16.  Whether the collective exists for the individual or the individual for the collective ... will be determined by the type of society - individuals existing for the collective in the amoral contexts of the world, the collective existing for the individual in both the immoral and moral contexts of that which is either anterior to the world, and netherworldly, or posterior to it, and otherworldly.


17.  Thus the individual does not exist in his own right in worldly societies, but in relation to the collective, which has the right to subsume him into itself in the interests of a society conceived in phenomenal terms, whether this right be expressed democratically and/or bureaucratically or, indeed, technocratically and/or plutocratically - the difference between volume-mass realism and mass-volume naturalism.


18.  For worldly societies, which are collectivistic, are only germane to the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, not to the noumenal planes of space and time, and therefore they will either favour a feminine bias in volume-mass realism or a masculine bias in mass-volume naturalism, assuming they have not attempted to strike a balance between the two.


19.  If the individual exists for the collective in the worldly contexts, as described above, then in both netherworldly and otherworldly contexts it is the collective that exists for the individual, whether that individualism be expressed autocratically and/or aristocratically or, indeed, theocratically and/or meritocratically - the difference between space-time materialism and time-space idealism.


20.  For non-worldly societies, in their individualistic bias, are only germane to the noumenal planes of space and time, and therefore they will either favour a diabolic bias (superfeminine to subfeminine) in space-time materialism or a divine bias (submasculine to supermasculine) in time-space idealism.


21.  Materialism and idealism are much less disposed to the striking of a balance than realism and naturalism, though even in the biased extremes of life a kind of unbalanced balance, or uneasy compromise, is possible, as between (in general terms) the Devil and God, and such a compromise would be less worldly than non-worldly, as the netherworldly and the otherworldly extremes co-exist in a context of limbo, the noumenal equivalent of the world.


22.  For if the world is a compromise between purgatory and the earth, water and vegetation, feminine and masculine, then limbo is a compromise between Hell and Heaven, fire and air, diabolic and divine.


23.  Generally speaking, the noumenal extremes are much more repellent than attractive, given their absolutist integrities, and thus more suspicious of one other than are their phenomenal counterparts 'down below', in the mundane realms of volume and mass.


24.  It is for this reason that noumenal compromise is the exception to the rule, whereas phenomenal compromise is the rule rather than the exception, given the relativistic integrities of water and vegetation, woman and man.


25.  There is more masculine in phenomenal woman and more feminine in phenomenal man than ever there is submasculine and/or supermasculine in noumenal woman (divine in the Devil) or superfeminine and/or subfeminine in noumenal man (diabolic in God), even though nobody and no-one is ever entirely relative or completely absolute.


26.  Morality can be collectivistic or individualistic, immorality likewise, though amorality will aim at and reflect a balance between either objective and subjective modes of collectivism or, alternatively, objective and subjective modes of individualism - the former worldly and the latter non-worldly.


27.  Immoral societies will thus be either superfeminine to subfeminine (if noumenal) or upper feminine to lower feminine (if phenomenal), while moral societies will be either lower masculine to upper masculine (if phenomenal) or submasculine to supermasculine (if noumenal), thereby confirming a distinction between fire and water on the one hand, and vegetation and air on the other hand.


28.  As a rule, immoral societies are sensual and 'once born', whereas moral societies are sensible and 'reborn', since the former are Superheathen/Heathen and the latter Christian/Superchristian.


29.  In a Superheathen society the collective exists for the individual, as goodness for evil, whereas in a Heathen society the individual exists for the collective, as evil for goodness.


30.  In a Christian society the individual exists for the collective, as wisdom for folly, whereas in a Superchristian society the collective exists - or will exist - for the individual, as folly for wisdom.


31.  Thus whereas the Superheathen society is evil and the Heathen society good, the Christian society is foolish and the Superchristian society wise.


32.  The superfeminine woman is free to do evil in a Superheathen society, while the feminine woman is free to give goodness in a Heathen society.


33.  The masculine man is bound to take folly in a Christian society, while the supermasculine man is bound to be wise in a Superchristian society.


34.  Evil usually takes an individual form and goodness a collective one, because evil is noumenal and goodness phenomenal, whereas folly usually takes a collective form and wisdom an individual one, because folly is phenomenal and wisdom noumenal.


35.  To contrast the doing of evil to other individuals with the giving of good to other collectives, while likewise contrasting the taking of folly within the collective to the being of wisdom within the individual.


36.  For both evil and goodness are objective, after their immoral fashions, whereas both folly and wisdom are subjective, in due moral vein - the former options female and the latter options male.