John O'Loughlin is a London author who was born in Ireland to an English mother and grew up first in Hampshire and then in Surrey, where he attended a variety of state schools. Most of his adult life has been spent at different addresses in the London Borough of Haringey, north of the Thames, to which he moved from Surrey in , and all but a few of his books have been written there, the majority of which, like this one, are of an intensely philosophical not to say metaphysical and even ideological nature.
Would you like to tell us about a lower price? If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support? Learn more about Amazon Prime.
- Stairway to Judgement;
Read more Read less. About the Author John O'Loughlin is a London author who was born in Ireland to an English mother and grew up first in Hampshire and then in Surrey, where he attended a variety of state schools. Be the first to review this item Would you like to tell us about a lower price? Print edition purchase must be sold by Amazon. Thousands of books are eligible, including current and former best sellers.
Look for the Kindle MatchBook icon on print and Kindle book detail pages of qualifying books. Print edition must be purchased new and sold by Amazon.
Gifting of the Kindle edition at the Kindle MatchBook price is not available. Learn more about Kindle MatchBook.
Site not found · GitHub Pages
Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video. Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Customer reviews There are no customer reviews yet. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Yet there is also, in a sense, a distinction between antitranscendentalism and fundamentalism on the one hand, and between humanism and antinonconformism on the other hand; for it seems to me that antitranscendentalism is the male aspect of aristocracy and fundamentalism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to autocracy without, however, being properly autocratic and state hegemonic , whereas humanism is the male aspect of democracy and antinonconformism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to plutocracy without, however, being properly plutocratic and state hegemonic.
However that may be, what anti-idealism is to materialism and naturalism to antirealism, namely the male side of a diagonally-descending autocratic-plutocratic state-hegemonic integrity, so, in gender reverse, realism is to antinaturalism and antimaterialism to idealism, namely the female side of a diagonally-ascending bureaucratic-technocratic state-subordinate integrity; for realism is the female aspect of bureaucracy and antinaturalism its male aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to meritocracy without, however, being properly meritocratic and church hegemonic , whereas antimaterialism is the female aspect of technocracy and idealism its male aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to theocracy without, however, being properly theocratic and church hegemonic.
Conversely, what fundamentalism is to antitranscendentalism and antinonconformism to humanism, namely the female side of a diagonally-descending aristocratic-democratic church-subordinate integrity, so, in gender reverse, antihumanism is to nonconformism and transcendentalism to antifundamentalism , namely the male side of a diagonally-ascending meritocratic -theocratic church-hegemonic integrity; for antihumanism is the male aspect of meritocracy and nonconformism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to bureaucracy without, however, being properly bureaucratic and state subordinate , whereas transcendentalism is the male aspect of theocracy and antifundamentalism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to technocracy without, however, being properly technocratic and state subordinate.
In general theoretical terms, one can distinguish the nonconformism and transcendentalism of the church-hegemonic axis from the fundamentalism and humanism of the church-subordinate axis, but in overall practical terms what transpires in the one case is an antihumanist subversion of nonconformism at the behest of transcendentalism and, in the other case, an antinonconformist subversion of humanism at the behest of fundamentalism, so that sin and grace become no less characteristic of the diagonally-rising meritocratic -theocratic axis than pseudo-grace and pseudo-sin of the diagonally-falling aristocratic-democratic axis.
Yet, even then, one should distinguish nonconformism from antihumanism in relation to meritocracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to meritocracy, always closer to bureaucracy without being state-subordinate, from a male commitment to it which is not only properly meritocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-hegemonic context characterized by authentic sin, of meritocracy.
Likewise one should distinguish antifundamentalism from transcendentalism in relation to theocracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to theocracy, always closer to technocracy without being state-subordinate, from a male commitment to it which is not only properly theocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-hegemonic context characterized by authentic grace, of theocracy.
In similar, if contrary vein, one should distinguish fundamentalism from antitranscendentalism in relation to aristocracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to aristocracy, always closer to autocracy without being state-hegemonic, from a male commitment to it which though properly aristocratic is not the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-subordinate context characterized by pseudo-grace, of aristocracy.
Finally, one should distinguish antinonconformism from humanism in relation to democracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to democracy, always closer to plutocracy without being state-hegemonic, from a male commitment to it which though properly democratic is not the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-subordinate context characterized by pseudo-sin, of democracy.
Reverting to the State, one can, again in general theoretical terms, distinguish the materialism and naturalism of the state-hegemonic axis from the realism and idealism of the state-subordinate axis, but in overall practical terms what actually transpires in the one case is an antirealist subversion of naturalism at the behest of materialism and, in the other case, an antinaturalist subversion of realism at the behest of idealism, so that crime and punishment become no less characteristic of the diagonally-falling autocratic-plutocratic axis than pseudo-punishment and pseudo-crime of the diagonally-rising bureaucratic-technocratic axis.
Yet, even then, one should distinguish anti-idealism from materialism in relation to autocracy as one would distinguish a male commitment to autocracy, always closer to aristocracy without being church-subordinate, from a female commitment to it which is not only properly autocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a state-hegemonic context characterized by authentic crime, of autocracy.
Likewise one should distinguish naturalism from antirealism in relation to plutocracy as one would distinguish a male commitment to plutocracy, always closer to democracy without being church-subordinate, from a female commitment to it which is not only properly plutocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a state-hegemonic context characterized by authentic punishment, of plutocracy.
Finally, one should distinguish idealism from antimaterialism in relation to technocracy as one would distinguish a male commitment to technocracy, always closer to theocracy without being church-hegemonic, from a female commitment to it which though properly technocratic is not the principal conditioning aspect, within a state-subordinate context characterized by pseudo-crime, of technocracy.
Therefore as far as the principal conditioning aspects of church integrities are concerned, antihumanism takes precedence over nonconformism in relation to meritocracy and As far, on the other hand, as the principal conditioning aspects of state integrities are concerned, antinaturalism takes precedence over realism in relation to bureaucracy and Contrariwise, that which rises diagonally in state-subordinate vein rises, in releasing, from realism and antinaturalism to idealism and antimaterialism , as from pseudo-punishment to pseudo-crime in primary and secondary according to gender manifestations, whereas that which falls diagonally in state-hegemonic vein falls, in sentencing, from materialism and anti-idealism to antirealism and naturalism, as from crime to punishment in primary and secondary according to gender manifestations, wherein not the Law but Justice has her throne.
Such contrary fates have been outlined in the previous text, so I shall not further elaborate on them here!
Suffice it to say that those who are saved and released must ever contrast with those who are sentenced and damned, as a rising progressive disposition with a falling regressive one; for their fates are so contrary as to be incompatible, and we may be sure that just as the diagonally descending axis can descend, or regress, all the way to Social Democracy, so the diagonally ascending axis can ascend, or progress, all the way to Social Theocracy, the heavenly retort to anything so hellish as to be the lowest possible form of earthly regression.
It remains a victim of its own physical limitations in respect of masculine males who, with the best intentions in the world, remain fundamentally earthly and besotted, in their physical dispositions, with an overvaluation of knowledge which, like the earth hyped as Heaven, they hype as Truth, confounding physics with metaphysics!
All that, however, is by way of a puritan exception, the communal dropping out of a minority of physically-oriented persons from the generality of puritan experience in the state-dominated, so-called free churches which, ever subject to the subversion of humanism by antinonconformism at fundamentalism's behest, revolves around the damnable reality of pseudo-sin, in which the physical are not free but decidedly bound not least in male contraceptive terms by the antichemical acting under a religious guise at the behest not only of fundamentalism but, on the other side of the aristocratic gender fence, the more aristocratically representative, or primary, form of pseudo-grace which has been called antitranscendentalism.
The only context in which such masculine males could be relatively free would be one led and characterized by Social Theocratic criteria. But then their freedom would be conditional upon an acceptance of the primacy of absolute psychic freedom for the metaphysically sensible and not independent of that ultimate freedom which, besides being godly and heavenly, would be of an order of grace that was commensurate with the overcoming of man and thus of all worldly criteria, even that which pertains, in somewhat exceptional vein, to a radical order of puritanism that would put man in the place of God and earth in the place of Heaven in the interests of a humanistic triumph over transcendentalism conducted in closer proximity, by and large, to nature, or that which was avowedly vegetative and hence - compared to the femininity of water - of a masculine disposition.
That is obviously contrary to the wishes of anything genuinely godly, which, in transcending vegetation from the standpoint of air, has to be transcendentalist and requires not a humanist but an antihumanist precondition to world overcoming if 'the world' is indeed to be 'overcome' in the interests of a godly and, more importantly, heavenly outcome to life.
Such an 'overcoming' typifies, in some measure, the rising meritocratic -theocratic axis of sin to grace on which the Roman Catholic Church has traditionally taken its place, and that is the same axis which Social Theocracy would be determined to utilize to the end of an enhanced kind and degree of grace which would be beyond anything even Buddhist in character, never mind Catholic, as it sought to develop transcendentalism on a more synthetically artificial basis commensurate, for the urban proletariat, the majority populations of post-humanist and post-modernist contemporary civilization, with the cyborgization of life and the more complete overcoming of man that such a procedure would inevitably entail.
Obviously the sense of overcoming man from above in relation to godliness, whether liberal or radical, needs to be distinguished from the sort of overcoming of man that takes place less on a class than on a gender basis at the behest of hegemonic female criteria as pertaining to the descending diagonal of the autocratic-plutocratic axis, where that which is masculine, and manly, is 'overcome', or subverted, by what is antifeminine , antichemical , antirealist, antinonconformist , etc. There is quite a difference, to be sure, between the male who is overcome by females in due objective subversion of subjectivity and the male who overcomes females in due subjective subversion of objectivity, and does so not in the interests of crime, as germane to Devil the Mother, but in the interests of grace, as germane to God the Father.
In truth, this latter type of male, whom we have called antihumanist and therefore recognize to be antimasculine rather than masculine, wishes himself to be overcome as far as he can be identified, in antiphysical vein, with genuine sin; for he lives in eternal hope of genuine grace and the salvation from sin that such psychic freedom promises, albeit not the mere physical grace of the radical puritan, the disillusioned with pseudo-sin who drops out of mainstream Protestant society, but that metaphysical grace which, whether mediated through a priest on behalf of what is godly or achieved independently of such an intermediary via transcendental meditation, brings one into the presence of godliness and the prospect thereby of heavenly redemption.
For God, in truth, has no other business than to acquire a taste, as it were, of heavenly joy which comes when once one passes, in metaphysics, from the ego to the soul and is resurrected to a higher and deeper level of the self which permits of perfect self-unity in universal peace, God the Father at this more - as opposed in the Cosmos and nature to least and less - evolved manifestation achieving his self-overcoming of ego and self-realization of soul in Heaven the Holy Soul. God has no other business, at this penultimate, or humanized, stage of his evolution than to get from the brain stem to the spinal cord via the relevant meditative technique and to experience, in a timeless 'shot' of bliss, that perfect self-unity which is the reward for those who have turned away from the world and ceased to pander to or be affected by its distractions, whether for a little while or, more authentically, for ever.
All of this will be given more encouragement within a context characterized by religious sovereignty than ever it would outside the parameters of such a context, and therefore it will be necessary that the peoples of those countries which would be capable, in their antihumanist and nonconformist religious integrities, of aspiring towards enhanced grace, in the transcendent rejection of sin, should be granted the opportunity to vote for religious sovereignty and enter the institutional framework of what has provisionally been called 'Kingdom Come'.
No such Kingship would be relevant to a context in which the People were religiously sovereign and therefore masters - and mistresses - of their own religious fate and destiny. On the contrary, if I have used such a term in deference to the Christian tradition, it is to be taken metaphorically rather than literally. Be that as it may, the 'Kingdom' that Social Theocracy would institute and advance in the event of the People as electorate in Eire and similar religiously-oriented countries paradoxically opting for the possibility of deliverance from 'the world' of sin and pseudo-punishment, meritocracy and bureaucracy, antiphysics and chemistry, to the heavenly 'otherworld' of enhanced grace and pseudo-crime, theocracy and technocracy, metaphysics and antimetachemistry , would be one in which a presidential executive, representative of the Law, presided over the administrative aside of pseudo-criminal state responsibility to the triadic Beyond of enhanced church grace as signified by 'the Centre', or context of a religiously sovereign People.
It would not be an autocracy, and thus conventional monarchy, but an elevation of the existing republican framework from that in which the Many held the political balance of power in what is effectively a theocratic republic to that in which the Few took greater political responsibility in the graceful interests of the Many in what would become a republican theocracy, in the interests of the gradual transmutation of the masses, cyborg -wise, from the human-all-too-human limitations characterizing 'the below' to the divine and sublime possibilities that would come to typify 'the above' of a religiously sovereign People who had opted for salvation from 'the world' in the name of otherworldly redemption.
For Heaven is nothing if not transcendent and, hence, intended for a space-centre omega point, an omega point that, though sited in space, would be anything but spatial, in the stellar-based cosmic sense, but the home of that which was most spaced-out and therefore characterized by psychic freedom of a metaphysical order. Therefore I do not, myself, see the inheritance of the earth by 'the meek' as constituting anything likely to lead up and forwards towards Heaven but, rather, as signifying what happens when state-hegemonic criteria take precedence over religion, and democracy is accordingly subverted by plutocracy at autocracy's criminal behest, with the inevitable corollary of humanism being subverted by antinonconformism at fundamentalism's pseudo-graceful behest, with pseudo-sinful consequences which we have equated with damnation and regard as paralleling, in religious terms, the principal form of axial descent in regard to the hegemonic State as a sentencing down from crime to punishment, unlawfulness to justice, the autocratic outer light to the plutocratic inner darkness.
Consequently 'the meek', the Many, the People, the electorate, etc. Frankly, nothing could be further from the case! For although I do not subscribe to the descending axis of autocracy-plutocracy and aristocracy-democracy, which simply results in 'world overcoming' of a type which keeps females in somatic charge of society to the detriment of male subjectivity and hence psychic freedom, I see no advantage in its being opposed from a Social Democratic standpoint and every advantage in its being undermined in consequence of an extension of the ascending axis of meritocracy-theocracy and bureaucracy-technocracy towards a Social Theocratic apex such that not only overcomes 'the world' Otherwise, without the possibility of ideological flexibility and a mood-swing, an attitude-change, from what characterizes the status quo to what stands in opposition to it, and not merely in liberal theocratic terms, one would be obliged to conclude that an inability on the part of those who might ordinarily associate themselves or be associated - as puritans and parliamentarians, mainstream protestants and democrats - with the descending axis In fact, it is the extent to which the physical, the 'pricks', are subverted by both antichemical and metachemical agents of what might be called ' anticunts ' and 'jerks' that makes so many of them gender-muddled and prone to cross-gender abuse of a kind which would be inconceivable in male-hegemonic societies, the proverbial ' cunt ' addressed at other males who are perceived to be other than 'pricks' being a case in point.