The Supreme Doctrine - neo-alchemist

‘GOOD’ AND ‘EVIL’
in reality a system of aesthetics of subtle forms ('make a fine gesture', 'you
have ugly propensities', etc.).
This dualistic conception 'Good-Evil', without the idea of the Superior
Conciliating Principle, is that at which man's mind arrives spontaneously,
naturally, in the absence of a metaphysical initiation. It is incomplete, and in
so far as it is incomplete it is erroneous; but it is interesting to see now the
truth that it contains within its limitations. If the intellectual partiality in
favour of 'Good', due to ignorance, is erroneous, the innate affective
preference of man for 'Good' should not be called erroneous since it exists on
the irrational affective plane on which no element is either according to
Reason nor against it; and this preference has certainly a cause, a raison
d'être, that our rational intellect ought not to reject a priori, but which, on the
contrary, it ought to strive to understand.
Let us pose the question as well as we can. While the two inferior
principles, conceived by pure intellect, are strictly equal in their
complementary antagonism, why, regarded from the practical affective point
of view, do they appear unequal, the positive principle appearing indisputably
superior to the negative principle? If, setting out the triangle of the Triad, we
call the inferior angles 'Relative Yes' and 'Relative No', why, when we wish
to name the superior angle, do we feel obliged to call it 'Absolute Yes' and
not 'Absolute No'? If the inferior angles are 'relative love' and 'relative hate'
why can the superior angle only be conceived as 'Absolute Love' and not as
'Absolute Hate'? Why must the word 'creation', although creation comports as
much destruction as construction, necessarily evoke in our mind the idea of
construction and not at all the idea of destruction?
In order to make it clear how all this happens we will cite a very simple
mechanical phenomenon. I throw a stone: two forces are in play, an active
force which comes from my arm, a passive force (force of inertia) which
belongs to the stone. These two forces are antagonistic, and they are
complementary; their collaboration is necessary in order that the stone may
describe its trajectory; without the active force of my arm the stone would not
move; without the force of inertia belonging to the mass of the stone it would
not describe any trajectory on leaving my hand; if I have to throw stones of
different masses the stone that I will throw farthest will be that one whose
force of inertia will balance most nearly the active force of my arm. Let us
compare these two forces: neither of the two is the cause of the other; the
mass of the stone exists independently of the force of my arm, and
24