A Deeper Analysis of the Relationship between Beauty and Truth. Carrying on from yesterday and the previous entries, I can say for sure that the relationship between, for instance, beauty and truth is more complex than might at first seem to be the case.  For it cannot be denied that the mutual exclusivity of these two ideals, the one superheathen and the other superchristian, ensures that their hegemonic rule is always at the expense of each other, not in partnership.  Yet, even so, it is plausible to suppose that the absence of truth in the context of metaphysical sensuality, or antimetaphysics, with specific regard to bound psyche, is compensated by a sense of outer truth, which is somatically deferential to beauty, while, conversely, the absence of beauty in the context of metachemical sensibility, or antimetachemistry, with specific regard to bound soma, is compensated by a sense of inner beauty, which is psychically deferential to truth.  Put another way, if antimetaphysics is antitruth in bound psyche and anti-illusion in free soma, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for outer truth in free soma and inner illusion in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to metaphysics, where, by contrast, truth is inner in free psyche and illusion outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner aspects of antimetaphysics are sensual and the inner and outer aspects of metaphysics sensible.  Similarly, if antimetachemistry is antibeauty in bound soma and anti-ugliness in free psyche, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for inner beauty in free psyche and outer ugliness in bound soma, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to metachemistry, where, by contrast, beauty is outer in free soma and ugliness inner in bound psyche, albeit the inner and outer aspects of antimetachemistry are sensible  and the outer and inner aspects of metachemistry sensual.  If all this is so, then being outer and inner, somatically free and psychically bound, is the sensual norm and being inner and outer, psychically free and somatically bound, the sensible one, the former ruled by soma and the latter led by psyche.  Metachemistry is both outer and inner in free soma and bound psyche, beauty and ugliness, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antimetaphysics, which is again outer in free soma and inner in bound psyche, the anti-illusion of the former fostering a capacity for outer truth and the antitruth of the latter a capacity for inner illusion.  Conversely, metaphysics is both inner and outer in free psyche and bound soma, truth and illusion, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antimetachemistry, which is again inner in free psyche and outer in bound soma, the anti-ugliness of the former fostering a capacity for inner beauty and the antibeauty of the latter a capacity for outer ugliness.  Thus, in overall metachemical terms, what is sensually beautiful in free soma is sensibly ugly in bound soma, while what is sensually ugly in bound psyche is sensibly beautiful in free psyche.  Likewise, in overall metaphysical terms, what is sensibly true in free psyche is sensually illusory in bound psyche, while what is sensibly illusory in bound soma is sensually true in free soma.  But inner beauty is no more genuine beauty from the standpoint of somatic sensuality than outer truth genuine truth from the standpoint of psychic sensibility.  Nor, by extrapolation, would outer ugliness be genuine ugliness from the standpoint of psychic sensuality any more than inner illusion genuine illusion from the standpoint of somatic sensibility.  Somatic beauty and psychic ugliness hang together in sensuality no less than psychic truth and somatic illusion in sensibility, but they do so as the genuine articles, not as their pseudo counterparts in antimetachemistry and antimetaphysics where, in the one case, psychic beauty and somatic ugliness sensibly hang together while, in the other case, somatic truth and psychic illusion sensually hang together.  For where genuine beauty is somatic genuine ugliness will be its psychic shadow, not, as in sensibility, a somatic shadow to a psychic perversion of beauty attendant upon the metaphysical hegemony of truth and illusion.  Conversely, where genuine truth is psychic genuine illusion will be its somatic shadow, not, as in sensuality, a psychic shadow to a somatic perversion of truth attendant upon the metachemical hegemony of beauty and ugliness.  As to the relationship of all this to heat and light, that is another question, albeit I fancy one that affords an equally complex, because comprehensively exacting, solution.  Metachemistry is certainly heat, primarily in relation to free soma, but I can well believe that its bound psychic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of light which would accord with an ugly counterpart to beauty proper.  In contrast, metaphysics is certainly light, primarily in relation to free psyche, but I can well believe that its bound somatic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of heat which would accord with an illusory counterpart to truth proper.  Hence whereas beauty proper is outer heat of a sensual disposition, truth proper is inner light of a sensible one, the sensual inner light of ugliness proper and the sensible outer heat of illusion proper standing in subordinate relationships to the prevailing ideal, be it superheathenistically beautiful or superchristianly true.  But all this changes with the upended under-plane gender positions of antimetaphysics and antimetachemistry.  For it would seem that if truth proper is inner light of a sensible disposition, then pseudo-truth, as we may call its outer counterpart, is outer light of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic pseudo-illusory corollary of which will be inner heat of a sensual disposition.  Likewise, if beauty proper is outer heat of a sensual disposition, then pseudo-beauty, as we may call its inner counterpart, can only be inner heat of a sensible disposition, the bound-somatic pseudo-ugly corollary of which will be outer light of a sensible disposition.  Thus do the genders remain in contrary relationships even as they approximate a complementarity on the basis of either hegemonic sensuality or hegemonic sensibility.