Atoms and pseudo-Atoms

Preview ATOMS AND PSEUDO-ATOMS eBook

Op.144

ATOMS AND PSEUDO-ATOMS

In Subatomic Perspective

Aphoristic Philosophy

John O'Loughlin

_________

Key to Selected Terms

noumenal approximates to ethereal

phenomenal approximates to corporeal

psyche approximates to mind

soma approximates to body

bovaryized or bovaryization is a difficult term (originally deriving from Flaubert's novel 'Madame Bovary') which approximates to removed from or bent away from its representative position by foreign influences

Triadic Beyond approximates to a three-tier gender-subdivisible pluralistic approach to revolutionary church-hegemonic axial criteria

majoritarian approximates to the predominating (soma) or preponderating (psyche) ratio aspect of a given atom

minoritarian approximates to the postdominating (soma) or postponderating (psyche) ratio aspect of a given atom

Pseudo-majoritarian and pseudo-minoritarian approximate to the respective pseudo-ratio aspects of pseudo-atoms

Postdominating is the converse of predominating

Postponderating is the converse of preponderating

__________

Where previously, as in my last book, The Fourfold Composition of Elements and Pseudo-Elements in Axial Perspective, I have spoken of subatomic elements, viz. photons, electrons, neutrons, and protons, together with their pseudo-subatomic pseudo-elemental counterparts, viz. pseudo-protons, pseudo-neutrons, pseudo-electrons, and pseudo-photons, I can now see a case for making a superelemental/subelemental distinction for the noumenal planes of space and time coupled to a pseudo-superelemental/pseudo-subelemental distinction for the pseudo-noumenal planes of pseudo-time and pseudo-space on the one hand, and an elemental/unelemental distinction for the phenomenal planes of volume and mass coupled to a pseudo-elemental/pseudo-unelemental distinction for the pseudo-phenomenal planes of pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume on the other hand.

1. For it seems to me that any absolute distinction, on a 3:1 ratio basis, between metachemical supersensuousness and subconsciousness, corresponding to free soma and bound psyche, should be reflected in a like distinction between the metachemical superelemental and subelemental, as between representative photons and once-bovaryized electrons in the free soma of supersensuous metachemistry, and twice-bovaryized neutrons and thrice-bovaryized protons in the bound psyche of subconscious metachemistry, the former designation approximating to beauty and love, as to a representative will and a once-bovaryized spirit; the latter designation approximating, by contrast, to ugliness and hatred, as to a twice-bovaryized ego and a thrice-bovaryized soul.

2. Likewise, if on contrary noumenal terms, any absolute distinction, on a 3:1 ratio basis, between metaphysical superconsciousness and subsensuousness, corresponding to free psyche and bound soma, should be reflected in a like distinction between the metaphysical superelemental and subelemental, as between representative protons and once-bovaryized neutrons in the free psyche of superconscious metaphysics, and twice-bovaryized electrons and thrice-bovaryized photons in the bound soma of subsensuous metaphysics, the former designation approximating to joy and truth, as to a representative soul and a once-bovaryized ego; the latter designation approximating, by contrast, to woe and illusion, as to a twice-bovaryized spirit and a thrice-bovaryized will.

3. Dropping from the noumenal planes of space and time to the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, any relative distinction, on a 2½: 1½ ratio basis, between chemical sensuousness and unconsciousness, corresponding to free soma and bound psyche, should be reflected in a like distinction between the chemical elemental and unelemental, as between representative electrons and once-bovaryized photons in the free soma of sensuous chemistry, and twice-bovaryized protons and thrice-bovaryized neutrons in the bound psyche of unconscious chemistry, the former designation approximating to pride and strength, as to a representative spirit and a once-bovaryized will; the latter designation approximating, by contrast, to humility (if not humiliation) and weakness, as to a twice-bovaryized soul and a thrice-bovaryized ego.

4. Similarly, if on contrary phenomenal terms, any relative distinction, on a 2½: 1½ ratio basis, between physical consciousness and unsensuousness, corresponding to free psyche and bound soma, should be reflected in a like distinction between the physical elemental and unelemental, as between representative neutrons and once-bovaryized protons in the free psyche of conscious physics, and twice-bovaryized photons and thrice-bovaryized electrons in the bound soma of unsensuous physics, the former designation approximating to knowledge and pleasure, as to a representative ego and a once-bovaryized soul; the latter designation approximating, by contrast, to ignorance and pain, as to a twice-bovaryized will and thrice-bovaryized spirit.

Now what applies to the above-mentioned atoms regarded in this subatomically variegated way would also apply to pseudo-atoms where, in keeping with their subordinate status, a distinction between pseudo-superelements and pseudo-subelements on the pseudo-noumenal planes of pseudo-time and pseudo-space, and one between pseudo-elements and pseudo-unelements on the pseudo-phenomenal planes of pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume should also be acknowledged, the better to understand the reverse ratio relationships between the hegemonic and subordinate pairings in any given atomic/pseudo-atomic context.

1. Hence any pseudo-absolute distinction, on a 3:1 ratio basis, between pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-superconsciousness and pseudo-subsensuousness, corresponding to pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma, should be reflected in a like pseudo-distinction between the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-superelemental and pseudo-subelemental, as between pseudo-representative pseudo-protons and once-bovaryized pseudo-neutrons in the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-superconscious pseudo-metaphysics, and twice-bovaryized pseudo-electrons and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-photons in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-subsensuous pseudo-metaphysics, the former pseudo-designation approximating to pseudo-woe and pseudo-illusion, as to a pseudo-representative pseudo-soul and a once-bovaryized pseudo-ego; the latter pseudo-designation approximating, by contrast, to pseudo-joy and pseudo-truth, as to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-will.

2. Likewise, if on contrary noumenal terms, any pseudo-absolute distinction, on a 3:1 ratio basis, between pseudo-metachemical pseudo-supersensuousness and pseudo-subconsciousness, corresponding to pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche, should be reflected in a like pseudo-distinction between the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-superelemental and pseudo-subelemental, as between pseudo-representative pseudo-photons and once-bovaryized pseudo-electrons in the pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-supersensuous pseudo-metachemistry, and twice-bovaryized pseudo-neutrons and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-protons in the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-subconscious pseudo-metachemistry, the former pseudo-designation approximating to pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred, as to a pseudo-representative pseudo-will and a once-bovaryized pseudo-spirit; the latter pseudo-designation approximating, by contrast, to pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love, as to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-ego and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-soul.

3. Dropping from the pseudo-noumenal planes of pseudo-time and pseudo-space to the pseudo-phenomenal planes of pseudo-mass and pseudo-volume, any relative pseudo-distinction, on a 2½: 1½ ratio basis, between pseudo-physical pseudo-consciousness and pseudo-unsensuousness, corresponding to pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma, should be reflected in a like pseudo-distinction between the pseudo-physical pseudo-elemental and pseudo-unelemental, as between pseudo-representative pseudo-neutrons and once-bovaryized pseudo-protons in the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-conscious pseudo-physics, and twice-bovaryized photons and thrice-bovaryized electrons in the pseudo-free soma of pseudo-unsensuous pseudo-physics, the former pseudo-designation approximating to pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain, as to a pseudo-representative pseudo-ego and a once-bovaryized pseudo-soul; the latter pseudo-designation approximating, by contrast, to pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure, as to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-will and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-spirit.

4. Similarly, if on contrary pseudo-phenomenal terms, any relative pseudo-distinction, on a 2½: 1½ ratio basis, between pseudo-chemical pseudo-sensuousness and pseudo-unconsciousness, corresponding to pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche, should be reflected in a like pseudo-distinction between the pseudo-chemical pseudo-elemental and pseudo-unelemental, as between pseudo-representative pseudo-electrons and once-bovaryized pseudo-photons in the pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-sensuous pseudo-chemistry, and twice-bovaryized pseudo-protons and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-neutrons in the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-unconscious pseudo-chemistry, the former pseudo-designation approximating to pseudo-humility and pseudo-weakness, as to a pseudo-representative pseudo-spirit and a once-bovaryized pseudo-will; the latter pseudo-designation approximating, by contrast, to pseudo-pride and pseudo-strength, as to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-soul and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-ego.

1. Considering each of the four principal atoms in turn, one can argue that metachemistry is comprised of a primary superelement, the representative photon, and a secondary superelement, the once-bovaryized electron, in its absolutely predominating (supersensuous) free soma, as well as a primary subelement, the twice-bovaryized neutron, and a secondary subelement, the thrice-bovaryized proton, in its absolutely postdominating (subconscious) bound psyche, the ratio of superelements to subelements in the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry being 3:1.

2. In contrast to metachemistry, the atom of space (spatial), one can argue that metaphysics, the atom of time (repetitive), is comprised of a primary superelement, the representative proton, and a secondary superelement, the once-bovaryized neutron, in its absolutely preponderating (superconscious) free psyche, as well as a primary subelement, the twice-bovaryized electron, and a secondary subelement, the thrice-bovaryized photon, in its absolutely postponderating (subsensuous) bound soma, the ratio of superelements to subelements in the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics being 3:1.

3. Dropping from the noumenal to the phenomenal planes, one can argue that physics, the atom of mass (massive), is comprised of a primary element, the representative neutron, and a secondary element, the once-bovaryized proton, in its relatively preponderating (conscious) free psyche, as well as a primary unelement, the twice-bovaryized photon, and a secondary unelement, the thrice-bovaryized electron, in its relatively postponderating (unsensuous) bound soma, the ratio of elements to unelements in the phenomenal subjectivity of physics being 2½:1½.

4. In contrast to physics, one can argue that chemistry, the atom of volume (volumetric) is comprised of a primary element, the representative electron, and a secondary element, the once-bovaryized photon, in its relatively predominating (sensuous) free soma, as well as a primary unelement, the twice-bovaryized proton, and a secondary unelement, the thrice-bovaryized neutron, in its relatively postdominating (unconscious) bound psyche, the ratio of elements to unelements in the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry being 2½:1½.

* * * *

1. In terms of the pseudo-atoms (subordinate to the atoms), one can argue that pseudo-metaphysics, the pseudo-atom of pseudo-time (sequential), is comprised of a primary pseudo-superelement, the pseudo-representative pseudo-proton, and a secondary pseudo-superelement, the once-bovaryized pseudo-neutron, in its absolutely pseudo-preponderating (pseudo-superconscious) pseudo-bound psyche, as well as a primary pseudo-subelement, the twice-bovaryized pseudo-electron, and a secondary pseudo-subelement, the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-photon, in its absolutely postponderating (pseudo-subsensuous) pseudo-free soma, the ratio of pseudo-superelements to pseudo-subelements in the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-metaphysics being 3:1.

2. In contrast to pseudo-metaphysics, one can argue that pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-atom of pseudo-space (spaced), is comprised of a primary pseudo-superelement, the pseudo-representative pseudo-photon, and a secondary pseudo-superelement, the once-bovaryized pseudo-electron, in its absolutely pseudo-predominating (pseudo-supersensuous) pseudo-bound soma, as well as a primary pseudo-subelement, the twice-bovaryized pseudo-neutron, and secondary pseudo-subelement, the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-proton, in its absolutely pseudo-postdominating (pseudo-subconscious) pseudo-free psyche, the ratio of pseudo-superelements to pseudo-subelements in the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemistry being 3:1.

3. Dropping from the pseudo-noumenal to the pseudo-phenomenal planes, one can argue that pseudo-chemistry, the pseudo-atom of pseudo-volume (voluminous), is comprised of a primary pseudo-element, the pseudo-representative pseudo-electron, and a secondary pseudo-element, the once-bovaryized pseudo-photon, in its relatively pseudo-predominating (pseudo-sensuous) pseudo-bound soma, as well as a primary pseudo-unelement, the twice-bovaryized pseudo-proton, and a secondary pseudo-unelement, the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-neutron, in its relatively pseudo-postdominating (pseudo-unconscious) pseudo-free psyche, the ratio of pseudo-elements to pseudo-unelements in the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-chemistry being 2½:1½.

4. In contrast to pseudo-chemistry, one can argue that pseudo-physics, the pseudo-atom of pseudo-mass (massed), is comprised of a primary pseudo-element, the pseudo-representative pseudo-neutron, and a secondary pseudo-element, the once-bovaryized pseudo-proton, in its relatively pseudo-preponderating (pseudo-conscious) pseudo-bound psyche, as well as a primary pseudo-unelement, the twice-bovaryized pseudo-photon, and a secondary pseudo-unelement, the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-electron, in its relatively pseudo-postponderating (pseudo-unsensuous) pseudo-free soma, the ratio of pseudo-elements to pseudo-unelements in the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-physics being 2½:½.

1. Just as the unconscious is not the conscious and the unsensuous not the sensuous, so the unelement is not the element, but that aspect of the phenomenal (corporeal) atom which is bound to the relatively greater freedom of the element proper or, more correctly, of the primary and secondary elements which, as we have argued, correspond to the representative element, the actual fulcrum of the phenomenal atom, be it electron (chemistry) or neutron (physics), and the once-bovaryized element, be it photon (chemistry) or proton (physics). Therefore the unelement is always the twice-bovaryized (primary) and thrice-bovaryized (secondary) corollary of the elemental factors which condition its binding, be it proton (chemistry) or photon (physics) in the twice-bovaryized case, or neutron (chemistry) or electron (physics) in the thrice-bovaryized case

2. Now what applies to the elements and unelements of the phenomenal atoms also applies to their pseudo-elemental and pseudo-unelemental counterparts, where we find a similar distinction obtaining between the pseudo-representative pseudo-element, the pseudo-fulcrum of the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atom, be it pseudo-neutron (pseudo-physics) or pseudo-electron (pseudo-chemistry), and the once-bovaryized pseudo-element, be it pseudo-proton or pseudo-photon, on the one hand, that of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elements, and the twice-bovaryized (pseudo-primary) pseudo-unelement, be it pseudo-photon or pseudo-proton, and the thrice-bovaryized (pseudo-secondary) pseudo-unelement, be it pseudo-electron or pseudo-neutron, on the other hand.

3. Just as the subconscious is not the superconscious and the subsensuous not the supersensuous, so the subelement is not the superelement, but that aspect of the noumenal (ethereal) atom which is bound to the absolutely greater freedom of the superelement proper or, more correctly, of the primary and secondary superelements which, as we have argued, correspond to the representative superelement, the actual fulcrum of the noumenal atom, be it photon (metachemistry) or proton (metaphysics), and the once-bovaryized superelement, be it electron or neutron, on the one hand, and the twice-bovaryized (pseudo-primary) pseudo-subelement, be it pseudo-neutron or pseudo-electron, and the thrice-bovaryized (pseudo-secondary) pseudo-subelement, be it pseudo-proton or pseudo-photon, on the other hand.

4. Now what applies to the superelements and subelements of the noumenal. atoms also applies to their pseudo-superelemental and pseudo-subelemental counterparts, where we find a similar distinction obtaining between the pseudo-representative pseudo-superelement, the pseudo-fulcrum of the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-atom, be it pseudo-proton (pseudo-metaphysics) or pseudo-photon (pseudo-metachemistry), and the once-bovaryized pseudo-superelement, be it pseudo-neutron or pseudo-electron, on the one hand, that of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelements, and the twice-bovaryized (pseudo-primary) pseudo-subelement, be it pseudo-electron or pseudo-neutron, and the thrice-bovaryized (pseudo-secondary) pseudo-subelement, be it pseudo-photon or pseudo-proton, on the other hand.

In all pseudo-atomic contexts, whether pseudo-noumenal or pseudo-phenomenal, the ratio of pseudo-freedom to pseudo-binding is reversed in relation to hegemonic pressure from the presiding atoms, which cause the subordinate pseudo-atoms to behave in a paradoxical if not contradictory manner, in which it would seem that, in the case of the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-atoms, the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelements count for less than the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelements, and, in the case of the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atoms, the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elements likewise count for less than the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelements, in view of the fact that the pseudo-subelements in the one case and pseudo-unelements in the other are alone pseudo-free and, hence, pseudo-positive, with a pseudo-bright status that puts their pseudo-superelemental and pseudo-elemental corollaries in the pseudo-negative shade, despite the latter having majoritarian ratio standings in both absolute (3:1) and relative (2½:1½) pseudo-atomic terms.

Atoms that react against one another, like the metachemical and the metaphysical on the one hand (noumenal), and the chemical and the physical on the other hand (phenomenal), are attracted to their gender opposites either above (noumenal) or below (phenomenal), like metachemistry to physics and chemistry to metaphysics, to form the hegemonic aspects of either state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarities, with their corresponding subordinate pseudo-atoms likewise being attracted to their opposite pseudo-gender counterparts, as in the case of pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-chemistry on the state-hegemonic axis, and pseudo-physics to pseudo-metachemistry on the church-hegemonic one, except that same gender and pseudo-gender polarities tend to dominate each axis in terms of an overall primary or secondary order of stability and continuity.

Therefore we find the primary state-hegemonic polarity being established on a metachemical to pseudo-chemical (overall female) basis, and the secondary state-hegemonic polarity on a pseudo-metaphysical to physical (overall male) basis, in contrast to the primary church-hegemonic polarity being of a pseudo-physical to metaphysical (overall male) tendency, and the secondary church-hegemonic polarity being of a chemical to pseudo-metachemical (overall female) tendency.

For it is not the attraction of the opposite genders or pseudo-genders which establishes axial stability and consistency, but only the polarity established by the same gender or pseudo-gender on a hegemonic-to-subordinate or subordinate-to-hegemonic polar basis, salvation of the pseudo-physical pseudo-male being from the chemical female to metaphysical male dominance over the counter-damned from chemistry pseudo-metachemical pseudo-female, in a reversal of overall gender fortunes, as it were, which would be enough, were it properly to transpire, to ensure the damnation of the metachemical female to pseudo-chemical pseudo-female subordination to the physical male as the counter-saved destiny of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-males in a similar, albeit temporary, reversal of overall gender fortunes that, lacking axial polarity, would soon degenerate towards some radical Social Democratic nadir were no alternatives made available to them in the form of lower-tier positions under the Saved and counter-Damned in metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry – alternatives that would have to be earned, and which would ensure not only avoidance of the nadir in question, but their absorption into resurrected, or stepped-up, church-hegemonic axial criteria … pending a long-term totalitarian apotheosis which would resolve the pragmatic pluralism of what would effectively be a three-tier gender-divisible structure analogous to what has previously (in various earlier writings by me) been termed the Triadic Beyond.

Just as the atom can be ethereal or corporeal, noumenal or phenomenal, so its subatomic components can be either superelemental and subelemental (noumenal) or elemental and unelemental (phenomenal), with different gender and class implications that will remain hegemonic over pseudo-atoms of a pseudo-noumenal or a pseudo-phenomenal status whose pseudo-subatomic components will be no-less either pseudo-superelemental and pseudo-subelemental (pseudo-noumenal) or pseudo-elemental and pseudo-unelemental (pseudo-phenomenal), as the pseudo-atomic case may be.

Such hegemonic/subordinate relationships are not, however, immovably fixed, since axial polarity ensures a degree, depending on the context, of interchangeability and even reverse continuity which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would result in a radical change of atomic perspective to one transcending such polarity in the event of the unprecedented triumph of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry not only over chemistry/pseudo-physics but, by association, over both metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and physics/pseudo-chemistry to boot.

A 'triumph' of this nature would be commensurate, I maintain, with 'Kingdom Come', and thus with the overcoming of 'the world' both directly (chemistry/pseudo-physics) and indirectly (physics/pseudo-chemistry) as the netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly reign of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics was ended for want of chemical/pseudo-physical prey.

Such an atomic/pseudo-atomic upheaval would, frankly, be unparalleled. But it is what religion, when genuine, points towards, and it would be for the people, the electorates of certain countries with the right kinds of axial preconditions, to decide whether it is feasible or unfeasible, desirable or undesirable, the zenith of righteousness or something very different.

Of course, there are people and people, as well as peoples and peoples, and what could suit one person or people would be completely unsuited to another. It will be for history to decide. For while history builds some persons and peoples up, it tears other persons and peoples down, making for perpetual flux.

Actually I was being a little over-modest with the above statements. For, whatever the masses or even the odd individual may think, God-in-Heaven (to put it all-encompassingly) cannot abide the existence of Hell-in-the-Devil (likewise all-encompassing), since the omega is not compatible with the alpha, and hitherto there has been little room for God-in-Heaven in a world dominated by Hell-in-the-Devil, in consequence of which only a truncated metaphysics, signified by the bound soma of the Crucifixion paradigm, has tended to prevail in the Christian and, in particular, Catholic West, by dint of the extent to which, rooted in Judaic tradition, the Christian civilization has paid due homage to Hell-in-the-Devil, that is, to the love and beauty of metachemical materialism, though not literally as Hell the Clear Spirit (free somatic love) and Devil the Mother (free somatic beauty) but, rather, as Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, as the so-called Creator of the so-called Universe (cosmos), and, doubtless, as Hell the Clear Spirit hyped as something closer to Heaven.

When you have a metachemical anchor, so to speak, in which the beauty of free will is sacrosanct, then there is correspondingly less scope for metaphysics, and such metaphysics as has been achieved is somewhat less, in the so-called Son of God and the so-called Holy Spirit (of Heaven), than Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father or, more simply and less compromisingly, the godfatherliness of God-in-Heaven.

If you are to have a full complement of metaphysics, free psyche as well as bound soma, then you cannot acknowledge, much less worship, the free soma and bound psyche of metachemistry. For the very existence of the latter, in both its materialist and fundamentalist, free somatic and bound psychic manifestations, precludes all but the truncated existence of the former, and, by allowing only for metaphysical bound soma, it ensures that God-in-Heaven remains 'beyond the pale' of a civilization characterized by the domination of Hell-in-the-Devil, by the love in beauty of metachemical free soma.

Therefore only a repudiation of metachemistry, presumably through the paradoxical utilization of democratic processes in certain countries towards a religiously sovereign end, could lead to the institutional acknowledgement of metaphysics in its entirety, and what metaphysics can abide is a subordinate pseudo-metachemistry, a Pseudo-Hell-in-the-Pseudo-Devil, or a pseudo-hatred-in-pseudo-ugliness of pseudo-bound soma as that which is most and more (as opposed, in pseudo-free psyche, to less and least) pseudo-representative of the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom as it defers to the hegemonic dominance of metaphysics – something quite unprecedented in the West and only really credible, not to say possible, within the more contemporary framework of global civilization, whereby you would have a saint and neutralized dragon, or lamb and neutralized wolf, symbolism 'writ large', with both of these metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical positions existing in complete independence of metachemistry and its pseudo-metaphysical subordinate complement and, as it were, 'fall guy for slag', or some kind of diabolic denigration.

Therefore, in returning to our starting point, one can argue, without any equivocation, that whilst God, to put it simply, may tolerate and even require the co-existence of a Pseudo-Devil, He cannot tolerate that of the Devil and its Pseudo-God, because their existence, and institutionalized acknowledgement, precludes Him or, rather, metaphysics from existing on any but a peripheral and truncated basis such that falls short of God-in-Heaven by dint of the straining-at-the-leash, as it were, of metaphysical aspiration being simultaneously tied to the world (the chemical/pseudo-physical southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass at the traditional base of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) and obliged, within the Judeo-Christian framework, to acknowledge a 'Creator-God' in back (at the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest point of the said compass as the ruling principle of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis), which precludes all but a truncated metaphysics from transpiring and ensures that not only is God-in-Heaven 'beyond the (judeo-christian) pale', but that only the Son of God (so-called) and Holy Spirit, analogous to lungs and breath respectively, will be acknowledged via the metaphysical bound soma of the Crucifixion paradigm. And not in relation to any appropriate identification with lungs and breath, but, fearing the consequences for 'Creator-ism' of 'atheistic' Transcendental Meditation, in which a degree of free metaphysical psyche is required and does exist, 'done down' Sacred Heart-wise, to pseudo-metachemistry, from where, lacking metaphysical completeness, a triangular accommodation of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics can be engineered, to the detriment if not exclusion of transcendental liberation.

Such is the alpha-stemming nature of the mainstream Western religious tradition, and while no other tradition, directly or indirectly rooted in some mode of 'Creator-ism', could ever be its legitimate replacement, the sooner it can be democratically consigned to the rubbish bin of history through the mass or popular endorsement of religious sovereignty, the better!

If God the Father, as the superintellectual concomitant of the superemotionality of Heaven the Holy Soul in the free psyche of metaphysics, doesn't exist within the institutional framework of the Western tradition, not even where Roman Catholicism is concerned, then we have reason to doubt that the 'Son of God' is anything more than a son of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father or, more comprehensively, of both Mary, corresponding to Hell-in-the-Devil, and Joseph, corresponding to Pseudo-God-in-Pseudo-Heaven, to take only the majoritarian ratio factors (3 as opposed to 1) in each case, so that the love-in-beauty of the one is regarded as being metachemically hegemonic over the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-illusion-in-pseudo-woe of the other, metachemical free soma hegemonic, in other words, over the pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-metaphysics.

To claim that Jesus Christ, who was surely the son of Joseph and Mary Christ, was the Son of God … the Father in metaphysics, whose representative element or, rather, superelement is germane, in its protonic core, to Heaven the Holy Soul, would be feasible if the majoritarian ratio aspect of metaphysics was institutionally and religiously acknowledged. But when you have a shortfall from that, one which, in bound soma, is no more than the minoritarian (1 as opposed to 3) ratio aspect of metaphysics, of this highly subjective noumenal atom, then you tend to regard this Son-of-God status in a correspondingly different light, namely one reflecting the prior existence and acknowledgement of a creative source based around Mary and Joseph, as around what I logically hold to be the mankind stage-proper (beyond cosmic and natural paradigms like Jehovah/Satan and Saul/David) of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, viz. Devil the Mother and the Clear Spirit of Hell in metachemical free soma vis-à-vis Pseudo-Heaven-the-Pseudo-Soul and Pseudo-God-the-Pseudo-Father in pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche, the corresponding pseudo-metaphysical majoritarian ratio aspect to that of metachemistry, in what is evidently a Western and broadly humanistic extrapolation, albeit on recognizably netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly terms, from natural and cosmic netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly precedents more typical, it would appear, of the Middle East.

However, with his alpha-stemming extrapolative origins, Christ is not the kind of 'Son of God' I can believe in, and for that reason I never have. For what is genuinely godly, and then only as an omega-stemming extrapolative concomitant of Heaven … the Holy Soul, does not have a 'Son' other than in the metaphorical sense, to which I subscribe, of free psyche preceding bound soma in metaphysics (and to a lesser, or relative, extent in physics) as male gender actuality, with the metaphor of 'father' preceding 'son' doing as much justice to that actuality as the one of 'mother' preceding 'daughter' … to the precedence of psyche by soma on the female side of the gender fence, where both metachemistry and (to a lesser, because relative, extent) chemistry hold sway.

As for producing a divine son via parents, like Mary and Joseph Christ, forget it! This has nothing to do with metaphysics, least of all on terms which appertain to either mankind or, to anticipate a more evolved future, cyborgkind, where not Eastern transcendental meditation but global substance-entitlement within certain gender-determined parameters conditioned by artificial and/or synthetic requirement would most likely be the appropriate approach to metaphysics and even, for the pseudo-devilish, to pseudo-metachemistry.

Some people might think that the Archangel Michael slaying the Dragon (a mythical creature) and St George slaying the Dragon were really one and the same, or two symbols for the same thing, but I don't. I believe they are as distinct as Judaism and Christianity, or the Old and the New Testaments, with a corresponding distinction between metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand, that of the Archangel Michael and what I would take to be a He-Dragon, and metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry on the other hand, that of St George and what I would hold to be a She-Dragon, since I have long identified pseudo-metachemistry with a pseudo-female subordination to a male hegemony in metaphysics, and this would contrast with a pseudo-male subordination, in pseudo-metaphysics, to a female hegemony in metachemistry, the kind of subordination more characteristic of both Judaism and the Old Testament, with a kind of contemporary parallel in the proverbial 'red under the bed' that Republicans, in the traditional American party political context, have tended to brand certain Democrats as being, all the better to slay them by using whatever means are most conducive to keeping them down and, as it were, in an inferior position.

No, if you believe in St George, no matter how fanciful or mythical the dragon paradigm for a kind of barbarous threat to culture may happen to be, then there is no reason, so far as I can see, why one should also believe in the Archangel Michael, much less to equate their actions – on the surface of it pretty similar – with one and the same principle. Nothing, it seems to me, could be further from the case!

'Rage, rage against the dying of the light' … wrote the poet Dylan Thomas, though I believe it is not so much a 'dark night' that one should not go 'gently into' as a creeping greyness of gender-neutral amorality which has now descended on the world like a vast twilight cloak that snuffs-out all attempts to differentiate between right and wrong, good and bad, right and left, bright and dark, light and shade, etc., from a standpoint that, in its centralizing blandness, is synthetic, the secular repudiation of and degenerate successor to what was once, with Western civilization-proper, a dichotomy between Christian thesis and heathen antithesis, the bright right way and the dark wrong way, the sensible morality and the sensual immorality.

The process of degeneration which led from thesis vis-à-vis antithesis to synthesis, to the gender-neutral (unisexual) amorality which condemns sexism, racism, and even other dichotomous 'isms' rooted in some degree of religious sensibility, was perhaps inevitable, certainly from the Reformation onwards and through the so-called Age of Reason or Age of Enlightenment into the Industrial Revolution and beyond. The last major attempt in the West to check if not eliminate it from an anti-synthetic standpoint, centred in a right thesis vis-à-vis a wrong (or left) antithesis, failed miserably under the combined opposition of the degenerate democracies of the Anglo-French West and the emerging Communism (radical social democracy) of the Soviet East, aided and abetted by the free-enterprise corporate capitalism of the USA, that offshoot, in many respects, of the leading European powers which the Third Reich had elected, following the experiences and consequences of the Great War, to oppose,

In the end, the march, to coin a phrase, of what some would call historical progress but which, I believe, should really be called of synthetic regress was too powerful for any antithesis-spurning neo-thesis in the form of Nazi Germany to defeat, and the victory of that grey amorality with which we are all, one way or another, familiar and even afflicted, these days, ensured that the last vestiges of Western civilization, like dying embers from the Medieval past briefly flaring up in horror of Bolshevism, etc., would perish along with any belated attempt to resurrect a necessarily twisted form of civilization, hell-bent on using barbarous means, by the Third Reich.

Which leaves us with the need not for a belated 'good fight' against the rising global rejecters of Western morality, but, rather, for a kind of Social Theocratic 'supergood fight', as it were, which will resurrect the moral desirability of a thesis on revolutionary grounds, grounds that will allow for a corresponding antithesis in the guise of the (neutralized) she-dragon under the saintly heel, as in the context of pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, or pseudo-space under time, the repetitive time, or time per se, of Eternity.

That, it seems to me, is the nature of the fight or struggle to come, with the genesis of 'Kingdom Come' under Social Theocratic auspices, and it would deliver those earmarked, as chemical/pseudo-physical masses, for deliverance from the amoral synthesis which currently rules their lives to that ultimate thesis/antithesis or, better, superthesis/pseudo-superantithesis from which, with proper service from the administrative aside to what has been described (in previous titles by me) as the Centre proper, there will be no synthetic degeneration, no possibility, ever again, of a 'grey zone', that, in its twilight amorality, shuts out the light of moral righteousness and a categorical distinction, in consequence, between right and wrong, saint and (neutralized) female dragon, the extreme right, as it were, and the pseudo-extreme left who will be no less pseudo-extreme wrong, though acceptable enough from a truly right(eous) standpoint.

* * * *

The synthesis not so much of Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil, since that would be impossible (notwithstanding the fact that the actual fulcra of the alpha and the omega are the Devil and Heaven, free will and soul), as of Purgatory and the Earth, Woman and Man, in a quintessentially worldly age or society that encourages, through the cement of democracy, the marriage of politics with economics, one way or another, that is, with a political hegemony under republicanism or an economic hegemony under parliamentarianism.

The life of the masses, if I can put it that way, is one of relentless objectivity, of thoughtless outgoingness, or extroversion, as the natural corollary of the female incapacity for reflection and deep cogitation, an incapacity shared, to varying extents, by children and those youthful or adult males especially susceptible to female influence and pressure.

The capacity for deep reflection, by contrast, is so much the exception to the general rule, that it can almost invariably be associated with genius, not least in terms of the intensely subjective ability to think rationally or coherently, without undue external interference from average mortals, and to have, in consequence, what is termed a logical turn-of-mind, which is both credible and original.

In this world, notwithstanding the right kind of circumstances conducive to private reflection, such subjectivity is not only the exception to the general rule; it is almost exclusively a male preserve, since females not only lack a capacity for introspective analysis but are usually allergic to thought, and, in my experience, to a quite alarming degree, the more so as they hail from cultures in which, through environmental, climatic, and other factors, the cultivation of original thought would be virtually taboo even in their male counterparts.

Now is the time, as noted before, when sexism, racism, elitism, and even what could be called class-ism lie under a cloud of censorship closely associated with the 'twilight zone' of synthetic amorality in a kind of liberal centrality which excludes considerations of black and white, wrong and right, left and right, dark and bright.

In this situation there is no place for God and precious little toleration of the Devil. For it signifies not so much the triumph of Man as of Man dominated by Woman and all things juvenile, if not infantile. We have a long way to go before a new thesis emerges from – or rather in opposition to – this greyness, to usher in a new dawn for morality and, correlatively, an ultimate 'good fight' against its perceived antithesis, a fight destined to culminate in the triumph of right over wrong, as in the guise of metaphysics hegemonic over a subordinate pseudo-metachemistry.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that the 'twilight zone' of synthetic modernity is wrong. For it is neither bright nor dark but grey, and therefore no more wrong than right. Fighting shy of moral/immoral extremes, it adheres to its own amoral centrality, aided and abetted by the gender-spurning neutrality of the English language, which is at the ideological heart of contemporary liberalism and, for that very reason, is no language suited to the resurrection of the right, as of the light, with 'Kingdom Come'.

* * * *

If, in the future, a new thesis/antithesis, as already described, emerges from out the current synthesis in certain countries (with the right kind of axial preconditions), it will have to be served, from the administrative aside, by a new synthesis, a sort of supersynthesis of politics and economics or, more correctly, of politics and pseudo-economics, which will combine to ensure that the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical distinction between religion and pseudo-science, corresponding to a superthesis and a pseudo-superantithesis, is served in the best possible way for all eternity. There should not be a sliding back, or backsliding, with this arrangement, into a kind of synthetic degeneration or decadence, but only the permanent service of the ultimate thesis/antithesis, as defined above, from a synthetic aside mindful of its duties.

The magnificently-elevated church organ in the slightly tacky but much underrated German film Nichts Bereuen, which features Daniel Brühl in the lead role, is set in such wonderful surroundings as to suggest a proximity to heaven and, hence, to all metaphysical aspirations, a proximity only to be encountered in such idealistic churches, and which suggests – though this was not evident from the film – the desirability of a subordinate complement in the guise of a large upright piano, analogous to a contiguously-encircled absolute star, or pseudo-superstar, for some lady in a straight dress to play upon largely for the benefit, one suspects, of other ladies, and perhaps even children, at times when the organ is not being played for the benefit, I would argue, of the more metaphysically-inclined male members of the congregation, who would most likely be mature adults. Here, with both a large pipe organ aloft, or so-called loft organ, and a large upright piano below, one would have a parallel, it seems to me, with St. George and the Dragon, the neutralized she-dragon, as it were, that would rather contrast with anything metaphysical, since effectively pseudo-metachemical in character and status.

How far removed such upright pianos are from the free female criteria characteristic of grand pianos! Not least the large, or 'full', grand piano with open lid that suggests a metachemical parallel suited to somebody in a flouncy dress who, on an elevated platform, or stage, would be hegemonic over a pseudo-metaphysical 'fall guy' (for slag) and effective 'sonofabitch' playing, down below in the orchestra pit or even at floor level, a large accordion for the (dubious) benefit not so much of free females of a higher order as of pseudo-bound pseudo-males, whose symbolic status may well be analogous to a kind of contiguously-encircled absolute cross, or pseudo-supercross, like the CND emblem, under what is, in effect, a free absolute star, the antithesis, atomically and gender-wise, to the magnificent church organ alluded to above, which, if not exactly on the ideological level of a Y-chromosomal-intimating supercross, is still arguably the closest instrument to one within a conventional religious context.

But, of course, where there is a metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical vis-à-vis metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical antithesis, you are also likely to find an even more prevalent chemical/pseudo-physical vis-à-vis physical/pseudo-chemical one down below, as it were, in the guise of small, or 'baby', grand pianos/small accordions (with or without buttons) vis-à-vis small ground-floor organs and small ground-floor upright pianos, where the opposite gender positions are less noumenal (as above) than phenomenal, less ethereal than corporeal, and therefore more given to volume and mass, as to volume/pseudo-mass vis-à-vis mass/pseudo-volume, than to space and time, as to space/pseudo-time vis-à-vis time/pseudo-space in the aforementioned contrast of large grand pianos/accordions vis-à-vis large church organs/upright pianos.

Both metachemistry and metaphysics are justified in keeping their subordinate corollaries, pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, down, or 'underfoot', since a 3:1 ratio of freedom to binding, brightness to darkness, is complemented by a 3:1 ratio of pseudo-binding to pseudo-freedom, pseudo-darkness to pseudo-brightness, and should that become unlocked, especially through descending (amoral) pressure from the hegemonic atom, then the only consequence is a 3:1 ascent of pseudo-binding to pseudo-freedom, pseudo-darkness to pseudo-brightness, from the subordinate pseudo-atom, with such an ascent not being good for the hegemonic atom, be it metachemical or metaphysical, alpha or omega, outer or inner, sensual or sensible.

Nor, for that matter, would it be beneficial to chemistry or physics in the event of pseudo-physics or pseudo-chemistry being pressurized into an ascent from below, given the converse ratio of 2½:1½ pseudo-binding to pseudo-freedom that would then detract, through subversive intrusion, from a hegemonic context which is relatively free and relatively bound on such terms.

Consequently in both noumenal and phenomenal, absolute and relative, contexts, the atoms have a vested interest in keeping the pseudo-atoms in their subordinate places, and various metaphors, including St George and the Dragon, readily attest to this fact. But this is only possible in societies where a dichotomy between thesis and antithesis exists, not in ones which have degenerated into a synthesis lacking any semblance of moral rhyme (metachemistry) or reason (metaphysics).

* * * *

One can forgive those who 'know not what they do', for they are simply ignorant. What cannot be forgiven are those who know that what they are doing is wrong but still persist in doing it, because they are guilty of abusing knowledge.

* * * *

1. The Time paired with Space, which is spatial, is sequential, which is Pseudo-Time.

2. The Mass paired with Volume, which is volumetric, is massed, which is Pseudo-Mass.

3. The Volume paired with Mass, which is massive, is voluminous, which is Pseudo-Volume.

4. The Space paired with Time, which is repetitive, is spaced, which is Pseudo-Space.

1. Metachemistry is the atom of most space, more (relative to most) volume, less (relative to least) mass, and least time, since it is comprised of two superelements (photons and electrons) and two subelements (neutrons and protons), namely the representative primary superelement (photon), the once-bovaryized secondary superelement (electron), the twice-bovaryized primary subelement (neutron), and the thrice-bovaryized secondary subelement (proton). The metachemical atom will therefore exemplify most particle will (space), more (relative to most) particle spirit (volume), less (relative to least) wavicle ego (mass), and least wavicle soul (time) in its overall superelemental/subelemental integrity in noumenal free soma and bound psyche, supersensuousness and subconsciousness.

2. Chemistry is the atom of most volume, more (relative to most) space, less (relative to least) time, and least mass, since it is comprised of two elements (electrons and photons) and two unelements (protons and neutrons), namely the representative primary element (electron), the once-bovaryized secondary element (photon), the twice-bovaryized primary unelement (proton), and the thrice-bovaryized secondary unelement (neutron). The chemical atom will therefore exemplify most particle spirit (volume), more (relative to most) particle will (space), less (relative to least) wavicle soul (time), and least wavicle ego (mass) in its overall elemental/unelemental integrity in phenomenal free soma and bound psyche, sensuousness and unconsciousness.

3. Physics is the atom of most mass, more (relative to most) time, less (relative to least) space, and least volume, since it is comprised of two elements (neutrons and protons) and two unelements (photons and electrons), namely the representative primary element (neutron), the once-bovaryized secondary element (proton), the twice-bovaryized primary unelement (photon), and the thrice-bovaryized secondary unelement (electron). The physical atom will therefore exemplify most wavicle ego (mass), more (relative to most) wavicle soul (time), less (relative to least) particle will (space), and least particle spirit (volume) in its overall elemental/unelemental integrity in phenomenal free psyche and bound soma, consciousness and unsensuousness.

4. Metaphysics is the atom of most time, more (relative to most) mass, less (relative to least) volume, and least space, since it is comprised of two superelements (protons and neutrons) and two subelements (electrons and photons), namely the representative primary superelement (proton), the once-bovaryized secondary superelement (neutron), the twice-bovaryized primary subelement (electron), and the thrice-bovaryized secondary subelement (photon). The metaphysical atom will therefore exemplify most wavicle soul (time), more (relative to most) wavicle ego (mass), less (relative to least) particle spirit (volume), and least particle will (space) in its overall superelemental/subelemental integrity in noumenal free psyche and bound soma, superconsciousness and subsensuousness.

* * * *

1. In contrast to the above, pseudo-metaphysics is the pseudo-atom of most pseudo-time, more (relative to most) pseudo-mass, less (relative to least) pseudo-volume, and least pseudo-space, since it is comprised of two pseudo-superelements (pseudo-protons and pseudo-neutrons) and two pseudo-subelements (pseudo-electrons and pseudo-photons), namely the pseudo-representative pseudo-primary pseudo-superelement (pseudo-proton), the once-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelement (pseudo-neutron), the twice-bovaryized pseudo-primary pseudo-subelement (pseudo-electron), and the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelement (pseudo-photon). The pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom will therefore exemplify most pseudo-wavicle pseudo-soul (pseudo-time), more (relative to most) pseudo-wavicle pseudo-ego (pseudo-mass), less (relative to least) pseudo-particle pseudo-spirit (pseudo-volume), and least pseudo-particle pseudo-will (pseudo-space) in its overall pseudo-superelemental/pseudo-subelemental integrity in pseudo-noumenal pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma, pseudo-superconsciousness and pseudo-subsensuousness.

2. Pseudo-physics is the pseudo-atom of most pseudo-mass, more (relative to most) pseudo-time, less (relative to least) pseudo-space, and least pseudo-volume, since it is comprised of two pseudo-elements (pseudo-neutrons and pseudo-protons) and two pseudo-unelements (pseudo-photons and pseudo-electrons), namely the pseudo-representative pseudo-primary pseudo-element (pseudo-neutron), the once-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-element (pseudo-proton), the twice-bovaryized pseudo-primary pseudo-unelement (pseudo-photon), and the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelement (pseudo-electron). The pseudo-physical pseudo-atom will therefore exemplify most pseudo-wavicle pseudo-ego (pseudo-mass), more (relative to most) pseudo-wavicle pseudo-soul (pseudo-time), less (relative to least) pseudo-particle pseudo-will (pseudo-space), and least pseudo-particle pseudo-spirit (pseudo-volume) in its overall pseudo-elemental/pseudo-unelemental integrity in pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma, pseudo-consciousness and pseudo-unsensuousness.

3. Pseudo-chemistry is the pseudo-atom of most pseudo-volume, more (relative to most) pseudo-space, less (relative to least) pseudo-time, and least pseudo-mass, since it is comprised of two pseudo-elements (pseudo-electrons and pseudo-photons) and two pseudo-unelements (pseudo-protons and pseudo-neutrons), namely the pseudo-representative pseudo-primary pseudo-element (pseudo-electron), the once-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-element (pseudo-photon), the twice-bovaryized pseudo-primary pseudo-unelement (pseudo-proton), and the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelement (pseudo-neutron). The pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom will therefore exemplify most pseudo-particle pseudo-spirit (pseudo-volume), more (relative to most) pseudo-particle pseudo-will (pseudo-space), less (relative to least) pseudo-wavicle pseudo-soul (pseudo-time), and least pseudo-wavicle pseudo-ego (pseudo-mass) in its overall pseudo-elemental/pseudo-unelemental integrity in pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche, pseudo-sensuousness and pseudo-unconsciousness.

4. Pseudo-metachemistry is the pseudo-atom of most pseudo-space, more (relative to most) pseudo-volume, less (relative to least) pseudo-mass, and least pseudo-time, since it is comprised of two pseudo-superelements (pseudo-photons and pseudo-electrons) and two pseudo-subelements (pseudo-neutrons and pseudo-protons), namely the pseudo-representative pseudo-primary pseudo-superelement (pseudo-photon), the once-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelement (pseudo-electron), the twice-bovaryized pseudo-primary pseudo-subelement (pseudo-neutron), and the thrice-bovaryized pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelement (pseudo-proton). The pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom will therefore exemplify most pseudo-particle pseudo-will (pseudo-space), more (relative to most) pseudo-particle pseudo-spirit (pseudo-volume), less (relative to least) pseudo-wavicle pseudo-ego (pseudo-mass), and least pseudo-wavicle pseudo-soul (pseudo-time) in its overall pseudo-superelemental/pseudo-subelemental integrity in pseudo-noumenal pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche, pseudo-supersensuousness and pseudo-subconsciousness.

Geniuses are self-made, not born, and all their vocational lives long they are subjected to the opposition of the born enemies of genius – all those who lack a capacity for reflection and, hence, deep thought. I call these people 'the outsane', since they are lacking, through an excess of will and spirit, in respect for the inner forms of sanity, egocentrically physical as well as psychocentrically (or soulfully) metaphysical.

The incessant wars which the majority (or 'the outsane') wage against those who are sensible and intelligent enough to be introspective!

Wilde wrote, rather pompously, that no artist can live with the people, meaning, I guess, average inartistic individuals. But I find, in contrast to Wilde's claim, that it is also – and doubtless more generally – the case that the common people cannot live with or abide an artist, whatever his calling, and do what they can to thwart or hinder him. Was it not Baudelaire who wrote something to the effect that the people, or people in general, do whatever they can to prevent greatness in exceptional men from arising? Meaning, I guess, that independence of mind is resented by the 'common herd', and never more so than when it overlaps with certain noises or sounds of a persistent nature.

Nevertheless, at the end of the proverbial day, some of us 'artist types', even when of a relatively quiet philosophical disposition, have no option but to live with 'the people', or neighbours with no discernible artistic vocation, and so we must simply endure the consequences and battle-on in defence of our art, ignoring, as best we can, the extraneous sounds and noises that others make, whether incidentally or, especially in the case, I would argue, of women and kids, with calculated oppositional intent.

* * * *

Societies that are not led from above will be governed from below, like republics and other lower forms of society in which the lowest-common-political-denominator is 'king' or, at any rate, sovereign.

* * * *

Just as a synthesis can be relatively alpha or omega, left-of-centre or right-of-centre, so the thesis/antithesis dichotomy can be absolutely alpha or omega, of an extreme left-wing or an extreme right-wing character, with the former denouncing the Right as antithesis and the latter denouncing the Left as antithesis.

For me, the 'good fight' can only be a right-wing thesis against a left-wing antithesis kind of affair, whether relative (phenomenal) or absolute (noumenal). For the 'good fight' is essentially of a Christian or, better, Superchristian order, with sensibility of one kind or another in opposition to unfettered sensuality, as to all things heathen or, in contemporary parlance, secular and effectively if not literally dominated by females within mainly urban proletarian environments.

* * * *

1. Every metachemical superwoman has a metachemical subman, the subconscious corollary of her supersensuality.

2. Every chemical woman has a chemical unman, the unconscious corollary of her sensuality.

3. Every physical man has a physical unwoman, the unsensuous corollary of his consciousness.

4. Every metaphysical superman has a metaphysical subwoman, the subsensuous corollary of his superconsciousness.

* * * *

1. Every pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-superman has a pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-subwoman, the pseudo-subsensuous corollary of his pseudo-superconsciousness.

2. Every pseudo-physical pseudo-man has a pseudo-physical pseudo-unwoman, the pseudo-unsensuous corollary of his pseudo-consciousness.

3. Every pseudo-chemical pseudo-woman has a pseudo-chemical pseudo-unman, the pseudo-unconscious corollary of her pseudo-sensuousness.

4. Every pseudo-metachemical pseudo-superwoman has a pseudo-metachemical pseudo-subman, the pseudo-subconscious corollary of her pseudo-supersensuousness.

1. The subatomic components of an atom can be superelemental, subelemental, elemental, or unelemental, depending on whether the atom is noumenal (metachemical/metaphysical) or phenomenal (chemical/physical).

2. If the former, then its subatomicity will be divisible between superelements and subelements. If the latter, then its subatomicity will be divisible between elements and unelements.

3. Likewise, the pseudo-subatomic components of a pseudo-atom can be pseudo-superelemental, pseudo-subelemental, pseudo-elemental, or pseudo-unelemental, depending on whether the pseudo-atom is pseudo-noumenal (pseudo-metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical) or pseudo-phenomenal (pseudo-physical/pseudo-chemical).

4. If the former, then its pseudo-subatomicity will be divisible between pseudo-superelements and pseudo-subelements. If the latter, then its pseudo-subatomicity will be divisible between pseudo-elements and pseudo-unelements.

Neither atoms nor pseudo-atoms are one-dimensional in terms of their underlying structures.

* * * *

1. Just as that which, in metachemistry, is devilish in free soma can also be whorish in bound psyche, so what, in pseudo-metaphysics, is pseudo-godly in pseudo-bound psyche can also be pseudo-demonic in pseudo-free soma.

2. Just as that which, in chemistry, is womanly in free soma can also be pseudo-whorish in pseudo-bound psyche, so what, in pseudo-physics, is pseudo-manly in pseudo-bound psyche can also be demonic in pseudo-free soma.

3. Just as that which, in physics, is manly in free psyche can also be pseudo-saintly in bound soma, so what, in pseudo-chemistry, is pseudo-womanly in pseudo-bound soma can also be angelic in pseudo-free psyche.

4. Just as that which, in metaphysics, is godly in free psyche can also be saintly in bound soma, so what, in pseudo-metachemistry, is pseudo-devilish in pseudo-bound soma can also be pseudo-angelic in pseudo-free psyche.

* * * *

1. In overall female state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, with its northwest to southeast polarity, the devilish would be polar to the pseudo-womanly, as metachemical free soma to pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma, whereas the whorish would be polar to the angelic, as metachemical bound psyche to pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche.

2. In overall male church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, with its northeast to southwest polarity, the godly would be polar to the pseudo-manly, as metaphysical free psyche to pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche, whereas the saintly would be polar to the demonic, as metaphysical bound soma to pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma.

3. In overall male state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, with its northwest to southeast polarity, the pseudo-godly would be polar to the manly, as pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche to physical free psyche, whereas the pseudo-demonic would be polar to the pseudo-saintly, as pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma to physical bound soma.

4. In overall female church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, with its northeast to southwest polarity, the pseudo-devilish would be polar to the womanly, as pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma to chemical free soma, whereas the pseudo-angelic would be polar to the pseudo-whorish, as pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche to chemical bound psyche.

1. Metachemistry – the atom of will (doing), with a photonic fulcrum.

2. Chemistry – the atom of spirit (giving), with an electronic fulcrum.

3. Physics – the atom of ego (taking), with a neutronic fulcrum.

4. Metaphysics – the atom of soul (being), with a protonic fulcrum.

* * * *

1. Pseudo-metaphysics – the pseudo-atom of pseudo-soul (pseudo-being), with a pseudo-protonic fulcrum.

2. Pseudo-physics – the pseudo-atom of pseudo-ego (pseudo-taking), with a pseudo-neutronic fulcrum.

3. Pseudo-chemistry – the pseudo-atom of pseudo-spirit (pseudo-giving), with a pseudo-electronic fulcrum.

4. Pseudo-metachemistry – the pseudo-atom of pseudo-will (pseudo-doing), with a pseudo-photonic fulcrum.

* * * *

For some, death is the atonement for a life of crime. For others, eternity is the reward for the repentance of sin.

By and large, the distinction between the one and the other, crime and sin, death and eternity, boils down to a gender differential between female and male, objectivity and subjectivity, vacuum and plenum, soma and psyche, concretion and abstraction, particles and wavicles, with pseudo-subjectivity the neutralization, subordinate gender-wise, of subjectivity under objective hegemonic pressure, and pseudo-objectivity the neutralization, again subordinate gender-wise, of objectivity under subjective hegemonic pressure.

Ordinarily the genders approach sex from opposite standpoints – the males with intent to appease their subjectivity through pleasure, the females with intent to appease their objectivity through reproduction (or the possibility thereof), neither of which approaches are really compatible with the other, though some degree of compromise, usually favouring females, is eventually reached.

The synthetic approach to sex, which stems from a kind of gender-neutral standpoint, is to reduce both the motives of pleasure and reproduction through recourse to contraception – male and female – so that neither gender achieves anything comparable to a thesis/antithesis, pleasure/reproduction dichotomy.

In relation to the perpetuation of diurnal life, it could be argued that the female virtue of virtually infinite patience vis-à-vis children stands in sharp contrast to the eternal self-indulgence of males vis-à-vis females.

* * * *

One thing we can of which we can be certain is that any resurrection of the thesis/antithesis dichotomy from an omega-oriented standpoint, such as makes for distinctions of good and bad, light and shade, white and black, etc., stemming from a hegemonically sensible standpoint, will not be furthered by the English language, that bastion of synthetic amorality and gender neutrality, but only by languages, like German and even French, that grammatically recognize gender division and accordingly differentiate between male and female nouns, as well as both of these from neuter nouns, which are effectively genderless, whether in relation to infinitives, the diminutive forms of nouns, fractions, or whatever.

Instead of the 'grey zone' or 'twilight zone' that, thanks in large part to the English language, currently dominates the world, we shall have, with gender-based language, the preponderating resurrection of the light forever sensibly hegemonic over a predominantly dark or, more correctly, pseudo-dark pseudo-sensual antithesis, like the neutralized she-dragon, as it were, that would exist in pseudo-metachemical subordination to metaphysics, as to the 3:1 brightness/darkness of metaphysical free psyche/bound soma from a standpoint, in pseudo-space under time, in which the pseudo-darkness/pseudo-brightness of pseudo-bound soma/pseudo-free psyche would also be 3:1, in keeping with the absolutism of noumenal and, in the case of pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-noumenal criteria.

The resurrection of what is, in effect, a 3:1 superthesis/subthesis metaphysical integrity hegemonic over a 3:1 pseudo-antisuperthesis/pseudo-antisubthesis pseudo-metachemical integrity will constitute the resurrection per se, following the salvation of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and correlative counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, as from an elemental/unelemental phenomenal atomic hegemony over a pseudo-elemental/pseudo-unelemental pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atomic subordination to a superelemental/subelemental noumenal atomic hegemony over a pseudo-superelemental/pseudo-subelemental pseudo-noumenal pseudo-atomic subordination in which the superelemental will be akin, in metaphysical free psyche, to the light and the pseudo-superelemental akin, in pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma, to the pseudo-darkness (since darkness proper would, as noted above, be the subelemental aspect of metaphysics), the former absolutely moral (superthesis) and the latter absolutely unmoral (pseudo-antisuperthesis), with a corresponding distinction between that which, in metaphysics, is holy and what, in pseudo-metachemistry, is unclear, forever fated to a secondary church-hegemonic status in the pseudo-brightness of pseudo-free psyche and a primary state-subordinate one in the pseudo-darkness of pseudo-bound soma.

The primary and secondary majoritarian brightness and primary and secondary minoritarian darkness will always be hegemonic over the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-majoritarian pseudo-darkness and pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-minoritarian pseudo-brightness, like metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics, chemistry over pseudo-physics, physics over pseudo-chemistry, and metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry.

Every primary and secondary majoritarian brightness, whether somatically predominating or psychically preponderating, has its own complementary primary and secondary minoritarian darkness, whether psychically postdominating or somatically postponderating, and this association of free soma with bound psyche or of free psyche with bound soma, depending on the atomic case, should not be confounded with the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-majoritarian pseudo-darkness and the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-minoritarian pseudo-brightness over which it is triumphantly hegemonic, as atoms to pseudo-atoms.

No atom or pseudo-atom is indivisible, neither in terms of soma nor psyche, pseudo-soma nor pseudo-psyche. Atoms are always comprised of brightness and darkness, pseudo-atoms of pseudo-darkness and pseudo-brightness, whether to an absolute (3:1) or a relative (2½:1½) extent, according to whether the atom/pseudo-atom is noumenal/pseudo-noumenal or phenomenal/pseudo-phenomenal.

* * * *

Atoms and pseudo-atoms attracting and reacting, though more on an axial basis, like metachemical atoms/pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atoms vis-à-vis physical atoms/pseudo-chemical pseudo-atoms in the state-hegemonic axial context, or metaphysical atoms/pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atoms vis-à-vis chemical atoms/pseudo-physical pseudo-atoms in the church-hegemonic one, which are for ever in attractive/reactive polarity, like Nazism (with its militarist bias) against Communism in the one case, and Fascism (with its Catholic-defensive bias) against Socialism in the other.

In all cases, the attraction of the hegemonic atoms towards each other is countered by the subordinate pseudo-atoms and, conversely, the attraction of the pseudo-atoms towards each other is countered by the hegemonic atoms.

1. Hence pseudo-chemistry will repel the metachemical attraction towards physics, while pseudo-metaphysics repels the physical attraction towards metachemistry.

2. Hence metachemistry will repel the pseudo-chemical attraction towards pseudo-metaphysics, while physics repels the pseudo-metaphysical attraction towards pseudo-chemistry.

3. Hence pseudo-physics will repel the metaphysical attraction towards chemistry, while pseudo-metachemistry repels the chemical attraction towards metaphysics.

4. Hence metaphysics will repel the pseudo-physical attraction towards pseudo-metachemistry, while chemistry repels the pseudo-metachemical attraction towards pseudo-physics.

* * * *

With constant attraction of unlike poles and reaction to like poles, neither the state-hegemonic nor the church-hegemonic axis is fixed in a permanent stasis but, ever beholden to changing circumstances, will be subject to fluctuations in terms of which atoms/pseudo-atoms are most influential at any given time.

Where, in the Middle Ages, it could be argued that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, even with a truncated metaphysics favouring bound soma (the crucifixion paradigm), was dominant over chemistry/pseudo-physics, since the Reformation and, more particularly, the French Revolution, metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry has been losing ground to chemistry/pseudo-physics, especially when the latter is less Marian/Christian (or Christ Child-like) than republican socialist in character.

Similarly, whenever absolute monarchy has been replaced or superseded, one way or another, by constitutional monarchy, metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics has lost ground to physics/pseudo-chemistry which, not least in relation to parliamentary democracy, has tended to dominate its atomic/pseudo-atomic polarity from an executive standpoint favouring the 'representatives of the people'.

How long either of these 'worldly' stages of history and antithetical manifestations of people's power will last, and continue to dominate their respective 'overworldly' kinds of polarities, remains to be seen. But if there is to be a genuine return, progressively, to what could be called 'overworldly' dominance, then, notwithstanding the current predilection towards a degree of 'netherworldly' dominance – albeit to a significantly lesser degree than in Nazi Germany during the era of the Third Reich – characteristic not least of the United States of America in relation, for example, to its executive presidential C&C, it should only be within the framework of 'Kingdom Come', as it were, and thus have especial relevance to the influential dominance of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry over chemistry/pseudo-physics, and then only, following democratic endorsement, in terms of a full complement of metaphysics, free psyche as well as bound soma, that, completely independent of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, would have both the technological wherewithal and moral entitlement to exact a neutralized deference from pseudo-metachemistry, the better to save the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and simultaneously have the chemical counter-damned to pseudo-metachemistry with intent to overcoming 'the world', at least in its lapsed Catholic/republican socialist manifestation, and thus establishing a situation whereby metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and physics/pseudo-chemistry would become invalid as predatory exploiters of it, and are accordingly unable to profit, let along function in somatic licence, as before, with fairly predictable consequences.

Only thus, it seems to me, will the current dominance of 'the world' – and most especially of the physical/pseudo-chemical manifestation of it – be ended, as otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly criteria increasingly prevail under some degree of messianic auspices.

For unlike Heaven/pseudo-Hell, to use paradoxically parallel terminology, 'the world' has no eternal sanction, neither in its chemical/pseudo-physical manifestation nor, across the axial divide, in its physical/pseudo-chemical manifestation ever polar to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics. Only the God-in-Heaven of metaphysics, and most especially of an ultimate because cyborg-oriented kind of metaphysics, has any right, through soulful being, to eternity, a right not even shared by the pseudo-Hell-in-the-pseudo-Devil of pseudo-metachemistry in what would be a pseudo-infinite subordination, through neutralization, to the eternal sanction and sanctity of the metaphysical hegemony.

* * * *

That which parallels the brightness as pseudo-brightness is as pseudo-minoritarian to majoritarian in overall ratio terms, whereas what parallels the darkness as pseudo-darkness is, by contrast, pseudo-majoritarian to minoritarian in overall ratio terms.

Only in the atoms, or hegemonic gender positions, can one speak of a bright/dark complementarity in which the former is majoritarian and the latter minoritarian, whether noumenal or phenomenal, absolute or relative.

In the pseudo-atoms, or subordinate pseudo-gender positions, we shall find a pseudo-dark/pseudo-bright pseudo-complementarity, in which the former is pseudo-majoritarian and the latter pseudo-minoritarian, whether pseudo-noumenal or pseudo-phenomenal, pseudo-absolute or pseudo-relative.

1. Just as supersensuousness is the privilege of superwoman, with her metachemical free soma primarily exemplifying free will, so pseudo-superconsciousness is the lot of pseudo-superman, with his pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche pseudo-primarily exemplifying pseudo-bound soul.

2. Just as sensuousness is the privilege of woman, with her chemical free soma primarily exemplifying free spirit, so pseudo-consciousness is the lot of pseudo-man, with his pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche pseudo-primarily exemplifying pseudo-bound ego.

3. Just as consciousness is the privilege of man, with his physical free psyche primarily exemplifying free ego, so pseudo-sensuousness is the lot of pseudo-woman, with her pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma pseudo-primarily exemplifying pseudo-bound spirit.

4. Just as superconsciousness is the privilege of superman, with his metaphysical free psyche primarily exemplifying free soul, so pseudo-supersensuousness is the lot of pseudo-superwoman, with her pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma pseudo-primarily exemplifying pseudo-bound will.

* * * *

1. No less than supersensuousness is the antithesis of superconsciousness, as superelemental metachemistry of superelemental metaphysics, so pseudo-superconsciousness is the pseudo-antithesis of pseudo-supersensuousness, as pseudo-superelemental pseudo-metaphysics of pseudo-superelemental pseudo-metachemistry.

2. No less than subconsciousness is the antithesis of subsensuousness, as subelemental metachemistry of subelemental metaphysics, so pseudo-subsensuousness is the pseudo-antithesis of pseudo-subconsciousness, as pseudo-subelemental pseudo-metaphysics of pseudo-subelemental pseudo-metachemistry.

3. No less than sensuousness is the antithesis of consciousness, as elemental chemistry of elemental physics, so pseudo-consciousness is the pseudo-antithesis of pseudo-sensuousness, as pseudo-elemental pseudo-physics of pseudo-elemental pseudo-chemistry.

4. No less than unconsciousness is the antithesis of unsensuousness, as unelemental chemistry of unelemental physics, so pseudo-unsensuousness is the pseudo-antithesis of pseudo-unconsciousness, as pseudo-unelemental pseudo-physics of pseudo-unelemental pseudo-chemistry.

1. Metachemistry, whose fulcrum in the beauty of free will, is the noumenal atom of most photonic space, more (relative to most) electronic volume, less (relative to least) neutronic mass, and least protonic time, the primary and secondary positive subatomic components being objectively superelemental and the primary and secondary negative subatomic components objectively subelemental, with a corresponding ratio differential between the absolute majoritarianism (3) of supersensuous free soma and the absolute minoritarianism (1) of subconscious bound psyche, the former the brightly criminal aspect and the latter the darkly evil aspect of vanity within the overall clearness of an atomic framework dominated by the power of spatial motion (doing) in relation to fastness and hotness.

2. Chemistry, whose fulcrum in the pride of free spirit, is the phenomenal atom of most electronic volume, more (relative to most) photonic space, less (relative to least) protonic time, and least neutronic mass, the primary and secondary positive subatomic components being objectively elemental and the primary and secondary negative subatomic components objectively unelemental, with a corresponding ratio differential between the relative majoritarianism (2½) of sensuous free soma and the relative minoritarianism (1½) of unconscious bound psyche, the former the brightly pseudo-criminal aspect and the latter the darkly pseudo-evil aspect of pseudo-vanity within the overall pseudo-clearness of an atomic framework dominated by the glory of volumetric motion (giving) in relation to slowness and coldness.

3. Physics, whose fulcrum in the knowledge of free ego, is the phenomenal atom of most neutronic mass, more (relative to most) protonic time, less (relative to least) photonic space, and least electronic volume, the primary and secondary positive subatomic components being subjectively elemental and the primary and secondary negative subatomic components subjectively unelemental, with a corresponding ratio differential between the relative majoritarianism (2½) of conscious free psyche and the relative minoritarianism (1½) of unsensuous bound soma, the former the brightly pseudo-graceful aspect and the latter the darkly pseudo-wise aspect of pseudo-righteousness within the overall pseudo-holiness of an atomic framework dominated by the form of massive force (taking) in relation to heaviness and hardness.

4. Metaphysics, whose fulcrum in the joy of free soul, is the noumenal atom of most protonic time, more (relative to most) neutronic mass, less (relative to least) electronic volume, and least photonic space, the primary and secondary positive subatomic components being subjectively superelemental and the primary and secondary negative subatomic components subjectively subelemental, with a corresponding ratio differential between the absolute majoritarianism (3) of superconscious free psyche and the absolute minoritarianism (1) of subsensuous bound soma, the former the brightly graceful aspect and the latter the darkly wise aspect of righteousness within the overall holiness of an atomic framework dominated by the content(ment) of repetitive force (being) in relation to lightness and softness.

* * * *

1. Pseudo-Metaphysics, whose pseudo-fulcrum in the pseudo-woe of pseudo-bound soul, is the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-atom of most pseudo-protonic pseudo-time, more (relative to most) pseudo-neutronic pseudo-mass, less (relative to least) pseudo-electronic pseudo-volume, and least pseudo-photonic pseudo-space, the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-negative pseudo-subatomic components being pseudo-subjectively pseudo-superelemental and the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-positive pseudo-subatomic components pseudo-subjectively pseudo-subelemental, with a corresponding pseudo-ratio differential between the pseudo-absolute pseudo-majoritarianism (3) of pseudo-superconscious pseudo-bound psyche and the pseudo-absolute pseudo-minoritarianism (1) of pseudo-subsensuous pseudo-free soma, the former the pseudo-dark pseudo-sinful aspect and the latter the pseudo-bright pseudo-foolish aspect of pseudo-meekness within the overall pseudo-unholiness of a pseudo-atomic framework dominated by the pseudo-content(ment) of sequential pseudo-force (pseudo-being) in relation to pseudo-lightness and pseudo-softness.

2. Pseudo-Physics, whose pseudo-fulcrum in the pseudo-ignorance of pseudo-bound ego, is the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atom of most pseudo-neutronic pseudo-mass, more (relative to most) pseudo-protonic pseudo-time, less (relative to least) pseudo-photonic pseudo-space, and least pseudo-electronic pseudo-volume, the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-negative pseudo-subatomic components being pseudo-subjectively pseudo-elemental and the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-positive pseudo-subatomic components pseudo-subjectively pseudo-unelemental, with a corresponding pseudo-ratio differential between the pseudo-relative pseudo-majoritarianism (2½) of pseudo-conscious pseudo-bound psyche and the pseudo-relative pseudo-minoritarianism (1½) of pseudo-unsensuous pseudo-free soma, the former the pseudo-dark sinful aspect and the latter the pseudo-bright foolish aspect of meekness within the overall unholiness of a pseudo-atomic framework dominated by the pseudo-form of massed pseudo-force (pseudo-taking) in relation to pseudo-heaviness and pseudo-hardness.

3. Pseudo-Chemistry, whose pseudo-fulcrum in the pseudo-humility of pseudo-bound spirit, is the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atom of most pseudo-electronic pseudo-volume, more (relative to most) pseudo-photonic pseudo-space, less (relative to least) pseudo-protonic pseudo-time, and least pseudo-neutronic pseudo-mass, the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-negative pseudo-subatomic components being pseudo-objectively pseudo-elemental and the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-positive pseudo-subatomic components pseudo-objectively pseudo-unelemental, with a corresponding pseudo-ratio differential between the pseudo-relative pseudo-majoritarianism (2½) of pseudo-sensuous pseudo-bound soma and the pseudo-relative pseudo-minoritarianism (1½) of pseudo-unconscious pseudo-free psyche, the former the pseudo-dark punishing aspect and the latter the pseudo-bright good aspect of justice within the overall unclearness of a pseudo-atomic framework dominated by the pseudo-glory of voluminous pseudo-motion (pseudo-giving) in relation to pseudo-slowness and pseudo-coldness.

4. Pseudo-Metachemistry, whose pseudo-fulcrum in the pseudo-ugliness of pseudo-bound will, is the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-atom of most pseudo-photonic pseudo-space, more (relative to most) pseudo-electronic pseudo-volume, less (relative to least) pseudo-neutronic pseudo-mass, and least pseudo-protonic pseudo-time, the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-negative pseudo-subatomic components being pseudo-objectively pseudo-superelemental and the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-positive pseudo-subatomic components pseudo-objectively pseudo-subelemental, with a corresponding pseudo-ratio differential between the pseudo-absolute pseudo-majoritarianism (3) of pseudo-supersensuous pseudo-bound soma and the pseudo-absolute pseudo-minoritarianism (1) of pseudo-subconscious pseudo-free psyche, the former the pseudo-dark pseudo-punishing aspect and the latter the pseudo-bright pseudo-good aspect of pseudo-justice within the overall pseudo-unclearness of a pseudo-atomic framework dominated by the pseudo-power of spaced motion (pseudo-doing) in relation to pseudo-fastness and pseudo-hotness.

Motion and force are the alpha and omega of life, with objective and subjective implications that equate with energy and gravity respectively, energy and motion centrifugal, gravity and force centripetal.

* * * *

Everything is in everything, but not to the same degree or in the same way. We have to distinguish, in the former case, between the representative subatomic and pseudo-representative pseudo-subatomic components and their respective threefold bovaryizations, as well as between atoms and pseudo-atoms, and how they attract and react, with variable results.

* * * *

Power is the centrifugal dissipation of energy through motion, content(ment) the centripetal conservation of force through gravity.

* * * *

Energy is the objective outflowing of motion through willpower, gravity the subjective inflowing of force through soul-content(ment). The former is expressive and the latter impressive, with potentially explosive and implosive implications.

1. Power is rooted in a particle vacuum, which is energy; content(ment) is centred in a wavicle plenum, which is gravity.

2. Willpower sets energy in motion; soul-content(ment) conserves force through gravity.

3. Motion is an expression of energy, whether wilful or spiritual, intentional or instinctual, on both noumenal and phenomenal planes in respect of power or glory.

4. Force is an impression of gravity, whether egocentric or psychocentric (soulful), intellectual or emotional, on both phenomenal and noumenal planes in respect of form and content(ment).

Besides motion and force, as described above, there is pseudo-force and pseudo-motion, which are pseudo-subjective and pseudo-objective respectively, since appertaining not to atoms but to pseudo-atoms, as the subordinate corollaries of the prevailing atomic hegemonies.

1. Thus pseudo-motion is a pseudo-expression of pseudo-energy, whether pseudo-wilful or pseudo-spiritual, pseudo-intentional or pseudo-instinctual, pseudo-noumenal or pseudo-phenomenal.

2. Thus pseudo-force is a pseudo-impression of pseudo-gravity, whether pseudo-egocentric or pseudo-psychocentric (pseudo-soulful), pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-emotional, pseudo-phenomenal or pseudo-noumenal.

3. By and large, space and volume are expressions of motion, like will and spirit, power and glory, whereas mass and time are impressions of force, like ego and soul, form and content(ment). For motion is predominantly somatic, but force preponderantly psychic.

4. Contrariwise, pseudo-space and pseudo-volume are pseudo-expressions of pseudo-motion, like pseudo-will and pseudo-spirit, pseudo-power and pseudo-glory, whereas pseudo-mass and pseudo-time are pseudo-impressions of pseudo-force, like pseudo-ego and pseudo-soul, pseudo-form and pseudo-content(ment). For pseudo-motion is predominantly pseudo-somatic, but pseudo-force preponderantly pseudo-psychic.

* * * *

Just as you cannot have atoms without pseudo-atoms, or vice versa, so you do not have motion without pseudo-force or force without pseudo-motion, since such hegemonic/subordinate complementarities are the product of gender differentiation and reflect the desire and, indeed, ability of the one gender to dominate the other, whether on noumenal/pseudo-noumenal or phenomenal/pseudo-phenomenal terms on either an alpha/pseudo-omega or an omega/pseudo-alpha basis, depending whether motion or force is the hegemonic factor.

* * * *

Motion is no less an expression of energy than force an impression of gravity, but there would be neither motion nor force if there wasn't a corresponding pseudo-force in the one case and pseudo-motion in the other to pseudo-impress or pseudo-express, as the case may be, their respective kinds of pseudo-ness, be it pseudo-subjective or pseudo-objective.

* * * *

1. The conservation of force by gravity is akin to the phrase God in Heaven.

2. For gravity and force are correlative, like Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father.

3. The dissipation of energy by motion is akin to what I call Hell in the Devil.

4. For energy and motion are correlative, like Devil the Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit.

Generally speaking, men and women or, to do justice to the noumenal/phenomenal distinctions of class and/or plane, males and females are equally positive and equally negative in their different and effectively opposite ways, as between energy/motion and gravity/force, whether noumenal or phenomenal.

But, having said that, I must not overlook the fact that the same is true, in their opposite ways, of pseudo-males and pseudo-females, whose distinctions between pseudo-gravity/pseudo-force on the one hand and pseudo-energy/pseudo-motion on the other indubitably exist as the subordinate complementarities of the respective kinds of hegemonies of females and males proper.

* * * *

If you cannot be wise, at least (as a male) be a fool to yourself rather than to somebody else.

* * * *

The male in one context can become a pseudo-male in another, a pseudo-female in one context the female in another. Everyone and everybody exists in a state of constant flux due, in large part, to the complexities of societal, familial, and other relationships, with appropriate changes of status that mirror the fluctuations of life, not least in axial terms.

* * * *

In football, the attacking, or offensive, players are akin to energy in motion and the defensive players, by contrast, to force in gravity, so that there is a kind of left/right, radical/conservative distinction between forwards and defenders, with some players, habituated to playing in midfield positions, more liberally and, hence, centrally if not neutrally, coming in between the defenders and the attackers.

There is also a sense, it seems to me, in which a hegemonic/subordinate relationship, or parallel, is established between the winning and losing sides, although a drawn game would suggest the inability of either team to hegemonically prevail, with neutral (if not gender-neuter) implications.

* * * *

Much of what passes for culture with people is simply a reflection, on sublimated and artificial terms, of the basic dichotomy in life between energy in motion and the force of gravity, with largely female/male implications that normally run along objective/subjective lines in relation to the particle/wavicle distinctions between vacuum and plenum, competition and cooperation, individualism and collectivism.

* * * *

One could argue that St. George and the Dragon, the former in the process of slaying the latter, perfectly symbolizes the curbing if not neutralizing of energy/motion by gravity/force, and that there is consequently a gender paradigm in which conservatism triumphs over liberalism or radicalism, like males over females.

Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that males, when true to themselves (subjectively biased towards psyche) are inherently reactionary, reacting against the actions, in free will and spirit, of females, whose natural disposition, rooted in a vacuum, is to objectively 'come on' to males according to need and requirement.

Even at the chromosomal level, a XX differs somewhat from an XY, and it is, I believe, the Y aspect, as it were, of the male which makes him suspicious of if not inherently opposed to the advances of the female's XX, fearing that his X will be the thin end of the wedge that allows the female to seduce him from and even corrupt his Y, thereby leaving him at cross-purposes with his soul, his true self, in a divided loyalty that smacks of psychic ambivalence.

Religion, which treats, when true, of the life and even wellbeing of the soul, is the principal means by which males defend themselves from the aggressive blandishments and carnal seductions of females whose capacity for energy/motion, or energy in motion through the utilization of willpower, can be Quasar-like in its centrifugal intensity, with predictably reproductive consequences that male gender-biased gravity/force alone is unable to prevent, regular recourse to male contraceptives notwithstanding. For, as noted above, the sexual interests of males and females are opposite, and you cannot as a male (or pseudo-male) expect to have it all your own way (pleasure) for ever, least of all vis-à-vis a creature who is programmed, by nature, to reproduce, and who – exceptions to the rule notwithstanding – would feel cheated if she were to be denied that prerogative, especially since menstruation cannot be wished away and requires, sooner or later, to be vindicated, quite apart from the desire of what is fundamentally vacuous, or rooted in a sexual vacuum, the womb, to acquire a surrogate plenum in the form of a child.

So there is this fundamentally autocratic requirement on the one hand, and some kind of theocratic opposition to it on the other hand which is bound, sooner or later, to react to the persistent action that requires to be placated. Even in what is phenomenally below the noumenal antithesis alluded to above, a democratic/plutocratic opposition is indicative, on relative terms, of the same kind of thing, namely an energy/motion objectivity which meets with a gravity/force subjectivity whose business is not to be swept away by the former but to confront and, if possible, constrain it.

Which is precisely what happens at the subatomic level when nuclear fission meets the challenge of gravity bearing down on it and thereby effectively precluding it from 'breaking out' and 'running amok', in a lethal discharge of raw power. Only the force of gravity can prevent this from transpiring, and you need this force in a world characterized by female domination and an apparently never-ending surge of energetic motion on both metachemical and chemical, wilful and spiritual levels, where every pseudo-metaphysical or pseudo-physical pseudo-male, egged on by the power and/or glory that dominates him from a hegemonic female vantage-point, would prefer to 'run amok' in an explosion of somatic freedom or, in his case, pseudo-somatic pseudo-freedom than 'fight the good fight' against it from a reactionary standpoint disposed not simply to the protection of law and order, important as that may be, but to the defence of civilization and, most especially, of what is culturally and morally best in it, even if this does require, on occasion, that culture and religion be renewed, if not resurrected, on an altogether more evolved basis than hitherto, in order that the relentless surge of barbarous and philistine energy that passes for revolution may be more effectively checked and even neutralized by the forces of cultural gravity.

In the Christian past, it took something as terrible as the Crucifix to bring a degree of gravity to bear on the motion-prone energetic masses. Hopefully, in the Superchristian future, so to speak, a less terrible symbol can be utilized for or, at any rate, towards the same purpose, so that gravity/force will have the upper hand over energy/motion, and the dragon-slaying saint will once again be in the ascendant on his 'high horse', a plane up in time over pseudo-space, in the ensuing relationship between a hegemonic metaphysics and a subordinate pseudo-metachemistry.

When we examine metaphysics more closely, as the atom with a protonic fulcrum and a once-bovaryized neutronic ego, which are the primary and secondary components of its superelemental aspect, but a twice-bovaryized electronic spirit and a thrice-bovaryized photonic will, which are the primary and secondary components of its subelemental aspect, reading from right to left in relation to both superconscious free psyche and subsensuous bound soma, we can equate its primary superelement, the protonic soul, with supergravity, and its secondary superelement, the once-bovaryized neutronic ego, with superforce, so that the gravity/force corollary is regarded as assuming a properly 'super' dimension commensurate with the superconscious.

Therefore God in Heaven, or God held in check by Heaven (rather like the candlelight-to-candleflame religious metaphor, with the latter holding the former in check) is not simply equivalent to force in gravity, or force held in check by gravity, but to superforce in supergravity, the supergravity that, like the candlelight accruing to candle-flame, holds superforce close to itself in the thin-lipped smile-like subjectivity of metaphysical psyche.

As for the primary and secondary components of the subelemental aspect of the metaphysical atom, the twice- and thrice-bovaryized electrons and photons of bound spirit and bound will respectively, it should be evident that a connection exists here with motion and energy, though only within the subsensuous context of bound soma, so that, as with the 'super' modification of gravity and force above (in free psyche), an appropriate approach to terminology would be to equate these with submotion and subenergy, since we have, here, not the most ratio (3) aspect of the metaphysical atom but, rather, its least ratio (1) aspect within the overall noumenal absolutism of metaphysics.

Now where supergravity and superforce would be equivalent, as noted above, to Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father, submotion and subenergy would equate with the Holy Spirit of Heaven and the Son of God, both of which, unlike their superelemental counterparts, would accrue, in subsensuous subordination, to the 'dark side' of metaphysics, as that which, rather like the Crucifixion paradigm, is forever wisely bound to the freedom that gracefully reigns in the psychic brightness of superconsciousness.

1. Consequently, where our four atoms are concerned, I can see no reason why metaphysics, divisible between superconscious and subsensuous, should not be regarded in terms of supergravity/superforce vis-à-vis submotion/subenergy, given its emotional fulcrum in the protonic soul, once-bovaryized neutronic ego, twice-bovaryized electronic spirit, and thrice-bovaryized photonic will, so that one reads from right to left in relation to both its primary and secondary superelemental components and its primary and secondary subelemental components, the former absolutely free (3) and the latter absolutely bound (1) in terms of the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical free psyche and bound soma.

2. Likewise, I see no reason why physics, divisible between conscious and unsensuous, should not be regarded in terms of force/gravity vis-à-vis unenergy/unmotion, given its intellectual fulcrum in the neutronic ego, once-bovaryized protonic soul, twice-bovaryized photonic will, and thrice-bovaryized electronic spirit, so that one reads, contrary to the above, from left to right in relation to both its primary and secondary elemental components and its primary and secondary unelemental components, the former relatively free (2½) and the latter relatively bound (1½) in terms of the phenomenal subjectivity of physical free psyche and bound soma.

3. Similarly, if in (female) gender contrast to the above, I see no reason why chemistry, divisible between sensuous and unconscious, should not be regarded in terms of motion/energy vis-à-vis ungravity/unforce, given its instinctual fulcrum in the electronic spirit, once-bovaryized photonic will, twice-bovaryized protonic soul, and thrice-bovaryized neutronic ego, so that one reads, as with metaphysics, from right to left in relation to both its primary and secondary elemental components and its primary and secondary unelemental components, the former relatively free (2½) and the latter relatively bound (1½) in terms of the phenomenal objectivity of chemical free soma and bound psyche.

4. Finally, I can see no reason why metachemistry, divisible between supersensuous and subconscious, should not be regarded in terms of superenergy/supermotion vis-à-vis subforce/subgravity, given its intentional fulcrum in the photonic will, once-bovaryized electronic spirit, twice-bovaryized neutronic ego, and thrice-bovaryized protonic soul, so that one reads, as with physics, from left to right in relation to both its primary and secondary superelemental components and its primary and secondary subelemental components, the former absolutely free (3) and the latter absolutely bound (1) in terms of the noumenal objectivity of metachemical free soma and bound psyche.

* * * *

1. Turning to the four pseudo-atoms, I can see no reason why pseudo-metaphysics, divisible between pseudo-superconscious and pseudo-subsensuous, should not be regarded in terms of pseudo-supergravity/pseudo-superforce vis-à-vis pseudo-submotion/pseudo-subenergy, given its pseudo-emotional fulcrum in the pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, once-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, twice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, so that one reads from right to left in relation to both its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelemental components and its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelemental components, the former absolutely pseudo-bound (3) and the latter absolutely pseudo-free (1) in terms of the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma in pseudo-male gender subordination to the absolutely free-somatic/bound-psychic female hegemony of metachemistry.

2. Likewise, I see no reason why pseudo-physics, divisible between pseudo-conscious and pseudo-unsensuous, should not be regarded in terms of pseudo-force/pseudo-gravity vis-à-vis pseudo-unenergy/pseudo-unmotion, given its pseudo-intellectual fulcrum in the pseudo-neutronic ego, once-bovaryized pseudo-protonic soul, twice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic will, and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic spirit, so that one reads, contrary to the above, from left to right in relation to both its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elemental components and its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelemental components, the former relatively pseudo-bound (2½) and the latter relatively pseudo-free (1½) in terms of the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche and pseudo-free soma in pseudo-male gender subordination to the relatively free-somatic/bound-psychic female hegemony of chemistry

3. Similarly, if in (pseudo-female) gender contrast to the above, I see no reason why pseudo-chemistry, divisible between pseudo-sensuous and pseudo-unconscious, should not be regarded in terms of pseudo-motion/pseudo-energy vis-à-vis pseudo-ungravity/pseudo-unforce, given its pseudo-spiritual fulcrum in the pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, once-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, twice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, so that one reads, as with pseudo-metaphysics, from right to left in relation to both its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elemental components and its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelemental components, the former relatively pseudo-bound (2½) and the latter relatively pseudo-free (1½) in terms of the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche in pseudo-female gender subordination to the relatively free-psychic/bound-somatic male hegemony of physics.

4. Finally, I can see no reason why pseudo-metachemistry, divisible between pseudo-supersensuous and pseudo-subconscious, should not be regarded in terms of pseudo-superenergy/pseudo-supermotion vis-à-vis pseudo-subforce/pseudo-subgravity, given its pseudo-intentional fulcrum in the pseudo-photonic pseudo-will, once-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit, twice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego, and thrice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul, so that one reads, as with pseudo-physics, from left to right in relation to both its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelemental components and its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelemental components, the former absolutely pseudo-bound (3) and the latter absolutely pseudo-free (1) in terms of the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma and pseudo-free psyche in pseudo-female gender subordination to the absolutely free-psychic/bound-somatic male hegemony of metaphysics.

1. That the metachemical atom should be polar, on overall female gender terms, to the pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom, like vanity to justice, is no less axially inevitable than the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom being polar, on overall male gender terms, to the physical atom, like pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness.

2. For while unlike poles, like metachemistry and physics, pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry, attract, like poles, like metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, pseudo-metaphysics and physics repel, in consequence of which both primary (overall female) and secondary (overall male) state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial continuity-in-stability and/or stability-in-continuity is achieved.

3. That the metaphysical atom should be polar, on overall male gender terms, to the pseudo-physical pseudo-atom, like righteousness to meekness, is no less axially inevitable than the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom being polar, on overall female gender terms, to the chemical atom, like pseudo-justice to pseudo-vanity.

4. For while unlike poles, like metaphysics and chemistry, pseudo-metachemistry and pseudo-physics, attract, like poles, like metaphysics and pseudo-physics, pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry repel, in consequence of which both primary (overall male) and secondary (overall female) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial continuity-in-stability and/or stability-in-continuity is achieved.

One could argue that whereas continuity, on either axis, is a product of the unlike poles attracting, stability, by contrast, is in consequence of the like ones repelling.

* * * *

When atoms and pseudo-atoms become aggregated into molecular and pseudo-molecular structures which attract or repel other such structures, and these in turn take plant, animal, human, and other forms, the complexity of axial and even inter-axial attraction and repulsion on one kind of polar basis or another is proportionately increased, with consequences that are neither overly anarchic nor invariably predictable but subject, within the gender-biased parameters of each axis, to flux, albeit to a flux that is both axially continuous and comparatively stable.

* * * *

When we consider the number, the vast numbers even, of life forms in existence on this planet, it soon becomes evident to the reflecting mind that no one mind could have been responsible for them all, since, quite apart from the rich variety of inorganic materials, the varieties of living creatures and the complexities of the predator/prey-like contradictions involved are such that the results are demonstrably beyond the capacities of a single mind, be it diabolic or divine, pseudo-divine or pseudo-diabolic, feminine or masculine, pseudo-masculine or pseudo-feminine.

In fact, one is led to the conclusion that the creatures who have evolved within the extraordinarily broad framework of nature, on land, in the air, in the sea, underground, on both land and sea, etc., were and remain largely responsible for their own creation, undergoing several stages of evolutionary development in the process of adapting to various environmental and climatic conditions that made it possible – and indeed necessary – for them to evolve in the way or ways they did. And this evolution, this process of adapting to environment under climatic and other pressures, is still, not least in the case of mankind, going on, and will doubtless continue until circumstances may decide otherwise or, if nothing untoward happens, it reaches an optimum level.

For life has to evolve in order to survive, and when, in whatever shape or form, it has evolved to a degree which is beneficial to its survival, it proceeds to revolve on its own terms, repeating the mould in which it can operate to maximum effect and not merely survive but … thrive, growing in strength, influence, numbers, competence, and so on.

* * * *

Even the merest reflection will indicate, to the enquiring mind, that we do not own this planet, but share it with so many other species that operate largely if not exclusively independent of us, that we have no right to consider ourselves the arbiters of the world's destiny. We are only the arbiters of our own destiny or destinies, which may well entail the transcendence of mankind by cyborgkind in the struggle for adaptation to changing environmental circumstances of an increasingly artificial, or man-made, order. And not simply in terms of robotic alternatives to the human, which tends to be the simplistic take on such matters, but in a kind of super- if not supra-human 'overcoming', to use a Nietzschean term, of human limitations via the ever-more intimate association with a technology designed to supplement if not replace whatever is subject to degeneration and decay in the human body.

Einstein, with his E=mc², or energy is equivalent to mass times (x) the velocity of light squared, said a lot about energy and motion, or energy in motion, but not much about gravity and force, or the force of gravity, preferring to regard gravity not in Newtonian terms, which are factually demonstrable and therefore literal, but in relation to his theory of curved space, whereby cosmic bodies simply follow the curvature of space.

Frankly, this is a kind of Eastern mystical rather than Western scientific approach to gravity, and it suggests, to my mind, an incapacity, bordering on reluctance, to accept the true nature of gravity in relation to the conservation of force and the utilization, where necessary, of force to counter sudden upsurges of energy in motion which could well, by their spontaneously unpredictable natures, pose a threat to whatever equilibrium was at stake, be it cosmic, planetary, natural, animal, or human, with demonstrably disastrous implications.

In axial terms, such a reaction to the active threat of energy in motion would pit mass against space (and, in subordinate terms, pseudo-volume against pseudo-time) on the one hand, that of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and time against volume (and, in subordinate terms, pseudo-space against pseudo-mass) on the other hand, that of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, thereby ensuring that the objective natures of energy/motion were not allowed to get unduly out-of-hand but could be contained and constrained by the subjective natures or, more correctly, nurtures of gravity/force.

What the age needs now is less theorizing about energy/motion, after the fashion of Einstein, but more theorizing about the reactions to it of gravity/force, in order that the energy/motion activity so prevalently at large on the world's stage can be not merely curbed but effectively rectified by the force of gravity, in the interests of both culture (metaphysics) and civility or, more correctly (in relation to pseudo-metachemistry), pseudo-civility, the saint and (neutralized) she-dragon pairing of 'Kingdom Come'.

Only when the world is more led by the East, with its traditional omega-oriented disposition in Buddhism, than ruled by the West, with its alpha-stemming disposition that goes all the way back to alpha-oriented roots at the Judaic base of the Christian extrapolation within the overall framework, Old Testament as well as New, of the Judeo-Christian tradition, is the above scenario likely to transpire. For while the West prevails energy/motion will take precedence over gravity/force, to the detriment of the ideals to which I have alluded.

But, at the end of the proverbial day, I would still like to think that Social Theocracy, as the executive face of Social Transcendentalism, will be the means by which what I have loosely termed 'Kingdom Come' may be established, and established not for a few generations but for all eternity within an evolutionary context transcending mankind from standpoints closer to if not actually identifiable, on supra-human terms, with both the divine and the pseudo-diabolic, metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, while being served – and protected – by a superhuman administrative aside to what has been called the Centre proper, the centre of truth as characterized by the prevalence of religious sovereignty, conceived by me as the ultimate manifestation of popular, that is, mass sovereignty.

1. On the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, the noumenal energy/motion of metachemistry, which is hegemonic over the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-gravity/pseudo-force of pseudo-metaphysics, is countered, in polar vein, by the phenomenal force/gravity of physics, which is hegemonic over the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-motion/pseudo-energy of pseudo-chemistry.

2. Hence, within the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, gravity/force is ruled by energy/motion in the phenomenal-to-noumenal polarity between the two atomic contexts, which are also hegemonic over their respective pseudo-atoms.

3. On the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the phenomenal motion/energy of chemistry, which is hegemonic over the pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-force/pseudo-gravity of pseudo-physics, is countered, in polar vein, by the noumenal gravity/force of metaphysics, which is hegemonic over the pseudo-noumenal pseudo-energy/pseudo-motion of pseudo-metachemistry.

4. Hence, within the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, motion/energy is ruled over by gravity/force in the phenomenal-to-noumenal polarity between the two atomic contexts, which are also hegemonic over their respective pseudo-atoms.

* * * *

We live in an age when noumenal energy/motion and phenomenal motion/energy are more prevalent than noumenal gravity/force and phenomenal force/gravity, in consequence of which pseudo-gravity/pseudo-force in the one case and pseudo-force/pseudo-gravity in the other case tend to be the subordinate pseudo-atomic corollaries of the hegemonic atoms, whether in terms of pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry or pseudo-physics under chemistry.

* * * *

Only when and if society returns, democratically, to the rule of gravity/force over pseudo-energy/pseudo-motion, and does so on terms, necessarily revolutionary, that allow for a full complement of metaphysics, free psyche as well as bound soma, will there be an end to the contemporary female domination (objective) of society from a standpoint analogous, in its culture and pseudo-civility, righteousness and pseudo-justice, time and pseudo-space, to 'Kingdom Come' … conceived as a highpoint of civilization that is beyond 'the world' in a saint/neutralized dragon-like structure in which the psychic subjectivity of the male has the upper hand over the pseudo-somatic pseudo-objectivity of the pseudo-female with the triumph of gravity/force (not to be confounded with the force/gravity of physics) over pseudo-energy/pseudo-motion for all eternity and pseudo-infinity, metaphysical atoms (characterized by a representative protonic core) and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atoms (characterized by a pseudo-representative pseudo-photonic pseudo-surface) without otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly end.

When an atom reads from left to right, as with metachemistry and physics, it can be said to turn in a clockwise direction, whereas an atom reading, by contrast, from right to left, as in the case of metaphysics and chemistry, will tend to turn in a counter-clockwise direction.

Even pseudo-atoms can be regarded as turning in either a pseudo-clockwise direction, reading from left or, rather, pseudo-left to pseudo-right like pseudo-metachemistry and pseudo-physics, or in a pseudo-counterclockwise direction, reading from pseudo-right to pseudo-left like pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry, thereby existing not only on subordinate terms with the atom to which they are paired but with an opposite direction of turning or, rather, pseudo-turning, whether pseudo-clockwise to counter-clockwise, like pseudo-metachemistry to metaphysics and pseudo-physics to chemistry, or pseudo-counterclockwise to clockwise, like pseudo-metaphysics to metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry to physics.

But axial polarity is only established between atoms that turn in the same direction, as from left to right in the case of the metachemical and physical poles of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and from right to left in the case of the metaphysical and chemical poles of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, irrespective of the restricted contrary pseudo-turning of their pseudo-atomic subordinate counterparts.

1. Since the metachemical atom is rooted in photonic will and has a once-bovaryized electronic spirit in its noumenal free soma, it reads from left to right in terms of its primary and secondary superelements, both of which, corresponding to what has already been described as superenergy and supermotion, are accompanied, in noumenal bound psyche, by the subforce and subgravity of its primary and secondary subelements which, also reading from left to right in clockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized neutronic ego and a thrice-bovaryized protonic soul.

2. Since the chemical atom is rooted in electronic spirit and has a once-bovaryized photonic will in its phenomenal free soma, it reads from right to left in terms of its primary and secondary elements, both of which, corresponding to motion and energy, are accompanied, in phenomenal bound psyche, by the ungravity and unforce of its primary and secondary unelements which, also reading from right to left in counter-clockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized protonic soul and thrice-bovaryized neutronic ego.

3. Since the physical atom is centred in neutronic ego and has a once-bovaryized protonic soul in its phenomenal free psyche, it reads from left to right in terms of its primary and secondary elements, both of which, corresponding to force and gravity, are accompanied, in phenomenal bound soma, by the unenergy and unmotion of its primary and secondary unelements which, also reading from left to right in clockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized photonic will and a thrice-bovaryized electronic spirit.

4. Since the metaphysical atom is centred in protonic soul and has a once-bovaryized neutronic ego in its noumenal free psyche, it reads from right to left in terms of its primary and secondary superelements, both of which, corresponding to what has been termed supergravity and superforce, are accompanied, in noumenal bound soma, by the submotion and subenergy of its primary and secondary subelements which, also reading from right to left in counter-clockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized electronic spirit and a thrice-bovaryized photonic will.

* * * *

1. Since the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom is pseudo-centred in pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul and has a once-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego in its pseudo-noumenal pseudo-bound psyche, it reads from pseudo-right to pseudo-left in terms of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelements, both of which, corresponding to what has been termed pseudo-supergravity and pseudo-superforce, are accompanied, in pseudo-noumenal pseudo-free soma, by the pseudo-submotion and pseudo-subenergy of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelements which, also reading from pseudo-right to pseudo-left in pseudo-counterclockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will.

2. Since the pseudo-physical pseudo-atom is pseudo-centred in pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego and has a once-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul in its pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-bound psyche, it reads from pseudo-left to pseudo-right in terms of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elements, both of which, corresponding to pseudo-force and pseudo-gravity, are accompanied, in pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-free soma, by the pseudo-unenergy and pseudo-unmotion of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelements which, also reading from pseudo-left to pseudo-right in pseudo-clockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit.

3. Since the pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom is pseudo-rooted in pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit and has a once-bovaryized pseudo-photonic pseudo-will in its pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-bound soma, it reads from pseudo-right to pseudo-left in terms of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elements, both of which, corresponding to pseudo-motion and pseudo-energy, are accompanied, in pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-free psyche, by the pseudo-ungravity and pseudo-unforce of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelements which, also reading from pseudo-right to pseudo-left in pseudo-counterclockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego.

4. Since the pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom is pseudo-rooted in pseudo-photonic pseudo-will and has a once-bovaryized pseudo-electronic pseudo-spirit in its pseudo-noumenal pseudo-bound soma, it reads from pseudo-left to pseudo-right in terms of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelements, both of which, corresponding to what has already been described as pseudo-superenergy and pseudo-supermotion, are accompanied, in pseudo-noumenal pseudo-free psyche, by the pseudo-subforce and pseudo-subgravity of its pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelements which, also reading from pseudo-left to pseudo-right in pseudo-clockwise fashion, appertain to a twice-bovaryized pseudo-neutronic pseudo-ego and a thrice-bovaryized pseudo-protonic pseudo-soul.

If all atoms are not equal but divisible (over and above those which are equal or equivalent, like metaphysical atoms with one another) between antithetical kinds of noumenal and phenomenal atoms, as well as between antithetical kinds of pseudo-noumenal and pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atoms, then it is difficult to see how all men could possibly be equal, or even be 'born equal', when they derive from atomic and pseudo-atomic preconditions whose various molecular permutations make for differences in both gender and class, not to mention ethnicity and occupation.

In Great Britain, men are certainly not 'born equal', but are divisible between nobles and plebeians, the upper classes and the lower classes in both alpha and omega, pseudo-omega and pseudo-alpha antitheses, even if it is possible for some to go 'up' and others 'down' in society, while the great majority remain the same for better (noble) or worse (plebeian).

In the United States of America, by contrast, which was forged in revolutionary struggle against Britain and, hence, the British Empire, they uphold the notion that all men are born equal in a republican endeavour to exclude, as far as possible, the noble classes, so that, though Americans would probably be the last to admit it, American society is largely comprised of plebs, or persons with no royal or aristocratic connections whatsoever, but whose social values are effectively lower class, that is, deriving to a large extent from bourgeois and/or proletarian antecedents, with little or nothing of anything else, peasants and artisans notwithstanding.

In truth, men are not born equal, but, quite apart from gender and physical and even racial differences compounded by ethnicity, are born into different classes, more so in some countries, like Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc., than in others, like those professing some republican creed. And so a kind of noble/plebeian, upper-class/lower-class distinction, on both genuine and 'pseudo' terms, continues to exist, as with the aforementioned distinction between atoms and pseudo-atoms on both noumenal/pseudo-noumenal and phenomenal/pseudo-phenomenal planes.

Societies, like nations, are at a low ebb when they strive to reduce everything to the lowest-common-social-denominator of lower-class life. As a revolt against undue exploitation or neglect, or what is perceived as such, from metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical, or autocratic/pseudo-theocratic kinds of upper-class life, this is perhaps understandable, if not exactly laudable. For until such societies endorse a contrasting shift towards the rule and/or leadership (for the two are often intertwined) of metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical, or theocratic/pseudo-autocratic kinds of upper-class life, they will continue to wallow in their own slough of plebeian despond, without any prospect, even with some degree of residual allegiance to traditional theocratic/pseudo-autocratic powers, of deliverance from their lowly conditions to a better world 'On High', a world or, rather, an otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly pairing characterized by the freedom of metaphysics to dominate pseudo-metachemistry independently of any metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical obstacles to that ultimate freedom such that would always leave metaphysics short of its full capacity and unable, in consequence, to properly dominate pseudo-metachemistry, to its own detriment, including, in repudiation of its entitlement to be identified with 'Sacred Lungs', any 'Sacred Heart'-like subsuming into pseudo-metachemistry that leads to a deference, in triangular vein, to the anterior rule of metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics and thus ensures the ongoing enslavement of 'the world', in both its chemical/pseudo-physical and physical/pseudo-chemical manifestations, the one indirectly and the other directly, to the born enemy of godliness/pseudo-devilishness, the Saint and (neutralized) She-Dragon, which is really devilishness/pseudo-godliness, the Whore (to use equivalent minoritarian terminology) and (neutralized) He-Dragon.

1. The metaphysical atom, dominated by the proton, is the atom of being, and hence of religion, which treats of the soul.

2. The physical atom, dominated by the neutron, is the atom of taking, and hence of economics, which treats of the ego.

3. The chemical atom, dominated by the electron, is the atom of giving, and hence of politics, which treats of the spirit.

4. The metachemical atom, dominated by the photon, is the atom of doing, and hence of science, which treats of the will.

* * * *

1. The pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-atom, dominated by the pseudo-proton, is the pseudo-atom of pseudo-being, and hence of pseudo-religion, which pseudo-treats of the pseudo-soul.

2. The pseudo-physical pseudo-atom, dominated by the pseudo-neutron, is the pseudo-atom of pseudo-taking, and hence of pseudo-economics, which pseudo-treats of the pseudo-ego.

3. The pseudo-chemical pseudo-atom, dominated by the pseudo-electron, is the pseudo-atom of pseudo-giving, and hence of pseudo-politics, which pseudo-treats of the pseudo-spirit.

4. The pseudo-metachemical pseudo-atom, dominated by the pseudo-photon, is the pseudo-atom of pseudo-doing, and hence of pseudo-science, which pseudo-treats of the pseudo-will.

* * * *

1. The being of the soul in time (repetitive) contrasts with the doing of the will in space (spatial), as metaphysics with metachemistry, or religion with science

2. The taking of the ego in mass (massive) contrasts with the giving of the spirit in volume (volumetric), as physics with chemistry, or economics with politics.

3. The pseudo-doing of the pseudo-will in pseudo-space (spaced) contrasts with the pseudo-being of the pseudo-soul in pseudo-time (sequential), as pseudo-metachemistry with pseudo-metaphysics, or pseudo-science with pseudo-religion.

4. The pseudo-giving of the pseudo-spirit in pseudo-volume (voluminous) contrasts with the pseudo-taking of the pseudo-ego in pseudo-mass (massed), as pseudo-chemistry with pseudo-physics, or pseudo-politics with pseudo-economics.

* * * *

1. Pseudo-metaphysics will always be subordinate to metachemistry, as pseudo-soul to the will, or pseudo-religion to science.

2. Pseudo-physics will always be subordinate to chemistry, as pseudo-ego to the spirit, or pseudo-economics to politics.

3. Pseudo-chemistry will always be subordinate to physics, as pseudo-spirit to the ego, or pseudo-politics to economics.

4. Pseudo-metachemistry will always be subordinate to metaphysics, as pseudo-will to the soul, or pseudo-science to religion.

1. The joy and truth of the primary and secondary superelemental aspects, in superconscious free psyche, of metaphysical grace contrast with the woe and illusion of the primary and secondary subelemental aspects, in subsensuous bound soma, of metaphysical wisdom in the overall righteousness, or noumenal subjectivity, of metaphysics.

2. The knowledge and pleasure of the primary and secondary elemental aspects, in conscious free psyche, of physical pseudo-grace contrast with the ignorance and pain of the primary and secondary unelemental aspects, in unsensuous bound soma, of physical pseudo-wisdom in the overall pseudo-righteousness, or phenomenal subjectivity, of physics.

3. The pride and strength of the primary and secondary elemental aspects, in sensuous free soma, of chemical pseudo-crime contrast with the humility and weakness of the primary and secondary unelemental aspects, in unconscious bound psyche, of chemical pseudo-evil in the overall pseudo-vanity, or phenomenal objectivity, of chemistry.

4. The beauty and love of the primary and secondary superelemental aspects, in supersensuous free soma, of metachemical crime contrast with the ugliness and hatred of the primary and secondary subelemental aspects, in subconscious bound psyche, of metachemical evil in the overall vanity, or noumenal objectivity, of metachemistry.

* * * *

1. The pseudo-woe and pseudo-illusion of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelemental aspects, in pseudo-superconscious pseudo-bound psyche, of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-sin contrast with the pseudo-joy and pseudo-truth of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelemental aspects, in pseudo-subsensuous pseudo-free soma, of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-folly in the overall pseudo-meekness, or pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjectivity, of pseudo-metaphysics.

2. The pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elemental aspects, in pseudo-conscious pseudo-bound psyche, of pseudo-physical sin contrast with the pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelemental aspects, in pseudo-unsensuous pseudo-free soma, of pseudo-physical folly in the overall meekness, or pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, of pseudo-physics.

3. The pseudo-humility and pseudo-weakness of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-elemental aspects, in pseudo-sensuous pseudo-bound soma, of pseudo-chemical punishment contrast with the pseudo-pride and pseudo-strength of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-unelemental aspects, in pseudo-unconscious pseudo-free psyche, of pseudo-chemical goodness in the overall justice, or pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, of pseudo-chemistry.

4. The pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-superelemental aspects, in pseudo-supersensuous pseudo-bound soma, of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-punishment contrast with the pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love of the pseudo-primary and pseudo-secondary pseudo-subelemental aspects, in pseudo-subconscious pseudo-free psyche, of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-goodness in the overall pseudo-justice, or pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objectivity, of pseudo-metachemistry.

* * * *

1. The pseudo-meekness of pseudo-metaphysics is ever subordinate to the vanity of metachemistry, as pseudo-religion to science, pseudo-time to space, pseudo-soul to the will.

2. The meekness of pseudo-physics is ever subordinate to the pseudo-vanity of chemistry, as pseudo-economics to politics, pseudo-mass to volume, pseudo-ego to the spirit.

3. The justice of pseudo-chemistry is ever subordinate to the pseudo-righteousness of physics, as pseudo-politics to economics, pseudo-volume to mass, pseudo-spirit to the ego.

4. The pseudo-justice of pseudo-metachemistry is ever subordinate to the righteousness of metaphysics, as pseudo-science to religion, pseudo-space to time, pseudo-will to the soul.

* * * *

1. Strictly speaking, the female polarity of vanity to justice is primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and the male polarity of pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate.

2. Likewise the male polarity of righteousness to meekness is primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate and the female polarity of pseudo-justice to pseudo-vanity secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate.

3. Just as there would be no pseudo-meekness without vanity, so, at the opposite poles, there could be no justice without pseudo-righteousness, even if justice may seem, on occasion, to take precedence over pseudo-righteousness on account of its being polar to vanity on overall primary (female) state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.

4. Just as there would be no pseudo-justice without righteousness, so, at the opposite poles, there could be no meekness without pseudo-vanity, even if meekness may appear, on occasion, to take precedence over pseudo-vanity on account of its being polar to righteousness on overall primary (male) church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.

1. Whilst in terms of their hegemonic polarities the state-hegemonic axis may appear to be from an upper alpha to a lower omega, as from metachemistry to physics, noumenal objectivity to phenomenal subjectivity, in terms of its primary (female) polarity it is from an upper alpha to a lower pseudo-alpha, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, noumenal objectivity to pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-objectivity, with the secondary (male) polarity being from an upper pseudo-omega to a lower omega, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pseudo-noumenal pseudo-subjectivity to phenomenal subjectivity.

2. Whilst in terms of their hegemonic polarities the church-hegemonic axis may seem to be from an upper omega to a lower alpha, as from metaphysics to chemistry, noumenal subjectivity to phenomenal objectivity, in terms of its primary (male) polarity it is from an upper omega to a lower pseudo-omega, as from metaphysics to pseudo-physics, noumenal subjectivity to pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity, with the secondary (female) polarity being from an upper pseudo-alpha to a lower alpha, as from pseudo-metachemistry to chemistry, pseudo-noumenal pseudo-objectivity to phenomenal objectivity.

That, indeed, is the main difference between the two axes and their respective gender subdivisions. For while the one is rooted in an upper alpha that dominates it in relation to primary (female) state-hegemonic criteria, the other is centred in an upper omega which dominates it in relation to primary (male) church-hegemonic criteria.

* * * *

Although you would logically expect the upper alpha/upper omega hegemonic dichotomy to be one of noumenal free soma vis-à-vis noumenal free psyche, the problem, traditionally, for the church-hegemonic axis is that, due to the prior existence of metachemical free soma as Judaic and/or Old Testament anchor, if you will, to the Christian extrapolation, the actual endorsement and realization of metaphysical free psyche has remained, to all intents and purposes, beyond the (Catholic) pale by dint of the traditional acknowledgement, through Creator-ism, of metachemistry, in consequence of which Roman Catholicism has placed undue emphasis upon the bound somatic aspect of metaphysics via the Crucifixion paradigm, the dark-sided saintly negativity of which amounts to no more than a quarter of the total metaphysical equation or, in other words, to no more than its subelemental aspects in woe and illusion, the Holy Spirit and the Son of God, with the joy and truth of its superelemental aspects in Heaven the Holy Soul and God the Father (not to be confused with Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father), in which the soulful (protonic) fulcrum of metaphysics is to be found, alien to the Catholic tradition.

Indeed, one can imagine the accusations of atheism and other such criticisms that would inevitably arise from the 'defenders of the faith' vis-à-vis the practise of Transcendental Meditation at the expense of Creator-ism and the worship, in consequence, of God as Creator of the so-called Universe and, most especially, of Heaven and Earth.

Quite apart from the fact that Heaven precedes God, as candle-flame the candlelight, and that the Earth is not compatible with divine interests, since at a phenomenally subjective remove from noumenal subjectivity and therefore something for males or, rather, pseudo-males to be saved from, this want of the free-psychic majoritarian (3) ratio aspect of metaphysics in relation, not least, to the Catholic Church, contributed in no small measure, I believe, to its historical failure as an institution and to the emergence, or re-emergence, from a variety of motives, some good and others not so good, of state-hegemonic dominance of the contemporary world.

Such a dominance, sparked by the Reformation, will doubtless continue until the people of countries with the right kinds of axial preconditions democratically opt, through Social Theocracy, for religious sovereignty, so that church-hegemonic axial criteria can be stepped-up, or resurrected, with intent to save the pseudo-physical to a full complement of metaphysics and counter-damn the chemical to a properly deferential, subordinate pseudo-metachemistry, without which there can be no deliverance from the mainstream world (of chemistry/pseudo-physics) to the otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly criteria that I hold to be commensurate with 'Kingdom Come'.

Now this 'Kingdom Come' would put an end not only to 'the world' of the lapsed catholic/republican socialist masses, but to the clear and unholy rule over it of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics in state-hegemonic axial partnership with the unclear and pseudo-holy polarities of pseudo-chemistry and physics, both of which exist, in overall axial terms, to the detriment of culture and pseudo-civility, metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, in their respective identifications with barbarous/pseudo-philistine and pseudo-cultural/civil criteria.

And 'Kingdom Come', which I identify with Social Theocracy or, more correctly, with what has, in previous titles, been described as the Social Theocratic Centre, would not be just an artificial form of nature, as tends to exist within the state-hegemonic secularity of the Western-dominated global present, but civilization proper, civilization writ large, as it were, in which Heaven/God would be hegemonic, for all eternity, over a prone, or neutralized, Pseudo-Devil/Pseudo-Hell in respect of the majoritarian ratios (3) of metaphysical free psyche and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma, the brightly positive superelemental aspect of metaphysics and the pseudo-darkly pseudo-negative pseudo-superelemental aspect of pseudo-metachemistry, which would be considerably more representative, in superconsciousness and pseudo-supersensuousness, of the atoms and pseudo-atoms in question than their minoritarian ratio (1) counterparts in metaphysical bound soma and pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche, the darkly negative subelemental and pseudo-brightly pseudo-positive pseudo-subelemental aspects, in subsensuousness and pseudo-subconsciousness, of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry that would be roughly equivalent, I believe, to saintliness on the one hand and to what could be described as the pseudo-angelic on the other, neither of which should be taken out of context or unduly emphasised at the expense, as traditionally, of their respective preconditions.

Hence, for me, the Saint and (neutralized) Dragon paradigm, much as it has served its purpose in the past, now seems less than adequate, especially on its saintly side, to do full-justice to the complexity of both metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, the former of which requires more than the submotion/subenergy subsensuous saintly wisdom of metaphysical bound soma if the grace of metaphysical free psyche is to fully emerge in relation to Heaven/God or, in other words, God-in-Heaven, the Truth that is the free-psychic corollary of Joy in the equation of Superforce with Supergravity, the ultimate candlelight concomitant of the ultimate candle-flame whose soulful inner-burning is at the protonic core (heart) of the superconscious.

LONDON 2014

/div>