WHY EVIL CONDITIONS CRIME AND GRACE CONDITIONS WISDOM

In general terms, the free conditions the bound, so that one can say that binding is determined by freedom, irrespective of gender, and therefore of whether, in female vein, soma conditions psyche or whether, in male vein, psyche conditions soma.

The conditioning of psyche by soma in both metachemistry and chemistry, the hegemonically female elements par excellence, means that crime is conditioned by evil and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of evil, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metachemistry, evil and crime, corresponding to beauty and love in free soma and to ugliness and hatred in bound psyche, are genuine, whereas in chemistry, more the element of spirit than of will, evil and crime, corresponding to strength and pride in free soma and to weakness and humility in bound psyche, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on psyche as opposed to soma, even with a relative predominance of soma over psyche in chemistry, due in large part to the antiphysical subversion of chemistry at the behest of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on what we have elsewhere described as - and know to be - the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the southwest to the northeast points of the axis in question.

The conditioning of soma by psyche in both metaphysics and physics, the hegemonically male elements par excellence, means that wisdom is conditioned by grace and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of grace, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metaphysics, grace and wisdom, corresponding to truth and joy in free psyche and to illusion and woe in bound soma, are genuine, whereas in physics, more the element of ego than of soul, grace and wisdom, corresponding to knowledge and pleasure in free psyche and to ignorance and pain in bound soma, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on soma as opposed to psyche, even with a relative preponderance of psyche over soma in physics, due in large part to the antichemical subversion of physics at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics on what we have elsewhere described as - and know to be - the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the northwest to the southeast points of the axis in question.

However, the upended subordinate gender corollaries of these mutually exclusive hegemonic elements follow the pattern, under pressure from the hegemonic gender, of their gender opposites, not of themselves, whether as soma apparently conditioning psyche in antimetaphysics and antiphysics respectively or, across the hegemonic gender divide, as psyche seemingly conditioning soma in antimetachemistry and antichemistry respectively, so that, irrespective of their respective gender ratios of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, the subordinate gender mimics, as far as possible, the criteria applying to their gender betters, pseudo-sin no less a corollary of pseudo-folly in antimetaphysics and sin no less a corollary of folly in antiphysics ... than pseudo-goodness is a corollary of pseudo-punishment in antimetachemistry and goodness a corollary of punishment in antichemistry. For, speaking generally, there can no more be sin without folly than ... goodness without punishment, just as, from the standpoint of the hegemonic gender in any given elemental position, there can no more be crime without evil in free soma than, across the gender divide, wisdom could possibly exist without a gracious precondition in free psyche.

Notwithstanding the distinctions between moral evil and crime or, again generally, moral grace and wisdom and their immoral counterparts (already touched upon in a series of previous weblogs), the chief distinction between the hegemonic gender's conditioning of the bound by the free and their gender subordinate's conditioning of it under pressures from those a plane above them in either of the respective noumenal or phenomenal elemental positions will be that, in the former case, the ratio of free to bound will always favour the free, whether noumenally on a 3:1 basis or phenomenally on a 2½:1½ basis, whereas in the latter case the ratio of free to bound will always be contrary to the free, whether noumenally on a 1:3 basis or phenomenally on a 1½:2½ basis, with predictably unattractive consequences.

But this is effectively a separate subject (not least in respect of the immorality already touched upon), so I shall leave it there for the time being, only remarking, in conclusion, that the subversion of chemistry by antiphysics at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry in the one axial case and the subversion of physics by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics in the other axial case provides a compromise solution whereby a male-oriented bound psyche, corresponding to sin, and a female-oriented bound soma, corresponding to goodness, will correspond to the greater part of each subordinate gender's respective ratio of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, i.e. the 2½ (as opposed to the 1½), at the expense, axially speaking, of the hegemonic gender and without the benefit, traditionally, of either genuine salvation to free psyche in metaphysics or, in the case of the antichemical, genuine undamnation, speaking paradoxically and contrary to the will of godliness, to free soma in metachemistry, the reason being that neither axis can exist independently of the other whilst an elemental fudge at either pole continues to be the general rule and to keep them in some kind of axial relativity whose respective modes of consistency and stability are held up as guarantors of continuity, and therefore as justifying their respective poles.

I do not doubt the credibility of such a claim, but I have a different mindset and approach to axial relativity which the reader may already have familiarized himself with in other writings by me and accordingly have come to the conclusion that I am no apologist for the axial status quo!