Appendix IV

To contrast the fast hotness of metachemistry with the light softness of pseudo-metaphysics; the slow coldness of chemistry with the heavy hardness of pseudo-physics; the hard heaviness of physics with the cold slowness of pseudo-chemistry; and the soft lightness of metaphysics with the hot fastness of pseudo-metachemistry.

The positively qualitative (free psychic) lightness of grace (truth/joy) vis-à-vis the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) softness of wisdom (illusion/woe) in metaphysics; the positively qualitative (free psychic) heaviness of pseudo-grace (knowledge/pleasure) vis-à-vis the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) hardness of pseudo-wisdom (ignorance/pain) in physics; the positively quantitative (free somatic) hotness of evil (beauty/love) vis-à-vis the negatively qualitative (bound psychic) fastness of crime (ugliness/hate) in metachemistry; the positively quantitative (free somatic) coldness of pseudo-evil (strength/pride) vis-à-vis the negatively qualitative (bound psychic) slowness of pseudo-crime (weakness/humility, if not humiliation) in chemistry.

The negatively qualitative (bound psychic) pseudo-lightness of pseudo-sin (pseudo-illusion/pseudo-woe) vis-à-vis the positively quantitative (free somatic) pseudo-softness of pseudo-folly (pseudo-truth/pseudo-joy) in pseudo-metaphysics; the negatively qualitative (bound psychic) pseudo-heaviness of sin (pseudo-ignorance/pseudo-pain) vis-à-vis the positively quantitative (free somatic) pseudo-hardness of folly (pseudo-knowledge/pseudo-pleasure) in pseudo-physics.

The negatively quantitative (bound somatic) pseudo-hotness of pseudo-goodness (pseudo-ugliness/pseudo-hate) vis-à-vis the positively qualitative (free psychic) pseudo-fastness of pseudo-punishment (pseudo-beauty/pseudo-love) in pseudo-metachemistry; the negatively quantitative (bound somatic) pseudo-coldness of goodness (pseudo-weakness/pseudo-humility) vis-à-vis the positively qualitative (free psychic) pseudo-slowness of punishment (pseudo-strength/pseudo-pride) in pseudo-chemistry.

The gender attributes of the subordinate gender are inverted or, better, subverted under pressure from the hegemonic gender, i.e. from lightness in psyche and softness in soma metaphysically to pseudo-softness in soma and pseudo-lightness in psyche pseudo-metaphysically under metachemical pressure, as from hotness in soma and fastness in psyche metachemically to pseudo-fastness in psyche and pseudo-hotness in soma pseudo-metachemically under metaphysical pressure.

Likewise from heaviness in psyche and hardness in soma physically to pseudo-hardness in soma and pseudo-heaviness in psyche pseudo-physically under chemical pressure, as from coldness in soma and slowness in psyche chemically to pseudo-slowness in psyche and pseudo-coldness in soma pseudo-chemically under physical pressure.

Nothing comes out of nothing. Therefore something does not come out of nothing. Something comes out of something, like man coming out of woman, but on a much more rudimentary, pre-life level where the origins of the Cosmos are concerned.

For the Void is nothing, and therefore not the source of those ‘somethings’ which we now identify with stars, or stellar bodies. Nothing was created by the Void. That which emerged within the nothingness of the Void was self-creating, as, in various ways and to varying extents, is all life, which simply exploits its environment, or a series of preconditions within a given environment, to develop itself, both independently of and dependent on its environment, since without those preconditions it could not exist.

Therefore life is both self-creating and self-perpetuating, re-creating itself over and over through a series of developmental leaps, both devolutionary and evolutionary. For in rejecting one template it opts for another, electing to set forth on a fresh developmental path - the path, it may be, that leads to Eternity.

Devolutionary convolutions should be contrasted with evolutionary involutions, for that which diverges is not identical with what converges, any more than that which falls without is identical with what rises within. To some extent this explains the antagonisms between females and males, even in the face of an apparent or seeming complementarity.

Yet females and males are only opposites within the same species, sharing gender variations on many characteristics, including limbs and organs, in common. They are not completely opposite, like fire and air, or even water and earth. Yet they are still more than relatively opposite, being capable of an absolute opposition within comparative, or species specific, terms, the sort of opposition less of spirit and ego (corresponding to water and earth), though that indubitably exists, than of will and soul (corresponding to fire and air).

They say that darkness precedes light, that light came out of darkness, as out of the Void, but the Void is neither dark nor light, dim nor bright, but devoid of attributes, a mere Nothingness against which, as was noted above, a variety of Somethings that we now recognize as stars, suns, planets, moons, comets, etc. gradually and successively came to pass.

But life, as we have discovered, is a combination of darkness and brightness, of shade and light, and in those Somethings which have life it is usually if not invariably the case that brightness precedes darkness, that darkness is in fact determined by brightness as bound psyche by free soma in the case of female entities, whether feminine or diabolic (superfeminine) and, conversely, as bound soma by free psyche in the case of male entities, whether masculine or divine (supermasculine), with specific ratios according to the elemental correspondence to class on either absolute (3:1) or relative (2½:1½) terms.

For life is not – and could not survive, much less thrive – on a basis that was more negative (and vicious) than positive (and virtuous), immoral gender-bender exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, and therefore we find for both genders in all elements that the bright positivity of freedom precedes and somatically predominates and/or psychically preponderates over the dark negativity of binding.

Thus because darkness or ‘the dark side’ is conditioned by brightness, it could more logically be maintained that darkness is the bound concomitant of a bright freedom, whether that freedom be female or male, heathen or christian, superheathen or superchristian, according as somatic or psychic criteria are uppermost in any given society and/or individual in connection with specific elemental attributes.

To say, on the other hand, that darkness came out of brightness would not be as logically credible or correct as might at first seem to be the case, but, rather, a reversal of the light out of darkness fallacy. The dark attribute, corresponding to some form of vicious negativity, does not succeed the bright attribute but co-exists with it as its concomitant shadow, deferring, except in gender-bender instances, to the hegemonic sway of that which, being virtuously positive, is destined to remain the predominating (in soma) or preponderating (in psyche) elemental factor, whether absolutely in the noumenal spheres of metachemistry and metaphysics or relatively in the phenomenal spheres of chemistry and physics.

If there is a moral world order, as Kant for one maintained, it is not one based in Christian, much less superchristian, values, but more usually in superheathen and heathen values corresponding to female hegemonic criteria in metachemistry and chemistry, fire and water, the fast hotness of noumenal objectivity in spatial space and the slow coldness of phenomenal objectivity in volumetric volume, under which, as pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry and as pseudo-physics under chemistry, we shall find, in pseudo-male terms, the light pseudo-softness of noumenal pseudo-subjectivity in sequential time (pseudo-time) and the heavy pseudo-hardness of phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity in massed mass (pseudo-mass).

As regards the Christian and superchristian alternatives and, in effect, supplements to these traditionally more prevalent kinds of morality that reflect female elemental dominance, we shall find male hegemonic criteria in physics and metaphysics, earth (vegetation) and air, the hard heaviness of phenomenal subjectivity in massive mass and the soft lightness of noumenal subjectivity in repetitive time, under which, as pseudo-chemistry under physics and pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics, we shall find, in pseudo-female terms, the cold pseudo-slowness of phenomenal pseudo-objectivity in voluminous volume (pseudo-volume) and the hot pseudo-fastness of noumenal pseudo-objectivity in spaced space (pseudo-space).

Therefore when, to speak in generalities, superheathen morality is metachemically triumphant over pseudo-superchristian unmorality, we find fast hotness hegemonic over light pseudo-softness – the converse of the metaphysically hegemonic triumph of superchristian morality over the pseudo-superheathen unmorality of pseudo-metachemistry which manifests as soft lightness over hot pseudo-fastness.

Likewise when heathen morality is chemically hegemonic over pseudo-christian unmorality, we find slow coldness triumphant over heavy pseudo-hardness – the converse of the physically hegemonic triumph of Christian morality over the pseudo-heathen unmorality of pseudo-chemistry, which manifests as hard heaviness over cold pseudo-slowness.

In all four subordinate gender cases, the principal attributes, whether as a reflection of soma preceding psyche (female) or of psyche preceding soma (male) are reversed, so that the soft lightness of metaphysics, with a psychic emphasis upon lightness, becomes the light pseudo-softness of pseudo-metaphysics, whose paradoxical emphasis under metachemical hegemonic pressure is somatic; the hard heaviness of physics, with a psychic emphasis upon heaviness, becomes the heavy pseudo-hardness of pseudo-physics, whose paradoxical emphasis under chemical hegemonic pressure is somatic; the slow coldness of chemistry, with a somatic emphasis upon coldness, becomes the cold pseudo-slowness of pseudo-chemistry, whose paradoxical emphasis under physical hegemonic pressure is psychic; and the fast hotness of metachemistry, with a somatic emphasis upon hotness, becomes the hot pseudo-fastness of pseudo-metachemistry, whose paradoxical emphasis under metaphysical hegemonic pressure is psychic, the pseudo-objectivity of which is confined to a subordinate gender status in spaced space by the psychic triumph in repetitive time of a metaphysics whose hegemonic freedom, epitomized by St. George, holds the prone dragon of defeated metachemistry to bound soma, its predominating attribute, from which it can never depart save as the Lord’s pseudo-ugly/pseudo-hateful avenging angel whose hotness will burn His anti-metaphysical enemies in the flames of pseudo-Hell.

None of the above is intended to refute the claims already put forth in my writings regarding the somatic subversion of physics by pseudo-chemistry at the behest of metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms (northwest to southeast on the intercardinal axial compass), as regarding the psychic subversion of chemistry by pseudo-physics at the behest of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry in overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms (southwest to northeast on the intercardinal axial compass), since what applies to either of the phenomenal positions independently, as described above, is compromised by inter-axial polarity with their noumenal counterparts, which establish the aforesaid axial dichotomy between state-hegemonic and church-hegemonic societies already addressed by me in earlier texts, thereby guaranteeing that the lot of the masses, short of deliverance from their lowly estates, will always paradoxically reflect the greater prevalence of binding over freedom, whether somatically in state-hegemonic societies or psychically in church-hegemonic ones.

It is in relation to the latter, of course, that deliverance takes on a religious character properly commensurate with salvation and counter-damnation, the salvation of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, the latter of whom will be cursed with male hegemonic pressure in the forms of free psyche (secondary church hegemonic) and bound soma (secondary state subordinate) as the males achieve the blessings of gender sync in connection with free psyche (primary church hegemonic) and bound soma (primary state subordinate) in the heaven of three times as much truth and joy as illusion and woe, or the noumenally absolute ratio (3:1) of transcendentalism to idealism which favours not the Son of God or the Holy Spirit of Heaven but God the Father and, most especially, Heaven the Holy Soul … for all Eternity.

London, October 2008 (Revised 2012)

Preview THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS eBook