No Simple Right and Wrong. Yesterday I attempted to equate the concept of the ‘fall of man’ with the genuine worldly positions that constituted the fulcrum of each axis, irrespective of the antithetical nature, duly noted, of the axes themselves. For the very fact of their being antithetical precludes such a concept from having equal applicability to each axis. If you are of the ‘fallen’, what have you fallen from or, alternatively, to what do you exist in a kind of polar relation? Certainly not the Risen! For the Fallen can only exist in polar relation to the Unfallen, whether as fallen to pseudo-unfallen or, alternatively, as pseudo-fallen to unfallen, depending on the epochal context of any given form of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate civilization. And where the Fallen exist in relation to the Unfallen, the Counter-Risen exist in relation to the Counter-Unrisen, whether as counter-risen to pseudo-counter-unrisen or, in a post-worldly context, as pseudo-counter-risen to counter-unrisen, the Counter-Unrisen no less subordinate to the Unfallen than, at the other pole of the axis in question, the Fallen to the Counter-Risen. Yet what applies to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria most certainly cannot be applied to its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate antithesis! For the Risen can only exist in polar relation to the Unrisen, whether as pseudo-risen to unrisen in a worldly epoch and mode of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate civilization or, by contrast, as risen to pseudo-unrisen in its post-worldly – and effectively global – counterpart. And where the Risen exist in relation to the Unrisen, the Counter-Fallen exist in relation to the Counter-Unfallen, whether as pseudo-counter-fallen to counter-unfallen in traditional terms or, from a contemporary and/or futuristic standpoint, as counter-fallen to pseudo-counter-unfallen, the Counter-Fallen no less subordinate to the Risen than, at the other pole of the axis in question, the Unrisen to the Counter-Unfallen. Therefore far from an equalitarian reductionism to the Fallen, the southwest point of the axial compass presents us with a contrast between the Unrisen and the Counter-Unfallen which contrasts with the distinction between the Fallen and the Counter-Risen at its southeast point, the point which exists in polar relation to the Unfallen and the Counter-Unrisen no less than its axial antithesis to the Risen and Counter-Fallen. But such a contrast in relations is typical of the antithetical nature of the two axes. No one set of criteria can be applied to them. They remain antithetical in virtually every respect. Nor can one contend, with any certainty, that the overall distinction between the Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen and the Risen/Counter-Fallen on the one hand and the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen and the Fallen/Counter-Risen on the other hand is between right and wrong. It may seem to be, but, in reality, the positions on either axis are not so black and white. What one can say with logical conviction is that the sensual positions of the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen and of the Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen correspond to contexts which are subject to hegemonic female criteria in which free soma and bound psyche are the most characteristic gender differentials, whereas the sensible positions of the Fallen/Counter-Risen and of the Risen/Counter-Fallen correspond to contexts which are subject to hegemonic male criteria in which free psyche and bound soma are the most characteristic gender differentials. Therefore there is an overall hegemonic contrast between the immorality of free soma and the morality of free psyche, both of which are right to their respective genders. What is wrong is not immorality per se, but the upended male position in antimetaphysics under metachemistry for the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen and in antiphysics under chemistry for the Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen, so that one has situations in which the male is antimorally wrong in bound psyche and free soma vis-à-vis the immoral rightness of the freely somatic and bound psychic female, the principal gender differential in each case being bound psyche for the male and free soma for the female. Likewise, if from a contrary standpoint in sensibility, what is wrong is the upended female position in antichemistry under physics for the Fallen/Counter-Risen and in antimetachemistry under metaphysics for the Risen/Counter-Fallen, so that one has situations in which the female is anti-immorally wrong in bound soma and free psyche vis-à-vis the moral rightness of the freely psychic and bound somatic male, the principal gender differential in each case being bound soma for the female and free psyche for the male. Thus we cannot argue in favour of sensual wrongness vis-à-vis sensible rightness. Female immorality rides triumphantly over male antimorality in each of the sensual axial contexts, whereas male morality rides triumphantly over female anti-immorality in each of the sensible axial contexts. But it does so, of course, in a different way and to a different extent in each context, be it sensual or sensible. The immoral rightness of metachemistry over the antimoral wrongness of antimetaphysics is unequivocal, whereas the immoral rightness of chemistry over the antimoral wrongness of antiphysics in merely equivocal, subject to subversion in terms of bound psychic emphasis at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry, which establishes church-hegemonic criteria. Conversely, the moral rightness of metaphysics over the anti-immoral wrongness of antimetachemistry is unequivocal, whereas the moral rightness of physics over the anti-immoral wrongness of antichemistry is merely equivocal, subject to subversion in terms of bound somatic emphasis at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, which establish state-hegemonic criteria. Again the axes are completely antithetical. One can no more speak of moral right unequivocally triumphing over anti-immoral wrong in relation to the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass than of immoral right unequivocally triumphing over antimoral wrong in relation to the southwest point of the said compass. It is only at the northwest and northeast points that anything resembling an unequivocal triumph occurs, and that is all the distinction between the immoral rightness/antimoral wrongness of the Unfallen/Counter-Unsaved and the moral rightness/anti-immoral wrongness of the Risen/Counter-Fallen. Right and wrong do hang together at each point of the axial compass, but they do so on both immoral/antimoral and moral/anti-immoral terms. The female of the species is born for the immoral rightness of somatic freedom. The male of the species is intended, on the contrary, for the moral rightness of psychic freedom. The one is soma preceding and predominating over psyche. The other is psyche preceding and preponderating over soma. Life is the result of a gender struggle between these two antithetical tendencies, neither of which can simultaneously triumph. For if females are immorally hegemonic in free soma, males must be subordinately upended and reduced to antimoral wrongness. But if males become morally hegemonic in free psyche, females can only be subordinately upended and reduced to anti-immoral wrongness. Either fact rules illusion in sensuality and antisensibility or, in sensibility and antisensuality, truth rules or, more correctly, leads fiction. You can’t have it both ways, and that is why there are two axes which are, to all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive in their respective types of civilization and commitments to either female-dominated or male-oriented values.