CYCLE TWENTY-TWO

1. Most people would, in general terms, tend to identify primacy with evil and supremacy with good, but that is really an over-simplification of what is, in fact, a more comprehensive picture in which not simply evil and good, but folly and wisdom are also to be found, and found, be it remembered, as male complements, in subjectivity, to a female dichotomy between the aforementioned objective terms.

2. In reality, primacy is no more evil than supremacy is good. Primacy is simply malevolent in both the objective contexts of negative metachemical evil and chemical good, and the subjective contexts of negative physical folly and metaphysical wisdom.

3. Likewise supremacy is no more good than primacy is evil. Supremacy is simply benevolent in both the positive objective contexts of metachemical evil and chemical good, and the positive subjective contexts of physical folly and metaphysical wisdom.

4. Thus there is negative evil (malevolent) and positive evil (benevolent), negative good and positive good, negative folly and positive folly, and negative wisdom and positive wisdom, with the negative options ever attaching to primacy and the positive options to supremacy.

5. The principal differentiating factor between primacy and supremacy is therefore not evil and good, still less folly and wisdom, but negativity and positivity, either of which can be evil (metachemical) or good (chemical), not to mention foolish (physical) or wise (metaphysical) in relation to competitive malevolence or co-operative benevolence, depending on the context.

6. Thus we arrive at the seemingly paradoxical but in actuality logically incontrovertible conclusion that evil can be malevolent or benevolent, apparent in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the will does, and the metachemical will most especially.

7. Likewise we arrive at the conclusion that good can be malevolent or benevolent, quantitative in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the spirit gives, and the chemical spirit most especially.

8. Similarly we arrive at the conclusion that folly can be malevolent or benevolent, qualitative in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the ego takes, and the physical ego most especially.

9. Finally we arrive at the conclusion that wisdom can be malevolent or benevolent, essential in an inorganic or an organic manifestation according to how the soul is, and the metaphysical soul most especially

10. It should not be forgotten, however, that the doing of will is always evil, whether in the per se context of metachemistry or in the pseudo-evil contexts of chemistry (quasi-good), physics (quasi-foolish), or metaphysics (quasi-wise).

11. Nor should it be forgotten that the giving of spirit is always good, whether in the per se context of chemistry or in the pseudo-good contexts of metachemistry (quasi-evil), metaphysics (quasi-wise), or physics (quasi-foolish).

12. Similarly the taking of ego is always foolish, whether in the per se context of physics or in the pseudo-foolish contexts of metaphysics (quasi-wise), metachemistry (quasi-evil), or chemistry (quasi-good).

13. Likewise the being of soul is always wise, whether in the per se context of metaphysics or in the pseudo-wise contexts of physics (quasi-foolish), chemistry (quasi-good), or metachemistry (quasi-evil).

14. Thus whereas the doing of evil is always apparent (genuine) or pseudo-apparent (non-metachemical 'bovaryizations' of will), the giving of good is always quantitative (genuine) or pseudo-quantitative (non-chemical 'bovarizations' of spirit).

15. Thus whereas the taking of folly is always qualitative (genuine) or pseudo-qualitative (non-physical 'bovaryizations' of ego), the being of wisdom is always essential (genuine) or pseudo-essential (non-metaphysical 'bovaryizations' of soul).