Some say that beauty is truth and truth beauty, but they couldn't be more wrong. Beauty and love, which hang together like will and spirit in metachemistry, are a product of noumenally objective appearances, whereas truth and joy, which hang together like ego and soul in metaphysics, are the product of noumenally subjective essences.
Thus there is all the difference of alpha and omega, appearance and essence, between beauty and truth, love and joy, and incompatible they remain. Either you defer, as a male, to the outer heat of metachemical free soma or, in rejecting it, you cultivate the inner light of metaphysical free psyche. The one is absolutely female, the other absolutely male. Outer heat is as incompatible with inner light as spatial space with repetitive time; for space and time are absolutely antithetical, like alpha and omega.
But outer heat can rule the outer mode of time, which I call antitime, and equate with an antimetaphysical subjection to the spatial space of metachemistry which takes the form of sequential time. Contrariwise, inner light can rule ('lead' would probably be too soft a term here) the inner mode of space, which I call antispace, and equate with an antimetachemical subjection to the repetitive time of metaphysics which accordingly takes the form of spaced space.
Hence either females get the better of males, who become antimale, or males get the better of females, who become antifemale. Yet to the truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well seem like truth; for it is what rules him and keeps him in subjection to its metachemical appearance. Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, truth may well seem like beauty to the beauty-rejecting female, the antimetachemical antifemale, since it is what rules over her and keeps her in subjection to its metaphysical essence.
Lacking truth-proper, which is inner, the antimetaphysical antimale may well project his sense of truth on to beauty and convince himself that beauty is truth. Lacking beauty-proper, which is outer, the antimetachemical antifemale may well project her sense of beauty on to truth and convince herself that truth is beauty. Neither of them is correct. There is no more any such thing as outer truth than there is really such a thing as inner beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer.
The worship of beauty is only possible because of the absence of truth, while, conversely, the worship of truth is only possible because of the absence of beauty. It is the absence of truth from the antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical beauty possible to them, and, conversely, the absence of beauty from the antimetachemical antifemales that makes the worship of metaphysical truth possible to them , albeit in both cases the worship of the ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not equatable with that factor as such, but is only a symptom of subjection.
Beauty does not worship itself but projects itself objectively as a metachemical expression of spatial space, which is the appearance of outer heat. Neither does truth worship itself because, being intensely subjective, it is a metaphysical impression of repetitive time, which is the essence of inner light. Space and time are as incompatible as appearance and essence, and therefore beauty is never truth nor truth ever beauty.
Beauty rules over the antitruthful want of truth as space over antitime, spatial appearance over sequential anti-essence, clear heat over unholy light (antilight), while, conversely, truth rules over the antibeautiful want of beauty as time over antispace, repetitive essence over spaced anti-appearance, holy light over unclear heat (antiheat).
Either the noumenally objective heat of metachemistry rules over the noumenally antisubjective antilight of antimetaphysics as Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial City or, across the upper-order planes of what is an axial divide, the noumenally subjective light of metaphysics rules over the noumenally anti-objective antiheat of antimetachemistry as the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair.
You can't have it both ways; for you cannot be simultaneously superheathen and/or anti-superchristian (according to gender) and superchristian and/or anti-superheathen. But the latter is much harder, much more difficult, of attainment than the former, which is everywhere the sensual alpha rather than the sensible omega of civilization and therefore that which is most basic and, at certain epochs (of which the present is a case in point), by far the more prevalent.
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.
