DEVOLUTION AND EVOLUTION IN PERSPECTIVE
1. I outlined in PART ONE a theory of stages of life on both devolutionary and evolutionary terms which reflects the fourfold natures/nurtures of the Elements and can be said to proceed from the fieriness of the Cosmos to the airiness of the (hypothetically future) Cyborg via the wateriness of Nature and the vegetativeness of Man, as from the Cosmos to the Cyborg via Nature and Man, or, alternatively, from the Devil to God via Woman and Man, or even from the unnaturalness/unconsciousness of metachemistry to the subconsciousness/subnaturalness of metaphysics via the supernaturalness/superconsciousness of chemistry and the consciousness/naturalness of physics.
2. However that may be, we can distinguish, as before, the most particles/least wavicles of the metachemical context par excellence, as between photons in sensuality and photinos in sensibility, from the more (relative to most) particles/less (relative to least) wavicles of the chemical context par excellence, as between electrons in sensuality and electrinos in sensibility, and both of these objective, or female, contexts from the more (relative to most) wavicles/less (relative to least) particles of the physical context par excellence, as between neutrons in sensuality and neutrinos in sensibility, and the most wavicles/least particles of the metaphysical context par excellence, as between protons in sensuality and protinos in sensibility, both of which latter contexts, being male, are rather more subjective and, hence, conditioned by plenums rather than vacuums, thereby proceeding in curved rather than straight lines.
3. The contexts of the Cosmos and Nature, to return to our original categorization, are therefore ones in which soma predominates over psyche, as in relation to particle hegemonies, and to which, in general terms, one can ascribe a basis in soma, as in the not-self or nature (with specific reference to its unnatural and supernatural manifestations). On the other hand, the contexts of Man and the Cyborg are ones in which psyche predominates over soma, as in relation to wavicle hegemonies, and to which, again in general terms, one can ascribe a basis in psyche, as in the self or nurture (with specific reference to its conscious and subconscious manifestations), so that, in contrast to the objective, or female, contexts, psyche precedes soma and things revert to psyche in the end, as, in biblical parlance, from ashes to ashes rather than from dust to dust, presuming upon a psychic - and therefore male - correlation for the former and a somatic correlation, avowedly female, for the latter.
4. However that may be, one can distinguish, on a broad gender-conditioned basis, between the most devolution/least evolution of the Cosmos and the more (relative to most) devolution/less (relative to least) evolution of Nature on the objective side of things, and between the more (relative to most) evolution/less (relative to least) devolution of Man and the most evolution/least devolution of the Cyborg on the subjective side of things, the side not of the Devil and Woman but, beyond philistinism and barbarism, of Man and God, civilization and culture.
5. For the cosmic reality of most particles and least wavicles is indeed commensurate with most devolution and least evolution, most somatic negativity and least psychic positivity, while the coming cyborg reality, as it were, of most wavicles and least particles will correlate, no less absolutely, with most evolution and least devolution, most psychic positivity and least somatic negativity, while 'down below' and 'in between', the natural reality of more (relative to most) particles and less (relative to least) wavicles correlates with more (relative to most) devolution and less (relative to least) evolution, more (relative to most) somatic negativity and less (relative to least) psychic positivity, to be contrasted, in no-less relative vein, with the more (relative to most) wavicles and less (relative to least) particles, more (relative to most) evolution and less (relative to least) devolution, of that phase of things proceeding, in more (relative to most) psychic positivity and less (relative to least) somatic negativity, from the triumph of Man as a creature for whom knowledge, and self-knowledge above all, is the key to his existence and opposition, through civilization, to Nature, meaning that which 'fell', in watery fashion, out of the fiery inception of life in the Cosmos.
6. Most of what was said in PART ONE still stands here, since the categorizations outlined above had their reasons and boundaries which it would be difficult if not impossible to refute or deny, neither refutation nor denial being on my current agenda! Life is a struggle, to repeat, between objective and subjective, female and male forces, and whether the particle predominates over the wavicle or the wavicle over the particle, soma and psyche are the twin alternatives, with soma preceding psyche in the female cases of the Cosmos and Nature, but psyche preceding soma in the male cases of Man and the Cyborg, the latter of whom will be the means by which, in Nietzschean parlance, man should be 'overcome' and superseded by that which is no mere precondition of a rise to God and antithesis to the diabolic Cosmos, like Man, but the fulfilment of that precondition in the utmost psychic absolutism of most wavicles and least particles, most evolution and least devolution - in sum, most psychic positivity and least somatic negativity.
7. Soma and psyche are no more equivalent than not-self and self, nature and nurture, sanctity and profanity, play and work, noumenal and phenomenal, 'matter' and 'mind', body or, more correctly, will and/or spirit and soul or, more correctly, ego and/or soul; for the one is only possible on the basis of a particle hegemony, whereas the other presupposes a wavicle hegemony in which either ego or soul is the principal protagonist of psychic grace, and such grace differs not merely from somatic sin, duly constrained by free psyche to the determinism of mind (conscious will) and/or subspirit (subconscious spirit), but also from the punishment, or punishing nurture, of the female forms of psyche whereby free soma conditions psychic determinism in terms of the id (unconscious soul) and the superego (superconscious ego), and the instinctualized soul of the one and the spiritualized ego of the other are as subordinate to the will and spirit of free soma ... as the intellectualized will and emotionalized spirit of bound soma are subordinate, on the male side of the gender fence, to the ego and soul of free psyche.
8. Therefore the real antithesis between soma and psyche is less within the context of either gender, where one or the other is modified by the predominating factor, than across the gender division between free soma on the one hand and free psyche on the other, the former issuing in objective vein from a vacuous precondition in either fire or water, metachemistry or chemistry, and the other issuing in subjective vein from a plenumous precondition in either vegetation or air, physics or metaphysics.
9. I have said it before and I shall say it again: sexism, or the ability to think on a basis allowing for opposite gender standpoints, is the beginning of all wisdom. For that man who is insufficiently aware of the extent to which gender factors-in to the way in which we think or, worse, who believes that there is no distinction between how the genders think or what they think, will be a self-deceiving fool and hypocrite, from whom nothing demonstrably true or knowledgeably credible can be expected.
10. Before females entered into letters in a major way, statements made by males could often be taken as implicitly expressing, when genuine, a male standpoint. Nowadays, nothing of the sort can be taken for granted! The plethora of objectively-oriented ideas flowing from female authors makes it imperative that male writers explicitly state their positions in relation to gender, and that, assuming a degree of knowledge as to what constitutes their rightful gender position, they refrain from allowing female minds to deceive them into taking for authentic truth or knowledge that which, in reality, owes its origins not to free psyche, in properly male vein, but to free soma, and which will not, in the nature of things, even approximate to the innate rationality of genuine knowledge or truth but be reflective of the intrusion, to varying extents, of either beauty and strength or, more probably, ugliness and weakness, their negative - and somatic - counterparts.