INNOCENCE AND GUILT AS CORRELATIVE FACTORS
Innocence and guilt ‘hang together’, like two sides of the same coin, whether that metaphorical coin happens to be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, not to mention, in subordinate contexts, pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical.
Hence there is, besides the obvious distinction between ‘being innocent’ or ‘being guilty’ of, say, a crime or even a sin, a more complex distinction which amounts, in any element or pseudo-element, to the equivalence of being free or being bound, that is, in effect, equivalent to freedom and binding or, for that matter, virtue and vice, brightness and shadow, positivity and negativity. Therefore one is both innocent and guilty, just as one is free and bound, positive and negative, virtuous and vicious, etc., etc.
But metachemical innocence and guilt is not the same as chemical innocence and guilt, even if, being of a female character, it shares with its lesser sister certain features in common. For the innocence of metachemistry is evil (beautiful and loving) and the guilt of metachemistry criminal (ugly and hateful), whereas the innocence of chemistry is pseudo-evil (strong and proud) and the guilt of chemistry pseudo-criminal (weak and humble), the ratio of innocence to guilt in metachemistry, a noumenal or ethereal element, differing from its chemical, or phenomenal and corporeal, counterpart in the absolute terms of 3:1 as against the relative terms of 2˝:1˝. Yet innocence still predominates over guilt in either element.
Likewise, physical innocence and guilt is not the same as metaphysical innocence and guilt, even if, being of a male character, it shares with its greater brother certain factors in common. For the innocence of physics is pseudo-graceful (knowledgeable and pleasurable) and the guilt of physics pseudo-wise (ignorant and painful), whereas the innocence of metaphysics is graceful (truthful and joyful) and the guilt of metaphysics wise (illusory and woeful), the ratio of innocence to guilt in physics, a phenomenal or corporeal element, differing from its metaphysical, or noumenal and ethereal, counterpart in the relative terms of 2˝:1˝ as against the absolute terms of 3:1. Yet innocence still preponderates over guilt in either element.
Therefore the innocence of evil and the guilt of crime not only differs from the innocence of pseudo-evil and the guilt of pseudo-crime, but stands in gender opposition to the innocence of grace and the guilt of wisdom, not to mention the innocence of pseudo-grace and the guilt of pseudo-wisdom, as incompatible gender ideals that can only suffer a catastrophic negation if subjected to the hegemonic sway of the opposite gender, whereof, in the female case, evil will be negated by good and crime by punishment, whilst, in the male case, grace will be negated by sin and wisdom by folly.
For if the innocence of evil and the guilt of crime are negated, by a pseudo-chemical subordination to a physical hegemony, then the damned outcome can only be the pseudo-guilt of goodness (pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility) and the pseudo-innocence of punishment (pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride), in consequence of a fall from free soma metachemically to bound soma pseudo-chemically (evil to good) and from bound psyche metachemically to free psyche pseudo-chemically (crime to punishment0, neither of which could be desirable from a metachemical standpoint, where the female is hegemonic, but rather eventualities to faithlessly fear, just as, from the converse standpoint, the pseudo-chemical damned could be inferred to live in faithless hope of a return to metachemical innocence and guilt.
Similarly, if the innocence of pseudo-evil and the guilt of pseudo-crime are negated, by a pseudo-metachemical subordination to a metaphysical hegemony, then the counter-damned (pseudo-damned) outcome can only be the pseudo-guilt of pseudo-goodness (pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred) and the pseudo-innocence of pseudo-punishment (pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love), in consequence of a counter-fall (pseudo-fall) from free soma chemically to bound soma pseudo-metachemically (pseudo-evil to pseudo-good) and from bound psyche chemically to free psyche pseudo-metachemically (pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment), neither of which could be desirable from a chemical standpoint, where the female is hegemonic, but rather eventualities to pseudo-faithlesslessly fear, just as, from the converse standpoint, the pseudo-metachemical counter-damned (pseudo-damned) could be inferred to live in pseudo-faithless hope of a return to chemical innocence and guilt.
For no female, whether pseudo-chemical or pseudo-metachemical, is going to be at ease with a situation which negates her authentic sense of innocence and guilt, freedom and binding, under male hegemonic pressures, such that, in the metaphysical case, favour genuine grace and wisdom at the expense of pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime coupled, on its own side of the gender fence, to sin and folly, or, in the physical case, favour pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom at the expense of evil and crime coupled, on its own side of the gender fence, to pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly, and consequently the pseudo-metachemical will no more be resigned to pseudo-goodness and pseudo-punishment than their pseudo-chemical counterparts to goodness and punishment.
Which is a test for males and the very existence of culture or pseudo-culture, as the class/axial case may be, not merely in polar rejection of philistinism or pseudo-philistinism, but in opposition to pseudo-barbarity and barbarity in the interests, for pseudo-females, of civility and pseudo-civility.
For just as the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female corollary of culture is pseudo-civility, so the pseudo-chemical pseudo-female corollary of pseudo-culture is civility, and neither can be sustained (by males) where culture or pseudo-culture is not. Only a reversion, pseudo-faithlessly or faithlessly hoped for by the pseudo-civil and civil, to pseudo-barbarity or barbarity, as the axial/class case may be, with the restoration, in consequence, of a female hegemonic sway over philistines and pseudo-philistines.
For males, on the other hand, the importance of remaining in control of their hegemonic positions cannot be underestimated, least of all in metaphysics, since the negation of grace and wisdom by sin and folly in the church-hegemonic axial case is something to faithfully fear … as the righteous, hegemonic over the pseudo-just, must faithfully fear the meek, subordinate to the pseudo-vain. The negation of pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom by pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly in the state-hegemonic axial case is likewise something to pseudo-faithfully fear … as the pseudo-righteous, hegemonic over the just, must pseudo-faithfully fear the pseudo-meek, subordinate to the vain.
Those, on the other hand, who live in sin and folly, pseudo-physical guilt and innocence, could be inferred to live in faithful hope of deliverance through salvation to the greater innocence of grace and the lesser guilt of wisdom in righteousness, while their pseudo-sinful and pseudo-foolish pseudo-metaphysical counterparts could be inferred to live in pseudo-faithful hope of counter-deliverance through counter-salvation (pseudo-salvation) to the greater innocence of pseudo-grace and the lesser guilt of pseudo-wisdom in pseudo-righteousness, neither of which, however, would have anything to do with metaphysics and therefore with God and, more significantly, Heaven, but, equating with man and the earth, leave much to be desired from a truly religious, or church-hegemonic, axial standpoint.
It is for this reason that ‘Kingdom Come’ will not be a physical but a metaphysical destiny primarily intended for the pseudo-physical, whose deliverance from meekness will bring about the counter-damnation (pseudo-damnation) of the pseudo-vain to pseudo-justice, subordinate, for ever more, to the hegemonic triumph of righteousness.