A Brief Examination of the Moral
Distinctions between Play and Work. If it is not possible to categorically maintain
that soma is invariably dark or black or shaded vis-à-vis psyche, and for the
simple reason that brightness is determined by freedom, whether somatic or
psychic, and darkness by binding, likewise irrespective of the faculty, then it
should be possible
to maintain that whatever is bound is dark and whatever is free, by contrast,
is bright. Therefore brightness can be associated with either soma or psyche
and darkness likewise, the chief determinant being the distinction between
freedom and binding. But this distinction can be applied quite categorically to
the dichotomy between play and work, since play is invariably free, or
associated with freedom, whereas work is contractually obligated and is
therefore a manifestation of binding. Since soma can be free or bound, so it
can have associations with either play or work. The same holds true of psyche,
which is only to be associated with play when free, not when bound. Therefore
we can plot a distinction between play and work on the basis of freedom and binding,
whether in relation to soma or psyche. Since metachemistry
is the element of free soma and bound psyche par
excellence, as
germane to noumenal absolutism, we can maintain that metachemistry
exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its antimetaphysical corollary
likewise, if on secondary terms, exemplifying somatic play and psychic work.
Similarly, since chemistry is the element of free soma and bound psyche on
phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that chemistry exemplifies somatic
play and psychic work, its antiphysical corollary likewise, if on primary terms
in relation, traditionally, to the subversion of chemistry to bound psychic
emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metaphysics over
antimetachemistry or, at any rate, of some degree of metaphysics, whether hyped
or not, over antimetachemistry. Be that as it may, it should be possible to
contend, for sensibility in contrast to sensuality, that since physics is the
element of free psyche and bound soma on phenomenally relative terms, we can
maintain that physics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its
antichemical corollary likewise, if on primary terms, traditionally, in
relation to the subversion of physics to bound somatic emphasis at the behest,
axially considered, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics or, at any rate, of some degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics.
Finally, since metaphysics is the element of free psyche and bound soma par
excellence, as
germane to noumenal absolutism, we can maintain that metaphysics exemplifies
psychic play and somatic work, its antimetachemical corollary likewise, if on
secondary terms, exemplifying psychic play and somatic work. Hence the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which stretches from northwest to
southeast of the intercardinal axial compass would
indicate a primary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness of somatic
play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the female contrast between metachemistry and antichemistry
is concerned, but a secondary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness
of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the male contrast
between antimetaphysics and physics is concerned, the
contrast between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic
play being primarily church subordinate in relation to metachemistry
and antichemistry, but secondarily church-subordinate in relation to antimetaphysics and physics. By complete contrast, however,
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis which stretches from the southwest
to the northeast of the intercardinal axial compass
would indicate a primary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of
psychic work and the brightness of psychic play as far as the male contrast
between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, but
a secondary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and
the brightness of psychic play as far as the female contrast between chemistry
and antimetachemistry is concerned, the contrast between the brightness of
somatic play and the darkness of somatic work being primarily state-subordinate
in relation to antiphysics and metaphysics, but
secondarily state-subordinate in relation to chemistry and antimetachemistry.
Hence play-brightness has a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms and
work-darkness a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms on the former
axis, irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms, while
work-darkness has a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms and
play-brightness a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms on the latter
axis, again irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms. Therefore in
terms of metachemistry to antichemistry, evil is
bright and goodness dark, for evil corresponds to somatic freedom of metachemistry and goodness to somatic binding of
antichemistry, whereas crime is dark and punishment bright, since crime
corresponds to psychic binding of metachemistry and
punishment to psychic freedom of antichemistry. Likewise, in terms of antimetaphysics to physics, pseudo-folly is bright and
pseudo-wisdom dark, for pseudo-folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antimetaphysics and pseudo-wisdom to somatic binding of
physics, whereas pseudo-sin is dark and pseudo-grace bright, since pseudo-sin
corresponds to psychic binding of antimetaphysics and
pseudo-grace to psychic freedom of physics. In terms, by axial contrast, of antiphysics to metaphysics, sin is dark and grace bright,
for sin corresponds to psychic binding of antiphysics
and grace to psychic freedom of metaphysics, whereas folly is bright and wisdom
dark, since folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antiphysics
and wisdom to somatic binding of metaphysics. Likewise, in terms of chemistry
to antimetachemistry, pseudo-crime is dark and pseudo-punishment bright, for
pseudo-crime corresponds to psychic binding of chemistry and pseudo-punishment
to psychic freedom of antimetachemistry, whereas pseudo-evil is bright and
pseudo-goodness dark, since pseudo-evil corresponds to somatic freedom of
chemistry and pseudo-goodness to somatic binding of antimetachemistry. Strange,
but it is so.