A More Comprehensive Assessment of Heat, Light, Motion, and Force. If we allow for a distinction between space and antitime, metachemistry and antimetaphysics, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between heat and antilight, beauty and antitruth. Likewise, if we allow for a distinction between time and antispace, metaphysics and antimetachemistry, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between light and antiheat, truth and antibeauty. Similarly, if we allow for a distinction between volume and antimass, chemistry and antiphysics, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between motion and antiforce, strength and antiknowledge. Finally, if we allow for a distinction between mass and antivolume, physics and antichemistry, it seems only logically consistent to allow for one between force and antimotion, knowledge and antistrength. Therefore just as heat proper, appertaining to metachemistry, would be sensual rather than sensible or, in broad terms, outer rather than inner, so, by metaphysical contrast, light proper would be sensible rather than sensual, inner rather than outer. And just as motion proper, appertaining to chemistry, would be sensual rather than sensible or, in broad terms, outer rather than inner, so, by physical contrast, force proper would be sensible rather than sensual, inner rather than outer. For heat and light are, in this regard, as much the alpha and omega of things noumenal, in space and time, as motion and force the alpha and omega of things phenomenal, in volume and mass. But, in overall gender terms, heat and motion would be hegemonically female and force and light hegemonically male. For females are more will and spirit than males, whose correspondence must be to ego and soul. Females are, in simple elemental terms, more fire and water and males, by contrast, more vegetation (earth) and air, which means that the former are primary in the objectivity of fire and water, metachemistry and chemistry, will and spirit, heat and motion, whereas the latter are secondary in the subjectivity of vegetation and air, physics and metaphysics, ego and soul, force and light. But just as metachemistry, corresponding to fire, gets the better of antimetaphysics, corresponding to anti-air, in space/antitime, so metaphysics, corresponding to air, can get the better of antimetachemistry, corresponding to antifire, in time/antispace. And just as chemistry, corresponding to water, gets the better of antiphysics, corresponding to anti-vegetation, in volume/antimass, so physics, corresponding to vegetation, can get the better of antichemistry, corresponding to antiwater, in mass/antivolume. For in sensibility it is the male positions which are hegemonic and the female ones technically subordinate, antichemistry under physics as antivolume under mass, and antimetachemistry under metaphysics as antispace under time. Nevertheless, despite gender and class differentials, I think it can be safely said that no-one and nobody is entirely any one thing, be it fire, water, vegetation (earth), or air, and that people are accordingly a combination, in varying degrees (dependent by and large on gender and class), of all of the elements and their respective concomitants. Certainly some females will be more heat than motion and others, lower- rather than upper-class, more motion than heat, but even the former will be capable of motion and the latter of heat. Likewise, quite apart from characteristics appertaining to the opposite gender, some males will be more force than light and others, classless rather than middle class, more light than force, but even the former will be capable of light and the latter of force. And both genders can be modified, as logic would confirm, by ‘anti’ positions on either the noumenal or phenomenal planes, when they become subject to the hegemonic control of the opposite gender. Hence the antimale attributes of antilight in antimetaphysics under metachemical heat and of antiforce in antiphysics under chemical motion have to be contrasted with the antifemale attributes of antimotion in antichemistry under physical force and of antiheat in antimetachemistry under metaphysical light. Therefore there may be more ‘anti’ than ‘pro’ about males and females when they find themselves, as so often, under the hegemonic control of their noumenal or phenomenal gender counterparts, even with axial subversion of the equivocal hegemonies at the behest of the overall controlling element whose unequivocal hegemony in the noumenal ‘above’ ensures that axial continuity and consistency is maintained on the basis of a polar connection, so to speak, with its upended gender counterpart, metaphysics linking with antiphysics no less certainly than metachemistry with antichemistry on what become diametrically antithetical axes in which the emphasis is either on psyche or on soma, as germane to a church-hegemonic/state-hegemonic dichotomy. Therefore the connection between light and antiforce is crucial to the prospect of salvation of the latter and counter-damnation of those who would correspond, in secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate vein, to the connection between antimetachemistry and chemistry. Contrariwise, the connection between heat and antimotion is crucial to the maintenance of undamnation of the former and counter-unsalvation of those who would correspond, in secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vein, to the connection between antimetaphysics and physics. Only the radical and more or less permanent salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and correlative counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry can so affect the overall axial balance that the metachemical will be damned to antichemistry and the antimetaphysical counter-saved to physics. For nothing short of the permanent removal (deliverance) of the antiphysical and chemical to metaphysics and antimetachemistry can bring the metachemical and antimetaphysical down for want of prey at what in previous entries has been described as the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Until then, their exemplifications of somatic licence will continue to bemuse and bedazzle the chemical and antiphysical into quasi-state-hegemonic deference to the prevailing modes of objectivity and antisubjectivity, rendering the prospect of salvation and counter-damnation on traditional terms not only anachronistic but patently ineffectual and inadequate. Only the revolutionary overhaul of the corrupted church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis can return the peoples concerned to God and the Antidevil and hold out to them the prospect of lasting salvation and counter-damnation, according to elemental gender, to the metaphysical and antimetachemical heights of the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass. But for this nothing short of the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to a religiously sovereign end will suffice, and for that one will have need of Social Theocracy and its determination to establish Heaven at the expense of anti-earth and Antihell at the expense of purgatory, bringing light to those paradoxically trapped in an antilight-deferring antiforce and antiheat to those paradoxically trapped in a heat-deferring motion. For only when light and antiheat are metaphysically and antimetachemically triumphant over the world … of the antiphysical and chemical … will what has traditionally been regarded as ‘Kingdom Come’ actually have transpired, and divine and antidiabolic vengeance be wreaked on those whose heat-besotted diabolic and antilight-besotted antidivine defiance of divine light and antidiabolic antiheat continues, at this point in time, to rule the world and keep it from heavenly salvation and antihellish counter-damnation in the time of noumenal subjectivity and the antispace of noumenal anti-objectivity, the Eternity of the Celestial City and the Anti-Infinity of Anti-Vanity Fair.