SENSIBILITY AND SANITY

1. Hitherto, in works previously dealing with this subject, I have tended to equate inorganic primacy, whether 'natural' or artificial, with insanity, and organic supremacy, by contrast, with sanity, thereby correlating the inorganic with the insane and the organic with the sane.

2. Current reflection, however, convinces me that the context of insanity is more complex than that, because, quite apart from the difficulty of equating sanity with the barbarous and philistine manifestations, in sensuality, of organic supremacy, it would surely be illogical to equate the civilized and cultural manifestations, in sensibility, of inorganic primacy with insanity.

3. In short, the distinction between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, must surely be the chief criterion for enabling one to distinguish insanity from sanity or vice versa in relation to either inorganic primacy or organic supremacy, so that both contexts, whether 'natural' or artificial, become subject to the dichotomy in question.

4. Hence we should distinguish the negative insanity, as it were, of sensual manifestations of inorganic primacy from the negative sanity of those manifestations thereof which are sensible, as one would distinguish negative barbarism and philistinism from negative civilization and culture.

5. Likewise, we should distinguish the positive insanity, so to speak, of sensual manifestations of organic supremacy from the positive sanity of those manifestations thereof which are sensible, as one would distinguish positive barbarism and philistinism from positive civilization and culture.

6. Thus just because something may, in metachemical manifestations of organic supremacy, be beautiful and loving ... does not necessarily guarantee that it will also be sane. The determinant of that will be the distinction between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, wrong and right, immorality and morality.

7. And what applies to metachemical manifestations of organic supremacy should apply just as much to its chemical, physical, and metaphysical manifestations, where strength/pride, knowledge/pleasure, and truth/joy can be adjudged one way or the other according to whether sensual (and insane) or sensible (and sane) affiliations are discernible in any given context.

8. Conversely, just because something may, in metachemical manifestations of inorganic primacy, be ugly or hateful ... does not necessarily guarantee that it will also be insane. The determinant of that will be the distinction between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, etc., as applicable to either a 'once-born' or a 'reborn' disposition.

9. Now what applies to metachemical manifestations of inorganic primacy should also apply to its chemical, physical, and metaphysical manifestations, where not ugliness and hatred so much as weakness and humility, ignorance and pain, and falsity and woe will be the respective alternatives which can be adjudged in relation to insanity or sanity (negatively), according to whether sensual or sensible affiliations are discernible in any given context.

10. With no exception, all elemental contexts reveal a dichotomy between sensuality and sensibility, freedom and binding, which should allow one - barring an amoral confusion or transmutation - to distinguish their insane manifestations from their sane manifestations precisely on the basis of sensuality and sensibility.

11. Thus salvation (male) and/or damnation (female) will be from the insanity of sensual freedom to the sanity, comparatively speaking, of sensible binding, whether in relation to the negativity of inorganic primacy or to the positivity of organic supremacy.

12. In general terms it could be argued that insanity is centrifugal and convolutional, whereas sanity is centripetal and involutional, the one tending from a vacuum (directly insane) and/or from a plenum (indirectly insane) in what amounts to a female/male distinction in sensuality, while the other tends towards a plenum (directly sane) and/or towards a vacuum (indirectly sane) in what amounts to a male/female distinction in sensibility.