26. You do not just have sin and grace on the one hand and crime and punishment on the other; for no society that calls itself civilized, however superficially or profoundly it interprets this, can exist either solely on the basis of the Church or solely on the basis of the State, but if church hegemonic will require a subordinate state characterized by pseudo-punishment and pseudo-crime, and if state hegemonic will require a subordinate church characterized by pseudo-grace and pseudo-sin, the subordinate state of the ascending axis no less 'pseudo' vis-à-vis the hegemonic state of the descending axis than the subordinate church of the descending axis will necessarily be 'pseudo' vis-à-vis the hegemonic church of the ascending axis.

27. For no society can properly and consistently function on the basis of a genuine church and a genuine state or vice versa, as though in diagonal equilibrium, but will tend to favour either the ascending axis of church-hegemonic criteria or the descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria, depending on its overall gender orientation, an orientation in which either female crime will autocratically rule society in the interests of metachemically free soma or, contrary to this, male grace will theocratically lead society in the interests of metaphysically free psyche, the alpha and omega of things upper class or, as I have also described it in the past, noumenal, whereby time and space take precedence over volume and mass conceived, in phenomenal contrast, as lower-class actualities which require simply to be managed from 'On High', whether in terms of autocratic unlawfulness and aristocratic ungodliness, crime and pseudo-grace, or in terms of theocratic godliness and technocratic lawfulness, grace and pseudo-crime.

28. Those who rule 'the overcome world' of plutocratically-subverted democracy from autocratically/aristocratically 'On High' necessarily fear the justice of punishment and the devil of pseudo-sin, to which one can be sentenced down in state-hegemonic vein or damned down in church-subordinate vein, falling diagonally from the outer light to the inner darkness, as from metachemistry and antimetaphysics to antichemistry and physics, wherein plutocracy and democracy have their lowly places.

29. Those who lead 'the overcome world' of meritocratically-subverted bureaucracy from theocratically/technocratically 'On High' necessarily trust that those 'down below' will live in hope of the godliness of grace and the lawfulness of pseudo-crime, to which they can be saved up in church-hegemonic vein or released up in state-subordinate vein, rising diagonally from the outer darkness to the inner light, as from antiphysics and chemistry to metaphysics and antimetachemistry, wherein theocracy and technocracy have their exalted places.

30. Thus there is all the difference both in the world and above it between these two axial orientations, each of which has a shadow which is not at cross-purposes with it in antithetically diagonal vein but, contrary to any such equilibrium, effectively runs parallel to it in either pseudo-state or pseudo-church terms, depending on the axis, so that one can never infer anything genuinely antiphysical, much less metaphysical, about the pseudo-churches of the descending axis, or indeed anything genuinely metachemical, much less antichemical, about the pseudo-states of the ascending axis.

31. On the contrary, the bureaucratic and technocratic pseudo-states will be no-less far removed from anything genuinely antichemical or metachemical in their antiphysically-subverted chemical or metaphysically-subverted antimetachemical dispositions for pseudo-punishment and pseudo-crime than the aristocratic and democratic pseudo-churches ... from anything genuinely metaphysical or antiphysical in their metachemically-subverted antimetaphysical or antichemically-subverted physical dispositions for pseudo-grace and pseudo-sin.

32. I believe I have, in a previous text, already described the state-hegemonic aspect of things on the descending axis in terms of anti-idealism vis-à-vis antirealism, though this was in order to emphasize the highness of the former at the expense of the lowness of the latter, descending from autocracy to plutocracy, while reserving for the state-subordinate aspect of things on the ascending axis of bureaucracy to technocracy the terms realism vis-à-vis idealism, so that anti-idealism stood autocratically antithetical to technocratic idealism and, in reverse order, antirealism plutocratically antithetical to bureaucratic realism.

33. In reality, however, anti-idealism and antirealism could be more conventionally described as materialism and naturalism, so that the descent from anti-idealism to antirealism is equivalent to a descent from materialism to naturalism, and is in that respect antithetical to the ascent from realism to idealism which we have characterized as typifying the diagonally rising axis of bureaucracy-technocracy.

34. Yet there is also, I maintain, a distinction between materialism and anti-idealism on the one hand, and between antirealism and naturalism on the other; for materialism is, it seems to me, the female aspect of autocracy and anti-idealism its male aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to aristocracy without, however, being properly aristocratic (and church subordinate), whereas antirealism is the female aspect of plutocracy and naturalism its male aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to democracy without, however, being properly democratic (and church subordinate).

35. Contrariwise, I believe I have elsewhere described the church-subordinate aspect of things on the descending axis in terms of antitranscendentalism vis-à-vis humanism, in order once again to emphasize the highness of the former at the expense of the lowness of the latter, descending from aristocracy to democracy, while reserving for the church-hegemonic aspect of things on the ascending axis of meritocracy to theocracy the terms antihumanism vis-à-vis transcendentalism, so that antitranscendentalism stood aristocratically antithetical to theocratic transcendentalism and, in reverse order, humanism democratically antithetical to meritocratic antihumanism.

36. In reality, however, antitranscendentalism and antihumanism could be more conventionally described as fundamentalism and nonconformism, so that the descent from antitranscendentalism to humanism is equivalent to a descent from fundamentalism to humanism, and is in that respect antithetical to the ascent from antihumanism, or nonconformism, to transcendentalism which we have characterized as typifying the diagonally rising axis of meritocracy-theocracy.

37. Yet there is also, in a sense, a distinction between antitranscendentalism and fundamentalism on the one hand, and between humanism and antinonconformism on the other hand; for it seems to me that antitranscendentalism is the male aspect of aristocracy and fundamentalism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to autocracy without, however, being properly autocratic (and state hegemonic), whereas humanism is the male aspect of democracy and antinonconformism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to plutocracy without, however, being properly plutocratic (and state hegemonic).

38. However that may be, what anti-idealism is to materialism and naturalism to antirealism, namely the male side of a diagonally-descending autocratic-plutocratic state-hegemonic integrity, so, in gender reverse, realism is to antinaturalism and antimaterialism to idealism, namely the female side of a diagonally-ascending bureaucratic-technocratic state-subordinate integrity; for realism is the female aspect of bureaucracy and antinaturalism its male aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to meritocracy without, however, being properly meritocratic (and church hegemonic), whereas antimaterialism is the female aspect of technocracy and idealism its male aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to theocracy without, however, being properly theocratic (and church hegemonic).

39. Conversely, what fundamentalism is to antitranscendentalism and antinonconformism to humanism, namely the female side of a diagonally-descending aristocratic-democratic church-subordinate integrity, so, in gender reverse, antihumanism is to nonconformism and transcendentalism to antifundamentalism, namely the male side of a diagonally-ascending meritocratic-theocratic church-hegemonic integrity; for antihumanism is the male aspect of meritocracy and nonconformism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to bureaucracy without, however, being properly bureaucratic (and state subordinate), whereas transcendentalism is the male aspect of theocracy and antifundamentalism its female aspect, the aspect that stands closer, in a manner of speaking, to technocracy without, however, being properly technocratic (and state subordinate).

40. In general theoretical terms, one can distinguish the nonconformism and transcendentalism of the church-hegemonic axis from the fundamentalism and humanism of the church-subordinate axis, but in overall practical terms what transpires in the one case is an antihumanist subversion of nonconformism at the behest of transcendentalism and, in the other case, an antinonconformist subversion of humanism at the behest of fundamentalism, so that sin and grace become no less characteristic of the diagonally-rising meritocratic-theocratic axis than pseudo-grace and pseudo-sin of the diagonally-falling aristocratic-democratic axis.

41. Yet, even then, one should distinguish nonconformism from antihumanism in relation to meritocracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to meritocracy, always closer to bureaucracy without being state-subordinate, from a male commitment to it which is not only properly meritocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-hegemonic context characterized by authentic sin, of meritocracy.

42. Likewise one should distinguish antifundamentalism from transcendentalism in relation to theocracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to theocracy, always closer to technocracy without being state-subordinate, from a male commitment to it which is not only properly theocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-hegemonic context characterized by authentic grace, of theocracy.

43. In similar, if contrary vein, one should distinguish fundamentalism from antitranscendentalism in relation to aristocracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to aristocracy, always closer to autocracy without being state-hegemonic, from a male commitment to it which though properly aristocratic is not the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-subordinate context characterized by pseudo-grace, of aristocracy.

44. Finally, one should distinguish antinonconformism from humanism in relation to democracy as one would distinguish a female commitment to democracy, always closer to plutocracy without being state-hegemonic, from a male commitment to it which though properly democratic is not the principal conditioning aspect, within a church-subordinate context characterized by pseudo-sin, of democracy.

45. In sum, the male aspect of a church integrity tends to take precedence over its female aspect when the Church is hegemonic but is subverted and compromised by the more general prevalence of crime and/or punishment in society when subordinate to the State; for sin and grace are genuine male attributes when subjective but become pseudo-sinful and pseudo-graceful when compromised by female objectivity in relation to state-hegemonic criteria which render the self subordinate to the not-self, whether as air compromised by fire in the antimetaphysical context of aristocratic pseudo-grace or as vegetation compromised by water in the physical context of democratic pseudo-sin.

46. Reverting to the State, one can, again in general theoretical terms, distinguish the materialism and naturalism of the state-hegemonic axis from the realism and idealism of the state-subordinate axis, but in overall practical terms what actually transpires in the one case is an antirealist subversion of naturalism at the behest of materialism and, in the other case, an antinaturalist subversion of realism at the behest of idealism, so that crime and punishment become no less characteristic of the diagonally-falling autocratic-plutocratic axis than pseudo-punishment and pseudo-crime of the diagonally-rising bureaucratic-technocratic axis.

47. Yet, even then, one should distinguish anti-idealism from materialism in relation to autocracy as one would distinguish a male commitment to autocracy, always closer to aristocracy without being church-subordinate, from a female commitment to it which is not only properly autocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a state-hegemonic context characterized by authentic crime, of autocracy.

48. Likewise one should distinguish naturalism from antirealism in relation to plutocracy as one would distinguish a male commitment to plutocracy, always closer to democracy without being church-subordinate, from a female commitment to it which is not only properly plutocratic but the principal conditioning aspect, within a state-hegemonic context characterized by authentic punishment, of plutocracy.

49. In similar, if contrary vein, one should distinguish antinaturalism from realism in relation to bureaucracy as one would distinguish a male commitment to bureaucracy, always closer to meritocracy without being church-hegemonic, from a female commitment to it which though properly bureaucratic is not the principal conditioning aspect, within a state-subordinate context characterized by pseudo-punishment, of bureaucracy.

50. Finally, one should distinguish idealism from antimaterialism in relation to technocracy as one would distinguish a male commitment to technocracy, always closer to theocracy without being church-hegemonic, from a female commitment to it which though properly technocratic is not the principal conditioning aspect, within a state-subordinate context characterized by pseudo-crime, of technocracy.