THE DUALITIES OF BOTH SOMA AND PSYCHE

 

1. We have argued that soma returns to soma and psyche to psyche, so that 'as in the beginning, so in the end', but this is not invariably in terms of Mother to Mother or Father to Father, since while such a return can and does happen, one must also allow for the spiritual manifestation of soma and the soulful manifestation of psyche, neither of which have anything to do with mothers or fathers, the former of which appertains to the will and the latter to the ego.

 

2. Therefore one can no more argue exclusively in favour of a return of soma to soma in the instinctual terms of the Mother than argue exclusively in favour of a return of psyche to psyche in the egocentric terms of the Father, for each element has a different fulcrum, or most characteristic attribute, and no two elements - and therefore class or gender parallels to them - are the same.

 

3. That which, as metachemistry, is almost absolutely somatic in its most particle/least wavicle subatomic ratio, is also, on that account, most wilful, most of the will, whereas that which, as chemistry, is only relatively somatic in its more (relative to most) particle/less (relative to least) wavicle ratio is also, on that account, most spiritual, or most of the spirit. Consequently, females whose principal affiliation, in upper-class fashion, is to the former will be predestined to return to soma primarily in terms of will, and hence the Mother, while those whose principal affiliation, in lower-class fashion, is to the latter will be predestined to return to soma primarily in terms of spirit, and hence some purgatorial parallel.

 

4. Conversely, that which, as physics, is only relatively psychic in its more (relative to most) wavicle/less (relative to least) particle subatomic ratio is also, on that account, most egocentric, or most of the ego, whereas that which, as metaphysics, is almost absolutely psychic in its most wavicle/least particle ratio is also, on that account, most soulful, or most of the soul. Consequently, males whose principal affiliation, in lower-class fashion, is to the former will be predestined to return to psyche primarily in terms of ego, and hence the Father, while those whose principal affiliation, in upper-class fashion, is to the latter will be predestined to return to psyche primarily in terms of soul, and hence some heavenly parallel.

 

5. But even if we have to distinguish between two types of somatic return and two types of psychic return at death, with due class distinctions between the ethereal eternality of the somatic and psychic absolutisms on the one hand, and the corporeal temporality of the somatic and psychic relativities on the other hand, the former the extremes of afterdeath and afterlife experience, the latter their more moderate counterparts, we cannot leave the matter there, as though the distinction between sensuality and sensibility were of no account in determining the nature, as it were, of each type of posthumous experience.

 

6. On the contrary, such a distinction is crucial in determining whether the somatic afterdeath for females and the psychic afterlife for males will be, as it were, perceptual or conceptual, outer or inner, superficial or profound. For, in truth, the scales of posthumous judgement tip in favour of either sensuality or sensibility according to how one, as an individual, had lived one's life, whether predominantly in the sensual contexts of evil and folly, clearness and unholiness, or predominantly in the sensible contexts of wisdom and goodness, holiness and unclearness, so that justice will be done accordingly on both a class and gender basis.

 

7. Let us take the metaphysical context of truth and joy in the self, in psyche, as against falsity and woe in the not-self, in soma, which is the prevailing element for upper-class males of a godly disposition. Such a disposition can be sensual or sensible, primarily affiliated to the ears/airwaves or primarily affiliated to the lungs/breath, which means that the metaphysical self, the self that identifies with either type of not-self, can be unwise/unholy or wise/holy, though not usually both at once! How, in that event, does one distinguish the one type of truth from the other, or the one type of joy from the other, not to mention their somatic counterparts?

 

8. Clearly, the answer to that vexed question must be based on an understanding of the fact that truth attaches to the metaphysical ego, to the self as ego, and therefore to what, in subatomic terms, will have reference to more (relative to most) wavicles and less (relative to least) particles, in short to a molecular as opposed to an elemental integrity especially germane, so I have contended, to God the Father. Therefore one cannot speak of truth in elemental, or absolutist, terms, as being most or least, but only in molecular, or relative, terms, as being more (relative to most) or less (relative to least). Only joy, which is a soulful reality having reference to most wavicles and least particles, permits of an absolutist approach, and therefore allows us to distinguish the sensual from the sensible on the basis of least joy and most joy.

 

9. Consequently, the metaphysical psyche permits of a sensible/sensual distinction between the more (relative to most) truth of God-the-Wise-Father and the most joy of Heaven-the-Holy-Soul as against the less (relative to least) truth of God-the-Unwise-Father and the least joy of Heaven-the-Unholy-Soul. But neither truth nor joy can really exist independently of falsity and woe, the falsity and woe of God the Son and Heaven the Spirit, and therefore we need to distinguish, in metaphysical soma, between the elemental absolutism of the will and the molecular relativity of the spirit, before we can arrive at a proper estimate of either in relation to both sensuality and sensibility.

 

10. Clearly, since the will of metaphysical soma is elemental in its most particle/least wavicle absolutism, we may distinguish the one type of falsity from the other on a like-absolutist basis, as between most and least false, while reserving to the molecular relativity of metaphysical spirit in more (relative to most) particles/less (relative to least) wavicles a more (relative to most) and less (relative to least) woeful distinction in respect of its sensual and sensible alternatives.

 

11. Consequently metaphysical soma permits of a sensual/sensible distinction between the most falsity of God-the-Unwise-Son and the more (relative to most) woe of Heaven-the-Unholy-Spirit as against the least falsity of God-the-Wise-Son and the less (relative to least) woe of Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit.

 

12. Therefore when we combine the psyche and soma of metaphysics we shall find that the sensible, or inner, context provides us with an overall distinction between more (relative to most) truth and most joy in God-the-Wise-Father and Heaven-the-Holy-Soul and least falsity and less (relative to least) woe in God-the-Wise-Son and Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit, whereas the sensual, or outer, context provides us with an overall distinction between less (relative to least) truth and least joy in God-the-Unwise-Father and Heaven-the-Unholy-Soul and most falsity and more (relative to most) woe in God-the-Unwise-Son and Heaven-the-Unholy-Spirit.

 

13. Consequently, those metaphysical types who have lived predominantly sensually in relation to the ears and the airwaves can expect their afterlife experience in the metaphysical soul to be least joyful, while, conversely, those who have lived predominantly sensibly in relation to the lungs and the breath can expect their afterlife experience in the metaphysical soul to be most joyful, since the metaphysical self is drawn rather more to the soul than to the ego, to joy than to truth, and will have either a perceptual or a conceptual, a sensual or a sensible bias according to how one had lived. Folly attaches no less to the self than wisdom to the not-self, but we have a duty, if wise, to live as much as possible in sensible truth in order that our joy may be the deeper.

 

14. For 'most joy' is only possible on the basis of 'more (relative to most) truth', and truth is only truly wise when it utilizes contexts of 'least falsity' and 'less (relative to least) woe' in order to achieve its heavenly resurrection, not when, in the folly of 'less (relative to least) truth', it utilizes contexts of 'most falsity' and 'more (relative to most) woe' to a least joyful end.

 

15. There are, in truth, three primary gods, or godly orders of male: there is the god who lives in the folly of God-the-Unwise-Father vis--vis God-the-Unwise-Son, the latter of whom is, of course, sinfully most false and not at all true. There is the god who lives in the wisdom of God-the-Wise-Father vis--vis God-the-Wise-Son, the latter of whom is sinfully least false though still far from true. And, in between, there is the abraxas-like dualistic god who lives in both folly and wisdom by turns, now metaphysically sensual in relation to the ears and airwaves of outer metaphysical soma, now metaphysically sensible in relation to the lungs and breath of inner metaphysical soma, alternating, it might be, between music and meditation, perhaps more in terms of some intermediate paradox like piping or chanting than strictly in either metaphysical extreme.

 

16. One might consider such a dualistic god, such an upper-class male, metaphysically amoral rather than either immoral or moral. However that may be, he would not be the best of the three, nor even the least, but simply intermediate between the other two, a sort of 'worldly' god who fights shy of foolish and wise, sensual and sensible, divine extremes. I shall not judge this god too harshly, but I maintain that ultimate godhead, short of complete cyborgization, resides in the meditator, who is alone of the divinely Saved and truly virtuous.