MONOLITHIC MYTH

1. The monolithic delusions of alpha-oriented heathenistic people often lead to statements like 'the essence of mankind is freedom', and other such fanciful notions.

2. Frankly, freedom is anything but commensurate with essence, for essence corresponds to the innermost aspect of things, their core or soul, and therefore has more to do with sensibility than with sensuality.

3. Now since the most essential aspect of things, in human life, is sensible rather than sensual, it follows that the essence of mankind or, at any rate, of a certain portion of mankind - more specifically male - is binding, since binding to self is what characterises the male as a subjective being when he is sensible and therefore true to his essence, particularly in the case of those males, necessarily metaphysical, for whom essence really is the true meaning of their lives.

4. However that may be, I return to my starting point by condemning such statements as strive to characterise mankind as this or that, irrespective of gender differentiation, as symptoms of a delusory monolithic heathenism.

5. For, in reality, statements that overlook or ignore gender tend to perpetrate a false notion of things, based upon such unitary concepts as 'mankind'.

6. When once we accept that mankind is first of all divisible between males and females, and then between upper- and lower-class manifestations of each according, by and large, to build, we shall find ourselves adopting a more wary attitude towards unitary concepts, including freedom as the essence of mankind.

7. Frankly, freedom accrues - and not as essence - to the female side of the gender divide primarily, since it is about the extents to which the objectivity of metachemical doing, affiliated to appearance, and of chemical giving, affiliated to quantity, is unhampered by sensible constraints upon the organs of will and their spiritual concomitants in relation to the relevant not-selves.

8. Thus freedom is no more the essence of mankind than, say, binding is the appearance, freedom the quality, or binding the quantity of mankind. On the contrary, it would be more accurate to contend that freedom is the appearance and quantity of that portion of mankind who are female, whether absolutely, in the upper-class context of noumenal appearances, or relatively, in the lower-class context of phenomenal quantities.

9. Conversely, it would be no less accurate, in my opinion, to contend that binding is the quality and essence of that portion of mankind who are male, whether relatively, in the lower-class context of phenomenal qualities, or absolutely, in the upper-class context of noumenal essences.

10. Of course, females can be 'bound' and males 'free', but this is so paradoxically in relation to constraints upon the not-self in sensibility and freedom from the self in sensuality, the former a secondary order of binding for females and the latter a secondary order of freedom for males.

11. Thus when 'true' to their gender, females will prefer freedom (for not-self) in sensuality to binding (of not-self) in sensibility, while males will prefer binding (to self) in sensibility to freedom (from self) in sensuality. There is no common essence for all of mankind, since mankind happens to be a composite of different genders and classes.

12. Yet monolithic thinking of the alpha-stemming heathenistic variety will insist on the contrary, even going so far as to claim that mankind is at bottom evil or good, depending on the bias of the thinker, when, in point of fact, such terms betray a female bias divisible between the evil of sensuality and the good(ness) of sensibility in relation to freedom and binding within objective parameters, parameters that have reference to rectilinear (direct) divergence and/or convergence as germane to a vacuum.

13. Conceive of freedom and binding within subjective parameters, or parameters that have reference to curvilinear (indirect) divergence and/or convergence as germane to a plenum, and one is obliged to distinguish between the folly of sensuality and the wisdom of sensibility in relation to males, or to what is properly male, whether in relative (phenomenal) or absolute (noumenal) terms, and to pit such folly and wisdom against evil and good as equally valid reference points for human conduct, the comprehensiveness of which goes far beyond such simplistic reductionist notions as evil or good.

14. Mankind is no more evil or good than ... foolish or wise. It is evil, good, foolish and wise, with evil and folly chiefly characterising the female and male aspect of things in sensuality, but wisdom and goodness characteristic of the male and female aspect of things in sensibility.

15. For as males climb (diagonally between two contiguous planes on either phenomenal or noumenal terms) from folly to wisdom, sensuality to sensibility, so females fall (diagonally between two contiguous planes on either noumenal or phenomenal terms) from evil to goodness, sensuality to sensibility, whereby they are no less surely damned (from the blessing of objective freedom) than their male counterparts are saved (from the curse of subjective freedom).

16. For the damned good female is indubitably preferable, from a male standpoint, to a blessed evil one, even if a cursed foolish male is arguably preferable, from a female point of view, to the saved wise one!