101. Hence to contrast the immorality of the anti-ego with the morality of the ego and the damnation of the antisoul with the salvation of the soul in respect of the antithesis, whether on primary or secondary terms in either class context, between bound psyche and free psyche, self-oriented sensuality and sensibility.

102. Likewise, to contrast the viciousness of will with the virtuousness of antiwill and the cursedness of spirit with the blessedness of antispirit in respect of the antithesis, whether on primary or secondary terms in either class context, between free soma and bound soma, not-self oriented sensuality and sensibility.

103. To distinguish, therefore, between the vicious in free will and the virtuous in bound will, as between the cursed in free spirit and the blessed in bound spirit, as one would distinguish free soma from bound soma.

104. Likewise to distinguish between the immoral in bound ego and the moral in free ego, as between the damned in bound soul and the saved in free soul, as one would distinguish bound psyche from free psyche.

105. One thing we can be absolutely sure of: free soma and bound psyche are undesirable from a positive standpoint, as are free psyche and bound soma from a negative point of view.

106. However, it does not follow that the antiforms of any given Element, whether antimetachemical, antichemical, antiphysical, or antimetaphysical will be invariably negative and their conventional forms, by contrast, positive. For, as we have argued, only the sensual manifestations of any given Element are negative, while their sensible counterparts remain largely positive.

107. Hence one should contrast the noumenal negativity of metachemistry and antimetaphysics with the noumenal positivity of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, as one would contrast ugliness and hatred conditioning an ugly approach to illusion and a hateful approach to woe in relation to illusion and woe acquiescing in an illusory approach to ugliness and a woeful approach to hatred ... with truth and joy conditioning a truthful approach to beauty and a joyful approach to love in relation to beauty and love acquiescing in a beautiful approach to truth and a loving approach to joy.

108. Similarly one should contrast the phenomenal negativity of chemistry and antiphysics with the phenomenal positivity of physics and antichemistry, as one would contrast weakness and humility conditioning a weak approach to ignorance and a humble approach to pain in relation to ignorance and pain acquiescing in an ignorant approach to weakness and a painful approach to humility ... with knowledge and pleasure conditioning a knowledgeable approach to strength and a pleasurable approach to pride in relation to strength and pride acquiescing in a strong approach to knowledge and a proud approach to pleasure.

109. Such neat logical structures as have been outlined above do not invariably accord with what actually conditions what; for, in actuality, each Element is characterized by a different principal conditioning factor, be it will in respect of metachemistry, spirit in respect of chemistry, ego in respect of physics, or soul in respect of metaphysics, which in turn affects the immediately subordinate Element, be it antimetaphysical, antiphysical, antichemical, or antimetachemical, and then contrary to its principal characteristic, which, in human terms, is of course the source of the disillusionments with either free soma or free psyche which, in the one case, lead males to reject bound psyche in favour of free psyche and, in the other case, lead females to reject bound soma in favour of free soma.

110. Nevertheless, logic sometimes has to be economical with the truth, and in this case it was expedient to be economical with truth in the interests of as logically consistent a structural comprehensiveness as was possible to me at the time, even if such a procedure may seem somewhat over-pedantic.

111. In point of fact or, depending on your gender and/or elemental standpoint, truth ... no one Element behaves in exactly the same way as another, and therefore the viciousness of metachemistry has to be contrasted, within objectively impressive parameters, with the cursedness of chemistry, whilst, on the other side of the gender fence, the morality or moralizing of physics has to be contrasted, within subjectively expressive parameters, with the salvation of metaphysics.

112. For if it is one thing to be instinctually wilful, or full of free will, it is quite another to be spiritually spirited, or full of free spirit, while, from a converse perspective, if it is one thing to be intellectually egocentric, or full of free ego, it is quite another to be emotionally psychocentric, or centred in free soul.

113. Despite its other factors, criminal viciousness in free will will always be the principal characteristic of metachemistry, while, despite other factors, criminal cursedness in free spirit will always be the principal characteristic of chemistry, neither of which are centred in psyche but, rather, rooted, female-wise, in soma, and thus nature.

114. And despite its other factors, graceful morality in free ego will always be the principal characteristic of physics, while, despite other factors, graceful salvation in free soul will always be the principal characteristic of metaphysics, neither of which are rooted in soma but, rather, centred, male-wise, in psyche, and thus nurture.

115. Hence the battle or struggle of the genders is always between the viciousness and cursedness of free soma and the morality and salvation of free psyche, as between nature and nurture, will and/or spirit vis-à-vis ego and/or soul, with the criminality of will and/or spirit dominating and conditioning the sinful folly of anti-ego and/or antisoul (to foolishly acquiesce, from a male standpoint, in the sinfulness of secondary will and/or spirit) and, by contrast, the gracefulness of ego and/or soul dominating and conditioning the punishing modesty of antiwill and/or antispirit (to modestly acquiesce, from a female point of view, in the punishingness of secondary ego and/or soul).

116. By and large, the gender struggle takes two divergent forms - the upper-class female to lower-class male form of will and ego, viciousness and morality, and the lower-class female to upper-class male form of spirit and soul, cursedness and salvation - the former to be characterized as signifying a descending axial distinction between autocracy and democracy, the latter characterizable as signifying an ascending axial distinction between bureaucracy and theocracy, as described in previous texts, in which it was also established that aristocracy was the corollary of autocracy no less than plutocracy of democracy, whilst, on the ascending axis, meritocracy was the corollary of bureaucracy no less than technocracy of theocracy.

117. In analogical terms, it could be argued that the descending axis of autocracy-democracy is that of brollies, from conventional brollies on the autocratic Right to collapsibles on the democratic Left, so that one might note a distinction between the centrifugal and the centripetal in relation to diabolic female noumenal objectivity and masculine male phenomenal subjectivity, while the ascending axis of bureaucracy-theocracy is that of hoods, from conventional hoods on the bureaucratic Right to fold-ins on the theocratic Left, so that one might note a distinction between the centrifugal and the centripetal in relation to feminine female phenomenal objectivity and divine male noumenal subjectivity.

118. In plain parlance, one would be distinguishing the conventional umbrellas of 'jerks' from the sheathed collapsibles of 'pricks', and the conventional hoods of 'cunts' from the fold-ins of 'bums', give or take a church/state variation in each context according to the style or structural integrity of any specific type of brolly or hood, i.e. whether, for instance, fold-in hoods have a stud in the neck in state-like vein or are contained by a zipper in church-like vein, so that one can note a particle/wavicle distinction between the two types of fold-ins, as between 'frigg*** bums' and 'snogg*** bums', the latter pretty much the theocratic norm.

119. Be that as it may, the autocratic-democratic axis is such that typifies a 'frigging'/'sodding' dichotomy in state hegemonic vein (in which work of one sort or another generally takes precedence over play), whereas the bureaucratic-theocratic axis is such that typifies a 'fucking'/'snogging' dichotomy in church hegemonic vein (in which play of one sort or another generally takes precedence over work), so that there is always a distinction between that which is either for or against the not-self in respect of the one and that which is either against or for the self in respect of the other, as between crime and punishment in the former case, and sin and grace in the latter.

120. But to be against the not-self in the case of democracy is not the same as to be for the self, as with theocracy, and therefore the democratic retort to autocracy does not make for contentment in the self but, rather, perpetuates a demonstrative situation in which concern with placing limitations upon not-self freedom of action tends to take precedence over the welfare of the self, in complete contrast to the theocratic retort to bureaucracy which seeks to put an end to the sinfulness of self-abuse in the interests of self-enhancement through joy.

121. For the self that is overly preoccupied with sin is not in a position to be true to itself and live for the sake of grace, specifically with respect to joy, but is symptomatic of what happens when the not-self becomes the focus of attention in consequence of hegemonic female pressures in metachemical and/or chemical free soma which condition the self against its own interests by rendering it subordinate, in antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical vein, to the not-self.

122. Hence the bureaucratic aspect of 'Mother Church', the very fact that conditions the concept of such a Church, is ever that which should be opposed from a theocratic standpoint, and not merely in liberal relative vein but to the absolute extent of Social Theocracy, and thus to a world-overcoming resolve to lift life beyond sin and a subordinate grace to the properly theocratic heights of grace and a subordinate sin, so that it might be said to signify 'earth in Heaven' rather than 'heaven on earth' and thus contrast with what could be called the Social Democratic tendency to establish 'hell on earth' as a retort to the 'earth in Hell' of autocracy.

123. For while the autocratic-democratic axis descends from Hell earthily to the earth hellishly, the bureaucratic-theocratic axis ascends from the earth heavenishly to Heaven earthily, which is a reversal of the situation normally obtaining in both the autocratic and bureaucratic contexts, the context of 'Father State' and of 'Mother Church', which tends to lead to either 'Mother State' or 'Father Church', depending whether democratic or theocratic criteria are paramount.

124. Hence a descent from the autocracy of 'Father State' to the democracy of 'Mother State' along the autocratic-democratic axis, and, by contrast, an ascent from the bureaucracy of 'Mother Church' to the theocracy of 'Father Church' along the bureaucratic-theocratic axis, so that things either progress down to the earth or progress up to Heaven, as the axial case might be.

125. But, in truth, 'Father State' is less male than female in character, and 'Mother State' less female than male, so that the distinction between autocracy and democracy, 'jerks' and 'pricks', is rather one between an upper-class female, or metachemical, context, and a lower-class male, or physical, context, with diabolic and masculine distinctions between a 'frigging' hegemony, equivalent to crime, in the one case, and a 'sodding' hegemony, equivalent to punishment, in the other, both of which are rather more work- than play-orientated, if on very different terms.