COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS IN CLASS AND GENDER

1. Just as evil and wisdom constitute two aspects of noumenal actuality, the one metachemical and the other metaphysical, so there will be some wisdom in the individual who is most evil or, at any rate, has metachemical associations with evil and, conversely, some evil in the individual who has metaphysical associations.

2. Just as goodness and foolishness constitute two aspects of phenomenal actuality, the one chemical and the other physical, so there will be some foolishness in the individual who is most good or, at any rate, has chemical associations with goodness and, conversely, some goodness in the individual who has physical associations.

3. Thus whilst evil and wisdom are demonstrably upper-class attributes, with more evil than wisdom in the metachemical context and, conversely, more wisdom than evil in the metaphysical one, so goodness and foolishness are lower-class attributes, with more goodness than foolishness in the chemical context and, conversely, more foolishness than goodness in the physical one.

4. The so-called 'wise man', an upper-class man of a markedly metaphysical disposition, will always have to contend with an evil 'shadow side' to his particular noumenal bias, while, conversely, the so-called 'evil man', an upper-class man or, more correctly, woman ... of markedly metachemical disposition, will always have the benefit of a wise 'shadow side' to his/her particular noumenal bias.

5. Likewise, the so-called 'good man', a lower-class man or, more correctly, woman ... of markedly chemical disposition, will always have to contend with a foolish 'shadow side' to his/her particular phenomenal bias, while, conversely, the so-called 'foolish man', a lower-class man of markedly physical disposition, will always have the benefit of a good 'shadow side' to his particular phenomenal bias.

6. It is my belief that, class and genetics being correlative, people do not usually change planes to any appreciable extent, but remain recognizably either evil and good (if objective) or foolish and wise (if subjective), so that a distinction continues to exist between 'the evil' who are sometimes wise and 'the good' who are sometimes foolish on the one hand, and between 'the wise' who are sometimes evil and 'the foolish' who are sometimes good on the other hand.

7. Were this not so, there would be a continuous alternation between evil and goodness on the one hand, and between foolishness and wisdom on the other hand, but, generally speaking, goodness predominates over evil and foolishness preponderates over wisdom in phenomenal, or lower-class, societies (democratic/Christian), whereas evil predominates over goodness and wisdom preponderates over foolishness in noumenal, or upper-class, societies (autocratic/Buddhist).

8. In objective, female-biased societies, evil and goodness are the principal noumenal/phenomenal alternatives at stake, whereas in subjective, male-biased societies, by contrast, the principal phenomenal/noumenal alternatives will be foolishness and wisdom.

9. A metachemical society, rooted in noumenal objectivity, will emphasize evil - and hence crime, cruelty, and opacity - at the expense of goodness, whereas a chemical society, rooted in phenomenal objectivity, will put the emphasis on goodness - and hence punishment, adroitness, and lucidity and/or transparency - at the expense of evil.

10. A physical society, centred in phenomenal subjectivity, will emphasize foolishness - and hence sin, stupidity, and gravity - at the expense of wisdom, whereas a metaphysical society, centred in noumenal subjectivity, will put the emphasis on wisdom - and hence grace, kindness, and tranquillity - at the expense of foolishness.

11. Metachemical societies are at a moral or, rather, immoral disadvantage to chemical societies, since evil is an immorally inferior alternative to goodness, whereas physical societies are at a moral disadvantage to metaphysical societies, since foolishness is a morally inferior alternative to wisdom.

12. There can be no moral comparison, however, between metachemical and metaphysical societies on the one hand and chemical and physical societies on the other hand, since morality is always subjective, whereas immorality is ever objective, obliging one to contrast the evil of the metachemical with the wisdom of the metaphysical or, in phenomenal contexts 'down below', the goodness of the chemical with the foolishness of the physical.

13. Which is simply to contrast the one gender with the other on both noumenal (upper class) planes and phenomenal (lower class) planes, allowing for the fact that, even though moral in its phenomenal subjectivity, the physical society will be vulnerable to sanction, if not prohibitive discrimination, from the chemical society, since whereas goodness is a superior immoral alternative to evil, foolishness is an inferior moral alternative to wisdom, and that which is superior in the one gender context will tend to feel superior - albeit without philosophical justification - to that which is inferior in the other gender context, even though no comparison - barring their common adherence to phenomenal planes - between the two types of lower-class society is logically sustainable.

14. For you can only compare that which is alike in respect of sharing a common gender orientation, irrespective of its class, and contrast either of those to that which, existing on the opposite side of the gender fence, adheres to the opposite disposition, be it moral and subjective or, in the female case, immoral and objective.

15. Thus although comparisons can be made between objective and subjective, immoral and moral, with regard to class ... where both share a common plane, no such comparisons can be made with regard to gender, since that which is female, and hence objective, can only remain distinct from whatever is male, and hence subjective.

16. Goodness may be better, or objectively (immorally) more desirable from a feminine point of view, than evil, but goodness is only different from foolishness, as evil from wisdom.

17. Similarly, wisdom may be better, or subjectively (morally) more desirable from a divine standpoint, than folly, but wisdom is only different from evil, as foolishness from goodness.

18. Thus while woman may be better than the Devil on the one hand, and God be better than man on the other hand, woman is only different from man, and God different from the Devil.

19. But just as every noumenal actuality has a 'shadow' noumenon and, likewise, every phenomenal actuality a 'shadow' phenomenon, as already defined, so the godly man, the metaphysically upper-class and most respectable man, is capable of evil, just as the feminine woman, the chemically lower-class and most respectable woman, is capable of folly.

20. It is doubtless because the metaphysically upper-class man, though overwhelmingly disposed to wisdom, is capable of evil ... that one should fear (the wrath of) as well as have faith in (the wisdom of) God.

21. Conversely, it is doubtless because the metachemically upper-class man or, more correctly, woman, though overwhelmingly disposed to evil, is capable of wisdom ... that one should have hope (for clemency from) as well as fear (the evil of) the Devil.

22. Be that as it may, I have no doubt that God and Heaven for the metaphysically upper-class man are principally inside the self, and that he achieves godliness and heavenliness for himself or, rather, the self ... whenever he practises metaphysics, whether sensually, in aural terms, or sensibly, in respiratory terms, so that he is God and Heaven at such times when specifically committed to metaphysical praxis.

23. But godliness for the metaphysically upper-class man, the 'wise man', is something continually to be redeemed in the heavenliness of essential being; for godliness is profane in its egocentric qualitativeness (truth) whereas heavenliness is sacred in its psychocentric essence (joy), and thus the raison d'être of metaphysical praxis.

24. The metaphysically upper-class man practises at God for the sake of Heaven, upholds truth in the interests of joy (bliss), is metaphysically egocentric for the sake of his psychocentric self, constantly cycle-shifting, within metaphysics, from taking to being via doing and giving, as from quasi-essential form (truthfully qualitative) to essential content(ment) via quasi-essential power (impressively apparent) and quasi-essential glory (holily quantitative), the ego to the soul of primary God and Heaven via the will and the spirit of secondary God and Heaven, the God and Heaven of the metaphysical not-self and selflessness, both of which subjectively serve the metaphysical self.

25. Not only is there no God and Heaven elsewhere for the metaphysically upper-class man, be he submasculine in sensuality or supermasculine in sensibility, than in his metaphysical self and, to a secondary extent, in both his metaphysical not-self and selflessness, be it sensual or sensible, but claims by others to the contrary meet with no approval or endorsement on his part whatsoever.

26. For there have been fraudulent gods and heavens elsewhere than in the metaphysical realms (of sensuality and sensibility in relation to sequential time and spaced space) ever since the dawn of religion, or what passes in some quarters for such, and they are sometimes not even a masculine or a feminine shortfall - nonetheless duly hyped - from divinity and sublimity so much as their diabolic and infernal antitheses!

27. Worse than the man and earth or than the woman and purgatory duly hyped as God and Heaven ... is the Devil and Hell; for here one enters the sensual and sensible realms of metachemistry, with its Cupidian axis bisecting space (spatially) and time (repetitively), and wherever such an axis passes for God and Heaven ... there can be no genuine godliness and heavenliness, but only the Devil and Hell posing as God and Heaven.

28. Has not the history of Creator-based religions, whether Middle-Eastern or Western, borne ample testimony to the fact that what is actually, to all metachemical appearances of Cupidian devolution, the Devil and Hell ... has been worshipped as God and Heaven?

29. Now, strictly speaking, one can only worship that which is primarily outside the self, not primarily within the self, and wherever the worship of 'God and Heaven' has taken a Creator-based metachemical turn, going all the way back to the Cosmos, it is because the Devil and Hell, to revert to their literal status, are primary in the metachemical not-self and selflessness but secondary in the metachemical self, given the objectivity which prevails in metachemistry in due female terms - terms duly extending down to the chemical realm of woman and purgatory.

30. Wherever subjectivity prevails, on the other hand, then profanity and sanctity are primarily within the self and only secondarily without the not-self, as in the physical not-self and selflessness, but if the primary realization of man and earth within the physical self is one thing, then the primary realization of God and Heaven within the metaphysical self is quite another, and while the former would be Christian, the latter is most decidedly Subchristian in sensuality and Superchristian in sensibility, the Superchristian being the salvation of the Subchristian and methodology by means of which the ultimate profanity may be redeemed in the ultimate sanctity, the sanctity of the metaphysical 'kingdom within'.