02

Scientists tell us that before 'the Universe', i.e., the Cosmos, was formed, even before the so-called 'Big Bang', there was a struggle between matter and anti-matter, elements and anti-elements, the one with a positive charge and the other charged negatively, each of which, when they came into contact, as they were bound to, cancelled the other out. Sounds to me suspiciously like some rudimentary equivalent of gender, with opposite charges in conflict and tending, when collisions occur, to cancel one another out in terms of the resulting offspring, which combine aspects or elements of both within one or the other gender. For it seems to me that the struggle between 'matter' and 'anti-matter', as the scientists call it, doesn't stop with the 'Big Bang' and subsequent emergence of 'the Universe', but continues, after a fashion, to this day, not least in the guise of gender differentiation and the conflict of what is incompatible.

If 'matter' corresponds to electrons, as the scientists have suggested, then it could be argued that, in the mutually annihilating struggle between 'matter' and 'anti-matter' that apparently preceded 'the Universe', the former would correspond to what was proto-female and the latter to what was proto-male, since I have always been led to understand that electrons bear a negative charge, like women, who are effectively more vacuum than plenum and, hence, more objective than subjective.

Also, this distinction between 'matter' and 'anti-matter' suggests to me the rudiments of that between 'soma' and 'psyche', body and mind, which, to me, would have gender connotations in which 'matter' correlated with 'soma' and 'anti-matter' with 'psyche', though obviously on terms that have little in common with the subsequent development of 'soma' and 'psyche' in relation to the ensuing gender struggles between females and males, with the vacuous objectivity, ever expressive, of the one, and the plenum-like (or 'plenumous') subjectivity, ever impressive, of the other, corresponding, in my estimation, to negative and positive charges, the ethereal will and corporeal spirit of the former ever warring upon the corporeal ego and ethereal soul of the latter, with will against soul (ethereal) and spirit against ego (corporeal), so that one can infer a kind of class distinction between the upper planes of will and soul, corresponding to metachemistry and metaphysics, and the lower planes of spirit and ego, corresponding to chemistry and physics, as between space and time on the one hand and volume and mass on the other.

If the war by the objective upon the subjective is successful, one finds space and pseudo-time (noumenal) and volume and pseudo-mass (phenomenal). If, however, it is unsuccessful, presumably because of a greater degree of subjectivity than objectivity can conquer, then the results will be either time and pseudo-space (noumenal) or mass and pseudo-volume (phenomenal) depending, as it were, upon the class context or elemental plane. But in axial terms time and pseudo-space will be polar to volume and pseudo-mass, with a strict gender polarity (male) between time and pseudo-mass in the one case and a like gender polarity (female) between pseudo-space and volume in the other case in relation to what can be described as church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, the very antithesis of the polarity between space and pseudo-time with mass and pseudo-volume, with a strict gender polarity (female) between space and pseudo-volume in the one case and a similar polarity (male) between pseudo-time and mass in the other case in relation to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria. For such axes, being diagonal, contrast noumenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality with phenomenal sensuality/pseudo-sensibility on the one hand, that of the church-hegemonic, and noumenal sensuality/pseudo-sensibility with phenomenal sensibility/pseudo-sensuality on the other hand, that of the state-hegemonic, and remain mutually incompatible.

++++++

It may be an uncomfortable fact, if not exactly a painful truth, that life is a consequence of sex, and sex can be reduced – can it not? – to the female's need to reproduce in order both to justify the menstrual and other inconveniences that come with a vacuum, or womb-like vacuous disposition, and to acquire, as a temporary solution to and even reprieve from this, a surrogate plenum in the guise of offspring. Sex, in short, boils down to women, who are the bearers of children and, hence, the means whereby living matter (though not necessarily materialism) is perpetuated.

******