1.   BOUND AND FREE IN SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY.  Just as one can be masculine or feminine, subjective or objective, so one can be bound or free ... in both sensuality and sensibility.  'The Bound' are ever subjective, and hence masculine, while 'the Free' are ever objective, and hence feminine.  Generally, 'the Free' make war on 'the Bound', as Devil upon God (noumenal planes) or woman upon man (phenomenal planes).


2.   BOUND AND FREE IN SENSUALITY.  To be sensually free in the noumenal objectivity of idealism and/or the phenomenal objectivity of materialism, as opposed to being sensually bound in the noumenal subjectivity of naturalism and/or the phenomenal subjectivity of realism.


3.   BOUND AND FREE IN SENSIBILITY.  To be sensibly free in the noumenal objectivity of fundamentalism and/or the phenomenal objectivity of humanism, as opposed to being sensibly bound in the noumenal subjectivity of transcendentalism and/or the phenomenal subjectivity of nonconformism.


4.   GOOD AND EVIL MODES OF BINDING AND FREEDOM.  Thus there is the 'evil freedom' and 'evil binding' of the sensualities on the one hand, but the 'good freedom' and 'good binding' of the sensibilities on the other hand.


5.   MORAL DISTINCTION IN GENDER BETWEEN BINDING AND FREEDOM.  Therefore freedom is, like binding, neither specifically good nor evil in itself, but depends for its ascertainment in such fashion on whether it is germane to sensuality (evil) or to sensibility (good).  Yet bound sensuality is no less preferable to free sensuality ... than bound sensibility to free sensibility, whether in noumenal or phenomenal terms.  The Naturalist is no less morally preferable to the Idealist than the Realist to the Materialist with regard to the sensualities, while the Transcendentalist is no less morally preferable to the Fundamentalist than the Nonconformist to the Humanist where the sensibilities are concerned.  Binding is in every context a masculine attribute and freedom, by contrast, a feminine one - the former subjective and the latter objective.


6.   CONFIRMATION OF GENDER BASIS FOR THE ABOVE.  Of course, we can distinguish, more pedantically, between superfeminine freedom (idealism) and subfeminine freedom (fundamentalism), as also between submasculine binding (naturalism) and supermasculine binding (transcendentalism), but that is only to confirm rather than refute the basic gender distinction which exists between freedom and binding.


7.   ALPHA AND OMEGA OF FREEDOM AND BINDING.  The highest, most sensible binding is of course to be bound, through the lungs, to the God of sensibility, the Holy Spirit of Heaven, and this contrasts, absolutely, with the highest, most ignoble (in idealistic snobbery) freedom, through the eyes, in the Devil of sensuality, the Clear Light of the Void (Space), which is the superfeminine antithesis of supermasculine salvation.


8.   RISING FROM EVIL BEING TO GOOD BEING.  One cannot get to the Holy Spirit of Heaven except via the Clear Fire of Time, the submasculine binding through the ears, from which it is possible to be saved to the supermasculine binding of ultimate divinity, rising from evil being to good being, from subjective noumenal sensuality to subjective noumenal sensibility, the binding-of-bindings.


9.   THE ULTIMATE PHILOSOPHER.  The Holy Mind of Purgatory, or Christ, leads no further, on the other hand, than the Holy Spirit, which is a Christian shortfall, relative to cerebral spirituality, from the Holy Spirit of Heaven, the lung-centred deliverance from aural sensuality that is antithetical not to the Father (of cerebral emotionality) but to the Clear Light of the Void, and thus beyond all trinitarian reference.  The Holy Spirit, by contrast, delivers from prayerful understanding, or the most subjective intellectuality, to the spiritual peace that owes not a little to the lungs, which fact won't, as a rule, be consciously acknowledged, since it is of the purgatorial and effectively lunar nature of Christianity to affirm cerebral spirituality in preference to the spirit per se, just as, with regard to the Father, it affirms cerebral emotionality in preference to the soul per se which, according with the Holy Soul of Hell (Allah), is less a thing of (in relation to the Father) Subheaven than of Subhell, the Hell of sensibility, as germane to the blood and its overly fundamentalist associations thereof.  Hence 'lunar' Christianity fights shy of both the 'Venusian' heart of fundamentalism per se and the 'Saturnian' lungs of transcendentalism per se, preferring its purgatorial intellectuality to the diabolic emotionality and divine spirituality of these fundamentalist and transcendentalist extremes.  The soul and the spirit are alike rejected by dint of their reduction to cerebral manifestations conjoined with the intellect per se in what we recognize as the 'Holy Trinity'.  Christ may lead, through His juvenile manifestation, the Catholic Christ Child, to the Holy Spirit, but only the Second Coming can lead to the Holy Spirit of Heaven, which is the supreme being of ultimate God and ultimate Heaven.  By comparison to Christ, the Second Coming is the supreme taking of ultimate Purgatory, the ultimate philosopher whose thought should endure forever, setting mankind, or the most worthy sections of it, on course for supreme being ... in what must be the highest good, the sensible binding, through noumenal subjectivity, to the ultimate manifestation of Eternal Life.