An Investigation of Positivity and Negativity in relation to ‘Pro’ and ‘Anti’ Elements. Formerly, when I wrote about metachemistry over antimetaphysics vis-à-vis metaphysics over antimetachemistry on the one hand and, 'down below', chemistry over antiphysics vis-à-vis physics over antichemistry on the other hand, it was on a basis that was often overly partial to the inner at the expense of the outer forms of both the sensual and sensible antitheses.  One might have got the impression that beauty and truth 'hung together' the way that God and the Antidevil were found to do in metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass or, antithetically, that ugliness and illusion did likewise in respect of the Devil and Antigod at its northwest point.  But that would, I now believe, have been far from the case!  For is not metachemistry over antimetaphysics symptomatic of a plus over a minus, so to speak, with metaphysics over antimetachemistry likewise exemplifying, as in the contrast between God and the Antidevil, such a dichotomy?  But when we speak of pluses and minuses we must beware of making a simple positive/negative dichotomy, as though metachemistry or metaphysics were always positive and their upended gender counterparts negative.  It seems to me that each element, whether hegemonic or subordinate, as well as whether noumenal (as in the above-mentioned examples) or phenomenal, is divisible into a positive and a negative, whether in soma or psyche, and that we should therefore distinguish between what could be called pro-positive and pro-negative options in the hegemonic cases from anti-positive and anti-negative options in the cases of the subordinate elements or, more correctly, anti-elements, as though one were distinguishing between pro-metachemistry and anti-metaphysics, pro-metaphysics and anti-metachemistry, as well as, in the phenomenal contexts, between pro-chemistry and anti-physics, pro-physics and anti-chemistry.  For then one has two approaches, as before, to each element/anti-element, corresponding, again as before, to soma or psyche, but with a different emphasis depending on the gender orientation of the element/anti-element concerned.  For is not this distinction between positivity and negativity really one of freedom and binding?  Is not that which is free, whether somatically in sensuality or psychically in sensibility, positive, compared or, rather, contrasted to whatever is bound, whether psychically in sensuality or somatically in sensibility, which then becomes its negative corollary?  Let us investigate this hypothesis today, since I have spent most of the preceding evening and even much of the night mulling over this problem and have now convinced myself of its solution.  Metachemistry or, better, pro-metachemistry over anti-metaphysics is the context of free soma and bound psyche on the noumenal planes of space and anti-time, and therefore we should speak of beauty and love in connection with pro-metachemical free soma and ugliness and hatred in connection with pro-metachemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner sensual modes of pro-metachemical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-illusion and anti-woe in connection with anti-metaphysical free soma and anti-truth and anti-joy in connection with anti-metaphysical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner sensual modes of anti-metaphysical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-beautiful and quasi-loving while the latter pair are pseudo-ugly and pseudo-hateful.  Be that as it may, metaphysics or, better, pro-metaphysics over anti-metachemistry is the context of free psyche and bound soma on the noumenal planes of time and anti-space, and therefore we should speak of truth and joy in connection with pro-metaphysical free psyche and illusion and woe in connection with pro-metaphysical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of pro-metaphysical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-ugliness and anti-hate in connection with anti-metachemical free psyche and anti-beauty and anti-love in connection with anti-metachemical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of anti-metachemical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-truthful and quasi-joyful while the latter pair are pseudo-illusory and pseudo-woeful.  However that may be, let us briefly turn from the noumenal planes to their phenomenal counterparts, beginning with chemistry or, better, pro-chemistry over anti-physics in the context of free soma and bound psyche on the phenomenal planes of volume and anti-mass, which should lead us to speak of strength and pride in connection with pro-chemical free soma and weakness and humility in connection with pro-chemical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner modes of pro-chemical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-ignorance and anti-pain in connection with anti-physical free soma and anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure in connection with anti-physical bound psyche, as though in a distinction between outer and inner modes of anti-physical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-strong and quasi-proud while the latter pair are pseudo-weak and pseudo-humble. Be that as it may, physics or, better, pro-physics over anti-chemistry is the context of free psyche and bound soma on the phenomenal planes of mass and anti-volume, and therefore we should speak of knowledge and pleasure in connection with pro-physical free psyche and ignorance and woe in connection with pro-physical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer modes of pro-physical positivity and negativity, while contrasting this hegemonic element with the subordinate anti-element of anti-weakness and anti-humility in connection with anti-chemical free psyche and anti-strength and anti-pride in connection with anti-chemical bound soma, as though in a distinction between inner and outer sensible modes of anti-chemical anti-negativity and anti-positivity, the former pair of which may well be quasi-knowledgeable and quasi-pleasurable while the latter pair are pseudo-ignorant and pseudo-painful.  Consequently we now have distinctions between pro-positive soma and pro-negative psyche on the one hand and anti-negative soma and anti-positive psyche on the other in sensuality, whether on the noumenal or phenomenal planes, which contrast with the distinctions between pro-positive psyche and pro-negative soma on the one hand and anti-negative psyche and anti-positive soma on the other in sensibility, again whether on the noumenal or phenomenal planes.  If pro-metachemistry is primarily pro-positive in relation to the beauty and love of its somatic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the ugliness and hatred of its psychic binding; if, correlatively, anti-metaphysics is, under pro-metachemical pressures, primarily anti-negative in relation to the anti-illusion and anti-woe of its somatic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-truth and anti-joy of its psychic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate standpoint, one might say an anti-standpoint, the hegemonic point of view of pro-metachemical freedom and binding.  Conversely, if pro-metaphysics is primarily pro-positive in relation to the truth and joy of its psychic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the illusion and woe of its somatic binding; if, correlatively, anti-metachemistry is primarily, under pro-metaphysical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-ugliness and anti-hatred of its psychic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-beauty and anti-love of its somatic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-point of view, the hegemonic standpoint of pro-metaphysical freedom and binding.  Similarly, if pro-chemistry is primarily pro-positive in relation to the strength and pride of its somatic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the weakness and humility of its psychic binding; if, correlatively, anti-physics is primarily, under pro-chemical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-ignorance and anti-pain of its somatic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-knowledge and anti-pleasure of its psychic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-standpoint, the hegemonic point of view of pro-chemical freedom and binding.  Conversely, if pro-physics is primarily pro-positive in relation to the knowledge and pleasure of its psychic freedom, it is also pro-negative in relation to the ignorance and pain of its somatic binding; if, correlatively, anti-chemistry is primarily, under pro-physical pressures, anti-negative in relation to the anti-weakness and anti-humility of its psychic freedom, it is also anti-positive in relation to the anti-strength and anti-pride of its somatic binding, for it inversely mirrors, from a gender subordinate anti-point of view, the hegemonic standpoint of pro-physical freedom and binding.  However, being equivocal, the phenomenal hegemonic positions, as explained often enough by me in the past, are subject to subversion at the hands of their subordinate counterparts when axial factors linking the northwest to the southeast or, conversely, the northeast to the southwest are taken into account; for the switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the case of the southwest and from psyche to soma in the case of the southeast also has to be born in mind, since this is what makes for either state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial continuity and consistency, as determined by the unequivocally hegemonic elements 'on high'.