PART EIGHT

 

1.                In overall subatomic terms, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis offers us a polarity between representative photons and pseudo-representative pseudo-electrons, in metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, on its female side, and one between pseudo-representative pseudo-protons and representative neutrons, in pseudo-metaphysics and physics, on its male side.

2.                By axial contrast, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis offers us a polarity between representative protons and pseudo-representative neutrons, in metaphysics and pseudo-physics, on its male side, and one between pseudo-representative pseudo-photons and representative electrons, in pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry, on its female side.

 

1.                The polarity between metachemical photons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons is primary and that between pseudo-metaphsyical pseudo-protons and physical neutrons secondary in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.

2.                The polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons is primary and that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-photons and chemical electrons secondary on overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.

3.                More specifically, the polarity between metachemical photons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-protons and physical neutrons is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate.

4.                Likewise the polarity between metaphysical protons and pseudo-physical pseudo-neutrons is primary and pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-photons and chemical electrons is pseudo-primary and primary state subordinate.

 

1.                In terms of the once-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between metachemical electrons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-photons is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-neutrons and physical protons is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate.

2.                Likewise the once-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between metaphysical neutrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-protons is primary and pseudo-primary church hegemonic, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-electrons and chemical photons is pseudo-primary and primary state subordinate.

 

1.                In terms of the twice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between metachemical neutrons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-protons is secondary and pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-electrons and physical photons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state-hegemonic.

2.                Likewise, the twice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between metaphysical electrons and pseudo-physical pseudo-photons is secondary and pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-neutrons and chemical protons is pseudo-secondary and secondary church hegemonic.

 

1.                In terms of the thrice-bovaryized elements and pseudo-elements, the polarity between metachemical protons and pseudo-chemical pseudo-neutrons is secondary and pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-photons and physical electrons is pseudo-secondary and secondary state hegemonic.

2.                Likewise, the thrice-bovaryized elemental and pseudo-elemental polarity between metaphysical photons and pseudo-physical pseudo-electrons is secondary and pseudo-secondary state subordinate, whereas that between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-protons and chemical neutrons is pseudo-secondary and secondary church hegemonic.

 

In overall axial terms, one finds that the primary and pseudo-primary polarities are positive and pseudo-positive, whereas their secondary and pseudo-secondary counterparts are negative and pseudo-negative, which is to say, bound and pseudo-bound as opposed to free or pseudo-free, whether in relation to the state or to the church.

 

1.                On the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, the overall female (divisible between hegemonic noumenal objective and subordinate pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objective) side of the gender divide is primary and pseudo-primary state hegemonic but secondary and pseudo-secondary church subordinate, whereas the overall male (divisible between subordinate pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjective and hegemonic phenomenal subjective) side of this divide is pseudo-primary and primary church subordinate but pseudo-secondary and secondary state hegemonic.

2.                On the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, the overall male (divisible between subordinate pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-subjective and hegemonic noumenal subjective) side of the gender divide is pseudo-primary and primary church hegemonic but pseudo-secondary and secondary church subordinate, whereas the overall female (divisible between hegemonic phenomenal objective and subordinate pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objective) side of this divide is primary and pseudo-primary state subordinate but secondary and pseudo-secondary church hegemonic.

 

In such fashion is the fourfold composition of elements and pseudo-elements put into axial perspective, and this is the sum of philosophical truth which also embraces, as a specific elemental bias within the overall atomic framework, metaphysical truth as the transcendent ideal of all philosophical endeavour.

 

1.          What can be established with a fair degree of certainty is that each hegemonic element, whether photon, electron, neutron, or proton, has a primary and a secondary aspect, the former free and the latter bound, whether in soma or psyche, depending on gender or, in these elemental contexts, the effective preconditions of gender.

2.          Conversely, each subordinate pseudo-element, whether pseudo-proton, pseudo-neutron, pseudo-electron, or pseudo-photon, has a pseudo-primary and a pseudo-secondary aspect or, more correctly, pseudo-aspect, the former pseudo-bound and the latter pseudo-free, whether in pseudo-psyche or pseudo-soma, depending, once again, on gender or the effective elemental preconditions thereof.

3.          Therefore whereas the free aspect of an element, whether somatically predominant or psychically preponderant on absolute (3) or relative (2) terms, is positive and, hence, bright, the bound aspect, whether psychically postponderant or somatically postdominant on absolute (1) or relative (1) terms, is negative and, hence, dark, or in shadow.

4.          Likewise, whereas the pseudo-bound pseudo-aspect of a pseudo-element, whether pseudo-psychically pseudo-preponderant or pseudo-somatically pseudo-predominant on pseudo-absolute (3) or pseudo-relative (2) terms, is pseudo-negative and, hence, pseudo-dark, the pseudo-free pseudo-aspect, whether pseudo-somatically postdominant or pseudo-psychically postponderant on pseudo-absolute (1) or pseudo-relative (1) terms, is pseudo-positive and, hence, pseudo-bright.

 

In what could be called majoritarian ratio terms, whether elementally predominant and preponderant or pseudo-elementally pseudo-preponderant and pseudo-predominant, the hegemonic element is bright and the subordinate pseudo-element pseudo-dark, but such pseudo-darkness is the pseudo-primary corollary of the primary brightness to which it is pseudo-elementally subordinate on either pseudo-preponderant to predominant (pseudo-male to female) or pseudo-predominant to preponderant (pseudo-female to male) parallel ratio terms.

 

Another thing one can be confident about is the association between photons and metachemistry, electrons and chemistry, neutrons and physics, and protons and metaphysics, to take just the four principal subatomic elements. But it is only a terminological association, not an exact correlation, because each of the elements described, whilst they may constitute the fulcrum of the discipline to which they have been ascribed, do not constitute the atomic basis of that discipline, much less the nuclear superstructure, which, besides requiring human application, is also comprised of the bovaryized elements that supplement the representative elements on the terms outlined in previous pages. Now what applies to the elements is also applicable to the pseudo-elements, which require the addition of bovaryized pseudo-elements to the pseudo-element most representative of the pseudo-discipline to which it appertains as its pseudo-subatomic precondition, be that pseudo-discipline pseudo-metaphysical, pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical. Hence we can no more equate pseudo-metaphysics with pseudo-protons alone than ,,,, pseudo-metachemistry with pseudo-photons alone, even though such pseudo-elements play the main pseudo-subatomic role in the overall pseudo-atomic composition of any given pseudo-disciplinary bias. But when it comes to why some people are this way and others that way, why this atomic bias and not that, we enter the determining realms of gender and class, with gender taking precedence over class as the primary determinant of a class extrapolation that even when it shares the same gender does so to a different extent, making for an absolute/relative dichotomy between the photonic bias, for instance, of upper-class females (metachemical) and the electronic bias of lower-class females (chemical) in gender antithesis to the neutronic bias of lower-class males (physical) and the protonic bias of upper-class males (metaphysical, not forgetting the pseudo-gender subordination that stems from the superior pressure of what becomes the hegemonic gender upon their inferior counterparts and leads, in due course, to pseudo-class distinctions, on a pseudo-absolute/pseudo-relative basis, between the pseudo-protonic bias of what can be termed pseudo-upper class pseudo-males (pseudo-metaphysical) and the pseudo-neutronic bias of pseudo-lower class pseudo-males (pseudo-physical) in pseudo-gender antithesis to the pseudo-electronic bias of pseudo-lower class pseudo-females (pseudo-chemical) and the pseudo-photonic bias of pseudo-upper class pseudo-females (pseudo-metachemical), none of whom would exist as such but for their upper- or lower-class gender counterparts or, more accurately, opposites.

 

If much of what has been written on this and previous pages sounds like the 'Visible Matter/Invisible Matter' or, following on from the above, 'Bright Matter/Dark Matter' theories of contemporary scientists and more especially of physicists, then don't be surprised: it does. But that doesn't mean to say science has caught up with my philosophy. On the contrary, any system based in empirical observation will never 'catch up' with one whose logic remains centred in insightful feelings, or truth. Science may have a beautiful will, but it has no soul or only, at best, a thrice-bovaryized intensely sceptical one, and that is why philosophy of this nature is so necessary, and why the resurrection of truth, in the truly metaphysical sense that has nothing to do with fact hyped as truth, absolutely depends on it, if civilization is to return, on more radical terms than ever existed in the (medieval) past, to the leadership of religion, which has nothing to do with fundamentally understanding the world for purposes of material exploitation, but everything to do with ideally transcending it in the interests of soulful liberation, since at the opposite gender remove from the dominance of will and the enslavement of 'the world' to that domination, both directly, in polar axial terms, and indirectly, where its lapsed Catholic/republican socialist manifestation is concerned and one finds a proletariat in dire need of precisely the kind of liberation, deliverance, salvation call it by what name one likes alluded to above, which the Catholic Church, compromised by ongoing deference to free will in the guise of 'the Creator', 'the Almighty', 'the All-Powerful', and other variations on a freely-somatic metachemical theme, is no less signally incapable of providing now than ever it was in the Judeo-Christian past. Only Social Theocracy, it seems to me, can open the door to religious freedom and, hence, to the hegemony of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, of true religion over pseudo-science.

 

LONDON 2014

 

Preview THE FOURFOLD COMPOSITION OF ELEMENTS AND PSEUDO-ELEMENTS IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE eBook