DEVIL-WOMAN-MAN-GOD

1. Since the distinction between sensuality and sensibility on the female, or objective, side of life is equivalent to blessedness in the one case and to damnation in the other, we may speak of the Daughter as blessed, whether absolutely in the noumenal or relatively in the phenomenal, and of the Mother as damned, again whether on absolute or relative terms.

2. Since, by contrast, the distinction between sensuality and sensibility on the male, or subjective, side of life is equivalent to cursedness in the one case and to salvation in the other, we may speak of the Father as cursed, whether relatively in the phenomenal or absolutely in the noumenal, and of the Son as saved, again whether on relative or absolute terms.

3. That which is blessed in sensual hegemony can only be damned to sensible subservience if that which was cursed by sensual subservience elects, through moral resolve, to be saved to a sensible hegemony, thereby rising diagonally in evolutionary fashion.

4. Such a diagonal rise (between phenomenal or noumenal contiguous planes) we have identified with an evolutionary progression as a specifically male achievement, and it contrasts with the diagonal fall (between noumenal or phenomenal contiguous planes) of females in a devolutionary regression from a sensual hegemony over males to a sensible subservience under them.

5. Whereas the hegemony of females in blessed freedom (of not-self) epitomizes the triumph of barbarity over the cursed freedom (from self) of philistinism, as epitomized by sensually subservient males, the hegemony of males in saved binding (to self) epitomizes the triumph of culture over the damned binding (in not-self) of civility, as epitomized by sensibly subservient females.

6. Thus barbarism triumphs not at civilization's expense (for what barbarian knows about civilization, much less civility, its precondition?) but at the expense of philistinism, which panders to it, while, conversely, culture triumphs not at the expense of philistinism (for what does culture owe to philistines, with their overly natural impulses?) but at the expense of civilization which, in its civility, defers to it.

7. Where there is little or no folly there can be little or no evil, and thus triumphant barbarism, while, conversely, where there is little or no wisdom there can be little or no goodness, and thus subservient civilization.

8. One could reverse each of the above contentions, but basically evil only triumphs because folly allows it to, whereas goodness only flourishes because wisdom obliges it to.

9. Were folly wholly subservient to evil there could be no wisdom and thus compelling of good, since salvation from folly to wisdom would then be inconceivable.

10. Yet even though one can progress, as a male, from folly to wisdom, and thus from philistinism to culture, or regress, as a female, from evil to good, and thus from barbarism to civility, it has to be said that people exist who, genetically, are more prone to evil and/or folly, depending on their gender, than to wisdom and/or goodness, and that society generally comes to reflect this fact in the ratio of its components, for better or worse.

11. Thus even societies that claim to be cultured and/or civilized are not exempt from significant examples of barbarism and/or philistinism, whether anterior (in 'naturalistic' terms) or posterior (in artificial terms), depending on the type of society, to the cultural/civilized mean.

12. I would say that, by and large, people become more wise and/or good as they mature, and that the greater proportion of evil and/or folly is generally committed by youths or, at any rate, by younger people.

13. Whatever the age-group or type of society, it needs to be emphasized that the blessedness of barbarism (in objective, or primary, freedom) contrasts with the damnation of civilization (in objective, or secondary, binding), as the Daughter with the Mother, whether absolutely or relatively, depending on the elemental axis, i.e. fire or water.

14. Likewise it needs to be emphasized that the cursedness of philistinism (in subjective, or secondary, freedom) contrasts with the salvation of culture (in subjective, or primary, binding), as the Father with the Son, whether relatively or absolutely, depending, once again, on the elemental axis, i.e. vegetation or air.

15. Just as philistinism is secondary to barbarism, so civilization is secondary to culture, which means that while the Father is secondary (subservient in freedom) to the Daughter, the Mother is secondary (subservient in binding) to the Son. But whereas the Daughter rules the Father, the Son leads the Mother.

16. When we seek to ascertain, on a religious basis, the respective standings of the Daughter and the Mother, we find that in the metachemical context of noumenal objectivity the Daughter and the Mother, having reference to space-time absolutism, are of the Devil in its or, rather, Her evil and good manifestations, which is to say, are akin to blessed (spatial space) and damned (repetitive time) devils, whereas in the chemical context of phenomenal objectivity the Daughter and the Mother, having reference to volume-mass relativity, are of woman in her evil and good manifestations, which is to say, are akin to blessed (volumetric volume) and damned (massed mass) women.

17. When, by gender contrast, we seek to ascertain the respective religious standings of the Father and the Son, we find that in the physical context of phenomenal subjectivity the Father and the Son, having reference to mass-volume relativity, are of man in his foolish and wise manifestations, which is to say, are akin to cursed (massive mass) and saved (voluminous volume) men, whereas in the metaphysical context of noumenal subjectivity the Father and the Son, having reference to time-space absolutism, are of God in His foolish and wise manifestations, which is to say, are akin to cursed (sequential time) and saved (spaced space) gods.

18. Thus just as anything genuinely diabolic, or of the Devil, can only be either of the Daughter or the Mother in the noumenal objectivity of space-time absolutism, and anything genuinely feminine, or of woman, only be either of the Daughter or the Mother in the phenomenal objectivity of volume-mass relativity, so anything genuinely masculine, or of man, can only be either of the Father or the Son in the phenomenal subjectivity of mass-volume relativity, and anything genuinely divine, or of God, only be either of the Father or the Son in the noumenal subjectivity of time-space absolutism.

19. Thus while the Devil has His or, rather, Her throne in the metachemical element of fire, whether in relation to the noumenal Daughter (primary devil) or to the noumenal Mother (secondary devil), the eyes or the heart, woman has her throne, so to speak, in the chemical element of water, whether in relation to the phenomenal Daughter (secondary woman) or to the phenomenal Mother (primary woman), the tongue or the womb.

20. Thus while man has his throne, so to speak, in the physical element of vegetation (earth), whether in relation to the phenomenal Father (primary man) or to the phenomenal Son (secondary man), the penis or the brain, God has His throne in the metaphysical element of air, whether in relation to the noumenal Father (secondary god) or to the noumenal Son (primary god), the ears or the lungs.