DIVISIONS IN BOTH THE SELF AND THE NOT-SELF

1. The male self, as we have seen, is both physical and metaphysical, qualitative in egocentric form and essential in psychocentric contentment, and therefore divisible between the brain stem and the spinal cord, the former of which corresponds to its physical aspect and the latter of which to its metaphysical aspect, so that even in terms of the self we can distinguish if not between 'matter' and 'mind', as between soma and psyche, then certainly between 'mind' that is less psychic and 'mind' that is more psychic, as between ego and soul, with the one more dependent on the physiology of the self than the other, given its correlation with more (relative to most) wavicles/less (relative to least) particles as opposed, in the metaphysical self, to most wavicles/least particles.

2. Therefore even the male self has a physiological dimension, which accords with both the brain stem and the spinal cord, except that it is structured in such a way as to be the seat of psyche and subordinate, in consequence, to psychological functioning, whether in the molecular relativity of egocentric form or in the elemental absolutism, as it were, of psychocentric contentment, wherein the ratio of psychic to somatic, or quasi-somatic, factors is so one-sided as to permit of a 3:1 inference in terms of most wavicles/least particles, and therefore most transcendental joy and least idealistic woe.

3. But if the self is so structured that complete psychic independence of some kind or degree of somatic support is inconceivable, then what can prevent us from conceiving of some such division, stopping short of an outright dichotomy between soma and psyche, as existing in the not-self, with specific reference, in this instance, to the metaphysical not-self, be it sensual and aural or sensible and respiratory. There must be a sense in which even soma contains at least some degree of quasi-psychic functioning or capacity, and never more so than in the context which we have equated with most wavicles/least particles, even if the wavicle aspect of it has been identified primarily with psyche proper and the particle aspect of it with soma proper - namely with either the ears/airwaves or the lungs/breath.

4. Therefore metaphysics would seem to be that context in which the 'most wavicles' accords with the spiritual aspect of metaphysical soma, viz. airwaves and/or breath, and the 'least particles' with the wilful or instinctual aspect of it, viz. the ears and/or lungs, allowing for the fact that no one elemental context is exclusively the property, in organic reality, of only one subatomic element, even if what it is exists as such primarily because of the predominance of a particular subatomic element, be it protonic, as here, or neutronic or even deuteronic, as in the relatively less psychic context of physics.

5. Be that as it may, we can conclude, I think, that the soma and the psyche of a given elemental context tend to mirror each other, and that as psyche proper is divisible between particles and wavicles, somatic and psychic factors, so soma proper is likewise divisible on a similar basis, in consequence of which neither psyche nor soma is ever - not even in comparatively absolutist contexts like metaphysics - exclusively any one thing but a combination, to greater or lesser extents, of both somatic and psychic factors - soma proper and what might be called quasi-psyche being characteristic of the not-self and, conversely, psyche proper and quasi-soma characterizing the self.

6. For soma proper will always be primarily of the not-self and psyche proper of the self. Yet without degrees, proportionate to their elemental integrity, be it physical or metaphysical, of both quasi-psychic and quasi-somatic factors, neither would be able to relate to or communicate with the other, since while soma may support psyche in the self, the psychic predominance of that self would be unable to prevail either egocentrically or psychocentrically upon the corresponding not-self without some intermediate channel which enabled soma proper to respond to the commands coming down 'from above', i.e. from psyche proper. And that intermediate channel is precisely the quasi-psyche of the not-self, which acts as a liaison agent or channel between psyche and soma, allowing the latter to carry out the conscious or subconscious instructions, duly transmuted along natural or subnatural lines, which the former has authorized.

7. And in relaying such information, be it qualitative or essential, formal or contented, the quasi-psyche of soma proper transforms that soma into a mirror image of the psyche, endowing the will with a conscious-like capacity which we have equated with natural will, or natwill, and the spirit with a subconscious-like capacity which has been equated with subnatural spirit, or subspirit, so that in neither the physical nor the metaphysical contexts is soma free to be either unnatural or supernatural, properly instinctual or properly spiritual, but is conditioned by both the ego and the soul of free psyche to function along lines which mirror, from a bound standpoint, that freedom and maintain a wavicle hegemony, be it relative in physics or absolute in metaphysics, more (relative to less) wavicles/less (relative to least) particles or most wavicles/least particles.

8. Now obviously, in the physical context of masculine vegetativeness, it is the ego which humanistically prevails upon somatic will, molecular wavicles upon elemental particles, quality upon appearance, knowledge upon ignorance, maintaining naturalistic determinism, since physics is characterized by an egocentric hegemony or fulcrum of selfhood in which the brain stem takes precedence over the spinal cord, even to the extent of effectively excluding or at least minimizing the latter, such joy or happiness as is soulfully experienced usually being finite and therefore more intimately associated, through pleasure, with the physiology of the self than would otherwise, as in the metaphysical course of psychocentric selfhood, be the case.

9. With the metaphysical context of divine or, rather, sublime airiness, however, it is the soul which transcendentally prevails upon somatic spirit, elemental wavicles upon molecular particles, essence upon quantity, joy upon woe, maintaining idealistic determinism, since metaphysics is characterized by a psychocentric, or soulful, hegemony or fulcrum of selfhood in which the spinal cord takes precedence over the brain stem, even to the extent of effectively excluding or at least minimizing the latter, such consciousness as is egocentrically experienced being proportionately infinite and therefore more intimately associated, through truth, or infinite knowledge, with the psychology of the self than would otherwise, as in the physical course of egocentric selfhood, be the case.

10. The distinction between the Physical and the Metaphysical, to the extent that we allow ourselves the categorical luxury of upholding one in the first place, is effectively between manly, or masculine, males and godly, or divine, males, which is equivalent to one between lower- and upper-class males - the former, for reasons of environmental and social conditioning, generally more prevalent than the latter both now and traditionally, and therefore enabling us to distinguish, somewhat academically, between the mass-volume Many and the time-space Few, as, in psychic terms, between humanism and transcendentalism.

11. Whether this would continue to be the case in a post-worldly and even otherworldly social environment like 'Kingdom Come' must remain subject to dispute; though I, for one, would anticipate the development of fewer men and more gods, whether this resulted in a different relationship of 'many' to 'few' or, indeed, in the transformation of life to such an extent that there were more transcendentalists than humanists and therefore a new order, paradoxically, of the Many.

12. Doubtless the cyborgization of life, as I think I described it earlier on, would permit of an enhancement of godly potential to an extent whereby distinctions between men and gods no longer obtained, all or most men having become gods. For if equality, or the concept thereof, can come down from the alpha heavens to the alpha earth, there is certainly no reason, short of technological or ideological incompetence, why it should not rise up from the omega earth to the omega heavens, as indeed it would surely have to do in the event of world-overcoming in 'Kingdom Come' and a whole new emphasis upon space as opposed to volume or mass, even given the case that genuine equalitarianism is only possible between those in any given context, be it godly or manly, rather than across either class or gender divisions, and that even this specific qualification relating to equality should be distinguished from notions like equality of opportunity, which have little or no bearing on the outcome of things, like who wins a race or reaches the top in any given profession, but simply provide a common starting point for people who, in the class/gender nature of things, will have diverse motives and abilities.

13. I do not propose to suggest that everyone should become as gods, for that would strike me as overly utopian and much too partisan to satisfy the requirements of a viable social structure, which my concept of a triadic Beyond has all along been intended to advance, but rather that even with the inevitability of some social - not to mention gender - distinctions in the future, we become more aware of the extent to which distinctions between the Many and the Few are not set in an eternal mould but subject to flux and redefinition, according to both environmental and ideological circumstances.

14. Certainly, Social Transcendentalism would not be true to its otherworldly mission if it failed to envisage a situation in which more people were given the opportunity to become gods or godly in the context of 'Kingdom Come' than could ever obtain, or indeed ever has obtained, in the World, meaning the context in which democratic sovereignty was the sovereign norm and the People were left, by and large, to their own mass/volume devices. Social Transcendentalism, by contrast, holds out the prospect of religious sovereignty, and religious sovereignty would confer a whole new pattern of rights and responsibilities from what currently still exists in the so-called 'free world'.