The primary and secondary majoritarian brightness and primary and secondary minoritarian darkness will always be hegemonic over the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-majoritarian pseudo-darkness and pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-minoritarian pseudo-brightness, like metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics, chemistry over pseudo-physics, physics over pseudo-chemistry, and metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.

Every primary and secondary majoritarian brightness, whether somatically predominating or psychically preponderating, has its own complementary primary and secondary minoritarian darkness, whether psychically postdominating or somatically postponderating, and this association of free soma with bound psyche or of free psyche with bound soma, depending on the atomic case, should not be confounded with the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-majoritarian pseudo-darkness and the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-minoritarian pseudo-brightness over which it is triumphantly hegemonic, as atoms to pseudo-atoms.

No atom or pseudo-atom is indivisible, neither in terms of soma nor psyche, pseudo-soma nor pseudo-psyche. Atoms are always comprised of brightness and darkness, pseudo-atoms of pseudo-darkness and pseudo-brightness, whether to an absolute (3:1) or a relative (2:1) extent, according to whether the atom/pseudo-atom is noumenal/pseudo-noumenal or phenomenal/pseudo-phenomenal.

* * * *

Atoms and pseudo-atoms attracting and reacting, though more on an axial basis, like metachemical atoms/pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atoms vis--vis physical atoms/pseudo-chemical pseudo-atoms in the state-hegemonic axial context, or metaphysical atoms/pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atoms vis--vis chemical atoms/pseudo-physical pseudo-atoms in the church-hegemonic one, which are for ever in attractive/reactive polarity, like Nazism (with its militarist bias) against Communism in the one case, and Fascism (with its Catholic-defensive bias) against Socialism in the other.

In all cases, the attraction of the hegemonic atoms towards each other is countered by the subordinate pseudo-atoms and, conversely, the attraction of the pseudo-atoms towards each other is countered by the hegemonic atoms.

1.  Hence pseudo-chemistry will repel the metachemical attraction towards physics, while pseudo-metaphysics repels the physical attraction towards metachemistry.

2.  Hence metachemistry will repel the pseudo-chemical attraction towards pseudo-metaphysics, while physics repels the pseudo-metaphysical attraction towards pseudo-chemistry.

3.  Hence pseudo-physics will repel the metaphysical attraction towards chemistry, while pseudo-metachemistry repels the chemical attraction towards metaphysics.

4.  Hence metaphysics will repel the pseudo-physical attraction towards pseudo-metachemistry, while chemistry repels the pseudo-metachemical attraction towards pseudo-physics.

* * * *

With constant attraction of unlike poles and reaction to like poles, neither the state-hegemonic nor the church-hegemonic axis is fixed in a permanent stasis but, ever beholden to changing circumstances, will be subject to fluctuations in terms of which atoms/pseudo-atoms are most influential at any given time.

Where, in the Middle Ages, it could be argued that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, even with a truncated metaphysics favouring bound soma (the crucifixion paradigm), was dominant over chemistry/pseudo-physics, since the Reformation and, more particularly, the French Revolution, metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry has been losing ground to chemistry/pseudo-physics, especially when the latter is less Marian/Christian (or Christ Child-like) than republican socialist in character.

Similarly, whenever absolute monarchy has been replaced or superseded, one way or another, by constitutional monarchy, metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics has lost ground to physics/pseudo-chemistry which, not least in relation to parliamentary democracy, has tended to dominate its atomic/pseudo-atomic polarity from an executive standpoint favouring the 'representatives of the people'.

How long either of these 'worldly' stages of history and antithetical manifestations of people's power will last, and continue to dominate their respective 'overworldly' kinds of polarities, remains to be seen. But if there is to be a genuine return, progressively, to what could be called 'overworldly' dominance, then, notwithstanding the current predilection towards a degree of 'netherworldly' dominance albeit to a significantly lesser degree than in Nazi Germany during the era of the Third Reich characteristic not least of the United States of America in relation, for example, to its executive presidential C&C, it should only be within the framework of 'Kingdom Come', as it were, and thus have especial relevance to the influential dominance of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry over chemistry/pseudo-physics, and then only, following democratic endorsement, in terms of a full complement of metaphysics, free psyche as well as bound soma, that, completely independent of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, would have both the technological wherewithal and moral entitlement to exact a neutralized deference from pseudo-metachemistry, the better to save the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and simultaneously have the chemical counter-damned to pseudo-metachemistry with intent to overcoming 'the world', at least in its lapsed Catholic/republican socialist manifestation, and thus establishing a situation whereby metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and physics/pseudo-chemistry would become invalid as predatory exploiters of it, and are accordingly unable to profit, let along function in somatic licence, as before, with fairly predictable consequences.

Only thus, it seems to me, will the current dominance of 'the world' and most especially of the physical/pseudo-chemical manifestation of it be ended, as otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly criteria increasingly prevail under some degree of messianic auspices.

For unlike Heaven/pseudo-Hell, to use paradoxically parallel terminology, 'the world' has no eternal sanction, neither in its chemical/pseudo-physical manifestation nor, across the axial divide, in its physical/pseudo-chemical manifestation ever polar to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics. Only the God-in-Heaven of metaphysics, and most especially of an ultimate because cyborg-oriented kind of metaphysics, has any right, through soulful being, to eternity, a right not even shared by the pseudo-Hell-in-the-pseudo-Devil of pseudo-metachemistry in what would be a pseudo-infinite subordination, through neutralization, to the eternal sanction and sanctity of the metaphysical hegemony.

* * * *

That which parallels the brightness as pseudo-brightness is as pseudo-minoritarian to majoritarian in overall ratio terms, whereas what parallels the darkness as pseudo-darkness is, by contrast, pseudo-majoritarian to minoritarian in overall ratio terms.

Only in the atoms, or hegemonic gender positions, can one speak of a bright/dark complementarity in which the former is majoritarian and the latter minoritarian, whether noumenal or phenomenal, absolute or relative.

In the pseudo-atoms, or subordinate pseudo-gender positions, we shall find a pseudo-dark/pseudo-bright pseudo-complementarity, in which the former is pseudo-majoritarian and the latter pseudo-minoritarian, whether pseudo-noumenal or pseudo-phenomenal, pseudo-absolute or pseudo-relative.