25

1.  That the metachemical atom should be polar, on overall female gender terms, to the pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom, like vanity to justice, is no less axially inevitable than the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom being polar, on overall male gender terms, to the physical atom, like pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness.

2.  For while unlike poles, like metachemistry and physics, pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry, attract, like poles, like metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, pseudo-metaphysics and physics repel, in consequence of which both primary (overall female) and secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial continuity-in-stability and/or stability-in-continuity is achieved.

3.  That the metaphysical atom should be polar, on overall male gender terms, to the pseudo-physical pseudo-atom, like righteousness to meekness, is no less axially inevitable than the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom being polar, on overall female gender terms, to the chemical atom, like pseudo-justice to pseudo-vanity.

4.  For while unlike poles, like metaphysics and chemistry, pseudo-metachemistry and pseudo-physics, attract, like poles, like metaphysics and pseudo-physics, pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry repel, in consequence of which both primary (overall male) and secondary (overall female) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial continuity-in-stability and/or stability-in-continuity is achieved.

One could argue that whereas continuity, on either axis, is a product of the unlike poles attracting, stability, by contrast, is in consequence of the like ones repelling.

* * * *

When atoms and pseudo-atoms become aggregated into molecular and pseudo-molecular structures which attract or repel other such structures, and these in turn take plant, animal, human, and other forms, the complexity of axial and even inter-axial attraction and repulsion on one kind of polar basis or another is proportionately increased, with consequences that are neither overly anarchic nor invariably predictable but subject, within the gender-biased parameters of each axis, to flux, albeit to a flux that is both axially continuous and comparatively stable.

* * * *

When we consider the number, the vast numbers even, of life forms in existence on this planet, it soon becomes evident to the reflecting mind that no one mind could have been responsible for them all, since, quite apart from the rich variety of inorganic materials, the varieties of living creatures and the complexities of the predator/prey-like contradictions involved are such that the results are demonstrably beyond the capacities of a single mind, be it diabolic or divine, pseudo-divine or pseudo-diabolic, feminine or masculine, pseudo-masculine or pseudo-feminine.

In fact, one is led to the conclusion that the creatures who have evolved within the extraordinarily broad framework of nature, on land, in the air, in the sea, underground, on both land and sea, etc., were and remain largely responsible for their own creation, undergoing several stages of evolutionary development in the process of adapting to various environmental and climatic conditions that made it possible and indeed necessary for them to evolve in the way or ways they did. And this evolution, this process of adapting to environment under climatic and other pressures, is still, not least in the case of mankind, going on, and will doubtless continue until circumstances may decide otherwise or, if nothing untoward happens, it reaches an optimum level.

For life has to evolve in order to survive, and when, in whatever shape or form, it has evolved to a degree which is beneficial to its survival, it proceeds to revolve on its own terms, repeating the mould in which it can operate to maximum effect and not merely survive but thrive, growing in strength, influence, numbers, competence, and so on.

* * * *

Even the merest reflection will indicate, to the enquiring mind, that we do not own this planet, but share it with so many other species that operate largely if not exclusively independent of us, that we have no right to consider ourselves the arbiters of the world's destiny. We are only the arbiters of our own destiny or destinies, which may well entail the transcendence of mankind by cyborgkind in the struggle for adaptation to changing environmental circumstances of an increasingly artificial, or man-made, order. And not simply in terms of robotic alternatives to the human, which tends to be the simplistic take on such matters, but in a kind of super- if not supra-human 'overcoming', to use a Nietzschean term, of human limitations via the ever-more intimate association with a technology designed to supplement if not replace whatever is subject to degeneration and decay in the human body.