1.   We live in the present, in the here-and-now, but the past exists for us in memory and the future in imagination.  All are of time - past, present, and future - but that which is timeless is beyond the temporal and therefore eternal.

2.   The eternal is identifiable with the soul, with essence, which is beyond both the ego, as a qualitative entity associated with the self, and the will and the spirit of what, in relation to the not-self, are apparent and quantitative entities.

3.   The eternal is therefore of metaphysics, which is beyond physics and, on the other side of the gender fence from anything male and subjective, both metachemistry and chemistry, which have intimate associations with fire and water rather than, like physics and metaphysics, with vegetation (earth) and air.

4.   It could be argued that while the present is the manifestation of time closest to the ego, the past is closest to the will, the future to the spirit, and the timelessness of eternity, as intimated above, alone commensurate with the soul, which is to be found not in the temporal aspect of the self, viz. the brain stem, but in the eternal aspect of the self, viz. the spinal cord, and therefore transcends ego as joy transcends truth or Heaven transcends God.

5.   But the present and the eternal are both of the self in their different ways, the past and the future being closer, in relation to memory and imagination, to the not-self wherein both the will and the spirit have their respective homes, albeit not as dominating elements where males who are sensibly free are concerned, but as subordinate elements to the ego and the soul, the former of which may achieve its redemption in the latter, as time in eternity, by exploiting the relevant modes of not-self from a metaphysical standpoint.

6.   Whereas the self is predominantly psychic and therefore of psyche, the not-self is predominantly somatic and therefore of soma, so that we may distinguish between the two contexts, both of which are divisible in any given element, in terms of the ethereal and the corporeal, mind and matter, mental and bodily, with the former divisible between ego and soul, form and contentment, quality and essence, molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, taking and being (though in sensuality these are subject to subversion), but the latter divisible between will and spirit, power and glory, appearance and quantity, elemental particles and molecular particles, doing and giving (though in sensibility these are subject to inversion).

7.   What applies on a 3:1 absolute basis of most wavicles/least particles in metaphysics, which is protonic, also applies on the 2½:1½ relative basis of more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles in neutronic physics, where we can distinguish man and the earth from God and Heaven, whether in terms of psyche or soma, Man the Father and Earth the Holy Soul, in psyche, from God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul or, in soma, the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit of the Earth from the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven.

8.   With females, on the other hand, we cannot speak primarily of physics or metaphysics, protonic or neutronic subatoms, but only of chemistry or metachemistry, electronic or photonic subatoms, more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles in the 2½:1½ relative context of the one or most particles/least wavicles in the 3:1 absolute context of the other, and with them psyche does not precede and predominate over soma as, in metaphorical terms, father over son but, on the contrary, soma precedes and predominates over psyche, as mother over daughter, and therefore we can distinguish woman and purgatory from the Devil and Hell, whether in terms of soma or psyche, as Woman the Mother and Purgatory the Clear Spirit, in soma, from Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit or, in psyche, as the Daughter of Woman and the Clear Soul of Purgatory from the Daughter of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell.

9.   Therefore criteria applicable to males are not applicable to females, or vice versa, given the negative/positive distinctions in soma/psyche between the genders.  The self may take precedence over the not-self with males but, with females, it is the not-self which takes precedence over self, soma over psyche, and therefore will and spirit over ego and soul, power and glory over form and contentment, appearance and quantity over quality and essence, elemental particles and molecular particles over molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, doing and giving over taking and being.

10.  Consequently females are rather more partial to time in terms of past and future, will and spirit, memory and imagination, than to time in terms of the present in the consciousness of ego or to timeless eternity in terms of the Beyond in the subconsciousness of soul.  They are partial to time in terms of the unconsciousness or, rather, unnaturalness (in soma) of will and the superconsciousness or, rather, supernaturalness (in soma) of spirit, past and future, which have more reference to power and glory, fire and water, than to form and contentment, vegetation and air, at least with regard to their per se manifestations in each Element.

11.  But this is only if females are hegemonically free in sensuality in terms of soma, with a corresponding directly bound psyche, and not subordinately bound in sensibility in terms of soma, with a corresponding indirectly free psyche. 

12.  For if females are hegemonically free in sensuality in terms of soma, then males will be subordinately bound in sensuality in terms of psyche and be secondarily free in soma, contrary to their gender actuality of psyche preceding and predominating over soma.

13.  But if males are hegemonically free in sensibility in terms of psyche, then females will be subordinately bound in sensibility in terms of soma and be secondarily free in psyche, contrary to their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche.

14.  Life is ever a gender tug-of-war between somatic freedom of females in sensuality and its indirect corollary of the psychic binding of males and, conversely, psychic freedom of males in sensibility and its indirect corollary of the somatic binding of females.  If power and glory are hegemonic, then form and contentment, duly subverted by free soma, will get a raw deal.  But if form and contentment are hegemonic, it will be power and glory that will be transmuted towards a deferential acknowledgement of free psyche, rendering all that is of will and spirit, duly inverted by free psyche, subordinate to the control of ego and soul.

15.  Such is the framework of the ideal society, of a society centred in the ideals of ego and/or soul rather than based in the brute realities of will and/or spirit, power and/or glory, to the detriment of form and/or contentment.

16.  Whereas the somatically free types of society will be dominated by time, not least in relation to the past (tradition) and the future (expectation), the psychically free types of society will be characterized either by the mastery of time in and through the present, which comes from knowledge, or by the redemption of time, not least in relation to eternity (timeless bliss), for which truth is the egoistic precondition.

17.  There are therefore two types of time-affirming societies, the metachemically objective and the chemically objective, the past and the future, and contrasted to these are two types of time-rejecting societies, the physically subjective and the metaphysically subjective, the present and the timeless, the latter of which is not about a moment in time or a different approach to now, but beyond time in the timelessness of eternity.

18.  Given a gender divide between the time-dominated societies of the past and the future and the time-spurning societies of the present and the Beyond, it is no small wonder if society presents us with corresponding distinctions between autocracy and aristocracy in relation to the metachemical mode of somatic freedom and psychic binding, between bureaucracy and meritocracy in relation to the chemical mode of somatic freedom and psychic binding, and, in subjective contrast to each of these objective realities, between democracy and plutocracy in relation to the physical mode of psychic freedom and somatic binding, not to mention between theocracy and technocracy in relation to the metaphysical mode of psychic freedom and somatic binding.

19.  Therefore one can contrast a high somatic freedom in autocracy with a low psychic freedom in democracy, leaving for the moment their bound corollaries aside, as between the past and the present, will and ego, power and form, elemental particles and molecular wavicles, but a low somatic freedom in bureaucracy with a high psychic freedom in theocracy, leaving for the moment their bound corollaries aside, as between the future and the Beyond, spirit and soul, glory and contentment, molecular particles and elemental wavicles.

20.  Thus a contrast between two forms of the State, the autocratic and the democratic, memory and knowledge, and two forms of the Church, the bureaucratic and the theocratic, imagination and truth.  One could speak, in this respect, of a descending axis from autocracy to democracy, the metachemical Few in the noumenal objectivity of competitive individualism to the physical Many in the phenomenal subjectivity of co-operative collectivism, and of an ascending axis from bureaucracy to theocracy, the chemical Many in the phenomenal objectivity of competitive collectivism to the metaphysical Few in the noumenal subjectivity of co-operative individualism, so that as things descend from the autocratic Netherworld to the democratic World, so they may be inferred to ascend from the bureaucratic World to the theocratic Otherworld, the 'world' not of the Devil and Hell but of God and Heaven, not of 'Kingdom Gone' but of 'Kingdom Come' - the worldly positions those of the phenomenal Many, the overworldly positions those of the noumenal Few, whether for better (otherworldly theocratic) or worse (netherworldly autocratic).

21.  So much for alternative and usually competing types of freedom!  There is also, as noted, alternative types of binding, as from the aristocratic corollary of autocracy to the plutocratic corollary of democracy on the descending axis of the State, not to mention from the meritocratic corollary of bureaucracy to the technocratic corollary of theocracy on the ascending axis of the Church which, unlike the State, lives in hope of the resurrection of religion in 'Kingdom Come', and thus of its theocratic redemption in and through the Second Coming or some equivalent Messianic destiny likely to correspond with the notion of such a divine 'Kingdom'.

22.  But this of course only applies to 'Mother Church', to the Church that is fundamentally bureaucratic and thus nonconformist, not to those forms of religion which in their fundamentalist or humanist associations with autocracy and democracy are more closely bound to one mode or other of the State and less partial, in consequence, to the imaginative projection of spirit in expectation of Messianic deliverance in some brighter future long associated with 'Kingdom Come'. 

23.  Where will and/or ego obtain, by contrast, there can be only a looking back to the past via a memory partial to tradition or a focusing on the present in overly conscious concern with knowledge and the management or curtailment, if needs be, of will, neither of which are greatly conducive to the expectation of soul and thus an end to the world in terms of otherworldly criteria.  Rather will the democratic State, and its religious affiliate, be primarily concerned with conserving the worldly gains of democracy at the expense of autocracy which, rooted in the Devil, is something to fear from a democratic point of view.

24.  For if man becomes the measure of all things, as he does with egocentric form, there can be no place for God, for godliness in theocracy, and therefore no willingness to subsume ego into soul to such an extent that it becomes eclipsed by soul and rendered subordinate before a heavenly end to life, as before eternity and timeless bliss.

25.  But if God or, rather, Heaven (for we should not confound metaphysics with physics in respect of an egocentric fulcrum) is allowed to be the end of all things, as it is with psychocentric contentment, there can be no place for man, for manliness in democracy, and therefore no willingness to subsume soul into ego to such an extent that, duly  corrupted, it becomes eclipsed by ego and rendered subordinate before a knowledgeable - and necessarily false -  end to life, as before temporality and present time.