26.  But, of course, one cannot deny that the world, considered in this phenomenal light, divisible though it is between the concrete corporeal relativity of a chemical female hegemony and the abstract corporeal relativity of a physical male hegemony, has to have its day and effectively come to pass in temporal contrast to anything eternal and therefore as an unstable retort to stability in which now one tendency and now another of the contrasting alternatives comes to the temporal fore as chemical and antiphysical struggle for ascendancy in the one case, and physical and antichemical for ascendancy in the other, not least in respect of competing economic and political alternatives which operate, necessarily, within liberal parameters, as germane to the world.

27.  Whether socialistic or capitalistic, whether radical or conservative, whether, indeed, a sort of androgynous cross - ironically dubbed liberal - between the two principal economic or political options, the instability of the world has to have its liberal or democratic way, else there would simply be too much of one sort of relative freedom at the expense of another sort, with predictably restive and socially destabilizing consequences - something almost inevitable in societies which, having become too worldly for their own good, are insufficiently liberal or democratic, as the case may be.

28.  For endeavours to establish the unqualified right of chemical freedom at the expense of antiphysical freedom or, conversely, of physical freedom at the expense of antichemical freedom can only backfire, sooner or later, upon the perpetrators of such an endeavour, in light of the fact that nothing in the world can be unqualified but must ever be qualified in relation to the temporal relativity of the worldly contexts, wherein rights can only be relative.  There is no 'divine right' in the world of humanity or antihumanity, but only human rights or antihuman rights, and such rights have to be qualified in relation to the instability of temporal criteria.

29.  Thus even in worldly phases of history, of phenomenal devolution and/or evolution, it cannot be wondered at if some form of constitutional overworldly control of society is maintained and honoured, if only to preclude the instability of the world from becoming either too democratically unstable or too falsely stable and despotic, as has happened from time to time in the past and still happens even now in certain countries which have not had the benefit of stable political or religious traditions, but have only comparatively recently emerged from the imperial yoke of colonial exploitation.

30.  The world, however, is broadly divisible between nature and mankind, between two manifestations of the corporeal which we have identified with the concrete and the abstract, free soma of a chemical disposition and free psyche of a physical disposition in respect of the phenomenally hegemonic positions, bound psyche - excluding secondary freedom - of an antiphysical disposition and bound soma of an antichemical disposition in respect of phenomenally subordinate but, at the behest of either metaphysics or metachemistry, chemically or physically subversive dispositions which tend to make for the binding of corporeal instability to the ethereal stabilities of either an evil approach to civilization in free soma or a graceful approach to civilization in free psyche, depending whether the State or the Church is hegemonic.

31.  Ironically, the stabilizing of worldly instability pits two types of female objectivity against male subjectivity in the case of the diagonally descending axis from metachemical sensuality over metaphysical sensuality (antimetaphysics) to the subversion of physical sensibility by chemical sensibility (antichemistry) in the interests of a state-hegemonic mean characterized by soma, whereas in the case of the diagonally ascending axis from the subversion of chemical sensuality by physical sensuality (antiphysics) to metaphysical sensibility over metachemical sensibility (antimetachemistry), the stabilizing of worldly instability pits two types of male subjectivity against female objectivity in the interests of a church-hegemonic mean characterized by psyche.

32.  In both instances of 'world overcoming', however, the principle of the overturn of worldly freedom in the interests of a bound mode of either soma or psyche remains the same, for the world is nothing if not rendered antithetically parallel to the overworldly control, be it in terms of bound soma vis-à-vis free soma in the case of the state-hegemonic axis of evil and good, or in terms of bound psyche vis-à-vis free psyche in the case of the church-hegemonic axis of sin and grace. 

33.  For, left to itself, the freedom of the world quickly becomes a disaster to the world, a disaster in which the subordinate gender may rise up against the hegemonic gender's control and the latter become increasingly despotic in defence of its inauthentic freedoms, whether relatively evil in the case of chemistry or relatively graceful in the case of physics, in an attempt to establish or maintain some kind of stability at the expense of the other gender.

34.  For evil no more likes to be replaced by folly than grace by punishment.  And folly, being male, can only resent the hegemony of evil as punishment, being female, the hegemony of grace, particularly as such evil and grace are too close to folly and punishment for their own good  and can only be resented, somatic freedom being no less contrary to the male gender actuality of the precedence of soma by psyche than psychic freedom to the female gender actuality of the precedence of psyche by soma, neither modes of secondary somatic or psychic freedom being acceptable to the subordinate gender for long!

35.  But once the upper-class control of the world is put into place, whether in terms of the metachemical control of antichemistry at the expense of physics, so that somatic freedom causes the psychic bias of physics over antichemistry to be overturned in favour of a bound somatic emphasis which is still subject to a degree of psychic freedom but not, as would otherwise be the case, in hegemonic vein, or, alternatively, in terms of the metaphysical control of antiphysics at chemistry's expense, so that psychic freedom causes the somatic bias of chemistry over antiphysics to be overturned in favour of a bound psychic emphasis which is still subject to a degree of somatic freedom but not, as would otherwise be the case, in hegemonic vein, then the subordinate gender becomes resigned, in each case, to the reality of being either somatically or psychically, depending on the context, at parallel loggerheads with the upper-class controlling factors without feeling that gender corruption which comes from having to emphasize either somatic freedom or psychic freedom under the worldly freedom of either chemical or physical upstarts, neither of whom are now in a position to dominate the opposite gender but are obliged, while still conditioning certain basic patterns of freedom and binding according to their gender actuality, to accept the countervailing emphasis upon either bound psyche or bound soma as a matter of course, and precisely because they are not in a position, having been outflanked and outmanoeuvred, to do otherwise.

36.  Thus is worldly stability guaranteed, and only thus!  For the world, left to its own devices, spells corruption and disorder, anarchy and despotism, and no upholder of authentic freedom, whether of soma or psyche, the dark or the light, could possibly be resigned to worldly chaos and unrest, which is inevitably what happens when the masses become too free for their own good.  The masses must never be allowed to become too free, least of all in respect of the relatively evil and graceful freedoms of the chemical and physical hegemonies which would have their somatic or psychic ways at the expense of the antiphysical and the antichemical, obliging them to be if not equally then unequally somatic or psychic, foolish or punishing, as the case may be, without the benefit of being in harmony with their gender actualities, whether psychically ideal or somatically real, and therefore without the prospect of any long-term satisfaction in their predicaments.

37.  Consequently freedom should never be encouraged in relation to the masses, whether meek or just, but preserved for the metachemical and metaphysical elites, who are alone qualified, in their elevated positions, to develop it as a hegemonic right, whether in terms of the evil over folly or, rather, pseudo-folly of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, or in terms of the grace over punishment or, rather, pseudo-punishment of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the latter of which alone has the right, through metaphysics, to consider itself truly civilized and the upholder of true freedom in consequence.

38.  For what is ugliness and illusion compared to truth and beauty?  Simply the sensual counterparts to anything properly cultural and civil or, rather, pseudo-civil - that is, the barbarous and pseudo-philistine antitheses of the supreme virtues which we may classify, by contrast, as primal vices, bearing in mind that sensuality is somewhat anterior to sensibility.

39.  Of course, the upholders of metachemical freedom and, by default, of antimetaphysical freedom may consider themselves to be beautiful and true, but so what?  It would be strange - would it not? - if they were to see themselves as ugly and illusory as a matter of course, simply because of the positions they held in society.  Few if any of them - barring old age and senility - would wish to do that!  And yet it would be logically pusillanimous or disingenuous of me to pretend that they were the true bearers of truth and beauty, just as it would be philosophically unpardonable of me to strive to emulate that poet who, in his youthful infatuation with beauty, considered truth and beauty to be one and the same!

40.  Truth is no more beauty than beauty ... truth or, indeed, than ugliness is illusion or illusion ... ugliness.  But neither is ugliness beauty nor illusion truth!  Ugliness and illusion are not merely antithetical to beauty and truth, but the contradiction of everything true and beautiful, the epitome, in other words, of everything false and lying!

41.  But even truth and beauty have to be carefully distinguished from one another, not considered equal or run together, as when ugliness poses as beauty and illusion as truth in sensuality, and then the problem arises as to how to reconcile beauty with God if God is indeed to be considered first mover in the Cosmos (which some prefer to call the Universe) and more to be associated with truth than beauty - a problem which may well have been 'solved' either by considering truth and beauty to be one and the same 'divine' attribute or, alternatively, by continuing to distinguish between truth and beauty in relation to a cosmic 'first mover' and a 'fallen angel', whether in terms of truth preceding beauty or, more probably, in terms of the precedence of truth by beauty, so that not truth but beauty is considered the 'divine' attribute and truth becomes somewhat suspect, not to say 'morally reprehensible', in light of its association with the Satanic 'fallen angel'.

42.  Frankly I do not wish to elaborate on such falsehoods!  For nothing goes so contrary to my grain than to follow the example of the Old Testament and proceed to attribute such terms as beauty and truth, no matter how arranged or even interchanged, to what are patently sensually-based cosmic factors that, in truth, have more in common with ugliness and illusion than with their sensible counterparts, notwithstanding the existence of sensible manifestations of cosmic reality which would be closer to anything truthful and beautiful without, however, being anywhere near as truthful or beautiful as could be found in those comparable regions of nature or mankind or - at the risk of anticipating the future - Cyborgkind which accord with both metaphysical and antimetachemical actualities and are anything but metachemically or antimetaphysically ugly or illusory in consequence!

43.  But when, in Biblical vein, the metachemical 'first mover' of a stellar-like somatic freedom is identified with God and the antimetaphysical 'fallen angel' of a solar-like (enforced) somatic freedom identified with the Devil, it is easy to see how ugliness - the actual attribute of Devil the Mother - can hide its stellar face behind not merely the speed of light travelling through boundless space but - notwithstanding space itself -  beauty, and how illusoriness - the actual attribute of the Antison of Antigod - can hide its solar face behind not merely clouds in the sky but - notwithstanding the sky itself - truth, which, if 'justice' is to be done to the relative hierarchical positions of so-called God and so-called Devil must assume a problematic if not downright undesirable character commensurate with Satan, as though something intrinsically evil and perverse.

44.  Far be it from me to endorse such nonsense!  But that is still the sort of rubbish that officially prevails and would have any number of scoundrels and idiots ready to defend it to the death, even at the risk of war and outright mayhem.  For to them God is cosmic first mover, and the cosmic first mover is if not true then certainly beautiful when it comes to substituting for a negative term its positive counterpart - beauty in the case of ugliness, truth in that of illusion, whether or not you then wish to do a sleight-of-hand in order to bring truth into line with God.

45.  And such a sleight-of-hand, such logical interchanging of the female reality of a cosmic first mover with the male reality of a cosmic 'fall guy' and 'fallen angel', as effective second mover, may indeed subsequently cause certain twisted or pedantic minds to conceive of beauty and truth as virtually synonymous, even though nothing could be further from the case!

46.  In fact, as this point I should like to remind the reader of just how dissimilar truth and beauty actually are, as when one distinguishes the truth of God the Father and the joy of Heaven the Holy Soul in metaphysical psyche from the truthful approach to beauty of the Son of God and the joyful approach to love of the Holy Spirit of Heaven in metaphysical soma, and then distinguishes each of these from the beauty of Antidevil the Antimother and the love of Antihell the Unclear Spirit in antimetachemical soma which, in turn, must be distinguished from the beautiful approach to truth of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the loving approach to joy of the Unclear Soul of Antihell in antimetachemical psyche.

47.  Therefore truth is not simply distinct from beauty; it is distinct from the beautiful approach to truth which applies to the Antidaughter of the Antidevil in antimetachemical psyche which, though free, is free in a secondary way to the freedom of metaphysical psyche which one would identify, in God the Father, with grace of a conscious, or intellectual, order rather than with pseudo-punishment of such an order.

48.  Now if such pseudo-punishment has to be distinguished from grace, as the Antidaughter of the Antidevil from God the Father, how much more does the beauty of antimetachemical soma have to be distinguished from it in view of its association with Antidevil the Antimother as that which pertains, in bound will, to pseudo-good, to pseudo-modesty, and is not even psychic in character but the somatic counterpart to the wisdom, in bound metaphysical soma, of the truthful approach to beauty which has been metaphorically identified with the Son of God.

49.  In parallel vein, joy is not simply distinct from love; it is distinct from the loving approach to joy which applies to the Unclear Soul of Antihell in antimetachemical psyche which, though free, is free in a secondary way to the freedom of metaphysical psyche which one would identify, in Heaven the Holy Soul, with grace of a soulful, or emotional, order rather than with pseudo-punishment of such an order.

50.  Now if such pseudo-punishment has to be distinguished from grace, as the Unclear Soul of Antihell from Heaven the Holy Soul, how much more does the love of antimetachemical soma have to be distinguished from it in view of its association with Antihell the Unclear Spirit as that which pertains, in bound spirit, to pseudo-good, to pseudo-modesty, and is not even psychic in character but the somatic counterpart to the wisdom, in bound metaphysical soma, of the joyful approach to love which has been metaphorically identified with the Holy Spirit of Heaven.