An Earlier Oversight Corrected. How treacherous writing can be! Not so long ago in these weblogs I was confidently making a case for definitive metaphysics being a context of most heaven and least god, forgetting my philosophical conclusion of some years ago when I had more or less categorically established a distinction between God and Heaven on the basis of more (compared to most) ego and most soul, contrasting this, in metaphysics, with less (compared to least) spirit and least will, the bound-somatic categories, in theological parlance, of the Holy Spirit of Heaven and the Son of God as opposed, in free psyche, to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul. I had also established, I believe, a distinction between particles and wavicles on the basis of the dichotomy between soma and psyche, contending that particles adhered to soma whether in elemental or molecular mode, and wavicles, by contrast, to psyche, again whether in molecular or wavicle mode. Hence an elemental particle/molecular particle distinction between bound will (the Son) and bound spirit (the Holy Ghost) in metaphysical soma would have to be contrasted with a molecular wavicle/elemental wavicle distinction between free ego (God) and free soul (Heaven) in metaphysical psyche, the church-hegemonic as opposed to state-subordinate aspect of metaphysics. I still think all this is approximately correct, and that soma is more ‘particular’ than ‘wavicular’ and psyche, by contrast, more ‘wavicular’ than ‘particular’, even given the distinction between will and spirit on the one hand, and ego and soul on the other. Are we to suggest, on the contrary, that spirit is ‘wavicular’ in a molecular fashion and ego ‘particular’ in such a fashion, so that the emergence of spirit from will is of molecular wavicles from elemental particles and the emergence of soul from ego is of elemental wavicles from molecular particles? I would accept that this suggestion has a certain commonsensical appeal, not least in regard to a resolution of will in spirit and of ego as more objectivistic in its approach to soma, but I have to admit to a qualm with regard to the suggestion that because will is ‘particular’ spirit must be ‘wavicular’ or that because, on the contrary, soul is ‘wavicular’ ego must be ‘particular’. Is not the fundamental dichotomy here between soma and psyche? And is not soma the objectification of a subjective premise in free psyche, at least on the male side of the gender divide? Can we therefore identify any aspect of psyche with particles and any aspect of soma, no matter how spiritual, with wavicles? My answer had been to say that since, in overall elemental terms, will and spirit, accruing to soma, are primary elements and ego and soul, accruing to psyche, secondary, the ‘particular’ aspect of things would be somatic and their ‘wavicular’ aspect psychic. Therefore I had distinguished between elemental particles and molecular particles in relation to soma, but molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles in relation to psyche, contending that metaphysics was a context in which God had to be equated with molecular wavicles and Heaven with elemental wavicles, since ego and soul were expressive, in their different ways, of psyche, and hence of the subjectivity of mind, whereas the Son of God should be equated with elemental particles and the Holy Spirit with molecular particles, since bound will and bound spirit were indicative, in their separate ways, of soma and hence of the objectivity of matter, in this case of metaphysical not-self. I did not envision, for soma, a leap from elemental particles to molecular wavicles, nor for psyche a leap from molecular particles to elemental wavicles, both of which would have struck me as a contradiction in terms. For how can you fall on the one side and rise on the other if it is simply a question of particles to wavicles rather than of elemental to molecular particles in the one case and of molecular to elemental wavicles in the other case? Would a molecular particle be conscious of the desire for elemental wavicles, knowing nothing of wavicles except, indirectly, through a spirituality that was ‘wavicular’ in molecular terms? I must confess to a certain scepticism on this point. For how can one descend to something lower or ascend to something higher except on the basis of a kindred extrapolation of particles from particles or wavicles from wavicles in relation to either elemental or molecular distinctions? And then, too, is not soma ‘particular’ and psyche ‘wavicular’, to revert to our basic metaphysical distinction between not-self and self, matter and mind, the former divisible and the latter indivisible? Enough doubts! The metaphysical extremes are fixed as elemental particles and wavicles, bound will and free soul. The intermediate positions can only be molecular, whether as particles or as wavicles, as bound spirit or as free ego. God is a context, in molecular wavicles, of more (compared to most) ego, and Heaven is His redemption in an elemental wavicle context of most soul. He transcends molecular-wavicle ego in and through elemental-wavicle soul via elemental-particle will and molecular-particle spirit, taking a plunge into the not-self in order to rise anew in self, which is ‘wavicular’ in its subjective essence. From molecular wavicles to elemental wavicles via elemental particles and molecular particles, as from free ego to free soul via bound will and bound spirit. Otherwise one would have to argue from molecular particles to elemental wavicles via elemental particles and molecular wavicles, as though the plunge into the not-self by a molecular-particle ego was simply determined by the attraction of molecular wavicles in the spirit and had the effect of promoting elemental wavicles in the soul as though by default rather than predetermined conscious intent. But I believe, on the contrary, that the plunge into the not-self by a molecular-wavicle ego intent on achieving heaven is only partially determined by the attraction of molecular particles in the spirit which then has the effect of promoting elemental wavicles in the soul for the self on the recoil from such an antithetical attraction, an attraction that cannot but repulse something which is fundamentally finer than itself, if only from a ‘wavicular’ standpoint, and which overcompensates for such a repulsion in the form or, rather, contentment of soul, of those elemental wavicles of metaphysics which are the heavenly reward for an abandonment not only of ego but, indirectly, of will and spirit as psyche climbs from ego to soul on the wings of its own ‘wavicular’ essence, God having already determined His final end in the peace that surpasses all egoistic understanding because it is of the soul and not of the spirit which, on the contrary, only surpasses – and then imperfectly in terms of a fall from elemental to molecular - all volition. And understanding, like the peace of perfect self-contentment through complete self-harmony which is its reward, is essentially subjective, being of the psyche in its free, or metaphysical, manifestation such that does not have to subordinate itself to brute fact or, as in the case of physics, have such freedom, in knowledge, as it does possess subverted by somatic emphasis under female axial pressures, as discussed elsewhere. Truth, finally, is a higher and freer type of knowledge altogether, and what it aims for is nothing less than the joy of perfect self-realization in the soul which is its psychic companion for all Eternity. Therefore metaphysics will always be a context in which there is more (compared to most) ego and most soul, God being identified with the former and Heaven with the latter.