THE LAST JUDGEMENT
Copyright © 2003-2010 John O'Loughlin
1. In my last text, A Perfect Resolution, I showed how crime and sin hang together on the sensual side of life, while punishment and grace hang together on its sensible side, like the alpha of vice and the omega of virtue. And this was considered so whether in relation to authentic or inauthentic manifestations of each, which is to say, whether the respective factors appertained to a state-hegemonic context in which authentic manifestations of crime and punishment but inauthentic manifestations of sin and grace could be inferred to exist or whether, by contrast, they pertained to a church-hegemonic context in which authentic manifestations of sin and grace but inauthentic manifestations of crime and punishment could be inferred to exist.
2. For crime and pseudo-sin are no less state/church correlative than punishment and pseudo-grace in regard to what was described as the descending axis of state-hegemonic but church-subordinate society, whereas sin and pseudo-crime are no less church/state correlative than grace and pseudo-punishment in regard to what was described as the ascending axis of church-hegemonic but state-subordinate society - the former axis tending to characterize Britain and the latter one Ireland or, more precisely, Eire.
3. For you can no more have a descending axis without state-hegemonic criteria than an ascending one without church-hegemonic criteria, and therefore the two cannot co-exist within the same society but, minority exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, tend to exist in relation to opposite types of societies, the one female hegemonic in respect of authentic crime and punishment, the other male hegemonic in respect of authentic sin and grace, with their respective inauthentic and altogether subordinate corollaries.
4. Therefore just as the descending axis of crime to punishment is characterized by a female-hegemonic control of society stemming from crime 'on high', which subversively overrides such grace as may exist 'down below' in regard to masculine males, so the ascending axis of sin to grace is characterized by a male-hegemonic control of society stemming, contrariwise, from grace 'on high', which subversively overrides such crime as may exist 'down below' in regard to feminine females.
5. For while the descent from crime to punishment may be of a female persuasion in the objectivity of its state-hegemonic criteria, crime and punishment must be juxtaposed with sin and grace respectively, which are significant not of metachemical and chemical or, more correctly, antichemical (chemically sensible) persuasions but, rather, of antimetaphysical (metaphysically sensual) and physical persuasions, the former subordinate to metachemistry as sequential time to spatial space in noumenal sensuality, the latter nominally hegemonic over antichemistry as voluminous volume over massed mass in phenomenal sensibility but effectively subverted by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry, which is thus able to override relative grace through punishment in the interests of criminal freedom, thereby maintaining a state-hegemonic relativity at the expense of such church freedom as would otherwise typify the physical grace of masculine males.
6. Conversely, while the ascent from sin to grace may be of a male persuasion in the subjectivity of its church-hegemonic criteria, sin and grace must be juxtaposed with crime and punishment respectively, which are significant not of physical or, more correctly, antiphysical (physically sensual) and metaphysical persuasions but rather of chemical and antimetachemical (metachemically sensible) persuasions, the former nominally hegemonic over antiphysics as volumetric volume over massive mass in phenomenal sensuality, the latter subordinate to metaphysics as repetitive time to spaced space in noumenal sensibility, which is thus able to override relative crime through sin in the interests of graceful freedom, thereby maintaining a church-hegemonic relativity at the expense of such state freedom as would otherwise typify the chemical crime of feminine females.
7. Therefore the contrasting axes present us with opposite forms of world-overcoming - the antifeminine overcoming of masculine males at the behest of diabolic females who have the better of antidivine males where the antichemical subversion of physics from a metachemical hegemony over antimetaphysics is concerned, and the antimasculine overcoming of feminine females at the behest of divine males who have the better of antidiabolic females where the antiphysical subversion of chemistry from a metaphysical hegemony over antimetachemistry is concerned.
8. Thus spatially hegemonic over sin, crime is able, on the descending axis, to determine the subversive terms of reference by which the nominal hegemony of physics over antichemistry, voluminous volume over massed mass, is undermined in favour of the displacement of grace by punishment, whilst, on the ascending axis, grace, spacedly hegemonic over punishment, is able to determine the subversive terms of reference by which the nominal hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics, volumetric volume over massive mass, is undermined in favour of the displacement of crime by sin.
9. In terms of the authentic vis-à-vis inauthentic manifestations of each of the contending state/church or church/state factors, it should be evident that while crime will be authentic in the subverting hegemony of spatial space over sequential time in the noumenal sensuality of metachemistry, crime is inauthentic in the subverted hegemony of volumetric volume over massive mass in the phenomenal sensuality of chemistry, but that whereas, by contrast, sin will be inauthentic in the subverted subordination of sequential time to spatial space in the noumenal sensuality of antimetaphysics, sin is authentic in the subverting subordination of massive mass to volumetric volume in the phenomenal sensuality of antiphysics.
10. Conversely, it should be evident that while punishment will be authentic in the subverting subordination of massed mass to voluminous volume in the phenomenal sensibility of antichemistry, punishment is inauthentic in the subverted subordination of repetitive time to spaced space in the noumenal sensibility of antimetachemistry, but that whereas, by contrast, grace will be inauthentic in the subverted hegemony of voluminous volume over massed mass in the phenomenal sensibility of physics, grace is authentic in the subverting hegemony of spaced space over repetitive time in the noumenal sensibility of metaphysics.
11. Frankly it stands to reason that if crime is authentic in noumenal sensuality it will be inauthentic in phenomenal sensuality, as the State will be inauthentic compared with the Church, whereas if sin is authentic in phenomenal sensuality it will be inauthentic in noumenal sensuality, as the Church will be inauthentic compared with the State. For that which is authentic in the one context, be it metachemical or antiphysical, can only be inauthentic in the other, be it chemical or antimetaphysical.
12. Likewise it stands to reason that if grace is authentic in noumenal sensibility, it will be inauthentic in phenomenal sensibility, as the Church will be inauthentic compared with the State, whereas if punishment is authentic in phenomenal sensibility, it will be inauthentic in noumenal sensibility, as the State will be inauthentic compared with the Church. For that which is authentic in the one context, be it metaphysical or antichemical, can only be inauthentic in the other, be it physical or antimetachemical.
13. Thus the criminal authenticity of metachemical sensuality should be contrasted with the graceful authenticity of metaphysical sensibility, and each of these hegemonic factors with the punishing authenticity of chemical sensibility (antichemistry) and the sinful authenticity of physical sensuality (antiphysics), both of which are antithetically subversive of the worldly forms of grace and crime, and thus of state and church phenomenality, albeit at the behest of contrary noumenal modes of crime and grace.
14. For some time prior to and even including my last text, the aforementioned A Perfect Resolution, I have been inclined to regard crime and punishment in their authentic manifestations as standing in an antithetical relationship to the authentic manifestations of sin and grace, pretty much as state-hegemonic to church-hegemonic axial antitheses. With this premise, I more or less assumed that crime and punishment were no less somatic than sin and grace psychic, although I had long entertained the parallel notion of punishment as in some sense psychic and sin as somatic, in contrast to the somatic nature of crime and the psychic nature or, more correctly, nurture of grace.
15. Gradually I found myself drawn, in the last text, towards a sense of the psychic nature of both crime and punishment on the one hand and sin and grace on the other, though this was in relation to what seemed to be the somatic nature of evil and good (modesty) in relation to the former and of folly and wisdom in relation to the latter.
16. Therefore, although it was incontrovertible to me that, in their authentic manifestations, crime and punishment were no-less symptomatic of a state-hegemonic society than sin and grace of a church-hegemonic one, the terms in which each pair of opposites operated had gradually been modified from a simple antithesis of soma to psyche to a sort of psychic bias or integrity which co-existed with an interpretation of soma that laid greater emphasis on either evil and good or folly and wisdom, depending by and large on the gender-conditioned context.
17. Probably it is as over-pedantic to distinguish crime from evil and punishment from good as it is to distinguish sin from folly and grace from wisdom, though some such distinction can be made and, I believe, helps to distinguish the more openly barbarous forms of evil and folly from their 'civilized' counterparts, wherein a consciousness of the criminality of evil on the one hand and of the sinfulness of folly on the other is crucial to the existence and acceptance of a punishing or graceful retort to such a consciousness, a retort which is no less psychic or, at any rate, psychically conditioned in relation to the correlative acceptance of the need either for goodness or wisdom as bound somatic complements to the respective hegemonies of grace and punishment.
18. Be that as it may, it now seems incontrovertible to me that when there is a sense of folly as sin or rather of somatic emphasis as sinfully foolish from a male point of view, it is because there is a sense of grace in relation not only to sensibility but to the male gender actuality of psyche preceding and in some sense predominating over soma which therefore cannot be reflected in a context, or pattern of behaviour, which appears to be emphasizing, whether under duress of female influence or otherwise, the opposite - namely the desirability of free soma.
19. The sense of folly from and as a male standpoint is intimately tied-up with a sense of male gender and that, in turn, requires a certain degree and acceptance of sensibility in which the male actuality of psychic precedence - akin in metaphorical terms to the precedence of son by father - can be granted due recognition and be respected in relation to a sense of freedom which is especially congenial to psychic development. Otherwise, it is unlikely that such behaviour would be thought foolish to begin with and still less likely that it would be stigmatized as sinful from a standpoint open to grace and its corollary of wisdom as the necessary complement, in bound soma, to the development of free psyche.
20. Therefore whilst it may be possible to interchange such terms as folly and sin, not to mention grace and wisdom, it seems to me that just as sin and grace are parallel psychic terms, so folly and wisdom are parallel somatic terms; for the folly of somatic emphasis, contrary to male gender reality, will only be regarded as sinful when there is sufficient grace, or respect for grace, to warrant a certain shame in regard to the committing of it, something not guaranteed in avowedly heathenistic contexts or societies, where folly may be no less difficult to recognize for want of wisdom in regard to the sensible binding of soma.
21. Therefore if, as a male, it is foolish to be somatically free, it is no less wise to be somatically bound. And if, as a male, it is sinful to be psychically bound, it can only be graceful to be psychically free. In the one context, that of sensuality, folly conditions sin, as free soma conditioning bound psyche. In the other context, by contrast, grace conditions wisdom, as free psyche conditioning bound soma.
22. But the folly of free soma will not be recognized as folly if there is insufficient respect for the wisdom of bound soma, and there is unlikely to be sufficient respect for the wisdom of bound soma if there is insufficient respect for the grace of free psyche both to warrant and maintain it as a subordinate complement, and without such grace there is unlikely to be much shame in or consciousness of sin in regard to bound psyche but, rather, a heathenistic acquiescence in bound psyche under the delusion that free soma is a sufficient reward unto itself and not necessarily indicative of any great folly.
23. Therefore rather than upholding a sense of the somatic nature of sin compared with the psychic nature of grace, which might well call if not for a parallel equivalence then a psychic interpretation of folly and a somatic interpretation of wisdom, I have opted to affirm a somatic parallel between folly and wisdom and a psychic parallel between sin and grace, doing likewise, be it noted, for evil and good in relation to soma and crime and punishment in relation to psyche, albeit in respect of hegemonic female criteria rather than anything likely to result in a male lead of society to the end of church-hegemonic blessedness.
24. For if folly and wisdom are the somatic complements to sin and grace, then it would be illogical, indeed, if evil and good were not to be regarded as the somatic complements to crime and punishment.
25. For it seems equally incontrovertible to me that when there is a sense of evil as crime or rather of somatic emphasis as criminally evil from a female point of view, it is because there is a sense of punishment in relation not only to sensibility but to the female actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche which therefore cannot be reflected in a context, or pattern of behaviour, that appears to be emphasizing, whether under duress of male influence or otherwise, the opposite - namely the desirability of free psyche.
26. The sense of evil from and as a female standpoint is intimately tied-up with a sense of female gender and that, in turn, requires a certain degree and acceptance of sensuality in which the female actuality of somatic precedence - akin in metaphorical terms to the precedence of daughter by mother - can be granted due recognition and be respected in relation to a sense of freedom which is especially congenial to somatic development. Otherwise, it is unlikely that such behaviour would be thought evil to begin with and still less likely that it would be stigmatized as criminal from a standpoint open to punishment and its corollary of goodness as the necessary complement, in bound soma, to the development of free psyche.
27. Therefore whilst it may be possible to interchange such terms as evil and crime, not to mention punishment and goodness (or somatic modesty, i.e. binding), it seems to me that just as crime and punishment are parallel psychic terms, so evil and goodness are parallel somatic terms; for the evil of somatic emphasis in relation to female gender reality will only be regarded as criminal when, due to sensibly hegemonic male pressures, there is sufficient punishment, or respect for punishment, to warrant a certain shame in regard to the committing of it, something not guaranteed in avowedly heathenistic contexts or societies, where evil may be no less difficult to recognize for want of goodness in regard to the sensible binding of soma.
28. Therefore if, as a female, it is evil to be somatically free, it is good to be somatically bound. And if, as a female, it is criminal to be psychically bound, it can only be punishing to be psychically free. In the one context, that of sensuality, evil conditions crime, as free soma conditioning bound psyche. In the other context, by contrast, punishment conditions goodness, as free psyche conditioning bound soma.
29. But the evil of free soma will not be recognized as evil if there is insufficient respect for the goodness of bound soma, and there is unlikely to be sufficient respect for the goodness of bound soma if there is insufficient respect for the punishment of free psyche both to warrant and maintain it as a subordinate complement, and without such punishment there is unlikely to be much shame in or consciousness of crime in regard to bound psyche but, rather, a heathenistic acquiescence in bound psyche under the factual belief that free soma is a sufficient reward unto itself and not necessarily indicative of any great evil.
30. Therefore rather than upholding a sense of the somatic nature of crime compared with the psychic nature of punishment, which might well call if not for a parallel equivalence then a psychic interpretation of evil and a somatic interpretation of goodness, I have opted to affirm a somatic parallel between evil and goodness and a psychic parallel between crime and punishment, so that one can logically proceed with antithetical terms like evil and goodness in parallel vein from free soma to bound soma and with antithetical terms like crime and punishment in parallel vein from bound psyche to free psyche, the female equivalents of proceeding with antithetical terms like folly and wisdom in parallel vein from free soma to bound soma and with antithetical terms like sin and grace in parallel vein from bound psyche to free psyche.
31. Therefore gender is crucial to making a distinction, first of all in sensuality, between the desirability of free soma and bound psyche from a female standpoint whether primarily in relation to evil and crime or secondarily in relation to folly and sin, and the undesirability of free soma and bound psyche from a male standpoint, whether in relation primarily to folly and sin or secondarily to evil and crime, and, in sensibility, to making a contrary distinction between the desirability of free psyche and bound soma from a male standpoint, whether primarily in relation to grace and wisdom or secondarily in relation to punishment and goodness, and the undesirability of free psyche and bound soma from a female standpoint, whether in relation primarily to punishment and goodness or secondarily to grace and wisdom.
32. Life is and remains a gender struggle between the desirability of free soma and bound psyche primarily in terms of evil and crime from a female standpoint and the desirability, by contrast, of free psyche and bound soma primarily in terms of grace and wisdom from a male standpoint, with the vanquished in the struggle having to accept either secondary modes of free soma and bound psyche in terms of folly and sin on the one hand, or secondary modes of free psyche and bound soma in terms of punishment and goodness on the other hand, the hand not of subordinate males in sensuality, as in the former instance, but of subordinate females in sensibility.
33. Therefore whilst it may be fair to say that grace and wisdom are the true ends of life for males, whose gender reality corresponds to the precedence of soma by psyche and thus the subordination of soma to psyche, it would be somewhat disingenuous to claim that punishment and goodness were equally the true ends of life for females, given that their gender reality corresponds to the precedence of psyche by soma and thus the subordination of psyche to soma. Punishment and goodness will complement grace and wisdom as secondary modes of free psyche and bound soma only under duress of male hegemonic pressure, and not otherwise!
34. For left to herself, left to be 'true to her nature', the female will revert, as at present, to the sensual opposites of punishment and goodness, namely crime and evil, with an emphasis, according to gender, on evil, on somatic freedom, since the precedence of psyche by soma as the female gender reality necessitates that soma takes precedence over psyche and thus evil over crime with, in the more openly heathenistic or sensual instances, evil not being recognized as criminal due to a want of punishment in sensibility, the punishment, more particularly, of a psychic emphasis under male hegemonic pressure, contrary to female gender reality.
35. But when soma is free in evil and psyche bound in crime, bound to the criminal acquiescence in the evil of somatic freedom from a female standpoint, usually metachemical or chemical, then the male counterpart to this will be a retreat from grace and wisdom (in sensibility) to sin and folly (in sensuality), with a false emphasis, under female hegemonic pressures, on soma at the expense of psyche and thus on folly at the expense even of sin, or of a sinful consciousness of acquiescing in the folly of free soma from a male standpoint, usually physical or metaphysical or, more correctly, antiphysical (sensually physical) or antimetaphysical (sensually metaphysical). In such fashion, folly and sin will complement evil and crime as secondary modes of free soma and bound psyche only under duress of female hegemonic pressures, and not otherwise!
36. For just as grace is anterior to punishment (as wisdom to goodness) in the sensibility of psyche freedom and somatic binding, so evil is anterior to folly (as crime to sin) in the sensuality of somatic freedom and psychic binding.
37. Males and females do not originate from the same creative source, be it god or devil, but, on the contrary, from opposite creative sources - diabolic in respect of metachemical females, divine in respect of metaphysical males, with the generality of chemical females and physical males having an origin that, in typically lower-class fashion, owes more to antithetical manifestations of worldly existence, whether feminine or masculine, purgatorial or earthly, than to anything diabolic or divine.
38. Because males contain some female elements and females, conversely, some male elements, not least in the more relative contexts of masculine and feminine worldliness, there is always going to be a capacity for crime and/or evil in males and for sin and/or folly in females, not to mention, where sensibility is concerned, a capacity for punishment and/or goodness in males and for grace and/or wisdom in females. But, by and large, such capacities will be the cross-gender exception to the gender rule, whether that rule be crime and evil in sensuality for females or grace and wisdom in sensibility for males; for although males and females share many aspects of life in common, they remain antithetically distinctive - distinctive, that is, in terms of the particle objectivity for females of what somatically issues, in will and/or spirit, power and/or glory, from a vacuum in consequence of the precedence of psyche by soma in either metachemical or chemical contexts, and the wavicle subjectivity, by contrast, for males of what psychically issues, in ego and/or soul, form and/or contentment, from a plenum in consequence of the precedence of soma by psyche in either physical or metaphysical contexts.
39. The fact that few if any males or females are ever entirely male or female does not invalidate the broad argument, though even on a class basis one has to distinguish, as hinted at above, the greater distinctions between metachemical females and metaphysical males in relation to noumenal criteria from the lesser distinctions between chemical females and physical males in relation to phenomenal criteria, as between the most particles/least wavicles of will and the most wavicles/least particles of soul in the noumenal sphere of existence and the more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles of spirit and the more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles of ego in the phenomenal sphere of existence which, in contrast to the three-to-one (3:1) absolutism of the noumenal antitheses, is ever relative and, hence, comparatively worldly, symptomatic, in a two-and-a-half/one-and-a-half (2½:1½) ratio, of volume and mass rather than of space and time.
40. But here, again, I am generalizing in terms of the representative hegemonic positions in each element, each class, which does not therefore include the subordinate and effectively vanquished gender, be it antimetaphysical and antiphysical in sensuality or antichemical and antimetachemical in sensibility, the former options of course male and the latter their female counterparts. But even then, the gender realities remain more or less consistent, despite the cross-purposes with its own nature or nurture, according to context, in which each gender finds itself when obliged, in the male case, to emphasize soma at the expense of psyche or, in the female case, psyche at the expense of soma.
41. Such seemingly complementary parallels to the more inherent emphasis of the hegemonic gender have already been described by me as apparent, and so they are. For the underlying gender reality of each gender remains the same even under pressure of being at cross-purposes with itself through the prevailing influence, for better or worse, of the hegemonic gender, and therefore it will not be resigned to such pressure but will strive to reassert itself on more gender-representative terms - males striving to progressively climb from folly and sin under evil and crime in sensuality to grace and wisdom over punishment and goodness in sensibility, females striving to regressively climb from punishment and goodness under grace and wisdom in sensibility to evil and crime over folly and sin in sensuality.
42. For the freedom of the one gender effectively entails - despite parallel rhetoric in relation to psyche (male) or soma (female) - the binding, or enslavement, of the other gender, and one cannot as an individual be both psychically free and somatically free or, conversely, somatically free and psychically free at the same time. On the contrary, somatic freedom, which is primarily female, requires psychic binding, which can only be enslaving from a male standpoint, whereas psychic freedom, which is primarily male, requires somatic binding, which can only be enslaving from a female standpoint.
43. Hence resistance to enslavement is bound, sooner or later, to become the prevailing tendency of the subordinate gender, be it male in sensuality or female in sensibility, but such resistance, though inevitable, is not initially guaranteed, and cannot be said to characterize those periods or societies in which male sensibility is insufficiently developed and/or has been sufficiently hindered to warrant disillusion with sensuality or, conversely, societies or periods when female sensuality is insufficiently developed and/or has been sufficiently hindered to warrant disillusion with sensibility - as in intensely Heathen and Christian, 'once born' and 'reborn', epochs or ages respectively.
44. For until the subordinate gender 'wakes up' to its gender reality, it cannot properly analyze or even recognize its position for what it truly is - either sinfully foolish or, in the female case, modestly punishing, the hegemonic gender continuing to take evil somatically for granted in the one case and grace psychically for granted in the other.
45. Alas for males, females 'woke up' to their gender reality through so-called feminism and female liberation struggles quite some time ago and the result, not altogether surprisingly or unpredictably in an age that until comparatively recently was unequivocally dominated by technologies dependent upon the vacuousness of the cathode-ray tube, has been a steady increase in heathenistic evil and folly, not least under New World influence.
46. Males, on the other hand, have yet to 'wake up' from the nightmare of this post-Christian folly and, in recognizing it as sin and evil as crime, turn from it to the possibility of grace, thereby instituting a system, an order, a civilization, which will enjoin the acquiescence of females in punishment, in the punishment, more specifically, of psychic emphasis (contrary to gender reality) as the complement to the newly-won psychic freedom of males who, together with their female proletarian counterparts, elect to come into their own rightful high estate as and when contemporary post-human, post-historical urban civilization is transformed, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in selected countries, into the cyborg eternality of a civilization which, in rejecting evil and folly, barbarity and philistinism, crime and sin, opts to embrace, to a degree never before seen on this planet, wisdom and goodness, culture and civility, grace and punishment, as it undergoes a radical shift from the alpha of what was once unbridled sensuality to the omega of what can become a truly free sensibility, and thus ceases to be mere potential but, in dismissing traditional obstacles to its advance, comes properly into its own in relation to the maximizing of global universality, the goal of all true evolutionary striving.
47. It was a Nietzschean assertion that the Superman would have to be beyond good and evil, since it was - and had been - man's fate to be between it, to be both good and evil or evil or good, as the case may be. Yet this assertion beggars the question as to what constitutes being beyond good and evil? For it is surely not enough to be merely amoral and effectively indifferent to evil while simultaneously scornful of the good.
48. Leaving aside for the moment the exact definition of good and evil, it should be evident to anyone who has followed the progress of my texts through the successive twists and turns of their curvilinear unfolding over many years that good and evil or, rather, evil and good (to place them in the preferred sensual and sensible order) are terms that have more applicability to the female side of life than to the male, and that one is already, as a genuine male, a male given to male criteria in physics and/or metaphysics, vegetation and/or air, if not beyond evil in folly then certainly beneath it, whilst if not beneath then certainly beyond goodness in wisdom. Therefore folly and wisdom are as distinct from evil and goodness as ... sin and grace from crime and punishment, whether in terms of being beneath or beyond or, at any rate, above.
49. Evil and good, I have argued, are merely somatic, the former germane to free soma in metachemistry and chemistry, the latter germane to bound soma in their sensible counterparts, antichemistry and antimetachemistry. Therefore even crime and punishment are distinct from evil and good as the bound psyche relative to the one and the free psyche relative to the other, even before we extend the distinction across the gender divide in the aforementioned manner.
50. For folly and wisdom, I have likewise argued, are merely somatic, the former germane to free soma in antimetaphysics and antiphysics, but the latter germane to bound soma in their sensible counterparts, physics and metaphysics. Therefore even sin and grace are distinct from folly and wisdom as the bound psyche relative to the one and the free psyche relative to the other.
51. But there are, as we have seen, two types of evil/crime, the genuine evil/crime of metachemistry and the pseudo-evil/crime of chemistry, just as there are two types of good/punishment, the genuine good/punishment of antichemistry and the pseudo-good/punishment of antimetachemistry.
52. Therefore whereas evil/crime is genuine, or authentic, in metachemistry, it is pseudo-evil/criminal, or inauthentic, in chemistry, in contrast to the genuine good/punishment of antichemistry and the pseudo-good/punishment of antimetachemistry.
53. All of which means, to return to our axial alternatives, that genuine evil/crime and genuine good/punishment appertain to the state-hegemonic descending axis in which metachemistry is subversively hegemonic over antimetaphysics in sensuality and antichemistry subversively subordinate to physics in sensibility, subversive not because of anything intrinsic to itself but because it is conditioned, in no small degree, by the female hegemonic freedom of metachemical sensuality to subvert grace/wisdom in the interests not merely of goodness/punishment but, more fundamentally, to the lasting advantage of evil/crime.
54. But I need at this point to backtrack to the two types of folly/sin, the genuine folly/sin of antiphysics and the pseudo-folly/sin of antimetaphysics, not to mention the two types of wisdom/grace, the genuine wisdom/grace of metaphysics and the pseudo-wisdom/grace of physics.
55. Therefore whereas folly/sin is genuine, or authentic, in antiphysics, it is pseudo-foolish/sinful, or inauthentic, in antimetaphysics, in contrast to the genuine wisdom/grace of metaphysics and the pseudo-wisdom/grace of physics.
56. All of which means, to return to our axial alternatives, that genuine folly/sin and genuine wisdom/grace appertain to the church-hegemonic ascending axis in which, with metaphysics subversively hegemonic over antimetachemistry in sensibility, antiphysics is subversively subordinate to chemistry in sensuality, subversive not because of anything intrinsic to itself but because it is conditioned, in no small degree, by the male hegemonic freedom of metaphysical sensibility to subvert evil/crime in the interests not merely of folly/sin but, more transcendentally, to the lasting advantage of wisdom/grace.
57. One should not even write the somatic/psychic or psychic/somatic factors around the same way for each axis; for it soon becomes clear that while the psychic precedence of soma is indeed enabled to characterize the ascending axis of church-hegemonic criteria under a male lead, the somatic precedence of psyche is what characterizes the descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria under a female rule.
58. Therefore since the above qualification is inextricably associated with the authenticity, or want of it, of either state or church, we may feel confident to assert that in the case of the ascending axis in which sin/folly and grace/wisdom are authentic it should be understood that sin/folly, appertaining to ecclesiastic authenticity, will be subversively subordinate to the inauthentic mode of crime/evil at the behest of the subversively hegemonic mode of grace/wisdom vis-à-vis the inauthentic mode of punishment/goodness, which, translated into elemental terminology, suggests that whilst antiphysics will be subversively subordinate to chemistry, metaphysics will be subversively hegemonic over antimetachemistry and effectively determining the manner of 'world overcoming' for the sensual volume/mass lower-class phenomenal reality 'down below' its own sensible space/time upper-class noumenal ideality.
59. Similarly, if in complete contrast to anything church-hegemonic and state-subordinate, we may feel confident to assert that in the case of the descending axis in which evil/crime and goodness/punishment are authentic it should be understood that goodness/punishment, appertaining to politic authenticity, will be subversively subordinate to the inauthentic mode of wisdom/grace at the behest of the subversively hegemonic mode of evil/crime vis-à-vis the inauthentic mode of folly/sin, which, translated into elemental terminology, suggests that whilst antichemistry will be subversively subordinate to physics, metachemistry will be subversively hegemonic over antimetaphysics and effectively determining the manner of 'world overcoming' for the sensible volume/mass lower-class phenomenal reality 'down below' its own sensual space/time upper-class noumenal ideality.
60. Obviously it is highly significant whether psyche is seen to precede soma or soma to precede psyche, for in the one case the possibility exists, in relation to church-hegemonic criteria, of a male lead of society upon what has been described as the ascending axis of antiphysics to metaphysics on the one hand and chemistry to antimetachemistry on the other, the hand of subverted and subordinate femaleness and, hence, state criteria, whereas in the other case the possibility only exists, in relation to state-hegemonic criteria, of a female rule of society upon what has been described as the descending axis of metachemistry to antichemistry on the one hand and antimetaphysics to physics on the other, the hand of subordinate and subverted maleness and, hence, church criteria.
61. Therefore it is incontrovertibly evident that sin/folly leading to the possibility of grace/wisdom is significant of the male control of society in relation to the precedence of soma by psyche and the inevitability of authentic modes of sin/folly and grace/wisdom in regard to of church-hegemonic criteria which have the effect of conditioning the inauthentic modes of evil and crime on the one hand and of goodness and punishment on the other in which, due to male hegemonic pressures, crime/evil and punishment/goodness parallel, with psychic emphasis, the sin/folly and grace/wisdom from a state-subordinate standpoint.
62. Conversely it is no-less incontrovertibly evident that evil/crime leading to the possibility of goodness/punishment is significant of the female control of society in relation to the precedence of psyche by soma and the inevitability of authentic modes of evil/crime and goodness/punishment in regard to state-hegemonic criteria which have the effect of conditioning the inauthentic modes of folly and sin on the one hand and of wisdom and grace on the other in which, due to female hegemonic pressures, folly/sin and wisdom/grace parallel, with somatic emphasis, the evil/crime and good/punishment from a church-subordinate standpoint.
63. It should not be surprising, in light of these antithetical distinctions, if people associated with each type of axis within the framework of contrary types of society place a different emphasis on the terminology considered most applicable or relevant to their experience. For it must follow that a psychic hegemony will grant more importance to terms like sin and grace, not to mention their female counterparts of crime and punishment, than to anything somatic in character, in complete contrast to those societies in which a somatic hegemony will naturally lead people to attach more importance to terms like evil and good (or good and evil), not to mention their male counterparts of folly and wisdom, than to anything psychic in character.
64. But most especially must it follow that the church-hegemonic type of society, led by males, will emphasize sin and grace at the expense of folly and wisdom and, in subordinate vein, crime and punishment at the expense of evil and goodness, the former polarities church authentic and the latter their inauthentic state corollaries.
65. Likewise it must follow that the state-hegemonic type of society, ruled by females, will emphasize evil and good at the expense of crime and punishment and, in subordinate vein, folly and wisdom at the expense of sin and grace, the former polarities state authentic and the latter their inauthentic church corollaries.
66. Be that as it may, we can still draw distinctions in each case between the antiphysical antihumanism of sin and the antiphysical antinaturalism of folly on the one hand, and the chemical nonconformism of pseudo-crime and the chemical realism of pseudo-evil on the other hand, in which a sort of church/state dichotomy cuts across both sets of terms as the sin of antihumanism and the pseudo-crime of nonconformism, significant of the respective gender approaches to bound psyche, stand apart from the folly of antinaturalism and the pseudo-evil of realism, significant of the respective gender approaches to free soma.
67. Likewise we should distinguish between the metaphysical transcendentalism of grace and the metaphysical idealism of wisdom on the one hand, and the antimetachemical antifundamentalism of pseudo-punishment and the antimetachemical antimaterialism of pseudo-goodness on the other hand, in which a sort of church/state dichotomy cuts across both sets of terms as the grace of transcendentalism and the pseudo-punishment of antifundamentalism, significant of the respective gender approaches to free psyche, stand apart from the wisdom of idealism and the pseudo-goodness of antimaterialism, significant of the respective gender approaches to bound soma.
68. In relation to the state-hegemonic type of society, by contrast, we should distinguish between the metachemical materialism of evil and the metachemical fundamentalism of crime on the one hand, and the antimetaphysical anti-idealism of pseudo-folly and the antimetaphysical antitranscendentalism of pseudo-sin on the other hand, in which a sort of state/church dichotomy cuts across both sets of terms as the evil of materialism and the pseudo-folly of anti-idealism, significant of the respective gender approaches to free soma, stand apart from the crime of fundamentalism and the pseudo-sin of antitranscendentalism, significant of the respective gender approaches to bound psyche.
69. Similarly we should distinguish between the antichemical antirealism of goodness and the antichemical antinonconformism of punishment on the one hand, and the physical naturalism of pseudo-wisdom and the physical humanism of pseudo-grace on the other hand, in which a sort of state/church dichotomy cuts across both sets of terms as the goodness of antirealism and the pseudo-wisdom of naturalism, significant of the respective gender approaches to bound soma, stand apart from the punishment of antinonconformism and the pseudo-grace of humanism, significant of the respective gender approaches to free psyche.
70. Whatever the overall distinctions, it is evident that a society characterized by church-hegemonic criteria will grant more importance, in typically male vein, to psyche than to soma, and thus to sin and grace coupled to pseudo-crime and pseudo-punishment as the People ascend from bound psyche in sensuality to free psyche in sensibility, while simultaneously ascending from the free soma of folly and pseudo-evil to the bound soma of wisdom and pseudo-good, the inauthentic aspects thereof counting for much less than the authentic aspects which, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, as sin/folly or grace/wisdom, most characterize what properly appertains to church-hegemonic criteria in relation to a male lead and control of society.
71. Conversely, it should be no less evident that a society characterized by state-hegemonic criteria will grant more importance, in typically female vein, to soma than to psyche, and thus to evil and good coupled to pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom as the People descend from free soma in sensuality to bound soma in sensibility, while simultaneously descending from the bound psyche of crime and pseudo-sin to the free psyche of punishment and pseudo-grace, the inauthentic aspects thereof counting for much less than the authentic aspects which, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, as evil/crime or good/punishment, most characterize what properly appertains to state-hegemonic criteria in relation to a female rule and control of society.
72. But just as on the ascending axis the Church subverts the State in its own interests, making for a distinction between sin and folly in the one instance and pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil in the other instance of phenomenal relativity, as germane to sensual mass and volume, and for a further distinction between grace and wisdom in the one instance and pseudo-punishment and pseudo-good in the other instance of noumenal absolutism, as germane to sensible space and time, so, conversely, on the descending axis the State subverts the Church in its own interests, making for a distinction between evil and crime in the one instance and pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin in the other instance of noumenal absolutism, as germane to sensual space and time, and for a further distinction between goodness and punishment in the one instance and pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace in the other instance of phenomenal relativity, as germane to sensible mass and volume.
73. Obviously it matters a great deal whether the State or the Church is the principal conditioning factor in either case, for when the State is such the Church is so undermined as to make not only for inauthentic modes of sin and grace but also for inauthentic modes of folly and wisdom, the somatic factors within a context that would otherwise be governed by psyche, whereas when the Church is the principal conditioning factor the State will be so undermined as to make not only for inauthentic modes of evil and good but also for inauthentic modes of crime and punishment, the psychic factors within a context that would otherwise be governed by soma.
74. But even if the Church is principally characterized by psyche, whether bound or free, sinful or graceful, it still has a somatic corollary, which will be foolish or wise, and more germane, in consequence, to antinaturalism or idealism than to antihumanism or transcendentalism.
75. Conversely, even if the State is principally characterized by soma, whether free or bound, evil or good, it still has a psychic corollary, which will be criminal or punishing, and more germane, in consequence, to fundamentalism or antinonconformism than to materialism or antirealism.
76. It is only in the subordinate state that the gender aspect of things is turned upside down, so that, even though still having a somatic dimension, whether pseudo-evil or pseudo-good, realist or antimaterialist, it will be the psychic dimension which, whether pseudo-criminal or pseudo-punishing, nonconformist or antifundamentalist, counts for more and is an important factor in the undermining of what would otherwise more properly characterize the State.
77. Likewise it is only in the subordinate church that the gender aspect of things is turned upside down, so that, even though still having a psychic dimension, whether pseudo-sinful or pseudo-graceful, antitranscendentalist or humanist, it will be the somatic dimension which, whether pseudo-foolish or pseudo-wise, anti-idealist or naturalist, counts for more and is an important factor in the undermining of what would otherwise more properly characterize the Church.
78. For whereas the subverted state becomes identified with nonconformist and antifundamentalist modes of psychic existence to the detriment of what is somatic, the subverted church becomes identifiable with anti-idealist and naturalist modes of somatic existence to the detriment of what is psychic, and even here one can infer an ecclesiastic/secular dichotomy which underlines the contrary fashions in which these institutions are undermined and, through subversion, rendered subordinate.
79. Frankly the subordinate state is as far from becoming primarily realist (phenomenal) or antimaterialist (noumenal) as the subordinate church from becoming primarily antitranscendentalist (noumenal) or humanist (phenomenal). For just as realism would be a threat to antinaturalism, and hence by extrapolation to antihumanism, and antimaterialism a threat to idealism, and hence by extrapolation to transcendentalism, so antitranscendentalism would be a threat to fundamentalism, and hence by extrapolation to materialism, and humanism a threat to antinonconformism, and hence by extrapolation to antirealism.
80. Obviously, a church-hegemonic society can no more countenance a threat to antinaturalism or idealism than a state-hegemonic society a threat to fundamentalism or antinonconformism, for in the one case antinaturalism and idealism are the somatic corollaries of antihumanism and transcendentalism, whilst, in the other case, fundamentalism and antinonconformism are the psychic corollaries of materialism and antirealism, and just as antihumanism and transcendentalism bring us back to sin and grace as the principal characteristics, in bound psyche and free psyche, of a church-hegemonic society, so materialism and antirealism return us to evil and good as the principal characteristics, in free soma and bound soma, of a state-hegemonic society.
81. Only sin and grace are authentically beyond evil and good respectively, as psyche is beyond soma and the church beyond the state, and as sin and grace are beyond good and evil, so folly and wisdom are beyond crime and punishment; for the folly and wisdom that are authentic corollaries of sin and grace can only exist in relation to the pseudo-evil and pseudo-good that are inauthentic corollaries of pseudo-crime and pseudo-punishment, and neither pseudo-evil nor pseudo-good has anything more in common with evil or good than pseudo-crime and pseudo-punishment anything in common with crime and punishment.
82. In short, the society that gives soma free metachemical rein is fated to bow before the state-hegemonic realities of evil and good to which crime and punishment are psychically affiliated, and evil must fear goodness as crime fears punishment.
83. But the society that gives psyche free metaphysical rein is destined to kneel before the church-hegemonic realities of sin and grace to which folly and wisdom are somatically affiliated, and sin must hope for grace as folly hopes for wisdom.
84. With the fear of good and punishment there can be no hope for grace and wisdom; for all that exists in relation to good and punishment is pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace, which are anything but compatible with or equivalent to authentic grace and wisdom.
85. Conversely, with the hope of grace and wisdom there can be no fear of good and punishment; for all that exists in relation to grace and wisdom is pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness, which are anything but compatible with or equivalent to authentic goodness and punishment.
86. In the one context, the descending axis, 'the above' fears 'the below', the Few the Many, the evil/criminal the good/punishing, whereas in the other context, the ascending axis, 'the below' hopes for 'the above', the Many the Few, the sinful/foolish the graceful/wise. No greater contrast could be imagined!
87. Therefore whilst in the former context the Few will do their best to resist the regressive proclivities of the Many, in the latter context, by contrast, the Many will try their best to embrace the progressive proclivities of the Few, so that, to take both contexts together, a resistance to being pulled down, or punished, from 'below' has to be contrasted with an insistence on being pulled up, or saved, from 'above' - all the difference between the descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria and the ascending axis of church-hegemonic criteria.
88. For what is the inner phenomenal darkness of goodness to those for whom the outer noumenal darkness of evil is somatic ideal but something to fear as a threat to metachemical freedom, even with the inner phenomenal light of punishment which, however, can only be less significant from a state-hegemonic point of view, not least from the standpoint of the outer noumenal light of crime.
89. And what, correlatively, is the inner phenomenal darkness of pseudo-wisdom to those for whom the outer noumenal darkness of pseudo-folly is perforce somatic ideal but something to fear as a threat to antimetaphysical freedom, even with the inner phenomenal light of pseudo-grace which, however, can only be less significant from a church-subordinate point of view, not least from the standpoint of the outer noumenal light of pseudo-sin.
90. But what, conversely, is the inner noumenal light of grace to those for whom the outer phenomenal light of sin is psychic shame but something to hope for as a solution to antiphysical binding, even with the inner noumenal darkness of wisdom which, however, can only be less significant from a church-hegemonic point of view, though not necessarily from the standpoint of the outer phenomenal darkness of folly.
91. And what, correlatively, is the inner noumenal light of pseudo-punishment to those for whom the outer phenomenal light of pseudo-crime is perforce psychic shame but something to hope for as a solution to chemical binding, even with the inner noumenal darkness of pseudo-goodness which, however, can only be less significant from a state-subordinate point of view, though not necessarily from the standpoint of the outer phenomenal darkness of pseudo-evil.
92. However that may variously be, there is a marked contrast between a conservative fear of the Many primarily from an evil/criminal point of view, and a conservative hope for the Few primarily from a sinful/foolish point of view, a metachemical fear of antichemical goodness/punishment on the one hand, that of the descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria, and an antiphysical hope for metaphysical grace/wisdom on the other hand, that of the ascending axis of church-hegemonic criteria.
93. In the former case, that of the metachemical Few ranged subversively above the antimetaphysical Few, fear of the antichemical Many ranged subversively beneath the physical Many is designed to protect the evil/criminal coupled to pseudo-foolish/sinful interests of the noumenal elites from the good/punishing coupled to pseudo-wise/graceful ambitions of the phenomenal generalities, whose existence, paradoxically, is conditional upon the prior and superior existence of the noumenal elites and is symptomatic of a radical regression down the descending axis of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria from evil and pseudo-folly in somatic freedom to goodness and pseudo-wisdom in somatic binding, and is therefore something to be resisted from the socially superior standpoints of the freedoms in question.
94. In the latter case, that of the antiphysical Many ranged subversively beneath the chemical Many, hope for the metaphysical Few ranged subversively above the antimetachemical Few is designed to undermine the sinful/foolish coupled to pseudo-criminal/evil shortcomings of the phenomenal generalities in favour of the graceful/wise coupled to pseudo-punishing/good interests of the noumenal elites, whose existence is conditional upon the prior and inferior existence of the phenomenal generalities and is symptomatic of a radical progression up the ascending axis of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria from sin and pseudo-crime in psychic binding to grace and pseudo-punishment in psychic freedom, and is therefore something to be embraced from the socially inferior standpoints of the bindings in question.
95. Just as surely as goodness and pseudo-wisdom must condemn the 'somatically free' to the damnation of somatic binding within a context, an axis, characterized by state-hegemonic criteria, so must grace and pseudo-punishment deliver the 'psychically bound' to the salvation of psychic freedom within a context, an axis, characterized by church-hegemonic criteria.
96. Therefore the 'somatically free', typified by evil and pseudo-folly in metachemical and antimetaphysical sensuality, will resist the pull or threat of the 'somatically bound', typified by goodness and pseudo-wisdom in antichemical and physical sensibility, as the noumenal Few of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria will resist the phenomenal Many of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria in defence of their own elitist ideals of somatic freedom in evil and pseudo-folly.
97. Therefore the 'psychically bound', typified by sin and pseudo-crime in antiphysical and chemical sensuality, will embrace the promise of the 'psychically free', typified by grace and pseudo-punishment in metaphysical and antimetachemical sensibility, as the phenomenal Many of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria will embrace the noumenal Few of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria in pursuance of the latter's elitist ideals of psychic freedom in grace and pseudo-punishment.
98. How significant it therefore is whether soma or psyche is the principal factor at stake in any given context, be it state hegemonic or church hegemonic, in determining the divergent course of events which must constantly and permanently unfold in relation to either axis - descending in soma from evil to good under a female hegemony or ascending in psyche from sin to grace under a male hegemony; for whilst it is the fate of the Few in the former axis to resist the Many, to reject the descent from somatic freedom to somatic binding, which enslaves from evil to the damnation of authentic goodness, it is the destiny, by contrast, of the Many in the latter axis to embrace the Few, to climb from psychic binding to psychic freedom, wherein they achieve liberation from sin in the salvation of authentic grace.
99. Quite frankly, goodness exists in the shadow of evil, as immoral virtue in the shadow of immoral vice, for it is symptomatic of a regression from the high ideal of somatic freedom to the low ordeal of somatic binding, the psychic corollary of which is of course punishment.
100. In complete contrast, grace exists in the light of sin, as moral virtue in the light of moral vice, for it is symptomatic of a progression from the low ordeal of psychic binding to the high ideal of psychic freedom, the somatic corollary of which is of course wisdom.
101. Far from good being socially or ethically superior to evil, it is distinctly the inferior objective, and therefore immoral, option in any context in which somatic freedom must be contrasted with somatic binding, the psychic binding which criminally appertains to the one and the psychic freedom punishingly appertaining to the other being secondary considerations in the overall actuality of an axis characterized, in hegemonic female terms, by soma, and thus by evil and good and, in subordinate gender vein, by pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom, to which the bound psychic and free psychic affiliates of pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace must be even more secondary.
102. Of course, one could argue in regard to the indubitable fear of good which is symptomatic of evil, or 'the evil', that there should be a pseudo-hope for grace from the standpoint of pseudo-sin, but, that said, it must be remembered that pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom are more characteristic of church-subordinate criteria in relation to a state hegemony in which evil and good count for more than crime and punishment, and consequently that just as there will be a want of criminal and punishing, but most especially criminal, consciousness in relation to evil, so there will be a want of pseudo-sinful and pseudo-graceful, but most especially pseudo-sinful, consciousness in relation to pseudo-folly, the somatic nature of which in antimetaphysics will mirror, in secondary vein, the somatic primacy of metachemical evil.
103. Therefore it makes more logical sense to argue for a double fear of the good and pseudo-wise 'below' on the part of those for whom evil and pseudo-folly are somatically more characteristic, than to split the 'above' between fear of the good/punishing 'below', the antifeminine female position divisible between antirealism and antinonconformism, and pseudo-hope for the pseudo-wise/graceful 'below', the masculine male position divisible between naturalism and humanism.
104. This is not to say that there cannot be such pseudo-hope on the part of anti-idealist/antitranscendentalist males, avowedly antidivine in antimetaphysical character, but that it would be uncharacteristic of a context governed by somatic emphasis, contrary to male gender reality, in consequence of a state-hegemonic mean stemming from the evil of free metachemical females, whose materialism/fundamentalism is diabolic.
105. Likewise one could argue in regard to the indubitable hope for grace which is symptomatic of sin, or 'the sinful', that there should be a pseudo-fear of pseudo-punishment from the standpoint of pseudo-crime, but, that said, it must be remembered that pseudo-crime and pseudo-punishment are more characteristic of state-subordinate criteria in relation to a church hegemony in which sin and grace count for more than folly and wisdom, and consequently that just as there will be a want of foolish and wise, but most especially foolish, consciousness in relation to sin, so there will be a want of pseudo-evil and pseudo-good, but most especially pseudo-evil, consciousness in relation to pseudo-crime, the psychic nature of which in chemistry will mirror, in secondary vein, the psychic primacy of antiphysical sin.
106. Therefore it makes more logical sense to argue for a double hope for the graceful and pseudo-punishing 'above' on the part of those for whom sin and pseudo-crime are psychically more characteristic, than to split the 'below' between hope for the graceful/wise 'above', the divine male position divisible between transcendentalism and idealism, and pseudo-fear of the pseudo-punishing/good 'above', the antidiabolic female position divisible between antifundamentalism and antimaterialism.
107. This is not to say that there cannot be such pseudo-fear on the part of nonconformist/realist females, avowedly purgatorial in chemical character, but that it would be uncharacteristic of a context governed by psychic emphasis, contrary to female gender reality, in consequence of a church-hegemonic mean stemming from the grace of free metaphysical males, whose transcendentalism/idealism is divine.
108. Frankly, one can no more hope for salvation from pseudo-folly/sin to pseudo-wisdom/grace in relation to an axial descent dominated, in somatic vein, by evil and good, kindness to not-self and cruelty to not-self, than ... fear damnation from pseudo-crime/evil to pseudo-punishment/good in relation to an axial ascent characterized, in psychic vein, by sin and grace, cruelty to self and kindness to self. A kind of somatic monism in the one case and psychic monism in the other becomes the prevailing tendency, and this simply points, as we have argued, to the very divergent realities of fear of damnation by the evil/pseudo-foolish and hope for salvation by the sinful/pseudo-criminal.
109. For the free soma of the chemical female is no-less subverted in favour of bound psyche by the antiphysical male acting in like-psychic fashion in contrast to the psychic freedom of metaphysical males ... than the free psyche of the physical male is subverted in favour of bound soma by the antichemical female acting in like-somatic fashion in contrast to the somatic freedom of metachemical females. You can therefore no more properly fear from a context of bound psyche, avowedly pseudo-criminal, than hope for a context of bound soma, avowedly good, when the respective bases of fear and hope have been so paradoxically undermined.
110. Therefore those who, as the somatically free in evil and pseudo-folly, fear the somatic binding of good and pseudo-wisdom from a state-hegemonic axial standpoint must ever be contrasted with those who, as the psychically bound in sin and pseudo-crime, hope for the psychic freedom of grace and pseudo-punishment from a church-hegemonic axial standpoint, and such a contrast, amounting in axial divergence to a British/Irish (Protestant/Catholic) dichotomy, is nothing less than that between fear of descent, whether this be called sentencing down or damnation, and hope for ascent, whether this be called salvation or releasing up; though, in point of fact, the state-hegemonic distinction between free soma and bound soma amounts in all cases to a sentencing down from evil to good, as, in subordinate vein, from crime to punishment, whereas the church-hegemonic distinction between bound psyche and free psyche amounts in all cases to a salvation from sin to grace, as, in subordinate vein, from folly to wisdom, as though from an inferior mode of subjectivity, and therefore morality, to a superior mode of subjectivity in what amounts, in contrary fashion to the state-hegemonic axis, to an effective change of class, even if necessarily temporary in character, given the inevitability, within the world, of class distinctions between the Many and the Few.
111. However, no greater overall contrast could be imagined, and that is why, at this moment in time, Britain and Ireland, with especial reference to the Republic of Ireland (Eire) rather than to that part of Ireland which, as six of the nine counties of the Province of Ulster, constitutes within the United Kingdom what is called Northern Ireland, are so contrary and effectively incompatible, incommensurate, and axially divergent in their respective approaches to civilization, with the inevitability that they constitute, within the British Isles, two quite distinctive and independent nations, minority exceptions notwithstanding.
112. I have spelt out in previous texts what I believe the solution to this divided predicament - for it is a predicament, even without the division of the island of Ireland by the British - actually is, and it was not one that left either country, Great Britain or Ireland, the United Kingdom or Eire, however you prefer to regard it, as they are at present, but formulated a methodology, based on democratic consent, whereby substantive changes in both Britain and Ireland would be needed before such a dichotomy, the source of age-long rivalry and bitterness, could be effectively undermined and eventually overcome.
113. I have no doubt that only a transformation in Eire which led to Ireland becoming a Social Theocratic Centre, a republican theocracy premised upon a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, can pave the way not only to a united Ireland - something that every Irishman in his heart of hearts ultimately desires - but, as a corollary of this, to the break up of the United Kingdom and to an end to the state-hegemonic aberration which leads if not to damnation, though often enough it does, then to the prosecution of evil and pseudo-folly as a matter of somatic course, with little or no prospect, not even for Catholics, the politically excluded minority who have been systematically discriminated against since the Reformation first hit Britain all those centuries ago, of psychic freedom and graceful redemption.
114. Such a society is a disgrace to the word 'civilization', for it is chiefly characterized, to all elitist intents and purposes, by those sensual attributes governed by a somatic precedence which fly in the face of civilized values, namely freedom for barbarity and philistinism or, rather pseudo-philistinism, evil and pseudo-folly, at the expense of civility and culture or, rather, pseudo-culture, good and pseudo-wisdom.
115. And yet even the Irish Republic, though still nominally given to culture and civility or, rather, pseudo-civility, of grace and pseudo-punishment at the expense of philistinism and barbarity or, rather, pseudo-barbarity, of sin and pseudo-crime, is not given to it anywhere near enough, at least not to an extent that would lift society beyond the Catholic norms of verbal absolution for penitential contrition into a realm of more genuine transcendentalism and, hence, grace.
116. One feels that the intercessor, the priestly intermediary between the penitential confessee and God, or what has been taken for God, is somewhat disingenuous in his relation to God and even hamstrung by Scripture to such an extent that nothing properly godly and/or heavenly is ever mooted, let alone held up as an example to the penitential as something to actively emulate. For at this level of religion, avowedly human and therefore of mankind rather than either nature or the Cosmos (in Old Testament vein), there is only one interpretation of God and Heaven which has any relevance and thus value to the human - even if ethnically antihumanist and/or nonconformist - confessee, and that is the interpretation that stands above the confessional context of verbal absolution in transcendental meditation, as germane, traditionally, to the Buddhist East.
117. No priest, one feels, is going to intimate of what God is in relation to the practitioners of transcendental meditation; for that would beg the question as to why such meditation is not officially encouraged to obtain in the West, in Christianity, as an alternative to penitential confession and verbal absolution, and such a question would be at best awkward for the Christian clergy, at worst downright embarrassing and racially or ethnically humiliating, not least in respect of the obvious fact of Christic idolatry. For it can only be answered in terms of the discrepancy between Western lowlander criteria stemming from Rome (and even traditionally hostile to such Bible-hampered highlander criteria as characterized so-called Celtic Christianity) and a more genuinely upper-class orientation in religion only possible on the basis of highlander criteria more typifying the Buddhist East.
118. No priest, in any case, is going to encourage such an awkward or potentially embarrassing question, and precisely because he already knows or believes he knows, through scripture, what constitutes God, and it has no bearing, alas, on the Eastern practitioners of transcendental meditation, despite the indubitable relevancy of this more elevated and authentic mode of transcendentalism to mankind, and hence even to such Western manifestations of mankind, it may be, as are more given, as Roman Catholic Christians, to penitential contrition and verbal absolution in what I have elsewhere in general terms described as transcendentalized humanism as against humanized transcendentalism.
119. No, priests if pressed, as they seldom have been or would be, will cite some alternative concept of God and/or Heaven to what properly appertains to the human take on and level of religious evolution - say, if not the rather Protestant Christ whose relative grace, in 'the word made flesh' and thus effectively physical, is as vulnerable to antichemical subversion from punishing females as any other manifestation, including capitalism, of masculine maleness, then almost certainly the so-called Sacred Heart of the Risen Christ (in reality not male but metachemically female in the bound somatic instinctual and spiritual sensibility of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit vis-à-vis the free psychic intellectual and emotional sensibility [if applicable] of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell) which would at least be a sort of 'on high', diagonally speaking, to the penitential confessee of sin but not, alas, the ultimate 'on high' for mankind, which would of course be God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul as free psychic intellectual and emotional sensibility in relation to the bound somatic instinctual and spiritual sensibility in metaphysics of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, none of which, amounting to a male devotee of transcendental meditation, would permit of anything less than complete deference on the part of metachemical sensibility (antimetachemistry) to itself in female subordination to a male-hegemonic ideal, and therefore would completely rule out the sensual possibilities, ever characteristic of implicit New Testament symbols for eyes over ears in the Catholic decadence of human religion, once the heart is added, of perpendicular triangularity as a heathenistic or largely 'once-born' mean, of the so-called Risen Virgin and the so-called Father, viz. Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit in metachemical free instinctual and spiritual soma vis-à-vis the Daughter of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell in metachemical bound intellectual and emotional psyche as far as the eyes-to-self parallel in humankind (New Testament) religion is concerned, and the Antison of Antigod and the Unholy Spirit of Antiheaven in metaphysical free instinctual and spiritual soma (under female hegemonic pressures) vis-à-vis Antigod the Antifather and Antiheaven the Unholy Soul in metaphysical bound intellectual and emotional psyche (under female hegemonic pressures) as far as the ears-to-self parallel in such religion is concerned - or, more simply, the Risen Virgin as Devil the Mother and the Father as the Antison of Antigod vis-à-vis the Sacred Heart (of the Risen Christ) as Antidevil the Antimother.
120. Are any of those symbols for actual New Testament parallels actually God, much less godly? No, absolutely not! They are all distinct from anything metaphysically sensible and therefore pertinent to God as God the Father, quite apart from any instinctual, spiritual, or emotional corollaries of the intellectual - and therefore egoistic - component in the totality of metaphysically sensible factors.
121. But if implicit New Testament reference, amounting to a Catholic and therefore Christian decadence of space/time sensual hegemony is bad enough, what follows in respect of priestly recourse to the Old Testament is even worse - much worse! For such scriptural reference tends, willy-nilly, back not merely parallel to the so-called Father of New Testament usage, which would be the nature of David and the cosmos of Satan but, with sleight-of-hand, up from the so-called Father to a parallel with the Risen Virgin which goes back via the nature of Saul to the cosmos of Jehovah, back through manifestations of metachemical sensuality that are sensual first movers in nature and the Cosmos which are not merely of a less devolved or somatically free disposition vis-à-vis the least devolved or somatically free disposition of contemporary New World secularity (of which cameras would appear to be the principal metachemical manifestation), but the more (compared to most) and most devolved manifestations of somatic freedom in metachemistry, and therefore the more and most evil manifestations of Devil the Mother.
122. But of course this per se manifestation of Devil the Mother which is cosmic first mover in metachemical sensuality is considered God not only by the Jews but by many if not all so-called Christians as well, whose acceptance of the Old Testament as part of the overall Bible, the so-called Christian Bible, makes them semi-Judaic in character and only too capable, when push comes to shove, of abandoning the New Testament for the largely if not completely unrelated Old Testament, abandoning the so-called Father who is really the Antison of Antigod for the so-called God Jehovah who is really Devil the Mother in Her most devolved, and therefore somatically free, manifestation, as germane to that aspect of cosmic sensuality according with stellar primacy as the basis of first mover in the Cosmos, whether in so-called polytheistic (Hindu) or so-called monotheistic (Judeo-Christian) terms.
123. Well, so much for the Old Testament! And so much for the priestly sleight-of-hand that, when push comes to shove, can jump a plane from time to space, sequential time to spatial space, and abandon mankind for both nature and especially the Cosmos, falling back from Europe to the Middle East! For the fact of Devil the Mother being in a per se manifestation in that aspect of the Cosmos according with metachemical sensuality means that, if such an entity is taken for God and worshipped as God, it is difficult if not impossible to conceive of God being bettered or outmatched anywhere else, including the sphere of mankind.
124. But if, like me - and I hope I'm not unique in this respect - you are rather of the opinion that while Devil the Mother is indeed in a devolutionary per se because most somatically free manifestation in the cosmic mode of metachemical sensuality, God the Father is only in a least evolved because least psychically free manifestation in the cosmic mode of metaphysical sensibility which, far from being a sensual first cause, is a sort of sensible last effect there, a mode of subsequent cosmic development in sensibility that would have more in common with ringed (and almost haloed) planets like Saturn than with anything avowedly stellar in character, and which is therefore of such a cosmically insignificant order as to be not only insignificant from the standpoint of natural and human manifestations of metaphysical sensibility but grossly in the shadow of Devil the Mother as that which most typifies, certainly on a galaxy-wide basis, the Cosmos and, if history is anything to judge by, prevails over both it and life on this and doubtless other planets in unequivocally diabolic terms.
125. No wonder early peoples, not least in the Middle East and similar environments especially under the stellar/solar influences of cosmic sensuality, opted to divinize the diabolic in their imaginations and to scripturally enthrone the per se manifestation of Devil the Mother as God! But Jehovah is not only not God in relation to any more developed cosmic, never mind natural or human, sphere of existence according, in complete contrast to anything metachemically sensual, with metaphysical sensibility, 'He' is not even commensurate with the so-called Father of New Testament usage, Who obviously has some Christian-type relation to both a Mother and a Son (though seemingly not a Daughter), and Who would derive, in a manner of parallel extrapolation beyond cosmic and natural modes of metaphysical sensuality, from Satan and David as the New Testament equivalent, if such were widely acknowledged by Christians, to the 'fall guys' of the Old, being, as only male sensuality can be, under the so-called Risen Virgin who would be the New Testament parallel, for mankind, to what precedes mankind in both the Cosmos and nature, namely the Jehovahesque and Saulian reference-points for metachemical sensuality, which far from being antidivinely male are, as we have seen, diabolically female.
126. So the priest who invokes Old Testament scripture in his reference to God is taking the Christian penitent even further away from God the Father than would be the case in relation to New Testament reference, where nothing quite as bad as cosmic and natural forms - once one also embraces Allah and Mohammed in respect of metachemical sensibility at a somatic remove from psychic freedom - of perpendicular triangularity could be said to exist, even if the Christian mode of it leaves something to be desired not only from the standpoint of sensibility, not least metaphysical, but from the standpoint of what is truly contemporary in relation to New World secularity and the sort of fries-burger-cola norms that typify the post-human mode of diabolic control which, in certain respects, is superficially cyborg rather than simply human.
127. For the New World is at quite a remove, both geographically and culturally, from the Old World, meaning by and large Western Europe, and at its best, if one may speak in such paradoxical terms, it leaves the Bible behind altogether, being in the vanguard of much that is synthetically artificial and not at all human, much less natural or cosmic.
128. However, other points of view are also possible, but I shan't complicate the text with cynical or over-clever allusions, preferring to pick-up on a point alluded to above, which is that, from a Christian standpoint, God the Father is no-less inaccessible today than He was a thousand or two thousand years ago, and all because Scripture has not only the laity but the clergy in its psychological grip and precludes honesty or openness in respect of what God the Father, never mind the Son of God, the Holy Spirit of Heaven, or, more importantly than all three, Heaven the Holy Soul, actually is, and all because everything goes back to Devil the Mother hyped as God through Jehovah and there is precious little scope for extension to God the Father in consequence, extension not simply in relation to either the Cosmos or nature but to mankind and, beyond transcendental meditation, to what is destined, I feel confident, to overhaul mankind and, if contemporary secularity is anything to judge by, bring synthetic artificiality to a sensible head, the sort of head which spells the end of the world of man's dominion and the coming of the 'Kingdom of God', a 'Kingdom' in which God the Father, together with all the other components of metaphysical sensibility but especially Heaven the Holy Soul, would be not merely in a more (compared to most) evolved but, thanks to cyborgization, in a most evolved and therefore per se manifestation of psychic freedom, the freedom that (notwithstanding the inevitability of correlative modes of somatic binding of will and spirit) takes transcendentalism (and thus idealism) to a universal peak as all that was human, natural, or cosmic in that respect is shown to be less than definitively divine but simply the more (compared to most), less (compared to least), or least evolved manifestations, working backwards, of metaphysical sensibility.
129. Thus one speaks, one writes, one preaches, one theorizes not for hard-line Christians, still less pre-Christian elements who are less human than subhuman in their devotions to natural and/or cosmic modes of religion, whether divine or, more usually, otherwise, but for the urban proletariat, the majority of persons in today's post-human civilizations which stretch across the globe and are potentially if not actually universal in scope, capable of transcending both the West and the East in the name of a new and altogether superior civilization to anything that has obtained before, up to and including the Buddhist East which, while not being pre-human or subhuman in character, is still human-all-too-human in its approach to transcendentalism from the standpoint of mankind, and should be transcended or, at any rate, overtaken and rejected from the standpoint not merely of the urban proletariat but, bearing in mind their cyborg potential, of man's godlike successor, who will bring God and Heaven to peaks of metaphysical sensibility which will leave even transcendental meditation behind as a penultimate approach to and manifestation, more importantly, of God and Heaven, the definitive, because most evolved, manifestation of which can only be cyborg in character, and therefore as much beyond man - even transcendental man - as nature is/was before him and, for that very reason, the universal antithesis to the Cosmos, with its stellar polyversality and metachemical mean.
130. Out of fire came water, and out of water came vegetation (earth), and out of vegetation came air. Out of the Devil came woman, and out of woman came man, and out of man came - or will come - the Cyborg, namely God in any definitive or ultimate mode. In such fashion, it could be said that out of Hell came purgatory, and out of purgatory came the earth, and out of the earth came - or will come - Heaven. For that which is most supreme is not first but last, is not power but contentment, is not will but soul, not appearance but essence, not somatic but psychic, not female but male, not ugly but true, not hateful but joyful, not spatial but spaced, not doingful but beingful, not No but Yes, not particle but wavicle, not hot (in contrast to cold) but light (in contrast to heavy), not metachemical but metaphysical - in a word, not alpha but omega.
131. I despise and reject, absolutely and without equivocation, texts which hold the People to cosmic slavery and effective devil-worship, quite apart from any pantheistic aberrations in respect of nature or the Cosmos as a whole. I am determined that, when the People, as urban proletariat, come to vote for religious sovereignty as the proper sovereignty for those who are not merely humanistic, like the bourgeoisie and their folksy lickspittles, but post-human with cyborg potential, and a majority mandate is forthcoming from the majority population of those countries where such a paradoxical election would be both feasible and desirable (as already described in earlier texts), then everything that stands in the way of their liberation from worldly falsehood will be knocked down and destroyed, destroyed utterly and irrevocably, so that it can never come back to haunt them and seduce them from their rightful destiny in ever-increasing approximations to definitive modes of God and Heaven.
132. Now if that means that every Bible must be incinerated as a matter of religious necessity, of psychological hygiene, of ethical progress, so that the power of the lie of Jehovah posing as God and usurping truth, universality, beingful supremacy, etc., is broken and cast down into the flames of an artificial inferno akin to what had previously characterized the cremation of heathenistic individuals of a secular cast, from which it will never again arise, then so be it! And if every related matter or text must be destroyed along with it, so that it cannot live-on in some other guise to poison and restrict the minds of cyborg proletarians the way it has poisoned and continues to poison and restrict the minds of their folksy counterparts and bourgeois exploiters, then so be it!
133. If I am to be falsely accused of anti-Semitism in terms of my opposition to the Bible, with its Hebrew origins in the lie of Jehovah, let it be said here and now, before fools jump on the denigratory bandwagon out of envy and petty spite, that this opposition is decidedly metaphysical, not physical, and has no bearing whatsoever on Jews, none of whom can be held responsible for the Book in question, most of which, in its Hebrew origins, pre-dates anything Jewish, and a goodly portion of which owes more to Greeks and Romans.
134. I am, as the reader will gather, a Social Theocrat, that radical left-wing parallel for those of the ascending axis to the Social Democratic nadir of the descending one, and Social Theocracy appeals, above all at this point in time, to Celts, especially though not exclusively to Irish Celts, who, in the British Isles not least, are highlanders, not lowlanders, and can be expected to rise above the bog of physiological opposition to everything Jewish such that characterized Nazism to the airy heights of a psychological purification of life which will leave the world in no doubt that, though historical parallels could be inferred to exist, whether in relation to National Socialism or otherwise, such a metaphysical approach to the problem, from a contemporary European standpoint, of Hebrew/Jewish irrelevance exists on an altogether higher and finer basis to anything physical, and takes the liberation and maturation process of a North-European people a stage further along the road of its development, a stage beyond mere physical opposition to Jews to the end, commensurate, in contrast it may be to any Hitlerian first judgement of a metachemically-based alpha nature, with an omega-oriented Last Judgement, of delivering a people - and eventually all peoples - from the kind of chemically-based psychological poisoning which slavish, uncritical adherence to certain ancient texts, including the so-called Holy Bible, inevitably entails, not least in respect to the domination of print as a textural mean.
135. Thus as 'the antichemical' were delivered from punishment to crime by the metachemical elimination of 'the physical', so Social Theocracy, if it is to fulfil its potential for moral liberation, must see to it that 'the antiphysical' are delivered from sin to grace by the metaphysical elimination of 'the chemical', and rid first its own country and then, by extrapolation, other kindred countries, and eventually all countries, of such religious poison as psychologically undermines the soul and numbs the ego, bringing one to an unholy worship, as a male, of free will and spirit, power and glory, to the detriment of form and contentment.
136. It has been said that one must know oneself as a precondition, as a male, of being oneself or, more properly, one's self. That is absolutely true! Without egoistic knowledge of self there can be no psychoistic pleasure in self, no joy in self without truth to self, no emotional redemption without intellectual mediation through meditation. Truth to self is the precondition of joy in self, metaphysical knowledge (truth) in God the Father the precondition of metaphysical pleasure (joy) in Heaven the Holy Soul, even if such a heaven presupposes, in some synthetically artificial manner for the future, recourse to the metaphysically somatic equivalents of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, neither of which are anything but means to the resurrection of God the Father in Heaven the Holy Soul, and thus to the transcendence of ego-self in soul-self via the relevant modes of bound will and spirit, of antiwill and antispirit, accruing to the relevant not-selves. Know thy self by all means, but know thy self in order, ultimately, to be thy self. For just as there is a difference in metaphysical soma between lungs and breath, so there is a difference in metaphysical psyche between brain stem and spinal cord, and only in the latter, only in perfect harmony with the latter, is joy and thus heaven achieved!
137. All that remains is that we should clear away the obstacles to the realization of that joy, and then no scripture-bound priest on earth will be able to hold back that which, in the urban proletariat, is already knocking on the door of heaven but still, alas, prevented from entering it by dint of what still officially passes for truth but is fundamentally and even materially so contrary to it as to remain a Lie, and thus the enemy not only of God the Father, but of God's universal self-overcoming in the name of Heaven the Holy Soul.
LONDON 2003 (Revised 2004-10)