THE RATIOS OF POSITIVITY TO NEGATIVITY ACCORDING TO CLASS/ELEMENT FOR EACH GENDER

People speak rather glibly of 'bitches' as something bad, but fail to appreciate that life could not prevail if people were wholly negative and of a character likely to bitch. Arguments tend to be the exception to the rule and so, too, do wars. People are more positive than negative, for how else could life survive and continue to prosper?

Exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding, we cannot even contend with any credibility that females are more negative than males, at least not in terms of the ratio of positive to negative factors. What does seem to be the case is that there are female elements, viz. metachemistry and chemistry, or, in simple parlance, fire and water, and male elements, viz. physics and metaphysics, or, again, earth (vegetation) and air, the former pair primary and the latter secondary, and that the ratio of positive to negative tends to remain fairly consistent with a given class or elemental position, be it female or male.

To generalize in terms of 'upper' and 'lower', or noumenal and phenomenal, class and/or elemental positions is to allow for a distinction, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, between the absolute and the relative, the former having a 3:1 ratio of positive to negative and the latter a 2½:1½ ratio of positive to negative, whether in soma or psyche, with regard to particles or wavicles.

So in metachemistry, for instance, there will tend to be three times as much positive as negative or, in other words, three times as much beauty and love in free soma as ugliness and hatred in bound psyche. Conversely, in metaphysics, which is a male noumenal element, there will tend to be three times as much truth and joy in free psyche as illusion and woe in bound soma.

For positivity is free and negativity bound, whether in soma or psyche, and freedom is invariably brightly supreme rather than darkly primal.

Likewise in chemistry, which is a female phenomenal element, there will tend to be two-and-a-half times to one-and-a-half times as much positive as negative, with, say, strength and pride corresponding to the former and weakness and humility (if not humiliation) to the latter. Conversely, in physics, which is a male phenomenal element, there will tend to be two-and-a-half times to one-and-a-half times as much positive as negative, with knowledge and pleasure corresponding to the former and ignorance and pain to the latter.

Therefore whether one is a sensual bitch or indeed a sensible bastard, the positive tends, other factors notwithstanding, to prevail over the negative, and one has to admit that even the most committed of bitches can be three times as much beauty and love as ugliness and hatred, the most committed of bastards three times as much truth and joy as illusion and woe.

Down below, in the phenomenal realms of men and women generally, things are, admittedly, less clear-cut and corresponding less positive. But positivity still generally and even naturally prevails over negativity, and strength and pride do consequently prevail over weakness and humility, their male counterparts knowledge and pleasure likewise generally prevailing over ignorance and pain.

Normally people are perceived as this or that, bitch or bastard, according to a momentary circumstance, a show of negativity in one form or another. But that fails to take account of the general picture, just as the ascription of 'tramp' to someone who is perceived on their feet fails to take into account the necessity of his being, at other times, someone who sits on his backside and could be regarded, in consequence, as a 'bum'.

Therefore just as people tend, when down on their luck, to be both tramps and bums, so they are both positive and negative, free and bound, whether in or out of luck. In fact, beauty and love are no less characteristic of the noumenally free 'bitch' than ugliness and hatred of the noumenally bound one, who in any case is likely to be the same person under different circumstances.

And what applies to the metachemical female applies no less to her chemical counterpart, whose strength and pride will naturally take precedence over or have the better of weakness and humility. The 'dark side', which always corresponds to binding, is less prevalent than the brightness that normally - and supremely - obtains, for males no less than females, and we simply do an injustice to ourselves, and thus to life, when we fail to appreciate this fact.

Few men would prefer ignorance and pain to knowledge and pleasure, and yet we live in times when, through ignorance or commercial expedience, darkness is treated as though it were entirely independent of the brightness which more generally obtains and is even, in some sense, more influential and pervasive than the latter.

But the 'dark side' is even less prevalent in metaphysics, and hence with noumenal males, than with their phenomenal counterparts, and truth and joy are likely to get the better of illusion and woe as free psyche of bound soma to a near absolute degree, which is to say, on something approaching a 3:1 ratio.

There are, however, two sets of paired elemental contexts, axially conditioned and both phenomenal, where the dark is traditionally granted more emphasis than the light or the bright side, and these are with physics over antichemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass and with chemistry over antiphysics at its southwest point, and all because, in the first instance, the subversion of physics to somatic emphasis by antichemistry at the behest, in parallel gender terms, of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics back up the axis at the northwest point of the compass in question ensures that the darkness of antichemical bound soma (corresponding to good) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of metachemical free soma (corresponding to evil) on primary state-hegemonic terms, while the darkness of physical bound soma (corresponding to pseudo-wisdom) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of antimetaphysical free soma (corresponding to pseudo-folly) on secondary state-hegemonic terms which, in general parlance, are male rather than female, whilst, in the second instance, the subversion of chemistry to psychic emphasis by antiphysics at the behest, in parallel gender terms, of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry back up the axis at the northeast point of the compass in question ensures that the darkness of antiphysical bound psyche (corresponding to sin) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of metaphysical free psyche (corresponding to grace) on primary church-hegemonic terms, while the darkness of chemical bound psyche (corresponding to pseudo-crime) remains or becomes polar to the brightness of antimetachemical free psyche (corresponding to pseudo-punishment) on secondary church-hegemonic terms which, in general parlance, are female rather than male.

Therefore whereas the male and antifemale masses at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass are more conditioned, through somatic emphasis, to the darkness of bound soma than to the church-subordinate light, or brightness, of free psyche (and this contrary to the natural ratio of positivity to negativity, freedom to binding, for the equivocally hegemonic gender), their female and antimale counterparts at the southwest point of the said compass are likewise more conditioned, through psychic emphasis, to the darkness of bound psyche than to the state-subordinate light, or brightness, of free soma (contrary, once again, to the natural ratio of positivity to negativity, freedom to binding, for the equivocally hegemonic gender), and all because freedom for the masses of either axis would not only be bad, being of a contrary order, for the ruling elites, but bad for the masses themselves through want of axial guidance, continuity, stability, consistency, integrity, and the avoidance of phenomenal strife between the contrary orders of freedom obtaining in soma and psyche.

Incidentally, the total want of a God-the-Father parallel in physical free psyche (Man the Father) to the Son-of-Man concept correlative with physical bound soma (as a secondary state-hegemonic parallel vis-à-vis antichemistry) is significant, it seems to me, of the somatic emphasis which tends to prevail with the physical and antichemical, and to prevail in polar contrast to the respective kinds of somatic light or brightness obtaining with the antimetaphysically and, especially, metachemically free, the latter of whose beauty and love is constitutive, believe it or not, of evil, and not of the crime which accrues to the church-subordinate metachemical ugliness and hatred of bound psyche in polar contrast to the punishingness of antichemical free psyche (under male hegemonic physical criteria), whose attributes are rather more anti-weakness and anti-humility - and by positive implication pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride - than anything weak and humble in chemical bound-psychic fashion across the axial divide, where, as we all know, the strength and pride of chemical free soma are 'done down' in the interests of bound-psychic emphasis on weakness and humility as the secondary church-hegemonic complement, in pseudo-crime, to the antiphysical sinfulness of anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure - and by negative implication pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain - which constitute their primary church-hegemonic bound-psychic counterparts on the male side of the gender divide.

But such logical fleshing out by me somewhat transcends the traditional fudging of the mass Catholic position along with whatever controls it 'on high' and should not be taken as literally reflecting common knowledge, much less doctrinal thinking!