101. But we must not forget that where there is doing there will be antibeing, which devolves or, rather, counter-evolves in regressive stages of antisoul, and, conversely, that where there is being there will be antigiving (not antidoing!), which evolves or, rather, counter-devolves in progressive stages of antispirit.
102. Likewise where there is giving there will be antitaking, which devolves or, rather, counter-evolves in regressive stages of anti-ego, and, conversely, where there is taking there will be antidoing (not antigiving!), which evolves or, rather, counter-devolves in progressive stages of antiwill.
103. For no less than will, and therefore doing, is the principal attribute of metachemical primacy in no matter what stage of devolution, so soul, and therefore being, is the principal attribute of metaphysical supremacy in no matter what stage of evolution, soul accordingly being the main aspect of psyche to be subverted by will in noumenal sensuality, spirit (not will!) being the main aspect, however, of soma to be subverted or, rather, inverted by soul in noumenal sensibility.
104. Likewise, no less than spirit, and therefore giving, is the principal attribute of chemical primacy in no matter what stage of devolution, so ego, and therefore taking, is the principal attribute of physical supremacy in no matter what stage of evolution, ego accordingly being the main aspect of psyche to be subverted by spirit in phenomenal sensuality, will (not spirit!) being the main aspect, however, of soma to be inverted by ego in phenomenal sensibility.
105. For you cannot just reverse the sensual realities of either class position in sensibility, making soul responsible for inverting will and, correlatively, ego responsible for inverting spirit, when soul had been subverted by will in the noumenal context and ego by spirit in the phenomenal one. On the contrary, soul is no more capable of directly subverting or, rather, inverting will than ego of directly inverting spirit.
106. But the inversion, in metachemical sensibility, of spirit by metaphysical soul confounds will and makes it more amenable to egoistic control, while the inversion, in chemical sensibility, of will by physical ego confounds spirit and makes it more amenable to soulful control, such are the paradoxes of the gender antagonism which pits an XX-chromosomal absolutism against an XY-chromosomal relativity, the ambiguity of which puts it at a natural disadvantage to females and ensures that male hegemonies are only possible on the paradoxical basis of nature confounded by nurture on the aforementioned terms of either the main psychic attribute in metaphysics, viz. the soul, neutralizing the subordinate somatic attribute of metachemistry, viz. the spirit, or the main psychic attribute in physics, viz. the ego, neutralizing the subordinate somatic attribute of chemistry, viz. the will, with a result that neither the metachemical will nor the chemical spirit, as principal somatic attributes, are able to function according to their natural best, as in sensuality, but are confounded and rendered vulnerable to sensible management by the ego and the soul of metaphysics and physics respectively - the reverse of what happens in sensuality when the soul of the one and the ego of the other, corresponding to their main attributes, are upended and subverted by metachemical will and chemical spirit along lines which have been identified, in previous texts, with the id and the superego, the instinctualized soul of the one and the spiritualized ego of the other only too ready to passively acquiesce in the free will and free spirit of somatic licence, with predictably sinful consequences.
107. Doubtless male deviousness in relation to females owes not a little to this requirement of a split-character, with an XY-chromosomal relativity, and hence ambiguity, to get the better of female nature through the paradoxical employment of nurture, something, incidentally, which does not apply in respect of his own somatic nature, where will and spirit can be more adequately dealt with, or bound, on a straight ego-to-will and soul-to-spirit basis, albeit the former more typifies physical sensibility and the latter metaphysical sensibility, bearing in mind the third-rate orders of will and spirit in each Elemental context which rather contrast with the first-rate orders of will and spirit in metachemistry and chemistry, the female Elemental contexts par excellence.
108. Be that as it may, the reign of doing in metachemical primacy at the expense of being in metaphysical supremacy means that the latter becomes quasi-primal in metaphysical or, more correctly, antimetaphysical antibeing, which is the subordinate gender complement to a metachemical hegemony. For the noumenal, or upper-class, male is not by nurture antimetaphysical but becomes partial to the woe of antibeing under pressure of a metachemically hegemonic nature on the part of his female counterpart, which causes his psychic nurture, duly subverted, to foolishly defer to nature in the aforementioned antimetaphysical terms.
109. Likewise the reign of giving in chemical primacy at the expense of taking in physical supremacy means that the latter becomes quasi-primal in antiphysical antitaking, which is the subordinate gender complement to a chemical hegemony. For the phenomenal, or lower-class, male is not by nurture antiphysical but becomes partial to the ignorance of antitaking under pressure of a chemically hegemonic nature on the part of his female counterpart, which causes his psychic nurture, duly subverted, to foolishly defer to nature in the aforementioned antiphysical terms.
110. Conversely, the lead of taking in physical supremacy at the expense of giving in chemical primacy means that the latter becomes quasi-supreme in antichemical antigiving, which is the subordinate gender complement to a physical hegemony. For the phenomenal, or lower-class, female is not by nature antichemical but becomes partial to the pride of antigiving under pressure of a physically hegemonic nurture on the part of her male counterpart, which causes her somatic nature, duly inverted, to modestly defer to nurture in the aforementioned antichemical terms.
111. Likewise the lead of being in metaphysical supremacy at the expense of doing in metachemical primacy means that the latter becomes quasi-supreme in antimetachemical antidoing, which is the subordinate gender complement to a metaphysical hegemony. For the noumenal, or upper-class, female is not by nature antimetachemical but becomes partial to the beauty of antidoing under pressure of a metaphysically hegemonic nurture on the part of her male counterpart, which causes her somatic nature, duly inverted, to modestly defer to nurture in the aforementioned antimetachmical terms.
112. The instinctuality or, in sensibility, anti-instinctuality of noumenal females should be contrasted with the spirituality or, in sensibility, antispirituality of phenomenal females, whereas the intellectuality or, in sensuality, anti-intellectuality of phenomenal males should be contrasted with the emotionality or, in sensuality, anti-emotionality of noumenal males, so that a clear-cut class distinction may be said to exist between the upper-class femaleness of metachemical will and/or antimetachemical antiwill and the lower-class femaleness of chemical spirit and/or antichemical antispirit, in contrast to the lower-class maleness of physical ego and/or antiphysical anti-ego and the upper-class maleness of metaphysical soul and/or antimetaphysical antisoul.
113. Obviously, the metachemical triumph of will implies the antimetaphysical defeat of soul in terms of antisoul, just as the chemical triumph of spirit implies the antiphysical defeat of ego in terms of anti-ego, so that, from a male perspective, whether noumenal or phenomenal, neither the triumph of will nor the triumph of spirit, neither power nor glory, are desirable.
114. Conversely, the physical triumph of ego implies the antichemical defeat of spirit in terms of antispirit, just as the metaphysical triumph of soul implies the antimetachemical defeat of will in terms of antiwill, so that, from a female perspective, whether phenomenal or noumenal, neither the triumph of ego nor the triumph of soul, neither form nor contentment, are desirable.
115. And yet, from the standpoint of civilization, wherein we are primarily concerned with culture and civility rather than their opposites, such free psyche and bound soma as are constitutive of culture and civility on both primary and secondary, male and female, terms can only come to pass with either an emphasis on form in the event of a physical male hegemony or, in higher terms, an emphasis on contentment in the event of a metaphysical male hegemony, so that either egocentric taking gets the antigiving better of giving or psychocentric being gets the antidoing better of doing, and civilization accordingly attains to its maturity on both evolutionary and counter-devolutionary, cultural and civil, terms, terms which, in respect of the former, presage further progress in regard to ego or soul, as the case may be.
116. When civilization is thwarted by will and/or spirit, doing and/or giving, on the other hand, such progress is inconceivable, and we can speak rather of a want of subjective freedom under the rule, from a male standpoint, of tyrannical objectivities, such that maintain the interests of free soma at the expense of free psyche and stifle male resolve and initiative, whether from a state-oriented basis in autocracy and its corollary of aristocracy, or from a church-oriented basis in bureaucracy and its corollary of meritocracy, neither of which are greatly conducive to the freedom of democracy and its corollary of plutocracy or to the freedom of theocracy and its corollary of technocracy.
117. In fact, it is more usual, in avowedly worldly societies, for a compromise to exist between what is rooted in will and its egocentric counterpart where the State is concerned, and what is rooted in spirit and its psychocentric counterpart where the Church is concerned, so that, in the one case, democracy and plutocracy are subverted and/or vitiated by autocracy and aristocracy, whilst, in the other case, theocracy and technocracy are subverted and/or vitiated by bureaucracy and meritocracy, to the detriment of either proper state freedom or proper church freedom.
118. Thus instead of a proper democracy, with its somatic complement of a fully functioning plutocracy, a hybrid is maintained in which such democracy and plutocracy as exist are compromised by autocracy and aristocracy, and thereby prevented from achieving anything like their maximum potential for physical development in knowledgeable self-realization.
119. Likewise, instead of a proper theocracy, with its somatic complement of a fully functioning technocracy, a hybrid is maintained in which such theocracy and technocracy as exist are compromised by bureaucracy and meritocracy, and thereby prevented from achieving anything like their maximum potential for metaphysical development in joyful self-realization.
120. Such civilizations are not fully or properly civilized, for they are characterized by a want of male freedom/binding whether in relation to the State or to the Church, but have such democratic/plutocratic and/or theocratic/technocratic freedoms/bindings as they have achieved held in check and prevented from reaching their true potential by the tyrannical prevalence, artfully disguised in constitutional or other legal niceties, of the autocratic/aristocratic and/or bureaucratic/meritocratic freedoms/bindings which characterize the traditional manifestations, in female vein, of state power and church glory, to the detriment, in male terms, of state form and church contentment.
121. Clearly, no-one who is primarily concerned with either democratic state freedom or theocratic church freedom can possibly be satisfied with such a worldly and, in many ways, amoral and androgynous situation, and most republican democracies provide ample evidence of the extents to which democratic freedom and its corollary of plutocratic binding are more genuine than in countries where an autocracy and its bound aristocracy still hold sway, to the detriment of phenomenal male self-respect.
122. But there is also, and more importantly, the consideration of a noumenal, or upper-class, male self-respect to be borne in mind, and this does not follow from state freedom but, rather, with freedom from bureaucratic subversion of religion by the freely somatic aspect of 'Mother Church' which reduces everything to spirit, to spirituality in chemical-oriented vein, and ensures that such ego as exists in relation to it is not free but psychically bound in respect of a scripturally pedantic meritocracy who are the bound servants of spiritual freedom and thus of a phenomenal female subversion of religion which prevents its male aspects from attaining to anything like the theocratic freedom necessary to a joyful redemption of truth via the relevant binding of metaphysical soma to technocratic praxis and organic transmutation.
123. Therefore the struggle for ultimate freedom, which is a religious rather than a political ideal, presupposes the rejection of all bureaucratic/meritocratic obstacles to the full-flowering of theocracy and its corollary of technocracy, including, not least, the undermining of what is properly metaphysical in such freely chemical fashion. For as long as spirit is sovereign, in bureaucratic freedom, soul will remain in the theocratic wilderness and not be brought into the mainstream of religious life, existing as the goal and raison d'Ítre of theocracy for all Eternity.
124. Not that the bureaucratic/meritocratic subversion of religion is the sole way in which theocracy/technocracy is subverted, even if it happens to correspond to what broadly appertains to the Church considered as a monistic or synthetic alternative to pluralistic or analytic organizations more usually identifiable with the State. But it does so as a sort of watery, or chemical, subversion of air, of metaphysics, and thus in relation to clerical authoritarianism, which could be identified, in Biblical terms, with a compromise between the Old Testament and the New Testament which, when push comes to shove, nevertheless favours the Old Testament.
125. There is also, anterior to that, what could be called the autocratic/aristocratic subversion of religion, which would correspond to a sort of fiery, or metachemical, subversion of air, of metaphysics, in relation to feudal authoritarianism, which could be identified, in Biblical terms, with the Old Testament. While, posterior to clerical authoritarianism, is what could be called the democratic/plutocratic subversion of religion, which would correspond to a sort of vegetative, or physical, subversion of air, of metaphysics, in relation to liberal pluralism, which could be identified, in Biblical terms, with the New Testament.