51.  But, then, cremation is not particularly wise from a male point of view, since the chances must be pretty high that the life going on in 'eternity', the relife, as if were, of afterlife experience, would be capable of feeling, if it hadn't already 'run its course' and ceased to shine, whether purely or impurely, and therefore be capable of registering any external disturbance to its 'trip', which was being rudely if not barbarously 'gatecrashed' by crematorial flame and turned 'upon its head', turned upside down and effectively subverted in what might well be the most agonizing experience for the sentient self of excruciating torment, a torment effectively commensurate with hell, from which there was absolutely no escape.

52.  Perish the thought!  And yet one cannot rule out such a possibility, no matter how speculative it may be from the standpoint of the living.  One cannot rule it out because it is unlikely that afterlife experience, particularly when soulful, or centred in the spinal cord, would be bereft of feeling, of a capacity to experience heavenly bliss, which would, after all, be the reward for a life dedicated to the salvation of the self in respect of the soul and thus of some meditation technique commensurate with transcendentalism. 

53.  And even the lesser afterlife experience of the egocentric in life, of the profane in ego who had subordinated soul to the pleasures associated with knowledge, even that, we may suppose, would be capable of registering any external disturbance to itself and of painfully experiencing the consequences.

54.  Therefore cremation could be extremely unwise from a male point of view, since no self-respecting person would wish to suffer the excruciating consequences of having his 'trip', whether visionary or non-visionary, assailed by raging flames and torn apart in the most brutal fashion. 

55.  Therefore it is not the wise, the sensible, who opt for cremation but the foolish, the sensual, all those who, in life, had been too much under the hegemonic rule - in free societies whose freedom was more with regard to will and/or spirit than ego and/or soul - of females, and accordingly allowed themselves to be dominated by female criteria to the detriment if not, in some cases, effective exclusion of male values, not least in terms of respect for the concept of an Afterlife which comes from the free ego and/or soul, in Christian and Buddhist-like vein, of a sensibly-oriented society characterized by the lead and dominance of males.

56.  Now while free females may not suffer unduly from cremation, given that their freedom is predominantly somatic, of will and/or spirit in either metachemical or chemical not-self, and that when they die it is the death of the body rather than the rebirth of the self, the mind, that most characterizes them, the same is unlikely to hold true of males.  For even though they will have been paradoxically emphasizing will and/or spirit in free soma under hegemonic female pressures during life, they are still creatures for whom, contrary to females, psyche both precedes and, subatomically speaking, predominates over soma (as father over son in ratios of either more - relative to most - wavicles/less - relative to least - particles for masculine males or most wavicles/least particles for divine males), and who can expect the actuality of that fact or, rather, truth to kick-in sooner or later no matter how materialistic or realistic or otherwise sensually disposed they may consider themselves to be or to have been in life.

57.  For you can be obliged, under female hegemonic pressures, to deny your self, your brain stem and/or spinal cord, your ego and/or soul, for the greater part of your diurnal existence, particularly if you happen to live in a society or country which encourages you to do so in the interests of free will and/or spirit.  But at the end of the day you will still, short of a sex change (and perhaps even then) be male, and your actuality of psyche preceding and predominating over soma, self over not-self, will still be what most characterizes you as a male, whether you are consciously and/or subconsciously aware of it or not.

58.  Frankly, it is difficult to the point of impossible to understand how a male could not be aware of this truth no matter how much he strives or is obliged to bury it and turn away from his self as though it were a figment of his imagination or of no account in consequence of the extent to which he had 'lost his head' not only to females but to female criteria generally.  Males are males and females ... females, and different they remain, in life as in death. 

59.  Therefore a failure to identify a distinction between male and female criteria - all too typical of the amoral and liberally androgynous 'world' - can be a source of considerable error and misunderstanding, not least when, as a male, you are obliged to toe-a-female-line and knuckle under, as the saying goes, to manifestations of freedom which, by their very nature, can only suit females and ultimately prove detrimental to males.

60.  Therefore when you live under free will and/or spirit in societies dominated by power and/or glory, by metachemical and/or chemical facts, you've potentially got a big problem as a male, because you will be expected to deny the ego and/or soul, and thus the form and/or contentment of physical and/or metaphysical truths, in the interests of free soma, which will be busily conditioning your psyche to acquiesce, contrary to its egocentric or psychocentric grain, in just such freedom.

61.  Therefore since soul and ego are the enemies, from the female hegemonic standpoints, of free will and free spirit, they will be denied, and the subverted will-slavering soul that accrues id-wise to an antimetaphysical position under a metachemical hegemony characterized by free will, and the subverted spirit-slavering ego that accrues superego-wise to an antiphysical position under a chemical hegemony characterized by free spirit, will ensure that you are at cross-purposes with your gender actuality as a male and in no position to believe in or look forward to an Afterlife of reborn psyche in consequence.

62.  So the prospects that you will almost blandly or complacently opt for cremation under a psyche-denying freely somatic lifestyle can only be greater than would be the case had you been freely egocentric or psychocentric most of your life in male hegemonic contexts and sufficiently self-respecting, in consequence, as to prefer burial in the expectation of either meeting the Saviour or God face to face, as it were, in the Afterlife.

63.  Which, of course, accords with a sensible orientation in which Christian or some such religious criteria were more characteristic of how you approached life in a society that was the converse of anything freely somatic, a society characterized, rather, by male hegemonic criteria in which the female was put in her (subordinate) place and kept there, to the best of one's ability, in the interests of the male ideals of free ego and/or free soul and the triumph, in consequence, of form and/or contentment over their more natural, and sensual, enemies - glory and power, now reduced, in sensible vein, to bound manifestations of spirit and will which accord with what is blessed and virtuous, whether in primary (male) or secondary (female) terms.

64.  And do so, remember, not as ends in themselves, but as the subordinate corollaries of the morality of free ego and the salvation of free soul, without which there cannot be any morality or salvation, as the case may be, much less genuine culture as a manifestation of free psyche for an individual who is not only properly cultural, but properly civil and thus civilized in the deference of bound soma, whether on primary (male) or secondary (female) terms, the former implying psychic grace and somatic wisdom, the latter psychic punishment - for a creature who is predominantly somatic - and somatic modesty.

65.  Christ is reputed to have said that the 'poor in spirit' were blessed, and this is equivalent to saying that the antigiving of bound spirit is blessed, whereas free spirit, its sensual counterpart, is cursed, as, therefore, are what he might have called the 'rich in spirit', who are about sensual giving rather than sensible antigiving.

66.  But spirit is only a mode of not-self, one issuing, in quantitative terms, from the will, and the 'poor in will' would be virtuous, since bound will is virtuous in its antidoing, the sensible antithesis of that will which is vicious in its freedom of action and therefore applicable to what could be called the 'rich in will', who are accordingly about sensual doing rather than sensible antidoing.

67.  Reversing Christ's terminology, one could say that the 'rich in ego' are moral, which is equivalent to saying that the taking of free ego is moral, whereas bound ego, its sensual counterpart, is immoral, as, therefore, is what might be called the sensual antitaking of the 'poor in ego'.

68.  But ego is only profane if falsely turned into an end in itself, as it tends to be by the overly physical, whom we may call 'pricks', whether consciously moralistic or not, and more significant from a divine standpoint are what Christ, rightfully scornful of egocentric wealth as an obstacle to the 'Kingdom of Heaven', might have called the 'rich in soul', who are saved, since free soul is the beingful salvation of the self, the sensible antithesis of that self whose soul is damned in its binding to free soma and therefore applicable to what could be called the sensual antibeing of the 'poor in soul'.

69.  I do not approve, nor have ever admired, the 'poor in ego' or the 'poor in soul', for they have allowed themselves to be dominated by hegemonic female criteria to an extent which has rendered them subordinate before the 'rich in spirit' or the 'rich in will', neither of whom would be greatly partial to free ego or free soul in any case, since they strive to dominate and condition psyche from a freely somatic basis according with their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating (in either more - relative to most - particles/less - relative to least - wavicles or most particles/least wavicles) over psyche, and their ego is accordingly less consciously egocentric than superconsciously ego-eccentric in relation to free spirit and their soul less subconsciously psychocentric than unconsciously psycho-eccentric in relation to free will, both of which directly condition their psyche accordingly, making bound ego and soul mirror images of the impulsive supernaturalness of spirit and the instinctive unnaturalness of will.

70.  Yet males are not by gender actuality 'poor in ego' or 'poor in soul', but are only made such under the dominance of the 'rich in spirit' and the 'rich in will' who constrain them from their rightful inheritance of being either 'rich in ego', i.e. sensibly partial to free ego, or 'rich in soul', i.e. sensibly partial to free soul, according as they are either preponderantly physical (and lower-class/lowlander) or preponderantly metaphysical (and upper-class/highlander) and able to condition the antichemical and the antimetachemical to either 'poverty of spirit' or 'poverty of will', as the elemental/class case may be. 

71.  I do approve, and even admire, the 'poor in spirit' and the 'poor in will', for they have allowed themselves to be conditioned by hegemonic male criteria to an extent which has rendered them subordinate to the 'rich in ego' or the 'rich in soul', neither of whom would be greatly partial to free spirit or free will in any case, since they strive to dominate and condition soma from a freely psychic basis according with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and predominating (in either more - relative to most - wavicles/less - relative to least - particles or most wavicles/least particles) over soma, and their spirit is accordingly less supernatural than natural in relation to free ego and their will less unnatural than subnatural in relation to free soul, both of which directly condition their soma accordingly, making bound spirit and will mirror images of the intellectual consciousness of ego and the emotional subconsciousness of soul.

72.  However, from a gender standpoint, it could be argued that females are naturally the 'rich in spirit' and the 'rich in will' and only become somatically 'poor', or bound, under psychically free male hegemonic pressures which constrain them to emphasize ego or soul at the expense of spirit and will in the interests of a sort of overall psychic monism on either class basis, notwithstanding the distinctions between the primary (male) and secondary (female) manifestations of each.

73.  Conversely, it could be argued that males are naturally or, rather, nurturally (by nurture) the 'rich in ego' and the 'rich in soul' and only become psychically 'poor', or bound, under somatically free female hegemonic pressures which constrain them to emphasize spirit or will at the expense of ego and soul in the interests of a sort of overall somatic monism on either class basis, notwithstanding the distinctions between the primary (female) and secondary (male) manifestations of each.

74.  In the former case, either knowledge and pleasure directly conditioning, as primary free (physical) psyche, a knowledgeable approach to strength and a pleasurable approach to pride which, as primary bound (physical) soma, in turn conditions strength and pride to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antichemical) soma, in the strong approach to knowledge and proud approach to pleasure of secondary free (antichemical) psyche, or truth and joy directly conditioning, as primary free (metaphysical) psyche, a truthful approach to beauty and a joyful approach to love which, as primary bound (metaphysical) soma, in turn conditions beauty and love to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antimetachemical) soma, in the beautiful approach to truth and loving approach to joy of secondary free (antimetachemical) psyche.

75.  In the latter case, either weakness and humility directly conditioning, as primary free (chemical) soma, a weak approach to ignorance and a humble approach to pain which, as primary bound (chemical) psyche, in turn conditions ignorance and pain to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antiphysical) psyche, in the ignorant approach to weakness and painful approach to humility of secondary free (antiphysical) soma, or ugliness and hatred directly conditioning, as primary free (metachemical) soma, an ugly approach to illusion and a hateful approach to woe which, as primary bound (metachemical) psyche, in turn conditions illusion and woe to acquiesce, as secondary bound (antimetaphysical) psyche, in the illusory approach to ugliness and woeful approach to hate of secondary free (antimetaphysical) soma.