A Re-examination of Light and Darkness relative to Gender. Light and darkness, freedom and binding. As noted in the previous entry, light and darkness hang together as freedom and binding, and therefore one can speak of the light of freedom vis-à-vis the darkness of binding. But this does not actually mean that darkness is something to avoid. On the contrary, I have shown that freedom requires binding whether the freedom be of soma (and female) or of psyche (and male). Only one kind of freedom excludes the other, and therefore one kind of binding relative to the prevailing kind of freedom must necessarily exclude the other kind. But we have to distinguish each kind of freedom and binding not only on a female/male basis, free soma and bound psyche being female and free psyche and bound soma male, but in terms of outer or inner, somatic or psychic. For somatic freedom, as properly germane to metachemistry (diabolic females) and chemistry (feminine females), is the outer kind of freedom and hence light, the psychic corollary of which is inner thralldom and hence darkness, whereas psychic freedom, as properly germane to metaphysics (divine males) and physics (masculine males), is the inner kind of freedom and hence light, the somatic corollary of which is outer thralldom and hence darkness. For if soma is outer because of the not-self and psyche inner because of the self, then somatic freedom will always correlate with the outer light and psychic freedom, by contrast, with the inner light. Yet each type of freedom must have a correlative mode of darkness, be it of psyche or of soma, and this thralldom relative to itself will be inner in the case of bound psyche and outer in the case of bound soma, since, as noted above, psyche is of the self and soma of the not-self. A free not-self implies a bound self, outer light the inner darkness which is its psychic corollary, while a free self implies a bound not-self, inner light the outer darkness which is its somatic corollary. But the freedom of the outer light and the binding of the inner darkness to it as, for example, the criminal acquiescence in evil, necessarily excludes the freedom of the inner light and the binding of the outer darkness to it as, for example, the wise acquiescence in grace, since one cannot have hegemonic female criteria and hegemonic male criteria simultaneously in hegemonic sway over the opposite gender. Either females get the better of males (become antimales) in sensuality or males get the better of females (become antifemales) in sensibility. Therefore if free soma and bound psyche is the prevailing ethos in society or of a particular section of it, it is because either metachemistry is hegemonic, unequivocally, over antimetaphysics or because chemistry is hegemonic, equivocally, over antiphysics, and the antimale is consequently acquiescing, under female hegemonic pressures, in the outer light of somatic freedom and the inner darkness of psychic binding, not so much in terms of a criminal acquiescence, whether genuinely in the noumenal or on a pseudo basis in the phenomenal, in evil but, according with his gender, in terms of a sinful acquiescence, whether pseudo or genuine, in folly, the folly of somatic freedom in either antimetaphysics or antiphysics. For pseudo-meekness is no less the corollary of vanity in the metachemical/antimetaphysical context than meekness the corollary of pseudo-vanity in the chemical/antiphysical one. Contrariwise, if free psyche and bound soma is the prevailing ethos in society or of a particular section of it, it is because either metaphysics is hegemonic, unequivocally, over antimetachemistry or because physics is hegemonic, equivocally, over antichemistry, and the antifemale is consequently acquiescing, under male hegemonic pressures, in the inner light of psyche freedom and the outer darkness of somatic binding, not so much in terms of a wise acquiescence, whether genuinely in the noumenal or on a pseudo basis in the phenomenal, in grace but, according with her gender, in terms of a modest (good) acquiescence, whether pseudo or genuine, in punishment, the punishment of psychic freedom in either antimetachemistry or antichemistry. For pseudo-justice is no less the corollary of righteousness in the metaphysical/antimetachemical context than justice the corollary of pseudo-righteousness in the physical/antichemical one. Either males are upended as antimales under female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, where the metachemical and/or chemical actualities of soma preceding and predominating over psyche are the ruling factors or, contrary to this, females are upended as antifemales under male hegemonic pressures in sensibility, where the metaphysical and/or physical actualities of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma are the leading factors. Obviously, to be at cross-purposes with one’s gender actuality one would have to be either meek, as in the antimale cases, or just, as in the antifemale cases, since it is no less foolish to be acquiescing in free soma contrary to one’s gender actuality as a male than it is punishing to be acquiescing in free psyche contrary to one’s gender actuality as a female. Now although both genders in either sensuality or sensibility are superficially in sync with each other, free soma and bound psyche characterizing the former no less than free psyche and bound soma the latter, we have a right, based on the underlining gender actuality of each gender, to regard antimales as enslaved to females when psychically bound and somatically free and antifemales, by contrast, as enslaved to males when somatically bound and psychically free. For in spite of appearances to the contrary in the one case and essences to the contrary in the other, a psychically bound male is an upended male, whom we have identified with the term antimale, just as a somatically bound female, whom we have identified with the term antifemale, is an upended female and therefore no less at cross-purposes with her gender actuality than her sensually subordinate male or, rather, antimale counterpart. One gender’s meat is, to use the proverbial expression, the other gender’s poison, and therefore any society based in the outer light of somatic freedom can only be unfair to males, who have to live, contrary to their gender grain, with the inner darkness of psychic binding. Contrariwise, any society based or, rather, centred in the inner light of psychic freedom can only be unfair to females, who have to live, contrary to their gender grain, with the outer darkness of somatic binding. You can’t have it both ways, although most Western societies, in particular, are more complicated than to be simply one thing or the other, bearing in mind the extent to which axial interplay between the noumenal and phenomenal, the ethereal and corporeal, factors has traditionally been a fact or a truth of life, with due modifications of the phenomenal positions in relation to their noumenal counterparts, whether in terms of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in relation to the male ideal of free psyche and bound soma, the inner light and the outer darkness, or in terms of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in relation to the female ideal of free soma and bound psyche, the outer light and the inner darkness. Those ideals exist on separate axes in mutually exclusive vein, but they are polar to positions on each axis that run contrary to the presiding ideal and have to be judged in relation to either psychic binding and somatic freedom (if sensual) or somatic binding and psychic freedom (if sensible), being phenomenal parallels to the contrary noumenal ideals which head a different axis. Verily, there is no simple polarity between light and darkness. Only between inner darkness and inner light on church-hegemonic terms and between outer light and outer darkness on state-subordinate terms, should the antiphysical be psychically saved to metaphysics and the chemical somatically counter-damned to antimetachemistry, to take a particular rather than general view. And, contrary to this, there exists a polarity between outer light and outer darkness on state-hegemonic terms and between inner darkness and inner light on church-subordinate terms, should the metachemical be somatically damned to antichemistry and the antimetaphysical psychically counter-saved to physics.