Cycle 4
I have said it before and I will say it again:
one can know little or nothing about the subconscious until one has accepted
the supersensuous as its somatic precondition. For in metachemistry,
the elemental position in question, soma precedes and predominates over psyche
in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the spatial-space absolutism of noumenal objectivity.
Hence one has to allow, with this diabolic (or superfeminine) female element, for the precedence of subconsciousness by supersensuousness
in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between supernaturalism
and subnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, superheathenism and subchristianity,
the supersensuous/subconscious dichotomy itself
indicative of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal
absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle mode of what transpires to be a protonic
subatomicity given, through beauty and love at the
expense of ugliness and hatred, to positive heat.
Contrariwise, in metaphysics, psyche precedes
and preponderates over soma in the ratio of 3:1, a consequence of the
repetitive-time absolutism of noumenal
subjectivity.
Hence one has to allow, within this divine (or supermasculine) male element, for the precedence of subsensuousness by superconsciousness
in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between, as it were, supernurturalism and subnaturalism
or, in equivalent terminology, superchristianity and subheathenism, the superconscious/subsensuous
dichotomy itself indicative, as noted above, of a 3:1 ratio in accordance with noumenal absolutism, albeit considerably favouring the wavicle at the expense of the particle mode of what
transpires to be a photonic subatomicity given,
through truth and joy at the expense of illusion and woe, to positive light.
Dropping from metachemistry
and metaphysics, the alpha and omega of space and time, to chemistry and
physics, the alpha and omega of volume and mass, one will find that, with
chemistry, soma precedes and predominates over psyche in the ratio of 2½:1½, a
consequence of the volumetric-volume relativity of phenomenal objectivity.
Hence one has to allow, with this feminine
female element, for the precedence of unconsciousness by sensuousness in the
manner described, which gives one a distinction between naturalism and unnurturalism or, in equivalent terminology, heathenism and
unchristianity, the sensuous/unconscious dichotomy
itself indicative of a 2½:1½ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity,
albeit favouring the particle at the expense of the wavicle
mode of what transpires to be an electronic subatomicity
given, through strength and pride at the expense of weakness and humility, to
positive motion.
Contrariwise in physics, psyche precedes and
preponderates over soma in the ratio of
Hence one has to allow, with this masculine
male element, for the precedence of unsensuousness by
consciousness in the manner described, which gives one a distinction between nurturalism, so to speak, and unnaturalism
or, in equivalent terminology, Christianity and unheathenism,
the conscious/unsensuous dichotomy itself indicative,
as noted above, of a 2½:1½ ratio in accordance with phenomenal relativity,
albeit favouring the wavicle at the expense of the
particle mode of what transpires to be a neutronic subatomicity given, through knowledge and pleasure at the
expense of ignorance and pain, to positive force.
Therefore no more than subconsciousness
can be properly understood except in relation to supersensuousness
… can unconsciousness be understood except in relation to sensuousness, where
the noumenal/phenomenal class distinction between metachemistry and chemistry is concerned.
Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint,
no more than subsensuousness can be understood except
in relation to superconsciousness … can unsensuousness be understood except in relation to
consciousness, where the noumenal/phenomenal class
distinction between metaphysics and physics is concerned.
Now what applies to each of the hegemonic
elements, viz. metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and
metaphysics, on the intercardinal axial compass
applies no less to their subordinate gender complements, viz.
pseudo-metaphysics in the case of metachemistry,
pseudo-physics in the case of chemistry, pseudo-chemistry in the case of
physics, and pseudo-metachemistry in the case of
metaphysics.
Under metachemical
pressures, the superconsciousness/subsensuousness of
metaphysics becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subsensuousness
pseudo-superconsciousness of pseudo-metaphysics, with a 1:3 ratio of free soma to bound psyche, pseudo-truth/joy to
pseudo-illusion/woe in the reversal of metaphysical attributes from psyche and
soma and soma to psyche.
Similarly under chemical pressures, the
consciousness/unsensuousness of physics becomes, with
inversion, the pseudo-unsensuousness/pseudo-consciousness
of pseudo-physics, with a
Likewise, under physical pressures, the
sensuousness/unconsciousness of chemistry becomes, with inversion, the
pseudo-unconsciousness/pseudo-sensuousness of pseudo-chemistry, with a 1½:2½
ratio of free psyche to bound soma, pseudo-strength/pride to
pseudo-weakness/humility (if not humiliation) in the reversal of chemical
attributes from soma to psyche and psyche to soma.
Finally, under metaphysical pressures, the supersensuousness/subconsciousness of metachemistry
becomes, with inversion, the pseudo-subconsciousness/pseudo-supersensuousness
of pseudo-metachemistry, with a 1:3
ratio of free psyche to bound soma, pseudo-beauty/love to pseudo-ugliness/hate
in the reversal of metachemical attributes from soma
to psyche and psyche to soma.
Hence whatever the elemental (hegemonic gender)
or pseudo-elemental (upended gender) context, the positive attributes will
always accrue to freedom and the negatives ones to binding, with freedom
corresponding to the bright side and binding to whatever is in the shadow of
such brightness, be the latter superheathen (and metachemical), heathen (and chemical), Christian (and
physical) or superchristian (and metaphysical).
Where the hegemonic elements are concerned, one
could – and should – distinguish subatomically
between the heat of metachemical protons, the motion
of chemical electrons, the force of physical neutrons, and the light of
metaphysical photons, but we shall find that the free/bound dichotomy
corresponds to the virtue and vice of a moral situation in which positivity either predominates (somatically) or
preponderates (psychically) over negativity.
Where, on the other hand, the subordinate or
pseudo-elements are concerned, one can – and should – distinguish subatomically between the pseudo-light of
pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-photons, the pseudo-force of pseudo-physical
pseudo-neutrons, the pseudo-motion of pseudo-chemical pseudo-electrons, and the
pseudo-heat of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-protons,
but we shall still find that the free/bound dichotomy corresponds to the
pseudo-virtue and pseudo-vice of an unmoral situation in which positivity does not predominate (somatically) or
preponderate (psychically) over negativity.
Yet in all four ‘pseudo’ cases, the emphasis
will fall, under pressures from the hegemonic element, on the free factor,
notwithstanding axial subversion of the polar phenomenal positions at the
behest of the overall controlling element, be it metachemical
in the case of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies or metaphysical (at
least to a degree) in the case of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate ones.
But if morality is hegemonic and unmorality, corresponding to unholiness
(whether pseudo or genuine) in the pseudo-male cases and to unclearness
(whether genuine or pseudo) in the pseudo-female cases, subordinate,
corresponding, in a sense, to the upended gender a plane down, in each class
context, from the hegemonic gender, then immorality is always and everywhere a
quasi-metachemical, quasi-chemical, quasi-physical,
or quasi-metaphysical departure from pseudo-metaphysics, pseudo-physics,
pseudo-chemistry, or pseudo-metachemistry, as the
case may be, which simply results in the upended gender ratio, be it 1:3 or
1½:2½, inversely noumenal or phenomenal, impinging
upon the hegemonic position in a way that emphasizes the negative (and bound)
at the expense of the positive (and free), with predictably vicious
consequences.
Thus instead of three times as much beauty and
love as ugliness and hatred in metachemistry, quasi-metachemistry, departing from pseudo-metaphysics via antimetaphysics, presents us with the immorally undesirable
outcome of three times as much ugliness and hatred as beauty and love, and therefore
of three times as much crime as evil.
Likewise, instead of 2½ times as much strength
and pride as weakness and humility in chemistry, quasi-chemistry, departing
from pseudo-physics via antiphysics, presents us with
the immorally undesirable outcome of 2½ times as much weakness and humility (if
not humiliation) as strength and pride, and therefore 2½ times as much
pseudo-crime as pseudo-evil.
Similarly, instead of 2½ times as much
knowledge and pleasure as ignorance and pain in physics, quasi-physics,
departing from pseudo-chemistry via antichemistry,
presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of 2½ times as much
ignorance and pain as knowledge and pleasure, and therefore 2½ times as much
pseudo-wisdom as pseudo-grace.
Finally, instead of three times as much truth
and joy as illusion and woe in metaphysics, quasi-metaphysics, departing from
pseudo-metachemistry via antimetachemistry,
presents us with the immorally undesirable outcome of
three times as much illusion and woe as truth and joy, and therefore three
times as much wisdom as grace.
Clearly, you don’t have to be a genius to
realize that none of these ‘quasi’ positions are good for the reputations of
the corresponding hegemonic positions, whatever their kind of morality, since
in all four gender-bender cases one will have an unfavourable emphasis upon
that which is bound, and hence viciously dark, and therefore absolutely or
relatively, depending on the elemental context, immoral.
Even the amorality of those coming down from
above, as from the hegemonic elemental position, much as it may result in a
greater emphasis on the positive than on the negative attribute, should be
discouraged, insofar as all attempts to approximate the pseudo-metaphysical,
pseudo-physical, pseudo-chemical, or pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-elements in such fashion will only encourage a correlative coming up, on
the part of pseudo-males or pseudo-females, from below, as from their upended
gender positions a plane down in each class context, with consequences described
above.
It is not the duty of the hegemonic, least of
all when noumenally subjective (metaphysical), to
play at the subordinate gender’s game with an inverse ratio of somatic and/or
psychic factors to what obtains with them, so that we can speak of amorality
instead of unmorality, but to remain loyal to who or
what they are, so that little or no encouragement is given to anyone below to
‘get above themselves’ in the various ‘quasi’ manners described above.
For the end result will always be immoral, and
any degree of immorality proportionate to or consequent upon an amoral
departure from morality on the part of the hegemonic gender, who should have
known better, is logically unsustainable and, what’s more, socially and morally
wrong.
If the worst of all possible worlds is to be
precluded from transpiring, it can only be by the hegemonically
moral remaining where they are and playing their own game, like our proverbial
St. George with his foot firmly planted on the prostrate dragon, keeping the
beast down as much for her own sake as for his.
As I have already remarked elsewhere with
regard to a sartorial metaphor, tapering zipper-suits and straight dresses are
not interchangeable. You know your
gender place and you keep to it. For
that is what makes for the best of all possible worlds, and never more so than
in the case of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry,
in which supermasculine males have the right, morally
and socially, to keep pseudo-superfeminine females in
their noumenally pseudo-objective, straight
dress-like places a plane down, in pseudo-space under time, from their own noumenally subjective tapering zippersuit-like
absolutism at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial compass in what, under a Social Theocratic politico-religious dispensation
favouring religious sovereignty, would be ‘Kingdom Come’ writ large, the
otherworldly best and pseudo-netherworldly
pseudo-worst of all possible worlds.
