As a self-taught philosopher, or thinker, I have long maintained that being, metaphysical being, is inconceivable without the assistance, in antimetachemistry, of antidoing, its female or, more correctly, antifemale corollary. For unless doing is 'brought low', as from metachemistry to antimetachemistry, there can be no 'rising up' of being, as from antimetaphysics to metaphysics, and hence the repudiation of what can be called antibeing under doing.
Being requires antidoing no less, across the intercardinal axial divide between the metaphysically-dominated northeast and the metachemically-dominated northwest points of the said compass, than doing, its metachemical antithesis, the antimetaphysical corollary of antibeing, since neither can be unequivocally hegemonic unless their respective gender complements are 'upended' and effectively subordinated to their control. And what applies unequivocally on the noumenal planes of space and time (with antitime and antispace as their respective corollaries, i.e., antitime under space and antispace under time) applies to an equivocal degree, with due axial subversion from soma to psyche and/or from psyche to soma (depending on the axis) having to be borne in mind, on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass (whose respective corollaries are antimass and antivolume), where the equivocal hegemony of physical taking requires the 'upended' subordination of antichemical antigiving, its 'antifemale' complement, in relative contrast to the subordination of antiphysical antitaking under an equivocally hegemonic chemical giving.
For unless giving is 'brought low', as from chemistry to antichemistry, there can be no 'rising up' of taking, as from antiphysics to physics, and hence the repudiation of what has been called antitaking under giving. But this is not universally established or encouraged, since these phenomenal positions are also subject, as intimated above, to axial interplay with their sensual or sensible noumenal counterparts, and this is what paradoxically precludes a simple switch from phenomenal sensuality to sensibility on the part of those who, under Catholic guidance traditionally, would more relate to the possibility of some degree of being and/or antidoing as the solution to their lowly predicament in giving and/or antitaking than a straightforward switch, across the intercardinal axial division between the southwest and the southeast points of the said compass, from that to taking and/or antigiving, as the gender case may be.
For the Catholic Church, relative to Western civilization, is the 'one true' church (which still has to be taken with a considerable pinch of metaphorical salt), the one that offers a degree of being and/or antidoing to those who have not 'sold out', not being in a position to 'jump ship' in the aforementioned axial manner, to taking and/or antigiving (even though that is really a constitutional corrective to doing and/or antibeing), but such a Church, being Western, is still a far cry from global universality, which transcends both the West and the East alike, and therefore its 'take' on being and/or antidoing is less than what could be and, hopefully, some day will be once the march of global civilization reaches its sensible destiny in the light of a metaphysics that is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and not subject, as is Catholic Christianity and indeed Christianity in general, to the subversion of metaphysics by metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in time-honoured alpha-stemming Old Testament fashion, with Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) always precluding anything but a Son-like fulcrum in relation to itself, a mere extrapolation which, even in the Catholic postulate of a resurrected Saviour, (a nonsense of cart not only before but to the exclusion of the relevant horse, i.e. free metaphysical psyche already in situ 'on high') persists to the detriment of metaphysical independence.
For there can be no such independence in the 'Son', that worldly extrapolation from the Middle Eastern anchor to Western civilization, but only in relation to a 'Father' who precedes 'His Son' independently of metachemical subversion and therefore on the basis of metaphysical freedom and the repudiation, democratically and peaceably, of Devil the Mother hyped as God, without which there can be no authentic metaphysical being, much less beingful approach to antidoing, in metaphysical bound soma, of the Son, and therefore no authentic and fully universal truth. Catholicism may appertain to the 'one true church', but such a church still falls short of global universality and, hence, the transcendence of everything still rooted in Old Testament Creatorism (the noun is intentional, for I do not wish to deflect from the concept of Creator to Creation, as frequently happens with the term Creationism). We advocates of global universality, whom I have in the past identified with and continue to identify with Social Theocracy, and hence with a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in certain traditionally church-hegemonic countries in the interests of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, can no more endorse the West than the East, where religion is concerned.
We are beyond both traditions in our revolutionary advocacy of the one true centre, the Social Theocratic Centre. And yet we are the profoundest theocrats. For Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father was never truly theocratic but autocracy in disguise, the sugar coating, as it were, on the bitter pill of metachemical autocracy, as the proverbial 'best of a bad job' and effective starting point of civilization, and we repudiate all autocracy and everything that pays tribute, in aediculated vein, to Creatorism. If we refuse to regard ourselves as 'atheist' it is because that would be to pay too much credit to what was never properly theocratic to begin with, but effectively antitheocratic in its autocratic roots. There is nothing atheist about Social Theocracy, any more than there is or was (granted its anachronistic status from a global standpoint) about Buddhistic Transcendental Meditation, and for that reason it can only encourage true being and not the subversion of being by doing and continuing exclusion of metaphysics-proper.
John O'Loughlin is a self-taught philosopher who has been writing mostly works of a philosophical nature for over three decades. Besides publishing himself through his company Centretruths Digital Media, he has been published by Lulu on the Internet, and considers himself to be the founder of the ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism, the former term having more political and the latter more religious significance, as though a distinction between state and church. Both, however, appertain to what he terms 'the Centre', a concept which transcends state/church relativity as we generally understand it. His works explain and justify Social Transcendentalism in relation to the concept of religious sovereignty, which he regards as the ultimate mode of sovereignty. Mr O'Loughlin is 56 and lives alone in north London.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
