1.   At the beginning of PART THREE I gave the impression that terms like noumenal and phenomenal were equivalent to ethereal and corporeal, whereas the abstract and the concrete had to be regarded in a different light.  On re-evaluation, however, it seems to me that a distinction should continue to be drawn between the noumenal nature of time/space, whether in relation to space-time devolution or to time-space evolution, metachemistry or metaphysics, and the phenomenal nature of volume/mass, whether in relation to volume-mass devolution or to mass-volume evolution, chemistry or physics.


2.   Therefore my customary use, going back several years, of the terms 'noumenal' and 'phenomenal' should be reinstated to enable us to distinguish contexts in time and space from their counterparts in mass and volume, irrespective of whether those contexts happen to be primarily corporeal or primarily ethereal, and regardless of whether they happen to coincide with concrete or abstract standings.


3.   For if we proceed on this basis we shall have terms which enable us to distinguish planes and axes from subatomic structures, as well as each of these from the female gender precedence, as it were, of psyche by soma or, in male contexts, of soma by psyche, as we proceed on devolutionary terms from the noumenal corporeal concretion and ethereal abstraction of metachemistry to the phenomenal corporeal concretion and ethereal abstraction of chemistry, as from most particles/least wavicles to more (relative to most) particles/less (relative to least) wavicles, and thence, on an evolutionary basis, from the phenomenal ethereal concretion and corporeal abstraction of physics to the noumenal ethereal concretion and corporeal abstraction of metaphysics, as from more (relative to most) wavicles/less (relative to least) particles to most wavicles/least particles.


4.   And as we proceed on this elemental basis from alpha absolutism to omega absolutism via alpha relativity and omega relativity, we shall find a devolutionary descent from the Many to the One, metachemical pluralism to chemical monism, and an evolutionary ascent from the Many to the One, physical pluralism to metaphysical monism, as from crime to punishment on the objective, or female, side of the historical gender divide, and from sin to grace on its subjective, or male, side, the side not of doing and giving par excellence, power and glory, but of taking and being par excellence, form and contentment.


5.   Yet, in general terms, one can speak of a devolution from evil to good, as from competitiveness to co-operativeness, crime to punishment, and of an evolution, by contrast, from folly to wisdom, as from collectivism to individualism, sin to grace, as fire is superseded by water, and vegetation by air, the latter of which has still to come properly to pass in terms of the overcoming of Man by God, of vegetative pluralism by airy monism, and the triumph of metaphysics over the physical world as the guarantor of otherworldly redemption in grace.  For as long as Man remains sinfully in the driving seat of life, physical collectivism will continue to have its way at the expense of metaphysical individualism, and economics continue to take precedence over religion.


6.   Certainly it is appropriate to evolutionary progress that neither science nor politics, metachemical competitiveness nor chemical co-operativeness, should remain chiefly representative of the age or characteristic of a given society, since neither are proper to the male side of life, but indicative of devolutionary regression from noumenal objectivity to phenomenal objectivity, crime to punishment, and therefore of corporeal hegemonies in which soma precedes psyche and the State is accordingly free.


7.   Only contexts in which the Church is free, complements of ethereal hegemonies in either physical collectivism or metaphysical individualism, can deliver the prospect of evolutionary progress from phenomenal subjectivity to noumenal subjectivity, sin to grace, and thus the overcoming of Man in the godly Cyborg, as Man previously overcame Woman and Woman overcame, through corporeal monism, the corporeal pluralism of the Devil, for which read: the criminal audacities of cosmic science.


8.   But Man did not overcome Woman without paying a heavy price, part of which was a deal with the Devil and the technological rejuvenation of science in terms of artificial manifestations of metachemical pluralism, so that while economics may have progressed at the expense of politics, it did so in cahoots with science, which continues even now to call the infernal tune to which Man must dance, complements of the money to be made from its act. 


9.   Vegetative pluralism did a deal with fiery pluralism at the expense of watery monism, and for those who especially relate to and periodically renew this deal, who would traditionally be more Protestant than Catholic, and contemporaneously more American than European, the prospects for airy monism are virtually non-existent, since vegetative pluralism is not exactly in a position to be redeemed from sin to grace, folly to wisdom, when contractually bound to the fiery pluralism of the Devil, the criminal evil of which, unrestrained by the punishing goodness of watery monism, viz. Woman, is freer than ever before and all the more lucrative to Man in consequence.


10.  I believe it was Faust who conducted a similar deal with the Devil in Goethe's classic work of the same name, and Faust came to grief in view of the extent to which he had sold his soul and thrown away his birthright as a man, a male, to defer to God and be elevated by God beyond the sinfulness of the vegetative world towards the gracefulness of the airy Other World. 


11.  When one turns one's back on God or Godliness, one has to make one's own masculine way in the world, and it is not long before that way, caught up in a struggle with Woman, is obliged to sell out to the Devil, since Woman can only be mastered by Man if he makes a pact with the Devil and, between them, they outmanoeuvre politics and make the world safe for science and economics, for crime and sin, for the Many, both evil and foolish.  The good, divided and ruled by Man and the Devil, are no longer in a position to punish either the one or the other, but become active, if reluctant, participants in the rule of crime and sin, science and economics, while the wise are marginalized and excluded, as a religiously anachronistic threat to the secular status quo. 


12.  Small wonder that the world becomes the plaything of the Devil, as of the noumenally corporeal concretion of metachemical pluralism.  For this is highly profitable to a physical pluralism which no longer defers to humanistic grace, much less metaphysical monism but, having turned away many centuries ago from any such pretensions, finds itself in a position to undermine and defeat chemical monism in the interests of economic freedom, which is to say, freedom for economics to dance to the latest tune which science comes up with from the criminally free vantage-point of metachemical evil.  The tune, needless to say, is completely soulless in its materialistic structures, its rhythmic intensities, and the dance is the impulsive behaviouristic reactions of godless automata.  We need, and deserve, a better world!