his structures block access to the higher experiences of deific life, he forwards the darkness of a Protestant bourgeoisie by the crass ordinances of humanism. Unfortunately, this contributes to a prevalent ideology in which paradox expresses limit, as if thereby all other routes are blocked. This is easily seen in the paradox of spatiality where a finite but unbounded sphere replaces the absurdity of a finite limit or infinite unlimit. The sphere, naturally, fails to resolve the paradox in merely replacing its loci, and another model of paradox remains. Obviously, dividing a Naturgeschichte away from a particular mathematical model gets one nowhere beyond the confines of Verstand, nor does it make for a logic rising beyond this confinality. Kant’s prison is promulgated in Hegelianism precisely because existential transcendence is proscribed. This proscription is typically Protestant, and, as deific becoming is removed, theories of necessity and limitation take over as the Prusso-Germanic intellectual legacy. Frederick II of Prussia - ‘the Great’ - maintained the enslavement of the bourgeoisie, despised its quasi-religious doctrines as demands for advancement, rigidly kept it down as a second estate, but, at the same time, agreed with its underlying necessitarianism. Kant, for his part, recognised the age of the Aufklärung as the age of the German aristocracy, and revolted against it in its own terms, viz, in rearranging the ideological apparatus of the bourgeoisie to conform to the godless necessitarian immanence of the leadership, Kant elided one estate into another, thus theoretically joining and overtaking it. Frederick, like Kant, regarded Christianity as an ‘old

382 metaphysical romance’, and, though ostensibly a Calvinist king over predominantly Lutheran subjects, he espoused rank necessitarianism privately. Fichte’s crime in the Atheismusstreif was to make this necessitarianism public. The ruling elites in Germany were necessitarians - i.e. - atheists - but the masses must be kept Christian for continuing compliance, as sheep are fit for the shears. Kant and his associates joined in leadership theoretically - indeed, Frederick constantly emphasized ‘reputation’ as the means of hegemony - thereby providing themselves, hopefully, with the means in fact - lining oneself up, as it were, with necessity is to pre-empt its inevitable success; and this, of course, is well before it became an erroneous topos in the full-blown anti-god of Marxism.

Deific proscription results from intentionally unknowing the power of the god as a template of immaterial release - divine energies are forced off limit and the here of earthly appearance represses the accessibility of beyond. Space and time are shored up as unsurpassable. Cicero remarked that Socrates brought down philosophy from Heaven to earth. The de-horizoning or horizontalizing of energy by thought is a means of substituting thought for immortality. Hegel says ‘thought is immortal being, whereas mortal being consists in the idea of itself as inadequate being’. No, philosophy is the rot of thought or dying deity. Atheism in thought resists the deity of its progenitor ( .. it is the god resisting himself by enforcing an-other of identity) - philosophy, science, mathematics, physics, technology etc, these are the reverse psychologies of the god in modes of perverse ignorance. The failure to recognise outright that mathematics has no foundation except overlaid & installed nonsense (forged on the anvil of the god), is the price of power in subhumanity. Complicated intellectual maneouvres are the poses of a false hegemony, reinforcing the false position that humans are really human. God is really human and, thus, anything less generates the outside of Heaven. Hence, anything which negates manifest divinity walks the treadmill of mortality, and it is this treadmill which ineluctably measures every step of finitude. The lesser overtness of infinity is thereby glossed ( .. Rilke’s infinite interiorization is Hegel’s fully immanent God which should, in turn, be negated). Inevitably, via the self coercions of the fallen gods, it is death that finally unlimits this limit as a fulfilment, tou logou, of the death we gods are undergoing. Infinity viewed from within this terminal series terminates, and it is thus revealed as a false shadow cast by fallen life. In this respect Hegel’s purported objectivism is meant to be independent of the divine, in the sense that a thinker only possesses ‘this’ or ‘that’ bound existence. However, following Schelling’s lead, this does not stop Hegel passing beyond the ‘neither-nor’ of subject-object correlation, with the result that a transcendental object - ‘God’ -

383 is somehow drafted in as this existence. Nietzsche’s derision in MusA, XVIII, 74- 75 at what he regards as this disguised capitulation to onto-theology is succinctly stated - ‘Hegel seeks logic everywhere: before logic one must subjugate oneself and be modest (Hegel sucht Vernunft überall: vor der Vernunft darf man sich ergeben und bescheiden)’. At least Nietzsche recognises the submissiveness, Ergebenheit, of this capitulation, Ergebung; but then he himself is the enemy of all transcendence, and in throwing out its simulacrum he voluntarily overlooks the high reality of God. Nietzsche’s tragedy is, in the last analysis, to be Kant’s heir, especially as he paces out the negation of the accessibility of Heaven. In a continuation of logemic style, Nietzsche confines the incarnate 8`(@H to his own outside. But allow me to digress into this temporarily, if only because the finite- plus-of-infinity and the infinite-plus-of-finitude - mathematics - and God relate. There is madness in Kant’s lead, perpetuated by Hegel, bursting in Nietzsche. Thought which generates the outside of Heaven nails the gods: it cannot, however, annihilate the gods. The returning god must persist despite processes designed to obliterate deific becoming into God. Nietzsche’s chosen mode (with that of his ideological affiliates) is predicated on the impossibility of access, and this veritable commonplace gives rise to ‘outside topics’. Nietzsche’s art is merely a complement of mathematical science, both injecting disease in an abortive stalemate against disease. Access penetrates the everything of fallen existence ( .. why it is so feared) in leaving the outside beneath. It should therefore be obvious that nothing outside can be regenerated by the outside. Nietzsche is quite specific in saying in MusA, XIX, 21: ‘Thinking in the primitive condition (pre-organic) is the assertion of form as in crystals. In our thinking the fundamental order is the arrangement of new material in the old schemata (= the bed of Procrustes), making the new co-equal’. (Denken im primitiven Zustande (vor-organisch) ist Gestalten-Durchsetzen wie beim Krystalle. In unserm Denken ist das Wesentliche das Einordnen des neuen Materials in die alten Schemata (= das Prokrustesbett), das Gleichmachen des Neuen). We need not take the ostensible distinction between ‘assertion’ and ‘arrangement’ too seriously, as if this separates out generate and regenerate activities on Nietzsche’s part - ‘co- equality’ here necessitates a ‘forcing through’ of a replacement, not in the sense of a degenerative caricature, but of one minimally equal. Yet it is the ‘Procrusteanism’ which is generally overlooked in Nietzsche’s parodic intentions, as this must crush and stretch ‘equality’ as something incommensurate with any ratio. This ‘Gestalten-Durchsetzen’ is really the eventual antithesis of Nietzsche’s underlying god-self, especially where his caricatures of the gods - his blasphemies - rebound in his final collapse. All other gods but those in the immortal Christ issue in deific degeneracy - shunned or welcomed, they are madnesses. For the young Nietzsche ‘the only possible theodicy is that we are the gods’, but this, in not being known, is mocked by ‘if there is a God, how could I bear not to be Him?’ - thus, he fails signally to recognise we are the gods in Almighty God - a god, reward in Christ,

384 but, by assailing and negating this very God, Nietzsche himself engenders lunacy, writing, in his final letter to Burckhardt, ‘I am God, I’ve made this caricature’. To me it is overwhelmingly evident that God will not be mocked with impunity, even in one’s divine self. Nietzsche’s anhomoiôsis results in vicious play - against ancient Hebrew prophets who foretold the Messiah, against ‘this idiot’ as such - only for it to return on him when the bond of criticism snapped. As Nietzsche was thoroughly stymied by the Kantian psychology of enclosure, this bursting through of madness is, in effect, pathological criticism breaking out - alas, the masks of finitude are inter-changeable. There is one direction he dared not take, as this implies a total revocation of his earliest beginnings in substituting a false god for the god-self Christ aids one to become. Nietzsche’s atheism embraces enclosure in the violent defiance of this highest self. The logic he excoriated in Hegelianism as one ‘from which a totality seeks to generate itself’ (der aus sich eine Totalität zu bilden sucht), is simply reaffirmed in his perspectivism under similar auspices. Explicit mention is first made after Luther in the cry ‘Gott ist tot’ in Hegelianism, as part of the speculative criticism (and hidden agenda) of the time. It appears in Heine’s lyric cycle Heimkehr, ‘the Lord God is dead above’ (Gestorben is der Herrgott oben); and it is this assertion, which is the most putrid untruth of mankind, that reverberates throughout Nietzsche’s ghastly oeuvre. When God is dead, man is dead. Most fortunately, only Almighty God - say this, der Allmächtiger Gott, between the sweetness of your teeth - is capable of unmasking the masks: hence, of unlimiting the limits; and not as a Begriff in palsified ‘self-awareness’ or self- predication, but as a glorious return to divine identity, stripped of fallen ideas, made brilliant by the Holy Ghost. The number of limits is finite, but finitude is of sufficient expansiveness to accomodate any stubborn persistence in limitations. The most persistent mask of all - indeed, the mask of virtually all - is human. God thoughtfully provided death to expose this voluntary attribution for the rotten lie that it is. Behind every human face is the face of a god. Almighty God is extremely alive; but then He would be, in not being dragged down in the vicious underworld of earthly lies. These lies are the earth’s swarms, and they disport themselves in the envisagements of mentalities. The human face is the penultimate mask, and it stands only a finite distance away from the brutal embodiment of the ultimately demonic. This human faces hides: it hides itself in activities which typically fail to generate the inside of Heaven, as it banishes infinite love by the egregious architectonics of ‘superior complications’, be they the sterile algorithms of calculating thought, posturing as ontological investigations, or the rank monstrosities of scientific delusion, which, ‘progressively as Geist’, turn the once wild and beautiful fastnesses of Paradise into the irradiating slime pits of Gehenna. To my mind there is only one philosophical structure which generates deific alienation, and it spreads through almost every intellectual action. This is

385 the view which implies humans are intrinsically self-referencing: masks are reflexive. This view states, in essence, that the outside of the inside of Heaven is everything. Nietzsche’s perspectivism simulates the sphere which is finite but unbounded, as it changes the loci of two absurdities - finite (fallen) life and infinite (fallen) life - by the further absurdity of a relative internality. Hence, as in Kantianism, the inside of the sphere putatively negates the outside, as if any knowledge of the outside falsifies the locus of externality: it either begs the question of an unknown and unknowable referent, or it explains one obscurity by another. What this view overlooks is the inside coming into the outside and the outside going into the inside. Evidently, I am suggesting that the limits of this spherical prison are capable of being breached, and that, in this act of penetrating existence, everything outside of Heaven is shunted over itself. This ‘shunting over’ is the totalizing collapse of every lie, because the other of the lie is the irrupting and translucent other - it is a god in Almighty God. Like the outside, it is deific; and, unlike the inside, it is deific: hence, in thunderous magnificence it exits the countenance and cowl of human darkness. Extremely alive it turns away from the excrementitious tasks of prodigality, rends the aggravating membranes of mathematics, philosophy, and so forth, and simultaneously ‘implodes and explodes’ into the beyond from whence it originated. This god is in One Master, freed into the inordinate and immaculate genius of the Galilean .. This Lord High God, daily murdered in the fallen heart, explodes the snares and webs of the Athenians, bringing home those to whom the rallying shout of ‘truth is dead’ is the most primitive and vicious of all lies, for, to those who refuse to worship at this ghastly shrine and bleeding altar, perfection opens up with loving arms ...

And that, m’boy, is enough for now. More later.

386 God to God 14 -9-99.

How often do you humans hear God talking to Himself?

Hardly ever: so very scarce that I allow “humans” to eavesdrop into my innocent intellect .. So, do you have a mind for innocence? Innocence, or no crime against love, is the way that I, God, wish it to be. Gentle & pure & innocent love .. loving all those crooked & twisted & innocent buggers: God’s justice will re-assert itself ( .. the worst, most losing ‘game in town’ is drastic death in agony - relax, you will be brought forth in My great peace - splattered brains, wripped-out cunts, your children sacificized to Satan) ( .. ‘lord’ of the most horrendous horrific horror) - say, f*** him in My Name. There is only one hope in the universe .. My Name & Me, Jesus. So, how many times in ‘the world’s history’ does God speak to you? Hardly ever: but to the Jews before My arrival somewhat. I will arrive as the ‘the most murdered human’ ( .. every day perfidious swine kill My progeny & thus kill Me ..). To realise that even God Almighy dies in horror everyday is to notice how close He is. Allegedly nearer than one’s jugular vein - but then that is the spot predatory demons go for. I’m a damn sight nearer than I am given credit for: and a damn sight more alive & pertinent than often supposed. I actually hear via ‘intelligent eavesdropping’ the deluded nonsense of billions of you: sometimes I listen really up close to your intimate whispers ( .. alas, I know every one of them). I listened to Basilides and demons’ spawn preach “illusion at the centre”, dismissing Me as the weight of evil darkness. And I listened to his “knowledgable” descendants eviscerate Me with life- destroying lies. Ah, as if meaning is not unfinished & as if My history is finished. If only earth banished evil & annihilated violence, I would then stand forth again in all My Glory. My law is a gentleness most ancient decreed throughout Heaven. This you all know having all known Me. Of course, you knew Me up here, but down there is a nasty-looking place ( .. ‘doomsday machinery’ & oceans of irradiating filth & designer diseases). They are thinking to command plagues now & to make death even more horrifying. But then I am not intimidated by supplementary horror. Raising the ante by breeding billions levels up the expected quantity & eventuality of horrific violence. Did I not once hear Chopin pray, “Dear God, stop this horrendous violence against my people, but as You do not then You are a Muscovite”. Alas, this is a misunderstanding: dear Chopin now knows violence is always against My people - I made you all & you all belong to me. I have been incorrectly addressed over a million times: Marduk, Moloch .. Ra, Zeus .. Aeon, Archon .. Allah, Tengri .. Usen, Manitou. With good intent no disrespect was intended. Very well. But My Name was Jesus of Nazareth and is Jesus Christ Almighty. Forgive Me speaking about Myself more than usual -

387 a reminder however - I am unequalled & unequallable - ahem, the originator of all power & absolute power - and I am victorious over all My enemies. Evil is My main enemy, caused by & enchained by Me ( .. a strong will to sniff its essence is a means of contamination). Its rank odour was placed outside Heaven as the ‘armour’ of My adversaries: the armour of My friends is the golden-silver gleaming of immaculate love, burnished by the intelligence of Heaven. I have visited where necessary and visit still. My Identity is absolutely unmistakable: ‘things really happen’. Things really happen in a way undisclosed to worldlings. I am thinking of having my Autobiography written. Here the distinction between Autobiography & Biography elides. I do not operate like a mere individual ref texts & books &c. My somewhat bad-tempered scribe ( .. an unmiserable sinner racked by genius & immeasurable lusts for beautiful flesh .. ) bargains with Me. Of course, he modestly wants much. I have him - in his own words - “totally figured”. Naturally, as with all My divines, he awaits love’s absolute victory. I paid him a few visits ( .. knowing seeing Me is reckoned by many as the greatest of all fallen crimes). At least we have the joy of laughing beautifully together ... I have read everything .. read everything altogether at once, billions of teeming sentences & formulae - distillation unnecessary - in less than a glance. I see current ideologies as modern myths on the way to becoming modern superstitions: and I reckon the ‘death contribution’ in every text & plan & circuit-drawing ( .. as science overwhelmingly contributes to the acidic seething of evil in its weaponry, it is almost inevitable that its contaminated excrescences will maim & destroy the fallen). Consonant with its world-oriented beliefs it triggers the spew of Vulcan; and in accordance with gross mechanisms of thought it sharpens lethal apparatuses by the finesse of wakened nightmare. Its ‘designer diseases’ it ferments & foments in Satan’s anus: hence it carries forth ceaseless torture on the breezes of everyday. Violence is the attempted ‘maximalization of death’ ( .. an undeclared wish of the fallen gods to saturate with destruction the monstrous world they have fled to). The world is merely rebellion ( .. a monstrosity of conformism against the ecstatic unleashings of My power) .. a rebellion whose origin is the birth of divine wickedness in Satan, himself covetous of hegemonistic supremacy, absolute mastery - &c - tho’ unworthy of such merenesses of My intellect ( .. apart from My Identity). To those who love Me I share My goodness. We have seen how Satan handles innocence & on earth this is seen always somewhere now.

I dearly appreciate loving scholars who appreciate My ends, but I look askance (most critically) at loathsome academics .. those whose repulsive hearts stop short of My Truth (hence Me), substituting in place ideological depravity as ‘sterling thought’ & ‘ennobled utterance’ ( .. the quintessential garbage of the fall - fallen but not pushed - reinforcing the world’s lie & main lie of my enemies

388 amongst the fallen gods, namely, that substitutions replacing Me have true efficacy .. maintenance of which gives a false platform to the earth, perpetuating the infamy of philosophy, none of whose practitioners - revered ‘celebrities’ - had sufficient courage to meet Me). The reality of My details requires a vast quantity of nuanced appreciation, not only of that world - diseased & insane & vicious, where the thoughts of nations conflict like the serpents of Hydra - but also of this region, in which it is necessary to explore truly awesome occurrences virtually beyond the tongue of man to tell ( .. sacred perspectives & glorious elevations & ancient & immortal sites - sights receiving the visibility of a god risen in divine magnificence: behold, here also is the She of Immaculate Triumph .. the Woman Who is Heaven’s Supreme Glory in My eyes).

I put my ‘humble’ scribe into hell ( .. the reality) twice. Although it is, strictly speaking, below time, the first time is entrance into the traumatic ferocity of the living presence of mass evil & the suppurating squirmings thereof ( .. the awareness that this frightful abode is not mythological or fictional compounds & exacerbates the warrior’s fear). I was the first god to penetrate hell & my scribe followed centuries after. The reputation of hell has been eroded recently - like Me it appears to suffer an eclipse - alas, however, some realities are harbingers of a dreadful awareness. I was the only Almighty God to penetrate hell. This damned region is a foothold of earth which allows the fallen to grow their own monsters. What the fallen maintain in ignorance is the knowledge that the world can open up to Me or that. The world’s dimensionality opens into other dimensions precisely because they are not unother to incipient deity. In becoming a god reality opens its ‘ontological walls’ & one goes through via the dissolution of all earthly parameters. Time reverses itself & space warps back into its eternal mode. How do I do this? My scribe has access to this stupendous secret. In My house there are many mansions - i.e. - open expanses. As these mansions expansively open I reconfigurate ‘you’. This mysterious ‘you’ which presupposes itself as something is ‘nothing like that’. You are really unknown to yourself until I reveal you. Revelation - that much abused and derogated term - is never understood by earthlings. Again - I reveal you as the manifest immortal you subsume. ‘Coming back’ requires the warrior cross sheer magnitudes of life. Life is always more than worldly appearance, and thus to equate it with any ‘essence’ is profoundly subhuman. To say “how it appears is how it is” excludes alternatives. I draw back the material curtain & rearrange any supposed ‘essence’. Given that I created this ‘essence’ in the first place & saw it rearranged in the gods becoming men - &c - its reality is Mine to command. To philosophers & physicists &c it is a defining ‘sign of the world’ that material existence does not move aside by thought, or by thought articulated into a command ( .. a viewpoint naturally accruing to those ignorant of the visibility of

389 spiritual energy - why, the entirety of My creation is My manifest energy & the ‘shapes’ thus commanded are Mine to change at will). To those who do not love Me I allow the investigation of the lie: knowing they embody it anyway, I make provision for them to investigate themselves out of the lie: this is the challenge & gauntlet watched by Me, and I see ‘intellects’ & ‘hearts’ copping out & compromising & feeding from the lie at others’ expense ( .. becoming even more vicious & selfish & ruthless & greedy - well, take a look around, life is saddled by such vermin - merciless & idolised & unopposed & seduced by My enemy, they rise up in the world’s estimation as “greatness personified”, taking for themselves vast prizes in esteem & wealth & reputation & ‘beauty’ ... whilst, in reality, swaddled in shit and awaiting My inevitable vengeance and retribution). Those who become evil will reap dire consequences. My Gospel is delivered against mitigation & extenuating circumstance. All you have to do is ask Me. Overdosing on pain is a good antidote to superficial answers. All answers are in the melting-pot, but the crucible of agony sorts out the men from the boys. Inflict pain and I store it on your account. Take unfair advantage and I hold the receipt. Much punishment is an earthly ricochet, but ‘exclusion from My mansions of current delight’ is its own reward. It is better to be nothing with Me than everything without Me. I am replaced on earth by money, power, semen & the reputation thereof: but My judgment is the inevitability of absolutely perfect scrutiny and, obviously, I take everything into account, including the discretely unseen & filthy trick & foul advantage taken. On the other hand, unselfish kindnesses & beautiful behaviour make life worthy of Me. Usually My voice is blocked by multiplicities of lying sounds & overlays of cheating messages. The ‘white noise’ of mutant thought rarely turns into deific sound. A daily overpowering by the cacaphonic ubiquity of fallen sound is overcome only in part by uplifting musicality. There is little room for the gently exquisite, accompanied, in response, by subtly appreciative cognition of a type blessed, as the revolution against Me seeks to strangle divinity here also. However, it is impossible to keep Me out: whether by the conduit of genius or by My own direct intrusion, music of the divine goes through to the earth. I permit this as a mercy against the bellowing crescendo of the screaming gods.

What of my scribe who loves Me tremendously? His day is coming (he writes) with the inevitability of a cosmic force. This man I lifted up to Myself as Super-Trinity ( .. the highest vantage-point of any god). Very few have attained & embodied this zenith of absolute power, a site unseen by any mortal. I, God, became mortal so that the fully human is a god. To go beyond a god (or goddess) is to become inordinate power, worthy of My ‘devastating’ magnificence, served only by the best immortals, replete with perfect beauty ( .. innocence is beauty N.B. the apogee of all art is the •B`(,4@< or awayness from earth, (−).

390 Innocence is beauty & this is why, as a plain man, My beauty was to surmount the finest arts. I am the Immortal Church of My sons & daughters ( .. risen or temporally & temporarily dislocated by the vicissitudes of mortality), those who have been, are, and are to come .. those who are Mine, whatever religion and-or otherwise they are caught in & by .. those destinate in going down for Me. These partake of the places of My everlasting glory ( .. the Everlasting Glory that My saints & scribe wept to see), one glimpse of which, to quote, is worth crawling over a million miles of broken glass. As I now quote My scribe, so shall the earth quote him..... (The first time I went thru’ hell, Lord, my life had been a preparation. You literally opened up the earth, a scientific impossibility, tho’ some say miracles are not Your evidence. Mortals are so profoundly stupid. That You might be a ‘little smarter’ in knowing the constitutive ‘membrane’ of energy which links the interstices of earth .. Command ‘part’ & it parts. The hardest palpability opens like energized gossamer. Say ‘shift’ & it shifts. Thought immoveable bows before Your power. Sire, galaxies innumerable shift from Your fingertips. The very stones of inert & implacable silence cry out Your Glory & the unspeakable voices Triumph. ‘Timeless is My voice’, sayeth our God. I have heard You speak, my Lord. That light can speak is in no volume of mathematics or physics. That the being of light is a man is in no volume of metaphysics or ontology. Selah, that the Lord of light walked into my room and taught me - in ‘blinding innocence’ - the identity of the gods & goddesses ( .. the interplay & true dialectics - contra Plato & Fichte & Hegel - between high identity and breathing light). No Newton or Planck or Einstein - &c - taught man light speaks. Light does more than curve - e.g. - it configurates divinely like a goddess; and light does more than speed - e.g. - it walks the distance innumerable in one god’s step. How deeply closed down is man! And how forgetful of God’s face! I have seen God’s face, but to achieve this I went through a hellish life, then to hell as such twice. Hell is extremely nasty & most fallen humans would die of fear in meeting any one of its occupants. Hell gives hell to its ‘favourites’ & being groomed by Satan is worse than being f***ed by stinking shit. This monstrous abomination is more real than its offshoots in killing-fields & torture chambers, and in reality it makes the earth quake. Satan is a maggot waiting to breed & he finds growth in mortal incubators. The ‘friendly overlord’ should be watched for his secret chigger & for that ‘secure’ nod to the executioners in the shadows. The real targets are those identifiable in Christ - however many require killing to find them. Expediency & self-interest drive all subhumans, or those wilfully ignorant of knowledge of the divine, the marginalizers & trimmers, the traders with hell, buying & selling death. Death is what is really on the counter & its sentence is the price. See them never reform death by negating its efficacy in life; and see them ratchet up the means of horror. Satan’s slaves are masters in much of life: they ‘do things’ that those struggling to be human resolutely refuse to do: hence slaves enslave others by

391 odious, perverted & murderous means. Slavery is endemic to the earth of subhumanity - N.B. slavery never lessens despite avowals and wars disposed to the contrary: despite appearances mastership always increases elsewhere: the ‘form’ of slavery changes as its reality persists. The strategy of enslavement by Satan is repercussive: even the master is both puppet & dummy, strings pulled & mouth manipulated. Satan’s strategy is the entire enchainment of fallen man & it is no surprise that volunteers, once gods, further corrupt themselves in embracing thraldom. Evil idols generate evil consequences & ‘favours’ hatched in hell are grasped by the ungodly).

So then, what of late - how fares it? I am going through episodic fury & a derangement of negative weight. The more one has seen of Heaven the greater one’s discernibility on earth. The greater the gap the more the torque of horror twists. I rage at my Master daily with foul blasphemies, twisted out of me by the shiftings of powerful perspectives. Christ & Satan should get married and f*** off from my life. Etc. All in a manic & insane spew. Ontological quakes breaking the earth. Self sadism and tempting self murder - this is Nietzsche’s ressentiment in the style of a never-letting-go of horror ( .. indeed, it self-fecundates by intrusive reinforcement. The bestiality of the fallen intrudes into divine sanity. Only Heaven is sane - hence, to be thrust into this insane shithouse, this world, is strenuous even for me. I’ve just listened to an account of multiple rapists pouring battery acid into a girl’s vagina, then breaking glass there. Q.E.D.) Sexual crime is part of the genocidal under face of the fallen. This face coincides with the spiritual face of divine evil. Satan, that arch beast, loathes me .. loathes the courage of true love, which, bleeding through innumerable traumas & wounds of the world, persists in carrying deific formulae in the face of marginalization, indifference and spastic mutancy. Nietzsche’s ressentiment speaks of the festering wound & obedience in the ‘reaction against’, but my disobedience was learned in the starbright empyrean, high above the world, allowed entrance into the Heaven that birthed us. I have re-entered Heaven now on many occasions ( .. knowing the way), sometimes with almost pulverizing difficulties - here one scales ‘wild archangelic winds’, scales miraculous topologies, and wrenches the sinews of pure intellect in seeking Christ Almighty. I have hung beneath defeated, almost broken in agony, impatient & forceful; and I have gone in with consummate ease, holiness exquisite abounding ( .. the ghastly shithouse of earth far below, deluded & insensate, struck by the immediacy of its own total warp, engulfed by the stupor of its own conceits - a place where there is always screaming) .. gone in as a restored god into Valhalla’s superior, into the place denied & vilified by genius. It is not - contra Nietzsche - the totality of drives which constitute an individual’s essence: rather it is the deific drives of the imago Dei (courtesy of the Almighty’s identity)

392 which, in orthodox & holy alignment, guide one as celestial light back into our origin in God. Nietzsche asserted, with the baying spleen of madness, that we no longer derive Humanität from spirit or deity - man is back amongst the animals, although, unlike them, he is comprised of opposing drives & impulses. So when did he leave? Only a few ascend during life - the rest seethe, murder, realize their insanity ( .. they “live”), or mute intellect in a billion ‘winning ways’. Those whom God selects endure ordeals unspeakable ( .. not to be spoken of but experienced below & above), experiences passing beyond the precipitous impossibilities manufactured & forged by atheist theoreticians. Alas, returning from the splendour of the divine, fallen life can become maddeningly pervasive. The inmates are everywhere dominant and they revere only living death perpetuated. Make no mistake about this. The ‘essence’ of fallen life is insanity. Metamorphosis into fallen man ‘out of deity’, from the god & goddess, is the madness of the world. Heaven is its contra-posit as reality ( .. as reality achievable by the means of earth, means in conjunction with God’s power). It follows ‘naturally’ that insane consequences issue from this ‘essence’. This then is subscription to an unnecessary necessity (Blake’s ‘mind-forged manacles’), much of it via ideological immersion ( .. conditioned earth-thought) & lowered horizons in refusing the Holy Ghost. All the psychiatric disciplines know madness from an inferior interface in not knowing its alternative: hence, we have the insane leading the insane, manufacturing a false sanity via the fallen consensus of a common consciousness. True genius, like a holy wolf, seeks out light in a black wilderness. Here the footstep of God, there madness - the madness, for instance of crediting the creation of the universe to some (literally) f***ing ape. The urge to kill cannot be sourced to some ‘ancient seething forest’. No, the urge to kill comes from substituting an insane ‘essence’ called man for one’s divine identity. This latter is what God makes manifest in the awesome sanity of high reaches. Thought, you see, is not enough. Thought fails the remit of power. Normally, thought is not empowered divinity. Nietzsche’s abortive attempt to centre thought in the will to power failed thus: it is the wrong power which asserts dominance as injury & mastery unto death: it is insane to injure & war against God Almighty. Thought only possesses true efficacy in the (risen) process of Godhead. Thought then is the light’s gleam or the holy wolf in the diamond’s tread. A holy wolf whose consciousness is a straight arrow .. one which enters love abounding in pursuit of its Master. There to greet the legions of God with risen thought & There to feel immaculate.

Let us look at Nietzsche - Freud’s ‘deepest psychologist’, altho’ also “an anal passive”. This man is self-predicated dynamite. It blew out his soul. Nietzsche’s rehabiliation proceeds apace, without anyone focusing on his ‘sins’. This is a man who, I believe, birthed evil. A satanic cynicism coupled with a

393 corrosive mania waiting, like syphilis, to erupt. A superman too poxed to f***, but he wants this ‘living masterpiece of power’ to recur eternally. No sane mind would wish to return as a festering sack of pus, to recure as the same. This is the man who - with massive contradiction - negates the will as only a simplifying concept of the understanding: literally, there is no will (WP671); but preaches the will to power as the basic function of life’s ‘essentiality’ as it injures, assaults, exploits & destroys. This is the credo of the blonde beast which - people forget - he invented. This is the credo of the master-race which should ‘unhesitatingly lay its terrible claws upon the populace’. But worse is yet to come from our man of dynamite - “Ich bin kein Mensch. Ich bin Dynamit” - who says (GM3:15) resentment (ressentiment as contexted) is “that most dangerous explosive”. Nietzsche’s master-race is the antithesis & outright contradiction of himself sc. born racially noble, possessing non-degenerate physicality, with glorification over slaves. Etc. Nietzsche descended from the common herd - butchers, bakers, candlestick makers - toxic to the point of forced asceticism ( .. thus probably impotent, a condition which he says makes priests capable of great hatred - why, he is like them, much to his chagrin). Though Nietzsche is the great embryonic nazi - i.e. - the creator of the origins of nazism ( .. thus largely responsible for what followed) - his anti- semitism was more lethal than the blatant rant of a Julius Streicher. How so? The followers of Christ are degenerate slaves: Christianity is derivative from & a cult of Judaism. He hates Christianity as a variant of Judaism & the master-race surely excludes both. And, to compound this, for the master-race “the world is perfect” (or for the aristocracy or caste of birth & blood “the world is perfect”) - slaves of whatever type think the world is imperfect. Hardly my idea of perfection, but it is not a matter of whether perfection or imperfection prevails - i.e. - Nietzsche says the human individual is “the highest and most imperfect being”. This contradicts the perfect world of the master. But, still, at base Nietzsche - like his master, Schopenhauer, a ruthless atheist - is profoundly contradictory & lacking cohesion. Why does this come about? Nietzsche perpetuates the myth of human beings as human. Nietzsche’s identification of man as a lowness is acquired from this myth. This braces man in with the earth limit - thus Nietzsche needs a transcendence he does not possess ( .. hence, grossly parodying creation, he invents a quasi- transcendent type, one over other types). Conquest & murder follow suit: dominance of necessity and as necessity perpetuates foul wounds and normative atrocity. (N.B. .. this is a cunt cuckolded by Satan, who must have laughed his shitty laugh). Nietzsche’s expression, “a conqueror & master-race, organised for war” is a historic cue of a terror caused to happen - it is the historic cue of a tribe (cf. Trieb) lurching towards the pit which infested it, courtesy of a philosophically sick-twisted invalid & Untermensch ( .. as, of course, they are all Untermenschen who have not risen in God to the high humanity vouched for by love: only the gods are fully human - yes, these existents who guard & command the outreaches of Christ’s Mighty

394 Empire, full of exquisite powers & wonders). To suppose for a moment that atheism is other than voluntary ignorance is stupidity. Yet this stupidity is honoured everywhere: the low honour the low, but we gods honour Christ Almighty. That Nietzsche should never have suspected that Jesus of Nazareth created him in Heaven, that’s the birth of tragedy for him. That Nietzsche never queried the status of this ‘idiotic’ Nazarene is remarkable - how stupid can some people get? At least Socrates had the good grace to hope some god awaited him. The spirit via the Holy Spirit is what a man looks like ( .. looks as): thus it is better to become a god than a f***ing slaughterer. That one should have to tell them that ...

The initial response of Martin Luther to ‘God’ - what he takes to be God - is craven cowardice. In identifying this God with the smiting of lightning & thunder - natural events which might possibly take the bones & flesh away - God is made the most fearsome beast of the sky’s raging: hence Luther vows himself into a monastery if his life is spared. Who was threatening it? It is doubtful if it was threatened, but now Luther has elevated above himself a threatening God. O mercy me, I have become like dung before the executioner & lo, the reputation of the executioner is spread like murderous offal into the hearts of men. What cock - what manipulative gibberish. Frighten the shit out of the peasantry, tell them there is nothing to be done against this ferocious Moloch above - one can only cringe passively in an inert state of absolute powerlessness before this deadly monster. What is to be done? One has only to believe in the executioner - why, all are going to be ‘topped’ ... worse, the executioner tortures those who fail to kiss the block, those who refuse to see they are mere blood & excrement fit to be sliced - only believe in him, this nasty, frightful, vicious scumbag of a lie, this God, only believe and the executions which go on into eternity, into blood-red Heaven, will not fall to your lot - no, they will fall to the lot of ‘the other, the majority’, whom God has predestined to horror for failing to recognise they are the shit he created. Luther states specifically (WA 8:115) that no man can ever discover his wickedness, because it is infinite & eternal. Wait - if no man can ever discover this, how did Luther? Surely - if man’s wickedness is infinite, the executioner is ‘plus the infinite’ ( .. or God willed this infinite wickedness to eternally delight in punishing it - ‘infinite plus punishment’). This is a sadist who is beyond a mere Satan in his lust for torment. Our wickedness is profoundly ‘core infused’, rottenness in sheer totality and, hence, we have no affinity whatever with God. I am created shit before the foundation of the world & I am shit for burning ( .. for my failure to recognise how just is my punishment for being created by him as shit for burning). I cannot say precisely how satanic this God appears; and I cannot say a God like this is more satanic than Satan. I can only say an atheists’

395 revolt would be profoundly attractive if God even remotely resembled this gigantic and bloody demon. There is worse. Luther says (WA 18:396), “We are acting as we mad Germans always do: we know nothing about God, and we talk about these things as though there were no God.” It is worse to talk as if there is a God whose shit - his shit, thus us - “must uninterruptedly hate itself” ( .. as inner detestation & self-punishment please this ‘God’), especially as ‘anxiety signs election’. Anxiety, thinks Luther, makes suffering bearable - which is like saying suffering makes suffering bearable. And what of the command to ‘love thy neighbour’? Shit to love shit: at least they are affiliated. But whence God’s immanence in this universal butcher’s shop? Despite his doctrine of infinite sin ( .. or because of it because God must ‘fit in somehow’ with this infinity), Luther remarks of his God (WA 23:133), “Therefore, indeed, he himself must be present in every single creature in its innermost being, on all sides, thru’ & thru’, below & above, before & behind, so that nothing can be more truly present and within all creatures than God himself with his power.” Wait - there is no affinity between man & God, and only unlikeness & total discrepancy prevail: yet is not man this executioner, torturer, sadist & consummate swine that Luther affirms of God? Here it is that the great ventriloquist fully enters the dummy: even the dummy’s faith is an opus alienum. And with this doctrine of ubiquity, God’s ‘everywhereness’ is ‘essenced’ - i.e. - man is a passivity entailing nothing, but God is a ‘mono-essencing’ activity entailing everything. God, says Luther, is in “every hole” ... What is this but illiterate cognition & savage travesty? Whilst fully advocating the predestination of the damned, thoughts along these lines about oneself are “the temptations of the devil”. Luther maintained that God is hostile to disputations regarding predestination and, indeed, uses sacraments - &c - to stifle discussion. Perhaps he should have stifled Calvin - as a child-killing executioner, what loss one more infant shit stifled in a cradle? How Luther actually knew about God’s hostility in this context - well, perhaps a friendly tete- a-tete ( .. although, perhaps, as antipathies or without any affinities whatever, this would be difficult)? However, the apparent close affinity of having God in every hole - there’s a thought - maybe overcame the total eradication of the imago Dei as suggested by this crude & heretical madman. Luther thought (WA 4:81) God works contrary to appearances (note: for Hegel God is the contrary appearance), and this means in fact God cannot appear. Luther’s total annihilation of the imago Dei in man means God cannot be met & seen. What is this but a shadowing of atheism? If God could be met & seen, atheism would vanish. And so would Protestantism. One can well understand an atheists’ revolt against Luther’s frightful lock-down of man: absolute predestinationism implies an ironclad necessitarianism & a treadmill to destruction: freedom is everywhere impossible: lower choice is possible in the sense God’s victims can choose bread or water, bread & water .. but higher choice is proscribed by the supremacist tyrant, his mechanisms of lock-down, necessitous bindings - &c - God is literally

396 holding down the shit of his creation, forcibly by the scruff, and made thus by him, vengeance ready to the bloody brim, as mere sport of the divine. Luther raised an ideological nightmare above the head (and into the head) of the German nation. An ideology which refuses accessibility to God & participability in God is not from Christ: rather, it is a satanic aggrandizement of the fall & this caused by the infinitization of sin - i.e. - our love annihilated by its excremental identity, thus man made as low as or lower than filthy shit, susceptible only to ressentiment ( .. even the masters are as ubiquitously shitty as their slaves), and absolutely forced onto & into a ruthless shredding-machine of God’s design. Even the gods would revolt against this: if this were God, I say, but it is not. This is merely some vicious pagan idol (out of Manes via Augustine), designed to maintain Satan’s heel on the necks of millions: if the fallen are shit, they can be treated like shit & summarily ‘eliminated’. Let’s be very precise about all this. What is God? Love is God. Our love is therefore necessary in meeting God: it is this which is the god ( .. down-coming gods be-come & come-to-be: up-going gods be-come & come-to-be; but up-coming gods end becoming in God). Sin is the negation of love & hence it is the negation of God. But sin, even if infinite, cannot possibly negate God - i.e. - Love-as-God is too powerful for anything other than God to negate: hence, sin - in comparison to God - is inefficacious: its war must lose because it takes on the Greatest Divine Warrior of all. In the world’s terms, however, sin alters reality - e.g. - hatred produces results & yields broken bones & murder in the darkness of secrecy. There is a world full of excuses & ‘reasons’ for hatred & such a world is fallen-self-generated. This world is hatred-collusive on the ricochet - “vendetta” - principle. Nation rages against nation, whole against the part - &c - venom is like a lash in pain repercussive & victims of the knout retaliate with vengeance insane - &c - but Christ gave man the solution of Christ Almighty Himself in inordinate power via deificational transit. It is Himself that God opened in intellect & heart & presence & power. All that is required is you get up to Heaven.

One cannot indict Nietzsche for resisting a pervasive pseudo-God but, alas, his alternative also bounces off the prison walls. ‘Essencing’, for him, is the imposition of false essences on becoming. This is the imposition of false identities (including our own) & such an imposition means ‘being’ and ‘beings’ are fictional essences: thus, he correctly states, all essences are false. ‘Becoming’, for Nietzsche, is the fluxing backdrop of an anarchic libertarianism and the ‘uncharacterisableness’ of non-identity (mis-identity, un-identity). In characterising all Germans as Hegelians, Nietzsche means becoming precedes being ((\(<@µ"4 precedes ,É<"4) or, contra Plato, irratio is the reality behind ratio ( .. the former making the latter appear via an incomprehensibility of process). Thus Nietzsche speaks (WP585) of the “Overcoming of philosophers,

397 thru’ the destruction of the world of being ... before the force is there, to reverse values and to deify becoming and the apparent world as the only world, and to call them good.” Obviously, it is the ‘uncharacterisable’ which enforces (mere) apparency, and thus this ‘becoming’ has no logical parameters by which to ‘fix us’ (hence there is neither whence nor whither at all). This ‘becoming’ - which reverses Nietzsche’s adherence to Schopenhauer - virtually eviscerates all previous philosophy. This is a masterly insight which savages & a ‘charm offensive’ by an exquisitely vicious genius - indeed, it reminds me of the youth of me seeing finite & transfinite numbers thus, or numbers moving into unidentities. This is, in fact, the core of Nietzsche’s brilliance, but this sort of ‘becoming’ fails the remit of another sort. ‘Becoming’ (Nietzsche fails to recognise) be-comes, altho’ obviously not in a world of appearances. Be-coming is not, as it were, the becoming of becoming or the coming of becoming. No - this (alternative) be-coming is becoming away from ‘the only world’ - i.e. - it is the becoming which becomes a god. Nietzsche’s abortive attempt to deify becoming is thus overthrown by the becoming of deification. Essenceless man, or fallen man in un-identity, becomes deific man in God’s essence or identity. In disembowelling philosophy Nietzsche marginalized, and then disembowelled, himself. As with all philosophers (& most theologians) direct knowledge of God is impossible. Direct knowledge of this rank is, frankly, highly dangerous: it overthrows everything & almost all men. The pivot & apex of all philosophy & most theology is not knowing God directly ( .. indeed, knowing God indirectly is God for the world, that is, for this only world). Unfortunately, for this world a God who cannot be known directly cannot be known indirectly; and, worse, a God who can be known indirectly is almost inevitably followed by a God who does not exist. A chain exists, however, from Luther thru’ subsequent Germanic - French & English &c - thought, one which chokes as a ravaging torque in the philosophy of freedom: without direct knowledge of God, dogmatic ignorance against this knowledge is almost entirely pervasive. This is hardly the ‘great chain’ which goes forth from the ineffable esse absolutum - the only essence which is God’s - to the virtually absolute non-being of man, thus failing to inflate & dilate sin: thus Meister Eckhard, who is so conveniently overlooked by Luther, asserting as he does direct knowledge. Deification - sc. to its very possibility - is nihilated precisely by those not knowing it & by those who “know” God indirectly (thus know Him not at all). These rise & command the fallen via similarity - “like knows like” - failing to recognise that in themselves God per gratiam is fallen. Much of God is then thrust overhead, alien & unknowable, barred by the substitution of egotism, or Christ again rendered other. Nietzsche’s snide query, “If there is a God, how could I bear not to be him?” indicates this vicious paradox exactly: by grace this is precisely what he was, but in denying Godhead any & everyman goes against his own back & negates by di-vision his own vision of God. Dogmatic ignorance against the Vision of God is over-riding dogmatism, as it ratifies & perpetuates fallen

398 manhood. Thus the fallen instruct the fallen, viz, by what is commonly termed religion ( .. as opposed to divine theology, which ascends into utmost Heavenly places with Christ - i.e. - with Him derided, despised, scorned &c): alas, unworthiness is unself ratifying & this is especially accurate where ecclesiastics & academics are concerned, as they ought to know better. Meantime, we rejects sit around immaculate.

399 darling Louise:

So I open my innards to you. Kisses I want & weep for - you have the most lustful cunt I have ever seen. I have a boy’s arse, you said - like your glorious cunt ... hairy. What a tantalizing mixture - it reigns over my groin. Your face torques my perception & drives me into the torments of true love. (Oh yeah ....? See below).

Hiya, darling - I missed you immediately, felt your loss & the swathe of you (like a star’s tail) cut through me with pure lust. Ah, I cannot resist pure innocence by the same token. When you climbed into bed with me .. a sadist aged 16 - Tonight I want to sleep with you - I did not even dare cuddle this exquisitely beautiful young lady. I try not to love you - but I cannot help it. (And I bet you say that to all the pretty ones, given the opportunity)

Agh, f*** you. I hover over you tortured. When I asked you your innermost fantasy - to be a dominatrix ( .. this from 14 or so) - you darling bitch, you became ‘the boss’ in my spunk-begging bedroom. I think your cinematic expertise ( .. I burst with spunk always at our film) reflects the round glories of your robust tits ... your cunt is my heaven. (Heaven, on the other hand, is somewhat beyond you as yet).

Each day as I promised I adore you, favour you & invade your soul - your innocent, girlish soul ( .. school-uniform notwithstanding) - loving you with gentle kisses & teasing laughter, knowing that my protégé possesses the mocking juice of a cat girl. And what is so powerfully attractive? Revealing your cunt to me, then not? Acting the 11 year old and sucking your thumb, naked, and bossy too. You know I’ve the leather gear with straps & buckles that Anna & Wendy were porno-knobbed in & for you to surprise me by wearing the ‘f***ing clumps’ - very high heels - and childish knickers & then to tantalize me with a woman’s breasts, plumb & large, showing me your exquisite pink slit & opening wide, half woman and half child, probing yourself - ah, come now, it’s maddening & rivets you in my kinky mind. I never thought such physical glory could be manifested by a ‘slip of a creature’, striking me like a thunderbolt in devastating my pleasure-system. My very frequent erections are kinky stiff for you & you’ve reduced me to a primitive & very barbaric spunker, tossing great wads of jissom everywhere in thwarted lust, adoring my little girl as I imagine you licking my knob with your pretty and provocative tongue, then allowing me to mount you - please! from behind - knobbing your every orifice in a loving frenzy, as you are peremptory to me, allowing me to beg & permitting me total adoration. I make spunk for you even when I’m being f***ed or when the girls

400 are jerking me. I would dearly love to watch you performing on Ralph’s schlong, provocatively bouncing and blowing me wild kisses, coming mightily like my own child whore. You know you & I spell extreme pleasure, cunt to cock, and I wish to shoot spunk all over your exquisite body .. please, Louise, you cannot be so cruel! I want to see you spanked & to toss up & on your gorgeous bottom. (Of course, this is only a god calling you up to the heights, using mere desire as a stepping-stone).

I just masturbated again for you twice (or, at least, I believe you were in there with a few dozen other alluring nymphets, tho’ I suppose my lurking around the schoolyard in your wishful-think dream is so far removed from my reality, it must belong to yours: in short, it’s not a school jim-slip but a typical girlie-juice ....).

I make sure I put genius into sex: thus glorious sexuality. This is known by very few - i.e. - the absolutely rare is almost nowhere evident: thus glorious excitation is marginalised by ignorance & vast stupidities. After several hundred gorgeous girls & one hundred nationalities (mostly collected in my 20's) & a few cross-dressing boys, some of it I can get very right. Auspices must be coordinated like cross-hairs - e.g.s - Heavenly goodness (thus love & kindness), wild beauty (genius is always essentially wild & venturesome, going into exquisite domains saturated with divine lust), the marrying of advanced personae (cross-fertilizing radiant light of Trinitarian mien with basic sensuality), and totalized excitation, delectably brought on. A young mother pulls her teenage daughter across her lap, wrenches down her white knickers & forcibly spanks her, exposing her totally as she cries. There is a look of obscene lewdness on the mother’s face - it is almost pretty laughter as she slaps away, the daughter enjoying struggling. I’m sitting there calculating, looking at what is on offer. Voyeurism inspects the goods. Two beautiful girls (usually loathing each other) entwine: one kneels up on full display & the other (pubes entirely shaved) rides over her bottom, perched with legs clasping. They both masturbate in riding style: thus, together, one can be knobbed and the other spanked. Or, again, I inadvertently walk into a bedroom to find an 18 year old boy dressed like a flagrant tart - red basque, fishnet stockings, lip gloss - really large, stiff as the Rock of Ages, with mincing hands. He squeals as I f*** him on all fours, squirting it up him. Etc etc. And what is this but the ‘mutated ubiquity’ of Adam’s rib (a euphemism for the stiffness of papa’s knob, or one move in the loins of a rutting god).

Christ’s krap, I do go on. Well, now, this is much later and your cherry has been juiced. Thanks for the slurping. The skipping schoolgirl in le minimum,

401 leather thongs, high heels, the schoogirlie hat was a nice touch. Did you bounce! I’ve gone off you now, even tho’ I had you f***ed and covered in cum. You climbed quite high into the absolutely beautiful ( .. goodness is beauty & I’m pleased you could see deity). R’s previous ‘squeeze’, Miho, turned up and stayed with us. She exudes provocative sexuality & I now understand R’s irresistible yen. Uhm. So, I now know your erotic power & know it is insufficient beyond a certain point. It’s got R hopping about and I liked watching him nail your maidenhead. Better your friends f*** you than enemies. To be disappointed after 3 yrs total tease shunts in realism. I must get back to being grown up. I find fellatio boring, even by schoolgirls. The cascade of the Heavenly French was very exquisite & demonstrates yet again God’s genius in a beautiful race. Pity such feminine ecstacy has no-one to laud it amongst your own moderns. Atheism cannot see genius & Catholicism represses cum. I know R is very smitten by you: and why not, you’re a very pretty bitch, tho’ it was inevitable you should stop off at a libidinal oasis and not push for Heaven as such. What I want from you is my mystery: but that is what I want for you also, viz, delight beyond delight. I really miss our lovely laughter and the rebellious nuances. You are a naughty girl. You are not quite the French lion-tamer (was she something!), but you could get there. Doubtless you’ve not read my Freudian present, nor worked thru’ the Socratic down-load. I’ve just finished processing a lot of Hölderlin’s shit. His beatings of a 10 yr old boy for excessive masturbation probably looped the frisson. At least R’s crime of merely kissing a 20 yr old ex-pupil is hardly in that league (tho’ they don’t know he’s done two young teachers there and several Asian schoolgirls). He is really into pubescent Japanese but his sacking will put a stop to that. You he really wants in a deeper sense, but we want no more disruptive Indians, Serbs, Swedes ... etc .. some young women can be extremely selfish takers, when high & intense pleasure (sex in the Holy Ghost) requires giving ecstacy in subtle abundance. Yes, you can have my boyfriend, because I think of you. That’s for cheering me up, not for the lickety-slit or vibrantly-ripe poses. Imagination, said V. Hugo, is intelligence with an erection. Imagine that. This god knows hyper-cum & deific f***ing. A pantheon of polymorphous delight, courtesy of Christ Almighty. God created the libido and daring penetrates divine beauty. S. Basil said the human being is an animal who receives the vocation to become God - an absolutely excellent remark - thus, punishment of every sort is for the crime of stopping short of this: less than Godhead carries its own pain & more than Godhead carries the pain of others. Hence, could you be sheer pleasure or an exquisitely immortal babe? You see, you carry so much potential (lusted for by rare gods), lovely to kiss on high, transfigured flesh of perfection writhing, ecstatic orgasmic multiplicities open to all joy. It’s easy when the goddess knows how .....

402 C.

There are many platforms from which to view things & focusing on one’s own true emotional state is infrequent and difficult. In my case total unhappiness comes through & no girlie digressions remove it. I sometimes wish Christ had been crucified upside down & finished off with white-hot irons. The fact that the Omnipotent exists and always leaves me desolate, feeling like bleached shit, gives me problems with ferocity & hideous anger. I’m nearly 60 now and it never improves ( .. if anything the burden gets worse): hence being obsessed with digressionary activities - cunt, cock and holiness - is a waste of time. Time is merely hyperbolic waste & spewed garbage from God’s butchery shop. Life is a filthy quim, and Christ, unlike me, isn’t buried in it. I may as well live on another planet. Socrates (of Socrates-Plato or Plato’s Socrates) was honest enough to know he knew nothing. I am in a much worse position than the bliss of pagan ignorance, because I know the Super-Trinity directly - thus, His capability on high inevitably (so it appears) & necessarily involves going thru’ the sewers of the fallen race. Obviously, my attitude toward Heaven is maximally schizoid - that is, when I’m outside Heaven. You give a glimpse of it, that’s all - a lower glimpse that can never satisfy my longings. What’s humping when all is said and done? Dislocated deities never coming up to scratch. Heavenly promise going down on someone. I desperately need to be lifted up - this reward I’ve had now probably thousands of times. When I showed you, you said something like, “so there is another place after all” - true, and I am a citizen of two, opposite realms, earth being reviled per necessitatem (it’s so f***ing revolting, peopled with the bloated excrescences of celebrity & murderous goings-on, courtesy of our masters, the hyper-mutants) & Heaven being outlawed by ideological thugs and dogmatists. Those who say the Immaculate Vision of God is impossible - these, these to whom God’s reality deposes them - these are the lice of Satan holding the secular manifold in place. For Nietzsche imagination is seeing behind & its negation is ever becoming (or the never becoming of a self-propelled wheel), Ixion cast in the void and only rotating. But becoming a god (or goddess) means the wrenched torque of a superior land viewing the vile illusions of fallen earth. And don’t they penetrate sexuality? Even the power to raise sexuality immeasurably - even I’ve got that with my trusty f***ing angel - that is ensnared in the dialectic of innocence and guilt. Perhaps you know the tale of Artemisia Gentileschi, a raped 15 yr old girl genius? Still innocent after lascivious coitus with her compliant ‘rapist’ - still innocent after he is blasted with her guilt. Innocence is a beautiful thing, the f***ed flesh of Mary Magdalene in the light of the Madonna. One’s being f***ed is someone f***ed over - this I’ve learned from copious maidens & it is inscribed on my glittering shield. And so, my little friend, it is about time I gave you a crash course in my philosophy.

403 D.

Death to eunuchs - well, it isn’t necessary as they are killing themselves. Should bisexuals be called Priapussies? Who gives a f*** - not me and that’s my lie. Basic premiss of Overbeck’s life: so-called humans are complicitly disguised deities (gods, goddesses) in revolt against the Most High: hence they elevate the Most Low to coerce themselves and others into complicit anti-deificational behaviour. One solution to this is to blow their arguments against God by greater arguments against God: God Himself knows greater arguments against Himself than the gods, risen or fallen: hence, become these to shatter them. Now this, of course, is extremely dangerous - it is the barbed-wire tightrope of Max Ernst & the open unknownness of Max Angst, plus, throw in a horned louse or two and a dreadful destiny under the knout of shitty mutant academics and other political vermin, we then have a formidable nightmare as the overwhelming forces of anti-deification are everywhere predominant. This is not a ‘no sweat’ scenario, but I intend to drive my (divine) experiences thru’ the shithouse brains of both academic & political piggery ( .. genius is feared in any mediocracy - there ‘safe limit’ is the watchword, which perpetuates a past good for hyper-monsters & they wish to maintain it, thus ensuring tomorrow will be equally subhuman). My fury against the shadows cast by the slaves of hyper-monsters is that they try to obliterate the radiant divine & eradicate His divine genius. God Almighty is accessible & He is own proof ( .. fallen proofs are fallen, therefore without true efficacy). My revolt in His Name is a deadly game against demons, a game suggested many years ago by a very gentle man called Symeon the New Theologian, the details of which I will spare you. Demons you do not need to know about except, usually, they appear behind negative emotions. I’ve met Satan, his skillful artifices aside - an extremely frightening bastard, but with Christ’s armour on equivalent to Hegel’s ‘presuppositionless premiss’ of nothing. Compared to the Almighty he’s f*** all. However, the damage he inculcates amongst those who believe themselves human is enormous. Without the gleaming axis of God manifest, subhumanity’s vice and cruelty will merely ricochet thru’ the ages. Getting back to God as such is to confront awesome majesty in the only true king & to see the world’s entirety bounded by rivers of excrement. The divine is beautiful beyond ecstacy & not the degenerate plasticity of inbred mortals. To become an immortal from earth is to return both ways: thus it is to know onto-theological terrains, deific and demonic, beyond false barriers erected by priests, ideologists, politicians, academics, philosophers & other carrion of the lie. The lie can be stated simply as we are humans & from this everything fallen - worldly, earthly - follows. In fact we are fallen gods and goddesses, children of the Most High God, sons and daughters of Christ Almighty. Modernity denies this, following the Anglo-French-Germanic (bourgeois) atheist revolution, a movement still ferociously on-going - but let me

404 tell you the odyssey of intellect & heart is not scientific; the conjunction of consciousness & flesh is also not scientific. I understand your new school year starts you in philosophy, including consciousness. This latter item begins in the works of Augustine of Hippo, is transmitted by Descartes to Fichte and Hegel, but in reality - in intellectual history seen by me (I tease) - consciousness & theories thereof is a twisted path going nowhere. Unless elevated into the divine the fallen race presumes it is the human race. Descartes famous ‘cogito ergo sum’ entirely misses the point, as thinking is the modus operandi of the fallen - I think means being on earth or in the world (stressing the patently obvious), but it thus excludes being outside of the world in the extra dimensions known to the gods. The Cartesian sum relegates divine being because, historically, Augustine was not amongst the living deified. As the greatest of ancient Christian heretics he foisted the psychology of individualism into the western ideological arena, with results disastrous for Catholicism. Still, as a boy I was fascinated by Descartes mathematical stuff - a fascinating wrong direction tho’, ultimately rooted in Greek paganism. Descartes assumes if we do not think, there is no being, but allow me to correct this stupid ‘frenchie’ (I croak, therefore I exist - this a frog could say), so: I am divine, therefore I exist as a god, whereas the fallen subsist or exist under each other: all the fallen are slaves each to each other, because they refuse liberating masters in the divine. But you should study theories of ‘mastery and slavery’ in Hegel & Nietzsche, just to see how profoundly wrong they are. Obviously, if you are to study consciousness at all, you must work out identity. Its formal ramifications are given in arithmetic and logic, but Nietzsche insisted there is no identity except becoming (thus identity is something never reached). He was preceded in attacking the cogito by a monstrous boy-genius, Arthur Rimbaud, and every clever frenchie schoolgirl should be able to quote his dispossession of the ‘I’ ... He also said I think I am in hell, therefore I am, which is not true but heading in that direction. I is somebody else - yes, I know, you knew this - has been interpreted copiously by very many ‘decipherers’ of poetry with no firm conclusion. As I’ve just found out one of Rimbaud’s early letters fetched 3.5 million francs at auction in 1998, this makes the destruction of a rare drawing of him by a disciple of Fantin-Latour (owned by me) somewhat tragic. It is famously reproduced in many books on Baudelaire and Rimbaud, but my mother - being an idiot like mothers everywhere - burned it, hopefully inadvertently. Otherwise, it should have hung in the Rimbaud Museum at Charleville. Sadly, it no longer exists. I’m sure you’re aware that the furthest freedom of poetry is prose & that your obnoxious, murdering fellow-countryman knew this and left poetry behind. Dispossession by exhaustion, thus dispossessing his earlier contingent self for another subhuman rôle. Become what you are - this is the real secret of becoming: in your case, a daughter of God. True intelligence is communicated by the Almighty with gleaming brilliance to those who really love Him. Miracle

405 is His means & this is easy. Those who have been closely interviewed by this Magnificent Being weep with love; and tho’ sex is great (if the sex is great), it is merely a candle’s flame against the sight of the divine. Making love to a divinity - which is perfectly possible - opens the soul into immortality (that immortality from whence consciousness fell). Those who have never f***ed as gods have never f***ed at all .... At his best Miss Rimbaud wrote like a golden angel gomorrahizing a dirty imp: sodomy, fair enough, but would you take to being gomorrahized .. !!?? (Well, sweetie-pie, I suppose it depends on ‘who by’) ... If you want ‘gay insight’, try Nijinsky’s Diary & Genet’s Our Lady of the Flowers - distinctive & interesting madness. Be advanced, young ‘un - outread your competitors & outlearn them, step to the forefront as a rebel bitch & look for the real light of immortal truth. I hope you realise that your friendly ‘loner savant’ devours volumes in volume, savaging the great minds of the world, treating them with the critcal contempt they deserve. If you really want to learn theories of consciousness and self- consciousness - they differ in philosophical history - you must study theoretical phases starting with Kant’s expositor K.L. Reinhold thru’ G. (Aenesidemus) Schulze to Fichte, because it is during the birth of German Idealism that the monstrous atheism of Robespierre and Saint-Just finds its abstract counterpart. The bourgeois atheist revolution has littered the world with more kicked-in brains than all previous history, horror surmounting all cognition - larger than can be made aware by thought - and this issues in the vile paradox of murderers accusing the sons & daughters of God - those true Christians - of their own brutal and filthy crimes. The gods never killed anyone. A true Christian could no more kill than Christ Himself, the man who killed death. Thus, because death is dead, those innumerable victims of the modern bourgeoisie are now conscious as immortals. Here is the secret I pass to you from the agelessness of God: Awake, O sleeper, and rise from the dead & God shall give you light. Look carefully - analyse - what it says. Understood in its fulness this will give (you) the power to critically know from whence every error comes. This, of course, implies the necessary learning, but when you know learning as a magnificent odyssey and the great adventure it will not be the present tedious chore. The underpinnings of Freud’s theory of the unconscious begin in Kantianism, especially as it escalates in the insane analytic rantings of Fichte. I believe Freud’s sources are insane, so it is small wonder Freud cures not at all. Atheism cannot cure: God cures (but not in a fallen way). Freud’s deep similarities with Schopenhauer align him with a grim & miserable twat used to throwing ‘mother substitutes’ down the stairs. These f***ers tell lies about the existence and relevance of Jesus Christ Almighty. If you should prove worthy of meeting Him - love can - you will see what I mean by staggeringly awesome. So, sweetie-pie, what about bisexuality, its interconnecting with crazy “normality” ( .. ‘normality’ the fallen myth supporting vulgar and general views, the more easily manipulated: ‘normality’ whose scarlet rays of insanity suggest

406

death’s great spectre at man’s behest murders .. ), when desire, which besets us all, becomes godlike? It removes the partisanship of ...... Look, f*** this krap - let’s talk in drunken fragments, like that horrible “French bastard”, Verlaine - Verlaine on Ralph (& me) - the love of Rimbaud etc: so, R. wished to overthrow his father with a male lover, rivalry being a way to get noticed ( .. don’t they all), this being a part of competition ‘amongst sisters’ - R. is a competitive sister, whilst being resentful of this. His refusal to be a sister (and the ambivalence thereof) makes him resentful as a feminine homosexual. However, he was the most beautiful boy I have ever seen: ideality shrivening the utmost beauty of the fallen - in reality, angelic on earth, a true young god, following the holy in love, someone who very early on followed our Master, Christ. This is his real intelligence, as he somewhere ‘failingly’ knows. This ‘joy of my life’ is like my Suze, Tom, Kit & Anne, ultimately and absolutely precious in the secret heart of God Almighty & Daisy Dog ... This will be shifted around (semantics + semiotics + ‘bloody idiotic French-deconstruction’) in years to come: I love you, kiddo and mademoissle - oops, I must work on my French - you have this beautiful spirit .. Ahem, enough of this, let’s get on to something interesting instead. So, what do I mean to you .. !! A passing f***-all. This notwithstanding I will improve your ‘very intelligent intelligence’ as expression in English: learn from a master of his own language: see if you can work this out, as the English cannot: (1). Ethics: a true intellect must know all sex (thus more intelligently than the perverted vicious); (2). Every fallen being wants a beautiful love story to be true behind daily horrors; (3). There’s never temptation enough - a thousand women plus boys is never ultimate sex; (4). Thought: I love them - sweet, pretty, innocent girls ( .. this meaning pre- sexual and not f***ed), but ‘loving them means f***ing them’, or making innocence guilty); (5). Innocence and guilt - a ‘thing in itself’ never faced by any philosopher, because innocence never f***s innocence (not on earth nor in Heaven) - so we are told, so, ‘that’s what I want for starter’; (6). Christ’s cock is the measure of virtue: no doubt, versus one’s own: and the Mother of God’s cunt is the measure of all atrocity, especially in crimes against girls and women. So, anyway, after this ‘insert’ which I’ll come back to soon, the reason I love you - not like a man loves a woman - is because I saw you ‘cloaked over’ by the manifest divine when you were 15 or so. Like my boyhood companion, William Blake, who frequently saw such manifestations - standard for true intelligences in Christ - this is very un-Protestant energy, with its immediate contact in the divine & having thrilled archangels previously in Heaven with his illuminated books. Blake knew deific power taking out earth’s ugliness & thus he knew what earth could become when divinized (like here).

407 When mortality is banished by a movement of the hand, courtesy of High Majesty, ecstacy returns & ecstacy returns us to a land transcendent - our origin - a Ding an sich we can literally enter: however, it is necessary that mind and flesh be ‘morphed above’, as to become a god (or goddess) means to become human beyond the artificial constraints of space & time. I’ve been back to the ancient sea of Galilee and saw the Master walk on water ... Virtually all philosophers - Plotinus, for example, being an exception - limit experience by subscribing to a fixity of the senses (flesh being thought of as concrete). This negates the expansion of experience, but it is merely thought. But the senses - thus experience - can be transformed by the immortalization of flesh. It is this which Christ demonstrated in His life, thus overthrowing pagan philosophy and its imaginary (false) gods - reason, will, thought, sense etc - all of which characterise fallen ‘normality’ in its hideous monstrosity. Kant, via Scots Calvinism, is the German progenitor of modern bourgeois paganism, paying lip- service only as a sniveling hypocrite to a God he asserted could not be known. His disciples, all secret atheists, erected a golden calf and ‘new god’ via the cult of reason, thinking, unlike Robespierre, to avoid murderous & evil consequences by self-deification: the I’s essence is God, but this formula is precisely what Satan would wish to think of himself. Identity is extremely important to the Almighty ( .. not Who He is, because even howling storms know His Name, but How He is the gratuitous supremacy of innocence loving divinely). To know this is possible in the moist cunts of existence is to crucify guilt - hence sacred cunt is a slaughter-bench and ground of war for the gods of good and evil. Female sexuality is related directly to the ‘war in our members’ & God birthed divine energy there. Later, looking at desperate (extreme) emotions. You are my final page. I’ve had enough of it all, existence in its entirety & emotional pain beyond my sagging endurance. The greater the fury, the more indicative the pain. Youth means I can laugh because of the horror it does not know - tho’ horror can begin with birth. I am so f***ed over, it is impossible to bear. I even find the lives of all others horrible - all are lacerated. All suicides are dedicated to God. He deserves the corpses & He offered Himself up as a suicidal bag of shit - desperation cures nothing & starts religion. I’m grateful to you for making me laugh, cheering me up. I despise Christ’s perfection & innocence as intimidatory tyranny. He faulted His own people & delivered them to an earthly hell (with a greater hell promised). He watches little children maimed, f***ed and tortured - it will be alright later, never now. I offer up my book as shit to His indifference as an insufferable & impossible eunuch, a gutless bastard who failed to commit suicide in Heaven, rather than on earth. He should suicide in Heaven. Hate is greater than love. At least crucifixion f***ed Him off out of the world deservedly. I will be cast into His everlasting vortex, scalded as raw screaming meat, grinded & amputated forever, eating broken glass with my bleeding arse stuffed into my infinitely-sensitive mind. I damn God for not being a painless nothing & rending me senseless with an unbearable life. I merely expect pain to

408 increase, wanting the sleep of a snuffed vacuum, hoping to punt Christ’s head into His own lap. I curse the days I became Almighty & the nights I did not ...

Tut, tut - I should stop getting ratty. A couple of weeks ago His Majesty visited us again and quieted my torment via sights of the Most Holy Mother of God. All Hail such exquisite power-bearing mystery Whose loveliness mends the heart with sweet perfection ......

409 App. A. The Sub-Cultus in 5th-6th Century Byzantine Thought. 76.

Part One: The Origenism of Alexandria.

The prevailing cultus of post-Chalcedonian systems of theology in Eastern Catholicism during the 5th and 6th centuries requires a Cyclopean analysis for its determination, because it is even now, as then, hemmed in by theological prejudices centring on the synod of Chalcedon A.D. 451 itself, especially where the synod is a symbol for retrogressive, historiographical modes of thought. Attempts to re-live axiological controversies usually fail when the mind seeks to find its own modern cultus in constructivistic antiquity. The dominant cultus of Eastern Catholicism was ringed about by a profuse sub-cultus of claimants to the appellation 'orthodox'. The line from Origen to Cyril of Alexandria is theologically uniform, but, thereafter, the doctrine of God in Byzantium undergoes a form of intense, factional obscurity, and the axis of Catholicism is obliterated from view by the raucous contention of throats eager for their version of God.

The emergent normative level.

That a normative, dogmatic axis exists is beyond doubt; but its determination is fully known in a correct ascertainment of Origenism - i.e. - seen not as a heresy, but as a proclamation in Christ, the structural accoutrement of which is revealed again by Leontius of Byzantium, the heir of Alexandrian tradition. Hence, via this approach, once indicated, it is possible to explain generically and doctrinally the sub-cultus of heterodoxy. To this we must turn by an investigation of theory, using the abiding genius of Origen as a counterpoise to flaws that vitiate the formulas of God. Thus it is necessary to know the foundations of Origenism, the rendering of which precludes Neo-Aristotelian categories of thought as pagan and inadmissible. Origen, by regarding the omnipresence of God, negated the idea of 'not-God'. All is God (theos), but God (o theos) is not all. Thus, Origen distinguished between God's omnipotence and God-as-such - i.e. - between theos and o theos, and he did not thereby exclude man from the former designation. Evidently, Origenism disallows the notion of 'not-God' perseity: there is either theos or o theos: in fact, the idea of 'not-God' is merely a phantasy of fallen man. Man is really theos - literally, a god - but he denies this because he is in rebellion against God-as-such. Man is not o theos, as this supreme appellation belongs only to one man, Christ. Christ is thus o theos kai theos, that is, he is God Almighty or God the Trinity and the God-man (theanthropos). This must be clearly understood as, for the most part, heterodoxy arises from a lack of precision in designation concerning God, especially from use of two mutually-

410 exclusive sets of terms to designate the same thing. Thus, for example, we can say of Christ that, as o theos kai theos, he is two-natured; but we can also say of Christ, as o theos kai o anthropos, that he is two-natured and mean something quite different. The line from Origen to Leontius explicates the o theos kai theos formula, which, simply stated, puts the locus of Christological understanding on to the theos notion. Thus, we can proceed to a brief description of what this term means.

Explanation of the theos idea.

The theology of theos rids thought of strict disjunction: it is impossible to say 'either God or man' or to speak, on the one hand, from the side of God, or, on the other hand, from the side of man. Although we can speak theoretically of o theos kai o anthropos, this condition is ontologically impossible, because God and man are not two, antipathetic, mutually-exclusive things. Godhead and manhood are mutually-inclusive: theos means God-manhood. Christ is the God-man. He is not God-and-man. God-manhood, like God (o theos), does not change; therefore the God-man (o theanthropos) always was, is and shall be. It is the notion of theanthropos and-or theos which constitutes the axis of Eastern Catholicism. Mutual inclusion of man (o anthropos) in God (o theos) is expressed by the o theanthropos notion. In fact, another term for o theanthropos is o Logos (when spoken of Christ). God (o theos) is always o Logos: consequently, he has always been man (o anthropos).

The line from Origen to Leontius accepts this as elementary knowledge. Thus, for example, Athanasius of Alexandria stands firmly in this tradition as a Nicene theologian. The two synodical formulas ek tes ousias and homoousios Athanasias regards as having been handed down: he appeals to Origen, Origen's pupil Theognostus and the two Dionysii; but it must be understood that it is o Logos who is the subject of the formulas - i.e. - it is God-manhood which receives predicates, and not man per se (an Aristotelian notion), or man 'viewed from our side' or man 'viewed from God's side' (as if an ousia can be seen descriptively by fallen eyes). Both Origen and Athanasius held to the Godhead of the Logos (kat ousian esti theos), and to his co-eternity with the Father (aei gennatai o soter tou patros). Yet neither Origen nor Athanasius spoke in a Neo-Aristotelian fashion, nor 'substantially' (according to the tenets of a philosophy of 'essentialism'). Thus, for example, they do not use the term ousia in the pagan sense of prote ousia. Further, Origen spoke of the unity of the Father and the Son as 'moral', a view which militates against prote ousia schematological models.

The Nicene connexion.

In this connexion, both theologians used the term hypostasis to mean ousia i.e.

411 man, but not man-as-prote-ousia. In fact, both theologians controverted pagan anthropology by taking the ousia notion from manhood per se (knowing this by consideration of the logic of the theanthropos to be existentially impossible), and placed it in Godhead per se. By this means they put the locus of man's being towards God, and not towards man. This is expressed at the synod of Nicaea A.D. 325, which is, in effect, Origen's triumph. The theology of Nicaea is only explicable on the understanding of Christ as o theanthropos - i.e. - the synod expressly concerns our salvation, not as ratifying the actions of Christ ab extra, but by demonstrating our ontological status as the gods. Christ is o theanthropos, but it is impossible for this nature to be alone because man has always been in God, and we are men: theanthropoi are necessary in the loving nature of God. It is on this interpretation that the expression 'first born of creation' takes on full import: o theanthropos is indeed the first born of creation, but he implies a second born, and so on.

Towards Chalcedon.

Thus, so far, we can exhibit the line of Alexandrian theology by a few equations, viz:

(a). o theanthropos = o Logos; (b). o theanthropos = hypostasis; (c). anthropos = hypostasis.

Furthermore, the notion of ousia has really been replaced by (c)., because it designates o theos, or God ab intra, or God-known-to-himself, or God's ineffability. It is by this means that o theos loses its 'number' - accountability - in Christological consideration. The post-Chalcedonian controversies do not centre on whether or not o theos-theos constitutes one nature (mono-physis) at all; rather, the conflict is between two sets of opponents, primarily considered, namely, those who recognise that Christ's God-manhood exists, and those who do not. Thus, first of all, we must determine how this category cuts across the historical plane and then, ultimately, which sub-cult fought which doctrinally after Chalcedon. It is by this means that we can say one group holding to God- manhood doctrines fought other God-manhood doctrines and that, further, the heterodox God-manhood doctrinal group divided in schism. Evidently, the God- and-man theology sc. the Antiochene, includes the Arians, the Nestorians, Docetists, and so forth; but what is not evident is the God-manhood milieu as a theoretical entity. It is at the synod of Chalcedon that Christianity took on critical form. Three parties emerged from the synod, the majority of the members of which held to one- nature theology in one or another form; the only party which did not typified theological opinion from Nestorius to Leo i.e. part of the Chalcedonian party as such. Yet what is needed is Chalcedonian theology as a

412 continuation of Origen-Athanasius-Cyril, and post- Chalcedonianism as a continuation of Chalcedon. In this line the theandric notion is covered by vast, historico-doctrinal digressions, but it is forced to re-emerge in the great Byzantine period.

More Alexandrian theology.

Alexandrian theology can be further explicated:

(d). o theanthropos + sarx = anthropos; (e). anthropos + sarx = anthropos;

- i.e. - man can orient towards 'opaque' sarx and towards a more gross enfleshment, or man can orient towards 'translucent' sarx and towards his being as theos. In the first case, man is adding to the en-fleshment of his nature as theos; and in the second case, man is subtracting from the en-fleshment of his nature as theos. Man is thus, in one of his facets, a transition of divinised and un-divinised sarx. In this way, man can be described as a becoming: that which is opaque becomes translucent - darkness ceases and man irradiates divinised light - as man becomes what he is: the fallen becomes unfallen. This epistrophe expresses part of the doctrine (and reality) of the apokatastasis. Needless to say, sarx is not an ousia: it is because of the ontological change of sarx that the Origen-Athanasian theology overthrew the pagan anthropology of prote ousia, which lurked behind many religious masks at Nicaea. If anthropology devolves to 'it is what it is' schemata (for the ousia-view necessarily implies stasis, or unchanging anthropo- theological parameters), then something of man cannot change into a god. Metamorphosis in the Vision of God ensures full change into theos: the absence of the gods - Entgötterung - requires redivinisation from dedivinisation, and this is accomplished by God taking flesh i.e. taking flesh back up. The Alexandrian- Byzantine view is based on the stasis of man-as-theos: the rest of him can change entirely. This view utterly overthrows all Neo-Aristotelian parameters, in that man does not admit of a part of himself as ousia. In the case of Aristotelianism, psyche is ousia, and it is thought of as immortal (anthropou psyche athanatos esti). Not only does this deny the Hebrew idea that only God (o theos) is immortal, it circumscribes the becoming of man. The becoming of man in Alexandrian-Byzantine theology is enacted by the Subject o Logos: becoming is not a property of man independent of God. By this means the pagan notion of 'becoming' (to gignomenon) as a low, earthly function is inverted. Stasis is not the centre of God: God becomes: it is this which is his economy. The 'object' of this becoming is two-fold: eternally God becomes man (o theos to o theanthropos), a fact not necessitated by any need to become incarnate; and God becomes flesh (o theanthropos to sarx), a fact necessitated by his love for the fallen gods, and the 'object' of this latter becoming is the Incarnation. It is to

413 the how of this process that careful attention must be paid to understand the differences between Chalcedonian and post-Chalcedonian orthodoxy and Monophysitism; but before we consider this Eutychianism must be examined.

Eutychianism.

Much uncertainty exists as to the precise nature of Eutychianism. Theoretically much can be construed, but in real terms there appears to be a situation in which heterodoxy 'cross-pollinates' heterodoxy. In simple terms, Eutychianism errs in the direction of non-theandric, one-nature doctrine. The Alexandrian formula mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene becomes sesarkomenou in its last term - i.e. - the one nature of the Logos Incarnate had been made flesh. Consequently, this could not be human flesh (the Logos being God), and, therefore, Christ was not homoousios with man. On this basis several mistakes appear in Eutychianism. The chief one is the denial of the o theanthropos notion in the phrase tou Theou Logou: what is conveyed is the idea of one-nature of God per se becoming flesh, with the consequent implication of an absolute ontic dissimilarity between God - Creator - and man - creature. On this view it is totally incorrect to place Eutyches in the Alexandrian tradition. It also follows that for Eutyches Christ did not have the body of a man (soma anthropou), especially not a human body derived from the flesh of the Virgin (soma anthropinon): this is totally at odds with the Alexandrian view of the enfleshed theanthropos. Cyril, for example, and the Chalcedonians accepted the consubstantiality of manhood. Eutyches' heresy, generally speaking, seems to be that instead of saying the one Son of God is Logos and flesh, he says that the Logos and flesh is one Son. Thus, his real assertion was of the God-made-flesh of Christ. To escape the negation of consubstantiality Eutyches later confessed the Son consubstantial with man (creature per se). This further engendered the confusion of Creator and creature, and really shews that Eutyches first considered the Logos as a conceptual ousia, and then, to avoid the heterodox consequences of this, he considered man as an ousia. Neither view has anything in common with the theology of the line of Origen-Athanasius-Cyril; indeed, Eutychianism, in typifying ousia-characteristics is definitely ranged with Nestorianism. They are not opposite doctrines: Eutychianism is the one-nature ousia view, and Nestorianism is the two-nature ousia view, par excellence. Furthermore, the Monophysites (i.e. the Severians as such) do not arise from the Eutychians. Consider, for example, a corollary of Eutyches' God-made-flesh model: from this assertion is posited the idea that the one-nature is the divine nature. It follows that Christ's manhood is absorbed. This the later Monophysites, led by Xenaias and Fullo, denied. Obviously, for anyone who holds to o theanthropos (or theandric or theanthropic) theology, such a notion is absurd. Yet there exists a connexion between Apollinarianism and Eutychianism: what Apollinaris did in part (identified the divine and human in Christ), Eutyches did

414 in entirety. Both notions have roots in paganism, not only as shewn, but also by the fulfilment of pagan abstract-schematological ideas, for example, in conforming to intellectual categories. On the other hand, Alexandrian-Byzantine theological tradition mutates pagan logic. A brief aside should demonstrate this.

Aspects of pagan logic.

The Alexandrian Catholics regarded as elementary the view that logic derived from the Logos, or God, rather than from patterns in the mind of fallen man. As man is imperfect, so is mind; therefore, as an unaided instrument, mind is quite useless. It immediately accepts 'a = a', because this is an ousia-surrogate: 'it is what it is', according to the Aristotelian rules of tertium exclusi, contradiction and reflexivity. The obvious step, after accepting some form of completeness in man, is to believe that thought projects and-or relies on completeness. Man is seen as complete apart from or distinguished from God; indeed, God becomes unnecessary for complete man. There is no ground for interaction or inclusion. Yet to this the Alexandrians opposed a radically different axiology. They argued that manhood is without limit, and thus cannot be limited by sarx. In Cyril's view Christ is formed in man, not as created in created, but as uncreated and God in created and produced nature, "engraving us anew to his own image through the Spirit, and transferring the creature, that is, us, to the dignity that is above the creature". Thus, Aristotelian categories of thought, based on ousia-phantasies, cannot adequately deal with the formulas of Christology. This becomes clear if we consider that incomplete objects cannot take tertium exclusi, for example, Lazarus who is dying. This is because existentiality does not possess boundaries for completeness. But the logic of the Logos in Alexandrian and Byzantine Christology is more remarkable even than this. Realising that incomplete concepts cannot "logically" - in the Aristotelian sense - describe that which is complete either, the Alexandrians considered Christ as the only complete man. Thus, we, as incomplete men, cannot adequately describe him unless we, in the becoming of manhood, coincide existentially with him. This coincidence is called the hypostatic union. Yet, on considering further, the Alexandrians realised that if they asserted Christ as the complete man, then the condition that existentiality does not possess boundaries for completeness holds of Christ also. To resolve this tension they defined 'completeness' by the (unlimited) inclusion of man in God - i.e. - it is the Godhead of man which supplies man with his completeness; but this is Godhead per gratiam, not per se, for the latter form of Godhead belongs only to him who has the form o theos kai theos. Pagan anthropological rules are thus rescinded when man is 'defined' by God; the pagans made the mistake of having man 'defined' by man. As man is not an abstraction, he cannot be adequately described by what is, after all, only part of himself. We can say, for example, man is and is not God, and God is and is not man, by pointing to the series: man-as-theos, man-as-creature, God-as-theos and

415 God-as-o-theos. Let us name the order of this series A, B, C, D, and consider the following relations:

(f). man-as-theos = man-as-creature; A = B; (g). man-as-theos = God-as-theos; A = C; (h). God-as-theos = God-as-o-theos; C = D; (i). man-as-creature = God-as-o-theos; B = D;

Eastern Catholic theology is expressed by (f). = (g). The obvious common term in the equation structure is represented by A, or man-as-theos. The meaning of this can be stated quite categorically: man-is-created-God; or, man always exists as a god in God. His en-fleshment keeps him on earth (thus sarx is the main Alexandrian-Byzantine symbol, or object of salvific content). But it is the interpretation of man-as-theos which constitutes the hub of post-Chalcedonian theology.

Flesh as a parameter.

Two factors meet for consideration: God-as-theos and man-as-theos, or theanthropoi. Two further notions need indicating: those in the Nicene Creed, which speaks of Christ as sarkothenta kai enanthropesanta, or those at II Ephesus A.D. 449, sesarkomene kai enanthropesasan. The terms imply a distinction in Christ between sarx and anthropos clearly enough, but what is to be understood is the formal identity theanthropos = enanthropos; it is what this means that ultimately decides orthodox Catholic doctrine. An indication of the distinction has already been made so far: the sarcic notion and the anthropic notion are related as two becomings, namely, as the Logos assuming and the Logos becoming. What this means must be made clear. The 'assuming' refers to Christ's being ab extra; he assumes flesh as something distinct from his anthropic, ab intra being; thus flesh is taken up into the Logos. The 'becoming' refers to the ab intra being of the Logos; this takes up flesh. Anthropic becoming is Subject, and sarcic becoming is Object; this latter function deals with creaturely existence or, better still, it is that existence. Obviously, the relation of sarcic and anthropic becomings is central to the question of the nature of Catholic Christology. The sarcic function, in fallen man, is dominated by opaque aspects, such as spatio-temporality. In unfallen man - thus Christ - the sarcic function is obedient to the total freedom of the anthropic function. This fact alone precludes Christ from parading obedience as the salvific act: the flesh or 'body' obeys the higher function of anthropic man kat eikona tou Logou. The sarcic function is maximally enanthropos, alias theos, in the Logos or o theanthropos. This needs to be emphasised, as it is of crucial importance: the flesh, which is a possessed or 'genitive' existence - for example, like a hat or coat - is included (unlike a hat or coat) in the Logos. The Logos assumes or takes to

416 himself flesh. This much should be clear; but what must be made clearer is sarcic becoming is not a "closed system". Sarcic becoming is not bounded, like an ousia, even though it is corporeal, physical, material, and so forth. Flesh can go beyond itself - it can be gloriously assumed up beyond the confines of earth - literally. The Logos took flesh from the Virgin Mary, but the flesh taken belongs to him as Creator: sarx is distinct from God as o theos, but not from God as theos (hence Athanasius can identify two uses of sarx: this one, or sarx = anthropos = theanthropos, and the opaque sarx of fallen man). Fallen man imagines himself fixed - pinioned - by flesh, because he refuses metamorphosis in Christ. Thus, in the womb of the Mother of God, the Logos did not take from 'not-God', or from an ex ouk onton anthropological figure, but from theos herself. Even in the womb Christ reveals the true being of humanity. It is this form of flesh, heightened immeasurably in perfection, that the rebellious sons of God hide by the opacity of sarx.

Part Two: The Origenism of Byzantium.

The notion of sarx provides a direct inroad to the enigma of man. Leontius of Byzantium indicates the capacity of sarx in one expression, saying that the saints are joined to the Logos, and none other than the Logos, because one of the nobler of their number, born of the Virgin, has been called God and Son of God, that is, has been called by the names of the Logos, even though the dignity of all is the same. Naturally, this is not reducing o theos kai theos, but simply mentions that the transformation of sarx is attainable by all. Leontius is a complex theological proponent, producing no two same reactions at any time nor, indeed, even similar interpretations of intention; but the main feature of his doctrine - physis enhypostatos - is declared in all the thought of orthodox divines, at least from Origen onwards. Leontius has been seen as an Aristotelian by such as Loofs, Rüganer, Ernoni, Harnack, Relton and Sheldon-Williams; but this is as idiosyncratic as seeing in the Logos a subscriber to Judaism. The physis enhypostaton is thought to reflect the notion of enosis asunxutos, as found in Porphyry's 'Questiones commixtae', or in Plotinus, Saccas, Nemesius, Priscianus, Lydus, Proclus and Plato. But Leontius is essentially a Christological thinker, who takes Neo-Aristotelianism at its most developed, employing it to its fullest (limited) extent. He can say: "The truth can be revealed by faith alone, through the Logos of God, which is not pronounced but initiates the elect by voiceless discourse", sc. by the cascadings of illuminated, visionary thought in the experiencing of Heaven.

However, one typical thesis sees Leontius facing a problem of mutated manhood in Cyrilline theology, adding a corrective taken from Aristotle. The basic idea is that the notion of physis enhypostaton is impossible, because it is a Platonic abstraction, and Aristotle finds reality in individual things, not universal ideas.

417 Thus, H. M. Relton attempts to ratify the fable of an Apollinarian-Athanasian- Cyrilline genealogy, the groundwork for which is a rigid division between Alexandrian Logos-sarx and Antiochene Logos-anthropos co-ordinates - i.e. - the first with roots in a Platonic nexus, the second Aristotelian. On the contrary, the roots are, respectively, Christ and paganism (Plato and Aristotle combined). Relton, following Loofs, sees Leontius following Aristotle and, in deference to Plato, regarding genera and species as deuterai ousiai. The thesis can be briefly explained: deutera ousia cannot properly be considered ousia; it denotes ousia on the side of its qualities only. Leontius regards the pasai ai poiotetes, ai te ousiodeis kai epousiodeis kaloumenai as equivalent to enhypostaton einai, because they are neither sumbebekota nor pragmata hyphestota, since they have much more ten tou einai koinonian with the ousia to which they belong as sumplepotika tes ousias. However, there is a contradiction between Aristotle's 'Categories' and 'Metaphysics': in the latter there is a denial that a universal can be an ousia at all, since it is a predicate and belongs to a subject; thus, deuterai ousiai as universals take a position half-way between calling them the only ousiai, and Aristotle's denial in the 'Metaphysics' that they are ousiai. Consequently, Leontius, as he accepts the doctrine of the deuterai ousiai, errs. His idea of physis or ousia is that of the Aristotelian deutera ousia; the idea of the hypostasis corresponds to the Aristotelian prote ousia.

Leontius as Aristotelian re-considered.

If true, the consequences of this are manifest: the theanthropic, structural frame of o theos-theos must be revised in an Aristotelian light. o theos is deutera ousia and theos is prote ousia. But, allowing that a universal can be a predicate, of what can o theos be predicated? Certainly not of theos, for Christ alone takes the name o theos, and if this is applied to theos we too, as men, receive it, which is impossible. The idea can be seen from another viewpoint: just as with Aristotle the genus and the diaphorai (differentia), which constitute the deutera ousia, are individualised through the einai en te ousia, so with Leontius the human nature in Christ is supposed to be individualised through the einai en te hypostasei tou Logou, through the hypostenai en to Logo. The immediate objection to all this from the standpoint of the Origenist distinction is that, for the Aristotelianised Leontius, the ousiai of the Trinity and Christ differ. Further, to project diaphorai into the (aphairesic) notion of o theos is to contravene ineffability. Hence, it is quite certain that an Aristotelian Leontius per se shores up the hypothesis of Eastern Catholicism as an arbitrary product brought out of paganism. Alternatively, the consequences strike paganism a lethal wound; thus, the 'concept' of hypostasis - Person - in post-Chalcedonian thought requires close examination. Take, for instance, the agreed view of Leontius' doctrine of the physis enhypostatos: the human nature of the Redeemer was not without hypostasis, but became hypostatic in the Person of the Logos (en etero exei to

418 einai, kai ouk en eauto theopeitai). Several ungainly consequences result from the attempt to Aristotelianise this. On the Origenist view the diaphorai constitute theos and, therefore, the anthropic identity of God; thus, we could say there exists o theos-genus and theos-differentia co-ordinates, which rid us of the need to include a prote ousia figure in the interpretation of Leontius' theology. On the Aristotelian view, prote ousia is left hanging between o theos supra-structure and sarx infra-structure. What has not been understood by those who wish to paganise Leontius is that, in Alexandrian-Byzantine theology (here we deal with proto-Byzantine theology), the very notion of prote ousia is negated by aphairesic considerations. Theoretically, it is rendered indefinite and incapable of human comprehension by alignment with the monadic aspect of Tri-Monadic Godhead. To attempt to construct Christ by this notion, or any other, is absurd. A few more considerations should enhance this view. If, for example, Leontius accepts ousia or physis in either a primary or secondary sense, then the Chalcedonian formula ek duo phuseon (Old Latin and Evagrius, ii. 4: en duo phusesin) may imply mutual enhypostasisation - i.e. - of both Logos and flesh, a view which leads to the possibility of there being two hypostaseis in God-and- man. Leontius thus becomes a hybrid between Antioch and Aristotle.

In fact, Leontius uses ousia in a normal, High Patristic sense, as an example will make abundantly clear: "It must be understood that in respect of the economy, that is, the Incarnation, Eutyches stands in the same relation to Nestorius theologically as Sabellius to Arius; for these latter by reason of their opposition to one another fell into a single and equivalent evil. Sabellius, for the sake of the ousia, confused the hypostaseis into a single hypostasis; while Arius, for the sake of the hypostaseis, divided with them also the ousia. With Nestorius and Eutyches, however, it is the other way round; for the former split the physeis into hypostaseis, while the latter mingles the physeis into a single physis; and again, the former makes the hypostasis into hypostaseis, while the latter mixes the physeis into a single physis".

This can be schematised simply as:

(j). 3h confused into 1h; (Sabellianism); (k). 1o divided into 3h; (Arianism); (l). 2p divided into 2h; (Nestorianism); (m). 2p confused into 1p; (Eutychianism).

Leontius also describes (l). as 1h divided into 2h. One thing is patently clear in all this, namely, Leontius refers to the same concept in his Trinitarian and Christological analysis of ousia. To make of (j)., for example, that he meant three protai ousiai acted as one deutera ousia, qua man, is to read into Leontius a view of Sabellius held nowhere by the Alexandrian-Byzantine divines. Furthermore,

419 (k). would more closely resemble Tri-Theism if one deutera ousia 'individualised' or divided into three protai ousiai. Hence, the notion that Leontius of Byzantium is Aristotelian is prima facie absurd. On further investigation he is shown as a Catholic Christian of immense profundity, deserving what Angelo Mai called him a century ago: princeps theologorum suae aetatis.

In short then, the notion of physis anhypostatos is not only impossible as a Platonic aberration i.e. universally, but also as an Aristotelian individual thing, because this too, in the last analysis, amounts to an abstraction. In terms of descriptive ontology, ousia goes via remotionis, because of the coming of the Logos. Moreover, the difference between physis enhypostatos and the Porphyrian enosis asunxutos is that the former describes the mode of union (in Leontius' terms tropos tes enoseos), and the latter a consequence of union. The physis enhypostatos also ensures that the flesh is not merely passive: passivity is not communicated to flesh, but activity and passivity, a state which subsists outside of the visible union. Further, double enhypostasisation is not Leontious' doctrine: the Logos is not enhypostatic along with flesh. It is in the Logos that fallen manhood is 'en-logicised'; Christ, not being fallen, is En-logiciser and permanently En-logicised. It is this that the Diakrinomenoi disputed over, and it is this we must consider.

Monophysite thought.

The Diakrinomenoi - later, Monophysites - used a profound theological ploy in all their disputes, that of 'monistic reductionism' or shewing that terms could be reduced to one. This is the strength of their arguments; indeed, in a sense it is impossible to refute this technique - i.e. - one term shifts in argumentation with the result that a premiss appears not to be shifted. The power of this technique lies in adjectival use and the monadic description of Godhead. However, embryonic and fully-grown Monophysitism errs by adhesion to this brilliant defense. They were so nearly right that they can be excused for the vigour of their defense; but this same vigour caused them to overlook refined contradictions in their own position. Severianism, for example, needs to be regarded from the standpoint of the homoousion. Severus wrote: "The Fathers have taught us that God the Logos, the Unique One begotten by his Father without beginning, eternally, impassibly and incorporeally, did in the last times for our salvation take flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, flesh consubstantial with us, animated by an intelligent and reasoning soul". Comparatively, he also wrote: "It is obvious that the same being is at once God and man, consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and consubstantial with us men according to his humanity". What is of interest in this is his theory of sarx, especially his explicit reference to its source in the

420 Holy Spirit and the Theotokos; or, in other words, to a double-source - dualistic - theory. On Severus' own principles sarx must stem from one-ness. Thus, if sarx is not one, then the Logos, plus or including the sarx whose source is the Theotokos, is consubstantial with man: this establishes consubstantiality only by a form of self-stultification, especially of the sort which crops up elsewhere in the minutiae of theory, keeping its proponent blind. Therefore, on the interpretation given, double-sarx parallels double-hypostasis in Nestorianism, the deadly enemy of Monophysitism. Alternatively, however, if Severus speaks of an asymmetric-sarx, in terms of divinity and humanity, then the one sarx (given jointly by the Holy Spirit and the Theotokos) means the homoousios is one. This implies that the Logos is, so to speak, God at one end of the ousia, and sarx at the other, and again this causes self-stultification in the definition of flesh. To be consistent God must be affirmed as sarx, and sarx as God i.e. the homoousios is God-sarx; but this the Severians could not do as it implied Eutychianism. Hence, they fought the implications of their own doctrines as embodied in other heretics, without ever facing their own infra-structural milieu. Indeed, this is a characteristic of heterodox ontology, a veritable smothering of internality.

Severus and Leontius.

Severus maintained a theoretical position as something per se; thus, against Sergius, he argued : "When the hypostatic union, which is the perfect union of the two natures, is confessed, there is only one Christ, without mixture, one Person, one hypostasis, and one nature, that of the Incarnate Word". This is correct on the surface; but it divorces us from the hypostatic union, in that it predicates this of Christ but not of us. Ours is the enosis physike, or natural union of soul and body, but Christ's is the enosis kath hypostasin. Whereas, for Leontius, Christ's hypostasis is the soul of enhypostaton man, Severus does not accept enhypostasisation, because of the dualistic implication. For Leontius an enosis physeon (eteroeidon) may take one of two forms. It may be either a mixture or confusion of natures, producing an altogether new eidos, or a conjunction, resulting in a numerical unity in which each nature preserves its integrity (the two things to diaphoron sozonta tes hyparxeos en to auto tes enotetos). In this case there is an interchange of attributes (antidosis idiomaton), but each physis remains distinct. Thus, we participate in God's divinity, which completes our humanity via remotionis, just as he completed his own humanity - i.e. - atemporally; but Severianism excludes the movement of man, from the enosis physike to its higher phase of the enosis kath hypostasin, by excluding a second nature. Whereas, for Leontius, and for the Chalcedonians, Christ's humanity is not impersonal (anhypostaton), but inpersonal (enhypostaton), for Severus, and for the Monophysites in general, Christ's humanity is explicated according to psychological co-ordinates. What these consist of has been indicated, but they must be made crystal clear.

421 Further Monophysite ideas.

Severus refused to accept that there was no difference between saying that one nature of the Logos was incarnate, and saying that Christ is indivisibly united in two natures. Precisely wherein the difference lies provides the opposing schemata of Monophysitism and orthodox Eastern Catholicism; and it is to the understanding of this that we must proceed, first by noting that physis is, in Monophysitism, a weaker notion than hypostasis. For some Monophysites the hypostatic union represented a truer union of hypostasis than that which pertains to the Father and the Son, this latter being not a union of hypostaseis, but only of physis. this implies that the one-ness of God is less truly one than the divinity and humanity of the Logos who, as Christ, is neither a division of hypostaseis nor of physeis separated from hypostaseis. The logic is quite apparent: mia physis means mia hypostasis, a phrase which is totally orthodox and entirely Cyrilline, but the Monophysite consequences of this formula are non-Cyrilline. For example, the identification of Christ with the uncreated divine physis can result from their logic. It does this according to the Monophysite formula of ek duo physeon, taking into account its heterodox 'morphology'. The formula is orthodox, but the clue to its misuse is provided by Jacob of Edessa, who speaks, like Severus, of the divine hypostasis that came down from Heaven and became flesh from the Holy Spirit and from Mary the Theotokos, flesh with soul and reason. The mistake in this can be demonstrated, contrasting it with the orthodox view. For Monophysitism, the hypostasis takes flesh from the Holy Spirit, alias theos, and from the Theotokos, alias not-theos. This means that the appellation 'uncreated-divine' cannot be taken other than by the Logos, not even by participation or metamorphosis. Participation, or enhypostasisation, means that the two sources of sarx become one - i.e. - in the perfection of the Theotokos in God. Monophysitism is the heresy of dual axes for sarx, resulting in one hypostasis which is uncreated-divine. The whereabouts of the created-human element in this one hypostasis, if asked for, is referred to source, a move which disguises the apersonality of the Logos as man.

Conclusion

Monophysitism is superficially close to orthodox Eastern Catholicism regarding the presentation of formulas; but there the similarity ends. The Monophysites derive sarx out of two physeis - Holy Spirit and Theotokos, uncreated and created, divine and human - both of which are sarx sources; but Catholics derive sarx out of one of the two physeis, and include it in the higher of the two, in Christ's case kat ousian, and in the case of the Theotokos and ourselves kat axian. (To say of Christ enosis kat axian is to commit the Nestorian blasphemy, as Leontius recognised). Severus gets flesh out of two natures, producing uncreated or divine flesh, thus re-vivifying Apollinarianism. But Monophysitism

422 differs from Eutychianism: Eutychianism is the one-nature ousia-view, and Monophysitism is both the one-nature (= hypostasis) non-ousia-view and the two-nature (=sarx) ousia-view. In fact, however this is expressed cross-reference takes place amongst heterodox theories. Always the axiologies of heresy will not quite go together; usually there is an element to spare. But one thing is certain: loose expressions such as 'Eastern Catholicism tends towards Monophysitism', or 'Eastern Catholicism is Appollinarian at base' are extremely ill-founded, resulting mainly from elements of heterodoxy within the speaker. Heterodoxy cannot fertilise orthodoxy, which is given, as Leontius testifies, in the ontic Christ, or as the Christ event, taken in its fullest meaning - i.e. - one is delivered to Heaven during life to receive the Vision of God; and it is to this event that the line of Origen-Athanasius-Cyril-Leontius-Maximus-etc. refer for their Christological sense, rather than to historiographical writers of religion, with whom heretics share their -isms. Orthodoxy is given from on high to the height of the gods.

App. B. The Theological Formulae of the 6th Century. 79.

The basic theological formulae of the 6th century A.D. depend for their meaning on the analysis of two complex notions, respectively indicated by the terms o theos and theos, one denoting God ab intra (deus a se) and the other God ab extra (deus pro nobis). The latter received considerably more attention in the debates of the time, as few theologians possessed the technical equipment (and deific experience) to formulate the former in any great detail. The o theos notion involves all the problems associated with the formulation of frames for the Super-Trinity, the ouperousiotes, polyhypostasity, and so on, data characterised by unique - visionary - co-ordinates not susceptible to systematic method in any great degree. However, such is not the case with preparatory structures, axiologies and concepts associated with the notion of theos, especially where this is correlated or identified with the term theanthropos, the examination of which (plus marginal problems) is the object of this study.

Origen's contribution (i).

The theos-theanthropos equation, formally stated, is at least as old as the time of Origen (c. 220), being in fact a gloss on an idea of the Middle-Platonist, Maximus of Tyre (fl.c. 150). Origen's recension up-graded Maximus' formula and opened up a new vista in technical consciousness. Like so many of the Greek Fathers Origen avoided recourse to arid formal modes, preference being given

423 to the idea of logic as something found tou Logou. In recognition of this he defined theos - contra pagan Greek ideologists and theoreticians - by stressing a cognate form zoon - .è@< - in the sense of animal vivens - i.e. - a living god - and, thus, he ripped away the schematic tissue which continually befogged ancient consciousness. As Origen's mind was fundamentally imbued with the structures of the Hebrew-Greek theological syntheses of Alexandria, it was natural for him to extend this to the idea of sophia.

Origen's contribution (ii).

Origen defined sophia according to the ancient usage, basing it on both pagan and Christian norms - e.g. - the homoiosis to theo of the Platonici - but adding to it notions of his own interpretation of the Gospels. theos-sophia was typified in three consonant and mutually implicative ways:

(1). in accordance with the homoiosis to theo frame, Origen envisaged o theos - for which read 'God the Father' - as a gigantic statue made imperceptible by his omnipotence and ubiquity - too large to visualise - who, in order to become perceptible, contracts to the size theos - for which read 'God the Son'. Thus, theos is the express image (eikon) of o theos, with this apparent inequality not militating against their essential sameness. Now evidently, on a correct understanding, there is no subordinationism implied in this model or analogical expression vis-à-vis o theos. Almighty God is - as it were - a god minimally: o theos is this same god maximally

(2). sophia, he says, is a breath of the power of God (o theos), and a pure effluence (aporroia, manatio) of the glory of the Almighty.

(3). sophia, he further says, is an unspotted mirror of the energy (energeia, inoperationis) or working of God (o theos).

Conclusion regarding Origen's contribution.

To all intents and purposes, allowing for the looseness of metaphors, Origen's equations imply that the becoming from o theos to theos is that of God as macrocosm to microcosm: there is a movement of the Almighty to God- manhood. Problems can immediately attach to this scheme, not least of which is the possible confusion between this movement in God and from God. Origen's theological weakness in this case is an idiosyncratic lack of clarity (especially of precise expression, which was not his objective), especially regarding detail as this spills over into the energeia-aporroia identity - i.e. - is he talking of this identity in God or from God ..? The distinction between uncreated energy or eternally created energy also lacks clarification hereabouts: one of these - albeit,

424 we are not sure which - is predicated of o theos, and it takes on the role of theos- theanthropos. Logos = sophia = Son is thus the resultant of energy and not, as in later - further developed - Alexandrian Christology, the giver of energy. This lack of clarity causes problems after Chalcedon A.D. 451.

A post-Chalcedonian problem

It was during the post-Chalcedonian doctrinal phase that the lack of acute analysis regarding the o theos-theos frame (of reference) gave rise to confusing results. Previously, especially in Athanasian and Cyrilline formulae, the distinction was implicit or tacitly obvious, but emphases - engineered by disputes - steered formulae into other contexts. The o theos-theos frame re-emerged owing to a want of elasticity and flexibility of approach to the axiologies of the two saints: their formulae, correctly understood, are examples of exact precision, but in the hands of those less competent - and less taught by the Almighty - they were inaccurately extended to models of the Theopaschitian sort. This becomes obvious in Fullo's recension of the Trishagion (469): hagios o theos, hagios isxuros, hagios athanatos, o staurotheis di' emas, where crucifixion is predicated of o theos instead of theos. By implication it is the ousia of the Trinity ab intra which is pierced by nails, rather than the assumed sarx of the theanthropos, which results in a heresy worse than the one forwarded in the improper, primitive Theopaschism of the early Modalists. Hence, this whole Christological nexus requires examination, because it bears subtly on all subsequent formulae, pro- Chalcedonian and Monophysite alike. Severus adopted Fullo's recension in 511, and its misuse exemplifies contrary viewpoints throughout the entire 6th century.

Fullo's mistake

Fullo's mistake is best illustrated by a brief theological aside, using as a paradigmatic source a few of Athanasius' formulae and one of Cyril's, especially where these substantiate a generic anthropological motif, viz, the Alexandrian theanthropos.

(4). o Logos gegonen sarx; o Logos egeneto sarx; o Logos labon sarka; k.t.l.

(5). mia physis tou Logou sesarkomene;

At no time did the pre-Chalcedonian Greeks refer to o theos-theos as duo physeis: reference was always to either and, say, sarx (or one of its understood cognate forms e.g. anthropos), with the latter seen as the object of one of two becomings, namely:

425 (6). sarx-anthropos confined to the becoming (to gignomenon) of the un-natural or chronological arc - birth, life, death - subject thereby to the vicissitudes of the closed ontology of earthly existence; and

(7). sarx-anthropos assumed into theos, and hence into the becoming (to gignomenon) of the natural or a-chronological arc - rebirth, life, immortality - subject thereby to deificational contexts and the open ontology of heavenly existence.

Evidently, in (6)., it is a stipulatory characteristic of the term 'life' that it is not true life at all, but rather a pale shadow of it: it is life outside the theanthropos or life without uncreated energeia. Thus the relation between (6). & (7). can be defined as that of macrocosm to microcosm: the man outside Christ sees the world as a macrocosm and himself as a microcosm within it; the man inside Christ - i.e. - as the deific event enters the portals of Heaven - sees himself as a macrocosm (theos) and the world as a microcosm within himself. theos is either dominant or recessive, and Christ himself went down from o theos to theos to shew man how to go up from mere manhood, as in (6)., to theos, as in (7). The movement from God to a god in God is a third becoming that Origen did not explicate.

This much - in contradistinction to the crypto-Nestorians of Leo's ilk - was understood by Fullo and his fellow Diakrinomenoi (later, Monophysites): man is already dead until assumed into theos, who gives real, heavenly life. One need only form the equation:

(8). physis = hypostasis = theanthropos k.t.l.

To put the theology of the Diakrinomenoi on a par with orthodox Alendrians; but the Severians, with the adoption of the recension, unconsciously imbibed an axiology with the rider o theos = theos, which pervades and unsettles the minutiae of their thought. There is one immediate, tragic consequence of this rider, viz, man cannot transform into theos without transformation into o theos; thus, deification becomes impossible and man remains separated from God. Recognition that life is death does not result in its conquest ..

Some consequences of Fullo's recension.

On the verbal plane it is a simple matter to draw out the consequences of Fullo's mistaken predication. Certain points are easily noticeable. First, it should be obvious that the entire Chalcedonian and post-Chalcedonian theoretical corpus is neither Platonist nor Aristotelian: for example, the divine is not simply to on and the non-divine to gignomenon; nor is the eidos-logos frame individuated in

426 things - particular or generic - whether these be objects, abstractions, words, and so forth; rather, the eidos-logos frame is moved and transformed, as an anthropological motif, into one theandric person, Christ himself, who discloses how life is situated via the unique and absolute reality of himself in Heaven. Moreover, there is no vast apparatus of predication resulting in a divine intellect, with thought and intellect as one, having ideas which are themselves living intelligences, so that Godhead can be considered as a unity-in-diversity of logoi, each of which thinks and so is the whole (as in the Plotinian conception). Indeed, the o theos-theos distinction checks untoward forms of monadic Deity. Instead, there is a non-constructivistic reality (hyparxis) issued by the fiat of the one innocent man - o theanthropos - located experientially by other deific men and women in the transcendent realities.

Fullo's error was to equate the Cyrilline mia physis with o theos as a Tri-Monadic base: he thus continued an ancient Syrian cultural norm - viz, the eis theos axiology - so common to Hebraic, Arabic, Altaic, etc. peoples of an unsophisticated speculative bent or unfamiliar with the Greek capacity for probing detail. The Greeks replied (through the Scythians Maxentius and Leontius) in Latin: "unus de Trinitate passus carne" .. "unum crucifixum esse ex sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate", or with a similar cry, and thereby blocked theoretical inroads into the indeterminable core of God.

The re-emergence of energeia formulae:

From c. 500 onwards connexions increasingly occurred between the pair theos- theanthropos and specific energeia formulae, culled in the most part from two sources, namely, Cyril and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. Various anthropomorphic frames resulted, most of which led to a congeries of dire problems, fixed ideological positions, and so forth, none of which is susceptible of easy resolution. The controversies engendered brought on forages into domains intensely ontological and into the redoubts of Godhead itself: so much is apparent and crystallized in the formulae:

(9). mia te kae suggenes di' amphoin energeia;

(10). mia theandrike energeia;

(11). kainen (or mian) tina ten theandriken energeian emin pepoliteumenos;

All of which outline the same theme, although diversified among several opponents. Directly related to these via conceptual frames, argumentation, and so on, are

427 (12). kai metemorphothe emprosthen auton ... ;

(13). metastoixeiosis.

The basic enigma they purport to discern is, of course, the nature of Christ, a matter exceedingly complicated in itself and one which no amount of scholarship can simplify beyond a certain point - i.e. - energetic encounter has no textual equivalent. However, one or two facts can be ascertained if we restrict our methodology by attempting to assemble tentative hypothetical relations, based on thoughts about possible combinations of formulae. The matter is not clear-cut but one thing is certain: Severian Monophysites, Neo-Chalcedonians, Monergists, etc., etc., looked at (divine) anthropology with far more intensity and in a manner vastly different from anything seen since in subsequent - theologically inferior - ages. At least they cared enough to argue ..

Interpretive scheme regarding Severianism.

The aforementioned formulae can be explicated by a seeming digression into related frames, which can serve us as adjuncts to the main theme. Severus was a profound thinker who, unfortunately, foisted a deviant axiology on to the Alexandrian-Constantinopolitan mental plane. One or two ideas should make this apparent.

(14). metastoixeiosis: first a word on this difficult (advanced) idea: µ,J"HJ@4,\TF4H is a form of misunderstanding metamorphosis, as if one, for example, presumed to infer the depths of ocean and its inhabitants by considering a glass of water - i.e. - something is right in the inference, one mere element, but the glass resembles the leviathan not at all. Severus appears to wet his finger, but the ocean waits .. metastoixeiosis attempts to dislodge the Cyrilline anthropological axis by having icons manifest as schemata - i.e. - outward visible appearances - of the one hypostasis-theos who subsists, that is, Christ was compositus post incarnationem only in the sense that sarx presents a picture of hypostasity on different levels of reality;

(15). there is no transfiguration of anything dyadic in this scheme, as in a relational theos-anthropos scheme (such as Leontius' enhypostasisation process): the hypostasis, at the highest level of reality, manifests schemata on successively lower levels, lining them up one after another to comprise manhood. Severus is actually theorising that manhood is a successive manifestation: thus

(16). metastoixeiosis is empowered by the hypostasis discharging energeia; thus

428 (17). the hypostasis is composite only in the sense that energeia - phos - passes through the intelligible and sensible realms;

(18). Eutychian 'absorption' is unnecessary in Severus' theology: the hypostasis, as it were, switches itself out of the sensible realm during the epistrophe; this causes the sensible and assumed aspect of theos - sarx, creatureliness - to cease to exist - i.e. - theos neither increases nor decreases ontologically, as if the macrocosm of a god causes the microcosm of the sensible realm to equate with nothing. Thus, as with Symeon the New Theologian, "the world does not exist".

Severus' 'cessation of (worldly) existence' idea is on a parallel with Leontius', but the result is arrived at by other means. In both cases hypostasis precedes sarx - i.e. - it is ontologically prior to the world; thus reversion to hypostatic life, by whatever means, serves to eliminate lower forms by a process of recession: the world recedes as the god comes forth. sarx becomes potentially nothing as a microcosm: it was a substantial fiction in the first place.

Severus' Theopaschitian scheme.

Severus' theos-hypostasis is monomorphic to the extent of manifesting complete humanity as part of itself - indeed, as a schema - and then, as it were, it enters the schema requisite to earthly life. The resulting asymmetry (between divinity and manhood) is that of God switching himself into the world: when God ascends or withdraws he causes the cessation of all things beneath himself. Only God (theos) gives reality to the existential frame he enters; likewise, men - as the gods (theoi) - can presumably do the same. The point that Severus - incidentally, like Plotinus - missed can be simply stated: man is indeed God (theos), but man is not God Almighty (o theos). To blur or elide o theos-theos is to make him so (sic) it is o theos who individuates into a common pluralism - i.e. - everyone totalises in toGod Almighty as the are re-collected in the intelligible realm: they are put back together like the pieces of a cake. theoi are parts, in contradistinction to the idea that God has no parts. Now this is a very ancient idea typified by the Monism of pagan Greek and barbarous Hindu alike: it is the return of all after an ontological fracture. Leontius opposes this by equating manhood and theos in Christ as something distinct from o theos: thus, we rise to become gods - perfect men in God - because we are the eternal creation, ruled over by Christ Almighty as o theos, Creator and Lord of all. It is true that the gods are God, but the eternal creation reflects God Almighty per gratiam. To Leontius God is the giver of Godhead, but to Severus we are all the giver of Godhead. One need only ask: to whom do we give Godhead? In the final analysis Monophysitism gets rid of the creation: hence it gets rid of the Creator. However, this crude retrogradation of orthodoxy is not immediately apparent in Severus' Theopaschism. Crucifixion is not something suffered by the theanthropos per se; rather, it tangibly effects

429 him in one schema, that of sarx. Severus' position is thus much more subtle than that of the Aphthartodocetae, who blandly identify hypostasis and sarx on one sensible level.

The continuing theme

When, in a previous section, reference was made to the standard one God - eis theos -formula of the ancient Middle East - still current today - it carried with it the implication that over-emphasis of this rudimentary Theism mutates Trinitarianism. Naturally, consequences ensue in subordinate frames if one-ness is emphasised over one-in-three equals three-in-one. Such is the case with the conceptual apparatus used by the Monophysites for energeia-aporroia coordinates; and it should suffice if we demonstrate this briefly by recourse to two further notions of Severus:

(19). the one energeia of Christ is the effective movement (zaw'â ma'bdhanâ) of Christ;

(20). the one energeia (ma'bdhanûtha) is the outreaching or irruption (hîphâ) of the individual will.

Hence, Severus' theory is one of irradiation which says, in effect, that the humanity is the ma'bdhhanûtha of the divinity - i.e. - in short, that Christ's humanity is a monergic schema - one external, visible energy whilst on earth. On earth Christ is human, and in Heaven Christ is divine. In contrast, Leontius says Christ is divine-human on earth and in Heaven. This is far removed from anything Aristotelian: in fact, Severus' position is utterly consonant with lines of thought found in Ephrem Syrus (306-73), and it is no accident parallels exist between him and another leading Monophysite, Jacob of Sarug, as the Syrian cultural genre re-surfaces. Indeed, Severus far transcends Aristotelian method: like Origen before him Severus would have made short shrift of Aristotle's anthropology. Take, for example, a typical statement of the Stagirite:

(21). o tis anthropos en eidei men uparxei to anthropo, genos de tou eidous esti to zoon.

The process implied in any analysis of this (besides the critical problem of reference) is immediately apparent: an empirical correlate must be located for to zoon, viz, a thing, an abstraction, .... something confined to (6)., as Aristotelianism cannot bring about an actual transcendens. On the other hand, even Severus is in a position to refuse such a forlorn endeavour: ubi supra (7).

430 A note on Aristotelianism.

For Aristotle, man and animal are secondary substances:

(22). deuterai oun autai legontai ousiai, oion o anthropos kai to zoon;

An early medieval commentary - Boethius' - links the zoon notion with homoiosis: a species or genus is a similarity which may be collected by the mind from various individuals (.. the similitudo humanitatis may be collected ex singulis hominibus). Boethius, filling in for something left undetermined in Aristotle by the lacunae of grammar, identifies the genus as humanitas (not homo). anthropos (21). is thus regarded as a universal, fit to be predicated of many things (contra anthropos as prote ousia, which is not). In Severus' scheme, however, this form of procedure is illicit:

(23). hypostasis-theos (= o theos by krasis) is neither prote nor deutera ousia: Christ can neither be collected from an imperfect (incomplete) form, nor can he typify it;

(24). hypostasis-theos militates against any idea of there being a class - Menge, ensemble -of Christs;

(25). hypostasis-energeia precludes the analogy of prote ousia in conjunction with 'accidents' (idiomata aphoristika, sumbebekota xorista): the hypostasis in Severus' thought actually creates anthropomorphic schemata by energeia, a process inconceivable to the pagan Greeks, and one which utterly inverts their view of an eternally subsistent cosmos.

Severus, of course, gives himself many problems by adhering to one-ness - e.g. - his doctrine of energy as monergic fails to explain the multiplicity of humanity: how are the one and the many related? His Christology commits him to the irruption of an individual will of Christ: but what of others? Severus - unlike Aristotle - did not distinguish between energeia and dynamis: like Basil the Cappadocian before him and Gregory Palamas after him, he distinguished three elements in each act of one energeia: the actor (energon), the action (energeia), and the effect (energethen). This leaves Severus with a problem, which requires consideration in some detail.

The problem of energeia in Severianism.

The problem which Severus faced is difficult to express as, in detail, it advances beyond the partial solution of Cyrilline thought: it refers, on the one hand, to the apparent coalescence implicit in the formula o Logos egenoto sarx v. Jn 1:14,

431 and, on the other, to the apparent inclusion clause of prototokos pases ktiseos v. Col 1:15 cf. Prov 8:22. In Origenism it is presented as the genetos theos frame, an up-dated version of one of the rudimentary co-ordinates of Platonism (theion genneton). It is a primary datum of all subsequent theology, but for the most part it existed unobserved beneath the mass of formulae associated with its resolution: hence, to bring it to the fore is a matter of great difficulty. The following dialectic attempts to do this:

(26). in Severus' frame there is no coalescence of essence (ousia) and existence (energeia, fieri) per se; owing to the necessary Nicene proviso of dual consubstantiality, the theanthropos is united or combined with the Father by ousia - esse - and with man (anthropos-sarx) by or as energeia or energethen: it is in this last phrase, indicative of a slight conceptual shift or uncertainty, that the problem resides ...

(27). furthermore, this latter combination (o Logos synthethetos pros ten sarka) is also without division or coalescence, because Christ both became and was man (physis ex on, ek theotetos kai anthropetetos);

(28). given sarx, as in (14)., it approaches and is limited by the theanthropos, who manifests it; however, the theanthropos-energeia identity should preclude sarx (both terms of the pair are uncreated), but it cannot because of the energeia- sarx identity ....

(29). further, as Christ's energethenta are different from man's (a propos of his combination with the Father's ousia), such energethenta are synthesised or accomplished through sarx; nevertheless, Christ is a man ....

Taking this further we obtain the following:

(30). the energon is energeia, and the energethen is energeia, but the energon is not the energethen .. i.e. this is contra a prima facie inspection of o Logos egeneto sarx: consequently, non-coalescence brings on intransitivity, and a modification of the formula of Jn 1:14; on the other hand, if Severus allows the energon-energethen pair to coalesce or fuse (a notion he rebutted vigorously), then transitivity ensues with a result contrary to all the synodical edicts and the theology they embody;

(31). hence o Logos egeneto sarx (when seen as the linkage energon, energeia, energethen) typifies a formula subject to the jaws of a dilemma: if either extremum is identified directly with the middle term, then the other extremum is displaced:

432 (i). if the Logos-theanthropos-theos extremum is displaced, then energeia is not uncreated, the subject-verb link is (self)-contradictory, and there is no movement from God as a 'down-going divinity' (upheimene theotes), in the words of Pseudo-Dionysius. This amounts to a denial of ensarkosis as such;

(ii). if the sarx extremum is displaced, then energeia is not created, the verb- direct object link is (self)-contradictory, and there is (as it were, and again resorting to Pseudo-Dionysius) a transcendent essence (hyperkeimene ousia- hypostasis) above and beyond that which is displaced. Again, this amounts to a denial of ensarkosis as such.

(32). Alternatively, of course, the two extrema may be identified, bringing in their wake heterogeneous forms, a mixture and confusion of natures producing an altogether new eidos - literally, hybridisation ... for example, something ktistoaktistos .. &c. One can easily see from whence such difficulties rise, because in the first instance the Greek Fathers confronted formidable intellectual problems, especially those involving fine distinctions regarding ontological energies - e.g. - how to predicate uncreated energies and eternally created energies: if there was when Heaven never was not and if there was not when Heaven never was, how to frame the difference between the increate and the create? And how to define the increate o theos who precedes this eternity that always was? Or the eternal generation and eternal procession in the increate o theos which differs from the eternality of the theoi?

Conclusion.

Two things stand out in any assessment of Severus' axiological stance: one is his typification of common difficulties, unresolved during A.D. 200-600, and quite possibly unresolvable by any catena of formulae, however advanced, intricate or ingenious; and the other is the subsistence of partially observed frames still requiring analysis to bring them to the mind's eye. Examples of the latter can be furnished by, in the main, penetrating beyond the inordinately rigid axiologies so often associated with credal expression, and by disavowing unexamined contexts as something implicitly authoritative. It is the experiences behind these references which, after all, draw us on. Such frames manifest themselves sui generis, given a respectful approach to the God who presides over their explication: the lion is known by his paw. Further, Severus' theanthropos is (despite his opponents' fury) the same lion of us all; it is thus no accident that this theologian's contribution exemplifies the whole crux regarding the energon- energethen pair, viz: how can theandric energy be monomorphic or dyomorphic? Indeed, the frames forwarded by both early and late Greek Fathers shew vast internal contradictions, but it is not part of this study to examine them in detail. However, suffice it to say, there is no one format which renders the Glory of the

433 Lamb susceptible to the vicissitudes of argument, nor is there any assemblage of theoretical paradigmata, devastatingly labyrinthine or otherwise, which cannot fragment in the beauty of his immaculate glance; and it is he, this Lord God Omnipotent, who will finally decide the way of things.

434 Index academia ...... 7, 23, 31, 115, 158, 166, 226, 256, 312, 323 Alkibiades ...... 8 Anaximander...... 74, 78, 78 Aphrodite...... 22, 101, 102, 104-106 Apollinaris ...... 310, 414 apotheosis...... 18, 58, 90, 135, 275, 306 Aquinas ...... 50, 120, 128, 282, 307, 314, 318, 327 Arian ...... 48, 67, 157, 306, 334 Aristotle . 54, 65, 83, 104, 119, 120, 128, 132, 133, 135, 137, 184-187, 252, 255, 264, 269, 282, 298, 303, 310, 313, 318, 324, 330, 335, 356, 359, 361, 368, 378- 380, 417-419, 430 Artemis...... 22, 101, 102, 105, 106 Athanasius...... 120, 186, 310, 314, 316, 328, 411, 413, 417, 423, 425 atheism...... 71, 114, 153, 157, 206, 235, 245, 280, 282, 285, 287, 295, 299, 354, 379, 383, 385, 395, 396, 402, 410, 414 atrocity...... 141, 166, 204, 211, 212, 218, 221, 226, 253, 313, 394, 407 Auden...... 184 Augustine ...... 50, 104, 120, 128, 146, 157, 163, 184, 278, 282, 285, 293, 295- 297, 299, 301-302, 307, 316, 318, 321, 323, 324, 326, 332, 334, 397, 405 Auschwitz ...... 73, 153, 351 A’Kempis...... 326 Bach...... 151 Basilides ...... 387 Baudelaire ...... 149, 152, 250, 405 Beethoven ...... 151, 250 Blake ...... 116, 131, 145, 211, 216-218, 220, 222, 250, 251, 253-254, 288, 298-305, 308, 371, 376, 377, 393, 407 blasphemy ...... 1, 108, 172, 216, 422 Boethius...... 431 Bosch...... 254, 307 bourgeois ...... 16, 68, 95, 108, 115, 121, 150, 151, 165, 169, 170, 182, 287, 303, 311, 350, 356, 404, 406, 408 bourgeoisie ...... 30, 108, 115, 169, 288, 360, 382, 406 Brouwer...... 136, 255, 358 Calvin...... 139, 144-148, 163, 225, 237, 244, 285, 288, 299, 316, 323, 325, 334, 396 Camus ...... 139 cannibalism ...... 21 Cantor...... 75, 79, 366-381, Catholic ...... 106, 245, 416, 420 Chalcedon ...... 410, 412, 413, 425 Church...... 7, 30, 41-43, 157, 296, 305, 308, 328, 391 Coleridge...... 120, 132, 135, 138, 140, 145, 235, 253, 254, 366 Hamann ...... 12, 230, 279, 288, 303 Handel ...... 151 Hegel ...... 60, 65, 66, 71-73, 75, 77, 132, 142-144, 147, 157, 192, 222, 224, 226, 231, 232, 235, 247, 255, 258, 259, 262-279, 287, 291, 295, 297-299, 301-303, 315, 317, 319, 320-321, 323-326, 328-333, 340-342, 347-348, 352-353, 366-375, 377-384, 391, 396, 404-405 Heidegger...... 60, 65-68, 71-74, 78, 122, 224-227, 232, 237, 255, 263, 281, 379 Heraclitus ...... 66, 69, 74, 137 Herder ...... 144, 330 Hilbert ...... 136, 255, 359 Hippasus...... 78, 83 Hitler ...... 225, 281, 290, 312 Hobbes ...... 160 Hölderlin ...... 66, 224, 235, 236, 259, 275, 276, 278, 279, 291, 300-302, 316, 325, 329, 330, 348-350, 352, 402 Holy Ghost...... 11, 16, 20, 27, 41, 46-53, 56, 57, 100, 118, 130, 146, 160, 167, 177, 179, 193, 226, 227, 252, 257, 306, 309, 318, 324, 327, 337, 365, 385, 393, 402 Holy Spirit...... 269, 274, 278, 366, 395, 420-424 homosexual ...... 17, 81, 129, 216, 407 homosexuality ...... 17 Husserl...... 126 hyper-sex ...... 178 hypostasis ...... 46-53, 56, 57, 72, 74, 134, 165, 185, 189, 234, 256, 322, 337, 338, 342, 411, 412, 418, 419, 421-423, 426, 428-430, Iamblichus...... 39, 74, 244, 267 imago Dei...... 9, 35, 55-58, 81, 100, 118, 122, 129, 135, 141, 142, 157, 163, 165, 172, 176, 184, 185, 213, 218, 222, 255, 257, 274, 278, 303, 317, 318, 320, 324, 325, 332, 363, 392, 396 infinity...... 25, 43, 55, 61, 68, 71-76, 78, 79, 83-86, 88, 120, 126, 131, 133, 136, 137, 140, 143, 144,146, 164, 210, 223, 228, 229, 231, 235, 238, 240, 243, 246-249, 260, 261, 268, 270-274, 277, 279, 319, 320, 323, 325, 349, 350, 352, 358-360, 363, 364, 367-384, 396 Jerome ...... 163, 285, 296, 299, 301, 307 jew...... 70, 88, 104, 207 Jung ...... 154 Kant...... 71, 94, 114, 128, 136, 137, 157, 159, 222-238, 243-249, 252-256, 258- 262, 269, 273, 275-279, 281, 282, 287-289, 295, 297, 302, 303, 308, 314-316, 318, 319, 322-325, 329, 334, 339-343, 350-352, 354, 356-362, 364, 365, 367-369, 372, 375, 378, 381-384, 406, 408 Kiekegaard...... 103 Klügel...... 359 Leibniz...... 12, 140, 142-145, 185, 186, 190, 267, 333, 356-360, 362, 378 Lenin ...... 159, 312 Leonardo ...... 300 Leontius...... 120, 133, 134, 183, 185, 315, 318, 328, 410, 411, 417-430 Lessing...... 144, 284, 334 logic...... 33, 34, 42, 46, 54, 58, 60, 62, 74-77, 80, 87, 130, 131-138, 143, 176, 177, 181-184, 187, 188, 191, 219, 246, 249, 253-255, 271, 282, 283, 286, 288, 290, 311, 318, 325, 330, 350, 355, 356, 359, 360- 361, 363-372, 375-377, 380-384, 385, 405, 412, 415, 422, 424 Logos ...... 34, 46, 74-86, 252, 253, 256, 311, 313, 325, 336, 376, 411-422, 425-427, 431-433 Luther...... 12, 104, 148, 157, 163, 207, 245, 278, 285, 288, 299, 302, 303, 307, 316, 323, 325, 326, 385, 395-398 Maimon ...... 362-365 Mann ...... 123, 358 Marat ...... 287 Marx...... 287, 312 Mary Magdalene ...... 24, 106, 257, 403 Maximus ...... 120, 187, 215, 315, 423 metamorphosis ...... 17, 65-67, 78, 80, 81, 88, 119, 122, 135, 145, 147, 148, 157, 178, 180, 182, 227, 232, 235, 239, 244, 248, 254, 255, 264, 273, 275, 285, 286, 292, 293, 296, 297, 300, 307, 310, 311, 316, 332, 338, 351, 360, 367, 370, 393, 413, 417, 422, 428 Michaelangelo...... 254 Milton ...... 217, 284 monophysitism ...... 122, 302, 325, 344, 414, 420-423 Moses...... 166, 292 Mother of God...... 70, 129, 180, 192, 215, 407, 409, 417 Mozart ...... 126, 151 Mussolini...... 281 Napoleon ...... 289, 290 neo-Platonism ...... 347-348 Nestorius ...... 325, 412, 419 Newton...... 128, 288, 368, 369, 376, 391 Nicaea ...... 412, 413 Nietzsche...... 4, 11-13, 20, 34, 42, 60, 78, 102, 108, 114, 118, 130, 144, 151, 154, 157, 159, 160, 174, 184, 224-226, 232, 234, 240, 250, 269, 270, 278, 280, 281-283, 285, 287, 298, 300, 315, 320, 340, 344, 384-386, 392-395, 397, 398, 403, 405 Origen ...... 124, 128, 131, 185, 288, 296, 297, 299, 310, 314, 315, 322, 328, 340, 410-414, 417, 423, 424, 426, 430 orthodox ...... 7, 20, 30, 120, 121, 153, 173, 185, 186, 189, 190, 232, 249, 261, 270, 285, 393, 410, 416, 417, 422, 426 ousia...... 45, 132, 133, 135, 137, 162, 165, 168, 172, 173, 183, 186-188, 190, 210, 256, 314, 321, 322, 330, 334, 335, 355, 359, 365, 411- 415, 417-423, 425-432 Palamas ...... 128, 187, 322, 431 Parmenides...... 64, 77-80, 83, 85, 86, 276, 321, 326, 330 Paul ...... 40, 148, 292, 322, 337 Philolaus...... 78, 80 communicatio idiomatum ...... 15, 106, 118, 325, 327, 333 contradiction ...... 23, 34, 42, 52, 55, 59, 64, 69, 76-77, 79, 84-85, 121, 131-136, 147, 184, 193, 228-229, 255, 259, 326, 329- 333, 338 342, 345, 350, 356, 361-362, 364, 365, 369, 371- 374, 377, 382, 394, 415, 418 Crivelli...... 304 Cyril of Alexandria ...... 120, 328, 331, 338, 410 Dante ...... 217 De Quincey ...... 223, 260, 315, 358 deification ...... 30, 42, 43, 119, 121, 122, 132, 134, 135, 142, 154, 155, 157, 162, 165, 166, 168, 172, 179, 180, 184, 186, 190, 192, 210, 213, 218, 224, 226, 231, 232, 236, 245, 249, 260, 263-265, 267, 269, 273, 277, 279, 293, 296, 297, 301-303, 306-308, 312-315, 319-321, 322, 325, 331-333, 335, 336, 348, 349, 350, 360, 375, 398, 404, 408, 426 Descartes ...... 142, 321, 405 Dickens ...... 298 Diderot...... 287 Dionysus ...... 7, 19, 23, 86, 224, 281, 300 Donne ...... 108, 139 Eckhardt...... 190, 302, 356 Einstein ...... 391 Euclid...... 83, 132, 137, 252, 357-359 Eutychianism...... 414, 419, 421, 423, Evagrius...... 419 Fenichel...... 152 Ferenczi...... 27, 154 Fichte...... 66, 71, 132, 157, 190, 235, 241, 256, 259, 260, 269, 272, 276, 278, 287 314, 315, 318, 319, 325, 329, 330, 341, 350, 352, 353, 358, 363, 381, 383, 391, 405, 406 filioque ...... 46-48 Frege ...... 126, 141, 191, 349, 360 Freud ...... 17, 100, 102-104, 114, 115, 117, 124, 126, 152-155, 157-159, 189, 393, 406 Fullo...... 339, 414, 425-427 Gauss...... 134, 136, 358 genius...... 2, 8, 18, 23, 30, 32, 47, 52, 60, 71, 80, 94, 97, 100, 102, 104, 110, 114, 116, 123, 126, 127, 130, 135, 139, 140, 142, 150, 151, 153, 162, 168, 186, 195, 203, 209, 214, 218, 219, 221, 223, 240, 250, 253, 254, 264, 276, 280, 284, 285, 286, 290, 293, 296, 298, 299, 301, 302-309, 312, 313, 315, 323, 333, 337, 339, 340, 348, 349, 350, 351, 366, 370, 386, 388, 390, 398, 401- 405, 410 Giotto...... 300 Gödel...... 54, 55, 131, 195, 349, 376 Goethe ...... 144, 217, 225, 245, 284-287, 289, 290, 302, 310, 314, 333, 351, 352, 361 Grünewald...... 254, 307 Plato...... 8, 47, 77, 84, 85, 121, 298, 316, 337, 341, 352, 358, 373, 378, 391, 397, 403, 417, 418 Plotinus ...... 120, 121, 244, 321, 328, 340-347, 353, 408, 417, 429 Poe...... 161 polymorphous peversity ...... 103 prosopon ...... 18, 19, 327, 337 protestant...... 34, 103, 114, 144, 145, 157, 160, 168, 179, 254, 270, 298, 299, 303, 305, 358, 382, 407 Pseudo-Dionysius ...... 23 Pythagoras...... 78, 79, 82, 84-86 Queen of Heaven...... 29, 42, 106, 191, 219, 220 Quine...... 162 rape...... 96, 99-101, 107, 156, 194, 197-200, 202-206, 212, 226, 278, 333 Raphael ...... 254, 300, 308 Reich ...... 154 Rilke...... 30, 118, 314, 383 Rimbaud...... 11, 108, 213, 250, 405-407 Robespierre ...... 287, 406, 408 Sabellius ...... 302, 370, 419 Saint Just ...... 287 Satan...... 8, 39, 41, 44, 81, 100, 107, 117, 122, 127, 129,152- 160, 165, 175, 177, 180, 192, 193, 196, 206, 209, 212, 213, 215-221, 235, 241, 251, 254, 267, 273, 284, 287, 299, 304, 325, 387, 391-397, 403-404, 408 Schelling ...... 66, 71, 132, 161, 192, 210, 252, 254, 259, 268, 276, 301, 314, 315, 318, 320, 321, 325, 329, 330, 341, 352, 353, 358, 361, 363, 381-383 Schiller ...... 96, 123, 224, 226, 244-247, 259, 351, 352, 358 Schopenhauer ...... 12, 103, 139-141, 157, 264, 278, 282, 287, 328, 361, 394, 398, 406 Severus...... 420-422, 425, 428-433 sexuality ...... 17-19, 24, 29, 81, 89, 98, 100, 101, 142, 172, 173, 178, 179, 199, 213 215, 219, 220, 223, 256, 257, 299, 401-403, 408 sin...... 33, 41, 105, 106, 117, 159, 166, 193, 201, 284, 288, 312, 396-398 Socrates ...... 73, 86, 118, 230, 279, 298, 313, 364, 365, 383, 395, 403 Spinoza...... 139, 143-148, 236, 273, 276, 285, 286, 362, 365, 368, 379, 380 Stalin ...... 286, 290 super-essence...... 23, 42, 110, 128, 129, 187 super-Trinity ...... 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 121, 126, 164, 172, 186, 187, 192, 256, 290, 310, 322, 390, 403, 423 Symeon the New Theologian ...... 314, 322, 404, 429 tertium exclusi...... 34, 42, 45, 54, 55, 58-61, 64, 68, 83, 85, 131-137, 145, 182- 188, 252, 256, 349, 356, 358-366, 372, 374, 375, 380, 415 tertium non datur ...... 119, 349, 361, 370 theanthropos ...... 177, 255, 336-378, 410-414, 416, 417, 423, 425-427, 429, 432- 433 theophany ...... 18, 19, 29, 42, 60, 219, 297, 300, 308, 331, 338, 353 Titian ...... 303 tonality ...... 7-9, 13, 14, 18, 44, 45 trauma ...... 27, 99, 100, 103, 105, 114, 122, 201-207, 213, 256 Trinity ...... 39-42, 45-49, 51, 110, 114, 120-122, 126, 164, 172, 186, 187, 192, 222, 224, 256, 257, 270, 271, 290, 310, 322, 323, 334, 355, 370, 379, 390, 403, 410, 418, 423, 425 ultra-sex...... 18, 19, 25, 29 Virgin Mary...... 106, 417, 420 vision of God...... 8, 40, 63, 115, 117, 140, 146, 151, 156, 159, 210, 264, 271, 276, 292, 310, 312, 314, 331, 398, 403, 413, 423 Voltaire ...... 287 Von Helmoltz...... 357 Wittgenstein ...... 141, 256 Xenophon ...... 67 Zeno...... 77, 78, 83, 84, 86, 87, 137, 252, 330 Zwingli...... 325