SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY
428. The self can only be hegemonic or ascendant in sensibility, and then on the basis of transcending the secondary modes of will and spirit which pertain to sensibility, whether in primacy or, more positively, in supremacy, so that both of the latter are kept, as they deserve, in a subordinate relationship to the self, be it egocentric, and vegetative, or psychocentric, and airy.
429. For no more than the self can be paramount in sensuality ... can the not-self or selflessness be paramount in sensibility, since, in the one case, the self is subordinate to either the not-self or selflessness, while, in the other case, the not-self and selflessness will be subordinate to the self.
430. And when the not-self and selflessness, will and spirit, are subordinate to the self, it is because the male side of life is in the ascendant, in due subjective vein, over that which appertains, in objectivity, to its female side, and all because sensibility is paramount.
431. Thus do things tend, in sensible supremacy, towards the best of all possible worlds and/or societies, worlds and/or societies in which Christian and Superchristian values are paramount in due subjective vein.
432. But if sensual primacy is the worst of all possible worlds and/or societies and sensible supremacy the best, it has to be admitted that this is so, in both cases, only for males, not for females, since sensual primacy is arguably the best of all possible worlds and/or societies for females and sensible supremacy arguably the worst.
433. For females and males are not equal but diametrically antithetical, the former objective and negative or, at any rate, generally more negative than positive, and the latter subjective and ... generally more positive than negative, with corresponding tensions not only between sensuality and sensibility, but also between primacy and supremacy, so that, ultimately, what suits the one sex will be contrary to the interests of the other.
434. At least this would generally be true of men and women, although situations of course vary with the individual, and it would seem that some women are less given to primacy than others, while, conversely, some men are more given to supremacy than others, depending on their circumstances.
435. Yet supremacy in women, where it exists, generally follows from supremacy in men, while, conversely, primacy in men generally follows, where it exists, from primacy in women, so that complementarity is more a result of the ascendancy of one sex over the other than a natural or preordained fact.
436. For women would not be nearly as supreme, or positive, without male assistance and input, while men, conversely, would not be nearly so disposed to primacy, or negativity, were women less free and more disposed, in consequence, to be disloyal to their fundamental natures or, rather, unnatures.
437. For the drift towards primacy is only made possible by the relaxation of subjectively-conditioned constraints, in both sensibility and sensuality, upon female objectivity, with greater freedom, in consequence, for women to be 'true' to themselves, meaning principally their not-self and/or selflessness.
438. If men pave the way, through liberal delusion, in this respect, it is not long before women take over and avail themselves of ecclesiastical or supreme freedoms in order to further the secular freedoms which, being primal, have more relevance to them, as creatures of objectivity, than ever anything derived from or partly deferential towards subjectivity would have, no matter how twisted.
439. For women are less creatures of economics or religion, even when the latter are (falsely) objective, than creatures of politics and science, and when such disciplines are in the ascendant, as they must be in free societies of a secular order, it will be found that women, too, are ascendant over men and able, in consequence, to dominate them to a greater extent than would otherwise be possible.
440. Such is patently the case in both England-dominated Britain, land of parliamentary freedom par excellence, and America, land of press freedom par excellence, whose women, respectively symbolized by 'Britannia' and the 'Liberty Belle', are very much in the ascendant, due to the eclipse of sensual supremacy by sensual primacy.
441. For politics and science can only be subordinate to economics and religion in sensual supremacy, as things ascend from least to most positivity via less (relative to least) and more (relative to most) positivity ... on the basis, in both phenomenal and noumenal contexts, of a progression from science to religion via politics and economics.
442. Conversely, economics and religion can only be subordinate to politics and science in sensual primacy, as things descend from most to least negativity via more (relative to most) and less (relative to least) negativity ... on the basis, in both phenomenal and noumenal contexts, of a regression from science to religion via politics and economics.
443. Hence we have to weigh a preponderating positivity in economics and religion against a 'subponderating' positivity in science and politics on the one hand, that of supremacy, and a predominating negativity in science and politics against a 'subdominating' negativity in economics and religion on the other hand, that of primacy.
444. Thus whereas science and politics are subponderant, so to speak, in supremacy, they are predominant in primacy, and therefore only in the latter will they be hegemonic and able, as female disciplines, to dominate economics and religion, and to do so, moreover, from the objective standpoint of secular freedom.
445. For the hegemony of science and politics, the 'Liberty Belle' and 'Britannia', would not be possible except in relation to secular freedom, and such a freedom presupposes maximum objectivity, and hence the eclipse of supremacy by primacy.
446. It is science and politics, the will or, rather, antiwill of the not-unself per se and the spirit or, rather, antispirit of unselflessness per se, which have economics and religion, the anti-ego and the antimind/antisoul, not to mention supremacist residues of the ego and the mind/soul, in their negative grip in both Britain and America, to the detriment of anything subjective, and hence male.