The Ratios of Soma to Psyche and Vice Versa. Soma and psyche 'hang together' as two aspects of the same gender or elemental or class reality, but they don't actually do so on an equal or equivalent basis.  Either there is a 3:1 ratio of one of these factors over the other in the absolutism of noumenal objectivity (metachemistry) or of noumenal subjectivity (metaphysics) or, alternatively and intermediately, so to speak, there exists a 2:1 ratio of one of these factors over the other in the relativity of phenomenal objectivity (chemistry) or of phenomenal subjectivity (physics). Of course, one could describe soma and psyche in other terms, like, for example, physiology and psychology, or nature and nurture, or even sensuousness and consciousness, and thus defy common usage (a philosophical duty!) in the interests of logical parallelism and hence, the avoidance of the coupling of, say, nature with consciousness.  Thus the ratio of sensuousness to consciousness in the noumenal elemental contexts of metachemistry and metaphysics will differ not only from themselves, but from their phenomenal counterparts 'down below' in the sphere of chemical and/or physical worldly relativity, and, in terms of plane, of volume and mass as opposed to space and time.  A 3:1 ratio within the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry, which, being a female element, is typified by free soma and bound psyche, is equivalent to most particles and least wavicles, and thus, in effect, to a distinction between the supersensuousness of free soma and the subconsciousness of bound psyche, or, put in equivalent alternative terms, the supernaturalism of free soma and the subnurturalism, so to speak, of bound psyche.  Conversely, a 3:1 ratio within the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics, which, being a male element, is typified by free psyche and bound soma, is equivalent to most wavicles and least particles, and thus, in effect, to a distinction between the superconsciousness of free psyche and the subsensuousness of bound soma or, put in equivalent alternative terms, the supernurturalism, so to speak, of free psyche and the subnaturalism of bound soma.  On the other hand, a 2:1 ratio within the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry, which, being a female element, is typified by free soma and bound psyche, is equivalent to more (relative to most) particles and less (relative to least) wavicles, and thus, in effect, to a distinction between the sensuousness of free soma and the unconsciousness of bound psyche or, put in equivalent alternative terms, the naturalism of free soma and the unnurturalism, so to speak, of bound psyche.  By phenomenal contrast, a 2:1 ratio within the phenomenal subjectivity of physics, which, being a male element, is typified by free psyche and bound soma, is equivalent to more (relative to most) wavicles and less (relative to least) particles, and thus, in effect, to a distinction between the consciousness of free psyche and the unsensuousness of bound soma or, put in equivalent alternative terms, the nurturalism, so to speak, of free psyche and the unnaturalism of bound soma.  Sound strange?  Yes, it is bound to!  And yet, we are probably nearer the mark here, with an acknowledgement of the difference between contrasts within the noumenal spheres of space and time, which are likely to be of the supernatural vis--vis subnurtural or, conversely, supernurtural vis--vis subnatual varieties, and contrasts, on the other hand, within the phenomenal spheres of volume and mass, which are likely to be of the natural vis--vis unnurtural or, conversely, nurtural vis--vis unnatural varieties, always bearing in mind that the 'natural', whether noumenal or phenomenal, corresponds to somatic and/or physiological sensuousness and the 'nurtural', again whether noumenal or phenomenal, to psychic and/or psychological consciousness.  Thus a ratio of 3:1 particles to wavicles in metachemistry, the fiery element of noumenal objectivity par excellence, is bound to imply a contrast, equivalent to supremacy and primacy, between supersensuousness and subconsciousness, will and/or spirit vis--vis ego and/or soul, somatic freedom and psychic binding, whereas such a ratio of wavicles to particles in metaphysics, the airy element of noumenal subjectivity par excellence, is going to imply a contrast, again equivalent to supremacy and primacy, between superconsciousness and subsensuousness, ego and/or soul and will and/or spirit, psychic freedom and somatic binding.  Similarly a ratio of 2:1 particles to wavicles in chemistry, the watery element of phenomenal objectivity par excellence, is bound to imply a contrast, equivalent to supremacy and primacy, between sensuousness and unconsciousness, will and/or spirit vis--vis ego and/or soul, somatic freedom and psychic binding, whereas such a ratio of wavicles to particles in physics, the vegetative (earthy) element of phenomenal subjectivity par excellence, is going to imply a contrast, again equivalent to supremacy and primacy, between consciousness and unsensuousness, so to speak, ego and/or soul and will and/or spirit, psychic freedom and somatic binding.  I shall not further complicate this entry with reference to axial subversion of the chemical and physical positions by their under-plane counterparts (antiphysics and antichemistry respectively) at the behest of their unequivocally hegemonic noumenal counterparts - metaphysics over antimetachemistry in the case of antiphysics and chemistry, and, by contrast, metachemistry over antimetaphysics in the case of antichemistry and physics; for such a complication would distract from the main thrust of this essay, which is to underline the differing ratios of somatic to psychic or of psychic to somatic factors according to gender and class that typify the respective hegemonic and under-plane positions on what I have customarily described, in other essays, as the intercardinal axial compass, that more general framework from which state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial alternatives can be extrapolated.  Suffice it to say that supremacy does not always have its way at the expense of primacy, least of all in the phenomenal contexts of volume and mass, and that only in the noumenal spheres of space and time can there be a clear-cut distinction between 'super' and 'sub' factors to the advantage, every time, of supremacy, whether superheathen (and metachemical) or superchristian (and metaphysical), the distinction, after all, between supersensuous somatic freedom at the expense of subconscious psychic binding on the one hand, and superconscious psychic freedom at the expense of subsensuous somatic binding on the other hand, neither of which noumenal elements, coupled to their respective gender upended counterparts (antimetaphysics and antimetachemistry), could ever be anything but absolutely incommensurate, and thus mutually incompatible.