Oneness and Not-oneness Re-examined. When, in the past, I took a blanket view of psyche as self and soma as not-self, irrespective of gender, I tended to make a parallel distinction between one and not-one, or oneness and not-oneness, which meant that the former would have been identified with the self, or psyche, and the latter with the not-self, or soma.  But a revaluation on my part that led to self being identifiable with psyche or soma, depending on gender, and not-self likewise, has ironically left the positions of oneness and not-oneness as before, since if the self is psyche for males it is that which, being cohesive in wavicle-oriented vein, accords with individualistic 'oneness', whereas if the self is soma for females, by contrast, it is that which, being disjunctive in particle-oriented vein, accords with collectivistic 'not-oneness'.  Now the identification of oneness with males and not-oneness with females was precisely what I had contended to be the case!  Therefore oneness is only germane to self in the case of psyche, and then when the male is freely psychic in hegemonic vein, as in metaphysics and, to a much lesser extent, physics.  However, when he is subverted, as in physics by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics on overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, it is a different matter, since the ensuing somatic emphasis will tip the balance, in due state-hegemonic vein, in favour of what could be called antinot-oneness, which contrasts with not-oneness as bound soma with free soma, just as what could be called anti-oneness contrasts with oneness as bound psyche with free psyche.  But bound psyche only obtains for males under female hegemonic influence, and therefore in relation to antiphysics at the southwest or antimetaphysics at the northwest points of the intercardinal axial compass, where either chemistry in the one or metachemistry in the other is hegemonic and therefore able to 'call the shots' in terms of free soma and bound psyche, not-one and anti-one, the former of course according with the self in the female elemental contexts (chemistry and metachemistry), the latter with the not-self thereof which, being psychically bound, is deferential to the prevailing (somatic) freedom.  Consequently the identification of oneness with self is only justifiable in relation to the male, whereas with the female one has to accept that self, being soma, is affiliated to not-oneness, meaning that it has a particle-based disjunctive and divergent tendency which objectively imposes on that which, usually male, is outside itself and would, if not imposed upon from without, tend to oneness in wavicle-centred cohesiveness of free psyche as male self.  Therefore male interest lies in opposition to female interest which, being particle-based, is dependent on that which lies outside itself and tends, in objectivity, towards relationship-forming structures, of which the family is a classic case in point.  The male, on the other hand, is fundamentally wavicle-centred in free psyche and therefore his best interest lies in promoting the self in the establishment and development of oneness, oneness of a psychic cohesiveness that is true unto itself and consequently not dependent on anything outside itself.  This is the self that makes for a so-called brotherhood of man; though, in actuality, such a brotherhood, as intimated above, is far more likely of success on metaphysical than on physical terms where, contrary to somatic emphasis in consequence of antichemical subversion at the behest of an unequivocally hegemonic metachemistry, psyche is free, in unequivocally hegemonic terms, to be true to itself in the prosecution of universal oneness - a kind of godly or super- if not supra-human achievement which must forever keep the female element, duly upended, in its antimetachemical place, maintaining what I have contended, on many a previous occasion, to be an antidevilish subordination to godly or divine criteria, equivalent, in general terms, to anti-not-oneness under oneness, noumenal anti-objectivity under noumenal subjectivity, anti-free soma (bound) under free psyche, since the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysical self is only possible with the repudiation, by females, of metachemical self, which I have identified, here as elsewhere, with antimetachemistry.  That, at any rate, is true of the noumenal positions, and then as elite exceptions to the noumenal rule.  For the salvation and counter-damnation of the phenomenal positions at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, on the other hand, it is not metachemistry but chemistry which must be repudiated, and that is only likely to happen if the antiphysical, as upended males (antimales), accept metaphysical salvation and oblige the equivocally hegemonic chemical to bow to antimetachemical counter-damnation, the one a precondition of the other on terms which, if they are truly to succeed, will accord not with anything anachronistically and redundantly Catholic, but, on the contrary, with a revolutionary transcendentalist resolve which has been identified all along by me with Social Theocracy, and therefore with a process of salvation and counter-damnation (this latter the more usual Catholic position hyped as salvation in 'sacred heart' fudge antimetachemically done down from what would otherwise be a 'sacred lungs' metaphysical hegemony likely to let the TM 'cat out of the bag' in quasi-Buddhist - and therefore Far Eastern vein - at the expense of Devil the Mother hyped as God metachemically in back, Near Eastern, of anything appertaining, no matter how imperfectly, to the northeast point, in Roman-esque vein, of the said compass), far more radical and far-reaching in scope than anything characterizing the Catholic tradition of Western civilization-proper, being germane to the synthetic artificiality of global civilization at its universal best.