CYCLE THIRTY-NINE: THE IMMORALITY OF FREEDOM

1. That man who is beyond evil and good, and thus properly male, is beyond both the genuine Kingdom and State in his allegiance, as a Christian or Superchristian, to the Church or to the (coming) Centre, and acknowledges, indirectly, only the service of pseudo-State or pseudo-Kingdom in consequence.

2. The autocratic Royalist may be evil in his or, rather, her (effectively if not literally) allegiance to the Kingdom, and the democratic Parliamentarian good in his or, rather, her (effectively if not literally) allegiance to the State, but the pantheistic Roman Catholic, a genuine man, will always be foolish in his allegiance to the Church, and the atheistic Social Transcendentalist alone wise in his allegiance to the Centre.

3. The Superheathen evil woman remains aloofly disposed to crime to the exclusion of authentic punishment, while the Heathen good woman is reduced to punishment beneath the realm of authentic crime.

4. The Christian foolish man remains 'bogged down' in sin to the exclusion of authentic grace, while the Superchristian wise man is elevated in grace beyond the realm of authentic sin.

5. Just as it is the fate of the Kingdom and the State to maintain crime and punishment, so it can only be the fate of the Church and the Centre to maintain sin and grace.

6. The genuine Kingdom is no-less absolutely and the genuine State relatively behind folly and wisdom ... than the genuine Church is relatively and the genuine Centre absolutely beyond evil and good.

7. Men are corrupted (from the subjective paths of maleness) by both the Kingdom and the State, though while the State only corrupts them relatively, the Kingdom corrupts them absolutely.

8. Women are delivered (from the objective paths of femaleness) by both the Church and the Centre, though while the Church only delivers them relatively, the Centre (will) deliver them absolutely.

9. To be corrupted as a man, through both Kingdom and State, from the subjectivity of natural determinism by the objectivity of free will, but to be delivered as a woman, through both Church and Centre, from the objectivity of free will by the subjectivity of natural determinism.

10. The genuine Kingdom and State will always emphasize the importance of freedom (for itself) from what it perceives as the threat of binding to another, the sort of binding that makes, in the one case, for the pseudo-State and, in the other case, for the pseudo-Kingdom, the one subordinate to the genuine Church and the other to the genuine Centre, the Centre, as I conceive it, of the triadic Beyond.

11. Ages in which the Kingdom and/or State are hegemonic in their secular aloofness from religious binding will correspond to the liberation of women from male constraints, and thus to increased freedom for them to do and/or give, after their different fashions.

12. An inevitable corollary of the liberation of women from subjective constraints is their greater influence, either directly or indirectly, within the Kingdom and/or the State.

13. The more freedom there is for women to be 'true to themselves', the more they will rule and/or govern within the Kingdom and/or State, to the detriment, needless to say, of moral alternatives.

14. The freer that women are to be 'true to themselves', the less bound to themselves or, more correctly, to their selves ... will men be, and the more vulnerable, in consequence, to corruption (from the subjective paths of taking and being).

15. This typifies both Superheathen (Kingdom) and Heathen (State) situations, in which freedom (for the female side of life from male constraints) is the principal criterion by which progress is adjudged, even though nothing could be more corrupting of that which is genuinely progressive, and hence beyond evil and good in relation to the moral binding of mankind to properly subjective values through the folly of taking and the wisdom of being.

16. Such a binding can only be achieved via Christian and Superchristian alternatives to the power of the Kingdom and the glory of the State, and such alternatives necessarily take the form and content of the Church and the Centre respectively, wherein the morality of subjectivity, in both vicious (form-biased/sinful) and virtuous (content-biased/graceful) manifestations is or will be paramount.