Cycle 4

 

I have said it before and I will say it again: one can know little or nothing about the subconscious until one has accepted the supersensuous as its somatic precondition.  For in metachemistry, the elemental position in question, soma precedes and predominates over psyche in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the spatial-space absolutism of noumenal objectivity.

 

Hence one has to allow, with this diabolic (or superfeminine) female element, for the precedence of subconsciousness by supersensuousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between supernaturalism and subnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, superheathenism and subchristianity, the supersensuous/subconscious dichotomy itself indicative of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle mode of what transpires to be a protonic subatomicity given, through beauty and love at the expense of ugliness and hatred, to positive heat.

 

Contrariwise, in metaphysics, psyche precedes and preponderates over soma in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the repetitive-time absolutism of noumenal subjectivity. 

 

Hence one has to allow, within this divine (or supermasculine) male element, for the precedence of subsensuousness by superconsciousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between, as it were, supernurturalism and subnaturalism or, in equivalent terminology, superchristianity and subheathenism, the superconscious/subsensuous dichotomy itself indicative, as noted above, of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the wavicle at the expense of the particle mode of what transpires to be a photonic subatomicity given, through truth and joy at the expense of illusion and woe, to positive light.

 

Dropping from metachemistry and metaphysics, the alpha and omega of space and time, to chemistry and physics, the alpha and omega of volume and mass, one will find that, with chemistry, soma precedes and predominates over psyche in the ratio of 2˝:1˝, a consequence of the volumetric-volume relativity of phenomenal objectivity.

 

Hence one has to allow, with this feminine female element, for the precedence of unconsciousness by sensuousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between naturalism and unnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, heathenism and unchristianity, the sensuous/unconscious dichotomy itself indicative of a 2˝:1˝ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity, albeit favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle mode of what transpires to be an electronic subatomicity given, through strength and pride at the expense of weakness and humility, to positive motion.

 

Contrariwise in physics, psyche precedes and preponderates over soma in the ratio of 2˝:1˝, a consequence of the massive-mass relativity of phenomenal subjectivity.

 

Hence one has to allow, with this masculine male element, for the precedence of unsensuousness by consciousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between nurturalism, so to speak, and unnaturalism or, in equivalent terminology, Christianity and unheathenism, the conscious/unsensuous dichotomy itself indicative, as noted above, of a 2˝:1˝ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity, albeit favouring the wavicle at the expense of the particle mode of what transpires to be a neutronic subatomicity given, through knowledge and pleasure at the expense of ignorance and pain, to positive force.

 

Therefore no more than subconsciousness can be properly understood except in relation to supersensuousness … can unconsciousness be understood except in relation to sensuousness, where the noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between metachemistry and chemistry is concerned.

 

Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, no more than subsensuousness can be understood except in relation to superconsciousness … can unsensuousness be understood except in relation to consciousness, where the noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between metaphysics and physics is concerned.

 

Now what applies to each of the hegemonic elements, viz. metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics, on the intercardinal axial compass applies no less to their subordinate gender complements, viz. pseudo-metaphysics in the case of metachemistry, pseudo-physics in the case of chemistry, pseudo-chemistry in the case of physics, and pseudo-metachemistry in the case of metaphysics.

 

Under metachemical pressures, the superconsciousness/subsensuousness of metaphysics becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subsensuousness pseudo-superconsciousness of pseudo-metaphysics, with a 1:3 ratio of free soma to bound psyche, pseudo-truth/joy to pseudo-illusion/woe in the reversal of metaphysical attributes from psyche and soma and soma to psyche.

 

Similarly under chemical pressures, the consciousness/unsensuousness of physics becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-unsensuousness/pseudo-consciousness of pseudo-physics, with a 1˝:2˝ ratio of free soma to bound psyche, pseudo-knowledge/pleasure (carnal) to pseudo-ignorance/pain in the reversal of physical attributes from psyche to soma and soma to psyche.

 

Likewise, under physical pressures, the sensuousness/unconsciousness of chemistry becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-unconsciousness/pseudo-sensuousness of pseudo-chemistry, with a 1˝:2˝ ratio of free psyche to bound soma, pseudo-strength/pride to pseudo-weakness/humility (if not humiliation) in the reversal of chemical attributes from soma to psyche and psyche to soma.

 

Finally, under metaphysical pressures, the supersensuousness/subconsciousness of metachemistry becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subconsciousness/pseudo-supersensuousness of pseudo-metachemistry, with a 1:3 ratio of free psyche to bound soma, pseudo-beauty/love to pseudo-ugliness/hate in the reversal of metachemical attributes from soma to psyche and psyche to soma.

 

Hence whatever the elemental (hegemonic gender) or pseudo-elemental (upended gender) context, the positive attributes will always accrue to freedom and the negatives ones to binding, with freedom corresponding to the bright side and binding to whatever is in the shadow of such brightness, be the latter superheathen (and metachemical), heathen (and chemical), Christian (and physical) or superchristian (and metaphysical).

 

Where the hegemonic elements are concerned, one could – and should – distinguish subatomically between the heat of metachemical protons, the motion of chemical electrons, the force of physical neutrons, and the light of metaphysical photons, but we shall find that the free/bound dichotomy corresponds to the virtue and vice of a moral situation in which positivity either predominates (somatically) or preponderates (psychically) over negativity.

 

Where, on the other hand, the subordinate or pseudo-elements are concerned, one can – and should – distinguish subatomically between the pseudo-light of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-photons, the pseudo-force of pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons, the pseudo-motion of pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons, and the pseudo-heat of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-protons, but we shall still find that the free/bound dichotomy corresponds to the pseudo-virtue and pseudo-vice of an unmoral situation in which positivity does not predominate (somatically) or preponderate (psychically) over negativity.

 

Yet in all four ‘pseudo’ cases, the emphasis will fall, under pressures from the hegemonic element, on the free factor, notwithstanding axial subversion of the polar phenomenal positions at the behest of the overall controlling element, be it metachemical in the case of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies or metaphysical (at least to a degree) in the case of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate ones.

 

But if morality is hegemonic and unmorality, corresponding to unholiness (whether pseudo or genuine) in the pseudo-male cases and to unclearness (whether genuine or pseudo) in the pseudo-female cases, subordinate, corresponding, in a sense, to the upended gender a plane down, in each class context, from the hegemonic gender, then immorality is always and everywhere a quasi-metachemical, quasi-chemical, quasi-physical, or quasi-metaphysical departure from pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-physics, pseudo-chemistry, or pseudo-metachemistry, as the case may be, which simply results in the upended gender ratio, be it 1:3 or 1˝:2˝, inversely noumenal or phenomenal, impinging upon the hegemonic position in a way that emphasizes the negative (and bound) at the expense of the positive (and free), with predictably vicious consequences.

 

Thus instead of three times as much beauty and love as ugliness and hatred in metachemistry, quasi-metachemistry, departing from pseudo-metaphysics via antimetaphysics, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of three times as much ugliness and hatred as beauty and love, and therefore of three times as much crime as evil.

 

Likewise, instead of 2˝ times as much strength and pride as weakness and humility in chemistry, quasi-chemistry, departing from pseudo-physics via antiphysics, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of 2˝ times as much weakness and humility (if not humiliation) as strength and pride, and therefore 2˝ times as much pseudo-crime as pseudo-evil.

 

Similarly, instead of 2˝ times as much knowledge and pleasure as ignorance and pain in physics, quasi-physics, departing from pseudo-chemistry via antichemistry, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of 2˝ times as much ignorance and pain as knowledge and pleasure, and therefore 2˝ times as much pseudo-wisdom as pseudo-grace.

 

Finally, instead of three times as much truth and joy as illusion and woe in metaphysics, quasi-metaphysics, departing from pseudo-metachemistry via antimetachemistry, presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of three times as much illusion and woe as truth and joy, and therefore three times as much wisdom as grace.

 

Clearly, you don’t have to be a genius to realize that none of these ‘quasi’ positions are good for the reputations of the corresponding hegemonic positions, whatever their kind of morality, since in all four gender-bender cases one will have an unfavourable emphasis upon that which is bound, and hence viciously dark, and therefore absolutely or relatively, depending on the elemental context, immoral.

 

Even the amorality of those coming down from above, as from the hegemonic elemental position, much as it may result in a greater emphasis on the positive than on the negative attribute, should be discouraged, insofar as all attempts to approximate the pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical pseudo-elements in such fashion will only encourage a correlative coming up, on the part of pseudo-males or pseudo-females, from below, as from their upended gender positions a plane down in each class context, with consequences described above.

 

It is not the duty of the hegemonic, least of all when noumenally subjective (metaphysical), to play at the subordinate gender’s game with an inverse ratio of somatic and/or psychic factors to what obtains with them, so that we can speak of amorality instead of unmorality, but to remain loyal to who or what they are, so that little or no encouragement is given to anyone below to ‘get above themselves’ in the various ‘quasi’ manners described above.

 

For the end result will always be immoral, and any degree of immorality proportionate to or consequent upon an amoral departure from morality on the part of the hegemonic gender, who should have known better, is logically unsustainable and, what’s more, socially and morally wrong.

 

If the worst of all possible worlds is to be precluded from transpiring, it can only be by the hegemonically moral remaining where they are and playing their own game, like our proverbial St. George with his foot firmly planted on the prostrate dragon, keeping the beast down as much for her own sake as for his.

 

As I have already remarked elsewhere with regard to a sartorial metaphor, tapering zipper-suits and straight dresses are not interchangeable.  You know your gender place and you keep to it.  For that is what makes for the best of all possible worlds, and never more so than in the case of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, in which supermasculine males have the right, morally and socially, to keep pseudo-superfeminine females in their noumenally pseudo-objective, straight dress-like places a plane down, in pseudo-space under time, from their own noumenally subjective tapering zippersuit-like absolutism at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass in what, under a Social Theocratic politico-religious dispensation favouring religious sovereignty, would be ‘Kingdom Come’ writ large, the otherworldly best and pseudo-netherworldly pseudo-worst of all possible worlds.

 

 

                                                8th-11th September, 2008

                                                Galway, Eire.