Metaphysics and Antimetachemistry. When we conceive of God and Heaven in relation to metaphysics, which is the only elemental context properly germane to God and Heaven (a male context I have all along identified with the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass and contend to be unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry, its female complement), it transpires that not only does one have God and Heaven in relation to the transcendentalism of metaphysical free psyche, God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul in terms of metaphysical ego and soul, but also God and Heaven in relation to the idealism of metaphysical bound soma, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven in terms of metaphysical antiwill (bound will) and antispirit (bound spirit), psyche taking precedence over soma in the elemental context in question, since psyche precedes and preponderates over soma as a male actuality and, in this case, as a metaphysical male actuality the ratio of which preponderance should be in the region of 3:1. But, of course, not only is there metaphysical psyche and soma; there is also the soma and psyche of antimetachemistry, with the Antidevil and Antihell in relation to the antimaterialism of antimetachemical bound soma, Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit in terms of antimetachemical antiwill (bound will) and antispirit (bound spirit), and the Antidevil and Antihell in relation to the antifundamentalism of antimetachemical free psyche, the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell in terms of antimetachemical ego and soul, neither of which would be capable of deferring, in secondary church-hegemonic vein, to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul without the secondary state-subordinate precondition of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit having been established in consequence of the subjective influence of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven directly stemming, in primary state-subordinate vein, from the church-hegemonic primacy of God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul. For the deference of what may be called the beautiful approach to Truth (the Antidaughter of the Antidevil) and the loving approach to Joy (the Unclear Soul of Antihell) to what properly appertains, in God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, to Truth and Joy would not transpire were Antidevil the Antimother not constrained to Beauty and Antihell the Unclear Spirit not constrained to Love via the truthful approach to Beauty of the Son of God and the joyful approach to Love of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, both of which, being idealistically metaphysical, directly stem from the Truth of God the Father and the Joy of Heaven the Holy Soul, the prime movers in metaphysics and the basis of the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry which constitutes the order of the northeast point of the axial compass as that in which God is triumphant over the Antidevil as the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair or as metaphysical classlessness over antimetachemical anti-upperclassfulness or as Eternity (repetitive time) over Anti-Infinity (spaced space, or antispace). Therefore God and Heaven, though primarily of metaphysical transcendentalism, are also to be thought of in relation to metaphysical idealism, albeit as the state-subordinate corollary of a church-hegemonic – and therefore strictly religious – precedence which is properly of God and Heaven. Likewise, if conversely, the Antidevil and Antihell, though primarily of antimetachemical antimaterialism, are also to be thought of in relation to antimetachemical antifundamentalism, albeit as the church-hegemonic corollary of a state-subordinate – and therefore strictly political – precedence which is properly of the Antidevil and Antihell. For whereas psyche precedes and preponderates over soma as male actuality, whether absolutely (3:1) as above or relatively (2½:1½) in relation to physics (and hence to man per se), the converse situation of soma preceding and predominating over psyche happens to coincide with female actuality, whether on the 2½:1½ ratio of chemistry or, indeed, on the 3:1 basis of metachemistry, something that doesn’t cease to obtain under male pressures in sensibility, even though, paradoxically, such pressures, germane to the opposite gender actuality, will result, contrary to chemical or metachemical norms based in sensuality, in bound soma and free psyche, whether with an emphasis upon the former (antichemistry) or upon the latter (antimetachemistry), as determined by the overall axial situation (as described by me in several of my mature philosophical texts, not least those included in Opera D’Oeuvre). However that may be, that which is metaphysical will ever differ from the antimetachemical (as, indeed, the physical from the antichemical) in terms of this fundamental gender differentiation which no amount of male pressure can substantially modify or undo, though confound and undermine it most certainly can, especially in the metaphysical context which, being unequivocally hegemonic, does not have to compete, like physics, with an unequivocal metachemical hegemony over antimetaphysics back up its state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which has the effect, in linking the two female elemental positions (metachemistry to antichemistry), of subverting the equivocal hegemony of physics to a bound somatic emphasis, despite the overall male conditioning of the female position in antichemistry to free psyche and bound soma, and all because the free soma of metachemistry is able to determine the terms of primary state-hegemonic criteria on the basis of an antithesis between metachemical free soma and antichemical bound soma. But if physics must accept such a paradoxical twist of emphasis under female hegemonic (metachemical) and subversive (antichemical) pressures such that preclude genuine righteousness (or complete male gender sync with its underlying actuality) for the males so twisted from what might otherwise be a psychic emphasis, no such fate characterizes the unequivocally hegemonic metaphysical, and therefore far from a pseudo-righteous (counter-righteous)/just dichotomy between the genders one will find a righteous/pseudo-just (counter-just) dichotomy germane to the northeast point of the axial compass in what must be regarded, in overall axial terms, as a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate orientation traditionally more characteristic, in the West, of Catholic nations than of their Protestant (and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) counterparts, irrespective of how imperfect the Catholic approximation to anything metaphysical and antimetachemical is compared not only to the Buddhist East but, even more so, to any definitive working out of such a dichotomy in something approaching properly universal terms with the coming of global civilization in ‘Kingdom Come’. But either way, whether Catholic West or Buddhist East, holiness is only possible, for metaphysical males, in relation to the correlative existence, institutionally upheld, of unclearness for the antimetachemical, as the female of the species is confounded and somatically undermined in the interests of psychic freedom. You do not have holiness without unclearness, whether on genuine (metaphysical) or pseudo (physical) terms, and you can take it as axiomatic that the existence of genuine holiness in metaphysics will require the correlative co-existence of pseudo-unclearness (counter-unclearness) in antimetachemistry, whereas the existence of pseudo-holiness (counter-holiness) in physics will be in consequence of the correlative co-existence of genuine unclearness in antichemistry, the latter of which is no counter-damnation (up the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) but the product of damnation (down the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis), damnation, one might say, from free to bound soma in primary state-hegemonic terms and from bound to free psyche in primary church-subordinate terms.