NEVER SIMPLY BLACK AND WHITE
It is always tempting to see things in black
and white or, shall we say, bright and dark, light and shade, but unfortunately
things are rarely that simple! For a start, there are two axes, one dominated
by free soma in female fashion and stretching from northwest to southeast of
the intercardinal axial compass, and the other led by
free psyche in male fashion and stretching from southwest to northeast of the
said compass, and therefore there are fundamentally two kinds of bright and
dark, or light and shade, even without class complications.
Take metachemistry over
antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Free soma, the female ideal,
is a brightness, whilst its bound psychic counterpart
is somewhat of a dark shadow, trailing behind the leading string, as it were,
like ugliness and hatred behind, or in back of, beauty and love.
Therefore a somatic brightness has to be
contrasted, in each gender case (though I have concentrated solely on metachemistry), with a psychic darkness.
The same is true of chemistry over antiphysics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, free soma being bright and
bound psyche dark, like strength and pride vis-à-vis weakness and humility (at
least where chemistry is concerned).
But on the sensible side of the moral divide
things are quite otherwise! There free psyche is bright and bound soma dark,
whether in terms of physics over antichemistry at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass,
where the one corresponds to knowledge and pleasure and the other to ignorance
and pain (to concentrate on physics alone) or, up above, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at its northeast point, where truth and
joy correspond to what is bright and illusion and woe to the shadow of that
metaphysical brightness (excluding once again the subordinate gender position
from fear of overcomplicating the text). The bright side of a male hegemonic
coupling is certainly psychic, whilst its dark side, corresponding to the
bound, is somatic.
This has some interesting, if quite
unconventional, moral ramifications, but I don't wish to enlarge upon that now.
Suffice it to say that things are never simply black and white,
least of all in terms of evil being somehow dark and good bright (the reverse
is actually the case, since the one corresponds to metachemical
free soma and the other to antichemical bound soma).
A distinction between the dark and the bright
most certainly exists, and at all points of the intercardinal
axial compass, but it is not simply in terms of soma being dark and psyche
bright, or vice versa. That is why, with both the female ideal of free soma and
the male ideal of free psyche corresponding to the bright side of things, one
has a moral incompatibility between them which is no mere black/white dichotomy
but a competition between alternative kinds of brightness that is likely to
lead to different types of society, depending on which kind is officially
encouraged and regarded as alone right, and to keep those who believe in the
one kind quite separate from those who believe in the other, both within and
without their particular society.
For mutually incompatible, as free females and
free males, they indubitably remain, as, in a corresponding sense, does