An Analysis of the Relationship between Strength and Knowledge. Carrying on from yesterday, I can say for sure that the relationship between strength and knowledge is, like that between beauty and truth above, 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 heathen and the other Christian, ensures that their hegemonic rule, no matter how equivocal, is always at the expense of each other, not in partnership.  Yet, even so, it is plausible to suppose that the absence of knowledge in the context of physical sensuality, or antiphysics, with specific regard to bound psyche, is compensated by a sense of outer knowledge (carnal), which is somatically deferential to strength, while, conversely, the absence of strength in the context of chemical sensibility, or antichemistry, with specific regard to bound soma, is compensated by a sense of inner strength, which is psychically deferential to knowledge.  Put another way, if antiphysics is antiknowledge in bound psyche and anti-ignorance in free soma, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for outer knowledge in free soma and inner ignorance in bound psyche, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to physics, where, by contrast, knowledge is inner in free psyche and ignorance outer in bound soma, albeit the outer and inner aspects of antiphysics are sensual and the inner and outer aspects of physics sensible.  Similarly, if antichemistry is antistrength in bound soma and antiweakness in free psyche, it will have the capacity, as though by paradoxical compensation, for inner strength in free psyche and outer weakness in bound soma, the converse, in effect, of whatever properly appertains to chemistry, where, by contrast, strength is outer in free soma and weakness inner in bound psyche, albeit the inner and outer aspects of antichemistry are sensible  and the outer and inner aspects of chemistry 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.  Chemistry is both outer and inner in free soma and bound psyche, strength and weakness, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antiphysics, which, with gender inversion, is again outer in free soma and inner in bound psyche, the anti-ignorance of the former fostering a capacity for outer knowledge and the antiknowledge of the latter a capacity for inner ignorance.  Conversely, physics is both inner and outer in free psyche and bound soma, knowledge and ignorance, and is thus hegemonically ascendant over antichemistry, which, with gender inversion, is again inner in free psyche and outer in bound soma, the anti-weakness of the former fostering a capacity for inner strength and the antistrength of the latter a capacity for outer weakness.  Thus, in overall chemical terms, what is sensually strong in free soma is sensibly weak in bound soma, while what is sensually weak in bound psyche is sensibly strong in free psyche.  Likewise, in overall physical terms, what is sensibly knowledgeable in free psyche is sensually ignorant in bound psyche, while what is sensibly ignorant in bound soma is sensually knowledgeable in free soma.  But inner strength is no more genuine strength from the standpoint of somatic sensuality than outer knowledge genuine knowledge from the standpoint of psychic sensibility.  Nor, by extrapolation, would outer weakness be genuine weakness from the standpoint of psychic sensuality any more than inner ignorance genuine ignorance from the standpoint of somatic sensibility.  Somatic strength and psychic weakness hang together in sensuality no less than psychic knowledge and somatic ignorance in sensibility, but they do so as the genuine articles, not as their pseudo counterparts in antichemistry and antiphysics where, in the one case, psychic strength and somatic weakness sensibly hang together while, in the other case, somatic knowledge and psychic ignorance sensually hang together.  For where genuine strength is somatic, genuine weakness will be its psychic shadow, not, as in sensibility, a somatic shadow to a psychic perversion of strength attendant upon the physical hegemony of knowledge and ignorance.  Conversely, where genuine knowledge is psychic, genuine ignorance will be its somatic shadow, not, as in sensuality, a psychic shadow to a somatic perversion of knowledge attendant upon the chemical hegemony of strength and weakness.  As to the relationship of all this to motion and force (the phenomenal equivalents of heat and light), that is another question, albeit I fancy one that affords an equally complex, because comprehensively exacting, solution.  Chemistry is certainly motion, primarily in relation to free soma, but I can well believe that its bound psychic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of force which would accord with a weak counterpart to strength proper.  In contrast, physics is certainly force, primarily in relation to free psyche, but I can well believe that its bound somatic corollary, being subordinate, is a species of motion which would accord with an ignorant counterpart to knowledge proper.  Hence whereas strength proper is outer motion of a sensual disposition, knowledge proper is inner force of a sensible one, the sensual inner force of weakness proper and the sensible outer motion of ignorance proper standing in subordinate relationships to the prevailing ideal, be it heathenistically strong or christianly knowledgeable.  But all this changes with the upended under-plane gender positions of antiphysics and antichemistry.  For it would seem that if knowledge proper is inner force of a sensible disposition, then pseudo-knowledge, as we may call its outer counterpart, is outer force of a sensual disposition, the bound-psychic pseudo-ignorant corollary of which will be inner motion of a sensual disposition.  Likewise, if strength proper is outer motion of a sensual disposition, then pseudo-strength, as we may call its inner counterpart, can only be inner motion of a sensible disposition, the bound-somatic pseudo-weak corollary of which will be outer force 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, neither of which, on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, is unequivocal and therefore, unlike their noumenal counterparts in space and time, subject to emphatic subversion at the hands of their respective under-plane complements at the behest of the overall controlling element in the noumenal above, be it state-hegemonically/church-subordinately metachemical over antimetaphysical vis-à-vis antichemical under physical or, in traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, metaphysical over antimetachemical vis-à-vis antiphysical under chemical.