THE QUEST FOR TRUTH
AND THE MEANING OF LIFE –
An aphoristic philosophy project deriving from articles originally published at Helium.com
By John O’Loughlin, aka johalin,
Who has written on a variety of predetermined subjects and questions which have since been extensively revised and reformatted in the interests of this e-scroll presentation.
Copyright © 2008-2010 John O’Loughlin
1. The Quest for Truth and the Meaning of Life
2. The Human Condition
3. Perspectives on Class in Modern Society
4. Attempting to Define God
5. What is Religion and what is it all about?
6. Should the Bible continue to be used in Swearing-in Ceremonies and in Courtrooms?
7. Reflections: My Father
8. The Pros and Cons of having a Y chromosome
9. The Concept of Good and Evil, Positive and Negative
10. Discussing the concept of Moral Truth
11. Comparative Ethics: A Historical View
12. Recognizing the Big Picture when Contemplating Life
13. What does Freedom mean to you, and does Absolute Freedom exist?
14. Why Moral Relativism is wrong
15. The Role of Philosophy in Religion
16. Who is Virtuous?
THE QUEST FOR TRUTH AND THE MEANING OF LIFE
The quest for truth as the meaning of life is only one of a number of quests or meanings which life vouchsafes its human beings. I personally – or perhaps one should say ‘universally’ – have made the quest for truth and, I believe, achievement of it the meaning or purpose of my existence, thereby enriching my life. But those with a metaphysical bent, who are more likely to be divinely male and classless, are always up against the other types that life throws-up from out the pluralistic chaos and manifoldness of her will.
There are people who get their purpose from knowledge and are arguably physical and more likely to be male on masculine rather than divine terms; others who get it from strength and are more likely to be chemical and female on feminine as opposed to diabolic (superfeminine) terms; yet others whose raison d’être would appear to be the pursuit of beauty from a metachemical disposition the opposite of their chemical counterparts, whom I would describe, despite appearances to the contrary, as diabolical.
Truth is airy, knowledge vegetative, strength watery, and beauty fiery. I say nothing of their respective upended gender counterparts, who will be more against the corresponding gender virtue, or freedom, in sensuality or sensibility, depending on the case, than strictly of the virtue, whether heathen or christian, superheathen or superchristian, that reigns over them.
But the Beautiful and the True are incompatible, as, to a lesser extent, are the Strong and the Knowledgeable. If life were only one thing, say meaning achieved through Truth, it would be a lot different from how it is, and doubtless anyone who seriously entertains the prospect of or hope for ‘Kingdom Come’, as a society governed by godly criteria, would approve of a life governed by Truth. But then not only the Strong, but the Beautiful and the Knowledgeable would have to have been defeated and consigned to the proverbial rubbish heap of history. Some task!
I fear that gender and class rivalry, with conflicting meanings and virtues, will persist in the world for some time yet, and the world will continue, in consequence, to be a place which defies a single meaning because it is by nature heterogeneous and more disposed, if truth be told, to phenomenal virtues like strength and knowledge than to their noumenal counterparts.
Otherworldly virtues like Truth, whose raison d’être, as a godly thing, is Joy, its heavenly reward, have always been against ‘the world’, and can only emerge to any appreciable extent at the expense not only of ‘the world’, but of those netherworldly forces, like beauty and love, which normally prevail over it.
THE HUMAN CONDITION
You cannot understand the human condition, torn as it is between gender conflict, without understanding psychology and physiology, and you can’t understand psychology without physiology or physiology without psychology, since the two aspects of the totality of factors somatic and psychic ‘hang together’, though with different ratios, depending on gender and class.
Females, I have long believed, are more physiology than psychology, males, by contrast, more psychology than physiology, since in the one case soma precedes psyche (and literally predominates over it), whereas in the other case, that of males, psyche precedes soma, (and consequently tends to preponderate over it), thereby indicating that the genders are in effect opposites, with correspondingly opposite concepts of self.
Self for the female is basically somatic, for the male it is essentially psychic. Therein lie the roots of the gender friction and so-called ‘war of the sexes’. Self is whatever is free and the female, if left to her own sensuous devices, will opt for somatic freedom and psychic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma or as chemical bound psyche to chemical free soma. By contrast, the male, if left to his own devices, will more than likely opt for psychic freedom and somatic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as physical bound soma to physical free psyche or as metaphysical bound soma to metaphysical free psyche.
Therefore self for the male is the opposite of what it is for the female, psyche taking precedence over soma as psychology or physiology in one of two class/elemental ways: either relatively (2½:1½) as more (relative to most) psyche/less (relative to least) soma, or absolutely (3:1) as most psyche/least soma, the former corresponding to a conscious/unsensuous (nurtural/unnatural) disposition in physics, the latter to a superconscious/subsensuous (supernurtural/subnatural) disposition in metaphysics.
With the female, on the other hand, soma takes precedence over psyche as physiology over psychology in one of two class/elemental ways: either absolutely (3:1) as most soma/least psyche, or relatively (2½:1½) as more (relative to most) soma/less (relative to least) psyche, the former corresponding to a supersensuous/subconscious (supernatural/subnurtural) disposition in metachemistry, the latter to a sensuous/unconscious (natural/unnurtural) disposition in chemistry.
Of course, there are more than four elemental positions at stake when it comes to axial polarities of either a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate order, since the hegemonic triumph or prevalence of the one gender presupposes and necessitates the upending and subordination of the other, whether as antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (state-hegemonically polar to the southeast point of it), as antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass (church-hegemonically polar to the northeast point of it), as antichemistry under physics at the southeast point of the said compass (state-hegemonically polar to the northwest point of it), or as antimetachemistry under metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (church-hegemonically polar to the southwest point of it).
But even the ‘antipositions’ under the hegemonic ones, whether noumenally unequivocal or phenomenally equivocal, absolute or relative, reflect ratios of soma to psyche or of psyche to soma, depending on the upended gender, corresponding to their class/elemental positions, and are therefore distinct from the controlling gender a plane above them in each class/elemental instance.
Antimetaphysics is not a context, like metachemistry, of a supersensuous/subconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subsensuous and anti-superconscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to supersensuousness/subconsciousness to obtain from within a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.
Conversely antimetachemistry, across the noumenal axial divide, is not a context, like metaphysics, of a superconscious/subsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subconscious and anti-supersensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to superconsciousness/subsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.
And what applies to the noumenal positions applies no less to their phenomenal counterparts, antiphysics not being a context, like chemistry, of a sensuous/unconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unsensuous and anti-conscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to sensuousness/unconsciousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.
Conversely antichemistry, across the phenomenal axial divide, is not a context, like physics, of a conscious/unsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unconscious and anti-sensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to consciousness/unsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.
But, of course, subversion of the equivocally hegemonic positions by their upended subordinate counterparts at the behest of the axially polar unequivocally hegemonic positions results in a switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the chemical/antiphysical case and from psyche to soma in the physical/antichemical case, in order that either church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, by contrast, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics can be axially established and duly maintained, to the advantage of axial stability and continuity.
For the Catholic southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is no more heathenistic in somatic emphasis than the Puritan southeast point of it is overly Christianistic, so to speak, in psychic emphasis. Free psyche to bound psyche in the one axial case, free soma to bound soma in the other, would seem to be the guarantors of either church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic criteria, for both genders.
But that is another subject and one I have said much about in the past and could say a lot more about in the present, were I not minded of the principal topic of this article, which is of the ratios between psyche and soma or soma and psyche, according to gender and class. We do not understand female psychology unless we are aware of the physiology which conditions it, making for subconsciousness in relation to supersensuousness in metachemistry and for unconsciousness in relation to sensuousness in chemistry. Likewise, we shall not understand male physiology unless we are aware of the psychology which conditions it, making for unsensuousness in relation to consciousness in physics and for subsensuousness in relation to superconsciousness in metaphysics.
Needless to say, both these class positions are incompatible, since you cannot, as a male, be conscious/unsensuous and superconscious/subsensuous at the same time, any more than females could transcend their class distinctions and be both supersensuous/subconscious and sensuous/unconscious at the same time. But, then, compatibility is not an issue from an axial standpoint, which ensures that either antichemistry is polar to metachemistry and physics polar to antimetaphysics or, across the axial divide, that antiphysics is polar to metaphysics and chemistry polar to antimetachemistry. The physical and the metaphysical are not ethnically aligned. Nor are their chemical and metachemical counterparts.
PERSPECTIVES ON CLASS IN MODERN SOCIETY
Class comes in different shapes and sizes, but is always either noumenal or phenomenal, that is, of an ethereal or a corporeal nature. There are ‘upper class’ types in the former, and ‘lower class’ types in the latter, but it is not simply a matter of upper and lower. Each of these is divisible between what could be called the alpha and the omega of class, whether in terms of upper-class types vis-à-vis classless types on the noumenal planes of space and time, or in terms of lower-class types vis-à-vis middle-class types on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass.
But that would only apply to the hegemonic gender, not to their ‘upended’ antigender counterparts who make the hegemonic sway of the free gender, be it female (and upper-class/lower-class) or male (and classless/middle-class) possible and viable. Without anti-classless antimales in antimetaphysics, there would be few if any upper-class females in metachemistry at the northwest point of what I like to think of as the intercardinal axial compass. Similarly, without anti-upperclass antifemales in antimetachemistry, there would be few if any classless males in metaphysics at the northeast point of the said compass.
Down below, in the phenomenal and/or corporeal realms of volume and mass, it is equally fair to say that without anti-middleclass antimales in antiphysics (the mass ‘male’ catholic position), there would be few if any lower-class females in chemistry at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Similarly, without anti-lowerclass antifemales in antichemistry, there would be few if any middle-class males in physics at the southeast point of the said compass.
For just as, in the noumenal realms of space and time (duly divisible between space and anti-time on the one hand, and time and anti-space on the other), the anti-classless preclude classless competition for the upper class and, conversely, the anti-upperclass preclude upper-class competition for the classless, so, in the phenomenal realms of volume and mass (duly divisible between volume and anti-mass on the one hand, and mass and anti-volume on the other hand), the anti-middleclass preclude middle-class competition for the lower class while, conversely, the anti-lowerclass preclude lower-class competition for the middle-class.
Therefore a polarity axially exists between an upper-class/anti-classless reality and a middle-class/anti-lowerclass reality on the one hand, and between a lower-class/anti-middleclass reality and a classless/anti-upperclass reality on the other hand, the former polarities (subject to modification in terms of strict gender polarity that undermines the phenomenal hegemonic position) constitutive of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, the latter polarities (again subject to modification in terms of strict gender polarity that undermines the phenomenal hegemonic position) constitutive of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, with, in consequence, a kind of British/Irish dichotomy between the two axes.
Such, in a nutshell, is how I understand class, and it is as likely as not that I have the most logically consistent insight into class as is humanly or, rather, superhumanly possible.
ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE GOD
People speak too much about God and not enough about metaphysics, the religious context or element par excellence. Such a context, which is rather more airy than fiery, watery, or earthy (vegetative), is the element of soul par excellence, and therefore although ego figures as the other aspect of self which has to be addressed, it is less important and significant of metaphysics than soul, which corresponds not to God but to Heaven. God’s raison d’être is to attain to Heaven, ego into soul, via bound will and bound spirit, for in metaphysics, a male context, self is free and determines the binding of not-self, as soma to psyche.
But the ratio of ego to soul in free self, as of God to Heaven, changes from metaphysical context to context, beginning, I shall contend, with most ego and least soul in cosmic metaphysics, progressing to more (relative to most) ego and less (relative to least) soul in natural metaphysics, progressing from less (relative to least) ego and more (relative to most) soul in human metaphysics, and culminating, to anticipate the future, in least ego and most soul in cyborg metaphysics, the definitive because truly universal, or global, stage of metaphysics.
Therefore the religious context par excellence of metaphysics – excluding the all-too-prevalent metachemical, chemical, and physical ‘bovaryizations’ of religion typifying most so-called religious traditions – is ultimately less about God than about Heaven, and the attainment of Heaven is, to repeat, God’s raison d’être.
Unfortunately, when people speak about God or theorize about God it is usually within one or other of the ‘bovaryized’ contexts of religion that owe less to metaphysics than to metachemistry, chemistry, or physics, viz. fire, water, or earth (vegetation), as the case may be, and thus to the diabolic, the feminine, or the masculine rather than to the divine as such which, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding, has tended to be marginalized if not excluded from Western and indeed most Eastern traditions.
However that may be, God exists in relation to metaphysical ego, whether vis-à-vis the Cosmos, nature, man, or cyborg universality, and will be more or less prevalent depending on the stage or type of metaphysics and its relation to Heaven. In the definitive metaphysics there will be most Heaven and least God, most soul and least ego, as noted above, and therefore religion will have come clean, detached itself not only from lesser stages of metaphysics, but from everything which is either contrary to or beneath metaphysics, including the starting point of most religion in Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father which is less metaphysical than metachemical and therefore more about Beauty (and Love … in Hell the Clear Spirit) than Truth (and Joy in Heaven the Holy Soul), less, in other words, about free psyche than about its gender opposite, free soma, which is ever fiery and fundamentally to do with free will rather than the true being of free soul.
WHAT IS RELIGION AND WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
Religion is about God and God’s raison d’être. God is truth and truth is a kind of knowledge germane to metaphysical ego. Therefore metaphysical ego, as an expression of truth, is God, and God’s raison d’être is nothing else than to achieve Heaven and thus get from ego to soul, wherein truth is eclipsed, as it were, by joy. Because metaphysics is the sphere of soul par excellence, it is also the context of Heaven par excellence.
There are different stages and manifestations of metaphysics, just as there are different stages and manifestations of God and Heaven, beginning in metaphysical cosmos with a metaphysics that is least evolved and therefore one in which there is most God and least Heaven; progressing in metaphysical nature with a metaphysics that is less (compared to least) evolved and therefore one in which there is more (relative to most) God and less (relative to least) Heaven; progressing in metaphysical mankind with a metaphysics that is more (compared to most) evolved and therefore one in which there is less (relative to least) God and more (relative to most) Heaven; and culminating in metaphysical cyborgkind (to come) with a metaphysics that is most evolved and therefore one in which there is least God and most Heaven – the definitive or per se manifestation of metaphysics.
Therefore definitive metaphysics is still something for the future, since we haven’t got beyond mankind as yet and then only some parts of the world have demonstrated an aptitude for metaphysics to any genuine extent. Most religious traditions are based or centred on something less, including the Western, which is basically chemical/antiphysical and/or physical/antichemical, with a metachemical/antimetaphysical anchor derived from the Middle East.
Even Roman Catholicism falls short of metaphysics to the degree that it subsumes such metaphysics as is postulated in the concept of ‘Risen Saviour’ into antimetachemistry, ‘doing down’ what should, in the crucifixional paradigm of bound metaphysical soma, approximate to lungs and breath from fear that the TM cat, so to speak, might get out of the bag of ‘sacred lungs’ at the expense not only of the masses, but of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father metachemically in back of both phenomenal and noumenal, physical and metaphysical, orders of sensibility.
Therefore the metaphysical factor is subsumed into antimetachemistry ‘sacred heart’-wise, and that in turn subordinated to metachemistry over antimetaphysics in back, where Old Testament criteria going all the way back to the Middle East invariably obtain. The result – a mankind mode of perpendicular triangularity that can be so easily eclipsed, when push comes to shove, by natural and cosmic unequivocal modes of such triangularity, to the detriment of religious freedom.
For metaphysics over antimetachemistry spells the end of perpendicular triangularity of whatever sort, including the contemporary ‘cyborgistic’ mode of it dominated by cameras and, hence, film. But then metaphysics, as a male element, over antimetachemistry, its upended, or antifemale, corollary could only exist at the expense of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, with its female and antimale implications, and that is something Western traditions, superheathenistically rooted in the Middle East, have never seriously countenanced, since it would imply a repudiation of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father (or metachemistry hyped as metaphysics, or the polyversal cosmos hyped as universal) and a more elitist approach to religion reminiscent of the Buddhist Far East.
However, even transcendental meditation, as an expression of divine ego utilizing lungs and breath to achieve heavenly perfection in the soul, is of mankind, and therefore an Eastern shortfall from global requirement, which will require the transcendence of mankind in and by cyborgkind if a more or less permanent accommodation of soulfulness, spinal-cord deep, is to be achieved, and achieved not, needless to say, by anything so naturalistic and elitist as TM, but through recourse to synthetically artificial substances commensurate with global requirement which cyborgization will render viable (kind of Huxley rather than Jung).
However, that is still some way off, so we must remain content with knowledge as to what God is and what He is about. Metaphysical ego and soul have come a long way from their cosmic manifestations in the realm of planets like Saturn, to which certain kinds of natural visionary experiences and a deeper or more sensible approach to astrology would probably be the nearest human approach; from their natural manifestations in the realm of winged seedpods on certain trees, to which sexual yoga as practised by various Eastern adepts of a Hindu cast would evidently be the nearest human equivalence; from their human manifestations in the realm of transcendental meditation, to which breath-based meditation techniques designed to allow the self to recoil in self-preservation from the out-breath to self more profoundly (spinal-cord deep) as practised by various Eastern adepts of a Buddhist cast would doubtless be the optimum realization.
But all that is still short of a definitive metaphysics, and in such metaphysics, commensurate with communal cyborgization motivated by synthetically artificial self-enlightenment, there will ultimately be least God and most Heaven.
SHOULD THE BIBLE CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR SWEARING-IN CEREMONIES AND IN COURTROOMS?
They say the Bible is the word of God, but it is a poor type of god whose word is printerly, i.e. in print, and not of an italic writerly character whose ethereal subjectivity would be properly commensurate with a metaphysical disposition and/or dispensation – at least when monochrome, and preferably of a white-on-black rather than black-on-white nature, as though emphasizing psyche at the expense of soma, the Church at the expense, in other words, of the State.
I don’t believe the Bible as the word of God for the simple reason that God has never figured in Western civilization, only Devil the Mother hyped as God (the ‘best of a bad job’ sugar-coating of the bitter pill of overwhelming female dominance of cosmic and even natural realities and effective starting-point, in consequence, of civilization) and something extrapolated out from that which has been called ‘the Son of God’ but is really the son of something else, whether of Devil the Mother (an antigodly ‘Antichrist’), of Woman the Mother (an antimanly ‘Antichrist’) or, indirectly (in sensibility), as Son of Man (‘Man the Father’ corresponding to ‘God the Father’ being a virtually unheard of concept, though germane to psyche rather than to soma and, hence, to the church as opposed to the state) or Son of God (sic), since Devil the Mother has even the postulate of resurrection (a nonsense from any genuinely metaphysical standpoint in which the bound-somatic son is already correlatively in situ under a free-psychic father) ‘by the balls’, so to speak, and he has never amounted to anything independent of Her, like a TM so-called atheist doing his own thing independently of Creatoresque or cosmic constraints.
Anyhow, I wouldn’t want to swear on the Bible; I’d be more inclined to swear at what, to me, is an obstacle to true godliness which, at the mankind level (beyond cosmos and nature) is most approximated to in transcendental meditation, where the godly ego utilizing lungs and breath to recoil to self from the out-breath more profoundly, bypassing its starting-point to hit the soul spinal-cord deep for a second or two, corresponds to ‘God the Father’, the end-product of self-aggrandisement to ‘Heaven the Holy Soul’, the raison d’être of godliness, and the lungs and the breath to ‘the Son of God’ and ‘the Holy Spirit of Heaven’ respectively.
But that would still be godliness in mankind, as a penultimate and not ultimate, or definitive, manifestation of godliness or, more correctly, heavenliness, which will require an altogether different platform of self-realization if it is to succeed in bringing metaphysics to anything like its maximum soulfulness, so to speak – one dependent, in all likelihood, on synthetically artificial substances and coupled to cyborgization of a communal order.
That said (and this is quite another subject), the Bible is a book, and no book is worthy of a metaphysical otherworldly status, being a kind of rectilinear worldly thing corresponding, when monochromatic, to the physical/antichemical southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass in what I normally describe as something corresponding to a phenomenal mode of sensibility. Only scrolls, and these days e-scrolls (if italic writerly on white-on-black monochromatic terms) are worthy to be taken seriously as the ‘word of God’, and on that, especially in relation to my own more thematically-elevated examples which tend, in their literary collectivization, towards the communal, I would be more than prepared to swear. As for the Bible, forget it! One day it will be consigned to the rubbish heap of history, along with all those other religious and cultural anachronisms from the West or the East which fall well short of global requirement.
REFLECTIONS: MY FATHER
I have never celebrated Father’s Day for the simple reason that I never knew or saw my father. To me he is the Irishman from Galway who drunkenly made the mistake of getting involved with a woman whose mother had wanted to return to Ireland from Aldershot in England when her soldierly husband (originally from the North of Ireland) whom she had originally met while serving in Ireland died, but whose daughter had no such desires.
Unfortunately ‘Mary Aldershot’, as my father’s family apparently called my mother, soon proved incompatible with their Shamus, who got cold feet and ran out on his marriage, returning to his mother as a sort of proverbial Irish Catholic SOB.
(until I was taken away to
probably from over-drinking and over-smoking or at least partly in
of that, I was in Aldershot, where my mother and grandmother had been
to return when their pub license fell through or they could no longer
run the pub, as the case may be. But there was no mention of Shamus
married or produced a son, back in
Not that I make a point of going back there and risk being singled out by some knowing folks and smartarses as Shamus’s effective bastard, or anything of the kind. I keep my distance, since I despise everything those sort of people stand for, not least religious bigotry and social hypocrisy. If I had a father he was one in name only, without parental substance. He remains for me a nonentity, and I rarely waste any time thinking about him or what he might have been like.
I don’t dote on my mother either, since, born and bred in Aldershot, she didn’t really want to go to Ireland with her mother in the first place, and when the mother died and was returned, post-mortem, to Ireland for burial, she lost little time in packing me off to a Protestant children’s home and effectively washing her hands of the whole sorry affair.
a father to protect you,
when you have only a mother and grandmother whom you saw too much of as
and didn’t like much of what you saw, when you’re not in your rightful
but in one that has traditionally always been at variance with it if
avowed ethnic enemy, there is no reason to suppose that your mother is
be greatly thrilled to have the burden of bringing you up without the
of a husband or that she will greatly relish having you there in the
place, other things considered. The
death and repatriation of her mother cleared the way for her to address
problem and address it she did, even though I ceased to attend a
school and became a reluctant Protestant in the institution (Baptist)
(Anglican) to which I was sent in Carshalton,
Parents? I detest them! They screwed one another over and up and they screwed me over and up, leaving me with nothing to inherit, not even a low-earning business from a father who apparently wasn’t smart enough to own one. I don’t have any interest in either of them, and I have not become one myself. How could I? I never had the benefit of a father to play with or teach me anything, and, growing up solitary and sedentary, I certainly couldn’t play father to anyone else without having had such a benefit personally. It would be asking too much of me, be too much of an imposition and unreasonable responsibility.
As for the Irish ... forget it. To me, who is as it were reluctantly and in spite of himself Irish if only because of his father’s genes, which I can do little or nothing about, they are guilty until proven innocent and, because of their sin-wallowing traditions, innocent they very rarely are, especially of narrow-mindedness.
THE PROS AND CONS OF HAVING A Y CHROMOSOME
The XY chromosomal integrity of the male, so paradoxically combining the physical with the metaphysical, has always meant that his Achilles heel, so to speak, is the X of physical departure from and, in an underlining sense, support for the Y which, no matter how inevitable and even humanly desirable, always leaves him vulnerable to female predation from the opposing chromosomal standpoints of the metachemical and chemical XX’s, with especial immediate, or short-term, reference to the former, the fiery nature (supernature) of which is commensurate with beauty and love, both of which conspire to exploit the physical vulnerability (old adam) of the male in the (ungodly) interests of reproduction (the ‘increasing and multiplying’ of Old Testament sanction), so that he becomes the plaything and, to some extent, devotee of female beauty (and love), deferring, artist-like, to the whorish freedom a plane above him at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where metachemistry reigns over pseudo-metaphysics, and ceases, in consequence, to live in and for his Y at the northeast point of the said compass, much as Adam fell from his Edenic innocence once he had allowed Eve to seduce him (with the apple of forbidden knowledge, i.e. carnal knowledge) and ceased to be true to his self (his metaphysical self), with consequences with which we are only too familiar!
For it was from the tree of forbidden knowledge, corresponding to the physical X, that the apple was plucked, and it was thanks to its appeal to the ‘old Adam’ in him, his baser or lower self, that he was seduced and duly found himself, all too inevitably, cast out of the Edenic paradise of perfect self-harmony in metaphysical acknowledgement of and loyalty to the Y of his deeper and higher self.
Thus from the curse of Adam, the self-divisions of physical X and metaphysical Y, came the ‘fall of man’ from his godly image or likeness, a fall at first not self-evident if only because the offering of an XX-chromosomal seduction by the female has its roots in the metachemical self of beauty and love, thereby providing something higher than – and axially contrary to – the physical X of his lower self.
But this metachemical X, rooted in somatic freedom, is only a means for the female to a lower end, the end, once the male Y has been twisted to a loving admiration, artist-like, of female beauty at the expense of joyful self-awareness, of the chemical X in the surrogate plenum (for someone rooted, as females are, in a vacuum) of maternal resolution, the X of strength and pride that has little or no time (or inclination) for the placating of physical knowledge and pleasure, duly carnally debased, through beauty and love because it has other – and better – things to do or to concern itself with, things that will increasingly marginalize the X of the male even as it was formerly held in an XX-chromosomal grip and unable to be true to its Y, something which in the XX-X context (or predicament) of worldly subjection is even more remote, and to the point where the justification for faith (by the Y-severed male, or pseudo-male) in messianic intervention in order to return him, duly transfigured, to the Y of his youthful idealism and almost Edenic innocence, through the process of deliverance known as salvation, is virtually inevitable.
For salvation (from the world of his self-denying predicament at the hands of maternal resolution of the female) is for the male, more specifically the pseudo-masculine male of pseudo-physics, and involves his restoration to the godly heights of perfect self-transcendence in Y-chromosomal truth to metaphysical self, which is of the Soul. His rise, should it transpire, and restoration to an Edenic-like innocence, presupposes the concomitant counter-fall, or counter-damnation, of the chemical female, the feminine female, to the pseudo-devilish or pseudo-diabolic counter-depths of pseudo-metachemical binding, wherein the free somatic X of metachemical selfhood, duly severed from the free somatic X of chemical selfhood, will be neutralized, so that never again will beauty and love be able to seduce knowledge and pleasure in the interests of strength and pride to the detriment – and exclusion – of truth and joy. Never again, in other words, will the free will of metachemistry, rooted in free soma, be able to seduce the free ego of physics from its support of the free soul, centred in free psyche, of metaphysics in the name of the free spirit of chemistry, rooted, below, in the somatic freedom of maternity.
In a world – necessarily otherworldly in its metaphysical aspects – characterized, on the other hand, by free soul, there could be no place for free ego, much less free spirit or free will. Therefore the binding of will shall accompany, in pseudo-metachemistry, the freeing of soul through metaphysics, as the Lord Y (more than Yahweh, Yoni, Yogi, etc, and effectively the Yohalin precondition of perfect Y-ness for the religiously sovereign [a subject I have gone into elsewhere]) reigns over the neutralized X of the vanquished female, the avenging angel, when necessary, of the Lord Y whose paradise will be for ever, lasting, in other words, for all Eternity in the cyborg-oriented metaphysical structure of a St George and the (prone or neutralized or slain) Dragon-like parallelism, a parallelism which, for all eternity, will signify the dragon, or lion, that, duly neutralized, ‘lies down’ ... in pseudo-metachemical subjection ... with the lamb of God, whose metaphysical joy in perfect Y-contentedness will be all the sweeter.
THE CONCEPT OF GOOD AND EVIL, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
People tend, erroneously, to think of evil and good as equivalent to black and white, or bright and dark, or light and shade, as though they were two sides of the same elemental coin, say the beauty and love of metachemical free soma vis-à-vis the ugliness and hate of metachemical bound psyche, the absolute (noumenal) female actuality of metachemistry (corresponding elementally to fire), so that the positive aspect of the duality is identified with good, and the negative aspect thereof with evil. Wrong!
Applied to the airy element of metaphysics, truth and joy, corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, would equate with good, and illusion and woe, corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, would equate, by contrast, with evil.
But would Christians accept as gospel that they have a tradition of worshipping evil … in the form of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, i.e., the bound soma of metaphysics which in simple black and white terms would equate with the latter, i.e., with what is dark, negative, vicious, etc. I rather doubt it! Even if the other elements, like chemistry and physics, corresponding to water and earth (vegetation), didn’t also expose, when analyzed in such fashion, the absurdity of such a theory or approach to good and evil, metaphysics and even metachemistry should suffice to do so; though in the latter case the discrepancy would be somewhat less obvious if only because traditional or conventional religion is less disposed to dealing with terms equivalent to the above (God the Father, etc.) like Devil and Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit, never mind the Daughter of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell.
For the idea that beauty and love, being positive, must be good would be difficult for an average person to disprove even if he or she were not also of the opinion that ugliness and hate, the other side of the metachemical coin, were patently evil. In reality, however, ugliness and hate are not evil but that which, appertaining to metachemical bound psyche, corresponds to crime as something conditioned by the evil of free metachemical soma, i.e. beauty and love, as the negative converse of a positive precondition, soma preceding and predominating over psyche on a 3:1 basis in the noumenal absolutism of this particular female element.
Therefore evil precedes and predominates, in metachemistry, over crime, as beauty and love over ugliness and hate on the aforementioned ratio basis which ensures that, come what may, evil corresponds to the brightness of free soma and crime to the darkness of bound psyche, with goodness and its corollary punishment having nothing whatsoever to do with such a dichotomy because axially polar, in pseudo-chemistry, to metachemistry as physically-conditioned bound soma to free psyche, the physical, or masculine-male element, equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry in the phenomenal relativity of the context in question (at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) in such fashion that the pseudo-feminine pseudo-element is disposed to exist on a basis contrary to female nature to the extent that its soma remains bound (and good) while its psyche becomes free (and punishing … from a female standpoint naturally intended, be it not forgotten, for free soma and bound psyche), and therefore establishes an axial polarity with metachemistry in terms of the goodness of bound pseudo-chemical soma vis-à-vis the evil of free metachemical soma on the one hand, that of primary state-hegemonic criteria, and the punishment (or punishingness) of free pseudo-chemical psyche vis-à-vis the crime of bound metachemical psyche on the other hand, that of primary church-subordinate criteria, the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-divine male position pseudo-elementally subordinate to metachemistry and the physical masculine-male position equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry constitutive, by contrast, of secondary state-hegemonic (soma) and church-subordinate (psyche) criteria on an axis that, stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, is ever contrary to (and in schismatic opposition with) the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of chemistry over pseudo-physics and metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry that stretches from the southwest to the northeast points of the said compass virtually as an Irish Catholic alternative to British Protestant criteria.
Be that as it may, evil and good are not, like virtue and vice or negativity and positivity, two sides of the same (elemental) coin, but, as argued above, are axially polar, and then, where their pristine (or female) manifestations are concerned, on unequal moral terms, the terms of moral evil and crime (3:1) vis-à-vis unmoral good and punishment (2½:1½) which contrasts not only with their amoral and immoral counterparts (a different subject), but with the unmoral pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysics, and the moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom of physics, the moral positions always hegemonic and the unmoral ones gender-subordinate, while amorality corresponds to a descent from above (the moral elemental positions) and immorality to an ascent from below (the unmoral elemental or, rather, pseudo-elemental positions), about which I have theorized at some length elsewhere and will not further elaborate on here in consequence.
But just imagine the consequences of applying the erroneous notions of bright-good and dark-evil to pseudo-chemistry! The punishing factor, corresponding to free psyche, would be regarded as good, and the good factor, corresponding to bound soma, as evil! This is, of course, a contradiction in terms. For goodness is bound, negative, vicious, and dark here, whereas punishment is free, positive, virtuous, and bright, if only on a 1½ as opposed to a 2½ ratio basis (given the phenomenal female gender actuality of 2½-soma:1½-psyche), and then only because of masculine-male, i.e. physical, hegemonic pressure, wherein the ratio of free psyche to bound soma is 2½:1½, and less in relation to psychic punishment and somatic goodness than to (in contrast with the genuineness of metaphysics) pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, the knowledge and pleasure of physical free psyche and the ignorance and pain of physical bound soma, both of which, corresponding to an equivocally hegemonic element, are moral, if with virtuous and vicious, bright and dark, implications.
Pseudo-chemistry, of course, is not about the free psyche of knowledge and pleasure, and the bound soma of ignorance and pain, but about pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (bound soma) and pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride (free psyche), the former pseudo-chemical pairing corresponding to primary phenomenal state-hegemonic criteria and the latter to primary phenomenal church-subordinate criteria at the southeast point of the axis in question, polar, be it not forgotten, to evil and crime, and thus to the primary noumenal state-hegemonic actualities of beauty and love on the one hand, and the primary noumenal church-subordinate actualities of ugliness and hate on the other hand, the latter owing more, in all probability, to the Old Testament than ever they do to the New, not least in respect, traditionally, of a King James biblical opposition to and/or contrast with the Gideon New Testament pretensions to religious independence of the Puritans.
DISCUSSING THE CONCEPT OF MORAL TRUTH
Although I have written recently of distinctions at all points of the intercardinal axial compass between morality, amorality, unmorality and immorality, with morality and unmorality the standard distinctions compared to amoral and immoral departures from above or below, as the gender-specific case may be, I should emphasize that I was generalizing rather than allowing, more categorically, for further distinctions between the genuine forms of morality, amorality, unmorality, and immorality, and their ‘pseudo’ counterparts. For, categorically speaking, such further distinctions indubitably exist, and they do so with regard to the absolute standings of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the relative standings of amorality and unmorality.
Now since the intercardinal axial compass is divisible between noumenal and phenomenal positions, corresponding to ethereal and corporeal class distinctions, it should be logically feasible to contend that only in the noumenal positions, whether in terms of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest point of the said compass or, contrariwise, in terms of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point of it, will both morality and immorality be genuine, since such positions, being noumenal, are absolute, as, in their opposite ways, are morality and immorality, with a 3:1 ratio of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to soma (male).
The amoral and unmoral positions, by contrast, will be ‘pseudo’, since existing or transpiring within the absolute parameters of the noumenal. Hence not only will pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry be symptomatic of ‘pseudo’ manifestations of unmorality, but quasi-pseudo-metaphysical departures from metachemistry in the one case, and quasi-pseudo-metachemical departures from metaphysics in the other case will also be symptomatic of the ‘pseudo’ modes of amorality.
All this, however, ceases to apply with the southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, wherein the phenomenal relativity (2½:1½) of chemistry over pseudo-physics and, across the axial divide, of physics over pseudo-chemistry will present the opposite case to anything noumenal – namely, a fundamental distinction between the ‘pseudo’ standings of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the genuine standings of amorality and unmorality, whether in terms of a 2½:1½ ratio of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to soma (male).
Hence both chemistry and physics exemplify pseudo-morality within the paradoxical standings of their phenomenal relativity, even though amoral departures from either chemistry to pseudo-physics in terms of quasi-pseudo-physics or from physics to pseudo-chemistry in terms of quasi-pseudo-chemistry will be anything but ‘pseudo’ in their accordance with relative criteria.
Just so, both pseudo-physical and pseudo-chemical modes of unmorality will be genuine in their relativity, but not the immoral departures from pseudo-physics (or, more correctly, antiphysics) of a quasi-chemical nature or from pseudo-chemistry (more correctly, antichemistry) of a quasi-physical nature, given the absolute requirements of immorality.
Thus while the noumenal positions provide logical evidence of a contrast between genuine morality and genuine immorality, whether metachemical/quasi-metachemical or, across the axial divide, metaphysical/quasi-metaphysical, their phenomenal counterparts, being relative, will logically attest to a contrast between pseudo-morality and pseudo-immorality, whether chemical/quasi-chemical or physical/quasi-physical.
Conversely, while the phenomenal positions provide logical evidence of a contrast between genuine amorality and genuine unmorality, whether quasi-pseudo-physical/pseudo-physical or, across the axial divide, quasi-pseudo-chemical/pseudo-chemical, their noumenal counterparts, being absolute, will logically attest to a contrast between pseudo-amorality and pseudo-unmorality, whether quasi-pseudo-metaphysical/pseudo-metaphysical or quasi-pseudo-metachemical/pseudo-metachemical.
In each class and/or gender context, however, there will be a balance, theoretically speaking, between the genuine and ‘pseudo’ elements, the noumenal exemplifying the genuineness of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the pseudo-ness, so to speak, of amorality and unmorality; the phenomenal, by contrast, exemplifying the genuineness of amorality and unmorality vis-à-vis the pseudo-ness of morality and immorality.
In sum, the lower orders, whether chemical/pseudo-physical at the southwest or physical/pseudo-chemical at the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, are neither as moral nor as immoral as their upper-order counterparts, while the latter, whether metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical at the northwest or metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical at the northeast points of the said compass, will be neither as amoral nor as unmoral as the lower orders. For morality and immorality, when genuine, are absolute (3:1), whereas both amorality and unmorality, to be genuine, can only be relative ().
Everything exists or has the capacity to exist everywhere, but not in the same terms or to a similar extent. The persistence of morality, amorality, unmorality, and immorality at all points of the intercardinal axial compass will continue to reflect opposing approaches to the genuine and the ‘pseudo’ even if, ultimately, it can only be a point of philosophical principle approximating to divine judgement that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry should triumph over everything else, and that genuine godly/heavenly morality should avoid any pseudo-amoral departure from itself (in quasi-pseudo-metachemical terms) in order to keep the pseudo-unmorality, corresponding to the pseudo-devilish/pseudo-hellish nature of pseudo-metachemistry, in its gender-subordinate place, the better to avoid the probability of an immoral quasi-metaphysical backlash from pseudo-metachemistry (or, more correctly, from antimetachemistry, its anti-diabolic starting point) that would be extremely bad for metaphysics proper, a context, be it not forgotten, with a 3:1 ratio (noumenal) of free psyche (in truth and joy) to bound soma (in illusion or woe) that could only suffer, possibly fatally, from a 3:1 ratio of bound soma (quasi-illusion and quasi-woe) to free psyche (quasi-truth and quasi-joy) coming up, via antimetachemistry, from the pseudo-metachemical ‘below’, where, a plane down at the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, the pseudo-female absolutism of 3:1 bound soma to free psyche would normally or habitually take the form of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred to pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love – something pseudo-diabolically acceptable from a truly divine standpoint in metaphysics.
So as long as pseudo-metachemistry is not encouraged (pseudo-amorally) to depart from itself in the aforementioned immoral manner, all will be well for metaphysics, the proverbial St George with his foot firmly planted on the neutralized dragon … of noumenal pseudo-femaleness, the pseudo-lion that not so much lies down with as under the heel of the genuine lamb, the lamb of God whose moral raison d’être, in truth, is the joy of heavenly peace in total self-unity.
COMPARATIVE ETHICS: A HISTORICAL VIEW
Metachemistry, the element of evil and crime par excellence, is also, by definition, the element of barbarity, which is vain.
Chemistry, the element of pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime par excellence, is also, by definition, the element of pseudo-barbarity, which is pseudo-vain.
Metaphysics, the element of grace and wisdom par excellence, is also, by definition, the element of culture, which is righteous.
Physics, the element of pseudo-grace and pseudo-crime par excellence, is also, by definition, the element of pseudo-culture, which is pseudo-righteous.
* * *
Pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-element of pseudo-goodness and pseudo-punishment par excellence, is also, by definition, the pseudo-element of pseudo-civility, which is pseudo-just.
Pseudo-chemistry, the pseudo-element of goodness and punishment par excellence, is also, by definition, the pseudo-element of civility, which is just.
Pseudo-metaphysics, the pseudo-element of pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly par excellence, is also, by definition, the pseudo-element of pseudo-philistinism, which is pseudo-meek.
Pseudo-physics, the pseudo-element of sin and folly par excellence, is also, by definition, the pseudo-element of philistinism, which is meek.
* * *
Metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry are polar elemental positions on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, like barbarity and civility, vanity and justice.
Pseudo-metaphysics and physics are also polar elemental positions on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, like pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture, pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness.
Metaphysics and pseudo-physics are polar elemental positions on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, like culture and philistinism, righteousness and meekness.
Pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry are also polar elemental positions on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, like pseudo-civility and pseudo-barbarity, pseudo-justice and pseudo-vanity.
* * *
Hence, in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, barbarity and civility, corresponding to metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, have to be contrasted with pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture, which correspond to pseudo-metaphysics and physics, the former polarity primarily and the latter secondarily characteristic of the axis in question, which is female-dominated, i.e. rooted metachemically in free soma.
Hence, in overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, culture and philistinism, corresponding to metaphysics and pseudo-physics, have to be contrasted with pseudo-civility and pseudo-barbarity, which correspond to pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry, the former polarity primarily and the latter secondarily characteristic of the axis in question, which is male-dominated, i.e. centred metaphysically in free psyche.
Such, in a nutshell, is the gender distinction, ethnically speaking, between British (English-dominated Protestant) and Irish (Catholic) axial relativity, a relativity torn between barbarity and civility in the one case (British) and culture and philistinism in the other (Irish).
* * *
As regards the distinction between soma and psyche, state and church, whether primary or secondary or, indeed, genuine or pseudo, we should allow for positive and negative modes of barbarity, civility, culture, and philistinism, according as to whether our focus is on the free or the bound aspect of any given element, since that which is free, whether somatic or psychic, will exemplify positive (and virtuous) forms of barbarity, civility, culture, and philistinism, whereas whatever is bound, whether psychic or somatic, can only exemplify the negative (and vicious) counterparts of the above.
Thus, on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, the positive barbarity (virtuous) of beauty and love, corresponding to the evil of metachemical free soma, has to be contrasted with the negative barbarity (vicious) of ugliness and hatred, which corresponds to the crime of metachemical bound psyche, with the former standing to the latter on the 3:1 absolute ratio basis of this noumenally objective element.
Thus the positive civility (virtuous) of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride, corresponding to the punishingness of pseudo-chemical free psyche, has to be contrasted with the negative civility (vicious) of pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility, which corresponds to the goodness of pseudo-chemical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter on the inverted relative ratio basis of this phenomenally pseudo-objective element (pseudo-element).
Likewise, if from the opposite gender standpoint to anything female, the positive pseudo-philistinism (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy, corresponding to the pseudo-folly of pseudo-metaphysical free soma, has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-philistinism (pseudo-vicious) of pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe, which corresponds to the pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, with the former standing to the latter on the 1:3 inverted absolute ratio basis of this noumenally pseudo-subjective element (pseudo-element)
Likewise, again from a male gender standpoint, the positive pseudo-culture (pseudo-virtuous) of knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to the pseudo-grace of physical free psyche, has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-culture (pseudo-vicious) of ignorance and pain, which corresponds to the pseudo-wisdom of physical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter on the 2½:1½ relative ratio basis of this phenomenally subjective element.
* * *
Thus, on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the positive culture (virtuous) of truth and joy, corresponding to the grace of metaphysical free psyche, has to be contrasted with the negative culture (vicious) of illusion and woe, which corresponds to the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter on the 3:1 absolute ratio basis of this noumenally subjective element.
Thus the positive philistinism (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure, corresponding to the folly of pseudo-physical free soma, has to be contrasted with the negative philistinism (pseudo-vicious) of pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain, which corresponds to the sinfulness of pseudo-physical bound psyche, with the former standing to the latter on the inverted relative ratio basis of this phenomenally pseudo-subjective element (pseudo-element)
Likewise, if from the opposite gender standpoint to anything male, the positive pseudo-civility (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love, corresponding to the pseudo-punishingness of pseudo-metachemical free psyche, has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-civility (pseudo-vicious) of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred, which corresponds to the pseudo-goodness of pseudo-metachemical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter on the 1:3 inverted absolute ratio basis of this noumenally pseudo-objective element (pseudo-element).
Likewise, again from a female gender standpoint, the positive pseudo-barbarity (pseudo-virtuous) of strength and pride, corresponding to the pseudo-evil of chemical free soma, has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-barbarity (pseudo-vicious) of weakness and humility (if not humiliation), which corresponds to the pseudo-criminality of chemical bound psyche, with the former standing to the latter on the 2½:1½ relative ratio basis of this phenomenally objective element.
* * *
Metachemistry = vanity = barbarity = noumenal objectivity (clearness);
Pseudo-metaphysics = pseudo-meekness = pseudo-philistinism = noumenal pseudo-subjectivity (pseudo-unholiness);
Chemistry = pseudo-vanity = pseudo-barbarity = phenomenal objectivity (pseudo-clearness);
Pseudo-physics = meekness = philistinism = phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity (unholiness);
Physics = pseudo-righteousness = pseudo-culture = phenomenal subjectivity (pseudo-holiness);
Pseudo-chemistry = justice = civility = phenomenal pseudo-objectivity (unclearness);
Metaphysics = righteousness = culture = noumenal subjectivity (holiness);
Pseudo-metachemistry = pseudo-justice = pseudo-civility = noumenal pseudo-objectivity (pseudo-unclearness).
RECOGNIZING THE BIG PICTURE WHEN CONTEMPLATING LIFE
To contrast the science and pseudo-religion of the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass … with the religion and pseudo-science of the northeast point of the said compass, as one would contrast metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics with metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry.
To contrast the politics and pseudo-economics of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass … with the economics and pseudo-politics of the southeast point of the said compass, as one would contrast chemistry and pseudo-physics with physics and pseudo-chemistry.
To contrast the evil and crime of metachemistry and the pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysics … with the grace and wisdom of metaphysics and the pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast barbarity and pseudo-philistinism with culture and pseudo-civility.
To contrast the pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime of chemistry and the folly and sin of pseudo-physics … with the pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom of physics and the punishment and goodness of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast pseudo-barbarity and philistinism with pseudo-culture and civility.
To contrast the superfemininity and submasculinity of metachemistry and the pseudo-subfemininity and pseudo-supermasculinity of pseudo-metaphysics … with the supermasculinity and subfemininity of metaphysics and the pseudo-submasculinity and pseudo-superfemininity of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast materialism/fundamentalism and pseudo-idealism/pseudo-transcendentalism with transcendentalism/idealism and pseudo-fundamentalism/pseudo-materialism.
To contrast the femininity and unmasculinity of chemistry and the pseudo-masculinity and pseudo-unfemininity of pseudo-physics … with the masculinity and unfemininity of physics and the pseudo-femininity and pseudo-unmasculinity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast naturalism/pantheism and pseudo-realism/pseudo-humanism with humanism/realism and pseudo-pantheism/pseudo-naturalism.
To contrast the superheathenism and subchristianity of metachemistry and the pseudo-subheathenism and pseudo-superchristianity of pseudo-metaphysics … with the superchristianity and subheathenism of metaphysics and the pseudo-subchristianity and pseudo-superheathenism of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast vanity and pseudo-meekness with righteousness and pseudo-justice.
To contrast the heathenism and unchristianity of chemistry and the pseudo-christianity and pseudo-unheathenism of pseudo-physics … with the Christianity and unheathenism of physics and the pseudo-heathenism and pseudo-unchristianity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast pseudo-vanity and meekness with pseudo-righteousness and justice.
To contrast the supersensuousness and subconsciousness of metachemistry and the pseudo-subsensuousness and pseudo-superconsciousness of pseudo-metaphysics … with the superconsciousness and subsensuousness of metaphysics and the pseudo-subconsciousness and pseudo-supersensuousness of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast free will and bound soul with free soul and bound will.
To contrast the sensuousness and unconsciousness of chemistry and the pseudo-consciousness and pseudo-unsensuousness of pseudo-physics … with the consciousness and unsensuousness of physics and the pseudo-sensuousness and pseudo-unconsciousness of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast free spirit and bound ego with free ego and bound spirit.
To contrast the supernaturalism and subnurturalism of metachemistry and the pseudo-subnaturalism and pseudo-supernurturalism of pseudo-metaphysics … with the supernurturalism and subnaturalism of metaphysics and the pseudo-subnurturalism and pseudo-supernaturalism of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast protons and pseudo-photons with photons and pseudo-protons.
To contrast the naturalism and unnurturalism of chemistry and the pseudo-naturalism and pseudo-unnurturalism of pseudo-physics … with the nurturalism and unnaturalism of physics and the pseudo-naturalism and pseudo-unnurturalism of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast electrons and pseudo-neutrons with neutrons and pseudo-electrons.
To contrast the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound) clear morality of metachemistry and the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-unholy pseudo-unmorality of pseudo-metaphysics … with the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound) holy morality of metaphysics and the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-unclear pseudo-unmorality of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast space and pseudo-time with time and pseudo-space.
To contrast the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-clear pseudo-morality of chemistry and the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound) unholy unmorality of pseudo-physics … with the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-holy pseudo-morality of physics and the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound) unclear unmorality of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast volume and pseudo-mass with mass and pseudo-volume.
Although both metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand and metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry on the other reflect parallel distinctions between the genuine and pseudo elements, as regards an unequivocally hegemonic and an unequivocally subordinate gender position, the same cannot be said of chemistry and pseudo-physics on the one hand and of physics and pseudo-chemistry on the other, since in each case the hegemonic position is merely equivocal and the subordinate position likewise, if subject to primary (as against secondary) polar interplay with its corresponding gender element in the unequivocally hegemonic position to which it is axially polar, which element, whether metachemical or metaphysical, indirectly causes a subversive switch of emphasis on the subordinate position from soma to psyche or from psyche to soma, as the gender case may be, in consequence of which the equivocally hegemonic element, be it chemical or physical, is forced into a secondary (as against primary) polar relationship with its corresponding gender polarity in the unequivocally subordinate position contrary to it, making for either secondary (as against primary) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate or state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial relativity vis-à-vis its primary counterpart on the opposite side of the gender fence, be that male or female.
Hence the secondary standing of chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry to pseudo-physics and metaphysics on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, and hence, too, the secondary standing of physics and pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-chemistry and metachemistry on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which stretches, by contrast, from the southeast to the northwest points of the said compass.
But even without overall axial relativity, or interaction between the noumenal and phenomenal like-gender positions, chemistry would be pseudo-clear vis-à-vis the clearness of metachemistry, while pseudo-physics would be unholy vis-à-vis the pseudo-unholiness of pseudo-metaphysics, if only because two genuine or, for that matter, pseudo positions cannot co-exist as noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, absolute or relative pairings.
And the same, of course, applies to the pseudo-holiness of physics vis-à-vis the holiness of metaphysics on the one hand, and the unclearness of pseudo-chemistry vis-à-vis the pseudo-unclearness of pseudo-metachemistry on the other hand.
The clearness of metachemistry is vain, whereas the pseudo-holiness of pseudo-metaphysics is pseudo-meek. Hence the viable co-existence of vanity with pseudo-meekness, like space with pseudo-time, devilishness/hellishness with pseudo-godliness/pseudo-heavenliness, elemental particles with elemental pseudo-wavicles.
Conversely, the holiness of metaphysics is righteous, whereas the pseudo-unclearness of pseudo-metachemistry is pseudo-just. Hence the viable co-existence of righteousness with pseudo-justice, like time with pseudo-space, godliness/heavenliness with pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness, elemental wavicles with elemental pseudo-particles.
Likewise, the pseudo-clearness of chemistry is pseudo-vain, whereas the unholiness of pseudo-physics is meek. Hence the viable co-existence of pseudo-vanity with meekness, like volume with pseudo-mass, womanliness/purgatory with pseudo-manliness/pseudo-earthiness, molecular particles with molecular pseudo-wavicles.
Conversely, the pseudo-holiness of physics is pseudo-righteous, whereas the unclearness of pseudo-chemistry is just. Hence the viable co-existence of pseudo-righteousness with justice, like mass with pseudo-volume, manliness/earthiness with pseudo-womanliness/pseudo-purgatory, molecular wavicles with molecular pseudo-particles.
Thus the primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity of metachemical vanity and pseudo-chemical justice, with the axial polarity of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-meekness and physical pseudo-righteousness secondarily state-hegemonic/church-subordinate.
One can be damned from vanity to justice and counter-saved from pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness.
Likewise, the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity of metaphysical righteousness and pseudo-physical meekness, with the axial polarity of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-justice and chemical pseudo-vanity secondarily church-hegemonic/state-subordinate.
One can be saved from meekness to righteousness and counter-damned from pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice. For, in ‘Kingdom Come’, the chemical ‘first’ (equivocally hegemonic at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass) will be pseudo-metachemically ‘last’ (unequivocally subordinate at the northeast point of the said compass), whereas the pseudo-physical ‘last’ (equivocally subordinate at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass) will be metaphysically ‘first’ (unequivocally hegemonic at the northeast point of the said compass), as though in the final triumph (global) of St George over a prone (neutralized by counter-damnation) dragon, a pseudo-dragon of absolute pseudo-metachemical subordination to the metaphysical triumph of our proverbial saint.
WHAT DOES FREEDOM MEAN TO YOU, AND DOES ABSOLUTE FREEDOM EXIST?
To contrast the doing of metachemistry with the pseudo-being of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast power with pseudo-contentment.
To contrast the being of metaphysics with the pseudo-doing of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast contentment with pseudo-power.
To contrast the giving of chemistry with the pseudo-taking of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast glory with pseudo-form.
To contrast the taking of physics with the pseudo-giving of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast form with pseudo-glory.
To contrast the devility of metachemistry with the pseudo-divinity of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast hell with pseudo-heaven.
To contrast the divinity of metaphysics with the pseudo-devility of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast heaven with pseudo-hell.
To contrast the femininity of chemistry with the pseudo-masculinity of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast purgatory with pseudo-earth.
To contrast the masculinity of physics with the pseudo-femininity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast earth with pseudo-purgatory.
To contrast the positive absolute somatic predominance (over psyche) of metachemistry with the negative absolute psychic preponderance (over soma) of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast elemental particle protons with elemental wavicle pseudo-photons.
To contrast the positive absolute psychic preponderance (over soma) of metaphysics with the negative absolute somatic predominance (over psyche) of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast elemental wavicle photons with elemental particle pseudo-protons.
To contrast the positive relative somatic predominance (over psyche) of chemistry with the negative relative psychic preponderance (over soma) of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast molecular particle electrons with molecular wavicle pseudo-neutrons.
To contrast the positive relative psychic preponderance (over soma) of physics with the negative relative somatic predominance (over psyche) of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast molecular wavicle neutrons with molecular particle pseudo-electrons.
To contrast the evil (as against crime) of metachemistry with the pseudo-sin (as against pseudo-folly) of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast beauty and love (as against ugliness and hate) with pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe (as against pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy).
To contrast the grace (as against wisdom) of metaphysics with the pseudo-crime (as against pseudo-evil) of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast truth and joy (as against illusion and woe) with pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hate (as against pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love).
To contrast the pseudo-evil (as against pseudo-crime) of chemistry with the sin (as against folly) of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast strength and pride (as against weakness and humility) with pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain (as against pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure).
To contrast the pseudo-grace (as against pseudo-wisdom) of physics with the goodness (as against punishment) of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast knowledge and pleasure (as against ignorance and pain) with pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (as against pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride).
To contrast the absolute explosiveness of metachemistry with the absolute pseudo-implosiveness of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast noumenal objectivity with noumenal pseudo-subjectivity.
To contrast the absolute implosiveness of metaphysics with the absolute pseudo-explosiveness of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast noumenal subjectivity with noumenal pseudo-objectivity.
To contrast the relative explosiveness of chemistry with the relative pseudo-implosiveness of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast phenomenal objectivity with phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity.
To contrast the relative implosiveness of physics with the relative pseudo-explosiveness of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast phenomenal subjectivity with phenomenal pseudo-objectivity.
The absolute is always a three-to-one ratio in favour, depending on the element, of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to soma (male), whereas the relative is always a two-and-a-half-to-one-and-a-half ratio, depending on the element, of psyche to soma (male) or of soma to psyche (female), thereby enabling us to categorically distinguish between the noumenal and the phenomenal, as between ethereal and corporeal alternatives on both particle and wavicle, female and male terms, with respect to both soma and psyche.
WHY MORAL RELATIVISM IS WRONG
Since I often write about what is called the intercardinal axial compass stretching from southwest to northeast and from northwest to southeast on a crossed diagonal basis of inter-class and inter-gender polarity, I may as well add some new thoughts to the corpus of axis-inspired ideas which enable one to distinguish church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (southwest to northeast) from state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (northwest to southeast) axial criteria.
What I am especially interested in establishing is that neither axis is corrupt – although the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate one is the secular fruit of schismatic heresy and is therefore open to allegations of religious corruption – and that both axes are corrupt, though not, assuredly, in the same way.
In fact, they are corrupt and not corrupt in opposite ways – the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis in terms of male corruption in relation to an overall female dominance, and the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate one in terms of female corruption in relation to an overall male dominance.
But there are two ways of being corrupt, as of course of not being corrupt, and we can define them as absolute and relative, corresponding to noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal axial polarities.
Let us take the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis first, where male corruption is absolute in pseudo-metaphysics (from out of antimetaphysics) under the female unequivocal hegemony of metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and relative in physics over the female subordination of pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry) at the southeast point of the said compass, the former order of corruption implying free soma and bound psyche under metachemical pressure and the latter … bound-somatic emphasis at the expense of free psyche in relation to pseudo-chemical subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance of metachemistry - metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry constitutive of primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, pseudo-metaphysics and physics their secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate counterparts.
Thus male corruption is absolute in pseudo-metaphysics and relative in physics, females not corrupted (uncorrupted) in metachemistry where, being unequivocally hegemonic, they are free to be absolutely true to their selves – free soma and bound psyche existing on a three-to-one basis of mother-to-daughter-like state/church relativity, and only partially corrupted in pseudo-chemistry, since free psyche and bound soma, even with somatic emphasis, only follow from the equivocal hegemony of physics, a male element.
As regards the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, we have the converse situation of relative female corruption in chemistry over the male subordination of pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics) at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and absolute female corruption in pseudo-metachemistry (from out of antimetachemistry) under the male unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics at the northeast point of the compass in question, the former order of corruption implying bound psychic emphasis at the expense of free soma in relation to pseudo-physical subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance of metaphysics, and the latter … free psyche and bound soma under metaphysical pressure - pseudo-physics and metaphysics constitutive of primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry their secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate counterparts.
Thus female corruption is relative in chemistry and absolute in pseudo-metachemistry, males only partially corrupted in pseudo-physics, since free soma and bound psyche, even with psychic emphasis, only follow from the equivocal hegemony of chemistry, a female element, and not at all corrupted in metaphysics where, being unequivocally hegemonic, they are free to be absolutely true to their selves – free psyche and bound soma existing on a three-to-one basis of father-to-son-like church/state relativity.
Of course, males are relatively corrupted in pseudo-physics and females in pseudo-chemistry, but in overall axial terms it is still males in the one context and females in the other who are the dominant gender, and this is the distinguishing differentiation between church-hegemonic/state-subordinate and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.
Speaking as a male, I can only contend that is it preferable to live in a society in which the female is corrupted, since male dominance makes for the possibility, in metaphysics, of religious truth and joy and, hence, for godliness and heavenliness.
Neither of those factors are germane to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies, which, dominated by females, are less religious and more scientific, rooted, it could be argued, in empirical objectivity.
Yet they are also likely to be more economic and less political, which is not female and male respectively but a consequence, by contrast, of equivocal male and female hegemonies in physics (over pseudo-chemistry) and chemistry (over pseudo-physics), economics polar to science or, more correctly, to pseudo-religion … as physics to pseudo-metaphysics, and politics polar to religion or, more correctly, to pseudo-science … as chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry.
But the polarity on the one axis of economics to pseudo-religion is correlative, on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with the primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity of pseudo-politics to science … as of pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry, whereas the polarity on the other axis of politics to pseudo-science … as of chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, is correlative, on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, with the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity of pseudo-economics to religion … as of pseudo-physics to metaphysics.
Therefore genuine science and economics only exist in polar relation to pseudo-politics and pseudo-religion respectively, whereas genuine religion and politics likewise only exist in polar relation to pseudo-economics and pseudo-science.
On the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, one can be saved, as a male, from pseudo-economics to religion, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, meekness to righteousness, poetry to philosophy, and counter-damned, as a female, from politics to pseudo-science, chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice, pseudo-drama to pseudo-prose.
Conversely, on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis one can be damned, as a female, from science to pseudo-politics, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, vanity to justice, drama to prose, and counter-saved, as a male, from pseudo-religion to economics, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness, pseudo-poetry to pseudo-philosophy.
But the latter eventualities, corresponding with state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, are only likely to transpire in the event of salvation and counter-damnation taking place to an unprecedented extent on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, not independently of it, and for that to happen something more than the Catholic tradition would be required, as I have often contended from a radically theocratic standpoint – the standpoint of Social Theocracy, about which I have theorized at some length in a variety of blogs and texts elsewhere.
THE ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY IN RELIGION
To contrast the barbarism of the Vain with the pseudo-philistinism of the pseudo-Meek, as one would contrast metachemistry with pseudo-metaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
To contrast the pseudo-barbarism of the pseudo-Vain with the philistinism of the Meek, as one would contrast chemistry with pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
To contrast the pseudo-culture of the pseudo-Righteous with the civility of the Just, as one would contrast physics with pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
To contrast the culture of the Righteous with the pseudo-civility of the pseudo-Just, as one would contrast metaphysics with pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
To contrast, on a strictly female polar basis, the barbarism of the Vain with the civility of the Just, as one would contrast metachemistry with pseudo-chemistry on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast, on a strictly male polar basis, the pseudo-philistinism of the pseudo-Meek with the pseudo-culture of the pseudo-Righteous, as one would contrast pseudo-metaphysics with physics on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast, on a strictly male polar basis, the philistinism of the Meek with the culture of the Righteous, as one would contrast pseudo-physics with metaphysics on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast, on a strictly female polar basis, the pseudo-barbarism of the pseudo-Vain with the pseudo-civility of the pseudo-Just, as one would contrast chemistry with pseudo-metachemistry on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.
To contrast the positive barbarism of metachemical free soma with the negative barbarism of metachemical bound psyche, as one would contrast the superheathen moral virtue of beauty and love with the subchristian moral vice of ugliness and hatred.
To contrast the positive pseudo-philistinism of pseudo-metaphysical free soma with the negative pseudo-philistinism of pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-subheathen unmoral virtue of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy with the pseudo-superchristian unmoral vice of pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe.
To contrast the positive pseudo-barbarism of chemical free soma with the negative pseudo-barbarism of chemical bound psyche, as one would contrast the heathen moral virtue of strength and pride with the unchristian moral vice of weakness and humility.
To contrast the positive philistinism of pseudo-physical free soma with the negative philistinism of pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-heathen unmoral virtue of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure with the pseudo-unchristian unmoral vice of pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain.
To contrast the positive pseudo-culture of physical free psyche with the negative pseudo-culture of physical bound soma, as one would contrast the christian moral virtue of knowledge and pleasure with the unheathen moral vice of ignorance and pain.
To contrast the positive civility of pseudo-chemical free psyche with the negative civility of pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-christian unmoral virtue of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride with the pseudo-unheathen unmoral vice of pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility.
To contrast the positive culture of metaphysical free psyche with the negative culture of metaphysical bound soma, as one would contrast the superchristian moral virtue of truth and joy with the subheathen moral vice of illusion and woe.
To contrast the positive pseudo-civility of pseudo-metachemical free psyche with the negative pseudo-civility of pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-subchristian unmoral virtue of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love with the pseudo-superheathen unmoral vice of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred.
In overall metachemical terms, superheathen = supernatural = supersensuous = superfeminine; subchristian = subnurtural = subconscious = submasculine.
In overall pseudo-metaphysical terms, pseudo-subheathen = pseudo-subnatural = pseudo-subsensuous = pseudo-subfeminine; pseudo-superchristian = pseudo-supernurtural = pseudo-superconscious – pseudo-supermasculine.
In overall chemical terms, heathen = natural = sensuous = feminine; unchristian = unnurtural = unconscious = unmasculine.
In overall pseudo-physical terms, pseudo-heathen = pseudo-natural = pseudo-sensuous = pseudo-feminine; pseudo-unchristian = pseudo-unnurtural = pseudo-unconscious = pseudo-unmasculine.
In overall physical terms, christian = nurtural = conscious = masculine; unheathen = unnatural = unsensuous = unfeminine.
In overall pseudo-chemical terms, pseudo-christian = pseudo-nurtural = pseudo-conscious = pseudo-masculine; pseudo-unheathen = pseudo-unnatural = pseudo-unsensuous = pseudo-unfeminine.
In overall metaphysical terms, superchristian = supernurtural = superconscious = supermasculine; subheathen = subnatural = subsensuous = subfeminine.
In overall pseudo-metachemical terms, pseudo-subchristian = pseudo-subnurtural = pseudo-subconscious = pseudo-submasculine; pseudo-superheathen = pseudo-supernatural = pseudo-supersensuous = pseudo-superfeminine.
WHO IS VIRTUOUS?
To contrast the smart noumenal bitches (females) of metachemical free soma with the stupid noumenal bitches of metachemical bound psyche, as one would contrast the evil of beauty and love with the crime of ugliness and hatred, the former standing to the latter on a 3:1 ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) objective criteria.
To contrast the smart noumenal pseudo-bastards (pseudo-males) of pseudo-metaphysical free soma with the stupid noumenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-folly of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy with the pseudo-sin of pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe, the former standing to the latter on a 1:3 ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) pseudo-subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal bitches (females) of chemical free soma with the stupid phenomenal bitches of chemical bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-evil of strength and pride with the pseudo-crime of weakness and humility, the former standing to the latter on a 2½:1½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) objective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal pseudo-bastards (pseudo-males) of pseudo-physical free soma with the stupid phenomenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one would contrast the folly of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure with the sin of pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain, the former standing to the latter on a 1½:2½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) pseudo-subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal bastards (males) of physical free psyche with the stupid phenomenal bastards of physical bound soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-grace of knowledge and pleasure with the pseudo-wisdom of ignorance and pain, the former standing to the latter on a 2½:1½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart phenomenal pseudo-bitches (pseudo-females) of pseudo-chemical free psyche with the stupid phenomenal pseudo-bitches of pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would contrast the punishingness of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride with the goodness of pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (if not humiliation), the former standing to the latter on a 1½:2½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) pseudo-objective criteria.
To contrast the smart noumenal bastards (male) of metaphysical free psyche with the stupid noumenal bastards of metaphysical bound soma, as one would contrast the grace of truth and joy with the wisdom of illusion and woe, the former standing to the latter on a 3:1 ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) subjective criteria.
To contrast the smart noumenal pseudo-bitches (pseudo-females) of pseudo-metachemical free psyche with the stupid noumenal pseudo-bitches of pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-punishingness of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love with the pseudo-goodness of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred, the former standing to the latter on a 1:3 ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) pseudo-objective criteria.
Besides bitches and bastards on both noumenal (ethereal) and phenomenal (corporeal) class and/or elemental planes, one has to allow for their ‘pseudo’ counterparts likewise, since bitches are only hegemonic over pseudo-bastards and bastards only hegemonic over pseudo-bitches, the hegemonic gender requiring the upending and effective undoing of the subordinate gender if it is to remain hegemonic and therefore clear over unholy or holy over unclear, as the gender case, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes, may be.
The significant theological notion that the ‘first’ will be ‘last’ and the ‘last’ be ‘first’ in ‘Kingdom Come’ applies not only across the axial divide between female-dominated and male-dominated societies, but also across the gender divide of either axis, as well as across the same gender distinction, noted above, between ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ types of bitches and bastards, pseudo-bitches and pseudo-bastards.
In the salvation (rising deliverance from southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass) of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and the correlative counter-damnation (counter-falling deliverance from southwest to northeast points of the said church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-physical ‘last’ will wind up metaphysical ‘first’ and the chemical ‘first’ wind up pseudo-metachemical ‘last’; but even the ‘smart’ phenomenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-physical free soma will end up ‘last’ in metaphysical bound soma as the ‘stupid’ phenomenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-physical bound psyche become ‘first’ in metaphysical free psyche. Correlatively, the ‘smart’ phenomenal bitches of chemical free soma will end up ‘last’ in pseudo-metachemical bound soma as the ‘stupid’ phenomenal bitches of chemical bound psyche become ‘first’ in pseudo-metachemical free psyche.
Therefore not only absolute ‘firsts’ and ‘lasts’ between the genders, but relative ‘firsts’ and ‘lasts’ within each gender, notwithstanding the fact that either gender, in phenomenal or noumenal contexts, can be both ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ by turns or in relation to the overall relativity of their gender (somatic vis-à-vis psyche or psychic vis-à-vis somatic) make-up, this in turn varying according, as noted above, to class and/or elemental circumstances.
Nevertheless, distinctions between churchmen and statesmen, for example, are often reflected in individual predilections towards either freedom or binding in soma or psyche, making for differentials in behaviour and psychology which reflect our above-mentioned distinctions between ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’, irrespective of the ratio factors within any given gender.
LONDON 2008-09 (Revised 2010)