The Representative Somatic and Psychic Antipodes in each Axial Case. Just as, in the previous entry, we selected the most representative factor at each point of our intercardinal axis to exemplify, in general terms, how the four main positions and corresponding subpositions (of the upended gender) differ from one another, so, on a like-basis, one can distinguish what could be called the triumph of the will at the northwest point from the triumph, paradoxically, of antispirit at the southeast point, and each of these primary state-hegemonic factors from what could be called the triumph of the soul at the northeast point from the triumph, paradoxically, of anti-ego at the southwest point, both of which would accord, in contrast to the above, with primary church-hegemonic factors.  I say 'paradoxically' in relation to the phenomenal points at the southeast and southwest of our intercardinal axis only because without a corresponding gender input from the noumenal points forming either a state-hegemonic or a church-hegemonic antithesis with them at the northwest and northeast points of the said axis respectively, the equivocally hegemonic factors in the phenomenal 'below' of ego in the case of physics and spirit in the case of chemistry would have their emphatic way at the expense of the planar underdog, viz. antichemistry in the case of physics and antiphysics in the case of chemistry, and neither antispirit in the one case nor anti-ego in the other would be able to paradoxically establish a primary antithesis with the prevailing unequivocally hegemonic factor 'on high', in the noumenal 'above', be it will in the case of metachemistry or soul in the case of metaphysics.  But, traditionally at any rate, such a paradoxical inversion of gender ascendancy does characterize each of the phenomenal positions only by dint of either state-hegemonic or church-hegemonic axial continuity and consistency with their respective noumenal counterparts - metachemistry in the case of antichemistry and metaphysics in the case of antiphysics.  Thus the triumph, at the northwest point of the intercardinal axis, of will is only sustainable in relation to the paradoxical triumph, at the southeast point of the said axis, of antispirit, which ensures that upper-class female criteria take precedence over anything lower class in respect, for example, of spirit.  Conversely, the triumph of soul, at the northeast point of the intercardinal axis, is only sustainable in relation to the paradoxical triumph, at the southwest point of the said axis, of anti-ego, which ensures that classless male criteria take precedence over anything middle class in respect, for example, of ego.  For no less than spirit is the female alternative, in chemistry, to metachemical will, so ego is the male alternative, in physics, to metaphysical soul, and neither will nor soul can continue triumphant if spirit in the one case and ego in the other is able to demonstrably challenge them and detract from their respective hegemonic claims.  Hence upper-class female criteria triumph at the expense of lower-class female criteria by dint of the axial link, in polarity, with what could be called anti-lower class criteria, the antispirit that enables will to unequivocally rule over the state-hegemonic axis in question.  Hence, too, classless male criteria only triumph at the expense of middle-class male criteria by dint of the axial link, in polarity, with what could be called anti-middle class criteria, the anti-ego that enables soul to unequivocally lead the church-hegemonic axis in question.  Although ego in the case of physics and spirit in the case of chemistry are equivocally hegemonic over their respective subpositions, antispirit in the case of antichemistry and anti-ego in the case of antiphysics, their hegemony ceases to effectively apply in relation to axial subversion by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry in the case of the state-hegemonic axis and by antiphysics at the behest of metaphysics in the case of the church-hegemonic axis.  Thus rather than a simple contrast between will and ego on the state-hegemonic axis, we find that, in axial practice, will and antispirit are the primary manifestations of state-hegemonic criteria in respect of metachemistry and antichemistry, their secondary (male) counterparts being in respect of antimetaphysics and physics, both of which have to be differentiated from anything church subordinate in parallel relation to antisoul and ego, whether primary (female) or secondary (male).  Likewise, rather than a simple contrast between soul and spirit on the church-hegemonic axis, we find that, in axial practice, soul and anti-ego are the primary manifestations of church-hegemonic criteria in respect of metaphysics and antiphysics, their secondary (female) counterparts being in respect of antimetachemistry and chemistry, both of which have to be differentiated from anything state subordinate in parallel relation to antiwill and spirit, whether primary (male) or secondary (female).  Of course, the inputs into the church-subordinate or state-subordinate factors on each axis may work out differently in gender practice from what the parallelism of gender extrapolation from the hegemonic factors would suggest; but that is incidental to the requirements of logic, which encourage a parallelism in state and church or church and state, depending on the axis.